Energy-efficiency standard is an opportunity | Does spending more on energy efficiency cut rates? PUC seeks a big increase in funds for conservation |
One of New Hampshire’s economic engines is getting a boost with the start of a new energy-efficiency resource standard.Utilities, state agencies, businesses and advocates all came together this year to develop a new energy-efficiency framework that strengthens our state’s commitment to reducing energy costs and helps keep New Hampshire’s energy dollars from leaving the state economy. Each year, New Hampshire spends more than $6 billion on energy. Energy efficiency helps us recapture some of those dollars. This makes energy bills more manageable and frees up savings that can be used by New Hampshire’s families and business for other necessities and investments. The new energy-efficiency standard establishes specific targets for energy savings that utilities must meet. By 2020, New Hampshire will realize cumulative energy savings equal to 3.1 percent of 2014 electric sales and 2.25 percent of 2014 natural gas sales. Those savings will build upon the utilities’ award-winning “NHSaves” programs that help customers reduce energy by using new technologies and improving buildings. The new framework makes programs more available to lower-income families and also makes a wide range of incentives available to help families, businesses, municipalities and nonprofits take advantage of cost-saving energy efficiency projects. While those who choose to participate directly in energy-efficiency programs will benefit immediately from lower energy bills, those who don’t choose to become active participants will also benefit. There will be less wear-and-tear on the energy grid, less need to build new power plants and less need to rely on the higher-cost power plants that keep the system running on hot summer days and chilly winter nights. Beyond achieving cost-effective savings, energy efficiency provides many other benefits to our communities. The contractors who perform building improvements and equipment installations are usually local businesses employing skilled New Hampshire workers. Improving the efficiency of buildings also improves air quality and comfort, giving us safer, healthier and more enjoyable spaces to live, play and work. The energy-efficiency programs are required to be cost-effective under stringent tests. The Public Utilities Commission, independent evaluators and ISO New England measure and verify the savings these programs offer us on an annual basis. ISO New England, which oversees New England’s electricity grid, not only quantifies energy efficiency results, it counts on those reductions in its regional planning. When we cut costs region-wide through reliable and low-cost efficiency measures, we make sure that New Hampshire energy bills are more manageable as a direct result of energy efficiency. Thousands of residents and businesses across the state can tell you about the savings they have already seen from past energy-efficiency projects. However, there is more demand for energy efficiency than current programs can meet. These programs are very popular, and as a result they frequently become oversubscribed. This causes projects to be delayed and leaves additional savings on the table. With the implementation of an energy-efficiency standard, we look forward to working together with families, businesses, legislators and other leaders to complete more efficiency projects and achieve greater energy savings that will benefit all of us here in New Hampshire. This article was submitted by the settling parties to the NH Energy Efficiency Resource Standard: Eversource Energy; Unitil Energy Systems; Liberty Utilities Corp.; NH Electric Cooperative; NH Legal Assistance for The Way Home; Belknap-Merrimack Community Action Agency; Southern NH Services; Conservation Law Foundation NH; The Jordan Institute; NH Sustainable Energy Association; Acadia Center; TRC Energy Services; NH Rep. Robert Backus, pro se; NH Office of Energy and Planning; NH Department of Environmental Services; and the Office of the Consumer Advocate. This article appears in the September 16 2016 issue of New Hampshire Business Review Did you like what you read here? Subscribe to New Hampshire Business Review» | Whelen Engineering will be spending $175,000 to switch its fluorescent lights to LED this year, saving the company $60,000 a year -— 20 percent of its electric bill. But the Charlestown manufacturer, which employs 950 people, will get its money back in two years rather than three, thanks to a $50,000 grant from its utility. Mike Turcotte started Turns Cycle Solutions in 2009 with $364 in his pocket. Today, the Nashua-based firm helps weatherize hundreds of home, thanks to utility funding. The claim for these ratepayer-funded programs is that they will actually reduce electric rates not just for those who take advantage of them to cut their energy usage and reduce their utility bills but also for those who do not. And in the long run, those savings will more than make up for the extra amount that ratepayers are investing now. “It’s counterintuitive that paying more will result in a savings overall,” said Ellen Hawes, a senior analyst of Acadia Center, an environmental advocacy group in Boston. “But that’s what the data shows.” “When you reduce grid usage, you don’t have many peak power days,” added Laura Richardson, executive director of the Jordan Institute in Concord. “There was one afternoon when the cost went up to $1,740 a kilowatt-hour. It was outrageous. If you shave the peak, everybody saves.” “If the energy-efficiency savings reduce the load enough, then we are reducing wear and tear on the grid, the need to build power plants to handle the peak demand on the really hot days and cold days,” said Kate Peters, a senior analyst of energy-efficiency for Eversource. CORE programs But while some businesses have signed onto the idea, others are skeptical. “Our biggest concern is what it is going to cost our members,” said Stefanie Lamb, vice president of environment public policy at the Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire. “We’re concerned about anything that has the potential to raise our bills.” The debate centers on the two rate charges that pay for the so-called CORE energy-efficiency programs, programs offered by utilities — the system benefits charge (SBC) and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Ratepayers have always paid the SBC, about a third of a penny per kilowatt-hour, or about $2.15 a month for the average residential user. Some of the money is used to help low-income ratepayers pay their bills. The rest (0.18 of a penny) is dedicated to the utilities’ various energy-saving programs, outlined at NHSaves.com. The SBC hasn’t been increased since 2001, but that is about to change after the Public Utilities Commission adopted an energy-efficiency resource standard (EERS) early last month. The standard is set to take effect in 2018. Until that decision, New Hampshire was the only New England state without an EERS. More than half of the states in the United States have one, and all but three have a better energy-efficiency rate than New Hampshire, though the state does have the third best among those that do not have an EERS. Currently, New Hampshire saves about 0.6 percent of our electricity though energy efficiency. The PUC standard aims to increase that to 3.1 percent between 2018 and 2020. The state saves about 0.66 percent in natural gas use through energy-efficiency programs, and it would increase that to 2.25 percent over the same time period. Systems benefits charge Getting to the higher efficiency level is not rocket science, and the state could have accomplished it sooner, if the programs didn’t keep running out of money. Even before fall, the residential weatherization rebate program is nearly exhausted. (It usually doesn’t even last this long. An unusually mild winter, coupled with lower energy prices, calmed demand.) It’s not just the residential programs. Eversource’s small commercial program was used up by the end of the first quarter. Funds in the large commercial and municipal programs are now depleted as well. With such demand, it’s easy to see how more money would translate into more homes and business using less energy. And that more money comes from the system benefits charge. The SBC currently pays for nearly $20 million of the $26.4 million budget for the utilities’ CORE programs. The PUC wants to increase this charge by roughly half a penny per kilowatt-hour. That works out to an extra $1.35 a month for the average residential customer, and about $21 a month for a small business. For gas customers, it would be about a third of a penny per therm, or an average 59 cents a month for residents and $3.30 a month for a typical small business. That may not seem like much, but it would amount to a big increase in the SBC contribution: utilities would have $100 million to promote energy efficiency. “We are really excited with this opportunity to expand,” said Eversource’s Peters. At deadline, the utilities were drawing up plans to do so. Legislative response? So far all this has gone on under the radar in a PUC docket, especially since environmentalists and the utilities are in agreement that this would actually reduce electric rates. In addition, the PUC has taken the position that the plan does not need to go before the Legislature. The state has capped how much of the SBC can go to low-income programs, but not to energy conservation. That could change, since rates could start going up right when lawmakers return in January. Although the program won’t start until 2018, the PUC has designated 2017 as a transitional year. It will need to start raising the SBC in that year to gear up for 2018. The utilities expect to increase their spending in 2017, from $26.4 million to roughly $30 million, or more than 10 percent. In addition, the SBC increase would be offset by an increase in energy efficiency. It turns out that payments from regional grid operator ISO New England for capacity to handle peak demand – known as “forward capacity payments” – apply to energy efficiency as well as power plants stocking extra fuel. This means that the CORE programs will get an extra $4.2 million for 2017, rather than $2.4 million. No matter the size of the 2017 increase, it has already grabbed the attention of some lawmakers. Sen. Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, understands that sometimes you need to spend money to save money, “but I’d like to see the actual data to back that up, that the savings at the peak justify these expenditures, a huge new uptick in costs.” He was a little miffed that the PUC hadn’t tried to make its case before deciding on a standard. “They would be well advised to come up with the hard data that this is going to actually save money if they think they don’t need to talk to us, OK – we’ll see about that.” Rep. Michael Vose, R-Epping, a member of the House Science, Technology and Energy Committee, already has penned an op-ed opposing the EERS. He told NH Business Review that it was “another mandate, another fee on electrical ratepayers.” And while he said the increase is “admittedly small, it all adds up” when you put it on top of the current SBC, and costs added by Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard and RGGI. Vose also said he questions whether such measures actually save energy, citing “rebound paradox,” a theory that efficiency actually encourages more usage. But PUC Consumer Advocate Donald Kreis says states that have applied an EERS standard do save more energy than those that don’t. Hawes said that Acadia hasn’t seen this “rebound” effect to be significant. “There is only so much electricity you can use,” she said. RGGI offers another source of statistics about the effect of energy efficiency on savings, citing statistics that show energy usage and costs have gone down more in RGGI states then their counterparts. RGGI changes mulled The same argument about the EERS standard could be applied to RGGI, though that debate is happening in entirely different arenas. First, nobody sees the cost of RGGI on their bill. It’s a charge power producers pay to emit greenhouse gases set by an auction process, which is determined largely by an emissions cap in the nine-state region, including the New England states and Delaware, Maryland and New York. Although the theory is that much of the proceeds go to energy-efficiency programs, each state has the right to do what it wants with the funds. New Hampshire used to put the entire amount into energy-efficiency programs, mainly run by the PUC, but a change in state law resulted in dedicating only the first dollar of the amount paid at auction for utilities’ efficiency programs, with the rest rebated to customers. In addition, RGGI has been a victim of its own success, as well as that of other energy-efficiency programs, which help lower the demand for power. Power producers don’t have much trouble meeting the emissions cap, so they don’t need RGGI allowances as much, meaning the price has been low, and less has been raised at the auctions. In New Hampshire, RGGI only accounts for $2.5 million of the money used by the CORE programs, or a tenth of the budget. But that also could change. Every four years, officials from the nine states update the program. Last time they did, in 2012, the states agreed to lower the cap by 2.5 percent a year. This year, environmentalists want to accelerate that decrease to 5 percent annual reduction. That could double the costs involved, meaning a lot more money for energy efficiency, but also higher electric prices. Massachusetts has agreed to the change, but New Hampshire is still making up its mind. “It’s too early to tell, “ said Joe Fontaine, a DES Division of Air Resources official who attends the negotiations on behalf of New Hampshire. “We have to see what impact it will have on the state, but we have been a leader in this, and I hope we will be a leader going forward.” Unlike the EERS, whatever is approved regionally must go before the Legislature. Actually, RGGI comes up every year in front of lawmakers anyway. Last session, Sen. Dan Feltes, D-Concord, put forward a bill that would take away the rebate to residential ratepayers, putting all of that money into residential and municipal energy-efficiency programs, while totally rebating the proceeds to commercial ratepayers and eliminating the money allocated. The BIA supported this bill, but it didn’t pass. If the status quo remains, tightening the regional lid on the RGGI cap won’t squeeze out any more energy-efficiency money for the Granite State. If the CORE energy program was funded more by RGGI, it wouldn’t need as large a contribution from the SBC. But it could make a big difference in other states, and that in turn could lower demand on the grid and lower prices, no matter what New Hampshire does. This article appears in the September 16 2016 issue of New Hampshire Business Review Did you like what you read here? Subscribe to New Hampshire Business Review» |
Hanover establishes energy-efficiency district
Special financing for commercial buildings available under state’s C-PACE program
-click here
By Jeff Feingold
Published: May 18, 2016
The town of Hanover has become the first municipality to adopt RSA 53-F, which allows it to establish the entire town as an Energy Efficiency and Clean Energy District.
The town is now eligible for financing through the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy, or C-PACE.
Under C-PACE, private owners of commercial properties, including nonprofits, can obtain long-term financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, by electing to repay their loan through a special assessment tax from the town.
In addition, private capital providers, such as banks and other investors, can finance projects with commercial building owners using the C-PACE framework. Municipalities act as conduits for repayment of the loan and building owners and capital providers can benefit from the tax status of the C-PACE special assessment.
Modeled after municipal betterments such as sidewalk and sewer districts, PACE financing has been adopted by 32 states and in the past few years has helped more than 700 commercial buildings across the country complete energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades using over $200 Million in private investment.
The Concord-based Jordan Institute is the statewide administrator of the program. It is currently working with the cities of Concord, Portsmouth, Dover, Keene and Lebanon in adopting C-PACE in the coming months, according to Scott Maslansky, director of the C-PACE program for the institute.
This article appears in the May 27 2016 issue of New Hampshire Business Review
Did you like what you read here? Subscribe to New Hampshire Business Review»
Published: May 18, 2016
The town of Hanover has become the first municipality to adopt RSA 53-F, which allows it to establish the entire town as an Energy Efficiency and Clean Energy District.
The town is now eligible for financing through the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy, or C-PACE.
Under C-PACE, private owners of commercial properties, including nonprofits, can obtain long-term financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, by electing to repay their loan through a special assessment tax from the town.
In addition, private capital providers, such as banks and other investors, can finance projects with commercial building owners using the C-PACE framework. Municipalities act as conduits for repayment of the loan and building owners and capital providers can benefit from the tax status of the C-PACE special assessment.
Modeled after municipal betterments such as sidewalk and sewer districts, PACE financing has been adopted by 32 states and in the past few years has helped more than 700 commercial buildings across the country complete energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades using over $200 Million in private investment.
The Concord-based Jordan Institute is the statewide administrator of the program. It is currently working with the cities of Concord, Portsmouth, Dover, Keene and Lebanon in adopting C-PACE in the coming months, according to Scott Maslansky, director of the C-PACE program for the institute.
This article appears in the May 27 2016 issue of New Hampshire Business Review
Did you like what you read here? Subscribe to New Hampshire Business Review»
From Bloomberg News:
Concerns Raised Over RGGI Use
-click here
By Gerald B. Silverman, Martha Kessler and Adrianne Appel
April 15 — One of the key features of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is that most of the proceeds from its carbon auctions are reinvested in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
RGGI and its supporters have long argued that this feature has allowed states to reduce carbon emissions with both an emissions cap and programs funded by the auction proceeds. They have lauded the programs for stimulating economic development and building a so-called clean energy economy.
RGGI supporters are now concerned, however, that the transfer of RGGI proceeds to other programs in New York state and a proposal to redirect RGGI funds in Connecticut is weakening that core principle of the cap-and-trade program. They describe the use of RGGI proceeds for other programs as a “raid” on RGGI funds.
RGGI auctions have raised a total of $2.3 billion for the nine states—New York, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.
State officials in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Delaware told Bloomberg BNA that there has been no diversion of RGGI funds in their states. Representatives in Maryland could not be reached for comment.
RGGI MOUThe RGGI memorandum of understanding (MOU) that guides state participation in the program provides discretion to individual states on how to use RGGI proceeds, as long as at least 25 percent are used for energy efficiency measures, renewable or clean energy technologies, carbon emissions abatement technologies, or direct ratepayer assistance. It also allows states to use the funds to administer the program.
Jordan Stutt, a policy analyst for the Boston-based Acadia Center, said states have used far more than 25 percent of the proceeds for these programs and there has been no movement to raise the 25 percent guideline because states like the flexibility and have spent most of the money on clean energy programs.
“That's a strength of how the RGGI model is set up,” he told Bloomberg BNA.
Most of the proceeds from RGGI auctions have gone to energy efficiency programs, according to a 2015 report. The report, which covers the period from 2008–2013, said 57 percent of proceeds went to energy efficiency programs, 15 percent were used for greenhouse gas abatement, and 13 percent were used for clean and renewable energy programs.
Nine percent of proceeds went to direct bill assistance and 6 percent were used by RGGI and the states for administration of the program (76 ECR, 4/21/15).
New York The 2016–2017 budget Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D)approved transfers $68 million from the fund administered by the New York State Energy Development Authority (NYSERDA) for RGGI auction proceeds to other programs, but whether that transfer actually constitutes a “raid” or not is subject to interpretation.
The budget would transfer $30 million to the state Urban Development Corporation to provide assistance to communities that lose property tax revenues from the closure of a power plant (S. 6408), $15 million to the State University of New York to create a Clean Energy Workforce Opportunity Program and $23 million for a variety of tax credits for solar energy, green buildings and other clean energy programs (S. 6406).
New York received $167.7 million in proceeds from RGGI auctions in 2015.
“The governor is committed to making New York coal-free by 2020 and meeting 50 percent of our electricity needs with renewables like solar, wind and hydro by 2030,” Morris Peters, a spokesman for the state Division of the Budget, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“To achieve these goals, we must retire aging and obsolete power plants, support clean technologies, and educate the next generation of clean energy workers,” he said. “Clearly, these objectives are consistent with the RGGI program’s goal of promoting a clean energy future.”
The state's leading environmental groups, however, opposed the use of $30 million in RGGI funds for communities with closed power plants.
“We strongly oppose this raid of RGGI proceeds and urge the adoption of a final budget that avoids the diversion of RGGI funds from the clean energy and carbon abatement measures they are intended to advance,” the groups said in a letter to the governor and state legislative leaders.
Transfers OpposedTravis Proulx, a spokesman for Environmental Advocates of New York, told Bloomberg BNA that the group opposes all three transfers from NYSERDA's RGGI fund.
Across the border from New York, Massachusetts is explicitly permitted to use RGGI proceeds to offset property tax revenues lost as a result of a plant closing, under the Green Community Act, the statute implementing the RGGI program.
New York has transferred money from the NYSERDA fund twice in the past and each time it raised concerns from environmental groups. It used $90 million to close a budget deficit in 2009 and $41 million in 2015 for the Environmental Protection Fund and other environmental programs.
New York is unique because it is the only RGGI state that has implemented the RGGI program through regulations, rather than statute. This lack of explicit statutory authority opened New York up to a lawsuit in 2011 and environmentalists fear that additional budget transfers could expose the state to litigation again.
The conservative leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute sued the state in 2011, alleging that New York was effectively imposing an energy tax through the RGGI rules without gaining legislative approval. An appeals court rejected the lawsuit on grounds that the claims were time-barred or moot and the state's highest court declined to hear the case (Thrun v. Cuomo, N.Y., No. 2014-138, motion denied 4/3/14) (65 ECR, 4/4/14).
Connecticut - Legislators in Connecticut are considering a proposal that would divert $20 million in RGGI auction proceeds from energy efficiency and renewables into the state general fund. The proposal is part of an effort by state lawmakers to reduce a projected $933 million budget deficit for FY 2017.
Connecticut received $29.9 million in RGGI auction proceeds in 2015, or two-thirds of the total.
A measure from the Joint Committee on Finance (H. 5046) reported April 7 would sweep the $20 million, but the issue is still under debate in the legislature. Jeffrey Berger (D), chairman of the House Finance Committee, told the Joint Committee that it is his understanding that the diversion of $20 million from the RGGI auction proceeds still would allow the state to meet its obligation under the RGGI memorandum of understanding.
The budget Gov. Dannel P. Malloy (D) proposed doesn't include a sweep of RGGI funds, nor does a revised budget released April 12. The legislature is scheduled to adjourn May 4 and is required to enact a budget before concluding its 2016 session.
The RGGI sweep is opposed by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), whose deputy commissioner, Katie Dykes, is the current chairwoman of RGGI.
Legality QuestionedSweeping the RGGI funds would violate Connecticut law, which requires that proceeds be used for energy conservation, load management and renewable energy programs, according to a DEEP fact sheet provided to Bloomberg BNA. It said the sweep also would violate the terms of the RGGI MOU.
The New England grid operator, ISO-NE, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently have begun to factor Connecticut’s investment in efficiency and renewables into their planning for how much power generation is needed to avoid blackouts and power outages. If legislators proceed with their plans to funnel $20 million of the RGGI proceeds away from those programs and into the state General Fund, then “our region would face inadequate power supply, threatening reliability and causing the ISO-NE to seek costly alternative sources of power generation,” the fact sheet said.
It said sweeping the funds would amount to “an energy tax” that would increase electricity costs for ratepayers. DEEP also said it could permanently damage the state’s efficiency and renewable programs by creating regulatory uncertainty.
The budget proposal would divert $15 million from energy efficiency programs and $5 million from the Connecticut Green Bank, which provides funding for renewable energy, according to the nonprofit Acadia Center.
“We are deeply troubled by this shortsighted proposal,” Jamie Howland, director the Center's Climate and Energy Analysis Center, said in a statement. “The raid would disadvantage consumers, increase pollution, undermine the state's leadership on climate and further erode confidence in the predictability of policy making.”
Differences by StateStutt said the current situation in New York is different from the one in Connecticut because New York will be using the money for clean energy programs. He told Bloomberg BNA that the Acadia Center opposes the New York transfers, but at least they're being used to achieve strategic environmental goals.
Jennifer Smokelin, an attorney with Reed Smith LLP whose clients include a number of energy companies, said the debate over using RGGI funds is “mostly a local issue” because each state has its own rules for spending the proceeds from RGGI auctions.
“I think it is important to remember that the redirection of funds doesn’t hurt the stringency of the cap at all—compliance entities still have to comply just as before,” she told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“I think on some level it draws attention to the positive effects on state coffers a cap and trade system can have,” she said. “Controversy over where money should go is a better problem to have than not having the money at all.”
Other RGGI StatesIn Massachusetts, the Green Community Act sets forth exactly how the commonwealth may use RGGI proceeds. They are primarily used for energy efficiency and other programs under the Mass Save program, grants for green communities programs, rebates for electric vehicles, energy efficiency, conservation and demand-response initiatives, according to Katie Gronendyke, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources.
Massachusetts received $74.2 million in RGGI auction proceeds last year.
Very Specific UsesPhillip J. Cherry, director of the Division of Energy and Climate and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, said the Delaware statute is very specific on how RGGI funds may be used. Sixty-five percent must by allocated to the state's Sustainable Energy Utility program, 15 percent for low-income consumers, 10 percent for greenhouse gas reduction projects, and up to 10 percent for administration of the program and other expenses. Delaware received $20.8 million in RGGI proceeds in 2015.
There are debates underway in Maine and Hampshire about how best to spend RGGI funds, but not about diverting the funds from their intended purpose.
New Hampshire used $3.1 million of its RGGI proceeds to balance its budget in its 2010–2011 fiscal year, Laura Richardson, executive director of the Jordan Institute, an energy efficiency advocacy organization in Concord, N.H., told Bloomberg BNA.
“It wasn’t that much,” she said. “But it set a precedent for other funds to be raided.”
She said the state’s Renewable Energy Fund has been continuously raided and used as general funds.
RGGI Critic
The debate over using RGGI funds also has emboldened critics of cap-and-trade programs.
“Cap-and-trade programs and carbon taxes are ripe for this sort of abuse,” Chris Warren, a spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research, a free-market think tank that opposes the RGGI program, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. “It’s an inherent problem that isn’t unique to RGGI.”
“Politicians get their foot in the door by selling us solutions to climate change and making lofty promises about how the revenue will be spent,” he said. “However, at the end of the day, these programs aren’t about the climate or the environment. They’re about opening up another stream of revenue for politicians to spend how they please.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Gerald B. Silverman in Albany, N.Y., at [email protected]; Martha Kessler in Boston at [email protected]; and Adrianne Appel in Boston at [email protected].
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Pearl at [email protected]
Try Energy and Climate Report now
April 15 — One of the key features of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is that most of the proceeds from its carbon auctions are reinvested in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
RGGI and its supporters have long argued that this feature has allowed states to reduce carbon emissions with both an emissions cap and programs funded by the auction proceeds. They have lauded the programs for stimulating economic development and building a so-called clean energy economy.
RGGI supporters are now concerned, however, that the transfer of RGGI proceeds to other programs in New York state and a proposal to redirect RGGI funds in Connecticut is weakening that core principle of the cap-and-trade program. They describe the use of RGGI proceeds for other programs as a “raid” on RGGI funds.
RGGI auctions have raised a total of $2.3 billion for the nine states—New York, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.
State officials in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Delaware told Bloomberg BNA that there has been no diversion of RGGI funds in their states. Representatives in Maryland could not be reached for comment.
RGGI MOUThe RGGI memorandum of understanding (MOU) that guides state participation in the program provides discretion to individual states on how to use RGGI proceeds, as long as at least 25 percent are used for energy efficiency measures, renewable or clean energy technologies, carbon emissions abatement technologies, or direct ratepayer assistance. It also allows states to use the funds to administer the program.
Jordan Stutt, a policy analyst for the Boston-based Acadia Center, said states have used far more than 25 percent of the proceeds for these programs and there has been no movement to raise the 25 percent guideline because states like the flexibility and have spent most of the money on clean energy programs.
“That's a strength of how the RGGI model is set up,” he told Bloomberg BNA.
Most of the proceeds from RGGI auctions have gone to energy efficiency programs, according to a 2015 report. The report, which covers the period from 2008–2013, said 57 percent of proceeds went to energy efficiency programs, 15 percent were used for greenhouse gas abatement, and 13 percent were used for clean and renewable energy programs.
Nine percent of proceeds went to direct bill assistance and 6 percent were used by RGGI and the states for administration of the program (76 ECR, 4/21/15).
New York The 2016–2017 budget Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D)approved transfers $68 million from the fund administered by the New York State Energy Development Authority (NYSERDA) for RGGI auction proceeds to other programs, but whether that transfer actually constitutes a “raid” or not is subject to interpretation.
The budget would transfer $30 million to the state Urban Development Corporation to provide assistance to communities that lose property tax revenues from the closure of a power plant (S. 6408), $15 million to the State University of New York to create a Clean Energy Workforce Opportunity Program and $23 million for a variety of tax credits for solar energy, green buildings and other clean energy programs (S. 6406).
New York received $167.7 million in proceeds from RGGI auctions in 2015.
“The governor is committed to making New York coal-free by 2020 and meeting 50 percent of our electricity needs with renewables like solar, wind and hydro by 2030,” Morris Peters, a spokesman for the state Division of the Budget, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“To achieve these goals, we must retire aging and obsolete power plants, support clean technologies, and educate the next generation of clean energy workers,” he said. “Clearly, these objectives are consistent with the RGGI program’s goal of promoting a clean energy future.”
The state's leading environmental groups, however, opposed the use of $30 million in RGGI funds for communities with closed power plants.
“We strongly oppose this raid of RGGI proceeds and urge the adoption of a final budget that avoids the diversion of RGGI funds from the clean energy and carbon abatement measures they are intended to advance,” the groups said in a letter to the governor and state legislative leaders.
Transfers OpposedTravis Proulx, a spokesman for Environmental Advocates of New York, told Bloomberg BNA that the group opposes all three transfers from NYSERDA's RGGI fund.
Across the border from New York, Massachusetts is explicitly permitted to use RGGI proceeds to offset property tax revenues lost as a result of a plant closing, under the Green Community Act, the statute implementing the RGGI program.
New York has transferred money from the NYSERDA fund twice in the past and each time it raised concerns from environmental groups. It used $90 million to close a budget deficit in 2009 and $41 million in 2015 for the Environmental Protection Fund and other environmental programs.
New York is unique because it is the only RGGI state that has implemented the RGGI program through regulations, rather than statute. This lack of explicit statutory authority opened New York up to a lawsuit in 2011 and environmentalists fear that additional budget transfers could expose the state to litigation again.
The conservative leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute sued the state in 2011, alleging that New York was effectively imposing an energy tax through the RGGI rules without gaining legislative approval. An appeals court rejected the lawsuit on grounds that the claims were time-barred or moot and the state's highest court declined to hear the case (Thrun v. Cuomo, N.Y., No. 2014-138, motion denied 4/3/14) (65 ECR, 4/4/14).
Connecticut - Legislators in Connecticut are considering a proposal that would divert $20 million in RGGI auction proceeds from energy efficiency and renewables into the state general fund. The proposal is part of an effort by state lawmakers to reduce a projected $933 million budget deficit for FY 2017.
Connecticut received $29.9 million in RGGI auction proceeds in 2015, or two-thirds of the total.
A measure from the Joint Committee on Finance (H. 5046) reported April 7 would sweep the $20 million, but the issue is still under debate in the legislature. Jeffrey Berger (D), chairman of the House Finance Committee, told the Joint Committee that it is his understanding that the diversion of $20 million from the RGGI auction proceeds still would allow the state to meet its obligation under the RGGI memorandum of understanding.
The budget Gov. Dannel P. Malloy (D) proposed doesn't include a sweep of RGGI funds, nor does a revised budget released April 12. The legislature is scheduled to adjourn May 4 and is required to enact a budget before concluding its 2016 session.
The RGGI sweep is opposed by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), whose deputy commissioner, Katie Dykes, is the current chairwoman of RGGI.
Legality QuestionedSweeping the RGGI funds would violate Connecticut law, which requires that proceeds be used for energy conservation, load management and renewable energy programs, according to a DEEP fact sheet provided to Bloomberg BNA. It said the sweep also would violate the terms of the RGGI MOU.
The New England grid operator, ISO-NE, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently have begun to factor Connecticut’s investment in efficiency and renewables into their planning for how much power generation is needed to avoid blackouts and power outages. If legislators proceed with their plans to funnel $20 million of the RGGI proceeds away from those programs and into the state General Fund, then “our region would face inadequate power supply, threatening reliability and causing the ISO-NE to seek costly alternative sources of power generation,” the fact sheet said.
It said sweeping the funds would amount to “an energy tax” that would increase electricity costs for ratepayers. DEEP also said it could permanently damage the state’s efficiency and renewable programs by creating regulatory uncertainty.
The budget proposal would divert $15 million from energy efficiency programs and $5 million from the Connecticut Green Bank, which provides funding for renewable energy, according to the nonprofit Acadia Center.
“We are deeply troubled by this shortsighted proposal,” Jamie Howland, director the Center's Climate and Energy Analysis Center, said in a statement. “The raid would disadvantage consumers, increase pollution, undermine the state's leadership on climate and further erode confidence in the predictability of policy making.”
Differences by StateStutt said the current situation in New York is different from the one in Connecticut because New York will be using the money for clean energy programs. He told Bloomberg BNA that the Acadia Center opposes the New York transfers, but at least they're being used to achieve strategic environmental goals.
Jennifer Smokelin, an attorney with Reed Smith LLP whose clients include a number of energy companies, said the debate over using RGGI funds is “mostly a local issue” because each state has its own rules for spending the proceeds from RGGI auctions.
“I think it is important to remember that the redirection of funds doesn’t hurt the stringency of the cap at all—compliance entities still have to comply just as before,” she told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“I think on some level it draws attention to the positive effects on state coffers a cap and trade system can have,” she said. “Controversy over where money should go is a better problem to have than not having the money at all.”
Other RGGI StatesIn Massachusetts, the Green Community Act sets forth exactly how the commonwealth may use RGGI proceeds. They are primarily used for energy efficiency and other programs under the Mass Save program, grants for green communities programs, rebates for electric vehicles, energy efficiency, conservation and demand-response initiatives, according to Katie Gronendyke, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources.
Massachusetts received $74.2 million in RGGI auction proceeds last year.
Very Specific UsesPhillip J. Cherry, director of the Division of Energy and Climate and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, said the Delaware statute is very specific on how RGGI funds may be used. Sixty-five percent must by allocated to the state's Sustainable Energy Utility program, 15 percent for low-income consumers, 10 percent for greenhouse gas reduction projects, and up to 10 percent for administration of the program and other expenses. Delaware received $20.8 million in RGGI proceeds in 2015.
There are debates underway in Maine and Hampshire about how best to spend RGGI funds, but not about diverting the funds from their intended purpose.
New Hampshire used $3.1 million of its RGGI proceeds to balance its budget in its 2010–2011 fiscal year, Laura Richardson, executive director of the Jordan Institute, an energy efficiency advocacy organization in Concord, N.H., told Bloomberg BNA.
“It wasn’t that much,” she said. “But it set a precedent for other funds to be raided.”
She said the state’s Renewable Energy Fund has been continuously raided and used as general funds.
RGGI Critic
The debate over using RGGI funds also has emboldened critics of cap-and-trade programs.
“Cap-and-trade programs and carbon taxes are ripe for this sort of abuse,” Chris Warren, a spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research, a free-market think tank that opposes the RGGI program, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. “It’s an inherent problem that isn’t unique to RGGI.”
“Politicians get their foot in the door by selling us solutions to climate change and making lofty promises about how the revenue will be spent,” he said. “However, at the end of the day, these programs aren’t about the climate or the environment. They’re about opening up another stream of revenue for politicians to spend how they please.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Gerald B. Silverman in Albany, N.Y., at [email protected]; Martha Kessler in Boston at [email protected]; and Adrianne Appel in Boston at [email protected].
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Pearl at [email protected]
Try Energy and Climate Report now
From The Hockey Mom Blog:
Making Your Rink Energy Efficient from the Start
-click here
Posted by Colleen O'Shea On April 7, 2016 Rick Martin, Operations Manager at Keene Ice in Keene, NH According to the International Ice Hockey Federation, the number of ice rinks in the USA is growing – and that’s corresponds USA Hockey‘s membership figures too. From the 2010-11 season to 2014-15, that number went from a generic 1,800 to 2,400 – with an indoor/outdoor split of 500 outdoor rinks and 1,900 indoor rinks. USA Hockey counted 533,000 players in the 2014-15 season, a 6.5% increase in members over the same period of time. Keene Ice in Keene, NH held its grand opening on April 3, 2016. When new ice rinks are being designed, energy efficiency should be one of the most important considerations for saving money and cutting down on the future facility’s carbon footprint. A great example of this is the single-pad, NHL-sized Keene Community Ice Arena in Keene, NH. For this new rink construction, this non-profit’s Board of Directors pulled out all the stops when considering how to make their arena as energy efficient as possible for a build that cost just under $9 million. Keene Ice’s refrigeration/mechanical room The rink, which had its official opening on April 3, 2016, took nearly five years to realize, going from an idea to reality. And when it became evident the rink wouldn’t be ready in time for the start of the 2014-15 season, the Board of Directors decided to delay the build for another season, which gave them time to raise more money and to explore energy efficiencies for the building that would make long term sense. ROI: the Bottom Line“At the end of the day this is also about return on investment for us. Of course, there’s a feel-good aspect to what we did, but it also helps to reinforce a sustainable bottom line,” says Dr. Tim Fisher, president of the 10-member non-profit Board of Directors of Keene ICE. The Keene board set up an Energy Efficiency Committee comprised of the Chair, Hutch Stone (Keene ICE board and building committee member), Rich Beard (Keene ICE building committee member) and Bob King, a project donor who is passionate about energy efficiency and who, like Stone and Beard, has a son who plays hockey. According to Beard, Bob King “challenged Keene ICE to make the new rink as energy efficient as possible and he was generous with his time and resources to support that cause”. “Everyone on the Energy Efficiency Committee was outstanding, but Bob King really shook the tree,” says Fisher. “He pushed us, telling us, ‘Never settle for good enough’ and that’s what we tried to do.” The Energy Efficiency committee hired Resilient Buildings Group, specialists in building efficiencies who, in turn, engaged a technical expert investigated solutions, developed models and submitted the recommendations. That expert was Bill Root from GRW Engineering — whose qualifications include being LEED accredited and an ASHRAE high-performance building design certified professional. Root proposed a dozen ECMs – Energy Conservation Measures: half a dozen of those were incorporated into the final build. “The other half a dozen items that weren’t incorporated just didn’t make sense financially at the time, with paybacks that extended beyond a 25-year time frame. But that doesn’t mean they’re not still on our radar, for future implementation,” Beard says. “We plan to revisit them in the future, including solar energy if and when it makes sense.” Shared FacilitiesFrom a design point of view, the 475-seat arena has a lobby, party room, community room, storage rooms and a total of eight locker rooms – two small (for officials) and six large (for teams). Their six large locker rooms are laid out in a 2+2+2 configurations with each pair sharing a set of showers/toilets/sinks and urinals. “Shared bathroom facilities didn’t just cut down on the infrastructure costs, but cuts down on the maintenance expenses too,” says Rick Martin, Keene Ice’s operations manager. The hot water for the showers is supplied by high-efficiency propane hot water heaters; the toilets flush at less than a gallon per flush and all the locker rooms have radiant heating, “The warm floors makes it really nice for the players: they can walk around in their sock feet and it feels oh so good!” Martin says. Heating and Cooling Heating for the area above the bleachers is set at 45°F (7.2°C). “We lowered it from an initial high of 48°F when we first opened our doors,” Martin says. Beard says they examined different models and found that 45°F is the most efficient setting: that raising it or lowering it requires more energy. The rink is cooled using two different refrigerants. R-410A is their primary refrigerant, a flourine-only refrigerant that doesn’t contribute to ozone depletion. Their secondary refrigerant is 40% ethylene glycol. Martin maintains the slab at 24°F (-4.4°C) which he’s been able to increase from an initial 21°F (-6.1°C) where it was when the facility first opened its doors on November 23rd, 2015. The rink/building management system lets the Keene Ice operations team monitor and control all their heating, cooling and the ice/slab temperature in real time or remotely. The modular system and controls which includes Ice3 low temperature water source heat pumps from Emerald Environmental Technologies was designed and installed by Massachusetts-based Preferred Mechanical Services. Preferred Mechanical’s managing director, Alex Meade, says working together with people with common goals makes a big difference to a project. You can work towards the lowest carbon footprint possible when you’re working with people who have the same common goal,” Meade says. “Refrigeration hasn’t really changed much over the years so we ask ourselves, ‘how can we make it more efficient?’ So we find ways, like limiting the load, or with waste heat, we want to squeeze as much juice from the orange as we can and redistribute it where it makes sense. The folks at Keene ICE were willing to do that, and it worked. I’m very proud of that installation.” | Melt Pit as Cooling Tower SourceThe Keene Ice melt pit doubles as its cooling tower tank, making the rink even more energy and water efficient. “Our melt pit doubles as a cooling tower tank, and this is really mind-blowing,” says Keene Ice’s operations manager, Rick Martin. “This means we don’t need to use city water for our cooling tower to cool down the hot glycol from the ice plant. We haven’t used city water for our cooling tower now for eight weeks, and that’s an incredible savings of water!” Martin says it also cuts down on the amount of electricity needed to run the rink and there are days when he doesn’t hear his cooling tower even run. “The last rink I worked in had a condenser tank fed with city water only,” Martin says. “All the water that came in was either evaporated through the cooling tower or bled to the sewer to keep the total dissolved solids in range. Nothing was reused. All the snow that was scraped off the sheet was dumped in a melt pit, melted by water heated by a propane hot water tank and drained into the sewer — again nothing reused. It’s just amazing the amount of waste an ice rink can create or, like Keene Ice, the amount that can be saved.” Other Energy Efficient Features The other energy efficient features of Keene ICE include a Low E-ceiling over the ice surface, a wirelessly controlled rink lighting system with dimmable LED fixtures, occupancy sensors controlling the lights in the spaces adjacent to the rink and a Reclaim Heating system that uses rejection heat from the refrigeration system to heat the locker rooms, lobby area, bathrooms, pro-shop, storage room and the side walk snow melting system at rinks entrance. In addition they use a hot-water alternative for maintaining their ice called REALice, a system that removes the micro air bubbles in water without needing hot water, which is traditionally used to remove the air bubbles in the ice-making process. The resulting water doesn’t need any other chemicals or systems to maintain the ice but Martin says they pull some excess heat off of the compressor so the water “is somewhere around 55°F (12°C) when it hits the ice.” “The two big things that were implemented was the low e-ceiling and the other was the REALice water treatment system used for the Zamboni,” says consulting engineer, Bill Root. “The REALice system is such a no brainer, I wondered why it’s not a standard device for all ice rinks.” Their ice resurfacer is a second-hand electric Zamboni. Energy CostsAs for the energy use, Keene ICE has now had five months of energy used which included putting the ice in and playing with the systems to find the optimal settings. “Our sense from the operations group is our energy costs are significantly below what was expected and, in fact, budgeted,” says Fisher. “This place is magnificent,” Martin says. “As far as community rinks goes, this is one of the best.” Colleen O'Shea BA in Canadian Studies from the University of Regina through Athol Murray College of Notre Dame. BA (Honors) in Journalism and Communications from the University of Regina. Digital content expert. Originally a golf mom, though golf slowly killed my spirit years ago. Hockey may have saved my life. |
From the Concord Monitor, March 3, 2016 and NH Business Review, April 27, 2016
Our Turn: Apply energy savings to energy efficiency projects
- click here
By LAURA RICHARDSON and DOUG PATCH
For the Monitor, Wednesday, March 2, 2016, (Published in print: Thursday, March 3, 2016)
When energy costs drop, we rejoice. Heating fuel, propane and even electricity unit costs have dropped, some significantly, in recent years. With gasoline well under $2 per gallon – driven by public policy initiatives, global politics, advances in technology and plentiful near-term supply – it’s human nature to spend what we save in energy costs as part of our daily living.
Here’s a better idea: Invest these new-found energy savings in home or business energy projects that provide long-term savings.
The current drop in energy prices won’t last forever; what goes down always seems to come back up. If we invest those savings in energy projects now, we can achieve compounded energy savings down the road. The first excuse often cited for not undertaking energy projects is the lack of upfront money for those projects. Presto, here is the down payment for those projects.
There is no better time to invest in clean energy. Your neighbors are installing solar panels and downtown businesses are embracing energy efficiency, and vice-versa. Schools, libraries and town buildings have had their energy use benchmarked and plans are under way to make significant improvements, all of which will save taxpayers and ratepayers.
Just about all of these projects still need stable financial incentives to move to action. Tying those incentives to new tools such as leases, power purchase agreements or financing significantly leverages upfront, out-of-pocket costs.
Consumers are realizing that these projects are not only good for their wallets, they tap into our Yankee instincts, improve the value of affected and neighboring buildings, and provide many other benefits. Properly insulated buildings are more comfortable, quieter and have better indoor air quality. Who wants to move to a drafty, loud or musty building once you have experienced an efficient one?
Buildings that use solar and wood are supporting local businesses and keeping their energy dollars nearby, all while stabilizing and reducing their operational costs. In short, energy-efficiency and smaller scale renewable-energy projects are underway in New Hampshire like at no other time in our history.
The state developed an energy strategy in 2015 that provides guidance as to how we can spur our economy while reducing the use of fossil fuels. Scaling up and normalizing energy-efficiency projects means that energy generation needs decline, resulting in fewer and smaller new facilities. With older-generation nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants retiring, this is the ideal time to develop clean, renewable systems and offset demand through energy efficiency. Over time, as more clean-energy and energy storage projects come online, goals that may have seemed a stretch become realistic and attainable.
Meeting as much as 50 percent of our energy needs with renewable sources by 2030 and close to all by 2050 is achievable if the market-transformation wheels continue to spin, technology continues to evolve, and public policies provide the certainty that businesses and capital providers need for their private investment. State and utility rebate programs and policies encourage cost-effective, streamlined and site-appropriate energy projects and balance costs, savings and benefits. Net metering, updated building codes, lighting and appliance standards, and goal-oriented policies address different ways that we can move to a more sustainable future. Think back a decade to where cell phones and the internet were, and then look around your neighborhood and think about what it will look like in 15 years.
It comes down to expectations and priorities. For years we New Englanders clamored for cheaper energy, and now we are starting to see it. Cheap energy, however, often comes at a cost that is not reflected in a utility bill – costs to public health, the environment, and, yes, the economy. Energy efficiency can be significantly more cost-effective and a good long-term offset to the “cheap” energy we are using now. As costs continue to drop for solar and other renewable sources of energy, as policies and programs further encourage the adoption of these technologies and systems, and as we yearn for clean energy solutions and act on those yearnings, we’ll soon reach goals we didn’t think attainable.
How will you – as an individual, at work, and in your community – invest your current savings from low energy prices in a more efficient, cost-effective and cleaner future?
(Laura Richardson is executive director of the Jordan Institute, a Concord-based nonprofit focused on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Doug Patch is a shareholder with Orr & Reno and chaired the state Public Utilities Commission from 1992 to 2001. He is chairman of the Jordan Institute’s board of directors.)
For the Monitor, Wednesday, March 2, 2016, (Published in print: Thursday, March 3, 2016)
When energy costs drop, we rejoice. Heating fuel, propane and even electricity unit costs have dropped, some significantly, in recent years. With gasoline well under $2 per gallon – driven by public policy initiatives, global politics, advances in technology and plentiful near-term supply – it’s human nature to spend what we save in energy costs as part of our daily living.
Here’s a better idea: Invest these new-found energy savings in home or business energy projects that provide long-term savings.
The current drop in energy prices won’t last forever; what goes down always seems to come back up. If we invest those savings in energy projects now, we can achieve compounded energy savings down the road. The first excuse often cited for not undertaking energy projects is the lack of upfront money for those projects. Presto, here is the down payment for those projects.
There is no better time to invest in clean energy. Your neighbors are installing solar panels and downtown businesses are embracing energy efficiency, and vice-versa. Schools, libraries and town buildings have had their energy use benchmarked and plans are under way to make significant improvements, all of which will save taxpayers and ratepayers.
Just about all of these projects still need stable financial incentives to move to action. Tying those incentives to new tools such as leases, power purchase agreements or financing significantly leverages upfront, out-of-pocket costs.
Consumers are realizing that these projects are not only good for their wallets, they tap into our Yankee instincts, improve the value of affected and neighboring buildings, and provide many other benefits. Properly insulated buildings are more comfortable, quieter and have better indoor air quality. Who wants to move to a drafty, loud or musty building once you have experienced an efficient one?
Buildings that use solar and wood are supporting local businesses and keeping their energy dollars nearby, all while stabilizing and reducing their operational costs. In short, energy-efficiency and smaller scale renewable-energy projects are underway in New Hampshire like at no other time in our history.
The state developed an energy strategy in 2015 that provides guidance as to how we can spur our economy while reducing the use of fossil fuels. Scaling up and normalizing energy-efficiency projects means that energy generation needs decline, resulting in fewer and smaller new facilities. With older-generation nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants retiring, this is the ideal time to develop clean, renewable systems and offset demand through energy efficiency. Over time, as more clean-energy and energy storage projects come online, goals that may have seemed a stretch become realistic and attainable.
Meeting as much as 50 percent of our energy needs with renewable sources by 2030 and close to all by 2050 is achievable if the market-transformation wheels continue to spin, technology continues to evolve, and public policies provide the certainty that businesses and capital providers need for their private investment. State and utility rebate programs and policies encourage cost-effective, streamlined and site-appropriate energy projects and balance costs, savings and benefits. Net metering, updated building codes, lighting and appliance standards, and goal-oriented policies address different ways that we can move to a more sustainable future. Think back a decade to where cell phones and the internet were, and then look around your neighborhood and think about what it will look like in 15 years.
It comes down to expectations and priorities. For years we New Englanders clamored for cheaper energy, and now we are starting to see it. Cheap energy, however, often comes at a cost that is not reflected in a utility bill – costs to public health, the environment, and, yes, the economy. Energy efficiency can be significantly more cost-effective and a good long-term offset to the “cheap” energy we are using now. As costs continue to drop for solar and other renewable sources of energy, as policies and programs further encourage the adoption of these technologies and systems, and as we yearn for clean energy solutions and act on those yearnings, we’ll soon reach goals we didn’t think attainable.
How will you – as an individual, at work, and in your community – invest your current savings from low energy prices in a more efficient, cost-effective and cleaner future?
(Laura Richardson is executive director of the Jordan Institute, a Concord-based nonprofit focused on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Doug Patch is a shareholder with Orr & Reno and chaired the state Public Utilities Commission from 1992 to 2001. He is chairman of the Jordan Institute’s board of directors.)
From Granite State Builder, Spring 2016
Avoid Greenwashing - Know the Valid Programs
By Paul Leveille, Resilient Buildings Group
Click here
From New Hampshire Home Magazine, February/March 2016
So Green It's Gold
click here
From the NH Business Review -- People and Property, December 25, 2015:
NH C-PACE program gets manager
click here
Scott Maslansky of Keene has joined the Concord-based Jordan Institute as manager of the NH C-PACE program. Most recently, he worked for LighTec Inc. of Merrimack.
The C-PACE program, Property Assessed Clean Energy financing for commercial buildings, allows municipalities to establish special assessment districts where commercial building owners may finance energy-efficiency and renewable-energy projects and tie the financing to the property through a voluntary special assessment or lien, effectively tying the repayment to the building, not the borrower.
The C-PACE program, Property Assessed Clean Energy financing for commercial buildings, allows municipalities to establish special assessment districts where commercial building owners may finance energy-efficiency and renewable-energy projects and tie the financing to the property through a voluntary special assessment or lien, effectively tying the repayment to the building, not the borrower.
Jordan Institute celebrates 20 years selling energy efficiency
By David Brooks, Concord Monitor, October 9, 2015
Click here
The problem with energy efficiency is that it’s not very sexy. Not like, say, plumbing fixtures. “The most important thing is air sealing” to cut a building’s energy use and make it more comfortable inside, said Laura Richardson, executive director of the Concord-based nonprofit Jordan Institute. “But it’s hard. It takes skill, it’s grungy, it’s nasty work, so a lot of companies avoid it.” You bet, agreed Dana Nute, general manager of Resilient Buildings Group, which is owned by the Jordan Institute. “Contracting companies don’t want to do air sealing. They will give you gold toilets instead.” Okay, maybe gold toilets is a bit of hyperbole – but there’s no question that visible improvements are easier to sell than invisible ones. “Glamorous things aren’t always what solves the problem,” Richardson said. Overcoming this issue has been part of the job of the Jordan Institute since it was launched 20 years ago as a nonprofit focusing on energy efficiency and renewable energy. “Until we’ve experienced a high-performance building, we don’t know what we can actually get,” said Richardson . “But this is 2015. We should be able to incorporate building science into everyday life.” The institute, tucked away on Dixon Avenue between Main Street and the Capitol Commons, celebrates its 20th anniversary this week with a Saturday show at the Capitol Center for the Arts that includes comedy from Yoram Bauman, who bills himself as “the world’s only stand-up economist.” The institute was founded in 1995 with a million-dollar gift from Doyle and Lenore Jordan, local folks interested in research and policy linking environment, public health and the economy. It has come to focus on energy over the years, particularly renewable energy and energy efficiency in commercial buildings. The bequest was used up several years ago, and the institute, like many, has been living on grants and other such sources of income. The purchase of majority ownership in Resilient Buildings Group is part of its efforts to expand its reach. | Resilient Buildings is a consulting and construction management firm that specializes in energy efficiency for the roughly 39,000 commercial buildings in the state. Richardson and Nute have plenty of horror stories about miswired thermostats, badly designed buildings, poor construction and other problems, including air systems that can’t handle crowded conference rooms. No wonder everybody falls asleep during staff meetings. “I’d say 70 percent of buildings we visit, the heating systems were over-designed, which is not efficient,” said Nute. Richardson told a story of a company where the air conditioning was automatically on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and then the heat was on from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m., plus all weekend. “If it’s that bad, it won’t work just to swap out the boiler,” she said. Such buildings are often uncomfortable to work in. “Everybody gravitates to conversations about cost, but often it’s comfort that will drive action,” she said. A big push right now is something called C-PACE, which is the commercial version of the Property Assessed Clean Energy program. The Jordan Institute is trying to bring it to New Hampshire. C-PACE is a loan program for energy efficiency projects with a number of differences from traditional loan programs, the biggest being that it is tied to the property, rather than the property owner – so the building can be sold without incurring balloon payments from the loan. Importantly, it supports projects that are cash-positive from the start, meaning that the energy savings are at least equal to the loan payments. C-PACE requires towns to pass enabling legislation; so it will take a lot of legislative convincing, but that has long been part of the Jordan Institute’s work. (David Brooks can be reached at 369-3313, [email protected], or on Twitter @GraniteGeek.) |
C-PACE, Coming to a Municipality Near You... Soon!
https://www.nhmunicipal.org/TownAndCity/Article/623
New Hampshire Town and City, July/August, 2015
By Laura Richardson
With unanimous support by both the New Hampshire House and Senate, a dramatically rewritten C-PACE statute will become law in 2015. The C-PACE acronym stands for Property Assessed Clean Energy financing for Commercial buildings. C-PACE enables municipalities to create special assessment districts so that owners of privately held commercial buildings can voluntarily finance cash-positive energy-efficiency upgrades and/or install renewable energy systems on their properties, then tying repayment of project costs to the properties through special-assessment liens.
House Bill 205, as amended, removed enabling language in RSA 53-F for municipalities to provide financing through bonding or other means and eliminated risk to municipalities and tax payers. These steps resonated with numerous legislators who previously had concerns about constitutionality and risk. Although RSA 53-F has been on the books since 2010, the statute had not been effectively implemented because of other obstacles in the language. HB205, and HB532 in the 2014 legislative session, addressed those obstacles, including permitting private investors and institutions to finance projects, removing the cap of how much projects could be financed for (previously $60,000), and eliminating the requirement for a loan loss reserve, which would require significant public money for capitalization.
The Jordan Institute, a Concord-based non-profit focused on energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions, has been championing the concept of PACE for many years. In fact, Jordan Institute recently designed a C-PACE program that fits within the new statutory requirements and taps the private financial market to provide the capital needed to implement projects across the state.
Starting this summer, Jordan Institute will work with selected city councils, building owners, and contractors and installers to encourage the adoption of RSA 53-F, and to administer a program that will qualify, train, connect, and coordinate C-PACE projects. Jordan Institute is developing template language for Town Meeting towns to adopt in March 2016, with the hope that by 2017 any municipality that wishes to adopt this program can.
Jordan Institute recognizes that New Hampshire’s municipalities have limited resources of staff and funds and that this type of program should be consistently administered across the state. RSA 53-F includes quality-control standards that will ensure projects perform the way they are designed, and will require oversight that most municipalities would find burdensome and beyond their scope of expertise. Jordan Institute and its C-PACE team have a deep bench to implement the requirements of the statute and are mission-driven to ensure success for each project.
Municipalities that adopt RSA 53-F can delegate the vast majority of program oversight and coordination responsibilities of the program to the Jordan Institute. Municipalities will receive nominal fees to cover the costs of the work they will undertake, such as registering each C-PACE lien with the county and acting as a conduit for C-PACE bills and payments. These fees will be part of the project cost borne by the borrower. C-PACE municipalities will be able to market this program to attract and retain businesses that want to own and occupy significantly more efficient, cost-effective, and comfortable buildings.
Conventional loans have historically focused on projects with very fast payback, are tied to the borrower, and must be paid off at time of the sale of the building. Often coupled with a significant down payment, this scenario has not encouraged the deep energy retrofit work that New Hampshire’s buildings desperately need. Many building owners flip their buildings every 5, 7, or 10 years, and most loans are for 5 – 7 years and are repaid out of capital budgets. Most “low-hanging fruit” energy projects have payback periods of 5 – 7 years, and appraisers and assessors rarely value those upgrades so investment is not recaptured at time of sale. Moreover, because these types of projects have been rare historically, there are not many “comps” to value the projects by. Ultimately, that means that building owners rarely get to experience the cost savings from the upgrades they undertook.
Tying qualifying C-PACE projects to the property instead of the property owner through a (junior) lien is a crucial step in C-PACE. These liens do not accelerate at time of property sale, so there is no balloon payment due. The C-PACE project is seen as an asset to the building instead of a capital expenditure and in many cases can be off-balance sheet, much like taxes and energy bills. The building owner is therefore paying for the energy efficiency he/she uses, as will subsequent owners of the improved building. Moreover, the C-PACE statute requires vetting and quality control of the project—before, during, and after the project, with energy audits, building commissioning, and energy monitoring and verification—to ensure that projects perform the way they are designed.
Even more enticing is that terms can extend up to 30 years, a variable that will ensure that projects are cash positive, where the energy cost savings are projected to be more than the repayment costs. Participating building owners will therefore have a vastly improved building as well as more cash in their pockets. Occupancy of buildings will most likely improve because energy costs are stable and lower, buildings are more comfortable, and the extra cash on hand can support core business functions, rather than core business functions supporting the building sheltering it. Occupied buildings and profitable businesses lead to a stronger tax base which in turns supports the municipality and all taxpayers.
Only privately-owned commercial buildings in municipalities that have adopted RSA 53-F can participate in this program. This includes for-profit and non-profit entities, multi-family buildings with five or more units, and agricultural buildings.
Thirty one states have adopted PACE, but a big difference between the New Hampshire program and others is the lack of public funding in New Hampshire’s program. For more information about C-PACE, go to www.jordaninstitute.org.
Laura Richardson is executive director of the Jordan Institute.
By Laura Richardson
With unanimous support by both the New Hampshire House and Senate, a dramatically rewritten C-PACE statute will become law in 2015. The C-PACE acronym stands for Property Assessed Clean Energy financing for Commercial buildings. C-PACE enables municipalities to create special assessment districts so that owners of privately held commercial buildings can voluntarily finance cash-positive energy-efficiency upgrades and/or install renewable energy systems on their properties, then tying repayment of project costs to the properties through special-assessment liens.
House Bill 205, as amended, removed enabling language in RSA 53-F for municipalities to provide financing through bonding or other means and eliminated risk to municipalities and tax payers. These steps resonated with numerous legislators who previously had concerns about constitutionality and risk. Although RSA 53-F has been on the books since 2010, the statute had not been effectively implemented because of other obstacles in the language. HB205, and HB532 in the 2014 legislative session, addressed those obstacles, including permitting private investors and institutions to finance projects, removing the cap of how much projects could be financed for (previously $60,000), and eliminating the requirement for a loan loss reserve, which would require significant public money for capitalization.
The Jordan Institute, a Concord-based non-profit focused on energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions, has been championing the concept of PACE for many years. In fact, Jordan Institute recently designed a C-PACE program that fits within the new statutory requirements and taps the private financial market to provide the capital needed to implement projects across the state.
Starting this summer, Jordan Institute will work with selected city councils, building owners, and contractors and installers to encourage the adoption of RSA 53-F, and to administer a program that will qualify, train, connect, and coordinate C-PACE projects. Jordan Institute is developing template language for Town Meeting towns to adopt in March 2016, with the hope that by 2017 any municipality that wishes to adopt this program can.
Jordan Institute recognizes that New Hampshire’s municipalities have limited resources of staff and funds and that this type of program should be consistently administered across the state. RSA 53-F includes quality-control standards that will ensure projects perform the way they are designed, and will require oversight that most municipalities would find burdensome and beyond their scope of expertise. Jordan Institute and its C-PACE team have a deep bench to implement the requirements of the statute and are mission-driven to ensure success for each project.
Municipalities that adopt RSA 53-F can delegate the vast majority of program oversight and coordination responsibilities of the program to the Jordan Institute. Municipalities will receive nominal fees to cover the costs of the work they will undertake, such as registering each C-PACE lien with the county and acting as a conduit for C-PACE bills and payments. These fees will be part of the project cost borne by the borrower. C-PACE municipalities will be able to market this program to attract and retain businesses that want to own and occupy significantly more efficient, cost-effective, and comfortable buildings.
Conventional loans have historically focused on projects with very fast payback, are tied to the borrower, and must be paid off at time of the sale of the building. Often coupled with a significant down payment, this scenario has not encouraged the deep energy retrofit work that New Hampshire’s buildings desperately need. Many building owners flip their buildings every 5, 7, or 10 years, and most loans are for 5 – 7 years and are repaid out of capital budgets. Most “low-hanging fruit” energy projects have payback periods of 5 – 7 years, and appraisers and assessors rarely value those upgrades so investment is not recaptured at time of sale. Moreover, because these types of projects have been rare historically, there are not many “comps” to value the projects by. Ultimately, that means that building owners rarely get to experience the cost savings from the upgrades they undertook.
Tying qualifying C-PACE projects to the property instead of the property owner through a (junior) lien is a crucial step in C-PACE. These liens do not accelerate at time of property sale, so there is no balloon payment due. The C-PACE project is seen as an asset to the building instead of a capital expenditure and in many cases can be off-balance sheet, much like taxes and energy bills. The building owner is therefore paying for the energy efficiency he/she uses, as will subsequent owners of the improved building. Moreover, the C-PACE statute requires vetting and quality control of the project—before, during, and after the project, with energy audits, building commissioning, and energy monitoring and verification—to ensure that projects perform the way they are designed.
Even more enticing is that terms can extend up to 30 years, a variable that will ensure that projects are cash positive, where the energy cost savings are projected to be more than the repayment costs. Participating building owners will therefore have a vastly improved building as well as more cash in their pockets. Occupancy of buildings will most likely improve because energy costs are stable and lower, buildings are more comfortable, and the extra cash on hand can support core business functions, rather than core business functions supporting the building sheltering it. Occupied buildings and profitable businesses lead to a stronger tax base which in turns supports the municipality and all taxpayers.
Only privately-owned commercial buildings in municipalities that have adopted RSA 53-F can participate in this program. This includes for-profit and non-profit entities, multi-family buildings with five or more units, and agricultural buildings.
Thirty one states have adopted PACE, but a big difference between the New Hampshire program and others is the lack of public funding in New Hampshire’s program. For more information about C-PACE, go to www.jordaninstitute.org.
Laura Richardson is executive director of the Jordan Institute.
C-PACE moves closer to reality in New Hampshire
http://www.greenenergytimes.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/GET_Jun2015_lores_FINAL.pdf - Article on Page 2
By Laura Richardson
With Governor Maggie Hassan’s signature on New Hampshire’s House Bill 205, the Jordan Institute is preparing to launch what will soon become a statewide program to provide attractive financing for energy-efficiency and renewable-energy (EE/RE) projects in existing privately owned commercial buildings.
C-PACE, short for Property Assessed Clean Energy financing for Commercial buildings, addresses numerous obstacles that have made comprehensive EE/RE projects rare historically, especially in New Hampshire.
HB 205 originally sought to prohibit for-profit entities from participating in the program because of NH Constitutional concerns – municipalities providing loans to for-profit entities is counter to the intent of Article 5, Section 2 of the Constitution. Many C-PACE programs across the country provide financing through municipal bonds, taxpayer funds, or line items on energy bills. The NH C-PACE program is being designed to only use private investment, no public funds. That said, it is understood that publicly funded rebates and incentives will be very important to reduce capital costs for most C-PACE projects. With common ground found, interested parties rewrote the statute to eliminate the authority for NH’s municipalities to provide project financing. This step was warmly received by legislators and passed both the NH House and NH Senate by voice votes and without any audible objections. Such unanimity is rare in these bodies and bodes well for rolling out the program.
After signing HB 205, Governor Maggie Hassan stated, “As we work to reduce energy costs and build a more affordable, reliable and innovative energy future, we know that a successful long-term strategy must include stepping up our energy efficiency efforts and supporting small-scale clean energy projects. New Hampshire’s PACE program has the potential to boost local energy efficiency and clean energy efforts that are critical to reducing energy costs for municipalities, businesses and homeowners, and protecting our natural resources. House Bill 205 will make it easier for our municipalities to secure private financing for projects through this program. I thank Representative Carol McGuire, legislators from both parties and advocates from the Jordan Institute for their support of this bipartisan legislation, and I am proud to sign it into law.”
Municipalities that adopt the statute, RSA 53-F, create special assessment districts where commercial building owners can tie the EE/RE project financing to the property as a special assessment lien. This single step allows for numerous benefits including:
•repayment terms up to 30 years.
•non-accelerating payments at time of property sale.
•in some cases, it can be off balance sheet.
New Hampshire’s C-PACE program requires certain quality-control standards to ensure that the energy savings from the project are more than the repayment, meaning that building owners will have better buildings and improved cash flow.
•An energy audit before the project starts will determine historic baseline energy use, appropriate energy projects, and the anticipated savings-to-investment ratio.
•Building commissioning during the project will ensure that measures are installed correctly.
•Energy use monitoring and verification after the project is completed will prove out that the project performs as designed.
These steps provide comfort to building owners and investors and will raise the bar on performance outcomes by the EE/RE contractor community. Jordan Institute is working with selected cities to adopt the program in 2015 with the plan of having template language available this fall for Town-Meeting towns to consider adopting next March. By 2017, Jordan Institute expects the program to be available widely.
Building owners, EE/RE contractors, and municipal officials interested in participating in this program should contact the Jordan Institute.Jordan Institute is partnering on NH C-PACE with Sustainable Real Estate Solutions, the NH Community Development Finance Authority, and Resilient Buildings Group.
For more information about the New Hampshire C-PACE Program, go to www.jordaninstitute.org.
Laura Richardson is executive director of the Jordan Institute
With Governor Maggie Hassan’s signature on New Hampshire’s House Bill 205, the Jordan Institute is preparing to launch what will soon become a statewide program to provide attractive financing for energy-efficiency and renewable-energy (EE/RE) projects in existing privately owned commercial buildings.
C-PACE, short for Property Assessed Clean Energy financing for Commercial buildings, addresses numerous obstacles that have made comprehensive EE/RE projects rare historically, especially in New Hampshire.
HB 205 originally sought to prohibit for-profit entities from participating in the program because of NH Constitutional concerns – municipalities providing loans to for-profit entities is counter to the intent of Article 5, Section 2 of the Constitution. Many C-PACE programs across the country provide financing through municipal bonds, taxpayer funds, or line items on energy bills. The NH C-PACE program is being designed to only use private investment, no public funds. That said, it is understood that publicly funded rebates and incentives will be very important to reduce capital costs for most C-PACE projects. With common ground found, interested parties rewrote the statute to eliminate the authority for NH’s municipalities to provide project financing. This step was warmly received by legislators and passed both the NH House and NH Senate by voice votes and without any audible objections. Such unanimity is rare in these bodies and bodes well for rolling out the program.
After signing HB 205, Governor Maggie Hassan stated, “As we work to reduce energy costs and build a more affordable, reliable and innovative energy future, we know that a successful long-term strategy must include stepping up our energy efficiency efforts and supporting small-scale clean energy projects. New Hampshire’s PACE program has the potential to boost local energy efficiency and clean energy efforts that are critical to reducing energy costs for municipalities, businesses and homeowners, and protecting our natural resources. House Bill 205 will make it easier for our municipalities to secure private financing for projects through this program. I thank Representative Carol McGuire, legislators from both parties and advocates from the Jordan Institute for their support of this bipartisan legislation, and I am proud to sign it into law.”
Municipalities that adopt the statute, RSA 53-F, create special assessment districts where commercial building owners can tie the EE/RE project financing to the property as a special assessment lien. This single step allows for numerous benefits including:
•repayment terms up to 30 years.
•non-accelerating payments at time of property sale.
•in some cases, it can be off balance sheet.
New Hampshire’s C-PACE program requires certain quality-control standards to ensure that the energy savings from the project are more than the repayment, meaning that building owners will have better buildings and improved cash flow.
•An energy audit before the project starts will determine historic baseline energy use, appropriate energy projects, and the anticipated savings-to-investment ratio.
•Building commissioning during the project will ensure that measures are installed correctly.
•Energy use monitoring and verification after the project is completed will prove out that the project performs as designed.
These steps provide comfort to building owners and investors and will raise the bar on performance outcomes by the EE/RE contractor community. Jordan Institute is working with selected cities to adopt the program in 2015 with the plan of having template language available this fall for Town-Meeting towns to consider adopting next March. By 2017, Jordan Institute expects the program to be available widely.
Building owners, EE/RE contractors, and municipal officials interested in participating in this program should contact the Jordan Institute.Jordan Institute is partnering on NH C-PACE with Sustainable Real Estate Solutions, the NH Community Development Finance Authority, and Resilient Buildings Group.
For more information about the New Hampshire C-PACE Program, go to www.jordaninstitute.org.
Laura Richardson is executive director of the Jordan Institute
Governor Hassan's Statement on signing HB205, the NH C-PACE bill
http://www.governor.nh.gov/media/news/2015/pr-2015-06-08-hb205.htm
Press Release For Immediate Release
June 8, 2015
Contact:
Communications Office
(603)271-2121
Governor Hassan’s Statement on Signing HB 205 CONCORD – Governor Maggie Hassan issued the following statement after today signing HB 205, relative to lending practices of energy efficiency and clean energy districts:
“As we work to reduce energy costs and build a more affordable, reliable and innovative energy future, we know that a successful long-term strategy must include stepping up our energy efficiency efforts and supporting small-scale clean energy projects. New Hampshire's PACE program has the potential to boost local energy efficiency and clean energy efforts that are critical to reducing energy costs for municipalities, businesses and homeowners, and protecting our natural resources. House Bill 205 will make it easier for our municipalities to secure private financing for projects through this program. I thank Representative Carol McGuire, legislators from both parties and advocates from the Jordan Institute for their support of this bipartisan legislation, and I am proud to sign it into law.”
June 8, 2015
Contact:
Communications Office
(603)271-2121
Governor Hassan’s Statement on Signing HB 205 CONCORD – Governor Maggie Hassan issued the following statement after today signing HB 205, relative to lending practices of energy efficiency and clean energy districts:
“As we work to reduce energy costs and build a more affordable, reliable and innovative energy future, we know that a successful long-term strategy must include stepping up our energy efficiency efforts and supporting small-scale clean energy projects. New Hampshire's PACE program has the potential to boost local energy efficiency and clean energy efforts that are critical to reducing energy costs for municipalities, businesses and homeowners, and protecting our natural resources. House Bill 205 will make it easier for our municipalities to secure private financing for projects through this program. I thank Representative Carol McGuire, legislators from both parties and advocates from the Jordan Institute for their support of this bipartisan legislation, and I am proud to sign it into law.”
From NH Business Review, Published May 18, 2015
NH clean tech turns to private investors
Companies start to fill void left by public cuts
BY BOB SANDERS Question: Why would SolarCity, the nation’s largest residential solar energy installer, enter the New Hampshire market, a state where the House of Representatives recently voted to raid the $50 million Renewable Energy Fund to balance the budget? Answer: The clean tech industry is now almost strong enough to stand on its own feet, as companies and private investments start to fill the void caused by the withdrawal of public funds. In fact, the next generation of support for the industry aims to take advantage of this development, depending very little on public money. These programs tend to be more flexible and holistic often combining renewables and energy efficiency that save money over time. |
The focus is now on how to facilitate private investment. For instance, there is the revised C-PACE (Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy) program that just cleared the Legislature and the Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, or EERS, now quietly being developed by the Public Utilities Commission. In addition, a new federal energy-efficiency bill sponsored by U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen has been signed into law by President Obama.
“The industry is at a crossroads,” said Kate Epsen, executive director of the NH Sustainable Energy Association. “There is a lot of momentum, costs are coming down, businesses are ramping up. Policies can hinder that or encourage that.”
The raid of the state’s Renewable Energy Fund – paid into by utilities that do not meet the state’s renewable energy portfolio standards – will hinder the industry in New Hampshire, said Epsen, but it “is going to continue regionally and nationally.”
‘Unlimited private financing’
As the industry flexes its political muscle, to fight that raid, the sun seems to be setting on such public funds just as new private funding is rising.
C-PACE is probably the best example of that. House Bill 205, passed by the Legislature at the end of April, would allow private energy loans for businesses and nonprofits to be attached to the property and be collected as a municipal assessment. The loans would be stretched out so payments would be lower than the energy savings.
The bill, which was approved by bipartisan voice votes in both chambers, awaits Gov. Maggie Hassan’s signature. (The governor’s spokesman said that while the program has the “potential to boost energy efficiency and conservation” the governor “will review the measure closely as it makes its way to her desk.”)
A version of that law has been on the books for five years, but because it allowed municipalities to do the lending, leery lawmakers instituted caps that made the program unworkable.
C-PACE moved forward most successfully in Connecticut, which seeded its program in 2013 with $40 million deposited in a “Green Bank.” It has approved some 90 projects totaling about $70 million and closed on some $30 million in loans that were sold off to private investors, replenishing the bank with private funds for other projects, said Brian McCarter, executive director of Sustainable Real Estate Solutions (SRES), which works with contractors and certifies the energy savings.
The New Hampshire program would rely only on “unlimited private financing,” said Laura Richardson, president of the Concord-based Jordan Institute, which is spearheading the program.
“I have been approached by eight different companies, investment groups and banks,” Richardson said. “If half of them are lying, we are still covering the New Hampshire portfolio.”
The portfolio could be enormous. There are 39,000 commercial properties in the state, but there are also 234 municipalities.
Richardson is working with cities this year, putting off the town meeting circuit until 2016. Two are ready to move, and there are enough potential projects to approach a handful of others, Richardson said. The institute’s partner is SRES, which plans to market it though contractors.
SRES and the Jordan Institute’s investment arm, Resilient Buildings Group, also will have to certify that the savings from the upgrades must be greater than the monthly loan payments without any up-front costs, to satisfy the borrower and the lender.
One possible lender – named in the NH C-PACE literature as a partner – is Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure Capital Inc., a 25-year-old energy investment firm that went public in 2013. Since then, it has made some $1.5 billion in investments.
Investors find the program attractive because municipalities collect the payments as a separate property assessment, then hand them over to a nonprofit, such as the New Hampshire Community Development Finance Authority, which would service the loan. The CDFA already has its own $6 million revolving clean tech fund, dating back to 2009, seeded with stimulus money from the last recession and Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative funds.
Those loan payments are coming back, giving the fund about $2 million in liquid capital for either direct loans – at 2 percent – or loan guarantees, enabling banks or other investors to lower interest rates.
The renewable aspect of C-PACE loans will be particularly helpful to the wood pellet boiler industry, which could be severely hurt if the Senate and governor agree to raid the Renewable Energy Fund rebate program. That’s particularly important to businesses located in areas that are “off-pipe” to natural gas, “which is pretty much everything north and west of Tilton,” said CDFA’s Executive Director Taylor Caswell.
‘Political acceptability’
While C-PACE is on the brink of becoming a reality, the Energy Efficiency Resource Standard is still in the design phase.
The Public Utilities Commission recently published its “straw” proposal in March, and the timeline for finalizing it hasn’t been set, nor has it been decided whether to seek approval of the Legislature.
EERS could be similar to the renewable energy standards. Utilities would have to meet a certain standard, but it would be a percentage of energy saved, as opposed to a percentage of renewables in a utility’s portfolio.
Currently, utilities save a little more than a half a percent though their CORE programs, mainly paid by a $30-million-a-year ratepayer surcharge. The preliminary standard put forward by the PUC staff would build on that, raising the savings to 9.76 percent from electric ratepayers and 7.63 percent from gas ratepayers by 2025.
How to achieve that is the question. The PUC staff did consider the possibility of doubling ratepayer surcharges, but questioned its “political acceptability.” It could also charge utilities a penalty if they didn’t meet the standard. That’s how the Renewable Energy Fund got its money.
It could pay performance incentives to those that meet the standards, though such incentives usually come out of the surcharges. Finally, there is the possibility of allowing utilities to “decouple” their allowable return from the amount of energy sold, but this might mean a higher bill for customers that don’t reduce their usage.
Thus, the interest in the private sector.
“Staff believes that sole reliance on public funding may serve to dampen the ability to meet an EERS target over time, whereas augmenting traditional funding sources with greater private sector involvement will strengthen the ability to meet an EERS,” says the straw proposal.
That includes programs like C-PACE as well as Warehouse for Energy Efficiency Loans, or WHEEL, a national loan program that standardizes energy-efficiency loans and sells them on the secondary market.
If the PUC does go to the Legislature – and the staff recommendation is that they should – it’s unclear how they would react.
“There are costs and benefits,” said Sen. Jeb Bradley, the Republican Senate majority leader from Wolfeboro. “We are hearing from some people that this could be quite expensive, but some states have implemented it better than others.”
“This is the cheapest resource they could pay for,” said Epsen. “The mindset is they don’t build efficiency, but infrastructure. Infrastructure is included in the costs. When it’s efficiency, they break it out as a separate item and point to it and say, ‘See how much it costs you?’”
Sustainability officer
Two federal programs on the horizon also come with no public money attached.
In March, President Obama signed a federal sustainability executive order, which requires federal agencies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent and increase renewable energy by 30 percent over 2008 levels, over a decade. A previous order, set in 2010 called for a 28 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
There is no money attached to the order, which should save the federal government $19 billion. But agency heads may be reluctant to carve money out of this year’s budget to achieve future savings. That’s where the sustainability officer comes in.
“That’s the key piece. It designates specific senior people,” said David Pease, manager of the New Hampshire Procurement Technical Assistance Program, which provides assistance for contracting and subcontracting opportunities with federal agencies and state and local governments.
The immediate impact on New Hampshire however will be limited. While the federal government owns some 360,000 buildings, in New Hampshire it has about 100 post offices and the U.S. General Services Administration lists about 50 other federal buildings with about 800,000 square feet.
Besides, while big players like SolarCity have done business with the federal government for years, many locally based contractors are intimidated by federal procurement regulations.
In addition, it likely will take months to identify a sustainability officer and years to identify and bid out projects.
“These things take time to filter downward,” said Pease.
Perhaps the biggest takeaway will be by the wood pellet boiler industry, which lobbied and got a provision to include thermal heating technology in the mix of renewables, said Charles Niebling, partner and principal at Antrim-based Innovative Natural Resource Solutions. Previous orders just focused on electrical energy savings.
Niebling also backs a bill sponsored by the two U.S. senators from Maine, and backed by New Hampshire’s Shaheen, that would extend the 30 percent tax credit that goes to solar and wind investments to wood pellet boilers.
“That would have a very significant effect,” said Niebling.
But the bill, the Biomass Thermal Utilization Act of 2013, has languished in Congress for the last two years. And the renewable energy credit is expected to go down to 10 percent at the end of 2016.
Another bill sponsored by Shaheen, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2014, also has languished, though it was reintroduced last month. The bill provides some public money – such as $200 million for model building codes.
But other measures that are part of the larger Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 – signed into law at the end of April – have no money attached.
One would direct the U.S. Department of Energy to come up with a model lease to split costs and savings of energy improvements between commercial tenants and landlords. Another would develop a Tenant Star program that will recognize the energy-saving efforts of commercial tenants, similar to the EnergyStar program that recognizes building owners. There’s also an exemption for large on-demand electric heat pumps from new efficiency regulations, since such pumps are necessary for a smart grid to function better.
But new public money is not really what the industry wants, Epsen said.
“The idea behind public money is to create a stable environment to attract private capital,” she said. “When rules suddenly change, investors hold back. But if you have declining incentives over time, they are more likely to fund these projects.”
This article appears in the May 15 2015 issue of New Hampshire Business Review
Did you like what you read here? Subscribe to New Hampshire Business Review»
“The industry is at a crossroads,” said Kate Epsen, executive director of the NH Sustainable Energy Association. “There is a lot of momentum, costs are coming down, businesses are ramping up. Policies can hinder that or encourage that.”
The raid of the state’s Renewable Energy Fund – paid into by utilities that do not meet the state’s renewable energy portfolio standards – will hinder the industry in New Hampshire, said Epsen, but it “is going to continue regionally and nationally.”
‘Unlimited private financing’
As the industry flexes its political muscle, to fight that raid, the sun seems to be setting on such public funds just as new private funding is rising.
C-PACE is probably the best example of that. House Bill 205, passed by the Legislature at the end of April, would allow private energy loans for businesses and nonprofits to be attached to the property and be collected as a municipal assessment. The loans would be stretched out so payments would be lower than the energy savings.
The bill, which was approved by bipartisan voice votes in both chambers, awaits Gov. Maggie Hassan’s signature. (The governor’s spokesman said that while the program has the “potential to boost energy efficiency and conservation” the governor “will review the measure closely as it makes its way to her desk.”)
A version of that law has been on the books for five years, but because it allowed municipalities to do the lending, leery lawmakers instituted caps that made the program unworkable.
C-PACE moved forward most successfully in Connecticut, which seeded its program in 2013 with $40 million deposited in a “Green Bank.” It has approved some 90 projects totaling about $70 million and closed on some $30 million in loans that were sold off to private investors, replenishing the bank with private funds for other projects, said Brian McCarter, executive director of Sustainable Real Estate Solutions (SRES), which works with contractors and certifies the energy savings.
The New Hampshire program would rely only on “unlimited private financing,” said Laura Richardson, president of the Concord-based Jordan Institute, which is spearheading the program.
“I have been approached by eight different companies, investment groups and banks,” Richardson said. “If half of them are lying, we are still covering the New Hampshire portfolio.”
The portfolio could be enormous. There are 39,000 commercial properties in the state, but there are also 234 municipalities.
Richardson is working with cities this year, putting off the town meeting circuit until 2016. Two are ready to move, and there are enough potential projects to approach a handful of others, Richardson said. The institute’s partner is SRES, which plans to market it though contractors.
SRES and the Jordan Institute’s investment arm, Resilient Buildings Group, also will have to certify that the savings from the upgrades must be greater than the monthly loan payments without any up-front costs, to satisfy the borrower and the lender.
One possible lender – named in the NH C-PACE literature as a partner – is Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure Capital Inc., a 25-year-old energy investment firm that went public in 2013. Since then, it has made some $1.5 billion in investments.
Investors find the program attractive because municipalities collect the payments as a separate property assessment, then hand them over to a nonprofit, such as the New Hampshire Community Development Finance Authority, which would service the loan. The CDFA already has its own $6 million revolving clean tech fund, dating back to 2009, seeded with stimulus money from the last recession and Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative funds.
Those loan payments are coming back, giving the fund about $2 million in liquid capital for either direct loans – at 2 percent – or loan guarantees, enabling banks or other investors to lower interest rates.
The renewable aspect of C-PACE loans will be particularly helpful to the wood pellet boiler industry, which could be severely hurt if the Senate and governor agree to raid the Renewable Energy Fund rebate program. That’s particularly important to businesses located in areas that are “off-pipe” to natural gas, “which is pretty much everything north and west of Tilton,” said CDFA’s Executive Director Taylor Caswell.
‘Political acceptability’
While C-PACE is on the brink of becoming a reality, the Energy Efficiency Resource Standard is still in the design phase.
The Public Utilities Commission recently published its “straw” proposal in March, and the timeline for finalizing it hasn’t been set, nor has it been decided whether to seek approval of the Legislature.
EERS could be similar to the renewable energy standards. Utilities would have to meet a certain standard, but it would be a percentage of energy saved, as opposed to a percentage of renewables in a utility’s portfolio.
Currently, utilities save a little more than a half a percent though their CORE programs, mainly paid by a $30-million-a-year ratepayer surcharge. The preliminary standard put forward by the PUC staff would build on that, raising the savings to 9.76 percent from electric ratepayers and 7.63 percent from gas ratepayers by 2025.
How to achieve that is the question. The PUC staff did consider the possibility of doubling ratepayer surcharges, but questioned its “political acceptability.” It could also charge utilities a penalty if they didn’t meet the standard. That’s how the Renewable Energy Fund got its money.
It could pay performance incentives to those that meet the standards, though such incentives usually come out of the surcharges. Finally, there is the possibility of allowing utilities to “decouple” their allowable return from the amount of energy sold, but this might mean a higher bill for customers that don’t reduce their usage.
Thus, the interest in the private sector.
“Staff believes that sole reliance on public funding may serve to dampen the ability to meet an EERS target over time, whereas augmenting traditional funding sources with greater private sector involvement will strengthen the ability to meet an EERS,” says the straw proposal.
That includes programs like C-PACE as well as Warehouse for Energy Efficiency Loans, or WHEEL, a national loan program that standardizes energy-efficiency loans and sells them on the secondary market.
If the PUC does go to the Legislature – and the staff recommendation is that they should – it’s unclear how they would react.
“There are costs and benefits,” said Sen. Jeb Bradley, the Republican Senate majority leader from Wolfeboro. “We are hearing from some people that this could be quite expensive, but some states have implemented it better than others.”
“This is the cheapest resource they could pay for,” said Epsen. “The mindset is they don’t build efficiency, but infrastructure. Infrastructure is included in the costs. When it’s efficiency, they break it out as a separate item and point to it and say, ‘See how much it costs you?’”
Sustainability officer
Two federal programs on the horizon also come with no public money attached.
In March, President Obama signed a federal sustainability executive order, which requires federal agencies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent and increase renewable energy by 30 percent over 2008 levels, over a decade. A previous order, set in 2010 called for a 28 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
There is no money attached to the order, which should save the federal government $19 billion. But agency heads may be reluctant to carve money out of this year’s budget to achieve future savings. That’s where the sustainability officer comes in.
“That’s the key piece. It designates specific senior people,” said David Pease, manager of the New Hampshire Procurement Technical Assistance Program, which provides assistance for contracting and subcontracting opportunities with federal agencies and state and local governments.
The immediate impact on New Hampshire however will be limited. While the federal government owns some 360,000 buildings, in New Hampshire it has about 100 post offices and the U.S. General Services Administration lists about 50 other federal buildings with about 800,000 square feet.
Besides, while big players like SolarCity have done business with the federal government for years, many locally based contractors are intimidated by federal procurement regulations.
In addition, it likely will take months to identify a sustainability officer and years to identify and bid out projects.
“These things take time to filter downward,” said Pease.
Perhaps the biggest takeaway will be by the wood pellet boiler industry, which lobbied and got a provision to include thermal heating technology in the mix of renewables, said Charles Niebling, partner and principal at Antrim-based Innovative Natural Resource Solutions. Previous orders just focused on electrical energy savings.
Niebling also backs a bill sponsored by the two U.S. senators from Maine, and backed by New Hampshire’s Shaheen, that would extend the 30 percent tax credit that goes to solar and wind investments to wood pellet boilers.
“That would have a very significant effect,” said Niebling.
But the bill, the Biomass Thermal Utilization Act of 2013, has languished in Congress for the last two years. And the renewable energy credit is expected to go down to 10 percent at the end of 2016.
Another bill sponsored by Shaheen, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2014, also has languished, though it was reintroduced last month. The bill provides some public money – such as $200 million for model building codes.
But other measures that are part of the larger Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 – signed into law at the end of April – have no money attached.
One would direct the U.S. Department of Energy to come up with a model lease to split costs and savings of energy improvements between commercial tenants and landlords. Another would develop a Tenant Star program that will recognize the energy-saving efforts of commercial tenants, similar to the EnergyStar program that recognizes building owners. There’s also an exemption for large on-demand electric heat pumps from new efficiency regulations, since such pumps are necessary for a smart grid to function better.
But new public money is not really what the industry wants, Epsen said.
“The idea behind public money is to create a stable environment to attract private capital,” she said. “When rules suddenly change, investors hold back. But if you have declining incentives over time, they are more likely to fund these projects.”
This article appears in the May 15 2015 issue of New Hampshire Business Review
Did you like what you read here? Subscribe to New Hampshire Business Review»
From the Concord Monitor, Published May 13, 2015
PUC looks to establish energy-efficiency standard
CLICK HERE
By ALLIE MORRIS
Monitor staff
New Hampshire energy regulators are taking steps to establish a statewide energy-efficiency standard, a policy that advocates have said is long overdue and will help the state reduce energy use and rates.
“It’s an important step to take because it shows the state is committed to energy efficiency in the long term,” said consumer advocate Susan Chamberlin. “Energy efficiency is the least costly way of lowering rates and bills for residential customers.”
The state Public Utilities Commission announced it is beginning the process to establish an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, which would set specific energy-saving targets that New Hampshire gas and electric utilities must meet.
As officials and lawmakers grapple with ways to reduce the region’s high electric rates, many advocates point to energy efficiency as a cheap, clean solution that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep energy dollars in the local economy.
The biggest hurdle in developing a standard, many say, is finding the funding to make the necessary investments.
“There’s so much more potential cost-effective energy efficiency in the state,” said Scott Albert, principal and region manager at GDS Associates, a consulting and engineering firm. “The cost is an issue.”
The state’s adoption of an EERS was one of many recommendations outlined in a 10-year New Hampshire energy strategy released last year by the Office of Energy and Planning and a council made up of lawmakers and officials.
The strategy referenced a 2013 report that showed New Hampshire consumers would save $195 million each year and the state would add an additional $160 million annually to its gross domestic product “if all buildings in the state were improved to the highest level of cost-effective energy efficiency.”
Most states outpace New Hampshire in the realm of energy efficiency, according to the strategy.
Twenty-four states are currently implementing energy-saving targets, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy. New Hampshire is the only state in New England without a formal efficiency standard.
The state runs energy-efficiency programs, known as CORE programs, but they operate without an overarching statewide goal.
The programs, establish in 2002, include home weatherization, rebates for changing inefficient light bulbs and home energy audits, among other things.
The funding comes primarily from a special charge in energy rates and auction proceeds from the state’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
Since the money fluctuates year to year, the investments largely depend on budgetary constraints. The creation of an EERS would change that, Chamberlin said.
“Instead of taking your budget and saying how many can you do, the EERS sets how much we can do and looks at the budget necessary to do it,” she said.
But finding the money to boost the efficiency budget is the challenge, many said. It’s an area the PUC plans to examine through the process, which gas and electric utilities operating in the state will be required to be a part of.
Eversource Energy supports the concept of an EERS, spokeswoman Lauren Collins said. But the company has several concerns, including funding sources and potential effects on customers’ bills.
Unitil spokesman Alec O’Meara said the utility looks forward to being part of the process.
Many advocates said establishing a specific state energy-efficiency standard is a much-needed step in the right direction.
“The measures look invisible to most people,” said Laura Richardson, executive director of the Jordan Institute, which focuses on energy efficiency. “The results are hardly invisible. By doing some pretty comprehensive energy-efficiency work, you can have staggering savings.”
(Allie Morris can be reached at 369-3307 or [email protected] or on Twitter @amorrisNH.)
Monitor staff
New Hampshire energy regulators are taking steps to establish a statewide energy-efficiency standard, a policy that advocates have said is long overdue and will help the state reduce energy use and rates.
“It’s an important step to take because it shows the state is committed to energy efficiency in the long term,” said consumer advocate Susan Chamberlin. “Energy efficiency is the least costly way of lowering rates and bills for residential customers.”
The state Public Utilities Commission announced it is beginning the process to establish an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, which would set specific energy-saving targets that New Hampshire gas and electric utilities must meet.
As officials and lawmakers grapple with ways to reduce the region’s high electric rates, many advocates point to energy efficiency as a cheap, clean solution that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep energy dollars in the local economy.
The biggest hurdle in developing a standard, many say, is finding the funding to make the necessary investments.
“There’s so much more potential cost-effective energy efficiency in the state,” said Scott Albert, principal and region manager at GDS Associates, a consulting and engineering firm. “The cost is an issue.”
The state’s adoption of an EERS was one of many recommendations outlined in a 10-year New Hampshire energy strategy released last year by the Office of Energy and Planning and a council made up of lawmakers and officials.
The strategy referenced a 2013 report that showed New Hampshire consumers would save $195 million each year and the state would add an additional $160 million annually to its gross domestic product “if all buildings in the state were improved to the highest level of cost-effective energy efficiency.”
Most states outpace New Hampshire in the realm of energy efficiency, according to the strategy.
Twenty-four states are currently implementing energy-saving targets, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy. New Hampshire is the only state in New England without a formal efficiency standard.
The state runs energy-efficiency programs, known as CORE programs, but they operate without an overarching statewide goal.
The programs, establish in 2002, include home weatherization, rebates for changing inefficient light bulbs and home energy audits, among other things.
The funding comes primarily from a special charge in energy rates and auction proceeds from the state’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
Since the money fluctuates year to year, the investments largely depend on budgetary constraints. The creation of an EERS would change that, Chamberlin said.
“Instead of taking your budget and saying how many can you do, the EERS sets how much we can do and looks at the budget necessary to do it,” she said.
But finding the money to boost the efficiency budget is the challenge, many said. It’s an area the PUC plans to examine through the process, which gas and electric utilities operating in the state will be required to be a part of.
Eversource Energy supports the concept of an EERS, spokeswoman Lauren Collins said. But the company has several concerns, including funding sources and potential effects on customers’ bills.
Unitil spokesman Alec O’Meara said the utility looks forward to being part of the process.
Many advocates said establishing a specific state energy-efficiency standard is a much-needed step in the right direction.
“The measures look invisible to most people,” said Laura Richardson, executive director of the Jordan Institute, which focuses on energy efficiency. “The results are hardly invisible. By doing some pretty comprehensive energy-efficiency work, you can have staggering savings.”
(Allie Morris can be reached at 369-3307 or [email protected] or on Twitter @amorrisNH.)
From NH Business Review, Published April 29, 2015
Bill could make commercial property energy upgrades easier, less costly - Senate to consider C-PACE measure, allowing longer-term improvement loans
Click here
BY BOB SANDERS
The NH Senate is expected to vote Thursday on a bill that would allow private energy loans for businesses and nonprofits to be attached to the property and not the property owner, which advocates say could attract millions of dollars in financing to the state’s clean energy sector.
The Senate is expected to approve House Bill 205, the latest attempt at starting a Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) program, which has been on the books for about five years now, but has never gotten off the ground.
With the passage of the law, however, the Jordan Institute – the Concord-based nonprofit pushing the law – says it will be able to hit the ground running, with investors signed up and several cities ready to sign on. That would allow developers to invest in major energy upgrades with no money up-front and with savings that exceed investment from day one through the life of the loan.
The upgrades will likely mostly encompass energy efficiency, but investments in renewables would be included as well.
The theory behind any PACE program seems simple, explains Laura Richardson, executive director of the institute. By attaching the loan to the property rather than the property owners, the terms of the loans can be “significantly greater than they are now.”
This is particularly true for commercial loans, since businesses often morph, merge and move, or go out of business, so investors are never sure whether the business will stick around, let alone at a particular address.
Most commercial real estate owners flip their buildings between every five and 10 years, said the institute, so most loans have a term of less than a decade, allowing energy improvements that pay back in that time. Since major energy upgrades sometimes take longer to pay back, the eventual savings could be more significant.
This article appears in the May 15 2015 issue of New Hampshire Business Review
Did you like what you read here? Subscribe to New Hampshire Business Review»
The NH Senate is expected to vote Thursday on a bill that would allow private energy loans for businesses and nonprofits to be attached to the property and not the property owner, which advocates say could attract millions of dollars in financing to the state’s clean energy sector.
The Senate is expected to approve House Bill 205, the latest attempt at starting a Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) program, which has been on the books for about five years now, but has never gotten off the ground.
With the passage of the law, however, the Jordan Institute – the Concord-based nonprofit pushing the law – says it will be able to hit the ground running, with investors signed up and several cities ready to sign on. That would allow developers to invest in major energy upgrades with no money up-front and with savings that exceed investment from day one through the life of the loan.
The upgrades will likely mostly encompass energy efficiency, but investments in renewables would be included as well.
The theory behind any PACE program seems simple, explains Laura Richardson, executive director of the institute. By attaching the loan to the property rather than the property owners, the terms of the loans can be “significantly greater than they are now.”
This is particularly true for commercial loans, since businesses often morph, merge and move, or go out of business, so investors are never sure whether the business will stick around, let alone at a particular address.
Most commercial real estate owners flip their buildings between every five and 10 years, said the institute, so most loans have a term of less than a decade, allowing energy improvements that pay back in that time. Since major energy upgrades sometimes take longer to pay back, the eventual savings could be more significant.
This article appears in the May 15 2015 issue of New Hampshire Business Review
Did you like what you read here? Subscribe to New Hampshire Business Review»
From the Concord Insider, April 14, 2015
Meet a few of the Concord groups at the head of the efficiency pack | Photos by Keith Testa / Insider Staff Concord sure is doing the whole green thinghttp://www.theconcordinsider.com/article/concord-sure-is-doing-the-whole-green-thing The Jordan Institute and Resilient Buildings Group The Jordan Institute and Resilient Buildings Group moved to their new location on Dixon Avenue less than two years ago and immediately added some of their signature efficient touches. To create separation between the workspace and a hallway for people traffic, Resilient Building Group staffers Paul Leveille and Alison Keay – both of whom have architecture backgrounds – built a cubicle-type setting out of repurposed wood, complete with hanging greenery. None of the wood pieces are affixed to the building, so no structural changes needed to be made, and it all blends together to create a peaceful environment. They also each have a standing desk in their workspace, as does executive director of the Jordan Institute, Laura Richardson. The Jordan Institute and Resilient Buildings Group Being mindful of efficiency can also save you some cash sometimes, as the organizations found out in the bathroom, where paper towels were eschewed in favor of hand towels, organized quaintly on racks under employees’ names (photo at far right). Richardson said the company saves a ton by not having to purchase paper towels, and she takes the towels home at the end of the week to launder them. That’s the legal kind of laundering in a business setting, by the way. |
And the Forest Society, like Jordan and RBG, wants to make everyone aware that being efficient doesn’t have to be difficult, or cost a fortune. The elements in its building or similar approaches are possible to replicate in your own home.
“We’re trying to get people to think about their homes the way they think about their cars. So an energy auditor is like a mechanic for your home; he’ll diagnose what’s going on under the hood, or in the attic,” Teaster said.
The Forest Society and Jordan/RBG aren’t the only ones setting the tone, either. The Audubon’s McLane Center has a ton of cool efficiency features, and Weston Solutions features a green roof, with actual vegetation growing up there (see more on both on pages 20 and 21).
So yeah, Concord is doing a pretty good job of staying up on the whole efficiency thing. So if you’re tired of feeling that icy draft on the back of your neck when you’re sitting down to dinner, first make sure your little brother isn’t being a jerk and just blowing cold air at you, and then do some research and check with one of these local groups for advice and a plan.
It may cost a little bit now, but it’ll save you a ton in the long run.
“We show (people) what the payback is,” Nute said or RBG. “People say, ‘in five years I’m putting money in my pocket.’ We tell it like it is.”
But nobody tells you what to do. You can do what you like with the recommendations and improve what you want to improve.
“It never works if it’s round peg, square hole,” Richardson said. “If it’s a new peg, we try to communicate with everybody.”
“We’re trying to get people to think about their homes the way they think about their cars. So an energy auditor is like a mechanic for your home; he’ll diagnose what’s going on under the hood, or in the attic,” Teaster said.
The Forest Society and Jordan/RBG aren’t the only ones setting the tone, either. The Audubon’s McLane Center has a ton of cool efficiency features, and Weston Solutions features a green roof, with actual vegetation growing up there (see more on both on pages 20 and 21).
So yeah, Concord is doing a pretty good job of staying up on the whole efficiency thing. So if you’re tired of feeling that icy draft on the back of your neck when you’re sitting down to dinner, first make sure your little brother isn’t being a jerk and just blowing cold air at you, and then do some research and check with one of these local groups for advice and a plan.
It may cost a little bit now, but it’ll save you a ton in the long run.
“We show (people) what the payback is,” Nute said or RBG. “People say, ‘in five years I’m putting money in my pocket.’ We tell it like it is.”
But nobody tells you what to do. You can do what you like with the recommendations and improve what you want to improve.
“It never works if it’s round peg, square hole,” Richardson said. “If it’s a new peg, we try to communicate with everybody.”
From the New Hampshire Business Review:
New program backs commercial building energy projects
C-PACE offers innovative financing tool
by NHBR Staff
Published 10.22.14
The Jordan Institute, a Concord-based non-profit organization focused on promoting energy-efficiency and renewable energy projects, is teaming with Trumbull, Conn.-based Sustainable Real Estate Solutions, to develop and administer New Hampshire’s new Property Assessed Clean Energy for Commercial program, or C-PACE, which is expected to be launched in 2015.
According to Laura Richardson, executive director of The Jordan Institute, C-PACE financing is an innovative tool that, similar to a sewer assessment, connects loan repayments for energy-efficiency and renewable energy projects to the commercial building, and not the building’s owner.
She said it is an entirely voluntary opt-in program for municipalities, capital providers, contractors, existing mortgage holders and building owners. In fact, before the financing can be accessed, municipalities must adopt the program prior first.
Through the NH C-PACE program, Jordan Institute and SRS will connect municipalities, capital providers, commercial building owners, architects, engineers, builders, contractors and installers via a streamlined process to provide financing for “well-designed” projects, Richardson said.
A “well-designed” project is defined as having projected energy cost savings exceeding the cost to install the measures and repay the private capital loan.
“C-PACE provides unique benefits that other loan products currently do not or cannot provide,” said Richardson. “These include longer financing terms, non-accelerating payoff at time of property sale and off-balance sheet accounting. By statute, C-PACE requires certain quality standards which will ensure that the project makes sense and is cash flow-positive, in other words, where the energy savings outweigh the loan repayment obligation.”
She added that SRS was chosen to partner in the New Hampshire C-PACE program because of the success it has had in Connecticut, where the firm developed a streamlined and transparent process “widely acknowledged as the most effective program nationally.”
The Jordan Institute is seeking private donations to support the launch of NH C-PACE, which receives no public money. Richardson said the goal is for the program to become totally self-supporting by 2016.
For more information, visit jordaninstitute.org.
This article appears in the October 31 2014 issue of New Hampshire Business Review
Did you like what you read here? Subscribe to New Hampshire Business Review»
According to Laura Richardson, executive director of The Jordan Institute, C-PACE financing is an innovative tool that, similar to a sewer assessment, connects loan repayments for energy-efficiency and renewable energy projects to the commercial building, and not the building’s owner.
She said it is an entirely voluntary opt-in program for municipalities, capital providers, contractors, existing mortgage holders and building owners. In fact, before the financing can be accessed, municipalities must adopt the program prior first.
Through the NH C-PACE program, Jordan Institute and SRS will connect municipalities, capital providers, commercial building owners, architects, engineers, builders, contractors and installers via a streamlined process to provide financing for “well-designed” projects, Richardson said.
A “well-designed” project is defined as having projected energy cost savings exceeding the cost to install the measures and repay the private capital loan.
“C-PACE provides unique benefits that other loan products currently do not or cannot provide,” said Richardson. “These include longer financing terms, non-accelerating payoff at time of property sale and off-balance sheet accounting. By statute, C-PACE requires certain quality standards which will ensure that the project makes sense and is cash flow-positive, in other words, where the energy savings outweigh the loan repayment obligation.”
She added that SRS was chosen to partner in the New Hampshire C-PACE program because of the success it has had in Connecticut, where the firm developed a streamlined and transparent process “widely acknowledged as the most effective program nationally.”
The Jordan Institute is seeking private donations to support the launch of NH C-PACE, which receives no public money. Richardson said the goal is for the program to become totally self-supporting by 2016.
For more information, visit jordaninstitute.org.
This article appears in the October 31 2014 issue of New Hampshire Business Review
Did you like what you read here? Subscribe to New Hampshire Business Review»
Jordan Institute - Resilient Buildings Group 2nd Annual Fall Networking Party and Fundraiser LOUD Party - Silent Auction October 22, 2014 - 3pm - 7 pm 6 Dixon Avenue, Concord, NH 03301 $10 covers the food and fun, all proceeds benefit The Jordan Institute and the launch of C-PACE Space is limited -- Register with Prudy at 603-226-1009, x210 or pveysey at jordaninstitute.org | Hourly Raffles Silent Auction Light Appetizers and Libations |
Town and City Magazine: from the New Hampshire Municipal Association
Commercial-PACE Financing Moves Forward
September/October 2014
By Laura Richardson
New Hampshire’s legislature overwhelmingly supported improvements to existing but ineffective enabling legislation originally passed in 2010, and in statute under RSA 53-F. Many believe that House Bill (HB) 532, relative to energy efficiency and clean energy districts, will provide a much-needed tool for businesses to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.
Called C-PACE financing, for Property Assessed Clean Energy in Commercial Buildings, this enabling legislation allows municipalities to create PACE districts and for building owners to finance energy efficiency and/or renewable energy projects, repaying their loans through property tax assessments, similar to water, sewer, or sidewalk special assessments.
Municipalities currently have various other tools to woo and support businesses within their districts, recognizing that occupied buildings provide strong tax and employment bases, which provide public benefits in numerous ways. Additionally, RSA-53:F states that PACE is found “To achieve the public benefits of protecting the economic and social well-being by reducing energy costs in the community and risks to the community associated with future escalation in energy prices, and addressing the threat of global climate change … that the energy conservation and efficiency and clean energy improvements … will serve the public purposes as set forth in this chapter and not primarily be for the benefit of private persons or uses even though such private benefits and uses may incidentally result…”
Unlike traditional bank loans, C-PACE financing is tied to the commercial building, not the building owner. Loans are paid back through the conduit of a municipal tax assessment and over a long-enough period of time so that the projects are cash positive – where the energy savings are greater than the loan payment. Moreover, there is no up-front fee or down payment and loans do not accelerate at the time of ownership change or default. This allows the building owner to pay for the energy efficiency that they “use” and subsequent owners pay for those savings until the loan is fully paid.
Lien position is negotiated between municipality and lender to determine best comfort level for each project. Municipalities that adopt PACE typically receive a fee to cover their administrative costs. Projects that are financed by private entities and are in first lien position have no cap on the dollar-size of the project. Those projects financed through municipalities are capped at 35% of the assessed value of the building and property plus any existing mortgages, or $1,000,000, whichever is greater. Additionally, municipalities that self-fund projects must have a loan-loss reserve that is not capitalized through their general fund.
C-PACE financing is completely voluntary. Municipalities/voters choose to designate the district and adopt the tool, and municipal officials can nix a project; lenders determine if projects are viable and worthy of investment; building owners decide if C-PACE and the project meets their needs. If all three of these groups conclude that there is a win-win-win fit, the project may proceed.
This financing tool is available for office buildings, hotels and convention centers, manufacturing facilities, small retail, malls, and big box stores, heated warehouses, historic buildings, health clubs and athletic facilities, agricultural buildings, restaurants, as well as buildings owned by non-profit organizations. Multi-family buildings of four or more units can participate. Publicly-owned buildings and residential buildings of less than four units are not included.
Energy projects must demonstrate an energy-cost savings-to-investment ratio of greater than one as determined by an independent third party through an energy audit which includes energy and financial modeling. Projects should also include building commissioning and energy monitoring and verification to assure the lender that the financed project performs as designed. C-PACE projects can include:
Recognizing that many municipalities are stretched thin with staffing capacity, HB 532 allows municipalities to designate another entity to administer the C-PACE program, thus significantly reducing the challenges of tying together financing, energy-project vetting, project management, and administration.
The Jordan Institute, a New Hampshire based non-profit organization that focuses on improving the energy efficiency in buildings, has been the lead voice on C-PACE and is developing a statewide C-PACE program without public funds or a “green bank”. Jordan Institute and its program partners will streamline this process, deploy best-practice standards and protocols, and bring together the necessary teams to develop and launch a sustainable program in the coming months.
Pioneer C-PACE projects in the statewide program are expected to launch in late 2014 and early 2015, with a significant scale-up of projects anticipated in 2015 and 2016. Municipalities and others can learn more at www.jordaninstitute.org.
Laura Richardson is the Executive Director of the Jordan Institute.
By Laura Richardson
New Hampshire’s legislature overwhelmingly supported improvements to existing but ineffective enabling legislation originally passed in 2010, and in statute under RSA 53-F. Many believe that House Bill (HB) 532, relative to energy efficiency and clean energy districts, will provide a much-needed tool for businesses to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.
Called C-PACE financing, for Property Assessed Clean Energy in Commercial Buildings, this enabling legislation allows municipalities to create PACE districts and for building owners to finance energy efficiency and/or renewable energy projects, repaying their loans through property tax assessments, similar to water, sewer, or sidewalk special assessments.
Municipalities currently have various other tools to woo and support businesses within their districts, recognizing that occupied buildings provide strong tax and employment bases, which provide public benefits in numerous ways. Additionally, RSA-53:F states that PACE is found “To achieve the public benefits of protecting the economic and social well-being by reducing energy costs in the community and risks to the community associated with future escalation in energy prices, and addressing the threat of global climate change … that the energy conservation and efficiency and clean energy improvements … will serve the public purposes as set forth in this chapter and not primarily be for the benefit of private persons or uses even though such private benefits and uses may incidentally result…”
Unlike traditional bank loans, C-PACE financing is tied to the commercial building, not the building owner. Loans are paid back through the conduit of a municipal tax assessment and over a long-enough period of time so that the projects are cash positive – where the energy savings are greater than the loan payment. Moreover, there is no up-front fee or down payment and loans do not accelerate at the time of ownership change or default. This allows the building owner to pay for the energy efficiency that they “use” and subsequent owners pay for those savings until the loan is fully paid.
Lien position is negotiated between municipality and lender to determine best comfort level for each project. Municipalities that adopt PACE typically receive a fee to cover their administrative costs. Projects that are financed by private entities and are in first lien position have no cap on the dollar-size of the project. Those projects financed through municipalities are capped at 35% of the assessed value of the building and property plus any existing mortgages, or $1,000,000, whichever is greater. Additionally, municipalities that self-fund projects must have a loan-loss reserve that is not capitalized through their general fund.
C-PACE financing is completely voluntary. Municipalities/voters choose to designate the district and adopt the tool, and municipal officials can nix a project; lenders determine if projects are viable and worthy of investment; building owners decide if C-PACE and the project meets their needs. If all three of these groups conclude that there is a win-win-win fit, the project may proceed.
This financing tool is available for office buildings, hotels and convention centers, manufacturing facilities, small retail, malls, and big box stores, heated warehouses, historic buildings, health clubs and athletic facilities, agricultural buildings, restaurants, as well as buildings owned by non-profit organizations. Multi-family buildings of four or more units can participate. Publicly-owned buildings and residential buildings of less than four units are not included.
Energy projects must demonstrate an energy-cost savings-to-investment ratio of greater than one as determined by an independent third party through an energy audit which includes energy and financial modeling. Projects should also include building commissioning and energy monitoring and verification to assure the lender that the financed project performs as designed. C-PACE projects can include:
- Heating, Ventilation, Air-conditioning (HVAC) Systems
- Controls and heat distribution
- Lighting
- Solar – photovoltaic, hot water, hot air
- Biomass heating – pellets or chips
- Airsealing and Insulation – walls, basements, crawlspaces, attics, roofs
- Combined heat and power
Recognizing that many municipalities are stretched thin with staffing capacity, HB 532 allows municipalities to designate another entity to administer the C-PACE program, thus significantly reducing the challenges of tying together financing, energy-project vetting, project management, and administration.
The Jordan Institute, a New Hampshire based non-profit organization that focuses on improving the energy efficiency in buildings, has been the lead voice on C-PACE and is developing a statewide C-PACE program without public funds or a “green bank”. Jordan Institute and its program partners will streamline this process, deploy best-practice standards and protocols, and bring together the necessary teams to develop and launch a sustainable program in the coming months.
Pioneer C-PACE projects in the statewide program are expected to launch in late 2014 and early 2015, with a significant scale-up of projects anticipated in 2015 and 2016. Municipalities and others can learn more at www.jordaninstitute.org.
Laura Richardson is the Executive Director of the Jordan Institute.
Jordan Institute elects new officers
July 30, 2014
Concord, NH: The Jordan Institute recently announced the election of new officers to its board of directors. Doug Patch, a shareholder and energy lawyer with Orr & Reno, PA will now chair the board. Beatriz Pastor, Dartmouth College professor and State Representative from Lyme is Vice Chair. Michael Mooiman, Associate Professor of Energy and Sustainability Studies at Franklin Pierce University continues in his role as Treasurer. Joanne Cassulo, formerly of the Office of Energy and Planning and now with Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission is Secretary.
Other Directors on Jordan Institute’s Board include Robert McLellan, founding board member and Associate Professor at the Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center; Ken Colburn with Symbiotic Strategies and the Regulatory Assistance Project; Stuart White, architect and former partner in the firm Banwell and White; and Chris Moore of the Pollution Prevention Program at the Department of Environmental Services.
The Jordan Institute, located in Concord, is a nonprofit organization widely known in New Hampshire for promoting energy-efficiency policy and projects in commercial buildings. The Jordan Institute was founded in 1995 as a research and policy initiative that explored the link between the environment, public health, and the economy. Over the years, its collective experience has grown to include energy policy, energy program design, and energy project implementation. In 2013 the Jordan Institute launched Resilient Buildings Group, Inc., an innovative for-profit subsidiary doing energy audits, monitoring and verification, commissioning, LEED certifications, and construction management — helping owners improve the comfort, durability, and sustainability of new and existing buildings while dramatically reducing their energy costs.
Concord, NH: The Jordan Institute recently announced the election of new officers to its board of directors. Doug Patch, a shareholder and energy lawyer with Orr & Reno, PA will now chair the board. Beatriz Pastor, Dartmouth College professor and State Representative from Lyme is Vice Chair. Michael Mooiman, Associate Professor of Energy and Sustainability Studies at Franklin Pierce University continues in his role as Treasurer. Joanne Cassulo, formerly of the Office of Energy and Planning and now with Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission is Secretary.
Other Directors on Jordan Institute’s Board include Robert McLellan, founding board member and Associate Professor at the Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center; Ken Colburn with Symbiotic Strategies and the Regulatory Assistance Project; Stuart White, architect and former partner in the firm Banwell and White; and Chris Moore of the Pollution Prevention Program at the Department of Environmental Services.
The Jordan Institute, located in Concord, is a nonprofit organization widely known in New Hampshire for promoting energy-efficiency policy and projects in commercial buildings. The Jordan Institute was founded in 1995 as a research and policy initiative that explored the link between the environment, public health, and the economy. Over the years, its collective experience has grown to include energy policy, energy program design, and energy project implementation. In 2013 the Jordan Institute launched Resilient Buildings Group, Inc., an innovative for-profit subsidiary doing energy audits, monitoring and verification, commissioning, LEED certifications, and construction management — helping owners improve the comfort, durability, and sustainability of new and existing buildings while dramatically reducing their energy costs.
Stronger Energy Efficiency Policy moves ahead in Concord
Jun 4, 2014 by Jeff Fromuth, Conservation Law Foundation
Today, our cleanest and cheapest energy resource—energy efficiency—got a big boost in the Granite State. The New Hampshire House and Senate voted to send two important energy efficiency bills, profiled on this blog last month, to Governor Hassan’s desk for final approval. The passage of House Bills 532 and 1129 signals a greater focus on energy efficiency as a cornerstone of the state’s efforts to meet our energy needs while reducing energy bills and carbon pollution. The Governor is expected to sign them into law.
Working Toward an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard for NH
HB1129 is the latest step forward in a long-running effort to build the case for trimming New Hampshire energy bills by capturing much more energy efficiency savings than we do now. This process is intended to lead to a robust Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, or EERS, a policy that sets cost savings goals for the state to achieve through graduated investment in energy efficiency improvements (investments in goods and services increasing energy savings for the state). The think tank American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) calls the EERS “a critical policy that lays the foundation for sustained investment in energy efficiency.”
The bill directs New Hampshire’s Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) to hold stakeholder meetings with multiple parties in the state (including residential, commercial, and industrial consumers, utilities, state agencies, and financing entities) to create a blueprint for achieving greater cost savings and reductions in emissions through an EERS.
Building off of earlier work (including a 2009 study), a 2013 study found that New Hampshire should attain as much as ten times—6.6 percent—its energy efficiency savings in 2012 through an EERS. That study, contracted by the OEP for the purpose of drafting an EERS, concluded that New Hampshire could achieve as much as $2.9 Billion in savings with a graduated investment of $941 Million by 2017. Experience in Massachusetts and other states suggests that even greater savings are feasible. With a strong message from the upcoming HB1129 stakeholder process (and a parallel process underway at the state’s Public Utilities Commission), New Hampshire can move toward a robust and ambitious EERS for enactment in 2015.
Catalyzing Private Investment Now
In the meantime, a second bill passed today would help remove another significant barrier to private investment in energy efficiency: freeing up capital for business owners interested in retrofitting their properties (installing improved efficiency systems in buildings with no or less effective ones). HB532 strengthens New Hampshire’s 2010 “Property Assessed Clean Energy,” or “PACE” law. The bill ties investments in energy-related projects to the building, not the building owner, through property tax assessments used by municipalities. This eliminates the need for loan payoff upon sale of the property.
According to Professor Michael Mooiman of Franklin Pierce University, HB532 (known as C-PACE for “commercial” PACE) helps resolves the Federal Housing Finance Authority’s unfortunate concerns with PACE laws (regarding lenders’ ability to recover capital in the event of foreclosure) by focusing on the commercial sector—over which FHFA has no jurisdiction. HB532 also ups the current $60,000 dollar cap on project size to $1 million or 35% of the property’s value, whichever is greater, which according to the Jordan Institute allows much more significant projects where “the C-PACE participant, the lender, and the town to determine the appropriate amount to finance.”
As a rule of thumb, larger investments in energy efficiency tend to yield larger returns—as long as those investments are cost-effective. C-PACE improves access to investment capital for New Hampshire’s commercial sector through financial tools such as providing up to 30 year, 100 percent up-front financing, resolving the FHFA’s concerns (removing the program’s main obstacle), eliminating the need for a loan payment upon sale of the property, and keeping the cost with the business owners instead of tax payers. It is also completely voluntary. Finally, C-PACE ties the energy efficiency lien to the commercial property, relieving owners of paying off the loan if they decide to sell the property.
As I argued in my last post, New Hampshire can and should do more to scale up energy efficiency. CLF celebrates the passage of these bills as strong milestones toward this goal. There now appears to be growing momentum to make the policy changes necessary, including within state government and the utility sector. New Hampshire is well positioned to take the golden opportunities presented by the new legislation and other burgeoning efforts to reduce energy bills and meet our energy needs as cheaply and cleanly as possible.
Jeff Fromuth is an intern in CLF’s New Hampshire office.
Today, our cleanest and cheapest energy resource—energy efficiency—got a big boost in the Granite State. The New Hampshire House and Senate voted to send two important energy efficiency bills, profiled on this blog last month, to Governor Hassan’s desk for final approval. The passage of House Bills 532 and 1129 signals a greater focus on energy efficiency as a cornerstone of the state’s efforts to meet our energy needs while reducing energy bills and carbon pollution. The Governor is expected to sign them into law.
Working Toward an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard for NH
HB1129 is the latest step forward in a long-running effort to build the case for trimming New Hampshire energy bills by capturing much more energy efficiency savings than we do now. This process is intended to lead to a robust Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, or EERS, a policy that sets cost savings goals for the state to achieve through graduated investment in energy efficiency improvements (investments in goods and services increasing energy savings for the state). The think tank American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) calls the EERS “a critical policy that lays the foundation for sustained investment in energy efficiency.”
The bill directs New Hampshire’s Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) to hold stakeholder meetings with multiple parties in the state (including residential, commercial, and industrial consumers, utilities, state agencies, and financing entities) to create a blueprint for achieving greater cost savings and reductions in emissions through an EERS.
Building off of earlier work (including a 2009 study), a 2013 study found that New Hampshire should attain as much as ten times—6.6 percent—its energy efficiency savings in 2012 through an EERS. That study, contracted by the OEP for the purpose of drafting an EERS, concluded that New Hampshire could achieve as much as $2.9 Billion in savings with a graduated investment of $941 Million by 2017. Experience in Massachusetts and other states suggests that even greater savings are feasible. With a strong message from the upcoming HB1129 stakeholder process (and a parallel process underway at the state’s Public Utilities Commission), New Hampshire can move toward a robust and ambitious EERS for enactment in 2015.
Catalyzing Private Investment Now
In the meantime, a second bill passed today would help remove another significant barrier to private investment in energy efficiency: freeing up capital for business owners interested in retrofitting their properties (installing improved efficiency systems in buildings with no or less effective ones). HB532 strengthens New Hampshire’s 2010 “Property Assessed Clean Energy,” or “PACE” law. The bill ties investments in energy-related projects to the building, not the building owner, through property tax assessments used by municipalities. This eliminates the need for loan payoff upon sale of the property.
According to Professor Michael Mooiman of Franklin Pierce University, HB532 (known as C-PACE for “commercial” PACE) helps resolves the Federal Housing Finance Authority’s unfortunate concerns with PACE laws (regarding lenders’ ability to recover capital in the event of foreclosure) by focusing on the commercial sector—over which FHFA has no jurisdiction. HB532 also ups the current $60,000 dollar cap on project size to $1 million or 35% of the property’s value, whichever is greater, which according to the Jordan Institute allows much more significant projects where “the C-PACE participant, the lender, and the town to determine the appropriate amount to finance.”
As a rule of thumb, larger investments in energy efficiency tend to yield larger returns—as long as those investments are cost-effective. C-PACE improves access to investment capital for New Hampshire’s commercial sector through financial tools such as providing up to 30 year, 100 percent up-front financing, resolving the FHFA’s concerns (removing the program’s main obstacle), eliminating the need for a loan payment upon sale of the property, and keeping the cost with the business owners instead of tax payers. It is also completely voluntary. Finally, C-PACE ties the energy efficiency lien to the commercial property, relieving owners of paying off the loan if they decide to sell the property.
As I argued in my last post, New Hampshire can and should do more to scale up energy efficiency. CLF celebrates the passage of these bills as strong milestones toward this goal. There now appears to be growing momentum to make the policy changes necessary, including within state government and the utility sector. New Hampshire is well positioned to take the golden opportunities presented by the new legislation and other burgeoning efforts to reduce energy bills and meet our energy needs as cheaply and cleanly as possible.
Jeff Fromuth is an intern in CLF’s New Hampshire office.
NREL Announces Participants in National Energy Executives Program
Monday, May 12, 2014
The Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has selected 17 leaders - including Laura Richardson, Executive Director of The Jordan Institute - to participate in its 2014 Executive Energy Leadership program (Energy Execs), which empowers executives to integrate clean energy solutions in their communities.
The five-month program offers executive decision-makers from throughout the U.S. an in-depth look at renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. As part of the experience, participants receive briefings by NREL technology experts, research laboratory tours and visits to renewable energy installations.
"The continued transformation of our current energy system to one that is more sustainable will require informed decision-makers who are leading the way," NREL Director Dan Arvizu said. "We are pleased to welcome these business, community and government leaders so they can understand the implications of their energy decisions and demonstrate leadership for the long-term clean energy economy.
At the conclusion of the program, participants will present a viable clean energy project. Since its inception, more than 200 representatives of industry, government and non-profit organizations have completed the Energy Execs program, delivered through the Executive Energy Leadership Academy. For more information, visit http://www.nrel.gov/energyexecs/.
NREL is the U.S. Department of Energy's primary national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. NREL is operated for DOE by The Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.
Visit NREL online at www.nrel.gov
The Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has selected 17 leaders - including Laura Richardson, Executive Director of The Jordan Institute - to participate in its 2014 Executive Energy Leadership program (Energy Execs), which empowers executives to integrate clean energy solutions in their communities.
The five-month program offers executive decision-makers from throughout the U.S. an in-depth look at renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. As part of the experience, participants receive briefings by NREL technology experts, research laboratory tours and visits to renewable energy installations.
"The continued transformation of our current energy system to one that is more sustainable will require informed decision-makers who are leading the way," NREL Director Dan Arvizu said. "We are pleased to welcome these business, community and government leaders so they can understand the implications of their energy decisions and demonstrate leadership for the long-term clean energy economy.
At the conclusion of the program, participants will present a viable clean energy project. Since its inception, more than 200 representatives of industry, government and non-profit organizations have completed the Energy Execs program, delivered through the Executive Energy Leadership Academy. For more information, visit http://www.nrel.gov/energyexecs/.
NREL is the U.S. Department of Energy's primary national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. NREL is operated for DOE by The Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.
Visit NREL online at www.nrel.gov
Jordan Institute adds Cassulo, Moore to Board of Directors
Concord, NH: The Jordan Institute recently announced the addition of Joanne Cassulo and Christopher Moore to its Board of Directors. The Jordan Institute advocates for effective and innovative public-policy and market-based solutions to reduce the energy needed in commercial buildings.
Joanne Cassulo works for the Central NH Regional Planning Commission, having recently retired from the NH Office of Energy and Planning. She graduated from the University of Rhode Island with a master's degree in planning and community development. She has served on many local, regional and state advisory committees and boards including budget and school committees, local planning and zoning boards.
Christopher Moore works for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, providing businesses with compliance assistance in the Pollution Prevention program. He focuses extensively on energy efficiency, water conservation, and toxic use reductions. Chris holds a BS in Biology from the UNH and an MBA with a focus on energy and sustainable business from Franklin Pierce University.
“Joanne and Chris bring new perspectives, ideas, and skills to our board. We are very excited to have them join our team,” said Executive Director Laura Richardson.
The Jordan Institute, located in Concord, is a nonprofit organization widely known in New Hampshire for promoting energy-efficiency policy and projects in commercial buildings. The Jordan Institute was founded in 1995 as a research and policy initiative that explored the link between the environment, public health, and the economy. Over the years, its collective experience has grown to include energy policy, energy program design, and energy project implementation. In 2013 the Jordan Institute launched Resilient Buildings Group, Inc., an innovative for-profit subsidiary doing energy audits, monitoring and verification, commissioning, LEED certifications, and construction management — helping owners improve the comfort, durability, and sustainability of new and existing buildings while dramatically reducing their energy costs.
Joanne Cassulo works for the Central NH Regional Planning Commission, having recently retired from the NH Office of Energy and Planning. She graduated from the University of Rhode Island with a master's degree in planning and community development. She has served on many local, regional and state advisory committees and boards including budget and school committees, local planning and zoning boards.
Christopher Moore works for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, providing businesses with compliance assistance in the Pollution Prevention program. He focuses extensively on energy efficiency, water conservation, and toxic use reductions. Chris holds a BS in Biology from the UNH and an MBA with a focus on energy and sustainable business from Franklin Pierce University.
“Joanne and Chris bring new perspectives, ideas, and skills to our board. We are very excited to have them join our team,” said Executive Director Laura Richardson.
The Jordan Institute, located in Concord, is a nonprofit organization widely known in New Hampshire for promoting energy-efficiency policy and projects in commercial buildings. The Jordan Institute was founded in 1995 as a research and policy initiative that explored the link between the environment, public health, and the economy. Over the years, its collective experience has grown to include energy policy, energy program design, and energy project implementation. In 2013 the Jordan Institute launched Resilient Buildings Group, Inc., an innovative for-profit subsidiary doing energy audits, monitoring and verification, commissioning, LEED certifications, and construction management — helping owners improve the comfort, durability, and sustainability of new and existing buildings while dramatically reducing their energy costs.
Resilient Buildings Group cuts ribbon(Concord, NH): Local dignitaries joined the board, staff, and friends of Resilient Buildings Group, Inc. (RBG), for a ribbon-cutting ceremony to herald the new company’s membership in the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce. Concord Mayor James Bouley, Chamber President Tim Sink, and Chamber Ambassadors Jan Moyer and Phil Donovan visited RBG’s offices on Dixon Avenue in downtown Concord, where they met RBG staff, board representatives and friends, toured the offices, and learned about the special niche RBG offers – significantly improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. RBG’s services include energy audits, energy data monitoring and verification, building commissioning, LEED consulting and certification, and energy-centric construction management. RBG, a for-profit subsidiary of the non-profit Jordan Institute, was launched in July 2013 in order to scale-up the quality and quantity of energy-efficient buildings in the region. | RBG Board Member Steven Eckberg, Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce President Tim Sink, RBG General Manager Dana Nute, Concord Mayor Jim Bouley, and RBG Board President Mike Mooiman cut the ribbon. |
My light bulb will outlive me – and other important benefits of
energy efficiency
GREENWorks - Ideas for a Cleaner Environment
A publication of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH (603) 271-3710 - February 2014
By Laura Richardson, The Jordan Institute
When our ceiling fan’s 13-year old compact fluorescent light bulb dimmed and then died, my husband and I looked at each, and cheered. By replacing it with a LED light bulb, we knew we’d further reduce our energy load. We also both realized that we would never again have to drag the ladder out to change that bulb, ever.
It’s remarkable – and a little disturbing – to realize a light bulb has a longer life expectancy than my husband or me, both middle aged. With our current habits of using that light less than an hour a day, we can expect it to last about 70 more years. Even if we halve that, we’ll surely be in a nursing home or have a nephew scale the ladder for us when that bulb needs to be replaced. Other benefits beyond the advertised 25,000 hours of use include great color and brightness, mercury-free components, and a shape that comfortably fits in the light fixture.
Replacing a light bulb is just a symbolic step compared to the scale of energy improvements we need to make in all building sectors. More comprehensive energy efficiency projects include airsealing and insulation, upgrades to heating, cooling, and ventilation (HVAC), lighting, distribution and controls of more sophisticated HVAC systems, domestic hot water systems, plug-loads, and appliances. Candidly, New Hampshire’s building stock hemorrhages energy – we waste well over a third of what we buy for energy. Many buildings could realistically reduce their energy use by 50%. What happened to Yankee frugality?
A publication of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH (603) 271-3710 - February 2014
By Laura Richardson, The Jordan Institute
When our ceiling fan’s 13-year old compact fluorescent light bulb dimmed and then died, my husband and I looked at each, and cheered. By replacing it with a LED light bulb, we knew we’d further reduce our energy load. We also both realized that we would never again have to drag the ladder out to change that bulb, ever.
It’s remarkable – and a little disturbing – to realize a light bulb has a longer life expectancy than my husband or me, both middle aged. With our current habits of using that light less than an hour a day, we can expect it to last about 70 more years. Even if we halve that, we’ll surely be in a nursing home or have a nephew scale the ladder for us when that bulb needs to be replaced. Other benefits beyond the advertised 25,000 hours of use include great color and brightness, mercury-free components, and a shape that comfortably fits in the light fixture.
Replacing a light bulb is just a symbolic step compared to the scale of energy improvements we need to make in all building sectors. More comprehensive energy efficiency projects include airsealing and insulation, upgrades to heating, cooling, and ventilation (HVAC), lighting, distribution and controls of more sophisticated HVAC systems, domestic hot water systems, plug-loads, and appliances. Candidly, New Hampshire’s building stock hemorrhages energy – we waste well over a third of what we buy for energy. Many buildings could realistically reduce their energy use by 50%. What happened to Yankee frugality?
The purple sections in this thermal imaging photo show cold temperature readings where whole sections of insulation are missing from the wall. This building in Concord is less than 20 years old and is fairly representative of the challenges we face.
Having endured multiple cold snaps this winter, heating systems strained to keep us warm. The electric grid fought to deliver power to everyone who
needed it. Such are supply and demand market forces. Energy costs skyrocketed, people were uncomfortable, and economically we all suffered. Air leaks and buildings with poor insulation, and wasted energy in aggregate, were a big part of the problem.
Natural gas pipelines struggled to deliver all that was requested by electricity generators, industrial users, and buildings for heat. Pipeline capacity was maxed out. Gorham Paper and Tissue laid-off staff because of exorbitant spiking natural gas costs. Other industrial users of energy complained quite loudly because their business plans did not prepare them for such dramatic price fluctuations. Logistical issues at Fred Fuller Oil and Propane were exacerbated by the cold snap panicking customers who expected more timely fuel deliveries. Propane costs are
now soaring because of system-wide demand and unanticipated industrial agricultural needs during autumn in the Midwest. Our electric and gas rates will surely reflect these spikes as the utilities seek to recover their costs from this season.
There is a direct connection between cost-volatility for industrial users of energy and demand spikes from other sectors. Improving the energy performance of residential, municipal and commercial buildings means less energy needed to flow through pipelines, transmission lines and fuel trucks – in many cases a 50 percent reduction of energy use is quite feasible. This in turn reduces energy demand system-wide, and thus reduces energy prices for everyone. Energy efficiency means that we are less vulnerable to cold snaps, heat waves, and disruptions in energy supply. It means that we are more physically comfortable and our economy is more resilient. It means that we emit far fewer greenhouse gases.
Energy efficiency should be considered an energy resource in New Hampshire. If we can better manage energy use, we don’t need to expand energy capacity. In many cases, it is less expensive to “buy” energy efficiency than to buy the energy itself. “Least-cost procurement” is a Yankee attribute and we would all benefit if this was incorporated into our utility regulations and energy practices.
Like the light bulb in our ceiling fan, once we fix the problem for the long-term, we can all enjoy
the benefits – reduced costs, convenience, and comfort.
Having endured multiple cold snaps this winter, heating systems strained to keep us warm. The electric grid fought to deliver power to everyone who
needed it. Such are supply and demand market forces. Energy costs skyrocketed, people were uncomfortable, and economically we all suffered. Air leaks and buildings with poor insulation, and wasted energy in aggregate, were a big part of the problem.
Natural gas pipelines struggled to deliver all that was requested by electricity generators, industrial users, and buildings for heat. Pipeline capacity was maxed out. Gorham Paper and Tissue laid-off staff because of exorbitant spiking natural gas costs. Other industrial users of energy complained quite loudly because their business plans did not prepare them for such dramatic price fluctuations. Logistical issues at Fred Fuller Oil and Propane were exacerbated by the cold snap panicking customers who expected more timely fuel deliveries. Propane costs are
now soaring because of system-wide demand and unanticipated industrial agricultural needs during autumn in the Midwest. Our electric and gas rates will surely reflect these spikes as the utilities seek to recover their costs from this season.
There is a direct connection between cost-volatility for industrial users of energy and demand spikes from other sectors. Improving the energy performance of residential, municipal and commercial buildings means less energy needed to flow through pipelines, transmission lines and fuel trucks – in many cases a 50 percent reduction of energy use is quite feasible. This in turn reduces energy demand system-wide, and thus reduces energy prices for everyone. Energy efficiency means that we are less vulnerable to cold snaps, heat waves, and disruptions in energy supply. It means that we are more physically comfortable and our economy is more resilient. It means that we emit far fewer greenhouse gases.
Energy efficiency should be considered an energy resource in New Hampshire. If we can better manage energy use, we don’t need to expand energy capacity. In many cases, it is less expensive to “buy” energy efficiency than to buy the energy itself. “Least-cost procurement” is a Yankee attribute and we would all benefit if this was incorporated into our utility regulations and energy practices.
Like the light bulb in our ceiling fan, once we fix the problem for the long-term, we can all enjoy
the benefits – reduced costs, convenience, and comfort.
Concord Monitor: My Turn - Time to Break Out of NH's Energy Efficiency Polar Vortex
By LAURA RICHARDSON
For the Monitor
Friday, January 24, 2014
When the thermostat reads 10 below zero and 4 inches of poorly insulated wall separates you from the bitter cold, you might consider what it takes to raise the temperature 70 or 80 degrees to keep your home or business reasonably warm. And what impact that has on everyone else.
At a recent Business and Industry Association meeting, Democratic Rep. David Borden of New Castle noted that each year in New Hampshire we spend about $6 billion on energy. He further stated that we probably waste a third of that. I think his estimate is on the conservative side. Our building stock hemorrhages energy. Later in the same meeting, a business owner – who requires massive amounts of electricity for operations – said he couldn’t stomach expanded public funding for energy efficiency efforts, that he was already faced with exorbitant energy costs. The Gorham Paper and Tissue mill reduced paper-making operations and laid off dozens of employees because of natural gas prices, related to pipeline capacity.
There is a direct connection between cost-volatility for industrial users of energy and demand spikes from other sectors. Improving the energy performance of residential, municipal and commercial buildings would means less energy needed to flow through pipelines, transmission lines and fuel trucks – in many cases a 50 percent reduction of energy use is quite feasible – which in turn reduces energy demand system-wide, and thus reduces energy prices for everyone. There is never a rate of return on wasted energy.
New Hampshire has studied this problem for many years, with one study leading to another study, but very little action. An effort to develop an energy strategy for New Hampshire is currently under way. It should provide additional guidance on next steps. We all know that ramping up energy efficiency efforts in buildings will be a key recommendation. Can’t we start working on it sooner rather than later?
Adding pipelines and transmission lines is not a solution; they simply provide a mechanism to waste more. Energy efficiency should be considered an energy resource in New Hampshire. If we can better manage energy use, we don’t need to expand energy capacity. In many cases, it is less expensive to “buy” energy efficiency than to buy the energy itself. “Least-cost procurement” is a Yankee attribute we have so far failed to incorporate into our utility regulations and energy practices.
Who should take the lead? All of us. Be it saving money, reduced susceptibility to price volatility, Yankee frugality, national security, greenhouse gas emissions reductions and other environmental benefits, improved comfort, the jobs that come with improving our building stock and related economic development, improved physical assets in our communities – whatever your favorite reason, we need to stop wasting energy. Now.
How should do we do it? We should get past the initial sticker shock and understand that whether we buy energy or we buy energy efficiency, we are spending the same dollars. Only the energy efficiency dollars have a compounding rate of return.
(Laura Richardson is executive director of The Jordan Institute, a Concord-based nonprofit that helps commercial building owners significantly reduce their energy use.)
For the Monitor
Friday, January 24, 2014
When the thermostat reads 10 below zero and 4 inches of poorly insulated wall separates you from the bitter cold, you might consider what it takes to raise the temperature 70 or 80 degrees to keep your home or business reasonably warm. And what impact that has on everyone else.
At a recent Business and Industry Association meeting, Democratic Rep. David Borden of New Castle noted that each year in New Hampshire we spend about $6 billion on energy. He further stated that we probably waste a third of that. I think his estimate is on the conservative side. Our building stock hemorrhages energy. Later in the same meeting, a business owner – who requires massive amounts of electricity for operations – said he couldn’t stomach expanded public funding for energy efficiency efforts, that he was already faced with exorbitant energy costs. The Gorham Paper and Tissue mill reduced paper-making operations and laid off dozens of employees because of natural gas prices, related to pipeline capacity.
There is a direct connection between cost-volatility for industrial users of energy and demand spikes from other sectors. Improving the energy performance of residential, municipal and commercial buildings would means less energy needed to flow through pipelines, transmission lines and fuel trucks – in many cases a 50 percent reduction of energy use is quite feasible – which in turn reduces energy demand system-wide, and thus reduces energy prices for everyone. There is never a rate of return on wasted energy.
New Hampshire has studied this problem for many years, with one study leading to another study, but very little action. An effort to develop an energy strategy for New Hampshire is currently under way. It should provide additional guidance on next steps. We all know that ramping up energy efficiency efforts in buildings will be a key recommendation. Can’t we start working on it sooner rather than later?
Adding pipelines and transmission lines is not a solution; they simply provide a mechanism to waste more. Energy efficiency should be considered an energy resource in New Hampshire. If we can better manage energy use, we don’t need to expand energy capacity. In many cases, it is less expensive to “buy” energy efficiency than to buy the energy itself. “Least-cost procurement” is a Yankee attribute we have so far failed to incorporate into our utility regulations and energy practices.
Who should take the lead? All of us. Be it saving money, reduced susceptibility to price volatility, Yankee frugality, national security, greenhouse gas emissions reductions and other environmental benefits, improved comfort, the jobs that come with improving our building stock and related economic development, improved physical assets in our communities – whatever your favorite reason, we need to stop wasting energy. Now.
How should do we do it? We should get past the initial sticker shock and understand that whether we buy energy or we buy energy efficiency, we are spending the same dollars. Only the energy efficiency dollars have a compounding rate of return.
(Laura Richardson is executive director of The Jordan Institute, a Concord-based nonprofit that helps commercial building owners significantly reduce their energy use.)
NH Public Radio's The Exchange: Energy Efficiency - How N.H. Stacks Up
By Laura Knoy
A recent report places New Hampshire in the middle of the pack nationally when it comes to programs and policies to conserve energy, and that we’re behind the other New England states. We’ll look at the costs, regulations and the possible outcomes down the road.
GUESTS:
A recent report places New Hampshire in the middle of the pack nationally when it comes to programs and policies to conserve energy, and that we’re behind the other New England states. We’ll look at the costs, regulations and the possible outcomes down the road.
GUESTS:
- Meredith Hatfield – director of the state’s Office of Energy and Planning
- Michael Licata – vice president of public policy for the NH Business and industry Association
- Laura Richardson – executive director of the Jordan Institute, which advocates for public-policy and market-based solutions to improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings
- Paul Morin - president of Tarkka Homes. A builder himself, he is actively involved with the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of NH. He regularly testifies before the NH Legislature on issues relating to the industry.
*You can find the state energy efficiency scorecard here, and the state-commissioned study on energy efficiency here.
From AVA Gallery's Newsletter: A Work In Progress
AVA’s efforts to achieve netzero energy status, i.e., to produce as much energy with renewables as our building consumes, has been moving forward. The Jordan Institute, New Hampshire’s premier think-tank dedicated to addressing climate change in the built environment through efficiency upgrades, began guiding this process over the summer and fall. Led by Paul Leveille (who was instrumental in our achieving LEED Gold-certification in 2008), three years of our building’s most recent energy usage has been analyzed. Data loggers have been installed on electrical circuits to discover exactly where electrons are going. While these efforts are expected to pinpoint areas that can yield savings, the most important watt is the one not used: the “negawatt.” Once the total thermal and electrical loads have been optimally reduced, a solar electrical system – an essential component of our new capital campaign – will be designed, “right-sized” to the building’s needs. AVA’s planned arts facility for three-dimensional studies (see page 6) will be designed to the same high standards; unlike 11 Bank Street, it will benefit from being a new building. Simultaneously, we will continue with our “deep energy retrofit” of the Carter-Kelsey building, with particular emphasis on improving the 2nd and 3rd floors. The Jordan Institute’s studies have been made possible by a grant to AVA from the Highfield Foundation. |
From NH Business Review: Q+A with Jordan Institute Executive Director Laura Richardson
BY MICHAEL MCCORD
Laura Richardson took a unique journey to become the executive director of The Jordan Institute, the Concord-based nonprofit and energy-efficiency advocacy organization.
It started more than a decade ago with the designing and building of a radically energy-efficient home for Richardson and her husband Gil. Much to their surprise, their home became a popular stop for people interested in building their own “green” homes. Over the years more than 500 people have stopped by.
That led to the co-founding in 2003 of the New Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association, which eventually led to three years of directing stimulus-funded energy programs for the state’s Office of Energy and Planning beginning in 2009.
Richardson joined The Jordan Institute as director of operations and was appointed executive director in June 2013. The organization also has undergone a major makeover with the spinoff of a for-profit company, Resilient Buildings Group, to handle construction management projects.
Q. Has energy efficiency become less of a novelty and more of a conventional, economically sound business practice?
A. It’s interesting how the market has evolved because it is now possible to build net-zero energy homes and commercial buildings. It’s just good business sense to make buildings more energy-efficient, especially in New Hampshire. It’s a cost savings that you can count on year after year.
Energy costs and supply are dynamic. Natural gas may be inexpensive right now, but that doesn’t mean that it will be in 10 years. Most of New Hampshire heats with fuel oil, unlike the rest of the country. It is that much harder to compete with businesses in other states when your operational costs are higher because you heat with oil. If you can reduce those energy costs by 50 percent or more, then you can compete again. And if you couple efficiency upgrades with renewable energy systems – photovoltaic, solar thermal, wood pellets – then you really close that gap and are very competitive.
Q. Why was the RBG spinoff important?
A. We launched Resilient Buildings Group for a couple of reasons. Our project implementation work – energy audits, monitoring and verification of energy savings, commissioning, LEED certification and consulting, building-energy consulting, and now energy-centric construction management – is ready to scale up as a “real business” and doesn’t need the nonprofit umbrella.
We wanted to get into construction management, and that role doesn’t fit a nonprofit. Dana Nute, RBG’s general manager, has a lot of experience as a construction manager, and he recognized the potential. We had been setting up projects with our clients and then handling them off to CMs. More often than not, the CMs would talk our clients out of the energy portion of the projects. This model lets us stay on the project from start to finish and be accountable to the projects’ goals.
Q. What are the benefits of the spinoff to each organization?
A. This model reinforces Jordan’s mission and vision. We recognized that The Jordan Institute – like all businesses – needs multiple funding streams. When RBG realizes profit, and after taxes are paid, a portion of those profits will come to the nonprofit. We hope that those costs will help cover our overhead and some of our administrative costs.
It’s also important that when RBG, its clients, collaborators, and even competitors, bump into policy or market barriers to broader energy efficiency and renewable energy implementation, Jordan can help solve them on the policy side, and vice versa.
Q. What is the most surprising thing about The Jordan Institute that people may not know?
A. The Jordan Institute was founded in 1995 by a gift from Doyle and Lenore Jordan. We are not named after the country, the basketball player or his line of sneakers, or the furniture store. The Jordans were interested in funding research and policy initiatives that explore the link between our environment, public health and the economy. Making buildings really energy-efficient ties those concepts together.
This article appears in the December 27 2013 issue of New Hampshire Business Review.
Laura Richardson took a unique journey to become the executive director of The Jordan Institute, the Concord-based nonprofit and energy-efficiency advocacy organization.
It started more than a decade ago with the designing and building of a radically energy-efficient home for Richardson and her husband Gil. Much to their surprise, their home became a popular stop for people interested in building their own “green” homes. Over the years more than 500 people have stopped by.
That led to the co-founding in 2003 of the New Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association, which eventually led to three years of directing stimulus-funded energy programs for the state’s Office of Energy and Planning beginning in 2009.
Richardson joined The Jordan Institute as director of operations and was appointed executive director in June 2013. The organization also has undergone a major makeover with the spinoff of a for-profit company, Resilient Buildings Group, to handle construction management projects.
Q. Has energy efficiency become less of a novelty and more of a conventional, economically sound business practice?
A. It’s interesting how the market has evolved because it is now possible to build net-zero energy homes and commercial buildings. It’s just good business sense to make buildings more energy-efficient, especially in New Hampshire. It’s a cost savings that you can count on year after year.
Energy costs and supply are dynamic. Natural gas may be inexpensive right now, but that doesn’t mean that it will be in 10 years. Most of New Hampshire heats with fuel oil, unlike the rest of the country. It is that much harder to compete with businesses in other states when your operational costs are higher because you heat with oil. If you can reduce those energy costs by 50 percent or more, then you can compete again. And if you couple efficiency upgrades with renewable energy systems – photovoltaic, solar thermal, wood pellets – then you really close that gap and are very competitive.
Q. Why was the RBG spinoff important?
A. We launched Resilient Buildings Group for a couple of reasons. Our project implementation work – energy audits, monitoring and verification of energy savings, commissioning, LEED certification and consulting, building-energy consulting, and now energy-centric construction management – is ready to scale up as a “real business” and doesn’t need the nonprofit umbrella.
We wanted to get into construction management, and that role doesn’t fit a nonprofit. Dana Nute, RBG’s general manager, has a lot of experience as a construction manager, and he recognized the potential. We had been setting up projects with our clients and then handling them off to CMs. More often than not, the CMs would talk our clients out of the energy portion of the projects. This model lets us stay on the project from start to finish and be accountable to the projects’ goals.
Q. What are the benefits of the spinoff to each organization?
A. This model reinforces Jordan’s mission and vision. We recognized that The Jordan Institute – like all businesses – needs multiple funding streams. When RBG realizes profit, and after taxes are paid, a portion of those profits will come to the nonprofit. We hope that those costs will help cover our overhead and some of our administrative costs.
It’s also important that when RBG, its clients, collaborators, and even competitors, bump into policy or market barriers to broader energy efficiency and renewable energy implementation, Jordan can help solve them on the policy side, and vice versa.
Q. What is the most surprising thing about The Jordan Institute that people may not know?
A. The Jordan Institute was founded in 1995 by a gift from Doyle and Lenore Jordan. We are not named after the country, the basketball player or his line of sneakers, or the furniture store. The Jordans were interested in funding research and policy initiatives that explore the link between our environment, public health and the economy. Making buildings really energy-efficient ties those concepts together.
This article appears in the December 27 2013 issue of New Hampshire Business Review.
Douglas Patch Joins Jordan Institute Board of Directors
Douglas Patch, a senior attorney and shareholder with the Concord law firm of Orr & Reno, has joined the board of directors of the Jordan Institute. Patch’s legal-practice areas include energy law in particular as well as governmental relations, telecommunications law, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and environmental law. In addition to Patch’s ten years in private practice representing a variety of clients, he has 23 years of public-service experience, including a nine-year term as Chairman of the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, three years as an assistant attorney general, and six years as Assistant Commissioner for the Department of Safety. As counsel for clients before administrative agencies, Patch has helped obtain regulatory approvals for electricity-generation plants, including wind farms and other generating facilities. He has also represented utilities and intervened in utility proceedings for various companies, organizations, and ratepayer groups. Through his ADR practice he has mediated and arbitrated issues related to the electric, telecommunications, and water industries as well as environmental matters. He has an active practice representing clients before the New Hampshire legislature. Orr & Reno is a full-service commercial law firm serving clients in business, education, energy, health care, insurance, media, real estate, religious and nonprofit organizations, telecommunications, and more. The firm’s specialty practice areas include alternative dispute resolution, mediation, and arbitration; domestic relations, family law, and divorce; employment law; environmental issues; estate planning and probate administration; First Amendment law; government relations; immigration; intellectual property and technology; lending and creditors’ rights; litigation; OSHA; real estate, zoning, and land-use planning; taxation; and trust and succession planning. It was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Concord, New Hampshire. To learn more, visit www.orr-reno.com. |
From the Concord Insider: It’s actually not super hard being green:
Jordan Institute brings the heat to buildings in Concord and beyond
By Keith Testa July 16, 2013
Hall of Fame football coach Bill Parcells infamously lamented his lack of input in personnel decisions when departing the New England Patriots by saying, “They want you to cook the dinner; at least they ought to let you shop for some of the groceries.” The Jordan Institute, a nonprofit energy reduction think tank in Concord, was having something of the opposite problem, completing the shopping list only to watch from outside the kitchen as someone else whipped up the meal. Thanks to the creation of Resilient Buildings Group, a recently created for-profit subsidiary of the Jordan Institute, dinner is now served in-house. And the staff members continue to work to find efficient ways for you to cook your dinner without the heat from the oven escaping through invisible nooks and crannies. MORE |
The Jordan Institute reorganizes, names new Executive Director, and spins-off subsidiary(Concord, H) - The Jordan Institute (TJI), a non-profit organization widely known in the state for promoting energy efficiency policy and projects in commercial buildings, is acting on recommendations from its recently completed strategic plan. TJI’s board appointed Laura Richardson as Executive Director of The Jordan Institute. Further, the board approved the spin-off of a for-profit subsidiary which will be majority owned by The Jordan Institute. This new company, Resilient Buildings Group, Inc. (RBG), will expand the energy efficiency in buildings, consulting, and project work for which The Jordan Institute is recognized. Dana Nute will manage that company. Existing Jordan Institute contracts will be completed as contracted and new project contracts will be handled by RBG. The Jordan Institute will continue to focus on public-policy initiatives related to energy efficiency in buildings. MORE | Introducing Resilient Buildings GroupResilient Buildings Group, Inc. is a majority-owned, for-profit subsidiary of The Jordan Institute, a non-profit energy-reduction think tank. Resilient Buildings Group helps building owners improve the comfort, durability, and sustainability of new and existing buildings while dramatically reducing their energy costs. Comprehensive and Custom Services · Lead integrated design team charrettes (brainstorming sessions) · Perform energy audits and assessments · Review drawings, plans, and designs · Model energy and financial savings · Develop project scope and energy-related project goals · Navigate financial incentives for energy projects · Provide technical assistance for energy projects · Manage construction projects · Write Requests for Proposals on behalf of clients · Assist with contractor selection · Oversee project implementation · Ensure buildings perform as designed through Commissioning · Analyze energy data · Conduct comfort and energy-efficiency surveys www.ResilientBuildingsGroup.com |