Posts Tagged ‘Ohio’
Cleveland transit agency to team up with NASA on hydrogen buses
>> Cleveland Plain Dealer
The board of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority voted this week to join the NASA Glenn Research Center in operating a bus that would emit only water from its tailpipe.
A pause in Ohio’s gas boom as Chesapeake struggles
>> Cleveland Plain Dealer
In at least one Ohio county, prospectors are waiting to see whether Chesapeake Energy, lord of the local gas fields, survives a crisis now playing out daily in the nation’s financial press.
Great Lakes offshore projects stall as political winds shift
>> Greenwire
An offshore wind farm in Denmark. (Photo by Kim Hansen via Creative Commons)
© 2012 E&E Publishing, LLC
Reprinted with permission
By Lawrence Hurley
LANSING, Mich. — Nursing a coffee in a café just yards from the Michigan Capitol, Stanley “Skip” Pruss allowed himself to mourn political changes that have slowed state development of wind farms in the Great Lakes.
Under former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D), a clean energy advocate, Michigan made progress with Pruss — then director of the Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth — playing a key role.
The Great Lakes Wind Council that he helped set up went as far as to produce draft legislation that would set up a regulatory framework for an offshore wind sector.
Now, Pruss is outside looking in.
In January 2011, Granholm left office after two terms and was replaced by Rick Snyder (R). With all eyes focused on economic recovery, offshore wind took a back seat. Outspoken public opposition in some quarters and the costs and engineering challenges associated with such projects haven’t helped.
It is a story that helps explain why there are no offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes, despite estimates that the lakes could generate up to 700 gigawatts of electricity. Even 1 gigawatt of offshore wind could power 300,000 homes and potentially avoid 2.7 metric tons of carbon emissions, according to the Obama administration.
It’s not just Michigan that has yet to open a clear regulatory pathway for offshore wind. Other Great Lakes states — not to mention Ottawa and Quebec in Canada — are in a similar situation.
Aside from a change in the political and economic climate, the states must find a way to issue permits for projects that have never been done before.
Even the Obama administration’s recent announcement that it has signed a memorandum of agreement with states to streamline federal regulations to free up wind developers is unlikely to have a huge impact in the short term, people involved in the issue in Michigan agree.
“It’s frustrating. It’s disappointing,” Pruss said. “But I remain optimistic.”
New framework
In October 2010, offshore wind energy in Michigan appeared to have considerable momentum.
It was then that the state wind council issued its 70-page report outlining what was needed to kick-start offshore wind energy on the portions of Lake Michigan, Lake Superior and Lake Huron that are under the state’s jurisdiction.
As Pruss, who chaired the council, recalled, the consensus was that the existing permitting program “never envisioned the use of the bottomlands for offshore wind.”
The report recommended a legislative framework that would allow for the “most favorable” areas for leasing to be subject to public bids soon after the legislature took action.
Less than two years later, the report is languishing.
Snyder, while not overtly hostile to wind energy, has not exactly been a cheerleader for it either.
Although he signed the recent agreement with the Obama administration along with four other governors, he has also questioned the viability of offshore wind at present and said he would not support legislation that would clear a path for development.
“The technical and cost barriers to offshore wind are still very significant,” Snyder said in a statement. “We need the research efforts to bear more fruit before we redesign the regulatory framework we have in place. Our current system protects Michigan’s interests at this time.”
Pruss, who now works for 5 Lakes Energy, a clean energy consulting firm, concedes enthusiasm has waned.
“I think the administration is cognizant of Great Lakes issues as they pertain to wind energy,” he said. “They are mindful there is need for a new framework.”
As for the Legislature, it is “in two minds,” according to Pruss, in large part because of opposition from often well-heeled shoreline residents who do not like the idea of wind turbines ruining their views.
Icebreaker in Lake Erie
What’s happened in Michigan mirrors events in the other seven Great Lakes states.
From her corner office at the Great Lakes Commission, located incongruously in a suburban office park in Ann Arbor, Victoria Pebbles has a better perspective than most on obstacles facing offshore wind. All eight Great Lakes states are members of the commission, while Ottawa and Quebec both play a role too.
Pebbles is staff director of the commission’s “wind collaborative” that, as she put it during a recent interview, “assumes wind is going to happen,” but the coalition is not promoting it.
Currently, none of the eight states has enacted wind-specific legislation. All are tackling the same issues as Michigan, albeit in different ways. Ohio, for example, believes it can tailor existing regulations.
It is also the state that is “furthest along,” according to Pebbles.
The Lake Erie Energy Development Corp., known as LEEDCo, is planning a 20- to 30-megawatt pilot project, consisting of five to seven turbines, 7 miles offshore from Cleveland. But even that is only at the planning stage.
There is a reason why the Ohio project is called “Icebreaker.”
LEEDCo started with a pilot project in hopes of gradually winning public confidence, spokesman Donny Davis said.
“We are looking at this as a small initial demonstration project, as a means to building the industry in Ohio,” he said in an interview.
The small scale of the proposal also helps navigate the state bureaucracy. When it comes to seeking permits, the process will be fluid. Davis uses phrases like “open dialogue” and “collaborate approach” when describing how LEEDCo plans to proceed.
Icebreaker is the guinea pig that will help not just future developers but also state bureaucrats as they figure out how wind farms differ from other types of projects that require offshore leasing, Davis said.
Even if Icebreaker is more likely to happen than other projects in the Great Lakes, Davis says it is suffering from the same problems faced by similar efforts in Michigan, exacerbated by the fact that natural gas, not offshore wind, is the top priority for Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R).
“It’s the same everywhere,” Davis said. “There hasn’t been a governor who is a table-pounder for offshore wind.”
‘Uncertain’
The Obama administration’s announcement last month of the memorandum of understanding seemed like an attempt to urge the states forward (Greenwire, March 30).
But its effect will be limited because the federal government does not have exclusive jurisdiction. Only with the cooperation of states is anything going to happen, and three states — Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin — didn’t sign the agreement.
Pebbles noted, however, the deal could help focus attention on what states need to do to because “it will expose where the gaps are and identify areas where legislation is needed.”
The states that did not sign “had no technical issues” with the agreement, Pebbles said. In the future, she added, “they can sign up, if they so desire.”
LEEDCo’s Davis downplayed that fact that Ohio did not sign the agreement, saying it only marks “preliminary discussions” and shouldn’t necessary hamper future growth.
Back in Lansing, Pruss still believes legislation will be needed to make Michigan a leader in the field.
In the meantime, the future remains cloudy.
Asked whether a wind developer could pursue a Michigan project right now, Pruss pursed his lips.
“It’s uncertain,” he said.
Oil, gas, and rock bands
A word of advice to rock bands touring through fracking country: you might want to line up accommodations ahead of time.
An interesting, energy-related footnote emerged Wednesday in an already strange story out of Ohio.
Indie rock band Here We Go Magic was pulling onto a highway in eastern Ohio when they passed a hitchhiker who was standing alongside the on-ramp.
They turned around and went back after their sound man recognized the hitchhiker as filmmaker John Waters.
We found John Waters hitchhiking on the side of the 70 fwy, he bought us lunch. What a guy! @herewegomagic @turnerjen twitter.com/avtark/status/…
— Avtar K (@avtark) May 16, 2012
What was the band doing in Ohio anyway? Guitarist Michael Bloch explained to the DCist blog:
“There’s a hydro-fracking boom in western Pennsylvania. You can’t get a motel room. We had to drive til 4AM, and finally found a Days Inn in eastern Ohio. Getting back on the highway this morning, there was a man at the side of the on-ramp with a sign that read ‘to the end of Rte 70.’ Jen wanted to pick him up, but we drove past him. As we passed by, our sound guy said ‘John Waters’ Luke said, ‘Yep, definitely John Waters.’ We got off at the next exit and circled back. He was still there. We pulled up, opened the door and asked where he was coming from. ‘Baltimore,’ he said. And we said ‘Get in, sir.’ “
The lesson: before you bring the rock to an oil-and-gas party, make sure you have a place to stay, or you might spend an uncomfortable night in the van.
That, and keep an eye out for hitchhikers.
FirstEnergy cuts shareholders meeting short amid protests
>> Akron Beacon Journal
FirstEnergy’s annual meeting of shareholders lasted 10 minutes Tuesday morning as the company took measures to try to keep protesters who had been bused in from voicing their displeasure against the company.
Ohio fracking disclosure bill could harm wind industry
>> Cleveland Plain Dealer
The public would have a better idea of what chemicals shale gas well developers are using, under legislation approved by the Ohio Senate Tuesday. But the state stands to lose $2 billion in new wind farm development because of that same bill.
Clean energy funding hot (and cold) in Ohio
Energy-efficient ice cream freezers installed at a new Pierre’s factory in Cleveland. (Photo Courtesy of Pierre’s Ice Cream Co.)
The Midwest is a hot spot for Clean Energy Funds, and an ice cream business is among the beneficiaries.
The scoop? So-called Clean Energy Funds, or CEFs, from sources including monthly surcharges on utility bills, have helped pay for energy efficiency and other improvements at places like Pierre’s Ice Cream Co., which opened a new, 35,000-square-foot factory in Cleveland almost a year ago.
Pierre’s used a state grant as part of a project that’s allowed the company to spend less money on the electricity needed to make its tasty treat — and keep the final product at an optimal temperature of minus 20 degrees when it’s stored in an on-site distribution center.
“The beauty of having all of this installed is that as we can increase volume, we will not be consuming more energy,” said Shelley Roth, president of Pierre’s Ice Cream Co.
“We’re hoping to see a savings of anywhere between 15 to 25 percent (on electricity costs).”
There are numerous other examples of states using CEFs for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in the U.S. But Ohio is among a number of states working to change the recipe for funding projects. Ohio’s version of the CEF was called the Advanced Energy Fund, or AEF. Pierre’s received money for its upgrades through an Ohio program supported by the AEF and federal funding.
The Ohio experience
Ohio’s Advanced Energy Fund was in place for a decade, until legislation that allowed for a 9-cent monthly surcharge on utility bills expired in December 2010, said Chad Smith, deputy chief of the Office of Energy at the Ohio Department of Development.
The state estimates that 120 companies are saving a total of $13 million in annual electricity and natural gas costs due to improvements supported by the Advanced Energy Fund.
Since the expiration, Ohio has restructured its remaining program dollars into an Energy Loan Fund, using payments from previous Advanced Energy Fund investments and supplemental federal funding.
“It was successful,” Smith said of the former AEF program. “One of the things we saw, however, was that the demand (for grants) exceeded the supply. So we ended up looking toward financing that could be sustainable, into the future.”
Under the state’s new Energy Loan Fund, money given to companies for efficiency improvements will be recycled, Smith said. Eligible projects include upgrades like insulation, lighting, heating and cooling systems, renewable-energy projects and improved production processes.
“The projects that we do will be repaid with a financing program,” he said. “The funds will come back into the program, and they can be loaned out again and again.”
The program is structured so companies can design a schedule that uses savings from reduced energy costs to pay back the loan, in 15 years or less and at an interest rate below prime, Smith said.
The Energy Loan Fund, with about $10 million per year available, received 60 pre-applications after its December launch. After a round of evaluations, 47 companies have enrolled in the program, said Penny Martin, communications specialist at the Ohio Department of Development. The surcharge collected a similar annual amount for AEF grants, via a 9-cent monthly fee on all investor-owned utility bills.
Christina O’Keeffe, assistant deputy chief at the Ohio energy office, said the Energy Loan Fund seems to fill a gap in the marketplace.
“Some of our customers cannot get loans from commercial banks because there’s not an understanding of the technology involved,” O’Keeffe said. “When we look, we’re looking at estimated energy savings from a project, and using that as a source to repay the loan.”
Experts Say Coordination is the Key
According to a January report from The Brookings Institution, a public policy think-tank based in Washington, D.C., CEFs exist in more than 20 states, mostly in the Northeast, West Coast and Midwest, generating more than $500 million annually, mostly from utility surcharges.
Programs in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and Ohio will have collectively distributed more than $600 million in assistance by 2017, according the report.
States with clean energy funds, via the Brookings Institution.
Over the last decade, the state funds have invested more than $2.7 billion to support renewable energy markets while leveraging another $9.7 billion in federal and private sector investment, the report states. As a result, $12 billion has gone to more than 72,000 projects in the U.S., including solar and wind installations, hydrokinetic projects in rivers, and biomass generation plants on farms.
But authors of the Brookings report caution that such programs need to better coordinate activities with their respective state and federal economic development agencies, and go beyond per-project financing measures like grants.
Smith said he’s familiar with the Brookings report, and agrees that clean energy and economic development efforts in states work best if they’re merged.
“That’s something we’ve always thought was a good idea,” he said. “It really creates an environment that allows a company, in the future, to pursue job expansion and job creation.”
Cool Savings
For Pierre’s Ice Cream, shifting from grants to loans also seems to make good sense, said Roth, company president.
“We have a very large electrical bill,” she said. “Our goal was to have a new state-of-the-art facility that allows us to grow. And as we grow, the per-gallon, cost-per-unit in electricity will decrease due to what we’ve invested.”
Energy-saving features in Pierre’s new factory include:
- Using the hot and cold air created during the ice-cream making process to heat and cool rooms in other parts of the building;
- Insulated panels to save on energy use;
- Making use of natural light with strategically placed windows and skylights;
- Motion sensors and timers that make sure the lights are on only when rooms are in use;
- Programmable equipment control panels that optimize utility consumption;
- Pumps and equipment controls designed to reduce water consumption and process waste;
- A recycling program for corrugated packaging.
Roth said she’s not sure if her company will take advantage of Ohio’s new clean energy loans in the future, but she encourages other companies to look into ways to save energy.
“I thought what was great about the program was they made us really evaluate all aspects of our energy consumption and our training and our focus,” she said. “They made us quantify things that were eye-opening.”
Jeff Kart is a longtime environmental journalist, blogger and writer in the Great Lakes region, and principal of Enviroprose consulting. He lives in Bay City, Michigan.
$55 million plan could double size of Ohio wind development
>> Springfield News-Sun
A proposed $55 million development would double the number of turbines in a controversial Champaign County wind project, according to plans submitted Tuesday.
Waterless fracking technique makes its debut in Ohio
A GasFrac operation in Alberta (PR photo)
Some 8,000 feet deep and 450 million years old, the Utica Shale has a lot of petroleum — crude oil, natural gas and byproducts like ethane.
Although no one really knows how much there is, oil and gas companies are flocking to eastern Ohio, home to some of the shale’s most amenable portions.
“Right now we’re still in an exploratory phase,” said Brian Hickman, a spokesperson for the Ohio Oil and Gas Association.
It’s also an experimental phase for the technology that makes shale extraction possible, Hickman said. Companies that have used horizontal hydraulic fracturing successfully in the Marcellus, Barnett and other shales are still trying to figure out how to best use it in the Utica.
In Ohio, 65 Utica Shale wells have been drilled so far, each requiring 5 to 6 million gallons of water, said Heidi Hetzel-Evans, a spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
But as Utica drillers analyze early results, at least one company thinks water might be unnecessary — or even a hindrance — and that using a waterless, propane-based form of fracking called LPG might be more efficient and profitable.
That currently unnamed company has asked GasFrac Energy Services to frack two Utica trial wells in Ohio using LPG, short for liquid petroleum gas. Founded in 2006 and based in Calgary, GasFrac is apparently the world’s only provider of LPG fracking and has used it about 1,200 times, mostly in western Canada and also in Texas and Colorado.
LPG uses a mixture of propane (and occasionally some butane) that’s pressurized to the consistency of a gel. Then, like water-based fracking, it’s injected through pipes at high pressure underground to release oil and gas by cracking open rocks using sand (or another proppant).
Unlike water, though, LPG naturally mixes with petroleum, so it returns to the surface with the oil or gas being extracted. And since LPG is electrically neutral and lacks much friction, it doesn’t dissolve any salts, heavy metals or radioactive compounds — compared to water, in which these things return to the surface and make a typically toxic mixture even more so.
Fracking, of course, is enormously controversial, mostly because of concerns of potential risks to water supplies. LPG fracking eliminates an entire wastestream — the copious amounts of toxic “flowback” water that has to be reused, treated and discharged into waterways, or disposed of in deep injection wells, which have been linked to earthquakes in Ohio.
But why would companies using hydro-fracking — which has proven to be pretty profitable — be interested in using a niche technology like LPG?
“I think the results they’re getting [in the Utica] are sub-par, and they’re looking for an alternative,” said Kyle Ward, GasFrac’s spokesperson.
GasFrac argues that LPG, compared to hydro-fracking, is both more environmentally sustainable and economically efficient in the the long run — a claim that has drawn some skepticism.
Terry Engelder, the Penn State University geologist who’s been dubbed the “Godfather” of the Marcellus Shale for his calculations of the rock layer’s natural gas potential, says water is the “mechanically most efficient fluid for breaking apart rock.”
Anthony Ingraffea, a Cornell University engineer who spent 20 years researching fracking for Schlumberger, one of the largest fracking companies, said: “I’ll give [GasFrac] credit that geochemically, it’s much better to use a hydrocarbon [propane and butane] to stimulate a reservoir…But I’m not sure how well this technique will work in a high volume long lateral shale formation [like the Utica or Marcellus shales] because they haven’t released proprietary data. That’s still unknown.”
Petroleum engineers in the 1960s and 1970s tried using propane fracking, but the potential for explosion — which is still a risk today, if better managed — left the technology uneconomical.
Last year, the petroleum giant Chevron used LPG to frack several natural gas wells in the Piceance Basin, home to several lucrative coal, oil and natural gas deposits in Colorado. The company’s annual report, while not mentioning GasFrac, noted that LPG “significantly increases production while minimizing water usage.”
The company BlackBrush recently announced a two-year contract with GasFrac in Texas’ oil-rich Eagle Ford Shale.
Offering an explanation for the dearth of public data on GasFrac’s work for other companies, Robert Lestz, the company’s chief tech officer, said, “Because our results our so superior to what people have done before, they’re not interested in sharing those results.”
In Ohio, GasFrac’s spokesman said the company hopes to start the Utica wells by the end of the month.
It could be a proving ground for the technology. “It’s no secret we’re going to the Utica,” Zeke Zeringue, GasFrac’s CEO, said in a May conference call. “Obviously we hope that leads to an establishment of some sort of base of operations.”
While GasFrac has been keen to note in its recent marketing efforts that LPG uses no water, the technology’s profitability will ultimately determine its potential, said Michael Mazar, a financial analyst who follows the company for BMO Capital Markets.
“The environmental benefits are secondary.”
CORRECTION: Because of an editor’s error, Robert Lestz was incorrectly identified as GasFrac’s founder in an earlier version of this story.
Portions of this story were originally reported for InsideClimateNews.
Anthony Brino is a Springfield, Illinois-based freelance writer whose work has appeared in The Allegheny Front, InsideClimate News and Illinois Statehouse News.
Ohio officials want accounting of troubled solar firm’s finances
>> Toledo Blade
Willard & Kelsey Solar Group — a company that shelled out more than $1 million to its executives and spent thousands on travel and entertainment in a matter of months — owes the state about $800,000 in past-due loan payments.
