Commercial energy audits get framed as a compliance cost: the thing LL87 or EBEWE makes you buy every cycle. That framing leaves money on the table twice. The same study that satisfies the mandate produces two revenue streams: one-time utility rebates on the efficiency measures it recommends, and recurring demand-response payments, with published dollar figures, on the flexible load it identifies. The numbers below are from the utilities' own current program pages, and they are larger than most owners expect.
The recurring stream: getting paid for load you can shed
Demand response pays buildings to reduce electricity use during grid stress events. The capacity an audit maps, chillers that can pre-cool, lighting circuits on new controls, non-critical equipment that can pause, becomes an enrollable, revenue-bearing asset. What that pays right now, per the utilities' own pages:
| Utility + program | Rate | How it works |
|---|---|---|
| Con Ed CSRP | $6-$18/kW-mo | The Commercial System Relief Program: reservation payments by borough during the summer capability season ($18/kW-month in Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, Queens), plus $1/kWh during events; Con Ed's headline: "up to $18,000 a year for every 100 kilowatts" reduced |
| Con Ed CSRP + DLRP | Higher | One building may join one program from each group; Con Ed's own rate examples show a 100 kW pledge earning up to $21,500/yr in seasonal reservation payments in the best rate tier, before event payments |
| SCE ELRP | $2/kWh | The Emergency Load Reduction Program: per kWh reduced during events, no penalty for sitting one out, 1 kW minimum, events 4-9 p.m. May-October; a CPUC pilot running through 2027 |
| SCE BIP | Bill credits | The Base Interruptible Program: year-round monthly credits for committing at least 15% (and 100+ kW) of demand during events; 200 kW registered demand to qualify |
| LADWP DR | $10-$15/kW-mo | Capacity payments per kW-month plus $0.25/kWh during events, per the current program terms; built around 100 kW curtailment commitments |
Two honesty notes on that table. These are the current program-year terms and every one of these programs reserves the right to change; LADWP's terms say so outright ("subject to change or termination without notice"), Con Edison's published rates are valid per the current demand-response season's tariff, and SCE's ELRP is a pilot with a defined 2021-2027 run, so treat its $2/kWh as a window, not a pension. And the payments scale with what you can actually curtail: the reservation checks are real, but they are sized by pledged kilowatts, which is exactly what the audit quantifies.
The one-time stream: rebates on the measures the audit recommends
The audit's recommendation list, the lighting retrofit, the VFDs, the controls upgrade, feeds directly into the utilities' commercial efficiency programs: Con Edison's commercial and industrial incentives in NYC, SCE and SoCalGas rebate programs in Southern California, and LADWP's commercial programs in Los Angeles, whose current program requires "pre-installation verification of existing equipment and baseline conditions." The specific dollar amounts are measure-by-measure, which is why we do not print a table of them here; the audit's job is to match your building's measures to the current program catalog. What is worth printing: an ASHRAE Level 2 audit typically costs $0.10 to $0.30 per square foot, and it is the priced menu both revenue streams order from.
Can you actually take both? Yes, and SCE says so in writing
The natural worry is double-dipping rules. The regulators police the kilowatt-hour, not your program memberships. SCE's automated demand response incentives, up to $200 per kW of verified load reduction (or 75% of project cost, whichever is less) for control systems, carry a footnote stating that energy management systems "may also qualify for additional incentives through SCE's energy efficiency rebate programs." One controls project, both payments, then recurring event revenue. SCE's ELRP likewise allows dual participation with several of its other DR programs outright, and where a rule does constrain stacking, it is the narrow, sensible one: load already committed to a market program only counts for the increment beyond that commitment. The same curtailed kilowatt-hour cannot be sold twice; enrolling in a rebate program and a DR program is not restricted.
The mechanism that keeps it honest is baselines. Demand-response payments are measured against your recent actual usage; efficiency rebates are measured against your pre-installation equipment. A retrofit is paid once against the old baseline, and afterward the building's remaining flexible load earns event revenue against the new, lower one. Different baselines, different value. The one real interaction to plan around: a deep retrofit shrinks the kilowatts you can pledge to DR, so size your enrollment after the efficiency work, not before, especially where programs carry minimums (LADWP and SCE's BIP both key on 100 kW commitments; SCE's ELRP takes buildings down to 1 kW).
The compliance frame, upgraded
If your building is inside an audit mandate's window, LL87's ten-year cycle in New York, EBEWE's five-year A/RCx cycle in Los Angeles, you are buying the study anyway. The difference between a compliance audit and a useful one is whether it prices the revenue side: which measures clear a rebate program's bar, and how many kilowatts of event-ready flexibility the building can pledge afterward. That is how the same document pays for itself twice, once at installation and then every year the building answers a grid event. It also happens to be the evidence base penalty-mitigation paths increasingly demand, which we covered in the LL97 2030 piece. Our audit and retro-commissioning team scopes all three outputs, the filing, the rebate list, and the DR capacity, in one pass.