Efficiency stimulus will lower energy bills, says federal report

By Elisa Wood

April 30, 2009

Depending on your position, the federal stimulus money is either a jobs builder or a national budget buster. The Energy Information Administration offers another take. In a recent analysis, the EIA finds that stimulus money should reduce what consumers and businesses pay to heat, cool and light buildings.

The federal agency this month updated its annual energy outlook to compare how energy costs would fare with and without the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/index.html.

The stimulus package delivers about $12.5 billion for energy efficiency improvements in homes and buildings. Those upgrades should cut homeowner bills an average of $64 annually (in real 2007 dollars) over the next two decades. Homeowners will reduce use of heat 1.7%, and air conditioning 3.4% by 2030, the report says. Likewise, commercial buildings should see energy costs drop by an average of $5.7 billion, or 2.7% annually between 2010 and 2030. In all, the report pegs cost cuts for home and building owners in 2020 at $13 billion, or 2.6%, and in 2030 at $21 billion, or 3%.

In addition, expect to see a lot more solar panels and small wind turbines powering stores and offices very soon as a result of significant tax credits and loan guarantees. The stimulus funds should lead to 121 MW more of solar units on commercial buildings by 2011, a 15% jump, and 120 MW in distributed wind turbines by 2016, a 527% jump.

The EIA does not typically update its annual outlook after it is published. But the federal agency decided to do so this year because it was clear that the stimulus money, approved in February, would significantly alter its 2009 outlook, which was released at the end of last year. Indeed, the information may help inform national policy as Congress debates ways to avert higher energy costs under new programs being contemplated, such as carbon cap-and-trade and a renewable energy standard.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Even rebels like efficiency

By Elisa Wood

April 23, 2009

Clean energy advocates favor a federal requirement that a certain amount of our electricity come from green sources, a concept known as a portfolio standard. No year in history has offered more promise for the policy. President Obama is pushing for at least 10% of our electricity to come from renewable sources by 2012, and 25% by 2025. Congressional Democrats have obliged by putting several proposals on the table.

But one corner of the nation has never liked the idea of national renewable energy requirements: the Southeast. Cheap nuclear and coal-fired generation dominates the region’s power supply, and its officials fear that renewable energy will drive up electricity prices and drive away manufacturers. (See my upcoming article in the May/June issue of Renewable Energy World magazine.)

Enter energy efficiency, an idea that seems palatable to the Southeast, and could serve as a negotiating point to bring southern utilities and lawmakers around to the idea of a national standard. If enough of the standard can be met through efficiency, the Southeast is more likely to accept it, since efficiency is seen as a way to cut energy costs, rather than raise them.

Indeed, the leading portfolio standard on the table contains an efficiency component. Authored by Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, and Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, the bill calls for utilities to reduce electricity demand 15% and natural gas demand 10% by 2020. The proposal creates tremendous energy savings — more than the entire current energy use of the state of California — according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. http://www.aceee.org/press/0904analysis.htm

The push for such legislation comes as electricity prices fall, not typically a good time to convince the American public of efficiency’s merits. But watch out. Prices may not stay low for long, according to Calvert Investments. In a briefing last week, the investment firm said it sees an economic recovery beginning in 2010 that brings with it higher prices and an improved position for clean energy technologies. Greater use of efficiency may look like a better and better option for those–like the southeastern states–struggling to keep electricity prices low.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

The 14 best states for energy efficiency

By Elisa Wood and Reid Smith

April 16, 2009

Once a “token gesture,” energy efficiency is now increasingly becoming a “first fuel” — the resource utilities seek before any other, even before renewable energy or other in-favor generation sources.

So says the report, “Meeting Aggressive New State Goals for Utility-Sector Energy Efficiency: Examining Key Factors Associated with High Savings,” issued today by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Chances are you are experiencing the benefits of efficiency – or are about to do so – if you live in one of 14 states the report identifies as leaders: California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Wisconsin, New York, Oregon, Minnesota, New Jersey, Washington, Texas, Iowa, Rhode Island, and Nevada.

These states show the biggest gains from efficiency. They also spend the most on programs and have the greatest legislative support.

What else makes the states stand out?

*Almost all offer direct financial incentives for delivering utility energy efficiency programs well.

*Eight of the top 14 states have an energy efficiency resource standard (EERS), which requires they meet a certain percentage of energy demand through efficiency. Typically, the requirement ramps up gradually over several years. Such standards do not deliver a lot of savings yet, but will in later years as requirements increase.

The report also looked at which efficiency measures generate the most savings. Lighting retrofits top the list, accounting for 63% to 92% of all residential energy savings and 55% to 69% of commercial and industrial savings.

The winning states still have a long way to go. Few report energy efficiency savings of 1.5% to 2.0% per year or more – the amount targeted by many state policies. Vermont is an exception with energy savings close to 2.0% of total electricity sales. What can speed delivery of results? There is no magic bullet, but the report recommends shareholder incentives, decoupling and support from top utility management.

The report is available for free download at http://www.aceee.org/

Making efficiency easy with on-bill financing

By Elisa Wood

April 9, 2009

Even if hostile governments corner all of the oil, the polar caps melt, and Oprah, herself, says, “It is time to save energy!” consumers will not pursue efficiency in a big way unless it is easy and painless.

That is why a growing number of state regulators are taking a close look at a concept known as on-bill financing. When a customer upgrades a heating system, insulates walls, or undertakes some other efficiency measure, the utility pays for it and then recoups the cost gradually over time in the customer’s monthly energy bill. The approach spares the customer the sticker shock of springing for the improvement all at once. It also gives the customer the opportunity to reduce energy use, which lowers heat or electricity charges and offsets at least some of monthly cost of the efficiency installation.

Utilities offer on-bill payment in two different ways: through loans or tariffs. A loan is assigned directly to the customer who must pay it back even if he moves. In contrast, the tariff approach links the charge to the meter, meaning that whoever lives at the house or owns the business pays the fee. If the customer moves, the new occupant picks up the payment.

The tariff approach allows for a long payment term and therefore lower monthly costs. “It also encourages renters to participate in the program because they only pay for energy saving measures while they benefit from them, and remain in the premises,” says Paying for Energy Upgrades through Utility Bills, a recent brief by the Alliance to Save Energy.

On-bill financing makes a lot of sense, but utilities are not jumping on board quickly. Many see the approach as experimental, given that it has yet to be tested widely. Further, while on-bill financing makes life easier for the customer, it complicates billing for the utility, which must modify its systems, said the ASE brief.

Connecticut and California have the largest on-bill programs. ASE says to keep an eye on New Hampshire, which has the greatest experience with the tariff-based systems. Hawaii and Kansas also have programs underway and may soon report results. Michigan appears to be heading toward adopting an on-bill program. Massachusetts and Rhode Island have used the approach for almost two decades.

More details are available at http://ase.org/content/article/detail/5476.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Electricity still hot

By Elisa Wood

April 2, 2009

Latest federal projections reveal that our passion isn’t cooling for large air-conditioned homes and electric gadgets.

US households have increased their electricity use by 23% over the past decade, and consumption will grow another 20% by 2030, according Annual Energy Outlook 2009, released March 31 by the Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html?featureclicked=1&

The report sees air conditioning use rising 24%, as the population migrates to the South and West. The number of refrigerators, washers and dryers grows as we add more houses; home electronics continue to “proliferate,” EIA says.

It is not just households gobbling up the power. We go to hotels, restaurants, stores, and movie theaters more. And they require more computers and other electronic equipment to serve us. In addition, as the population ages, it needs more electric medical and monitoring equipment. So power use in commercial buildings grows an average of 1.4% per year to 2030.

Of course, the economic recession is likely to dampen electricity consumption somewhat for now. But the report attempts to look “beyond current economic and financial woes and focus on factors that drive U.S. energy markets in the longer term.”

Energy efficiency is a bit like computer software created to negate viruses. The more viruses, the more updates to the software we need. So as electricity use grows, the efficiency industry is likely to find growing demand for its product — technology that allows us to use more and more electronic devices, but less and less electricity.

The report points out that best available efficiency technology cuts energy use without reducing service. By installing compact fluorescent bulbs, solid-state lighting, and condensing gas furnaces, we can reduce home energy consumption 29% over a business-as-usual scenario. Concern about energy prices, power plant emissions and energy independence will drive demand for these products.

The bottom line? Electricity will remain hot, and efficiency may be even hotter.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Federal energy stimulus: The check is in the mail

By Elisa Wood

March 26, 2009

Energy efficiency companies waiting for federal stimulus money probably feel like they are being told, “The check is in the mail.” It is supposed to arrive, but when?

The federal government will channel a large pot of the money through state agencies, so it is wise to keep an eye on announcements by governors and state energy offices. States must apply by May 12 for $3.1 billion in what is known as the State Energy Plan funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The money will go toward rebates to consumers for home energy audits or other energy saving improvements; development of renewable energy projects; promotion of Energy Star products; efficiency upgrades for state and local government buildings; and other efforts initiated by the states.

To secure this money, state governors must write letters to the US Department of Energy explaining spending plans and providing assurance that they will meet federal stipulations. In many cases, the states will pass along money to utilities, which will then hire energy efficiency installers, auditors and others to do the actual work. To see how much money your state will receive and your governor’s letter when it is sent, go to http://www.energy.gov/recovery. Scroll down and click on the map at the bottom of the page.

The DOE recovery site also links to information on funds for weatherization, advanced battery manufacturing, environmental management, research and development, smart grid and other energy programs.

Some states are moving ahead more quickly than others in making public their plans for use of federal money.

In Pennsylvania, Governor Edward Rendell announced this week the names of five companies that will receive $3.8 million for energy conservation improvements. In all, the state expects to receive $366 million through the State Energy Plan program.

The Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources let businesses and public agencies know that funds may be available soon to help them purchase green vehicles. The state expects to receive $5 to $15 million of a $300 million pot for alternative vehicles. To qualify, businesses and public agencies must submit letters of commitment to the state by May 18. The state will apply for the federal money by May 29.

In Connecticut, Governor Jodi Rell sent a letter to DOE explaining the state’s plans to focus on growing its existing fuel cell industry and responding to consumer demand for solar thermal and geothermal products with part of the $38.5 million Connecticut expects through the State Energy Plan program.

Two national efficiency organizations also are working to smooth the flow of stimulus money into the industry. The Alliance to Save Energy has launched an initiative to help publicly-owned utilities expand conservation programs. ASE is undertaking the effort with the American Public Power Association and the Large Public Power Council. Meanwhile, The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy continues to frequently update www.energytaxincentives.org, which has details on recovery act and other incentives available for consumers and businesses.

In addition, K&L Gates is tracking energy stimulus funding and recently reported several grant solicitations, including one to accelerate the market introduction and penetration of advanced electric drive vehicles. Details are available through the DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Program.

So, while the stimulus check for energy efficiency may still be “in the mail,” many hands appear to be ferrying it toward delivery.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

$3.1 billion for state energy efficiency programs - Just one catch

By Patrick Costello, guest contributor

March 19, 2009

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act promises to advance the U.S. energy efficiency movement with an unprecedented $26 billion infusion of funds. Of that, $3.1 billion goes to state energy efficiency programs through the Department of Energy’s State Energy Program.

Great news, right? Maybe not, says the Electricity Consumers Resource Council (ELCON) and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).

To receive the federal stimulus money, states must agree to set up financial incentives that encourage utilities to pursue energy efficiency programs. ELCON and NARUC fear that this promotes a “one-size-fits-all” approach to the administration of energy efficiency programs. In particular, they are concerned that these stimulus funds will sway states to implement revenue decoupling at the expense of developing a more unbiased energy efficiency program plan.

Revenue decoupling is a ratemaking mechanism that breaks the link between a utility’s revenues and energy sales. Since utilities normally profit from selling energy, it’s not in their best interest to push efficiency. Doing so reduces demand for their product. Revenue decoupling counters this problem by allowing utilities to earn a fair rate of return, and sometimes additional financial incentives, on energy efficiency programs. Decoupling has become a common way to align utility financial interests with state efforts to achieve greater energy efficiency.

The debate over revenue decoupling is central to discussion over what makes an energy efficiency program effective. Ratepayers measure success based on how much money they save. And how much money they save may depend on who runs the program.

Utilities, state agencies, third party non-profit organizations, or some combination of the three typically administer efficiency initiatives. Each state shapes its own approach. No one program design seems to be the most effective. Many highly regarded programs differ greatly from one another. But the best programs share one commonality: They are tailored to the unique policies and economic profile of the state and are based on input from a variety of stakeholders.

Critics of the stimulus bill argue that ‘the catch’ – the condition placed upon states before they can receive stimulus money – may stifle such tailoring, hinder development of a state’s full energy efficiency potential, and diminish cost savings. Decoupling creates the foundation for utilities to serve as the primary administrators of efficiency programs. By pushing for revenue decoupling, a state is arguably saying it wants utilities, not a third party non-profit or state agency, to take the lead in developing and administering energy efficiency programs. Therefore, the stimulus bill walks a fine line between encouraging states to implement only utility-administered programs and encouraging them to reform their ratemaking policy so that utilities can, on some level, contribute to the development of a sound energy efficiency program.

Decoupling is somewhat arcane, but ratepayers should be aware of how it may influence their rates as energy efficiency programs evolve.

This is the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s report where the controversial provision can be found on page 26:

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/CommJurRpt/111_hr1_encrpt.pdf

To see a breakdown of the stimulus package’s energy efficiency measures, visit:

http://ase.org/content/article/detail/5388

To learn about and obtain forms for stimulus package energy efficiency tax incentives, visit:

http://www.energytaxincentives.org/

To see how your state’s energy efficiency efforts rank nationally, visit:

http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e086.htm

Visit us at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up our free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.