Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Electric Regulation: Should California Be a Model for Virginia?

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

We can argue in endless circles whether Dominion and other Virginia power companies need to build major new power plants, or whether conservation and renewable energy sources can meet Virginia’s energy needs for the foreseeable future. What is not up for argument is that Virginia can do far more than it currently does to encourage conservation.

All you have to do is look at California. According to today’s Wall Street Journal, California regulators use a carrot-and-stick approach to incentivize power companies to conserve. The regulatory scheme rewards electric utilities cash equal to 12 percent of the costs they avoid if they meet or exceed conservation targets, but punishes them if they fall far short.

Thus incented, PG&E, which serves northern California, has subsidized the sale of 7.6 million compact fluorescent lightbulbs so far, and expects to raise the total to as many as 20 million — enough to fill 10 percent of the light sockets in northern California homes. The CFLs use only a quarter of the electricity of regular bulbs. And the CFL subsidies are just the most visible program. PG&E has some 85 programs in all, employing 462 people, to help customers cut energy use: from helping Safeway Inc. choose more efficient chicken rotisseries to paying computer manufacturers to supply more efficient power-supply units.

PG&E has one big advantage over Dominion in encouraging conservation: It’s electric rates are so much higher that consumers get a much higher payback on their investments in energy efficiency. Dominion can hardly be criticized for keeping its electric rates low. Indeed, I say, thank you very much. But low rates are no excuse for Virginia’s failure so far to put into place regulatory incentives and rate structures that encourage conservation where it makes sense. Give us the option, please. Let us make the decision ourselves.

Update: Dominion has just issued a press release noting that sales of CFL bulbs have reached 558,000 in the first three months of its light bulb initiative. Dominion provides a $1.50 discount on single bulbs and $3 for multi-packs. The company’s goals now are to sell 5 million over three years.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “What is not up for argument is that Virginia can do far more than it currently does to encourage conservation.”

    No argument from me, with the caveat that false conservation is worse than no conservation, because it is an even bigger waste.

    Let’s not put anymore expensive silt fence on the UPHILL side of excavations, for example.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Here is a discussion of CF Bulbs. See if you can find the potential for uphill silt fence in here, given that some kind of mandate for cf bulbs occurs.

    RH

    The conventional wisdom: Standard incandescent bulbs are very inefficient, putting out only 10-15% of the electricity they consume as light – the rest is dissipated as heat. But they are cheap and we are accustomed to the warm, broad spectrum light they provide. Halogen (also tungsten incandescent) bulbs are very slightly more efficient, last a bit longer, and have a pleasant, brilliant light quality; but they cost slightly more than conventional bulbs and achieve little if any energy or cost savings.

    Compact fluorescent (CF) bulbs, only 2-5 times more expensive per bulb now than incandescents and halogens, are about 4 times more efficient in light output — a 13-15 watt CF puts out the equivalent of a 60 watt incandescent or a 50 watt halogen. And they last 5-10 times as long as regular tungsten filament bulbs; so, between much longer life and much greater electrical efficiency, they are significantly less costly to operate, and their widespread use would save significant energy on a national and global scale, with all the benefits that would accrue from that.

    A few contrarian considerations:

    1. CF’s and tube fluorescents are made to have various color spectral outputs, from warm, soft white, like incandescents, to natural, like sunlight, to cool-white. Try them out at the store to see what you like. Putting different spectral types in one room might show unpleasant color contrasts.

    2. CF’s will fit your standard (medium) sockets, but some profiles may not fit in your (table or desk) lamps if shade bow is too narrow. Socket extenders may or may not help.

    3. CF’s can be dangerous if used in the wrong places: outdoors if exposed to water — be sure they are rated for exterior use; in enclosed fixtures, i.e. where glass shade/cover prevents air cooling, the elevated temperature can shorten life or cause fire; with dimmers, could overheat, cause fire — dimmable CF’s are sold, but are much more expensive.

    4. Switching on and off — with tungsten filament bulbs it is always beneficial to switch them off immediately when light is not needed, i.e. as you leave the room; but with fluorescents the question is much more complicated because each on-off cycle shortens bulb life. In fact, when I first tried switching to CF’s about 10-12 years ago and put them in locations where I would normally switch them on and off several times a day, they burned out very quickly — far sooner even than an incandescent in that location. I tried different makes and styles and all were disappointing. But, my anecdotal experience of years past may not be generalizable. I may have just had bad luck with several and manufacturing technology may have improved. My current way of using them, described below, using newer CF’s has been more favorable. The US Dept of Energy gives different advice on their web site; they say that it is most cost-effective to switch off a CF if doing so will save 15 minutes of electricity use; but I think the question is still unresolved as to how much on-off cycling shortens bulb life —
    http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/lighting_daylighting/index…

    5. Waste heat is not wasted in winter. All conventional discussions of energy savings with CF’s assume that an incandescent bulb’s turning 90% of its wattage into heat is wasted. In winter, when you are heating your house with some energy source, that is not wasted energy. Admittedly, the cost per BTU of resistive heating like this is several times the cost of natural gas or heating oil. But the glowing bulb also gives some radiant heat if you are close to it, so may allow a lower room ambient temperature (see discussion elsewhere of radiant vs. convective heat sources). Example: my house has 2 heat zones (natural gas, hydronic system). I keep the lower level fairly cool in winter (60-62 deg F.); I have an office on that level that I use a few hours per day. When I’m in it, I’ll typically have one or two incandescent bulbs and 1-2 CRT monitors on and they keep it a comfortable 67-68 degrees. I avoid heating the entire 1400 sq. ft. zone just to make this one room comfortable.

    6. The opposite argument obviously prevails in summer — heat from incandescents is usually unwelcome, and would add to cooling load if you’re using some kind of active cooling (fans, A/C, etc.).

    Considerations 4, 5 and 6 have led me to the following way of using CF’s (subject to change if I learn more):

    7. How I use CF’s now (2004 to present): I keep a 13 w. spiral CF in an outside post light year-round — it is switched by a photocell on the post — on at dusk, off at dawn. I’ve read that some CF’s won’t work with photocell switches, but this one does fine. I’m using a regular interior bulb, but the housing protects the bulb sufficiently from water. There is sufficient air circulation to keep the bulb from overheating. Year-round, my garage-workshop has several overhead 4 ft tube-type fluorescent fixtures with a mix of cool-white and warmer bulbs. I only turn them on when needed, and then leave them on if there is a chance I will be in the workshop again within an hour or two — i.e. I try to cycle on-off at most once daily, but sometimes more than this. Same pattern with some under-counter tube fluorescents in my den/bar area. In winter I use mostly incandescents in indoor lamps, but I am quite diligent to turn them off unless I’m in the room. In summer, to avoid incandescents heating the house, I change several bulbs over to CF’s and try to cycle them on-off at most once daily. I do NOT put CF’s in areas where I’m constantly turning lights on and off or switching them on very briefly — bathrooms, closets, den track lights, laundry/utility, and obviously where there are dimmer controls (dining room, kitchen ceiling). CF’s would certainly NOT be suitable in a motion-sensor switched fixture that is frequently cycling on and off.

    8. CF’s (indeed all fluorescents) contain mercury and must be recycled appropriately (NOT in your usual trash or recycling bin). Broken bulbs must be carefully cleaned up and recycled. Reportedly big retailers like Home Depot and Walmart will soon have provisions for safe CF recycling. I see very little written so far about the pollution from manufacturing CF’s. It’s all done overseas, so if they save us money, who cares if China and Hungary are contaminating their land, right? If you compare the very simple nontoxic ingredients in a standard bulb to the complex electronic circuitry, solder, plastics, mercury and rare earth elements in a CF you may think a little more about their global impact.

    Recycling sites for your area: http://www.earth911.org

    http://www.buildinggreentv.com/taxonomy/term/640/all

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Corporations and shoppers in the United States spent more than $54 million last year on carbon offset credits toward tree planting, wind farms, solar plants and other projects to balance other emissions.

    But where exactly is that money going?

    The Federal Trade Commission, which regulates advertising claims, raised the question Tuesday in its first hearing in a series on green marketing, this one focusing on carbon offsets.

    As more companies use offset programs to create an environmental halo over their products, the commission said it was growing increasingly concerned that some green marketing assertions were not substantiated.”

    Adapted from the environmental economics blog.

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    From CNN:

    Biodegradable coffins are part of a larger trend toward “natural” burials, which require no formaldehyde embalming, cement vaults, chemical lawn treatments or laminated caskets. Advocates say such burials are less damaging to the environment.

    Cremation was long considered more environmentally friendly than burials in graveyards, but its use of fossil fuels has raised concerns.

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I LIKE the idea of offering Dominion a better rate of return in exchange for performance-compliance-metrics for conservation.

    so .. the more than is conserved.. the more than Dominion benefits ….

    Let them figure out how to increase their bottom line but have adequate protections against abusing ratepayers.

    and actually.. let’s go the other way also.. penalties on their rate of return for increased consumption

    That’s better than trying to beat them in a head-to-head pissing contest…

    Oh… and let’s devote 1/100th of each penny involved to RH to get him on board… 🙂

  6. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    “Should California Be a Model for Virginia?”

    Its not a matter of if, but a matter of when.

    —————-

    Excerpts from Virginia Energy Plan 2007

    “EEC offers Virginia the most cost efficient and readily deployable method to manage its energy future”

    “The challenges – because of few formal EEC and demand control programs have been in place in Virginia, a significant transition will be needed for EE programs to be fully implemented and recognized by consumers. Effecting change in consumer behavior will require a significant shift in attitudes and awareness.”

    Number one on the list of EEC stategies is – Consumer education

    ————–

    Its going to take time because so many are either tainted with their memory of 1970’s style conservation or are ignorant, and that’s on both sides of the spectrum. Conservative types think I’m an environmentalist forcing them to conserve. I can’t even get posters on the liberal Raising Kaine blog to agree with me on ECC! Some of RK’s left-wing enviro nuts even consider my approach about EEC 1st before renewables, as a typical of a global warming skeptic. In my county, when DR was broght before the board of supv, only the two dems on the board voted against the DR resolution!

    I think many of the old cons are tainted by the memory of failed 70’s style conservation efforts. On the left, if the enviro-nuts weren’t so hellbent on decapitating the heads off of all energy firms, there would be greater EEC awareness on their side, which would inevitably lead to greater support for EEC. But since EEC doesn’t displace big energy’s power and influence, they discard the validity and support for EEC, just like they do for nuclear and clean coal. If you read the Grist, you’ll see that “saving the climate” is coupled with changing “the guard”. Throw in the fact that EEC is boring and not a nifty concept being being touted by Wall Street and Silicon venture capitalists, you can see why so many folks automatically think “no thanks” when it comes to EEC.

    Aside from the basics, insulation, door seals, programible thermostats, energy star appliances, smart switches on ac and hwh just don’t reasonate. Ac smart switches does more to decrease peak demand than all the others combined and increases in peak demand, is the primary reason for grid expansion. The Green Building concept has caught on, despite the fact they include these ac smart switches! And most have no clue what a smart grid is. And how many posts do we still read about the downsides of CFL’s and LED’s?

    No one should be forced to do anything. Even if you don’t believe the climate needs help, saving money should be enough to behove smart people and those who can read, to incur a small cost for a greater overall return. Those who disagree, just don’t know or won’t allow themselves to understand. Those people can remain inefficient. We all know who those types are. They refused sliced bread, Japanese cars, cable tv, computers, cell phones and the internet. Don’t force them, so if you are reading this reply and you don’t like EEC, rest assured, you will be allowed to educate yourself on this one.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Let them figure out how to increase their bottom line but have adequate protections against abusing ratepayers.”

    Now you are talking. I’m on board with that.

    “and actually.. let’s go the other way also.. penalties on their rate of return for increased consumption”

    Now you are talking crazy. How (and why) would you penalize Dominion because their customers (even considering incentives passed through by dominion, as mandated by the GA) choose to actually use the product Dominion offers?

    Why penalize Dominion for something their customers do more of, even considering the things they did less of to get the incentives? I take dominions offer and get rebates on my CF bulbs. Then I decide I’ve saved enough that now I can afford to have more light (say, as a safety issue). I get more rebates for the additional cf bulbs I install. And now you want to penalize Dominion for that?

    Why not just pay Dominion to out of business? If everyone had to generate their own power, THEN they’d have an incentive to conserve. (Because all those smaller dispersed units might use more resources that a big professionally managed one, maybe?)

    Why do we use electricity to begin with? Because it is better than the alternative of putting on a yoke to run the gristmill to make flour for bread we cook on a woodburning stove, that’s why.

    How much would you have to incentivize someone to forgo that benefit?

    Even if you could do that, why would you? Presumably, if you did the cost benefits right to begin with, to set the incentives, then any usage that ignores the incentive must be a usage that is not a “waste”. By definition, it is a usage we have already agreed amounts to a public benefit. One that ensures we are not all yoked to some gristmill.

    What this is, is another manifestation of wanting something for nothing, or even worse, something at someone else’s expense. “Hey, if you give up air conditioning, then I won’t have to pay as much toward Dominion’s guaranteed return.”

    Well, OK, maybe. In the first place, if you cut demand enough then YOU will be the cause of more stranded investment, and if I cut my use (to meet YOUR requirement) then YOU are the one who will have to make up for their guaranteed return.

    On the other hand,
    If you are willing to pay me what the air conditioning is worth to me (because I have asthma and a heart condition), then I might still be on board, but 1/100th of a cent probably won’t cut it.

    What we are talking about here is a free market exchange between my current quality of life, and some hypothetical person’s quality of life fifty years hence, except you want to MANDATE the rate of exchange.

    At some point, some people are going to say, “Over my dead body.”

    Is that overdramatic? Well, why do we want to conserve: it is to prevent mortality and morbidity. Fine, I don’t have any problem with that, but there was also a certain mortality and morbidity associated with being yoked to the gristmills and cooking over woodstoves.

    Let’s not forget what we are trying to do, before we wind up putting still more silt fence on the uphill side of the excavation.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “And how many posts do we still read about the downsides of CFL’s and LED’s? “

    Why shouldn’t we see posts about the downsides of CFL’s? The idea is NOT to promote them blindly, but to promote them exactly to the point where their benefits do not exeed their disbenefits. If the downsides are real, then so is the limit of rational promotion.

    I use CFL’s, but I don’t use them everywhere, and for a reason.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    From the Wall stret Journal:

    “European industries have a new set of numbers, too, as the carbon-emission trading scheme enters its second phase. Because regulators tightened the screws and allocated fewer emissions permits, the Times of London reports, financial wizards expect the price of carbon to rise to about 30 euros a ton, about one-third higher than today’s prices.

    And there’ll be more carbon to trade, according to a study in Nature (subscription required): warmer weather means forests are sucking up less carbon dioxide than they used to, which could mean global warming could accelerate. This just as calls are increasing for the United Nations to authorize forestry-preservation projects in the developing world as a cheap new source of carbon-emission credits for Western emitters.”

    What this will mean is that we can afford to spend more for incentives to cut usage.

    It still doesn’t mean we can afford to cut all usage, usage that we really need, or usage that saves more mortality and morbidity than it causes.

    When regulators tightened the screws, they unilaterally decided that we could afford to cut more usage.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Aside from the basics, insulation, door seals, programible thermostats, energy star appliances, smart switches on ac and hwh just don’t reasonate.”

    You left off motion detector switches which automatically turn stuff off when you leave and back in when you return. Of course, you would’t want one of those on a CFL, or a peak load switch either.

    “Ac smart switches does more to decrease peak demand than all the others combined and increases in peak demand, is the primary reason for grid expansion.”

    Wait a minute. Peak demand is only a few hours of a few days a year. You don’t think that increases in population and new uses for electricity contribute to grid expansion? What is your source? Are you sure that it is just peak demand that causes grid expansion?

    “No one should be forced to do anything. Even if you don’t believe the climate needs help, saving money should be enough to behove smart people and those who can read, to incur a small cost for a greater overall return.”

    I’m on board with that. I’d go farther than that: anyone who benefits from living in a better climate ought to be willing to incur a small cost for a greater overall return.

    All we have to do is agree on how much cost and how much return.

    I don’t have cable TV or AC. Does that mean I’m inefficient or that I can’t read? I don’t see how such attitudes help the cause.

    If I was building a new house, I’d build a green house, within reason. For now, I’m stuck with an old inefficient house: there are real financial and physical limits to what I can do to fix it. Should I tear down a historical landmark so I can build a new one that is more efficient, using tons of new resources and wasting tons of existing ones? Should I go get a mortgage to do that so I can use the tax deduction? Should I be allowed to get some of that $30 dollar a ton carbon credit for my forest land, and use that to renovate my house? Where does the money come from that pays those $30 credits?

    Oh, that’s right, it comes from higher costs for electricity that users are forced to pay. Oh well, we’ve already agreed that those paying ARE getting a high return on their small investment, right?

    RH

  11. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Changing the tax law to promote electrical conservation.

    If you want to discourage the use of something – raise its price. For electricity that means taxing high unit users.

    My plan:

    1. The state institutes a graduated tax system based on units of energy use per house. Low energy use houses might be entitled to a rebate while high energy use houses would pay a premium (on a per unit basis).

    2. Since electrical use is directly correlated to the size of a house – the large houses generally owned by wealthy people would pay higher rates per unit. Smaller houses – generally owned by people of more modest means – would pay a lower price per unit.

    3. The rate tax rates would be definied in conjunction with the average use in the state. People who have average electrical use would not pay any more or any less than they pay today. Those operating below average would be entitled to a discount. Those operating above the average would pay a surcharge. The government would take only enough money to administer the program.

    4. The tax would be collected as part of your electricity bill. The electric company would take from the high volume users and give to the low volume users. The state would audit the results to ensure that it remains a “zero sum” game for the electric company.

    5. A household can apply for an exemption if they are steadily reducing their electricity use. Dor example, if you are among the top 10% of electricty users in the state you would not be assessed the surcharge if you reduced the electricity you used by 15% or more in a single year. This would reduce the money available for subsidizing low use households but would also provide incentive for equipment replacement, etc.

    Some will say “big government”. Some will say “nanny state”. However, in a state where the government is unwilling to follow federal guidelines and confront NIMBYs over electric transmission lines, there has to be an answer.

    And … absolutely, positively no exceptions for farms, large families, etc. If global warming affects us all then we should all be “in the boat” to solve it.

    Request: In the unlikely event of support for this proposal I need a little time to prepare. Beyond making my own house more efficient I need to start a company that will help the NoVA McMansions cut their electricity bills. My company will do the work, monitor usage from afar and take 1/2 the tax savings each year for the first three years.

    Unlike members of the GA I am quite open about wanting to profit from this idea.

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m sorta on-board with this.

    I’d favor an energy standard that is based on currently available cost-effective technology on a per square foot basis.

    Folks that meet or exceed the standard – get a rebate.

    Folks that exceed it get a surcharge but they also have access to tax incentives to replace/upgrade stuff that is grossly inefficient.

    Surcharges would also be placed on all products that do not meet the minimum energy standard.

    The surcharges would fund the tax incentives…

    Dominion’s role would be oriented to load demand management by offering incentives to those who signed on for those programs.

    Consumers could also meet the energy standard by signing up with Dominion.

    Anyone who opposed these changes and advocated the status quo and/or exhaustive studies to “prove” the program was beneficial would be sentenced to having to listen to the worlds worst operas for at least two hours per day.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Well, Gee.

    I was 100% on board until you got to the part about no exemptions for farms.

    😉

    Actually, on farms, the houses and infrastrucure are taxed separate from the farmland, which doesn’t use electricity, much.

    But, this is the right idea. Winners pay the losers, experts get paid to offer REAL help that ACTUALLY cuts costs.

    But with everybody trying to conserve, doesn’t the average drift down? Do you re-adjust over time as conditions change?

    If we drift downward a lot and create an intentional case of stranded investments for Dominion, what do they get? I think this problem goes away over time, but it is worth considering.

    Now, if you go after a plan that is this transparent, I don’t think a lot of study is needed. It meets all my requirements, lets me choose what stuff i want to use and not use, for my own benefit and comfort, at my own expense.

    It’s too bad I don’t have a problem with this: I actually like opera. You think those guys out on those tractors are listening to Country Music? Nope: Opera, sponsored by Toll Brothers, and Exxon.

    RH

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Surcharges would also be placed on all products that do not meet the minimum energy standard.

    Including the latent energy of manufacture and shipping.

    RH

  15. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    RH – like I said at the beginning of my post…

    Its not a matter of if, but a matter of when.

    —————-

    Excerpts from Virginia Energy Plan 2007

    “EEC offers Virginia the most cost efficient and readily deployable method to manage its energy future”

    “The challenges – because of few formal EEC and demand control programs have been in place in Virginia, a significant transition will be needed for EE programs to be fully implemented and recognized by consumers. Effecting change in consumer behavior will require a significant shift in attitudes and awareness.”

    Number one on the list of EEC stategies is – Consumer education

    Its your turn, start reading.

    Its been fun, gotta run.

  16. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    What the hell. I like Jim’s idea that CA is our laboratory.

    Flex Your Power is California’s statewide energy efficiency marketing and outreach campaign. Initiated in 2001, Flex Your Power is a partnership of California’s utilities, residents, businesses, institutions, government agencies and nonprofit organizations working to save energy. The campaign includes a comprehensive website, an electronic newsletter and blog, and educational materials. Flex Your Power has received national and international recognition, including an ENERGY STAR Award for excellence.

    check out http://fypower.org/ to see just how far California is ahead of everyone else. The state of CT is pretty well advanced, and VA only just “opened the door”.

    ———-

    PS – RH increases in peak demand are the “primary” drivers in grid expansion. Of course baseline growth causes expansion, but it is more gradual and due to efficiencies, growth in baseline since 1975 has been cut in half. Check out PJM, FERC, DOE and EIA websites. Having enough power to cool and keep the lights on throughout the US all summer long b/n 2-6pm lies the challenge. I would take a stab and say that growth in certain generation type is more associated with baseline growth.

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “…..increases in peak demand are the “primary” drivers in grid expansion.”

    true.. but it won’t help Virginians to curtail demand if the reason for the new plant is to sell power to the North East US… right?

    The Northeast gets the power and Virginians get the nitrogen, acid rain and mercury….

    … courtesy of our elected leaders in Va.

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    GridWise trial finds ‘smart grids’ cut electricity bills

    Results from a year-long study on high-tech electricity meters found smart grid technology performed as intended, saving consumers about 10 percent on their bills while easing strain on the power grid.

    he Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest Laboratory on Wednesday released the findings from its GridWise project, which tested the use of Internet-connected thermostats and other controls in 112 homes in the Seattle area.

    Consumers also tried out appliances, like water heaters and dryers, that were able to automatically change their settings according to signals sent by the utility over the power grid.

    The trial showed that consumers are willing to have utilities remotely dial down the appliances to lessen the load on the power grid and reduce their consumption, said Rob Pratt, program manager at Pacific Northwest National Lab.

    These changes could be as small as turning off the heat on the dryer while it continues to tumble for a few minutes. But those minute-to-minute adjustments, driven by the fluctuating demand on the power grid, can have significant benefits to utilities.

    “We could save $70 billion in investments in the next 20 years by offsetting construction of new infrastructure that would otherwise be needed to meet load growth,” Pratt said during a teleconference with the media.

    Smart grid technology would also provide more reliability to the power grid, allowing utilities to isolate problems more easily. Clean power sources such as wind and solar, which pose technical challenges because they don’t supply a steady stream of electricity, can be better incorporated with upgraded equipment, the study found.

    http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9847236-54.html?tag=nefd.top

  19. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    Larry,

    “true.. but it won’t help Virginians to curtail demand if the reason for the new plant is to sell power to the North East US… right?”

    My first post stated that it should be mandated that any state or utility requiring grid expansion, either in or out-of-state, must exhaust all resources in-state, first. I also said our governor should take this to the National Board of Governors. If any state or utility needs more supply, they should be required to meet certain % of EEC first.

    Also, how many outdoor a/c units do you think there are b/n NYC, NJ, eastern PA, Delaware, Maryland, DC, NOVA, F-burg, Richmond and Hampton Roads?

    I gotta calculate a low average estimated MW saving from smart ac switches from NYC to VA Beach and show this blog… back in 5 weeks 😉

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Having enough power to cool and keep the lights on throughout the US all summer long b/n 2-6pm lies the challenge. “

    So the idea is to turn the power off 30% of the time when it is needed most, and we will still keep cool and have lights. I recognize ther is some slack in there, but I don’t see seven years worth.

    “My first post stated that it should be mandated that any state or utility requiring grid expansion, either in or out-of-state, must exhaust all resources in-state, first.”

    There’s that mandate word again. Sure, Massachusettts exhausted part of their resources by tearing down a plant and shipping it to south America. Now they want to export their generating need to Virginia.

    Golly -gosh, I’m glad those urban areas are so energy efficient!

    —————————–

    “Results from a year-long study on high-tech electricity meters found smart grid technology performed as intended, saving consumers about 10 percent on their bills while easing strain on the power grid.”

    If it turns out to work like that, and it benefits the utilities, and cuts big investment, then fine. But you still need some peak capacity for security reasons. If you wind up selling the energy you saved then a) you haven’t saved anything except the investment in new stuff, which b) means you are skating closer to the edge.

    How much is the investment in the smart switch technology going to be?

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “because of few formal EEC and demand control programs have been in place in Virginia, a significant transition will be needed for EE programs to be fully implemented and recognized by consumers. Effecting change in consumer behavior will require a significant shift in attitudes and awareness.”

    Agreed. Add the cost of that to that to the cost of installing and implementing smart grid technology.

    Look guys, I know this stuff will work, but it is NOT just a question of when. And carefree operation getting all the savings we can with no downside, is not guaranteed.

    RH

  22. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy


    RH said-

    “Because seven years from now we will have squeezed all the EEC juice out of that turnip.

    Then what?

    We will lbe rright back where we are now with the same arguments, no solutions, and no slack left to play with.”

    Then RH said –

    “Look guys, I know this stuff will work, but it is NOT just a question of when. And carefree operation getting all the savings we can with no downside, is not guaranteed

    EEC is fine, so far as it goes. Lets not make it sound like something it isn’t.”

    ———————–

    EEC methods have been in use for many years and some major methods were even implemented to a much greater level than today. The EIA reports that appx 50% of this nation’s demand for energy since 1975, has been eliminated by the implementation of EEC. However, because of some general issues with expanding the grid prior to EPAct 2005, increases in usage and enhancements in EEC didn’t develop along with a host of other issues and factors, but I just won’t get into them on the fear you will fall deeper into the abyss of confusion.

    Then what you ask?

    I understand answering simple questions and holding a discussion or debate, but to continuously carrying on a discussion with someone who’s life experiences is sole basis behind a viewpoint, isn’t worthwhile.

    Once you understand EEC, which you clearly do not, you’ll understand why EEC is needed first and foremost and not just in the sense of just an energy resource, but why it is necessary in order to fully capitalize on the slew of generation potential from intermittent green alternatives that exist. While you walk around in your stupor, EEC initiatives will soon be implemented left and right to your benefit w/o any inconvenience to you.

    Once anyone or when you finally understand, you’ll want to do the obvious and install a smart switch for your outdoor air-conditioning unit because it doesn’t do any harm, provided that you have a/c, your electric company provides them free of cost to you, will have them deactivate or removed at your request at not cost, and fully explains and guarantees the cycle period up front. Furthermore, if your electricity company does not provide them, I would suggest that you write your state legislator an inform them of this. If you or others think they really understand EEC but think an a/c smart switch is useless or foolish, well, I suppose I can live with that, just like we live with folks who throw trash on the ground, don’t use blinkers, or hold doors open.

    EEC is the cheapest, the cleanest, and is the most readily available energy resource to implement and meet consumer demand. EEC doesn’t require the usage of private and public land or water. EEC doesn’t obstruct open space and environmental views. EEC is not restricted by geographic location.

    Where’s the flipping downside?

    If this phrase doesn’t peak an interest in you to google and research EEC before you reply, then I’m willing to allow you to remain lost. Good luck and good bye.

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The EIA reports that appx 50% of this nation’s demand for energy since 1975, has been eliminated by the implementation of EEC.”

    So why is it we still have a problem? It’s because the 50% we saved we turned around and sold to someone else. Otherwise, we would have 50% of slack.

    “you’ll want to do the obvious and install a smart switch for your outdoor air-conditioning unit “

    I very much doubt it. I don’t have any air conditioning. there is not much to reduce.

    “your electric company provides them free of cost to you, will have them deactivate or removed at your request at not cost,”

    This is an outright lie. those things cost money, and they cost money to install. Someone is paying for them.

    “Once you understand EEC, which you clearly do not,”

    Yep, I’m an idiot, and I haven’t learned a thing from twenty years of training and practice in the environmental and energy business. There is a sales pitch that is guaranteed to win friends and influence people: just call them ignorant. Or Liken them to folks who throw trash on the ground, don’t use blinkers, or hold doors open.

    If you think a smart switch is a good thing for your situation, then you can go buy one and have it installed. You can encourage others to buy one. But when you start talking mandates, you better have a better sales pitch than calling people ignorant.

    They may have other priorities that are just as valid as yours. As you said, “Effecting change in consumer behavior will require a significant shift in attitudes and awareness.” Calling names isn’t going to cut it.

    EEC is a good thing, so far as it goes. After you pick the low hanging fruit, you will need a ladder. Might as well plan on it.

    EEC isn’t the answer to the all problems you suggest. The flipping downside is that it won’t solve the problems. We will still need more electricity, more ways to generate it, more ways to move it.

    Seven years from now we will have still more people suggesting that we can go ahead by going backwards.

    The real issue that needs to be fixed is to make sure we have the property rights in place to defend what we have. Absent the right to take property through eminent Domain, Dominion would have a very strong incentive to think about other ways of doing business. Absent the right to ship their pollution out of state, New England would have to find another way: Maybe they would put windmills where they can be seen form the Kennedy Estate.

    How do you think we got in this position? Well, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York, all have a lot more millionaires than Virginia.

    They understand about property. At the bottom line, environmental issues are about property. As soon as you understand that, you can stop ranting. I’m with you on EEC’s, but it is not the only thing, or the most important thing.

    RH

  24. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    RH – I was in the middle of big reply, pretty much refutting every sentence, every doubt, every counter you provide.

    Then I came across this news story. Its right up your alley.

    Conservation Groups Sue to Block Electric Transmission Corridors

    WASHINGTON, DC, January 10, 2008 (ENS) – Eleven regional and national environmental organizations today announced plans to file suit against the Department of Energy over its final designation of a mid-Atlantic National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor.

    On October 5, the Energy Department published its order designating two National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors – the Mid-Atlantic Corridor, and the Southwest Corridor.

    Led by the National Wildlife Federation and the Piedmont Environmental Council, the groups are challenging the designation on grounds that the Energy Department violated the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act by failing to study the potential harmful impacts of the corridor on air quality, wildlife, habitat and other natural resources.

    “The Department of Energy has ignored the public interest in favor of the private interests of power companies,” said Randy Sargent Neppl, wildlife counsel at the National Wildlife Federation. “Our federal government should be working to find solutions that protect our natural heritage and promote a clean energy future so that our children and grandchildren will have healthy communities, clean air and abundant wildlife and wild places to enjoy.”

    “The Department of Energy has failed to do even the basic due diligence and analyze responsible and cost effective alternative ways of meeting the region’s energy needs,” said Christopher Miller, president of the Piedmont Environmental Council.

    “Efficiency and conservation should be the first order of business. Reducing both peak and base load demand through energy efficiency, conservation and expanding demand response programs should be a priority,” he said. “The mid-Atlantic corridor designation puts an enormous area of the region at risk while sending our energy policy a major step backwards towards continued reliance on coal-fired generation.”

    The groups plan to file suit on Monday, January 14 in the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-10-091.asp

    RH won’t you join me now and support a mandate that all state utilities to place EEC as their NUMBERO UNO ranked energy resources?

    AlsoI know you must live in Fauquier Co. somewhere, and since they have a/c in that county, how about you knocking on a few doors for me, and ask the owners if they wouldn’t mind NOVEC installing a smart switch on their a/c unit!

    Thank you my good buddy!

  25. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    FG – can you provide the URL for the Smart meter… I check the NoVec website and could not find that program…

    also.. is there a website that shows killowatt hours per day per square foot? I’m thinking for the average house it can vary from 25 to 50.. give or take…

    thanks. 🙂

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    NYT Headline:

    California Seeks Thermostat Control

    Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/11control.html?ei=5090&en=708b7b53b2933934&ex=1357707600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1200143389-t0CDKiBP7a/j+SfX+IblXA

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Remember, Califirnia had an initiative for more renewable energy. It was heavily promoted by speculators with interests in the renewable energy field, but it failed to pass.

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Those groups are fighting the new power lines, but they are barking up the wrong tree. You notice they say nothing about private property rights, but they had plenty to say when the plan was to go through thier stronghold in Norther Fauquier and Loudoun.

    They fought a similar battle concerning the Disney development, and we can see where that went, now. I don’t think those groups are working in my interests, or anybody’s actually. They are simply obstructionists.

    When they wake up to physical and economic realities, when I think they are out to do good, rather than prevent bad, then I’ll support them. But the problem is they don’t want Dominion to do anything, and if they win, they don’t want me to do anything either.

    I don’t see them as looking out for my best interests.

    Check out

    http://commonsblog.org/archives/000497.php

    http://commonsblog.org/about_freemkt.php

    or

    http://www.blacksmithinstitute.org/ten.php

    I have over the years seen a lot of stuff go down badly. I have developed an internally consistent philosophy on how I think things should be done. It does not include mandates, and you are not likely to change my mind.

    I simply think that if someone wants something, then they should go buy it. If you want me to have a smart switch, and you are willing to buy and install it, come on over.

    But the first time I want a hot bath and don’t have water, I’ll recycle the damn thing.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Or, check out

    http://conservationfinance.wordpress.com/2007/06/14/hadza-hunters-gatherers-under-threat/

    “What the Hadza need are clear and well-defined property rights to their land, including rights to charge tourists and hunters.”

    What I need are clear and well-defined property rights, including the right to rent land to Dominion for power lines (if I choose), as opposed to them simply taking it.

    In my area we are in Dominion Territory, not NOVEC. I prefer to let my neighbors live in peace, and not boreass them with nonsense.
    I think EEC is good stuff, but it is a long way from my numero uno priority.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    From today’s WAPO

    “It would have cost just $100,000 a year to remove harmful minerals from the water flowing into all of the more than 400 boilers in the public schools. But maintenance officials say there was never enough money for it in their budget.

    As a result, heating systems old and new have been breaking down all over the school district. “

    $60 million dollars worth of newly renovated boilers – ruined by neglect and waste.

    Priorities, folks. Priorities.

    RH

  31. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    The state of Maryland gets it!

    The WashPost reports http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011303464.html?hpid=topnews Gov. O’Malley is presenting an initiative to reduce electric consumption in his state by 15% by they year 2015.

    Click here http://www.gov.state.md.us/pressreleases/070725.html for the press release.

    All we need is a similar agressive initiative in all Mid-Atlantic and NE states up the i-95 corridor, and the current proposed grid expansions may take a different turn!

    ——————-

    Don’t worry RH (Ron Hovis?), only the industry will have the mandate; like I told you 13 times prior, its voluntary for consumers.

    ——————-

    Larry – NOVEC’s load management program featuring its smart ac switch can be found here http://www.novec.com/page.cfm?id=544. FAQ & enrollment is found here http://www.novec.com/documents/LM%20Brochure.pdf

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How is it voluntary for consumers if the cost is added to the rate base?

    In the State of Pennsylvania the Governor has a programm to reach zero pollution by 2020. The idea is to co-locate indusries so that each can use the waste sream generated by another. If that sounds a bit like a perpetual motion machine, it is.

    “All we need is a similar agressive initiative in all Mid-Atlantic and NE states up the i-95 corridor….”

    That’s a pretty aggressive agenda. I’m not convinced that aggression is the way to get people to sign up, though.

    I’ve seen a report that says we could save 7 Terawatts per year just by shutting down office equipment at night. Of course, that doesn’t help the peak power problem, and it doesn’t recognize the time required to reboot all that stuff.

    From 1949 to 1973 utilities doubled the amount of electricity they sold every ten years. As a result they were able to afford larger and more efficient power plants and produce electricity at lower marginal costs.

    Adjusted to 1992 terms, a residential customer in 1892 paid more than 4 dollars for each kilowatt-hour, a price that explains why electricity was viewed as a luxury item at the time. But by 1907, the price had dropped to $1.56 per kWh. Prices fell to 55 cents in 1927 and 19 cents in 1947. Progress continued such that the price of electricity dropped to 13 cents per kWh in 1913and 9 cents in 1967.

    The combination of technological improvements and lower costs led to a grow and build strategy: utilities promoted the use of electricity usage so they would have reason to build new and more productive power plants. The plants produced power at lower marginal cost, and part of the lower cost would be passed on to customers as lower rates.

    Lower prices stimulated growth in usage, which meant utilities needed to build new power plants to meet demand, but those plants could further exploit technological advances and attain still lower costs.

    Virginia Electric Power Company, for example had 14% per year growth in the late 1960s as a result of rapid population and industrial growth in its service territory.

    But, there are limits to increases in thermal efficiency, just as there are in pollution efficiencies. And there are limits to economies of scale: when an enormous power plant suffers a failure, it takes a lot of capacity off line.

    As long as efficiency and costs were decreasing, regulators had little to do, except approve lower rates. After we squeezed out all the producdtion efficiencies, fuel costs started to increase, and interest rates went up, that was no longer true.

    Promotional rate structures made sense, as utility costs continuously declined and as growing demand pushed costs still lower. But with technological progress limited and other costs climbing, power companies could no longer achieve lower costs.

    Jimmy Carter tried to promote conservation, higher energy prices, and alternative supplies. I worked on several projects related to creating alternative supplies before lower fuel prices made them uneconomical, and the government withdrew funding for research and subsidies.

    PURPA was designed to reduce or eliminate promotional rate structures, shift from oil to coal, and prohibit using natural gas. It also called for more cogeneration. In most cases, cogenerated power was cheaper than utility-generated electricity, despite the lack of scale economies, because the fuel was used to perform double-duty Moreover, the company could produce and sell power without being subject to the regulations dealing with security registration or prices that utilities were forced to endure.

    Suddenly, cogenerators found that utilites were required to buy power from them at higher prices than they had been able to buy power from the utilities. PURPA provided a huge boost to all kinds of entrepreneurial companies, and this was assisted by incentives (subsidies) provieded by the state of California. But, cogenerators could also use natural gas, and that has had deleterious effects.

    Not all of PURPA worked as planned: the introduction of deregulation (more properly restructuring) and wheeling meant that high volume users could compete to get electricity at the lowest prices from far way units. companies operating on a competitive basis were likely to drop socially useful programs that were previously supported through regulated rates (subsidies).

    Meanwhile electricity usage in the United States is projected to grow more than twice as fast as committed resources over the next 10 years. Unless additional resources are brought into service, some areas could fall below their target capacity margins within two or three years.
    In parts of western Canada, demand is projected to outpace resource growth within about two years.

    Peak demand for electricity in the United States is forecasted to increase by almost 18% (135,000 MW) in the next 10 years. Wind and solar are increasingly attractive generation resources, but reliably integrating them into the bulk power system will require new transmission lines to deliver power from remote locations to population centers. We must determinen how much power renewables can consistently produce during peak demand times.

    As a result transmission miles are projected to increase by 8.8% in the United States and 4.8% in Canada over the next 10 years. But at the same time we have more and more requirements that mean not in my back yard has become not in my state.

    Such sentiments directly oppose the use of cross state competition, and greater use of renewables.

    Clearly, both demand side and supply side inititives are needed. But the idea that a 15% savings will solve our problems is simply a fantasy. conservation is going to run into the same problems with economy of scale that generation has.

    So, seven to ten years from now we will be exactly where we are now, but with a more difficult, more expensive, and more urgent problem to solve. Those exigencies will provide more excuses for emergency powers to enforce some people to endure the more of the costs for electricity to be provided to others, who are not bearing their full portion of the expense.

    RH

    Proposed nuclear plants, because of their large size, also will require expansion and strengthening of the grid to provide for their reliable integration.

Leave a Reply

Read More