Laserfiche WebLink
I Position Statement <br /> Conservation Improvement Program <br /> Background t, ; β€ž ,. , «. .- I <br /> Minnesota's municipal utilities support energy ,, ,_ . <br /> conservation. The wise use of energy is in keeping t .. <br /> with the main goal of our electric and gas services ', <br /> 4 <br /> β€”to provide good service at a reasonable price. } I ' <br /> s a $ <br /> Helping customers improve their efficiency helps the 6 ,- <br /> environment, helps the utility defer the need to invest in ,.., V' , , <br /> generating facilities, and helps consumers manage their t "4` <br /> energy bills. Toward that end, Minnesota's municipal t <br /> utilities currently spend about $18 million per year on t _ <br /> Conservation Improvement Programs(CIP). <br /> Municipal utilities were early leaders in developing <br /> programs to manage and control customers'peak usage. , . <br /> Municipal utilities have become increasingly engaged in β€ž <br /> developing and implementing conservation programs. ' <br /> Many have been operating energy efficiency programs i <br /> for well over 20 years.Municipal utilities'support for Austin Utilities General Manager Mark Nibaur visited with <br /> energy conservation has been demonstrated by their customers about the utility's energy efficiency offerings. <br /> continuing efforts to meet state energy conservation <br /> mandates, which have been evolving over the course of In 2007, the Minnesota Legislature expanded the <br /> the last 20 years. statewide CIP mandate by adding an annual energy <br /> savings goal of 1.5 percent of total energy sales to the <br /> The state mandate for CIP began in 1993, when spending requirement of 1.5 percent of revenues.The <br /> Minnesota law required municipal electric utilities added requirement is very difficult to meet and perhaps <br /> to spend 1 percent of their gross revenues on CIP impossible to meet for some small systems with little <br /> programs. In 2001 the Minnesota State Legislature load growth. In order to meet or even approach the goal, <br /> expanded municipal involvement in these programs some utilities must spend substantially more than the <br /> by increasing CIP spending by electric operations to 1.5 percent of revenue required prior to 2007. Some <br /> 1.5 percent of gross revenues, gradually reducing the utilities have picked much of the low-hanging fruit and <br /> amount of spending on load management that could be are finding it more and more difficult to maintain cost- <br /> used to meet municipal CIP spending requirements. effective conservation programs. <br /> '''' MMUA Position <br /> Minnesota's municipal utilities are serious about <br /> '§ ;, ,. conservation, but we are also serious about spending our <br /> s_ <br /> ratepayers'dollars wisely.With that in mind, we have a <br /> number of concerns regarding the CIP program as it is <br /> ,. currently constituted. <br /> Not Sustainable <br /> "°" 1 The Conservation Improvement Program in its current <br /> form is not sustainable over the long term. Legislative <br /> `' intent was to compel cost-effective measures, but the <br /> - iiik L cost-effectiveness of measures going into the future will <br /> decline quickly. The legislature should consider ways to <br /> Y clarify the cost-effectiveness provisions of the statute. <br /> 4 *- Before any new expansion of CIP is imposed, a detailed <br /> study should be made of the costs that will be incurred <br /> Grand Rapids Public Utilities is among the municipal utilities by rate payers to meet changing goals. <br /> deploying smart grid technology. <br /> 8/2015 State Position Statements <br />