The Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America kicked off on March 8 with a unique perspective of the condition of the U.S. electric grid presented by Kurt Yeager, executive director of the Galvin Electric Institute and former president and CEO of the Electric Power Research Institute. Yeager stressed during his keynote address that electricity is at a point technologically “where we can reinvent Thomas Edison.” Much of that revitalization, Yeager said, will come through the continual development of a smarter grid.
While Smart Grid has a tendency to tack on a number of different name badges, Yeager defined it in three ways: Moving from analog to an electronically-monitored power system, a two-way consumer services gateway, and the reintroduction of direct current (DC)/microgrids.
In order for Smart Grid to work, electricity providers must develop a user-centric view, Yeager said.
“Smart Grid is a transactive network. The user becomes a partner, not a prisoner of the network.”
A smarter grid is also essential to grid reliability. Yeager presented a few astonishing numbers associated with grid reliability. The average consumer in the U.S. is without power four hours each year. That may seem like a drop in the bucket, but not in comparison to Japan, where consumers are without power seven minutes a year, and Singapore, where the average citizen would hardly notice the average seven electricity-deprived seconds a year.
Yeager noted that President Barack Obama’s goal to achieve 80 percent clean energy by 2035 is doable, but “we can’t do it without fundamentally changing the rules.” The principle shift, he said, needs to occur with smart grid developments. Yeager’s recommendations for change include providing consumers with a choice of access to real-time electricity prices, holding utilities publicly accountable to specific system performance standards, and expanding net metering to include physical aggregation and carbon portfolio standards.
A future in which customer-specific data belongs to the customer should be the electric future of America, Yeager said. If an individual has control over every other area of his or her personal life (bank account, stocks, cell phone bill) through technology devices galore, it should be no different with an individual’s electricity usage. The road to a smarter grid starts with a perspective shift from the electric industry, rather than following a lengthy to-do list. Thinking beyond what has already been done will be necessary if the electric industry is going to “reinvent Edison.”
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
EPA’s Delay in GHG Reporting
On March 1, EPA announced an extension of the deadline to begin reporting greenhouse gases, which was slated to begin on March 31. A new deadline has not been announced, but the reason behind the delay will be the determining factor in how long the extension lasts.
Like most modern technology, EPA’s online reporting system, Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT), has not proven itself to be 100 percent e-GRRRREAT. According to Lisa Jaegar, associate at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, e-GGRT was not available during some periods leading up to the Jan. 30, 2011 deadline to submit the requisite Certificate of Representation. Now, delays continue as the “Geek Squad” at EPA tries to sort out the technical difficulties (no, they aren’t outsourcing to Best Buy, but it might not be a bad idea).
“The reason the deadline has been changed is that EPA is continuing to test the system,” said Liz Williamson, associate at Winston & Strawn LLP. “We’re anticipating that it will probably be this summer when the first reporting requirement will be under e-GGRT.”
As a resource to GHG-reporting entities, EPA has posted a list of Frequently Asked Questions on its web site. Additionally, EPA is offering a number of training sessions to assist with learning e-GGRT and the rulemaking (by the way, the next scheduled training session is March 9).
While the extension was welcomed, it offers only a partial relief to reporting entities. Many companies have already sought technical clarifications from EPA to ensure they are monitoring or calculating emissions appropriately, Jaegar said. One of the main challenges to reporting GHGs is not the CO2 component of the reporting, but the reporting of the other five GHGs involved in the rulemaking: methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
“The CO2 is a little more straightforward because we’ve been collecting this data for a long time. But for the other five GHGs, it’s much more of a chore to collect the baseline data,” said Jay Holloway, associate with Winston & Strawn LLP.
In the end, it’s likely that every state except Texas (and possibly Wyoming) will enter GHG data under an EPA-approved state plan when the new deadline comes around. But for companies calculating and entering GHG data, this is just another collision in the “train-wreck” of regulations the industry is encountering. For now, however, the GHG train has slowed a bit, and companies may have a chance to gain a better understanding of what is expected.
Like most modern technology, EPA’s online reporting system, Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT), has not proven itself to be 100 percent e-GRRRREAT. According to Lisa Jaegar, associate at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, e-GGRT was not available during some periods leading up to the Jan. 30, 2011 deadline to submit the requisite Certificate of Representation. Now, delays continue as the “Geek Squad” at EPA tries to sort out the technical difficulties (no, they aren’t outsourcing to Best Buy, but it might not be a bad idea).
“The reason the deadline has been changed is that EPA is continuing to test the system,” said Liz Williamson, associate at Winston & Strawn LLP. “We’re anticipating that it will probably be this summer when the first reporting requirement will be under e-GGRT.”
As a resource to GHG-reporting entities, EPA has posted a list of Frequently Asked Questions on its web site. Additionally, EPA is offering a number of training sessions to assist with learning e-GGRT and the rulemaking (by the way, the next scheduled training session is March 9).
While the extension was welcomed, it offers only a partial relief to reporting entities. Many companies have already sought technical clarifications from EPA to ensure they are monitoring or calculating emissions appropriately, Jaegar said. One of the main challenges to reporting GHGs is not the CO2 component of the reporting, but the reporting of the other five GHGs involved in the rulemaking: methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
“The CO2 is a little more straightforward because we’ve been collecting this data for a long time. But for the other five GHGs, it’s much more of a chore to collect the baseline data,” said Jay Holloway, associate with Winston & Strawn LLP.
In the end, it’s likely that every state except Texas (and possibly Wyoming) will enter GHG data under an EPA-approved state plan when the new deadline comes around. But for companies calculating and entering GHG data, this is just another collision in the “train-wreck” of regulations the industry is encountering. For now, however, the GHG train has slowed a bit, and companies may have a chance to gain a better understanding of what is expected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)