NEEP - Make Energy Efficiency Matter - Going Deeper April '10

Click here to subscribe to any of NEEP's newsletters.

April & May 2010
GOING DEEPER
The Economic Case for Investing in Efficiency - Now More than Ever While the economy shows signs of improving, states across the Northeast and beyond are still grappling with serious budget woes. In too many instances, states have been tempted by the short-sighted option of raiding ratepayer efficiency funds to help bridge deficits. NEEP's policy team has been busy monitoring attempts to siphon efficiency and clean energy funds in a number of states. We've been working with our allies, sponsors and partners to make the case for maintaining strong efficiency investments. In Connecticut, it looks like we've dodged a bullet for now, with the legislature amending language in a bill that sought to take 37 percent of the Energy Efficiency Fund through securitization. Read NEEP's letter opposing the raid in Connecticut. New Jersey, however, seems likely to siphon significant funding from its Clean Energy programs in 2010 and 2011. Read NEEP's appeal to Governor Christie here. New Jersey and Maryland are also poised to divert their Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) proceeds away from energy efficiency and clean energy programs. In letters to policymakers in both states, NEEP makes similar arguments against the proposed raids and urge them to consider the following: • Taking efficiency funds amounts to an extra tax on utility customers. Ratepayers pay into these funds with the expressed intent of helping the state's residents and businesses save money by installing energy savings measures in their homes and buildings. These are not taxpayer dollars intended for general coffers. • Efficiency and clean energy are one of the few sectors of the economy growing in recent years, according to a study by the Pew Charitable Trusts. But by taking away energy efficiency funding, states lose those jobs to states with more favorable policies and more stable funding. • Efficiency is cheaper and cleaner. Decimating energy efficiency budgets guarantees the choice of more costly and polluting options to meet energy needs. Typically, efficiency can meet a state's resource needs at between 3 and 5 cents per kilowatt hour, versus electricity supply, which can cost up to five times as much. Those savings improve the operating margins of the state's businesses, add disposable income to consumers' pockets, and help grow the state's economy. • Efficiency is a path toward climate goals. Less generation means less harmful emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxides. It helps the environment, and moves states toward commitments under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). • Efficiency builds a more stable electric grid, by shaving peak demand permanently, and reducing the need for costly and contentious new power plants. NEEP will continue making the case for strong and sustained efficiency investments and urging policymakers to see the very real economic case for supporting efficiency budgets as a path out of our financial downturn.

April & May 2010

GOING DEEPER

The Economic Case for Investing in Efficiency - Now More than Ever

While the economy shows signs of improving, states across the Northeast and beyond are still grappling with serious budget woes. In too many instances, states have been tempted by the short-sighted option of raiding ratepayer efficiency funds to help bridge deficits. NEEP's policy team has been busy monitoring attempts to siphon efficiency and clean energy funds in a number of states. We've been working with our allies, sponsors and partners to make the case for maintaining strong efficiency investments.

In Connecticut, it looks like we've dodged a bullet for now, with the legislature amending language in a bill that sought to take 37 percent of the Energy Efficiency Fund through securitization. Read NEEP's letter opposing the raid in Connecticut.

New Jersey, however, seems likely to siphon significant funding from its Clean Energy programs in 2010 and 2011. Read NEEP's appeal to Governor Christie here.

New Jersey and Maryland are also poised to divert their Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) proceeds away from energy efficiency and clean energy programs.

In letters to policymakers in both states, NEEP makes similar arguments against the proposed raids and urge them to consider the following:

• Taking efficiency funds amounts to an extra tax on utility customers. Ratepayers pay into these funds with the expressed intent of helping the state's residents and businesses save money by installing energy savings measures in their homes and buildings. These are not taxpayer dollars intended for general coffers.

• Efficiency and clean energy are one of the few sectors of the economy growing in recent years, according to a study by the Pew Charitable Trusts. But by taking away energy efficiency funding, states lose those jobs to states with more favorable policies and more stable funding.

• Efficiency is cheaper and cleaner. Decimating energy efficiency budgets guarantees the choice of more costly and polluting options to meet energy needs. Typically, efficiency can meet a state's resource needs at between 3 and 5 cents per kilowatt hour, versus electricity supply, which can cost up to five times as much. Those savings improve the operating margins of the state's businesses, add disposable income to consumers' pockets, and help grow the state's economy.

• Efficiency is a path toward climate goals. Less generation means less harmful emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxides. It helps the environment, and moves states toward commitments under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

• Efficiency builds a more stable electric grid, by shaving peak demand permanently, and reducing the need for costly and contentious new power plants.

NEEP will continue making the case for strong and sustained efficiency investments and urging policymakers to see the very real economic case for supporting efficiency budgets as a path out of our financial downturn.