Back in the 1970′s the satirical and surreal Firesign Theater proclaimed that “Everything You Know is Wrong.” At the intersection of energy and economics, that absurdist assertion is a increasingly obvious reality that advocates, policy makers and industry must embrace.
Throughout history, there are moments when prior assumptions and core beliefs have simply stopped being accurate. Great examples include people discovering that the Earth is round, microscopic organisms cause disease, and that various substances (tobacco, asbestos, particles produced by diesel engines) are harmful. To paraphrase what John Maynard Keynes may or may not have said, when confronted with changed facts the intelligent person changes their perspective, assumptions and opinions accordingly.
In the wonky, but critically important, world of energy systems no assumption has been more ingrained than this: “over the long term, energy demand grows over time — and that the only time it stays steady or declines is when the economy is in crisis and not growing.” But this “truth” that “everyone knows” is increasingly obviously wrong: we can grow while using less. Indeed, sometimes we can do better and grow because we’re using less energy.
The good folks at the Andersen window factory in Minnesota agree with this realization that the old conventional wisdom is wrong: a recent newspaper column documenting the experience of Andersen Windows described how even though “Andersen is making and selling more of its products . . . it’s using less energy. They’ve done it by changing light bulbs, upgrading equipment, and educating employees about energy conservation.”
Here in New England we have a strong record of planning and implementing energy efficiency and it is paying off in the same way. That is the clear assessment of the sharp-penciled engineers at ISO New England (the folks who operate and plan our regional electricity system), as presented in the graph below from the final report of a working group that CLF participated in. It may seem like heiroglyphs, but let me explain.
In the graph below, ISO-NE (as it is know) presents three energy futures: the blue line is the traditional forecast of expected growth in energy demand tracking expected economic expansion, the “load growth” that traditional models expect when the economic grows. This is then adjusted in the red line to reflect energy efficiency and other demand resources that have been recognized (and purchased) in the regional electricity markets, reflecting the past wise decision to allow such resources to participate in those markets. Finally, the forecast is then further adjusted in the black line to reflect the plans and programs for efficiency and alternative energy being undertaken by the New England states.
What you see in the flat, black line is economic growth without growing energy demand. You see the kind of growth being undertaken at Andersen scaled to an entire region.
In a quiet way this is a revolution — a clear recognition that new wind turbines, solar panels, or gas fired power plants will replace existing old and dirty oil and coal fired power plants as they retire, not to meet rising demand. This is a stunning reality and success: the increasingly successful efforts to foster efficiency have ended the upward march of energy demand, allowing our economy to grow without increasing electricity demand.
Let us now hope that, as the facts change, people and organizations change their beliefs, perspectives and plans accordingly. Building and buying energy infrastructure must continue – but it can no longer assume rising demand. Our investments must be smart, targeted and build towards a cleaner, and thriving, future where we have squarely and honestly addressed our climate crisis and the challenges of economic growth. Getting this right is one of the most positive aspects of what Bill McKibben has described as the “terrifying new math” that global warming mandates – this is a real life example of where we are headed in the right direction, cutting the link between increased prosperity and increased energy use and emissions.


Paul Lauenstein
Dear Mr. Kaplan,
This is a very good article, as far as it goes. However, I wish you had included one more scenario which shows what our fossil fuel consumption would have to be in order for future generations to avoid catastrophic climate change, given that atmospheric CO2 is increasing at an accelerating rate much faster than climate scientists predicted just a few years ago.
Paul Lauenstein
Sharon, MA
Seth Kaplan
An excellent point. That is a much larger question, which we have addressed in the past (and live with constantly as climate advocates) and will come around to again here.
The honest answer is that massive efficiency is needed as part of our portfolio of climate solutions – and that by 2050 we must have virtually completely decarbonized our electricity system and dramatically reduced fossil fuel use in all other sectors, at the very least reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80%.
Milt Lauenstein
This would be much more convincing if data were shown about the trend in energy usage up to the present, while these various conservation moves were being made. If energy usage has been increasing while these savings were being made, it is likely to continue. If
energy usage has not been growing because of conservation, then those who are forecasting continuing growth are way off base.
There are a number of classical growth curves which are uncannily accurate in forecasting future growth based on past trends. They show a period of slow growth, then more rapid growth, and then a leveling off. They could be quite useful in forecasting the growth of energy usage.
Seth Kaplan
Also a good point, we will relatively soon do a companion piece on the impact of prior efficiency efforts on load growth. The basic point is that deep investments in efficiency measures provide a tool to allow economic activity to increase without increasing energy (notably electricity) demand.
Robert D.Bessette
Thanks for the great thought provoking article. Assuming that it is not possible to make or do anything without energy, have you looked at identifying the current level of inefficiency that will be available and accessible to offset the needed energy for growth at a cost that will not slow or impact the economy in the current industry planning and investment cycle? Once we become 100% efficient, what happens to the black line? Further, it takes immediate energy and cash to generate long term energy savings through efficiency. It also takes energy to make, deliver and erect non-carbon based energy generators (wind & solar) with a higher generated energy cost than carbon based energy generation. How does this higher energy cost impact growth? At what point does it stop or reverse growth?
Morning Advantage: Bosses Who Earn Their Pay | iTAX – tax news
[...] It’s All About Me (Innovation Excellence) Growing the Economy Without Growing Electricity (and Energy) Demand (Conservation Law Foundation) [...]
Coral
Wow that was odd. I just wrote an really long comment but after I clicked
submit my comment didn’t appear. Grrrr… well I’m
not writing all that over again. Anyhow, just
wanted to say excellent blog!