CWEB.012/December.19.1996
AS WE close out 1996 and look toward the new year and beyond, reports in this issue of Con.WEB suggest the prognosis for Northwest energy conservation and renewables is really pretty good. Market transformation is beginning to happen, institutionally; the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance in December approved interim funding for six projects. Meanwhile, the Regional Review process has concluded and attention now turns to implementing the consensus recommendations, including a regionwide goal of $210 million annual spending for conservation, renewables and low-income weatherization. That's a smaller amount than in recent years--but no small change. We also cover here the resurrection of a wind-energy project in eastern Oregon, and a model solar home in a Portland suburb (yes, solar works in western Oregon!).
Of course not everything is looking bright: a recent Oregon Office of Energy report details a significant need for low-income weatherization in the state.
There's more, too, as you can read for yourself below. Please share with us any comments via [marko@newsdata.com] e-mail.
SPECIAL THANKS!: To the NEEA board for approving interim 1997 funding for this publication, and to the Regional Review steering committee members for devoting their time, energy and talents over the past year to this absolutely vital--but greatly underappreciated--process.
In its first set of major decisions on specific market transformation plans, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance board has approved funding for six projects and turned down one proposal.
At their December meetings, NEEA board members endorsed the following projects: energy-efficient lighting, premium-efficiency motors, building operator certification, resource-efficient clothes washers, manufactured housing marketing and Con.WEB. With all six the Alliance board decided to provide funding of one year or less. NEEA board members opted for this shorter-term financial support while they figure out longer-term strategies and decision-making criteria for market transformation. Project sponsors are expected to return next year for further NEEA consideration.
The proposed venture that failed to win sufficient NEEA board support involved geothermal heat pumps. Proponents had asked for $500,000 annually over five years to help transform the market for this technology, which uses heat reserves stored in ground or water to provide space-heating and -cooling and water heating for residential, commercial and agricultural applications. An estimated 800 such systems are installed annually around the Northwest--most in areas with active utility promotion.
Supporters of this venture had planned to use NEEA funding--along with 50-percent matching money from the national Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium--for a range of initiatives: training and certification for installers, on-site training, marketing materials, feasibility assessments for commercial/agricultural installations, design assistance, workshops and educational materials. The idea was to influence the people who influence the selection of heating systems.
Specifically, venture proponents hoped to increase the number of annual installations regionwide to 2,400, improve the installed efficiency of these systems by 15 percent and reduce the purchase cost of installed systems by 20 percent. Installed costs of such systems can exceed $10,000. Gross annual energy savings for a home are around 6,000 kilowatt-hours for space heating, 1,000 KWh for water heating.
However, some NEEA board members raised concerns about the initial cost and cost-effectiveness of geothermal heat pumps. There were also questions about the extent of potential applications and whether this venture would promote fuel-switching away from natural gas.
At the same time, several NEEA board members voiced support for the technology as renewable and a viable option for heating systems, particularly but not exclusively in rural locations. Many Northwest utilities east of the Cascades have shown interest in geothermal heat pumps, as have a few west of the mountains.
In the end, the board turned down a revised motion to provide $50,000 in 1997 for membership in the national consortium. Although it gained substantial support among public-power and non-utility representatives on the NEEA board, the motion failed to gain a required two votes among the six investor-owned utility representatives.
This decision is likely to anger many eastside utilities, cautioned NEEA board member Larry Bryant of northern Idaho's Kootenai Electric Cooperative. "A lot of utilities are chomping at the bit to do market transformation" in their service territories, but most of the NEEA-approved projects to date are largely focused in the Puget Sound area, he noted. "We have a lot of utilities on the eastern side who are very irritated to not be able to participate or not see the benefits of market transformation."
Following are summaries of the NEEA board's project funding approvals:
In addition, after considerable discussion at the Dec. 17 meeting, the board turned down a request for retroactive payment of the program's administrative costs from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31 of this year. The contract between existing LightSaver utility sponsors and program administrator Portland Energy Conservation Inc. expired Oct. 1. Many board members questioned the precedent of earmarking 1997 approved funding for additional 1996 expenses.
Motors: The market transformation proposal for premium-efficient motors also requested three years funding, totalling $1.1 million. However, the NEEA board approved a single year's budget of $487,000 for the motors program, which plans five components: circuit riders, motor testing, education, dealer rebates and motor efficiency standards.
WashWise: Proponents of the resource-efficient clothes washer program plan a consumer rebate and awareness campaign to increase the market share and lower the cost of this technology. The NEEA board endorsed a 1997 budget of $1.23 million and urged a full regional scope for the program.
Building operator certification: This market transformation venture aims to improve operations and maintenance practices in commercial and institutional buildings by establishing a training and certification program for building operators and facility managers. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Council, sponsors of the venture, reports documented electrical energy savings of 5 to 15 percent from improved building operations and maintenance--"some of the lowest cost energy savings available in the commercial and institutional sector."
NEEC requested $700,000 from NEEA over three years to develop curriculum and establish a voluntary certification program in Washington along with a training system. The program would help building operators lower energy use in their facilities through preventive and predictive maintenance, and establish the value of certification for both operations personnel and the people who hire them.
Although a variety of training has been available regionally, "Current training programs are fragmented and do not provide operations staff with the overall systems management, preventive maintenance, and customer relations tools needed to operate buildings efficiently," according to NEEC. Certification is very uncommon now, but the concept was widely supported in a recent survey of building operators and owner/managers around the Northwest.
NEEA board members approved one-year funding of $275,000, with the direction that NEEC should work toward regional cooperation and applicability of the program.
The MAP program at its conclusion in mid-1995 had gained 100-percent market share in the region, but the sales percentage of these higher efficiency manufactured homes quickly plunged to 75 percent in August 1995. "Recent figures in each of the [four Northwest] states indicates increased slippage in SGC penetration as the market for manufactured homes has turned soft since September 1995," according to a summary of the venture. "This marketing service will help prevent SGC penetration from eroding further."
Although manufacturers and dealers identify SGC standards as an option for many of their homes, " . . . in order for the buyer to be aware of the benefits of SGC, an ongoing marketing campaign needs to be continued. The higher levels of insulation in the SGC homes (R-38/49 in the ceilings, R-21 in the walls and R-33 in the floor) are not apparent to the buyer. Neither are the advantages of vinyl, low-e coated windows unless it is pointed out to the buyer. In the current slow market, dealers are more concerned about just making a sale than promoting the SGC model."
The sponsors initially requested $249,000 from NEEA in 1997 for television ads, exhibits and other materials to extoll the virtues of manufactured homes built to the SGC and MAP efficiency standards, and raise the market share to 85 percent.
The NEEA board approved $55,000 in short-term funding to produce television advertising. And after much discussion Dec. 17, the board accepted a recent overture from the Northwest natural gas industry to split the costs for advertising that will promote the general energy efficiencies of SGC-level manufactured homes--provided the gas industry commits quickly so the ads can run early next year. "I think we need to do some seat-of-the-pants flexibility as a board," said NEEA board member Ken Keating of Bonneville Power Administration. "In the long run," he added, "the board has to decide whether we're looking across all fuels, all partners."
However, as with the other proposed ventures, the NEEA board felt unprepared to make any long-term funding commitment. Specifically, board members first want to develop their own ideas for NEEA communications. "What is our communications agenda? How do we want to communicate our direction, our strategy to the general public, or to whatever our audience is?" asked NEEA chairman Dave Houser of Montana Power. "We need to decide whether or not Cyrus' proposal fits with what we think our communications agenda will be."
Noe later presented a revised proposal to continue Con.WEB publishing in the first quarter of 1997, on a budget of $62,000. A number of NEEA board members, however, balked at that figure. "It sounds like $62,000 for three months is a lot for a publication that's already up and running," said Nancy Hirsh of the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition. "I don't question the value of the product. It seems like a very expensive product." Noë said the budget includes Con.WEB production costs as well as associated NewsData expenses for Web site maintenance and administration. He also noted that Con.WEB could increase its emphasis toward market transformation, compared with the current broader mix of regional coverage of energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Board members finally decided to fund Con.WEB for the first four months of 1997--to a maximum of $82,000--while a board subcommittee and the yet-to-be-hired executive director develop overall communications and information strategies.
In another matter Dec. 17, Houser said 15 people have applied for the NEEA executive director position. "We are quite pleased with the quality of the candidates," he noted. The board hopes to select a director by mid-January.--Mark Ohrenschall
The Regional Review has officially ended, but the process of restructuring the Northwest electric industry--including a place for energy conservation, renewable energy resources and low-income weatherization--still has far to go.
The Regional Review steering committee concluded its work earlier this month and presented its final report to the four Northwest governors Dec. 12 in Spokane. Among the committee's recommendations is a call for $210 million in annual utility spending around the region for conservation ($140 million), renewables ($40 million) and low-income weatherization ($30 million)--most of it under local auspices. That total figure represents about 3 percent of Northwest utility revenues in 1995, and roughly two-thirds of the actual investments for those purposes last year. The report also proposes legislation in each of the four states to establish minimum levels of spending for these so-called public purposes, and urges creation of a uniform system benefits charge should utility investments fall short of the standard.
Fundamentally, according to steering committee members, the public-purpose elements strike a balance between local control and regional standards. They also provide a significant role for conservation and renewables as the electric industry transitions from monopolies to markets.
While the committee's work represents broad regional consensus, however, its implementation hinges largely on actions by federal and state legislative bodies. "Our authority is pretty limited," acknowledged steering committee member Jim Davis, a Douglas County PUD commissioner and co-chair of the public purposes work group. Consequently, he noted, "The hard work is in front of us, not behind us."
The first move toward putting the recommendations into practice came at the Dec. 12 gathering, when the governors of Idado, Montana, Oregon and Washington assigned their steering committee representatives as the Northwest Energy Review Transition Board. These four people are charged with drafting a strategic work plan by mid-February for implementing the Review recommendations. Washington representative Mike Kreidler called that "a considerably more difficult and protracted job than I think at first glance you might surmise . . . The wording included in the Comprehensive Review is fairly broad and it also involves a fair amount of sensitivity to the politics involved."
Both Kreidler and Davis believe it is quite possible one or more of the four state legislatures would endorse minimum public-purpose standards below the regional recommendation for 3 percent of utility revenues. At the same time, both are optimistic the four-state aggregate target is feasible.
Kreidler, a member of the Northwest Power Planning Council, believes the public-purpose recommendations are "a very responsible proposal to address conservation, renewables and low-income assistance . . . It is more than I believe most of the advocates for these programs expected." He found himself "surprised at the breadth of support for conservation that existed really across the various interests that were represented on the steering committee . . . I think it's a general recognition that conservation plays an extremely important part of our energy future."
The key to reaching consensus on public-purpose recommendations was a balance between minimum regional funding standards and maximum local control, according to steering committee member Rachel Shimshak of Renewable Northwest Project. Another important feature, she said, was the explicit link between the timing of public purposes implementation and open retail access; this helped secure support from industrial customers. In addition, local utilities were afforded flexibility to meet the targets individually or in aggregate. Montana Gov. Marc Racicot specifically praised the local flexibility.
"I think it's a very practical solution," said Davis. "You should look at this public-purpose recommendation as the transitional strategy. We believe markets will capture many of the values . . . To the extent that it doesn't, we're going to provide a mechanism to ensure that doesn't happen."
Asked about the Review process itself, Davis replied, "I think Jerry Garcia said it best: 'What a long, strange trip it's been.'" He thinks the consensus surprised many people and "really speaks well for the region . . . If we hadn't had the kind of respect for each other [we did], we probably wouldn't have been able to do it."
Still, even the consensus recommendations are subject to considerably different opinions among steering committee members.
For example, Shimshak described the local option for renewables development as unique among electric restructuring plans nationwide. Although she favored a centralized program, she sees advantages to the local approach. "Hopefully that will stimulate the development of a green market [that will] ultimately be self-sustainable . . . I also think there is some logic to it. Developers [of renewables projects] will have to figure out how to market this stuff more locally. I think that gives them an opportunity to do it, and it inspires local communities" to think about renewables.
Davis, however, was considerably less enthusiastic about this provision. To his knowledge not a single Douglas PUD customer has ever formally requested the utility consider non-hydro renewables. After all, the PUD's hydro-based energy costs are about 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, half as much as the most optimistic current projections for the lowest-cost renewable, wind energy. "I would be willing to consider the implementation of some green rate for other than hydro if some of our customers felt they wanted to pay substantially more," said Davis. "I would be unwilling to subsidize green-rate purchases to such a fashion they would have a pretty negative impact on the rest of the customers."
Other steering committee members could not be reached for comment. However, it should be noted the final report passed by a 13-1 vote among steering committee members; the lone nay came from Rick Applegate of Trout Unlimited, who believes the document failed to adequately address fish and wildlife issues.--Mark Ohrenschall
The Regional Review Steering Committee's Report on Public Purposes
The Dec. 12 Steering Committee Handoff to The Governors
Portland General Electric has breathed new life into wind-power in the Northwest: the utility has signed a 30-year power purchase agreement with Zond Development Corp. for energy from the proposed Vansycle wind-energy project in eastern Oregon.
PGE had a similar contract with Kenetech Windpower, the original developer of the site, but Kenetech's bankruptcy filing earlier this year ended that arrangement. Zond purchased the assets of the site from Kenetech through bankruptcy court and hopes to be generating wind power there by the end of 1998.
Zond purchased the assets of the site in November for $1.2 million and contingent amounts. Al Davies, the company's director of project development, said Zond and PGE officials agreed to have Zond take over the project.
PGE didn't have to pursue the project after Kenetech declared bankruptcy, but the utility chose to continue. "We would have purchased the output from anyone who took it on," said PGE spokeswoman Roxanne Bailey. "We've always wanted renewables to be part of our generation portfolio."
This latest development is "quite significant," said Rachel Shimshak of Renewable Northwest Project. "It is thrilling to see PGE follow through on its existing commitment and develop this wind project. I believe they have a solid plan to move forward." Zond is an established wind-power firm and is financially secure, she noted.
"Given the uncertainties in the energy environment these days, it is a breath of fresh air to see [utility] companies moving forward with tenable projects," said Shimshak. "I think it's something their customers will support."
The project is planned near Pendleton, in Umatilla County, and would produce about 25 megawatts of power from 33 750-kilowatt wind turbines. Davies said Zond is just beginning permitting activities for the project, but hopes to begin spinning out electrons by late 1998.
Although wind-energy proposals in south-central Washington, near the Columbia River Gorge, have been dogged by environmental and cultural concerns, the Zond proposal doesn't appear to have "any outstanding siting issues," according to Shimshak.
Zond Development is based in Tehachapi, CA, and operates more than 2,400 wind turbines in California and Texas. Davies said Zond has been interested in the Northwest for a number of years because of the region's "tradition and culture of environmental awareness." The region "deserves to have a showcase renewable energy facility," he said, and Zond hopes to provide one.
Another former Kenetech project--Columbia Hills near Goldendale, WA--is definitely terminated, according to Bailey. PacifiCorp's decision to pull out of the project and concerns about avian mortality proved too much when added to Kenetech's bankruptcy.
However, plans are still continuing for the Conservation and Renewable Energy System's (CARES) 25-megawatt wind farm in the same vicinity.--Jude Noland and Mark Ohrenschall
For more than 20 years, a suburban Portland home has reliably demonstrated the power of the sun in cloudy western Oregon.
The Boleyn residence in Gladstone uses solar energy for water- and space-heating, and since 1992 has generated electricity from a photovoltaic system. Together these solar elements have cut the Boleyn's annual electric consumption by more than 50 percent (see accompanying chart), and have needed only minimal maintenance--although the benefits do come at substantial initial cost.
Built in 1974 and solar-powered since December 1975, the home is among the oldest solar residences in Oregon and one of the few with grid-connected photovoltaics. Additionally, it's located in one of the most sun-deprived climates nationwide, and in suburbia, where electric load growth tends to be concentrated. Homeowner Doug Boleyn believes his dwelling illustrates the vast potential of residential suburban solar. "One of my goals has been to do the things to lead suburbia," said Boleyn, who promotes renewable and environmental products and services professionally for Portland General Electric. "There's a lot of people looking at off-grid independent living. [But] where's all the load? Where's all the new, so to speak, causes of energy production? It's suburbia. How can solar be infused into that large market?" he asked. "That's been one of my focuses, and also to . . . bring together people's [supportive] feelings about renewables with actual ways they can use them."
Boleyn first merged his solar idealism and practical application during the energy crises of the early- to mid-1970s. Then a substation designer for Bonneville Power Administration, Boleyn began to read about solar energy and also visited one of the earliest Oregon solar homes, in Coos Bay. Intrigued, he decided to build his own solar residence on a lot in Gladstone, southeast of Portland.
The home was designed for solar, with a boxy, compact interior, 60-degree south-facing roof, substantial south- and east-facing windows, and trees strategically located for summer shading and winter sunlight.
For the solar system itself, Boleyn initially budgeted $2,500--until a PGE proposal caught his attention. "PGE wanted to sponsor a solar home, and they wanted to test a lot of different things," he recalled. "So after questioning their motives, I realized they were aboveboard [and] we co-engineered the system that went on there."
PGE paid the entire $30,000 cost in 1975 for what Boleyn described as essentially "a commercial [solar] installation" for his then 1,700-square-foot home. The system included 22 solar panels (totalling 430 square foot), extensive and professionally installed piping, 5,000 gallons of water storage, commercial-grade pumps and fan-coil units, a "very complex controls system" and meters galore.
"Back in that time, the mid-1970s, no one really knew" much about solar, Boleyn explained. "There was a lot of bad-mouthing going on about solar, because of the cloudiness and what not. I think PGE really wanted to know" how solar energy worked in actual practice. "I guess it was their sincerity that caused me to go to work for them in 1976 . . . When they hired me, they knew they were getting a solar advocate." In 1980, in fact, PGE unveiled one of the earliest solar water-heating utility incentive programs in the country, Boleyn said. It offered customers a $300 rebate or a 65-percent solar tax credit in advance, attracting some 4,000 PGE customers before the program, and the solar industry, collapsed in the mid-1980s.
Still, even through the Dark Ages of solar, Boleyn's system continued to reliably provide heat for the family home. Solar reduced electric-heating consumption by more than half since 1975 and water-heating kilowatt-hours by more than 75 percent. Because of the system's capability to preheat water, Boleyn noted, substantial water-heat savings are realized even in midwinter.
"In terms of the system's working, it's worked for 20 years," he said. "It's basically a plumbing system; there's not really any mystery to that. It's a lot simpler than a car. I wouldn't touch a car!"
Changes have occurred over the years, although the basic collection and storage system remains intact. Among other things, Boleyn modified the controls system, took out the original electric-boiler backup heating system, installed a heat pump, and carted away one of the four water-storage tanks. Structurally, he added a sun room to the house in 1987.
For maintenance, meanwhile, the solar system needs basic upkeep such as filter and antifreeze changes. Boleyn also tops off the storage tanks each year with 3 or 4 inches of water lost to evaporation. And he shifts hot-water use from the heating system to the hot tub for the warm months. "There's just not a lot of maintenance," he said.
This time of year, Boleyn acknowledged, the heat pump gets plenty of action. Solar provides about 10 percent of the family's space-heating needs in December and January. In February, the solar percentage rises to about 30 percent, and to 50 percent by April. From then until fall and sometimes as late as mid-November, solar energy furnishes the Boleyns with all their heat.
In 1992, Boleyn added a photovoltaic system to his home. He bought 60 PV panels, rated at 1.5 kilowatts capacity, from a defunct solar power plant in central California. PV now provides 1,300 to 1,500 kilowatt-hours per year for the Boleyns, 10 to 15 percent of their total electric use. And sometimes the electricity produced is surplus such as during midday hours in the sunny months when no one is home. "Being on grid," Boleyn told the Solar Energy Association of Oregon annual conference in October, "the best way of storing PV energy is putting it through the meter backwards."
PV production naturally fluctuates throughout the year, but not exactly as one might imagine. In December and January, Boleyn reported, the PV panels deliver anywhere from 30 to 50 KWh per month. The figure rises to 100 KWh by February and hovers in the range of 130 to 150 KWh monthly from March through October; by November, the monthly total is down to about 75 KWh. Actually, though, the most abundant PV results per unit of sunlight come in March, April and October--not the long days of summer--since the efficiency of the panels declines noticeably in hot, sunny conditions. "I anticipated that," said Boleyn, although, "I was surprised by how apparent it was, how significant it was." On a cool, sunny day in March, for example, the PV panels will churn out 7 to 8 KWh; on a moderately warm, sunny day in July, production peaks at about 5.5 KWh. He added that newer PV technologies are less apt to show this discrepancy.
Boleyn's PV array has consistently functioned the past four years, although inverter glitches have led to a total of about four months' downtime. "The PV I just don't think about," said Boleyn. "I read the meter once every day just for fun."
In 1975, with no solar until December, Boleyn's home consumed about 24,000 KWh. In 1995--with the solar water- and space-heating and the PV--electric use came to slightly more than 10,000 KWh. Add in the air-to-air heat pump and, as Boleyn told SEAO, he and his family are "75-percent free of purchased energy in western Oregon." An energy-efficient refrigerator and compact fluorescent lighting added earlier this decade also have shrunk the monthly bills for his all-electric home.
Asked about advice for people interested in solar, Boleyn said, "I think the main thing is to get a very efficient house. Make sure that you take advantage of the sunlight. It's surprising the amount of energy that is there, even in clouds. And have people buy energy-efficient appliances [as well as lighting]. I would still advise a solar water heater, at least . . . take advantage of solar tempering or passive solar." Good southern exposure, a majority of windows south-facing, a sun room, a heat pump and time-of-day rates are other recommendations for Boleyn's "ideal house." He would also double his PV system's capacity, to 3 KW. With all those features on a modest-sized house of about 1,700 square feet, "It'd be very close to not having much of a utility bill at all and most of the energy would come from renewable sources at the site."
For PV, he acknowledged, "If they're looking at a strictly financial payback and not payback to the environment . . . you're still looking in the 25- to 50-year range," which is also the expected life of a PV system, he noted. At the same time, general design features for solar--home orientation, window configuration--cost little or nothing.
When the Boleyn home was new in the mid-1970s, some 6,000 people visited to check out the solar installation--including 2,500 in one afternoon. "There was just a lot of interest," he remembered. "People still come back to me and say, 'I visited your house.' [But] the solar interest really died down in the early '80s and it's still under the surface."
Many people who support clean energy feel conflicted, he believes. "There are two functions going on. One is the head and the other is the heart. The heart says we should be doing something to preserve the environment, for our grandkids, our kids. Our head says, 'Short-term economics, we can't afford this, it doesn't pay back.' It's been a battle."
Boleyn sees his professional role--through the likes of PGE's Earth Smart residential and commercial programs--as helping people connect their ideals and their money. "If people value renewables more, how can I bring that feeling together with the products that make sense, whether it's daylighting or photovoltaics or small [solar] systems?"--Mark Ohrenschall
Photos of the Boleyn home courtesy of Doug Boleyn
Two-thirds of low-income Oregon households live in unweatherized homes, at a time when government and utility funding for low-income weatherization is precarious, according to a new report from the Oregon Office of Energy.
The report, prepared by OOE's Mary Beth Corrigan, found that nearly 150,000 low-income households in the state live in dwellings that lack adequate weatherization, causing financial and physical hardships for occupants and wasting $10 million of energy per year. Oregon currently weatherizes about 3,000 low-income homes annually--a figure that could drop if threatened funding cuts are realized, the report concludes.
OOE recommends development of a long-term funding source for low-income weatherization, along with minimum annual goals and a commitment to extensive, cost-effective weatherization regardless of heating source.
Published in October, the OOE report already has made an impact "just in terms of dramatizing the program and making decision-makers aware that this may not be on the front pages of the paper but it's still a big problem [and] it isn't going to go away and that . . . as utility restructuring goes forward, low-income weatherization needs to stay on the table and be addressed," said Dave Brook of Oregon State University Extension Energy Program.
In fact, the Regional Review steering committee's final report to the four Northwest governors recommends $30 million in annual utility funding for low-income weatherization, an amount that, if eventually allocated, "would be a tremendous boon," according to Jack Hruska, energy conservation programs manager for the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services. "It's going to help get those homes weatherized that are sitting on a waiting list" that is often years long, he said. "We're going to be able to do some serious weatherization."
Common Low- Income Weatherization MeasuresAlthough the actual weatherization measures installed in low-income homes varies, common candidates considered by community action agencies include attic, floor and wall insulation; duct insulation and sealing; blower door-directed air sealing; window replacement or repair; storm windows; plugging holes and gaps; door replacement or repair; furnace replacement or repair; timed thermostats; attic ventilation; replacement of jalousie windows in mobile homes; weather-stripping and caulking; roof venting; foundation venting; bathroom and kitchen fans; pipe wraps; vapor barriers; and water heater wraps. Generally, according to the Oregon Office of Energy report, community action agencies use computerized audits to determine the cost-effectiveness of measures in a home. The major weatherization measures are wall, ceiling and floor insulation; double-pane or storm windows; and a "reasonably efficient heating system," according to OOE. "In general, if a home has these major measures, we consider it weatherized," the report said. |
The need is serious, too, as outlined in the OOE report. Corrigan quantified the need by first estimating the total number of low-income homes in Oregon--207,000 as of 1995. From that figure she subtracted the dwellings already weatherized through specific programs--more than 37,000--plus homes built to meet or exceed 1979 energy standards--another 21,000. That leaves 149,000 Oregon low-income homes without adequate weatherization--homes that are less affordable and less livable.
Low-income weatherization, according to the report, provides a number of benefits: adequate winter heat, lower energy bills (an average 15 to 25 percent reduction), safer homes and improved health for occupants. Without assistance, however, low-income people are very unlikely to reap these benefits, the report notes: "Most do not live in new [energy-efficient] homes. Even with loans or rebates, they can't afford to weatherize the older homes. And, since the majority of low-income households are renters, they have little say about whether weatherization measures are installed in their houses and apartments."
Thus it has been left primarily to governments, utilities and oil-overcharge funds to finance low-income weatherization in Oregon, and community action agencies to run low-income weatherization programs.
Year |
Weatherization Assistance Program (Federal) |
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (Federal) |
Oil-Overcharge Funds (State distributed) |
Energy Suppliers (includes Bonneville Power Administration, Pacific Power, Portland General Electric, Northwest Natural Gas) |
Annual Total |
1990 |
$2.09 |
$2.15 |
$3.23 |
$1.45 |
$8.92 |
1991 |
$2.45 |
$1.66 |
$2.39 |
$2.23 |
$8.73 |
1992 |
$2.45 |
$3.46 |
$1.22 |
$2.39 |
$9.52 |
1993 |
$2.74 |
$2.22 |
$1.98 |
$2.32 |
$9.26 |
1994 |
$2.52 |
$3.95 |
$1.36 |
$1.72 |
$9.55 |
1995 |
$2.62 |
$3.61 |
$0.83 |
$0.88 |
$7.94 |
Total, 1990-95 |
$14.87 |
$17.05 |
$11.01 |
$10.99 |
$53.92 |
Since 1978, according to the OOE report, more than $125 million has been spent on low-income weatherization in the state (separate from the $175 million spent on emergency energy assistance to Oregonians since 1985). The lion's share of weatherization money has come from two federal programs: the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which together have contributed $78 million for weatherization measures in 60,000 low-income Oregon homes. Money from lawsuits over violations of federal price controls by oil companies has added another $24 million to Oregon low-income weatherization programs.
On the utility side, Bonneville Power Administration since 1983 has funded weatherization measures for more than 10,000 low-income Oregon homes, at a total cost of $15.5 million. Other utility contributions through 1995: Pacific Power, nearly $3 million for 4,500 homes; Portland General Electric, $2 million-plus for more than 3,500 homes; and Northwest Natural Gas, $1 million-plus for nearly 4,000 homes. Oil companies also have contributed nearly $1 million through the State Home Oil Weatherization program, for more than 1,500 homes.
Altogether, these various sources have provided roughly $9 million a year in the early 1990s, but the total figure dropped to less than $8 million in 1995. And the outlook ahead is unpredictable, according to the OOE report.
"For the federal programs, funding rests with a Congress that aims to reduce the federal budget," the report said. WAP funding nationally was halved from 1995 to 1996, while LIHEAP had a slight increase . Still, the report said, "With strong [congressional] opposition to LIHEAP and WAP likely to continue, and without [retiring Oregon Sen. Mark] Hatfield's effective leadership, future federal funding is uncertain."
The potential for continued oil-overcharge funding also is unclear, according to the report.
Utilities, meanwhile, are focused on industry restructuring that has already slashed budgets for traditional conservation programs. Still, the utility funding forecast includes some rays of hope for low-income weatherization. One shines from the Regional Review recommendations--which are, at the moment, just recommendations. Another is BPA's commitment to fund up to $12.5 million regionally for low-income weatherization through fiscal year 1998, with a condition that some BPA dollars are matched by other sources. To date, Oregon publicly owned utilities have contributed more than $350,000 to this matching fund, Hruska reported.
For a copy of the OOE report, call the agency at 1-800-221-8035, from Oregon, or (503) 378-4040 from out of state. Or send an e-mail.--Mark Ohrenschall
Chelan County PUD does not have to reimburse Bonneville Power Administration $381,000 in Manufactured Housing Acquisition Program (MAP) funds BPA paid to builders of energy-efficient manufactured homes sited in PUD territory, U.S. District Judge William Nielsen ruled in November.
The dispute had its origins in Chelan's 1993 notice to Bonneville that it would stop purchasing firm power from the federal power marketing agency, a decision that triggered termination provisions in the utility's conservation contract with BPA. The PUD paid Bonneville nearly $460,000 in conservation repayments, but rejected BPA's attempt to collect additional money for MAP homes located in Chelan County. BPA argued those funds were stranded conservation investments, but the PUD contended it was only contractually required to verify MAP home sitings in the county and inspect the units for setup compliance. In addition, Chelan noted the MAP payments were made directly to manufacturers, not the utility (see Conservation Monitor, June 1995).
If Bonneville had intended that upon termination of its agreement with Chelan, it should have been able to recover payments made directly to third parties, explicit language to that effect should have been in the contract, Nielsen found.
Under the contract termination provision, Chelan was to "pay back or send back to BPA payments it had received from BPA," according to the judge's ruling. "Under the MAP program, the BPA did not make any payments to Chelan, but instead made payments directly to the manufactured home companies."
The plain language of the contract supports Chelan's position, Nielsen said in his opinion. He rejected BPA's argument that evidence extrinsic to the contract shows the parties intended that Chelan reimburse BPA upon termination. "These are sophisticated parties. Had they intended that Chelan would reimburse BPA for BPA's payments to third parties, the contract should have stated that explicitly. If that is what was intended, it is not what was written."
The judge noted that according to state case law, "It is the duty of the court to declare the meaning of what is written, and not what was intended to be written"
"While disappointed, we appreciated getting a quick and well-reasoned decision," said Bill Beatty, the Spokane-based U.S. attorney who handled the case for Bonneville. He said a decision on whether to appeal, which must be made within 60 days of the Nov. 19 written ruling, lies in the hands of the solicitor general in Washington, D.C.
With interest, an unfavorable ruling would have cost Chelan more than $400,000--an amount that would have been taken from Chelan's distribution system, not the much more lucrative hydropower division, said Roger Braden, the PUD's attorney. "Four hundred thousand dollars to the local distribution is a significant amount."
Although a settlement could not be reached, both sides characterized the conflict as a friendly dispute. "This was something where we just had a disagreement as to the meaning of a contract," Braden said.
"This lawsuit was one where both sides disagreed, but the disagreements were things upon which reasonable men could differ," said Beatty. "The parties by their conduct agreed to let the judge make the call. We saved our client money, no trial was necessary and we got a quick decision."--Ben Tansey and Jude Noland
A Portland General Corp. subsidiary is venturing into the open energy services market throughout the West.
MicroClimates, a business unit of unregulated Portland General Energy Services, is offering integrated energy services and energy management--including the provision of energy efficiencies--primarily to large commercial and industrial customers in the 11-state territory of the Western Systems Coordinating Council.
Officially formed in September, MicroClimates has taken a number of established Portland General Corp. services and refined them into a business unit seeking work far outside Portland General Electric's franchised service territory, according to marketing analyst Dean Smith. MicroClimates already has two contracts for energy management services, and is nearing agreements with at least five other organizations on integrated energy services.
"Obviously we--like a lot of other organizations growing out of utilities--are venturing out in the unregulated world and want to offer a good range of products and services," said Smith. "We're offering a pretty wide range . . . and we're finding there's an appetite for that range of choices among customers."
MicroClimates essentially provides two overlapping types of services, according to Smith. One--the kind for which the unit was initially conceived--involves integrated energy services for larger businesses and industries. "We'll go in and do a lot of work with [customers] on their major energy-related infrastructure, helping them come up with the most efficient systems, evaluating their energy use and utility use in general, and coming up with the best solutions." The PGC subsidiary also can finance and/or own a customer's energy-related facilities, which Smith called "the most unique element" of MicroClimates.
As of mid-December, he said, five integrated energy services prospects in Oregon are "getting quite close" to contracts: three hotels (including two retrofits), a public university and a municipal facility. "We've got a whole bushel basket full of potential other projects, well into the discussion stages . . . I think a number of those will come to fruition in the first quarter" of 1997. Potential target customers include large public institutions--including schools and governments--and health-care facilities.
Meanwhile, the energy management business line evolved from a similar service offered by Portland General, in which the utility would evaluate a customer's energy consumption-- scrutinizing historical use, tracking bills and auditing facilities. "As we examined how they were using energy . . . we would invariably find some conservation and energy efficiency opportunities and we'd make recommendations of investments in energy efficiency," Smith said. Sometimes, he added, PGE would also station a person on-site to design and implement such projects as motor efficiencies, insulation and energy-efficient lighting.
MicroClimates has two existing contracts for these range of services, with Fred Meyer stores and the Albertson's grocery chain. Grocery and department store chains appear to be particularly interested in these kinds of services, Smith said.
Asked about customer interest in energy efficiency, he said, "I think customers obviously continue to want to have a way to control their energy costs. As they look at energy efficiency, they're looking for opportunities that will have fairly quick paybacks [three years or less] . . . We have an interest in helping them understand the value in making long-term investments as well." He believes customers will be more likely to extend the payback period for an efficiency project if they have a partner--such as MicroClimates--to help with technical assistance, design, implementation, operation and/or financing. "We're prepared to be with them for 20 years, on some projects, if that's what it takes," Smith said.
MicroClimates' work in energy efficiency will have no direct bearing on PGE's demand-side activities, Smith said.
In addition to integrated energy services and energy management, MicroClimates can link customers with other Portland General services--including low-cost power supply. In fact, MicroClimates has a strong interest in California, where preparations are under way for the 1998 onset of an open retail electricity market. "A lot of companies [there] are looking for consultants to really help them get their energy house in order and give them the best advice how to proceed," Smith said. Some companies also are looking for specific energy services for their facilities, including power supply. MicroClimates has already found "a lot of interest and a lot of RFPs" to which it is responding in the Golden State, Smith noted. "If there is a geographic target state, it would be mostly California."
Of course, MicroClimates is hardly the lone energy firm with ambitions in California and elsewhere in the West, as electric industry restructuring unveils an immense market. "You're talking into the billions of dollars, just around power supply at the retail level . . . not to mention energy efficiency and controls and opportunities for investments in O and M," Smith said. Potential competitors for MicroClimates range from utility-based energy service companies to HVAC and lighting vendors to giant independent firms such as Honeywell and Johnson Controls to power marketers. "I think if you're in the energy business, you are at one point going to be our competitor and we yours," Smith said. At the same time, opportunities for alliances also are likely to arise. MicroClimates already has signed a contract with Portland-based MicroGrid to use the latter's "very excellent" controls software with MicroClimates customers.
MicroClimates' business prospects are likely to be greatly enhanced by the proposed merger of Portland General Corp. with Enron, Smith believes. Although he didn't release any specific numbers, "This sort of resources that are behind Enron that appear to be available to promote the growth of a group like ours . . . suggests we'll be able to be a very visible and strong player in the market." At the moment, MicroClimates has 15 employees and contractors on the payroll, and expects to grow to 20 or more by early next year. The management team consists of Joe Barra, MicroClimates manager (and a former energy services director for PacifiCorp); Steve Bergstrom, manager of business development; Gary Heikkinen, engineering and technical services manager; and Laura Rooke, operations manager.--Mark Ohrenschall
A Washington-based subsidiary of Idaho Power Resources Corp. has won a $1.7 million contract from Southern California Edison to design, supply and install a 140-kilowatt solar photovoltaic system for the U.S. Navy on an island off the Southern California coast.
Applied Power Corp. of Lacey received the Edison contract for the PV system, which will serve a Navy radar facility on Santa Cruz Island, part of the Channel Islands National Park. The PV installation--including a battery bank for energy storage and a 150-KW power converter--will replace diesel generators as the primary energy source for the radar facility. The high cost of operating those generators and the risks of fuel spills led the Navy to consider PV, according to an Idaho Power news release.
This will be the sixth large-scale photovoltaics project awarded to Applied Power in the past 12 months. All six are located in remote locations and replace diesel engines. Combined capacity of the six projects is more than 800 KW.
Portland General Electric's proposed renewable resource option for large customers has been approved by the Oregon Public Utility Commission.
Under PGE's plan--which went into effect Nov. 27--industrial, commercial and general service customers can specify that a percentage of their total monthly electricity demand (at least 3 percent) be supplied by wind, solar or geothermal energy. Alternatively, they can purchase a set monthly amount of renewable energy, with a minimum of 20,000 kilowatt-hours per month. The minimum expected renewable energy component for any customer is 240,000 KWh annually; the total power available through the program is anticipated to be 5 average megawatts.
Participating PGE customers must sign up for at least a year's service, and will pay a premium of about 1 cent/KWh for the green power.
In approving the PGE proposal, the OPUC required PGE to report annually on the status of customer participation, the quantity of renewable energy purchases made by participants and the source and quantity of any offsetting renewable energy PGE has acquired.--Jude Noland
Three credit unions in British Columbia are offering reduced mortgage rates to buyers of energy-efficient homes certified under B.C. Hydro's Power Smart new home program.
First Heritage Credit Union, Delta Credit Union and VanCity offer one-half of 1 percent off the posted mortgage rates for new homes that incorporate such features as Power Smart windows, energy-efficient indoor lighting and water-saving plumbing devices. To date, more than 3,600 Power Smart new homes are either already built, under construction or planned around the province.
"Growing support by financial institutions is another significant development in the evolution of Hydro's Power Smart program," said Dan Miller, the B.C. provincial government minister responsible for Hydro. "There is a growing awareness of energy efficiency in British Columbia. By offering reductions on mortgages on Power Smart new homes, these financial institutions enhance our Power Smart program."
Con.WEB is sponsored by Eugene Water & Electric Board, Clark Public Utilities, Seattle City Light, Tacoma City Light, Idaho Power, Montana Power, PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric, Puget Power and the Bonneville Power Administration. OFFICES: Mail-P.O. Box 900928, Seattle, WA 98109-9228. EXPRESS: 117 West Mercer, Seattle, WA 98119. TELEPHONE-(206) 285-4848. FAX-(206) 281-8035. E-MAIL-iod@newsdata.com. Con.WEB was created by the Energy NewsData Web team, including: Publisher-Cyrus Noë; Editor-Mark Ohrenschall; Associate Editor-Jude Noland; Contributing Editors-Pamela Russell and Ben Tansey; Web Editor-Denise Lee; Webmaster-Whitney Dickinson; General Manager-Brooke Dickinson; Office Coordinator-Christina Smith; Production Assistant-Michael Katayama; Graphic Design-Mike Katayama
Please contact dlee@newsdata.com if you have questions or comments
about this website or call 206/285-4848.
Last modified: December 19, 1996
http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/conweb/conweb12.html
Copyright © 1996 Energy NewsData
Return to Contents