The two groups released a joint statement today urging Congress to heed the recommendations of a National Academies study, released in May, which concludes that a “full-fuel-cycle” measurement for appliances will give consumers the most scientifically accurate information about the energy consumption of their purchases.

Currently, the Department of Energy measures efficiency at the “site source” of an appliance – for example, the burner tip on your stovetop.  But that type of measurement doesn’t take into account the amount of energy lost along the way in the production, generation, and distribution of the fuel, i.e., the full-fuel-cycle.

So it’s fair to say that right now, consumers are only getting part of the energy efficiency equation when they purchase an appliance, and the National Academies, AGA and now NRDC have set out to help customers see the true size of their carbon footprint.

Visit this link for more.

No related posts.

However, the ability of a plant to turn on and turn off in response to changes in electricity demand can vary with the fuel used to generate the electricity.  For example, nuclear power plants take a long time to turn on and provide electricity to the grid, and the use of nuclear fuel is highly regulated.  Consequently, once a nuclear unit is on, it generally stays on until it has to be refueled or be brought down for maintenance.  So, nuclear plants are almost exclusively baseload plants.  Coal plants also have long ramp up times.  They are generally baseload or intermediate plants.  On the other hand, natural gas-fired generators have fairly short ramp up times and are often used as peaking plants.

Based on these dispatch characteristics, I doubt that renewable resources would end up displacing nuclear generation – not necessarily an undesirable outcome from a carbon standpoint.  However, intermittent renewable resources such as wind or solar may have a hard time displacing coal-fired generation unless they can show themselves to be good baseload or intermediate resources.  It may be the case that renewables will displace gas-fired generation because gas plants can more easily turn on and off in response to changes in the amount of electricity capable of being generated from wind or solar – a potentially undesirable outcome from a carbon standpoint.

Related posts:

1. Coming Down To Earth on a ‘Clean Energy’ Standard?
2. Coming Down To Earth, A Winning Strategy For Renewables

Opening the hearing yesterday, Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) told the environmentalists “I understand your desire to see the (oil and gas leasing) moratoria reinstated. However, we may be in a situation where the ship has already sailed.” Although he derided chants made at last year’s Republican National Convention to “drill, baby, drill,” Rahall stated that “the political reality may be that the moratoria, as we knew it, will not be reimposed.”

This did not sit well with the day’s two star witnesses, actor Ted Danson, a board member of conservationist group Oceana, and Philippe Cousteau, a board member of the Ocean Conservancy and grandson of famed ocean explorer Jacques Cousteau. They repeatedly spoke in opposition to ALL offshore oil and gas development, not just drilling in new areas, on the grounds that the products produced were fossil fuels that, when consumed, would increase the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is absorbed by the earth’s oceans, which then become more acidic, resulting in the death of all life in the sea. What?  I don’t know about you but this seems like it may be more science fiction than scientific. They were fine with the development of alternative energy on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), such as wind and harnessing tides and currents, so long as no environmental damage is done.

What do you think about all this? I think that with OPEC meeting next month to decide on steps to take to increase the price of oil, our country must aggressively develop all sources of energy, renewable, alternative and conventional. And this most emphatically means more exploration and production of clean natural gas from as much of the federal OCS as possible.

Related posts:

1. Domestic Access = Security

But he did neither and instead has announced an extension of the comment period for the proposed new plan and a major effort to learn as much as possible about the energy potential of the federal OCS.

At a press conference on February 10, Secretary Salazar announced his strategy for developing an offshore energy plan that includes both conventional and renewable resources. His strategy includes expediting renewable energy rulemaking for the OCS, assembling  a detailed report from Interior agencies on conventional and renewable offshore energy resources and holding, within 30 days of the report’s publication, four regional conferences to review the report’s findings and to seek public comment.

Secretary Salazar will host one meeting in Alaska, one on the Pacific Coast, one on the Atlantic Coast and one on the Gulf Coast (dates and locations TBD.) He has also, as mentioned, extended the comment period on the proposed new 5-Year Plan for oil and gas leasing on the OCS by 180 days, until September 23, 2009. As you may know, one of the last action’s of the Bush Administration was the issuance of a proposed new 5-Year OCS oil and gas leasing plan to run from 2010 till 2015. The proposed plan included a deadline for public comment of March 23.

The Secretary’s action extends that deadline by six months. A copy of the statement from the Department of the Interior can be found here.

I think our Interior Secretary is taking a very objective approach to the OCS and I am encouraged. Secretary Salazar has said that he wants all interested parties to share their recommendations on how to move ahead with a comprehensive offshore energy plan. In that regard, AGA will be commenting on the plan and I urge you to be thinking about sending in comments as well and/or attending and speaking out at one of the upcoming regional conferences.

Related posts:

1. Coming Down To Earth, A Winning Strategy For Renewables
2. Energy Secretary Chu Identifies Natural Gas as Key to a Low-Carbon Future

Small wonder that the just-launched White House blog recently spoke of President Obama signing “two Presidential Memoranda aimed at getting us on the path to energy independence.”

Granted, anything that can reduce our over dependence on foreign energy imports is a good thing and in his two memoranda President Obama directed the Department of Transportation to establish higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles – known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)- while paving the way for California and more than a dozen other states to raise emissions standards above and beyond the national standard.

But to play Devil’s Advocate for a moment, which is the more important goal – energy independence or energy security? I would argue that Daniel Yergin, the Pulitzer Prize winning author of The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, is right when he says energy security is more important – and certainly more achievable – than energy independence, and  achieving energy security will actually necessitate more energy interdependence.  According to Yergin, the key is diversity, not only diversity of energy sources, including renewables and the expanding global liquefied natural gas market, but also diversity of energy suppliers.  The more buyers and sellers there are, freely trading as many different forms of energy as currently exist, the less likelihood of supply disruptions and the more likelihood of a moderating effect on both price and volatility.

Of course, using less energy is also a critical goal, and the more that government at all levels can facilitate energy conservation and efficiency, the better – not only for our economy, but also for our environment.  But the larger point remains.  Our political leaders have been talking about “energy independence” since the Nixon Administration in the late 1960s and almost 50 years later we are more dependent than ever.   I doubt very much we can ever achieve energy independence.  But if we strengthen our ties to the global community of energy suppliers and buyers, I believe we can achieve energy security.

No related posts.

But what about responsible?   How does the word responsible describe the benefits of natural gas?  Let’s talk a minute about how natural gas is the responsible energy choice when it comes to our environment and our nation’s energy security.

First, natural gas is clean.  It is the cleanest of all fossil fuels, emitting 40% less carbon dioxide than coal, 30% less carbon dioxide than oil and 15% less carbon dioxide than propane.  Using more of our product to displace other fossil fuels reduces greenhouse gas emissions.  But that’s not all. When we use natural gas directly in our furnaces, water heaters, ranges or dryers, we emit even fewer greenhouse gases than if we used appliances operated by electricity generated from coal, oil or even natural gas.

How can this be?  How can generating electricity with natural gas be any less clean or efficient than using natural gas directly in our homes or businesses?  Energy efficiency is the key.  Did you know that the delivery of natural gas through underground pipelines to homes and businesses is far more efficient than the process of converting natural gas – or any other fossil fuel energy – to electricity and then transporting that electricity over wires to those same homes or businesses?  In fact, the process of producing and delivering natural gas directly to the consumer is 90% efficient.  By contrast, the process of converting natural gas or any other fossil fuel to electricity and transporting that electricity to consumers is only about 30% efficient.

Finally, natural gas is an abundant domestic energy resource.  With proactive governmental policies that support access to new sources of supply and infrastructure development, we can meet our nation’s growing appetite for energy with this clean burning fuel and reduce our reliance on foreign imports.  This will help us enhance and protect our national energy security.

So, natural gas is good for energy consumers, our environment and our national energy security interests.  It truly is the comfortable and responsible energy choice.

Related posts:

1. Natural gas, how about zero carbon emissions
2. Coming Down To Earth on a ‘Clean Energy’ Standard?
3. Coming Down To Earth, A Winning Strategy For Renewables

Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Edison) – “Distribution Partner of the Year” award. Con Edison joined the Natural Gas STAR program in 1993 and has consistently reported voluntary methane emission reduction activities each year since joining. The company has reported some of the highest emissions reductions of any natural gas distribution company through the implementation of new and innovative technologies and practices. Con Edison has continued to be an active partner with the program and has been sharing information on methane emission reduction projects such as the Cast Iron Joint Sealing Robot that has been featured by the EPA.

Laclede Gas Company (Laclede) – “Rookie of the Year” award. Laclede joined the Natural Gas STAR program in 2007, and since that time has participated in the Annual Workshop and engaged the program early on to begin discussing methane emission reduction project ideas. Laclede submitted its first annual report in 2008 outlining its emission reduction activities, including a successful Damage Prevention Program which was featured in the Summer 2008 Partner Update. In addition, to submitting emission reductions for 2007, Laclede also reported its historical emission reduction data back to 1993. To gain support for their Program, their Implementation Manager works closely with colleagues in other departments to draw the link between emissions reduction and operation activities.

ONEOK Partners – “Gathering and Processing Partner of the Year” award. ONEOK Partners joined the Natural Gas STAR Program in 2000 and recently reinvigorated its Program efforts – substantially increasing methane emission reductions. ONEOK has promoted education of employees on methane and greenhouse gas emissions through their corporate website and in company newsletters. They also share information about their participation in the Natural Gas STAR Program as part of corporate trainings at each of their subsidiaries. Three ONEOK subsidiary distribution companies recently joined Natural Gas STAR in 2007, expanding the company’s overall participation.

El Paso Pipeline Group (El Paso) – “Transmission Partner of the Year” award. El Paso joined the Natural Gas STAR program in 1996 and since that time has reported the implementation of a variety of technologies and practices. For 2007, El Paso reported the highest new reductions of any partner in the transmission sector. El Paso has been a consistent supporter of the Natural Gas STAR Program advancing leak detection technologies, participating in workshops and providing detailed information on their impressive emission reduction activities to support the Program’s technology transfer efforts.

Other AGA member company award winners were: Puget Sound Energy – 5 Year participation in the Natural Gas STAR Program; Atmos Energy – 7 Year participation in the Natural Gas STAR Program; Iroquois Gas Transmission and PECO Energy Company – 12 Year participation in the Natural Gas STAR Program.

Related posts:

1. Spectra Energy receives the 2009 Natural Gas Video Award
2. Congratulations Mary Jane McCartney on AGA’s Distinguished Service Award

When is the discussion of the footprint associated with oil and natural gas development, pipeline infrastructure or any energy-related facility for that matter, going to be conducted within the context of 21^st century technology? Without doubt energy production in the U.S. carries with it a footprint and a history not always exemplary with respect to environmental stewardship. However, today’s petroleum industry includes multi-well development from single pads, includes zero-discharge offshore facilities, includes underwater reef building associated with production platforms and pipeline construction and an additional list of surface remediation strategies as long as your arm. Is no credit offered to the engineering and investment in these elements of our energy industry because they go largely unseen? Every source of energy today, whether it be renewable, traditional or even still in the eye of a thoughtful beholder has a footprint.

Would it be asking too much to conduct the debate on our national energy future and climate change policy on a level playing field using a refreshed, current view of energy development technology? In my view that time has come.

No related posts.

Related posts:

1. Coming Down To Earth on a ‘Clean Energy’ Standard?