As I develop programs for EUCI (conferences, courses, and webinars), I talk to a lot of people across the power industry.

During those conversations, I consistently and repeatedly hear two things:

1.       I read the same things that you do

2.       I am inundated and buried with information on Green and Renewable Energy

A utility executive put it bluntly:

·         Information overload is a reality some days.

·         I don’t have the time to scout each one.

As we all know, even if we can read and digest all that information there is still no guarantee that we walk away any smarter.

A large portion of the task is sifting through the reams of information to find meaningful nuggets.

It’s similar to panning for gold.

When you pan for gold, you can spend your time prospecting many different streams, but a real sour sourdough is one that ends up with a pile of tailings rather than his pot of gold. Even in a good productive stream you still need the right tools, techniques, and persistence to spot those nuggets. Most importantly, you also must improve your odds by picking the right stream.

Luckily for me, I have a huge amount of high quality information to sift through from all of my calls and research. I also have added opportunities to sift analyze and (hopefully) turn that effort into meaningful information. I ride the bus 2.5 hours per day from my home in Boulder to our office in South Denver. I catch an early bus, so during most of the winter you’ll see me wearing my hiking / biking headlamp perched on noggin. Fortunately, most of the other riders think I’m a little odd, but harmless.

Here are a few of the nuggets that I’ve found glittering in my pan:

1.       Most people (and even some in the industry) have no conception of the size of the task that we have in front of us as we decarbonizes our energy supply

a.       The best explanation that I have ever read was originally penned by Richard Smalley, a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry from Rice University

b.      Following his death, his good friend, Nate Lewis for Caltech, continued Richard’s work by presenting “Powering the Planet”. It is the best and most digestible explanation of what we have in front of us.

2.       Many people do not understand the basic requirements of the power industry for new technology. I paraphrase words that Hal LaFlash from PG&E shared with me that the systems must be…

a.       Effective

b.      Reliable

c.       Durable

d.      Scalable

e.      And most importantly, bankable

3.       Also, few realize, as pointed out recently by a study by Black & Veatch, that … “co-firing biomass in an existing plant can potentially be as cheap as or cheaper than coal, but there are barriers”.

Let’s take that last nugget, biomass to power:

1.       It addresses the Smalley scale

2.       It addresses all of Hal’s factors of success

3.       It appears to be one of the lowest cost carbon mitigation options for the power industry

And I would add:

1.       There is no need for a technological breakthrough

2.       Many in the industry have done 10 years of research

3.       Some power generators are not waiting for the ink to dry on the final rules and are rolling out biomass for power right now

I’m not saying that this sifting has made me more knowledgeable than others, but I am downstream of a terrific information flow, I sift more high quality information than many, and I know nuggets when I see them.

What keeps EUCI ahead of the rest is our focus on remembering the keys that we are told, and converting great speakers and information into solid learning walkaways.

Fortunately, I took what we learned on biomass, and we packaged that information into a terrific conference coming up March 23 -24 in Minneapolis.

Renewable Biomass for Affordable Power Generation

http://www.euci.com/conferences/0310-biopower/

Today, as I read through the myriad of articles, blogs, and tweets on the never ending discussions on energy policy, I couldn’t help but notice that environmental groups are their own worst enemies when discussing alternatives to the solving the complex issues. They rarely have done their homework when considering major energy concerns. For example, the need for base load electricity, the costs of electricity transmission over great distances, or the impact of sporadic interruptions of renewable sources of generation. When they make statements that don’t reflect the critical considerations utilities, regulators, and other energy professionals face every day, they sound worse than politicians trying to appease everyone and lose credibility. And this is never more telling than when they make negative comments on expanding nuclear power.

Take, for instance, the Greenpeace nuclear analyst who, when asked for comment on President Barack Obama’s budget request to triple current levels of loan guarantees for nuclear power, remarked that it, “…is a dirty and dangerous distraction from the clean-energy future the president promised America.” Certainly not dirtier or more dangerous than pumping tons upon tons of fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere year after year. There are no GHG emissions associated with nuclear power generation. Does this so called nuclear analyst realize that 20% of the electric generation in this nation is from nuclear power and that it will be decades before any other clean technologies in power generation could even come close to that percentage? How can these loan guarantees be a distraction when $16.8 billion in direct grants (not loan guarantees that may never be used, but straight cash for spending) were provided by Congress and the Obama administration for energy efficiency and renewable energy sources in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009?

Consider the Sierra Club’s New York leader who, when recently interviewed concerning the desirability of renewable (solar/wind) sources over nuclear power, stated, “It’s much safer and better than a very expensive nuclear plant. You shouldn’t think in terms of plants, but in terms of, say, a wind farm or solar panels on roofs in the city.” Well, that’s a really positive thought, if it only had some realism attached. Has this strong environmentalist considered the enormous number of acres the environment would have to sacrifice to build wind farms capable of producing even half the generation power of a single nuclear plant? Or how locales along the Great Lakes are currently massing in protest against planned off-shore wind projects as invasive and detrimental? Or how incredibly cold a city like Chicago would be during a long, dark winter if they were dependent solely on solar panels on roofs in the city? I’m sure Exelon would be more than willing to consider this environmentalist’s proposal.

Or the professed environmentalist, Greenferret, blogging today on Alternet concerning the nuclear industry’s safety record, “It’s got a scary history: think Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.” What a ridiculous statement. Anyone even remotely aware of both the incidents mentioned and the nuclear industry’s safety record immediately sees the inaccuracy and naiveté of this ‘environmentalist’ writer. Chernobyl involved poor training and technology of a cold war weapons reactor 24 years ago. There were no computerized controls and there wasn’t even a containment building over the RBMK-1000 reactor. Technology safeguards in place today are well beyond comparison to Chernobyl. Absolutely no one, not a single person, was injured in the incident at Three Mile Island. The safety record of nuclear plants is remarkable and surpasses all the rest of the energy industry (including renewable generation), the auto industry, the airline industry, or NASA with fewest incidents, accidents, injuries, fatalities, or lost work time. There has never been a fatality due to nuclear fuel transportation.

Just to make it perfectly clear, I have absolutely nothing against the wonderful, hard work of environmentalists who are legitimately trying to protect our fragile planet. It would simply give all environmentalists much more credibility with utilities, business, regulators, and other government entities if they carefully reviewed facts and considered the complications in the complex world of energy generation, transmission, and distribution. A utility CEO who woke up one morning and decided all energy supporting Carlsbad, New Mexico should be hydroelectric because it’s cleaner and cheaper wouldn’t have credibility and probably wouldn’t last very long. Environmentalists constantly dismissing logical solutions to challenging energy issues are in the same credibility situation and need to accept the realities of our complex energy systems.

The promise of a smarter grid is no doubt a primary focus within the utility industry. On the flip side, for most customers, the technology is far from a “buzz” and is in fact little more than a murmur. For those that have heard the term, it’s at most an obscure idea - and one they don’t know much about. The challenge is that without consumer buy-in, the full potential of the smart grid can never be realized. And that means utilities must work to communicate what this new technology is, and its benefits and value across each market segment.

Xcel Energy’s SmartGridCity project is using unique implementations of smart grid technology to enable customer engagement through web portals, thermostat and device control programs, and advanced pricing options. The combination of all these efforts enables a new wave of choice, control, and conservation for customers and the future of the energy grid.

Northeast Utilities is trying to engage customers as well. The utility conducted a rate and AMI pilot during the summer of 2009 at one of its subsidiaries, Connecticut Light & Power (CL&P). The pilot involved both residential and small C&I customers and tested three different rate designs: Time of Use (TOU), Peak Time Rebate (PTR) and Critical Peak Pricing (CPP). In addition CL&P tested different technologies (i.e, smart thermostats, in-home displays)…all in an effort to dig for what most greatly impacts customer behavior and response.

These are two examples of utilities in different geographical regions, testing varying methods of gaining consumer buy-in for new technologies and pricing structures associated with a new grid. As some utilities have already seen a push-back from customer as they implement new meters and technologies, the need for education has become apparent. Customer adoption can only be achieved if consumers understand what the technology is, why they need it, and its long-term importance to them…without a true understanding on the part of the customer, no real movement will be made.

To learn more about customer adoption and the smart grid, click here.

The lights are back on in the Mid Atlantic region of the United States. Our federal government is back in business and most people, homes and businesses are finally dug out from under epic storms that have pounded the region with snow. With all of the snow, there have been massive outages lasting multiple days. As the utility companies that serve this area are finding, storm response is no easy matter. Dealing with heavy snows, high winds and unpassable roads makes it difficult to do the necessary work to restore much needed electricity.

To further complicate things, how a utility responds is met with scrutiny and often skepticism. News items from the last week reflect the impact on public image as well as the as the political implications that storm outages can have. Public perception of storm response and recovery is a difficult, but important, issue for utility companies to manage. Its a fact of business today, that while all hands are on deck to get the power back on it also very important that the communications team is sending timely and accurate information to media outlets and even communicating with customers themselves via the company’s website, blogs or other social media such as facebook and twitter. Even if the power is out, people will find a way to get information about the storm (check out this facebook page) – a proactive multi-media approach is key. Savvy utilities are using all of these digital media tools to keep customers in the loop and informed, which should translate to more understanding and less complaints.

As things calm down, in the mid Atlantic region at least, it’s of utmost importance that utility companies, along with the city, county and state government partners capture lessons learned. Everyone involved must review their performance and use that information to update their planning and response processes for ways to restore power quicker, safer and more efficiently next time. As a part of that process, communication with the public should be evaluated and the effectiveness of all outreach should be considered. I am sure that all stakeholders are looking closely at how utility companies performed and that there will be many official reports and assessments to come. Hopefully, utility companies that engaged in active multi media communication with the impacted public will reap rewards in terms of customer satisfaction and regulatory review.

Dear Major Newspapers, National Journalists, and Media Outlets of All Kinds:

Please stop trying to link the major snow storms on the east coast or the lack of snow in Vancouver for the Winter Olympics as proving or disproving global climate change.  Taking a single moment in time and trying to extrapolate it out to have any significance whatsoever on such a complex issue is irresponsible and disingenuous.

As anyone who has ever taken a statistics class can explain, using a sample size of one to make conclusions about an overall situation is patently incorrect.  The snow in the east, or the lack of it in the west, is merely an anecdote.  The only thing it proves, is that you can never count on the weather.  But we already knew that— just ask any bride planning an outdoor wedding.

Comparing the snow to the overall global climate, is like comparing having the flu to your overall long-term health.  My being sick last week does not prove I am dying, nor does it disprove it.  It just proves that I didn’t feel well last week.   If I continue to get sick, I might have a compromised immune system.  If not (cross your fingers), my illness last week was an anomaly from my otherwise healthy life.

I understand that climate change is a hot button issue right now and many important people were making quips about the relationship last week.  However, your reporting on it just gave a modicum of credibility to their absurdity. 

On a happier yet related note, thank you for not over reporting on Utah’s meaningless vote of no confidence last week.  The time has come for credible scientist on both sides of the issue to have public debates discussing the scientific arguments regarding global climate change.  We, the general public with only a basic understanding of the issues, need to stop muddying the water with our conjectures and allow the experts to have the floor.

Looking forward to reading more about this issue as credible information becomes available!

Sincerely,

Diane O’Neil

BLOG posted by Stephen Coury, EUCI Conference Producer

Seeing an article in the WSJ on Wednesday with the headline, “Google to Test Ultra-Fast Broadband”, reminded me of a comment that a chief risk officer at one of the country’s largest municipal utilities uttered last year at a conference I produced on risk management. At the time, the topic under discussion by a panel of chief risk officers from around the country was this: What is the next Black Swan event?

This topic, mind you, was after the Dow Industrials average had shrunk more than 50 per cent from its high just a few months earlier. The financial panic had mostly subsided by then, but the seismic whipsawing movements in the commodities, financial and real estate markets were etched on the faces of these energy CROs.

The panelists took turns speculating (oops, wrong word) surmising what the next Black Swan event might be. One risk officer worried about the disappearance of coal generation facilities without a commensurate “clean” energy source to replace it. Another risk officer presented a view that regulations promulgated to prevent another commodity/financial/real estate bubble might result in precisely the adverse consequences they were legislated to avert. Another notion that surfaced was a power failure on an enormous scale, precipitated by natural or human terrorism (oops, did it again) causes.

But the answer that was the most chilling would seem to have the least impact on civilians like me. It’s what the muni CRO offered to that question: What is the next Black Swan event?

His answer (paraphrased): That some large enterprise, whose primary business is not to provide power or energy, will come up with an App that will siphon off all his customers, but still require his company to serve some unknown percentage of the load.

The WSJ article that prompted me to recall his comment started off this way: “Google Inc. said it will begin selling ultra-fast Internet access to consumers, a test that could threaten existing telecommunications carriers’ grip on the Web and is designed to show off new uses of the Internet at high speeds.”

I don’t necessarily have an opinion as to whether that CRO’s comment was aimed at any enterprise in particular – let alone, Google – but I’m just wondering: If this article referenced power (instead of Internet service), would that constitute a Black Swan for your company?

Last week, I was lucky enough to be in Orlando for the 4^th Annual EUCI Public Participation in Transmission Siting conference. As the group discussed, the transmission siting process, and the public involvement component, are a very complicated and lengthy undertaking. I do agree that it’s important to have a transparent process and understand that all factors, including reliability, environmental considerations and the impact on communities and landowners should be taken into consideration.

However, I do think that it’s unfortunate when a very wealthy landowner has the ability to delay or completely derail a project that other wise has done due diligence to ensure that the line is needed and that the final route is the best possible alternative. An interesting case in point is the 150 mile transmission line that is a joint effort between Xcel Energy (Public Service Colorado) and Tri-State G&T and is being proposed for Southern Colorado. A single landowner with deep pockets and lots of time has requested that the application be dismissed based on a variety of factors. I have been listening to the hearing this week and it’s apparent that the Trinchera ranch representation is well heeled and well prepared. I have heard other stories from Montana to Massachusetts, where wealthy parties impact the outcome of a transmission line, or other energy infrastructure, siting process.

To me, it’s a shame that, essentially, one person can spend such a huge amount of money to protect what is their individual interest while the process is drawn out, or the route is changed, which will cost the rate payers more money or perhaps the project is stopped all together which impacts reliability and the ability to integrate renewable energy. New transmission and generation projects are needed and being planned across the country. In the case of transmission, it takes several years for approval and construction. The longer the process takes, the more it costs the average rate payer and greater risk we run of not being able to meet demand or incorporate new green energy sources into the system. I will continue to listen in as the hearing goes on and will be anxious to see what Mr. Bacon’s money is going to buy and who will ultimately pay the real price.

EUCI Energize Weekly blog

Posted by Kelly Murphy

Last July, Wal-Mart announced plans to develop a “worldwide sustainable product index” and sent out a questionnaire to their 100,000 suppliers.

It was a start of an ambitious task that requires much greater information from their supply stream including a much more detailed understanding of Greenhouse Gas impacts along that supply system.

Although highly ambitious, utilities need to investigate these indirect emissions as well as have an understanding of the “Scope 3″ GHG accounting and reporting standards as they relate to their corporate supply chain.

Recently, I spoke to John Shideler, a leading U.S. expert on greenhouse gas management, who agreed to share his blog:

Taking the Measure of Organizations’ Supply Chain Climate Risks and Opportunities: Reporting Upstream and Downstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions

January 10th, 2010, blog by John Shideler of Futurepast

www.futurepast/blog

An emerging focus of managing climate change risks centers on greening the supply chain. Organizations do this for a variety of reasons. They want to ensure the dependability of the raw or intermediate materials they source, and materials produced and transported in an environmentally sound manner have lower risk profiles. They take an interest in the readiness of their supply chain partners to meet new greenhouse gas regulatory requirements and to absorb potentially higher or more volatile energy costs. And they seek to protect their corporate reputations by dealing with supply chain partners that conduct their businesses sustainably and in compliance with legal requirements and ethical principles.

Greenhouse gas emissions from supply chain partners increasingly are analyzed to detect missed opportunities to increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions. This scrutiny may begin when an organization inventories its “Other Indirect” greenhouse gas emissions, also known as “scope 3″ emissions. Other Indirect emissions are those that are influenced by a reporting organization, rather than emitted directly as combustion, process or fugitive emissions. Other Indirect emissions are also distinguished from “Energy Indirect” emissions, which result from the consumption of purchased electricity, steam or cooling. Other Indirect emissions from the production and transportation of raw or intermediate materials that occur outside the organizational boundary of the reporting organization are known as “upstream emissions.” Other Indirect emissions resulting from wholesale and retail distribution of products, and during the use and disposal phases of a product’s life cycle, may be called “downstream emissions.”

Other Indirect emissions can be more difficult for organizations to quantify and report than either Direct or Energy Indirect emissions. Often, the data needed to inventory these emissions reside outside the reporting organization in its supply chain, and are difficult to access. Complicating matters further are questions of allocation, which arise when a supplier furnishes a diverse set of products for multiple customers and then is asked to account for only the emissions associated with a subset of those. Practical questions include “how much to count,” and “how far upstream and downstream” the supply chain accounting should go.

Requests for business-to-business greenhouse gas emission information are becoming more common, and are likely only to increase. Business customers, particularly those with well-known brand names to protect, want assurance that suppliers are managing their risks, including those related to climate change. The concern does not stop with emissions accounting, as a broad examination of climate risks include physical risks from climate change, regulatory risks, and shifting consumer preferences. The first category of risks includes increased frequency of extreme weather conditions, flooding and sea level rise, and changing temperature and rainfall patterns. Resource scarcity is a corollary impact from climate change, which may be triggered by decreasing biodiversity, higher rates of disease, or an increase in desertification. Regulatory risks include the potential imposition of cap-and-trade programs, carbon taxes, or requirements for installation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Changes in consumer preferences can impact organizations by shifting consumption from one product category to another, enhancing or harming reputations, and creating markets for new products and services.

Business drivers for taking action now are gaining board room attention. According to PriceWaterhouseCoopers analysts who interviewed more than one thousand CEOs from the world’s leading companies for the Carbon Disclosure Project, “48% of CEOs were already making changes in their supply chain in response to climate change or would start in the next 12 months. 66% of these CEOs were already making a return on this investment or expected to do so within the next 12 months. We have seen a number of examples delivering real cost reductions as a result of using carbon as the value driver within the supply chain. For example, one major clothing retailer recently reduced their supply chain operating costs by 17% and saved over 4,500 tonnes of carbon by redesigning their distribution and logistics chain.” (CDP Supply Chain Report 2009, p. 7, accessed on 2010-01-10 at www.cdproject.net/reports.asp.)

For companies whose primary customers are other businesses, meeting the demand for information concerning their greenhouse gas emissions and other climate risk management strategies can be challenging. Many corporate staffs find it difficult to respond, with in-house expertise thinned and overextended. What’s more, the desired response from customers seeking climate change related information is not satisfied with the provision of a copy of the supplier’s environmental policy or ISO 14001 registration certificate. Real data are demanded that meet data quality standards and adequately characterize uncertainty.

Help is available from specialized consultancy firms like Futurepast. And new international standards and consensus-based protocols are under development. One of the first documents specifically to address supply chain reporting of greenhouse gas emissions is the Scope 3 Accounting and Reporting Standard, to be published as a Supplement to the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Protocol. This document is available in draft form (November 2009) from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative, at www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/product-and-supply-chain-standard (accessed on 2010-01-10).

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) also has begun to develop a document. ISO Technical Report 14069, Greenhouse gases – Quantification and reporting of GHG emissions for organizations (carbon footprint of organizations) – Guidance for the application of ISO 14064-1, is intended to complement the ISO 14064 Part 1 standard published in 2006. Publication of the ISO technical report is not likely before the end of 2012. Futurepast’s president, John Shideler, serves as a US Expert on the ISO working group developing this document.

The main purpose for counting Other Indirect emissions is, of course, to manage them better. Once quantified, organizations in all parts of the supply chain can focus on initiatives to design more sustainable products, improve energy efficiency in manufacture, optimize transportation and logistics resources, and promote end-of-life recycling. Some observers will see connections to other business planning tools such as Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing which now will be applied to help meet the goals of reducing carbon emissions and managing climate risks.

I am writing this blog from the nation’s capital as I attend the first EUCI Nuclear Export Control Symposium.  The symposium has demonstrated how the complex legal and regulatory systems surrounding nuclear export in the United States impact development of nuclear projects and resources worldwide.  The symposium, hosted by the legal team of Hogan & Hartson, provided the latest information essential to nuclear industry contractors and suppliers navigating through the myriad of requirements associated with nuclear export compliance.  Partners Dan Stenger and Ajay Kuntamukkala provided the attendees with expert guidance on avoiding pitfalls that could result in severe penalties and lengthy litigation even if involuntarily violated.

Officials from both the policy and regulatory enforcement sections of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and the Department of Commerce informed the symposium attendees of the latest efforts to streamline the specific license process and the requirements associated with deemed exports and providing foreign nationals with controlled nuclear technology.  Participants learned which agency is responsible for each commercial nuclear system functional area and how the agencies interact.  Additionally, participants heard an excellent update on emerging markets in India, developing as a result of the U.S.-India 123 trade agreement, by Ted Jones, Director for Policy Advocacy at the U.S. - India Business Council.

While today’s symposium addressed policy and regulatory requirements, tomorrow’s discussions will center on practical applications.  Attendees will learn how industry professionals have met real world challenges of global commercial nuclear export planning and contracts.  Presentations by Mel Hatcher, Senior Corporate Counsel, CH2M Hill; Bryce MacDonald, Leader-International Trade Controls, GE Hitachi; and Ed Wolbert, President/CEO, Transco Products, will provide rare insight on how industry leaders face regulatory challenges in the worldwide marketplace.  We welcome other commercial nuclear leader’s input on issues they confront in meeting industry challenges as we continue to address the needs of the expanding world nuclear market with quality training events.  We hope to see you at next year’s symposium, January 2011!  

There’s no doubt the bill continues to be a critical customer touch point in the meter to cash processing cycle.
As technology makes significant impacts on metering, rates, CIS systems and automated/web based payments, the utility billing process continues to become ever more complex. These issues in conjunction with changing customer expectations are posing both new opportunities as well as new challenges in areas ranging from bill re-design, to process changes, to customer care strategies.

Utilities around the country are focusing on making this important customer communication more effective…a few examples:

Integrys has recently implemented eBill FISERV (CheckFree BDHV - Biller Direct Hosted Version) for all 6 of its regulated subsidiary utilities. It was a new implementation for 2 utilities and an upgrade/migration for 4 utilities. The utility has researched its electricity users, developed new marketing plans, customer support processes. Integrys has experienced increased adoption results as a result of the various customer engagement tactics used.

In a three year project, NV Energy has been aiming to redesign its print bill while recognizing the new roles of online and energy display information in its customer relationships.

CenterPoint Energy has decreased their billing exceptions from a two week backlog to a two day backlog over the last two years with the help of technology and process changes, along with more effective performance metrics.

Billing is undergoing a huge transformation throughout the industry. If you’d like to learn more about better systems, processes and customer focused programs, please click here. The leading experts in utility billing are sharing their knowledge at EUCI’s 8^th Billing for Utilities conference. The program will provide tangible take-aways to benefit utilities large and small.