Energy Exchange

Energy Efficiency Standards Save Texas Schools Money

By Kate Zerrenner / Published: March 22, 2011

Alder Creek Middle School in Truckee California: A Demonstration project for Collaborative for High Performance Schools

On March 16 the Texas House Energy Resources Committee heard testimony on HB 775 from Rep. Rafael Anchia. HB 775 would further enable school districts to reduce energy and water consumption, which saves money and improves the air quality of Texas schools. As public schools are facing grim budget decisions saving money on energy means more teachers in classrooms and a better education for Texas children.

Investing in energy efficiency measures saves school districts and taxpayers money in the long run because energy efficiency lowers electricity bills. Stated differently, failing to improve efficiency means school districts are wasting energy and needlessly straining tight budgets. Also, energy efficiency is one of the few measures that will reduce air pollution at the same time that it saves money. Many energy efficiency measures will require some upfront costs. However, school districts have several options for offsetting or avoiding those costs all together, including Texas LoanSTAR, performance contracts, and utility incentive programs. (You can read further explanations of these options/programs in my full testimony to the committee)

Specific School District Examples

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, an energy-efficient school district with 4,000 students could save as much as $160,000 a year in energy costs, with savings reaching $1.6 million over ten years. Texas schools that have initiated energy conservation programs have already begun to realize savings with some relatively easy investments. The table below shows Texas school districts that have received funds from the LoanSTAR program for energy efficient measures and the estimated costs and savings.

School District	Energy Conservation Measures (ECM)	Total Estimated ECM costs	Annual Energy Cost Savings	Payback (years)
Arlington	Replace lighting, correct power factor, upgrade mechanical system	$4,655,086	$649, 880	7.2
Holliday	Replace lighting and HVAC systems	$188,169	$20,120	9.4
Red Oak	Replace lighting, install occupancy sensors and EMS, institute payment and performance bonds	$2,214,305	$311,887	7.1

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Texas / Read 1 Response

The Smart Grid 2025 Has Arrived. And It’s Addicting.

By Kristen Coracini / Published: March 18, 2011

I spent my lunch break yesterday playing an online game. No, not World of Warcraft; I played Smart Grid 2025, an innovative, multiplayer online game that lets players submit their original ideas on how to design the smart grid of the (not too distant) future. Once you register, you can submit “Positive Imagination” ideas on what’s needed or “Dark Imagination” concerns about barriers and potential negative outcomes. The game also allows you to respond – positively or negatively – to other players’ posts. The more players that build on your ideas, the more points you earn. And if the game administrators tag your idea as “Most Super Interesting,” you get a whopping 20 points. I have only gained enough points for the “Inspired” level ranking, but I’m shooting for “Legend!” If you have a great idea to share, give it a shot: http://game.smartgrid2025.org/.

Posted in Grid Modernization / Comments are closed

Transparency Is Key To The Future Of Natural Gas

By Jim Marston / Published: March 11, 2011

A bill was filed in the Texas House of Representatives today that will require natural gas service companies and operators to publicly disclose the chemical composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids used in Texas. After the public beating the natural gas industry has been taking, we think participating in legislation to bring transparency to the industry would be a pretty good idea.

Basic regulations, like disclosure, provide insulation for responsible companies from the actions of those who may not have best of interest of the broader industry or public in mind.

From our Scott Anderson:

“Disclosure of the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing is key to gaining an understanding of the impact this process has on the environment and human health.”

Posted in Natural Gas, Texas / Tagged Hydraulic Fracturing, texas | Comments are closed

Talking Smart Grid In The Land Of Lincoln

By Kristen Coracini / Published: March 11, 2011

Earlier this week, I participated in a joint hearing of the Illinois Senate and House Public Utilities Committees. It was a packed house, full of people like me who had made the 3-hour trek from Chicago to Springfield, past vast corn fields and — I was excited to see — a large wind farm. The topic: a bill that would authorize the state’s largest electric utility, Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), to spend at least $1.5 billion over the next ten years on “smart grid electric system upgrades.” Of course, as with most utility investments, it’s the utility’s customers who will ultimately foot the bill. So the crucial question of the day was, “What will ComEd’s customers get for their money?”

Our friends at the Illinois Citizens Utility Board, or CUB, asked EDF to testify at the hearing on “smart grid done right.” We’ve done a lot of thinking on the subject, with experience engaging in smart grid policy and projects in California, Texas, North Carolina, and elsewhere. And we are working closely with CUB and other partners on a variety of smart grid-related projects in Illinois, including a look at the health and environmental impacts of ComEd’s smart meter pilot in the Chicago area.

The potential benefits of a smart grid are significant. A smart grid will enable the use of a wealth of clean energy resources, including more energy efficiency, demand response, distributed generation, and renewable energy. By doing so, a smart grid will reduce our need for dirty fossil fuel-powered plants, including the expensive peak power plants that run only a few hundred hours a year but are often close to urban centers. A smart grid will also enable us to make the shift to electric vehicles, reducing our dependence on foreign oil imports and the damage to our economy when oil prices spike, as they have in recent days. EDF believes that a well-designed smart grid can cut air pollution from the electric power sector by more than 30% and transportation by more than 25% by 2030.

Best of all, a well-designed smart grid will deliver all of these benefits while giving homeowners and businesses the power to manage their energy use and save money. With easy-to-use tools—such as simple online displays of the information smart meters provide about use and prices, and set-and-forget home energy management tools—consumers will be able to make choices that lower bills and shrink their environmental footprint.

But a smart grid won’t deliver on that promise if the policy behind it doesn’t set the right goals from the get-go. Smart grid policies must be designed with clear performance targets, metrics, and milestones – and utility compensation should be directly tied to their achievement. Unfortunately, the draft bill now being debated by the Illinois General Assembly does none of this. In fact, the only mention of energy efficiency I found in the language was a requirement that a new employee training facility be LEED certified! ComEd’s President Anne Pramaggiore acknowledged as much in the hearing. CUB, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, and others raised similar concerns. EDF will continue working with CUB and other Illinois allies to ensure these critical targets for energy efficiency and other environmental goals are included.

A smart grid requires smart policy. The deployment of smart grid technologies and infrastructure has met with controversy in places where the policies (or sometimes, the lack thereof) have failed to place utility customers first. Customers need access to information to make good choices about their energy use; without it, a “smart grid” won’t be so smart. As Lincoln said, “Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.” This is why it is critical that Illinois get the policy right from the start. EDF is joining forces with CUB and the Illinois Science and Technology Coalition to host a smart grid briefing in April for Illinois legislators and others, to help make the smart grid a reality here.

Posted in Grid Modernization / Comments are closed

The Natural Gas Industry Is Its Own Worst Enemy

By Mark Brownstein / Published: March 4, 2011

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

By Tim O'Connor / Published: March 1, 2011

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