Lower energy prices: Now you see them, now you don’t

By Elisa Wood

November 13, 2008

When combined with efficiency, solar homes can achieve ‘net zero’ – they consume no more energy than they produce. It is likely we will see a growing number of net zero homes built as more states reach what is called ‘grid parity’ – the cost of solar energy becomes no higher than the power we buy from our utility. Industry insiders say that about a dozen states already have reached this goal.

This is all good news. But at some point – maybe soon – the laws of supply and demand kick in, creating an odd dilemma for the clean energy industry. Net zero homes and other efficiency measures reduce the amount of power we need from utilities. And as demand drops, so do utility prices. Suddenly, solar energy is once again more expensive than utility power. Clean energy, in effect, becomes undercut by its own good work.

Bob Reedy, solar energy research director for the Florida Solar Energy Center http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/, sees “an uncomfortable zone” occurring in the next five to ten years when energy regulators will need to rethink utility rates. Utilities will still need to cover their fixed costs and may find it difficult to do so as efficiency reduces their energy sales. So regulators may raise utility rates, making solar power cheaper once again.

This oscillating price position for power in some ways mirrors what is happening in the transportation fuel market now. Gasoline prices are falling. How will consumers and policymakers respond? Will we expect them to stay low and get lazy about diversifying toward cleaner fuels?

Given the political climate – Obama is pushing for more renewable energy – it may seem unlikely. But history suggests that the clean energy industry should be wary. The post-Carter years offer a cautionary tale. Solar and efficiency advocates may want to start now educating consumers and policymakers that low energy prices can vanish quickly.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Toasting Pop-Tarts cheap: How electricity may solve our energy woes

By Elisa Wood

October 23, 2008

We tend to talk about electricity in terms of its problems — it degrades the environment, costs too much and messes up scenic views. But the Manhattan Institute’s Peter Huber takes a different stand in his new report “The Million-Volt Answer to Oil.”

Huber says electric power may be the cheap, efficient resource we seek to give America energy independence. He divides energy into two camps: electric power and transportation fuel. Our energy woes stem from our dependence on oil for transportation. To get over $4 per gallon gas, he says, we need to connect our transportation fleet and home heating systems to cheap 4 cents/kWh electricity.

“We spend roughly half as much on electricity—about $350 billion a year—as we’re currently spending on $100-a-barrel oil, and electrically powered systems do more, faster and better, than oil-fired alternatives,” he says in the report.

Huber’s theory opens the door wide for use of plug-in hybrid cars and electric heat pumps. “If we could deliver electricity straight to electric motors connected to our wheels, it would deliver miles at a price that most current car engines could match only on gasoline priced under a dollar a gallon. Delivered to our homes at off-peak prices, electrical heat would cost homeowners a lot less than $4-a-gallon heating oil,” he says.

Of course, electricity doesn’t cost 4/kWh cents everywhere. Some places it is 19 cents/kWh. And no matter where you live, the price goes up and down dramatically all day, depending on how many customers use power at any given time. When the East Coast is winding down its work day and its electricity prices fall, the West Coast is still going full tilt and its electricity prices rise. The trick is to transmit the cheap power quickly from place to place, and keep it rolling over four time zones by building a new and sophisticated high-voltage transmission backbone that can handle such movement.

“A kilowatt-hour of electricity toasts as many Pop-Tarts in Palo Alto as it does in Poughkeepsie; an efficient, integrated market with cheap, long-distance transmission available would charge everyone the same price for toasting them,” he says.

The technology exists, and it is not terribly pricey, to create such a transmission system. Huber estimates that building a 21,000-mile grid to network all major sources electricity, and push wind power from the Midwest to the coasts, would add roughly 0.3 cents/kWh to the current 9-cent/kWh average retail price of electricity.

He points out that a single 765-kV transmission line can move “almost 1 percent (4 GW) of the total average power generation of the entire United States, or 0.5 percent of the power that Americans collectively consume during the most power-hungry minute of the year.”

With such a transmission system in place, developers could build power plants and wind farms in rural expanses, rather than the crowded coasts where people object to the intrusion on their space.

Last, he points out that very few US power plants now use imported oil as a fuel, and instead use domestic sources, increasingly renewable. “With electricity, America controls its own destiny,” he says.

As Huber tells it, electricity is not part of the energy problem, but is the overlooked solution.

See the report at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/eper_03.htm.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

How Long Will Efficiency Be the Favored Choice?

By Elisa Wood
June 26, 2008

Energy efficiency creates an odd sort of market. Nothing (lack of energy use) competes for customers against something (energy generation).

There is no free lunch and even nothing, energy efficiency, costs something. But for now it is cheaper than its main competitor, the power plant.

In fact, it is often three times less costly to install efficient light bulbs, better insulate buildings or pursue other forms of efficiency than to buy power. Specifically, energy efficiency costs about 3 cents/kWh compared with the 9 cents/kWh it takes just to cover fuel costs from a baseload gas-fired generator, according to a June 19 presentation on power prices by the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/06-19-08-cost-electric.pdf.

Given its cost competitiveness, efficiency is increasingly called upon as a “first fuel.” A growing number of states require that utilities use as much efficiency as possible – reduce consumption as much as possible — before building new plants or signing power deals.

As a result, the energy efficiency business is booming.  And it is beating power plants as the favored alternative not just because it is cheaper; it also is cleaner, and consumers like it better. As Suedeen Kelly, FERC commissioner, said: “There is decreasing enthusiasm for building and an increased enthusiasm for demand-side resources.”

Indeed, since January 2007, 50 coal plants have been canceled or postponed; only 26 remain under construction. Meanwhile, state after state revamps energy policy to make efficiency a priority. The potential exists for the US to have an economy by 2030 that is 70% larger than today’s, but uses no more energy than it did in the mid-1990s, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy http://www.aceee.org/tstimony/Laitner%20Senate%20Testimony%20June%2025%202008.pdf.

Of course, at some point the nation must build new power plants to meet growing demand. Nothing cannot replace something forever.  A growing economy needs energy.

So, how long will the efficiency industry boom? How long will efficiency hold this favored position in the marketplace? That’s not easy to answer. But one thing seems apparent. Energy prices are not going down any time soon. The FERC report warned that we appear to be at “the beginning of significantly higher power prices that will last for years.”  If this proves true, energy efficiency’s run as the favored fuel has just begun.

CHP Gains Stature as Efficiency Measure

By Elisa Wood

June 19, 2008

Combined heat and power is a form of alternative energy that has been available for many decades. Yet it’s remained below the radar screen in policy discussion about our energy future.

However, it appears to be gaining new stature as lawmakers and regulators seek ways to make energy use more efficient.

Also called cogeneration, the technology creates both electricity and heat in one unit. Most power plants throw away two-thirds of the energy consumed in production. But CHP plants use the excess energy to heat, cool or humidify the building. As a result CHP reclaims one-third of the energy that would otherwise be lost.

In addition, CHP plants are usually built very close the factory, hospital, college or office building they serve. So electricity is not lost as it travels long distances over transmission lines, as is often the case with large, central power plants that serve many consumers and businesses.

Taking notice of CHP’s virtues, some states have created portfolio standards that encourage its development. The standards require that utilities use a certain amount of alternative energy to meet efficient or clean energy targets. This approach has been highly successful over the last several years in spurring development of wind, solar and other green energy sources in the US.

Now eight states allow part of the requirement to be met through installation of CHP. In Connecticut, for example, a factory, school other large energy user can install CHP to meet its heat and power needs and receive a kind of tradable credit for doing so. The energy user then can sell the credit to a utility that needs to meet state requirements.

In addition to Connecticut, the eight states are Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Washington. These states should serve as interesting testing ground to see if portfolio standards accelerate use of CHP as they have wind and solar energy.  We encourage those interested in CHP to check out the Environmental Protection Agency’s CHP partnership, an agency that is playing a strong role in encouraging use of the resource. See http://www.epa.gov/chp/

Overcoming the dirty secret of clean energy

By Elisa Wood

June 12, 2008

A dirty secret of clean energy is that being green can be an expensive pursuit. The cost of solar panels and hybrid cars is declining, but they remain too expensive for many people. As a result, the green energy movement is often viewed as an upper-income trend in the United States.

But a recent survey indicates energy efficiency may be a more egalitarian product.

The intent of “The 2008 Energy Costs Survey,” released this week by the Energy Programs Consortium and the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association, is to show the sacrifices made by low, moderate, and middle-income households because of rising energy costs. Households are cutting back on food, medicine, clothing, heating and cooling, education and eating out. And they are paying their bills later, according to survey of more than 500 households in May. http://www.neada.org/

But, the data also reveals an interesting phenomenon about energy efficiency. Even low-income earners invest in appliances and home improvements that reduce energy costs.

In fact, those in the lowest income bracket were most likely to purchase an efficient air conditioner. Eighteen percent of the lowest income households made such purchases compared to 13-14% of those with middle and moderate incomes. Poor households edged close to wealthier ones when it came to installing efficient heating (11% compared with 15% of those richer). In purchasing efficiency appliances, 15% of low-income households reported doing so.

Having 11% to 18% of low-income households invest in EE may not sound like a lot. But compare it to how much solar energy we consume. Only 1% of the electric power used last year in the United States came from solar energy, according to the federal Energy Information Administration — and that includes business use http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelrenewable.html.

If 11% of households installed solar panels, renewable energy advocates would be ecstatic and many of our energy woes would ease. Clean energy advocates often lament how hard it is to bring renewable energy to the mass market. This is a problem efficiency products do not appear to face. It is easy and not overly expensive to become an EE consumer. This is one reason why EE advocates may be right when they say the efficiency explosion ramping up in the US will easily dwarf any other energy trend.

Visit energy writer Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets newsletter and podcast.

Are the Number Crunchers Forgetting About Energy Efficiency?

By Elisa Wood

June 4, 2008

What is good news for the environment is often bad news for the economy. Or least that’s the conventional wisdom.

The thinking is bolstered by government findings that industrial activity and Gross Domestic Product will drop if the nation adopts a leading proposal before Congress to reduce greenhouse gases. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/index.html

But the number crunchers may be forgetting an important input: Energy efficiency. So says a report released this week by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Many states are aggressively pushing energy efficiency as a way to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, which in return leads to greenhouse gas reductions. Energy efficiency also can cut back energy costs, create jobs and grow the GDP, says the ACEEE report. http://www.aceee.org/press/e084pr.htm.

So far national policymakers are failing to recognize the role energy efficiency plays, as they discuss rising energy costs and climate change.

“As it becomes more apparent that climate change legislation must be enacted, it is critically important for policymakers to be informed about energy efficiency’s contribution to the solution,” says Vanessa McKinney, co-author of the report with John A. “Skip” Laitner. “It is very clear that policymakers are not getting the full picture when energy efficiency’s potential is omitted from policy assessments.”

The report looks at what will happen if the nation reduces energy consumption 20% to 30% through more efficient products and practices. The energy efficiency industry will likely add 500,000 to 1.5 million jobs by 2030. The GDP would grow, not decline, by 0.1%.

If energy efficiency is so good, why not add even more? Interestingly, the report also warns, by way of footnote, that there can be too much of a good thing. “Presumably one can push the savings too hard and too fast so that negative impacts will, indeed, begin to emerge.” Hence the report authors offer a “cautionary note about appropriate choice of the timing, technologies and policy instruments.”

It’s unclear at what point efficiency becomes a cost burden, says the report, but a 20% to 30% goal seems to still produce economic benefit.

So the challenge for state policymakers is to find the proper pacing. Adding efficiency incentives can increase electricity rates. That’s why in many states, like New York, regulators are undertaking careful study before offering new subsidies. Too much too fast will create ratepayer backlash. But carefully planned efficiency programs offer benefits that are hard to dispute, an alignment of the unlikely bedfellows, economy and environment.

Visit energy writer Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and subscribe to her free Energy Efficiency Markets newsletter and podcast.

What price motivates customers to save energy?

By Elisa Wood

May 29, 2008

“Are we there yet?” We’ve heard that refrain often over the last couple of years. No, not from our kids in the backseat of the car, but from energy observers wondering exactly how much price pain the consumer will take before cutting back significantly on use.

Two reports circulating this week indicate that we have arrived – or at least we are close.

Americans drove their cars 4.3% fewer miles in March 2008 than they did a year earlier, according to the Federal Highway Administration. This is the first time since 1979 that we took to the road less in March. While a 4.3% drop may not sound like much, it amounts to 11 billion miles, and represents the largest decline since the FHWA began reporting monthly statistics in 1942. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa0811.htm

It appears the specter of $4/gallon keeps the key out of the ignition. AAA reports that average unleaded gasoline prices hit $3.952/gallon on May 29, up from $3.197 a year ago. Prices already have topped $4 in several states, among them California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and West Virginia. http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/sbsavg.asp

Meanwhile, on the electricity front, a recent study by Carnegie Mellon University researchers found that charging power generators even a modest price for carbon dioxide emissions would motivate changes in consumer behavior and power plant operations. The study comes as several states in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast prepare for a carbon cap-and-trade program set to begin next year. Congress is eying similar national rules.

The report, published by Environmental Science & Technology, says that consumers would likely reduce consumption of electricity at a price as low as $35 per metric ton for CO2. This is lower than prices posted by Point Carbon for European trading May 28, which was €26.20 per metric ton or about $40. http://int.pointcarbon.com/Home/Market%20prices/Methodology/category745.html.

In addition, at $35 per ton for carbon, we may see changes in the way that grid operators dispatch power plants. They may start giving preference to lower emissions generators. While power prices would rise, “consumers would pay more attention to their energy consumption or switch to more energy efficient appliances,” said M. Granger Morgan, Lord Chair Professor in Engineering in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon. http://www.tepper.cmu.edu/news-multimedia/tepper-multimedia/tepper-stories/co2-pricing-study-reveals-consumption-efficiencies/index.aspx

No one wants to see high energy prices – the economic ramifications are enormous. But the good news is consumers appear to finally be saying “Ouch,” opening more doors for plug-in hybrids, energy efficient appliances, green construction and other energy savings approaches.

Visit energy writer Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and subscribe to her free Energy Efficiency Markets Newsletter and podcast.

Think Gas Prices Are High? Electricity is Next.

By Elisa Wood

Today’s interest in energy efficiency may be nothing compared to tomorrow’s, if power prices rise as much as expected.

One of the biggest price drivers, at this point, appears to be greenhouse gas restrictions, which Congress is expected to enact. It’s not clear yet exactly what the rules will be. But a federal analysis of a leading proposal shows electricity prices rising 5% to 27% by 2020 and as much as 64% by 2030. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/index.html

And greenhouse gas restrictions are only one factor pushing up electricity prices. Industry insiders cite additional pressure from rising fuel costs, higher component costs, and new transmission investments.

And then there is demand for power. Many of us think the US finished its electrification when the country finally connected all of rural America to the grid during the 1950s. http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=2990. But in some sense, it appears that was only the beginning of electrification. We did not anticipate the kind of second round, now occurring, as many everyday tools become electricity-driven, most notably the pen and paper’s transformation into the computer. Another major step in electrification is likely as the plug-in hybrid car becomes available to consumers in just two years. By 2030, these cars – which we fuel by plugging into a typical household electrical outlet – are expected to make up 30% of car sales, according to the Electric Power Research Institute.

Computers, plug-in cars, and other electric devices will boost our electricity needs dramatically. The US Energy Information Administration, often conservative in its forecasts, expects demand for electricity to grow 40% by 2030. To meet that need, the US must construct 250 to 500 new power plants – and power plants are not cheap. The EIA estimates the cost will be $412 billion. http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/electricity_policy/state_and_local_policies/rising_electricity_costs/causes.htm

This week the Long Island Power Authority said it plans to offer customers $924 million in efficiency products and services over the next 10 years. It is a lot of money, but cheaper, says LIPA, than building new power plants. Customers will pay about $40 per year to cover the cost. But they can recoup the charge – and more – by taking advantage of efficiency products offered through the program. A typical residential customer can recoup the money in a few months and save $90 annually on electricity costs by replacing six incandescent bulbs with compact florescent bulbs, tuning up a household air conditioner and sealing ducts, according to LIPA.

Because of such savings, hardly a week goes by now without a governor, mayor or utility in the US announcing a new efficiency goal. They are bracing for higher electricity prices and looking to energy efficiency as the only sure-fire, short-term way to ease consumer costs.

Visit energy writer Elisa Wood and subscribe to her free Energy Efficiency Markets newsletter and podcast at www.realenergywriters.com.

.

The Rebound Effect: Does Energy Efficiency Actually Lead to More Energy Use?

By Elisa Wood

You’re about to buy a computer, and you see that newer models are more energy efficient than your old one. That’s great news! Now you can leave it on all night, saving the bother of powering it up in the morning. Maybe you’ll end up using a few more watts, but who’s counting?

Maybe no one – but perhaps someone should.

This phenomenon – the idea that it’s okay to use an appliance more if it is efficient – is known as the rebound effect. And it’s worrying economists and clean energy advocates.

The rebound effect can take many forms. When I shop for a new refrigerator, I may find that the newer, more efficient models are much cheaper to operate than my old unit. So I decide to buy a bigger model. Or perhaps I insulate my house and use the money saved on home heating to take a vacation. I gobble up any energy I saved – and even more – by taking a plane ride.

Critics of efficiency programs point to the rebound effect to argue that efficiency does not get the bang for the buck claimed.

But how great is the rebound effect? We asked the Alliance to Save Energy. Steve Capanna, senior research associate, directed us to a 2005 International Energy Association paper that says about 10% to 20% of the energy saved by an efficiency measure is lost due to increased consumption.

Does this mean efficiency is not worth pursuing? No, ASE points out you still have achieved an energy savings of 80% to 90%. So the glass is not half-empty, but in fact more than half full.

Still, the rebound effect cannot be ignored, particularly since energy companies increasingly convert their energy savings into carbon dioxide emissions reductions. If they do not calculate the efficiency savings accurately, carbon emissions reductions figures will be askew.

This is a serious worry, particularly since the rebound effect may be more deeply imbedded in the economy than we think. For example, Chris Goodall, author of the book, How to Live a Low Carbon Life, says that “better economy-wide energy efficiency (through, say, improvements in steel-making technologies) may encourage more rapid economic growth, which in turn raises energy use.” (http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/11/51)

While critics may overstate the rebound effect, clearly the efficiency industry cannot ignore it. The US begins its first carbon emissions cap- and-trade program in 10 states next year, and a national carbon restriction program is likely to soon follow. Carbon reduction claims will undergo increasing scrutiny. Data must be highly accurate.

The credibility of the energy efficiency industry depends upon it keeping as much bounce as possible out of the rebound effect – or, at the very least, remembering to consider the effect when declaring energy savings.

Visit energy writer Elisa Wood and subscribe to her free Energy Efficiency Markets Newsletter at www.realenergywriters.com

Efficiency Guru: The Behind-the-Scenes EE Revolution

By Reid Smith & Elisa Wood

When consumers open their electric bills and see rates going up and up, it’s natural for them to ask, “Why isn’t anything being done?” Truth is, an enormous behind-the-scenes revolution is taking place when it comes to energy efficiency.

To get an inside look, we recently spoke with one of the industry’s long-time gurus, Steve Cowell, chairman and CEO of Conservation Services Group in Boston.

Much of the action is happening on the state level where industry players are hammering out ways to lower costs by reducing energy consumption. In most cases, the goals are aggressive and could increase efficiency investments by 2.5 to 3 times what we have today, says Cowell.

Industry insiders often talk about efficiency as the invisible power plant. If you need 50 MW of new power, you can build a new generating facility. Or you can find ways to reduce energy use by 50 MW. That’s like building a virtual power plant. The virtual power plant saves ratepayers money because a 1% reduction in load during high peak periods can reduce wholesale electricity prices by 10%, according to the Electric Power Research Institute.

Cowell sees three ground-breaking efforts in the works to increase the use of efficiency: portfolio standards, procurement, and demand resources in forward-capacity markets.

Energy efficient portfolio standards require electricity providers to meet a set amount of their annual demand through efficiency measures. In other words, the state decides to cut back on energy use by say 15% by 2015 — the goal set by New York. State officials then work out a regulatory or legislative strategy to reach the goal. This isn’t always easy. What programs should the state push to encourage more use of efficient light bulbs by homeowners, better refrigeration in supermarkets, smart meters by businesses? And who should be in charge of the programs: utilities, a state authority, cities?

A second way to implement energy efficiency is to use the so-called procurement approach. Some people describe this as making energy efficiency the “first fuel.” When a utility needs more power, it must look first at increasing efficiency. “If there’s something cheaper on the efficiency side, you’d have to buy that first,” Cowell explains.

The third approach involves using energy efficiency—such as demand resources—in a forward capacity market. The objective of the forward capacity market is to purchase sufficient capacity to operate a reliable system for the next year at competitive prices. Traditionally, only power generators were allowed to bid in such markets. But ISO New England recently allowed demand resources to compete head-to-head in its auction. Two-thirds of the selected resources were demand resources. This was a huge “win” for energy efficiency in New England, says Cowell. (See our March 6 newsletter, Blog: “Negawatts beat megawatts in New England,” March 6, www.realenergywriters.com)

Whatever method states choose to bring more efficiency to the power grid, the goal is the same. “At the end of the day, when a customer is looking for help to lower their energy use, they will see a unified plan, easy to use, with known technologies,” Cowell says.

For businesses and consumers who are seeing their electric bills skyrocket, we hope that day will come sooner rather than later.

Visit Reid Smith and Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and subscribe to their free Energy Efficiency Markets newsletter.