By Kate Zerrenner

Source: freshserviceinc.com

A few months ago I logged into my online utility account and noticed it was more than twice the amount I usually pay, all of the excess going to water. Given the kind of work I do, I scour my bill every month, comparing electric and water usage month-to-month and over the course of the year. We are water and electricity savers in our household, so what on earth could this spike be?

I immediately called the City of Austin, and they sent someone out to check the meter. Nope, nothing on that end. Then we brought in a plumber, who spent many hours and many of our dollars searching and found a leak in the toilet. By the time we went through all of that and got the toilet fixed, we had to pay our enormous bill plus the plumber’s bill. Why should I have to go through that rigmarole just to find a leak?

Wouldn’t it be easier if a smart water meter could send my utility and me a message the moment the toilet starts leaking?

Unfortunately, water infrastructure in this country is sorely in need of a reboot. The American Society for Civil Engineers gave the U.S. drinking water infrastructure a grade of a “D” in its 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, stating there are 240,000 water main breaks per year. And we’re still using antiquated “technology” in much of the sector.

Traditional water meters are not only less accurate than smart meters, but they tend to lose accuracy as they age. The equipment must be replaced every 15-20 years on average, and many water utilities are now facing a natural replacement of their equipment. With this opportunity, they should prioritize equipment that’s more accurate and allows customers to be better informed about and respond accordingly to their usage.

Take a page from the electricity sector

The electricity sector has zoomed ahead on smart meters and installing smart grid technology across the country, whereas the water sector has been slower on the uptake. This is partially due to the fact that electricity (which travels through wires) is inherently easier to monitor through smart technology. However, there are other, more nuanced reasons too, such as the artificially low price of water and insufficient business case to invest in a modern water system.

Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) for water, just as with electric meters, is a sophisticated two-way communication system that enables the utility and the customer to receive and react to real-time information, such as price signals and usage. But it goes beyond that.

They can also help prevent further deterioration. For example, a smart meter is more sensitive to low water flows, making it more accurate and comprehensive. In contrast, a traditional water meter measures total consumption of a building or home, meaning leaks are difficult to detect and customers can’t pinpoint inefficiencies.

By installing smart meters and sensors, both the utility and the customer are empowered with the information they need to improve efficiency and repair leaks earlier.

Information leads to better planning

In water-stressed areas, the primary strategy has been to impose watering restrictions and conservation measures. These are necessary but they’re not enough, especially because we’re facing drier conditions and hotter temperatures as climate change advances.

If water stress and drought are the new normal, the regulators need advanced water planning, not drought contingency planning. The utility could use data from smart meters to institute drought pricing and people can adjust their water use according to price signals through their meter. If there are periods of drought relief, water could be reserved through water storage projects.

Smart meters can also help by giving more flexibility to homeowners and businesses. If people are able to monitor their usage on a real-time basis, they can decide how to save water during a drought based on individual situations.

An ounce of prevention, a pound of cure

One major obstacle to installing smart water meters and other smart water technologies is cost. This is due to many factors, mostly that water is not priced according to its true value and implementing new infrastructure and technologies is always an expensive undertaking. If water were priced accordingly, there would be more of an incentive to invest in water-saving infrastructure.

One of the main effects of old water infrastructure is leakage, but the exact amount of water escaping through pipes is unknown because of the lack of data. In Texas alone, billions of gallons of water are lost each year—and that’s in a state with a growing population and a growing water supply problem.

The old saying, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is wholly applicable here. If we continue to do business as usual and replace aging infrastructure with the same old thing, we’re just putting Band-Aids on a gunshot wound.

There are many intricate details to the water infrastructure system, but a good first step at this critical time is deploying the smartest available technologies to enable both providers and users to better manage this precious resource. If water stress is the new normal, regulators should take steps now to ensure that we preserve what water we have left and safeguard supplies for the next generation. If nothing else, your wallet (and toilet) will thank you for it.

By Kate Zerrenner

In June, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced – for the first time ever – standards to limit carbon emissions from U.S. power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP). Currently power plants emit 40 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, but under the proposed Clean Power Plan, the U.S. power sector will cut carbon pollution by 30 percent below 2005 levels.

Since this announcement, the usual suspects have attacked the CPP, calling its proposed state-by-state reduction standards arbitrary. Their claims couldn’t be further from reality. When EPA asked states for feedback on how to best craft this standard, states asked for two things: individual standards and flexibility. And that’s what they got. Anyone familiar with the proposed standards will know they are based on a consistent and objective methodology that takes into account each state’s unique energy portfolio and emissions, as well as built with maximum flexibility in mind.

At first glance, the climate-change-denying crowd dismissed the standards as arbitrary, because the limits vary from state to state. For example, Washington needs to reduce its emissions rate by 72 percent by 2030, while Kentucky only needs to cut its emissions rate by 18 percent over the same period. Texas lies somewhere in the middle with a 39 percent reduction required. So what gives?

How did EPA get those numbers?

Let’s unpack the methods that went into EPA’s carbon pollution limits. EPA’s vision for the plan was to give the states complete ownership and flexibility in reducing overall carbon emissions. EPA decided on a simple greenhouse gas performance metric for each state:

Total power plant emissions in one year ÷ Total electricity generation in one year
= Emissions reduction rate

The states have complete control and flexibility over how to meet the emissions reduction rate.

To figure out each state’s potential to reduce emissions, EPA analyzed the practical and affordable strategies that states and utilities are already using to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, such as energy efficiency, improving power plant operations, and using more renewable energy. By analyzing state-specific data, EPA calculated practical targets for each state. Their analysis formally considers four “building blocks” for cleaner power:

1. Improving the efficiency of existing power plants,
2. Increasing use of the most efficient natural gas plants,
3. Using more renewable energy, and
4. Expanding demand-side energy efficiency—the same low-hanging fruit for which experts have been advocating for years.

States are already on their way

If we look at each state’s proposed reductions individually, it’s clear that EPA’s limits will not crash the economy or tear down the power sector. In fact, in many states it will not be difficult to meet EPA’s limits ahead of schedule.

Washington, with its seemingly onerous 72 percent reduction mandate, had already ordered its largest coal plant to shut down by 2025. Closing that coal plant alone will reduce the state’s emissions by 70 percent, because much of Washington’s electricity comes from hydro power. And Kentucky leaders have already devised a strategy to meet the state’s 18 percent reduction goal.

In Texas – my home state – we’re well on our way to meeting the 39 percent reduction standard set by EPA by simply amplifying current trends, namely relying on more West Texas wind, widening the use of efficient natural gas electricity, and taking advantage of the state’s solar potential. Now Texas leaders should craft the best framework for the state – one that has the potential to bring in billions of dollars directly to our state economy, create more homegrown jobs, and lower Texans’ electricity bills. If state leaders make another “principled stance” against the EPA, like they did with the greenhouse gas permits, we can only expect for Texas to fall behind other states as they race toward the trillion dollar clean energy economy. Come January, EDF urges the Legislature to take the bull by the horns and show the nation how Texas will continue to be a leader in energy.

It’s clear that EPA’s limits were developed with a specific and pragmatic methodology. Variation in reduction goals from one state to another reflects variation in the circumstances of individual states, which EPA wisely took into account. Those who condemn the rules as arbitrary are ignoring the actual basis for the rule.

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: TAMU Times

John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas State Climatologist, is a tried and true Texan. As a professor in the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Texas A&M University, he observes Texas weather patterns, monitors the state’s multi-year drought and air pollution climatology, and makes improvements to the climate data record. I recently had the chance to pick his brain over weather, climate change, and the state of affairs in Texas.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Lone Star State, Texas is a state of extremes. We have a history of extreme weather patterns and extremes between our climate zones. We also have extreme views about Texas’ climate and whether it is changing. Unfortunately, polarized views can distort perceptions on important issues. Regardless of the scientific data that confirms our changing climate, the subject has become so politicized that it’s nearly impossible to discuss. However, there shouldn’t be a debate over whether to use all of the available data to ensure that Texas is appropriately planning for its viable economic, natural, and demographic future.

Here is what Dr. Nielsen-Gammon had to share:

1. What are your views about climate change?

Before we get to my views, let's start with the facts. First, the climate is always changing. Second, our changing of the composition of the atmosphere is giving the climate system a bigger kick than it's gotten in a long time. Third, science has been unable to pin down just how big an effect on global temperatures that kick is going to have, to within a factor of two or three. Fourth, apart from sea level rise, other climate change impacts are even less precisely known.

Now, my view is that climate change is an important issue that requires our attention. We need to confront the risks and make informed decisions about the extent to which we wish to slow down climate change or just deal with its impacts.

2. What are your key concerns about this issue in Texas with respect to its impacts?

For ecology, there are multiple threats to coastal ecosystems. Ocean acidification, sea level rise, reduced freshwater inflows, and rising temperatures will combine to lead to major changes. For society, there are lots of little problems. The most costly and pervasive would be reduced water availability, while the most dangerous would be increased chances of urban wildfires.

3. What does it mean to be the State Climatologist in Texas and have public officials consult with you when formulating policy that could affect climate and the economy?

I'm grateful for the opportunity to be able to present straightforward information on Texas weather and climate, both present and future. I'm not generally involved in policy discussions. I provide part of the raw materials from which policy can be developed.

4. How we can present relevant data to better inform our public officials and citizens on this issue?

Data is not enough. Much of Texas has experienced little or no long-term increase in temperature over the past century. Our current weather, even the severe weather, has been only slightly modified by global warming up to this point. Besides, there's so much misinformation out there that everybody knows a lot of things that just aren't so.

5. What can be done to depoliticize this issue?

Depoliticization is the key. I don't mean depoliticizing the issue overall, I mean getting past the posturing that encourages people to think that global warming is not happening at all. There are plenty of aspects of climate change that require political debate and resolution. Pretending that global warming is not a problem worth considering prevents such a debate from happening. It suits those who prefer no action whatsoever, but it is a disservice to Texas and the United States.

One of the biggest threats to Texas regarding climate change is not the climate itself, but the regulations that might be put into place to put the brakes on climate change. Texas needs to be directly involved in those discussions, so that any such climate policy works for Texas.

6. How can EDF and other advocacy groups work with you and other experts to improve messaging on this complex issue?

Let me be clear: I'll work with anybody to improve the accuracy of their understanding and messaging on climate change, no matter where they lie on the political spectrum. I think people expect that advocates will generally be presenting one-sided arguments. The more reliable and accurate the evidence presented, the more people will be inclined to believe the arguments. And if both sides are presenting the same evidence, people can actually focus on the arguments.

7. Many perceptions of climate change are actually based on weather patterns. Can you explain how you deal with the linkages and distinctions between weather and climate change?

People have short climate memories. The tendency is to think that something new or weird to them must have an extraordinary cause, when in reality the weather is capable of endless variation. In Texas in particular, we can go through 30 years of one type of weather, then switch to a different weather regime for 30 years. Not many of us remember the weather of 60 years ago well enough to tell the difference compared to today.

There are two ways to think about the effects of climate change on weather. One is as a contribution. For example, climate change contributed about 1 degree Fahrenheit to our excessive 2011 summertime temperatures, according to a study I participated in. The other way is as changing the odds. The same study found that the odds of such excessive heat occurring in any given year was doubled or tripled.

8. For Texas, what’s the most pressing concern of climate change? For example, is it drought or rising sea levels? And do you see these risks as a means of persuading skeptics?

I discussed the main risks earlier. However, people can't be persuaded by those risks unless and until they recognize those risks as real. By the time such elevated risks are clearly apparent in the data, it will be too late to do much about it.

I’d like to thank Dr. Nielsen-Gammon for his candid views. If Texas is going to address the impacts of its changing weather and the larger impacts of climate change, state leaders should think objectively about “confront[ing] the risks and mak[ing] informed decisions.” Regardless of where leaders stand on the issue of climate change, it’s undebatable that Texas’ abundant wind power and the potential for more solar energy and energy efficiency are boons for the state economy in the number of new jobs created as well as the significant investment in the state’s infrastructure. Plus, these resources emit negligible carbon emissions and require little to no water to operate—a huge gain for Texas. Investing in clean energy means state leaders are investing in a cleaner environment for today and for future generations. As Texas legislators convene in Austin for the next legislative session, I encourage our leaders to have a thoughtful conversation on the risks of a changing climate and champion policies that benefit Texans regardless of their views by securing energy independence, creating local jobs, and empowering Texans. 

By Kate Zerrenner

This blog post was written by Lauren Navarro, Attorney and California Senior Manager, Clean Energy, and co-authored by Kate Zerrenner.

On June 2, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made a historic announcement that will change how we make, move and use electricity for generations to come.

For the first time in history, the government proposed limits on the amount of carbon pollution American fossil-fueled power plants are allowed to spew into the atmosphere.

There are two clear winners to comply with the plan while maintaining commitment to electric reliability and affordability: energy efficiency and demand response.

We’re already seeing pushback from some of our nation’s big polluter states, such as West Virginia and Texas. But the truth is that while the proposed limits on carbon are strong, they’re also flexible.

In fact, the EPA has laid out a whole menu of options in its Clean Power Plan – from power plant upgrades, to switching from coal to natural gas, and adopting more renewable energy resources. States can choose from these and other strategies as they develop their own plans to meet the new standards.

That said, there are two clear winners on the EPA’s menu that offer low-cost options for states that seek to comply with the plan while maintaining their commitment to electric reliability and affordability: energy efficiency and demand response.

Energy efficiency our lowest-hanging fruit

Simply saving energy is the most cost-effective way to reduce demand and carbon pollution from power plants. The cheapest, cleanest and most reliable electricity, after all, is the electricity we don’t use.

The benefits of energy efficiency are vast. It helps people and businesses save money, it boosts job creation (as many as 274,000, one source estimates), and it reduces harmful power plant pollution.

From a utility perspective, energy efficiency improves the reliability of our electric grid and lowers costs for infrastructure maintenance.

Plus, in states such as Texas and California, which face extreme drought, energy efficiency can save scarce water sources. Remember that coal-fired power plants are thirsty and less water is consumed when these plants are used less (or not at all).

Half of the states already have mandatory energy-efficiency targets, so we have the knowledge and experience across the country to advance this undeniably beneficial resource.

Same as taking all cars off road

McKinsey & Co. estimates that by 2020, the United States could reduce its annual energy consumption by 23 percent by adopting energy-efficiency measures. This could save us more than $1 trillion dollars and cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than a gigaton—the equivalent of taking the entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks off the road.

That’s why Environmental Defense Fund is working with policymakers, investors, and utilities throughout the country to understand the full benefits of energy efficiency, and to explore paths for implementation, for when they’re crafting state plans under EPA’s new Clean Power Plan.

Demand response: everyone wins

Demand response is another way to introduce greater efficiency into the nation's electricity system and help reduce carbon emissions. It’s an invaluable tool that can help conserve electricity when supplies run thin, and bring more clean energy onto the grid.

On a hot summer day, for example, when electricity demand is high, utilities can ask permission of select customers to lower their thermostats a couple of degrees. In exchange, these customers receive credit on their next electricity bill.

It also helps utility companies better manage stress on the electric grid and it can help them integrate wind, solar, and other renewables to replace aging coal-fired power plants.

Demand response relies on people, not power plants, to meet energy demand and reduce carbon pollution from our electricity sector.

Proven strategies

In Southern California, for example, they’re about to replace a large chunk of electric capacity – at least 550 megawatts – from the recently closed San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station with renewable energy, energy storage – and demand response. This will help minimize a need for gas-fired plants and other polluting facilities that might replace the nuclear plant.

Best of all, demand response is more affordable than building new power plants. In fact, if just 50 percent of Southern California Edison’s customers participated in time-of-use rates – a type of demand response program – energy demand would plummet so much that 66 percent of San Onofre’s former generating capacity would no longer be needed.

As a bonus, customers across the territory would also collectively see cost savings of $357 million, a 15-percent decrease.

As a result of smart decisions such as the one involving the San Onofre plant, California’s utility sector’s greenhouse gas emissions have and will continue to decline. This proves that demand response can and should be a core tenet in the nation’s push to diversify its energy mix and cut pollution in order to usher in a clean, sustainable and healthy future.

As EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy noted last week, these clean energy solutions are not new ideas. They’re based on proven technologies and approaches that "are already part of the ongoing story of energy progress in America."

"We're not doing cutting-edge work here, folks," she said. "We are just opening the door to cutting-edge.”

This commentary originally appeared on EDF Voices.

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: Prodes Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas’ Water Crisis Requires a Suite of Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: Jack Newton

It may seem like only yesterday that Texans were asked to conserve water after another scorching summer, but in reality it was four, dry years ago. The drought, which began in 2010 after La Niña altered sea level temperatures in the Pacific, continues to persist in the Lone Star State and promises to surpass the state’s record-setting multi-year drought from the 1950s. Ranchers have been forced to sell off cattle, town water supplies continue to go dry, and power plants struggle to provide a reliable supply of electricity due to water scarcity and long stretches of hot weather. Given these bleak conditions, it should not come as a surprise that 70 percent of Texans believe global warming is happening—and 52 percent said they have personally experienced the effects of global warming.

An all-star team of producers, including James Cameron, Jerry Weintraub and Arnold Schwarzenegger, intends to bring the Texas drought home to millions of televisions across the nation in the Years of Living Dangerously series premiering Sunday. Through this series, a host of celebrities, activists and journalists share the stories of those impacted most by our changing climate and what’s being done to save our planet. What is clear right now, in Texas and beyond, is that as climate change intensifies, we must adapt to more extreme weather conditions and make resilient changes that mitigate further stress.

Adapting to a hotter, drier climate

But don’t take my word for it. Texas State Climatologist and professor in the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Texas A&M University, John Nielsen-Gammon, has confirmed that the high temperatures experienced in 2011, which greatly exacerbated the drought, are, in fact, linked to a changing climate. The La Niña-related heat wave that prompted Texas’ extreme temperatures was made 20 times more likely by climate change. In his words: “We would have broken the record with this drought in terms of high temperatures even without climate change, but we ended up breaking it by quite a comfortable margin with climate change.” According to his estimates, Texans may expect a reprieve this year, to the benefit of ranchers and farmers, but nothing is certain, especially given extreme weather patterns are expected to increase in frequency and intensity in the future.

Arguably, the state’s agricultural sector was hit hardest during 2011, but water touches all of our lives and Texans across the state felt the environmental, societal, and economic costs. Ranchers and farmers lost nearly $8 million during 2011, as crops wilted, cattle were sold off, and utilities shut off water to farms, which inevitably sent food prices across the nation soaring. The state’s water supplies either evaporated completely or shrank to alarming levels, and they have yet to be fully replenished. But the most tragic consequence came in the form of wildfires, which swept across densely-populated Central Texas and burned over 1,000 homes in its wake. As ‘Years of Living Dangerously’ will aptly depict, Texans are already adapting to a hotter, drier climate.

Years of Living Dangerously

Don Cheadle will kick off the new series this Sunday, as he travels to Plainview and Lubbock, Texas to meet with ranchers, Texas Tech Climate Scientist Katharine Hayhoe and others as they share how their lives are impacted by the drought. EDF’s own leadership, Fred Krupp and Eric Pooley, participated on the advisory board for this film, along with several other thought-leading experts and environmental advocates. For a sneak peak, watch here.  For my fellow Texans and me, the drought has been at the top of our minds for the past four years and will be for many more. And as climate change intensifies, many other Americans will also face the water scarcity issues we Texans are too familiar with. Most of the western-half of the United States is currently in the midst of a drought and California, in particular, is reeling from the effects. In fact, California’s conditions are very similar to those in Texas back in 2011, which means rising food prices and devastating wildfires are soon to follow, and the impacts will be felt far beyond its borders.

At EDF, we are seeking solutions that reduce our dependence on fossil fuel generation, which emits extreme amounts of climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions and requires an abundant amount of water. The U.S. has the potential to adopt technologies and policies that will significantly cut down on water use, reduce the need for dirty fossil fuel power plants, and help Americans save money. By lining up the incentives to enable novel energy and water savings – such as implementing the widespread use of wind and solar energy, which consume little to no water and generate negligible carbon emissions – we can ensure America’s faucets remain flowing during the next record-setting drought and beyond.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: Chenected

As we have highlighted before, Texas is experiencing significant population growth, adding around 1,000 people a week to the state, which increases the need for both water and electricity. The US Energy Information Administration estimates that electricity demand in this region will increase by more than 30% by 2035, yet, like many states in water-strained areas, it is not taking full advantage of new policies to address the energy-water nexus, such as increased use of solar PV, wind and energy efficiency. 

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

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

The global energy-water nexus challenge

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

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

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

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

The missing link in the energy-water nexus

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

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

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

This commentary originally appeared on our Energy Exchange blog. 

By Kate Zerrenner

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

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

The Kentucky Way

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

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

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

Proactive, Realistic Approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Kate Zerrenner

Right now, there are no limits on carbon pollution from power plants, even though these facilities were responsible for  roughly 40 percent of all U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2012.

That’s why the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is crafting greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations for new fossil fuel-fired power plants by setting a limit on how much CO2 the plants can emit. Later this year, EPA will issue proposed CO2 “emission guidelines” for existing fossil fuel-fired power plants using various Clean Air Act tools to protect human health and to clean up our air.

To achieve significant and cost-effective emission reductions from existing power plants, EPA should look to leading states that are already implementing successful measures to reduce emissions. These measures include investing in renewable energy, harvesting energy efficiency, and utilizing more efficient and lower-emitting fossil fuel-fired units.

Energy efficiency, in particular, is a cost-effective way to cut emissions by reducing the sheer amount of electricity produced and used, which saves money for consumers in the process. However, it is vital that energy savings and emission reductions from customer-facing, demand-side energy efficiency – that is energy efficiency installed in homes and businesses – be accounted for in the process.

What is section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act?

The best near-term opportunity to curb climate change is to place national limits on carbon pollution from power plants, and section 111 of the Clean Air Act gives EPA the responsibility to put the right rules in place.

As called for in the President’s Climate Action Plan, EPA has issued a proposed rule under section 111(b) that would set the first federal limits on carbon pollution from new fossil fuel-fired power plants. But it is section 111(d) that will enable EPA to regulate the vast quantity of carbon pollution from existing power plants.

Section 111(d) calls for a dynamic federal-state partnership that is expected to set overarching performance benchmarks in the “emission guidelines”, while still allowing states to write their own plans on how to meet those goals. Specifically, state plans must meet or exceed the benchmark defined in the guideline. This process creates an opportunity for EPA to proactively engage with states to ensure GHG reductions are achieved in the most efficient and effective manner possible.

Does energy efficiency have a role in 111(d)?

Section 111(d) gives EPA flexibility in the design of its emission guidelines, and thus opens the door for demand-side energy efficiency. Energy efficiency provides numerous benefits to states: savings to consumers, job creation, and reductions in several power plant emissions, including carbon emissions, sulfur dioxide, and ozone-forming pollutants.

Many states favor including demand-side energy efficiency in state plans and the concerns for implementation, such as how to quantify emission reductions from energy efficiency and how to measure the energy savings, are solvable.

Energy efficiency should be an all-in measure.

In the face of a changing climate, where power plants are responsible for 34% of carbon pollution in Texas, strong standards need to be put in place.

Energy efficiency is already the most cost-effective way to reduce energy use and carbon pollution from power plants. It also creates other benefits to the power grid, like improving grid reliability and lowering costs for infrastructure maintenance. Plus, saving energy saves water, which is critical in a state like Texas under the pressure of a multi-year drought.

The good news is that about half of the states in the United States already have mandatory energy efficiency targets, so there is a wealth of knowledge and experience across the country. In fact, Texas was the first state to set an energy efficiency resource standard and, although its target has since lagged in terms of aggressiveness, it has the knowledge base to make energy efficiency thrive. Many Texas cities are leaders in energy efficiency as well, undertaking significant efforts to upgrade public buildings and more.

There is no doubt that the benefits of energy efficiency go beyond the power plant’s fence line. Figuring out how to include this valuable resource as a flexible compliance mechanism is an important step in ensuring the health and vitality of Texas and states across the U.S.

If you are in the Austin area and wish to learn more about energy efficiency, join me at the South-central Partnership for Energy Efficiency as a Resource’s (SPEER’s) 2nd Annual Summit, where I will be leading a workshop on how states can rely on energy efficiency to ensure meaningful and cost-effective carbon reductions. 

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: WATR News

The Texas Comptroller, Susan Combs, recently released the Texas Water Report: Going Deeper for the Solution, which proposes a sort of revolution to solve Texas’ water woes. As Combs notes, Texas is a global energy leader, but the state should be a global water leader too. And her initiative couldn’t come fast enough. Texas, already prone to cycles of drought, is facing new water pressures, including population growth and a changing economy, which only make it harder to preserve our diminishing water supply. To rouse the state’s water recovery plan, the report prioritizes water-saving technological innovations (while stressing the need for conservation) and lauds various Texas cities for water management practices. But the report misses some key elements that are essential to keeping our water flowing. In the same way that new energy technologies have brought us closer to a cleaner, more reliable electric grid, innovations in the water arena can seamlessly reduce our water use and set the state on a sustainable path.

The report says conservation is not enough, and it’s right. However, efficiency is the most significant first step and conservation achieved through technology is a welcome counter to the infrastructure-heavy plans typically heard at the Capitol and in the State Water Plan. (What good is a new reservoir, if there’s no water to put in it?) Some of the technologies evaluated in the report include aquifer storage and recovery, inter-basin transfers, low-water fracking technologies and desalinization – what some call “game changers.” These technologies could potentially relieve our future water woes, but these projects are expensive and don’t alleviate our immediate or even mid-term water stresses.

The report also brings to light that some areas are actually running out of water, showing a sobering graphic of cities in the direst straits, and highlights some examples of what cities are doing to help stave off a water disaster. Naturally, San Antonio, which is at the forefront of water conservation and the energy-water nexus, exhibits some great examples, including adopting higher rates for top water users in the area. Austin also gets a mention for its water reuse programs and, surprisingly, so does California. I say ‘surprisingly’ because California isn’t often seen as an example for Texas to follow, especially considering that its governor declared a drought emergency last week. Maybe this is an indication of just how serious things have gotten.

The solutions in this report are praiseworthy and all recommend for the Texas Legislature to pony-up funds to pay for water efficiency and conservation. Some examples include giving grants to water authorities and major water users to make a meaningful difference in water efficiency and conservation, helping spur technological innovation through demonstration projects, and creating a competitive prize to incent innovative research for universities. I agree with all of these recommendations, but I think the report is missing a few key elements.

Climate change must be part of the conversation.

One topic the report does not talk about is Texas’ history of severe droughts and extreme weather, or how climate change is making those patterns more intense. If we are talking about future water supplies and trying to plan for the increasing demands of this limited resource, we need to talk about climate change. It is no longer an option to conduct long-range planning without using all the available data. It’s time to incorporate energy and water efficiency in preparing for our changing climate.

Energy use should be integrated with water conservation.

Texas is an energy-intensive state (with modest energy efficiency goals), which means the state is automatically water-intensive. After all, energy uses water and water uses energy – the two are inextricably linked. That’s why one of the best ways to bolster our water supply and cut harmful carbon emissions is for water and electricity regulators to plan together. With cooperation and a holistic outlook, state regulators can successfully reduce our reliance on thirsty fossil-fuel electricity while also cutting the state’s overall water consumption.

Behavior, technology, and conservation are all part of the solution.

Just as the report states that conservation can’t solve all of Texas’ water problems, technology can’t either. We must be more efficient and thoughtful in our water use and not rely entirely on technology to dig us out of this hole. There needs to be a mental shift, too. A holistic outlook that integrates behavior, technology, and conservation is what’s needed to set the state on a sustainable path. Elevating Texans’ water IQ through public education and installing smart water meters (to see water-usage data) on homes and businesses are simple measures the state can enact to begin bridging the water- information gap.

For those living in water-stressed areas (and that’s not just Texas and the arid West), it’s important to understand that we all have a role to play when it comes to making Texas a global water leader. But ultimately, if Legislators and key decision-makers don’t take this bull by the horns, Texans will face a very dry future.

By Kate Zerrenner

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

It’s no secret that electricity generation requires substantial amounts of water, and different energy sources require varying amounts of water. Nor is it a surprise that Texas and other areas in the West and Southwest are in the midst of a persistent drought. Given these realities, it is surprising that water scarcity is largely absent from the debate over which energy sources are going to be the most reliable in our energy future.

Recent media coverage has been quick to pin the challenge of reliability as one that only applies to renewables. The logic goes something like this: if the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow, we won’t have electricity, making these energy sources unreliable. But if we don’t have reliable access to abundant water resources to produce, move and manage energy that comes from water-intensive energy resources like fossil fuels, this argument against the intermittency of renewables becomes moot.

Moving forward into an uncertain energy future, the water intensity of a particular electricity source should be taken into consideration as a matter of course. 

We know that solar PV and wind are virtually water-free fuel sources, and yet we continue to adopt policies that create roadblocks to their integration in favor of highly-water intensive coal and natural gas. Bringing more renewable energy onto the grid is not technologically impossible, but there are significant political and policy barriers in the way. We need to rethink how we plan for energy needs and put water in the equation from the beginning.

Water is scarce, but so too is data

While a utility generally includes water use in its permitting process to build a new power plant, actual water usage data is not consistent or current. Additionally, when analyzing water availability for power, planners should look at the situation across sectors. If they’re not considering, for example, the water needs of the agricultural sector, electric planners could have inaccurate estimates of what will be available in the future, especially in light of a changing climate. The electric sector should also be doing regular assessments of water use and needs as conditions change—heat waves, multi-year droughts, damaged infrastructure from storms and other weather events could impact water quality and quantity.

Adding Water to the Energy Equation

Lately there has been a lot of talk about the necessity of maintaining our current fuel mix, which is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and very water-intensive. According to the Energy Information Agency in its latest assessment, in 2012 coal accounted for 37% of U.S. electric generation, followed by natural gas (30%), nuclear (19%) and renewables (12%). Unfortunately, their predictions for the fuel mix in 2040 are not much more encouraging.

What is troubling here is that by 2040, we’re still looking at the vast majority of our electricity coming from highly water-intensive fuel sources. Where is this water supposed to come from when we are already inadequately managing our use?

Consider nuclear power: A recent NPR story on nuclear power in California highlighted the split among environmentalists over nuclear power on waste versus carbon emissions. But nowhere did the story mention the issue that will make the rest moot: if there is not enough water for highly-water intensive nuclear power to run, the low-carbon energy or the contentious waste issues are non-existent.

Water scarcity isn’t just for the West

Water scarcity has become a national issue. In the past few years, we’ve seen power implications of water shortages in areas not normally associated with water stress. During the 2008 Southeastern drought as well as the 2012 drought that pummeled the Midwest, we saw shutdowns and near shutdowns of nuclear power plants in states like Alabama, North Carolina and Illinois. And let’s not forget the ongoing fight of the Tri-State Water Wars between Alabama, Georgia and Florida over distribution of increasingly scarce water for many uses, including power.

Furthermore, in its annual Winter Outlook, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicts a drier and warmer winter for the Southeast (and of course continuing dry conditions in much of the West, including portions of Texas that will likely see a “redevelopment” of drought this winter).

Water Scarcity Makes Renewable Energy a Viable Option, Despite Intermittency

The intermittency of renewable energy is a red herring which can be addressed through better research, development and deployment of available technologies such as energy storage, and better policies to help integrate them into the grid. But the fact that the water usage of most renewable energy is negligible means that it is the ideal power source for our water-stressed energy future.

The discussion needs to shift. We should be talking about water intensity at the front end of our power planning because if we don’t plan with water in mind, we are planning for a dark future.

By Kate Zerrenner

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

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

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

Not All Tests Are Created Equally

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

The three most commonly used resource cost tests are the:

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

The two least commonly used are the:

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

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

Breakdown of Tests

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

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

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

Here’s another way to conceptualize the difference:

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

The Texas Way

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

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

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

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: UCSUSA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Kate Zerrenner

This commentary originally appeared on EDF's Energy Exchange blog.

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Argonne National Laboratory

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

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

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

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

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

By Kate Zerrenner

Recently, we highlighted some of the impressive clean energy research projects currently under development in universities across the state of Texas. These research initiatives form the foundation to Texas’ position as leader in the clean energy economy and a producer of a burgeoning workforce.  And this clean energy workforce requires a variety of skill sets that can be learned at different points along the educational spectrum.

In 2010, I produced a Texas Green Jobs Guidebook that highlights the job diversity within the clean energy sector—from solar panel installation to air quality enforcement. Universities train engineers, architects and city planners, but the clean energy workforce also requires a level of technical skill that is best taught at the community college level. In many ways, community colleges play a vital role in training the individuals that will put the clean energy future into action, and schools in Texas understand the growing need for skilled technicians.

Houston Community College recently launched a new solar energy program that trains students to install solar panels. Their education includes understanding proper placement and trouble-shooting and is, in fact, the first program in the area that is certified by the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners.

In Waco, Texas State Technical College (TSTC) offers a two-year Associate Degree in Solar Energy Technology, one of the few such programs in the country. The TSTC system as a whole is practicing what it preaches—far south near the Mexican border, its Harlingen campus is a leader in deploying solar energy on campus. Here, the college’s University Center is the only Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) project south of San Antonio, and includes 434 solar panels that reduce the building’s electricity costs by about 30 percent.

Cedar Valley College, part of the Dallas County Community College District, was one of the first colleges in the country to offer degree plans and training in energy-efficient building design. Similarly, Austin Community College has long offered a Renewable Energy Specialization through its Electronics and Advanced Technologies Associate Degree.

Meanwhile, San Antonio’s Alamo Colleges train their students in an array of green job areas, including water conservation and environmental preservation. In previous blog posts, I’ve mentioned San Antonio’s smart approach to water conservation, so it makes sense that the community college system instructs future water technicians with conservation in mind.

Source: Imagine Solar

Some cities have started the clean energy education even earlier at the high school level. Houston Independent School District, for example, launched its Energy High School for the 2013-14 school year. It operates in partnership with the Independent Petroleum Institute of America, and is therefore heavily focused on oil and gas (not surprising since Houston is the oil and gas capital of the U.S.). However, the curriculum does offer a renewable energy component, which is important given the need to integrate clean energy within our current energy mix. It’s also valuable to expose high school students interested in energy to the intricate connections between various energy resources. (Although we do hope teachers mention that the clean energy sector now creates more jobs than the fossil fuel industry and, in 2011, grew nearly twice as fast as the overall economy.)

As more community colleges advance clean energy curricula in the state, Texas will accelerate investments in homegrown energy, reduce harmful pollution, create jobs and help America gain a global leadership position in the multi-trillion dollar clean energy economy. But it all starts in the classroom with eager students learning how to install, maintain and build out our clean energy future. At EDF, we look forward to seeing the Texas economy and workforce grow in a sustainable way.

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: Architect Magazine

The Solar Decathlon, a competition that challenges colleges across the nation to design and construct efficient, affordable and attractive solar powered-home, is taking place October 3-13 at Orange Country Great Park in Irvine, California. The bi-annual event, organized by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), awards the team that excels in combining cost-effectiveness, consumer appeal and energy efficiency into a state of the art home. But like many competitions, the real winners are those that pursue the challenge long after the bout ends, and this decathlon is no exception. Year after year, students graduate and form the next wave of clean energy entrepreneurs, engineers and architects looking to advance energy efficient homes.

This year, the University of Texas at El Paso and El Paso Community College have joined forces to create Team Texas. The last time a Texas university participated in the Solar Decathlon was in 2007, when the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University competed as two separate teams.

This year Team Texas has submitted ADAPT, a house that reflects the nature of the two universities’ homestead, El Paso. Its design maximizes the use of solar energy, an abundant resource in the Southwest, and is meant to feel natural on a mountain plateau, high desert or green farmland.  ADAPT embraces the belief that “a home is not just a location or state of mind but a place where the heart is”.

The event itself is open to the public and free of charge. Visitors can tour the houses, get inspiration for their own homes and discover the benefits of energy-efficiency and self-generation. Following the Solar Decathlon, ADAPT will be housed on the El Paso campus and used for a variety of educational and social events.

The Lone Star State’s renewable energy potential is the largest in the nation, with abundant wind and solar resources across the state’s vast landscape. Traditionally, Texas has been an international leader in the oil and gas industry, but in the past decade Texas has made an important effort to increase investment in clean energy for a sustainable future. Universities and colleges are a prime asset in this clean energy focus, which is why the Solar Decathlon and other collegiate research opportunities are so important.

This past July, Texas Tech University established a new wind energy research facility in partnership with Sandia National Laboratories, an extension of the DOE, and with wind turbine manufacturer Vestas. According to Texas Tech researchers, ten percent to 40 percent of wind energy production is lost due to complex wind plant interaction. To create accurate predictions of power output, developers need to know how large numbers of wind turbines may interact with each other in a range of weather conditions. The Scaled Wind Farm Technology (SWiFT) facility tests and monitors the turbines to help operators address these issues and increase productivity for large wind farms.

While the end goal here is to make wind farms more productive, these efforts will also help cement Texas’ position as a leader in wind energy innovation. Similarly, Texas A&M University-Central Texas recently announced a collaboration with the Center for Solar Energy. As partners they will work to develop and test new technologies for solar power, with the goal of attracting new investment. Given the great solar energy potential in Texas, EDF is keen to see the expansion of non-wind renewable energy in the state. When completed, the $600 million center will span close to 800 acres and power the Texas A&M – Central Texas campus.

By advancing research in clean energy technologies, universities play an active role in contributing to the economic growth of the state. Students will continue their clean energy success outside of the classrooms to further their careers in a profession that is both sustainable and booming. Team Texas is hopeful that their work for the Solar Decathlon will set a new standard of energy efficiency in the El Paso community and the state. Here at EDF, we are big fans of the Solar Decathlon initiative; it not only spurs clean energy innovation, but also creates a spotlight for future innovators, especially in sunny, breezy Texas.

By Kate Zerrenner

This commentary originally appeared on EDF's Energy Exchange blog. 

A glossary of energy and water terms

In recent posts I’ve discussed the need for energy and water planners to co-manage resources more comprehensively. But another significant barrier exists: language. Water and energy planners use different terminology and a lack of understanding for these distinctions hampers true coordination. Also, it prevents customers from understanding how to make sense of their own usage patterns and maximize energy and water efficiency.

Electricity measurements

Getting into the nuts and bolts — or watts and volts — of the issue can get very dry very quickly, so let’s go over some basic units of measurement to set the stage.

Electricity is measured in watts, usually represented as kilowatts (kW), megawatts (MW), but often discussed as megawatt-hours (MWh). One MW is roughly equivalent to ten running cars engines. A MWh is the total amount of electricity produced by a power plant in one hour, roughly the amount of energy used by 330 homes in one hour. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in May 2013, Texas generated 12,261 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity from coal-fired power plants (1 GWh = 1,000 MWh) and only 4,116 GWh from renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar.

Water measurements

While electricity’s units of measurements are fairly streamlined, water is measured differently depending on volume. Specifically, acre-feet are used for large amounts (e.g. reservoirs, aqueducts and canals), while smaller amounts are measured in gallons. An acre-foot is the amount of water it would take to cover an acre of land with a depth of one foot, roughly 326,000 gallons. As an example, an Olympic-size swimming pool amounts to two acre-feet, and the average family of four uses roughly 400 gallons of water a day. Estimates of water use in the U.S. vary and are more difficult to estimate than electric use due to the inherent challenges of measurement and leaks, among other factors. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that in 2005, 410 billion gallons of water were withdrawn per day.

Withdrawal versus consumption

The term “withdrawn” brings us to another confusing set of terms: withdrawal versus consumption. As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, when talking about water for energy use, there is a distinction between these respective measurements, and this has a huge impact on both sectors.

Withdrawal is the amount of the water taken from the water source, whereas consumption is the portion of that water used and not returned to the original source for reuse. It should be noted that water returned to its original source exists in a different condition than when it was first withdrawn, which can contribute to stress on the water supply. The electric sector withdraws more water than any other sector in the U.S., amounting to more than 40%.

Source: The Artemis Project

Efficiency versus conservation

Although the terms “energy conservation” and “energy efficiency” are often used interchangeably, they do in fact mean two different things.

Energy conservation refers to reducing energy waste. Examples include turning up your air-conditioning when you leave for the day or turning off the lights once you leave a room. Conservation is often associated with sacrifice, and many people still equate both conservation and efficiency with that sentiment.

Energy Efficiency refers to people using technology not only to reduce energy waste, but also to use less energy. For example, a new, efficient air conditioning unit will cool a house the same way an older unit can, but requires less energy to achieve the same effect. However, if a person runs the new unit all day at low temperatures while no one is home, they are wasting energy.  .

Basically, efficiency involves technology and conservation involves behavior. But the biggest bang for the buck naturally comes with a combination of efficiency and conservation.

Water and energy use terminology may be technical, but understanding the similarities and differences will make all the difference when it comes to efficiently using our scarce resources and empowering people to engage in this very important conversation.