The efforts by Colorado communities to become more energy-efficient are indeed laudable.
But it is relatively easy for local governments to use taxpayer money to improve their use of energy. It is private residences, condominiums and apartments that use most of a community’s energy — and do so inefficiently. Many were built at minimum capital cost against building codes that did not weigh energy efficiency as an important factor.
And what has been done to improve the efficiency of these residences? Very little — and what has been done is not very effective.
Under House Bill 1037, passed by the legislature earlier this year, utilities are once again authorized to subsidize the few (with money from the entire ratepayer base) to achieve some minimal amount of energy efficiency.
If the claim is true that energy efficiency is the least expensive way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move to a sustainable energy base, then there has to be a better way to get there.
We must establish a simple way for individual homeowners to find the capital to install cost-effective and energy-efficient items and to pay for these improvements. The key is to define those improvements that will pay for themselves by the energy savings so that the homeowner does not see an increase in living expenses, and to do so without transferring cost to other ratepayers.
Cost has been a big issue to all efficiency programs — primarily the need to justify efficiency improvements with repayment periods of only a few years. There is a simple solution: Have either the utility, the government (through a rotating fund) or a third party invest in cost-effective energy efficiency in “my home” and have me pay for these improvements with a fair return on my utility bill. The obligation for these payments would go with the house should it be sold.
An alternative would require my mortgage company to fund the improvements and pay for them in future mortgage payments, with the reduced cost of utilities offsetting the increased cost of mortgage payments.
Finding a way to provide capital and defining ownership are key elements of any plan. Perhaps the cost of such energy efficiency could be incorporated into Colorado’s Special District law, in which districts and sub-districts can be defined to pay for common improvements.
Assuming we can resolve the ownership issue, a homeowner’s association governing older neighborhoods could volunteer to start the process. Some state funding could be provided for these initial audits, with payback folded into those homes that proceed with the improvements and the state absorbing those that abstain.
Should the program succeed in reducing total energy use for a utility, we need to be mindful of the indirect cost transference associated with stranded generating capacity. Those capital costs must be covered, perhaps by including them with the cost of efficiency improvements as generating capacity is reduced.
Sol Shapiro of Aurora is a retired weapons systems manager with an interest in energy efficiency. He was a member of the Western Governors’ Association’s Solar Task Force.
