Thursday, January 22, 2015

Smart Grid Stimulus

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act contains $4.5 billion for Smart Grid initiatives.

Navigate this Report
Back to Stiumulus & Regulation Index
1. Background
2. Acronyms/Definitions
3. Programs
4. Business Case
5. Benefits
6. Risks/Issues
7. Next Steps
8. Success Factors
9. Links

  • In October 2009, President Obama announced the largest single energy grid modernization investment in U.S. history, funding a broad range of technologies that will spur the nation’s transition to a smarter, stronger, more efficient and reliable electric system. The end result was intended to promote energy-saving choices for consumers, increase efficiency, and foster the growth of renewable energy sources like wind and solar. The $3.4 billion in grant awards are part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and were matched by industry funding for a total public-private investment worth over $8 billion.

  • Full listings of the grant awards by category and state are available HERE (By Category) (pdf) and HERE (By State) . A map of the awards is available HERE.

  • [August 4, 2011 Update] - The debt deal reached by the White House and Congress will likely trigger deep spending cuts for many energy and environmental programs for years to come, a shift many fear could have long-term repercussions on  the emergence of new energy technologies. With Congress poised to make spending reductions in exchange for raising the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion — including $917 billion in discretionary cuts over the next decade — experts predict environmental agencies at the federal and state levels and grant-funded programs should brace for significantly reduced budgets.   While it remains unclear where cuts will occur, one former Republican congressman told Politico he expects the U.S. Department of Energy could see less funding for programs dealing with fuel cells, biofuels, wind and nuclear energy.

2. Acronyms/Definitions
  • ARPA-E- Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy A new United States government agency set up to promote and fund research and development of advanced energy technologies. It is modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Supports innovative high-risk, high pay-off energy research that accelerates traditional and alternative energy sources and energy efficiency that are not likely to be pursued independently. APRA-E will not fund improvements to existing technologies; this research will continue to be supported through existing DOE programs, such as those of the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    • Under the DOE Office of Science National Initial Budget $400,000,000. Funding is expected to quickly ramp-up to $1 billion in subsequent years.
    • ARPA-E Program Managers are given extraordinary autonomy and resources to pursue high-risk technological pathways, quickly assemble research teams to “crash” on projects, and start and stop projects based on performance and relevance. ARPA-E projects will not be subject to the traditional peer-review system.
    • DOE awarded $151 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds on October 26 for 37 energy research projects under the ARPA-E. More than 3,600 initial ARPA-E concept papers were submitted to the first competitive merit review by experts and this first round of grants will go to researchers and inventors in 17 states and will support the research and development of new renewable energy technologies for solar cells, wind turbines, geothermal drilling, biofuels, and biomass energy crops.

      The grants will also support a variety of energy efficiency technologies, including power electronics and engine-generators for advanced vehicles, devices for waste heat recovery, electrically controlled windows and control systems for smart buildings, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), reverse-osmosis membranes for water desalination, catalysts to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, improved fuel cell membranes, and more energy-dense magnetic materials for a variety of electronic components.

      Six grants will go to energy storage technologies, including an ultracapacitor, improved lithium-ion batteries, metal-air batteries that use ionic liquids, liquid sodium batteries, and liquid metal batteries.
    • As Eli Kintisch reported on the fate of the agency’s budget for Science Insider, in March 2011:

      “The young agency [ARPA-E]… is living off $15 million it received in 2009 after having committed some $400 million in stimulus funding. Without more money, the program will have to start cutting staff members or other expenses this summer…
    • The White House request[ed] $550 million for ARPA-E in 2012, [but] Congress had authorized only $306 million for the agency in last year’s reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. Even $50 million for the rest of the fiscal year would put a squeeze on the agency. ARPA-E might stay alive, but it would be a shell of the juggernaut that attracted 2000 people to the [summit event].”
  • ARRA - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
  • EERE - Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy - An office within the United States Department of Energy that invests in high-risk, high-value research and development in the fields of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. The Office of EERE received $1,457,241,000 in fiscal year 2007, $1,722,407,000 in fiscal year 2008, and requested $1,255,393,000 for fiscal year 2009. EERE funds 10 major program areas:
    1. Biomass
    2. Building Technologies
    3. Federal Energy Management
    4. Geothermal Technologies
    5. Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies
    6. Industrial Technologies
    7. Solar Energy Technologies
    8. Vehicle Technologies
    9. Weatherization & Intergovernmental
    10. Wind and Hydropower Technologies

  • FOA – Funding Opportunity Announcement
  • OE –Office of Electricity Delivery and Reliability,
    Lead DOE office for the Smart Grid One of OE’s primary responsibilities in carrying out smart grid activities is to evaluate and report on the implementation progress of smart grid technologies, tools, and techniques across the country according to specific, quantitative metrics.

3. Programs
  1. Advanced Battery Manufacturing Research - $2 billion - Competitive grants for advanced battery research, development, demonstration and deployment to support next-generation plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) and their advanced battery components. Of the $2 billion, $1.5 billion will go to U.S. manufacturers to produce high-efficiency batteries and their components; $500 million for US manufacturers to produce other components for electric vehicles, such as electric motors.
    • Information on solicitations are available at
    • The ARRA grant funds were quickly appropriated and apportioned. The rapid grant-making occurred because of the urgent nature of the economic crisis.The largest awards within the Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative were granted to Johnson Controls, Inc ($299 million) and A123 Systems ($249 million), both in Michigan, to manufacture advanced batteries and packs for hybrid and electric vehicles. The four next largest grantees, three of which are also based in Michigan, were EnerDel, General Motors Corporation, a Dow/Kokam joint venture, and LG Chem.

    • The largest infrastructure piece of the grant announcement was an award that went to the Electric Transportation Engineering Corp (eTec), the charging infrastructure arm of ECOtality, to work with Nissan to demonstrate 5,000 of Nissan’s 100-mile range LEAF model EVs and deploy roughly 13,000 chargers in pilot programs in five U.S. regions (Portland, Salem, Eugene and Corvallis, OR; Seattle, WA; San Diego, CA; Phoenix and Tucson, AZ; and Nashville, Chattanooga, and Knoxville, TN).

    • ARRA also revised electric vehicle tax credits for U.S. consumers. Under the new law, U.S. residents who purchase GEVs will be able to claim a base tax credit of $2,500 for a vehicle with a battery of at least 5 kWh and $417 dollars per kWh from 5 upward, capping at an additional $5,000.155 The maximum tax credit, therefore, is $7,500. The credit applies to the first 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer.

  2. Applied Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Activities - $2.5 billion. - Competitive grants available for energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development, demonstration; and deployment to universities, business, and national laboratories. Includes a minimum of $800 million for biomass projects, $400 million for geothermal projects and $50 million for Information and Communications Technology. The remaining funds can be used for other energy efficiency and renewable energy research. Information on any solicitations are available at:

  3. Assisted Housing: $1.76 billion - US Housing and Urban Development distributes $250 million to improve efficiency of low-income housing, $1 billion for public housing, and $510 million for Native American housing.

  4. Bonneville and Western Power Administration $6.5 billion - Direct Loans and borrowing authority for new construction and upgrading of electric power transmission lines and related facilities. BPA’s first project using additional authority is the 79-mile McNary-John Day transmission line that will relieve constraints and enable a higher percentage of renewables to be integrated into the BPA system.

  5. EECBG - Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program $3.2 billion. Grants go to states, local government and tribal government to support the development of energy efficiency and conservation strategies and programs, including energy audit programs and projects to install renewable energy projects at government buildings.
    • Administered by DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    • Includes $400 million to be awarded on a competitive basis.
    • About $302 million of California’s funds will go directly to large cities and counties. Interested parties are encouraged to contact their local city or county for ways to partner for the Block Grant funding.

    • $49.6 million will be allocated by the California Energy Commission. The CEC will make 60% of these funds ($29.7 million) available to small cities and counties through a competitive grant program. The remaining 40 % will be expended at the Energy Commission’s discretion for Energy Independence Security Act-related activities. The Energy Commission’s guidelines and application process for small cities and counties is not available yet. More information about these Block Grants is available at

  6. Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program & Energy Star® Recovery Funding - $300 million. States may receive funding if they have a rebate program for Energy Star® products and submit an application to DOE. Guidelines have not been released.

  7. EFRC’s – DOE Energy Frontier Research Centers - $1.2 Billion
    • DOE Office of Science will invest $777 million in 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers over the next five years using regular appropriations and ARRA funding. Although funding specifics have not been released, each of these EFRC’s will receive between $2 million–$5 million annually..
    • Of the 46 EFRCs selected, 31 are led by universities, 12 by DOE National Laboratories, two by nonprofit organizations, and one by a corporate research laboratory.
    • There are four target areas:
      1. Renewable and Carbon-Neutral Energy (Solar Energy Utilization, Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, Biofuels, Geological Sequestration of CO2)
      2. Energy Efficiency (Clean and Efficient Combustion, Solid State Lighting, Superconductivity)
      3. Energy Storage (Hydrogen Research, Electrical Energy Storage)
      4. Crosscutting Science (Catalysis, Materials under Extreme Environments, other)

  8. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant - $3.2 billion - The DOE distributes grants to state and local governments and Indian tribes for energy audit programs, conservation, renewable energy and other initiatives.

  9. Green Schools - $9.75 billion The DOE provides funds to renovate schools, including improving building efficiency.

  10. Federal Buildings - $8.5 billion - Several agencies, including the Department of Defense and General Services Agency, receive these funds to modernize buildings and make them more efficient.

  11. Military Facilities- DOD received $7.4 billion in ARRA funds with approximately $1.9 billion earmarked for energy efficiency improvements and renewable projects for military facilities. The funds for energy projects will be distributed in these areas: almost $1.4 billion for Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization; $100 million for Military Construction; $120 million for Energy Conservation Improvement; and $300 million for Near-Term Energy Efficiency Demonstration and R&D. The DOD expects that 80% of these ARRA funds will be awarded on a competitive basis to help stimulate the economy.

  12. Plug-in Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Tax Credits - ARRA contains several changes to the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) tax credit originally included in the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 that have been included in the updated reference case. For example, ARRA allows a $2,500 tax credit for the purchase of qualified PHEVs with a battery capacity of at least 4 kilowatthours. Starting at a battery capacity of 5 kWh, PHEVs earn an additional $417 per kilowatthour battery credit up to a maximum of $5,000. The maximum total PHEV credit that can be earned is capped at $7,500 per vehicle. The PHEV tax credit eligibility and phase-out are specific to an individual vehicle manufacturer. The credits are phased out once cumulative sales of qualified vehicles reach 200,000 vehicles. The phase-out period begins two calendar quarters after the first date in which a manufacturer’s sales reach the cumulative sales maximum after December 31, 2009. The credit is reduced to 50 percent of the total value for the first two calendar quarters of the phase-out period and then to 25 percent for the third and forth calendar quarters before being phased out entirely thereafter. The credit applies to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 14,000 pounds.

    AARA also allows a tax credit of 10 percent against the cost of a qualified plug-in all electric vehicle with a battery capacity of at least 4 kilowatthours. This credit is subject to the same phase-out schedule as PHEVs.

  13. QECB - Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds - $3.2 billion - The US Treasury Department allocates the qualified bonds to state and local governments and tribes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Money can be used to finance building retrofits, to demonstrate peak use reduction and green building technology.

  14. Recovery Act Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credits - On January 8, President Obama announced the award of $2.3 billion in Recovery Act Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credits for projects across the United States. The Obama Administration says that the 183 projects in 43 states will generate more than 17,000 high quality clean energy jobs and the domestic manufacturing of advanced clean energy technologies including solar, wind, and efficiency and energy management technologies. This investment will be matched by as much as $5.4 billion in private sector funding likely supporting up to 41,000 additional jobs.

    The statute authorizing the 48C tax credits allows projects that are completed on or after February 17, 2009, when the Recovery Act was signed. Projects must be commissioned before February 17, 2013. The statute favors the selection of projects that are in service early. As a result, some of the selected projects already have been completed and begun operation.

    The application deadline for the 48C program was October 16, 2009. Over 500 applications were received with tax credit requests totaling over $8 billion. The 48C applications pool was distributed across many clean energy technologies and was geographically distributed to more than 40 states.

  15. SEP - State Energy Program - $3.1 Billion - Authorized on March 12, 2009, to support various programs in residential, commercial, transportation, industrial, institutional, and agricultural energy efficiency in renewable energy research and deployment and in transmission planning.
    • $226 million was allocated to California which will be administered by the CEC
    • In June 2009, DOE awarded California $90.4 million for a statewide effort to leverage funds for an energy efficiency retrofit program and cost effective clean energy systems for residential, commercial and industrial buildings and facilities. The program will also invest in green workforce training, creating more jobs focused on energy efficiency and clean energy sources including solar and wind. The California Energy Commission is developing the SEP guidelines and will present the draft guidelines in July public workshops.

    • Up to $95 million in ARRA funds are being offered with three State Energy Program competitive solicitations. Local jurisdictions, non-profits or private organizations are encouraged to submit their proposals for the Municipal Financing Program ('AB 811-type programs'), the California Comprehensive Residential Building Retrofit Program and the Municipal and Commercial Building Targeted Measure Retrofit Program. Proposals are due to the Energy Commission by November 20, 2009. For the Solicitations go to:

  16. SGIG - Smart Grid Investment Program - $4.5 Billion - Will provide grants up to $200 million to support research and development of smart grids and regional, utility-scale energy storage and synchrophasor demonstrations. DOE will provide grants of up to 50% of qualifying smart grid investments to support manufacturing, purchasing and installation of existing smart grid technologies that can be deployed on a commercial scale.. Eligible applicants include electric utilities, companies that distribute or sell electricity and appliance and equipment manufacturers.
    • DOE anticipates making awards in October 2009, March 2010 and June 2010. All costs for these awards must be invoiced and paid by September 30, 2015.
    • Merit Review Criteria
      1. Adequacy of the Technical Aproach for Enabling Smart Grid Functions (40%)
      2. Adequacy of the Plan for Project Tasks, Schedule, Management, Qualifications, and Risks (25%)
      3. Adequacy of the Technical Approach for Addressing Interoperability and Cyber Security (20%)
      4. Adequacy of the Plan for Data Collection and Analysis of Project Costs and Benefits (15%)

  17. SGDP - Smart Grid Demonstration Program - $615 million Authorized by the EISA, Title XIII, Section 1304 as amended by the Recovery Act. The intent of SGDP is to provide financial support, up to one-half of the total project cost, to demonstrate how a suite of existing and emerging smart grid technologies can be innovatively applied and integrated to prove technical, operational and business-model feasibility. The ultimate aim is to demonstrate new and more cost-effective smart grid technologies, tools, techniques, and system configurations that significantly improve upon the ones that are either in common practice today or are likely to be proposed in the SGIG Program. Furthermore, these demonstration projects should serve as models for other entities to readily adapt and replicate across the country. 
  18. Regional Transmission Planning $80 million - The stimulus bill also provides assistance for the development of interconnection-based transmission plans to conduct a resource assessment and an analysis of future demand and transmission requirements after consultation with FERC.

  19. Renewable Energy Loan Guarantees - $6 billion Competitive loans for renewable power generation (including wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and methane gas) and advanced transmission projects that avoid and lower air pollutants and green house gas emissions. Information on any solicitations are available at:

  20. Transportation Electrification Initiative - $400 million Funds could be used by ports for portside electric power for ships and electrification of drayage trucks, truck-stop electrification, and airport support equipment electrification. Includes plug-in electric drive program as authorized in Section 131 of the EISA. Recipients will likely be states, local governments, port authorities, and metropolitan transportation authorities.

    This initiative includes the ChargePoint America program where Coulomb Technologies is offering nearly 5,000 free chargers to L.A. residents. A similar project from ECOtality will provide up to 8,300 EV drivers with free units and subsidized installation.

    ChargePoint America, is providing electric vehicle charging infrastructure to nine selected regions in the United States:
    Boston, MA
    Bellevue/Redmond, WA
    Sacramento, CA
    San Jose/San Francisco Bay Area
    Los Angeles, CA
    Austin, TX
    Southern Michigan (including Grand Rapids,
    Lansing, Ann Arbor, Detroit)
    New York City, NY
    Washington DC/Baltimore
    Orlando/Tampa, FL

    Coulomb is partnering with three leading automobile brands including, Ford, Chevrolet and smart USA. In support of the ChargePoint America program, the three automakers have committed to deliver electric vehicles in the nine designated US regions. These vehicles are the Chevrolet Volt, Ford Transit Connect, Ford Focus BEV and smart fortwo electric drive that will be introduced throughout the US along with this program. They will begin delivering these full electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles into these regions during 2010 and 2011.

    To build the electric vehicle-charging infrastructure, Coulomb Technologies will provide a total of nearly 5,000 fully networked Level II (220v) ChargePoint Networked® Charging Stations at no cost in the participating regions. There are two types of networked charging stations being offered through the program: home and public/commercial. Installation of these charging stations in most cases will be paid by the station owner (host) or the individual.

    There are two phases of the program. The first, lasting 18 months until October 2011, will consist of allocation and installation of all charging stations. The second, lasting 2 years until October 2013, will consist of data collection. All participants in the ChargePoint America program must agree to anonymous data collection. As the charging stations are all networked, this data collection is primarily automated.

    Individuals in the target regions purchasing one of the partner automakers vehicles will be eligible to receive a ChargePoint Network home charging station at no cost. Acquiring one of these charging stations will be organized by the automaker during your vehicle purchase process.
    Companies and municipalities in the selected regions will be eligible to receive networked charging stations at no cost. The objective is to place charging stations strategically across the metropolitan areas in a variety of settings including public places, private garages, airports, train stations, malls, movie theatres, rental car agencies, restaurants, and other likely locations where owners of electric vehicles park their cars and need to charge.

  21. Weatherization Assistance - $5 billion - The DOE administers formula grants for the weatherizing of low-income family homes. The states channel the funds to housing, community, economic development, energy or environmental non-profit agencies.

  22. Workforce Training for the Electric Power Sector - The Department of Energy will give $100 million in grants to fund 54 smart grid workforce training programs. Ideally, 30,000 Americans will receive training to implement the smart grid programs that were funded by the DOE and private investors in 2009.

    The programs run the gamut of smart grid activities, ranging from classes for electricians and line workers to security specialists. Some programs will specifically target veterans and displaced workers. Some grants go straight to schools, while others will go to Native American Indian corporations and others still will go to private organizations. Unlike many of the technology grants already issued by the DOE, the grants are not concentrated heavily onto one or two recipients. The grants are fairly well distributed across the country and generally range in value from under $100,000 to a little above $4 million. A full list of recipients can be found here.

4. Business Case
  • Investment Grant Program is intended to enable smart grid functions on the electric system as soon as possible.
  • The Demonstration program is aimed at identifying and developing new and more cost-effective smart grid equipment, tools, techniques, and system configurations that can significantly improve upon today’s technologies. It will demonstrate technologies that embody essential and salient characteristics of each region and present a suite of use cases for national implementation and replication. From these use cases, the goal is to collect and provide the optimal amount of information necessary for customers, distributors, and generators to change their behavior in a way that reduces system demands and costs, increases energy efficiency, optimally allocates and matches demand and resources to meet that demand, and increases the reliability of the grid.
  • The overall purpose of the SGIG is to accelerate the modernization of the nation’s electric transmission and distribution systems and promote investments in smart grid technologies, tools, and techniques which increase flexibility, functionality, interoperability, cyber-security, situational awareness, and operational efficiency. This purpose will be accomplished through a merit-based, competitive solicitation for projects to receive Federal financial assistance for up to 50% percent of eligible project costs. This financial assistance is intended to enable measurable improvements that can result from accelerated achievement of a modernized electric transmission and distribution system, including:

    • Reliability of the electric power system.
    • Electric power system costs and peak demand.
    • Consumer electricity costs, bills, and environmental impacts.
    • Clean energy development and greenhouse gas emissions.
    • Economic opportunities for businesses and new jobs for workers.
    • Applications are sought in the following project areas:

Area of Interest (AOI) Title Estimated Number of Selections Anticipated Anticipated Award Sizes
1. Regional Demonstrations 8-12 Total See below
1.1 Regional Demonstrations with Investor-Owned Utilities 6-8 $20M to $40M each
1.2 Regional Demonstrations with Publicly-Owned Utilities 2-4 $5M to $20M each
2. Synchrophasors
Reliability Coordinator saturation demo
Reliability Coordinator synchrophasor backbone demo
Phasors for Renewable Generator Interconnection
NASPInet demo
4-5 Total $15M to$20M each
3. Energy Storage 12-19 Total See below
3.1 Battery Storage for Utility Load Shifting or for Wind Farm Diurnal Operations and Ramping Control 1-2 $40M to $50M total
3.2 Frequency Regulation Ancillary Services 1-2 $40M to $50M total
3.3 Distributed Energy Storage for Grid Support 4-5 $25M total
3.4 Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) 1-4 $50M to $60M total
3.5 Demonstration of Promising Energy Storage Technologies.
New electrochemical couples and processes have been identified but have not yet been developed to the demonstration stage
5-6 $25M total

5. Benefits
  • The goals of the SGIG program involve accelerating progress toward a modern grid that provides the following specific characteristics that DOE believes define what a smart grid would accomplish:
    • Enabling informed participation by consumers in retail and wholesale electricity markets.
    • Accommodating all types of central and distributed electric generation and storage options.
    • Enabling new products, services, and markets.
    • Providing for power quality for a range of needs by all types of consumers.
    • Optimizing asset utilization and operating efficiency of the electric power system.
    • Anticipating and responding to system disturbances.
    • Operating resiliently to attacks and natural disasters.

  • The social benefits of a smart grid are reduced emissions, lower costs, increased reliability, greater security and flexibility to accommodate new energy technologies, including renewable, intermittent and distributed sources.

6. Risks/Issues
  • Tax Liability - The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service initially determined that Smart Grid stimulus grant awards were taxable, but on March 10 the DOE announced utilities don’t have to pay taxes on their Department of Energy smart grid grants. The IRS will provide a “safe harbor” for utilities that are in line for a piece of the $3.4 billion in stimulus backing for smart grid projects. In Rev. Proc. 2010-20, the IRS noted that the DOE grant is considered a contribution to capital that is not subject to tax under section 118 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 118 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that, in the case of a corporation, gross income does not include a contribution of capital to the corporation. However, the DOE contribution reduces the basis of for purposes of depreciation. Rev. Proc. 2010-20 became effective March 10, 2010 and does not apply to non-corporate taxpayers or to DOE grants related to smart grid research, development, and demonstration.
    Project Size Limits - The initial $20 million limit on the demonstration program was too low, but that has been corrected.
  • Bureaucracy - The government has less interest in ROI than venture capitalists. Their interest is not in seeing a technology achieve commercial success, it is in policy advancement, and political gain. We may get to the same or similar endgames no matter who is funding the technology development, but with the government doing it, it will cost more to get us there in the aggregate.
  • Competing Government Mandates -  Regulators and utility officials at the GridWeek conference in Washington DC Sept 2011 said the pending spate of EPA rules tightening sulfur, nitrogen, mercury and particulate emissions, with deadlines hitting coal plants in the next four years, will force investment dollars into abatement projects and away from longer-term efforts like smart grid.

7. Next Steps
  • H.R. 1685: Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act of 2011 - In May 2011, U.S. Representative Judy Biggert (R-IL) joined Reps. Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Jerry McNerney (D-CA), and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) to introduce the Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act—legislation designed to fast track the deployment of energy-saving electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid technologies. The bipartisan sponsorship is a seemingly rare thing in the current Congress. However, there’s a hefty price tag, which could be its undoing. The act authorizes the DOE to award up to $300 million each to 10 communities around the country that will serve as test beds for EV manufacturing and deployment and to develop best practices. The act includes various incentives for manufacturers and consumers, including the extension of tax credits. These communities will then serve as domestic hubs for EV manufacturing and deployment, as well as proving grounds for best practices. The Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act guarantees these consumer benefits:
    • At least $2,000 (beyond existing tax credits or other federal and local incentives) for the first 50,000 EV consumers within each deployment community
    • An extension of 2014 federal tax credits for the purchase and installation of electric vehicle charging equipment for individuals (up to $2,000) or businesses (up to $50,000 for multiple equipment purchases).

  • As of October 2011, only 40% of the $4.5 billion stimulus funding for the Smart Grid has been spent, so smart grid vendors and utilities have another year or so before projects finish and they emerge from what speakers called "stimulus fever." But as they look for the next steps in upgrading the nation's aging transmission systems, they're finding competing priorities, difficulty proving to regulators that near-term benefits exceed the costs, and skepticism about investment timing.
    8. Success Factors
    • As government funding for renewables becomes constrained it should be focused on R&D at the expense of deployment. Not only would the available money go much farther, but it would also create more options for the future.
    • Ensure that whatever the government does spend on deployment should go to projects that are close to being viable without help, or in the case of the military that enhance combat capabilities. That means, for example, focusing solar development assistance on sunny places like the southwest--preferably in proximity to existing transmission infrastructure--and putting an end to paying people to install utility and rooftop solar in places that receive less than about 5 "peak sun hours" (kWh/m2) per day.
    • A greater emphasis on exports to developing country markets, where energy demand is growing at impressive rates and where renewables are becoming increasingly popular, would increase export earnings and employment while participating in volume-related unit cost reductions

    9. Links
    1. In November 2009, DOE Secretary Steven Chu announcing the award of $620 million for projects around the country to demonstrate advanced Smart Grid technologies and integrated systems. Thirty-two demonstration projects were awarded funding, including large-scale energy storage, smart meters, distribution and transmission monitoring system monitoring devices, and a range of other smart technologies.
    2. In July 2009, DOE announced $47 million in Recovery Act awards that will support existing projects that are advancing demonstration-scale smart grid technologies which will play an important role in modernizing the country’s electricity grid. Breakdown of projects, award amounts and locations appears below.
    3. FAQs on Smart Grid Investment Grant FOA(doc)
    4. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued Initial Implementing Guidance for the Recovery Act. Applicants should consult the DOE website, the OMB website , and the Recovery website, regularly to keep abreast of guidance and information as it evolves.
    5. Podcast on tracking the Stimulus Spending with
    6. EFRCs - DOE Energy Frontier Research Centers.
      1. Fact Sheet (pdf)
      2. Reports
    7. California Energy Commission charged with coordinating information about energy related opportunities Track it here
    8. Looking for a thumbnail update on the ARRA energy-related programs? Check out the weekly updated Summary maintained by the California Energy Commission:
    9. The agenda, presentations, and documents for California State Energy Program (SEP) are available at:
    10. NETL - Solicitations / Funding Opportunity Announcements
    11. Earth2Tech - Cheat sheet on all of the companies that they’ve heard have applied or are working on applications for some of the $3.4 billion in DOE stimulus funding for the smart grid
    12. Lawrence Berkeley Lab - Interactions between Energy Efficiency Programs funded under the Recovery Act and Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs Report, Presentation, Appendix
    13. SGIG 6 YEARS (OR SO) LATER  - It’s hard to believe that it has been six years since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) passed—which included $4.5 billion for the Office of Electricity and Energy Reliability to help modernize the nation’s electrical grid. The actual deployment of Smart Grid Investment Grant (SGIG) projects began around mid-2010, and pretty much wrapped up by mid-2014. The study of these investment impacts will continue through mid-2016.

    Thursday, December 18, 2014

    Home Energy Management (HEM)

    Mass deployment of smart meters by utilities is creating new business opportunities for product developers and utilities. As energy plays a larger role in the lives of consumers, a wide range of new products and services will be developed to enable the market. Home Energy Management is becoming the “killer app” for home automation

    Navigate this Report
    Back to Consumer Index
    1. Background

    2. Acronyms/Definitions
    3. Business Case
    4. Benefits
    5. Risks/Issues
    6. Success Criteria
    7. Next Steps
    8. Companies
    9. Links

    • In the past, Home Automation was mostly about entertainment. Home theaters that can cue up a movie and darken the room with a flip of a switch. Wireless networks that allow music to be streamed from any room. Recently, though, automation has become synonymous with energy management. Thermostats that automatically raise and lower the temperature based on the time of day. Blinds that close when the sun goes down.
    • Homes used 21% of US total energy demand in 2004. Managing the residential sector is an important priority for addressing global warming, conserving resources and improving energy security. A lot of energy is wasted, for example heating/cooling and lighting of unoccupied houses and rooms, and overheating or overcooling to make up for temperature variations. IT enabled monitoring and control technologies have played an important role in eliminating similar kinds of inefficiencies in commercial buildings, so it is natural to think that these systems could have an important role in the home.
    • Most homes use energy control technology is at least 20 years old. Only about a quarter of US homes even have simple programmable thermostats. Networked thermostats, power meters and switches, and zone heating can provide information on energy use and allow it to be controlled for distribution only when needed.
    • In addition to direct energy savings, homes can participate in peak shifting. Redistributing electricity demand more evenly throughout the day reduces the needs for energy infrastructure.
    • There are big gaps in consumer communication which the smart grid can help close. Utilities sell electricity in many ways; but have little concept of how individual customers use it. Customers use products & services; but have little concept of electricity use or value. Products and services use electricity; but have little concept of how and when to conserve. Interoperability and Home Area Network Standards are becoming critical. Many utilities want people to be able to shop for smart thermostats, smart appliances and other smart-grid technologies, if everything is proprietary that becomes much more problematic.

    2. Acronyms/Definitions

    Source: Home Energy Management: Products & Trends - Western Cooling Efficiency Center, UC Davis

    1. Controller - Provides a gateway between a variety of standard interfaces found in residential and commercial applications: Abstracts devices and their protocols to a common object model representation so relationships between disparate devices can be made by director.
    2. EMS – Energy Management System
    3. Energy Awareness - the ability for products to automatically react and share information with consumers as it relates to changes in electricity prices and activation of demand response events. Extending the meter into the home will require a new class of products that feature energy awareness.
    4. Energy Services - Energy Services bridge the gaps by giving the customer the ability to meet demand requirements and personal goals regardless.
    5. ERT – Electronic Receiver/Transmitter Meter
    6. H2G – Home to Grid – market segment that connects consumer products and smart meters.
    7. HAN – Home Area Network - From the perspective of energy use, the term Home Area Network was coined to address connectivity between consumer products and smart meters. It covers any means by which a utility customer interconnects devices within a home. Interaction of consumer-owned devices, including distributed energy resources, with the Smart Grid Connecting products to smart meters requires development of an entirely new class of consumer products that are capable of being networked together using one or more communication protocols.
    8. Grid Direct Messaging (Prices-to-Devices)
    9. Home Controls - A broad market opportunity encompassing Security, Home Theatre, and Home Automation as well as Energy Management.
    10. HEM - Home Energy Monitoring device.
    11. IHD – In-Home Display - This can be a simple LCD device that just passes information to the user or it could be a widget on an HD television.
    12. Kill-a-Watt - An individual appliance measuring device for analyzing individual appliances and loads one at a time.
    13. NILM - Nonintrusive Load Monitoring - A process for analyzing changes in the voltage and current going into a house and deducing what appliances are used in the house as well as their individual energy consumption. Electric meters with NILM technology are used by utility companies to survey the specific uses of electric power in different homes. NILM is considered a low cost alternative to attaching individual monitors on each appliance. It does, however, present privacy concerns.
    14. PCT - Programmable Communicating Thermostat
    15. Quadruple Play - Back at the start of the century, telecommunications companies described the “triple play” (voice, video, data) opportunity –- a convergence of all media into the home, provided by a single vendor, and streamed onto a variety of consumer devices (phones, TVs, computers, and more). The Smart Grid is the first opportunity to enable the “quadruple play,” made possible by the use of standards-based, scalable smart grid architectures that connect and leverage feature-rich devices and functionality, along with high-bandwidth (and low cost) 4G networking.
    16. Smart Appliances - Energy aware products that allow consumers and utilities to shape electricity loads during peak periods.
    17. ZigBee SE – Smart Energy Profile defines the standard behavior of Home Area Network (HAN) devices.

    3. Business Case
    • According to Navigant Research, global revenue for communicating and smart thermostats and associated software and services is expected to grow from $146.9 million in 2014 to $2.3 billion in 2023.
    • Studies show that giving people direct feedback on their energy use leads to a reduction in energy consumption of 5-15%. Home Energy Management will make it possible to get instantaneous pricing information on the electricity that is being used and to scale electricity consumption accordingly. The Smart Grid is a key enabler in communicating peak prices to consumers; and integrating smart appliances with the grid to help customers change their energy consumption habits.
    • Evolving into an open eco-system where the devices can come from any provider whether that’s from the utility, or Best Buy down the street or from the appliances that come with the home. Key is to enable them to communicate in real time.
    • What matters is the data (about consumption) and control (i.e., automation), not the HAN hardware; . The endgame should focus on building intelligent, automated energy management, not filling the home with a slew of new, narrow-purpose HAN devices. Clearly, the overall trend is toward feature convergence -- more goodies on a few broad-purpose digital platforms. Look at today’s smart phones. Most include GPS, motion sensors, Wi-Fi, cameras, audio players, and you can load almost any clever app you can think of. They are a platform for innovation. Is home energy management an innovation platform or an innovation to add to other platforms? Seems to me we’ve got quite a few platforms already, and they are pretty darn good already.

    Source: EPRI

    4. Benefits
    • Reduced Energy Use - Various studies have shown a reduction in home energy use of 4-15% through use of home energy display. For example, a study using the PowerCost Monitor deployed in 500 Ontario homes by Hydro One showed an average 6.5% drop in total electricity use when compared with a similarly sized control group.
    • Identify Energy Spikes - One of the most obvious aspects of real-time measuring is the spikes. You can see them. Sometimes they are staggering. If most people knew that their 500W PC that they leave on all the time is costing them an additional $100/month, they would be somewhat persuaded to turn it off every so often. Seeing spikes a day later will not have the same effect as seeing the data live and asking, “What’s going on?”
    • Identify Baseload -Some of the composite parts of the baseload or standing heart rate of the house are comparatively small, but anything that runs 24/7, even low wattage, adds up.
    • Identify Anomalies - Sometimes people leave something on that shouldn’t be. By knowing a home’s standing heart rate, it is very easy to identify when something’s been inadvertently left running. This point alone makes the case for real-time monitoring: figuring out the next day that you’ve left a space heater on in the basement is not so helpful.
    • Data=Action. The old management axiom: “You can’t manage what you can’t measure”
      is as true with energy as with anything else. One of the key aspects of real-time monitoring is that it lets you know immediately the impact of your daily activities. Reducing the dryer heat from high to medium has a significant impact on electricity. When they are measurable, those shifts become tangible, and you look for more opportunities.
    • Demand Response - Supports load control integration
    • Environmental Monitoring - Multiple benefits/value are needed. HEM should answer a market need, solve real problems, beyond 'carbon guilt'. There are specific problems that improved environmental monitoring could mitigate in addition to helping homeowners keep energy costs down. There are 250,000 freeze events per year costing insurers dearly and countless mold claims as well. Offering temp/humidity alerts could potentially reduce insurance costs while being part of the system helping keep residential energy costs down.
    Your Kitchen of the Future

    5. Risks/Issues
    • Lukewarm Consumer Interest - the less-than-stellar consumer response to various efforts to market energy saving home devices in the past.
    • Integration With Other Home Controls - A broad market encompassing Security, Home Theatre, and Home Automation as well as Energy Management. Homeowners would like these devices to work together, not one use case wonders. Low powered wireless networks are designed for low power so that batteries can last for months and years, not for broadband. The consumer does not want more complexity.
    • Device Clutter - Companies that are tied to home energy management consoles are most at risk. Most homeowners would prefer to see energy information on their smart phones, computers or TVs and don't want a new, single-purpose device cluttering their counters.
    • Low Consumer Price Points - A new survey shows that Americans are willing to pay an average of $48 for equipment that allows them to manage their home energy use. That price might be hard to meet, depending on the technology being deployed.
    • Controls/Thermostat Challenges:
      • Interface that’s easy to understand and intuitive -- for many sectors of society.
      • Learning algorithms that will optimize energy savings and comfort with time varying energy prices (e.g. pre-cooling algorithms)
      • Display to the user the expected monthly bill (“shock effect of monthly credit-card-bill”)
      • Control strategies for a house that can react to the possibility of low in-house network quality or complete network failure.
    • Real Time Limitations - Don’t know the point of diminishing return in data granularity. Recent news that energy monitoring and managing devices will not take advantage of their real-time potential is distressing. Real-time electricity monitoring provides incentives to increase energy efficiency like no other tool. We will continue to advocate for widespread availability of real-time data
    • Privacy – Finding right balance between security and simplicity.
      • Access to meter information
      • Top-down mandated or opt-in
    • Upgradeability - Extensibility to wide range of in-home devices. Potential technology obsolescence is low due to multiple bridging options. HAN interface choice isn’t Betamax vs. VHS, rather Mac vs. PC
    • Limited Residential Demand Response Potential - Consumers are largely at work during peak periods: Thus, there is far less than can be harvested from consumer demand response. Commercial DR programs tend to work because factories and large commercial buildings use a lot of electricity and can curb power consumption at peak times.
    • Business Relationships
      • Who owns the customer? Utility, ISP, Retailer?
      • Who rolls truck?
      • Business model? Pay to play, freemium or “Gainshare”?

    6. Success Criteria
    • Consistent Experience - Customers would like to go to one place to manage energy usage, control devices, and plan actions. The Web will play a critical role as a cost effective medium to deliver rich information. A consistent Web experience across AMI, DR, EE, and HAN programs is required to engage customers.
    • User Centric Design - Consumer owns the HAN The consumer will be king
    • Open Standards for Meter Interface to HAN
    • Real Time/Two-Way Communication – So that all the devices that are inside the home can be controlled by the user and also be accessible by the utility or at least be able to respond to signals that might come down.
    • Real Time Information - Provides direct access to usage data. Get near real time electric use data from AMI meters. Real-time leads to a real map of action.
    • Focus on Small to Mid-size Commercial Customers -  Big industrial sites and big high-rises already have energy management systems and tie-ins to utility programs.  But many smaller commercial properties are still not fully on board. And many utilities believe that it will be far easier to convince commercial property owners to play along than to convince residential customers to change their energy behavior.

    7. Next Steps
    • The normal Joe on the street isn't quite ready to make room on his handset for an application that allows him to view his bill or see his energy consumption. Now, is this coming? Absolutely. My question is really one of who will have to pay for the application? I don't see him needing one to pay the bill, as the bank or credit card company already does this. But what about energy consumption, being able to lower/raise house temperature remotely if away? This will be a cool one. Yet I believe it will be the thermostat folks that pay to have this application and offer it for free if you purchase their device.

    7. Companies
    1. Control4, Salt Lake City UT - Offers a complete line of home-automation products that allow lighting, audio, video and climate to be controlled. Earlier this year the company raised $17.3 million in a Series F expansion capital round and could be gearing up for an IPO. New investors include Best Buy's venture arm, indicating a possible channel to market for the devices. Smart Grid News Company Profile

    2. EcoFactor - Redwood City, CA - Has created a system that controls home energy consumption through broadband gateways, came out of stealth mode in early November. A few weeks later it won the prize at the Cleantech Open. Now, it has raised $2.4 million--not an outrageous amount, but better than nothing--from Claremont Creek Ventures and a few others.

      EcoFactor offers a SaaS-based residential energy management solution that works with two-way communicating thermostats and a broadband Internet connection to develop a dynamic, customized heating and cooling strategy. In EcoFactor's system, a wireless thermostat sends data to a home DSL or cable box. No smart meter needed.

      The service allows thermostats to modulate temperatures for comfort while simultaneously shaving energy demand and customers’ energy bills. After EcoFactor is installed, all homeowners have to do is adjust their thermostats as usual for several days. The software remembers what they like, in relation to seasons, weather conditions and square footage, so that they never have to worry about it again. EcoFactor’s software adjusts home temperature in real time as conditions change.

      Oncor is folding EcoFactor’s service into its Take a Load Off Texas program. It will allow the utility to run demand response programs — reducing demand when needed to avoid grid overloads — and allow customers to save as much as 20 to 30 percent on their heating and cooling costs, the company says.

      It makes sense that EcoFactor is rolling out first in Texas. Utilities are not regulated in the state, meaning that homeowners are largely free to choose between several competing energy vendors. In order to retain customers, many of these utilities need to expand their portfolios to include extras like energy efficiency tools, and energy monitoring dashboards.

    3. Home Automation, Inc.(HAI) – New Orleans, LA - Partnering with Sensus to deliver advanced Home Area Network (HAN) devices for demand response, energy display, and comfort control to the utility marketplace. Thousands of devices have already been distributed to five utilities across the country.

    4. IControl, Palo Alto, CA - Will offer utilities direct consent-based access into customers’ homes and let homeowners monitor and control energy use though a website, in-home touch-screen or “smart phone.” An offering called Connected Life Energy Management, that was released in Novmeber, will be marketed to utilities, cable and telecom broadband providers and homesecurity firms.

      iControl was founded in 2004 and focused on home security, home monitoring, energy monitoring and elderly care. Each involves a home network. IControl raised $23 million in a Series C round and investment partners include Intel, home-security giant ADT, cable broadband provider Comcast, networking firm Cisco Systems and GE.

      In June 2011 iControl announced the close of over $50 million in Series D funding, bringing total investment in the company to more than $100 million. They said this round of funding will accelerate the deployment of iControl's energy management solution and other broadband home management services, while also positioning the company for international expansion. Investors in this round of funding include Cisco, Comcast Ventures, Intel Capital, Charles River Ventures, the Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers iFund, Rogers Communications and Tyco International, the parent company of ADT Security Services.

    5. Microsoft - Redmond, WA - Launched the beta version of its new Hohm online energy management application in June 2009. Hohm was designed to help U.S. utility customers better understand their electricity and gas usage, receive recommendations, and start saving 5 percent to 10 percent on their bills. The program was expected to eventually be offered worldwide and include water usage, electric cars, homes, home devices and appliances, and commercial buildings.

      Hohm’s business model was expected to generate revenue from advertising. The site includes a section for sponsored and general vendors compiled from Microsoft’s Bing search, along with a rating system. Hohm was built on the Windows Azure cloud operating system, a platform for developers of Web applications.

      In June 2011, Microsoft announced it is discontinuing the Microsoft Hohm service effective May 31, 2012. They say "The feedback from customers and partners has remained encouraging throughout Microsoft Hohm’s beta period. However, due to the slow overall market adoption of the service, we are instead focusing our efforts on products and solutions more capable of supporting long-standing growth within this evolving market." Microsoft's hardware partner on Hohm was Newfoundland, Canada-based Blue Line Innovations Inc., a maker of energy-monitoring hardware. Blue Line had also partnered with Google on its PowerMeter software. The Blue Line devices worked with both power-monitoring software products to automatically collect and track power usage statistics, instead of having to manually enter data. (Microsoft's Hohm requires users to manually enter data about their home appliances to generate power-saving suggestions.) In July 2011, Blue Line announced a new software partnership with PeoplePower 1.0 to replace the phased-out Microsoft and Google solutions. The new smart phone application offers real time electricity data anywhere, anytime, but many more layers of engagement including – real time pricing, budgeting, gaming, social interaction and remote appliance control Here's some reasons why Microsoft Hohm didn’t take off: 1. Limited initial use. One of the upsides of the Microsoft Hohm system was that any consumer could access it by putting in their zip code and adding in various other bits of information like size of home, etc. The tool then started giving you immediate feedback on how you could be more energy-efficient, based on just this data and using the algorithms Microsoft licensed from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Department of Energy. However this initial step — before you connected it with your utility account or added in a Hohm gadget — didn’t really provide much use. 2. Utility barrier. Like with Google PowerMeter, utilities just didn’t seem to embrace the Microsoft Hohm tool. Microsoft’s large brand could have been seen as threatening by utilities, who want to own the relationship with their customer. Hohm works best when it incorporates customer-usage data fed directly from partner utilities, which, in Microsoft’s case, are currently limited to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Seattle City Light, and Xcel Energy. 3. Early Days It’s still early days for the market for home energy management. 4. Internal Politics - Microsoft blogger M.J. Miller explained in a blog that Microsoft decided to end its Hohm online power-savings software utility because "it didn't fit into the Windows Embedded business model."  As technology site Ars Technica noted, "the timing of the announcement suggests that Microsoft only developed Hohm for strategic reasons." 5. Over-ambitious long-term plan. While Hohm had limited use in the initial steps, its end goal was very ambitious. Microsoft was trying to turn Hohm into an entire platform that brought in revenue for the company, and which would turn Hohm into an operating system for everything from electric cars, to homes, to home devices and appliances, to commercial buildings.  Adding value for consumers and utilities needed to be worked out before moving on to the next steps. 6. Opt-in, not opt-out. In this early stage of the market, it seems like programs that are opt-out (sent unless the customer says they don’t want it), not opt-in (only sent if the customer wants it), are the ones working. OPower has been successful largely because it connected with utilities early on, and OPower’s detailed energy bills and energy savings recommendations, are delivered to utility customers automatically.
    6. Our Home Spaces - Novato, CA -Empowers consumers with their energy use information and tools to optimize their energy consumption. Partnering with RF module maker RF Digital and Gainspan under the umbrella of the U-SNAP Alliance to make a kit for homeowners to measure and control energy consumption.

    7. Silver Spring Networks - Acquired home energy monitoring startup Greenbox Technology in September 2009. It integrated Greenbox's web-based energy management platform into its series of deployments under under its new name, CustomerIQ.

      Greenbox created an integrated Internet service that lets a residential customer view, interpret, and act on their everyday utility service consumption and distributed generation behaviors. While other companies have presented residential electricity awareness interfaces, they rarely demonstrate the ability to span non-electric utility services, distributed generation, and remote appliance control from a single unified interface.

      Customers can get energy information from CustomerIQ via:
      • Web portal - The online portal provides a rich, interactive, and engaging experience through any standard Web browser;
      • Email - CustomerIQ can deliver a weekly energy report to customers via e-mail;
      • Mobile - The full CustomerIQ portal experience is available on smartphones and other mobile devices;
      • Telephone - Utility customer service representatives (CSRs) have access to a specialized CSR portal and can leverage this tool when handling customer calls; and
      • In-home devices - Silver Spring also supports a wide range of ZigBee Smart Energy Profile devices that display usage and pricing information relayed via the customer’s smart meter.

    8. Tendril , Boulder CO - Tendril Residential Energy Ecosystem (TREE) gives consumers
      insight into and control over the household energy footprint. The in-home wireless network allows appliances and electrical outlets to talk instantly and directly to a home energy monitor or web portal and enables understanding and management of energy consumption. With the consumer portal, Tendril Vantage, the home wireless network can be remotely monitored and controlled down to each individual device. Tendril Networks received $12 million VC funding in 2008 to develop smart grid networking products.

      In August 2011, Tendril announced the launch of the Tendril Connect™ Platform Application Developer Program, which will allow select developers to build on the Tendril Connect cloud platform to deliver innovative energy applications to more than 35 utilities and energy service providers, representing a market of 70 million addressable households across three continents. In addition, Tendril announced that it is sponsoring the Cleanweb Hackathon on Sept. 10-11 at pariSoma in San Francisco, and will provide its platform APIs as well as a data set to participants to test drive Tendril Connect. “We’ve opened our APIs and invite application developers to use them to engage with the mass-market energy industry to unleash the next killer app,” said Adrian Tuck, CEO, Tendril.

    9. Universal Devices , Encino CA - Leading Manufacturer of Affordable Internet Accessible Automation, Energy Management and Conservation Products and Solutions

    8. Links
    1. Home Energy Management: Products & Trends Janelle LaMarche, Katherine Cheney, Kurt Roth, and Olga Sachs, Fraunhofer Center for Sustainable Energy Systems, Marco Pritoni, Western Cooling Efficiency Center UC Davis
    2. Greentechmedia - The Telco Home Energy Invasion More telecom companies are offering energy management systems for their customers' homes. Some home energy startups believe telcos could rival utilities as a market channel, particularly in the early stages of the still-nascent industry
    3. Connectivity Week 2009 Home Energy Ecosystem Mass deployment of smart meters by utilities is creating new business opportunities for product developers and utilities. Extending the meter into the home will require a new class of products that feature energy awareness.
    4. Greentechmedia - Will Utilities or Customers Lead in Smart Grid

    Monday, December 1, 2014


    Hydraulic fracturing has driven down the price of natural gas from a high of $13 per million British Thermal Units (mmBTU) in 2008, natural gas prices have plummeted to below $2.00 per mm BTU, nearing record-setting lows, a game changer for both coal and renewables. The impact of 10,000's or even 100,000's of fracked natural gas wells near where people live has not been fully vetted. Is cheap natural gas worth the risk?

    Couldn't resist a Battlestar Reference

    Navigate this Report 
    Back to Supply Shifting Index

    1. Background

    2. Acronyms/Definitions
    3. Business Case
    4. Benefits
    5. Risks/Issues
    6. Success Factors
    7. Next Steps
    8. Companies
    9. Links

    The geology of shale natural gas formations differs from formation to another. Best practices fracking technology from one region may not be safe in another part of the country.

    Most of the growth in shale gas production has been from the Marcellus Formation in the Pennsylvania area


    • Natural gas is a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, providing a quarter of the country’s total energy. Owing to breakthroughs in technology, production from shale formations has gone from a negligible amount just a few years ago to being almost 30 percent of total U.S. natural gas production. This has brought lower prices, domestic jobs, and the prospect of enhanced national security due to the potential of substantial production growth. But the growth has also brought questions about whether both current and future production can be done in an environmentally sound fashion that meets the needs of public trust.

    • Fracking refers to the procedure of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting fluid into cracks to force them further open. The larger fissures allow more oil and gas to flow out of the formation and into the wellbore, from where it can be extracted.

    • Simplified Steps In Hydraulic Fracturing

      1. A well is drilled vertically to the desired depth, then turns ninety degrees and continues horizontally for several thousand feet into the shale believed to contain the trapped natural gas.

      2. A mix of water, sand, and various chemicals is pumped into the well at high pressure in order to create fissures in the shale through which the gas can escape.

      3. The liquid goes through perforated sections of the wellbore and into the surrounding formation, fracturing the rock and injecting sand or proppants into the cracks to hold them open.

      4. Natural gas escapes through the fissures and is drawn back up the well to the surface, where it is processed, refined, and shipped to market.

      5. This process may be repeated multiple times in “stages” to reach maximum areas of the wellbore. When this is done, the wellbore is temporarily plugged between each stage to maintain the highest water pressure possible and get maximum fracturing results in the rock.

      6. The fracturing plugs are drilled or removed from the wellbore and the well is tested for results.

      7. Wastewater (also called "flowback water" or "produced water") returns to the surface after the fracking process is completed for disposal or treatment and re-use, leaving the sand in place to prop open the cracks and allow gas and oil to flow. In Michigan, this water is contained in steel tanks until it can be stored long-term by deep injection in oil and gas waste wells.

    • The development of shale gas in the United States has been very rapid. Natural gas from all sources is one of America’s major fuels, providing about 25 percent of total U.S. energy. Shale gas increased from ess than two percent of total U.S. natural gas production in 2001. to almost 40% by 2014.  The USEIA expects the share to reach 50% by 2025.

    • This very rapid growth has contributed to a situation where there is not consensus on the environment impacts impact of fracking, nor is the science completely understood. In addition, state and federal regulatory frameworks have not kept pace with the rapid expansion of production rooted in change in applications of technology and field practice.

    • Parts of the country, such as regions of the Appalachian mountain states where the Marcellus Shale is located, which have not experienced significant oil and gas development for decades, are now undergoing significant development pressure.

      Pennsylvania, for example, which produced only one percent of total dry gas production in 2009, is one of the most active new areas of development. Even states with a history of oil and gas development, such as Wyoming and Colorado, have experienced significant development pressures in new areas of the state where unconventional gas is now technically and economically accessible due to changes in drilling and development technologies.

      Output from the Haynesville shale, mostly in Louisiana was negligible in 2008; today, the Haynesville shale alone produces eight percent of total U.S. natural gas output.

    • According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), the rapid expansion of shale
      gas production is expected to continue in the future. The EIA projects shale gas to be 45 percent of domestic production by 2035. What will be the environmental impact?
      The 56% increase in total natural gas production from 2012 to 2040 in the AEO2014 Reference Case results from increased development of shale gas, tight gas and offshore natural gas resources.  

    2. Acronyms/Definitions
    1. Bakken Formation - - Rock unit from the Late Devonian to Early Mississippian age occupying about 200,000 square miles of the subsurface of the Williston Basin, underlying parts of Montana, North Dakota, and Saskatchewan. The formation is entirely in the subsurface, and has no surface outcrop. It is named after Henry Bakken, a farmer in Williston, ND who owned the land where the formation was initially discovered. in 1953.

    2. Completion - The process of making a well ready for production (or injection). This principally involves preparing the bottom of the hole to the required specifications, running in the production tubing and its associated down hole tools as well as perforating and stimulating as required. Sometimes, the process of running in and cementing the casing is also included.

    3. CH4 - Methane - Primary component of natural gas

    4. Closed Loop System - Consists of using a small waste-water processing system on the well site. It removes pollutants from the frack water as well as additional water that may also be present in the formation itself--all of which flows back up a well.

      Waste water is pumped directly into steel storage containers and held for processing.

      Solids extracted from the water by this method are removed by truck to a waste treatment station for disposal. Treated water that remains after on-site processing may then be reused on a later frack job. Typically, up to 50 percent of the frac water can be recovered and reused. It can be reused up to a dozen times without treatment.

      Less waste water needs to be moved off site, and less water is required for additional drilling operations. This method generally lowers total drilling cost, as well as the amount of water used and its cost. It also contributes to higher drill rates which provides cost savings.

    5. Dissolved Hydrocarbons - Found in both flowback and produced water. Some are pumped down the well during hydro-fracturing. These consist of glycols used in descaling and some light petroleum distillates used to enhance viscosity of the fracturing fluid. These are generally around 0.1% of the fracturing fluid volume.

      Flowback water typically contains both free and dissolved hydrocarbons that come from the formations. These are dissolved in the frac water when it is pumped underground and held there under pressure during hydro-fracturing. Many of these are lighter than water and return to the surface with the flowback. Concentrations in the flowback water are usually low--below 100 parts per million. These can generally be removed by absorption using activated carbon during treatment. There are federal and state regulations preventing release of dissolved and free hydrocarbons into water steams, so they must be removed.

    6. GWP - Global Warming Potential - Commonly used to compare the radiative forcing of ifferent gases relative to CO2 and represents the ratio of the cumulative radiative forcing t years after emission of a GHG to the cumulative radiative forcing from emission of an equivalent quantity of CO2.

      Comparing the climate implications of CH4 and CO2 emissions is complicated because of the much shorter atmospheric lifetime of CH4 relative to CO2. On a molar basis, CH4 produces 37 times more radiative forcing than CO2. However, because CH4is oxidized to CO2 with an effective lifetime of 12 yr, the integrated, or cumulative, radiative forcings from equi-molar releases of CO2 and CH4 eventually converge toward the same value.

      Determining whether a unit emission of CH4is worse for the climate than a unit of CO2 depends on the time frame considered. Because accelerated rates of warming mean ecosystems and humans have less time to adapt, increased CH4emissions due to substitution of natural gas for coal and oil may produce undesirable climate outcomes in the near-term.

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) typically uses 100 yr for the calculation of GWP. Howarth et al. (1) emphasized the 20-year GWP, which accentuates the large forcing in early years from CH4 emissions, whereas Venkatesh et al. adopted a 100-yr GWP and Burnham et al. (4) utilized both 20-and 100-yr GWPs.

      GWPs were established to allow for comparisons among GHGs at one point in time after emission but only add confusion when evaluating environmental benefits or policy trade-offs over time. Policy tradeoffs like the ones examined here often involve two or more GHGs with distinct atmospheric lifetimes.

      A second limitation of GWP-based comparisons is that they only consider the radiative forcing of single emission pulses, which do not capture the climatic consequences of real-world investment and policy decisions that are better simulated as emission streams.

    7. Flowback Water - aka backflow water - The murky, salty water from fracking natural gas wells. It consists of frac fluid which returns to the surface (aka the frac load recovery) as well as produced water. This water contains clay, dirt, metals, chemicals and even diesel that may have been added.

      The frack load recovery can be anywhere from 15-40% percent of the volume of fluid that is injected, that is forced down a well, and it flows back over a period of 3-4 weeks after fracking--most of it within 7 to 10 days. More than half of the frack fluid remains in the formation. At a certain point there is a transition between primarily recovering frack fluid to that of produced water. Usually this point is difficult to distinguish, yet may be discerned from the different chemical signatures of the frack water versus the naturally occurring water produced by the formation. A typical flowback of frack fluids might run 40,000 bbl. After the initial 3-4 week post-fracking recovery of fluids, an additional 10,000 to 30,000 bbl of produced water may flow for up to two years.

      Flowback water may be characterized as having high salinity and total dissolved solids (TDS). It is laden with the same fracking chemicals that were pumped into the well, in addition to any unique contaminants that are present in the rock formation water deep below. In addition to natural salinity of water in the formation, any fresh water that is forced down a well, when it is fracked, will tend to dissolve salts in the formation thus giving the recovered water very high salinity.

      The retuning fluid is generally collected in metal tanks or else open pools, lagoons or pits lined with one or more layers of plastic. These are then pumped dry, and water is usually either recycled for fracking additional wells or else trucked off site to a waste water disposal facility. Containment pits, or open-air ponds that are lined with plastic, can become points of failure. Occasionally, liners get cracked or damaged. Contaminated fluids can then leach into ground water.

      Increasingly, drillers are shifting to closed loop systems as the preferred method of handling flowback water.

    8. Fracking Additives - While companies performing fracking have resisted disclosure of the exact contents of the fracking fluid by claiming that this information is proprietary, studies of fracking waste indicate that the fluid contains: formaldehyde, acetic acids, citric acids, and boric acids, among hundreds of other chemical contaminants.

      Between 24,000 pounds and 230,000 pounds of chemicals into each well. Some of the chemicals are relatively harmless, used in common household products. But others – such as 2-butoxyethanol – are known to cause cancer in animals.

      Product Purpose Downhole Result Other Common Uses
      Acid Helps dissolve minerals and initiate cracks in the rock Reacts with minerals present in the formation to create salts, water and carbon dioxide (neutralized).

      Swimming pool chemicals and cleaners
      Anti-bacterial Agent Eliminates bacteria in the water that produces corrosive byproducts Reacts with micro-organisms that may be present in the treatment fluid and formation; these micro-organisms break down the product with a small amount of the product returning in the produced water
      Disinfectant; sterilizer for medical and dental equipment
      Breaker Allows a delayed breakdown of the gel Reacts with the cross-linker and gel once in the formation, making it easier for the fluid to flow to the borehole; this reaction produces ammonia and sulfate salts, which are returned to the surface in produced water

      Hair colorings, as a disinfectant, and in the manufacture of common household plastics
      Clay stabilizer Prevents formation clays from swelling Reacts with clays in the formation through a sodium-potassium ion exchange; this reaction results in sodium chloride (table salt), which is returned to the surface in produced water

      Low-sodium table salt substitutes, medicines and IV fluids
      Corrosion inhibitor Prevents corrosion of the pipe Bonds to metal surfaces, such as pipe, downhole; any remaining product that is not bonded is broken down by micro-organisms and consumed or returned to the surface in the produced water

      Pharmaceuticals, acrylic fibers and plastics
      Crosslinker Maintains fluid viscosity as temperature increases Combines with the breaker in the formation to create salts that are returned to the surface with the produced water

      Laundry detergents, hand soaps and cosmetics
      Friction reducer “Slicks” the water to minimize friction Remains in the formation where temperature and exposure to the breaker allows it to be broken down and consumed by naturally occurring micro-organisms; a small amount returns to the surface with the produced water

      Cosmetics including hair, make-up, nail and skin products
      Gelling agent Thickens the water to suspend the sand Combines with the breaker in the formation, making it easier for the fluid to flow to the borehole and return to the surface in the produced water

      Cosmetics, baked goods, ice cream, toothpastes, sauces and salad dressings
      Iron control Prevents precipitation of metal in the pipe Reacts with minerals in the formation to create simple salts, carbon dioxide and water, all of which are returned to the surface in the produced water

      Food additives; food and beverages; lemon juice
      pH Adjusting Agent Maintains the effectiveness of other components, such as cross-linkers Reacts with acidic agents in the treatment fluid to maintain a neutral (non-acidic, non-alkaline) pH; this reaction results in mineral salts, water and carbon dioxide — a portion of each is returned to the surface in the produced water

      Laundry detergents, soap, water softeners and dishwasher detergents
      Scale inhibitor Prevents scale deposits downhole and in surface equipment Attaches to the formation downhole with the majority of the product returning to the surface with the produced water, while the remaining amount reacts with micro-organisms that break down and consume it

      Household cleansers, de-icers, paints and caulks
      Surfactant Increases the viscosity of the fracture fluid Returns to the surface in the produced water, but in some formations it may enter the natural gas stream and return in the produced natural gas

      Glass cleaners, multi-surface cleansers, antiperspirants, deodorants and hair colors

    9. Fracturing fluid - The fluid used during a hydraulic fracture treatment of oil, gas, or water wells. The fracturing fluid has three major functions:
      1. Open and extend the fracture.
      2. Transport the proppant along the fracture length.
      3. Transport radioactive tracers through the fractures to determine the injection profile and track the locations of fractures

    10. Fracture gradient - The pressure to fracture the formation at a particular depth divided by the depth. A fracture gradient of 18 kPa/m (0.8 psi/foot) implies that at a depth of 3 km (10,000 feet) a pressure of 54 MPa (8,000 psi) will extend a hydraulic fracture.

    11. Fracture Monitoring - Injection of radioactive tracers along with the other substances in hydraulic fracturing fluid is used to determine the injection profile and location of fractures created by hydraulic fracturing, Gamma-emitting tracer isotopes that can be used as radioactive tracer material, include Antimony-121, Antimony-122, Antimony-123, Antimony-124,Antimony-125, Antimony-126, Antimony-127, Chromium-51, Cobalt-57, Cobalt-58, Cobalt-60, Gold-198, Iodine-127, Iodine-128, Iodine-129, Iodine-130, Iodine-131, Iridium-192, Iron-59, Krypton-85, Potassium-39 (activated to Potassium-40), Potassium-41 (activated to Potassium-42), Potassium-43, Rubidium-86,Scandium-45 (activated to Scandium-46), Scandium-47, Scandium-48, Silver-110, Strontium-85, Xenon-133, Zinc-65, and Zirconium-95. ;Iodine-131 was listed more often than other isotopes.

      In April 2011, the EPA found elevated iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia's drinking water and milk from Little Rock, Arkansas.  The National Cancer Institute has reported that children exposed to iodine-131, especially those drinking a great deal of milk, may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer. Both Philadelphia and Little Rock are located downstream from shale formations in which hydraulic fracturing is occurring. Iodine-131 was also found in the drinking water of other cities near other hydrofracturing sites.

      There are other sources for Iodine-131 such as nuclear energy production and the March 2011 Japanese nuclear incident.

    12. ISIP — Initial shut in pressure - Pressure measured immediately after injection stops. The ISIP provides a measure of the pressure in the fracture at the wellbore by removing contributions from fluid friction.

    13. Leakoff - Loss of fracturing fluid from the fracture channel into the surrounding permeable rock

    14. Marcellus Formation - A unit of marine sedimentary rock found in eastern North America. Named for a distinctive outcrop near the village of Marcellus, New York, it extends throughout much of the Appalachian Basin. The shale contains largely untapped natural gas reserves, and its proximity to the high-demand markets along the East Coast of the United States makes it an attractive target forenergy development.

      Maximum thickness of the Marcellus ranges from 270 m in New Jersey, to 12 m in Canada In West Virginia, the Marcellus Formation is as much as 60 m thick In extreme eastern Pennsylvania, it is 240 m thick thinning to the west, becoming only 15 m thick along the Ohio River, and only a few feet in Licking County, Ohio

    15. NGL - Natural Gas Liquids - Hydrocarbons such as propane, ethane, butane, and pentanes that are mingled with methane in wet gas areas such as ;the Marcellus shale such as southwestern Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia. These must be separated from the methane before it can be transported by gas pipelines. Wet gas, or condensate, develops in lower pressure areas of the Marcellus play. "Dry gas" occurs in higher pressure areas that tend to be more mountainous. NGLs can be separated from methane in a cryogenic processing plant.

    16. NORM - Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material - Radon gas in the natural gas streams concentrate as NORM in gas processing activities. Radon decays to Lead 210, then to Bismuth 210, Polonium 210 and stabilizes with Lead 206. Radon decay elements occur as a shiny film on the inner surface of inlet lines, treating units, pumps and valves associated with propylene, ethane and propane processing systems.

      NORM characteristics vary depending on the nature of the waste. NORM may be created in a crystalline form, which is brittle and thin, and can cause flaking to occur in turbulars. NORM formed in carbonate matrix can have a density of 3.5 grams/cubic centimeters and must be noted when packing for transportation. NORM scales may be white or a brown solid, or thick sludge to solid, dry flaky substances.Cutting and reaming oilfield pipe, removing solids from tanks and pits, and refurbishing gas processing equipment may expose employees to particles containing increased levels of alpha emitting radionuclides that could pose health risks if inhaled or ingested.

      NORM is not federally regulated in the United States. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has jurisdiction over a relatively narrow spectrum of radiation, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has jurisdiction over NORM and has never developed NORM regulations. Therefore, this responsibility befalls the states. Since no government entity has implemented regulations, then states may choose the stringency or lax of the regulations.

    17. Play - Oil and gas jargon used to refer to geographically similar prospects having similar source, reservoir, and trap controls of natural gas migration, accumulation and storage

    18. Produced Water - Produced water is naturally occurring water found in the sedimentary shale beds traversed by the wellbore. It is generally very saline in nature and presents an environmental challenge for drillers. Produced water requires proper treatment before disposal. It should not be confused with recovered fracturing fluid pumped down a well when it is hydro-fractured.

      There is a point where the water that flows up a well shifts from being primarily recovered fracturing fluid to that of produced water. The dividing line can be difficult to discern, yet can be distinguished by comparing the different chemical signatures of the recovered frack fluid to that of the naturally-occurring shale formation water.

      Produced water has very high salinity and total dissolved solids (TDS).It picks up various minerals from the shale formation including barium, calcium, iron, magnesium and sulpher. There are also dissolved hydrocarbons present in produced water.

      Produced water may also include low levels of naturally occurring radioactive substances (NORM) such as radium.

    19. Proppant - Suspended particles in the fracturing fluid that are used to hold fractures open after a hydraulic fracturing treatment, thus producing a conductive pathway that fluids can easily flow along. Naturally occurring sand grains or artificial ceramic material are common proppants used.

    20. Natural Gas Sources

    21. SB 4 - California Law regulating fracking - After intense debate and heavy lobbying from all sides, the state Senate and Assembly approved a fracking bill on Sep 11, 2013 that gained momentum from Gov. Jerry Brown’s public endorsement. The bill is particularly timely because of the potential for a drilling boom in California’s Monterey Shale.

      SB4 will erect a permitting system for fracking, and regulates acidizing. The measure also mandates groundwater monitoring and requires fracking firms to notify neighbors of planned wells. Companies also would have to release more information about the chemicals they shoot underground. It has been opposed by both industry and environmental groups.

      This bill establishes a comprehensive regulatory program for oil and gas well stimulation treatments (e.g., hydraulic fracturing, acid well stimulation), which includes, among other things, a study, the development of regulations, a permitting process, and public notification and disclosure
      1. Requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, on or before January 1, 2015, to cause to be conducted, and completed, an independent scientific study on well stimulation treatments, including acid well stimulation and hydraulic fracturing treatments.
      2. Requires an owner or operator of a well to record and include all data on acid treatments and well stimulation treatments, as specified.
      3. Requires the division, in consultation with the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the State Air Resources Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, and any local air districts and regional water quality control boards in areas where well stimulation treatments may occur, on or before January 1, 2015, to adopt rules and regulations specific to well stimulation, including governing the construction of wells and well casings and full disclosure of the composition and disposition of well stimulation fluids, and would authorize the division to allow well stimulation treatments if specific conditions are met.
      4. Requires an operator to apply for a permit, as specified, with the supervisor or district deputy, prior to performing a well stimulation treatment of a well and prohibits the operator from either conducting a new well stimulation treatment or repeating a well stimulation treatment without a valid, approved permit. 
      5. Require the division, within 5 business days of issuing a permit to commence a well stimulation treatment, to provide a copy to specific boards and entities and to post the permit on a publicly accessible portion of its Internet Web site. 
      6. Provides that the well stimulation treatment permit expires one year from the date that a permit is issued. 
      7. Requires the division to perform random periodic spot check inspections during well stimulation treatments, as specified.
      8. Requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to notify various legislative committees on the progress of the independent scientific study on well stimulation and related activities, as specified, until the study is completed and peer reviewed by independent scientific experts. 
      9. Requires the operator to provide a copy of the approved well stimulation treatment permit to specified tenants and property owners at least 30 days prior to commencing a well stimulation treatment. 
      10. Requires the operator to provide notice to the division at least 72 hours prior to the actual start of a well stimulation treatment in order for the division to witness the treatment. 
      11. Requires the supplier, as defined, of the well stimulation treatment to provide to the operator, within 30 days following the conclusion of the treatment, certain information regarding the well stimulation fluid. T
      12. Requires the operator, within 60 days of the cessation of a well stimulation treatment, to post or cause to have posted on an Internet Web site accessible to the public specified information on the well stimulation fluid, as specified. 
      13. Requires the division to commence a process to develop an Internet Web site for operators to report specific information related to well stimulation treatments and would require the Internet Web site to be operational no later than January 1, 2016. 
      14. Requires a supplier claiming trade secret protection for the chemical composition of additives used in a well stimulation treatment to disclose the composition to the division, in conjunction with a well stimulation treatment permit application, as specified, but would, with certain exceptions, prohibit those with access to the trade secret from disclosing it. 
      15. Because this bill creates a new crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program.

    22. TDS - Total Dissolved Solids - The gritty substance that is a mixture of salt and other dissolved minerals that come from deep underground in the Marcellus shale. Drilling waste water has enough TDS to make it up to five times as salty as seawater.

      Large quantites of TDS can produce a salty sediment. If it is used in industrial processes, this polluted water can corrode and clog any machinery that is being employed.

      When waste water contaminated with TDS is left untreated and finds its way into the drinking water supply, it can affect the color, tastes and odor of the water. Should it come in contact with freshwater streams it can also be very harmful to fish and other creatures who make it their habitat.

      Waste water containing TDS is typically treated in sewage treatment plants, although it can also be recycled by the drillers before its final disposal. The substance is not considered to be a major health risk.

      TDS are not unique to natural gas drilling. They are also produced as a by-product of other extraction industries--the most notable in the Appalachian area is coal mining.

    23. Tight Gas - Natural gas which is difficult to access because of the nature of the rock and sand surrounding the deposit. The Natural gas reservoirs have low porosity and low permeability. It can be compared to drilling a hole into a concrete driveway–the rock layers that hold the natural gas are very dense, therefore the gas doesn’t flow easily. Because this gas is so much more difficult to extract than natural gas from other sources, companies require a large financial incentive to go after it.

      Wood Mackenzie defines Tight Gas as gas held in reservoirs with a permeability of below 0.1 milli Darcies including gas held in shales. A medium with a permeability of 1 darcy permits a flow of 1 cm³/s of a fluid with viscosity 1 cP (1 mPa·s) under a pressure gradient of 1 atm/cm acting across an area of 1 cm². A millidarcy (md) is equal to 0.001 darcy and a microdarcy (µd) equals 0.000001 darcy.

      Typical values of permeability range as high as 100,000 darcys for gravel, to less than 0.01 microdarcy for granite. Sand has a permeability of approximately 1 darcy.

    24. Well-to-Wheels - Complete Natural Gas Lifecycle

    3. Business Case
    • After sorting through the evidence, my opinion is fracking is a mining operation. Mining is inherently dirty and not an activity I'd want close to my home, but  I would't like to life right next to any industrial process.  Fracking is not evil and the risks can be mitigated, but accidents and negligence are real dangers and should be regulated.

    •  Fracking can be done correctly, without pollution. Frack fluids definitely contain toxic chemicals, but so do about 100,000 other industrial processes. For example, those employed in making paper are much worse and we're not debating whether or not to have a paper industry.

      The environmental impacts of shale development are challenging but manageable. Research and regulation, both state and Federal, are needed to minimize the environmental consequences.

    • The environmental issues with fracking should be compared to the overall climate impact of coal. In the U.S. electricity supply sector, the cost benchmark for reducing carbon dioxide emissions lies with substitution of natural gas for coal, especially older, less efficient units. Substitution through increased utilization of existing combined cycle natural gas power plants provides a relatively low-cost, short-term opportunity to reduce U.S. power sector CO2
      emissions by up to 20%, while also reducing emissions of criteria pollutants and mercury.

      Furthermore, additional gas-fired capacity will be needed as backup if variable and intermittent renewables, especially wind, are introduced on a large scale.

    4. Benefits
    • Power Generation - The fracking binge has already altered the outlook for the U.S. power and manufacturing sectors. More than the rise of renewables, cheap natural gas has paved the way for the retirement of more than 100 coal-fired powered plants, too aged to meet federal clean air rules.

      Efforts to build new coal plants are constrained too. Because natural gas power plants are cheaper to build and fuel, the natural gas boom has radically lowered the count of new coal-fired plants being proposed. According to data tracked by the National Energy Technology Lab and Sierra Club, plans for more than 160 coal plants have been shelved in recent years, partly due to natural gas’ cost advantage, as well as soft growth of demand for power.
      “Natural gas has done more than other legislative initiative to push coal out of the equation,” said panelist Michael Levi, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the center for foreign aaffairs, and by my reckoning, one the smartest observers out there on this issue.

    • Manufacturing Jobs - Less than a decade ago, natural-gas-reliant manufacturers were decamping from the U.S., transplanting operations to the Arabian Gulf, Latin America and other gas-rich regions. Now many are returning. Makers of chemicals, fertilizer and pharmaceuticals, all of which use natural gas as both an energy source and a raw material are returning stateside, lured by natural gas for under $2.50 per thousand cubic feet, less than fifth of the price in Europe or East Asia.

      As Jim Motavalli reports in The New York Times, Nucor, which uses natural gas to make steel, is building a $750-million facility in Louisiana, just eight years after shutting down a similar plant in the same state and shipping it to Trinidad, to tap the island’s recently-developed natural gas supplies.

      The cost advantage provided by cheap natural gas is even sharper for companies that use methane as a raw material -- to make plastics, for example. Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council, tells the Times that because European chemicals companies use oil-based raw materials derived to make plastics, the U.S. has a 50-to-1 advantage. “‘Shale gas’ is really driving this,” he says. “A million [British thermal units] of natural gas that might cost $11 in Europe and $14 in South Korea is $2.25 in the U.S. Partly because of that, chemical producers have plans to expand ethylene capacity in the U.S. by more than 25 percent between now and 2017.”

      Add up the impact of investments like these and high rates of shale gas recovery could result in a million new manufacturing jobs by 2025, according to a 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers study cited by Motavalli.

    • Transportation - Compared to current petroleum prices, natural gas costs $1.50 per gallon equivalent, nearly two-thirds less than current pump prices for gasoline or diesel. Large fleets of heavy-duty vehicles -- from buses to garbage trucks to delivery vehicles -- have been among the earliest converts. One-quarter to a half of Navistar’s new vehicle sales in these markets opt for natural gas.

      Long-distance highway trucking may be the next to switch. Speaking with the Times, Navistar chief executive Dan Ustian, predicts that natural gas could capture up to a fifth of sales of highway tractor-trailers within a year.

      The need for on-road refueling infrastructure remains a constraint. There simply aren’t many publicly accessible natural gas refueling sites. The count is under 1,000, less than 1 percent the number of gas stations.

    • Fewer Pollutants than other fossil fuels - Natural gas produces far lower amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides than any other hydrocarbon fuel

    5. Risks/Issues
    Schematic of Fracking Risks
    • Accidents & Negligence - Proponents have reported that groundwater contamination doesn't come directly from the "fracking" part of the process (the injection of hydraulic fracturing chemicals into Shale rock formations) but from other parts of the hydraulic fracturing process.

      • Poorly constructed or damaged wellbores and pipelines can allow the fluid to flow into aquifers. A 2011 MIT report found there is no evidence that these fractures can also penetrate shallow freshwater zones and contaminate them with fracturing fluid, but there is evidence of natural gas migration into freshwater zones in some areas, most likely as a result of substandard well completion practices by a few operators.
      • Volatile chemicals held in waste water evaporation ponds can to evaporate into the atmosphere, or overflow. In one of the cases described by a 2012 Cornell University study impounded wastewater was released into a field and pond, killing at least 70 animals. In another case, workers slit the lining of a wastewater impoundment (evaporation ponds) so that it would drain and be able to accept more waste.
      • Groundwater may become contaminated by trucks carrying fracking chemicals and wastewater if they are involved in accidents on the way to fracking sites or disposal destinations.
      • Release of unprocessed or under-processed waste water into rivers can contaminate water supplies.

    • Surface Water Pollution - The flowback waste that is pumped out after a well is fracked is a salty brine, mildly radioactive, and laced not just with toxic chemicals but with natural hydrocarbons and heavy metals like barium and benzene, which are known carcinogens even in minute quantities. In fracking operations out West, the flowback is generally injected into underground sites that meet EPA standards. But in the Marcellus, there are virtually no injection sites. In the early days, gas producers did pretty much whatever they wanted with the billions of gallons of toxic water their operations produce. "Since there were no laws covering the disposal of this stuff at first, they just dumped it into rivers or hauled it off to sewage plants to be 'treated,' which they knew didn't work," says Deborah Goldberg, a lawyer at Earth­justice. "They just wanted to get rid of the stuff as quickly and as cheaply as possible."

      New laws in Pennsylvania now prohibit companies from discharging flowback into rivers and streams. Instead, operators like Chesapeake either "recycle" their water by running it through a filtration system, or haul it off to Ohio and inject it underground – a process which, some seismologists now suspect, is the reason Ohio was hit by an un

    • Methane Contamination of Drinking Water - In 2011, scientists at Duke University, published the first rigorous, peer-reviewed study of pollution at drilling and fracking operations. Examining 60 sites in New York and Pennsylvania, they found "systematic evidence for methane contamination" in household drinking water: Water wells half a mile from drilling operations were contaminated by methane at 17 times the rate of those farther from gas developments. Although methane in water has not been studied closely as a health hazard, it can seep into houses and build up to explosive levels.

      The study caused a big stir, in part because it was the first clear evidence that fracking was contaminating drinking water, contrary to the industry's denials. Just weeks after the study was released, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection fined Chesapeake $1.1 million – the largest fine against an oil and gas operator in the agency's his­tory – for contaminating 17 wells in Bradford County, including some that had been part of the Duke study.

      It is important to note that not every instance of groundwater methane contamination is a result of hydraulic fracturing. Often, local water wells drill through many shale and coal layers that can naturally seep methane into the producing groundwater. This methane is often biogenic (created by organic material decomposition) in origin as opposed to thermogenic (created through "thermal decomposition of buried organic material.") Thermogenic methane is the methane most often sought after by oil & gas companies deep in the earth, whereas biogenic methane is found in shallower formations (where water wells are typically drilled). Through isotope analysis and other detection methods, it is often fairly easy to determine whether the methane is biogenic or thermogenic, and thus determine from where it is produced. The presence of thermogenic methane does not confirm the source of gas. The gas composition and isotopic finger print must compared by experts with other known sources of gas to confirm a match.

    • NORM - Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material- Radon gas in the natural gas streams concentrate as NORM in gas processing activities. Radon decays to Lead 210, then to Bismuth 210, Polonium 210 and stabilizes with Lead 206. Radon decay elements occur as a shiny film on the inner surface of inlet lines, treating units, pumps and valves associated with propylene, ethane and propane processing systems.

      NORM characteristics vary depending on the nature of the waste. NORM may be created in a crystalline form, which is brittle and thin, and can cause flaking to occur in turbulars. NORM formed in carbonate matrix can have a density of 3.5 grams/cubic centimeters and must be noted when packing for transportation. NORM scales may be white or a brown solid, or thick sludge to solid, dry flaky substances.

      Cutting and reaming oilfield pipe, removing solids from tanks and pits, and refurbishing gas processing equipment may expose employees to particles containing increased levels of alpha emitting radionuclides that could pose health risks if inhaled or ingested.

      The hazardous elements found in NORM are Radium 226, 228 and Radon 222 and also daughter products from these radionuclides. The elements are referred to as "bone seekers" which when inside the body migrate to the bone tissue and concentrate. This exposure can cause bone cancers and other bone abnormalities. The concentration of Radium and other daughter products build over time, with several years of excessive exposures.

      Radium radionuclides emit alpha and beta particles as well as gamma rays. The radiation emitted from a Radium 226 atom is 96% alpha particles and 4% gamma rays. The alpha particle is the most dangerous particle associated with NORM. Alpha particles are helium nuclei. Alpha particles travel short distances in air, of only 2-3 centimeters and cannot penetrate through a dead layer of skin on the human body. However, alpha particles are "bone seekers" due to Radium possessing a high affinity for Chloride ions. In the case that Radium atoms are not expelled from the body, they concentrate in areas where Chloride ions are prevalent, such as bone tissue. The half-life for Radium 226 is approximately 1620 years, and will remain in the body for the lifetime of the human; a significant length of time to cause damage.

    • Fracking Additives are Secret - It is impossible to know what chemicals are flowing out of the wells, or how toxic they are, because companies are not required to disclose the compounds they use in fracking operations. Providers of fracking fluids, such as Halliburton, claim that the composition of such fluids can't be revealed without disclosing trade secrets. In 2005, the industry lobbied hard for what's known as "the Halliburton loophole," which exempts it from federal disclosure requirements. In recent months, Colorado, Texas and Pennsylvania have moved to tighten state regulations and require mandatory disclosure of what's in the fracking fluids, but loopholes still remain. "We don't know the chemicals that are involved," Vikas Kapil, chief medical officer at the National Center for Environmental Health, admitted at a recent conference. "We don't have a great handle on the toxicology of fracking chemicals."

      It is difficult to assess health impact because of the industry's strategic lobbying efforts that resulted in legislation allowing them to keep the proprietary chemicals in the fluid secret, protecting them from being held legally responsible for contamination. If you don't know what chemicals are, you can't conduct pre-drilling tests and establish a baseline to prove that chemicals found postdrilling are from hydraulic fracturing.

    • Methane Leakage - Natural Gas is twice as clean as coal at the burner tip, but methane is 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide,” so gas might be dirtier than coal. Industry and environmental groups estimates of methane leakage diverge radically.

      An Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure finds that a shift to compressed natural gas vehicles from gasoline or diesel vehicles leads to greater radiative forcing of the climate for 80 or 280 yr, respectively, before beginning to produce benefits. Compressed natural gas vehicles could produce climate benefits on all time frames if the well-to-wheels CH4 leakage were capped at a level 45–70% below current estimates. By contrast, using natural gas instead of coal for electric power plants can reduce radiative forcing immediately, and reducing CH4 losses from the production and transportation of natural gas would produce even greater benefits.

      Estimates of the net climate implications of fuel-switching strategies should be based on complete fuel cycles (e.g., “well to-wheels”) and account for changes in emissions of relevant radiative forcing agents. Unfortunately, such analyses are weakened by the paucity of empirical data addressing CH4 emissions through the natural gas supply network. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently doubled its previous estimate of CH4leakage from natural gas systems.

      Contrary to previous estimates of CH4 losses from the “upstream” portions of the natural gas fuel cycle (8, 9), a recent paper by Howarth et al. calculated upstream leakage rates for shale gas to be so large as to imply higher lifecycle GHG emissions from natural gas than from coal (1). Howarth et al. estimated CH4 emissions as a percentage of CH4 produced over the lifecycle of a well to be 3.6–7.9% for shale gas and 1.7–6.0% for conventional gas.

      An analysis of reported routine emissions for over 250 well sites with no compressor engines in Barnett Shale gas well sites in Fort Worth, Texas, in 2010 revealed a highly skewed distribution of emissions, with 10% of well sites accounting for nearly 70% of emissions . Natural gas leak rates calculated based on operator-reported, daily gas production data at these well sites ranged from 0% to 5%, with six sites out of 203 showing leak rates of 2.6% or greater due to routine emissions alone.

      The EPA’s latest estimate of the amount of CH4 released because of leaks and venting in the natural gas network between production wells and the local distribution network is about 570 billion cubic feet for 2009, which corresponds to 2.4% of gross U.S. natural gas production (1.9–3.1% at a 95% confidence level)

      The EDF notes EPA’s reported uncertainty appears small considering that its current value is double the prior estimate, which was itself twice as high as the previously accepted amount.

      Each of the three curves within the panels of Fig. 1 represents a distinct choice and its associated emission duration: for example, whether to rent a CNG or a gasoline car for a day (Pulse TWP); whether to purchase and operate a CNG or gasoline car for a 15-yr service life (Service-Life TWP); and whether a nation should adopt a policy to convert the gasoline fleet of cars to CNG (Fleet Conversion TWP). In each of these cases, a TWP greater than 1 means that the cumulative radiative forcing from choosing natural gas today is higher than a current fuel option after t yr. The results for pulse TWP at 20 and 100 yr are identical to fuel-cycle analyses using 20-year or 100-year GWPs for CH4.
      Given EPA’s current estimates of CH4 leakage from natural gas production and delivery infrastructure, in addition to a modest CH4 contribution from the vehicle itself (for which few empirical data are available), CNG-fueled vehicles are not a viable mitigation strategy for climate change. (See my blog article Natural Gas Shale Gale for more details about this study and the overall impact of cheaper natural gas)

    • Air Pollution - Natural gas is composed of methane, ethane, liquid condensate, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The VOCs that are especially impactful on health are benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (referred to as a group, called BTEX). Health effects of exposure to these chemicals include neurological problems, birth defects, and cancer.

      VOCs, including BTEX, mixed with nitrogen oxides from combustion and combined with sunlight can lead to ozone formation. Ozone has been shown to impact lung function, increase respiratory illness, and is particularly dangerous to lung development in children. In 2008, measured ambient concentrations in the rural Sublette County, Wyoming where ranching and natural gas are the main industries were frequently above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) of 75ppb and have been recorded as high as 125 ppb.

      According to an article in 'Environmental Health Perspectives,' people living near shale gas drilling sites often "complain of headaches, diarrhea, nosebleeds, dizziness, blackouts, muscle spasms, and other problems." Cause-and-effect relationships have not been established.

      In March 2011, pollution from natural gas drilling in the Upper Green River Basin in western Wyoming triggered levels of ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, worse than those recorded in Los Angeles, one of the smoggiest cities in the U.S.

      In Dish, Texas, a rural town northwest of Dallas, the state's environmental regulators detected levels of cancer-causing benzene, sometimes at levels dangerous to human health, likely coming from industry's 60 drilling wells, gas production pads and rigs, a treating facility and compressor station.

      At the same time, a state study in Pennsylvania of air quality near Marcellus Shale drilling sites in four counties found no emissions at levels that would threaten the health of nearby residents or workers.

    • Induced Seismicity (Earthquakes) - A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) team has found that a sharp jump in earthquakes in America’s heartland appears to be linked to oil and natural gas drilling operations..

      So far, there is no evidence that injection of fluids underground can cause an earthquake that can cause damage. So far the biggest is magnitude 3.0

      As hydraulic fracturing has exploded onto the scene, it has increasingly been connected to earthquakes. Some quakes may be caused by the original fracking — that is, by injecting a fluid mixture into the earth to release natural gas (or oil). More appear to be caused by reinjecting the resulting brine deep underground.

      Earthquakes in Ohio weren’t caused by the original fracking — that is, by injecting a fluid mixture into the earth to release natural gas (or oil). It was caused by a Class II disposal well used to reinject the resulting brine deep underground. That reinjection is banned in some states. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) has issued a preliminary report “on the relationship between the Northstar 1 Class II disposal well and 12 Youngstown area earthquakes” (news release here). They spell out what happened and the steps they will take to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

      In 2011, a USGS report examined a cluster of earthquakes in Oklahoma and reported:
      • The analysis showed that shortly after hydraulic fracturing began small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, of which 43 were large enough to be located. Most of these earthquakes occurred within a 24 hour period after hydraulic fracturing operations had ceased.

        The earthquakes range in magnitude from 1.0 to 2.8.

    • Compliance An analysis of oil wells fracked and reported by industry since the beginning of the year shows dozens of those wells are not showing up on the State's website, as required by new state law SB 4. As many as 77 different oil wells that the gas and oil industry reported were fracked in January and February had yet to show up on the website run by California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) by May 20, 2014.
      As of 2014, oil and gas companies have 60 days to report hydraulic fracturing activity in to the California state government.    Information like the company's name, well ID numbers and exact locations should all be available on the website of DOGGR (the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources). This map compares DOGGR's public reporting with information from the hydraulic fracturing industry's own disclosure resource,  Source: NBC Bay Area 

    6. Success Factors
    1. In 2011, the Department of Energy set up a committee to examine the full range of environmental impacts of fracking. The committee released a report of environmental guidelines for the natural gas industry and recommended

      • Improve public information about shale gas operations: Create a portal for access to a wide range of public information on shale gas development, to include current data available from state and federal regulatory agencies. The portal should be open to the public for use to study and analyze shale gas operations and results.

      • Improve communication among state and federal regulators: Provide continuing annual support to STRONGER (the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulation) and to the Ground Water Protection Council for expansion of the Risk Based Data Management System and similar projects that can be extended to all phases of shale gas development.

      • Improve air quality: Measures should be taken to reduce emissions of air pollutants, ozone precursors, and methane as quickly as practicable. The Subcommittee supports adoption of rigorous standards for new and existing sources of methane, air toxics, ozone precursors and other air pollutants from shale gas operations.

        (1) Enlisting a subset of producers in different basins to design and rapidly implement measurement systems to collect comprehensive methane and other air emissions data from shale gas operations and make these data publically available;

        (2) Immediately launching a federal interagency planning effort to acquire data and analyze the overall greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas operations through out the lifecycle of natural gas use in comparison to other fuels; and

        (3) Encouraging shale-gas production companies and regulators to expandimmediately efforts to reduce air emissions using proven technologies and practices.

      • Protection of water quality: The Subcommittee urges adoption of a systems approach to water management based on consistent measurement and public disclosure of the flow and composition of water at every stage of the shale gas production process. The Subcommittee recommends the following actions by shale gas companies and regulators – to the extent that such actions have not already been undertaken by particular companies and regulatory agencies:

        (1) Measure and publicly report the composition of water stocks and flow throughout the fracturing and clean-up process.

        (2) Manifest all transfers of water among different locations.

        (3) Adopt best practices in well development and construction, especially casing, cementing, and pressure management. Pressure testing of cementedcasing and state-of-the-art cement bond logs should be used to confirm formation isolation. Microseismic surveys should be carried out to assure that hydraulic fracture growth is limited to the gas producing formations. Regulations and inspections are needed to confirm that operators have taken prompt action to repair defective cementing jobs. The regulation of shale gas development should include inspections at safety-critical stages of well construction and hydraulic fracturing.

        (4) Additional field studies on possible methane leakage from shale gas wells to water reservoirs.

        (5) Adopt requirements for background water quality measurements (e.g., existing methane levels in nearby water wells prior to drilling for gas) and report in advance of shale gas production activity.

        (6) Agencies should review field experience and modernize rules and enforcement practices to ensure protection of drinking and surface waters.

      • Disclosure of fracturing fluid composition: The Subcommittee shares the prevailing view that the risk of fracturing fluid leakage into drinking water sources through fractures made in deep shale reservoirs is remote. Nevertheless the Subcommittee believes there is no economic or technical reason to prevent public disclosure of all chemicals in fracturing fluids, with an exception for genuinely proprietary information. While companies and regulators are moving in this direction, progress needs to be accelerated in light of public concern.

      • Reduction in the use of diesel fuel: The Subcommittee believes there is no technical or economic reason to use diesel in shale gas production and recommends reducing the use of diesel engines for surface power in favor of natural gas engines or electricity where available.

      • Managing short-term and cumulative impacts on communities, land use, wildlife, and ecologies. Each relevant jurisdiction should pay greater attention to the combination of impacts from multiple drilling, production and delivery activities(e.g., impacts on air quality, traffic on roads, noise, visual pollution), and make efforts to plan for shale development impacts on a regional scale. Possible mechanisms include:

        (1) Use of multi-well drilling pads to minimize transport traffic and need for new road construction.

        (2) Evaluation of water use at the scale of affected watersheds.

        (3) Formal notification by regulated entities of anticipated environmental and community impacts.

        (4) Preservation of unique and/or sensitive areas as off-limits to drilling and support infrastructure as determined through an appropriate science-based process.

        (5) Undertaking science-based characterization of important landscapes, habitats and corridors to inform planning, prevention, mitigation and reclamation of surface impacts.

        (6) Establishment of effective field monitoring and enforcement to inform ongoing assessment of cumulative community and land use impacts.

      • Organizing for best practice: The Subcommittee believes the creation of a shale gas industry production organization dedicated to continuous improvement of best practice, defined as improvements in techniques and methods that rely on measurement and field experience, is needed to improve operational and environmental outcomes. The Subcommittee favors a national approach including regional mechanisms that recognize differences in geology, land use, water resources, and regulation. The Subcommittee is aware that several different models for such efforts are under discussion and the Subcommittee will monitor progress during its next ninety days. The Subcommittee has identified several activities that deserve priority attention for developing best practices:

        Air: (a) Reduction of pollutants and methane emissions from all shale gas production/ delivery activity. (b) Establishment of an emission measurement and reporting system at various points in the production chain.

        Water: (a) Well completion – casing and cementing including use of cement bond and other completion logging tools. (b) Minimizing water use and limiting vertical fracture growth.

      • Research and Development needs. The public should expect significant technical advances associated with shale gas production that will significantly improve the efficiency of shale gas production and that will reduce environmental impact. The move from single well to multiple-well pad drilling is one clear example. Given the economic incentive for technical advances, much of the R&D will be performed by the oil and gas industry. Nevertheless the federal government has a role especially in basic R&D, environment protection, and safety. The current level of federal support for unconventional gas R&D is small,and the Subcommittee recommends that the Administration and the Congress set an appropriate mission for R&D and level funding.

    2. Steps Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) is requiring to prevent reoccurrence of Fracking caused Earthquakes
      • A review of existing geologic data for known faulted areas within the state and avoid the locating of new Class II disposal wells within these areas;
      • A complete suite of geophysical logs (including, at a minimum, gamma ray, compensated density-neutron, and resistivity logs) to be run on newly drilled Class II disposal wells;
      • Operators to plug back with cement, prior to injection, any well drilled in Precambrian basement rock for testing purposes.
      • The submission, at time of permit application, of any information available concerning the existence of known geological faults within a specified distance of the proposed well location, and submission of a plan for monitoring any seismic activity that may occur;
      • A measurement or calculation of original downhole reservoir pressure prior to initial injection;
      • The installation of a continuous pressure monitoring system, with results being electronically available to ODNR for review; •
      • The installation of an automatic shut-off system set to operate if the fluid injection pressure exceeds a maximum pressure to be set by ODNR;
      • he installation of an electronic data recording system for purposes of tracking all fluids brought by a brine transporter for injection

    3. .
    7. Next Steps
    • Air Pollution - On April 18, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set the first-ever national standards to control air pollution from gas wells that are drilled using fracking, but not without making concessions to the oil and gas industry. Click here for EPA's final rule

      Top EPA officials said Wednesday that the new regulations would ensure pollution is controlled without slowing natural gas production. "By ensuring the capture of gases that were previously released to pollute our air and threaten our climate, these updated standards will protect our health, but also lead to more product for fuel suppliers to bring to market," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in a statement.

      Much of the air pollution from fracked gas wells is vented when the well transitions from drilling to actual production, a three- to 10-day process which is referred to as "completion." An earlier version of the rule limiting air pollution from gas wells would have required companies to install pollution-reducing equipment immediately after the rule was finalized.

      Drillers now will be given more than two years to employ technology to reduce emissions of smog- and soot-forming pollutants during that stage. The EPA will require drillers to burn off gas in the meantime, an alternative that can release smog-forming nitrogen oxides, but will still slash overall emissions.

      Industry groups had pushed hard for the delay, saying the equipment to reduce pollution at the wellhead during completion was not readily available to service the about 25,000 wells a year are being fracked.

      Besides the new standards for oil and gas wells, the EPA also updated existing rules for natural gas processing plants, storage tanks and transmission lines that will reduce amounts of cancer-causing air pollution, such as benzene, and also reduce methane — the main ingredient in natural gas, but also one of the most potent global warming gases.

      There were other changes made since the EPA proposed the rule last July under a court order that stemmed from a lawsuit brought by environmental groups.

      Wells drilled in low-pressure areas, such as coalbed methane reserves, would be exempt because they release less pollution during completion. And companies that choose to re-fracture wells using the pollution-reducing equipment prior to the January 2015 deadline would not be covered by other parts of the regulation.

      The reaction from environmental groups was mixed on Wednesday, in large part to the two-year delay on requiring companies to perform so-called green completions.

    8. Companies
    1. Halliburton - NYSE: HAL dual headquarters located in Houston and in Dubai, where Chairman and CEO David Lesar works and resides - ; The first frac job was performed in 1947 in limestone deposits by Halliburton

    2. Chesapeake Energy - Oklahoma City, OK - The second-largest producer of natural gas, a Top 15 producer of oil and natural gas liquids and the most active driller of new wells in the U.S. The company's operations are focused on discovering and developing unconventional natural gas and oil fields onshore in the U.S. Chesapeake owns leading positions in the Barnett, Haynesville, Bossier, Marcellus and Pearsall natural gas shale plays and in the Granite Wash, Cleveland, Tonkawa, Mississippi Lime, Bone Spring, Avalon, Wolfcamp, Wolfberry, Eagle Ford, Niobrara, Three Forks/Bakken and Utica unconventional liquids plays. The company has also vertically integrated its operations and owns substantial midstream, compression, drilling, trucking, pressure pumping and other oilfield service assets. For more information on Chesapeake environment initiatives, visit the environment section of,,,, or

      In April 2012 revelations that Aubrey McClendon, the company’s flamboyant co-founder, failed to disclose $1.1 billion of personal borrowing to co-invest in wells with the company have raised the specter of serious conflicts of interest and shaken investors. The company originally said its board was “fully” aware of the CEO’s financing transactions, but on April 26 said the directors were only “generally” aware and moved to end the co-investment program - which U.S. regulators are now scrutinizing.

      All the while, though, Chesapeake itself is becoming harder and harder to understand. The firm has been scrambling to raise about $10 billion in cash this year to help cope with a hefty debt load and sliding U.S. natural gas prices. Three transactions earlier this month raised $2.6 billion, but added to off-balance sheet debt and made the firm’s structure even more tangled.

      Chesapeake has negotiated seven joint ventures which give rival firms part-ownership of oil or gas fields in return for stumping up cash and a portion of drilling costs. No peer has a network of deals on anything close to this scale. Rival Devon Energy, which has a market value more than twice that of Chesapeake, has just one joint venture. And Chesapeake has concluded 10 volumetric production payment deals, under which it will hand over future output in return for cash paid upfront. The company has sold at least $4 billion-worth of its future gas production in this way, according to Argus Research.

      Investors wanting to wrap their heads around the firm must also contend with the fact it placed the cash flow from certain wells into a royalty trust - a type of vehicle in which the bulk of profit has to be distributed to its owners - and sold about half its interest for $440 million. The firm is also trying to sell a 20 percent stake through a public offering in its oilfield services firm, Chesapeake Oilfield Services, for $862.5 million.

      Visibility is further impeded by the firm’s over-active hedging business. Chesapeake reported realized gains on energy trading of $8.4 billion between 2006 and 2011. That’s more than four times its cumulative $1.8 billion of net income over the same period. “We don’t hedge just to say we’re hedged, we hedge to make money,” Chesapeake declared in a recent investor presentation. No gas rival trades energy on anything close to this scale, and it makes McClendon’s firm look at least as much like a hedge fund as a gas producer.

      Yet despite Chesapeake’s opacity and a 20 percent-plus fall in its market value since the end of March alone, investors still seem largely to give the company the benefit of the doubt. Its market capitalization is about $12 billion. That values the company at about 11 times estimated earnings for 2012 - in line with Devon Energy, but below the equivalent ratios for EOG Resources and Encana.

      But that isn’t, and shouldn’t be, the whole story. Chesapeake reported net debt of more than $10 billion at the end of its last quarter. That alone makes the firm’s debt load as a proportion of its market value almost twice as large as that of its major peers. But it also has plenty of what can be considered quasi-debt, including $4.3 billion of preferred stock and $1 billion of operating leases.

      Analysts think the firm should churn out about $4.3 billion of EBITDA this year. Include the quasi-debt and the market values the entire Chesapeake enterprise at just over six times EBITDA. Rivals like Devon, EOG and Encana are valued at roughly the same level. Yet Chesapeake deserves a discount for its complexity. EOG’s market capitalization is almost three times Chesapeake’s, but the smaller company’s 2011 annual report, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, is more than three times as long. Add in other debt-like obligations, such as $14 billion in off-balance sheet commitments to partners in its various ventures, and investors’ apparent continuing faith in Chesapeake is even more of a head-scratcher.

      That’s even before considering the problem of Chesapeake’s cash flow - or lack of it. The firm has reported negative free cash flow every year for the past decade and doesn’t currently expect cash from operations to cover capital expenditures until 2014. Chesapeake can go on selling chunks of its businesses but that tends to mean the best bits get sold first. If the company insists on partial sales, that will add further complexity. And as the web of partnerships becomes denser, the company will get harder to sell as a whole.

      With no cash flow and its byzantine structure, Chesapeake is a trust-me story. The CEO’s personal transactions raise questions about the basis for such faith. All the more reason for investors to steer clear unless and until McClendon and his colleagues can explain exactly what’s in the corporate black box they have constructed.

    3. Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC), formerly known as the Marcellus Shale Committee, is made up of over forty natural gas exploration and production companies with an interest in Marcellus shale development in Pennsylvania. It has even a larger number of assoicate and non-profit members. MSC is jointly sponsored by the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association and the Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania.

    4. STRONGER - State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations - Oklahoma City, OK - Formed in 1999 to reinvigorate and carry forward the state review process begun cooperatively in 1988 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC).

      STRONGER is a non-profit, multi-stakeholder organization whose purpose is to assist states in documenting the environmental regulations associated with the exploration, development and production of crude oil and natural gas.

    5. Companies Actively Drilling in the Marcellus Formation

    9. Links
    1. Drilling Like There's No Tomorrow:Bankruptcy, Insurance, and Environmental Risk Judson Boomhower  Energy Institute at Haas School of Business November 2014 A a new Energy Institute at Haas working paper (available here), shows how making producers more accountable for environmental damages can help  policymakers encourage the continued development of these valuable resources while ensuring environmentally safe drilling and production.

      As the paper explains, there is a moral hazard problem that can lead oil and gas producers to take too many risks. Bankruptcy protection insulates small companies from worst-case outcomes by limiting their liability to their current assets. In addition, some types of environmental damage, like groundwater contamination, may take years to be detected. At that point, small producers may no longer exist or have the resources to finance cleanups or compensation.  The solution found in Texas was to require producers to buy a surety bond to cover the risk of environmental damage.

    2. The Downside of a Boom  By DEBORAH SONTAG and ROBERT GEBELOFF New York Times, Nov.  22, 2014 -- North Dakota, a small state that believes in small government,  took on the oversight of a multibillion-dollar fracking industry with a slender regulatory system built on neighborly trust, verbal warnings and second chances.
    3. The SEAB Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Ninety-Day Report - August 2011

    4. Dangers of

    5. Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure Ramón A. AlvarNeural Energyez, Stephen W. Pacala, James J. Winebrake, William L. Chameides and Steven P. Hamburg Environmental Defense Fund, Austin, TX; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University; College of Liberal Arts, Rochester Institute of Technology,
      School of the Environment, Duke University; Environmental Defense Fund, Boston. - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2012

    6. Hydraulic Fracturing Facts - Chesapeake Energy

    7. "Environmental Impacts During Shale Gas Drilling: Causes, Impacts and Remedies," University of Buffalo May 2012 The report offers the first quantitative data review of Pennsylvania's regulation of hydraulic fracturing of natural gas.  The report finds that environmental events are declining and suggests that proposed regulations in New York could mitigate future problems

    8. Documentaries on Drilling -- Pro
      1. Modern Drilling Operations: Hydraulic Fracturing - Views of Devon drilling activities in a suburban area in Texas' Barnett shale.
      2. Shale Gas and Americas Future - Excellent introduction to Marcellus shale development from industry expert
      3. The Truth About Gasland - The Film "Gasland," whatever the intentions of the filmmaker, has contributed to a dialogue based more on fear than facts. While it is a dramatic movie, 'Gasland' is a deeply flawed documentary that gets several important facts wrong.

    9. Documentaries on Drilling -- Con
      1. Barnett Shale: An Aerial View - Video showing the transformation of Texas landscape by shale drilling.
      2. Barnett shale land farms is a video discussing the dumping of drilling waste on land farms in Texas.
      3. Gaslands by Josh Fox - Anti-drilling film (wiki)
      4. Rural Impact is a documentary that focuses on environmental impacts of gas drilling in Colorado.
      5. SkyTruth: Upper Green River Valley - A View From Above - 3-D visualization of natural gas development in Wyoming.
      6. Fracking Hell - The Untold Story - LinkTV