The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.worksession.20140513 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 13, 2014 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Energy Efficiency Alternatives MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jeff Rice, Utilities Energy Efficiency Manager THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives DATE OF MEMO: May 7th, 2014 DATE OF MEETING: May 13th, 2014 RE: NREL Energy Efficiency Proposals PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In April of 2006, Council gave staff approval for budget authority and direction to implement electric and water efficiency programs. In January of 2013, Council gave staff direction to begin researching additional renewable energy options. Subsequently, the City contracted with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to analyze the City’s renewable energy alternatives, and devise a work plan that encourages informed decision-making on the part of Council to meet the 100% by 2015 goal (or as close to it as practicable). Concurrently, the City contracted with NREL to perform a third party review of the City’s energy efficiency programs, and propose additional impactful options that would accelerate efficiency gains beyond our current volunteer program efforts. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen Energy Efficiency Division over eight years, since 2006, has and continues to successfully implement a wide variety of innovative and impactful efficiency programs and has completed a variety of efficiency projects that have resulted in sizable efficiency gains. Working independently and with regional partners, these achievements have been realized primarily through volunteer participation effort. These efficiency gains have helped buffer demand growth on the City electric grid, however, via the volunteer participation approach they have done little to move us closer to a 100% renewable by 2015 goal. DISCUSSION: Staff recognizes the need to move beyond purely volunteer based programs if it is to achieve further significant gains. NREL’s resources and expertise create an unbiased, thorough, and structured forum in which members of Council are presented with feasible program options and their most relevant characteristics. NREL has done a precursory review of P1 I. our efficiency programs, both to date and current, and will provide additional opportunities we can adopt to go beyond volunteer participation and strive toward increased gains. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Annual electric efficiency budget of $100,000. Increased efficiency may require additional funds and staff. Energy efficiency removes kW demand from the grid negatively affecting revenue. Increased efficiency will have an increased negative impact on utility revenue. The current tiered rate structure allows for efficiency gains to occur at the higher tiers resulting in magnified revenue loss. Additional efficiency programs may reduce demand such that new energy production may be offset as well as existing energy production may be reduced, resulting in avoided cost savings. However this is less likely as currently efficiency gains only partially offset demand growth. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Energy efficiency reduces energy demand thereby reducing GHG emissions from carbon sourced power. This is in direct support of Aspen’s Canary Initiative Goal of reducing GHG emissions 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ATTACHMENTS: 1) NREL Presentation Slides 2) NREL Briefing Papers on Options 3) Aspen EE Programs History Packet 4) Aspen EE Presentation Slides P2 I. 1 P3 I. 2 P4 I. 3 P5 I. 4 P6 I. 5 P7 I. 6 P8 I. 7 P9 I. 8 P10 I. 9 P11 I. 10 P12 I. 11 P13 I. ****************************************************************************************************************************************************** Seattle, WA Council Bill 116731 Requires non-residential and multifamily building owners to report an energy rating Owners must release a Statement of Energy Performance upon request to: Current tenants Prospective tenants negotiating leases, at the time of or before the lease is presented Prospective buyers negotiating a purchase and sale agreement, at the time of or before presenting a sales contract Prospective lenders considering financing or refinancing application, at the time or before the owner presents the application Where it’s working Austin, Tx–Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure Ordinance: commercial via portfolio manager, multi- family required audits every decade Seattle, Wa. Statement of Energy Performance on request to tenants, prospective tenants, prospective buyers, and lenders Chicago, Il –Building Energy Use Benchmarking: Commercial and residential over 50k square feet 12 P14 I. 13 P15 I. 14 P16 I. 15 P17 I. ******************************* RESOURCES: http://assets.fiercemarkets.com/public/sites/energy/reports/101012_wc_slides.pdf –8-10%price decrease for 0.2% of population participating, 2.5% for gulf power http://www.utilitydive.com/news/dynamic-pricing-pilots-5-utilities-programs-technology-and-results/152381/ when donewith the opt-out option –only 10% of SMUD did. SMUD saw 6-26% peak reductions http://www.txu.com/en/about/press-releases/2013/20130813-txu-energy-100-thousand-texans-have-selected-right-time-pricing-plans.aspx – TXU had 100k customers opt in forfree nights and weekends –saving 5-25% of their bills and shifting utility peaks (the goal of the program) 16 P18 I. This is a summary of a few different programs currently running –and you can see that most of the benefits being measured are in peak load reduction, which has the This is a summary of a few different programs currently running –and you can see that most of the benefits being measured are in peak load reduction, which has the highest impact on reducing utility costs. There are reports of up to 26% peak load savings, and then you have other programs that are showing 8-10% savings on consumer (residential) bills. In order to design a DP/DR program, the staff would need to know the primary goals of the program from you –be that peak load reduction, consumer savings, total kwh savings, etc. From there, they can design and estimate a narrower range of potential savings. 17 P19 I. 18 P20 I. 19 P21 I. 20 P22 I. 21 P23 I. The City of Aspen Utilities Energy Efficiency Programs Aspen City Council Work Session Tuesday, May 13th 2014 Jeff Rice Ryland French P2 4 I. What is Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency IS a Tool to Reduce Energy Demand Energy Efficiency IS Receiving the Same Service while Using Less Energy Energy Efficiency IS NOT Reducing a Service or Going Without a Service (This is Energy Conservation) P2 5 I. Why Energy Efficiency Resource to Utility Resource Management / Demand Response Demand Growth Buffer Resource to Customers Increased Options Resource to Economy “Green” Economy Resource to Environment GHG Reductions, Resource Longevity P2 6 I. Robust Programs Voluntary Energy Efficiency Programs Beginning in 2006 Commercial, Residential, and Government Sectors Community Outreach and Marketing Professional Energy Assessments Rebate and Grant Programs Onsite Renewable Rebates and Incentives P2 7 I. Partnerships Local Partners Non-Profits Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) Energy Smart Colorado Sister Utilities Holy Cross Electric Source Gas Local Contractors and Retailers Regional, State, and National Partners Building Performance Institute Colorado Mountain College Colorado Energy Office Department of Energy P2 8 I. National Leaders Replicable Models of Energy Efficiency Programs Rocky Mountain Utility Efficiency Exchange 100% Renewable Generation Goal Canary Initiative Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals P2 9 I. Results Driven 11% of Commercial Accounts Participating Over 1,000,000 kWh Annual Savings 6.75% of Residential Accounts Participating City Facilities’ Saving 2,200,000 kWh, or 24.4% Annually City of Aspen Government Internal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Down 30% Energy Efficiency Improvements Large Contributing Factor P3 0 I. Next Steps Nearing the End of Opportunities for Impactful Voluntary Energy Efficiency Programs? Consider the Impacts on Utility Revenue Policies Creating Prescriptive Energy Efficiency Programs will Allow for Future Impactful Efficiency Savings National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Staff will Present Options for Energy Efficiency Policies P3 1 I. Energy Efficiency Programs History The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is presenting Aspen Electric’s options for future energy efficiency programs to the Aspen City Council on May 13th. In preparation for this presentation, Aspen Electric staff are providing this information to re-familiarize City Council with the history of our energy efficiency programs to date. Energy efficiency has proven valuable to our customers, to our local economy, to our utility, and to achieving Aspen’s environmental goals. Efficiency improvements have given our customers greater control over their utility bills while making their spaces more comfortable and safe. Demand for energy efficiency products, installations, and information has driven business for local retailers, contractors, and non-profits. For our utility, energy efficiency has helped to flatten our consumption growth curve, reducing the needs for marginal power purchases and increased infrastructure. Efficiency was a large contributing factor to our local government reducing its internal greenhouse gas emissions 30% in the last decade. Efficiency has also empowered hundreds of our customers to contribute to the community wide goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2020. Additionally, while our utility’s goal of being 100% renewably powered is a moving target as demand from our customers is ever changing, energy efficiency has prevented that target from moving higher and higher. Contents • Energy Efficiency Programs Timeline Graphic • Commercial Energy Efficiency Voluntary Participation o Participation Data o Energy Savings Data o Example Outreach Flyer • Residential Energy Efficiency Voluntary Participation o Participation Data o Example Outreach Pamphlet • Government Energy Efficiency Participation • Concise Summary of Energy Efficiency Programs History • Concise Summary of Water Efficiency Programs History The following pages present a summary of Aspen Electric’s past and present energy efficiency programs, and data on the results of those programs. While the benefits and results described here and in the following pages are abundant, energy efficiency does have limits, and it does have impacts on our utility’s revenue stream. Aspen Electric’s energy efficiency programs to date have been voluntary, and as our customers’ participation has grown, the opportunity for further voluntary participation has shrunk. We are now nearing the limit of voluntary energy efficiency participation. Furthermore, the majority of our programs to date have not included a cost recovery component, so that with each kWh of electricity our customers have saved, we have lost revenue. NREL staff will present options to City Council for future energy efficiency programs that may ensure that the myriad benefits of energy efficiency continue to be realized through prescriptive programs, while the cost recovery aspect is considered and accounted for. *All data and literature prepared by Jeff Rice and Ryland French, unless otherwise noted. P32 I. Energy Efficiency Programs Timeline Graphic *All data and literature prepared by Jeff Rice and Ryland French, unless otherwise noted. P33 I. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Canary Initiative Adopted BPI Energy Audit Model Adopted Aspen Saturday Markets Community Outreach Annual American Renewable Energy Day Participation Rebates Offered (Matching CORE) Door to Door CFL Giveaway Climate Action Plan Adopted Aspen Electric’s Goal: 100% Renewable Commercial Business Outreach Annual Rocky Mountain Utility Efficiency Exchange Started Rebates Doubled to Promote Federal Income Tax Refund Stimulus use on Efficiency Projects Energy Star Partner (Through 2011) Utility Billing Insert Outreach CORE Administers Aspen Electric’s Rebates City Environmental Initiatives (EI) Team Formed Building Performance Institute (BPI) Training at CMC Energy Audits and Efficiency Installs on 13 City Buildings Energy Audits Available in all of Aspen Utilities Efficiency Manager Position Created Energy Smart Colorado (ESC) & Energy Resource Center (ERC) get DOE Grant Funds City of Aspen Audit Program Used to Develop ESC/ERC Faces of Efficiency Outreach Main Street Efficiency Initiative Commercial Rebates ERC Opens Through Partnership with CORE City EI Team Develops Focus List & Project List Stronger Focus on Commercial Efficiency Hotel Retrofit Contest Launches Utilities Efficiency Grant offered to City Departments Complimentary Efficiency Visits to Homes and Businesses DOE Grant for ERC Consumed Local Contractor Workshops Door to Door Commercial Outreach Commercial Efficiency Open House Enerlyte Online Energy Use Calculator for Electric Customers Aspen Science Festival Community Outreach Utility Sponsoring On-Bill Financing Installing Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in Parking Plaza Incentives to Contractors to Promote Significant Projects Revamping Community Outreach to Drive Audits and Projects NREL Third Party Review of Efficiency Programs Cohosting Green Drinks with Hotel Contest Participant Aspen’s Community Picnic Outreach Earth Day Community Outreach Arbor Day Community Outreach Aspen Eco Fest Community Outreach Aspen Electric Energy Efficiency Programs Timeline Tiered Electric Rates: Higher Rates for Higher Use P3 4 I. Commercial Energy Efficiency Voluntary Participation Contents • Participation Data * Data is Not Complete, but is Accurate • Energy Savings Data * Data is Not Complete, but is Accurate • Example Outreach Flyer * 1 of 4 Flyers Targeting Specific Business Types *All data and literature prepared by Jeff Rice and Ryland French, unless otherwise noted. P35 I. Aspen Electric Commercial Energy Efficiency Voluntary Participation Total Number of Commercial Accounts Voluntarily Participating (Excluding City Facilities and Irrigation Accounts) 110 Total Number of Commercial Electric Accounts (Excluding City Facilities and Irrigation Accounts) 1003 Proportion of Commercial Accounts Voluntarily Participating (Excluding City Facilities and Irrigation Accounts) 10.9671% Total Large Commercial Accounts Voluntarily Participating (Excluding City Facilities and Irrigation Accounts) 6 Total Number of Large Commercial Electric Accounts (Excluding City Facilities and Irrigation Accounts) 21 Proportion of Large Commercial Accounts Voluntarily Participating (Excluding City Facilities and Irrigation Accounts) 28.5714% Total Small Commercial Accounts Voluntarily Participating (Excluding City Facilities and Irrigation Accounts) 104 Lighting Projects 49 Refrigeration Projects 9 Space Heating / Space Heating Controls / Building Envelope Projects 11 2008 Projects 1 2010 Projects 1 2011 Projects 3 2012 Projects 22 2013 Projects 28 2014 Projects 8 Property Management Complexes 11 Hair Cutteries 2 Food/Drink Services 9 Retail Shops 15 Hotels/Lodges 12 Art Galleries 8 Convenience/Liquor Stores 3 Church 1 Offices 3 P36 I. Project Type Project Date % kWh Reduction Annual kWh Reduction 3 kw pv, efficiency upgrades 2008 Missing Data Solar Panels 1/12/2010 14.13%12,132 2010 Annual kWh Air sealing, insulation, energy assessment 11/15/2011 -17.10%-5,022 Savings Refrigerator and energy assessment 7/6/2011 -15.60%-870 12,132 CFLs and Boilers 10/31/2011 -22.80%-47,820 Lighting 1/22/2012 VAC 5.70%1,996 2011 Annual kWh ECMs and LEDs 1/25/2012, 6/4 17.50%23,832 Savings Air sealing, insulation, lighting, boilers, Tstats 2012-2014 8.50%42,876 -53,712 Lights and HVAC Controls 2012/2014 5.50%56,191 Lighting 1/22/2012 19.80%15,339 Lighting 1/22/2012 -0.30%-216 ECM 1/25/2012 16.30%13,696 ECM 1/31/2012 13.70%5,947 ECM 1/31/2012 6.40%12,749 ECM 2/2/2012 43.30%335,882 Lighting 2/16/2012 History starts at month of retrofit Lighting, Occupancy Sensors, Snowmelt controls 2/27/2012 -9.70%-4,752 ECMs, LEDs, Tstats, Energy Audit 3/14/2012, 10/15.90%72,056 ECM 3/29/2012 6.64%1,092 Lighting 4/6/2012 27.10%920 Lighting and energy assessment 4/8/2012 3.60%6,312 ECM 5/7/2012 2%2,940 Lighting 6/11/2012 Mov 48.80%10,320 Lighting 8/22/2012 20.70%11,689 Lighting, glass doors, pool & hot tub boilers 9/24/2012 22.90%211,465 LEDs, boiler tune up, hvac controls 10/8/2012 5.80%5,440 Lighting 9/10/13 and 10 7.60%3,560 Lighting 11/14/2012 4.60%6,144 Lighting 11/15/2012 33.80%33,870 2012 Annual kWh Convection heaters, Tstats, insulation, air sealing, toilets, windows 2013 2.00%2,052 Savings Lighting 1/27/2013 16.30%11,364 869,349 Lighting 3/1/2013 22.00%48,687 Lighting 3/4/2013 62.40%8,506 Lighting 3/18/2013 12.80%29,038 Lighting 3/18/2013 -58.90%-75,669 Lighting 3/18/2013 23%54,880 Lighting 3/18/2013 -2.40%-2,086 Lighting 3/25/2013 42.60%82,023 Lighting 5/12/2013 Unoccupied since retrofit Lighting 5/27/2013 11.30%9,000 CFLs, insulation, Air sealing, boiler,Washer/Dryer, T-stats 6/15/2013 -5.50%-1,560 Lighting 6/25/2013 Which accounts? Lighting 7/10/2013 12.70%3,648 Lighting 7/10/2013 20.80%22,350 Water Heater (gas powered)8.12.13 -3.50%-4,176 LEDs 8.8.13 33%11,388 Lighting, Space Heating Sept '13 Retrof -11.30%-7,380 Audit with QF 10.7.13 Oct '13 Retrofit Windows 10/7/2013 Nov '13 Retrofit LEDs and Windows 11/20/2013 Nov '13 Retrofit Lighting 11.7.13 Nov '13 Retrofit LEDs Fall 2013 Fall '13 Retrofit LEDs Nov '13 Retrofi Nov '13 Retrofit Lighitng 11/27/2013 Nov' 13 Retrofit LEDs 12/1/2013 Dec '13 Retrofit 2013 Annual kWh Tankless Water Heaters (gas powered)12/3/2013 Dec '13 Retrofit Savings CFLs Winter 2014 Winter '14 Retrofit 192,066 LEDs Winter 2014 Winter '14 Retrofit LEDs Winter 2014 Winter '14 Retrofit LEDs Winter 2014 Winter '14 RetrofitLEDsWinter 2014 Winter '14 RetrofitLEDs4/21/2014 April '14 Retrofit Total Annual kWh Gas water heater 4/29/2014 April '14 Retrofit SavingsLEDs4/12/2014 April '14 Retrofit 1,019,834 P37 I. CITY OF ASPEN UTILITIES RENEWABLES WATER ELECTRIC RECEIVE UP TO $5,000 TO INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN YOUR FOOD SERVICE OPERATION We Can Help The City of Aspen Utilities Department wants to help our customers save money and increase comfort, reduce Aspen’s carbon footprint, and maintain our utility’s reliable infrastructure. Take the First Step... It’s Easy! Complete the contact form below We’ll help you navigate your options, including: Energy Clipboard Walkthrough Basic inspection with quick fi x recommendations Energy Coaching Full availability consulting on increasing your energy effi ciency Re-Commissioning Adjusting existing equipment for immediate effi ciency improvements Full Energy Assessment In depth inspection of your building, pinpointing areas for greatest cost-eff ective improvements - Includes installation of quick fi x products Commercial On-Bill Financing (coming soon!) Low cost fi nancing for energy effi ciency improvements by repaying through your monthly electricity bill Upgrade your business and receive rebates (Forty Aspen businesses have already upgraded. Don’t be left behind!) Major Sources of Food Service Energy Cost • Food Preparation: 35% • Heating, Ventilation & Cooling (HVAC): 28% • Sanitation: 18% • Lighting: 13% • Refrigeration: 6% Opportunities for Savings • Cooking Appliances • HVAC and Building Envelope Retrofi ts • Water and Waste Management • Lighting Retrofi ts • Refrigeration Systems and Ice Machines Your Partners in Energy Effi ciency Info@AspenEnergyEffi ciency.com Take Action Energy Coach, ____________________________ , will return on ___________________ to collect this portion. Business Name ______________________________________________________________________________ Address ____________________________________________________________________________________ Contact Name _________________________________ Contact Phone # _______________________________ Contact E-mail ______________________________________________________________________________ Best way to contact you: ___ By Phone ___ By E-mail (over) P38 I. “We even installed LEDs on our patio!” -Brad Smith, manager Local Case Study: Red Onion Qualifi ed Effi ciency Retrofi t Rebates (Additional rebates and tax incentives are available. Ask us!) One application gets you 50% of project cost up to $5,000 between City of Aspen and CORE Lighting LEDs, CFLs, Fluorescent Tube Upgrades, Occupancy Sensors and Controls Offi ce Equipment Server Consolidations, Energy Star Servers, Energy Star Vending Machines, Network Computer Power Management Software Building Envelope Air Sealing, Insulation, Energy Effi cient Windows and Doors, Window Film, Window Re Glazing Heating and Cooling (HVAC) Controls, Re-Commissioning, Hot Water Boilers, Roof Top AC Units, Split AC Systems, Furnaces, Entry Door Air Curtains, Evaporative Cooling, Direct Outside Air Exchanger Water Use Equipment Low Flow Toilets, Low Flow Showerheads, Low Flow Fixtures, Washing Machines, Waterless Urinals, Graywater Systems, Irrigation Systems Controls Food and Drink Equipment • Energy Star Appliances: Ice Machines, Dishwashers, Refrigerators and Freezers, Hot Food Holding Cabinets, Steam Cookers, Fryers, Griddles, Convection Ovens • Refrigerator and Freezer Door Gaskets, Strip Curtains, Open or Reach In Display Cases, Auto Closers for Walk In and Reach In Doors, Rotary Type VFD Compressors, No Loss Air Drains, VFD Motors • Evaporator Fan EC Motors, Proper Hood Balancing Other Measures Electric Outlet Occupancy Sensors, Energy Monitoring Equipment, Sub Metering Equipment for Tenant Spaces Additional Independent Rebates (Additional rebates and tax incentives are available. Ask us!) Solar PV Installation City of Aspen off ers $2 per installed watt, up to $12,000 (Additional CORE rebate available) Ground Source Heat Pump City of Aspen off ers 20% of project cost up to $5,000 Energy Assessment City of Aspen & CORE off er 50% of project cost, up to $2,000 Re-Commissioning City of Aspen off ers 50% of project cost, up to $1,000 • Monthly Electric Savings: $86.21 • Reduction in Monthly Electric Bill: 49% • LED Lighting Retrofi t • Project Cost: $2,800 • Rebate Received: $700 • Pay Back Period: 24 months • Bulb Lifetime: 25,000 hours • Return On Investment (over bulb lifetime): 242% • Lifetime Greenhouse Gas Reduction: 49,732 lbs CO2e Previous Effi ciency Projects Undertaken _________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ Areas of Effi ciency Interest ____________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ Information Requests ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ (over) P39 I. Residential Energy Efficiency Voluntary Participation Contents • Participation Data * Data is Not Complete, but is Accurate • Example Outreach Pamphlet * Created by the CORE *All data and literature prepared by Jeff Rice and Ryland French, unless otherwise noted. P40 I. Aspen Electric Residential Energy Efficiency Voluntary Participation Year Energy Assessments Renewable Energy Dishwasher Refrigerator Clothes Washer Programmable Thermostat Air Sealing / Insulation/ Crawlspace / Windows Toilets Total 2007 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2008 -2 3 2 10 1 0 0 18 2009 -4 12 8 11 2 0 0 37 2010 Assessments Tracked Starting in 2011 1 15 13 5 0 0 3 37 2011 7 0 4 4 2 0 0 2 19 2012 21 0 2 0 3 0 3 1 30 2013 9 3 5 5 2 0 2 2 28 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total:37 11 41 32 33 3 5 8 170 Number of Residential Accounts Voluntarily Participating 130 Total Number of Residential Accounts (Residential and Multi Family) 1925 Proportion of Residential Accounts Voluntarily Participating 6.75% P4 1 I. For more information, please visit www.aspencore.org and call the Energy Resource Center: 970.925.9775 | Energy@AspenCore.org For Garfield County Residents, Contact CLEER: 970.704.9200 | ActNow@GarfieldCleanEnergy.org www.aspencore.org Follow Us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/ResourceEfficiency Find Us on Twitter @AspenCORE 2014Residential Rebates in the Roaring Fork Valley www.aspencore.org Don’t let high up-front costs get you down. Sign up for a loan! With the Energy Smart Revolving Loan you can finance your project and pay back the loan with your utility savings. • $1,000 - $25,000 available for loans • Five, seven and ten year loan terms • No money down • Interest rate and APR subject to credit & term* • Energy rebates are still available in addition to financing Sign up now! Contact the Energy Resource Center: 970.925.9775 | Energy@AspenCore.org Holy Cross Energy now offers on-bill financing for commercial and residential customers. Please visit www.holycross.com for more. Additional financing is available for businesses in Aspen. Call Jeff Rice, Utilities Energy Efficiency Manager at 970-920-5118 to find out more. *Fixed interest rates range from 3.75% to 8.5% .APR means Annual Percentage Rate. APR may range as low as 3.949% to 14.183% based on creditworthiness, loan amount, term, and income verification type; and is subject to our normal credit qualifications. APR’s are subject to change without notice. S MALL b USINESS o WNER ? C ALL US to FIND o U t A bo U t RE b A t ES ! We are here for you as a resource. Find out how to make your home or business energy efficient with rebates and financing from the Energy Smart Program of CoRE. P4 2 I. EFFICIENCY MEASURE ENERgY SMART/ CORE (Aspen through glenwood Springs) gCE/CLEER (New Castle through Parachute) HOLY CROSS ENERgY SOURCEgAS CITY OF ASPEN ELECTRIC gWS ELECTRIC/ CLEER) XCEL ENERgY FEDERAL TAX CREDIT Energy Smart Assessment includes blower Door, Infrared & Combustion Analysis $100 cost to homeowner $100 cost to homeowner $100 cost to homeowner $100 cost to homeowner basic with blower Door & Infrared 60% up to $200 blower Door $100 cost to homeowner $300 cost to homeowner 60% up to $160 Infrared Analysis $100/hour 60% up to $200, includes blower door Walk-through Free 60% up to $100 Refrigerator Rebate & Recycling $100 ($25 available for recycling) $100 for recycling $100 ($25 available for recycling) $100 ($25 available for recycling) $50 for recycling (electric cust. only) Low flow toilet $75/toilet, max 5 available until March 31, 2014 $75/toilet, max 5 Air Sealing 25% up to $500*50% up to $500 30% up to $300 (elect. only) 30% up to $300 50% up to $500 (elect. only) 50% up to $500 Insulation 25% up to $500*50% up to $500 30% up to $700 (elect. only) 30% up to $300 50% up to $500 (elect. only) 50% up to $500 20% up to $300 Crawlspace Conversion 25% up to $1,000*30% up to $300 (floor insulation) 50% up to $1,000 (elect. only) Windows & Sliding Glass Door 25% up to $500*$2/sq. ft. up to $600 (elect. only) 50% up to $500 (elect. only) Programmable thermostat Free with Energy Smart Assmnt. or $15/t-stat, max 4 50% up to $50 $25/ thermostat $25/ thermostat, max 4 $50 (elect. only) Gas Furnace 25% up to $500 50% up to $500 $300 +$50 for proper sizing $80 - $120 (gas cust. only) Gas boiler 25% up to $500 50% up to $500 $100-$300 + $50 for proper sizing $100 (gas cust. only) boiler/Furnace Maint. & tune Up $100 $75 (- SG rebate) Duct Sealing & Insulation 25% up to $500*$200 Elect. baseboard upgrade 25% up to $500 50% up to $500 50% up to $500 biomass Stove Ground Source Heat Pump 25% up to $1,000 20% up to $5,000 $300 ton up to $1500 30% of project cost Air Conditioner $200 - $500 $250 - $1,000 (electric cust. only) Evaporative Cooler $200 - $500 $150 $200-500 $250 to $1,000 House Fan/Ventilation $200 - $500 $200-500 Indirect Water Heater 25% up to $500 $100 tankless Water Heater $200 $300 $100 (gas cust. only) High Efficiency tank Heater 25% up to $500 50% up to $200 $100 (elect. only)$200 (elect. only)$25 to $90 (gas cust. only) Electric Heat Pump Water Heater 25% up to $500 50% up to $200 30% up to $300 25% up to $500 $200 (elect. only)$450 (electric cust. only) Solar Hot Water $1,500/panel up to $6,000 30% of project cost Evacuated tube (solar thermal)Up to $6,000 Low Flow Faucet/ Shower Head Free w/ Energy Assessment $10 (elect. only) Water Heater Wrap Free w/ Energ Assessment $25 $10 (elect. only)30% of project cost Solar PV $0.50/watt up to $3,000 $1.50/watt up to 6KW $2/watt up to $12,000 $1.00/watt up to 6KW Variable REC price/kwh 30% of project cost Lighting 25% up to $500 50% up to $15/LED 25% up to $500 $10-$15/LED Heat tape timers $200 50% up to $200 50% of cost up to $100/timer 50% up to $200 50% up to $200 25% up to $2,500 for commercial 50% up to $2,500 for commercial Prescriptive & custom rebates available 25% up to $2,500 for commercial 50% up to $2,500 for commercial E N E R g Y A S S E S S M E N T H E A T I N g & C O O L I N g A P P L I A N C E S H O T W AT E R E L E C T R I C I T Y COMMERCIAL REbATES H O M E E N v E L O P E REbAtES ARE CoNtINGENt UPoN ELIGIbILIty. Please consult each entity’s website for rebate criteria. Rebates frequently change. Call CoRE’s Energy Coach at 970.925.9775 to find out more. *Indicates home energy assessment required for Energy Smart rebates. Call 925-9775 to sign up. Contact CLEER at 704-9200 for Glenwood Clean Energy and city of Glenwood Springs rebates. P4 3 I. Government Energy Efficiency Participation Contents • Participation Summary and Energy Savings Data * Energy Savings Data Created by Chris Menges *All data and literature prepared by Jeff Rice and Ryland French, unless otherwise noted. P44 I. City of Aspen Government Electricity Use and Energy Efficiency Savings Electricity (kWh)2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Aspen Electric kWh 4,503,904 4,540,335 4,779,715 4,710,644 4,357,486 4,564,009 4,621,878 4,640,150 4,832,443 Holy Cross kWh 4,384,777 4,670,182 4,553,883 4,645,440 4,390,413 4,273,707 4,345,980 2,899,421 2,019,902 Total kWh 8,888,681 9,210,517 9,333,598 9,356,084 8,747,899 8,837,716 8,967,858 7,539,571 6,852,345 2004/2005-2009/2010 Average Annual Total kWh 9,062,416 2012/2013 vs. Historic Annual kWh Savings 2,210,071 2012/2013 vs. Historic Annual kWh % Savings 24.39% 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 City of Aspen Internal MWh -Aspen Electric & Holy Cross Aspen Electric Holy Cross Linear (Aspen Electric)Linear (Holy Cross) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 City of Aspen Internal MWh -Total The City of Aspen has rapidly decreased its overall internal electricity use due to the City's commitment to increased energy efficiency in its buildings through efficiency programs and projects. The large scale City wide energy performance contract with McKinstry included efficient lighting, lighting controls, re- comissioning of equipment, programmable thermostats, adding controls to pumps and motors, a heat exchange system at the ARC, and installing technology to efficiently cool computer servers. Other projects include efficiency improvements to Water Department pump stations, a 92 kW Solar PV system at the Water Treatment Plant, efficiency improvements to the municipal golf course irrigation system, substantial efficiency improvements in the Wheeler Opera House, further lighting improvements at the ARC, and further efficiency improvements at the Red Brick Center. Additionally, the Energy Efficiency division of the Utility offers grants twice annually to assist City departments with energy efficiency improvements. These grants have assissted the Truscott, Yellow brick, Red Brick, Community Development, ARC, Parks, Golf, Transportation, City Hall, and Water facilities implement insulating blind, heating control, lighting control, HVAC, Energy Star appliance, solar panel, waterless urinal, and lighting projects. A substantial contributing factor to the trends seen in the City's internal Aspen Electric, Holy Cross, and overall electricity usage is the transfer of the ARC, Parks facilities, and a portion of the Golf facilities off of Holy Cross service and onto Aspen Electric service in 2011. These transfers and the City wide energy efficiency improvements explains the flat trend in the City's internal Aspen Electric usage, and the decreasing trend in the City's internal Holy Cross usage and overall electricity usage. P45 I. Concise Summary of Energy Efficiency Programs History *All data and literature prepared by Jeff Rice and Ryland French, unless otherwise noted. P46 I. Concise Summary of the City of Aspen’s Energy Efficiency Programs to Date 2005: • The City of Aspen adopts the Canary Initiative o To aggressively reduce Aspen’s carbon footprint and contribution to climate change pollution 2006: • Official start of efficiency program o Utilities Efficiency Manager (UEM) position created  50% of work hours devoted to UEM position at inception  Evolved into full-time, dedicated position in 2007 • Tiered electric rates introduced o Higher rates for higher use • Matching CORE (Community Office for Resource Efficiency) rebates/incentives o Appliances o Solar PV o Energy auditing (Holy Cross Energy conducted HERS rating) • CFL Giveaway (door to door) • Community Outreach o Aspen Saturday Market o ARE Day (American Renewable Energy Day) 2007: • City Council adopts the Climate Action Plan o One component: Goal of Aspen Electric being 100% renewably sourced by 2015  Energy efficiency is a key strategy in reaching this goal, as well as a key component in resource management • Continue 2006 programs • Ground source heat pump incentives • Begin commercial business program • Found CUEE (Colorado Utility Efficiency Exchange) o Annual conference (ongoing) o Grew into RMUEE (Rocky Mountain Utility Efficiency Exchange) o Purpose: To share and promote efficiency knowledge, programs, and technologies 2008: • Continue 2006 & 2007 programs • Federal income tax refund stimulus • Energy Star partner (through 2011) • PACE financing development (Property Assessed Clean Energy) • Utility billing inserts implemented o Includes a wide variety of efficiency information and tips as well as pertinent utility information • CORE administers Aspen Electric rebates/incentives o This improves tracking between organizations • City Environmental Initiatives (EI) Team formed o Energy service company (ESCO) Request For Proposal  McKinstry 2009: • Continue 2006, 2007 & 2008 programs • Bring BPI to Colorado (Building Performance Institute) P47 I. • CMC (Colorado Mountain College) becomes BPI partner o Providing training at CMC campuses o 24 people take the 1st class o Several certified assessment contractors available in Roaring Fork Valley • Switch from HERS rating system to BPI model • Extend efficiency reach by including urban growth boundary o Energy audits available in all of Aspen  Beyond Aspen Electric’s service territory o Recognize Canary Action Plan goals o 500+ home energy audits, and 600+ residential efficiency projects completed in Aspen Urban Growth Boundary 2006 - 2013 • PACE denied by Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac • Source Gas Excess is Out program o McKinstry ESCO contract o TEA’s (Technical Energy Audits) on City buildings o Efficiency installs on City buildings o 13 Buildings 2010: • Continue past programs • Win DOE grant to start Energy Smart Colorado / ERC (Energy Resource Center) • Use COA (City of Aspen) audit program to develop ERC • Faces of Efficiency outreach/marketing campaign o Examples of locals who have made efficiency upgrades 2011: • Continue past programs • ERC opens o Close partnership with CORE • MSEI (Main Street Efficiency Initiative) rebates to commercial customers • Re-tooled EI Team o Developed focus/project list to target specific categories 2012: • Continue past programs • Stronger focus on commercial energy efficiency o 33 projects completed  Combined measured annual kWh savings: 586,381 kWh  Lighting: 15 projects  Refrigeration: 8 projects  HVAC: 6 projects  Other: 4 projects • Hotel Retrofit Contest o 8 participating hotels o Free basic energy audits o Energy efficiency recommendations made, some implemented o 2009-2011 energy usage compared to 2012-2013 energy usage o 3 award categories o 213,780 kWh saved per year collectively o 22,536 Natural Gas therms savings per year collectively • Utilities Efficiency Grants offered to City departments to fund efficiency improvements o Ongoing o Bi-annual grant, up to $5,000 per department P48 I. o Awarded grants: insulating blinds, heating system controls, air sealing, lighting motion sensors, heating system upgrades, energy star appliances (refrigerator, dishwasher, washer and dryer), solar panels, waterless urinals, high efficiency boiler, tank-less water heater, high efficiency furnace, and LED lighting. 2013: • Continue past programs • DOE grant for ERC consumed • Local contractor workshops o Ongoing • Complimentary efficiency visits to homes and business • Residential Rebates: 71 rebates paid out, totaling $20,822 from COA o Total from COA and CORE: $36,324 • Continued focus on commercial efficiency o Door to door outreach o Commercial Energy Efficiency Open House at a past upgrader’s art gallery o 42 projects completed  Combined measured annual kWh savings: 120,617 kWh (not yet including undetermined savings from 13 projects within last 6 months)  Lighting: 26 projects  HVAC: 6 projects  Other: 10 projects o $26,577 paid out in rebates by COA to commercial customers  Total from COA and CORE: $44,555  Several efficiency projects completed without ever applying for rebates • Enerlyte energy use calculator available to electric customers o Compare individual usage patterns over time o Compare usage to similar neighbors o Energy efficiency tips o Appliance calculator and savings calculator o Goal setting for monetary and greenhouse gas savings o Create challenge groups to compete with friends for who can reduce their usage the most • Community Outreach: Aspen Saturday Market, Aspen Community Picnic, Earth Day, Arbor Day, Aspen Eco Fest, Science Festival o Quick Fix item hand outs  CFLs, Low Flow Fixtures, Night Lights o Energy efficiency information handouts 2014: • Continue past programs • Continue focus on commercial efficiency • Home Energy Audits in Aspen Urban Growth Boundary is a shared endeavor between sister utilities and CORE o Aspen Electric, Holy Cross Electric, Source Gas, and CORE contribute funds toward audit buy downs based on individual traits of each home • Utility Sponsored On-Bill Financing o Open to residential and commercial customers to finance efficiency projects o $1,000 - $25,000 loans o Paid back on monthly utility bill o 5% annual interest • Low Energy Aspen Facility (LEAF) business-front sticker recognition program for commercial customers who have made efficiency upgrades • Electric Vehicle Charging Station install in public parking plaza P49 I. • Incentives to Contractors o Paid to contractors who see a significant project through from the energy audit to completion • Community Outreach Re Vamp o Focus on energy audit sign ups rather than free quick fix items • Co-host Green Drinks with Hotel Retrofit Contest Participant • Third Party Review of Efficiency Program by National Renewable Energy Laboratory o Review of past programs’ impact o Proposal of future programs for further impact What CORE Does • Administers REMP Funds (Renewable Energy Mitigation Program) o Presence in Roaring Fork Valley  Offices in Aspen and Carbondale o Green Key Grants o Residential and Commercial Rebates and Incentives o Green Design Grants o Local Sustainability Initiatives o Close tie with Energy Smart Colorado What Energy Smart Colorado Does • Presence in Pitkin, Gunnison, and Eagle Counties • Combines with CORE to comprise local Energy Resource Center • Energy Efficiency Information Source • Financing for Efficiency Projects • Develop local efficiency workforce P50 I. Concise Summary of Water Efficiency Programs History *All data and literature prepared by Jeff Rice and Ryland French, unless otherwise noted. P51 I. Concise Summary of the City of Aspen’s Water Efficiency Programs to Date Prior to 2006: - Ongoing water use awareness/customer outreach (as early as 1992) - Low water use rebate program (2002 drought year) o Customers qualify for tiered rebates for reducing water consumption - Outreach: event participation (Arbor day, community picnic) - Water efficiency tips, materials, information offered 2006: - Clothes washer/Dishwasher rebates - Low flow/high efficiency toilet rebates - Free low flow shower heads, hose spray nozzles, garden hose irrigation timers, soil moisture meters - Clip board irrigation assessments - Community outreach events (Saturday Market, Arbor Day, Community Picnic, etc) 2007: - Continue 2006 Programs - Additional outreach events (ARE Day, Earth Day) - Internal water use assessments o City buildings o Water Treatment Pump stations efficiency study  Began implantation of upgraded pumps, apertures, and piping 2008: - Continue existing and new programs o Including Water Treatment/Delivery side improvements - Utility billing inserts implemented o Includes a wide variety of water use/efficiency information and tips as well as pertinent Water utility information - Municipal Golf Course irrigation upgrade (entire system including piping, irrigation heads, and timers) 2009: - Continue existing new programs - McKinstry Performance contract kick off and TEA’s o Included water efficiency in 13 city buildings and facilities 2010: - Continue existing and new programs - Implement McKinstry work scope (low flow shower heads and aerators where applicable, low flow high efficiency toilets) - Water treatment/delivery infrastructure (solar tank circulators for 2 exposed tanks) 2011: - Continue existing and new programs - Drought ordinance - Low flow/high efficiency toilet rebates/incentive programs expanded o Previously $75 per toilet 3 toilet max Res/Com…new program made commercial/lodging $150 per toilet and install unlimited number of toilets 2012: P52 I. - Continue existing and new programs - World Water Day participation o Outreach o information - Affordable housing retrofit pilot o Low flow shower heads o Low flow sink aerators o Outreach 2013: - Continue existing and new programs - Slow the flow (third party irrigation assessment program) - Arbor Day o Tree gators introduced with Parks tree giveaway - Residential toilet rebate/incentive expanded o From mx of three toilets to max of five (still $75 per toilet) 2014: - Continuing existing new and existing programs - Slow the Flow to have garden in a box addition - No longer offer clothes washer and dishwasher rebates - Toilet outreach retrofit program push P53 I. Energy Efficiency Opportunities Option 3: Dynamic Pricing Background Piece: DRAFT – CITY USE ONLY What it is: Cost-Reflective Pricing. If the utility needs to go out and purchase high cost peaking power, the cost is passed through, in some form, to the consumer. This strategy is widely used in the commercial and industrial sectors, particularly energy intensive ones. With increasing ability to provide detailed energy use information to residential end users, the use of this method in the residential sector is becoming more common. Opportunities: • Offers consumers potential savings and increased control over their electricity costs by allowing them to react to price signals. . • Can increase overall “economic efficiency” in the electric sector. • Pricing can be designed to be revenue neutral Challenges: • Designing the structure to be revenue neutral can be challenging. • High customer inertia indicates that opt-in programs will have low adoption. Default-style programs (where consumers are defaulted into a new rate structure and change through proactively requesting a reversion) see low rates of opt-out, but high complaint rates due to bill volatility. • To increase effectiveness of implementation requires an investment in AMI and increased marketing and education to consumers. Where it’s working: The Sacramento Municipal Utility District is completing the second year of a two-year residential dynamic pricing pilot. They offer both opt-in and default entry revenue neutral Time-of-Use (TOU) and Critical-Peak-Pricing (CPP) programs. The flat rate to compare to is $0.09/kWh. The TOU program offers electricity at $0.08/kWh at off peak times and $0.27/kwh from 4-7 pm on weekdays. The CPP program offers electricity for $0.07/kWh except for 12 events during the summer, when the price is $0.75/kWh. Year one findings indicate: • Highest savings, 26%, were from consumers in the opt-in CPP program • The average savings for opt-out customers was approximately 6%. • Marketing the program to address the consumers issues (e.g. bill volatility and how to avoid it) are much more successful in stemming complaints than those that address how the program will help the utility reduce peak load and lower overall costs. More information on mid-program results: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Dynamic- Pricing-Saves-Energy-and-Costs-at-SMUD Additional Resources 1. National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2009). Customer Incentives for Energy Efficiency Through Electric and Natural Gas Rate Design. Prepared by William Prindle, ICF International, Inc. <www.epa.gov/eeactionplan>. P54 I. Provides general information on electric and natural gas rate design and the effects of these pricing structures on consumer behavior. Discusses key concepts of utility rates and energy prices and explains the economic theory behind rate design. Also explains different utility rate design and pricing options, such as fixed, variable, and blended pricing. Identifies best practices for implementing new rates and pricing plans. Concludes that rate design can best motivate energy efficiency when implemented in conjunction with other energy efficiency programs that help reduce the well-documented barriers to cost-effective energy efficiency. 2. NERA Economic Consulting (2007). Rate Design is the No. 1 Energy Efficiency Tool. Prepared by Hethie Parmesano. < http://www.nera.com/67_5260.htm>. Promotes rate design as the best tool for achieving energy efficiency. Asserts that rate design should be considered the essential starting point for energy efficiency efforts, in order to maximize the cost-effectiveness of other efficiency programs. Explains that an economically efficient rating structure would make prices equal to the marginal cost of providing a further unit of power. Then explains the various ways in which economically efficiency pricing might complement other efficiency programs. Also has a section on proper implementation of more efficient rate structures. 3. The Brattle Group (2012). Managing the Benefits and Costs of Dynamic Pricing in Australia. Prepared by Ahmad Faruqui. < http://www.aemc.gov.au/Media/docs/The-Brattle-Group-f43200ed-f653- 4562-9d30-e4c3c6e155e7-0.pdf>. Reviews the different types of dynamic pricing in electrical power, including time-of-use pricing, real-time pricing, and variable-peak pricing. Asserts that, theoretically, all pricing schemes can be implemented in a manner that is revenue neutral. Explains that there exists a risk-reward tradeoff of varying degrees for dynamic pricing schemes, in that customers can see either large discounts or large increases in their electricity bills. Lists the major dynamic pricing programs and pilot programs recently undertaken in the U.S. and elsewhere. 4. The Institute for Electric Efficiency (2010). The Impact of Dynamic Pricing on Low Income Customers. Prepared by Ahmad Faruqui, Sanem Sergici, and Jennifer Palmer. < www.edisonfoundation.net/IEE>. Using results from five dynamic pricing programs in the U.S., presents empirical evidence on the impact of dynamic pricing on low income customers. Concludes that the flatter load profile of low income customers does not prevent them from being able responding to price signals; furthermore, provides evidence that many low income customers benefit from alternative rate structures even without changing their consumption patterns. 5. Association of Edison Illuminating Companies (2011). Impact Evaluation for BGE’s Winter SEP Pilot 2011. Prepared by Ran Zhang. < http://www.aeic.org/load_research/docs/Impactevaluation.pdf>. Reports the price responsiveness of customers who participated in a pilot program in which prices were partially dependent on load. Concludes that participants in the pilot program used 1.31% fewer kilowatt hours in response to a 1% increase in price. Due to small sample size, cautions against making policy based only on this one result. 6. The Brattle Group (2012). The Discovery of Price Responsiveness – A Survey of Experiments Involving Dynamic Pricing of Electricity. Prepared by Ahmad Faruqui and Jennifer Palmer. < http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2020587>. P55 I. Abstract: This paper surveys the results from 126 pricing experiments with dynamic pricing and time-of-use pricing of electricity. These experiments have been carried out across three continents at various times during the past decade. Data from 74 of these experiments are sufficiently complete to allow identification of the relationship between the strength of the peak to off-peak price ratio and the associated reduction in peak demand or demand response. An “arc of price responsiveness” emerges from the analysis, showing that the amount of demand response rises with the price ratio but at a decreasing rate. Paper also finds that about half of the variation in demand response can be explained by variations in the price ratio. This is a remarkable result, since the experiments vary in many other respects – climate, time period, the length of the peak period, the history of pricing innovation in each area, and the manner in which the dynamic pricing designs were marketed to customers. Also finds that enabling technologies such as in-home displays, energy orbs and programmable and communicating thermostats boost the amount of demand response. The results of the paper support the case for widespread rollout of dynamic pricing and time-of-use pricing. 7. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2013). Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Metering. Prepared by Michael P. Lee, et al. < https://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/2013/oct-demand-response.pdf>. Latest in a series of reports published by FERC that assess demand response and advanced metering in the U.S. The substance of the report is the results of surveys conducted by FERC every other year, as well as discussions with market participants and industry experts. Key developments in the past year include: that the market penetration of advanced meters was 25 percent in late 2011/early 2012; that demand response potential in organized markets operated by RTOs, ISOs, and ERCOT increased by more than 4.1 percent; and that demand response resources made significant contributions to balancing supply and demand during system emergencies for several RTOs and ISOs in the summer of 2013. 8. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (2010). Dynamic Pricing in a Smart Grid World. Prepared by Roger Levy and Chuck Goldman. <http://www.naruc.org/FERC/LBNL-Webinar3- Dynamic%20Pricing%20in%20a%20Smart%20Grid%20World.pdf>. Powerpoint presentation that aims to explain the interplay between smart grids and dynamic pricing. Asserts that “smart rates” are necessary to achieve the benefits of the information and communication applications that comprise the concept of a Smart Grid. Notably, explains that the price responsiveness of different customer classes may vary widely, and that price responsiveness erode as time passes. 9. The Brattle Group (2009). The Power of Dynamic Pricing. Prepared by Ahmad Faruqui, Ryan Hledik, and John Tsoukalis. <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1340594>. Abstract: To show the power of dynamic pricing, develops a set of illustrative rates using data from a generic California utility and computes the benefits that would accrue to the state's economy from widespread deployment of these rates. While the numbers are specific to California, the process and methodology are perfectly general and should be of interest to utilities and regulatory bodies throughout North America. Develops dynamic pricing rates for four customer classes: Residential, Medium Commercial and Industrial (C&I), Large Commercial, and Large Industrial. In order to show the development of these rates, begins with a discussion of existing rates. All the dynamic pricing rates are developed to be revenue neutral to these existing rates. P56 I. 10. The Brattle Group (2011). Dynamic Pricing of Electricity and its Discontents. Prepared by Ahmad Faruqui and Jennifer Palmer. <http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/uploads/1/Dynamic_Pricing_of_Electricity_and_its_Disco ntents_1.pdf>. White paper that aims to dispel supposed myths about of dynamic pricing in electrical power. These myths include that customers do not respond to dynamic pricing, and that their response does not vary with the magnitude of the dynamic pricing incentive. Among others, other myths dispelled are that customer response does not persist over time and that dynamic pricing will hurt low-income customers. P57 I. Energy Efficiency Opportunities Option 1: Benchmarking and (Optional) Labeling Background Piece: DRAFT – INTERNAL CITY USE What it is: Mandatory energy benchmarking and labeling of commercial, multifamily, and city buildings for the purpose of consumer information. Some jurisdictions (New York, District of Columbia, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Philadelphia) require public disclosure of energy use audits. Fines are applied to properties that do not complete required audits by specified dates. Benefits: • Highly visible • Can be scaled to commercial and multifamily buildings • Provides detailed information on how and where energy is used – leading to better energy management • Informs potential tenants and buyers of building energy costs Challenges: • Revenue loss for municipal utility in absence of revised rate structures • Aggregation of meters for multi-tenant buildings do not reveal energy usage by individuals Where it’s working: Austin, TX The Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure Ordinance requires building energy rating and disclosure for nonresidential facilities and mandatory energy audits for homes and apartment complexes. The multifamily provisions require that buildings are audited within 10 years of construction and that results are posted within the building and provided to prospective tenants. Properties that use 150% or greater of the city average energy use per square foot are required to make appropriate energy efficiency upgrades within 18 months of the completed audit. Commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet must be benchmarked and results disclosed to prospective buyers prior to sale. Commercial buildings must also calculate energy ratings annually subsequent to initial benchmarking. Seattle, WA Ordinance CB 116731 requires benchmarking and disclosure for nonresidential and multifamily buildings. Building must benchmark energy performance with Energy Star Portfolio Manager. Results must be disclosed to the Seattle Department of Planning and Development. Benchmarking results must also be made available to prospective buyers and tenants prior to building sale or lease. Benchmarked buildings must disclose energy performance annually to current tenants as well as prospective buyers, tenants, and lenders. Chicago, IL The Chicago Energy Use Benchmarking Ordinance requires all commercial, residential, and government buildings over 50,000 square feet to annually evaluate energy performance using Energy Star Portfolio Manager. Industrial facilities, storage units, and hazardous use facilities are excluded from the ordinance. Benchmark scores are posted annually to a public website. Individual building scores are not identified until the second year of reporting (in an effort to give managers time to implement P58 I. improvements. Buildings with more than 10% of space dedicated to data centers, TV studios, or trading floors are exempt from public disclosure of energy performance. Buildings must submit energy performance data annually the data must be verified by a licensed professional every third year. Other Resources: Energy Star Portfolio Manager Data Trends This site provides information on the impacts of benchmarking. It presents energy performance trends in buildings tracked using Energy Star Portfolio Manager. Trends of note: • Buildings that consistently benchmark energy use save an average of 2.4 percent per year. • Buildings achieved a total savings of 7 percent and an ENERGY STAR score increase of 6 points over the 3-year period of analysis. http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/about-us/research-and-reports/portfolio-manager-datatrends Institute for Market Transformation Building Energy Transparency: A Framework for Implementing US Commercial Energy Rating & Disclosure Policy This booklet discusses the issues surrounding benchmarking policy creation and gives an overview of best practices in energy reporting. http://www.imt.org/resources/detail/building-energy-transparency-a-framework-for- implementing...energy-rating-d BuildingRating.org US Policy Briefs This site lists all of the current benchmarking ordinances in the US and gives a brief overview of each. International programs can also be found on this site. http://www.buildingrating.org/content/us-policy-briefs P59 I. Energy Efficiency Opportunities Option 2: Point of Exchange Upgrades Background Piece: DRAFT – CITY USE ONLY What it is: Mandatory energy performance audits and upgrades are required at the point of exchange (sale or lease) and/or at the time of significant renovation. Upgrades are prescriptive and each building must complete a checklist of requirements. Upgrade costs are capped so as not to become cumbersome to the property owner. Opportunities: • Ensures continuous upgrades • Lost revenue can be recouped through filing fees • Standards can keep pace with changing EE technologies • Can easily be paired with other efficiency goals (i.e. water efficiency goals) Challenges: • Savings can take time • Savings directly tied to rate of building turnover and may stagnate if the market slows • Programmatic investment: consistent updating of standards required Where it’s working: Berkeley, CA The Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance (RECO) applies to all homes, residential areas of mixed- use buildings, tenants-in-common, condominiums, multi-family properties, live-work spaces and boarding houses (including the common areas/common systems) and must be complied with upon transfer of property or in the event of significant renovation (renovation value of greater $50,000). For properties undergoing renovations of $50,000 or more, spending limit for RECO measures is 1% of renovation costs. Point of exchange upgrade costs are capped at 0.75% of the final property sales price or $0.50/square foot depending on the number of units sold. The Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance (CECO) requires commercial property owners to complete prescriptive energy efficiency upgrades in their buildings upon transfer of property ownership or when additions or renovations are made. Properties that are less than 10 years old or that have completed audits and upgrades within the last 10 years are exempt from the statute. All audits are conducted by a city approved auditor. The City of Berkeley’s Climate Action goal is to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the year 2050. The RECO and CECO ordinances are part of that goal. Berkeley’s goal was to reduce total energy use by 2% per year. They are currently off target with an annual average reduction of 1.6%/year in residential energy use and 1.3%/year in commercial energy use. It is important to note that Berkeley has reduced total energy use by 36,991 MWh (electricity and natural gas) since 2000 while the population grew by just over 10%. Other Resources: City of Berkeley Energy and Sustainable Development Office P60 I. This site gives detailed information about the RECO and CECO programs in Berkeley. Information includes progress reports, current upgrade requirements, and relevant fees. http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/SubUnitHome.aspx?id=15404 P61 I.