Utilizing rebates and incentives can be key in getting your efficiency projects approved. Over the course of the next three days, we’ll cover some tips and tricks of rebates and incentives.
Know who is eligible: Know which utility territories you fall under and which utilities are interested in influencing your decisions by offering either design assistance or a portion of the first cost. You may find that you’re eligible for more than one program, and that’s valuable information to have.
Compare programs to maximize money: Most utilities now are very fastidious. They make sure that you don't double-dip and that you're in the right program. For example, projects that qualify for a prescriptive program are typically ineligible for a custom incentive.
Invest in engineering upfront: Investing in engineering talent upfront makes a lot of sense. You may find that if you increased the efficiency of the maneuver that you were originally planning, you would qualify for additional rebates that would offset a large part of the incremental first cost. You might never have known about that increased level of efficiency had you not invested the energy consulting dollars to uncover the smarter way to accomplish the project.
Specify the proper configuration: It's one thing to say, “We're going to use LEDs.” It's another thing to realize, "Okay, we used the right equipment; however, we put so much lighting equipment in the ceiling that we violated the maximum watts per square foot that this utility allows for its energy-efficient lighting incentive." Remember, equipment configuration is as important as equipment selection.
Ensure your specs remain rebate-eligible: Years ago I created a rebate administration service that filed thousands of applications on behalf of our billion-square-foot portfolio of clients. I remember encountering a national retailer who had just suffered a significant financial loss because it had failed to ensure that everyone in the design/construction chain understood the consequences of last-minute substitutions on the rebate-eligible equipment it had specified for two of its new stores. In that case, the retail chain lost the deposit it had tendered to reserve the rebate, the rebate itself, and the higher life-cycle cost of the inefficient equipment over the projected 10-year life of those two new stores.
