Frank Stern and David Purcell contributed to this blog.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule in June 2014 to reduce carbon emissions from existing fossil-fired electric generating units (EGUs) over 25 MW. The rule is primarily focused on coal-fired plants across the United States. Total carbon reductions targeted by the EPA are substantial: the CPP proposes carbon emission reductions totaling 30% relative to 2005 emissions by 2030, with alternative approaches totaling approximately 23% in reductions by 2025. During the public comment period, the proposed rule received nearly 4 million comments from utilities, states, and other stakeholders. The EPA’s final rule is expected sometime this summer.
While the CPP does not propose state-by-state least-cost planning or specifically require energy efficiency (EE) for carbon reduction compliance, states should pursue EE because, as discussed below, EE is recognized by the EPA and numerous states as a highly cost-effective resource and a prudent investment. Reaching the EPA’s Building Block 4 (BB4) 1.5% annual EE savings goal is likely to require a focused effort in many states. A recommended approach to working toward the savings goal is developing an EE retail strategy.
Advantages of Using EE
Using BB4 to reach a portion of states’ CPP requirements is important since:
- EE is typically a least-cost resource for reducing carbon emissions
- EE provides positive economic benefits, while reducing carbon emissions
- EE will decrease energy demand, allowing utilities greater supply-side flexibility to implement other Building Blocks through 2029
Considerations in Meeting BB4 EE Savings Targets
States with larger utility EE portfolios and growing programs are likely to meet BB4 goals more easily than states with less developed programs and low annual savings. Existing EE portfolios could require increasing EE measure incentive levels to drive participation. Rather than relying only on existing portfolios, it is more likely that all regions of a state and its utilities (including munis and co-ops) should be involved in reaching the BB4 goal.
The figure below shows that states that have undertaken EE program development have growing EE portfolio savings near 1.5% and have higher first-year costs than other states. Many states have not undertaken EE initiatives for extended periods and resulting incentive levels are low in comparison.
Southeast Incremental Savings vs. First Year Cost of Savings: 2011
(Source: Navigant Analysis)
While the CPP compliance period does not begin until 2020, states and utilities should consider increased BB4 efforts today to gain momentum toward the 1.5% savings goal. Potential studies can be used to determine maximum achievable EE savings. Such studies can reveal the range of electricity savings and benefits expected over time. In determining EE’s role in reaching CPP goals, states and utilities should assess EE potential to decide how to approach developing BB4 savings.
Central to an EE retail approach is understanding and using potential studies, benefit/cost analyses, and evaluations of EE portfolios to gain an understanding of the benefits and challenges of expanding EE portfolios. Designing and implementing EE programs with proper financial incentives and cost recovery mechanisms can lead to positive net benefits for utilities, customers, and regional economies.
Initiatives, Policies, and Programs
There are a number of approaches to support development of EE initiatives at a utility or in a state to meet the EPA goals. Some initiatives include:
- Establish energy savings targets within a company or at the state level
- Assess state performance incentives and cost-recovery mechanisms that move EE toward being equal to other supply-side resources
- Integrate EE into the resource planning process in regulated markets– incorporate EE into electric integrated resource planning as an equal resource option to generation
- Require stringent evaluation, measurement and verification of EE programs
State policies should be assessed to create proper incentives and foster growth. Cost recovery as the sole incentive to implement EE portfolios is insufficient to foster savings. Financial incentives and policies that place EE on similar or equal footing to supply-side resources is needed for utilities to actively move toward the 1.5% target.