By Scott Allen, Energy Policy Specialist
The purpose of this workshop (10/21/24) was to discuss the role and importance of energy efficiency in decarbonizing the gas system. In a word, I’d describe this workshop as “dizzying.”
During these workshops I’ve become accustomed to the gas industry making fantastical claims that the only viable pathway to a clean energy future is, oddly, going backwards–expanding gas infrastructure and adopting unproven, expensive technologies like “renewable natural gas.” But today’s meeting was astonishing.
It started off on a more positive note. The first presenter, from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), began with a definition of energy efficiency (EE): “Use of technology, systems or behaviors to accomplish the same task with less energy.”
Additionally,
- EE measures are the cheapest, most effective decarbonization tools available.
- Retrofits not only save consumers money, they also decrease the need for new power generation.
- EE measures are necessary across all categories of energy users, not just residential.
As ACEEE put it, energy efficiency “is a first fuel for energy transitions.” When we consider alternatives to building more expensive gas pipes, EE and weatherization measures–coupled with electric appliances–are critical to making a transition feasible, equitable and affordable. This is especially true for older houses and buildings where the “building envelope” has degraded substantially. According to the presentation, weatherizing those buildings can save consumers “11-47%” annually on their energy bills. However, we have to keep in mind that such “deep retrofits” can be expensive, and for people struggling to get by, they are prohibitively expensive. As the ACEEE speaker suggests, and CUB agrees, Illinois must ensure that we have funds available to help people in need.
Another challenge for the implementation of aggressive EE and weatherization retrofits is having a workforce available to perform the work. While the existing EE/weatherization workforce far outnumbers fossil fuel workers, we need tens of thousands more people trained in that field, including HVAC contractors who understand how to size and prepare a building for super-efficient heat pump technology.
But we can’t let such challenges slow the adoption rate because, as ACEEE pointed out, heat pumps can achieve 400% efficiency (gas furnaces can at most achieve 100%), they can be used in other appliances like water heaters and clothes dryers, and despite claims to the contrary, cold-weather heat pumps have been in use for years in sub-zero conditions. Still, it is important to keep in mind that heat pumps work best in buildings that are properly weatherized. (Check out CUB’s free Better Heat guide to learn more about getting your home ready for electrification.)
The next presentation was given by three of Illinois’ top gas utilities: Peoples/North Shore Gas and Nicor Gas. We didn’t hear anything in this presentation that the same utilities hadn’t already said in past workshops, except that their tagline seemed to be “we can do better.” It’s hard to guess what they meant. Each speaker started with statistics from their company’s energy efficiency program, pointing out that not only have they managed to decrease the carbon footprint of their users, but that they have saved their customers thousands of dollars. (Cold comfort for the many thousands of customers in Chicago and across the state who are hundreds of dollars in arrears. See for yourself how many gas customers are struggling to afford their bills at this ICC dashboard.)
The Nicor speaker gave the bulk of the presentation and reiterated the gas utilities’ transition vision: an increase in spending on gas distribution infrastructure as the only viable path forward. We were told once again that, paradoxically, methane gas plays a critical role in decarbonizing the methane gas system, that heat pumps can’t perform (although, according to him, GAS heat pumps show promise, oddly enough) and that with better gas EE programs we can solve half our problems. Nicor’s speaker also claimed, supposedly citing ComEd data, that electrification would cost “six times” more than implementing gas EE measures and maintaining the infrastructure spending status quo. That strained credibility for me and other participants. Representatives from ComEd couldn’t vouch for his numbers, and it turned out he had miscategorized some electrification vs. gas efficiency incentives and his numbers were off. (“For a deeper dive into some of the issues at play, check out the Building Decarbonization Coalition report on future gas utility spending.)
By the end of the pro-gas presentation, I still didn’t understand what was meant by “we can do better.” In fact, even after 11 workshops, I’m struggling to understand how the decarbonization pathways described by the gas utilities and their surrogates will lead to fewer carbon and methane emissions, or how advocating for more infrastructure spending leads to lower energy bills. If the presenters meant to say that they can do better by expanding and creating new EE programs, they failed to describe what they have in mind. Maybe it’s too early in the process to say what those programs look like, but a hint would be nice.
The final presentation was by a representative of the American Gas Association (AGA). Not surprisingly, the AGA agreed that gas EE measures and “gas heat pumps” are a more realistic and feasible approach to decarbonization than electrification. He presented charts claiming that heating with electric appliances would cost consumers more per year than using gas appliances, but didn’t mention what gas and electric rate assumptions they were working off of, nor whether those estimates took building envelope improvements into account. CUB and our allies are looking forward to digging into the methodology underlying the AGA report. The AGA presentation included operation cost comparisons that we hope will be examined further in future workshops.
It’s probably clear that I’m frustrated coming out of this workshop. I understand the need to hear from the gas utilities, as obvious stakeholders in the process, about how they see energy efficiency as a pathway to decarbonization. But I would like to hear some new insights. Clearly the programs they offer today aren’t of much use to somebody like me, a Nicor customer who has been denied access to their programs–I have Nicor for gas, but Ameren for electricity so I’m ineligible for some EE programs–or to the thousands of Peoples Gas customers who are under threat of disconnection.
At the risk of sounding biased, (I am) I will say that ACEEE’s presentation was valuable, in that it brought information that I had not heard before, and it sparked a serious discussion of EE as a decarbonization pathway, which is the point of this entire proceeding. I am looking forward to the next two workshops further exploring electrification pathways, but I hope that the gas utilities will more accurately present their claims.
For more information on the Illinois Commerce Commission’s Future of Gas proceedings, visit CUB’s Lifting the FOG resource.
Scott Allen, Energy Policy Specialist (he/him/his) — Scott joined CUB in February 2014 as the first downstate staff member, working first out of Hillsboro, then from Springfield, and now, Urbana. He focuses on outreach to Ameren customers and building relationships with downstate agencies and organizations. Scott also represents CUB at the downstate caucus of the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition and works on a range of energy and consumer-related legislative initiatives. His favorite aspect of working at CUB is not having to worry about whether or not his efforts have a negative impact on society. In his time off, Scott enjoys napping, exercising and eating.
