Engineered Systems - January 2009 - (Page 26) EfficiencyIncentives 2006 New England and MidAtlantic Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Massachuetts Maryland Maine New Hampshire New Jersey New York Rhode Island Vermont $60.5 NC NC 148.1 2.2 11.9 17.8 125.2 271.7 21.0 17.9 2007 2008 (Millions USD) $170.7 NC NC 148.8 17.3 15.9 21.3 144.4 270.6 21.8 25.3 $114.3 1.0 1.5 148.9 6.1 16.8 22.0 196.8 314.0 20.9 36.1 Midwest Iowa Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Michigan Minnesota Missouri Ohio Wisconsin 93.9 32.8 5.7 NC 2.5 15.0 99.9 8.3 15.8 103.9 94.7 8.5 10.6 4.3 2.4 20.0 89.6 7.7 6.2 113.8 96.7 41.8 11.7 4.8 2.4 20.0 145.6 9.1 76.4 140.8 ACEE is ACEEE is quick to explain why EEE i k to lain why i h states need to b focused on thi tt d be d this issue Energy effici issue. “Energy efficiency is the only ffi iency is th he nly l resource that can help states resource that can help states actually reduce energy actually reduce energy consumption consumption to combat nsumptio combat omba rising energy demand and create rising energy demand and create a hedge against skyrocketing hedge against skyrocketing energy prices — making eff fficiency the ‘first fuel’ states can use to balance their energy portfolios.” state survey. ACEEE attempts to capture the extent to which states increased their spending goals for 2008 in its “energy savings target category,” one of several weighting factors in the first of its eight scoring categories: 1) utility-sector and public benefits programs and policies; 2) transportation policies; 3) building energy codes; 4) combined heat and power; 5) appliance efficiency standards; 6) lead by example in state facilities and fleets; 7) research, development and deployment; and, 8) financial and information incentives. ACEEE explains that it generates its overall ranking by assigning a weight to each of these eight categories in accordance with its potential impact on energy savings. Taking all of these factors into account, the top 10 states in ACEEE’s 2008 report were California, Oregon, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, Washington, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Jersey. Keep in mind, though, that there are plenty of other states that continue to make impressive progress on the energy efficiency front. ACEEE’s report notes that although it provides “individual state rankings, in terms of measuring commitment to energy efficiency, the difference between rankings is most significant among bins of every 10 or fifteen ranks rather than individual scores.” The complete ACEEE’s 2008 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard can be found on the Web at www.aceee.org/pubs/e086.htm. That same webpage features a link to ACEEE’s State Energy Efficiency Policy Database, which provides excellent summaries of both existing and planned programming on a state-by-state basis. ES Southwest Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Utah Wyoming 25.9 24.1 30.1 2.7 25.2 0.4 30.5 24.8 37.1 2.0 38.7 1.2 46.7 34.4 56.9 11.0 43.0 0.0 Pacific Northwest Idaho Montana Oregon Washington BPA and NEEA 15.0 10.6 51.0 66.4 80.8 22.9 12.0 56.0 87.2 78.0 27.2 15.4 77.1 131.5 97.5 Southeast and South Central Arkansas Florida Georgia Texas Tennessee NC 245.4 27.7 82.9 14.1 NC 256.0 29.7 83.0 13.7 0.9 303.0 38.6 114.3 26.4 Bringing the perspective that comes with more than 20 years in commercial real estate and 15 years in energy efficiency, Jewell, founder and president of RealWinWin is a national expert of the role of energyefficiency economics in commercial real estate. Reach him at mjewell@ realwinwin.com. West California Hawaii 872.6 18.9 1210.3 24.4 1255.5 31.0 Total NC = Not Collected $2,647.8 $3,138.6 $3,737.7 TABLE 2. 2006-2008 energy efficiency budgets, electric, and gas programs, including load management. 26 En gi neer ed S y stem s January 2009 http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e086.htm
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.