McKinsey unleashed another blockbuster on energy efficiency clearly showing how to get the first 30% of cost-savings and emissions-reductions, concurrently with developing new green energy sources (via greeninc).
The upshot would be 23% less energy demand by 2020, and trillions not needed for new energy generation.
Meanwhile, KIUC is betting against any such thing, assuming instead that energy demand will continue to grow fast (because efficiency won't work), and so we must soon add another fossil fuel generator (because green energy is unreliable).
That's when KIUC will trot out their current thinking on rate increases and new generation options.
IMHO, KIUC is simply ill-advised, and all us rate-payers will suffer if KIUC does not turn around and follow McKinsey's recommendations...starting with "third party involvement".
In other words, don't continue to pretend that KIUC can resolve the energy challenge by itself. Our County government, water board, major landholders, businesses and households will all need to collaborate in a Mckinsey-type approach.
Oh, and, don't rush out and buy the Genx when the vastly cheaper option is to follow McKinsey's solutions for cutting demand with efficiency measures.
And never mind the formidable barriers (also detailed by McKinsey), here are their "components of an overarching strategy":
- Recognize energy efficienty as an important energy resources while we concurrently develop new energy sources.
- Launch an integrated portofolio of proven, pilot and emerging approaches.
- Identify methods to provide upfront funding.
- Forge greater alignment among stakeholders.
- Foster development of next-gen energy efficient technologies.
According to McKinsey, for an upfront investment of $520B, the US could realize $1.2T savings by 2020. Plus, the "cost" of these energy savings is far below the cheapest source of new energy generation.
In sharp contrast, KIUC wants to maintain BAU by raising rates and spending more on fossil fuels.
You decide which makes more sense.