By Dick Munson

Chris Prandoni certainly is welcome to his own opinions, but not his own facts. As the Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at Americans for Tax Reform, Prandoni may favor coal-fired power plants and dislike energy efficiency and renewables, but there’s no doubt Ohio’s clean energy standards are saving consumers money and bringing huge investments into the state.

Prandoni supports S.B. 310, which has already passed the Ohio Senate and is expected to enter the House within the next week, and promises to kill the state’s renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and energy efficiency directives. If Prandoni has his way, and as he points out in his misinformed Forbes op-ed, Ohio would be the first state in the nation to “pare back” its clean energy mandates, but this is not something Ohioans should be proud of.

Despite Prandoni’s claim, the fact is Ohio utilities admit the clean energy standards are saving money. In filings to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), the power companies admit energy efficiency programs alone have netted Ohio consumers more than $1 billion in savings to date, and will result in more than $4.1 billion in savings over the program’s life.

Ohio utility American Energy Power (AEP) argued energy efficiency “is an important resource for the state of Ohio, AEP Ohio, and its customers, continuing to be important as future fuel and commodity prices remain volatile and environmental regulations become more stringent.”  Even First Energy, the leading proponent of S.B. 310, admitted that for every $1 spent on energy efficiency programs, its customers save over $2.

The standards, in fact, are advancing competition and providing consumers with choices about what forms of energy they can purchase. What Prandoni and S.B. 310 advocates are doing is strangling that competition and choice.

They also are hurting Ohio consumers. According to calculations by professors at Ohio State University (OSU), the proposed scuttling of the state’s clean energy laws would force the average Ohio family to pay over $500 more on their electricity charges, and the average business would pay an additional $3,000 annually.

The passage of S.B. 310, moreover, would stall the state’s economic development. OSU also found that existing clean energy laws have helped 400 companies grow and employ 25,000 Ohioans. The standards have attracted more than a billion dollars of private-sector investment, helping make the Buckeye State the nation’s leader in wind-related manufacturing.

Governor John Kasich has taken great pride in his clean energy leadership. The website JobsOhio, the governor’s privatized economic development agent, boasts: “Ohio ranks No. 1 in the nation for renewable and advanced energy, bringing in more renewable energy facilities than any other state.” It further declares, “Ohio is committed to leading the world to energy independence with advanced energy innovation, groundbreaking manufacturing processes and low-cost deployment of these assets to fulfill current and future demand for alternative energy solutions.”

The standards enjoy support from many of the state’s leading companies – including Honda, Johnson Controls, Schneider Electric , Whirlpool, United Technologies, and Owens Corning – who are speaking out against S.B. 310. Employing more than 30,000 workers, the firms stated, “We believe that policies promoting efficiency should continue to be a part of Ohio’s plan to attract economic investment and encourage growth.” S.B. 310, they said, “would negatively impact programs local utilities run to trim energy consumption, and help stabilize the state’s electricity grid and prices.” The clean energy standards, the companies argued, “provide business prospects and jobs for contractors across the Buckeye State,” and such policies are “a low-cost strategy for keeping utility costs under control and providing protection against price volatility, which enhances competitiveness for our companies.”

Even the Ohio Manufacturers Association supports the clean energy standards, arguing that the falling prices of wind energy and solar collectors, along with energy efficiency, make clean power the most cost-effective way to meet the state’s energy needs.

The religious and evangelical communities also have been supportive. A recent letter from all Ohio Bishops, stated, “We ask you to prayerfully consider if it would be more prudent for the sake of environmental stewardship to maintain our current policies and not freeze these standards.”

This broad coalition knows the facts – Ohio’s clean energy standards are working and S.B. 310 would hurt the state’s businesses, workers, and consumers.

This commentary originally appeared on Forbes.

By EDF Blogs

By: Megan Ceronsky, EDF attorney, and Peter Heisler, legal fellow 

The newly-released Third National Climate Assessment has some eye-opening news about climate change.

The report confirms that if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced it is likely that American communities will experience:

• increased severity of dangerous smog and particulate pollution in many regions[1]
• intensified precipitation events, hurricanes, and storm surges[2]
• reduced precipitation and runoff in the arid West[3]
• reduced crop yields and livestock productivity[4]
• increases in fires, insect pests, and the prevalence of diseases transmitted by food, water, and insects[5]
• increased risk of illness and death due to extreme heat[6]

Source: Flickr/Eric Schmuttenmaer

Extreme weather imposes a high cost on our communities, our livelihoods, and our lives.  The National Climatic Data Center reports that the United States experienced seven climate disasters that each caused more than a billion dollars of damage in 2013, including the devastating floods in Colorado and extreme droughts in western states.[7]

These are precisely the type of impacts projected to affect American communities with increasing frequency and severity as climate-destabilizing emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.

Fossil fuel-fired power plants are far and away the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, emitting more than two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2012 — equivalent to 40 percent of U.S. carbon pollution and nearly one-third of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.[8]

Yet there are currently no legal limits on the amount of carbon dioxide power plants can release into the atmosphere.

This June, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will, at long last, propose Carbon Pollution Standards for existing power plants.

The solutions we need to achieve significant reductions of carbon pollution from our nation’s largest source are at hand — including changes at existing power plants to reduce emissions, shifting utilization towards lower-polluting generation and away from higher-polluting generation, and deploying renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The health-improving, cost-saving, job-creating benefits of these proven techniques should be shouted from the rooftops.

States and power companies are already capitalizing on opportunities to reduce carbon pollution and other health-harming air pollutants by switching to lower-emitting generation.

Look, for example, at Colorado.

The Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act, which passed with bipartisan support and was signed by Governor Bill Ritter in 2010,[9] will significantly improve air quality while ensuring a reliable supply of electricity.

Under the Act, Xcel Energy plans to replace aging, high-emitting coal-fired units in the Denver metro area with lower-emitting resources, including state-of-the-art efficient combined-cycle natural gas plants that can quickly cycle to complement plentiful wind power and energy efficiency.[10] These changes will help Xcel reduce carbon dioxide emissions from its Colorado fleet by 28 percent by 2020 as well as[11] nitrogen oxide emissions by 86 percent, sulfur dioxide emissions by 83 percent, and mercury emissions by 82 percent.

Reducing emissions of these dangerous pollutants will save lives, reduce the number of nonfatal heart attacks, reduce cases of chronic bronchitis and asthma attacks, and avoid hospital admissions and emergency room visits.[12]

Xcel Energy expects that the projects will inject $590 million into the state’s economy and support 1,500 jobs.[13]

Colorado is also leading the way in renewable energy and energy efficiency.  The state’s renewable energy standard (RES) — which was put in place by a ballot initiative in 2004 — now requires investor-owned utilities to supply 30 percent, and municipal utilities and cooperatives to supply 10 percent, of their retail sales with renewable energy by 2020.[14]  Colorado’s energy efficiency resource standard (EERS) sets a goal for investor-owned utilities of 5 percent savings of 2006 peak demand by 2018 through demand-side management programs for their customers.[15]

The RES is expected to avoid 30 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, create more than 30,000 jobs, and generate $4.3 billion in economic output.[16]

As for energy efficiency, in 2013 Xcel’s demand-side management plan saved 384.2 gigawatt hours of electricity (exceeding the goal approved by the Public Utilities Commission)[17] and avoided more than 280,000 tons of carbon dioxide and close to 230,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide from electricity generation.[18]

Renewable energy has taken off in recent months and years, replacing higher-emitting sources of energy and creating jobs.  Between 2011 and 2013, wind generation in the United States increased by 40 percent,[19] and in January 2014, the United States had a record month for wind power with generation of nearly 18,000 gigawatt hours.[20]

Xcel Energy recently announced 700 megawatts of new wind energy in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, which it estimates will save customers up to $590 million in fuel costs.[21]  Xcel says it is adding wind capacity “purely on economics and the savings we can deliver to our customers,” as the price of energy from the new facilities will be less than that from the company’s natural gas-fired plants.[22]

Solar power is on the rise as well.  In 2012, rooftop solar panels cost approximately one percent of what they did 35 years ago,[23] and the cost of solar panels fell by 60 percent from 2011 to 2013.[24]  Since 2008, as the cost of a solar module dropped from $3.40 per watt to 80 cents per watt, solar deployment has jumped by about 10 times.[25]  In 2013 alone, solar photovoltaic installations increased by 41 percent, to a record 4.75 gigawatts, outpacing the industry’s own projections.[26]

Utilities and their customers are also seeing the advantages of solar energy. In March 2014, Austin Energy bought 150 megawatts of solar power at a price just below five cents per kilowatt hour — one of the lowest prices for solar yet which will likely lower rates.[27]  And solar produces high-quality jobs, too, with the industry employing about 143,000 Americans at the end of 2013 and surpassing growth expectations for that year.[28]

Along with renewables, energy efficiency will play a key role in reducing carbon pollution while at the same time saving businesses and families money on their energy bills and creating high-paying jobs.

A recent report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy lays out several policies that states could use to meet their carbon-reduction goals, including energy-efficiency targets, building codes, appliance standards, and new combined heat and power systems.[29]  If adopted, in the year 2030 these policies could:

• reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by about 600 million tons, of sulfure dioxide by about 980,000 tons, and of nitrogen oxides by about 527,000 tons[30]
• save 925 million megawatt hours of electricity in 2030,[31] avoiding about $48 billion in energy costs[32]
• and support 611,000 jobs, creating 6.2 million job-years from 2016 to 2030.[33]

Energy efficiency not only offers a cost-effective way to reduce pollution and positively impact the economy, but also improves comfort and health, increases productivity, and cuts utility bills for homes and businesses, savings that can be spent on other goods and services.[34]

Several organizations have outlined approaches to reducing carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act, and their analysis shows that the Carbon Pollution Standards can protect the climate while at the same time reducing emissions of other dangerous air pollutants.  For example, NRDC estimates that its proposal would reduce harmful sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, saving thousands of lives, preventing 17,000 asthma attacks per year, and avoiding more than 1,000 emergency room visits and hospital admissions per year.[35]

Similar health benefits would be provided by Clean Air Task Force’s proposed framework, which would avoid 446,000 tons (31 percent) of sulfur dioxide and 402,000 tons of nitrogen oxide (24 percent) emissions relative to the base case by 2020.[36]

And Resources for the Future projects co-benefits from sulfur dioxide reductions ranging from $17 billion to $22 billion in 2010 dollars by 2020.[37]

Moving forward under the President’s Climate Action Plan to address carbon pollution from power plants couldn’t be more urgent.  In addition to the reductions in harmful air pollution discussed above, the National Climate Assessment explains that without abating climate change:

“Summers are longer and hotter, and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours. People are seeing changes in the length and severity of seasonal allergies, the plant varieties that thrive in their gardens, and the kinds of birds they see in any particular month in their neighborhoods.

“Other changes are even more dramatic. Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. . . . Hotter and drier weather and earlier snowmelt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage. . . .”

An upcoming blog will take a closer look at climate change and its impacts on public health in the U.S.  First, though, we will highlight some of the many successes states and power companies have had in deploying clean energy and energy efficiency, and explain the legal foundations for Carbon Pollution Standards that build on this experience and support the expansion of clean energy and energy efficiency programs.

These investments will not only cut emissions of carbon and other pollutants, but also provide homegrown energy, create jobs, and cut utility bills for American homes and businesses.  This is the right path forward for our communities, our kids, and our economy.

This commentary originally appeared on our Climate 411 blog.

[1]  U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Change Impacts in the United States, at 222 (2014), available at http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/downloads.

[2]  Id. at 37, 42, 45.

[3]  Id. at 465.

[4]  Id. at 152, 157.

[5]  Id. at 223, 225-26.

[6]  Id. at 224.

[7]  National Climatic Data Center, Billion-Dollar U.S. Weather/Climate Disasters 1980-2013 (2014), available at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.pdf.

[8] EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2012, at 2-4 tbl. 2-1 (Apr. 2014), available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html.

[9] Press Release, Bill Ritter: Colorado’s Governor, Gov. Ritter Signs Historic Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act (Apr. 19, 2010), http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite%3Fc%3DPage&cid%3D1251573927379&p%3D1251573927379&pagename%3DGovRitter%252FGOVRLayout).

[10] Colorado Clean Air – Clean Jobs Plan, Xcel Energy, http://www.xcelenergy.com/Environment/Doing_Our_Part/Clean_Air_Projects/Colorado_Clean_Air_-_Clean_Jobs_Plan (last visited Apr. 11, 2014).

[11] Id.

[12] Answer Testimony of Leland B. Deck, Before the Pub. Utilities Comm’n of Colo., Docket No. 10M-245E (Sept. 17, 2010), available at https://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/efi/EFI_Search_UI.search.

[13] Id.

[14] Renewable Energy Standard, Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CO24R&re=0&ee=0 (last visited May 3, 2014).

[15] Energy Efficiency Resource Standard,  Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CO46R&re=0&ee=0 (last visited May 3, 2014).

[16] Jeff Lyng & Tom Plant, Governor’s Energy Office, Colorado’s 30% Renewable Energy Standard:

Policy Design and New Markets, at 10 (Aug. 2010), available at http://cnee.colostate.edu/graphics/uploads/HB10-1001-Colorados-30-percent-Renewable-Energy-Standard.pdf.

[17] Xcel Energy, Demand-Side Management Annual Status Report:

Electric and Natural Gas:

Public Service Company of Colorado, at 2 (Apr. 2014), available at  https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/Regulatory/Regulatory%20PDFs/CO-DSM/2013-CO-DSM-Annual-Status-Report.pdf.

[18] Id. at 15, tbl. 6.

[19] Energy Info. Admin., Electric Power Monthly, Table 1.1.A (Feb. 2014), available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_01_a.

[20] Id.

[21] Xcel Energy, New Mexico and Texas Wind Power: We Are Leveraging the Wind, http://www.xcelenergy.com/Environment/Renewable_Energy/Wind/New_Mexico_and_Texas_Wind_Power (last visited May 1, 2014).

[22] Tom Gray, Citing Low Costs, Xcel Energy Plans ‘Significant Increase’ in Wind Purchases, Into the Wind: The AWEA Blog (July 11, 2013), http://aweablog.org/blog/post/citing-low-costs-xcel-energy-plans-significant-increase-in-wind-purchases.

[23] Dep’t of Energy, Revolution Now: The Future Arrives for Four Clean Energy Technologies, at 4 (Sept. 2013), available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/09/f2/Revolution%20Now%20–%20The%20Future%20Arrives%20for%20Four%20Clean%20Energy%20Technologies.pdf.

[24] Ian Clover, US Solar Power Costs Fall 60% in Just 18 Months, pv magazine (Sept. 20, 2013), http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/us-solar-power-costs-fall-60-in-just-18-months_100012797/#axzz2qg0NDEBG.

[25] Dep’t of Energy, Revolution Now: The Future Arrives for Four Clean Energy Technologies, at 4-5 (Sept. 2013), available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/09/f2/Revolution%20Now%20–%20The%20Future%20Arrives%20for%20Four%20Clean%20Energy%20Technologies.pdf.

[26] Lucy Woods, GTM and SEIA: 41% Growth in US Solar Market for 2013, PVTECH (Mar. 5, 2014), http://www.pv-tech.org/news/gtm_and_seia_41_growth_in_us_solar_market_for_2013.

[27] Eric Wesoff, Cheapest Solar Ever? Austin Energy Buys PV From SunEdison at 5 Cents per Kilowatt-Hour (Mar. 10, 2014), https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Cheapest-Solar-Ever-Austin-Energy-Buys-PV-From-SunEdison-at-5-Cents-Per-Ki.

[28] The Solar Foundation, National Solar Jobs Census 2013, http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/research/national-solar-jobs-census-2013 (last visited May 1, 2014).

[29] American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Change Is in the Air: How States Can Harness Energy Efficiency to Strengthen the Economy and Reduce Pollution, at iv (Apr. 2014), available at http://aceee.org/research-report/e1401.

[30] Id. at 21 tbl. 7.

[31] Id. at 18 tbl. 3.

[32] Id. at 22.

[33] Id.

[34] McKinsey & Company, Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy, at 13-14 (2009), available at http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/electric_power_and_natural_gas/latest_thinking/unlocking_energy_efficiency_in_the_us_economy.

[35] NRDC, Issue Brief Update: Cleaner and Cheaper: Using the Clean Air Act to Sharply Reduce Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants, Delivering Health, Environmental, and Economic Benefits, at 10 (Mar. 2014), available at http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution-standards/files/pollution-standards-IB-update.pdf.

[36] Bruce Phillips, The NorthBridge Group, Alternative Approaches for Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Power Plants under the Clean Air Act: Practical Pathways to Meaningful Reductions, at 22 (Feb. 2014), available at http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/NorthBridge_111d_Options.pdf.

[37] Dallas Burtraw et al., The Costs and Consequences of Clean Air Act Regulation of CO2 from Power Plants, at 10 tbl. 1 (Jan. 2014), available at http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-14-01.pdf.

 

By Jamie Fine

Back in January when Google announced it would spend $3.2 billion to purchase Nest, EDF knew this was a company to watch. The results of three new reports, released today, confirm that controllable thermostats like the Nest Learning Thermostat are both customer-friendly and useful for energy system planners. Moreover, the reports signal that smart devices, such as those Nest manufactures, have potential for generating marked savings for utility customers.

The reports analyze 2012-2013 energy use data gathered from four major utilities across the U.S. that offer Nest energy services programs: Austin Energy, Reliant Energy, Green Mountain Energy, and Southern California Edison.

The first report evaluates the results of Rush Hour Rewards, a demand response service that changes the temperature of the homes of Nest users during energy “rush hours”, or times when demand on the grid is highest. The second examines Seasonal Savings, a program that runs for three weeks and slowly modifies the temperature according to the customer’s behavior (which this smart thermostat is able to ‘learn’ via its built-in motion sensor and understanding of its owner’s temperature preferences). Both operate during times of heavy usage, namely winter and summer. The third report analyzes home energy data of Nest customers more broadly, comparing energy use before and after the installation of a Nest Thermostat.

A graph from the Rush Hour Rewards (RHR) report that shows AC usage during the hottest part of the day (a.k.a., the ‘rush hour’)and how the RHR program is able to significantly reduce home energy consumption using its automated energy management system.

While each report details unique findings, EDF found three notable common threads.

1)     Nest Thermostats successfully reduced peak demand on the electricity grid. 

One of the main aims of any smart thermostat is to better understand customers’ energy usage so that energy providers and managers can utilize this information to create less of a strain on the grid. Curbing peak energy use during the hottest and coldest months (and times of the day) offsets the need for expensive, dirty ‘peaker’ plants that are used only to generate power several dozen hours per year and typically run on fossil fuels like coal. Through tools such as “rush hour” temperature adjustments and scheduled temperature shifts (based on the natural, observed routine of customers), Nest Thermostats successfully lessened the air conditioning demand on the electricity system, often greater than 50% during peak times.

2)    Customers saved money. 

It probably goes without saying that lower demand equals lower costs.  After installing a Nest Thermostat, people in Southern California saved an average of 1.16 kWh per day, or 11.3% of AC-related energy usage, equating to roughly $28 in energy savings over the course of one summer (assuming a price of 16 cents / kWh).

Unfortunately, for its report comparing energy use before and after the installation of a Nest, they only looked at energy savings in Southern California, where summer temperatures are mild compared to a place like Austin, Texas. For example, last summer, temperatures in Austin soared to a blazing 103°F, but Austin Energy was able to lower AC runtimes during the hottest part of the day by 56%, on average through their Rush Hour Rewards program. So a similar cost-savings analysis for Austin Energy customers with Nest Thermostats might actually reveal more impressive numbers compared to those uncovered in the study of Southern California Edison customers.

Another key insight from this report related to customer savings highlight that incentive structures for compensation of demand response programs may matter. In the AE pilot, customers were given an $85 thermostat up front, which seemed to encourage more adoption. "There was a meaningful difference in enrollment rates based on the method of customer payments,” says the report. “In AE, where the first two years of incentives were paid up front upon enrollment, 39% of Nest’s customers enrolled in Rush Hour Rewards. In contrast, only 19% of Southern California Edison’s Nest customers enrolled in RHR. Incentives for SCE’s program were paid in bill credits on a monthly basis."

3)    Customers remained comfortable and in control (and more want in on the action). 

Nest clearly makes great efforts to ensure customers reduce energy use without significantly affecting their comfort levels. Participants in the Rush Hour Rewards program receive a notification the night before that tells them what time the rush hour will start and end, during which time the temperature will change no more than two degrees. People are ultimately in control and individuals can always easily opt-out of any Nest program by simply changing the mode on their thermostat.  In fact, following the Season Savings trials, 95% of customers still felt they had complete control over their comfort.

Furthermore, there is evidence that Americans support devices and programs such as these. For example, only a few weeks after the Rush Hour Rewards programs went live, Nest succeeded in enrolling the first 1,000 Austin Energy and 1,000 Southern California Edison customers, with subsequent enrollments continuing at a rapid pace. At least 20% of Nest customers in each utility area signed up for Rush Hour Rewards by the end of the summer.

These reports demonstrate Nest can achieve its goal of reducing peak energy demand, while saving customers money and meeting their energy needs without being disruptive to people’s normal habits. Encouraging people to reduce their energy demand is not new, but the availability of smart devices like the Nest allows for an ease-of-use and automation that completes the chain of action for these demand response events to work smoothly and reliably.

More profoundly, this new evidence from Nest is a harbinger for a grid-connected world.  Currently Nest is showing how smart thermostats help to keep the lights on across the grid and lower energy bills without compromising on comfort.  Soon, other appliances, vehicles and, for some of us, self-generating electricity systems will be a part of an interconnected electricity mesh that performs useful services for people and the electricity grid.

By Cheryl Roberto

Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0

“The effects of human-induced climate change are being felt in every corner of the United States, scientists reported Tuesday, with water growing scarcer in dry regions, torrential rains increasing in wet regions, heat waves becoming more common and more severe, wildfires growing worse, and forests dying under assault from heat-loving insects.”

Even for those of us that have been urging U.S. action on climate, the assessment was pretty stark and the message was clear: the time to act came a long time ago. We need to get busy catching up.

But the optimist in me was excited about a chapter in the report that hasn’t yet gotten much attention. Chapter 4 focuses on Energy Supply and Use, and though the energy challenges caused by climate change are formidable, the U.S. is very well positioned to meet them if our leaders will get behind some practical solutions. There are five key takeaways in the Energy chapter:

1. Extreme weather will increase, which will put added pressure on energy production and transmission.
2. The increased energy use from higher summer temperatures will outweigh the reduced energy use from warmer winters. In other words, we’re going to use more energy to cool our homes and businesses.
3. More frequent and more severe drought will lead to energy production and transmission challenges.
4. Rising sea level will threaten coastal regions where a significant portion of our oil and gas refining infrastructure is located, thus threatening energy production.
5. As technology changes, the energy challenges and opportunities will change, too.

The good news

The U.S. is poised to spend $2 trillion over the next two decades updating our century-old electric grid. That’s an expenditure that is already on the horizon. If we do it right, four of the five points above are manageable (number four will prove to be especially difficult since sea level rise will force the relocation of Louisiana’s and Texas’ coastal refineries to higher ground).

“Negawatts” are lying on the table

First, unleashing the full potential of energy efficiency in this country is going to be the cleanest, cheapest, and fastest solution to climate change. For every megawatt of energy utilities don’t have to generate (also referred to as “negawatts”), we’re reducing the amount of greenhouse gases released into our atmosphere, which cause temperatures to rise and a whole domino effect of negative impacts on our ecosystem, economy, and our daily lives. According to a 2013 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, “Americans used less energy in 2012 than in 1999, even though the economy grew by more than 25 percent (adjusted for inflation) over that period.” However, another report released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) in April suggests that there is still a lot of untapped potential on the table:

“If every state adopted the four policies in our scenario, in 2030 carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector would be reduced by 26% relative to 2012 emissions, and power demand would be reduced by 25% relative to 2012. The nation would avoid 600 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, save over 925 million MWh of electricity, and obviate the need for 494 power plants in 2030.”

We’ve done a lot already in the realm of energy efficiency, but there’s a lot more that needs to be done and the recent partisan squabbling surrounding the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill (the first energy-related bill to reach the Senate floor since 2007) does not bode well. Our leaders need to put their political agendas aside and invest in the “negawatt” before it’s too late.

A smarter grid is the answer

Second, a smarter grid that integrates more solar and wind energy – and responsibly balances existing energy sources – will be cleaner, more resilient, and more efficient. This is especially true in the wake of extreme weather events. That’s because renewable energy is less vulnerable to sustained disruption than other forms of energy. More traditional forms of energy, such as fossil fuels, require an input (coal, oil and gas, etc.) that needs to be shipped, often via pipeline, to create electricity, leaving them vulnerable to a natural disaster that might interrupt transport. On the other hand, renewable energy has the ability to generate stable, on-site power from sources such as solar and wind when it operates from a microgrid.

A microgrid can generate power both connected to and independently from the main, centralized grid. They can vary in size, providing power to several city blocks or to an individual home, but all microgrids have the unique potential to “island” from the main electricity system and often incorporate energy storage. This is important during and/or in the wake of a natural disaster because this autonomous electricity system is able to power local buildings regardless of whether or not the main electric grid is down. Microgrids are also cleaner and more efficient because they enable the generation of power near where it will be used– many times by cleaner resources.

Demand response to the rescue

Third, technology exists today that allows utilities to respond to peak, or high, energy demand – which will increase as summers get hotter and winters get colder – and reward customers that volunteer to reduce their energy use. This technology is called demand response, and a whole business sector has emerged around this concept to help people, businesses, and utilities better manage their energy consumption and expenditures. This technology already exists in a few states, like Texas and California, as well as the PJM Interconnection (the power grid in thirteen states surrounding Pennsylvania), which launched a demand response program that is expected to pay participants more than $300 million in 2014-2015, in addition to the $1.2 billion they have already received through savings. This model could be replicated across the country and deployed more widely with the support of federal and state elected officials.

The energy-water nexus presents a great opportunity

Finally, water and electricity are inextricably connected, meaning that we can’t talk about the effects of a warming planet without talking about energy and water together. A large percentage of municipal energy use goes to treat and move water, and fossil fuel power plants require massive amounts of water. Addressing a water crunch requires better use of energy, and vice versa. A broader deployment of renewable energy throughout the electric grid and a more efficient, modern distribution system will not only reduce carbon pollution, but will also alleviate the energy challenges that more droughts could cause.

The solutions are right in front of us. And each of them would mean more energy security, more economic growth, and more protection from the consequences of climate change. On the flipside, the consequences of ignoring the energy challenges presented in the National Climate Assessment report are more of the very things the report warns us of: an inefficient, fossil fuel dependent energy system that will use water we don’t have, and will contribute to even more extreme weather, sea level rise, drought, and hotter summers.

We can’t say we haven’t been warned.

This commentary originally appeared on Forbes.

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: Prodes Project

As drought continues to grip Texas and many other Western states, one of the solutions often discussed (and pursued) to overcome water scarcity is desalination. Simply put, desalination, or desal as it is most commonly called, is a process that removes salt and other minerals from salty (brackish) or seawater to produce freshwater for drinking and agriculture. This technology seems like a no-brainer option for addressing the state’s water woes, but the problem is that desalination uses a lot of electricity and the majority of Texas’ electricity comes from coal and gas power plants, which require copious amounts of water to generate that electricity. It doesn’t make much sense to use water to make water, especially when there’s an alternative in Texas’ abundant renewable energy resources.

Texas is the national leader in wind energy and has the greatest solar energy potential in the U.S., yet neither of these resources are being widely deployed for desal plants despite recent studies pointing to vast opportunities. Not only do these energy resources produce negligible carbon emissions, but they also consume little to no water, unlike fossil-fueled power plants. Furthermore, if we look at where brackish water sources are located compared to where the wind and solar energy potential is in this state, the overlap is pretty clear. This synergy should not be ignored.

Let’s desal water when the wind blows and the sun shines!

Solar energy coupled with a desal plant provides economic, health, and seasonal benefits. Foremost, as the price of solar panels continues to fall each year, the investment for building solar-plus-desalination plants looks bright. And one company, WaterFX, is already ahead of the curve. WaterFX uses the sun’s heat to filter salty water and is about 30 times more efficient than similar facilities. Currently, the company has a pilot project right in the heart of California’s agricultural heartland and is able to provide about 14,000 gallons of water a day.

Solar provides a vast and inexhaustible energy supply and doesn’t emit harmful air pollution, making it the perfect alternative to dirty fossil-fueled power plants currently used to desalinate water. It also safeguards the health of our community members and future generations. Plus, Texas has no lack of sunny days, especially during the summer months, when the need for water is highest. But solar power isn’t the only resource available in Texas.

A recent study by the Webber Energy Group at the University of Texas at Austin found that wind energy could power desal plants at night, when wind blows the hardest, and store the water for the next day’s use. Some areas in Texas are already testing the waters, so to speak. Seminole, located in the Texas Panhandle, has a demonstration project underway to desalinate brackish water from the Dockum Aquifer using the region’s abundant wind energy. The water will be integrated with the city's existing water treatment and distribution system for municipal use. The partners for this project, Texas Water Development Board and Texas Department of Agriculture, aim to complete this $1.6 million effort by August 2014. Texas Tech University’s National Wind Institute, a powerhouse wind energy research program, is on board to manage the project.

Texas’ Water Crisis Requires a Suite of Solutions

The drought in Texas is, by any definition, dire. When people are reduced to taking “spit baths” and lake levels have dropped to as low as 26 percent full, all options need to be on the table. But being more efficient with the water we have now is what we should do first—just as with electricity.

There are currently 46 brackish desalination plants and an estimated 2.7 billion acre-feet of brackish water in Texas—enough to cover the entire state with 15 feet of water. While desal seems like an obvious solution for solving the state’s water woes, providing enough freshwater to meet Texas’ current needs for 150 years is not that easy. Aside from addressing the energy-intensity issue of treating all that salty water, there are other problems that need to be resolved, specifically around property rights, groundwater districts, and waste, if we are to begin addressing this complex challenge from a holistic viewpoint.

First, we should focus on conservation and water reuse. Desal can be part of the solution, but it shouldn’t trigger us to think that we have an infinite supply of water just because we can make more.

Our second best solution should be to find ways to treat and move water that are not water-intensive themselves, such as taking advantage of renewable energy to maximize new, freshwater resources.

Just as there is no silver bullet to solve climate change, there is no single solution to solve water scarcity problems either. It requires a suite of options that must be undertaken with thoughtful urgency. As Legislators from all corners of Texas prepare for the upcoming 2015 legislative session, the eyes of Texas will be upon them, looking for innovative, cost-effective plans to keep our faucets running.

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

By EDF Blogs

By: Elizabeth Sturcken, Managing Director, Corporate Partnerships Program

I never really expected to be sitting in a Walmart in Mountain View, CA listening to President Obama speak about environmental commitments, but I am excited for the momentum he is generating, particularly in the private sector, to support the EPA announcement on carbon limits on June 2nd.

So why Walmart?

The President is making a point. Walmart gets about 25 percent of its global electricity from renewables. In the United States over all, only about 2 percent of power comes from solar sources. In 2005, Walmart set a goal to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy. To date Walmart has 335 renewable energy projects underway or in development across their global portfolio. Having the president hold Walmart up as a role model is a great way to drive other industry leaders to follow suit.

This recognition is great news to EDF since we are a key NGO partner to Walmart and have been working with them on environmental solutions since 2005. (See the full EDF – Walmart partnership timeline). In 2008, EDF and Walmart announced a jointly-developed clean energy project to install and assess next generation solar technology at over 30 Walmart facilities. Today Walmart has 250 solar energy systems installed in the U.S. and has a solar energy capacity of 65,000 kW, top of the Solar Energy Industries Association rankings of U.S. companies.

Are industry leaders following suit?

The private and public sector commitments announced today represent more than 850 megawatts of solar deployed – enough to power nearly 130,000 homes – as well as energy efficiency investments that will lower bills for more than 1 billion square feet of buildings. Additionally, the President announced new executive actions that will lead to $2 billion in energy efficiency investments in Federal buildings.

We are especially excited to see companies step up for the President’s Better Buildings Challenge which will improve energy efficiency of more than 1 billion square feet of new floor space by 20 percent by 2020. New to the President’s roster are General Motors (committing 84 million square feet), MGM Resorts (78 million square feet) and Walmart (850 million square feet).

See the complete listing of private and public sector organizations making commitments today for solar deployment and energy efficiency.

Here at EDF, we believe that companies and business leaders must pave the way to a low-carbon and prosperous economy. Today Walmart committed to double the number of onsite solar energy projects at U.S. Stores, Sam’s Clubs and distribution centers by 2020. This is in addition to their goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in their global supply chain by 20 million metric tons by the end of 2015.

We think President Obama’s making his announcement at Walmart today was a clear signal to the public and private sector that business needs to step up and publicly commit to ambitious environmental goals. Walmart continues to do this, and we look forward to many other industry leaders following suit.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF + Business blog. 

By Dick Munson

Source: S. Sepp, Wikimedia Commons

Competition from new players will drive innovation in the changing electric utility market

The blogosphere is abuzz with plans to create a new electric utility business model, one that reduces energy costs and pollution. The power company of the future, many experts say, will feature new electricity rate structures that reward efficiency, finance and integrate local, on-site power generation (like rooftop solar), and put more smart meters in the system to help us better understand and control our energy use.

Such changes could indeed help reduce consumer costs and pollution, yet they ignore larger opportunities to advance innovation and efficiency. Missing in most Utility 2.0 discussions is any real debate about the emerging electricity-services market, filled with hundreds of innovative entrepreneurs who want to profitably provide consumer services that revolutionize how we use and interact with electricity. Instead, most experts simply assume the monopoly structure of the past several decades will continue. The introduction of new players into the electricity market, however, challenges that assumption.

Regulated-monopoly paradigm is being challenged

A little history could be useful. Thomas Edison launched the electricity business by arguing for competition, something he said led to creativity. His personal secretary, Samuel Insull, had a different vision, moved to Chicago, began buying up power companies, and led a campaign to allow his integrated firm to obtain a geographic monopoly in exchange for state regulation of his rates.

Competition, said Insull, was destructive, at least for his profits. The regulated monopoly structure – complete with guaranteed profits and relief from failure – worked well for several decades, helping to provide universal electrification for homes and businesses. The model has been so strong that even the deregulation efforts of recent decades did little to challenge the regulated-monopoly paradigm as holding companies in many states continued to control both the generation and distribution of power.

Today’s electricity market, however, is changing more fundamentally, and most industry participants don’t recognize it. New and deep-pocketed players – including Google, Comcast and Walmart – are entering the industry and offering an array of consumer products that integrate electricity, security, and networking. Technology breakthroughs and economies of scale have substantially reduced costs for natural gas, small-scale renewable energy projects, and batteries. These advances are also allowing people (and entrepreneurs wanting to serve them) to obtain real-time information about their energy usage and options.

Yet even some Utility 2.0 advocates continue to argue that electricity is a special commodity – one whose supply must instantaneously meet demand – and must be controlled by a monopoly. The grid, they say, is a wonderful machine that cannot face competition. Some experts focus only on how regulators can help investor-owned utilities increase their earnings opportunities in ways that improve efficiency and distributed generation. Yet this powerful alliance – of utilities themselves, regulators, as well as the environmental and consumer advocates used to appealing to regulators for reform – is ignoring the whirlwind of activity within emerging energy-service markets; a whirlwind that challenges the very concept of power monopolies.

Competition is good for innovation

Thomas Edison, in fact, would be appalled by the lack of innovation within today’s utility monopolies, many of which bear his name. During an era of remarkable technological revolutions, electricity generators in the U.S. have not increased their average efficiency by a single percentage point in over 50 years! Part of the problem results from the very nature of the regulated-monopoly business model, whose guaranteed profits and protection from failure discourage risk and creativity.

Edison believed profits were to be earned and business failures led to advances. Rather than simply sell electricity or kilowatt-hours, he also wanted to provide services, such as lighting so people could read at night and heat so they stayed warm during the winter. Edison would welcome the multitude of new firms wanting to provide an array of such services.

Consider, for instance, the thermostat in your home. That relatively simple device is becoming smart, and numerous companies see opportunities to make money by using it to control a home’s operating system. Lowe’s, the hardware supplier, provides thermostats that also offer a front-door keypad and door-opening sensors that can be controlled by an app. ADT Corp., the home-protection firm, sees the modern thermostat as key to an integrated system providing security, networking, and temperature control – all done by self-adjusting or pre-programmed devices that relieve homeowners of the need for constant modifications.

And then there’s Google, which spent $3.2 billion – twice what it paid for YouTube – to buy Nest, which may be a thermostat and smoke detector designer today, but could offer the systems that control a smart home’s appliances, locks, lights, and Internet. The real innovation and profit opportunities, of course, may come from the hundreds of entrepreneurial firms that are not yet household names but see profits in an electricity market that has been controlled by risk-adverse monopolies.

Batteries also are disrupting the regulated-utility paradigm. Being able to store electricity destroys the very basis for a monopoly controlling power supply and demand. Most attention has been paid to Tesla, which recently announced plans to build a $5-billion “gigafactory” that would double the world’s lithium-battery production and reduce battery costs by 30 percent. Since the Tesla battery should be capable of storing enough electricity to power a home for 3.5 days, it could eliminate the need for solar-panel users to stay connected to the grid, and it could convert thousands of vehicles into electricity generators.

Not to be outdone, General Motors is investing almost $450 million to upgrade its own battery assembly plants to allow its Volt to drive more than 200 miles on a charge. Even appliance manufacturers are inserting batteries into their refrigerators, allowing people protection from blackouts as well as access to energy sources like solar and wind, which are most abundant during the late afternoon and evening respectively.

Similar innovation and business competition are occurring with meters, sensors, and the processing of the enormous amount of data that comes from those devices for the benefit of consumers. Scores of entrepreneurs are providing apps that help homeowners and renters reduce their energy costs – and, coincidently, reduce their pollution.

The move to competition doesn’t portend the end of regulation since power generators will continue to need to meet environmental and safety standards. What the advent of new players does bring is innovation and efficiency. With so many new businesses opportunities, the future of energy markets is not clear … and that’s exciting.

The utility-of-the-future discussions are timely since nearly every single power plant operating today will be replaced by the middle of this century, offering what one utility executive called a “blank sheet of paper” that enables a major transformation of the U.S. energy system. Yet the Utility 2.0 discussions need to expand and focus on the most exciting change – the introduction of hundreds of innovative companies that want to profitably provide consumer services that used to be controlled by a monopoly. Utilities and environmentalists alike should embrace their arrival and help remove the barriers to competition.

This commentary originally appeared on Smart Grid News.

By John Finnigan

Source: Chris Chan Flickr

Energy efficiency is a proven value. In Ohio alone, energy efficiency programs have saved people a total of $1 billion since 2009. What’s more is that these savings far outweigh the costs to implement Ohio’s energy efficiency programs, which amount to less than half of the total savings. Yet Ohio utilities, particularly FirstEnergy, and large industrial companies want to kill it. Why? Because they lose when customers use energy efficiency programs.

One would think that the billions in customer energy savings would easily trump the utilities’ and large industrial companies’ efforts to kill energy efficiency. But we live in challenging times. The utilities and large industrial companies are spending big money on this issue, and they might win the day unless we can convince our elected leaders to save energy efficiency.

Since 2009, Ohio law has required utilities to meet energy efficiency goals by offering  energy savings programs, which have proven to be wildly successful.  A recent study from Ohio Advanced Energy reviewed all Ohio utility energy efficiency programs since they began in 2009. The study found that these programs have saved customers $1 billion to date and will save a total of $4.1 billion through existing programs. Much greater savings will be available if utilities continue to introduce new programs.

These energy savings are happening not just in Ohio, but all over the country. A March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reviewed 1,700 energy efficiency programs in 31 states over a three-year period (including 170 Ohio programs). The researchers found that the average cost for procuring the energy efficiency savings was 2.1¢ per kilowatt-hour – five times less expensive than the 10.13¢ per kilowatt-hour customers pay for electricity. The programs cost $5.2 billion and will save 353,585 gigawatt hours of electricity, valued at over $25 billion, as illustrated below:

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, The Program Administrator Cost of Saved Energy for Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs, page 20 (March 2014).

Utilities and large industrial companies have a strong motive to kill these programs, just as horse and buggy makers might have wished to kill the automobile. Utilities make money by selling more electricity, so when customers use energy efficiency programs to lower their electricity bills, the utilities lose revenue. Large industrial companies can afford to hire full-time engineers to design custom-tailored energy savings programs, so they don’t want to pay for the utility programs. These large companies have a powerful competitive advantage over smaller companies, who can’t afford this and rely on utility energy efficiency programs to save money.

The utilities and large industrial companies are throwing big money at this issue and working in several states across the U.S. with well-funded corporate interests, such as the Koch Brothers, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council to overthrow these energy efficiency programs. They won in one state, when Indiana repealed its energy efficiency goals in March, and a similar bill, SB 310, which would freeze any additional energy efficiency mandates after 2014, is being debated in the Ohio state legislature right now.

The irony is that when Ohio utilities file their annual energy efficiency reports with the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, they wax eloquently about energy efficiency’s benefits. AEP said its 2015-2019 energy efficiency plan will save customers “approximately $1.5 billion and create over 4,000 new jobs.” DP&L said that “[f]rom 2009 through 2012, DP&L’s residential and business programs helped customers save 659,605 megawatt hours of energy, or enough energy to power 54,967 homes for a year.” And FirstEnergy reported that its customers save two dollars for every one dollar the company spends on energy efficiency programs.

If the utilities were acting in their customers’ interests, they would issue public statements of support for the current energy efficiency goals. But the utilities are simply acting in their own self-interest and so they are working behind the scenes to kill energy efficiency.

Hopefully common sense will prevail in Ohio and energy efficiency will remain intact.  But this is too important an issue to take for granted. Tell your elected leaders today that you want to save energy efficiency – so you can continue saving money on your electricity bill.

By Michael Panfil

Resiliency+ is a new blog series, which highlights the ways in which different clean energy resources and technologies can play an important part in increasing energy resiliency in New Jersey and around the country. Check back every two weeks, or sign up to receive Energy Exchange blog posts via email.

Renewable energy, such as solar and wind power, provides clean and sustainable power to our electricity grid. But it also offers other benefits beyond environmentally-friendly electricity. Renewable energy can increase energy resiliency by keeping the lights on, including at critical facilities in the wake of a natural disaster. That’s why it has the potential to play a particularly pivotal role in New Jersey, which is vulnerable to vicious storms such as Superstorm Sandy.

Renewable energy, unlike other forms of energy, is less vulnerable to sustained disruption. Other, more traditional forms of energy, such as fossil fuels, require an input (coal, oil and gas, etc.) that needs to be shipped, often via pipeline, to create electricity, leaving them vulnerable to a natural disaster that might interrupt transport. On the other hand, renewable energy has the ability to generate stable, on-site power from sources such as solar and wind when it operates from a microgrid. A microgrid can generate power both connected to and independently from the main, centralized grid. They can vary in size, providing power to several city blocks or to an individual home, but microgrids have the unique potential to “island” from the main electricity system. This is important during and/or in the wake of a natural disaster like Superstorm Sandy because this autonomous electricity system is able to power local buildings regardless of whether or not the main electric grid is down.

The potential for renewable energy to improve resiliency is vast, and the opportunities are global.

The United Nations recently proposed using local renewable energy in the Philippines after typhoon Haiyan, stating that, “renewable local energy systems, such as solar, micro- and pico-hydro or local biomass systems, are less vulnerable to disruptions, not to mention being more affordable to run and more environmentally sustainable.”

An Obama administration report last year also called for increased system flexibility and resilience in the form of microgrids, renewables, and energy storage (such as large-scale batteries), with the grid facing more power outages “as climate change increases the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, blizzards, floods, and other extreme weather events.”

In New Jersey, the state’s Action Plan likewise stated that “technologies such as combined heat and power, fuel cells, and solar with storage proved extremely resilient following Superstorm Sandy.” This was in marked contrast to fossil fuel sources. The plan noted: “even those critical infrastructure assets reliant on diesel generators for back-up power experienced electric reliability issues, due to limitations on the availability of liquid fuel.”

Although the upfront cost of solar – particularly that which can island and function when the power grid goes down – remains a challenge in New Jersey, the state enjoys significant potential and recent progress. Beyond the steadily decreasing cost of solar power and energy storage, the state has proposed an Energy Resiliency Bank, which will help to fund these kinds of projects, while also spreading up-front costs throughout the lifetime of the renewable energy resource. Likewise, the state’s strong renewable portfolio standard, which requires 4.1 percent of all electricity to come from solar power by 2028 and roughly 20 percent to come from other forms of renewable energy by 2021, is helping to drive adoption of renewable energy. As of March 2014, 1,491 megawatts of solar energy have been installed, enough to power over 200,000 New Jersey homes.

Despite this progress, more can be done in New Jersey to make the state resilient with renewable energy. Much of the renewable energy that exists (and that could be added) has the potential to be ‘islanded’, for example, but is not yet equipped to do so. Likewise, renewable energy in combination with storage can provide even greater resiliency, about which we’ll go into greater depth later in this series. Regardless, the path towards a more resilient and sustainable energy future in New Jersey should include renewable energy as part of a larger portfolio of clean energy assets. This, in turn, will better prepare the state for natural disasters and reduce power loss in the future.

By EDF Blogs

By: Matt Golden, Senior Energy Finance Consultant

The Investor Confidence Project (ICP) is pleased to announce the release of a new series of Multifamily Energy Performance Protocols (EPP) that build on ICP’s successful commercial protocols to bring the benefits of standardization to a broader array of project types. This suite of three protocols include Large Multifamily for whole building projects over $1M, Standard Multifamily for smaller whole building projects typically less than $1M, and Targeted Multifamily for single measures.

The multifamily protocols were developed with the collaboration of industry experts including participating members of the ICP Multifamily Development Team and the ICP Ally Network. The bulk of the protocols are comprised of the same market tested methodologies that can be found in all of ICP’s Energy Performance Protocols. However, the multifamily versions have been designed to address considerations that apply to the multifamily sector including the issues of split incentives and tenant privacy.   

As with all of ICP’s Energy Performance Protocols, the goal is to standardize how projects are baselined, engineered, installed, operated, and measured. This allows investors and building owners to gain confidence in the long-term return on their energy efficiency investments as well as reduce the transaction costs associated with developing projects. The protocols form the backbone of the ICP workflow that streamlines the development process and results in ICP Investment Ready Projects by leveraging ICP’s network of designated project developers, software providers, and quality assurance engineers. Investors of all types, especially building owners, can be confident that ICP Investor Ready Energy Efficiency projects have been developed using industry best practices to provide reliable returns and reduced performance risk.

The Investor Confidence Project thanks all of its contributors and supporters, especially the Multifamily Technical Forum, that make continued development of our protocols possible. We welcome any additional feedback that the industry can provide via the Technical Development Forums of our website. Lastly, the Investor Confidence Project seeks your help in achieving critical mass and encourages organizations who support industry standardization to sign up for membership in our no-cost Ally Network.

By Rory Christian

By Doc Searls via Wikimedia Commons

For most people, thinking about electricity is confined to two possible events: the arrival of the monthly bill and when the power goes out. The fact that most people don’t think about their electricity outside these two events — and let’s hope the latter is infrequent — is a testament to the robust regulation that has shaped the structure of the electric grid.

But cracks are forming that threaten the very foundation of the existing regulatory compact between utilities and customers. Extreme weather events caused by climate change and evolving consumer trends are testing the viability of the electricity system. The regulations that were crucial for maintaining stability in the 20th century are now forming barriers that make it difficult for utilities to adapt for a future that is fast approaching.

Spurred by these issues and encouraged by rapid advances in technology, the New York State Public Service Commission today initiated a proceeding to proactively identify solutions that will maintain reliable and affordable power while transitioning to a future that allows for more customer control and greater grid efficiency.

In a move that could have national implications, New York is now at the forefront of states looking to find answers to a rapidly-evolving energy industry. The order is the beginning of a discussion that will focus on how best to prepare for a future in which electric vehicles, rooftop solar panels, and other types of local, on-site power generation are commonplace.

Under the current regulatory environment, the needs of utilities and customers are bound together. Utilities are given the leniency to act as monopolies in a geographic area. In exchange, they are required to provide reliable service to everyone and have a right to recover the costs of providing this service.

With more available solar and wind energy, better energy efficiency, and more power coming from on-site, local sources rather than from centralized power plants, a model that incentivizes utilities to sell increasing amounts of electricity every year is unsustainable.

Over the next year, New York regulators and stakeholders will work to better understand these issues and find an equitable solution that allows for a modern, intelligent, interactive electricity system designed to maximize renewables, efficiency, and customer choice.

To be clear, this proceeding is not a destination, but a significant step towards a future where people have the option to play a greater role in how they use energy. EDF applauds the state for taking a call to action that will reverberate across the country.

By EDF Blogs

By Matt Golden, Senior Energy Finance Consultant

EU, http://europa.eu/index_en.htm

EDF’s Investor Confidence Project (ICP) is rapidly gaining momentum in Europe as indicated by a key European Union (EU) report that highlights the framework as an example of a system of standardization that facilitates energy efficiency investment.

ICP aims to bring transparency and accountability to the energy efficiency market by introducing a system of standardization in the way commercial building retrofits are developed, funded, and managed. The ICP framework assembles best practices and existing technical standards into a set of protocols that define a clear roadmap for developing projects, determining savings estimates, and documenting and verifying results.

Issues such as climate change, increasing energy costs, and the large amount of energy imports the E.U. requires, means that energy efficiency is front and center on the European Union's agenda. The EU Energy Efficiency Financials Institutions Group recently released a report describing energy efficiency as the E.U.’s biggest energy resource and one of the most cost effective ways to boost energy security, saying, “This is why the E.U. has a 20% primary energy consumption savings target for 2020 and further legislation in the field.”

Europe and the U.S. share many of the same barriers when it comes to energy efficiency investment, which has been hampered by the unpredictability of energy and financial savings. The report calls for accounting that would register the full benefit of retrofits, better enforcement of codes and standards, access to data, investment standardization, and more public-private investment partnerships. It also points to ICP as a successful approach to standardizing underwriting and investment procedures for energy efficiency projects.

Later in the report, our growing efforts around ICP Europe are listed as one of the “selected approaches and instruments” under a section which analyzes the “key drivers for demand for energy efficiency investments.” ICP is listed in the following categories: “Standardization,” "Clear Business Case, Leadership and Awareness at Key Decision Maker Level," and "Strong, Stable and Well-enforced Regulatory Framework" (see pages 31-32 in the report for more detail). This is important because it shows that ICP applies to at least three areas that are identified as "building blocks to develop a practical framework to stimulate energy efficiency investment in buildings."

In January, I attended ESCO Europe, the continent’s largest conference for energy service providers, to discuss adapting ICP to the European market. These efforts were so successful that the European energy efficiency industry established a broad-based steering committee of policymakers, investors, and industry stakeholders to explore bringing the ICP framework to Europe.

Since the conference, ICP has been engaging in conversations with European stakeholders to launch ICP on the continent and this report greatly fuels that momentum. EDF looks forward to additional European engagement and believes the more we can align our efforts in a global economy the more investment and energy efficiency we will achieve.

By Cheryl Roberto

istockphoto.com

Imagine a world where homes not only run on clean electricity but also generate, store, and sell it. A world where power companies get paid for conserving energy, not just producing it. Where, when supplies are tight, the power grid gives customers the option of being paid to reduce and even shift their energy use to a different time of day, allowing us to use more renewable energy.

The U.S. is poised to spend around $2 trillion over the next two decades replacing our outdated electric infrastructure. We must make sure those investments are not spent on replacing old, dirty power plants with more of the same. If we’re truly going to unleash the clean energy future, we must invest in renewable energy and a smarter grid that can smooth out the demand for power and reduce harmful air pollution.

Now, more than ever, we need to be smarter about the way electricity is made, moved and used, and EDF is working to bring forth a new, dynamic approach to American energy- one that wastes less and generates more clean, on-site, local energy that puts customers in the driver’s seat.

This is a vision of a smarter, cleaner, more reliable energy system, and it’s the vision that drives the EDF Clean Energy Program. Starting in nine states that make up nearly half of the U.S. energy market, this program aims to transform our country’s outmoded electricity system to clear the way for clean energy.

In true EDF fashion, that means choosing our issues strategically and focusing our efforts where they will make the greatest impact. These decisions are governed primarily at the state level by state Public Utility Commissions (PUCs), so EDF is working with state PUCs, state legislators and other partners to advance clean energy solutions in Texas, California, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York.

How will we get there?

First, we want to ensure the rules of the road  fairly values clean, reliable energy. This means revising a century-old utility business model, which currently measures success by the amount of megawatts sold, to one that rewards utilities for generating and selling energy more wisely, sustainably, and efficiently. The cleanest and cheapest megawatt is the one utilities don’t have to generate, and energy efficiency measures and proven tools like demand response are making smarter, more efficient energy use a practical reality. We’re working to make the “negawatt” profitable for utilities.

Many of the needed changes will require significant upgrades to our aging power grid and a legacy of outdated policies that are stifling energy innovation. Our work with energy research pioneer Pecan Street Inc. in Austin, TX is already yielding remarkable insight for utilities about how a smarter, cleaner grid (and smarter, more engaged customers) can reduce the need for expensive, polluting power plants. And our work with public utility commissions and legislatures in these key states will help eliminate bureaucratic rules that prevent entrepreneurs from entering this market.

Finally, we want to help open the floodgates for investment in residential and commercial clean energy upgrades. Today, homeowners that want to install rooftop solar and facility managers that want to reduce their buildings’ carbon footprint face a similar lack of financing options. Our team is working with the investment community to establish new financing tools, like on-bill repayment (OBR), for projects large and small. EDF’s Investor Confidence Project is making huge strides in how energy efficiency upgrades for commercial buildings are financed, by introducing a system of standardization in how projects are funded, managed, and tracked. These standardized protocols are able to serve as a “recipe book” for ‘investor ready’ energy efficiency projects and the result is a commercial building sector with lower operating costs, higher market value, and a significantly lower carbon footprint.

We think America's greatest contribution to the health of the planet today can be to pioneer an open, vibrant market for clean energy that sparks private capital and technological innovation, creates jobs, and delivers affordable, efficient, clean energy. But we need new rules, new ideas, and new approaches to overcome a century of the carbon-based “business as usual.”

Tracking our progress, looking ahead

Across the country, elected officials and business leaders are achieving some important victories, and our team has been working with them to provide technical and policy assistance.

Just last month, New Jersey’s Office of Clean Energy released a proposal to allocate $2.5 million for incentives that would encourage more energy storage use. In Minnesota, the state PUC established the first statewide program to fairly value investments in rooftop solar electricity generation. In Illinois, Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) proposed an accelerated timetable for completing its deployment of four million smart meters – a key component of a modernized grid. In February, California state senator Kevin de León introduced a bill to establish the first “Green Bank” in California, a bold proposal that would unleash low-cost financing opportunities for clean energy projects throughout the Golden State. And in New York, where Superstorm Sandy knocked out power for millions less than two years ago, the Public Service Commission ordered the state’s largest utility in February to begin implementing one of the most comprehensive storm resiliency plans in the nation.

A lot is happening in the EDF Clean Energy Program’s priority states thanks to public-private partnerships between visionary elected officials, experts in the field, and innovative entrepreneurs, among others. Even still, there is a lot of opposition to progress from the fossil-fuel industry and global warming deniers. But thanks to EDF supporters like you, our team is on the ground where the rubber hits the road (or where good ideas hit roadblocks). Our action plan for 2014 includes increased activity in each of these key states, and we will update you throughout the year on our blog, the Energy Exchange, as our efforts continue to produce results.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

By EDF Blogs

Ribbon cutting ceremony for the Fort Carson solar array. U.S. Army photo by Michael J. Pach.

By: Stephanie Kline, Program Associate, Clean Energy

At the U.S. Defense Department, the multiple national security threats created by sea level rise and severe weather command daily attention; climate change has been on its radar for years.  The recently published Quadrennial Defense Report (QDR), an assessment of U.S. defense readiness, addresses the growing threat that climate change poses to military capabilities and global operations. Adding to that, the newly released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states that extreme weather events will begin occurring more frequently across the globe. As first responders in the wake of extreme weather events, the U.S. military will be called upon to provide emergency support and services for a large portion of them.

The timing of these reports highlights a growing defense challenge but also provides an opportunity for the Defense Department to lead from the front in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The military’s success in preparing for and mitigating climate change impacts will depend in large part on where it gets energy and how smartly it uses energy, especially amid budget constraints. Consider this: the Defense Department is the single largest energy consumer in the United States, despite accounting for less than one percent of total domestic use.

Each of the branches – Air Force, Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps – is making significant progress to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, but more must be done to meet energy goals and prepare for the global consequences of climate change. To do this, the Defense Department should:

• Play a larger role in creating a smarter, more resilient U.S. electricity grid. The security risks of an aging and inadequate power grid are direct threats to military capabilities. Case in point: Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey served multiple logistical and emergency response functions during Superstorm Sandy – but parts of the base lost power during the storm. In fact, between 2010 and 2011, power outages on domestic Army bases alone more than doubled.  Military bases that are proactive, rather than reactive, in their relationships to the electricity grid will be more resilient to extreme weather and grid attacks.

• Increase energy efficiency. According to the Pew Charitable Trust, 20 percent of the Defense Department's energy consumption occurs on domestic bases, where the annual energy bill tops $4 billion. The Navy recently conducted its inaugural Fleet Energy Training Event to highlight new conservation developments and train sailors in applying best energy practices. One of the goals is to shift sailors' attitudes from "saving energy if you can" to "saving energy unless you can't." All branches will be best served by instilling a similar mindset in each service member. Combined with service-wide efficiency programs, this will make a significant dent in reducing massive energy bills at domestic bases.

• Develop new partnerships. Collaboration with government, communities, universities and nonprofit organizations helps maintain readiness standards while enhancing environmental stewardship. Several years ago, the Defense Department collaborated with Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University, Environmental Defense Fund, and several other partners on a species conservation project at Fort Hood. This partnership enabled the Army to continue combat training operations, employed a market-based solution that benefitted nearby landowners, and facilitated the recovery of the Golden Cheeked Warbler. Similar, energy-based collaborations will link bases with groundbreaking research and help to spur clean energy innovation.

• Identify new ways to finance energy improvements. Tighter budgets mean less money to meet multi-level energy mandates. Private-public partnerships that incorporate third-party financing provide an opportunity to save billions of tax payer dollars, update and build critical military energy infrastructure, and boost the nation's clean energy market. Nearly 80 percent of future defense energy projects are expected to be financed by third-party providers, which will require changes in the way the military and government traditionally conduct business. For example, the military needs to streamline its energy project contracting processes. States, such as North Carolina, should encourage bases to take a more active role in energy management and remove any legislative barriers that prohibit such progress.

Ultimately, the military’s ability to mitigate climate change effects will rely heavily on strategic, diverse partnerships to navigate financing options, design new efficiency measures, and shape policy.  From both a security and economic view, our military will be well served by relying on clean energy options.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

By EDF Blogs

By: Matt Golden, Senior Energy Finance Consultant

Texas currently has the highest rate of energy consumption of any U.S. state and accounts for 10% of the country’s total energy consumption. Most of that energy goes to energy-intensive industries, such as aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, and petroleum refining, which consume 50% of the state’s energy, compared with a national average of 32%.

Last year, the Texas legislature passed statewide legislation enabling cities to use their property taxes as a way to finance clean energy and energy efficiency for industrial, agriculture, water, and commercial buildings. This innovative financing tool, generally referred to as property-assessed clean energy (PACE), has the potential to unlock a considerable amount of funding for both renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the state, while simultaneously offering building owners cheaper financing options and secure repayment through their property tax assessment.

While PACE holds great promise in Texas with its over 1,200 incorporated cities, stakeholders have expressed concern that each of these cities could develop its own program with unique requirements, leading to confusion and creating bottlenecks for a successful roll-out. A consistent approach to PACE implementation and program rules would, however, vastly increase the chances of success.

In order to get ahead of this potential issue and create the consistency desired by all, Keeping PACE in Texas, a non-profit devoted to bringing PACE programs to Texas, has been working with a wide array of stakeholders to develop a do-it-yourself toolkit, called “Pace in a Box.” This toolkit provides local Texas officials with a set of necessary steps, program rules, and technical requirements. Pace in a Box, released today, will facilitate a consistent statewide approach to implementing PACE financing as well as allow local Texas governments to establish effective PACE programs quickly and economically.

Pace in a Box will include energy efficiency protocols developed by EDF’s Investor Confidence Project (ICP) as its recommended standard for developing projects, estimating energy and financial savings, and documenting and verifying results. By establishing a standardized process, the ICP Protocols will allow investors, building owners, and energy service companies to deploy PACE at scale in Texas. Input from stakeholders has shown that consistency and standardization are critical to growing the market and attracting investors.

Embedding ICP’s standards into the PACE in a Box toolkit not only creates consistency across the state of Texas, but also aligns the state with a growing number of national programs and investors. Ultimately, this could create an energy efficiency market on a national level.

Keeping PACE in Texas also avoided the costly and time-consuming process of developing proprietary program standards by using the ICP framework in its toolkit. Keeping PACE in Texas released the first version of its PACE in a Box toolkit this week to solicit feedback from stakeholders before launching a finalized version, scheduled for May 30, 2014.

The incorporation of ICP’s standards into the Pace in a Box toolkit reflects ICP’s growing momentum across the country as well as its rapidly-expanding Ally Network, which includes over 70 partners from both private industry and investors as well as an ever-expanding set of public programs.

By John Finnigan

Indiana State Capitol, Source: David Schwen

At the end of March, the Indiana legislature passed a bill repealing the state’s energy efficiency standard, becoming the first state in the nation to roll back its energy savings goals. Governor Mike Pence could have signed the bill into law or he could have vetoed it. He did neither; instead, the bill became law because he took no action within the prescribed time period. His statement as to why he allowed the bill to become law left us scratching our heads.

Here’s what he said:

“I could not sign this bill because it does away with a worthwhile energy efficiency program developed by the prior administration. I could not veto this bill because doing so would increase the cost of utilities for Hoosier ratepayers and make Indiana less competitive by denying relief to large electricity consumers, including our state’s manufacturing base.”

Governor Pence admits that energy efficiency saves money on ratepayers’ electricity bills. He’s right, according to a March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which reviewed 1,700 energy efficiency programs in 31 states over a three-year period and revealed that the average cost for procuring the energy efficiency savings was 2.1¢ per kilowatt-hour – five times less expensive than the 10.13¢ per kilowatt-hour customers pay for electricity.

Governor Pence’s disregard for energy efficiency is part of a larger trend in the Midwest to roll back clean energy standards. Ohio is the latest battleground, where S.B. 310, which would freeze Ohio’s energy efficiency and renewable energy standards at 2014 levels, is currently being considered by Ohio legislators. These bills and other similar bills around the country are backed by the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, front groups and model bill factories for many corporate interests including oil, gas, and coal.

So why, exactly, did Governor Pence allow this bill repealing the energy efficiency standard to become law? Maybe he was listening to large industrial companies, who often oppose energy efficiency standards because they have engineers on staff who can design their own energy efficiency programs. As a result, these large companies don’t need to rely on energy efficiency programs managed by the electric utilities. But repealing the law hurts residential customers and small businesses which do not have the luxury of employing their own engineers to develop personally-tailored energy efficiency programs. If small businesses are the biggest job creators in our economy, does it make sense to take away the energy efficiency programs which allow them to save money on their electricity bills?

One thing we know for certain is that energy efficiency makes good sense. But Governor Pence’s failure to veto the bill – not so much.  As Dante said when describing the nine circles of hell in The Inferno,"[t]he hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

By Jim Marston

Source: Alternative Energies

The assault on successful renewable energy legislation continues, long after the facts have proven that state renewable policies deliver clean, affordable, and reliable energy solutions that the majority of Americans support. Apparently, the fossil fuel industry and its so-called “free market” allies didn’t get the memo.

There’s a great line in the opening scene of Ridley Scott’s 2000 blockbuster Gladiator where a soldier says to his general, as they are about to slaughter an overmatched foe, “People should know when they’re conquered.” The general replies, “Would you? Would I?”

So I can’t really blame the fossil fuel industry for fighting old battles in an effort to undo approaches that have increased investment in renewable energy in states around the country, created thousands of jobs, and continue to lower energy costs with each passing day.

The usual targets of their attacks are state laws that require a certain percentage of the state’s total energy generation to come from renewable sources like solar, wind, or hydropower. Ohio is the most recent battleground, where state legislators began hearing testimony last week on S.B. 310, a law that would freeze Ohio’s energy efficiency and renewable energy standards at their 2014 levels. Sometimes called renewable portfolio standards (RPS) or renewable energy standards (RES), these laws are in place in 30 states. They have not only proven economically successful across the country, but they are popular in both red and blue states alike.

Just last month, for example, a scientific poll found that Kansas’ 2009 renewable energy law enjoys overwhelming support across political lines: 73% of Republicans, 75% of Independents, and 82% of Democrats support the law. In fact, two-thirds of those polled said they would support increasing the state's renewable energy law, even if it increased their energy bills.

This is Kansas, mind you – not California – whose State Legislature is virtually 100% conservative Republican.

In Texas, which is the largest generator of wind energy in the country, the Republican comptroller has touted the state RPS as an economic driver: “After the RPS was implemented, Texas wind corporations and utilities invested $1 billion in wind power, creating jobs…and increasing the rural tax base.”

Everyone knows that Texas’ history is deeply rooted in oil and gas. But the state RPS is popular among elected officials that have witnessed the remarkable economic boom it sparked. Texas has already surpassed the RPS goal set for 2015. More than 1,300 companies employ more than 100,000 Texans in industries directly and indirectly related to renewable energy.

The state’s Public Utilities Commission concluded that mass deployment of wind reduces the price of electricity for the entire market – each 1,000 MW of wind lowers the wholesale price of electricity by $2.38/MWh.

Colorado’s program has also been a success. The American Wind Energy Association estimates that the state’s RPS is supporting nearly 4,000 direct and indirect jobs and generating a billion dollars in capital investment along with millions in leasing revenue for landowners who benefit from the policy.

There are other analyses, too, that show that RPS laws actually reduce energy prices, and the overall cost of renewable energy continues to fall. Solar panel prices dropped 60% between 2011 and mid-2012 – and they continue to plummet. Austin Energy is in talks to purchase half a billion dollars of solar energy from SunEdison at an astoundingly cheap $50/MWh (for comparison, natural gas is currently priced at more than $65/MWh).

But still, the attacks keep coming, full of questionable studies from fossil fuel-funded think tanks.

I can’t blame them. I’ve been fighting for what I believe in for decades, and I’ve had more defeats than wins. But I never gave up, and neither will the fossil fuel companies. What’s different now, however, is that the evidence against them is so convincing that voters, energy customers, and most everyone else recognize that opposition to renewable energy is based on lost corporate profits. Cries of “higher energy costs” and “lost jobs” are no longer credible arguments against the clean energy revolution. They may never know they’ve been conquered, but everyone else will.

By John Finnigan

Source: American Insurance Association Flickr

Cheryl Roberto, Associate Vice President and leader of EDF’s Clean Energy Program, recently testified before the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee against S.B. 310, which would freeze Ohio’s energy efficiency and renewable energy standards at current levels. Sen. William Seitz, the Committee Chair, described her testimony as “passionate,” “very persuasive” and “thought provoking.”

Roberto described how the electric grid has changed. The old model, in effect for the past hundred years, relies on one-way power flows from large, centralized utility power plants, with limited customer service options and limited information available to customers on their energy usage. The new model involves two-way power flows between the utility and customers who own small, on-site solar, wind, and combined heat and power units. Customers receive detailed, real-time energy usage and price information.

New energy and communications technologies offer many more options for providing electricity service to customers. In states without retail electric competition, utilities can use renewable energy and energy efficiency to serve customers, and the regulators can develop innovative rate plans which incentivize utilities for doing so. Roberto cited the example of MidAmerican Energy Company in Iowa, which serves 30% of its customers’ energy needs with wind power and has made massive investments in energy efficiency programs.

This is more challenging in states with retail electric competition, like Ohio. Without clean energy laws, utilities may not be able to recover their costs for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Roberto explained that these companies should sell their generating plants to avoid the inherent conflicts between their generating business versus their energy delivery business. The energy delivery companies would then function as “procurement officers” to obtain the optimal balance of resources for their customers, including renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Roberto informed the Senators of a March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which reviewed 1,700 energy efficiency programs in 31 states over a three-year period. The researchers found that the average cost for procuring the energy efficiency savings was 2.1¢ per kilowatt-hour – five times less expensive than the 10.13¢ per kilowatt-hour customers pay for electricity.

Ohio’s clean energy standards have only been in effect for five years and have been highly successful to date. Roberto urged the Senators not to curb these programs, which have flourished in a short time frame.

Roberto and her EDF team are doing everything they can to save Ohio’s clean energy standards.  But we can’t do it without you.  We urge you to contact Governor Kasich and your state representatives directly via EDF’s action alert to let them know where you stand on this important issue. Join the majority who support clean energy by adding your name and telling the Governor, state senators and state representatives to put Ohioan’s health, economy, and environment first. Don’t let Ohio lose out on these crucial clean energy standards.

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: Chenected

The energy-water nexus is gaining traction with diverse stakeholders around the world and it is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot plan for our planet’s future if we do not consider energy and water together.

Most recently, the United Nations celebrated World Water Day, launching a yearlong effort to highlight the global energy-water nexus, the chosen theme for 2014. In honor of World Water Day, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its annual World Energy Outlook report, the first analysis of its kind to look at the impacts of water scarcity on the global energy sector. This signals a big step in the global understanding of the importance of the energy-water nexus, and reveals important insights on how regions, nations, and industries must cope with less water in a changing climate.

The global energy-water nexus challenge

The IEA focuses on energy, so it makes sense for them to look at the inextricable link between water and power generation, as water will continue to present a challenge to energy management throughout all regions of the world. In its analysis, IEA looked at several different scenarios for power generation out to 2035, including a New Policies Scenario. This scenario takes into account the commitments and plans various countries have stated regarding their energy use, including policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation.

Naturally, the biggest water users for energy production are also the world’s largest electricity generators: the United States, the European Union, China, and India. All four regions/countries have power plants to meet their populations’ energy demands, but water plays a big role in ensuring those countries can continue providing enough electricity. For instance, IEA notes that a delayed monsoon season in 2012 led to blackouts in India that lasted two days and impacted more than 600 million people, and a 2011 drought in China reduced hydropower generation, leading to increased demand for coal, which forced electricity rationing and worsened air quality.

Looking at the US in particular, we have an interesting challenge: the general water situation in the country is not dire (yet), but it is severely constrained in the western half of the country. Yet the energy-water nexus crisis is not just relegated to the water-stressed West. During the2008 Southeastern drought as well as the 2012 drought that pummeled the Midwest, we saw shutdowns and near shutdowns of nuclear power plants in states like Alabama, North Carolina, and Illinois. Additionally, the Southeast, California, and the Pacific Northwest (like many regions in the world) are struggling to provide hydropower in the midst of droughts. And let’s not forget the ongoing fight of the Tri-State Water Wars between Alabama, Georgia, and Florida over distribution of increasingly scarce water for many uses, including power.

All of this adds up to a very uncertain future for the conventional use of water in global energy production. And yet for international entities like the UN and the IEA considering the full-spectrum of global resource challenges and opportunities, the energy-water nexus is just the tip of the iceberg.

The missing link in the energy-water nexus

Energy and water are fundamentally intertwined, but the linkages of these two vital resources also greatly impact the food sector.  More and more we hear about the energy-water-food nexus and how we are going to manage growing populations and the demands on all three resources. Plus, when we take into account the global impacts from climate change, we’re looking at some big challenges – but also some incredible opportunities.

We need a systematic approach to solve the interconnected issues that link energy, water, food, and climate change. Earlier this month, 300 delegates from 33 countries convened in Chapel Hill, North Carolina to talk about how these four issues intersect, and submitted a declaration to the Secretary General of the United Nations to figure out how to meet sustainable development goals. The basic premise of all the findings and recommendations centered around the fact that Earth and the communities that live upon it are part of a system. By approaching these massive problems from an integrated standpoint, we begin to solve problems in a more systematic way, uncovering efficiencies that cross sectors—like lowering the water intensity of our power choices and improving crop irrigation through smart electricity meters.

The solutions exist. We just have to put our heads together to find them. And as more stakeholders from different sectors and parts of the world understand this, we will begin to tackle this challenge together.

By Dick Munson

Source: Dustin M. Ramsey

Ohio’s clean energy agenda has taken many hits in the past, particularly from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a front group and model bill factory for many corporate interests including oil, gas, and coal. Last year, ALEC led an unsuccessful effort to repeal the state’s clean energy standard. The introduction of Ohio’s Senate Bill 310 is the group’s most recent attempt to prevent Ohioans from continuing to enjoy the many benefits of new, clean energy technologies, reasonable electricity rates, and a healthy environment.

Hearings began last week on SB 310, which would freeze any additional energy efficiency or renewable energy mandates in Ohio after 2014. This is an amendment to the landmark 2008 legislation in Ohio requiring the state to acquire 12.5percent of its energy portfolio from renewables and to reduce energy consumption by 22 percent through energy efficiency measures by 2025. If adopted, this freeze would stymie Ohio from reaching its full clean energy potential, attaining instead only about one-tenth of its 2025 renewables goal and one-fifth of its energy efficiency target.

Over the past six years, thanks to the 2008 clean energy legislation, Ohio has emerged as a national leader in clean energy. Ohio experienced record investments and economic growth in clean energy between 2010 and 2011, and has continued to become the nation’s third leading state in producing energy efficiency equipment.  The 2008 clean energy standards have also breathed new life into the state’s manufacturing industry, and Ohio is now the top state in wind-related manufacturing facilities. These standards support over 25,000 Ohio jobs, saved consumers over $1 billion on electricity bills, and drastically slashed Ohio’s toxic air pollutants.

While said to be a “temporary stop,” the new legislation dismantles Ohio’s clean energy efforts. Unfortunately, the state has faced consistent introduction of anti-clean energy legislation since 2012 with no real end in sight. With backing from powerful industry leaders and campaign funding from deep pockets, including the Koch brothers, opponents of clean energy in Ohio seem to be in it for the long haul.

That’s why EDF has created an action alert to help concerned Ohio citizens protect the state’s job-creating, clean energy economy. Join the majority who support clean energy by adding your name and telling the Governor, State Senators, and State Representatives to put Ohioan’s health, economy, and environment first. Don’t let Ohio lose out on these crucial clean energy standards.