Energy Exchange

The Natural Gas Industry Is Its Own Worst Enemy

Anyone who thinks “old media” is dead should have spent this week with me in Washington, DC.  Virtually everywhere I went folks were discussing the articles in the New York Times this week on the water pollution issues associated with natural gas development.  Although ProPublica has done an excellent job of covering the many environmental issues associated with shale gas development for more than a year, there still is nothing like a front page story in the New York Times to get the attention of policymakers in Washington.

Of course, the New York Times tale of water quality regulators seemingly asleep at the switch, or worse, actually hiding data and findings, is a story sure to catch anyone’s eye.  And in the days leading up to the Academy Awards, where “Gasland” was competing for the best documentary award, hydraulic fracturing seemed to be everywhere in the media, and all of it bad news stories.  Flaming water faucets are an image hard to resist or dismiss.

But as the flurry of media attention begins to die down as the week comes to a close, we are left with two simple truths to reflect upon.  The first is that America is awash in natural gas, and this promises to be a good thing both in terms of national energy security and air quality, at least in comparison to coal, which is America’s other abundant domestic energy resource.  (Yes, we actually have a fair amount of oil, too, but even the biggest boosters of domestic production concede the days of America being oil self-sufficient are long gone).  The second simple truth is that the vast majority natural gas industry is squandering this opportunity through a combination of reckless indifference and sloppy production practices.

No one should give either state or federal regulators a free pass on failures to act aggressively to enforce existing oil and gas production regulations, or act equally quickly to revise regulations where they clearly are failing to protect public health and the environment in the onslaught of natural gas production in what IHS Cambridge Energy Resource Associates (IHS CERA) calls the “Shale Gale.”  But focusing all of our ire on the regulators’ failures gives the natural gas producers a perverse excuse.  For an example of this, see my post two weeks ago, where I took an industry lawyer to task for making the claim that regulators were at fault for failing to tell natural gas producers that it is a bad idea to use diesel fuel as a hydraulic fracturing fluid.  As if someone needs to be told that injecting diesel fuel into the ground might be a bad idea!

So, by all means, put the heat on the federal Environmental Protection Agency and your state environmental regulators, and hold Congress and state legislatures accountable for providing the resources needed to have good regulations and good enforcement.  But please save some of your indignation for those gas producers who are failing to come to grips with the issues of the day.  Natural gas producers know better than anyone what is in the water that is produced during the natural gas production process, and no one should let them get away with claiming otherwise.  Sadly, unlike a few of their more progressive colleagues, many natural gas producers fail to understand that they have an affirmative obligation to minimize the possibility that contaminated water causes harm to public health and the environment.  And even worse, far too few of them take proactive steps to reduce air and water pollution from their production processes – steps that actually could save them money in the long run. 

The industry seems more inclined to operate by the principle that “haste makes waste.”  More than anything else, what the New York Times articles demonstrate is that, taken as a whole, the natural gas production industry is simply failing to hold itself accountable for adhering to the highest common sense standards of environmental stewardship.  And unless and until the natural gas industry does, don’t expect any good news stories about natural gas in either old or new media.

Posted in Natural Gas, Washington, DC / Read 3 Responses

Clean Air Act Benefits Exceed Costs More Than 30-to-1

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just released a report on the Clean Air Act that would make any investor proud. It shows that for every dollar spent on regulations to cut air pollution over the last 30 years, we’ve earned more than $30 in savings to go along with tremendous public health benefits.

Members of Congress have spent much of the last two months trying to roll back clean air protections. They’ve argued that the Clean Air Act is bad for the economy. This report shows otherwise. As EDF’s president Fred Krupp notes, “If anyone still doubts that America can afford to do the right thing, this report should settle the matter. Cleaner air will unquestionably improve our health, our economy, and our lives.”

California still ranks among the states with the worst air pollution. Just this week, Forbes released a list of the ten most toxic cities in America. Four of them are California cities: Bakersfield (2nd place), Fresno (3rd place), Los Angeles (6th place) and Riverside-San Bernardino (10th). Poor air quality was a major reason they qualified.

Ironically, all of those cities have improved their air quality in the last decade. The trouble is that they’ve also grown dramatically, which has only added to the number of vehicles and other sources of pollution. Can you imagine how much pollution—and lung disease—we’d have in those cities and around the country if tailpipe and power plant pollution controls had not been in place these last 30 years?

California needs the Clean Air Act for many reasons, but the economic benefits particularly stand out. An earlier peer-reviewed study found that dirty air in the Los Angeles Air Basin costs local residents nearly $22 billion a year in health costs, premature death, lost days at work and lost days at school. In the San Joaquin Valley, the annual costs amount to about $6 billion.

Think about it: that’s $28 billion in costs each and every year—nearly as much as it would take to resolve the state’s budget deficit this year.

Now add EPA’s new study showing that we get $30 worth of value on every dollar invested in clean air and another thing becomes clear: those who are working to weaken the Clean Air Act and reduce EPA’s authority are effectively selling an investment that’s returned billions of dollars to our economy.

A poll released last month by the American Lung Association found that three out of four Americans support the EPA setting tougher standards on specific air pollutants, including mercury, smog and carbon dioxide. It also found that 68 percent of voters oppose Congressional action that impedes the EPA from updating clean air standards generally and 64 percent oppose Congressional efforts to stop the EPA from updating standards on carbon dioxide. If you want to protect these economic benefits and help prevent putting tens of thousands of lives at risk, you can voice your support for the Clean Air Act and the EPA by clicking here.

Posted in General / Comments are closed

Interim Report on Fort Worth Natural Gas Air Quality Study Leaves Biggest Questions Unanswered

Last week, the Fort Worth City Council received an interim report on its Natural Gas Air Quality Study initiated last August.  Unfortunately, this interim report was short on details about the most unique aspect of the project – the direct measurement of emissions at the point of release.

The interim report only presented high-level summaries of results of sampling at 66 sites out of 170 sites where emissions were detected in Phase I (no emissions were detected at another 31 sites).  Stated differently, the interim report provided no information about nearly two-thirds of the sites with detectable emissions. Read More »

Posted in Natural Gas, Texas / Read 4 Responses

Texas Energy Independence Week 2011

Next week renewable energy advocates and policy makers will come together for Texas Energy Independence Week at the Texas Capitol.  The event, put together by the Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association (TREIA) will allow industry, advocacy groups and academics to connect with policy makers and staff on how Texas can better realize their opportunities in developing the renewable energy market and reaping the economic rewards. 

I will be moderating a panel on Wednesday, February 23 from 3:45pm-5:00pm.  I will be speaking with representatives from Applied Materials, American Electric Technologies and SolarCityabout making the business case for renewables in Texas. 

I’d like your help in leading the discussion.  What questions would you ask of these business leaders?  Comment below or tweet your questions to @EDFtx before the panel on February 23, 2011 and I’ll select a few of the best to ask our panelist. 

Even if you can’t make it to the panel, this is a great opportunity to expand the discussion of promoting renewable energy development in Texas and maybe you will spark an idea no one has thought of before. 

I’ll update my blog after the panel with highlights from the discussion and answers to some of your questions. 

Below is information about the panelists and a link to more information on Texas Energy Independence Week.  

The Business Case for A Robust Role for Renewable Energy in Texas’ Energy Mix

 
Moderator: Colin Meehan, Environmental Defense Fund

Panelists:
Cathy Boone, Senior Director, Energy Policy and Market Development, Applied Materials, Inc.

Charles Dauber, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Electric Technologies, Inc.

Colin Murchie, Director, Federal Government Affairs, SolarCity

Click here for more information on Texas Energy Independence Week and TREIA.

Posted in Renewable Energy, Texas / Read 1 Response

What People Need And Want From Their 21st Century Electricity Grid

By: Derek Walker, Director, California Climate Initiative & Deputy Director, States Climate Program

For most people, the “smart grid” is just another nerdy-sounding concept, a little like the Internet was 15 years ago.  Back in 1995, only a crystal ball would have given a hint of the rapid explosion of the information age and the changes it would bring about in our daily lives.  The “smart grid” is in its infancy, but the benefits it offers are starting to become clear: reduced air pollution, more reliability, and greater control for the people and businesses that use energy.  Not to mention some very cool gadgets that can do everything from remotely starting your washing machine to telling you, in real time, how much money you are spending to power your iPad.

Last month, the 2011 State of the Consumer Report was released by the Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative (SGCC), an organization (EDF is an affiliate member) whose mission is to listen to, educate, and collaborate with consumers to ensure the most efficient and effective transition to the “smart grid” of the future.  After all, billions of dollars will be spent in the next 20 years to upgrade our electricity infrastructure, and we need to get the most bang for every buck.  That means the best technology, the most cost-savings, and the greatest degree of consumer empowerment possible.

The SGCC report combines the insights from over 80 studies and white papers to give a thorough snapshot of what consumers want, need, and expect from new energy technologies and the modernized “smart grid.”  The result is a template for innovators, policy makers, and consumers themselves about how best to get and stay engaged in the exciting changes that are coming…and in many cases, are already here.   

The results of the studies clearly show that people are intrigued, but that there are many different kinds of people that have different needs and require varying levels of engagement.  It also shows that those fascinated with new gadgets and those with the greatest interest in doing their part to create a healthy environment and reduce pollution are the most likely ‘first adopters.’  The report concludes that to generate more widespread enthusiasm for the “smart grid,” it is important to emphasize how the increasing costs of energy can be cut through a “smart grid” and how simple and user-friendly new clean energy technologies can be.  

Ultimately, people want and embrace what they can see, feel and touch.  That means that tangible benefits such as energy and cost savings, more reliability, and the ability to pick and choose technologies and pricing schemes are vital.  The report touches on a basic truth about human behavior:  the gap between intention and action.  Consumer education, engagement, and empowerment are critical keys to successfully unlocking the myriad benefits of the “smart grid.”

Posted in Grid Modernization / Comments are closed

What’s New? Objections Filed in the AB 32 Lawsuit

The parties involved in the lawsuit “Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board (CARB)” filed objections yesterday to the judge’s tentative ruling that could lead to a temporary suspension of the state’s landmark climate change plan.

Given the breadth of the materials filed in this suit and the scope of the  ruling, the arguments in the objections were both expected and appropriate. In fact, they shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. 

As our post explained last week, the AB 32 Scoping Plan is a unique document that defines how California will cut global warming pollution to 1990 levels by 2020 while protecting our economy and attracting billions of investment dollars in companies with innovative clean energy technologies.

Petitioners, representing environmental justice interests, sued the state more than a year ago to block the plan’s implementation. On January 24th, the San Francisco Superior Court judge hearing the case issued a tentative ruling telling CARB that the package of measures in the plan was legal but that the analysis of the alternatives to those measures, and the process used to pass the plan, was defective. 

So what happens now? Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1590, the court may order a hearing from which a final ruling would follow a maximum of 10 days later.  Without a hearing, we expect to see a ruling within 50 days from the date the tentative decision was filed or before March 15th.

One of the most important aspects of the state’s objections, as EDF sees it, is the request for more clarity on what the court found was wrong with the process, and what part of the plan it intends to stop or ‘enjoin’ in its decision. 

More certainty on these issues is vital. For California to cut pollution as required, improve its air quality and protect and grow its economy, CARB and other state agencies need to use all of the tools at their disposal. They also need certainty that important initiatives—such as the Million Solar Roofs program, the 33% renewable portfolio standard, and energy efficiency standards—can proceed. 

While we aren’t going to prejudge whether the state met its burden to study alternative approaches to cap-and-trade, we are confident that whatever final decision the court makes, the state can and will take the steps needed so that it can continue implementing the Scoping Plan’s wide range of measures, including its emissions-trading program that’s scheduled to start in January 2012.

Though the parties are on opposite sides of the court, there is one common thread running through this case: both sides appear to be committed to making sure the state’s decision-making process, and the implications of those decisions, are analyzed in an open forum.  California’s Environmental Quality Act demands it, as does the environment, and all California citizens and communities deserve it.

Posted in General / Comments are closed