Energy Exchange

Let’s Improve Texas’ Energy Efficiency Programs Instead Of Adding More Red Tape

By / Published: June 14, 2012

Summer is upon us: in Austin on Monday the mercury hit 101 degrees, with the humidity it felt like 110; this can be compared to a historical average high of 92 degrees this time of year.  This weather report won’t surprise anyone that follows global warming trends: according to a report earlier this week, Texas is one of the 10 fastest warming states in the U.S. Since 1970, average temperatures have risen 2.3 degrees in the Lone Star state.  Rising temperatures mean rising demand and more stress on our already strained electric grid, so you would think the state would be focused on near term solutions for rising energy demand, specifically energy efficiency and conservation.

(Credit: www.poonamsagar.com)

The timing couldn’t be better either: last year, the state of Texas passed legislation to increase and strengthen energy efficiency programs and the Public Utility Commission (PUC) is currently developing a new rule around that legislation.  While this appears to be good news, some parts of the PUC’s proposed rule actually would hurt energy efficiency programs and decrease the effectiveness of current programs by adding unnecessary red tape and discouraging efficiency.  At the same time, the PUC has contracted with outside consultants to ask citizens to turn up their thermostats during the hottest days of the summer.  Such public appeals are commendable, but it doesn’t make sense to add red tape to proven programs that allow customers to reduce energy use without turning up their thermostats, while at the same time spending money on unproven programs that are difficult to verify.

At a PUC workshop last week, stakeholders voiced many of the concerns around proposed changes that would weaken energy efficiency programs.  Most stakeholders seemed to agree that the PUC proposal creates new problems without resolving existing ones, like better monitoring of existing programs to ensure they are working.  With temperatures rising and our electric grid already strained, we can’t afford those kinds of fixes. Given the broad stakeholder agreement, we hope the PUC will remember “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Texas / Comments are closed

When Utilities Embrace The Smart Grid, Customers And The Environment Win

By EDF Blogs / Published: May 31, 2012

By: Scott Robinson, EDF Energy Intern and Energy & Earth Resources Fellow at The University of Texas at Austin, Jackson School of Geosciences

Source: Greentech Media

Earlier this month, Greentech Media released their “Top Ten Utility Smart Grid Deployments in North America.”  These are utilities that deserve recognition—while most experts agree that bringing the transformative power of information technology to the grid is critical to achieving a clean, low-carbon economy,  being an early adopter means carrying a certain amount of risk.  A utility’s willingness to take on this risk demonstrates a long-term commitment to its customers.  EDF is championing well-designed smart grids as the path to abundant, cheaper and cleaner energy.  Because utilities will be responsible for building and operating this new “energy internet,” our push for smart grid innovation has led to productive partnerships with several of Greentech Media’s top ten.

In Austin, Texas, we are working with Austin Energy and the University of Texas, among others, to develop the Pecan Street smart grid demonstration project in the Mueller community: a real neighborhood and living laboratory that will allow researchers to better understand what smart grid will look like on the ground, as well as how individual technologies—from smart appliances to residential solar PV to electric vehicles—will interact to enable greater reliance on renewable and community-based resources.  For consumers, this means real-time insight into how they’re using energy and its true cost: understanding its source and emissions to help them make decisions that save money and shrink their environmental footprint.

In Charlotte, North Carolina, EDF is working with Duke Energy and others on the Envision Charlotte project to increase energy management in big downtown buildings, improve local air quality and reduce water consumption and waste in a concentrated urban area. We are helping to implement the use of smart grid technologies with the ultimate goal of reducing energy consumption by 20 percent in 60 high-rises over five years: through better information for building occupants about their energy use and tools enabling them to act on that insight.  Also, during the summer of 2011, two EDF Climate Corps fellows reviewed three buildings in Mecklenburg County (where Charlotte is located) and found energy efficiency measures that could save the county more than $500,000 in just five years.

In California, EDF has worked on multiple cutting-edge projects, including working directly with San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) – the nation’s most intelligent utility  – and developing a “scorecard ” to evaluate the Smart Grid Deployment Plans of California’s three largest investor-owned utilities’ – SDG&E, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE) for their overall direction in meeting environmental and savings goals.  We will continue to drive the benefits from the smart grid for Californian’s utility bills, health and environment. 

To maximize environmental returns on these multi-billion dollar investments in grid modernization, it is critical that utilities develop holistic plans and build open platforms that give customers access to new energy saving technologies and “apps” and enable scale integration of renewables and electric vehicles.  Done right, the smart grid will drive the clean energy revolution we need—helping utilities reliably deliver power, securing our energy independence, increasing our ability to compete in the global clean energy market, growing our economy and empowering consumers—all while protecting our air, water, and health.  EDF is committed to finding ways that allow utilities and consumers to reap the benefits of their investment in the future.

Our partnerships with utilities have led to a greater understanding of the smart grid as an emerging solution to today’s environmental and electricity problems.  We look forward to continuing our work with these energy pioneers and expanding our partnerships to help other utilities get their projects off the ground.

Posted in Grid Modernization / Read 2 Responses

Energy Innovation Series Feature #5: Data Analytics From GridGlo

By Jim Marston / Published: May 31, 2012
Throughout 2012, EDF’s Energy Innovation Series will highlight more than 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.
 
GridGlo uses “data fusion” to analyze and predict energy consumption behavior.  Find more information on this featured innovation here. 
 

The smart grid industry is more than a foundation for solar energy and electric vehicles. It is also a treasure trove of information that requires a much more sophisticated way to capture, analyze and use the billions of bytes of information that a modernized grid and its many components will generate.

Add to that the massive amounts of weather, social, emissions and other kinds of data already being collected and you can see that a smarter grid is going offer lots of job opportunities to data geeks and software engineers.

Media and analysts predict that the smart grid information sector will be a multi-billion dollar market and companies are already jockeying for big data market leadership, from established IT giants like IBM and energy hardware companies like Landys+Gyr, to tech-driven start-ups like Florida-based GridGlo.

GridGlo works with utilities to integrate energy usage and behavioral data using its unique software platform to identify, score and predict energy consumption behavior. One of its products, Energy People Meter™ (EPM), provides a real-time digital fingerprint of energy behavior patterns and creates score that helps utilities (and consumers) save energy and money.

“Utilities have spent billions upgrading their metering infrastructure,” said GridGlo’s founder and CEO Isaias Sudit. “But those systems are now generating a lot of data and the utilities need help figuring out how to use it effectively. Our software allows them to save money on the infrastructure side, while providing new and exciting services to their customers.”

Utilities have long used data as a forensic tool to help pinpoint problems that happened in the past, such as blackouts. The real opportunity and challenge, according to Sudit, is moving from using energy data to tell us what has happened, to using it to tell us what is happening right now – and eventually, helping us predict what will happen in the future.

That kind of predictive analysis requires merging energy data with other data sets, like weather, lifestyle trends or demographics – a process GridGlo calls “data fusion.” For example, utilities could use known demographics of likely electric vehicle buyers to better plan where infrastructure improvements are needed – before the grid is overstressed. Or national or regional demographic shifts could help utilities or regulators better plan transmission construction.

“Ultimately, all of this has to show value to the customer,” Sudit said. Eventually, he thinks data fusion will be used by third party service providers and app makers, much like mobile, location and social data is used to power some of today’s most popular products.

“But our most urgent need is to show how utilities can use this information to provide value directly to customers,” he said. “If we can do that, the secondary markets will follow.”

 

Posted in Energy Innovation, General / Comments are closed

Ohio Energy Bill Falls Short Of Governor’s Vision For Chemical Disclosure

By Matt Watson / Published: May 25, 2012

Ohio Governor John Kasich showed real leadership earlier this month when he introduced energy bill with the most comprehensive rules in the country for chemical disclosure during oil and gas operations. The Governor’s bill would have required disclosure of not only the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing – as a number of other states have done – but also the full range of chemicals used throughout the lifecycle of a well. Hydraulic fracturing gets all the attention, but the Governor and his team understand that dangerous chemicals are also used in drilling, producing, servicing and shutting down wells. The entire process should be transparent from beginning to end — “from spud to plug,” as it’s called.

This was smart policy when the Governor proposed it. And it’s smart policy today. Unfortunately, the energy bill passed yesterday by the Ohio General Assembly fails to fully deliver on that vision. In the face of intense industry opposition, lawmakers eliminated many of the reporting requirements contained in the original bill. EDF is disappointed the final bill does not live up to what Governor Kasich proposed, but we give the Governor credit for putting the idea forward and expanding the terms of the debate – both in Ohio and nationally.

To be fair, even in its scaled-back version, the Ohio disclosure policy breaks new ground. It requires disclosure of the chemicals used in stimulating a well. This includes not just hydraulic fracturing but also other kinds of stimulation techniques – something most states have missed in their disclosure rules.

Additionally, companies will be required to disclose the chemicals used in a well until the surface casing is set in place. As we testified in the Ohio House, this still leaves the public in the dark about a lot of dangerous chemicals that are used to drill and operate a well. But again, it’s a step forward compared to what other states have done.

We’re disappointed, though, by changes the House made to the trade secret provisions in the bill. In the original version, companies would have been required to report trade secret information to the Department of Natural Resources. This would have ensured that the agency had quick access to chemical information it might need to respond to a spill, initiate an investigation or respond to a complaint.  Under industry pressure, the Assembly caved on that language, and companies will now be allowed to withhold trade secret information from the regulators. 

The bill establishes an unqualified right for certain land owners to challenge trade secret claims in court. So, there’s at least a mechanism in place to police the system and make sure companies aren’t hiding behind bogus trade secret claims. But it would have been far better to have trade secrets turned over to the state – not only in cases where this information is needed to protect public health and safety, but also because it would have given anyone, not just the land owners, a right to challenge trade secrets under the Ohio Public Records Act.

This is a big bill. It addresses a wide range of issues – not just oil and gas – and includes far too much to cover here. It has some good provisions, such as new requirements for companies to report where they’re getting their water from and how much they’re using, and requirements for companies to test the baseline water quality in nearby water wells before they start drilling. The bill also has some really bad provisions – like an egregious one that strips citizens of the right to appeal permits issued to oil and gas operators.

The passage of the energy bill is not the end of the process: the agency rules implementing this bill will be written in the months ahead, and EDF will be working to make sure they are as strong as possible. And we’ll be working on other rules to reduce the risks oil and gas operations pose to communities and the environment.

This includes improving Ohio’s rules for air pollution from oil and gas operations. It means making sure we have tough standards in place to manage the huge waste streams these operations produce. It means putting smart planning in place to preserve landscapes and protect the fabric of local communities. And sooner rather than later, it’s going to mean coming back to the General Assembly and fixing what didn’t get done right the first time.

Posted in Natural Gas / Read 2 Responses

University At Buffalo’s Shale Resources And Society Institute’s ‘Environmental Impacts During Shale Gas Drilling’ Report

By Scott Anderson / Published: May 16, 2012

The University at Buffalo’s Shale Resources and Society Institute issued a report yesterday, “Environmental Impacts During Shale Gas Drilling: Causes, Impacts and Remedies,” which offers a quantitative data review of Pennsylvania’s regulation of natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale. The press release notes that I was a reviewer for the report.

While I was a reviewer, this does not mean that all of my suggestions were taken or that I agree with all of the report’s opinions and conclusions.

Does the report have strengths? Absolutely. Unfortunately, it is hard to find understandable, comprehensive data describing natural gas industry environmental violations and the responses taken by enforcement agencies. The University at Buffalo has done a great service by bringing such information to light for the period studied (2008 through August 2011).

At the same time, several of the opinions and conclusions in the report are questionable. These include: 

  • The idea that a violation isn’t an “environmental” concern if it is a violation of “paperwork” or “preventative” regulations and didn’t result in immediate, actual harm to the environment.
     
  • Characterizing the rate of environmental violations (narrowly defined) as “low” in the first eight months of 2011 when, even using a narrow definition of environmental violation, violations were found at 26.5% of the wells drilled.
     
  • The suggestion that the present regulatory program is effective because the incidence of “environmental violations” (narrowly defined) declined from 58.2% of wells in 2008 to 26.5% of wells in 2011.

In sum, there’s a lot of good information to be gleaned from the study, but caution should be exercised with regards to some of the conclusions.

Posted in Natural Gas / Read 5 Responses

ANGA’s New Texas Report Serves Up A Heaping Helping Of ‘Number Salad’

By / Published: April 26, 2012

The American Natural Gas Association (ANGA) released a paper in March titled “Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth,” to a lot of press, and rightly so.  The paper correctly cites several benefits of using and producing natural gas in Texas: it is produced in-state, has water use and air-quality benefits when compared to coal and helps to fund state and local governments through taxes. 

Unfortunately, the paper also makes some claims that are difficult to take seriously; perhaps the first warning sign should be that while the paper was presented as an economic analysis, the authors have no economic credentials.  Dr. Michael J. Economides, a chemical and biomolecular professor at the University of Houston, and petroleum engineering consultant Philip E. Lewis spend little time worrying about the details in this report, serving up a heaping helping of “number salad.”

For instance, the $7.7 billion “loss” is calculated by projecting the potential use of gas in Texas, if it had followed the national trend, against the actual use.  But in looking at the data, it’s not clear that the Texas fuel mix ever tracked the national fuel mix.  Even more importantly, looking at the authors’ own slides, Texas uses 20% more natural gas in its fuel mix than the nation.  If anything, the national fuel mix is following the trend set long ago by Texas —adding more natural gas and wind, while decreasing coal output.

What might shock the authors is that natural gas consumption in the electric power sector has increased by around 5,000 one thousand cubic feet of gas (MCF) since 2006, 800 MCF in transportation and nearly 10,000 MCF in the industrial sector. 

There are so many misleading statistics and inaccuracies that we could practically write a report on the report, but instead I’ll just focus on one aspect that stands out in particular. 

When it comes to comparing natural gas to coal power, the authors are quick to cite the many local benefits of using natural gas energy produced in Texas: it’s cleaner than coal and creates local jobs and a local tax base.  Wind energy has largely produced the same benefits: local wind power has brought jobs and a growing tax base and population to rural Texas counties that “had seen consistent, significant population losses since 1950.”  On top of the economic development benefits, where natural gas beats coal in reducing pollution, wind energy beats both by reducing pollution basically to zero.  But when it comes to discussing any of these benefits from wind energy in the report, the silence is deafening. 

Natural gas is reshaping our energy landscape.  And, done right—with the proper, mandatory environmental safeguards in place and reduced methane leakage rates—compared to coal plants, natural gas power plants offer other distinct air quality benefits.  It emits less greenhouse gases than coal when combusted and avoids mercury and other dangerous air pollutants that come from coal.

However, the same – and more – can be said about wind energy and Texas’ potential clean energy resources, including solar and geothermal power, among others.  Rather than pitting our local clean energy resources against each other as this report does, we should seek to expand and diversify our clean energy mix, reaping health, environmental, economic and security benefits.

Posted in Natural Gas, Renewable Energy, Texas / Read 1 Response