Aggregator

By Elizabeth B. Stein

With time-variant pricing, people can choose to run their dishwashers at times of day when electricity is less expensive.

Today, most residential electricity customers are charged the same price regardless of when the electricity is actually being used. Charging customers a uniform price for electric service looks a bit like buying groceries by the cart instead of by the items purchased (e.g., apples versus filet mignon) – simple, to be sure, but so riddled with inefficiencies that no one would actually propose operating a supermarket that way. A cartful of filet mignon may weigh the same as a cartful of apples, but the value of these items and the cost of bringing them to market is drastically different. Similarly, electricity costs differ depending on the time of day power is produced and delivered.

Time-variant electric pricing addresses this issue by charging customers different prices depending on when electricity is used, reflecting the true costs of producing and delivering electricity. This gives customers greater control over their electricity bills by allowing them to reduce their energy use at higher-cost times. A recent blog post by my colleague, economist Beia Spiller, explained how time-variant electricity pricing can benefit customers, utilities, and the environment, and described several different types of time-variant pricing.

Given its compelling economics, one would think time-variant pricing would be widespread. Part of the reason it’s not is sheer inertia, but there’s more to it than that.

What would it take to fix this?

Changing the paradigm, first and foremost, requires technology that supports a more specific pricing signal. The most straightforward approach entails widespread introduction of advanced, or smart, meters, which collect detailed electricity use data.

Traditional electricity meters measure the gross amount of electricity that passes through them from the time they are plugged in until they are taken out of service. Typically, about once a month, a reading is taken and the difference between each reading and the prior reading is deemed to be the amount of electricity used for the billing period. The bill is calculated by multiplying this amount by rates that stay consistent throughout the billing period. In order to apply different prices during different times within the same billing period, you need a meter that can distinguish among these sub-periods, or ‘intervals.’ The more targeted you want the pricing to be, the smaller the intervals need to be. Simply put, time-variant utility rates cannot exist without this technological prerequisite.

The good news is we’re making progress. According to a recent federal report, slightly more than 30 percent of residential customers have advanced meters. The bad news is that having the right meters is not enough. As discussed in a blog post on Energy Exchange and a recent article in the Washington Post, the presence of smart meters doesn’t automatically mean time-variant pricing is available. Introducing time-variant pricing requires the utility company to have complementary technology, such as modern billing systems capable of calculating and delivering complex bills to residential customers.

But, we’re still not there yet. Even if we have all those components in place ­– advanced meters and related technologies, complex billing systems, and time-variant prices – adoption of time-variant pricing might still remain low. Customers are often given the opportunity to opt in to time-variant pricing programs, rather than being charged time-variant prices with the opportunity to opt out. This type of choice structure invariably leads to low adoption rates of the non-default option – not just with time-variant pricing, but with a host of other types of decisions, such as organ donation. This structure makes design and deployment of time-variant pricing much more challenging.

What stands in the way of getting all the pieces in place?

As discussed above, smart meter saturation is insufficient to transform the marketplace, but there are other barriers as well. For starters, utility regulators may not be convinced advanced metering and related technologies would be cost-effective. The widespread rollout of smart meters might make the most economic sense in the long run, by making the entire energy system more efficient and avoiding use of the most expensive power, but not all regulators are certain about this outcome before the transformation has begun to occur.

In addition, developing a menu of time-variant pricing challenges the longstanding utility business model. Traditionally, electricity rates are set by regulators in a way that gives the utility the opportunity to profit on infrastructure investments it makes, while also ensuring safe and reliable electric service. With time-variant pricing, utilities and regulators find it difficult to fairly allocate the costs of earlier infrastructure investments among customers with different usage habits, while still providing prices that reward customers who use energy at less costly times. Moreover, since time-variant pricing may reduce a utility’s future infrastructure costs, and thus squeeze its opportunity to earn profits, utilities may be reluctant to move in this direction without other opportunities to profit.

Do customers want to fix this?

Customers who have never had access to time-variant pricing may not know how to begin to think about this prospect. However, one of the most encouraging harbingers for change is that in the areas where customers have actually experienced robust time-variant pricing regimes, they have responded quite favorably. A time-variant pricing pilot conducted by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District showed not only do study participants report high levels of satisfaction with the programs, but in some cases, they are more likely to perceive the prices they are charged as fair compared to those customers who have flat pricing. Moreover, low-income participants, who are often thought to be at greater risk from a change in rates than other communities, showed higher-than-average acceptance of time-variant pricing.

In a world where flat electricity prices are the default, achieving even moderate levels of time-variant pricing adoption requires prices be designed, deployed, and communicated in a manner that makes them so attractive people will overcome inertia and choose them over more familiar offerings. Better pricing is key to a better functioning electricity market, paving the way to a low-carbon future.

What every fishing port in New England has long feared has now come true: the iconic cod fish is disappearing in our waters. If our shared goal is to rebuild a sustainable fishery for years to come, then we need to better understand what is happening to the fish stocks. This calls for better science, […]

By Matt Mullin

Fishing boats in Chatham, MA. Photo: Tim Connor

What every fishing port in New England has long feared has now come true: the iconic cod fish is disappearing in our waters. If our shared goal is to rebuild a sustainable fishery for years to come, then we need to better understand what is happening to the fish stocks. This calls for better science, which has been the subject of discussion for years.

A key foundation of better science is better catch monitoring.  Inadequate catch data is the Achilles heel of the groundfish fishery in New England – particularly with cod – and the only way to improve this in a cost-effective way is through a comprehensive monitoring system that uses video technology.

It’s troubling that in the year 2015 – in this era of climate change and cod crises – we still have no complete idea who is catching what, how much they are catching and what is being tossed back into the ocean. Scientists and managers are operating in the dark and this has severe implications when you consider the information obtained through an effective monitoring program is essential for both science and management decisions.  And it’s not just for decision-makers – better information through fleet-wide monitoring helps level the playing field and gives a complete picture so that fishermen, too, can better trust what decisions are being made, and why.  Distrust of science and management is one of the greatest plagues facing this fishery.

Every year, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), taxpayers spend $9.3 million on the current human observer program for the New England groundfish fishery. Despite that hefty price tag, the program only covers roughly 20 percent of vessel trips. We do not have the luxury to tolerate an inadequate system only giving us a fraction of the picture. We need to monitor the entire groundfish fleet, but an expansion of the current program would be too expensive.

That is why Environmental Defense Fund has called for 100 percent electronic monitoring (EM) of all vessels in New England. While we recognize that some level of human observers will be necessary to collect some types of scientific data, EM is the best option to produce accurate catch and compliance information in a cost-effective manner. A monitoring system that relies primarily on electronic monitoring, if designed well, can provide a more complete picture of what is happening on the water without expanding the budget currently set aside for monitoring. EM can record fish caught, discards and enhance compliance with reporting. Through improved and more efficient monitoring, NMFS and the Councils will be able to make more informed decisions, leading to more stable and sustainable fisheries. This is good for business and conservation.

There will be important investments up front in the development of an EM program and in the technology itself, but once those are in place and an EM program is designed accordingly, we can monitor 100 percent of the fishery for roughly the same amount of money it takes to monitor 20 percent of the fishery with the current observer-only program. That is a dramatic improvement for a minimal investment – and we cannot afford to pass it up.

When it comes to electronic monitoring programs, cost is all in the design. While no two fisheries are the same, and therefore no two EM programs will cost the same, there are existing examples of EM systems around the country that offer some sense of cost savings.

Take for example the EM programs that were on the water between 2004-2011 in the Pacific for the whiting midwater trawl fishery.  Researchers there saw an average annual cost of $254 per sea day as a result of these programs. There is also British Columbia’s hook-and-line groundfish program that had an even lower cost of only $194 for each sea day. The cost of the current human observer program in New England, by comparison, exceeds $800 per sea day.

We believe an adequate and effective electronic monitoring system for New England’s groundfish fishery could be designed in a way to be equivalent or even lower than what it costs now while also achieving management and scientific needs. Or, as the agency’s report on a recent three-year regional EM pilot puts it: “[a well-designed EM program for the New England groundfish fishery has] the potential to provide a useful and cost-effective solution to help in meeting the information needs of the NE groundfish fishery.”

The New England cod fishery has been declared a disaster and is facing an uncertain future. The critical next step towards sustainability is implementing an EM program that will help us understand what is happening in our local waters. If we want to save the fishery, a reasonably-designed electronic monitoring system, one that meets our scientific and management needs, must be implemented as soon as possible. EDF is ready to help in every way we can to make this a reality.

By Matt Mullin

Fishing boats in Chatham, MA. Photo: Tim Connor

What every fishing port in New England has long feared has now come true: the iconic cod fish is disappearing in our waters. If our shared goal is to rebuild a sustainable fishery for years to come, then we need to better understand what is happening to the fish stocks. This calls for better science, which has been the subject of discussion for years.

A key foundation of better science is better catch monitoring.  Inadequate catch data is the Achilles heel of the groundfish fishery in New England – particularly with cod – and the only way to improve this in a cost-effective way is through a comprehensive monitoring system that uses video technology.

It’s troubling that in the year 2015 – in this era of climate change and cod crises – we still have no complete idea who is catching what, how much they are catching and what is being tossed back into the ocean. Scientists and managers are operating in the dark and this has severe implications when you consider the information obtained through an effective monitoring program is essential for both science and management decisions.  And it’s not just for decision-makers – better information through fleet-wide monitoring helps level the playing field and gives a complete picture so that fishermen, too, can better trust what decisions are being made, and why.  Distrust of science and management is one of the greatest plagues facing this fishery.

Every year, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), taxpayers spend $9.3 million on the current human observer program for the New England groundfish fishery. Despite that hefty price tag, the program only covers roughly 20 percent of vessel trips. We do not have the luxury to tolerate an inadequate system only giving us a fraction of the picture. We need to monitor the entire groundfish fleet, but an expansion of the current program would be too expensive.

That is why Environmental Defense Fund has called for 100 percent electronic monitoring (EM) of all vessels in New England. While we recognize that some level of human observers will be necessary to collect some types of scientific data, EM is the best option to produce accurate catch and compliance information in a cost-effective manner. A monitoring system that relies primarily on electronic monitoring, if designed well, can provide a more complete picture of what is happening on the water without expanding the budget currently set aside for monitoring. EM can record fish caught, discards and enhance compliance with reporting. Through improved and more efficient monitoring, NMFS and the Councils will be able to make more informed decisions, leading to more stable and sustainable fisheries. This is good for business and conservation.

There will be important investments up front in the development of an EM program and in the technology itself, but once those are in place and an EM program is designed accordingly, we can monitor 100 percent of the fishery for roughly the same amount of money it takes to monitor 20 percent of the fishery with the current observer-only program. That is a dramatic improvement for a minimal investment – and we cannot afford to pass it up.

When it comes to electronic monitoring programs, cost is all in the design. While no two fisheries are the same, and therefore no two EM programs will cost the same, there are existing examples of EM systems around the country that offer some sense of cost savings.

Take for example the EM programs that were on the water between 2004-2011 in the Pacific for the whiting midwater trawl fishery.  Researchers there saw an average annual cost of $254 per sea day as a result of these programs. There is also British Columbia’s hook-and-line groundfish program that had an even lower cost of only $194 for each sea day. The cost of the current human observer program in New England, by comparison, exceeds $800 per sea day.

We believe an adequate and effective electronic monitoring system for New England’s groundfish fishery could be designed in a way to be equivalent or even lower than what it costs now while also achieving management and scientific needs. Or, as the agency’s report on a recent three-year regional EM pilot puts it: “[a well-designed EM program for the New England groundfish fishery has] the potential to provide a useful and cost-effective solution to help in meeting the information needs of the NE groundfish fishery.”

The New England cod fishery has been declared a disaster and is facing an uncertain future. The critical next step towards sustainability is implementing an EM program that will help us understand what is happening in our local waters. If we want to save the fishery, a reasonably-designed electronic monitoring system, one that meets our scientific and management needs, must be implemented as soon as possible. EDF is ready to help in every way we can to make this a reality.

By Matt Mullin

Fishing boats in Chatham, MA. Photo: Tim Connor

What every fishing port in New England has long feared has now come true: the iconic cod fish is disappearing in our waters. If our shared goal is to rebuild a sustainable fishery for years to come, then we need to better understand what is happening to the fish stocks. This calls for better science, which has been the subject of discussion for years.

A key foundation of better science is better catch monitoring.  Inadequate catch data is the Achilles heel of the groundfish fishery in New England – particularly with cod – and the only way to improve this in a cost-effective way is through a comprehensive monitoring system that uses video technology.

It’s troubling that in the year 2015 – in this era of climate change and cod crises – we still have no complete idea who is catching what, how much they are catching and what is being tossed back into the ocean. Scientists and managers are operating in the dark and this has severe implications when you consider the information obtained through an effective monitoring program is essential for both science and management decisions.  And it’s not just for decision-makers – better information through fleet-wide monitoring helps level the playing field and gives a complete picture so that fishermen, too, can better trust what decisions are being made, and why.  Distrust of science and management is one of the greatest plagues facing this fishery.

Every year, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), taxpayers spend $9.3 million on the current human observer program for the New England groundfish fishery. Despite that hefty price tag, the program only covers roughly 20 percent of vessel trips. We do not have the luxury to tolerate an inadequate system only giving us a fraction of the picture. We need to monitor the entire groundfish fleet, but an expansion of the current program would be too expensive.

That is why Environmental Defense Fund has called for 100 percent electronic monitoring (EM) of all vessels in New England. While we recognize that some level of human observers will be necessary to collect some types of scientific data, EM is the best option to produce accurate catch and compliance information in a cost-effective manner. A monitoring system that relies primarily on electronic monitoring, if designed well, can provide a more complete picture of what is happening on the water without expanding the budget currently set aside for monitoring. EM can record fish caught, discards and enhance compliance with reporting. Through improved and more efficient monitoring, NMFS and the Councils will be able to make more informed decisions, leading to more stable and sustainable fisheries. This is good for business and conservation.

There will be important investments up front in the development of an EM program and in the technology itself, but once those are in place and an EM program is designed accordingly, we can monitor 100 percent of the fishery for roughly the same amount of money it takes to monitor 20 percent of the fishery with the current observer-only program. That is a dramatic improvement for a minimal investment – and we cannot afford to pass it up.

When it comes to electronic monitoring programs, cost is all in the design. While no two fisheries are the same, and therefore no two EM programs will cost the same, there are existing examples of EM systems around the country that offer some sense of cost savings.

Take for example the EM programs that were on the water between 2004-2011 in the Pacific for the whiting midwater trawl fishery.  Researchers there saw an average annual cost of $254 per sea day as a result of these programs. There is also British Columbia’s hook-and-line groundfish program that had an even lower cost of only $194 for each sea day. The cost of the current human observer program in New England, by comparison, exceeds $800 per sea day.

We believe an adequate and effective electronic monitoring system for New England’s groundfish fishery could be designed in a way to be equivalent or even lower than what it costs now while also achieving management and scientific needs. Or, as the agency’s report on a recent three-year regional EM pilot puts it: “[a well-designed EM program for the New England groundfish fishery has] the potential to provide a useful and cost-effective solution to help in meeting the information needs of the NE groundfish fishery.”

The New England cod fishery has been declared a disaster and is facing an uncertain future. The critical next step towards sustainability is implementing an EM program that will help us understand what is happening in our local waters. If we want to save the fishery, a reasonably-designed electronic monitoring system, one that meets our scientific and management needs, must be implemented as soon as possible. EDF is ready to help in every way we can to make this a reality.

Let Washington and Baton Rouge know how much you care about the coast: Walt Leger III
The Times-Picayune. Feb. 28, 2015
“At this critical time when the promise of revenue sharing is being threatened, we must, more than ever, stand united in our commitment to the coast.” (Read More)

Bobby Jindal’s budget cuts to coastal restoration agency won’t affect projects, levees, official says
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. Feb. 27, 2015
“Gov. Bobby Jindal's proposed $20.6 million budget cut for the agency overseeing coastal restoration and levees won't affect ongoing projects, the agency's chairman said Friday after the governor released his budget proposal.” (Read More)

Coastal authority gets $50,000 donation to protect southwest Louisiana coastline
AP, Daily Journal. Feb. 28, 2015
“Representatives with Columbia Pipeline Group have presented the Chenier Plain Coastal Restoration and Protection Authority with a $50,000 donation to help fund continued operations to protect the Southwest Louisiana coastline.” (Read More)

Let Washington and Baton Rouge know how much you care about the coast: Walt Leger III
The Times-Picayune. Feb. 28, 2015
“At this critical time when the promise of revenue sharing is being threatened, we must, more than ever, stand united in our commitment to the coast.” (Read More)

Bobby Jindal’s budget cuts to coastal restoration agency won’t affect projects, levees, official says
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. Feb. 27, 2015
“Gov. Bobby Jindal's proposed $20.6 million budget cut for the agency overseeing coastal restoration and levees won't affect ongoing projects, the agency's chairman said Friday after the governor released his budget proposal.” (Read More)

Coastal authority gets $50,000 donation to protect southwest Louisiana coastline
AP, Daily Journal. Feb. 28, 2015
“Representatives with Columbia Pipeline Group have presented the Chenier Plain Coastal Restoration and Protection Authority with a $50,000 donation to help fund continued operations to protect the Southwest Louisiana coastline.” (Read More)

Let Washington and Baton Rouge know how much you care about the coast: Walt Leger III
The Times-Picayune. Feb. 28, 2015
“At this critical time when the promise of revenue sharing is being threatened, we must, more than ever, stand united in our commitment to the coast.” (Read More)

Bobby Jindal’s budget cuts to coastal restoration agency won’t affect projects, levees, official says
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. Feb. 27, 2015
“Gov. Bobby Jindal's proposed $20.6 million budget cut for the agency overseeing coastal restoration and levees won't affect ongoing projects, the agency's chairman said Friday after the governor released his budget proposal.” (Read More)

Coastal authority gets $50,000 donation to protect southwest Louisiana coastline
AP, Daily Journal. Feb. 28, 2015
“Representatives with Columbia Pipeline Group have presented the Chenier Plain Coastal Restoration and Protection Authority with a $50,000 donation to help fund continued operations to protect the Southwest Louisiana coastline.” (Read More)

By Gernot Wagner

Editor’s note: The following is excerpted from Climate Shock (2015) by Gernot Wagner, Lead Senior Economist, Environmental Defense Fund, and Martin L. Weitzman, Professor of Economics, Harvard University. Published here with permission from Princeton University Press.

Two quick questions:

Do you think climate change is an urgent problem?

Do you think getting the world off fossil fuels is difficult?

If you answered “Yes” to both of these questions, welcome. You’ll nod along, occasionally even cheer, while reading on. You’ll feel reaffirmed.

You are also in the minority. The vast majority of people answer “Yes” to one or the other question, but not both.

If you answered “Yes” only to the first question, you probably think of yourself as a committed environmentalist. You may think climate change is the issue facing society. It’s bad. It’s worse than most of us think. It’s hitting home already, and it will strike us with full force. We should be pulling out all the stops: solar panels, bike lanes, the whole lot.

You’re right, in part. Climate change is an urgent problem. But you’re fooling yourself if you think getting off fossil fuels will be simple. It will be one of the most difficult challenges modern civilization has ever faced, and it will require the most sustained, well-managed, globally cooperative effort the human species has ever mounted.

If you answered “Yes” only to the second question, chances are you don’t think climate change is the defining problem of our generation. That doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a “skeptic” or “denier” of the underlying scientific evidence; you may still think global warming is worthy of our attention. But realism dictates that we can’t stop life as we know it to mitigate a problem that’ll take decades or centuries to show its full force. Look, some people are suffering right now because of lack of energy. And whatever the United States, Europe or other high emitters do to rein in their energy consumption will be nullified by China, India and the rest catching up with the rich world’s standard of living. You know there are trade-offs. You also know that solar panels and bike lanes alone won’t do.

You, too, are right, but none of that makes climate change any less of a problem. The long lead time for solutions and the complex global web of players are precisely why we must act decisively, today.

What we know is bad, what we don’t is worse

If you are an economist, as we are, chances are you answered “Yes” to the second question. Standard economic treatments all but prescribe the stance of the “realist.” After all, economists live and breathe trade-offs. Your love for your children may go beyond anything in this world, but as economists we are obligated to say that, strictly speaking, it’s not infinite. As a parent, you may invest enormous sums of money and time into your children, but you, too, face trade-offs: between doing your day job and reading bedtime stories, between indulging now and teaching for later.

Trade-offs are particularly relevant on an average, national or global level. And they are perhaps nowhere more apparent on the planetary scale than in the case of climate change. It’s the ultimate battle of growth versus the environment. Stronger climate policy now implies higher, immediate economic costs. Coal-fired power plants will become obsolete sooner or won’t be built in the first place. That comes with costs, for coal plant owners and electricity consumers alike. The big trade-off question, then, is how these costs compare with the benefits of action, both because of lower carbon pollution and because of economic returns from investing in cleaner, leaner technologies today.

Economists often cast themselves as the rational arbiters in the middle of the debate. Our air is worse now than it was during the Stone Age, but life expectancy is a lot higher, too. Sea levels are rising, threatening hundreds of millions of lives and livelihoods, but societies have moved cities before. Getting off fossil fuels will be tough, but human ingenuity — technological change — will surely save the day once again. Life will be different, but who’s to say it will be worse? Markets have given us longer lives and untold riches. Let properly guided market forces do their magic.

There’s a lot to be said for that logic. But the operative words are “properly guided.” What, precisely, are the costs of unabated climate change? What’s known, what’s unknown, what’s unknowable? And where does what we don’t know lead us?

That last question is the key one: Most everything we know tells us climate change is bad. Most everything we don’t know tells us it’s probably much worse.

Stick it to carbon

“Bad” or “worse” doesn’t mean hopeless. In fact, no prediction of climate outcomes or damages can stand without being prefaced by a version of the words unless we act. We don’t venture predictions only to see them become true. We talk about where unfettered economic forces may lead in order to guide them in a more productive, better direction. And guide we can.

Increasingly intense hurricanes, more floods, more droughts, not to say anything of rising temperatures and rising seas are what we know is happening and will continue to happen. Tallying those effects — at least the bits we can put a dollar figure on — results in a minimum cost of $40 per ton of carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere today. But on average, the world isn’t considering anything close to these costs. The average global price is closer to negative $15 per ton, considering the massive fossil fuel subsidies in many countries.

None of that yet includes the truly frightening low-probability events. There’s a huge difference between a likely sea-level rise of 0.3 to 1 meters (1 to 3 feet) by the end of this century and eventual possible extremes of 20 meters (66 feet) or more in future centuries. And it’s debatable whether we can describe any of these extreme scenarios as “unlikely” or “low probability” to begin with. By our own, conservative calculations, there’s about a 1-in-10 chance of eventual global average warming in excess of 6 C (11 F), something that can be described only as “catastrophic” for society as we know it.

It would be easy to conclude that capitalism is the problem. Capitalism is indeed at the core of the problem. Or rather: misguided market forces are.

One seeming solution would be to simply change our ways — voluntarily change our behavior to be greener. If only we slowed down, went back to the land, and generally did more with less, climate change would be a thing of the past. Not quite. The math on voluntary action simply doesn’t add up. And the calculus of changing capitalism as we know it — however desirable that may be as an independent goal — is daunting, to say the least. It also confuses the issue.

Some, like author Naomi Klein, call for “taxing the rich and filthy.” That’s a nice turn of phrase. One might agree that we probably should be taxing the rich more. But that’s a different problem entirely. First and foremost, we ought to be taxing the filthy. Instead of “sticking it to the man,” the point is to stick it to carbon.

Far from posing a fundamental problem to capitalism, it’s capitalism, with all its innovative and entrepreneurial powers, that is our only hope of steering clear of the looming climate shock.

That’s not a call for letting markets run free. Laissez-faire may sound good with the right French accent — in theory. But it can’t work in a situation in which prices don’t reflect the true costs of our actions. Unbridled human drive — erroneously bridled drive, really — is what has gotten us into this current predicament. Properly channeled human drive and ingenuity, guided by a high enough price on carbon to reflect its true cost to society, is our best hope for getting us out.

Published on Ensia.com on February 25th, 2015. Continue reading in Climate Shock, available at booksellers everywhere.

You might also enjoy:

• Will Camels Roam Canada Again?
• We Need a Climate Insurance Policy – Now
• Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty: When is Good News Bad?

By Mark Brownstein

The Environmental Protection Agency just released the draft of its yearly greenhouse gas emissions inventory. It shows in no uncertain terms that methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector are going in the wrong direction: Up.

Emissions from this overall sector are up two percent in 2013, which includes emissions from oil (petroleum) systems which were at their highest levels ever since estimates began in 1990 – and up 68 percent since 2005. Emissions from natural gas processing, where impurities are removed to produce pipeline quality gas, are up 38 percent since 2005. From transmission and storage: Up 11 percent.

Yet the industry’s public relations machine says emissions are falling. So what’s the disconnect?

The inventory did find that emissions from the natural gas production category, which includes well sites and the system transporting gas to processing plants, decreased from 2012-2013, due to fewer wells being drilled and an increase in the share that use “green completions” as required by a 2012 EPA rule. (The fact that the EPA’s requirements led to a decrease underscores the importance of regulation in addressing methane emissions, by the way.)  But by focusing on only one segment of the oil and gas supply chain the oil and gas lobby are only giving you part of the story.

The bottom line is clear: Emissions for many key links in the supply chain have gone up, not down, and in some cases they have increased quite dramatically. The fact remains, methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are still too large and widespread .

We have the low cost technology at our disposal right now to fix this problem.

Cutting emissions in half would save our nation’s energy economy nearly $1 billion a year in wasted product, and cut the 20-year climate pollution equivalent of 90 coal-fired power plants. What’s more, a study by ICF International recently estimated that companies could cut methane emissions by 40 percent or more for about one third of one percent of the price of the gas they’re selling.

The case for action couldn’t be more clear.

Photo Source: Wikipedia

By Mark Brownstein

The Environmental Protection Agency just released the draft of its yearly greenhouse gas emissions inventory. It shows in no uncertain terms that methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector are going in the wrong direction: Up.

Emissions from this overall sector are up two percent in 2013, which includes emissions from oil (petroleum) systems which were at their highest levels ever since estimates began in 1990 – and up 68 percent since 2005. Emissions from natural gas processing, where impurities are removed to produce pipeline quality gas, are up 38 percent since 2005. From transmission and storage: Up 11 percent.

Yet the industry’s public relations machine says emissions are falling. So what’s the disconnect?

The inventory did find that emissions from the natural gas production category, which includes well sites and the system transporting gas to processing plants, decreased from 2012-2013, due to fewer wells being drilled and an increase in the share that use “green completions” as required by a 2012 EPA rule. (The fact that the EPA’s requirements led to a decrease underscores the importance of regulation in addressing methane emissions, by the way.)  But by focusing on only one segment of the oil and gas supply chain the oil and gas lobby are only giving you part of the story.

The bottom line is clear: Emissions for many key links in the supply chain have gone up, not down, and in some cases they have increased quite dramatically. The fact remains, methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are still too large and widespread .

We have the low cost technology at our disposal right now to fix this problem.

Cutting emissions in half would save our nation’s energy economy nearly $1 billion a year in wasted product, and cut the 20-year climate pollution equivalent of 90 coal-fired power plants. What’s more, a study by ICF International recently estimated that companies could cut methane emissions by 40 percent or more for about one third of one percent of the price of the gas they’re selling.

The case for action couldn’t be more clear.

Photo Source: Wikipedia

By Mark Brownstein

The Environmental Protection Agency just released the draft of its yearly greenhouse gas emissions inventory. It shows in no uncertain terms that methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector are going in the wrong direction: Up.

Emissions from this overall sector are up two percent in 2013, which includes emissions from oil (petroleum) systems which were at their highest levels ever since estimates began in 1990 – and up 68 percent since 2005. Emissions from natural gas processing, where impurities are removed to produce pipeline quality gas, are up 38 percent since 2005. From transmission and storage: Up 11 percent.

Yet the industry’s public relations machine says emissions are falling. So what’s the disconnect?

The inventory did find that emissions from the natural gas production category, which includes well sites and the system transporting gas to processing plants, decreased from 2012-2013, due to fewer wells being drilled and an increase in the share that use “green completions” as required by a 2012 EPA rule. (The fact that the EPA’s requirements led to a decrease underscores the importance of regulation in addressing methane emissions, by the way.)  But by focusing on only one segment of the oil and gas supply chain the oil and gas lobby are only giving you part of the story.

The bottom line is clear: Emissions for many key links in the supply chain have gone up, not down, and in some cases they have increased quite dramatically. The fact remains, methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are still too large and widespread .

We have the low cost technology at our disposal right now to fix this problem.

Cutting emissions in half would save our nation’s energy economy nearly $1 billion a year in wasted product, and cut the 20-year climate pollution equivalent of 90 coal-fired power plants. What’s more, a study by ICF International recently estimated that companies could cut methane emissions by 40 percent or more for about one third of one percent of the price of the gas they’re selling.

The case for action couldn’t be more clear.

Photo Source: Wikipedia

By Mark Brownstein

The Environmental Protection Agency just released the draft of its yearly greenhouse gas emissions inventory. It shows in no uncertain terms that methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector are going in the wrong direction: Up.

Emissions from this overall sector are up two percent in 2013, which includes emissions from oil (petroleum) systems which were at their highest levels ever since estimates began in 1990 – and up 68 percent since 2005. Emissions from natural gas processing, where impurities are removed to produce pipeline quality gas, are up 38 percent since 2005. From transmission and storage: Up 11 percent.

Yet the industry’s public relations machine says emissions are falling. So what’s the disconnect?

The inventory did find that emissions from the natural gas production category, which includes well sites and the system transporting gas to processing plants, decreased from 2012-2013, due to fewer wells being drilled and an increase in the share that use “green completions” as required by a 2012 EPA rule. (The fact that the EPA’s requirements led to a decrease underscores the importance of regulation in addressing methane emissions, by the way.)  But by focusing on only one segment of the oil and gas supply chain the oil and gas lobby are only giving you part of the story.

The bottom line is clear: Emissions for many key links in the supply chain have gone up, not down, and in some cases they have increased quite dramatically. The fact remains, methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are still too large and widespread .

We have the low cost technology at our disposal right now to fix this problem.

Cutting emissions in half would save our nation’s energy economy nearly $1 billion a year in wasted product, and cut the 20-year climate pollution equivalent of 90 coal-fired power plants. What’s more, a study by ICF International recently estimated that companies could cut methane emissions by 40 percent or more for about one third of one percent of the price of the gas they’re selling.

The case for action couldn’t be more clear.

Photo Source: Wikipedia

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

Senator Kane’s family with Vice President Biden

This is a Moms Clean Air Force exclusive interview with Senator Jim Kane from Virginia:

What is unique about protecting Virginia’s resources?

From the Chesapeake Bay to the Cumberland Gap, Virginia is blessed with an array of natural treasures, each of which is uniquely rich in history and beauty.  I believe we have a responsibility to protect natural resources in Virginia and throughout our nation for future generations to enjoy.  As a U.S. Senator, I’ve worked with my colleagues to carry out this important obligation. For instance, I was proud to lead a successful bipartisan effort to extend a National Park Service program to preserve Civil War and Revolutionary War battlefields around the country.

As a parent are you worried about the effects of climate change on your children and the children of Virginia?

While I’m certainly concerned about the effects of climate change on younger generations, we are already seeing these effects right now in Virginia. In the Hampton Roads area, which is the nation’s second-most vulnerable population center at risk from sea-level rise, we have already begun to see major flooding challenges for homeowners, businesses, and the military.  Our agriculture and fishing sectors are also threatened by changing weather conditions and ocean acidification, among other factors influenced by climate change. We can, and should, discuss climate change in future terms because its impacts will grow more severe, but the reality is that climate change is already impacting Virginians in significant ways.

Why is a bipartisan effort so important and how can these efforts be achieved in our politically polarizing culture?

Practically speaking, bipartisanship is essential to passing legislation because of the Senate filibuster; neither party has enough Senators to reach the 60-vote threshold required to pass most bills without bipartisan support. But more importantly, Virginians have grown tired of gridlock in Congress and expect their leaders to put aside their differences and find common ground on important issues. In tackling a large-scale issue like climate change, we need political consensus on the problem in order to find the best available solutions for our nation.

Previously, Senators from both sides worked together to combat climate change. In 2007, Virginia Senator John Warner sponsored the Senate’s first cap-and-trade bill with Independent Senator Joe Lieberman. Today, I believe it is possible to find bipartisan solutions to this issue because I reject the notion that cleaning up the planet and growing the economy are incompatible. We have an obligation to reduce carbon pollution in a way that makes economic sense, and Virginia is well prepared to craft innovative solutions that will reduce pollution and create jobs at the same time.

I’ve worked with colleagues across the aisle to address the adaptation challenges we are already facing in Virginia. On June 30, 2014, I led a bipartisan conference on sea-level rise in Norfolk, where flooding and land subsidence are legitimate threats.  Federal, state and local leaders from both parties were able to discuss actionable policy solutions to these challenges that I hope we will be able to develop further and implement for the betterment of Virginians.  

Is there anything you’d like to share that is important for Moms Clean Air Force members to know?

I commend your advocacy on these important issues. Fifty years ago, grassroots advocacy ignited an environmental movement that resulted in the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the Endangered Species Act, and the creation of Earth Day – all approved under a Republican president, with bipartisan support from Congress. I encourage your organization and others to ask of your policymakers, regardless of party, that they find common ground on the air and water quality challenges that affect us all.


Tim Kaine has served people throughout his life as a missionary, civil rights lawyer, teacher and elected official. He is one of 20 people in American history to have served as a Mayor, Governor and United States Senator. Tim was first elected to office in 1994, serving as a city council member and then mayor of Richmond. He became lieutenant governor of Virginia in 2002 and was inaugurated as Virginia’s 70th governor in 2006. As Governor, Kaine established the Commonwealth’s first ever Climate Change Commission to evaluate expected impacts of climate change on Virginia’s natural resources, public health and economy. In the Senate, he serves on the Armed Services, Budget, Foreign Relations and Aging committees. Since taking office, Tim has focused closely on climate change and its effects on Virginia, especially sea level rise and flooding. In 2014, he co-hosted a bipartisan conference that brought together policymakers, experts and regional stakeholders to discuss strategies to combat the threat that these challenges pose to Virginia.

Tim is married to Anne Holton, who currently serves as Virginia Secretary of Education. Tim and Anne revel in the adventures of their three grown children and live in the same Northside Richmond neighborhood where they moved as newlyweds more than 30 years ago. Tim loves reading, being outdoors and playing harmonica with bluegrass bands throughout Virginia.


TELL YOUR SENATORS: HELP STOP CLIMATE CHANGE





By John Finnigan

Ohio’s clean energy economy celebrated a big win this week. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) denied American Electric Power Company’s (AEP) request for guaranteed profits to operate its aging, uneconomic coal power plants. EDF, along with many other parties, opposed AEP’s proposal.

EDF applauds the Commission for recognizing AEP’s proposal would not benefit Ohio residents and businesses. These old coal plants cost more to operate than the value of power they generate. Plus, they produce harmful greenhouse gas emissions which, if the plants continue to operate, would make it more difficult for Ohio to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Clean Power Plan, which would set the first-ever limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants.

The Public Utilities Commission’s decision sends a clear message: power companies can no longer rest on their laurels. Clean energy businesses, entrepreneurs, investors, and Ohioans are ready for a new era – one in which utility profits are not placed ahead of Ohio’s best interests.

With gas prices low, an increased use of renewable energy, and weak demand resulting from customer energy efficiency improvements, some utilities like AEP are now burdened by their heavy reliance on coal – and looking to their customers to bail out their uneconomic power plants. Thankfully, yesterday’s decision assures that the market will remain competitive, giving clean energy resources an equal opportunity to compete with legacy fossil fuel plants.

#Ohio electricity regulators reject @AEPNews bailout for uneconomic power plants. Make way for more…
Click To Tweet

AEP’s proposed plan would have guaranteed income for two of its oldest coal plants – Kyger Creek and Clifty Creek. AEP testified that the plants, built in the 1950’s, are currently operating at a loss and might need to be closed because the economics are not penciling out. This news also came prior to EPA’s announcement about the proposed Clean Power Plan, which will make the plants even more costly to operate.

The company claimed that, over the long term, the plants will become economic, and keeping the plants open could provide Ohioans a net benefit of $8.4 million. However, other parties challenged AEP’s calculations and showed the plants could cost Ohio residents and businesses over $100 million.

EDF has been vocal about AEP’s efforts to make Ohioans foot the bill for keeping these uneconomic power plants running. We also added our voice to those challenging AEP by joining a coalition to highlight how the utility’s proposal ran counter to market principles.

The PUCO’s ruling is particularly significant because Duke Energy and FirstEnergy also have pending similar proposals for guaranteed cost recovery for their coal plants. Yesterday’s decision shows the PUCO will do a reasonable review of the costs and benefits of keeping these old coal plants open, rather than simply accepting the utilities’ unsupported claims that their coal plants benefit Ohioans. EDF will continue to push for more transparency from Ohio power companies and work to ensure electricity is clean, reliable, and affordable for all.

By John Finnigan

Ohio’s clean energy economy celebrated a big win this week. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) denied American Electric Power Company’s (AEP) request for guaranteed profits to operate its aging, uneconomic coal power plants. EDF, along with many other parties, opposed AEP’s proposal.

EDF applauds the Commission for recognizing AEP’s proposal would not benefit Ohio residents and businesses. These old coal plants cost more to operate than the value of power they generate. Plus, they produce harmful greenhouse gas emissions which, if the plants continue to operate, would make it more difficult for Ohio to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Clean Power Plan, which would set the first-ever limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants.

The Public Utilities Commission’s decision sends a clear message: power companies can no longer rest on their laurels. Clean energy businesses, entrepreneurs, investors, and Ohioans are ready for a new era – one in which utility profits are not placed ahead of Ohio’s best interests.

With gas prices low, an increased use of renewable energy, and weak demand resulting from customer energy efficiency improvements, some utilities like AEP are now burdened by their heavy reliance on coal – and looking to their customers to bail out their uneconomic power plants. Thankfully, yesterday’s decision assures that the market will remain competitive, giving clean energy resources an equal opportunity to compete with legacy fossil fuel plants.

#Ohio electricity regulators reject @AEPNews bailout for uneconomic power plants. Make way for more…
Click To Tweet

AEP’s proposed plan would have guaranteed income for two of its oldest coal plants – Kyger Creek and Clifty Creek. AEP testified that the plants, built in the 1950’s, are currently operating at a loss and might need to be closed because the economics are not penciling out. This news also came prior to EPA’s announcement about the proposed Clean Power Plan, which will make the plants even more costly to operate.

The company claimed that, over the long term, the plants will become economic, and keeping the plants open could provide Ohioans a net benefit of $8.4 million. However, other parties challenged AEP’s calculations and showed the plants could cost Ohio residents and businesses over $100 million.

EDF has been vocal about AEP’s efforts to make Ohioans foot the bill for keeping these uneconomic power plants running. We also added our voice to those challenging AEP by joining a coalition to highlight how the utility’s proposal ran counter to market principles.

The PUCO’s ruling is particularly significant because Duke Energy and FirstEnergy also have pending similar proposals for guaranteed cost recovery for their coal plants. Yesterday’s decision shows the PUCO will do a reasonable review of the costs and benefits of keeping these old coal plants open, rather than simply accepting the utilities’ unsupported claims that their coal plants benefit Ohioans. EDF will continue to push for more transparency from Ohio power companies and work to ensure electricity is clean, reliable, and affordable for all.

By John Finnigan

Ohio’s clean energy economy celebrated a big win this week. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) denied American Electric Power Company’s (AEP) request for guaranteed profits to operate its aging, uneconomic coal power plants. EDF, along with many other parties, opposed AEP’s proposal.

EDF applauds the Commission for recognizing AEP’s proposal would not benefit Ohio residents and businesses. These old coal plants cost more to operate than the value of power they generate. Plus, they produce harmful greenhouse gas emissions which, if the plants continue to operate, would make it more difficult for Ohio to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Clean Power Plan, which would set the first-ever limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants.

The Public Utilities Commission’s decision sends a clear message: power companies can no longer rest on their laurels. Clean energy businesses, entrepreneurs, investors, and Ohioans are ready for a new era – one in which utility profits are not placed ahead of Ohio’s best interests.

With gas prices low, an increased use of renewable energy, and weak demand resulting from customer energy efficiency improvements, some utilities like AEP are now burdened by their heavy reliance on coal – and looking to their customers to bail out their uneconomic power plants. Thankfully, yesterday’s decision assures that the market will remain competitive, giving clean energy resources an equal opportunity to compete with legacy fossil fuel plants.

#Ohio electricity regulators reject @AEPNews bailout for uneconomic power plants. Make way for more…
Click To Tweet

AEP’s proposed plan would have guaranteed income for two of its oldest coal plants – Kyger Creek and Clifty Creek. AEP testified that the plants, built in the 1950’s, are currently operating at a loss and might need to be closed because the economics are not penciling out. This news also came prior to EPA’s announcement about the proposed Clean Power Plan, which will make the plants even more costly to operate.

The company claimed that, over the long term, the plants will become economic, and keeping the plants open could provide Ohioans a net benefit of $8.4 million. However, other parties challenged AEP’s calculations and showed the plants could cost Ohio residents and businesses over $100 million.

EDF has been vocal about AEP’s efforts to make Ohioans foot the bill for keeping these uneconomic power plants running. We also added our voice to those challenging AEP by joining a coalition to highlight how the utility’s proposal ran counter to market principles.

The PUCO’s ruling is particularly significant because Duke Energy and FirstEnergy also have pending similar proposals for guaranteed cost recovery for their coal plants. Yesterday’s decision shows the PUCO will do a reasonable review of the costs and benefits of keeping these old coal plants open, rather than simply accepting the utilities’ unsupported claims that their coal plants benefit Ohioans. EDF will continue to push for more transparency from Ohio power companies and work to ensure electricity is clean, reliable, and affordable for all.

February 27, 2015

By Chandler Clay

Eric Holst, director of EDF's working lands program

Eric Holst, senior director of Environmental Defense Fund’s working lands program, has been reappointed to the California State Board of Food and Agriculture by Governor Jerry Brown.

Holst has served on the board – a fifteen-member state board appointed by the governor to represent a range of agricultural commodities, geographic regions and academic systems – since 2012. The board encourages public participation and input in all matters concerning agriculture and food policy within the state, from hunger and malnutrition to climate change and environmental markets. But the dominant focus over the last year has been drought and how to mitigate impacts on California agriculture.

A natural choice

Holst has been a leader in developing innovative partnerships with farmers, ranchers and foresters to improve environmental and economic performance on working lands for more than a decade, both in California and elsewhere across the country.

Since he arrived at EDF in 2006 (based in Sacramento), Holst has worked with landowners to develop conservation tools like habitat exchanges that benefit agriculture and the environment. He is an expert in developing strategies that improve livelihoods and environmental conditions on working forests, farms and ranches.

Holst was previously executive director of the Resources Legacy Fund and program officer for the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. He has also worked for the Rainforest Alliance and the Ford Foundation.

A voice for the environment

Craig McNamara, President of Sierra Orchards and the California State Board of Food and Agriculture

“Eric’s participation on the State Board of Food and Agriculture is critical in accomplishing the board’s mission of advising both the governor and the secretary of agriculture on all issues pertaining to California agriculture,” said Robert Craig McNamara, president of the California State Board of Food and Agriculture and Sierra Orchards, a diversified farming operation producing primarily organic walnuts.

Holst got to know McNamara about 10 years ago when he worked as a consultant to the Center for Land Based Learning, a nonprofit that McNamara founded.

“Craig has been an inspiration to me as someone who has found a way to be a great farmer while prioritizing environmental stewardship,” Holst said.

“As one of two board members representing the environmental community, Eric contributes significantly on issues pertaining to regulations, water and California’s continuing drought,” McNamara said. “We are very pleased that he will be serving another four year term on the board."

California’s farmers, ranchers and foresters provide numerous benefits to the people of California including food, fiber and numerous ecosystem benefits such as clean air and wildlife habitat.

“I am grateful for the opportunity to continue representing these interests and to bringing wider-recognition to the multiple environmental benefits provided by California’s working lands,” Holst said.

 

By Alisha Renfro, National Wildlife Federation & Jacques Hebert, National Audubon Society

Last week while some people on the Gulf Coast were in the thick of celebrating Mardi Gras, more than 1000 scientists, including those from the Restore the Mississippi River Delta campaign, met in Houston, Texas, to attend the third-annual Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference. The four-day conference, which included a mix of keynotes and oral and poster presentations, aimed to share scientific information and forward scientific understanding of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and particularly the impact of oil pollutants on this fragile ecosystem. Nearly five years since the BP oil spill, the takeaway is clear: The effects of the oil spill on the Gulf ecosystem are far-reaching, ongoing and significant.

Here are three key highlights from last week’s conference:

1. The impact is far-reaching: Research ranging from the deep sea to Gulf shoreline estuaries has documented significant impacts of the oil spill on ecosystems and on different animal and plant life.
2. The impact is ongoing: Recent research has found a large amount of the oil discharged during the spill can still be found in offshore sediments. Storms, like Hurricane Isaac in 2012, redistribute oil into previously unoiled marshes and wash sandy tar balls onto beaches.
3. The impact is significant: The rate of marsh shoreline erosion increased with oiling and continued impacts on marshes have been documented at least four years after the spill.

And for more, don’t miss some of the media coverage that came out of the conference:

1. Los Angeles Times: “BP cherry-picks study to dodge blame for massive deaths of gulf dolphins”
2. Houston Chronicle: “Studies: BP spill reduced Gulf life”
3. Houston Public Media: “Houston Conference Highlights Scientific Research On Deepwater Oil Spill Damage”

Want to learn about efforts to provide meaningful restoration in the ongoing wake of the BP oil spill? Visit mississippiriverdelta.org, like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter. You can also share this post with your network using the following tweet:

• 5 years later, major oil spill science conference tells us BP effects are evident and ongoing: http://www.mississippiriverdelta.org/blog/2015/02/26/five-years-later-scientists-gather-to-assess-ongoing-impact-of-bp-oil-spill/ #GulfScienceConference