DOCSLIB.ORG

Models for Utility-Managed Rooftop Solar Programs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Models for Utility-Managed Rooftop Solar Programs MODELS FOR UTILITY-MANAGED ROOFTOP SOLAR PROGRAMS September 13, 2019 Dr. Emily A. Beagle Dr. Yael R. Glazer Dr. Joshua D. Rhodes Kelsey J. Richardson Webber Energy Group University of Texas at Austin Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 3 Glossary ................................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7 Roof Rental or Lease Programs ........................................................................................................ 8 On-Bill Rent-to-Own Tariff ............................................................................................................... 8 Sleeved Power Purchase Agreement ................................................................................................ 9 Utility-Participant Shared Distributed Energy Resources .................................................................. 9 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 9 Model and Program Evaluations ........................................................................................... 11 Roof Rental or Lease Program Model ............................................................................................. 11 CPS SolarHost .................................................................................................................................................... 11 APS Solar Partners & Solar Communities .......................................................................................................... 12 LADWP Solar Rooftops Program ....................................................................................................................... 14 TEP Solar Program ............................................................................................................................................. 16 On-Bill Rent-to-Own Tariff Model .................................................................................................. 18 Sleeved Power Purchase Agreement Model ................................................................................... 21 Utility-Participant Shared DERs MoDel ........................................................................................... 24 Green Mountain Power Resilient Home Program ............................................................................................ 24 Model Risks .......................................................................................................................... 26 Risks to Utility ................................................................................................................................ 26 Regulatory Risks ............................................................................................................................ 28 Financial Risks ................................................................................................................................ 29 Risks to Participants ....................................................................................................................... 29 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 29 Roof Rental or Lease Program ........................................................................................................ 29 PAYS .............................................................................................................................................. 30 Utility-Participant Shared DERs ...................................................................................................... 31 Sleeved PPA ................................................................................................................................... 31 Works Cited .......................................................................................................................... 33 2 Executive Summary This report investigates, reviews, and summarizes key findings on four utility-managed solar models and existing programs of each model. These models include: 1) Roof Rental or Lease Programs, 2) On-Bill Rent-to-Own Tariff (i.e., Pay-As-You-Save), 3) Sleeved Power Purchase Agreement Through Utility, and 4) Utility-Participant Shared Distributed Energy Resources. The models, and their associated programs, were evaluated across 16 criteria that aim to describe the potential benefits and drawbacks to their implementation and management. 1) Roof Rental or Lease Programs In general, the roof rental or lease program model is structured such that solar PV systems are installed on participants’ roofs at little or no upfront cost to the participant. The PV systems are owned and installed by the utility or a third-party developer and the participant is often compensated with a monetary credit or incentive on their electricity bill for allowing the utility to use (i.e., rent) their roof. This report describes five programs of this model-type. Key benefits associated with this model: • Increases distributed solar energy • Can be structured to target low to moderate income customers and renters • Can be designed to offer electricity bill savings to participants • Can be coupled with the utility’s research goals such as implementing smart meter technology and solar PV and storage for smart peak load shaving • Utility can select roofs that better align with higher local wholesale market prices Potential drawbacks associated with this model: • Often requires cross-subsidization by other ratepayers • Often associated with high maintenance costs and significant program overhead costs • Some utility structures (including municipal utilities) must partner with third-party developer to capture the ITC savings Key risks: • Due to significant maintenance and overhead costs, these programs should be carefully assessed prior to implementing a similar program by AE • Safety concerns with equipment at participants’ homes or elsewhere 2) On-Bill Rent-to-Own Tariff (Pay-As-You-Save) In the On-Bill Rent-to-Own Tariff model, the utility installs (or directly contracts out installation of) efficiency upgrades and/or solar PV systems at or on participants’ homes/buildings and recuperates those costs by adding a charge (via an on-bill tariff) to the participants’ monthly bill. The tariff is generally less than the savings captured from the upgrade/PV system thereby giving the participant an overall savings on their monthly utility bill while paying for the 3 upgrade/PV system. At the point the participant has finished paying off the upgrade/PV system, ownership transfers from the utility to the participant. Key benefits associated with this model: • Credit scores are not required so more customers can qualify for program • Customers with lack of funds to make the investments themselves can participate • Renters can participate • The utility is likely to recover most, if not all, of its investment • Homes that receive energy efficiency upgrades have lower energy demands and, as such, the energy load on the utility is reduced as more upgrades are made Potential drawbacks associated with this model: • Federal loans with favorable terms might be hard to obtain • Key risk: Utility takes on the burden of the loan terms and payback and all risks associated with having the loan 3) SleeveD Power Purchase Agreement (SPPA) Similar to virtual PPAs, in SPPAs the participant is contracting with an off-site renewable facility but relies on the utility to act as the broker. As the broker, the utility bears the market risk and would be on the hook to pay the difference if/when the market price falls below the PPA price. The utility can charge the participant a pass-through (or “sleeve”) fee for the contracted energy to cover the overhead costs and hedge against market risks. Finally, when market price is higher than the SPPA price, the utility has the opportunity to make a profit on the difference. Key benefits associated with this model: • Potentially fewer installations to manage and maintain compared to a rooftop lease program • Structure allows for utilization of ITC savings • Off-site utility-scale projects can realize economies of scale to reducing energy costs • AE has experience and competence in negotiating very low-cost PPAs • AE is a sophisticated electric wholesale market participant and understands market risk and can appropriately hedge against that risk Potential drawbacks associated with this model: • Complicated three-party contracts can add additional management overhead • Key Risk: AE bears the market risk of the PPA contract • It could be difficult to find smaller customers that are willing to enter into the longer, multi-year contracts that are typical with PPAs • Utilizing the SPPA construct with renewable energy projects that are smaller than utility- scale might make it difficult to develop products that are low enough cost to be attractive to customers • Applying the sleeved PPA framework to multifamily buildings (as the energy producers) could make it difficult to offer a competitive PPA rate to program participants 4 4) Utility-Participant Shared DistributeD Energy Resources (DER) In the Utility-Participant
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2016 Multifamily Rating
    2016 Multifamily Rating Guidebook Austin Energy Green Building Multifamily Rating: Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 4 BASIC REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................... 4 1. Plans and Specifications ................................................................................................................... 4 2. Current Codes and Regulations ....................................................................................................... 4 3. Transportation Alternatives - Bicycle Use ....................................................................................... 5 4. Building Energy Performance ........................................................................................................... 7 5. Mechanical Systems .......................................................................................................................... 9 6. Tenant Education ............................................................................................................................. 14 7. Testing ............................................................................................................................................... 14 8. Indoor Water Use Reduction ........................................................................................................... 17 9. Outdoor Water Use Reduction
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Austin Energy's Value-Of-Solar Tariff on Solar Installation Rates
    THE EFFECT OF AUSTIN ENERGY’S VALUE-OF-SOLAR TARIFF ON SOLAR INSTALLATION RATES THUY PHUNG, ISABELLE RIU, NATE KAUFMAN, LUCY KESSLER, MARIA AMODIO, GYAN DE SILVA MAY 9, 2017 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Austin EnErGy, thE municipal utility in Austin, Texas, introduced the first Value-of-Solar tariff (VOST) in thE UnitEd StatEs for its rEsidEntial customErs in 2012. ThE VOST rEplacEd Austin EnErGy’s nEt mEtErinG policy, which had allowed for solar customers to sell electricity Generated in excess of their consumption back to the utility at the electric retail rate. Under the VOST, customers are charGed for their electricity usaGe and receive a separate credit on each kilowatt-hour (kWh) their solar panels deliver to the Grid. The VOST aimEd to covEr thE infrastructurE costs associatEd with distributEd GEnEration, while fairly compEnsating customErs for thE ElEctricity thEy produced. UsinG thE diffErEncE-in-differences technique to assess the impact of the VOST on residential solar adoption ratEs, wE analyzEd solar installation ratEs bEforE and aftEr thE tariff was implemEntEd. ThE analysis controls for othEr variablEs to account for aggrEgatE timE trEnds, sEasonality, population, average housEhold incomE, political affiliation, solar rEbatEs, installation cost, and retail electricity rate. We usE two control Groups to comparE with Austin’s solar installation data: 1) thE rEst of thE statE of Texas and 2) the cities of San Antonio and Dallas. Our analysis suGGEsts that thE VOST incrEasEd solar installations ratEs in Austin whEn comparEd to thE rest of TExas. HowEvEr, this positivE result was not statistically siGnificant whEn compared to San Antonio and Dallas.
    [Show full text]
  • 48065 4 970629
    II II 1 III II 1 1 II II 1 1 II Control Number: 48065 MINEllillifiEll Item Number: 4 Addendum StartPage: 0 PUC DOCKET NO. 48065 r , • , fluttrFt 21 AM I I : 53 APPLICATION OF CENTERPOINT PUBLIC UTILITY COM1VIISSION FuEILIc ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC, LLC FILING CLERK TO REVISE ITS WHOLESALE OF TEXAS TRANSMISSION RATES APPROVED IN DOCKET NO. 47610 PURSUANT TO 16 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 25.192(h) AFFIDAVIT OF VERNETTA A. SHOWERS Before me, the undersigned notary public, this day personally appeared Vernetta A. Showers to me known, who being duly sworn according to the law deposes and says: My name is Vernetta A. Showers. I am of legal age and a resident of the State of Texas. I am employed by CenterPoint Energy as Regulatory Compliance Analyst. I have first-hand knowledge of the steps taken by CenterPoint Energy to provide notice to affected persons in connection with the application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC in Public Utility Commission of Texas (Commission") Docket No. 48065 On the same day that such application was filed in Docket No. 48065 at the Commission, CenterPoint Energy mailed notice through first class mail to every distribution service provider (DSP") listed in the matrix adopted by the Commission in P.U.C. Docket No. 46604, Commission Staffs Application to Set 2017 Wholesale Transmission Service Charges for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. In addition, CenterPoint Energy also mailed notice by first class mail on the same day as the application was filed to the parties in Docket No. 38339, Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC for Authority to Change Rates.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Energy Plans in Practice: Case Studies of Austin and Denver D
    Local Energy Plans in Practice: Case Studies of Austin and Denver D. Peterson National Renewable Energy Laboratory E. Matthews Austin Climate Protection Program M. Weingarden Greenprint Denver NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-7A20-50498 March 2011 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Local Energy Plans in Practice: Case Studies of Austin and Denver D. Peterson National Renewable Energy Laboratory E. Matthews Austin Climate Protection Program M. Weingarden Greenprint Denver Prepared under Task No. IGST.0002 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 1617 Cole Boulevard NREL/TP-7A20-50498 Golden, Colorado 80401 March 2011 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Energy Law Photo: Istock/Andreasweber
    THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW THE OIL, GAS AND ENERGY RESOURCES LAW SECTION OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS 2014 RENEWABLE ENERGY LAW photo: iStock/AndreasWeber January 28–29, 2014 AT&T Conference Center Austin, Texas EVENT SPONSORS Haynes and Boone, LLP Husch Blackwell LLP Stahl, Bernal & Davies, LLP SPONSORS Andrews Kurth LLP CohnReznick LLP K&L Gates LLP RES Americas Vinson & Elkins LLP SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS Energy Bar Association Gulf Coast Power Association The Wind Coalition Earn up to 15.00 Hours of CLE Credit Including 1.50 Hours of Ethics Credit www.utcle.org 512.475.6700 2014 RENEWABLE ENERGY LAW January 28–29, 2014 AT&T Conference Center Austin, TX Earn up to 15.00 Hours of CLE Credit Including 1.50 Hours of Ethics Credit (TX, CA, NY, OK; IL, KS Expected) TX Legal Specialization Credit Approved for Administrative Law, Oil, Gas and Mineral Law, and Real Estate Law CEP for TX Professional Engineers and TREC CE Available TUESDAY MORNING, JAN. 28, 2014 TUESDAY AFTERNOON 3:00 p.m. .50 hr Presiding Officer: Presiding Officer: Interconnection Overview Brent Stahl, Stahl, Bernal & Davies, LLP, Karen E. Jones, SunPower Corporation, Overview of recent procedural and technical Austin, TX Portland, OR requirement changes and how these have become more demanding. Is this nourishing new practical considerations such as fast-track options for smaller 7:30 a.m. Registration Opens projects? Interesting parallels in ERCOT and CAISO. Includes continental breakfast. THANK YOU TO OUR LUNCHEON SPONSOR Hala N. Ballouz, Electric Power Engineers, Inc., Austin, TX 8:25 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Energy Options for Austin Energy
    Sustainable Energy Options for Austin Energy Summary Report A Policy Research Project of The Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs September 2009 i Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs Policy Research Project Report Number 166 Sustainable Energy Options for Austin Energy Volume II Project directed by David Eaton, Ph.D. A report by the Policy Research Project on Electric Utility Systems and Sustainability 2009 The LBJ School of Public Affairs publishes a wide range of public policy issue titles. For order information and book availability call 512-471-4218 or write to: Office of Communications, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, Box Y, Austin, TX 78713-8925. Information is also available online at www.utexas.edu/lbj/pubs/. Library of Congress Control No.: 2009928359 ISBN: 978-0-89940-783-8 ©2009 by The University of Texas at Austin All rights reserved. No part of this publication or any corresponding electronic text and/or images may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the U.S.A. Policy Research Project Participants Students Lauren Alexander, B.A. (Psychology and Radio and Film), The University of Texas at Austin Karen Banks, B.A. (Geography and Sociology), The University of Texas at Austin James Carney, B.A. (International Affairs), Marquette University Camielle Compton, B.A. (Sociology and Environmental Policy), College of William and Mary Katherine Cummins, B.A. (History), Austin College Lauren Dooley, B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Power for Municipal Utilities. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    FROM COAST TO COAST, WIND POWER IS A BREEZE Clean energy has a bright future. Today a growing number of public utilities are harvesting a new source of homegrown energy. From Massachusetts to California, more than two dozen municipal utilities have wind power in their energy mix. Wind energy is attractive for many reasons: • Wind energy is clean and renewable. • Wind energy is economically competitive. • Wind energy reduces energy price risks. Unlike coal, natural gas, or oil, the “fuel” for a wind turbine will always be free. • Wind energy is popular with the public. A RECORD YEAR — Wind power is booming. Worldwide, a record 3,800 megawatts (MW) were installed in 2001. These sleek, impressive wind turbines have closed the cost gap with conventional power plants. Depending on size and location, wind farms produce electricity for 3–6 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). The nation’s investment to advance wind technology will lead to even more competitive wind generated power. OLD AND NEW — Wind power is one of mankind’s oldest energy sources. The American experience with wind technology began during Colonial times. During the 1930s, half a million windmills pumped water on the Great Plains. Today’s modern wind turbine is a far cry from the old water pumpers. Incorporating the latest engineering, these sleek, impressive machines produce affordable and reliable electricity. WIND RESOURCE POTENTIAL — Our nation is blessed with an abundance of world-class wind resources. Harnessing the strong winds that sweep across America offers an excellent business opportunity for the nation’s public utilities. MUNICIPAL WIND POWER PIONEERS From Oregon to Maine, municipal utilities are beginning Hull Municipal to harness the wind.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Austin
    PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT Dated January 10, 2017 Ratings: Moody’s: “Aa3” Standard & Poor’s: “AA” Fitch: “AA-” (See “OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION – Ratings”) NEW ISSUE Book-Entry-Only Delivery of the Bonds is subject to the receipt of the opinion of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Bond Counsel, to the effect that, assuming continuing compliance by the City of Austin, Texas (the “City”) with certain covenants contained in the Fifteenth Supplement described in this document, interest on the Bonds will be excludable from gross income for purposes of federal income taxation under existing law, subject to the matters described under “TAX MATTERS” in this document, including the alternative minimum tax on corporations. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS (Travis, Williamson and Hays Counties) $103,425,000* Electric Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2017 Dated: Date of Delivery Due: As shown on the inside cover page The bonds offered in this document are the $103,425,000* City of Austin, Texas Electric Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2017 (the “Bonds”). The Bonds are the fifteenth series of “Parity Electric Utility Obligations” issued pursuant to the master ordinance governing the issuance of electric utility system indebtedness (the “Master Ordinance”) and are authorized and being issued in accordance with a supplemental ordinance pertaining to the Bonds (the “Fifteenth Supplement”). The Fifteenth Supplement delegated to a designated “Pricing Officer” the authority to effect the sale of the Bonds, subject to the terms of the Fifteenth Supplement. See “INTRODUCTION” in this document. The Master Ordinance provides the terms for the issuance of Parity Electric Utility Obligations and the related covenants and security provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • ESG Perspectives ™ the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly – an Austin Energy Project Gone Awry
    September 2019 ESG Perspectives ™ The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly – An Austin Energy Project Gone Awry by Nick Erickson, VP of Portfolio Management The project would also create about 25 jobs in what is typically considered a high poverty region. Under the Most, if not all, sustainable energy infrastructure presumption that future property tax receipts from the projects are conceived with the best of intentions. The plant would pay off debt, Cushing School District issued environment benefits through the production of cleaner $17.75 million in municipal bonds to fund much-needed and more renewable energy. The consumer consumes renovations and updates to what is a high poverty school the cleaner energy at lower costs. The municipality district. (Cushing ISD’s percent of school-age children constructing the project benefits through a more living in poverty is 28%; the national average is 17%.) diversified, sustainable source of energy and an increase in tax receipts. And the community benefits through an increase in jobs, income, and better community programs funded through the increase in tax revenue. While the list of intended beneficiaries is long, even the best laid plans can go awry and have far reaching unintended and unexpected adverse impacts. The Good In 2008, with natural gas prices at all-time highs, the Austin City Council approved an agreement with Southern Company that would lead to the construction of a biomass power plant and a 20-year, $2.3 billion Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) to buy annually 100 megawatts of the energy generated from the 115-megawatt plant. The biomass plant, which uses wood chips to generate the electricity, was constructed Sources: U.K.
    [Show full text]
  • Appameetingroster Nodupeatt
    Registration List - Attendees Business and Financial Conference 2018 Anaheim, California September 16 - September 19, 2018 Attendee Name Title Organization Name City State George Keefe AEGIS Insurance Services, Inc. East Rutherford NJ Scot Macomber Vice President Loss Control Utility AEGIS Insurance Services, Inc. East Rutherford NJ Operations John Bilsten General Manager Algona Municipal Utilities Algona IA Branndon Kelley Chief Information Officer American Municipal Power, Inc. Columbus OH David Blaylock Senior Manager, Integrated Media American Public Power Association Arlington VA Joy Campbell Senior Meeting Planner American Public Power Association Arlington VA Angela Cuyler Manager of Accounting American Public Power Association Arlington VA John Godfrey Senior Government Relations American Public Power Association Arlington VA Director Jeff Haas Vice President, Membership & American Public Power Association Arlington VA Strategic Development Haley Herbst Manager, Membership & American Public Power Association Arlington VA Corporate Programs Kefiana Kabati Education and Meetings Assistant American Public Power Association Arlington VA Nathan Mitchell Sr. Dir, Electric Reliability American Public Power Association Arlington VA Standards & Security Harry Olibris Chief Financial Officer American Public Power Association Arlington VA Amy Rigney-Gay Vice President of Human American Public Power Association Arlington VA Resources & Administration Meghan Riley Education Specialist American Public Power Association Arlington VA Ursula Schryver
    [Show full text]
  • The Timeline and Events of the February 2021 Texas Electric Grid
    The Timeline and Events of the February 2021 Texas Electric Grid Blackouts July 2021 [Type here] The Timeline and Events of the February 2021 Texas Electric Grid Blackouts A report by a committee of faculty and staff at The University of Texas at Austin July 2021 COMMITTEE CHAIRS Carey W. King, Research Scientist, Assistant Director, Energy Institute Josh D. Rhodes, Research Associate, Department of Mechanical Engineering Jay Zarnikau, Research Fellow, Department of Economics COMMITTEE MEMBERS Contributing Authors Ning Lin, Chief Economist, Bureau of Economic Geology Additional Members Erhan Kutanoglu, Associate Professor, Operations Research and Industrial Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering Benjamin Leibowicz, Assistant Professor, Operations Research and Industrial Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering Dev Niyogi, Professor, Department of Geological Sciences; Professor, Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering Varun Rai, Professor, LBJ School of Public Affairs; Director, Energy Institute Surya Santoso, Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering David Spence, Baker Botts Chair in Law, School of Law; Professor, Department of Business, Government, and Society Stathis Tompaidis, Professor, Department of Information, Risk and Operations Management, and by courtesy, Department of Finance Hao Zhu, Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering OTHER CONTRIBUTORS Erik Funkhouser, Director for Research Coordination and Partnerships, Energy Institute
    [Show full text]
  • Austin 59.5/100 12/100
    RANK 2020 CITY CLEAN ENERGY SCORECARD 12 /100 Austin Austin earned top-10 scores in the local government operations, community-wide initiatives, and buildings policies categories, showing the city’s commitment to clean energy is strong. The city tied for the highest score in local government operations due to our projection that it will achieve its local government greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goal, its use of 100% renewable energy to power municipal operations, and the existence of an energy efficiency goal. To boost its rank in future editions of the OVERALL SCORE Scorecard, Austin can take steps to further improve its performance in the transportation policies category. AUSTIN HOW DOES AUSTIN 59.5 /100 STACK UP REGIONALLY? HOUSTON LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMUNITYWIDE INITIATIVES LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS DALLAS BUILDINGS POLICIES 8 ENERGY AND WATER UTILITIES SAN ANTONIO 2.5 TRANSPORTATION POLICIES 10 0420 0 60 80 100 COMMUNITYWIDE INITIATIVES LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS (8 OF 10 POINTS) Austin has GHG emissions reduction and clean energy goals for local government operations. Based on past 9.5 years of emissions data, ACEEE projects the city will achieve its goal of local government operations carbon 3 neutrality by 2020. Austin benchmarks building energy use, identifies energy efficiency opportunities, and 15 conducts retrocommissioning at multiple municipal buildings. The city also integrates clean energy strategies into its procurement and construction strategies; it requires the procurement of efficient vehicles, converts BUILDINGS POLICIES streetlights to LEDs, and has installed over 50 onsite municipal solar projects. 17.5 COMMUNITY-WIDE INITIATIVES (9.5 OF 15 POINTS) Austin’s climate change mitigation and renewable energy goals set the vision for a clean energy future.
    [Show full text]