83

3. ANALYSIS & RESULTS

ANALYSIS & RESULTS 

The previous section of the Roadmap describes a number of strategies to achieve 

significant improvements to U.S. energy productivity. In this section of the Roadmap, DOE 

models the impacts of six combinations of productivity improvement strategies, referred 

to as wedges, to identify the most effective pathway forward. Fully analyzing the effect 

of those wedges on energy productivity requires a model of interaction between the 

U.S. economy’s use of energy and its GDP. Based on a review of the existing literature 

on energy productivity and GDP, DOE developed a modeling framework that dynamically 

relates changes in energy use and investment to changes in GDP.

The model improves upon previous analyses conducted by DOE because it combines robust estimates of the 

relationships between various sectors of the economy using historical data and because it dynamically estimates the 

future effects of changes to the economy using those historical relationships. More broadly, the model estimates the 

net effects of changes to energy use and investments on GDP, capturing any GDP feedback effects caused by energy 

efficiency investments. Consequently, the model is capable of directly estimating how future changes in both energy 

use and investments may affect energy productivity. For instance, the model can predict what level of national effort, in 

terms of investment and energy reduction, is required to meet the energy productivity goal. 

3.1 Synthesis of Strategies into Energy

Productivity Wedges

The energy productivity strategies presented in the Roadmap often involve multiple economic sectors and levels of 

government. To capture the collective potential impacts of those strategies, DOE has developed six productivity wedges. 

A summary description of each wedge, including associated investment and energy savings used in the analysis, is 

provided below. Model inputs for each wedge were developed using assumptions and results from published studies, 

as summarized in Table 2. The results of these studies were generated using models and assumptions that are separate 
84

3. ANALYSIS & RESULTS

from the model and analysis developed for the Roadmap, and do not represent impacts of specific strategies and actions 

identified in the Roadmap. The results from these studies, however, are assumed to be illustrative of the types of energy 

and economic changes that would be expected to result from following the Roadmap and are appropriate to use as inputs 

to the energy productivity model. The published studies are best described as prospective analyses that estimate potential 

energy savings (in Btu and dollars) for a particular economic sector, given a certain level of investment. However, not all 

sources included estimates of associated investment levels or energy savings in dollars. Where sources did not include 

dollar energy savings, estimates of these savings were generated using AEO 2014 fuel price projections and estimated 

energy savings. Note that successful implementation of energy productivity wedges are likely to affect future energy 

commodity prices. Where a source report did not include energy savings estimates, such as for the Smart Manufacturing 

wedge, assumptions from the report were used to develop energy savings estimates from AEO 2014 data.

Table 2 presents the productivity wedges and summarizes their connections to the strategies discussed earlier in the 

Roadmap. Note that there are overlaps and interactions between wedges and individual strategies that may be part 

of several wedges. Energy productivity wedges are entered into the model as changes in overall investment and total 

energy use. The model does not differentiate between the types of investments and energy savings by sector. More 

specifically, the model assumes that an increase in investment of $1.00 has the same effect regardless of what sector 

of the economy the investment occurs. Likewise, the model assumes that a 1 Btu change in energy use has the same 

effect regardless of the economic sector and the energy carrier. The model does report GDP impacts by three separate 

sectors: goods, services, and natural resources and utilities. The model does account for energy used to produce the 

additional goods and services that result from increased investments. This results in a net energy impact that is less than 

the sum of energy savings of each individual wedge.
85

3. ANALYSIS & RESULTS

Table 2. Summary of Model Analysis Sources and Inputs by Energy Productivity Wedge159

Wedge Summary of 

Representative Energy 

Productivity Actions

Sources of Inputs Inputs

Smart Energy

Systems

Implementation of smart grid 

technologies in transmission 

and distribution systems and for 

consumers.

EPRI (Electric Power Research 

Institute). 2011. Estimating the 

Costs and Benefits of the Smart 

Grid. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power 

Research Institute. 

EPRI. 2009. The Potential to 

Reduce CO2 Emissions by 

Expanding End-Use Applications of 

Electricity. Palo Alto, CA: Electric 

Power Research Institute.

$738 billion cumulative net cost 

savings to utilities and consumers; 

70 Quadrillion Btu cumulative 

energy savings by 2030.

Technologies for 

Buildings Energy 

Productivity

High achievable potential for 

adoption of energy-efficient 

equipment.

EPRI. 2014. U.S. Energy Efficiency 

Potential Through 2035. Palo 

Alto, CA: Electric Power Research 

Institute.

5.4 Quadrillion Btu/year energy 

reduction by 2030; $331 billion 

cumulative investment costs by 

2030; $409 billion cumulative cost 

savings by 2030.

Buildings Energy 

Productivity 

Financing

Building energy efficiency retrofits 

enabled by energy service 

agreements, property assessed 

clean energy, on-bill financing.

Rockefeller Foundation and DB 

Climate Change Advisors (2012). 

United States Building Energy 

Efficiency Retrofits: Market Sizing 

and Financing Models. Frankfurt: 

Deutsche Bank AG.

Cumulative investment of $279 

billion with cumulative cost 

savings of $717 billion by 2030. 39 

Quadrillion Btu cumulative energy 

savings by 2030.

Smart

Manufacturing

ICT that enables energy efficiency 

in electrical equipment used in 

manufacturing processes and 

buildings. Recommendations for 

government (lead by example, 

R&D), public utilities, and ICT 

suppliers.

Rogers, Ethan A., R. Neal Elliott, 

Sameer Kwatra, Dan Trombley, and 

Vasanth Nadadur. 2013. Intelligent 

Efficiency: Opportunities, Barriers, 

and Solutions. Washington, DC: 

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy.

15 Quadrillion Btu cumulative 

reduction in energy use and $15 

billion cost savings by 2030.

Transportation Technical potential of energy 

efficiency improvements for 

light-duty vehicles; adoption of 

alternative fuel vehicles; reduction 

of vehicle miles traveled through 

trip reduction, land use change 

(e.g., higher densities, walkable 

neighborhoods), efficient driving, 

mode switching; and efficient 

technologies for freight modes.

DOE Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, and 

Argonne National Laboratory. 2013. 

Transportation Energy Futures 

series. http://www.nrel.gov/

analysis/transportation_futures/.

Cumulative energy reduction of 152 

Quadrillion Btu and cost savings of 

$4,051 billion by 2030.

Water

Infrastructure

Efficiency potential for pumps and 

other equipment in water supply 

and wastewater treatment utilities.

WRF (Water Research Foundation) 

and EPRI. 2013. Electricity Use 

and Management in the Municipal 

Water Supply and Wastewater 

Utilities. Denver, CO: Water 

Research Foundation, Palo Alto, 

CA: Electric Power Research 

Institute.

Cumulative energy reduction of 1 

Quadrillion Btu and cost savings of 

$6 billion through 2030.

159 Care was taken to select a set of model inputs that would avoid double-counting investments and energy savings for each energy productivity wedge. 

However, it was not possible to quantify potential double-counting given the varying level of detail contained in the source reports. The buildings energy 

productivity technology and buildings finance wedges are the most likely to have some overlap, although this likely does not affect the conclusions drawn 

from results of the energy productivity analysis. The inputs for the buildings energy productivity-technology wedge were identified in the source report as 

part of a “high achievable” scenario, which includes barriers that limit adoption of energy efficiency measures. It is assumed that novel funding mechanisms 

represented by the buildings energy productivity-financing scenario overcome these barriers. As a result, the investments and energy savings are additional 

and not double-counted.
86

3. ANALYSIS & RESULTS

The published studies can be described as prospective analyses that estimate potential energy savings (in Btu and 

dollars) for a particular economic sector, given a certain level of investment. However, not all sources included estimates 

of associated investment levels or energy savings in dollars. Where sources did not include dollar energy savings, 

estimates of these savings were generated using AEO 2014 fuel price projections and estimated energy savings. Note 

that successful implementation of energy productivity wedges is likely to affect future prices of energy commodities. 

Where a source report did not include energy savings estimates, such as for the Smart Manufacturing wedge, 

assumptions from the report were used to develop energy savings estimates from AEO 2014 data.

Energy productivity wedges are entered into the model as changes in overall investment and total energy use. The 

model does not differentiate between the types of investments and energy savings by sector. In other words, the model 

assumes that an increase in investment of $1.00 has the same effect regardless of the economic sector in which the 

investment occurs. Likewise, the model assumes that a one-Btu change in energy use has the same effect regardless 

of the economic sector or the energy carrier. The model does report GDP impacts by three separate sectors: goods, 

services, and natural resources and utilities. The model does account for energy used to produce the additional goods 

and services that result from increased investments. This results in a net energy impact that is less than the sum of 

energy savings of each individual wedge.

• Smart Energy Systems: Energy systems, including those that participate in the generation and delivery of 

electricity, are sources and enables the backbone of improvements to U.S. energy productivity. Broad and deep 

transformations involving the effective integration of information and communications technologies are required to 

enable transitions to distributed energy resources, real-time energy pricing, smart appliances, and increased energy 

efficiency. The Smart Grid is estimated to produce cumulative benefits of $23.7 billion–$46.8 billion and 42 billion 

kWh–134 billion kWh of electricity savings by 2030.160

• Technologies for Building Energy Productivity: Improving R&D and increased focus on deployment is required 

to bring the next generation of energy productivity. Enabling technology and equipment for commercial and residential 

buildings requires both the widespread use of currently available energy-efficient technologies and practices, and the 

development of next generation technologies. Annual investment in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors 

of $7 billion, $12 billion, and $74 million respectively are estimated to yield combined energy savings of 5.4 quads.161

• Financing for Building Energy Productivity: Significant changes to financing mechanisms are required to 

ensure that energy productivity-enabling technology is purchased by businesses and households. Strategies include 

160 C. Gellings, Estimating the Costs and Benefits of the Smart Grid: A Preliminary Estimate of the Investment Requirements and the Resultant Benefits 

of a Fully Functioning Smart Grid (Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, 2011), accessed July 2015, http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/

ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001022519.

161 S. Mullen-Trento, U.S. Energy Efficiency Potential Through 2035 (Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, 2014), accessed July 2015, http://

www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001025477.
87

3. ANALYSIS & RESULTS

on-bill financing, creating secondary markets for energy efficiency loans, and tailoring financing for the unique needs 

of small and medium enterprises. Building retrofits enabled by new financing mechanisms are assumed to result in a 

10-year cumulative investment of $279 billion and 3.0 quads of annual energy savings in 10 years.

• Smart Manufacturing: Sensors and other ICT will allow industries better control over their processes, as well as 

improved energy management of their buildings. Based on analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, annual energy savings are estimated to reach 2.1 quadrillion Btu by 2030.162

• Transportation: Increasing the energy productivity of moving goods and people relies on developing and deploying 

new technologies that increase vehicle efficiency; increasing options for mass transit; and better integrating 

transportation needs with the built environment. Model inputs for this wedge are net annual energy reduction of 16 

quads/year by 2030 and investments of $531B/year by 2030.

• Water Infrastructure: The linkages between energy and water systems provide opportunities to increase energy 

productivity. Specifically, water and waste water treatment plants can improve energy efficiency and demand 

response, implement emerging technologies and processes, and deploy energy recovery and generation technologies. 

Improvements made in this wedge are assumed to result in an energy reduction of 0.14 quads/year by 2030 and 

investments of $800M/year by 2030.

Table 3. Energy Productivity Strategies Organized by Productivity Wedge

Smart Energy 

Systems

Technologies 

for Buildings 

Energy 

Productivity

Buildings 

Energy 

Productivity 

Financing

Smart

Manufacturing

Transportation Water

Infrastructure

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Research and 

Development

X X X X X

Performance

Information and 

Product Standards

X X X X

Tax Policy X X X X X

Workforce Training X X X

Demonstration and 

Leading by Example

X X X X X

STATE GOVERNMENT

Energy Efficiency 

Portfolio Standards

X X

Energy Productivity 

Financing

X X

Combined Heat

and Power

X X

Smart Regional 

Transportation 

Solutions

X

Building Codes X

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

162 Ethan A. Rogers, R. Neal Elliott, Sameer Kwatra, Daniel Trombley, and Vasanth Nadadur, Intelligent Efficiency: Opportunities, Barriers, and Solutions, 

Research Report E13J (Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 2013), accessed July 2015, http://aceee.org/research-report/e13j.
88

3. ANALYSIS & RESULTS

Smart Energy 

Systems

Technologies 

for Buildings 

Energy 

Productivity

Buildings 

Energy 

Productivity 

Financing

Smart

Manufacturing

Transportation Water

Infrastructure

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Research and 

Development

X X X X X

Performance

Information and 

Product Standards

X X X X

Tax Policy X X X X X

Workforce Training X X X

Demonstration and 

Leading by Example

X X X X X

STATE GOVERNMENT

Energy Efficiency 

Portfolio Standards

X X

Energy Productivity 

Financing

X X

Combined Heat

and Power

X X

Smart Regional 

Transportation 

Solutions

X

Building Codes X

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Local Ordinances to 

Facilitate Distributed 

Resources, where 

appropriate

X X X

Building Energy Disclosure OrdinancesX X X

Creating Advanced 

Manufacturing 

Ecosystems

X X X X

Built Environment-Transportation 

Nexus

X X X

COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES

New Financing 

Models X X X

Workforce Training X X X X

INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES

Public-Private 

Partnerships X X X

Energy Management 

Certification X X

Advanced Manufacturing X X

Innovative Products 

gy 

Systems

g

for Buildings 

Energy 

Productivity

g

Energy 

Productivity 

Financing

Manufacturing

p

Infrastructure

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Research and 

Development

X X X X X

Performance

Information and 

Product Standards

X X X X

Tax Policy X X X X X

Workforce Training X X X

Demonstration and 

Leading by Example

X X X X X

STATE GOVERNMENT

Energy Efficiency 

Portfolio Standards

X X

Energy Productivity 

Financing

X X

Combined Heat

and Power

X X

Smart Regional 

Transportation 

Solutions

X

Building Codes X

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Local Ordinances to 

Facilitate Distributed 

Resources, where 

appropriate

X X X

Building Energy Disclosure OrdinancesX X X

Creating Advanced 

Manufacturing 

Ecosystems

X X X X

Built Environment-Transportation 

Nexus

X X X

COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES

New Financing 

Models X X X

Workforce Training X X X X

INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES

Public-Private 

Partnerships X X X

Energy Management 

Certification X X

Advanced Manufacturing X X

Innovative Products 

to Enable Energy 

Savings

X X X X X

ELECTRIC UTILITIES

Grid Infrastructure 

Productivity X

New Business 

Models X X X X

Rate Reform X X X X

WATER UTILITIES

X X
89

3. ANALYSIS & RESULTS

Smart Energy 

Systems

Technologies 

for Buildings 

Energy 

Productivity

Buildings 

Energy 

Productivity 

Financing

Smart

Manufacturing

Transportation Water

Infrastructure

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Research and 

Development

X X X X X

Performance

Information and 

Product Standards

X X X X

Tax Policy X X X X X

Workforce Training X X X

Demonstration and 

Leading by Example

X X X X X

STATE GOVERNMENT

Energy Efficiency 

Portfolio Standards

X X

Energy Productivity 

Financing

X X

Combined Heat

and Power

X X

Smart Regional 

Transportation 

Solutions

X

Building Codes X

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Local Ordinances to 

Facilitate Distributed 

Resources, where 

appropriate

X X X

Building Energy Disclosure OrdinancesX X X

Creating Advanced 

Manufacturing 

Ecosystems

X X X X

Built Environment-Transportation 

Nexus

X X X

COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES

New Financing 

Models X X X

Workforce Training X X X X

INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES

Public-Private 

Partnerships X X X

Energy Management 

Certification X X

Advanced Manufacturing X X

Innovative Products 

to Enable Energy 

Si

X X X X X

COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES

New Financing 

Models X X X

Workforce Training X X X X

INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES

Public-Private 

Partnerships X X X

Energy Management 

Certification X X

Advanced Manufacturing X X

Innovative Products 

to Enable Energy 

Savings

X X X X X

ELECTRIC UTILITIES

Grid Infrastructure 

Productivity X

New Business 

Models X X X X

Rate Design X X X X

WATER UTILITIES

X X

HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Workforce Training X X X X

Accelerating Energy 

Productivity from 

the Lab to the Real 

World

X X X X

HOUSEHOLDS

Energy Productivity 

at Home X X

3.2 Overview of Energy Productivity 

Analysis Framework 

As described in the previous section, the strategies identified in the Roadmap are aggregated into six illustrative energy 

productivity wedges. These wedges are representative of the Roadmap strategies and illustrate the types of economic and 

energy changes that could be expected following implementation of the Roadmap. The investments and corresponding 

reductions in energy use for each wedge are described in Table 2 and serve as inputs to the modeling efforts. 

In the abstract, diverting spending from one use (such as consumption) to another use (such as investments in energyefficient technology) has ambiguous effects on GDP that depends on the relative GDP multipliers of the specific type of 

consumption and investment. (The GDP multiplier captures the direct and indirect effects of a change in direct spending 

patterns on GDP.) Thus DOE built a model to better understand how changes in direct spending, such as increases in 

energy efficiency investment as described by the wedges, would produce indirect effects on GDP. The combination of 
90

3. ANALYSIS & RESULTS

those direct and indirect effects represent the net effects of changes to energy use and investments on GDP, capturing 

any GDP feedback effects caused by energy efficiency investments. 

Specifically, DOE employed a vector error correction model (VECM) to estimate the effect of the wedges on U.S. GDP. 

This approach is commonly used by economists as a forecasting tool because of its ability to robustly estimate historical 

relationships between various sectors of the economy and then use those historical relationships to dynamically predict 

economic growth in a way that incorporates interactions and feedback effects between economic sectors. The model 

improves upon previous analyses conducted by DOE. The model has three component parts, each with two periods: 

the estimation period when historical relationships between sectors are statistically estimated (1970 to 2013), and the 

forecast period (2014 to 2030). 

The objective of the first set of VECM equations is to dynamically estimate GDP and energy use with feedback effects. 

The equations capture how energy expenditures interact with consumption and investment, two major components of 

GDP. The primary actors in all wedges are investors, privately held businesses, and households; this set of equations 

models the economic relationships between those actors and energy expenditures. 

The objective of the second set of VECM equations is to estimate energy prices such that energy expenditures can be 

converted to the quantity of energy used. Energy expenditures were estimated in the first set of equations, which consist 

of prices for various energy commodities multiplied by the quantities of those energy commodities consumed. The 

second set of VECM equations captures feedback effects between prices, quantities and other macroeconomic variables 

including consumption, investment, and total energy expenditures. 

The objective of the third set of VECM equations is to estimate the changes in activity for each modeled sector of the 

economy. The model decomposes GDP into three component sectors: goods, services, and natural resources combined 

with utilities. These sectors were chosen because they correspond well with the structure of the model, which focuses 

on GDP and energy. The goods sector contains agriculture, manufacturing, and construction. The natural resources 

and utilities sector contains mining and other extractive industries as well as utilities. The services sector contains all 

other industries, including sales, warehousing, transportation, information business services, leisure services, and other 

services. These equations rely on the variables estimated in the first two sets of equations, as well as other variables 

such as the size of the labor force, net exports, and industrial production.

Data for the model is drawn primarily from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) with sector-specific data pulled 
91

3. ANALYSIS & RESULTS

from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the World KLEMS Initiative.163 Specifically, the VECM model relies on 

historical data between 1970 and 2013 and forecasts from 2014 to 2030, which is developed in EIA’s AEO 2014. The 

model’s baseline does not precisely match that of AEO 2014 because of different model structure and assumptions, 

although the two baselines are similar. Data that relate economic growth to the use of economic inputs are provided 

by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the World KLEMS Initiative. These data are widely used in productivity 

analysis to estimate how changes in the use of economic inputs affect changes in economic output.

Energy productivity wedges are entered into the model as increases in overall investment and reductions in total energy use. 

The model does not differentiate by sector between the types of investments and energy savings by sector. More specifically, 

an increase in investment of $1.00 is the same regardless of what sector of the economy the investment occurs. Likewise, the 

model assumes that a 1 Btu change in energy use is the same regardless of the economic sector and the energy consumer. 

This modeling technique is not without limitations. Perhaps the most significant hurdle to successful implementation of 

the model is the large amount of historical detail required for each sector modeled. As the number of sectors increases, 

longer time series are necessary to find statistically significant relationships between industries. Other techniques 

that are often used for similar forecasting exercises, such as input-output (I-O) and computable general equilibrium 

(CGE) models, often have even more sector-level detail, yet rely on theoretical interactions between sectors rather 

than observed historical relationships. In addition, I-O models are described as static because they assume that prices, 

technology, and productivity remain unchanged over time. And although relative prices can change in a CGE model, 

CGE model results are dependent on what the modeler specifies, instead of historical relationships, with respect to the 

sensitivity of changes in energy consumption by each industry or households are to prices. Thus, the VECM model was 

attractive because it is a dynamic model that relies on historical data to identify relationships between sectors. 

3.3 Energy Productivity Potential

Given the scenario outlined above for all six productivity wedges, the model shows that doubling energy productivity by 

2030 is possible but only if multiple sectors and initiatives concurrently work together. By 2030, model results show that 

GDP (2005$) increases to $22.5 trillion and primary energy use falls to 78 quads. In comparison, model baseline estimates 

163 KLEMS is an acronym for the five components of intermediate inputs used by industries: capital (K), labor (L), energy (E), materials (M), and services 

(S). These data are widely used in productivity analysis to estimate how changes in the use of economic inputs affect changes in economic output. See, 

for example: Douglas Koszerek, Karel Havik, Kieran McMorrow, Werner Röger, and FrankSchönborn, An Overview of the EU KLEMS Growth and Productivity 

Accounts (Brussels: European Commission Economic and Financial Affairs, 2007), accessed July 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/

publication9467_en.pdf and Era Dabla-Norris, Si Guo, Vikram Haksar, Minsuk Kim, Kalpana Kochhar, Kevin Wiseman, and Aleksandra Zdzienicka, The New 

Normal: A Sector-Level Perspective on Productivity Trends in Advanced Economies (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund, 2015), accessed July 

2015, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1503.pdf. 
92

3. ANALYSIS & RESULTS

are $21.5 trillion ($2005) and 104 quads in 2030. Thus, in 2030, the Roadmap scenario achieves 4.3 percent higher GDP 

and 25 percent lower primary energy use compared to the baseline.164 These results are equivalent to increasing energy 

productivity in 2030 to $287/MMBtu, which is more than double the modeled 2010 baseline of $134/MMBtu, as shown in 

Figure 7. From 2014 to 2030, energy productivity increases at an annual average rate of approximately 4.2 percent. This 

rate of improvement is slightly greater than the rate experienced from 1981 to 1983, the period of the largest multi-year 

energy productivity growth experienced between 1970 and 2010. The buildings- and transportation-related productivity 

wedges offer the greatest potential to drive energy productivity improvements. Although these wedges alone may result in 

significant progress, achieving the doubling goal requires many actors working together across all sectors of the economy.

FIGURE 1

Building Technology

Smart Manufacturing

Buildings Finance

Smart Energy Systems

Transportation

Net Impact of Wedges

Business as Usual (BAU)

GOAL

300

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

250

200

150

ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY (GDP 2005$ per MMBtu)

100

50

0

Figure 7. Projected Energy Productivity Benefits to 2030

The wedges in aggregate contribute to a net increase of $922 billion in U.S. GDP by 2030. This is primarily supported by 

an increase of $753 billion in household expenditures, although it is also driven by a $169 billion increase in investment.

Consumption and investment represent allocations of expenditures in an economy. These are not modeled as two different 

groups of consumers. One household, for example, could invest while also making personal consumption expenditures. The 

wedges analyzed involve changing these allocations and subsequently receiving returns on these investments in the form 

of savings from reduced energy expenditures. Investors are also the owners of businesses, so business investments also 

directly affect households. These capital expenditures must come from the population, and subsequent returns then accrue 

164 This compares to the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2015 Reference Case estimates of $22.0 trillion ($2005) and 103 quads in 2030.
93

3. ANALYSIS & RESULTS

back to these investors. Put more simply, households are able to increase their purchases of other goods and services by 

making energy productivity investments that reduce their energy bills. By 2030, there is a 26-quad gross reduction in energy 

consumption compared to the baseline, which translates to a cumulative 280-quad gross reduction in energy consumption 

between 2015 and 2030. However, the model also accounts for energy used to produce the additional goods and services 

purchased by households as a result of the reductions in their energy bills. Once accounted for, cumulative net energy 

savings fall to 240 quads, or approximately 14 percent smaller than the aggregate reduction for each productivity wedge 

without considering additional consumer expenditures. The effect is shown in Figure 7 as the dashed line. 

Producers of goods and services are also shown to benefit from increased economic activity spurred by energy 

productivity investments. As shown in Figure 8, the service industry exhibits the most significant growth, with a nearly 

$1.08 trillion increase in baseline by 2030. By 2030, goods-providing industries increase by approximately $91 billion over 

the model baseline. Declines in economic activity in the natural resources and utilities are due to decreases in energy 

expenditures and demand for production from utilities and their supply chain. By 2030, this decrease is $248 billion, or 

-1.2 percent of GDP, below baseline. Because the analysis focuses on investment and energy spending, these results 

do not capture other benefits that are likely to accrue to the natural resources and utilities sector, such as reduced 

economic losses from power outages (discussed in Section 2.3.1.)

$1400

$1200

$1000

$800

$600

$400

$200

0

$(200)

$(400)

$1400

$1200

$1000

$800

$600

$400

$200

0

$(200)

$(400)

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

FIGURE 2

GDP (BILLIONS 2005$)

SERVICES

GOODS

NATURAL RESOURCES & UTILITIES

Figure 8. Projected Changes to GDP by Sector (Billions 2005$)
Implementation 

will require changes in 

behavior, investment, and 

deployment of technologies.
95

4. NEXT STEPS & CONCLUSION

NEXT STEPS 

& CONCLUSION 

The federal government has taken significant actions that will improve energy 

productivity, but these steps require private-sector participation and they will only get 

the United States roughly halfway to the goal. To achieve the other half of the national 

goal, decision makers across the United States also need to take action. Participants at 

the regional dialogues discussed a wide range of opportunities for diverse stakeholders 

to improve their own energy productivity and contribute to meeting the national goal. 

The Roadmap provides an overview of the types of strategies and actions that need to be 

taken by businesses, the government, and other actors in the U.S. economy to increase 

energy productivity and fully meet the goal.

GOVERNMENT

• Federal Government: Invest in long-term energy productivity through research, development, and demonstration in 

transportation, buildings, and manufacturing technologies; secure energy productivity through setting and updating vehicle 

and product codes and standards, and providing energy performance information to consumers; support policy action by 

state and local governments and the private sector through the provision of tools and other resources to reap the benefits of 

energy efficiency; set the financial foundation for energy productivity through tax policies; help train a workforce geared for 

energy productivity; and lead by example in adopting new technologies and strategies in its own operations.

• State Government: Pursue policies to encourage greater energy efficiency; promote new and innovative financing for 

investments that support energy productivity; support and incentivize increased deployment of combined heat and power 

(CHP); implement smart regional transportation solutions; and adopt and enforce increasingly efficient building codes. 

• State Regulators: Adopt rates and implement related policies affecting utility sector efficiency programs that 

more effectively align efficiency efforts with utility business models; and support energy productivity investments in 

buildings and infrastructure.
96

4. NEXT STEPS & CONCLUSION

• Local Government: Facilitate distributed generation; establish good practices for building energy information; 

support the development of advanced manufacturing ecosystems; and reduce personal vehicle miles traveled through 

the built environment-transportation nexus.

• National Laboratories: Serve as incubators for new energy productivity technologies—and where appropriate, 

enable new, energy-efficient technologies to move rapidly from the lab to the marketplace.

BUSINESSES

• Commercial Businesses: Reduce energy consumption in their own buildings and facilities through energy 

efficiency; reinvest the resulting avoided energy costs into growing their businesses; adopt new financing models that 

promote energy productivity investments; encourage their suppliers and vendors to take measures to improve energy 

productivity; and assist in training a workforce geared for energy productivity.

• Industrial Businesses: In addition to taking similar steps as commercial entities, leverage public-private 

partnerships; adopt energy management systems; transition to advanced manufacturing technologies; and explore 

new, innovative products that enable energy productivity for customers and suppliers.

UTILITIES AND LARGE CONSUMERS

• Electric Utilities: Modernize the grid infrastructure through smart grid investments and improving the efficiency 

and interoperability of generation, transmission, storage, and distribution; adopt new utility business models to 

empower the improvement of energy productivity; design rates and support related policies for utility energy 

efficiency programs that more effectively align energy efficiency with utility business models; and support energy 

productivity investments in buildings.

• Water Utilities: Adopt more energy-efficient and energy-extracting technologies at water and wastewater 

treatment facilities and more water-efficient technologies in distribution and end use water systems (e.g., 

wastewater treatment plants can implement more efficient pumps and deploy onsite waste to energy conversion, 

such as digesters and combined heat and power; end use hot water conservation measures also have a direct impact 

on energy consumption).
97

4. NEXT STEPS & CONCLUSION

HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS AND 

HOUSEHOLDS

• Higher Education Institutions: Create new curricula and expand workforce training opportunities across multiple 

disciplines (e.g., building trades, engineering, governmental policy, economics, and legal) for careers in the clean 

energy, energy efficiency, and advanced manufacturing fields; and act as demonstration and commercialization 

“accelerators,” enabling new energy-productive technologies to move rapidly from the lab to the marketplace. In 

addition, higher education institutions can invest in making their facilities and fleets more efficient.

• Individuals and Households: Support the markets associated with energy-efficient products in the home and for 

transportation, and use available resources to make informed choices. 

According to both the regional dialogues and the technical analyses conducted as part of the Accelerate Energy 

Productivity 2030 initiative, a wide range of activities can be taken that will yield significant productivity benefits. 

Implementing these activities will require changes in behavior, investment, and deployment of technologies. Collectively, 

they can improve U.S. economic output, reduce U.S. energy consumption, and reduce the impact of energy on the 

environment. The fact that the government and private sector, including endorsers of the goal, are undertaking many of 

these activities suggests the significant challenge of doubling energy productivity can be—and is on the way to being—

met. The Roadmap provides a foundation for scaling up these efforts nationwide while allowing for flexible and tailored 

solutions. Through the roundtables, three regional dialogues, innovative analysis, and this Roadmap, the Accelerate 

Energy Productivity 2030 Initiative catalyzed action to meet this important national goal. 
SECTION 1

APPENDIX 1 

International Energy 

Productivity Efforts
99

APPENDIX 1

Overview and Background

Note: This summary is derived from a forthcoming roundtable report from the sixth Clean Energy Ministerial.

The United States is not alone in its interest in increasing energy productivity. Energy productivity, the ratio of economic 

output per unit of energy use, focuses attention on how scarce energy resources can be put to their best use and 

how energy efficiency can lift economic growth. The last decade displayed growth in the energy productivity of both 

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member country groups and non-member economies. 

According to the International Energy Agency’s Energy Efficiency Market Report, 2014, energy productivity in OECD 

Americas grew by 22 percent between 2003 and 2013 (see Figure 9).

FIGURE 9

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

THOUSANDS 2005 USD PPP Per ton

OECD EUROPE

OECD ASIA / OCEANIA

OECD AMERICAS

WORLDS

NON-OECD TOTAL

Figure 9. Increase in Energy Productivity by Region

While energy productivity is a relatively new concept compared to its inverse, energy intensity, a number of governments 

and international actors are embracing this framework to set or support the achievement of national and regional goals. 

Australia is notable for a call in its 2015 Energy White Paper to focus on boosting the productive use of energy, which 
100

APPENDIX 1

includes the development of a national energy productivity plan.165 The Energy White Paper identifies that an achievable 

target for national energy productivity could be an increase of 40 percent by 2030, but even this level of improvement 

will require regulatory and voluntary actions across the economy. Analysis from ClimateWorks Australia supports the 

possibility of nearly doubling energy productivity by 2030 through a combination of improved energy supply, energy 

efficiency, electrification, and structural change.166

In addition to individual actions, countries have begun sharing best practices and discussing common barriers. The sixth 

meeting of the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM), a global forum for advancing clean energy policy and technology, included 

a roundtable discussion on accelerating energy productivity where topics included opportunities for partnerships and the 

challenges of retrofitting existing energy generation and end use infrastructure.167 According to the 2015 Energy Productivity 

and Economic Prosperity Index study commissioned by Royal Philips, Europe’s efforts to double energy productivity by 2030 

could cut energy expenditures by one-third, improve energy security, and create 1.2 million jobs by 2020.

Achieving these benefits requires identifying and implementing policies and measures that lower energy use while 

growing the economy, as well as making available financing instruments to translate future savings into liquidity for 

investments today. 

Articulating the Case for Energy 

Productivity

Businesses that have already adopted energy productivity practices find the business case is overwhelmingly compelling. 

Nonetheless, a barrier to scale is lack of awareness, necessitating the engagement and education of all stakeholders on 

the benefits of energy productivity. 

CEM Roundtable participants highlighted examples of government and private-sector approaches that have delivered energy 

savings and economic benefits. In Denmark, the Central Bank concluded that a focus on energy efficiency and savings 

165 Commonwealth of Australia, 2015 Energy White Paper (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2015), accessed July 2015, http://ewp.industry.gov.au/

files/EnergyWhitePaper.pdf.

166 ClimateWorks Australia, Australia’s Energy Productivity Potential: Energy’s Growing Role in Australia’s Productivity and Competitiveness (Melbourne: 

ClimateWorks Australia, 2015), accessed July 2015, http://climateworks.com.au/sites/default/files/documents/publications/climateworks_energy_productivity_

report_20150310.pdf. 

167 Clean Energy Ministerial, “A Summary of the Clean Energy Ministerial 6 (CEM6)” CEM Bulletin 181:12 (2015), accessed July 2015, http://www.iisd.ca/

download/pdf/sd/crsvol181num12e.pdf.
101

APPENDIX 1

resulted in approximately 9 percent gains in wage competitiveness 

over the last decade. This success is attributed to establishing 

predictable, long-term efficiency policies such as the National 

Energy Efficiency Action Plan; targeting both residential and 

commercial sectors simultaneously; setting standards; and 

sharing information on best practices. India’s energy productivity 

is increasing by 1.6 percent annually and is being boosted through 

policies to align energy pricing, promote new business models and 

new markets, and enhance regulations for efficiency.

Benchmarking, setting goals, and monitoring progress toward 

those goals were identified as best practices by businesses that 

have achieved significant productivity gains and energy savings. 

The practice of continuous improvement was also highlighted, as 

was working with supply chains to encourage efficiency along the 

value chain. The international standard for energy management, 

ISO 50001, provides a flexible and robust framework for businesses to “Plan–Do–Check–Act” their way to continual 

improvement in energy savings. In Germany, incentives such as tax rebates or exemptions from surcharges have been 

effective in fostering the uptake of energy management systems (more than 3,000 ISO 50001 certified systems). 

Finally, the discussion highlighted the importance of setting and publicizing goals. According to a study conducted by 

the Johnson Controls Institute for Building Efficiency,168 organizations that made their goals public were almost twice as 

likely to have made investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy in the previous year, implemented 50 percent 

more measures, and were roughly three times more likely to increase investments the following year.

Scaling Up Energy Productivity

A common theme that emerged around energy productivity from the CEM roundtable was the importance of partnerships 

between the public and private sectors—most importantly, the need to agree on common goals and a vision to motivate 

actions. Coordinated platforms and forums, such as the CEM, International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation, 

168 Institute for Building Efficiency, 2013 Energy Efficiency Indicator Survey (Washington, D.C.: Johnson Controls, Inc., 2013), accessed July 2015, 

http://www.institutebe.com/InstituteBE/media/Library/Resources/Energy%20Efficiency%20Indicator/061213-IBE-Global-Forum-Booklet_I-FINAL.pdf. 

“Economic productivity is a major 

priority for governments across the 

world, especially as labor productivity 

slows. Energy productivity offers one 

of the most promising productivity 

solutions, with resultant benefits 

for competitiveness, wages, living 

standards and profit margins.”

Dan Hamza-Goodacre

Program Director

ClimateWorks Foundation
102

APPENDIX 1

United Nations Sustainable Energy for All Energy Efficiency Accelerator Platform, and the International Energy Agency’s 

Low-Carbon Energy Technology Platform, offer mechanisms for governments and the private sector to work together and 

avoid duplicating efforts.

Several specific policy areas were discussed, including regional alignment of energy efficiency test procedures, 

standards, and codes, as well as providing support for the development of regional testing laboratories. Participants 

agreed that key ingredients for effective codes and standards are awareness-raising and investment in implementation 

and compliance support. Participants further identified the challenge of extending successful policies to system-level 

solutions, recognizing the desire to avoid unintended consequences that can arise, for example, from focusing solely on 

component-level standards. 

Participants also distinguished between policies for new versus existing facilities and products. While developing 

policies and standards for new facilities and products is often easier than retrofitting existing facilities, policies focused 

on the efficiency of industrial processes, especially new processes must be carefully designed and tested before 

implementation. This is especially true in the power sector, where robustness and resilience are critical. Significant 

opportunities exist to improve power system efficiency and resilience through system optimization and controls that 

enable situational awareness and integration of distributed generation and microgrids, but realizing this potential requires 

developing robust interoperability standards. 

Unlocking finance for efficiency investments is also essential to overcoming first cost barriers. KfW, the governmentowned development bank, served as a “neutral contractor,” successfully accelerating energy-efficient renovations. 

In France, the use of fee-and-rebate programs, or “feebates,” is encouraging the purchase of clean energy products, 

helping make France’s vehicle fleet among the most efficient in the world. In the power sector, there is a need to bridge 

traditional finance mechanisms for conventional generation that have long-term contracts with newer technologies and 

business models that attract risk investors.

One outcome of the Clean Energy Ministerial roundtable discussion on accelerating energy productivity is recognition 

of all participants’ importance in the dialogue to promulgate the “Energy Productivity Imperative” across many different 

policy and business platforms—regionally, in the participants’ respective nations, and in partnership with other global 

and non-governmental organization (NGO) initiatives. The roundtable included a formal commitment to include the 

“Energy Productivity Imperative” as one of the 2015 “Principles of Competitiveness Strategy” that the Global Federation 

of Competitiveness Councils (GFCC) will present at its 6th Annual Meeting in Saudi Arabia, November 1–3, 2015. The 

pivotal role of CEM6 in elevating energy productivity as a core driver of economic growth and industrial competitiveness 

was also be highlighted at the GFCC’s Innovation Summit on 21st Century Infrastructure in 2015.
103

APPENDIX 1

Industrial energy use accounts for roughly one-third of global energy demand. While there is significant potential to 

decrease energy consumption in this sector, opportunities to improve energy efficiency are still underexploited.169 

Although energy efficiency measures have frequently been demonstrated to contribute to the competitiveness of 

companies and to raise their productivity, energy efficiency actions and improvements are still not typically or widely 

viewed as a strategic investment in future profitability. A number of barriers to industrial energy efficiency exist including 

limited access to technical know-how and to capital, risk aversion and transaction costs.170

Improving energy efficiency in industrial companies provides benefits for the companies themselves as well as for the 

economy as a whole. Company-level benefits include improved productivity, optimized processes, and new business 

opportunities. In addition, energy efficiency in industry contributes to improved energy security and emission reductions.171

169 Institute for Industrial Productivity, Energy Management Programmes for Industry: Gaining through Saving (Paris and Washington, D.C.: International 

Energy Agency and Institute for Industrial Productivity, 2012), accessed July 2015, http://www.iipnetwork.org/PolicyPathway_IEAIIP.pdf.

170 Ibid

171 Ibid.
SECTION 1

104

APPENDIX 2 

Accelerate Energy 

Productivity 2030 Launch 
APPENDIX 2

105

EVENT SCHEDULE

DATE November 6th, 2014

LOCATION DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

1000 Independence Ave. SW

Rm. 7E - 069

Washington DC 20585

9:00 am SECURITY CHECK-IN AND REGISTRATION

9:30 am OPENING REMARKS

The Honorable Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Ms. Carla Frisch, Director of End-Use Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy

The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness

Ms. Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy

9:45 am IMPACT: Driving Energy Productivity in the Private Sector

MODERATOR The Honorable Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Productivity—and the prosperity that comes from innovation—is the engine for national 

competitiveness. This opening conversation aims to identify, from the perspective of the private 

sector, real success stories in improving energy productivity—output produced (measured in $ real 

GDP) relative to energy used (measured in million British thermal units (MMBtu) primary energy). This 

roundtable discussion will explore concrete competitive opportunities the United States can gain, 

leverage and scale by meeting President Obama’s goal to double U.S. energy productivity through 

an examination of best practices, including specific technologies, processes, and organizational 

structures “ripe” for increasing energy productivity.

• Can you point to a significant success story your organization has had in improving energy 

productivity, either in your own operations or for clients? 
APPENDIX 2

106

• How is your organization more competitive because of a focus on energy productivity? How do you 

quantify this competitive advantage?

• What roles do supply chain efficiencies play in achieving greater productivity gains, and how are 

you working with supply chain partners to meet your energy productivity goals?

• Looking across your organization’s global business base, which nations are focused on the energy 

productivity challenge—and opportunity? What energy productivity strengthening lessons are you 

learning abroad that could be emulated in the United States?

10:30 am BREAK

10:35 am PATHS FORWARD: Routes to Doubling U.S. Energy Productivity

MODERATOR The Honorable Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Deploying energy-efficient technologies and practices, streamlining business processes, and innovating 

technologies for optimized output all increase energy productivity. Building on the lessons learned in the 

previous session, this discussion will focus on specific strategies to meet President Obama’s goal and 

to scale for national competitive advantage—identifying how best to propagate industry best practices 

across the broader economy and examining opportunities for public-private engagement.

• What would a set of industry best practices around energy productivity look like? What would be 

the most effective ways to share and scale these practices across the broader economy? Which 

stakeholders need to be involved in these efforts and what would be their roles? 

• From the perspective of your organization and your own experiences, how can we articulate the 

best business case for the investments necessary to drive greater energy productivity? 

• Does the United States need new initiatives or specific policies (federal, state, or local) to reach—

and surpass—the president’s energy productivity goals? If so, what would be some examples? 

• Can you define, from the perspective of your organization and industry, the most promising 

opportunities for the private sector to partner with the Department of Energy to meet the goal to 

double energy productivity by 2030?

11:25 am REFLECTIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS 

The Honorable Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
APPENDIX 2

107

11:30 am ACCELERATE ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY 2030: Where Do We Go from Here?

Ms. Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy

The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness

PARTICIPANTS

Dr. Tilak Agerwala

Vice President, Systems, IBM

Mr. Marty Bates

President, Global Primary Products (GPP) Strategy and Transformation, 

Alcoa

Ms. Kateri Callahan

President, Alliance to Save Energy

Mr. Paul Camuti

SVP, Innovation and CTO, Ingersoll Rand

Mr. Richard Caperton

Director, National Policy and Partnerships, Opower

Mr. Jorge Carrasco

General Manager and CEO , Seattle City Light

Mr. Jeff Eckel

President, CEO and Chairman of the Board, Hannon Armstrong

Ms. Amy Ericson

U.S. Country President, Alstom

Mr. John Galyen

President, Danfoss North America

Mr. Christian Gianni

SVP, Product Development, Whirlpool

Ms. Judi Greenwald

Deputy Director for Climate, Environment and Energy Efficiency

Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, 

U.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Al Halvorsen

Senior Director, Environmental Sustainability, PepsiCo

Dr. Kathleen Hogan

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Ms. Melanie Kenderdine

Director, Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, 

U.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Jim Madej

SVP, Customer Energy Solutions, National Grid

Dr. Ernest Moniz

Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Blake Moret

SVP, Control Products and Solutions, Rockwell Automation
APPENDIX 2

108

Ms. Jane Palmieri

Business President, Dow Building & Construction, 

The Dow Chemical Company

Dr. John Palmour

CTO, Power & RF, Cree Inc.

Mr. Gil Quiniones

President and CEO, New York Power Authority

Mr. Ram Ramakrishnan

EVP and CTO, Eaton

Ms. Aurelie Richard

SVP, Strategy and Business Development, Schneider Electric

Dr. Gayle Schueller

SVP, Sustainability, 3M

Mr. Kevin Self

Vice President, Strategy & Corporate Development, Johnson Controls Inc.

Dr. William Sisson

Director, Sustainability, United Technologies Corporation

The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith

President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness
APPENDIX 2

109
APPENDIX 2

110

APPENDIX 3

Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 Regional Dialogue

RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
APPENDIX 3

111

EVENT SCHEDULE

Day 1 - Executive Roundtable Dialogue Overview

On the first day, 30 key private and public sector leaders convened for a private roundtable discussion aimed at gleaning 

information regarding approaches and challenges associated with advancing energy productivity in the transportation and 

buildings sectors, and the nexus between the two.

NC State Chancellor and Council on Competitiveness Executive Committee Member Randy Woodson hosted the Day 

1 leadership dialogue. Council on Competitiveness President & CEO Deborah L. Wince-Smith, Alliance to Save Energy 

President Kateri Callahan, and Jonathan Pershing, Principal Deputy Director for EPSA at DOE, led the discussion.

ACCELERATE ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY 2030: 

Emerging Opportunities in the Transportation Sector and Built Environment

DATE February 4th, 2015

LOCATION NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

James B. Hunt Jr. Library

1070 Partners Way

Raleigh, NC 27606

12:00 pm CHECK-IN AND REGISTRATION

12:30 pm OPENING REMARKS

Dr. Randy Woodson, Chancellor, NC State 

The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness

Ms. Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy
APPENDIX 3

112

12:45 pm ROUNDTABLE INTRODUCTIONS (two-three minutes per participant)

1:30 pm ACCELERATE ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY 2030: Overview

Dr. Jonathan Pershing, Principal Deputy Director, Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Climate Change Policy and Technology, Office of International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy

The dialogues in Raleigh focused Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 initiative—a partnership between 

the U.S. Department of Energy, the Council on Competitiveness and the Alliance to Save Energy. It 

supports the president’s goal of doubling energy productivity from 2010 levels by 2030. This dialogue 

will focus on the intersection of transportation and the built environment, and its relationship to energy 

productivity and U.S. competitiveness. Examples of forward-thinking strategies include the future of 

urban planning and commerce, electric vehicle infrastructure and the emergence of IT and sensors. 

1:45 pm SESSION I – TODAY’S OPPORTUNITIES: Driving energy productivity at the 

intersection of transportation and buildings

MODERATOR Dr. Randy Woodson, Chancellor, NC State 

Transportation and the built environment—our ability to transport goods, provide services and conduct our 

daily business in a safe and efficient manner—play a critical role in U.S. commerce and competitiveness. 

The roles of these two economic pillars—buildings and transportation use roughly 70 percent of the nation’s 

energy—represent both a challenge and an opportunity in achieving exponential gains in energy productivity. 

This opening conversation explored current investments that can be made across and connecting 

the transportation and building sectors to capture near-term energy productivity gains, including 

what strategies and investments have or have not worked and how various public and private-sector 

players can support a broader effort around energy productivity. Framing topics included: 

• How energy productivity functions as a core driver of growth, an enabler of new innovation and 

technologies, and market opportunities for new products and processes

• How organizations manage and measure energy use similar to other aspects of their business 

operations, including adopting energy management systems that integrate buildings and 

transportation considerations 

• Barriers to investments that can improve energy productivity in both sectors, and how to 

communicate best practices and success stories to peer firms and institutions
APPENDIX 3

113

• Current RD&D strategies underway to develop the next generation of energy-efficient 

technologies, from new modes of transportation and building materials to a “systems” approach to 

transportation and the built environment 

• Technologies, innovations, and strategies that leaders in the transportation and building sectors 

can offer the broader economy. 

2:45 pm NETWORKING AND COFFEE BREAK

3:00 pm SESSION II – THE FUTURE: Emerging opportunities and key challenges 

at the intersection of transportation and buildings

MODERATOR The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness

This session focused on the future of the intersection between the transportation sector and the 

built environment—in particular the technologies and the investments that will enable gamechanging opportunities around energy productivity. Each participant gave their perspective on 

anticipated barriers and opportunities both within their organization and facing their organization in 

supporting productivity across economic sectors. In particular, emerging issues at the intersection of 

transportation and the built environment were explored. Framing topics included: 

• RD&D investments and strategies that will enable the game-changing opportunities around energy 

productivity on a 5-, 10-, and 15-year horizon. 

• Sunk costs and current capital investments that are barriers to the adoption of more energy 

productivity technologies and processes, and how to address them

• Workforce, education and training issues related to emerging technologies, systems and 

processes that drive energy productivity in both sectors 

• The role of the public and private sectors in shaping the future of the transportation-building nexus. 

4:00 pm SESSION III – The role of public policy in facilitating energy productivity 

at the transportation-building nexus

MODERATOR Dr. Jonathan Pershing, Principal Deputy Director, Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Climate Change Policy and Technology, Office of International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy

Smart public policy can act as an enabler and driver of productivity, innovation, and growth. Sending clear 

market signals, facilitating effective public-private relationships, and creating competitiveness opportunities 

are all possible through robust, forward-thinking policy. This session explored the various policy 
APPENDIX 3

114

approaches—from building codes and fuel economy standards to urban development and IT-enabled smart 

buildings—to facilitate energy productivity across the broader economy. Framing topics included: 

• Local, state, and federal policies that either enable or present challenges to meeting each 

participant’s vision of energy productivity in the future 

• Structuring policies around incentives and regulations in ways that facilitate and compliment 

private-sector strategies and investment 

• How public organizations can help communicate industry best practices and the energy 

productivity roadmap to peer organizations and institutions, and across the broader economy 

• Success stories from participating organizations that would be transferable to government 

agencies—as owners of vehicle fleets and building portfolios—to drive energy productivity in the 

public sector. 

5:00 pm CLOSING REMARKS 

Ms. Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy

The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness

Dr. Randy Woodson, Chancellor, NC State 

PARTICIPANTS

Ms. Kateri Callahan

President, Alliance to Save Energy

Ms. Judith Cone

Interim Vice Chancellor for Commercialization and Economic, 

Development, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Mr. Chad Evans

EVP, Council on Competitiveness

Ms. Carla Frisch

Director of End-Use Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Justin Gore

North America Energy Manager, Saint-Gobain

Dr. John Hardin

Executive Director, Board of Science, Technology and Innovation, 

North Carolina Department of Commerce

Mr. Chris Hess

Director of Public Affairs, Eaton Corporation

Ms. Julie Hughes

Director of Policy, Institute for Market Transformation,

Deputy Director for Strategy and Development, City Energy Project

Maj. Gen. Nick Justice

Executive Director, PowerAmerica
APPENDIX 3

115

Mr. Steve Kalland

Executive Director, North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center

Mr. Brian Kerkhoven

Senior Energy Policy Advisor, North America’s Building Trades 

Unions

Mr. Chris King

Senior Advisor, Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, 

U.S., Department of Energy

Mr. Mark Lantrip

President and CEO, Southern Company Services Inc.

Dr. Louis Martin-Vega

Dean, College of Engineering, NC State University

Dr. John Palmour

CTO, Power and RF, Cree Inc.

Dr. Jonathan Pershing

Principal Deputy Director, Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Climate Change Policy,

Technology, Office of International Affairs, U.S. Department of 

Energy

Dr. Andreas A. Polycarpou

Department Head & Meinhard H. Kotzebue ‘14 Professor, 

Texas A&M University

Mr. Adam Procell

President and CEO, Lime Energy

Dr. Richard Newell

Director, Duke University Energy Initiative

Mr. Curt Rich

President and CEO, NAIMA

Ms. Aurelie Richard

SVP of Strategy and Business Development, Schneider Electric

Mr. Keith Trent

EVP, Grid Solutions and President, Midwest and Florida Regions, 

Duke Energy

Dr. Mladen Vouk

Interim Vice Chancellor of Research, Innovation and Economic 

Development, NC State University

Mr. Tom Wenning

Program Manager, Institute for Advanced Composite 

Manufacturing Innovation

The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith

President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness

Dr. Randy Woodson

Chancellor, NC State University

Mr. Paul Woolverton

Vice President, Government and Institutional Business Development, 

Mohawk Industrie
APPENDIX 3

116

Day 2 - A State and Local Dialogue Overview

ACCELERATE ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY 2030: 

Emerging Opportunities in the Transportation Sector and Built Environment

DATE February 5th, 2015

LOCATION NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

James B. Hunt Jr. Library

1070 Partners Way

Raleigh, NC 27606

8:30 am REGISTRATION & BREAKFAST 

9:00 am WELCOME & OPENING REMARKS

Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy 

Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness 

Kathleen Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, U.S. Department of Energy 

9:20 am KEYNOTE REMARKS 

Keith Trent, EVP, Grid Solutions and President, Midwest and Florida Regions, Duke Energy 

9:35 am KEYNOTE REMARKS 

Dr. John Hardin, Executive Director, Board of Science, Technology and Innovation, North Carolina Department of Commerce 

9:50 am DRIVING ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY: An Integrated Approach to Buildings 

and Transportation 

MODERATOR Brian Coble, SVP, Advanced Energy Corp.

PANELISTS Matt Cox, Buildings Energy Efficiency Project Manager, Office of Sustainability, City of Atlanta

Sean Flaherty, Program Director, Envision Charlotte 

Paul Camuti, SVP of Innovation and CTO, Ingersoll Rand 

Steve Kalland, Executive Director, North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center at North Carolina State University 
APPENDIX 3

117

10:50 am NETWORKING AND REFRESHMENT BREAK

11:20 am DRIVING ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY: In Buildings across Communities 

and on Campus

MODERATOR Kathleen Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, U.S. Department of Energy 

PANELISTS Billy Jackson, Facility Manager, City of Raleigh 

Claudia Powell, PEM, Energy Program Coordinator, North Carolina State University 

Adam Procell, President and CEO, Lime Energy 

Ed White, Chairman, Research Triangle Cleantech Cluster 

12:20 pm DRIVING ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY: Best Practices and Policies in the Public 

and Private Sectors

MODERATOR Julian Prosser, Assistant City Manager, City of Raleigh (Retired) 

PANELISTS John Palmour, CTO, Power and RF, Cree Inc. 

ToNola D. Brown-Bland, Commissioner, North Carolina Utilities Commission 

David Doctor, President and CEO, E4 Carolinas 

Bryan Cordell, Executive Director, The Sustainability Institute 

1:20 pm KEYNOTE REMARKS

Chancellor Randy Woodson, North Carolina State University 

1:40 pm WRAP UP & NEXT STEPS

Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness

Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy 
APPENDIX 3

118

Summary

On February 5, 2015, the Department of Energy (DOE), and Council on Competitiveness (Council) joined the Alliance to 

Save Energy (Alliance) in co-hosting the first of three State and Local Dialogues in Raleigh, North Carolina as part of the 

Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 initiative. The initiative, officially launched by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz in 

September, seeks to build momentum and support for energy productivity by catalyzing action in the public and private 

sectors through a series of dialogues aimed at co-creating a road map for doubling U.S. energy productivity by 2030. 

The half-day event—sponsored by Alliance Associate Members Ingersoll Rand, Lime Energy, and Cree—convened leading 

public and private-sector energy experts, and approximately 90 attendees in the impressive James B. Hunt Library at North 

Carolina State University for a discussion on emerging challenges and opportunities associated with improving energy 

productivity in the buildings and transportation sectors, as well as the intersection between the two. The event enjoyed 

robust discussion and provocative dialogue thanks in large part to an active and engaged group of participants. 

The agenda for the dialogue was populated with regional and local stakeholders well positioned to discuss energy 

productivity in the buildings and transportation sectors from the various vantage points of the diverse group of organizations 

they represent. Speakers included representatives from the Department of Energy, North Carolina Utilities Commission, 

Duke Energy, North Carolina Department of Commerce, City of Atlanta, City of Raleigh, North Carolina State University, Lime 

Energy, Advanced Energy, Envision Charlotte, Ingersoll Rand, North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center, Research 

Triangle Cleantech Cluster, Cree, E4 Carolinas, Council on Competitiveness, and The Sustainability Institute. 

Ahead of the day’s panel discussions, participants took in keynote remarks from Dr. John Hardin, Executive Director of the 

North Carolina Board of Science, Technology and Innovation and Keith Trent, EVP of Grid Solutions and President for the 

Midwest and Florida Regions for Duke Energy, learning more about how the state of North Carolina and the region’s largest 

utility are working to make North Carolina a leader in the Southeast region on energy productivity. 

The panelists’ discussions honed in on the important themes of driving energy productivity in the built environment 

and transportation sectors, with a focus on the work speakers representing state and local government, academic 

institutions, businesses, utilities, advocacy organizations, and manufacturers are doing to drive energy productivity within 

their respective organizations, and the areas they serve. 

Of note, participants heard stakeholders from the cities of Raleigh, Charlotte, Charleston, and Atlanta discuss various 

programs they have undertaken to influence consumer behavior and energy consumption; increase electric vehicle 

penetration, help finance energy efficiency retrofits for residential homeowners, and enhance efficiency in large buildings 

across the region. Additionally, the location of the discussion at NC State University, one of the top research universities 
APPENDIX 3

119

in the region and an integral component of the Research Triangle, afforded the opportunity to hear from various 

stakeholders about the cutting-edge research taking place in the triangle to bolster energy productivity in the United 

States. In particular, a representative from Cree Inc., a LED lighting manufacturer that grew out of the NC State materials 

science and engineering lab, was able to highlight their groundbreaking work with the city of Raleigh to deploy LEDs 

across the city, as well as their recent triumph lighting this year’s Super Bowl in Phoenix, AZ, making it the most efficient 

Super Bowl to date. 

The Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 goal of doubling U.S. energy productivity by 2030 resonated with the panelists 

and audience alike as both engaged in a dialogue regarding the specific approaches taken and challenges encountered in 

advancing energy productivity at the local, state, and regional levels. While in Raleigh, the productivity initiative was able 

to secure endorsements from several key companies and institutions, most notably Duke Energy, the largest utility in the 

United States and NC State University. The initiative partners look forward to fostering lasting relationships with these 

and many of the participants who joined us in Raleigh to ensure they remain engaged and proactive in their efforts to 

drive energy productivity within their spheres of influence.

ATTENDEE BREAKDOWN

There was a strong showing from all target stakeholder groups in the Raleigh, North Carolina region. One hundred five 

people were registered for the event with 88 in attendance at the Hunt Library. Registrants included 17 representatives 

from academic institutions; 32 advocacy group representatives; 20 business representatives; 23 government officials or 

staff members; and 13 energy utility representatives. In addition to the partners listed above, organizations represented 

include: The City of Raleigh, NC Clean Energy Tech Center, Eastman Chemical Company, Research Triangle Cleantech 

Cluster, Duke Energy, NC Utilities Commission, University of North Carolina, NC State University, Duke University, 

Envision Charlotte, Sierra Club, E4 Carolinas, Ingersoll Rand, Advanced Energy, City of Atlanta, Schneider Electric, Climate 

Mobilization Fund, North Carolina Electric Cooperatives, Brasfield and Gorrie LLC, Fleishman Hillard, Cree, Office of 

Congressman Ellmers, North Carolina Rural Electrification Authority, Department of Energy, Brady Trane Services, and the 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The Accelerate Energy Productivity Initiative will work 

with representatives from these organizations to ensure that the goal of doubling energy productivity by 2030 remains a 

priority in the region moving forward. 
APPENDIX 3

120

Overview of Energy Efficiency Policy in 

the Southeast

The Southeast region of the United States represents 36 percent of the nation’s population and 44 percent of its energy 

consumption. These numbers mean there is great potential for increasing energy efficiency in the Southeast, and many 

states are taking innovative and proactive measures to increase the region’s energy productivity. 

On February 5, 2015, the Department of Energy, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the Council on Competitiveness hosted 

an event, “Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 Raleigh: A State and Local Dialogue,” as part of the Accelerate Energy 

Productivity 2030 initiative in Raleigh, North Carolina. The event brought together stakeholders from the region to initiate 

dialogues and garner endorsements for the goal to double our nation’s energy productivity by the year 2030.

At this one-day forum, we examined the possibilities for increasing energy productivity in buildings and transportation, 

and the nexus between the two. Below is an examination of the efforts already underway in the southeast to advance 

energy productivity in buildings and transportation, including a description of the energy efficiency work done by the city 

of Raleigh to highlight the efforts of our host city.

BUILDINGS

North Carolina

With the passing of Senate Bill 668 and Senate Bill 1946, all state-owned buildings must surpass the energy efficiency 

requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 by 30 percent for new construction and 20 percent for buildings undergoing major 

renovations. The state also set up a goal of reducing the amount of energy consumed per gross square foot for all 

state buildings, in total, by 30 percent of 2004 levels, by 2015. Additionally, North Carolina is a participant in the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) Better Buildings Challenge, and it has committed to reducing energy consumption in all 

state agency and UNC buildings by 20 percent.

Georgia

A 2008 executive order from Governor Sonny Perdue (R) created the Governor’s Energy Challenge 2020 as part of the 

larger “Conserve Georgia” campaign. As part of the challenge, state agencies and departments must reduce energy 

consumption to 15 percent below 2007 levels, through energy efficiency or renewables integration by 2020. Reductions 
APPENDIX 3

121

in energy use must come either from energy efficiency measures or from renewable energy development.

Funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is being used by the Georgia Environmental

Finance Authority (GEFA) to pay for state-agency retrofit projects. These projects will help state government entities 

meet the goal set by the Governor’s Energy Challenge. GEFA is in charge of implementing this program. The challenge is 

mandatory for state entities, but local governments, schools, businesses, and individuals are encouraged to participate.

South Carolina

South Carolina has also implemented strong policies for state buildings and public schools. The State Energy Office has 

collected benchmarking data for over a decade from public agencies, K-12 schools, colleges, and universities, which 

allows the state government to implement energy conservation strategies and monitor progress. This led to H.B. 4766, 

which requires state agencies and public schools to reduce energy use by 20 percent from 2000 levels. 

Tennessee

While Tennessee does not have any formal energy savings targets in place, it has made serious strides in gathering the 

background information necessary to implement these targets. The State Building Energy Management Program was 

created in 2009 to coordinate and implement energy efficiency efforts for the state government. This program began its 

efforts by gathering reliable consumption data from all state agencies, and it is working with other agencies to increase 

the amount of available data so that it will be available to the state government in the future.

Virginia

Virginia does not currently have an energy savings target for state buildings. Unlike other states that have implemented 

longer-term targets, Virginia has traditionally focused on short-term goals. For instance, an executive order signed 

in 2007 required state agencies to reduce annual non-renewable energy purchases by at least 20 percent below 

2006 levels by 2010. A subsequent executive order from 2010 directed all state agencies to reduce annual energy 

consumption by at least 5 percent below 2010 levels for FY 2012.
APPENDIX 3

122

TRANSPORTATION

North Carolina

In an effort to reduce congestion on roads in the state, in 2009 North Carolina passed House Bill 148 that established 

a fund to help finance projects that would alleviate congestion and incorporate multi-use capabilities. Efforts to 

accommodate other modes of transportation were further supported by the adoption of a Complete Streets policy by the 

State Department of Transportation in 2009. The state also examined current methods used for freight transportation so 

as to make the entire process more efficient.

Georgia

Georgia has implemented several separate plans relating to transportation in recent years. The Transportation Investment 

Act allows municipalities to pass sales taxes for the express purpose of generating funds to finance transit development 

and expansion. The state also decided to adopt a complete streets policy that incorporates bicycle, pedestrian and 

transit needs into all transportation infrastructure projects in 2012. Lastly, Georgia completed a freight and logistics plan 

in 2012 that aims to prioritize and coordinate key projects statewide through 2050.

South Carolina

South Carolina adopted Complete Streets legislation in 2003 to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian accommodations 

were sufficiently included within future State Department of Transportation planning activities. The state has also 

developed a freight plan to better coordinate and improve the efficiency of the statewide freight system.

Tennessee

In 1998, Tennessee enacted Public Charter 1101 Growth Policy Act that mandates coordination between local 

governments when it comes to municipal growth. The charter includes recommendations and guidelines on how 

to create efficient growth plans, but does so without implementing a statewide policy. To ensure coordination, the 

Charter also allows the state to withhold key economic development subsidies from city, county, and state offices if 

an agreement cannot be reached. Tennessee has also instated a policy that mandates the inclusion and integration 

of provisions for bicycles and pedestrians into any new construction or reconstruction of roads and highways. Lastly, 

Senate Bill 1471 created a Regional Transportation Authority in major municipalities that allows these authorities to 

design new funding streams for mass transit projects by law or through voter referendum.
APPENDIX 3

123

Virginia

Virginia has required that every locality complete a comprehensive plan that coordinates land-use planning and future 

actions to effectively implement zoning requirements through its “Planning, Subdivision of Land and Zoning Code.” 

In addition, the Commonwealth’s Mass Transit Fund was created in 2013, and it receives 15 percent of all revenues 

generated from a 1.5 percent sales and use tax for transportation expenditures.

NOTABLE EFFORTS IN RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA

Energy Efficiency

The city of Raleigh has made great strides to improve the city’s energy efficiency. One recently launched pilot project is 

examining the energy savings potential and feasibility of transitioning city-owned streetlights from traditional bulbs to 

more efficient LED bulbs. The city expects these bulbs to last between 15 and 20 years, which is significantly longer than 

the two-year average lifespan of a traditional bulb. Furthermore, if the pilot project proves to be successful, it is believed 

that replacing the roughly 35,000 streetlights in Raleigh could save the city millions of dollars over time. 

The city of Raleigh has developed a partnership with Cree, Inc. of Research Triangle Park to test this new technology 

in municipal settings. In 2006, Raleigh agreed to become the first LED City, a program that Cree has expanded to 

municipalities across the world. The purpose of LED City is to encourage municipal governments to test this emerging 

technology in real world settings and share their experience with others.

Since 2006, Raleigh has installed over 40 separate LED projects across the city, including outdoor lighting for city 

parks, interior lighting, solar LED lighting, streetlights, and lighting in parking decks. These projects are estimated to be 

generating approximately $215,000 per year in energy and maintenance savings for the residents of Raleigh.

Raleigh has also worked to improve its efficiency in the transportation sector. In 2002, the city began to convert its fleet 

of vehicles to those powered by alternative fuels. Currently, the city fleet is comprised of approximately 461 alternatively 

fueled vehicles, which includes those powered by propane, compressed natural gas (CNG), electricity, and biofuels. 

More recently, Raleigh was chosen as one of three cities in the country to serve as a pioneer for the Rocky Mountain 

Institute’s Project Get Ready. This project is designed as a test for the adoption of plug-in and electric vehicles (PEVs) 

and new PEV technology. As part of this project, Raleigh has added electric vehicles to its fleet, installed electric vehicle 

charging stations and removed or reduced barriers hindering the adoption of PEVs. 
APPENDIX 3

124

Furthermore, Raleigh has implemented policies to improve the efficiency of the city’s buildings. The city now requires that all 

new municipal buildings over 10,000 square feet must meet the LEED Silver standards. Additionally, Raleigh has prioritized the 

completion of energy efficiency improvements to existing city-owned buildings. An example of a city-owned building that shows 

Raleigh’s commitment to this effort is the Raleigh Convention Center that was built in 2008 and is LEED Silver certified.

Raleigh is also a fundamental component of the Research Triangle, which is composed of the cities of Raleigh, Durham, 

Cary and Chapel Hill as well as the substantial academic presence of North Carolina State University, Duke University, 

and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This area is well known for its work in the development of smart grid 

technologies that will create the electric grid of the future.

OTHER NOTABLE INFORMATION

Raleigh ranks first this year, moving up from third in 2013, on Forbes “Best Places for Business and Careers.” The North 

Carolina capital previously ranked first in 2011 and had a three-year run in the top spot from 2007 to 2009. It is the only 

East Coast city that made the top 10. It is worth noting that Durham, NC often makes the list as well. 

Fueling Raleigh’s consistent results are business costs that are 18 percent below the national average, and an adult 

population where 42 percent have a college degree, the 12th best rate in the United States (30 percent is the national 

average). Raleigh is home to North Carolina State University, and nearby schools include Duke University and the 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The area’s appeal has led to a strong inflow of new residents to the city, 

which boasts the sixth fastest net migration rate over the past five years.

Research Triangle Park (RTP) continues to fuel significant development in the area. The park is located at the core of the RaleighDurham-Cary Combined Statistical Area, and it is the largest research park in the country. It features roughly 170 companies that 

employ 39,000 full-time, mostly high-tech workers. There have been 1,800 start-up companies created at RTP since 1970.

Business Insider named Raleigh one of the “20 Cities Having an Awesome Recovery” in 2011, and Money magazine says 

Wake county (Raleigh/Cary) is one of the top 20 counties “Where the Jobs Are” this year. Clearly, the Triangle area is 

one of the best regions to work in thoughout the country.

For years, Raleigh, Durham, and Cary have been showered with placement in the top 10 lists of business-related 

accolades, and the reason is obvious. A number of different industries have a strong presence in the Triangle, including 

IT, telecom, pharmaceuticals, biotech, agrochemical, healthcare, and banking/financial services. This diversity makes for 

a healthy local economy.
APPENDIX 3

125

RPT is a 7,000-acre campus that is home to more than 170 companies and organizations that employ about 50,000 

Triangle residents. RTP has been around—and growing—for more than 40 years, and RTP employees have an average 

salary of $56,000. 

The Triangle area is experiencing a solid job market and even new business growth, despite the recent recession’s 

impact on the economy.

According to NerdWallet, out of 75 of the largest metro areas in the United States the Raleigh-Cary metro is the eighth 

best place for STEM graduates. With companies like SAS and North Carolina State University’s STEM resources, the 

region is a “major center for technology and research,” the financial website says.

NOTABLE EFFORTS IN CHAPEL HILL, NC

In 2006, the town of Chapel Hill became the first U.S. municipality to commit to a 60 percent reduction in carbon dioxide 

emissions by 2050 through the Carbon Reduction Program. The Council authorized the pledge to reduce carbon dioxide 

emissions from town municipal operations on a per capita basis, beginning with an initial goal of a 5 percent reduction by 2010.

The Council established a Green Fleets Policy in 2005 that requires the city to obtain energy-efficient vehicles and to 

operate its fleets in a manner that is energy-efficient and minimizes emissions. The town endeavors to decrease energy 

expenditures for its fleets by 3percent at the end of 2007–2008. The policy expresses the Council’s commitment to 

reducing energy consumption and dependence on foreign oil, and to improving air quality.
APPENDIX 4

126

APPENDIX 4 

Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 Regional Dialogue 

REDMOND AND SEATTLE, 

WASHINGTON
APPENDIX 4

127

EVENT SCHEDULE

Day 1 - Executive Roundtable Dialogue Overview

The focus of the events in Redmond and Seattle were smart power systems and the changing power grid. On the first day, 

30 key private and public sector leaders convened for a private, moderated roundtable discussion on smart power systems. 

The sessions focused on exploring what participants view as the fundamental pillars needed to build a future smart power 

system, the game-changing opportunities on the horizon with the potential to achieve dramatic gains in energy productivity, 

opportunities to drive energy productivity through public-private partnerships, and what specific policy recommendations 

participants have that would foster accelerated development of a smart power system. 

Alstom President Amy Ericson and PNNL Director Steve Ashby hosted the Day 1 Dialogue, with Council on Competitiveness 

President and CEO Deborah L. Wince-Smith, Alliance to Save Energy COO Gail Hendrickson, and Judith Greenwald, Deputy 

Director for Climate, Environment, and Energy Efficiency, U.S. Department of Energy, leading the discussion.

ACCELERATE ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY 2030: 

Energy Productivity and Smart Power Systems

DATE April 13th, 2015

LOCATION ALSTOM FACILITY

10735 Willows Road NE

Building C

Redmond, WA 98052

8:00 am CHECK-IN AND REGISTRATION

8:30 am OPENING REMARKS

The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness

Ms. Gail Hendrickson, COO, Alliance to Save Energy
APPENDIX 4

128

Ms. Amy Ericson, U.S. Country President, Alstom

Dr. Steven Ashby, Director, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

8:50 am ACCELERATE ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY 2030: OVERVIEW

Ms. Judith Greenwald, Deputy Director for Climate, Environment, and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Policy and 

Systems Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy

This introduction to the Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 initiative will lay out the vision of the 

partnership, how the initiative supports the president’s goal of doubling energy productivity, and how 

today’s dialogue will feed into the U.S. Department of Energy’s roadmap of strategies that will be 

released at a national summit on September 15th–16th in Washington D.C. 

In addition to reviewing the work to date and the path toward the national summit, this introductory 

session gave a concise definition of energy productivity in the context of smart power systems and 

how a robust system acts as an enabler of a wide variety of energy productivity strategies. 

9:00 am SESSION I – Energy Productivity and Smart Power Systems: 

Defining the Challenge

MODERATOR Ms. Gail Hendrickson, COO, Alliance to Save Energy

This session began with participants introducing themselves and describing why energy productivity 

is important to them and their organizations. This was followed by an exploration of the fundamental 

pillars needed to build a future smart power system, what is needed to achieve this vision. Framing 

topics included:

• The “big” pieces needed for a robust and resilient smart power transmission and distribution system 

• The role of the grid as enabler of efficiency—from generation to the end user 

• The role of consumer decision-making and encouraging consumer participation (“prosumers”) in 

maximizing system response 

• The impact of two-way information flows, big data analytics and the overlay of IT infrastructure on 

the power system 

• Gaps and bottlenecks that will inhibit development and deployment of smart grid technology. 

10:00 am NETWORKING AND COFFEE BREAK
APPENDIX 4

129

10:15 am SESSION II – Game-Changing Innovations and Pathways to an 

Energy-Productive Future

MODERATOR The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness

This session explored the game-changing opportunities on the horizon with the potential to achieve 

dramatic gains in energy productivity if developed and deployed effectively in the right policy 

environment. Examples include technologies that anticipate system shocks, “self-healing” components, 

real-time information flows, integration of advanced distributed sources into the grid, and IT 

infrastructure that optimize efficiency across the entire network. In the context of the goal to double 

energy productivity by 2030, the discussion explores what levels of adoption of these new strategies 

might be possible in the next 15 years, and the potential energy and economic impact that can have. 

Participants discussed the most important technological or systematic challenges that, if addressed, would 

dramatically push the realization of a robust and dynamic smart power system. Framing topics included: 

• Specific technologies—on the horizon but not yet commercially viable—that will enable dramatic 

shifts in energy productivity 

• Shaping technologies and systems to inform consumer decision-making and enhance awareness 

around energy productivity and its benefits

• Projections of possible load reductions over the next 15 years, the cost, and what technologies 

and investments are needed to achieve this 

• Policy frameworks, public-private partnerships and enabling pathways to develop and deploy these 

technologies over a 15-year time frame. 

11:15 am OPPORTUNITIES TO DRIVE ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH 

PUBLIC - PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

DISCUSSION Ms. Amy Ericson, U.S. Country President, Alstom

LED BY Dr. Steven Ashby, Director, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

The United States saw a tremendous investment in grid technologies over the past 5 years, most 

notably through significant American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) investment 

that funded a number of demonstration projects. As we enter the next phase—where market 

dynamics begin to drive technology choices—we must find ways to harness the nation’s innovation 

infrastructure to develop next generation technologies. Framing topics include: 
APPENDIX 4

130

• The role of demonstration projects in pushing new technologies to market and linking research 

investments with high-priority, industry-defined problem sets. 

• Challenges and barriers to effective public-private partnerships—what makes a successful 

partnership and leads to concrete technology outcomes. 

• Policies to stimulate commercialization of power system innovations from national labs and help 

move them to market. 

11:45 am LUNCH

12:30 pm SESSION III – Policy Recap: Opportunities and Challenges, and Building 

a Strategic Roadmap

MODERATOR Ms. Judith Greenwald, Deputy Director for Climate, Environment, and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Policy and 

Systems Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy

This session reviewed and synthesized previous discussion, analyzing the major themes through 

a policy lens in order to draw out specific recommendations for the Roadmap. Policy gaps that, if 

addressed, would foster accelerated development of a smart power system- or policy hurdles that 

hinder such development— discussed in greater detail in order to close the dialogue with concrete 

ideas for an enabling policy framework. Framing topics included:

• Industrial strategies and best practices to accelerate smart grid development and deployment over 

a 15 year time horizon 

• Policy actions at the state, local, and federal level that can catalyze change and support smart grid 

technologies and investments 

• How federal policy can inform consumer decision-making 

• Next steps in turning recommendations into policy action. 

1:30 pm CLOSING REMARKS 

Ms. Amy Ericson, U.S. Country President, Alstom

Dr. Steven Ashby, Director, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Ms. Gail Hendrickson, COO, Alliance to Save Energy

The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness
APPENDIX 4

131

PARTICIPANTS

Mr. David Allen

EVP, McKinstry 

Dr. Steven Ashby

Director, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Battelle)

Mr. Michael Atkinson

Vice President, Alstom Grid North America, Alstom

Mr. Jesse Berst

Chairman, Smart Cities Council

Dr. Anjan Bose

Regents Professor, Washington State University 

Dr. Michael Bragg

Dean of the College of Engineering, University of Washington 

Mr. Jeffrey Burleson

Vice President, System Planning, Southern Company 

Mr. Jorge Carrasco

General Manager and Local Dialogue: CEO , Seattle, WA City Light

Mr. John Di Stasio

President, Large Public Power Council

Dr. Sid England

Assistant Vice Chancellor, Environmental Stewardship and 

Sustainability, UC-Davis 

Ms. Amy Ericson

President and CEO, U.S., Alstom Inc.

Mr. Chad Evans

EVP, Council on Competitiveness 

Mr. Bill Gaines

Director and CEO, Tacoma Park Utilities

Ms. Judith Greenwald

Deputy Director for Climate, Environment, and Energy Efficiency,

U.S. Department of Energy

Dr. Bryan Hannegan 

Associate Laboratory Director for Energy Systems Integration,

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Ms. Gail Hendrickson

COO, Alliance to Save Energy

Mr. David Kaplan

CEO and Founder, 1 Energy

Mr. Steve Klein

CEO and General Manager, Snohomish County PUD

Mr. Doug Macdonald

Vice President North America, Grid Network Management Solutions, 

Alstom Grid Inc.

Mr. Robert “Rob” MacLean

President, California and Hawaii, American Water

Mr. Mark McCullough

EVP, Generation, American Electric Power

Mr. Matt O’Keefe

Director of Market Development Regulatory Affairs, West, Opower
APPENDIX 4

132

Day 2 - A State and Local Dialogue Overview

ACCELERATE ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY 2030: 

Energy Productivity and Smart Power Systems

DATE April 14th, 2015

LOCATION PERKINS COIE

1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 4900

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

8:30 am REGISTRATION & CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST 

9:00 am WELCOME & OPENING REMARKS

Jorge Carrasco, General Manager & CEO, Seattle City Light 

9:15 am KEYNOTE REMARKS

Ms. Judith Greenwald, Deputy Director for Climate, Environment, and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Policy and

Systems Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy

Mr. John Plaza

President, CEO and Founder, Imperium Renewables

Mr. Mark Reddemann

CEO, Energy Northwest

Ms. Ann Rendahl

Commissioner, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission

Mr. Eric Schmitt

Vice President, Operations, California ISO

Mr. Bob Stolarski

Director, Customer Energy Management, Puget Sound Energy

Dr. Jud Virden

EED ALD, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Dr. Chandu Visweswariah

IBM Fellow and Director, Smarter Energy Research Institute

The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith

President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness

Mr. Gary Yang

President and CEO, UniEnergy Technologies, LLC

Mr. Brian Young 

Governor’s Clean Technology Industry Sector Lead, 

Washington Department of Commerce
APPENDIX 4

133

9:15 am KEYNOTE REMARKS

Dow Constantine, King County Executive, King County

9:40 am PANEL 1: Energy Productivity’s Role in the Changing Power Grid

MODERATOR Ms. Judith Greenwald, Deputy Director for Climate, Environment, and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Policy and 

Systems Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy

PARTICIPANTS Michael Atkinson, Vice President of Alstom Grid North America Alstom 

Kimberly J. Harris, President and CEO, Puget Sound Energy 

Jeffrey Burleson, Vice President, Systems Planning, Southern Company

10:30 am NETWORKING BREAK (snacks and drinks)

10:50 am PANEL 2: Driving Energy Productivity through Technological Innovation 

and Consumer Decision-making

MODERATOR Susan Betcher, Partner and Co-Chair, Clean Technology Practice, Perkins Coie

PARTICIPANTS Matt O’Keefe, Director of Regulatory Affairs for Western North America, Opower 

Brian Young, Director of Economic Development for the Clean Technology Sector 

Dr. Liesel Hans, Economist, Electricity Markets and Policy Group at LBNL 

11:40 am KEYNOTE REMARKS

David Danner, Chairman, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission

12:00 pm LUNCH & NETWORKING BREAK

12:30 pm PANEL 3: Public Perspectives on Doubling Energy Productivity 

in the Northwest

MODERATOR Susan Stratton, Executive Director, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

PARTICIPANTS Michael O’Brian, Councilmember, Seattle City Council 

Tony Usibelli, Director of the Washington State Energy Office, Washington State Department of Commerce 

Daryl WIlliams, Tulalip Tribes of Washington
APPENDIX 4

134

1:20 pm BOTTOM LINE DIALOGUE: Technology Pathways to an Energy 

Productive Power Portfolio

MODERATOR Deborah Wince-Smith, President & CEO, Council on Competitiveness

PARTICIPANTS Dr. Jud Virden, Associate Lab Director for the Energy and Environment Directorate, PNNL 

Jim West, Assistant General Manager, Snohomish County Public Utility District

1:50 pm CLOSING REMARKS

Deborah Wince-Smith, President & CEO, Council on Competitiveness

Summary

On April 14, 2015, the Department of Energy (DOE), and Council on Competitiveness (Council) joined the Alliance to Save 

Energy (Alliance) in co-hosting our latest roundtable in Seattle, Washington focused on smart power systems as part of 

the Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 initiative. 

More than 75 attendees gathered at Perkins Coie law firm in downtown Seattle for the half-day event sponsored by 

Alliance Associate Members Puget Sound Energy and Snohomish County PUD, and co-hosted by Seattle City Light and 

the Northeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA). The agenda for the dialogue was primarily populated with public and 

private-sector energy experts from the region with the goal of discussing challenges and opportunities associated with 

advancing energy efficiency and energy productivity in power generation, distribution, and transmission. 

Speakers included representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, Seattle City Light, King County, Alstom, Puget Sound 

Energy, Southern Company, Perkins Coie, Opower, Washington Department of Commerce, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, 

the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, the Seattle City Council, the 

Council on Competitiveness, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Snohomish County Public Utility District.

The event enjoyed audience participation from an especially strong showing of high-level experts in the energy space, 

a true testament to the importance of the subject of smart power systems for the region and the timeliness of the 

event in that regard. 

To start things off, participants heard from Jorge Carrasco, the outgoing General Manager and CEO of Seattle City Light; 
APPENDIX 4

135

Judi Greenwald, the Deputy Director for Climate, Environment, and Energy Efficiency at the Department of Energy; and 

Dow Constantine, County Executive for King County about the changing power grid and the leadership role Seattle and 

the region are taking in advancing smart power systems of the future. 

Speakers from all stakeholder groups including representatives from state and local government, academic institutions, 

businesses, utilities, advocacy organizations, and manufacturers all touched on what they are doing to drive energy 

productivity within their respective organization, and the areas they serve. Equally as important, the dialogue benefitted 

from a robust and engaged audience of an equally diverse background. 

The panelists’ discussions centered on several important themes as they relate to smart power systems including 

energy productivity’s role in changing the power grid, driving energy productivity through technological innovation 

and consumer decision-making, public perspectives on doubling energy productivity in the Northwest, and technology 

pathways to an energy-productive power portfolio. With respect to the changing power grid, panelists discussed the 

importance of connecting distributed energy resources to the grid, the need for evolving grid technologies and software, 

and the need for more interoperability and interactivity between the grid and the end user. Additionally, participants 

heard from all levels of government about what they are doing to drive investment and collaboration on energy efficiency 

implementation and the adoption of new technologies. 

The Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 goal of doubling U.S. energy productivity by 2030 resonated with the panelists 

and audience alike as both engaged in a dialogue regarding the specific approaches taken and challenges encountered 

in advancing energy productivity at the local, state, and regional levels. The initiative partners look forward to fostering 

lasting relationships with the diverse set of participants in the Seattle meeting to ensure they remain engaged and 

proactive in their efforts to drive energy productivity within their spheres of influence.

ATTENDEE BREAKDOWN: SEATTLE

The stop in Seattle brought together a diverse audience from Washington State and the greater Pacific Northwest 

region. A total of 91 people registered for the State & Local Dialogue and 80 attended. Registrants included 12 advocacy 

group representatives, 24 business representatives, 28 government officials or staff members, 16 utility representatives, 

and 13 representatives of research and academic institutions. Organizations represented included the Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, Alstom Grid, City of Mercer Island, City of Seattle, Alaska Airlines, Smart Cities Council, CleanTech 

Alliance Washington, Washington State University, University of Washington, King County Wastewater Treatment Division, 

City of Port Angeles, Seattle City Light, Southern Company, Seattle Pacific University, Large Public Power Council, University 

of California–Davis, Office of Congressman Adam Smith, Alstom Inc., Distributed Energy Management, Snohomish PUD, 
APPENDIX 4

136

City of Redmond, Emerald Cities Seattle, Seattle University, Chelan PUD, King County, Gussin Climate Action Fund, National 

Renewable Energy Lab, Western Washington University, 1energy Systems, Oregon BEST, Bonneville Power Administration, 

Tacoma Power, California American Water, Cisco Systems, American Electric Power, International Living Future Institute, 

Opower, Imperium Renewables Inc., Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Boeing, Puget Sound Energy, and the Washington 

Department of Commerce. Representatives from the Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 partnership will continue to 

engage these organizations in the goal of doubling energy productivity by 2030. 

Overview of Energy Efficiency Policy in 

the Pacific Northwest

The Pacific Northwest region has long been a leader in energy efficiency, with state and local governments, utilities, and 

businesses alike implementing programs and incentivizing investment in energy-efficient technologies in order to meet the 

region’s growing demand for electricity. As part of the Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 initiative, the initiative partners 

are hosting a State and Local Dialogue in Seattle, Washington, bringing together leaders from state and local government, 

utilities, business, academia, and nonprofit organizations to discuss smart power systems and ways to enhance energy 

productivity in the region and across the nation. Given the focus of the event on the power grid and smart power systems, 

the following information primarily focuses on the efforts made in the Pacific Northwest region that relate to these topics. 

While there is still more to be done, the information below provides a quick overview of some of the efforts that have been 

made to promote energy efficiency and energy productivity in the Pacific Northwest and Seattle.

NOTABLE EFFORTS IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

Seattle’s local government has established several policies to improve energy management and use, which are coordinated 

by the Office of Sustainability and the Environment. This office also controls a resource conservation fund for energy efficiency 

projects, including building audits and maintenance improvements. Policies and codes designed to improve buildings efficiency 

are among the strongest in the country, and include requirements for LEED Gold certification for city-funded buildings and 

benchmarking of public, multi-family and commercial buildings of specific sizes. Seattle is also a partner with the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) Better Buildings Challenge and has committed to reduce energy use in municipal buildings by 20 

percent by 2020. Additionally, the Office of Sustainability and Environment offers a Community Power Works program, which 

was once funded through DOE, to help consumers make energy-efficient upgrades to their homes. 
APPENDIX 4

137

Aside from its strong buildings policies, Seattle has committed to using its own purchasing power to choose energyefficient products. Municipal vehicles must be alternative-fuel vehicles or hybrid-electric vehicles with at least a 25 

percent higher fuel economy rating than a comparable vehicle. In 2013, all 41,000 residential street lights in Seattle were 

replaced with LEDs that are activated with photo sensors. Currently, the city is undergoing the replacement of 31,000 

arterial lighting fixtures with LEDs, to be completed by 2018.

At the moment, Seattle is pursuing a district energy project in three neighborhoods where waste heat from sewer 

lines, hospitals, and data centers can be harnessed to power energy systems, specifically for the heating and cooling 

of multiple buildings. An agreement has been made with a private district energy utility, Corix Utilities, to conduct a 

feasibility analysis of the project. The city and Seattle Housing Authority have also agreed to provide district energy for 

one housing development, provided a positive feasibility analysis. 

To encourage greater energy efficiency in its transportation system, Seattle has incorporated an Urban Village Strategy 

into its Comprehensive Plan, which guides zoning by encouraging development in neighborhoods most capable of 

supporting growth and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Neighborhood planning also considers walkability and 

accessibility to public transportation. The city has implemented policies to achieve a goal of reducing passenger vehicle 

miles traveled 14 percent by 2020, and 20 percent by 2030, from a 2008 baseline. Similarly, Seattle has a Commute Trip 

Reduction plan and provides Transportation Demand Management programs for employers in the city. 

KING COUNTY INITIATIVES

King County, which includes Seattle and is the most populous county in Washington, has been proactive in issuing 

policies that accelerate energy efficiency projects throughout the county. King County Executive Dow Constantine, a 

keynote speaker at the Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030: A State and Local Dialogue in Seattle, issued his biennial 

budget proposal that will speed up county energy efficiency projects while reducing overall costs. “By investing in 

projects that pay for themselves over time through lower utility bills, we can meet our climate targets faster and save 

money at the same time,” said Executive Constantine, who released his proposed 2015–2016 budget last September. 

As part of operating King County as a best-run government, the Executive’s budget proposes a Fund to Reduce Energy Demand 

that would provide county agencies with a new tool to meet long-term goals for both energy reduction and climate change. 

Under the program, the county could issue bonds to provide loans to departments for equipment upgrades that reduce the use 

of energy or other resources. The savings on utility bills would be used to pay back the bonds. Additional bonds could be issued 

to fund future energy-, water-, or waste-reduction projects and initiatives—creating even more savings.
APPENDIX 4

138

The Executive’s proposed budget will include loans totaling $2.2 million for eight energy and water efficiency projects across 

five county agencies. About 20 percent of the total project costs are expected to be repaid through utility rebates. The 

combined projects would reduce the county’s output of carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 1,000 metric tons every year.

WASHINGTON STATE POLICIES

The Washington State government is strongly committed to leading by example by requiring energy-efficient public 

buildings and fleets, benchmarking energy consumption, and encouraging the use of energy savings performance 

contracts (ESPCs). In fact, Washington’s programs are so impressive that the state was ranked eighth on the American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy’s State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, which assesses energy efficiency policies 

and programs for every state.

Washington State offers several financial incentives for energy efficiency projects, including grants, rebates, loans, tax 

credits, and reductions. Among these is the Community Energy Efficiency Program, which identifies and funds projects 

for community-wide residential and commercial energy efficiency retrofits. It is estimated that these retrofits produce 

$1.7 million in savings on energy costs each year. Another financial incentive is the Energy Efficiency Grants for Higher 

Education and Local Governments, which provides $38 million in funding for energy efficiency upgrades to facilities of 

institutions of higher education and local governments. 

Washington has extensively used ESPCs as a means of financing retrofits for state and municipal facilities. The ESPC Program, 

in the Department of General Administration, assists entities seeking to use an ESPC, by offering no-cost preliminary audits, 

a list of pre-qualified energy service companies, model documents, and low-interest financing options. Washington also has 

an energy performance contracting program provided by the Washington Department of Enterprise Services, and available 

for state agencies, colleges, towns, counties, school districts, hospitals, libraries, and ports. Since the program’s inception in 

1986, it has supplied more than $350 million in public facility efficiency projects, including $288 million in public building energy 

efficiency upgrades in the last five years alone, and has saved $22 million in energy costs annually.

Like Seattle, the state of Washington is also characterized by having strong policies on buildings efficiency. Of note, 

Washington is one of the few states to require commercial buildings to disclose their energy use, using an Energy Star 

rating system. State buildings have required energy savings targets, as mandated by a Washington executive order. 

State agencies must achieve a 20 percent reduction in building energy use by 2020, compared to a 2009 baseline. The 

same executive order also requires that state agency buildings be benchmarked, and if found to consume more energy 

than average for that building type, undergo an audit and implement efficiency improvements. A previous executive 

order and state statute mandate that major state construction projects and major facility projects receiving any funding 
APPENDIX 4

139

from the state budget must be designed in accordance with LEED Silver standards. The current building energy code in 

Washington was developed in 2012, is compliant with the 2012 IECC, and contains codes applying to both residential 

and commercial buildings. 

In terms of transportation efficiency policy, Washington, like Seattle, requires that state agencies phase in fuel economy 

standards for motor pools and conventional vehicles by 2015. State agencies must also purchase ultra-low carbon fuel 

vehicles or achieve an average fuel economy of 40 miles per gallon for light passenger vehicles, and 27 miles per gallon 

for light-duty vans and sport utility vehicles. The Washington Department of Transportation operates the largest ferry 

system in the United States, which also consumes the most fuel in the state government. However, the Washington 

Department of Transportation installed bio-fuel blending systems for its fleet in 2013, and has been honored by 

Government Fleet magazine as one of the most sustainable and efficient public fleets in the United States. Washington 

has also committed to reducing vehicle miles traveled per capita 18 percent by 2020, 30 percent by 2025, and 50 

percent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. 

UTILITIES LEAD THE WAY

Washington’s private and public utilities have a long history of offering customer energy efficiency and conservation 

programs supported by regional organizations including the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), the Large Public 

Power Council (LPPC), the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and the Bonneville Power Authority (BPA).

In Washington, energy efficiency is considered as a resource for planning and investment decisions by utilities. For 

example, NPCC designed its Sixth Power Plan, a regional energy blueprint, to guide the largest electricity supplier in 

the area, BPA. The plan, which aims to save 5,900 megawatts over 20 years, must be updated every five years, in 

accordance with federal law. NPCC even reports that energy efficiency, as a resource, is the largest power source in the 

Pacific Northwest behind hydroelectric power, based on a survey of almost 90 percent of the region’s retail electricity 

sales. The report finds that energy efficiency has saved 5,570 MW since 1978 and met almost 62 percent of the Pacific 

Northwest load growth since 1980. These energy savings directly translate into monetary savings. The NPCC estimates 

that electricity consumers in the Pacific Northwest saved $3.5 billion in 2013 due to high investment in energy efficiency, 

which amounts to roughly twice the national average of its share in electricity revenues, totaling $375 million in 2013. 

Washington has its own energy efficiency resource standard, established by the Energy Independence Act ballot 

initiative, which requires that Washington electricity utilities achieve specific gains in energy productivity and 

conservation each year, roughly 1.4 percent in electricity savings. The act also requires utilities to use methodologies 

consistent with those of NPCC to assess and plan their ten-year cost-effective conservation potential, which is updated 
APPENDIX 4

140

every two years. Utilities also must create biennial acquisition targets, which are also updated every two years. Any 

utility that fails to meet conservation and productivity goals faces a fine. 

Puget Sound Energy, a utility serving the Pacific Northwest region, offers many different types of programs and 

incentives to encourage energy efficiency, including rebates for homeowners using energy-efficient appliances, 

engineering consulting for commercial and industrial projects, and grants for retrofits and upgrades to buildings. In 2013 

alone, Puget Sound Energy’s energy efficiency programs saved enough electricity to power over 25,000 homes and 

enough natural gas to heat more than 6,000 homes. 

Alliance Associate Member Snohomish County Public Utility District also provides a strong energy conservation program 

that covers weatherization and heating, efficient lighting and appliances, audits, heat pumps, and more, for both 

commercial and residential applications. Jim West, an assistant general manager for customer and energy services 

at Snohomish County PUD, has stated that though some utilities “might view energy efficiency offerings as more of a 

customer service, we very much make the investment as a strategic approach for meeting load growth on the system.” 

Seattle City Light, the primary utility providing electricity to the Seattle area and an endorser of Accelerate Energy 2030, 

offers substantial incentives and programs to encourage residential and commercial consumers to use energy more 

efficiently. These programs have been largely successful and have generated considerable savings. In 2013, Seattle City 

Light reported net electricity savings of 138,160 megawatt-hours, 1.46 percent of its retail sales, as a result of their 

energy efficiency programs. To ensure the long-term sustainability of improvements in energy productivity, Seattle has 

committed to achieving 0.90 percent energy savings, approximately 122,640 megawatt-hours each year.

OTHER NOTABLE EFFORTS IN THE REGION

In addition to these policies, new technology is also being used throughout the Pacific Northwest region as a means of 

advancing energy efficiency for utilities. Over the past three years, DOE has been testing smart grid technology in five 

states in the Northwest. In Washington, Seattle City Light and the University of Washington collaborated to create a 

micro-smart grid to serve the University of Washington campus. Smart grid technology has the potential to produce 

significant savings; in 2014, a representative of the University of Washington reported that the smart grid had saved the 

University $130,000 in annual energy costs. While smart grid technology has not yet been adopted citywide, Seattle City 

Light has plans to provide 400,000 homes with advanced meters within the next year. These smart meters will be able 

to show customers and utilities more detailed information regarding energy use, allowing utilities to better identify and 

resolve any malfunctions while allowing consumers to control and monitor their usage.
APPENDIX 4

141

Seattle also boasts the greenest commercial building in the world. The Bullitt Center is designed to have a 250-year 

lifespan. The building is designed to be energy and carbon neutral, with a water and sewage processing system that 

allows the building to be independent of municipal water and sewage systems. Energy neutrality is achieved with a large 

solar panel array on the roof of the building along with energy conservation measures that will cut the building’s energy 

consumption to approximately one-third of the consumption of a typical office building of similar size. 

The partners learned a great deal about the progress that Seattle, Washington, and the Northwest, have made toward 

realizing a more energy-productive future at the Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 event in Seattle on April 14.
APPENDIX 5

142

APPENDIX 5 

Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 Regional Dialogue 

ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
APPENDIX 5

143

EVENT SCHEDULE

Day 1 - Executive Roundtable Dialogue Overview

The focus of the events in St. Paul was growing U.S. industrial competitiveness through smart manufacturing processes. 

On the first day, 20 key private and public sector leaders convened for a private, moderated roundtable discussion on 

advanced manufacturing. The sessions focused on the role of advanced manufacturing in driving energy productivity, 

what energy productivity means to the participant’s respective organizations, and the challenges, opportunities, and 

strategies to drive energy productivity through advanced manufacturing processes. 

Dr. Gayle Schueller, Vice President of Global Sustainability at 3M, was joined by Kateri Callahan, President of the Alliance to 

Save Energy, Bill Bates, Chief of Staff and EVP of the Council on Competitiveness, as well as senior Department of Energy 

leaders—Assistant Secretary Dave Danielson from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and Dr. Jonathan 

Pershing from the Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis—in leading the day’s discussion.

ACCELERATE ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY 2030: 

Growing U.S. Industrial Competitiveness through Smart Manufacturing Processes

DATE April 15th, 2015

LOCATION 3M INNOVATION CENTER

2350 Minnehaha Ave. East

Maplewood, MN 55119

11:00 am CHECK-IN AND LUNCH

12:00 pm OPENING REMARKS

Mr. Bill Bates, Chief of Staff and EVP, Council on Competitiveness

Ms. Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy

Dr. Gayle Schueller, VP, Global Sustainability, 3M
APPENDIX 5

144

Dr. Dave Danielson, Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

12:25 pm THE ROLE OF ADVANCED MANUFACTURING IN DRIVING 

ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY

Dr. Dave Danielson, Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Advanced manufacturing—efficient, productive, highly integrated, tightly controlled technologies 

and processes that can increase competitiveness across the spectrum of U.S. manufacturers 

and suppliers—is uniquely capable of dramatically improving the energy productivity of the U.S. 

manufacturing sector. This session provided an overview of the advanced manufacturing activities 

currently ongoing in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and their role in meeting 

the energy productivity goals of the U.S. Department of Energy. 

12:40 pm SESSION I – What does Energy Productivity Mean to Your Organization?

FACILITATOR Dr. Gayle Schueller, VP, Global Sustainability, 3M

New technologies, systems and processes are increasingly being implemented in the advanced 

manufacturing sector that can enable superior device and process control, tighten and reduce 

barriers along supply chains, drive energy productivity, and lend significant competitive advantage 

to the organizations and nations that embrace them. In particular, the use of information and 

communications technology to integrate all aspects of manufacturing—Smart Manufacturing—can 

achieve significant improvements in energy efficiency while delivering added competitive advantage 

to organizations that leverage it. 

In this session participants introduced themselves and spoke briefly on the opportunities and 

challenges in driving energy productivity from the perspective of their organization. Participants 

responded to the following questions: 

• What successes have your organizations seen, either in achieving gains in energy productivity, or 

assisting others in doing so? 

• Are there success stories that can be quantified (e.g. implementation of a certain system that enabled a 

new process, reduced costs associated with energy use, or led to a specific competitive advantage)? 

• What is the single biggest role DOE can play in facilitating the adoption of smart manufacturing 

techniques by the U.S. industrial sector? 
APPENDIX 5

145

1:30 pm NETWORKING AND COFFEE BREAK

1:45 pm SESSION II – Challenges and Opportunities to Drive Energy Productivity 

through Advanced Manufacturing Processes

FACILITATOR Ms. Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy

Due to the maturity of the installed base of many industrial plants and its frequently changing 

structural composition, there is considerable opportunity to drive energy productivity throughout 

the U.S. industrial sector. An energy-efficient industrial sector increases productivity, enhances 

global competitiveness, and creates jobs. Because the industrial sector has a wide variety of large 

and small energy users and extensive supply chains, dissemination and replication of energy saving 

technologies, projects, and best practices can yield significant energy savings. 

This session explored challenges and opportunities that participants have observed throughout their 

own experience and within their own organizations.

• What is the biggest obstacle to wider adoption of energy-productive advanced manufacturing 

approaches? What barriers are specific to large OEMs versus the barriers facing SMEs? 

• Are the barriers primarily technological, cultural, or financial? 

• What are the respective roles of the public and private sectors in disseminating smart 

manufacturing techniques across OEMs and through supply chains? 

2:45 pm STRATEGIES TO DRIVE ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY IN THE U.S. 

MANUFACTURING SECTOR

PRESENTER Dr. Jonathan Pershing, Principal Deputy Director, Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy 

In September, Secretary Moniz will release a strategic roadmap—based on the Accelerate Energy 

Productivity 2030 dialogues—to achieve the President’s vision of doubling energy productivity by 

2030. This roadmap will include strategies that private firms, and federal, state and local governments 

can take to improve energy productivity in the U.S. manufacturing sector. This session featured a set 

of potential strategies specific to the advanced manufacturing sector that are being considered for 

the roadmap—that were discussed and vetted by participants in the later sessions.

3:00 pm SESSION III – Input on Advanced Manufacturing Strategies 
APPENDIX 5

146

FACILITATOR Dr. Jonathan Pershing, Principal Deputy Director, Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy

In this session participants discussed and vetted the concepts from the preceding presentation—with 

the goal of developing specific recommendations to inform the sections of the policy roadmap that 

are relevant to the U.S. industrial sector.

• What are the key features of a strategic policy roadmap that can successfully facilitate 

improvements in energy productivity in the U.S. industrial sector? 

• Does the suggested strategy broadly capture these elements? What gaps exist and what elements could 

be refined to better facilitate the private and public sectors in meeting its energy productivity goals? 

• How can we ensure that this strategy is additive—not duplicative—to existing efforts in driving 

energy productivity for U.S. manufacturers? 

3:45 pm NETWORKING AND COFFEE BREAK

4:00 pm SESSION IV – Policy Recap: Next Steps and Building a Strategic Roadmap

FACILITATOR Dr. Dave Danielson, Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

This session reviewed and synthesized previous discussions, analyzing the major themes through 

a policy lens in order to draw out specific recommendations for the roadmap. Policy gaps that, if 

addressed, would foster accelerated uptake of energy-productive manufacturing solutions—or policy 

hurdles that hinder such development—were discussed in greater detail in order to close the dialogue 

with concrete ideas for an enabling policy framework.

• Pathways and best practices to accelerate energy-productive manufacturing technologies over a 

15 year time horizon 

• Policy actions at the state, local, and federal level that can catalyze change and support advanced 

manufacturing technologies and investments 

• How federal policy can enable advanced manufacturing solutions across supply chains

• Next steps in turning recommendations into policy action. 

4:45 pm CLOSING REMARKS 

Mr. Bill Bates, Chief of Staff and EVP, Council on Competitiveness

Ms. Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy

Dr. Gayle Schueller, VP, Global Sustainability, 3M
APPENDIX 5

147

PARTICIPANTS

Mr. Bill Bates

Chief of Staff and EVP, Council on Competitiveness

Ms. Kateri Callahan 

President, Alliance to Save Energy 

Dr. Sujeet Chand

CTO and SVP, Advanced Technology, Rockwell Automation

Dr. David Danielson 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,

U.S. Department of Energy 

Mr. Terry Gallagher

SVP and General Manager, Global Water and Process Services, 

Heavy Operating Division, Nalco

Mr. John Galyen

President, Danfoss North America

Dr. Bruce Hedman

Technical Director, Institute for Industrial Productivity

Dr. Mark Johnson

Director, Advanced Manufacturing Office, Office of Energy Efficiency 

& Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Dr. Martin Keller

Associate Laboratory Director, Energy and Environment Directorate,

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Ms. Stacey Paradis

Executive Director, Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Dr. Jonathan Pershing

Principal Deputy Director, Office of Energy 

Policy and Systems Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Jim Phillips

Chairman and CEO, Nanomech

Ms. Susan Rochford

Vice President, Sustainability & Public Policy, Legrand

Mr. Todd Rytting

CTO, Panasonic Corporation of America

Dr. Gayle Schueller

Vice President, Global Sustainability, 3M

Dr. George Wan

Vice President, Engineering and Technology, Ingersoll Rand

Mr. Aldie Warnock 

SVP, External Affairs, Communications and Public Policy, American 

Water

Mr. Geff Wood

Director, GPM IPS Manufacturing & Process Control, and 

Automation, Alcoa
APPENDIX 5

148

Day 2 - A State and Local Dialogue Overview

ACCELERATE ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY 2030: 

Energy Productivity and Smart Power Systems

DATE April 16th, 2015

LOCATION 3M INNOVATION CENTER

2350 Minnehaha Ave. East

Maplewood, MN 55119

8:30 am REGISTRATION & CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST 

9:00 am WELCOME & OPENING REMARKS

Ms. Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy

9:10 am KEYNOTE REMARKS

Dr. Gayle Schueller, VP, Global Sustainability, 3M

9:20 am KEYNOTE REMARKS

Dr. David Danielson, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 

9:35 am PANEL 1: Advanced Manufacturing: Creating More Goods, 

Using Less Energy 

MODERATOR Dr. Mark Johnson, Director, Advanced Manufacturing Office, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, 

U.S. Department of Energy

PARTICIPANTS George Wan, VP Engineering and Technology at Thermo King, Ingersoll Rand 

Bruce Hedman, Technical Director, Institute for Industrial Productivity 

Barri Gurau, Senior Engineer for Corporate Energy Initiatives, Lockheed Martin
APPENDIX 5

149

10:35 am BOTTOM LINE DIALOGUE: Exploring the Energy-Water Nexus 

MODERATOR Dr. Jonathan Pershing, Principal Deputy Director, Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy 

PARTICIPANTS Terry Gallagher, SVP and General Manager, Global Water and Process Services, Heavy Operating Division, Nalco

Aldie Warnock, SVP, External Affairs, Communications and Public Policy, American Water

11:05 am LUNCH AND NETWORKING BREAK 

1:05 am PANEL 3: Public Perspectives on Doubling Energy Productivity 

in the Midwest

MODERATOR Stacey Paradis, Executive Director, Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

PARTICIPANTS Janet Streff, Manager of State Energy Office, Division of Energy Resources, Minnesota Department of Commerce 

& Chair of National Association of State Energy Officials Board of Directors

Sheldon Strom, Founder and President, Center for Energy and Environment 

Al Juhnke, State Agriculture & Energy Advisor, Office of Senator Al Franken and Former Minnesota State Representative 

John Hoffman, Senator and Vice Chair of Environment and Energy Committee, Minnesota Senate 

Summary

On July 16, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and Council on Competitiveness (Council) joined the Alliance to 

Save Energy (Alliance) in co-hosting their third and final roundtable in St. Paul, Minnesota focused on the manufacturing 

sector and growing industrial competitiveness through increased energy productivity as part of the Accelerate Energy 

Productivity 2030 initiative. The initiative, officially launched by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz in September 2014, 

seeks to build momentum and support for energy productivity by catalyzing action in the public and private sectors 

through a series of dialogues aimed at co-creating a road map for doubling U.S. energy productivity by 2030. 

More than 80 attendees gathered at 3M Innovation Center in St. Paul for the event sponsored by Alliance Associate 

Members Lockheed Martin and Ingersoll Rand, and co-hosted by 3M and the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA). 

The agenda for the dialogue was primarily populated with public and private-sector energy experts from the region with 

the goal of discussing challenges and opportunities associated with advancing energy efficiency and energy productivity 

in the manufacturing sector.
APPENDIX 5

150

Speakers included representatives from 3M, the Department of Energy, Ingersoll Rand, and the Institute for Industrial 

Productivity, Lockheed Martin, Nalco, American Water, Minnesota Department of Commerce, the Office of Senator Al 

Franken (D-MN), the Minnesota State Senate, the Center for Energy and Environment, the Midwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance, the Council on Competitiveness and the Alliance to Save Energy.

Speakers from all stakeholder groups including representatives from state and local government, academic institutions, 

businesses, utilities, advocacy organizations, and manufacturers all touched on the challenges and opportunities facing their 

particular sectors and on what they are doing to drive energy productivity within their respective organization, and the areas 

they serve. Equally as important, the dialogue benefitted from a robust and engaged audience of an equally diverse background. 

Dr. Gayle Schueller, VP of Global Sustainability at 3M, kicked things off with some background on 3M’s role in the 

manufacturing space and their history in the region. The first panel followed, moderated by Mark Johnson, Director 

of the Advanced Manufacturing Office at DOE, who focused on the innovative advanced and additive manufacturing 

technologies that have allowed private companies to create more goods using less energy. The audience heard from 

representatives from Ingersoll Rand, the Institute for Industrial Productivity, and Lockheed Martin about the importance 

of driving continued advancements in advanced manufacturing and increasing energy productivity in manufacturing 

processes in order to keep our manufacturing sector prosperous and competitive with other nations. 

The second panel focused on the ever-increasing importance of the energy-water nexus and the need to look at energy and 

water as inextricably linked. Dr. Jonathan Pershing, Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Energy Policy and Systems 

Analysis at DOE, moderated a discussion between a representative from Nalco, a water-heavy manufacturer of chemicals and 

other products, and an American Water representative, the nation’s largest water utility. Both spoke of the importance of water 

conservation, increasing water efficiency, and the dual benefits for increased energy savings and energy productivity. 

The final panel focused on the public perspectives from the region, featuring a current and former member of the state 

legislature, a representative from the State Energy Office of Minnesota, and the president of a regional energy and 

environment nonprofit. This panel discussed the state’s long history of bipartisan support for energy efficiency and 

renewable energy and the need to continue to make strides in increasing state and local policies that promote them. 

The event featured particularly strong audience participation from a high-level group of energy stakeholders, with a 

particularly large presence from the public sector in the state and region. The Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 goal 

of doubling U.S. energy productivity by 2030 resonated with the panelists and audience alike as both engaged in a 

dialogue regarding the specific approaches taken and challenges encountered in advancing energy productivity at the 

local, state, and regional levels. 
APPENDIX 5

151

ATTENDEE BREAKDOWN 

As with previous events, the State & Local dialogue in St. Paul brought together a diverse range of stakeholders 

from around Minnesota and the upper-Midwest. In all, 125 people registered for the event and 90 people attended. 

Registrants included 24 advocacy group representatives; 45 business representatives; 41 government officials or staff 

members; 6 utility representatives; and 9 research or academic institution representatives. Organizations represented 

included Indiana NAACP, Ever-Green Energy, Center for Energy and Environment, Great Plains Institute, Minnesota 

Department of Commerce, City of Maplewood, Metropolitan Council, Benton County, Neighborhood Energy Connection, 

Evolve technologies, Ever-Green Energy, Frederick County, NALCO, Minnesota Power, Cook County Minnesota, City of 

St. Paul, City of Ruchfield, City of Vadnais Heights, Lockheed Martin, 3M Company, Institute for Industrial Productivity, 

Environmental Quality Board, State of Minnesota, Xcel Energy, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Process Technology 

LLC, Oneida County Wisconsin, Franklin Energy, Home Scan, University of Minnesota, Earthtech Energy, Ingersoll Rand, 

City of Northfield Minnesota, Fresh Energy, Fulton County Board, Minnesota GreenCorps, Minnesota Interfaith Power 

& Light, Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, CenterPoint Energy, American Water, City of White Bear Lake, Minnesota 

Trade Office, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Office of Senator Al Franken, Office of Senator Klobuchar, Majestic 

Custom Electric, Smiths Medical, Delano Municipal Utilities, City of Highland Park, and Eaton. The initiative partners look 

forward to fostering lasting relationships with the diverse set of participants who participated in St. Paul to ensure they 

remain engaged and proactive in their efforts to drive energy productivity within their spheres of influence.

Overview of Energy Efficiency Policy in 

the Upper Midwest 

As part of the Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 initiative, a collaborative effort to help achieve the resident’s goal of doubling 

U.S. energy productivity by 2030, the initiative partners hosted the final State and Local Dialogue in St. Paul, Minnesota, on July 

16 at 3M’s Innovation Center. The half-day event brought together leaders from state and local government, utilities, business, 

academia and nonprofit organizations to discuss the importance of increasing energy productivity in the region, with a focus on 

growing industrial competitiveness through advanced manufacturing and smart manufacturing processes. 

This event could not have come at a more appropriate time, as strides are being made toward a more energy-efficient 

community at the local, state, and regional levels of the Upper Midwest area. Government clunkers are being traded 

in for fuel-efficient hybrids and charging stations, St. Paul citizens are witnessing their city being transformed into the 
APPENDIX 5

152

“Most Livable City in America,” and private businesses are seeing growing returns on their investments in retrofitted 

buildings. Learn more below about St. Paul and the ways in which citizens and organizations can improve upon the 

foundation the Upper Midwest community has built for an efficient future. 

INNOVATIVE PROGRESS FOR ST. PAUL

As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, in 2009 the Department of Energy (DOE) awarded the City of 

St. Paul $2.7 million in funding from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant. The City of St. Paul has since 

been able to invest millions of dollars in energy efficiency projects. Among these have been improved efficiency of 

municipally owned facilities, LED retrofitted streetlights and investments in 23 electric vehicle charging stations with 

plug-in electric fleet vehicles. The city government has been able to provide homeowners with loans to conduct energy 

audits and make energy management system installations. The city has projected that it will achieve $395,705 of 

aggregate yearly energy savings solely through replacing lights and installing new energy management systems in local 

libraries, parking ramps and recreational centers.

The federal stimulus has also enabled a partnership between the St. Paul Port Authority (SPPA), the Center for Energy 

and Environment (CEE) and Xcel Energy through the Trillion BTU program in which SPPA uses the grant funding through 

the Minnesota Department of Commerce to create a business loan program. Businesses first voluntarily agree to energy 

audits paid for by Xcel Energy; engineering studies are then performed on facilities with conservation opportunities—25 

percent of the cost paid for by the participating business and 75 percent paid by Xcel. Based on these studies and audits, 

installation of necessary physical improvements is implemented and covered by a Port Authority loan and an Xcel Energy 

rebate, making the loan repayment less than estimated energy savings. 

St. Paul also has the nation’s largest wood-fired Combined Heat and Power plant to serve a district energy system. 

St. Paul Cogeneration produces approximately 65 megawatts of heat and up to 33 megawatts of electricity, making it 

more than twice as efficient as a conventional electric power plant. The system is fueled by clean urban wood residue 

and primarily uses wood from storm events, commercial tree trimmings and removals, and municipal and private tree 

and brush sites. The plant’s reduced impact on the environment includes a 70 percent reduction in the use of coal, a 50 

percent reduction in particulates, and a reduction of up to 280,000 tons of greenhouse gases yearly. 

To promote further efficiency in an area with projected population growth of 34 percent between 2000 and 2030, the 

state-of-the-art Energy Innovation Corridor was established in 2010 along the 11-mile light rail transit route between 

downtown St. Paul and downtown Minneapolis. The Corridor not only features “one of the most sophisticated energy 

and transportation infrastructure systems ever developed,” but also serves residents with smart energy technologies, 
APPENDIX 5

153

renewable energy sources, and advanced efficiency programs. Between 2010 and 2014, the Corridor avoided about 3.3 

billion pounds of carbon emissions, equating to over $66.2 million in economic savings. 

MINNEAPOLIS: A TOP CITY FOR EFFICIENCY

This year, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ranked Minneapolis seventh in the country for having 

strong energy efficiency policies. Minneapolis has been rising in the ranks for its progress in energy efficiency, largely 

due to its strides in promoting energy-efficient buildings and new efforts in reducing carbon emissions. According to data 

in Minneapolis’ Sustainability Indicators, the city reduced it greenhouse gas emissions from local government operations 

by 18 percent between 2008 and 2012, an average annual reduction of over 4 percent. 

Regarding transportation, The Green Fleet Policy requires the city of Minneapolis to obtain highly efficient vehicles that 

emit the lowest levels of pollutants. The city also has an anti-idling policy to deter city fleets and other automobiles 

from unnecessarily polluting the air. Public lighting has also undergone updates, particularly in the last months of 2014 

when the city purchased 1,000 LED fixtures for replacing HID streetlights. For building standards and energy codes, 

Minneapolis continues to raise the bar. LEED silver standards must be implemented in every phase of the building or 

significant renovation process for city municipal complexes. City financed buildings must also be outfitted with ENERGY 

STAR appliances if applicable under the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy. 

Among all of these excellent programs, the city’s Climate Action Plan and Clean Energy Partnership are perhaps the most 

exceptional. The Climate Action Plan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2025 with 2006 as a baseline. 

As a part of this goal, Minneapolis intends to use renewable sources for 10 percent of its electricity, raise the bicycle-commute 

mode share to 15 percent, double regional transit ridership and reduce overall energy use by 17 percent. Additionally, the 

Climate Action Plan commits the city to recycling half of all waste with an added composting rate of 15 percent.

To work toward achieving the city’s Energy 2040 Vision of providing “reliable, affordable, local and clean energy 

services for Minneapolis homes, businesses and institutions,” and “sustaining the city’s economy and environment and 

contributing to a more socially just community,” Minneapolis has established the Clean Energy Partnership with natural 

gas and electric utility companies Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy. Through these utility franchise agreements, 

Xcel and CenterPoint will have access to run distribution lines on the public right of way under an assurance that their 

services will meet the city’s energy efficiency goals. 
APPENDIX 5

154

MINNESOTA LEADS MIDWEST IN SAVINGS PROGRAMS 

Minnesota leads the way in energy efficiency by offering technical, contractual, and financial resources to institutions 

at each level of government as well as by instituting programs that incentivize efficiency, conservation, and innovative 

technology. Through the Guaranteed Energy Savings Program implemented in 2010, school districts, universities, local 

governments and state agencies are enabled to engage in Energy Savings Performance Contracts through the state’s 

Division of Energy Resources. These contracts not only create jobs and save on operational costs, but also effectively 

reduce overall energy consumption with the goal of a 20 percent aggregate reduction in state agencies. All investor-owned 

utilities in the state operate under a shared savings model in which they are incentivized to reach efficiency targets: utility 

companies receive an increased percentage of net benefits in direct proportion to their increased energy savings. 

Overall, “Minnesota has been very progressive in terms of clean energy policy, promoting efficiency and renewables” 

said Kyle Aarons, senior fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and producer of a study tracking energy 

savings and energy efficiency gains across the United States. 

Minnesota’s government agencies have been intentional about creating projects and programs to meet federal goals. In 

response to the EPA’s 1.5 percent recommendation, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security 

and Minnesota Environmental Initiative coordinated to form a stakeholder initiative called “The 1.5 Percent Energy 

Efficiency Solutions Project”. Through the initiative, nonprofit, environmental and public groups came together on a short 

term basis to connect with contractors, trade groups and utilities companies to brainstorm the policy barriers that were 

currently blocking the path to reaching 1.5 percent yearly energy efficiency savings. Since issuing a final report in 2011, 

stakeholders have continued to work with agencies to promote progress in energy efficiency and reach the goal of 1.5 

percent annual savings. 

Manufacturing is yet another sector in which Minnesota has promoted high standards of efficiency. With the help of 

grant funding, the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) now helps two manufacturing facilities each year 

on a three-year cycle to determine where energy efficiency opportunities exist and which strategies would be best for 

effective implementation. The impetus for this program came from a report by MnTAP in 2010 that revealed potential 

gas and electric savings in Minnesota’s industrial sector of over 2.5 million MCF (8 percent) and 271.4 million kWh (7 

percent). As a result, MnTAP’s work with individual manufacturing companies each year could eventually lead to an 

effective statewide Conservation Improvement Program based on their case studies with individual companies about 

which strategies and implementation programs are most effective. 

Minnesota’s most recent initiative issues new state residential and building energy codes, effective last February 

and this June, respectively. The new state residential energy code alone has been projected to save over 880,000 
APPENDIX 5

155

MMBTU annually compared to the old code, according to the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA) and DOE. This 

energy savings translates to about $540 less in utility bills each year for the average homeowner and over $8 million in 

aggregate savings for homeowners. 

UPPER MIDWEST INITIATIVES 

In addition to the significant progress Minnesota has made in energy efficiency, surrounding states in the region have 

also taken measures to implement efficiency programs. 

Illinois Energy Now, a program that offers grants for low-income housing and public sector programs as well as 

recommendations on market transformation and technical assistance programs, has now saved almost $585 million 

in aggregate energy costs through the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. Since 2008, the 

program has created and sustained over 17,800 jobs, saved 7.8 billion kWh in electricity equipment, and conserved over 

218 million therms in natural gas equipment. Looking ahead, Energy Now is expected to reach $1 billion in public sector 

savings in the next 10 years. 

Wisconsin’s Focus on Energy Program funded by the state’s investor-owned energy utilities, has been instrumental in 

facilitating energy savings of more than $730 million for over 2.8 million residents and businesses. The incentive program 

focuses on renewable resources and energy efficiency for the state’s many utility companies and their consumers. 

Success stories so far include consumers ranging from school districts and apartment complexes, to breweries and pizza 

shops; each receiving incentives and expertise based on their own unique business models and industries. 

Iowa in particular has had a focus on renewable energy sources with a program established in 2012 for solar tax credits 

available to residential and commercial consumers through the Iowa Department of Revenue. Just in the first five months 

of this year, the system has been able to provide over $1.15 million in credits. Additional efforts include Iowa’s Alternate 

Energy Loan Program in which individuals or businesses are able to obtain one, low-interest loan (often zero percent) of 

half the cost of the project (up to $1 million) to help cut down on the costs of financing the construction of a renewable 

energy facility featuring solar, wind turbine, small hydro or biomass technologies. 

Michigan has made clean energy a top priority as it reaches its goal of generating 10 percent of its total energy uses 

from renewable sources this year; however, Governor Rick Snyder continues to press for further conservation measures 

using efficiency methods for waste reduction. As of March, Snyder presented his plan for Michigan to meet up to 

40 percent of its energy needs primarily through waste reduction, a shift away from coal, and the continued development 

of renewables. According to the governor, “The most affordable energy you can ever get is the energy you never use. 
APPENDIX 5

156

You didn’t need to build the power plant; you didn’t need to buy the fuel; you didn’t need the transmission system.” 

Because Michigan residents use 38 percent more energy than the national average, there is significant potential for 

improvement through efficiency techniques. 

The Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 team looks forward to engaging in meaningful conversations regarding the 

steps that state and local policy officials, business owners, industry, and households have made in St. Paul and in the 

Upper Midwest.
APPENDIX 5

157
APPENDIX 6

158

APPENDIX 6 

Organizations Committed to 

Accelerate Energy Productivity by 2030
APPENDIX 6

159

A total of 122 organizations have committed to the goal of doubling U.S. energy 

productivity by 2030, pledging to (1) improve energy productivity within their own 

organizations, (2) share success stories, (3) encourage other organizations to endorse 

and (4) participate in Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030 educational outreach activities. 

Similarly, nine international organizations have endorsed the goal of doubling global energy 

productivity by 2030. 

3M Company

5 Lakes Energy, LLC

Acuity Brands Lighting

Advanced Energy Economy

Advanced Power Control, Inc.

Alliance for Industrial Efficiency

Alliance to Save Energy 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy

American Council on Renewable 

Energy

American Public Transportation 

Association

Artfox

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers 

Big Ass Solutions

Bombard Renewable Energy

BSH Home Appliances Corporation

Business Council for Sustainable 

Energy

Business Efficiency Consulting 

Services, Inc.

CALMAC Manufacturing Corporation

Center for Energy and Environment

Center for Environmental Innovation 

in Roofing

Center for the New Energy Economy 

at Colorado State University

City of Ann Arbor

City of Grand Rapids

Clean Energy Project

Conservation Services Group, Inc.

Copper Development Association

Council on Competitiveness

Cree

Danfoss

Design AVEnues, LLC

The Dow Chemical Company

Downtown DC Business 

Improvement District

Duke Energy

EcoValuate, LLC

EES Consulting

Efficiency Valuation Organization

Efficient Windows Collaborative

Encap Development

Energetics, Inc.

Energy Future Coalition

Energy Insight, Inc. 

Energy Network

Energy Systems & Installation

EnergyFit Nevada

Environmental Defense Fund

EPS Capital Corp.

Exelon Corporation

Field2Base, Inc.

Galligan Energy Consulting, Inc.

Georgetown University Energy Prize

Geos Neighborhood

Green Building Initiative

GreenerU

GreenLaw
APPENDIX 6

160

Grundfos

Habitat for Humanity International

Hampton/NASA Steam Plant

Hannon Armstrong

Herty Advanced Materials 

Development Center

ICLEI USA

Illuminating Engineering Society

Ingersoll Rand

Institute for Industrial Productivity

Institute for Market Transformation

International Copper Association, Ltd.

Johns Manville

Johnson Controls, Inc.

Knauf Insulation

Large Public Power Council

Legrand

Light and Energy International, LLC

Lime Energy

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Los Angeles Department of 

Water and Power

Masco Corporation

Nalco, an Ecolab Company

National Association for State Community 

Services Programs

National Fenestration Rating Council

National Grid US

National Insulation Association 

Nebraskans for Solar

Nevada Energy Star Partners 

GREEN Alliance

Nevada Governor’s Office of Energy 

New Jersey PACE

New York Power Authority

North American Insulation 

Manufacturers Association

Natural Resources Defense Council

NV Energy

Ohio Energy and Advanced Manufacturing 

Center

Opower

Owens Corning

Panasonic Corporation of North America

Pacific Gas & Electric Corporation (PG&E) 

Philips Lighting Company

Pierce Energy Planning

Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers 

Association

Potential Difference, Inc.

Rebuilding Together

Schneider Electric

Seattle City Light

Siemens Industry, Inc. 

Snohomish County Public Utility District

Solar Habitats, LLC

South-central Partnership for Energy 

Efficiency as a Resource

Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance

Southern California Edison 

Southface Energy Institute

Southwest Energy Efficiency Project

The Stella Group

UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, 

Environment, and the Economy

United Nations Foundation

United Technologies Corporation

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation

Vinyl Siding Institute 

Vitandra Business Solutions

Washington Gas

Washington State Energy Office

Wisconsin Energy Conservation 

Corporation

Western Washington University

Whirlpool Corporation

This list represents endorsements as of Aug. 12, 2015. For more information, see http://www.energy2030.org/.