Answering The Question “Where Can You Rent A Shared Office”?

Are you in need of a shared office space, but do not want to consider a long-term contract at the moment? There is an unlimited array of benefits to renting an office space shared by other professionals, but one thing is for sure, there are several different companies that offer commercial rental services. Below, you will discover the answer to the question, “Where can you rent a shared office.


If you are in need of a small or large office space rental, you should start by contacting your local hotel operators. Most large hotels offer executive suite, office space, and conference room rentals for short or long-term uses. You will find that the hotel staff is very accommodating and will do whatever is necessary to make you and your guests comfortable. These spaces are fully loaded, so you do not need to concern yourself about renting any type of office equipment.

Real Estate Companies

Of course, real estate companies provide intermediary services for residential and commercial sellers and buyers. Did you know that they also offer shared office rental services? Many individuals are not aware of this, so they look elsewhere for a solution to their professional needs. If you are in need of a shared office space, be sure to contact your local real estate broker, because they are prepared to set you up, today.

COZE Atlanta

If you are looking for an upscale shared office space in Atlanta, Georgia, you should check out COZE. This rental company offers competitive pricing and shared office spaces of all sizes. The facility is located in the downtown area, so you and your guests will have easy access to it. They also offer flexible leasing, which is definitely what most professionals are looking for. The staff at COZE is very accommodating and friendly, plus the environment is quaint and private.

Davinci Meeting & Conference Rooms

Another great Georgian rental company is Davinici. This company offers 4,000 meeting, rooms, executive suits, shared office spaces, and banquet room rentals. Serving over 20 states throughout the United States, you can actually utilize Davicini services to accommodate all of your office needs. This is a great option for those executives, accountants, and project managers that do contract work. Once you get comfortable with Davinici, you will never want to look elsewhere.

Premier Business Centers


When in the Atlanta, Georgia area and in need of a shared office space, be sure to keep Premier Business Centers in mind. This rental company has exactly what you are looking for:

  • Full service office spaces
  • Flexible leases
  • Office spaces of all sizes
  • Convenient locations
  • Competitive Pricing

This company has been in business since 2002, so no one knows office spaces like their experienced staff.


Now that you know the answer to “where can you rent a shared office space”, you will have no issues finding exactly what you are looking for. Most of these service providers will work with you to help you find an office space located in a convenient location. If you have any questions concerning the services provided these companies, be sure to pick up the phone and contact them, today.

How Can Google Panda Update Affect Our Website Ranking

We all know that content plays a very important role in SEO. In other words we can say that content is king. But today not only writing an original content for your website is important but you must also make sure that your content must be of good quality.  We can say that Google has become more intellectual and smart. Today Google gives importance only that content which are original, free and of good quality. This improvement was implemented on 24th February 2011 and is known as Google Panda. Due to this improvement many websites have lost their ranking in search engine. Hence, if you are also very cynic about ranking of your website on Google then you must read the tips that are given below:

If with this recent upgrade the ranking of your website have been also affected then you must assess contents of your website as soon as possible. You can eliminate the pages with low quality content of your website. You can also replace the content and can write original, free and good quality of content for your website.

If your website contains duplicate content then remember your site will never have good ranking in search engine after Google Panda update. It is very important to remove duplicate content and post original content on your website if you want your site on first page in Google. Now exclusivity has become more important word especially on Google.

You must always update your website with quality and original content. But we all know that it is not possible to change the content of ever page of the website. However, there is no need to get tense because I have a very good idea. You can add a blog section to your website and if you want then you can easily update blogs in this section every day. If you will add unique and good blogs in your website then this will not only help to improve your search engine ranking but it will also increase website traffic. You must keep in mind that your blogs must be informative also.

Before adding blog section in your website you must keep in mind that you must use suitable categories and navigation for your blog. This will help you to get better results in search engine.

It is true that the best way to earn money is Google Adsense but you must be very careful because due to too many advertisements on your website you can lose your ranking in search engine. After the Google Panda update the ranking of the website not only depends on the content but the ratio of advertisements also matters. If you will keep these tips in mind then it will help you to get better ranking in Google and other search engine.

Best Breakfast To Lose Fat

Try The Best Breakfast To Lose Fat With The Proper Guide

Have you ever heard about the importance of breakfast? Breakfast is the most essential meal of the day. You never know that taking breakfast properly is important for successful and immediate weight loss. You can say that the breakfast seems as placing logs on a stove that is burning using the woods. It means that you need to give your body an initial fuel to make the important part of the metabolism. Get ready to burn 400 to 600 calories just within an hour of waking up by targeting the nutrients that will make you completely satisfied for many options.

These options include fiber and protein, healthy fats. You definitely need to try them and have a perfect belly shape, which you want to get. Taking the best breakfast to lose fat is important.

What are the popular options?

There are different breakfast options, you can consider, when it comes to losing fat. Read the below mentioned foods or diet for your breakfast:

  • You can take omelet with broccoli, avocado and small slices of hot pepper. Avocados are the ideal fruit from the Mother Nature to lose the weight. If you want to feel full for a long time, then you can add volume of substances with minimal calories.
  • Yogurt is the ideal weight loss product, but it must be topped with a high fiber cereal and fresh fruit. The fat in the yogurt includes conjugated linoleic acid, which is considered as the best way to have lean muscles and shaped body. It is important to keep in mind that the yogurt must be plain and low fat because of the absence of added sugar or preservatives.
  • For a healthy option in the breakfast time, you can go for a shake, which is prepared with strawberries, whey protein and cinnamon. All these products are the fat burning things, which can help you in assisting with your metabolism. Drinking shake can make you feel full and control hunger levels for a long time.

Take a professional guide

Sometimes, people are unable to follow the right breakfast options in a right manner. It is advised to go for professional support so that they can give you the suggestion for the best breakfast to lose fat. They use their experience and knowledge to give you the best and effective advices, which you can add in your diet and most importantly, lifestyle to get benefited from them to have a perfect slimming body.

Most Common Preventions for Blood Clots

Most Common Preventions for Blood Clots

Although blood clots are sometimes naturally produced in the body, in order to stop bleeding, they can also be very devastating and dangerous. When something goes wrong, it is possible for blood clots to lead to very serious problems, such as a heart attack or a stroke. Of course, even more serious medical situations can occur, when a blood clot goes wrong. When experiencing a blood clot, it is of the utmost importance to seek medical assistance and treatment immediately, in order to avoid more serious problems. Thankfully, there are many ways to prevent blood clots. Below, you will discover the causes, symptoms and preventions of blood clots.

Common Causes

When it comes down to it, there are many different causes, which can be associated with serious blood clots. As the body begins to grow older, it will become more susceptible to these problems, but younger individuals can also get clots, depending on their overall health. For instance, an individual, who is overly obese, will be much more likely to develop this problem. On the other hand, you should take extra precaution, after you’ve had a surgery, since you will become more vulnerable to getting a blood clot. Of course, those, who suffer from varicose veins or spider veins, are at a higher risk.

The Symptoms

 When it comes down to it, there are some very specific symptoms that will become noticeable, when you begin suffering from a blood clot. For instance, you will start to notice swelling in your extremities, especially your legs. The skin will also begin to grow red. On the other hand, the skin around the clot will become sore and painful. If you begin experiencing these problems, it is absolutely crucial that you head to the doctor or emergency room, as soon as possible and get appropriate treatment.

The Dangers

It is very common knowledge that blood clots can be extremely dangerous. If you let a clot become too severe, it is possible that it will start to impact your lungs, which will make it difficult for you to breath. This will also cause you to experience chest pain and an accelerated heartbeat. You may also begin to cough up blood, which is definitely a bad sign.

There are many different ways to prevent blood clots. For instance, you will want to remember that IVC filters can be used for preventing blood clots. On the other hand, it is possible to wear loose clothing and socks, in order to lower your risks. If you find yourself sitting or laying for long periods of time, you should lift your legs above your heart at specific intervals. If your doctor has prescribed you with medication for your condition, it is crucial to take the medication, as ordered. If the condition is worse than simply taking over the counter medication, you want to consult with vascular surgeons who understand the conditions better.

The truth of the matter is that blood clots can be extremely dangerous, but it is possible to prevent them, if you take the necessarily actions. Remember that IVC filters can be used for prevention and necessary action should be taken immediately.

Heroin Recovery Treatment

Heroin is a standout amongst the most addictive opiates in history. Individuals have been known to wind up dependent on heroin from their first exposure to it, and they must be hospitalized to start recuperation from heroin overdose. When somebody gets to be subject to a medication, for example, heroin, they need to get a greater amount of it to get the same high. The phenomena called “pursuing the mythical beast,” applies to this concept of always chasing that first “high” feeling. This can prompt medication overdose and demise. More than 2 million individuals in the United States are evaluated to be heroin clients starting 2012.

heroin won't be found here don't try it

Indications of Heroin Overdose

In the event that you discover somebody who has overdosed, dial 911 promptly and be ready to tell the dispatcher the individual’s condition. In the mean time, don’t incite the patient to vomit. You ought to figure out how to perceive the accompanying indications of a heroin overdose:

  • Blue cast to skin or nails
  • Muscle twitching
  • Disarray or confusion
  • Trance like state
  • Needle punctures close to the veins (indicates injection points)

What is the Treatment for Overdose

Recovery from a heroin overdose addiction will probably begin with a stay at the hospital followed by a stay at a detox center. The patient will be put in a coma if necessary, be given an IV trickle for fluids, and be controlled an opioid antagonist, for example, naloxone. This is a medication that neutralizes the impacts of heroin in the body. Contingent upon the seriousness of the manifestations, a more drawn out stay may be needed. After release, you ought to be arranged to have the individual admitted to a heroin detox center or inpatient drug rehab facility. A few elements ought to be considered when searching for a heroin overdose treatment centers that are ideal for your loved one.

Time span and Cost

Likewise with any medication, the accurate time of recuperation from heroin overdose or addiction will change between individuals. Simply detoxing from the substance won’t be sufficient; the individual will need to experience rehab of some kind which can last anywhere from 1-4 months. However, recovery from addiction is a lifetime event. Rehab can be costly, infrequently costing thousands every month, however, some insurance policies do cover drug and alcohol rehab treatment.


MIT-Led Panel Backs Geothermal ‘Heat Mining’ as a Key U.S. Energy Source:

A study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has found that geothermal energy in the United States could achieve a capacity of 100,000 megawatts — enough to supply about 25 million homes — in 50 years at an eventual cost of just $40 million a year. That would represent about 6 percent of the current U.S. electricity supply – replacing aging nuclear and coal plants with an environmentally friendly alternative. The proposed program would require a combined public and private investment of $800 million to $1 billion in the first 15 years — about the same money needed to build one new clean-coal power plant, the study said. The study is described by the researchers as the most far-reaching on the subject in 30 years.

The Future of Geothermal Energy – Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems on the United States in the 21st Century:


A comprehensive new MIT-led study of the potential for geothermal energy within the United States has found that mining the huge amounts of heat that reside as stored thermal energy in the Earth’s hard rock crust could supply a substantial portion of the electricity the United States will need in the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact.

An 18-member panel led by MIT prepared the 400-plus page study, titled “The Future of Geothermal Energy,” and released it on January 22, 2007. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, it is the first study in some 30 years to take a new look at geothermal, an energy resource that has been largely ignored.

The goal of the study was to assess the feasibility, potential environmental impacts and economic viability of using enhanced geothermal system (EGS) technology to greatly increase the fraction of the U.S. geothermal resource that could be recovered commercially.

Although geothermal energy is produced commercially today and the United States is the world’s biggest producer, existing U.S. plants have focused on the high-grade geothermal systems primarily located in isolated regions of the west. This new study takes a more ambitious look at this resource and evaluates its potential for much larger-scale deployment.

“We’ve determined that heat mining can be economical in the short term, based on a global analysis of existing geothermal systems, an assessment of the total U.S. resource and continuing improvements in deep-drilling and reservoir stimulation technology,” said panel head Jefferson W. Tester, the H. P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT.

“EGS technology has already been proven to work in the few areas where underground heat has been successfully extracted. And further technological improvements can be expected,” he said.

The expert panel offers a number of recommendations to develop geothermal as a major electricity supplier for the nation. These include more detailed and site-specific assessments of the U.S. geothermal resource and a multiyear federal commitment to demonstrate the concept in the field at commercial scale.

The new assessment of geothermal energy by energy experts, geologists, drilling specialists and others is important for several key reasons, Tester said.

First, fossil fuels–coal, oil and natural gas–are increasingly expensive and consumed in ever-increasing amounts. Second, oil and gas imports from foreign sources raise concerns over long-term energy security. Third, burning fossil fuels dumps carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Finally, heat mining has the potential to supply a significant amount of the country’s electricity currently being generated by conventional fossil fuel, hydroelectric and nuclear plants.

The study shows that drilling several wells to reach hot rock and connecting them to a fractured rock region that has been stimulated to let water flow through it creates a heat-exchanger that can produce large amounts of hot water or steam to run electric generators at the surface. Unlike conventional fossil-fuel power plants that burn coal, natural gas or oil, no fuel would be required. And unlike wind and solar systems, a geothermal plant works night and day, offering a non-interruptible source of electric power.

Prof. Tester and panel member David Blackwell, professor of geophysics at Southern Methodist University in Texas, also point out that geothermal resources are available nationwide, although the highest-grade sites are in western states, where hot rocks are closer to the surface, requiring less drilling and thus lowering costs.

The panel also evaluated the environmental impacts of geothermal development, concluding that these are “markedly lower than conventional fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants.”

“This environmental advantage is due to low emissions and the small overall footprint of the entire geothermal system, which results because energy capture and extraction is contained entirely underground, and the surface equipment needed for conversion to electricity is relatively compact,” Tester said.

The report also notes that meeting water requirements for geothermal plants may be an issue, particularly in arid regions. Further, the potential for seismic risk needs to be carefully monitored and managed.

According to panel member M. Nafi Toksцz, professor of geophysics at MIT, “geothermal energy could play an important role in our national energy picture as a non-carbon-based energy source. It’s a very large resource and has the potential to be a significant contributor to the energy needs of this country.”

Toksцz added that the electricity produced annually by geothermal energy systems now in use in the United States at sites in California, Hawaii, Utah and Nevada is comparable to that produced by solar and wind power combined. And the potential is far greater still, since hot rocks below the surface are available in most parts of the United States.

Even in the most promising areas, however, drilling must reach depths of 5,000 feet or more in the west, and much deeper in the eastern United States. Still, “the possibility of drilling into these rocks, fracturing them and pumping water in to produce steam has already been shown to be feasible,” Toksцz said.

Panel member Brian Anderson, an assistant professor at West Virginia University, noted that the drilling and reservoir technologies used to mine heat have many similarities to those used for extracting oil and gas. As a result, the geothermal industry today is well connected technically to two industry giants in the energy arena, oil and gas producers and electric power generators. With increasing demand for technology advances to produce oil and gas more effectively and to generate electricity with minimal carbon and other emissions, an opportunity exists to accelerate the development of EGS by increased investments by these two industries.

Government-funded research into geothermal was very active in the 1970s and early 1980s. As oil prices declined in the mid-1980s, enthusiasm for alternative energy sources waned, and funding for research on renewable energy and energy efficiency (including geothermal) was greatly reduced, making it difficult for geothermal technology to advance. “Now that energy concerns have resurfaced, an opportunity exists for the U.S. to pursue the EGS option aggressively to meet long-term national needs,” Tester observed.

Tester and colleagues emphasize that federally funded engineering research and development must still be done to lower risks and encourage investment by early adopters. Of particular importance is to demonstrate that EGS technology is scalable and transferable to sites in different geologic settings.

In its report, the panel recommends that:

  • More detailed and site-specific assessments of the U.S. geothermal energy resource should be conducted.
  • Field trials running three to five years at several sites should be done to demonstrate commercial-scale engineered geothermal systems.
  • The shallow, extra-hot, high-grade deposits in the west should be explored and tested first.
  • Other geothermal resources such as co-produced hot water associated with oil and gas production and geopressured resources should also be pursued as short-term options.
  • On a longer time scale, deeper, lower-grade geothermal deposits should be explored and tested.
  • Local and national policies should be enacted that encourage geothermal development.
  • A multiyear research program exploring subsurface science and geothermal drilling and energy conversion should be started, backed by constant analysis of results.

Besides Tester, Blackwell, Toksцz and Anderson, members of the panel include: geomechanics expert Anthony Batchelor, managing director of GeoScience Ltd. in the United Kingdom; reservoir engineer Roy Baria from the United Kingdom; geophysicists Maria Richards and Petru Negraru at Southern Methodist University; mechanical engineer Ronald DiPippo, an emeritus professor at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth; risk analyst Elisabeth Drake at MIT; chemist John Garnish, former director of geothermal programs of the European Commission; drilling expert Bill Livesay; economist Michael Moore at the University of Calgary in Canada, former California energy commissioner and chief economist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; commercial power conversion engineer Kenneth Nichols; geothermal industry expert Susan Petty; and petroleum engineering consultant Ralph Veatch Jr. Additional project support came from Chad Augustine, Enda Murphy and Gwen Wilcox at MIT.

  1. # # # # # #

The complete 372-page report “The Future of Geothermal Energy – Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems on the United States in the 21st Century” can be found at: <>

An article describing this report appeared in MIT’s “Tech Talk” on January 24, 2007 and can be found at <>

A Reuters story on this report appeared in the “New York Times” on January 22, 2007 and can be found at: <>


Solar Roadmap for Arizona Unveiled – Report Touts Solar Energy’s Bright Future in the State:

Arizona could generate up to 1,000 megawatts of solar electricity and create 3,000 jobs by 2020 by supporting solar-energy technologies and boosting the state’s solar-electric industry, a state report says.



On January 19, 2007, the Arizona Department of Commerce released the state’s recently completed “Solar Roadmap Study” which projects up to 1,000 megawatts of solar electricity could be implemented in Arizona by 2020 creating more than 3,000 new jobs in the process and reducing emissions by 400,000 tons per year.

The roadmap calls upon the public and private sector to launch several new program initiatives that will accelerate the adoption of solar energy technologies and develop a robust solar electric industry within Arizona.

“I’ve long said Arizona is the ‘Saudi Arabia of solar energy’ within the United States, yet the vast solar resource of the state and its economic potential remain largely untapped,” said Governor Janet Napolitano. “Developing these technologies will provide substantial economic benefit for Arizona while reducing air pollutant emissions, creating jobs, and redirecting the amount of money that flows out of state for energy.”

Currently over $6 billion out of the more than $10 billion that Arizonans spend on energy annually goes out of state.

“We must work to develop more sustainable energy sources in Arizona,” said Arizona Department of Commerce Director Jan Lesher. “New approaches to energy efficiency and the development of the state’s clean energy resources will create good, high-wage jobs for Arizonans.”

“As the economic, social and political forces all align around the need for renewable energy, Arizona is seizing the moment with this report and the initiative that will follow,” said Fred Duval, roadmap committee member and President of DuVal and Associates. “It is, indeed, our moment in the sun.”

Public sector Roadmap initiatives call for the Energy Office to establish the Arizona Sustainability Partners program and a marketing and outreach program to attract solar manufacturing companies to Arizona.

“Bringing this resource to widespread use will require cooperation among all of the key stakeholders: the solar industry, utilities, government, and the consumers of electricity,” noted Lee Edwards, roadmap committee member and President and CEO of BP Solar.

  1. # # # # #

Solar Roadmap Highlights (with corresponding study page numbers)

• CEDC and Arizona Department of Commerce commissioned this project to help inform the strategy for future business development in the solar industry.

• AZ has the potential to become a world leader in many aspects of solar development, and is a model location for the evolution of new solar technologies. (Page 2)

• Currently, customer sited PV is more expensive than retail electricity, but future expected cost reductions will close the cost gap. (Page 9)

• Technology improvements/cost reductions will allow central solar to compete with conventional baseload and intermediate generation. (Page 11)

• Cost of electricity from parabolic trough is near the cost of peaking power today, with costs expected to decline by more than 50 percent by 2025. (Page 13)

• Total solar deployment could exceed 2,600 MW in the accelerated scenario with rooftop PV accounting for about 45 percent of the capacity (2025). (Page 17)

• The accelerated scenario for solar could add over 3,000 jobs in 2020 (Page 18)

• Emission reduction is estimated at 400,000 tons per year in an accelerated scenario in 2020. (Page 19)

• If some barriers can be overcome, there is potential for annual installations of more than 250 MW/yr in 2020. (Page 23)

• Implementing the roadmap initiatives will allow Arizona to build upon its assets and policies to establish a leadership position in fostering solar. (Page 30)

• As of June 2006, nine states have RPS bills introduced and three are considering increasing RPS targets, including the Arizona target. (Page 47)

• Arizona renewable energy funds are expected to provide approximately $13.5 million in 2006, and more than $50 million a year upon implementation of Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff (REST). (Page 49)

• PV can be sited at customer premises to compete with retail power, but high first cost is still a major barrier to broader market penetration. (Page 65)

• The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates the technical potential for concentrating solar power at ~2.5 GW in Arizona. This is almost three times the potential for California. (Page 75)

• Arizona roof space available on residential buildings for PV installations is around 27 percent of total roof area. Not considering economics, the rooftop area available for residential PV could support ~7.5 GW of installations in 2025. (page 106 and 107). (Editors Note, this is roughly twice the size of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.)

• The roof space available in commercial buildings for PV installations is around 60 percent of total roof area. Not considering economics, the rooftop area available for commercial building PV could support ~7 GW of installations in 2025. (Page 108 and 109).

• Arizona technical market potential in 2025 is 14,520 MW (7,485 residential and 7,035 commercial) (Page 116)

• NCI along with the Steering Committee identified five initiatives and policies that would address three goals and ambitions. (Page 158 -167)

  1. # # # # # #

To read the 23-page Executive Summary, please go to: <>

To access the complete 189-page “Solar Roadmap” study, please go to: <>

A story about this study appears in the January 20, 2007 issue of the “Arizona Daily Star” and can be found at: <>


New Report Touts Vast Energy Efficiency Potential in Texas; Challenges TXU, Other Utilities’ Call for Costly New Power Plants:

Here’s a way to avoid spending billions of dollars on proposed high-polluting power plants in Texas: Saving energy. A new report concludes that Texas can meet its growing energy needs without spending money on expensive new power plants.

“Power to Save: An Alternative Path to Meet Electric Needs in Texas”

Here’s a way to avoid spending billions of dollars on proposed high-polluting power plants in Texas: Saving energy.

A new report released January 17, 2007 concludes that Texas can meet its growing energy needs at lower cost, and with significantly less pollution by using new incentives for businesses and consumers in the state, and requiring utility companies to invest in cost-effective energy savings before the spend money on expensive new plants. Together, the report says these strategies would yield nearly $50 billion in savings and other economic benefits to Texas over the next 15 years with an investment of $11 billion – a dividend of more than four to one.

“Texas has outstanding opportunities to meet its energy needs safely, reliably and affordably, without building dozens more smokestacks,” said Tim Greeff of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “Investment in cost-effective energy savings is an investment in cleaner air, lower energy bills and a stronger Texas economy.”

Each dollar in energy savings initiatives would generate $4.40 in savings, according to the study, which was prepared for the NRDC and the investor coalition Ceres by researchers at Optimal Energy, an energy efficiency consulting firm. Altogether, the energy saving programs could reduce peak energy demand in Texas by more than 18,500 megawatts – equivalent to the output of 20 large power plants – due to dramatic reductions in electricity use. The report findings are based in part on successful energy efficiency initiatives already in place in Austin and other parts of the country.

“Smarter strategies can provide Texas with all the energy it needs while maintaining a vibrant, robust economy,” said Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres, which directs a $3.7 trillion network of investors focused on the business impacts from climate change. “Energy efficiency is a cheaper, less-risky solution to the state’s energy needs than betting its future on costly coal-fired power plants.”

Nineteen new power plants are currently proposed in Texas, including 11 new coal-fired power plants, costing an estimated $10 billion, by the TXU Corp.

“The cheapest energy is energy you don’t have to produce and buy in the first place,” said Philip H. Mosenthal, founding partner of Optimal Energy and the report’s lead author. “Numerous technologies exist to dramatically reduce homeowner and business energy use economically, while providing greater comfort and productivity. Texas has an opportunity to become a leader in clean energy development that will ensure its energy system reliability while saving billions of dollars, dramatically reducing global warming emissions, and creating jobs and strengthening local economies.”

The report, Power to Save: An Alternative Path to Meet Electric Needs in Texas, evaluates the potential benefits from enhanced energy efficiency efforts in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Austin and other parts of the state covered by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). The region includes 75 percent of the state’s area and 85 percent of its overall electricity demand.

The report shows that by investing $11 billion in proven programs and policies focused on more efficient appliances, office equipment and building codes, as well as utility incentives, the Texas economy would achieve $49 billion of economic benefits – a net economic benefit of $38 billion.

The report cites the following additional benefits from enhanced energy efficiency efforts:

    • Eliminate more than 80 percent of forecasted growth in electricity demand, which ERCOT now projects will grow 2.3 percent a year on average through 2020 without efficiency efforts.
    • Save energy at a cost of less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to more than 7 cents per kilowatt-hour by securing electricity from existing power plants.
    • Save 20,700 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity each year by 2011 and over 80,000 GWh annually by 2021, enough energy to power more than seven million households.
    • Prevent 52 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually by 2021, over 20 percent of Texas’ current emissions associated with electricity use and equal to the emissions from 10 million cars. Total CO2 emission reductions over the life of the efficiency improvements would be 400 million metric tons.

For every $1 invested, Texas would recoup about $4.40 in economic benefits from lower costs to consumers and savings for utilities from reduced power-plant capacity and delivery costs.

The conclusions are consistent with those reported by the Western Governor’s Association 2006 Energy Efficiency Task Force, which found that adoption of best practices and policies for just energy efficiency could reduce load growth by about 75 percent over the next 15 years.

The new findings also include a preliminary evaluation of potential benefits from better maximizing combined heat and power (CHP) and demand response resources. By also tapping those sources, overall electricity demand could be reduced by 0.5 percent a year – eliminating the need for any new power plants altogether.

CHP refers to the generation of both electricity and useful heat energy, usually by an industrial energy consumer for use at their own facility. Demand response refers to technologies and strategies that enable facilities to reduce the power consumption of their customers during high demand periods using various approaches, including pricing and remote controls.

The report includes specific recommendations for achieving the energy efficiency goals, among those:

    • Increase the state’s efficiency resource standard (ERS) from 10 percent of new load growth to at least 50 percent and preferably 75 percent as recommended by the Western Governor’s Association. A 50 percent ERS means that half of a utility’s new load growth must come from energy efficiency resources.
    • Expand investment in energy efficiency programs, such as is occurring in other states and parts of Texas. Some utilities spend more than three percent of their annual revenues on energy efficiency, seven times more than the 0.4 percent that Texas investor-owned utilities such as TXU spend.
    • Require electric utilities to invest in all cost-effective efficiency resources, removing disincentives to utility investment in efficiency, and giving them the flexibility to design and deliver programs in response to customer and market needs.
    • Require the Public Utility Commission of Texas to review the potential for energy efficiency and demand side management and update efficiency goals and programs every two years.

This report is the first of several reports that will be released over the next few months regarding energy efficiency and demand-side management potential in Texas. A soon-to-be-released report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) will examine the efficiency potential in greater detail and make specific policy recommendations for Texas. The report will also include a detailed examination of CHP, demand response and on-site renewables potential.

The full 24-page report “Power to Save: An Alternative Path to Meet Electric Needs in Texas” is available at <>

  1. # # # # # #

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.2 million members and online activists nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Ceres is a leading coalition of investors, environmental groups and other public interest organizations working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as climate change. It directs the Investor Network on Climate Change, a network of more than 50 leading investors with collective assets totaling $3.7 trillion. For more information, visit Optimal Energy, Inc (OEI) is recognized as a leader in energy efficiency planning, program design, and analysis, particularly in the commercial, institutional, and industrial sectors. OEI is the chief architect of Efficiency Vermont, the nation’s first and only Efficiency Utility and recognized internationally as using one of the most innovative approaches to delivering energy efficiency education and savings to utility customers. OEI has designed and assisted in the implementation of “best practice” efficiency initiatives throughout the U.S., Canada and China.


Tackling Global Warming at the Local Level – U.S. Cities Are Struggling to Meet Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets:

Institute for Local Self-Reliance, January 10, 2007

The January 2007 report, “Lessons from the Pioneers: Tackling Global Warming at the Local Level” by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), looks at ten of the most visible and successful cities involved in global warming solutions and finds that reducing GHG emissions below 1990 levels will be a major challenge. Many cities will likely not meet their goals unless complementary state and federal policies are put in place very soon.

As of early January 2007, 355 mayors in communities representing over 54 million Americans in 49 states have signed the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement (formalized in June 2005). Participating cities agree to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2012 to at least 7 percent below 1990 levels. The number of communities involved promises a diversity of strategies and a steep learning curve as communities learn from one another what works, and what doesn’t work.

ILSR is very supportive of the U.S. Mayor’s initiative and encourages other cities to join the effort if they are fully committed to the challenge (see for information on how to sign on)

ILSR surveyed the climate change activities in 10 cities to find out how well these “Kyoto cities” were doing in meeting their goals and what strategies and methodologies they were using. The overriding conclusion is that, despite their commitment and their elaboration of significant programs, reducing GHG emissions below 1990 levels will be a major challenge. Many cities will likely fail in their attempts to meet their goals unless complementary state and federal policies are put in place. Our findings include:

The methodologies and assumptions used to create GHG inventories differ among communities, making comparisons between cities problematic. Convenient access to the data was sometimes lacking. A standard GHG estimation methodology is not yet in place, but useable models exist. Convergence and standardization may come soon. Transparency of assumptions is critical.

In all cities, community-wide emissions have risen since 1990, sometimes dramatically. Based on progress to date, it is unlikely that more than one or two of our ten cities and quite possibly none, will reduce their GHG emissions seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Overall emissions increases ranged from 6.5 percent to 27 percent from 1990 baseline measurements. An exception was Portland, Oregon, which reports a tiny 0.7 percent increase above the 1990 baseline.

Almost all of the cities we surveyed were expecting to realize a significant portion of their GHG reductions as a result of actions taken by higher levels of government (e.g. a state-level renewable portfolio standard or an increase in federal fuel economy standards). Relying too heavily on strategies out of the city’s direct control could stunt creative local solutions and inhibit the city’s investments in energy-related projects that have ancillary economic and environmental benefits.

Cities are not investing significant amounts of their own money to reduce GHG emissions. This may be understandable, given tight budgets, but cities should remember that energy-related investments, unlike many public investments, repay themselves, often in relatively short time frames.

The full 17-page report can be downloaded at <>


The Potential for Renewable Energy in Iowa

Clean energy policies could save Iowa consumers more than $1 billion, create 5,000 jobs and cut fossil-fuel pollution by 2020, Environment Iowa said in new report.

Executive Summary

Iowa can be a leader in renewable energy, providing home-grown power to increase our state’s and country’s energy security. Fortunately, investing in clean energy policies would generate new high-paying jobs, save consumers and businesses billions of dollars, and boost Iowa’s economy while reducing power plant pollution. Both reducing demand through energy efficiency and diversifying our electricity mix with renewable energy sources also will solve the problems of Iowa’s current reliance on coal, oil, gas, and nuclear power for electricity generation – a legacy of environmental and public health problems. This legacy also includes volatile price fluctuations, costing consumers dearly on electricity bills.

Over the past 50 years, the federal government has provided more than $500 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, investing a fraction of that in energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar and geothermal. As a result, coal, nuclear power, oil and gas provide more than 95 percent of Iowa’s electricity. This dependence on fossil fuels carries severe public health consequences, including asthma attacks, respiratory disease, heart attacks, and premature deaths. Moreover, fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, pollute the environment from the point of extraction to combustion in the form of global warming, acid rain, oil spills and runoff pollution. At the same time, nuclear power has left us with a nuclear waste problem for which no safe solution exists.

Despite the environmental and public health implications of relying on fossil fuels and nuclear power to meet our energy needs, the federal government continues to push energy policies that would offer more of the same. Last year’s federal energy proposals included billions of dollars in new and extended tax breaks for oil and gas drilling, loan guarantees and federal subsidies for building new coal plants, and incentives to build the first new nuclear power plants in 30 years. This continued investment in fossil fuels and nuclear energy ignores recent research documenting the potential to meet more of our electricity needs with energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy.

We can rely on clean energy resources; in fact, the technical potential of wind, clean biomass, and geothermal resources in the United States is four times greater than our current total electricity consumption. Here in Iowa, we could generate 17 times our current electricity usage from renewable energy sources such as wind and clean biomass. Additionally, conservative estimates suggest that energy efficiency programs could reduce our electricity use in Iowa by 18 to 28 percent. Rather than import dirty coal and rely on outdated fossil fuels, Iowa should harness its homegrown sources of renewable energy, including wind, solar and biomass, and lead the development of energy for the 21st Century.

Proponents of the dirty energy status quo contend that investing in fossil fuels and nuclear power are essential for a healthy and vibrant economy and that diverting investment to renewables and efficiency will cost us jobs and increase costs to consumers. A growing body of literature, however, shows that investing in energy efficiency and technologies such as wind and solar power boosts local economies and creates jobs, particularly in a state such as Iowa, whose renewable energy resources are great. Moreover, investing in renewables and energy efficiency helps to diversify the electricity market and reduces consumer dependence on coal and natural gas, thereby saving consumers money and shielding them from fluctuations in market prices.

This brings us to the central question of this report: what would be the economic and consumer impacts of pursuing clean energy policies?

Specifically, we examined the economic and consumer impacts of pursuing two different scenarios involving renewable energy and energy efficiency policies:

Scenario 1: Enacting a 20 percent clean renewable energy standard, commonly referred to as a renewable portfolio standard or RPS, which would require Iowa to generate 20 percent of its electricity from clean energy by the year 2020, and funding publicly-run energy efficiency programs in Iowa with $50 million each year from 2007 to 2020; and

Scenario 2: Enacting a 20 percent clean renewable energy standard and funding publicly-run energy efficiency programs with $100 million each year from 2007 to 2020 in Iowa, which would eliminate Iowa’s projected 1.5 percent yearly increase in electricity demand.

We found that implementing these clean energy policies would greatly benefit the economy and consumers in Iowa while reducing air pollution from power plants.

In Iowa, the clean energy policies of Scenario 1 would:

• Create 2,340 net jobs in 2020 and a net annual average of 1,413 jobs between 2005 and 2020; Increase wages by $31 million in 2020;

• Save all consumers—residential, commercial, and industrial—$147 million on energy bills cumulatively by 2020 and in 2020 would cut expected electricity demand by 10 percent;

• Reduce global warming carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by eight percent of 2002 levels; smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions by seven and one-half percent of 2002 levels; and soot-forming sulfur dioxide emissions by six and one half percent of 2002 levels, all by 2020.

In Iowa, investing in these clean energy policies in Scenario 2 would:

• Create 5,166 net jobs in 2020 and a net annual average of 2,679 jobs between 2005 and 2020; Increase wages by $37 million in 2020;

• Save all consumers—residential, commercial, and industrial—$1.086 billion on energy bills cumulatively by 2020 and in 2020 would cut expected electricity demand by 20 percent;

• Reduce global warming carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 11 percent of 2002 levels; smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions by nine percent of 2002 levels; and soot-forming sulfur dioxide emissions by eight percent of 2002 levels, all by 2020.

The findings of this report—and hence the title—underscore the benefits of Redirecting Iowa’s Energy. Strong support for energy conservation and efficiency, coupled with increased emphasis on the development of renewable energy, can help solve our current energy problems, provide a significant boost to the economy and move us towards a safer, healthier energy future.