skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: A Mulit-State Model for Catalyzing the Home Energy Efficiency Market

Abstract

The RePower Kitsap partnership sought to jump-start the market for energy efficiency upgrades in Kitsap County, an underserved market on Puget Sound in Washington State. The Washington State Department of Commerce partnered with Washington State University (WSU) Energy Program to supplement and extend existing utility incentives offered by Puget Sound Energy (PSE) and Cascade Natural Gas and to offer energy efficiency finance options through the Kitsap Credit Union and Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union (PSCCU). RePower Kitsap established a coordinated approach with a second Better Buildings Neighborhood Program project serving the two largest cities in the county – Bainbridge Island and Bremerton. These two projects shared both the “RePower” brand and implementation team (Conservation Services Group (CSG) and Earth Advantage).

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
WA Dept. of Commerce
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE; USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (EE-2K)
OSTI Identifier:
1124609
Report Number(s):
DOE-WACOM-EE04447
DOE Contract Number:
EE0004447
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY; Residential energy efficiency Better Buildings Multiple partners

Citation Formats

Blackmon, Glenn. A Mulit-State Model for Catalyzing the Home Energy Efficiency Market. United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.2172/1124609.
Blackmon, Glenn. A Mulit-State Model for Catalyzing the Home Energy Efficiency Market. United States. doi:10.2172/1124609.
Blackmon, Glenn. Tue . "A Mulit-State Model for Catalyzing the Home Energy Efficiency Market". United States. doi:10.2172/1124609. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1124609.
@article{osti_1124609,
title = {A Mulit-State Model for Catalyzing the Home Energy Efficiency Market},
author = {Blackmon, Glenn},
abstractNote = {The RePower Kitsap partnership sought to jump-start the market for energy efficiency upgrades in Kitsap County, an underserved market on Puget Sound in Washington State. The Washington State Department of Commerce partnered with Washington State University (WSU) Energy Program to supplement and extend existing utility incentives offered by Puget Sound Energy (PSE) and Cascade Natural Gas and to offer energy efficiency finance options through the Kitsap Credit Union and Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union (PSCCU). RePower Kitsap established a coordinated approach with a second Better Buildings Neighborhood Program project serving the two largest cities in the county – Bainbridge Island and Bremerton. These two projects shared both the “RePower” brand and implementation team (Conservation Services Group (CSG) and Earth Advantage).},
doi = {10.2172/1124609},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Tue Mar 25 00:00:00 EDT 2014},
month = {Tue Mar 25 00:00:00 EDT 2014}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • In 1991 and early 1992, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), established a National Collaborative on Home Energy Rating Systems (HERS) and Energy Efficient Mortgages (EEMs). The Collaborative's purpose was to involve stakeholders at a national policy level to develop a plan leading the nation toward a voluntary system linking HERS with EEMs. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) coordinated the National Collaborative's meetings for DOE. Composed of representatives from 25 stakeholder organizations, the Collaborative, after some 14 meetings, reached consensus on two documents, both published by NRELmore » in mg 1992: A National Program for Energy-Efficient Mortgages and Home Energy Rating Systems: A Blueprint for Action and Going National with HERS and EEMs: Issues and Impacts, The Collected Papers of the National Collaborative.« less
  • This evaluation assesses the impacts resulting from the establishment of Model Conversation Standards (MCS) for single-family home construction in the Pacific Northwest. It seeks to analyze how far Bonneville Power Administration's MCS programs have advanced construction practices in the region. The two MCS programs studied here are: (1) the Super Good Cents (SGC) Program--a marketing program administered by public and private utilities to promote energy efficient practices within Bonneville's service territory; and, (2) the early Adopter (EA) Program--a code program adopted and administrated by local governments to promote energy efficient practices within the Bonneville service territory. The analysis compares threemore » categories of electrically heated homes built in 1987: SGC, EA, and non-MCS homes. These, in turn, are compared with homes built between 1976 and 1984, prior to the regionwide implementation of the MCS, that constitute the control group for Bonneville's Residential Standards Demonstration Program (RSDP). The evaluation is comprised of four interrelated components: (1) an analysis of general housing and occupant characteristics, (2) a construction characteristics analysis, (3) a performance analysis based on simulations, and (4) an analysis of energy use based on electricity billing data. 49 refs., 14 figs., 65 tabs.« less
  • A simplified model of global, long-term energy use is described and used to make a `top-level` comparison of two generic approaches for mitigating atmospheric carbon emissions: (a) those based on increased energy efficiency; and (b) those based on increased use of reduced- or non-carbon fuels. As approximate as is the model, first-order estimates of and trade offs between increasing non-carbon generation capacities (e.g., supply-side solutions) versus energy-use efficiency (e.g., demand-side solutions) to stem atmospheric carbon accumulations can be useful in guiding more elaborate models. At the level of this analysis, both the costs of abatement and the costs of damagemore » can be large, with the formation of benefit-to-cost ratios as a means of assessment being limited by uncertainties associated with relating given climatic responses to greenhouse warming to aggregate damage cost, as well as uncertainties associated with procedures used for multi-generation discounting of both abatement and damage costs. In view of uncertainties associated with both supply-side and demand-side approaches, as well as the estimation of greenhouse-warming responses per se, a combination of solutions seems prudent. Key findings are: (a) the relative insensitivity of the benefit-to-cost ratio adopted in this study to supply-side versus demand-side approaches to abating atmospheric carbon-dioxide emissions; (b) the extreme sensitivity of damage costs, abatement costs, and the related benefit-to-cost ratios to the combination of discounting procedure and the (time) concavity of the function used to relate global temperature rise to damage costs; and (c) no matter the discounting procedure and/or functional relationship between average temperature rise and a damage cost, a goal of increased per-capita gross world product at minimum damage suggests action now rather than delay.« less
  • There is growing interest in energy efficiency (EE) among state policymakers as a result of increasing environmental concerns, rising electricity and natural gas prices, and lean economic times that motivate states to look more aggressively for cost-saving opportunities in public sector buildings. One logical place for state policymakers to demonstrate their commitment to energy efficiency is to 'lead by example' by developing and implementing strategies to reduce the energy consumption of state government facilities through investments in energy efficient technologies. Traditionally, energy efficiency improvements at state government facilities are viewed as a subset in the general category of building maintenancemore » and construction. These projects are typically funded through direct appropriations. However, energy efficiency projects are often delayed or reduced in scope whereby not all cost-effective measures are implemented because many states have tight capital budgets. Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) offers a potentially useful strategy for state program and facility managers to proactively finance and develop energy efficiency projects. In an ESPC project, Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) typically guarantee that the energy and cost savings produced by the project will equal or exceed all costs associated with implementing the project over the term of the contract. ESCOs typically provide turnkey design, installation, and maintenance services and also help arrange project financing. Between 1990 and 2006, U.S. ESCOs reported market activity of {approx}$28 Billion, with about {approx}75-80% of that activity concentrated in the institutional markets (K-12 schools, colleges/universities, state/local/federal government and hospitals). In this study, we review the magnitude of energy efficiency investment in state facilities and identify 'best practices' while employing performance contracting in the state government sector. The state government market is defined to include state offices, state universities, correctional facilities, and other state facilities. This study is part of a series of reports prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and the National Association of Energy Services Companies (NAESCO) on the ESCO market and industry trends. The scope of previous reports was much broader: Goldman et al. (2002) analyzed ESCO project costs and savings in public and private sector facilities, Hopper et al. (2005) focused on ESCO project activity in all public and institutional sectors, while Hopper et al (2007) provided aggregate results of a comprehensive survey of ESCOs on current industry activity and future prospects. We decided to focus the current study on ESCO and energy efficiency activity and potential market barriers in the state government market because previous studies suggested that this institutional sector has significant remaining energy efficiency opportunities. Moreover, ESCO activity in the state government market has lagged behind other institutional markets (e.g., K-12 schools, local governments, and the federal market). Our primary objectives were as follows: (1) Assess existing state agency energy information and data sources that could be utilized to develop performance metrics to assess progress among ESPC programs in states; (2) Conduct a comparative review of the performance of selected state ESPC programs in reducing energy usage and costs in state government buildings; and (3) Delineate the extent to which state government sector facilities are implementing energy efficiency projects apart from ESPC programs using other strategies (e.g. utility ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs, loan funds).« less