Tweaking lifestyles is not enough . . .

There is a growing number of articles showing that energy efficiency is so difficult and will produce such modest results, that needed impact will only come from the supply side. This is an article from John Hofmeister, a former president of Shell Oil Co. and founder and head of Citizens for Affordable Energy. He wrote this for the Wall Street Journal. EiD is not convinced and welcomed such briefing notes as published by E3G last week that Europe could have an even more ambitious energy efficiency target for 2030. Understandably energy policy is based on a balance of energy supply and demand options. It is not an either-or. Nevertheless, the energy efficiency community certainly needs to explain more effectively about the impact that can be achieved and that there is no option but to address the demand side.

Small Steps Aren’t Enough to Improve Energy Efficiency

It’s almost impossible to improve efficiency by “tweaking” life styles. Turning down the hot water heater to a lower temperature, shifting the thermostat up a few degrees in summer or down in winter, installing motion sensors to turn off lights, driving more slowly, paying top price for more efficient appliances and other frequently promoted solutions won’t materially dent the consumption of energy.

Whether in the personal and retail electricity world or the commercial and industrial or public marketplace, token efficiency responses deliver at most immaterial improvements. When Administration officials promote the opportunity for efficiency improvements in the range of 20%, we’ll never get there with symbolic shifts in consumption.

What’s required is structural and systemic change. This takes a lot more thought, discussion and investment to get the job done. But we have no plan for doing this and I hear zero elected officials promoting one.

Here are obvious energy-efficiency improvements that materially impact consumption: land-use management that requires increased penetration of multifamily and high-rise home construction in new-build housing stock; mandatory combined heat and power electricity generation where high temperature manufacturing is done; comprehensive re-lamping with lower-efficiency-lighting products; electricity pricing that rises with increased consumption or higher volumes, contrary to most pricing history for consumers; taxing mobility based on miles driven or flown; property taxes that reflect home or building aging, unless offset by documented building efficiency improvements.

These changes represent materially impressive efficiency opportunities. But there’s a problem, given our history and national experience with energy. They each require fundamental behavioral and cultural change because they will otherwise be resisted and rejected. They are not the American way. The most difficult change to make is that change which impacts values, beliefs and behaviors. If we’re serious about efficiency, we must address such fundamentals.

Frankly, I don’t see it happening. Not soon. We’ll more likely increase supply than efficiency, with all its implications.