Energy Efficiency: Engine of Economic Growth Daniel L Sosland Executive Director Delivering the...
-
Upload
gary-warren -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Energy Efficiency: Engine of Economic Growth Daniel L Sosland Executive Director Delivering the...
Energy Efficiency: Engine of Economic Growth
Daniel L SoslandExecutive Director
Delivering the Promise of Energy Efficiency: Strategies for Lowering Energy Costs and Creating Jobs
August 17, 2010
ENE – About Us
Environmental Policy, Research, and Advocacy
Non-profit NGO working at the state, regional and federal levels
Rockport, ME / Boston, MA / Providence, RI / Hartford, CT / Charlottetown, PEI, Canada
Funded by private foundations and individuals
Program Areas Climate Change and Air Quality Energy Transportation Forest and Land Use
States Face Three Major Challenges:Efficiency Investments Address All Three
Jobs National Unemployment Rate:
9.7% U.S. Total Jobs lost over 13
months: 3,600,000
Economy U.S. Consumer Credit Card Debt:
$858,100,000,000 Lack of investment, drop 2008 to
2009: 31%
Climate Hottest March on Record (since
1880): March 2010 Hottest Decade on Record (since
1880): 2000-2009 Northeastern States Have GHG
Reduction Goals
Investments in Efficiency Programs are Proven to: Spur Job Growth Improve the Soundness of the
Economy And Reduce GHG emission
….and yet…. We Continue to Massively Under
Invest in Efficiency EE Program Investment of only
roughly $4 billion per year, with a 3-4x opportunity left on the table
Several Policy Tools Hold the Potential to Correct this…. State: Buy All Cost Effective
Efficiency; PACE and Financing Regional: Use RGGI Proceeds Federal: Support State Activities
ENE’s Energy Efficiency: Engine of Economic Growth
What are the broad economic and job benefits of increasing efficiency investments? Need to understand the positive impacts of EE to the broader economy Encourage state leaders to consider the overall economic impacts of
efficiency and other resource options when making energy policy decisions Other assessments only look at the direct costs and savings of the
program to participants and ratepayers ENE study of macroeconomic impacts of EE
Using the Regional Economic Models, Inc (REMI) – multi-state Policy Insight forecasting tool used for RGGI
Conservatively modeled all cost-effective EE investment in six New England States and Cumulatively for New England Region
Impacts on Energy costs; Emissions; Gross State Product (GSP); Employment: forecasts for 70 different industries
Efficiency Investments Drive Job Growth, Help Consumers, and Raises GDP
Energy savings, lead to increased spending in local economy
Consumer $$ shift from being exported to pay from out of region oil, gas to being redirected into state economic activities
Results - Energy Cost Savings
February 12, 2010 7
$29 billion in electric savings
$15 billion in heating oil savings
Economy-Wide Job Impacts
8February 12, 2010
26,000 more jobs in 2016 in 6 state study region as $$ saved enter economy
Making Efficiency Happen: Policies and Funding
Programs Are Needed to Correct market Failures and Assist Consumers: Liquidity Constraints – inadequate access to capital Split Incentives – EE investor does not receive savings benefits
(landlord/tenant) Information Problems – uncertainty of future savings of today’s
investment Behavioral Problems – complexity of decisions are beyond one’s ability
Funding Efficiency: 2 Sides or Perspectives Energy Resource Acquisition: Utility (Electric and Gas) and
Unregulated Fuels (heating oil) Consumer: Encourage Participation & Assist with Finance
Current Practice Has Been to Massively Under-Invest in Efficiency: How do We Achieve All-Cost Effective EE?
Funding Efficiency
Utility Resource Funding and Acquisition Perspective Mandate Purchase (procurement) of all cost-effective efficiency
before buying more expensive power plant contracts: “Least Cost Procurement”, adopted in MA, CT, RI, VT, ME
Unregulated Fuels: Need to find a funding mechanism, such as charge on wholesale oil
Consumer Participation and Funding Perspective Facilitate Participation through rebates, incentives (proven to be
effective): buy down incremental cost of efficient appliances, insulation, etc
Combine with Other New and Emerging Tools On-bill repayment, on-bill financing Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
Working Together: Coordinated Approaches Including Building Codes and Appliance Standards
Conclusions
Experience shows that mandates and incentives are needed to overcome barriers to investing in efficiency
ENE Engine study shows that the economic benefits of EE investments are much greater than typically calculated Because these efficiency investments deliver cost-effective
savings, the resulting economic stimulus is greater Results should encourage states to expand programs to capture
all cost-effective efficiency for all fuels Funding/Policy Approaches Should Be Mutually Supportive and
Coordinated Utility programs, financing, codes/enforcement and product standards
Contact Information
ENE (Environment Northeast)
Rockport, ME / Boston, MA /Providence, RI
Hartford, CT / Charlottetown, PEI, Canada
www.env-ne.org
Daniel L Sosland, [email protected] (207) 236-6470Jamie Howland, [email protected]
(860) 246-7121
Connecticut Results Summary
Electric
Natural Gas
Unregulated
Fuels
Energy Savings (GWh) (TBTU) (TBTU)
Maximum annual savings 8,600 22 29
Maximum savings vs. Business as Usual 25% 20% 28%
Lifetime savings (15 years of programs) 125,900 272 368
Equivalent GHG Emissions Avoided (Millions short tons)
(Millions short tons)
(Millions short tons)
Maximum annual avoided emissions 4.3 1.3 2.3
Maximum annual avoided emissions vs. 2005 total Connecticut Emissions 9.7% 2.9% 5.2%
Lifetime avoided emissions (15 years of programs) 72 21 41
Connecticut Economic Impacts - Recap
Electric Natural Gas Unregulated Fuels
Total Efficiency Program Costs ($Billions) 4.4 .93 1.6
Increase in GSP ($Billions) 25 6.6 12
Maximum annual GSP Increase ($Billions) 1.37 0.41 0.65
Percent of GSP Increase Resulting from Efficiency Spending 11% 10% 8%
Percent of GSP Increase Resulting from Energy Savings 89% 90% 92%
Dollars of GSP Increase per $1 of Program Spending 5.7 7.0 7.1
Increase in Employment (Job Years) 183,000 42,000 78,000
Maximum annual Employment Increase (Jobs) 9,700 2,700 4,600
Percent of Employment Increase from Efficiency Spending 15% 14% 11%
Percent of Employment Increase from Energy Savings 85% 86% 89%
Job-Years per $Million of Program Spending 41 45 48