Energy Exchange

California’s Refineries Data Yet Again Shows Climate Change Controls are Working

Some hope is on the horizon as more evidence shows the 12 biggest refineries in California are exploring and undertaking large energy efficiency improvements.

A recently released ARB report points out that these investments will save money, decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and reduce air pollution. Of course, many of them come with a hefty price tag – even by oil industry standards – but they are also yielding outsized benefits.

In the report, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified 401 energy efficiency opportunities that are completed, ongoing, scheduled or under consideration at the state’s biggest polluters. Most of these investments have been undertaken since 2009 – the first year following the adoption of California’s AB 32 Scoping Plan, a blueprint for reducing emissions throughout the economy.

In total, these projects would reduce GHG emissions from these 12 facilities by 2.78MMT CO2e annually, about 9% of their statewide total for climate change pollution. In addition, these improvements would create individual net savings of up to $25 million annually. What’s more, these savings estimates do not include the benefit these companies get from having to secure fewer allowances in the state’s landmark cap-and-trade market – worth another $50 million a year at a forecasted carbon price of $18 a ton.

As we wrote earlier, annual data released by CARB shows that many of these 12 refineries’ emissions have been decreasing every year from 2008-2011, and the 401 energy efficiency projects are likely part of the reason. To support this, data on individual firms shows that almost all of the state’s facilities have either taken part in the efficiency improvement process or are in the stages of doing it soon.

Out of the 401 opportunities, nearly 80% of the emissions reductions have been completed or will be in the next few years. Another 7% are scheduled and 15% are under consideration. The majority of improvements are from equipment upgrades, adapting new technologies, and from changing processes such as reducing steam usage, improving boiler function, and changing equipment duty cycles.

Valero’s Benicia refinery, one of the 12, has identified 43 projects that are completed or currently underway, with a 7% annual GHG emission reduction. These improvements are mostly through new steam boilers or other new electric equipment. These upgrades also have a less than two year payback period, with an annual cost savings of $16 million.

Figure 1.

These findings confirm a 2010-2012 DOE Industrial Assessment Centers audit, which found that large industrial facilities had an average of 16% electricity cost savings available from energy efficiency upgrades, a 3% increase from the 2006 audit’s findings. This demonstrates that innovation and technology are constantly improving and savings opportunities continue to emerge.

Of course, refineries aren’t just giving themselves a chance save money from reduced energy or carbon credit purchases when they invest in efficiency. They’re helping reduce the poorest air quality and highest asthma rates — in communities located right next door to them.

As CARB’s report shows, improvements to cut GHGs at refineries have the double benefit of cutting the release rates of hazardous chemicals and pollutants that make people sick – since refining oil is a process that inherently causes harmful pollutants to be released.

Altogether, this new data proves AB 32 is working, not just for the health of the planet by fighting climate change, but for the public health of California.

Posted in General / Comments are closed

New Warnings About Methane Emissions

Concerns about the methane problem associated with the U.S. natural gas boom are mounting with each study released. This week scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado (UC) at Boulder published a new paper on methane leakage in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. It reports an alarmingly high level of methane emissions in the Uintah Basin of Utah — 6.2 to 11.7 percent of total production for an area about 1,000 square miles. Findings are based on readings from airplane flights that measured methane in the air on a single day and estimated the proportion of those emissions that came from the oil and gas infrastructure —production, gathering systems, processing and transmission of the gas out of the region. The authors calculated the uncertainty of their measurements, finding a 68 percent chance the leak rate is between 6.2 and 11.7 percent, and a 95 percent chance it is between 3.5 and 14 percent.

This follows two other regional studies conducted by scientists at the same organizations. One released last May in the Journal of Geophysical Research reported a 17 percent methane leak rate for the Los Angeles Basin, which has received quite a bit of attention although, as I’ll explain below, the figure can be misleading.  The second study, conducted over the Denver-Julesburg Basin in 2008, found 4 percent of the methane produced at an oil and gas field near Denver at that time was escaping into the atmosphere. Taken together, these studies are troubling. They should be regarded as alarm bells ringing in our ears. Action by policymakers and industry is needed now.

Any amount of methane lost from the natural gas supply chain should be eliminated whenever possible. That’s because methane retains heat much more effectively relative to carbon dioxide: Over the first 20 years, an ounce of methane traps in heat 72 times more efficiently. Even small amounts vented or released as “fugitives” – unintentional methane leaked as gas moves from the field to your doorstep – can reduce or eliminate the climate advantage we think we’re getting when we substitute natural gas for coal or oil.

Read More »

Also posted in Climate, Methane, Natural Gas / Read 3 Responses

Pushing Energy Efficiency Finance Beyond Theory To Practice

By: Matt Golden, Senior Energy Finance Consultant, Environmental Defense Fund

New Energy and Loan Performance Data Project Uses Latest in Data Science to Help Capital Markets Engage in Efficiency Lending

Environmental Defense Fund’s Investor Confidence Project (ICP) and the Clean Energy Finance Center (CEFC), in partnership with state and local lending programs, financial organizations and a range of additional stakeholders, are collecting, aggregating and analyzing loan performance and energy savings data from energy efficiency upgrades in residential and commercial buildings.

The Energy and Loan Performance Data Project represents the first concerted effort to combine data from some of the largest US energy efficiency programs in an attempt to develop an actuarially significant dataset to help engage the capital markets.

Nearly 40% of US energy is consumed by both residential and commercial buildings.  Realizing all of the available cost-effective energy efficiency savings would require roughly $279 billion of investment, resulting in more than $1 trillion in energy savings over ten years.  However, currently, only 1% of all US investments are made in energy efficiency projects.  Our goal for this project is to help lay the foundation that will enable organizations to tap into this vast potential market.

Read More »

Also posted in Energy Efficiency, Investor Confidence Project, New York, On-bill repayment / Tagged , , | Read 7 Responses

Plastic And Chemicals Can’t Take The LEED On Green Construction

If it’s not power plants fighting carbon pollution reduction, it’s plastic companies fighting against voluntary standards to make buildings less wasteful.  The Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) building certification system, developed in 2000 by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), provides third-party verification for buildings striving to reduce environmental impact.  The system gives credits to builders who eliminate the use of certain plastics and chemicals in building construction, such as PVC and vinyl that are known to be hazardous to workers and occupants.  However, these credits, which once seemed like apple pie, have now been met with opposition from plastic and chemical industries lobbyists.

Recently, these polluting industries have “slipped wording” into the 2014 Financial Services and General Government Appropriation bill, to undermine the federal government’s ability to use the popular and successful LEED standards when building or renovating its office buildings.  The lobbyists claim that LEED standards are not open and transparent, and through a bit of sophistry they have used this appropriation amendment to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the LEED system.

Read More »

Posted in General / Tagged , | Read 2 Responses

One Way Or Another, We All Profit From Clean Energy

This commentary, authored by Dan Upham, originally appeared on EDF’s Voices blog.

When the folks at oilprice.com wanted to take a look at the clean energy landscape and see what opportunities might exist for energy investors, they turned to Jim Marston, the head of Environmental Defense Fund’s U.S. Climate and Energy program and regional director of our Texas office.

“As an environmental organization, EDF doesn’t offer investment advice,” Marston was quick to explain. “There are other, far more qualified people to recommend investment options.”

When it comes to market-based environmentalism and the economic benefits of clean energy, however, we’re in our comfort zone. And Marston is particularly comfortable talking about the “smart power” sector; the ideas, products and services that focus on clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency.

“Keep in mind that the U.S. will spend around $2 trillion over the next two decades to upgrade our outdated energy infrastructure,” Marston said, “And many companies realize that there’s a real market for products that make the existing electric grid better, greener and ‘smarter.’

Read the full interview on oilprice.com for more.

Also posted in Grid Modernization, Utility Business Models / Comments are closed

Now Is Not The Time To Gut Funding For Innovative Energy Research

This commentary, authored by Robert Fares, originally appeared on Scientific American’s “Plugged In” blog.

Modeled after the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) uses small grants to bring transformative energy technologies to commercialization. (Source: ARPA-E)

Last month, a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives quietly voted to gut funding for the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) efforts to promote innovative energy research. The DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) was first on the chopping block. The subcommittee voted to slash its funding from the current level of $252 million to just $50 million—an 80% cut. On top of that, the subcommittee cut funding for the DOE’s work on renewable energy in half.

ARPA-E was created by the 2007 America COMPETES Act, signed into law by then President George W. Bush. The agency is modeled after the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)—credited for transformative innovations like GPS and computer networking. ARPA-E is intended to facilitate small government grants for basic research into transformative energy technologies that are too risky for the private sector. Since its first funding allocation from the Obama administration in 2009, ARPA-E awardees have already doubled the world-record energy density for a rechargeable lithium-ion battery and pioneered a near-isothermal compressed air energy storage system. Read More »

Also posted in Renewable Energy / Comments are closed