Update: National Grid Pulls Rate Reform Proposal in Rhode Island

In a sudden turn of events, last week National Grid submitted an unopposed motion to the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission to withdraw its distribution rate reform proposal. The utility had been required by legislation to identify potential rate reforms in light of the increasing amount of distributed generation, like solar photovoltaics (PV), that will be connected to the grid. In July 2015, National Grid submitted a proposal – summarized here – that included a tiered customer charge for residential and small commercial and industrial customers and an access fee for standalone distributed generation.

The proposal was roundly rejected by intervenors in the proceeding. The Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (the State’s ratepayer advocate) and thirteen other parties collectively had seventeen expert witnesses testifying against the rate reforms proposed by National Grid. (An overview of Acadia Center’s concerns and why withdrawing the proposal is a good thing is available here.) This lack of support and the parties’ interest in a more comprehensive discussion regarding rate reform were cited in the utility’s motion as reasons for withdrawing its proposal.

On January 19, the Commission unanimously approved National Grid’s motion. They concluded that all requirements under the law have been met and decided not to approve any new rates at this time. However, Chairperson Margaret Curran noted that the electricity system is expected to change in the coming years and this is just the beginning of the conversation. As such, the Commission will open one or more dockets by February 25, 2016 to review the changing distribution system.

While National Grid’s decision to walk away from its proposed reforms is a victory for Rhode Island, it is unclear what this means for Massachusetts. The utility has made a similar tiered customer charge and access fee proposal in that state; however, the significant opposition faced in Rhode Island may give them pause for thought. Public hearings will be held across Massachusetts starting in mid-March.

Leslie Malone is a Senior Analyst, Climate & Energy and Canada Project Director working from Acadia Center’s Providence office. She works on distributed and large-scale renewable energy and transmission policy as well as energy efficiency and carbon pricing issues in the U.S. and Canada.

What do we want? Rate Reform! When do we want it? Not in this docket: Distribution Rate Reform in Rhode Island

Over a dozen parties, including Acadia Center, have intervened in a proceeding currently before the Rhode Island Public Utility Commission (Docket No. 4568). The issue at hand is a new electric rate structure proposed by National Grid.

Under legislation passed in 2014, National Grid was required to identify potential rate reforms in light of the increasing amount of distributed generation, like solar photovoltaics (PV), that will be connected to the grid. The scope of National Grid’s proposal was limited by the legislation to only one component of our electricity bills – distribution rates – and the utility could not propose reforms that would require additional expenditure, like advanced metering.  Unfortunately, these restrictions have narrowed the conversation and we are now discussing incremental change that may in fact be regressive.

Rhode Island is emerging as a leader in grid modernization efforts. It has a good foundation of existing policies and processes, which the Systems Integration Rhode Island (SIRI) working group mapped out in a recently released report.  National Grid’s DemandLink pilot in Tiverton and Little Compton and the RI Office of Energy Resources’ Solarize program are great examples of using new technology, energy efficiency, and distributed resources to avoid more costly investments in traditional infrastructure.

Now how do we capitalize on the learning to date and make the electric grid and energy system as a whole more dynamic, clean, and responsive to consumers?  How do we more accurately value and compensate distributed generation for the benefits they provide while ensuring that they pay for the services they get from the grid?  That is the conversation we should be having, but instead we are butting heads over a tiered customer charge for residential and small commercial and industrial customers and an access fee for standalone generators (National Grid’s rate reform proposal is summarized here).

Acadia Center’s concerns and arguments against the proposal are laid out in Dr. Abigail Anthony’s testimony on the tiered customer charge and access fee and her rebuttal testimony filed last week.  The gist is that:

• National Grid is only considering the costs of distributed generation. The benefits should also be included.
• The tiered customer charge is confusing and customers will not be given enough information or technological tools to understand and manage their electricity consumption.
• High customer charges and low variable charges reduce the value of energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy investments.
• It is hard to see how the proposed rate design will help reduce the overall costs of the energy system.
• The renewable energy access fee is not based on thorough analysis of costs and benefits.

Acadia Center has recommended that the Commission reject National Grid’s proposal. There needs to be a better understanding of the costs and benefits of distributed generation, and how those customers should be compensated. Evaluating the potential costs and benefits of new metering technology will also help in developing long-term rate design that actually advances the state’s energy vision.

Hearings in this proceeding get underway on January 19, 2016.

Leslie Malone is a Senior Analyst, Climate & Energy and Canada Project Director working from Acadia Center’s Providence office. She works on distributed and large-scale renewable energy and transmission policy as well as energy efficiency and carbon pricing issues in the U.S. and Canada.

Summary of National Grid’s Distribution Rate Reform Proposal in Rhode Island

Legislation passed in 2014 required the Public Utility Commission to open a docket by July 1, 2015 to consider rate design and distribution cost allocation in light of the increasing amount of distributed generation, like solar photovoltaics (PV),that will be connected to the grid. Only reforms to distribution rates are being considered and National Grid was required to file a revenue-neutral proposal, meaning they could not propose a rate design that requires new investment in, for example, advanced metering.

National Grid submitted a proposal that includes: 1) a tiered customer charge for residential and small commercial and industrial (C&I) customers; 2) an access fee for standalone distributed generation; and, 3) a merger of the two larger industrial rate classes. Acadia Center let the US Navy and Walmart take on the rate class merger issue and focused our testimony on the first two issues.

Tiered Customer Charges

Residential and small C&I customers in Rhode Island currently pay a customer charge on their electricity bills to cover meter reading, billing, etc. Regardless of the amount of power you use in a given month that cost is always on the bill.

National Grid has proposed moving from a uniform customer charge to tiered customer charges based on monthly usage (kWh). For residential customers the customer charge would range from $5.25/month (Tier 1) to $18.00/month (Tier 4) compared to the current charge of $5.00/month. For small commercial and industrial customers the fixed customer charge would range from $10.50/month (Tier 1) to $26.00/month (Tier 4) compared to the current $10.00/month.

In practice this means that if you use more electricity in a given month (think heat wave in July) then you may be placed in a higher tier with a higher fixed customer charge. If you move up a tier then you get locked in at that higher level for the next 12 months. This obviously has implications for all customers but it is particularly worrying for customers that use electricity for heating – typically renters and low-income customers. The proposal could also penalize customers that install electric heat pumps or own electric vehicles.

Also, since this is a revenue-neutral proposal, increasing the amount of revenue collected through fixed charges leads to a corresponding decrease in the variable distribution rate, which has negative implications for energy efficiency and net metering credits by making energy savings and credits less valuable.

Access Fee

National Grid has proposed a monthly access fee for all “stand-alone distributed generation,” defined as generation connected to the distribution system that does not have on-site load. In other words, virtual or community net metering projects.

The access fee is $5.00 per kW-month for projects connected to the distribution system at primary voltage and $7.25 per kW-month for projects connected at the secondary voltage level. These fees are adjusted by a technology-specific “capacity availability factor” of 40% for solar, 30% for wind, 10% for hydro, and 40% for anaerobic digestion.

Ultimately, the access fee proposal discourages stand-alone distributed generation by imposing additional hurdles on municipalities and farms. It also fails to take into account the benefits of distributed resources.

National Grid has made a similar tiered customer charge and access fee proposal in Massachusetts. In both these states we should be encouraging more innovative analysis and reforms that have the potential to advance a clean energy future.

Leslie Malone is a Senior Analyst, Climate & Energy and Canada Project Director working from Acadia Center’s Providence office. She works on distributed and large-scale renewable energy and transmission policy as well as energy efficiency and carbon pricing issues in the U.S. and Canada.

Community Energy Proving Successful in Boothbay

A few hundred hours a year during the hottest afternoons in the summer months, when air conditioning is operating at full blast, Maine’s Boothbay peninsula comes close to critically straining the area’s electricity transmission lines. One option to avoid potential power outages was an $18 million upgrade of existing transmission lines so they could handle peak demand. But several years ago the Maine Public Utilities Commission instead approved an innovative pilot project that flips the conventional transmission solution around: meeting demand by generating power and improving energy efficiency right in Boothbay. The Boothbay Smart Grid Reliability Project is now fully operational and is proving that local energy resources can provide electrical services traditionally delivered by utilities.

The Boothbay pilot is first of its kind in Maine, and one of several “non-transmission alternatives” (NTA) pilots in the Northeast. NTAs can include local energy resources like energy efficiency, demand response, smart grid technologies, and small scale, clean distributed generation. Adopted alone or in combination, they can replace or defer the need for new transmission lines. In this way, NTAs also address concerns over the land use impacts of new lines. Contracted by the Maine Public Utilities Commission to oversee the pilot, GridSolar, LLC has positioned a total of 1,677 kilowatts of NTAs on the Boothbay Peninsular and is able to activate these resources as necessary to reduce stress on the grid and ensure grid reliability. The pilot includes five categories of NTAs: energy efficiency (243 kW), solar photovoltaics (PV) (308 kW), back-up generation (500 kW), demand response and peak load shifting (252 kW), and energy storage (500 kW). From its control center in Portland, GridSolar can dispatch these resources within 5 minutes to reduce the amount of power imported into Boothbay during peak hours.

The cost of the Boothbay Pilot Project is less than one-third of the $18 million estimated cost of the transmission line originally proposed by Central Maine Power. GridSolar estimates that the total savings to Maine ratepayers will be greater than $12 million. The long sprawling fingers of the Boothbay Peninsula make it particularly expensive to build transmission lines, improving the economics of the pilot project.

Boothbay Harbor, Maine

Despite the compelling economics of the Boothbay pilot, widespread use of NTAs faces several obstacles. Financial incentives are skewed in favor of transmission companies, which can earn a higher rate of return (13%) to build transmission lines than to invest in cleaner, lower cost options. In New England, the costs of paying for transmission projects are spread across all 6 states, while lower cost local options are rarely considered and not eligible for this type of regional cost recovery.

Maine is on the leading edge of changing the system to level the playing field for local energy resources, and various stakeholders are taking steps to change traditional ideas about the power grid and provide a different view of how to solve the state’s energy challenges. In October 2015, the Maine PUC proposed hiring a competitively-selected, independent NTA Coordinator that would be responsible for working with the transmission and distribution utility to identify and analyze NTA opportunities, pursue solutions, solicit and select proposals, and operate NTA resources. The PUC also proposed establishing an NTA Advisory Group that would review 10 year distribution and transmission plans and report back to the Commission. In December the PUC announced that it will continue to advance the concept of the NTA Coordinator in an adjudicatory proceeding. The Commission has also started analyzing whether NTAs can be used to address reliability needs in Maine’s Mid-Coast region.

Maine’s experience demonstrates that opening up the existing utility system to market forces can accelerate NTA integration, growth, completion, and innovation- all to the benefit of Maine ratepayers. The model of building very costly transmission infrastructure for brief periods of peak demand should not survive forever. States across the Northeast are asking utilities to actively incorporate clean, low cost local energy resources into their power grid planning, but reforming utilities’ financial incentives will be necessary to see widespread change.

Abigail Anthony leads Acadia Center’s Grid Modernization and Utility Reform initiative, focusing on changing regulatory and economic incentives in order to achieve a sustainable and consumer-friendly energy system. A Rhode Island native, Abigail is director of the Providence office and has played a leading role in advancing the state’s energy efficiency procurement policies.

New Hampshire Has the Opportunity to Improve Low Energy Efficiency Ranking

Expanding energy efficiency for electric and natural gas customers will deliver multiple benefits to New Hampshire. For customers, efficiency investments lower utility bills now and in the future, improve comfort, health and safety, and provide them with more control and understanding of their energy use. For the electric grid, efficiency increases reliability and decreases outages, and delays or avoids the need to spend significant funds on new capacity. For the local economy, these investments create local jobs, give businesses a competitive edge, and lower energy prices for all. And for the environment, efficiency reduces air pollution, water use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Indeed, energy efficiency is the cheapest, cleanest, most plentiful energy resource in the state.Investing in energy efficiency saves money in the long-term, but there are many market barriers which prevent consumers from doing it on their own. While New Hampshire’s utility-run efficiency programs have provided a host of benefits to residents, it is falling increasingly behind it neighbors. New Hampshire ranked #20 on the 2015 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, released October 22nd by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a national nonpartisan organization. While the state is up two places since last year, it still ranks well below its neighbors in New England – Massachusetts (#1), Vermont (#3), Rhode Island, (#4) Connecticut (#6), and Maine (#14).

So where can New Hampshire begin to gain ground and reap increased benefits from investing in efficiency? Here are two suggestions for (nearly) immediate gains:

 
Energy Efficiency Resource Standard

Currently New Hampshire is the only state in New England without a formal efficiency savings goal, which is one key reason why the state’s efficiency savings are well below its neighbors. The Public Utilities Commission is currently undergoing a process to establish an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) in the state. Utilities and other stakeholders have filed proposals this month for how such a standard might be structured and funded, with the goal of finalizing it this spring. The PUC is on the right track, but for the EERS to prove successful it must contain a clear and ambitious goal for energy savings to ensure all New Hampshire residents get adequate help in reducing their energy use.

Building Energy Codes

Putting in place modern building energy codes is crucial because it ensures that new buildings start off highly efficient. It is a lot easier to build efficient buildings than to retrofit inefficient ones down the road. New Hampshire adopted the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), a leading model energy code for new residential and commercial construction. Unfortunately it did not implement them in 2012, as most leading states did. If the 2012 IECC were already in place, it would not only have earned a full point under ACEEE’s scoring, but also would have locked in major energy savings as all new construction would have had to comply with this more stringent code level for the last three years. The New Hampshire Building Code Review Board is in the process of reviewing the 2015 IECC, and has held a public hearing. If accepted, the amendments would be effective for a maximum of two years unless ratified by the legislature.

Making smart decisions now will help New Hampshire keep more money in the state and in the pockets of its residents.

Ellen Hawes is a senior analyst at Acadia Center focusing on energy systems, land use and carbon markets. She also leads Acadia Center’s participation in the New Hampshire State Energy Strategy process. Ellen received her Master in Forestry from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Remaking Connecticut’s Energy System to Embrace Community Energy

As we head into another winter that could once again hit Connecticut residents and communities with high energy costs, the urgency to remake our energy system only increases. With emerging technologies and approaches, a new and better system is possible.

To become a reality, though, this better energy system will need to empower communities with innovative, on-the-ground energy solutions. So, how do we make sure that the current clean energy revolution puts Connecticut’s communities at its center?

Acadia Center’s event next Wednesday, December 16th, “Remaking Connecticut’s Energy System to Embrace Community Energy” will explore that question.

The gathering will feature an expert discussion on how communities can take control of their energy costs and needs through new approaches and policy innovations. Our panelists will be:

Scudder Parker, Senior Policy Advisor, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation

Jonathan Glass, President & Co-Founder, Wise Labs

Jamie Howland, Director, Energy Efficiency and Demand-Side Initiative, Acadia Center

Select topics will include: creating a sustainable energy utility to better serve community energy needs, exploring the community benefits offered by smart LED streetlights, and identifying notable community energy trends and developments in Connecticut and beyond.

We will also be releasing our new report, Community EnergyVision, which identifies four key areas of reform needed to spur the growth of local, clean energy resources. Community EnergyVision also identifies exemplary projects, practices, and innovations that should be replicated in Connecticut.

This discussion will be followed by breakout groups of attendees to further explore specific issues in depth. We hope you’ll join us.

When
Wednesday, December 16 10:30 AM – 12:30 PM

Where
New Haven Free Public Library
133 Elm Street
New Haven, CT 06510

We encourage you to use public transportation, but metered street parking and parking garages are available.

Parking Garages within a half mile of the event:

Grove Street Garage, 65 Grove Street
State Street Garage, 290 State Street

RSVP
If you plan to come, please register in advance on our Eventbrite page because space is limited. The event is free and all are welcome to attend.

Bill Dornbos is the Director of the Connecticut Office and Senior Attorney for Acadia Center.  Bill focuses on advancing policy and regulatory solutions that seek to transform the energy system and move Connecticut towards a climate-safe, sustainable future. Recent work includes advocating for expanded investment in cost-effective energy efficiency for all fuels and analyzing greenhouse gas emissions trends in the Northeast

We Are Not Facing an Energy Crisis, Here Are Four Reasons Why

The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office recently released a study showing that energy efficiency and demand response are more cost-effective than publicly-funded pipelines in meeting the region’s energy needs, and that renewable energy will help us achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals. Four key facts support the study’s findings:

• Electricity prices have declined without new pipelines: Massachusetts’ electricity prices are declining due to improved planning and market reforms. Specifically, Eversource’s winter rate is 27% lower than last year’s rate, and National Grid’s rate is almost 25% lower than last year. These lower prices are due in part to market reforms, implemented by the regional grid operator ISO-New England, that are improving utilization of existing gas delivery infrastructure and leading power generators to develop plans for ensuring adequate fuel supplies during winter peak.
• Energy efficiency is reducing electricity demand: Massachusetts’ and other New England states’ aggressive energy efficiency programs are causing winter energy demand to decline, reducing the need for additional pipeline capacity and other energy infrastructure. Despite using conservative assumptions that overstate the cost and understate the impact of efficiency programs, ISO-NE predicts that winter peak demand will decline by 0.1% annually through 2024, and the actual impact of energy efficiency is likely far greater. Acadia Center has demonstrated that ISO-NE consistently overestimates energy consumption and peak demand: winter peak energy demand was 24% lower in 2014 than the 2006 projection, and total 2014 energy consumption was 17% lower than the 2006 projection. These inaccurate projections overstate the need for expensive energy infrastructure, including oversized natural gas pipelines that could be used to support gas exports overseas the majority of the year.
• Clean energy procurement will displace gas generation: On November 12th Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for significant quantities (up to 1,000MW plus) of hydroelectric and wind, and solar energy that will displace natural gas generation and reduce power sector natural gas demand. Legislative proposals in Massachusetts to procure additional hydroelectricity and wind could more than double the quantity of energy in the RFP, offsetting even more natural gas demand. It is worth noting that the costs for hydroelectricity, renewable energy, and transmission are conservatively overstated in the Attorney General’s report, and actual prices for blended wind and hydroelectricity would have to be lower to compete in the regional electricity market.
• Gas plants with limited backup generation: New power plants approved through the regional grid operator’s Forward Capacity Market Auction in early 2015 all include natural gas generation with oil backup. On the few coldest days when natural gas supplies are dedicated to meeting heating needs, these plants will run on oil. This modest, limited use of oil generation during winter peaks in the near term, before more renewable generation comes online, would have a far smaller impact on GHG emissions than new pipelines used year-round, and would be less expensive to consumers than pipeline expansion.

The Attorney General’s report shows that commonsense market reforms, improvements in energy efficiency, and new clean energy supplies offer the best pathway to addressing winter price volatility, and achieve necessary GHG reductions, and the findings are matched by facts on the ground.

Peter Shattuck is Director of Acadia Center’s Massachusetts office and Clean Energy Initiative. Peter’s work at Acadia Center focuses on cleaning up the energy supply across all sectors of the economy. Driving market-based emissions reductions is at the core of this work, using cap and trade policies such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which Acadia Center has tracked since the program’s early development in the 2000s.

How to: Critically Review Technical Reports

Analytical studies play a crucial role in the energy policy world. They help decipher complex energy markets and technologies and often affect policy decisions. This makes it important for decision makers and other policy stakeholders to critically analyze these studies.

The following steps will help you critically analyze data whether you’re a policy stakeholder or an interested third party:

• Find the Technical Details – Whenever you encounter any new results or conclusions in a study, the first thing to do is look for the technical details of the analysis. These could be part of the main report in the form of appendices or a separate document. Within the technical details it is important to focus on the following components: scope, assumptions or data variables, data sources, methodology, and results and conclusions.
• Understand the Assumptions or Data Variables, Scope and Caveats – Assumptions or data variables, analysis scope and caveats set up the context in which the study was done and also decide its applicability as they represent subjective aspects of the analysis. It is important to go over them to understand the potential and limitations of the analysis’ findings.
• Investigate the Reliability of Data Sources – The data used in a study significantly affects the quality of its results and conclusions, making it important to note the reliability of data sources used in the study. If data used in a study is not properly sourced or referenced or the source is not credible, it may require further investigation.
• Review the Methodology – The methodology section of a study outlays the mathematical models used to analyze the respective problem. Reviewing the methodology helps us understand the sophistication and detail with which the problem has been analyzed.
• Apply What you Learned to the Results and Conclusions – The results and conclusions of a study generally contain the information relevant to the policy stakeholders’ decision-making process. A better understanding of the data used in a study can help gauge the limitation or applicability of the results and make sure the conclusions made are realistic.

These steps can help anyone look at analytical studies with a critical mind and will lead to a deeper understanding of the results, which is especially important when those results influence policy decisions.

Varun Kumar is Policy Data Analyst in Acadia’s Climate and Energy Analysis (CLEAN) Center. He assists in the analysis of energy, climate and economic information as part of Acadia Center’s advocacy and research efforts.

Connecticut Can Move Up Energy Efficiency Rankings with Two Policy Moves

Connecticut’s 6th place ranking in ACEEE’s 2015 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard is a strong achievement. However, holding steady remains a challenge for the Nutmeg State as other peer states, like Oregon and Maryland, continue to improve their efficiency efforts. So where can Connecticut find more points for next year and perhaps even climb in the rankings? Here are two suggestions for (nearly) immediate gains.

Building Energy Codes: Putting in place modern building energy codes is crucial because it ensures that new buildings start off highly efficient. Connecticut has unfortunately not yet implemented the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), a leading model energy code for new residential and commercial construction. Most leading states have already adopted the 2012 IECC and Connecticut law even required the state to adopt the 2012 IECC within 18 months of its publication date, but Connecticut is now almost three years past that deadline with no clear adoption date in sight. If the 2012 IECC were already in place, it would not only have earned a full point under ACEEE’s scoring, but also would have locked in major energy savings as all new construction would have had to comply with this more stringent code level for the last three years. Connecticut should commit now to a firm adoption deadline in early 2016.

Combined Heat and Power: Combined heat and power (CHP) is a way to generate electricity and produce heat through the use of a single fuel, usually natural gas. CHP projects are highly efficient because they generate electricity on-site – rather than at remote power plants – and they use the waste heat for heating or industrial needs. Connecticut was an early leader in deploying CHP, but has stalled recently, installing only 3.7 MW of new capacity in 2013 and 2014 combined. The state’s 2013 Comprehensive Energy Strategy tentatively determined that 100 MW of cost-effective CHP was potentially available. By establishing a comprehensive CHP program that seeks to acquire significant new capacity and that also sets production goals for CHP generation, Connecticut could gain an additional point with ACEEE. More importantly, Connecticut could accelerate the deployment of this industry-friendly local energy resource at a time when the state needs to protect and grow its manufacturing base. Connecticut policymakers should set up a robust CHP program through new legislation in the upcoming 2016 session.

With these two reforms, Connecticut could have earned two more points with ACEEE and moved up to 4th place in the 2015 efficiency rankings. Perhaps the scoring methodology for 2016 will change – and certainly other states will continue to improve – but if Connecticut wants to keep pressing forward with energy efficiency policy innovation, it should take a hard look at energy codes and CHP.

Bill Dornbos is the Director of the Connecticut Office and Senior Attorney for Acadia Center.  Bill focuses on advancing policy and regulatory solutions that seek to transform the energy system and move Connecticut towards a climate-safe, sustainable future. Recent work includes advocating for expanded investment in cost-effective energy efficiency for all fuels and analyzing greenhouse gas emissions trends in the Northeast

Four Ways to Reduce Your Energy Usage this Winter

With the arrival of autumn’s cooler weather as a reminder that winter is just around the corner, now is the time to think about ways to reduce your heating energy usage. You’ll save money and reduce your carbon footprint at the same time. Here are four things to consider doing before winter arrives:

• Air sealing is one of the quickest and least expensive ways to reduce energy use. Many homes have lots of cracks and gaps that allow cold air to enter and create uncomfortable drafts. Most of the states in this region have low-cost programs that will bring in a home performance professional to do this work with specialized equipment that allows them to quickly locate and seal gaps as well as ensure that a home still gets a safe amount of fresh air. Contact your local utility to see what program offerings are available.
• Insulation can also dramatically lower heating costs. Insulation levels are generally assessed when air sealing is done. Attic insulation can pay for itself very quickly. Wall insulation is often more expensive, but is still usually a good investment for most homes. Often overlooked is basement insulation. Uninsulated basements are very common in New England and can waste a lot of energy. This waste can be dramatically reduced by either insulating basement walls or insulating the basement ceiling. In all cases make sure that proper air sealing is done in conjunction with the insulation.
• Windows are often what individuals think of first when improving the efficiency of a home, but in many cases they cost a lot more than they save. If you have double pane or storm windows, you should probably consider upgrades first. However, if you are replacing your windows anyway for other reasons, be sure to get the highest efficiency you can, as the difference in price is typically not that great. Look for windows with the lowest “U factor” for the most savings.
• Heating Systems are typically replaced when the old one breaks. If yours is on its last leg, make sure you have a plan in place for replacing it with a high efficiency unit. If you’ve insulated and air sealed your home, chances are you can use a smaller and less expensive unit than the size you have now. Planning ahead will spare you from trying to make these decisions on a cold winter day when you have no heat. Another option to consider is adding a ductless heat pump, which will produce heat even on the coldest winter days at low cost and with a lower carbon footprint. In the summer it offers very efficient cooling as well.

Helpful links:

• Massachusetts: MassSave
• Connecticut: EnergizeCT
• Rhode Island: National Grid RI
• New Hampshire:  Eversource NH
• Maine: Efficiency Maine
• Vermont: Efficiency Vermont

Jamie Howland leads Acadia’s Climate & Energy Analysis Center (CLEAN), and Energy Efficiency and Demand Side Initiative. His work as a policy analyst focuses on data management on energy markets and emissions trends, buildings and land use issues.