I’ve been trying to get a handle on how the Northwest states really fare when it comes to clean energy. Is it true that Oregon and Washington are leaders, or is it just a story we tell ourselves? To try to answer the question, I canvassed the interwebs for credible rankings of states.
The answer, as far as I can tell, turns out to be “a little of both.”
In most categories, the Northwest makes a respectable showing—and in some cases a very respectable showing — but there’s still plenty of room for improvement relative to other states. In particular, California is the state to beat.
Energy efficiency. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACCEE) handed out a 2010 roster with it’s “State Energy Efficiency Scorecard,” and it gives the coastal Northwest states high marks. Oregon ranked #3 and Washington ranked #6. (California claimed the top spot.) Other states in the region did less well: Idaho was #26, Montana was #33, and Alaska was #37.
Renewable energy. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) published a 2008 ranking of renewable energy production by state. Most of the data are for 2006.
- For non-hydro renewable energy production, Washington was #10, and Oregon was #16. (California earned the top spot in this category.) If you include hydropower in the equation, Washington is easily the #1 state by volume.
- Where the Northwest really shines in the NREL report is for total renewable generation (including hydro) per gross state product. Ranked this way, Montana was #1, Washington was #2, Oregon was #3, and Idaho was #4.
- For biomass generation, the Northwest states are unexceptional. Washington led the region with the #15 spot; Oregon was #20, and Idaho was #26.
- For distributed photovoltaic generation Oregon tied for #10, while Washington pulled in at #14, and Montana was at #23. (California was #1 for distributed PV.)
- For wind generation, Washington was #7, Oregon was #9, Montana was #13, and Idaho was #19. (Texas was #1 for wind energy production.)
Solar energy. An industry analysis of state solar energy policy factored in a variety of dimensions—including incentives, utility policies, net metering, and inter-connection—to produce scores and rankings. Oregon was #6 (with a score of 92 out of 100) while Washington was #17 (with a score of 65).
Clean energy leadership. A very recent 2010 ranking by Clean Edge took a comprehensive look at states’ green energy economies and policies. Oregon landed the #2 spot while Washington netted the #4 position. (California got top honors once again.)
Are there other important rankings I’ve missed? If so, send ’em my way and I’ll tally them up here.
Mr. Big
Rankings aside, I’ve talked with economic development leaders and investors around Washington and they say there’s little will here to foster domestic demand for new renewables. Without substantial local demand, the talent will live and work elsewhere. our most successful cleantech companies are focusing their sales efforts in other states. Lacking the learning and cluster of expert talent (it’s here, but scattered all over the region) we will compete poorly with places like California, Ontario CA and China that have committed themselves to building jobs and revenue in this industry. It wouldn’t take alot to change this, we have a great place to live and work in the natural NW, but converting its dreams to reality requires more collective effort to build a cleantech hub than a number on a chart can express.
Stacey W-H
It would be interesting to see how state’s rank in utilizing thermal energy. In our state, about 2/3 of this energy is wasted. When we focus our attention (and policies) on electricity generation, we ignore the massive resource going out every generator, smokestack, cooling tower, boiler and tailpipe. Waste heat can be used for heating, cooling and generating more electricity —2/3 of our state’s GHG emissions are related to heating and cooling.We could see massive efficiencies and emission reductions by employing a coordinated approach to utilizing thermal energy. Copenhagen actually has an independent system operator which sells heat on a daily market, just like electricity. The two products are inextricably linked—one can’t be produced without a use for the other. The energy inputs into this networked system include agricultural residue, heat from wastewater – just about anything they have locally that can be used to produce energy- and some natural gas. The output is used to heat and cool all the buildings on the system as well as provide heat for a variety of industrial and commercial uses, such as food processing, which have co-located on the system. They’ve been developing this system for 30 years, but it started from a small urban steam-plant. The use of electric vehicles on such a system allows the generator to capture the waste heat upstream for other uses as well.I think if we give thermal energy a closer look, we’ll see that Washington actually ranks very high -perhaps in the top 3- of states utilizing bioenergy. Much of our bioenergy is going to thermal uses which can be up to 80% efficient rather than stand-alone electricity generation at 35% efficiency. Biomass from forests is of course a finite resource and must be approached thoughtfully, but we have yet to fully utilize our other local energy sources, such as agricultural by-products and the many various urban waste streams.
Matt Petryni
I’m less concerned about our rankings in energy generation, and more about our portfolio when it comes to meeting new energy demand.More important than that, though, is the size of the demand itself. In this, I find the first study the most interesting. Our goal should first be to use less energy however we can, and only secondly to generate our energy from more sustainable sources.