Monthly Archives: February 2019

How Do We Manage Energy Storage Systems?

Perhaps the great “missing piece of the energy puzzle” is energy storage. While renewable power has come down in price and is now competitive cost-wise compared to fossil fuel-fired plants, renewable power is still not a consistent source of power. The sun has its limits; wind has its limits. As people and businesses need power, at least one can combust fossil fuels all day or all year long to consistently supply power. If energy storage of excess power developed from renewable power plants can be made feasible and affordable, utility-sized renewable power projects will become commonplace; the market will demand this. Much research is being conducted into achieving this for energy storage and some progress has been made.

How should energy storage units be regulated? A recent petition at the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) may be a harbinger of such issues. The EFSB oversees transmission lines, gas pipelines, and certain generating facilities; in other words, the management and approval of, cost of, and environmental impacts associated with most significant energy infrastructure in Massachusetts.
In January 2019, Cranberry Point Energy Storage, LLC submitted a request that the EFSB not have jurisdiction over a proposed 150-megawatt, lithium-ion energy storage system in the state because the proposed system is not a “generating facility.” The proposed energy storage unit does not transform one type of energy into electric energy; it merely takes electric energy generated elsewhere, stores it, and then transmits it. Therefore, Cranberry Point does not need EFSB approval to construct and operate the proposed facility, nor can the EFSB regulate its use.

This is a potential double-edged sword for a developer. EFSB’s approval process for energy projects in Massachusetts is often rigorous and adds on to other state permitting processes. One would understand Cranberry Point’s desire to avoid EFSB review. However, EFSB approval of a project has also been used by applicants to counter local opposition to projects (if the project meets EFSB’s tough standards, it must be beneficial). Another concern is if an agency, such as EFSB (or equivalent ones in other states), no longer has jurisdiction to approve or manage an energy storage project, who does? If other aspects of energy infrastructure are subject to public oversight, why should energy storage be exempted? And if not, who is appropriate to decide if such a project is in the public interest and regulate it so it is run reliably and safely?

A decision on jurisdiction is likely within later this year. The debate, as the technology becomes more established, will spread throughout the country undoubtedly.

CCES has the experts to help your company manage your energy usage and sources to provide reliable, affordable power for electricity, heat, and steam. We understand the technologies for you to more efficiently and cost-effectively use power and from reliable, diversified sources. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

DOE Moves To Rescind Lighting Energy Efficiency Standards

The US Department of Energy (DOE) published its intention to rescind two 2017 rules which expanded energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. See https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/02/f59/withdrawal-of-gsl-definition-nopr.pdf. The DOE claimed that the plan misconstrued existing law and can no longer go forward.

The DOE’s Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles covers most major household appliances, including general service lamps (GSLs), The rule directs the DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles, one to include incandescent lights within the definition of GSL and the other to evaluate energy conservation standards for GSLs. January 2017 rulemaking addressed these 2 issues. The new energy conservation standards, which incandescent bulbs would have problems meeting, were to go into effect in January 2020.

Rescinding the rule would cost consumers billions of dollars and also increase emissions of GHGs and toxic compounds. Most of the American public and businesses have already addressed the standards, in terms of caldelabras, reflectors, sockets, and bulb performance. About 3 billion sockets in US homes alone would be impacted.

An analysis of the rule and its potential roll back estimates that rescinding the rules will:

• cost American households $22 billion in 2025, about $180 per household.

• US electricity use would increase by 80 billion kWh per year — about the combined usage of all households in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

• This relaxing of standards would cause more power plant activity (fossil fuel combustion) which would produce pollution harming the environment and contributing to health problems like asthma. Annual emission increases would include an extra 19,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, 23,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 34 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2025 — the latter equal to that of over 7 million cars.

The potential rescinding of the rules would also stifle innovation, eliminating a robust incentive for businesses and homeowners to purchase or invest in energy-efficient LED light bulbs.

The draft rule is currently open for public comment. A public hearing on this issue will be held on February 28, 2019.

Rule or no rule, CCES has the experts to help you invest in the most energy efficient lights possible to maximize your cost and other savings and to design and install them to optimize productivity and reduce O&M. Contact us today 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Summary of the Green New Deal

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey on Feb. 7, 2019 each released a framework for prospective legislation called a Green New Deal (GND), an ambitious green and economic policy. The GND proposals may serve as a blueprint for a future climate and energy package or a bipartisan infrastructure bill. Remember, these are not proposed legislation, but, instead, non-binding statements of principle, meant for public release, education, and debate. See: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5731829-Ocasio-Cortez-Green-New-Deal-Resolution and https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Green%20New%20Deal%20Resolution%20SIGNED.pdf.

General suggestions of a GND have been around going back to the Obama Administration, but took a turn to become more serious with the House returning to the Democrats following the 2018 midterm elections and the election of several Congresspeople whose election centered on climate issues, such as converting the U.S. to 100% carbon-free energy, revert to more aggressive environmental regulation, and make “green”-oriented investments in infrastructure and climate adaptation. Until earlier in February, there was no written structure to the recommendations.

The frameworks begin with the arguments about why green change is necessary, referring to the findings of the October 2018 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and of the November 2018 U.S. government National Climate Assessment Report. The documents use these findings to state their goals of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change by reducing GHG emissions by 40 to 60% below 2010 levels by 2030 and to net-zero global emissions by 2050.

However, these proposals go beyond just green goals by tying them to other issues of importance in the U.S., such as public health, environmental degradation, income inequality, and lack of access to healthcare, which affect of way of life and security. In addition, the documents propose major infrastructure, land management, afforestation, and public transportation investments to raise employment, improve productivity of land, and adapt to impacts of climate change. Few specifics are provided in terms of funding and economic output; however, this would result in major changes to the U.S. economy.

Neither GND resolution provides specifics on how this would be achieved. There is no suggestion of whether a price or tax on carbon emissions would be created or whether cap and trade policies would be used. There is nothing that would eliminate nuclear power as an option or carbon capture and sequestration.

Neither resolution has come up for a vote in either chamber, and whether either will is unknown. GND has garnered a lot of press attention, and there will likely be much debate throughout the country. There is growing press about recent extreme events (forest fires during “off-season”, polar vortex pulling apart, hurricanes, etc.) tied in part to climate change that worries a large portion of the U.S. population and the realization that reduced GHG emissions is necessary. On the other hand, it is anticipated that the GND will require a large injection of public money during a period of high deficits, potentially risking damaging the overall economy. Plus, there is the reality that much of the U.S. population is unfamiliar with these issues and technologies, and can be made to be fearful of change they are not familiar with and worried about future unknowns.

Polls and feedback from constituents may ultimately dictate its success. This will likely lead to the ultimate number of co-sponsors which will lead to an up or down vote or lead to further discussions by Presidential and other candidates in the 2020 election cycle. Might GND become an official plank of the Democratic party? If a vote can be held (more likely, the House), then whether it wins or loses in a close vote, may inform politicians of a growing green popularity in the U.S.

Should GND prove popular in public polls or in a vote, it is possible that some legislators will take some GND provisions and create new legislation based on them relativey soon, which could mean impacts of GND sooner than anticipated.

In the meantime, the public discussions of GND, its need, implementation, and potential impacts are occurring.

CCES has the experts to assist you in “greening” your operations in conjunction with or independent of the GND resolutions. We can recommend “green” options that will also benefit your bottom line (reduce costs, improve productivity, etc.) and project manage these changes to solidify the benefits. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Turning Peak Electric Demand Into a Positive

It is mid-winter and we are not thinking about the cost of cooling. However, it is not too early to consider that large portions of the country face a conundrum of an aging infrastructure, not as effectively delivering electricity to satisfy growing power demand. There is a growing risk of brownouts and blackouts – not from a shortage of electricity, but the difficulty in delivering it in amounts required when needed. This is bad for the bottom line of the utility and, of course, bad for business because without power or even with the heightened risk of losing power, businesses are vulnerable.

There is a double whammy of growing demand for energy and weaker infrastructure to deliver it. While many homes used to air condition only a couple of key rooms, now more homes can cool the entire house. It used to be people came home from work to a hot apartment or house, then turned on their AC unit and in a short time felt comfortable again. But with today’s technology, people can turn on their home ACs from their office, so they are cool when they enter their homes. As a result, there is demand for electricity simultaneously cooling an office and a home. This becomes a greater risk on a hot, humid day, which are growing in number. With economic growth, people use more electrical devices. We have the conundrum of a growing demand for electricity, with an aging infrastructure to deliver it at its peak. Many utilities now charge for high peak demand, as well as usage, to encourage reduction, but they are limited in cost hikes as ratepayers will not absorb the cost of upgrading infrastructure in their utility bills.

Therefore, many utilities must invest in programs to reduce electric (or natural gas) demand, particularly in the peak seasons (summer for electric, winter for gas). It is simply risky to expect a utility in some areas to deliver to meet growing peak needs. Many utilities have programs to reduce peak load and improve efficiency. In the most vulnerable areas of New York City (weakest infrastructure), Con Edison is giving away free of charge LED lights to building owners to reduce peak demand.

Another program that some utilities encourage is Demand Management (DM), which provides financial incentives to move energy-using processes to operate at night when relative demand is low. An example is replacing a large AC unit with an ice storage system, which would cool intake air. While making ice at night and maintaining it can use more electricity than an AC unit, the majority of electric use moves to night and not the peak afternoon hours. Therefore, this is something that utilities encourage – reducing demand during the peak period (hot, humid afternoons).

Another option is using an organization’s backup generation system to generate power on a hot, humid day, called Demand Response (DR). The building can be taken off the grid during peak demand, somewhat relieving the pressure on the utility to deliver large amounts of electricity to a particular area. In a typical program, the utility informs the building manager a day before that it will take the building off the grid and make sure they run their generator(s) during a few peak demand hours the next day. The utility provides healthy financial benefits for being available to go off the grid and each time one is called on and does so. The backup generator, often forgotten equipment, becomes a revenue generator. One complication of DR is the requirement that the facility obtain an air permit from the local environmental agency (usually the State). Being in DR, the unit is no longer “emergency” and loses its exemption from permitting. In addition, some states have specific emission or air pollution control requirements for non-emergency generators. Often, generators used for emergency purposes are older and may not have been an advanced model. Why spend on a unit that will be used so rarely? Thus, their emissions are likely higher and may not be able to meet the emission standards, unless they are upgraded, which could cost 6 figures.

Getting an air permit has a cost but is not too expensive. Upgrading to meet stringent emission standards, on the other hand, can be very expensive and overwhelm DR economic benefits. DR is something that companies which already have emergency generators should consider as a sound financial program. However, one should research air quality rules to see if there are stringent control requirements for such generators requiring costly upgrades.

CCES has the experts to provide you with site-specific information to help you decide on strategies to reduce your peak electric demand and enter incentive programs that reward such strategies. We can manage the implementation of the strategies to maximize your financial and risk benefits. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.