By Kate Zerrenner

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

I often refer to energy efficiency as being cost effective, and it is. It is always cheaper not to use energy or to get the same result while using less energy. But monetary cost savings are just one of the many benefits associated with implementing energy efficiency measures. Reduced pollution, improved health and reduced strain on our water supply are other notable benefits of energy efficiency, though they are not always taken into consideration when a utility proposes a new energy efficiency project.

At the state regulatory level, Public Utility Commissions or similar entities are required to do a cost-benefit analysis for each energy efficiency project or program that a utility proposes, in order to determine how cost effective it may be. This analysis is called an ‘energy efficiency cost test,’ and although the concept may seem straight forward, its application is based on a varying set of pre-defined criteria that are not always consistent. Furthermore, the subject of cost-effectiveness tests is sensitive in the utility sector, because it’s at the core of how energy efficiency programs are valued.

There are several different types of energy efficiency cost tests that differ slightly and are often customized to reflect a state’s values. Before diving into the options, it’s important to note that a cost-effectiveness test of some sort is a necessary measure as more and more states implement ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs. Customers need to know that the programs they’re paying for are delivering the promised benefits, and regulators need to ensure that the costs paid by the customers are justified. 

Not All Tests Are Created Equally

To varying degrees, states choose resource cost tests that evaluate the cost of an energy efficiency project or program compared to the value of energy that its implementation saved (or didn’t consume). Furthermore, as homes and businesses adopt more customer facing, demand-side resources, like demand response and distributed generation (e.g. rooftop solar panels), resource cost tests may evolve to better evaluate the cost effectiveness of these new technologies and methods. Also, some energy efficiency programs are exempt from the cost-effectiveness tests, such as those that target low-income communities and test new technologies in the marketplace.

The three most commonly used resource cost tests are the:

• Societal Cost Test (SCT),
• Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test and
• Program Administrator Cost (PAC) Test (also called the Utility Cost Test (UCT).

The two least commonly used are the:

• Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) Test and
• Participant Test.

According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 44 states plus the District of Columbia have ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs, and some states use more than one test to determine their cost effectiveness. As an example, a state may use one test for individual efficiency measures and another test for the portfolio of all efficiency measures combined.

Breakdown of Tests

The Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test is the most common measure, but it has a major shortfall; namely, while all participant costs are counted, most or all of the benefits beyond the utility fuel savings (i.e. the offset amount of coal or gas for power plants) are not considered.

The Societal Cost Test (SCT) is used the least but is the broadest and most inclusive measure, accounting for externalities like environmental costs (e.g. the amount of carbon dioxide pollution avoided) and reduced costs for government services, such as health care. The challenge with the SCT is that it is very difficult to monetize most of these externalities and any over- or under-estimations could skew the entire cost effectiveness of a program. Further, some argue that the SCT takes into account issues that are outside the control of the utility, which could burden ratepayers with heavy costs. Six jurisdictions use the Societal Cost Test as either the sole or primary cost-effectiveness test: Arizona, District of Columbia, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon and Vermont.

The TRC Test and the SCT may seem similar in that they both consider some avoided costs, like water, health and safety costs, but the primary difference is that the TRC looks at the benefits to utility customers while the SCT looks at the benefits to society.

Here’s another way to conceptualize the difference:

An easy way to conceptualize the difference is to decipher what question the test is trying to ask. For instance, the TRC Test asks, “Will the total costs of energy in the utility service territory decrease?” while the SCT questions, “Is society (the utility, state, region or nation) better off as a whole?”

The Texas Way

Texas, where I’m based, uses something called the Utility Cost Test. This is the state’s only cost-effectiveness test and it looks at limited costs and benefits. The costs include the design, planning, administration, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of a program, while the benefits account for avoided utility costs, such as building a new power plant and the purchase of fuel necessary to generate electricity. In other words, this test is limited to the impacts that would be passed on to customers through their electricity bills, disregarding other factors like impairing air quality and shrinking precious water supplies. The main question the UCT answers is, “Will utility bills increase as a result of implementing this energy efficiency program or project?”

In a state like Texas that values independence and private property rights, it’s not surprising that the main driver for evaluating the cost effectiveness of utility energy efficiency programs is cost to customers. And it’s a necessary and critical thing to consider. But it’s not the only thing to consider.

As climate change moves the needle toward more intense weather patterns, and as Texas faces a potential for electricity shortages, the state should consider adopting an energy efficiency cost test that evaluates a range of benefits from the energy efficiency programs, such as avoided fuel for power plants and the ability to meet clean air standards. This approach would enable energy efficiency to play a larger role in helping ensure greater grid reliability and cost savings. Texas policymakers can look to energy efficiency and its numerous benefits, both economic and environmental, to protect its citizens and natural resources from strain and depletion.

By EDF Blogs

By: Matt Golden, Senior Energy Finance Consultant

The Investor Confidence Project (ICP), which aims to bring transparency and accountability to the energy efficiency market by introducing a system of standardization, is pleased to announce the release of the Energy Performance Protocol for Targeted Commercial projects.  Unlike whole building retrofits, targeted commercial projects are typically projects that can upgrade a single measure, such as lighting or windows, or multiple measures that are very basic. The protocols standardize how projects are baselined, engineered, installed, operated and measured, and are aimed at boosting investor confidence in the resulting savings.

The Targeted Commercial Protocol complements the ICP’s two existing Energy Performance Protocols: 1) Large Commercial Protocol, which involves a whole building retrofit greater than $1 million and with annual energy savings of more than 20%, and 2) Standard Commercial Protocol, which is a whole building retrofit priced at below $1 million.

The Targeted Commercial Protocol further develops the ICP family of protocols and addresses the range of project types increasingly common in the growing energy efficiency retrofit marketplace. Reflecting market realities for smaller projects, this protocol was developed in collaboration with industry experts, including organizations that are part of the ICP Ally Network.  It strikes a balance between the need to minimize overhead for less complex projects, while maintaining the necessary rigor to attract investment for smaller projects. 

Efforts to develop a Multifamily Energy Performance Protocol, as well as a new Quality Assurance Protocol Checklist are currently underway.  In the future, the various ICP protocols will cover the life cycle of all project types to ensure that compliant projects are investor-ready.

ICP’s Energy Performance Protocols are aimed at streamlining the patchwork of existing standards in the energy efficiency market.  Currently, every energy efficiency retrofit is a custom project and the market is rife with varying standards.  An agreed-upon set of standards will allow investors and building owners to gain confidence in the long-term return on their energy efficiency investments, ultimately resulting in a more transparent and robust marketplace.

By Marita Mirzatuny

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

As we begin a new year, the outlook for 2014 looks bright.  But as the Polar Vortex has descended upon the U.S. over the last few days, we have been reminded of the past, specifically the winter of 2011 when Texas’ electricity grid stuttered under the extreme cold.

Monday, as a record-breaking cold snap whisked over the U.S., the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state’s grid operator, warned of possible blackouts, just as they did in 2011.  We were lucky this time, but in February of 2011 we were not, and blackouts occurred throughout the state.

ERCOT’s warning meant that the grid's power reserves “dropped below a comfortable threshold,” and the "system was just one step away from rolling blackouts” as the need for energy outpaced supply.  As these blackout threats loomed, two power plants succumbed to the cold and went down.  The loss in capacity amounted to about 3700 megawatts (MW), with 1800 MW lost due to the cold.  According to Dan Woodfin, ERCOT’s Director of System Operations, “if we had lost another unit it would have put us into an Energy Emergency Alert Three” – the stage that prompts rolling blackouts.  This is unnecessary and unacceptable.

Demand Response to the Rescue

This sudden strain on the system comes after a recent sigh of relief that our electric grid’s shortcomings are not as serious as previously thought.

Over the last few years, EDF has been carefully analyzing and discussing Texas’ resource adequacy imbalance – a topic we call the Texas Energy Crunch.  However, when ERCOT analyzed its previous forecasts for 2013, it indicated that the energy crunch in Texas wasn’t as bad as first thought, based on economic growth calculations.  This news came as the PUC began deliberating whether to reform the state’s current energy-only market structure to a capacity market or, as EDF is advocating, a ‘third way’ that prioritizes demand-side resources: demand response, energy efficiency, energy storage and renewables.

Demand response (DR) rewards customers who voluntarily use less electricity at times when power supplies are tight.  DR is a cost-effective technology that could play a pivotal role in ensuring resource adequacy.  Right now, ERCOT predominately relies on large industrial customers for participation in demand response, but EDF intends to see residential customers reap the benefits of this innovative technology as well. Furthermore, DR is an agile resource that can readily respond during extreme weather, unlike vulnerable traditional generation, such as coal and natural gas plants.

Source: KXXV

Monday morning ERCOT called upon available demand response across the state, which helped keep the lights on.  While operators of fossil fuel plants claim that they are the most reliable solution for providing electricity to Texans, it was demand response that helped the state avoid involuntary rolling blackouts.  No single resource is the right answer – they all have limitations – but as we saw this time, some fossil fueled generation couldn’t respond to the need when called upon.

Future Outlook

In Texas, we worry most about the Texas Energy Crunch during hot summer afternoons.  But as we’re experiencing now, winter weather can catch us off-guard too – all the more reason to invest in fast-acting, flexible, clean energy resources now to protect against inevitable shocks.  While we may be able to see our breath, we shouldn’t have to hold our breath in hopes that our grid will make it through these events!

As climate change plays out, weather patterns will become more disrupted and unpredictable.  The U.S. and Texas should prepare for more recording-breaking energy demand by investing in a resilient grid in order to withstand the next extreme weather event.

Of course, this requires Texas officials to stop denying climate change.  State regulators’ forecasting cannot consist of economic analyses alone; it must also include the realities of an uncertain future climate.  To date, climate change has been a missing, but crucial piece to the PUC decision on market structure reform, which aims to address these problems.  EDF’s position prioritizes demand response and other resources capable of meeting the challenges when needed: solar and coastal wind on a hot summer day and west Texas wind on a stormy night.  In the winter of 2011 it was wind power that helped save the day, and it looks like demand response is having its day in the sun this year.

By EDF Blogs

Source: Angela Keck Law Offices LLC

By: Tomás Carbonell, EDF Attorney, and Brian Korpics, EDF Legal Fellow

A new year may be upon us, but – unfortunately – some members of the oil and gas industry would prefer we roll back the clock on common sense, long-overdue emission standards for oil and gas equipment.

Oil and natural gas production continues to expand rapidly in the United States – and with it the potential for emissions of climate-destabilizing pollutants (especially methane), smog-forming compounds and carcinogenic substances, such as benzene.  We urgently need rigorous national standards that comprehensively address the full suite of pollutants from oil and gas facilities, protect public health and the environment and conserve needless waste of our nation’s natural resources.

In August 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took a promising first step by issuing emission standards for new natural gas wells and other oil and gas equipment, including the thousands of large storage tanks built near gas wells, pipelines and processing facilities each and every year.  These “New Source Performance Standards” (NSPS) were based on proven and highly-effective emission control technologies that leading companies have been using for years.  Many of these control technologies also directly benefit a company’s bottom line by reducing avoidable waste of natural gas from vents and leaks – saving money while protecting our climate and air. 

Regrettably, some industry associations have consistently attacked these common-sense standards.  In response to industry petitions seeking to weaken vital clean air requirements for storage tanks, EPA proposed to revise these standards in April 2013.  Among other things, the proposed revisions would have created a broad exemption for approximately 20,000 facilities built between August 2011 and April 2013.  EDF and five other environmental organizations joined together to file extensive comments strongly opposing these proposed rollbacks, and highlighting the benefits of rigorous national emission standards.  Our comments objected that the proposed exemption would lead to massive increases in emissions of harmful pollutants – over 3 million tons of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 700,000 tons of methane over the lifetime of these storage tanks.

Fortunately, these and other comments prompted EPA to retract this broad exemption in its final rule issued in August 2013.  EPA instead maintained its requirement that operators of all high-emitting storage tanks built since August 2011 reduce emissions by 95 percent.  EPA noted that the supply of emission controls for storage tanks was adequate, and concluded that the broad exemptions sought by industry were not justified.

Industry responded to this development by taking EPA to court.  On November 22, five industry groups – the American Petroleum Institute (API), Texas Oil and Gas Association, Independent Petroleum Association of America, Western Energy Alliance and Gas Processors Association – filed suit in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. challenging EPA’s emission standards.

Just before the holidays, Earthjustice and EDF filed a motion to intervene in that suit.  Along with several other environmental organizations, we are vigorously seeking to defend EPA’s action and safeguard these national emission standards.

While some industry players attempt to obstruct critical clean air progress, others are supporting common sense air pollution control measures.  Last month, Colorado proposed new air regulations for oil and gas operations that, if adopted, will help dramatically reduce harmful air and climate pollution caused by oil and gas operations.  The state of Colorado, EDF and three energy companies—Anadarko Petroleum, Encana Corporation and Noble Energy—worked together on these measures that could result in cleaner, safer air for all Coloradoans.

In places like Colorado, diverse interests are putting aside their differences and finding clean air solutions.  It’s time for API and other oil and gas associations to do the same – and invest in clean air solutions for our nation, not litigation.

By Marita Mirzatuny

Now that 2013 is behind us, it’s important to reflect on the progress of renewable energy last year and identify obstacles that may arise in 2014.

Over the last year, we kept a close eye on multiple clean energy attacks around the country, specifically on the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in the various states.  As we have highlighted before, the “man behind the curtain” in these attacks is none other than the infamous American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a front group and model bill factory for many corporate interests including oil, gas and coal.

The good news is that from Ohio to Kansas, EDF and other organizations have been successful in preventing ALEC’s aggressive tactics to hamper clean energy.  To date, ALEC has failed to repeal clean energy standards in any state, despite its “Electricity Freedom Act” propaganda and promise that 2013 would be "the most active year ever" for efforts to repeal renewable energy mandates.  Active?  Yes.  Effective?  No.  

A Critical Standoff in Ohio

One of the priority targets in ALEC’s 2013 agenda was to repeal Ohio’s clean energy standards adopted in 2008.  The group came close to defeating the state’s widely-supported RPS standards with the introduction of Senate Bill 58, but was ultimately unsuccessful by the year’s end.  This bill’s litany of bad policy includes eliminating renewable power requirements for utilities and capping energy efficiency spending.

Fortunately, EDF’s own Cheryl Roberto, former Ohio PUC Commissioner and EDF’s Associate Vice President of Smart Power, testified against this bill and it was subsequently stalled in committee as the year drew to a close.  However, it is expected to be up for a vote again sometime in January.

It’s hard to understand why ALEC would target their efforts against renewables in a state where 80 percent of Ohio voters support legally requiring the use of clean energy.  And yet the organization has decided to continue its attacks in 2014, this time waging a war on homeowners.

ALEC Goes After Homeowners

Source: Eco Watch

ALEC is now labeling residential utility customers who produce and distribute their own energy from solar as “freeriders” who should be “paying to distribute the surplus electricity” back to the grid.  On most utility bills, customers do not see itemized costs associated with transmission and distribution, meaning that once electricity is on the wires, utilities are blind, so to speak, as to who is providing and consuming the power.  However, new valuation methods to address these issues are still evolving, like decoupling (which encourages energy conservation by disassociating utility profits from the sale of energy), net metering (which makes small-scale renewable energy, like rooftop solar, more affordable by crediting these “distributed generation” owners for the excess energy they produce) and the valuation of solar (which recognizes solar energy’s multiple added benefits).  For ALEC to pin the costs of supplying excess power solely on the solar owner at this juncture is hasty.

Homeowners who generate their own electricity provide a service to themselves, the grid and the utility.  These homeowners are reducing the demand for, and costs associated with, the delivery of that power by creating their own and acting as a backup source for power in the event the utility needs to draw on their excess supply.  Apparently, ALEC doesn’t believe that these services provide value and that homeowners who invest in solar are merely “mooching” off the system.

We saw this logic play out in 2013 when Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest utility company, requested to raise its monthly charge for rooftop solar owners by an average of $50 per month.  Solar owners were able to get a reprieve (for now) with regulators approving an average charge of roughly $5 per month.

In Texas, State Representative Linda Harper-Brown (R-Irving) requested a Texas Attorney General’s opinion to nullify House Bill (HB) 362, which passed during the last legislative session.  This bill prevents Homeowners Associations (HOA), with certain exceptions, from preventing individuals from installing rooftop solar panels on their homes.  Brown feels that HOAs should have the control to stop individuals from generating their own electricity and being self-reliant.

Source: Think Progress

This is another case where ALEC and the likes of Tea Partiers Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan (who both spoke at ALEC’s policy summit a few weeks ago) show their true colors by acting in the best interests of corporations, rather than their constituents.  Passing laws that go after homeowners who produce their own power is in direct contradiction of the proclaimed ideologies in ALEC’s Electricity Freedom Act – but in this instance, it’s conveniently ignored.

Renewables Expected to Prevail in 2014

Luckily, Americans see through these schemes.  As Texas A&M reports, 59 percent of Americans support increased funding for research and development of renewable energy sources and 60 percent support tax cuts for companies to develop renewable energy technologies.  This is good news, especially considering renewable energy accounted for 100 percent of new power added to the U.S. grid last month.

Despite ALEC’s misguided strategy, the wind is literally at the back of those pushing the U.S. energy revolution towards a cleaner and more sustainable future – one with cleaner air and more jobs, like in Texas, the leader in clean energy jobs.  EDF is geared up to defend clean energy again in 2014 with the support of many Americans from both parties.  ALEC is on the wrong side of history; maybe their New Year’s resolution will be to realize it.

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: UCSUSA

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

Over the past several years, a combination of market forces and targeted policies has brought about enormous growth in clean energy technologies around the United States. A clean energy economy has developed around these new technologies, creating tens of thousands of homegrown jobs each year. Despite the industry’s initial surge, recent economic uncertainty has led to a plateau in clean energy job growth in most, but not all, regions in the U.S.

According to a report released by Environmental Entrepreneurs, the U.S. created 10,800 clean jobs in the third quarter of 2013, down from 37,000 in the previous quarter.

Notably, Texas doesn’t follow the national trend. Texas clean energy companies created over 660 jobs in the fall quarter of 2013 alone, up from less than 500 jobs in the previous quarter, cementing Texas in the list of top 10 states for clean energy jobs.

Texas’ sustained clean job growth doesn’t come as much of a surprise. The state passed a forward-looking renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and the nation’s first energy efficiency resource standard in 1999. Furthermore, Texas invested in a groundbreaking transmission project, the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ), that is set to come online in a few weeks and roll out through 2014. This 3,600-mile transmission line will carry wind energy from West Texas (one of the largest U.S. wind resources) to eastern cities that need its power. These policies propelled the state to lead the nation in wind power. Last year, nearly 10 percent of Texas’ electricity came from wind—and that number is on the rise.

The recent plateau in national clean energy jobs is a cautionary tale for Texas, re-affirming that policy matters. Traditional markets and rules don’t always reflect the value of novel clean technologies like customer-facing, demand-side resources – defined here as demand response (DR), renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage. If Texas is going to continue its clean job growth, the state must proactively establish policy that enables these new technologies to compete on a level playing field.

Right now, the Public Utility Commission of Texas and state legislators are debating the future of the state’s electricity market. Specifically, they are considering whether Texas should modify its electricity market to pay power plants and other energy resources for their ability to be ‘on-call’ and available, in addition to actually providing energy.

Any new rules resulting from this debate will have a lasting impact on the state’s clean energy economy. Highly flexible demand-side resources, such as demand response and energy efficiency, are both more economically sensible solutions than simply building new fossil fuel power plants, which are expensive to construct and rely on fluctuating fuel costs.  Any market changes should support the state’s ability to harness the benefits of clean energy resources.

Furthermore, Texas policymakers should not ignore present environmental considerations like rising temperatures and persistent drought, which are effects of climate change caused in part by fossil fuel power plants. The reality is, in the face of uncertainty, we need energy resources that are flexible, affordable and clean as well as good for business, people and the environment.

Doing so will ensure Texas continues its leadership in innovative clean energy technologies and growth in clean energy jobs.

By Jim Marston

It seems that every year, renewable energy advocates are forced to respond to some false claims made by oil or coal interest groups trying to mislead the public and legislators into believing that solar and wind energy are not worth supporting.  Even though wind power is a clean, renewable, homegrown form of energy that is good for people, business and the environment, fossil fuels are simply hardwired into this country's DNA.  So it is not surprising that fossil fuel companies defend their subsidies and tax breaks and don’t want clean energy competitors to cut into their support.  

Around this time last year, renewable energy advocates were announcing good news – the production tax credit that helped spark remarkable growth in America's wind energy industry had been extended through 2013.  And it amounted to more than just a one year bump.  Because the extension applied to projects begun in 2013, rather than completed in 2013, the credit could be applied to more projects over a longer period of time. 

But this December, the extension is scheduled to expire and forces are lining up to speak out against the production tax credit’s future.  

Enter the Koch brothers, oil billionaires who also own large coal companies.  Their political arm, Americans for Prosperity, is targeting vulnerable Republican members of Congress with an estimated $75 million ad campaign urging them to let the production tax credit expire this December "once and for all."  As they see it, the support of tax credits for renewable energy is considered ‘meddling,’ but the estimated $447 billion in tax dollars through subsidies and tax breaks that fossil fuel companies have received since 1918 isn’t.  

The fact that renewable energy tax credits have to be debated every year or two certainly gives the impression that the industry can't compete on its own without them.  But the truth is that the fossil fuel industry has been propped up by the federal government for nearly 100 years and likely could not maintain its competitive edge without the government’s support.  Fossil fuel industry leaders recently admitted to this weakness when U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus put forth a proposal to end cherished tax breaks for oil and gas drillers, stating that, if adopted, this provision would “cripple” the recent shale oil boom. 

The subsidies and tax loopholes that fossil companies have exploited over the last century would make most reasonable people blush.  But not the Koch Brothers.  They want more, and that means killing legislation that would jeopardize the coal industry.  And because coal subsidies don’t have to be renewed every year, we don’t get to have a debate about why an industry that is supposedly so competitive and so good for America needs the kind of government aid that renewable energy companies are seeking.

If the Koch Brothers and the fossil fuel industry want to even competition in the energy sector, let them forego all of their governmental favoritism, tax breaks and subsidies first.  Until the government and market begin valuing clean energy resources fairly, we’ll be back here next year having the same debate.

By EDF Blogs

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog by Ben Schneider, EDF Communications Manager

Love Park in Center City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The park is nicknamed Love Park for Robert Indiana's Love sculpture which overlooks the plaza.

Curbing pollution to protect the world now and for future generations is an obvious argument in favor of sustainability. But as organizations and companies throughout the country are demonstrating, sustainability is also big business. So much so, in fact, that some of America’s oldest cities are embracing it as a way to revitalize their economies.

Want proof it can work? Look no further than Philadelphia. It’s a quintessentially historic city – the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence and established the U.S. Constitution there, after all. And if you’ve ever spent any time there, you’ve probably noticed its history is still a central part of its identity. The William Penn statue atop City Hall, Independence Hall, the cobblestone streets – Philadelphia has gone to great lengths to preserve the past as an intrinsic part of its modern character.

Digging a little deeper, it’s clear the city has its eye on the future much more than the past. Greenbuild held their annual conference in Philadelphia last month, and it was abundantly clear public and private entities alike are investing time and resources to aggressively reinvent Philadelphia as a model of 21st century efficiency and sustainability, and they’re not alone.

Hundreds of companies and organizations, and 30,000 attendees, set up shop throughout the city’s Convention Hall to show off their latest work in sustainable building practices. The expo has grown so large it attracted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the key note address, who spoke of the potential for green building to bolster the nation’s economy and help America achieve energy independence.

Philadelphia organizations embraced their time in the green building spotlight and emphasized the city’s progress and intent:

• Last year, the Philadelphia Eagles football team installed 14 micro-turbines and 11,000 solar panels in and around Lincoln Financial Field, the largest solar array in any NFL stadium.
• The city’s water department is two years into a 25-year plan to implement a groundbreaking, city-wide storm water management plan that will drastically reduce water pollution and reinvent the city’s infrastructure in the process.

• The Navy Yard — which dates back to 1776, when the United States needed to bolster its navy for the Revolutionary War and was shuttered in the mid-1990s – has been remade into a 1,200 acre business campus where 130 companies now utilize the space for offices, manufacturing, research and development, and more.

These kinds of stories are important to remember as the environmental movement continues to broaden our circle of supporters. Within the traditional base of the environmental movement, calls to preserve the world we leave our kids resonate deeply. But we’ll need more non-traditional allies if we’re going to enact the kind of sweeping reforms needed to fight climate change. Adding the economic and financial benefits of sustainability to the conversation are one way to do that.

Philadelphians embrace their rich heritage as much as any city in America – and as they demonstrate, that’s no reason not to look toward the future with excitement as well.

By Larissa Koehler

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

Source: Peter Lee/Flickr

Earlier this year, Southern California Edison (SCE) permanently retired the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) after forty years of operation in San Diego County, appearing to put the large-scale power plant firmly in the past. However, much like Ebenezer Scrooge, California is grappling with the specter of SONGS’ past – which may haunt our present and future.

The story of SONGS is not unique to California. As of the end of 2012, 28 nuclear power plants were shut down in the United States – and many more will face the same fate in the near future, as they reach the end of their design life. Thus, a transition to renewables and incentivizing reduced demand– and a refusal to be tied to fossil fuels – is an issue of national importance.

The closure of SONGS has left California at an important crossroads: Continue to lean on fossil fuel energy and build additional combustion power plants– like Marley’s ghost chained to the past – or start shaping the future by using the clean solutions that are available today.

In a brief filed in a California Public Utilities Commission proceeding, EDF explained that California has time to develop environmentally superior resources, which California has dubbed “preferred resources,” and should do so before investing more resources in highly polluting fossil fuels:

• Demand Response

Demand response (DR) and time-of-use(TOU) rate programs offer incentives to customers who reduce their energy usage when there is a high system-wide demand, which requires the use of more expensive and inefficient peaking power plants.

These programs have a tremendous potential to impact necessary demand: If 50% of SCE’s customers participated, energy demand would be reduced by two-thirds of the capacity SONGS provided. As a bonus, those customers would also collectively see cost savings of $357 million, a 15% decrease.

• Energy Efficiency

Energy efficiency measures result in huge energy and cost savings. For example, in 2010 and 2011 CPUC energy efficiency programs saw energy savings that were enough to power more than 600,000 households and offset 1,069 megawatts (MW) of electric capacity – equal to the output of 3 large power plants.

• Renewables

California currently has 10,700 MW of wind and solar power connected to the CAISO grid, with plans to add 8,000 more MW by 2020. For reference, consider that SONGS had the capacity to produce 2,200 MW of electricity.

• Storage

The CPUC is already starting to put increased focus on energy storage, to good effect. Continuing to emphasize the importance of storage could transition California from needing to rely on traditional energy sources at any time of the day.

In a talk on December 2, Commissioner Andrew McAllister of the California Energy Commission stated that the closure of SONGS “is an opportunity to see what’s possible.” We agree: rather than be haunted by the specter of SONGS, California should take this opportunity to innovate and work to fill any gap in production with preferred resources first.

In this way, the state can serve as a template for how other parts of the country could use current, clean resources to create jobs, lower prices for consumers, and improve air quality through reduced emissions. Additional combustion power plants? Bah, humbug!

By Rory Christian

One of the worst hit states by last year’s Superstorm Sandy, New York is moving aggressively to avert future climate-related weather events.  Governor Cuomo announced the launch of a Green Bank last week, giving the state a timely and much-needed Christmas gift.

The move shows the state’s strong commitment to the acceleration of a clean, low-carbon energy economy.  New York joins the ranks of several other states, including Connecticut and Hawaii, in addressing a key issue holding clean energy in America back, namely financing.  The Green Bank, which has $210 million in initial funding originating from existing ratepayer and Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative funds, targets market barriers to private financing of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. 

Working with private sector financial institutions, the Green Bank will offer financial products such as credit enhancement, loan loss reserves and loan bundling to support securitization (which promotes liquidity in the marketplace) and help build secondary markets.  These products have long-proven successful in stimulating market developments and creating investment-quality, asset-backed securities that can be bought and traded.

When introducing the New York Green Bank in his State of the Union address earlier this year, Governor Cuomo stated that it would be capitalized at $1 billion – so the Green Bank is expected to grow in size after offering its first financial products in early 2014.

This could not have come at a better time for New Yorkers.  In the aftermath of Sandy and other major environmental events, it is critical that New York develop a strong, resilient energy infrastructure.  Governor Cuomo recognizes that government funds alone cannot address these large-scale issues and that integrating private capital into the mix can greatly accelerate much-needed improvements.

Indeed, some estimates say the creation of a $1 billion Green Bank could unlock $78 billion of financing opportunities for sustainable energy projects.   This would put New York on track to meet state energy reduction goals, improve the resilience of its energy infrastructure and create numerous job opportunities.

By Mark Brownstein

Source: Pennlive

Yesterday the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stood up for the traditional powers of local governments to decide where — and, to a significant extent, how — oil and gas development happens in their communities. In a 4-2 vote, the Court overturned Act 13, a 2012 state law that had stripped localities of some of their power to decide where the industry can operate. For example, Act 13 required that drilling, waste pits and pipelines be allowed in every zoning district, including residential districts, as long as certain buffers are observed.

That provision and others were challenged in a lawsuit filed by seven Pennsylvania localities. The suit was supported by an amicus brief written by lawyers at Earthjustice and signed by EDF and other environmental groups. We congratulate the local governments on this important victory and thank Earthjustice for its leadership.

This is a big win for local governments because it preserves their right to make sensible land use decisions that can impact quality of life. Home to the gas-rich Marcellus shale basin, Pennsylvania has emerged as the nation’s fastest-growing producer of natural gas and now ranks third in the nation, behind only Texas and Louisiana. Pennsylvania accounts for more than 10 percent of the nation’s total natural gas production, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Alongside this spike in production, however, serious concerns about air and water quality in the region have also emerged.

EDF believes that the environmental and public health risks associated with natural gas development, distribution and delivery must be addressed. Nobody should have to accept polluted water or dirty air for the sake of cheap energy. That’s why we are working in key states around the country, such as Pennsylvania, Texas and Colorado, to get strong regulations in place to make sure gas development is done right. It’s also why EDF and our allies stood up for the traditional rights of localities during the Act 13 court challenge that ended in victory yesterday.

We’re glad to see the Pennsylvania Supreme Court take this important step to restore the balance between state and local interests. EDF believes that states and local authorities can best regulate oil and gas activities when we all work together, collaborating on the sequencing, placement and extent of this heavy industrial activity in a way that respects communities and protects the environment.

By Greg Andeck

Duke Energy secured approval from the North Carolina Utilities Commission this week to offer more renewable energy to its most energy-intensive customers in the state, including data centers, manufacturers and college campuses.

Duke's "green source" program comes at the request of customers like Google, which opened a $600 million data center in Lenoir, NC, and asked Duke Energy to provide them with more renewable energy offerings.

This is great news for economic development, jobs and the environment in North Carolina.  Duke's green source program will increase renewable energy investment beyond the goal set by North Carolina’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard.

Under the green source program, Duke Energy will work with eligible customers to identify the amount, type and source of renewable energy they want.  Duke will then arrange long-term power purchase agreements with solar, wind or other renewable energy suppliers.  Participating companies pay any additional costs of purchasing renewable energy.

The three-year pilot program has some big gaps.  It limits participation to new or expanding corporate facilities.  It is not available to owners of commercial buildings and small businesses.

The program also does not address the growing demand from homeowners for more renewable energy choices, particularly rooftop solar.

Still, the green source  program is an important step in providing Duke’s most energy intensive customers with more options for renewable energy.  EDF applauds Duke Energy and the customers that worked together to develop this program.

By Abbey Brown

By now you might have heard the story.  Andy Darrell and his fellow colleagues in EDF’s New York office were staring out the window of their office near Gramercy Park several years ago when they noticed thick plumes of black smoke rising from a nearby building.  As New York regional director of the Environmental Defense Fund and a member of outgoing Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC Sustainability Advisory Board, it struck Andy that they could actually do something about it.  Embarking on a plan that aimed to phase out the City’s dirtiest heating oils, the successful EDF-led NYC Clean Heat campaign was born.

This story officially entered New York City environmental lore when New York Magazine included it in the annual Reasons to Love New York issue as “Reason 19. Because Our Air Is the Cleanest It’s Been in 50 Years.”  The recent article describes the public-private coalition of city officials, lawmakers, non-profits and private sector banks that came together for a $100 million financing program that would help building owners make the transition to cleaner fuels.  The result: around 3,000 buildings have converted to cleaner fuels, which has been the primary driver in reducing sulfur-dioxide pollution by nearly 70 percent.

NYC Clean Heat and Andy Darrell’s role as one of New York’s leading environmental voices was also featured prominently in InsideClimate News’ new e-book  Bloomberg’s Hidden Legacy: Climate Change and the Future of New York City.  In the e-book, owing to his involvement in Bloomberg’s PlaNYC advisory panel, Andy makes the case for this diverse public-private coalition to be preserved under a new administration with a priority on “keeping that table going and making sure that the chairs are representative of what New York City is.”  EDF is proud of the significant work carried out in concert with the Bloomberg administration to date, and we look forward to moving this great momentum forward with New York City’s new mayor – as well as other mayors around the country and world.

Our health, environment and economy are better off when public and private sectors work together towards a common goal.  It is our hope that this collaborative, market-based, solutions-oriented approach will be a model for other cities in their pursuits to tackle some of the most serious environmental problems of our time.

By EDF Blogs

By: Matt Golden, Senior Energy Finance Consultant, Environmental Defense Fund

Source: Spark Energy

Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) Investor Confidence Project (ICP) aims to bring transparency and accountability to the energy efficiency market by introducing a system of standardization. Traditionally, most energy efficiency analyses are done by the companies selling retrofit services to commercial building owners and investors, resulting in biased results that do not always ensure return on investment (ROI).  Additionally, inconsistencies in the methodology for arriving at these ROI metrics have created barriers to standardizing a measure of success for energy retrofits.

For the first time, ICP’s Energy Performance Protocols were used to leverage financing for a $2 million office building retrofit in Bridgeport, Connecticut.  This new model could accelerate the vast potential of energy efficiency retrofits in commercial buildings.

ICP’s protocols have been developed with broad stakeholder participation including engineers, industry allies, financial market participants, insurers, regulators and utilities.  The protocols aim to significantly increase stakeholder confidence in the resulting savings by:

• Standardizing how projects are baselined, engineered, installed, operated and measured by specifying the use of existing industry standards and best practices.
• Providing developers with a clear roadmap to design projects that will save energy and money when utilized to develop energy efficiency projects.
• Reducing performance risk and enhance investors’ and building owners’ confidence in the projected financial returns on energy efficiency projects.
• Standardizing the project origination process, thereby reducing engineering overhead and lowering transaction costs.

Widespread market adoption of the protocols will help to lower capital costs and increase the availability of funding, allowing large-scale investment to flow into commercial energy efficiency projects.

The use of ICP protocols in the Connecticut building upgrade demonstrates that their initial market adoption is underway.  The project received support from a number of influential ICP allies, including Sustainable Real Estate Solutions, Inc. (SRS), EMCOR Services New England Mechanical (EMCOR) and Connecticut’s Clean Energy Finance and Investment Authority (CEFIA) the administrator of Connecticut’s Commercial Pace Program (C-PACE).

SRS, a member of ICP’s Ally Network, has embedded ICP protocols within its energy retrofit underwriting software platform.  The use of this platform enabled the Connecticut building developer, EMCOR, to design the retrofit to be consistent with both Connecticut’s C-PACE standards and the recently-released ICP protocols.  As a result, both the investor, CEFIA, and the building owner had the data they needed to meet their investment underwriting requirements, thus green lighting the project.

The ultimate goal for the Investor Confidence Project is to transform the current energy efficiency marketplace, making it more robust and dynamic.  As this project helps demonstrate, the ICP protocols are already increasing the confidence of building owners and lenders in real-world projects.

By Elizabeth Stein

The Sustainable FERC Project, a coalition of environmental and clean energy organizations, launched its new website today: www.sustainableFERC.org.  The site will inform the public and policymakers about the coalition’s efforts to increase the amount of clean, low-carbon energy powering the nation’s electric grid, which focus on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the regional entities regulated by FERC.

FERC is a federal agency whose activities include regulation of transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce.  Working on behalf of its coalition partners, the Sustainable FERC Project develops and advocates for federal policies and regional implementation and practices that will give rise to a cleaner, more efficient energy system. The coalition’s top priorities include removing the barriers to getting clean energy on the transmission grid, maximizing the use of energy efficiency in planning and facilitating a transition to a cleaner energy future.

Source – Windpower Engineering Development

EDF’s work as a member of the Sustainable FERC Project coalition complements our own Smart Power Initiative, which is working, primarily through state-level advocacy, to change the trajectory of the U.S. electricity system to help avoid dangerous climate change through smart power policies and clean energy investments.  The Smart Power Initiative focuses on ensuring that the right state policies are in place to allow for better integration of clean energy resources into the power grid.

Optimizing the environmental performance of the U.S. electric grid – which is sometimes called the “largest machine on the planet” – requires environmentally-sound policies and practices at all levels to drive system planning and operation.  The new website (www.SustainableFERC.org) will feature issue analysis, coalition comments filed with FERC and regional grid organizations and links to blogs written by representatives from the coalition.  It should become a go-to site for those wanting to deepen their understanding of environmentally-important smart grid developments in the federally-regulated portions of the U.S. electric system.

By Paul Stinson

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

If renewable energy is a good thing, then a lot of renewable energy is a very good thing, right? Not exactly, according to recent articles in the L.A. Times and Forbes about challenges posed by the growth of renewables.  But, as we’ve pointed out, the issue here is not too much renewable energy, but rather a vulnerable U.S. electric grid built for the last century.

It’s essential to remember the bigger picture in order to arrive at the truth of the matter: If we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, renewable energy is a vital part of the solution.  And while an unprecedented abundance of renewable power may raise complex questions about how to integrate these resources, it also underscores the need – and vast opportunity – for critical energy infrastructure improvements.  Our response as a nation should not be to shrink from the challenges of renewables, but rather to keep working toward a smarter, more resilient energy system to meet the needs of the 21st century and beyond. 

The Challenges, and the Opportunity

According to a study co-authored by Doug Arent, Executive Director of the Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), we’ll have the technical capability by mid-century to rely on renewables for 80 percent of our electricity. So what’s the problem?

Not the science, but the policies.

The grid is not just a collection of aging power lines, “the grid is also built on an antiquated tangle of market rules, operational formulas and business models,” says the L.A. Times article. That’s why EDF is working to get the right policies in place at the state and national levels to make the clean energy future a reality.

More and better transmission capacity is necessary to deliver clean power, and to that end an estimated $163 billion worth of transmission investment and construction is already underway in the U.S. and Canada. For example, new transmission in Texas, the nation’s wind leader, is coming online right now to increase the state’s available wind power by 50 percent.

But while these increases represent much-needed upgrades, we don’t achieve a smarter, more flexible grid by simply enabling access to more energy – even if it comes from cleaner sources. The variability of renewable energy means we need to change how we use energy as well, and that means aligning clean energy incentives for utilities and customers and ensuring that we value clean resources fairly.

Source: kd1s/flickr

The Tools to Get Us There

An equitable market recognizes the value of smart power resources and tools such as grid-scale energy storage, which mitigates the variability of renewable power. Rapidly developing battery technology creates a new level of grid flexibility: We can charge batteries when it’s windy or sunny and use the stored power when it’s not. As utilities continue to explore how storage technologies can help integrate renewables, customers will reap the benefits from a smarter, more resilient energy system.

Similarly, demand response is a key tool for customers themselves to help reduce wasted energy as well as add clean energy to the mix. It is an energy management solution that uses technology to either turn off energy-intensive devices during periods of peak demand, or shift their use to a different time of day. Demand response puts power in the hands of customers – or more accurately, at their fingertips – allowing people to act as de facto power plants.

EDF is studying how these innovative energy- and cost-saving approaches work on a practical level, in combination with a host of other smart grid technologies, in its partnership with Pecan Street Inc.  We are also working to optimize demand response rules at the regulatory level so that its benefits are valued as much as corresponding fossil fuel resources such as coal, oil and natural gas.

Over the next twenty years we’ll spend trillions of dollars modernizing our outmoded U.S. electric grid. As we do, let’s make sure we make it smarter, stronger and more resilient to accelerate the transition to a clean, low-carbon energy economy. This vast opportunity is not without difficulty, but it is up to us as a nation to meet the challenge.

By Rory Christian

New York Governor Cuomo announced last week that the NY-Sun Initiative, a public-private partnership launched last year to spur growth in solar energy, will provide an additional $30 million to stimulate more large solar and biogas projects in the New York City area. The move follows a successful 1.56-MW rooftop solar project in the Bronx.

The expansion of the NY-Sun initiative, which has committed $800 million to solar energy through 2015, provides further example of New York’s leadership role in solar energy in the northeast. New York has some impressive smart power projects under its belt, including the 32-MW solar farm at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Long Island, the state’s largest solar installation.

Also in the same area, the Long Island Power Authority’s CLEAN Solar Initiative initiated the state’s first feed-in tariff program, which has plans to purchase up to 50 MW of customer-generated solar energy. 

Source: The NY-Sun initiative

Another major development is solar energy provider SunEdison’s plans to turn a landfill in Staten Island into New York City’s largest solar power installation. The 10-MW project in Freshkills Park, which is scheduled to begin construction in late 2015, will increase the city’s solar energy output by 50%.

Just as important as construction, however, are smart energy policies that encourage growth in the solar energy industry, and here, too, New York is a clear leader. The state has recently streamlined permitting processes and launched training programs for city planners and code officials. It is also testing new business models that will lower solar photovoltaic (PV) costs and investigating new financing options for solar customers, among others.

New York’s innovation in solar energy is setting a great example for other states to follow.

By Marita Mirzatuny

Source: Earth Techling

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

As we highlighted a few weeks back, Texas is on a new path to accelerating its clean, renewable energy economy.  The opening of the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) now enables more West and Panhandle wind turbines to fuel the state’s major metropolises, and the completion of the project couldn’t come soon enough.

A number of companies are looking to grow and invest in Texas, thanks to its plentiful, clean wind power.  Google, Microsoft and BBVA Bank are leading the charge and signing long-term agreements to purchase Texas wind energy.  These contracts lock in considerable revenue for the state and guarantee Texas’ ranking as the number one wind-producing state in the nation.  In fact, West Texas wind has outpaced the growth of coal, natural gas and all other fuel sources that supply the grid, according to a recent report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

In September, Google added to its growing stock of renewable energy by purchasing the entire output of a 240-megawatt wind farm (enough energy to power 84,000 homes) outside Amarillo to power its Oklahoma data center.  Late in November, Microsoft signed a 20-year contract to purchase all of the energy from a 110-megawatt wind farm outside Fort Worth to power its San Antonio data center.  And BBVA Bank recently signed a 10-year agreement with Choice! Energy Services, a Houston-based retail energy broker, to power its Texas branches exclusively with wind and solar energy.

So what’s attracting these companies to Texas wind energy?

With the risks and realities of climate change becoming increasingly clear, more and more companies are moving to reduce or eliminate their carbon footprint by seeking cheap, water-free, carbon-free renewable energy.

There is an economic upside as well.  These long-term renewable energy contracts are popular because they provide absolute certainty about the price a company will pay for electricity for decades to come.  Unlike electricity purchased from the utility, the price will not go up if, say, natural gas prices increase in the future.  This makes the contracts an attractive option for businesses and the environment.

EDF applauds these companies’ efforts to make the switch to clean energy.   Their bulk purchase of homegrown, renewable electricity expands Texas’ wind industry, reduces harmful pollution and grows the state’s economy.  Most importantly, it gets all of us a little closer to a clean energy economy that protects the climate and reduces our dependence on fossil fuels.  It’s a clear win for everyone.

By Kate Zerrenner

On November 18th, the Smart Cities Council released the Smart Cities Council Readiness Guide at the Smart City Expo World Congress in Barcelona, Spain. I am privileged to be a member of the Smart Cities Council Advisory Board, and in such a capacity, served as a review for the Guide.

The Smart Cities Council Readiness Guide is the first of its kind—a comprehensive, vendor-neutral handbook for city leaders and planners to help them assess their current state of technology and give them a roadmap for developing a smart city.

It was produced in collaboration with some of the world’s top smart city experts and includes technology recommendations for a city’s most important responsibilities: buildings, energy, telecommunications, transportation, water and wastewater, health and human services, public safety and payments.

My reviews were solely of the energy and water chapters, but the Guide as a whole offers a collection of guidelines, best practices and more than 50 case studies as well as 27 proven principles that will enable cities to achieve a smart city status. City planners will be able to identify the best path forward for their particular city, creating a customized plan that will work, even if development of the plan is gradual.

What is a smart city?

At the most basic level, it is a holistic, integrated approach to improving the efficiency of cities while developing the local economy and improving the quality of life for its people. This necessarily includes smart environmental practices: a cleaner electric system, a more efficient system for water and wastewater and energy-efficient buildings. A smart city is one that allows its future generations to thrive, and technology is at the heart of that.

City leaders need to understand what technologies are available to help them run smarter cities, and how to procure the technology that would be most useful for their particular needs.

Energy is the foundation of a smart city

From the cars and buses that make our cities accessible, to the heating and cooling systems that make them bearable, the smartest cities have an intelligent energy system that empowers the integration of new technologies across all energy platforms. These new technologies, sometimes referred to as Information and Communications Technologies (ICT), can help cities pollute less, use more renewable energy, improve resiliency and put customers in the driver’s seat.

A smart energy system designed for a clean energy future is made up of numerous components: smart meters that offer two-way communications between customer premises and utilities, outage management systems that make the power grid more resilient and real-time analytics about our energy use are just a few examples of the technologies available to cities looking to go ‘smart.’

A smart energy system designed for a clean energy future is made up of numerous components: smart meters that offer two-way communications between customer premises and utilities, outage management systems that make the power grid more resilient and real-time analytics about our energy use are just a few examples of the technologies available to cities looking to go ‘smart.’

One example of a city that has adopted information and communications technologies (ICT) in order to operate more intelligently is Austin, Texas. Through an innovative partnership with Pecan Street Inc., EDF has helped Austin develop its first “living smart grid laboratory." More than 200 Austin families have installed rooftop solar and more than 50 have purchased or leased an electric vehicle as part of this consumer energy research project. Through previously installed smart energy and water meters, real-time data is collected on the usage of these technologies, providing valuable insight to customers that is helping them save money on energy bills and cities improve on the management and delivery of energy resources.

In smart cities, water is the lifeblood of people, power and industry

Securing access to clean, affordable drinking water for our cities’ growing populations is crucial to the success of smart cities, but did you know that water is also essential in creating a secure energy future? In 2005, U.S. power plants withdrew four times as much water as all U.S. residences, accounting for 41 percent of total water use. It also takes a tremendous amount of power to pump and treat the water we drink. Energy is used to secure, deliver, treat and distribute water, while water is used (and often degraded) to develop, process and deliver energy. This circular connection between energy and water is often referred to as the “energy-water nexus” and it is becoming an increasing challenge for cities around the world.

As outlined in the Smart Cities Council Readiness Guide, smart water systems can make dramatic improvements to the cost, safety and reliability of urban water supplies. Implementing smart water meters can help customers save money on their utility bills by sending market signals via data on their consumption..  They can also be used to help utilities identify leaks in their delivery system (which currently accounts for 30% of our water systems’ loss).

Placing sensors strategically throughout the system can help detect water contaminants and alert system operators who can mitigate potential threats more quickly. As catastrophic storms increase due to climate change, making our existing, antiquated energy infrastructure highly vulnerable, these same sensors will become indispensable in their ability to monitor, predict and help cities prepare for floods before they happen. Smarter, dynamic, flexible energy is central to resilience, safety and quick recovery in a storm, as well as reducing the harmful pollution linked to climate change in the first place.  

The road to a smart city future starts now

Cities today face an unprecedented amount of challenges. Transportation gridlock, water shortages and a changing energy landscape are just a few that are expected to worsen if cities do not plan ahead. According to the founding Smart Cities Council Chairman Jesse Berst, the world’s largest 700 cities are projected to invest $30-40 trillion into their infrastructure over the next 20 years. Although only in its first iteration, the Smart Cities Council Readiness Guide Version 1.0 is a fantastic planning tool to help these cities begin thinking about how best to invest their funds toward a smart city future.

By Jim Marston

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog. 

Today president Obama took an important step toward supporting a clean energy future by directing the Federal Government to consume 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.  This is more than double the current level, making this a significant moment in President Obama’s second term.

Renewable energy has become cost-competitive over the years and the quality of innovative clean technologies has dramatically improved.  These are clean, efficient, homegrown resources that we can count on now, and President Obama’s public support of renewables in this announcement will serve to further drive their competiveness in the market.

This memorandum also directs agencies to update their building-performance and energy-management practices, “by encouraging the use of the consensus-based, industry-standard Green Button data access system (Green Button) and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Energy Star Portfolio Manager.”  Recommendations under this section ask agencies to install smart energy and water meters, participate in demand response where possible and make the data collected from smart meters publically available in order to better manage energy performance and allow for benchmarking.

This bold action is the latest step under President Obama’s Climate Action Plan released earlier this year and mirrors many of the advocacy issues EDF is currently working on under our smart power initiative.

In 2009, the President directed the Federal Government to become a leader in clean energy and energy efficiency when he signed Executive Order 13514 on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.  Federal agencies have already made notable progress on the sustainability goals set forth in this order, reducing their annual greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15 percent (7.8 million metric tons) – the equivalent of removing 1.5 million cars from the road.  The memorandum announced today will serve to further support the work these agencies are already doing to achieve the President’s climate change goals.

EDF applauds the Obama Administration for taking this important step toward doubling down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising.  The President understands that getting our energy future on the right path is an essential foundation that our country needs in order to be competitive, provide jobs and protect our health and environment.