100% renewable energy: the public wants it and fast

The renewable energy is hot. Its dynamism is incredible, not only in terms of deployment and costs, but also in terms of public opinion and cultural cachet. To put it simply: everyone loves renewable energy. It's cleaner, it's high technology, it's new jobs, it's the future.

And so, more and more heavy energy consumers are demanding a complete meal offer: a 100% renewable energy.

The Sierra Club notes that so far in the United States, more than 80 cities, five counties and two states have committed to using 100% renewable energy. Six cities have already reached the target.

The RE100 group lists 144 private companies from around the world, including Google, Ikea, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Nike, GM and Lego.

The timing of all these targets (and therefore their severity) varies, from 2020 to 2050, but cumulatively, they begin to accumulate. Even if decision-makers never require electric utilities to produce renewable energy through mandates, if all the most demanding customers ask for it, utilities will be forced to produce it outside their name.

The rapid spread and the obvious popularity of the 100% goal have created an alarming situation for the utilities of electricity. Let's say that while there are visionary utilities in the country, as an industry, they tend to be extremely conservative.

They do not like the idea of ​​being forced to switch entirely to renewable energy, certainly not in the next 10 to 15 years. On the one hand, most of them do not believe that the technology exists to make it 100% reliable. they believe that even with a lot of storage, variable renewable energies will have to be offset by "distributable" plants such as natural gas. On the other hand, reaching 100% fast would mean a lot of "stuck" assets, that is, closing profitable fossil fuel plants.

LightRocket via Getty Images

In short, their customers are in a direction that terrifies them.

The sector's dilemma is evidenced by a recent market research and survey on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute, a utility-based trade group. It was distributed at a recent meeting of the board members and IEE executives and shared with me.

The work was done by market research firm Maslansky & Partners, who analyzed existing messaging, interviewed utility officials and environmentalists, conducted a national opinion poll and Phoenix.

The results are striking. They do an excellent job in presenting the public opinion landscape on renewable energy, showing where the different groups have advantages and disadvantages.

Delivery: Renewable energies are a heavy weight of public opinion. Being against them is no longer an option. The best and only hope of the industry is to slow down the race a bit (and that's what they plan to try).

100% renewable energy is an extremely popular goal

The heart of the industry dilemma lies in this slide (left, industry perspective):

EEI

Utilities do not think it is wise or feasible to use 100% renewable energy. But the public likes it.

And I mean love he. Check out these figures from the opinion survey:

In our era of polarization, we almost all agree on this: renewable energy is great.

Here is the most striking slide of the presentation:

EEI

In case you do not want to squint, let me draw your attention to the fact that the majority of respondents (51%) think that 100% renewable energy is a good idea, even if 30 percent.

It's wild. As all politicians know, Americans do not usually like people to increase their bills, let alone a third. A majority that still favors it? This is political dynamite.

As public services were at PR war for renewable energy, they lost. They face a tidal wave. So what can they do?

Explain why 100% renewable energy is impossible

What they can not let customers know why they can not do it Customers do not want to hear the excuses.

They tested the following message (this is an excerpt, with added emphasis): "Today, we can choose between a balanced energy mix, which provides reliable energy when we need it, and 100% renewable energy. But we can not have both. We must also consider the costs. … logistics, resources and costs would be huge. "

Nope. Customers did not want to hear it.

"You could tell which side he was leaning over," said a participant in the Phoenix Focus Group. "He offered no solution. It was just a problem, a problem, a problem.

"I want to know how the job will be done," said a participant from Minneapolis. "I do not want to hear him complaining about the work that will have to be done."

Other unrealistic arguments have elicited similar reactions:

EEI

The arguments that can not be obtained are those of a society qualified as anti-renewable, which means Bad Guy. After that, customers do not listen anymore.

If they want people to stay tuned, utilities must start by convincing them that they are using renewable energy. Thus, the very first advice on "framing the conversation" reads: "Positive message, renewable first … every time".

An anti-renewable message, even a message involved anti-renewable, is simply untenable.

It is worth noting. This is something I am not sure that the climate hawks of the United States or the political types have completely internalized. There are not many disputed political issues on which public opinion is so clearly on one side.

The public might be willing to let the experts determine the details

Utilities must convince customers that they support renewable energy first. (The best way to achieve this, tested options, was to talk to customers about investments – highlighting the growing level of investment in renewable energy.)

If they can establish this key connection, they can then exchange the conversation. Once customers are convinced that utilities are sincere in supporting renewable energy, they are more open to the message that it takes time to reach 100%, that it must be done deliberately and that the costs must be taken into account.

"Given the cost and complexity of it, it should be done gradually," said one Phoenix respondent. "Not the next five years, but perhaps the end of our lives," said another.

The researchers tested the following message (excerpt):[A balanced energy mix] Helps us maintain consistent service for our customers and avoids relying too much on one type of fuel or unique technology. This means that we are able to bring more and more renewable energy to our customers without requiring them to compromise on reliability or cost. "

It worked a lot better. "It seemed like we were all aiming for the same goal," said one interviewee in Minneapolis. "In the meantime, they will use a balance to serve us. This is reasonable. "

In fact, in terms of reasons not to rely solely on renewable energy, the most powerful argument was that it would slow down the transition to clean energy: "We can get cleaner energy faster and more efficiently. more effectively technologies. "

So here's the state-of-the-art message for utilities: Yes, we want to pursue renewable energy, but to protect consumers, we want to do it in a "balanced, progressive, affordable" way. [and] reliable. "That means we should avoid, ahem," short-term mandates. "

EEI

(To what extent will this message only cover efforts to block legislation and slow down the transition?)

On renewable energies, "yes, but" is the only counter-message

So where does this leave us in terms of messaging landscape?

In the 100% renewable energy debate, there are about three camps, at least among researchers, energy managers, climate advocates and journalists who pay attention to this sort of thing.

The first, with most activists and supporters, supports 100% renewable energy as a clear, intuitive and inspiring target, an effective way to rally public support and accelerate the transition.

The second camp believes that the cheapest and safest way to obtain carbon-free electricity is not to rely solely on renewable energies but to supplement them with "firm" zero carbon alternatives such as solar energy. hydroelectricity, geothermal energy, biomass or fossil fuels. capture and sequestration. (See this article, from a group of MIT researchers, for the best articulation of this argument.) This camp supports California's strategy of requiring "zero carbon" rather than "renewable" resources to leave flexibility.

The third camp, which includes many public and conservative services, does not believe that 100% carbon-free electricity is possible in the near future and will not close fossil fuel plants immediately before the end of their profitable life. . They would like to continue balancing the growing share of renewable energy with natural gas.

The first camp won the hearts of the public. Highligths. Everyone, even those who are grinding their teeth, must signal their support for renewable energy to be taken seriously.

The third camp has some leeway to convince the public that the transition to renewable energy must be done with caution and "gradually". This is the terrain defended by advocates and public services in the years to come. (There is a lot of space in "not the next five years, but maybe by the end of our life.")

Shutterstock

And there is room for the second camp to convince the public that the transition to clean energy is best achieved by relying on sources beyond renewable energy, or at least by not locking us up prematurely in renewable energies. One of the conclusions of the survey is that, in a whole series of questions, the public does not have a strong preference for increasing renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions. I doubt that most people differentiate the two – they are vaguely good, environmental things.

Similarly, I doubt that the general public cares much about the distinction between "renewable" and "clean", which is a very good argument for the Californian approach. (The California approach, or at least its earlier variants, has kept existing nuclear power plants in Illinois and New York.)

But these are details of implementation. The decarbonization vessel sailed. Renewable energy is at the forefront and, at least for the moment, it seems impossible to stop. At this point, it's hard to imagine what could discourage the public. (Perhaps a giant spill of wind energy?) The most relevant question is when legislators will seize the full political potential of renewable energy.

The basic message of the public, if I can put together all the parts of the research, is this: we want clean, modern energy, and we will pay for it. We are ready to let the experts find the details, but we do not want to hear that it is not possible. Do it.

Utilities can not make that feeling disappear, but they can and will try to soften it. In the meantime, if their messaging efforts fail, they'd better give customers the energy they want.