Balancing the big picture with the details can be tricky. However, finding this balance can be very powerful when addressing a building’s energy needs and energy costs.

One way of achieving good balance is to take an integrated approach that looks at the synergistic aspects of various energy-reduction programs to achieve an optimal balance.

Often times energy projects are looked at individually rather than taking a moment to see how they relate to each other and to the building as a whole. Infrastructure projects, such as replacing an chiller are easy projects to know when to add to a capital plan. However, a building owner can get more for their money if they take the time to see how this one proposed project relates to others. For example, a chiller works hard to perform its function based on the current conditions of the building.

What if you were able to reduce the amount of energy load on the building and change these conditions? Perhaps there are building envelope projects scheduled a little later in the capital plan. What if these projects were looked at from an energy savings and cost stand point in conjunction with the chiller replacement? Could you then reduce the size of the replacement chiller and save more money than the other improvement cost? Looking at this new information might create more favorable payback and energy savings options for the proposed projects.

It’s such an exciting concept that it was the topic of our most recent Sustainability Sessions web conference. Guest speakers Jean Savitsky, Practice Lead—Energy and Sustainability Projects, LEED AP and Dana Schneider, Northeast Market Lead—Energy and Sustainability Projects, LEED AP shared details about this approach and how we have been able to find optimal solutions for several clients, including the Empire State Building.

Article by Carey Guerin, appearing courtesy 3BL Media.

Related posts:

• Water issues: Green sub searches for jobs and squid in California
• New CleanTechies Bookstore: find books, read reviews & order online
• How Much Money Can New Lighting Save Your Business?
• The ABC’s of Conservation
• LEED 2009 Focuses on Everyday`Human Impact’ of Sustainability

This is the era of Big Oil. Could the next be the era of Big Efficiency?

A new report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy suggests the possibility. Re-invented with today’s smart energy technologies, energy efficiency could displace 40 to 60 percent of our total energy needs by the year 2050, according to The Long-Term Energy Efficiency Potential: What the Evidence Suggests.

Sound far-fetched? ACEEE says history backs its assertion. Over the last 40 years we tripled the US economy, “and three-quarters of the energy needed to fuel that growth came from an amazing variety of efficiency advances—not new energy supplies,” said the report. Energy forecasters at the time predicted we would be using far more energy than we do now. The advent of the computer, the Internet, energy savings appliances and other efficiencies saved us a lot of money and a lot of oil. In 1970, our economy required 15,900 British Thermal Units of energy to support $1 of economic activity; by 2010 we needed only 7,300 Btus.

But there is a problem in repeating this feat. Today’s energy policy begins with the premise that we need to build more power plants, more refineries and more delivery systems. We do not try to first achieve greater efficiency. In other words, we build more energy infrastructure before we try to wring more work out of each unit of energy we produce. If we instead pushed efficiency first, the US could save $400 billion per year in energy costs, amounting to about $2,600 per household, according to ACEEE.

“The U.S. would prosper more if investments in new energy were not crowding out needed investments in energy efficiency,” said John A. “Skip” Laitner, ACEEE director of economic and social analysis.

In short, we are thinking small about efficiency, when we should be thinking big.

ACEEE further warns that the deck contains at least three jokers, or unwelcome wild cards, that could threaten our hand if we fail to pursue energy efficiency. These include 1) diminishing supplies of cheap and available energy; 2) a slowing rate of energy productivity and 3) climate change.

How do we keep the jokers buried? The report says it requires “a different recipe of technology investments” than we are now making.

“The question is will we choose to make those more productive investments?” says ACEEE.

ACEEE’s full report is available here.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry’s top magazines and newsletters. She is publisher of the Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Related posts:

• A CleanTechies roof deck Happy Hour this Wednesday….
• Renewable Energy Monitoring Systems – The Next Big Thing?
• Major Solar Power Farm in Austin Under Construction
• Outdone by Dubai, Taiwan Tower Seeks Green Award
• Solar Power for Cell Phones

In theory, automation is supposed to be helpful. Then I read an article the other day about the most embarrassing cell phone auto-corrections. Most are a little too racy to share, but the examples illustrate the challenges that can come with automated functions (like a cell phone’s auto-correct).

Thankfully, there is an example of an automated function that’s both helpful and makes you look smart: programmable thermostats. While there is a manual element to this incredible little tool, the primary function of this device is to automatically set your thermostat back when you leave the house or go to sleep – times when you’re heating or cooling aren’t needed. Brilliant.

So why should programmable thermostats be an automatic part of your every day?

According to ENERGY STAR®, the average household spends more than $2,200 a year on energy bills – nearly half of which goes to heating and cooling. Homeowners can save about $180 a year by properly setting their programmable thermostats and maintaining those settings. There often are pre-programmed settings designed for optimal efficiency, or you can set your own (OK, that’s a little bit “manual” but the end function is still automatic.)

What else do you need to know about programmable thermostats?

1. For starters, install your programmable thermostat unit on an interior wall, away from heating or cooling vents and other sources of heat or drafts.
2. Keep the temperature set at its energy savings set-points for long periods of time (at least eight hours is optimal) when you’re out of the home or at night.
3. You can override your settings from time to time if you need it warmer or cooler without erasing the pre-set programming.
4. Units typically have two types of hold features: (a) hold/permanent/vacation; (b) temporary. “Hold” or “vacation” features are best when you’re planning to be away for an extended period.
5. Cranking your unit up to 90 degrees or down to 40 degrees will not heat or cool your house any faster. Most thermostats begin to heat or cool at a set time, to reach setpoint temperatures sometime thereafter.
6. If your home has multiple heating or cooling zones, you’ll need a programmed setback thermostat for each zone to maximize comfort, convenience and energy savings throughout the house.
7. If it runs on batteries, don’t forget to change them!

As they say in the programmable thermostat game: set it and forget it.

And getting back to the not-so-helfpul automatic things: be sure to proof-read your texts before hitting send. Save yourself embarrassment… and an investigation.

Article by Erin Mathe, appearing courtesy Xcel Energy Blog.

Related posts:

• Better Fuel Economy Through Better Transmissions
• Google HQ Installs First Wireless Electric Car Charger
• America’s Next Top Energy Innovator
• Biodegradable Bricks Collect Rainwater Automatically
• Easy Tips to Save on Your Energy Bills

Black Friday is officially over, which means Christmas is on its way. Lately I’ve been reminiscing about holidays past. I remembered one of my favorite Christmas presents came in 1978. Santa (or perhaps it was my brother) gave me a poster of tennis great, Bjorn Borg. With his flowing blond locks and snow-white sweat band, he’d stolen my heart and earned a prime spot on my bedroom wall.

As an adult, while posters of handsome athletes still have a place in my heart, I’m a bit more partial to practical gifts. So this year, as I created my own list for Santa, I found several energy-efficient gift ideas for my loved ones’ stockings, and in the season’s spirit of giving, thought I’d pass a few on to you.

Wishing you a very happy, safe and energy-efficient holiday season!

2011 Energy Efficient Gift Ideas

My inner energy geek demands that I top my list with a whole house energy monitor. These monitors track and display your home’s electricity use directly from your meter or electric panel. The Energy Detectives 5000 (TED) conveys the information in multiple formats – both over time and in real time – and will accurately project your electricity bill long before it arrives. Meanwhile, you will learn more about conserving energy, saving money, and helping save the environment. TED is maintenance free – no batteries to change – and it’s fully automatic and stores years of data. Not only is TED geeky-cool, but the awareness factor alone can influence you to reduce your energy use making it thrifty-cool, too.

If a television, DVD player, stereo, cordless phone or other electronics are on your list, the ENERGY STAR seal points you to the most energy efficient product models. For example, today’s ENERGY STAR qualified TVs meet new, stricter requirements and offer up to 30% energy savings over standard models. And the ENERGY STAR website makes it easy to browse for products.

Gaming systems don’t come with an ENERGY STAR rating however, last December the Electric Power Research Institute released a report comparing the Nintendo Wii, Microsoft Xbox 360 and Sony PlayStation 3. The clear winner for efficiency is the Wii, which uses less than one sixth the power consumed by the other two consoles; 13.7 watts, compared to 8.48 for the PlayStation and 87.9 for the Xbox.

Be sure to pair your gift of electronics with a power strip. It’s also a great stand-alone gift for a college student, new homeowner and anyone who likes gadgets. Smart Strips with auto switching technology are the great option when trying to save on phantom loads. When you plug in the main component, all of the components power down as well.

For the chef in your life, pressure cookers and crock pots and other countertop appliances that can be used in place of the oven can offer energy savings as well as a delicious meal. Pressure cookers use up to 70% less energy than regular pots and pans by sealing in hot air to quickly cook food. And smaller appliances use less energy than heating up your oven.

For gardeners, the charming solar-powered Sun Jar collects sunlight all day and gives off a soft glow at night without electricity or batteries. The classic glass Mason jar shape is an enchanting change of pace to many of the boring solar garden lights on the market.

Outdoorsy folks who like to camp, RV or boat will appreciate a solar battery recharger that plugs into a car phone charger. They come in variety of wattage outputs.

Remember when kids just needed sun and water to have fun? Well, those days are back Sort of. H-Racer Hydrogen Powered Car is a futuristic toy that shows off the potential of hydrogen and solar technology in all its glory by using water and sunlight to produce fuel.

High school and college students especially will love that the Solar Backpack ensures they always have power for all of their devices.

Of course, the cheapest kilowatt is the one you don’t use. So don’t forget gifts like board games, zoo and museum memberships, worm farms or Bjorn Borg underwear.

In the spirit of the season, consider an interesting way to change the world through philanthropy: donate to the Renewable Energy Trust. The RET funds renewable energy projects, such as solar electricity systems, that benefit local schools and nonprofits. These renewable energy systems reduce their overhead costs allowing them to spend more resources on their core missions. And you’ve helped reduce carbon emissions for everyone.

Let your friends and family unwrap some energy savings and your gift will hold meaning long after the fruit cake is thrown away.

Article by Mary LaLone, appearing courtesy Xcel Energy Blog.

Related posts:

• Green Gift Idea: Upcycled MP3 Music Box
• Green Gift Ideas: Battery-Free Bike Light
• Clean Energy “Ideas Train” Departs from Germany
• Great Green Gift Ideas That Will Save You Money and Help the Environment
• Buckminster Fuller’s Advice on Clean Energy

More than half of the states in the nation have created programs to increase the energy efficiency of homes through a comprehensive approach that looks at all opportunities to save energy, from insulation to upgrading heating and cooling systems. When taxpayer and ratepayer dollars are used, it is essential that these programs are reviewed with a cost-effectiveness test that provides policymakers with adequate knowledge about the programs’ effectiveness. Unfortunately, in many states, the testing system is deeply flawed. The way cost-effectiveness tests are currently applied frequently hinders the design and implementation of residential energy efficiency programs, particularly programs intended to support comprehensive energy efficiency upgrades.

For three decades, the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test has been the principle screening tool that regulators have used to assess the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs and make decisions regarding the use of ratepayer dollars to support the programs. Unfortunately, the way the TRC test is applied often leads to support for single-measure programs rather than whole-house retrofits – despite the fact that the whole-house approach actually delivers deeper and more cost-effective energy savings. Because of this, the TRC test, when poorly applied, impedes the realization of significant, cost-effective energy savings through state-run energy efficiency programs.

In general, whole-house programs do not tend to score as well in the TRC test as single-measure programs that encourage highly cost-effective measures, such as lighting. This is due in part to the different ways in which the TRC test is implemented, some of which cause particular difficulties for whole-house programs. The TRC test typically includes participant contributions to the cost of an energy efficiency upgrade, resulting in a poor score for a highly leveraged whole-house program – even if leveraging public dollars with private investment is generally seen as desirable in other contexts. On the flip side, the TRC test fails to capture the full benefits of energy efficiency, such as increased comfort, which are frequently significant, although difficult to quantify. To make matters worse, the TRC is sometimes used to screen each individual measure or project, which might sound cost-effective in practice, but creates confusion about what jobs are eligible, decreases customer interest, and adds to a program’s administrative costs.

New York, which for years has been a leader in home performance programs, recently implemented a rule requiring application of the TRC at the measure-level. As a result, the program’s output is declining after years of steady growth. Elsewhere, the application of the TRC has discouraged the creation of strong whole-house energy efficiency programs, or has forced program administrators to develop create programs designed to pass cost-effectiveness tests, rather than to deliver real energy savings to homeowners.

So what should be done to ensure the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs across the country is more accurately evaluated?

Policy-makers and commissioners should adopt a different tool, the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, which compares the cost of reducing energy consumption to the cost of supplying an equivalent amount of energy. The Program Administrator Cost test makes sense as the primary screening tool for energy efficiency programs because it is relatively simple to administer, and provides a good measure of whether an energy efficient program delivers savings at a cost comparable to the cost of generating and supplying energy.

If the PAC test is not adopted as the primary test, a set of “best practices” should be used to administer the TRC test. Examples of best practices include testing cost-effectiveness on a program-wide or portfolio basis (not at the level of individual projects or measures), and including all benefits as well as all costs.

It is clear that the current process of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs needs fundamental change. The existing cost-effectiveness tests, as currently implemented, frequently undermine important public policy goals, such as job creation, carbon reduction, and energy independence. We need to stop undermining these important policy goals and ensure that policymakers have the right information, thanks to the right testing, to help homeowners save energy.

For a more detailed report on these issues, please see the National Home Performance Council’s new report entitled, Getting to Fair Cost-Effectiveness Testing: Using the PAC Test, Best Practices for the TRC Test, and Beyond.

Article by Kara Saul Rinaldi, Executive Director of the National Home Performance Council, a 501(c)(3) dedicated to encouraging improved home energy performance using a whole-house approach.

Article appearing courtesy Energy Efficiency Markets.

Related posts:

• Colorado to Achieve 30% Renewables Eight Years Early
• Smart Meters: Truly a Cure for Energy Blindness?
• Launch of Rocky Mountain Institute’s RetroFit Depot
• How Much Money Can New Lighting Save Your Business?
• Easy Tips to Save on Your Energy Bills

The US Department of Energy’s reputation is now enshrined as the agency that Republican presidential contender Rick Perry wants to dismantle – if only he could remember its name. But a recent report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences offers a different direction for the federal agency, one that may not make it more memorable, but a bit more people-centered.

The academy tackles a problem that beguiles the energy industry. Now that we have the technology that lets householders take more control of their energy destiny, how do we inspire them to do so?

The question is central to energy efficiency efforts because smart technologies, such as home energy displays and cell-phone controlled thermostats, offer new ways to save energy. A lot of energy – and therefore money – is at stake. Homes account for about 30–40 percent of US energy consumption. So cutting household energy use by just 20 percent would reduce total national energy use 7.5 percent, according to the report.

We can blame the energy industry for our lack of interest in home energy management, or credit the industry, depending on how you look at it. Utilities have done their job too well. Energy flows invisibly into our homes. Or as Steven Koonin, DOE undersecretary for science, says in the report: “One of the great triumphs of modern society is that we’ve hidden the infrastructure. Nobody really understands where electricity, gas, or water come from.”

Now that we want people to be aware, how do we make energy infrastructure visible, at least psychologically?

The academy says it’s time for the energy industry to seek answers within the social sciences, a realm it’s rarely delved into. Drawing from a two-day workshop the academy held in May, the report highlights several places were human nature and energy realities collide.

* People don’t trust government or institutions. In fact, trust in almost every major American institution has declined since the 1960s. But our trust can be re-won, albeit not easily, if we’re invited to participate in the creation of policy and programs.
* Humans are not rational. We make decisions based on incomplete information or the advice of trusted acquaintances who may not know much. Arguments by industry experts won’t win us over, but we may start saving energy if we think it will enhance our social status.
* An energy efficiency paradox exists. Even if people can save money, they may not pursue energy savings. Part of the problem is a perception that energy savings technologies lack quality, as in misconceptions that efficient lighting must be hard on the eyes.
* Making our homes more energy efficient needs to be easy, and is often not. “Poor marketing, delayed incentives, burdensome paperwork, and uncertain product quality” characterize too many home retrofit programs, says the report.
* Even if energy efficiency produces long-term savings, people often will avoid spending the money on retrofits or new appliances if upfront costs are high.

There are no easy answers here. The report recommends that the DOE’s number crunching arm, the Energy Information Administration, begin gathering data that will help social scientists figure out why and how we consume energy. The report acknowledges, though, that any attempt to expand the DOE to do this work may be met with political resistance at this time.

For those interested in the topic of energy and human behavior, look to more information likely to emerge later this month from the annual Behavior, Energy and Climate Change conference that will be held in Washington, DC.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry’s top magazines and newsletters. She is publisher of the Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Related posts:

• Federal Agencies Plan for Sustainability
• Instructions for Implementing Sustainable Locations for Federal Facilities
• Greening the Supply Chain
• Pickens Plan & Energy Policy Act Challenged By Earthjustice Suit
• Energy Savings?! Knock, knock…any CleanTechie at home?

Major companies could reduce their carbon emissions by as much as 50 percent and significantly increase energy efficiency by shifting to cloud computing, according to a new report.

In an analysis of UK, French, and U.S. firms that have used cloud computing for at least two years, the Carbon Disclosure Project calculated that by 2020 U.S. companies with annual revenues of more than $1 billion can save $12.3 billion in energy costs and achieve carbon reductions equivalent to 200 million barrels of oil a year if they shift to shared data networks.

The report said that large UK companies could achieve annual energy savings of £ 1.2 billion if they move to cloud computing. Cloud computing — in which data can be stored, managed, and processed on external servers as needed — allows companies to buy less hardware and also improves efficiency and flexibility.

According to the report — which was conducted by the independent firm Verdantix and sponsored by AT&T — large companies plan to accelerate their adoption of cloud computing from 10 percent to 69 percent of their IT spending by 2020.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Growth of Cloud Computing Will Yield Large Reduction in Energy Usage
• What Color Is the Cloud?
• A Green Cloud Is a Transparent Cloud
• Data Center Virtualization: Cloud Computing – Ease Up on Security to Keep Carbon Under Check?
• The Rise of the Modular Data Center

My loyal readers may have been surprised (or relieved) by my hiatus from publishing.  I was not idle, however.  I led a study on Energy Efficiency Policy in New Jersey and Pennsylvania on behalf of the Department of Energy-funded Greater Philadelphia Innovation Cluster for Energy Efficient Buildings.  I completed the work last week, and it will be released soon. 

I have also been advising New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on developing the 2011 Energy Master Plan for New Jersey.  The draft plan is available here.  The findings of the eight-person work group on clean energy will be made public shortly, and public hearing is being held on October 21 from 9:30-12:30 at the Rutgers Eco-Complex.  Details are available here. 

My public sector work has given me some new insights into green building and energy efficiency policy, which will be developed in further posts over the next few months. 

Among the most interesting findings is the difficulty in crafting public policy initiatives to break through the “efficiency gap”—the gap between a customer’s actual investments in energy efficiency and those that appear to be in the consumer’s best interest.

Most policy efforts are aimed at eliminating the "first cost" barrier to energy efficiency.  In other words, providing grants or loans to minimize the upfront investment required for energy efficient systems.  

Making these programs work to achieve scale and realize significant energy savings has proven devilishly difficult.    With the influx of ARRA funds, state and local jurisdictions have invested $650 million in loan programs for energy efficiency projects, with loans generally provided to customers at low- or zero- interest rates. 

The author of a May 2010 nationwide study of state, utility and municipal loan programs by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory concluded:

Despite the advantages of state, utility and municipal loan programs, participation to date has been modest, and they appear to be incapable of driving a large scale transition to a clean energy future by themselves.

A study just released in September, 2011 by the ACEEE which reviewed 24 financing programs nationwide concluded that participation rates were generally low across programs, and do not generally track energy savings.  The report concluded:

While several programs have many years of experience and have issued thousands of loans, this market has yet to come to scale. 

So, it is clear that transforming the energy efficiency environment will require more than providing low cost capital from government sources for at least two reasons.  First, because government capital and capital deployment mechanisms are not robust enough to create scale, and second, because the barriers to energy efficiency are not merely financial.  Psychological barriers, cultural barriers, resource barriers and technical barriers also play important roles.  [This report nicely summarizes the various barriers to energy efficiency investment by sector.]

From my research, policymakers must focus on better stimulating private capital deployment and integrating financing with tools to address other barriers to energy efficiency. Understanding consumer motivation, providing resources to address the less concrete barriers to energy efficiency, and partnering with private capital sources to bring financing to scale  should be the goals of energy efficiency policies going forward.

Related posts:

• Is ‘Political Capital’ Fungible?
• Climate Change, the Stimulus Bill, and how CleanTech will benefit
• Norway Launches Energy + To Promote Alternative Energy
• A Shining Star of Bipartisan Cleantech Support
• US High Speed Rail: The Empire Corridor — Uplift For NYC Mass Transit

For weeks now we’ve seen the Solyndra bankruptcy being used as a political punching bag. Now the overblown hype around one solar company is putting real industry growth and viable projects at risk. Enough is enough.

Last last week, SolarCity was informed that the DOE would not be able to move forward on its conditional loan guarantee for Project SolarStrong – a shining example of American military leadership on clean energy. The project sought to install solar panels on 160,000 military housing units across as many as 124 bases and 33 states, making it the country’s largest residential solar project by a long shot. In addition to generating secure homegrown power, SolarStrong would create sorely needed jobs in military communities across the country. The project is about as low-risk as it gets. It combines proven technology, a trusted solar developer, and strong private capital to deliver reliable returns to a highly credit-worthy customer. And yet SolarStrong has become a collateral damage in the DC political game. (See SolarCity’s appeal to Congress here). The military isn’t backing down from its support for renewables, and neither should federal or state policymakers.

Which is why we’re troubled to see fallout spread to the states – long the pioneers of solar and renewable energy progress in this country. California Treasurer Bill Lockyer has called for a moratorium on the state program that gives renewable energy companies sales tax exemptions.

Let’s take a look at what California’s investment in solar has achieved to date, shall we? In 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger launched an ambitious program for a million solar roofs—and more importantly, build a self-sustaining solar industry. The resulting California Solar Initiative has made the Golden State first in the nation in solar power generation and job creation. With nearly 1 gigawatt of self-generation installed and nearly 100,000 customers going solar across the state, grid parity — where solar can be generated for less than retail utility rates–is upon us. Our state’s cash-strapped schools are among the biggest beneficiaries. Los Angeles Unified School district, for example, is going solar in a big way—so much so that it expects to save $114 million in utility bills over the next twenty years. That money can now go to education rather than energy bills. To date, California public sector buildings have installed or in the process of installing over 600 MW worth of solar systems, which would result in over $2.5 billion in energy savings. And installing all that solar is creating a lot of jobs. And while California is home to many solar manufacturers – Solaria, SunPower, Miasole, and others – it’s important to remember that the vast majority of solar’s job opportunity is downstream on the installation side. Those are inherently local jobs that cannot be exported. That’s what we call a good return on investment.

Solar is delivering on its promise – in California and states nationwide. Why would policymakers choose to launch a full scale attack on this rare spot of economic opportunity? This is not about partisan politics. This is not about placing blame in the run up to an election. This is about precious American jobs, security and opportunity. And it deserves our support.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• Listen Up Lawmakers: Americans Support Solar Power
• Solyndra: Illustrating a Recovery Act Supply Chain
• Solar Industry Provides Growth in Green Jobs in the US
• Obama Cleantech Stimulus: Bad Policy, Bad Politics and Bad for Cleantech
• What Does the Bankruptcy of Solyndra Mean for the Future of the US Solar Industry?

Americans report in surveys that they are likely to retire later than expected as a result of this economic downturn that doesn’t seem to want to quit. While that’s bad news for golf courses and Florida real estate, it helps one industry: energy efficient lighting.

We are squinting, rather than sprinting toward retirement these days. As part of the post-50 crowd, I very much appreciate good lighting in my work space, and I discovered that I am not alone in researching a recent report on lighting.

Why do we geezers need better lighting? A 60-year-old employee’s eyes receive only 40 percent as much light as a worker who is 30 to 40 years younger, according to a paper by Leviton. These older employees tend to dislike the one-size-fits-all lighting of most commercial buildings; in fact, find it stressful.

Lighting is best when tailored to the needs of the individual. This can be done by giving employees manual override of automated lighting, so that they can adjust brightness and color depending on what they are doing in their work station at any given moment. And of course that is one of the features touted by lighting control manufacturers – the ability of consumers to customize lighting preferences.

Why worry so much about worker comfort? Happy workers tend to stay in their jobs, and that saves employers money, says a white paper “Personal Control: Boosting Productivity, Energy Savings” by the Lighting Controls Association. New employees need about 13.5 months on the job to achieve maximum work performance. As a result, worker turnover costs a business about 1.2 to 2 times the salary allotted for the position. Research indicates that workplace design plays a significant role in employee satisfaction. And right now many people dislike the lighting, heat and acoustics of their workplace, even young folk.

Improving lighting doesn’t necessarily mean giving employees their own remotely control light bulbs – although it helps. The Light Right Consortium looked at six different lighting options in a typical office space in Albany, New York. Between 81 percent and 85 percent of employees said they were comfortable with a lighting design that provided direct/indirect lighting and wallwashing. By comparison, designs that provided light only from above received a ‘comfortable rating’ from only 69 to 71 percent of study participants. But the combination that the employees liked most included direct/indirect lighting, wallwashing and dimming controls that allowed workers to customize their lighting. This design won a ‘comfortable’ rating from 91 percent of employees.

Lighting is a booming industry. The use of LED lighting, alone, is expected to grow by 30 percent in 2011 and become a $1 billion market by 2014, according to a study, “Enterprise LED Lighting Research Report,” by Groom Energy and Greentech Media. The study targets the market for commercial and industrial LED lighting. Similar growth is occurring in the lighting controls market. Pike Research sees global revenue for lighting controls rising from $1.3 billion to $2.6 billion by 2016. Businesses, not households, are driving this growth.

Many factors account for the lighting industry’s enviable boom. But one, I think, is that it enjoys a feature most green energy products do not. Efficient and well-planned lighting provides immediate and concrete satisfaction. In contrast, I may really like the idea of my employer installing solar panels, but my senses won’t register a difference in the building’s electricity. In that regard, efficient lighting may be the “cell phone” of energy that the industry has sought for so many years – a product that can attract the mass market and turn conventional technology on its ear.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry’s top magazines and newsletters. She is publisher of the Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Related posts:

• Oh Behave – The Simple Economics of Sustainability
• Green Building the Buddhist Way — the Po Ern Shih Temple in Singapore
• Changes to T12 Fluorescent Lighting Coming Soon
• Who Does What Best in the Lighting Control Industry
• New Web App To Save Electricity