In support of the Indiana Office of Energy & Defense Development,
the Purdue Technical Assistance Program (TAP) Energy Efficiency & Sustainability (EES)
surveyed people who work for or with large energy consuming organizations to
understand their priorities for energy efficiency training and investment.
The survey is on-going, so if you would like to participate,
please click here to fill out a form. The EES also formed two on-line discussion groups, one of end-users,
the other of vendors and consultants, to discuss the scope and details of a potential energy
efficiency incentive program. The end-user “Roundtable” met in a wrap-up meeting to flesh out
a consensus on what types of projects should be considered.
There was broad consensus in the survey and the discussion groups that end users, managers and financial people want more education on topics related to operating in an efficient manner and making wise investment decisions.
- Operations people need system optimization training
- Managers and accountants want energy cost savings and cost benefit analysis education
Many of people surveyed and who participated in discussions stated that for a financial assistance
program to be effective it must be easy to understand and the bureaucracy must be minimal. Grants
are the preferred method of assistance followed by tax incentives and rebates. Loan programs were
not favored.
It was felt that the state should not pick technological winners, but instead support all types of
projects including demand reduction and controls only projects. While some people felt a minimum
project size should be considered, others favored a format that let applicants self regulate based
on their own internal costs. Many felt that manufacturing projects should not be compared to
commercial or institutional projects since there are different levels of investment and potential
energy savings.
- All types of projects that save energy should be considered for incentives: large, small, retrofits, new builds, monitoring & control systems, and alternative energy.
- Projects should meet or exceed a strict criteria: (e.g.: 50% better than ASHRAE 90.1-2001 for lighting projects)
- Demand reduction projects should be considered since one of the goals is to reduce or postpone the need for additional utility infrastructure.
- An incentive program should be formulated in such a way that applicants will submit only those projects that most need financial assistance. This will maximize the amount of energy saved for the amount of money awarded.
-
Possible format: Allow companies to bid an energy savings for a certain amount of
financial assistance. This formula would not favor any technology or project
size. The program administrator would award funds based on the most energy saved per
dollar requested. Using a market approach would allow applicants to self regulate and
achieve a maximum economic benefit.
- Potential energy savings should be verified before award and again after implementation.
- Most felt that some of the incentive should be held back until project completion and energy savings are verified.
The survey and discussion groups were unanimous in their opinion that energy consumers in
Indiana need and want assistance in becoming more energy efficient. The ideas agreed to are
intuitively attractive and could elicit support from a broad constituency.