ENERGY EFFICIENCY: THE LEAST COST ENERGY

RESOURCE MOST LIKELY TO BE TAKEN FOR

GRANTED?

Nora A. Naughton

Presented before the Indiana and Illinois local chapters of AEE- February 17, 2016

1

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

(MEEA)

2

MEEA is a nonprofit membership

organization with 150+ members,

including:

• Electric and Gas Utilities

• State and local governments

• Manufacturers and retailers

• Academic and research institutions

• Energy service companies and contractors

Since 2000, MEEA has been the leading

source for raising awareness and advancing

sound energy efficiency policies and

programs in the Midwest

MEEA balances the diverse interests of its

members and network across the public and

private sectors, creating a common ground to affect positive change for energy efficiency in the Midwest.

3

MEEA’s Role in the Midwest

• Nonprofit serving 13 Midwest states: IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, WI

• Actions:

– Advancing energy efficiency policy

– Facilitating energy efficiency programs

– Coordinating utility program efforts

– Delivering training & workshops

– Evaluating & promoting emerging technologies

– Promoting best practices

4

Energy Efficiency Resource Standard

(EERS)

Source: American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy (ACEEE)

Timeline of Midwest EE Policies 1983 MN Pilot legislation

1990 IA Initial legislation

1991 MN CIP requirement adopted

1996 IA Legislation updated

1999 WI Public Benefit Fund adopted (electric & gas)

2007 IL EERS legislation adopted (electric)

2007 MN EERS legislation adopted (electric & gas)

2008 MI EERS legislation adopted (electric & gas)

2008 OH EERS legislation adopted (electric)

2008 IA EE mandated by Executive Order (electric & gas)

2009 IL EERS legislation adopted (gas)

2009 IN EERS implemented by regulatory order

2009 MO Voluntary EE standard legislation adopted (electric)

2010 WI EERS implemented by regulatory order

2011 WI EERS adjusted by legislation

2014 IN EERS overturned by legislation

2014 OH EERS ‘paused’ by legislation

$ Billion

Energy Efficiency Policies & Investment in the Midwest

August 2015

$1.40

$0.38

$1.78

$0.0

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

$1.0

$1.2

$1.4

$1.6

$1.8

$2.0

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

10

20

12

20

14

Energy Savings for States with an

EERS vs. those Without

6

Source: ACEEE

Midwest Efficiency Savings - Electric

2010 5.4 million MWh

2016 7.3 million MWh

Illinois 2% elec by 2015

Iowa Set on a utility basis

1.2% elec current plans

Wisconsin No specific targets

0.6% elec current est.

Michigan 1% elec by 2012

Ohio Two-year “freeze” after

2014.

Future legislation &

funding uncertain

Indiana Overturned 2014.

Future legislation &

funding uncertain Minnesota

1.5% elec by 2010

Missouri IRP process;

Voluntary electric

Kentucky Voluntary electric

efficiency only

North Dakota

South Dakota

Nebraska

Kansas Voluntary electric efficiency

only

IA

ILIN

KS KY

MI

MN

MO

ND

NE

OH

SD

WI

January 2016

Midwest Efficiency Savings – Natural Gas

2010 87 million therms

2016 159 million therms

Illinois 1.5% gas by 2017

Iowa Set on a utility basis

0.85% gas current plans

Wisconsin No specific targets

0.5% gas current est.

Michigan 0.75% gas by 2012

Ohio Voluntary gas efficiency

only

Indiana Voluntary Natural Gas

efficiency only Minnesota 1.0% gas by 2010

(gas goal reduced by

commission)

Missouri Voluntary gas

efficiency only

Kentucky Voluntary gas efficiency

only

North Dakota

South Dakota

Nebraska

Kansas Voluntary gas efficiency only

IA

ILIN

KY

MI

MN

MO

ND

NEOH

SDWI

KS

*

*Gas savings data not available

*

*

*

January 2016

Midwest Efficiency Targets and Investment –

Electric & Gas

2010 $1.03 billion

2015 $1.81 billion

Illinois 2% elec by 2015

1.5% gas by 2017

Iowa Set on a utility basis

1.2% elec current plans

0.85% gas current plans

Wisconsin No specific targets

0.6% elec current est.

0.5% gas current est.

Michigan 1% elec by 2012

0.75% gas by 2012

Ohio Two-year “freeze” after

2014.

Future legislation &

funding unclear.

Indiana Overturned 2014

Future legislation &

funding unclear Minnesota

1.5% elec by 2010

1.0% gas by 2010

(gas goal reduced by

commission)

Missouri IRP process;

Voluntary electric

Kentucky Voluntary electric

and gas

North Dakota

South Dakota

Nebraska

Kansas Voluntary energy efficiency

only

IA

IL

IN

KS KY

MI

MN

MO

ND

NE

OH

SD WI

10

Illinois

2009: Electricity

EE ramp up under 8-103

of PUA

2012: Natural

Gas ramp up

pursuant to 8-104 of

PUA

2015-16: Budget

stalemate creates

uncertain funding of

EE programs

2011: ICC reports to

Legislature that rate impact

caps will limit EE

savings in future

years but do not “unduly

constrain.”

Energy Efficiency Resource Standard

(EERS)

Electricity

220 ILCS 5/8-103

• Ramp up from

2009-2015

• Target of 2.0% of retail

sales in 2015 and

thereafter

• Limited by rate impact

cap of 2.015%

Natural Gas

220 ILCS 5/8-104

• Ramp up from

2012-2019

• Target of 1.5% of retail

sales in 2019 and

thereafter

• Limited by rate impact

cap of 2.0%

11

Existing Policy Framework –

Rate Cap

Energy efficiency in Illinois is

limited by a rate cap. The

utilities are not allowed to

spend in excess of the amount

which would cause rates to rise

above the capped percent,

even if this means that they

cannot reach their mandated

efficiency targets.

Currently, this limits Illinois

utilities to about 1.0% annual

savings.

12

Example of How Rate Caps Limit EE

13

Proposed Legislation

Clean Jobs Bill

HB 2607/ SB 1485

• Cumulative and increased energy efficiency standard

– Expanded benefits of EE recognized in cost-benefit test

• Removal of rate impact cap

• Increase in low-income funding

• Expanded on-bill financing

• Direction to ILEPA to develop clean power plan market-based

compliance strategies

14

ComEd Bill

HB 3328/ SB 1879

• No increase in the energy efficiency standard

• Expands energy efficiency programs

• Construction of microgrids ($300 million)

• Encourages community solar projects

• Demand charges (based on highest usage)

• Allows electric utilities to claim gas savings

• Utilities take over responsibility of delivery public facility and

low-income programs in 2018

15

Exelon Bill

HB 3293/ SB 1585

• Creates a state Low Carbon Portfolio Standard that would

include nuclear power

• Would require utilities to purchase low-carbon energy credits

equivalent to 70% of the utility's annual retail sales

• Implements a consumer price cap to a 2.015 percent annual

increase compared to 2009 rates, or about $2/month for the

average residential electricity customer

16

17

Status of DCEO Budget

Key Issues and Developments: Illinois

• Executive

– A final FY16 budget has not been adopted and is not likely to be agreed upon, rather,

DCEO and all other state agencies have been directed to develop FY17 budgets.

By executive order issued on Feb.3, 2016, Governor Rauner directed DCEO to

collaborate with economic development corporations, including the Illinois Business

and Economic Development Corp., to promote job creation

– For the full text of EO 2016-02, see:

https://www.illinois.gov/Government/ExecOrders/Documents/2016/ExecutiveOrder201

6-02.pdf

• Legislative

– HB 4320 (Harris) bill makes appropriations for FY 2016 from non general revenue

funds )- Final action deadline extended to April 28, 2016; HB 5970(Evans) bill

introduced Feb. 11 and referred to rules committee, funds DCEO

Stakeholders are continuing to meet on a compromise energy bill to incorporate

concepts from HB 2607/ SB 1485 (Clean Jobs Bill); HB 3293/ SB 1585 (Exelon Bill)

and HB 3328/ SB 1879 (ComEd Bill); On 2/11, HB6247 and HB6248 introduced, both

referred to Rules Committee.

18

19

Indiana

2009: Administrative order creates

Energizing Indiana

2012: Energizing

Indiana Program

Implemented

2015: DSM plan and

IRP rule making process begins

2014: Legislature

repeals EERS. All investor

owned utilities file DSM plans with IN Utility Regulatory

Commission

Energy Savings Reduced in Indiana after the

Repeal of their Energy Efficiency Resource

Standard

*Indiana & Michigan Power has not yet filed a plan for 2016

20

Indiana Electric Efficiency Spending and

Savings by Customer Class

21

$M

illio

n

GW

h

C&I Residential Low Income T&D Indirect Costs

Source: Utility Filings in IURC Causes 42693-S1, 43955-DSM 02, 44486, 44495, 44497, and 44501.

0

50

100

150

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

A Strong Return on Investment

• Letter to Governor Pence (March 2014) – 11 companies with an in-state presence

– Representing more than 10,000 manufacturing and efficiency jobs in state

– Expressed opposition to SB 340

• Energizing Indiana Year 3 Report – 18,679 jobs resulted from the implementation of the 3-year

program cycle

– Plus 438 direct hired by the program administrator (GoodCents)

– More data: https://myweb.in.gov/IURC/eds/Modules/Ecms/Cases/Docketed_Cases/ViewDocument.aspx?DocID=0900b631801c7d3d

22

Key Issues and Developments: Indiana

• Legislative

– No new EE legislative activity since SB 412 became law on 5/6/15.

• Regulatory

Utilities kicked off IRP planning process with a joint stakeholder meeting 2/3/16

IRP Rulemaking – Expecting a final rulemaking by the end of this quarter.

Status of Utility 2016-2018 DSM Plans

• NIPSCO: Cost recovery approved with modifications. Plan denied and new plan required by 2017. Programs authorized through 2018 or until new plan approved.

• IP&L: Approved for 2016. No filings yet for 2017+.

• Vectren: Pending – Interim Order continues current programs through March 2016.

• Duke: Pending – Interim Order continues current programs through Feb 2016.

• I&M: Pending – Prehearing Conference Order continues current programs pending further Order.

23

Use of an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) as a

Tool To Identify Options

24

Source: Bruce Biewald and Rachel Wilson, Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP), 2013.

A good electric system IRP should

include…

Load forecast

Reserves and reliability

Demand side

management

Supply options

Fuel prices

Environmental costs and

constraints

Plan for Uncertainty

Existing Resources

Valuing and selecting

plans

Action plan

Documentation

Time frame

25

IRP Challenge:

Maximization of Energy Efficiency Savings

• In 2013, the 26 states with EERS policies in place, showed more

than 3.5 times as much program spending (2.63% vs. 0.76%) and

savings (1.11% vs. 0.30%) as the 24 states without an EERS policy,

regardless of whether the state had an IRP policy.

• The states with an IRP or other long-term planning requirement that

also had an EERS spent and saved over 3 times as much as states

that had an IRP requirement but no EERS requirement (2.66% of

revenues vs. 0.76%; and 1.16% of sales vs. 0.35%).

• For states without IRP process, those with EERS spent over 3 times

as much and saved nearly five times as much (0.90% vs. 0.19%) as

states with no IRP/planning requirement and no EERS.

26

27

0.0

2%

0.0

6%

0.0

9%

0.2

4%

0.3

0%

0.4

0%

0.5

9%

0.9

0%

1.0

0%

1.0

5%

1.1

0%

1.2

8%

1.3

1%

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

1.40%

KS ND SD KY NE MO IN WI IL IA OH MI MN

Energy Efficiency in Midwest States Saved electricity as percent of total retail electricity sales, 2014

Sources: MEEA, 2015; EIA, 2015

EERS

Neither IRP nor EERS

IRP Only

28

Minnesota

• Minnesota has adopted both an IRP

model as well as a Conservation

Improvement Plan standard plus

other goals

• MN incorporates existing 1.5%

energy efficiency standard goal as

an input within each utility’s IRP

• Electric savings more than doubled

between 2007 and 2012

IRP Best Practices: Lessons from

Minnesota

• Existing Methodology: if a state already uses resources such as a technical reference manual, utilities should use values reflected in the technical reference manual in their IRP inputs.

• Commission Authority: the state utility regulatory commission should have the authority to approve, reject, request more information, and modify utilities’ IRPs.

• Energy Efficiency Resource Standards: incorporate existing or future energy efficiency resource standards as a load reduction input to IRP modeling. Make EE the a priority resource over generation.

29

Iowa Best Practices

• Annual energy savings targets are set for each regulated

electric and gas utility by IUB and updated every five years

after an assessment of energy usage and potential savings.

• In 2012 and 2013, for every $1 spent on electric energy

efficiency programs in Iowa, residents and businesses reaped

$1.56-$3.49 in benefits.

• For every $1 spent on natural gas energy efficiency programs,

$1.03-$2.26 in benefits were achieved.

30

Iowa Electricity Savings

EERS v. IRP?: The wrong question

• EERS produce more cost-effective savings than an IRP

• IRP is a planning framework used to evaluate supply-side and demand-side resources

• An IRP is only as strong as the targets/standards it incorporates

• If a state moves toward IRP, it should incorporate an EERS as a load reduction measure so the plan includes targets

• The good news – they can work together to achieve significant savings in a cost-effective, thoughtful way.

32

Industrial EE is Important in the

Midwest

of electricity in the Midwest states is consumed by the Industrial sector (EIA 2014)

38%

of Industrial EE potential is found in Midwest (McKinsey 2009)

40%

Midwest states are in Top 10 consumers of total energy in the industrial sector, and 4 more are in the Top 25 (EIA 2014)

5 33

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200In

du

stri

al E

ne

rgy

Effi

cie

ncy

Sav

ings

[G

Wh

] Portion of EE Savings

by Customer Class

• Residential

• Commercial

• Industrial

Size proportional to

Total EE Savings in

2012

Focus on

Energy

Wisconsin

First Energy

Ohio

Xcel Energy

Minnesota

Interstate

Power & Light

Iowa

AEP

Ohio

Consumers

Energy

Michigan

Duke Energy

Indiana

Duke Energy

Ohio

MidAmerican

Energy

Iowa

NIPSCO

Indiana

Top Industrial EE Program Administrators in the Midwest

42%

43%

34%

These 10 program administrators

account for

of industrial electricity savings * 82.4%

of total electricity savings ** 50.5%

35

*out of 79 Midwestern program administrators that reported non-zero Industrial

Incremental EE savings on 2012 EIA-861

**out of 192 Midwestern program administrators that reported non-zero Total

Incremental EE savings on 2012 EIA-861

Negative Impacts of Opt-Out

Reduces overall amount of energy saved

Loss of knowledge and data – utilities report EE spend & savings; opted-out companies don’t report anything

Portfolio costs all borne by residential & small business customers

Reduces potential of efficiency as a path for Clean Power Plan compliance

Less cost-effective programs are a higher percent of overall portfolio

Reduced cost-effectiveness of portfolio

36

Better Alternatives • 2009 – 77 self-direct customers

• 2011 – threshold lowered

• 2013 – only 29 self-direct customers

• “flexibility and comprehensive program options” (MPSC 2012)

Michigan

• Xcel’s self-direct program for 2013 expected ten participants for electric and natural gas. In fact both had zero participants.

• “customers gravitate to holistic, full-service programs” (Xcel 2014)

Minnesota

• “…the Board is not persuaded that allowing an opt-out is good public policy… All utility customers, even those who do not directly participate …benefit from the avoided cost savings that are the primary goal of energy efficiency programs… Iowa has a strong public policy of supporting and developing energy efficiency and the Board will not undermine Iowa’s policy by allowing certain customers to opt-out of the energy efficiency paradigm” (IUB 2013)

Iowa

37

Take aways: Best Practices to

Encourage EE savings

• Having a required energy savings target , i.e., an EERS, promotes the greatest savings from energy efficiency; provides focus and establishes EE as a priority

• An EERS, coupled with an IRP, provides a tailored approach for each utility and can enhance the benefits of an EERS

• An IRP alone without an EERS tends to diminish savings. If the plan includes prioritizing EE as the first step to addressing load issues over constructing generation and/or transmission, it can provide focus

• Commercial and Industrial Sector participation in EE programs, even if self-directed, provides greater savings. Reporting requirements provide data and accountability.

38

Residential Building Energy Code Adoption in

the Midwest

No Mandatory

Statewide Code

Code Level / Equivalence

2009 IECC

2012 IECC

2015 IECC

State Adoption

Municipal Adoption 2009 IECC Adopted by

Major Municipality

2012 IECC Adopted by

Major Municipality

In Process to 2015 IECC

for Major Municipality

Enhanced 2009 IECC

Adopted by Major

Municipality

As of January 2016

Timeline of Residential Code Adoption

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

2010 2011 2012 2014 2013 2015

Code Level / Equivalence

No Mandatory Statewide Code

Pre-2000 Code

2000 IECC

2003 IECC

2006 IECC

2009 IECC

2012 IECC

2015 IECC

Code upgrade in process

As of August 2015

IECC Residential Code Efficiency

Improvements (1975-2015)

41

Commercial Building Energy Code

Adoption in the Midwest

No Mandatory

Statewide Code

Code Level / Equivalence

2009 IECC/90.1-2007

2012 IECC/90.1-2010

State Adoption

Municipal Adoption

2009 IECC Adopted by

Major Municipality

2012 IECC Adopted by

Major Municipality

In Process to 2015 IECC

for Major Municipality

Enhanced 2009 IECC

Adopted by Major

Municipality

As of January 2016

In Process to 2015

IECC/90.1-2013

2015 IECC/90.1-2013

Timeline of Commercial Code Adoption

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

2010 2011 2012 2014 2013 2015

Code Level / Equivalence

No Mandatory Statewide Code

Pre-2000 Code

2000 IECC 90.1-1999

2003 IECC 90.1-2001

2006 IECC 90.1-2004

2009 IECC 90.1-2007

2012 IECC 90.1-2010

2015 IECC 90.1-2013

Code upgrade in process

ASHRAE 90.1 Commercial Code

Efficiency Improvements (1975-2015)

44

Benchmarks

Building Energy Benchmarking General Definition:

• Track energy consumed by an existing building over time

• Compare results to similar buildings or an applicable

standard.

Benchmarking provides benefits to: • Owners

• Government

• Market generally

45

Midwest Benchmarking Legislation

Status

RToS

RToS

State Pilot Underway

State Owned/Operated

Building Benchmarking

State Pilot Complete

State Owned Considering

State Owned Enacted

Challenge Program

Underway in Municipality

Considering Legislation

by Municipality

Municipal + Private Owned

Benchmarking Ordinance

RToS Voluntary Residential

Time of Sale

Disclosure Updated July 2015

Adopted by Municipality

47

Energy Savings Targets for Utilities

Energy Efficiency Resource Standard

Incorporating Energy Efficiency into Resource Planning

Demand Side Management (DSM) Planning

Market-Based EE

Energy Savings Performance Contracts: delivery of savings through performance-based contracts;

usually provide guaranteed savings.

Financing

Voluntary Labeling and Benchmarking

Wholesale Electricity Markets:

Behavioral Efficiency Programs Use of information dissemination, social interaction, competition, and/or potential rewards rather

than direct financial incentives as the primary mechanism for changing energy consumption

behavior.

Appliance Efficiency Standards Efficiency Standards: Mandate minimum energy and water efficiency requirements for selected appliances and equipment that are not subject to existing federal standards.

Building Energy Use

Building Energy Codes: Establish minimum efficiency requirements for new and renovated

residential and commercial buildings.

Other Mandatory Building Efficiency Policies: Examples include mandatory energy-use

benchmarking and disclosure requirements

Policies to Drive Energy Efficiency

Clean Power Plan- Stay

• On February 9, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the Clean Power Plan (“CPP”) in a 5-4 decision.

• The Court’s decision does not overturn the CPP, nor decide the legal merits of the challenges brought against the U.S. EPA for issuing the CPP.

• Rather, the Court’s decision delays the implementation of the CPP while lawsuits challenging the legality of the plan are adjudicated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

• While the stay on the CPP is in place, the EPA will not be able to enforce any deadlines or requirements associated with the CPP.

• MEEA will continue to work with state energy offices, air regulators, utilities, businesses and advocates throughout the Midwest to advance energy efficiency policies that will save ratepayers money, create in-state jobs, improve air quality, and pave a path to least-cost compliance with the carbon emission targets of the CPP.

48

State Reaction to CPP stay

Indiana: http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/story/31185516/pence-supports-supreme-court-stay-of-clean-power-plan

• Quote from Gov Pence: “Hoosiers know that coal means jobs and low-cost energy for our state, and tonight's Supreme Court decision to put President Obama's carbon dioxide regulations on hold is a win for Indiana. The Clean Power Plan exceeds the authority granted to the EPA under the Clean Air Act, and I am pleased that it will not be enforced while the lawsuit filed by Indiana and 28 other states and state agencies moves through the courts. Hoosiers may be assured that our state will continue to use every legal means available to fight President Obama's war on coal.”

Iowa: http://www.iowadnr.gov/Environmental-Protection/Air-Quality/Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions/Carbon-Pollution-Stnds-111d

• Going forward with their next CPP meeting on February 22 in Council Bluffs, IA.

49

State Reaction to CPP Stay

50

Michigan: http://www.michigan.gov/carbonrule/0,6097,7-347--376588--,00.html

• After legal review of the U.S. Supreme Court carbon rule stay, the state will suspend activities to comply with the rule and its timeline for submissions. The state will wait for resolution of the issue through the courts and then determine how best to proceed.

• The state will, however, complete the modeling project currently under way and paid for, as those findings will be helpful for other planning and compliance activities. The Michigan Carbon Rule website will continue, and we will post the modeling results there, when they are available. In addition, the sign-up lists will also remain live so interested individuals can be notified when and if state activity resumes.

State Reaction to CPP Stay

Kansas: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2016/feb/11/senate-moves-block-clean-power-plan-study/

• The Kansas Senate advanced a bill that blocks the Kansas Corporation Commission from spending any money to study how to comply with the new federal Clean Power Plan until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves a pending legal challenge.

• Last year, lawmakers authorized KCC and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to develop a plan, but it could only be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency if a legislative oversight committee approves.

Missouri: http://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/cpp/index.html

• The state is reviewing the stay and will be determining its options. No CPP meetings currently scheduled.

51

State Reaction to CPP Stay

Minnesota: http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-

vows-to-move-ahead-with-clean-

power/368563271/

• Gov. Mark Dayton quote, “While the Court’s temporary stay is

disappointing, it does nothing to diminish our resolve in

Minnesota to keep moving forward on clean energy initiatives,

including the development of our state’s Clean Power Plan.”

• “We shouldn’t need a federal edict to understand how vital it is

that we keep doing everything in our collective powers to

reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy

efficiency and advance Minnesota’s clean energy economy.”

52

State Reaction to CPP Stay

• Nebraska: http://www.theindependent.com/news/local/statewide-clean-power-plan-meetings-postponed/article_ea6087a4-d378-11e5-b396-3fc079028b3e.html and http://deq.ne.gov/NDEQProg.nsf/OnWeb/NCMS

• Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Director Jim Macy has announced the postponement of meetings in nine communities across the state. The meetings were intended to discuss the EPA Clean Power Plan mandate

53

State Reaction to CPP Stay

North Dakota: http://bismarcktribune.com/bakken/north-dakota-officials-praise-scotus-decision-blocking-clean-power-plan/article_68620830-56fe-52d1-a80d-c98ae2ac3dc9.html

• The decision means the North Dakota Department of Health will immediately suspend work on a state plan to comply with the rules, which aim to address global warming by curbing carbon dioxide emissions, said Dave Glatt, chief of the department’s environmental health section.

Ohio: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/02/us_supreme_court_stops_clean_p.html

• Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler said the Supreme Court "got it right" in delaying the implementation of the plan until its constitutionality is decided.

• "We will evaluate the decision and determine how it will impact our plans moving forward."

54

State Reaction to CPP Stay

Wisconsin:

• http://www.startribune.com/gov-scott-walker-issues-executive-order-to-block-power-plan/368880751/

• Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has issued an executive order prohibiting state agencies from working to comply with President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to address climate change.

West Virginia: http://wvmetronews.com/2016/02/15/dep-study-continues-despite-high-court-stay-on-clean-power-plan/

• Although the Supreme Court of the United States has placed a stay on further implementation of the federal Environmental Protection Service’s Clean Power Plan for the time being, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection continues its work on the first step toward development of a plan to implement the new emission requirements.

55

MEEA Policy Resources

• Find policy resources on MEEA website:

– Midwest State Policies & Practices

• Updated IL, MI and OH factsheets

– Policymakers Guidebook to EE

– Building Energy Codes

– Energy Data and Benchmarking

www.mwalliance.org/policy

56

MEEA EE Advocacy Toolkit

Online resource for MEEA members and advocates in communicating the

value of energy efficiency to policymakers, the public, and other

stakeholders.

• State Information including: updated fact sheets for IL, MI and OH;

testimony submitted in MI and OH; state contacts; legislative and

regulatory links, etc.

• Resource Guide for Policymakers: a comprehensive report on energy

efficiency policies and programs in the Midwest.

• EE Messaging: supporting energy efficiency and refuting common

opposition argument

• PPT slides tracking regional investment in energy efficiency, state by

state investments, state regulations, etc.

• Sample letters to the governor and editor supporting energy efficiency

Toolkit available at: www.mwalliance.org/advocacy

57

Midwest Energy Solutions Conference

With more than 600 attendees, MES is the region’s

premier energy efficiency conference.

Register online or learn more at

www.MEEAconference.org

58

February 24-26, 2016

Chicago Hilton & Towers

Questions and Contact Information

Nora A. Naughton

Director of Policy

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

nnaughton@mwalliance.org

www.mwalliance.org

59