{"id":6942,"date":"2012-08-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2012-08-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/"},"modified":"2017-06-09T20:25:08","modified_gmt":"2017-06-09T20:25:08","slug":"2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry","status":"publish","type":"articles","link":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/","title":{"rendered":"2012 Strategic Directions in the U.S. Electric Utility Industry"},"content":{"rendered":"

Executive Summary:
\nEverything Changes While Staying Relatively the Same<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

In
\nthe 12 months since the last Black & Veatch electric utility industry
\nreport, the industry has seen its primary fuel choice challenged and natural
\ngas prices drop to levels not seen since 2001. A historically warm winter
\nacross much of the country drove down consumption (and hence revenue), creating
\na cash crunch for many utilities. Further, the industry’s hopes for some
\nprogress on the regulation of carbon continue to wax and wane in a U.S.
\nCongress unable to make a decision.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yet for all of the changes across political, economic, and
\ncultural lines, results from this year’s report are strikingly consistent with
\nthose of the past three years in terms of concerns, worries, and the potential
\nimpacts of regulation and other requirements. Perhaps it is the historic focus
\nof the industry on reliability and safety; perhaps it is a return to
\nback-to-basics management approaches; or perhaps it is the generally
\nconservative nature of the industry, which results in this remarkable
\nconsistency from year-to-year. <\/span><\/p>\n

Black & Veatch conducted its sixth
\nannual electric utility industry survey from February 22?March 23, 2012.
\nAnalyzed survey responses are from qualified electric utility industry
\nparticipants. Statistical significance testing was conducted, and the
\nrepresented results have a 95% confidence level.<\/span><\/p>\n

Utility respondents represented a broad cross section of the
\nindustry and country. The eight mainland regional reliability councils, under
\nthe North American Electric Reliability Corporation, were represented in this
\nsurvey. Responses were also grouped by four geographic regions to give
\nadditional insights into geographic differences. <\/span><\/p>\n

Key Survey Findings<\/span><\/b><\/h3>\n

The
\nindustry, according to the survey, continues to hold fast to some fundamental
\nbeliefs: that there will be some certainty on carbon; that prices for
\nelectricity will continue to rise; that, while coal has a future, renewables
\nhave a growing but limited one; and that water is a critical environmental
\nconcern. There is also significant agreement in several areas, and this is
\ninteresting because, typically, a survey of the general public, regulators, and
\nlegislators on the same topics would yield different results. When it comes to
\n“viable clean energy” technologies, for example, the “big three” that electric
\nutilities project for 2020 are natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear. It is
\ndoubtful that the general public would rate any of those choices as
\nparticularly “green” technologies.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

More than 90% of utility respondents believe, however, that
\nrenewables will increase prices for consumers anywhere from 5 to 30%, with the
\nlargest percentage (38%) assuming a 10% increase for their customers. This may
\ntie to the 65% of utility respondents who reported rate increases during the
\npast year, and the 92% who reported that the cost of regulations will cause
\nprices to rise for consumers. More than 60% of utility respondents believe they
\nwill hit their renewable energy targets?but a surprising 25% of utility
\nrespondents stated they do not know if it is achievable. One has to wonder
\nwhether the pending increase in rates, due to renewables, and the potential
\ndemise of the production tax credit are behind this uncertainty. <\/span><\/p>\n

Reliability, aging infrastructure (not workforce), and the
\nenvironment continue their reign as the top industry concerns, followed closely
\nby the need for long-term investment. Interestingly, security and technology?inextricably
\nlinked in terms of deployment?are tied in the fifth position. While water did
\nnot make the Top Ten Issues list, it did come in second only to carbon
\nemissions legislation, in terms of environmental concerns. In fact, when water
\nsupply (second) and water effluent (sixth) are combined, they rise to the top
\nof environmental concerns.<\/span><\/p>\n

The hope for certainty in carbon emissions legislation is
\ncommon across all regions and, as it has been since 2008, leads the ranking in
\nenvironmental concerns, followed closely by water supply. Interestingly, when
\nbroken down into the four geographic regions, Northeast respondents rank
\ndisposal and storage of nuclear fuel as their top concerns?an issue that does
\nnot even make the top three in the Midwest, South, or West. The concern over
\nnuclear disposal, overall, jumped significantly since 2009 when it was near the
\nbottom of industry issues?likely due to the lingering influence of the
\nunfortunate incidents at Fukushima, as well as the abandonment of plans for a
\nnational geologic storage facility at Yucca Mountain. <\/span><\/p>\n

The potential impact of environmental regulation continues to
\nbe a primary focus for utility survey respondents. It is interesting to note
\nthat the survey’s timeframe in March pre-dated, and yet predicted, the U.S.
\nEnvironmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) and Department of Interior’s new
\nhydraulic fracturing rules issued in May. More than 80% of respondents saw this
\ncoming in their crystal balls. Of course, 93% of survey respondents believe
\nthese new rules, and any subsequent rule additions, will have a significant or
\nslight upward pressure on the price of natural gas. Respondents’ prediction on
\nthe price of natural gas in 2020 showed a virtual tie between $4-$6 per one
\nmillion British Thermal units (MMBtu) and $6-$8 per MMBtu. More than one-fifth
\nof survey respondents (22%), perhaps those who have been around to watch
\nhistorical gas price fluctuations, reported not knowing what the price will be
\nin the same period.<\/span><\/p>\n

Regulations are also causing concern
\nregarding the operational effectiveness of utilities as well as concern for
\nincreasing rates. A full 86% of respondents believe there will be impacts on
\noperational effectiveness, with 16% believing it will be “significant.”
\nRegulatory impacts are also key drivers in investment, the development of
\nsustainability plans, and the perception of utilities on Wall Street?either for
\nstock prices or bond ratings. Concern over whether or not utilities will be
\nable to recover adequate returns on investment?or any costs for that matter?for
\nsmart grid investments weigh on the minds of utility respondents. This is
\nespecially true now that American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars are
\nalmost gone.<\/span><\/p>\n

Smart grid, which burst onto the survey
\nscene several years ago, continues to struggle from “a lack of customer
\ninterest and knowledge,” which utility respondents view as the single greatest
\nimpediment to investment programs. Yet, when pressed further, more and more
\ncompanies are investing in systems to improve customer communications, which
\nare driven by smart systems. More than three-fourths (76.9%) will be building
\ncustomer self-service websites, expanding their web presence, social media, and
\npotentially implementing variable rates?all areas in which the smart grid is a
\nkey component or at least a primary enabler. It may be that the grudging
\nacceptance of intelligent infrastructure is part of the historically
\nconservative nature of the business, where even “fast followers” are viewed as
\nradically different and risk-takers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Regulation at the federal and state\/local level is also
\ninfluencing the market for merger and acquisition (M&A) activity. The
\n2011\/2012 timeframe has seen three significant mergers and acquisitions and,
\nfor the first time, the Black & Veatch survey looked at the impacts of
\nthese activities. With Exelon\/Constellation, Duke\/Progress, and Northeast Utilities\/Nstar
\neach at some stage in the M&A process, all utilities are considering their own futures and what these mergers
\nreally mean. The vast majority see financial scale, rather than operating
\nsynergies, as a driving force of profitability in this area moving forward. The
\nbenefits of scale are particularly apparent when considering that regulators
\nrequire most utilities to either hand over, or at least share, cost-cutting and
\noperational savings with customers?especially in light of continued slow load
\ngrowth or declining kilowatt hour sales.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Looking at the numbers, the industry has changed remarkably
\nin some capacities, while remaining steady in its core function. For example,
\n58% of utility respondents believe, “When fiscal realities are fully considered
\nin the United States,” there is still a future for coal. This is a significant
\ndrop from the 81.5% who indicated this to be the case in last year’s survey. As
\nnoted within, the industry is taking more environmental concerns into account
\nthan ever before, even though nearly a third (29.2%) believe that global
\nwarming is still “speculative.” It is not unexpected that an industry that
\nprides itself on reliability, safety, and long-term investment focuses so
\nintently on certainty, potentially at the risk of missing dynamic changes. It
\ncould be as Voltaire once noted, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but
\ncertainty is absurd,” as many more surprises are to come in this rapidly
\nchanging, energy market.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sidebar: Implications of Domestic Natural Gas<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

By Greg Hopper<\/span><\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

North American natural gas reserves, once thought to be
\nhigh-cost and diminishing in nature, have reversed course and now are expected
\nto serve as a baseload energy source for decades to come. Driving this change
\nare the technological advances in the exploration and production of
\nnon-conventional reserves, most notably shale gas, which has rejuvenated the
\ngas industry. The massive scale and accessibility of North American shale gas
\nhas many implications for consumers and businesses, particularly in the
\nelectric industry. <\/span><\/p>\n

Though the industry is more than 10 years into the
\ndevelopment of shale gas resources, estimates of economically recoverable North
\nAmerican natural gas have increased year-over-year. Recent estimates by the
\nEnergy Information Administration indicate that technically recoverable gas
\nresources in the United States exceed 2,200 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). At
\ncurrent consumption levels, this equates to approximately 90 years of supply to
\nmeet market demands. While the question concerning the adequacy of available
\ngas resources is now of less interest to industry stakeholders, the location of
\nspecific resources, the cost of extracting them, and the construction of
\npipelines to deliver them to market, are now key issues facing gas market
\nparticipants. <\/span><\/p>\n

Finding and development costs for shale resources are heavily
\ninfluenced by the properties of the specific shale rocks and the costs of fully
\ncompleting a producing well. Technology and improved understanding of shale
\nformations have cut the cost of production nearly in half in the last 5 years.
\nNotwithstanding, rising environmental costs are expected to impart upward
\npressure on the price of gas over time. The extent to which regional
\nenvironmental costs add to price increases may cause shifts in the location of
\nshale production. <\/span><\/p>\n

Low gas prices stimulate new markets. In 2008, natural gas
\nprices at the Henry Hub in southern Louisiana, a primary price reference point
\nfor the global natural gas market, topped $13 per MMBtu. During the price run
\nup, power generators?driven by emissions concerns, fiscal pressures, and the
\nneed for reliable fuel stocks?pivoted their capital investments for future
\ngeneration needs to the development of renewables, nuclear, and clean coal
\ntechnologies.<\/span><\/p>\n

Since that time, rapid shale gas production growth from
\nmultiple supply basins has created a supply “bubble” that dropped the spring
\n2012 prices below $2 per MMBtu. The drive to produce highly valuable natural
\ngas liquids in tandem with shale gas has subsidized the cost of producing
\nnatural gas. However, few industry watchers expect prices will remain this low.
\nBlack & Veatch’s most recent energy market forecast projects the price range
\nwill be between $4-6 per MMBtu through 2020. Survey responses align with this
\nprojection, with 37% agreeing that gas prices will be $6 per MMBtu or lower by
\n2020. In contrast, only 12% expect prices will be $8 per MMBtu or higher.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lower prices and increasing energy industry confidence that
\nshale resources are large and sustainable, have positioned the gas industry to
\ncapture the lion’s share of new generating capacity builds for the foreseeable
\nfuture. Although renewables and nuclear investments will continue to be part of
\nthe fleet, natural gas is clearly the preferred technology to replace coal as
\nNorth America’s primary energy source. In addition to natural gas’ low price,
\nthe decreased price volatility that accompanies its plentiful production
\nfurther increases the attractiveness of gas to utility and merchant generators
\nalike.<\/span><\/p>\n

Risks center on safety and environmental concerns. Although
\nthe energy industry has gained confidence in the geology and technology
\nunderlying the economics of shale and non-conventional production, concerns
\nremain about the risks of environmental and political opposition. As noted in
\nthe survey results, more than 80% of utility respondents expect that the EPA
\nwill impose regulations to regulate hydraulic fracturing activity as it relates
\nto water. In particular, concerns about hydraulic fracturing safety have risen
\nas numerous federal and state government agencies, as well as public watchdog
\ngroups, have reacted to the rapid growth of shale-gas fields. The opposition
\nhas been greatest in locations such as New York, where there is little or no
\nprior experience with petroleum resource developments. Common objections have
\ncentered on potential impacts to drinking water supplies, air emissions, and
\nroad traffic.<\/span><\/p>\n

The most frequent issue cited by opponents of hydraulic
\nfracturing is the large volume of water required for the process, added
\nchemicals, and whether the use of these supplies threatens the adequacy of
\nwater needed by other types of users. A report commissioned in 2009 by the U.S.
\nDepartment of Energy, the Ground Water Protection Council, and ALL Consulting,
\nLLC found that a typical shale-gas well requires at least 3 to 4 million
\ngallons of water for drilling and completion, including hydraulic fracturing.
\nWater transportation, handling, and the precautions taken to prevent wastewater
\nspills can be a logistical challenge?especially in Pennsylvania where geology
\nand regulations do not support injection wells. As such, the transportation of
\nwastewater to disposal wells in Ohio generates a significant cost.<\/span><\/p>\n

Research conducted by Black & Veatch showed that shale
\ngas water costs are higher than those for industrial water in the 50 largest
\nU.S. cities. As of 2010, shale-gas developers paid at least 1.4 cents per
\ngallon for source water, and another 11 to 16 cents per gallon to handle the
\nwastewater. By contrast, the most expensive industrial water associated with
\nmunicipalities was 0.7 cent per gallon for source water and 1.7 cents per
\ngallon for wastewater. This research is consistent with the survey results, in
\nwhich 70% of utility respondents expect EPA regulation of hydraulic fracturing
\nand water use will influence natural gas prices but not substantially. However,
\nshale gas developers are highly motivated to reduce water costs and have moved
\ntoward recycling and on-site treatment to reduce total volume and
\ntransportation needs.<\/span><\/p>\n

Evolving Pipeline Infrastructure Needs<\/span><\/b><\/a><\/p>\n

The
\nNorth American natural gas pipeline grid was primarily built to move natural
\ngas from the Gulf Coast, southwestern United States, and western Canada, to
\nconsumer markets throughout North America. The emerging shale basins in the
\nNortheast, predominantly the Marcellus basin located in Pennsylvania, New York,
\nand West Virginia, have created substantial changes to the movement of gas
\nsupplies across the country. Pipelines constructed to transport gas from Texas
\nand Louisiana to the Northeast are now experiencing substantial drops in
\nvolume, as Marcellus production grows. In some cases, gas is now being shipped
\nfrom the Northeast back to Louisiana to avoid bottlenecks in Pennsylvania and
\naccess the more liquid Gulf Coast gas market.<\/span><\/p>\n

This shift of supply has in turn created the resurgence of
\npipeline rate cases to redesign rates or establish new billing determinants.
\nPipelines and their customers are both considering innovative ways to
\nreapportion cost and fairly allocate risks, as contracting and shipping volumes
\nchange. As increased gas is used for power generation, concern is growing as to
\nwhether adequate pipeline infrastructure will exist to deliver supplies to
\npower plants on a reliable basis. Numerous studies are underway by various
\nparties to assess the compatibility of the electric and gas grids and the need
\nfor additional infrastructure investments.<\/span><\/p>\n

Impacts to the
\nElectric Industry<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Overall, the shift towards natural gas and the growing
\nresource base in North America are creating price stability and long-term
\nassurance of natural gas as a generation fuel. Natural gas is now viewed as the
\nclear leader among clean energy technologies to address greenhouse gas
\nemissions (natural gas has only 42% of the carbon output of coal) in the United
\nStates. Natural gas is now tied with nuclear when it comes to environmentally
\nfriendly technologies that the industry should emphasize. In addition, nearly
\n80% of all survey respondents, representing utilities and non-utility
\norganizations, viewed natural gas as an economically viable technology without
\nportfolio standards, credits, or subsidies. Comparatively, just over half of
\nrespondents indicated this will be the case for nuclear<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

This shift will require different
\napproaches in obtaining and managing natural gas as fuel to a growing North
\nAmerican gas-fired power generation fleet. To take advantage of gas supply
\nresources, utilities must first reevaluate their existing gas supply
\nportfolios. It is important to learn where flexibilities exist in order to
\nreconfigure the fuel portfolio to lower costs and to reach shale resource
\nsupply basins. Within the gas supply portfolio, utilities will need optionality
\nthrough transportation, storage, and delivered supply. This will allow
\nutilities to reposition supply access as opportunities arise. Finally,
\nutilities should explore participation in the natural gas supply chain as an
\ninvestor, by bringing demand and capacity commitments to fund additional and
\nneeded infrastructure. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

This report was reprinted, in part, with permission
\nfrom Black & Veatch. The full report is available at http:\/\/bv.com\/docs\/management-consulting-brochures\/2012-electric-utility-report-web.pdf.
\n<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Black
\n& Veatch is an employee-owned, global leader in building Critical Human
\nInfrastructure? in Energy, Water, Telecommunications, and Government Services.
\nSince 1915, they have helped their clients improve the lives of people in over
\n100 countries through consulting, engineering, construction, operations, and
\nprogram management.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

\n
<\/a>Figure 1<\/b><\/div>\n
<\/a>Figure 2<\/b><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Executive Summary: Everything Changes While Staying Relatively the Same In the 12 months since the last Black & Veatch electric utility industry report, the industry has seen its primary fuel choice challenged and natural gas prices drop to levels not seen since 2001. A historically warm winter across much of the country drove down consumption<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":[],"featured_media":0,"template":"","categories":[37,41],"class_list":["post-6942","articles","type-articles","status-publish","hentry","category-market-research","category-process-control"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n2012 Strategic Directions in the U.S. Electric Utility Industry - Insulation Outlook Magazine<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2012 Strategic Directions in the U.S. Electric Utility Industry\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Executive Summary: Everything Changes While Staying Relatively the Same In the 12 months since the last Black & Veatch electric utility industry report, the industry has seen its primary fuel choice challenged and natural gas prices drop to levels not seen since 2001. A historically warm winter across much of the country drove down consumption\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Insulation Outlook Magazine\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-09T20:25:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/IO120802_01.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/\",\"name\":\"2012 Strategic Directions in the U.S. Electric Utility Industry - Insulation Outlook Magazine\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/IO120802_01.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2012-08-01T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-09T20:25:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/IO120802_01.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/IO120802_01.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2012 Strategic Directions in the U.S. Electric Utility Industry\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/\",\"name\":\"Insulation Outlook Magazine\",\"description\":\"The only global magazine dedicated to insulation.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/#organization\",\"name\":\"National Insulation Association\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2016\/10\/insulation-outlook-logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2016\/10\/insulation-outlook-logo.png\",\"width\":229,\"height\":90,\"caption\":\"National Insulation Association\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2012 Strategic Directions in the U.S. Electric Utility Industry - Insulation Outlook Magazine","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2012 Strategic Directions in the U.S. Electric Utility Industry","og_description":"Executive Summary: Everything Changes While Staying Relatively the Same In the 12 months since the last Black & Veatch electric utility industry report, the industry has seen its primary fuel choice challenged and natural gas prices drop to levels not seen since 2001. A historically warm winter across much of the country drove down consumption","og_url":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/","og_site_name":"Insulation Outlook Magazine","article_modified_time":"2017-06-09T20:25:08+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/IO120802_01.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/","url":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/","name":"2012 Strategic Directions in the U.S. Electric Utility Industry - Insulation Outlook Magazine","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/IO120802_01.jpg","datePublished":"2012-08-01T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-09T20:25:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/IO120802_01.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/IO120802_01.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/articles\/2012-strategic-directions-in-the-u-s-electric-utility-industry\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2012 Strategic Directions in the U.S. Electric Utility Industry"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/#website","url":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/","name":"Insulation Outlook Magazine","description":"The only global magazine dedicated to insulation.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/#organization","name":"National Insulation Association","url":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2016\/10\/insulation-outlook-logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2016\/10\/insulation-outlook-logo.png","width":229,"height":90,"caption":"National Insulation Association"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articles\/6942","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articles"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/articles"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6942"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insulation.org\/io\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/author?post=6942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}