Clean Skies Bulletin, October 2012

THE CLEAN SKIES BULLETINOCTOBER 2012

Infographic - p.10

Mapping the Political Economyof Shale Gas

Regulatory Watch - p.12

New Auto Mileage and Emission Rules Encourage Natural Gas Vehicles

Work In Progress - p.15

Extreme Weather Challenges the GridMicrogrids Secure Supply

All about the new, new energy economy p.3

2 THE CLEAN SKIES BULLETIN

CONTENTS

THE CLEAN SKIES BULLETIN OCTOBER 2012

CONTACT US: 750 1st Street NE, Suite 1100 | Washington, DC 20002 | Phone: 202.682.6294 | cleanskies.org

@cleanskiesfdn

03 FEATURE: ELECTION 2012 All About The New, New Energy Economy

04 Shale Gas Rocks The Economy... And Politics

05 Oil Shift: Saving Public Money With Greener Shipping

07 NEW REPORT: TECH EFFECT New Production Techniques Are

Driving Economic Growth

10 CLEAN SKIES INFOGRAPHIC Shale Gas Powering The U.S.

12 REGULATORY WATCH New Auto Mileage And Emission Rules

Encourage NGVs

13 Cross-State Air Pollution Update

14 EDUCATION Cleveland Conference Leads To New Paper

On Competitive Energy Supply Chains

Energy 101: How Do You Turn Wind Into Electricity?

15 WORK IN PROGRESS Extreme Weather Challenges The Grid

16 The Climate Impact Of Natural Gas: Closing The Information Gaps

18 Where Can I Fill Up?

19 UPCOMING EVENTS AND PROGRAMS

20 ENERGY VISIONS PRIZE JUDGES ANNOUNCED Leaders Of Slate, iStrategyLabs And Former

Network Exec To Judge EVP

CEO: Gregory C. Staple EDITOR: Ilyse Veron

[email protected] [email protected]

WHAT WILL

CREATE?YOU SHOW US YOUR VISION

ENTER Today

TM

$250,000 in prizesfor videos and apps that driveclean energy innovation.

http://www.energyvisionsprize.org

ABOUT USThe Clean Skies Bulletin is an occasional report about American Clean Skies Foundation activities. This issue focuses on the impact of natural gas on the U.S. political economy. Established in 2007, ACSF is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization working to expand America’s clean energy options.

THE CLEAN SKIES BULLETIN 3

FEATURE: ELECTION 2012

All About The New, New Energy Economy

During the recent Republican and Dem-ocratic presidential nominating con-ventions, ACSF distributed more than 60,000 copies of a special eight-page newspaper supplement about America’s shale gas story and the Foundation’s pol-icy work. This unique advertising supple-ment was prepared by ACSF in conjunc-tion with the Washington, DC based Politico newspaper and was inserted in the local Tampa Bay Times and Charlotte Observer newspapers provided to all con-vention participants. More than 30,000 copies of the supplement were also dis-tributed in Washington, DC as part of a post-convention issue of Politico.

Portions of this historic ACSF publication are excerpted in the following pages. The entire supplement can be read at:

http://www.cleanskies.org/politico-2012

For more details on Foundation policy re-ports featured in the supplement, go to:

www.cleanskies.org/oilshiftwww.cleanskies.org/techeffect


FEATURE: ELECTION 2012 CONTINUED

Shale Gas Rocks The Economy...And Politics

Anyone who follows the news today knows that surging U.S. natural gas production is a “game-changer” for the nation’s energy security and economy. America is producing almost 30 per-cent more gas today than it did in 2005, thanks to technological breakthroughs that have unlocked a century’s worth of clean-burning fuel from shale rock for-mations thousands of feet underground. The numbers, according to studies from the World Economic Forum, inter-national energy advisory firm IHS CERA and the American Gas Association, are eye-popping. Deep shale formations and other “unconventional” sources, which barely a decade ago accounted for less than one percent of natural gas produc-tion, will result in a gain of 835,000 to 1.6 million jobs by 2017. Households and businesses have saved roughly $250 billion in energy costs in just the past three years. As those savings are spent elsewhere in the economy, it is estimated they will add a full percentage point to the U.S. gross domestic product next year. In fact, the World Economic Forum says the U.S. economy “will likely recover to its long-term potential soon-er than it otherwise would have because of the ‘shale production boom.’” “Shale gas represents an opportunity to create jobs in this country more than any other thing that we’ve had in a number of years,” Charles Ebinger, director of the Brookings Institution’s Energy Security

Initiative, said at a recent forum on the 2012 presidential election. “I don’t think we should let it go by.”

AN OPENING

President Obama and Republican pres-idential nominee Mitt Romney haven’t focused on how the country should put its massive natural gas resource to work. To most observers, the shale-gas debate has been limited to which candidate will be “friendlier to the environmentalist community.” And which candidate will be “friendlier to energy producers,” says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. That’s created an opening for one of the candidates to outline a long-term plan for improving the economic secu-rity of the average voter by harnessing the nation’s long-term natural gas riches. And here’s the good news for both candi-dates. They can do a lot without asking Congress to pass new laws.

SAVING MONEY ON UTILITY BILLS

America’s utility companies will spend about $330 billion in the next eight years buying natural gas for their power plants. According to ACSF’s June 2012 Power Switch report utility companies could save tens of billions of dollars by locking in today’s historically low natural gas prices through long term

contracts – following the lead of states like Colorado and more recently Okla-homa. Those savings would translate into lower utility bills, a welcome relief to millions of households and business-es. (Report available at http://www.cleanskies.org/noregrets/)

LESS PAIN AT THE PUMP

Gasoline prices of $3 to $4 a gallon are the new normal in America, and the public is crying out for affordable and reliable al-ternatives to oil-based fuels. Natural gas costs roughly $1.50 to $2 a gallon less than gasoline, but NGVs cost more than gaso-line cars, and there are limited number of passenger models available.

PUTTING AMERICA’S NATURAL GAS TO WORK

The boom in natural gas production has created hundreds of thousands of American jobs almost overnight, with hundreds of thousands more to come. It also has led to a dramatic drop in energy prices, which is saving families and businesses billions of dollars and giving the economy a much-needed boost. The presidential candidate who seizes this opportunity and presents voters with a common sense plan for putting America’s abundant natural gas reserves to work may well have an edge over his rival in November.


On August 2, ACSF released Oil Shift: The Case for Switching Federal Transpor-tation Spending to Alternative Fuel Ve-hicles. It urges the federal government to begin allocating its transportation services budget to carriers that fuel their fleets on domestically produced natural gas, electricity, biofuels and other alter-natives to diesel and gasoline. Given the enormous annual federal spending on private transportation services, we found that a purchasing program targeting just 20 percent of the government’s oil spending by fed-eral freight and package carriers would lead to taxpayer savings of up to $7 bil-lion annually and up to $25 billion by 2025. Much of the savings would be at-tributable to reduced fuel costs because major alternatives, such as compressed natural gas, cost less than petroleum-based fuels. We think it’s high time for Washing-ton to start buying American when it comes to shipping goods to the govern-

ment and using more carriers that rely upon cleaner domestic fuels.

THE PLAN

The plan outlined in our report ratchets down the government’s consumption of oil—and the fiscal and environmental costs that come with it—by requiring federal agencies to apply to third-party transportation providers the same kinds of alternative fuel targets, efficiency standards and reporting practices they currently apply to their own vehicle fleets. Shifting federal transportation contracts to vans and trucks running on alternative fuels could cut petroleum consumption by billions of gallons each year, reduce greenhouse gas pollution by more than 20 million metric tons an-nually, improve public health through cleaner air and create domestic jobs in producing alternative fuels as well as thousands of alternative fuel vehicles.

Oil Shift provides a guide to technolo-gies already available to foster the transi-tion. Currently available alternative fuels and technologies offer huge cost savings over petroleum-based fuels.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Our proposal does not require any new legislation or spending – federal agencies already have the legal authority to begin buying shipping services from freight car-riers that increasingly rely on cleaner, do-mestically sourced alternative fuel. Oil Shift makes three main recommen-dations to realize budget and environ-mental benefits:

1 Starting in 2014, federal agencies should publish annual targets and initiatives for buying more alternative fuels, reducing petroleum and lower-ing emissions associated with major transport services.

2 Starting in 2015, agencies should require major carriers to use alter-native fuels for at least 5 percent of contracted shipments — measured in ton-miles. This requirement should increase by at least 2 percent every year from 2015 to 2025.

3 Starting in 2016, federal agencies should publish annual targets, measures and initiatives for using more alternative fuels, reducing pe-troleum and lowering emissions as-sociated with the transport services used by major vendors to deliver products to the government (i.e., for vendor-contracted shipping services not covered by the prior recommendations).

Every year, federal agencies spend roughly $150 billion on third-party transportation services. Is it time for federal agencies to take on a new challenge?

Yes.


Oil Shift: Saving Public Money With Greener Shipping


In addition, Congress should encourage a transportation spending shift by direct-ing the Government Accountability Of-fice to report annually, beginning in 2013, on the effectiveness of federal programs to increase the use of alternative fuels and to reduce costs related to transport services directly or indirectly purchased by federal agencies. Congressional over-sight hearings may also be appropriate.

BROAD HISTORIC SUPPORT

This “buy American” program would promote objectives already shared by both major political parties and the vast majority of the American public. For more than four decades, successive Congresses and presidents have repeat-edly sought to decrease the nation’s petroleum consumption and America’s dependence on imported oil. This “buy American” program would promote ob-jectives already shared by both major political parties and the vast majority of the American public. For more than four decades, successive Congresses and presidents have repeatedly sought to de-crease the nation’s petroleum consump-tion and America’s dependence on im-ported oil. A long-standing and broadly held goal of U.S. energy policy has been

to spur energy security in a way that boosts economic growth, improves pub-lic health and sustains the environment. America needs more nonpetroleum-fu-eled vehicles running on domestic, low-er-cost and cleaner fuels. No one argues with that.

CURRENT REQUIREMENTS

Federal rules already require agencies to raise energy efficiency and mitigate ad-verse environmental impacts from fed-erally owned vehicles as well as in fed-eral purchases of transportation services and products. For example, every federal agency annually must (a) reduce the petro-leum used in its fleet vehicles by 2 percent; (b) increase its consumption of nonpetroleum fuels by 10 percent; (c) ensure that alternative fuel vehicles account for at least 75 percent of new vehicle purchases or leases; and (d) cut greenhouse gas emissions. Every agency also publishes an annu-al Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, which is subject to approval by the Council on Environmental Qual-ity. The Office of Management and Budget issues an annual scorecard that tracks agency performance.

Pursuant to these mandates, most federal agencies have implemented ve-hicle purchasing, fueling and optimi-zation initiatives for their fleets.

RESULTS SO FAR

These efforts have yielded substantial benefits. By 2010, eight agencies had sur-passed their petroleum consumption tar-gets for 2015—cutting their usage 23 per-cent to 57 percent compared with 2005. In short, agency initiatives are already spurring development and production of cleaner vehicles and domestic fuels to power them. Our new proposal seeks to expand these benefits by leveraging the $150 billion annual government buying power in the transportation market.

PURCHASING POWER

According to the General Services Administration, every year, federal agencies spend roughly $150 billion on third-party transportation services.

• $50billiongoesdirectlytoprocuringtransportationservicesfromprivate-sectortruckingcompaniesandothercarriers.Forexample,theU.S.PostalService spends about as much to reimburse its suppliers for their fuel purchases as all federal agencies combined spend on gasoline and diesel for the vehicles they directly own or lease.

• $100billiongoestopayforin-boundfreighttransportationservicesinproductpurchases,suchassuppliersthatdelivertheirproductstofederal facilities

• FederalprocurementsofferanenormousopportunitytodrivebroadershiftsinthevehiclesandfuelsusedtoshipfreightandpackagesintheU.S.and to reap significant benefits for U.S. taxpayers at the same time.

Federal procurements offer an enormous opportunity to drive broader shifts in the vehicles and fuels used to ship freight and packages in the U.S. and to reap significant benefits for U.S. taxpayers at the same time.

Oil Shift authorsGregory C. Staple and Warren G. Lavey


Oil Shift: Saving Public Money With Greener Shipping


Technology advancement and deploy-ment in the last five years together have revolutionized the U.S. natural gas and oil production industry. This report quantifies the economic impacts of re-cent upstream technologies, such as hy-draulic fracturing and horizontal drill-ing, which have allowed recovery and production of previously inaccessible domestic resources. The U.S. has vast reserves of natural gas. ICF estimates that the U.S. Low-er-48 has a recoverable gas resource base of over 3,500 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) and 200 billion barrels of crude oil and lease condensate liquids, up from 1,100 Tcf of natural gas and 150 billion barrels of liquids in 2008. The current recoverable gas resource base repre-sents more than 150 years of U.S. gas demand at current levels. This striking climb in the recoverable resource base of natural gas and crude oil and con-densate liquids is already reflected by the production over the past five years, which is, in turn, having a tremendous impact on the overall economy. The economic benefits include growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employment gains, lower energy prices, additional tax revenues, and a revival in U.S. production of in-dustrial goods.

MAJOR FINDINGS

In a period of just a few years, technologi-cal innovations have transformed the U.S. oil and gas industry into a powerhouse that is providing a substantial growth impetus to the national economy and the economies of many states. Among the major findings of this report are:

• Upstream technology gains will lead to long-term economic growth: Un-conventional activity is underpinned by such a large resource base that expanded production is expected to continue for decades, providing a base for solid growth and long-last-ing well-paying jobs.

• Increasing natural gas production through 2017: U.S. natural gas pro-duction in 2017 will be over 6 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) per year due in part to the use of the new technologies and representing a volume that is nearly double U.S. gas imports in 2011 (of 3.5 Tcf). These gains reflect a 30-percent increase over 2017 pro-duction projections made in 2008.

• Added oil production reduces oil imports: Oil and liquids produc-tion is also increasing rapidly, to-taling an additional 630 million barrels in 2017, a volume that is nearly equal to total 2011 U.S. crude imports from the Persian Gulf (of 680 million barrels).

• Industry gains a boon for the U.S. economy: Upstream technology de-velopments have impacts that affect all sectors of the economy, includ-ing the oil and gas service sector, oil and gas material suppliers, oil and gas equipment manufacturers, consumer goods, industries that use natural gas, and the businesses that supply all of these sectors.

• Significant GDP gains: The study forecasts a net increase of $167 to $245 billion in GDP in 2017 due to re-cent upstream technology advances, equivalent to between 1.2 percent and 1.7 percent of the 2010 U.S. GDP (of $14.5 trillion).

• Long-term jobs in gas and oil pro-duction and related industries: The modeled incremental produc-tion of approximately 1.7 billion barrels of oil equivalent per year by 2017 (including 6.2 trillion cu-bic feet per year of gas) results in an increase of 330,000 direct and indirect jobs in the upstream and midstream sectors alone. For each one billion cubic feet per day of incremental gas production (or a Btu-equivalent amount of liquids), approximately 13,000 upstream and midstream jobs are added to the economy.

• Total employment gains exceed the entire U.S. auto manufacturing in-dustry employment: The study projects significant additional an-nual employment gains; by 2017 835,000 to 1.6 million jobs will be created nationwide. That is more than the number of jobs currently in the entire U.S. auto manufac-turing industry (including parts suppliers) at the low end. Sectors of the economy experiencing the greatest employment gains include the service sector, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, and the oil and gas sector itself.

• Large positive job impacts at the state level: For example, in the year 2017, the state of Texas should see a gain of up to 236,000 jobs and Pennsylvania up to 145,000 jobs. States that do not have significant shale gas resources are also expect-ed to gain tens of thousands of jobs, due largely to supply chain busi-nesses. Examples include Florida (59,000 jobs), New Jersey (36,000 jobs), and Missouri (21,000 jobs).

• Far-reaching midstream and down-stream impacts: Evaluation of the entire impact of shale develop-ment on the U.S. economy shows that the effects go far beyond lo-cal areas and regions with drill-ing. Industrial expansion involves facilities such as gas and liquids

NEW PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES ARE DRIVING ECONOMIC GROWTH

TECH EFFECT:

SEPTEMBER 2012

BASED ON ANALYSISCONDUCTED BY

NEW REPORT: TECH EFFECT

New Production Techniques Are Driving Economic Growth


pipelines, gas processing plants, petrochemical plants, steel manu-facturing, sand mining, ammonia production, methanol production, and LNG export terminals.

• Billions of dollars in consumer gains: The rise in natural gas production has resulted in large price reductions to both direct and indirect end-users. This results in direct savings to natu-ral gas consumers, and indirect sav-ings through lower electricity prices and lower prices for industrial prod-ucts. Consumers are expected to ex-perience a net benefit of $41 billion in 2017, enough to cover the electricity bill on 30 million homes.

• GDP gains occur in every state: The economic impact is widely distribut-ed across the U.S. and has already had very large positive GDP impacts in major production growth areas. Ad-ditionally, energy-consuming states gain substantially from lower energy prices that free up family budgets for consumer spending for non-energy goods and services.

• Tax revenues increased at all levels of government: State, federal, and local governments are experiencing in-creased revenues resulting from both receipts from the oil and gas industry, as well as from related economic ac-tivity flowing through their econo-mies. Incremental tax receipts from all sources of government taxes are expected to be up to $85 billion per year by 2017. In addition, increases in royalty payments to individuals/governments should reach $12 billion annually in 2017.

• Growing net exports help realign the U.S. trade balance: The GDP gains are associated with roughly $120 bil-lion additional net exports annually by 2017, which equates to nearly one-quarter of the U.S. 2010 international trade deficit (of nearly $500 billion).

STATE IMPACTS

Economic gains are widely distributed across all states (Exhibit 1-1). The larg-est GDP and employment impacts are seen in production areas, such as North

Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisi-ana, among others, while states such as Wisconsin and Ohio also benefit from the production side in the form of the goods and services (e.g., steel, sand) they provide to the upstream and mid-stream sectors. Downstream activities, such as manufacturing, which benefit from lower natural gas fuel and feed-stock prices, further promote GDP and employment growth in states such as California (high-tech manufacturing) and Iowa (fertilizer plants). States that use natural gas for power generation, or see new construction of gas-fired power plants, such as Alabama and Georgia, will benefit from lower natu-ral gas prices. Overall, the economy will benefit from the GDP and employment gains produced through induced eco-nomic activity as the impacts generat-ed by more production make their way through the rest of the economy.

INDUSTRIAL SECTOR IMPACT

This study evaluated the impacts of in-creased natural gas production and lower prices on a range of industries.

5.1% - 47%

2.1% - 5.0%

1.3% - 2.0%

1.0% - 1.2%

<1.0%

2.0% - 16%

1.0% - 2.0%

0.8% - 0.9%

0.7% - 0.8%

>0.7%

GDP Change (% of 2009 state income)

Employment change (% of 2010 state employment)

U.S. Map of GDP and Employment Impacts

NEW REPORT: TECH EFFECT CONTINUED

New Production Techniques Are Driving Economic Growth


• Demand for steel tubular goods has soared, contributing to a re-vitalization of the domestic steel industry. Steel demand from the oil and gas industry is expected to total over 66 million tons between 2008 and 2017. For comparison, current annualized U.S. steel pro-duction is 89 million tons. Low energy prices are also helping to make the steel sector more com-petitive internationally.

• Ammonia is the basic material for nitrogen-based fertilizer. Natu-ral gas is used both as a feedstock and a fuel in ammonia production. Low gas prices are bringing about a turnaround in the fortunes of U.S. ammonia producers. With natural gas prices under $4 per MMBtu, U.S. producers are becoming inter-nationally price competitive, there-by creating U.S. jobs and reducing the need for imports.

• Natural gas liquids are used as feed-stocks to produce certain chemi-cals. Rapidly increasing production of ethane, a component of natural gas, is creating a transformation of the U.S. petrochemical sector. Ethane is used in the production of ethylene, a building block for plastics. U.S. manufacturers have a large advantage over European and Asian firms, who must use higher cost feedstocks.

• Methanol has many industrial uses and is used as a transportation fuel through blending or the manufac-ture of biodiesel. The economics of methanol production are highly dependent upon the price and availability of natural gas. Low U.S. natural gas prices have incentivized methanol producers to expand op-erations or move their operations to the United States.

• Increased volumes of shale gas are expected to result in large volumes of exports of liquefied natural gas, likely beginning around 2016. LNG import facilities are being convert-

ed to allow for LNG exports and new facilities may be built. These are capital intensive projects that generate large direct and indirect impacts on the economy.

The impact on U.S. jobs through 2017 can be viewed in terms of number of jobs per billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/day) of natural gas production. This study finds that approximately 13,000 upstream and midstream jobs are cre-ated for each incremental Bcf/day of gas production. Also, additional jobs are created downstream in the general categories of construction and opera-tions. The (Exhibit 1-2) diagram shows the jobs generated for four major cat-egories of industrial gas use that are experiencing increases due to the ad-ditional gas production. For example, a gas to liquids plant would represent 18,000 direct and indirect jobs per Bcf/day, consisting of 13,000 from the up-stream and midstream, 4,000 from construction, and 900 from operations. Including multiplier effect jobs, the to-tal for gas to liquids ranges from 30,000 to 53,000 jobs per Bcf/d.

HOW THIS STUDY IS DIFFERENT

To better measure and document the economic transformation spurred by expanded oil and gas technology in-novation, ICF International dug deep, studying business plans, expert fore-casts and both state and federal govern-ment reports. Building upon this growing body of research using various assumptions and methodologies, this study quanti-fies the economic impacts attributable to recent upstream technological im-provements, rather than the total im-pacts (based on the entire oil and gas industry or a particular fuel type such as shale gas). A comparison of our re-port with three recent studies high-lights some key differences. In order to estimate the impacts of these upstream technology changes, this study compares a forecast preced-

ing the revolutionary deployment of U.S. unconventional natural gas and oil drilling technologies to that of a cur-rent outlook. The difference between these two outlooks illuminates eco-nomic impact from the recent technol-ogy and production gains. Specifically, this study quantifies the net impact on GDP, employment by state and industry group, consumer benefits, government revenues, and international trade from 2008 through 2017. The current study:

• Includes the impacts on the economy of oil, gas, and coal.

• Looks at the entire value chain of the oil and gas industry from up-stream and its suppliers to end use of oil and gas.

• Evaluates specific impacts for ma-jor sectors.

• Employs a comparison between re-cent history and a current forecast of likely production and prices in com-parison to an analysis of what would have occurred without upstream technological advances since 2007.

• Evaluates the impact on GDP in terms of the price and quantity of increased gas and oil supplies with and without the technology advances.

This report develops supply and de-mand curves for the two scenarios and the comparison of various areas (ex-penditures, revenues and surpluses) defined by those curves. Other studies primarily rely upon estimation of eco-nomic impacts of capital and operating expenditures estimated through drilling forecasts. Both this study and the other approaches rely, in part, on use of the IMPLAN model to determine the flow of effects through the economy. Overall the report depicts a fuller economic picture of the growing im-pact of the industry. See www.cleanskies.org/techeffect for this study’s methodology and other details.


Shale Gas Basins

Frac Sand Production

New Major Gas-Fired Power Plants

LEGENDNew Gas Processing and Fractionator Plants

New Petrochemical & Other Plants

Planned LNG Export Terminals

Public LNG/CNG Filling Stations

Planned Public LNG/CNG Filling Stations

Many LNG/CNG Filling Stations are located along U.S. Interstate Highways

For a complete list of sources, see cleanskies.org/map

COLORADO: PRESIDENTColorado supported Barack Obama in 2008 but has not voted Democratic in back-to-back presidential elections since the 1930s. However, the state is changing. Population grew 17% in the last decade, and Hispanics surpass 20% of the total. Party registration is roughly equal among Republicans, Democrats and independents. To see who might win Colorado’s nine electoral votes, look at Denver’s two most populous suburban counties, Arapahoe and Jefferson. Four years ago, Obama swept them en route to a 9-point victory in Colorado — the first time since 1964 a Democratic presidential candidate had carried even one of these counties.

Shale effect: Total employment has increased — a boost for the incumbent — and the state is replacing aging coal plants with cleaner, Colorado-produced natural gas.

The land of the hanging chad — with 29 electoral votes — is the nation’s most prominent swing state. The matchup between Democratic incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson and Republican Rep. Connie Mack is likely to be decided in the populous Interstate 4 corridor cutting diagonally across central Florida, anchored by Orange and Pinellas counties, both hit hard by home foreclosures and unemployment.

Shale effect: Florida generates more than 50% of its electricity from natural gas. Average prices for natural gas delivered to Florida's electricity generators fell 44.5% between 2008 and 2011 — providing voters with some of their best economic news.

FLORIDA: U.S. SENATE

OHIO: PRESIDENTOhio has been a reliable bellwether — supporting the winner in all but two presidential elections since 1900. It now has 18 electors and regularly comes close to tracking the national voting numbers. In 2008, Barack Obama won nationally by 7 points; he carried Ohio by 5 points. Looking for an Ohio harbinger? Focus on Stark County, which includes Canton. In 2008, like the state as a whole, the county backed Obama by 5 points.

Shale effect: Ohio unemployment is below the national average and has fallen every month for a year — thanks partly to- the shale boom — which may boost Obama's reelection chances.

SHALE GAS IS POWERING THE U.S.Produced in more than 30 states, America’s newest energy source cuts across the economic and political landscape. Independent analyst Rhodes Cook examines some bellwether races.

cleanskies.org/map


REGULATORY WATCH

New Auto Mileage and Emission Rules Encourage NGVs

On August 28, ACSF and other natu-ral gas vehicle (NGV) champions won a significant victory when the Obama Administration decided to include NGV manufacturing incentives in ground-breaking new U.S. fuel economy and tailpipe emission standards for the tens of millions of cars and light-duty trucks produced for the 2017-2025 model years. The new rules are designed to increase each manufacturer’s corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg by 2025 and cut CO2 emis-sions by approximately 40 percent to 163 grams/mile. Together with the exist-ing CAFE rules for the 2012-2016 model years, these measures are expected to save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump —the equivalent of roughly $1 per gallon —and reduce U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels (or some 2 million barrels per day in 2025). The new rules also are forecast to re-duce CO2 emissions by 2 billion metric tons from the auto sector over the life-time of vehicles sold from 2017 to 2025 (and by 6 billion tons if one counts 2012-2016 model year vehicles as well). For various reasons, real-world fuel economy is typically 20 percent lower than the nominal CAFE standards and real-world CO2 emissions are typically 25 percent higher.

According to President Obama, the new standards, jointly adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-ministration (NHTSA), “represent the single most important step we’ve ever taken to reduce our dependence on for-eign oil.” The rules will “strengthen our nation’s energy security” the president added and, by “providing manufactur-ers with long-term regulatory certainty and compliance flexibility, the standards encourage investments in clean, innova-tive technologies that will benefit fami-lies, promote U.S. leadership in the au-tomotive sector, and curb pollution.”

NGV MANUFACTURING INCENTIVES

The new rules expressly include NGVs —along with electric, plug-in electric hybrids (PHEVs), and fuel cell vehicles—as one of the innovative technologies that manufacturers are encouraged to use to meet the new CAFE standards. The emissions portion of the rules, crafted by EPA, this by applying a multi-plier (starting at 1.6 -- the same multipli-er provided for PHEVs) to the number of compressed natural gas (CNG) and dual-fuel CNG/gasoline vehicles in calculat-ing the average CO2 emissions for each manufacturer’s fleet. Hence, because CNG vehicles have a CO2 emissions footprint which is approximately 20 percent less than a gasoline vehicle (ac-cording to EPA), the more heavily these vehicles are weighted in calculating a company’s fleet average, the greater the incentive to manufacture NGVs in order to meet the new emission standards. In addition, based on prior congres-sional direction in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), the separate mileage standards overseen by NHTSA significantly inflate (by almost 7 times) the assumed mileage from one gasoline gallon equivalent of natural gas fuel. This helps to reflect the fact that dedicated NGVs do not actually use any oil-based fuel. Accordingly, because a dedicated or dual-fuel CNG vehicle is assumed to get several times the mileage of the typical

gasoline-powered vehicle, the more CNG vehicles a manufacturer produces, the lower will be its fleet average. During the rule making process, ACSF and other parties, such as NGV America and America’s Natural Gas Alliance, sought to harmonize any EPA-based manufacturing incentives with the incen-tives managed by NHTSA. The president had also directed the EPA and NHTSA to develop a “coordinated national pro-gram” for tailpipe emissions (regulated by EPA under the Clean Air Act) and fuel economy standards (regulated by NHT-SA under the EPCA, as amended by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act). However, although the Foundation was successful in winning the multiplier incentive from EPA -- which marked a 180 degree change from the draft in-centives proposed by EPA in 2011—the agency was unwilling to do more. Con-sequently, further work remains to be done in establishing a level playing field between CNG and electric vehicles. And the inconsistency between the EPA’s and NHTSA’s approach to NGVs may need to be resolved at a later date by the agencies or, perhaps, by the courts or the Congress.

CONCERTED CAMPAIGN

The historic recognition by the Admin-istration that NGVs can play an impor-tant role in helping the United States achieve greater energy security and re-duced greenhouse gas emissions was the result of a concerted regulatory effort by ACSF and others dating from late 2011. In addition to filing extensive com-ments with EPA and NHTSA, in Feb-ruary 2012, the Foundation organized a media briefing at the National Press Club. The Foundation also met sepa-

The new rules expressly include NGVs —along with electric, plug-in electric hybrids (PHEVs), and fuel cell vehicles—as one of the innovative technologies that manufacturers are encouraged to use to meet the new CAFE standards.

Gregory C. Staple, American Clean Skies Foundation CEO, says the new rules represent a significant victory for natural gas vehicle champions.


rately with the staff of EPA, NHTSA and the White House on several occasions. It encouraged support from the Congress and state governors as well.

ACSF and its allies also argued that, in addition to the near term emission benefits from NGVs, the fueling infra-structure for these vehicles could act as a bridge to the EPA’s preferred future ve-hicles: those powered by zero-emissions hydrogen fuel cells. For example, CNG service stations could be augmented to add hydrogen fueling. In the end, as Washington, DC based Politico reported: “It was a victory for messaging.... The result: Cars and light-duty trucks running on natural gas will be on the list of alternative-fuel vehi-cles given a leg up in meeting the fuel-economy standards.”

For more information see the August 2012 announcements from the White House and EPA at:

http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420f12051.pdf.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administra-tion-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard

For more on NGVs see Where Can I Fill Up? p. 18.

Further work remains to be done in establishing a level playing field between CNG and electric vehicles. And the inconsistency between the EPA’s and NHTSA’s approach to NGVs may need to be resolved at a later date by the agencies or, perhaps, by the courts or the Congress

FPO

CROSS-STATE AIR POLLUTION RULES UPDATE

EPA has until October 5, 2012, to seek a rehearing of a court’s August 21 decision to vacate the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) interstate trading program designed to reduce emissions of ozone and particulate precursors from power plants in the eastern United States. The two to one decision instructed EPA to continue in its place the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was itself remanded in 2008 for being inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

The majority concluded that EPA had exceeded its statutory authority:

1. EPA improperly considered costs in its two-step approach to determine each states’ emissions reduction obligations, and

2. EPA improperly issued the Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs).

Thus, the court held that CSAPR’s flaws were “too fundamental” to permit the rule to stand; it ordered EPA to continue to administer CAIR pend-ing development of a valid replacement and indicated EPA should proceed “expeditiously.”

The court’s minority opinion said the majority’s opinion is “a redesign of Congress’s vision of cooperative federalism between the States and the federal government in implementing the CAA...[It was] unsupported by a factual record, and a trampling on this court’s precedent on which [EPA] was entitled to rely....”

In response to the ruling, operators of at least one power plant have publicly announced changes to planned controls; however, observers ex-pect the emissions impact to be muted as a result of CAIR remaining effective, continued low natural gas prices, and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which are scheduled to become effective for the majority of sources in 2015.

The industry was already on track to meet the CSAPR reduction goals due to the reduced utilization of coal-fired generating units. A key driver for the current reductions in emissions are the low natural gas prices. But, the entry elevates the significance of the upcoming decision on the legality of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).

Adapted from Summer 2012 Environmental Energy Insights from M.J. Bradley & Associates LLC For more information: CSAPR Ruling ): http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/19346B280C78405C85257A61004DC0E5/$file/11-1302-1390314.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/airtransport/basic.html.

June Clean Skies Bulletin Regulatory Watchhttp://www.cleanskies.org/regulatory-watch/the-electric-power-sector-new-federal-strategies-for-cleaner-energy/


EDUCATION: ENERGY 101

How Do You Turn Wind Into Electricity?

EDUCATION: MANUFACTURING OUR ENERGY FUTURE

Cleveland Conference Leads to New Paper on Competitive Energy Supply Chains

Last summer, ACSF was the lead sponsor of the BlueGreen Alliance’s American Manufacturing Dialogue project. The conference in Cleveland, Ohio looked at the role manufacturing plays in underpinning clean energy applications. It also discussed the role that affordable natural gas supplies are having on manufacturing costs. Following the conference, ACSF commissioned a report on the benefits of overlapping natural gas/renewable supply chains with related case studies focused on Ohio.

JULY 11 - 12 CLEVELAND, OHIO

CONFERENCE HOSTS

CONFERENCE SPONSORS

www.MakingItHere.org

M A K I N G I T H E R E 2 0 1 2 :M A N U F A C T U R I N G O U R E N E R G Y F U T U R E

PRESENTED BY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Whether on land or sea, wind turbines harness the kinetic energy of moving air. This new Energy 101 explains how that wind energy creates electricity.

WATCH NOW AT WWW.CLEANSKIES.ORG/ENERGY101 OR EMBED AND SHARE.

LEARN MORE AT WWW.BLUEGREENALLIANCE.ORG


WORK IN PROGRESS

Extreme Weather Challenges the Grid

A powerful storm brewed over Northern Indiana around mid-day on Friday June 29, 2012. The storm–a “derecho” —bar-reled across the mid-Atlantic, packing winds exceeding 70 miles per hour. The destructive winds and torrential rains hit the Washington, DC metropolitan area just as many residents were going to bed.It was not until the next morning that

the extent of the devastation was evi-dent. Thousands of trees blocked roads and brought down power lines, leaving nearly one million customers in the DC area without power just before the In-dependence Day fireworks. Frustration mounted as it became clear that full res-toration of power would take approxi-mately a week. Many customers would

need to cope without air conditioning as swelter temperatures exceeding 100 de-grees moved into the area. Feeling their modern world should do better, custom-ers reasonably asked, why should they be without power for so long?

VULNERABILITY OF THE POWER GRID

The U.S. electricity system is predomi-nantly composed of large, centralized power plants that connect to electricity customers via a web of long power lines. Every year storms like derechos, torna-does and hurricanes expose the vulner-ability of our electricity infrastructure by bringing down power lines and tripping

Patrick Bean, ACSF’s Energy Policy Advisor, offers this timely report on managing electricity in periods of extreme weather as part of his research on alternative options such as microgrids and cogeneration.

This infographic shows how a neighborhood could create a microgrid for its own power by installing solar panels on roofs , small wind turbines , and natural gas generators . If excess electricity is produced, the microgrid can send it to the larger grid, or it can store electricity in batteries for use when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. Power can be drawn from the grid as well.

If an outage occurs on the main grid, the microgrid can island itself off and power the houses, military instal-lations or college dorms by using their own generation resources and battery power stored in a central station.


WORK IN PROGRESS CONTINUED

Extreme Weather Challenges the Grid

In the first half of 2012, the US electric power sector’s emissions of sulfur dioxide were lower than in 2011 by more than 30%, mercury emissions were about 20% lower and nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were about 10 percent lower. Overall national CO2 emissions were about 6% lower than 2011 emissions, and about 15 percent lower than in 2007.

How did this occur before pending Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air pollution rules take effect, and de-spite the absence of a national green-house gas (GHG) policy? The reduction is partly the result of rapid growth of wind and solar power, and on-going im-provement in energy efficiency through-out the economy. But the most impor-tant single change in reducing U.S. emissions has been the steep increase in the use of natural gas in place of coal for generation of electric power. In July 2012, U.S. Energy Information Administration’s, Monthly Energy Re-view, reported for the first time ever, electric generation from natural gas was comparable to generation from coal,

each about one-third of the U.S. total. However, a challenging aspect of gas production, the GHG emissions from methane leakage, can and must be ad-dressed to maximize the environmen-tal benefits of natural gas. To that end, leading environmental groups, have argued that:

• First, industry must proliferate im-proved practices to reduce leakage of gas and drilling fluids throughout the fuel chain.

• Second, the adoption of better prac-tices and their environmental effect must be systematically monitored and documented in collaboration with independent researchers.

The Climate Impact of Natural Gas: Closing the Information Gaps

power plants. Major outages can take thousands of utility crewmembers work-ing around the clock for over a week be-fore full service is restored. Electricity reliability is paramount for economic prosperity. Long storm related outages raise concerns among customers and regulators about our reliance on a centralized electricity sys-tem and whether an alternative system can improve reliability.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The growth of renewable energy tech-nologies and affordable natural gas are making distributed electricity systems an attractive alternative. Distributed systems rely on smaller power plants located near electricity demand cen-ters, thus reducing the need for long power lines. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) —or cogeneration—plants are particu-larly attractive for industrial customers, medical centers, universities, and in ur-ban areas. CHP facilities produce elec-tricity for onsite or local consumption,

while also utilizing waste heat from the process to produce steam for space heat-ing or manufacturing processes.

In August, President Obama signed an Executive Order encouraging invest-ment in CHP by developing a goal of 40 gigawatts of CHP by 2020 – roughly equivalent to the total power plant capac-ity in New York. The Capitol Power Plant – which serves the heating and cooling needs of Capitol and surrounding build-ings – is currently seeking approval for conversion to a gas-fired CHP system. The system would reduce environmental impacts and costs for the facility, as well as providing the Capitol with a new reliable source of electricity, heating and cooling. Microgrids can also provide areas with a more secure electricity supply and an opportunity to expand the use of re-

newable energy. Microgrids are similar to the existing grid but exist on a neigh-borhood scale rather than spanning re-gions or states. Microgrids utilize small-scale electricity generators, such as solar panels on homes, residential wind turbines and small natural gas genera-tors. Electricity storage technologies and smart grid efficiency software can also be incorporated into a microgrid to optimize operational efficiency and reliability. The small-scale integrated nature of microgrids makes them poten-tially attractive for military bases hous-ing communities, shopping centers and universities. For example, the University of California, San Diego installed a mi-crogrid and was able to “island” itself from the larger grid during a power out-age that affected 6 million customers. Deployment of microgrids is not as prevalent as CHP systems, but they have great potential to provide customers with an affordable, clean and reliable alterna-tive to the centralized electricity system.

The growth of renewable energy technologies and affordable natural gas are making distributed electricity systems an attractive alternative.

Joel N. Swisher, Ph. D., P.E., Consulting Associate Professor of Civil and Envi-ronmental Engineering at Stanford University, analyzes recent studies.


In the face of these calls for action, this article looks more closely at the issue of methane leakage and GHG emissions from natural gas.

CERTAINTY ON LEAKAGE NEEDED

In “Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastruc-ture,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:6435-6440 scientists led by Ramon Alvarez at En-vironmental Defense Fund (EDF) and several universities raise several key points regarding the current under-standing of GHG emissions from the natural gas fuel chain. The EDF paper shows that substantial uncertainty remains over the baseline emission rates of methane leakage from natural gas production and delivery. Ex-isting data compiled by the EPA and the DOE are incomplete and highly uncer-tain, especially with regard to emissions from unconventional production using hydraulic fracturing. There are major sources of uncertainty in leakage from production, due to vari-ability in losses from flowback during well completions and workovers. Gas industry sources have the most de-tailed performance data, but it is unclear if available industry data are nationally representative. Pro-active producers that actively monitor and report leakage rates and reduction actions are likely to be bet-ter performers than their peers. Given a vested interest in report-ing low emissions, industry scientific teams will need to cooperate with in-dependent research efforts (from aca-demia, government and non-profits) to ensure the quantity, accuracy and representativeness of emissions data from the natural gas fuel chain. In-dustry especially needs to monitor and document adoption of emission reduction practices such as artificial lift (to capture gas while removing liq-uids) and “green completions,” which capture gas from flowback in the early stages of production.

FOCUS ON NGV REFUELING AND STORAGE

The EDF study observes that there are few credible data on methane leakage in the downstream segments of the natu-ral gas vehicle (NGV) fuel chain, specifi-cally refueling and storage infrastruc-ture. Additional collaboration is needed to quantify baseline emission rates and reductions from improved technology to reduce downstream emissions. Based on today’s sparse data, the EDF report concludes that we cannot be confident that NGVs produce less fuel chain emis-sions than gasoline or diesel vehicles. On the other hand, based on available data and despite all the associated un-certainty, the EDF report concludes that we can be reasonably confident that fuel chain GHG emissions from gas-fired power generation will be lower than those of coal-fired generation. Further adoption of GHG reduction best practices will increase this advan-tage and improve the environmental footprint of NGVs.

STUDIES AGREE LEAKS ADD TO EMISSIONS, A LITTLE

I have recently compared the results and assumptions of eleven studies of natu-ral gas fuel chain emissions, including the EDF study. I carefully checked each study’s inputs and harmonized their log-ic so that it became clear which inputs and assumptions drove the variations in results. Ten of the eleven studies found that methane leaks and other non-combustion GHG emissions from the natural gas fuel chain add 19-36 percent to the total GHG emissions, above and beyond the combustion CO2 emissions. At these rates, gas-fired power genera-tion is about half as GHG-intensive as coal-fired generation. The outlier among the ten studies is a study from researchers at Cornell, which has been widely cited and criticized in the literature. The fuel chain GHG emis-sions estimated in the Cornell study are much higher than the others, because the

authors assume greater radiative forcing (a GHGs’ heat trapping effect) by meth-ane, compared to CO2, and a very high methane leakage rate from unconven-tional gas production. EDF has launched a promising indus-try collaboration with academic and non-profit scientists to begin closing the data gaps on natural gas fuel chain emissions. The projects have substan-tial support from independent chari-table foundations. EDF is working with nine natural gas producers to collect new field data on methane and other emissions from gas production. They are also collecting data from gathering and processing facilities, as well as transmission and storage. They are working with local distribution utili-ties to collect downstream leakage data, and with gas distributors and fleet man-agers to collect leakage data on NGV stor-age and refueling infrastructure. This work is underway and expected to produce results in 2013. By that time, the first two years of GHG data from oil and gas production should be avail-able from the EPA annual reporting program, from which data are due by the end of September 2013. The result-ing data from all of these activities will be more credible due to the role of EDF and academic experts as independent contributors and reviewers, improving the chances that results will be seen as accurate and unbiased. However, industry, with the help of independent reviewers, also are well ad-vised to document emission rates and steadily reduce both emissions and un-certainty about leakage and byproducts. For more information see U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, July 2012, www.eia.gov/ totalenergy/data/monthly and Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:6435-6440, http://www.pnas.org/ content/early/2012/04/02/1202407109. full.pdf+html

The Climate Impact of Natural Gas: Closing the Information Gaps


Within ten to fifteen years, more than 1.5 million natural gas vehicles (NGVs)– over ten times the number currently in use – could be traveling on America’s roads and highways. The market poten-tial for NGVs is plainly much greater, but to reach even the 1.5 million mark, the number of public fueling stations that dispense compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) must be vastly increased. ACSF’s new working paper, Where Can I Fill Up?, surveys pri-vate and public sector actions to provide new fueling facilities for NGV. The survey addresses five key questions:

• What barriers to access do NGV fu-eling facilities pose to widespread adoption of NGV?

• What is the cost of building a na-tional fueling network for NGVs?

• Who is currently building NGV fu-eling infrastructure? Where? And how much is being invested?

• What business models are currently being used to fund NGV fueling facilities?

• What steps are government enti-ties at the federal and state level taking to ensure capital and other resources are available to build NGV fueling stations?

The survey was carried out during the first half of 2012 and is generally current as of July 2012. Major findings include the following:

• The U.S. CNG and LNG fueling in-frastructure network is significantly underdeveloped, posing a critical impediment to expanded NGV mar-ket penetration. Taking into account the fuel energy security and environ-mental benefits of NGVs, there is a pressing need to increase investment in NGV fueling infrastructure and a particular need to increase the num-ber of public access fueling stations.

• The cost of building out an adequate national fueling network for NGVs is in the billions of dollars. As a reference case, this assessment projects that ap-proximately $32 billion should be in-vested over the next ten years to build a backbone public and private access CNG and LNG fueling network.

• There are considerable economic, environmental, national energy

security and job creation benefits to be obtained from converting a significant portion of the nation’s automotive fleet to run on natural gas. Converting 10 percent of the nation’s 49 million pickup trucks to run on CNG and 10 percent of nation’s 2.6 million combination trucks to run on LNG could gen-erate approximately $88 billion in lifetime national benefits mea-sured in terms of reduced oil im-ports, lower pollution and green-house gas emissions and reduced military spending. Building out the reference case 8,650 new CNG and LNG fueling stations could create over 1.5 million new clean fuels technology jobs.

• NGV fueling service companies, natural gas producers, natural gas utilities and other commer-cial entities are already investing hundreds of millions in new NGV fueling infrastructure. A conserva-tive estimate is that about $1.3 bil-lion has recently been invested or has been committed to this task. Still there remains a large gap in the amount being invested and the funding needed to build a national NGV fueling network that will cre-ate a tipping point.

• Proven strategies are available at the federal and state level for incentiviz-ing investment in NGV fueling infra-

WORK IN PROGRESS CONTINUED

Where Can I Fill Up?

Matthew Slavin, a senior consultant to ACSF, is lead author on a new nationwide survey of Natural Gas Vehicle fueling facilities and related government incentive programs.


structure. These include providing tax credits; grants and loans to pri-vate commercial entities for infra-structure development; and enacting regulatory changes to enable utilities to invest in fueling infrastructure including the establishment of NGV tariffs. Consistent and adequate funding for accelerated deployment of NGV fueling infrastructure and purchase of NGVs is needed from all levels of government over the me-dium to long term.

• State governments are rapidly em-bracing the benefits from expanding the nation’s NGV fleet. Earlier this year, 22 governors formed a NGV purchasing consortium and issued a multi-state RFP to automakers for procurement of new NGVs. The goal is to create economies of scale in NGV production, expand the num-ber of NGV models available and re-duce NGV incremental costs. These states have an instrumental role to play in encouraging other states (and

the federal government) to provide sustained support for accelerated de-ployment of NGV fueling infrastruc-ture and the purchase of NGVs.

The case for NGV technology is clear: Commercial, government and house-hold consumers can save money by fu-eling their cars, trucks, vans and buses with compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid natural gas (LNG) as com-pared to gasoline and diesel.

Vehicle Maintenance

Driver Adoption

Fuel Savings Not Clear

Vehicle Cost

Access to Fueling

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Eighty-five percent of freight com-pany executives surveyed this year by PLS Logistics understood that natural gas costs less than petroleum fuel. But access to fueling and truck fuel conversion remain big barriers.

Barriers to Adoption of LNG Trucks

ACSF ACTIVE IN UPCOMING PROGRAMS & EVENTS

October 2-3 Corporate Responsibility Magazine’s COMMIT!Forum on Global Business and Sustainability, New York, NY

http://www.commitforum.com/

October 3-5 Western Interstate Energy Board Conference, San Diego, CA http://www.westgov.org/wieb/

October 4 Cleanweb at SXSW Eco, Austin, TX

October 6-9 Emerging Issues Policy Forum, Amelia Island, FL http://emergingissuespolicyforum.org/events.html

November 11-14 National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD http://annual.narucmeetings.org/


ENERGY VISIONS PRIZE JUDGES ANNOUNCED

Leaders of Slate, iStrategyLabs and Former Network Exec to Judge EVP

In September ACSF named a distinguished panel of judges for its $250,000 Energy Visions Prize contest—a new competition to reward software and video makers who advance clean energy solutions. ACSF also partnered with the Clean Web Hackathon.

The judges’ panel will evaluate entries of film, video, and mobile or web-based apps that demonstrate how we can:

1. End America’s unsustainable dependence on oil from foreign sources;2. Generate and distribute cleaner electricity; or3. Bridge political and geographic divides on energy

THE CONTEST JUDGES ARE:

Andrew Heyward—Former president of CBS News and current principal of the digital strategy firm MarketspaceNext LLC.

Bill Smee—Executive producer of Slate V, whose original work earned the site one of the first custom channel commissions from YouTube in 2012. He joined Slate after running Emmy-award-winning productions in television and documentary news.

Peter Corbett—Founder of iStrategyLabs, as well as the DC Tech Meetup, Corbett has won six Addy’s for digital and experiential campaigns

and two Living Labs Global Innovation awards.

Arlene Fairfield—Principal and founder of the Global Change Network, who at DDB Communications oversaw the national brand campaign for EnergyStar. At DDB, she also led teams that won Effies, Emmys and Cannes Lions awards.

John Buzzell—SVP of Digital at CSE, a leading integrated marketing agency in Atlanta. For more than 20 years, he has led design and development of mobile, websites and games for clients such as Southern Company, The Weather Channel, Coca-Cola, AT&T, the NBA, Discovery and Time Warner.

“We are delighted to gather these talented professionals to help us choose the very best entries for our new prizes. Their experience in the software, news, advertising and online worlds will be invaluable in selecting apps and video works that can make a difference,”

—Gregory C. Staple, CEO of ACSF, the prize’s sponsor

“Across all media, digital or otherwise, no issues affect us quite as deeply or as universally as energy and its effect on our environment.”

—John Buzzell

“The Energy Visions Prize will reward those who are helping to make clean energy innovations more mainstream, while bringing us closer to energy independence....I’m pleased to be a part of this new and exciting initiative.”

—Arlene Fairfield

NOW ACCEPTING NOMINATIONSDEADLINE: DECEMBER 14, 2012

FOR MORE INFORMATION:ENERGYVISIONSPRIZE.ORG

Clean Skies Bulletin, October 2012

Documents

Transcript of Clean Skies Bulletin, October 2012