Download - Policy 101: Energy in Minnesota
Energy 101: 2012 Candidate Briefing
Fresh Energy Candidate EducationAugust 2012
Fresh Energy works daily for a future where energy production stimulates local economies, efficiently harnessing clean, homegrown electricity sources like wind and solar power.
One where pollution is a thing of the past, where the energy we need doesn’t harm the people we love.
And one that reflects Midwesterners’ love and respect for our lakes, prairies, and forests—for our sake and beyond.
About Fresh Energy
Fresh Energy provides research, advocacy, and innovative policy models while engaging citizens to take action on energy issues.
Fresh Energy is a 501(c)(3) organization and does not participate or intervene in elections for public office in any way.
Our candidate education activities are completely nonpartisan.
About Fresh Energy
Ross Abbeytransportation, solar
Ethan Fawleytransportation
Kate Ellisclean energy, efficiency
Our policy staff
Erin Stojan Ruccolo clean energy, efficiency
J. Drake Hamiltonglobal warming solutions
Alison Lindburgclean energy, efficiency
Michael Nobleexecutive director
AGENDA
Energy in MinnesotaMinnesota’s energy policy foundation
The future of energy policy in MinnesotaPublic opinion research
Q & A
Agenda
Agenda
Energy in Minnesota
Primary energy consumption across all sectors[trillion BTUs]
OilNatural GasCoalElectricity importsUraniumBiomass Wind Biofuels Hydro Geothermal Solar
Source: Energy Information Administration data 2010
Where does Minnesota’s energy come from?
Sources of MN ElectricityMinnesota electricity generation by fuel type
Source: Energy Information Administration data 1990-2010
Minnesota imports a lot of fuels for electricity
Minnesota has no oil wells, natural gas, uranium, or coal mines.
The cost of coal delivered to Minnesota has increased on average 11.8 percent every year since 2004.
Wyoming’s Powder River Basin coal mine
Source: Sierra Club
Costs of different types of powerEnergy efficiency in the United States
Residential Building Energy Code adoption in the Midwest
As of June 2012:
No Mandatory Statewide Code
Code Level / Equivalence
2006 IECC
2009 IECC
2012 IECC
2009 Adopted by Major Municipality
* Upgrading to 2012
*
Energy codes raise the standards for all buildings
Minnesota’s code is currently roughly equivalent to IECC 2006 and the state is in the process of upgrading to the IECC 2012 with amendments.
These proposed changes will save newly constructed Minnesota residences at least 20 percent in energy consumption and 30 percent for commercial buildings.
CapX2020 is a joint initiative of 11 utilities in Minnesota and the surrounding region to expand the transmission grid to ensure continued reliable and affordable service.
Source: US Energy Information Administration’s State Energy Data System
In recent years, Minnesota has “exported” about $2,000 per person per year for oil.
How much does Minnesota spend on oil?
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Billions o
f D
ollars
Alberta landscape before and after
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (the agency tasked with forecasting energy trends)
Uncertain future for gas prices; volatility and increases likely
Agenda
Minnesota's energy
policy foundation
• 2007 Next Generation Energy Act
• Requirements that electric and natural gas utilities double to triple energy efficiency savings
• 25 percent by 2025 Renewable Electricity Standard
Minnesota's energy policy foundation
State goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide to at least:
15 percent below 2005 levels by 2015
30 percent below by 202580 percent below by 2050
Next Generation Energy Act
Progress toward state goals
Renewable Electricity Standard (RES)
• Utilities are on track or exceeding RES goals.
• Minnesota has 2,500 megawatts of installed wind
energy—enough to power 700,000 Minnesotan homes.
• According to statewide utility reporting in 2012, there has been almost no rate impact due to compliance with RES. Many utilities stated that they would have added wind in any scenario because it is the least-cost resource.
Progress toward state goals
Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS)
• Utilities are on track or exceeding the efficiency goals.
• Increased energy efficiency reduces rates for consumers.• Xcel alone has saved the equivalent of
constructing nine new coal plants, reducing rates for consumers.
• Energy efficiency is the cheapest form of energy.
• Based on utility reporting, for every $1 utilities spent on conservation, their customers save $4. It’s hard to get that level of return with almost any other investment.
Percent of electricity from wind power, 2011
Minnesota has a great wind resource
In 2010 alone, wind power projects
• contributed $7 million in land lease payments, • contributed over $6 million in property tax payments, • provided diversified income for Minnesota’s farm families, and• supported at least 2,000 direct and indirect jobs.
Wind power improves Minnesota’s economy
The Clean Air Act
1970• became law to protect human health and
welfare
1990• bipartisan update signed by President Bush to tackle new air pollution problems
2011 and 2012• scientific findings call for modernizing standards to include mercury, soot, ozone, and carbon
The Clean Air Act
Nationwide, coal-fired power are responsible for at least 21,000 premature deaths each year. Burning coal emits large amounts of
mercury
ozone pollution
carbon dioxide
soot
Source: National Research Council
.
The Clean Air Act and human health and welfare
There are no nationwide limits on carbon and soot emissions from power plants.
The Clean Air Act of 1990 required the Environmental Protection Agency to limit pollutants that harm human health and welfare.
The Clean Air Act
“The Clean Air Act has prevented more than 1.8 million child respiratory illnesses and more than 300,000 premature deaths.”
Senator Dave Durenberger, April 2011
OMB review of Clean Air Act impacts from 1990-2020
The benefits of Clean Air Act regulations exceed the costs by 30 to 1.
Pollution controls are 0.3 percent of the country’s overall GDP, but save millions of Americans from debilitating and expensive illnesses that result from unlimited pollution.
Minnesota has demonstrated feasibility
2006 Minnesota Mercury Emissions Reduction Act:
• six big units at Minnesota’s largest coal plants required to achieve 90 percent reduction in mercury
• Clean Air Act now applies similar standards nationwide
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
Rate regulators for electric and natural gas utilities.
• least-cost planning and integrated resource planning
• Minnesota Emissions Reductions Projects (MERP)
• baseload diversification studies under way to compare costs for oldest, least-efficient power plants
Agenda
The future of energy policy in Minnesota
Federal wind production tax credit
The federal Production Tax Credit, which promotes wind development in Minnesota, require reauthorization by Congress before it expires at the end of 2012.
Wind development supports at least 2,000 construction and manufacturing jobs, as well as millions of dollars annually in tax payments to local governments and payments to landowners.
Germany, despite its inferior solar resource, recently set a world record for solar photovoltaic (PV) production, producing 22 gigawatts of energy (equivalent to the output of 20 nuclear plants).
Minnesota has a great solar resource
On that day, they were able to produce 50 percent of their electricity from solar PV.
• Minnesota has better solar economics than 31 other states, including the rest of the Midwest (before incentives).
• Solar supports 6,000 Minnesota jobs, including 2,200 jobs at 33 component and panel manufacturers in over 30 towns.
• Yet compared to other states, Minnesota has done relatively little to attract solar investment.
• Minnesota ranks near the bottom in per-capita investment, while states with worse solar economics (like New Jersey and Oregon) are attracting 10 to 30 times the investment.
Capitalizing on Minnesota’s solar resource
Solar PV costs are dropping fast
Source: PV module cost curve 1976-2011. BNEF Bazilian et al (2012), Fig. 1
$/W
MW of panels manufactured
We need to
• improve the efficiency of cars,• transition to next generation of
“fuels,”• support transportation options and
development patterns that reduce the need to drive
Reducing our reliance on oil
Vehicle efficiency
Next generation of fuels?
Minnesota Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Trend and Projections
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
Year
VM
T (
in b
illio
ns)
VMT
20 year linear trendline
10 year logarithmic trendline
Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation TDA and OIM
In the Minnesota, about 29 miles are driven per capita per day.
Peak was 30.4 miles in 2004.
Per driver, that’s about 39 miles per day.
Minnesota driving trends
How we pay for our roads
Source: Fresh Energy, based on MnDOT data
Source: Retired State Demographer Tom Gillaspy
Census Bureau forecast December 2009, assuming constant immigration.
Minnesota’s senior population-growth spurt
Aging population most pronounced in more rural counties
21%
Source: Minnesota State Demographic Center, April 2007
2030 Forecasted Population 65 Years of Age or Older
2030 Pop 65 or older
1,000
5,000
10,000
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
2030 Percent 65 or older
11% - 15%
16% - 20%
21% - 25%
26% - 30%
31% - 35%
36% - 40%
Economic Regions
Source: MnDOT 2010 State Rail Plan
Improving rail connections
light rail transit
bus rapid transit
commuter rail
streetcar
The Twin Cities needs new transit momentum
Miles of transitways (existing or under construction)
The connected Twin Cities Minnesota needs
Agenda
Public support for Minnesota’s energy future
Polling data
From a statewide telephone poll of 400 registered Minnesota voters, conducted January 9-15, 2012 by the bipartisan research team of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates and Public Opinion Strategies.
The margin of sampling error for the full statewide samples is +/- 4.9 percent; margins of error for subgroups within the sample will be larger.
Polling data
Support for Transit by Region
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Northeast Northwest South Twin Cities
Total Support Total Oppose Undecided
(% of Sample) (17%)(9%) (21%) (54%)
Voters in all regions support more public transit.
Q14f. I would like to read you some ideas related to energy that might be proposed by people in Minnesota. Please tell me whether it sounds like something you would support or oppose: Building more public transit, like rail and buses. Split Sample.
Support for Transit by Party Identification
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Democrat Independent Republican
Total Support Total Oppose Undecided
(% of Sample) (20%)(33%) (47%)
Democrats, independents, and Republicans back building public
transit.
Q14f.I would like to read you some ideas related to energy that might be proposed by people in Minnesota. Please tell me whether it sounds like something you would support or oppose: Building more public transit, like rail and buses. Split Sample.
Region Support Oppose
Hennepin/Ramsey 69% 26%
Outer Suburbs 59% 34%
Southern Minnesota 57% 37%
Western Minnesota 52% 39%
Northeastern Minnesota 59% 37%
Strong statewide support for Southwest Light Rail funding
Source: Public Opinion Strategies and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates poll conducted January 14-17, 2012; commissioned by the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce, the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Twin West Chamber of Commerce
Support for Solar Energy by Region
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Northeast Northwest South Twin Cities
Total Support Total Oppose Undecided
(% of Sample) (20%)(9%) (21%) (50%)
There are no regional differences in support for increased use of
solar…
5i. Here is a list of specific sources of energy. Please tell me whether you would support or oppose increasing use of that source of energy to meet your state’s future needs: Solar
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Democrat Independent Republican
Total Support Total Oppose Undecided
(% of Sample) (24%)(33%) (42%)
…and partisan differences are relatively modest.
5i. Here is a list of specific sources of energy. Please tell me whether you would support or oppose increasing use of that source of energy to meet your state’s future needs: Solar
Support for Solar Energy by Party Identification
Support for Wind Energy by Region
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Northeast Northwest South Twin Cities
Total Support Total Oppose Undecided
(% of Sample) (20%)(9%) (21%) (50%)
Similarly, support for increased wind energy use cuts across
regions…
5f. Here is a list of specific sources of energy. Please tell me whether you would support or oppose increasing use of that source of energy to meet your state’s future needs: Wind
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Democrat Independent Republican
Total Support Total Oppose Undecided
(% of Sample) (24%)(33%) (42%)
…and also across party lines.Support for Wind Energy by Party Identification
5f. Here is a list of specific sources of energy. Please tell me whether you would support or oppose increasing use of that source of energy to meet your state’s future needs: Wind
Voters would rather reduce the need for fossil fuels by
expanding the use of renewables.
Reducing our need for oil and coal by increasing energy efficiency and
expanding our use of clean, renewable energy that can be generated in the
US
Drilling and digging for more oil and coal wherever we can find it in the US
Both/Neither/DK/NA
67%
26%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
7. Which of the following do you think should be the highest priority for meeting America’s energy needs…
Which of the following do you think should be the highest priority for meeting America’s energy needs:
Job Impact of Clean Energy by Party Identification
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Democrat Independent Republican
Creat Jobs No Effect Cost Jobs All/None/DK
(% of Sample) (22%)(31%) (47%)
Voters of all parties see jobs benefits from clean energy.
9. Which of the following comes closer to your point of view: Increasing the use of clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power…
Candidate Preference by Region
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Northeast Northwest South Twin Cities
Clean Energy Fossil Fuels Both/Neither/DK/NA
(% of Sample) (20%)(8%) (22%) (50%)
Voters across the state prefer a clean energy candidate.
12. In thinking about the election for State Legislature in your area later this year, for which of the following candidates would you be most likely to vote?
More than seven in ten voters prefer a candidate who would promote renewable
energy over fossil fuels.
12. In thinking about the election for State Legislature in your area later this year, for which of the following candidates would you be most likely to vote?
A candidate who wants to promote more use of clean, renewable energy – like wind and solar
power
A candidate who wants to continue to rely on traditional domestic sources of energy – like coal,
natural gas or nuclear – to meet energy needs
Both/Neither/DK/NA
www.fresh-energy.org
Q & A
Fresh Energywww.fresh-energy.org
@freshenergy // facebook.com/freshenergytoday