You Are Viewing Energy efficiency

NY Times Covers Legal Battle Over Demand Response

Posted By Lowell F. on November 29th, 2014

If you are interested in electricity demand response, this New York Times article highlights something you definitely want to keep an eye on. The gist of it is that an ongoing legal fight is pitting “companies that own power plants” against “companies that recruit consumers to unplug themselves when electricity use is high, in exchange for a price break.”  What happened is that in 2011, “the Electric Power Supply Association sued the [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - FERC], saying that demand response should be regulated by the states, not the federal government because the transactions are retail, not wholesale.” The deeper concern by the power companies is that demand response reduces “peak prices on their busiest, most profitable days,” and “the producers say, they need that income to survive.” This past May, “the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington sided with the association.”

What happens next? As David Roberts of Grist notes, this post explains “ways that FERC, utilities, and consumers can support demand response even in light of the ruling.” Roberts further points out that “[d]emand response is coming, one way or another,” but that “this ruling could be a serious stumbling block,” possibly “cost[ing] the demand-response industry $4.4 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.” So definitely stay tuned for further developments on this case. We’ll let you know if we hear anything.

Comments Off

MIT Study Finds Health Benefits of CO2 Reductions Can Save 10x the Cost of Policy Implementation

Posted By Lowell F. on August 25th, 2014

Clearly, we believe it makes sense to slash the air and water pollution that is inextricably linked to fossil fuel extraction, processing, and consumption.  We also strongly believe that moving from a dirty to a clean energy economy makes sense on a whole host of levels — economic, environmental, national security, health, etc.  Yet opponents of a clean energy transition invariably raise claims that it will cost too much to do so, even though research has shown that fossil fuels are actually FAR more expensive than they appear to be, in large part because they are allowed to pollute without having to pay for doing so. Thus, the full “lifecycle cost” of coal to the U.S. public is actually upwards of $500 billion a year, but you won’t find that $500 billion a year incorporated into the price of coal, making it artificially cheap, and strongly skewing U.S. energy markets in favor of fossil fuels. Incorporate all the health and environmental “externalities” associated with fossil fuels, while taking away the enormous subsidies they receive from taxpayers, and it’s a totally different story — one in which clean energy would win by a wide margin.

Just in case you wanted even more evidence along these lines, a new study is out from researchers at MIT which finds that policies aimed at cutting fossil-fuel pollution can more than pay for themselves.

Lower rates of asthma and other health problems are frequently cited as benefits of policies aimed at cutting carbon emissions from sources like power plants and vehicles, because these policies also lead to reductions in other harmful types of air pollution.

But just how large are the health benefits of cleaner air in comparison to the costs of reducing carbon emissions? MIT researchers looked at three policies achieving the same reductions in the United States, and found that the savings on health care spending and other costs related to illness can be big — in some cases, more than 10 times the cost of policy implementation.

…The researchers found that savings from avoided health problems could recoup 26 percent of the cost to implement a transportation policy, but up to to 10.5 times the cost of implementing a cap-and-trade program…Savings from health benefits dwarf the estimated $14 billion cost of a cap-and-trade program…The price tag of a clean energy standard fell between the costs of the two other policies, with associated health benefits just edging out costs, at $247 billion versus $208 billion.

In sum, by implementing smart policies to cut CO2 emissions, not only do policymakers help head off disastrous global warming, they also reduce other forms of pollution in the process, saving enormous amounts of money on health care costs. How much money? Enough, depending on the policy, to more than pay for the policy’s implementation. Who ever said you can’t get something for nothing? In this case, you actually get MORE than that — cleaner air and water, a habitable planet for future generations, sharply lower health problems and associated healthcare costs, as well as lower energy bills for consumers and a more competitive country in the world economy. If that’s not a “win-win-win” situation, it’s hard to know what is.

Map Shows How States Are Progressing Towards Meeting EPA’s 1.5%-Per-Year Energy Efficiency Goal

Posted By Lowell F. on August 23rd, 2014

The release in late May of EPA’s draft rules on carbon pollution at existing power plants gave individual states a tremendous amount of flexibility in how they meet the proposed targets.  For instance, a state rich in potential solar power resources might choose to focus on increasing the percentage of its electricity generated from the sun.  Same thing with wind power.  And, of course, all states can use energy efficiency gains as a key part of their plans. As the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions explains:

Through energy efficiency programs, states can drive down their total consumption, including consumption of electricity generated by fossil fuels. This in turn reduces greenhouse gas emissions, bringing states closer to their emission rate target. EPA projects that each state is capable of eventually reducing electricity demand by 1.5 percent each year, in line with the rate leading states have achieved. States are projected to meet this figure in varying years, taking into account how advanced each state was in 2012. This 1.5 percent projection is incremental, meaning EPA expects an additional 1.5 percent savings each year, for a much larger cumulative savings by 2030. Projections for states that currently reduce demand by less than 1.5 percent per year are designed in a way that allow a ramp-up period before reaching this level, but EPA has determined that all states have the capacity to meet this projection by 2025 at the latest. Note that under the proposal, states are not obligated to meet EPA’s efficiency projections in demonstrating compliance; provided the ultimate target emission rate is met, states could use any combination of measures they see fit.

The map above shows each state’s 2012 incremental efficiency savings as a percentage of the 1.5 percent projection. States colored with a darker shade of blue are closer to meeting this projection. Two states, Arizona and Maine, reported savings above 1.5 percent in 2012.

As we know, energy efficiency is generally considered to be the biggest “bang for the buck” when it comes to reducing energy consumption and carbon pollution, which means that this EPA goal makes a great deal of sense. Yet, according to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, only 21 states have mandatory Energy Efficiency Resource Standards, while 17 states have no energy efficiency standards at all.  That’s unfortunate, particularly given that Rocky Mountain Institute Chairman and Chief Scientist Amory Lovins has found that“adopting efficiency technologies aggressively yet cost-effectively, yield[s] at least a 12% annual real rate of return.” As states formulate their plans aimed at meeting their EPA CO2 pollution reduction goals, it seems like pushing ahead on energy efficiency improvements should constitute an easy, “no brainer” option.

Comments Off

Clean Energy Guru Amory Lovins Demolishes Fatally Flawed Brookings Paper on Reducing CO2 Emissions

Posted By Lowell F. on August 8th, 2014

It’s truly astounding how a venerable think tank like the Brookings Institution can put out such a fatally flawed, even embarrassing, hack job as its recent paper (by Dr. Charles R. Frank Jr) on the most cost-effective ways to reduce carbon emissions. It also makes you want to bang your head on the desk when you see that yet another venerable institution, this time The Economist, actually highlighted such drivel.  Fortunately, there are true energy experts out there like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) to set the record straight. Which is exactly what Lovins has done at RMI and at Greentech Media. The key points are as follows.

  • “How did Dr. Frank reach a conclusion so counter to market reality? Simple: his analysis relied on outdated or otherwise incorrect data. “
  • “For example, he assumed wind and PV are twice as costly and half as productive as they actually are, relying on old data in an industry where the landscape shifts dramatically each year, if not each month.”
  • Actually, “correct analysis reaches the opposite conclusions: new nuclear or combined-cycle gas capacity is not the most but the least effective way to displace coal power; wind and PVs are not the least but the most effective carbon-savers (except efficiency and most cogeneration, both of which Dr. Frank omits).”
  • In sum, Dr. Frank “assumed solar and wind to be more expensive and less productive than they actually are, and conversely assumed nuclear and gas combined-cycle to be less expensive and (for gas) more productive than they actually are. All knobs got turned in exactly the wrong directions.”
  • “Using Dr. Frank’s methodology — flawed as it is — but swapping in accurate numbers for the nine key data points mentioned in the previous paragraph reverses his conclusion. Wind and solar become the most economical options while gas and nuclear become the least economical.”

The question is, how did such shoddy “analysis” get past the editors at Brookings? Do they even have editors at Brookings? Based on this fatally flawed mess of a paper, it sure doesn’t seem like they do.

Comments Off

New Report: U.S. Ranks 13th out of 16 Largest Economies in Energy Efficiency

Posted By Lowell F. on July 21st, 2014

Based on this story, it looks like the U.S. has a lot of work to do when it comes to energy efficiency.

The U.S. ranks 13th out of the 16 largest economies in energy efficiency, according to areport released today from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, an environmental nonprofit advocacy group.

The U.S. scored poorly for a number of reasons, including relatively low use of and investment in public transit, a high number of miles traveled in inefficient vehicles as well as high energy usage in both commercial and residential sectors.  A lack of energy savings targets and efficiency standards also played a role, the report’s authors said.

This poor ranking is unfortunate for a number of reasons. For one, as Tigercomm’s Bridgette Borst reported in late June, a Johnson Controls energy efficiency forum concluded that not only is “energy efficiency is a great way to save money, reduce carbon emissions [and] put lots of people to work in good-paying, local jobs,” it is also “one of the key four building blocks that states will be able to comply with the part 111-D Rule” (the EPA’s recently-announced proposal for reductions of carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel power plants).

Second, Americans overwhelmingly support energy efficiency improvements, so this is a political “no brainer.”

Third, as an International Energy Agency report in late 2013 found that energy efficiency is a “huge opportunity going unrealised,” with “investments in energy efficiency…still less than two‐thirds of the level of fossil fuel subsidies.”

Finally, with regard to the enormous potential of energy efficiency, see Institute for Building Efficiency’s Jennifer Layke: Insights on Communicating the Enormous Potential of Energy Efficiency and Is energy efficiency condemned to be the “eat your peas” technology?, in which we note that Rocky Mountain Institute Chairman and Chief Scientist Amory Lovins has found that“adopting efficiency technologies aggressively yet cost-effectively, yield[s] at least a 12% annual real rate of return.”

Given the points listed above, there’s really no excuse for the U.S. to rank 13th out of the 16 largest economies in terms of energy efficiency. To the contrary, we should be pushing hard to move towards the top of those rankings, and to do so as quickly as possible.

Comments Off