No place like home for energy savings

By Elisa Wood

November 12, 2009

Apparently there is no place like home, even when it comes to fulfilling lofty wishes like fixing our energy supply.

A recent White House task force on the middle class finds that our homes generate more than 20% of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions. If we make our houses more efficient, we can significantly cut emissions and reduce energy use by 40%, a move that could lower our bills by $21 billion annually.

But who has the extra cash in this economy for better windows and an updated heating system?

The report recommends leveraging some of the $80 billion in energy and environment stimulus funds to set up financing mechanisms that let homeowners pay over time and avoid the upfront hit.

Already, to that end, several states have created low-interest revolving loan funds. Nebraska has set aside $11 million. Florida is offering $10 million, particularly for solar hot water installations. And yes, Dorothy, you can go home again. Kansas has gotten into the act with $34 million in efficiency loans.

In addition, the task force encourages federally funded pilot programs using ‘Property Assessed Clean Energy’ financing. Now available in a handful of cities, these programs finance clean energy efforts on property tax bills. Ideally, the efficiency retrofits will reduce energy bills at least as much as property payments rise, so that the homeowner faces no net increase in expenses. Particularly interesting, the loan stays with the property – not the owner. So if the homeowner decides to sell, the new owner, who reaps the benefits of the efficient home, also pays any remaining costs of the retrofit.

Similarly, the report calls for making energy efficiency mortgages more available. The US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development needs to work with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to establish uniform procedures for such mortgage products, the report says.  In addition, the home appraisal industry must develop methods to evaluate a home’s energy efficiency.

And finally, the report says the housing industry deserves the same opportunity given to the appliance industry with Energy Star labels. Americans saved $19 billion on their utility bills last year with Energy Star appliances, according to the report. A similar label for homes would help buyers in their shopping and provide a benchmark for auditors, retrofitters, lenders and realtors.

To realize these recommendations, the report calls for creation of an interagency ‘Energy Retrofit Working Group,’ chaired by the Department of Energy, HUD, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Is the White House doing more than tapping its shoes together to bring the initiative home? Monitor these two sites for progress: http://www.whitehouse.gov/strongmiddleclass/blog

http://www.whitehouse.gov/strongmiddleclass

Visit Elisa Wood at http://www.realenergywriters.com/ and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Energy research and the cobbler’s children

By Elisa Wood

November 5, 2009

Scientific research has brought us products that offer greater energy efficiency. But is research, itself, energy efficient?

Evan Mills, staff scientist with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, raises this question and points out what may be a largely untapped market for energy efficiency companies: research labs. (See Environmental Science & Technology, http://eetd.lbl.gov/emills/pubs/pdf/sustainable-scientists.pdf.)

US researchers “unwittingly” spend about $10 billion annually on energy, he says in the article, and could cut the bill by half through sustainable practices.

It’s important to take a look at research efficiency because labs are often energy intensive. Researchers may work in hyper clean environments with sophisticated air ventilation, or they may need data centers with vast air-conditioning. Thus, a lab’s utility bills can be “staggering,” he says. Consider CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, whose 230-MW capacity needs costs $80 million per year; or the US Department of Energy’s data centers, which pay $100 million per year for energy.

Money saved through efficiency could be channeled into more research. Yet only 1 to 3% of research labs operate in “green” facilities. LBNL has created a model energy efficient lab setting at its Molecular Foundry, a nanotechnology lab in Berkeley, California. With LEED gold certification, the facility has achieved energy savings 28% beyond California’s already aggressive building standard. http://www.kawneer.com/kawneer/north_america/en/news/releases/LBNL_Release_FINAL.pdf

Typically, laboratory’s can find energy savings by using  premium-efficiency fume hoods and laboratory equipment, avoiding over-ventilation, limiting pressure drop in the ventilation system, engaging in energy recovery, minimizing simultaneous heating and cooling, and properly sizing space conditioning equipment to match energy needs, according to Mills.

He recommends that we reduce energy costs by including efficiency requirements in research solicitations. Labs could then calculate the cost of efficient equipment or building improvements into a proposal’s capital expenditures.

“Doing the right thing isn’t the only reason to strive for improved sustainability,” Mills says in the article. “The scientific enterprise depends on availability of ample energy and can be fettered by its cost. In the 1980s, LBNL’s particle accelerators were responsible for the vast majority of site-wide energy use. Indeed, the Bevatron’s [a particle accelerator] energy budget only allowed for ten months of experiments each year. At the time, raising the energy efficiency of the process (e.g., through improved magnets and power supplies) trimmed consumption and costs sufficiently to enable a full year of experiments to be conducted.”

Today, it appears energy research has succumbed to the syndrome of the cobbler’s children who have no shoes. Science discovers efficiencies, but doesn’t necessarily put them to use for its own purposes. Given our growing mastery of common efficiency practices in homes and businesses, research labs represent a new frontier for the energy efficiency industry.

Visit Elisa Wood at http://www.realenergywriters.com/ and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Smart grid and stupid buildings: Can this marriage survive?

By Elisa Wood 

August 20, 2009 

Smart grid is still in its honeymoon phase. Hardly a day goes by without fanfare in the news about how it will reform building energy use. Maybe so. But for the marriage of smart grid and US buildings to work, someone’s got to change. Is the stupid building up to the task? 

“Wiring the Smart Grid for Energy Efficiency,” a white paper by Oregon-based Portland Energy Conservation Inc (PECI), brings us down to earth by pointing out how much transformation is required.  

First, the bill. Smart meters alone will cost about $35 billion to install in 140 million U.S. homes and small businesses. Estimates are that nationwide, we’ll need to spend $400 billion to $900 billion to create a truly smart grid. Sure, forecasts Indicate smart grid will more than pay for itself. But where does the upfront capital come from? 

Second, many of our buildings wouldn’t know what to do with a smart meter. Their control systems are not up to the task. This could spell trouble if the systems are not improved before smart devices are installed. “Imagine if a building was called upon to reduce load, and while all the controls were in place to raise the temperature setpoint throughout the building to 76°F, this action results in four offices overheating to 83°F due to the need for air distribution system maintenance and sensor calibration,” the PECI paper says. 

Third, how do we achieve “true interoperability of communications,” or rather, get the smart grid and stupid building to talk? This will require development of a common language, still in the works. “In residential applications, grid-aware appliances will become widespread only if they are easy to install. For example, a washing machine that receives a price signal from the electric grid and correspondingly makes decisions about whether to operate should be able to be installed by a homeowner or by a contractor without expensive set-up costs. This kind of plug-and-play operation requires that the appliance automatically operates with the utility’s communications network as well as any home energy monitoring system.” 

Automation will be crucial. Or at the least, data display must be understandable and compelling. The report points out that consumers already suffer from information overload, so are unlikely to take the time to respond to price signals without strong incentive. Worse, consumers might treat energy savings like “a fad diet rather than a lifestyle change,” making it difficult for our society to achieve lasting energy savings.

We’ve yet to come up with the “killer application” to make smart grid a mass-market product, like what email did for the Internet. Further, we’re entering this new terrain with a lack of experienced building performance engineers.

The report does not say smart grid won’t live up to its promise of achieving dramatic energy savings. Quite the contrary. Smart grid may be one of the most brilliant ideas of our time. But we must proceed soberly.

The white paper is available at http://peci.org/About/smartgrid_whitepaper_final_071709.pdf.

Visit Elisa Wood at http://www.realenergywriters.com/ and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter

Reality check: Is green arrogant?

By Elisa Wood

June 25, 2009

During a recent interview, a utility executive used the phrase “the arrogance of renewable energy.” He was talking about the need to keep costs in check and implying that green energy businesses do not.

The executive asked that I not attach his name to the phrase. He was afraid he would anger those in the renewable energy world with whom he does business. Not so long ago, utilities publicly criticized renewable energy without a second thought. His reticence to do so underscored to me just how powerful the green energy movement has become in the United States. From town councilors up to the US President, the political official is rare who does not back green energy.

To quote FDR, with power comes responsibility. In a world where green energy is receiving unprecedented public funds, the industry needs to ensure that public money is not squandered.

For energy efficiency, this means accurate measurement of savings, particularly in performance contracting. No fudging. Fortunately, the IT world increasingly offers technology that can pinpoint with accuracy if energy efficient motors, fans, lighting and other equipment lives up to its promise. http://www.onsetcomp.com/resources/white_papers.

Equally important, organizations like ASHRAE and the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) are looking for more meaningful ways to quantify energy savings.

Green designs that work in theory do not always work in practice. An empty building does always behave the same way as a building with people filling the space. That is why the US Green Building Council plans to require operational performance data on a recurring basis as a precondition for LEED certification. http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/MPRs%200609.pdf

“Today there is all too often a disconnect, or performance gap, between the energy modeling done during the design phase and what actually happens during daily operation after the building is constructed,” said Scot Horst, senior vice president of LEED, U.S. Green Building Council. “We’re convinced that ongoing monitoring and reporting of data is the single best way to drive higher building performance because it will bring to light external issues such as occupant behavior or unanticipated building usage patterns, all key factors that influence performance.”

Horst added: “Similar to the sticker on a new car that says the car will get 30 miles to the gallon — the car is calibrated to perform, but it’s also reliant on the driver’s habits.”

Meanwhile, ASHRAE is working on a prototype label, or “Building EQ” that measures energy use in a building in two ways. A new building initially receives an asset rating, based on its design. After its performance is monitored for a year and data is collected on actual energy use, the building becomes eligible for an operational rating http://www.ashrae.org/pressroom/detail/17194.

“When potential building tenants and owners have information on the properties they are interested in, they can understand the full cost of their investment and place a value on the energy efficiency of a building. ASHRAE’s label will help building owners differentiate their product in a technically sound manner while providing tenants with the tools they need to select energy-efficient spaces,” said Ron Jarnagin, who chairs the committee developing the label.

Accurate measuring and monitoring increasingly seems to be the name of the game in a world where use of public funds demands accountability. Performance labels are a far better alternative for the green energy world than labels of arrogance.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Who gets the EE stimulus money?

By Elisa Wood

February 19, 2009

The ink is dry on President Obama’s signature to the federal stimulus bill and word is out that energy efficiency receives more than $20 billion. How will homeowners and businesses benefit?

Two sources offer an excellent break-down on the incentives: the Alliance to Save Energy and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a unit of the US Department of Energy. EERE goes so far as to give the page numbers in the bill that address certain incentives.

Here is a snap shot of where some of the energy efficiency funds will go.

Housing & Buildings

• $5 billion for low-income weatherization assistance, plus an expansion of people who are eligible. An increase in the funding level to $6,500 per home.
• About $4.75 billion to Housing and Urban Development for public, low-income and Native American housing
• Tax credit for existing homes extended and increased to 30 percent of cost, up to $1,500 for 2009 and 2010
• About $8.9 billion for federal buildings, including $4.5 billion for green buildings and $3.6 billion for Department of Defense energy efficiency initiatives

Appliances

• $300 million for the Energy Star Program and for matching grants to states that offer rebates to consumers for buying Energy Star appliances.

Technology

• $4.5 billion for smart grid projects
• Up to $2.3 billion allotted for a 30 percent investment tax credit given to those who manufacture renewable energy, energy storage, energy conservation, efficient transmission, and carbon capture and sequestration items.

Transportation

• $400 million to encourage the use of plug-in hybrids
• $17.7 billion for public transportation and rail
• $2 billion for the manufacture of advanced batteries

Other

• $3.1 billion for state energy programs and $3.2 billion in block grants for local governments
• $500 million to prepare workers for jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency
• $9.75 billion for public safety and other government services, including renovation to “green” schools

Further details are available at http://ase.org/content/article/detail/5388 and http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/enn.cfm

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Is there romance in energy efficiency?

By Elisa Wood

January 29, 2009

My mother told me many good reasons why I should get married. She appears to have forgotten one. It’s energy efficient.

Single people – at least those without roommates – appear to be gobbling up a lot of our energy supply. In fact, one person households are a main cause of consumer energy waste, according to a recent study “Consumer Energy Spending and the Demographics of Over-Consumption” by SMR Research. http://www.smrresearch.com/Energysummary.htm.

One in four households contains just one person. Singleton households have grown at rate three times faster than the population since 1960. Singletons use 18.4% more energy per capita than two-person households and 52.8% more than three-person households.

And it is not just that these folks live alone. Like all of us they live in bigger and bigger houses. The average new home is 34% larger than one built in 1980. People in a house with ten or more rooms use 18.8% more energy than those in eight-room homes, and 31.3% more than people in seven-room homes. The age of the house doesn’t matter.

Reversing this trend could dramatically reduce U.S. energy use. Yet, household demographics and home building are seldom mentioned in the debate over global warming and energy independence, say the researchers.

“This study shows that energy conservationists need a new public message,” said SMR President Stuart A. Feldstein. “The old focus on things like home insulation and auto fleet mileage is incomplete. People who decide to live alone, now more than one of every four households, and people who buy the McMansions, are those who squander our energy resources.”

Is it fair of us to single out singletons? Probably not. We all are guilty of energy waste in our own ways. Still with ‘green’ so popular these days, has no one yet proposed marriage with: “Will you be mine? It’s energy efficient.”

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Energy Efficiency Markets chooses its favorites of 2008

By Reid Smith
January 8, 2009

We appreciate the entries submitted for Energy Efficiency Markets’ first annual ‘best of’ contest. It is difficult to select winners in an industry that is burgeoning with innovation. We hope you find our selections as intriguing as we did. Please continue to email us (realenergywriters@comcast.net) about interesting projects – we’d like to highlight them periodically in our weekly newsletter:

1. Best appliance: Energy orb

Remember the mood rings we wore as kids? The stone changed color depending on how we felt. Here is a variation on the theme: an orb that signals the energy mood of a building, glowing angry red when energy use is high and green when consumption is low. A kind of smart meter, this crystal ball helped Oberlin College students cut back by 56% on energy use in their dorms. What’s interesting is that the kids don’t pay energy bills – still they responded to the magic ball. http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2008/12/18/power-meters-help-homeowners-track-and-cut-their-energy-use/

2. Most innovative public policy: Connecticut

Connecticut tends toward gutsy moves when it comes to energy policy. The state is embracing innovation to reduce its electric rates, which hover around the second or third highest in the nation. We like Connecticut’s energy efficiency certificate or “white tag” trading program, which takes a page from the successful renewable energy certificate market now in several states. Companies, colleges, hospitals, factories and others earn the tags or credits for their energy reductions. They then sell credits to utilities or others who need them to meet state energy efficiency mandates. http://www.incisivemedia.com/energyrisk/Environmental_Risk/PDFs/Spring2008/7_EnvRisk_EnergyEfficiency.pdf

3. ESCO: CMC Energy Services

The health of any industry depends on truth in advertising. If the efficiency industry overstates what it can achieve, consumers will quickly lose faith. That is why we like the honesty in CMC Energy Services’ Home Energy Tune-uP®. The company calls it a pay-as-you-save residential energy audit program; it identifies the group of improvements in the home that will truly pay for themselves when financed. The whole house audit takes into account how various improvements interact and change your payback. If you install insulation, and you also get a new heat pump, less scrupulous auditors will calculate insulation savings based on your old, inefficient heat pump. That overstates your savings. CMC adjusts its audit to take into account the new heat pump. Consumers get a realistic picture. CMC also uses home inspectors to do the audits, rather than contractors who may have a natural conflict of interest. http://www.hometuneup.com/

4. Demand-response: Energy Curtailment Specialists

The DR market has several emerging players that deserve credit for growing use of the resource. We had a hard time deciding who to choose. We finally selected Energy Curtailment Specialists because of its intelligently packaged “Power Pay.” See http://www.ecsgrid.com for the company’s plain-talk pitch, one that avoids most of the jargon peculiar to demand response programs. FAO Schwarz and the Hyatt Regency are among recent converts to the program.

5. Transportation: Google

Google made a product that is so popular its name has become a commonly used verb. Now the company turns its attention to greening the world. Among other things, Google has a fleet of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) at its Mountain View headquarters for employee use. Following a seven-week experiment, Google announced some impressive performance from its fleet. The PHEVs averaged as much as 93 MPG average across all trips, and 115 MPG on city trips. http://www.google.org/recharge/. Will we eventually “PHEV” instead of drive?

6. Green building and construction: Pairing of green energy and efficiency

Here we honor not so much a company but a concept: the efforts by renewable energy companies to get customers to pursue all cost-effective efficiency before buying green energy. For example, California-based3Degrees, which markets renewable energy certificates (RECs) and carbon offsets, starts by analyzing a building’s carbon footprint. If it finds strong efficiency potential, 3Degress contracts with a third party to take on the project. http://www.3degreesinc.com. Chevron Energy Services offers a good example of successfully pairing solar and efficiency at three campuses of Contra Costa Community College. The $35.2 million Northern California project includes a 3.2-MW solar power generation system, efficient lighting and energy management systems, efficient heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, and high-voltage electrical system replacements. http://www.chevron.com/News/Press/release/?id=2008-01-31

Visit Reid Smith at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up his free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Front-load washers: Leaky solar panels revisited?

By Elisa Wood

December 11, 2008

Some days I’d like to throw my front-load clothes washer out the back door. But that probably won’t be necessary because it may walk out on its own.

The LG product shakes and rattles so much in the spin cycle that it ‘walks’ several inches across the floor each day. One guest to my kitchen thought we were experiencing an earthquake. Sears repairmen have visited twice, but tell me nothing is wrong with the machine: front loaders just do that. In fact, one repairman confessed that he’s called out to homes “all the time” because of these over-agitated beasts.

I spent several hundred dollars more on this machine than I would a conventional washer that loads clothes from the top. I was willing to do this because front loaders are more energy efficient. They use about one-third as much water as top-loading machines. That translates into less energy needed to warm the water. Front-loaders also spin faster, removing more moisture from clothes so that they require less time in the dryer.

The machine includes sophisticated electronics and can perform all sorts of tricks — from automatically measuring the size of laundry load to singing me a sweet song when the cycle is over. But I eye its friendly R2D2-like exterior warily. How soon before all of the rattling and rolling breaks the delicate electronics, and I have a hefty repair bill?

Several months after I bought the machine, Sears advised that the machine might stop shaking if I shored up the laundry room floor from below and replaced the linoleum with tile. Sears sales folks did not tell me before I bought the machine that its successful use required home remodeling.

Supposedly, a next generation front loader will be released shortly that does not try to escape its owners. I’m not sure what good that does me – and so many others – who already put down our hard-earned cash on today’s poor design.

I write this not to whine about my purchasing misstep, but to point out the dangers that faulty products cause the green energy movement. We’ve been down this road before. In the 1980s, when high oil prices piqued consumer interest in renewable energy, the industry rushed solar panels to market without properly training installers. Many roofs leaked. Renewable energy became associated with poor quality. Today, the solar industry wisely puts a great deal of effort into proper training of installers and product warranties. Solar panels, in fact, are now associated with quality custom construction. But it took years to restore consumer confidence.

Energy efficient appliances risk the same backlash if they take advantage of our desire to do the right thing. Consumers are willing to pay more for greater efficiency; their willingness will falter if energy efficiency becomes associated with inferior workmanship.

The stakes are high. In the not-too-distant future the auto industry is likely to offer the plug-in hybrid vehicle. A source I interviewed recently pointed out the enormous damage to public confidence that will occur if the plug-in hybrid is introduced before its battery is perfected. Not long ago several million laptop computers were recalled because their batteries overheated and sometimes caught fire. Imagine the consumer dismay if several million plug-ins cars – far more expensive than laptops — were recalled ? I am as eager as anyone to fuel my car by plugging it into an electric socket. But I do hope the auto industry takes its time overcoming the difficulties of perfecting the battery and gets it right before marketing the cars.

The public supports green products now more than any other time in our history. We may think that this support is rock solid. I’m not so sure. My front-load washer could rattle anything.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and combined heat & power

By Elisa Wood

Dec. 4, 2008

The universe contains many mysteries. A big one for me is: Why doesn’t the United States use more combined heat and power (CHP)?

It requires an energy geek, of course, to even ask that question. Most of the world knows nothing about CHP, even when referenced by its other name: cogeneration. So it was heartening to see the Department of Energy’s recent effort to educate the public in a Dec. 1 report: “Combined Heat and Power: Effective Energy Solutions for a Sustainable Future.” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/distributedenergy/

What’s the problem with CHP? People are unaware of it – even though it’s been around for 100 years. It could benefit from a marketing makeover, especially a name change. Combined heat and power does not roll off the tongue easily like solar and wind, nor does it evoke an image of efficiency and greenness.

Here is a quick definition: CHP systems are a form of distributed energy (like solar) built close to where they are used. They generate electricity and use the excess heat that is produced to cool or warm the building. So a CHP system uses one fuel to create two resources – power and usable heat. As a result, CHP plants are about 35% more efficient than typical generators.

“CHP may not be widely recognized outside industrial, commercial, institutional, and utility circles, but it has quietly been providing highly efficient electricity and process heat to some of the most vital industries, largest employers, urban centers, and campuses in the United States,” says the report.

It appears the United States may finally embrace the resource. The DOE report proposes that 20% of US generation capacity come from CHP, up from today’s 8.6%. Because CHP is so efficient, its greater use would mean far less greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the report finds that under the 20% scenario, the US could avoid over 60% of its projected increase in carbon dixoide emissions between now and 2030.

Several states are putting policies in place to help advance CHP, particularly energy efficiency portfolio standards. These standards require that energy efficiency make up a certain percentage of the state’s mix of electric resources. Fourteen states allow use of CHP to meet the standard.

CHP also should get a boost from a new 10% federal tax incentive signed into law as part of the financial recovery package in early October. The credit applies to small and medium-sized CHP projects.

That still leaves the problem of the brand name. Suggestions welcome! Preferably something that could make combined heat and power the “Brangelina” of the energy world.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Clean energy, jobs and the real estate market

By Elisa Wood

November 20, 2008

President-elect Barack Obama wants to create five million new green jobs over the next decade. This is a big goal, but in line with what clean energy industry advocates see as possible.

An upcoming international report provides some solid perspective on why green initiatives make for good job building opportunities.

Scheduled for release next summer, “Greening Buildings and Communities: Costs and Benefits,” finds that green buildings create roughly $1/square foot of value in increased employment. A typical green office creates roughly one-third of a permanent job per year. This is done by shifting spending from fossil fuel-based energy to more labor intensive domestic jobs in energy efficiency, renewable construction and new green industries.

A preview of the study, released this week by Good Energies www.goodenergies.com, also finds that green buildings are not as pricey as often believed. They add, on average, about two percent to the cost of a building. Moreover, green buildings reduce energy use by an average 33%. The extra cost of building green usually pays back within five years.

Based on an analysis of 150 green buildings in the United States and 10 other countries, the study is billed as the largest international review of its kind to date.

What good is it to bet on jobs from new construction in this economy? It turns out that green buildings are not falling victim to today’s real estate downturn. Buildings in green neighborhoods are holding value better than conventional homes. On average, sales prices tend to be $20/square foot higher.

“The deep downturn in real estate has not reduced the rapid growth in demand for and construction of green buildings,” said Greg Kats, the study’s lead author and a Managing Director of Good Energies. “This suggests a flight to quality as buyers express a market preference for buildings that are more energy efficient, more comfortable and healthier.”

The report’s findings underscore a growing sentiment that the green energy and efficiency industries are key to economic recovery. What we’ve lost – jobs and real estate values – these industries offer to give back.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.