As a utility in a growing and thriving town we are faced with an ever increasingly pressing question: Where are we going to get more power? Whether it is from new homes and businesses moving in, or just the newest electronic gizmo getting plugged in, our city electric load is growing.
To date we have purchased all our power from Bonneville Power Administration. A large percentage of that power (about 80%) comes from large hydro. The good thing about this type of power is that it is very cheap. It was invested in a long time ago and many of them are still running very smoothly (granted that they have severely effected fish populations in many areas). The down side is that hydro power is finite. There is only so much water behind the dam, and not a drop more. So as our city grows we are forced to look at other options.
In our region solar electricity is not a viable option. An average home (1000 square feet w/ heat pump) owner would need to invest $100k in solar panels to offset their yearly electrical consumption. This would save them $630 dollars a year in electricity; providing a simple payback of 159 years. Even with robust tax incentives and local utility rebates it does not take an accountant to see that it does not pencil out on the money side.
Some utilities started to wonder if they might be able to convince people to use a little less electricity as a way of dealing with load growth. One way to bring down electrical demand is to raise the price. This has limited success and tends to hurt those with fixed incomes. And as the Carter administration proved (think ‘warm sweater and less heat’), as well as recent buzz about gas prices, people do not like to change their habits. So, what if we could get people to use less electricity and save money without asking them to sacrifice their comfort?
For example: if I could get my neighbor to insulate his 1,800 square foot home he might save as much as 12,000 kilowatt hours over the next year (estimated project cost of $7,000). That is equivalent to $80k worth of solar electricity and he would also save as much as 50% on his winter heating bills. From his standpoint it is a win-win. His bills go down, and he is likely to see a simple-payback in less than 5 years after the tax rebates and utility incentives.
As it turns out buying conservation (incenting people to be more efficient) is the cheapest resource a utility can find, by a factor of at least 10. In 2007 the Northwest funded enough conservation to power 146,000 homes or, to look at it another way, enough power to offset 50% of the load growth of that same year. By this evidence every power planning committee in the nation would be wise to pursue conservation as a portion of their portfolio. Many utilities also use this funding to help field high bill complaints as they can be great leads to inefficient homes.
Next Issue: So you think you hate CFLs?
To date we have purchased all our power from Bonneville Power Administration. A large percentage of that power (about 80%) comes from large hydro. The good thing about this type of power is that it is very cheap. It was invested in a long time ago and many of them are still running very smoothly (granted that they have severely effected fish populations in many areas). The down side is that hydro power is finite. There is only so much water behind the dam, and not a drop more. So as our city grows we are forced to look at other options.
In our region solar electricity is not a viable option. An average home (1000 square feet w/ heat pump) owner would need to invest $100k in solar panels to offset their yearly electrical consumption. This would save them $630 dollars a year in electricity; providing a simple payback of 159 years. Even with robust tax incentives and local utility rebates it does not take an accountant to see that it does not pencil out on the money side.
Some utilities started to wonder if they might be able to convince people to use a little less electricity as a way of dealing with load growth. One way to bring down electrical demand is to raise the price. This has limited success and tends to hurt those with fixed incomes. And as the Carter administration proved (think ‘warm sweater and less heat’), as well as recent buzz about gas prices, people do not like to change their habits. So, what if we could get people to use less electricity and save money without asking them to sacrifice their comfort?
For example: if I could get my neighbor to insulate his 1,800 square foot home he might save as much as 12,000 kilowatt hours over the next year (estimated project cost of $7,000). That is equivalent to $80k worth of solar electricity and he would also save as much as 50% on his winter heating bills. From his standpoint it is a win-win. His bills go down, and he is likely to see a simple-payback in less than 5 years after the tax rebates and utility incentives.
As it turns out buying conservation (incenting people to be more efficient) is the cheapest resource a utility can find, by a factor of at least 10. In 2007 the Northwest funded enough conservation to power 146,000 homes or, to look at it another way, enough power to offset 50% of the load growth of that same year. By this evidence every power planning committee in the nation would be wise to pursue conservation as a portion of their portfolio. Many utilities also use this funding to help field high bill complaints as they can be great leads to inefficient homes.
Next Issue: So you think you hate CFLs?
Posts
1 comment:
Both the Ontario and Canadian federal governments are now offering grants to retrofit homes with more insulation, better windows, low flow toilets, etc.
We are insulating our 100 year home up to today's standards and will end up making money on the project (since we are doing a lot of the work ourselves). It is such a great deal that I have not even really thought about the money savings on our future gas and hydro bill. In the coming years, our usage will most definitely go down because of it.
Post a Comment