서울시 에너지효율화 정책의

활성화 방안 연구

2016년 7월

송  형  래

차  례

1.0	INTRODUCTION

1.1	Background ··················································· 4

1.2	Objectives ······················································5

2.0	METHODOLOGY

2.1	Identification of energy efficiency programs in United States ······ 6

2.2	Feasibility Analysis ··········································· 6

2.2.1	Political feasibility ·················································· 6

2.2.2	Financial feasibility ················································· 7

2.2.3	Technical feasibility ················································  7

2.2.4	Administrative feasibility ···········································  7

2.2.5	Legal - ethical feasibility ·········································· 7

3.0	THE POLICIES FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN SEOUL

3.1	Regulatory Policy ············································· 8

3.1.1	Green Building Design Standards ································  8

3.1.2	Energy Consumption Cap System for New Buildings ··········· 9

3.1.3	Enhancement of Environmental Impact Assessment Criteria ····· 9

3.1.4	Energy Standard for Public Building ······························ 9

3.1.5	Regulation of outdoor signboard light ··························· 10

3.2	Financial Incentives

3.2.1	Loan program ····················································· 10

3.2.2	Green Building Incentives ········································ 11

3.2.3	Performance Contract ············································  11

4.0	ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICY IN UNITED  STATES

4.1	Regulatory policy ············································ 13

4.1.1	Appliance and Equipment Standards (AES) ····················  13

4.1.2	Building Energy Codes Program ································· 17

4.1.3	Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) ·················  20

4.1.4	Energy Standards for Public Buildings ·························· 24

4.1.5	Public Benefits Fund ·············································  27

4.2	Financial Incentives ········································· 29

4.2.1	Bond Program ····················································  29

4.2.2	Energy efficiency-related Tax policy  ··························· 31

4.2.3	Grant Program ···················································· 35

4.2.4	Green Building Incentive ········································· 37

4.2.5	Leasing Program ·················································  39

4.2.6	Loan Program ····················································· 41

4.2.7	PACE Financing ··················································  43

4.2.8	Rebate Program ··················································  45

4.2.9  Utility Rate Discount ··············································  48

5.0	FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

5.1	Selection of energy efficiency program ······················  50

5.2   Feasibility Analysis ··········································· 51

6.0	CONCLUSION ··············································  53

국외훈련 개요

1. 훈련국 : 미국

2. 훈련기관명: University of Colorado Denver

3. 훈련분야 : 기후환경

4. 훈련기간 : 2014. 7. 28 ~ 2016. 7. 27

1.0	INTRODUCTION

1.1	Background

Energy efficiency is a way of managing and restraining the growth in energy consumption. Something is more energy efficient if it delivers more services for the same energy input, or the same services for less energy input (IEA, 2016). The benefits of energy efficiency are manifold : lower energy bills, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gases, energy security, and deferred infrastructures costs. International Energy Agency (IEA) emphasized the improvement of energy saving and energy efficiency as a primary means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and expected to achieve approximately 47% of total greenhouse gas reductions through improved energy efficiency and conservation by 2035. As a result, energy efficiency has been recognized as the most cost-effective way to reduce energy consumption in the developed countries, such as Europe, Japan and United States.

Federal and state governments in the United States have adopted regulatory policy and financial incentives aimed at increasing energy efficiency and productivity. Federal policies for energy efficiency have tended to focus on product standards and fiscal tools, which affect the efficiency profile of products and investments that enter the market. State efficiency policies have tended to focus on regulatory policies and  financial incentives more directly in their jurisdiction. Through such polices for energy efficiency, the United States made significant gains in energy productivity. Economists have estimated that the adoption of more efficient products and services is responsible for 60-75% of the increase in energy productivity since 1970 (ACNEEP, 2013).

In the other hands, Seoul introduced a new sustainable urban energy policy in 2012 which is called One Less Nuclear Power Plant Initiative (OLNPPI), aiming to reduce 2 million TOE of energy demand by 2014. Seoul has implemented various regulatory policies and  financial incentives, such as building energy codes, energy standard for public building, and loan program, to improve energy efficiency in building, lighting  and transportation, recognizing that energy efficiency is cost-effective strategy to achieve the goal of OLNPPI. As a result, Seoul has shown changes in its consumption of electricity since 2012. While the national electricity consumption increased by 4.9% from 455,070 GWh in 2011 to 477,591 GWh in 2014, electricity consumption in Seoul dropped by 4% to 45,018 GWh in 2013,  compared to 2011.

However, the electricity consumption of Seoul is still higher than any other cities in South Korea. As of 2014, Seoul consumed 9.4% of total national electricity energy output. Furthermore, In 2013, energy consumption in Seoul amounted to 15.398 million TOE or 7.3% of the nation's total energy consumption of 210.247 million TOE. Of the total energy consumption in Seoul, buildings is responsible for 56.7%, followed by transportation (29.3%), industry (9.0%) and public services (5.0%). It means that Seoul should continue to develop and implement a variety of policies for energy efficiency, especially in the building and transportation sector, in order to reduce energy consumption.

1.2	Objectives

This project will focus on the strategy and programs development for energy efficiency in Seoul City by benchmarking the best practices for energy efficiency applied in the United States. The project will review and identify various energy policies and programs of federal, state and local governments in United States in respects of energy efficiency. In addition, the project will screen and assess the best practices that may be available in Seoul City, thereby suggesting strategies and programs for Seoul's sustainable energy policy.

2.0	METHODOLOGY

2.1	Identification and Catalog of energy efficiency programs in United States

This project focuses on the identification and assessment of programs for energy efficiency which has been implemented in the federal, state and local level. The program data for energy  efficiency need to be collected, based on two categories: Regulatory policy and Financial incentive. The data have been obtained by looking into the sustainable energy-related websites, including Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE), Department of Energy (DOE), and many States.

2.2	Feasibility Analysis

Policy-maker should make several stages of analysis to adopt specific policies. One of problems in this process is the evaluation and selection of policy alternatives. Once the policy alternatives are determined, policy-makers should prioritize among policy alternatives and adopt the priority by assessing which policy alternatives are more desirable. Then the criteria for evaluating policy alternatives is necessary.

The desirability and feasibility are applied as the evaluation criteria of policy alternatives. Desirability present how policy alternatives would be desirable, based on the effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Feasibility refers to the faithfully enforceable possibility of specific policy alternatives adopted as the policy. Feasibility can be evaluated through the criteria, such as the political feasibility, financial feasibility, technical feasibility, administrative feasibility and legal- ethical feasibility.

2.2.1	Political feasibility

This means the possibility to obtain political support in the adoption and implementation and of the policy alternatives. Political feasibility is determined by the position on policy issues of stakeholders, including policy-makers, the ability of their available input resources, and the relative priority of these resources. The more support of political forces is strong Internally or externally in the policy-making or enforcement, the more political feasibility increases.

2.2.2	Financial feasibility

This means whether the policy alternatives achieve with available funds. In the case of policy that takes a lot of expenses economically, primary review is how the policy be administrated in the government's budget. In addition, Who should pay some funding for the enforcement of this policy has a significant impact on the feasibility of the policy. In case of the appropriation of total cost with government's budget, it shall review the opportunity cost about competitive lost opportunities to perform different policies in the economic feasibility analysis.

2.2.3 Technical feasibility

This means whether the policy alternatives could achieve with current available technologies. However, it may means the technical rationality that the causal relationship does exist between achievement of policy goals and policy alternatives.

2.2.4 Administrative feasibility

This means that the availability of required resources, including the administrative organization and manpower, for enforcement of policy alternatives

2.2.5 Legal- ethical feasibility

This means that policy alternative should not contradict the policy content of other laws or the basic principles of the Constitution and whether policy alternative is under the legal support of policy alternatives.

3.0	THE POLICIES FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN SEOUL

Seoul established the One Less Nuclear Power Plant Initiative Phase 2 in July 2014. This program aims to achieve 20% of self-sufficiency in electricity and reduce 10 million ton of greenhouse gas emission by 2020. To achieve this goal, the program adopted a variety of  regulatory policies and financial incentives for energy efficiency in the building, urban planning and transportation. This chapter will summarize  Seoul's energy efficiency polices developed and implemented in the One Less Nuclear Power Plant Initiative Phase 2 (SMG, 2014).

3.1	Regulatory Policy

3.1.1	Green Building Design Standards

Seoul introduced Energy Criteria for New Buildings in July 2011 for the first time in Korea to improve energy efficiency in new building. In March 2012, it amended 'Green Building Design Standards,' including criteria for energy efficient window, insulation, wall material, and lighting.

Seoul will strengthen its green building design standard to improve their energy efficiency of private building. It will raise the bar for building energy self-reliance from 50% in 2014 to 60% in 2016 and 100% in 2023. To achieve the goal, Seoul will reinforce its requirements regarding the installation of renewable energy production facilities and high-efficiency LED lighting fixtures. Beginning 2015, it will apply new construction guidelines for the insulation feature of construction materials.

3.1.2	Energy Consumption Cap System for New Buildings

In July 2012, Seoul introduced the Energy Consumption Cap System for the first time in Korea in an effort to encourage building owners to make the highest-efficiency building designs for building permits. The system has strengthened the energy requirement for building permits from 200 kWh/㎡·y to 190 kWh/㎡·y for multi-family building and from 300 kWh/㎡·y to 280 kWh/㎡·y for single family buildings

3.1.3	Enhancement of Environmental Impact Assessment Criteria

SMG continues to enhance the review criteria of its environmental impact assessment for the purpose of significantly upgrading the energy efficiency of its large-scale development projects and large buildings. Specifically, it will require all types of buildings – including redevelopment and reconstruction – with floor area of 100,000 square meters on land area of 90,000 square meters to have Building Energy Management System (BEMS), install only LED lights by 2018, and secure the highest building energy efficiency (Class 1) in design.

3.1.4	Energy Standard for Public Building

SMG will enhance the “Criteria for Construction Technology Reviews for Public Buildings in Seoul” to improve their energy efficiency. It plans to raise the mandatory energy supply from renewable energy sources from 10% in 2014 to 25% by 2020 and complete LED lamp replacement by the end of 2018. SMG will require all public buildings with floor area of more than 30,000 square meters to be equipped with BEMS in 2016.

Meanwhile, SMG will enhance the "Design Criteria for Public Facilities" to ensure the installation of LED lights in new public buildings. For old public buildings, it will set up an exclusive organization called SPC consisting of representatives of the central government (Korea Finance Corporation, etc.), SMG (road management departments), and private R&D institutions in 2015 in an attempt to minimize the financial burdens associated with LED replacement and promote the faster implementation of the replacement work.

3.1.5	Regulation of outdoor signboard light

Through the amendment of the “Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Outdoor Advertisements,” Seoul will make it compulsory for businesses to change signboard lights into energy-efficient LED lamps. Even before the ordinance is modified, it will have 2,000 signboards changed to LED-based ones each year through agreement with shopkeepers.

3.2	Financial Incentives

3.2.1	Loan program

Seoul adopted loan program for its support of building retrofit project(BRP) in residential and commercial building.  The support coverage of BRP is limited to improvement or installation of energy efficient facilities. In 2012, Seoul has secured $20 million through Special Account for Climate Change, and offered up to the maximum $2 million at an annual interest rate of 2.0% over eight years.

It expand the size and eligibility of loans and require building owners to go through energy diagnosis before they can apply for BRP services for purposes of securing better BRP results. The coverage of BRP loan will expand from windows and insulation to energy diagnosis costs, eco-friendly boilers, installation or replacement of HVAC systems, operating systems, and monitoring expenses.

Table 1. The description of loan program for BRP in Seoul

Description	Loan Limits		Interest Rate	Project Contents and Loan Conditions
Single buildings (including underground facilities)	within 80% of project budget	Min. $1,000 Max. $100,000	2.0%	• Project contents: Improvements in or installation of energy saving facilities • Loan conditions: Payback over 8 years (a three-year grace period possible) - The loan is subject to a relevant financial institution’s approval. ※ Prior discussions with the bank are recommend.
Multiple buildings (over two buildings)		Max. 200,000

Source: SMG (2012), One Less Nuclear Power Plant 2012, p33

3.2.2	Green Building Incentives

Seoul offers up to 15% of the property tax reduction for new buildings with green building certificates or higher building efficiency grades. It applies the same incentive to old buildings that have successfully completed BRP.

3.2.3	Performance Contract

Seoul introduced the performance contract to promote the delivery of LED light in 2012. ESCO company install LED lights with their own cost and make the payment in installments according to the corresponding amount saved as a result of the installation, thus enabling building owners to install LEDs without any financial burden.

In 2012, Doosan We've Apartment Complex replaced 1,450 of 40W florescent lights in its underground garages with 20W LED lights equipped with automatic sensors. As a results, the Apartment has saved $9,000 on its electricity bills every month.

4.0	ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICY IN UNITED  STATES

DSIRE has introduced 1,751 programs for energy efficiency in federal, State, and local level as seen in Table 2. There are 234 programs in the regulatory policy category, while financial incentive category has 1,517 programs. It shows that it focus on more the financial incentives than regulatory policy for energy efficiency in the United States.

Table 2. List of the energy efficiency programs in US

Category	Policy/incentive Type	No. of Programs
Regulatory policy	Appliance/Equipment Efficiency Standards	11
	Building Energy Code	68
	Energy Efficiency Resource Standard	26
	Energy Standards for Public Buildings	86
	Public Benefits Fund	27
	Renewables and energy efficiency Portfolio Standard	15
	Other Policy	1
	Subtotal	234
Financial incentive	Bond Program	6
	Corporate Tax Credit	7
	Corporate Tax Deduction	2
	Corporate Tax Exemption	1
	Grant Program	57
	Green Building Incentive	19
	Industry Recruitment/Support	7
	Leasing Program	3
	Loan Program	221
	PACE Financing	50
	Performance-Based Incentive	3
	Personal Tax Credit	9
	Personal Tax Deduction	4
	Personal Tax Exemption	1
	Property Tax Incentive	17
	Rebate Program	1,091
	Sales Tax Incentive	10
	Utility Rate Discount	6
	Other Incentive	3
	Subtotal	1,517
	Total	1,751

4.1	Regulatory policy

Regulatory policy includes all policies aimed at improving the development and application of rules and other instruments public authorities use to influence the behavior of actors in the public interest. Regulatory policy involve codes and standards that require mandated levels of efficiency in buildings and/or products.

4.1.1	Appliance and Equipment Standards (AES)

Appliance and Equipment Standards is one of the most effective polices for energy efficiency in United States. The Appliance and Equipment Standards Program is authorized by Congress through several statutes—with the earliest in 1975— in part due to manufacturer interest in national solutions to a patchwork of state-by-state standards, which increase manufacturer costs and therefore costs to consumers. These solutions result in energy bill savings for consumers as the least-efficient product models become ineligible for sale in the United States. Consumers can spend these savings on goods and services other than utility bills, spurring the economy and creating jobs. The Standards Program includes a number of interrelated efforts:

• Development of test procedures

• Development of standards

• Enforcement of the standards

• Partner with Federal Trade Commission on the well-known Energy Guide labels on appliances

• Technical support for the ENERGY STAR® program.

DOE works in an open, transparent manner with stakeholders on these efforts.

Today, US DOE requires minimum energy efficiency standard for approximately 60 categories of appliances and equipments applied at residential, commercial and other industrial sector (Table 3). The appliance and equipment provides services for consumers and businesses each day, such as space heating and cooling, refrigeration, cooking, clothes washing and drying, and lighting. As Table 4 is shown, 11 States also have adopted States appliance efficiency standards.

Table 3. The list of products in the  appliances and equipment Standard

Category	Products
Consumer Products	Battery Chargers, Boilers, Ceiling Fans, Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Clothes Dryers, Clothes Washers, Computer and Battery Backup Systems, External Power Supplies, Dehumidifiers, Direct Heating Equipment, Dishwashers, Furnace Fans, Furnaces, Hearth Products, Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, Microwave Ovens, Miscellaneous Refrigeration, Pool Heaters, Portable Air Conditioners, Refrigerators and Freezers, Room Air Conditioners, Set-Top Boxes, Televisions, Water Heaters
Hearth Products	Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, Microwave Ovens, Miscellaneous Refrigeration, Pool Heaters, Portable Air Conditioners, Refrigerators and Freezers, Room Air Conditioners, Set-Top Boxes, Televisions, Water Heaters, Commercial and Industrial Products, Automatic Commercial Ice Makers, Clothes Washers, Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Commercial Packaged Boilers, Compressors, Computer Room Air Conditioners, Distribution Transformers, Electric Motors, Fans and Blowers, Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Pumps, Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines, Refrigeration Equipment, Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Small Electric Motors, Unit Heaters, Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers, Warm Air Furnaces, Water Heating Equipment
Lighting Products	Ceiling Fan Light Kits, Certain Lamps, Compact Fluorescent Lamps, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, General Service Fluorescent Lamps, General Service Incandescent Lamps, General Service Lamps, High-Intensity Discharge Lamps, Illuminated Exit Signs, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, Light Emitting Diode Lamps, Luminaires, Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures, Torchieres, Traffic Signal Modules and Pedestrian Modules,
Plumbing Products	Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves, Faucets, Showerheads, Urinals, Water Closets (Flush Toilets)

Table 4. List of States adopting the appliance efficiency Standards

State	Energy savings per customer through 2030 (Bbtu/customer)	Date most recent standards adopted
California	150.0	2015
Oregon	37.1	2013
Washington	8.7	2009
Arizona	8.5	2009
District of Columbia	0.7	2007
Maryland	0.7	2007
Rhode Island	0.6	2006
New Hampshire	0.6	2008
Colorado	NA	2014
Georgia	NA	2010
Texas	NA	2010

Source: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy(2015), The 2015 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, p106

California State

California was the first state in the country to adopt appliance and equipment efficiency standards in 1974.  California continues to lead on appliance efficiency standards, most recently updating standards for plumbing products and fluorescent dimming ballasts, with rulemaking proceedings ongoing for LEDs and small directional lamps, computers, monitors, signage displays, and additional plumbing products. Not only has California adopted the greatest number of standards, but many other states’ standards are based on California’s, such as the battery charger standards passed in Oregon in 2013. Provided that the standards adopted by the legislature or administrative body are implemented, states will continue to receive points for standards set in earlier years until the product is preempted by federal standards (ACEEE, 2015)

Oregon State

In June 2005, Oregon passed legislation setting minimum energy efficiency standards for 11 appliances. The standards have been updated to include additional products, most recently by Senate Bill 692 of 2013. Those products regulated by Oregon law and not currently covered by federal standards include:

- Bottle-type water dispensers (2009)

- Commercial hot food holding cabinets (2009)

- Commercial refrigerators and freezers (2008)

- Compact audio products (2009)

- Digital versatile disc players and digital versatile disc recorders (2009)

- Portable electric spas (2009)

- Battery charger systems (2014)

- High light output double-ended quartz halogen lamps (2016)

- Televisions (2014)

- Dates listed in parenthesis signify the effective year.

Testing requirements and minimum efficiency standards are outlined in the regulations. The standards do not apply to products installed in a mobile or manufactured home at the time of construction or designed expressly for installation and use in recreational vehicles. The law stipulates that the State Department of Energy must periodically review the minimum energy efficiency standards and report to the Legislative Assembly when the standards need to be updated, due to federal action or to the outcome of collaborative consultations with manufacturers and the energy departments of other states.

Standards saved American consumers $63 billion on their utility bills in 2015 alone, and have helped the United States avoid emissions of 2.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). Since 2009, the Obama Administration has issued 40 new or updated appliance standards across more than 45 products, which are projected to save consumers over $540 billion off their utility bills through 2030. The energy savings from these standards—43.8 quads by 2030—is more than the energy used by all U.S. buildings over one year (DOE, 2016).

4.1.2	Building Energy Codes Program

Buildings account for 41% of all energy consumption, 72% of electricity consumption and 33% of greenhouse gas emissions as one of the largest energy consumers in the United States. In 1991, US DOE introduced the building energy codes program for the improvement of the energy efficiency in the building. Building energy codes program is the energy cord that regulates the minimum requirements for energy-efficient design and construction for new and renovated buildings. Through advancing building codes, DOE aim to improve building energy efficiency by 50%, and to help states achieve 90% compliance with their energy codes.

US DOE has been involved in codes development, adoption and implementation process, by creating new model energy codes based on publicly reviewed cost and technical analyses and supporting technical assistance to states and localities, which includes the development and distribution of tools, materials, and analyses. In the other hands, States and localities are responsible for building energy code adoption and implementation. 44 states have adopted the 2006 versions or better of the energy codes as a means of ensuring energy efficiency in both residential and commercial buildings. A total of 27 states have adopted the 2009 version of the residential building energy code or better, while 22 states have adopted the 2007 version of the commercial building energy code or better. As of March 2015, 21 states have certified to DOE that they have adopted the most up-to-date commercial building energy code—ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) 90.1 2010—as required by law, and 13 states have certified that they have met their obligations for the most recent residential building energy code—2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) (DOE, 2015).

According to DOE, Today’s energy codes are providing savings of more than 30% compared to codes of less than one decade ago. Energy cost savings to consumers from building energy codes are estimated at about $5 billion annually as of 2012, and total about 4 quads cumulatively, with more than $44 billion dollars in cost savings since 1992. Annual carbon savings reached 36 million tons in 2012 with about 300 million tons cumulatively since 1992 (DOE, 2015).

California State

In 2008, California established the nation's first statewide voluntary green building code and adopted the new mandatory building code, CALGreen, in 2010. CALGreen includes provisions to ensure the reduction of water use by 20%, improve indoor air quality, divert 50% of new construction waste from landfills, and inspect energy systems (i.e. heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to make sure that they're working according to design (DSIRE, 2016). California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximate three-year cycle. The 2013 Standards improve upon the 2008 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2013 Standards went into effect July 1, 2014 (California Energy Commission, 2016).

The City of Boulder, Colorado

The City of Boulder, Colorado, adopted the Boulder Green building and Green Points Program in 2002. The program is a mandatory residential green building program that requires a builder or homeowner to include a minimum amount of sustainable building components based on the size of the proposed structure. The main characteristics of the program is that the program awards points for a menu of sustainable building practices. Renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are among the optional components a builder can use to earn points. New construction must be 14%-64% more efficient than 2012 IECC levels depending on building type and square footage (i.e., HERS score of 60 to 25), while additions and remodels must be 5%-30% more efficient than 2012 IECC levels depending on building type and square footage (i.e., HERS score of 70 to 50). Residential building permit applicants for new construction or renovations must also obtain an energy audit and meet Green Points Requirements. Commercial buildings in Boulder are required to meet the city’s Energy Conservation Code. The Code specifies that new commercial buildings and remodels must exceed the energy efficiency requirements of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 or 2012 IECC by at least 30 percent. Energy modeling is required for all commercial buildings over 20,000 sq. ft. (DSIRE, 2016).

New York State

The Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State (ECCCNYS) requires that all government, commercial and residential buildings, including renovations involving building system replacement, must follow the 2015 International Energy Conservation (IECC) code. Historic buildings and buildings that do not use either electricity or fossil fuel for comfort conditioning are exempt from these requirements.

The State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council has the responsibility make amendments and provide technical support on the form of interpretations and variances.  The State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council voted on March  9, 2016  to update the ECCCNYS.  This current code was based on the 2015 IECC and 2013 ASHRAE 90.1, along with several NYS specific enhancements (the previous ECCCNYS was based on the 2009 IECC supplement and ASHRAE 90.1-2010).  The newly adopted building codes will be effective starting October 6, 2016.

Enforcement of the requirements rests with the governmental entity administering and enforcing the provisions of the Building Construction Code or the Fire Prevention and Building Construction Code applicable within the municipality.

4.1.3	Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS)

An Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) is the policy that State or local government requires for energy suppliers to  achieve energy saving goals through mandatory consumers energy efficiency programs. An EERS requires that electric utilities achieve a percentage reduction in energy sales from energy efficiency measures. An EERS can apply to either electricity or natural gas utilities, or both, depending on the state, and can be adopted through either legislation or regulation.

As of August 2014, Twenty-four states are currently implementing EERS policies requiring electricity savings. Of these states, 15 States also have EERS policies in place for natural gas. Seven of the 24 states have requirements that utilities or third-party administrators achieve all cost-effective energy efficiency. Though Ohio and Indiana had EERS policies in place in the past, these were rolled back in recent years. The strongest EERS requirements exist in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont, which require almost 2.5% savings annually. In 2013, states with an EERS achieved incremental electricity savings of 1.1% of retail sales on average, compared to average savings of 0.3% in states without an EERS (ACEEE, 2016)

Texas State

In 2002, Texas is credited with being the first state to establish an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard in the United States. Originally, the goal called for investor owned utilities (IOUs) to meet 10% of its annual growth in electricity demand through energy efficiency. As a result of Senate Bill 1125 in 2011, Texas’ EERS has now been set to be “triggered” based on the achievement of utility-specific goals. investor-owned utilities required must reduce energy usage and demand to the point that such savings represent 30% of the annual growth in peak demand on each utility’s system or up to 0.4 percent (%) of each utility’s peak demand thereafter. Options available to the IOUs to meet the energy efficiency goals include standard offer programs or market transformation programs. Standard offer programs include programs such as commercial and industrial energy efficiency incentives or incentives for "hard-to-reach" customers. Market transformation programs include programs such as incentives for retro-commissioning, incentives for ENERGY STAR New Homes, or incentives for small distributed renewable generation (DSIRE, 2016).

California State

The California Legislature emphasized the importance of energy efficiency and established broad goals with the enactment of Assembly Bill 2021 of 2006. The bill calls for a 10% reduction in forecasted electricity consumption within 10 years. The bill also requires the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and other interested parties to develop a statewide estimate of all cost-effective electricity and natural gas savings and to develop efficiency savings and demand reduction targets for the next 10 years. This study must be updated every three years.

The CPUC has revised the energy savings targets over time, most recently in October 2015 with Decision 15-10-028. While previous Decisions established targets from 2004 – 2020, Decision 15-10-028 revised the targets for 2016 – 2020, and established new targets for 2021 – 2024. The goals consist of separate electricity savings and demand reduction requirements for each of the three investor-owned electrical utilities and energy savings requirements for the state's three gas utilities.

Table 5. Electric Energy Reduction Standard in California (GWh)

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
PG&E	1,114	853	832	980.5	1,236	1,144	916	912	900	850	836	812	821
SCE	1,093	922	924	983	1,304	1,216	949	955	946	879	863	835	840
SDGE	158	221	212	239.7	324	304	236	238	236	223	220	214	214
Total	2,365	1,997	1,968	2,203.2	2.864	2,664	1,185	2,105	2,082	1,952	1,919	1,861	1,875

The required energy savings can be met through: Incentive programs for utility customers, State building code, Federal and state appliance standards, and Statewide market transformation efforts. Publicly-owned utilities in California are not regulated by the CPUC. Still, Assembly Bill 2021 requires them to pursue energy efficiency as well. The law required them by June 1, 2007 to identify all cost-effective energy efficiency and demand reduction possibilities, and to establish energy reduction goals for the next 10 years. Public utilities are required to update these studies every three years and to submit them to the CEC.

California's investor-owned utilities directly administer the energy efficiency and demand-side management programs intended to meet the standard. To evaluate the cost effectiveness of its efficiency and demand reduction activities, California utilizes the Total Resource Cost test (TRC) (one of the five "California tests" from the California Standard Practice Manual) as its primary test for measuring the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs. California also uses all four of its other namesake tests on a secondary basis in evaluating energy efficiency and DSM programs.

Under Section 739.10 of California Public Utilities Code, California's investor-owned electric and gas utilities (Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and the Southern California Gas Company) are required to have the revenues they earn from customers fully decoupled from their sales. In addition, California's investor-owned utilities are eligible to receive incentive compensation for their programmatic spending on energy efficiency and DSM goals through a mechanism known as the Efficiency Savings Performance Incentive (ESPI). The ESPI mechanism is based on four areas of savings achievement performance categories, which are 1) programs producing verified or "life-cycle" energy efficiency resource savings, 2) programs producing "ex ante review" (EAR) savings, which reward utilities for setting higher (but unverified initial goals, 3) programs by utilities influencing more aggressive statewide energy codes and standards-related savings and 4) "non-resource" programs that do not result in directly attributable and cost-effective energy and demand savings, but tend to support the goals of other forms of cost-effective energy conservation.

Colorado State

The Colorado legislature enacted H.B. 1037 in 2007, requiring electricity and natural gas investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to engage in demand response and adopt demand-side management (DSM) programs that provide financial incentives for customers to purchase more efficient equipment and use more efficient processes. The law requires these utilities to meet minimum energy and demand savings goals but authorized the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (COPUC) to revise the goals and establish interim savings goals as it deems appropriate.

COPUC adopted electricity savings goals of 5% of the utility's 2006 peak demand and electricity sales by 2018 for Colorado’s investor-owned electric utilities, Public Service Company of Colorado (d/b/a Xcel Energy) and Colorado Electric Utility Company (d/b/a  Black Hills Energy). COPUC set an efficiency target to account for half of the expected increase in demand every year, which meets the goals established by the Colorado legislature. While the statutory goals end in 2018, COPUC extended electricity sales reduction goals through 2020.

The goals established for Xcel Energy in March 2011 were higher than the original goals, beginning with a 1.14% annual reduction in 2012 and increasing each year to a 1.68% annual reduction in 2020. In 2014, the energy saving goals for 2015-2020 were decreased from 2,914 gigawatt-hours (GWh) to 2,400 GWh over the 6-year period, or 400 GWh per year. COPUC reviews programs annually through filings made by each utility as required by the law. The goals established for Black Hills Energy for 2012-2015 in 2012 were similarly larger than the original goals and surpass the statutory goal of a 5% reduction of 2006 electricity sales by 2018. Although Black Hills Energy had already met that statutory goal by 2015, a settlement agreement approved by COPUC established new goals for 2016-2018 that achieve approximately 10% in energy savings over the plan period.COPUC also established demand response goals for Xcel Energy and Black Hills Energy for the following amounts, inclusive of a 65 MW annual reduction from energy efficiency.

H.B. 1037 required the PUC to undertake a rule-making proceeding that would develop expenditure and savings goals, determine cost recovery, and create a financial bonus structure. The law also established that gas utilities must spend at least 0.5% of their previous year’s revenue on DSM programs each year. The law prevents the PUC from assigning financial penalties to gas utilities that fail to meet their energy savings goals but requires utilities to submit annual reports to the PUC. The reports must highlight their program spending, energy savings, and the cost effectiveness of their programs from the previous year. Thus, Colorado does not have required targets for natural gas savings through their programs.

4.1.4	Energy Standards for Public Buildings

Federal and State governments operate numerous facilities, including office buildings, public schools, colleges, and universities, the energy costs of which can account for as much as 10% of a typical government’s annual operating budget. To reduce energy use and lower energy bills, federal and states may set mandatory energy savings targets for new and existing state government facilities. These energy savings requirements encourage investment in efficient buildings and retrofit projects.

To achieve energy savings targets, federal and state governments adopted various tools, such as green building standards, energy-reduction goals, equipment procurement requirements, and/or life-cycle cost analyses for publicly-owned buildings. Many of these policies require that new government buildings (and renovated buildings, in some cases) attain a certain level of certification under the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. Equipment-procurement policies often mandate the use of the most efficient equipment, such as equipment that meets the federal Energy Star standard, for new buildings. Life-cycle cost analysis policies generally require government entities to consider energy costs (including equipment and construction) over a planned new building's entire life-cycle.

In fiscal year 2014, federal agencies reported energy use to the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) that totals 0.94 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) or "quads" of delivered energy across the three energy sectors: Buildings that are subject to statutory energy-reduction requirements, Buildings that are excluded from the energy-reduction requirements, and Vehicles and equipment. These 0.94 quads Btu represent 1.6% of the 59.9 quads of delivered energy used in the United States. Jet fuel is the principal source of energy used by the federal government, comprising 44% of all energy consumed (0.41 quads). Electricity and natural gas are also significant energy sources, consisting of 19.3% and 13.3% (0.18 and 0.13 quads), respectively. Energy use is responsible for 97% of the government’s scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions(DOE, 2016).

Missouri State

In April 2009 Missouri’s Governor issued Executive Order No. 09-18, requiring all state agencies whose building management falls under the Office of Administration to adopt policies designed to reduce energy consumption by 2% each year for the next 10 years.

Life-cycle cost analysis is required for all new construction of state buildings and substantial renovations of existing state buildings when major energy systems are involved. Substantial renovations involve projects that will affect at least 50% of the building's square footage or cost at least 50% of its market value.The analysis must take into account the initial construction costs and the proposed energy consumption, operation, and maintenance costs over a 25-year time horizon. The final design must have the lowest life-cycle cost possible while still meeting the building's space and use requirements. The analysis is required to examine all commercially available technology, including renewable energy sources, earth-sheltered construction, systems to recover and use waste heat, thermal storage heat pump systems, ambient thermal energy, district heating and cooling systems, devices to reduce water consumption, and plumbing systems to recover gray water for reuse. Plans must be reviewed by the Director of the Division of Design and Construction within the Missouri Office of Administration.

In 2008 the state updated its energy code for state construction and renovations of public buildings larger than 5,000 square feet. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is required to establish minimum energy efficiency standards for state buildings at least as stringent as the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) by January 1, 2009. The standards apply equally to both state-leased and state-owned buildings for which the building design process or the lease begins after July 1, 2009. The Commissioner of the Office of Administration may grant waivers to these requirements if compliance is expected to exceed the energy cost gained or if the requirement would compromise safety. The standards must match the latest version of the IECC, so they are changed when the IECC is updated.Under Executive Order No. 09-18, new construction projects undertaken by covered agencies are required to use energy efficiency standards at least as stringent as the most recent version of the IECC.

In 2012, Missouri was awarded an SEP Competitive Grant—“Reinvigorating  Missouri’s State Facilities Energy Conservation Program”—which includes whole building retrofits to achieve 20% or greater energy savings in at least half of the Office of Administration’s (OA) state-owned and operated buildings. The OA will also conduct a review of existing facilities under its jurisdiction. Using OA’s Missouri State Energy Portal and Utility Dashboard, energy consumption across OA’s buildings was benchmarked in 2008 to track energy reduction and cost savings going forward. The Division of Energy is recording energy use data from 75 state buildings in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Portfolio Manager over the grant (2012-2015).

4.1.5	Public Benefits Fund

Public benefit funds (PBF) are state-level programs typically developed during electric utility restructuring by some states in the late 1990s to ensure continued support for renewable energy resources, energy efficiency initiatives and low-income energy programs. These funds are most commonly supported through a very small surcharge on electricity consumption (e.g., $0.002/kWh). PBFs commonly support rebate programs for renewable energy systems, loan programs, research and development, and energy education programs.(Open EI, 2016).

California State

California's 1996 electric industry restructuring legislation (AB 1890) directed the state’s three major investor-owned utilities (Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric) to collect a "public goods charge" (PGC) on ratepayer electricity use from 1998 through 2001 to create public benefits funds for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and research, development & demonstration (RD&D).

Subsequent legislation in 2000 extended the programs for 10 years from 2002 to 2012. This fund is used by the California Energy Commission (CEC) to administer renewable energy and RD&D programs, and by the electric utilities to administer energy efficiency incentive programs. The California Public Utilities Commission separately collects funds to administer the California Solar Initiative, the Self-Generation Incentive Program, the Renewables Portfolio Standard and others.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) oversees the allocation of energy efficiency funds for program implementation to each of the four investor-owned utilities in California: Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric. The original restructuring legislation did not address surcharges on natural gas companies. AB 1002, signed in 2000, established a gas surcharge for energy efficiency, low income assistance, and RD&D, beginning in 2001. Every year, the CPUC approves each utility's plan for efficiency programs, which the utility then carries out within its service territory. A number of programs are also coordinated on a statewide basis.

Energy efficiency programs were originally funded by the PGC. With the expiration of that fund, the CPUC approved a decision in December 2011 to use a portion of the Procurement Energy Efficiency Balancing Account (PEEBA) to replace the PGC funding. This decision is only valid for the 2010-2012 funding cycle. The CPUC later established program funding levels for 2015 in Decision 14-10-046.

4.2	Financial Incentives

Financial incentives are an important instrument for spurring investment in energy efficient technologies and services. The incorporation of a financial incentive can make energy efficiency investments more alluring for private and public entities, particularly by lowering inhibitive upfront costs. Financial incentives also complement other efficiency policies such as appliance standards and energy codes, overcoming market barriers for cost-effective technologies.

Financial incentives can take many forms: rebates, grants or loans for energy-efficiency improvements, direct income tax deductions for individuals and businesses, and exemptions or reduced sales tax on eligible products.

4.2.1	Bond Program

The Clean Energy Revenue Bond program, enacted as the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Bonding Act, aims to help state agencies, universities, and public school districts cut utility bills and reduce energy use. All state agencies, universities and public school districts that occupy and maintain buildings owned by the state or school district are eligible to participate in the program. Participants are selected based on the energy consumption history of the facility and that the useful life of the package of improvements exceed the life of the bond, or ten years. In order for bonds to be issued, the state agency, university or school district wishing to finance energy savings measures must arrange for the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD) to perform an energy audit to determine which measures can be taken to create energy savings and calculate the costs associated with each measure.

New Mexico State

New Mexico's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Bonding Act, which became law in April 2005, authorizes up to $20,000,000 in bonds to finance energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements in state government and school district buildings. At the request of a state agency or school district, the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department will conduct an energy assessment of a building to determine specific efficiency measures which will result in energy and cost savings. A state agency or school district may install or enter into contracts for the installation of energy efficiency measures on the building identified in the assessment. An installation contract may be entered into for a term of up to 10 years.(DSIRE, 2016).

Illinois State

The Illinois Finance Authority (IFA) is a state conduit issuer of tax-exempt bonds and credit enhancement for projects in Illinois. IFA funding is available to commercial and non-profit entities as long as those entities meet strict eligibility criteria. In 2012, the legislature also added schools and community colleges to the list of eligible entities for energy conservation funding. Entities seeking funding must demonstrate that their projects provide a significant public benefit for the citizens of Illinois. In 2009, the IFA was authorized by legislation (S.B. 1906 and S.B. 390) to provide funding via issuance of tax-exempt bonds for renewable energy projects and energy efficiency projects.

For the purposes of this program, renewable energy projects include those that utilize wind, solar thermal energy, photovoltaic cells and panels, biodiesel, crops and organic waste biomass, trees and tree trimmings, hydropower, Illinois-produced landfill gas, geothermal, and "other alternative sources of environmentally preferable energy." Transmission lines and associated equipment used to transfer electricity created by renewable energy and renewable energy storage technologies are also eligible.

4.2.2	Energy efficiency-related Tax policy

Energy efficiency tax policies are the incentive to encourage the taxpayers to adopt more energy-efficient practices or technologies rather than requirements specified in legislation or standard. Most of them use the current building cords or appliance standards as baselines and provide a monetary incentive when taxpayers achieved over cords or standards. Tax incentives have been applied in a variety of forms, such as tax credits, tax deductions, temporary and permanent tax reductions.  Tax credits mean reductions in a tax liability, while tax deductions are subtractions from taxable income. Some tax incentives are set to expire and others are permanent.

Energy efficiency tax incentives have been implemented in 20 States. State tax policies for energy efficiency reduce income, property, sales tax liabilities. Of these states, 10 states offer a personal income tax incentive for energy efficiency. Six states offer a corporate income tax incentive for energy efficiency. Seven states offer a property tax incentive for energy efficiency. Ten states provide a sales tax exemption for energy efficiency.

Table 6. List of States that adopt the energy efficiency tax polices

Category	No.	States Applied
personal income tax incentive	10	KY, MT, NM, OK, OR, SC, ID, IN, MO, VA
corporate income tax incentive	6	KY, NM, OK, OR, SC, MT
property tax incentive	7	AZ, MD, NV, NY, OH, TX, VA
sales tax exemption	10	CT, GA, KY, MD, MO, OH, PR, SC, TX, VA

Personal income tax policies: Oregon

Oregon’s Residential Energy Tax Credit (RETC) is designed to encourage investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. It offers credits for qualifying appliances, which for the most part are those with the ENERGY STAR label. The value of the credit is based on the amount of energy that the efficiency measure is projected to save, and is capped at a maximum of 25 percent of the net cost of the measure. It also provides a tax credit for duct sealing that is performance-tested by a contractor certified by the Oregon Department of Energy, and for qualifying energy-efficient furnaces and boilers. The furnace installations earn an additional $150 tax credit if they are connected to performance-tested ducts.

Though the RETC has been in place since 1977, energyefficiency measures have only been included in the tax credit since 1998, in the case of appliances and ducts, and since 2002, in the case of furnaces and heat recovery systems. The use, energy savings and cost of the RETC from 1998 to 2007 are as follows in Table 5. The table indicates that close to 90 percent of the claims have been for appliances; furnaces and boilers are far behind at only eight percent of the total claims. The total value of the tax credits during the 12 years of data available is over $45 million, and total project costs are more than $282 million.

Corporate tax policies : Maryland

In Maryland, $25 million in tax credits was made available to promote the development of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) multi-family residential and non-residential buildings over 20,000 square feet.25 The state provides the credit for new buildings or renovations of existing buildings if they do not increase the size of the building by more than 25 percent. The credit varies from between six percent and eight percent of allowable costs for construction of the building, up to $120 per square foot in a whole building or $60 per square foot for green tenant space in a building. Applicants receive an initial certification

from the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA), which allocates the credits. Since the enactment of this incentive, eighteen new LEED buildings have been constructed and have applied to the MEA for the tax credits. Although the MEA has allocated the full $25 million in credits, none of the buildings have submitted the documentation necessary to actually claim the credit, so it is still too early to determine the energy savings from these LEED buildings. No further data is available.

Property tax policies: Nevada

The Nevada experience, along with that of Oregon, points to the value of accurate fiscal impact projections, since both states have enacted tax policies that resulted in larger-than-expected take-up rates and fiscal impacts.

In 2005 Nevada adopted AB 3, which included a series of property tax and local sales tax exemptions for LEED-certified buildings.35 The property tax incentive was a 50 percent, ten-year tax reduction. The sales tax incentive exempted the developer from the local (but not the state) sales tax – meaning that developers paid only the state sales tax rate of two percent. The combination of sales tax incentives and property tax incentives proved very popular – particularly for City Center in Las Vegas, the largest privately funded development in the United States, at 63 million square feet. Developers cited the tax incentives as instrumental in persuading them to build towards a LEED target.

However, it quickly became apparent that the tax incentives would result in almost $1 billion in lost revenues for local governments: $900 million in lost property tax revenues and $85 million in lost sales tax revenues. As a result, in June 2007 the Nevada Legislature passed Assembly Bill 621, which reduced the amount of the property tax abatement and eliminated the sales tax incentive. It left the incentives in place for those developments that had already begun construction– so City Center has continued construction with the goal of meeting LEED standards.

This experience demonstrates the power of large property tax incentives to stimulate investment in energy efficiency. It also demonstrates the need for an accurate market assessment of likely claim rates for the tax incentives, in order to estimate the likely fiscal impact of the incentives. It further points to the benefits of capping the total value of a tax incentive – either on a per-project basis or on a total-project basis.

Sales tax policies: Virginia

Impact analysis of the sales tax incentive in Virginia was possible because the sales tax reduction was structured as a sales tax holiday, allowing for easy tracking of the sales results from before and during the sales tax holiday. Staff at the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (VA MME) made special arrangements with a number of major retailers to get general data on the increase in sales. These retailers used the four-day sales tax holiday to create a short-term marketing campaign that promoted energy-efficient products. According to the VA MME staff, “Overall, the sales tax holiday was extremely successful for all of the retailers who promoted [it].”

VA MME staff informally polled several major big box retailers in 2008 on the effects of the tax holiday. The informal poll results indicated increased sales of qualifying products during the tax holiday weekend, although it is unclear whether the sales increased in one weekend, only to be offset by a corresponding decrease in a later weekend.

4.2.3	Grant Program

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program, which was adopted by 2007 by the Energy Independent and Security Act, is the grant program  initially funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) in 2009. DOE provided $2.7 billion of grants to State, local government and cities to develop and promote energy efficiency projects. This program was carried out aiming to reduce energy use of eligible state and local government, transportation, improve energy efficiency in transportation, building, and other sectors, and create job.

DOE distributed $2.7 billion of grants to 2,187 cities and counties across 14 categories or Broad Program Areas (BPAs). The grants funded over 7,400 individual programs, projects, or activities. Grants could be used for a range of initiatives, including energy efficiency building retrofits, financial incentives for energy efficiency, building code support, renewable energy installations, distributed energy technologies, transportation activities, recycling and waste management efforts, and other activities approved by the U.S. DOE.

The EECBG Program represents the largest nationwide direct investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies at the community level in U.S. history. DOE evaluated the gains achieved from 2009 to 2015 through the third party of evaluation agency. For every EECBG dollar spent, program participants received approximately $1.76 in bill savings over the lifetime of the measures installed (2.7% discount rate). Lifetime energy savings and renewable generation amounted to 413 million source MMBTUs. Lifetime cost savings totaled $5.2 billion. Social costs of $1.8 billion were avoided due to program-induced reductions in carbon emissions. 62,900 direct, indirect or induced jobs were created or retained, which is equal to about 1 job per $36,000 in EECBG dollars invested (DOE, 2015).

City of Chicago, Illinois

SomerCor 504 Inc. administers the Small Business Improvement Fund for the City of Chicago. The fund utilizes revenue from Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and supports commercial and industrial properties, as well as tenants, within specific TIF districts to upgrade their facilities. Certain energy efficient upgrades, such as energy efficient windows, HVAC systems, and roofs may qualify for funding under this program and are encouraged. The grants can cover up to 75% of the costs of the upgrades and are paid after the work is completed and expenses paid-up.

Commercial applicants are eligible if they have a maximum of $5 million in gross sales for each of the past three years. New commercial businesses must use projected sales. Industrial applicants may not employ more than 100 full-time equivalent employees. Landlord applicants may not have more than a net worth of $6 million, with total liquidity of no more than $500,000. Tenant applicants may not have more than $5 million in gross sales, and must have a leasehold interest in the property with at least 3 years remaining on the lease term. Additional eligibility requirements applicable, interested parties should contact SomerCor 504 Inc for additional details.

New York State

The primary focus of EmPower New York is to provide cost-effective electric reduction measures, such as replacement of refrigerators and installation of high efficiency lighting. This program also offers cost effective home performance measures such as insulation, air sealing and heating system repair or replacement, as well as health and safety measures. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) currently contracts with Honeywell International to implement the EmPower New York Program.

Funding is limited, and services will be targeted to customers on the basis of energy usage and the potential for energy-saving measures. In order to qualify customers must live in a building with 100 or fewer units, and either participate in a low income utility assistance program; are eligible for regular Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) benefits; or have an income at 60% or less of the median income. The program was formerly limited to customers in certain utility service territories, but has been expanded over time with additional funding sources to offer assistance throughout the state for both electric and gas efficiency measures. There is no cost to the customer for these efficiency improvements.

4.2.4	Green Building Incentive

Green buildings are designed and constructed using practices and materials that minimize the impacts of the building on the environment and on human health. In order to promote green building many cities and counties offer a various forms of financial incentives: Tax Incentives, Bonus Density, Expedited Permitting, Grants, Loans, Technical Assistance/Design Assistance, and Permit/Zone Fee Reduction. The U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) has been used as the baseline for green building incentive. LEED is a popular point-based certification program for green buildings. The LEED system awards points for site selection and development; material, energy and water efficiency; indoor air quality; innovation; and the application of renewable technologies. Currently green building incentives has been implemented in 12 states, including Arizona, California, Ohio, New Mexico, Virginia, and Illinois.

Bernalillo County, New Mexico

In 2009, the Bernalillo County in New Mexico temporarily established a higher 75% impact fee reduction for sustainable residential construction certified through a level of “Silver” or higher of Build Green NM or LEED. Impact fees vary based on project structure and design but, on average, developers save approximately $1,500 (AIA, 2012).

Cincinnati City, Ohio

In 2007, Cincinnati City in Ohio created Cincinnati’s LEED-CRA property tax abatement program that Commercial and multifamily residential projects are eligible to receive a property tax abatement of up to 75% of the increased value of the property improvement (AIA, 2012).

Arlington County, Virginia

The Green Building Density Incentive program allows the County Board of Arlington to consider a modification of use regulations for additional density between .20 and .45 FAR for office buildings and between .25 and .50 FAR for residential buildings and/or additional height up to 3 stories for special exception site plan requests. The site plan proposal must guarantee a minimum level of energy savings and a LEED rating at the Silver, Gold or Platinum level, for the bonus to be approved.  An additional 0.10 FAR may be awarded to buildings that commit to LEED certification and minimum energy savings plus either ENERGY STAR building certification or LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) certification.

The minimum level of energy savings for office and commercial projects is 20% above the baseline ASHRAE 90.1-2007 standard as defined under LEED EA Credit 1 – Optimize Energy Performance in the LEED 2009 rating system. The minimum level of energy savings for residential development is 18% above the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 baseline. All project owners will also be asked to provide ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager utility reporting data after occupancy each year for 10 years.

The provision of LEED-certified green building components does not guarantee additional density and/or height, or any particular amount of density or height.  The FAR bonuses are the maximum allowed for each level of LEED certification.  Site plan requests for bonus density and/or height will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis based on the characteristics of individual sites.

Developers who participate in the site plan process (meaning their projects are special exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance) and do not agree to achieve official LEED certification are required to contribute $0.045/sq ft. The Green Building Fund is used to provide education and outreach to developers and the community on green building issues. If the building later receives LEED certification, the fee will be refunded. Those projects that agree to achieve LEED certification do not have to contribute.

4.2.5	Leasing Program

Lease program for energy efficiency is a cost-effective way for state and local government to supports upgrades and pay for financing cost with energy saving. Leases often have slightly higher rates than bond financing. However, leases are a faster and more flexible tool than many other options, including bond financing, and are an important tool for public entities to finance improvements in their own buildings.

This program can be achieved through tax exempt lease-purchase agreements for energy efficient-equipment. The government entity owns the equipment after the financing term expires and meanwhile pays interest at lower, tax-exempt rates. Municipal leases can be structured specifically to pay for energy efficiency equipment and to allow city and county agencies to draw savings from future energy bills to pay for new, energy-efficient equipment today.

Virginia State

In 1997, Virginia Department of Treasury implemented The Energy Leasing Program for energy efficiency projects in state facilities operated by state agencies, authorities and institutions of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Energy Leasing Program allows for the purchase of services and equipment required to develop, design, and install an energy efficiency project. The funds can be used to finance projects with relevant energy efficient technology, such as lighting and motor efficiency upgrades, building envelope enhancements, distribution system improvements, and energy management controls. Agencies can finance energy projects at a minimum of $100,000 and will make repayments over 12 or 15 year terms. The interest rates for 12 terms is 1.8280%, and the interest rate for 15 terms is 1.9680% (DSIRE, 2016).

Mississippi State

Mississippi introduced Energy-Efficiency Lease Program in 2006 to promote the energy efficiency for public sector. The program allows public institutions and private, non-profit hospitals to lease-purchase energy-efficient services and equipment for up to 15 years from the Energy Division of the Mississippi Development Authority. The Energy Division will select a third-party financier to fund energy projects such as lighting, boilers, cooling systems, energy management systems and windows. Participation in this program provides institutions access to technical, legal and financial service providers associated with the Energy Division. To participate, an institution must first apply to the Energy Division for program assistance. Next, the institution must adopt a resolution identifying the project that is in need of energy efficiency improvements, and recognize the Energy Efficiency Lease Program as a means of fulfilling their goals. After developing the design and project implementation guidelines, the applicant must submit the specifications to the Mississippi Development Authority. When approval is granted, the institution selects a contractor and executes lease documents (DSIRE, 2016).

4.2.6	Loan Program

State energy efficiency financing programs provide loans for energy efficiency improvements at interest rates that are typically lower and with terms that are often more flexible than would otherwise be available in the market. These loan programs are a way for states to address market barriers that generally result in under-investment in energy efficiency, such as the externality costs of energy use, the higher upfront cost of energy-efficient products, and lack of consumer awareness ( Matthew Brown, 2010).

These loans are used to fund purchases of energy-efficient appliances, installation of efficient lighting, and upgrades to HVAC systems and the building shell. The programs make loans to one or more of four sectors: residential, business, public and agricultural. Thirty states have energy efficiency financing programs, and twelve of them offer loans to multiple sectors. Eighteen states have loan programs for the public sector (i.e., state agencies, municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals). Fourteen states have loan programs for businesses. Sixteen states have loan programs for the residential sector. Five states have loan programs for the agricultural sector (Matthew Brown, 2010).

New York State

New York State has developed residential energy efficiency loan programs with significant loan volume, energy audits, follow-up measurement and verification programs and a streamlined loan approval process. Pennsylvania has developed an energy efficiency loan program that has reached significant loan volume, and has a fast and streamlined loan approval process. California has developed a loan program for state agencies and local governments that has reached a significant proportion of its local government entities. Texas has developed an energy efficiency loan program for state agencies that has produced a significant number of loans, while also documenting energy and emissions savings. Nebraska has developed a multi -sector loan program that has achieved high loan volumes and high energy savings through partnerships with Nebraska banks.

California State

Cities, counties, public care institutions, public hospitals, public schools and colleges, and special districts in California can apply for low-interest loans from the California Energy Commission for energy efficiency projects in their buildings and facilities. Residential and commercial projects and non-profit institutions are not eligible for these funds.

Entities eligible for 0% loans include: School districts, Charter schools, County office of educations, State special schools, and Community college districts. Entities eligible for 1% loans include: Cities, Counties, Special Districts, Public College or University (except community colleges), Public Care Institutions/ Public Hospitals, University of California, and California State University.

There is no minimum loan amount, but the maximum loan amount per application is $3 million. The loan term cannot exceed the useful life of loan-funded equipment, and will be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the estimated annual energy cost savings from the projects. The exact loan term will be determined such that the energy savings will cover the loan payments.

For a project to be considered, it must have proven energy savings and meet the eligibility requirements of the loan program. Examples of projects include: Lighting systems, Pumps and motors, Streetlights and LED traffic signals, Energy management systems and equipment controls, Building insulation, Energy generation including renewable energy and combined heat and power projects, Heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment, Waste water treatment equipment, and Load shifting projects, including thermal energy storage.

4.2.7	PACE Financing

Property assessed clean energy (PACE) is a means of financing energy efficiency upgrades or renewable energy installations for buildings. Examples of upgrades range from adding more attic insulation to installing rooftop solar panels. In areas with PACE legislation in place municipal governments offer a specific bond to investors and then loan the money to consumers and businesses to put towards an energy retrofit. The loans are repaid over the assigned term (over the course of somewhere between 5 and 25 years) via an annual assessment on their property tax bill. PACE bonds can be issued by municipal financing districts, state agencies or finance companies and the proceeds can be used to retrofit both commercial and residential properties. One of the most notable characteristics of PACE programs is that the loan is attached to the property rather than an individual. (Wikipedia, 2016).

San Francisco, California

GreenFinanceSF is a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing program for commercial properties. GreenFinance SF uses an "open-market" PACE model in which individual property owners identify their own project lenders and negotiate all the financing terms with them. The City collects loan repayments from the participant through a special tax lien on the property and disburses payment to the project lender. The special tax lean should provide greater security to the lender, who should be able to provide more favorable financing terms to the property owner.

The property must be located in the City and County of San Francisco must e current in the payment of all obligations secured to the property including property taxes, assessments and tax liens within the past 3 years. The Green Finance SF lien will be a senior lien, and the property owner must receive written consent from all lenders with existing liens on the property.  The property owner must also have a professional energy and/or water audit conducted on the property, and the improvements being targeted by the financing must be identified as opportunities or recommendations by the auditor. If a renewable energy system is financed, the property owner must also implement energy efficiency measures resulting in a 10% improvement in building energy performance.

New York State

Energize NY Finance is a program offered by the Energy Improvement Corporation(EIC) that provides financing to commercial properties for deep energy upgrades and renewable energy projects. The program is financed with Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) structure to provide low interest rates, long repayment terms, transferability of the loans, and other benefits.  The program allows the property owners to borrow money from EIC which is repaid via a special assessment in the real estate tax bill. The loans are issued based on property value instead of credit history. If the property is sold, then the repayment option is legally transferred with the property.

Financing is available for a wide variety of buildings, including commercially owned buildings, multi-family buildings, industrial space, schools, non-profits, and others. Funding is not available for new construction of buildings. To participate in the program, the projects should be located within a municipality that is a member of the Energy Improvement Corporation (EIC). List of all the participating municipalities in the program can be accessed here.  The property that is being financed should be current on property tax payments, and must not have any involuntary liens or defaults.

Interested participate can file for pre-application online or contact the address provided below to determine their eligibility. After being approved, the program along with NYSERDA will assist with energy study of the building, help find contractors, and provide best options for financing. The amount of financing is limited to 10% of the appraised value of the property, or the cost of energy improvements, which-ever is lower. Typically the values range from $5,000 to $2,500,000. The loan can be issued with term lengths from 5 to 15 years with interest rate ranging from 5% to 7% depending on the term length.

4.2.8	Rebate Program

An Energy Rebate Program is a simple way for customers to apply and qualify for various energy rebates offered by energy service companies, or utilities, in their respective coverage areas. To lower IT equipment's carbon footprint, data center customers are looking at processes for protecting and respecting the environment through eco-friendly operations and data center design. This idea is being pushed by organizations such as The Green Grid, Climate Savers Computing Initiative and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Customer demand for energy rebates encourages the development of programs for IT vendors' computers, storage, networking or data center facilities. IT vendors are taking steps to provide more energy efficient IT systems and working with utilities to secure rebate savings for customers and their new installations. (Wikipedia, 2016).

California State

The Energy Upgrade California program serves as a one-stop shop for California homeowners who want to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. The program connects homeowners with qualified contractors, and helps homeowners find all the available incentives from their local utilities and local governments. The program is available statewide and is managed locally by utilities and regional energy networks. This Program is part of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Better Buildings Program.  The DOE has awarded over $500 million in federal funds to more than 40 states, local governments, and organizations to administer local programs targeting a variety of building types. Combined, these local programs are expected to improve the efficiency of more than 170,000 buildings through 2013 and save up to $65 million in energy costs annually.

To participate in the program, interested California homeowners should go to the website listed above and select an eligible contractor. The contractor will work with the homeowner to determine which improvements are best for the home and help fill out necessary paperwork to apply for rebates. There are two Upgrade options a homeowner can choose from: the Basic Home Upgrade Package and the Advanced Home Upgrade Package.

The Basic Upgrade focuses on the building shell to maintain a comfortable indoor environment in the home. The program offers up to $3,000 in rebates for eligible energy improvements. A participating contractor will implement improvements as needed and help apply for the rebate on behalf of the homeowner. The upgrades include attic, wall, and floor insulation, duct sealing, AC and furnace replacement and window replacements, and others.

The Advanced Upgrade Package offers greater incentives for a wider variety of energy improvements. The program offers up to $6,500 in rebates for eligible improvements that include all the measures included in basic home upgrade package as well as additional measures for lighting, water heating systems, roof, and other customized upgrades.

New York State

Under NYSERDA’s Multifamily Performance Program (MPP), new construction of multifamily buildings and existing multifamily buildings are eligible for incentives that improve energy savings through energy efficiency or innovative energy solutions, such as renewable energy. Through this program, interested building owners must work with a Multifamily Performance Partner. The program website contains a guide to assist building owners/managers in selecting a Performance Partner. Additional incentives are available for projects that serve or are expected to serve low-income tenants.

To participate in the program, the building must be a multifamily residential building, containing 5 or more units with at least 4 floors. Buildings must also contain residential space comprising at least 50% of the gross heated square footage of the entire project. The participant must work with a Performance Partner, who will conduct an energy assessment of the project, recommend improvements, and process and submit the incentive payments.

Buildings must use electricity from the utilities that collect the System Benefit Charge (SBC). These generally include major investor owned utilities in the State including: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, National Grid, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation. Some of these utilities also offer multifamily residential incentives. Utility program participants are not permitted to participate in the Multifamily Performance Program. Existing buildings that have received incentives from other program are not eligible for this program until 12 months.

Incentives amounts for exiting building are categorized into Base Incentive and Performance Incentive. Base incentives are awarded as a series of payments upon completion of certain project milestones.  In addition to base incentives, performance based incentives are available to projects that have at least 20% energy reduction. Performance based incentives are classified into different “tiers” of payment. Maximum incentive that can be received through the program is capped at $1,000 per unit for Firm gas and $800 per unit for Non-Firm gas*. Affordable program incentives for low-income participants are capped at $1,300 per unit for Firm gas and $1,100 per unit for Non-Firm gas.

Multifamily residential new construction buildings or buildings undergoing gut-rehab are eligible for this incentive. The program offers a Prescriptive Path and a more flexible Performance Path. Prescriptive path includes a fixed set of energy saving measures, while the Performance path includes a customized energy modeling to create unique Proposed Energy Reduction Plan.

Similar to the Existing Buildings plan, the incentive payments are made in 3 stages upon completion of certain milestones. Maximum incentive for the project is capped at $675 per unit for prescriptive, $900 per unit for performance; and $1,200 per unit for affordable performance, and $900 per unit for affordable prescriptive program.

4.2.9  Utility Rate Discount

A few electric utilities offer rate discounts to encourage residential energy efficiency. For homes that meet certain energy efficiency criteria, such as those established by the federal Energy Star program, the owner or tenant is awarded a percentage discount on each month's electric bill. In Seattle, the Utility Discount Program offers a discount of about 60% on your Seattle City Light bill and a 50% discount on your Seattle Public Utilities bill for eligible customers. This program is available for residential City Light and Seattle Public Utilities customers only and does not apply to residences used for business purposes. The City also has other utility assistance programs.( Open Energy Information, 2016).

Louisiana State

Louisiana's Cleco Power offers energy efficiency incentives to eligible customers. Cleco Power offers a rate discount for residential customers building homes that meet the Power Miser Program specifications. Additionally, new homes installing eligible heat pumps may receive up to a $1,000 bonus rebate. A customer that is building a new home that meets program standards will receive a rate discount of 10% between November and April for the first five years they live in the house.

Power Miser Standards include:

- Air Conditioner/Heat Pump has minimum SEER rating of 14

- Metal ductwork has 2 inches foil-backed or vinyl-backed insulation

- Non-metal ductwork made out of insulating material with branch duct R-6 - plenum R-4

- Electric water heater is well-insulated

- Floor and wall insulation with minimum rating of R-13

- Ceiling insulation with minimum rating of R-30

- Kitchen and laundry equipment must be all-electric

- Adequate attic ventilation

Within 60 days after the home is built, the customer must submit a verification form to obtain the rate discount.

5.0	FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

5.1	Selection of energy efficiency program for Feasibility Analysis

Table 6 reviews which programs National government and Seoul Metropolitan Government in South Korea applied among the energy efficiency programs in Unites States.

Table 7. The programs applied in South Korea and Seoul City

Category	Policy/incentive Type	The Application in South Korea
		National Government	Seoul
Regulatory policy	Appliance/Equipment Efficiency Standards	yes	no
	Building Energy Code	yes	yes
	Energy Efficiency Resource Standard	no	no
	Energy Standards for Public Buildings	yes	yes
	Public Benefits Fund	yes	no
	Renewables Portfolio Standard	yes	no
Financial incentive	Bond Program	yes	no
	Corporate Tax Credit	no	no
	Corporate Tax Deduction	no	no
	Corporate Tax Exemption	no	no
	Grant Program	yes	no
	Green Building Incentive	yes	yes
	Industry Recruitment/Support	yes	yes
	Leasing Program	yes	no
	Loan Program	yes	yes
	PACE Financing	no	no
	Performance-Based Incentive	yes	yes
	Personal Tax Credit	no	no
	Personal Tax Deduction	no	no
	Personal Tax Exemption	no	no
	Property Tax Incentive	no	no
	Rebate Program	no	no
	Sales Tax Incentive	no	no
	Utility Rate Discount	no	no

It show that South Korea focus on regulatory policy rather than financial incentives for energy efficiency. In addition, South Korea's of energy efficiency policy is mainly developed and implemented by the National government. Seoul has played the simple role to implement the policies created by the National government, without the development of its own programs.

5.2 Feasibility Analysis

Table 7 provides lists of energy efficiency  programs for the feasibility analysis. The programs applied in Seoul is excluded in the analysis. The degree of which each program can be available in Seoul was analyzed according to three level : High, Medium, Low. High level means that the policy has the high potential to be available in Seoul, while low level means that the policy has the low potential to be available.

Table 7 shows which programs have the high potential to be available as energy efficiency programs in Seoul. According to the analysis, it concludes that Seoul has enough groundwork to adopt financial incentives in Seoul, such as bond, grant, rebate program and utility rate discount.

Table 8. The results of Feasibility Analysis

	Policy/incentive Type	Technical?	Financial?	Legal?	Administrative?	Political?
Regulatory policy
	Energy Efficiency Resource Standard	Medium	High	Low	Low	High
	Public Benefits Fund	High	High	Low	High	Low
	Renewables Portfolio Standard	Low	High	Low	Low	High
Financial incentive
	Bond Program	High	High	Low	High	High
	Corporate Tax Credit	High	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
	Corporate Tax Deduction	High	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
	Corporate Tax Exemption	High	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
	Grant Program	High	High	Medium	High	High
	PACE Financing	High	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
	Personal Tax Credit	High	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
	Personal Tax Deduction	High	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
	Personal Tax Exemption	High	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
	Property Tax Incentive	High	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
	Rebate Program	High	High	High	High	Medium
	Sales Tax Incentive	High	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
	Utility Rate Discount	High	High	Medium	High	Medium

6.0	CONCLUSION

Federal and state governments in the United States have adopted a variety of regulatory policy and financial incentive aimed at increasing energy efficiency and productivity. Especially, federal or/and state policies for energy efficiency have tended to focus on fiscal tools, which affect the efficiency profile of products and investments that enter the market. As a results, economists have estimated that the adoption of more efficient products and services is responsible for 60-75% of the increase in energy productivity since 1970.

Seoul established the One Less Nuclear Power Plant Initiative Phase 2 in July 2014, aiming to achieve 20% of self-sufficiency in electricity. Energy efficiency is adopted as one of key strategies for One Less Nuclear Power Plant Initiative Phase 2. Therefore, the report will suggest strategies of Seoul's energy efficiency policy by benchmarking best practices of energy efficiency policy adopted in the federal and state government in untied state, in order to successfully achieve the goal of One Less Nuclear Power Plant Initiative Phase 2.

First of all, Seoul should adopt a variety of financial incentives for energy efficiency. Currently Seoul focuses on regulatory policies for energy efficiency, while State governments in the united states has reduced energy consumption through a variety of financial incentives for energy efficiency. That is why financial incentive is recognized as cost-effective alternatives to reduce high up-front capital costs of energy efficient technologies and services. As table 2 is shown,  DSIRE indentified 1,751 programs for energy efficiency in federal, state, and local level. Of these program, 234 programs are the regulatory policy category, while financial incentive category has 1,517 programs. It shows that state government in the united states focus on more the financial incentives than regulatory policy for energy efficiency.

State governments in the united state offer a variety of financial incentives, such as grants, loans, rebates, subsidies, and tax incentives. Feasibility Analysis concludes that Seoul has enough groundwork to adopt financial incentives in Seoul, such as bond program, grant program, rebate program and Utility rate discount.

The second, Seoul should establish the legal and administrative basis for the development, design, and implementation of financial incentives. Seoul should adopt the legal groundwork for financial incentives, especially such as bond program and tax incentive, because it accompany city's budget. In addition, the budget, organizational and human resources is essential to implement financial incentives.

REFERENCE

Alliance Commission on National Energy Efficiency Policy(ACNEEP) 2013, The History of Energy Efficiency.

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy(2015), The 2015 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy(ACEEE), State Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS), April 2015

AIA 2012, Green Building Incentive Trends,

California Energy Commission (2016), 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Retrieved 2016 from : http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24 /2013standards/

DSIRE, City of Boulder - Green Points Building Program, Retrieved 2016 from : http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/380)

DSIRE, 2016, Required Energy Efficiency Goals, Retrieved 2016 from : http:// programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/4622

International Energy Agency (2016), Retrieved 2015 from : http://www.iea.org/topics/energyefficiency/

Kepco (2015), the Electricity Statistics, Retrieved 2015 from : http://cyber.kepco.co.kr/kepco/KO/ ntcob/ list.do?boardCd=BRD_000097&menuCd=FN050301

Korea Energy Economics Institute (2015), 2014 Yearbook of Regional Energy Statistics, Seoul, South Korea.

Matthew Brown, 2010, Brief #2: State Energy Efficiency Loan Programs, Alliance to Save Energy

NC Clean Energy Technology Center (2015), Database of State Incentives for Renowables & Efficiency, Retrieved 2015 from : http://www.dsireusa.org/

Open Energy Information, Utility Rate Discount, Retrieved 2016 from : http://en.openei.org/wiki/Utility_Rate_Discount

Open Energy Information, Public Benefits Fund, Retrieved 2016 from : http://en.openei.org/wiki/Public_Benefits_Fund)

Seoul Metropolitan Government (2012), One Less Nuclear Power Plant Initiative, Seoul, South Korea

Seoul Metropolitan Government (2014), One Less Nuclear Power Plant Initiative Ⅱ, Seoul, South Korea

US Department of Energy (2016), Appliance & Equipment Standards Program Fact Sheet - Updated February 2016

U.S. Department of Energy (2016). Building energy codes Retrieved from http://www.energycodes.gov/

US Department of Energy (2015), Building Energy Codes Fact Sheet-UPDATED APRIL 2015

US DOE (2016), Appliance Standards Fact Sheet

US DOE (2015), Building Cords Fact Sheet

US DOE, Federal comprehensive annual energy performance data, Retrieved 2016 from : http://energy.gov/eere/femp/federal-facility-annual-energy-reports -and-performance

US DOE(2015), National Evaluation of the energy efficiency and conservation block grant program.

Wikipedia, PACE financing, Retrieved 2016 from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACE_financing

Wikipedia, Energy rebate program, Retrieved 2016 from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_rebate_program)