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.

What’s geothermal again?

October 29, 2009

By Elisa Wood

Some green energy sources seem to have charisma; others struggle for public attention with little success.

Solar energy is an “it” technology, as evidenced once again by the tremendous participation in the annual Solar Power International conference in Anaheim, California this week (Oct. 27-29). Twice as many companies (945) are displaying their wares in the Expo Hall this year, despite the still lagging economy. And overall attendance is expected to break last year’s record, itself a record breaker.

Even on Main Street, ask pretty much anyone and they know solar, probably like it, and see it as an economy builder.

Ask the same people about geothermal heat pumps and there is a good chance they won’t know what you’re talking about. Or they may give an answer that confuses the appliances with geothermal geyser power plants.  For whatever reason, the concept of extracting heat from the ground has yet to capture the public or political imagination as much as extracting it from the sun.

Yet, geothermal heat pumps could have a significant impact on our energy supply. They can be installed pretty much anywhere there is a building. And if we used them to maximum potential in the United States, we could avoid building 91-105 gigawatts of generation, nearly half of the new power we will need in 2030, according to the US Department of Energy.

Homeowners who consider then discard the idea often cite the high upfront installation costs. Yet the same argument could easily be made about solar photovoltaic panels. So why is geothermal an also ran technology?

One problem, according to the DOE, is that the heat pump industry needs to collect and disseminate more solid data on heat pumps. Work underway by the Chewonki Foundation, an educational institute in Maine, moves in this direction. With a grant from the Maine Public Utilities Commission, Chewonki is monitoring and measuring the performance of a newly installed heat pump system at its 11,000 square-foot meeting hall. The state is looking for an alternative to heating buildings with oil, a relatively common fuel in Maine. Geothermal heat pumps may prove to be that alternative. http://www.onsetcomp.com/resources/white_papers

This is not to imply that the geothermal heat pump industry is not growing. To the contrary, US shipments of geothermal heat pumps grew 40 percent last year, according to a report released this month by the Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/ghpsurvey/geothermalrpt.pdf. The industry is very much a domestic jobs builder. Most of the systems shipped in the US last year where manufactured here — 416,019 tons – with the remaining 86 tons from China. Sixteen percent of US product was exported.

Still, the geothermal heat pump industry is a small one, representing $319 million last year. Compare this to a domestic solar PV cell and module market of $1.72 billion in 2007 (2008 figures are not yet available from EIA).

Of course, it was just a few years ago that solar conferences were drawing hundreds, not tens of thousands of people, as Solar Power International does now. So who knows?  Perhaps it’s not far-fetched to imagine the term” geothermal” rolling off the tongue of the average consumer, as easily as “solar” does today.

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

Energy head tilters for this week

By Elisa Wood

October 8, 2009

I’ve been writing about energy for 20 years.  And during those years, I’ve heard many out-of-the box concepts and witnessed some surprising trends. But it seems that lately head-tilting news comes along more and more frequently, a sign I think of how quickly innovation is occurring in the electric power industry.

Below are three ideas that caught my attention this week as I covered the industry. Perhaps you have your own head-tilters to add. Please do!

By the way, two decades ago solar and wind power were pretty much oddball ideas. Consider that before judging any comments.

• A 14-year-old boy in an impoverished African village, who has never heard of the Internet, built a working windmill out of scrap material

Too poor to attend school anymore William Kamkwamba went to a US-sponsored library to try to keep up on his learning. There the Malawian boy found diagrams for building windmills and painstakingly followed the directions to bring electricity and water to his famine-stricken village. He scavenged for junk and found old bike parts, pipes and fans to make it work. His fellow villagers thought he was crazy until he succeeded. His story is chronicled in his book, “The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind.” http://williamkamkwamba.typepad.com/

There is some irony here that an attempt has been underway for 10 years to build offshore wind power on wealthy Cape Cod, with no luck. Maybe the region needs to hire Kamkwamba as a consultant.

• Baby you can drive my combined heat and power car

We’ve all heard that combined heat and power is a highly efficient approach to heating, cooling and electrifying schools, stores, office buildings, factories, hospitals, and multi-famly housing complexes. But cars? Thomas Blakeslee, president of the Clearlight Foundation, posits that we could achieve far greater fuel efficiency if, rather than feeding ethanol directly into cars, we used it to fuel combined heat and power plants that would in turn electrify cars. The efficiency would be so great, we could drive these electric cars 22 times farther on CHP electricity than if we used the same acre of corn to make ethanol. http://www.clrlight.org/CHPethanol.htm

• Energy efficiency: The invisible hand that Adam Smith never saw

Energy efficiency is often discussed in terms of how much money it can save a household or business on utility bills. But how about what it can save an economy? Environment Northeast issued an interesting report in September that investigates what efficiency can do for state gross product. The macroeconomic report found that every $1 million invested by a state in energy efficiency increases gross state product by $7 million. http://environmentnortheast.org/

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

Is small business left out of the EE boom?

By Elisa Wood

October 1, 2009

The US has about 29.6 million small businesses and they employ over half of the nation’s private sector. They hire 40% of our high tech workers, make up 97.3% of our exporters, and generate most of our innovations, according to SCORE. http://www.score.org/small_biz_stats.html

Still, we hear small business often say it gets the shaft when it comes to public policy; it just doesn’t have the political clout of big business.

What’s this got to do with energy efficiency? I’ve been wondering – suspecting actually – that small business is getting left out of the energy efficiency boom sweeping the United States.

I admit that my evidence is purely empirical and cursory. I have been trying to collect case studies from the Eastern states for an energy efficiency guide that I am collaborating on with my colleagues at RealEnergyWriters.com. I’ve put out a request for the case studies from small businesses to my many good sources, as well as through the social media.

I’ve received profiles of schools, colleges, hospitals, and manufacturing facilities – all non-profits or large energy users. Where I wonder is the dry cleaner, the Mom & Pop shop, the car wash?

I don’t mean to imply there are no small business efficiency programs. Several people have directed me to Efficiency Maine’s program, which does not target small businesses per se, but does serve many. I’ve also received some great examples from United Illuminating in Connecticut.

Manufacturers and data centers are low-hanging fruit that energy service companies like to pursue. Homeowners have consumer groups pressing state regulators on their behalf. But who is pushing before state utility commission’s to be sure small business gets its fair share of the vast amount of efficiency funding now being distributed?

Perhaps the fault lies with small business, itself. Overwhelmed by trying to operate in this economy, do small business owners have the time to think about energy efficiency?  It’s likely few even realize funds and financing mechanisms exist in several states to help them with upfront capital costs.

Small business may well fall victim to some of the market failures Environment Northeast points out in its October 1 report, “Energy Efficiency: Engine of Economic Growth.” http://www.env-ne.org/

These failures are:

* Liquidity Constraints – when a consumer or business has inadequate access to capital to purchase efficient equipment or improve building energy performance

* Split Incentives – when the owner of a piece of equipment or building (the landlord) does not pay the energy bill and is thus unlikely to invest in efficiency improvements that would benefit the resident/renter

* Information Problems – when purchasers do not know the future energy costs of a product or property and are thus unlikely to invest in the more efficient option with a higher upfront cost

* Behavioral Problems, such as bounded rationality – when the complexity of a decision is beyond the ability of a consumer to make an economically optimal choice.

So this blog does not really reach a conclusion, but asks a question: Are small businesses getting left out of the energy efficiency boom?  If so, what’s the problem? If not, please direct me to success stories!

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

Efficiency is cheap, but will it sell?

By Elisa Wood

September 24, 2009

Expect to see this number a lot in energy discussions over the next few years: 2.5 cents/kWh. It is the average cost of energy efficiency, a figure pegged this week in a new report by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. http://www.aceee.org/press/u092pr.htm.

This number is big news because it is so small.  As a resource, energy efficiency beats out all conventional power sources on price.  (See chart below.) Moreover, it’s a price that has been dropping. Five years ago energy efficiency cost 3 cents/kWh.

But just because something is cheap, doesn’t mean people will buy it. How much energy efficiency will make it into the nation’s energy shopping cart?

Efficiency boomed in the early 1990s, but then busted later in the decade when deregulation allowed many utilities to shed their efficiency programs. It is resurging now, part of push by state and federal policy makers to green and ‘smarten’ energy supply.

Most utilities do not make money on efficiency, and this is part of the reason it busted in the late 1990s. Perhaps as important, efficiency’s branding was off. It was seen as an extra, a nicety to pursue out of goodwill when a utility or state had some extra money.

ACEEE and other efficiency advocates are trying to reshape the image. They refer to efficiency as a fuel – just like wind, sun, coal, natural gas, oil. And they want efficiency to be the ‘first fuel.’ This means that when a utility is planning its energy supply, it first applies as much efficiency as is cost effective and plausible, before it builds more expensive new power. Some eastern states are already using this planning concept. In addition, many states have set specific energy efficiency goals, some very aggressive.

That is why ACEEE’s 2.5 cents/kWh becomes so important. It is a kind of marker against which other resources will find themselves competing more and more in policy planning.

Meanwhile, an increasing number of states are decoupling utility profits from kilowatthour sales or instituting other financial incentives that inspire utility support for efficiency.

Of course, our economy cannot prosper on efficiency alone, but many studies indicate we still have a lot of waste in the system.  So as an energy planner, if you were confronted with increased demand – and are not dealing with policy or system issues that require generation or transmission as a solution – which of these would you pursue first?

Resource	Cost
Energy Efficiency	1.6 cents/kWh to 3.3 cents/kWh
Pulverized coal	7 cents/kWh to 14 cents/kWh
Combined cycle natural gas	7 cents/kWh to 10 cents/kWh
Wind energy	4 cents/kWh to 9 cents/kWh

Credit: Cost figures from ACEEE, “Saving Energy Cost Effectively: A National Review of the Cost of Energy Saved through  Utility Sector Energy Efficiency Programs,”  September 2009, http://www.aceee.org/press/u092pr.htm.

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

Now where did I put that energy efficiency?

By Elisa Wood

September 17, 2009

Sort of like my car keys, “the forgotten memory doesn’t disappear – we just can’t remember where we put it.” So says Jonah Lehrer, one of my favorite bloggers and contributing editor at Wired.

What’s memory got to do with electric power? It appears we keep misplacing energy efficiency. When critics – even sometimes supporters – talk about reducing greenhouse gases, they forget to calculate whether or not energy efficiency can lower the price tag.

Could it be, then, that carbon dioxide reductions will cost society less than we forecast?

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy contends that is the case. “Much of the debate on federal cap and trade legislation is focusing on the cost of compliance.  Prior studies either do not account for energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, or due to a shortage of time and other resources, address only a few of the energy efficiency provisions,” says ACEEE in a new report, “Energy Efficiency in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009: Impacts of Current Provisions and Opportunities to Enhance the Legislation.”

The findings run contrary to conventional thinking about climate change costs.  The climate bill passed by the US House in June won’t cost us money; it will save us money, according to ACEEE.

The legislation would require that 20% of our energy supply come from green energy — 8% of the 20% can come specifically from energy efficiency. It also ramps up buildings codes and appliance standards, and takes other action to decrease energy use.

These efficiency measures would save the average household $220 by 2020 and $486 by 2030 – more than cap and trade costs.

Even more savings are to be had – as much as $832 per household by 2030 — if the Senate makes some changes in the bill, according to ACEEE. Specifically, the organization says Congress should:

• Mandate that 10% of our energy come from efficiency
• Direct one-third of electric utility allowances to energy efficiency
• Extend to 2030 the 9.5% allowance revenue allotted to state energy and environmental development funds.

Exactly how much energy would we save?  If the Senate makes these changes to the bill, we’ll save as much energy by 2030 as US households now consume in a year, says ACEEE. The energy savings are equivalent to what 512 power plants produce at their peak production. A big number, a kind of elephant in the room, one would think. But we’ll see if it gets lost as Congress works on climate change in the coming months.

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

Efficiency: Highest priority for no one

By Elisa Wood

July 30, 2009

If there was still any question about the economic value of energy efficiency, it was put to rest this week by a McKinsey & Company report. The United States could save $1.2 trillion and generate 900,000 new jobs through better energy management, according to “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the US Economy.”

Sounds good. But there is a problem. We’ll need billions of keys to do the unlocking. Efficiency potential rests in “100 million buildings and literally billions of devices,” the report says. “This dispersion ensures that efficiency is the highest priority for virtually no one.”

In other words, anyone have a magic wand handy?

Efficiency is a tough to sell, not because people don’t want it, but because it doesn’t exist as a tangible item to buy, like say, a solar panel. Efficiency is not even an idea. It’s a way of operating every electric item in our highly electric world. No one is master of this universe. Even if government sets out mandates for buildings and appliances, the homeowner still may not turn off lights before bed, or the factory owner may decide against the cogeneration unit in favor of the familiar status quo.

It will take significant effort – far more than what is offered in the federal stimulus package – to put so many keys in so many locks. In fact, the $20 billion in stimulus will create only a “blip” compared to the vast potential, says Lisa Wood, (no relation to the writer of this blog) executive director of the Institute for Electric Efficiency, part of the Edison Foundation.

Indeed, the McKinsey report finds that to unlock this potential over the next decade, the US needs to make a $50 billion/year investment. And if a decade seems like a long time, consider that that cell phones, microwaves and radio took 10-15 years to scale up.

“There are so many different pieces. Some of it is in changing the mindset about using energy; some of it is about introducing new technologies, like smart thermostats and home area networks. I don’t think that is far away.”  Of course, the technology must be easy for people to use, she says. We learned a long time ago that people don’t come home from work and say, “What can I do now to save energy?”

The report recommends “a holistic combination of solutions,” such as recognizing efficiency as an important energy resource, launching a portfolio of strategies that work nationally and regionally, finding ways to overcome the significant upfront costs for efficiency installations, aligning various stakeholders, and fostering technology. McKinsey goes on to describe specific programs and strategies to bring about these solutions.

The McKinsey report marks an important step in the right direction, Wood says, by getting the efficiency story “out there in a very organized way to the larger community.” Not a magic wand, but at least a pointer in the right direction.

The report is available at http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/electricpowernaturalgas/US_energy_efficiency/.

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

Energy bill could open Southeast’s EE market

By Elisa Wood

July 2, 2009

I live a kind of Tale of Two Cities, or rather tale of two regions. My work requires that I spend a lot of time covering the Northeast power markets, but I live in Southeast. So after reporting on the rich world of efficiency incentives available in places like Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York, wasn’t I surprised to find my local utility offers pauper’s fare, nothing more than an energy audit.

This is in keeping with a culture of inefficiency in the Southeast. For example, Energy Star appliances have achieved only 20% market penetration in the region, compared with a 30% penetration elsewhere.

But this culture could change soon because of the politics behind the proposed federal renewable portfolio standard. RPS opponents in the Southeast say the region can’t afford the standard because it lacks vast wind and solar resources http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/06/winning-dixie-drawing-in-the-southeastern-us.

True or not, the Southeast was given a reprieve in the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House June 26. If states cannot secure enough renewable energy to meet the standard, they can substitute with some energy efficiency. The bill requires that 6% of power come from renewables in 2012 rising to 20% by 2020. But states can substitute up to 25% of the requirement with energy efficiency. Moreover, a state governor may petition to increase the efficiency portion to 40%. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6070

So if the Southeast can’t – or won’t – develop enough renewable energy to meet the RPS, it can rely on energy efficiency to fulfill nearly half the requirement. As a result, we could see a broad new market for energy efficiency build up in the Southeast.  The World Resources Institute underscored this possibility in a brief, “Southeast Energy Opportunities,” circulated last week. The Southeast has the potential to reduce total expected electricity use 11% by 2015, enough to meet most of the region’s new power needs through 2015, according to the brief. That may be why the Rocky Mountain Institute ranked six of the Southeast states in the top ten for energy efficiency potential.

Efficiency advocates see the Southeast as an important market because its households tend to heat and cool with electric energy. In fact, electricity consumption per person is almost 40% higher than the national average. Moreover, the region has the fastest growing population in the United States. Greater population equals more demand for electricity equals more power plants – unless the need is offset through efficiency.

Of course, none of this is set stone yet. By most reports the energy bill faces rough going in the Senate, which is expected to take it up in the fall. http://www.foleyhoag.com/NewsCenter/Publications/Alerts/Environmental/Environmental_Alert-070109.aspx.

So those of us in the Southeast may look northward with envy for awhile longer – but perhaps eventually the tale will take a turn.

Visit Elisa Wood at 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.

Profile of a White Tag Project

By Lisa Cohn

September 18, 2008

Few topics we write about here draw as much attention as energy efficiency certificates. After we mention the certificates, we inevitably receive inquiries from data centers or other large energy users, who want more information.

The certificates also are called “white tags,” a term trademarked by marketer Sterling Planet. Interest in the certificates likely stems from the increasing use nationwide of a more established sister product, renewable energy certificates or green tags. Green tags come from renewable energy projects, while the newer white tags are generated by efficiency measures, like lighting retrofits, combined heat and power, and demand response.

Both white and green tags can be bought and sold. Utilities and other electricity retailers need them to meet mandates in certain states that they provide a set amount of their supply from clean or efficiency energy sources. Voluntary markets also exist for the tags throughout the country. In this case, companies or institutions buy the tags not to meet a law, but as an environmental gesture.

Connecticut has led the way in creating a white tag market. The state requires that utilities and electric retailers make efficiency 2% of their power portfolios this year. The requirement grows to 4% by 2010.

Here we provide a profile of a recent white tag project we unearthed in the files of the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control. An IBM data center in the town of Southbury created the white tags and won approval September 12 of their validity under Connecticut rules.

IBM created the tags by installing 1,200 efficient lighting fixtures in October 2007 in its 846,000 square foot, three story building. The facility operates 8,760 hours per year. Specifically, IBM retrofitted 3-lamp, T-12 lamps and magnetic ballasts with more efficient T-8 lamps (two per fixture) and electronic ballasts. The fixtures will save the facility 829 megawatthours. IBM determined the savings by subtracting the energy it consumed after installing the new lighting from the energy it consumed before the installation.

The certificates are viable through March 31, 2018. The ending date is based on a state determination that the life of such efficiency projects is typically up to ten years. The facility must measure and verify savings each quarter and submit the results to the state.

Each MWh equals one certificate. The state does not set the price for the certificates – what IBM receives will depend on the market.

The company that helped IBM convert the efficiency savings into certificates was Neuwing Energy Ventures, 6 Evergreen Lane, East Haddam, Connecticut 06423.

For detailed information on the state’s conversion rules we suggest reviewing the Connecticut DPUC’s order setting up the program, DOCKET NO. 05-07-19. This can be found at the ‘in-active dockets database’ http://www.ct.gov/dpuc/cwp/view.asp?a=3364&q=413272.

Visit energy writer Lisa Cohn at www.realenergywriters.com and subscribe to his free EE Markets newsletter and podcast.