Energy Exchange

Malfunctioning Smart Meters Demonstrate Their Intelligence

By Jamie Fine / Published: May 16, 2011

The digital “smart meter” replacement of antiquated analog meters in California has caused quite a stir. These devices have been making headlines since installations began en masse in 2006 because of concerns about health risks related to the wireless technology they use to transmit data and coincidental bill increases. While an independent contractor hired by the California Public Utilities Commission found that the initial bill increases were due to summertime rate hikes and unusually high summer temperatures, PG&E’s smart meters are in the news again for billing errors.

This time there are faulty meters generating billing errors when hot weather makes them run faster than normal. While some skeptics may feel that the meter malfunctions validate their concerns, in fact, it demonstrates a key smart meter benefit: for the first time ever, meters have the ability to alert utilities that they aren’t working properly.

When Bad News is Good News

In this particular instance, PG&E remotely compared the meters’ clocks with real time. It identified roughly 1,600 out of 2 million meters made by Landis & Gyr that were malfunctioning. Its other 2 million meters made by General Electric don’t appear to have the problem.

This is transformative: PG&E can now monitor millions of meters in real time to comprehensively identify and ameliorate problems.

This isn’t possible with old analog meters, which is one of the many reasons why they’re being replaced. Before smart meters, electricity users who suspected erroneous billing had little evidence to make their claims. Now the utility can proactively identify and address problems.

To Put Things in Perspective

While it is inconvenient when any technical device, including a smart meter, is malfunctioning, the rate of problems with analog meters is much higher. Consider this comparison:

Roughly 1,600 out of 2 million meters were found to have internal clocks that run a bit fast in rare hot conditions. That’s a meter failure rate of 0.08%, or less than one 10th of a percent. This failure rate is believed to be within industry norms.
According to PG&E, analog meters have a failure rate in the range of 3%, which means they fail at rates about 40 times greater than suggested by these faulty smart meters.

PG&E estimates that the overcharge for failed smart meters is less than $40/year, about $3.33 per month. Again, it is the intelligent meters that enabled PG&E to quantify and correct the problem. All of the customers with faulty meters will be repaid in full and receive replacement meters. They will also get $25 for being inconvenienced and receive a free home energy audit.

Advantages of Smart Meters

Once smart meters have been fully deployed, utilities will be able to remotely and in real-time monitor all meters in their service territory, isolating malfunctions with precision and speed. What does that mean for consumers? More reliable service and quick resolution when problems arise.

You might wonder why EDF, an environmental advocacy group, is commenting on this. Smart meters are key to delivering the environmental and public health benefits of the smart grid.

EDF will soon be releasing a smart grid evaluation framework targeted at the plans that PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison owe the state by July 1, 2011.

We will then be publicly evaluating those plans for their ability to deliver benefits including: increased effectiveness and reduced costs of energy efficiency and other electricity conservation programs; integration of electric vehicles and intermittent renewable electricity generation resources, such as rooftop solar panels.

Stay tuned.

Posted in Grid Modernization / Read 3 Responses

Clean Energy: Getting Past Cute

By Andy Darrell / Published: May 13, 2011

Source: Wired Business Conference

Did Bill Gates just call the solar panels on my house cute? “If you’re interested in cuteness, the stuff in the home is the place to go” was the line most often quoted from his talk at the Wired Business Conference in New York City. Headlines declared that Bill Gates thinks clean energy is ‘cute’ and Gates seemed to suggest that people who were serious about energy should be looking to innovation in nuclear and other technologies.

That set off a firestorm of responses among clean energy advocates who point out, correctly, that the cost of renewables is coming down, the clean energy market is growing, and many countries are leaping ahead of the US in terms of public investment and incentives.

According to a UN report released May 9, renewable resources are plentiful and could provide as much as 77% of the worlds’ energy by 2050. According to the report, renewable energy investments globally could be in the trillions of dollars by 2030. The brake, according to the UN, is not technology. It’s governance and policy that stand in the way. To get beyond cute, we need advances in policy that create an energy market friendly not just to fossil fuels but to renewables too.

But what does it mean for policy to support clean energy? A couple of weeks ago, Deutsche Bank released a report that says: “there has been a very substantial growth in [clean energy] investment in China, and something of a shift away from Europe and the US as the centers of clean energy investing.” The implication is that America is being left behind.

But here’s the kicker. Deutsche Bank then says: “clean energy private investment is still dominated by the US.” To me, that’s America’s ticket to leadership in the trillion-dollar market of the future. Create the rules of the game that allow clean energy to compete and innovation has a shot at taking clean energy well past cute, all the way to super-model status.

Today’s rules of the game make it hard to plug renewables into the grid on parity with fossil fuel sources. Buildings can waste nearly half of their energy – yet utilities aren’t rewarded for “buying” efficiency. We can produce electric cars that cost less than three cents a mile to drive (compared to more than 13 cents for a gasoline-powered car), but where do we plug them in? How many households and businesses can easily figure out their energy run rate – and the most cost-effective steps to cut bills? Shouldn’t there be an iPhone app for that?

It’s time to take private investment in clean energy to scale. For that to happen, government has to rewrite the rules of the game so that:

Clean energy can plug into the grid, both for distributed sources (which work really well in some places, like cities) and for utility-scale renewables (which could work well in other places, like deserts). No need to disparage one or the other – let them compete fairly and openly for market share in different places.
Information is transparent and accurate. Make it easy for buyers to see the energy footprint of homes and CFOs to track energy usage floor by floor. Yes, there ought to be an iPhone app for that too – not just an opaque monthly bill. Map the pollution created by power plants. Disclose hydraulic fracturing fluid. Hidden information kills free markets.
Efficiency has a market. Let utilities “buy” efficiency just like they “buy” new power plants and innovators will find ways to aggregate efficiency across cities and real estate portfolios to meet that demand.
Cars can be electric – and be “batteries.” Electric vehicles can be batteries for intermittent renewables like solar and wind. They can also be the least expensive cars on the road today. If we could easily plug them in, who wouldn’t want that?
Subsidies give way to rules that create a level playing field. Governments currently dole out massive subsidies to the oil and gas industry. They subsidize renewables too, but comparatively less. Worldwide, some reports suggest that governments pay over $300 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels and a mere $55 billion for renewables. Frankly, waiting for more and more subsidies alone is a losing strategy, especially in times of fiscal constraint. What if we focused instead on getting the rules right, so that renewables could plug in and compete on more even footing? And what if we focused on getting information into the marketplace so that local and regional renewable opportunities were clear to end-users?

How important is it to get this right? By 2030, the global population will reach 10 billion people – that’s a billion more than originally expected. Most will live in explosively growing mega-cities, especially in fast-growing economies in China, South Asia, and Latin America.

Can we provide so many people an economic future without destroying the planet? Only if we take down the barriers to private sector innovation and rewrite the rules of the market to let clean energy in.

Here’s something else Gates said: “If we don’t have innovation in energy, we don’t have much at all.” If we don’t have innovation in policy, we won’t have enough innovation in energy.

Posted in Climate, Energy Efficiency, Grid Modernization, Renewable Energy / Read 1 Response

What Can The World Learn From Texas About Frac Chemical Disclosure?

By Scott Anderson / Published: May 12, 2011

I wrote last month that Texas House Energy Committee Chairman Jim Keffer, sponsor of a measure that would require oil and gas drillers to tell the public what chemicals are added to hydraulic fracturing fluid, said “the world is watching” to see how Texas handles the issue. There has been a lot to see. The House approved a disclosure bill “on second reading” yesterday afternoon and may vote later today to send the measure to the Senate. Meanwhile, the Senate Natural Resources Committee held a hearing this morning on a nearly identical bill, SB 1930, filed just a few days ago by Senator Jane Nelson.

Despite predictions in many quarters that Texas would never pass a bill requiring frac chemical disclosure, passage is a real possibility. The current version of the bill leaves several things to be desired, and at this point EDF is withholding support. But EDF, Sierra Club, Environment Texas and a number of other environmental advocates agree that this is landmark legislation even in its current form.

The legislation is not the “plug-and-play” model for other jurisdictions that I had hoped for, but it is landmark legislation nonetheless.

Three things in particular are worth noting:

First, virtually the entire oil and gas industry in Texas has come to recognize that voluntary disclosure efforts will never be enough to resolve this issue – regulation is required. All of the major industry associations now support mandatory disclosure, as do a long list of individual companies. In contrast, until recent weeks – and even days – only a handful of companies were on record supporting meaningful disclosure requirements. EDF applauds this development, and we especially applaud those who came out in support of mandatory disclosure early in the process. The early supporters are listed below.

The second thing notable about the legislation is that industry and Texas public officials have recognized that disclosure cannot be limited to chemicals currently known to be hazardous in the workplace – all chemicals used in frac fluid additives must be subject to disclosure, not just chemicals required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to be listed on Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). The failure to include non-MSDS chemicals is one of the major limitations of the voluntary chemical registry recently launched by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

Third, the Texas bill authorizes landowners to challenge trade secret claims. At the beginning of the session, this didn’t seem to be in the cards.

It is not at all certain that Texas will end up with good disclosure rules. The bill might not pass or rules implementing the legislation could turn out to be weak. And some aspects of this legislation will prove troublesome even under the best of circumstances. But can what has happened in Texas help other jurisdictions get their rules right? Absolutely.

Here are the companies that deserve special applause for breaking ranks with their peers and expressing early support: Apache, Anadarko Petroleum, BG Group, El Paso, Encana Natural Gas, EXCO, Linn Energy, Petrohawk Energy, Pioneer Resources, Range Petroleum, Southwestern Energy, and Talisman Energy. A letter this group wrote to Chairman Keffer on May 6th is well worth reading.

Posted in Natural Gas / Comments are closed

Smart Grid: Big Market, Big Return

By EDF Blogs / Published: May 11, 2011

Guest Blog Post By: Jackie Roberts, EDF’s Director of Sustainable Technologies, National Climate Campaign

The exciting innovations in the area of an energy internet – also known as the “smart grid” – illustrate just one of the ground-breaking ways that the U.S. can reduce our energy consumption and carbon emissions while also creating new business opportunities that help expand jobs.

Big Market, Big Return

Using data from a Pacific Northwest National Lab study that quantified several categories of smart grid benefits, Duke University estimates that a built-out smart grid could reduce an estimated 18% of emissions from the U.S. electric sector. Looking across the full spectrum of possible benefits, EDF sees even greater potential. By mobilizing system-wide efficiencies and large-scale deployment of renewable and distributed resources, a well-designed smart grid could reduce electric sector carbon emissions 30% by 2030.

This new market is predicted to be just as large as the aforementioned emission estimates. According to one market research firm, the global market value of products to enable the smart grid has grown from an estimated $26 billion in 2005 to more than $69 billion in 2009, a compounded annual growth rate of 22%. Total market value is expected to exceed $186 billion by 2015 (SBI Energy, 2010).

Who Will Benefit?

Duke University’s report, “U.S. Smart Grid: Finding New Ways to Cut Carbon and Create Jobs,” identifies 334 U.S. company locations in 39 states that are already developing or manufacturing products for a smart grid. All regions of the country will benefit.

For example, Chicago-based S&C Electric Company, founded in 1911, acquired new customers in the smart grid market. The company holds thousands of patents in switchgear, interrupters, and other transmission-voltage devices. In the past four years, its business has expanded approximately 50%, according to the company, with new products such as a truck-sized device that connects wind farms to the grid. Today, most of S&C’s products are made in the United States and Canada, with only a small portion made elsewhere. In all, the U.S. workforce totals about 1,700 employees, including more than 1,000 machinist, manufacturing, assembly and support positions, 200 engineers and technicians, a global sales force, and finance and accounting offices.

Global Expansion

Export markets are promising as well. According to Duke, “Italy’s 30 million installed smart meters all use Echelon (a U.S. company based in California) technology. Echelon has recently won large contracts in China, Russia, and Denmark.”

As former Google CEO Eric Schmidt noted, “Many companies can skirt downturns entirely by coming up with innovations that change the game in their industries – or create new ones.” That’s exactly what companies identified by Duke, from well-known IBM and other partners in our Pecan Street Project to companies such as Cooper Power Systems, are doing as they expand their offerings to meet the demands of the smart grid value chain.

Just last Friday, Eric Spiegel, President and CEO of Siemens Corporation, announced that their “orders and sales are increasing and [they] have added more than 1,000 new jobs to our U.S. workforce in just the last two quarters to keep up with the demand.” All three of the company’s sectors – Industry, Energy, and Healthcare – contributed to these results, but job growth was concentrated in the Industrial Automation, Building Efficiency, Smart Grid, and IT areas. Encouraging news all around.

Posted in Grid Modernization / Comments are closed

Poor Well Construction Is The Culprit

By Mark Brownstein / Published: May 10, 2011

The iconic image of shale gas development is the flaming faucet featured in Josh Fox’s recent movie, Gasland. Inquiring minds want to know: “how does methane get into a water faucet, and is hydraulic fracturing of shale to blame?” A Duke University study released this week sheds light on these important questions.

The study, performed by three researchers affiliated with Duke University’s Biology Department and Nicholas School of the Environment, examined 60 drinking water wells in northeastern Pennsylvania and southern New York, the northern tier of the geological formation known as the Marcellus Shale, ground zero for aggressive shale gas development in the eastern United States. And sure enough, methane concentrations were detected in 51 of the 60 wells, with substantially higher concentrations of methane found in drinking water wells closest to active natural gas production sites. While there are numerous instances of methane migrating into drinking water supplies through naturally occurring fissures, even in the absence of gas drilling, this study makes a pretty compelling case that natural gas production can create a problem where none ever existed, or certainly make an existing problem worse.

But, on the question of whether hydraulic fracturing is to blame, the evidence is less compelling. Indeed, the fact that methane was found in water wells, but the chemicals used to fracture the shale were not, suggests that fracturing may have had nothing to do with the unwanted migration. The culprit, it would seem, are not fissures created by the fracturing of the shale, but rather poor well construction – specifically, failures in the cement casing surrounding a well – which enable the natural gas to migrate into the water table as it moves its way up the well to the surface. The authors have noted that “leaky casings” are the most likely cause of problems.

Poor well construction is a problem that can occur anywhere, whether production is aided by hydraulic fracturing or not. For all of the attention Gasland’s flaming faucet has brought to the hydraulic fracturing debate, this study points our attention to the role that better well construction and design practices can play in reducing the very real problem of methane contamination of well water.

Posted in Natural Gas / Comments are closed

California Victory: Court of Appeals Backs Improved Pollution Standards for Cars

By Tim O'Connor / Published: April 29, 2011

Earlier today, a federal court rejected a legal attack on new clean car standards that will help protect our air quality and our pocketbooks.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. ruled in favor of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) green light for clean car standards adopted by California and 13 other states and the District of Columbia.

Environmental Defense Fund intervened in defense of EPA’s action, supporting California’s pioneering leadership.

“This is a major victory not only for California but for the millions of Americans who are working together to unleash smart policies that will save families money at the gas pump, reduce dangerous pollution and break our dependence on imported oil,” said EDF president Fred Krupp.

California adopted the new standards in 2004. They were later adopted by Arizona, Connecticut, Washington D.C., Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The federal government, the involved states, the U.S. auto industry and the United Auto Workers Union reached an agreement on the standards last year. The EPA finalized a national clean car program on April 1, 2010 that built on the foundation forged by the state clean car standards, creating integrated national standards to provide benefits across the country.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Automobile Dealers Association sued to to block EPA’s green light for the California clean car standards but the court ruled that neither have legal standing to challenge EPA’s action.

According to the Court’s decision, “[b]ecause the Chamber has not identified a single member who was or would be injured by EPA’s waiver decision, it lacks standing to raise this challenge.”

The Court also relied on the overarching national standards, writing, “[e]ven if EPA’s decision to grant California a waiver for its emission standards once posed an imminent threat of injury to the petitioners — which is far from clear — the agency’s subsequent adoption of federal standards has eliminated any independent threat that may have existed.”

“It is time for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to stop obstructing made in America clean air solutions that are a trifecta for saving money, energy security, and a safer environment,” Krupp added.

“This is a major victory for Americans who are tired of pouring out their hard-earned money at the gas pump,” said Vickie Patton, EDF’s General Counsel. “Cleaner cars will save their owners money – as much as $3000 over the life of their vehicles. Cleaner cars also reduce dangerous air pollution, and help break our nation’s dependence on imported oil.”

Posted in General / Comments are closed