The efficiency of energy efficiency programs

Everyone knows a penny saved is a penny earned. The environmental adaptation: A penny not spent on power is a penny earned and a carbon unit saved. More utilities (and their government regulators) are using that mantra to encourage investments in energy efficiency so that households and businesses will be convinced to sip rather than guzzle power to save money on monthly bills and lessen their carbon footprint.

A recent report on Minnesota’s utility-based Conservation Improvement Program shows that much more is being spent on energy efficiency projects. The amount of electricity saved by CIP more than doubled to 900,000 megawatt hours (MWh) between 2006 and 2010. But efficiency expenditures—paid for by all ratepayers—went up in roughly equal proportion (see Chart 1), which suggests that there have not been any returns to scale in terms of efficiency gains. In fact, on a per MWh basis, electricity savings have come at slightly higher cost in 2010 ($207) compared with 2006 ($200). (Carbon emission reductions mirror energy savings over time because they are estimated by formula. One MWh of electricity savings equals 0.9 tons of CO2 savings on average.)

  EE in CIP CH1 -- 9-13-12

The increase in CIP costs stems from a change in state policy, which shifted from an expenditure requirement to an energy-savings requirement that is equivalent to 1.5 percent of a utility’s annual retail sales, according to the Minnesota Department of Commerce, in response to questions from the fedgazette. This change also offers one explanation why efficiency programs, in aggregate, have not become more cost effective over time in a nominal sense.

To meet higher levels of energy savings, the agency pointed out, utilities have had to create new programs and eliminate others that were not cost effective. They’ve also had to increase some incentives and invest in outreach activities and program measurement, all of which costs money. New efficiency programs are typically less cost effective than legacy programs (like residential lighting), but the agency expects these to become more cost effective over time.

Also notable, individual utilities vary widely on the average cost of their efficiency investments in a given year (see Chart 2). Size has little to with the variation, with the exception that small utilities had both the highest and lowest average CIP costs on a per MWh basis.

EE in CIP CH2 -- 9-13-12

The Commerce Department said there were several likely reasons for the disparity. For example, utilities have different customer and consumption bases (what the industry calls “load profile”). Efficiency projects at commercial and industrial users—who typically consume much more energy—are usually more cost effective than residential projects (whose users are small and dispersed). “So utilities with high residential loads may have to spend more to achieve the same savings,” the agency said.

Utilities also charge different power rates, and those with low electricity costs might have to offer higher incentives to convince users to pursue efficiency projects. Utilities can similarly vary in their experience and ability to promote and execute efficiency programs. Those with a “high level of engagement with its CIP programs” are typically more cost effective, according to Commerce.

But back to those pennies: While costs for energy efficiency projects are borne on an annual basis, energy savings accrue over a number of years. Agency guidelines suggest a weighted average payback period of 15 years or less for individual efficiency projects to be worthwhile. With average electricity costs at roughly $85 per MWh, none of the 2010 projects (in aggregate, at the utility level) faces more than a 10-year payback, and most have payback schedules of about one to five years.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The last paragraph ansewers the question of why energy efficiency programs cost more than the immediate ROI. It takes time for EE to build momentum. California has shown that EE with renewables can cost effectively reduce long term energy usage.

The other barrier is from not going deep enough in EE to make the big reductions. Deep energy reductions of 70-90% with the addition of renewables become cost neutral (the cost of upgrades are paid for by energy savings when financed long-term 20-30 years).

The goal is zero plus energy for every building. Utility scale renewables is only a stepping stone to the future of every building generating all of the energy needed to run itself plus enough to refuel their transportation.

A daunting goal but doable and needed if we are going to save our economy,our nation and our planet before the end of the 21st century.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

 
 

The efficiency of energy efficiency programs

Posted by Ron Wirtz on 09/13/2012

Everyone knows a penny saved is a penny earned. The environmental adaptation: A penny not spent on power is a penny earned and a carbon unit saved. More utilities (and their government regulators) are using that mantra to encourage investments in energy efficiency so that households and businesses will be convinced to sip rather than guzzle power to save money on monthly bills and lessen their carbon footprint.

A recent report on Minnesota’s utility-based Conservation Improvement Program shows that much more is being spent on energy efficiency projects. The amount of electricity saved by CIP more than doubled to 900,000 megawatt hours (MWh) between 2006 and 2010. But efficiency expenditures—paid for by all ratepayers—went up in roughly equal proportion (see Chart 1), which suggests that there have not been any returns to scale in terms of efficiency gains. In fact, on a per MWh basis, electricity savings have come at slightly higher cost in 2010 ($207) compared with 2006 ($200). (Carbon emission reductions mirror energy savings over time because they are estimated by formula. One MWh of electricity savings equals 0.9 tons of CO2 savings on average.)

  EE in CIP CH1 -- 9-13-12

The increase in CIP costs stems from a change in state policy, which shifted from an expenditure requirement to an energy-savings requirement that is equivalent to 1.5 percent of a utility’s annual retail sales, according to the Minnesota Department of Commerce, in response to questions from the fedgazette. This change also offers one explanation why efficiency programs, in aggregate, have not become more cost effective over time in a nominal sense.

To meet higher levels of energy savings, the agency pointed out, utilities have had to create new programs and eliminate others that were not cost effective. They’ve also had to increase some incentives and invest in outreach activities and program measurement, all of which costs money. New efficiency programs are typically less cost effective than legacy programs (like residential lighting), but the agency expects these to become more cost effective over time.

Also notable, individual utilities vary widely on the average cost of their efficiency investments in a given year (see Chart 2). Size has little to with the variation, with the exception that small utilities had both the highest and lowest average CIP costs on a per MWh basis.

EE in CIP CH2 -- 9-13-12

The Commerce Department said there were several likely reasons for the disparity. For example, utilities have different customer and consumption bases (what the industry calls “load profile”). Efficiency projects at commercial and industrial users—who typically consume much more energy—are usually more cost effective than residential projects (whose users are small and dispersed). “So utilities with high residential loads may have to spend more to achieve the same savings,” the agency said.

Utilities also charge different power rates, and those with low electricity costs might have to offer higher incentives to convince users to pursue efficiency projects. Utilities can similarly vary in their experience and ability to promote and execute efficiency programs. Those with a “high level of engagement with its CIP programs” are typically more cost effective, according to Commerce.

But back to those pennies: While costs for energy efficiency projects are borne on an annual basis, energy savings accrue over a number of years. Agency guidelines suggest a weighted average payback period of 15 years or less for individual efficiency projects to be worthwhile. With average electricity costs at roughly $85 per MWh, none of the 2010 projects (in aggregate, at the utility level) faces more than a 10-year payback, and most have payback schedules of about one to five years.

Share via: Twitter Facebook
Top  |  View on full site