Energy Exchange

Energy Producers Capture More Today Than In “Good Old Days” But We’ll All Benefit If They Do Better

By Ramon Alvarez, Ph.D. / Published: September 22, 2011

In the frontier days of drilling in the 1900s, discoveries such as Spindletop in Texas and the Drake in Pennsylvania heralded a new era of energy for America. Back then, the gaseous by-product produced at the wellhead was considered a nuisance and flared (burned) or released into the air. Today, it’s considered a valuable energy source and routinely harnessed, which results in economic and  environmental benefits. Capturing gas cuts emissions that contribute to ground-level ozone, cause cancer, and contribute to climate change.

Given that it’s 2011, we’re way past the conditions of the 1900s. But, whereas the process of capturing natural gas as an energy source has come a long way, many improvements must still be made to ensure producers capture the maximum amount of natural gas “upstream” at wellheads and throughout the gas processing and transportation network.

Just because the gas can’t be seen doesn’t mean it isn’t hazardous. In the last three years, new data shows that natural gas leaks might be twice as high as previously thought. This means that a lot more air pollution is fouling the air we breathe.

The pollution comes from equipment on-site (tanks, valves, compressor engines, flanges), at processing plants (where raw natural gas is purified for residential and commercial use) and throughout the pipeline system.

If you know anyone that lives near drilling sites — such as the Barnett Shale in Texas, the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, Piceance and big chunks of Colorado and Wyoming — you’ve likely heard stories about their public health and environmental impacts.

EDF sponsored a study showing that the emissions produced by natural gas operations around Barnett Shale rival those from 4 million cars and trucks in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area. Around the country, those who live nearby drilling sites have reported higher incidents of health concerns including respiratory and skin irritation, neurological problems, dizziness and headaches. And in some instances, elevated levels of benzene — a known carcinogen — have been detected.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed rules that would require use of technologies and practices to capture more of the natural gas now being allowed into the air. These clean air standards are sensible, which makes you wonder why it’s taken a century to put these rules into place at the national level. It also makes you wonder why industry would fight them when they can capture more natural gas and bring it to market. Indeed, in addition to the health and environmental benefits of the rule, there are economic benefits.

A number of natural gas companies already use the practices that the EPA is proposing to cut methane and are touting the resulting economic benefits.

Similar requirements to those the EPA proposed have been in place in Colorado and Wyoming without adverse affects on companies’ profits. Who isn’t for a win-win solution?

I’ll be blogging more about this proposal in the coming days. Please get involved by writing to the EPA in favor of updated clean air protections. We also invite you to join us and share your thoughts with the EPA at the upcoming public hearings in: Pittsburgh, Sept. 27; Denver, Sept. 28; and in Arlington, Texas on Sept. 29. If you can’t make the hearings, you can submit comments online until Oct. 24.

There’s no better time than now to make your voice heard and show your support for clean air.

 

 

 

Posted in Climate, Natural Gas / Comments are closed

Reasons To Be Cheerful: EDF Climate Corps Finds $650 Million In Energy Savings

By Michael Regan / Published: September 21, 2011

By: Victoria Mills, Managing Director of Corporate Partnerships for EDF, and Michael Regan, Director of Energy Efficiency, EDF

Recent headlines paint a gloomy picture of our economy, with its looming deficits and stubborn unemployment rate. And let’s not forget the steady stream of evidence that climate change is already happening.  But today, a ray of sunshine breaks through these cloudy skies:  the news that companies, cities and universities  have found ways to save millions of dollars while avoiding hundreds of thousands of metric tons of carbon pollution.  How did they do it?  EDF Climate Corps.

Today, EDF announced that this summer’s class of Climate Corps fellows uncovered efficiencies in lighting, computer equipment, and heating and cooling systems that can:

  • Cut 600 million kilowatt hours of electricity use and 27 million therms of natural gas annually, equivalent to the annual energy use of 38,000 homes;
  • Avoid 440,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions annually, equivalent to the annual emissions of 87,000 passenger vehicles; and
  • Save $650 million in net operational costs over the project lifetimes.

Thanks to the work of our EDF Climate Corps fellows, organizations as diverse as McDonald’s, Target, the New York City Housing Authority, and North Carolina Agricultural & Technical University all found significant cost savings and greenhouse gas reductions through energy efficiency.  This is indeed cause for celebration.

But imagine how good the news would be if everyone reaped the full benefits of energy efficiency.  The opportunity is enormous:  McKinsey & Co. estimate that by 2020, the U.S. could reduce its energy consumption by 23 percent through energy efficiency measures, cutting CO2 emissions by over a gigaton and saving over a trillion dollars.

EDF created Climate Corps to cut carbon pollution by overcoming the barriers that prevent organizations from investing in energy efficiency.  Now in its fourth year, EDF Climate Corps has grown from 7 fellows in 2008 to 96 in 2011, and expanded to a nationwide program that spans corporate, academic and government sectors.  For us at EDF, the best news of all is our implementation rate:  to date, projects accounting for 86 percent of the energy savings identified by 2008-2010 EDF Climate Corps fellows are complete or underway.

We’d love to bring some of this good news to your organization.  Visit edfclimatecorps.org to learn how to hire an EDF Climate Corps fellow in 2012, or email us at info@edfclimatecorps.org.

EDF Climate Corps places specially-trained MBA and MPA students in companies, cities and universities to develop practical, actionable energy efficiency plans. Sign up to receive emails about EDF Climate Corps, including regular blog posts by our fellows. You can also visit our Facebook page or follow us on Twitter to get regular updates about this project.

Posted in EDF Climate Corps / Tagged , | Read 1 Response

Playing Politics With Power

By / Published: September 15, 2011

Source: The Lookout

Déjà Vu All Over Again
Listen carefully these days and you might think it was last year, 2009, or even 2006.  Just a year ago, Governor Perry lambasted the EPA’s decision that Texas’ air permitting program was illegal and amounted to special treatment for a single state when all other states are in compliance with the law.  In a statement at the time Perry claimed “The EPA’s irresponsible and heavy-handed action …. threatens thousands of Texas jobs, families, businesses and communities throughout our state.” Perry went on to claim that “it will also likely curtail energy supplies and increase gasoline prices nationwide.”  Last month the EPA announced that every former Texas permit holder is now successfully working with the agency on their new permits.  No more claims of job losses or gasoline shortages, just companies working with regulators to abide by the law and protect the health of Texans.

In 2006, TXU (now Luminant), the largest power plant owner in Texas, announced that they needed to build 11 coal plants to make sure there weren’t any rolling blackouts in the next few years.  A serious PR campaign ensued with TXU and Governor Perry trying to fast track the coal plants, but as it turned out, they weren’t needed, and that’s part of the reason TXU is now known as the Energy Future Holdings (EFH), the parent company of Luminant.  In fact, the coal plants that Luminant did build, Oak Grove and Sandow, were a big part of the reason Texas experienced the blackouts in February – supposedly reliable, 24-hour coal plants tripped offline when it got too cold.

Repetitive Stress Injury
Raising the threat of job losses, blackouts or other specters has become so common for Perry and industry that it probably amounts to muscle memory at this point. It reached a new level this week, however, when Luminant decided that it would lay people off in order to make a statement.  While Luminant may not like the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), it’s essentially a “Good Neighbor” rule and none of the clean air protections in the rule require any power plants to shut down.  Companies like Luminant make the decision — either invest in common retrofits like scrubbers to clean up pollution or close down old and poorly controlled plants and replace them with cleaner more efficient generation.

Numerous companies, such as Houston based Dynegy, Exelon, PPL Generation and NRG Energy, have publicly announced that they are well-prepared to meet the updated clean air protections.  As Dynegy’s CEO Robert Flexon points out: “Any efforts to delay or derail CSAPR would undermine the reasonable, investment-based expectations of Dynegy.  In our case, CSAPR allows competitive markets to confer deserved economic returns on our investments in clean energy technology.”  In his Houston Chronicle business column today, Loren Steffy muses: “Funny how much difference good financing and a little planning can make. After all, power generators knew that, sooner or later, stricter air standards were coming.”

Scare Tactics
This also means that claims of rolling blackouts are vastly overstated.  While a study released by Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) has received a lot of coverage, the headlines have focused far more on flash than substance.  In fact, ERCOT admits that Texas has had 6 years to prepare for this rule, beginning with the passage of the Clean Air Interstate Rule in 2006, which included Texas.   What’s even more troubling is that ERCOT seems to assume that neither the grid operator, nor any of the power companies, intends to learn from the lessons of this past year in terms of better preparations for extreme weather.   ERCOT assumes that this time next year our power plants will again be unprepared for long periods of hot weather.  In Texas.

In fact, a close reading of the ERCOT study actually rebuts the most popular arguments of state officials and industry that Texas had no warning that this rule was coming:

“The rule is a replacement for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was implemented in 2005. The CAIR was remanded to the EPA by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2008. In the CAIR program, Texas was regulated for particulate matter emissions (annual NOX and SO2 emissions).”

In their presentation to the Texas Public Utilities Commission (PUC), ERCOT directly contradicted the claims of industry and officials protesting this rule.  At the center of this argument is the idea that EPA’s modeling, which shows increased prices for low sulfur coal, is incorrect.  ERCOT’s conclusions seem to support the EPA’s modeling, though, stating that the rule “will have impacts on national fuel markets, increasing demand for natural gas and low sulfur sub-bituminous coal.”

A Texas Tradition: Politicizing ERCOT
It would be much easier to take ERCOT’s study seriously if the organization hadn’t become so politicized over the last 5 years.  In 2006 TXU (now Luminant) seized on a flawed ERCOT analysis to justify the need to build 11 new coal plants to boost reserve margins in 2009/2010.  The plan stalled and 2010 reserve margins proved much higher than ERCOT’s original projections.  Since then, using ERCOT studies to meet the needs of the moment has become a science, whether it serves the needs of someone running for President on a platform of clean air bashing or one of the companies running their committees.

In the latest example, the desired outcome of ERCOT’s latest study was made clear by a number of public statements from Texas PUC Chairwoman Nelson prior to the study’s release, including her August 4th letter to the EPA and her statement in late August:  “I have no doubt in my mind that this rule will result in reliability issues and rolling outages in Texas.”  It’s a little like the boy who cried wolf, but this time businesses are laying off workers because their management team failed to plan accordingly to abide by the law.   It’s an especially hard claim to swallow given that ERCOT’s own planning documents show over 12,000 MW of resources are expected to come online within the next few years.

Gambling Away Jobs
The truth is that Luminant, just like Dynegy, Exelon, NRG, the Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin Energy and San Antonio’s CPS made a choice in 2005.  As other companies planned for compliance, Luminant chose to fight it, gambling with their shareholders’ money and their employees’ jobs.  Think of this: In 2005, there were 32 other power plants in the nation that emitted more sulfur dioxide (SO2) than Luminant’s Martin Lake coal plant.  By 2010 there were only three.  At the time, Luminant probably thought that by not investing in retrofits like scrubbers to clean up pollution, they could get ahead of the competition.  Ironically, what they have found out instead is that they are actually behind the competition, and now their employees may suffer for poor decisions made by management.

Posted in Climate, Grid Modernization, Texas / Read 1 Response

Fulfilling The Spelman Legacy: A Choice To Change The World

By EDF Blogs / Published: August 26, 2011

By: Melissa Wise, 2011 Climate Corps Public Sector Fellow at Spelman College; MBA candidate at Keller Graduate School of Management

Here I am back on Spelman’s campus.  It’s been eight years since the first time I walked through their gates as a student.  I never thought that I’d be back here so soon after graduation, living a dream that I once had out of desperation as a “freshwoman” trying to survive the non-air-conditioned dorms.  I had a vision of one day returning to the Spelman community as an Alumna and providing at least one dorm with the air-conditioning that it deserved.  It seemed to be a “rite of passage” at Spelman for first-year students to live in non-air-conditioned buildings. Those unbearable long summer seasons in “Hot-lanta” will never be forgotten.  So, I vowed that when I became a well-established businesswoman, it would be my gift to the school.  Being a fellow with EDF may make that dream come true a little sooner than planned.

 Here’s what I’ve learned upon my return:

  • The Suites, Spelman’s newest dormitory, received a silver-level certification from LEED.  This makes it the first of its kind for a residence hall on the campus of a historically Black university.
  • My office equipment inventory has shown that Spelman uses a very high percentage of Energy Star products including: copiers, fax machines, computers, and monitors. Spelman also has a high percentage of Energy Star vending and snack machines.
  • Lighting upgrades are well under way from T12 to T8 bulbs, along with many other energy efficient bulb choices.

 And the list just goes on at this pioneering institute.  Often, I find myself coming across an idea for a possible improvement, just to find out that it has already been considered or underway in future plans.  Spelman seems to have it all under control, so I’ll just have to keep on digging!  It is definitely hard to find fault behind these gates.

 Interesting quotes I frequently hear:

  • “It’s my choice, and I choose to change the world!” A line from Spelman’s theme song sung by our Glee Club.  I hear this song or see this phrase often around campus and in articles on the school website.
  • “Ahh, touché!” Friendly debates involving opposing views of equipment and upgrades.  For example, the campus mechanical “Mr. Fix –it” may feel that a heating/cooling unit needs to be replaced due to its extensive life cycle, while the Automatic Control System guru will say that it’s working just fine. Who is right?
  • “Hey, who turned out the lights?” The Director of Facilities Management and Services (my supervisor) will randomly make trips to areas around campus during peak demand hours and turn off lights in unoccupied areas.

Choosing to change the world may seem like a difficult task for such a small school, but Spelman is no stranger to leadership and service. Be it students, alumnae, faculty or staff, Spelman is dedicated to serving its community and making choices that will impact many generations to come.  I am proud to join the continuous, precious legacy of Spelman’s story that dates back to 1881. Needless to say, this opportunity is a dream come true.

EDF Climate Corps Public Sector (CCPS) trains graduate students to identify energy efficiency savings in colleges, universities, local governments and houses of worship. The program focuses on partnerships with minority serving institutions and diverse communities. Apply as a CCPS fellow, read our blog posts and follow us on Twitter to get regular updates about this program.

Posted in EDF Climate Corps / Comments are closed

“Enter To Learn. Depart To Serve”

By EDF Blogs / Published: August 25, 2011

By Michelle Williams, 2011 EDF Climate Corps Public Sector Fellow at Winston-Salem State University, MBA, Winston-Salem State University, Winston-Salem, NC

My fellowship brought me to the illustrious institution of Winston-Salem State University (WSSU). A two time graduate of WSSU with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Finance, and a Master of Business Administration degree, I found it an honor to be assigned to my alma mater. The University’s motto, “Enter to Learn. Depart to Serve,” is very wise and has a great meaning. Serve (v.), means to be in service of, pay homage, work actively, provide, and help. In other words, to serve could be understood to be a selfless act, thinking not only of yourself but also the betterment/well-being of others. My assignment for the summer was just that.

Efforts to become environmentally aware and practice energy conservation, preservation, and sustainability measures require selfless behavioral acts that positively affect the environment. Individuals consider how they can inspire others to be aware so that generations to come have a healthy environment in which to live. This made me realize that the most important contributor to the success of WSSU’s environmental consciousness would be behavioral change. Of the several projects we recommend, the one most important to me was increasing institutional engagement and educating the faculty/staff and students in hopes to jeer a successful energy conservation movement.

I sought to get the institution excited about energy conservation. Often people fail to participate due to lack of knowledge. Simply informing people about the amount of energy wasted from one light left on and the impact it can cause could result in changes in one’s behavior.  Inform, intrigue, engage became the concept behind getting the University involved. Steps to WSSU’s sustainable future:

  • A constitution to start “Rams Go Green,” an environmental club which is the key aspect to student engagement.
    • Mission: To create awareness of environmental issues such as conservation, pollution, and preservation. The organization plans to advance the understanding of responsible environmental behaviors by informing the student body, faculty/staff, and the community on ways to improve our environment.
  • An outline for “Rams Do it in the Dark,” WSSU’s first environmental dorm war campaign.
  • Influencing participation in Student Organizational Day to gain awareness of the environmental club.
  • Catchy flyers that would grab students, faculty, and staff attention and would teach them important ways to be a part of the movement.
  • “Rams Go Green” Flyer for new students and faculty that includes tips on ways to conserve, preserve, and sustain.
  • “Set it and Forget it” thermostat policy. The proper thermostat settings can greatly reduce energy consumed.

I entered this journey with minimal knowledge, learning all that I now know along the way. I will depart with optimal energy conservation tactics and hopes that I served my institution proudly.

EDF Climate Corps Public Sector (CCPS) trains graduate students to identify energy efficiency savings in colleges, universities, local governments and houses of worship. The program focuses on partnerships with minority serving institutions and diverse communities. Apply as a CCPS fellow, read our blog posts and follow us on Twitter to get regular updates about this program.

Posted in EDF Climate Corps / Tagged | Comments are closed

Does Rick Perry’s Texas Have Room For Solar Power?

By / Published: August 22, 2011
Running on Energy

Source: Texas Tribune

One of the fundamental propositions of Rick Perry’s presidential run is that energy policy in Texas has been successful in de-carbonizing our grid.  The claim is a pretty big stretch, considering that we still generate more carbon dioxide than any other state and, as far as it relates to our successful renewable energy mandates, he may have something to brag about.  Perry has been eager to take credit for their success in boosting wind energy, although he’s not always the first to point to the mandates that lead to such unprecedented wind growth.  It’s been easy for Perry to support wind power, after all, success has a thousand fathers, and the most meaningful legislation was assembled without much involvement from him or his office.

Perry’s support for solar, however, has always been a trickier issue even though it’s incredibly popular with voters across the political spectrum.  Even though voters want to see Texas go solar, it’s anathema to some of his biggest fundraisers and allies such as homebuilder Bob Perry, who worked to weaken homeowner’s rights to install solar on their own roofs, and the Koch brothers, who have opposed clean energy in other states.  So far, Perry has managed to walk a tightrope with his typical political savvy – pointing to legislation he signed or supported while working behind the scenes to undercut the movement towards a real solar industry in Texas. 

Walking the Political Tightrope

Perry signed legislation in 2005 establishing a 500 MW non-wind renewable energy mandate and in 2007 strengthening that same mandate. His appointees at the public utilities commission (PUC) and Perry himself have been slow on doing anything meaningful with the legislation, leading to uncertainty for businesses wishing to grow in Texas.  Most people in the industry saw this legislation as a way to push solar development in largely the same way the original mandate pushed in wind development.  Now, in an article in the Texas Tribune, it sounds like Perry’s spokesman, Mark Miner, wants to pretend his boss never signed those laws.  In fact, it sounds like he doesn’t think Texas has any real potential as a state for solar development [emphasis mine]:

“If you mandate a specific technology, you run the risk of getting stuck with high costs, and such mandates have failed to pass the Legislature in the past. The state making a decision based on its own conditions is different than forcing a one-size-fits-all approach on the whole nation. For example, South Dakota, Texas, and other states in the Plains have great potential for wind because of the climate and geography; other states have good potential for solar, but that is not the same for every state.”

As Miner notes, the original mandate for wind that Perry signed into law was less than ten percent of peak demand, making it so small as to have no significant impact to consumers and, therefore, a reasonable goal for the state of Texas.  By comparison, the 500 MW goal Perry did sign into law – though his appointees at the PUC failed to act on it – would be less than one percent of total peak demand, having an even smaller impact than the original wind mandate.  It is now quite apparent with his recent appointment of Commissioner and outspoken renewable energy opponent, Donna Nelson, as Chair of the PUC that Perry wants to ensure that Texas never reaches the goal he signed into law though.. This results in the likely killing of any renewable energy progress at the PUC, including future legislation, should it pass.

Maybe the Sun Doesn’t Shine on Texas

It’s as if Perry and spokesman Miner think Texas doesn’t have any real solar potential, which makes me wonder if they’ve read their own reports on renewable energy, showing solar power could supply Texas’ energy needs many times over.  His claim that Texas chooses not to provide incentives based on technology is laughable in the face of Texas’ $1.2 billion/year “high cost” natural gas tax exemption. 

Maybe Perry needs to make a trip to San Antonio where they recently increased their solar goal to 400 MW after seeing how cheap solar proposals are today.  This is in addition to about 44 MW they’ve already installed or contracted, in other words almost the entirety of the 500 MW non-wind mandate that Perry signed into law but refuses support.  Some of Perry’s funders and allies argue that solar is too expensive, but the largest municipal utility in the state (and country) with some of the lowest electric rates in the state, just decided to invest in solar in a big way for two reasons that fit right in with Perry’s ideal energy policy: San Antonio wants to keep electric rates low and solar will help them do that; it also wants to grow jobs, a key outcome to their clean energy strategy.  Perry has been touting himself as the “jobs governor” since he started running as a nominee for President, so you’d think the smart jobs policies of cities like San Antonio, Houston, and Austin centered around clean energy would be the perfect message. 

Unfortunately Perry seems uninterested, either because the corporations and people who have funded him are opposed or because he just doesn’t think Texas has the potential to be a real solar state.  Either way it’s disappointing, and I’m sure that the solar industry would agree. For the first time this fall, the solar industry is bringing its largest business conference to Texas.  Thanks in part to Perry’s solar equivocation, industry (valued at over $38.5 billion globally) may not be sure if Texas is ready for the big time, despite the fact that voters want to see solar in Texas.  For a jobs governor being on the wrong side of businesses that want to bring jobs to Texas and voters who want to see solar power here, it sure seems like a bad place to be, especially when unemployment in Texas is the worst it’s been in 24 years.

Posted in Renewable Energy, Texas / Read 5 Responses