U.S. Beats Expectations Saving Energy

Elisa Wood
January 09, 2012 | 12 Comments

Americans tend to beat themselves up over their imperfections. We eat too much, watch too much TV and owe China too much money. Despite all of our sloth, we can feel good about one area: our progress saving energy.

A report issued this week by the Institute for Electric Efficiency found that we saved enough electricity to power almost 10 million homes in 2010 (about 112 TWh). That’s 21 percent better than we did the previous year. And it looks like when 2011 data comes out, we’ll have done even better.

You’re saying, “Who me? Not possible. I forget to shut off the lights, my computer stays on all the time and my kids won’t get off the Xbox.”

Therein lies the beauty of energy efficiency today; it requires no huge effort on our part. New appliances, light bulbs, thermostats, heating and cooling systems and electric gadgets are increasingly designed with energy efficiency in mind. Those with an energy conscience don’t have to fumble in the dark and cold.

The report studied programs offered by utilities, which spent $4.8 billion in 2010 on energy efficiency, about 28 percent more than the previous year, and $6.8 billion in 2011, a 25 percent increase. Utilities are expanding their energy efficiency efforts so quickly that IEE expects them to surpass optimistic forecasts that they will dedicate $12 billion annually to efficiency by 2020.

“This steady increase in electricity savings is really impressive. And the growth in electric utility expenditures for energy efficiency is the major reason behind it,” said Lisa Wood, IEE executive director. (No relationship to me.)

Efficiency is considered a good investment because it’s cheaper to save energy than make energy. The report pegs the cost of saving energy at 3.5 to 4.3 cents/kWh. Check your utility bill — chances are buying electricity costs you a great deal more.

Our success stems from energy efficiency resource standards, which are savings requirements set by state governments. Typically, the requirements mandate that utilities save a set percentage of energy annually. About half of the states, representing two-thirds of the US’ population, now have these standards, according to IEE.

Some states and regions are doing better than others when it comes to energy efficiency. California continues to be the top state when it comes to spending on energy efficiency, with a budget of $1.5 billion, well above second place state, New York, with $1 billion. The Pacific Northwest follows with about $559 million, and then comes Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio and Arizona.

California’s effort is particularly impressive in light of its demographics. While its electric efficiency budget represents 22.6% of total U.S. utility electric efficiency budgets, it uses only 6.9 percent of US electricity and its share of the population is only 12.1 percent, according to IEE.

Several states that did not make the top 10 are quickly improving their programs. The IEE report found that five states have doubled their energy efficiency budgets for 2011. These states are Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia. Washington, DC also doubled its budget.

See the full IEE report here.

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

12 Comments

Gary Richardson
February 2, 2012

The idea of establishing a Btu per Kwh is also helpful in measuring the effectiveness of solar heat for heating and cooling in comparison or in conjunction with other systems. However, I am concerned about the loss of high risk investments that can be potential game changers during moments of economic uncertainty.
The current benchmarks help highlight advantages that would be otherwise overlooked and encourages some high risk investment.

Gary Richardson
February 2, 2012

Gerry Wootton
January 15, 2012

Here's some interesting stats:
When you analyse electricity use by census division, there is a negative correlation between industrial electricity use and GDP. The top third in industrial energy use per capita(avg. 4,700 kWH) are clustered around $43,000 GDP per capita while the bottom third (avg.1,900 kWh) are clustered around $54,000 GDP per capita. The top user has a GDP of $38,000 and the lowest $55,000. Why this is so is a matter of conjecture; however, it seems that energy is used inefficiently for productive purposes. Oddly, residential use is much higher in divisions with weaker economies ranging from 6,160 kWh per capita to 3,180, notably for the very weakest and very strongest economies respectively.
When one looks at regions by system operator (not all regions have one)this becomes even more pronounced. Industrial SPP customers use an astounding five times as much per capita as California ISO customers while achieving only 2/3rds the per capita GDP. The residential use pattern remains the same: 5,268 vs 2,410 kWh per capita. One can speculate as to why this is so. One important take away is that the spread in residential energy use is more than 2:1, so a lot could be gained by bringing everyone to US best practice - near draw between California and New York State.
On another note, the trend for commercial users is similar but much less pronounced; apparently, commercial developers are more likely to work to the same standards nationwide.
States that are not served by an ISO or only in a small area (~28% of the population) are close to the top in average energy consumption per capita as a group and worse than the worst for per capita residential consumption at 5,464 kWh.

Thomas M
January 14, 2012

Perhaps the real deal is not that we are using less energy per household or being more efficient, but that there are less households consuming power. How many people have lost their homes or are homeless? How many people can't afford their utilities and have been shut off? How many people can't afford to purchase appliances that use electricity or can't afford to heat their homes? How many people have moved or have been forced to move from the sites from which you take you data? I don't see any of these statistics in your calculations.

Elisa Wood
January 11, 2012

Thanks for catching the typo. MWh is now changed to TWh.

Gerry Wootton
January 11, 2012

This article is too self-congratulatory. Consider the following:
- 20% of houses built in the last decade had single pane glazing.
- 42% of all houses have single pane windows
- 70% of all houses are not insulated
- 40% of all households do no have any EnergyStar rated major appliances (noting that EnergyStar is itself a minimal standard)
- 62% increase in the use of electricity for heating in 5 years (much of it due to new construction).
- 15% reduction in the use of natural gas in the same time (in spite of an apparently nearly unlimited supply of cheap gas).
Man oh man, how can the richest nation on earth be so cheap?
Some have pointed out that solar panels on the roof can increase property values; how about some insulation in the walls and high efficiency windows and doors?
Regional disparity indicates something important: in the north, heating is the main HVAC need primarily served by natural gas; in the south, cooling is the main HVAC need primarily served by electricity. On a cost of energy basis, one would think that houses in the south would have the most intensive energy efficiency features but the reverse is true. To a large extent, the peak load model in southern states can be reduced to air conditioners connected to power stations.

Robert Fairchild
January 11, 2012

Well at least we can beat low expectations! Go USA!
Nothing like a job loss in a bad economy to get someone to stop spending money they don't have.

Gerry Wootton
January 11, 2012

One big problem is an energy efficiency rating system that has a fixed bar. This means that all appliances that exceed a certain minimum standard appear to be equally ranked. What is needed is a graduated scale, particularly, a scale based on functional output. They can put all kinds of info on a label, why can't they just say what the efficacy is? For example, BTUs of heating and/or cooling per kWh, lumens per W, etc. Similarly labeled EnergyStar appliances shouldn't differ by 2:1 in energy performance.

jg williams
January 11, 2012

Once the mathematics is corrected, it would appear that the average US house is using 11,200 kWh per year. You have some way to go as the average UK house uses just 3,500 kWh per year of electricity and 16,500 kWh for heating and hot water - luckily few people need air conditioning in the summer. Great savings could be made by wider adoption of ground source heat pumps that can remove the need for heating oil and gas while probably doubling the amount of electricity used.

Gerry Wootton
January 11, 2012

Not a big deal. Average US residential consumption is still nearly twice that of Denmark. Even within the US, the average residential electricity consumption varies by about 3 to 1 from the southern midwest to the north east. The residential negaWatt potential is ~700 billion kWh/year assuming existing proven best practices are applied everywhere.
Although the overall cost of energy efficiency is pegged at ~4 cents per kWh, there are areas where less expensive and immediate results can be had:
- eliminate electric space heaters and furnaces
- eliminate electric water heaters
- convert all lighting to high efficiency lighting
- upgrade all HVAC equipment to best energy efficient version
From my personal experience:
- replaced most lighting with LED in high use areas and CFL in lower use areas. Energy use for lighting reduced by 80%. ROI on LED lighting 2.5 to 7 years depending on location and amount of use. Similar for CFL in lower use area.
- upgraded HVAC system with high efficiency AC compressor and high efficiency furnace motors. Reduced electrical consumption by 40%. Cost differential between normal and high efficiency units was ~$900.
It's hard to arrive at an exact run rate for energy efficiency measures since many of them are a one-time expenditure which can be amortized over an indefinite period of time (some lighting applications are a lifetime buy - as Bill Shatner says "who's lifetime? Not mine ... haven't got that much time to live!"). Others have a long lifetime. Applying technology to increase lifetime is a simple means of reducing cost although sometimes, it can be simply a case of spending more up front.
The incremental cost of increased energy efficiency is small. For instance, on residential HVAC it's less than 20% top to bottom in so-called high efficiency equipment relative to a 40% electrical efficiency. In energy efficient glazing its ~25% for a 2:1 difference in heat gain/loss.

David Kanter
January 11, 2012

Math corrected:
the REPORT actually says 112 TWh, which is 1 million times as much as stated in the article above!

David Kanter
January 11, 2012

10 million homes, about 112 MWh.
So we saved 112 Wh per home? Even 112 kWh/home is hardly significant. Something is wrong w the math.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Elisa Wood

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry's top magazines and newsletters. Her blog on energy efficiency appears on more than 100 sites and has been picked up by the New York Times and Reuters. She...