By Kate Zerrenner

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about energy efficiency and the Clean Air Act section 111(d) provisions in anticipation of the SPEER Second Annual Summit, a gathering of top energy efficiency industry leaders from Texas and Oklahoma. At the Summit, I co-led a session on Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) push to regulate power plant emissions. Session attendees agreed that Texas would be an unlikely leader in developing innovative ways to comply with carbon pollution standards for existing power plants.

This is a missed opportunity on Texas’ part, as states will get the first crack at drafting plans to comply with new federal standards. This is an important opportunity because individual states are in the best position to craft frameworks that enable maximum flexibility and are appropriately tailored to local circumstances. So, this begs the question: is there an alternative, more constructive path that is most beneficial to Texas?

The Kentucky Way

Texas should take a serious look at Kentucky – another unlikely leader in climate policy. Last year, Kentucky sent a report to EPA’s Administrator, Gina McCarthy, laying out Kentucky’s proposed framework to guide its discussions with the Federal Government. State officials clearly had some concerns about the impending standards, but they also demonstrated commitment to meeting President Obama’s emissions reductions goals and improving the health of Kentuckians.

The state leaders advocated for an approach that allows for maximum flexibility to comply based on the state’s unique energy portfolio and economy. Among a suite of compliance options, the Kentucky report included two noteworthy techniques. First, the state asked EPA to develop a mass-emission reduction standard (reduction of total average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions) as opposed to a rate-emission standard (reduction of CO2 emissions per unit of energy produced). This approach opens the door for more easily measured and verified energy savings. Secondly, Kentucky proposed participating in a regional or national market-based CO2 credit trading program (similar to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative adopted by nine states), which would enhance electric reliability while also allowing for more flexibility in meeting clean air standards.

All told, Kentucky’s roadmap found that a significant reduction in emissions (nearly 30 million metric tons worth of CO2) could be achieved by 2020 at a very reasonable cost. Moreover, customer-facing energy efficiency would yield significant net savings for consumers – making it by far the most cost-effective means to reduce emissions for the state.

Proactive, Realistic Approach

This proactive and constructive stance is smart, and Texas should take note. Rather than spending millions of taxpayer dollars suing EPA to try to stall implementing life-saving standards, as Texas has done in the past, Kentucky’s state leaders have developed a realistic approach. The result is a proposal that aims to achieve significant, cost-effective reductions in carbon pollution – while simultaneously setting an example of robust, state-federal collaboration. This mutually beneficial plan will improve air quality, save lives, and spur a clean energy economy.

On that note, I have a few recommendations as other states begin creating their own plans:

• Water should be a part of the discussion. States’ energy choices should consider water usage in addition to air emissions. In many drought-stricken regions of the country, continued reliance on fossil fuel power generation may become unsustainable given that many existing power plants use substantial amounts of water for cooling. As temperatures increase and drought conditions continue to intensify, fossil fuel power plants will likely welter and eventually shutter under these conditions. States need a holistic outlook, one that harnesses water-free wind and solar PV, in order to advance a more sustainable energy future.

• EPA should consider regional solutions for compliance. Historically, EPA has evaluated state plans on an individual basis. However, there may be advantages to regional approaches for compliance with the Carbon Pollution Standards, as multiple states (or utilities located in multiple states) could establish regional emissions trading programs or other flexible approaches that lead to healthier air quality.

• States should see the Carbon Pollution Standards as an opportunity to improve human health. Strategies to reduce carbon pollution are also expected to reduce other harmful pollutants emitted by the power sector, including pollutants that contribute to ground-level ozone (“smog”), dangerous particulates, and mercury. EPA has already proven that the Clean Air Act protects human health and saves billions in health care costs; this standard will help bring a breath of fresher air to states around the county.

• Energy efficiency must be a part of the solution. Energy efficiency is one of a few compliance mechanisms that is an investment, not a cost. Energy efficiency saves money for consumers and enhances economic growth, while helping reduce a suite of harmful pollutants. A mass-emissions standard (as Kentucky proposed) makes monitoring and verification of emissions reductions more straightforward, because it gives appropriate credit to all energy efficiency efforts based on actual emissions reductions.

And for Texas, I have this to say: rather than spend taxpayers’ dollars suing EPA over clean air standards, state leaders should think about how best to protect the health of their citizens and the economy to ensure a robust, healthy future. Texas already leads the nation in terms of wind energy production and solar energy potential – both of which create affordable power to fuel the state’s bustling economy and reduce air pollution to safeguard Texans’ health. Investing in clean energy and technologies that reduce emissions and water use from fossil fuels means state leaders are investing in a cleaner environment for this and future generations.

This commentary originally appeared on our Texas Clean Air Matters blog.

By Marita Mirzatuny

Source: Trace3

As our society moves deeper into the realms of big data, at times it can seem overwhelming that our actions can generate millions of data points. Therefore, what we do with that data becomes crucial in the new energy landscape, as big data promises to improve our lives by unlocking innovation.

By 2015, 340 million smart meters will be supplying data to utilities worldwide, reading and reporting energy from 15-minute to 1-second intervals. For a medium-sized utility, with a half-million meters, that adds up to 52 billion data points a year. Utilities are not necessarily equipped to interpret this information, and insights can be lost.

Enter the newest arm of Pecan Street, Inc: WikiEnergy.

Pecan Street Research Consortium houses the largest residential energy-use database in the world. From solar energy to electric vehicles and everything in between, they are figuring the dynamics of a smart grid, in real-time, with real residents in multiple cities across the US. Now the data that they have been collecting since 2010 can be utilized by academics and researchers from all over the world on this new website platform.

Once registered on the site, members will help validate and curate the data, giving it meaning. Membership to WikiEnergy is currently free, yet restricted to faculty and graduate students at a four-year postsecondary educational institution in the U.S., equivalent-level institutions in other nations, and researchers at non-profit research institutions. EDF, as a founding board member of Pecan Street, will be utilizing the data to analyze the environmental benefits of the technology deployed thus far, such as energy efficiency and rooftop solar power. This will help us determine the best combination of technologies needed to reduce energy consumption and pollution. It will also shed light onto what type of behavior people lean towards when provided with various tools, like demand response (which rewards those who reduce electricity during an energy “rush hour”), time of use pricing (which bases the price for energy on the real-time demand), west-facing solar panels (which collect solar energy at key times), and water leak detection.

With the mission to “advance global university-based research and training on data science, energy, engineering, the environment and human behavior,” WikiEnergy has already enrolled 100 universities in 12 nations.

As we move forward with our research using this data, EDF is confident that WikiEnergy will provide the inputs needed to advance environmental solutions that aren’t just theoretical, but based on real activity. This will give weight to new business models and technologies, and channel new, clean energy products to market faster.

This commentary originally appeared on our Texas Clean Air Matters blog.

By Larissa Koehler

Recent numbers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show that methane (CH4) is about 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) in contributing to climate change over the first 20 years after it is released. Short-lived climate pollutants, like methane, are a large factor in determining how fast our climate will change over the next few decades.

These figures are particularly relevant in California where natural gas (which is about 99.9% methane) is used throughout the economy. For example, natural gas generates much of the state’s electricity through gas-fired power plants, is extensively used for home heating and cooking, and is increasingly being deployed as an alternative fuel for the state’s cars and trucks.

Yet, while California continues to operate and further build out a natural gas backbone in its energy economy, venting and leakage of uncombusted natural gas from pipes and machines can have an environmental impact. In fact, research shows that keeping methane leakage down to a minimum level is the only way to guarantee that the use of natural gas will provide immediate climate benefits, when switching from petroleum products.

One of the challenges associated with minimizing methane pollution from energy sector sources is that, across the lifecycle – from extraction, to processing, to transmission, and consumer use – there are millions of potential leak points. In fact, California has over 54,000 oil and gas wells, with over 7.7 million components capable of leaking methane to the environment. Adding to that, California has over 10,000 miles of high pressure natural gas transmission pipes and over 100,000 miles of utility distribution system pipes. With all the potential leak points across the state’s energy system, it is critical to pinpoint the most cost-effective ways of identifying and repairing methane leaks.

Thankfully, what can’t be argued is that reducing emissions is prohibitively expensive.

Further, state and national institutions are engaging in major research to identify the sources, and magnitude of the leaks in California and elsewhere. Similarly, EDF has partnered with nearly 100 academic and business experts to better quantify methane emissions, resulting in over a dozen studies expected to be published in 2014. Ultimately, EDF and others are working to identify the best opportunities for emission reductions in the natural gas supply chain and to help guide national efforts to implement reductions as quickly as possible.

Right here in California, we’re looking to implement a series of “no-regrets” efforts this year to make sure methane stays in the pipes and reaches customers – as opposed to leaking into the air.

These efforts involve several components of the natural gas supply chain:

Production – taking natural gas and oil out of the ground

California has lagged behind states like Colorado and Wyoming that have already begun to develop and adopt regulations requiring leak reductions. But this year, CARB has committed to rules that reduce the leaks of methane from the use of field equipment and oil and gas recovery practices. In some areas, these new tenets will likely work alongside already-existing local regulations that require leak detection and repair.

Transmission system – pipes that move highly pressurized natural gas across the state

In the AB 32 Scoping Plan, CARB has pledged to pursue a new regulation to require improved leak detection and repair in transmission pipes throughout the state.

Utility distribution system – pipes that brings natural gas to homes and businesses

Following the 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion and Senate Bill 705 (Leno), the California Public Utilities Commission is updating its rules and authorizing utilities to spend billions of dollars on system maintenance and upgrades in 2014. Similarly, there is at least one new legislative bill proposed to further limit methane leaks from the distribution system.

By working alongside states like Colorado and Wyoming that are leading the way, California can develop and adopt policies that cut methane pollution in a cost-effective manner.

This can be a win-win for our pocketbooks and the climate: natural gas leaks cost companies money through less delivered product, and are a major contributor to the rate at which our climate will change over the next couple of decades. Together, California’s 2014 initiatives to reduce methane pollution close an important gap in the state’s comprehensive strategy to combat climate change and represent an important step forward for the state’s economy and environment.

This commentary originally appeared on our California Dream 2.0 blog.

By EDF Blogs

To see the full infographic, go to greentechmedia.com.

By: Benjamin Schneider

You may have heard about the recent 60 Minutes segment that inexplicably reported the cleantech sector was in steep decline. There are quite a few reports out there breaking down the many fallacies of that segment, with most correctly concluding the sector is not dead, it is in fact booming and evidence of that surging momentum is everywhere you look. Consider these five examples that show just how good things are for cleantech these days:

1.  The solar industry is booming.

The facts are unequivocal: the solar industry is alive and well. According to a new report and infographic released this week by Greentech Media Research and the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA), 2013 was a banner year.

The Wall Street Journal also recently reported that investors are more enthusiastically embracing solar stocks again, siting “an industry shakeout of the past few years and falling costs of producing and installing solar-power systems” as the reason for a “recent big gains in the stocks.”

The handful of solar companies that didn’t make it tend to grab more headlines. But on the whole, the solar industry has grown by leaps and bounds in terms of job creation, generating capacity, and investor confidence.

2. Federal grants are leading to incredibly successful startups.

Not only is Tesla Motors one of the most successful cleantech startups in the world, they are one of the most successful startups of any sector. They recently announced plans to invest $2 billion in a large-scale factory to produce cheaper batteries, and stock shares soared after news of the company’s robust production outlook. They must be doing something right to afford such robust growth, and none of this would have been possible without the Department of Energy loan program that helped get them off the ground.

And though Tesla is rightly held up as an example of the United States’ commitment to the advancement of clean technologies (to say nothing of their cars), they’re hardly alone. You can find examples of startups receiving federal loans to help jumpstart tremendously successful companies all over America.

3. States are paving the way for more cleantech success, too.

Take a look at New York, where Governor Cuomo recently announced an initiative to provide an additional $30 million to stimulate more large-scale solar and biogas projects in the New York City area. Meanwhile, in Arizona, state regulators are working on smart energy measures that would both lay a foundation for a strong rooftop solar industry while still allowing utilities to charge fair rates to solar rooftop customers.

Stories like these are indicative of the national trend – states increasingly recognize the value in supporting the robust cleantech sector because advancements in clean energy are good for people, business and the environment. And you can expect to see more such examples of state-sponsored, market-based solutions that benefit the public and private sectors alike as word about successful models like these spread.

4. More people are embracing cleantech. 

Of course, even favorable market conditions wouldn’t amount to much without strong demand for cleantech. Fortunately, new data suggests that after years of fluctuations, customers are increasingly interested. Solar energy, wind energy, and hybrid and electric cars all saw a rebound in interest compared to prior-year levels.

Google’s recent $3.2 billion purchase of Nest Labs, the company responsible for transforming “unloved” home products, such as thermostats and smoke detectors, into beautiful, smart appliances, is another indicator that more people are embracing cleantech. By purchasing Nest, Google was simply reacting to a market signal from customers whose interest (and investments) in smart, innovative home energy management systems have shown a significant increase over the past few years.

5. Cleantech costs are falling. 

Lower costs play a huge factor in the cleantech industry’s success, according to the Department of Energy:

• The cost of solar panels has dropped 75 percent since 2008.
• The cost of LED lights fell 85 percent in that same time frame.
• Electric vehicle batteries cost 50 percent less today than they did four years ago.

There’s no question there is still much work to be done. The United States is at a crossroads, and there are still many policy, regulatory, and market barriers that EDF is working diligently to help remove so that an even broader-scale adoption of cleantech may be achieved.  A continued investment in cleantech will pave the way for a sustainable, clean energy future that grows our economy, helps families save money, and cuts pollution that causes climate change.

So let’s give credit where it’s due – the cleantech sector has taken off, whether the news reports it or not.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

By Brad Copithorne

Two weeks ago, State Senator Kevin de León introduced a bill to establish the first “Green Bank” in California, a bold proposal that would unleash low-cost financing opportunities for clean energy projects throughout the Golden State.

I recently had the opportunity to testify at a hearing on the bill to discuss the best practices for green banks across the country and how the program would work in California.

First, a bit more on Green Banks:

At its core, the program is a clean energy finance bank set up by the state, designed to enable increased investment in clean energy projects and companies by working closely with the private sector to remove financial or structural barriers.   The goal is simple: increase the amount of clean energy at a low-cost and encourage private investment by reducing the overall risk of clean energy projects.

While the concept is new to California, Green Banks have already taken root in other states. Connecticut established the first program in 2012, New York’s version launched a few weeks ago, and Hawaii is expected to come online this summer.

All three Green Banks plan to use limited amounts of public capital to induce substantial private investment.  In many cases, the public capital is expected to be quickly recycled as the investments are securitized or otherwise sold to private investors.

Each of the programs has hired a team with broad experience in both the public and private sectors.  The banks each maintain strong public oversight but also have the ability to contract quickly and efficiently with private investors.

As Dan Adler, Managing Director of CalCEF and President of CalCEF Ventures testified, a Green bank should use the market discipline of requiring private investment alongside any public dollars in order to insure market discipline.”

At the hearing, Bryan Garcia, President and CEO of Connecticut’s green bank, described two transactions they used to increase investment in solar for homeowners and energy efficiency for businesses.  The first was a solar investment fund that used a small amount of public capital to attract funding from local banks and other investors.  In exchange, the private investors agreed to work closely with local installers to fund projects for Connecticut homeowners that might not otherwise qualify for funding.

The second transaction was a set of loans to commercial properties for energy efficiency retrofits.  The loans were secured with property tax assessments in a structure known as Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE, and are in the process of being sold to a private investor which will allow the bank to quickly recycle their capital.

Twelve stakeholders in all – from the public and private sectors – testified how a California Green Bank could meaningfully increase private clean energy investment in the state.  We look forward to working with Senators de León and Jim Beall to develop a successful Green Bank for California – and one that will be the envy of other states.

This commentary originally appeared on our California Dream 2.0 blog.

By John Finnigan

Source: Edison International

Two seemingly unrelated announcements drew much attention in the electric utility industry recently. First, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) (the trade group for the U.S. electric utility industry) and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) jointly recommended changing how utilities should be regulated. Second, Duke Energy announced it will sell 13 Midwest merchant power plants. These announcements are actually related because they both result from the same dramatic changes affecting the electric utility industry. As Bob Dylan aptly noted, “the times they are a-changin’.” Regulators and other stakeholders must be prepared to address these changes.

Under the traditional business model, electricity usage grew steadily. Utilities built ever-larger plants to serve this growing load. The bigger plants were more efficient than existing plants, so the unit cost for electricity steadily declined. Utilities benefited by steadily increasing their revenues. Customers benefited from declining unit costs. For utility customers, it was like paying a lower price per gallon of gasoline every time you filled your tank.

But this traditional model is crumbling, due to several factors:

• Load growth has declined, due to a slowing economy and greater use of renewable energy and energy efficiency.
• Utilities are no longer able to obtain economies of scale by building ever-larger plants.
• New regulations have resulted in higher costs for coal and nuclear plants.
• Plentiful supplies of shale gas have caused natural gas prices to decline.
• Utilities face high costs for grid modernization.

How did these changing conditions lead to the two recent announcements by EEI/NRDC and Duke Energy?

Market forces are changing the economics for legacy power plants

Duke plans to sell its 13 merchant power plants because of “the challenging competitive market in the Midwest.” These plants operate in the PJM wholesale market, one of the largest regional transmission organizations in the nation, where the average daily power price declined from $71.43 per megawatt-hour in 2008 to $37.50 per megawatt-hour in 2013. Additionally, these plants have a net book value of $3.5 billion (after calculating for depreciation), but their market value is only $1.5-2.5 billion.

Other companies with Midwest power plants are facing the same competitive pressures. Edison Mission Company, owner of four Illinois coal plants, filed for bankruptcy in December 2012 due to falling wholesale power prices and high costs for plant upgrades. Ameren sold its five Illinois coal plants and Dominion announced plans to close its Kewaunee, Wisconsin nuclear power plant in 2013. Exelon recently announced that it is considering shutting down its unprofitable nuclear plants, and will make its decision by the end of 2014. These plants have been unprofitable because of the changing industry conditions described above.

These changing conditions are forcing utilities to re-think their traditional business model, and this was the reason for the EEI/NRDC announcement. The EEI/NRDC plan follows earlier whitepapers on changing the utility business model by Rocky Mountain Institute, the Regulatory Assistance Project and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and recommends several changes for regulating utilities, including:

• Requiring owners of distributed generation (on-site power generation, such as rooftop solar panels) to pay the full costs the utility incurs for serving these customers;
• Giving utilities performance incentives for adopting more clean energy resources; and
• Ending the current link between utility revenues and the volume of energy sold.

These changes are intended to eliminate the utility’s current disincentives to save energy, and to incentivize them to deploy more clean energy while remaining financially sound. Regulators and stakeholders should prepare to address these changes.

How can they get it right?

A key factor for getting the utility business model right is correctly setting the rules for pricing distributed generation. Today many utilities use net metering to pay rooftop solar owners for the excess electricity the solar panels produce. The net metering rate is typically set at the full price the utility charges for electricity, or at the utility’s wholesale cost of electricity. Yet neither measure fully reflects the costs and benefits that rooftop solar provides to the electricity grid, so utilities are attempting to change the price in recent net metering cases in California, Arizona and Colorado.

Minnesota’s approach to pricing distributed generation is also noteworthy. A 2013 Minnesota law requires the Department of Commerce to establish a methodology for establishing the value of a solar tariff, as an alternative to net metering. The tariff would allow the utility to recover its full costs for supporting solar customers and would fully compensate solar owners for the value produced by solar distributed generation. The Minnesota Department of Commerce submitted its value of solar methodology to the public utilities commission for approval on January 31, 2014.

Regulators and stakeholders should also consider the option of incentive regulation to compensate utilities for supporting distributed generation.  The United Kingdom has established an innovative new regulatory paradigm known as “RIIO” (Revenue = Incentives + Innovation + Outputs), which uses performance-based regulation to promote further deployment of clean energy. But some state public utility commissions in the U.S. currently may not have authority to approve performance-based rates and therefore may need legislation granting such authority.

Considering these issues will help regulators and stakeholders address the changing utility business model in their jurisdictions. Bob Dylan was right that, “the times, they are a-changin’.’” And the answer to a new utility business model is “blowin’ in the wind (and sun)” of distributed generation – meaning that the new model depends, in large part, on setting the correct pricing for distributed generation.

By Brad Copithorne

Source: The Green Leaf

EDF has been advocating for states to establish On-Bill Repayment (OBR) programs that allow property owners and tenants to finance clean energy retrofits directly through their utility bills with no upfront cost. California and Connecticut are working to establish OBR programs, but Hawaii is expected to beat them to the punch. Hawaii’s program is critical as electric rates are about double the average of mainland states and most electricity has historically been generated with dirty, expensive oil.

Given the potential of OBR to lower electricity bills, reduce that state’s carbon footprint, and expand job growth in the clean energy sector, EDF has been working closely with Hawaii and multiple private sector investors for the past year to develop their OBR program. Once formally launched later this spring, Hawaii’s program will be one of only two in the nation, preceded by New York who enacted their program in 2011.

OBR in a nutshell

Here’s how OBR works: Banks and other private investors team up with contractors and project developers to create competitive options for installing energy efficiency or renewable generation projects. Linking the repayment to the customer’s utility bill is expected to lower financing costs, increase availability of credit for projects that might not otherwise qualify, and allow owners to finance long payback projects without fear of needing to refinance if they sell the property.

EDF estimates that a national OBR program could generate $87.4 billion of investment in energy efficiency projects over the next 12 years, which would increase employment job-years by 615,000 (a job-year is a full-time job that lasts for one year). Since the program can be structured with financing entirely from private lenders and investors, OBR can be implemented at no cost to ratepayers or taxpayers.

One of Hawaii’s primary objectives will be to provide renters and lower income residents access to financing for clean energy retrofits to help them cope with expensive utility bills.

Hawaii’s OBR program is ramping up

The state’s OBR program is expected to have a soft launch near the end of March and will initially be focused on solar hot water for residential and small business customers. With abundant sunshine and no natural gas, solar hot water is a project that usually provides significant financial savings and environmental benefits in Hawaii. The program is expected to roll out other measures in the following months and eventually expand to include large commercial properties.

EDF has been in conversations with a wide range of project developers and investors and is optimistic that Hawaii’s OBR program can have a strong launch. Furthermore, we are hopeful that EDF can help the state export this exciting program back to mainland.

By Marita Mirzatuny

This commentary originally appeared on our Texas Clean Air Matters blog.

Source: Mary Parmer, www.facebook.com/episcopalaustin

On Monday in the heart of downtown Austin, St. David’s Episcopal Church unveiled its new 146-kilowatt solar array. Covering the rooftop of an adjacent parking garage and earning the title of largest rooftop solar installation downtown.

The project’s unprecedented scale was made possible through a partnership with Meridian Solar and a new Austin Energy (AE) pilot program, testing how they can best integrate large rooftop solar with the utility’s grid. Church members had the idea to put solar panels on the parking garage ten years ago, but weren’t able to move forward until last year when low interest rates, improved technology, and government rebates all came together. Through their combined efforts, St. David’s, AE, and Meridian have taken a vital, first step towards a city powered by clean, local, rooftop power, also known as distributed generation (DG).

Austin embraces distributed generation

Austin Energy’s multi-year collaboration with St. David’s is an admirable sign of progress in an era that often pits utilities against rooftop solar advocates. The cost of solar panels has dropped 80 percent since 2008, including 20 percent in 2012 alone. The rapid drop in price has unleashed renewed demand: installed rooftop solar energy increased 900 percent between 2000 and 2011. Some U.S. electric utilities see this growth as a threat to their business model, prompting them to cut back on incentives for solar power. Austin Energy, on the other hand, is part of a growing community of utilities embracing distributed generation as a vital part of their transition to carbon-free, renewable energy and enhancing their business models to meet this challenge.

Austin Energy offers a unique incentive for rooftop solar generation. Rather than simply roll back customers’ bills or pay for solar electricity at wholesale energy prices, Austin pays customers a “value of solar tariff,” which is calculated based on expected fuel savings, offset power plant construction, transmission and distribution savings, and environmental benefits. By considering each of these pieces in valuing solar energy, Austin Energy comes up with a value measure of 14 cents per kilowatt-hour of solar energy paid to those generating the solar.

For churches and other places of worship, rooftop solar and other demand-side energy solutions can allow churches to spend money on their goodwill instead. St. David’s will be paid a solar tariff for all the solar electricity its system produces over its lifetime, diverting over $500,000 that would have been spent on energy to vital programs like the church’s homeless shelter. To commemorate this success, during this Sunday’s service, Bishop C. Andrew Doyle blessed the panels, followed by the congregation singing “This Little Light of Mine.”

Overcoming infrastructure barriers was key to success

Financing is only one half of what enabled a downtown project of this scale. For years, the design of AE’s downtown distribution system limited the size of rooftop solar to a maximum of 20 kilowatts—less than one seventh the size of St. David’s array. Austin Energy worked closely with the project developer, Meridian Solar, to engineer and calibrate the AC-DC inverters connecting the solar panels to the grid so that the system produces the maximum amount of energy without disrupting the local power grid.

By working together, this collaboration unlocked the financing and technical know-how required to install 146 kilowatts of solar energy on an already crowded downtown grid, thereby reducing the church’s bill and providing Austin Energy with a valuable source of clean energy located at the center of its electricity demand hub, downtown Austin. St. David’s can now use its solar energy to help power the rock shows they host during SXSW in a few weeks.

Unique partnership shines as a model for future solar projects

Austin continues to be a model for the municipal utility of the 21st century. Already, other cities are contacting AE to figure out how to replicate this project in their own locales. But, according to State Impact Texas, “the utility urges patience. It will take at least a couple years of monitoring Saint David’s solar power installation before the city has a clear sense of how well the system works from a technical and economic standpoint.”

It’s encouraging to see these three entities working together to create a clean energy solution whose success is predicated on their unique private, public, religious partnership. This exciting project is a needed boost in the Austin solar world, as last week local solar-film company HelioVolt announced that, after losing a round of venture funding, they would be suspending manufacturing operations and laying off employees. This highlights that Texas policymakers, at every level, must make solar energy a priority. Breaking down the obstacles that have prevented projects from proceeding smoothly will lead to market stability. Given Texas has the highest potential for solar of any state in the US, yet is currently ranked behind Delaware in output, investors should be flocking to the state in droves, not pulling out.

By Mark Brownstein

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

Everyone knows that if you want your kids to grow up strong and healthy, they need to eat their vegetables. But as any parent knows, it’s easier said than done. That’s why in my house, there is a rule: you can’t have any dessert until you eat your vegetables.

Now, of course, my kids like to argue with me and my wife about exactly how many vegetables they have to eat and whether they can reach into the fridge and select a different vegetable if they don’t like the one she or I cooked that night. That’s okay. We like to encourage creative problem solving. But there’s no getting around the rule. You must eat your vegetables.

As I see it, methane pollution from the oil and gas industry is a lot like kids and vegetables. Reducing it is good for them, but we have to have a rule that requires them to do it.

According to a new report EDF commissioned, the U.S. oil and gas industry could achieve a 40 percent reduction in methane pollution within the next five years for less than one penny per million cubic feet of gas produced. The total amount of capital required to achieve this significant reduction would be less than 1% of the capital expenditures the industry made this year alone!

And, what does the oil and gas industry get for this investment? Well, for one thing, the report shows that certain measures actually return a profit to producers and pipeline owners, taking into consideration the gas that is recovered and sold rather than wasted into the air. The report also notes that many measures could reduce methane and other types of harmful air pollution, such as ozone-forming VOCs that contribute to health problems. In other words, even those measures that cost the oil and gas industry something in absolute terms yields a benefit to the industry over the longer term by addressing the air pollution that is one of the big reasons communities want to ban oil and gas production outright.

If the costs are so little and the benefits are so great, why isn’t industry already clamoring to make the changes that the report says are available and affordable?

I suspect that it’s because in today’s market – where oil prices are high and natural gas prices are relatively low – the oil and gas industry is in such a hurry to develop that next set of oil wells and the flush of new revenues this brings that they overlook opportunities to capture the methane that comes along with the oil, have even less interest in attending to their existing set of oil and gas wells where production, and revenues, may be slowly tailing off, and/or where associated infrastructure is paid off and any amount of new capital spending required eats into whatever profit margins there may be.

And so, like my kids at the dinner table, the U.S. oil and gas industry is in such a rush to get the sugar high that comes with large new oil revenues that they’d gladly pass up the marginal returns to be had in reducing methane and other air emissions, and avoiding pollution, which is important to their license to operate – their ability to thrive and grow – over the long term. That’s why we need a rule that says that the oil and gas industry must reduce methane pollution.

Now, I work at Environmental Defense Fund, and we put a premium on creative problem solving. In Colorado we worked closely with the state’s three leading oil and gas producers to craft a regulation that is both flexible and effective at addressing methane and other air pollution from oil and gas operations. Just last week, thanks in large measure to the leadership of Colorado’s Governor John Hickenlooper, this regulation was adopted by the Air Quality Control Commission at the end of a formal rulemaking hearing.

We think the Colorado air regulations can be a model for other oil and gas producing states. We also think it is an example that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should look at carefully, given that federal oil and gas air regulations don’t address methane pollution directly and have some other significant gaps. This new report shows us that regulating methane and other harmful air pollution is possible today, at minimal costs to industry. And the breakthrough recently made in Colorado combined with the report’s findings gives policymakers a blueprint of how reducing methane can be done.

By EDF Blogs

By: Elizabeth B. Stein, Attorney and Adam Peltz, Attorney

Source: Iwan Baan

In Tuesday’s blog post, we discussed the recently concluded Con Edison rate case, its context, and its significance in advancing clean energy and grid resilience in New York. Today, we take a closer look at the final Order posted last Friday by the New York State Public Service Commission (the Commission) to uncover some of the more encouraging outcomes buried in this 300+ page document:

• Con Edison agreed to various measures that allow for more distributed generation, i.e. on-site power generation, such as combined heat and power, rather than relying solely on power generation and distribution from the traditional, centralized grid. For example, Con Edison agreed to pay for some fault current mitigation, which enables distributed generation to be connected to portions of Con Edison’s grid where it would otherwise be prohibited, and agreed to develop an implementation plan for a microgrid pilot. Additionally, Con Edison agreed to treat customer-sited projects, including distributed generation, as integral parts of its system by considering them in its 24-month planning horizon. Because some distributed generation can operate in an ‘islanded’ mode, or separate from the main grid, and can thus continue operating in a power outage, distributed generation can play a critical role in improving resilience.

• The Commission directed Con Edison to get input from the Storm Hardening and Resiliency Collaborative parties on non-traditional solutions to address a surge in demand in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn. EDF is particularly intrigued with this opportunity because we believe that enormous investments in grid infrastructure can be deferred by better managing electricity demand through generation closer to home – and that these same opportunities can enhance resilience in storm and/or heat-induced crises.

• The outcome also advanced the cause of time-differentiated pricing, which is based on the idea that the time you use energy should be reflected in your bill. Noting that time-of-use rates may be particularly important for electric vehicle owners, the Commission approved the new voluntary time-of-use rate agreed upon in the settlement. In addition, the Commission commended Con Edison for plans to propose a pilot of a “time-sensitive” pricing structure that is not focused specifically on electric vehicles. EDF is particularly pleased with the pilot because time-differentiated pricing can help manage electricity consumption during a surge in demand that may occur in extreme climate events, such as a heat wave. This is a key element of climate resilience. In addition, as we argued in the case, time-differentiated pricing can control infrastructure costs because managing consumption can be cheaper than building out infrastructure while simultaneously reducing toxic and greenhouse gas emissions since highly polluting sources can be avoided during peak periods. We are also pleased that the Commission has specifically directed the parties to the rate case to consider certain economic issues related to the design of time-of-use rates in order to inform the upcoming proceeding announced in the recent Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS) order.

• On the natural gas side, Con Edison also agreed to significantly accelerate pipeline replacement and tighter leak repair targets. Although Con Edison does a good job of finding and fixing leaks that are an immediate threat to public safety, the utility has a backlog of more than 1,000 leaks of which they are aware but have no immediate plans to repair. To address this, EDF, Con Edison, and other parties jointly proposed a project to more aggressively identify and quantify leaks throughout its system and to develop a program that will permanently reduce Con Edison’s leak backlog. EDF expects that this new approach will enable Con Edison to improve the prioritization model they use to determine which pipes to replace, resulting in greater overall leak reduction for each dollar spent on replacing or repairing pipe. By reducing its leak rate, Con Edison can save customers money currently squandered on lost gas, improve system resiliency in case of flooding, and, critically, reduce its greenhouse gas footprint.

• With the participation of Collaborative parties, Con Edison will conduct a comprehensive climate change vulnerability study. The Commission framed this initiative as one with statewide implications, stating that other New York utilities are expected to similarly consult the most current data available on climate change impacts to their regions and adjust system planning and budgets accordingly.

The Commission’s Final Order Calls for More than Just Grid Hardening

In the Order, the Commission approved a pathway for the review and funding of conventional storm-hardening projects, but also applauded Con Edison’s progress toward a more flexible grid. The Commission specifically noted the need for flexibility in achieving resilience, which it said encompasses more than storm-hardening. To that end, the Commission quoted the definition of ’resilience’ used in the report of the Governor’s NYS 2100 Commission: “Resilience is the ability of a system to withstand shocks and stresses while still maintaining its essential functions.” Moreover, the Commission distinguished climate change adaptation from climate mitigation, saying the two must go hand in hand. The Order states, “[R]esilience efforts must be accompanied by a continued commitment to reduce carbon emissions in order to mitigate long-term risks that will continue to challenge our adaptive capabilities.” The Commission’s instruction that the Collaborative should continue work on “reducing natural gas leaks and therefore methane emissions” underscores this important insight.

At the same time, the Commission reserved some of the most holistic questions about grid resiliency – including the role of distributed resources in the electric system as a whole – for exploration in the upcoming proceeding announced in the EEPS order, which the Commission has now indicated will include “a comprehensive inquiry and redesign of the regulatory framework, to ensure economic, efficient, reliable, and resilient electric service while reducing emissions.”

The Commission’s strong endorsement of the settlement and the forward-thinking Collaborative process bodes well for shrinking Con Edison’s climate footprint and adapting its systems to future climate conditions. As a result, this historic Order provides an exciting and unique opportunity for Con Edison and the New York City area – the birthplace of the legacy centralized grid – to lead the state and the nation toward a 21st century electric and gas system.

By EDF Blogs

By: Susan Leeds, CEO of the New York City Energy Efficiency Corporation (NYCEEC)

Source: AtisSun

As New York City gets repeatedly hammered by snow, ice and the evil “wintry mix,” one could almost forget the world is warming at an ever faster clip. But the experts in the room earlier this month at the roundtable discussion on ‘Economics of Energy Retrofits’ at Urban Green Council (New York’s chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council) know the debate is over. Climate change is real and the window for action is closing. That’s why it’s more important than ever to work toward removing barriers to clean energy financing now.

As the De Blasio administration strives to build a more affordable New York City it’s important to note that clean energy building upgrades are central to this mission. By reducing energy use, building owners and their tenants can realize millions of dollars in annual savings while slashing dangerous carbon pollution for cleaner air and water.

Upfront Cost of Retrofits Presents Obstacle

The market barriers to implementing commonsense energy efficiency upgrades that pay for themselves in just a few years are plain. No one wants to dish out a dollar today for a dollar tomorrow. Upfront costs are a roadblock, no matter how short the payback period. Even when building owners decide to do the right thing, conventional lenders are not focusing on energy efficiency as a valuable service to their clients. This leaves building owners without easy access to clean energy financing.

Sometimes the barriers are even more basic. Despite years of wonk talk about energy efficiency as “low-hanging fruit,” building owners, contractors, and project developers are still in the dark about options, benefits, and appropriate partners to help put talk into action.

State and City Green Banks Clear the Way for Clean Energy Financing

New York City and state have been lucky enough to have prescient authorities who are aware of the large role of financing in addressing climate change. The city-run New York City Energy Efficiency Corporation (NYCEEC) and the recently-launched New York state green bank are working to become solution centers for clean energy financing in New York City and state respectively. These institutions are able to leverage expertise and financial muscle to transform inefficient buildings into clean, high-performing investments. By offering custom-built financing at attractive terms, building owners will have no more excuses to leave money on the table.

One project that has taken advantage of the city’s new energy finance offerings is Franklin Plaza, a Mitchell-Lama housing co-op in East Harlem. Franklin Plaza recently closed on the first tranche of its $3.8 million loan through the NYC Housing Development Corporation’s (HDC) Program for Energy Retrofit Loans, a program enabled by HDC’s partnership with NYCEEC. The loan for this project will help reduce Franklin Plaza’s energy use by 15%, cut carbon emissions by 30%, and result in energy savings that are equivalent to averting a 10% rent increase. “The development and preservation of affordable housing is the core of our mission at HDC and the salvation of Franklin Plaza epitomizes this work,” said Marc Jahr, former President of HDC.

NYCEEC recently announced $50 million in financing available through a range of products and partnerships, including equipment loans, mortgage lending, credit enhancements and energy services agreements. This new deployment of private capital is a shot in the arm for clean energy financing and supports:

• Energy efficiency improvements, such as smart lighting, heat pumps, energy management systems, boilers, chillers and more.
• Fuel conversions, under the City’s Clean Heat Initiative, from #6 or #4 heating oil to ultra-low sulfur diesel or natural gas
• Combined heat and power systems.
• Clean distributed generation, including solar and other renewable energy sources.

Clean energy building upgrades have an important role to play in the new Mayor’s promise to increase affordable housing in NYC, and innovative financing program’s like those offered through the city and state’s green banks are exactly what New York needs to ensure a greener, cleaner, and more affordable living experience.

Susan Leeds, CEO of NYCEEC

Visit www.NYCEEC.com to learn more about how we are remaking New York City buildings for a cleaner, greener, and more affordable tomorrow.

By EDF Blogs

By: Elizabeth B. Stein, Attorney and Adam Peltz, Attorney

Source: Iwan Baan

The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) took a historic step late last week, unanimously approving an Order that requires Con Edison to implement state-of-the-art measures to plan for and protect its electric, gas, and steam systems from the effects of climate change. This announcement regarding the future of New York State’s largest utility comes as a welcome coda to local storm recovery and resiliency efforts that have been in the works for some time now.

On October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy clobbered the coastline of New York City. Homes were swept away or badly damaged as corrosive salt water flooded basements, while millions lost power. In one of the enduring images of the storm, an exploding transformer at East 14th Street caused the “city that never sleeps” to go dark below 40th Street and stay that way for the better part of a week.

The ferocity of the storm’s attack startled many of us, but for those with knowledge of the region’s infrastructure, the devastation came as less of a surprise. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina had been an enormous wake-up call to vulnerable coastal cities, and the next year New York City unveiled new emergency plans to prepare the City for the event of a Category 3 hurricane, as described in the landmark 2007 PlaNYC 2030 report. This report also called for a forward-looking plan to deal with climate change that would include updated flood maps and upgraded building codes to prepare for extreme weather events. The City’s efforts bore fruit when Sandy actually hit and a post-mortem analysis showed the situation could have been far worse.

Con Edison, the utility that provides electricity to New York City and Westchester County and natural gas to portions of that footprint, had also been planning for better storm readiness for many years before Superstorm Sandy. Having learned key lessons from Hurricane Katrina, Con Edison had been moving in the direction of waterproof equipment for years. The utility had also discovered an alarming trend of increasing storm-related service disruptions in its own service territory; as of January 2013, when the rate case was initiated, four of the five worst storms to interrupt service to Con Edison’s customers had occurred in the preceding two and a half years.

Thus, when Con Edison brought a major rate case less than three months after Sandy, it came prepared with a rigorous storm-hardening plan, parts of which had been years in the making. But it was clear that the utility needed to do more than “harden” the existing system, and that it needed to account not just for storms but for other facets of climate change as well. In the rate case, EDF, the Columbia Law School Center for Climate Change Law (Columbia), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Pace Energy and Climate Center (Pace), among others, joined together in urging Con Edison to modernize its system and operations in ways that transcend traditional storm-hardening.

EDF and other parties argued for the electric grid to become less centralized and more flexible. We also called upon Con Edison to change how it charges customers for electric service by introducing more sophisticated electricity pricing structures based on the time electricity is used. This greater flexibility would furnish a greater range of options for dealing with system stresses, not only in storms but in other situations such as heat waves. The rate case was informed by Columbia’s focus on the most up-to-date climate science and what that means for grid design. EDF and other parties also sounded a cautionary note on natural gas, calling for methane leakage reduction.

While the rate case was underway, and on the recommendation of Department of Public Service (DPS) Staff, Con Edison convened a Storm Hardening and Resiliency Collaborative. This Collaborative gave rate case parties an additional forum to examine the utility’s storm hardening plans while addressing other facets of resiliency as well. In addition to detailed examination of Con Edison’s proposed storm hardening measures, the Collaborative emerged as a forum where alternative resiliency strategies, methane leakage reduction, and cost-benefit methodologies for storm-hardening and resiliency measures could be more fully developed.

Over the course of the rate case, Con Edison rose to these challenges. The settlement that the Commission endorsed on February 20 includes progress toward many of the initiatives supported by EDF and other environmental organizations. Importantly, the settlement agreement also called for the continuation of the groundbreaking Collaborative, paving the way for Con Edison to emerge as a standard-bearer for utility planning in the face of climate change.

In our next blog post, we will discuss some highlights of the 300+ page final Order posted by the Commission last Friday, February 21st, and how those aspects of the Order advance clean energy and resiliency in New York.

By Jamie Fine

Buildings account for 40% of our nation’s electricity use. In 2012, power plants spewed about 2 gigatons of global warming pollution into our air, which was about one-third of total U.S. emissions. That’s why EDF and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) teamed up to launch the Demand Response Partnership Program (DRPP) aimed at  enrolling LEED-certified commercial buildings in host utility demand response (DR) programs. Since the program’s inception over 2 years ago, the preliminary results of this collaboration are now available. Our 2013 DRPP Year End Report details how the program is educating building energy managers to drive adoption of demand response programs for commercial buildings.

DR is used to reduce energy use by rewarding utility customers who use less electricity during times of “critical,” peak electricity demand. The DRPP asks LEED buildings that are already quite efficient to operate in low power mode when the grid is stressed. The DRP Program used the USGBC’s newly posted LEED ‘Pilot Credit 8: Demand Response’ as an implementation guideline and leveraged its relationships with the building community to foster adoption and participation in existing utility and solution provider demand response offerings.

The report looked at three areas to measure the program’s success in 2013: Recruitment and outreach to potential participants, research and analysis of data from participants, and education about the DRP Program. A few key highlights are outlined in the Year End Report:

The preliminary results of the Demand Response Partnership Program (DRPP), a unique partnership launched by EDF and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) in 2011, are now out in a new report. Photo Source: Harvard University

• Completed outreach to 572 LEED ‐registered and ‐certified buildings, representing 275 million square feet. Of these, 133 buildings (representing 51 million square feet) are enrolled, evaluating enrollment, or have been determined to be DR ready.
• Entered data analysis and reporting phase with a research pool of 30 buildings agreeing to provide energy usage data and nearly 200 buildings participating in the Building Systems Assessment Survey.
• Energy use data for 14 buildings, representing a total of 125 demand response events, were analyzed and this analysis will serve as a basis for future case studies.

The USGBC & EDF partnered with select utilities, solution providers, and program sponsors to achieve these milestones.

LEED Buildings Movement Leads the Way

According to the DRPP landing page on the USGBC website, “DRPP is part of a larger movement by LEED to get builders and architects to start thinking more holistically about their buildings and considering the interconnection between building systems. Demand response is another step in this tradition and focuses on thinking beyond the walls of the project to consider the interconnection between energy use decisions (how much and when it is used) and the impacts on energy generation and distribution capacity.”

Project registrations for the DRPP LEED credit have continued to pick up and now total over 300 across the country.

More Results to Come

This year, DRPP will continue with data analysis and reporting, focusing on feedback surveys from commercial building participants and partners. EDF is examining the environmental impacts of demand response events by testing the premise that DR is both environmentally beneficial and key to increasing renewable generation.

The results of this analysis will be released in a final report in summer 2014. In the meantime, EDF will continue working with its DRPP partners to maximize the untapped potential of demand response to reduce carbon emissions, lower energy bills, and improve grid resiliency.

By Dan Grossman

Day 4 of the ongoing hearings on a groundbreaking proposal to reduce air and climate pollution from oil and gas operations in Colorado saw Team EDF pushing back on claims opposition groups have made to try to weaken the proposal.

Leading companies Noble, Anadarko, Encana and DCP also put on strong cases, using their own operational data to show the proposal is cost effective. They should be lauded for their leadership, as should local governments and conservation groups that brought strong analytics to the hearings.

If the proposal is adopted without being weakened, it will eliminate more than 90,000 tons of smog-forming VOCs annually (the same amount produced by all the cars and trucks in Colorado) and more than 100,000 tons of methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas.

EDF worked with the state’s leading oil and gas companies, regulators and others to help develop the proposal. Those multi-stakeholder discussions produced a proposal that’s both tough and reasonable – one that is right-sized to place the toughest requirements on operations with the greatest pollution potential, while making sure smaller operators can keep running a profitable business.

Governor Hickenlooper endorsed the proposal last fall, and editorial boards around the state have been calling for adopting the rule without clawbacks.  But that hasn’t stopped an industry opposition group from trying to weaken the rule.

The opposition group put forward some alarming numbers over the last couple of days, telling members of the Air Quality Control Commission that the proposal would surely result in thousands of wells being closed down. The problem is their analysis is replete with flaws.

Industry Claim:  Smaller “dry gas” wells without valuable oil or natural gas liquids, such as Coal Bed Methane wells, are economically marginal and can’t support the cost of a host of new requirements.

The Facts:  Most of the requirements in the proposal wouldn’t apply to these wells, since they’re geared toward equipment these wells don’t have.  And the leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements for catching and fixing fugitive emissions are relaxed for these small wells – typically involving a one-time cost of a few hundred dollars, and then just regular checks when operators are already on-site.

Industry Claim:  Thousands of wells producing two barrels of oil per-day or less will have to be shut down under this program.

The Facts:  The economic analysis put forward to support this claim is flawed on multiple counts. It ignores the revenue that comes from natural gas produced by these same wells. It has double-counting problems. It misapplies basic economic principles like Net Present Value in a way that grossly distorts the results. And it uses cost assumptions that are way out of line with actual cost data coming from industry itself.  In fact, if the opposition group’s analysis were accurate, it would mean almost 60 percent of these wells would already be shut down today.

Source: Linda Mirro

Industry Claim:  After you find and fix equipment leaks initially, you don’t really see many new leaks, so operators should be allowed to decrease the frequency of LDAR inspections designed to locate and repair leaks.

The Facts: It’s true that the highest number of leaks is found at first; however, they keep happening over time as equipment is stressed by weather, operational conditions and the second law of thermodynamics – which tells us that stuff falls apart. Study data presented to the Commission showed that leak rates remain low over time precisely because of requirements to do regular, frequent inspections.  And data Encana Corporation presented based on their own operations showed that maintaining a frequent inspection schedule is exactly how they’ve been able to keep leaks down at their well sites.

The Air Quality Control Commission has now heard four long days of testimony.  Tomorrow they’ll deliberate and, we expect, will make their decisions.  We hope they won’t be swayed by the opposition’s analysis.  It just doesn’t hold water.The proposal before them is supported by the state’s leading oil and gas operators – companies that are committed to being responsible partners in Colorado’s future.  It’s supported by environmental groups, local governments, citizen groups and businesses that rely on a clean environment for their success.  It’s supported by the state regulators who are charged with making sure environmental protection measures are cost effective. And it’s wholeheartedly supported by Governor Hickenlooper.

Moments like these –when a broad group of stakeholders can come together and agree on difficult, complex questions – are rare. Now is the time to honor all the hard work and cooperation that went into developing this proposal and adopt it in whole, without changes that will weaken it.

By Dan Grossman

Industry trade groups – the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) and the Colorado Petroleum Association (CPA) – came out swinging against methane regulation in the third day of hearings on a groundbreaking proposal to reduce air and climate pollution coming from oil and gas operations.

And some wild swinging it was!

They acknowledged that we need to reduce methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas.  But they said studies are showing different results about how much methane is being leaked and vented and that we shouldn't regulate methane until we know exactly how much is escaping.

Keep in mind, this is the same set of folks who were plenty happy to support the Colorado Clean Air Clean Jobs Act, which pushes electric utilities to move away from coal and start using more natural gas and clean energy resources. Methane emissions from natural gas development undermine the climate advantage gas can have over coal; but when Clean Air Clean Jobs was considered by the legislature, we sure didn’t hear any of these trade groups saying, “no, no – let’s wait until we have perfect data on methane before we do anything to transition away from coal.”

Next, contradicting their own argument about data uncertainty, they pointed to a University of Texas study that EDF and nine oil and gas companies participated in, and basically called it the definitive answer on how much methane is leaking. They then went on to grossly mischaracterize the study results, saying the study proved that emissions were low and that there is no need to regulate methane.  In fact, the study found emissions from equipment leaks (so called “fugitive emissions”) and ubiquitous controller valves – two of the key sources targeted in the proposed Colorado rules – to be much higher than EPA estimates.

COGA and CPA also argued that we don’t need to regulate methane because we’d get the same level of methane reductions as a side benefit of just regulating VOCs. Pressed by members of the Air Quality Control Commission to explain why we shouldn’t just directly regulate methane if the net effect was the same, they had to fess up and admit that they wanted only VOCs to be regulated precisely so they wouldn’t have to reduce emissions from wells that mostly emit methane and don’t have a lot of VOCs.

Again, they said, they really do want to reduce methane. They just want it to be totally voluntary. And they want to make sure we’re going after “the right targets.” (Interesting fact: methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas coming from human activity in the U.S., and oil and gas activities are the single largest source. Pretty good target.)

All in all, it was a dizzying display that at times had Commissioners scratching their heads.  Fortunately, leaders in industry have stepped up to support the proposed rules – companies like Noble Energy, Anadarko Petroleum, Encana and DCP Midstream – as have local governments, health professionals, students, moms and businesses that depend on clean air and a healthy climate. And of course, top credit goes to Governor Hickenlooper for putting Colorado on this path with his repeated calls for moving to “zero tolerance” for methane emissions.

By Dan Grossman

Yesterday, we covered the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) taking public testimony from citizens who traveled from around the state to speak in support of a groundbreaking proposal that would slash emissions of smog-forming pollutants and greenhouse gases coming from oil and gas activities.

Formal proceedings kicked off today – and will likely run through the weekend – with various parties presenting their opening cases. EDF went early in the day, providing strong evidence that the proposed rule is cost-effective and urgently needed to combat local air quality problems and climate change. We also highlighted some glaring flaws  in the methodology industry opponents cooked up to show inflated costs for the rules.

The Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA), the Colorado Petroleum Association (CPA) and the DGS group are throwing everything they can at the rule to try to gut it.  But they’re in a shrinking minority on the wrong side of history.

Noble, Anadarko, Encana and DCP – leading companies operating in Colorado that would carry 75 percent of the cost of the program – also presented.  They showed, using actual data from their own operations, that the proposal would result in important pollution reductions at a manageable cost.

Below are some highlights from the presentation made by Colorado’s Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) staff – the folks who are charged with balancing the need for air pollution reductions against the cost of achieving them. What emerges is a clear picture:

1. Air quality is suffering around the state, and oil and gas activities are responsible for a large share of the pollutants.
2. The proposed rules are a highly cost-effective way of getting emission reductions.
3. The case being made by industry opponents is wildly out of step with conventional thinking and analysis.

Here are the APCD highlights:
(Click images to enlarge)

If the U.S. EPA lowers the ozone standard from 75 ppm to 65 ppm, as many expect will soon happen, 10 out of 11 ozone monitors stationed across the Western Slope show that region will be in violation of national health standards.

Oil and gas activity is the single largest anthropogenic source of ozone-forming VOC emissions both inside and outside of the Denver Metro nonattainment area.  Moreover, without new strategies in place, VOCs from oil and gas are expected to grow in coming years, even while VOCs from other sources shrink.

The proposed rules are incredibly cost-effective.  By regulatory standards, any strategy that can reduce VOC emissions at a cost of $5,000/ton or less is deemed cost effective.  The proposed rules would reduce VOC and methane emission at about a tenth that cost.  By comparison, a number of strategies that have been evaluated for reducing VOCs from sectors other than oil and gas come in at costs on the order of a hundred times higher.

A wide range of stakeholders agree these rules are highly cost effective.  Take a look at the costs different parties estimate for one important part of the proposed rules – leak detection and repair (LDAR) for fugitive emissions.  The state says reducing VOCs through LDAR costs less than $1,300/ton – well within the range of cost-effectiveness.  Noble Energy, one of Colorado’s biggest oil and gas producers, says LDAR costs a tiny fraction of what the state estimates.  …But look at what the industry opposition group says!  This, folks, is what we might charitably call an “outlier.”

The AQCC  hears formal testimony on the proposed rule on Feb. 20 and 21– possibly extending into the weekend.

By Mary Barber

New Jersey has proposed using federal Sandy relief funds to set up an Energy Resilience Bank that would fund projects to make the state’s energy infrastructure more resilient in the face of extreme weather events. The Bank is an innovative proposal that will help New Jersey prepare for the future in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, which destroyed thousands of homes and businesses, causing human loss and suffering that continues for many today.

Climate change increases the likelihood that New Jersey will continue to be buffeted by storms such as Sandy, which exposed and underscored the need to upgrade to a more resilient, low-carbon energy infrastructure when a third of the state lost power for nearly a week. The Energy Resilience Bank, which will be capitalized at $210 million, would help expedite this process, allowing the state to keep the lights on and residents safer during the next storm.

The creation of an Energy Resilience Bank was proposed as part of an Action Plan Amendment, released last week by Governor Christie’s office, detailing how federal Sandy relief funds would be spent in the state. In October, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced a second allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Disaster Recovery funds, awarding New Jersey an additional $1.46 billion for Sandy-related rebuilding needs. The first tranche of $1.8 billion was approved by HUD in April last year. In addition to targeting unmet housing and economic revitalization needs, the second allocation will also cover unmet infrastructure needs in the areas of energy, communications, waste and wastewater systems and transportation projects.

Source: Greenpeace – Tim Aubry

Meeting New Jersey’s resilience objectives will require accelerated and aggressive deployment of energy efficiency and on-site, distributed power generation technologies (such as solar PV) throughout the state. Distributed generation initiatives on such a scale will require substantial amounts of capital. With federal, state, and local governments strapped for cash, it’s clear that the bulk of the capital required to invest in distributed generation will have to come from the private sector.

The proposed Energy Resilience Bank, which is similar to the “Green Bank” construct supported by EDF in other jurisdictions, would help spur this private financing. At this point we believe that the State would be well advised to consider this construct as it would leverage public funds and authority to lower the cost and increase the amount of private financing for distributed generation technology. A ‘green bank’ model would also drive innovation, fuel local and regional economic growth, and aid in job creation.

New Jersey can facilitate the creation of robust energy finance mechanisms that have the potential to transform the state’s energy markets. In this way, New Jersey can help to unlock private capital market activity to boost energy resilience as well as larger environmental and market objectives.

By Dan Grossman

Colorado is the quintessential swing state – with voters split about evenly between Republicans, Democrats and Independents.  That can make for some fractious politics at times, but our diversity is part of what makes us great.

What makes us even better is our unity – and that’s what we saw today when, by a margin of almost 10-to-1, Coloradans of all stripes called on the state’s Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) to adopt new rules that would slash air and climate pollution coming from oil and gas development activities.

The AQCC opened its hearings on the proposed rules with a full day of citizen input, with people traveling from around the state (one drove six hours) to make their voices heard.  Residents from rural communities, including many from the Western Slope, stood up, one after another, to tell the AQCC Commissioners that the proposed rules should apply statewide and that the handful of local officials opposing the rules are out of step with the citizens they’re supposed to serve.  In response to those local officials, one citizen from Ridgway implored the Commission to protect all Colorado families and not “turn the West Slope into an air quality sacrifice zone.”

EDF couldn’t agree more.  Air quality in western parts of Colorado is trending in a bad direction, teetering on the edge of violating federal health standards.  The state health department issued nine ozone advisories last winter for Western Slope counties where oil and gas development is prevalent, meaning the air wasn’t healthy for kids, the elderly, active adults and people with respiratory illness.

Some say we should wait until the U.S. EPA declares Western Slope counties in violation of federal standards before we act to reduce pollution.  That’s like waiting until you hit the ground before you pull the rip-cord on your parachute.  We need to act now, rather than wait for air quality to deteriorate beyond any hope of control.  Whether you live in Denver, Greeley, Durango or Grand Junction, all Coloradans deserve clean air.

Others are trying to delay action by complaining the proposed rules are “one size fits all.” But as one Gunnison resident noted, the proposal accounts for differences across producing basins by incorporating flexibility and a tiered approach for smaller emissions sources.

Residents also pointed to the economic importance of reducing pollution.  They spoke about Colorado’s cornerstone agricultural industry and crippling damage to crops from emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from oil and gas activities.  They spoke about Colorado’s outdoor recreation industry and its dependence on a clean environment.  They spoke about high tech and clean tech industries that place a high premium on clean air and quality of life when deciding where to locate their businesses.  They spoke about the terrible cost of wildfires, drought and invasive species – problems made worse by climate change – and called for controlling methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas that makes near-term warming worse.  And high school students put their homework on the backburner to come down to the hearing, speaking to the Commission about the responsibility they have to future generations.

Source: RF

Oil and gas development is an important part of Colorado’s economy, but it can’t come at the expense of public health or the other economic engines in our state.  Fortunately, that’s not the choice we’re faced with – despite what some would have us believe.

The fact is, the proposed rules are highly cost-effective.  They would eliminate more than 90,000 tons of smog-forming VOCs every year – the same amount that’s produced by all the cars and trucks in Colorado – and would do so at less than 10 percent the cost the state is typically willing to impose on citizens and businesses to get pollution reductions.  The rules would also remove more than 100,000 tons of methane annually through measures that can often pay for themselves in a few short years by making sure more natural gas goes into the sales line instead of the atmosphere.

We’re not saying the new rules will come at zero cost to industry.  What we’re saying is, the costs are manageable and they’re worth it.  Forward-thinking industry leaders agree.  This proposal is supported by Noble Energy, Anadarko Petroleum, Encana Corporation and DCP Midstream – four of Colorado’s most important energy companies.  These four companies will bear about 75 percent of the total statewide costs for these measures, but they say they’re supporting this rule because they know it’s the right thing for the environment and public health, the right thing for jobs and the economy and the right thing for their bottom line.

EDF was proud to work with these companies to help develop many of the ideas that went into this proposal.  We think it was an example of Coloradans at our best – working through our differences and uniting us to bring common-sense solutions to tough problems.  We Coloradans are diverse, but we are also united in our passion for our state and our environment.

The AQCC is schedule to hear formal testimony on the proposed rule on February 20th and 21st, and possibly extending into the weekend.

By Marita Mirzatuny

This commentary originally appeared on our Texas Clean Air Matters Blog.

EDF's Marita Mirzatuny with Secretary Moniz at Pecan Street's Pike Powers Labratory

Last Thursday, I had the privilege of presenting a short summary of EDF’s Smart Power Initiative to Dr. Ernest Moniz, the U.S. Secretary of Energy. As a group of over 30 people piled into the Pike Powers Laboratory (including the lab’s namesake), the Secretary made his way in, beelined for some coffee, and sat down to hear all about Austin’s innovative and collaborative energy “ecosystem.”

Present was the Mayor of Austin, Lee Leffingwell, various cleantech entrepreneurs sponsored by the Austin Technology Incubator (ATI), representatives from the State Energy Conservation Office (SECO), and the Governor’s office, among others.

Everyone had the opportunity to speak to the Secretary in a roundtable format about the work their particular company or group is doing to solve energy problems, and as EDF’s representative, I reported on our Smart Power work in Texas.

As I told Secretary Moniz, we are aiming to reduce harmful pollution from fossil fuels by prioritizing customer-facing, demand-side resources, like demand response (DR), energy efficiency, and renewables. Texas is the number one emitter of carbon in the nation (emitting twice as much as any other state) and at the same time we are reeling from the effects of climate change firsthand with a persistent drought and increasing temperatures. But we also have the greatest opportunity for solar power in the nation (though currently ranked behind New Jersey) and our demand response potential is the highest as well. Texas is the leading wind producer in the U.S., however, proving that innovation can happen when collaboration occurs. This is why Pecan Street’s residential energy data is necessary in making the case for new pathways to a cleaner future, sparking innovation and strengthening Texas’ economy.

Secretary Moniz expressed his enthusiasm for the Pecan Street, stating “Fantastic, I think it’s got to be the greatest, by far the most aggressive, project that I know of, at least in terms of the data collection. What came out was a view of a really dedicated, collaborative community in a vibrant investment ecosystem pushing clean energy. Austin is clearly a leader in this domain." Overall, Moniz found the project "very impressive."

After our conversation and a tour of the Lab, Secretary Moniz made his way to the University of Texas where he spoke to a packed auditorium. Qualifying a few questions from the audience with a smile, the Secretary reiterated the President’s “all-of-the-above” energy strategy, making it clear that the goal of the Administration is to move to a low-carbon future:

Very simple, we continue to reduce our oil dependence as we lower our oil imports…through alternative fuels, electric vehicles, and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Across the board, that is what 'all-of-the-above' means. We are committed to low carbon, but we are also committed to all of the tools — research, development, and deployment — the option of all of those tools in a low-carbon marketplace. There’s no ambiguity about the need and commitment in this administration to lower greenhouse gas emissions, he said.

Secretary Moniz also noted how steeply the cost for renewable energy technologies has decreased over the past few years, which is critical if the U.S. intends to lead the global clean energy economy. "We should not take our eye off the ball in terms of what have been incredible cost reductions in these technologies. We want to be ahead of the train, not catching up to the caboose at the end,” he remarked.

As a nuclear physicist and Director of the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Secretary Moniz understands what is happening in the new energy revolution, ensuring that we have a leader in the Obama Administration who gets it. While some see his “all-of-the-above” strategy as discouraging, from where I sat, it is refreshing and encouraging to have such a brilliant academic at the helm of America’s energy vision and not someone coming from the ranks of corporate interests. I have confidence he will be a valuable partner in helping EDF accomplish our Smart Power Initiative goals, which seek to transition our nation to a cleaner, more resilient and dynamic energy future.

By Steven Hamburg

This commentary originally appeared on the EDF Voices Blog.

Mounting scientific evidence underscores the crucial importance of reducing methane emissions in the U.S. The latest study, published today in the journal Science, reviewed available data from the past 20 years and found that methane emissions from the U.S. natural gas supply chain are almost two times greater than current official estimates – flagging once again that methane emissions are a serious problem. However, the Stanford-led team also concluded that the current levels of methane leakage negates the climate benefit of switching to natural gas under some scenarios and not others, such as moving from coal-powered to natural gas electric generation.

As for what contributes to the higher than expected emissions, the study authors cited differing measurement techniques—including “bottom-up” direct measurement at the source, “top-down” readings from aircraft, and others—as well as the presence of “super-emitters” (a small number of sites or pieces of equipment producing a large share of emissions). Super-emitters are not easily sampled using most bottom-up direct measurement approaches. The team also spotlighted challenges associated with an increasingly ambiguous distinction between emissions from natural gas and oil production, both of which contribute methane to the atmosphere.

Other recent studies

This sobering assessment joins a growing list of recent studies that point to higher than expected levels of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.

Just a few months ago, a Harvard led team published a paperin the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)that found total methane emissions from all sources (e.g. livestock, landfills, oil and gas, etc.) were roughly 50 percent higher than U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates for the same time period, 2007 -2008.

Photos.com 142558250

This followed on the heels of the September 2013 PNASpaper, in which a University of Texas team looked at emissions from some activities associated with hydraulically fractured wells for the first time. The UT led bottom-up study was the first study released in EDF’s methane research series. Though it found total emissions for the production segment of the natural gas system to be similar to EPA estimates, it also found that emissions from some sources were much higher than EPA estimated – valves, compressors, and pipes located at the well pad, for example, all showed higher than estimated emissions. The study also found that emissions from well completions – at the end of the hydraulic fracturing process – were dramatically lower than EPA estimates where new emission controls were used. This is likely because in 2012, when the measurements were made, drillers were beginning to deploy the reduced emissions completions (REC) equipment required by EPA. RECs will be required for all new natural gas wells beginning in January 2015, but are not required for associated oil-and-gas wells. One clear policy implication was that REC equipment should be required across the board.

In August 2013, yet another study was released, this time by scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado at Boulder who are known for their expertise with top-down measurements. Published in Geophysical Research Letters, the paper reported alarmingly high levels of methane emissions from airplane readings gathered over an area of the Uintah Basin, Utah’s most active oil-and-gas region that includes production, gathering systems, processing and transmission stations.

These insights, combined with what we’re learning from the bottom-up studies highlighted in the Science paper, demonstrate that no single measurement method is sufficient to provide all the data required to understand emissions rates and sources. That’s why the diverse scientific teams EDF is working with across our 16 studies are using a wide range of techniques in tandem. (The Stanford study is not a part of EDF’s methane series, though EDF’s senior scientist Robert Harriss is a co-author.)

The Stanford paper is insightful work and we welcome the new perspectives it provides. Their survey of over 20 years of scientific literature makes an important contribution, and raises important issues about all measurement techniques in use. For example, self-selection bias may be a factor in bottom-up direct measurement studies, and top-down techniques have challenges in assigning attribution among sources. None of this takes away from the fact that these studies, despite their methodological differences, clearly indicate that methane emissions pose a serious threat to the climate. And while we work to deepen our understanding of the sources of methane emissions, there’s no question about the need for regulation to reduce these emissions.

Why methane matters

I know some are still not convinced that methane matters. A concern I hear is that reducing methane emissions is a distraction from the important work of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). I agree that we need to remain focused on CO2 reductions, but by also reducing harmful emissions of short-lived climate pollutants such as methane, we can slow the rate of warming over the next couple of decades – something that CO2 reductions are unlikely to accomplish alone. And as I said, the threat is real. Over 40 percent of the warming experts expect to see in the next 20 years, as a result of today’s greenhouse gas emissions, will come from short-lived climate pollution that includes methane.

It is absolutely necessary for us to continue pushing as hard as we can to meet our obligation to future generations to leave a cleaner and safer world. But we also need to ensure that the shorter-term impacts of climate change – extreme weather patterns, long droughts and high temperatures seen across the country – are not intensified.

What EDF and a growing number of scientists are saying is that when it comes to emissions reductions, no one should choose between methane and carbon dioxide. It’s not an either/or scenario. Science has shown us that we need to reduce both if we want to protect the climate. We cannot afford to even consider a trade-off between current generations and future generations, which is what this comes down to. We need to protect both – and the only way to do that is to bring together our best ideas for reducing carbon dioxide AND methane emissions.

Reason for hope

There’s reason to hope that if we do this – taking the steps now to create parallel strategies to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas industry (the largest industrial source of U.S. methane emissions) and continue to cut carbon pollution from power plants – it can have a sizable impact. And the good news is that we have affordable technologies to get started. An economic analysis in the International Energy Agency’s 2013 World Energy Outlook 2013 indicates oil and gas companies could reduce methane leaks in production fields by 50 percent at a cost of less than 1 percent of the cost of the well. This is a powerful message about the feasibility of addressing methane emissions, with an enormous upside for the climate.

The community of researchers EDF is working with will be releasing many studies over the coming year. These studies will provide ever more detailed information about sources and magnitudes of methane emissions from which it will be possible to craft ever more effective mitigation strategies. In the meantime, we need to get on with the work of reducing methane emissions and reaping the climate and air quality benefits immediately. We have everything we need to get started. And our future depends on it.