By Kate Zerrenner

This year has seen historic flooding across the South. In addition to the devastating rains that recently hit Louisiana, severe floods pummeled Texas earlier this year. In both cases, the states’ National Guards were first responders, rescuing families, delivering meals and supplies to survivors, and providing local agencies with high-water trucks, boats, and helicopters.

As the frequency of extreme weather events like these increases, it is imperative that the National Guard can continue devoting resources to critical, first-responder services. But in Texas, those services could be threatened by the state’s dwindling water supplies.

A new study from CNA Analysis & Solutions, funded by Environmental Defense Fund and in collaboration with the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG), shows many Texas defense facilities are in water-stressed counties. Over time, this could result not only in higher water costs, but also power production constraints, since it requires a lot of water to produce and move electricity from traditional energy sources like coal and natural gas. Both of these challenges pose a direct threat to the budget and operating capabilities of the TXARNG. Fortunately, the analysis also indicates these same areas have great potential for solar energy, which requires little to no water to meet power needs on-site.

By tapping into that potential and pursuing bolder energy efficiency initiatives, TXARNG could ease pressure on the electric grid and reduce utility bills, all while safeguarding residents and precious water supplies.

Impressive solar potential

The TXARNG is a component of the Texas Military Department, and has about 19,000 soldiers operating out of 77 facilities across the state. The new study mapped water stress and the potential for solar, wind, and geothermal energy at 60 of these facilities (17 rental spaces with no purchasing power over energy choices were excluded).

Due to facility age and the nature of operations, many locations require a lot of power to keep humming. For example, seven of the 60 facilities use more than 1 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year each, which is equivalent to 104 homes’ electricity use for one year. The largest installation and the Texas National Guard’s headquarters, Camp Mabry in Austin, uses more than 1,200 homes’ electricity use for one year.

Among the findings, the potential and need for solar power in Texas stands out. Here’s how:

• More than 20 of the TXARNG facilities studied have significant solar potential on a daily basis. For context, sunny states like California, Texas, and Florida all average about five kilowatt hours per square meter per day (kWh/m2/day) solar potential statewide, while states like Maine and Minnesota come closer to 3.5 kWh/m2/day (kWh/m2 is sometimes called a “sun hour” and is the equivalent of one full hour of sun—the higher the number, the greater solar potential). But the most promising TXARNG facilities studied have more than five kWh/m2/day solar potential, meaning there is a great opportunity to take advantage of the sun’s rays at TXARNG installations.
• Average electricity prices for nearly 20 of the facilities, including some of the largest, is $0.10 per kWh or higher (the average electricity price in Texas is about $0.08 per kWh). Relatively high prices means an opportunity to lower expenses by exploring on-site power sources, like solar, or cutting energy use through efficiency.
• By 2050, rain in Texas could decrease by five inches or more in the eastern half of the state and up to 2.5 inches in the western part of the state. Less rain means less water available to make electricity using traditional methods.

Moreover, this study shows that it makes sense to match high energy demand with high potential for solar electricity. For example, the Lubbock site has the sixth-highest energy use and fourth-highest solar potential, presenting a clear opportunity to reduce pressure on the grid by meeting demand with on-site solar.

Plus, as the cost of solar continues to decrease, especially in relation to conventional fuel sources, the economics make more and more sense.

Conserving energy, saving money

As the study puts it, “investments in energy efficiency could also be very cost-effective and have the advantage of being independent of location.” In other words, whereas solar potential relies on factors like cloud coverage, all military facilities in Texas can implement energy efficiency initiatives – regardless of the site’s natural surroundings or environmental conditions. Projects to enhance efficiency could include retrofitting or updating boilers, lighting, or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems.

Energy efficiency is also a win-win from an environmental and cost perspective. To start, the resource is both pollution and water-free. The study also cites data that compares the cost of different energy sources, and efficiency has the lowest cost range to implement. Plus, lowering energy use through efficiency could help reduce energy bills, freeing up money to potentially spend on training and equipment rather than high electricity bills.

Easing water woes

How do all of these pieces fit together for the TXARNG? Some facilities exhibit a confluence of factors that indicate prime locations for the deployment of low-water intensity energy resources. For example, Fort Bliss Readiness Center in El Paso has the third-highest electricity use (2.3 million kWh per year), the highest solar potential, the most extreme category of future water stress, and one of the highest electricity prices. Taken together, these factors indicate that Fort Bliss would be well-suited for targeted energy efficiency and solar deployment to reduce water demand and electric bills.

With a future of water stress in its sights, the Texas Army National Guard now possesses a powerful weapon in its arsenal: data to know where to target low-water-intensity energy resources like solar and energy efficiency. These investments will ensure the military agency has the option to devote more of its resources to critical missions rather than energy and water bills. Moreover, although the study was specific to the Army branch, the results can help inform investment decisions for the entire Texas National Guard. With a strategy laid out, the TXARNG can continue defending not only Texans, but its future energy and water supplies.

By Kate Zerrenner

Olympic Games are historically about gold, silver, and bronze – not green. Even the “greenest” Olympics, held in London in 2012, used nearly 400 temporary generators, which release harmful pollution, including carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides among many others. Nevertheless, when Brazil won its bid in 2009 to host the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, the country pledged to host the "Green Games for a Blue Planet,” a festival with sustainability at its core.

Brazil, nearly as large as the U.S. and holding 60 percent of the Amazon rainforest, currently uses renewable energy to make about 85 percent of its electricity (compare that to the U.S., where only 13 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources). With renewable energy success like that, who better to host the “Green Games?”

Yet, despite Brazil’s ambitious goals, years of planning, and an advantage in existing renewable energy resources, Brazil is falling short of its goal for a cleaner, greener Olympics. This is because serious social, political, environmental, and health challenges tangent to the Olympics have constrained the nation’s ability to realize the sustainability goals Brazil thought achievable in 2009.

Like Brazil, countries and states around the world today – including my home state of Texas – are embarking on their own ambitious national and state sustainability goals. These goals are more long-term than a single summer event, but we have the same lesson to learn: To reach sustainability and environmental goals requires interweaving into the fabric of all policy solutions.

Intertwined solutions

Brazil has set environmental goals, such as stopping deforestation and aiming to reduce the country’s carbon emissions 37 percent of 2005 levels by 2025. So, the nation is no stranger to thinking in terms of big environmental solutions.

For the Olympics, solutions for both the environment and economy could have been further explored. If the Olympics go smoothly, it could be a huge economic boon to Brazil. But consider one of the venues for sailing and windsurfing, Guanabara Bay, which is so polluted that some countries are debating whether they should even allow their athletes near the body of water. The two issues are combined: The pollution is potentially affecting the economic potential of the Games.

Brazil has also recently been struggling with drought, which threatens the hydropower resources that make up the vast majority of the country’s renewable power. If the drought continues, more diesel generators will be required for the Games and possibly beyond, meaning more air pollution. Increased pollution threatens not only athletes and spectators, but also millions of Brazilians with lower incomes. This vulnerable population already disproportionately suffers the effects of poor air quality, including greater susceptibility to diseases and further engulfing large swathes of communities in unsanitary and unhealthy conditions. Exacerbating this linkage, poor health leads to greater stress on the economy overall, completing the nexus of the environment, health, and economy.

Going for the Green: Rio Olympics Show Link between Environment, Economy, Health
Click To Tweet

Lessons for Texas

This dilemma is not restricted to Brazil or to the Olympic Games. Every country faces these problems on some level, including the U.S. Look at my home state of Texas, where state policies and politics often view environmental issues as separate from or opposed to economic health, when really they are inseparable.

For example, our state decision makers have strongly resisted the Clean Power Plan, the nation’s first-ever attempt to reduce carbon pollution from power plants, falsely claiming that it is a financial burden on Texans and Texas industry. However, according to an Environmental Defense Fund analysis, the Lone Star State is already nearly 90 percent of the way toward compliance based on market forces alone. And, save for inflation, the market trends moving Texas to a clean energy future will not increase electricity prices.

Moreover, the Clean Power Plan would encourage the use of clean energy, which Texas has more potential to develop than any other state. In this case, helping the environment would also help the economy by creating local jobs and increasing revenue from clean energy industries.

Plus, lowering carbon pollution can prevent premature deaths, hospitalizations, and heart attacks, an undeniable tie to public health. The millions of Americans who suffer the most from the effects are often those with the fewest economic means, and the most to gain from cleaner air.

The reality is, when we separate environment from economics and public health, we’re making policy solutions that are piecemeal and inefficient at best, and harmful to one or the other at worst. Connecting the dots is necessary. We must create a future in which countries (and states) are able to undertake ambitious projects like the Olympics and still protect their people, natural resources, and fiscal health. Gold medals may not be at stake in this “event,” but a prosperous future is.

By Kate Zerrenner

It’s been an interesting time for water in Texas. Beyond the incredibly wet and cool spring we’ve been having, Memorial Day saw the second year in a row of record-breaking floods.

And a few weeks ago, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) asked for comments on the draft 2017 State Water Plan. The TWDB is the state agency responsible for water planning, and every five years it produces a strategy that “addresses the needs of all water user groups in the state – municipal, irrigation, manufacturing, livestock, mining, and steam-electric power.”

In the five years since the last state water plan, Texas has gone from one extreme to the other in terms of water: from the throes of a devastating drought to historic flooding that resulted in some reservoirs being full for the first time in 15 years.

In this climate of feast or famine, we need to better understand our water supplies and conservation efforts, both of which have a strong tie to our energy choices. That’s why Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) weighed in on Texas’ draft water plan. Not only does the state significantly overestimate the amount of water needed to make electricity, but a more comprehensive view of energy in relation to water demand and supply would benefit the 2017 State Water Plan and future plans.

Cleaner energy means less water demand

The comments EDF submitted on the 2017 draft plan focus on the energy-water nexus – the idea that conventional energy resources (such as coal) require large amounts of water to produce electricity, and most of the water we use requires a considerable amount of energy to treat and transport it.

Texas produces its plan based on submissions from the 16 regional water planning groups – naturally, supply and demand varies by region. But one thing is clear from a statewide perspective: The water needs for the power sector are not accurate for planning purposes. (To the state’s credit, its water agency acknowledges this, but a comprehensive overhaul is needed to bring projections in line with reality.)

In the draft plan, the TWDB forecasts annual steam-electric water demand, or water needed for fossil fuel-fired power generation, will increase from 733,179 acre-feet in 2010 to 953,000 acre-feet in 2020 and 1,108,000 acre-feet in 2030. These numbers are based on Texas’ forecasted economic and population growth and the associated increase in electricity and water demand.

If Texas were operating with the same energy resources it deployed in 2010, those estimates would be accurate. However, they do not consider the state’s evolving energy reality: Texas has been on an impressive ramp-up of clean energy in the past few years, and all signs point to this trend continuing.

In fact, over the past two decades, coal-fueled generation has lost significant market share to natural gas and renewable energy resources. From 2002, the year Texas’ competitive electric retail market was implemented, to 2015, wind’s share grew from one percent to 12 percent in the Lone Star State. And last year alone, coal generation dropped from 36 percent to 28 percent.

These changes matter because clean energy – like energy efficiency, solar PV, and wind – uses virtually no water to create electricity, versus thirsty coal and natural gas. In other words, the water intensity of the state’s generation mix is decreasing. Moreover, the transition to cleaner, less water-intensive electricity is almost entirely due to market forces, including the decreasing economic viability of coal and lower prices of solar and natural gas, coupled with targeted standards that encourage increased energy efficiency.

According to EDF’s analysis, based on energy data from Texas’ main grid operator, the state water agency’s forecast for Texas’ power-related water needs in 2030 exceeds the future reality by nearly 40 percent. That is a massive amount of water that could be budgeted for our homes, agriculture, and businesses. The dramatic overestimation of the power sector’s future water needs means we do not have a comprehensive, clear picture of the state’s water demands.

Additional energy-water nexus considerations

Beyond projecting the power sector’s water needs, additional energy-water nexus issues must be part of our statewide water planning. For example, 2.7 percent of the 2017 plan’s recommended water strategies include groundwater and seawater desalination, both of which are highly energy-intensive. In fact, energy can account for nearly half the costs in seawater desalination. In considering strategies such as these, the energy, and related water intensity, of the strategy should be evaluated. Desalination requires copious amounts of energy, so if traditional fossil fuels are powering the desalination facilities, it is essentially using water to make water.

Further, a more comprehensive approach toward the energy-water nexus in the State Water Plan could enable both energy and water savings statewide. For example, the California Energy Commission found that as much energy could be saved through water conservation as through the investor-owned electric utility efficiency programs, but at half the cost. Although we do not have similar data for Texas yet, we can assume that better coordination between the two sectors could improve direct water conservation and indirect water savings through energy efficiency.

TWDB is a water agency, and power generation is just one of many sectors that have to be considered when making forecasts for future water demands and availability. Further, TWDB is actively making an effort to improve steam-electric power generation forecasting, which hopefully will take the state’s transition to clean energy into account. Our official projections should use the best available data and methods to ensure wild swings in weather don’t translate to wild swings in water supplies. Incorporating a more holistic energy-water lens into state planning can help guarantee reliable, plentiful water for our communities and businesses for years to come.

Photo source: Flickr/BlueRidgeKitties

By Kate Zerrenner

Recently I spoke about the energy-water nexus at the American Water Resources Association spring conference in Anchorage, Alaska. As a Texan in Alaska, I had my first taste of getting what we give: Texans like to walk and talk big, but a lunchtime speaker joked that Texas was “cute” and noted how if you halved Alaska, Texas would be the third largest state.

Alaska and Texas are often mentioned in the same breath: two behemoth states, heavily influenced by oil and a rugged individualism. During my adventure, I posted pictures or status updates of things that wouldn’t be unfamiliar in Texas and tagged them #texasoralaska – things like overheard conversation about seasonal oil work, wind turbines next to oil ports, and a strong liking for local game and seafood (reindeer versus venison, King crab versus Gulf shrimp).

In both states, you hear people talking about changing weather patterns. The man next to me on the plane to Anchorage said they only had two “bad” days of winter and temperatures hit a remarkable 70 degrees in March. The boat captain said red salmon were starting to arrive about three weeks early this year. This sounds remarkably similar to conversations I’ve had with people in Texas about severe drought, hotter summers, and extreme floods that seem to be occurring more frequently.

In the face of a changing climate, tangible impacts are affecting Texans and Alaskans now – usually the most vulnerable groups. These massive states show why we need to prioritize climate action. Despite Alaska and Texas’ close ties to oil, I am hopeful their underlying frontier spirit can help them be better prepared for a warmer future.

Texas and Alaska’s residents are already suffering as a result of climate change

I saw the most dramatic physical evidence of climate impacts on my Kenai Peninsula boat trip when we passed by Bear Glacier. This glacier marks the start of Kenai Fjords National Park, and it’s the largest glacier in the park at 13 miles long. Before I went I jokingly referred to it as the “melting glacier tour,” but it wasn’t so funny when I saw the evidence: This magnificent natural feature is receding rapidly.

With increasing average annual temperatures between the 1950s and 1990s, Bear Glacier retreated about one mile, creating a lagoon. But between 2000 and 2007, the glacier retreated an additional two miles, calving and creating floating icebergs in the lagoon. And in 2014, an outburst flood led to the lagoon overflowing into Resurrection Bay – likely a case of climate change exacerbating current climate and weather events.

Similarly, Houston has recently suffered through the second round of fatal floods in less than a year. Houston’s sprawl has left the already-flood-prone city more vulnerable to heavy rainfall runoff, especially from the development of wetlands, which would otherwise act as a barrier. And Houston is expecting another 3.4 million people to move to the city in the next 25 years. Moreover, as a coastal city, Houston is staring down the barrel of rising seas and intense storms, with climate change acting as an enhancing force on these natural cycles (climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe has described it as putting our weather on steroids).

There is a direct impact of these events on people. Alaska is likely to see the first American climate refugees. The 400-person town of Kivalina and neighboring 350-strong Newtok, home to Inupiat and Yupik people, respectively, need to be moved because, according to U.S. Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell, they are “washing away.” The monetary costs are estimated at $100-200 million per village (and 29 more are listed as in imminent danger), but the cultural and social costs to the families that must be uprooted from their homes is immeasurable.

Likewise, Texas’ recent floods and droughts have hit the most vulnerable communities the hardest. For example, in the Greenspoint area in Houston, more than one in three residents lives below the Federal Poverty Level. The area, of which over half is in a flood zone, was one of the worst hit in recent storms. When the next big flood arrives, it and other low-income communities in flood zones will likely bear the brunt of damage again. A recent Texas Monthly article asked, “Is Houston Sustainable?” It’s a complicated question with no easy answer.

Texas and Alaska’s attitudes can overcome oil challenges

The oil part of the equation makes dealing with climate change-related weather impacts even thornier. Both states’ budgets rely heavily on oil revenues, and both states have always been challenged by the boom and bust cycles of the oil industry. After the last bust, Texas undertook efforts to reduce its reliance on oil revenues. In 2014, 90 percent of Alaska’s state budget came from the industry; in 2015 it received only 75 percent – a huge loss resulting from the recent oil price tumble.

It’s more than merely numbers and revenue in these two states. Oil also represents jobs, livelihoods, history, and culture. But the reality is, heavy reliance on oil is no longer sustainable—economically or environmentally. The oil reserves that remain untapped are more expensive and more complicated to access. Many leaders decry the effect of climate policies on the economy, but, arguably, low oil prices and reduced petroleum reserves actually pose a greater challenge to these two states. Tapping these reserves also risks intensifying the already accelerated climate change trends.

Fortunately, one of the hallmarks of these two frontier-spirited states is adaptability. In order to thrive in the harsh Texas summers or Alaska winters, you have to be adaptable. So, diversify and take pride in both states’ incredible natural resources and can-do spirit. For example, embracing cleaner energy sources is one way to prepare for a more resilient future. Texas is already the country’s wind energy leader and the number one state for solar potential. Looking out the airplane window coming into Anchorage, I saw rows of majestic wind turbines spinning while snow-covered mountains loomed in the background.

Whether you’re heading north to The Last Frontier or south to The Lone Star State, it’s clear climate action is needed now. An adaptable, frontier, and can-do attitude could help these states’ vulnerable populations and beyond prepare for a safer, healthier future.

By Kate Zerrenner

San Antonio and Austin just called a cease-fire on a taco war over which city invented the breakfast taco. Both make excellent tacos: from the traditional chorizo and egg taco in San Antonio to a free-range egg and organic spinach taco in Austin. But this debate was about more than just tacos – it was about the history and culture of these two neighboring cities.

Only 80 miles apart, San Antonio and Austin have some significant differences. San Antonio is known as “Military City USA” largely due to its huge military bases, but it’s also known for other industries like biotech, military medical centers, and a dynamic business relationship with Mexico. The capital city’s economy, on the other hand, is based on high-tech, entertainment, state government, and the behemoth University of Texas at Austin. San Antonio is one of the largest Hispanic-majority cities in the country (at 63 percent in 2010), while Austin’s diversity comes in large part from people flocking to the Capitol from all over the state and country. As someone with roots in both San Antonio and Austin, I appreciate both – I’m an equal opportunity taco lover.

But both cities share an important commonality: exploding population growth. The population of the 13 counties that make up the Austin-San Antonio corridor is estimated to increase by 77 percent by 2050, to 6.8 million people. Extreme growth brings intense pressure on resources and services, particularly water in this drought-prone region. Both cities are standing up to that challenge through careful water conservation measures and by advancing clean energy.

San Antonio and Austin are taco and water winners in Texas

One thing San Antonians and Austinites could probably agree on is tacos are better here than in other parts of the state – and the same goes for water conservation. San Antonio and Austin are both primarily reliant on one water source: the Edwards Aquifer and Colorado River, respectively. During a drought, cities with one main water source would be in dire straits if they weren’t investing in conservation. Fortunately, these cities are.

The San Antonio Water System (SAWS) instituted a number of tough water conservation measures and began innovative, cross-sectoral collaboration with the local electric utility, CPS Energy, one of its largest users. Consequently, when the most recent drought hit Texas in 2010, San Antonio was more prepared than many other areas. The city was also faster to enact next-stage drought restrictions, reaching a point where households watered their lawns only once every two weeks. As a result of conservation efforts, San Antonio went from 149 gallons of water per person per day (GPCD) in 2008 to 134 GPCD in 2014.

Austin also started to adopt more aggressive conservation goals just prior to the aforementioned drought. Recent efforts by Austin Water have resulted in some impressive water savings: the city’s use decreased from 171 GPCD in 2008 to 125 GPCD in 2014. And, despite an estimated 110 people who move to the city each day, water usage has virtually remained flat while the population has doubled.

Improved data on water usage are closely connected to conservation. Data from Pecan Street, Inc., a research and development organization based at the University of Texas at Austin, has shown that irrigation systems for lawns are a huge water user – in some cases up to around 90 percent of a household’s water use. Armed with that information, and wanting to get the most bang for its buck, SAWS has decided to allocate the bulk of its rebates and incentives to help people reduce their outdoor water use. And both cities’ water utilities also partner with Pecan Street to enable residential customers to get real-time data on water usage through the use of new smart technologies.

Clean energy plans contribute to conservation

It may not be immediately apparent why clean energy progress matters to water conservation. But since traditional energy generation sources like coal and natural gas are very thirsty resources, a faster than business-as-usual transition to cleaner energy means preserving water resources that would otherwise be used for power generation. For example, according to modeling by CNA Corporation’s Institute for Public Research, with a 40 percent carbon cap and a speedy transition from coal to clean energy, Texas could see a 45 percent reduction in water consumption by 2040.

Fortunately, both CPS Energy and Austin Energy, the cities’ municipal electric utilities, are way ahead of the curve when it comes to transitioning to a clean energy future and cutting emissions from the power sector. With a 20 percent renewable energy by 2020 goal, CPS Energy is fast-tracking the closure of its dirtiest coal plant, purchased a cleaner natural gas plant, and is the largest municipal wind purchaser in the U.S. Plus, its planned solar projects will be among the largest municipal solar projects in the country. Austin Energy has an ambitious goal of 55 percent renewable energy by 2025, which it will achieve largely through wind and solar investments (like its recent deal, declared the “Cheapest Solar Ever”). Both utilities also have robust energy efficiency programs, and Austin established one of the first green building codes in the country back in 1990.

San Antonio and Austin are justifiably proud of both their breakfast tacos and their water conservation. You can get a great, traditional breakfast taco in San Antonio and a great, “weird” taco in Austin. But these cities are better together – as San Antonio Mayor Ivy Taylor said, “It's no longer 'San Antonio vs. Austin' but 'San Antonio and Austin.’” And just as the history of Texas is in our tacos, it’s also in our water. A little friendly competition pushes us to be better stewards of our culture and natural resources, and it’s worth remembering that water conservation benefits existing and future generations of Texans. So, what do you say we talk about this over some tacos?

Photo source: Wikimedia/Laurette45

By Kate Zerrenner

Symbiosis – in which different species have a cooperative or mutually beneficial relationship – is everywhere in nature: honeybees receive vital nutrients from flowers while delivering pollen (male) directly to the female parts of the flower; pilot fish gain protection from predators, while sharks gain freedom from parasites; and dogs protect their owners, while receiving food and shelter. Cited by some scientists as a major driver of evolution, symbiosis has played an important role in the mutual survival of certain species.

Two elements in nature that are also very symbiotic are energy and water: It takes water to produce and distribute energy, while energy is used to treat, pump, and distribute water. This inextricable link is knowns as the energy-water nexus. Yet, energy and water planners do not treat these important resources as symbiotic “species,” resulting in a lot of waste – something we cannot afford with climate change on the rise.

Floating solar panels atop bodies of water, or the cleverly nicknamed “floatovoltaics,” are a possible solution for both energy and water challenges. The panels help to reduce evaporation of water – critical in hot, dry places like Texas and California – and the water helps to keep the panels cool, increasing their efficiency. Plus, compared to more traditional fuel sources, solar PV requires little to no water to produce electricity. Incorporating more solar energy and relying less on coal or natural gas means greater water savings overall.

Floatovoltaics seem like a win-win solution, but it’s not being deployed on a large scale yet. Some countries and U.S. states have surged ahead in testing this technology. So why isn’t a state like Texas, with big reservoirs, crippling droughts, and lots of solar potential, taking this bull by the horns?

International and domestic floatovoltaic leaders

Several countries are embracing the inventive energy-water solution:

–Japan: The largest floating solar plant in the world is underway at the Yamakura Dam near Tokyo. According to the plant’s developer, it will generate “enough electricity to power approximately 4,970 typical households — while offsetting about 8,170 tons of CO2 emissions annually. This is equal to 19,000 barrels of oil consumed.” That’s an impressive generating capacity, especially considering Japan’s acute energy demand crisis. In 2015, Japan only produced about 10 percent of its own energy and imported the rest. Since the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, Japan has shifted toward the development of more local, renewable energy, but clearly still has a ways to go before becoming energy independent.

Solar is also much less of a water hog. Islands always need to protect water resources, and space for solar panels is limited, so capitalizing on “unused” space above the reservoir makes sense. Simultaneously powering and quenching an island nation’s thirst in the face of climate change is a very smart move.

–England: Europe’s largest floating solar plant is being constructed in the Queen Elizabeth II Reservoir near London, England. In a nice bit of symmetry, the power generated from the panels will provide electricity for the utility’s nearby water treatment facility, helping Thames Water achieve its goal of self-generating one-third of its power by 2020. This is not the first floating solar plant in the U.K., but its size will dwarf the pilot project that was completed previously.

–India: Work is underway for the country’s largest project on Loktak Lake, the biggest freshwater lake in the northeastern state of Manipur. India was actually one of the innovators for floating solar: SunEdison India previously launched the Canal Solar Power Project in Gujarat, using the long network of canals across the state to generate electricity from floating panels. In a country struggling with the freshwater needs of its enormous population base, reducing the evaporation rates of the canal water is critical.

And the idea is gaining steam stateside, as well:

–California: Unsurprisingly, California is a leader in floatovoltaics in the U.S. The state’s clean energy subsidies and incentives, pressure from the drought, and an innovative tech sector have all helped this technology find a foothold. The Wine Country has seen the greatest uptake: Both Napa and Sonoma have floatovoltaic systems underway. In Napa, the Far Niente winery (pictured above) installed a system in 2011 that reduces evaporation from the waterway by 70 percent and generates enough power to completely offset the winery’s annual use. Sonoma County’s installation, due to come online this year, is expected to generate power for 3,000 homes, making it the second largest floatovoltaic system after Japan’s.

–New Jersey: Probably a surprise to those outside the solar industry, New Jersey is one of the leading solar states in the U.S., beating out sunny spots like Texas, New Mexico, and Nevada (that’s down to politics, not potential). Consequently, New Jersey is home to a floatovoltaic project at the Canoe Brook Water Treatment Plant, run by New Jersey American Water. The project generates about two percent of the water treatment plant’s power, saving around $16,000 per year.

Why not Texas?

Why isn’t Texas further ahead in the clean energy game? It’s a question I ask myself every day, especially when I think about the water-saving aspects of solar panels, both the floating and mounted kind. It comes down to political leadership on clean energy, which is still a struggle in an oil and gas state like Texas.

At the same time, we are a state plagued by droughts, and every policymaker knows that. Texas is likely looking down the barrel of another drought – developing our prime potential for floatovoltaics could help alleviate future stress. We store a lot of water in large reservoirs, which could easily lend themselves to floating solar panels. Or, we could use the technology on cooling ponds at traditional power plants. In addition to generating solar power next to a grid-connected traditional power plant, this would reduce the evaporation of those ponds, a particularly critical issue in our hot summers.

It’s worth noting the floatovoltaic projects underway in other countries and states all have some sort of policy incentive behind them. We need political leadership to encourage the transition to cleaner, water-saving energy sources. With just under a year before our legislators come back to Austin, here’s to hoping they begin to see the symbiotic relationship between energy and water. The evolution and survival of our species depends on it.

Photo source: Flickr/Thomas Roche

By Kate Zerrenner

2015 proved to be another weird weather year around the country, especially for Texas. 80 degrees and dry in Austin on Christmas Day, spring wildflowers in bloom, and kids playing outside in shorts – a surprise ending to a wild ride of drought followed by devastating floods followed by drought and then more floods.

Texas is used to drought-flood cycles and extreme weather, but last year the pendulum seemed to swing wildly from one to the next. And climate models predict intense swings for the future as well: After the next flood is another drought, which will likely be more intense and longer than usual due to climate change.

Unfortunately, it seems like during our brief respites from drought, we also take a break from thinking about water scarcity. After the year we’ve just had, this should not be the case – water security should be at the top of Texans’ minds going into 2016. But there are two promising developments for our water future: the Clean Power Plan and examples that cities in other water-stressed Western states are setting.

Good news: The Clean Power Plan will bring water savings

In 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the Clean Power Plan, the first-ever cap on carbon emissions from the power sector. It may not be intuitive to think about water when talking about carbon pollution and energy, but it should be. Coal, natural gas, and nuclear power consume 580 gallons, 310 gallons, and 460 gallons of water to create one megawatt hour of energy, respectively, or the equivalent of powering 330 homes for an hour.

That’s why the Clean Power Plan could be one of Texas’ most effective water planning tools: By prioritizing clean energy, the plan encourages the use of less water-intensive energy resources. For example, negligible quantities of water are required to generate power from wind and solar PV, and virtually no water is required for energy efficiency. These same resources also generate negligible carbon emissions, and would therefore be a sensible solution for meeting the Clean Power Plan’s goals.

Safeguarding energy and water reliability means ensuring Texas continues to grow and draw businesses to our state – and the Clean Power Plan will help us get there. Compared to the state’s 2012 power generation mix (the baseline year used to create the Clean Power Plan’s targets), meeting the plan’s goals would save 124,000 acre-feet of water in 2030 (the year in which the standards will fully be in effect), roughly the equivalent of Caddo Lake in East Texas. Those are savings worth pursuing.

More good news: Drought-prone western states are standing up for clean energy

For inspiration on embracing renewable energy, Texas could look for examples in other drought-prone Western states and even to cities within the Lone Star State.

• Georgetown, Texas: If state policymakers and regulators in our capital just looked a little north, they’d see the example set by the city of Georgetown, in Williamson County (arguably the most conservative county in the Austin metro area). In 2015, Georgetown’s mayor set in motion a plan that would take the city to 100 percent renewable energy by 2017. The move was spurred mainly by economic considerations but there will be water benefits as well, particularly worth noting since the Austin area was one of the last to recover from the state’s multi-year drought.
• Las Vegas, Nevada: A recently proposed deal would make Las Vegas one of the largest cities in the US to go 100 percent renewable. In a city known for energy-sucking, 24-hour casinos, solar energy and energy efficiency programs could mean huge water savings – especially in the desert. Unfortunately, just like in Texas, state officials are working to undermine the city’s efforts by challenging energy efficiency programs and making the market harder for solar companies. As many Western cities far outstrip their state regulators in terms of progressive clean energy policies, backward steps from state leadership are becoming an unfortunate trend. The news is especially discouraging considering the chronic droughts in states like Nevada.
• San Diego, California: Even in a state with advanced clean energy and climate policies, the intensity of the drought has led to a lot of scrambling to figure out water scarcity. Fortunately, the city of San Diego announced in December 2015 that it would go 100 percent renewable energy by 2035. This goal is bold and commendable – it would make San Diego one of the greenest cities in the world.

But in an incongruous move, the city also opened the largest desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere, which came online in November 2015. Although it’s supposed to provide San Diego with a “drought-proof” water supply, desalination is incredibly energy-intensive: Powering the desalination process with traditional energy resources like coal and natural gas means we’re using water to make water. However, one way to make “desal” more of a water-friendly technology is to pair it with renewable energy – which would work well with San Diego’s new goal.

Going into 2016, the best way Texas can create a more reliable water future is to begin crafting a state strategy to comply with the Clean Power Plan. “Business as usual” already gets us nearly 90 percent of the way toward meeting the 2030 goal, but Texas could achieve greater water savings by going much further. Secondly, Texas would do well to follow the example of cities that have gone all-in on renewables. But although renewable energy goals are an excellent water-saving tactic, San Diego’s desalination plant shows we need to think about energy and water holistically to achieve greater efficiencies in both sectors.

Regardless of what kind of crazy weather 2016 brings Texas (and the whole country), now is the time to start thinking about smart water-saving energy solutions.

Photo source: Edward Jackson

By Kate Zerrenner

My daughter on a hike in the Texas Hill Country.

I am a mom. It’s not the only descriptor I use for myself, but it’s up there at the top. My daughter is three years old. She loves to play outside and hug trees and chase birds and go fishing with her daddy.

I am also a clean energy and climate advocate. My weekdays consist of trying to convince Texas policymakers to take action on climate change, and I sometimes think negotiating with statewide officials is harder than negotiating with a “threenager.”

As parents, our daily lives consist of a million things we have to do to keep the kids fed, dressed, and out of harm’s way. Can’t someone else worry about climate change? The problem with that perspective is, although moms and dads may differ politically, our desire to see our kids grow up happy and healthy is universal. But if enough of us make small changes in our lives and raise our voices on climate and clean energy issues, those actions can add up to a big solution.

Climate change and life as we know it

When a problem seems overwhelming, as climate change often does, it’s helpful to break it down into relatable pieces. Let’s think about how climate change affects our everyday activities with our children.

Why should moms (and dads) care about #climate change?
Click To Tweet

For example, my daughter and I start the day with breakfast. She has oatmeal with blueberries every day. Oats and blueberries are generally grown in cooler climates (Russia is by far the largest oat producer in the world). Crops depend on specific climatic conditions, and as the climate changes, we will likely have to move our centers of production, disrupting ecosystems and making further changes to our natural environment. It’s a complicated issue to break down because, in some cases, increased levels of carbon dioxide could increase crop yields, but at the expense of other crops. And as temperatures increase, we are likely to see more droughts and extreme weather, risking damage to our agricultural system. The fate of their favorite breakfast food relies on a healthy, dependable climate.

In the summer, sometimes we go to the pool. Will cities be able to justify keeping public pools open when there is chronic drought?

Other afternoons we may go the playground. Before heading out, I check the weather. In Texas that means hot and dry in the summer, but I also have to be concerned about Ozone Action Alerts – that is, days when air quality is dangerous for vulnerable populations, which includes children, whose lungs are still developing. Multiply that effect on children who are already suffering from health problems, such as asthma. On those days, it’s better for us to play inside. Climate change – which is closely tied to and influenced by air pollution and ozone – may mean we see more dangerous air quality days, and less opportunity to enjoy the playground.

These are just a few examples of how a changing climate spells differences for our kids’ everyday lives.

What action can you take?

1. Choose 5 reasonable actions: Parents can make choices that are less carbon-intensive – EPA has a great, practical webpage on things you can do to help with your impact on climate change. My advice: take a quick look and pick five things you and your family can do that are reasonable. Once you’ve got those nailed, try another five. It all adds up.
2. Show your political support: Your elected officials and their appointees need to know that parents are concerned about the air their children breathe and the water they drink and play in. Unfortunately, politicization of climate change has made every forward-moving action a struggle. But parents are constituents, and political leaders will listen if enough of their constituents come to them. For instance, you can support the Clean Power Plan, new standards that place limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants in the U.S. for the first time ever. Phasing out coal would be a positive step for the cardiovascular and respiratory health of our children.
3. Get organized with other parents who care: You can join Moms Clean Air Force, a special project of Environmental Defense Fund and a community of parents that organize and support action to protect little lungs from pollution. Moms Clean Air Force recently opened a Texas chapter, and you can find out more here.

Even though it is my job, sometimes I feel overwhelmed by the enormity of climate change. Then I look at my three year old, full of hope, energy, and imagination, and it is crystal clear to me why I should continue to care and fight for action on climate change. I need to show her that – even in the face of such odds – we all have an obligation to think bigger than ourselves.

Let this be the moment that you take action on issues that threaten your kids’ health and the health of the planet, whether through lifestyle changes, support of advocacy organizations like Moms Clean Air Force, or support of government action, like the Clean Power Plan.

Lately my daughter has been very interested in learning about space. When we ask her what her favorite planet is, she says, “Earth. Because it is our home and it has lots of water.” I owe it to her – and I believe every parent owes it to our children and all the children of this planet to protect it.

By Kate Zerrenner

2015 Climate Corps fellow Phoebe Romero and her supervisor sitting near a solar-powered phone charging station on the Huston-Tillotson campus.

We are nearing the end of another successful season of EDF Climate Corps, the 8-year-old program run by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) that “embeds” grad students inside companies to find ways to save energy and money and lower carbon emissions.

Over the course of its history, EDF Climate Corps has developed into something of powerhouse from both sides of the energy sector: enterprising students (called “fellows”) discover a passion for sustainability through the act of finding efficiencies in the energy systems of their host organizations, and the hosts benefit from these energy savings while jumpstarting or contributing to their sustainability goals.

This year, 12 Texas companies and public sector entities hosted fellows, and this got us to thinking, what kind of evolution and impact has the Climate Corps program had in Texas over the years? We decided it was worth a closer look and turns out, fellows have been saving Texas schools, businesses, and other organizations a lot of energy – and a lot of money.

Who, What, Where has Climate Corps been in Texas?

EDF Climate Corps fellows have engaged in a wide variety of projects in Texas since 2009, including with cities, public housing authorities, and energy companies, among others. And several of these organizations have hosted a fellow for more than one year after seeing the incredible benefit of the work.

Let’s look at a few examples:

• The Houston Independent School District (HISD) is the largest public school district in Texas, and the seventh largest in the country, enrolling over 204,000 students. A few summers back, an EDF Climate Corps fellow worked with HISD on projects in behavioral change, lighting, air conditioning, water use, and more. The fellow identified savings from upgrading lighting and air conditioning that could save the school district over $2 million and 27 million kilowatt hours (kWh) annually, the equivalent to powering over 2,500 homes for one year. That’s real savings — money that could be spent on essentials like books, teachers’ supplies, and technology.
• Huston-Tillotson University in Austin, a Historically Black College and University (HBCU), has developed an ambitious target of a 50 percent reduction in campus carbon emissions by 2030, aiming to be one of the most sustainable HBCUs in the country. EDF Climate Corps is helping them reach that goal. Last summer’s fellow found savings of 250 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually by uncovering energy and resource efficiency opportunities within individual buildings as well as campus-wide systems. The University was so happy with the results they signed on another fellow for this summer who is currently looking into additional potential energy and water savings across campus.

Real #energy and cost savings. Right now. Here, in Texas.
Click To Tweet

• PepsiCo engaged an EDF Climate Corps fellow in 2010 to analyze its Plano facility’s energy performance while charting a roadmap for LEED certification, an accreditation related to the construction, operation, and maintenance of green buildings. The findings revealed attractive energy efficiency opportunities that would enable the company to achieve a return on its LEED certification investment. In total, the projects identified could amount to 1.9 million kWh saved annually along with $1.2 million over the project lifetimes, equivalent to over 3.1 million miles driven by the average American driver.
• At the El Paso Housing Authority in 2012, the EDF Climate Corps fellow proposed three air conditioning and chiller projects that could save 1 million kWh every year, enough to power 95 average homes for a year.
• The University of Texas Medical Center in Dallas hosted a fellow in 2014 who focused on identifying water savings along with energy. She quantified water usage and identifying water efficiency savings in research labs, thermal energy plants, and through water reuse projects. In addition to the estimated 36,625,000 gallons of water that could be saved annually, 3 million kWh and more than $300,000 would also be saved due to the high energy needs of water.

Why does this matter?

For these EDF Climate Corps hosts, saving money is a large factor, but they are also cleaning up their energy, water, and carbon act. Private companies who support climate initiatives outside their walls can now walk the walk. Cities can focus on providing essential services with money they would have otherwise spent on utility bills, simultaneously improving their energy and water footprints. School districts, community colleges, and Hispanic-Serving Institutions and HBCUs can concentrate on educating future leaders, while contributing to sustainability goals.

EDF’s motto is “Finding the Ways that Work” and, in that context, it is imperative that we are inclusive of all levels of our society—from the most vulnerable to the most successful heads of business, and everyone in between. EDF Climate Corps are our boots on the ground, allowing fellows from different educational backgrounds to see the impact sustainability has on people and institutions through practical applications of knowledge. In doing so, we’re already seeing that the program is shaping the minds of future political and business leaders who will bring Texas – and the entire U.S. – into a more sustainable future.

By Kate Zerrenner

A solar furnace in the Pyrenees, France.

If you drive around the Lone Star State, you’re sure to see bumper stickers that say, “Texas: Bigger than France.” It references an ongoing debate about which “country” is bigger (something Texans feel very strongly about), but a closer look (aka, a quick Google search) reveals Texas and France are roughly equivalent in size. This, however, is where the similarities end – at least until recently.

Earlier this summer, France and the rest of Western Europe were in the grips of a record-breaking heatwave. Texans are certainly no strangers to crippling heat, even if we have been enjoying a relatively mild summer (so far) with regular spring and summer rains. But one year of El Nino climate patterns does not mean Texas is in the clear. Nor does it mean one abnormally hot summer in France is the last one they’ll see.

Global climate change predictions show that extreme heat and drought are on the rise, meaning both Texas and France increasingly need to consider water in their energy decisions. Why? Because as temperatures increase, so will our energy demand, which means an increase in demand for water, too.

Both France and Texas are facing some tough times ahead based on climate models, but their responses are very different.

Texas vs. France: A Look at Who’s Bigger, Hotter, and More Prepared for Climate Change
Click To Tweet

France relies on thirsty nuclear

France currently generates about 76 percent of its electricity from nuclear. The country made a deliberate choice to increase its nuclear energy load in reaction to the oil shock of the 1970s—a move aimed at making France more energy independent. As climate change has advanced, nuclear energy has helped curb carbon emissions from the country’s power sector by reducing the need for coal and natural gas imports from other parts of Europe.

But, besides the well-known waste issues, nuclear energy also has a dark side: it is very water-intensive. In fact, nuclear is one of the most water-intensive electricity sources, which is evident in the makeup of France’s overall water use. In France, the power sector withdraws about 65 percent of all water in the country – withdrawal being the amount of water taken from the source, much of which is returned. And it consumes about ten percent – consumption being the portion of that water used and not returned to the original source for reuse. For comparison, the U.S. withdraws about 40 percent and consumes three percent. (For more on these terms, see here.)

Texas’s generation mix is also very thirsty, but not quite as much as France’s. Texas generates about 57 percent of its electricity from natural gas, 23 percent from coal, and 11 percent from nuclear, all thirsty resources.

Weather events heating up

France has been suffering from heatwaves and droughts just as Texas has, creating problems for the country’s electric reliability and economy. This latest heatwave caused several power cuts in France, just as heat caused problems for the power sector in 2003. In 2003, the equivalent of four nuclear power plants went offline because the water was too hot to cool the reactors and fires broke out. France’s electric exports fell by half. In 2009, drought conditions on top of a power sector workers strike took so much power offline that France became a net importer of electricity for the first time in nearly 30 years. This year’s heatwave took out power to as many as one million homes.

Texas has managed to fend off a lot of power cuts throughout the drought, but electricity demand, especially during the hottest and driest times, has also meant an increase in demand for water from the power sector. In other words, Texas’ hot and dry conditions have created a vicious cycle of fossil-fueled power plants needing more water – water that we don’t have – to complete cooling operations.

For both Texas and France, climate models predict more heatwaves, which exacerbate droughts. This should concern the power sector in both countries, but France is already taking direct action while Texas leadership continues to bury its head in the sand.

Actions on climate: France vs. Texas

France has actively worked to address climate change. As part of the European Union (EU), the country has long participated in the EU Emission Trading System and has a carbon reduction target. Nuclear has served as a key low-carbon power source in France’s energy policy. Recently though, France has set a target to reduce its electric generation from nuclear to 50 percent by 2025, mainly due to cost factors and some safety concerns following the Fukushima disaster, not because of water considerations.

What’s more, the falling costs of renewable energy, such as solar and wind, has made their increased deployment more attractive for Europe. France already generates about 14 percent of its electricity annually from renewable energy sources, although that is still well below its 2020 target of 23 percent – and behind many other fellow EU countries. Denmark, for example, recently generated 140 percent of its demand from wind energy during one day earlier this year. And Germany broke a record with over 50 percent of demand met through solar power on a sunny day in 2014.

More importantly though, France renewed its commitment to renewables by passing a law that both quadruples France’s carbon tax, and will require 40 percent of France’s power to come from renewable energy by 2030. Compare that with Texas, which only generates about 7 percent of its electricity from renewable energy, most of which is wind (Texas’ solar potential has barely begun to be tapped).

France, as part of the EU, benefits from being part of a market that imports and exports energy relatively easily across country borders, and sets region-wide climate change targets as well as country-specific clean energy goals—along with the leadership to support those goals. In the run-up to the international climate negotiations in Paris this December, French President François Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently called for all members of the Group of 7 major advanced countries to reduce emissions up to 70 percent below 2010 levels by 2050.Unfortunately, much of Texas is in the ERCOT market, which makes regional trading, import and export programs more complicated.

While Texas has modest statewide energy efficiency and renewable energy goals, they are not tied to the long-term issue of climate change. This short-sighted view means priority is not placed on the development of low-carbon energy resources, many of which are also water-conserving energy resources.

Although the driving force behind reducing nuclear power in France is not high water usage, the severe heatwaves and droughts plaguing the country are shifting the issue to the front lines. The switch to more renewable energy will help the country meet its climate goals – but it will also help strengthen France’s resilience to drought and heat.

Texas leadership could take a page out of France’s book when it comes to planning for the future. By formally recognizing the need for climate change solutions and considering energy resources holistically – looking at both its emissions and water usage – Texas stands a better chance at mitigating some of the worst effects of what is coming down the road…even if that road leads to Paris, Texas instead of Paris, France.

Photo source: Wikimedia/H Zell

By Kate Zerrenner

An abridged version of the below ran as an op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman today.

Flooding near Whole Foods in May 2015. Source: Instagram/Caleb Eike Smith

Unfortunately, a good rain washes away more than the drought; it washes away much of man’s interest in providing for the next one, and it washes the supports from under those who know that another dry cycle is coming and who urge their fellows to make ready for it.

— “More Water for Texas” by Walter Prescott Webb (1954)

As a native Austinite, I remember the historic Memorial Day Flood of 1981. I was a little kid and the storm was so intense I asked my Mom if I could sleep in her bed. I remember seeing pictures of grand pianos from Strait Music store and cars from the dealerships floating down Lamar Boulevard, and the original Whole Foods flooding. Austin has changed a lot in the intervening decades, and although many of the store fronts are different, the pictures taken of Lamar this Memorial Day were eerily similar.

In Texas we are used to cycles of drought and flood; we know extreme weather just as we know extreme personalities and politics. But the natural dynamics are changing in Texas, and we can no longer rely on the saving grace of a “rain bomb” to get us out of the next drought. Make no mistake, the next drought is just around the corner. The best way to help Texas conserve water now is to urgently pursue clean energy and better planning between the energy and water sectors.

Texas droughts and floods, then and now

Although the flood in 1981 didn’t end an historic drought, this year’s floods essentially brought an end to a multi-year drought (a few areas are still considered in mild drought). The last drought Texas saw of this magnitude was in the 1950s. My great-grandfather had to sell his boat because there was no water in Lake Travis, much like my Dad had to sell his retirement boat this time around. And, in both 1957 and 2015, then came the rain. Yet the circumstances are not the same.

In 1957, when the drought of record ended, Texas had a population of 9 million. Currently, Texas houses nearly 27 million people. And the State Demographer has predicted the population of the state could double by 2050, with much of that growth concentrated in urban areas. Austin, which is still partially in drought, is ranked by many as the fastest-growing city in the country, and some predictions put growth at over 80 percent by 2030. Keep those numbers in mind for a moment.

Now let’s think about the changing climate. There is not yet enough data to say for sure whether this current drought-flood cycle was caused by climate change, however, droughts of the future must now be considered alongside the dire predictions of future climate models. The drought cycles, in particular, appear to be more intense under climate change. But don’t take my word for it – Texas’ State Climatologist, John Nielsen-Gammon said:

We certainly know climate change is going to make temperatures warmer, make evaporation more intense and increase water demand for plants and agriculture, so it will make that aspect of drought worse. […] Since models are generally projecting a rainfall decrease, model-based analyses show some pretty nasty increases in drought intensity in [Texas].”

So, whether or not climate change is at the root of the extreme weather isn’t necessarily the point. Katharine Hayhoe, director of Texas Tech University's Climate Science Center, put it well:

Science does not say that climate change is CAUSING the extreme rain and drought we're seeing across the U.S. today, and in recent years. Just like steroids make a baseball player stronger, climate change EXACERBATES many of our weather extremes, making many of them, on average, worse than they would have been naturally."

Congress Avenue after historic floods in 1935. Source: PICA 04147, Austin History Center, Austin Public Library

Looking ahead for Texas water

The bottom line is: Texas got a reprieve this time, but that doesn’t let the state off the hook from being mindful about future water availability in the face of increasing demand. Population growth and higher temperatures increase demand for both water and water-intensive electricity.

Thoughtful planning is key, and considering where we can be more efficient in our use is essential. Here are just a few ways Texas can start harnessing existing technology and resources to protect our state’s water supply:

• Transition away from highly-water intensive energy resources such as coal and toward low-water use resources like solar PV and wind and no-water solutions like energy efficiency. Texas has the potential to save more than 22 million gallons of water per year in the power sector alone by moving away from coal, a trend that is already occurring in the state and across the country.
• Use clean energy for energy- and water-intensive water solutions, such as desalination and moving and treating water during times when wind and solar are producing the most energy. Following the Legislative Session in Texas, we are one step closer to using renewable energy for desalinating brackish groundwater.
• Increase coordination between planning for the energy and water sectors. Despite each sector’s dependence on the other, coordinated planning is minimal. Better communication and integration during the decision making process would help identify efficiencies and could reduce costs while increasing reliability for both sectors.
• Give customers better access to their usage through smart water meters. Pecan Street, Inc., the innovative smart electric grid demonstration project in Austin, includes a water component that will test different technologies in communities in Texas and other Western states. The technologies will help customers pinpoint where they can save the most water, as well as help utilities improve tracking where their water is overused and design incentives to improve conservation.

We have avoided the worst outcomes from drought this time around, but the stability of our future water supply is still threatened. And as Nielsen-Gammon said, “The more water you save, the more water is going to last.” We Texans have never been ones for half-measures, so why don’t we tackle our water issues with the same extreme nature we’re known for in politics and personality?

You can read the op-ed in Austin American-Statesman here.

By Kate Zerrenner

Being an environmental advocate in Texas may seem like an uphill battle, and I make no bones about the fact it most certainly is. Plus, the Texas Legislature only meets for 140 days every other year, so the frenzy of activity during the Legislative Session (in local parlance, “The Lege”) is intense.

While my Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) colleagues may be able to make impressive strides in protecting their respective states against climate change, we in Texas must take pride in all of our legislative achievements, both big and not so much. It’s these small steps that add up to change in the right direction.

In addition to the many small steps that made up the 2015 Legislative Session, I say with great pride we also had a big win: On June 17, Governor Abbott signed Senate Bill (SB) 991 into law, requiring the General Land Office and the Texas Water Development Board to study the economic and geophysical potential of using solar and wind energy to desalinate brackish groundwater. From concept to law, SB 991 has involved the input and energy of numerous stakeholders – and it paid off.  

Advocating in “The Lege”

In the months before the 2015 Session, I met with our lobbyists (I am also registered as a lobbyist), as well as my EDF Texas Clean Energy team, to determine priorities and discuss which clean energy goals needed legislative support. And, because the majority of my advocacy efforts center around the energy-water nexus – the idea energy is used to secure, deliver, treat and distribute water, while water is used (and often degraded) to develop, process, and deliver energy – I decided to focus on legislation to have the state study the potential of solar and wind energy to desalinate brackish groundwater (which would become our victorious bill!).

The long journey of an energy-water bill in Texas #TXlege
Click To Tweet

This bill is important to Texas because, despite the inherent connection between the two sectors, energy and water planners routinely make decisions that impact one another without adequately understanding the scientific or policy complexities of the other sector. And traditional desalination is very energy-intensive, using water-intensive energy resources, so we are using water to make water. This makes no sense.

Focusing on the energy-water nexus, in some ways, makes my work easier. As a key advocacy point, I look at the water-saving benefits of clean energy, and the discussion instantly becomes more inclusive and personal. While energy and electricity can sometimes be difficult to picture, water is a tangible, visible part of everyone’s daily life.

My role in the legislative process

Once the idea for a bill is hatched, it has to be written, and a legislative member must agree to file it.

I worked with one of our lobbyists to draft the renewable energy desalination bill. Then, we strategized which members would be interested in filing the legislation—without a sponsor, a bill won’t get out of the gate.

Months earlier, I had spoken with a representative of El Paso Water Utilities who enthusiastically received the idea. I thought it would be great for a Senator from a city that knows the importance of finding water savings to tie these two pieces together. Fortunately, El Paso Senator Jose Rodriguez understood the bill’s importance, and was willing to file it.

The legislation marched on.

Throughout the Session, I worked with Senator Rodriguez’s staff on the bill—communicating with committee members to arrange a hearing, working through concerns from stakeholders, circulating talking points, preparing and presenting testimony, and helping foster it through both chambers. Fortunately, Representative Lyle Larson from San Antonio picked up the bill when it got to the House and, as mentioned, Governor Abbott recently signed it into law.

As always, finalizing one process means starting a new one. Now the work will begin to get the desalination study done, and figure out what the potential next steps are to making this clean energy-water solution a reality.

Most sessions, we’re not so lucky to get a bill through and, unfortunately, very few forward-thinking environmental-related bills made it into law during this session. In fact, this session, like most others, was mainly spent fighting a lot of bad environmental bills.

The energy-water work I do in Texas is exhilarating and rewarding—there are so many opportunities to make a difference in the world by finding new and exciting ways to address the nexus, if our legislators recognize its importance. Traditionally, conservation is conservative, and in Texas, it’s my job to keep reminding our decision makers of that fact.

Photo source: Flickr/Ed Schipul

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: flickr/carolee

Earlier this week, I testified at a hearing of the Texas House Committee on Environmental Regulation, specifically on how Texas will respond to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP), the nation’s first-ever limit on carbon pollution from existing power plants. But before I went to the Capitol, my three-year-old daughter asked me where I was going. I told her I was going to work, and she asked me, “Mommy, what are you going to save?” I replied that I was going to save water, and she said, “Good job, Mommy.”

That’s exactly what the CPP could do for Texas: save millions of gallons of water each year by encouraging the state to switch from polluting power sources (like coal plants) to non-polluting sources (such as wind and solar farms) and increase no-water solutions like energy efficiency.

Virtuous cycle

It’s no secret that Texas is currently in the midst of a multi-year drought – yet the vast majority of our electricity comes from sources that contribute to this prolonged drought, namely coal, nuclear, and natural gas. All of these energy sources require copious amounts of water to produce electricity.

New Blog from @KateZerrenner: A Promise to Our Children to Save Water in Texas #TXlege
Click To Tweet

Wind and solar energy, however, consume little to no water and generate negligible carbon emissions. Texas is already an international wind power leader and has the greatest solar potential in the country, much of which is still untapped. In fact, we’re falling behind states like New Jersey and New York.

But the cheapest, cleanest, most water-free energy is the kind we don’t use at all. Texas was the first state to adopt an energy efficiency target, yet it has since fallen in national rankings. Again, there is a lot of untapped potential.

By shifting from water-intensive coal plants to water-free wind and solar farms, Texas can free up more water for other needs, such as cities and agriculture, and reduce the need for new, energy-intensive water supply projects, like traditional desalination plants.

The role of natural gas

Switching to more natural gas is another way Texas can meet the CPP requirements while cleaning our air and reducing our water consumption. Natural gas produces about half the amount of carbon pollution than coal when burned, although methane leakage must be addressed to ensure it is providing carbon mitigation. Plus, efficient natural gas uses, on average, one-third as much water as coal power plants do.

According to an analysis by University of Texas, replacing Texas coal-fired power plants with cleaner natural gas plants could reduce annual freshwater consumption by 53 billion gallons per year, or 60 percent of Texas coal power’s entire water footprint.

Savings add up

According to EDF’s own calculations, by transitioning away from business-as-usual toward cleaner energy, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages roughly 90 percent of Texas’ power grid, could save more than 60,000 acre-feet (or nearly 21 billion gallons) of water per year by 2030.

To think of this another way, ERCOT would save the equivalent of Lady Bird Lake in a little over a month; Lake Bastrop in three months; Lake Worth in six months; Lake Houston in a year-and-a-half; and the entire body of the San Antonio River (which is currently less than four percent full) in four years.

Benefit to communities of color

Overall air quality and public health benefits will also be realized as Texas transitions to clean energy to comply with the CPP because these resources produce zero or negligible emissions to generate electricity and can displace dirty power plants. This is particularly important given that approximately 68 percent of African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant (with similarly large numbers for Latinos) and a recent study claims that nearly 40 percent of communities of color breathe polluted air.

Further, three of the top 11 U.S. cities in severe water-stressed areas are in Texas: El Paso, San Antonio, and Houston – all of which are relying more and more on clean energy to power their local economies. El Paso, at 82 percent Hispanic, is the most Latino major city in the country and is retiring its coal plants to make way for the new clean energy economy. San Antonio and Houston, with Hispanic populations of 63 percent and 44 percent, respectively, have also put a greater emphasis on clean energy to help improve air quality and protect against water scarcity.

A transition to clean energy would not only help offset health costs in Texas by keeping more money in the wallets of hard-working Americans, but it could also improve water availability for our growing cities.

Vote for energy and water reliability

Safeguarding energy and water reliability means we are ensuring Texas continues to grow and draw businesses to our state. That’s why it’s critical Texas officials take advantage of the flexibility to create a Texas-made plan to comply with the CPP. The state has much more to gain by taking steps early to develop potential components to a state plan than if the state does nothing until a final rule is released this summer. Doing nothing will cost Texas the ability to develop a plan that reflects Texas’s policy preferences, maximizes cost-effectiveness, and provides regulatory certainty for power companies and businesses.

Currently making its way through the Texas legislative session is competing regulation regarding whether Texas will develop a path to comply with the CPP. While one bill would prohibit Texas from complying, another bill, sponsored by Vice Chair Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin), supports compliance and calls for state officials to act.

Promise to protect

If Texas officials do not take meaningful, thoughtful action during this session, we will likely be left with a plan devised by EPA, one that will not be tailored to Texas’ preferences, which is a shame, because the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has some smart people, who understand Texas’ resources inside and out.

As state Representatives and Senators go to cast their vote, I ask them to take a stance and develop a “for-Texas, by-Texas” approach to complying with the Clean Power Plan.

I’ll keep my promise to my daughter, and our leaders will keep their promise to protect all of Texas’ children.

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: flickr/katsrcool

Cowboys, frontier grit, accented English, and wild, wide open spaces are just a few of the similarities shared by Texas and Australia. Both places also have an energy-water problem. But, the good news for Texas is that it’s not too late for us to learn from Australia’s mistakes – and a few successes, too.

In July 2014, Australia abandoned its carbon price, which gave Australia, a country with one of the highest per capita emissions of any developed country in the world and uses even more coal than the United States, the largest carbon-price system in the world outside of the European Union. (That is, until California’s program took effect in January 2013—California has the first-ever economy-wide carbon market in North America, potentially linking to other sub-national, national and regional markets around the world.) Since then, the Australian government has been in talks to significantly scale back its renewable energy target (RET), and the months-long squabbling without resolution is threatening the country’s renewable energy sector.

Texas, whose drought started in October 2010, is now in its worst drought on record. And some Texas leaders are taking a similar, short-sighted path as Australia when it comes to rolling back successful clean energy initiatives – ones that could also save scarce water supplies. Currently in the midst of its biennial legislative session, Texas is considering bills that would scrap the state’s successful wind renewable portfolio standard and prevent the state from complying with the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP), which establishes the nation’s first-ever limits on carbon pollution.

Facing extreme #drought, Australia (and possibly #TX) undoes best strategy for water conservation:…
Click To Tweet

Energy efficiency and clean energy are critical to preserving health and economic stability, especially in the face of a changing climate, because they require little to no water. Without environmental regulations and clean energy goals in place, Australia and Texas are due to experience a surge in both carbon emissions and water use.

Connection between energy and water

As in Texas, Australia’s energy makeup is heavily dominated by fossil fuels: 75 percent of electricity generation comes from coal, 16 percent from gas, and 7 percent renewables (mainly hydropower and wind). Of all these, coal is the most water-intensive, meaning it requires the greatest amount of water to produce electricity. Although some power generation in Australia uses seawater for cooling, 90 percent of its coal power is the most inefficient, polluting, water-intensive kind. Water intensity poses significant risk for grid reliability and investment, especially during times of drought.

Demonstrating policy can drive innovation, the RET has incentivized Australia to be creative in thinking about how to combine energy and water use. For example, a project off the coast of Western Australia uses wave energy to both desalinate water for and power a naval base. This project and others like it advance clean energy technologies and knowledge. Texas could expect the same level of innovation and benefits, if it rolls up its sleeves and crafts a framework for the CPP that takes into account Texas’ abundance of carbon-free, zero-water clean energy.

Texas is still coming to terms with its dwindling water supplies, but the current State Water Plan does not connect the dots between clean energy and water savings. That simple connection could be a powerful weapon in the arsenal to protect the state’s critical resources.

Conservation and human behavior

Australia’s nine-year drought – aptly called the Big Dry – led to policy changes, including water reuse systems and strong urban water restrictions, which, in turn, led to a cultural shift in the way people use water. Changing water-use patterns is absolutely necessary, and evidence shows the water conservation culture has since become the norm in Australia.

Due to some impressive behavioral changes, the entire country of Australia now averages 54 gallons of water per person per day (gpcd) – almost half what it once was. Some areas like Victoria (the state that contains Melbourne) are even as low as 40 gpcd. Compare that to drought-ridden California, where average statewide usage is 125 gpcd, or Texas, which averages a whopping 153 gpcd statewide. Clearly, there is a lot we can still do to encourage a culture of conserving water in the Lone Star State.

Loss of economic development

Aside from the water implications, scrapping the carbon price and potentially rolling back the RET has been bad news for Australia’s economy. By the end of 2014 investment in renewables was at a 13-year low, dropping the country from 11th to 39th place in global standings and resulting in jobs and investment dollars going elsewhere. Some areas, like the financial hub of Melbourne, have already seen a nine percent drop in renewable energy jobs due to the uncertain future of the RET.

Texas clean energy proponents are therefore understandably concerned that pulling back on renewable energy goals could threaten the 100,000 jobs that have been created in the state so far. Further, many state policymakers are resisting compliance with the CPP, which would incentivize energy efficiency and renewable energy over polluting coal power plants.

Instead, we should be looking to the success of Australia’s RET, which built up the country’s solar and wind industry – requiring negligible amounts of water – at relatively low cost and even exceeded the 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources target by eight percentage points.

Politicians should not be so short-sighted to undo successful efforts to protect their citizens and critical resources for the sake of a dying, polluting industry. The people down under in Australia and deep in the heart of Texas deserve better.

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: flickr/Paul Woolrich

We’ve almost made it to the midway point of the 84th Session of the Texas Legislature. As many already know, the Texas Legislature only meets from January to May every other year, so a lot has to get done in these few months.

This midway point is critical because it marks the deadline for Representatives and Senators to file bills, and it signals the rush to the finish line. Once we pass this point, the speed picks up substantially, as do the working hours and pressure.

Most bills that are filed will not make it to the Governor’s desk – for any number of reasons. But it is a good time to check in to see which climate, clean energy, and energy-water nexus bills have been filed this Session. Here’s a look at a few that are likely to rise to the top, and ones we hope will cross the finish line by June 1st.

A Roundup of #Energy, Water, and Climate Bills in the 84th #TXlege Session from @KateZerrenner
Click To Tweet

Climate Bills

As highlighted in another post, two climate bills, House Bill (HB) 2078 and HB 2080, filed by Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas), have the backing of our military advisors because they related to the implications of climate change on our national security .

Senate Bill (SB) 77 by Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) would require state agencies to create an adaptation plan for climate change impacts. Senator Ellis has filed this bill in the past, and it is important that he continues leading the charge. State agencies that are not developing future resiliency plans to mitigate climate impacts, such as prolonged drought and intensified hurricanes, could face a real struggle when those effects start piling up.

In a similar vein, HB 2571 by Eric Johnson (D-Dallas) would require state agencies to include projections about weather, water availability, and climate variability in their strategic plans, and Rep. Johnson’s HB 2570 would require the state water plan to include the potential effects of climate change and rainfall changes in its analysis. This is a rational approach to protecting the state’s scarce water supply in the face of climate change and prolonged drought.

Clean Energy Bills

A few bad bills have cropped up in this space, including HB 857 by Scott Sanford (R-McKinney), and SB 931 by Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) which would repeal Texas’ successful renewable portfolio standard for wind, and SB 635 by Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels), which would cripple the state’s wind policy. Also, HB 1736 by Jason Villalba (R-Dallas) and its companion bill, SB 929 by Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay), would hamper energy efficiency in Texas by prohibiting cities from adopting stronger building codes. Considering that all major Texas cities have adopted stronger codes than the state, these bills do far more harm than good. Texas is home to four energy efficiency powerhouse cities which have initiated green building programs, installed new transportation infrastructure, and created jobs, all thanks to their energy efficiency goals.

But there are some good bills, too.

HB 2392 by Rep. Anchia would set up an energy efficiency loan program for existing homes through the State Energy Conservation Office (SECO), which currently only offers low-interest loans for public buildings and non-profit organizations. This program, called Warehouse for Energy Efficiency Loans (WHEEL), is a national program that, at the state level, would enable homeowners to tap into low-cost, large-scale funding for upgrades. Further, this program would allow energy and pollution savings to be counted toward any state implementation plan for a federal emissions reduction program, such as EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP), which will limit – for the first time ever – carbon pollution from existing coal power plants. Similarly, HB 3363 by Jim Keffer (R-Eastland) would enable local governments to adopt residential Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) districts, basically low-interest loans for energy and water upgrades to homes that are paid back on an assessment attached to the property itself. PACE and WHEEL are complementary programs that aim to address the large, untapped market for residential energy and water efficiency upgrades.

Speaking of EPA’s CPP, the agency is expected to propose its final requirements this summer, so this session is the only chance for the Texas Legislature to move before it becomes law (absent a special session). To that end, HB 3069 by Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin) and its companion SB 1954 by Senator Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen) would direct the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to take advantage of the rule’s expected flexibility and draft a compliance plan for Texas by Texas. On the flip side, HB 3590 by Matt Krause (R-Fort Worth) would prohibit the state from complying with the CPP—an unwise move, considering EPA allows states to craft their own plans in order to maximize flexibility, rather than have the Federal Government do it for them.

SB 1284 by Kirk Watson (D-Austin) and its companion HB 3343 by Sylvester Turner (D-Houston) would direct the PUC to promote the development of demand response, an innovative energy management program that rewards individuals and businesses for energy conservation. Further, this bill would task the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages roughly 90 percent of the Texas power grid, to study the impact of this people-centric program and report on its growth. EDF supports this bill because the benefits of demand response are abundant: it gives Texans greater control of their electricity use, provides a pollution-free means to increase reliability on the power grid during times of high electricity demand, reduces the need to use inefficient, polluting power plants, and increases competition in the Texas electric sector.

Water and Energy-Water Bills

Texas is in the midst of a multi-year drought, in some areas the most severe on record, so it’s no surprise that dozens of water bills have been filed. The bills run the gamut—looking at water related to oil and gas production, groundwater conservation districts, drought response, agriculture, and more. The related issues are varied and complex, so I’ll highlight a couple that are directly relevant to clean energy.

SB 78 by Sen. Ellis would involve the state water plan, which is on a five-year planning cycle, including the best science on trends affecting future water availability and use. While it doesn’t say so explicitly, the intent is to ensure that the state water plan includes climate models of water availability, something that has been too political to do in the past, but that is critical to truly understanding our future water supply as the climate changes.

HB 3298 by Lyle Larson (R-San Antonio) and its companion SB 1907 by Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) would task the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to conduct a study on how to establish a more intelligent, statewide water grid, much like an electric grid, to more effectively manage Texas’ tight water supply.

HB 1088 by Marisa Marquez (D-El Paso) would establishe a joint technical center at the University of Texas at El Paso and the University of Texas at San Antonio for studying energy-efficient and technologically-sound desalination, a water-producing technology. Developers in Texas are already pursuing desalination of brackish groundwater at about 100 sites across the state, and seawater desalination is also a state-approved technology, although no plants are up and running yet. This center would be an innovation hub for cutting-edge technologies to produce more potable water.

However, traditional desalination is highly energy-intensive, and, since 90 percent of our energy in Texas comes from fossil-fueled power plants which consume vast amounts of water, desalination is, in turn, highly water-intensive. But, SB 991 by Jose Rodriguez (D-El Paso) aims to address that by requiring the General Land Office and the TWDB to study the economic and geophysical potential of using wind and solar PV energy to desalinate brackish groundwater, with a plan to add additional renewable technologies for seawater desalination in the study. This is the first step to understanding how low-water-use renewable energy can help alleviate some of the state’s water pressure.

And, another ‘big bang for our buck’ energy-water bill is SB 992 by Sen. Rodriguez, which would authorize electric transmission-and-distribution utilities to partner with a water provider to study the embedded energy in water projects. Nationally, about 4 percent of energy is used for treating and moving water. This study would fill in the lack of data on the true value of the energy-intensity of water and enable these two interconnected sectors to see – in real numbers –how much energy is used by the water sector. The intent is for electric and water utilities to begin planning together and be more efficient with both resources.

We’re Halfway There

As with every legislative session, there is a mix of good and bad, and most bills don’t cross the finish line. The bills highlighted here reflect the biggest opportunities for good and bad policy in the clean energy and climate space in Texas. EDF will be keeping a close eye on all of these bills.

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: Flickr/Hammer365

Each year, the nation wastes an estimated two trillion gallons, or about 14 to 18 percent, of its treated water through leaks alone. That’s a lot of water – enough to fill over three million Olympic-size swimming pools.

We know smart water meters are a critical component to better understanding our water use, but smart meters are only one part of the equation. What we really need is a smart water system.

A more intelligent system could not only help water providers and people better understand their use and how to adjust their behavior accordingly, but it could make the entire treatment and delivery of water more efficient. Plus, system-wide data could make daily water use and associated cost accessible – not an end-of-the-month billing surprise – enabling residents to make more informed decisions and utilities to waste less water.

Energy and water are connected, but they may need different solutions

The energy sector has learned a lot about the smart grid, and put a great deal of its research into practice. And, compared to the water sector, the electricity sector is pretty far along with its smart meter roll-out and understanding of all the information points across the system. For instance, in Texas, more than 3.5 million smart water meters have been installed, compared with approximately 17 million electric smart meters. But, while much of the smart electric grid findings are valuable in relation to the water sector, there are clear differences. 

What the Water Sector Could Learn from the Electric Side from @KateZerrenner @PecanStreetInc
Click To Tweet

Primarily, there seems to be a lack of urgency when it comes to saving energy at the residential level. But, that may not prove to be the case with water. Hearing about an “energy crunch” for electricity is not the same thing as seeing and feeling the effects of drought. Water, by its nature, is a more emotional issue for people than electricity is. We can survive without electricity, but not without water. So, will giving people more control over their use of this precious resource drive them to be more proactive conservationists? That is one thing Pecan Street, Inc. aims to find out.

Learning by doing

Located in Austin, Pecan Street, Inc. manages the nation’s largest energy research network. It’s unique in that it is one of the only so-called “smart grid” organizations that includes water. This test bed represents an incredible opportunity to examine different smart water technologies and behaviors.

In addition to the electric piece, which monitors energy use down to the electric socket for more than 1,200 homes in Texas, California, and Colorado (and energy generation for residents with solar panels), Pecan Street created the University Municipal Water Consortium, consisting of member universities and cities around Texas, to test different water technologies and behavioral tools.

In January, the Consortium held its first conference to gather members, talk about the research so far, share stories from the trenches, and communicate the direction of future research. As Pecan Street’s partner, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) participated in this insightful conversation.

What came as a surprise was how much water residents use outside of the home. One experiment they will work on together is to test whether residents will react to immediate notifications about the water use of their sprinklers – either small, persistent measurements that may signal a leak or large, frequent measurements.

The emotional connection

People have emotional connections to their homes and yards, but they also have an emotional connection to water, and linking those two can result in powerful behavioral change. Many cities in the Consortium noted outdoor water use as the place with the most room for improvement, because sprinkler systems are often programmed to run at night and are then forgotten about. A more responsive metering structure could give the appropriate signals to easily control the sprinkler system based on the current weather.

Cities are tapping into this connection as well. San Antonio Water System (SAWS), one of the nation’s leaders in water conservation, has teamed up with the San Antonio Botanical Garden to offer trainings and information in converting landscaping to more drought-tolerant gardens. Additionally, the Austin Homebuilders Association is working with homebuilders on the front-end to ensure that landscapes are designed with water use in mind, in lieu of the expensive, water-intensive yards of the past.

There are many facets to understanding water use and its connection to homes and businesses. But, a smart water system is the first step. The good news is that with smarter water use, we also reduce our energy use because of their inextricable link. EDF is glad to see Pecan Street jumping in with both feet to better understand what technologies and research can motivate us to understand our water use and be proactive in protecting its future.

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: flickr/thegaventas

As the Texas legislative session begins ramping up, I am reminded of smart policies from sessions past that holistically benefit Texas, had bipartisan support, and brought unlikely allies together. As we head into the session, it’s important to remember that no matter which side of the aisle you are on, clean energy solutions make sense for Texas – economically and environmentally.

This week, Environmental Defense Fund and R Street Institute, with support from Google, hosted a breakfast roundtable at the Texas Capitol to highlight one of those bills. The panel highlighted the potential for Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) and other commonsense, market-driven financing policies to be game-changers for accelerating the deployment and adoption of clean energy resources and water conservation practices across the state of Texas.

PACE, an innovative financing tool that allows people to repay loans for clean energy projects (like rooftop solar and energy efficiency upgrades) through their property tax bill, has the potential to unlock a considerable amount of private funding for clean energy projects in the state. This agreement simultaneously offers building owners cheaper financing options, and lenders secure  repayment terms. With benefits for all, it’s no wonder the PACE bill passed last legislative session with support from both sides of the aisle, environmental groups, and industry alike.

One thing that makes PACE unique is that it also funds water conservation projects. What many people don’t realize is that power plants require water to produce electricity and electricity is needed to clean, treat, and transport water, a relationship known as the energy-water nexus. In reality, we get some of the best water savings through energy efficiency projects. So by taking into account energy and water savings, PACE can help policymakers, utilities, advocates, and building owners begin to really comprehend the water dependency of energy resources.

Knowledge is power

If you are looking to take advantage of Texas’ unique, voluntary PACE program, you can find more information here: www.KeepingPACEinTexas.org  

We already have the power to understand and estimate water savings from energy efficiency and clean energy projects, like a rooftop solar PV installation. In Texas, however, we have not comprehensively measured what those water savings are. Some of that could be the electric utilities’ reluctance to venture down the water-savings path for fear that, in addition to an energy efficiency or renewable energy goal, they would be required to meet a water savings goal. But I’m not advocating for an additional goal, rather a useful measurement tool for formulating better energy policy.

PACE not only enables utilities and building owners to choose energy resources that don’t require water to operate, but also provides the right data to better inform policymakers. At the end of the day, utilities can harness more water-smart, cost-effective clean energy resources and decision makers will better understand the energy-water nexus.

Revitalizing Texas business and industry

There are some projects that are first and foremost water conservation projects, such as greywater systems, high-efficiency toilets, and waterless urinals. Commercial properties, in particular, have a lot to gain from reducing water use in their buildings, but these projects can have high upfront costs. PACE aims to help property owners minimize those steep costs while adding value to their properties through efficiency and conservation measures. It can also be a great economic development tool for Texas.

As an example, a five-star hotel in Austin looked at a suite of water and energy efficiency upgrades which amounted to $1.8 million. Taking into account the local jobs for contractors, lighting specialists, mechanics, water efficiency companies, and more, as well as the revenue and growth for those companies, the total economic impact for the state economy from this hotel revamp totaled roughly $9 million. With numbers like these, PACE is a no-brainer. Plus, the water efficiency technologies will result in energy savings that can be measured for better understanding about the energy-water nexus.

As fellow panelist Steve Minick, Vice President for the Texas Association of Business, said, “This is a win-win-win. PACE addresses reducing energy and water usage in a commonsense, free market, voluntary way. It doesn’t involve mandates, doesn’t involve the government telling you have to do this, because it’s in your own best interest. This is gravy!”

It’s a power drill, not a silver bullet

PACE, however, is not a silver bullet that can solve all the energy efficiency and water conservation problems for business and industry, but it is a critical tool in the toolbox. Further, just as when you go to buy a car, there are several options for how to pay for it: upfront, lease, or loan. Businesses and industries want the same kind of choices in the marketplace, much like they want different tools for different projects. PACE can be the power drill that really makes a difference for Texas industries’ energy and water efficiency needs. It’s just a matter of making that choice.

By Kate Zerrenner

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages 90 percent of Texas’ electric grid, has been busy. In the last two months of 2014, the agency released two very lengthy reports examining the future of a lower-polluting power grid in light of upcoming EPA clean air protections, in particular the Clean Power Plan. As the media described it, the reports did not provide the rosiest of outlooks for costs to Texans or electric reliability. But I think they are looking at the reports the wrong way.

The electric grid is changing. Innovative technologies – many of which are created right here in Texas – are lowering electricity bills and increasing energy independence. They are disrupting the way we produce and use electricity and they are changing the way ERCOT looks at grid reliability – albeit not in these two reports.

As cleantech entrepreneurs, you are at the helm of deciding Texas’ (and, let’s face it, America’s) energy future. And there are quite a few market opportunities outlined in the reports, if you look closely. Here are a few hidden in the report, plus other trends to keep an eye on:

• Pollution control technologies are a must. Very soon power companies in Texas will install scrubbers and other devices to reduce multiple – not just one – pollutants, thereby making compliance with EPA’s subsequent regulations easier and more cost-effective.
• Coal is out. Power companies in Texas will start complying with EPA’s clean air protections beginning this month. By 2029, the state will only need to cut 200 megawatts of coal-fired power to comply with the proposed Clean Power Plan, which would set the first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants.
• Opportunities for customer-focused clean energy have never been riper. Energy resources, like energy efficiency and demand response (which pays people to conserve energy when the electric grid is stressed), are gaining ground every day in Texas, and so is the demand for them. They have proven to be vital resources on the power grid that help reduce electricity costs for Texas homes and businesses.
• Solar is the future of Texas. One of the biggest takeaways from the report is that ERCOT did not take into account distributed solar resources in its forecasts. However, it does note that solar will play a huge role in Texas’ energy future – much of which will occur on our own rooftops.
• Storage is essential. Like rooftop solar, energy storage was left out of ERCOT’s equations, but there is ample opportunity to integrate more wind and solar energy on the power grid and smooth out reliability concerns with this innovative technology.

Smart utilities in Texas have already installed pollution control technologies, retired inefficient, water-intensive coal plants, and integrated more clean energy resources. And they are creating jobs to support these projects. This is the Golden Age for entrepreneurs in the electricity sector. Looking ahead in the new year, I, for one, am excited to see the rapid transformation to a healthier, lower-carbon electricity system and to discover the next big technology that comes out of Texas.

This commentary originally appeared on the CleanTX Blog.

By Kate Zerrenner

U.S. Army Major General Dana J.H. Pittard, Fort Bliss commander, gives a speech during the ribbon cutting for the solar panel project at Fort Bliss, Texas housing communities, Feb. 26, 2013. Source: defenseimagery.mil

In light of yesterday’s commendable day, the Defense Energy Summit (DES) is hosting its second annual forum in Austin, TX, and EDF is a proud sponsor once again. One of the goals for this conference is to build the foundation for a new Defense Energy Center of Excellence (DECE), which would enable Central Texas and military communities to create a test bed of clean energy technologies and policies. The DECE will help the Department of Defense (DoD) with its energy defense policy, organizational structure, education and training, manufacturing, logistics, personnel, and financing.

Texas’ capital is a logical spot to house the DECE, as Texas is home to 22 military installations – including five bases within 90 miles of Austin. Plus, the DECE could tap into the brain power at Texas universities, which are already charging forward with innovative clean energy solutions.

Leading the Charge

Although the DoD is the single largest consumer of fuel in the United States, the military has taken a significant interest in its energy footprint for one primary reason: energy security.

Transporting fuel is one of the riskiest operations when fighting on the front lines. Last year alone, the U.S. military consumed roughly 90 million barrels of oil. By powering military bases and equipment with solar energy, as well as reducing demand through energy efficiency, the military can help protect the brave men and women serving in our armed forces. The DoD can then use those avoided fuel costs for other projects, such as research and development, to meet the needs of its most critical missions.

.@EnvDefenseFund is honoring veterans and saluting the military for saving the kilowatts...
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

Army partners with NREL

Most recently, the U.S. Army (Army) announced a partnership with the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in an effort to increase the use of energy efficiency and renewable energy at nine installations – one of which is in Texas. These pilot sites strive to be Net Zero Energy Installations (NZEI) by 2020, meaning they will produce just as much energy as they consume. If the pilots are successful, the Army will upgrade eight percent of current installations with renewable energy.

The savings really do add up, even with small energy reductions. NREL estimates that if Army installations worldwide reduce energy consumption by 25 percent, the Army would save up to $300 million in annual energy costs. That’s a lot of money that could be spent on our troops’ safety.

The Texas project is going not one but two steps further by aiming for net zero energy, water, and waste. As the largest military base (in terms of size) in the U.S., Fort Bliss has proposed a host of innovative technologies including a 20 megawatt (MW) solar installation, low-flow showerheads, smart meters on almost every building, and behavioral techniques to influence and increase conservation. In the words of Col. Joseph A. Simonelli Jr., Fort Bliss Garrison Commander, “this concept will include sustainability factors that improve the quality of life for Soldiers and families. With the right approach, we can take care of our Soldiers and families and help sustain the Army for the future.”

Other branches are taking up the clean energy fight, too

Here’s a rundown on how the other military branches stack up:

As the military’s largest consumer of fuel, the U.S. Air Force is taking great strides to reduce its energy footprint across the board. Some of its commitments include:

• increasing the use of on-site renewable energy at facilities by 25 percent by 2025
• only buying flex-fuel or alternative-fuel light-duty vehicles by 2015
• constructing or renovating facilities to meet high-performance building standards in order to achieve net-zero energy use by 2030 and cut potable water consumption 26 percent by 2020

The U.S. Navy has added enough solar energy to power 440 homes at its Pearl Harbor installation. It also tripled its clean energy investment in Hawaii last year with a $30 million endowment to the Energy Excelerator, a funding agency for renewable energy start-ups in Hawaii.

The U.S. Marine Corps is building its own advanced microgrid at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, CA. This installation includes a notable 7.2 MW combined heat and power plant (CHP), the largest in the Marine Corps, which supplies more than half of the base's electricity needs. And, not only is it about to flip the switch on another energy-efficient 9.2 MW CHP plant, the base also harnesses 6 MW of solar PV arrays. Thanks to some alternative financing mechanisms, that’s a lot of generation that all comes at zero cost to taxpayers.

The biggest winner behind all of these installations is America. Through its leadership and ingenuity, the U.S. military is proving clean energy technologies are here and working for us today. That’s an impressive message as more electric utilities and states look to innovative technologies to improve grid reliability, lower electricity bills, and cut pollution from power plants.

If you are in Austin, please join in on this important conversation at the Defense Energy Summit. My colleagues Stephanie Kline, Marine Corps veteran and climate fighter, and John Finnigan are on the agenda covering fossil fuel dependency and cybersecurity. It’s not to be missed.

By Kate Zerrenner

Since EPA released its proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP) in June of this year, the plan has been a hot topic in every state. In Texas alone, the state has held a joint regulatory agency hearing and two days of legislative hearings. Unfortunately, in both cases, the general tone of testimony was that of Chicken Little. But I prefer to view the CPP as a fantastic opportunity and certainly don’t think the sky will fall because of it. In fact, our skies should be considerably brighter without all that carbon pollution clouding them up.

I’ve written before about the opportunity for Texas to amplify current trends and increase our energy efficiency and renewable energy to meet these goals. And there’s an added benefit to transitioning away from coal-fired power plants and toward cleaner energy choices, one that will be critical in a state like Texas that’s in the middle of a multi-year drought: water savings and relief for our parched state.

What if I told you that with the CPP, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which controls the power grid for roughly 80 percent of the state, could save more than 60,000 acre-feet (or nearly 21 billion gallons) of water per year by 2030?

To put this in perspective, ERCOT would save the equivalent of Lady Bird Lake in a little over a month; Lake Bastrop in three months; Lake Worth in six months; Lake Houston in three years; and the entire body of the San Antonio River in four years.

The Clean Power Plan is handing us the opportunity to take a more holistic look at our power resources and choose those that save Texas water.

Why does that matter?

It matters because:

• almost 90 percent of our electricity generation in Texas comes from fossil fuels or nuclear sources, and they are very thirsty energy resources;
•  over 70 percent of our state is still in drought and many areas are running out of water;
• recent studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Columbia University determined that much of Texas is at risk for water shortfalls by the mid-21st century, including cities like Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso;
• climate change will continue to put pressure on water supplies in already water-stressed areas; and
• businesses and the people they employ won’t want to move to a state that can’t manage its basic resources.

The way to reach the low-carbon goals proposed in the Clean Power Plan is through greater energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as switching from coal-fired power plants to cleaner, more efficient natural gas plants. Natural gas produces less carbon pollution when burned, although methane leakage must be addressed in order to ensure it is providing a climate benefit. Natural gas also uses less water than coal – in fact, coal consumes, on average, around three times more water than efficient natural gas plants. According to an analysis by the University of Texas, replacing Texas coal-fired power plants with cleaner natural gas plants could reduce annual freshwater consumption by 53 billion gallons per year, or 60 percent of Texas coal power’s entire water footprint.

But the real bang for the buck comes from deploying more energy efficiency and renewable energy. Wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) energy consume little to no water and generate negligible carbon emissions. Texas is already an international leader for wind power and has the greatest solar potential in the country – much of which is still untapped. To put it bluntly, when it comes to solar, Texas is falling behind other states like New Jersey and Delaware, places not usually thought of as big and sunny like the Lone Star State.

According to modeling by CNA Corporation’s Institute for Public Research, with a 40 percent carbon cap (the proposed Clean Power Plan puts Texas at 39 percent) and a speedy transition from coal to clean energy, we could see a 45 percent reduction in water consumption by 2040. You read that right, Texas could cut its water consumption almost in half.

By reaching the goals set forth in the proposed Clean Power Plan, Texas, and other parched states like California, could see significant water savings. Cleaning the air and preserving our scarce water resources at the same time? Sounds like pretty smart policy to me.

Photo source: Jason Tessman Flickr