Energy Exchange

California Low Carbon Fuels Appellate Court Ruling is a Win on Many Levels

Late yesterday, a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted an important stay motion in favor of California and its Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The court’s decision allows the state to move forward with vital protections for human health and the environment that will strengthen California’s clean energy economy and improve our energy security.

The LCFS is one of California’s most ambitious and innovative climate change regulations to date. It is among 70 measures adopted under AB 32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) that will be used to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The standard calls for reducing the carbon content of fuels by 10 percent by 2020, which is expected to reduce 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution per year by 2020. Some of the cuts will come from improvements in the way traditional oil and ethanol feedstocks are produced, processed and delivered to consumers. Other cuts will come from advancements in breakthrough technologies such as electric cars and renewable fuels that dramatically cut toxic air contaminants and further diversify our fuel supply with locally generated energy sources.

How LCFS Works

The standard creates a flexible system that allows fuel suppliers to comply by either documenting reduced emissions in their fuel production pathways (using a science-based lifecycle emissions model) or by purchasing credits from suppliers that have reduced emissions below a predetermined threshold. This approach rewards innovative solutions that cut emissions as quickly, cheaply and extensively as possible, using a scientifically credible emissions reporting and trading platform.

How LCFS Provides Energy Security and Protection from Fuel Price Surges

California drivers burn about 16 billion gallons of gasoline and 4 billion gallons of diesel fuel every year and emit, in aggregate, approximately 170 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. Much of this fuel is sourced from California oil fields (approximately 200 million barrels per year), though more than 50 percent is imported from the Middle East, South America and Alaska. These imports make our economy vulnerable to price swings and shortages driven by production changes and politics.

There is perhaps no greater embodiment of our state’s vulnerability to imported fossil fuel than dramatic and sustained “price shocks.” These periods of elevated prices impact drivers’ pocket books and transfer huge amounts of money from California’s economy to foreign countries, many of which are hostile to our country.

Since 1995, California has experienced 15 such fuel price shocks, including the current one that has increased fuel prices by about 40 percent above the 24-month moving average. California’s LCFS, an important clean energy policy, is going to break this trend.

The LCFS Incentive to Diversify the Transportation Fuel Mix

California’s LCFS is a scientifically-based standard that provides incentives for fuels that cause less climate change pollution throughout their entire lifecycle. At the same time, the LCFS allows for traditional fuel producers to continue operating as long as they turn in sufficient compliance credits. Fuel sources producing credits include electricity (powering electric vehicles), natural gas, advanced biofuels and some traditional biofuels that emit less carbon than gasoline and diesel. These fuels are typically produced or grown in the Western United States rather than imported from abroad. This results in a more diversified fuel mix that is less vulnerable to fuel price shocks.

Positive Signal for States Looking to Follow California’s Lead

Though the Court of Appeals has yet to hear the case on the merits, yesterday’s ruling is a positive signal that this standard has a strong legal foundation that will likely be upheld on appeal and can be adopted by other states. We trust this is music to the ears of Oregon, which just last week announced a Clean Fuels Program similar to California’s.

Without a federal policy in place to regulate the carbon pollution in fuels, it is critically important that California and other states have the ability to carry out smart, science-based policies such as this standard to cut pollution, reward innovation, and build a stronger, more efficient economy.

EDF will continue pursuing the matter on appeal until a final resolution, an outcome that looks suddenly brighter for California consumers, innovative fuel producers and the environment.

 

 

 

 

Posted in General / Comments are closed

Guest Blog: The Devil In The Design – Energy And Climate Policy Design Matters More Than You Might Think

By: Guest Blogger Joe Indvik, ICF International

Policy design matters. But all too often, this notion is ignored by political pundits and belittled by policymakers in favor of flashy claims about the morality of a policy type. Like the latest sports car, a policy is usually touted as either a gem or a dud based on its superficial image, with only marginal public interest in looking at what’s actually under the hood. On the contrary, data-driven analysis of the inner workings of policy design will be the key to smart solutions on the road ahead for climate and energy policy the U.S.

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill of 2009 is a prime example. Claims about this former centerpiece of the American climate policy debate ran the gamut of dramatic generalization. They ranged from accusations of a job-killing socialist scheme that “would hurt families, business and farmers—basically anyone who drives a car and flips a light switch” to claims from hopeful environmentalists that any cap would be better than nothing.  Discussion on the actual design of the bill was all but absent from the limelight.  Energy policy discourse is often dominated by these combative back-and-forths, which focus on oversimplified notions of whether a policy would be good for the country while glossing over the practical nuances that make all the difference. Read More »

Posted in Climate, Renewable Energy / Tagged , , , , , , , | Read 4 Responses

What Will It Take To Get Sustained Benefits From Natural Gas?

Natural gas is reshaping our energy landscape. Though the potential energy security and economic benefits are compelling, the challenge is that natural gas comes with its own set of risks to public health and the environment, including exposure to toxic chemicals and waste products, faulty well construction and design, local and regional air quality issues and land use and community impacts.

There has also been much confusion about the impacts of increased natural gas use on the climate.  While natural gas burns cleaner than other fossil fuels when combusted, methane leakage from the production and transportation of natural gas has the potential to remove some or all of those benefits, depending on the leakage rate.  Methane is the main ingredient in natural gas and a greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutant many times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal contributor to man-made climate change.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Paper

EDF has teamed up with several respected scientists to find a better way to examine the climatic impacts of increased use of natural gas and compare it in place of other fossil fuels in a paper titled “Greater Focus Needed on Methane Leakage from Natural Gas Infrastructure” published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).  While methane absorbs more heat energy than CO2, making it a much more potent GHG, it also – luckily – has a shorter duration in the atmosphere.  The combination of these factors makes it difficult to compare methane emissions to other GHGs using conventional methods.

Instead, in the PNAS paper, we propose the use of an enhanced scientific method: Technology Warming Potentials (TWPs).  Specifically, this approach reveals the inherent climatic trade-offs of different policy and investment choices involving electricity and transportation.  It illustrates the importance of accounting for methane leakage across the value chain of natural gas (i.e. production, processing and delivery) when considering fuel-switching scenarios from gasoline, diesel fuel and coal to natural gas.  TWPs allow researchers, policy makers and business leaders to make fuel and technology choices while better accounting for their climate impacts.

PNAS Paper Key Findings

We illustrated the new approach by analyzing commonly discussed policy options.  Using the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) best available estimated leakage rate of 2.1% of gas produced (through long-distance transmission pipelines but excluding local distribution pipelines), generating electricity from natural gas in new combined cycle power plants decreases our contribution to climate change, compared to new coal-fired plants.  This is true as long as methane leakage rates stay under 3.2%.

Natural gas powered cars, in contrast, do not reduce climate impacts unless leakage rates are reduced to 1.6% (compared to our estimate of current “well-to-wheels” leakage of 3.0%).  In heavy trucks, the reduction would need to be even more pronounced—converting a fleet of heavy duty trucks to natural gas damages the climate unless leakage is reduced below 1.0%.

The PNAS paper only provides illustrative calculations with EPA’s current estimate of the methane leakage rate and better data is needed to more accurately determine leak rates.  Measuring how much gas is lost to the atmosphere and where the leaks are occurring will help to further target leak reduction opportunities to ensure that natural gas will help mitigate climate change.  EDF is working to obtain extensive empirical data on methane released to the atmosphere across the natural gas supply chain, since the climatic bottom line of fuel switching scenarios involving natural gas is very sensitive to this parameter.

Not only is the data on methane leakage far from definitive, but climate impacts from leakage – and other key public health and environmental risks – could be reduced by strong standards and improved industry practices.  There are many practices and technologies already being used in states such as Colorado and Wyoming, and elsewhere by natural gas companies to reduce gas losses, which results in greater recovery and sale of natural gas, and thus increased economic gains. The return on the initial investment for many of these practices is sometimes as short as a few months and almost always less than two years.  In these tough economic times, it would seem wise to eliminate waste, save money and reduce environmental impact.

In sum, the paper’s results suggest that methane leakage rates matter: they can materially affect the relative climate impacts of natural gas over coal and oil.  While the paper does not draw hard and fast conclusions about the future implications of fuel switching, it does provide guidance in terms of the leak rates necessary for fuel switching to produce climate benefits at all points in time.

EDF Methane Leakage Model

We also released a new methane leakage model, based on the science described in the PNAS paper, which allows anyone to test a range of scenarios to quantify the climate benefits, or damages, of natural gas production and usage given specific methane leakage rates.  Users can vary the key system attributes independently to see how they affect net radiative forcing (the primary index used to quantify the effect of greenhouse gases [GHGs] on global temperatures) from U.S. emissions over time.  Visit http://www.edf.org/methaneleakage to plug in different variables and observe the outcome.

For more information, visit http://www.edf.org/methaneleakage.

Posted in Methane, Natural Gas / Read 1 Response

General Motors Reposts EDF, Revokes The Heartland Institute

(Source: www.inhabitat.com)

Did EDF’s own Jamie Fine and Colin Meehan have a little influence on General Motors (GM)? Perhaps? Just a few days after GM reposted on their website a blog written by Jamie and Colin on the EDF Energy Exchange explaining the Chevy Volt’s brief production suspension and emphasizing it is not a reason to worry about the future of electric vehicles (EVs), GM decides to change course on climate change. Whereas once they were a denier by proxy, they have now seen the light. On Friday, GM announced they are pulling funding from the climate-denial group the Heartland Institute, an industry front group with contributors like Charles Koch and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

This announcement came after GM’s CEO Dan Akerson gave a speech last month stating that they are operating under the assumption that climate change is happening. This new messaging for GM is now consistent with their advances in alternative auto technologies such as the Volt. It would be difficult for many consumers to choose the Volt while wondering why GM takes those dollars – $45,000 over the last 3 years including 2012 – and funds active climate deniers like the Heartland Institute.

As we told you a few weeks ago, the recent pause in production of the Volt is not a reason to worry. Despite not reaching their rather optimistic sales projections, the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf are actually beating the sales history of their hybrid cousins. When the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight were offered as the first commercially available hybrids in 2000, only 9,350 cars were sold. The Prius is now among the best selling cars in the U.S. with over 2 million vehicles on the road. Meanwhile just last Friday, GM announced that record Volt sales in March are reportedly leading them to consider ramping up production. Change takes time and if the Volt is already outpacing its hybrid competitors, we can potentially expect millions of Volts on the road in the next decade. But you wouldn’t believe that if you listened to the naysayers.

Maybe after being on the receiving end of faux alarmists – who are all too excited to write the obituary for “Government Motors” and a fossil free future – GM is rethinking its support for groups that ignore the truth and distort facts just the same.

Posted in Climate, Electric Vehicles / Comments are closed

Energy Innovation Series Feature #2: Fuel Cell Technology From Bloom Energy

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.

For more information on this featured innovation, please view this video on Bloom Energy’s fuel cell technology.

California-based Bloom Energy is developing a different approach to power generation that has already had a profound impact on the way electricity is produced around the world.

Bloom Energy’s technology relies on fuel cells, which use an electrochemical process in which oxygen and fuel (natural gas or biogas) react to produce small amounts of electricity.  When these fuel cells are stacked upon each other and arranged into large modules called Bloom Energy Servers™ or “Boxes,” they produce up to 200 kW of on-site power.  This is enough power to meet the baseload needs of the average office building or 160 average homes.

Furthermore, this approach has the potential to reduce customers’ CO2 emissions by “40%-100% compared to the U.S. grid (depending on their fuel choice) and virtually eliminate all SOx, NOx, and other harmful smog forming particulate emissions.”  It also enables the possibility of affordable on-site, user-owned power generation that is as constant and reliable as a utility and   provides an attractive economic payback for customers.

This kind of technology is a win-win economically and environmentally; one from which all sectors stand to benefit.  The Bloom Energy Server also makes the micro-generation concept feasible.  Imagine subdivisions, apartment complexes or neighborhoods with their own carbon-free (if powered by renewables), mini power plants.

Source: Bloom Energy

Founded in 2001, Bloom Energy sold its first Bloom Box to Google and can trace its roots to the NASA Mars space program.  In the last few years, the company has lined up an impressive list of name-brand customers, including eBay, Walmart, Coca-Cola and FedEx and is rumored, according to GigaOm and others, to be “the supplier behind Apple’s planned massive 5 megawatt (MW) fuel cell farm to be built at its data center in Maiden, North Carolina.”  If built, this would be the nation’s biggest non-utility fuel cell installation.

In the U.S., much of the attention the Bloom Box has generated has focused on these large corporate customers.  But the on-site generation concept could make its biggest impact in developing nations like India and China, where small communities and villages don’t have an electric infrastructure and new energy sources are in high demand. 

The Bloom Box also has the potential to address problems here at home, with reliability concerns facing electric grids throughout the country. In Texas, where the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) struggles with how to add new capacity to meet growing peak demands and reduce water dependency at the same time, the Bloom Box offers an approach that can provide power at well below the peak prices paid for electricity during last year’s record drought.

To learn more about this topic, please view this post by Nobile Profit.

Update: eBay announced on June 21, 2012, that it will be using Bloom Energy fuel cell technology to construct a large-scale project at its data center in Utah. The proposed 30 fuel cells (the largest non-utility fuel cell installation) will run on biogas and will make their data center independent of the electricity grid.

Posted in Energy Innovation, General / Read 3 Responses

Financing Energy Efficiency Upgrades In Commercial Properties

An Update

Last September, I wrote about some of the barriers that commercial building owners face when they want to finance energy efficiency upgrades for their properties.  The post also discussed an innovative new strategy called an Energy Services Agreement (ESA) that removes several of these barriers.  Since that time, several of the companies mentioned in that post have continued to innovate and make great progress.  I thought it would be useful to provide an update on some of their key accomplishments.

Transcend Equity

Yesterday, Transcend Equity (Transcend) announced that they are being acquired by SCIenergy, a leading energy management solutions company.  This acquisition should provide Transcend with access to additional technology, customers, capital and marketing resources.  EDF is excited to see what the combined company can accomplish.

Transcend recently made a commitment to fund $100 million of energy efficiency (EE) projects as part of the Better Buildings Challenge and broke ground on an ESA transaction in New York City.  Transcend is partnered with Mitsui to provide equity capital for their projects.

Abundant Power

Abundant Power is a diversified EE finance firm that works on a variety of products including Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE), On-Bill Finance and revolving loan funds in addition to the ESA structure.  Recently, they have helped Alabama establish a $60 million revolving loan fund and Washington, DC establish a commercial PACE program that could finance up to $250 million of EE upgrades.  Abundant Power has also committed $100 million of financing as part of the Better Buildings Challenge.

Green Campus Partners

Green Campus Partners (GCP) has arranged over $350 million in EE financings for public sector properties and completed two ESA transactions in 2011 for private universities.  GCP committed to Better Buildings Challenge $100 million of EE financings in 2011 and another $200 million in 2012.  The firm exceeded its target in 2011 and expects to do the same in 2012.

GCP has also worked with EDF on the Clean Heat NYC campaign and recently signed a major development agreement with St. Barnabas Hospital to finance their conversion away from dirty heating oil.

Groom Energy

Groom is a Boston based EE project developer that offers ESA-style financings for customers.  To date they have been most active in the commercial and industrial space.  Groom is also a thought leader in the Enterprise Smart Grid which uses advanced technology to monitor and reduce energy usage behind the meter.  This morning, Groom published a comprehensive report on the topic.

Metrus Energy

Metrus Energy (Metrus) has had a very productive start to 2012 including a recent high-profile ESA project selection and a pipeline of advanced stage projects that totals $50 million. Metrus has broadened the geographic diversity of its pipeline which now spreads across the commercial, industrial and institutional markets, with active projects under development in the financial institutions, media and entertainment, telecommunications, hospital, higher education and non-profit sectors. Metrus is on-pace to exceed its $75 million investment commitment under the Better Buildings Challenge program. On the project implementation front, Metrus is actively advancing its existing ESA program with BAE systems with the addition of several multi-million dollar projects at new BAE sites. BAE Systems is a global company engaged in the development, delivery and support of advanced defense, security and aerospace systems.  Metrus has also expanded its base of Energy Services Companies (ESCOs), contractors and energy utility channels by adding 25 new partners.             

Carbon Lighthouse

Since launch in 2010, Carbon Lighthouse (CL) has completed projects at 70+ office towers, schools, community centers and industrial facilities in California and Oregon. CL achieves its mission by combining energy efficiency, retro-commissioning, demand response, solar and competition for pollution permits into one simple package for customers.  CL primarily provides projects on a deferred compensation basis similar to an ESA, and can also provide customers with third party direct ESAs or utility On-Bill Finance and Repayment programs.

Conclusion

EDF has worked with each of these five firms and we are encouraged by their energy, focus and innovation.  Each firm has a somewhat different business strategy and mix of products, but the EE market should be large enough to support a variety of business models.  We look forward to continuing to work with these firms and others as this critical market grows in the coming years.

Posted in Energy Efficiency, On-bill repayment / Tagged | Read 1 Response