Tucson Citizen.com
Wry Heat - by Jonathan DuHamel

The cost of energy conservation

by on Dec. 13, 2011, under Energy

One would normally expect that if we use less of a commodity we would pay less.  But in the perverse world of government mandated energy policy, conservation costs us more.

A case in point: As a result of Arizona’s effort to boost renewable energy use and energy efficiency, we are using less natural gas.  That puts Southwest Gas in an bind.  They contend that with lower usage, they are unable to recover fixed costs to provide service.  Southwest Gas and other utilities are therefore urging the Arizona Corporation Commission to allow the utilities to impose a surcharge to gas customers, that is, allow the utilities to “decouple” charges from actual usage.  That policy will, of course, cost ratepayers more.  Not a good incentive for conservation.

We are already paying the cost of renewable energy mandates for electricity.  The Arizona Corporation Commission, in its benighted wisdom, requires electric utilities to produce an increasing percentage of electricity from much more expensive renewable sources due to fear of the phantom menace of global warming.

Tucson Electric Power Company notes that in 2011 it collected an extra $36 million from ratepayers to pay for renewable energy installations (mainly solar), and that in 2012 it expects to collect an extra $44 million in ratepayer money for these projects.

The Arizona Corporation Commission is not serving the public with these policies.  It is mandating that we produce electricity from more expensive and less reliable sources.  To put that in perspective the Energy Information Administration calculated the costs of electricity generation in dollars per megawatthour as follows:

Conventional coal power: $100.40; Natural gas: $83.10; Nuclear: $119.00; Onshore wind power: $149.30; Offshore wind power: $191.10; Thermal solar power: $256.60, Photo-voltaic solar power: $396.10. Note also, that the availability, i.e., the ability to produce electricity on demand, according to EIA, is 85% for coal, 87% for natural gas, 90% for nuclear, but only 34%-39% for wind, and 21%-31% for solar.

I urge the state legislature to take the power of issuing mandates away from the Commission and repeal the renewable energy standards.  That way utilities will be free to seek more efficient and cost effect ways of providing electricity.

See also:

Solar energy cannot economically compete in electricity generation



  • Richard H

    The future of energy rationing is upon us, by way of the ACC. 
    We are soon to realize the real cost of government mandated energy conservation and efficiency programs from  this rogue regulator.  The utilities won’t care,  their revenues intact regardless of how little electricity they produce.  But their gain is our loss.   My thoughts go out to ratepayers,  low-income families, and seniors on fixed incomes.    Mandated cuts of 22% in power usage over the next ten years are tantamount  to a constricted economy and drop in per capita income and standard of living.   The ACC is chartered to provide us with affordable electricity on demand, but their anti-growth agenda has become clear:  the phasing out of cheap fuels generation through carbon taxes, energy efficiency and rationing programs, energy production disincentives and forced, costly renewables.  

  • Dr. John Parsons

    Recently Jon welcomed the Climatologist, Dr. Jerry Dicksen, to comment here. After hearing from Dr. Dicksen and many others, Jon made this comment: “ For my part, I’m just trying to understand the science and point out bad policy. ” And here’s the problem, Jon’s making policy choices while still “trying to understand the science”. That’s backwards. You need to fully understand the science before making policy decisions. Maybe the “menace” is not a “phantom”.

    Here’s an example of Jon’s misunderstanding of the science:

    Recently I raised a question to a commenter here about AGW:
    “[Can we] fill our atmosphere with 500 or 600 ppm CO2 in the next century, without serious consequence?”

    Although the statement wasn’t directed to Jon, he commented this way:   
    “Nature has already conducted that experiment. For much of the time carbon dioxide has been above 1,000ppm.” But, as he has done before,  Jon ignores the RATE of change. In all of human history and far beyond, nature never caused the level of CO2 in our atmosphere to rise two to three hundred ppm in a century. Not once. Not even close.

    Dr. Eric Wolff from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica, examined 800,000 years of data. He said this: “The scary thing was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations.” In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years. ”The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years.  We really are in the situation where we don’t have an analogue in our records.”

    No Jon, nature has not “conducted that experiment”. 

    But Jon was right about one thing, an ‘experiment’ is being conducted. It’s being conducted by us. And, it’s an uncontrolled experiment that can not be reversed.   JP

  • what?

    or we could make people pay the true cost of the pollution generated from what is use now…

    • Dr. John Parsons

      Now there’s a novel concept. JP

      • Richard H

        JP:    Your heart is in the right place, but your head is in the clouds.  Real world energy policy decisions are being made by political elites, special interest rent-seekers like SW Gas and green energy lobbyists,  through unlegislated  backdoor regulations.   By picking  “winners” and manipulating energy supplies, these policy makers are experimenting with our children’s future,  draining our wealth and destroying our economy.   You on the AGW side are plagued by open scientific questions,   economic  tradeoffs and the reality that carbon-based  energy is requisite to economic growth.   Your 1% tax solution has been debunked,  carbon rationing is failed policy, targeted reductions have failed, the economic costs of carbon rationing resembling  those from supposed impacts from climate change.  National energy taxes and wealth redistribution are anti-capitalist, the dreamfish of one-world socialist ideologues.  There is a an upwelling of public opinion against these tactics, which will manifest itself November 2012.  Rich  

        • Dr. John Parsons

          Rich, I understand your complaint, but I don’t see your solution. JP

    • Richard H
  • http://premiumeyecenters.com Kate

    So it’s not good either way : consume more is expensive, saving energy is expensive. Then what should we do?

  • Dr. John Parsons

    Rich, As I’ve mentioned, I’m not here to propose policy solutions. I’m sure you and Jon and others interested in and knowledgeable about such things, will make the proper decisions once you face the reality of the threat of AGW. But ignoring climate science because the necessary changes are unpleasant to you, just doesn’t address the issue. This may be a difficult task for you, Rich, because of your political position. The “invisible hand” may not work for this global problem. Nevertheless, we’ve got a problem. My job is to make that problem clear. You and others who have expertise in policy areas that I do not, may wish to tackle that problem. Some are trying already. I wish them the very best. JP