Time to change habits, as well as light bulbs?

By Elisa Wood

November 16, 2010

We are bombarded daily by advertisements selling us soft drinks, pharmaceuticals, cars, insurance, junk food, teeth whitener, diet programs, and on and on. But when was the last time someone tried to sell you on using more electricity?

I cannot think of a single commercial that encourages us to plug-in, even though electricity is the chief product of 3,000 utilities in the United States.

This speaks to how easy it is to access and use electric energy; its relative cheapness, invisibility, and integral role in daily life. No need exists for utilities to market electricity; we devour electrons blindly.

So how do you convince people to conserve something that they use so much, yet hardly even notice they buy?

Behavioral science may hold the answers, as pointed out in a new report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, “Visible and Concrete Savings: Case Studies of Effective Behavioral Approaches to Improving Customer Energy Efficiency.”

Getting consumers to save energy is as much a people problem as a technology problem. Or as the report puts it: “To achieve greater energy savings through energy efficiency, we need to design and build programs that change habits as well as light bulbs.”

The report highlights 10 energy efficiency programs that have done so. The programs include: building operator certification, in-home energy monitoring, media messaging, keeping up with the Jones emotional pressure, ATM-like energy purchasing, in-home energy displays, employer cheerleading, corporate energy management, green recognition, and feebates – fees or rebates for cars based on their energy efficiency.

What do these programs tell us about human behavior when it comes to energy efficiency? For one thing, we need to see how much energy we use, clearly displayed in our homes as we use it. And we need proof – true measurement and verification – that our efforts to conserve pay off. Such data also encourages political support for efficiency programs.

The report finds we worry about social norms – if we learn our neighbors save more energy than we do, we try harder. And believe it or not, money doesn’t really motivate us very much. Or at least we do not always make rational economic decisions. We are more apt to act based on values, curiosity, self-esteem, and other non-economic motivators. When money is used as an incentive, bonuses need to be large and immediate, not spread out over time.

The report is available here. http://www.aceee.org/research-report/e108

Elisa Wood is co-author of “Energy Efficiency Incentives for Businesses 2010: Eastern States,” available at www.realenergywriters.com.

Every company needs a corporate energy manager

Guest blog

By Paul Baier

Vice President of Sustainability Consulting, Groom Energy

www.groomenergy.com

Why do so many companies fail to capitalize on the abundant opportunities to save money through improved energy purchasing and efficiency?

One reason may be the lack of high-level positions for energy management at many companies. This is a practically a “no brainer” because the position can often pay for itself in four to five months. Sustainability leaders should advocate for this role either within their own group or at the corporate level.

Opportunities to save money are everywhere. In our consulting work we consistently see opportunities to reduce overall energy spend by 5 percent to 15 percent through projects with a two to three year payback period. This is serious money for companies with energy budgets approaching $50 million, and starts to really add up for firms in the $500 million range.

A typical project may improve energy purchasing practices or increase energy efficiency. For example, one organization realized $4 million in savings with renegotiated contracts for electricity. Another saved $200,000 per year through implementation of a demand response program. Yet another found $350,000 through lighting upgrades and incentives. Finally, a wholesaler reduced its electricity use in its frozen warehouses by 80 percent after converting to LED lighting.

Generating savings need not require a capital investment. Zero capital projects exist as well. One retailer, for example, saves $60,000 per year at each of its distribution warehouses by adjusting the temperature set points for its frozen and refrigerated warehouse to be cooler at night and warmer during the day when electricity rates were 50 percent higher. This same retailer saves $15,000 annually by recharging its electrical forklifts at 6 p.m. instead of 3 p.m., as was previously the custom, in order to take advantage of reduced electricity rates.

Why aren’t other companies exploiting these kinds of opportunities? There are many reasons, such as:

1. There is often a prevailing attitude that “savings” projects are “deferred maintenance” with dubious returns and should only be done when absolutely necessary.
2. Incentives at the corporate and local levels are often misaligned (e.g. production targets vs. overall energy spend).
3. Getting capital requests “through the system” often requires strong internal selling skills and determination to get things done, which may be lacking for some energy project requests.
4. Operations engineers are often overwhelmed with keeping operations (production lines, warehouses, offices) running and do not have the time, inclination, expertise or the proper incentives to look for and implement energy savings initiatives.
5. Lack of knowledge in the CFO’s office about the opportunity

A lack of energy accountability, another contributing factor, is very common. Who owns the company’s energy budget? It’s surprising how often this question results in a “blank stare” when posed to companies we consult. They often have executives responsible for revenue, overall budgets and managing health care costs, for example, but not for corporate energy expenditures.

This lack of energy ownership can cost companies millions. In many cases, senior management does not realize how much they’re spending on energy across all sites, or that energy is often second only to health care in terms of overall cost growth.

At the local level, a lack of ownership leads to huge waste. For example, at one very large manufacturing facility, certain machines and operations were needlessly left running during the third shift, yet no one “owned” the responsibility for determining when the machines could be shut off, costing the company $40,000 in energy in one month.

Energy accountability, visibility, and corporate management are the first steps to pursuing these changes and realizing the potential savings. A corporate-level energy manager — typically a director-level, but can be vice president-level if energy spend is large enough — who works with senior management and a cross-functional corporate energy management team is essential. Corporations, especially outside of energy intensive industries, such as steel, are increasingly starting to establish these positions.

We recommend:

• Establish a corporate-level director of energy management with responsibilities for driving improved energy purchasing and consumption practices. For highly decentralized organizations, this role will be a corporate services function for the line.
• Increase CEO and CFO education about the total dollar amount of corporate-wide energy spend. The CFO should especially be pushing their organizations hard for projects that increase energy efficiency.
• Drive energy spend visibility by calculating energy spend for the overall corporation, its lines of business, and individual facilities and plants.
• Include energy spend in quarterly operations reviews
• Establish an energy management cross-functional team that meets at least quarterly.

Revenue growth for many companies in this current economic environment is very difficult. Enhanced margins can be achieved through energy reduction, which begins with corporate visibility and an empowered, corporate energy manager

Elisa Wood is co-author of “Energy Efficiency Incentives for Businesses 2010: Eastern States,” available at www.realenergywriters.com.

Energy efficiency: Real estate’s next granite counter top?

By Elisa Wood

November 3, 2010

A lot of good economic reasons exist to pursue energy efficiency. Still the average person tends not to. This is no surprise. If I cannot see, touch, buy, sell, trade or save efficiency, if it’s invisible, how can I pay it any real attention?

Often on the vanguard, Boston-based Conservation Services Group is working on an idea to make home efficiency more tangible. It is a surprisingly simple idea. One that is likely to leave a lot of people saying, ‘Of course. Why didn’t I think of that?’

You might say CSG is making energy efficiency the next granite kitchen counter top of the real estate business.

Through a $348,000 grant from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, CSG is working on a metric to describe a home’s energy efficiency value. When a homeowner lists a house for sale, the metric would be included in the multiple listing service (MLS), right along with the home’s price, number of bedrooms, square-footage and location.

Suddenly, efficiency is tangible, something that can be quantified and can add or detract to home value.

It’s not yet clear what that metric will look like. It might be a numerical score or a certification like the Energy Star label. Figuring that out is part of CSG’s task, as it puts in place a program for New York over the next two years.

“You can imagine the pitfalls in establishing what this score would be,” said David Weitz, director of CSG’s Applied Building Science Division. “How do you present it in a way that is accessible to the greatest number of people. Unfortunately, there is no right answer.”

CSG plans to hold focus groups with homeowners to get a sense of what might work. The idea is to come up with a measurement that translates into a selling point, much like the granite counter top or hard wood floors. The hope is that sellers will install efficiency to increase their grade. Presumably, the higher grade will make the home more marketable.

Weitz also must convince MLS administrators to accept the metric and include it in the listings. Fortunately, CSG is not alone in this pursuit. Similar programs are in the works in other parts of the country. In addition, the US Department of Energy is working on creating a national an ‘e-scale’ label for homes. Weitz hopes the DOE effort and various local labeling initiatives will come together to create consistency in labeling nationwide.

In winning the award, the 26-year-old CSG edged out more than 350 proposals, submitted last April, from organizations in 44 states that offered scalable approaches for spurring energy efficiency retrofits in existing buildings. Grants totaling $2.7 million went to nine winners, which were evaluated by a panel of experts in real estate, finance, construction, government policy and energy efficiency technologies.

“In the past, people would buy a house without any real understanding of its ongoing energy costs. Establishing an energy efficiency category, within MLS listings, will help during the selection process by providing homebuyers with another essential piece of information,” Weitz said.

If it’s successful, who knows, maybe someday the real estate mantra will no longer be ‘location, location, location,’ but instead, ‘efficiency, efficiency, efficiency.’

Elisa Wood is co-author of “Energy Efficiency Incentives for Businesses 2010: Eastern States,” available at www.realenergywriters.com.