New direction for that federal agency whose name I can’t remember

By Elisa Wood
November 17, 2011

The US Department of Energy’s reputation is now enshrined as the agency that Republican presidential contender Rick Perry wants to dismantle – if only he could remember its name. But a recent report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences offers a different direction for the federal agency, one that may not make it more memorable, but a bit more people-centered.

The academy tackles a problem that beguiles the energy industry. Now that we have the technology that lets householders take more control of their energy destiny, how do we inspire them to do so?

The question is central to energy efficiency efforts because smart technologies, such as home energy displays and cell-phone controlled thermostats, offer new ways to save energy. A lot of energy – and therefore money – is at stake. Homes account for about 30–40 percent of US energy consumption. So cutting household energy use by just 20 percent would reduce total national energy use 7.5 percent, according to the report.

We can blame the energy industry for our lack of interest in home energy management, or credit the industry, depending on how you look at it. Utilities have done their job too well. Energy flows invisibly into our homes. Or as Steven Koonin, DOE undersecretary for science, says in the report: “One of the great triumphs of modern society is that we’ve hidden the infrastructure. Nobody really understands where electricity, gas, or water come from.”

Now that we want people to be aware, how do we make energy infrastructure visible, at least psychologically?

The academy says it’s time for the energy industry to seek answers within the social sciences, a realm it’s rarely delved into. Drawing from a two-day workshop the academy held in May, the report highlights several places were human nature and energy realities collide.

• People don’t trust government or institutions. In fact, trust in almost every major American institution has declined since the 1960s. But our trust can be re-won, albeit not easily, if we’re invited to participate in the creation of policy and programs.
• Humans are not rational. We make decisions based on incomplete information or the advice of trusted acquaintances who may not know much. Arguments by industry experts won’t win us over, but we may start saving energy if we think it will enhance our social status.
• An energy efficiency paradox exists. Even if people can save money, they may not pursue energy savings. Part of the problem is a perception that energy savings technologies lack quality, as in misconceptions that efficient lighting must be hard on the eyes.
• Making our homes more energy efficient needs to be easy, and is often not. “Poor marketing, delayed incentives, burdensome paperwork, and uncertain product quality” characterize too many home retrofit programs, says the report.
• Even if energy efficiency produces long-term savings, people often will avoid spending the money on retrofits or new appliances if upfront costs are high.

There are no easy answers here. The report recommends that the DOE’s number crunching arm, the Energy Information Administration, begin gathering data that will help social scientists figure out why and how we consume energy. The report acknowledges, though, that any attempt to expand the DOE to do this work may be met with political resistance at this time.

For those interested in the topic of energy and human behavior, look to more information likely to emerge later this month from the annual Behavior, Energy and Climate Changeconference that will be held in Washington, DC.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work can be found at RealEnergyWriters.com.

Energy use drops: It’s not just the economy

By Elisa Wood

May 13, 2010

We’ve been hearing a lot about a drop in energy consumption as a result of the economic downturn. In fact, US energy use per person declined last year to its lowest level since 1968.

Economic activity and energy use are directly linked. But lately, several reports have noted that the economic slowdown is not the only reason energy consumption is falling. Aggressive energy efficiency efforts also have impact.

That impact will be “major” in the years to come, according to the Energy Information Administration, the chief energy data collector for the US government. The agency this week released its “Annual Energy Outlook 2010” with projections to 2035.

The federal report shows us decreasing energy use significantly if we employ best available efficiency technologies over the next 25 years – that is if we buy the most energy efficient appliances and build homes to the highest efficiency standards. Under this scenario, energy consumption could drop by as much as 27%. But if we stick to the status quo, homeowners will increase energy use by about 0.2%.

This drop in energy use will not happen immediately. In fact, EIA sees energy consumption rising slightly as the economy rebounds. It then begins fall in 2013 as higher efficiency standards take effect for vehicles and lighting.

Lighting standards will have the most profound impact on electric consumption. Federal requirements will reduce electricity used for lights by 30% in 2014. When the standards tighten further in 2020, power use for lighting drops 60%. Overall, by 2035 our lights should eat up 44% less electricity than in 2008.

This drop in energy consumption does not signal austerity. On the contrary, our use of electric devices is growing. The EIA sees us increasing our use of computers, household appliances, water heaters, stoves, heat, air conditioning and microwaves. And for the first time this year we’ll direct more of our electricity into television watching than food refrigeration.

So it appears the predictions of today’s energy efficiency advocates may be correct: the economy can reduce energy consumption without sacrificing creature comforts.

The compete EIA report is here. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html

Visit Elisa Wood at http://www.realenergywriters.com/ and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Efficiency and the not-to-be-ignored gas-fired plant

May 6, 2010

By Elisa Wood

Carbon dioxide emissions dropped significantly in the US in 2009. The economy played an obvious role; not so obvious was the influence of power generation and its increasing efficiency.

CO2 emissions have been trending down for the last decade by about 0.9%. But the 2009 drop was far more dramatic — 7% — the largest decline since the Energy Information Administration began keeping energy data more than 60 years ago.

This tells us a lot about just how bad economic conditions were. (As if we needed to be told!)

Compare the last decade to the previous one and you get the picture. Our gross domestic product grew about 3.3% from 1990 to 1999 then dropped by about half for the next decade, with much of the decline attributable to the recent miserable financial situation, according to a May 5 EIA report.

CO2 levels tell us about the economy because emissions are produced by power plants and transportation fuels. The better the economy the more energy we use and presumably the more CO2 we produce. For example, we consumed only 13,277 thousand barrels of petroleum per day for transportation in 2009, down from 14,287 thousand barrels per day two years earlier, a 7.1 percent drop.

But here is where it gets interesting. Even with the economy falling over the cliff, emissions should have grown a little bit, about 0.6% to 0.7%, based on past scenarios, so what changed? Why did CO2 emissions drop instead.

EIA says power plant efficiency played a big role. We have been moving toward greater use of highly efficient natural gas-fired plants, which are less carbon intensive than coal-fired generation, our largest electricity source. From 2000 to 2008, the US added about 120 gigawatts of natural gas combined cycle generation.

“If the emissions intensity had not changed and emissions had risen at the same rate as generation, they would have reached 456 million metric tons in 2009. Therefore, the increased efficiency of new generation capacity resulted in avoided emissions of 82 million metric tons of carbon dioxide,” EIA said.

Several market factors played a role in our construction of new natural gas-fired plants. This type of plant is relatively easy and quick to build (unlike nuclear power), and it does not face the kind of environmental opposition of coal-fired generation. In addition, market pricing favored natural gas in 2009. Coal prices rose 6.8% from 2008 to 2009 while natural gas prices fell 48%, according to EIA.

Our addition of wind farms to the grid and our greater use of nuclear power also played a role in carbon reductions, although less so than natural gas efficiency, says the report.

So, economic forces favored the efficient choice. But what will happen when the economy revives? Natural gas prices are known for their volatility; spikes can be dramatic when supplies tighten and natural gas can fall out of favor.

I won’t pretend to be a fortune teller on energy prices and supply choices. EIA, however, appears to think that even when the economy rebounds our energy supply mix will still trend toward lower emissions, with most new power demand met with gas-fired generation and renewables.

“If coal, which was more heavily impacted by the recent economic downturn than other energy sources, rebounds disproportionately, the carbon intensity of the energy supply could rise above the 2009 level. However, longer-term trends continue to suggest decline in both the amount of energy used per unit of economic output and the carbon intensity of our energy supply, which both work to restrain emissions,” the report says.

The role of gas-fired generation is a large topic within inner-utility and power planning circles. But the resource tends to be ignored by the green community. Clearly, though, if you are a CO2 watcher, this power source is important to keep an eye on as we piece together our future energy puzzle.

For more details see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/environment/emissions/carbon/

Visit Elisa Wood at http://www.realenergywriters.com/ and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Efficiency stimulus will lower energy bills, says federal report

By Elisa Wood

April 30, 2009

Depending on your position, the federal stimulus money is either a jobs builder or a national budget buster. The Energy Information Administration offers another take. In a recent analysis, the EIA finds that stimulus money should reduce what consumers and businesses pay to heat, cool and light buildings.

The federal agency this month updated its annual energy outlook to compare how energy costs would fare with and without the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/index.html.

The stimulus package delivers about $12.5 billion for energy efficiency improvements in homes and buildings. Those upgrades should cut homeowner bills an average of $64 annually (in real 2007 dollars) over the next two decades. Homeowners will reduce use of heat 1.7%, and air conditioning 3.4% by 2030, the report says. Likewise, commercial buildings should see energy costs drop by an average of $5.7 billion, or 2.7% annually between 2010 and 2030. In all, the report pegs cost cuts for home and building owners in 2020 at $13 billion, or 2.6%, and in 2030 at $21 billion, or 3%.

In addition, expect to see a lot more solar panels and small wind turbines powering stores and offices very soon as a result of significant tax credits and loan guarantees. The stimulus funds should lead to 121 MW more of solar units on commercial buildings by 2011, a 15% jump, and 120 MW in distributed wind turbines by 2016, a 527% jump.

The EIA does not typically update its annual outlook after it is published. But the federal agency decided to do so this year because it was clear that the stimulus money, approved in February, would significantly alter its 2009 outlook, which was released at the end of last year. Indeed, the information may help inform national policy as Congress debates ways to avert higher energy costs under new programs being contemplated, such as carbon cap-and-trade and a renewable energy standard.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.