One might say that energy efficiency is completing its intrepid trek into the public consciousness. In a final frontier, a land so tied to the production of oil and natural gas that it lends its name to a supply pipeline and is synonymous with the debate of over oil exploration and production, a push for expanding energy efficiency efforts is afoot. 
Alaska, one of the few remaining states — along with Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia — in which neither the utilities nor the state provide any assistance for businesses deploying energy efficiency technologies, is considering changing that stance.
State Rep. Clarisse Millett, R-Anchorage, has recognized the value of energy efficiency for her state’s residents and businesses. She has gone as far as saying that energy efficiency is the “the low-hanging fruit, the quickest, most economical things that we [State government] can do as a state to make sure that our residents have every opportunity to save on energy costs.”
A recent plan that has been published by the Alaska Conservation Alliance details how the state can capture the significant economic and environmental benefits of the available energy efficiency potential in the state. In part, the program proposes that energy consumption be reduced through energy efficiency by 3.3 percent per year between 2010 and 2025. More than one-third of this annual reduction can come, as the report accurately identifies, from reducing lighting energy consumption. As has been noted on this blog before, traditional illumination sources consume more energy to deliver significant less light that modern high-bay lighting technology.
This push by Alaska shows that despite the publicity and political support that energy efficiency receives, the business sector and corporate decision-makers often still need an additional incentive to commit to these projects. Therefore, despite arguments to the contrary, it is highly unlikely that the efficiency market is saturated or fully transformed, and some or all energy efficiency incentives are no longer required.
In fact, the report by the Alaska Conservation Alliance contains an entire section detailing the case for energy efficiency for businesses. This clearly suggests that despite the great efforts and legitimate progress made, the energy efficiency market is by no means saturated or transformed. In fact, when one of the states synonymous with oil and gas production is seeking to capture efficiency gains, there still gains for all states to capture.
Orion Energy Systems commends the Alaska Conservation Alliance and political leaders like Rep. Millett for their efforts in advancing the benefits of the people of Alaska. Orion has been developing innovative energy-efficiency products and control solutions throughout its nearly 15 year history.
Throughout this history, Orion has seen firsthand the benefits that states experience when they open energy-efficiency incentive programs for their residents and businesses. Orion currently does business in all 50 states, Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Chile and China and has on average 81 projects per state. The five states that have not introduced incentives for energy efficiency have completed 102 projects total (Alabama-37, Mississippi-25, Louisiana-24, West Virginia-15, and Alaska-1).
On the inverse, of the top 10 states that Orion does business with (on average 350 projects per state); only Pennsylvania has had energy efficiency incentives for less than 1 year. For a state specific example of the impact of introducing energy efficiency incentives, consider the case of Illinois.
Orion’s energy efficiency projects in the state have increased by more than 100 percent since the introduction of incentives in June 2008 (from 211 projects prior as of June 30, 2008, to 442 projects in the state as of Dec. 31, 2009). This tremendous increase in project count has been more of the rule than the expectation in Illinois since the introduction of utility energy efficiency incentives as mandated by state legislation. The completion of 230-plus projects in 18 months in a state that had previously done only 200-plus projects in over 6 years testifies to the power of introducing energy-efficiency incentives into a state’s economy as the Alaska Conservation Alliance recommends. It also shows that Rep. Millett is correct in identifying energy efficiency as the “low-hanging fruit” in fostering economic growth and saving people money — both critical goals in any economic climate, but especially so in our current one.
