Note: This is NOT an official VT State Plan, it was presented by Blair Hamilton at the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association's 2011 Building Energy Conference, and was originally posted on the Green Energy Times web site. As usual, when I live-blog, I can't type as fast as humans speak, so assume everything is paraphrased, but as close as possible to the intended meaning.
Blair Hamilton died not long after this presentation. His extraordinary contributions to Vermont and our entire nation's energy future are sorely missed.
Working backwards from 2050, here's the big picture:
We’re trying to bend down the energy use curve through efficiency and conservation while increasing availability of sustainable energy resources until the two meet.
In Vermont, we’ve had 20 yrs of aiming low and achieving lower. We had a 25% reduction by 2012 goal. We didn’t achieve it.
In VT leg, for the first time, adopted efficiency goals: “40% of all res. buildings should use 25% less by 2020. All building stock using less each year. It would produce 6% overall reduction by 2020.” However, we’re only on track for 3%.
How do we get back on track toward the goal, which is an imperative from a climate perspective?
One possibility is to focus on achieving climate results. One of the most striking differences between the US and Europe: in Europe’s case they make climate goals.
In Europe, I did not hear the words “cost-effective.” You can’t do it if you only do things that are only “cost-effective” using current cost estimation and planning.
What if “cost effective” is not enough?
Everything is easier if we agree that climate imperative trumps everything, then we can look at "what’s the least cost path from here to there?" This is the direction European planning is using, instead of what we’re doing, which is focusing on cost-effectiveness. Let’s pick the goal then find the least-cost path to get there, and figure out how to get on that path. This is the kind of thinking happening elsewhere, while we’re stuck here on the wrong path.
Sketching this out using VT as example:
See below the orange doodle:
Building sector:
Assumptions:
- The building sector will need to be near zero carbon by 2050;
- Efficiency is the least-cost option to provide the bulk of building sector carbon reductions.
Here's reasonable mix of strategies to get there:
20% On-site zero carbon energy supply,
20% supply from a de-carbonized electric grid;
60% reduction in consumption through efficiency.
Components of VT building sector roadmap:
- Many of the technologies, if not most, are not as yet known.
- Our energy forecasts and plans should not be constrained by our limited ability to account for new tech.
- We tend to assume new tech will cost more and save less, but what is our experience?
All of our forecasts are constrained by our inability to account for new tech, but it’s not likely to be that difficult to achieve 60% reduction in consumption as we think.
Typically, we look at a curve w/low hanging fruit. That low hanging fruit is attractive - it is cheap and easy and quick, then you end up running upwards on a cost curve (more buck, less bang). That's what a typical analysis always looks like. But here's the real world experience: look at refrigerators and lighting. As we introduce unanticipated new tech, the price drops and savings improve even faster.
New delivery strategies for efficiency measures.
Infrastructure:
- Expanded sustainable Energy utility (Efficiency VT is changing format to be a real utility: appointed for 12 yrs, the appointment is revocable, and they're adding climate to the measures)
- New VT green energy bank (aggregate funds for providing capital from private sources)
- New VT sustainable energy loan guarantee fund (to support PACE, etc.)
- More and better skilled contractors and more who can do the whole job.
Policies
- Incremental and voluntary strategies are far too slow
- When it comes to climate, Time Matters.
- We need to transition to massive investment.
Regulatory Guidance:
- Transition to a focus on achieving carbon goals from the current government and regulatory policy focused on reducing energy use and cost.
- The least-cost planning paradigm that has served VT well in utility sector will now need to be applied to all energy and building sectors.
New Construction:
- Codes should require net zero by 2020.
Existing buildings:
- Voluntary won’t get us there.
- Phase in time-of-sale building efficiency requirements as condition of property xfer.
- Require rating and labeling buildings
- Delivery infrastructure development
- Innovative financing and loan guarantees.
Putting it all together:
-Assume net zero buildings by 2020 for new buildings
- Focus on ach. 50% reduction through retrofits for existing buildings
- Retrofit all the buildings by 2050.
“Go Deep or Go Home”
When you look at the goal for 2050, sometimes it doesn’t make sense to even consider a half-measure.
Question & Answer Session:
Q: Why not mandate deep retrofits from the start?
A: Regulation doesn’t make it easy, also low fossil fuel prices and funding support are most limiting. Regulatory inhibitors = public service commissions and utility economics. Try to get the marketplace to look at innovative ways to sell certain activities to their client base using factors other than the resource cost test factors as incentives. Politics will also play a part.
Q: We haven’t achieved sort term goals – what is the root cause of that failure. By looking long-term, are we just kicking the can down the road?
A: (Panel) Recognizing that retrofit of existing building stock is where we can meet most of these aggressive goals, we have a set of institutions and practices that are not supportive of making rational social decisions about investment and the level of investment into that building infrastructure. There are fundamental psychological barriers as long as we rely on voluntary programs. Whn you present: “look, this will provide more benefit than what you pay in, why won’t you do it?” ans is often “I already have 4 payments and can’t afford a 5th.” Also “I may not be here until it pays itself off.” If you could have all 5 of the people who would own your home in the next 100 yrs and sit down to decide how to split up the cost, and they’d all jump on it.
Q: PACE funding will help with this issue. Utilities funding this will not do it all. Will need private financing. What’s MA plan for spurring on private financing?
A: Tom Darling at DOER is devoted to that very aspect. In the process of rolling out loan products. Signif. expansion of HEAT loan process.
Q: Efficient materials: why no mention of energy star as a showcase of efficient products; and why no mention of LEED?
A: There’s a presumption that these types of activities need to be maintained and augmented over time. Need to be in partnership. not a discount, but a presumption that they would be maintained and advanced. Q-2: Use their info as a stepping stone to help move into the future.
Q: Why can’t we do deep retrofits today? Should emphasize deep retrofit program that already exists. Some aspects can be cost effective under today’s cost-effectiveness analysis.
A: For roof insulation: better than 1; wall insulation near 1; windows way below 1. We did expand the deep retrofits program. 10% of normal house maintenance in MA include deep retrofits. For example: foam insulation in attic when replacing the roof in 20 yrs. Insulate walls when you’re replacing siding. Subsidy up to $40k for deep retrofit.