This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
N E


W S


 


Across Real-estate Portfolios Snowmass, Colo.-based Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) and AT&T Inc., Dallas, are working together to develop a real- estate-portfolio approach to dramatically improve energy efficiency in AT&T’s facilities as part of the Portfolio Energy RetroFit Challenge. Launched by RMI in 2012, the Portfolio Energy RetroFit Challenge aims to demonstrate to building owners and operators that deep-energy retrofits are technically feasible and financially prudent, especially when applied at scale. ¶ The scope of AT&T’s real-estate portfolio includes more than 65,000 facilities in more than 60 countries. The Portfo- lio Energy RetroFit Challenge aims to build on AT&T’s current energy program to drive larger energy savings and enhance the company’s competitive advantage in an ever-growing energy- intensive industry. “In 2011, we implemented more than 4,500 efficiency projects that totaled an annualized savings of $42 million,” explains John Schinter, AT&T’s executive director of Energy. “By working with RMI, we’re looking to identify ways to expand our program even further.” ¶ Beginning with a high-level, portfolio-wide analysis, RMI and AT&T teams will determine how efficiency investments can make the greatest impact. The product of that analysis will be a long-term capital and construction schedule for deploying extensive retrofits and other bundles of efficiency measures across a portfolio at the right time, utilizing the right technologies, business processes and operational strategies. ¶ The Portfolio Energy RetroFit Challenge is intended to be a model for companies to select efficiency improvements that support important corpo- rate real-estate goals, such as improving space utilization or improving occupant satisfaction and demand. “While progress has been made on a building-by-building basis, what’s needed now is a way to scale,” says Coreina Chan, RMI buildings consultant. “By enabling large-portfolio building owners to pursue upwards of 50 percent savings across multiple buildings through a deliberate and well-timed portfolio-wide strategy, we can demonstrate that building efficiency is a smart investment.” ¶ For more information, visit www.rmi.org.


RMI Improves Energy Efficiency


SOLAR COSTS DECREASE


BUT SO DO INCENTIVES The installed price of solar photovoltaic (PV) power systems in the U.S. fell substantially in 2011 and through the first half of 2012, according to “Tracking the Sun V: An His- torical Summary of the Installed Price of Pho- tovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to


2011,” an annual PV cost-tracking report produced by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berke- ley National Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif. The median installed price of residential and commercial PV systems completed in 2011 fell by roughly 11 to 14 percent from the year before, de- pending on system size. In California, prices fell by an additional 3 to 7 percent within the first six months of 2012. These recent installed price reductions are attributable, in large part, to dramatic reductions in PV module prices, which have been falling precipi- tously since 2008. The report indicates that non-module costs—such


as installation labor, marketing, overhead, inverters and the balance of systems—have declined by roughly 30 percent from 1998 to 2011. “The drop in non- module costs is especially important,” notes report Co-author Ryan Wiser of Berkeley Lab’s Environ- mental Energy Technologies Division. “These costs can be most readily influenced by local, state and national policies aimed at accelerating deployment and removing market barriers.” Non-module costs now represent a sizable fraction of the installed price of PV systems, and continued deep reduction in the price of PV will require concerted emphasis on lower- ing the portion of non-module costs associated with so-called “business process” or “soft” costs. State agencies and utilities in many regions


retrofit’s Weekly Newsletter Is Launching in January!


Interested in more news like this? Join our mailing list by visiting www. retrofitmagazine.com, and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter. It cov- ers the latest industry and manufacturer news, as well as highlights new products, shares blogs from industry experts and showcases videos.


14 RETROFIT // January-February 2013


offer rebates or other forms of cash incentives for residential and commercial PV systems. According to the report, the median pre-tax value of such cash incentives ranged from 90 cents to $1.20 per watt for systems installed in 2011, depending on system size. These incentives have declined significantly over time, falling by roughly 80 percent during the past decade and by 21 to 43 percent from 2010-11. Rather than a direct cash incentive, some states with renewables portfolio standards provide financial incentives for PV by creating a market for solar renewable energy certificates (SRECs), and SREC prices have also fallen dramatically in recent years. These declines in cash incentives and SREC prices have, to a significant degree, offset recent installed price reductions, dampening any overall improvement in the customer economics of solar PV. The full report may be downloaded from 1.usa.


gov/Y0G9mc. In addition, a high-level overview of historical, recent and projected near-term PV pricing trends in the U.S. is available at 1.usa.gov/10Qdfnh.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68