Aggregator

By Peter Sopher

Why invest? To make money.

People don’t invest in an industry to save the world or promote a cause; they invest because they believe the amount they put in will ultimately be returned to them as a much greater sum.

You’ve got to spend money to make money and, when it comes to clean energy, there is a lot of money to be made. Here are five reasons clean energy investment will continue its positive performance in 2015 and beyond.

1. Clean energy investment has been – and continues to be – on the rise

Recent buzz around clean energy investment has centered on a new Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) report detailing the global clean energy industry’s strong 2014 investment results, results that even “beat expectations”.  While 2004-2014 saw an extended recession and high unemployment for the global economy, clean energy investment grew five-fold during those 10 years, up from $60.2 billion in 2004 to an impressive $310 billion this past year, according to BNEF.

A proxy for this positive trend has also been the steady growth of U.S. venture capital investment in cleantech, up from $893 million (3.8 percent of total U.S. venture investment) in 2004 to $4.367 billion (14.9 percent of total U.S. venture investment) in 2013, according to Clean Edge Inc.

A strong start to 2015 indicates these trends will continue for the foreseeable future.  Just take a look at some of the transactions that have already taken place in the first weeks of this year:

• $250 million investment in U.S. residential solar by Morgan Stanley
• $350 million agreement between JP Morgan and SolarCity
• $195 million arrangement between Investec and SunRun
• Over $1.5 billion in investments by Google in various renewable energy projects

For further support of this trend, Deutsche Bank, among others, is bullish on solar investment’s 2015 prospects.

2. Wind and solar energy costs continue to drop precipitously

According to Lazard, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for solar and wind energy have decreased 78 percent and 58 percent, respectively, since 2009. It goes without saying that is huge. Also, according to BNEF, costs of solar PV modules have fallen in line with an ‘experience curve’ since 1976 – i.e. prices have declined by 24.2% with every doubling of cumulative capacity, and there are no signs of this trend losing steam.

As costs of wind, solar, and other forms of clean energy decline, improved economic viability will likely lead to growth in clean energy investment.

3. Clean energy investment in the developing world is growing explosively – and just getting started

As costs drop, renewables promise to catch and become even more desirable in the developing world. In 2014, growth in clean energy investment was most notable in a small sample of developing countries that hold some of the world’s largest populations, namely Brazil, China, and India, where growth was 88 percent, 32 percent, and 14 percent respectively. India got a vote of support from President Obama last week when he committed to help finance India’s ambitious goal to increase solar capacity by 33 times – a goal which will require $100 billion in global investments over the next seven years.

Among the many reasons clean energy resources are ideal for developing nations are:

• Many of these countries lack infrastructure for large, traditional power plants; and, distributed generation (like rooftop solar) requires far less infrastructure;
• Many developing countries are at sunny, equatorial latitudes, which are ideal for solar power; and
• In regions characterized by energy poverty, upscaling usage of renewables is far less politically sensitive because there are not established fossil-fuel lobbies fighting to preserve the status quo.

As renewable energy becomes increasingly popular in the developing world, global clean energy investment should benefit.

5 signs clean energy has been - and will continue to be - trending upward at an impressive rate...
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

4. Promising policy advances for clean energy integration

U.S. and global policy momentum is trending toward the creation of a global economy that is increasingly favorable toward renewable energy integration. This also bodes well for growth in clean energy investment. For example, in 2014, the United States and China – the world’s two largest economies – signed an accord in which each country agreed to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan – which could limit carbon emissions from existing power plants for the first time ever – is another promising policy advancement for clean energy. To meet these new requirements, utilities will need to increasingly turn to clean energy tools like renewables and energy efficiency, further driving demand and growth in these sectors. Furthermore, President Obama’s recent State of the Union address identified climate change as the single greatest threat to future generations, signaling an emphasis on climate policy in his final years in office.

5. Countries around the world are already seeing the benefits of clean energy adoption

Positive experiences from countries pursuing clean energy integration prove the viability of upscaling renewables, as well as provide motivation and blueprints for others to follow. For example, Germany is undergoing a major energy transition away from centralized, fossil-fueled electricity, and demonstrates a country that is proactively pursuing renewables integration can experience economic benefits. On top of improved grid reliability, Germany has also seen improved employment and macroeconomic conditions. Denmark – which Forbes recently ranked as the number one country for business – is also proactively transitioning to a power sector dominated by clean energy; wind generation now provides around 30 percent of the nation’s electricity. As more countries ramp up clean energy while maintaining strong economies, clean energy investment should grow.

While 2014 was an especially strong year for clean energy investment, it was not an outlier so much as an indication of what is to come. Investors, take note: clean energy has clearly been trending upward at an impressive rate. Money has and will continue to be made through the industry in 2015 and onward.

Image sources: LendingMemo.com; Bloomberg New Energy Finance; Lazard

More than 90% of the world’s 36 million fishers operate in small-scale fisheries—many of which are in developing countries. From sea to plate, these small-scale fisheries support more than 100 million jobs across the supply chain and produce half of the world’s seafood for local and global markets. But as the world’s population increases and […]

More than 90% of the world’s 36 million fishers operate in small-scale fisheries—many of which are in developing countries. From sea to plate, these small-scale fisheries support more than 100 million jobs across the supply chain and produce half of the world’s seafood for local and global markets. But as the world’s population increases and […]

By EDF Oceans

Belizean fisherman diving for conch and lobster. Photo credit: Jason Houston

By: Kendra Karr

More than 90% of the world’s 36 million fishers operate in small-scale fisheries—many of which are in developing countries. From sea to plate, these small-scale fisheries support more than 100 million jobs across the supply chain and produce half of the world’s seafood for local and global markets.

But as the world’s population increases and the demand for seafood rises, the supply for wild caught fish is plummeting. As a result, many small-scale fishing communities face job and food security threats and unfortunately lack access to the tools they need to sustainably manage their fisheries.

Developed by Environmental Defense Fund, a Framework for Integrated Stock and Habitat Evaluation (FISHE) equips fishermen and marine scientists with a swift, low-cost and highly effective method with which to assess and manage fisheries that lack sufficient fishing data.

“Tools that allow decisions to be made with limited data are important to small-scale fishing communities and the governments who are responsible for regulating catch rates,” said Peter McGrath, coordinator, Science Policy/Science Diplomacy Programme, The World Academy of Sciences. “FISHE is a great example of such a tool that can be a valuable resource, empowering small-scale fishers around the world.”

 

What gets measured, gets managed

Assessing the health of a fishery is the first step in achieving long-term sustainability. This starts with a “stock assessment”—a scientific snapshot of how many fish are in a specific body of water—which forms the basis for important decisions about how fisheries are managed.

About 80% of fish globally may come from fisheries lacking scientific assessments making them difficult to manage effectively. The main reason for this is cost. If data are available, a complex fishery assessment can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Collecting the rich streams of data and building the complex models necessary for conventional fishery assessment is not only expensive, but can be time-consuming and beyond the means of many fisheries, especially small-scale fisheries in developing countries.

FISHE pulls from leading research on “data-limited” methods and provides an easy six-step framework which allows users to conduct quick and inexpensive analyses that can provide the scientific basis for sustainable fisheries management.

How FISHE works

EDF developed FISHE over many years of working in fisheries lacking data in several different countries around the world. FISHE has already been used to inform the management of fisheries in Mexico, Spain, Cuba and Belize.

FISHE walks users through an easy to follow process that helps them to:

• Assess ecosystems: Determine the status of marine ecosystems, and assess their ability to support fishing.
• Prioritize fish populations based on vulnerability and status: Determine the relative vulnerability of fish populations and prioritize them for in-depth analysis.
• Apply data-limited assessment methods: Guidance is provided to help users select and apply methods, based on available data and management goals.
• Design management strategies to improve fishery sustainability: Different data-limited assessment outcomes call for different management tactics to ensure your fishery can support the needs of local communities.
• Collect missing data and manage adaptively: Improve and refine management measures as additional data are collected.

 

FISHE In Action

Mexican non-profit Niparajá has used the framework as it works to build the necessary conditions under which sustainable fisheries can be successful in the San Cosme-Punta Mechudo Corridor of Baja California.

“By using FISHE, we have a clear overview of data needs and how to move forward with our data collection efforts,” said Amy Hudson Weaver, coordinator, Marine Conservation Program, Niparajá. “The FISHE framework and EDF’s experts have been of great help throughout this process.”

In Belize, FISHE has set the stage for science based management of lobster and conch fisheries in the context of Managed Access, an innovative fishery management system. Under the system, fishing violations have dropped 60 percent in two managed-access sites and the country has committed to establishing a nationwide system.

 

Looking to the Future

The failure to use whatever data are available for management has been a big factor in the decline of thousands of fisheries. FISHE will help fisheries live up to their potential to feed the hungry, provide good jobs, strengthen communities and protect marine ecosystems.

To learn more about FISHE, visit http://fishe.edf.org/ and join us for our upcoming webinar on Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 1pm EST/10am PST.

By EDF Oceans

Belizean fisherman diving for conch and lobster. Photo credit: Jason Houston

By: Kendra Karr

More than 90% of the world’s 36 million fishers operate in small-scale fisheries—many of which are in developing countries. From sea to plate, these small-scale fisheries support more than 100 million jobs across the supply chain and produce half of the world’s seafood for local and global markets.

But as the world’s population increases and the demand for seafood rises, the supply for wild caught fish is plummeting. As a result, many small-scale fishing communities face job and food security threats and unfortunately lack access to the tools they need to sustainably manage their fisheries.

Developed by Environmental Defense Fund, a Framework for Integrated Stock and Habitat Evaluation (FISHE) equips fishermen and marine scientists with a swift, low-cost and highly effective method with which to assess and manage fisheries that lack sufficient fishing data.

“Tools that allow decisions to be made with limited data are important to small-scale fishing communities and the governments who are responsible for regulating catch rates,” said Peter McGrath, coordinator, Science Policy/Science Diplomacy Programme, The World Academy of Sciences. “FISHE is a great example of such a tool that can be a valuable resource, empowering small-scale fishers around the world.”

 

What gets measured, gets managed

Assessing the health of a fishery is the first step in achieving long-term sustainability. This starts with a “stock assessment”—a scientific snapshot of how many fish are in a specific body of water—which forms the basis for important decisions about how fisheries are managed.

About 80% of fish globally may come from fisheries lacking scientific assessments making them difficult to manage effectively. The main reason for this is cost. If data are available, a complex fishery assessment can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Collecting the rich streams of data and building the complex models necessary for conventional fishery assessment is not only expensive, but can be time-consuming and beyond the means of many fisheries, especially small-scale fisheries in developing countries.

FISHE pulls from leading research on “data-limited” methods and provides an easy six-step framework which allows users to conduct quick and inexpensive analyses that can provide the scientific basis for sustainable fisheries management.

How FISHE works

EDF developed FISHE over many years of working in fisheries lacking data in several different countries around the world. FISHE has already been used to inform the management of fisheries in Mexico, Spain, Cuba and Belize.

FISHE walks users through an easy to follow process that helps them to:

• Assess ecosystems: Determine the status of marine ecosystems, and assess their ability to support fishing.
• Prioritize fish populations based on vulnerability and status: Determine the relative vulnerability of fish populations and prioritize them for in-depth analysis.
• Apply data-limited assessment methods: Guidance is provided to help users select and apply methods, based on available data and management goals.
• Design management strategies to improve fishery sustainability: Different data-limited assessment outcomes call for different management tactics to ensure your fishery can support the needs of local communities.
• Collect missing data and manage adaptively: Improve and refine management measures as additional data are collected.

 

FISHE In Action

Mexican non-profit Niparajá has used the framework as it works to build the necessary conditions under which sustainable fisheries can be successful in the San Cosme-Punta Mechudo Corridor of Baja California.

“By using FISHE, we have a clear overview of data needs and how to move forward with our data collection efforts,” said Amy Hudson Weaver, coordinator, Marine Conservation Program, Niparajá. “The FISHE framework and EDF’s experts have been of great help throughout this process.”

In Belize, FISHE has set the stage for science based management of lobster and conch fisheries in the context of Managed Access, an innovative fishery management system. Under the system, fishing violations have dropped 60 percent in two managed-access sites and the country has committed to establishing a nationwide system.

 

Looking to the Future

The failure to use whatever data are available for management has been a big factor in the decline of thousands of fisheries. FISHE will help fisheries live up to their potential to feed the hungry, provide good jobs, strengthen communities and protect marine ecosystems.

To learn more about FISHE, visit http://fishe.edf.org/ and join us for our upcoming webinar on Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 1pm EST/10am PST.

By Anna Doty

EDF’s Innovators Series profiles companies and people across California with bold solutions to reduce carbon pollution and help the state meet the goals of AB 32.  Each addition to the series will profile a different solution, focused on the development of new technology and ideas.

Emily Kirsch calls herself a “solar-lifer.”  Kirsch came onto the solar scene by way of former Obama advisor Van Jones’ green jobs campaign in Oakland.  Now, as the co-founder and CEO of Oakland-based SfunCube—the world’s only solar-exclusive start-up business accelerator—Kirsch is growing California’s clean economy in an entirely new way and she knows that the future of solar is bright.

Nestled in the heart of downtown Oakland, SfunCube—Solar for Universal Need—is supporting a growing “solar ecosystem” of the most promising solar startups that are making the San Francisco Bay Area the nation’s epicenter for solar innovation and entrepreneurship.  Recently, I had the opportunity to talk with Emily Kirsch and some of the solar pioneers who are working at SfunCube to make universal access to solar a reality in California, throughout the US, and around the world.

In California today, there are over 1,889 solar companies that are part of the solar supply chain, creating more than 50,000 jobs—roughly a third of all the solar jobs in the country—and it is no coincidence.

Emily Kirsch, co-founder and CEO of SfunCube

“In California the solar industry now employs more people than many of the state’s major investor-owned utilities and it’s possible because of the policies that have been enacted here in California,” said Kirsch.  “The success of solar startups in SfunCube is possible because of California’s renewable policy wins.”

Business accelerators, like incubators, can play an important role in the lifecycle of start-up businesses.  Accelerators like SfunCube provide critical resources and a place for “creative collisions” that help businesses take off and establish a firm trajectory for sustainability and growth.  However, unlike other business accelerators that cover a wide range of industries, SfunCube hones in on a single industry – solar – allowing them to provide the best business development advisors, policy expertise, and synergistic community to solar entrepreneurs.

Once invited into the nine-month accelerator program, entrepreneurs get access to free office space, legal, financial and public relations services, networking events and contacts, and, of course, capital. In return, SfunCube takes a five percent equity stake in the company—ensuring the financial sustainability of SfunCube’s Accelerator, all while jump-starting new businesses and bringing their diverse solutions for cutting the “soft costs” of solar to market.

Who: SfunCube accelerates the success of solar entrepreneurs by providing the world’s most vibrant ecosystem for solar startups.

What: SfunCube supports 20 solar startups and 65 solar entrepreneurs in house along with 200 more startup employees in the US and around the world.

Where: Oakland, California

Why: SfunCube provides solar entrepreneurs the resources they need to scale and bring down soft costs in the solar sector—aiding California in meeting the goals of AB 32 and furthering their own mission of making solar the most affordable and abundant energy resource in the world.

With solar hardware becoming increasingly affordable, bringing down soft costs—such as those associated with marketing, financing, permitting, and installation—have been central to both private sector and federal efforts to expand solar access. New products and services aimed at cutting these expenses represent much of the growth in the solar sector in the last five years—and in this realm, too, California continues to be a national leader.

By driving down costs, SfunCube’s business development model is fueling growth in California’s increasingly sophisticated and competitive solar market and helping California achieve its ambitious AB 32 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.  And, with over 20 businesses in SfunCube at any given time, SfunCube offers real-time proof of the opportunity for new business models emerging as a result of California’s climate leadership.

Here’s one example: one of the first graduates from SfunCube’s accelerator program, BrightCurrent, had just 20 employees when they started the accelerator.  Now, nine months later, BrightCurrent has just hired its 100th employee and is the largest outsource retail solar provider in the entire US, funneling residential solar customers to installation companies throughout the country.

Prior to founding BrightCurrent, John Bourne worked for SunEdison, pioneer of the Power Purchase Agreement, the innovative financing mechanism that opened the doors to solar for millions of risk-averse customers for the first time and allowed the solar industry to mature.  Yet, even with the huge uptick in homes going solar, Bourne set his sights higher.

With the price of equipment and panels plummeting and zero-down leases offered by companies like SunEdison, in many parts of the country solar became cheaper than relying solely on the grid.  Still, 89% of homeowners were saying they would go solar, but couldn’t afford it.  “It was crystal clear to me then” said Bourne, “the problem was education.”

Across the nation, BrightCurrent is bringing that education directly to the customer in major solar retailers like Costco.  And, they’ve reduced customer acquisition costs by more than 30% for the solar installers that work with them, savings that can be passed onto customers, making solar more accessible and affordable than ever.

BrightCurrent, like many the companies within SfunCube’s fold, views California’s clean energy policies as a major reason to open up shop within the state.  “The solar industry tracks the policy landscape,” said Bourne.  “And stability in clean energy policy is a critical consideration for us in growing, hiring, and investing in our business.  In California right now, we are a job-engine.”

The success of SfunCube businesses like BrightCurrent demonstrates that SfunCube’s accelerator model can work and that lawmakers’ getting the policy right is critical to its success.  As other states and nations begin adopting versions of California’s clean energy policies, SfunCube is also looking to replicate its model, bringing the products and services of its entrepreneurs to cities across the globe.

For now, Emily Kirsch knows that California, with its groundbreaking climate legislation, has provided SfunCube its first and best opportunity to realize the vision of a clean energy future.  “AB 32 is it,” said Kirsch.  “It’s the cornerstone for clean energy policy in California, it’s the platform that makes our work possible, and it’s moving us toward our vision that, in less than 30 years, solar will be the most affordable and abundant energy resource in the world.”

Please note that EDF has a standing corporate donation policy and we accept no funding from companies or organizations featured in this series.  Furthermore, the EDF California Innovators Series is in no way an official endorsement of the people or organizations featured, or their business models and practices.

By Beia Spiller

In the U.S., the electricity sector accounts for over a third of the country’s yearly greenhouse gas emissions, contributing more to climate change than any other sector, including transportation.

Furthermore, electricity costs have increased dramatically over the years, and are projected to continue their upward trend. Utilities and regulators have made great strides in promoting renewable energy, increasing the efficiency of the power grid, and reducing harmful pollution. However, customers, too, can be part of the solution by better managing their use of electricity – especially during those times when it is most expensive and dirty to produce.

Electricity is more expensive during ‘critical peaks’

The cost of producing electricity – and the carbon emissions associated with it – varies significantly throughout the day, depending on electricity demand at any point in time. For example, when a heat wave occurs and many customers begin cooling their homes after work, demand skyrockets and creates what is known as a ‘critical peak.’

In order to meet this increased demand, the most expensive power plants – which remain unused for most of the year and generally tend to emit more pollution – are turned on. Enabling customers to curb their electricity use during these heat waves could offset the need for these dirty, expensive plants, resulting in lower prices and less harmful pollution. Customers could, for example, set their air conditioner at a temperature a few degrees warmer or run large appliances such as dishwashers, washing machines, and dryers outside of the times most people are using electricity.

The dirty secret about electricity: it’s cheaper and cleaner by time of day www.edf.org/cQq
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

Unfortunately, most customers aren’t provided with information on when these critical times occur and have little to no incentive to curb their demand during these times because they are neither rewarded for doing so, nor penalized when they don’t. Instead, they pay the same price for electricity used at all times of day, irrespective of heat waves or other periods of high electricity demand.

Time-variant electricity pricing

Many utilities have begun to realize that this type of pricing is hardly efficient. Pricing electricity in a way that reflects its true cost can help utilities reduce overall costs and pass these lower prices onto customers. For example, utilities can charge customers different rates at different times of the day or throughout the month – this is known as ‘time-variant electricity pricing’.

This type of pricing allows customers to have greater control over their electricity bill. By reducing electricity use during times when it’s more expensive to produce, they can take advantage of cheaper electricity being offered at other times. Furthermore, environmentally-conscious customers can reduce their carbon emissions by timing their electricity use. Essentially, time-variant pricing empowers electricity customers by bringing them into the market and allowing them to affect it with their behavior: if we would all shift away from periods of high demand, electricity prices would fall for everyone.

Below are several different types of time-variant electricity pricing:

• Real-time pricing (RTP) – In this type of pricing, electricity rates vary frequently over the course of the day. Rates change over very short intervals – such as an hour – and the customer receives a unique price signal for each interval, reflecting the costs of generating electricity during that time. Generally, this type of pricing is used for larger commercial customers, who are better suited to respond to such high price variability. They may, for example, use technologies that turn off machines when prices rise above a certain limit. In New York, large commercial customers face mandatory hourly pricing. However, two Illinois utilities, Commonwealth Edison and Ameren, have begun to implement RTP for residential customers. This type of pricing requires a smart meter, which provides detailed electricity use data throughout the day, allowing the utility to measure and record energy use during each hour.

• Time-of-use pricing (TOU) – The most commonly utilized form of time-variant pricing, TOU pricing breaks up the day into two or three large intervals and charges a different price for each. Rates can be divided into off-peak prices (generally during the middle of the night to early morning), semi-peak prices (daytime and evening), and peak prices (occurring during periods of highest demand, usually afternoon/early evening); these rates remain fixed day-to-day over the season. This simple method of pricing encourages customers to shift their electricity use away from times of the day when demand is higher. However, it does not necessarily encourage reduced electricity use during critical peak times over the year, such as during heat waves. Most utilities throughout the country have a voluntary TOU rate available to customers, although overall, adoption has remained low.

• Critical peak pricing (CPP) – With this type of pricing, customers receive a signal (such as an email, text, or phone call) advising them that the price of electricity will increase dramatically in the next day or even in coming hours. The customer can avoid paying high prices by reducing electricity use during these periods of high demand and benefit from a slightly lower, off-peak price relative to the flat rate. Critical peak pricing has been implemented by several utilities (for example, Oklahoma Gas &Electric, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and Arizona Public Service) across the country, either through pilot programs or new rate structures, with high levels of success. In some pilot programs, customers reduced their electricity use during these critical peaks by as much as 50 percent when they had access to enabling technologies such as air conditioning units that automatically respond to price signals.

• Critical peak rebate (CPR) – Similar in nature to CPP, in this case, the utility pays the customer for each kilowatt hour of electricity they are able to reduce relative to the amount they normally use during critical peak times. These rebates have been rolled out or made available to all customers in Washington DC and Baltimore after exhibiting success in prior pilot programs.

As the above descriptions indicate, there are a number of sophisticated pricing programs that can better reflect the true cost of electricity. They can even be grouped together: for example, CPP and CPR rates can be layered on top of TOU rates, helping to combat the regular peaks that occur every day (when customers come home or when businesses are in full swing) while also dealing with the more rare critical peak moments, such as during heat waves.

Although time-variant electricity pricing is still not widely available across the country, more utilities and customers are waking up to the benefits of pricing electricity differently by time of day, month, and year. They realize the clean energy future is now, and dynamic rate structures are an important element of this future where people, not power plants, are fueling our energy system.

By Beia Spiller

In the U.S., the electricity sector accounts for over a third of the country’s yearly greenhouse gas emissions, contributing more to climate change than any other sector, including transportation.

Furthermore, electricity costs have increased dramatically over the years, and are projected to continue their upward trend. Utilities and regulators have made great strides in promoting renewable energy, increasing the efficiency of the power grid, and reducing harmful pollution. However, customers, too, can be part of the solution by better managing their use of electricity – especially during those times when it is most expensive and dirty to produce.

Electricity is more expensive during ‘critical peaks’

The cost of producing electricity – and the carbon emissions associated with it – varies significantly throughout the day, depending on electricity demand at any point in time. For example, when a heat wave occurs and many customers begin cooling their homes after work, demand skyrockets and creates what is known as a ‘critical peak.’

In order to meet this increased demand, the most expensive power plants – which remain unused for most of the year and generally tend to emit more pollution – are turned on. Enabling customers to curb their electricity use during these heat waves could offset the need for these dirty, expensive plants, resulting in lower prices and less harmful pollution. Customers could, for example, set their air conditioner at a temperature a few degrees warmer or run large appliances such as dishwashers, washing machines, and dryers outside of the times most people are using electricity.

The dirty secret about electricity: it’s cheaper and cleaner by time of day www.edf.org/cQq
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

Unfortunately, most customers aren’t provided with information on when these critical times occur and have little to no incentive to curb their demand during these times because they are neither rewarded for doing so, nor penalized when they don’t. Instead, they pay the same price for electricity used at all times of day, irrespective of heat waves or other periods of high electricity demand.

Time-variant electricity pricing

Many utilities have begun to realize that this type of pricing is hardly efficient. Pricing electricity in a way that reflects its true cost can help utilities reduce overall costs and pass these lower prices onto customers. For example, utilities can charge customers different rates at different times of the day or throughout the month – this is known as ‘time-variant electricity pricing’.

This type of pricing allows customers to have greater control over their electricity bill. By reducing electricity use during times when it’s more expensive to produce, they can take advantage of cheaper electricity being offered at other times. Furthermore, environmentally-conscious customers can reduce their carbon emissions by timing their electricity use. Essentially, time-variant pricing empowers electricity customers by bringing them into the market and allowing them to affect it with their behavior: if we would all shift away from periods of high demand, electricity prices would fall for everyone.

Below are several different types of time-variant electricity pricing:

• Real-time pricing (RTP) – In this type of pricing, electricity rates vary frequently over the course of the day. Rates change over very short intervals – such as an hour – and the customer receives a unique price signal for each interval, reflecting the costs of generating electricity during that time. Generally, this type of pricing is used for larger commercial customers, who are better suited to respond to such high price variability. They may, for example, use technologies that turn off machines when prices rise above a certain limit. In New York, large commercial customers face mandatory hourly pricing. However, two Illinois utilities, Commonwealth Edison and Ameren, have begun to implement RTP for residential customers. This type of pricing requires a smart meter, which provides detailed electricity use data throughout the day, allowing the utility to measure and record energy use during each hour.

• Time-of-use pricing (TOU) – The most commonly utilized form of time-variant pricing, TOU pricing breaks up the day into two or three large intervals and charges a different price for each. Rates can be divided into off-peak prices (generally during the middle of the night to early morning), semi-peak prices (daytime and evening), and peak prices (occurring during periods of highest demand, usually afternoon/early evening); these rates remain fixed day-to-day over the season. This simple method of pricing encourages customers to shift their electricity use away from times of the day when demand is higher. However, it does not necessarily encourage reduced electricity use during critical peak times over the year, such as during heat waves. Most utilities throughout the country have a voluntary TOU rate available to customers, although overall, adoption has remained low.

• Critical peak pricing (CPP) – With this type of pricing, customers receive a signal (such as an email, text, or phone call) advising them that the price of electricity will increase dramatically in the next day or even in coming hours. The customer can avoid paying high prices by reducing electricity use during these periods of high demand and benefit from a slightly lower, off-peak price relative to the flat rate. Critical peak pricing has been implemented by several utilities (for example, Oklahoma Gas &Electric, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and Arizona Public Service) across the country, either through pilot programs or new rate structures, with high levels of success. In some pilot programs, customers reduced their electricity use during these critical peaks by as much as 50 percent when they had access to enabling technologies such as air conditioning units that automatically respond to price signals.

• Critical peak rebate (CPR) – Similar in nature to CPP, in this case, the utility pays the customer for each kilowatt hour of electricity they are able to reduce relative to the amount they normally use during critical peak times. These rebates have been rolled out or made available to all customers in Washington DC and Baltimore after exhibiting success in prior pilot programs.

As the above descriptions indicate, there are a number of sophisticated pricing programs that can better reflect the true cost of electricity. They can even be grouped together: for example, CPP and CPR rates can be layered on top of TOU rates, helping to combat the regular peaks that occur every day (when customers come home or when businesses are in full swing) while also dealing with the more rare critical peak moments, such as during heat waves.

Although time-variant electricity pricing is still not widely available across the country, more utilities and customers are waking up to the benefits of pricing electricity differently by time of day, month, and year. They realize the clean energy future is now, and dynamic rate structures are an important element of this future where people, not power plants, are fueling our energy system.

By Elena Craft, PhD

Smog over Dallas Skyline Source: WikiCommons/Turn685

This Thursday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), will hold hearings across the country on the proposed updates to our national smog (ground-level ozone) standards from their current level of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 65 to 70 ppb. Exacerbated by the combustion of fossil-fuel power plants and car exhaust, ground-level ozone is the single most widespread air pollutant in the United States and is linked to severe respiratory health outcomes. For an industrious and populous state like Texas, ozone poses a great threat to public health. In Texas, the hearing will take place from 9 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. local time at Arlington City Hall.

Does the proposal go far enough?

While EDF supports EPA’s proposal to strengthen these critical health protections, we believe that going even further, to 60 ppb, would provide the strongest protections for Americans and would be in line with what leading medical associations like the American Lung Association recommend.

New Blog Post: EPA to Host an Ozone Hearing in Arlington, TX and You’re Invited #TXcleanair
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

What is the issue?

Smog is a dangerous air pollutant that is linked to premature deaths, asthma attacks, and other serious heart and lung diseases. It is estimated that more than 140 million people live in areas with unhealthy levels of smog pollution and Texas is home to several counties with the worst ozone pollution in the nation. The very air we breathe is putting us at risk for adverse health outcomes such as premature deaths, increased asthma attacks and other severe respiratory illnesses, as well as increased emergency room and hospital admissions.

How can we get there?

America has decades of experience innovating to clean up the air in a highly cost-effective manner and can do so again to reduce smog pollution. From the Tier 3 tailpipe standards to the proposed Clean Power Plan, which would set the first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants, the air across the country is becoming cleaner, showing us that we can have healthy air and a strong economy.  In Houston, for example, we estimate that ozone in the region is declining each year thanks to important air regulations such as the Cross State Air Pollution Rule and Clean Car Standards.

If Texas expects to attract the best and brightest in talent and to earn a reputation of a vibrant, healthy city, the state must demonstrate a commitment to protecting the environment, including embracing public health protections. As the energy capital of the country, Texas has proven time-and-time again that it has the ingenuity to innovate and thrive economically without sacrificing one of our most precious resources, clean air.

What can you do?

Attend EPA’s hearing and voice your support for strong clean air standards. A strong smog standard will help ensure Americans know whether the air they are breathing is safe and drive much-needed pollution reductions. Our communities, our families, and our children are counting on EPA’s leadership in setting a strong ground-level ozone standard. Sign up to tell EPA that you support clean air across the country!

By Elena Craft, PhD

Smog over Dallas Skyline Source: WikiCommons/Turn685

This Thursday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), will hold hearings across the country on the proposed updates to our national smog (ground-level ozone) standards from their current level of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 65 to 70 ppb. Exacerbated by the combustion of fossil-fuel power plants and car exhaust, ground-level ozone is the single most widespread air pollutant in the United States and is linked to severe respiratory health outcomes. For an industrious and populous state like Texas, ozone poses a great threat to public health. In Texas, the hearing will take place from 9 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. local time at Arlington City Hall.

Does the proposal go far enough?

While EDF supports EPA’s proposal to strengthen these critical health protections, we believe that going even further, to 60 ppb, would provide the strongest protections for Americans and would be in line with what leading medical associations like the American Lung Association recommend.

New Blog Post: EPA to Host an Ozone Hearing in Arlington, TX and You’re Invited #TXcleanair
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

What is the issue?

Smog is a dangerous air pollutant that is linked to premature deaths, asthma attacks, and other serious heart and lung diseases. It is estimated that more than 140 million people live in areas with unhealthy levels of smog pollution and Texas is home to several counties with the worst ozone pollution in the nation. The very air we breathe is putting us at risk for adverse health outcomes such as premature deaths, increased asthma attacks and other severe respiratory illnesses, as well as increased emergency room and hospital admissions.

How can we get there?

America has decades of experience innovating to clean up the air in a highly cost-effective manner and can do so again to reduce smog pollution. From the Tier 3 tailpipe standards to the proposed Clean Power Plan, which would set the first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants, the air across the country is becoming cleaner, showing us that we can have healthy air and a strong economy.  In Houston, for example, we estimate that ozone in the region is declining each year thanks to important air regulations such as the Cross State Air Pollution Rule and Clean Car Standards.

If Texas expects to attract the best and brightest in talent and to earn a reputation of a vibrant, healthy city, the state must demonstrate a commitment to protecting the environment, including embracing public health protections. As the energy capital of the country, Texas has proven time-and-time again that it has the ingenuity to innovate and thrive economically without sacrificing one of our most precious resources, clean air.

What can you do?

Attend EPA’s hearing and voice your support for strong clean air standards. A strong smog standard will help ensure Americans know whether the air they are breathing is safe and drive much-needed pollution reductions. Our communities, our families, and our children are counting on EPA’s leadership in setting a strong ground-level ozone standard. Sign up to tell EPA that you support clean air across the country!

No ‘compelling evidence’ BP oil spill sickened cleanup workers, Gulf Coast residents witness testifies
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 27, 2015
“There is ‘no compelling evidence’ the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill damaged the health of cleanup workers and Gulf Coast residents, and there is no reason to believe longer-term studies will expose chronic illnesses linked to the disaster, a public health expert testified Monday (Jan. 26).” (Read More)

Expert witness testifies to BP’s ‘extraordinarily effective’ oil spill response
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 26, 2015
“BP conducted an "extraordinarily effective response" to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, rapidly mobilizing people, equipment and a wide range of cleanup measures to prevent oil from washing ashore, an oil spill response expert testified Monday (Jan. 26).” (Read More)

Supreme Court won’t take BP exec appeal of charge in oil spill, news service reports
By Andy Grimm, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 26, 2015
“The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from BP executive David Rainey, a move that means Rainey will face an additional count of lying to Congress about the amount of oil that gushed from the failed Macondo well in the devastating 2010 spill, Reuters reported.” (Read More)
 
Here’s your chance to help save wetlands
By Jonathan Olivier, Daily Comet. Jan. 26, 2015
“Residents are invited Wednesday to share ideas that might help save Louisiana’s eroding wetlands. State officials have scheduled a public forum for 9 a.m. at Houma’s Main Library.It will be led by members of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act board, which funds construction of coastal restoration projects.” (Read More)

No ‘compelling evidence’ BP oil spill sickened cleanup workers, Gulf Coast residents witness testifies
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 27, 2015
“There is ‘no compelling evidence’ the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill damaged the health of cleanup workers and Gulf Coast residents, and there is no reason to believe longer-term studies will expose chronic illnesses linked to the disaster, a public health expert testified Monday (Jan. 26).” (Read More)

Expert witness testifies to BP’s ‘extraordinarily effective’ oil spill response
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 26, 2015
“BP conducted an "extraordinarily effective response" to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, rapidly mobilizing people, equipment and a wide range of cleanup measures to prevent oil from washing ashore, an oil spill response expert testified Monday (Jan. 26).” (Read More)

Supreme Court won’t take BP exec appeal of charge in oil spill, news service reports
By Andy Grimm, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 26, 2015
“The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from BP executive David Rainey, a move that means Rainey will face an additional count of lying to Congress about the amount of oil that gushed from the failed Macondo well in the devastating 2010 spill, Reuters reported.” (Read More)
 
Here’s your chance to help save wetlands
By Jonathan Olivier, Daily Comet. Jan. 26, 2015
“Residents are invited Wednesday to share ideas that might help save Louisiana’s eroding wetlands. State officials have scheduled a public forum for 9 a.m. at Houma’s Main Library.It will be led by members of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act board, which funds construction of coastal restoration projects.” (Read More)

By Christina Wolfe

Rep. Issac teaching fellow lawmakers about the TERP program and benefits.

Last week, I went to the Texas Capitol to show support for Representative Jason Isaac’s efforts to educate his fellow lawmakers on the importance of the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP). A diverse group of stakeholders, including Texas businesses, local governments, environmental groups, and others are calling on the Texas Legislature to 1) preserve an essential program that helps improve air quality in Texas, and 2) use the funds that have already been collected from Texas businesses and residents for their intended use – healthier air quality. Representative Isaac has jokingly referred to the unique coalition of industry, government, and environmental organizations as “dogs and cats living together,” but the solidarity is an important indication of both the success and importance of the TERP program to the health of Texans and our economy. But only if the State Legislation spends the funds already collected rather than keep the money in state coffers.

New Blog Post - Texas Lawmakers: Restore #CleanAir Funding and Do the Right Thing for Texas #TXlege
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

Created by the Texas Legislature in 2001, TERP has been instrumental in improving air quality in metropolitan areas in Texas. Since its inception, more than one billion dollars have been invested in cost-effective, voluntary grants to incentivize the replacement and disposal of old, dirty engines and equipment with new, cleaner models. These mobile sources alone account for 70-80 percent of the nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution in both Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth – one of the pollutants linked to harmful ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog. Thankfully, Texas lawmakers had the foresight to create a program that helps Texans breathe cleaner air and enjoy strong economic growth.

What is the problem, then?

For years, the Texas Legislature has withheld a significant portion of the collected money in order to balance the budget, rather than using the funds to improve air quality for Texas citizens and businesses. Using information provided by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, I estimate that only $0.46 of every dollar collected from heavy-duty truck owners and operators has been used for its original purpose. Nearly $1 billion in total—only half of what has been collected—has been withheld, instead of being used to improve air quality in Texas. Retaining close to 50 percent of the total taxpayer money collected for TERP has caused Texas to miss opportunities to meet clean air goals, like reducing ground-level ozone in the Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth regions, and may have endangered other areas that could fail to meet health standards.

What can Texas lawmakers do?

1. Immediately create an emergency appropriation of $300 million for turn-key TERP projects that could have been implemented had lawmakers fully funded the program.
   • Based on my calculations, this funding alone would reduce at least 30,000 – 40,000 tons of NOx pollution, representing nearly a quarter of the total NOx reductions achieved through the TERP program thus far. To help put it in perspective, this amount of pollution represents over 30 percent of the yearly NOx emitted from all the cars, trucks, and heavy-duty equipment sources in Houston or Dallas-Fort Worth.
2. Fairly match revenues to appropriations and use taxes and collected fees for their intended purpose.
   • Projected revenue for the 2014-2015 biennium is $359 million. This money could be used to target reductions in poor air quality areas that are working to prevent EPA nonattainment designation, in addition to improving air quality in areas with known air quality health risks.
3. Use Texas willpower and innovation to ensure our state meets science-based standards for healthy air quality, while saving businesses money and keeping Texas a great place to live.
   • Using TERP funding for cost-effective, clean air projects, like replacing dirty drayage trucks or construction equipment with more efficient models, fulfills the promise that legislators made to the people back in 2001. It’s time to turn that promise into a reality.

Last week, I went to the Texas Capitol to show support for Representative Jason Isaac’s efforts to educate his fellow lawmakers on the importance of the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP). A diverse group of stakeholders, including Texas businesses, local governments, environmental groups, and others are calling on the Texas Legislature to 1) preserve an […]

By Jeremy Symons

When the White House announced ambitious plans to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 45 percent, EDF President Fred Krupp called it a landmark move. And according, to a recent poll, 66 percent of Americans agree that strong federal standards are needed to safeguard our air from methane pollution, which is responsible for about a quarter of today’s warming. The oil and gas industry– the largest industrial source of this climate pollutant–wastes enough unburned methane each year to heat six million homes.

The plan has drawn widespread support among opinion leaders as well as industry experts.

Support in the states

Noting that the White House is effectively catching up to efforts already begun at the state level, the Denver Business Journal covered the announcement under the headline, “Obama wants to cut oil & gas methane emissions; Colorado did that a year ago.” The Denver Post went further, with an editorial noting that “the feds could learn a lot from the ways in which government, industry and environmentalists worked together in Colorado to craft strict yet reasonable regulations.” Indeed, Colorado was the first state to directly regulate oil and gas methane emissions with active support from the state’s largest oil and gas producers. The state’s plan could very well guide the national policy.

Wyoming also acted last year to address air emissions from oil and gas operations, leaving industry there much more sanguine about the new plan. John Robitaille of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming told Wyoming Public Radio that companies there are already ahead of the curve: “I believe that Wyoming is at the forefront of protecting air quality . . . EPA is catching up to Wyoming.”

Climate and beyond

The announcement is part of a broader effort by the administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Underscoring the urgency of addressing methane as part of that effort, The Los Angeles Times said “the attention to methane and other short-lived gasses is overdue but welcome.”

The White House proposal also targets volatile organic compounds, which escape along with methane and contribute to smog, trigger asthma attacks and cause other negative health effects. Touting the air quality improvements that would occur as a result of the proposed reduction targets, health advocates from the American Lung Association (ALA) matter-of-factly responded, “these pollutants threaten public health and we need strong steps to reduce their burden.”

Senator Tom Carper of Delaware also lauded the decision by emphasizing the impact the announcement would have on reducing waste of natural resource. “When methane emissions escape in energy production, we are wasting a limited energy resource and damaging our air. It’s a lose-lose.” True. Nearly $2 billion of gas is lost to the atmosphere every year as a result of methane leaks—enough to heat six million homes.

The Scranton Times-Tribune—published in heart of Pennsylvania’s gas-rich Marcellus Shale—focused on the feasibility of the 45 percent target: “That is reasonable because the technology is available to achieve it.”

Apogee Scientific, an engineering firm that produces some of the technologies that can be used to reduce methane leaks also weighed in. “We believe this EPA plan can be implemented in a cost effective manner and will create a cleaner environment for the United States, reduce waste and create jobs.”

What’s next?

The White House says an official rule proposal is coming this summer, where more specifics about how industry and state regulators are expected to meet the proposed targets will be unveiled. But it is unclear whether or not the rule will require emissions controls on existing equipment and facilities.

These emissions are critical to address — over the next few years, 90 percent of methane emissions will come from sources that are in place now, not from new sources. In a recent editorial, “A Modest Move on Methane”, the New York Times, drove this point home, “…if history is any guide, mandatory regulation of some sort will almost certainly be necessary [to cut emissions from existing sources].”

The administration’s continuous action to address climate change is noteworthy, but last week’s announcement is only the first step in the battle to reduce methane pollution, not the last. To protect communities, reduce waste and slow global warming, EDF will continue to advocate for the strongest measures possible to address methane emissions. And if the overwhelming support from business leaders, policy makers and others is any indicator, we won’t be the only ones.

Photo source: Getty Images

By Jeremy Symons

When the White House announced ambitious plans to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 45 percent, EDF President Fred Krupp called it a landmark move. And according, to a recent poll, 66 percent of Americans agree that strong federal standards are needed to safeguard our air from methane pollution, which is responsible for about a quarter of today’s warming. The oil and gas industry– the largest industrial source of this climate pollutant–wastes enough unburned methane each year to heat six million homes.

The plan has drawn widespread support among opinion leaders as well as industry experts.

Support in the states

Noting that the White House is effectively catching up to efforts already begun at the state level, the Denver Business Journal covered the announcement under the headline, “Obama wants to cut oil & gas methane emissions; Colorado did that a year ago.” The Denver Post went further, with an editorial noting that “the feds could learn a lot from the ways in which government, industry and environmentalists worked together in Colorado to craft strict yet reasonable regulations.” Indeed, Colorado was the first state to directly regulate oil and gas methane emissions with active support from the state’s largest oil and gas producers. The state’s plan could very well guide the national policy.

Wyoming also acted last year to address air emissions from oil and gas operations, leaving industry there much more sanguine about the new plan. John Robitaille of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming told Wyoming Public Radio that companies there are already ahead of the curve: “I believe that Wyoming is at the forefront of protecting air quality . . . EPA is catching up to Wyoming.”

Climate and beyond

The announcement is part of a broader effort by the administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Underscoring the urgency of addressing methane as part of that effort, The Los Angeles Times said “the attention to methane and other short-lived gasses is overdue but welcome.”

The White House proposal also targets volatile organic compounds, which escape along with methane and contribute to smog, trigger asthma attacks and cause other negative health effects. Touting the air quality improvements that would occur as a result of the proposed reduction targets, health advocates from the American Lung Association (ALA) matter-of-factly responded, “these pollutants threaten public health and we need strong steps to reduce their burden.”

Senator Tom Carper of Delaware also lauded the decision by emphasizing the impact the announcement would have on reducing waste of natural resource. “When methane emissions escape in energy production, we are wasting a limited energy resource and damaging our air. It’s a lose-lose.” True. Nearly $2 billion of gas is lost to the atmosphere every year as a result of methane leaks—enough to heat six million homes.

The Scranton Times-Tribune—published in heart of Pennsylvania’s gas-rich Marcellus Shale—focused on the feasibility of the 45 percent target: “That is reasonable because the technology is available to achieve it.”

Apogee Scientific, an engineering firm that produces some of the technologies that can be used to reduce methane leaks also weighed in. “We believe this EPA plan can be implemented in a cost effective manner and will create a cleaner environment for the United States, reduce waste and create jobs.”

What’s next?

The White House says an official rule proposal is coming this summer, where more specifics about how industry and state regulators are expected to meet the proposed targets will be unveiled. But it is unclear whether or not the rule will require emissions controls on existing equipment and facilities.

These emissions are critical to address — over the next few years, 90 percent of methane emissions will come from sources that are in place now, not from new sources. In a recent editorial, “A Modest Move on Methane”, the New York Times, drove this point home, “…if history is any guide, mandatory regulation of some sort will almost certainly be necessary [to cut emissions from existing sources].”

The administration’s continuous action to address climate change is noteworthy, but last week’s announcement is only the first step in the battle to reduce methane pollution, not the last. To protect communities, reduce waste and slow global warming, EDF will continue to advocate for the strongest measures possible to address methane emissions. And if the overwhelming support from business leaders, policy makers and others is any indicator, we won’t be the only ones.

Photo source: Getty Images

By Jeremy Symons

When the White House announced ambitious plans to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 45 percent, EDF President Fred Krupp called it a landmark move. And according, to a recent poll, 66 percent of Americans agree that strong federal standards are needed to safeguard our air from methane pollution, which is responsible for about a quarter of today’s warming. The oil and gas industry– the largest industrial source of this climate pollutant–wastes enough unburned methane each year to heat six million homes.

The plan has drawn widespread support among opinion leaders as well as industry experts.

Support in the states

Noting that the White House is effectively catching up to efforts already begun at the state level, the Denver Business Journal covered the announcement under the headline, “Obama wants to cut oil & gas methane emissions; Colorado did that a year ago.” The Denver Post went further, with an editorial noting that “the feds could learn a lot from the ways in which government, industry and environmentalists worked together in Colorado to craft strict yet reasonable regulations.” Indeed, Colorado was the first state to directly regulate oil and gas methane emissions with active support from the state’s largest oil and gas producers. The state’s plan could very well guide the national policy.

Wyoming also acted last year to address air emissions from oil and gas operations, leaving industry there much more sanguine about the new plan. John Robitaille of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming told Wyoming Public Radio that companies there are already ahead of the curve: “I believe that Wyoming is at the forefront of protecting air quality . . . EPA is catching up to Wyoming.”

Climate and beyond

The announcement is part of a broader effort by the administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Underscoring the urgency of addressing methane as part of that effort, The Los Angeles Times said “the attention to methane and other short-lived gasses is overdue but welcome.”

The White House proposal also targets volatile organic compounds, which escape along with methane and contribute to smog, trigger asthma attacks and cause other negative health effects. Touting the air quality improvements that would occur as a result of the proposed reduction targets, health advocates from the American Lung Association (ALA) matter-of-factly responded, “these pollutants threaten public health and we need strong steps to reduce their burden.”

Senator Tom Carper of Delaware also lauded the decision by emphasizing the impact the announcement would have on reducing waste of natural resource. “When methane emissions escape in energy production, we are wasting a limited energy resource and damaging our air. It’s a lose-lose.” True. Nearly $2 billion of gas is lost to the atmosphere every year as a result of methane leaks—enough to heat six million homes.

The Scranton Times-Tribune—published in heart of Pennsylvania’s gas-rich Marcellus Shale—focused on the feasibility of the 45 percent target: “That is reasonable because the technology is available to achieve it.”

Apogee Scientific, an engineering firm that produces some of the technologies that can be used to reduce methane leaks also weighed in. “We believe this EPA plan can be implemented in a cost effective manner and will create a cleaner environment for the United States, reduce waste and create jobs.”

What’s next?

The White House says an official rule proposal is coming this summer, where more specifics about how industry and state regulators are expected to meet the proposed targets will be unveiled. But it is unclear whether or not the rule will require emissions controls on existing equipment and facilities.

These emissions are critical to address — over the next few years, 90 percent of methane emissions will come from sources that are in place now, not from new sources. In a recent editorial, “A Modest Move on Methane”, the New York Times, drove this point home, “…if history is any guide, mandatory regulation of some sort will almost certainly be necessary [to cut emissions from existing sources].”

The administration’s continuous action to address climate change is noteworthy, but last week’s announcement is only the first step in the battle to reduce methane pollution, not the last. To protect communities, reduce waste and slow global warming, EDF will continue to advocate for the strongest measures possible to address methane emissions. And if the overwhelming support from business leaders, policy makers and others is any indicator, we won’t be the only ones.

Photo source: Getty Images

Written by Diane MacEachern

Many of us have kids whose asthma gets markedly worse when it’s smoggy outside. But I’ve noticed that bad air makes my pets sick, too. Until a few months ago I had a wonderful mutt named, Heaven. I still have a spunky cat named, Nike. Both of them struggled during the smoggy summer months, or anytime the air was particularly thick with car exhaust and emissions from power plants and other industrial sources.

That’s one of the reasons why I support MCAF’s efforts to get the EPA to strengthen the standards that limit our exposure to smog. Those same standards will protect my pets!

Like people, pets can develop a wide variety of chronic ailments when they breathe bad air — they wheeze and cough and find it difficult to breathe. I noticed with my own pooch that her energy levels went way down when I took her out on a smoggy day. Her head dropped, her tail flopped, and she had no zip in her trot whatsoever. It got to the point where, on days when air quality was particularly bad, I’d walk her as early in the morning as possible, skip the afternoon altogether, and not take her out again until the sun went down.

Veterinarians have been noting the negative impact polluted air has on dogs, cats, rabbits, birds and other pets for decades. Research backs them up.

As long ago as 1948, intense smog in Donora, Pennsylvania made at least 15% of the dogs in the community ill, with some dying. Two years later, in 1950, smog in Poza Rica, Mexico sickened many pets, especially canaries, 100% of which died. In Los Angeles in 1955, vets began linking air pollution to signs of ocular (related to eyes) and upper respiratory tract irritation among dogs and pet birds.

As recently as January 7, 2014, Utah’s Herald Extra reported that cats and small dogs are susceptible to allergies, bronchitis and other ailments exacerbated by poor air quality.

Utah County Resident Bobbie Echols said this about her cat Mia, “When the air is really bad, she coughs more.”

Meanwhile, various laboratories have tested the impact of exposure to sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide, ozone and nitrogen dioxide – all components of smog –on dogs, cats, rabbits, mice and guinea pigs. Their findings? Smoggy air harms’ our small furry friends’ lungs, even to the point of causing hemorrhaging and death.

MCAF’s Ronnie Citron-Fink has noted that her own cat, reacts like Bobbie Echols’ Mia. “My cat can’t stop sneezing. Visitors find this beyond gross. I find this beyond gross. I’m pretty sure it’s feline asthma. Air pollution triggers asthma and other respiratory ailments in cats, just as it does in humans.”

Abbie Walston, an MCAF contributor, grew up on a farm, with horses, sheep, dogs, cats, calves, llamas, and even a pet deer named Bambi. “We’re animals, too, so we should realize that if the animals get sick from air pollution, so can we. Remember the “canary in the coal mine” that indicated to miners that the air was dangerous? Smaller animals who display sensitivities to toxins should be considered warning signs of the damaging human health effects. I personally choose to abide by the precautionary principle and avoid substances that are dangerous to smaller animals.”

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Panel is taking that precautionary principle into account as well. That’s why it is recommending that EPA tighten the allowable level of smog NOT to 65-70 parts per billion (ppb), which is what they propose, but to 60 ppb. Moms Clean Air Force strongly agrees. Please take a moment to sign the petition below and post to your Facebook page.

We all need cleaner air – and so do our pets!


TELL EPA TO PROTECT LITTLE LUNGS FROM SMOG





Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Kelly Nichols, Moms Clean Air Force Illinois Field Manager:

Last week, as my 3 year-old girl “worked” behind me on my old computer, I plugged in my headphones and watched the previously recorded live stream of Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner’s inaugural address. I really wanted to see if the Governor would mention any of the issues that are most important to me — specifically, environmental concerns as they relate to the implementation of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and the fix of Illinois’ RPS mandate (Renewable Portfolio Standard).

The Governor spoke excitedly about the prospects for Illinois in terms that are popular with politicians — citing big changes, things being different than before and bipartisan leadership. I was left with a hopeful feeling — waiting for the words, “conservation” or “air quality” to be highlighted by the Governor. They weren’t.

I’d like to say I was surprised, but the fact is, Illinois is facing other big problems, like resolving our enormous budgetary shortfalls. While these are pressing issues, I’m not terribly shocked Governor Rauner didn’t bring climate change up in this 15 minute blip. Well, I’m not shocked, just concerned. Very concerned. It’s obvious to address financial issues, but I would argue that climate change is just as obvious. There are severe effects of climate change happening in Illinois. We have a large amount of children with asthma and other respiratory issues, and weather catastrophes are on the increase throughout the entire Midwest. In the current political climate, issues about climate change are hot button topics that keep coming back again and again.

Governor Rauner has previously mentioned his love for the outdoors; he once planned to get his degree in environmental studies, and has given large donations to various environmental organizations. As governors go, he appears to be more moderate, which makes me think – hope – pray — that he’ll play a bigger role in helping us coordinate with the national Clean Power Plan requirements. It will be interesting to see how Governor Rauner utilizes his new role as governor to support cleaning up Illinois’s dirty power sources.

Leaving out conservation from his comments, Governor Rauner leaves the future generations of Illinois behind. He talks about a brighter future. Part of making that future bright, and making Illinois a place where people don’t just want to live, but want to stay generation after generation, is by ensuring a higher quality of life. This means having legislation in place to protect our children from the harmful health effects of air pollution, and the negative health implications of climate change.

At Moms Clean Air Force, we believe partisan politics should not affect meaningful action on climate change. In Illinois, 13% of children suffer from asthma. That’s an unacceptably large amount of kids! The most serious effects are seen in the most vulnerable communities in and around Chicago and East St. Louis. Air pollution not only drives climate change, but it also contributes to smog, which can trigger asthma trigger, heart attacks, and respiratory illness.

If Governor Rauner’s dream includes making Illinois the kind of state others aspire to become, I think he should do it with the utilization of clean and renewable energy sources. We’ll be watching to see if he can put actions into words because Illinois families need leaders that truly want a “brighter future” — those that will act decisively to curb climate change to protect our children.


TELL EPA TO PROTECT LITTLE LUNGS FROM SMOG





Tell Congress to let the EPA do its job, and to support strong climate standards. Regional. C4.