The Biden administration is discussing significant and much-needed investments in our transportation, water, and energy infrastructure. It’s about time.
The American Society of Civil Engineer’s “2021 Infrastructure Report Card” gives our nation’s energy infrastructure a C-. That’s a failing grade in my book. Last summer’s California wildfires and this winter’s Texas storms have shown us that our energy infrastructure is fragile, and with increasingly unpredictable weather, our energy infrastructure needs to be more resilient.
There’s a significant investment gap that needs to be filled in order to improve resiliency; the priority must be to improve reliability with proven technologies before taking risky green technology gambles that may not pay off and leave us in a worse place than we started.
We need to make smart choices with proven and reliable energy return on investment. After all, global investments in renewables is now over 70% of energy investments…
Going forward, we need to invest in proven, affordable energy sources. Don’t take my word for it; here’s what the American Society of Civil Engineers says:
“Preserving the nation’s energy infrastructure requires balancing the affordability and access to delivered energy products (e.g., electricity and natural gas) with maintaining reliable and resilient service as well as reducing the carbon footprint. This is readily addressed through life-cycle cost analysis, wherein technology improvements and best and sustainable practices to replace aging infrastructure can be confirmed.”
Let’s fight climate change and reduce global carbon emissions, but let’s do it with the energy sources that have already proven their ability to do so – natural gas and nuclear. Anything is just tilting at windmills.
Affordable Energy for New Jersey
We Must Learn the Right Lessons from Texas’ Energy Crisis
Special interests on both sides have tried to frame the recent Texas energy crisis to further their own political views. Even as Texans continue to suffer without power, advocates are trying to score points – either pushing further for a promised renewables-only future or blaming those sources alone for the crisis – instead of focusing on the facts.
The public debate has been disingenuous at best, and consciously false at worst.
In New Jersey, we must learn the right lessons from this crisis – and take the politics out of our energy plans to focus on sound public policy. The truth is, we need a balanced, diverse energy grid that relies on a variety of different sources – wind and solar, but also clean natural gas, nuclear, and more – to meet our needs and ensure reliability.
Our energy companies and policymakers alike know the importance of investing in transmission and distribution systems to protect our grid from severe weather. Utilities here know all too well the impacts severe weather can bring and have worked hard to curb those interruptions. Based on reports, while system hardening recommendations were made in 2011, the utilities in Texas did not take those precautions.
Yet, the recent catastrophe in Texas also underscores that we need redundancy and reliability throughout our energy system. That means we can’t rush to electrify everything, and we can’t rely on one source for generation. We need smart, sustainable, and realistic policy that will keep costs low and ensure our residents have a stable supply of energy.
New Jersey’s Energy Master Plan (EMP) proposes a future of entirely renewable sources – before those sources are ready for prime time. Wind and solar alone are not able to meet our needs, and the state does not have a clear, concrete plan to ensure redundancy and reliability of our future grid. Instead, our leaders have demonized important and proven sources such as clean natural gas.
Even worse, the proposed electrification of home heating, transportation, and everything else means our residents won’t have a back-up option in the event of a grid failure. How many businesses and residents in New Jersey have relied on natural gas backup generators to maintain their electricity this winter alone, due to outages.
As we saw in Texas, that could have disastrous consequences. Seventy-five percent of our residents’ homes are currently heated by natural gas all year – and, fortunately, many of these systems work even when the power is out and in severe weather.
Electrifying these systems won’t just threaten the reliability and security our residents depend on. Even worse, it’ll cost hardworking New Jerseyans – a lot. A recent report by Affordable Energy for New Jersey and energy expert Dr. Jonathan Lesser found that the costs of building electrification mandates in New Jersey’s EMP would be at least $2 billion, and potential far more.
To add insult to injury, our residents and businesses won’t just be at the mercy of unstable and unreliable electrical systems – they’ll be paying far more for it.
Diversity helps us avoid energy crises. We need policy that prioritizes diverse sources and an “all-of-the-above” approach. Doing so will help our economy grow, safeguard our residents and our grid, and give businesses the confidence to invest in New Jersey. We have a chance to learn from Texas’ experience and protect our residents. Let’s make sure we take it.
Ron Morano, executive director, Affordable Energy for New Jersey
While we were all quarantining at home and keeping our families safe, the state of New Jersey continued to move forward with one of the most impactful policy shifts in state history, implementation of the Energy Master Plan. Even if well-intentioned at the time of its release in February, the EMP was unrealistic then and is even less feasible now, as the COVID-19 pandemic puts our state, our residents and our businesses under financial strain.
In fact, a new report from Affordable Energy for New Jersey and energy expert Jonathan Lesser has found that the EMP will cost businesses and residents at least $2 billion per year — and potentially far more. At a time when our state faces unprecedented financial crisis and many residents are struggling to pay their bills, that’s a cost New Jersey simply can’t afford to pay.
Home heating alone poses an immense burden for our state if the bureaucrats behind the EMP have their way. The EMP calls for replacing inexpensive natural-gas heat with electric heaters. That’s all well and good, until we realize that millions of our residents — as high as 75% — rely on these systems in their homes and in businesses. Retrofitting three-quarters of our home-heating supply will costs tens of thousands of dollars for each electric heat pump, totaling tens of billions alone.
On the flip side, estimates suggest that the PennEast pipeline would have saved residents hundreds of millions in winter heating and electric costs in one season. Expanding our clean natural-gas supplies will lower costs and create jobs at a time when we sorely need them. But the Murphy administration and the EMP would rather grind these projects to a halt and force our residents to stop using natural gas.
That’s the story of the EMP — well-intentioned, rosy-eyed proposals to electrify this and “modernize” that, without fully considering the total costs at hand. Everywhere we turn, the plan places new costs on hardworking New Jerseyans, with only limited environmental upside. We need smarter policy.
Technologies like electric heating, solar and wind power and other innovations certainly have a place in New Jersey. It’s encouraging that many residents and businesses have pursued them to help lower our carbon footprint. But we need proven solutions like clean natural gas to help lower costs and provide stable, reliable energy for all. We need a practical, actionable energy policy, not a one-size-fits-all approach.
To make matters more confusing, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection recently released New Jersey’s Global Warming Response Act 80×50 Report, which purports to detail actionable steps to reduce our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. The DEP acknowledges that achieving “steep and permanent” cuts in emissions would require effectively eliminating gas-powered cars within the next 10 years, among other dramatic and costly measures. Yet it does not begin to discuss what this will cost New Jersey’s residents and businesses.
There’s a theme here — when energy policy is concerned, the state too often ignores the cost question or relies on rosy, nigh-on-impossible projects. New Jerseyans need clear, concrete policy initiatives, not guessing games that hurt their wallets.
We know that natural gas is cost-effective, abundant and inexpensive. The technology is already there, not years away from large-scale production. And industries across the state rely heavily on it. Why fix what isn’t broken?
New Jersey urgently needs solutions to keep our energy costs down, grow our economy and simultaneously improve the environment. We have the tools for the job at our disposal, but the EMP won’t get the job done. Now is the time to get started.
Affordable Energy for New Jersey and Dr. Jonathan Lesser Release Report Findings
Today, Affordable Energy for New Jersey (AENJ), along with well-known energy expert Dr. Jonathan Lesser, the president of Continental Economics, Inc., released a new report that shows a grim future for New Jersey under the state’s Energy Master Plan (EMP). His analysis shows that the EMP’s building electrification mandates alone will cost businesses and residents in New Jersey at least $2 billion per year – a substantial increase our state cannot afford.
The EMP, New Jersey’s 100% clean energy roadmap, while commendable in theory, includes numerous costly mandates for electrifying the entire transportation industry, eliminating clean natural gas, and other shortsighted policies that could drastically impact the economy, at a time when our residents and businesses are already under financial strain.
The new report, titled Natural Gas: Crucial for New Jersey’s Energy and Economic Future, highlights the importance of clean, affordable natural gas in New Jersey and the astronomical cost increases that will be shouldered by residents if these new mandates from the EMP are allowed to proceed. Under the EMP, millions of residents and businesses will be forced to replace their gas-fired heating systems, and all other gas appliances, with electric heat pumps, costing them tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket.Continue reading
There is an old saying to look before you leap because you may not like where you land. That concept has never been more appropriate than when examining and discussing the idea of moving forward and converting toward electric Vehicles.
While the idea may make people excited and sound good to some, new reports should raise concerns and cause pause as they have focused on battery fires prompting worldwide recalls and delays in production of vehicles.
We need to make sure we are utilizing proven technology as we make changes because rushing ahead with unproven concepts to fulfill a slogan will leave people stranded without power.
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may seem as if other important issues have faded from the public eye. In reality, the pandemic means that we must redouble our focus on the day-to-day issues facing New Jersey’s residents, or else face skyrocketing costs at a time when we can least afford them.
As the COVID-19 pandemic forces governments at all levels to contend with revenue shortfalls, it is more important than ever to invest in a diverse, balanced and affordable energy portfolio that will keep costs low for those who live and work in New Jersey.
According to a newly-released whitepaper from Affordable Energy for New Jersey, New Jersey faces a “cost chasm” in the energy sector — one that threatens to increase costs for businesses and residents and could leave us with a fragile, less reliable grid. Fortunately, there is a path to affordable, clean and stable energy systems in our state, and we have the tools to get there.Continue reading
In 2012 I wrote two opinion articles on solar projects and farmland. Following those articles I was asked to testify in a number of cases where residents were trying to fight the siting of solar projects on farmlands. In some cases we were successful, but in others we lost. As a lifelong environmentalist and a licensed professional planner, I found that it was difficult to deal with the conflict between the need for clean energy and the need to preserve farmlands and woodlands. Nevertheless, I decided that given the many other suitable locations for solar projects — such as rooftops, parking lots, landfills, and unused land — it made sense to fight for the resources that couldn’t easily be replaced. Since that time there has been a significant reduction in the demand to utilize farmland and woodlands for solar projects. However, a recent bill, S-2605 is reenergizing the debate.
In 2012 I wrote, “Real farming — the production of food — is what the Garden State has been about for hundreds of years …. When they think of New Jersey, most Americans think of the Turnpike, industrial parks, suburban and urban housing or the Shore. It is difficult for them to imagine that we have thousands of acres dedicated to farming …. Protecting the environment is not just about clean water and clean air; it is also about protecting our ability to live on the Earth.”
According to the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, “To date, New Jersey’s Farmland Preservation Program has resulted in the permanent protection of over 2,600 farms, accounting for more than 237,000 acres — or roughly one-third of all farmland in the state.” This effort has been recognized as the top-ranked in the nation, according to the American Farmland Trust. Under S-2605 these lands would be exempt from utility-scale solar projects. However, this still leaves 513,000 acres that could be utilized for solar projects.Continue reading
Did you suffer sticker shock at your last electric bill? It’s not just the air conditioning, but with so many people working from home, you’re also cooking more, running the dishwasher and doing laundry.
The last power bill was a shocker for Cristina Gordon, who is running her company “C Bee PR” out of her home alongside her husband, an insurance executive, and their baby girl.
“We were working from home of course,” Gordon said. “But we are fairly good at turning the A/C down and the lights. So it was really a shock.”
In March, the family’s PSE&G bill was $135, with increased usage every month throughout the pandemic. The last bill doubled $344 bucks.
“Oh my gosh, why such a jump,” Gordon questioned.
She’s not alone, as 7 On Your Side was flooded on Facebook about high bills.
“Usage is up 48 percent,” Karinna complained.
My bill says, “I’m up 45% from last July,” laments teacher Deb Paulsen.
So, 7 On Your Side asked PSE&G to analyze the Gordon’s bill.
They recommended installing a smart meter at their new home to monitor usage, using programmable thermostats and swapping out old for new Energy Star appliances to save money, plus earn discounts and rebates.
More ways to save:
– Clean out the A/C filters each month during the summer months
– Use ceiling fans and
– Switch to more energy efficient LED light bulbs
Also, asking your employer if they can set up allowances on business-related expenses can’t hurt. Twitter gave employees a one-time, 1,000 productivity allowance to set up things like your at home desk setups.
Also don’t forget if you add up what it costs to commute, park and eat at your office. Your energy bill may be a lot less comparatively.
Beginning in March, when businesses across the country snapped off the lights and sent employees home to curb the spread of Covid-19, overall electricity consumption declined.
But household energy use surged, with some New York City apartments consuming, on average, 23% more electricity during business hours—a shift that, with the accompanying expense, could make things worse for those already suffering financially as a consequence of the pandemic.
The double-digit increases occurred on weekdays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. across nearly 300 city apartments whose energy habits researchers at Columbia University had monitored since 2018.
The apartments, they said, roughly match the diversity of the city’s residential building stock, and the researchers anticipated that other areas of the country observing stay-at-home orders would have experienced similar changes in energy use.
“I see air conditioning as the big load,” said Vijay Modi, a professor of mechanical engineering who helped design and conduct the study. “There were 20 days in the month that you didn’t use air conditioning from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and now you do. That’s 160 hours of air conditioning.”
One small window unit, he estimated, might add $12 to $15 to someone’s monthly utility bill—a cost that would vary by region, with average rates ranging from less than 10 cents per kilowatt-hour in Louisiana to nearly 31 cents in Hawaii.
Overall, weekday electricity use in the apartments included in the study increased by 7% after New York’s stay-at-home order went into effect on March 22, while weekend use rose by 4%.
But the total amount of electricity consumed by residences at the height of the lockdown never matched the volume typically swallowed by commercial properties, even as many workers set up shop at home.
To explain the mismatch, Dr. Modi ticked off some of the ways the two differ: “Commercial buildings use far more lighting per square foot,” he said. “They have elevators. They must circulate air and water across the whole building. The mechanical room may be downstairs and have to pump stuff up to the 15th floor.”
All of that adds up to greater electrical demand and, when shut down, larger energy savings.
From the beginning of the lockdown, New York state consistently used 6% to 8% less electricity than normal, according to estimates by the New York Independent System Operator, which manages the state’s electric grid and wholesale market.
In the city, the decreases were greater.
There, overall energy use declined by as much as 15%, and at times within the 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. window, when energy use typically ramps up as people arrive at work, the decline was as high as 21%.
Other parts of the country experienced similar decreases.
Daily weekday electricity demand across the central region of the U.S. dropped by 9% to 13% in March and April compared with expected demand, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and demand in most of Michigan and Wisconsin was 11% to 16% lower, fueled in part by the March 18 decision by Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co.and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV, the three major car manufacturers based in Detroit, to begin closing their facilities.
During the 2008 recession, New York state saw an underrun of 1.9% in annual energy consumption, according to Zachary Smith, vice president of planning for the New York Independent System Operator. By the second quarter of 2010, consumption had returned to normal.
New York’s energy use has already crept up since businesses began slowly reopening in June, but overall consumption is still lower than normal, and forecasters predict the decreases could last for a year or more.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
How have you seen your electricity bill change during the pandemic? Join the conversation below.
“Right now, things have leveled off,” Mr. Smith said. “We see a reduction of about 3%. We anticipate it will continue for some time, most likely through all of 2021, and possibly well into 2022.”
But after this year’s unprecedented disruption, with many employees continuing to work from home, it’s unclear how a return to normal will look.
“What will work habits be once the economic recovery happens?” Mr. Smith said. “In the past, people would go back to work. Here, people will go back to work. But what does back to work mean?”
If businesses find they can reduce expenses by making the home office permanent, the shift from commercial to residential electricity use could be the pandemic’s lasting lightbulb moment.
Write to Jo Craven McGinty at Jo.McGinty@wsj.com