Energy Exchange

A Red Flag On Disclosure Of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals

By Scott Anderson / Published: December 12, 2012

It’s not often that a new regulatory idea becomes so popular that one or more states per month climb on the bandwagon. But that is precisely what has happened with the push to disclose which chemicals are pumped into the ground to stimulate oil and natural gas production during the process known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.”

A year ago, only three states (Arkansas, Montana and Wyoming) required oil and gas producers to tell the public what chemicals they were using. Two other states (Colorado and Texas) were actively developing such rules. Today, just twelve months later, statutes or regulations mandating “frack” chemical disclosure are on the books in no fewer than 18 states, and proposals are pending or under consideration in several others.

FracFocus, an online registry that compiles information on hydraulic fracturing chemicals both for states where disclosure is voluntary and required, has been up and running for just 20 months, but already it houses approximately 800,000 records that include ingredients data. As of December 5, 2012, this data represented 33,606 wells. The amount of information on the site continues to grow rapidly.

It is impressive that so much information has been made available in such a short time. Still, people have begun to wonder whether the disclosure rules are accomplishing what was intended. The question is important because rules that aren’t working need to be changed. A good regulatory system is based on a process of continual improvement, not a naive idea that the rulebook can be written in a way that will never need changing.

Unfortunately, judging from early press reports, there are quite a few bugs in the system. To be fair, the reporting requirements are quite new and still being implemented — and analysis of the data has barely begun. But  problems are emerging. The issue receiving the most media attention is the sheer number of trade secret claims. Read More »

Posted in General, Natural Gas, Texas / Read 5 Responses

More To Come On Methane…

By Steven Hamburg / Published: December 6, 2012

Concerns around the impacts of methane emissions have reemerged in headlines, with the release of a methane leakage study about Boston. Published in the journal of Environmental Pollution a couple weeks ago, researchers from Boston University and Duke University measured atmospheric methane concentrations leaking from natural gas pipelines in Boston many of which are over a hundred years old. Another report issued last week by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (published in Environmental Research Letters) looked at the impact of shale gas production on greenhouse gas emissions.

When talking about harmful greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) usually gets most of the attention. Yet methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, is a short-lived greenhouse gas many times more potent than CO2 – or around 72 times more potent over a 20-year time frame. Stakes are high for the scientific community to fully understand the implications of methane leakage rates. These reports help elevate the issue that methane leakage matters to the climate and air quality, but this is only part of the story.

Methane is potentially leaking from the entire natural gas supply chain — from wells, pipelines and storage facilities — and no one knows precisely how much is leaking and where the leaks are stemming from. Some reports estimate the total methane leakage rate occurring during natural gas production, transmission and distribution to range anywhere from 1 to 7.9 percent. At the same time, the data that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and everyone else rely on were collected 20 or more years ago.

A challenge for understanding the distribution of methane concentration data in Boston is that no one knows how to interpret the data yet. Maps of methane concentrations in the urban environment can be spurious. They may look scary, but are they? This and many other tough scientific questions still need to be answered, we are very early in the process of understanding how much methane is leaking and from where. The scientific community at large, including EDF and the authors of the Boston study, are committed to collecting the data necessary to addressing these concerns and to understanding the true climate impact of methane emissions.

EDF is working with leading academic researchers and industry leaders to conduct scientifically rigorous measurements of quantitative emissions across the natural gas supply chain from well to the end user. We are developing the methodologies where necessary to move past a ‘he said, she said’ conversation to one focused on data characterizing leak rates. The critical next step for us in using the increasingly robust data gathered from new innovative technologies is to precipitate a clear enough understanding of where the leaks are in the supply chain to catalyze a constructive conversation about what new policies and industry practices will be required to minimize methane leakage.

The first EDF fugitive methane report, focused on field measurements made at natural gas production sites, will be completed early next year under the leadership of the University of Texas Austin. EDF and our partners are using a diverse array of measurement techniques to characterize leak rates. We are also working to make basin-wide measurements within areas of natural gas production. Over the course of 2013 and early 2014, studies of emissions at other key components in the supply chain, including the local distribution system, will be completed and the data and conclusions released to the public.

EDF is actively campaigning to ensure that fugitive methane emissions from the natural gas industry are less than 1 percent of production in order to ensure that the climate benefits of natural gas are maximized. We see development of innovative, cost effective and accurate methane detection technologies and procedures as a necessary part of minimizing leak rates. Our view is that minimizing methane leakage is an important enough issue that we need to take the time to establish a scientific understanding of the underlying issues and by doing so defining effective well-targeted actions.

Posted in Climate, Methane, Natural Gas / Read 1 Response

EDF Energy Innovation Series Feature #16: Demand Management From REGEN Energy

By Jim Marston / Published: December 5, 2012

Throughout 2012, EDF’s Energy Innovation Series will highlight around 20 innovations across a broad range of energy categories, including smart grid and renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency financing, and progressive utilities, to name a few. This series will demonstrate that cost-effective, clean energy solutions are available now and imperative to lowering our dependence on fossil fuels.

For more information on this featured innovation, please view this video on REGEN Energy’s innovation here.

Mark Kerbel would like the world to think of every building as a giant beehive. In these bustling hubs of activity, each electrical device not only takes care of its individual tasks, but it is also aware of what the other devices are doing. They are part of a team and work together to minimize work and strengthen the “hive.”

Kerbel is co-founder of Toronto-based company REGEN Energy (REGEN). For REGEN, which makes wireless controllers that monitor and manage equipment with high power needs like heating and cooling, or “HVAC” systems, the beehive isn’t simply a sales pitch metaphor. Swarm theory is the company’s foundation.

For the last century, our outdated electric grid has generally worked the same way: energy is generated in a remote location and pushed to homes and businesses, where humans make most of the decisions about what switches are turned on and off. Demand management – like REGEN’s energy load management methodology – brings intelligent decision making into the process, which allows for more efficient use of energy, and helps reduce stress to the electric grid during peak times of energy demand by lessening consumer energy consumption.

Credit: REGEN Energy

“We think the natural world has a lot to teach us about efficiency,” said Kerbel. “And bees and other swarming animals are among nature’s best examples of teamwork and efficiency. Our technology injects swarm theory into a grid that has historically been simple and manual, and makes it intelligent and automatic.”

And much, much more efficient.

REGEN’s Swarm Energy Management technology employs a node at each electrical load in a building. For example, a large corporate campus might install a REGEN node on each HVAC unit. Using REGEN’s patented algorithms (which the company calls “swarm logic”), the nodes communicate with each other wirelessly and are able to balance the attached loads to smooth out the overall demand of a building. In a simple scenario, one HVAC unit might detect that another on a different part of a building will turn off in two minutes, and delay just long enough to avoid adding that extra load. But REGEN’s system can also handle more complex scenarios that consider dozens of nodes that control various types of loads.

All of this, REGEN states, can add up to a peak electrical demand reduction of 30 percent for commercial and industrial properties.

In the energy efficiency industry, things that save small amounts of energy are fairly simple and inexpensive. But improvements that reduce energy use as much as REGEN’s system are often cost prohibitive on the front end. REGEN promises quick energy reduction with a small up-front expense. And, because the parts of the system communicate wirelessly, it doesn’t require advanced metering or utility-side grid investments. It can work today, in many markets.

“The beauty of our system is that it is simultaneously elegant and simple,” Kerbel said. “It is very easy to install — one node per device you want to manage, and they communicate with each other. It doesn’t require any intervention from a customer’s IT department. So it’s easy to get online quickly and manage your loads without a massive retrofit or capital expense.”

Credit: REGEN Energy

In two early deployments in the U.S. — a big box retailer and a movie theatre chain — REGEN’s system resulted in enough energy savings to recoup the system’s cost in one to two years.

As the consumer electronic world evolves, we expect electrical devices to have this kind of awareness and intelligence. But heating and cooling represent such a large proportion of peak demand that it’s a logical, helpful and profitable place to start. And, because the payback period is so short, this is a great investment for schools, large corporate campuses and other multi-building sites that have intensive energy needs.

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Energy Innovation / Comments are closed

ALEC & Heartland: Freedom Fighters?

By Marita Mirzatuny / Published: November 30, 2012

As we approach a new Congress, and a new Legislative Session here in Texas, the Heartland Institute and their pal the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are gearing up to reverse state renewable energy mandates across the country.

This comes as no surprise as ALEC has a reputation for supporting unpopular agendas, like current legislation it is pushing around the country that would mandate the teaching of climate change denial in public school systems. So while many Americans from differing political affiliations support an increase in renewables – a nearly unanimous 92% of voters, including 84% of Republicans – it seems fitting that ALEC would be on the opposing side.

While the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) are both members of ALEC, I wonder if they will join the ranks of Proctor & Gamble, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods and a whole host of companies who have since parted ways with the “shadowy right-wing front group.”

And it’s not just ALEC that runs off its members. As we wrote back in April, GM announced they were pulling their funding from the Heartland Institute, citing Heartland’s climate change denial. Of course, weeks later Heartland doubled down on their denial with a series of billboards comparing climate change admitters to the likes of Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden.

So this ALEC-Heartland partnership is truly a match made in…well…

Adding to ALEC’s list of anti-environmental goals – including promoting legislation to kill climate policies and providing the framework for legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating toxic coal ash – it now has its sights set on the 29 states that have renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and mandates in place.

And in typical Orwellian fashion this fight is dubbed the “Electricity Freedom Act,” as they deem state standards requiring utilities to get a portion of their electricity from renewable power “essentially a tax on consumers of electricity.” James Taylor, the Heartland Institute’s senior fellow for environmental policy, said he was able to persuade most of ALEC’s state legislators and corporate members to push for a repeal of laws requiring more solar and wind power use on the basis of economics, claiming that, “renewable power mandates are very costly to consumers throughout the 50 states, and that alternative energy, renewable energy, is more expensive than conventional energy.”

But whose freedom are they really protecting and whose freedom are they hindering?

Read More »

Posted in Climate, Washington, DC / Tagged , | Read 2 Responses

Wind Makes Up 26% Of ERCOT Load In November, New Record

By Marita Mirzatuny / Published: November 26, 2012

Source: Environmental Law Institute

Despite having escaped this summer without rolling blackouts and the kind of heat we experienced last year, Texas is still dealing with the energy crunch issue. Luckily, our state is home to the nation’s largest wind power industry and it contains about a fifth of the country’s wind turbines.  The Electric Reliability Grid of Texas (ERCOT), the Texas grid operator, announced that earlier this month wind throughout the state contributed 26 percent of the load on the grid, setting a new record.  On November 10, a total of 8, 521 MW was produced, beating the previous July 19 record.  For the first eight months of this year, wind accounted for 8.7 percent of the grid’s energy.

This is in addition to wind helping Texas avoid blackouts in February of last year, when a cold front proved too much for many traditional power plants. On February 2, 2011, wind energy played a critical role in limiting the severity of the blackouts, providing enough electricity to keep the power on for about three million typical households. ERCOT confirmed that wind provided between 3,500 and 4,000 MW of electricity (about seven percent of ERCOT demand at that time), roughly what it was forecasted and scheduled to provide. Texas wind provided this electricity during the critical 5 to 7 a.m. window when the grid needed power the most.

As an E&E ClimateWire article points out, wind farms in west Texas contributed about 7,000 MW to the system on Nov. 10 when the record was hit. Coastal towers and turbines, which were key to avoiding power shortages last year, contributed about 1,100 MW of supply. Texas holds more than 10,000 MW of wind power capacity overall.

This is all welcomed news for an industry holding its breath as Congress debates the renewal of the expiring Production Tax Credit (PTC) for renewables, which provides a 2.2 cent per kilowatt-hour tax credit for the first ten years of electricity production from utility-scale turbines.

With Texas being a major manufacturer of wind equipment in addition to relying on it for power, many jobs hang in the balance.  According to a Sierra Club report,  “a typical new 250 megawatt wind farm will create 1,079 jobs – manufacturing jobs, construction jobs, engineering jobs and management jobs.” Another report by NRDC estimates that from a 250 MW project, “non-construction businesses would account for 557 jobs — 432 in manufacturing, 80 in planning and development, 18 in sales and distribution and 27 in operations and maintenance. Construction would check in with another 522 jobs, doing things like buildings roads and foundations, installing turbines and wiring and connecting the power plant to the grid.”

In Texas, the expiration of the PTC could not only mean stunting job growth but would also likely create layoffs. According to Walt Hornaday, president of Cielo Wind Power, an Austin-based wind farm developer, “We haven’t had the industry come to a stop like this before in a long, long time.” His company is pursuing work in other countries, but otherwise, he said, “we would definitely be looking at very large layoffs.”  Even Governors Perry’s own report cites a Mitchell Foundation analysis that the expanding wind and solar energy industries are projected to add 6,000 jobs in Texas per year through 2020 and, as of last year, over 1,300 Texas companies employ nearly 100,000 workers in industries directly and indirectly related to renewable energy.

And for those that now claim energy subsidies must end, despite being proponents for fossil fuel dollars, let us not forget what it has taken and continues to take to support the fossil fuel industry. First, the largest subsidies to fossil fuels were written into the U.S. Tax Code as permanent provisions.  Furthermore, the largest break, the Foreign Tax Credit, provides around $2.2 billion annually and applies to the overseas production of oil through an obscure provision of the Tax Code, which allows energy companies to claim a tax credit for payments that would normally receive less-beneficial tax treatment. In an analysis conducted from 2002 to 2008, by the Environmental Law Institute, fossil fuel subsidies accounted for $72 billion over that span of seven years. On the renewable side, over half of the $29 billion subsidy amount supports corn ethanol. For traditional renewables like wind and solar, the total amount received was $12.2 billion, amounting to $1.74 billion annually.

Given Texas’ resource adequacy problems, it makes no sense to divest from a clean resource that provides up to 26 percent of our power while growing the economy.

As we mentioned in August, please contact your elected officials and ask them to renew the PTC before the end of the year. It’s good for Texas, the nation, and the environment.

Posted in Texas / Read 1 Response

California Cap-and-Trade Auction Success

By Tim O'Connor / Published: November 19, 2012

The results of California’s first ever auction for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances are public, marking the start of a new era for stimulating innovative solutions to combat climate change. Coincidentally, earlier today new atmospheric data was released by NOAA showing that 2012 is on pace to be the warmest year, eclipsing the mark set only two years ago.

By establishing a hard cap on emissions and creating a carbon price through a trading mechanism, California’s comprehensive GHG program complements, and is fine-tuned based on experiences from the world’s other climate change cap-and-trade mitigation programs. For example, lessons learned from the world’s largest cap and trade program in the European Union have shown that emissions of GHGs can actually decrease while the economy grows. Similarly, as shown by the Analysis Group’s report of the cap-and-trade program in the Northeastern United States, in addition to creating a strong signal for innovation, money generated through an auction can be invested in ways to cut GHGs even further.

Based on today’s results, California’s program is performing according to the expectations of economic experts and policy makers. The market price ($10.09) for credits that can be used in 2013 was slightly above the floor price of $10 dollars. Also, there were more bids for 2013 credits than credits sold, with 97% of allowances going to covered entities. Put simply, regulated businesses are taking this market seriously and believe they can cut greenhouse gas emissions even more cheaply than anticipated. This is a very good thing for California.

At the same time as the California carbon auction sold 23 million allowances for use starting in 2013, the market also sold 5.5 million allowances for use in 2015 and beyond. This is a clear signal that investors see this as a lasting program, and provides an important signal that the 9 billion plus dollars of clean tech investment made in California since 2006 has strong backing.

A California carbon price opens the door for cleaner energy and clean air, as we finally have an “official” cost of pollution. We are marching more resolutely than ever into an economically and environmentally sustainable future.

 

Posted in General / Comments are closed