CWEB.015/March.28.1997
TO PARAPHRASE MARK TWAIN, reports of the demise of DSM appear to be at least somewhat exaggerated. This issue of Con.WEB spotlights a couple of contrarian findings from the demand side.
First comes Bonneville Power Administration with the surprising news that it saved nearly 60 average megawatts in fiscal year 1996, double its target and in the same range as those halcyon conservation years of the early 1990s--and at a reduced cost. BPA primarily credits local utility work and energy codes for this abundant negawatt harvest, while acknowledging that the pickings in coming years look much slimmer. We also share a report from a noted energy economist who found conservation has contributed to a 10-percent decline in regional per-capita electric consumption since 1990.
In the commercial sector, we take a look at Idaho's proposed commercial energy code and why it missed legislative action this year. We also examine building commissioning, an increasingly popular practice in the region, particularly in the public sector. And we document the apparent demise of Idaho Power's Design Excellence Award Program, which apparently has helped transform a market for energy-efficient commercial building design.
Speaking of market transformation, we catch up with the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance board in retreat and the dissolution of Power Smart Inc. by our neighbors to the north.
SPECIAL FEATURE! Accompanying this issue we unveil a special new Con.WEB feature on NEEA, outlining the fledgling organization's history and background, funding, organizational structure, approved and potential projects, and links to previous Con.WEB stories on the alliance. This is intended to give our readers a place to access basic information on the alliance and the latest updates on NEEA ventures. We hope you'll take a look.
Special Feature II: With this issue we also introduce our IOD Search, which helps readers find specific topics covered in previous Con.Web articles published since January, 1996. Just type in the subject and follow the links. If your search still proves fruitless, let us know what you're looking for and we'll find it.
Happy reading, and keep in touch if you wish, with [marko@newsdata.com]
A reality adjustment is in order for Bonneville Power Administration's energy conservation record in fiscal year 1996.
Despite the widespread perception BPA had largely abandoned conservation, Bonneville reports total FY 1996 energy savings of 59.9 average megawatts, virtually double the agency's 30 aMW target. Although the total is 10 aMW less than the previous fiscal year, 1996 nonetheless finished within the same range as the pedal-to-the-metal conservation years earlier this decade (see accompanying chart). It also ranks as Bonneville's fourth-highest annual conservation total since FY 1982--with the eighth-highest spending amount (see separate chart).
"BPA conservation programs are still delivering a lot of savings . . . which probably comes as a surprise to a lot of people who thought we'd dropped out of conservation programs altogether," said Terry Esvelt, BPA's vice president for energy efficiency.
At the same time Esvelt acknowledged substantial declines are coming for BPA conservation acquisitions, as Bonneville customer utilities spend the remains of their BPA conservation funds. "It can't continue at this 60 average megawatt level. We know that," he said. "It will reduce in size; it can't help but do that. The money [available] is so much less." Bonneville's total annual conservation costs--separate from market transformation and market development activities for energy efficiency--are planned to gradually drop from $69.3 million in FY 1997 to $21.3 million in FY 2001.
For additional perspective, the FY 1996 energy savings are slightly more than seven-tenths of 1 percent of BPA's total FY 1996 energy load of 8,400 aMW.
BPA's most notable conservation achievements in the year ending last Sept. 30 came in so-called multi-sector programs--particularly those with third-party financing arrangements--and in residential and commercial energy codes.
With the 1996 results BPA reports total energy savings of 638.7 aMW since 1982, on total spending of $1.67 billion.
This and considerably more information is detailed in a recently released BPA publication entitled "Conservation Resource Energy Data," popularly known as "The Red Book."
Dissecting The Numbers
While the FY 1996 conservation total is substantial by BPA historical standards, it was achieved in a very different fashion from previous years.
Energy savings in the four traditional sectors--residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural--were either modest or miniscule.
The residential savings of 1.4 aMW were the lowest such annual total in the 15-year historical record. Nevertheless, homes remain the largest single contributor to BPA's cumulative energy savings, with 177.4 aMW since 1982. Agriculture, meanwhile, reaped just .6 aMW of conservation in FY 1996, trailed only by 1990 and 1982-84.
 |
| Chart by Mike Katayama; information from BPA |
The commercial and industrial sectors fared somewhat better. Commercial programs, led by Energy Smart Design, recorded 7 aMW of energy savings in 1996--very close to the 15-year average. Industrial programs chalked up 11.8 aMW of efficiencies, down substantially from the 18.2 aMW accomplished in 1995 but still the third-highest annual total since 1982.
Bonneville's shining achievements, however, came in two areas: multi-sector programs and energy codes.
The 24.5 aMW of multi-sector savings in FY 1996 accrued almost entirely from third-party financing arrangements--18.3 aMW from the likes of Conservation and Renewable Energy System (CARES), Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency (OMECA) and municipal utilities in Seattle and Tacoma--and from so-called "flex agreements" allowing utilities to stretch their previous BPA conservation funding (4.7 aMW).
 |
| Chart by Mike Katayama; information from BPA |
Results in both these categories reflect the effects of BPA's conservation reinvention and its emphasis on shifting responsibility for efficiency programs from Bonneville to local utilities. Esvelt believes this transition has paid off by providing utilities more experience in managing programs and determining the best opportunities for energy savings in their territories.
"The utilities deserve a lot of credit for maintaining the pace of conservation acquisitions because of their sound management of the conservation dollars using the management flexibility that we provided them in the new 'flex' contracts and equivalent," said Esvelt.
This helps explain why Bonneville is "getting the same level of savings [as in previous years] with a lot less money," he noted. BPA's total conservation costs for FY 1996 (direct and indirect costs and corporate overhead) came to $95.6 million, the lowest yearly total since 1991.
Another prime reason is the advent of more stringent energy codes throughout the region, a category that accounted for 14.6 aMW of savings for FY 1996 in the service territories of BPA public-power customers. "We're seeing the benefit of our prior years' investments in code work," said Esvelt. Although BPA has not broken out its spending in this category, "We made a huge investment all through the '80s and the early '90s setting the table so local jurisdictions would take building codes" to higher efficiency levels.
For example, he said, the Super Good Cents program helped residential construction practices become more efficient regionwide, and the passage of energy codes generally follows real-world practice. "That was our philosophy, it worked, and now we're reaping the benefits . . . This is a classic market transformation."
Looking ahead, The Red Book projects savings of 90 aMW from improved residential and commercial building codes in public-power territories from FY 1997 through FY 2003 (under a medium-growth scenario and assuming 85 percent code compliance). For BPA-funded direct acquisition programs, meanwhile, the agency forecasts energy savings of 15 aMW in FY 1997 and FY 1998 and 13 aMW in 1999. After that, though, Bonneville predicts only 1 aMW of programmatic savings each year from FY 2000 through FY 2003.
For copies of The Red Book, call BPA's publication hotline at 1-800-622-4520, or visit BPA's electronic information request Web site.--Mark Ohrenschall
Energy conservation, the increased use of natural gas and a changing regional economic mix are the primary reasons behind a 10-percent decline in the region's per-capita consumption of electricity since 1990, according to economist Steve Aos of Pacific Economics in Olympia.
In 1996, Aos found, the combined population of Washington, Oregon and Idaho was an estimated 9.9 million people. Collectively, they used a total of 155,542 million kilowatt-hours of power for the 12 months ending in November. "That electricity consumption includes all residential, commercial, and industrial electric demand in the three states--every way that people use electricity in their homes, workplaces, shops, and so on," Aos wrote in the Feb. 24 Northwest Numbers section of NewsData Corp.'s Clearing Up newsletter. (Aos also is a former contributing editor for Con.WEB's printed predecessor, Conservation Monitor.)
 |
| Chart by Steve Aos |
This translates to per-capita electric use of 15,670 KWh during 1996--a 10-percent decline from 1990, when the three-state region compiled a per-capita power consumption of 17,440 KWh.
Aos said the 1,770 KWh per-capita decline from 1990 to 1996 is due to "some combination" of energy conservation initiatives, greater natural gas use and changes in the Northwest's economic structure--notably a greater percentage share of electric use by the commercial sector and a lower percentage share by the industrial sector.
A very cursory analysis by Con.WEB--based on the Northwest Power Planning Council's 1996 Green Book of regionwide electric-energy savings by utilities--suggests utility conservation's share of the per-capita decline in electric use since 1990 could approach the range of one-third. (We encourage any interested economists, analysts or other number-crunchers to pursue this much further than our humanities-based education would allow.)
Although per-capita electric consumption has dropped significantly from 1990, it remains considerably higher than it was throughout most of the 1970s (see accompanying chart). Aos explained in Clearing Up that the per-capita figure generally rose between 1970 and 1990, when it peaked and began its recent descent.
Last year, as reported in Con.WEB, Aos found an 11-percent decline since 1982 in average residential electric use per customer in the three-state region.--Mark Ohrenschall
A statewide commercial energy code for Idaho will remain a work in progress until at least 1998.
Although a proposed code developed by a group of Idaho stakeholders was submitted at the beginning of the year to Gov. Phil Batt, the Republican governor declined to forward the proposed legislation to the state Legislature for consideration in the 1997 session that ended in mid-March.
"Some folks had concerns about it," said Batt spokesman Frank Lockwood. "We felt like they ought to be able to have those concerns heard before we . . . approved it." Idaho's compressed 70-day legislative session didn't allow enough time for adequate dialogue on the proposed energy standards for envelope, lighting and HVAC systems in new commercial structures and residential buildings higher than three stories.
Although Lockwood did not identify the people with code qualms, a Boise mechanical engineer told Con.WEB of his concerns about the potential expense of the proposed commercial energy code. "We feel like we're doing an extremely good job" in designing efficient buildings, said Bob Tewksbury. "We can see that the education, putting together of the code, the administration, the certification of inspectors, the payment for the inspectors, all is going to cost us a lot of money. It's going to be an extremely expensive thing to do. We're not sure the bang for the buck is there."
A different perspective comes from Ken Baker, conservation bureau chief for the Idaho Department of Water Resources Energy Division,which is spearheading development of the commercial code. Some 2,000 person-hours have been spent crafting the current proposed standards, he noted. Stakeholders include representatives of the building industry, business, government, utilities and the general public.
"I just think it's a good code and it's going to be something that basically benefits the citizens of Idaho, and that includes the contractors, engineers and definitely the building owners and building occupants," Baker said. "Economically it's going to be a very good bill for us." He acknowledged some unanswered questions from Idaho engineers about the proposed code and said he plans to work more closely with legislators, contractors, architects, engineers, code officials, manufacturers, construction tradespeople and others.
Despite this year's setback, Baker is optimistic about the prospects in 1998 for a commercial code that he described as user-friendly and similar in its efficiency levels to codes in Oregon and Washington. "I just think we have the right people involved, we have the right direction, now we have the right code. It's just lining it up with the Legislature at the right time."
Baker said he heard from the governor's office that Batt thought a commercial energy code should be considered in conjunction with electric industry restructuring, which an Idaho legislative committee is studying this year. Code issues "might be within the [committee's] purview," Lockwood confirmed, but he reiterated Batt's belief that the proposed energy standards need more discussion.
Background
The primary impetus for development of an Idaho commercial energy code was the 1992 federal Energy Policy Act (EPAct), which requires states to meet or exceed ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989. This standard "provides a set of guidelines for the energy-efficient design of buildings and building systems," according to Idaho's Energy Code Information Network Web site. "These guidelines are designed to promote the application of cost-effective design practices and technologies which minimize energy consumption without sacrificing either the comfort or productivity of the occupants." Although Baker said the federal deadline for Idaho adoption of this standard is slightly unclear, he believes it is the year 2000.
Three local jurisdictions in Idaho--not the major population centers of Boise and surrounding Ada County--have adopted commercial energy standards, according to ECIN. In addition, all new state-owned buildings are required to meet the ASHRAE/IES standard. Otherwise, however, there are no official energy requirements for Idaho commercial buildings, nor is there a standard uniform building code across the state. "If you're a contractor, you ought to come to Idaho because you can pretty much do whatever you want," rued Boise architect Steve Benner.
In 1995, at Batt's request, Idaho stakeholders began the process of developing a commercial energy code. Baker found participants keenly interested in the subject. "I personally feel very gratified by the real commitment which was expressed through the efforts of so many good people as we worked to build the code," he wrote in an open letter to stakeholders in early March.
The Proposed Code
The document that emerged combined elements of the existing commercial codes in Washington and Oregon, according to Benner. Baker said the proposed efficiency standards are "real similar to the Oregon code. I know there is a little higher level of efficiency for our climate zone number three because we have a colder climate. Other than that, we could deem it equivalent to ASHRAE 90.1." It also has thermal standards comparable to those in Washington, he noted. (Potential energy savings from the proposed code were unavailable.)
In addition, stakeholders tried to make the standards as simple to follow as possible. Baker said the code as proposed runs only 26 pages, and compliance is intended to be easy. "We came up with what I think was a very workable, user-friendly code," said Benner.
Prescriptive paths were created for envelope, lighting and mechanical systems, according to ECIN. In addition, a computer-compliance program was developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for simpler buildings; more sophisticated structures can take advantage of computer modeling. And architects and engineers have the option to use ASHRAE 90.1 as their guide. "The Idaho Commercial Energy Code contains flexibility in the methods it allows for compliance determination," ECIN reported. "Small and or less sophisticated occupancies can easily show compliance to the code."
As for code enforcement, plan checks and inspections would be the responsibility of local jurisdictions that adopt the code or certified private individuals. The draft work plan also includes strategies for code administration and support, funding, training and education, and evaluation and quality assurance.
Among those formally endorsing the code proposal is the Idaho chapter of the American Institute of Architects. Chapter president Skyler Rubel of Boise believes the standards will noticeably improve commercial building practices in the state. "A lot of fly-by-night developer/builder types . . . do whatever little can be done to get a project through," he said. "Tenants move into those spaces and reap the problems. For us, as architects, it's going to be a good thing all the way around and help the whole building envelope environment. When it's all said and done, maybe it will keep a few of the folks out of the building practice that are used to cutting all these corners."
Tewksbury, an active member of the code stakeholder group, acknowledged not all commercial buildings are designed by professional engineers: "Some of the ones schlocked in by a contractor or developer need to be tightened down a little bit." And he said the code as drafted is relatively simple and short. "It's probably not bad as far as codes would go."
Still, Tewksbury believes he and his fellow engineers already meet the proposed energy standards "99.9 percent of the time" and the code would only "tie our hands when we would like to do something differently." He described the code as a law that must be followed regardless of whether it makes sense. For example, it might require use of variable-speed drives on pump motors of 10-plus horsepower--even those motors that operate at full load 95 percent of the time. A lot more energy could be saved, he contended, by installing direct digital controls for the same amount of money.
"I'm not on the soapbox saying absolutely we don't want or need an energy code," said Tewksbury. "My problem is the administration. I'm questioning whether we really need to pay for all this."
For Tewksbury, a better system would rely on the professional integrity of building designers. "I think we need to allow the professional engineers, who are registered in the state of Idaho . . . give them the latitude to say, 'All right, you are going to be required to design to a basic standard. We are going to give you the professional latitude to make decisions as you feel applicable to your building.'"--Mark Ohrenschall
Idaho Power believes it has transformed the market for energy-efficient commercial building design in its service territory. Now it wants the marketplace and a prospective Idaho commercial energy code to take charge.
The investor-owned utility plans to discontinue its Design Excellence Award Program (DEAP), which since 1989 has promoted the use of energy-modeling computer software in commercial-building design throughout southern Idaho and parts of eastern Oregon. DEAP provides software, training, efficiency guidelines for consideration, reporting help and financial incentives for participating design professionals. In addition, owners who incorporate DEAP energy efficiency standards into their buildings receive a plaque (but no utility funding).
Last year DEAP participation significantly declined--the 30 DEAP projects were the lowest annual total since 1990, the program's first full year. Still, according to Idaho Power and others, DEAP software is now standard practice. "It's a program that I think did what it was supposed to do and served its purpose," said Idaho Power's Jim Baggs. "Those who began using the modeling are now doing it as a matter of course."
In its Feb. 24 application to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to end DEAP, Idaho Power elaborated on this idea: "Discontinuing the DEAP program will not remove the energy modeling software from these design professionals. Nor will it affect the experience they have developed. The skill and experience gained through this program will enable the design professional community to continue to offer energy modeling to customers based on market demand. The market barriers that once existed in the design community (not having software, not knowing how to use it, not having experience in offering such services, not knowing how to report and explain the results) have been overcome. Idaho Power has created the required market transformation, and Idaho Power participation in this program is no longer required."
In 1996, the application continued, "nearly two-thirds of the DEAP energy models submitted for certified buildings indicated that estimated current practice [energy] usage was less than or equal to DEAP standards usage. That is, in two out of three cases the building as designed by DEAP Program designers already met DEAP requirements. This is a strong indicator that the DEAP Program's objectives have been attained."
DEAP Participation
(Source: Idaho Power)
| Year | Eligible Projects | Idaho Power Targets | Number of Participans | Percent of Eligible Projects | Percent of Target Projects |
| 1990 | 601 | 35 | 10 | 1.7 | 28.6 |
| 1991 | 570 | 160 | 84 | 14.7 | 52.5 |
| 1992 | 517 | 144 | 105 | 20.3 | 72.9 |
| 1993 | 588 | 136 | 62 | 10.5 | 45.6 |
| 1994 | 623 | 120 | 108 | 17.3 | 90.0 |
| 1995 | 596 | 84 | 105 | 17.8 | 125.0 |
| Totals | 3,495 | 679 | 474 |
DEAP Costs and Energy Savings
(Source: Idaho Power)
| Costs | Real Levelized Costs | |||||
| Year | Utility Costs($) | Total Resource($) | Utility Adder($) | Annual Savings (kWh/yr) | Utility (¢kWh/yr) | Total Resource |
| 1989 | 18,523 | 16,523 | 3,178 | |||
| 1990 | 127,821 | 246,432 | 24,581 | 1,157,715 | .719 | 1.279 |
| 1991 | 423,589 | 672,753 | 81,461 | 1,385,171 | 1.992 | 2.975 |
| 1992 | 417,630 | 956,390 | 80,315 | 4,704,836 | .578 | 1.204 |
| 1993 | 363,255 | 908,869 | 69,858 | 2,140,513 | 1.105 | 2.498 |
| 1994 | 487,957 | 2,169,857 | 93,839 | 1,315,093 | 2.417 | 9.404 |
| 1995 | 328,486 | 328,486 | 21,936 | 2,415,138 | ||
| Total | 2,165,260 | 5,299,309 | 375,168 | 13,118,466 | ||
Others agree DEAP has made a difference.
"It's an accepted way of doing projects," said Boise architect Skyler Rubel, president of the Idaho chapter of the American Institute of Architects. "All the engineers have pretty much now grabbed [DEAP] and they're running with it. On our projects, we're implementing all these energy design features as a standard practice of doing projects." A primary example is T-8 fluorescent lamps.
Ken Baker, conservation bureau chief of the Idaho Department of Water Resources Energy Division, concurs with DEAP's influence in promoting efficiency in commercial-building design. "I think it did help change current practice," he said.
Boise mechanical engineer Ken Tewksbury called DEAP "extremely useful . . . It probably educated us all where we knew what the [modeling] answers would be before we started," with, for example, the use of night thermostat setbacks or increased glazing. "It got to the point where we were essentially doing those things from the beginning [of the design process] rather than necessarily waiting . . . From that standpoint I think it was very useful and got us some good experience and paid for that experience," he said, adding, "It probably was kind of heading toward the end of its usefulness in a lot of buildings."
However, not all Idaho building designers are as positive about DEAP's influence and the consequences of its demise. "It was a decent program," said Boise architect Steve Benner, but, "It didn't go nearly as far as I would have liked it to go."
Specifically, Benner thinks the program has done little to encourage building owners to actually incorporate DEAP efficiencies--modeled after the Northwest Energy Code--into their projects. Benner said he personally investigated about 30 DEAP buildings in the Boise area three years ago for a regional study. "Pretty consistently [designers] would come up with recommendations and then, I would say, more times than not, the owner or whoever made the decision would decide not to pursue those," primarily for cost reasons. On the other hand, he said the program has increased awareness of such energy-efficient technologies as T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts.
Without DEAP, Benner wonders whether building designers will use computer energy modeling to the extent they have under the program. "They may be doing [modeling] so they can come up with their load, to size their equipment, or are they doing it for comparisons of one thing or another, which the DEAP program did force them to do?" And without Idaho Power funding--the utility's incentive payment for energy modeling has ranged from $1,500 to $4,500--he said building owners will bear the modeling costs. "It's pretty difficult to get the general client to pay intentional fees for things they feel they should be getting anyway," such as an energy-efficient building.
Still, Idaho Power believes in the program's success and the appropriateness of its conclusion. In the future, Baggs said, such market transformations should be promoted regionwide by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. "The propensity of those of us in IOUs to institute independent market transformation programs right now is fairly low," he said. "To the extent we need to do these things in the region, the alliance ought to be the mechanism to get this done."
With this apparent market transformation behind it, Idaho Power is looking ahead to prospective statewide energy efficiency standards for commercial buildings (see story above). "Recently we've been focusing our efforts on a commercial code in an effort to increase efficiency standards," said Baggs, citing Idaho Power's participation and DEAP's contributions to the code-development process.
Benner agrees with the logical progression from DEAP to code, but he thinks it should be seamless. "Now we still don't have a code and we don't have a program either . . . Don't end the one in anticipation the other's going to start, because it may never start. We've got a history in Idaho of code programs or proposals that get drummed up and then . . . fall by the wayside."
Although not explicitly stated in its Feb. 24 IPUC application, Idaho Power also is cognizant of keeping costs down and rates low for the restructuring electric world. This was evident in its recent move to terminate its flagship industrial conservation program (see Con.WEB, Feb. 21, 1997). For the DEAP program, Idaho Power spent $2.1 million from 1990 through 1995 and saved 13.1 million kilowatt-hours (1.49 average megawatts).
And, not least, DEAP is a fuel-blind program with substantial non-electricity benefits. In 1996, only four of the 30 certified DEAP buildings were primarily electric-heated; 24 were heated by natural gas and two by propane. "Given this, much of the energy savings attributable to the DEAP program are in the form of reduced natural gas usage," said Idaho Power's IPUC application. "An electric utility should not continue funding a conservation program which results in energy savings primarily in the form of natural gas, as the issue of restructuring of the electric industry is considered."--Mark Ohrenschall
A story:
A man arrives at an airport gate and discovers his plane is late. When it finally shows up, he learns it will cost him an additional 10 percent to pay for moving the plane from the hangar to the gate. Although frustrated, the man pays because he has already spent a lot of money on his ticket.
As the plane wheels down the runway, the pilot announces, "This airplane is a new one-of-a-kind model. We're honored that you could join us for the first flight ever of this aircraft." The message was lost on many passengers who were trying to adjust their jammed seatbelts. In addition, fans on the right side of the cabin blew only hot air while those on the left delivered only cold air. Flight attendants wanted to help by serving hot coffee on the cold side and cold drinks on the warm side, but their beverage cart was too wide to fit down the aisle. Poor air quality left many passengers feeling faint and nauseated.
The captain, meanwhile, had received no training in the advanced, efficient technologies and was having difficulties figuring out how to get the plane airborne. The manual didn't help much; it was written for a different system and was missing pages, anyway.
This scenario--courtesy of Nancy Benner of Portland Energy Conservation Inc.--seems ridiculous. But, according to Benner, "People are willing to accept and occupy buildings under these circumstances on a regular basis. No wonder so many occupants and owners of commercial buildings are dissatisfied. The equipment in their buildings fails to operate as intended. Operators do not receive adequate training and documentation. Occupants are less productive due to indoor air quality and comfort problems."
The Commissioning Solution
An increasingly popular solution to these woes is building commissioning, which is essentially the process of ensuring that commercial building systems--HVAC, electrical and others--function individually and collectively as intended. The practice is much more common in new construction, but it has and can be done in existing buildings.
 |
| Graphic by Mike Katayama |
Successful commissioning can substantially improve the energy efficiency of buildings, while providing other benefits--usually of greater importance to building owners and tenants--such as smoother functioning systems, reduced operating costs over time and occupant comfort and productivity.
Commissioning is attracting a growing number of Northwest supporters, service providers and practitioners. It is especially evident in the public sector but also among some high-profile private enterprises, including The Boeing Co. and high-tech firms. Several large Northwest utilities--among them Bonneville Power Adminstration, PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric and Seattle City Light--actively promote commissioning as a demand-side management approach. In addition, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is expected to consider commissioning as a potential regional market transformation venture.
Commissioning provides "clear opportunities" for building owners to save money and for occupants to work in a better indoor environment, said Terry Esvelt, BPA vice president of energy efficiency, at the Northwest Conference on Building Commissioning last November in Portland. "Commissioning sells itself," he told the approximately 250 attendees. "The benefit of saving money will pay for commissioning many times over. The challenge is just making people aware of the opportunities."
That challenge, however, helps explain why commissioning remains atypical around the region. Additional barriers include initial cost, confusion about the practice, perceived complications in the design/construction process, insufficient data (see story below) and lack of a commonly accepted certification for service providers.
Asked to rate Northwest commissioning on a scale of 1 (not done at all) to 100 (standard practice), two commissioning professionals separately pegged it in the range of 20 to 40. One of those two, Mike Kaplan of suburban Portland, further refined his estimate by opining that the public sector is approaching 50, while the private sector lags at five to 10.
Public Sector Adopts Commissioning
Indeed, commissioning appears to be making its greatest inroads at public facilities throughout the Northwest. "I think the biggest change I've seen is that government and institutional organizations are starting to buy into commissioning," said Kaplan. "I believe they have a longer-range perspective than many private owners," especially developers who put together a building and then immediately sell it. "Agencies have to run their building and have to put up with complaints. I think they're starting to understand that commissioning makes a difference in terms of long-range performance." As evidence, he sees more and more public-sector requests for proposals for commissioning services. And the trend is occurring even though public entities are generally as cash-strapped as their private-sector counterparts, Kaplan noted.
Alan Boner of the Oregon Office of Energy also sees this trend, and thinks one reason is the relative quality of new public facilities. "There just seems to be a way in the public process where buildings can be handed over to a public agency in worse shape than a private owner [would get] . . . What it's created, then, is a greater need [for commissioning] in the public sector." He cited the example of Oregon State University, which is committed to commissioning new buildings, including a library now under construction for which the commissioning agent has been involved from the earliest stages. "I think Oregon State has arrived at the position they're in through bad experiences. That has driven commissioning more than anything else."
Commissioning at the University of Washington
Among the many public agencies adopting commissioning practices is the University of Washington in Seattle--the region's largest single school, with about 35,000 students, 13,000 staffers and 3,500 faculty members, and a main campus with 220 major structures spread over 703 acres.
Like Oregon State, the UW had encountered "a lot of problems with buildings," according to Phoebe Caner, the university staff commissioning engineer. She listed controls breakdowns, improperly working fans (one broke into parts and flew off onto a roof), occupant discomfort and inconvenience, high operating costs and considerable staff time spent trying to enforce warranties.
In a 1996 report on the commissioning of the new physics/astronomy building's control system, Caner wrote: "Experience at the University of Washington indicates that traditional design and construction place low priority on building operations and maintenance. As a result, buildings offer poor access to mechanical equipment, drawings and operation and maintenance (O & M) manuals, and inadequate reparability, durability, and performance under non-design operating conditions."
In 1992, UW staff engineers John Heinz and Rick Casault got the go-ahead for a commissioning program for the university; BPA chipped in money for a staff commissioning engineer.
"Commissioning at the UW was not done to save energy," Caner told Con.WEB. "It was done to keep down operating costs and provide the occupants with good buildings." The criteria for good buildings: 1) occupant safety; 2) support of research and teaching; and 3) comfort. "They are interested in energy," she added, but, "It's so hard to get buildings operated even safely and comfortably, we don't really have the oomph to pursue that final last goal."
Still, the university has documented energy savings--and many other benefits--from commissioning. In the physics/astronomy building, commissioning focused on the building automation system, but also found other HVAC bugaboos--and solutions. "Problems with sequences of operation and hardware installation . . . were easily identified and solved through functional performance tests," according to Caner's report. "Commissioning increased occupant safety and comfort and lowered operations cost. Correction of valve problems alone will save an estimated $11,000 in reduced energy bills over the first two years."
The commissioning project also improved operational practices: " . . . university operations staff now participate in on-site testing and building check-out before a new facility is accepted. Their role in quality assurance for capital projects contributes to the level of operational expertise available in new construction work, and increases staff understanding of new facilities."
The cost? UW spent $149,359 to commission the building automation system, which equals 29 percent of the control system cost and 1.9 percent of the mechanical-system cost. However, said Caner, "Sometimes the costs end up going up if one includes the cost of solving the problem. That's the most tricky part of it. People sometimes naively think . . . if you test your system that solves your problem. Testing your system finds problems, not solves problems." On the other hand, Caner's report suggested commissioning can reduce the post-construction costs of "debugging" problems with energy conservation measures and the overall HVAC system.
Washington State History Museum
As with the UW buildings, the new Washington State History Museum in Tacoma was commissioned primarily for reasons other than energy conservation.
The 110,000-square-foot museum and its historical treasures require "a very specific environment . . . 24 hours a day," explained Dick Siegle, facilities manager for the Washington State Historical Society. He called the museum "quite a complex building," with its precise temperature and humidity controls to preserve artifacts, extensive incandescent floodlighting and spotlighting, and a sophisticated computer-driven audio-visual system.
Although commissioning was not originally planned, according to a summary case study presented at the November conference in Portland, it was soon integrated into the museum's design and construction. Why? "Two very good reasons," construction manager Ken Fuller told the conference. "The success of this building is very dependent on proper operation" of the electrical and mechanical systems. "The material in the space is literally invaluable." Second, in addition to debugging, commissioning "gives operations personnel hands-on experience before they have to operate these buildings."
Commissioning of the museum cost $120,000 (including repair of deficiencies), about 5.4 percent of the total HVAC and controls system cost and about 4.8 percent of the electrical system cost. The commissioning process, led by agent Larry Storset, found a number of problems. Among the most significant troubles identified and resolved were with the primary heating water circulating pumps, secondary chillers and main air-handling system.
Although the team didn't specify cost savings from commissioning, the case study reported benefits including better temperature and humidity control, reduced employee complaints, timely project completion, avoidance of liability, fewer change orders, better operations and maintenance and--not least--properly functioning systems.
"There is no question in my mind the [commissioning] process has achieved a more reliable, efficient building," Siegle told the conference. He lauded the "unusual amount of cooperation on the job. Having a non-adversarial type of relationship in your project is extremely important . . . There is no question in my mind we would have a problem building without commissioning."
Private-Sector Commissioning
Although less common in the Northwest than in public facilities, private-sector building commissioning does have success stories and is moving closer toward the mainstream.
The 1995 and 1996 regional conferences, for example, cited effective commissioning practices at Boeing and Westin Hotels and Resorts.
Boeing had previously encountered troubles with new buildings, including malfunctioning or inoperable equipment and many occupant complaints. The airplane-maker decided to commission a flight test engineering laboratory for its new 777 aircraft fleet. The results were "overwhelmingly successful," according to the 1996 conference report. Benefits included performance verification and documentation, reduced maintenance costs and call backs, minimal complaints from building occupants and development of expertise for application in other projects, according to Boeing's Michael Prittie (as reported in the 1995 conference summary). "If we had taken over the building without having commissioned it . . . it would have been a disaster for us," he said. The cost? Seven percent of the design fee and less than 1 percent of total construction expenses.
The Westin, meanwhile, began commissioning in the mid-1980s in its downtown Seattle location and has commissioned several other facilities since. "The good commissioning experiences were not necessarily cheap or easy, but were unquestionably valuable," reported Westin's Gus Newbury at the 1995 regional conference (also from the summary). In the first Seattle project, in fact, "energy savings from the commissioning . . . paid for the process and a great deal of the remediation. It also allowed the Westin to purchase more efficient equipment through participation in utility conservation programs. The Seattle hotel is Westin's most energy efficient, and they continue to make improvements."
Newbury recited a litany of obstacles to commissioning: uninvolved third-party developers, adversarial relationships stemming from competitive bidding, incomplete construction documents and aggressive schedules. But Westin also has found some solutions: hire an independent commissioning agent, address commissioning in bid documents and begin commissioning early in the process. Many others echo this last solution.
In addition to these companies, OOE's Boner sees commissioning increasing among an important sector of the state and regional economy. "Commissioning is being used pretty seriously in the private sector among the high-tech industry," which recognizes the importance of properly functioning building systems. "They're somewhat priming the pump for the rest of the private sector. They serve as an example."
Attendance at the last two regional conferences also suggests greater private-sector interest in commissioning: a total of 85 private owners showed up at the two conferences.
Utilities and Commissioning
Several Northwest utilities offer commissioning in their DSM programs and/or otherwise promote the practice. In the last two regional conferences, the list of sponsors, contributors and supporters has included BPA, PGE, PacifiCorp, Seattle City Light, Eugene Water & Electric Board, Montana Power, Puget Sound Power & Light (now Puget Sound Energy), Tacoma City Light and Washington Water Power.
Yet, as with much in the era of electric industry restructuring, the future is fuzzy. "The original model for commissioning by utilities was basically the demand-side management model, incentives, rebates," said Kaplan. "That seems to be falling by the wayside. No utility seems to be wanting to give away money anymore." In fact, Kaplan has noticed a huge shift in his own commissioning practice. "Before last year, I did 80 to 90 percent of my work for utilities. Now I'd say it's the opposite," with 80 to 90 percent for private owners and governments.
The most active commissioning utility in the Northwest has been PacifiCorp, which includes commissioning in its Energy FinAnswer commercial and industrial programs. PacifiCorp's Don Jones said the utility arranges for commissioning of 30 to 40 FinAnswer projects each year, all of which meet cost-effectiveness guidelines. PacifiCorp's financial contributions per project are "based on strategic value," he said. PacifiCorp now emphasizes increasing the building owner's share of commissioning costs. "The customer thinks it's a great idea if the utility pays for all of it," said Jones, acknowledging "some customer resistance" to paying for commissioning. Nevertheless, "If customers do projects that warrant commissioning and it's cost-effective, we'll help them to do it."
PacifiCorp has found office buildings, grocery stores, hospitals and some industrial process applications well-suited to commissioning. As for specific problems identified and solutions found, integration of control systems "has always been a challenge," Jones said. Other commissioning professionals agree.
In addition to support from various large Northwest utilities, commissioning is explicitly encouraged by at least one government in the region. Oregon's Business Energy Tax Credit allows inclusion of commissioning costs, according to OOE's Kip Pheil. As of early February, he said, one manufacturing facility had been pre-certified for a commissioning tax credit.
Commissioning Obstacles . . . And Opportunities
Despite the widespread acknowledgement of problems with building systems and the growing body of evidence on the benefits of commissioning, the practice still faces a number of significant barriers.
PECI's Benner sees "two really big ones." The first is confusion about exactly what commissioning provides. "When [building owners] find out what it is, they think they're already getting it. Then they're really angry that they're not." With increasing job specialization in commercial development, Benner believes it's more difficult to ensure building systems are functioning efficiently and effectively. "Because the lights come on, heating and cooling comes on, owners aren't aware that the heating and cooling system may be running 24 hours a day when it only needs to be running 10-1/2 [hours] . . . Our job right now in terms of obstacles is really to figure out the best way to educate our owners . . . Owners have to ask for [commissioning] and they have to know to ask for it."
Second, Benner thinks architects and engineers need to be educated and motivated to integrate commissioning into the building process--and not fight it, as some do.
Kaplan sees awareness of commissioning growing considerably, but, "I'm not sure education is the whole answer . . . I think they need to be sold more strongly that it's going to save them money. I'm not sure how that's to be done. We haven't found the silver bullet yet."
He also finds a couple of other barriers for commissioning. "There's some perceptions it will complicate a project, both in terms of time and communications. Bring one more authority into this. Who's responsible to whom? . . . How much more money is this going to cost us? Tied into that is, 'What's in it for me'? If it's a developer, there may be nothing in it for them."
Owner and developer confusion also comes into play, Kaplan said, as does the lack of commonly accepted certification for commissioning providers. "If somebody's actually interested in doing this, they don't know where to turn," Kaplan said. A recent list of Northwest commissioning practitioners or interested firms contained 50 names, he noted, although only a small handful focus on commissioning.
To perform its actual commissioning work, PacifiCorp relies on a network of about 15 providers in the seven Western states it serves. Jones, however, thinks the commissioning infrastructure could be expanded: "Getting somebody that understands the technical details and project delivery and can communicate is a rare combination. There's plenty of people that are proficient in singular points."
OOE's Boner believes the supply of capable commissioners in the Northwest is about right--for the moment. "My concern is, if we do programs that help create a greater demand for commissioning, that the quality of service providers keeps up with that demand . . . if we create the demand too much ahead of the emergence of qualified providers, the balance gets out of whack."
UW's Caner takes the view that the commissioning infrastructure will develop as the market dictates. She also shares--in an interview and in her case study of the UW physics/astronomy building--underlying reasons why commissioning is needed and perspectives on what the practice means.
"In a sense . . . the need for commissioning has arisen because engineers over the past years have not had enough hands-on experience, both in the education and in the workforce," said Caner, herself a mechanical engineer. "It's like someone read about nutrition and then wrote cookbooks without ever cooking."
Although the new field of commissioning "has an aura of sophistication and excitement," she wrote in her case study, in reality it "involves a lot of patient, repetitive, nitty-gritty work. One of the more useful insights one can take away from the first case history of commissioning at the University of Washington is a recognition that commissioning consists of simply focusing on the essential details which no one else really thought it worth their time to bother with. Commissioners are paid to notice that which normally goes unnoticed because it is too small, pragmatic, dirty or mundane for people in high places to be concerned about."
A number of forces tend to give short shrift to how buildings operate in the real world, Caner writes in her case study. For one, architects--who typically oversee the design of large projects--are more captivated by architectural elements than engineering elements. For another, universities find it easier to raise funds for "construction of grand buildings" than for their operations. There is also a general fascination with the latest and greatest building technologies, which are "typically easy to sell but difficult to manufacture and install successfully." Expensive and complex HVAC elements command much interest, while the smaller, cheaper stuff--valves, dampers, sensors--tends to attract less attention even though problems with them can lead to significant operational difficulties.
Ask any building operator. "Field technicians know what makes a building work and what makes a building fail," Caner wrote. "They know that many occupants care as much about HVAC as architecture; they know that valves and sensors are as vital as chillers and control panels. They know that lack of attention to the nitty-gritty details in design, manufacturing and construction can lead to fancy projects that do not work." But these people do not have influential voices.
Nevertheless, she detects a slightly growing recognition of the importance of smooth-functioning buildings. "A small rise in the popularity of pragmatism--as evidenced by the upsurge of interest in commissioning--has come about because occupants have run into too many problems with glorious new buildings." The role of commissioning, Caner concludes in her report, is to "communicate the vitality of pragmatism . . . the excitement, intellect, and power over occupant satisfaction of creating projects that work."--Mark Ohrenschall
As a relatively new field, building commissioning has yet to construct a substantial foundation of documented information. Still, those seeking to learn more details about the practice of building commissioning can turn to a number of sources.
One of the most comprehensive and definitive studies to date was conducted by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on 16 commercial buildings that participated in PacifiCorp's Energy Finanswer program (see Conservation Monitor, July/August 1995).
LBL's 1995 report, prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, found commissioning to be generally cost-effective for saving energy. Primarily using DOE-2 computer modeling, LBL found annual electric savings from commissioning averaged .97 kilowatt-hours per square foot, compared with 4.85 KWh/square foot total energy savings from "dynamic" energy efficiency measures such as control and HVAC systems. Commissioning costs at the 16 buildings averaged 8 percent of the total investment in energy-efficiency measures, reported LBL's Mary Ann Piette, Bruce Nordman and Steve Greenberg.
The non-energy benefits of commissioning, meanwhile, were perhaps even more significant, according to the LBL study. Those include an improved working environment, reduced operations and maintenance costs, lengthened equipment life and better performance of building controls.
Still, the authors cautioned that their results are subject to "significant uncertainty" because of the small sample size and lack of metered data. They encouraged further research. (For a copy of the LBL report, call 510-486-7489.)
A more recent report, published in June 1996, examines commissioning of the control system at the University of Washington's new physics/astronomy building. UW's Phoebe Caner prepared the study for Bonneville Power Administration to explore four questions, according to her introduction: What are the costs and benefits of commissioning? Particularly, how does commissioning affect energy consumption? How can commissioning be performed most effectively? How can design and construction management be altered so that problems are uncovered and solved earlier in the project?
Caner's report details the context of this particular project; the process, findings and actions taken as a result of on-site testings; costs and benefits; commissioning and project management; and the cultural impact of commissioning. Anyone with an interest in building commissioning--from engineers to building operators to utility staff to the general public--is likely to find all or parts of the report informative. Caner can be reached at (206) 543-0551, extension 404.
Another organization very active in the Northwest building commissioning field is Portland Energy Conservation Inc., which has, among other functions, put together regional and national conferences on the subject. The written proceedings from last November's Northwest Conference on Building Commissioning include summary case studies of commissioning efforts at the Washington State History Museum in Tacoma, the Aster Publishing Building in Eugene, Parkway Fountains in Phoenix, AZ, and other buildings.
In addition, PECI is putting together a summary of 150 building commissioning case studies from around the nation. It should be ready this spring, according to PECI's Nancy Benner. For more information, call PECI at (503) 248-4636, or visit its Web site.
PECI reports also have formed the basis for conservation projections from commissioning used by the Northwest Power Planning Council in its draft 1996 power plan. The Council estimates 135 average megawatts in achievable energy savings from commissioning new commercial buildings regionwide by 2015 (assuming a medium-growth forecast), at a regional levelized cost of 1 cent/kilowatt-hour. For existing commercial buildings, the Council forecasts 32 aMW of estimated achievable savings from commissioning, at a levelized cost of 1.37 cents/KWh.
Of that 167 aMW of regionwide commissioning potential by 2015, the Council estimates only 64 aMW is likely to be gained by individual customer actions and utility/energy service company initiatives. The rest could come from such endeavors as building market awareness, developing standard protocols for systems testing, possibly certifying commissioning agents, demonstrating and documenting energy and non-energy benefits, adopting commissioning requirements in utility programs and state or local building efforts, according to the draft plan.
For more information, call the Council at 1-800-222-3355 or visit its Web site (linked above).--Mark Ohrenschall
The big picture is coming into focus for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
After spending much of their first 4-1/2 months putting together the organization and considering specific market transformation ventures one after another, alliance board members and the new staff retreated to Spokane March 18 and 19 to take a broader view of this fledgling regional effort to transform markets for energy-efficient products and services.
"The focus of the meeting was to really kind of fine-tune our vision and what it is exactly we are intending to do and how we want to accomplish it," said NEEA chairman Dave Houser. "I think we made tremendous progress in resolving some of those kinds of issues."
Specifically, discussions at the retreat will lead to a vision statement for NEEA, a portfolio strategy and a refined process for selecting market transformation projects. Alliance staff--led by executive director Will Lutgen and the new deputy director, Margie Gardner, formerly of the Northwest Power Planning Council--will work on those tasks and also develop a staffing plan in conjunction with the board's executive committee.
Houser said he was "very pleased" with the retreat and its outcomes. "The main thing is, we're trying to form our strategy so we make sure we do things right. That's really . . . why we stepped back and took a look at the big picture. We've got to hold off on focusing on one project at a time and think about where we want to be in three years" when the initial funding commitment for the alliance ends.
Board member Mary Smith described the meeting as a "strategy and planning exercise" that dealt with key issues. "Our job at NEEA is to get some stuff done in the next three years, despite the fact a lot of the rules are changing in the [electric industry] world around us . . . We helped to prioritize how we can focus the staff to meet the needs of the bigger-picture accomplishments we need to get done in the next three years."
Lutgen, who officially started his new duties less than a month before, also found the two-day gathering valuable. "I thought the board retreat was extremely productive and gave staff good direction. Now it's rolling up the shirt sleeves."
Vision
One of the primary results from the Spokane retreat was "a better sense of what our priorities are in terms of our vision," according to Lutgen.
Number one is energy efficiency, according to a written summary of the retreat. Next in order of importance is support and adoption by the private sector, for which Lutgen cited the example of energy codes and how their long-term success depends on stakeholders understanding the value of these standards and embracing them. "We need to find a way to . . . hand these projects off to people who have a self-interest in perpetuating them."
Other leading priorities listed in the summary include net benefits to all parties, informed consumers who take action, creating/influencing efficiency standards, partnerships with industry and energy savings.
Board members also came up with a catalog of forces currently hindering their vision of success for the alliance. At the top is the absence of a "workable mechanism" to decide on projects (see below).
Second is the lack of a commonly accepted definition for market transformation. The board, however, did assemble "significant elements" for a definition: strategic efforts/leverage; lasting; cost-effective energy efficiency; utilities and others involved; encompasses technologies and practices; markets crossing utility boundaries; exit strategies; achieves improvements in electricity; and non-electric benefits are used for market purposes. Lutgen added the idea of temporary (not permanent) interventions in markets. The board concluded, according to the written summary, that projects should undergo a "holistic review under the definition of market transformation."
"I think we've gotten it down so that there's a lot of ownership of the definitions and the attributes," said board member Ken Keating. "There will still always be some interpretive differences around the edges [but now there are] clearly a lot more common understandings."
The third leading obstacle identified by the alliance board is lack of a defined portfolio.
Portfolio Strategy
At the Feb. 24-25 NEEA board meeting in Portland, according to board member Jim Baggs, "We got into a conversation again how we as a board need to take some time and I guess solidify some of our strategies for deciding what kind of efforts we're going to undertake." Board member Stan Price said in early March that the alliance board has heard some "very good, interesting project proposals" but did not yet have "a developed sense on how we would make the decision about whether to support a particular project."
From the retreat emerged a sense that the NEEA board should provide overall portfolio strategy guidance, and staff should work within those guidelines. "Their job is not necessarily to recommend which ventures to assess," said Lutgen. "Their job is to explain to us why they would consider certain things over other things. That's terrific. That's at the level a board should operate."
The top strategic priority is market transformation ventures, according to Lutgen and the written summary. The alliance will be open to what Lutgen called "sponsorships" that bear a "direct relationship to a venture, or build relationships within a market we'd like to transform." NEEA will have "a limited involvement in [market transformation] infrastructure compared with the past," and will look to infrastructure elements that "directly support" ventures and are "very specific in nature." Outright grants, meanwhile, are out. "The alliance will not be giving money to people to do good works, good deeds," Lutgen said.
Project Review Process
As noted above, alliance board members are interested in a more effective way to select market transformation projects.
To date, project sponsors have brought market transformation proposals to the board in a more or less random fashion--several were nearing the end of their current funding--and the board has more or less judged them on their individual merits. "Right now it's too much driven by what comes in the door first," said Keating.
Six projects have been approved for interim funding and a seventh has been rejected (see Con.WEB, Dec. 19, 1996). Meanwhile, according to Lutgen, there is a backlog of 35 to 40 potential ventures or other projects for which sponsors want funding.
Under a potential scenario he outlined, NEEA staff would first assess an idea to make sure it fits with the alliance's criteria. Board members would have an opportunity to review proposals and provide input, and sponsors could then revise them if they chose before bringing them to the full board, which could amend, adopt or reject proposals. This process would allow the board to operate more smoothly, Lutgen said, and would also give proposers a "better understanding of what to look for."
In any case, he said, the board sent "a very clear message" that "it wanted to be proactive in determining what its business should be instead of reactive."
The next NEEA board meeting is tentatively scheduled for April 29 in the Seattle area, at which time Houser said decisions may be forthcoming on proposals including residential duct efficiency improvements, energy code support and local government infrastructure support. Those proposals were formally brought before the board at its February meeting in Portland, along with introductions to the Lighting Research Center, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency and the E Seal lending program.--Mark Ohrenschall
We invite readers to look at our new Con.WEB NEEA page, which outlines the alliance's history and background, funding, organizational structure and approved and potential projects. It also includes links to previous Con.WEB stories on the alliance. The NEEA page can be found at http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/conweb/neea.html.
Power Smart Inc, the Vancouver, British Columbia-based company that provided demand-side management and energy efficiency marketing and customer service to utilities throughout the world, is ceasing operations.
On Jan. 13 the company's six shareholders--all Canadian utilities--voted unanimously to dissolve the organization. With increasing competition and deregulation in the utility industry, the shareholders "decided a collaborative effort like this doesn't fit their individual strategic objectives," said Power Smart president Bob Watson. The company's office will close at the end of May.
B.C. Hydro, parent of the Power Smart concept and shareholder in Power Smart Inc., will retain ownership of the name and trademark and will continue with its own Power Smart programs, said Mike Gwilliam, Hydro's Power Smart manager. "We do intend to keep it proprietary in terms of other utilities," he said, with the exception of Manitoba Hydro and Newfoundland Power, which are working out agreements with B.C. Hydro for continued use of the program. Gwilliam said licensing agreements with manufacturers of energy-efficient products will also continue, under a new product endorsement program B.C. Hydro will develop.
In addition, Gwilliam said B.C. Hydro will work with existing "off-shore international members" that express interest in continuing the program, but won't add any new participants. Licensing agreements with United States utilities will not be renewed.
As a result, Portland General Electric--the only Northwest utility belonging to Power Smart Inc.--won't be using the Power Smart trademark in any new ways, according to PGE advertising director Francesca Carozza, and will be removing the logo from its literature over the next few months. While Carozza said PGE still likes the idea behind Power Smart, she understands the decision to cease operations. "Power Smart is difficult to operate as a point of differentiation when utilities are trying to be competitive," she said.
Power Smart started in 1989 as an innovative demand-side management program at B.C. Hydro. In 1990, the program was spun off as an independent company providing demand-side management and energy conservation information, programs and marketing expertise to interested utilities. Over time, Power Smart Inc. became a well-known symbol for energy efficiency throughout Canada, as well as an effective tool in market transformation.
By last May, Power Smart had conserved a reported 742 average megawatts. It counted 30 utilities--the majority of those that operate in Canada, as well as others in Brazil, Mexico, the United States and Eastern Europe--and over 100 manufacturers as members. And 1,700 individual products were carrying the distinctive Power Smart logo (see Con.WEB, June 1996).
While B.C. Hydro wants to move forward with Power Smart as its own program, Gwilliam said the utility could theoretically market the concept to others interested in energy-efficient market transformation. But he pointed out that when Power Smart started, "The fundamental process was buying back electricity" by offering rebates and financial incentives. With today's low prices for electric generation resources, such incentives don't make sense. Gwilliam said Power Smart's financial incentives "kept the momentum going," and without them the program may not be as attractive. B.C. Hydro's Power Smart is now "endorsing energy-efficient products and services that our customers are willing to pay for," he said.--Jude Noland
The Idaho Public Utility Commission is reconsidering its January decision approving Idaho Power's termination of its Partners in Energy Efficiency (PIE) industrial conservation program, following an appeal by a group of industrial customers.
On Jan. 13 the commission approved the utility's request to drop the program (see Con.WEB, Feb. 21, 1997). The IPUC concluded this is not an opportune time for the utility to be creating regulatory assets--that is, investments in conservation that would be recovered over an extended period of time--that could become stranded costs.
In early February, the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power filed a petition for reconsideration of the decision, which the PUC granted Feb. 27. "Regardless of whether the arguments set forth in ICIP's petition have merit, we believe that the petition does raise issues of sufficient concern and complexity that deserve a more exhaustive analysis by the parties and ruling by this Commission," the order reads in part.
The PIE Program, which the utility started in 1991, provided Idaho Power's industrial customers with grants to cover part of the costs of energy efficiency upgrades. In its petition for reconsideration, ICIP said terminating the PIE program--but not other IPC conservation programs--without proof PIE was no longer cost-effective constituted discrimination against industrial customers. Such discrimination, ICIP argued, could be avoided if industrial customers were shielded from paying any of the costs for the utility's other conservation programs. ICIP also contended that dropping the program because it contributed to the utility's stranded assets was a position not supported in the record: "There is no finding and no evidence offered that would permit the Commission to conclude that PIE costs are stranded."
The commission's decision to grant ICIP's petition is not unusual, according to IPUC attorney Brad Purdy. "The commission is fairly lenient in at least hearing what people have to say," Purdy said. "If we're going to err on any one side we err on the side of granting [a petition]."
Commissioners have given parties in the case until March 28 to submit briefings on three issues: whether the commission's decision to terminate the PIE program necessitates a review of the utility's stranded costs; whether, if PIE is terminated, the industrial customer class should be insulated from responsibility for paying rates that help fund other conservation programs; and whether there is an adequate factual basis in the record for supporting termination of the program.
Idaho Power disagrees with ICIP's position, according to utility officials.
"I don't think that a determination as to exactly what our stranded costs are is required [to terminate a conservation program]," said Idaho Power attorney Larry Ripley. Ripley also questioned the industrialists' suggestion that they be shielded from paying any of the costs of the utility's other conservation programs, since all customer classes have shared the costs of conservation programs--including PIE. "I find the industrial customers' position bewildering and inconsistent."
ICIP attorney Peter Richardson said he was surprised but pleased the PSC granted the petition for reconsideration. He added, however, that he doesn't expect the commission will turn the petition into a stranded cost proceeding.
While the parties develop briefs for filing by the March 28 deadline, the PSC order approving termination of the PIE program remains in effect. Idaho Power's Ripley pointed out that, under the commission's original order, the utility agreed to process several pending applications for PIE participation, so activity under the program will continue for awhile whether the order stands or is changed.--Jude Noland
An organizational meeting for a Regional Technical Forum for Northwest energy conservation and renewable resources is scheduled for Thursday, April 9, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at Bonneville Power Administration headquarters in Portland.
As envisioned by Congress and the Regional Review steering committee and outlined in a draft charter, the RTF is anticipated to be a voluntary regional organization to develop standardized protocols to verify and evaluate energy savings, track progress toward the region's conservation and renewable energy goals, provide suggestions for improving the effectiveness of conservation and renewable resource development programs, and review at least every five years the region's progress toward meeting its conservation and renewable resource goals.
The Review steering committee recommended the RTF group include technical and policy experts in energy efficiency and renewable resources, representing utilities, electricity services providers, government and public-interest groups.
For more information, call Tom Eckman at the Northwest Power Planning Council, 1-800-222-3355, or ZoeAnne Arrington at BPA, (503) 230-5715.
The 13th Northwest Industrial Efficiency Forum will be held Tuesday, April 29, in Spokane at the Red Lion Hotel and Spokane Convention Center.
Funded by Bonneville Power Administration and hosted by Washington Water Power, the forum will focus on environmentally responsible programs that make good business sense. The day's agenda includes a panel discussion on green power, a presentation on fuel cells, a case study on Spokane Steel Foundry, and two sessions on making your business "green." Keynote speaker Joel Makower, a journalist and author, will give a talk entitled "Turning Environmental Responsibility into Good, Green Profits."
The forum is part of the eighth annual Environmental Forum for Business and Trade Show, held April 28-30 in Spokane.
For more information, call John Dunlap of WWP, (509) 482-4408, or Vicki Zarrell of WSU Cooperative Extension Energy Program, (360) 956-2139.
A Building Operator Certification training series will be offered by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council in Washington's Kitsap County beginning in mid-April.
The training series is designed for operations and maintenance staff in public and private-sector buildings, and is intended to prepare them for NEEC certification in energy- and resource-efficient building systems.
The seven-course series will cover the following topics: overview of building systems, energy conservation techniques, HVAC systems and controls, energy-efficient lighting, building maintenance codes, indoor air quality and facility electrical systems. All courses will be held in Kitsap County, on the Olympic Peninsula, at a central location to be determined. The first course is scheduled for Thursday, April 17, and the last for Thursday, Oct. 30.
Fee for the training and certification series is $550 per person, which covers the seven courses, handbooks, 12 hours of facility project assignments and certification application. Participants who qualify for certification will receive a certificate, listing in a NEEC directory of Certified Building Operators, and recognition letters for their employers. Continuing education hours also are available.
For more information, contact NEEC's Building Operators Certification program, P.O. Box 12244, Seattle, WA 98102; phone, (206) 726-9397; fax, (206) 726-0018.
Entries are now open for the 1997 Architecture + Energy Awards: Building Excellence in the Northwest.
The juried competition--sponsored by Bonneville Power Administration and Portland General Electric and administered by the American Institute of Architects/Portland Chapter--honors the successful integration of architectural and energy-efficient design. It is open to new construction and major renovation projects for non-residential buildings in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington.
A five-juror panel will judge entries on their energy performance, treatment of energy-related elements, climatic-responsive design and creativity. Last year's award-winners used such techniques as effective and creative daylighting, natural ventilation design and waste-management practices.
Deadline for entries is May 19. Winning designs will be published in Architectural Record.
To request an entry packet or for more information, contact AIA/Portland: 315 SW Fourth Ave., Portland, OR 97204; phone, (503) 223-8757; e-mail, aidpdx@teleport.com.
Portland City Hall, a 102-year-old facility now under renovation, will be certified to meet Portland General Electric's Earth Smart environmentally sound building standards.
Under an agreement announced in late January, the building will be designed to Earth Smart criteria, which is expected to help reduce annual operating costs by $12,000 a year and energy consumption by 24 percent. The renovation project is intended to preserve the building's historic character while modernizing its operating systems, according to city project manager Dale Bushnell. Completion of the $28.2 million project is planned for spring 1998, after starting in May 1996.
Earth Smart features in the renovated City Hall will include compact fluorescent lighting in public-corridor fixtures, extra insulation in walls and ceilings, atrium daylighting, lavatory faucet aerators, use of recycled-content drywall, ceiling tiles, paint and flooring, recycling of construction-site debris, efficient air filters on the ventilation system, fresh-air intake vents placed away from sources of pollutants, low-toxicity paint and flooring finishes, secure bicycle parking and proximity to mass transit.
"Once again we have designed a project to address Portland's aggressive energy efficiency goals and our operating costs for City Hall," said city commissioner Jim Francesconi. "With the passage of Ballot Measure 47, every dollar we can save on operating costs can keep essential services like police and fire on the streets. We are proud of our partnership with PGE on this project. I want to thank them and our [Portland] Energy Office for their leadership on this and to thank our own Bureau of General Services for making it happen."
"Sustainable Building Northwest--Breaking Through The Barriers" is the title of a conference and trade show scheduled for Oct. 27-29 in Seattle.
The event will feature "proven, practical methods for applying sustainable concepts and techniques to building projects and developments," according to a flier. "Public and private sector case studies, executive forums, and problem-solving sessions will provide real life answers to the questions you face when you design, build, operate, or set standards for 'green' buildings."
Among the topics to be covered are "Smart Policies for Smart Buildings," featuring ways public processes and private practices can work together to build sustainably; "Green Standards for Today," a look at today's standards for sustainable construction and who's setting them; and "Innovative Technologies for Tomorrow," an examination of trends and technologies that will set future standards. Featured keynote speaker will be Paul Hawken, author of "The Ecology of Commerce" and "Growing a Business."
Supporting organizations for the conference/trade show are Public Technology, Inc., the city of Seattle, King County Solid Waste, Electric Power Research Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy.
For more information, contact O'Brien and Co., P.O. Box 10705, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110; phone, (206) 842-8995; fax, (206) 842-8717; e-mail, obrien@halcyon.com.
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-Lene Hansen; Webmaster-Whitney Dickinson; General Manager-Brooke Dickinson; Office Coordinator-Christina Smith; Production Assistant & Graphic Design-Michael Katayama;
Please contact lene@newsdata.com if you have questions or comments
about this website or call 206/285-4848.
Return to Contents