The bill requires the Public Utilities Commission to set targets for systems that store energy. Such systems are regarded as important for the efficient operation of an electrical grid with high proportion of renewable energy sources like solar and wind. The state’s renewable portfolio standard is currently 20% by 2010, with legislation to increase that to 33% by 2020. Analogous to TIVO’s time-shifting features, energy storage allows users to consume energy generated during non-peak hours. The bill is sitting on Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk and he has until September 30 to sign or veto it. If he chooses not to act, it becomes law.

According to Pike Research, the sale of energy storage technology generates $1.5 billion in annual revenues. This market could become a $35 billion business by 2020, bolstered by more wind and solar farms coming online. Additional technological developments positively affecting the storage market includes the roll out of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles, and the deployment of smart grid technology.

The AB 2514 roll-out schedule includes:

• March 1, 2012: CPUC to open rule-making proceeding
• October 1, 2013: Adopt energy storage system procurement target for load-serving entities
• October 1, 2014: Adopt target for publicly owned utilities
• December 31, 2015: Achieve target (load-serving)
• December 31, 2016: Achieve target (publicly owned utility)
• December 31, 2020: Achieve second target (load serving)
• December 31, 2021: Achieve second target (publicly owned utility)

Energy storage is expected to benefit many constituents. According to the California Energy Storage Alliance, it creates value for multiple stakeholders:

• Customers: reduced energy and demand costs, emergency backup, demand response, improved reliability
• Utilities: load leveling, T&D relief/deferral, improved power quality, reduced peak generation and spinning reserve needs
• System Operators: ancillary services, grid integration, improved grid reliability and security
• Society: more renewables, fewer emissions, healthier climate, more jobs

Sign the bill, Governor Schwarzenegger, and let’s get started.

Bids were due at 2 p.m. EST at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio on July 9. According to US Aerospace, the company’s messenger arrived at the Air Force base at 1:30 pm and was denied entry, given bad directions, and told to wait by Air Force personnel. The Air Force stamped the proposal received at 2:05 pm. US Aerospace was notified July 22 that the company’s bid was late and would not be considered as part of the source selection.

The US Aerospace/Antonov team has filed a formal protest with the Government Accountability Office. According to the GAO, “…bidders or others interested in government procurements may have reason to believe that a contract has been, or is about to be, awarded improperly or illegally, or that they have been unfairly denied a contract or an opportunity to compete for a contract.” The bid protest process does not address programmatic issues such as whether the KC-X tanker program is needed or whether US Aerospace’s proposal is better, but rather, were the procurement rules followed. The US Aerospace team filed a protest (File # 403464.1) on August 2, 2010 and a decision is due October 6, 2010.

According to Aviation Week, at issue is when the US Air Force took control of the proposal documents submitted by US Aerospace. Was it when the messenger stepped on the base? The GAO will sort through the sequence of events.

Skilled in business development, proposal experts stress the importance of following the prospect’s submittal rules, however crazy those rules may be to everyone else. Getting disqualified because the submittal failed to meet the basic administrative requirements is every proposal specialist’s worst (and avoidable) nightmare. If they ask for a ‘soft-sided’ binder, then you should make sure you go out and find a soft-sided binder for your proposal. If they want the proposal delivered to Hawaii on a Monday before noon, then you need to make alternative arrangements because no delivery service will guarantee it before 5pm.

In government procurement, some rules are not meant to be broken. Good luck, however, to the US Aerospace/Antonov bid. Increased competition will only make the troubled KC-X tanker procurement process better in the long run.

The study found that a 35-percent target for wind and solar is technically feasible and does not necessitate extensive additional infrastructure, but does require key changes to current operational practice.

A full copy of the 536 page report is available on NREL’s website.

According to the California Department of Water Resources, California agriculture irrigates 9.6 million acres using roughly 34 million acre-feet of water (1.1 trillion gallons) diverted from surface waters or pumped from groundwater. This water produces amazing results.

California produces over 250 different crops and leads the nation in production of 75 commodities. California is the sole producer of 12 different commodities including almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, raisins, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes and walnuts. Most of this production would not be possible without irrigation.

But agriculture often gets blamed for the West’s water woes. The notion that Central Valley farmers are receiving, and wasting, cheap subsidized water at the expense of urban users and the environment is commonly held. But many in the agricultural community are demonstrating water leadership and moving California toward more equitable and efficient water management and use.

The Oakland, California based Pacific Institute recently released a new report and video entitled California Farm Water Success Stories, which analyzes successful examples of sustainable water policies and practices.  The report highlights the best practices of several different agricultural commodities across the state.

Review the California Farm Water Success Stories video.
Watch extended video interviews with each grower.
Download the full report (pdf).

Thanks go to The Pacific Institute for their important work, and the agricultural leaders who are helping to demonstrate that we can make progress on water use in California.

Led by Intel and supported by several venture capital firms and corporations, the Invest in America Alliance aims to invest in technology innovation and job creation.

Intel Capital and 24 venture capital firms plan to invest $3.5 billion in U.S.-based technology companies over the next 2 years. The $200 million Intel Capital Invest in America Technology Fund will target innovation and growth segments such as clean technology, information technology and biotechnology.

Further investment in clean tech appears to be needed. According to analysis by Ernst & Young, using data from Dow Jones VentureSource, 2009 investment in the clean-tech sector hit $2.6 billion with 193 deals, a 50% plunge in dollar amount and a 16% slide in the number of deals compared to 2008.

The LA Times reports that the San Francisco Bay Area led the charge, with $1.2 billion in investments pouring in throughout the year; $295.6 million coming in during the fourth quarter. Southern California came in next, raising $329.5 million in 2009, with $30.5 million invested in the last quarter. New England brought in $283.7 million for the entire year, $38 million of it during the fourth quarter.

The Invest in America Alliance also includes commitments from 17 technology and other corporate leaders to increase their hiring of college graduates, some by as much as two times. Companies joining Intel included Accenture, Adobe Systems Incorporated, Autodesk, Broadcom Corporation, CDW LLC., Cisco, Dell, eBay, Inc., EMC Corporation, GE, Google, Inc., HP, Liberty Mutual Group, Marvell Semiconductor Inc., Microsoft Corporation, and Yahoo!.

The road to job recovery appears to be getting re-paved with dollars.

Recent guidance from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission indicating that “changes in the availability or quality of water…can have material effects on companies,” and therefore must be disclosed, points to a future where the electric power industry will be forced to more fully disclose their water risks, which appear significant.

A new report from Ceres, a national coalition of investors, environmental groups, and other public interest organizations, provides a comprehensive assessment and ranking of water disclosure practices of 100 publicly-traded companies. The report examines eight key sectors exposed to water related risks:  beverage, chemicals, electric power, food, homebuilding, mining, oil and gas, and semiconductors.

Murky Waters: Corporate Reporting on Water Risk was issued in February 2010 and is available for download from the Ceres website. For the electric power industry, study authors highlight significant physical, regulatory, and litigation risks related to water.

• Physical Risks: water scarcity, unpredictability of supply, amount/timing of flows for hydropower, and increased demand for carbon capture and storage.

• Regulatory Risks: cooling water discharge temperature controls, denial of construction permits based on water availability, and wastewater discharge standards.

• Litigation Risks: lawsuits over water withdrawals or inter-state water rights.

Ceres, with data support from Bloomberg and analytical support from UBS Limited, considered five key categories of disclosure: water accounting, risk assessment, direct operations, supply chain, and stakeholder engagement. Thirteen U.S.-based electric power companies were chosen on the basis of the size and water intensity of their generation assets. Companies included:

• AES Corporation
• American Electric Power
• Constellation Energy
• Dominion Resources
• Duke Energy
• Entergy
• Exelon
• Florida Power & Light Group
• NRG Energy
• PG&E
• Pinnacle West/APS
• Southern Company
• Xcel Energy

Findings

The electric power sector showed weak water risk disclosure overall, with an average score of 19 out of 100. Pinnacle West/APS, an Arizona-based utility, achieved the highest level of disclosure in the sector with 38 points; Florida Power & Light  provided the most limited disclosure, receiving eight points.

1. Disclosure of Water Accounting Fewer than half (six out of 13) of the electric power companies reviewed provide data on water withdrawals.

2. Disclosure of Risk Assessment With the exception of NRG Energy, all the electric power companies surveyed disclose some level of physical risk related to water scarcity. All the companies report their exposure to water-related regulatory risks.

3. Disclosure of Direct Operations The electric power companies provide limited disclosure on water-related management systems and policies. Seven of the 13 companies report actions taken to reduce water withdrawals, with PG&E and Southern Company providing the most detailed disclosure. None of the companies disclose quantified targets to reduce contaminants in wastewater discharged from power plants.

4. Disclosure of Supply Chain Only one company – Entergy – provides information on collaboration with its non-fuel suppliers on water management. None of the companies disclose efforts to engage or assess fuel suppliers on water impacts or risks.

5. Disclosure of Stakeholder Engagement Eight out of the 13 electric power companies reviewed report engaging with stakeholders on water management.

The report concludes with several recommendations to the electric power sector:

• Better inclusion of water risks in financial filings
• More detailed risk assessments
• Water accounting data that puts performance in context
• Disclosure of management strategies and systems
• Setting and disclosing reduction targets
• Addressing water risks in the supply chain
• Engaging critical stakeholders
• Seizing opportunities to develop water-related product strategies

While carbon emissions have dominated the environmental disclosures in the recent past, water use, availability, and associated risks are likely to quickly gain center stage.

According to the Associated Press, the Administration now estimates that the TARP will cost about $200 billion less than the $341 billion the White House estimated in August. The lower estimate reflects faster repayments by big banks and less spending on some of the rescue programs as the financial sector recovered from its free fall more quickly than anticipated.

In the world of make-believe money, that means $200 billion available to spend on other programs. The President announced three focus areas: assistance to small businesses through tax cuts and other financial incentives to hire workers; additional infrastructure (e.g., highway, transit, rail, aviation, and water) investments; and energy efficiency and clean energy investments.

For the third focus area, here’s a White House summary:

New incentives for consumers who invest in energy efficient retrofits in their homes. Smart, targeted investments in energy efficiency can help create jobs while improving our energy security and saving consumers money. The President today called on Congress to consider a new program to provide rebates for consumers who make energy efficiency retrofits. Such a program will harness the power of the private sector to help drive consumers to make cost-saving investments in their homes.

Expansion of successful oversubscribed Recovery Act programs to leverage private investment in energy efficiency and create clean energy manufacturing jobs. The Recovery Act included historic investments that have helped to build the foundation for a clean energy economy. The Administration supports expanding programs for which additional federal dollars will leverage private investment and create jobs quickly, such as industrial energy efficiency investments and tax incentives for investing in renewable manufacturing facilities in the U.S.

Consumer incentives for energy efficiency improvements are similar to the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program. To date, the DOE has awarded more than 1,700 grants, totaling over $1.9 billion. A running list of U.S. states, territories, local governments, and Indian tribes that have received monies is available on the program website. The redirected TARP money would be expected to fund additional programs.

Some DOE stimulus programs have been oversubscribed resulting in the cancellation of anticipated funding rounds,  such as with Phases II and III of the Smart Grid Investment Grants. Additional TARP monies will be used to fund certain programs, with the President calling out industrial energy efficiency and renewable manufacturing facilities.

The industrial funding appears to be in addition to the $155 million directed to industrial energy efficiency projects at 41 locations across the country announced in November. The renewable manufacturing component seems to be in addition to ARRA’s previous $2 billion worth of energy related manufacturing investment tax credits. Those credits are aimed at projects creating or retooling manufacturing facilities to make components used to generate renewable energy, storage systems for use in electric or hybrid-electric cars, power grid components supporting addition of renewable sources, and equipment for carbon capture and storage.

Faster repayment by big banks of TARP monies is welcome. Strategically allocating repaid TARP monies to fund energy infrastructure programs with long-term benefits is worthwhile.

• large-scale energy storage
• smart meters
• distribution and transmission system monitoring devices
• range of other smart technologies

A complete project list (pdf) is available on the DOE website.

Big winners appear to be Battelle Memorial Institute ($88 million), AEP Ohio ($75 million), LADWP ($60 million), and ConEd ($45 million), among others. The goal of the funding is to demonstrate technologies in regions across the U.S. that “embody essential and salient characteristics of each region and present a suite of use cases for national implementation and replication.”

Last month, the Department announced $3.4 billion in funding as part of its smart grid investment program.

Secretary Chu also released a video to YouTube discussing the benefits of Smart Grid.

In early November, prior to the 28,000-person-attended GreenBuild conference in Phoenix, BD&C issued their 2009 white paper, which focuses on the role of water in sustainable design and construction. The editors provide a set of 21 detailed recommendations for consideration by building teams, home builders, developers, and other green building stakeholders.

The paper found that:

1. Virtually every region of the U.S. and parts of most states likely will experience water shortages in the next 10 years. Some are already feeling the effects of water scarcity.

2. More water is consumed outside buildings and homes—for landscape irrigation and cooling towers—than is used inside for toilets, faucets, showers, and the like.

3. Somewhere between 15% and 20% of the nation’s water never makes it from the filtration plant to the property line, thanks to our decaying infrastructure.

4. Manufacturers have significantly improved the efficiency of plumbing, irrigation, and water reuse technologies in recent years, but long-term conservation also depends heavily on how people use these products.

5. There may be limits to water efficiency. In some cases, saving water can lead to “unintended consequences,” such as pipeline drainage problems, health and safety concerns, and negative impacts on the environment.

6. Improvements in water performance can have a bonus: reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

7. The reuse of water may be “the next big thing” in water conservation, efficiency, and performance.

Concerning recommendations, here’s what the editors suggest…

What Building Teams Can Do

1. Design buildings to reduce cooling load.

2. Take advantage of cooling tower management technology.

3. Consider alternatives to cooling towers.

4. Design water and drain lines for optimal performance.

5. Get the landscape architect involved early in the job.

6. Become the expert on water rebates and incentives.

What Building Owners Can Do

7. Engage in water management planning.

8. Conduct water audits.

What Governments Can Do

9. Harmonize plumbing codes for water

10. Consider water-use labeling on sale or transfer.

11. Use the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) green plumbing supplement as a guide.

12. Address the infrastructure problem.

What Water Utilities Can Do

13. Be more creative in pricing water.

14. Provide incentives for water audits.

15. Implement metering innovations.

What Manufacturers Can Do

16. Support research on water performance issues.

17. Support the growth of green plumbing jobs.

What Community Colleges Can Do

18. Create a “pre-apprentice water auditor” certification program.

What the Public Can Do

19. Use less turfgrass, more native landscaping.

20. Irrigate sensibly.

21. Understand the energy cost of water.

On this last recommendation, the general public needs to understand the hidden costs of water. Water requires energy to deliver it to the end user. Water processing and distribution, coupled with sewage treatment, consumes about 4 percent of electricity in the US. In California, water transport and treatment accounts for 19% of electricity used in the state.

What are your strategies for saving water?

As part of the order, the California Energy Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game agreed to expedite the development of RPS-eligible renewable energy resources in the state. The two agencies formed the Renewable Energy Action Team (REAT), which created a “one-stop” process for permitting renewable energy generation power plants. The federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the two state agencies to support the REAT.

In March 2009, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar signed Order 3285 establishing the development of renewable energy as a priority for the Department of the Interior. The Act encourages the production, development, and delivery of renewable energy as one of the Department’s highest priorities.

Then in October 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a memorandum of understanding with Secretary Salazar to expedite the siting of renewable energy projects in California on federal land. California was the first state to sign an MOU with the Department of the Interior to cooperatively develop long-term renewable energy plans and to sheppard eligible projects through state and federal permitting processes. These eligible projects can receive 30 percent federal tax credits under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

Schwarzenegger’s Executive Orders also initiated the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) process. The DRECP aims to protect and conserve the natural resources within the Mojave and Colorado Desert regions. It also allows solar and other qualified RPS energy development in a manner that avoids or minimizes environmental impacts.

Under the DRECP, California Department of Fish and Game and US Fish and Wildlife Service will help identify the “best” areas to site renewable energy, while avoiding conflicts with endangered species and sensitive areas. That report is due out by December 2010.

To achieve the common goal of siting more renewable energy facilities, various state and federal agencies must work together to balance energy and environmental needs.