By EDF Blogs

Guest Blog Post By: R. Blake Young, President and CEO of Comverge

The complex task of managing peak energy demand is not something that should be addressed in a piecemeal fashion, and this is particularly true in the demand response industry. For reference, demand response (DR) balances supply and demand, providing peaking capacity to utilities without investments in new plants. DR incentivizes change in customer energy usage patterns to reward lower electricity use at times when system reliability is jeopardized or the price of electricity is higher.

While Comverge supports both residential and commercial and industrial (C&I) demand response programs, it’s important to remember that the residential sector is an incredibly valuable and essential part of any energy management program. The infographic below illustrates why residential demand response is so important to our nation’s energy mix.

Residential Energy Consumption is Increasing & Comprises a Disproportionate Amount of Peak Energy Use

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2013 Annual Energy Outlook, the residential sector currently makes up 20 percent of total energy demand. In addition, total residential square footage in the U.S. is expected to increase by approximately 41 percent by 2040, bringing the total delivered electricity up as well.

It’s clear that residential energy use makes up a sizeable portion of the energy pie, but interestingly it accounts for over 50 percent of peak energy load in certain parts of the country. Since demand response was initially created to manage peak load, the residential segment simply can’t be ignored as part of any utility’s energy management strategy.

The Value of Predictability

Being able to manage peak load is one thing, but being able to do so at the touch of a button offers a whole different level of reliability and predictability. This provides utilities with a rapidly-dispatchable resource that delivers guaranteed results – which is especially critical as utilities add more variable sources of generation to the grid like wind and solar. Bottom line: residential demand response delivers energy relief to the grid that is always available when it’s needed. Furthermore, the speed at which the energy reduction can be achieved is remarkable.

Consumers Want to Manage their Energy Use

Residential demand response gives customers what they want by helping to address environmental concerns, enhancing communications and providing a wide range of choices. This is important as people don’t just want to monitor energy use; they also increasingly want to engage with their utility on their energy consumption. A residential demand response program provides a great tool for utilities to engage with their residential customers, and can be an inflection point to start thinking about participation in other energy management programs available to them.

So, why does residential demand response matter? Because it makes sense, and it has proven to be a critical part of our nation’s energy mix.

By Marita Mirzatuny

Over the past two years, Texas’s changing energy landscape has been a focus of EDF’s work.  In our Texas’ Energy Crunch report from March 2013, we highlighted that Texas has a peak capacity constraint – meaning that the power grid becomes constrained when, for example, everyone is using their air conditioning units on hot summer afternoons.  This challenge, coupled with increased climate change and drought, signal the need to prepare for an uncertain energy future by adopting a smarter grid and cleaner resources.

The Public Utilities Commission of Texas (PUCT) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) have been engaged in this conversation and various proposals have been laid on the table to determine what Texas’ energy future will look like.  EDF maintains the position that, whatever reforms are made, customer-facing, demand-side resources – defined here as demand response (DR), renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage – must play a key role to ensuring reliability, affordability, customer choice and environmental improvements.

Energy-Only Status Quo or Capacity Market or…?

Texas’ current energy-only market structure pays power plants only for the energy they produce.  This is beneficial in that generators are not overcompensated, but the downside is that energy companies aren’t incentivized to build in Texas and energy management providers (DR companies) are not viewed as equal players.  Energy prices are low due to an upsurge in cheap, abundant natural gas and wind – and without a guarantee for a high return on investment, companies will not take the risk of constructing costly new power plants. 

A capacity market, an option some for which some are pushing, would pay those providing capacity for their ability to be on stand-by, in addition to energy payments.  Capacity is “the maximum electric output a generator can produce under specific conditions.”  As the PUCT weighs all of these recommendations for a market structure change, including the Brattle report, the conversation seems to have become contentious with lines in the sand being drawn.  

But the choice between an energy-only market or a capacity market is a bit of a false dichotomy.  There are other concepts that we can look to provide a balance for our energy needs that many stakeholders can agree on.  A ‘third way,’ like a capabilities market or a more simple tweak like changes to protocols, or rules, in ancillary services (the extra market services often obtained as backup for grid reliability), could give us the resources “capable” of efficiently meeting the specific electricity needs Texans require.

Political Tea Leaves

To elevate this to the Legislature, the Texas Senate Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on Monday at the request of the Chair, Senator Troy Fraser (R- Horseshoe Bay).  While this debate has been ongoing among legislators, it has not yet fully entered the public sphere.  But with Sen. Fraser calling this hearing in response to PUCT Chairman Nelson and Commissioner Brandy Marty’s nonbinding vote to mandate a capacity reserve margin that may change.  While the invitation-only testimony was necessary and informative, it was heavy on theatrics and heavily one-sided by those opposed to a capacity market.  We believe that Texans would have been better served if all stakeholders were given equal opportunity to weigh in.

After announcing her run for Lieutenant Governor last week, joining Wendy Davis on the Democratic ticket, Committee member Senator Leticia Van de Putte directed some important questions at the panelists.  And, at one point, she even seemed shocked when it was suggested that Texas was considering a “socialized” energy system.

Marty’s perspective and emphasis on reliability as her main concern as PUCT Commissioner is also duly-noted in light of her previous role as Governor Perry’s Chief of Staff.  If the lights go out, his political future dims as well.  However, Commissioner Marty showed her openness to new ideas and stated that Texas’ unique market didn’t “come off of a shelf,” but was built to become what it is today and will continue to evolve with any decision made.  Ultimately, though, the Senate Natural Resources Committee does not have jurisdiction over this issue, as it lies with the Senate Business and Commerce Committee.  So, while the show was good, highlighting the tension between Senate Chairman Fraser and PUCT Chairman Nelson, it was a bit ineffectual in the big scheme. 

We need an honest conversation about what Texas requires to ensure reliability, a fair cost to customers and the environment, as well as a blueprint for how to get there.  Senator Van de Putte made an important request of the Commission to, “be sure that the current market is not working before [they] make a change.  And before [making] any changes, be sure everyone is involved.”

Demand Response: The Star of the Show

One bright note, however, was the consistent focus on customer-facing, demand-side resources, specifically demand response, which may be a turning point in this conversation.  DR 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. 

While many different perspectives were heard, those that testified against a capacity market at the hearing seemed to agree that the beneficiaries of a capacity market – DR companies – were witnessing significant market growth.  Dr. Robert Michaels of the Texas Public Policy Foundation discussed how the new paradigm of energy is less “iron clad” than in the past, stating that “capacity is becoming less important over time because of growth of demand response…”

According to Brattle, and as we have discussed previously in my 13:15 blog post, Texas could achieve 15% of our capacity reserve margin if demand response were deployed to its full potential across the state.  Our capacity reserve margin today is 13.75%.  DR alone could solve Texas’ capacity challenges.

Compared to natural gas power plants, demand response and energy efficiency can be built out cheaper and faster.  Texas could achieve as much as 13,000 megawatts (MW) of DR by 2019, with the majority (7,661 MW) coming from residential customers, a group that accounts for “more than 70 percent of peak load.”  That said, DR needs the ability to operate in the energy market without unnecessary obstacles posed by market protocols simply because this type of resource and approach is novel.  DR representatives should have been invited to testify to attest to its great promise.

A ‘Third Way’

A third market option that incentivizes these type of customer-focused, demand-side resources may hold the key to quickly deploying additional capacity in the Texas energy market without sacrificing reliability, taxing industrial and residential customers or gulping down the state’s scarce water supply.  A third way could put the right rules in place to enable the rapid deployment and fair compensation for innovative, clean energy technologies and bolster Texas’ economy through energy savings.

Next week, as part of a new blog series on this topic, I will dive deeper into the role yesterday’s hearing played in the larger context of EDF’s work on energy markets, and discuss a notable omission from the discussion: climate change.

By Rory Christian

This commentary originally appeared on Verizon’s News Center.

Technology giant Verizon is making significant strides toward increasing the use of on-site green energy throughout its national portfolio with plans to finish more than $100 million in clean and renewable energy projects across facilities in seven states by the end of this year. The investment is estimated to reduce carbon emissions by over 15,000 metric tons each year, which is comparable to over 2,000 homes’ annual electricity use. Verizon’s video showcasing its plans includes an introduction by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)’s very own Victoria Mills, managing director of Corporate Partnerships.

The move builds on the company’s earlier foray into clean technology, resulting in Verizon’s successful 2005 investment in a 1.4 megawatt fuel cell in Garden City, New York. Fuel cells use an electrochemical process in which oxygen and fuel (natural gas or biogas) react to produce amounts of electricity. The process produces less carbon emissions than more conventional sources of electricity, and enables the possibility of affordable on-site, user-owned power generation that is as constant and reliable as a utility and provides an attractive economic payback for customers.

When selecting locations for solar and fuel-cell energy projects, Verizon was careful to consider sites with favorable zoning requirements, utility partners and regulatory regimes. Despite being financially viable, identifying suitable projects was no simple task. Financing these projects without incentives at the federal and state levels proved impossible, and the incentives often came with conflicting timetables and were difficult to leverage.

Streamlining the ability to finance clean energy projects is a key goal of EDF’s Smart Power Initiative, and Verizon’s current efforts are a perfect case study. EDF is working to improve the availability of financing for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects throughout several states across the U.S. In New York, EDF is working with Governor Cuomo’s administration to establish a “Green Bank,” a state-run $1 billion initiative that will encourage private sector financing for clean energy projects in the state.

EDF is also developing and promoting innovative financing tools, like on-bill repayment (OBR), which helps spur economic development, clean energy jobs and customer savings by enabling property owners to avoid the upfront cost of energy improvements. Through OBR, home and building owners can finance energy efficiency and renewable energy projects through cost-saving loans from third-party investors, which are then repaid through customer’s utility bills. The up-front money comes from private sector lenders at no cost to ratepayers or taxpayers.

There is no contradiction between a sound environment and strong economic growth, and Verizon’s commitment to sustainability is evidence that good environmental strategy = good business strategy. For the past three years, Verizon has been part of EDF Climate Corps, a program that embeds specially-trained graduate students in organizations as dedicated energy problem-solvers. EDF Climate Corps fellows have found $11 million in energy-saving opportunities at Verizon.

EDF hopes to foster an environment in which more members of the business community can pursue similar solutions. These efforts are the first steps toward the goal of a cleaner, smarter and stronger energy infrastructure that will yield environmental benefits for years to come.

By Raya Salter

Last month I travelled to Amsterdam for European Utility Week (EUW), Europe’s largest “smart energy” conference that was attended by more than 7,000 people, hundreds of exhibitors, utilities, regulators and policy experts.  The theme of this year’s conference was “Pulling in One Direction,” with a focus on greater collaboration between the European power transmission and distribution sectors.  I was invited to speak about EDF’s Smart Power Initiative, which aims to change the trajectory of the U.S. electricity system to help avoid dangerous climate change through smart power policies and clean energy investments.

Why would EUW be interested in EDF’s approach?  Because EDF seeks to knit together key state and regional regulatory agendas to “move the needle” toward a clean and modernized power grid, and to fix the “disconnect” between power transmission and distribution.   Increasing the connection between the wholesale sector (typically has more sophisticated markets including real time pricing) and the distribution sector (has less sophisticated pricing) can unlock the value of smart grid. 

This is one reason why our team seeks to enable smart metering and dynamic pricing for customers on the distribution side.  Dynamic pricing incentivizes the shifting electricity use to periods of lower demand and lower prices (often when clean, low-carbon energy is most available).  Enhancing the flow of information and energy between the wholesale and distribution sector will also empower smart grid solutions such as: reducing wasted energy through energy efficiency and demand response (which rewards customers who use less electricity during times of peak, or high, energy demand) and  increasing the use of clean, distributed generation (like wind and solar).  These innovative solutions will ultimately make the system cleaner, less wasteful and eliminate the need to invest in additional polluting fossil fuel power plants.  

I came away from Amsterdam realizing that Europe is much further ahead of us along this path, and we have much to learn from the massive changes Europe is undergoing as it integrates more renewable energy into its existing power grid.

Source: Drow male/flickr

While European countries have been trading electricity for many decades, Europe is far from fully-integrated because it hasn’t optimized integration across Europe through cross-border cooperation.  Why is this a problem?

According to a September article in the Economist, Germany’s electricity prices were negative for a period of time on June 16, 2013.  With Germany’s wind and solar panels producing a record 60% of the country’s electricity, neighboring France and Belgium could not easily “crank down” power intended for sale to Germany, resulting in negative wholesale prices (which occur when a generator has to pay customers to take power).

In another example, Spain has an abundance of solar that it cannot fully export to France due to the lack of adequate interconnection, or ways to share power.  The integration of European energy markets could help to better manage power, including renewables, with an eye toward cost efficiency and security.

Utilities in the U.S. will also face similar challenges in the near future.  Around $2 trillion will be spent on replacing the country’s antiquated energy infrastructure over the next two decades.  EDF is working to ensure that the investment is used to create a modern, efficient and resilient energy system that can take advantage of new, clean energy technologies and incent people to play an active role in their energy use.

As part of our work, we must not lose sight of engaging Europe and other world actors to find the most innovative and workable solutions.  This will be instrumental in helping rewrite the rules for American energy use in the future.

By Steven Hamburg

You may have seen news reports about a new methane emissions study conducted by climate researchers from Harvard and seven other institutions and just published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).  The new paper provides an improved estimate of the total methane budget of the US – in other words, how much methane is being released into the atmosphere each year from all sources, including livestock and oil-and-gas production.

Based on analysis of nearly 5,000 air samples collected in 2007 and 2008 from ten communications towers located around the country, as well as 7,700 samples taken in those years from an aircraft monitoring program, the study finds that total methane emissions due to human activity were roughly 1.5 times greater at that time than previously estimated.  Emissions from livestock were roughly twice as high as previous estimates.  Emissions from oil-and-gas operations in Oklahoma and Texas were 2.7 times higher than estimated.

We are glad to see the methane issue getting the attention it deserves.  While EDF's work to deepen our understanding of current emissions continues, there’s no question about the need for regulation to measure and reduce these emissions.  In August, scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado (UC) at Boulder published a long-awaited paper on methane leakage in the journal Geophysical Research Letters that reported an alarmingly high level of methane emissions in the Uintah Basin of Utah — 6.2 to 11.7 percent of total production for an area about 1,000 square miles. 

But there’s some promising news too.  Just last week, the state of Colorado proposed innovative policies that, if adopted, will be the first in the nation to directly regulate methane.  We know more than enough to get started on this issue, as Colorado just did.

The new study is also consistent with the EDF-coordinated University of Texas study published in PNAS earlier in the fall in that both underscore the urgent need for effective methane control rules.  But direct comparisons between the two studies are difficult, since the UT study focused on one part of the natural gas supply chain – production – in 2012 and 2013, while the new study seeks to encompass all sources of methane emissions based on data from the middle of the previous decade.  So comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges, but they are in no way contradictory or inconsistent.

EDF didn't fund the new PNAS study, but we have funded this team of scientists to use the same techniques in our efforts.  The team is guided by strong science, and that is why we asked them to join us as collaborators.  EDF is acknowledged in this paper for our support.

By John Finnigan

This commentary originally appeared on EDF Voices blog.

Rooftop solar owners in Arizona will pay higher costs for utility service under a new decision by state regulators, but the increase was much lower than the amount sought by Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest utility company. Both sides claimed victory. The case is part of a growing trend of more states reviewing these charges.

What is net metering?

The case involves a practice known as “net metering” where the utility pays rooftop solar owners for the excess energy the rooftop solar panels send back to the grid. Most states allow net metering.  In many states, the utility company pays rooftop solar owners the full price the utility charges for power it delivers to customers. Utility companies claim this price is higher than their actual cost to produce electricity. The rooftop solar industry claims that raising costs would crush a new industry that provides cheap, clean energy and fails to recognize the benefits provided by rooftop solar.

Regulators must find the right balance between utilities and the rooftop solar industry by allowing utilities the opportunity to recover all their costs while ensuring that rooftop solar owners receive full credit for the benefits they provide to the electric distribution system.

The Arizona Public Service case

Michael Mazengarb /flickr

The case was widely followed because rooftop solar has grown rapidly in Arizona in recent years. Arizona Public Service started the dispute earlier this year by requesting approval to raise its monthly charge to rooftop solar owners by an average charge of $50 per month. The regulators approved an average charge of roughly $5 per month.

Arizona Public Service claimed victory because the regulators acknowledged the utility’s higher cost for serving rooftop solar customers. The rooftop solar industry claimed victory because the new charge will be much lower than the amount the utility company had requested.

The ruling is only a temporary fix because regulators will re-examine the issue in a few years, when Arizona Public Service files its next case to raise overall rates. Many other states are reviewing their net metering charges.

What the ruling means for everyone else

State regulators will need to examine the full range of benefits provided by rooftop solar. These benefits include cleaner air emissions, lower delivery costs and providing power during hot afternoons, when electricity from other power plants can entail more harmful air emissions and be more costly. As more states study this issue, states will recognize and measure these new types of benefits provided by rooftop solar and utility companies will reflect these benefits in their payments to rooftop solar owners. At the same time, utilities will be permitted to re-design their rates such that rooftop solar owners pay the full cost the utility incurs for serving them.

This strikes the right balance for ensuring a vibrant future for the rooftop solar industry while ensuring that utility companies are not required to serve rooftop solar customers below the utilities’ cost. This is exactly the type of market-based solution for clean energy policies that EDF supports.

By Marita Mirzatuny

As we approach the end of 2013, Texas’ power grid is soon to embark on a new clean energy path.  While most people don’t get too excited about electrical transmission and distribution lines, the much awaited Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) transmission project– set to come online in a few weeks and roll out through 2014 – could be the exception.

Approved by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) in 2008, CREZ is a 3,600 mile transmission line that will connect remote West Texas wind energy to the eastern cities that need its power – 18,500 megawatts of power to be exact.  This is enough power to energize 3.7 million to 7.4 million homes and increase available wind power supply by a whopping 50 percent.

Much like some other wind-rich regions in the country, wind in the West and Panhandle regions of Texas was partially unused, or curtailed, because local communities could not use all of the available supply  and the state’s current, outmoded electric grid could not efficiently deliver the abundant energy to high-demand eastern cities.  This ‘congestion’ bottleneck forced wind farms to lower prices and, at times, pay the utilities to take their electricity. 

According to Jeff Clark, Executive Director of the Wind Coalition, “there just isn’t enough space on the lines, so it becomes a case of I undercut you and then you undercut me, and that’s not competitive. … We lose about $500 million a year in unsold power and power sold under price.”

Texas is already the nation’s wind leader, but CREZ now enables Texas to provide three times as much available wind power as any other state and, ultimately, climb the global ranking of leading wind energy producers.  One project in particular near Lubbock is a planned 1,100-megawatt wind farm that promises to be the country's largest wind energy project.

Source: Cross Texas Transmission

As a testament to the success and future growth in Texas wind, the CREZ lines aren’t even fully operational, yet grid operators are already reviewing 21,000 megawatts of new wind project proposals.  Eager for these new lines, Pattern Energy Group broke ground on its new 218 megawatt Panhandle Wind Farm in Carson County, putting roughly 200 people to work during the construction phase.  Once the wind farm is complete, it will generate enough power for about 60,000 homes and keep about a dozen people at work in permanent positions.

Landowners and businesses are benefiting, too.  Through right-of-ways, developers constructed the electrical lines on private properties, sited close to roads and highways.  Landowners were offered just compensation for the use of their land, all while maintaining ownership of the property.  For companies looking to invest and grow in Texas, the CREZ investment provides reliability and assured, low electricity prices.

The CREZ lines are also opening up right as the Department of Interior recently announced their approval of the first major U.S. transmission project in decades. The 990-mile Gateway West Transmission Project will carry renewable energy – about 1.5 gigawatts  - from southern Wyoming to southern Idaho. Most of the energy will be from the many wind farms in the region, transmitting electricity to load centers from Utah to Washington State. This proves that the future of wind is promising not just for Texas but also for the entire US as well.

Jeff Clark sums it up best, “when we look back on the investment in CREZ, it will be one of the most visionary investments the state has ever made.”

By Jackie Roberts

What do you do when a major new customer arrives in town asking for renewable energy?   You supply it.  Facebook’s decision to locate a new data center in Iowa and supply that data center with 100% wind energy is a great example of a company using its clout for good.  To show its seriousness of intent, Facebook simultaneously pursued development rights to two wind parcels, one in Iowa and Nebraska, alongside its traditional site evaluation for a new data center.  Iowa won the new data center, in no small part due to its leadership in the wind sector.

According to Vincent Van Son, Facebook’s Data Center Energy Manager, “When we settled on Altoona as the location for our fourth data center, one of the deciding factors was the opportunity to help develop a new wind project in the state. The project brings additional investment and jobs to the region, and in effect it makes it possible, on an annualized basis, for 100% of our energy needs to be met entirely with one of Iowa’s most abundant renewable resources.” Facebook worked with a local developer, RPM Access, and then at a key point, transferred ownership to a major utility, Mid-American.  This project enabled Facebook to announce last week that the new data center will be supplied by 100% renewable energy.

As we profiled last year with Collaborative Economics, Iowa views the wind sector as a powerful economic development driver.  As a result, it has emerged as an epicenter of wind in all facets – installations, innovation and manufacturing strength.  Iowa’s multi-pronged clean energy strategy continues to deliver economic wins in 2013. 

Source: Intel Free Press/ Flickr

For example, just this year, MidAmerican Energy announced that it will invest up to $1.9 billion to expand its wind generation fleet and add up to 1,050 megawatts of wind generation in Iowa by year-end 2015, including the Facebook-initiated wind project.  The company projected that “the wind expansion will provide more than $3 million in landowner payments each year and more than $360 million in additional property tax revenues over the next 30 years.  The expansion will be constructed at no net cost to the company’s customers and will help stabilize electric rates over the long term.  Approximately 1,000 construction jobs will be added to Iowa’s economy during the two-year construction period, and approximately 40 new permanent jobs will be added when the expansion is complete.”

These new projects also create more customers for Siemens Energy, a midwest manufacturer.  MidAmerican Energy also announced that Siemens Energy would be the turbine supplier for all project sites.  All of the blades for the expansion will be manufactured at Siemens’ Fort Madison, Iowa facility and the nacelles will be manufactured at Siemens’ Hutchinson, Kansas facility.

Facebook should definitely be applauded for its commitment to renewable energy, though it is important to note that little of this would have been possible without Greenpeace’s April 2011 report How Dirty is your Data? and related campaign.  Greenpeace increased awareness for everyone – inside and outside the industry – that data centers continue to be very energy intensive despite efficiency in design.  According to Greenpeace, “Packed full of computer servers, these facilities consume huge amounts of electricity, amounting to an incredible 1.5 to 2 percent of global energy demand (3 percent in the U.S.) – and it's growing at a rate of 12 percent a year.”

It’s encouraging to see such quick changes in how Facebook operates its business and the positive ripple effects.  A shining example of where clean energy and economic development go hand-in-hand.

 

By Jim Marston

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog. 

DonkeyHotey/flickr

It’s easy for Americans to laugh at Donald Trump when he goes off on a rant, like when he joined the birthers during the last presidential election. But when Trump starts picking fights with other countries, and wind energy, it’s just embarrassing. As environmentalists and global citizens we feel the need to offer the world an apology for Trump’s attempt to blackmail Scotland, as the country attempts to spur economic growth, cleaner air and a safer climate.

Several years ago, the real estate tycoon took his personality parade to Scotland, where he fought local environmentalists for approval to build a luxury golf resort on a pristine section of the nation’s northeast coast.  Now, because it will affect the view from his golf club, Trump’s begun  a fierce legal battle over Scotland’s plans to install offshore wind turbines near his property.

To fully appreciate Trump’s hypocrisy, it’s worth exploring some of the story’s background.  Back in 2007, when Trump sought approval for construction of the Trump International Golf Links, he promised more than 900 high-end condos, 500 luxury homes, a huge hotel and two 18-hole golf courses.  The project, Trump said, would attract over a billion dollars of investment and generate more than 4,000 full time construction jobs and 1,200 full-time jobs.

Ultimately, the mega-plan was approved, over the objections of local residents and environmentalists. As Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond put it, "A thousand new homes and 6,000 jobs outweigh environmental concerns."

Since then, as E&E News’ Erica Rex recently reported, only one golf course, a temporary clubhouse, a restaurant and “a handful” of guest rooms have been built.  The compound employs 200 people at most. All those new homes and thousands of jobs are nowhere to be found.

Adding insult to injury, Trump is threatening to abandon the project  altogether if the country moves forward with its long-approved plans to install 11 offshore wind turbines – bringing  employment and clean energy to the area.  And he has turned against his former ally, Salmond, who supports the wind turbine plans.

At first, Trump, who dismissed the importance of protecting the Scottish environment when it came to building his resort, complained that the turbines were an eyesore. People willing to spend the money to stay at his (unbuilt) resort shouldn’t have their view marred by such “monstrosities,” he said.

This makes no sense. The turbines, each about 640-feet tall, would be about a mile-and-a-half from Trump's resort and hardly visible (the turbine blades wouldn’t be gold-plated and no one’s name would be on the towers).

Trump’s aesthetic objections had little impact, so now he has turned his assault to wind power as a technology – arguing that wind turbines are “a disaster for the environment” and that companies around the world are abandoning wind power as an energy resource.

Both these allegations are blatantly false, of course. Wind power is a clean, renewable, homegrown form of energy that is good for people, business and the environment. It emits negligible amounts of air pollution, consumes virtually no water and has less impact on wildlife than fossil fuel power plants. Furthermore, in 2012 companies invested $25 billion into new wind energy projects in the U.S. and global use of wind energy increased by 18%.  Google alone contracts for more than 570 megawatts of wind energy – enough to power about 170,000 houses.

We in America are used to Trump fighting tooth and nail for his projects, regardless of their impacts. Yawn. But when he masquerades as a committed environmentalist, we have to say, to borrow one of Mr. Trump’s favorite phrases, “You’re fired!”

By John Finnigan

Ohio’s clean energy standards have helped jumpstart an industry that is spurring economic development, creating jobs, boosting energy independence and cutting the state’s carbon footprint.  Recently, these standards have come under attack and EDF’s own Cheryl Roberto, Associate Vice President of Smart Power, stepped up to defend them by testifying before the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Commission on Senate Bill 58 (S.B. 58).  As a former Ohio Public Utility Commissioner herself, Roberto made it clear that S.B. 58 would destroy Ohio’s clean energy standards and unjustly enrich the state’s electric utilities.

Ohio adopted clean energy standards in 2008, and is one of 29 states with a renewable energy standard and one of 25 states with an energy efficiency standard.  Based on these standards, Ohio will acquire 12.5% of its power by renewable energy and will reduce its energy use by 22% by 2025.  The renewable energy standard has already added 466 mw of wind energy in the state, enough to power 466,000 homes, and Ohio is now ranked fourth in the nation for wind energy jobs, with over 5,000 direct and indirect jobs supported by the industry.

Credit: Julia Collins

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group of conservative state legislators, is leading a nationwide effort to repeal state clean energy standards, including S.B. 58 in Ohio.  ALEC has previously supported controversial “stand your ground” laws as well as laws classifying environmental civil disobedience as terrorism.  To date, ALEC has failed to repeal clean energy standards in any state. 

S.B. 58 would eliminate the requirement for electric utilities to buy one-half of their renewable power from new Ohio projects, instead allowing them to buy the power from existing Canadian hydro projects.  The bill caps energy efficiency spending at 2013 levels and provides new definitions of energy efficiency unrelated to actual energy savings.  The bill also gives utilities a handout by paying them exorbitant sums (over $220 million during the first three years alone) to adopt energy efficiency programs already required by law.

EDF urged the Ohio legislature to eliminate the provisions of S.B. 58 that would dramatically weaken Ohio’s clean energy standards and give electric utilities a windfall.  Instead, we advocated for a pragmatic, market-based approach that would continue the evolution of Ohio’s competitive retail electricity market, and recommended that Ohio’s electric distribution utilities should:

• Eliminate their  remaining power plant monopolies by fully separating the utilities from their affiliated companies that own Ohio fossil fuel power plants;
• Open up utility billing systems to allow customers to pay for new energy products from the savings on their monthly electricity bills; and
• Adopt new electricity rate structures that would incentivize utilities to efficiently deliver new and innovative energy services.

Through Roberto’s testimony, EDF charted a reasoned and balanced approach for Ohio’s retail electricity market and clean energy future.  We hope Ohio’s lawmakers will heed her recommendations so Ohioans can continue to enjoy the benefits of new, clean energy technologies, reasonable electricity rates and a healthy environment.

By Eric Pooley

morberg /flickr

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices: People on the Planet blog.

At a time when partisan rancor is the order of the day, this week’s news out of Colorado is a tribute to the power of partnership. On Monday, Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado proposed new regulations for oil and gas operations that, if adopted, will cut both conventional air pollution and climate pollution – by making Colorado the first state in the nation to tackle the problem of methane emissions. The big announcement showed that industry leaders, state officials and an environmental group like Environmental Defense Fund can sit down together to negotiate a plan to deliver cleaner, safer air. And just in time. As EDF’s Rocky Mountain Regional Director Dan Grossman told NPR this week, “the fundamental question [is] whether or not citizens will tolerate oil and gas development.”

On Election Day, four Colorado communities voted to ban hydraulic fracturing. State officials and industry leaders are getting the message: public trust has been badly damaged, and the only way to restore it is by putting in place strong rules to protect air, water, and communities. Not every community is going to ban oil and gas development, obviously, so we need to protect the many places where it is happening.

While the new Colorado proposal doesn’t address all the issues surrounding oil and gas development, the governor and the state’s regulators should be applauded for their efforts in bringing forward these commonsense air pollution measures, which were agreed to and supported by EDF, Anadarko Petroleum, Encana, and Noble Energy. And we’re not the only ones who think so. Newspapers from Los Angeles to Denver to New York wrote in support of the new rules. New York Times columnist Joe Nocera praised both the proposed legislation and Environmental Defense Fund’s collaborative approach in an op-ed published Monday. Nocera writes:

“In 2011, [EDF] helped negotiate [Colorado] rules governing the disclosure of the chemicals in fracking compounds — a deal that was sealed with Hickenlooper, the industry and E.D.F. representatives sharing a stage. [EDF] has negotiated rules to require groundwater testing near wells to detect any possible contamination. In Texas, it was involved in coming up with regulations for well integrity…In each case, E.D.F. is pushing other states to adopt these rules, which, taken together, would help ensure that natural gas will live up to its promise of being a better, cleaner fuel.”

The proposed rules in a Colorado are just one important step toward controlling climate pollution. There’s a long way to go before anyone can say that we’re meeting the climate challenge – or addressing the unacceptable impacts of oil and gas development. Right now we need to work even harder to see that Colorado’s proposed rules are adopted and that other states follow suit. Make no mistake: To win, we need the whole environmental community to keep up the pressure.

By Marita Mirzatuny

Source: Pecan Street Inc.

Over the past few years, we’ve seen some of the world’s largest automakers release their first mass-market electric vehicles.  Models like the Chevrolet Volt, Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S are popular with consumers looking to reduce their carbon footprint and spend less at the pump.  But the vehicles’ rising popularity has raised concerns about the effect they might have on the electric grid, particularly during the hot summer months in Texas.

Electric vehicles are the largest new home electric load in decades.  Some suspected that drivers, upon returning home from work, would charge their vehicles during the evening hours (a ‘rush-hour’ time for the wires that carry our energy, which strains the electric grid).  They thought that the increased need for energy would overwhelm the electric system, possibly force utilities to fire up more dirty fossil fuel power plants and offset any potential environmental benefits of the gasoline-free car.  Thankfully, this line of thinking is now an idea of the past.

A recent report from Pecan Street proves that electric vehicles have less of an impact on the electric grid than anticipated.

Headquartered in Austin, Pecan Street Research Institute has developed the most “connected” network of energy customers in an effort to help utilities, consumer electronic companies and automakers design and test new energy-related products and services.

The data collected is used to understand exactly how new technologies affect the electricity system. In this instance, the team investigated how, exactly, a dense concentration of electric vehicles can impact the local electric grid.

Based on the data collected from 31 Austin electric vehicle owners, researchers found that drivers don’t all plug in their vehicles simultaneously at 6 p.m., despite what many expected.  Instead, electric vehicle charging is more spread out, peaking around 9 or 10 p.m. — after the 3–7 p.m. ‘rush-hour’ peak.

It is important to note that Pecan Street’s report reflects behavior from a neighborhood with the highest concentration of electric vehicles in the U.S.  Whereas, most U.S. electric utilities serve neighborhoods with far fewer electric vehicle owners, supporting the view that EVs won’t overwhelm the electric system.

In fact, electric vehicles could actually provide a benefit to electric utilities – especially in Texas.  According to the report, most charging occurs at night, when West Texas wind is plentiful and electricity prices are at their lowest.  Utilities benefit from selling inexpensive wind power to customers at night, and we all benefit from replacing gasoline with cleaner electricity from the grid.  Furthermore, if potential charging problems do occur, utilities can incentive customers to shift their energy use to take advantage of inexpensive wind power.

Pecan Street’s study shows us that technologies, like electric vehicles, may be new but that doesn’t mean they will bring down the electric grid.  More than anything, the report underscores the importance of a smart, flexible, resilient grid.

Understanding exactly how much power is flowing in real time allows for more customer-facing, demand-side resources, such as rooftop solar panels, greater use of modern, clean energy technologies and the ability to foresee and correct problems that could result in power failures and brownouts.  A smart grid is the key to unlocking a clean grid.

By Jorge Madrid

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices Blog.

I’m an L.A. guy, so I like to think about things in epic story lines. And with today's launch of EDF and UCLA’s Luskin Center for Innovation new “LASER” maps (Los Angeles Solar & Efficiency Report), I think we’ve got a real blockbuster on our hands.

The LASER story opens with a team of top scientists warning us of an imminent threat – climate change – that will cause widespread disruption and human suffering if left unmitigated.

Utilizing the groundbreaking work of Dr. Alex Hall and the UCLA Institute for the Environment and Sustainability, the LASER maps illustrate what climate change is going to look like in the Los Angeles region in just a few decades.

By mid-century, the region will experience a tripling in the number of extreme heat days in the downtown and urban core, and a quadrupling in the number of extreme heat days in the valleys and at high elevations.

The plot thickens as we get a clearer sense of the communities that are most at risk – those already dealing with bad air quality, lack of adequate green space and tree canopy, poor access to public transit, and other challenges like high unemployment levels, poverty and public health hazards.

This is the part of the story where we could give up in the face of seemingly impossible odds…but that’s not how we roll in Los Angeles.

The LASER maps also introduce a powerful narrative about how we can fight back by  mitigating the carbon pollution driving climate change, building community resiliency through investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and seizing opportunities for economic growth that reduce vulnerability.

Utilizing sophisticated GIS mapping tools and other data, LASER shows the tremendous environmental and economic potential for rooftop solar in Los Angeles County:

• Nearly 29,000 local jobs in solar panel installation could be created if merely 5% of the rooftop solar energy generating potential in LA County was realized.
• If LA rooftops were able to capture that 5% of solar capacity they would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.25 million tons, equivalent to taking 250,000 cars off the road annually.

Another LASER plot line involves energy efficiency, one of the cheapest ways to reduce carbon pollution and lower utility bills at the same time. The LASER maps show that:

• Nearly 1.5 million buildings in LA County were built before energy efficiency codes went into effect, which means…
• 80% of all buildings in LA County have elevated potential for cost-saving, energy efficiency investments.

If this were actually a Hollywood blockbuster, we would probably cut to a final, climactic showdown and a dramatic rescue from impending doom. But unlike Hollywood, there is no pre-written ending to the climate crisis.

To mitigate the worst effects of climate change, and prepare vulnerable communities for the climate impacts already on their way, we need serious investment and deployment of clean energy and low-carbon infrastructure – particularly in those communities that will be hit the hardest.

LASER provides tools that can help elected officials and advocates pinpoint the communities that are most vulnerable to climate change, identify the region’s clean energy investment potential, and then develop policies and funding mechanism to unleash it. EDF is here to help in that effort, and look forward to supporting our friends and allies in Los Angeles who are working to make the clean energy potential profiled in LASER a real-life success story.

In the end, LASER tells a tale of threat and opportunity in Los Angeles. Now it’s time to get to work to make sure this epic has a positive ending.

By Jim Marston

EDF's Energy Innovation Series highlights innovations across a broad range of energy categories, including smart grid and renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency financing and progressive utilities, to name a few. This Series helps illustrate that cost-effective, clean energy solutions are available now and imperative to lowering our dependence on fossil fuels.

Find more information on this featured innovation here.

Few people walk into a car dealership and ask to see all of the 2.0 liter engines or only the 200 horsepower cars. Those technical specs are important, but most people shop by model, price or features.

Yet homeowners that want to install solar panels often find themselves buried in a mound of technical details that are not only confusing, but intimidating. And expensive. Austin-based sustainable living retailer Treehouse is changing that and proving that energy innovation is sometimes less about technology and policy and more about thinking like customers.

"The solar industry has done a great job educating people about the benefits of solar energy," said Treehouse founder and president Jason Ballard. "But it's done a bad job of making solar easy to buy."

So Ballard and his team went to work finding out what was keeping people from buying solar (complexity and up-front cost) and eliminating these barriers.

"We started by talking like customers, not engineers. We made solar dead simple. And then we made it free," he said.

The first step was designing a solar product that "regular" people could understand without becoming solar experts. Instead of talking about kilowatts, panel efficiency and installation fees, Treehouse created products based on square footage of available roof space.

"We use the best panels, inverters and installation hardware on the market so customers don't have to think about that, and we wrap up all installation costs into a fixed fee," Ballard said.

Treehouse's solar options range from a small 210-square foot system (3.12 kW, for those that speak solar) all the way up to an extra-large 555-square foot system (8.32 kW). All size kits use the same top-of-the-line panels, inverters and installation hardware and come with a multi-year warranty.

The second step was tackling up-front costs, which can be insurmountable obstacles for even die-hard solar enthusiasts.

Ballard's answer: Zero-down, 2.99% financing from Utah-based EnerBank monthly payments lower than the energy savings the systems will generate and a payoff period of 7-12 years.

For example, Treehouse's large system has a monthly payment of $90 and generates an average of $100 of energy per month — whether it's used or returned to the power grid for sale to the utility. In winter months, when less energy is generated, savings might be a bit lower than monthly payments. But over the course of the year, the cost is less than zero.

"People buy large appliances and cars all the time with zero down and low interest loans," said Ballard. "But few if any of those purchases end up being free when you're done."

The affordability and simplicity of the system is already yielding new solar converts. TreeHouse can determine whether your house is a good fit for solar, size a system to fit your roof, set up financing and schedule a site meeting for an installer – all in one visit.

"We're selling to people that had never even considered solar before," Ballard said. "One customer came in looking for eco-friendly cat litter and left with a solar system."

By Jon Goldstein

Source: Evolving ITSM

When it comes to willingness to show leadership in the critical field of air quality, Wyoming is once again first out of the gate with important new requirements to reduce harmful emissions from leaking oil and gas equipment — a major source of air pollution that can create serious air quality problems.

A Wyoming program finalized last week requires operators that are requesting permits for new and modified sources, such as wells or tanks, in the state’s most active oil and gas fields to find and fix leaking equipment under required Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) programs.  Companies are required to inspect their operations quarterly utilizing reliable, technologically-precise detection methods at those sites most likely to leak.

This sort of leadership is not new to the Cowboy State. Wyoming has a tradition of being a first mover on air pollution reduction requirements, including pioneering the so-called "green completion" rules to reduce emissions from new wells that have since become the federal standard.

Wyoming’s LDAR program is a smart step forward on sensible, effective air quality regulations for the oil and gas industry. Tightening systems so that leaks are plugged will both protect the air we breathe and reduce the waste of a precious natural resource. In fact, strong LDAR programs may be the best, most cost-effective way to fix leaks and minimize pollution.

EDF, the Wyoming Outdoor Council (WOC) and Citizens United for Responsible Energy Development (CURED) offered their strong support for the state’s proposed LDAR program in joint comments, while also suggesting key improvements – chiefly, that the state  ensure these programs use readily-available, cost-effective technologies (like infrared cameras) to detect pollution.

We are pleased that this improvement was included in the final requirements and it shows the state’s willingness to work collaboratively in addressing Wyoming’s air issues.

Next up, the state should consider making these strong requirements apply to existing sources, such as previously drilled wells already in production, and on a statewide basis. But in the meantime, other states, including Colorado, should take note. On protecting the air we breathe, Wyoming just raised the bar.

 

By EDF Blogs

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

 

Nearly 40% of U.S. energy is consumed by both residential and commercial buildings, which emit more than a third of our country’s greenhouse gases. Realizing all of the available cost-effective energy efficiency savings would require roughly $279 billion of investment, resulting in more than $1 trillion in energy savings over ten years.  However, currently, only 1% of all U.S. investments are made in energy efficiency projects.

Environmental Defense Fund’s Investor Confidence Project (ICP) opens up energy efficiency to investment markets by laying the foundation necessary to enable organizations to tap into this vast potential. This means turning energy efficiency upgrades in the commercial building sector into an asset that can be bought and traded, much like stocks and bonds.  By developing a straightforward set of protocols that define a clear road-map for upgrades, ICP creates an investment-quality asset class whose risks and returns are transparent. Ultimately, large-scale adoption of the ICP framework will reduce transaction costs and engineering overhead, while increasing the reliability and consistency of savings.

ICP will be hosting a series of webinars targeted at specific stakeholders in the energy efficiency sector, and strongly encourage individuals and organizations interested in the future of the energy efficiency industry to attend.  With the assistance and feedback of industry leaders, investors and programs, ICP has developed a range of Energy Performance Protocols tailored to market needs and project types that will reduce transaction costs, manage performance risk and increase deal flow.  Our webinar schedule this fall will focus on how these protocols can create value for individual projects, organizations and the energy efficiency industry as a whole.

 These webinars include:

ICP and Streamlined Origination: Increasing Deal Flow - November 15th, 2:30pm Eastern / 11:30am Pacific

Who should attend:

Project developers, including energy service companies (ESCOs), engineering firms, consultants and contractors.

What you will learn:

Find out how you can leverage the ICP Energy Performance Protocols to develop investment-quality projects that can be brought to an ecosystem of investors with increased transparency and fewer embedded costs. The ICP framework follows the life cycle of the building’s upgrade from inception through completion to operation, allowing for increased funding for deals as well as more accurately-predicted and measured financial and energy savings. Find out how your firm can use this system to get more projects across the goal line.

REGISTER

Applying ICP’s Energy Performance Protocols: A Detailed Analysis – November 21st, 2:00pm Eastern / 11:00am Pacific

Who should attend:

Facility managers, engineers, project managers and other technical experts.

What you will learn:

Drill down into the specific details of applying the Large and Standard Commercial Protocols to potential energy efficiency projects. The presentation will focus on the process of meeting various requirements contained in the Energy Performance Protocols.  ICP’s technical expert, Tracy Phillips, will detail how to successfully implement ICP’s protocols to achieve ICP compliance in the most effective manner.

REGISTER

Leveraging ICP for PACE Programs – Date and time TBD

Who should attend:

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program staff, policy makers, building owners and investors.

What will you learn:

This is a joint webinar hosted by EDF and PACENow.  This webinar will provide an overview of ICP and how Commercial PACE (C-PACE) programs are using the ICP framework to apply best practices and increase confidence in projected savings for PACE-financed projects.  The webinar will also feature key learnings from the PACE administrators of Connecticut’s C-PACE program, members of the Texas “PACE-in-a-box” program and the leading C-PACE Investor Clean Fund about how they are successfully using ICP protocols in their portfolio.

Sign up to receive an email when registration for this webinar is open.

To learn more about the Investor Confidence Project visit us at EEperformance.org

By Steven Hamburg

Carbon is typically considered enemy number one in the context of climate-altering pollution. There is good reason why. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from power plants is the leading source of U.S. greenhouse (GHG) emissions. Beyond our borders, the historic level of 400 parts per million of GHGs entering into our earth’s atmosphere was passed just five months ago – an indication of the rapid rise in human-produced emissions.

And while reducing carbon pollution is the primary goal of EDF’s climate agenda, so is minimizing methane emissions from natural gas development. That’s because methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, is a powerful GHG that can cause major climate damage in the short term. In fact, a recent analysis by many of the world's top experts on evolving climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), reports methane to be at least 84 times more potent than CO2 over the first two decades. On a 100-year timeframe, methane is at least 28 times more potent. These are noticeable changes in methane’s Global Warming Potential (GWP) from the IPCC's last assessment in 2007, with values raised from 72 to 84 and 25 to 28, roughly a 17 percent increase on a 20-year time horizon and a 12 percent increase on a 100-year basis.

IPCC’s fifth assessment (AR5) also quantitatively discusses two additional indirect effects that further increase, albeit modestly, methane's GWP. First, IPCC considers climate-carbon feedbacks and reports two sets of GWP values: one that accounts for the feedbacks and another that excludes them (they conclude that including this effect is "likely" to give a more accurate estimate of climate impacts from emissions of greenhouse gases like methane or CH4). The 20-year GWP for methane with feedbacks increases from 84 to 86, with the 100-year GWP up from 28 to 34. The explanation for this feedback is diminishing ability of oceans and soils to absorb carbon dioxide as the climate warms. As a result, as methane emissions warm the climate, more CO2 that would have historically been absorbed by the land and ocean remains in the atmosphere, causing additional warming. The second effect now quantified by the IPCC is the production of additional CO2 as CH4 is oxidized in the atmosphere, which adds another point or two to methane's GWP.

Another new development in IPCC’s AR5 is the increased attention devoted to an alternative metric, Global Temperature change Potentials (GTP), in addition to considering GWP based implications. In contrast to the former assessment where GWP was the recommended metric, IPCC does not explicitly make a judgment about whether GTP or GWP is better to use when analyzing methane’s climate impact.  Between the two, the difference in short to medium-term implications of using one metric over the other is limited. Over the longer-term (100 years), the GTP metric suggests that methane emissions today are less important on future climate than are indicated by GWP values. However, the implications of either metric are the same: reducing methane emissions quickly is essential to gain climate benefits over the next ten to 20 years, as well as the critical importance of reducing carbon emissions for their long-term impacts.

As the science is evolving, so is our understanding. EDF scientists re-ran the underlying math behind the widely referenced breakeven points in the 2012 Alvarez et al. paper, published in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences that helped us better answer questions about whether natural gas can offer sustained climate benefits. Based on IPCC’s AR5 and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2011 Greenhouse Gas Inventory (released in 2013), the revised understanding of when the amount of total methane emissions affects the climate negatively or positively relative to switching from coal or oil to natural gas under specific technology scenarios is shown in this image.

Under the coal to natural gas fuel-switching scenario, natural gas is indicated to be better for the climate than coal on the day the switch is made if less than 2.7 percent of natural gas produced is emitted before the point of use, versus the former 3.2 percent. Similarly, transitioning a gasoline fleet to run on compressed natural gas (CNG) is estimated to be better for the climate so long as the natural gas emitted is below 1.4 percent, instead of 1.6 percent. Factoring these new inputs into the last fuel-switching scenario, class 8 heavy-duty vehicles operated with a compression-ignition engine burning ultra-low sulfur diesel versus a spark-ignition CNG engine, a net positive for the climate is only achieved if no more than 0.8 percent of gas produced is lost to the atmosphere. To put these values into context, the current well-to-pump natural gas loss rate estimate that is based on methane emissions data from the latest EPA inventory is 1.5 percent of total natural gas produced.

These tipping points greatly depend on the type of technology choices made. For example, in the coal comparison, the threshold would vary if a different assumption was used to compare a new natural gas plant versus an existing coal plant, since the 2.7 percent is applicable only to an efficient combined cycle natural gas plant versus an efficient supercritical pulverized coal plant burning low-gassy coal. There are fewer scenarios to consider in the power sector than in transportation, given the development of new LNG (liquefied natural gas) and CNG engines for commercial trucking. As such, it becomes more difficult to pinpoint a single target where under all technology scenarios natural gas delivers sustained climate benefits. EDF scientists are further analyzing the most viable technologies for fleet conversions and will report their findings in 2014.

Overall, the science continues to reinforce the significant impact of methane, and it is critical that these emissions come down in order to reduce the rate of climate change over the coming decades – and the ecological and social disruptions that come with them. Focusing our attention on methane, along with carbon, makes sense given the reduction opportunities and technologies that exist. Now it is critical to put the data currently being collected by a diverse group of EDF’s academic and industry partners to work in minimizing the amount of methane lost to the atmosphere a reality, and soon.

By Lauren Navarro

This commentary originally appeared on EDF's California Dream 2.0 blog. 

Traditionally, if an area’s population grows — or it loses a power plant — it needs more energy. But California and some other states can approach it differently and reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Instead of asking, How can we add more energy?” the real question becomes “How can we reduce demand?”

Two words: Demand Response (DR).

DR is an incentive that has been proven to work on the East Coast and elsewhere, encouraging energy users who voluntarily participate to reduce their electricity usage temporarily when demand could outpace supply.

Recently, the California Energy Commission’s Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) Draft recognized DR as a technology with a high potential to maximize energy efficiency. This report comes at an important time for the state, when greenhouse gas emissions from large facilities have increased in California after decreasing the previous years, in large part due to the closing of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) power plant.

In our recently submitted comments, EDF commended the Commission on thinking big on demand response, a cutting edge load management technology that can lower wholesale energy prices when they are highest, dramatically minimize system costs, and reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

In their report the Commission also acknowledged that while DR is a great tool if used well, there still “has been little progress towards increasing the amount of DR used in the state.”  The Commission included several recommendations to bolster DR going forward, which EDF supports and will advocate for.

We also made suggestions for how the Commission could maximize the use of DR in California, including:

• Encourage customers to enroll in Time of Use pricing

Time of Use (TOU) tariffs allow customers to pay prices for energy that depend on both when and how much they use. By giving customers the option to save money for reducing their energy use at peak times, older, less efficient peaker plants aren’t used as much and the overall system costs go down dramatically. If half of Southern California Edison’s ratepayers adopted its voluntary TOU program, this would replace the need for two thirds of the San Onofre generating capacity.

• Set clear and ambitious goals for demand response in the state

The Commission should set ambitious benchmarks in regard to demand response capacity.

• Foster consumer adoption of innovative demand response technology

Modern technology allows for automated thermostats, ‘set it and forget it’, and other options for easy to use systems that allow interested electricity customers to quickly and consistently respond and reduce energy use when demand is high and the grid is stressed. The Commission should plan to increase consumer uptake of these technologies.

• Support new technologies and quick scaling up of pilot projects

Demand response opportunities exist on a broad scale in California.  Innovative ideas like charging electric cars when solar power is abundant to help maximize the benefits from renewables are still being developed. The Commission should encourage and support these new technologies, and look for successful pilots that are both cost-effective and fully scalable.

• Establish effective enforcement mechanisms

By putting in place proper monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, the Commission will help ensure expected environmental benefits.

The Commission’s IEPR is a great step forward, and comes at a key moment for managing California’s energy system. We urge the Commission to continue its work with other stakeholders to increase this momentum, and to utilize its authority – such as appliance and buildings standards and electricity forecasting – to help implement the state’s vision for demand response.

By Greg Andeck

The North Carolina Utilities Commission issued an important ruling this week that reaffirms the importance of energy efficiency as the fastest and cheapest way to reduce pollution from fossil fuels, protect the health of our families and promote our economy.

The ruling approved a new “shared savings" program that allows Duke Energy to make favorable returns on energy efficiency investments, but only if the company saves their customers money in the process.  The shared savings model is the most common financial tool in the United States to encourage electric utilities to make energy efficiency investments.

The new program will motivate the utility to implement energy efficiency measures as broadly and cost-effectively as possible.  Duke’s investments, in turn, can help ensure a robust market for providers of energy efficiency goods and services.

The shared savings model also provides an additional financial incentive for Duke to achieve the voluntary energy savings it agreed to when the company merged with Progress Energy in 2012.  The merger agreement included a minimum 1% per year energy savings starting in 2014 and 7% cumulative energy savings over five years (from 2014-2018).  If the company achieves certain energy efficiency targets, it will receive a financial incentive.

Notably, the ruling requires Duke Energy to convene a stakeholder discussion on the feasibility of commercial and industrial on-bill repayment and combined heat and power programs, which will enable the commercial sector to achieve high levels of energy efficiency performance.

The commission's decision replaces Duke's avoided cost energy efficiency program, known as “Save-a-Watt.”  That program, which expires at the end of 2013, was successful in motivating Duke to make investments in energy efficiency.  In fact, the company exceeded its energy savings targets.  The downside: Save-a-Watt was overly complex for energy regulators and stakeholders.  In contrast, the new shared savings program is simple, transparent and will continue to expand Duke Energy’s energy efficiency investments.

EDF is pleased to see that the ruling incorporates all of the major elements of an agreement that we helped secure in August with Duke Energy, the Commission Public Staff, North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association and environmental colleagues.  We look forward to watching Duke Energy achieve its full energy efficiency potential.

By Kate Zerrenner

In the past, I’ve written a lot about the inherent connection between energy and water use and the need for co-management of energy-water planning. Most of the energy we use requires copious amounts of water to produce, and most of the water we use requires a considerable amount of energy to treat and transport. Despite this inherent connection, it’s actually uncommon to see energy and water utilities collaborating to identify best practices to save energy and water and even lower costs. Think of it this way: If energy and water utilities worked together, their unique perspectives could uncover joint cost-saving solutions, customers would save more money and utilities could share data to better understand their holistic energy-water footprint.

Identifying why there is a lack of collaboration and how to overcome these barriers was the motivation behind the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy’s (ACEEE’s) recent report.  The report goes beyond citing discrepancies, though, and provides solutions for energy and water utilities to create better, more resource-efficient programs for themselves and their customers.

The report highlights a number of ways U.S. energy and water utilities have collaborated to identify mutually-beneficial energy and water savings. It lists successful energy and water utility programs from a variety of different sectors, including residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and municipal.

One energy-water success story the report features comes from my own backyard, Austin, Texas. Traditionally, it’s difficult to incentive energy and water savings in multifamily dwellings because residents only rent the property. Examples of multifamily dwellings include apartment buildings, townhouses and duplexes. While the tenant pays the utility bill, the landlord is the one responsible for long-term efficiency improvements. To fix this split incentive, the City of Austin created the Multifamily Energy and Water Efficiency Program, which provides multifamily dwelling owners with holistic energy and water efficiency evaluations, rebates and other incentives to conserve both resources. The program is a collaboration of Austin Water Utility, Austin Energy and Texas Gas Service.

It’s important to note that without technology, these savings would not be realized. As the ACEEE report suggests, smart electric meters – devices that enable two-way communication to and from the utility and the customer – are lifting the veil, so to speak, by allowing utilities to understand how and when customers use energy and uncover opportunities for conservation. Smart water meters, on the other hand, are much less common than smart electric meters and the technology is not as advanced.  But these smart water meters are key to unlocking holistic energy-water savings.

Source: Argonne National Laboratory

Pecan Street Inc., a ‘smart grid living laboratory’ based in Austin, Texas, is one of the only smart grid demonstration projects in the country working to bridge this water information gap.  By installing smart water meters on homes of willing participants, residents can access water usage data down to the hour-by-hour level, giving utilities clear oversight to detect leaks and even theft.  The goal is to share important lessons learned with other utilities and municipalities and spur further innovation in the smart water meter sector.  Of course, some utilities are already ahead of the curve.

In April of this year, the City of Davis in California launched a cloud-based, city-wide Water Conservation Program that provides its 14,000 residential customers with a dual billing and usage data platform. The technology provider, WaterSmart Software, also sends participants personalized Home Water Reports that display household water use, compare household usage to other similar-sized homes and suggest conservation tips.

By breaking down the silos between different utilities, the cities of Austin and Davis overcame many barriers that joint programs face and established programs that unlock all-inclusive energy-water savings. These success stories are just some of the examples documented in ACEEE’s report. It’s clear there are numerous opportunities for utilities to create more joint programs to help save both energy and water. To increase collaboration, the report recommends:

• Beginning a dialogue about opportunities between the two (or more) utilities and establishing relationships.
• Creating utility partnerships for joint messaging.
• Collaborating to identify unique funding opportunities.
• Developing a format to add energy savings to water programs and vice versa.
• Working with energy regulators to establish credit for embedded energy savings from water efficiency programs and vice versa.
• Creating an articulate and clearly-communicated strategy with measurable goals to help clarify priorities and cement roles.

EDF applauds ACEEE for researching and summarizing how different energy and water utilities are working together to reveal the best practices to maximize resource savings. In the future, we hope utilities and regulators take the report’s recommendations under consideration to create more joint programs in Texas and beyond.