Martin Kushler - November 17, 2011Presentation Transcript
by Martin Kushler, Ph.D. Senior Fellow American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy INSPIRING MUNICIPAL UTILITIES TO MAXIMIZE ENERGY EFFICIENCY… AS A SYSTEM RESOURCE,AND LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Energy Efficiency as a utility system resource
BPA as top national example
Burlington, VT as excellent municipal EE example
Energy Efficiency as economic development:
Understanding the economic problem
Why Energy Efficiency should be the cornerstone solution for municipal utilities
PART 1 RATIONALE FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AS A UTILITY SYSTEM RESOURCE
Utility systems need to have adequate supply resources to meet customer demand
To keep the system in balance, you can add supply resources, reduce customer demand, or a combination of the two
In virtually all cases today, it is much cheaper to reduce customer demand than to acquire new supply resources
[True for electricity and natural gas]
KEY POINT #1
It is much cheaper to save energy
than it is to produce it.
[We can save electricity for about one-third the cost of producing it through a new power plant
… . With no carbon (CO 2 ) emissions]
Cost of New Electricity Resources Source: Lazard 2008 for NARUC (midpoint of range)
WHAT IS AN “ ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM ” ?
An organized and comprehensive effort to try to encourage customers (residential and business) to implement energy efficiency improvements
Public information, education and persuasion
Information, training, and incentives to “trade allies” (retailers, contractors, etc.)
Economic incentives for customers (e.g., rebates)
Quality control, monitoring, and evaluation
[Customers can often save 10-30% on utility bills]
UTILITY ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE VERY COST-EFFECTIVE
In ACEEE’s latest analysis*, we reviewed the reported results from 14 states with large-scale utility funded energy efficiency programs.
The average cost per kWh saved was 2.5 cents.
Saving Energy Cost-Effectively: A National Review of the Cost of Energy Saved through Utility-Sector Energy Efficiency Programs, ACEEE, Sept. 2009
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ON A “ POWER PLANT ” SCALE
Some leading state examples
Minnesota has saved over 2,300 MW since 1990
The Pacific Northwest has saved over 2,200 MW over a similar timeframe
California has saved over 1,500 MW in the last 5 years
At least a dozen states have EE programs on a scale large enough to displace power plants (i.e., save 0.4% to over 1.0% of load each year)
CA, CT, IA, IL, MA, MI, MN, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA, WI
THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST (ID, MT, OR, WA)
Best electric resource planning process in the U.S.
25 years of energy efficiency program experience
Last plan was to meet all new electricity resource needs through 2013, and two-thirds of new needs thru 2025, with energy efficiency
… .And all at a levelized cost of 2.4 cents/kWh
The Fifth Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan
Northwest Power and Conservation Council, May 2005.
5 th NW Plan Relied on Conservation and Renewable Resources to Meet All Load Growth Thru 2016 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 Year Installed Capacity (MW or aMW) Conservation (aMW) Wind (MW) DR (MW) SCGTurbine (MW) CCGTurbine (MW) Coal (ICG) (MW)
The Region Has Exceeded the 5 th Plan’s Energy Efficiency Targets Every Year
Utility Acquired Energy Efficiency Has Been A BARGAIN!
Avoided Costs Are Now Forecast to Be Significantly Higher
Draft 6 th Plan Goal: Meet 85% of Load Growth with Conservation
Pacific NW 6 th Plan Resource Portfolio (2010)
The Pacific Northwest provides a great example of what is possible….
Michigan needs to chart an energy course that is fundamentally based on energy efficiency and local Michigan renewable resources
Actually, Michigan has done some similar integrated resource planning analyses ….
In the Michigan 21 st Century Plan
(produced by the MPSC in 2007)
Coal: 10 cents/ kWh + carbon nat gas 8-9 cents/ kWh or 8-9 cents/ for purch. power
From Michigan 21 st Century Plan: Central Station Generation Scenario
Energy Efficiency 3 cents/ kWh (no carbon) Wind 7-8 cents/ kWh (no carbon) A little gas or purch. power
From Michigan 21 st Century Plan: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Scenario
MI 21 ST CENTURY PLAN CONCLUSIONS
“ modeling for the Plan showed that, in the absence of any energy efficiency programming , Michigan would need no fewer than four new 500 MW baseload units by 2015 to meet forecasted demand. With energy efficiency programming , the model decreased the forecasted need to two new baseload units on a staggered basis; and with the addition of the RPS, this projection has been decreased further to one new unit by 2015.”
“ By displacing traditional fossil fuel energy, the energy efficiency program alone could save Michigan $3 billion in electricity costs over the next 20 years . These results compare favorably to other statewide energy efficiency programs.”
IF THE MPSC 21 ST CENTURY PLAN ANALYSIS WAS REPEATED NOW:
Coal plants wouldn’t be selected at all
Load growth is virtually flat
Coal costs now are over 10 cents/kWh (vs. 6 cents in original study)
Energy Efficiency still by far the first priority
Renewables and gas would fill in the remaining need
[Result would look extremely similar to the Pacific NW plans seen earlier]
NEW COAL PLANTS ARE VERY COSTLY TO RATEPAYERS
Coal plant construction costs have doubled over the past decade, and coal fuel costs have soared
10 Michigan counties in the UP faced a 33% rate increase in 2010 from WE Energies new coal plant going into rates
The Illinois Municipal Electric Agency (IMEA) is facing an over 30% rate increase from its 15% share of a new coal plant whose costs have doubled
The MPSC staff estimated the proposed Wolverine coal plant in Rogers City would raise rates by nearly 60%
[And Michigan has to import 100% of the coal we burn]
ENERGY EFFICIENCY vs. RENEWABLE ENERGY: POLICY IMPACTS ON ELECTRIC SYSTEM COSTS [Source: Next Energy & EOS study for MDEQ, 2007] -8% -7% -6% -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Difference from Base Case EE1 EE2 RPS1 RPS2 RPS1-EE1 RPS2-EE2
Michigan has made some good initial steps (e.g., PA 295 of 2008) toward this lower-cost energy efficiency path….
Our first RPS
Our first EERS
But stronger action is needed!
HOW DOES MICHIGAN COMPARE TO OTHER STATES?
A BIT OF HISTORY: MICHIGAN WAS ONCE A LEADER IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY
In the early 1990’s, Michigan was among the national leaders in utility efficiency programs.
Our top utilities were spending 1 to 2% of revenues on energy efficiency
Independent evaluations documented that the energy efficiency programs were very cost-effective (1.5 to 2.6 cents per kWh saved)…less than half the cost of new electric supply.
The programs were very popular with the public
MICHIGAN’S “LOST DECADE”
Michigan’s utility energy efficiency programs were terminated in 1996, in the rush to utility deregulation
[Many other states maintained their energy efficiency programs, and have realized hundreds of millions of dollars in utility cost savings.]
The situation was finally corrected in 2008 when PA 295 was signed into law, requiring utility energy efficiency programs and setting annual energy savings requirements for electric and natural gas utilities.
Energy Efficiency Resource Standards HI: 4,300 GWh by 2030 20% of load growth by 2010 11.5% by 2020 10% of 2005 sales by 2020 1.5% annual by 2010 >2%% annual by 2015 VT: 2.0% annual now MA: 2.4% annually by 2012 CT: 1.5%/yr now 22 States –February 2010 DC: 20% by 2020 DE: 15% by 2015 ~10% by 2025 VA: 10% by 2020 2% annual by 2015 1.5% annual (post-2010) >1% annual by 2012 1% annual. By 2011 4% by 2020 0.6% annually 2% annual by 2019 1.0% annual by2012 Standard Voluntary Goal Pending Standard or Goal Combined RES/EERS MD: 15% by 2015 (relative to 2007 sales) 20% of 2005 sales by 2020 2% annual by 2019
Cumulative Electricity Savings of State EERS Policies Extrapolated to 2020 *Savings beginning in 2009 extrapolated out to 2020 based on final year of annual savings required Note: Assumptions and methodology detailed in full report State Cumulative 2020 Target State Cumulative 2020 Target Vermont* 27.00% Wisconsin* 13.50% Maryland* 26.70% Maine* 13.40% New York* 26.50% Connecticut* 13.14% Massachusetts 26.10% California 12.94% Rhode Island* 25.26% Ohio 12.13% Arizona 22.00% Michigan 10.55% Illinois 18.00% Oregon* 10.40% Hawaii* 18.00% Pennsylvania* 9.98% Washington 17.24% New Mexico 8.06% Minnesota 16.50% Arkansas* 6.75% Iowa* 16.10% Texas 4.60% Delaware 15.00% Florida 4.06% Colorado 14.93% Nevada 3.76% Indiana 13.81% North Carolina 2.92%
Results of ACEEE EERS “Progress Report”
AN EXCELLENT MUNICIPAL UTILITY EXAMPLE
BURLINGTON ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT BURLINGTON, VERMONT
~ 20,000 customers
16 square miles
70 MW peak demand
360,000 MWh annual sales
[36% from owned generation]
Average residential rate: 14 cents/kWh
BED web site: https://www.burlingtonelectric.com
see 2010 Energy Efficiency Annual Report
See 2008 Integrated Resource Plan
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AT BURLINGTON ELECTRIC
Started major energy efficiency programs in 1990
Operating under comprehensive IRP since 2002
Big EE investment … Big EE savings
2010 Energy Efficiency Funding
EE spending: 3.4% of revenues
EE charge to customers:
Residential: 7 mills/kWh ($ .007 per kWh)
Commercial: 6 mills/kWh
Industrial: 4.5 mills/kWh
ENERGY EFFICIENCY RESULTS AT BURLINGTON ELECTRIC
2010 Energy Efficiency Program Savings
1.8% of annual kWh sales
1.5% of peak demand
2010 Energy Efficiency Cost-Effectiveness
EE savings at 2.8 cents/kWh
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AS A RESOURCE AT BURLINGTON ELECTRIC
Energy Efficiency has essentially met all growth in electric service needs since 1989
(Electric consumption has remained virtually flat for over 20 years)
Cumulative savings since 1989: 29%
(& still saving 1.8% per year … .and going up)
California has nothing on Burlington!
PART 2 THE CASE FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHY DOES ALL THIS MATTER????
UNDERSTANDING THE ECONOMIC PROBLEM KEY POINT #2: ENERGY COSTS ARE A HUGE DOLLAR DRAIN
THE MICHIGAN EXAMPLE
Michigan is almost totally dependent on fuels imported from other states and countries (~ $24 billion per year)
100% of the coal and uranium we use
99% of oil & petroleum products
75% of the natural gas
[Most municipalities import 100% of all fuels]
Total Michigan Taxes vs. Michigan Energy Costs 2000 vs. 2008
COST OF MICHIGAN ’ S ENERGY IMPORTS
Before the new ‘high energy cost’ era (circa 2000), roughly $12 billion per year was leaving Michigan to pay for fuel imports
At 2008 market prices, this dollar outflow was over $24 billion per year
THIS IS A HUGE ECONOMIC DRAIN ON OUR STATE ECONOMY!
Economic Burden on Michigan Homes and Businesses: Taxes vs. Energy Costs (2008)
SOME ROUGH DATA FOR HOLLAND
Total Holland city budget (excluding the utilities)
A billion kWh/year would be $25 million/yr. leaving the community just to import coal
Plus natural gas, gasoline, & other fuels
EFFECTS ON HOUSEHOLDS
In 2002, the average household nationally spent about $3,000 on energy
[half for transportation, half for home uses]
Before the end of the decade, that amount was up to $4,600 per year … an increase of over 50%,
… . or $1,600 taken out of every household’s annual disposable income
EFFECTS ON THE STATE ECONOMY
This additional $12 billion annual drain on Michigan’s economy is roughly equivalent to the lost payroll from closing 120 major manufacturing plants .
Even the Wall Street Journal has written about the unprecedented transfer of wealth, calling it a “bonanza” and “windfall” for the handful of big energy producing states (i.e., AK, NM, ND, WY and TX) and countries (e.g., OPEC).
KEY POINT #3: MICHIGAN’S FUTURE IS NOT IN FOSSIL FUELS
MICHIGAN’S RECOVERABLE RESERVES AS A
SHARE OF U.S. RECOVERABLE RESERVES (Source: U.S. EIA)
Natural Gas: 1.3%
For a municipality like Holland, these are all 0%
Why would Michigan policymakers support policies that encourage greater consumption of these resources?
(At the local, state OR federal level !)
MICHIGAN (and Holland) SHOULD EMPHASIZE:
Locally-based Renewable Energy
State (and local) policy should be trying to maximize the amount of energy efficiency resources we can acquire,
… and minimize the amount of additional fuel imports we need
This includes minimizing the amount of new power plants that are dependent upon fuel imports
( This is in fact now the declared policy of a number of leading states….
… ..Including Michigan !!!!
“ The overall goal of an energy optimization plan shall be to reduce the future costs of provider service to customers. In particular, an EO plan shall be designed to delay the need for constructing new electric generating facilities and thereby protect consumers from incurring the costs of such construction .”
(PA 295, Section71)
KEY POINT #4
At the state and local level,
Michigan’s best opportunity
For economic development
THE ECONOMIC “TRIPLE PLAY”
Energy Efficiency is the only resource that boosts the economy and provides jobs in 3 key ways:
Direct employment in delivering the EE
Local re-spending of saved energy dollars
Reduced energy costs for all ratepayers
Cheapest resource for the utility system
Downward pressure on market energy prices
HOW LOCAL COMMUNITIES BENEFIT FROM UTILITY SECTOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS
Direct local employment (installers, electricians, skilled trades, service occupations and retail)
Direct savings on utility bills for customers participating in the energy efficiency programs (10-30% savings is possible)
Indirect benefit from reduced dollar drain from the community (i.e., re-spending of the $ savings by customers)
Reduced air emissions from fossil fuel combustion (& urban areas tend to have the most serious air quality problems …NOx, ozone, smog, mercury, particulates)
As a matter of economic policy, cities should be trying to maximize the amount of energy efficiency resources they can acquire, … and minimize the amount of additional fuel imports needed
FROM THE BURLINGTON 2010 EE ANNUAL REPORT: Energy efficiency expenditures are made almost entirely locally, typically in the form of professional services, skilled trades employment, and equipment purchases. Not only is the value of the City ’ s building and energy-using equipment improved, but locally-retained dollars are “ multiplied ” many times over by subsequent consumer spending. Absent these energy efficiency expenditures, these funds would have gone towards the purchase of electricity and enhanced infrastructure to satisfy increased demands on the City ’ s electrical system. Most of these dollars would have been exported out of state, and many out of the country. Energy Efficiency is a win-win situation for the city of Burlington through increased local economic activity, and through the avoidance of increasingly costly electricity purchases, their associated infrastructure growth and capital expenses, and their environmental impacts.
Most municipalities are 100% dependent upon imported fuels….this creates a huge “dollar drain” from the community
Energy Efficiency is the cheapest, fastest, and cleanest new energy resource….one third to one fourth the cost of new electricity supply
Michigan has huge reserves of ‘untapped’ energy efficiency potential (we have a relatively old and inefficient building and equipment stock)
Energy Efficiency is a completely “Michigan-based” resource. Every bit of efficiency must be “mined” from Michigan homes, businesses, and public facilities….and energy efficiency jobs cannot be “outsourced”.
Municipal energy policy should be: ENERGY EFFICIENCY FIRST , followed by cost-effective LOCAL RENEWABLES
That policy would be entirely justified by the economics …. The environmental benefits are a bonus !
SOME SOURCES FOR EXCELLENT EE PROGRAMS FROM AROUND THE U.S. Compendium of Champions: Chronicling Exemplary Energy Efficiency Programs from Across the U.S. York, Kushler & Witte, ACEEE, 2008 http://www.aceee.org/research-report/u081 [Presents the results of a national search for exemplary utility-sector energy efficiency programs. A detailed appendix includes summary profiles of a total of 90 programs across 20 different program categories.] Energy Efficiency and Electric System Reliability: A Look at Reliability-Focused Energy Efficiency Programs Used to Help Address the Electricity Crisis of 2001 Kushler, Vine and York, ACEEE, 2002. http://aceee.org/research-report/u021 [22 “case studies” of successful examples of “reliability-focused energy efficiency programs”]