delivering energy savings through community-based organizations

N

Delivering Energy SavingsThrough Community-BasedOrganizations

To achieve greater energy savings through energyefficiency programs, participation in those programs mustincrease. Community-based organizations provide apotentially effective way to reach more residential andsmall commercial consumers and increase the adoption ofenergy efficiency measures.

David Berry

David Berry is Chief of PolicyAnalysis for Western Resource

Advocates in Scottsdale, Arizona.This research was supported by

Edwards Mother Earth Foundationand the Hewlett Foundation. The

author also thanks Doug Bland, ToniBouchard, Bryan Garcia, AmandaOrmond, Sandy Bahr, and SusanStephenson for helpful ideas. The

opinions expressed in this article arethose of the author.

ovember 2010, Vol. 23, Issue 9 1040-6190/$–s

I. Introduction

States are adopting more

aggressive energy efficiency

standards for electric utilities.1 To

meet these standards, the number

of participants in efficiency

programs will have to increase

significantly. One way to increase

participation is to pay ever higher

incentives to induce consumers to

adopt more efficient lighting,

space cooling, refrigeration,

motors, and so forth. However,

program costs could become

prohibitive.

A dditional strategies for

increasing participation

ee front matter # 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights r

need to be explored.2 Community-

based efficiency programs may be

able to access more potential

participants than are currently

being reached. This article assesses

the ability of community-based

organizations to implement

residential and small-commercial

energy efficiency programs. It

focuses on the institutional

capability of community-based

organizations to design energy

efficiency programs and deliver

energy savings. Information was

obtained concerning the

experience of community-based

organizations primarily from

evaluations of specific programs

eserved., doi:/10.1016/j.tej.2010.10.009 65

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2010.10.009

Planning andimplementing

an energyefficiency

program canbe a form

of civicengagement.

66

conducted by the organization

itself or by an outside evaluator,

from academic analyses, and from

other materials such as annual

reports. Thus, this study is a meta-

evaluation, i.e., a review of other

studies, supplemented by

additional information.

II. What Is aCommunity-BasedOrganization?

A community-based

organization is a

nongovernmental entity that takes

on responsibility for delivering

energy savings within a particular

location or region.3 It may be an

existing organization formed for

other purposes, such as a

neighborhood association, it may

be focused on multiple aspects of

local environmental

improvement, or it may have been

formed specifically to address

energy efficiency, for example. The

organizations considered here are

usually nonprofits and typically

draw support and participants

from within the region. In general,

they develop partnerships with

utilities, with municipal or other

government agencies, and with

other organizations and

businesses. While a community-

based organization may have a

professional staff and obtain labor

from partner organizations, much

of the labor is often provided by

volunteers.

C ommunity-based

organizations vary greatly

in the scope of their activities and

in the ways in which they function

1040-6190/$–see front matter # 2010 Els

within their communities. For a

program to be included in this

study, a community-based

organization must play a key role

in the delivery of energy efficiency

services, and not just be

incidentally involved. Thus,

neighborhood programs

implemented by utilities or

government agencies would not

be included because they are

primarily the product of a

utility or government effort that

has a geographic focus for

delivery of energy savings.

Also, partnerships among

various government agencies,

utilities, banks, universities,

etc. would not be included

unless they incorporate major

participation by a community-

based organization.

III. Diffusion of EnergyEfficiency viaCommunity-BasedOrganizations

There are two dimensions to

diffusion of energy efficiency

through a community-based

evier Inc. All rights reserved., doi:/10.1016/j.

energy efficiency program: civic

engagement and social marketing.

Some programs are active in both

dimensions while others tend to

focus largely on one.

A. Civic engagement

Planning and implementing an

energy efficiency program can be a

form of civic engagement.

Civic engagement is concerned

with improving societal

welfare, as opposed to obtaining

individual benefits, and with

participatory social processes

for planning and implementation

of improvements.4 It encompasses

learning, social interaction,

and problem solving. For

example, residents may

participate in defining objectives

and in developing policies and

programs to implement those

objectives.

C ivic engagement may occur

at the design phase of an

energy efficiency program or at

the implementation phase, or

both. Several examples of civic

engagement are summarized

below:

� In the Baltimore

Neighborhood Energy Challenge,

city government works with

neighborhood organizations to

recruit volunteers to engage in

outreach. Using volunteers,

neighborhood organizations also

create an outreach plan and

develop civic events to create

visibility for the energy efficiency

program.5

� In the Vermont Community

Energy Pilot, local energy

committees and other volunteers

tej.2010.10.009 The Electricity Journal


Social networksare also key toincreasingadoption ofenergy efficiencymeasuresand to changingbehavior.

N

coordinated the project, including

recruiting and training

volunteers, recruiting program

participants, organizing home

energy visits, and working with

other community partners.

Monetary incentives were

awarded to local groups for

meeting targets.6

� In Iowa, Trees Forever

administers funding of

community shade tree programs.

The communities develop

volunteer tree planting groups,

create tree boards or commissions,

develop a funding plan, develop

long-term tree care programs,

plant trees at public events,

and develop municipal tree

ordinances and tree-related items

in city budgets. Trees Forever

assigns a coordinator to each

community.7

� In Durham, N.C., residents

work together by participating in

neighborhood energy saving

activities, community events,

and workshops and by

disseminating energy efficiency

information.8 They learn about

energy efficiency, teach others,

and foster neighborhood

engagement.

Civic engagement draws upon

community members’

motivations. People are

motivated to get involved in

energy efficiency issues by

multiple factors, including:9

� Attachment to the

community or place;

� Furthering a cause, especially

environmental protection and

sustainable living;

� Opportunities for social

interaction, and


� Opportunities for learning.

S ocial networks are also key to

increasing adoption of

energy efficiency measures and to

changing behavior.

Communication occurs through

established relationships, making

use of shared knowledge, and is

based on expectations of trust and

reciprocity.10 For example,

information about energy

efficiency might be spread

from neighbor to neighbor or

among members of a church or

other organization. Thus,


efficiency that is disseminated

through social networks

and recruitment of participants

and volunteers that occurs

through social networks can

enlarge the pool of potential

participants relative to

conventional marketing

techniques.

Social networks apply not only

to residential consumers but also

to the industrial sector. This sector

uses trade shows, conferences,

information centers, directories,

partnerships with other

organizations, newsletters, trade


journals, working groups, and

training to provide information.11

B. Social marketing

Doug McKenzie-Mohr defines

social marketing as a process to

uncover barriers to behavior,

identify desired behavior, such

as energy efficiency, develop a

program to overcome the

barriers, run a pilot program

to refine the program, and

evaluate the program.12

Social marketing focuses the

marketing effort on population

groups whose behavior the

organization is trying to

modify and does not presume to

know, at the outset, what the

relevant barriers are, in contrast

to broad marketing efforts that

are not targeted to overcome

specific barriers in a specific

population.

The Residential Energy

Efficiency Project (REEP) in

Waterloo, Ont., provides an

example of social marketing.13

The program addresses barriers

to residential energy efficiency –

the cost of energy efficiency, the

time needed to consider and

implement efficiency, the

potential lack of trust in the

organization promoting energy

efficiency, whether efficiency

measures really save energy, and

a belief that homeowners already

know the problems of their

home’s energy use. The program

developed marketing materials

and designed site visits to homes

to overcome these barriers, and

employs surveys and program

evaluations.

eserved., doi:/10.1016/j.tej.2010.10.009 67


Many consumers donot get around to doing

anything after theyreceive information on

energy efficiency,especially if the

efficiency measuresare costly.

68

IV. Experience ofCommunity-BasedOrganizations

This section reviews the

experience of several community-

based organizations, considering

the delivery process for informing

consumers about energy

efficiency and installing efficiency

measures, development of

partnerships, the scale of

operations, the duration of the

efficiency program effort, and

program evaluation.

A. Delivery process

There are two major

components of energy efficiency

delivery processes: information

and installation. We first look at

informing potential participants

about efficiency measures. For

example, community-based

shade tree organizations may

require participants to attend

a workshop or review

information on how to select,

site, plant, and care for trees

before they obtain the trees.14

Some community-based

organizations send trained

volunteers or paid technicians to

homes or businesses to conduct

energy evaluations and to

explain options for and benefits

of energy efficiency measures

such as efficient lighting, low-

flow showerheads, faucet

aerators, and more expensive

measures such as efficient

refrigerators or insulation.

Information may also be

provided through presentations

or exhibits at community events,


local newspaper articles or

television stories, utility bill

inserts, or printed materials left

when visiting a home or

business. Diffusion of this

information to a wider audience

occurs when consumers tell their

friends, neighbors, or others

about energy efficiency.

T he second component is

getting the consumer to

actually follow through and

install energy efficient measures.

This can be accomplished by

installing efficiency measures

during a site visit for an energy

evaluation or by giving the

measures to the consumer in the

expectation that they will be

installed. Give-away strategies

are often applied to low cost

measures. Some programs

require a nominal payment to get

the measure or receive an audit, in

part to defray costs, but also to

motivate the consumer to actually

install the measures. Delivery

strategies may include

community events where shade

trees or compact fluorescent

lamps (CFLs) or other measures

are sold or given away.


M any consumers do not get

around to doing anything

after they receive information on

energy efficiency, especially if the

efficiency measures are costly. For

example, the Vermont

Community Energy Mobilization

Pilot Project and the Corvallis

Energy Challenge found rather

low rates of follow-through after

homeowners had been advised

about energy efficiency measures

(beyond any installed at the time

of an on-site visit).15 Program

evaluations, discussed below,

may reveal ways to increase

installations of recommended

measures.

Table 1 summarizes the

delivery strategies used by

community-based organizations

reviewed for this study.16 Some

programs provide only

information and others provide

information and deliver efficiency

measures to the consumer.

B. Partnerships

Partnerships are critical as

they provide additional means

for obtaining community

support, technical expertise,

volunteers, and funding, and for

establishing credibility within

the community. Partners could

include municipal governments,

utilities, foundations, banks,

other community organizations,

or local universities. Utilities are

especially important partners

because they can provide

funding for operating the

program and for subsidizing the

costs of efficiency measures and

audits.



Table 1: Overview of Delivery Processes

Program Delivery Process

Baltimore Neighborhood

Energy Challenge

Neighborhood organizations recruit teams of volunteers for neighborhood outreach (via door to door canvassing,

community events, newsletters); volunteers are trained by City staff. Neighborhood organizations create

outreach plan with volunteers. Participants receive free or subsidized energy efficiency measures.

Vermont Community

Energy Pilot

Efficiency Vermont trained volunteers. Volunteers conducted walk-through assessments of home energy savings

potential, held ‘‘kitchen table discussions’’ about energy saving opportunities and resources available to

homeowners, and installed CFLs, low-flow showerheads, faucet aerators, tank wraps, pipe insulation, and set-back

thermostats.

Corvallis Energy

Challenge (OR)

Trained energy advisor conducted a walk-through residential evaluation and homeowner received prioritized list of

recommendations and information on incentives and tax credits; homeowners received energy efficient devices

such as CFLs. Commercial customers received an on-site technical assessment, a written report and in-person

review, and a list of efficiency measures and incentives. A follow up phone call was made after 3 months.

Home Energy

Squad (MN)

Implemented by the Center for Energy and Environment and the Neighborhood Energy Connection. Customer makes

appointment and energy squad visits home to install low-cost efficiency measures at reduced cost such as CFLs,

weather-stripping, programmable thermostats, low-flow showerheads, and faucet aerators. Gas and electric

utilities help fund program. Efficiency workshops are held in cooperation with neighborhood and other nonprofit

organizations.

Trees Forever/Alliant

Energy Branching

Out (Iowa)

Program provides grants to communities and volunteer groups for tree-planting projects. Trees Forever administers

program (applications for grants, data tracking, training, support, analysis), assists with volunteer recruitment and

training, provides technical assistance to communities. Utility provides funding.

Sacramento Tree

Foundation/SMUD

Participant schedules visit by community forester who goes to participant’s home to determine siting of shade trees

and advises participant about which tree species are appropriate. Forester also provides a tree planting and care

video/DVD. Trees are free and are delivered to the participant’s home. Participant plants trees. Utility funds program.

Project Porchlight

(Puget Sound)

Short-term program: volunteers distributed free CFLs door-to-door and at community events. Utility funded program.

Interfaith Power & Light

(multiple states)

Provides efficiency information to members of religious organizations and to the public at community events.

Installs efficiency and other measures at buildings belonging to religious organizations to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions.

South Australia Low

Income Program:

Community Based

Welfare Organizations

(CBWOs)

Low-income program implemented by CBWOs: free home audits; CFLs, low-flow showerhead, and draft excluders

installed during audit; inefficient refrigerator buy-back; zero interest loans. Auditors also recommended behavioral

changes (e.g., water heater or refrigerator thermostat settings). Each of the CBWOs was given targets or guidelines

for expected outcomes, service delivery, reporting, evaluation, record keeping, etc. Contractor implemented

refrigerator program and state government implemented loan program. Most common source of information about

the program was word-of-mouth.

REEP

(Waterloo Region, ON)

Conducts subsidized energy evaluations using certified energy evaluators. Uses partnerships with local university,

local governments, and utilities to increase credibility. Information about program disseminated through referrals,

community events, local media, utility bill inserts; distribution of devices to people in their homes.

Clean Energy

Durham (NC)

Offers energy efficiency workshops for neighborhood participants in consumers’ homes, trains volunteers to teach

other neighborhood residents, loans energy monitoring devices, and encourages participants to share information

with neighbors.

Vermont Lighting

Challenges

Students, municipal officials, local businesses, and citizens, in partnership with Efficiency Vermont, organized

short-term lighting challenges to deploy CFLs, using local events, speaking opportunities, mailings, and local media

to disseminate information, give away CFLs, and sell CFLs at local retailers.

November 2010, Vol. 23, Issue 9 1040-6190/$–see front matter # 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved., doi:/10.1016/j.tej.2010.10.009 69


70

C. Scale of operations

If community-based

organizations are to play a major

role in delivering energy savings,

they must be able to influence

large numbers of participants.

Table 2 summarizes the scale of

operations of several

organizations.17 Some of the

programs were implemented as

pilots intended to help design a

full-scale effort, so they did not

result in huge participation levels.

However, some programs have

delivered many thousands of

Table 2: Scale of Operations

Program Pilo

Baltimore Neighborhood

Energy Challenge

Ye

Vermont Community Energy Pilot Ye

Corvallis Energy Challenge (OR) Ye

Home Energy Squad (MN) No

Trees Forever/Alliant Energy

Branching Out (Iowa)

No

Sacramento Tree Foundation/SMUD No

Project Porchlight: Puget Sound No

South Australia Low Income Program:

Community Based Welfare

Organizations (CBWOs)

No

REEP (Waterloo Region, ON) No

Vermont Lighting Challenges No


shade trees or CFLs, or performed

thousands of energy evaluations.

Thus, energy efficiency programs

implemented by community-

based organizations can reach a

large number of participants and

deliver a commensurably large

quantity of energy efficiency

measures or inform large

numbers of consumers about

energy efficiency through on-site

evaluations or other means.

T he scale of a pilot or more

mature effort is often

established in program targets or

goals for informational visits,

t Scale of

s First-year pilot: 8 neighborhoods, 100 vo

CFLs, 46% turned down water heater

weather stripping, 41% wrapped wate

s January to April 2009: 243 volunteers v

measures.

s March 2008 to February 2009: completed

50 walk-through inspections of busine

measures were installed within first y

Planned number of residential electric cu

in 2011; 12,550 in 2012.

1990–2010: 1,145,516 trees planted; 12

1990–2009: 450,000 shade trees plante

Summer and early fall of 2009: 1,100 v

Energy, distributed 275,000 free CFLs

120 community events. 61 communit

schools helped distribute CFLs.

Over 2-year period: 10,920 audits, 811 in

applications approved.

1999–2008: 9,778 initial residential eva

23% of respondents to follow-up surv

actions. Actions included installation o

Short-term programs. Manchester: 42,00

replaced incandescent lamps, Poultne

incandescent lamp with a CFL.


audits, or installations of

efficiency measures. Determining

an achievable scale of operations

may result from discussions

among partners and from

previous experience.

D. Duration of community-

based programs

Community-based efficiency

programs can be designed as

short-term efforts. In this case, the

program would be organized as a

focused project with local partners

that delivers thousands of CFLs or

Operations

lunteers, 750 participants: 77% installed

temperature, 44% added caulking and

r heater.

isited 709 residences and installed 6,449

about 800 home energy reviews and about

sses. Only 22% of recommended residential

ear.

stomer participants: 7,850 in 2010; 11,100

4,634 volunteers.

d in Sacramento area.

olunteers, with funding from Puget Sound

to residents door-to-door and at more than

y groups, 27 businesses, 16 churches, 23

efficient refrigerators bought back, 222 loan

luations. For period May 1999–May 2000,

ey took a single action, 58% took multiple

f both low-cost and high-cost measures.

0 CFLs purchased, Middlebury: 7,000 CFLs

y: 96% of households replaced an



N

other devices in a specific

community, for example, in a few

months. Once the project is

completed, there is no further

activity by that organization in the

community. This strategy may or

may not be sufficient to induce

long-term changes in behavior and

lead people to continue to

purchase energy efficient

equipment. Other programs are

designed to stay in the community

for years and continue to promote

energy efficiency. The tree

planting programs and REEP in

Table 2 are examples of long-term

community efforts.

E. Role of program evaluation

A community-based energy

efficiency program may produce

only tepid results. Such an

outcome may be due to an inability

to obtain adequate funding. But

there are other possible reasons,

like ineffective delivery methods,

organizational difficulties,

unexpected costs, too broad a

range of programs or target

populations, duplication of other

efficiency program efforts, vague

goals, and so forth. Pilot programs

and program evaluations are

critical tools for dealing with

surprises and for successfully

modifying the program. Program

and process evaluations reveal

lessons specific to a particular

program; lessons drawn from

evaluations of programs studied

here include18:

� Using established

neighborhood (or other) meetings

to present efficiency information,

instead of holding efficiency-


specific meetings, increases

audience size because many

residents do not have time to add

more meetings to their schedules.

� The time needed to conduct

an energy evaluation may be far

greater than anticipated so

schedules or the evaluation

procedure should be modified.

� Focusing the energy

efficiency message on factors

consumers care about increases

acceptance and understanding.

For example, efficiency

information may be more readily

accepted if it is linked to other

concerns such as comfort, health,

or safety.

� A good tracking system

regarding installations, costs, etc.,

is crucial.

� Insufficient staffing will lead

to delays in visiting participants

and in installing measures.

� Improving follow-through is

important, so that recommended

measures actually are

implemented. Time-limited

incentives may help.

� Modifying volunteer training

may result in more informative

and effective on-site visits.


� Modifying the list of

efficiency measures installed or

recommended may increase

savings.

� Making volunteers’ work

schedules more flexible may

increase the number of site visits.

� A continuing effort to

recruit volunteers is necessary as

current volunteers may lose

interest or run into time

constraints.

E valuations often address

cost-effectiveness of

efficiency programs. Expanding

participation through community-

based programs may or may not

be more cost-effective than current

delivery strategies, depending on

case specific conditions. It would

not be surprising if the marginal

cost of employing community-

based delivery strategies is greater

than the cost of some existing

programs; increasing

participation may encounter

increasing marginal costs no

matter what delivery method is

used. Despite rising marginal cost,

community-based efficiency

programs can still be cost-

effective.

V. InstitutionalCapabilities ofCommunity-BasedEfficiency Programs

The great variety of approaches

to community-based energy

efficiency programs reviewed in

this article indicates that program

managers and citizens have many

choices to make when designing a

program. Decisions may be made

eserved., doi:/10.1016/j.tej.2010.10.009 71


72

on the basis of previous

experience and the technical

and other capabilities that

partners bring. There is no one

right way to engage in a

community-based energy

efficiency program. What matters,

fundamentally, is developing and

sustaining the institutional

capability for delivering energy

savings. Institutional capability

refers to the competence of

Social networks are also key to i


organizations to work effectively

and deliver energy savings and to

recognize and respond to

changing conditions. This

capability invites new ideas, eases

entry into the market, improves

access to capital, attracts local

talent, and generates productive

relationships among diverse

and complementary

organizations. It is based upon the

following factors:

ncreasing adoption of energy efficiency measur


� Community involvement in

program development, program

design, and implementation of

energy efficiency programs.

� Access to volunteers to help

plan and implement energy

efficiency programs.

� Use of social networks for

outreach, including use of one-

on-one meetings with residents

and businesses, workshops, and

community events to disseminate

es and to changing behavior.



N


efficiency and to deliver low-cost

efficiency measures to

participants.

� Development of partnerships

with other organizations,

including utilities, to design and

implement efficiency programs,

acquire technical knowledge,

obtain funding, and gain

credibility within the community.

� Learning by doing.

Redesigning programs as a result

of pilots and program evaluations

constitutes one form of learning by

doing. Programs will also evolve

in scope and purpose over time as

new opportunities arise and as

some markets become saturated.

� Attainment of sufficient scale

to noticeably reduce energy

consumption.

VI. Conclusions

As utilities, municipalities,

regulators, and communities seek

to increase the adoption of energy

efficiency measures, additional

ways of delivering energy savings

to consumers will be needed.

Community-based efficiency

programs are one potentially

effective method for increasing

adoption of efficiency measures

by residential and small business

customers. These programs may

be able to access more potential

participants than many

conventional efficiency programs

because they work through civic

engagement and social networks

to attract and involve

participants, disseminate

information on energy efficiency,


and deliver efficiency measures to

consumers.

C ommunity-based energy

efficiency programs are

based on local knowledge and

often draw upon existing

institutions that have already built

up social networks and generated

credibility within their

communities. Thus, it is not

necessary to try to invent new

institutions. In addition,

community-based organizations

can channel the motivations of

some members of the community

into a well-focused and effective

process to increase energy

efficiency.

W ith a foundation in social

networks and social

norms, community-based

programs may make energy

efficiency more routine and less of

an intrusion in consumers’ lives or

businesses. Thus, they have the

potential to produce long-lasting

beneficial effects. If this occurs,

community-based efficiency

programs mayhelpkeepefficiency

programs going in periods when

government leadership on clean

energy falters.&


Endnotes:

1. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, State EnergyEfficiency Resource Standard (EERS)Activity, April 2010, Washington, DC,2010.

2. Thomas Dietz, Gerald Gardner,Jonathan Gilligan, Paul Stern, andMichael Vandenbergh, HouseholdActions Can Provide a BehavioralWedge to Rapidly Reduce U.S. CarbonEmissions, PROC. OF NATIONAL ACAD. OF

SCI., Vol. 106, Nov. 3, 2009, at18452–18456.

3. For a more general discussion ofcommunity-based organizations, seeGill Seyfang and Adrian Smith,Community Action: A Neglected Site ofInnovation for Sustainable Development?CSERGE Working Paper EDM 06-10,University of East Anglia Centre forSocial and Economic Research on theGlobal Environment, Norwich, UK,2006. The authors distinguishcommunity-based organizations frombusiness firms. Community-basedorganizations are motivated by socialneed or ideology as opposed to a profitmotive, occupy a niche in the socialeconomy which is concerned withsocial and cultural values instead of amarket economy, and are voluntaryorganizations or cooperativeenterprises which obtain funding fromgrants and volunteers instead of fromcommercial sales.

4. Angela High-Pippert and StevenHoffman, It Takes Money to BuyWhiskey: Local Energy Systems andCivic Participation, presented atMidwest Political Science AssociationMeeting, Chicago, April 2008. StevenHoffman and Angela High-Pippert,From Private Lives to Collective Action:Recruitment and Participation Incentivesfor a Community Energy Program,ENERGY POLICY (forthcoming). KentPortney, Civic Engagement andSustainable Cities in the United States,PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, Vol. 65,2005 at 577. Lynn Mandarano, SocialNetwork Analysis of Social Capital inCollaborative Planning, SOCIETY &NATURAL RES., Vol. 22, 2009, at 245.

5. Baltimore Office of Sustainability,Baltimore Neighborhood EnergyChallenge Overview, Baltimore, 2009.

eserved., doi:/10.1016/j.tej.2010.10.009 73


74

6. Efficiency Vermont, VermontCommunity Energy Mobilization PilotProject, Burlington, VT, 2009.

7. Mark Vitosh and JanetteThompson, Iowa Communities Benefitfrom an Externally Funded Tree-PlantingProgram, J. ARBORICULTURE, Vol. 26,Mar. 2000, at 114–119.

8. Clean Energy Durham, First YearReport 2008, Durham, NC, 2009.

9. Thomas Measham and GuyBarnett, Environmental Volunteering:Motivations, Modes and Outcomes,CSIRO Working Paper Series 2007-03,Canberra, Australia, 2007. See alsoHoffman and High-Pippert, supranote 4.

10. Steven Hoffman and AngelaHigh-Pippert, Community Energy: ASocial Architecture for an AlternativeEnergy Future, BULLETIN OF SCI., TECH. &SOCIETY, Vol. 25, 2005, at 387. IvanLight, Social Capital’s UniqueAccessibility, J. AM. PLANNING ASSN.,Vol. 70, 2004, at 145. Xavier deSouza Briggs, Social Capital: EasyBeauty or Meaningful Resource?J. AM. PLANNING ASSN., Vol. 70, 2004,at 151.

11. Christina Galitsky, Lynn Price andErnst Worrell, Energy EfficiencyPrograms and Policies in the IndustrialSector in Industrialized Countries,LBNL 54068, Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory, Berkeley, CA,2004.

12. Doug McKenzie-Mohr, PromotingSustainable Behavior: An Introductionto Community-Based Social Marketing, J.SOCIAL ISSUES, Vol. 56, 2000, at543–554.

13. Ryan Kennedy, Paul Parker, IanRowlands and Daniel Scott, TakingResidential Energy Efficiency to theStreets: What Gets the Public Involved?Energy Studies Working Paper 2000-09,University of Waterloo Faculty ofEnvironmental Sciences, Waterloo,ON, 2000.

14. See Western Resource Advocates,Phoenix Green: Designing a CommunityTree Planting Program for Phoenix,Arizona, Boulder, CO, 2009.

15. Efficiency Vermont, supra note 6.Dethman & Associates, Corvallis


Energy Challenge Evaluation, Report toEnergy Trust of Oregon, Seattle, 2010.

16. Sources for Table 1: BaltimoreNeighborhood Energy Challenge,Phase 1 Report, Baltimore, MD, 2010, athttp://cleanergreenerbaltimore.org/uploads/files/BNEC%20Pilot%20Results%20Report.pdf. BaltimoreOffice of Sustainability, supra note 5.Efficiency Vermont, supra note 6.Dethman & Associates, supra note 15.Project Porchlight, Puget Sound, atwww.projectporchlight.com/pugetsound-summary. Interfaith

Power and Light, at http://interfaithpowerandlight.org/about/. IowaInterfaith Power and Light, at http://www.iowaipl.org/energy_ efficiency.html. Xcel Energy, Program ModificationRequest, 2010–2012 ConservationImprovement Program, filed atMinnesota Office of Energy Security,June 25, 2010, Docket No. E,G002/CIP-09-198. Neighborhood EnergyConnection, Home Energy Squads, athttp://www. thenec.org/home_energy/index. php?strWebAction=article_detail& intArticleID=510.Center for Energy and Environment,About CEE, at http://www.mncee.org/about/index.php. Home EnergySquad, at http://www.homeenergysquad.net/services/. Hamline-Midway Coalition, Save Money withNeighborhood Energy Service, at http://www.hamlinemidway.org/node/278.Trees Forever and Alliant Energy,Branching Out 20th Anniversary Report1990–2010, Marion, IA, 2010. Zack Hill,Energy Efficiency through Trees, AlliantEnergy, presentation at Green


Infrastructure Summit and UrbanTrees Forum, 2009. Vitosh andThompson, supra note 7. Alliance forCommunity Trees, Case Study, AlliantEnergy Branching Out Program andAquila Trees Forever CommunityProgram, at http://actrees.org/site//what_we_do/success_stories/alliant_energy_branching_out_program_and_aqui.php. Sacramento MunicipalUtility District, Free Shade Trees, athttp://www.smud.org/en/residential/trees/Pages/index.aspx.John Spoehr, Kathryn Davidson andLou Wilson, An Evaluation of the EnergyEfficiency Program for Low IncomeHouseholds, Adelaide, AustralianInstitute for Social Research, Universityof Adelaide, 2006. Kennedy et al., supranote 13. Ryan Kennedy and PaulParker, Effective CommunityImplementation of a National Program(REEP), Energy Studies Working Paper2003-02, University of Waterloo Facultyof Environmental Sciences, Waterloo,ON, 2003. Clean Energy Durham, athttp://www.cleanenergydurham.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=7.Efficiency Vermont, Case Studies, TheManchester Challenge, The Poultney,Vermont Change a Light Challenge, andThe 72 Hours of Light, Burlington, VT, nodate.

17. Data sources: see note 16, supra.Also, with regard to REEP, see PaulParker, Daniel Scott and IanRowlands, Strategies to ReduceResidential Energy Use and CarbonEmissions: Reversing CanadianConsumption Patterns, EnergyStudies Working Paper 2001-01,University of Waterloo Faculty ofEnvironmental Sciences, Waterloo,ON, 2001. Residential EnergyEfficiency Project, REEP WaterlooRegion 2008 Annual Report, Kitchener,ON, 2009.

18. Daniel Lawse, Phase I Report –Morton Meadows Neighborhood EnergySavings Program: A Pilot Program ToReduce Residential Energy ConsumptionNeighborhood-Wide, Project for Mastersin Community and Regional Planning,University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2008,at 34–35. Dethman and Associates,supra note 15. Efficiency Vermont, supranote 6.


http://cleanergreenerbaltimore.org/uploads/files/BNEC%20Pilot%20Results%20Report.pdf



http://www.projectporchlight.com/pugetsound-summary

http://www.projectporchlight.com/pugetsound-summary

http://interfaithpowerandlight.org/about/

http://interfaithpowerandlight.org/about/

http://www.iowaipl.org/energy_efficiency.html



http://www.thenec.org/home_energy/index.php%3FstrWebAction=article_detail%26intArticleID=510



http://www.mncee.org/about/index.php

http://www.mncee.org/about/index.php

http://www.homeenergysquad.net/services/

http://www.homeenergysquad.net/services/

http://www.hamlinemidway.org/node/278

http://www.hamlinemidway.org/node/278

http://actrees.org/site//what_we_do/success_stories/alliant_energy_branching_out_program_and_aqui.php




http://www.smud.org/en/residential/trees/Pages/index.aspx

http://www.smud.org/en/residential/trees/Pages/index.aspx

http://www.cleanenergydurham.org/index.php%3Foption=com_content%26view=article%26id=53%26Itemid=7




delivering energy savings through community-based organizations

Documents