On-bill financing: Why isn’t everybody doing it?

By Elisa Wood
December 15, 2011

If someone told me they could improve the efficiency of my computer so that it operates quicker, at no extra cost to me, I can’t imagine I’d turn them away. Yet, the energy efficiency industry offers a similar option for homes and businesses and at least so far, consumers aren’t flocking to the programs.

On-bill financing gives customers the ability to finance energy efficiency improvements made to their homes and businesses at no upfront cost. Customers pay for the insulation, lighting, new heating system or other efficiency measure over extended terms on their monthly utility bills. Typically, the savings from the efficiency improvement offset the cost, so the customer sees no increase in the monthly utility bill. You get a building that uses less energy and yet experience no financial pain in doing so.

There is no catch here. It sounds like a good deal for the consumer and early reports indicate it is. So why aren’t consumers interested?

A new report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy takes a close look at 19 on-bill financing programs offered in 15 states. In many cases, less than 1 percent of eligible customers choose to participate in these programs.

The concept is just beginning to take hold, so the problem may simply be lack of awareness, says Casey Bell, lead author of the report.

“The growth of these programs depends on a number of factors. We are seeing a trend where they are emerging in more states. While I profiled 19 programs, we found 31 in 20 different states. A lot of these programs are still new, and many are still in the pilot phase,” Bell said.

Indeed, when it comes to energy, it’s not easy convincing consumers to accept new ideas, even those that directly benefit them, as behavioral scientists made clear at an ACEEE-sponsored conference on energy use and behavior in Washington, DC earlier this month. Even if they read the brochure from their utility, watch a TV commercial and spot a sign on the bus, they still are slow to respond. What does convince them? A chat with a neighbor who tried the program, a push by their church, community or social group, a direct knock on the door by a real live person.

So to improve participation levels, it may be matter of more utilities offering more on-bill financing programs and then being patient; it may take some time for participation to snowball.

Will this happen? Can you expect to see your utility offer on-bill financing any time soon? The ACEEE report points out various reasons utilities are hesitating. Not surprisingly, money is a big issue. Utilities see less opportunity to finance an on-bill program, especially now that government funds are dwindling.

Some of this pressure can be relieved by attracting more third-party capital to programs, according to the ACEEE report. This approach has potential because investors perceive utility revenue as low risk; consumers tend to prioritize paying their utility bills, since non-payment leads to shutoff of service. So, some utilities are exploring the possibility of bundling program loans with other financial products and creating a secondary market for capital.

“There is a lot of opportunity to learn from experience, and tapping into private sector sources of funding is likely critical for scalability,” Bell said.

In other instances, utilities finance on-bill programs through Community Development Financial Institutions or by leveraging government loan through agencies like the USDA’s Rural Utility Service.

So it’s going to take some experiment and innovation for on-bill financing to achieve scale. As if often the case, financial innovation is as game changing as technological advancement. We may have the smart boxes to revolutionize the way we use energy, but if utilities and consumers can’t pay for them, they offer little good.

The solar energy sector provides a good example. For years we saw little installation of solar panels on commercial buildings, despite enormous information produced by the industry about solar’s value. Then, entrepreneurs in the last decade came up with the idea of solar leasing and solar power purchase agreements. As a direct result, solar panels began sprouting on the roof tops of stores, car dealerships, office buildings and other commercial enterprises. The lesson? In our contemporary energy economy, promise finally leads to practice – when the financing is right.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer. Follow her on Facebook at Energy Efficiency Insights.

Fixing people, not just buildings

By Elisa Wood
December 7, 2011

Electric utilities operated under a rarified business model for decades. Their customers were captive so they rarely had to think about what motivated them to buy. New government energy efficiency mandates have changed that, and done so with an ironic twist. Now utilities must figure how to get their customers to refrain from buying.

It’s not easy persuading people to stop using something they like as much as electricity. But behavioral science is coming to the rescue – or at least trying to – as was apparent at theBehavior, Energy & Climate Change conference held in Washington, DC, November 29 through December 2. About 650 people attended, many of them scientists, university researchers and college students, ready to tackle energy efficiency’s biggest hurdle: human nature.

“The challenge that we have is not just to fix the buildings; we have to fix the people who live work and play in those buildings. We have to fix us,” said Brian Keane, of SmartPower.

While behavioral scientists and economists have only begun their work, it’s already clear that utilities and government programs approach energy efficiency wrongheaded. They tend to talk about why energy efficiency is good for them, not the customer, why it makes the electricity grid function better or achieves government’s environmental goals.

The makers of Tide laundry detergent don’t tell customers they should buy the product because it makes the company lots of money, pointed out Lisa Skumatz, a Colorado-based economist. If the energy industry continues to sell energy efficiency as good for utilities, good for the environment, good for government, it will reach only a very narrow audience.

Utilities also must stop listening to what people say and instead focus on what they mean. But how do you do that? Jane Hummer of Navigant Consulting demonstrated how to analyze comments people post online to get at what they really think. “Consumers are increasingly narrating all aspects of their lives online,” creating “a free focus group that you can analyze at your leisure,” she said.

Don’t take what they say online at face value – after all many hide behind anonymity and therefore tend to speak in extremes – but “get at the underlying sentiment,” she said.

Using a spreadsheet and key word search, she analyzed comments posted from articles about smart meters in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. In some states, consumers oppose smart meters, fearing they harm health and impinge on a homeowner’s privacy. Funny thing about the privacy concerns…some of the people who write that they are worried about privacy in the same post reveal details of their lives on line: their political affiliation, where they live, what they do. So is privacy really their concern?

Hummer pointed out that utilities can use the information gleaned from analyzing online comments to hone media campaigns and pre-empt hyperbolic hysteria. If consumers say they worry that smart meters may subject their children to radiation, a utility might launch a campaign about the health dangers of coal-fired plants and explain how smart meters lead to plant retirements.

Sometimes achieving better energy efficiency is just a matter of explaining to people what they should do – in good, clear language. Alan Meier, of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, analyzes what he calls “folk labels,” instructions on how to operate lighting and appliances, sometimes provided by the manufacturer and other times scribbled by well-meaning building occupants trying to explain light switches. What he has found is a mass of confusion. “We need to come up with some standardization soon,” he said.

Will the behavioral scientists succeed in a world where consumers rarely think about electricity? They are optimistic. Some point to the decline in cigarette smoking as an analogy; it’s no coincidence that smoking fell 20% from 1998 to 2005. The behavioral scientists were at work.

For more information on the frontier of energy and behavioral science, listen to Energy Efficiency Market’s free podcast, “What motivates consumers to use less energy,” with Susan Mazur-Stommen, director of the Behavior and Human Dimensions Program for the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, which sponsored last week’s conference along with the California Institute for Energy and Environment at the University of California and the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center at Stanford University.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work can be found atwww.RealEnergyWriters.com

Know true costs; Save real energy

By Guest Blogger Kara Saul Rinaldi

November 30, 2011

More than half of the states in the nation have created programs to increase the energy efficiency of homes through a comprehensive approach that looks at all opportunities to save energy, from insulation to upgrading heating and cooling systems. When taxpayer and ratepayer dollars are used, it is essential that these programs are reviewed with a cost-effectiveness test that provides policymakers with adequate knowledge about the programs’ effectiveness. Unfortunately, in many states, the testing system is deeply flawed. The way cost-effectiveness tests are currently applied frequently hinders the design and implementation of residential energy efficiency programs, particularly programs intended to support comprehensive energy efficiency upgrades.

For three decades, the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test has been the principle screening tool that regulators have used to assess the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs and make decisions regarding the use of ratepayer dollars to support the programs. Unfortunately, the way the TRC test is applied often leads to support for single-measure programs rather than whole-house retrofits – despite the fact that the whole-house approachactually delivers deeper and more cost-effective energy savings. Because of this, the TRC test, when poorly applied, impedes the realization of significant, cost-effective energy savings through state-run energy efficiency programs.

In general, whole-house programs do not tend to score as well in the TRC test as single-measure programs that encourage highly cost-effective measures, such as lighting. This is due in part to the different ways in which the TRC test is implemented, some of which cause particular difficulties for whole-house programs. The TRC test typically includes participant contributions to the cost of an energy efficiency upgrade, resulting in a poor score for a highly leveraged whole-house program – even if leveraging public dollars with private investment is generally seen as desirable in other contexts. On the flip side, the TRC test fails to capture the full benefits of energy efficiency, such as increased comfort, which are frequently significant, although difficult to quantify. To make matters worse, the TRC is sometimes used to screen each individual measure or project, which might sound cost-effective in practice, but creates confusion about what jobs are eligible, decreases customer interest, and adds to a program’s administrative costs.

New York, which for years has been a leader in home performance programs, recently implemented a rule requiring application of the TRC at the measure-level. As a result, the program’s output is declining after years of steady growth. Elsewhere, the application of the TRC has discouraged the creation of strong whole-house energy efficiency programs, or has forced program administrators to develop create programs designed to pass cost-effectiveness tests, rather than to deliver real energy savings to homeowners.

So what should be done to ensure the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs across the country is more accurately evaluated?

Policy-makers and commissioners should adopt a different tool, the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, which compares the cost of reducing energy consumption to the cost of supplying an equivalent amount of energy. The Program Administrator Cost test makes sense as the primary screening tool for energy efficiency programs because it is relatively simple to administer, and provides a good measure of whether an energy efficient program delivers savings at a cost comparable to the cost of generating and supplying energy.

If the PAC test is not adopted as the primary test, a set of “best practices” should be used to administer the TRC test. Examples of best practices include testing cost-effectiveness on a program-wide or portfolio basis (not at the level of individual projects or measures), and including all benefits as well as all costs.

It is clear that the current process of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs needs fundamental change. The existing cost-effectiveness tests, as currently implemented, frequently undermine important public policy goals, such as job creation, carbon reduction, and energy independence. We need to stop undermining these important policy goals and ensure that policymakers have the right information, thanks to the right testing, to help homeowners save energy.

For a more detailed report on these issues, please see the National Home Performance Council’s new report entitled, Getting to Fair Cost-Effectiveness Testing: Using the PAC Test, Best Practices for the TRC Test, and Beyond.

Kara Saul Rinaldi is the Executive Director of the National Home Performance Council, a 501-c3 dedicated to encouraging improved home energy performance using a whole-house approach. For more information on NHPC, please call (202)463-2005, or visitwww.nhpci.org. She is a guest blogger for Energy Efficiency Markets newsletter. Pick up the free newsletter at www.RealEnergyWriters.com