Energy Exchange

Some Bad Ideas We Can All Agree On

By Scott Anderson / Published: April 19, 2011

Source: Bellona

EDF believes that, done right, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) can be a safe and effective tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  We also think it will be a necessary tool – especially for natural gas, which is poised to make up an increasing share of our national energy portfolio.

The environmental community doesn’t have a monolithic view of CCS, though.  Some groups are skeptical about its need.  Others have concerns about whether it can really work.  Fair enough!  We welcome debate and opportunities to learn from each other.

There are certain things, though, on which we can all agree.  More than 50 organizations recently came together to express our unanimous opposition to a couple of very bad ideas about how CCS projects should be treated – ideas that could lead to sloppy projects and put public health and the environment at risk.

The first is so-called “liability relief.”  Believe it or not, on the one-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil-spill disaster, some in the coal and utility industries continue to call for a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for CCS projects.  They are basically saying that once a CCS project is sealed up, operators shouldn’t be held responsible if carbon dioxide (CO2) starts to leak or if displace formation fluids pollute ground water.  We believe this is a set-up for dangerous short cuts in project planning and implementation.  It boggles my mind that, at the same time Congress is struggling to lift liability caps for offshore drilling, anyone would entertain the idea of taking steps that would reduce incentives to properly manage CCS projects.

The second bad idea might be even more perplexing than the first – and we’re especially disappointed that it’s coming from the good folks at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Our environmental watchdogs at the agency are considering a proposal to exempt CCS projects from hazardous waste requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, our nation’s landmark law that keeps us safe from the most toxic substances.  If CO2 streams at CCS projects get this exemption, it will eliminate important protections for clean-ups and remediation and for public participation.

EDF is helping lead the charge against these bad ideas – meeting with members of Congress and agency officials, sounding the alarm with the media, and working with other environmental groups to present a united front.  For more details, read our letter to the Administration, and stay tuned to the Energy Exchange.

Posted in Washington, DC / Comments are closed

Smart Meter Best Practice: Proactively Address Public Concerns

By Lauren Navarro / Published: April 18, 2011

A well-designed smart grid will drive the clean energy revolution we need – securing our energy independence, increasing our ability to compete in the global clean energy market and empowering consumers – all while protecting our air, water and the health of our children.

Yet in a few places, there has been a backlash against smart meters, which are key pieces of the infrastructure needed to make our 100-year old electricity grid ‘smart.’  Wireless smart meters are now the subject of considerable media attention in California for their use of radio frequencies (RF) – a type of energy that is used in cell phones, microwaves and other every day products. 

As we invest billions of dollars to upgrade the infrastructure that literally powers our economy, utilities and policymakers need to address the disconnect between the grid’s huge potential public health benefits and some individuals’ concerns over the wireless technology that smart meters  use to transmit data between customers and utilities. 

Let’s start with the public health benefits.  America’s outdated energy system is wasteful, expensive and a major source of pollution. Once a smart grid is in place, it will improve air quality and the health of millions of Americans affected by pollution that is often too dangerous to breathe. 

A smart grid will:

  1. Help consumers save money by enabling them to see and manage their energy use while reducing harmful air pollution. As a result, consumers will be able to shift their demand for energy to when it is cheaper, which will save them money during ‘peak’ times when utilities have to run the dirtiest and most expensive types of power plants.  With greater use of this “demand response” option, California alone could avoid building or running more than 100 of these ‘peaker’ power plants, which we pay for with our dollars and our health. Nationally, demand response could avoid up to 2,000 peaker plants. 
  2. Make it possible to adjust demand to follow variable wind and solar supplies and thus enable us to use more clean, renewable, home-grown energy.  This will reduce the environmental damage done by mining and burning coal and natural gas and cut harmful and costly air pollution.
  3. Facilitate the switch to clean electric vehicles by allowing drivers to “smart charge” them at night when energy, including pollution-free wind power, is abundant and cheap – cutting foreign oil imports and the environmental damage done by domestic oil drilling.
  4. Make the transmission and distribution grid more efficient.  For example, the ability to optimize voltage on power lines will save three percent of all of the power generated in the U.S., worth roughly $10 billion a year.

The lesson from this disconnect in California isn’t to stop smart meters from being installed altogether: it is that the effort should be undertaken with the customer foremost in mind. Customers need to better understand the benefits of the smart grid and the critical role that smart meters play in achieving them. They also need to know what the studies show about the wireless technology they use. 

Utilities can easily provide consumers with key findings from many of the studies done on radio frequencies since they’ve become commonplace.  A recent in-depth review of the scientific literature by the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that “current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields.”  The 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. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals.” As is the case with chemicals, EDF supports continuing research as wireless technology becomes even more popular.

Since exposure is determined by signal strength and proximity to the device emitting the signal, there will likely be unique situations that require special attention.  For example, multi-family dwellings may have many smart meters grouped together in one location. This concentration could expose residents who live close to those meters to higher levels of RF energy.  One way utilities can address concerns raised in those situations and keep meters working as planned would be to use steel shielding and partner with companies that can provide RF absorbers or reflectors to households.

Additionally, some individuals describe themselves as having electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which they believe causes them to have headaches, fatigue, nausea and insomnia.  Utilities can work with these customers by facilitating options that address their concerns. 

What will utilities get in return for their proactive customer service? At minimum, they stand to gain a customer base that is comfortable with the technology. At best, a loyal community that understands the benefits of the smart grid and takes an active role in transforming the way we use energy and protecting not only the environment but everyone’s quality of life.  What will we all gain? At the micro level, more reliable service and lower electric bills. At the macro level, a stronger economy, energy independence, cleaner air and a healthier environment for our children.

Posted in California, Grid Modernization / Read 2 Responses

“The World Is Watching” – Will Texas Set The Standard For Mandatory Disclosure Of Frac Fluid Chemicals?

By Scott Anderson / Published: April 14, 2011

As early as tomorrow, the Texas House of Representatives Energy Resources Committee could approve HB 3328, a measure that is intended to be the most effective law in the country requiring public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid.

Last Wednesday night in a hearing room at the Texas Capitol, Representative Jim Keffer (R-Eastland), the Committee’s Chairman and author of the bill, told members of his committee that “the world is watching” to see whether Texas will require oil and gas drillers to tell the public what chemicals are added to hydraulic fracturing fluid. He declared that “the time has come” to mandate public disclosure of all chemical ingredients subject only to reasonable protection for trade secrets. Where trade secrets are concerned, he wants regulatory agencies and health care professionals to have the information on a confidential basis.

Keffer isn’t kidding. He and a growing number of supporters hope to create a model that can settle the issue once and for all, if followed in other jurisdictions as well.

EDF strongly supports Keffer’s mandatory disclosure legislation. So do others in the environmental community. Sierra Club and the Texas League of Conservation Voters were among those testifying for the bill at the hearing last week. Also heartening is the fact that Keffer’s initiative is attracting industry support.  Kudos to the half-dozen gas industry leaders who stepped forward at the hearing to support the bill: Apache, El Paso Production, Petrohawk Energy, Pioneer Natural Resources, Southwestern Energy, and Talisman Energy. These are companies that understand what it takes to earn the public’s trust. Additional industry support is likely to appear in the coming days and weeks.

Posted in Natural Gas, Texas / Read 1 Response

The Spotlight Shines On Natural Gas

By Ramon Alvarez, Ph.D. / Published: April 14, 2011

You may have seen the many articles that came out this week on a new peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Climatic Change by Professor Bob Howarth and others at Cornell.  The paper compares the carbon footprints of natural gas and coal and concludes that natural gas contributes to global warming as much as coal, or even more, when assessed on a life-cycle basis.

Though we have questions about Professor Howarth’s paper’s emissions estimates, it nevertheless highlights the critical importance of obtaining and sharing better data so that we can accurately characterize air pollution from natural gas development — including the short-term climate impacts of methane.  Because of methane’s powerful heat-trapping ability during its roughly decade-long atmospheric residence time, or life span, reducing methane emissions from production increases the chances of meeting critical climate targets, such as limiting global warming to a two degree Celsius temperature increase. 

Professor Howarth’s research should also help focus attention on the methane leakage issue.  EDF has been concerned for some time that methane leakage in the natural gas development process could significantly diminish its inherent low-carbon advantage relative to other fossil fuels.  There is consensus that a methane leak rate during production, processing, and transportation of 5% (of total gas production) is the approximate break-even point at which natural gas and coal used to generate electricity have similar climate impacts on a 20-year time horizon.  Examining the warming potential of natural gas over a 20-year timeframe is important, rather than the customary 100-year timeframe, given the need to reduce global warming in coming decades.  What we don’t fully know is whether the leakage rate today is lower than that break-even point, though the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) most recent assessment estimates the leakage to be between 2 to 3%.    

Bottom line: We need better data on methane leakage from natural gas production and transport.  The natural gas industry, which touts itself as providing the “low-carbon” fossil fuel, should drop its lawsuits against EPA to require disclosure of its global warming pollution and take aggressive steps to both curb the loss of its product into the atmosphere and maximize the greenhouse gas benefits of natural gas.  Numerous cost effective opportunities exist to capture leaking gas and turn it into increased fuel sales.  And less natural gas leakage will mean healthier air for communities, since raw natural gas contains both cancer-causing and smog-forming pollutants.  

If the industry wants people to trust that natural gas is a clean alternative, it would do well to spend less time fighting pollution disclosure requirements and more time addressing environmental and public health concerns.  EDF is eager to work cooperatively with the natural gas industry to accomplish this.

Posted in Natural Gas / Read 1 Response

New York City’s Split Incentive “Trifecta”

By EDF Blogs / Published: April 5, 2011

By: Elizabeth Stein, EDF Attorney

Today, New York City is pioneering a new solution to the long-studied problem of the “split incentive” that prevents commercial landlords and office tenants from saving money and cutting pollution with energy efficiency.   This is not just an academic exercise – the solution will be rolled out in the heart of Manhattan, at the Gold LEED-certified 7 World Trade Center site, and modeled in the government’s own leases across the city.  This can be a game-changer for energy efficiency nationally.

Energy efficiency is the fastest, most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States. Americans waste an extraordinary amount of energy in inefficient buildings – and that means we’re wasting money too. In New York City, buildings account for a staggering 80% of the city’s carbon emissions and $15 billion in energy costs.  Applying today’s technology, many buildings could cut energy use by between 20 and 40% through investments that have the potential to pay for themselves.  Investments in energy efficiency will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower energy costs, and create jobs when we need them most.

Today’s commercial leases, however, stand in the way of unleashing that savings stream –  hence the split incentive conundrum.  Why would a landlord upgrade a building’s energy systems if the cost savings accrue only to the tenant?  Something as simple as the way a lease is drafted can block access to the cheapest and fastest way to solve air and climate pollution.

To solve this problem,  Mayor Bloomberg’s administration teamed up with EDF, NRDC, NYSERDA, real estate consultants HR&A and Cycle-7, and senior real estate attorney, Marc Rauch, among others, to reinvent the commercial lease in a way that lines up the incentives so that landlords and tenants will want to upgrade their buildings and cut waste.  The new lease language is simple, straightforward, and can be used by any commercial building, anywhere.

The basic idea is to realign the business deal on energy costs, so that both landlords and tenants are motivated to stop wasting energy.  Under the new lease announced today, part of the cost savings from energy efficiencies are made available to pay for upgrades to cleaner technology.  Tenants save money and buildings end up with newer lighting and heating and air conditioning systems that cost less to operate.  The new lease also solves a tough measurement and verification challenge by applying an easy-to-understand discount to the upfront cost-savings projections obtained by a landlord’s engineer, in order to protect against variances between cost savings projections and realities over time.

By changing the business deal between landlord and tenant, the lease structure announced today creates a way to save money, cut pollution, and modernize building systems.  It’s the ultimate win-win for New York City’s commercial landlords, tenants – and for any of us who breathe the air in a city with lots of power plants.  I think of this as a split incentive “trifecta:” it’s being adopted by the private sector in a true market transaction at the World Trade Center site, the City itself is committing to use the approach in leases where it is a tenant, and the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), New York City’s leading real estate trade association, is speaking favorably about the solution.

This is a great example of what can happen when government, advocates, and the private sector roll up their sleeves together to solve a problem.  This forward-thinking business deal serves as a model for every commercial building in the country.  Help us spread the word, and let’s see if we can use this to open up the marketplace for energy efficiency globally.

For more information, please see the City’s Energy Aligned Lease fact sheet and model language.

Posted in Energy Efficiency, New York / Comments are closed

Thinking Long Term On America’s Energy Future

By Elgie Holstein / Published: April 1, 2011

On Wednesday, President Obama, speaking at Georgetown University, set out a multi-pronged approach to boosting America’s energy security.  We agree that America “cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again.”  President Obama’s goals to leverage alternative fuels, increase efficiency, and invest in smart grid technology, advanced vehicles, high speed rail, and public transit are critical steps toward a truly clean energy economy.

The core objectives of our Energy Program are to help accelerate the deployment of large-scale, clean technologies into the nation’s energy system and remake the market for efficiency and innovation.  Our goal is to reduce the environmental impact of energy production, delivery, and use.  Why?  Because investments in clean technology will bring about the clean energy revolution we need by greatly reducing our use of dirty fuels and improving air quality and, thus, the health of millions of Americans – especially children and the elderly. 

We can improve our energy independence and end the economic hardships imposed on American families by spiking energy costs while preserving our air, land, and water for future generations.

As important as the energy, environmental, and public health outcomes are, this revolution also benefits our economy and creates jobs.  American workers have tremendous opportunities related to energy efficient and clean technologies, which are creating well-paying jobs and helping companies compete in the global market.  

One of EDF’s main areas of focus is on smart grid technology.  President Obama’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) funds projects that will help modernize our antiquated electricity system.  A smarter grid can adjust demand, reducing the need to build costly, new power plants.  It will enable extensive new wind and solar energy to integrate into an upgraded grid so that we can rely far more on clean, renewable, home-grown energy.  The result:  less environmental damage, more jobs, and a more efficient, reliable, and resilient electricity system.  A smart grid will also facilitate the switch to electric vehicles, making it possible to “smart charge” them at night so they can be ready the next morning for commuters who will no longer be paying for gasoline.

Another key point that the President made was on responsible development practices for natural gas.  Natural gas can play a significant role in achieving our clean energy future – but it needs to be developed safely and in an environmentally sound manner.  Protecting citizens’ health and the environment will require that we “get it right from the start.”  That means putting rules in place to guarantee that our water and land are protected from contamination and ensuring that leakage of harmful air pollution is minimized.

The President’s call for increased transparency in the use of hydraulic fracturing chemicals is a necessity.  The natural gas industry is engaged in a public perception war that it is not winning.  Participating in the development of transparency within the industry is the first step necessary in attempting to rebuild public trust.  A balance between creating a sustainable market for business and ensuring the health and safety of the public should not be a source of division, but instead our common ground. 

While Congress is negotiating the federal budget, members would do well to recognize the essential need to make long-term investments in a 21st century clean energy economy that will reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil and put Americans back to work.

EDF commends the President for his willingness to look to the future.  If we can do that, we will all benefit from a stronger economy, energy security, and a cleaner environment that protects our public health and maintains our quality of life.

Posted in Climate, Energy Efficiency, Grid Modernization, Natural Gas, Renewable Energy, Washington, DC / Read 1 Response