Conservation can help Alaskans address energy costs

DEBORAH WILLIAMS

May 23, 2008 at 8:39AM AKST

Alaska is at a critical fork in the road. High energy costs are creating both budget surpluses and individual hardships.

In response to this situation, we can implement a thoughtful, comprehensive strategy that has both immediate and long-term benefits, or we can make the problem worse.

If we simply subsidize energy use for all Alaskans, this will increase our dependence on fossil fuels, create inequities, fail to address the root causes of the problem and establish a massive subsidy that will be virtually impossible to undo in the future.

On the other hand, there are numerous strategies that can provide relief from high energy prices and simultaneously reduce our demand for fossil fuels. This is the responsible path to the future.

Addressing utility costs
As Alaskans face rising utility costs, residents are looking for relief. The state can provide a path to reduced monthly bills and long-term energy security.

To provide relief without leadership on energy conservation and energy efficiency would be shortsighted, as energy cost relief would only treat the symptom and not the underlying challenge.

Alaskans can significantly lower their energy bills through implementing energy conservation measures.

The public’s response in Juneau to its energy crisis demonstrates this clearly.

Virtually overnight, individuals and businesses in Juneau adopted multiple conservation measures, and energy consumption dropped by approximately one-third. For example, on Tuesday, April 15, prior to the avalanche, Juneau consumed 1,006 MWh, while on Tuesday, May 6, after the avalanche, Juneau consumed 660 MWh.

There is a need for more public education on energy conservation measures, and, in some cases, implementation assistance. Some energy conservation measures are not universally understood, such as the energy savings achieved from unplugging appliances not in use.

A 2000 study by the University of California and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory indicates that eliminating this “standby electricity” could save households between 6 percent and 26 percent on average electricity bills. It is estimated that “phantom” appliances use about 450 kWH per household annually; for more information, visit eere.energy.gov.

Other energy conservation strategies may require additional education, such as how to reduce the thermostat setting on a water heater. Notably, each 10 degrees Fahrenheit reduction in water temperature results in a 3-5 percent savings in energy costs, according to eere.energy.gov.

There are at least five areas in which appropriations and programs represent wise investments in energy conservation to assist Alaskans to immediately lower their energy bills:

• Effective public education program. Establish an Alaska energy conservation education coordinator position and program within Alaska Energy Authority. This coordinator would work with utilities, the media, key organizations and others to educate the public on ways in which consumers can reduce their energy use.

This program could modify and expand a statewide, Web-based Alaska energy reducer, which would provide practical ways to reduce consumption.

It could also work with the media to produce statewide public service announcements on energy use-reducing strategies and with key housing and other organizations such as RuralCAP, as well as local governments. Printed materials, including posters, would also be used. Cost: $800,000.

• Metering and utility education program. Provide money to utilities to educate their consumers and distribute home metering devices. Studies show that when consumers can see how much energy they are using and from what sources, they are better able to reduce their energy use.

Providing utilities with metering devices to distribute along with energy conservation recommendations would provide results. In St. George, for example, once meters were installed, demand was reduced, and the utility realized a 15 percent savings on fuel.

An appropriation of $500,000 would go to the highest-cost areas, utility educational efforts and other outreach.
• Juneau study and lessons learned. Fund a study to examine how Juneau reduced its

energy consumption by approximately one-third. This study would document the strategies and lessons learned. Appropriation would be $100,000.

• Distributing energy conservation products. Provide to consumers access to free or low-cost energy conservation products. This could be done either for low-income consumers or for all consumers regardless of income levels.
Products could include:

• compact fluorescent bulbs, which use about 75 percent less energy than standard incandescent bulbs;

• programmable room thermostats, with an average savings of about 10 percent, according to Rebecca Grant at the Alaska Energy Authority;

• low-flow shower heads; quality, low-flow fixtures cost around $10-20 apiece and achieve water savings of 25-60 percent, according to eere.energy.gov;

• and plug-in strips and lighting occupancy sensors; the average household dedicates 11 percent of its energy budget to lighting, according to eere.energy.gov.

There is an excellent model for doing this. The Oregon Energy Trust is a nonprofit established by the Oregon Legislature that is a one-stop shop for state energy assistance — see www.energytrust.org/.

An Alaska Energy Trust could be similarly established and housed under the Alaska Conservation Alliance or the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. This energy trust could then offer conservation programs that have a proven record of reducing energy demand, such as:

• free residential and small business energy audits;

• rebates in the $50-100 range for purchasing Energy Star appliances such as refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers;

• rebates in the $100-200 range for upgrades to high-efficiency gas, oil and electric furnaces and hot-water heaters;

• free compact fluorescent light bulbs;

• free energy review for commercial buildings using a certified energy contractor;

• and free programmable thermostats to low-income residents.

The appropriation depends on extent of program but could range from $1 million to $50 million.

• Assist local governments. There are several actions that can assist local governments, including schools, in saving energy. Examples include installing more energy-efficient street lighting, upgrading refrigeration units and upgrading and making indoor lighting more efficient.

The appropriation depends on extent of program, but could range from $2 million to $100 million.

In addition to the above, we recommend the following short- to mid-term conservation measures:

• More efficient diesel generation. Evaluate the rural diesel systems that would benefit most from energy-efficiency retrofitting and provide the money to retrofit those systems.

• Training and certification. Provide training and certification programs necessary to implement Alaska’s new weatherization, renewable energy, and energy conservation programs.

• Revising building codes. The state should fully adopt and implement Building Energy Efficiency Standard, introduced in 1985 and adopted in 1992 but not implemented, as the new state code. BEES should be viewed as the minimal energy efficiency code, and research should be conducted to see how best to build upon BEES in light of new international standards and technology.

Addressing transportation costs
As gasoline and diesel prices increase, Alaskans are facing increased transportation costs. Are there funding strategies that would provide Alaskans lower cost alternatives and promote longer-term solutions? Yes. Here are four possibilities:

1) Expand mass transit. Bus systems in Alaska are underfunded and provide minimal service. Providing state funding to increase bus service in larger communities and to begin bus service in smaller ones, is a very desirable option.

In the short term, the state could provide money to reduce or even eliminate fares. This strategy also creates bus-driving jobs and is especially beneficial to low-income employees.

Depending on the scope of program, costs could range from $10 million to $100 million.

2) Expand vanpooling and car-pooling. Van pooling systems in Alaska are underfunded. Providing state funding to acquire vans for van pooling, and/or paying for gas for vanpools and car pools would promote these services.

Additional staff should be hired to advertise and coordinate van and car pools. Depending on the scope of the program, costs could range from $5 million to $25 million.

3) Implement bicycle programs. Right now, some people who would like to have a bicycle for alternative transportation cannot afford one. This program would make bicycles available either for purchase or rent on needs-based criteria. Also, bike paths and bike routes would be improved. Depending on the scope of the program, costs could range from $500,000 to $2 million.

4) Provide efficiency rebates. Many people want to purchase new, more efficient vehicles, outboard motors, snowmachines and so forth. This program would provide money to acquire more efficient vehicles.

The amount of the rebate could be income based. This program could also be available to municipalities to upgrade their fleet. Depending on the scope of the program, costs could range from $5 million to $50 million.

Legislative hearings
It is appropriate for the Legislature to hold a series of hearings exploring how we can lower the burden of high energy costs on those most in need, including institutions such as schools and municipalities.

The goal would be to find short-term relief that does not aggravate the underlying problems, such as by increasing the consumption of energy; is targeted to those most at need; and does not penalize people who consume very little energy.

Gov. Sarah Palin’s proposal needs careful scrutiny. What are the consequences? How much will it increase energy use?

Is it equitable for people off the grid, people who do not drive, people who consume very little. For example, will people who consume less than $100 per person a month purchase gas and then resell it?

Is it needed for people with high incomes? What are the political consequences of this proposal in Washington, D.C., and other places? How difficult will it be to implement? How would it ever be discontinued?

If the state is prepared to spend $1.2 billion on reducing energy costs, we can make smart, equitable, long-lasting investments that will benefit the state for years to come, lower our carbon footprint, make us a model for others and provide relief to people throughout the state.

Deborah Williams is president of Alaska Conservation Solutions, which can be found at www.alaskaconservationsolutions.com/acs/index.php