Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-mzfmx Total loading time: 0.339 Render date: 2022-08-14T13:28:38.781Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Potential Barriers to Improving Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings: The Case of Supermarket Refrigeration1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Heather Klemick*
Affiliation:
National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MC 1900T, Washington, DC 20460, USA, e-mail: klemick.heather@epa.gov
Elizabeth Kopits
Affiliation:
National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MC 1900T, Washington, DC 20460, USA
Ann Wolverton*
Affiliation:
National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MC 1900T, Washington, DC 20460, USA, e-mail: Wolverton.ann@epa.gov

Abstract

According to engineering analyses, energy-intensive commercial buildings have ample opportunities to reduce energy use while saving money, but many seemingly profitable strategies go unadopted. This study explores potential barriers to energy- and refrigerant-reducing investments in supermarket refrigeration. While supermarkets are large energy users, energy and refrigerant account for a relatively small proportion of expenditures. However, due to the intensely competitive nature of the industry, reducing refrigeration costs could have a sizable impact on supermarkets’ bottom lines. Given the scarcity of empirical data in this context, we conducted focus groups and interviews with U.S. supermarket representatives to elicit information about potential barriers to investment and used content analysis to qualitatively evaluate results. Participant statements suggest that the rate at which they adopt specific energy-reducing refrigeration technologies and practices correlates fairly well with estimates of expected payback. Uncertainty and imperfect information about the performance of new technologies, high opportunity costs of capital, and tradeoffs with other valued system attributes such as reliability and customer appeal were the most pervasive potential barriers discussed by participants, although split incentives between firms and contractors or employees also played a role for some firms. Our assessment is that these factors have moderately limited or slowed investments in energy-saving refrigeration technologies for many firms; only in the cases of uncertainty/imperfect information and split incentives between firms and contractors or employees are these barriers potentially indicative of market failures. In addition, in several instances we identify ways in which analysts could improve engineering-based net present value calculations to make them more consistent with actual firm decisions.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Focus groups and interviews were conducted with contractor support funded by the U.S. Environmental Agency. The authors thank Tara Hamilton and William Prindle (ICF International); Jane Peters and Bobbi Tannenbaum (Research in Action); Food Marketing Institute; National Grocers Association; Ohio Grocers Association; and Keith Sargent (EPA) for help coordinating and conducting focus groups and interviews. The authors also thank Keilly Witman, Tom Land, and Ron Shadbegian for their helpful input. All opinions expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

References

Andrews, Clinton J. & Krogmann, Uta (2009). Explaining the Adoption of Energy-Efficient Technologies in U.S. Commercial Buildings. Energy and Buildings, 41, 287294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansar, Jasmin & Sparks, Roger (2009). The Experience Curve, Option Value, and the Energy Paradox. Energy Policy, 37, 10121020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basker, Ernek & Noel, Michael (2008). The Evolving Food Chain: Competitive Effects of Wal-Mart’s Entry into the Supermarket Industry. Journal of Economics & Management and Strategy, 18, 9771009.Google Scholar
Bernheim, B. Douglas (2016). The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly: A Unified Approach to Behavioral Welfare Economics. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 7, 1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, Samuel J. & Radcliff, Benjamin(Eds.) (2005). Polling America: An Encyclopedia of Public Opinion. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Carbon Trust (2010). Refrigeration Roadmap (UK: Carbon Trust). Accessed February, 11, 2015, https://www.carbontrust.com/media/147175/j7924_ctg021_refrigeration_road_map_aw.pdf.Google Scholar
DeCanio, Stephen J. (1998). The Efficiency Paradox: Bureaucratic and Organizational Barriers to Profitable Energy-Saving Investments. Energy Policy, 26, 441454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeCanio, Stephen J. & Watkins, William E. (1998). Investment in Energy Efficiency: Do the Characteristics of Firms Matter? Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 95107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichholtz, Piet, Kok, Nils & Quigley, John M. (2010). Doing Well by Doing Good? Green Office Buildings. American Economic Review, 100, 24922509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichholtz, Piet, Kok, Nils & Quigley, John M. (2013). The Economics of Green Building. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95, 5063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food Marketing Institute (FMI) (2015). Supermarket Facts. Accessed February 11, 2015,http://www.fmi.org/research-resources/supermarket-facts.Google Scholar
Fricke, Brian A. & Becker, Bryan R. (2010). Doored Display Cases: They Save Energy, Don’t Lose Sales. ASHRAE Journal, 52, 1826.Google Scholar
Gary, Michael (2010). New Tests Support Doors on Cases. Supermarket News, October 4.Google Scholar
Gerarden, Todd D., Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N.(2015). Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap. NBER Working Paper 90204. National Bureau of Economics Research.Google Scholar
Gillingham, Kenneth, Newell, Richard G. & Palmer, Karen (2009). Energy Efficiency Economics and Policy. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1, 597620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, David L. (2011). Uncertainty, Loss Aversion, and Markets for Energy Efficiency. Energy Economics, 33, 608616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, David L., Evans, David H. & Hiestand, John (2013). Survey Evidence on the Willingness of U.S. Consumers to Pay for Automotive Fuel Economy. Energy Policy, 61, 15391550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gul, Mehreen S. & Menzies, Gillian F. (2012). Designing Domestic Buildings for Future Summers: Attitudes and Opinions of Building Professionals. Energy Policy, 45, 752761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfand, Gloria & Dorsey-Palmateer, Reid (2015). The Energy-Efficiency Gap in EPA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis of Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Regulations: A Case Study. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6, 432454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang & Shannon, Sarah E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 12771288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014). Summary for policy makers. Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group III.Google Scholar
Jaffe, Adam B., Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N. (2005). A Tale of Two Market Failures: Technology and Environmental Policy. Ecological Economics, 54, 164174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, Adam B. & Stavins, Robert N. (1994). The Energy-Efficiency Gap: What Does it Mean? Energy Policy, 22, 804810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Robert P., Leibtag, Ephraim S. & Behl, Ajay S.(2004). Supermarket Characteristics & Operating Costs in Low Income Areas. USDA Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 839, accessed February 11, 2016, http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/911472/aer839.pdf.Google Scholar
Klemick, Heather, Kopits, Elizabeth, Wolverton, Ann & Sargent, Keith (2015a). Heavy-Duty Trucking and the Energy Efficiency Paradox: Evidence from Focus Groups and Interviews. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 154166.Google Scholar
Klemick, Heather, Kopits, Elizabeth & Wolverton, Ann(2015b). The energy efficiency paradox: a case study of supermarket refrigeration system investment decisions. National Center for Environmental Economics, Working Paper #15-03.Google Scholar
Klemick, Heather & Wolverton, Ann (2013). Energy-Efficiency Gap. In Shogren, Jason (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resource, and Environmental Economics (Vol. 1, pp. 7481). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klotz, Leidy, Mach, Daniel, Klapthor, Brent, Tunstall, Casey & Harrison, Jennilee (2010). Unintended Anchors: Building Rating Systems and Energy Performance Goals for U.S. Buildings. Energy Policy, 38, 35573566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latella, Richard W. & Morrissey, James(2006). Retail Real Estate: Supermarket Industry Overview. Cushman & Wakefield Valuation Services – Retail Industry Group. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.pdfdrive.net/supermarket-overview-july-2006-client-e1366385.html.Google Scholar
List, John A. (2003). Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 4171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, John A. (2004). Neoclassical Theory versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace. Econometrica, 72, 615625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsa, David A. (2011). Competition and Product Quality in the Supermarket Industry. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 15391591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, Robert L. & Siegel, Daniel (1986). The Value of Waiting to Invest. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101, 707727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinsey & Company (2009). Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy. McKinsey Global Energy and Materials.Google Scholar
Metcalf, Gilbert E. (1994). Economics and Rational Conservation Policy. Energy Policy, 22, 819825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navigant Consulting (2009). Energy Savings Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial Refrigeration. Final Report submitted to U.S. Department of Energy.Google Scholar
Ochieng, E. G., Jones, N., Price, A. D. F., Ruan, X., Egbu, C. O. & Zuofa, T. (2014). Integration of Energy Efficient Technologies in UK Supermarkets. Energy Policy, 67, 388393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Papineau, Maya(2013). Energy Codes & The Landlord–Tenant Problem. University of California, Berkeley. Fischer Center Working Paper. Accessed November 3, 2016 http://escholarship.org/uc/item/46c518h9.Google Scholar
Pellegrini-Masini, Giuseppe & Leishman, Chris (2011). The Role of Corporate Reputation and Employees’ Values in the Uptake of Energy Efficiency in Office Buildings. Energy Policy, 39, 54095419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Timothy J. & Hamilton, Stephen F. (2006). Rivalry in Price and Variety among Supermarket Retailers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88, 710726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Lisa & Hammitt, James (2011). Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sallee, James M. (2014). Rational Inattention and Energy Efficiency. Journal of Law and Economics, 57, 781820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleich, Joachim (2009). Barriers to Energy Efficiency: A Comparison across the German Commercial and Services Sector. Ecological Economics, 68, 21502159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleich, Joachim & Gruber, Edelgard (2008). Beyond Case Studies: Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Commerce and the Services Sector. Energy Economics, 30, 449464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogren, Jason & Taylor, Laura (2008). On Behavioral-Environmental Economics. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2, 2644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Rory & Gouldson, Andy (2013). Ten Years of Corporate Action on Climate Change: What Do We Have to Show for It? Energy Policy, 60, 733740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel (1992). Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2016). Retail Trends. accessed November 3, 2016. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-markets-prices/retailing-wholesaling/retail-trends.aspx.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2008a). Facility Type: Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in Energy Star Building Upgrade Manual. U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, accessed April 11, 2015. http://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/buildings/tools/EPA_BUM_CH11_Supermarkets.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA (2008b). Sector Collaborative on Energy Efficiency Accomplishments, and Next Steps, accessed April 11, 2015, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/suca/sector_collaborative.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA (2011). Profile of an Average U.S. Supermarket’s Greenhouse Gas Impacts from Refrigeration Leaks Compared to Electricity Consumption. GreenChill Program Fact Sheet.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA (2013). Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990 – 2030, U.S. EPA 430-R-12-006.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA (no date). Refrigerant Leak Prevention through Regular Maintenance. GreenChill program fact sheet. Accessed Jan. 28, 2015, http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-12/documents/gc_preventativemaintenance_20130913.pdf.Google Scholar
5
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Potential Barriers to Improving Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings: The Case of Supermarket Refrigeration1
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Potential Barriers to Improving Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings: The Case of Supermarket Refrigeration1
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Potential Barriers to Improving Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings: The Case of Supermarket Refrigeration1
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *