[ok-sus] conservation -- personal choice or necessary action - call your commissioners

Tue Oct 14 06:02:10 PDT 2008

Regarding whether conservation is a personal choice or an action we need to
take for the benefit of the health of ourselves, other species and the
planet .

Is running a red light a personal choice?

Is drinking and driving a personal choice?

Is violating a health standard in food preparation a personal choice?

Yes they all are choices - but they are choices that carry a consequences
for the health and safety of the public, for the common good. Civilization
decided all these things need to be regulated for the benefit of the common
good and public health.

I'm not arguing for fining people who don't conserve, and I'm sure that
somewhere along the line someone argued that all of the above were
limitations on "personal choices" - the recent smoking ban in restaurants
comes to mind --  but the fact of the matter is throughout time when
personal choices hurt others, we the people in order to form a more perfect
union with liberty and justice for all, encourage, and incentivize and if
needed regulate behavior to protect the common good.  

And in the case of the restaurant smoking ban - overall it actually didn't
hurt the restaurants business - rather some have seen an increase in
business.

To argue conservation is a personal choice in an age when the energy
production is one of the biggest causes of pollution on the planet, to argue
it's a personal choice when the goal is energy independence and energy
security sounds like the desperate machinations of a company bound and
determined to protect its profit margin, high CEO and senior staff salaries,
perks, benefits and golden parachutes. We've seen what that does for our
country.

And that old very tired argument about low rates is a smoke screen. Time and
time again when people are given good, honest, comprehensive information
about energy conservation and clean renewable energy, they overwhelmingly
choose and support conservation and paying for clean, renewable energy. My
mom is a great example - she lives on a limited income, she's in her
mid-70s, and she says it's time all of us conserve, she's glad to pay more
for clean energy. 

So, how can we trust an OG&E survey of their own customers when there is a
clear conflict of interest for them in all this? If we dig into the
questions of such surveys will we find they are skewed to render the answers
the company wants? 

And nuclear energy as an option? Dig a little deeper into that boondoggle
and it's nothing but a repeat of another unsustainable solution that passes
the extremely expensive costs of dealing with nuclear energy's toxic waste
with a half-life of 100,000 years onto the backs of the public. It also
requires the use of uranium, another finite resource - one that some experts
say will run out in about 60 years - much less if there's a big move toward
nuclear energy.

Overwhelming energy experts acknowledge we have to come at energy
independence and security with a variety of solutions. Our own Secretary of
Energy advocates this. DSM or conservation, energy efficiency is one of
those solutions. Certainly now we need to be moving with great haste toward
encouraging and incentivizing conservation, energy efficiency and harvesting
and investing in truly clean, renewable energy. Publicly traded companies
with high net profits such as OG&E have a big role to pay and play in this.
Those companies that adapt and do this will be seen as innovators and reap
the benefits. Those who don't may simply cease to exist. Won't happen? The
events of the last few weeks tell us the unimaginable happens.

OG&E has come a long way over the past seven years and is to be commended
for that. 

However, keeping OG&E's progress in perspective is useful as well. I
remember interviewing OG&E for a story on wind energy back in 2001, when
OGE's spokesperson scoffed at and dismissed wind energy, said people didn't
want it, it was too expensive, people wouldn't pay for it, etc. Then as now,
OG&E was wrong and they were dragged, screaming and kicking into innovation
and clean energy by the will of the people.

History repeats itself. 

Call and write our commissioners today. Let them know the will of the
people.

Shauna, OKC

From: Temur Akhmedov [mailto:timourau at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 8:28 PM
To: Sustainability Issues in Oklahoma
Subject: RE: [ok-sus] Major OSN Project

Greetings,

" In the end, energy efficiency is primarily a matter of personal choice. "
(from the message below)

I would like to share some thoughts. While significant savings could be
generated by a personal choice, a much more stable way of cutting energy
waste would be energy efficiency measures, which cut waste more or less
automatically.

A CFL and LED bulbs will use less energy regardless of a personal choice. A
properly built energy efficient building will use less energy by design.
With right design a geothermal system will cut energy use of a house without
people making personal choices. I knew of a 4,000 sq ft home with a
geothermal system, which had it's August electric bill at $130 to cool the
house and heat the water. And these people lived normal lives.

There are products and technologies, commercially available and some quite
affordable, which will move energy efficiency from the realm of personal
choice to the realm of efficiency by design. Motion sensors, light sensors,
Energy Star appliances, passive cooling and heating using winds and solar
energy, minimizing heat island effect with proper roofing materials and
green roofs - all of these are real and available. If we add personal
choices over this, we will benefit so much more. 

Commercial and industrial buildings can significantly cut energy waste in a
very cost effective way. When Wal-Mart realized that it could save a whole
lot of money by installing skylights - they covered most of their
superstores with those. When Wal-Mart realized that motion sensors on lights
in frozen isles would save money - it made the switch. And this is a
company, which most do not consider to be a good environmentally friendly
company.

We still get the functionality. We simply use less energy to get the same
result. Ultimately, energy efficiency is not about conservation. It is about
achieving the same results using less energy. We need to cut the waste, i.e.
energy used without bringing any benefit or functionality.

Conservation efforts and personal choice will only improve the situation. 

I can guarantee that most buildings here in Oklahoma could cut their energy
usage by 25-30% in a very cost effective way even with our low energy costs.
And that's without personal choice. If the whole Oklahoma cut the energy
usage by at least 20% by simply eliminating energy waste, how many power
stations will we need to build?

We do need more energy for growth. We should just find wise ways of
generating it. Energy efficiency is a basic capitalistic principle. You win
over your competition by achieving the same result or better using less
resources and energy. 

Utility companies may worry they will loose revenue. Well, here is the idea.
Push for electrifying the railroad connection between Tulsa-OKC-Dallas. This
will use up all the energy we could save through energy efficiency, wind,
solar and geothermal. 

Ideas are plenty and realistic. We need to think how we can make our whole
economy so much more efficient, so that we can keep the benefits of quality
of life and good wages, and still be able to compete on world markets.
Oklahoma can live mainly off wind, solar and geothermal, and sell as much of
its oil and natural gas to the outside world. The state will get wealthier
and the economy would grow. Who would be against good paying jobs, higher
living standards, better security and better place to live?

Temur Akhmedov
Green Realtor/ Energy Auditor

www.GreenRealtor-OK.com <http://www.greenrealtor-ok.com/>  - energy
efficient, eco-friendly and conventional real estate
www.OkEnergySavers.com <http://www.okenergysavers.com/>  - solar, wind &
geothermal made affordable!

  _____  

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:15:46 -0500
From: broylecg at oge.com
To: ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org
Subject: Re: [ok-sus] Major OSN Project

Montelle,

Thanks for your recent post reflecting the OSN board's thoughts about energy
efficiency. 

In most respects, it appears the OSN statement is consistent with the rules
written and proposed by the Corporation Commission staff. That makes sense
because of the input OSN has had throughout the process.

OG&E favors the plan that will be discussed by commissioners on Wednesday
because it reflects a careful review of this significant public input. This
plan has been designed based on other successful programs, many customer
interviews and surveys. The portfolio of energy efficiency programs that the
Commission will consider reflects that which our customers tell us they find
most meaningful. Because it is by Oklahomans and for Oklahomans, we believe
it will help us begin achieving higher efficiency goals right away.

It is worth noting that energy efficiency and "Demand Side Management" are
fairly straightforward to envision in concept - but considerably more
difficult to implement in reality. One of the factors working against these
types of programs in Oklahoma is that energy remains relatively inexpensive
here. OG&E electric bills have stayed consistently 25 percent or so lower
than the national average. That is good, of course, because making energy
affordable for everyone is one of our obligations. But it removes some of
the incentive for customers to better manage their own electricity usage.

I do have to challenge your statement that Oklahoma utilities have resisted
energy efficiency in the state. At OG&E, we have worked to accomplish
significant DSM inroads for decades. Our "Time of Use" product, load
curtailment and real-time pricing features give our customers tools they can
use to manage both their electricity use and their cost - while helping us
reduce our peak demand. We work aggressively to promote energy audits,
weatherization and use of new technologies like Energy Star appliances and
CFL bulbs. 

You referenced state rankings regarding energy efficiency, but readers who
drill down into those ratings will see that transportation and code
enforcement play significant roles in those ratings - areas distinct from
utility programs. Of course, we always want to do better. That is why
Oklahoma utilities are spending millions of dollars and working with the
Commission staff to implement more and better programs. When rankings take
into account our "Quick Start" programs implemented this year, we're
confident our ranking will improve.   

The good news is that Oklahoma's economy is growing - a phenomenon we hope
persists through and beyond the current financial upheavals surrounding Wall
Street. But that growth - even with significant energy efficiency programs -
means more power will be used. In the end, energy efficiency is primarily a
matter of personal choice. We never let an opportunity go by to provide
education about energy efficiency. And new incentives will be created. But
conservation alone won't allow us to meet our needs forever.

We're adding hundreds of megawatts of wind power, and we've just brought
into our fleet the high-efficiency Redbud natural gas plant. But some of our
current plants are nearing the end of their operational lives. The average
age of our generating units is about 35 years. We hope our wind resources,
our current fossil-fuel fleet and our energy efficiency programs will allow
us to meet our generation needs until around 2020. By then, we hope there
will be better technology for carbon sequestration to allow low-cost coal to
be used. Or, that nuclear power becomes more viable.

Until then, we're going to bring new focus to DSM programs that meet the
needs of Oklahomans and meet the objectives shared by OG&E, OSN and many
others for affordable, environmentally responsible power.       

We're looking forward to a good discussion on Wednesday.

Thanks,

Gil

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.oksustainability.org/pipermail/ok-sus/attachments/20081014/20d00bb6/attachment-0001.htm 