Document Type

Article

Publication Date

8-2022

Publication Source

Environments

Abstract

Implementation costs are a major factor in manufacturers' decisions to invest in energy-efficient technologies. Emerging technologies in lighting systems, however, typically require small investment costs and offer short, simple payback periods, due, in part, to federal, state, and utility incentive programs. Recently, however, certain state and federal mandates have reduced the support for and efficacy of electricity utility incentivizing programs. To determine the impact of such support programs, this study examined historical data regarding lighting retrofit savings, implementation costs, and utility rebates gathered from 13 years of industrial energy audits by a U.S. Department of Energy Industrial Assessment Center in a midwestern state. It uses a machine learning approach to evaluate the industrial energy and cost-saving opportunities that may have been lost due to decisions attributable to legislative mandates, utility policies, and manufacturers' calculations and to evaluate the potential effect of lighting rebates on manufacturers' decisions to implement industrial energy-efficient lighting retrofits. The results indicate that the decision not to implement lighting energy efficiency recommendations resulted in a loss of more than USD800,000 in potential rebates by industries during the study period and that the implementation of lighting energy assessment recommendations could have increased by about 50% if electric utility rebates had been available. These findings can help industries evaluate the benefits of implementing lighting efficiency improvements, and help utilities determine feasible lighting retrofit rebate values for incentivizing such changes by the industries they serve.

ISBN/ISSN

2076-3298

Document Version

Published Version

Comments

This open-access article is provided for download in compliance with the publisher’s policy on self-archiving. To view the version of record, use the DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9080100

Publisher

MDPI

Volume

9

Issue

8

Peer Reviewed

yes


Share

COinS