The following rebuttal was not submitted or published but simply written and
prepared by Daniel R. Evans, director of communications and special projects
with the Iowa Utility Association (IUA)
Points-of-view from environmental advocacy groups occasionally pop up in The Des Moines
Register’s Iowa View column. This was the case on March 9, 2013 when Nathaniel Baer of the
Iowa Environmental Council promoted Iowa’s strict use of energy efficiency and renewable
energy sources as Iowa’s power options. Giving credit where credit is due, Mr. Baer’s intentions
are noble – protecting Earth and the citizens that dwell thereon. But upon reviewing his
commentary, there was much education left to be desired.
As the saying goes, “There are two sides to every story.” Sometimes, two sides of the story
match. Sometimes two sides do not match, or some combination of both. In every case, it is
imperative to consider the whole picture. This includes the discussion of Iowa’s “abundant
power options.”
In preparation for my presenting three rather large educational tidbits all environmental advocacy
groups and all citizens must understand (and likewise give credit where credit is due), learn this:
carbon emissions from electric generating plants in Iowa account for approximately one-half of
one percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, approximately 99.5 percent
of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from sources other than Iowa generating plants. Where
does one even begin to find that 0.5 percent when tossed into world emissions data? Despite this
small carbon footprint, Iowa and its utilities work aggressively to be a pioneer in providing
energy efficiency and renewable energy to customers, all the while managing economic realities
of both renewable and conventional energy sources.
Here are three points of knowledge all must understand when considering Iowa’s “abundant
power options”:
1. While Earth needs tender care, so do her inhabitants. That includes utilities’ customers
and their pocketbooks. Utilities companies have three main responsibilities: provide
reliable energy to people, make it safe and make it economically affordable. Mr. Baer
failed to acknowledge the other side of the story on the last point, economic affordability.
While wind and solar energy sources have their proper role, installing and maintaining
them can be very expensive. Unless heavily—and regularly—subsidized, wind and solar
energy costs are always passed on to the customer. Rates inevitably rise. In fact, wind
costs twice as much as coal per KW, and solar costs can go well above that. As it stands,
rates in Iowa are at or below the energy industry rates in the United States and the
Midwest. Would it be wise for Iowa to dramatically increase them?
Iowa is third in total wind generating capacity, behind only Texas and California. Try
comparing the size of the state of Iowa to the size of Texas or California. And yet, Iowa’s
right there with them in installed wind capacity and ahead—sometimes far ahead—of
every other state. Iowa generates 5,137 megawatts (MW) of wind power, enough to
power over one-million homes. Iowa is exceeding its potential in wind energy. If Baer
and others had their way in pushing Iowa from its current 5,000 megawatts of installed
wind capacity to over 500,000 megawatts, Iowa customers would be looking more like
the customers of California – paying a substantial increase in electric rates and having
significantly less discretionary income per household. Iowa’s economy is blossoming.
California’s? Not so much. Energy policy is one reason. Therefore, one must constantly
weigh cost versus benefit.
2. Utilities must maintain a base load. In simple terms, this means utilities must have
resources that supply energy 24/7, 365. The only other base load energy the state has
other than nuclear energy is coal. The only renewable energy in Iowa that is a base load is
geothermal. A phase-out of coal, especially without nuclear as an expanded source,
simply is not feasible. But a phase-down is possible. Why? In Iowa, the wind does not
always blow, and the sun does not always shine. And storing energy from wind and solar
when the wind does blow and the sun does shine is also very challenging, if not near
impossible. Transmission is also difficult, though Iowa utilities are overseeing many new
transmission projects. To eliminate clean coal and other base load energy, or to thwart
development of nuclear in our state, would leave us in a hole. You can’t literally replace
base load coal with all renewable energy as present technology would offer it in the form
of solar and wind, as suggested in the article.
Iowa enjoys a good mix of energy sources; it is no coincidence why it is an energy leader
in the United States. One can’t help but think with as much reliable power these base load
energy sources offer, Earth provides them to us for a reason. Having the right mix of
energy—what utilities call a diverse portfolio—is important to utility companies in
satisfying all three main responsibilities they have. When a republic and its people want
to know how to do something, it looks to the leaders on the subject. Right now, Iowa is
an energy leader. And Iowa is a leader because it has a mix of coal, nuclear, wind, solar
and other energy sources. Coal, nuclear and natural gas energies—in concert with the
right helping of wind, solar and other renewable—all should continue play a role on the
energy menu if Iowa is to remain a leader.
Beyond this point, wind and solar installations also require agricultural land – a lot of it.
I’m positive Iowa is not ready to give up all of its farmland. And if you’ve ever been to
certain parts of California where wind turbines and solar panels reign, they can be an
aesthetic eyesore (California also has an impending electricity crisis due to its growing
reliance on wind and solar at the expense of conventional energy plants). Installing as
many wind turbines and solar panels as Baer and others call for would dramatically alter
Iowa’s landscape and agriculture – and the view out your windows at home and work.
Iowa’s suggested wind capacity of 500,000 megawatts would mean you wouldn’t be
hearing silver bells on every street corner; rather, you’d be hearing white turbines.
3. Iowa not only is a leader in energy; Iowa is a national leader in energy efficiency. Let me
drive this point home. Iowa has heavily promoted energy efficiency programs since 1992.
Iowa is an “early adopter,” if you will, implementing efficiency programs well before
most other states in America. Three of Iowa’s largest companies (MidAmerican Energy,
Alliant Energy and Black Hills Energy) will have spent over $800 million in energy
efficiency programs from 2009-2013. These same companies currently are in the process
of filing new five-year programs with the Iowa Utilities Board. In short, Iowa is using
cost-effective energy efficiency measures, and it is a leader. The energy efficiency study
Baer cites also confirms such on-going efforts.
These points above do not delve into the factors of current and threatened regulations or ongoing
production tax credit (PTC) uncertainties (among other factors), which present their own unique
challenges to utilities. That is a conversation for another day.
Being wise in regard to “abundant power options” means Iowa utilities strive to keep costs down
for customers by using the right mix of conventional and renewable energy sources and by
continuing to promote energy efficiency efforts—as they have done for a long time.