delivering energy savings through community-based organizations
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
ovember 2010, Vol. 23, Issue 9 1040-6190/$–s
� 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,
information about energy
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
ee front matter # 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights r
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,
1040-6190/$–see front matter # 2010 Els
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.
evier Inc. All rights reserved., doi:/10.1016/j.
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.
tej.2010.10.009 The Electricity Journal
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/$–see front matter # 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved., doi:/10.1016/j.tej.2010.10.009 69
70
C. Scale of operations
If community-based
organizations are to play a major
role in delivering energy savings,
they must be able to influence
large numbers of participants.
Table 2 summarizes the scale of
operations of several
organizations.17 Some of the
programs were implemented as
pilots intended to help design a
full-scale effort, so they did not
result in huge participation levels.
However, some programs have
delivered many thousands of
Table 2: Scale of Operations
Program Pilo
Baltimore Neighborhood
Energy Challenge
Ye
Vermont Community Energy Pilot Ye
Corvallis Energy Challenge (OR) Ye
Home Energy Squad (MN) No
Trees Forever/Alliant Energy
Branching Out (Iowa)
No
Sacramento Tree Foundation/SMUD No
Project Porchlight: Puget Sound No
South Australia Low Income Program:
Community Based Welfare
Organizations (CBWOs)
No
REEP (Waterloo Region, ON) No
Vermont Lighting Challenges No
1040-6190/$–see front matter # 2010 Els
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.
evier Inc. All rights reserved., doi:/10.1016/j.
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
tej.2010.10.009 The Electricity Journal
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-
ovember 2010, Vol. 23, Issue 9 1040-6190/$–s
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.
ee front matter # 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights r
� 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
1040-6190/$–see front matter # 2010 Els
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
evier Inc. All rights reserved., doi:/10.1016/j.
� 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.
tej.2010.10.009 The Electricity Journal
N
information about energy
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,
ovember 2010, Vol. 23, Issue 9 1040-6190/$–s
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.&
ee front matter # 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights r
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
1040-6190/$–see front matter # 2010 Els
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
evier Inc. All rights reserved., doi:/10.1016/j.
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.
tej.2010.10.009 The Electricity Journal