Yes, but who?
March 5, 2009 – 10:23 amI went to the Alliance to Save Energy’s Great Energy Efficiency Day on Capital Hill yesterday with two questions in mind:
1) Amidst all the money the federal government has allocated in the Stimulus Package for energy efficiency, is there a piece dedicated to consumer education?
2) Given the $5 billion allocation for low-income weatherization projects, does that mean utilities who already offer those programs can allocate that part of their budgets elsewhere? Or does the government expect utilities to actually take on more weatherization projects?
I suppose that’s technically three questions. And it became apparent in Secretary Chu’s keynote address that I wasn’t going to like the answers. Bottom line: it appears the answer to the last two questions is nobody knows. The devil is in the details and nobody’s paid him a visit yet. Conservation Services Group, a provider of Home Energy Audits and other EE services for utilities gave a good overview of the realities: the stimulus allocation represents a 250% increase in the amount of money available for such projects over last year…which means 175,000 new employees are needed for implementation. And that means businesses like his, if they’re to do the work, need a longer-term commitment from the government to make them comfortable to invest in finding, hiring and training that workforce. (As it stands, the money is supposed to be spent in the next two years and there’s no promise of any more money to come after that.) Then there’s the issue of access to capital so businesses like CSG — who will likely be hired by utilities and states to implement these programs — can invest in the materials and staffing they need to make this happen.
The answer to the first question is maddening and frustrating. I asked it directly of Senator Bingaman, a long-time proponent of energy efficiency legislation and a leader in securing the EE money that’s been allocated in the stimulus package. His answer was that it’s up to individual businesses to promote energy efficiency. “I imagine if a solar manufacturer wants to sell his solar panels, he’ll promote the energy efficiency benefits of solar,” he said.
Therein lies the problem. According to our soon-to-be-released Utility Pulse study, two-thirds of the population thinks their homes are energy efficient just as they are. Our Energy Pulse 2008 study revealed that 61% of the population doesn’t think they’re using more electricity than they were five years ago, and the number one thing consumers think they should do to make their homes more energy efficient is to replace their windows.
Now, in all deference to our window manufacturing client, windows are often NOT the first thing somebody should replace if they simply seek to be more efficient. That’s a bit like killing a fly with an anvil. And that’s the problem with relying solely on individual manufacturers to educate consumers about how to be energy efficient. Window manufacturers will tout the energy savings associated with windows, insulation manufacturers will sell in the savings associated with insulation, appliance manufacturers will tout all the savings associated with new products and so forth. The end result is that consumers feeel MORE confused about what steps they should take to be efficient. And in the face of confusion, consumers do nothing.
Utilities have been the independent third party leading this charge, spending millions of dollars to promote energy efficiency — both on the product side and the behavior change side. But some members of yesterday’s session discounted the utility’s role, going so far as to say they shouldn’t be involved in the education of consumers on efficiency. David Springe, President of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates said, “We wouldn’t trust McDonald’s to solve our health care issues or Exxon Mobile to develop electric cars. Why would we trust utilities to take the lead on conservation – and bribe them with new rate structures – to do something that is fundamentally against what they exist to do: sell electricity.”
Sigh.
Secretary Chu and Senator Bingaman both made it clear it wasn’t up to the government, and I’ve spelled out the problem with relying on individual manufacturers to take the lead on umbrella efficiency education. If not the utilities, then who?
Related posts:
- The clunkers are still clunkers if they stay on the grid The new cash for Clunkers for Appliances will do little...
- “Saving money” may be a promise you can’t keep Every time your advertising promises "save money!" your target audience...
- Landfills are full of energy efficiency intentions To mainstream consumers, green = recycled, so any manufacturer of...
- Let there be light. And let it be from LEDs. Director of Insight Karen Barnes shares the latest LED lighting...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
3 Responses to “Yes, but who?”
While the first part of David Springe’s comment is accurate, even fun, I don’t think it is a very good metaphor to describe utilities and energy efficiency.
McDonald’s has never provided healthcare, and Exxon mobile does not sell electricity. We would trust utilities, at least in part, to take the lead on conservation because there is a price point in doing it. There are significant costs to upgrading the capacity of transmission, and there are huge costs in building new generation. Some of these costs can be avoided, and many can be delayed if progress is made in efficiency. Conservation/Energy Efficiency is the cheapest power available when treated as a resource, and the conscious utilities are seeking it out and finding it.
His point is well founded for the utilities that still provide incentives for customers to use more electricity (inverted block pricing, where the price goes down the more one consumes) but for those that have “decoupled” their rate structure the motivation is there.
I understand that this process is harder for utilities that do not have resources that ramp easily (like hydro generation) but there must be ways for them to benefit. California found a way by tapping their customers and providing better rates if given the freedom to turn some services off when needed to control demand. There must be other ways as well.
While McDonalds does not provide health care they have responded to the market demands of healthier options.
I strongly agree that we cannot let local marketing control the “energy efficiency image”. I receive at least half a dozen calls a week about windows, and a high percentage of those customers do not have insulation in their floors.
By Matt Deppe on Mar 9, 2009
I submitted a specific question to the conference panel on the mechanism for delivering low-income weatherization to those who need it. The current system is opaque with three levels of government hierarchy and four levels of implementation between the money and the end user. The EERE weatherization program web links are a model of how not to educate an end user.
Although my question didn’t make it to the conference floor, Ms. Shelton’s question and Bingaman’s responsibility-shifting answer indicated to me that low-income citizens’ access to the weatherization program is still a long way off.
Putting myself in the place of a weatherization recipient (which may require no role-playing on my part in the coming lean years), I would like to see a one-page letter in my mailbox containing a list of home weatherization measures in order of cost-effectiveness, a simple explanation to see who qualifies (not scaled multipliers of previously legislated thresholds), phone numbers for qualified service providers, and a clear mechanism for getting reimbursed. This would consolidate program education and a call to action.
I don’t believe energy audits are necessary, as they add two or more layers of hierarchy to the process. A smart installer in a truck with a smorgasbord of weatherization products should suffice.
By Joel Fairstein on Mar 12, 2009
I’d like to see a letter going to everyone’s mailboxes as well…and the question is who will pay for it? I think utilities can certainly play a role here, but that’s not a national effort. State energy offices could do the same, but they may feel like they don’t have the money in the budget. It’s a shame that though we’ve allocated money federally to make energy efficiency happen nobody thought about how we’d tell people about the money available.
By SShelton on Mar 18, 2009