the film forum library tutorial contact

Energy Crisis Requires New Conservation Efforts by Peter West Opinion, The Oregonian, January 9, 2001

The past five years have seen virtual abandonment of the push that served the region well

It is quite popular to blame California for the current energy crisis. While it is always good sport and nearly always correct to blame our golden neighbors, the Northwest is not without fault.

The reality is that if we had stayed true to what we were doing for conservation and renewable energy sources in the mid-1990s, we would not be so vulnerable to the wild swings in the current energy market.

In the early part of the last decade, the region's energy future was building a sustainable success story. Our energy efficiency and conservation programs were the envy of the world. We were doing all the right moves to confirm and commercialize renewable resources. From 1983 to 1994, conservation programs saved enough power to avoid building several mid-size power plants.

Then efforts virtually stopped. Utilities, regulators and planners convinced themselves that a near-term surplus in generation and low prices for natural gas meant moving sustainable resources to the back burner. Conservation programs were cut an average of 75 percent. Acquisition of renewable resources dropped as much as 90 percent.

The Northwest walked away from enough conservation and renewables to serve more than 250,000 households -- power worth as much as $1.7 billion. At today's prices, the conservation the region abandoned would pay for itself in less than a year.

Instead, the region is rushing to add new fossil-fueled generation at rates that rival the excesses of the late '70s: At least nine fossil-fueled power plants under construction or permitted in the Northwest. While a few of these plants are needed now, all of them are not necessary. Unless we are careful, the legacy of the last half of the 1990s will be an electricity system that is dirtier and even more exposed to volatile fossil fuel prices.

There have been some bright spots and programs to build upon. The Bonneville Power Administration, the Eugene Water and Electric Board, PacifiCorp and PGE did build wind energy projects and commit to geothermal power. The city of Ashland invested in solar, and several utilities buy green power or allow customers to choose clean energy. BPA and PacifiCorp are poised to take their experiences further with substantial new investments in renewable resources, and conservation is as easy as putting in a new compact fluorescent lightbulb. In addition, in 1999 Oregon established a 3 percent systems benefit charge that doubles spending for conservation and renewable resources.

Yet, for every kilowatt of commitment to renewable energy there is 25 times the amount of fossil-fuel generation in the queue. Oregon's system benefit charge does not begin until October, and with today's crisis there is every reason to acquire as much conservation and renewables as fast as we can.

Consumers should continue to lead by example, purchasing energy efficient products, using energy wisely and choosing green power. You are our best hope at the moment. But we also need a serious, renewed commitment to a cleaner, sustainable and more stable energy future. Washington state, for example, needs to follow Oregon and institute minimum funding for conservation and renewables.

The Northwest governors' call on Friday to recommit to conservation is a right first step. This must be followed with policies that remove barriers to sustainable energy and immediately deliver conservation and renewables at levels high enough to make a difference. It is a strategy that would be paying dividends today, if we had fully adhered to it throughout the last decade.

Building a sustainable, stable energy future takes a long term focus and a consistent commitment. Anything less invites repeated energy crises, as well as unnecessary and unacceptable environmental tradeoffs.