Markets for Energy Efficiency in 2013: Part II

Elisa Wood
January 02, 2013 | 5 Comments

California holds the unofficial title of greenest of U.S. states. But Massachusetts might swipe the crown if it keeps up its current pace investing in green energy.

For those in the energy efficiency industry, Massachusetts is a state to watch for opportunity. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has named Massachusetts the top state for energy efficiency two years running. Massachusetts spends more per capita on efficiency than any other, and it requires that its utilities seek all cost-effective energy efficiency before securing new power sources.

Expect opportunity to heighten in Massachusetts next year. A key state advisory council in November approved utility efficiency plans that total $2.01 billion for 2013-2015. The plans require approval by the state Department of Public Utilities. A decision is likely in early 2013.

The utilities expect the plans to save 3.7 million MWh of electricity, enough to power more than 500,000 households for one year. Money for the programs comes from a surcharge on utility bills and auction proceeds from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

Massachusetts utilities already offer a broad swath of efficiency programs under their previous three-year plan. A report from an energy advisory council to the Massachusetts State Legislature highlights results and includes several brief case studies, among them:

Cape Cod’s famous Sea Crest Hotel is saving more than $83,000 annually in energy costs because of a $413,000 renovation that included re-insulation, Energy Star windows, high efficiency lighting and sensors, and a roof that is weather-proofed against salt air. The Sea Crest received incentives of $126,536. Payback is 3.4 years.
Simonds International, a worldwide manufacturer of cutting tools, installed a $5.5 million combined heat and power plant. The on-site project is expected to save Simonds $1.7 million per year over 24 years. Simonds received incentives of $606,546. Payback is 2.9 years.
A family in the town of Westford installed over a dozen CFL light bulbs at no cost, following an audit. The auditor also recommended sealing the air leaks and adding insulation to the 48-year-old home. The project cost $3,486, partially offset by incentives totaling $2,550. The family’s annual energy savings is $228.36 and payback is four years.

Neighboring Connecticut is another state to watch in 2013. Already ranked high by ACEEE, Connecticut is preparing a new state energy plan that in draft form places renewed emphasis on energy efficiency. Among other things the plan calls for reaching “all sectors and all buildings,” including government, municipalities, universities, colleges, schools, hospitals, churches, businesses and homes.” It places special focus on small businesses and low-income housing.

Connecticut’s plan goes beyond a “traditional focus on upgraded lighting and weather stripping to deliver deeper efficiency gains in heating, air conditioning, ventilation, insulation, windows, furnaces, boilers, and other appliances.”

In addition, Connecticut intends to set efficiency standards for new construction and retrofits. The plan calls for benchmarking buildings and requiring owners then disclose efficiency scores when renting or selling the property.

The Connecticut proposal is winding its way through the state approval process, which readers can follow on the website of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.

Then there is California, no longer number one for energy efficiency, but always the elephant in the room when it comes to green energy in the US. The California Public Utilities Commission has approved about $2 billion in energy efficiency programs for 2013-2014.

“The nearly $2 billion investment over the next two years will enable utilities, local governments, nonprofits, and others like energy efficiency auditors, installers, and retrofit companies carry out programs beginning in January 2013 to help electric and natural gas utility customers save energy,” says Lara Ettenson, a director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a recent blog.

More information is available at the California Division of Ratepayer Advocates site.

For information on prospect for business in New York, see my December 12 blog, “Markets for Energy Efficiency 2013: Part I” at RealEnergyWriters.com.

And to track immediate opportunities for energy efficiency companies, see Energy Efficiency Markets’ free weekly listing of solicitations, also available at RealEnergyWriters.com.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer who contributes regularly to several top energy industry publications. Her work also has been picked up by the New York Times, CNN and Reuters.

Lead image: U.S. map via Shutterstock

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

5 Comments

Gary Richardson
January 7, 2013

The more distributed power becomes, the more responsibility there is for the distributed sources to pay their share of maintaining a smart grid directly or indirectly. Some of the SREC expense could be proportionally directed toward removing the carbon from coal and using that carbon in the form of nutrients for agriculture, superfund cleaning, and potentially strutural material rather than just piping CO2 into the ground.

Phil Manke
January 4, 2013

It is interesting that an energy reporter would make no mention of MA's thriving SREC trading program. It has even "tanked" compared to what it was a while back, when it was paying $500 per SREC, second only to NJ, which was also second only to CA in solar adoption, electric and thermal. I wonder who could use an extra $.20 per KWH for solar generated energy that is covered (paid for) by the coal burners of the state in carbon payments. The Ute's would, of course, rather pay that cost back to themselves for their wind, hydro, methane, and other RE venues more under their profit umbrella, (as they do in the non-SREC states with RES's), than allow any other citizen investor to get one cent of "their" energy. dollar.. MA does make it difficult to get into the SREC trading program tho. Can't let just anyone receive distributed solar energy generation credit when the Utes pay for their role as "go-to-guys" of energy in the established channels. ............ Please pardon my sarcasm as I see this wholey fair and equitable program slide off the radar in the eastern states that have used it well to get distributed energy to anyone willing to share their solar generated wealth. I'm livin the "Solar Sweetlife" in snowy, cold WI, where we have an RES, but with NO "solar carve-out". That's partly due to a Progressive party that believes it's role is to complain about conservative policies instead of encouraging truly progressive ones for everyone and the environment. Wake up WI, et. al.

Gerry Wootton
January 4, 2013

Anonymous makes a point - Californians have high expectations; not surprisingly, they are actually doing rather well - pushing even more conservation and more renewable capacity. At the other end of the spectrum, Kentukyans use 193% more electricity, mostly produced from coal, and their web page for energy efficiency reads like an add for coal.

Gerry Wootton
January 4, 2013

California is a tough act to follow: it ranks 50th in per capita electricity consumption and 48th in utilization (Wh/GDP$). Massachusetts is 45th and 46th respectively while Connecticut is 44th and 50th. These are all challenging markets for conservation as they already achieve a high standard. It would be real news if some of the power pig states were to get serious about conservation: The percapita consumption of the 5 worst states (Wyoming, Kentucky, North Dakota, Louisiana, Alabama)is 228% higher than the 5 best (California, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut).

ANONYMOUS
January 3, 2013

While I'm a resident of southern California, I frankly cannot see by what reasonable criteria my state would be considered the "greenest state". California imports much of its electricity, it imports much of its gasoline and diesel fuel, and it imports most of the consumer products and commodities that produce emissions.

Electricity comes from Nevada and Arizona, plastics come from Texas, gasoline and cement come from Mexico. California has only become "green" by shifting its emissions output to other places.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Elisa Wood

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry's top magazines and newsletters. Her blog on energy efficiency appears on more than 100 sites and has been picked up by the New York Times and Reuters. She...