An earlier CNRL leak in Cold Lake, Alberta (Chester Dawson / Wall Street Journal)
COLD LAKE, Alta. – The Alberta Energy Regulator is investigating another leak from a Canadian Natural Resources (TSX:CNQ) bitumen well near Cold Lake.
The regulator says 27,000 litres of crude bitumen were released underground on Jan. 3 at the company’s troubled Primrose field.
But agency spokesman Darin Barter said the leak has been stopped.
“There was no release to surface,” Barter said Friday. “There’s no aquifers that have been impacted by this incident.”
Barter said the release has been definitively attributed to a failed well casing, setting this leak apart from an earlier one in the same field last summer that also remains under investigation.
In that leak, more than a million litres of bitumen has so far seeped to the surface. The spill continues, although cold weather has slowed the amount to almost nothing.
CNRL has said the earlier leak was also due to a well failure.
“We don’t necessarily share that view of the incident,” said Barter.
The regulator is investigating whether the bitumen escaped through cracks in the rock above the deposit and was driven to the surface by high-pressure steam pumped underground to soften it before being extracted. The company has been ordered to reduce the pressure of the steam it uses.
The first leak remains the subject of a $40-million cleanup effort from CNRL.
Barter said there’s no indication when the regulator’s report on that leak will be complete.
There were also bitumen leaks at the Primrose field in 2009. The regulator concluded those leaks were at least partially caused by high volumes and high pressures of steam.
Mike Hudema with Greenpeace Canada said it is “incredible” that CNRL is still allowed to continue its operations. Said Hudema in a press release:
[quote]If the Alberta government is serious about protecting Alberta’s environment, it has to pull CNRL’s approval for their Cold Lake operations. How many more spills will it take before we see real action?[/quote]
It’s the latest in a long line of efforts by the Harper Government to dismantle Canada’s environmental laws in order to facilitate energy development. In a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the National Energy Board – quietly released just before Christmas – DFO relinquished much of its oversight of fish habitat in pipeline corridors.
The decision means that Enbridge and Kinder Morgan – which formally filed its own pipeline application on December 16, the same day the NEB memo was made public – will no longer need to obtain permits from DFO to alter habitat for their projects. “Fish and fish habitat along those pipelines is now the responsibility of the Alberta-based, energy friendly National Energy Board,” notes Robin Rowland of Northwest Energy News, who broke the story yesterday.
NEB takes point on fisheries, species at risk
Under the terms of the agreement, the NEB becomes the lead agency in determining issues that relate to the Species at Risk Actorthe Fisheries Act and, only involving DFO should they deem it necessary:
[quote]The NEB will assess a project application and determine if mitigation strategies are needed to reduce or prevent impacts to fish or fish habitat. If the project could result in serious harm for fish then the NEB will inform DFO that a Fisheries Act authorization under paragraph 35(2)(b) is likely to be required. DFO will review and issue an authorization when appropriate, prior to project construction. Authorizations issued by DFO would relate to those watercourses impacted, not the entire project.
This MOU better integrates the Government of Canada’s initiative to streamline application processes by eliminating the requirement for duplicate reviews.[/quote]
Asks Rowland, “Just how much expertise, if any, in fisheries and fish habitat can be found in the Calgary offices of the National Energy Board?”
First Nations consultation impacted
The memo – particularly the following passage – is likely also to provoke legal challenges from First Nations over the dimishing of their constitutional rights to consultation and accommodation:
[quote]When the Crown contemplates conduct that may adversely affect established or potential Aboriginal and treaty rights in relation to the issuance of authorizations under the Fisheries Act, and/or permits under SARA, the NEB application assessment process will be relied upon by DFO to the extent possible, to ensure Aboriginal groups are consulted as required, and where appropriate accommodated[/quote]
The move hardly comes as a surprise, given the gutting of the Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, and many other longstanding Canadian environmental laws in order to push forward the Conservative energy policy. Yet it is sure to provoke a serious backlash amongst British Columbians and First Nations as the ramifications of this quiet deal sink in.
Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, circa 1976
by Becky Bohrer, The Associated Press
JUNEAU, Alaska – Gov. Sean Parnell on Friday announced a new way forward on a long-hoped-for natural gas pipeline that includes scrapping the terms of a 2007 law he says no longer works well for the situation.
In a major policy speech in Anchorage, Parnell said the state and Canadian pipeline builder TransCanada Corp. have agreed to terminate their involvement under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. He made clear, however, that TransCanada would remain a partner in the project, just under new terms.
[quote]The proposed line would run from the North Slope to south-central Alaska and could cost from $45 billion to more than $65 billion.[/quote]
Parnell said he would seek legislative approval for the state to participate in a new commercial agreement with TransCanada; the North Slope’s three major players, Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC and ConocoPhillips; and the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. He said he expected a set of terms to be signed soon.
Natural Resources Commissioner Joe Balash called the commercial agreement a “broad roadmap” and statement of intent. He said in an interview that legislation would have to be passed to accomplish what is being contemplated and the state plans to enter a separate, more narrowly defined agreement with TransCanada for pipeline services.
The terms of the inducement act will remain in force for the time being, though the parties envision transitioning into the new arrangement once enabling legislation is passed, Balash said.
“Nobody’s letting go of the rope just yet,” he said, but he noted the state and TransCanada had “pre-agreed” to make the transition. A TransCanada spokesman said the company would continue working to advance the pipeline project.
State to be a partner in pipeline, gas exports
Parnell said he would propose legislation that would allow the state to enter into shipping agreements to move and sell gas. The legislation also would ask lawmakers to switch to a flat gross tax and allow for certain leases to pay production taxes with gas. Parnell previously said he would not propose gas tax legislation unless he saw demonstrable progress on the line.
“The bottom line: We will have an investment-quality project when that’s complete,” he said Friday.
Balash said he thinks the Legislature can act on the proposal this session — which is what the commercial agreement contemplates — “in large part because what we’re asking the Legislature to do essentially is set some of the specific terms that would then go into a contract to be negotiated over the next 18 months or so and would then come back to the Legislature for approval.”
“It’s not like we’re asking the Legislature to make the big decisions this year, but we’re asking them to make some pretty important ones,” Balash said. The next set of agreements would set out specific equity terms, he said.
Parnell said having the state participate in a line is a way to protect the state’s interests, and as a partner, Alaskans stand to gain more. He said the structure is attractive to North Slope oil and gas companies, too, because it could reduce their costs.
The scheduled 90-day legislative session begins Jan. 21.
New line to cost $45-65 Billion, terminate in Alaska, not Canada
Alaskans have long seen as a gas line as a way to create jobs, provide energy for residents and shore up revenues as oil production declines. There have been fits and starts over the years, but Parnell and other state officials believe the current project has momentum.
While Parnell in the past argued for continuing to pursue a project under terms of the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, even as some state legislators saw it as a dead end, he has indicated he no longer views it as the best way forward. He said the law was designed for one project developer, but the project initially envisioned — a pipeline that would run from the prodigious North Slope into Canada to serve North America markets — has changed, and so have the players.
In 2008, TransCanada won an exclusive license to pursue the project, with a promise of up to $500 million in reimbursable costs from the state. Exxon Mobil later joined TransCanada’s effort. ConocoPhillips and BP, which opposed provisions of the law, pursued a rival line of their own before abandoning it in 2011.
The companies, at Parnell’s urging, united in the last few years behind a liquefied natural gas project capable of overseas exports. The proposed line would run from the slope to south-central Alaska and could cost from $45 billion to more than $65 billion, according to company estimates. The companies have repeatedly said they need competitive, predictable and durable terms on oil and gas taxes and royalties but also have indicated they are open to having the state take an equity position.
Natalie Lowman, a spokeswoman for ConocoPhillips Alaska, said the company sees the new direction laid out by Parnell as a positive step forward and looks forward to working with the state and the Legislature.
Read this inspiring story from The Guardianon Spain’s dramatic increase of renewable energy and consequent 23% decline in energy-related carbon emissions.
Remarkable new figures from Spain’s grid operator have revealed that greenhouse gas emissions from the country’s power sector are likely to have fallen 23.1% last year, as power generation from wind farms and hydroelectric plants soared.
Red Eléctrica de España (REE) released a preliminary report on the country’s power system late last month, revealing that for “the first time ever, [wind power] contributed most to the annual electricity demand coverage”. According to the figures, wind turbines met 21.1% of electricity demand on the Spanish peninsular, narrowly beating the region’s fleet of nuclear reactors, which provided 21% of power.
In total, wind farms are estimated to have generated 53,926 gigawatt hours of electricity, up 12% on 2012, while high levels of rainfall meant hydroelectric power output was 16% higher than the historical average, climbing to 32,205GWh.
“Throughout 2013, the all-time highs of wind power production were exceeded,” the report stated. “On 6 February, wind power recorded a new maximum of instantaneous power with 17,056MW at 3:49 pm (2.5 per cent up on the previous record registered in April 2012), and that same day the all-time maximum for hourly energy was also exceeded reaching 16,918MWh. Similarly, in January, February, March and November wind power generation was the technology that made the largest contribution towards the total energy production of the system.”
An increase in wind power capacity of 173MW coupled with an increase in solar PV capacity of 140MW and solar thermal capacity of 300MW meant that by the end of the year renewables represented 49.1% of total installed power capacity on the Spanish peninsula.
In contrast, the preliminary figures show that power output from combined cycle gas plants fell 34.2% year-on-year, coal-fired plants saw generation fall 27.3%, and nuclear power output fell 8.3%.
The dramatic shift towards renewable generation coupled with a fall in overall power demand of 2.1% led to a similarly drastic reductions in emissions from the peninsular’s power sector. “The increased weight of renewable energy in the generation mix structure of 2013 compared to the previous year has reduced CO2 emissions of the electricity sector on the Spanish peninsula to 61.4 million tonnes, 23.1% lower than in 2012,” the report stated.
CIBC VP and former Conservative Environment Minister Jim Prentice (image: youtube)
CALGARY – Former Conservative cabinet minister Jim Prentice is urging Canada and the United States to look beyond the contentious and high-profile Keystone XL oil pipeline when it comes to their trade relationship.
Prentice, now a senior executive at CIBC (TSX:CM), says “we must move beyond this distraction” and calls for a “bigger picture” and “longer term” focus.
In a speech in Calgary Thursday evening, Prentice reiterated his staunch support for the $5.4-billion project, which would enable oilsands crude to flow to Texas refineries, saying it’s in the national interest for both Canada and the United States.
Moving forward, Prentice says Canada and the U.S. must work on harmonizing national energy standards, instead of leaving it to a patchwork of state and municipal rules, many of which single out oilsands-derived fuels.
He also says the two countries should work together on environmental policies that are in their mutual interest and building the necessary infrastructure to export both oil and natural gas to international markets.
CALGARY – A First Nation is appealing a court injunction against a blockade of an energy company’s drilling site in northern Alberta.
The Lubicon Lake Nation says the injunction granted to PennWest Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT) last month gives the company unfettered access to an oil hydraulic fracturing site in the heart of its traditional territory.
The First Nation says PennWest wanted a week-long injunction but the judge gave a six-month injunction on Dec. 16.
The protesters had been blocking an access road to PennWest’s drilling site by Haig Lake since late November.
The group said the protest was peaceful and was intended to stop the company from fracking on traditional Lubicon territory.
The protesting band and the federal and provincial governments have been trying to work out a land claim deal since the 1980s. The province continued to issue energy leases in the area, including around Haig Lake.
The Lubicon Lake Nation claims more than $14 billion worth of oil and gas has been extracted from its territory without their consent.
“This is our land until the Government of Canada enters into an agreement with us,” Chief Bernard Ominayak said in a news release Monday.
[quote]PennWest, the province of Alberta, and the courts cannot simply choose to ignore our inherent rights and assist industry at the expense of our land and our people.[/quote]
Texan Steve Lipsky sparked a heated battle over fracking and water contamination (image: Gasland II)
Despite the shale gas industry’s aggressive efforts to keep a lid on water use and contamination issues relating to its activities, troubling new evidence continues bubbling to the surface, making it increasingly difficult to deny such concerns.
Two big strikes against shale gas industry
In December, a subsidiary of America’s second biggest fracking company, Chesapeake Energy, was hit with a penalties totalling close to $10 million by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for violations of the Clean Water Act – this in spite of regulatory loopholes that shield shale gas operators from such fines.
Both cases simultaneously demonstrate the lengths to which shale gas operators have gone to protect themselves from investigation and the the ways in which those efforts are beginning to fail.
Industry, governments play defence
Last year, the EPA was forced to abandon a landmark study into water contamination in Wyoming, under intense political and legal pressure, following the release of its damning preliminary findings in 2011. Despite convincing evidence of carcinogenic fracking fluids from Encana’s nearby shale gas operations in two test wells drilled by the EPA, the study was handed off to state authorities far less equipped to conclude the work. It is now being funded in part by the very company under investigation, Encana.
Fracking and water issues in Canada
Arrow shows Talisman’s leaking frackwater pit (Two Island Films)
In neighbouring British Columbia, Natural Gas Minister Rich Coleman and representatives of the Oil and Gas Commission continue to maintain:
[quote]BC’s water supply is protected and safe. It has never been contaminated as a result of hydraulic fracturing.[/quote]
This despite a report by The Common Sense Canadiandetailing clear-cut groundwater contamination from Talisman’s Farrell Creek operations in northeast BC.
EPA finds new tools to take on fracking
Despite the litigious nature of the industry and regulatory capture of governments, it’s getting harder and harder to deny the water contamination issues that surround fracking. According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as of 2009, fracking companies there were using a cocktail of at least 260 chemicals to help crack open shale formations – including known carcinogens like benzene.
Changes made in 2005 to the US Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act largely exempted fracking fluids and contaminants from regulation. This led to years of inaction on the part of the EPA – but that has begun to change. The agency employed section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which does not apply to the fracking fluids themselves, to go after Chesapeake recently.
The EPA explained its method as follows:
[quote]The federal government and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) allege that the company impounded streams and discharged sand, dirt, rocks and other fill material into streams and wetlands without a federal permit in order to construct well pads, impoundments, road crossings and other facilities related to natural gas extraction.[/quote]
The result, was a settlement with Chesapeake for approximately “$6.5 million to restore 27 sites damaged by unauthorized discharges of fill material into streams and wetlands…and a civil penalty of $3.2 million, one of the largest ever levied by the federal government for violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA), under the Section 404 program, which requires a federal permit prior to the discharge of dredge or fill material materials into wetlands, rivers, streams, and other waters of the United States.”
Fracked up water in Texas
The announcement of the Chesapeake settlement came just 5 days before another deeply troubling regulatory decision for the industry, involving well water contamination in Texas. After investigating and siding with complaints of water contamination related to Range Resources’ Parker County fracking operations, the EPA’s Region 6 office intervened on behalf of local landowners like Steve Lipsky. The company later sued Lipsky for $3 million over alleged defamation when he publicly linked the ability to light his water on fire to the company’s nearby fracking activities, referencing the EPA’s findings.
Republican Senator and renowned energy industry defender James Inhoffe also interfered with the EPA’s efforts, calling for an internal investigation into the agency’s study and subsequent regulatory intervention. Inhoffe alleged the original investigation was politically motivated by the Obama administration.
Yet, on December 24, the agency’s Inspector General overruled Inhoffe’s complaint. According to Earthworks Gulf regional organizer Sharon Wilson:
[quote]The EPA’s internal watchdog has confirmed that [it] was justified in stepping in to protect residents who were and still are in imminent danger…Now we need an investigation as to whether political corruption caused EPA to withdraw that protection.[/quote]
For landowners like Lipsky, the Obama administration isn’t going far enough to regulate fracking.“President Obama promised that hydraulic fracturing would occur safely,” said Lipsky after learning of the Inspector General’s findings. “With this IG report, it now seems clear that he is determined to squash any evidence to the contrary.”
Even with the EPA’s strengthened position, the battle is far from over, as the state-run Texas Railroad Commission has decided to wade in with its own investigation, which, in another bizarre example of the Byzantine regulatory tangle that continues to protect the industry, could once again usurp the EPA’s ability to halt or control fracking activities in Parker County.
‘Radio-fractivity’
A recent study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology sounded yet another alarm regarding the threat shale gas poses to groundwater. The study, published by professors at Duke University in October, found concentrations of radium in a tributary of Pennsylvania’s Allegheny river at 200 times normal levels. The radium, along with a number of other contaminants, came from a nearby plant for treating fracking wastewater.
In an interview with Bloomberg, the study’s co-author, Aver Vengosh stated, “The absolute levels that we found are much higher than what you allow in the U.S. for any place to dump radioactive material…The radium will be bio-accumulating. You eventually could get it in the fish.”
Alberta rancher Howard Hawkwood (photo: Green Planet Monitor)
It appears that fracking underground shale beds may release pre-existing radiation along with the gases trapped deep beneath the surface – a veritable Pandora’s box which shale gas companies are unwittingly opening.
These concerns are echoed anecdotally by Alberta cattle rancher Howard Hawkwood, who has lost 10 percent of his his cows over the past year, which he attributes to radiation from fracking operations.
Hawkwood described these dead cows and dead spots on his farm in a recent radio program:
[quote]These are the dead spots in the field, where my cows have urinated. This all showed up last spring…We’ve actually taken soil samples of the dead spot and a sample from a foot and a half away and we’ve got high levels of radon, barium, uranium, strontium, and magnesium is extremely high.[/quote]
Hawks also raises the issue of industry intervention in investigating these problems. He contends it imposes detailed non-disclosure agreements on landowners seeking compensation for damages to their land and health. “The other ranchers are experiencing the same thing but they don’t want to come forward, because they don’t want to create a problem,” says Hawkwood. “Or they have oil and gas on their property and they’ve had to sign non-disclosure agreements. One fellow told me that if he does a cow problem, he phones them and he’s got a cheque in the mail – as long as he doesn’t speak up.”
The issue of “radio-fractivity”, to coin a phrase (you heard it here first), is at an early stage of investigation, but these few indications are already deeply troubling and should raise the level of regulatory caution and research – unfettered by industry and government.
If the fracking industry is as clean as it purports to be, then there is no need for the aggressive tactics it continues to deploy – suing concerned landowners, imposing non-disclosure agreements, pressuring governments to scuttle investigations and create regulatory loopholes to protect them from compelling evidence that they are jeopardizing the health of people and the environment.
VANCOUVER – A task force report has been handed in to the British Columbia and Alberta governments that examines the idea of transporting oilsands’ crude via rail if proposed pipelines don’t get the green light, government documents show.
It’s an idea the environmental group ForestEthics calls “underhanded.”
It’s a “backdoor way for industry to bring tankers to the coast without the same sort of public oversight or public process that we’ve had around the Enbridge pipeline or would have around the Kinder Morgan pipeline,” said Ben West, campaign director for ForestEthics.
Oil-by-rail a back-up for pipelines
A joint provincial working group was announced by premiers Christy Clark and Alison Redford in July to develop recommendations related to energy exports and the opening of new export markets for products like bitumen for the two provinces, including pipeline and rail transport.
“Rail can be considered a viable alternative to pipeline movement based on costs of transport,” the terms of reference for the group states.
[quote]If pipelines are not developed, rail will step into the void to deliver bitumen to the West Coast.[/quote]
West said the report raises safety questions, especially in light of two recent high-profile train accidents.
“Myself and other people were pretty freaked out about what happened there,” West said of the two fiery blasts.
The provincial working group was mandated to submit a report to both leaders by the end of December.
An Alberta government official did not respond to a question about the completion or release of the report, while an official in Clark’s office said the report is complete but that no date has been set for a public release.
CN Rail declined comment.
The task force is led by Steve Carr, deputy minister of natural gas development in B.C. and Grant Sprague, deputy minister of energy in Alberta.
No one from either ministry could be reached for comment.
ACFN Chief Allan Adam outside an Alberta court in 2012, challenging Shell’s Jackpine development
by Bob Weber, The Canadian Press
EDMONTON – Simmering disputes over the oilsands between Alberta aboriginals and the provincial and federal governments will break into the open in 2014 as virtually every one of the many recent changes in oversight of the controversial industry comes under legal and political attack.
“All litigation, all the time, is what I see on the horizon,” said Larry Innes, lawyer for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.
Over the last 18 months, Ottawa and Edmonton have rewritten the book on resource development. Everything from how aboriginals will be consulted to land use planning to oilsands monitoring to the basic ground rules for environmental assessment has been changed.
Governments say the new regime is more efficient, predictable and transparent. Aboriginals say it violates their rights and ignores their recommendations.
So as aboriginal groups in British Columbia prepare for an expected attack on the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, Alberta aboriginals are pushing back with a long list of lawsuits either now or soon to be before the courts.
Alberta First Nations line up with oilsands lawsuits
The Fort McKay First Nation is appealing an approval of Brion Energy’s plans for a 50,000-barrel-a-day operation northwest of Fort McMurray. It says the province has violated the constitution by setting up an energy regulator expressly forbidden to hear arguments based on aboriginal rights.
The Mikisew Cree and Frog Lake First Nation are before the courts arguing that Ottawa’s recent amendments to the Fisheries and Navigable Waters Acts run afoul of their rights.
A total of 17 First Nations from around Alberta are trying to get legislation on access to public lands tossed out in a long-running case expected to go to trial this year.
The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation plans to file a lawsuit in January attacking Ottawa’s new environmental assessment legislation after the approval of a major oilsands expansion that it says will violate both treaty rights and federal laws.
At the same time, the Alberta government’s other major oilsands initiatives are running into heavy weather.
All six First Nations in the oilsands area have requested a statutory review of the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan, the government’s attempt to balance development and environmental values. Those same bands, along with many others, have also rejected the province’s plans to centralize and control aboriginal consultation.
One major band — the Fort McKay First Nation — has pulled out of the Joint Oilsands Monitoring program, the showpiece federal-provincial effort to monitor environmental change in the oilsands.
Even the Lubicon Cree First Nation are back in court, with another try in a decades-long attempt to win a reserve and get some royalties on energy extracted from what they say is their land.
Alberta Environment and Minister Robin Campbell declined to be interviewed.
“We work with aboriginal leaders and communities in a variety of areas and will continue to do so,” said spokesman Kevin Zahara. “We will not speculate on possible legal challenges.”
Treaties don’t guarantee development
A big part of the problem is simply the scale of development, said Nigel Bankes, professor of resource law at the University of Calgary.
“In the oilsands area, it’s really the intensity of the development,” he said.
[quote]The treaties give the province the power to take up lands and the argument is there must be a limit to that. That can’t be an entitlement to take away all lands (to) which First Nations have historically exercised hunting rights.[/quote]
Those concerns grow as governments narrow who has the right to air concerns and what concerns they’re allowed to raise.
“I think that’s a fair characterization,” said Bankes, who said that process has been going on for years. “(There’s a) very narrow and stringent standing test and I think that does mean there’s a level of frustration out there.”
Not only are bands barred from raising aboriginal rights at regulatory hearings, two have recently been denied the right to even speak at ones concerning oilsands projects on their doorstep. Lawsuits happen when discussion fails, said Joe Jobin, chief operating officer of the Fort McKay First Nation.
“First Nations have always tried to work with the government on developing a policy that works for First Nations and for industry,” he said.
[quote]The frustration is that the input is not being meaningfully considered. It’s almost like this attitude, ‘Well, if you don’t like it, take us to court.'[/quote]
The result is higher costs for everyone and uncertainty for industry, said Bankes. He added Alberta is increasingly resembling lawsuit-happy British Columbia, which has few treaties.
“What we’re seeing now is the same sort of litigation that we’ve been seeing in B.C. for a long time. This is now being transplanted to the treaty context of Alberta.
“Government has said to itself, ‘Things are clearer here, there’s more security precisely because we’ve got treaties.’ I guess what the litigation that we’re seeing now is calling into question is, is that really true?”
Innes said Alberta bands that have traditionally preferred to negotiate are increasingly through with talking.
“First Nations who have been investing in the process find the process is stacked against them,” he said.
American homes are getting greener, like this one in Minnesota
by Jonathan Fahey, The Associated Press
NEW YORK – The average amount of electricity consumed in U.S. homes has fallen to levels last seen more than a decade ago, back when the smartest device in people’s pockets was a Palm pilot and anyone talking about a tablet was probably an archaeologist or a preacher.
Because of more energy-efficient housing, appliances and gadgets, power usage is on track to decline in 2013 for the third year in a row, to its lowest point since 2001, even though our lives are more electrified.
Here’s a look at what has changed since the last time consumption was so low.
Better homes
In the early 2000s, as energy prices rose, more states adopted or toughened building codes to force builders to better seal homes so heat or air-conditioned air doesn’t seep out so fast. That means newer homes waste less energy.
Also, insulated windows and other building technologies have dropped in price, making retrofits of existing homes more affordable. In the wake of the financial crisis, billions of dollars in Recovery Act funding was directed toward home-efficiency programs.
Better Gadgets
Big appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners have gotten more efficient thanks to federal energy standards that get stricter ever few years as technology evolves.
A typical room air conditioner — one of the biggest power hogs in the home — uses 20 per cent less electricity per hour of full operation than it did in 2001, according to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.
Central air conditioners, refrigerators, dishwashers, water heaters, washing machines and dryers also have gotten more efficient.
Other devices are using less juice, too. Some 40-inch (1-meter) LED televisions bought today use 80 per cent less power than the cathode ray tube televisions of the past. Some use just $8 worth of electricity over a year when used five hours a day — less than a 60-watt incandescent bulb would use.
Those incandescent light bulbs are being replaced with compact fluorescent bulbs and LEDs that use 70 to 80 per cent less power. According to the Energy Department, widespread use of LED bulbs could save output equivalent to that of 44 large power plants by 2027.
The move to mobile also is helping. Desktop computers with big CRT monitors are being replaced with laptops, tablet computers and smart phones, and these mobile devices are specifically designed to sip power to prolong battery life.
It costs $1.36 to power an iPad for a year, compared with $28.21 for a desktop computer, according to the Electric Power Research Institute.
On the other hand…
We are using more devices, and that is offsetting what would otherwise be a more dramatic reduction in power consumption.
DVRs spin at all hours of the day, often under more than one television in a home. Game consoles are getting more sophisticated to process better graphics and connect with other players, and therefore use more power.
More homes have central air conditioners instead of window units. They are more efficient, but people use them more often.
Still, Jennifer Amman, the buildings program director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, says she is encouraged.
“It’s great to see this movement, to see the shift in the national numbers,” she says.
[quote]I expect we’ll see greater improvement over time. There is so much more that can be done.[/quote]
The Energy Department predicts average residential electricity use per customer will fall again in 2014, by 1 per cent.
Jonathan Fahey can be reached at http://twitter.com/JonathanFahey
