Many American households and businesses saw energy costs soar this summer with July being the hottest month in Earth’s hottest year on record.

Utilities rely on “peaker plants” during these record-setting heat waves to avoid blackouts. Such plants are more expensive and often more polluting to operate, and utilities pass the higher costs straight on to their customers.

Fortunately, this energy equation is changing. Innovative pricing and smart energy systems are gradually taking hold across the United States, already allowing homes and businesses to save energy and cut costs. It’s just the beginning of what I call our next energy revolution.

Here are three technologies on the market today that are fueling this trend:

1) Smart electricity pricing

Right now, most utility customers pay the same price for electricity throughout the day. But this does not reflect its true cost, which actually fluctuates by season and time of day.

By switching our energy system to time-of-use pricing, which encourages people to shift their energy use to times of day when electricity is cheaper, we can all start saving on our electricity bills – and avoid the need for dirty peaker plants.

In fact, a new study by the Rocky Mountain Institute finds that customers can cut their electricity bills by up to 40 percent with rates and technologies that exist today.

California is leading the way with these innovative pricing schemes and plans to roll out pilot projects across the state next summer. Similar forms of smart pricing have been successfully implemented in various other states, including Oklahoma, Illinois and Maryland.

2) Home energy management

Smart thermostats such as the Nest are key to the success of smart electricity pricing. By programming these thermostats to increase a couple of degrees during the hottest and most expensive part of the day, for example, customers can better manage their energy use to take advantage of “off-peak” electricity prices.

Even if a utility doesn’t yet offer time-of-use pricing, these little devices can help shave electricity use for customers anywhere. Combined with sophisticated energy management mobile apps, home energy management technologies and smart appliances are improving customer control of energy use and bills.

3) Reliable energy storage

Home energy storage is an emerging technology, but it’s advancing quickly. This year, Tesla introduced a new wall-mounted, home energy storage unit that has been called a game changer.

This new technology has the potential to ease stress on the electric grid by storing electricity produced when demand is low for use when demand is high. It has been so popular that the company already sold all of the stationary batteries it can produce in 2016.

Forward-thinking companies such as California’s Pacific Gas & Electric Company are now piloting new battery energy storage technologies to determine how effectively they can provide a variety of grid services, including the integration of intermittent renewable generation from solar and wind.

Illinois is also moving forward with with energy storage, and look for other states to follow.

A living laboratory

While some of these technologies are new and developing, some have been around for some time and remain underutilized.

Although 65 million American households already have access to smart pricing, for example, only 4 million have signed up. (To find out if you’re among the 61 million eligible for smart electricity pricing, call your utility today.)

Technology can keep our electricity usage stable and energy costs low – but only if implemented ambitiously, and widely available.

A living laboratory for smarter energy, right here in Texas, points the way.

This post originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

To avoid the worst effects of climate change, we must do more to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, we still do not have a price on carbon, one of the most prevalent greenhouse gases in the world and the biggest contributor to climate change. Despite knowing that a carbon price creates broad incentives to cut emissions, the current average price of carbon globally (which is below zero, once half a trillion dollars of fossil-fuel subsidies are factored in) is much too low relative to the hidden environmental, health, and societal costs of burning a ton of coal or a barrel of oil.

Policies that comprehensively reform the energy sector—a sector designed around fossil fuels—are necessary even as the price of renewable energy declines. The cost of solar photovoltaics, for example, has declined 80 percent since 2008. Prices will continue to fall, but not fast enough to make a dent in the climate problem.

Policymakers are more likely to price carbon appropriately if renewables are competitive with (or cheaper than) fossil fuels. But reducing the cost of renewable energy requires substantial investment, and thus a carbon price. The best hope of resolution is through controlled policy experiments designed to drive down the cost of renewable power sources even further and faster than in the past five years.

In a Nature commentary published today, Push renewables to spur carbon pricing, several of my colleagues and leading climate and energy experts outline a plan for deepening solar and wind penetration levels and achieving the ‘holy grail’ of climate policy: an effective carbon price.

The group calls for policymakers to:

• End fossil-fuel subsidies by breaking-up non-competitive arrangements around electric grid access;
• Modernize our grid by funding the integration of renewable energy resources; and
• Address the energy sector in its entirety by subsidizing key technologies — particularly battery storage — to quicken systemic change in transportation and electricity.

All of this makes a carbon cap or tax more likely.

How energizing #renewables can spur #CarbonPricing
Click To Tweet

The full comment is available on Nature.com and is co-authored by Environmental Defense Fund lead senior economist, Gernot Wagner, and economic analyst, Katherine Rittenhouse; Tomas Kåberger, professor industrial energy policy at Chalmers University of Technology and board member of Vattenfall; Susanna Olai, environmental economist at the University of Gothenburg; Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton; and Thomas Sterner, professor of environmental economics at the University of Gothenburg and EDF senior contributing economist.

(This post originally appeared on EDF's Energy Exchange blog)

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the Clean Power Plan, the first initiative of its kind to curb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing U.S. power plants. By improving air quality, the plan promises to prevent 90,000 childhood asthma attacks and avoid up to 3,600 premature deaths each year – without compromising economic growth. In fact, the Clean Power Plan is an incredible economic opportunity that states can’t afford to miss.

By limiting power plants’ “free pass” to pollute, EPA projects their Plan will deliver billions of dollars in environmental and public health benefits each year – and that’s just the start. Here are three ways in which the Clean Power Plan will work to strengthen states’ economies and accelerate many of the clean energy trends already underway:

1) It will pave the way for hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs.

The clean energy economy is already delivering more quality jobs than the fossil fuel industry. Solar energy, for example, now employs more Americans than coal mining – 142,698 versus 89,838 – while the entire renewables industry employed over 700,000 Americans in 2014. Furthermore, one dollar invested in clean energy today creates three times as many jobs as a dollar invested in fossil fuels.  And under the Clean Power Plan, this trend will accelerate with the potential to create a quarter-million jobs by 2040. That’s because many states will choose to comply with EPA regulations by ramping up renewable energy – an industry that is more labor-intensive and creates more jobs per dollar invested than the highly-mechanized fossil fuel industry. Clean energy installation also relies more heavily on local workers, increasing the amount of locally-invested dollars and related economic benefits to communities (in contrast to coal plants, whose investments are mostly funneled to out-of-state mining companies).

2) It will lower household electricity bills.

One powerful way states can choose to implement the Clean Power Plan is by employing more energy efficiency and renewable energy resources. Energy conservation could include everything from state-wide weatherization programs to smart electricity pricing – like demand response and time-of-use-pricing, which work to save people electricity and money. Because after all, the cheapest kind of electricity is the kind we don’t use in the first place. EPA projects that the Clean Power Plan’s flexible framework will enable a total of $155 billion in electricity savings between 2020-2030 – reducing enough energy to power 30 million homes. And, EPA went one step further to ensure these energy savings reach the communities that need them most. Through the Clean Energy Incentive Program, the Clean Power Plan prioritizes early investment in energy efficiency projects in low-income communities by rewarding states for implementing these programs.  These incentives, along with the plummeting cost of renewables like solar, will make clean energy solutions the increasingly affordable compliance option. According to the EPA, this means that by 2030, when the Plan is fully implemented, electricity bills are expected to be roughly seven percent lower than they would be without any state action. Put another way, U.S. families will be saving on average $85 a year on their electricity bills. And that’s money they can pump back into our economy.

Click to Enlarge

3) It will spur greater technology innovation and entrepreneurship.

EPA’s plan – once implemented – will send a strong market signal to entrepreneurs, businesses, and venture capitalists to move full-steam ahead with new, clean energy innovations. Under current market conditions, the advanced energy economy is already outpacing the U.S. airline industry, and roughly equal to the pharmaceutical business – and this growth will be accelerated under the Clean Power Plan. History has proven that these kind of smart, commonsense energy policies spur economic growth and innovation. In California, for example, since the passage of AB 32 (the state’s carbon pollution-reduction law), cleantech jobs alone have grown ten times faster than in other sector over the past decade, and since 2006, the state has seen investments of $27 billion in clean energy venture capital. California experienced this remarkable growth all while lowering its carbon emissions. Under the Clean Power Plan, we can do this on the national scale too with the right market signals.

Political support for a thriving industry

EPA’s Clean Power Plan provides states with tremendous flexibility in deciding how to achieve their emission reduction targets, in ways that build upon our already-thriving clean energy economy. Most states have already taken great strides towards meeting the Clean Power Plan’s targets, making them well-positioned to meet regulations by the newly-extended 2022 deadline. Whether a state’s economy thrives is a matter of the choices by state policy makers.

I think my friend and colleague, Fred Krupp sums up this economic opportunity best:

The states that join this race first, and run it the fastest, will win both more investment in clean technologies and less air pollution for their communities. No single step will fix climate change, but the Clean Power Plan is also a catalyst for more and quicker pollution reductions in the future, as we continue to innovate and grow the economy.

The Clean Power Plan is an important step toward establishing policies that will bolster and encourage our existing clean energy economy. We have the tools, technology, and innovation to turn the corner on climate change – we welcome the regulations to support them.

Photo Source: Duke Energy

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the Clean Power Plan, the first initiative of its kind to curb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing U.S. power plants. By improving air quality, the plan promises to prevent 90,000 childhood asthma attacks and avoid up to 3,600 premature deaths each year – without compromising economic growth. In fact, the Clean Power Plan is an incredible economic opportunity that states can’t afford to miss.

By limiting power plants’ “free pass” to pollute, EPA projects their Plan will deliver billions of dollars in environmental and public health benefits each year – and that’s just the start. Here are three ways in which the Clean Power Plan will work to strengthen states’ economies and accelerate many of the clean energy trends already underway:

1) It will pave the way for hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs.

The clean energy economy is already delivering more quality jobs than the fossil fuel industry. Solar energy, for example, now employs more Americans than coal mining – 142,698 versus 89,838 – while the entire renewables industry employed over 700,000 Americans in 2014. Furthermore, one dollar invested in clean energy today creates three times as many jobs as a dollar invested in fossil fuels.  And under the Clean Power Plan, this trend will accelerate with the potential to create a quarter-million jobs by 2040. That’s because many states will choose to comply with EPA regulations by ramping up renewable energy – an industry that is more labor-intensive and creates more jobs per dollar invested than the highly-mechanized fossil fuel industry. Clean energy installation also relies more heavily on local workers, increasing the amount of locally-invested dollars and related economic benefits to communities (in contrast to coal plants, whose investments are mostly funneled to out-of-state mining companies).

The #CleanPowerPlan will do wonders for air quality – but what about our economy? The top 3 things…
Click To Tweet

2) It will lower household electricity bills.

One powerful way states can choose to implement the Clean Power Plan is by employing more energy efficiency and renewable energy resources. Energy conservation could include everything from state-wide weatherization programs to smart electricity pricing – like demand response and time-of-use-pricing, which work to save people electricity and money. Because after all, the cheapest kind of electricity is the kind we don’t use in the first place. EPA projects that the Clean Power Plan’s flexible framework will enable a total of $155 billion in electricity savings between 2020-2030 – reducing enough energy to power 30 million homes. And, EPA went one step further to ensure these energy savings reach the communities that need them most. Through the Clean Energy Incentive Program, the Clean Power Plan prioritizes early investment in energy efficiency projects in low-income communities by rewarding states for implementing these programs.  These incentives, along with the plummeting cost of renewables like solar, will make clean energy solutions the increasingly affordable compliance option. According to the EPA, this means that by 2030, when the Plan is fully implemented, electricity bills are expected to be roughly seven percent lower than they would be without any state action. Put another way, U.S. families will be saving on average $85 a year on their electricity bills. And that’s money they can pump back into our economy.

3) It will spur greater technology innovation and entrepreneurship.

EPA’s plan – once implemented – will send a strong market signal to entrepreneurs, businesses, and venture capitalists to move full-steam ahead with new, clean energy innovations. Under current market conditions, the advanced energy economy is already outpacing the U.S. airline industry, and roughly equal to the pharmaceutical business – and this growth will be accelerated under the Clean Power Plan. History has proven that these kind of smart, commonsense energy policies spur economic growth and innovation. In California, for example, since the passage of AB 32 (the state’s carbon pollution-reduction law), cleantech jobs alone have grown ten times faster than in other sector over the past decade, and since 2006, the state has seen investments of $27 billion in clean energy venture capital. California experienced this remarkable growth all while lowering its carbon emissions. Under the Clean Power Plan, we can do this on the national scale too with the right market signals.

Political support for a thriving industry

EPA’s Clean Power Plan provides states with tremendous flexibility in deciding how to achieve their emission reduction targets, in ways that build upon our already-thriving clean energy economy. Most states have already taken great strides towards meeting the Clean Power Plan’s targets, making them well-positioned to meet regulations by the newly-extended 2022 deadline. Whether a state’s economy thrives is a matter of the choices by state policy makers.

I think my friend and colleague, Fred Krupp sums up this economic opportunity best:

The states that join this race first, and run it the fastest, will win both more investment in clean technologies and less air pollution for their communities. No single step will fix climate change, but the Clean Power Plan is also a catalyst for more and quicker pollution reductions in the future, as we continue to innovate and grow the economy.

The Clean Power Plan is an important step toward establishing policies that will bolster and encourage our existing clean energy economy. We have the tools, technology, and innovation to turn the corner on climate change – we welcome the regulations to support them.

Photo Source: Duke Energy

Solar energy is booming – and you needn’t look further for proof of its success than Brian H. Potts’ recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. When a utility lawyer like Potts is arguing for what type of solar energy our country should be investing in –utility-owned, large-scale solar versus customer-owned, rooftop – you know this renewable energy resource has gone mainstream. And that’s a good thing.

We should support a wide variety of clean energy resources precisely because these technologies eliminate the costs of pollution now being socialized by fossil fuel generators. And this is becoming all the more critical as the costs of a changing climate grow.

Rooftop solar incentives deliver benefits

As Potts points out, the price of solar panels has fallen by 80 percent since 2008. This significant decrease in cost – coupled with incentives like net metering that allow customers to send the surplus energy they produce from their solar systems back to the grid and receive a credit on their bill, plus the emergence of new financing models like solar “leasing” programs – has led to an explosion of rooftop solar in the U.S.

Even though these incentives and loan programs have resulted in localized health benefits and unprecedented energy savings for millions of American families and businesses, Potts’ believes our money would be better spent if we invested it in more “cost-effective renewable sources of power” like utility-owned, large-scale solar systems.

While perhaps not equal to large, central solar plants owned and operated by utilities, the price of distributed solar installations are plunging, and the returns growing.

In 2012, rooftop solar panels cost about one percent of what they did 30 years ago. Solar leasing models and policies like net metering and tax incentives have served as a necessary precursor and an enormous catalyst to distributed solar development, making solar energy a more attainable option for American families and small businesses.

That’s why it’s imperative we keep these incentives in place. It is important to remember that these solar policies are working in the real world. They are helping to drive the current boom in solar generation, and eliminating them – as Potts suggests – would undermine the very policies helping to accelerate our nation’s transition to a clean energy economy.

Incentives like net metering deliver many benefits that Potts does not address. For example, net metering spurs the production of electricity on-site where it’s consumed, which can help reduce the strain on distribution systems and cut the amount of electricity lost to long-distance transmission (estimated at seven percent in the U.S.). Net metering, moreover, tends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by incentivizing people to adopt renewable energy and become more aware of energy-saving opportunities.

And Potts’ argument that net metering isn’t fair to those who don’t invest in rooftop solar is just plain wrong. A recent study sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission found that, on average, net metering customers pay more into the system than the costs they create; that is, they’re still contributing more than their fair share at around 103 percent cost recovery.

Net metering customers contribute an average of 3% more than their fair share to the grid. Source: CPUC

A diversity of solar projects for a diversity of customers

Net metering aside, there are other types of local solar that can help reduce costs and negate structural, shading, or ownership issues associated with rooftop installations. Community solar allows customers to “subscribe” to larger solar arrays located in their neighborhood. The subscribers then get a credit on their electricity bill for the energy produced from these community solar projects through a process called virtual net metering. This model is particularly attractive to renters, apartment dwellers, and low-income communities who may not otherwise be able to join the solar revolution. Although Potts does not address this kind of local solar, it offers benefits utility-scale solar cannot.

Also, many of these systems are now on vast warehouses and big box retail roofs. As a whole, the top 20 big-box retailers have over 18,000 U.S. stores, representing enormous potential for solar power growth. These retailers are only part of a larger group of commercial customers, which in total make up about one- third of U.S. electric utility sales. But other commercial customers are turning to solar too. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports 40 percent of the nation’s 86,000 supermarkets are located in areas with grid parity (i.e., the cost of power from solar panels is equal to or less than the cost of buying power from the utility).

Rooftop solar will keep getting cheaper

Finally, recent power purchase agreements with third-party solar providers are allowing global corporations like Google, Apple, and Walmart to develop their own economies of scale. Apple, for example, made headlines earlier this year when it signed a 25-year contract to buy solar energy directly from a third-party solar provider – securing enough electricity to power essentially all of the company's California operations for less than half the cost it would pay to a utility. New finance models like yieldcos, which allow companies to distribute profits from power sales to their shareholders in the form of regular dividends, are also allowing renewable energy developers to further scale rooftop solar affordably like never before. This financial tool didn’t exist three years ago but is on track to become a $100 billion market this year.

Utilities’ real concern: Impacts on their profits

It’s not surprising why Potts would argue against rooftop solar. Analysis from a recent Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study shows, even under the most aggressive expansion of rooftop solar the researchers studied, shareholder (or utility) profits would be impacted more from net metering than customers’ electricity rates. It would appear these efforts to attack rooftop solar and related policies like net-metering are more about disruptions to profits than negative impacts on customers or the planet.

We agree the role of renewables, especially solar, in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is critical to managing climate change. And continued support – for all types of solar energy – is essential.

Governor Greg Abbott and Texas Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz recently met in a meeting with Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell to discuss how they could sabotage the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed (CPP). The CPP would place the nation’s first-ever limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants – the rules for which are expected to be finalized this summer.

The reason for the meeting is simple: Sen. McConnell is currently touting a “just say no” approach to EPA’s regulations, advocating states refuse to create a compliance plan, which is clearly to protect his coal-producing state. He also supports legislation to let states opt-out of the pollution reduction program. After the closed-door meeting, Governor Abbott announced he is siding with the Senator from Kentucky on the CPP.

What the press release didn’t say: By aligning himself with Sen. McConnell, Governor Abbott is hurting Texas.

Texas should “just say no” to McConnell

One of the main goals of the CPP is to lessen air pollution from carbon emissions, which is beneficial to everyone’s health and could save thousands of lives. In order to achieve these benefits, the nation’s electricity generation mix will have to change, and there is a general consensus about what those changes will involve.

1. The CPP will accelerate the shift of generation from coal to natural gas plants.

Kentucky is a coal state, so it is easy to understand why McConnell doesn’t like the regulations. But Texas is a natural gas state, and an increased use of natural gas is one of the four main CPP . In fact, according to a CPP analysis by the Center for Strategic for International Studies, the West South Central region of the country (which includes Texas) stands to gain anywhere from $4-18 billion a year in annual revenue from natural gas production. Plus, Texas would be using more energy from right here in our own state, rather than relying on coal from other states. Why would Abbott oppose a program to help this important piece of Texas’ economy?

2. The CPP will increase the amount of solar and wind generation.

Okay, Kentucky doesn’t have a lot of renewable resources. But Texas is already the number one wind energy producer in the country and we are well-positioned to continue leading in that area. There is even the potential to export our wind-generated electricity to other parts of the country. We also have the greatest solar energy potential of any state: according to the State Energy Conservation Office, “Texas has a virtually unlimited solar energy supply.” Why would Governor Abbott be against a plan that will help Texas wind and solar, in addition to Texas ranchers, who get paid to host wind farms and solar arrays on their land?

3. The CPP will encourage existing and new coal plants to sequester carbon pollution in old underground oil and gas fields.

Kentucky doesn’t have the necessary geology to use carbon pollution sequestration, but Texas does. And through this technology, Texas operators will be able to retrieve oil and gas from fields that were thought to have been played out. Why would Governor Abbott side with Kentucky instead of supporting an initiative that will also help oil and gas production in Texas?

It is hard to understand someone else’s motivations. But when trying to determine why Governor Abbott is so opposed to the CPP, you could conclude he has a political response to any initiative the Obama Administration proposes. It reminds me of a dog chasing cats – the dogs just can’t help themselves, even when the chase runs them into sticker bushes and physical injuries. Unfortunately, Governor Abbott’s irrational actions will cause more than a few scratches.

This post originally appeared on our Texas Clean Air Matters blog.

There is an assault on public health and environmental integrity underway in the Texas Legislature right now that’s the worst I’ve seen in my twenty-something years as an environmental advocate.

The Texas Legislature is currently considering a series of bills that would eliminate much of the important rules protecting not just air and water, but also public health and safety. Many of these laws have been in place for decades and are critical in a state where the energy industry and large polluting companies are a key part of our economy.

Here’s a run-down of some of the worst bills being considered at the Texas Legislature and the elected “leaders” sponsoring them:

Crime: State Senator Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay), author of Senate Bill (SB) 931, is proposing to undo the law that put Texas on the national – and international – map for wind energy: the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Set into law in 1999, the RPS set renewable energy, predominately wind, goals for Texas, launching a windfall of new investment in West Texas and the Panhandle. This is the same law that helped create 40 new businesses and 30,000 jobs in 57 West Texas counties, including Fraser’s own county.

Wind energy is a vital component of Texas’ economy and environment. Not only does it support thousands of jobs, predominately in rural West Texas, but wind energy also requires virtually zero water, saving an estimated eight billion gallons of water each year. This bill would also halt construction of the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ), a 3,600 mile transmission line that will connect remote West Texas wind energy to the eastern cities that need its power. This project, one that the state has already invested in, would deliver enough power to energize 3.7 million to 7.4 million homes and increase the available wind power supply by a whopping 50 percent.

Punishment: Repay Texas for the billion gallons of water that will be lost each year when more fuel power plants are used rather than water-free wind energy.

Accomplices: The 21 Senators who voted in favor of this bill, including Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston), Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury), Konni Burton (R-Colleyville), Donna Campbell (R- New Braunfels), Brandon Creighton (R- Conroe), Kevin Eltife (R-Tyler), Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls), Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay), Bob Hall (R-Edgewood), Kelly Hancock (R-North Richland Hills,) Don Huffines (R-Dallas), Joan Huffman (R-Houston), Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), Eddie Lucio, Jr. (D-Brownsville), Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound), Robert Nichols (R-Jacksonville), Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), Charles Schwertner (R-Georgetown), Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo), Larry Taylor (R-Friendswood), Van Taylor (R-Plano).

WANTED: Legislators on the loose at #TXlege upending local control and putting Texas in harm’s…
Click To Tweet

_________

Crime: State House Representative Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth), author of House Bill (HB) 1794, is proposing a gift to big polluters by placing strict limits on maximum penalties for environmental damages. Companies now will often make more money violating, rather than complying with, the law. Not only would the bill prevent local governments from protecting Texans, Geren would also give industry even more leeway by imposing a five-year statute of limitations on local governments for filing lawsuits.

This means if it takes more than five years for the pollution or the damages or health impacts from the pollution to become evident – as was the case with the toxins in the San Jacinto River waste pits – affected citizens will have no way to seek justice. In that particular case, cost estimates for remediating the waste pits range from $100 million to $600 million, while Geren is proposing a cap of a measly $4.3 million – and that’s assuming you notice the pollution or the damage in time to beat the statute of limitations.

With a maximum penalty, polluters will often find that “crime” actually does pay. The penalty for violating the law will be less than the money saved by non-compliance. Geren is providing companies an incentive to violate the law, and placing law-abiding companies at an economic disadvantage.

Punishment: Explaining to Texans why they should have to endure the devastating health impacts – and their associated costs – of irresponsible polluters who’ve been given a free license to contaminate our water, air, and soil.

Accomplices: Rep. Patricia Harless (R-Spring), Rep. Cindy Burkett (R- Mesquite), Rep. Oscar Longoria (D-Mission), and Sen. Kelly Hancock (R-North Richland Hills) who wrote the companion bill in the Senate, SB 1509.

_________

Crime: State House Representative Geanie Morrison (R-Victoria), author of HB 1865, is proposing a historic shift in the way we regulate industry development in Texas. This new bill would make it the job of everyday citizens to hold potential polluters accountable for their actions.

Currently, if a major corporation wants to pollute the air or water and a hearing is requested, the polluter must prove they will do it safely and meet the requirements of the law. Not anymore with Morrison’s bill.

Instead of an applicant having to prove that their application complies with the law, as is the case with all permits in Texas, citizens would have to prove that an application does NOT comply with the law. The bill also dramatically shortens the time for a review by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Even if the case is complicated and issues are unresolvable, the application is automatically approved in six months, regardless of the threat to children. This shift of the “burden of proof” would require citizens to hire expensive experts in order to participate in a permit process, rather than simply review whether an application is complete and adequately supported.

Morrison is stacking the deck in favor industry and trying to prevent Texans from raising legitimate questions about health and safety.

Punishment: Visiting every school in Texas and explaining why the new chemical plant spewing carcinogens across the street is not a good playground.

Accomplices: Rep. Joe Deshotel (D-Beaumont), Rep. Wayne Smith (R-Baytown), Rep. Patricia Harless (R-Spring), and Rep. Dennis Bonnen (R-Angleton), plus our old friend Sen. Fraser, who wrote the Senate companion SB 709.

_________

Crime: State House Representative Jason Villalba (R-Dallas) is proposing to gut local energy building codes of 65 cities across the state and to limit the State from updating statewide energy efficiency building codes from once every two years to once every six years with HB 1736. This bill would handcuff Texas from working with private enterprise to lower electricity bills and cut harmful air pollution. The bill reverses decades of law and practice and prohibits city building codes from going above and beyond the state’s modest codes. All of Texas’ major cities have in recent years double-downed on energy efficiency, because it’s a no-brainer. These efforts would be completely undone.

Energy efficiency provides numerous benefits to Texas: lower electricity bills, jobs that can’t be outsourced, and significant reductions in dangerous power plant pollution, including carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide. Energy efficiency is also the most cost-effective way to reduce energy use, improving grid reliability and lowering costs of electricity infrastructure and maintenance. Plus, saving energy saves water, which is critical in a state like Texas under the pressure of a multi-year drought. Yes, Villalba’s bill will waste water.

Villalba is trying to stick Texas companies with high electricity bills, putting a damper on the states’ plan for economic growth and prosperity. Furthermore, he’s undermining the very spirit of Texas independence by limiting local control in favor of “Austin knows best.” Don’t let him get away with it!

Punishment: Explain to Texans why he is trying to keep their electricity bills unnecessarily high.

Accomplice: The star of this roundup, Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay), sponsor of the companion bill, Senate Bill 929.

This post originally appeared on our Texas Clean Air Matters blog.

Technology is making clean energy competitive with coal for the first time in history, and that’s a game changer.

In 1999, we pushed to get the first renewable energy mandate passed in the country – in Texas of all places. There were all sorts of concerns at the time that wind could not be integrated into the system, or that it would be too expensive. Time has proven otherwise.

Yes, Texas has plenty of oil and gas, but we also have a lot of sun and wind. Those early investments in renewables paid off and today the Lone Star State is the top wind energy-producing state in the nation.

As such, I believe we're helping to drive investments in wind across the United States.

Texas is on the cutting edge of technology – and proud of it…

I think most folks in government and most Texans are kind of proud of this fact. You can drive lots of places now and see giant wind farms that look a little bit futuristic.

Since 1999, the politics here have gotten worse, but the technology and economics are better. Renewable energy is cheap; it’s homegrown and not imported like most of our coal is. And for all its blustering, Texas likes to be on the cutting edge of technology.

We drove down the price of wind, and manufacturers and inventors saw an assured market, so they innovated and made the technology better.

If you look at the polling data, average Texans like clean energy, they like wind, and they like to protect our environment.

…even if our politicians don’t get it

Unfortunately, we have here, like in much of the country, a political system where elected officials are too-often way behind the people on this issue. Adding to the problem, electric utilities in many places still have an economic incentive to sell power from centralized plants that can last for up to 60 years – far too long to stay competitive and efficient.

Think Texas energy is all about oil? Think again. #TXenergy @JimMarston http://ow.ly/JkPKG
Click To Tweet

The good news is consumer choice is helping to drive the clean energy revolution, and most utilities understand two things:

1) They can’t stop the new technology that’s driving the revolution. (The history of the telecom sector tells us this.)

2) They can either get run over by new technology or embrace it, and by choosing to advance technologically they can prosper.

So one of our big initiatives, and that of the leading regulatory bodies around the country, is to generate a new business model that incentivizes utilities to more fully participate in the clean energy revolution. Despite important gains elsewhere, we’re going to be pushing a big rock up a steep hill until we solve that problem.

And let’s not forget that there are some really good people in the industry who understand climate change is real, and that they need to be part of the solution.

What we’re proving in Texas is that by having a relatively small mandate – about 2,000 new megawatts of renewable energy – the rule of economies of scale applies to our state too.

When we overhaul obsolete regulations and give people more choice and control over energy costs, we can reduce pollution in a meaningful way while supporting a thriving clean energy economy.

If it can work in Texas, it can work anywhere.

Photo source: Flickr/David Ingram

This post originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

Well, it didn’t take long before the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) released, at the request of Texas’ very political Public Utilities Commission, another report about the impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) rules designed to protect public health.

This time ERCOT, which manages 90 percent of Texas’ electric grid, looked at the impact of seven EPA clean air safeguards on the electric grid, including the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the Mercury Air Toxics Standard (MATS), the Regional Haze program (all of which go back before the Obama administration), the proposed Clean Power Plan, which would set the first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants, and others. What was surprising to learn, though, is that after power companies in the state start complying with EPA’s other clean air protections, the proposed Clean Power Plan poses a minimal incremental impact to the power grid. We would only have to cut 200 megawatts of coal-fired generation, which equates to less than one coal-fired power plant.

Singing a different tune

For as much doom-and-gloom we heard last month in ERCOT’s report about the Clean Power Plan, they certainly seem to be singing a different tune this go-around. The new report shows that Texas can go a long way toward complying with the Clean Power Plan by meeting other clean air safeguards, for which Texas power companies have had years to prepare.

Very soon power companies in Texas will install control technologies to reduce multiple – not just one – pollutants, thereby making compliance with EPA’s subsequent regulations easier and more cost-effective. In the end, Texas will only need to take a minimal amount of additional aging coal plants offline by 2029.

Plus, other energy resources, like energy efficiency, rooftop solar, and demand response (which pays people to conserve energy when the electric grid is stressed) are gaining ground every day in Texas. They have proven to be vital resources on the power grid that help reduce electricity costs for Texas homes and businesses.

Energy efficiency, in particular, provides significant reductions in power plant emissions, including carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and ozone-forming pollutants, and has a four-to-one payback on investment. This is the type of performance worth investing in.

Texas Grid Regulator Cites Very Little Burden in Complying with @EPA’s Clean Power Plan…
Click To Tweet

Putting the reliability issue to rest

ERCOT’s job is to maintain electric reliability in Texas. That’s why they have traditionally worked with power plants to ensure enough of them are up and running to meet the expected demand for electricity. To industry, changes to the status quo pose threats, but the energy system is changing – for economic, not environmental reasons.

Smart utilities in Texas recognized what was on the horizon and began prudent planning. Today, these forward-thinking utilities are well-positioned to meet EPA regulations because they already installed pollution control technologies, retired inefficient, water-intensive coal plants, and integrated more clean energy resources. If ERCOT doesn’t want to look to these utilities as a model, they can always look to their consultant, The Brattle Group, who noted that ERCOT could:

• Deploy 7,500 megawatts of flexible, easy-to-deploy demand response;
• Cut projected peak electricity demand growth in half with demand response and expanded energy efficiency alone; and
• Integrate several thousand megawatts of distributed energy storage to improve electric grid reliability, which the ERCOT report failed to include in its modeling.

Taken together, demand response, energy efficiency, and energy storage (both distributed and grid-scale) would help integrate more renewable energy on the power grid and reduce reliability concerns.

Why EPA safeguards are needed in Texas

The fact is Texas is the nation’s number one emitter of nitrogen oxides (NOx), the number two emitter of sulfur dioxide (SO2), and the number one emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2). Texas citizens stand to benefit the most from these pollution controls and a shift toward lower-carbon energy resources. In fact, CSAPR and MATS together will save up to 3,000 lives and provide upwards of $25 billion in health benefits in Texas alone.

If ERCOT has any concerns over future reliability or costs, it’s not because of EPA. It’s because some Texas power companies are wasting resources on aging coal plants and not harnessing Texas’ abundant, affluent clean energy resources.

Photo source: Armin Kübelbeck, Wikimedia Commons

This post originally appeared on our Texas Clean Air Matters blog.

Source: CPS Energy

While many are prophesizing the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) as doomsday for the electricity sector, Texas utilities are telling a different story. The CPP will limit – for the first time ever – carbon emissions from existing power plants. One utility in particular, CPS Energy in San Antonio, “has already embraced a low-carbon strategy that anticipates this rule,” making it the most well-positioned utility in the state, if not country.

Homegrown energy, literally

CPS Energy has excelled using its commitment to create local, clean energy jobs. In its Request for Proposal (RFP) for a 400 megawatt (MW) solar energy plant, the utility included a specification for the creation of local solar jobs. And it worked. Most recently, the utility announced the launch of the Mission Solar Energy Plant – a 240,000 square foot manufacturing plant that will employ upwards of 400 San Antonians. To assist with future expansions, CPS also helped create a program at Alamo Colleges to train its future workforce for clean energy jobs and, admirably, almost one out of every five employees is a veteran.

#Cleanenergy and job creation go hand-in-hand in San Antonio from @JimMarston http://ow.ly/EFC2j…
Click To Tweet

Follow the jobs

CPS Energy is a national leader in its ability to recruit cleantech companies to San Antonio by tying the RFP to manufacturing. When the utility requests proposals for clean energy projects, it gives preference to companies willing to relocate offices to Texas – much like OCI Solar Power, the solar developer for the 400 MW Alamo solar plant. When CPS Energy selected OCI Solar Power to install the solar panels in San Antonio, the company moved its headquarters to San Antonio, bringing 800 permanent jobs and investing at least $115 million locally.

OCI Solar Power is not an outlier either. Consert Inc., a smart home energy management company, moved to San Antonio (and pledged to create 150 jobs) after CPS Energy selected the company to help reduce San Antonians’ electricity bills – by as much as 250 megawatts over the next four years, or enough energy to power 50,000 homes. So far CPS has recruited cleantech companies OCI Solar Power, KACO, Sun Action Trackers, Consert, and Greenstar for a total of 957 new jobs through its resource procurement process.

Not only is CPS Energy bringing more jobs that can’t be outsourced to the city, it is also saving money for residents and businesses. This is a win-win for everyone.

Time to take the bull by the horns

EPA’s Clean Power Plan presents an opportunity to grow and sustain Texas’ economy through clean energy. Much like CPS Energy has trail-blazed a new business model that serves its community in several ways, Texas needs to take the bull by the horns and create a plan that serves Texans and local industry. This is not rocket science and it’s not end-of-the-world superstition. The CPP is a smart policy well within Texas’ reach. All we have to do is amplify current trends – rely on more West Texas wind, take advantage of the state’s abundant natural gas supply, widen the use of Texas’ largely untapped solar potential, and use electricity more efficiently. We can start by looking at San Antonio and other progressive utilities in El Paso, Austin, and elsewhere, as well as by coupling Texas ingenuity with clean energy to give us more jobs and clean air. Let’s seize this opportunity, lest we lose economic growth to other states embracing the clean energy future.

This post originally appeared on our Texas Clean Air Matters blog.

We knew this was coming. Everyone knew. The power sector is the single largest source of carbon pollution in the U.S. and one of the largest in the world, yet there are no limits on how much carbon power plants can emit into our air. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) for new and existing power plants is urgently needed, is well within Texas’ reach, and can ensure that Texas (more so than other states) forges a strong and prosperous clean energy economy.

But this week, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages roughly 90 percent of Texas’ power grid, issued a report that overestimates the challenges posed by the CPP to the state’s electric grid reliability. Furthermore, it failed to appropriately recognize key tools available to ERCOT and the state to meet the proposed CPP.

Here’s a breakdown of what the report missed:

• ERCOT appears to have looked at growing existing energy efficiency programs, rather than the full-scale of what Texas could achieve under the CPP. Energy efficiency, one of the main building blocks in the CPP, is the best means to lower electricity prices for Texans. The Brattle Group found in its report for the Texas Clean Energy Coalition that the potential for energy efficiency savings in Texas is significant – saving $2 – $5 for every $1 invested. Regardless of the CPP, failing to improve Texas’ efficiency efforts hurts Texans.
• The analysis forecasts a boom in solar generation, but it doesn’t take into account the full potential of residential and distributed solar energy, which will not only help Texas meet the CPP, but also help lower prices for homeowners and businesses.
• ERCOT fails to include energy storage technologies that help integrate more West Texas wind energy and solar power by providing backup power when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Energy storage can also help provide electricity at a moment’s notice, enhancing electric grid reliability.
• The report does not recognize the real opportunity available to enhance system reliability through demand response, which rewards people for using less electricity, rather than turning on coal-fired power plants to meet electricity demand. Demand response helped ERCOT avoid rolling blackouts last winter, can respond quickly in times of need, requires little to no water, and improves air quality. This is the type of performance worth investing in.

The big picture

Obviously, grid reliability is a critical component of ERCOT’s mission, and the best way to secure reliable power for Texans is to harness more homegrown energy using innovative, clean technologies. Texas has the nation’s most competitive electric grid for a reason – ingenuity and smart planning.

Texas can own its future by designing its own plan to achieve the carbon reductions that are so urgently needed while protecting the grid all Texans rely upon (including the opportunity to achieve compliance with the CPP over a 10-year period). Texas can take a page from the numerous power companies in the state that are already proving a low-carbon energy system is dependable and low cost. With the CPP, Texas has another opportunity to lead the nation by harnessing more West Texas wind energy and lower-carbon fuels, tapping into the state’s solar energy potential, and building out its energy efficiency programs. But the benefits don’t stop there. Implementing the Clean Power Plan in Texas will also ensure healthier and longer lives for Texans.

This is the big-picture thinking Texas needs. And now is the time for Texas to tap into the ingenuity and smart planning our state is known for.

Photo source: Dpysh w

This post originally appeared on our Texas Clean Air Matters blog.

A coal train rolls through a town in West Virginia, which produces more coal than any other state except for Wyoming.

Nobody was surprised to hear political foes of President Obama and leaders from several coal-dependent states blast EPA’s proposal to limit carbon pollution from America’s power plants.

The Clean Power Plan, released June 2, represents a big change in the way America will generate and use energy in the coming decades. We understand: Big changes are scary.

So it’s interesting to ponder which political leaders in states dependent on coal-fired power will, in the end, seize this historic opportunity.

Who will use the flexible policy tools offered in the Clean Power Plan to diversify their energy economies and unleash innovation to help their states grow? Who will show political courage?

Clean(-er) power for Texas

Just imagine if a state like Texas, my home state, used the plan to fully leverage its robust natural gas, wind and solar resources. It would be a game changer.

Texas power plants, and the state as a whole, continue to lead the nation in carbon dioxide emissions.

Texas also leads the nation in producing more than 12,000 megawatts (MW) of wind energy. That’s impressive.

According to data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, however, this represents less than 1 percent of Texas' onshore wind potential.

What’s more, Texas is at the top in solar potential, yet solar energy in Texas lags far behind wind at 213 MW of installed capacity. This spells tremendous opportunity.

So does Texas’ natural gas industry, which may be the biggest winner under EPA’s plan. The American Natural Gas Association predicts the new emission standards will increase natural gas demand by 45 percent – much of which will be produced by Texas with little impact to electricity prices.

In fact, the flexibility of EPA’s proposed plan offers Texas and other states dozens of ways to comply while improving public health and the state economy.

West Virginia: Rich in energy

Take West Virginia, where king coal has reigned for decades. It's among several coal-producing states that got a break by the Clean Power Plan.

West Virginia only needs to cut emissions from power plants by 20 percent by 2030, when the overall target for all 491 plants nationwide is 30 percent, and some states face cuts of 40 percent or more.

This has not kept West Virginia from threatening to sue the EPA over the rules, even as several of the state’s utilities said they’re already well on their way to meeting EPA’s rules.

But amid such noise there’s also optimism. The West Virginia University College of Law has already teamed up with a consulting firm to analyze EPA’s plan and to develop strategies some West Virginians hope will help the state transition to a cleaner future.

“West Virginia has an abundance of energy resources – including coal, natural gas, biomass, wind, solar and energy efficiency,” noted James Van Nostrand, director of the university’s Center for Energy and Sustainable Development.

Finding the right mix, he said, will be the main challenge.

Meanwhile, other states enjoy a head start thanks to politically courageous decisions taken years ago. Colorado, a purple state and the seventh largest coal-producer in the country, is one such state.

Colorado blasts ahead

Voters in the Rocky Mountain State approved a renewable energy standard a decade ago and in 2010, the legislature adopted the “Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act.” It requires utility companies to get 20 percent of their energy from cleaner sources by 2020, speeding up the retirement of aging coal-fired plants.

Then in late 2013, Colorado became the first state in the nation to propose new methane limits for its oil and gas operations.

By reining in this highly potent greenhouse gas, and thanks to the steps it took over the past decade, Colorado may already be ahead of the curve when it comes to meeting EPA’s proposed standards.

And what does all this energy progress cost? According to one Colorado utility, Xcel Energy, the Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act will cost the company $1 billion, with an annual rate impact of only about 2 percent over the next decade.

Yet the benefits to Coloradans are significant: $590 million in averted health costs and 1,500 construction jobs.

My guess is that not even in states such as Texas or West Virginia will they be able to deny for long the billions in cost-savings, millions in health benefits, and hundreds of new jobs that the Clean Power Plan promises.

"California's air [resources] board [CARB] unveiled the nation's most ambitious plan on June 26th to require cleaner cars and fuels, energy-efficient buildings and more electricity from the sun and wind to cut greenhouse gases in the state." — San Francisco Chronicle, 6/27/08

Discussion on the implementation of AB 32, California's landmark global warming legislation.

Featuring:
David Festa, Vice President, West Coast
Jim Marston, Senior Attorney and Regional Director
Derek Walker, Director, California Climate Initiative

Download mp3 | Subscribe in iTunes

In this March 7, 2007 call, Fred Krupp, Jim Marston and others discuss what happened behind the scenes to make the TXU buyout happen.

Download the mp3 | Subscribe in iTunes

Guest blogger Jim Marston is an attorney, and the Director of the Energy Program in the Texas Office of Environmental Defense.

Who would have thought that, almost a month to the day after the USCAP initiative was announced, coal-enamored TXU would come on board? But today's big news is victory in Texas, thanks to an unusual buyout agreement.

The firms buying TXU – Texas Pacific Group and Kohlbert Kravis Roberts & Co (KKR) – reached an agreement with Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council to significantly scale back TXU's coal plant building plan, and adhere to a strict set of environmental standards:

• Terminate TXU’s previous plans to expand coal operations in other states.
• Endorse the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (US CAP) platform, including the call for a mandatory federal cap on carbon emissions.
• Reduce the company’s carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
• Promote Demand-Side Management programs to reduce energy consumption.
• Double the company’s expenditures on energy efficiency measures.
• Double the company’s purchase of wind power.
• Honor TXU’s agreement to reduce criteria pollutants in Texas by 20% (TXU’s 20% pledge was contingent upon approval of all 11 plants).
• Establish a Sustainable Energy Advisory Board on which I will serve.

The wheels started turning on this landmark agreement less than two weeks ago, when Environmental Defense president Fred Krupp received a phone call from former E.P.A. administrator William K. Reilly, who is advising Texas Pacific Group. Fred sent me to California to manage the negotiations for Environmental Defense.

This is a sweet victory after our bitter 10-month battle to stop TXU. It's also a landmark event in the effort to stop global warming. This will not only be the biggest leveraged buyout ever, it is the only buyout in history made contingent on the approval of environmental groups.

News of the TXU buyout and its commitment to environmental measures is all over the news – including the blogosphere. Our favorite comment so far comes from David Roberts on Gristmill:

Who did the equity firms approach about making the project environmentally acceptable? NRDC and Environmental Defense. Green groups like these get grief from hardcore enviros because they work closely with business and favor market-based solutions. They get grief from the Reaper crowd because they're stodgy and technocratic and not hip to the new Apollo Alliance-style "framing." But who's making things happen?

I don't think of myself as stodgy, but I'll take the compliment!