Energy Exchange

Mixed Bag Out Of Pennsylvania On Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Disclosure

Last night the Pennsylvania (PA) General Assembly passed legislation on fracturing fluid chemical disclosure that, on the whole, isn’t half bad – particularly considering where they started.  Unfortunately, the bill contains a major flaw that prevents us from being able to hold it up as a model for other states to follow.  Still, there’s quite a bit to be liked.  More on that below.

I should also point out that the disclosure legislation was part of a much larger bill that addresses a broad range of issue related to shale gas development in PA.  The overall bill has been the target of quite a bit of criticism from local environmental groups – particularly for eliminating much of the discretion of local jurisdictions to manage and plan for oil and gas activities within their borders.  We didn’t work on those provisions, so I’ll leave it to those who did to offer up their assessments and, for now, just give a run-down on the disclosure piece.

As originally drafted, the disclosure provisions in this bill were, quite frankly, useless.  All they would have done is codify current rules at the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).  Under those rules, companies only reveal the chemicals that have to get reported on material safety data sheets – which leaves out maybe half the chemicals used in fracturing fluids.  And there was no requirement for posting disclosures on an easily accessible website for the public to see.  That kind of regime comes nowhere close to what EDF calls “disclosure,” and it’s way behind the times in terms of where the national conversation is today.  So, EDF teamed up with the Pennsylvania Environmental Council to improve the draft.

The Good

The first thing to understand is that PA will require two kinds of reporting.  Operators will disclose chemical information on the well completion reports they turn in to the DEP after drilling, fracturing and beginning production on a well.  And then, certain operators will be required to also post their disclosures on Frac Focus, the disclosure website run by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

As for the well completion reporting requirements, they’re quite good.  Operators will have to disclose all the chemicals they use, along with chemical concentrations.  They’ll also disclose the trade-name additives they use and the purposes they serve.  Taking it a step further than what other states have done, PA will also require operators to report their water sources and how much recycled wastewater they use in hydraulic fracturing treatments – an important step forward in disclosure requirements.

As with every other state disclosure rule, PA will allow operators to claim trade secret protections to keep certain chemical identities confidential.  These claims will be governed by PA’s “Right to Know” law, which means PA will be on the leading edge of how states are currently dealing with trade secrets in fracturing chemical disclosure rules.  Companies will be required to actually submit their trade secret information to the DEP (instead of completely withholding it, as some states allow).  Citizens will have broad standing to challenge trade secret claims at the PA Office of Open Records; and when there are challenges, the burden will be on the DEP and operators to prove why a trade secret claim is legitimate.  We’re aware that some in industry repeatedly tried to gut the Right to Know provisions in the bill, and credit is due to Governor Corbett’s office for fending off those attacks.

As we’ve mentioned before, we support the recommendation of the DOE Secretary of Energy Advisory Board that “the barrier to shield chemicals based on trade secrets should be set very high.”

Finally, the PA bill gives added emphasis to the need for making information available in formats that are useful and user friendly.  Mirroring the language that was pioneered in the Colorado rule, PA is now the second state to call for improving the search functions on Frac Focus.

The Bad (and Ugly)

Unfortunately, the bill took a major wrong turn on one key point.  While operators of all oil and gas wells will be required to disclose chemical information on their well completion reports, only operators of “unconventional” wells will be required to post their disclosures on Frac Focus.  The bill defines unconventional wells as those that are drilled and fractured below the Elk Sandstone formation in PA.  We’re not sure yet how many wells this will leave out, but it’s a fair guess it will be a lot.  So, we’re really only getting partial public disclosure here.

That’s a shame.  Public concern about fracturing chemicals doesn’t have anything to do with geologic stratigraphy.  Spills, bad casing and cementing jobs, loss of well control and failures in waste containment facilities can happen regardless of the depth of your target formation.  The potential pathways for contamination are there for all wells (and arguably, they’re even higher for shallower wells).  So, there’s no rational reason why all wells shouldn’t be required to post their disclosures on Frac Focus.

PA is the only state that’s made this bizarre differentiation between conventional and unconventional wells.  We’ll be looking to fix that problem in the future.  And in the meantime, we’ll be working overtime to make sure no other state repeats this mistake.

Posted in Natural Gas / Tagged , | Read 1 Response

California’s On-Bill Repayment Program Takes Two Steps Forward

This commentary was originally posted on the EDF California Dream 2.0 Blog.

Last month, the California Public Utilities Commission released for comment EDF’s proposal to create the first statewide on-bill repayment (OBR) program that pays for energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades for residential and commercial properties using third-party financing. The proposal is taking two important steps forward this week.

The first step: Senator Kevin de Leon (D-LA) and Senator Lou Correa (D-Orange County) today introduced enabling legislation for the program. Based on preliminary conversations, we are optimistic that this proposal will receive support from members of both political parties.  This bill is designed to deal with questions regarding the agency’s authority to develop an OBR program.  It also provides a mechanism for property owners to disclose OBR projects to prospective renters or buyers. This disclosure will enable a building occupant to see how the money saved by the efficiency project will be used to pay back the OBR investment tied to their property.   

The second step: the CPUC is hosting workshops in San Francisco on February 8-10 to discuss the OBR proposal and other aspects of energy efficiency finance. More than 200 stakeholders and other members of the public are expected to participate in the workshops, including several contractors, lenders, Energy Services Agreement (ESA) companies and building owners that see an attractive economic opportunity in the program.

EDF looks forward to working with all interested parties, to construct a successful program that can begin financing projects early next year.

Posted in California, Energy Efficiency, On-bill repayment / Comments are closed

Creating Energy Champions

This commentary was originally posted on Duke Energy’s Shedding A Light Blog.

In late January, I had the great pleasure of joining a group of Charlotte, N.C. city employees at an “Energy Champions” training hosted by Duke Energy and Charlotte Center City Partners. The city workers were bursting with enthusiasm, inventing creative ideas on the spot about how to motivate people to reduce energy use in the workplace. Many involved “friendly” competitions, around things like turning off monitors and lights: I for one would not want to be the recipient of the “Dim Bulb Award.”

Participants were excited to help Charlotte shine as a leader in innovation and to be part of Envision Charlotte, an initiative to make their city the most sustainable urban core in the country. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is pleased to be part of this innovative public-private partnership, along with Duke Energy, Charlotte Center City Partners, Bank of America and others.

One goal of Envision Charlotte is to reduce energy use in more than 60 large commercial and government buildings in Uptown Charlotte by 20 percent within a five-year timeframe. Why target buildings? Because buildings account for more than 30 percent of total energy use, and 65 percent of electricity consumption. Reducing energy use in buildings, especially the large buildings participating in Envision Charlotte (more than 10,000 square feet each), can have a huge impact and presents an enormous opportunity to cut costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the ways Envision Charlotte will accomplish this goal is through Duke’s Smart Energy Now program. Duke and its partners Cisco Systems and Verizon Wireless have already installed smart meters and information kiosks in participating buildings. These displays show in real-time how much energy is being used in the city’s center every day, and provide tips on how to reduce that use. Information is also available through a secure portal, accessible to building owners and managers, which shows how much energy each individual building is using. This information will help employees, building owners and facilities managers make smart decisions about how they use energy every day of the week.

As a smart grid expert, I’m particularly interested to see what role smart technologies will play in making these buildings more efficient, and in shifting demand away from times of peak electricity use, when energy is most expensive and most polluting, and (ideally) to times when renewable energy is available on the grid.

Duke and its partners will host more Energy Champions trainings over the next few months, targeted specifically to different segments of building users: executives, workers and facilities managers. There is already palpable excitement in the city with the Democratic National Convention coming in the fall, which will place Charlotte in national, and even international, spotlights. Only these spotlights will be energy efficient. And please turn them off when you’re done.

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Grid Modernization, North Carolina / Comments are closed

California Follows Smart Meter Best Practice: Proactively Address Public Concerns

This commentary was originally posted on the EDF California Dream 2.0 Blog.

Energy powers our economy. But our outdated energy system is wasteful, expensive and a major source of pollution, leading to the deaths of approximately 60,000 Americans per year. Utilities in California and across the country are now investing billions of dollars to modernize that infrastructure, making use of the information technologies that have revolutionized so many other realms of our lives. The smart grid they’re building will improve air quality and the health of millions of Americans affected by air so dirty it is often dangerous to breathe.

Smart meters are a key component of the smart grid. They unlock air quality, climate pollution and public health benefits by enabling two-way, real-time communication that gives households, small businesses, manufacturers and farmers (and the utilities that serve them) the data they need to cut energy use and electricity costs. These devices help ensure that every day energy users reap the many benefits of the smart grid.

Yesterday, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a proposal by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) that allows customers to keep their analog meters and opt out of using the new wireless smart meters. This decision is designed to address concerns of individuals who describe themselves as having electromagnetic hypersensitivity to radio frequencies (RF), and report getting headaches, fatigue, nausea and insomnia from exposure.

The radio frequencies used by smart meters are now pervasive in our lives, emitted by our cell phones, microwaves, baby monitors, and numerous other devices we use daily. To understand the potential health risks associated with use of these devices, EDF has completed a thorough review of the scientific literature on the potential effects of electromagnetic and radio frequencies (EMF/RF) on human health. We have reviewed reports from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the California Council of Science and Technology (CCST). We also consulted with outside experts, including Dr. Leeka Kheifets, a Professor in Residence at UCLA who sits on the Standing Committee on Epidemiology for the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

The WHO review states that “in the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation, approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals.” These studies, it concludes, find that “current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields.”

The WHO assessment spotlights the importance of conducting rigorous scientific research to evaluate environmental and health problems, a core principle of EDF. Our policies are based on the best available science and are altered as necessary when new evidence comes to light.

This research helped inform EDF’s position that the limited RF exposure levels associated with smart meters should not result in reduced support for the smart grid, especially in light of the significant health benefits it will deliver by enabling far less use of fossil fuels and far greater reliance on clean, renewable energy, including small, community-based generation like rooftop solar PV.

Today’s ruling strikes the proper balance: sustaining progress toward a smart grid with its multiple public health benefits while addressing individuals’ concerns. It gives consumers the same type of choice about what technologies to use in their everyday life.

We support the PUC’s decision and continuing research on the possible health effects of radio frequencies.

For more information on this topic, please see EDF President Fred Krupp’s memo on “Health and the smart grid.”

Posted in California, Grid Modernization / Tagged | Read 3 Responses

Are Natural Gas Vehicles Good For Climate Change?

Source: Pike Research

Last week, in a speech in Las Vegas, President Obama called for getting more natural gas vehicles (NGVs) on the road in the United States.  NGV proponents applauded the speech and immediately reiterated the conventional wisdom that because natural gas burns cleaner than gasoline or diesel, NGVs lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions.  However, recent science shows that the conventional wisdom may not be right.

While it is clear that the actual combustion of natural gas is cleaner than the combustion of gasoline or diesel, there are other emissions associated with the production, delivery and use of those fuels.  Natural gas is essentially methane, a potent greenhouse gas.  Over 2o years, a pound of methane is 72 times more potent than a pound of carbon dioxide.  As natural gas is produced and piped across the country, there are plenty of opportunities for it to leak into the atmosphere. EPA estimates that leak rate to be somewhere between 2-3%, but the exact amount is the subject of much debate. 

What we do know is that whatever the percentage of methane that is lost to the atmosphere, it erodes the climate benefits of combusting natural gas.  In other words, the higher the leak rates the less the benefits.  If leakage is high enough, NGVs can actually be worse for climate for some period of time. A newly published study concluded that over 20 years, NGVs were worse for the climate than gasoline or diesel vehicles unless current leak rates are reduced.  With current leak rates, even after 100 years NGVs are no better for the climate than gasoline or diesel vehicles.

Because methane is more potent over shorter time frames, if we remove more methane now,  we can reap quick benefits for the climate system.  However, if we emit more methane now, it will have a greater negative impact on the climate system.  This may be precisely the outcome we get if we aren’t careful in how we proceed with NGVs.  Before large-scale policies encouraging NGVs are written into law, we should better understand the leak rate of methane from the natural gas supply and take actions to ensure it is low enough that putting more NGV on the road does not harm the climate. Understanding and reducing leak rates is critical to accepting NGVs as a legitimate GHG strategy. EDF is working to do this, but until we have better data and see an industry committed to reducing leaks, we will reserve judgment on whether the President’s call for accelerating NGVs is justified.

Posted in Natural Gas / Comments are closed

Improving New York’s Proposed Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations

Around the country, states are taking a serious look at their regulations to manage shale gas development.  New York has the potential to be a leader among these states. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) believes that strong regulations and aggressive enforcement is critical to protecting public health and the environment from high-volume hydraulic fracturing and other hydrocarbon extraction activities in New York State. To that end, we have submitted detailed comments on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)’s proposed rules and permitting conditions for hydraulic fracturing. The NYSDEC can put New York at the forefront of safe and clean shale gas development by implementing our suggestions in several critical areas:

1)      Chemical Disclosure: Full public disclosure is rapidly becoming the industry norm across the country, but the proposed NYSDEC disclosure rules for chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process only covers chemicals with Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), thus failing to capture perhaps half or more of the chemicals used. This is especially problematic because MSDS only explore hazards in occupational settings and do not consider implications for public health or the environment. Further, the proposed rule only requires disclosure of additive products proposed to be used in hydraulic fracturing, as opposed to the chemicals actually used during the hydraulic fracturing process. EDF feels strongly that operators should disclose all hydraulic fracturing chemicals used on a well-by-well basis, posted on a searchable, publically accessible website.

2)      Well Construction: Properly constructed, tested and maintained wells are critical to protecting New York’s precious groundwater and surface water aquifers from contamination by drilling fluid, wastewater and natural gas seepage. The proposed well construction regulations and permitting conditions need improvement to meet industry best practice standards. Furthermore, some of the proposed rules represent potential safety hazards for well pad workers. A model regulatory framework EDF, and others, are developing could be used to greatly improve NYDEC’s proposed well construction regulations.  

3)      GHG Emissions/Methane Leakage: EDF is a leading advocate of strict standards on limiting methane emissions from natural gas production. Methane is a pernicious greenhouse gas, many more times more powerful than carbon dioxide.  To reduce the peak warming and improve air quality, it is critical to minimize the amount of methane vented or flared at the production site or leaked during storage and transmission. We strongly urge the NYSDEC to impose specific Green Completion and other emission-reducing requirements on operators, and to formulate hard emissions targets that provide incentives for operators to reduce methane leakage even further.

4)      Wastewater: Hydraulic fracturing produces huge volumes of potentially toxic and radioactive wastewater. New York recognizes this problem but does not seriously address the lack of capacity for processing or safely storing hydraulic fracturing waste materials within the state. Current technology does not allow for safe, cost-effective purification of hydraulic fracturing wastewater at treatment centers for re-introduction into the water system, and should be banned. Insofar as it appears that the final disposition of the bulk of the wastewater produced in New York will be trucked out of state to deep injection wells, the proposed regulations and permitting conditions must grapple with this expensive and perhaps unsustainable practice. Finally, since wastewater recycling will likely be the dominant treatment option undertaken by shale gas operators in New York, this practice needs to be more thoughtfully and transparently regulated.

5)      Phase-in: Even with the best rules on the books, it will take time to hire and train the necessary staff to implement and enforce the rules properly.  New York is essentially building a regulatory program from scratch.  EDF believes the NYSDEC should learn how to walk before it can run.  Our suggestion is that New York phase in the regulatory program region by region.  In this way, the state can be sure that the pace of drilling activity will not outpace its ability to adequately administer the regulations.  So, too, this phase-in approach will allow the state to acquire valuable experience in step-wise fashion. The key is not doing it quickly, but doing it correctly.

These and other adjustments to the proposed rules and permitting conditions are necessary to protect public health and the environment in New York. Shale gas extraction can be made safe through strong regulations and aggressive enforcement to protect communities. EDF is committed to working with the NYSDEC on these issues to produce the most responsible hydraulic fracturing regulatory framework in the nation.

EDF’s full comments on New York’s hydraulic fracturing regulations are available here.

Posted in Natural Gas, New York / Tagged , | Read 6 Responses