We're Number 27! Report shows unsexy efficiency program is working for ratepayers

Michigan’s energy efficiency requirements, passed in 2008, require our state’s major utilities to enact programs that make homes, stores and factories more energy efficient. And it’s paying off.

A new report from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy shows
Michigan moved up seven spots to number 27 on a ranking of the most energy efficient states.

That’s money in our pockets. Money we’re not spending on electric and gas bills.

It’s not as sexy as wind turbines or solar panels, but it’s the only energy solution that actual saves ratepayers money – roughly $3 in savings for every $1 invested in the program. It also holds at bay the need to build more power generation infrastructure – coal or nuclear plants, wind farms, etc. that drive up our utility rates.
We're talking programs that help businesses and homeowners afford smart low-energy lighting systems, boilers and furnaces that use less fuel, weatherproof windows and insulation to keep the cold out (or the cold in, depending on the season), etc. etc.

And, yes, there’s a line item on our utility bills for “energy optimization” to pay for the program. Seventy-nine cents on my most recent bill. That rankles some jerkwater bubbas.

But if we weren’t paying for efficiency, we’d be paying three times as much for new power production necessary to provide the energy we’re saving through the program.

Here’s hoping the next Michigan will push for even stronger energy efficiency program requirements. It isn’t sexy, but from what I’ve seen neither are they.
###

PSC analysis: Holland coal plant expansion unecessary: Cheaper and more efficient options available (hey, where have I heard that before?)

The Michigan Public Service Commission on Wednesday issued an analysis of a proposed coal-fired power plant expansion in Holland. Because the Holland Board of Public Works (HBPW) plant is a municipal utility, the Commission does not regulate it, so its report is, I suppose, advisory in nature.

But the analysis essentially says what proponents of energy efficiency and renewable power have been saying for years: There are cleaner, cheaper and more efficient options than coal-fired power plants.

Power providers have been lighting coal on fire to turn turbines for more than a century. It’s difficult to break that ingrained mindset. “This is the way we’ve always done it” is a powerful and lazy rationale for any organization. Additionally, companies make no money by helping customers SAVE energy, a powerful disincentive for energy efficiency programs that are the cheapest, cleanest and fastest way to meet energy needs.

But each new analysis, study and business plan that incorporates a better way adds a little more pressure for the utilities to change. We can all do our part by voting for elected officials who support that change, and speaking out whenever we can in favor of sensible and pragmatic alternatives to setting dangerous, expensive stuff on fire to turn turbines.

You can read the report, which is long and wonky. Or you can read the following quick and dirty summary provided by Anne Woiwode of the Sierra Club's Michigan Chapter:

- HBPW failed to “adequately demonstrate the need for the proposed facility” for a number of reasons. “Under-estimating the potential impact of energy efficiency in future years, coupled with an overly optimistic load forecast results in a projected capacity need which may not fully materialize.”


- Analysis of options and scenarios were very limited: “Scenario analysis should be employed across a wide range of variables and sensitivities including: future load levels, fuel prices, renewable energy penetration levels, energy efficiency penetration levels, and other variables which impact future resource planning in order to properly evaluate the associated risks.”


- Alternative ways of meeting their power needs exist, and in fact “Other less costly alternatives were noted in the EGAA and could be selected to meet HBPW’s expected capacity shortfall, if so desired.” These included purchased power, combined cycle natural gas, energy efficiency, and renewables.

Consumers Energy swamped with appliance rebate applicants; jerkwater Bubbas seethe

Consumers Energy figured it would get 2,000 applications for appliance rebates as part of its energy efficiency program. It received 12,000.

The rebates are part of the efficiency standards mandated by a 2008 Michigan law. That law requires utilities to help customers use less electricity. That’s counterintuitive for an industry whose success has traditionally depended on selling as much energy as possible.

As a result of the program’s success Consumers may be entitled to a $5.7 million reward.

That rankles the jerkwater Bubbas commenting underneath the Jackson Citizen Patriot’s story: http://bit.ly/beYjNu. They seem to think the efficiency program is a socialist/liberal plot hatched with Consumers Energy to rob ratepayers.

But I would prefer to pay Consumers Energy a bonus for helping customers use less electricity. The alternative is paying them even more to build new coal plants or wind farms to produce more electricity. That’s electricity we do not need if efficiency programs keep doing their jobs.

Numerous and little-disputed studies show that saving energy through efficiency costs about one-third the amount that the energy would cost if it were supplied through new baseload power plants.

Those high rates are what we’ll get if we can’t set up a system where utility companies and their shareholders profit from helping reduce demand for their product.

As for the Bubbas, I have a solution to cut your energy costs to zero: Get off the grid and let the grown ups talk among themselves.

###

No cap. No trade. Just $438 in your pocket

A report being released today shows Michigan families would save an average $438 annually in utility bills if strong energy efficiency measures are included in the energy bill being debated in the U.S. Senate:

http://www.environmentalcouncil.org/newsroom/pressRelease.php?x=38

That energy legislation includes the controversial cap-and-trade provision to try and help get a grip on global warming pollution. Whatever one thinks of cap-and-trade, energy efficiency would seem noncontroversial:  Money in our pockets. Less pollution. Reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

We're talking programs that help businesses and homeowners afford smart low-energy lighting systems, boilers and furnaces that use less fuel, weatherproof windows and insulation to keep the cold out (or the cold in, depending on the season), etc. etc.

You would think it would be a no-brainer for our Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, and their colleagues.

You would think, anyway.

There are some great resources for homeowners available from my friends at Michigan Energy Options (see the links on the right hand side of their page):   http://www.michiganenergyoptions.org/

And I had an interesting discussion with an energetic fellow from Ann Arbor who's developed this interesting web site to show, among other things, how you stack up against other Michiganders in term of energy use. Just make sure you enter your address exactly as it's shown to get started: www.joolze.com

###

Michigan House Republicans bizarre coal plant assertion: Talk to me in 2022

Michigan’s House of Representatives Republican caucus released a “Task Force on Jobs” report this past week suggesting that building new coal-fired power plants will reduce ratepayer costs.

It’s great news.

Because if had been a defensible falsehood rather than an outrageously transparent one, it might have been convincing.

A good sized coal fired power plant requires ratepayers (not shareholders) to finance $3 billion in construction costs. It saddles our children and grandchildren with a cumulative $9 billion debt to pay for coal from other states (nothing like spending locally!) It creates untold expenses to care for those whose health is damaged by pollution. And it ignores the certainty that there will be a price on carbon emissions in the future.

Western Upper Peninsula customers of WE Energy saw just what happened to their rates last year as a result of new coal-fired capacity built on their behalf. Coal cost them a 33 percent rate hike http://www.miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/536249.html?nav=5003

I’m not among those who believe that we can meet our energy demands without ever building a new coal plant. We likely will need some as a crutch to get us to a cleaner and smarter future that relies first on efficiency and second on renewable energy’s exciting new technologies.

But we don’t need those money sucking coal plant crutches yet. Especially not when our state’s own Public Service Commission staff concluded in September that Michigan won’t need a new coal plant for at least 13 years: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/michigan/news.newsmain/article/756/0/1552468/Environment/Public.Service.Commission.Says.New.Coal.Plants.Not.Needed

What’s needed now is a wholesale commitment to energy efficiency. Programs that help industry, commercial businesses and homeowners become more efficient are the only ones that truly reduce ratepayer costs. They also provide in-state jobs for builders, installers, and the many Michigan companies that manufacture products that help cut energy use.

Coupled with aggressive use of renewable energy source like wind and solar, efficiency can meet our energy needs until we need to make a decision about whether a dirty, expensive coal plant is a necessary evil.

Talk to me in 2012.

###