Indoor agriculture uses an immense amount of energy. In Oregon, part of growers’ electric bills (often many thousands of dollars each month) is designated for conservation funds. These funds–approximately $185 million per year–are collected and managed by the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) for the state’s three investor-owned utilities. These ETO funds are intended to be reinvested into customers’ homes or business operations for upgrades that result in reliable, verifiable energy savings.
Since cannabis legalization, The Energy Trust of Oregon has been a superstar regarding ease of application, amount of rebate, and speed of payment for custom commercial rebates. When dealing with other utilities that have never paid cannabis growers for efficient upgrades, I have often pointed them to the ETO’s proven, systemic methodology for guidance.
However, starting last fall, the ETO began shifting away from customer-friendly rebates, adding additional administrative steps and lowering benefits. Customer rebate potential is now about 98% lower than it was at this time last year.
In October, the ETO initially offered 50-75% year-end bonuses and raised cost caps for standard lighting because they claimed rebates were down overall due to Covid. However, at the same time, they reduced indoor agricultural rebates by 40%. Shortly thereafter and with zero notice the ETO canceled indoor agriculture lighting rebates altogether. When they relaunched the program in February, the max incentive available was reduced from $499k to $6k, and the rate per unit of energy saved was cut in half. The Energy Trust added additional paperwork and inspection steps to the already multi-month application process, requiring growers to work through a registered trade ally, disallowing growers from submitting their own rebates, and even limiting the number of applications one trade ally can complete each year. Then, at a trade ally annual online meeting the ETO claimed their rebate programs were so successful they not only overspent their 2020 budget but blew through much of their 2021 budget as well. (Requests for a specific budget and actual spending numbers have not yet been honored.) Shortly after raising rebate bonuses in October, the Energy Trust also drastically reduced all standard commercial lighting rebates.
During this same time, a decade-long contractor, Portland-based Consulting company, was replaced as the implementer for the majority of Energy Trust’s commercial rebates. The Energy Trust chose not to renew the Consultant’s contract and instead opted to work with a large national consulting corporation. This action directly eliminated at least 8 full-time Oregon jobs.
The Energy Trust’s reason for choosing the national consultant was that it underbid the Consultant’s in its proposal by millions of dollars. Whistleblower complaints have raised questions about insider information sharing during the RFP process. However, these concerns were not large enough to change the outcome. So here we are, in 2021, a new implementer and a new program, and a funding opportunity worth 1.5% as much as last year’s program.
In addition to the stripping of LED grow light rebates for cannabis growers, the ETO’s “streamlined industrial” rebates for efficient standalone dehumidification equipment (another mandatory energy-intensive appliance in a grow-room environment) went from $9 per pint to $7 per pint, and then to $0 per pint, where it remains today.
Is there a change in approach within the Energy Trust diverting dollars away from incentives? Or has energy efficiency perhaps become so successful that incentives are no longer needed for industrial lighting and manufacturing? Is it ethical to mandate commercial operations to pay into conservation funds, but strip the capacity for these same customers to receive the intended benefits in the form of rebates? Should commercial customers receive a credit or a refund on their utility bills for having incentive benefits revoked? My hope is that the ETO will prioritize its funding and put conservation dollars into the best investment per kWh, regardless of the end-user.
Compared with many established programs, providing incentives for efficient grow lamps for indoor agriculture is an incredibly cost-effective way to reduce additional load to the grid. Such abrupt removal of offerings with vague justifications is not at all common.
Despite the questions and confusion that these changes have generated, the shift in rebate offerings is certainly within the power of the Energy Trust of Oregon. Rebates are never guaranteed and almost always require pre-approval. To growers across the United States – secure your rebate application funding now, before the budget makers and efficiency program leaders change their minds.
