Presentation from 2012 candidate education forums.

1. Energy 101:
2012 Candidate Briefing
Fresh Energy Candidate Education
August 2012

2. About Fresh Energy
Fresh Energy works daily for a future where energy
production stimulates local economies, efficiently
harnessing clean, homegrown electricity sources like wind
and solar power.
One where pollution is a thing of the past, where the energy
we need doesn’t harm the people we love.
And one that reflects Midwesterners’ love and respect for
our lakes, prairies, and forests—for our sake and beyond.

3. About Fresh Energy
Fresh Energy provides research, advocacy, and innovative
policy models while engaging citizens to take action on
energy issues.
Fresh Energy is a 501(c)(3) organization and does not
participate or intervene in elections for public office in any
way.
Our candidate education activities are completely
nonpartisan.

4. Our policy staff
Ross Abbey J. Drake Hamilton
transportation, solar global warming solutions
Ethan Fawley Alison Lindburg
transportation clean energy, efficiency
Kate Ellis Michael Noble
clean energy, efficiency executive director
Erin Stojan Ruccolo
clean energy, efficiency

5. Agenda
AGENDA
Energy in Minnesota
Minnesota’s energy policy foundation
The future of energy policy in Minnesota
Public opinion research
Q&A

6. Agenda
Energy in Minnesota

7. Where does Minnesota’s energy come from?
Primary energy consumption across all sectors
[trillion BTUs]
Oil
Natural Gas
Coal
Electricity
imports
Uranium
Biomass
Wind
Biofuels
Source: Energy Information Administration data 2010

8. Sources of MN Electricity by fuel type
Minnesota electricity generation
Source: Energy Information Administration data 1990-2010

9. Minnesota imports a lot of fuels for electricity
Minnesota has no oil wells, natural
gas, uranium, or coal mines.
The cost of coal delivered to Minnesota has
increased on average 11.8 percent every year
since 2004.

10. Wyoming’s Powder River Basin coal mine
Source: Sierra Club

11. Energy efficiency in the United States
Costs of different types of power

12. Residential Building Energy Code adoption in the Midwest
As of June 2012:
*
Code Level / Equivalence
No Mandatory
Statewide Code
2006 IECC
2009 IECC
2012 IECC
2009 Adopted by Major
Municipality
*
Upgrading to 2012

13. Energy codes raise the standards for all buildings
Minnesota’s code is currently roughly equivalent to
IECC 2006 and the state is in the process of
upgrading to the IECC 2012 with amendments.
These proposed changes will save newly
constructed Minnesota residences at least 20
percent in energy consumption and 30 percent for
commercial buildings.

14. CapX2020 is a joint
initiative of 11 utilities in
Minnesota and the
surrounding region to
expand the transmission
grid to ensure continued
reliable and affordable
service.

15. How much does Minnesota spend on oil?
In recent years, Minnesota has ―exported‖ about $2,000 per person per year for
oil.
18
16
14
12
Billions of Dollars
10
8
6
4
2
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Source: US Energy Information Administration’s State Energy Data System

16. Alberta landscape before and after

17. Uncertain future for gas prices; volatility and increases likely
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (the agency tasked with forecasting energy
trends)

18. Agenda
Minnesota's energy
policy foundation

19. Minnesota's energy policy foundation
• 2007 Next Generation Energy Act
• Requirements that electric and
natural gas utilities double to
triple energy efficiency savings
• 25 percent by 2025 Renewable
Electricity Standard

20. Next Generation Energy Act
State goal to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions economy-wide to at least:
15 percent below 2005 levels by 2015
30 percent below by 2025
80 percent below by 2050

21. Progress toward state goals
Renewable Electricity Standard (RES)
• Utilities are on track or exceeding RES goals.
• Minnesota has 2,500 megawatts of installed wind
energy—enough to power 700,000 Minnesotan homes.
• According to statewide utility reporting in 2012, there
has been almost no rate impact due to compliance with
RES. Many utilities stated that they would have added
wind in any scenario because it is the least-cost
resource.

22. Progress toward state goals
Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS)
• Utilities are on track or exceeding the efficiency goals.
• Increased energy efficiency reduces rates for
consumers.
• Xcel alone has saved the equivalent of constructing
nine new coal plants, reducing rates for consumers.
• Energy efficiency is the cheapest form of energy.
• Based on utility reporting, for every $1 utilities spent
on conservation, their customers save $4. It’s hard to
get that level of return with almost any other
investment.

23. Minnesota has a great wind resource
Percent of electricity from wind power, 2011

24. Wind power improves Minnesota’s economy
In 2010 alone, wind power
projects
• contributed $7 million in land
lease payments,
• contributed over $6 million in
property tax payments,
• provided diversified income for
Minnesota’s farm families, and
• supported at least 2,000 direct
and indirect jobs.

25. The Clean Air Act
1970
• became law to protect human health and
welfare
1990
• bipartisan update signed by President Bush to
tackle new air pollution problems
2011 and 2012
• scientific findings call for modernizing standards
to include mercury, soot, ozone, and carbon

26. The Clean Air Act
Nationwide, coal-fired power are responsible for at
least 21,000 premature deaths each year. Burning
coal emits large amounts of
 mercury
 ozone pollution
 carbon dioxide
 soot
Source: National Research Council

27. The Clean Air Act and human health and welfare
There are no nationwide
limits on carbon and soot
emissions from power
plants.
The Clean Air Act of 1990
required the
Environmental Protection
Agency to limit pollutants
that harm human health
and welfare.

28. The Clean Air Act
―The Clean Air Act has prevented
more than 1.8 million child
respiratory illnesses and more than
300,000 premature deaths.‖
Senator Dave Durenberger, April 2011

29. OMB review of Clean Air Act impacts from 1990-2020
The benefits of Clean Air Act
regulations exceed the costs by
30 to 1.
Pollution controls are 0.3
percent of the country’s overall
GDP, but save millions of
Americans from debilitating and
expensive illnesses that result
from unlimited pollution.

30. Minnesota has demonstrated feasibility
2006 Minnesota Mercury Emissions Reduction
Act:
• six big units at Minnesota’s largest coal plants
required to achieve 90 percent reduction in
mercury
• Clean Air Act now applies similar standards
nationwide

31. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
Rate regulators for electric and natural gas
utilities.
• least-cost planning and integrated resource
planning
• Minnesota Emissions Reductions Projects
(MERP)
• baseload diversification studies under way to
compare costs for oldest, least-efficient power
plants

32. Agenda
The future of energy
policy in Minnesota

33. Federal wind production tax credit
The federal Production Tax
Credit, which promotes wind
development in Minnesota, require
reauthorization by Congress
before it expires at the end of
2012.
Wind development supports at
least 2,000 construction and
manufacturing jobs, as well as
millions of dollars annually in tax
payments to local governments
and payments to landowners.

34. Minnesota has a great solar resource
Germany, despite its
inferior solar resource,
recently set a world record
for solar photovoltaic (PV)
production, producing 22
gigawatts of energy
(equivalent to the output of
20 nuclear plants).
On that day, they were
able to produce 50
percent of their
electricity from solar
PV.

35. Capitalizing on Minnesota’s solar resource
• Minnesota has better solar economics
than 31 other states, including the rest of
the Midwest (before incentives).
• Solar supports 6,000 Minnesota jobs,
including 2,200 jobs at 33 component and
panel manufacturers in over 30 towns.
• Yet compared to other states, Minnesota
has done relatively little to attract solar
investment.
• Minnesota ranks near the bottom in per-
capita investment, while states with worse
solar economics (like New Jersey and
Oregon) are attracting 10 to 30 times the
investment.

36. Solar PV costs are dropping fast
$/W
MW of panels manufactured
Source: PV module cost curve 1976-2011. BNEF Bazilian et al (2012),
Fig. 1

37. Reducing our reliance on oil
We need to
• improve the efficiency of cars,
• transition to next generation of ―fuels,‖
• support transportation options and
development patterns that reduce the need
to drive

38. Vehicle efficiency

39. Next generation of fuels?

40. Minnesota driving trends
Minnesota Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Trend and Projections
100
90
VMT
80 20 year linear trendline
In the Minnesota, 10 year logarithmic trendline
about 29 miles are 70
VMT (in billions)
driven per capita per 60
day. 50
40
Peak was 30.4 miles
in 2004. 30
20
Per driver, that’s
10
about 39 miles per
day. 0
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
04
06
08
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation TDA and OIM

41. How we pay for our roads
Source: Fresh Energy, based on MnDOT data

42. Minnesota’s senior population-growth spurt
Census Bureau forecast December 2009, assuming constant immigration.
Source: Retired State Demographer Tom Gillaspy

43. 2030 Forecasted Population
65 Years of Age or Older
Aging
population most
pronounced in
more rural
2030 Pop 65 or older
1,000
counties
5,000
10,000
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
2030 Percent 65 or older
11% - 15%
16% - 20%
21% - 25%
26% - 30%
31% - 35%
21%
36% - 40%
Economic Regions
Source: Minnesota State Demographic Center, April 2007

44. Improving rail connections
Source: MnDOT 2010 State Rail Plan

45. light rail transit commuter rail
bus rapid transit streetcar

46. The Twin Cities needs new transit momentum
Miles of transitways (existing or under
construction)

47. The connected Twin Cities Minnesota needs

48. Agenda
Public support for
Minnesota’s energy future

49. Polling data
From a statewide telephone poll of 400 registered
Minnesota voters, conducted January 9-15, 2012 by
the bipartisan research team of Fairbank, Maslin,
Maullin, Metz & Associates and Public Opinion
Strategies.
The margin of sampling error for the full statewide
samples is +/- 4.9 percent; margins of error for
subgroups within the sample will be larger.

50. Polling data

51. Voters in all regions support more
public transit.
Support for Transit by Region
Total Support Total Oppose Undecided
91%
100%
81%
78%
77%
80%
60%
40%
21%
20%
19%
9%
20%
3%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Northeast Northwest South Twin Cities
(% of
Sample) (9%) (17%) (21%) (54%)
Q14f. I would like to read you some ideas related to energy that might be proposed by people in
Minnesota. Please tell me whether it sounds like something you would support or oppose:
Building more public transit, like rail and buses. Split Sample.

52. Democrats, independents, and Republicans
back building public transit.
Support for Transit by Party Identification
Total Support Total Oppose Undecided
91%
100%
78%
65%
80%
60%
28%
40%
22%
9%
20%
7%
0%
0%
0%
Democrat Independent Republican
(% of
Sample) (33%) (47%) (20%)
Q14f.I would like to read you some ideas related to energy that might be proposed by people in
Minnesota. Please tell me whether it sounds like something you would support or oppose:
Building more public transit, like rail and buses. Split Sample.

53. Strong statewide support for Southwest Light Rail funding
Region Support Oppose
Hennepin/Ramsey 69% 26%
Outer Suburbs 59% 34%
Southern Minnesota 57% 37%
Western Minnesota 52% 39%
Northeastern
59% 37%
Minnesota
Source: Public Opinion Strategies and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates poll
conducted January 14-17, 2012; commissioned by the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of
Commerce, the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Twin West Chamber of
Commerce

54. There are no regional differences in
support for increased use of solar…
Support for Solar Energy by Region
Total Support Total Oppose Undecided
90%
87%
85%
85%
100%
80%
60%
40%
11%
11%
10%
10%
20%
4%
4%
3%
0%
0%
Northeast Northwest South Twin Cities
(% of
Sample) (9%) (20%) (21%) (50%)
5i. Here is a list of specific sources of energy. Please tell me whether you would support or
oppose increasing use of that source of energy to meet your state’s future needs: Solar

55. …and partisan differences are
relatively modest.
Support for Solar Energy by Party Identification
Total Support Total Oppose Undecided
99%
100%
83%
76%
80%
60%
40%
20%
14%
20%
3%
3%
1%
0%
0%
Democrat Independent Republican
(% of
Sample) (33%) (42%) (24%)
5i. Here is a list of specific sources of energy. Please tell me whether you would support or
oppose increasing use of that source of energy to meet your state’s future needs: Solar

56. Similarly, support for increased wind
energy use cuts across regions…
Support for Wind Energy by Region
Total Support Total Oppose Undecided
89%
88%
100%
83%
82%
80%
60%
40%
17%
13%
12%
11%
20%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Northeast Northwest South Twin Cities
(% of
Sample) (9%) (20%) (21%) (50%)
5f. Here is a list of specific sources of energy. Please tell me whether you would support or
oppose increasing use of that source of energy to meet your state’s future needs: Wind

57. …and also across party lines.
Support for Wind Energy by Party Identification
Total Support Total Oppose Undecided
97%
84%
100%
68%
80%
60%
30%
40%
13%
20%
3%
2%
2%
2%
0%
Democrat Independent Republican
(% of
Sample) (33%) (42%) (24%)
5f. Here is a list of specific sources of energy. Please tell me whether you would support or
oppose increasing use of that source of energy to meet your state’s future needs: Wind

58. Voters would rather reduce
the need for fossil fuels by expanding
the use of renewables.
Which of the following do you think should be the highest priority
for meeting America’s energy needs:
Reducing our need for oil and coal by
increasing energy efficiency and expanding
67%
our use of clean, renewable energy that can
be generated in the US
Drilling and digging for more oil and coal
26%
wherever we can find it in the US
Both/Neither/DK/NA
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
7. Which of the following do you think should be the highest priority for meeting America’s energy
needs…

59. Voters of all parties see jobs
benefits from clean energy.
Job Impact of Clean Energy by Party Identification
Creat Jobs No Effect Cost Jobs All/None/DK
100%
81%
76%
80%
54%
60%
33%
40%
14%
14%
9%
20%
6%
5%
5%
3%
3%
0%
Democrat Independent Republican
(% of
Sample) (31%) (47%) (22%)
9. Which of the following comes closer to your point of view: Increasing the use of
clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power…

60. Voters across the state prefer a
clean energy candidate.
Candidate Preference by Region
Clean Energy Fossil Fuels Both/Neither/DK/NA
72%
72%
68%
67%
80%
60%
33%
40% 24%
23%
20%
20%
9%
7%
5%
0%
0%
Northeast Northwest South Twin Cities
(% of
Sample) (8%) (20%) (22%) (50%)
12. In thinking about the election for State Legislature in your area later this year, for which of
the following candidates would you be most likely to vote?

61. More than seven in ten voters prefer a candidate
who would promote renewable energy over
fossil fuels.
A candidate who wants to promote more use of
clean, renewable energy – like wind and solar
power
A candidate who wants to continue to rely on
traditional domestic sources of energy – like coal,
natural gas or nuclear – to meet energy needs
Both/Neither/DK/NA
12. In thinking about the election for State Legislature in your area later this year, for which
of the following candidates would you be most likely to vote?

62. Q&A
www.fresh-energy.org

63. Fresh Energy
www.fresh-energy.org
@freshenergy // facebook.com/freshenergytoday