Energy Exchange

Natural gas drilling: Problems and solutions

Yesterday I was interviewed on an energy-related television show about natural gas drilling in the U.S. and some viewers thought I was too pro-drilling, others thought I was too anti-drilling. My reaction to that is: PERFECT! That was precisely my intention – to be a balanced voice in the discussion of hydraulic fracturing (HF). HF may be an important process to extract what may be a cleaner-burning fuel source for our country; but if it is developed, adverse impacts for gas drilling must be reduced to assure public safety and to protect the environment.

Currently, the environmental impact of natural gas development is unacceptably high. From polluted water wells in Pennsylvania to an exploding home in Ohio, there are numerous recent examples of environmental disasters from natural gas production.

I said in the interview that HF can be used safely “IF” it is regulated more closely and companies are more transparent about the fluids they use. Regulation may be done state by state, but if states aren’t up to the task, it will need to be regulated at the federal level. So industry needs to step up to the plate and improve its practices. While there are issues with HF, many of the problems with gas are more widespread. A framework is needed that focuses on well construction and operation that goes beyond even HF to broader well construction issues and cementing. Additional issues that must be addressed include getting the cement and pipes right in the wells, and proper management of pressure. Additionally, for hydraulically fractured wells it is important to be sure wells are situated beneath a satisfactory cap rock — one or more layers of rock that’s sufficient to prevent toxic chemicals from migrating into drinking water. Some areas are so important, such as drinking supplies for cities, that they need to be off-limits for fracking.

If natural gas is to fulfill its potential, we need much cleaner drilling practices. Results will be gauged by the improved health and safety of citizens and the earth in the short and long term. Stay tuned for more discussion on this vital topic.

Posted in Natural Gas, Texas / Read 3 Responses

Helping Minority-Serving Institutions Improve Energy Efficiency, Save Money

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is widely recognized for our innovative private sector partnerships with business in projects like EDF Climate Corps.  Now we’re helping the public sector reduce carbon emissions and improve energy efficiency.  Join us for a video review of our new work with minority-serving institutions, or MSIs.  “Promoting Diversity in Environmental Leadership” will also introduce you to the success of EDF Climate Corps Public Sector.

EDF has been working with MSIs in North Carolina since 2009.  MBA students specially trained by EDF Climate Corps Public Sector showed two campuses how to save $14 million in energy costs in five years.  The program will expand to Texas and New York in 2011.  Plans call for the program to expand to other states in 2012.

MSIs include historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and universities.

Posted in EDF Climate Corps, Energy Equity / Comments are closed

How many state agencies does it take to screw in a CFL bulb?

How many state agencies does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent light bulb and a low-flow faucet head? In Texas, the answer will make you grimace: six. That’s not a very efficient way to save money or energy.

This week, Environmental Defense Fund joined Public Citizen and the SEED Coalition to call for the Texas Legislature to create a single independent efficiency agency.  Today our groups sent a letter to Speaker of the House Joe Straus and Chairmen of the relevant House and Senate committees calling for this new independent agency. Such an agency could coordinate and streamline programs that are now run – often inefficiently – by multiple agencies and help save Texans money in the process.

The most recent blow to Texas’ energy efficiency progress happened this past Friday, July 30th.  The Public Utility Commission (PUC) proved it cannot effectively manage its energy efficiency programs for Texas citizens’ best interests when it radically scaled back a proposal that would have saved consumers $4 to $12 billion over twenty years.

Energy efficiency would cost around $1 per month on a $100 electric bill and save $3, but the PUC has indicated that even this small amount – that pays for itself – is too much. Texas deserve better than this.

An independent efficiency agency just makes sense.

  • Money-saving, Pro-consumer, pro-business energy efficiency programs languish at the PUC
  • Current programs are spread over six different agencies
  • One agency in charge of coordinating all of Texas’ efficiency programs will reduce agency overlap
  • It can be a “one stop shop” for information on all the rebates and incentives available to homes and create an opportunity to achieve more savings
  • One truck (instead of three) can provide homes with comprehensive electric, water and gas efficiency services

Soon we’ll be following up with the chair of Texas’ Senate Natural Resources Committee Troy Fraser, and the chairs of Texas’ House Energy Resources and State Affairs Committees, Jim Keffer and Burt Solomons to work on the details of our independent efficiency agency proposal.

The Legislature has the ability and the perspective to set a strong and achievable goal for energy efficiency that will save households more money on their bill that will in turn boost consumer spending in other areas of the economy.

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Texas / Read 2 Responses

Las Brisas Strikes Out Yet Again

Coal

While we continue to wait and see if the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) will grant an air quality permit to the Las Brisas power plant in Corpus Christi, the opposition holds strong.

In a letter to TCEQ dated June 2nd, the state administrative judges who heard the case, Tommy Broyles and Craig Bennett, stated that they “continue to stand by the findings, conclusions and recommendations” contained in their Proposal for Decision. While some issues may remain to be resolved, the argument over whether the proposed Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) boilers are subject to a case-by-case maximum achievable control technology (MACT) analysis appears to be a battle EDF has won.  In fact, the valuable evidence presented by EDF was specifically referred to in their letter.

Once again EDF applauds the administrative judges for holding their ground and continues to oppose Las Brisas, as it threatens the health of people in the area and adds enormous quantities of carbon dioxide to the air. Already having several strikes against it, the Las Brisas permit application is clearly flawed and contains obvious deficiencies that violate the Clean Air Act. Read More »

Posted in Climate, Texas / Read 6 Responses

Energy Storage in California Finally Getting Attention it Deserves

Energy storage is gaining important and well-deserved policy attention in Sacramento due to its wide-ranging potential. Last month, Assembly Bill 2514, which focuses on energy storage, overcame a major hurdle when it passed through the rigorous Utilities and Commerce Committee.

AB 2514 is sponsored by California Attorney General Jerry Brown (front running Democratic candidate in this year’s governor’s race) and authored by Nancy Skinner (founder of ICLEI, former director of The Climate Group and one of the Legislature’s top environmental leaders).

Brown and Skinner identified an effective way to advance energy storage technologies in California. The bill calls for increasing the consideration of energy storage by requiring the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to advance a rulemaking process where storage technology is evaluated based on both the costs and the range of values it can provide. The bill requires the CPUC and utilities to look beyond ability to simply discharge energy and toward a full-scope evaluation that’s not currently performed. Utilities will then be assigned targets for installing storage technology in their service territories over the next decade.

AB 2514 has a way to go to become law, including votes on the Assembly floor and by the State Senate and State fiscal committees. If California is to meet its renewable energy portfolio standards and energy demand and cut greenhouse gas emissions, this bill should get full consideration and support.

Either way, the tide may be turning in the direction of increased energy storage. Consider:

  • The Cal-ISO is performing pilot testing to see how certain storage applications respond to remote signals.
  • The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) through Order 890 is also requiring system operators to allow storage providers to price in the value of the ancillary services when competing for energy market share.
  • Numerous large greenhouse gas emitters are buying storage to reduce energy costs and gain the benefits of storage.

These advances send a strong signal that widespread energy storage is a great idea whose time has finally come. Storage can and should be compared against the entire range of energy solutions. It should then be strategically integrated into a package of solutions designed to meet California’s ambitious clean energy and emissions reductions goals.

Posted in General / Comments are closed

New Carbon Sequestration Critique Disputed by Scientific Community

By Tim O’Connor, Attorney / Climate Policy Analyst

A recent issue of the UK Guardian has brought to the forefront the findings of paper published in the Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.[1] This paper, purporting to call into question the ability of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology to serve as a solution for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) is making waves in the scientific and climate change policy communities. Titled “Sequestering carbon dioxide in a closed underground volume,” the article suggests CCS is not a viable solution to the current problem of these emissions from fossil fuel power plants, an assertion flying in the face of accepted wisdom on the subject to date.[2]

Published by perhaps the only Texas-based husband and wife team specializing in petroleum and chemical engineering, Christine Ehlig-Economides and Michael Economides, the journal article has resulted in a significant amount of consternation[3] in the scientific community and an unfortunate level of attention by news outlets looking for a reason (scientifically supportable or otherwise) to undermine CCS as a bridge technology for greenhouse gas mitigation.[4] Read More »

Posted in General / Read 92 Responses