Elisa WoodBy Elisa Wood
February 27, 2013

 

President Barack Obama recently pushed for increased energy efficiency in his State of the Union address. His endorsement is a plus, no argument. But it may not be the federal government that drives the industry’s next growth spurt.

 

Increasingly, the push for clean energy seems to be more grassroots, from the city and community.

 

Consider these significant green energy trends and events.

  • Cities increasingly require that building owners evaluate and report on how well their commercial properties use energy. Officials say the results will help government create better policy. The information also is valuable in real estate transactions. Buyers get a better sense of a building’s true value. And owners of green buildings may use the information as a marketing tool when renting or selling the property. Minneapolis is the latest city to enact a reporting and disclosure rule. Public buildings must comply this year and the largest private buildings in 2014. Other cities with similar requirements are Boulder, Seattle, New York City, San Francisco, Austin, Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia.

 

  • Massachusetts, the top US state for energy efficiency and a thriving market for solar, is building its reputation community by community through a law enacted in 2008 known as the Green Communities Act. While the law has many components, a key feature is its community grant program. Cities and towns become eligible for grants if they agree to lower energy use 20 percent within five years. Communities also must streamline permitting for green energy projects, and take other action meant to keep more of the state’s energy revenues within its borders. Massachusetts is trying to become greener and more efficient in part because it makes economic sense. About 80 percent of the state’s energy dollars are paid out to places like South America, Canada, and the Middle East, the sources of its fuel. State officials call this an $18 billion “lost economic opportunity.” The state wants to recirculate more of the money within its own borders “through investments in home-grown renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.” Municipalities seem to like the program. So far, 110 have signed on, representing 45.2 percent of the state’s population.
Share

Elisa WoodBy Elisa Wood
February 13, 2012

 

The energy efficiency industry received a nice boost this week during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. Obama called for cutting energy use by half over the next 20 years.

 

Such attention comes at a significant point in the history of the energy efficiency movement. It appears to be re-inventing itself again, and in a way that is likely to have broad appeal.

 

First, consider how far energy efficiency has come in terms of perception.

 

Until about a decade ago, we equated saving energy with austerity, turning down the thermostat in winter and up in summer. It was called ‘conservation’ or the more clunky term ‘demand-side management.’

 

With the dawn of smart grid, conservation was reinvented into ‘energy efficiency,’ a way to save energy through technology. No sacrifice required, energy efficiency might even bring more comfort – lighting that is easier on the eyes and devices that make sure your apartment is cool just when you arrive home.

 

Now we seem to be entering a third stage, the era of ‘energy productivity’, where we focus on the economic result of energy efficiency: more bang for the energy buck.

 

“By doubling productivity, we’ll wring more out of every dollar spent on energy, helping families improve the quality of their lives by freeing up money to either save or spend on other things,’  said Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy.

Share

Elisa WoodBy Elisa Wood
August 15, 2012

 

We know that what a political candidate says during a campaign often differs from what the eventual office-holder does. We also know that candidates choose their words carefully to give themselves wiggle room for modifications in course.

 

So we listen for innuendo and subtleties when candidates talk about our special interests. What kind of qualifying language do they use? Are they truly against X, Y and Z, or only under special circumstances?

 

Below are some quotes on energy efficiency from President Barack Obama and Republican front-runner Mitt Romney. I’ll start with Romney since his stand is less clear, at least to me. Romney pushed a green agenda while Governor of Massachusetts, but recently attacked renewable energy as “imaginary.” He doesn’t, however, appear to direct the same criticism at energy efficiency.

 

Romney on energy efficiency

“I also want to see us become more energy efficient. I’m told that we use almost twice as much energy per person as does a European, and more like three times as much as does a Japanese citizen. We could do a lot better. I’d like to see our vehicles, and our homes, and our systems of insulation and so forth become far more efficient. I believe that we have a role in trying to encourage that to happen.”Think Progress, June 6, 2011 (See video here)

 

When he was governor of Massachusetts, Romney proposed a four step energy plan, which began with increasing energy efficiency for homes, businesses, state buildings, and vehicles.

 

In contrast, Romney pushes an agenda of energy production, not savings, on his campaign website. He criticizes Obama’s green energy programs, and calls for alternative energy funding to be used on basic research. The energy issues page does not  mention energy efficiency or conservation.

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

Guest blog By Michael Miller

You might think by this headline that I’m about to rant about the news regarding energy efficiency policy that was circulating last week. President Obama outlined a plan called the Better Buildings Initiative to incentivize energy efficiency in commercial buildings during his visit to Penn State. Actually, I want to explain why multifamily energy management struggles with this type of policy.

While we certainly applaud the President’s plan to create tax incentives for building efficiency and increase financing for building retrofits, the plan does not go far enough to suit the specific needs of the multifamily industry. These needs will be increasingly important given the nation’s current and future housing concerns.

The President’s plan takes on the energy consumption of commercial buildings. It incentivizes the upgrade of the buildings used for offices, stores, schools, universities, hospitals, and other municipal or commercial organizations. The ultimate goal is to make these types of buildings 20 percent more energy efficient in the next 10 years. President Obama’s plan attempts to create these incentives through tax breaks and additional financing opportunities, building on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

The National Multi Housing Council commended the Better Buildings Initiative, and was quoted on the White House blog as a supporter of the tax initiatives, finances, and education for commercial buildings. While NMHC (and American Utility Management) are in general agreement, it’s important to remember that the devil is in the details.

Traditionally, multifamily properties have been lumped in with commercial buildings when it comes to these types of initiatives. There are a number of problems with the practice of categorizing multifamily property as commercial and corresponding challenges to implement larger energy management initiatives:

There is not enough information available surrounding the multifamily industry’s energy consumption to create a policy (such as the Better Buildings Initiative) that will help to reduce it. Sustainability strategies must be rooted in facts that we don’t have in the multifamily arena.

  • Unlike commercial buildings, very few multifamily buildings are master metered. Almost all units nationwide are individually metered for electricity and natural gas — which means building owners have no information about energy use in individual units.
  • To gather this information, local electric, gas, and water utilities would have to share unit-specific information, but state laws bar disclosure.

Facility infrastructure is old and varied. Would the incentives go far enough to justify the investment?

  • More than 15 million of the almost 24.5 million units in multifamily housing buildings with two or more units are at least 30 years old. New building codes will do little if anything to bring about efficiency improvements.
  • Buildings are of widely varying sizes, shapes, types, and locations, meaning the information collected must take specific multifamily factors into consideration for measurement.

Financial incentives for residents are difficult to establish due to resident/property dynamics.

  • More than 60 percent of tenants stay in their units for a year or less, making it difficult to assess and improve multifamily energy efficiency.
  • Property managers usually have an economic incentive to keep rents low (and occupancy high), but limited incentive to incur expenses to improve building energy efficiency.

Assessment and benchmarking tools are non-existent in multifamily. As multifamily property owners you’re told by numerous people that they can benchmark your utilities. Let me tell you why you’re wasting your money.

  • There is no uniform tool for measuring or assessing the energy efficiency of multifamily housing buildings or improvements to them. This makes it virtually impossible for residents to shop for housing based on energy efficiency, and it limits economic incentives to make building efficiency improvements.
  • Jurisdictions such as New York and Seattle are taking steps through legislation that specifically categorizes multifamily — and it’s a step in the right direction. But the only accepted measurement is EPA’s portfolio manager, geared to commercial/industrial applications. It does not take into account factors specific to multifamily mentioned above.

Without addressing each of these issues, there can’t be a comprehensive sustainability strategy for multifamily. And until that happens, we need to focus on what we do know –that reducing energy consumption will save property owners money — and educate the industry about why individual sustainability initiatives are important to their business.

This is not as sexy as the President’s press-savvy Better Buildings plan, but preventing multifamily energy dollars from being sucked into a black hole of additional expense is definitely attractive to multifamily business owners.

Without industry-wide standards for energy consumption, multifamily property owners need to take the initiative to operate more sustainably and cost-effectively. There are a number of simple ways to reduce energy and utility consumption.

Motion sensor faucets, which ensure not a drop of water is wasted, can reduce consumption by 10 to 15 percent at a single property. Installing occupancy sensors for lighting throughout the property can reduce electricity consumption by another 10 to 15 percent. Properties can also provide digital control systems to more accurately monitor boiler system temperature. These three tactics alone achieve a total cost reduction of 10 to 15 percent, a huge return on a comparatively minor investment.

Implementing these types of cost savers is the first step in establishing the effectiveness of efficiency upgrades in supporting larger sustainability campaigns, and protecting the bottom line.

This was a long-winded explanation of why President Obama’s Better Buildings Initiative needs to go further to work for multifamily. But it’s important to understand that if our industry blindly follows the agenda this plan is pushing, there’s significant potential for consumer confusion, incomplete and inadequate data-gathering, and waste of resources.

Michael Miller is President and CEO of American Utility Management (AUM). www.aum-inc.com. For the full blog go to http://blog.aum-inc.com/2011/02/16/why-president-obamas-better-buildings-initiative-doesnt-work-for-multifamily/

 

Share