KatherineBy Kat Friedrich
Guest Blogger, Energy Efficiency Markets
May 2, 2012

 

A vast gap exists between the detailed information financial institutions need to support energy efficiency financing and the limited data they currently have. Several examples suggest these loan programs can succeed, but there are no large datasets supporting investment in energy efficiency.

Providing energy efficiency loans could give financial institutions new market opportunities. Unfortunately, their underwriters don’t have enough loan performance information to finance large volumes of energy efficiency projects yet. This lack of information inhibits the scaling up of energy efficiency retrofits in the residential and commercial sectors.

 

The small size of the market for energy efficiency loans inhibits market growth, said John Joshi, Managing Director and Business Strategist at Capital Fusion Partners. Investors seek liquidity; they want to be able to move their assets within a market. As the energy efficiency loan market grows, this lack of liquidity will no longer be an issue. Right now, “it’s a Catch-22,” Joshi said.

 

“We need strong political and regulatory support to make the market more viable,” Joshi said. “If it’s left to capital markets’ intervention, it will be a much slower process.” He said government financial support for renewable energy programs is key to opening this market.

 

“Investors want to compare apples to apples within transactions,” Joshi said. “They also want analytics so they can do scenario modeling.” Investors also ask third parties to participate in the analysis, so data needs to be accessible to a range of stakeholders.

 

When approving loans, underwriters need reliable data on the expected energy savings from energy improvements so they can factor this into their credit risk analysis. To consider an energy efficiency loan a safe investment, investors and rating agencies need reliable data on expected energy savings from efficiency installations in similar buildings in similar locations. They also need statistics on loan repayment. Much of this information is currently missing.

Share

Elisa WoodBy Elisa Wood
February 16, 2012

 

President Obama’s 2013 budget caused a lot of smiles this week among energy efficiency advocates – even if it is more of a wish list than anything else. Obama calls for about $1.2 billion in spending for energy efficiency.

 

What’s this mean to the energy efficiency industry?

 

Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, says that Obama’s budget represents a dramatic increase from current efficiency spending. And while the sector won’t receive that kind of money in the final budget, it still should do well, given that the starting point is so high in a time when many budget items begin with cuts.

 

“The administration’s vigorous support for energy efficiency at this stage of the game should help ensure that we get funding almost as robust as we have currently,” she said.

 

It’s not easy figuring exactly how much the federal government spends on efficiency now, since funding is spread out over several programs and sometimes infused into budgets for defense, science, agriculture, environment and commerce.

 

By ASE’s count Congress appropriated $811 million in 2012 for energy efficiency programs in DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), and $50 million for Energy Star at the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

In all, Obama increases the Department of Energy budget by 3.2%,  bringing it to $27.2 billion for 2013. He allots $2.3 billion for both the efficiency and renewable energy programs in EERE, and maintains Energy Star spending at the same level. Funding for  high-risk research increases 27% and for manufacturing advancement 150%. Obama offers an 80% increase in programs that cut energy use in buildings and factories. He also continues to press Congress to pass the HomeStar bill to reduce household energy use.

 

Raising spending might sound alarms, given the US deficit. However, spending on efficiency actually decreases society’s energy expenses. Energy efficiency cost about 1.6 to 3.3 cents/kWh for utilities in 14 states studied by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. Had those utilities built power plants rather than conserved energy, they would have paid 6 to 14 cents/kWh.

Share

Elisa WoodBy 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.

Share

Elisa WoodBy Elisa Wood
October 5, 2011

At first blush, the economics of energy efficiency seem straightforward.

A business installs lighting controls or some other improvement. The business then sees its energy costs drop. From the savings, the business repays the investment over weeks, months or years, and then turns a profit on the asset.

While that equation holds true, analysts increasingly value the worth of energy efficiency in other more complex ways as well. The energy efficiency industry, for example, is creating new jobs. Energy efficiency also improves US energy intensity, the amount of energy it takes to support each dollar of economic activity.

And now a report by PwC links a business’ sustainability story with its success undertaking an initial public offering (IPO) before the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

“It literally can pay to ask: if the company files its registration statement with the SEC tomorrow, what sustainability and corporate responsibility story would it tell to prospective shareholders?” says ‘Factoring Sustainability into IPO Planning: Disclosure trends reveal a changing landscape,’ by PwC Transaction Services.

The report looked at 120 IPO-related filings before the SEC from 2010 and early 2011 across eight industries sectors. PwC found that companies are increasingly addressing energy efficiency and other sustainability issues as part of a larger corporate accountability trend.  

In fact, over 84% of IPO filings had some level of disclosure related to sustainability – and not just because they were required to do so by regulators. About 68% of sustainability disclosures came about for other reasons, such as in discussions about weather-related risk or to showcase corporate accomplishment.  A full one-third of companies in the consumer sector reported either energy efficiency or emissions reductions programs. 

Share

by Skip Laitner
Guest Blogger, Energy Efficiency Markets
Reposted from Real Climate Economics
August 17, 2011

John ‘Skip” Laitner is an economist, enjoying a desert year while on research sabbatical  from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Skip is discovering some surprising insights from his time in the desert that can inform the way one looks at the economy and social systems. In a series of posts entitled Desert Year, Skip lends us his new insights, as well as his 40 years of experience as an energy and natural resource economist, to probe the economic, climate, and energy challenges that confront us.

A Robust Economy

There is a good deal of worry about the robustness of our nation’s economy. And rightly so. Especially since we have about 5 million fewer jobs today than in 2007, even as we have about 10 million more people to support with those available jobs.

In an effort to understand why economic performance has been so lackluster, we are constantly taking our economic temperature.  We measure it every way we can.  But it is also true that – other than the occasional surprise – what you measure is what you find; and we may not be measuring all of the right things.

The current measure of our economic well‑being is the ebb and flow of dollars transacted in the marketplace.  These dollars are usually indexed against things like investment, labor output or population.  From these various indices we suppose that we can obtain a reading on how well the economy is doing.

Examining the economy from a resource rather than a market perspective, however, may yield an entirely different understanding of the economic process.  To better illustrate this point let us borrow some momentary insights from Arizona’s Sonoran desert environment.

In the desert, similarities in plant appearance are poor indicators of whether or not plants are related to one another.  While the agave plants have vegetative structures similar to those of the aloe family, neither plant lineage can be determined until we examine their flowers.

The vegetative parts of both the agave and the aloe plants are mostly products of the very few adaptive mechanisms available to help a plant survive in the desert.

These survival mechanisms include extensive root systems and the ability to store water in the leaves and stem of a plant. With so few adaptive features available to them, even plants from unrelated families may look very much alike.

Flowers, in contrast to the plant structures, are the result of intricate relationships with the animals that pollinate them. Because of this dynamic two‑way interaction with animals and insects, flowers are more complex than the leaves or stems of a plant.

The relationship between the agave and the aloe plants is revealed, not by looking at their vegetative structures, but by comparing their flowers and fruits. It turns out that despite initial appearances, the Sonoran Agave and the South African Aloe have entirely different histories and origins.

In a similar way, we may develop a different understanding of why the nation’s lagging job creation is so lackluster if we measure it in a wholly different manner. And here we might build on the work of my colleagues Bob Ayres and Benjamin Warr in their book, The Economic Growth Engine: How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity.  Measurements might include, for example, not just how much energy we are actually throwing at our various economic processes.  More critically, we might ask how efficiently we actually might be in converting that energy into useful goods and services.  This might reveal different insights than if we only ask how many dollars are consumed in the production process.

Share