Beyond Dams/End-Use Efficiency

Navigation

Beyond Dams

Options & Alternatives

A report by American Rivers & International Rivers Network

• Introduction and Overview
• Alternatives to Dams
• Water Supply
  • Water Diversion and Irrigation Methods
  • Sustainable Water Management Alternatives
• Flood Management
  • Reducing Runoff
  • Riparian and In-River Flood Management
  • Separating the People and the Threat
• Energy
  • End-Use Efficiency
  • Emerging Technologies
• Concluding Thoughts

Download ▼

PDF	Download these pages as a PDF so you can print them or read them offline.
Booklet	Download these pages as a PDF that you can print, fold and staple into a booklet.

It has long been recognized that programs designed to reduce energy needs represent an environmentally beneficial and, in many cases, cost-effective alternative to seeking new or eliminating existing sources of power. Such programs can motivate people to be more careful about the way they use energy, offer financial assistance in making homes and businesses more energy efficient (for example, by improving insulation or by installing high-efficiency appliances), or find ways to shift energy usage from on-peak to off-peak periods. Together, these types of measures have come to be known as demand-side management or (more recently) end-use efficiency.

End-use efficiency represents an opportunity to reduce the need for electrical generation and consequently the need for obsolete or new hydro power dams.^[1] Energy efficiency measures can reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, save money and create jobs. Many efficiency measures and technologies are cost-effective at today's electricity prices, and the use of full-cost environmental and social accounting of electricity supply options makes them even more so. According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, up to 75 percent of the electricity used in the United States today could be saved with cost-effective energy efficiency measures.^[2]

Since 1973, the United States has acquired more than four times as much new energy from end use efficiency as from all expansions of domestic energy supplies put together. The energy savings already achieved have cut Americans' energy bills by more than $200 billion a year, compared to what they would collectively be spending if they used energy at the same rate as in 1973.^[3] Most hydropower dams in existence today produce very little power; 80 percent of FERC-regulated dams produce less than 50 MW of power, which is enough electricity to power approximately 50,000 homes.^[4] In fact, it has been said that the energy produced by Edwards Dam that was removed from the Kennebec River in Maine could have been met by replacing 75,000 standard light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs.^[5]The current and potential energy savings combined with the low output of many hydropower projects lessens the need for existing and potential hydropower dams. Despite the demonstrated effectiveness and promise of implementing these measures, actual investments in energy efficiency and the savings from them continue to be small, and have declined in recent years.6

In the late 1980s, new regulatory tools were designed to create incentives for utilities to invest in demand side management strategies. Complex mechanisms for cost recovery, lost revenue recovery and shareholder incentives were implemented, and, as a consequence, many utilities began investing heavily in energy efficiency as a means to balance supply and demand. With the advent of retail competition, however, these mechanisms became increasingly obsolete. Indeed, the mere threat that utilities might eventually have to face competition caused their demand side management spending to plummet nearly as fast as it rose.^[6]

End-use efficiency programs may include a number of strategies, including the following:

• Offering financing for energy efficient homes and buildings in the form of energy efficient mortgages;
• Offering rebates to consumers for purchasing efficient equipment and to manufacturers for designing and producing it;
• Setting energy efficiency standards;
• Implementing consumer education programs about conservation and efficiency measures available to them;
• Implementing programs like the EPA Energy Star program, in which products, homes and other buildings are identified and promoted if they meet energy-efficiency standards; and
• Improving efficiency on the supply side, such as reducing losses through distribution systems.^[7]

Programs around the world have demonstrated that efficiency measures can significantly decrease electricity demand, thereby reducing the need for hydroelectric dams and other generation sources. In most cases, these demand reductions can be achieved at less cost than constructing new power sources, and provide more jobs in the long run.

The principal drawback of depending on efficiency to decrease energy demand is the perceived incremental and diffuse nature of an approach that depends on changing the behavior of many individuals, or on retrofitting many relatively small devices. These characteristics can prove challenging for energy planners who prefer more quantifiable and predicable approaches.

Many simple strategies implemented by consumers are very low cost, such as $5-$15 for a compact fluorescent light bulb. Larger programs that provide incentives to consumers for replacing inefficient large appliances can cost millions – up front. In most cases, however, the cost of the measure is paid back many times over its lifetime. Replacing an old refrigerator with a newer, energy-efficient model may cost $700 to $1,500 up front but could save as much as $180 a year on a homeowner's energy bill.

Energy conservation in the Northwest has saved enough energy to power two cities the size of Seattle during the last 22 years, and the potential exists to acquire more conservation savings by 2025, according to the Northwest Power Planning Council. The council put forth a plan that will save the equivalent of 5,800 MW of electricity through energy efficiency and conservation by the year 2025 (by comparison, the nation's largest hydropower dam – Grand Coulee – produces 6,800 MW). This figure includes 2,600 MW the region has already conserved since Congress passed the Northwest Power Act in 1980. The power act directs the council to prioritize low-cost conservation before it encourages the development of generation plants. Building codes that promote energy-efficient design, weatherizing the home, and compact fluorescent lights are among the developments that have helped to reduce electricity demand since the council's first 20-year power plan in 1983. In laying out a power plan for the next 20 years, council analysts say the region should be able conserve 3,200 MW. The region has defied long-term projections with its end-use efficiency programs. In the 1970s, power planners projected a Northwest energy shortfall, prompting many of the region's utilities to embark on an ill-fated nuclear power program. Deep shortages never panned out, however, due largely to conservation.

For more information on this Pacific Northwest energy efficiency case, see the Northwest Power Planning Council at http://www.nwcouncil.org.

Before the deregulation of the energy sector, California was long a leader in increasing energy efficiency, spending at its peak in 1993 as much as $416 million per year on utility efficiency programs. Thanks to this strong effort, California's demand grew at about one percent per year over a decade, which is half the rate of the rest of the country. Since 1975, a combination of state energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances and utility energy efficiency programs dramatically reduced energy consumption in California – enough to heat and power the entire state for over two years. In 1998 alone, the savings from building and appliance standards totaled $1.4 billion, with utility programs adding a similar amount. The displaced energy from both standards and programs was roughly the equivalent of ten 1000-MW power plants. The combined impact of all the efficiency programs in California in one year is equal to 15 percent of the total statewide electricity consumption. Had efficiency programs been continued at mid-'90s levels, the state could have saved an additional 1,100 MW – enough to avoid some of the problems during the state's 2001 energy crisis. According to a study by the RAND Corporation, improvements in energy efficiency since 1977 caused the state's economy to be three percent larger in 1995 than it would have been otherwise, and resulted in savings of between $875 and $1300 per capita. In addition, the efficiency improvements resulted in a 40 percent reduction in air emissions, compared to what would have resulted if energy intensity had remained at 1977 levels and the mix of energy uses remained constant (i.e., energy intensive industry continued to dominate the economy).

The above case study is excerpted from a report by the Energy Foundation. To see the entire report: http://www.ef.org/california

• Natural Resources Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/genergy.asp.
• Sierra Club: http://www.sierraclub.org/energy.
• Alliance to Save Energy: http://www.ase.org.
• Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network, U.S. Department of Energy: http://web.archive.org/web/20060821141525/http://www.eren.doe.gov/.
• American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy: http://www.aceee.org.