2017 Energy Efficiency Results
Today, AEP offers customers over 115 energy efficiency programs. In 2017, these programs were credited with more than 1 million megawatt hours (MWh) of energy reduction and more than 250 megawatts (MW) of demand reduction, with associated program costs of approximately $185 million.
Since these programs began in 2008, the energy efficiency programs we have implemented have reduced annual consumption by over 7 million MWh and peak demand by approximately 2,280 MWs. We estimate our companies have spent approximately $1.2 billion during that time to achieve these results.
We have also taken measures to reduce energy consumption in nearly 280 AEP office buildings and service centers. The kilowatt-hour (kWh) usage, when normalized for weather, was reduced by 32 percent in 2017 as compared to the 2007 baseline. The dollar savings from the reduced energy consumption was approximately $6.4 million in cost savings in 2017. We achieved these energy consumption reductions mostly through equipment investments, such as new lighting, heating and cooling systems, along with employee education.
In April 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced its annual ENERGY STAR® awards for businesses and organizations that have made outstanding contributions to protecting the environment through superior energy efficiency achievements. AEP Ohio and Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) were recognized as ENERGY STAR Partner of the Year – Sustained Excellence winners. Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) received the ENERGY STAR Partner of the Year – Energy Efficiency Program Delivery award.
In 2017, the Kentucky Public Service Commission suspended most of Kentucky Power Company’s energy efficiency programs, pending a review of program costs. The suspension took effect in January 2018 and includes a monthly bill credit for customers. Kentucky Power previously was required to increase spending on energy efficiency to $6 million annually on all of its energy efficiency programs. The PSC ordered the discontinuation of that obligation while it reviews the cost-effectiveness of the program. Low-income programs were kept in place.