These are excerpts from comments I sent to KY regarding its recently proposed Energy Strategy. Read KY's proposed plan at: www.energyplan.ky.gov. Now, my comments - JohnR
SITUATION
Kentucky is a beautiful state with a wonderful environment and people. That’s part of why my wife and I moved here in 1997. Yet each time I have checked the statistics since moving here, Kentucky households have used substantially more electricity than the U.S. average and driven more miles per year than the U.S. average in vehicles which achieved worse mpg than the U.S. average.
Kentucky has the 2nd-lowest average electricity prices in the USA, which ENERGY WATCH suggested may be at least partly why Kentucky households use so much more electricity than average. Even if not, Kentucky utilities’ energy rates do not directly encourage less usage. And Kentucky’s personal vehicle property tax, by discouraging newer cars with its higher annual registration fees, may also be at least partly responsible for why more Kentucky vehicle owners achieve poorer mpg.
I am an energy consultant, designer of super-efficient homes and adult-ed teacher about solar and energy efficiency at home. Most Kentucky adults I meet have very low awareness of their energy use or pollution consequences, even if they know and complain about the prices they pay for their energy or their total energy cost. But energy prices and costs are not the best way to track, understand or measure energy usage or pollution demands. Kentucky’s young students that I meet or speak to also tend to have rather poor understanding of energy and their many, often careless uses of it. Even when adults and youngsters express awareness of their energy or its impacts, they typically expect or hope new technologies and energy types will soon become available to change their negative impacts. There is usually very little or no interest or expectation to change how or how much they use energy. Many consumers seem to think the problems of rising energy costs and environmental consequences relate more to the energy providers than consumers themselves.
Yet as concerns grow regarding Climate Change, airborne particulates, mercury emissions, rising prices and eventual depletion of fossil fuels, many consumers have idealistic expectations that solar or wind power, or a variety of biofuels, can or will eventually replace most of their energy needs. Even proposals for integrating more renewable energies into utility fuel mix and consumer lives do not usually tend to replace, avoid or shut-down our filthiest powerplants, but merely to offset some minor amounts of that need for short durations.
For instance, net-metered solar electricity is most useful for alleviating summer peak electric demand in cities with larger concentrations of modern homes and buildings with greater air conditioning demand. Many rural areas are still experiencing early winter morning electric peaks, related to heating, simply because there is less saturation of air conditioning and more saturation of electric heat due to less access to natural gas. Most solar advocates I meet do not understand the complexity of our energy dilemmas and therefore do not know that net-metered solar electricity is not doing much to reduce the burning of coal.
Much of these dilemmas have their root causes in
1) Widespread lacking public education about and participation in recognizing, avoiding and minimizing energy use,
2) Fiscal and economics strategies and systems which do not discourage conventional energy use and reliance on centralized energy providers and
3) Few or no penalties for pollution, wastefulness and energy guzzling practices
SOLUTIONS
1. Education & Focus
Kentucky should integrate new required curricula in all public schools which educates young students (starting in elementary school) how to recognize, avoid and minimize energy use. Energy education would not be occasional or limited to special timeframes, as now (i.e. Earth Day). Instead, energy education should be integrated directly into various traditional subjects, from home economics and math to science and vocational education. Energy education also needs to be more technical. Adult-education should also be made available, since most Kentucky adults are so poorly educated about their energy uses and demands.
Energy education should have a primary goal to teach students enough to perform routine energy audits on their own, their families’ and their neighbors’ homes. I hear this idea is already being explored in California. The benefits of this approach are that it simultaneously addresses energy education which we know is so lacking in Kentucky schools now, our homes and buildings which are so generally inefficient now, and our future workforce which is so short on technical energy skills now.
Another benefit is that our future energy auditors and consultants will be "insiders", not one-time-only experts who visit and inspect a home maybe every 10-25 years. After all, it is not just the building components and appliances in a home which have potential for lower energy use. At least 25% of potential lower energy use comes from how people behave, operate and live in their homes, regardless of the home’s energy-using components. Many opportunities to reduce usage by improving efficiency of behaviors, operations and lifestyles not only cost less to implement, but also need an insider’s perspective which is often not possible from an occasional expert’s visit. An insider like a family member or neighbor can often be more direct in suggesting change than an outsider.
A student-audit approach also separates household income from energy, in that traditional energy audits tend to be focused primarily on low-income households. Studies have clearly shown that high-income households generally and home occupants with the most house per person specifically are most likely to be the biggest energy guzzlers. Focusing primarily on low-income households not only distracts from this fact, but also creates an unnecessary stigma about the relationship between low-income and high energy use. Indeed, as an energy consultant, I can say absolutely that some affluent households are sometimes embarrassed to seek energy-reducing advice, simple because of this stigma.
We need to change what appears to be an automatic assumption that a wealthier or larger-house household should automatically use more energy per person. Energy usage should become viewed more like weight. Doctors and consumer groups have tables which clearly show recommended weight based on simple physical data like height, sex and age. So just as a weight-loss plan focuses first on folks who are most obese, we need our energy education and outreach plans to focus first on folks who use the most energy per person and/or per sf of built space.
The focus of energy audits and implementations to reduce usage ought to relate to fixed targets, based on local energy usage demographics. In other words, start each audit NOT with an inspection of the house itself but an evaluation of energy usage per person and per sf of house. Focus on households and persons which are above average first, skipping at least initially even doing audits on households which are below average in usage.
As a past inspector under HEAP (Heating Energy Assistance Program) in SW Ohio, where qualifying participants were determined according to income level, not energy usage, I recall being asked to focus on 6 thermal efficiency aspects of every home I inspected. I wouldn't typically even know the household’s energy usage nor how that related to average use among houses in the neighborhood. While we need such programs for low-income households, we should not confuse assistance for low-income households having trouble affording their energy bills with any program focused on lowering statewide energy use.
It would be greatly helpful to consumers and energy professionals to know their region’s energy demographics. Natural gas and electric utilities typically keep databases describing customer energy usage. In northern Kentucky where I live and in most regions where I have worked, that’s usually a couple years of data. While it is common for utility bills to include a graph showing how this month’s usage compares with last month and the last 12 months, there is no presentation which compares usage with other households and homes serviced by the same utility or in the same region. Consumers and energy consultants need to understand any individual’s or home’s energy usage in context with demographic norms. Otherwise, a 12-month graph does no more than describe how much and in what distribution an individual or household typically uses their energy, compared to themselves.
Consider how that wouldn’t work in our popular sports. Think about how baseball, football and other sports statistics are presented to players and fans. Individual player sports stats are typically compared to the overall pool of players. We need to apply this same method to how we describe and compare our energy stats. After all, monitoring and improving energy performance is not really much different from improving sports performance. It could even be understood, incentivized and setup as a competitive endeavor, with awards or rewards for lowest usage.
To demonstrate what I mean by consumer energy demographics, I invite readers to visit my website, www.johnfrobbins.com, and review my home energy surveys. This kind of presentation could be done per utility territory, per state, per city or town or county. It provides both consumers and consultants a wealth of information about how households are performing, from best to worst.
2. Incentivize Reduction
The responsibility to use less energy and to pollute less goes up as energy usage and pollution goes up. In other words, energy guzzlers and bigger polluters have more responsibility to improve than energy sippers and lesser polluters. This should be part of the state’s message to consumers and businesses.
One relatively easy way to address this is with energy pricing which increases for higher use, also called "progressive rates". This has become common practice up and down the U.S. West Coast. It is admirable that Kentucky has mostly flat energy rates, contrasted with Ohio where almost all investor-owned utilities offer substantially discounted prices for electricity as monthly usage increases. But Kentucky could still offer very low energy prices for lowest users while introducing rate progressivity to expose guzzlers to economic incentives to lower their usage.
My vision for achieving the easiest and most fair progressive rates for any energy type is to start with a survey to determine average usage per billing cycle. In simplest form, average energy use would be priced similarly as now, so as not to raise energy cost for average users. Below-average use, say one-half or less of average per term, would be charged an attractively lower rate than now, maybe even non-profit rate. Above-average use, say 150% to 250% of average, would be charged a substantially increased price.
Total utility revenue lost by discounting the low-usage rates would be fully recovered by increased revenue collected from higher rates on above-average usage. Consumers using more than 250% of average would not only pay the above-average rate, but also be charged additional fees for new generation, low-income energy programs and EE/RE (energy efficiency and renewable energy) incentive programs. This removes the burdens of these kinds of fees from lowest and average users, which I believe will be one of the biggest benefits of my proposal. After all, a historically low usage household or one which has labored and paid significantly to reduce its usage should NOT be charged additional fees for new power generation or EE/RE programs. Lowest users are usually the least responsible for those needs.
My vision of progressive rates is revenue neutral, self-funded, blind to household income as an independent energy criterium, instructive to consumers about what drives energy costs, and increases most energy costs on those consumers most responsible for new generation needs. Since the highest percentage of guzzlers in most studies tend to be wealthiest households and others in the largest homes, my proposed energy cost redistribution would seem affordable and fair. Hopefully, this would not only result in increased interest and movement by guzzlers to use less conventional energy, but also in increase demand for the most expensive EE/RE measures (i.e. solar) among households best able to afford it without public subsidies.
My progressive and instructive rates scheme would need re-evaluating periodically. It might also be appropriate to measure how much usage reduction is achieved, to make decisions about how best to modify the scheme to improve future outcomes. Measurement feedback would come from the ongoing energy surveys. Gauging progress would be a simple matter of measuring how much less conventional energy is being used. If the program was very successful and overall usage of conventional energy dropped dramatically, energy providers will need to diversify their business models to incorporate other income opportunities besides selling conventional energy.
Another longterm benefit of progressive rates as I describe is the consumer education injected into the energy market itself. Progressive rates also level the playing field among the various methods and strategies for reducing usage, while broadening the available and applicable methods for achieving the reduced usage goal. For instance, studies clearly show a huge positive relationship between living space per person and energy use per person, thereby making house size per occupant an energy efficiency factor all by itself. Progressive rates bring house size per person into play, a huge improvement over LEED, EnergyStar, HERS and other programs which do not include house size relative to number of occupants as an efficiency feature. Moving from a larger home to a smaller home to reduce energy usage also results in a potential reduction in total housing cost, thereby addressing 2 important cost issues facing most households.
Similarly, installing solar hardware becomes equal to insulation, caulk, replacement windows and all other EE/RE measures to reduce conventional energy. Under rate progressivity, all measures are equal based on how much energy savings is actually achieved. Rewards are based on real outcomes (i.e. energy usage), not on projections or estimates made prior to occupancy or implementation. Even no-cost measures like outdoor clotheslines become competitive with more efficient dryers. Planting trees to shade west glass becomes equal to installing sunscreens or lowE2 glass windows to reduce afternoon summer air conditioning demand. In other words, the energy reductions marketplace becomes much more broad and creative than now where only certain narrowly defined products, strategies and certification processes dominate. Consumers become empowered much more to be more self-evaluating and self-implementing, less reliant on experts and other formalities.
3. Pay to pollute
This concept has been too long in coming. In the old days, when there were too few of us to make it important, only the biggest single-source polluters drew our attention. But while it is easier to focus only on the smokestack of the powerplants which produce energy for thousands of homes and businesses, it is far more essential to create pressure on the thousands of homes and businesses to demand less power from the filthy-burning powerplant. Indeed, it is probably cheaper to reduce power enough to shutdown a few of the most polluting powerplants than it is to implement enough pollution control and sequestration measures.
Even if not cheaper, we should want consumers to be smarter and more aware, making more intelligent and better decisions about their energy use than now. Simply modifying powerplants leaves consumers more often as ignorant and unaware as they were before. Most of the best and lowest cost opportunities for reducing pollution result from users reducing their usage, not with suppliers reducing their source pollution.
The federal government has begun talking about carbon emissions caps, taxes, trading and credits. I worry that this discussion has or will become far too abstract for the average energy consumer. Seeing wealthy individuals and businesses more able, willing or encouraged to buy carbon credits (often planting trees in 3rd world nations) instead of actually reducing their own energy use or related pollution, most consumers should be confused, distracted or turned off.
Even when using carbon credits, they ought to be applied locally. In other words, high volume conventional energy users who are unable, unwilling or uninterested in reducing their own energy usage so decide to buy carbon credits instead, should consider reducing conventional energy consumption elsewhere in their same neighborhood or local energy provider territory. That way the benefits of less conventional generation, pollution and environmental degradation are enjoyed locally.
Even a casual review of Kentucky energy use would suggest the assumption that most energy-related pollution comes from coal and oil. Carbon taxes for Kentucky should be based on the actual high carbon content of Kentucky’s typical conventional fuels. Since local carbon content is so high, about 60% higher than the national average for electricity, carbon taxes should be honest. I have already stated that Kentucky households use more than average electricity and drive more annual miles in lower-mpg vehicles than average. So we do not want to distract ourselves from confronting these 2 related facts directly and honestly.
Kentuckians I meet usually have healthy interest in avoiding higher taxes and fees. So motivated, consumers could reduce or avoid higher carbon taxes simply by reducing their demand for carbon emissions. If carbon taxation were also progressive, similarly scaled as I propose for energy rates generally so that they reflect current demographics, then carbon taxes would be most punitive (or incentivizing) for those who demand more-than-average carbon emissions. As stated before, the responsibility to pollute less should be understand as higher for bigger polluters than for lesser polluters.
Most of my discussion so far has been on household energy. But what about our vehicles, the other major energy guzzlers and polluters? It isn’t really instructive simply to put a per-gallon carbon tax at the fuel pump as some have proposed, since any pricing change should be noticible and exert more direct influence to change behavior and judgement.
My recommendation is to replace the current personal property tax on KY-owned vehicles with a carbon tax paid at time of annual re-registration. For a typical gasoline-using vehicle, it would be based on a simple formula:
Miles driven X 22 CO2 Lbs/gallon X CO2 tax per Lb
_________________________________________________
EPA-average mpg
As example, my vehicle is EPA-rated to average 35 mpg. It was driven 8854 miles in 2008. If the carbon tax is 2 cents per CO2 pound, then my annual tax would be 8854 x 22 x $.02 / 35 = $111.31 for 2008. Add an extra flat fee for clerk fee plus registration sticker or plate, and that’s my annual registration fee. Since my registration doesn't neatly occur on January 1, the only other change would be a certified annual odometer reading, not unlike what is done when transfering a vehicle title. Miles driven in the formula would be from one year's registration to the next.
A more average vehicle getting only 22 mpg, driven 15000 miles, would have registration cost of $300 plus clerk and plate fees.
We want drivers to reduce their oil use and related pollution, so this higher annual registration cost for vehicles which pollute more, being very obvious and repeating year after year, should encourage substantially more consumer preference for our goal than current CAFE standards and KY's vehicle property tax. If the average KY driver selects 35 mpg for his/her next vehicle, annual registration (compared with 22 mpg) goes down by $111. If he/she decides to keep the current low-mpg vehicle but start a carpool, lowering annual miles by 7500, annual registration goes down by $150. If he/she buys a next vehicle designed to run on no- or low-carbon energy, he/she reduces the most annual cost, since the carbon tax is only applied based on the use of carbon fuels. So one can see that my proposal incentivizes all methods which result in less use and emissions, not just certain types of cars, engines or fuels.
Another pay-to-pollute idea relates to our solid and liquid wastes. Right now my garbage removal costs the same no matter how much garbage I discard. Yet it could and probably should be based on how many pounds or how many containers of garbage I discard. Similarly, wastewater volumes ought to have progressive costs, such that the price per unit of waste goes up per volume.
CONCLUSION
I realize that I have written this document mostly about residential situations and remedies. That is my area of most expertise and experience. It is also the lowest common denominator, since far more Kentuckians have homes and households than businesses or industries. With our worsening energy situations in Kentucky, especially relative to cost and pollution, we need more solutions which involve the most numbers of people to achieve the greatest amounts of reductions in both conventional energy use and related pollutants. This may appear more difficult or risky than focusing mostly on the biggest producers and suppliers, but it will result in the greatest longterm results because of more widespread education and participation.
Much has happened and is happening to reduce energy use and pollution among some Kentuckians, but so far this achievement is concentrated among very few. I am one of those players, not just a home designer and energy consultant. I have substantially reduced our conventional energy usage. Did so also in our last home in SW Ohio. Such must have been rare indeed, since the utility company in Cincinnati replaced my meters, apparently not believing I’d accomplished such large cuts without thievery!
So before I got started in my NKY home, I called my utility company to let them know in advance what I hoped to accomplish with better insulation, sealants, windows, new heating and cooling system, solar water heating, passive solar and solar electric. After I converted one room in my 9-room home (my office) to operate on solar electricity and batteries in 2001, I was nonetheless contacted by US-DOE to participate in a survey for "early adopters!" Similar to my SW Ohio utility, DOE seemed curious why I would have done such when there were no subsidies and energy costs were very low. We need to change the widely held perception that achieving substantial cuts in conventional energy use and pollution is rare or odd.
I hope for a future where a majority of citizens cut their conventional energy usage, where governments and utilities are not shocked or surprised when a homeowner cuts usage and pollution by a third, half or more. I also hope we reward these kinds of people. To the contrary, after I achieved my cuts in my current home, my utility nonetheless raised my energy rates by 25% to pay for a new powerplant. That was not a reward, but an insult. It should be obvious that my household is not responsible for why any new powerplants are needed. My household and others like it should not be asked or forced to pay for new generation, since that new generation is for households and businesses who are increasing their energy usage.
Many others in our region have achieved very low usage and pollution. But the overwhelming majority of Kentuckians are doing nothing or very little to reduce energy use and pollution. In fact, energy usage is growing, even as more efficiency is purchased or integrated into products and built structures. This is because there is so little understanding of our goals. Many think our goals are simply "more efficiency" and "more renewables". But it's relatively easy, if not common, for growth in our home sizes per person and in the counts of energy-using devices per person to offset or outpace gains from efficiency and renewables. That’s why we need to aim clearly and succinctly for reduced conventional fuel use and pollution.
An energy usage reduction plan is not unlike a weight-loss plan. The goal is to reduce to an acceptable level. Success is measured by how much we reduce, not by which methods we use to achieve it. We should not want or lobby for incentives for narrowly defined energy-reduction measures, products or processes. We need clear focus on the reductions themselves, welcoming all methods to achieve them.
Finally, we want to avoid (at least initially) pie-in-the-sky plans which are unproven. We know too many ideas which are down to earth, already proven and practical. Implement them first. To find the most proven and practical plans, identify those who demonstrate very low usage and see how that was achieved. Hold those seemingly successful strategies and low usage stats up as examples for others to follow. In many if not most situations, what some households can achieve indicates what's possible for others.
