Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Energy’ Category

2013-02-17 Forward on Climate Rally on the National MallI have been a Public Citizen intern since January of this year.  As a Political Science graduate student, in both Undergraduate and Graduate studies I have been immersed in the political process and the theories behind the ideas that have formed our nation.  When I was a bit younger, I dabbled in political activism, with issues like civil rights and equal rights, which are still very near and dear to my heart.  But, I never took the plunge into becoming a full on activist.

Thursday, February 14th, I had the opportunity, through Public Citizen and The Sierra Club, to get on a bus with 48 other Texans and make the long trek to Washington D.C. for the Forward on Climate Rally.  I had been to D.C. several times before, but never for a cause.  Our bus departed from Austin, Texas and made stops in Dallas and Tyler.  At each stop, new people joined us.  Each person on the bus had their own reasons for engaging in this somewhat grueling 30 plus hour bus ride.  Each person was motivated enough to take time out of their schedule and commit to a less than comfortable ride on a bus to our nation’s capital.

In the early part of our journey, many people did not know each other.  Many of us were coming from different places geographically and in life.  As the hours wound on, conversation and ideas began to flow on the bus.  People began to relax and conversations began to percolate throughout the bus.  After the formalities, discussions began on why we were on this trip.  There were people directly affected by the Keystone Pipeline.  Others were concerned with climate.  Some were just champions of the Earth.  For quite a few of my fellow bus riders, activism was old hat.  Others, such as one older, retired gentleman, still were hesitant to call themselves activists.  Some were believers in the cause, but just there for the exchange of ideas and to observe.  But, within the varying reasons for attending the trip, a common thread was clear.  Something needs to be done about climate change.  That was something everyone could agree upon, regardless of what school of thought they were coming from.

As for me, when I got on the bus, I did not really know which one of these types I was.  Climate change has always been a concern to me.  I try to live a “green” life.  I knew the Keystone Pipeline was bad news from things I had read and heard, but I suppose that I was never mad enough to do anything about it.  For me, civil rights and related social issues had always been the most important…

As the trip wore on, we all began to become friends.  We shared experiences and ideas.  By the time we arrived in D.C., we were no longer a bus full of strangers.  There was a feeling that we were a team, and some of us had become quick friends.  Our group spanned many different generations and encompassed many different levels of involvement in the cause. 

Friday night and Saturday, through some downtime and tourism, the group continued to solidify.  Our bonding was increased through a night on the town and sightseeing, but the main event was yet to come.

Sunday, February 17th began by loading on the bus and heading to the Public Citizen D.C. office for breakfast and some interviews with a reporter.  Outside, the cold was biting, with a wind chill of 6 degrees.   As we prepared to depart for the National Mall, the excitement level was high despite a lack of sleep and the cold weather. 

2013-02-17 Forward on Climte Rally March on the White HouseWe arrived near the Washington monument to a sea of busses.  Hundreds of busses.  We arrived about an hour early, and there were people as far as the eye could see ready to participate in democracy.  The estimates of number of people at the Forward on Climate rally ranged from 35,000 to 50,000.  As the rally began, speakers began to deliver messages from many different points of view.  Some were directly affected by the pipeline, other were speaking of climate change and activism.  The excitement level of the crowd increased with every speaker.  The climax of the rally was the 10’s of thousands of us marching to the White House.  The street was packed from curb to curb all the way around the White House.  We now know that President Obama was playing golf with Tiger Woods and oil executives, so he did not see the awe –inspiring site of that many people united for our climate.  Everywhere you looked there were signs.  When you stopped to listen, you could hear chants that would begin with one person and end with a united crowd chanting in solidarity.  While marching around the White House, you almost forgot how cold it was. (It was really cold)  When we returned to the National Mall, I had a sense of accomplishment.  You could not help but feel that we had done something important, united together as a group as varied as any ever assembled.  People of different ages, races, economic backgrounds, and geographic locations; all united in for the planet.  It was then that something I should have realized all along dawned on me.  Climate change and human/civil rights are intertwined.  They are so deeply related, that it is almost hard to see the preverbal forest for the trees.  Without one, there cannot be the other.  It also dawned on me that this is the fight of our generation.  This is the legacy that we should pass on to our children and their children. Our Earth and our climate is intrinsically a human right.  If we do not take action, there may not be an inhabitable planet for future generations, which would be the greatest violation of human rights in our history.  Through the interactions on the bus, the speakers, the sights and the sounds, something that should have been painfully obvious to me was finally made clear.

We cannot be passive observers in this fight against climate change.  We cannot be passive observers in things like the Keystone XL, even if we think they do not directly affect us.  (It does)  The time to remain silent is gone.  It is time to call on everyone who knows these things are terrible to use their voice, their right to free speech, and the democratic process to put an end to this insanity.  The Earth cannot wait while we sit idly by and do nothing while corporations destroy her under the guise of “progress” and “economics.”  We need to stand up and let them know that we will not stand for irresponsible practices and violations of our planet.  We must activate to preserve our climate and Earth for future generations.  We must let President Obama know that we won’t stand for the Keystone XL. 

For me, it is now no longer an option to passively oppose what is going on.  Activism is now a necessity.   I would urge everyone to use their voice, stand up and be heard.    

               

 

     

Read Full Post »

The reason that the U.S. is lagging behind in solar energy isn’t because of the cost solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. Solar PV is becoming increasingly more affordable as technologies advance to increase efficiency and manufacturing costs continue to decline. However, the cost associated with getting a solar system actually installed up on your roof rather has not declined as quickly. “Soft costs” make up more than 50% of the entire cost of solar PV systems in the U.S.  This isn’t the case everywhere though.  The graph below demonstrates the difference between solar installation costs in the U.S. and Germany (currently leading the world in solar generated power).  Soft costs in for solar installations are just a fraction of what they are in the U.S.

US and Germany soft cost of solar graphThis is why the U.S. Department of Energy is enticing communities around the nation to focus their efforts on burning through the red tape that drives project costs up. $10 million in cash awards go to the teams that install the most PV systems in American homes. How these teams will do it is completely up to them. If they are clever enough, maybe they will get through to city and state officials where environmental organizations could not.

There is a maze of rules and regulations to get through, but $10 million is a good incentive to find a way through it.

Graph from Grist (http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-is-rooftop-solar-cheaper-in-germany-than-in-the-u-s/).

Read Full Post »

While the proposed resolution to give Austin Energy governance responsibilities to an appointed board has been taken off the “consent agenda”, it’s still alive and kicking.

City Council will take up the issue at 6 p.m. this evening (Thurs, 2/14) and I hope you can take a bit of time before dinner to stand up for your rights. 

Austin Energy is a owned by us, the citizens of Austin.  Currently, we can influence the direction the utility takes by showing up at City Council meetings (just as I’m hoping you will tonight) and voicing your opinions.  The people of Austin have spoken passionately and convincingly on a variety of issues including development of strong solar energy programs,  assistance for the poor and keeping rates affordable for everyone.  City Council has often changed it’s course as a result of public outcry.  They do so because they know that they can be held accountable at the ballot box (or the electronic voting machine, as the case may be).

An appointed board could dramatically limit the ability that each of us has to ensure that Austin Energy is governed in a way that aligns with our values.

Some have argued that a board could focus more on the important issues at Austin Energy, but an appointed board is not the only option.  With City Council soon to be enlarged – when we move to the 10-1 system with geographic representation – there could easily be a subcommittee that focuses on the governance and oversight of Austin Energy.  If some members of City Council don’t wish to be burdened with the responsibility of governing our most (monetarily) valuable asset, then they could decline to serve on such a subcommittee.

Some Austin Energy customers who live outside Austin have complained that they have no representation in the governing body of Austin Energy (which is Austin City Council).  That’s a fair point and could easily be remedied by reserving one seat (or whatever is proportional based on population) on the subcommittee for an elected representative of those customers residing outside city limits.  What doesn’t make sense it to disenfranchise everyone just because some people aren’t currently represented.

Yes, the system could be more perfect and we at Public Citizen are always working toward making it so, but with all the awards and national recognition that Austin Energy has received, we must be doing something right.

So, please, make your voice heard at City Hall tonight.  The proposed resolution is “Item #46” and will be taken up at 6 p.m.  You can register to speak or register your opposition at the kiosks in the City Hall lobby.  You can donate your speaking time to someone else, but you must be present at the meeting to do so. If you drive, you can park in the garage underneath City Hall and get your parking validated in the lobby.

If you can’t make it to the meeting tonight, send City Council a letter letting them know you oppose the formation of an appointed board to govern Austin Energy.

For more information, please visit www.cleanenergyforaustin.org.

Read Full Post »

Costs Would Increase; Existing Power Plants Would Get Windfall

The state’s electricity shortfall won’t be solved by paying utilities based on how much power they can generate, rather than how much they actually generate, a new Public Citizen report finds.

The report comes as debate rages among regulators and state lawmakers over how to keep the lights on in Texas. Demand for electricity is increasing while new power plant construction is slowing down.

Some want a “capacity market” – one in which power plant owners are paid for being ready to generate electricity. Others prefer to create incentives for reducing electricity consumption. A new study released today by Public Citizen found that the state’s electricity shortfall won’t be solved by a capacity market. Instead, a capacity market would just reward the owners of existing power plants with substantial windfall profits.

“Our study has found that a capacity market takes too long, costs too much and won’t be enough to keep the lights on,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office. “We’d be better off developing a new market structure that creates incentives for people to use less electricity.”

The debate about whether to pay electric companies for the energy they produce or the capacity to produce energy has occurred in many parts of the country over the past 10 years. The state’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) has been discussing this issue for more than a year and will consider it again on Thursday. It could vote on whether or not to create a capacity market.

To answer the question of whether a capacity market would benefit Texas, energy experts hired by Public Citizen analyzed a capacity market run by PJM, a regional transmission organization that coordinates electricity movement in 13 states and the District of Columbia, which is the market model most similar to the approach the PUC is discussing. Researchers found that replicating the PJM-run capacity market would take until 2015 and would cost between $1.2 billion and $2.3 billion a year.

In addition, such a market would divert resources from new, more efficient power sources. In the PJM market, $54 billion went to existing power plants while just $4.2 billion went to new resources such as gas, wind and solar.

“Creating a capacity market would take way too long and would cost way too much,” said Anna Sommer, president of Sommer Energy and the report’s principle author. “In addition, it would prop up dirty and inefficient energy plants. A capacity market clearly is not the solution.”

Added David Schissel, president of Schlissel Technical Consulting and a report co-author, “We looked at the other grid operators and their capacity markets and found that in those markets, existing fossil fuel and nuclear plants were the big winners.”

David Power, deputy director for Public Citizen’s Texas office said, “We have been debating this issue for several years. It’s time to act. Even consultants who are recommending a capacity market have concluded that the cheapest, fastest way to keep the lights on is to develop new ways to reduce the demand or the amount of energy we use at peak times when customer demand is highest. The commission can and should develop a one hour ahead demand reduction market.”

This is the first of two studies to be released this week by Public Citizen. The second study will focus on whether a shift to a capacity market would be enough to keep Energy Futures Holdings from slipping into bankruptcy.

The report is available here.

Read Full Post »

Texas Capitol - north viewTwo bills have now been filed in the Texas House that would expand the state’s goals for renewable energy.  Representative Rafael Anchia‘s bill, HB 723, would establish goals for growing renewable energy installations other than large-scale wind through 2022.  Similarly, Representative Eddie Rodriquez‘s bill, HB 303, would establish a goal for solar installations and increase the existing goal (which was met 15 years ahead of schedule) for all renewable energy for 2020.

We applaud these efforts and the leadership that Rep. Anchia and Rep. Rodriquez are showing by filing these bills.  These proposals recognize that success is a good thing and something we want more of.  You wouldn’t think that would need saying, but when a state agency recommends tossing out a successful policy, I start to wonder.  Texas’s renewable energy goals have been extraordinarily successful.  Not only have the goals been met ahead of time, but they have spurred development of the wind industry in Texas, bringing economic benefits to rural parts of West Texas, as well as to manufacturing centers.  On top of that, wind energy is helping to keep electric bills lower.

A carpenter doesn’t throw away her hammer just because she finished building her first book shelf and Texas shouldn’t repeal it’s renewable energy policies, just because we’ve met some of our goals (remember, the non-wind goal was never enforced).  Wind energy does now makes a substantial contribution to meeting the state’s electrical needs – it contributed a record 26% this past Christmas day, but solar energy is still very underutilized (accounting for less than 1% of energy on the ERCOT grid, which serves 85% of the Texas population) and the geothermal energy industry is still getting off it’s feet.  As Rep. Anchia and Rep. Rodriquez’s bills show, this successful policy tool can be adjusted to keep moving Texas forward.

Read Full Post »

The South-central Partnership for Energy Efficiency as a Resource (SPEER) enters its second year with an exciting Summit, designed to explore, further develop, and prioritize policies and strategies needed to push energy efficiency forward in new buildings, existing buildings, and electric markets in Texas and Oklahoma.

Ed Mazria, founder and CEO of Architecture 2030, will deliver the keynote address to kick off the Summit in Austin on February 25. Mr. Mazria is an international leader on efforts to make buildings dramatically more energy and water efficient, leading the movement to establish 2030 districts in cities with goals to reach carbon neutrality by 2030. These districts have been established so far in Los Angeles, Seattle, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh.

Public Citizen members can receive a $50 discount off the registration. On the registration page, select “Early Registration- Supporting Organization” and then select “Public Citizen” from the drop down menu.

Sponsors of the SPEER Summit include Dow Chemical, CCRD Partners, Mitsubishi, Environments for Living, TexEnergy Solutions, BASF, the Texas Home Energy Raters Organization, and the CleanTX Foundation.

To learn more about the Energy Efficiency Summit, please visit: www.eepartnership.org/summit

 

Read Full Post »

The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) has taken a step that any self-respecting supporter of renewable energy should do – ditched the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).  This relationship looked a lot like the fabled one between the scorpion and tortoise.

Despite members such as the SEIA and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), ALEC has decided to make a nationwide push to roll back renewable energy portfolio standards (RPS) that have been enacted in many states.  The RPS sets a percentage of electricity consumed that must be derived from renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar.  The Texas RPS, passed in 1999, has helped propel the state into its role and a wind industry leader.  At one point last month, the ERCOT electric grid (which encompasses most of Texas) was getting 26% of its power from wind turbines.

congratulationsIt pleases me to see good organizations such as SEIA leaving the backward notions of ALEC behind and I hope that other well-meaning organizations, businesses and elected officials will take a hard look at the facts and do the same.  ALEC has perverted the legislative process to suit its needs.  Model bills are developed behind closed doors to fit certain member industry desires and are then pushed for adoption in as many states as possible.  Of course, as SEIA has likely discovered, not all members are equal and its the big boys that get to make the rules of the game.

Numerous polls and studies show widespread support for renewable energy, but nothing speaks so loud as money.  Only when the coffers at ALEC dry up will they stop pushing this kind of backward legislation.

It remains to be seen whether ALEC’s effort to repeal the RPS will gain any traction in Texas.  Here’s to hoping that saner heads prevail and send ALEC packing.

Read Full Post »

Even Support from Businesses Like IKEA Is Not Enough for PUC

AUSTIN, TX – The Public Utility Commission delivered a slap in the face to the more than 6,000 Texans and 70 businesses and organizations  who have actively called on the Commission to implement and expand the non-wind renewable portfolio standard (RPS).  The non-wind RPS would establish a market for electricity from solar and other renewable energy resources in Texas, just as the State’s overall RPS did for wind energy.  The non-wind RPS was passed into law in 2005, but has yet to be implemented by the PUC.

Democracy and the rule of law may be important tenants of our society, but they are utterly lacking at the PUC, where Commissioners refused to engage in even a single minute of public discussion on the matter before striking it down today.

Instead of gathering current information on the price of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and other renewable energy technologies, the PUC staff recommended denial based on data that is more than two years old.  This illustrates a shocking lack of due diligence, given that solar prices have plummeted over the past two years and are now competitive with traditional energy sources, especially when demand is high.  David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, told participants at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Summit, “Solar is so cheap today that unless you tell me that you did a solar analysis yesterday, not last year or last month, then your analysis is out of date.

The Commission appears to be committed to willful ignorance on this issue, but we’re not giving up.  This is too important to the future of our state. The solar industry is going to continue to grow regardless of what the PUC does; it’s just a matter of whether it will grow in Texas and bring good jobs to Texans or if we will let other states and other countries leave us behind.

While misconceptions about the cost of solar energy persist, businesses and individuals who look at current prices have found an opportunity for energy savings by investing in solar.  IKEA, a major international retailer, supports implementing and expanding the non-wind RPS in Texas.  “While utilizing renewable resources for generating energy allows us to reduce our carbon footprint, it[s] also is good business since it significantly reduces operational costs,” states the company in its comments that they filed with the PUC.

Read Full Post »

Advocates fault PUC for turning a blind eye to industry as Texas falls behind

Solar energy backers rallied outside the Texas Public Utility Commission [last] week seeking enforcement of a seven-year-old law that would boost electric generation from geothermal, biomass and the state’s ample supply of sunshine.

Public comment [ended Friday]on proposed rulemaking at the PUC, which has been reluctant to embrace the non-wind portion of the so-called renewable portfolio standards passed by the Texas Legislature in 2005. With those standards calling for generation of about 500 megawatts of renewable power from non-wind sources by 2015 and 3,000 megawatts by 2025, the Clean Energy Works for Texas Campaign sent petitions to the PUC urging it to carry out the law’s provisions. The group estimates that more than 6,000 individuals across Texas and 50 businesses or organizations lent their signatures in support.

“Why aren’t we seeing the clean energy we’ve demanded from our legislators? Why aren’t we seeing the thousands of new green jobs, new energy businesses and new tax revenues for our underfunded schools?” asked activist Dave Cortez of the Texas BlueGreen Apollo Alliance. “Four words: The Texas Public Utility Commission – a government agency run by unelected commissioners who have the power to take state law and misinterpret it, sit on it, lambast it, everything but implement it and ultimately say, ‘No, sorry. We don’t like it.’”

The PUC’s stand, as articulated by Chairman Donna Nelson, stresses the fact that wind power’s success has eclipsed the minimum renewable standards set in the law many times over. And, she argues that the law’s instructions on non-wind energy are not mandatory, a point of contention with solar backers. Moreover, she has said propping up solar power would increase electric bills and that the commission is not in the business of favoring one type of energy generation over another.

Executives from two Austin-based solar companies who attended the rally said each had respectively grown from only two employees to at least 25. And, with the business climate unfriendly to solar in Texas, they said, both companies are making upcoming expansions in a state more hospitable to their interests.

“The bad news is we’re in the process of opening a second office, and the second office will be in California,” said Tim Padden, founder of Revolve Solar. “I would rather be in Dallas, San Antonio or Houston, but the reality is California has taken a stand to support the development of the solar industry seriously by setting statewide goals and local support for their solar companies. I want to see this happen here in my home state. These could be Texas jobs.”

Stan Pipkin of Lighthouse Solar, an Austin-based solar design integration firm said his own company has shown an almost identical job growth and will also be opening offices in California.

“I’m deeply concerned that Texas is not taking advantage of the energy resource we have in most abundance,” he said. “Texas is currently 10th in solar capacity. This is absolutely confounding given our solar resource, our electric demand and our shortage of reserve capacity. It just doesn’t make sense.”

By Polly Ross Hughes

Copyright September 14, 2012, Harvey Kronberg, www.texasenergyreport.com, All rights are reserved.  Reposted by TexasVox.org with permission of the Texas Energy Report.

The PUC has put the non-wind RPS on the agenda for its open meeting this Thursday.  We need you to be there to show your support for moving forward with the rulemaking process.  Please email kwhite@citizen.org if you are interested in attending.  The meeting will be in the Commissioners’ Hearing Room on the 7th Floor of the William B. Travis building at 1701 N. Congress Ave, Austin.

Read Full Post »

When you subtract out shady roofs, renters, and other factors, only about 25% of Americans have a place to install solar power. With the high upfront cost of a complete system, the potential solar universe shrinks further.

That changes with “community solar.”

After a long wait on the state’s Public Utilities Commission to finalize the rules, Colorado’s “community solar gardens” program ( summary here) sold out in 30 minutes when it opened , testament to the pent-up demand for solar among those who don’t own a sunny roof. The program allows individuals to subscribe or buy shares in a local solar project, and in return receive a share of the electricity output.

The community solar garden policy offers several significant benefits:

  • Individuals can go solar without a sunny roof or without owning one at all.
  • Individuals can buy as little as a 1 kW share or as much as produces 120% of their own consumption.
  • The solar garden projects capture economies of scale by building more panels at a single, central location and capture the advantages of decentralization by interconnecting to the distribution (low voltage) part of the electricity grid close to demand.
  • Solar gardens cultivate a sense of ownership and geographic connection, requiring subscribers to live in the same county as their shared solar array. This can reduce political opposition to solar projects and increase local economic benefits.

Fortunately, Colorado isn’t the only state considering this policy. California’s legislature is currently debating SB 843 to allow “community shared solar” and other renewable energy. Several other states offer a blanket policy called “virtual net metering” that lets customers share the output from a single renewable energy facility, although sometimes it’s limited to certain types of customers (municipalities, residential, etc.) and we can do this in Texas.

This post was written by John Farrell and originally appeared on ILSR’s Energy Self-Reliant States blog.

Editor’s Note: California’s SB 843, mentioned in this article, failed to pass.

Read Full Post »

Orbach: $1 billion for energy storage research could launch state’s next energy era

Watch for the University of Texas at Austin to soon make a $1 billion pitch to lawmakers aimed at unleashing the state’s vast potential to lead the nation and even the world in renewable energy production.

Ray Orbach, director of UT’s Texas Energy Institute, has compiled what he considers a compelling case for a large public investment in battery storage research meaningful enough to launch Texas into a new energy economy that taps the state’s enormous potential capacity for solar, wind and geothermal power generation.

“I really would like to have a crash program. My thought is it could be comparable to the cancer initiative,” he told Texas Energy Report. “I would like to see it in the billion-dollar range. My point is the potential is there. I just think it’s crazy not to sit down and optimize it for Texas.”

Orbach said a new study found that Texas has the potential to lead the nation in nearly every form of renewable energy. In concentrating solar alone – which allows for fluctuations that make it more economical – tapping just one percent of Texas’ total capacity could generate electricity equivalent to the entire needs of the ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) power grid, he said.

“We have as much energy potential above ground as we do below ground,” Orbach said this week to an audience attending a symposium sponsored by the Texas Public Utility Commission called “Renewable Solutions for Energy Prosperity in Texas.”

Citing a just released July study called “U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis,” Orbach laid out what’s in it for Texas if the state’s leading scientific minds solve the energy storage puzzle:

Urban utility-scale photovoltaics:  Texas has the highest estimated potential (13 percent of the U.S.)

Rural utility-scale photovoltaic: Texas has the highest estimated potential (14 percent of the U.S.

Rooftop photovoltaic’s: Texas has the second-highest estimated potential (9 percent of the U.S.)

Concentrating solar power: Texas has the highest estimated potential (20 percent of U.S.)

Onshore wind power: Texas has the highest estimated potential (17 percent of U.S.)

Offshore wind power: Hawaii has the highest estimated potential, while Texas has 6 percent of U.S.

Enhanced geothermal systems: Texas has the highest estimated potential (10 percent of U.S.)

“The opportunities are so enormous. I was stunned,” Orbach said of his reaction when he read the study that takes into account environmental and land-use constraints, and topographical limitations.

Because each of the renewable capacity calculations is based on the same total land, Orbach said Texas leaders need to determine how to best optimize the state’s renewable resources with decisions about which fuel mix to pursue and where. In an interview, he acknowledged that political and economic considerations would pose major challenges, but he suggested a planning commission appointed by the governor and legislators could help navigate those.

Think of the planning concept as akin to the Texas Railroad Commission’s early history in setting production limits to ensure that oil and gas resources would last longer with conservation measures such as adequate well spacing, he said.  And think of state’s commitment to building CREZ (Competitive Renewable Energy Zones) transmission lines to transport wind energy as a parallel to the research commitment needed to solve the problem of energy battery storage for wind and solar.

With its federal production tax credits, Orbach said wind has posed pricing issues for ERCOT’s wholesale competitive market. But he insisted he’s a free-market advocate who does not think wind or solar would need any subsidies to compete. As for kick-starting research to solve energy storage issues, he said Texans should think of that as an investment that would repay itself many times over.

“Our future will depend on our ability to store base load electricity from fluctuating sources. We are truly blessed with intellectual and energy sources. It’s time for a zoning, an optimization of how we use these wonderful resources for the benefit of citizens in this state,” Orbach said. “This is not just a Texas issue. The market for what we produce in Texas is global. You can think outside the boundaries of our state for these opportunities.”

In addition to the big picture, some of Texas’ energy opportunities have hardly been discussed, he said. The potential for enhanced geothermal energy alone, he said, is 384 gigawatts. That’s equivalent to five times the total ERCOT load.

Geothermal energy taps into underground heat, and fracturing underground rock is one way to release the heat. He points to natural gas wells hydraulically fractured in the Barnett Shale of North Texas and their future to be repurposed in 10 to 20 years for renewable energy production. The wells have already fractured rock at a depth of 8,000 to 10,000 feet where temperatures range from 200-300 degrees Fahrenheit, he noted.

“What happens when those wells are played out? Do we just cap them and walk away? They are a source of potential enhanced geothermal energy. We have the sources now that we’re using for liquids and gas and oil that in fact may well be available in the future for enhanced geothermal,” Orbach said.

Meanwhile, the price of solar panels is dropping sharply as China floods the market with panels at 80 cents a watt, he said. Consequently, solar installations in the first half of this year doubled to 1,254 megawatts over the 623 installed in the first six months of 2011. That’s the size of a nuclear reactor, he said, and this year it will amount to two.

“It’s a revolution,” he added. “It’s a sign for those of us interested in solar and wind and renewable energy that there’s an opportunity here for Texas to be mined.”

By Polly Ross Hughes

Copyright September 14, 2012, Harvey Kronberg, www.texasenergyreport.com, All rights are reserved.  Reposted by TexasVox.org with permission of the Texas Energy Report.

Read Full Post »

Yesterday, Clean Energy Works for Texas – a coalition consisting of Public Citizen, Sierra Club, Texas BlueGreen Apollo Alliance, Progress Texas, Clean Water Action, Environment Texas, North Texas Renewable Energy Group, North Texas Renewable Energy Inc., SEED Coalition, Solar Austin, Solar San Antonio, Texas Campaign for the Environment and  Texas Pecan Alliance – filed a petition with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) asking for a rule-making to implement the non-wind renewable portfolio standard (RPS).

A law passed by the Texas Legislature in 2005 established that at least 500 megawatts (MW) of the electricity used in Texas would come from renewable energy sources other than wind by 2015.  The PUC, however, has failed to establish rules to ensure that this goal is reached.  Clean Energy Works for Texas calls on the PUC to fulfill its statutory duty and create rules to ensure that the goal is reached.  The petition also proposes and expansion of that goal to 3,000 MW by 2025.

The non-wind RPS would provide a level of certainty for investors considering Texas for clean energy projects.  While the wind industry has thrived in Texas, thanks, at least in part, to the RPS, other renewable energy industries have lagged behind.  Implementation of the non-wind RPS would send a signal to investors that Texas is open for business.   At at time when nearly a million Texans are looking for work, developing 21st century industries here in Texas should be a priority.

Texas has immense solar resources, as well as substantial geothermal resources that, if developed, could be providing the State with additional electricity that it needs.  Electricity market regulators and policy-makers have had numerous discussions about electricity generation shortages over the past year.  The petition filed by Clean Energy Works for Texas offers a solution – and it’s one that can be expanded upon in the coming years.

Please visit www.CleanEnergyWorksForTexas.org to learn more and send an email to to the PUC in support of the non-wind RPS.

Read Full Post »

Did you know that your retail electric provider may be working behind the scenes to drive up energy prices? A review of filings at the PUC show that several Texas retail electric providers are pushing hard for the approval of super high wholesale energy price caps and for a very expensive capacity market that will trickle down to you, the ratepayer, in increased energy bills. These proposals, by their very design, will make energy more costly.

Check out the new blog post at the Recharge Ratepayer Report.

Read Full Post »

The following story on the threat the proposed Tar Sands pipeline poses for the state was reprinted with the permission of the Texas Energy Report.

GROUP WARNS OF TEXAS OIL SANDS PIPELINE THREAT

Enbridge says public data don’t back up spill concerns

As the Environmental Protection Agency announced the re-opening of parts of the contaminated Kalamazoo River in Michigan Thursday, environmental activists in Texas warned that tar sands could contaminate water supplies in the Lone Star State as well.

Noting that Enbridge Inc. “was allowed to push tar sands through” a 43-year-old pipeline in Michigan leading to a spill “nearly impossible” to clean up, environmental experts at Public Citizen – Texas say the same could happen in Texas.

Enbridge, they say, has begun pumping the “same toxic diluted bitumen” through the 36-year-old Seaway pipeline, which runs under three major drinking water sources for the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

“All Texans should be deeply troubled,” the group said in a statement, noting similarities between the Kalamazoo and Texas pipelines now transporting tar sands, also known as oil sands.

“The reversal and repurposing of the aging Seaway pipeline was accomplished without any inspection or oversight from state or federal agencies despite the fact that the new tar sands feedstock is substantially more likely to cause a pipeline rupture, contains a far greater concentration of toxic diluents, and is made up primarily of Canadian bitumen which sinks in water, making it almost impossible to clean up,” Public Citizen said in a statement.

“I don’t think it’s that simple,” Larry Springer, an Enbridge spokesman based in Houston, told Texas Energy Report.

“We went back ourselves and looked and did not find any examples of pipelines that failed from internal corrosion in the last 10 years that were carrying oil that was produced in the Canadian oil sands,” he said.

Springer cites the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) as the source of data backing up that claim. He also noted that the pipeline that failed in Michigan was from a much older era.

By Polly Ross Hughes

Ramrodded by veteran reporter Polly Hughes, the Texas Energy Report’s Energy Buzz specializes in what is happening on the ground in Texas energy ranging from dedicated coverage of the Texas regulatory agencies to battles in the Legislature that affect the future of the industry. 

Copyright June 21, 2012, Harvey Kronberg, www.texasenergyreport.com, All rights are reserved.  Reposted by TexasVox.org with permission of the Texas Energy Report. 

AND THIS IS WHAT WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63M8xKSN77c]

A photo collage video by Michelle Barlond-Smith, a resident of Battle Creek, Michigan, near the Enbridge pipeline spill.

In  the meantime, an Enbridge Tar Sands victim of the Michigan spill, the most expensive in US history, is scheduled to testify on Tuesday, June 26th in front of the House Energy Resources Committee of the Texas Legislature, to describe the human cost of a tar sands pipeline spill.

Michelle Barlond-Smith is a resident of Battle Creek, Michigan, one of the communities hit hardest by the July 2010 rupture in Enbridge’s Line 6B which dumped over 1.1 million gallons of diluted bitumen into the Kalamazoo River. Michelle witnessed firsthand neighbors and friends becoming sick or being hospitalized, has watched communities along the Kalamazoo become ghost towns, and brings a cautionary tale to Texans along the Seaway pipeline from near Dallas down to the gulf coast.  She will be in Texas testifying in front of the House Energy Resources Committee at the public hearing that will address an interim study charge examining state regulations governing oil and gas well construction and integrity and pipeline safety and construction and determine what changes should be made, if any, to ensure that the regulations are adequate to protect the people of Texas and its natural resources.

This committee hearing will begin at 9:00 am on Tuesday, June 26 in the Texas capital extension in room E1.010.  The committee will hear invited testimony only.  No public testimony will be taken, but the public is permitted to attend, and we encourage you to do so.
     

Read Full Post »

If you think that bonuses are supposed to reward success, you’re not alone, but the reality is more bizarre.  While Energy Future Holdings, formerly TXU, of Dallas continues its downward spiral toward bankruptcy, it’s handing out millions in bonuses to its executives.

The bonuses are called retention bonuses and are supposed to keep executive from fleeing the company as its prospects worsen.  At first glance, that makes some sense.  Recruiting replacements might be difficult.  After all, who is going to want to take charge of a failing company?  But then, who would want to hire an executive whose last job was running a company that failed so spectacularly?  And if bonuses increase as the company does worse, what incentive is there to improve performance?  Against the basic principle of capitalism, this system actually provides an incentive to fail.

Meanwhile, Energy Future Holdings is still making huge payments to the private equity holders that are responsible for over leveraging the company in the first place.  Henry Roberts Kravis, CEO of KKR received $30 million and his cousin and co-CEO, George Roberts received $29.9 million in compensation for 2011.  Clearly, the survival of Energy Future Holdings is not the main concern of either these private equity barons or the executives at the company, or else they wouldn’t be squeezing personal profit out of it when it’s floundering.

While employees at Energy Future Holdings and its subsidiaries may be worrying about what the future holds, those at the top are cashing in big.  No government payments or loans to the company or altering of the energy market will change that dynamic.

Don’t let your money be used to line the pockets of failing executives and private equity CEOs.

If you live in Texas, please sign our petition urging all Texas Legislators to oppose any public or ratepayer-funded bailout of Energy Future Holdings

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »