[pdf] – download here
The Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020 identifies the current Mass Save installation measures as achieving “20-30% energy savings in heating energy use.” (p.26) If these numbers are from actual data reported to the DPU, then the flawed program software is even more astray than I thought. As a contractor working within the Mass Save program, and having spoken to many Mass Save contractors and energy assessment providers, I can not fathom how these numbers can be correct. The current Mass Save residential program design restricts the implementation of products and installation approaches required to achieve such savings. (no PSF, no crawlspace rigid insulation, limited airsealing, no integrated heating system/thermal boundary design, no advanced ventilation systems to enable improvements below BAS…etc)
Unfortunately, the Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020 does not address the major existing issue with the Massachusetts energy efficiency programs: there is no pathway for comprehensive (20-50%), (not to be confused with ‘deep’ – 50%-70%+) energy savings to be incentivized in the current program design and structure. The utilities, the EEAC, and DOER have heard the message over and over from myself and others:
The utility sponsored programs need to support the integrated home performance approach to deliver comprehensive building retrofits to Massachusetts rate payers.
The current program structure, tightly controlled by very few organizations that do not specialize in implementing advanced home performance services, is not only missing the ‘middle retrofit’ market, but is impeding investment in these retrofits through misaligned program designs. One important change is that utility rebates and the Heat Loan financing must be available through a greater number of Vendors. The current design makes it impossible for qualified home performance contractors to leverage rebates to achieve deeper savings in an effective manner.
The focus on Deep Energy Retrofits in the Climate Plan for 2020 is off target. DER, identified by NGrid early in the 2010 Pilot as achieving 70-100% energy savings, is wonderful R&D for Massachusetts. Yet the pool of eligible customers is small and suited for homeowners who are ready to invest at least $50,000 upfront and have the patience needed to navigate the program,. There is much value in providing pilot programs to showcase Deep Energy Retrofits to help shift consumer paradigms [ironically away from ‘cost-effectiveness’ and to valuation of comfort, quality of life, and heightened social consciousness]. Yet without skyrocketing energy prices, it is a major mistake for the State to take the stance that DER projects will achieve the stated ‘80% emissions reductions by 2050’ (p.26).
I encourage the authors of the Climate Plan for 2020 to consider the current energy efficiency program data: What is a typical (pre-rebate, customer) cost of a Mass Save job? Around $2,500-$5000. What is a typical cost of a ‘deep energy retrofit’? Likely $35,000-$70,000+ . What about the jobs in the $10-$25,000 range? How are utility PAs supporting these projects? These are the projects that will get to 80% reductions by 2050. These are the projects where a comprehensive house-as-a-system approach is required to yield tangible benefits, using existing technology and accessible skill sets. These are projects that neighbors rave about over dinner, swinging the pendulum towards mainstream. These are the true ‘Middle Energy Retrofits’.
These $10-$25k retrofits are the projects that the rate-payer funds should be incentivizing, not impeding. It has been proven that a small uptick in energy prices will swell the demand for this scale of project. If utility incentives were available now, the program can begin its transitioning so the qualified contractor network can respond. In consideration of job growth, the $10-$25k projects will create lasting and well-paying jobs as they require a skilled and adequately trained workforce, not overnight weatherization contractors.
Although applauding groundbreaking building code developments is warranted, the authors of the Clean Energy Plan avoided the politically uncomfortable challenges of the existing energy efficiency market in Massachusetts. The 2010 federal Climate Bill failure and Home Star challenges demonstrated the power of oil industry interests and the lack of drive of well intentioned leaders to face the immediate inconvenient truth- that we must change deeply routed and unsustainable systems, otherwise we will not see what is at the foundation of our environmental challenges.
In Massachusetts the way to 80% reductions by 2050 is by driving the market for comprehensive home performance improvements. If program designers, and the State, don’t confront the core systemic barriers that limit, and effectively stifle, investments in comprehensive building performance improvements, then the GHG reductions goals will not be achieved.
I tell Leif, my ten year old son, that although Massachusetts is a leader in energy efficiency initiatives, my job would be easier and likely more rewarding in nearly every bordering State. I tell him that even though America isn’t ready to change, [Western] Massachusetts will get it : paradigms will change and an energy-smart future will be realized.
The 2020 Climate Plan should call on Massachusetts program designers take a stand and quickly adapt entrenched systems to support a robust market for comprehensive home performance improvements. “Time is running out,” is not what we want to tell our children.
