Surprise! U.S. Is Using Less Electricity
Last year about this time U.S. electric companies received some 2007 statistics that were a big surprise: in numerous pockets across the country, Americans had cut their electric use during 2007. The cut amounted to as much as 5.6 per cent in some Midwest regions, including a substantial drop in residential use. While the overall trend in electric use for the country was still up – by 2.8% — most of the additional power was being drawn from renewable energy sources, half of it – 1.4% — from wind.
Still, some preliminary statistics for 2008 indicate that the drop in electrical use is continuing, and it’s happening on a national scale. In August 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy reported that it “was the 13th consecutive month that net generation was down compared to the same calendar month in the prior year.” Despite the economic downturn that forms the background for this decline, electric companies believe that this change in electric use is not the temporary result of hard economic times, but a genuine trend. Judging from the plethora of articles about energy-saving activities in all parts of the country, the electric utilities are reading the trend correctly. Daily, local papers, blogs and newsletters tell about an energy-saving movement at both the personal and corporate grassroots that is gradually but surely changing the landscape of American energy use.
Every day brings one or more stories about another village, another county, another school district, another company cutting its energy use. At the same time, many electric companies all over the country exhort their customers to save energy, and many of them even offer substantial incentives to their customers to do just that. For example, eight Michigan utilities joined together under the Michigan Electric Cooperative Association (MECA) to form “Energy Optimization,” a consortium introducing energy efficiency programs and incentives to co-op member-consumers.
While some of the energy saving actions have been taken by people who want to do right by their environment, most of the people and organizations who take these measures do so because they are going to save money, sometimes in substantial amounts.
The Whittier Union High School District in California claims it has saved more than $463,000 since January 2009 by “shutting down and unplugging equipment like computers, lights and other electric appliances when not in use, as well as reducing water usage by repairing broken sprinklers.”
The savings can be so substantial that the contractors who do the work can be prevailed upon to guarantee the returns. Cities across the Minneapolis metro area are making major upgrades to the heating and cooling systems in public buildings and ice arenas. In Richfield, for example, a high-efficiency system is being installed to keep the ice cold and fans warm at the city’s 38-year-old arena, and the company handling the work guarantees that the energy savings will cover the bill. Guaranteed-savings contracts work like this: A city chooses a company to evaluate energy improvements. The company then oversees the installation of projects the city wants and guarantees that energy savings will cover the work, the company’s fee, and up to 20 years of debt service on money the city borrows to pay for the projects. The company posts a performance bond to ensure that it will pay the difference if the savings are less than promised.
If electric utilities had any doubt that the energy saving component of the environmental movement has legs, the plans for using Federal stimulus funds should have disabused them. The city of Duluth will soon launch an $1.5-million energy-saving initiative called DEEP — short for the Duluth Energy Efficiency Program. The first step will be to help participating residents identify a home’s greatest deficiencies starting with an extensive home inspection with results detailed in a Home Performance Report. The program would require a homeowner to foot one-third the cost, with Minnesota Power and the city gas department picking up the rest of the tab. The cost of a home assessment is expected to average between $350 and $400 per household, with consumers putting up between $117 and $133. Once the problems are identified, homeowners will receive a recommended action plan and details of available funding options.
Encouraging energy saving has even become good business. Louisiana’s Shreveporters can track their water and energy use and get points from local businesses when they verify savings with lower bills. Residents link their utility and city water accounts to a special web site that calculated the points and offers tips and local products to help with energy savings. Member households will be able to cash in their points for rewards from the network of local business who participate.
Note that in March 2008, the Louisiana Public Service Commission approved a request by Schreveport’s electric company, the Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO), to construct a 600-megawatt coal-fueled power plant in the region. Opponents for the plant have used the continuing reductions in the amount of electricity used by SWEPCO’s customers to challenge the plant’s construction.
And that’s the basic issue here. As Thomas Blakeslee of Clearlight Foundation [see article] noted, it currently costs about $2.50 per watt to build a new coal-powered plant and only $.025 per watt to replace a 60-watt incandescent with a 13-watt compact fluorescent bulb. Energy saving trumps building new power plants of any kind, not only in terms of economics, but also in terms of such environmental considerations as air and water quality and carbon emissions. So if the U.S. can continue to cut its energy use and avoid the need for a greater supply, it’s a win-win situation.