This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


Energy Efficiency Looks Beyond the Natural Gas Boom

Rachel Young's picture
  • Member since 2018
  • 4 items added with 3,011 views
  • Sep 18, 2012

The recent boom in shale gas production and the subsequent decrease in the price of natural gas have left some wondering what the role for energy efficiency will be in the future. As a new ACEEE white paper explains, energy efficiency measures are still cost-effective in any foreseeable natural gas price environment. States should deploy cost-effective and readily available energy efficiency measures now to help provide long-term stability to the electric and natural gas markets and ensure that natural gas resources are used as efficiently as possible.

Historically, the natural gas market has experienced booms and busts where prices ranged from $2 to $16 per million British thermal units (MMBtu). Last winter, the United States entered a boom period driven by unseasonably warm weather and an explosion of domestic shale gas production and prices at historic lows—under $2 per MMBtu. Looking forward, ICF forecasts that prices will not remain at the current low levels. ICF estimates a steady increase in the price of natural gas to more than $4 per MMBtu by the end of 2012. Over the long term ICF forecasts that prices will increase as demand accelerates, bringing the price closer to $7 per MMBtu ($2010). The current wellhead price of gas is currently around $3 per MMBtu, up from $1.89 in April of this year.

The low prices have called into question the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs, particularly those targeted at saving natural gas directly. However, despite the low natural gas wellhead prices, energy efficiency is still the lowest cost new energy resource compared to new electricity generation resources of any fuel type. In addition, natural gas prices only affect retail electricity prices minimally because generation costs are just a small portion of the total electricity price. The average retail electricity prices are expected to remain relatively stable through 2030 while the wellhead natural gas prices are expected to rise. This means that electricity efficiency measures will not be greatly affected by natural gas prices, and the vast majority of measures remain cost-effective. Since both wellhead and retail prices are unlikely to stay low, utilities should look toward the long-term benefits of efficiency and continue supporting programs that reduce customer energy consumption.

Even as sources of natural gas continue to increase, energy efficiency is still the number one new resource. Many states and utilitiesalready recognize the benefits of energy efficiency. Over the past 15 years, there has been a rapid increase in the use of energy efficiency (see Figure 1), and this trend is expected to continue. 

Figure 1. Historical U.S. Energy Production by Type

Figure 1. Historical U.S. Energy Production by Type
Source: EIA production and consumption data for all but energy efficiency, which came from an ACEEE analysis of EIA data.
Natural gas has been a historically volatile fuel, vulnerable to storage and distribution constraints, and accidents and production disruptions. New fracking regulations and an anticipated increase in natural gas exports are adding to the risk factors. Deploying energy efficiency measures lowers the demand for natural gas, which in turn reduces the threat of future price volatility, helps prevent natural gas price spikes, and assists in maintaining electrical grid reliability. Efficiency lessens a utility’s exposure to fuel price volatility by diversifying energy resources across multiple small and moderate-sized projects. Efficiency also reduces the need to deploy peaking generation resources, which prevents outages by lessening the load and stress of the power distribution network. 
Energy efficiency can significantly cut into the demand for natural gas in the power sector and lessen the need for construction of new natural gas power plants. New natural gas power plants require a large upfront investment and take time to come online; costs are transferred to ratepayers. Since energy efficiency is still the most cost-effective resource compared to new combined-cycle natural gas plants, energy efficiency should be deployed by states as the first measure to prevent costly construction of new natural gas plants thereby saving ratepayers money. And while natural gas is a less dirty fossil fuel with nearly half the emissions compared to coal, natural gas still emits pollutants. Energy efficiency is a zero emission energy resource. 
Though the United States has made progress advancing energy efficiency, there is still an abundance of untapped energy efficiency resources available. States should make investments in energy efficiency measures first before undertaking expensive fuel switching projects. Doing so will increase stability in the electricity and natural gas sectors creates jobs, lower customer utility bills, reduce pollution, and extend the available supply of natural gas.
Jessee McBroom's picture
Jessee McBroom on Sep 19, 2012

Thanks for the post Rachel. I liked the overall cost analysis graph. It is pretty comprehensive and the efficiency factor does stand out. In the future I believe cradle to the grave analysis of a given energy approach will become the norm for comparative analysis. IE the total cost of Nuclear in power produced and sold at X vs the total cost from R&D to Clean Up of radio active waste and health related costs to the public in accidental occurrences like Chernobyl and Fukashima. This applies particularly to the fossil fuel industry as well. An honest full accounting for total costs over the lifetime of a given technology will probably serve as a public acceptance guideline in the future where Industry seems to neglect or conflict with public health and well being. Great strides have been made in the address of emissions and roxic wastes in the fissil fuel and nuclear industried; but these remedial processes are rarely counted in the overall cost of doing business with respect to the proce we pay for any given approach to meeting our energy and transportation needs.

Rachel Young's picture
Rachel Young on Sep 26, 2012

Thanks for your comment. The data that we used to build our cost effectiveness figure came from Lazard and Associated, which focuses on the cost of production. We certainly find the life cycle analysis beneficial but it is, obviously, more challenging and a full life cycle anaylsis was beyond the scope of our work. Again, thanks for reading the blog post and commenting. Cheers!

Rachel Young's picture
Thank Rachel for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »