I am repeatedly impressed with, and grateful to be a part of, the performance contracting industry group- Efficiency First.
A recent article posted on the efficiency first blog, asks the important question: why is renewable energy receiving so many more financial incentives than energy efficiency. As Efficiency First president, Matt Golden puts it: “No matter how you cut this, it is always better to reduce, then produce.”
According to the stats presented, Wind power cost about $38 per ton of CO2 saved; solar cost about $30. Yet replacing incandescent lights in a home with LED saves about $159 per ton of CO2, and using energy efficient appliances saves about $108 per ton.
In an era of great progress toward creating and using energy in better ways, it is important to continue to inquire if our state and federal efforts are focused in the right places: why should solar tax credits have no cap, while the energy efficiency tax credit is capped at $1,500 ? Why should thermal boundary improvements (insulation etc.) be less incentivized when any investment in PV arrays should only be made when building shell efficiency is optimized?
Indeed the renewable energy industry is better organized, funded, and experienced, than the performance contracting, energy efficiency (or whatever we want to call ourselves) industry. Yet I am confident that due to the economic benefits of energy efficiency and conservation investments, as well as the clearer need to use less natural resources not more in cooler ways, someone in Washington will get the hint.
Stand up smart people in Washington who are not governed by big dollar interests, no matter how green they may be….anyone…?
