Calif. & Mass. top energy efficient states

When it comes to energy efficiency, California ranks No. 1.

At least that was the finding of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy in its recently released 2010 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard report.

Massachusetts placed second and Oregon, New York and Vermont round out the top five.

"Governors, state legislators and officials, and citizens increasingly recognize energy efficiency — the kilowatt-hours and gallons of gasoline that we don’t use thanks to improved technologies and practices — as the cheapest, cleanest, and quickest energy resource to deploy," the report's drafters said.

The findings reflect those of a recent report by San Francisco-based Clean Edge Inc., which listed California just ahead of Massachusetts in a study listing the top clean energy states. That study listed innovation in multiple sectors as a key to developing a green economy.

In addition to states taking a leadership role in the energy efficiency movement by undertaking new policies and programs, the ACEEE report found:

• Alaska, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico showed the most improvement from last year's report by increasing investment in utility energy-savings programs, expanding state government initiatives and adopting better building codes. 
• State spending of $4.3 billion on energy efficiency in 2009 was about double that of two years earlier. 
• Twenty-seven states have adopted or are in the process of adopting energy efficiency resource standards that establish fixed, long-term energy efficiency savings targets. That's double the number four years ago. 
• Twenty states have adopted or are in the process of adopting improved building codes that stress energy efficiency. 
• California, Massachusetts and Washington have enacted greenhouse gas reduction targets related to transportation. 
• The injection of more than $11 billion in federal stimulus funding for state energy efficiency projects has helped create new programs that are saving money and putting people to work.

Would You Invest $30,000 To Reap A Return Of $250,000?

We here in Fresno, which is one of the hottest regions of California and has some of the highest power bills in the state, should have energy efficiency at the top of our green list.

Frankly, it boggles my mind that more property owners, legislators and policy makers still don't understand that energy retrofits are a great investment. Wouldn't you, as the headline to this article says, commit $30,000 to save $250,000 in expenses later?

Is there any investor who would not think that was a good return? Certainly, Chris Martin, director of energy management at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, thinks so. He led one of 14 teams across the country that participated in an EPA-sponsored Biggest Loser-style contest to shed the most energy weight, according to this New York Times story.

The Chapel Hill team spent $30,000 upgrading a residence hall on campus, and wound up slashing energy expenses $250,000, much of it by adjusting the heating and cooling system to run slower during moderate weather. All combined, the school cut energy use 36% .

The university engaged residents of the hall in the process. CityBiz Magazine said a touch-screen computer was installed in the dorm's lobby so students could track energy consumption. Each floor held energy-saving competitions, and reminders were posted in elevators, bathrooms, and common areas.

That means more money in university coffers. I don't know if Chapel Hill is strapped for cash, but I know a few campuses in California that would love the extra money.

Chapel Hill has seen the light, so to speak. Upgrades to 100 buildings on campus saved nearly $4 million last year, according to the New York Times. The average savings per building was $33,000. The average per-building investment: only $7,000.

"The payback is on the order of months, not years," Martin told the newspaper.

Other teams also got good returns for their investments. A Sears store in Maryland cut energy consumption 31.7%. A JC Penney outlet in Orange, Calif., reduced energy use 28.4%. Together, the 14 teams saved $950,000 on power bills.

Businesses and others in the San Joaquin Valley could probably reap good returns too. After all, temperatures reach triple digits in the summer. Businesses and families pay the price with heart-stopping power bills.

Retrofits and modifications such as these are the low-hanging fruit of the whole greening movement. Consider the iconic Empire State Building. A $20 million energy-efficiency upgrade, which includes more than 6,000 new windows, will shave $4.4 million annually off the power bill.
That's a payback of 4.5 years. Simply amazing.

Commercial building space in the United States covers a total of 79 billion square feet, and buildings, 80 percent of which are more than a decade old, are one of the leading sources of energy consumption and carbon emissions, said a recent report on commercial building energy efficiency by Boulder, Colo.-based Pike Research.

The report, "Energy Efficiency Retrofits for Commercial and Public Buildings," estimates potential annual energy savings of more than $41.1 billion if all commercial space built as of 2010 were included in a 10-year retrofit program.

Unfortunately, shredded budgets, the freezing of Property Assessed Clean Energy programs and an economic recession make it harder for businesses, homeowners and landlords to finance the upgrades.

But those who can manage it might enjoy a nice financial return.

(Photo of Morrison Hall by online wsj.com)

Green jobs? Heck yes, workers say

Those on the unemployment line aren't the only ones hoping for a break.

Many who are out of work or have had to take anything the job market has had to offer these past two years are hunting and/or daydreaming about a better position and future. And all this tepid economic news about a slow recovery -- coupled with almost daily reports of growing fallout by shadow foreclosure inventory and about 25 percent of U.S. homeowners under water on their mortgages -- doesn't help.

The recession-plagued economy has elevated interest in so-called green jobs, especially when a number of reports tout the up-and-coming sector's influence. Yet when these forecast jobs materialize and what they will look like remain as hazy as the view from Fresno to the Sierra Mountains. (For those who haven't gotten the opportunity to see what I'm referring to, let's just say it's very hazy and sometimes muddy.)

San Francisco-based research and advisory firm Clean Edge Inc. offers some clarity and digestible information with its report "Clean Tech Job Trends 2010." Company co-founder Ron Pernick, senior editor Clint Wilder and research associate Trevor Winnie summarize and gather data from other reports and bring their own findings to plot out a fairly optimistic view of the future of clean tech in the realms of wind, solar, water, materials and transportation.

"There are many challenges facing the sector, but clean energy and more broadly, clean tech, offer some of the largest growth opportunities on the global economic horizon," they write.

Clean Edge carves the market into four parts: energy, transportation, water and materials. Energy includes everything from wind, biomass and the smart grid. Transporation includes battery technology, trains, hybrids and hydrogen. Water includes recovery and capture, drip irrigation and energy efficient desalination. Materials includes bio-based materials, green chemistry and building materials and reuse and recycling.

The list is diverse and the job requirements even more so. But promise radiates from every sector.

Clean Edge says its research shows that "the solar photovoltaic industry alone now represents approximately 300,000 direct and indirect jobs globally, while the wind-power sector includes more than 500,000 direct and indirect jobs worldwide."

Not bad. It also cites reports that say Ireland, Denmark and Great Britain are on track to receive about 40 percent their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, following the lead of Portugal which reportedly is to reach 45 percent this year.

Of course, all this comes with a downside. Renewables -- at least on their face and not including all the damage done by greenhouse gas emissions -- cost more than fossil fuels. Without government assistance, they can fall flat. For instance, Spain -- a leader in solar -- is reportedly pulling subsidies, or feed-in tariffs, for renewables, threatening the future of many new projects and others countries are doing the same to a lesser degree.

And in the blogosphere, the issue has generated controversy. A comment on a greentechmedia.com story about incandescent bulb plants disappearing got this from a responder calling him or herself John Galt: "A set of technologies and products created at great cost to solve a problem that had already been solved (generating electricity), at costs considerably higher than the costs of the technologies they seek to supplant? My 12 year old daughter knows that’s a losing business proposition."

Environmental strategist and author Andrew Wilson says the debate over green jobs is far more nuanced than simply focusing on solar panel installers. He writes in HuffingtonPost.com that the international job market is facing a choice of decline or prosperity, with fossil fuels comprising the former.

"Oil is basically at peak production globally, and coal plants are nearly impossible to build in the U.S. anymore," Wilson writes. "Even as the world demands more energy, and even as fossil fuel production continues, these companies will continue to get more efficient with labor. So don't count on the fossil guys to create new wealth and jobs."

Wilson and Clean Tech point to a future of green-related jobs over a wide array of industries, linked only by concept. The mainstays, solar and wind, will provide positions but the multiplier effect comes from the spin-offs, the related support and supply jobs.

"There are more subtle shifts in labor going on as companies that did one thing in the old economy are finding their skills useful in the new one," Winston writes. He cites the case of an oil-patch cable company laying undersea electrical transmission lines for offshore wind turbines.

Pernick and Wilder at Clean Edge acknowledge clean tech needs assistance from government. They called for five national policies and initiatives they believe could play a critical role in ensuring clean-tech growth and job creation.

The first is requiring that a certain percentage of power generation come from renewables. The others were supporting green infrastructure development, enforcing emissions rules, establishing green banks, bonds and funds and implementing carbon taxes.

So what's it mean? Clean Tech's report listed the top metro areas with clean tech job activity. At Nos. 1 and 2 were San Francisco and Los Angeles. Boston came in at No. 3, with New York, Denver and Washington, D.C. filling out the top six. And the salaries aren't bad.

"A new green economy is just that -- a whole new economy, with job openings at all skill levels, from truck drivers to inventors of new battery chemistry," Winston says.

And someday soon something might just pop up on Monster.com for you.

Judge Lifts TRO; Energy Commission Moves Ahead With Power Plan

The California Energy Commission plans to implement a proposed energy upgrade program after an appellate court lifted a restraining order that prevented the agency from distributing $33 million in federal funds.

Commissioners scheduled a hearing today to approve contracts that would implement the Energy Upgrade California Program. That $33 million plan contains, among other provisions, a PACE-like program that falls outside the scope of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

According to federal rules, the money had to be encumbered by the end of today, although the Department of Energy had made it clear it would not immediately rescind the money.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency had recommended against PACE programs, which use property tax assessments to finance energy upgrades on homes and commercial property. The agency believed PACE obligations would be placed ahead of mortgage loans if the owner defaults.

Fresno and Kern counties were part of a PACE pilot program that was put on hold after the Housing Finance Agency issued its "guidance" and after Western Riverside Council of Governments filed a lawsuit claiming its energy-efficiency program was ignored when $33 million in federal funding was distributed.

The California Energy Commission said the council's $20 million bid was disqualified because it ignored energy-efficiency provisions.

Today, an appellate judge lifted a temporary restraining order imposed by a Riverside County judge in connection with the lawsuit. The restraining order had prevented the CEC from spending the remaining $33 million in federal stimulus funds. No comment yet from representatives of Western Riverside.

The appellate court also canceled a Nov. 4 hearing on a possible contempt charge the Riverside County judge imposed against the Energy Commission. Western Riverside County Council of Governments continued to oppose the Energy Commission programs even though the Federal Housing Finance Agency action had effectively suspended its own PACE program.

Making Our Way To Energy Storage: Jimmy Buffett, The Holy Grail and The Manhattan Project

By Rick Phelps




"cliches. Good ways to say what you mean...mean what you say."


--Jimmy Buffett, 1975

I hadn't thought about the Holy Grail since an old Indiana Jones movie and was a little surprised when someone said that it was becoming a cliche to refer to energy storage as the Holy Grail of renewable energy. My mind immediately recalled the lyrics of an old Buffett song and I realized Jimmy may have it right: say what you mean...mean what you say. When it comes to the future, energy storage IS the Holy Grail. Without storage, flexibility is lost and progress stalls.


But what is energy storage? Storage includes batteries large and small, compressed air, pumped water systems, fly wheels and a host of other ideas, both new and old. All generally work, but the limiting criteria are cost and scale. The cost question is whether it costs less to store a kilowatt than it does to generate it. The scale issue relates to the application, but generally refers to the amount of energy needed to be stored. For example, large lead-acid batteries might work fine for a home with a 4-kilowatt load, but not so well for a utility-sized wind project with a capacity of 25 megawatts.


To put the energy-storage issue in perspective, think about its impact on remote communities in the Eastern Sierra. Electricity could be stored locally and additional distribution lines - at a cost of millions - would be unnecessary.


Private-sector companies, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) are making progress on energy-storage cost and scale, but there are not yet any major breakthroughs, and the need for more storage in renewable energy continues to grow.


The quest for this Holy Grail is critical for at least three compelling reasons.


First, two major forms of renewable energy - wind and solar - are intermittent and not necessarily generated at the same time there is electricity demand. Often the actual capacities of wind and solar projects are less than 50 percent of stated capacity and said capacity needs to be backed up from conventional sources such as natural gas or coal. If the energy generated could be stored economically for later use, the renewable projects would be more economically viable as they always "sell" their capacity, and might be able to reduce their invested capital with a more efficient operation. Plus, the land use footprint for wind and solar might be lessened.


Second, if renewable energy is more efficient due to effective storage, there would be less need to ensure that conventional generation capacity is available as backup. Fewer conventional power plants will need to be built and transmission capacity might be reduced if large electricity imports were not necessary to meet the demands of a high-renewable region if production was not up to capacity.


Third, energy storage can be used to make the grid more efficient and optimize transmission and distribution capacity. This gets complicated, but the easiest way to explain it is that if inputs into the grid are predictable, it's a lot easier and economic to manage. In that way, the grid and storage become a lot like our own financial budget - when we know what's coming in, it's a lot easier to manage what goes out.



If energy storage is truly the Holy Grail, where are the speeches demanding that we triple our capacity by 2020, or that the United States become the energy-storage technology center for the world? You don't hear those speeches because energy storage is pretty dull stuff and certainly neither sexy nor photogenic, but if we were to solve the problem, storage would indeed be the Holy Grail, which brings us to The Manhattan Project.


To the baby boom generation, The Manhattan Project is well known, but to those lucky enough to be younger, it's a little more obscure and even ancient history. The Manhattan Project had its start in 1939 when Albert Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt warning him that the Germans were likely to develop a nuclear weapon with great destructive power, and the United States should counter the German effort with its own initiative. President Roosevelt accepted this challenge and committed the government to this endeavor, and by 1942 The Manhattan Project was well under way.


The Project culminated with the successful test of the first nuclear weapon in July 1945 and, following the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the end of World War II. Over 125,000 scientists and staff at no fewer than 30 sites around the country had fathered this technology and spent $22 billion in today's dollars. Solutions were found to problems thought at the time to be unsolvable.


The Manhattan Project is symbolic of what can be accomplished with an all-out effort and many, including Bill Gates, have called for a "Manhattan Project" in renewable energy, regardless of cost or risk. This seems a worthy idea, but wouldn't it make more sense to first solve the "critical-path" issue of energy storage? Otherwise, what are we going to do with all that renewable energy once we have it?

Rick Phelps is Executive Director of the High Sierra Energy Foundation. The views expressed in this column are those of the author.

Energy audits to go mainstream?

There are a couple of ways to create wealth: cut costs or make more.

The faltering economy has boosted cost cutting in corporate energy use, leading a growing number of companies to install efficiency retrofits in their commercial and industrial facilities.

Makes sense to save on utility bills. Not every CEO has the money-generating potential of a Jay Z or Warren Buffett.

Colin Davis is watching the trend closely. The founder and CEO of Cambridge, Mass.-based kWhOURS Inc. just released a new product he hopes will take off. kW-Field is a software-based management platform that enables energy auditors to handle the huge and diverse amounts data collected when they scan big buildings for retrofit opportunities.

Davis said the commercial market has been growing consistently over the past several years. Green, he said, doesn't have to be sexy to make financial sense. The sector has been led by sustainability-minded Walmart.

"You can make great money on efficiency," Davis said.

Investments can pay off in a matter of a few years and cut energy bills from anywhere to 10 percent to 30 percent or more. Energy is a huge cost for many companies.

The energy auditing process is tough. I've done it. Counting thousands of lights is not fun or interesting and remembering whether Room 222 has T12 34 watt 4-lamp flourescent or already has several 28 watt T8s with digital ballasts is near impossible with a messy notebook.

Davis' product loads all an auditor's information on a laptop, including photos and even audio files. It also stores thermal images, utility bills and "reams of notes on operating conditions, schedules, light levels, air and power quality readings." The software then manipulates the data in whatever format is required.

Davis said in the couple weeks since his product has launched, "a ton of people" have signed up for the two-week trial and bigger players have shown interest.

Other companies venturing into the energy efficiency market offer verification of its big potential.

Eric Wesoff of Greentechmedia.com gave an indication when he wrote of a conversation with Solar City executives at the Solar Power International Show this week in Los Angeles.

Wesoff said Solar City officials told him their company's going big into the audit market, "offering a home tune-up free with every solar lease or solar purchase in California," for a limited time.

And the movement is likely coming to a house near you. In California, for instance, the state is set to adopt rules expanding the scope of the Home Energy Rating System, or HERS. HERS inspectors check the building "envelope," looking for anything that wastes energy.

Davis isn't convinced homeowners will pony up the willpower and cash necessary to make energy audits the next big thing in the residential market.

But who knows? Other players like Recurve and Energy Doctors are betting on the residential sector.

If my experience is any indication, energy upgrades make sense. My new air conditioner coupled with new doors, added attic insulation, improved ductwork and new double-pane treated windows generated low utility bills. I had some envious friends.

But my house is small, 1,278 square feet. I had an evaporative, or "swamp," cooler until this year. It's good for making the house bayou-like when the outside temp heats up past 95 degrees. My neighbor Juan convinced me a new AC wouldn't cost too much more in monthly electricity bills, explaining that he keeps his at 68 degrees and pays less than $300 per month. Juan lays asphalt and says he needs it cold after working on 130-degree blacktop all day. His house is about 200 square feet smaller than mine, however, and has lower ceilings.

The key to lower energy payments is looking at the whole building. One energy-saving element benefits another. Insulated floors, for instance, are a worthy upgrade, said John White, an Internet savvy AC contractor in North Carolina.

"Floor insulation is perhaps the most overlooked yet unbelievably best energy saving investments to be made," White wrote on his site, johnwhite.net. "An uninsulated 1500 Sq. Ft. floor over a crawl space located in an average climate ... will return about $300 per year savings when insulated to R-19."

It's all about the return. And these days any savings is a very good thing.

Photo: kW-Field software screen grab.

Valley Receives $4 million Regional Planning Grant

A regional effort led by the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley has landed a $4 million Sustainable Communities federal grant to develop smart-growth principles in the eight-county region.

The Partnership worked with representatives of all eight San Joaquin Valley counties to apply for a Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant from Housing and Urban Development. The Valley's proposal, called Smart Valley Places, was one of 45 applications totaling nearly $100 million approved nationwide - and was one of only two awarded in California. It also was the largest award in California.

Fourteen cities within the eight counties cooperated with California State University, Fresno; the Regional Policy Council (which consists of councils of government for all eight counties); and several non-profit organizations to develop a regional plan for smart growth in the Valley.

The HUD Sustainable Communities program will support regional efforts across the country that connect housing with good jobs, high-quality schools and transportation.

"Regions that embrace sustainable housing communities will have a built-in competitive edge in attracting jobs and private investment," said Shaun Donovan, secretary of HUD. "Rather than sticking to the old Washington playback of dictating how communities can invest their grants, HUD's application process encouraged creative, locally focused thinking."

The grants are part of a President Obama plan that brings together several federal agencies to help local communities create better housing, more efficient and reliable transportation and reinforce existing investment, according to this press release from HUD.

The Valley plan was approved despite strong competition. "The response to this program was huge. We were inundated with applications from every state and two territories - from central cities to rural areas and tribal governments," said Shelley Poticha, director of HUD's new office of Sustainable Housing and Communities.

The other award in California was $1.5 million to Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

Study: San Joaquin Valley Has Potential for 100,000 Local Clean Energy Jobs

MERCED -- Renewable energy projects slated for the San Joaquin Valley could bring more than 100,000 jobs to the area, according to a new study by UC Merced Professor Dr. Shawn Kantor.

The study, "The Economic Opportunity from Clean Energy Jobs in California's San Joaquin Valley," calculates job creation from two of the Valley's most significant industries including planned and pending-approval renewable energy projects and the high-speed rail system. Jointly, these two industries are expected to create as many as 103,510 new production and construction jobs right here in the San Joaquin Valley. Production jobs are defined in the study as long-term, while construction jobs are limited-term.

"Taken together, clean energy and high speed rail have the potential to fundamentally change the trajectory of economic development and job creation in the San Joaquin Valley," said Kantor, professor and County Bank Endowed Chair in Economics at University of California, Merced, author of the study. "The San Joaquin Valley is keeping pace with other regions by creating just as many jobs to support a clean energy economy in California."

The report, issued by the California Business Alliance for a Green Economy, explains that the San Joaquin Valley is well positioned to attract jobs in the clean energy sector – three jobs for every one job created by the high-speed rail system. The transition to cleaner energy sources is expected to bring economic growth to the region, supporting cleantech as well as traditional business.

Valley renewable energy projects analyzed in the study include Hydrogen Energy California (HECA) in Kern County, Bioenergy in Fresno, Madera Power in Madera, DTE Energy Services in San Joaquin County, Eurus San Drag in Kings County, and SPS Alpaugh in Tulare County, among others.

"This report illustrates that a healthy and prosperous future for the Valley, and all of California, depends upon a clean, green and efficient economy," said Susan Frank, coordinator for the California Business Alliance for a Green Economy. "As these Valley-based jobs are created, that will translate into a boost in the bottom line for the many small, mainstream businesses providing products and services for the clean tech sector."

According to the author, the major economic waves that have swept across California in recent decades, such as biotechnology and computer technology, have largely bypassed the San Joaquin Valley. Meanwhile, the emerging clean technology sector is creating jobs at an equal pace with other regions of the state. For example, statewide employment in clean energy grew from 117,000 to 159,000 from 1995 to 2008 (36%), while San Joaquin Valley employment increased by 48% over the same period (Next 10: Many Shades of Green, 2009).

Further, the San Joaquin Valley is expected to produce 10% of California's renewable energy within the next ten years once all pending biomass, solar, hydrogen and wind energy projects come online, with the majority of job creation coming from solar.

"The best part about it is that the renewable energy industry is bringing jobs to our community. These jobs are coming to California because of clean energy policies that make us a leader in the nation," said Tom Cotter, Central California sales manager for Real Goods Solar and member of the California Business Alliance for a Green Economy.

"In fact, Fresno is well positioned to be a leader in this effort. We have skilled workers, university resources and an unlimited supply of entrepreneurial spirit." Cotter is co-founder of Green Fresno and is the organizer of Fresno Solar Tour, part of the National Solar Tour, the largest annual grassroots solar event in history.

Based on projections from the California High-Speed Rail Authority, an estimated 24,000 construction jobs will be created in the San Joaquin Valley to build the rail network in the region. The high-speed rail network and strong renewable electricity standards (33% by 2020) are included in the plan to meet the goals of the state's landmark clean energy law (AB 32).

The report is available online .

The California Business Alliance for a Green Economy is a network of more than 930 small, mainstream businesses and business associations around the state who believe that a healthy and prosperous future for California depends on a clean, green and efficient economy. The California Business Alliance for a Green Economy supports the implementation of California's clean energy policies, including AB 32, through the adoption of standards and programs by the California Air Resources Board and other public agencies.

Visit us at www.ca-greenbusinessalliance.com.

Contact: BreAnda Northcutt, (916) 446-1955


SOURCE California Business Alliance for a Green Economy

Green Building Council Urges “No” Vote on Prop 23

The Central California chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council believes passage of Prop. 23, the so-called “dirty energy proposition,” will devastate the emerging green building and technology industry in the state.

The chapter recommends a “no” vote on the legislation, which would suspend AB 32, California’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, until the state’s unemployment rate stays below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters – which has happened only three times since 1980.

Texas-based oil companies and a large coal company are pouring millions into the Prop. 23 efforts. The Green Building Council, however, believes the proposed legislation, which will be on the Nov. 2 ballot, will:

· Stifle a blossoming green industry in California. Since 2005, green jobs have grown 10 times faster than other industries. There are currently 500,000 green jobs in the state, of which 68,000 are in construction – an industry that has been hit hard in the recession;
· Put California’s new green building code at risk;
· Threatens green building and investment. The state has 12,000 clean-tech firms and received $10.4 billion in investment capital between 2006 and 2010.

The Central California chapter is urging members to get out and vote and to spread the message to 20 colleagues or friends through e-mail, USGBC CAC or StopDirtyEnergyProp on Facebook.

The “No on Prop 23” campaign has strong bi-partisan support. Both gubernatorial candidates, Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown, also oppose the legislation, as do many business, health, labor and environmental organizations.

A new frontier for saving energy

Commercial buildings present a relatively untapped frontier when it comes to energy savings and greenhouse gas reduction potential.

Corporations like Walmart, which last month rolled out its solar initiative to add solar generating systems to another 20 to 30 sites in California and Arizona and has as its goal sustainability, remain a minority. Many buildings remain unchanged, sucking up just as much or more energy -- and costing more because of steady utility rate increases -- as they did when they were built.

Commercial building space in the United States covers a total of 79 billion square feet, and buildings, 80 percent of which are more than a decade old, are one of the leading sources of energy consumption and carbon emissions, said a recent report on commercial building energy efficiency by Boulder, Colo.-based Pike Research.

The report, "Energy Efficiency Retrofits for Commercial and Public Buildings," estimates potential annual energy savings of more than $41.1 billion if all commercial space built as of 2010 were included in a 10-year retrofit program.

Reduced energy consumption isn't the only benefit.

"Commercial buildings use almost 20 percent of all energy in the United States and are a significant contributor to GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions. From a policy perspective, energy efficiency in buildings is the most lucrative potential source of GHG reductions," wrote analyst Levin Nock and Clint Wheelock, Pike Research managing director.

It's not cheap. Pike Research estimates that such retrofit programs would cost $22.5 billion annually over the 10-year period.

Often, however, the return on investment is near immediate. And resources are availble.

In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy and its Pacific Northwest National Laboratory today released a report explaining how to achieve up to 50 percent energy savings in quick-service restaurants. PNNL, in Richland, Wash., my old stomping grounds, said the report is expected to provide the basis for a series of how-to guides "that show architects, engineers and building designers how to achieve above-code exemplary energy performance for buildings."

The fixes recommended for fast food restaurants were:

• Ultra-efficient cooking appliances that reduce kitchen exhaust air flow.
• An optimized HVAC system configuration.
• Efficient exterior and interior lighting with dimming controls in the dining room.
• Enhanced insulation, cool roofs and high-performance window glazing.

DOE is working with the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, the American Institute of Architects, the Illuminating Engineering Society and the U.S. Green Building Council to develop and publish the reports.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money also is finally flowing into California and other states across the nation for energy efficiency retrofits to municipal buildings. My outfit, the San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organization, is working with 39 cities and counties to administer Energy Effciency and Conservation Block Grant allocations to improve lighting, air conditioning, pumps and other building components.

We're about to unleash crews to make about $4 million worth of changes. The difference will be immediate for small cities, in some cases saving jobs. The San Joaquin Valley, like many regions in the counrty, was hard hit by the recession and property tax declines emptied municipal coffers, forcing jurisdictions to cut staffing to the bone.

That economy certainly isn't helping the private sector. About the last thing anybody wants to do is put money into new lights or HVAC systems, much less window glazing or added insulation.

“The current financial crisis has had a significant dampening effect on property owners’ investments in their properties," said Pike Research's Wheelock. "Financing for such projects is scarce, and the limited investment in building efficiency is not keeping pace with the growing national demand for energy.”

Photo: San Francisco Union Square.