Email This Author Comment On Article About The Author More Articles By This Author

The second is that that upgrade won’t happen anytime soon.

Congress is at odds over whether to include system reliability issues in an already-controversial and long delayed national energy bill. And however the issue is addressed, there is little political consensus on the means to a solution, especially when Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham proclaims that the costs of system upgrades, estimated at roughly $56 billion, will be borne principally by ratepayers.

Add opposition to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s proposals to create regional energy authorities to regulate energy transmission across state lines and oversee system upgrades, as well the local opposition likely to arise when and if sites are designated for the construction of massive new high-voltage transmission lines, and it becomes clear that grid improvements are a long way from reality.

There are, however, solutions that can meet short-term demand response needs while also accruing long-term energy savings, having both immediate and lasting impacts on our nation’s energy system. Energy efficiency measures provide the quickest, cleanest and cheapest way to help ensure that the regional and interconnected electric grids are not again overwhelmed.

For the past 15 years New England ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs have yielded cost-effective peak demand reductions and energy savings that nearly equal the capacity and annual output of the 1,100 megawatt Seabrook, N.H. nuclear power plant. In doing so, these programs have saved consumers over $250 million in avoided energy bills, and helped to relieve the strain on a regional electric grid that includes the most congested transmission area in the country, Southwest Connecticut. A broader commitment to such energy efficiency programs and policies can extend these benefits and provide badly needed transmission and distribution capacity until such time as the daunting task of upgrading our national T&D system can be realized.

Ratepayer funded energy efficiency programs, administered in a number of different formats throughout the Northeast, help introduce to consumers energy efficient products – like efficient lighting, appliances or equipment – as well as best practices – such as resource efficient commercial building operations and maintenance. During the most recent budget difficulties, however, these funds have come under attack as a quick-fix budget solution. To take these ratepayer funds and use them for anything other than their intended energy purposes is wrong under any circumstances, but potentially calamitous given the fragility of our energy grid. If anything, states need to increase their commitments to energy efficiency programs to expand on the demand reductions they bring.

To complement these programs, both federal and state policymakers also need to act on energy efficiency product standards. Legislation being considered in several Northeast states, including Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire, would enact standards for 10 common residential or commercial products, ranging from ceiling fans to traffic signals. By implementing these standards, the Northeast would realize an estimated 9,335 gigawatt hours in energy savings by 2010, which is the equivalent to the energy required to power over 1.5 million households. Those same standards would also reduce peak energy demand by over 2,100 megawatts by 2010, which is the equivalent of seven power plants.

The federal government also needs to recommit to efficiency standards on two fronts. First, legislation in the current energy bill would for the first time in over a decade enact a new set of efficiency standards for a range of products. These provisions need to be considered as vital pieces to the complex set of solutions to our transmission and distribution capacity constraints.

Second, the Department of Energy needs to act on the standards mandates they have been given. In 1992, the DOE issued an advanced notice of a proposed rulemaking on a standard for residential furnaces and boilers, but still hasn’t set that standard over a decade later. The hard work of gaining legislative approval for these standards has been done; it’s now incumbent on the administration to order DOE to act on those mandates.

Finally, regional power system planners and state regulatory commissions should explicitly include in power system planning and development the potential of energy efficiency to meet future system needs and relieve grid constraints. The Northwest Power Planning Council – the only regional planning power planning body in the country that considers the potential of energy efficiency – found that over the past 20 years energy efficiency programs and polices met 25 percent of system growth in the Pacific Northwest, and can provide at least 12 percent of future projected growth in that region for the next 20 years.

The problems with our electricity system didn’t develop overnight, and they won’t be solved overnight. But until they are, energy efficiency can and should play a vital role in addressing both the short- and long-term issues of system reliability. To ignore this readily available solution is to risk the lights going out … again.