Back
A fast-growing startup is giving Texas homeowners cheap access to unusually large batteries for backup power — and paying for it by maneuvering those same batteries in the state’s ERCOT energy markets.
Base Power launched last May and already has installed more than 1,000 home batteries, around 30 megawatt-hours, in North Austin and the Fort Worth area, CEO Zach Dell told Canary Media recently. The company plans to expand that footprint to 250 megawatt-hours this year, he added.
To make good on that promise, the 80-person startup rolled out service to the Houston area last week. That move had been planned for this summer, but customers in the storm-prone metropolis were calling and emailing to sign up, and a cold snap was bearing down on Texas, testing the grid’s ability to keep pace with winter energy needs.
“We saw what happened in Winter Storm Uri, four years ago, and we want to put a solution in the hands of Texans for situations like that,” Dell said, referring to the widespread grid outages that contributed to hundreds of deaths. “As another cold front sweeps through Texas this week, we felt like pulling up the Houston launch as quickly as possible was the right thing to do.”
If a homeowner in Texas wants backup power, they could buy solar and a battery. But most battery products aren’t large enough to meet the needs of the typical American home — that’s why you see three Tesla Powerwalls lined up in some garages. At that point, the out-of-pocket cost reaches tens of thousands of dollars, unless the buyer grapples with the current state of interest rates and takes out a loan.
Base Power pitches the benefits of whole-home backup power without the massive up-front expenditure. The company designed its own battery for the express purpose of backup power, so each unit packs 25 kilowatt-hours of storage instead of the usual 10 or 15. It can instantly discharge 11.4 kilowatts of power. Some people get two of these side by side for a truly hefty home energy arsenal.
But the customers don’t buy this product: They pay a $495 installation fee and an ongoing monthly fee of $16. They also choose Base Power as their electricity retailer — Texas allows customers to pick who they buy from — and pay 8.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for their general household consumption.
If there’s no such thing as a free lunch, nor is there nearly free backup power. Base Power (and, by extension, its venture backers) fronts this rather hefty bill, on the premise that it can make money not just from customer subscriptions but by bidding the decentralized battery fleet into the ERCOT energy markets. That also lets Base Power charge a lower rate for household electricity than it otherwise would need to.
“We’re a battery developer; we’re an asset owner,” Dell explained. “For us and for the customer, a bigger battery is better.”
In that sense, this company is the newest in a lineage of startups seeking to unlock the multi-layered benefits of distributed energy devices, which both help a local customer and, when harnessed with effective software and amenable market rules, make the overall grid more clean and efficient.
Many startups have gone bankrupt chasing this rosy vision. Base Power aims to avoid their fate by adopting a very old technique in the utility sector: vertical integration.
In order to make its customer-friendly product into a viable business, Dell and company have taken control of every step of their value chain, rather than outsourcing or partnering.
The company designed its own battery hardware, giving it far more capacity than the market-leading home battery systems. Base Power wrote its own software to govern the batteries and operate them as a decentralized fleet bidding into the wholesale markets. And the startup does its own sales, installations, and long-term maintenance.
The corporate strategy, Dell explained, is to create “compounding cost advantage through vertical integration.” If Base Power bought, say, Tesla Powerwalls and resold them to customers, it would have to give Tesla a margin. If it paid outside firms to knock on doors and pitch batteries, those commercial evangelists would also take their cut. Contracting out for installation further dilutes the profits, and so on.
“Because we do all these things, we can take cost out of every part of the system and then pass those savings down to the customer in the form of low prices,” Dell said. “As our returns go up and our cost of capital goes down, our intention is to build the largest and most capital-efficient portfolio of batteries in the country.”
Minimizing cost and reliance on outside parties makes fundamental sense, and yet fledgling startups typically shy away from taking on so much for fear of biting off more than they can chew.
“It’s really hard,” Dell admitted. However, “because it’s so hard, there’s not a lot of people who can do it.”
It’s a business strategy that calls to mind the ancient bristlecone pines that occupy a remote, arid mountaintop between the eastern Sierras and California’s border with Nevada. The trees suffer extremes of heat and cold and thirst and wind, but when they persist, they carve out a niche where few competitors can survive. The oldest bristlecones predate the pyramids of Giza.
The do-it-all approach also distinguishes Base Power from others that are similarly trying to get more batteries into people’s homes.
German company sonnen has been working on this challenge for over a decade and operates a vast network of home batteries in Germany that make money in power markets there. In the U.S., the company partners with solar companies and sometimes with real estate developers to sell its batteries. Sonnen launched a no-money-down battery offering in Texas with a company called Solrite, which had put equipment in more than 1,000 homes as of January, a similar volume to what Base Power has installed.
Neither sonnen nor Solrite are retail electricity providers in Texas, though, so they need to pair up with companies that buy and sell power and can monetize the batteries’ ability to arbitrage. The Solrite deal requires people to sign up for 25 years and buy out any remaining value if they want to quit before the quarter-century mark. Base Power, in contrast, asks customers to commit to a three-year retail contract, and the cancellation fee is $500, to cover removing the battery system.
Other climatetech-savvy retailers offer special deals for people who buy their own batteries. Great Britain’s Octopus Energy has entered the ERCOT market and offers modest monthly credits per kilowatt-hour of storage capacity if residents let the company manage their home batteries. Octopus uses its software to shift consumption to times with abundant renewable generation, thereby lowering the cost of serving those households.
Startup David Energy offers retail plans in which the company optimizes customers’ battery usage to minimize their overall electricity bill. Tesla itself opened a Texas electricity retailer subsidiary that pays customers a fixed credit of $400 per year for each Powerwall pack that they allow to discharge to the grid, up to three Powerwalls.
Those providers still need customers to front the money or take out a loan to install their own batteries, which constrains how quickly battery adoption can grow. On the other hand, that model means those companies can focus on honing their energy software and trading strategy and don’t have to spend millions of dollars to install and own batteries that might one day pay for themselves.
Base Power pays for its buildout with a mix of equity, debt, and tax credits, Dell noted. Investors funded an $8 million seed raise led by Thrive Capital and a $60 million Series A led by Valor Equity Partners. As for making money, Base Power uses the batteries to arbitrage energy in the ERCOT market from the renewables-filled times of plenty to the valuable hours of scarce supply. The company is currently undergoing qualification to bid ancillary services, a more complex suite of market offerings that maintain the quality and reliability of the grid.
As temperatures dipped well below freezing last month in Asheville, North Carolina, the heat pumps at Sophie Mullinax’s house hummed along, keeping up just fine.
The fact she was warm inside without a gas furnace while the outdoor temperature read 9 degrees Fahrenheit reaffirmed a core belief: “Electrification is better in almost every way you slice it.”
Mullinax is chief operating officer for Solar CrowdSource, a platform that connects groups of customers with solar panels and electric appliances. Since last spring, the company has been preparing for North Carolina’s first-ever statewide incentives for switching out gas stoves and heaters for high-efficiency electric versions.
The Energy Saver North Carolina program, launched in mid-January, includes more than $208 million dollars in federally funded rebates to help low- and moderate-income homeowners make energy-saving improvements, including converting to electric appliances.
“The electric counterpart to every single fossil-fuel technology out there does the same job better,” Mullinax said, and “has a lower impact on the climate, is healthier, and often saves money.”
Solar CrowdSource, which has partnered with the city of Asheville and Buncombe County to help meet the community’s climate goals through electrification, expects the rebate program to make its task easier.
Still, questions remain about the federally funded inducements, including — perhaps most urgently — whether they can survive President Donald Trump’s unilateral assault on clean energy.
The state’s new incentive program stems from the Inflation Reduction Act, the 2022 federal climate law that unleashed nearly $400 billion in federal spending on clean energy and efficiency — and which is now embattled by a flurry of Trump edicts.
While much of the climate law directs incentives to large, utility-scale wind and solar projects, the $8.8 billion home rebate program is designed to curb planet-warming emissions house-by-house, where there is vast potential for improving efficiency and shifting to electric appliances.
Studies estimate that roughly 35% of home energy use is wasted — lost to inefficient heating and cooling systems and appliances, air leaks around windows and doors, and poorly insulated walls. That’s especially true in states like North Carolina, where building energy conservation codes are woefully outdated.
While homes in North Carolina rely less on fossil-fuel appliances than in other parts of the country, they still contribute to climate change. About a third are heated with fuels other than electricity, per the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the Energy Information Administration, some 15% use gas for cooking. In all, state officials estimate that households that burn gas, propane, and other fuels account for 5% of the state’s net greenhouse gas pollution.
Both energy waste and the rising cost of fossil fuels — whether burned directly in the home or in Duke Energy power plants — contribute to the state’s energy burden. Some 1.4 million North Carolinians pay a disproportionately high fraction of their income on energy bills, according to the state’s latest Clean Energy Plan.
But though the state has long deployed federal weatherization assistance to its lowest-income households, there’s little precedent here for a widespread nudge to electrification, either through carrots or sticks.
Unlike dozens of municipalities around the country, no local government in North Carolina has moved to limit residential hookups for gas; most legal analysts say they lack the power to do so. In 2023, the state legislature made doubly sure of that with a law banning local bans on new gas appliances or connections.
Meanwhile, a decades-old state rule barring ratepayer-funded utility promotions that could influence fuel choice has prevented Duke from offering much in the way of carrots. While shareholders could pay for rebates, they have little motive to do so: Duke acquired Piedmont Natural Gas, the state’s predominant gas utility, in 2016.
For years, Duke has offered incentives, carefully calibrated not to run afoul of state rules, for builders to construct more efficient homes. The latest iteration of those ratepayer-backed inducements is under $2,000 per home. By contrast, the new statewide rebates for upgrading to electric appliances cap out at $14,000 apiece.
“This is the largest and the first program in the state that is truly incentivizing fuel switching,” said Ethan Blumenthal, regulatory counsel at the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association.
A second program within Energy Saver North Carolina offers rebates of up to $16,000 to homeowners who add insulation, plug air leaks, and make other improvements, so long as an audit shows the measures will reduce energy use by at least 20%.
In both cases, North Carolina officials are aiming the incentives at low- and moderate-income households. Those earning less than 80% of the area’s median income — about $70,000, depending on the county — get projects for free, and those earning up to 150% of the median get a 50% rebate.
“That was a choice. The federal government did not require it to be a specifically low- to moderate-income program,” said Claire Williamson, energy policy advocate at the North Carolina Justice Center. Yet, she added, the administrations of former Gov. Roy Cooper and current Gov. Josh Stein have “made sure that these funds are going to people who need them the most.”
Like Solar CrowdSource, the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters has awaited the new rebates for months. Meech Carter, clean energy campaigns director at the group, has been handing out flyers, holding information sessions with legislators and community leaders, and setting up an online clearinghouse for homeowners to explore available incentives.
“Every time I present on the website and what resources are out there, I get so many questions on the rebate program,” Carter said, “especially for replacing gas appliances, propane heaters, and transitioning folks to cleaner sources and more energy-efficient sources.”
Costs and climate concerns are factors, she said, but so is health. Just like fossil-fuel–burning power plants and cars, gas stoves and furnaces emit soot and smog-forming particles. A growing body of evidence shows that these pollutants get trapped indoors and far exceed levels deemed safe.
Now that the rebate program has launched, Carter has dozens of people statewide to call back and assist, including 25 in Edgecombe County’s Princeville, the oldest town in the country chartered by Black Americans.
Edgecombe is among the state’s most impoverished counties, making it a prime candidate for the new rebates. “Considering North Carolina’s energy landscape,” Carter said, “we are very optimistic about this program.”
Yet even champions for the program acknowledge they have questions about its deployment. Despite the immense need, it’s hard enough to expend weatherization assistance money due to distrust in government programs, a dearth of qualified contractors, and other hurdles. Those funds, intended for the state’s lowest-income households, total roughly $38 million per year at the moment, after a big infusion from Congress, according to state officials. The new rebates, if evenly distributed over five years, would more than double that with another $41.6 million annually.
“This is larger than the weatherization assistance program,” said Williamson. “There are many contractors out there, but I think there is going to be a big lift to get people trained.”
Announcing the program last month, Gov. Stein stressed that new contractors and other workers would follow.
“[The Department of Environmental Quality] estimates that the program will support over 2,000 jobs across our state,” Stein said at the launch event. “I’m also eager to see the workforce development opportunities that will come.”
Asked how historically disadvantaged communities could benefit from such opportunities, department spokesperson Sascha Medina said over email, “We have planned this program to launch and ramp up for continuous improvement. We will be focusing our marketing to contractors in high energy burden and storm impacted areas first and will expand from there.”
Still, the counties most devastated by Hurricane Helene, like Buncombe, aren’t first on the program’s outreach list. The department’s analysis of statewide energy burdens led it to choose Halifax County in the eastern part of the state along with Cleveland County, in the foothills.
“The hurricane affected areas add a layer of complexity to the program because the rebate programs cannot duplicate money that has been awarded to households through other recovery funding sources,” Medina said. “As we roll out the program, we will continue to work with our partners in the affected areas and receive guidance from the U.S. Department of Energy.”
That guidance from a Trump-led Department of Energy could imperil the success of the rebates more than any other factor. While the president rescinded his widely panned memo halting virtually all federal government spending, his first-week orders targeting Biden-era clean-energy spending appear to remain in force.
The fact that the federal government signed contracts with the state in accordance with a law passed by Congress should shield North Carolina’s Energy Saver rebate program from harm, Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Reid Wilson said at the launch.
“This is finalized. This is done,” Wilson said.
CLEAN ENERGY: Food and beverage production facilities across the U.S. begin to deploy low-carbon heating technologies as an alternative to gas-powered systems, though high costs remain a barrier. (Canary Media)
POLITICS:
GRID:
COAL ASH: A coalition of U.S. power companies sends a letter to Trump’s EPA nominee asking for“immediate action” to roll back federal regulation of toxic coal ash and rescind recent enforcement actions. (Canary Media)
EMISSIONS:
EFFICIENCY: Twenty-four states lack energy efficiency standards meant to curb energy use, which advocates say come with economic as well as climate advantages, according to a new industry report. (Grist)
WIND: President Trump’s actions against wind energy development might actually benefit Texas’ wind industry because the vast majority of its projects are located on private and not federal land, says the director of a university energy institute. (Texas Standard)
COMMENTARY: A California columnist urges policymakers to continue to invest in risky clean energy innovation even as the “expensive, bird-killing eyesore” known as Ivanpah solar plant nears its retirement. (Los Angeles Times)
UTILITIES: S&P downgrades the credit rating of three Connecticut utilities, with executives blaming state regulators for rejecting rate increases as costs increase. (CT Insider)
ALSO: New Jersey lawmakers advance a bill that would require utilities to alert customers mid-month if their energy usage is unusually high. (New Jersey Monitor)
CLIMATE:
OVERSIGHT: New Hampshire’s consumer advocate is backing legislation to clarify the authorities of the state’s Public Utilities Commission and its recently created Department of Energy. (New Hampshire Bulletin)
WIND: A labor leader says Maine should reach out to other states to help support a deepwater port for offshore wind construction, after multiple attempts to secure federal funds have failed. (Maine Public)
ELECTRIC VEHICLES: New Jersey has surpassed 200,000 electric vehicle registrations, but an advocate says a lack of charging stations and shifting tax credits make it unlikely the state will hit its goal of 330,000 by next year. (NJ.com)
SOLAR:
COMMENTARY:
This article was originally posted by South Dakota Searchlight.
Massive data centers used for cloud computing and artificial intelligence are consuming enormous amounts of energy, and developers are eyeing South Dakota as a potential location, regulators say.
These “hyperscale data centers,” or “hyperscalers,” are designed to handle immense computing demands and are often operated by tech giants. The centers are characterized by their large size — often tens of thousands of square feet — and thousands of computer servers that require significant energy to operate.
Nick Phillips with Applied Digital in Texas, a developer of the centers, highlighted South Dakota’s appeal: a cold climate that cuts down on cooling a room full of hot servers, and abundant wind energy that’s considered one of the most cost-effective renewable energy sources, which can help keep operating costs down.
State regulators are not aware of any hyperscale data centers currently operating in South Dakota.
“There isn’t a requirement to report hyperscale data centers to the commission, so we don’t have a formal method to track that information,” said Leah Mohr with the Public Utilities Commission.
Commissioner Kristie Fiegen noted that the state’s largest proposed data center is a 50-megawatt facility in Leola.
“We don’t know what’s coming,” she said. “But the utilities are getting calls every week from people trying to see if they have the megawatts available.”
The commission recently hosted a meeting in Pierre with representatives from regional utilities, regional power grid associations and data centers. The goal was to understand the emerging demands and facilitate an information exchange.
Bob Sahr, a former public utilities commissioner and current CEO of East River Electric Cooperative in Madison, emphasized the scale of energy needed.
“We’re talking loads that eclipse some of the largest cities in South Dakota,” he said.
A single data center campus can require anywhere from 300 to 500 megawatts of electricity to operate. One megawatt can power hundreds of homes. By one estimate, there are over 1,000 hyperscalers worldwide, with the U.S. hosting just over half of them.
Ryan Long, president of Xcel Energy, headquartered in Minneapolis, illustrated the extreme nature of the demand.
“We now have, I would say, north of seven gigawatts of requests across the Xcel Energy footprint for data centers to locate in one of our eight states,” he said. “And I’ll be very frank that there’s no way that we’re going to be able to serve all of that in a reasonable amount of time.”
Protecting existing customers from potential costs or energy shortages is another shared concern. Utility representatives emphasized the need for coal and natural gas to maintain a reliable “base load” when renewable sources like wind and solar are unavailable. Arick Sears of Iowa-based MidAmerican Energy underscored the point, noting that costs for each data center should depend on how much energy it consumes.
“We need to ensure that large-scale energy users are paying their fair share,” he said.
Utilities also flagged the risk of “stranded costs,” referring to a data center ceasing operations, leaving a utility with added infrastructure to meet a demand that no longer exists. They said financial safeguards will need to be written into power agreements with hyperscalers.
Speed of deployment is another pressing issue. Representatives from Montana-Dakota Utilities, headquartered in North Dakota, and NorthWestern Energy, headquartered in Sioux Falls, noted that some facilities expect to be operational within months of making a deal, straining infrastructure, planning and resources.
Grid managers Brian Tulloh of Indiana-based Midcontinent Independent System Operator and Lanny Nickell of Arkansas-based Southwest Power Pool echoed those concerns. They warned that data center growth is outpacing the grid’s ability to meet demand and cautioned against decommissioning coal power plants too quickly. Setting aside how much it would cost to produce the required energy, Tulloh estimated that MISO needs $30 billion in electric transmission infrastructure to support the demand from hyperscalers.
“The grid wasn’t designed for that,” Public Utilities Commissioner Chris Nelson told South Dakota Searchlight after the meeting.
Nelson was glad to hear the data centers will include backup generators, similar to hospitals, for power outages or when homes need prioritization. He said some even aim to have huge batteries to power the plant until the generators get going. They would consume massive amounts of diesel and natural gas until the outage is over.
Nelson said all of this makes modern nuclear energy facilities more attractive. He said few alternative “base load” options remain, and the public has little appetite for ramping up coal power.
NorthWestern Energy is exploring the possibility of constructing a small nuclear power plant in South Dakota, with an estimated cost of $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion for a 320-megawatt facility. The plant would be the first in the state since a test facility near Sioux Falls in the 1960s.
The company is conducting a study, partially funded by the Department of Energy. Details about the study and potential plant sites remain confidential.
Additionally, South Dakota’s Legislature has shown interest in nuclear energy, passing a resolution for further study on the topic that led to the publication of an issue memorandum by the Legislative Research Council.
WORKFORCE: Kentucky communities where developers are building large battery factories that are expected to create thousands of jobs are experiencing housing shortages, with a legislative study finding the state is 206,207 housing units short of what it needs. (Lexington Herald-Leader)
OIL & GAS:
SOLAR:
WIND:
CLIMATE: New research finds soaring insurance premiums fueled by climate change increase the probability of homeowners falling behind on their mortgages. (Floodlight)
GRID:
POLITICS:
NUCLEAR: A new report suggests Texas lawmakers rework the nuclear permitting process and establish a state fund to incentivize construction of new plants, similar to what the state established recently for gas-fired power plants. (Utility Dive)
HYDROELECTRIC: The Tennessee Valley Authority signs a deal with two companies to receive power from a 377 MW portfolio of four hydroelectric dams in Tennessee and North Carolina. (news release)
COMMENTARY: With the incoming Trump administration unlikely to address climate change, it’s up to the private sector to handle the job instead, writes the head of a conservative climate group. (South Florida Sun-Sentinel)
STORAGE: A Tennessee company announces it will build a $1.3 billion battery separator manufacturing facility in Virginia at the same site Gov. Glenn Youngkin previously said a Ford battery factory couldn’t use. (Virginia Business, Cardinal News)
RENEWABLES: A growing number of Mississippi farmers are leasing their land for wind and solar energy projects as they look for new revenue sources. (Mississippi Today)
PIPELINES: Virginia officials order the Mountain Valley Pipeline to pay $17,500 for erosion and sediment control violations over a three-month period. (Cardinal News)
OVERSIGHT: North Carolina regulators approve a new version of North Carolina’s energy plan that calls for more solar, batteries and wind, but critics attack the board for allowing Duke Energy to continue to rely on fossil fuels and miss an emissions reduction deadline. (Wilmington StarNews)
ELECTRIC VEHICLES:
OIL & GAS: The U.S. EPA finalizes a rule levying an excess methane emissions fee on oil and gas facilities, but West Virginia U.S. Shelley Moore Capito pledges to work with Donald Trump to repeal it. (Associated Press, West Virginia Public Broadcasting)
EFFICIENCY:
GRID:
COMMENTARY:
Reliable hot water is critical for restaurants for preparing food and washing dishes and equipment, as well as hand washing.
However, water heating is one of the biggest energy users in restaurants. Heating water for restaurant use accounts for 16% of all commercial gas usage in California. Food service buildings are among the highest intensive energy users on a per-square-foot basis, largely because of their hot water usage. Foodservice operations may soon feel the pressure to electrify. The California Air Resources Board is analyzing proposed zero-emission GHG standards for new space and water heaters. It is currently planned for consideration in 2025 with any implementation beginning in 2030, and would only be applicable to the purchase of new equipment
Doing so will be difficult, particularly for existing restaurants. Many food service operations, especially small and independent businesses, do not have the space for the size of a storage tank that would be required for a heat pump water heater. Restaurants in California, as with most states, are legally required to have sufficient hot water to meet all these demands under peak conditions.
In response to these challenges, an emerging technology, the heat pump-assisted water heater, is gaining traction. It is designed to meet this existing gap between what the market needs and the cost and challenges of installing available heat pump water heaters. It is geared to meet the needs of existing food service businesses that want to be able to transition to a heat pump while still retaining the benefits of their current water heating system.
With funding from CalNEXT — California’s statewide emerging technology initiative — the TRC Advanced Energy team recently published a report, “Market Potential for Heat Pump Assisted Hot Water Systems in Foodservice Facilities.” This report, which TRC Advanced Energy developed with research support from Frontier Energy and Energy Solutions, assesses the benefits and challenges of adopting heat pump-assisted water heater technology for a range of food service establishments.
“Heat pump-assisted water heaters are a solution that we have available today,” said Amin Delagah, Associate Director of Research and Consulting for TRC Advanced Energy, an environmental services provider. “Heat pump water heater adoption rates in restaurants are still very low due to a lack of familiarity, space and electrical capacity requirements and primarily, the health department water heater sizing regulatory barrier, but the heat pump assist concept is a solution that we can move forward today to overcome these barriers.”
The heat pump-assisted water heater, as its name suggests, is designed to operate in series with an existing water heater, which makes it attractive for restaurants that do not want to overhaul their current system completely. During down times for the business, the existing heater would maintain the recirculation temperature of already heated water in its system. During off hours, the heat pump-assisted water heater would produce sufficient hot water to restock the system. Because the existing heater is already large enough to meet food service needs during business hours, the heat pump-assisted water heater system can be built to fit the available space, even if it is undersized.
The benefits of using a heat pump-assisted water heater are similar to those of a heat pump: improved energy efficiency and possibly lower long-term energy costs, although cost issues largely depend on the type of system being replaced. Natural gas fuel, which is used by 90 percent of food service operations for water heating, is currently cheaper than electricity in most of California.
Heat pump systems also provide cooling as a byproduct, which could be useful to counteract kitchen heat.
Heat pump-assisted water heaters are designed to address the big disadvantage of heat pump water heaters for restaurants — the longer time needed to heat the water from cold. One workaround is a much larger tank, but floor space is typically at a premium in restaurants, making this workaround unappealing for many food service operations. For a heat pump water heater to meet health department requirements, it would need a much bigger tank than its gas-fired counterpart (because the gas-fired water heater can heat water faster).
Heat pump-assisted water heaters may also be cheaper to install than a conventional, retrofitted heat pump water heater system, and the heat pump-assisted water heater does not need to meet these sizing regulations because the legacy water heater still functions as a backup system. At this point, the technology is still emerging and has not been installed commercially, but the authors estimate that initial costs for the heat pump water heater that acts as the assist, including installation, could range between $6,000 to $20,000. This amount, while significant, is still much cheaper than what it could cost a full-service restaurant to install a heat pump water heater capable of meeting water demands, which could well exceed $100,000.
“The costs for heat pump assisted heat pumps are largely driven by the electrical work and the space required, and there may be incentives available to offset these,” Delagah said.
Another benefit is that because the heat pump-assisted water heater is a backup system, it does not require health department approval, making the process simpler.
Both heat pump water heaters and heat pump-assisted water heaters also have the additional operational benefit of being able to benefit from time-of-use rates and the additional cooling they could provide for kitchens.
“This year in October, it was 95 degrees in the Bay Area,” Delagah said. “There are new California OSHA rules on the books for indoor temperatures — if your facilities are over an 82°F temperature indoors, you have to provide cooling centers for employees. That’s becoming an emerging concern for restaurants to meet a new heat illness standard.”
On the downside, the higher upfront costs will likely still be a significant barrier to the adoption of heat pump-assisted water heaters, even if they are relatively less expensive than heat pump water heaters.
One big hurdle is that health departments, by and large, are not familiar with the technology — and may be more resistant to its approval. The relatively high price of electricity in California, compared with gas, may be another barrier.
Yet regulations and the need to decarbonize are moving closer, with California’s 2030 deadlines for reducing its overall greenhouse gas emissions by 40%, in comparison with 1990 levels. Restaurants are well positioned to be the public face of doing their part.
“This is great equipment for restaurants that are thinking about positioning themselves for where things are going in terms of air quality regulations,” Delagah said. “If you’re a chain restaurant, you should probably be trying this out, kicking the tires a bit, and preparing for what your solution is going to be when there is a mandate.”
To learn more about this project, read the report on the CalNEXT website, calnext.com
About CalNEXT: CalNEXT is a statewide initiative to identify, test, and grow electric technologies and delivery methods to support California’s decarbonized future. CalNEXT is funded by the ratepayers of California investor-owned utilities and provides a means for studying emerging technologies and energy-efficiency innovations that have the potential to save energy via utility programs and/or market support.
Article written by Emily Pickrell, Energy Solutions
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to finalize more than $200 million in grant funding in the coming weeks to accelerate the clean energy transition at three Great Lakes shipping ports.
The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority, and the Illinois International Port District were each selected for grants last month under the Biden administration’s Clean Ports Program.
The U.S. EPA said it intends to finalize grant agreements by December or January. That action will obligate the federal government to pay roughly $3 billion in grants under the program, even if President-elect Donald Trump or the next Congress tries to repeal or block further action under the Inflation Reduction Act.
The $94 million grant announced for the Cleveland port is the largest it has ever received and will help it build on work that’s already underway to electrify and decarbonize its infrastructure.
“It puts us at the forefront of decarbonization,” said William Friedman, president and chief executive officer of Cleveland’s port authority. “Now we’ll be able to start figuring out what’s the phase-in and then how do we move forward with the next round.”
The Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority will get approximately $25 million for solar panels, charging infrastructure and electric cargo handling equipment, and another $95 million will go to the Illinois EPA for solar, battery storage and hydrogen-related investments at the Illinois International Port District serving greater Chicago.
The largest share of grants will go to ports along the East and West coasts. “But the program is also intended to set the foundation for transitioning the entire port industry to zero emissions,” said Jennifer Macedonia, a deputy assistant administrator for U.S. EPA. “And there are important communities around many of our inland ports as well.”
The shipping industry accounts for roughly 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. While the bulk of that is from ships themselves, port operations typically rely on diesel power for most of their energy. And ships often burn fuel to power equipment even while they’re in port.
The EPA’s review process included ensuring that selected projects can achieve or exceed goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as other pollution that can affect nearby communities, said U.S. EPA Administrator Michael Regan. Those criteria air pollutants are ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.
The work is especially important for Ohio, which has lagged other Midwest states and regions in deploying strategies to reduce greenhouse gases, said Valerie Katz, deputy director for Cuyahoga Green Energy. “Our regional decarbonization efforts will reduce environmental exposure to toxic air pollutants for downstream Ohio communities.”
Funding for the Port of Cleveland will encompass work for electric cargo-handling equipment and vessels that serve the port, along with solar generation and battery storage, charging infrastructure and shore power for vessels. Project partners include Logistec USA, the commercial operator for day-to-day operations, as well as the Great Lakes Towing Company, which will build two electric tug boats.
Decarbonization is a “competitive advantage that will attract more shipping volume to our port,” said Baiju Shah, president and CEO of the Greater Cleveland Partnership. “Companies are striving to reduce their environmental footprints through their operations and value chains,” including Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions. “In addition, electrifying the port operations supports our region’s clean air efforts.”
That’s especially important given the port’s location near the downtown lakefront and riverfront areas, Shah said. Lake Erie and the Cuyahoga River are the focus for several waterfront development projects aimed at drawing more business and visitors to Cleveland.
Funding for the Port of Detroit will go toward electric cargo-handling equipment, some vessels and railcar movers, along with charging infrastructure and solar generation. Part of the money also will be used to develop a roadmap for adding EV and hydrogen fueling infrastructure. The Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority is part of the Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen, or MachH2, which was selected last year for $1 billion in Department of Energy funding for a hydrogen hub.
Funding for the Illinois International Port District will cover a variety of projects for its three ports, including hydrogen fueling infrastructure, solar energy and battery storage, and hydrogen and electric cargo handling equipment. Hydrogen and electric locomotives also are on EPA’s program selections list. The Illinois EPA is the lead partner for the grant work.
Like its counterpart in Cleveland, the Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority had already begun working on plans to move to cleaner energy sources for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. But zero-emissions equipment to move cargo is new in the U.S. shipping industry and is still generally more expensive than fossil-fueled counterparts.
“What’s great about the EPA grant is that it helps these businesses make the decision to choose this cleaner technology,” said Mark Schrupp, executive director for the Detroit port authority. Over time, costs for such equipment should come down, but the grants will help launch market growth.
Various projects among the 55 selected for grants last month have planning components and provisions for community engagement or workforce development. Planning work on emissions inventories can position other ports to move ahead with clean energy in the future, Macedonia said.
The U.S. EPA plans to move ahead swiftly to finalize grant agreements, which will have the effect of protecting the funds from a possible clawback under Trump or the next Congress.
“We will be awarding the grants in December of 2024 and January of 2025… so that money will be obligated on or before the end of this administration,” Regan said. Depending on the projects, implementation will occur over the next three to four years.
In Cleveland, that means a big chunk of work under the new grant will be taking place even as renovation of the Port of Cleveland’s Warehouse A and electrical work take place under its current projects.
“We’ll have to throw a lot here at the engineers and construction project management people to figure this out,” Friedman said. Yet the timing means it will be that much sooner for the port to move to zero emissions for its own operations.
ELECTRIFICATION: A California startup will receive a $32 million contract to design and install 10,000 induction stoves using standard 120-volt outlets in New York City public housing units. (Heatmap News)
OFFSHORE WIND:
FOSSIL FUELS: Environmental advocates push for the closure of two fossil fuel-fired “peaker” power plants in Brooklyn that only run a few times a year. (Gothamist)
CLIMATE:
BIOMASS: Vermont’s first food-waste-to-renewable-energy plant opens, with plans to use anaerobic digestion to process waste from the state’s food industry. (news release)
HEAT PUMPS: Long Island has already exceeded state goals for heat pump installations by 2025, and is a leader in electric vehicle adoption as well, say officials. (Newsday, subscription)
TRANSPORTATION:
SOLAR: A new solar installation in Vermont, one of the state’s largest, uses tracking technology to follow the sun and maximize power generation. (Renewable Energy Magazine)
COMMENTARY: Massachusetts is putting too much emphasis on offshore wind development and should give greater consideration to nuclear power, says an advocate for a pro-nuclear organization. (CommonWealth Beacon)
.svg)
