ST. PAUL, Minn. – Minnesota gets the number one spot in the Midwest in a new report from the American Council on an Energy Efficient Economy.

The state ranks ninth in the nation, up one place from last year.

The council comes up with its rankings by comparing states' building codes, transportation, appliance standards, utility programs and other state initiatives that encourage energy savings.

"In the U.S., a lot of the innovation and a lot of the driving forces behind energy efficiency really occur at the state level,” says Weston Berg an analyst with the council, who worked on the report. “We hope as part of the state scorecard, by tracking each state's efficiency policies, we can kind of create some friendly competition between states, as well as highlight some best practices."

The scorecard puts Massachusetts first and North Dakota last in terms of energy efficiency policies.

Will Nissen, director of energy performance with the Minnesota advocacy group Fresh Energy, says state and local policies are what encourage people to be energy conscious, citing recycling programs and low-interest loans for businesses that install energy retrofits.

"The cheapest and cleanest energy we have is what you don't use,” he states. “And so, if you don't use a kilowatt hour of electricity or a therm of natural gas, with at least the system we've had for a long time, a lot of that generation you're avoiding is polluting, it's fossil fuel based."

It's been 10 years since the bipartisan Next Generation Energy bill was signed into law.

Nissen says the 2007 energy law requires utilities to meet a clean energy standard. States that adopt these goals do best in energy efficiency.

"It's fantastic to see Minnesota as top in the Midwest and really the top anywhere between the two coasts, but you know, we want to do better next year," he states.

Nissen says the state leads by example, with energy efficient public buildings and vehicle fleets, and by paying attention to energy efficiency in state-funded contracts.





get more stories like this via email

Arizona consumers are contesting a proposed $90 million Southwest Gas rate increase that analysts say would only benefit future - but not current - customers.

Its application to the Arizona Corporation Commission seeks to raise rates for natural gas customers by 11.5% to pay for increased profits, fund carbon offsets to reduce greenhouse gases, recover trade association dues, and recoup late-payment charges waived during the pandemic.

Keriann Conroy, research associate with the watchdog group Energy and Policy Institute, said the utility's two million Arizona customers can't afford another rate hike.

"Asking customers to foot the bill to build the customer base of Southwest Gas to folks who currently don't have gas," said Conroy, "which should not be the responsibility of the customers, and absolutely goes against greenhouse gas emission goals."

Southwest is asking for a 9.9% built-in return on equity, up from 9.1% granted in 2020.

Arizona regulators are recommending a rate of 9.3%. Nevada regulators rejected a similar rate request from Southwest earlier this year.

Conroy said that in the current economic climate, raising natural gas rates doesn't make any sense.

"In Arizona, the state is still recovering from the ongoing pandemic and we're at record inflation, and customers are already struggling to pay their utility bills," said Conroy, "And so now, to see such a high rate increase can have a really negative impact."

Conroy noted that the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, an intervenor in the case, claims Southwest Gas has never committed to specific goals for greenhouse gas reductions and is concerned about the lack of accountability in the utility's proposal.

"As of now, all the letters at the Arizona Corporation Commission from customers have been in opposition, and there have been many of them," said Conroy, "So, customers are very much engaged and they don't want to see this rate increase happen."

Conroy expects a ruling by year's end or in early 2023.

Georgia Power is reducing its reliance on coal by phasing out several coal-fired units. However, clean-energy advocates say the company should dispose of all its waste correctly and not pawn the cost of cleanup on ratepayers.

After years of pressure from concerned community members and clean-energy advocates, Georgia Power has been following a national trend by retiring some of its coal-fired power plants, the latest is Plant Wansley near Carrollton.

The welcome news for environmental groups is bittersweet since the next phase is trying to convince the company -- or force state regulators to make it -- to manage the leftover toxic waste known as coal ash, without harming the environment.

Charline Whyte, senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign in Georgia, said she was glad to see the utility switch from "capping-in-place" to excavating the ash to a lined pit which prevents seepage into groundwater.

"So this shows that Georgia Power is willing and able to do the right thing and, too, do the safest options for the communities," Whyte acknowledged. "But they haven't opted to do so at many of its other coal ash ponds."

Georgia Power did not respond to a request for comment but has outlined plans to phase out most of its coal units in the next five years, claiming it no longer makes economic sense to keep the aging coal plants open.

Georgia's Public Service Commission agreed with all but one, deferring giving the company permission to shutter its Bowen Plant until at lest 2025.

The company plans to close 29 coal ash ponds with its efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to close to zero by 2050. Whyte argued the company should opt to add liners in all of its coal ash ponds.

"I would say that in Georgia, Plant Scherer pond is another example of an opportunity for the company to do the right thing from the beginning," Whyte urged. "Which is closing by removal rather than the planned closure by cap in place."

Whyte added she believes the utility should bear the responsibility and shoulder the costs of properly disposing of the waste instead of it being allowed to pass the cost on to consumers.

The Sierra Club has an interactive map on its website which lists 358 coal plants retired since 2010, or proposed to retire by 2031.

Washington state is considering a cleaner future for its buildings. The Washington State Building Code Council is holding public hearings, including one today in Yakima, on changes to the State Residential Energy Code that would move toward better energy efficiency and electric-run appliances in new residential buildings.

Eric Pravitz is director of real estate development for Homestead Community Land Trust, which is headquartered in Seattle and provides affordable homeownership for first-time buyers with low incomes. He supports the proposal to move away from natural gas in new buildings.

He said many of the folks his organization serves are people of color.

"They typically come from neighborhoods that feel the most effects from environmental pollution, the negative effects of climate change," Pravitz explained, "And so, they deserve to have a healthy home that is high performing, comfortable, low cost to operate."

Pravitz noted that houses with electric ranges and water heaters are cheaper for homeowners in the long run, as well as healthier. Opponents have argued the transition is costly in the construction phase.

The State Building Code Council holds another public hearing on its proposal on Oct. 14 in Olympia, and is also accepting public comments until that date.

Claire Richards, a nurse, is a member of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility's Climate Action Task Force. She is voicing concerns that pollutants from gas stoves can have health drawbacks.

Richards listed them: "There are neurological impacts -- like fatigue and loss of concentration and judgment -- from particulate matter; asthma exacerbation, non-fatal heart attacks, like an arrhythmia, so irregular heartbeats and premature death."

Pravitz believes homes that run on electric appliances are the way to a less climate-intensive and healthier future, and said the affordable-housing sector should lead the way.

"We should use affordable housing as a model that the for-profit sector should be following, and that is building energy-efficient homes, decarbonizing, using sustainable materials," he added.