To do:
1. Look for more research on evaluations of programs (e.g. rebate programs, CFLs etc)
2. Table
a. Maybe you could give each city a # for each program (0-no program, 1-minimal
program, 2-ambitious program)?
3. Previous Judy comments (including CFLs)
4. http://www.munee.org/node/7-- could create something like this for sustainability
(database)?
5. City list? I wonder if we might add Wisconsin and Ann Arbor, as our sample seems light
on Midwestern cities…
Memo Style
 Hyphenate compound adjectives unless the first word ends in “ly.”
 To the extent possible, let’s have common table formats. Please coordinate amongst
yourselves on this.
(Jones and Stutsman 2010)
(U.S. Government Accountability Office 2010)
(U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 2009)
(Vestel 2009)
San Diego:
http://www.sandiego.gov/environmentalservices/energy/programsprojects/accomplishments/index.shtml
http://www.sandiego.gov/environmental-services/energy/programsprojects/eecbg.shtml
Big Issues:
1. Efficiency vs. conservation
2. Reporting effectiveness (translate into GHG? And or relate to a target?)
Stephanie Stern
20 April 2010
Fourth Draft
MIT-DUSP Urban Sustainability Evaluation
City Energy Efficiency Programs
Introduction
More and more cities are developing programs to reduce energy use. In addition to the
environmental benefits from avoiding energy generation, energy efficiency is a sound financial
investment for cities.1 Efficiency programs affecting government buildings saves money
through reduced municipal utility bills, while money saved through energy efficiency by
residents and business owners tends to be reinvested in the local economy. As a result,
1
Kousky and Schneider’s study of 23 municipalities in the U.S. suggests that local governments act on climate
change as a “top-down decision” based on “good business.” City governments are motivated by cost-savings or
other co-benefits for the community, rather than from public pressure Kousky, C. and S. H. Schneider (2003).
"Global Climate Policy: Will Cities Lead the Way?" Climate Policy 3(4): 359-372 .
1
efficiency programs have positive impacts on cities beyond their environmental benefits
(Warren 1989).
Most energy policy in the U.S. is set at the state and federal level. The federal Department of
Energy (DOE) sets efficiency standards for certain appliances as mandated by Congress. The
federal government also gives tax credits for some efficiency purchases, including some types of
cool roofs; heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; and windows (Energy
Star). States can set building efficiency codes and additional appliance standards for those not
regulated federally. States can also mandate efficiency targets for regulated utility companies.
For example, the California Public Utilities Commission mandates an annual efficiency target
for investor-owned utilities; efficiency programs are paid for by a tax on customers’ gas and
electric bills. In addition, the California Energy Commission sets both building codes (Title 24)
and appliances standards (Title 20).
Cities can add to this mix of energy policies, however, relying primarily on three types of
mechanisms to promote energy efficiency: municipal retrofits that reduce the city’s own energy
use, incentives for residents and businesses to voluntarily improve their efficiency, and ordinances or
regulations that legally mandate efficiency for residents and/or businesses. The following paper
provides an overview of the programs that U.S. cities implement in each of these three
categories and Appendix 1 provides details on cities’ programs. We selected twenty-five cities
to represent the cities most actively addressing issues of climate change and sustainability:

Austin, TX

Detroit, MI

Portland, OR

Ann Arbor, MI

Houston, TX

San Francisco, CA

Babylon, NY

Jacksonville, FL

Salt Lake City, UT

Boston, MA

Los Angeles, CA

San Diego, CA

Boulder, CO

Milwaukee

Santa Monica, CA

Cambridge, MA

Minneapolis, MN

Seattle, WA

Chattanooga, TN

New York, NY

Washington DC

Chicago, IL

Philadelphia, PA

Denver, CO

Pittsburg, PA
Even cities that actively pursue energy efficiency often meet with limited success. In Boulder,
for example, where citizens are so environmentally conscious that the college football stadium
does not sell potato chips because the packaging isn’t recyclable, “financial incentives and an
intense publicity campaign aren't enough to spur most homeowners to action” (Simon 2010).
Herring points out that total energy use in the U.S. and Europe has increased over time,
despite increases in efficiency for specific technologies. He concludes that energy efficiency
alone cannot be a full solution to our energy problems or to climate change and suggests that
efficiency must be coupled with reducing consumption through regulation or taxation, along
with a shift away from carbon-intensive fuels (Herring 2006). Similarly, a study by the Electric
Power Research Institute that estimates potential of energy efficiency programs and codes
shows that efficiency has the potential to decrease growth of energy consumption from a rte of
approximately 1.07 percent annually to 0.83-0.68 percent, highlighting that overall energy
consumption will still continue to increase, despite efficiency gains (Electric Power Research
Institute 2009). In addition, critics of reducing carbon emissions through energy efficiency
claim that increasing efficiency leads to excess energy supply, which lowers electricity prices, in
turn creating a “take-back” or “rebound” effect, in which any efficiency gains may be
outweighed by increased demand. A survey of literature published on this effect found that
2
there is a range of rebound estimates, where the high estimate would require the enforcement
of higher energy prices to achieve real energy savings. Overall, analysts found that empirical
evidence for the rebound effect ranges from 0 to 50 percent of the total increase in energy, and
generally around 20 percent, with much of the difference due to consumer awareness during the
consumption of the service (Greening, Greene et al. 2000).
On the other hand, proponents of immediate action to reduce carbon emissions argue that
significant overall reductions in energy use can be achieved with today’s technology. Dietz and
his coauthors point out that direct energy use by households was 32 percent of overall U.S. CO2
emissions in 2005 (626 million metric tons of carbon)–a figure, they argue, that can be reduced
by 20 percent within 10 years using proven technologies (Dietz, Gardern et al. 2009). In short,
although increasing efficiency is not a complete solution to either climate change or
sustainability, this type of estimate highlights the impact that energy efficiency programs can
achieve.
One barrier for cities is the cost of efficiency programs, and cities are drumming up financial
support in several ways. Boulder has a Climate Action Plan (CAP) tax, which is collected
through utility bills and funds programs related to the city’s climate-action plan, including
energy audits, rebates and financing. The tax is projected to collect $1.6 million in 2010, and
should decrease over time as residents and businesses reduce their energy use and switch to
renewable sources (City of Boulder 2009). San Francisco is using voter-approved bonds. This
city has raised $100 million in bonds for energy investments that, in theory, will pay for
themselves through energy savings.
Other cities have received funding from either their state or federal governments. San Diego,
for example, received $2.2 million from the State of California, and are reinvesting the energy
savings to fund additional efficiency projects (Schlichting and Williams 2006). That city has
also leveraged loans from the California Energy Commission to finance efficiency retrofits in
municipal facilities (The City of San Diego). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA) included several funding opportunities for local energy efficiency projects,
though this funding has the duel goal of achieving efficiency while also creating new jobs
(American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 2009).
Municipal Retrofits
Because cities have direct control over the facilities they own and/or operate, municipal
retrofits, which increase the efficiency of city-owned buildings and streetlights, are an obvious
starting point for energy savings. Municipal energy retrofits—at least those with a payback
shorter than the lifetime of the retrofit—save money over time through reduced utility bills.
Also, when the city implements efficiency measures, it can produce a real reduction in energy
demand, since the city can control its own end-use.
Building retrofits are the most obvious city action, but with recent developments in LED
lighting, many cities are also replacing incandescent traffic lights and streetlights with more
efficient LED lights. Both actions can have an impact on overall energy use; in New York City,
for example, 64 percent of municipal energy use is for buildings, while 9 percent is for
streetlights (PlanNYC 2007). Several cities also have environmental purchasing policies to
mitigate the environmental impact of the billions of dollars of goods that cities buy, and some
of these policies include purchasing energy-efficient products. Only Cambridge, Massachusetts
3
is using an additional tactic: the city ran a program (called “GreenSense”) to train city
employees to turn off lights and computers and use other energy saving tactics, which reduced
energy use by about 10 percent across participating city agencies (Kilojolts Consulting Group
2010).
Building Retrofits
Cities routinely retrofit their own buildings, replacing lighting, HVAC, and other systems as
they break down. When old equipment is replaced with more efficient models, cities can realize
significant energy savings. Although municipal building retrofits enable cities to address their
own energy use, they can be difficult to implement because responsibility is often dispersed
among several city departments, and retrofits include high up-front expenses that the city may
have difficulty financing.
Boulder’s Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) Division has a master plan for upgrades of
the city’s facilities, which includes a vision for expanding its investment in energy efficiency
from projects with a simple payback of up five years to those with a 10-year payback period.
Between 1998 and 2005, Colorado invested over $2.2 million in energy saving projects,
including installing high efficiency HVAC equipment, adding roof insulation and installing
computerized HVAC control equipment (City of Boulder 2005). In 2005 in San Francisco,
lighting and controls retrofits to the Moscone Convention Center yielded 800kW peak energy
savings (reducing annual energy use by 21%, or over 4 million kilowatt-hours per year)
(Moscone Center 2005), and lighting retrofits to San Francisco General Hospital resulted in
700kW peak energy savings. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission claims that most
of its investments in efficiency projects have had paybacks of less than five years (San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission).
Also part of efficiency retrofits, some cities are implementing an Energy Management System
(EMS), which is an automated system that allows for the monitoring and control of energy use
in one or more buildings. Typically, the system is connected to the building’s electric meter (or
can receive information from several meters) and can provide real-time energy-use data. EMSs
facilitate efficiency by optimizing use of HVAC and lighting systems, typically turning the
equipment off when not needed and adjusting the temperature, often resulting in savings of 1020% (Ezcurra 2009; Gudbjerg 2009). They can also be used to reduce electric demand at peak
times.2 Cambridge, Massachusetts already has installed a web-based system to track energy
use in all municipal buildings, and Denver plans to install one by 2011.
Among the sample cities, ten have municipal building retrofit programs that are explicitly part
of a climate-change or energy-efficiency strategy, including: Austin, Cambridge, Chicago,
Denver, Houston, Milwaukee, New York, Pittsburg, Portland, and San Francisco.
Traffic Signals
With developments in LED technology, including lower costs and the ability to display many
colors, cities around the country have begun installing LED lights in traffic signals. In fact,
when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), it included a federal
2
Total electricity demand is highest on hot afternoons when air conditioners are running. An EMS allows airconditioning and lighting systems to respond to these peak times, when energy prices tend to be highest, by
increasing indoor air temperatures and dimming lights.
4
efficiency standard for traffic signals, so all traffic signals manufactured after January 1, 2006
must meet the old Energy Star criteria, which requires the efficiency of LED lamps.3
It will take time, however, for municipalities to turn over the stock of traffic lights in use, so
despite the federal standard, a comprehensive upgrade to a city’s traffic lights can present a
significant opportunity for immediate energy savings. Replacing incandescent lamps in traffic
signals with LEDs can reduce energy use by 80 percent to 90 percent. A typical incandescent
lamp in a traffic light is 150 watts, whereas the LED replacement is only about 25 watts. In
addition, LEDs last between five and seven years, whereas the incandescent lamps commonly
used in traffic signals have a lifespan about one year; therefore, the installation of LEDs reduces
maintenance costs for the city (Consortium for Energy Efficiency).
In 2001, Portland’s Office of Transportation replaced all red and green traffic signals with
LEDs and found that the new LEDs reduced energy use by 85 percent. In total, the City
installed over 14,000 LED lamps (at a total cost of $2.2 million), saving 5.25 million kWh each
year, enough to power over 400 homes. The City estimates that the retrofit is saving $335,000
in reduced energy use and an additional $45,000 in maintenance costs (City of Portland).
Street Lighting
There are several types of lamps available for street lighting, each presenting a tradeoff
between energy efficiency and light quality or color rendering. The most energy-efficient
street lamps are low-pressure sodium, but these are rarely used because they give off an
orange-yellow light, which distorts our perception of color (a red car will appear black, for
example). Because of the poor color rendering of low-pressure sodium, most cities use highpressure sodium lamps, which give off a yellow light. Compared to a high-pressure sodium
lamp, an LED fixture has the potential to reduce energy use by about 50 percent (Building
Technology Program 2008). As a result, several cities are testing out LED streetlights,
sometimes working with an LED manufacturer or the local electric utility. LED lamps are
significantly more expensive than other types of street lighting, so they have not been widely
adopted by cities, but they do have the advantage of a long lifetime (which means less
maintenance for the city) and bright white light.
Some cities are conducting trial LED replacements, while others are investing more heavily in
upgrade. Los Angeles, for example, is working with Clinton Foundation to replace 140,000
streetlights. As of 2009, there were about 4.7 million streetlights in the U.S., which are
commonly run at full power for 12 hours per night and, in total, consume 178.3 TWh of
electricity per year, or 128 million metric tons of CO2. Switching to LED street and area
lighting would reduce this amount by about 44.7 TWh per year. In addition, lifecycle
assessment shows that though LED have more emissions during the manufacturing process,
because they are so much more efficient when in use, they have an overall lower environmental
impact than high-pressure sodium, metal halide or induction lamps (Hartley, Jurgens et al.
2009).
Among the sample cities, those with traffic and street lighting programs include: Ann Arbor,
Austin, Cambridge, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York,
Philadelphia, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, and Santa Monica.
3
Energy Star suspended its program when its criteria became law.
5
Purchasing Policy
In the U.S., state and local governments together spend more than $400 billion annually on
goods and services (Responsible Purchasing Network). Many cities have implemented
environmental or sustainable purchasing policies, some of which include energy efficiency as a
criterion, especially for the purchase of office equipment (computers, copiers, computer
monitors, etc). Purchasing policies can be difficult to implement; they must be specific enough
to be useful. Many cities reference the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star
program, which establishes criteria for energy efficient products and lists the top roughly 25
percent (based on manufacturer provided data).4
Santa Monica’s procurement policy is fairly typical and includes requirements for purchasing
recycled materials, reducing toxics, and using sustainably harvested wood; it also includes the
“purchase of energy-efficient office equipment and identifies ways to use the equipment in the
most energy-efficient manner possible.” The policy lists several types of office equipment
(computer monitors, printers, scanners etc.) and specifies that they shall at a minimum meet the
Energy Star program standards (City of Santa Monica 1994).
San Diego has an energy-efficient product purchasing policy that became effective June 19,
2001 and recognizes that efficient products can reduce energy use by 25 percent to 75 percent.
Like Santa Monica’s program, it requires that “all energy-consuming equipment purchased will
meet either Energy Star specifications or criteria that puts products in the upper 25 percent of
energy efficiency, based on criteria established by the U.S. Department of Energy.” The policy
includes (but is not limited to): office equipment, heating and cooling equipment, exit signs,
lighting, appliances, and other commercial products. It also states that employees will use the
products in ways that conserve energy (City of San Diego California 2001).
Among the sample cities, those with energy-efficiency purchasing policies include: Boston,
Cambridge, Denver, Los Angeles, Portland, San Diego, Seattle, and Santa Monica.
Incentives for Residential and Commercial Retrofits
Many cities have programs to encourage efficiency among the city’s residents and businesses,
some of which focus on assisting low-income residents. Cities use several mechanisms to
address efficiency, including audits, rebates and financing programs. In these programs, the
city provides either technical assistance or pays at least part of the cost of the energy-efficiency
measure (or both), even though the energy savings go to the building owner.
Audit Services and Direct Installs
An energy audit is an inspection or survey that examines the energy use in a building and
proposes ways to increase efficiency. Professional auditors use tools, such as a blower door to
identify leaks in the building envelope or an infrared camera that detects temperature
differences. There are also a variety of online tools (including those from the U.S. Department
4
Energy Star has come under scrutiny since the DOE’s Inspector General released an audit report in October
2009, which shows that many of Energy Star’s guidelines are too low and capture more than the intended top 25
percent of products (U.S. Department of Energy 2009). In addition, the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) conducted an investigation completed March 2010, showing that Energy Star’s certification controls were
ineffective. GAO submitted bogus data for several products while posing as fictitious companies and most of the
products were approved and listed on the Energy Star website (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2010).
EPA and DOE are responding by increasing product testing and compliance enforcement (Jones 2010).
6
of Energy and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) to help homeowners figure out what
they can do on their own.
Typically an audit will identify key efficiency opportunities and estimate the cost and payback
for a retrofit, but will not do the work to upgrade the building. One study of energy-efficiency
audits in manufacturing plants showed that only forty percent of the recommendations from
audits were implemented (Anderson and Newelb 2004). By contrast, direct install and
weatherization programs both identify opportunities and implement the efficiency measures.
Though more expensive, these programs ensure that the efficiency measures are implemented
immediately and energy savings realized. Direct installation circumvents the logistical barrier
for the owner of finding a contractor and arranging the work. For example, the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power (LADWP), L.A.’s municipal utility, ran a “Small Business
Direct Install” program, where it installed free energy-efficient lighting for over 34,000 small
businesses from 2008-09. The program saved 100 GWh of electricity, reducing greenhouse
gas emissions by 56,000 metric tons annually (Hamilton 2009).
Many cities run low-income weatherization programs, which provide low-income households
with a set of efficiency measures, such as improved insulation, weather stripping or caulking,
window film or sealing, and upgraded heating equipment—usually at no cost to the
homeowner. By permanently reducing their electric bills, this type of program benefits the
city’s unemployed, elderly, and single-parent families, who spend the highest portion of their
income on fuel (Warren 1989).
One obstacle to effective audit and direct-install programs is that often the building owner
rents out the home or office space and so does not pay the utility bill. The renter, on the other
hand, does not have an incentive to implement efficiency measures, especially if they are unsure
how long they will occupy the building. This is known as a “split incentive,” because the
incentive to upgrade for the building owner is split off from the payment of the utility bills by
the renter, resulting in a lack of incentive for both sides.5 Direct install programs, which entail
no cost to the resident, can help overcome this barrier because the renter does not bear any
costs and the time and effort to receive upgrade through a direct install program is minimal.
Boulder is planning a program called “Two Techs and a Truck.” The City will have 15 energyefficiency teams going door-to-door to caulk windows, change bulbs and install low-flow
showerheads and programmable thermostats for residents and small businesses, all at no cost
(Simon 2010). Houston already has a heavily subsidized weatherization program. As of March
2008, 2000 homes had been retrofitted with weather-stripping, insulation, and CFLs at no cost
to the homeowner. In some Houston neighborhoods, nearly 50 percent of homeowners
participated and residents experienced energy use reductions up to 14 percent and almost 20
percent during the summer (City of Houston 2008).
In San Francisco, the City ran the “SF Power Savers Program” from 2002 to 2003 with funding
from California Public Utility Commission. This program worked with over 4,000 small
5
Another way to address the split incentive is through a green lease, which allows owners to pass through the
capital cost of efficiency upgrades. Green leases can also include specifications about the use of hazardous
materials, recycling programs and other aspects of building operations. Among the sample cities, only Seattle
considered this mechanism; they have developed a two-page guide to the development of green leases.
7
business owners to update fluorescent and incandescent lights, resulting in average savings of
$875 annually per business and a six-month payback. In total, the program saved 20 million
kWh or over $3.6 million in utility bill savings annually total for all of the participating
businesses (San Francisco Department of the Environment).
Among the sample cities, there are 15 with audit and/or direct install programs, including:
Austin, Boston, Boulder, Cambridge, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles,
Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington DC.
Rebates
A rebate is a discount on an energy-efficient product that is either taken off the price at the
register or, more often, refunded later with proof of purchase. The rebate amount is often
calculated to match the incremental cost of purchasing the efficient model of the product rather
than the standard model to encourage consumers to buy the more efficient model. Rebates
typically cover products or appliances that are purchased separately from building construction,
including residential products like refrigerators, air conditioners, clothes washers and other
consumer goods, and commercial products such as refrigeration, HVAC and lighting. Among
the sample cities, those that have rebate programs either have a municipal utility or are
working with the local electric utility, probably because the cost of a rebate program can be
high and utility companies tend to have a bigger budget for efficiency programs. The energy
savings from rebates depends on the type of products that are eligible and the number of people
influenced by the rebate to purchase efficient equipment.
LADWP’s consumer rebate program gave out $1.1 million in rebates from 2008-09 for energysaving refrigerators, pool pumps and motors, dual-pane windows, and air-conditioner
equipment. LADWP paid an additional $364,000 to customers through its refrigeratorrecycling program, which offers a $35 cash incentive to customers recycling their old
refrigerators in an environmentally responsible manner. Together, these programs achieved
energy savings of 10 GWh and a reduction of GHG emissions of 5,600 metric tons annually.
The LADWP estimates that these energy savings translated into $1.2 million in reduced utility
bills for program participants (Hamilton 2009).
Among the sample cities, there are ten that have (or have planned) rebate programs, including:
Austin, Boulder, Cambridge, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco,
Seattle, and Washington DC.
Loan or Financing Assistance
The upfront cost to implement energy efficiency measures presents a significant barrier for
many building owners. A few cities have implemented financing programs to help shift the
cost. Typically the city will loan the building owner money to cover the upfront cost, and the
owner repays the loan as (s)he saves money through reduced utility bills.
Portland developed a citywide initiative, Clean Energy Works, which provides comprehensive
financing through long-term loans and technical assistance to local homeowners. Like
Babylon, Portland has teamed up with local electric utilities so that participants repay loans
through their utility bills (CalCEF 2010). A 500-home pilot is under way and expected to be
completed by the summer of 2010 (City of Portland 2009).
8
In this pilot, an “Energy Advocate” helps homeowners navigate the process, and participants
pay lower interest rates if they undertake more extensive weatherization.
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs provide upfront financial assistance that is
repaid through an assessment added to the participants’ property tax. In this way, the loan is
tied to the property, not the owner, so this type of program encourages efficiency upgrades
even when the owner is uncertain of how long they will own the property. Establishing a
PACE program typically requires state authorization of local lending agencies, followed by the
creation of the fund through municipal bond, state or federal grants, or other means (Alliance
to Save Energy 2010). The City of Boulder and Boulder County uses this funding mechanism
in their “ClimateSmart Loan Program,” which launched in the spring of 2009. That spring, the
program loaned $6.6 million to fund 394 energy efficiency and renewable energy projects
throughout Boulder (City of Boulder 2009).
Among the sample cities, there are nine that have (or have planned) financing programs,
including: Babylon, Boulder, Cambridge, Chicago, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Portland, Salt
Lake City, and Washington DC.
Information
One barrier to implementing residential energy-efficiency upgrades is a lack of information that
the homeowner perceives as reliable. A study comparing the response of residents to a mailing
from their local electric utility with the same mailing from a branch of their local government
found that citizens where much more likely to respond to the government mailing (Stern 1992).
To encourage residents to save energy, many cities have information on their websites with
tips for homeowners. But there is no evidence that any cities are tracking whether the
information provided is being used.
Several scholars argue that conservation programs overlook a number of barriers to
implementing energy efficiency, leading to uneven success. Lutzenhiser writes that energy
conservation has received little serious funding or persistent attention in the U.S., so there are
few studies of the impact of energy education programs. Lutzenhiser does estimate that energy
conservation marketing efforts in the 1970s and more recently in 2001, when coupled with
other policies and events, could have produced energy savings of about 10 percent in the shortterm, though whether these savings persist is in doubt (Lutzenhiser 2002).
Among the sample cities, the following cities have information programs: Ann Arbor, Boston,
Boulder, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Santa Monica, Seattle,
and Washington DC.
CFL Giveaways
Converting from incandescent lamps to compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) is a quick and easy
way to save energy. Replacement typically reduces energy use by 75 percent per light fixture,
and CFLs can last up to ten times as long as incandescent bulbs.6 Because replacing a light
6
Generally, CFLs last eight to 15 times longer than incandescent lamps, however some consumers have
complained of shorter a lifespan than promised. Experts point to insufficient instructions on proper use and the
government's demands for lower bulb prices, which lead to manufacturers using cheap components, to explain the
short lifetimes. A study by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute showed that fiver of 29 CFL models tested failed to
meet their expected lifespan (Vestel 2009).
9
bulb achieves significant energy savings while requiring no technical expertise, many cities
have given away CFLs to promote their use and educate the public about their benefits.
In addition, although using CFLs seems like something people should do on their own, a
survey of over 1,000 Americans showed that only 14 people use CFLs in all of their lighting at
home and another 33 people use CFLs for most lighting. A full 19 people either don’t use them
at all or don’t know if they do. In addition, of those surveyed, 26 percent indicated that they
would like to buy CFLs, but probably won’t (Leiserowitz, Maibach et al. 2010), so giving away
CFLs is a good way to overcome barriers to their use. However, there are also problems
inherent in the program design, including free riders (people that would purchase CFLs
anyway), CFLs replacing other CFLs rather than incandescent lamps, and people receiving the
CFLs, but not using them.
The LADWP ran an ambitious CFL distribution program, which delivered 2.4 million bulbs,
two to each of the city’s 1.2 million residences. This program yielded energy savings of 121
GWh and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 68,000 metric tons annually. Each resident
will save $16 to $20 per year on their utility bill, or approximately $100 over life of the CFL
(Hamilton 2009).
Among the sample cities, seven have CFL giveaway programs, including: Babylon, Boulder,
Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York and Seattle.
Competitions
Several cities have developed competitions to encourage businesses and/or homeowners to
reduce their energy use voluntarily. Such competitions aim to create incentives for businesses
to undertake efficiency measures, including recognition, marketing and networking
opportunities. The City of Boulder, for example, collaborated with two private firms to develop
the “10 for Change” Challenge, a voluntary program to get businesses to reduce their energy
use by 10 percent. When a business registers for the program, it first establishes a baseline
energy use from past utility bills. The “10 for Change” website has a list of recommended
actions and links to rebates and resources. The website claims that the 55 participating
business have reduced their energy use by 1.3 million kWh. One successful business reduced
its energy use by 19 percent, in part by installing a more efficient HVAC unit and controls,
motion sensors and timers on its light fixtures. To encourage participation, the program also
includes monthly breakfast meetings so participants can exchange information about energy
savings and network with one another (10 for Change 2008).
Minneapolis is working with the State of Minnesota to implement the Minnesota Energy
Challenge. This program encourages all residents to join individually or create a team of
neighbors, businesses, neighborhoods or schools, and then find actions to take, including using
fans instead of air-conditioning, upgrading with a more efficient refrigerator, installing CFLs
and closing fireplace dampers. Through a web interface, participants browse through the
actions and track which ones they have completed and how much CO2 and money they expect
to save. Statewide, this program has 24,711 participants, has cut emissions of CO2 by 0.04
metric tons,7 and is saving participants a total of $11,786,400 annually (Center for Energy &
Environment 2009).
7
Minnesota Energy Challenge reports savings 87,744,130 lbs CO2, equivalent to 0.04 metric tons.
10
Among the sample cities, four have energy-efficiency competitions including: Ann Arbor,
Boulder, Minneapolis (state program), and San Francisco.
City Ordinances
A final type of program that cities use to reduce energy use is city codes or ordinances that
require either audits or upgrades in existing buildings or the disclosure of building energy use.
Cities rely primarily on two policy mechanisms: energy conservation ordinances and energy
disclosure ordinances. (Many cities also use green building requirements and energy codes to
promote or require energy efficiency in new construction. Although these are important tools,
this memo focuses solely on existing buildings.)
Energy Conservation Ordinances
Energy conservation ordinances require that a home- or building owner implement energyefficiency measures when the building is sold or renovated, a rental license is renewed, or a
safety inspection conducted. This type of ordinance often provides a prescriptive checklist of
measures (e.g. duct sealing, low-flow showerheads, weather stripped etc.) that must be
performed. There is often a spending cap on the amount the owner is required to spend
calculated based on square feet or building value, or simply per unit.
Energy-conservation ordinances are among the few policy tools to require energy-efficiency
upgrades in existing buildings, including rental properties. Cities can use them to effect energy
retrofits in existing buildings. The cost to the city for administering the program and
conducting inspections is small, and many cities recoup those costs through a filing and/or
inspection fee (Reiss and Radoff 2007). Because the homeowners must pay for the retrofits,
however, implementing this type of ordinance requires political support from voters. Some
cities have ordinances that only cover rental properties. This approach gains support from
renters, while targeting a hard-to-reach segment of the building industry.
In 1989, San Francisco established a Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance (RECO) that
requires homeowners at the time of sale to do an energy audit and install certain energyefficiency measures (with a spending cap of $1,300), and then file an inspection report with the
Department of Building Inspection for all homes built before 1978. Each home only requires a
one-time upgrade to become RECO-compliant. A study conducted for the City of Boulder
found that typical energy-use reductions from a Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance
are 15 percent, while other programs have estimated 10 percent (San Francisco Planning and
Urban Research Association 2009).
Among the sample cities, only three have conservation ordinances in place, including: Austin,
Ann Arbor and San Francisco. In addition, several other U.S. cities not included in this study
have them, including Berkeley, CA, Burlington, VT, and the State of Wisconsin (Reiss and
Radoff 2007).
Disclosure Ordinances
Recently, several cities have passed disclosure ordinances, which require building owners
(typically for commercial buildings only) to report the amount of energy used by their building.
Although disclosing the amount of energy used does not directly reduce energy demand, the
“you can’t manage what you haven’t measured” philosophy suggests that establishing a baseline
11
is the first step to saving energy. Also, making energy use public knowledge enables buyers
and renters to factor it into their decision-making. Properties with higher energy-efficiency
ratings tend to have higher occupancy levels, lease rates and sale prices than less-efficient
properties (Institute for Market Transformation).
In their disclosure ordinances, both Washington, D.C. and Austin, TX refer to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Energy Star program’s free benchmarking tool
“Portfolio Manager.” This tool allows owners to rate their buildings on a scale from 1 to 100,
relative to similar buildings from a national survey (Energy Star). Because the tool is free and
easy to use, cities can implement a disclosure ordinance at little cost to either the city or the
building owners, and with little technical expertise.
Most cities require that building owners report their score to the city and disclose it potential
buyers (some also include renters). Some cities also make the information public. Washington,
D.C. is publishing energy-performance data in an online database (Institute for Market
Transformation). Austin, whose ordinance takes effect June 2011, only requires disclosure for
buildings more than ten years old and exempts industrial properties. Austin also sets
voluntary goals in hopes of encouraging commercial property owners to improve their energy
ratings (Austin Energy).
Seattle’s Energy Disclosure Ordinance, which was approved unanimously by City Council in
January 2010, requires that large commercial and multi-family property owners annually
measure their energy use and provide city with this information. In addition, building owners
are required to share energy-usage data with prospective buyers, tenants and lenders. The city
plans to use the data collected to support future efficiency programs (Office of the Mayor Mike
McGinn 2010).
Among the sample cities, those with energy disclosure ordinances include: Austin, New York,
Seattle and Washington DC. Also Washington State and California both have disclosure
requirements.
Summary and Conclusion
The table on the following page shows a summary of city energy-efficiency programs, where Y
indicates that the city is maintaining a program currently or has in the past, and (plan)
indicates that the city has publicly announced plans for a program, in many cases dependent on
Federal stimulus money.
[Conclusions to be added… perhaps including recommendations for cities:
-Work with utilities, many successful programs are either municipal utilities or partnerships
(adds money, energy expertise, outreach capacity, baseline data), allows on-bill financing
-Separate efficiency from renewables and green building in sustainability plans to ensure
progress
-Take many approaches to address residential and business energy use (e.g. audits,
weatherization, financing etc)]
-Industry = missing sector—should cities pay attention to industry efficiency (perhaps
motors?), some things are the same (e.g. lighting, HVAC)
12
-Also include recommendations for organizations working with cities? (e.g. ICLEI, EPA etc.)—
maybe useful to focus on specific technologies?
13
Table 1. Summary of City Energy Efficiency Programs
Municipal Retrofits
City
Austin
Ann Arbor
Babylon
Boston
Boulder
Cambridge
Chattanooga
Chicago
Denver
Detroit
Houston
Jacksonville
Los Angeles
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburg
Portland
San Francisco
Salt Lake City
San Diego
Santa Monica
Seattle
Washington
DC
Building
Retrofits
Y
Traffic and
Street
Lights
Y
Y
Purchasin
g Policy
Y
(plan)
(plan)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
(plan)
(plan)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
(plan)
Y
Y
Y/(plan)
(plan)
Y
Audit/Direc
t Install
Rebate
s
Y
Y
Finance
Educatio
n
CF
L
Y
Y
Y
Y
Incentives for Residential and Commercial Retrofits
Y
Y
(plan)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
(plan)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
(plan)
Y
(plan)
(plan)
Y
Y
(plan)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
(plan)
Y
14
Disclosure
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Conservation
Y
(plan)
Y
Competition
(plan)
Y
Y
City Ordinances
Y
(plan)
Y
Y
(plan)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Reference List
Judy—I know I need to format this properly (right now, this is just what’s coming out of Endnote)
Author last name, first name. date. "Title of Article," Journal Title vol/no.: page #s.
Author last name, first name. date. Title of Book (Location: Publisher).
-Don’t indent, single space with a single space in between


Let’s be consistent in how sources (such as EPA) are cited. Should be (U.S. EPA) in
text, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). ****. etc. in the reference
list.
Use title case for book and journal titles in reference list (not lower-case for all but the
first word). Everyone should be using the identical format more generally.
10 for Change. (2008). "10 for Change: A New Climate for Business." Retrieved March 15,
2010, 2010, from http://www.10forchange.net/.
Alliance to Save Energy. (2010, April 2010). "Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing
(PACE)." Retrieved 18 April 2010, from http://ase.org/content/article/detail/6482.
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (2009). Energy Efficiency Program Options
for Local Governments under the 2009 Stimulus Package Washington DC, American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
Anderson, S. T. and R. G. Newelb (2004). "Information Programs for Technology Adoption: the
Case of Energy-Efficiency Audits." Resource and Energy Economics 26: 27-50.
Austin Energy. "Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure (ECAD) Ordinance for Owners of
Commercial Buildings." Retrieved 26 March 2010, from
http://www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Environmental%20Initiatives/ordinance/com
mercial.htm.
Building Technology Program (2008). LED Application Series: Outdoor Area Lighting, U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
CalCEF (2010). Removing First-Cost Hurdles for Energy Efficiency. CalCEF Innovations White
Paper, California CEF.
Center for Energy & Environment. (2009). "Minnesota Energy Challenge." Retrieved 2010
March 30, from http://www.mnenergychallenge.org/.
City of Boulder (2005). Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) Master Plan 2005. Boulder,
Colorado, Public Works Department.
City of Boulder. (2009). "About ClimateSmart." Retrieved 18 April 2010, from
http://www.beclimatesmart.com/about/.
City of Boulder. (2009). " Climate Action Plan Tax." Retrieved 2 April 2010, from
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7698&
Itemid=2844.
City of Houston. (2008). "Press Release: Analysis of Residential Energy Efficiency Program
Shows Big Savings for Houston Neighborhoods." Retrieved 2010 March 30, from
http://www.houstontx.gov/mayor/press/20080318.html.
City of Portland LED Traffic Signals = Energy Savings for the City of Portland, Oregon. Energy
Efficiency Success Story, City of Portland
City of Portland. (2009). "Clean Energy Works Portland." Retrieved March 1, 2010, 2010, from
http://www.cleanenergyworksportland.org.
City of San Diego California (2001). Purchase of Energy Efficient Products. 900-18. USA, City
of San Diego, California.
City of Santa Monica (1994). Sustainable City Program Procurement Policy. Santa Monica, CA.
15
Consortium for Energy Efficiency, I. "Government Programs- Energy-Efficient Traffic Signals."
Retrieved March 1, 2010, 2010, from http://www.cee1.org/gov/led/led-main.php3.
Dietz, T., G. T. Gardern, et al. (2009). "Household Actions can Provide a Behavior Wedge to
Rapidly Reduce U.S. Carbon Emission." Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 106(44): 18452-18456.
Electric Power Research Institute (2009). Assessment of Achievable Potential from Energy
Efficiency and Demand Response Programs in the U.S. (2010–2030) Electric Power
Research Institute.
Energy Star. "Federal Tax Credits for Consumer Energy Efficiency." Retrieved 2010 March 29,
from http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index.
Energy Star. "Portfolio Manager Overview." Retrieved 26 March 2010, from
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_portfoliomanager#rat
e.
Ezcurra, G. (2009, 31 August 2009). "Top 5 Energy Management System Considerations."
Retrieved 18 April 2010, from http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/08/31/top-5energy-management-system-considerations/.
Greening, L. A., D. L. Greene, et al. (2000). "Energy Efficiency and Consumption - the Rebound
Effect - a Survey." Energy Policy 28: 389-401.
Gudbjerg, E. (2009). EMS as a Policy Instrument for Energy Efficiency in Ireland, Sweden and
Denmark Cetim.
Hamilton, S. (2009). "Mayor Villaraigosa Announces New Record in Energy and Water Savings
at Los Angeles Department of Water and Power." Retrieved March 1, 2010, 2010, from
http://mayor.lacity.org/PressRoom/PressReleases/LACITYP_006057.
Hartley, D., C. Jurgens, et al. (2009). Life Cycle Assessment of Streetlight Technologies.
Pittsburgh, PA, Mascaro Center for Sustainable Innovation, University of Pittsburgh.
Herring, H. (2006). "Energy efficiency- a critical view." Energy 31: 10-20.
Institute for Market Transformation. "Building Energy Performance Benchmarking and
Disclosure." Retrieved 26 March 2010, from http://imt.org/benchmarking-anddisclosure.html.
Jones, E. and J. Stutsman. (2010, 19 March 2010). "New Releases: EPA, DOE Announce New
Steps to Strengthen Energy Star " Retrieved 19 April 2010, from
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1ef7cd36224b565785257359003f533f/f721f69
419064539852576eb0065e109!OpenDocument.
Kilojolts Consulting Group. (2010). "Kilojolts Coaches Cambridge On Using its "GreenSense"
to Cut Electricity Usage 6% in Six Months." Retrieved February 24, 2010, 2010, from
http://www.kilojolts.com/energy-services/.
Kousky, C. and S. H. Schneider (2003). "Global Climate Policy: Will Cities Lead the Way?"
Climate Policy 3(4): 359-372
Leiserowitz, A., E. Maibach, et al. (2010). Americans’ Actions to Conserve Energy, Reduce
Waste, and Limit Global Warming: January 2010., Yale University and George Mason
University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change. .
Lutzenhiser, L. (2002). Marketing Household Energy Conservation. New Tools for
Environmental Protection: Education, Information and Voluntary Measures. T. Dietz and
P. C. Stern. Washington DC, National Academy Press.
Moscone Center. (2005). "Moscone Solar Featured at World Environment Day." Retrieved 18
April 2010, from http://www.moscone.com/site/do/news/view?id=6.
16
Office of the Mayor Mike McGinn. (2010, 2/1/2010). "Energy Disclosure Ordinance identifies
energy waste, gives property owners and tenants tools to improve energy efficiency."
Retrieved March 15, 2010, 2010, from
http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/newsdetail.asp?ID=10497&dept=48.
PlanNYC (2007). Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions New York, NY,
Mayor’s Office of Operations, Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability
Reiss, R. and J. Radoff (2007). Consideration of a Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance
(RECO) for Boulder, CO (DRAFT). Boulder, CO, City of Boulder OEA.
Responsible Purchasing Network. "Responsible Purchasing Network Frequently Asked
Questions." Retrieved 2010 March 30, from
http://www.responsiblepurchasing.org/about/rpnfaq.php.
San Francisco Department of the Environment Power Savers Program. San Francisco, CA, San
Francisco Department of the Environment, .
San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. (2009). "Update the Residential
Energy Conservation Ordinance (RECO)." Retrieved March 1, 2010, 2010, from
http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/critical_cooling/option1.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. "Retrofit Projects." Retrieved March 1, 2010, 2010,
from http://sfwater.org/mto_main.cfm/MC_ID/12/MSC_ID/142/MTO_ID/364
Schlichting, R. and D. Williams (2006). News Release: State Loans City of San Diego $2.2
Million for Energy Efficiency, Solar Power. Sacramento, CA, California Energy
Commission.
Simon, S. (2010). Even Boulder Finds It Isn't Easy Going Green. Wall Street Journal. Boulder,
Colorado.
Stern, P. C. (1992). "What Psychology Knows About Energy Conservation " American
Psychologist 47(10): 1224-1232.
The City of San Diego. "City Energy Accomplishments- 2006." Retrieved 18 April 2010, from
http://www.sandiego.gov/environmentalservices/energy/programsprojects/accomplishments/2006.shtml.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), O. o. I. G. (2009). Audit Report: The Department's
Management of the ENERGY STAR Program, U.S. Department of Energy.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (2010). ENERGY STAR Program: Covert Testing
Shows the Energy Star Program Certification Process Is Vulnerable to Fraud and Abuse
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Vestel, L. B. (2009). Do New Bulbs Save Energy if They Don’t Work? . The New York Times.
New York, NY.
Warren, A. (1989). "Regenerating the Inner Cities- the Energy Dimension." Energy Policy: 5763.
17
Stephanie,
Your final table is very helpful. I wonder if we can make it a bit more useful by (1) coming up
with codes for (1) pilot (past) program, (2) ongoing program--minor, (3) ongoing program—
ambitious, (4) proposed program—minor, and (5) proposed program—ambitious (or some such
scheme).
Also, could you do an overall rating for comprehensiveness and/or effectiveness for each city?
(This should probably be done only after some interviews, to make sure we’ve captured an
accurate picture.)
I’d be interested in seeing whether there are studies that attempt to evaluate the impact(s) of
many of the programs you describe. Have you tried to track down such studies? I see that
you’ve found some, particularly with reference to specific cities’ programs. But I’m not
convinced that we’ve covered all the bases with respect to more generic studies. We can talk
about this.
Finally, since I did a bunch of editing, please work from this draft, so I don’t have to make the
same changes the next time around.
Let me know if you have questions.
Judy
18
Appendix 1: Detailed Tables on Energy Efficiency Programs by Mechanism
The following tables… give explanation… add to tables (each should eventually have a column
for energy savings/impacts)
Table 2. Municipal Building Retrofit Programs
City
Austin
Ann Arbor
Babylon
Boston
Boulder
Cambridge
Chattanooga
Chicago
Denver
Detroit
Houston
Jacksonville
Los Angeles
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburg
Portland
San Francisco
Program
Municipal energy fund used for projects; retrofits
include a boiler and parking garage lighting
Reported Energy Savings
Housing Authority has been retrofitting their
buildings
HVAC retrofits in 200, library lighting retrofits,
more planned with stimulus block grants
Audits and retrofits planned with stimulus funding
Lighting retrofits, vending misers, more planned
12 buildings retrofitted, more planned with
stimulus funding
Included in an executive order (not clear what
action has been taken)
Planned with stimulus funding
Part of city Energy Policy, actions not clear
City Hall HVAC and day-lighting improvements,
Moscone and SF General
Salt Lake City
San Diego
Santa Monica
Seattle
Washington
DC
Table 3. Traffic and Street Lighting City Programs
City
Ann Arbor
Austin
Cambridge
Chicago
Denver
Houston
Los Angeles
Milwaukee
New York
Program
EPA Green Lights program
LED lighting (sponsored by an LED manufacturer)
LED traffic lights with EPA Green Lights program
Planned with stimulus block grant
LED traffic lights
LED traffic lights
LED green traffic (with Clinton Foundation); LED street lighting demo
LED traffic lights with support from electric utility
LED lights (all 10,700 signalized intersections) > 30,000 metric tons of
19
Philadelphia
Portland
San Francisco
Salt Lake City
Santa Monica
CO2e (PlanNYC 2007) p 47
Planned with stimulus block grant
LED red and green traffic lights
LED street lighting demonstrations (partnered with utility)
Add
Add
Table—Purchasing Policies
Table 4. Audit and Direct Install Programs
City
Austin
Boston
Boulder
Cambridge
Chicago
Denver
Detroit
Houston
Los Angeles
Milwaukee
Philadelphia
Portland
San Francisco
Seattle
Washington DC
Program
PowerSaver Program (residential)
Proposed with Renew Boston (not clear if the program has begun)
ClimateSmart Residential Energy Action Program (audits below market
price, partner with utility)
Cambridge Energy Alliance (residential and commercial)
REAP (an online tool), planning more with stimulus funding
Low income weatherization (funded by utility), NEEP for non-profits
Planning weatherization program with stimulus funding
REEP- low income weatherization (with utility)
Direct install program for commercial
Planning audit program with stimulus funding
Low income weatherization
Clean Energy Works (residential)
SF Energy Watch (multi-family and commercial, funded by utility), direct
install for small businesses
Audits for residential, and low income weatherization
Add
Table 5. City Rebate Programs
City
Austin
Boulder
Cambridge
Los Angeles
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
New York
San Francisco
Seattle
Washington DC
Program
City
Babylon
Program
Long Island Green Homes Program pays for all upfront costs for
efficiency retrofits, reimbursed through fee on utility bill
Renew Boston might include financing
Table 6. City Financing Programs
Boston
20
Boulder
Cambridge
Chicago
Milwaukee
Philadelphia
Portland
Salt Lake City
Washington DC
ClimateSmart
Cambridge Energy Alliance plans to include financing
Bungalow energy$avers Blocks Program
Planned with stimulus funding
Planned loan program with stimulus funding
Clean Energy Works
Planned
Planned
Table 7. Information Programs
City
Ann Arbor
Boston
Boulder
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Salt Lake City
Santa Monica
Seattle
Washington DC
Program
Information on website
Information on website
Information on website and weatherization fairs
“Power to People” website
Tip sheet with free CFLs
Information on website
Information on website
CFLs
Competitions
Table 8. Energy Conservation Ordinances
City
Ann Arbor
Austin
Berkeley
San Francisco
Program
Rental properties where renters pay utility bills only
Energy Efficiency Ordinance
Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance (RECO) and Commercial
Energy Conservation Ordinance (CECO), includes inspections
Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance, enacted 1982 and amended
twice
21