Benchmarking and Local Law 84 – Urban energy planning writ large

It was a typically cold winter day in which commercial and residential buildings undoubtedly expended a great deal of energy for heating purposes.  With that backdrop, I recently attended an event held at the New York Institute of Technology entitled “How Knowledge Can Save Power” where a panel of experts discussed the motivations and prospects for New York’s Local Law 84 (LL84), for monitoring, measuring and publicly disclosing building energy performance.  The law stipulates that commercial and multifamily buildings must provide information on the amount of energy and water being used for benchmarking purposes. 

The Sallan Foundation, an environmental think tank, was one of the sponsors of the event. The panelists used their Friends of Benchmarking white paper on large building energy performance released the previous fall as the basis for an extended discussion on the current status and future prospects for energy benchmarking in the city.  Given that the report states that large buildings account for 75% of the city’s carbon emissions, a large environmental footprint to say the least, it makes perfect sense for the city to try and measure energy use in large buildings.  One may even wonder what took the city so long to enact such a law.

Perhaps a reflection of their professional and academic backgrounds, almost all the discussion focused exclusively on Manhattan buildings to the neglect of buildings in the other boroughs.  This represents a major flaw which I am sure the panelists, sponsors and city policymakers are actively looking to rectify.  Good policy and regulations cannot be formulated from insufficient data.  Data from one borough may have only limited application to another.

After listening for a good hour to the discussion, I was led to the conclusion that response to LL84 has been decidedly mixed, even apathetic.  Building owners, facilities managers, and custodians possess a conservative mindset and are prone to doing things to preserve the status quo.  Inertia sets in and they are reluctant to expand their responsibilities to collect the information necessary to become compliant with the regulations.  Interestingly enough, 95% of residents/tenants do not care much about energy savings – this is surely a surprising statistic especially since it is counterintuitive and doesn’t square with a supposedly growing environmental consciousness among the public.   In the cited surveys, residents and tenants are far more concerned with bread and butter issues such as the quality of schools, commute times, and rental costs.  Families are not really thinking about energy issues.

Not only are public attitudes standing in the way of greater energy savings.  Existing rules in the housing market play a part in slowing down or even defeating progressive energy planning.  Currently 40-45% of residential units are non-market or rent stabilized.  Capital improvements must be approved by housing boards and such improvements can take decades to realize.  The Energy star label is only for commercial buildings, not multi-family buildings.   No comprehensive data set exists for NYC buildings, but NYC does have more energy data on its buildings than any other city if this can be considered as positive.  The City has made no announcement yet, but maybe later this year it will unveil a plan on when and how this data will be collected.

Admittedly, limited progress is being made.  In a slowly improving local economy, rising rents can promote building improvements and staff hiring.  An injection of money  can go a long way toward improving energy planning in buildings.   Spreading the word on this regulation, making people more informed about it and talking to building owners is important and can be effective.  Nevertheless, a great deal of work lies ahead.

So what steps can the city take to gather a more comprehensive data set that would reflect and unleash the true power of LL84 to improve the city’s energy usage and efficiency measurements?  What incentives can be provided for building owners to conscientiously comply with LL84?

Problems which lie with the real estate industry need to be overcome.  There needs to be improvements and upgrades to monitoring and quality control.  For example, the measurement of gross square footage in buildings is inconsistent and inaccurate.  What is a building? A more accurate definition and the need to measure square footage accurately must be part of the plan moving ahead.  Technology in the form of mobile apps to provide builders, tenants, and owners with greater energy data must become more widely used.  Submetering to gather more detailed data, leases that incorporate energy savings, and upgrades to monitoring equipment are also part of the mix to enhance data gathering and energy efficiency.  On the legal and policy level, New York City could also borrow from California and mandate energy usage data when buildings are bought and sold and pass a similar law here.  On the energy side, NREL has some good papers and ideas on how to make buildings more energy-efficient and the adoption of such ideas would promote the underlying goals of LL84.  The spread of LEED certified buildings will also advance the effectiveness of LL84.  LL84 becomes another effective tool in NYC’s efforts to secure deep carbon reductions.

Pie in the sky? Fantasy? Two novel projects to supply power emerge but will they ever see the light of day?

Turning science fiction into science fact is often a question of time and money.  This past week Phys.org reported on two radical ideas to satisfy the world’s energy needs, one originating from an established Japanese industrial company and one from a British start-up company.  Whether or not these projects ever see the light of day, they are certainly creative and innovative.  However, whether they are feasible financially, environmentally or technologically is another matter entirely.

Power plant in the sky with drones (No, not Lucy in the sky with diamonds)

A start-up calling itself New Wave Energy proposes using drones to suspend generators at 50,000 feet to harness solar, wind and other energy sources and then beam the energy to receiving stations on land or sea wirelessly.  The drone platforms beam wireless energy through electromagnetic waves.  At the moment, the startup is trying to raise money through crowdfunding and lining up private investors through more traditional methods.  A demonstration of the technology will likely cost in the tens of millions of dollars (or euros as the case may be).

Intriguing as the proposal outlined is, there are questions that must be answered before anyone thinks this will be a viable solution to UK energy needs.  For example, how secure is the software to keep the drones in the air and the whole system functioning?  Is 50,000 feet high enough to avoid all violent weather phenomena such as storms, cyclones, tornadoes and the like? 

Ringing the moon with a giant solar collector

In Japan, Shimizu Corp. has announced an even more ambitious project to build a huge solar collecting ring around the moon to beam solar energy back to Earth. Called the LUNA RING project, it calls for the construction of a 250 mile wide solar array across the entire length of the moon’s equator (6,000 km).  The array beams energy to earth-based receiving stations through the use of laser and microwave technology.  According to the company, construction could begin as soon as 2035 and once the solar system is in place, it could generate 13,000 terawatts of power.  As it is their brainchild, no doubt Shimizu Corp., a large Japanese construction company, would play a major role in the construction of the project itself.

The report did not provide many important details such as what the cost of this gigantic project would be, how many rocket launches to the moon would be required to set up the array or how many earth receiving stations we would need to construct and where.  Who would benefit from all this power?  How would power be equitably distributed around the world?  

Both companies deserve to be applauded for innovative thinking and in the pursuit of greenhouse gas-free energy sources, we absolutely do not discourage creativity and out-of-the-box thinking.  In the energy field, there are always alternatives.  How will these projects compare to those alternatives and can they be more efficient and cost-effective?  Realistically speaking, the UK project may be plausible, but the Japanese project for all intents and purposes seems like wishful thinking.  Huge hurdles must be overcome, and in the meantime, there are more viable and realistic energy solutions available right here on terra firma. 

Yes to more renewables and energy efficiency. As for nuclear power, maybe, maybe not.

In the wake of nuclear incidents and accidents, the case for nuclear power has become a highly contentious one.  A few days ago several prominent climate scientists with well-established environmental credentials issued a letter stating unequivocally that the world needs nuclear power in the fight to avoid catastrophic climate change.  The four scientists who authored the letter are:

Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute

Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, the National Center for Atmospheric Research

Distributed to various organizations and journalists, the letter is clearly stated, brief and to the point.  It is certainly not an essay or journal article by any stretch of the imagination.  One interesting note is that the phrase “safer nuclear energy systems” is mentioned three times in the letter.  The letter argues that we should make use of our 21st century knowhow in nuclear energy systems to minimize any problems associated with its use. 

Not trying to sound ambiguous, but my position on nuclear energy is a developing one, shifting with the strength of the arguments nuclear specialists present.  On some days I may side with Amory Lovins and on other days I may side with Bill Gates.  Some may find this unpopular, but I concur with the spirit of their opinion and I believe nuclear energy can be an important weapon in the climate change battle.  In pursuing the lofty goal of zero emissions, I believe wind, solar, energy efficiency and nuclear power are all complementary.

Splitting the atom to create power represents a major human achievement.  Nuclear energy is essential from a science and research perspective.  We should continue research into thorium reactors and fusion reactors and see where that technology may lead us.  Strong regulatory oversight as well as strict standards can substantially reduce any issues associated with proliferation, safety or storage.  Moreover, technological innovations in the future may supply the answer to reducing the upfront costs of building a nuclear power plant.

This is not my last word on nuclear power and I will certainly have more to say one way or another in the months and years ahead.  The climate scientists are certainly not climate change deniers and they have no ax to grind with fellow environmentalists over whether the world is undergoing global warming or sea level rises.  For them, nuclear energy can be a vital tool in the battle against disastrous climate change and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  Their goal is commendable, although the suggested method is subject to intense debate. 

A link to the letter can be found here.

Which way are you going? US CO2 emissions head down while developing world CO2 emissions head up.

Shopping malls often have down escalators and up escalators next to each other forming roughly an X figure.  People on one can see people on the other going in opposite directions as shoppers head to different floors.  Perhaps this observation may describe trends we are seeing with respect to aggregate national carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

An article in the October 21st edition of Phys.org reports that U.S. emissions are down on a percent basis by 3.8%, somewhat impressive given that the economy was not in a state of recession.  US CO2 emissions in 2012 were the lowest since 1994.  The EIA, the source of the information, attributed the decline to more energy-efficient cars on the road, a significant shift from burning coal to natural gas in power plants and warm winter weather.  Of the three reasons, it is reasonable to state that the weather will be the most variable factor going forward.  Cars will continue to get more mileage per gallon and the shift to sourcing more natural gas to produce electricity is unlikely to be reversed in the long-term as long as the markets price gas more cheaply than coal.

Historically large outputs of CO2 emissions have been associated with economic good times and any decreases in emissions reflect a shrinking or depressed economy where there is less need for electricity and power to keep the economic engine humming along.  The US remains the largest emitter on a per capita basis.  What the EIA did not mention as possible causes for the drop-off was simply a reduced demand from the economy as a whole and improvements in energy efficiency.  Again it is uncertain if electricity demand and consumption can continue to decline in a growing economy whereas energy efficiency improvements are gradually becoming built into many industries in the pursuit of sustainability goals.  Naturally, there is still a lot of work to done here.

As I have mentioned before and will continue to argue, this type of development may make Americans feel good about themselves in the climate change issue, but this is like winning a battle but losing the war.  Interestingly, America is doing this without a comprehensive national energy policy.  Climate change is a global issue and if the progress we make is offset by larger increases in other countries, the world will continue on its path to dangerous climate change. 

The EIA released projections in its biennial International Energy Outlook this past summer predicting that developing countries will eventually emit more CO2 than developed countries have done so to this point.  In fact, by 2040, China and India alone will emit 127% more CO2 than all OECD countries combined.  If, historically, developed countries have emitted well over fifty percent of total volume of carbon emissions, this pattern will change soon in the coming decades as developing countries, particularly the large ones such as China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and so forth, grow rapidly using energy sources predominately fossil fuel in nature.  Future studies will no doubt confirm this trend. 

Everyone must play their part, both historically large and current high volume polluters; on an aggregate level, China is now the world’s largest CO2 emitter having surpassed the US only a few years ago.  India, as it continues to industrialize, will soon become a large aggregate emitter as well.  If they do not reduce reliance on fossil fuels, particularly coal, as an energy source, emissions forecasts for the two countries will become reality.  And if they become reality, it could very well mean catastrophic climate change is inevitable regardless of whatever progress, actions and commitments other countries may make to combat the issue. 

Economy vs. the environment: The major energy question for every country to answer is how can a country increase its economic growth without a corresponding increase in carbon dioxide emissions?  The challenge will be to get everyone to lower emissions in a global and comprehensive manner.  Climate change talks must include this principle in any agreement.

The Truth is Still Inconvenient: The Global Reality of Climate Change and the Need for Urgent Solutions

Released in 2006, before the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on global climate, the documentary, “The Inconvenient Truth” is looking more and more prescient.  This past Friday the IPCC released its latest scientific report firmly validating almost to the final degree that existing climate change is a direct result of human activity, specifically our burning of fossil fuels resulting in an acceleration of harmful atmospheric and planetary effects.  Two more related reports will be issued in the first half of 2014, one on impact and adaptation and a final report on mitigation.

The summary for policymakers report focused on the accumulated scientific wisdom and revealed that: 

1) there is over a 95% certainty that humankind is responsible for climate change

2) the past three decades have been the warmest in recorded history

3) ocean and surface temperatures continue to warm; sea levels continue to rise

4) ice sheets in the north and south pole continue to recede and glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate

5) uneven rainfall across the globe, with dry regions getting less and wet regions getting more

6) CO2 and greenhouse gas levels continue to advance dangerously upwards

7) within a 1 Trillion ton global “carbon budget,” we have already burned through half of that budget.  I trillion tons represents the amount of CO2 we can release into the atmosphere while keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius.  At the current rate of burning we will breach the upper limit in a matter of a few decades and trigger irreversible climate change.

What is disturbing in the report is that climate change effects will be with us for several centuries to come.  “Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2.”

A few years ago I wrote about climate change impacts on the state of Hawaii.  Now we are witnessing far more instances of climate change effects around the world.   The report warns that less developed countries will be hit hardest and least able to cope with climate change.  An article in the Guardian, “Is the IPCC Right?  Just ask the Farmers,”  (9/27/2013) points out the common experience farmers are having around the world trying to cope with the impacts of climate change such as extreme weather and rising temperatures on crops and agriculture and having to deal with greater insect populations and insufficient rainfall.

Given the “unequivocal” nature of the problem, the chairman of the IPCC has called for massive market intervention to genuinely price carbon, factoring in its externality cost.  Carbon emissions must be priced high enough to force utilities and manufacturers to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Although the IPCC will release a more definitive set of solutions and mitigation plans next year, what novel solutions have been proposed lately and are any of them on a large enough scale to tip the balance in our favor?

To deal with the climate change threat, the Climate CoLab at MIT has started a competition seeking possible ideas and solutions.  Recently it announced the winners for this year’s climate change call to action competition.  Open to anyone (you do not need to be affiliated with MIT to participate) and in only its second year, it has already attracted 400 submissions from contestants around the world.  What is interesting about the competition is that they allow community members and the public to vote online for their favorite proposals, instead of just having selected judges do the screenings and selections on their own.  Accordingly, each category has a judges’ choice and a popular choice voted on by members of the community.

It is interesting to compare the solutions set forth by the winners of the MIT contest against the findings of the UN panel.  The contest creators set up 18 different categories to address various responses to the climate change challenge.  Without looking at each winning proposal in all the categories, I would like to name the categories I favor or ones that are most promising and will likely make an impact across national boundaries.  These areas encompass the electric power sector; scaling renewables in emerging economies; geoengineering; transportation efficiency; and urban adaptation: climate resilient cities.

The writers and authors of these great solutions to climate change impacts no doubt fall into the side of the scientists and authors of the IPCC report.

The report clearly refutes climate change deniers who claim that climate change is a natural, not man-made, phase in our current history and that evidence exists pointing to a gradual cooling of earth’s temperatures in recent times and in the years ahead.  Maybe this will be a wake up call for them.  Then again, maybe not as news reports over the past few days indicate almost of them are sticking to their guns.  Whether you believe that climate change is a result of our carelessness in spewing pollutants into the atmosphere or a natural cycle in earth’s course as it orbits around the sun, prudence should be screaming at you that something must be done to come to grips with climate change’s manifest environmental effects.  The report identifies the effects and we see it increasingly all around us.  Preparation is better than cure and it is certainly cheaper from a financial standpoint in the long run. 

Climate models continue to improve as more data is obtained from dedicated satellites and monitoring stations around the world.  In fact, these models played a crucial role in the formation of the latest IPCC report.

With the climate change problem at a boiling point, will the report make a difference among policymakers, business and the general public?  Will it lead to a global climate treaty in the next few years?  Just as the climate is having a greater impact on our lives, this report must have a proportional impact on our planning for the future.  As inhabitants of this world, will we take sufficient action to avert worldwide catastrophe in the coming decades and centuries?

 

The New Energy Secretary’s Policy Address – Practicality is the Order of the Day

Roughly two months after President Obama delivered a major energy and climate change address at the White House setting forth his agenda for the rest of his term, the new Energy Secretary, Ernest Moniz, charged with carrying out the President’s plan, gave a policy speech at Columbia University’s new Center on Global Energy Policy. 

Prior to his New York visit, Mr. Moniz was in New Jersey meeting with Governor Chris Christie to announce the building of a microgrid to power New Jersey Transit trains during severe storms and other adverse disasters or events.  No doubt this effort is a response to the fact that during Hurricane Sandy, New Jersey Transit trains were shut down due to a lack of power as a result of the storm.  Government authorities are speeding the introduction of measures to harden infrastructure and make them more resilient in the face of potentially more frequent and destructive weather activity.  Only time will tell if these measures are adequate.

During his address at Columbia, the energy secretary essentially covered the same ground as the President did two months earlier.  Right off the bat, Mr. Moniz was clear in stating climate change as fact, borne out by empirical evidence, and not subject to debate as many climate change deniers would prefer. Urgent policy action is needed as forecasts predict a three-foot rise in sea levels worldwide during this century.  The areas he emphasized included encouraging more energy efficiency, continuing to promote cost reduction in low-carbon energy generating sources like wind and solar, and – getting back to the New Jersey message – being attentative to climate preparedness and adaptation. 

One of the most interesting comments the energy secretary made was the bold statement that the administration’s energy plan is “not a war on coal.” In response to critics from the fossil fuel lobby, Mr. Moniz even stated that coal has a role to play at the energy table and that the department is working with the coal industry to create technologies that would allow coal to burn more cleanly.  In addition, the department has earmarked $6bn for further research into carbon capture and sequestration.  The efficacy, safety and practicality of entombing large quantities of carbon emissions underground remains in question.

It is always interesting to hear what is said and what is not said.  Perhaps as a function of the quality and discernment of the questions asked or what questions are filtered through, question and answer sessions often allow speakers to make more insightful comments.  For example, the secretary made no mention of whether he is in favor of renewing the license for the Indian Point nuclear power plant.  Nor did he tip the administration’s hand in its upcoming and eagerly awaited decision on whether to approve or reject the Keystone XL pipeline project. 

Practically speaking, the secretary mentioned that fossil fuels are still the main sources of energy in the economy accounting for over three-quarters of consumption.  As a substitute for coal, natural gas has played a major role in reducing America’s carbon footprint.  The continued increase in oil and gas production in the US will bring the country economic benefits and finally cut its dependence on imported oil.  Discoveries of undeveloped gas reservoirs around the world could have profound consequences on the global energy picture. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Energy prices and the need to encourage energy efficiency

Low energy prices can potentially discourage energy efficiency (EE) investments.  There is clearly price sensitivity between the two.  What that threshold is will vary based upon a company’s cost projections.   Market circumstances will influence whether it proceeds with making an investment in the short-term or wait until prices rise to a certain level in the longer term.   If energy is cheap and plentiful, a company may hold off on energy efficiency investments.  However, if energy costs are rising and supply appears tight, it may make sense to make those efficiency investments to offset the cost of rising energy prices.  Energy prices – especially high energy prices – act as a powerful factor to motivate a company to invest in energy efficient equipment and energy management applications.   The company must also figure out the cost of installing new or upgraded equipment and applications against continuing to use what it already has in its inventory.  Ultimately, a company, particularly an energy intensive one, must hedge against changing conditions and guard against a supply disruption or collapse. 

Natural gas prices have fallen over the past decade, yet we see increases in energy efficiency investments across the board.  Of course, not everything is run on natural gas, and the development of other sources of energy over the past decade must be taken into account to explain this resulting inverse relationship.   Prices may rise again.  The Energy Information Administration projects a modest increase in the price of natural gas in the US for 2014.  

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) this spring released a candid and forthright assessment of positive and negative developments in EE.  While its report acknowledged huge gains in EE in the past 40 years, it recognizes there are still significant barriers to spreading the benefits of EE.   In pursuit of this agenda, ACEEE recommends the following policies be taken to leverage market forces, overcome market barriers and further enhance EE:

1. Improve information and decision-making
2. Remove existing regulatory and legal barriers
3. Address externalities
4. Increase the importance energy use at the point of purchase
5. Reduce energy waste in government
6. Invest in more research and development
7. Enhance energy efficiency finance

Implementation of these measures could save over $1 trillion dollars in the economy by 2030 and 19 quadrillion BTU of energy in the same time frame. 

The mantra of the ACEEE is “energy efficiency is a key to economic prosperity and global competitiveness.”  Just this month, the ACEEE issued another report citing modest improvement in EE compared to last year on a list of 15 indicators. The report recognized the difficulty and complexity involved in macro level attempts to measure EE progress.  The report cites regional differences with some states ahead of others in making EE a policy priority.  More can be done especially with many states who have adopted no EE resource standards whatsoever.   Despite a dose of progress, the overall picture one gathers from the report is still a mixed one.

Mirroring somewhat the status in renewable energy, no comprehensive national EE policy exists and the country is dependent on a series of state standards to lead the way.  The US obviously needs to do a great deal more in this area, especially when compared to other countries like Germany, Japan or China.  The Federal government and other stakeholders must be more aggressive and pass requisite legislation to realize the potential of this underappreciated resource in trying to cut energy consumption and waste.  After the summer recess, Congress could take up this effort in any upcoming energy legislation if it has not already made a start on it.

Taking a slightly more optimistic and cutting edge view of the direction of EE, Greentech Media issued a report highlighting the innovations shaping the EE field.   Greentech Media reports that the internet, information technology and distributed energy are all transforming EE into something it calls “intelligent efficiency.”  Through data analytics, virtual energy assessments, web-based  monitoring tools, energy dashboards, and open access to information, the commercial, industrial and even building sectors are undergoing a fundamental change in how they operates.

Again, we see challenges ahead and the report recognizes there are still barriers to the adoption of greater EE among companies.  They include:

1. Lack of awareness of opportunities for energy savings.
2. Lack of technical expertise to design and complete projects.
3. Lack of certainty that promised savings will be achieved.
4. Inability of projects to meet the organization’s payback criteria.
5. Lack of available capital for investment in projects.

There is certainly a great deal happening in this area.  The joining of energy management software with built physical systems is an exciting development that merits further attention.  Throwing a huge amount of energy data onto the internet will obviously present an enormous security challenge that energy companies will need to address.  Companies and organizations would certainly not want to see someone hack into their data, poke around, alter data or even take over control of their equipment and systems.  Hackers could conceivably cause great damage without super tight security protecting the applications. 

Without even discussing the environmental imperative, even with low energy prices, energy efficiency investments should be a high priority (if they are not already) in government policy (particularly as budget deficits are reduced) and private sector decision-making. 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of and Initial Reaction to President Obama’s Proposed Climate Change Plan

Climate change impacts are everywhere. Today at Georgetown University, in a major policy address, President Obama unveiled measures that reflected a centrist, moderate, and balanced approach to how the US will respond to climate change impacts and address energy issues.  Unless you work in the coal or utility industry, the speech contained nothing radical or revolutionary.  Much of what he stated has already been mentioned in interviews, conferences and state of the union addresses.  It all came together today in his speech and an accompanying fact sheet and policy paper issued by the White House.

The President began by citing various climate change impacts on the country such as more frequent and intense droughts, floods and wildfires as a result of warming temperatures. 

According to the White House, in 2012, climate and weather disasters exacted an economic toll on the country of over $100 billion dollars, a substantial portion of which is attributable to the damage Hurricane Sandy wrecked along the eastern seaboard.  The President conceded that states were taking the lead on renewable portfolio standards; setting higher pollution standards and raising energy efficiency and it is now time for the federal government to catch up. 

The President’s address maintained that the environment and the economy are not in conflict and that both sides can win under his programs and policies.  Clean energy and technology represent engines of economic growth and the country cannot drill its way out of its energy challenges.  The US must and can strengthen its position in natural gas production in an environmentally sound manner while creating jobs.

The President further supported his position by stating that Republican governors with large wind industries supported extension of the wind energy tax credit; the military is increasingly making use of renewable energy in support of goals and energy security; and that naysayers have historically been wrong about the economic effects of new environmental standards, using examples such as the Clean Air Act, elimination of CFCs, and setting new mileage standards,

The President’s plan falls into the following areas:

1. Cut carbon pollution.  As soon Congress confirms the next administrator, the President has ordered the EPA work with relevant parties and stakeholders to establish new carbon emissions standards for new and existing plants.  There is flexibility to achieve goals;  there are currently no federal standards in place to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
2. Accelerate America’s clean energy leadership and support more growth in renewables such as wind and solar.
3. Build a 21st century transportation sector with highly fuel-efficient vehicles.
4. Cut energy waste in homes, businesses and factories through more energy efficiency initiatives.
5. Reduce non-carbon greenhouse gas emissions such as methane.
6. Strengthen federal leadership through executive agencies working with state and local governments to build more resilient infrastructure.

Whether or not it was an actual signal about how the President will decide the Keystone pipeline issue, he maintained that the project must be in the national interest and does not exacerbate carbon pollution.

What President Obama’s message did not mention:

• The US will sign and Congress should ratify an update or extension of the Kyoto Protocol or any successor treaty.
• No specifics about what the new EPA standards will be makes it difficult to forecast how effective they will be.
• Enacting a comprehensive unified federal energy plan incorporating a national renewable portfolio standard, cap-and-trade or carbon tax.  Revenue from such policies could be invested in more clean energy and job creation.  Instead, for the foreseeable future, policy will rely on the market and state and local governments to lead the way through energy efficiency and renewable portfolio standards.
• Tax changes to promote alternative energy sources or provide alternative energy sources with the same sort of tax benefits enjoyed by oil and gas companies; no mention of master limited partnerships.

According to some polls on the issue, most Americans strongly support the President on the climate change issue regardless of political affiliation.  In the weeks and months ahead, Republicans will no doubt push back and zero in on increased EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants (in 2007 the Supreme Court sided with the EPA on this issue).  Some Republicans will claim the plan is flawed and will increase business regulation, raise everyone’s electricity bills, eliminate jobs and shackle economic growth.  Some Republicans representing coal-mining states like Virginia and West Virginia have already labeled Obama’s climate plan as “anti-American” and a “war on coal.”

I have said before that as promising and admirable as the efforts at all levels of American society to reduce greenhouse gases have been over the past two decades, including increasing use of natural gas, on a global level these results will be wiped out if other major economies do not rein in their greenhouse gas emissions.  Disturbingly, the trend for global carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is still upward as it recently breached the 400 ppm level. 

It is clear the President is doing everything he can within his executive purview.  As he stated, more progress has been made in the various departments and agencies of the executive branch and he and his cabinet deserve a lot of credit for all those programs.  However, some of the more wide-reaching plans he appears to have held off on because it would require Congress to pass new legislation and with a Republican majority there, intense political gridlock is all but assured.  Generally, he is taking the necessary steps to deal with climate change impacts.

Climate change impacts will remain severe as the climate continues to warm.  Devastating tornadoes have hit Oklahoma and other mid-western states in recent months.  Whether these meteorological phenomena are the result of natural or man-made climate change or a mix of the two will require more research. 

Although I believe the President could have incorporated a few more ambitious action steps in his plan, I applaud him for planning to re-install solar panels at the White House.  Nothing like setting an example as the leader of the country.  When the panels are ready to generate electricity, he should invite former President Jimmy Carter for a “christening” of sorts.  I’m sure President Carter would get a kick out of seeing solar panels back on the White House. 

New York Energy Week, June 24-June 28

Collaboration is essential to achieving goals, whether it be in government or industry.  In this spirit, New York City is hosting New York Energy Week the week of June 24-June 28 to highlight its growing importance in the energy field.  Billed as the first ever-cross sector energy conference, organizers are bringing together leaders in the energy field from government and business, from oil and gas and energy start-ups to the cleanweb and renewable energy.  As the financial capital of the country, New York will certainly play a crucial role in all areas of the energy sector. 

Some of the events on tap through the week include:

Monday: Solar Financing Initiatives

Tuesday: Energy Information and Data at Tesla Motors

Wednesday: Energy Data Jam at Google

Thursday: Government & Utilities; Grid Scale Battery Launch

Founded by the Energy Solutions Forum, an energy policy research and data company, New York Energy Week is supported by several academic, government and private sector groups and companies.

More information including specific times and locations for events can be found at nyenergyweek.com.

 

China gets smart building the smart grid

China’s current Five Year Plan mandates among other things significant investments in smart grid technology.  The energy infrastructure in China has developed in such a way that the major energy consumers are located along the eastern side of the country, but many of the sources of energy production and generation are located in the north and northwestern regions.  The Chinese electricity grid must be able to transmit electricity generated from sources such as coal, wind, and solar in Gansu, Qinghai, Xinjiang, Shaanxi and Inner Mongolia to large industrial and urban centers spaced along the eastern seaboard.

To span the thousands of miles from west or north to east requires a sophisticated, modern electricity grid.  To monitor and regulate power flow requires an even more intelligent grid responsive to China’s huge and growing energy and electricity demands.  China has made an incredible amount of progress in building a smart grid over the past two decades and this trend looks to continue as the country races along the path of modernization.

Navigant Consulting has released a report detailing the state of China’s developing smart grid.  Among the highlights cited in the report include:

• Value of smart grid deployments will reach $15.4 billion annually by 2020, mainly in the form of transmission upgrades. 
• Cumulative revenue from 2012 – 2020 is projected to reach $127 billion.

As with many other industries and business sectors, China’s smart grid market will be the largest in the world.  The Chinese are taking comparative advantage of manufacturing ability to build the components for the smart grid.  More insights into this market will be revealed at the 6th China Smart Grid Forum which will take place at the end of September in Tianjin.   This forum will include domestic and foreign sponsors such as Alstrom and Toshiba.