Singer: In 2010 we spent a lot of time advocating at the federal level for a variety of issues. One of them was to move the ERA-funded energy efficiency money from the DOE, from the state energy program, the block grants and the weatherization systems grants, into the field. That process took a lot longer than anyone anticipated and there was a lag initially. And by the end of October, the USDOE had put out $23 billion or 27% of the money.

2011, I think one of our focuses will continue to make sure that the money is getting into the actual programs at the state and federal level and that they are used for energy performance contracting program, where they can be.

One of the other big issues in 2010 was passage of the National Energy Resource Standard, which requires all utilities procure an amount of their energy resources efficiently. We anticipate our activity in 2011 will focus on ERF standards in 27 states to have an aggregate 68% of US utilities that do not have these kinds of mandates in place. And 39 states have renewable energy standards in place.

So part of what we see as our focus in 2011 is to defend and expand the use of these mandates, because we believe using energy efficiency is the first resource when constructing an overall energy portfolio is a key objective for us.

GlobeSt.com: Word on the street is there isn’t enough data to see profitability.

Singer: We already have the only empirical database which is kept in conjunction with the Lawrence Berkeley national Lab and there are 4,000 projects in that database. We've been doing industry studies since 2000 based on the information in that database. So we actually have lots of data. But that's something that we hear that we don't quite understand. There's plenty of data out there.

GlobeSt.com: What’s holding people back then?

Dixon: It's an important question and one that's specific to the individuals constructing the projects. Some of it is funding and some of it is certain requirements…performance contracting is different than what most companies are used to. It's different than using capital dollars. Unless there is a strong programmatic approach—which some states have--where the states come in and advocate and explain to the clientele what it's all about and how it works. It's the education of it that's most critical for it moving forward. Why it's a good funding mechanism and have confidence that it's a good basis and a good alternative to traditional funding for them.

Singer: An institutional market which is about 70% of the projects that our member companies do, have strong federal support for the programs, is key in states like Pennsylvania and New York, which have really integrated programs across the agencies, strong program managers and strong incentives have been phenomenally successful in terms of producing large amounts of energy savings in their states' facilities.

GlobeSt.com: Do they make good advocates?

Singer: They are advocates in the sense that they do star-evaluation programs and their evaluation programs demonstrate their success and their long-term energy savings. The data that they create is certainly persuasive.

Dixon: Other states can point to and look at and say "How does this work? Does it work well? And how does it work well?"

GlobeSt.com: You recently held a conference. What were the main themes coming out of it?

Singer: I think the feedback generally was that this is a very good time to be managing efficiency business. There are lots of opportunities. In-state markets are continuing to grow. Overall, there is a bit of a disappointment that the Federal legislation in 2010 didn't result in what people had widely expected to happen, which was to create a stronger energy policy, with stronger incentives for energy efficiency.

Dixon: People are waiting to see more leadership on the federal level regarding energy efficiency and we're hopeful that as time goes on that will happen. Things are going on now in many regions that are promoting that business and promoting energy efficiency.

On the federal level was the ERA funding is starting to get down and starting to make a difference. Doing what it's meant to do, get shovels in the ground, get projects going, and making jobs. We're finally seeing the fruits of it. All of those things are very positive.