CWEB.021/September.26.1997
THE PLACE OF ENERGY CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY in a changing electric industry is explored from different perspectives in this month's issue of Con.WEB.
A group of Oregon municipal utilities, joined as the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency (OMECA), has since 1994 shown the value of cooperating in conservation--and created a potential model for serving customers in a competitive world. We also offer a manifesto for conservation that originally appeared in an OMECA newsletter.
Meanwhile, the Northwest Power Planning Council has published an addendum to its 1996 draft power/conservation plan that looks at sustaining energy efficiency and renewables in the coming years. Portland General Electric has come up with its own suggestion: a 3-percent charge for public purposes administered primarily by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Over in Idaho, though, the wrangling continues over Idaho Power's funding of the Alliance.
This issue also covers innovative approaches to green building--by a Washington home builders group--and to apartment-sized super-efficient refrigerators--by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency and a number of partners in the Northwest and around the nation.
As the days shorten and the shadows lengthen, enjoy this issue and keep in touch if you wish, at marko@newsdata.com.
[Editor's note: The following is the first in a series of articles on Northwest publicly owned utilities and their work in energy conservation, energy services and renewable energy in the shadow of electric industry restructuring.]
Spread across the state and serving distinctly different communities, six Oregon municipal utilities nevertheless have forged a common bond in the joint pursuit of energy conservation.
Their collective quest to squeeze efficiencies out of their local electric systems has achieved substantial success since 1994, when the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency (OMECA) formed.
OMECA's approach--collaborative, flexible, efficient, locally oriented, backed by stable Bonneville Power Administration funding--has helped the agency exceed its cumulative three-year energy-saving target of 5 average megawatts and to do so at an overall cost of about 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (1993 levelized dollars)--a figure competitive on the wholesale power market and far below the original target of 2.4 cents/KWh. It has earned the agency a contractually mandated bonus from BPA, while demonstrating the value of partnerships in achieving cost-effective energy efficiencies in the Oregon communities of Ashland, Forest Grove, McMinnville, Milton-Freewater, Monmouth and Springfield.
Now, though, OMECA's contract with BPA ends Sept. 30, although two more years remain to finish projects obligated by that date. With another year's administration budget in hand the group of six municipals is in the midst of examining OMECA's potential role after the end of BPA funding, as the fundamental imperative shifts from racking up energy savings to providing valued energy services to customers in an era that promises competition at both the wholesale and retail levels of the electric industry.
OMECA's future is "probably not going to be the traditional rebate-based, Bonneville-designed program," said the agency's manager, Cathy Higgins. "It's going to be energy services that help the customer use electricity efficiently, and also help them understand, help them control and interpret their energy use for the purposes of not only lowering their bills . . . [but] to have that control so as alternative suppliers come they can be in charge of making their decisions."
Although OMECA members have yet to decide on the agency's destiny--that should occur in 1998--they are very pleased with the collaborative and generally want it to continue in some fashion. They have experienced the advantages of working together, and believe it can be very useful as electric competition unfolds.
"It's been just such a positive experience for us," said Dick Wanderscheid of the city of Ashland, one of the originators of OMECA. "We're hoping real hard we can convince our utility managers there's benefits to keep it around."
"It's been very helpful," agreed David Christie of McMinnville Water & Light. "As a whole we've met our goals and far exceeded our goals. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts . . . Here locally we would not have been able to do near as much [without OMECA], opening up new programs like the heat pumps and doing what we're doing with showerheads and all the appliance efficiency programs."
At Milton-Freewater Light & Power, "I don't know where we'd have went with our conservation programs" without OMECA, said Pat Didion. "They might have closed up the doors on it . . . This has given us basically three years of funding that we wouldn't have had, and we've done it a heckuva lot more efficiently than what BPA figured we could have."
OMECA's 5 aMW energy-saving target was "a fairly lofty goal to meet, but it was something that really focused this group," said Glen Crinklaw of Forest Grove Light & Power, another early proponent of the municipal collaborative. "To a large extent we're still very focused and we want to see OMECA serve as a tool for the member utilities to use in serving their customers."
OMECA members have continued to offer modified BPA-designed conservation programs for residential, commercial and industrial customers, but they have also branched off in a number of new directions--duct-sealing, solar water-heating, heat pumps, electronic line voltage thermostats, efficient appliances and financing of energy-efficiency measures are among the examples. Crinklaw tells of "the whole transition we've made from viewing conservation solely as a resource acquisition exercise to one that's a little more evolved--resource acquisition, but also a customer-focused program in an era of customer choice. We're as a group seeing that evolution and trying to develop some tools to allow us to compete out there."
OMECA's competitive value is also described by Jim Nybo and Ted Flanigan in their May report, "Competitive Energy Services Strategies in the Northwest: A Partial Eclipse of the Moon." (See Con.WEB, June 27, 1997, for a story on this report.) They write: "As Bonneville's influence lessens, OMECA members have even greater flexibility in program design. Residential weatherization work continues with a new focus on duct doctoring. OMECA members are also finding new and effective means of working with trade allies to boost program cost effectiveness. Members are keen on using their technical expertise to partner with customers, providing information rather than incentives to move customers to higher levels of efficiency. Through trade allies, for example, some members will promote efficient appliances including horizontal axis washers.
"OMECA's greatest competitive advantage," Nybo and Flanigan continue, "may be its very existence today. It took two years to form OMECA as an intergovernmental agency . . . Now it provides a competitive advantage for its members as they each offer refined energy services to their customers. OMECA is well positioned to provide a centralized service at a scale perhaps most fitting for locally controlled conservation programs."
As the competitive era develops, Higgins notes an increasing trend of mergers, alliances and other partnerships among large utilities, as well as a "significant expansion of energy services by the private power suppliers. OMECA doesn't see itself as a PGE/Enron or Snohomish[PUD]/Idaho Power [which recently agreed to ally on various initiatives]." However, she added, "These mergers validate the partnering as an effective approach. It shows that other players are thinking we need to be working together."
A Brief History
OMECA members have been working together since January 1994, when the agency officially came into existence. Charter members were Ashland, Forest Grove, Milton-Freewater, Monmouth and Springfield; McMinnville and Canby subsequently joined, although Canby later dropped out of the consortium.
In October 1994, OMECA and BPA signed a contract under which BPA was to to provide $11.4 million in financing over two years, while OMECA planned to achieve 4.2 aMW of energy efficiencies at an average cost below 2.4 cents/KWh. This original arrangement was predicated on OMECA issuing tax-exempt municipal bonds, with BPA repaying principal and interest. However, the bond idea fizzled in the agency's first year, according to Higgins, as interest rates went the wrong way and insurmountable legal obstacles would have prevented the bond proceeds from being used for loans to non-public entities. "We just decided we just wanted to get rolling on our conservation activities," she said. BPA agreed to fund OMECA directly rather than through the bonds.
In the beginning OMECA was envisioned as a means to achieve cost-effective energy efficiencies in partnership with BPA, while providing member utilities with more stable funding, greater flexibility and the ability to combine resources. This was a time, Wanderscheid recalled, when the region was embarking on an ambitious efficiency path for which the Northwest Power Planning Council encouraged 1,500 aMW of conservation by 2000. "Everybody was pedal to the metal," he remembered. "How are we going to do all this? How's Bonneville going to fund it all?"
As it evolved, though, OMECA developed into much more than a vehicle for conservation financing. "What we ended up doing is sitting around the table with a bunch of utility folks that had common interests and had different strengths," said Wanderscheid. "Between all of us, we were able to design and operate programs much more efficiently. When running Bonneville programs, we didn't have any choice. All of a sudden, we were empowered to have our own programs . . . When we came together we had a big utility staff . . . We really were able to acquire conservation much more cost-effectively than we did under any BPA program."
Cheap, Plentiful Energy Savings
Indeed, OMECA has compiled an impressive record in saving energy.
In late September, Higgins reported 5.2 aMW of total OMECA energy savings under its BPA contract. Most of the savings have come in the commercial sector, which through July had achieved 60 percent of the savings at 38 percent of the total program costs. Residential programs, meanwhile, had accounted for 25 percent of the savings and 49 percent of the costs, while industrial initiatives had amounted to 15 percent of the savings and 13 percent of the costs.
OMECA's total average costs for the energy savings are 1.5 cents/KWh (in 1993 levelized dollars). Specific program costs have ranged from 1.4 cents/KWh to 1.8 cents/KWh in the residential sector; commercial programs have come in at 1.5 cents/KWh and industrial savings at 1.6 cents/KWh.
Since 1994, OMECA programs have led to 2,250 weatherized homes, 890 new efficient electric-heated homes, 9,500 efficient appliance purchases, 770 commercial energy-efficiency upgrades and 33 industrial conservation projects, according to the agency.
A number of reasons are offered for OMECA's stellar showing.
One is the growing popularity of loan programs, which provide critical initial funding for energy efficiency measures while minimizing rate impacts compared to rebate programs. Five of the six member utilities currently or plan to offer capital for conservation, some with their own funds and others with third-party financing from credit unions or banks. Loan programs are available in the residential sector, as in weatherization and duct-sealing programs, as well as for commercial customers. OMECA's January 1997 newsletter described loans as "one tool to maintain and improve energy services to customers while keeping costs low." Higgins believes financing initiatives will help OMECA reduce its conservation costs even further.
Another cost-effective factor is the trend toward increased work in the commercial and industrial sectors, according to Higgins.
In addition, OMECA seeks operational efficiency in a number of ways.
"Central administration helps you out," noted Paul Warila of Springfield Utility Board. Higgins works directly with BPA, he said, which frees OMECA utilities to focus on their own programs and customers. "That simplified things." Higgins, the only full-time OMECA employee, said member utilities aren't adding--and in some cases have lost--conservation staff people. With its central office and network of six utility staffs, OMECA has enabled its members to continue energy-saving programs and even add new offerings. This collaborative functioning is "one of the ways I've kept the agency cost down low," said Higgins. Nybo and Flanigan describe OMECA staff as an "extension service for members, providing in-house energy services that the utilities cannot individually afford."
Among other means of stretching its money, OMECA has by and large shunned engineering analyses that Higgins said can cost between $50 and $100 per hour. "We've spent very little money on a lot of engineering studies," she said. "We've developed some very effective spreadsheet tools the members can use themselves [that] bring up very concise graphic information, payback, return on investment and recommendations." The agency also has used Americorps volunteers for lighting audits, saving thousands of dollars. Wanderscheid cited the example of joint printing of 10,000 heat-pump program brochures, a much less expensive proposition than if each utility separately printed the materials. "There's other economies-of-scale things you can do," he said. "You have some of the advantages of what the larger utilities have by banding together."
Sharing
Sharing--of money, information and other resources--is an integral part of OMECA. It has contributed greatly to the agency's effectiveness.
"It just turned out to be the sum of the parts were much greater than we ever were individually," said Wanderscheid, describing the group as "like a big utility staff. We could delegate things, some of the other people could trade things around. Because of that, we kind of have this bond of working together and moving funds around. If somebody had a big project we could divert money to them," as happened with a big industrial conservation project in Forest Grove that posed a potential lost opportunity. "We just were able to be a lot more flexible, a lot more nimble. All of our program costs came way down."
Expertise also has been widely shared. Higgins, according to Wanderscheid, understands Bonneville and the consultant world. Springfield staff people have contributed special knowledge of duct sealing, lighting and number-crunching. Ashland has operated water-conservation programs for years. McMinnville brings expertise in the residential and lighting sectors. Milton-Freewater's Didion said he frequently consults McMinnville's Christie on lighting questions. He could call up lighting companies for information, but, "They're selling a product. David is selling what's best for all sources." Christie, in turn, said he recently talked with a customer interested in electronic thermostats, so he got information about Springfield's thermostat program and quickly set up a similar program in McMinnville.
This cooperative culture persists essentially uninhibited, according to OMECA members, even with competitive forces looming.
"Utilities are a little reluctant to share ideas because of competition," Wanderscheid acknowledged, and energy services are seen by many as a potential competitive advantage. But even though utility managers may view other utility managers as would-be competitors, utility conservationists in OMECA have a different perspective. "People at my level running conservation programs look at themselves as getting people to use resources wisely," said Wanderscheid.
Crinklaw agrees. "At that staff level, we consider it to be very important that we do maintain this alliance in order to deliver the best service that we can to individual communities. There's something valuable here. To go it alone, puts us at a disadvantage . . . I would hope that we'll be able to see OMECA continue to serve as essentially a resource for delivering the highest quality customer programs in the years ahead."
The Future
OMECA has an approved administrative budget for 1998 that, according to Crinklaw, will allow the agency to wrap up its BPA conservation contract and also "spend the time to really identify the needs that the member utilities have and try to come up with some way for OMECA to satisfy those needs and hopefully pay for it all."
Bonneville will almost surely not be a future funding source, according to BPA's Terry Regan. There has been no talk of a BPA role in OMECA after the current contract ends, she said.
That leaves the member utilities, whose conservation staff people are uniformly enthusiastic about sustaining OMECA. The conservationists, however, lack the power of the purse at their utilities. In Ashland, where green is the unofficial municipal color, city officials have "been very supportive at this level," Wanderscheid reported. "They read the reports, saw the Bonneville money flowing in, saw the kilowatt-hour savings. It's been easy to support at this point. When they have to open their checkbooks it may be a little" more challenging to sustain their backing for OMECA.
Some members may leave the collaborative, Christie acknowledged. Yet it's also possible other utilities may join. "We've had a little bit of interest from some other municipals, but nothing serious," said Christie. "It really depends on what we can offer them. The main benefit is just to show them a track record, how well we did with the OMECA contract. This way of operating and assisting each other is good for the future as we move forward with deregulation."
OMECA is open to any Oregon municipal utility; other public-power utilities are mentioned as possible allies if OMECA's structure is changed. There is, however, no talk of joining forces with IOUs or power marketers. "That doesn't seem to be a natural fit," said Warila. "They don't mix."
Nor is OMECA inclined to get into the power-supply business, including renewable energy.
Still, there are plenty of options available for OMECA under the broad umbrella of energy efficiency and energy services. In addition to the current program offerings, Higgins, for example, is researching billing packages that include comparative energy-use analyses. The group also is keeping tabs on the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance in its pursuit of market transformation, and looking at ventures to which it can lend support. And, although separate from OMECA, two member utilities--Springfield and Ashland--are developing fiber-optic telecommunications infrastructures that open up vast possibilities for services ranging from metering, billing, substation control and energy-management systems to Internet connections and cable television. "A utility owning the wire is a natural thing they do," said Higgins. "Some of them see it as a bigger future revenue source than the sale of electricity."
Mindful of the competitive world, Higgins and OMECA utilities are also working on strategies to retain "key accounts" in member service territories--but not at any cost. It may not be worthwhile, she said, to go all-out to promote energy efficiencies at a new chain store for which decisions are made at a distant corporate headquarters. "If the management locally doesn't make decisions, we're probably not going to spend a lot of time on them. We're not Enron. We want to put our focus where we think people care about the community and care about the benefits of public power."--Mark Ohrenschall
CONSERVATION IMPROVES OUR COMPETITIVE POSITION. All OMECA utilities have anecdotal stories of pleased participants in our energy efficiency programs. When customers have a choice of selecting electricity suppliers, rates will be only one of many considerations they will weigh in deciding their electric supplier. Conservation keeps us in front of our customers.
CONSERVATION HELPS MAINTAIN BENEFICIAL LOAD SHAPES. Strong electric conservation programs offer not only incentives to install energy efficiency measures but also can be designed to influence and control desired load shape and type to the benefit of the electric utility.
CONSERVATION CAN STILL BE A VERY LOW-COST SOURCE OF NEW POWER. OMECA's actual operating costs are about 16 mills [1.6 cents per kilowatt-hour]. There are still numerous projects that can be implemented at less than 12 mills. This is much cheaper than any new generation resource and is less expensive than the rate at which we can purchase firm wholesale power.
CONSERVATION CAN LOWER WHOLESALE UTILITY BILLS. Extensive monitoring of Northwest homes and businesses participating in conservation programs demonstrates that these buildings perform at lower demand level during utilities' critical peak power times. This directly results in reduced wholesale power bills because of reduced capacity charges from suppliers.
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS CREATE LOCAL JOBS. Weatherization installers, window companies, HVAC installers, product suppliers, and electricians are just some of the types of local companies that benefit from dollars devoted to conservation programs. Their wages stay in the local economy, where they are spent again and again to benefit local businesses and families.
CUSTOMERS WANT CONSERVATION PROGRAMS. Fifteen years of program operating experience have proven that customers support programs that help them use energy efficiently. Customer response to these programs in each utility confirms their popularity. We have created an expectation of technically sound advice and good programs among our customers. This expectation from our customers will continue into the future.
CUSTOMER SERVICE. Public power is here to serve its owners. More efficient uise of electricity allows our customers to maintain their standard of living for fewer dollars. Helping customers reduce energy expenditures serves their interest and, therefore, is also in the utility's interest.
CONSERVATION PROVIDES A BETTER LIVING AND WORKING ENVIRONMENT. Conservation programs make houses quieter and more comfortable, and reduce drafts. Businesses and industries are more comfortable; have better lighting; and are more productive, pleasant places in which to work.
CONSERVATION IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. We have a moral responsibility to future generations. Squandering our resources has significant environmental costs and reduces the resource base for future generations. By recognizing this and providing programs that reduce waste, we will satisfy our customers' desires and leave a better world for future generations.
Sustaining energy conservation and renewable energy in a competitive electric industry is a major focus of a recent report from the Northwest Power Planning Council.
The Council, in an addendum to the Draft Fourth Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan, outlines numerous issues and suggested approaches for public purposes such as conservation and renewables as the electric industry restructures.
Among the topics addressed by the addendum are the role of local utilities and regional entities, development of competitive markets for efficiency services and renewables, information access, cost-effectiveness criteria, green power marketing, accountability and market transformation.
Those subjects may sound familiar to those who followed the 1996 deliberations of the Regional Review steering committee. And that's intentional. "In several instances," writes the Council, "this addendum suggests approaches that would help move the Northwest from the usually general nature of the Steering Committee's recommendations to the specifics that will have to be addressed by legislatures and state and local regulators." (To date, only one of the four Northwest states--Montana--has officially restructured its electric industry. The other three are in various stages of consideration.)
The Council's addendum, released in August, also updates information since the March 1996 release of the draft power/conservation plan, including resource development, electricity and natural gas markets, and electric loads. It also discusses the Council's future. This latest document completes the draft plan, which the Council is scheduled to adopt as a final plan in December. Public comments are welcome through Oct. 31.
In contrast to previous power/conservation plans that served as regional blueprints for development of electric resources, this draft plan "was intended as a reference tool on the changes in the industry" and "focused primarily on issues raised by the transition to competitive electricity markets," according to the Council.
Two of those key concerns--now being addressed by the Northwest Energy Review Transition Board as a follow-up to the Review--are the future of Bonneville Power Administration as well as the region's high-voltage transmission system.
"Most of the other issues," according to the addendum, "relate to the region's ability to facilitate effective competition in electricity markets while sustaining the commitment to improving efficiency of electric use, encouraging renewable resources and providing electricity services to low-income customers."
The draft plan identified 1,535 average megawatts of cost-effective conservation available regionwide over 20 years. If fully achieved, this could save the region $2.3 billion, according to the Council--although the Council acknowledged some uncertainties in its conservation analysis. The plan also outlined the steep decline in power costs and increased competitive pressures for utilities. Under these circumstances, near-term utility programs and market-induced energy savings would gain only about one-third of the potential cost-effective conservation.
To sustain conservation, renewables and low-income services during the transition to competition, the Review steering committee finally came up with the 3-percent solution: 3 percent of the revenues from electricity sales in the region, roughly $210 million annually based on 1995 revenues, should be earmarked for those public purposes. (See the Review's final report for a breakdown of this recommendation.)
Both the Review and the draft plan outline potential directions for maintaining conservation and renewables amidst retail competition, but, the addendum notes, "these directions frequently mean dramatic changes for the institutions involved, and they are not without their tensions and, in some instances, contradictions."
One of those involves local utilities, which, under the Review recommendations, would play the primary role in pursuing conservation and low-income weatherization around the region, and would have the first option to fund local renewables development. However, this raises potential conflicts for utilities that distribute as well as market power.
"If utilities continue to link distribution and energy marketing, or the conservation responsibility is assigned to the energy marketing function, the primary business interest will be in maintaining and increasing electricity sales," according to the addendum. "If conservation services prove to be an effective marketing tool," it continues, "restricting access to public purpose conservation funding to the incumbent utility will put competing suppliers at a disadvantage. If not, the utility will have an incentive not to encourage efficiency improvements that reduce sales or even to use the conservation funding to promote electricity uses that increase electricity sales." Neither will the distribution-only utility have much reason for conservation, other than to reduce distribution system costs.
Generally, the Council suggests policy-makers try to minimize these conflicts. Specifically, it reiterates the Review's position that public-purposes funding be competitively neutral for all energy-service providers.
In a related stance, the Review sought to encourage competitive markets for efficiency services and renewables. The Council's addendum makes a number of recommendations to further this objective. All "qualified entities" should be able to compete for public-purposes funding, it suggests. Energy services providers should be allowed access to information on consumer electric use, while consumers need solid information on energy suppliers, particularly in the case of green power sources. In addition, according to the addendum, the recommended crediting of consumer investments in energy efficiency as counting toward local conservation funding targets "should be interpreted as liberally as possible, consistent with being able to ensure that legitimate efficiency investments are actually made."
Implementing The 3-Percent Solution
The addendum also recommends three policy criteria for implementing the Review's 3-percent solution, to "address not only how much money is to be collected, but how best to invest it." First, the Council believes "public interest" conservation funding should target opportunities unlikely to be pursued by the marketplace, such as the split-incentive dilemma for residential rental-property owners whose tenants pay electric bills.
In addition, in one of the more provocative recommendations, the Council suggests that cost-effectiveness determinations "should take into account environmental externalities and non-electric energy and/or non-energy benefits (e.g. natural gas savings, water savings, increased productivity, reduced expense for low-income households, etc.)." This would better reflect total costs, according to the addendum.
Finally, the Council thinks, priority should be given to lowest-cost and "lost opportunity" energy savings, so as to "maximize the effectiveness of public investment."
The Council--like the Review--also made a plug for market transformation initiatives in the region. Noting that the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is funded only through 1999, the Council suggests that state legislatures earmark public purposes dollars for the Alliance after 1999. At the same time, though, the structure and membership of the Alliance board should be changed to reflect such public funding.
The Council also echoed the Review in supporting a regional technical forum to track progress toward conservation and renewables goals in the Northwest and offer suggestions for improvements. This body "will need sufficient resources and authority," said the Council, which will work to support the activities foreseen for an RTF. (See Con.WEB, April 25, 1997, for a story on an initial meeting to form an RTF.) Such reviews of the region's conservation/renewables work may need to occur more frequently than the five years suggested by the Review, according to the addendum.
Renewables
By and large, the Council advocates a regionally coordinated approach to new renewable energy.
The Review steering committee recommended that 85 percent of its proposed regional renewables funding--about $34 million annually--be spent on renewables market transformation. It also suggested local utilities get a "first right of refusal" for developing renewables projects.
However, "The limited amount of available funding and the characteristics of the most promising renewable resources suggest that regional coordination of such development is required if there is to be any substantial effect," the Council said. As for what entity would take the leading role, NEEA is not chartered to do renewables, the Council noted: "Either its mission and makeup should be altered or a different entity should be charged with this responsibility." Such a regional organization also should administer renewables research, development and demonstration funding, and "identify promising distributed generation technologies and allocate the incentive funding on a competitive basis to local distribution utilities."
Although the Council recommended that "direct involvement in the development of renewable bulk power resources by distribution-only utilities is not recommended," it outlined a number of ways for local utilities to promote renewables short of actually building their own projects. These potential mechanisms include renewable power purchases, billing credits for customers that buy energy from renewable resources, project financing incentives (loan guarantees, grants, interest rate buy-downs and low-cost loans) and production incentives.
The Council also delved into the growing national debate over "green power." Although defining green power is fraught with difficulties, the Council believes that during the transition period to open access a green power resource should get at least half its minimum average energy content from new renewables. "This will encourage the development of new renewable resources, yet will provide the flexibility to meld in services that ensure reliability and low-cost power that brings down the price of the green power product," said the addendum. Renewables, according to the Council, include solar, wind, geothermal and some hydro and biomass resources.
In an appendix, the Council addendum lists the following as the most promising renewable-energy technologies for the Northwest: biogasification, ground and water-source heat pump technologies, photovoltatics, solar thermal and wind.
For a copy of the addendum (or the draft power/conservation plan), contact the Council's office in Portland: (503) 222-5161, 1-800-222-3355, phone: (503) 795-3370, fax; e-mail, comments@nwppc.org; or visit the Council's Web site. --Mark Ohrenschall
Portland General Electric's long-awaited Customer Choice Plan, unveiled Sept. 2, outlines how the utility would provide complete retail access for all of its 670,000 customers by the end of 1998--and how it would provide for energy conservation and renewable energy programs.
Under the plan filed with the Oregon Public Utility Commission, PGE would become a regulated transmission and distribution company that would deliver the power that PGE's former customers buy from the certified energy service provider of their choice. The plan also calls for a 3-percent system benefits charge for public purposes, along with full recovery of stranded costs.
PGE is following the Regional Review steering committee's recommendations in proposing the 3-percent charge, said PGE senior vice president Joe Hirko. The funds would be collected as part of a non-bypassable system distribution charge levied on all end-use customers, and would be used to support low-income weatherization, renewables and energy efficiency programs. Under PGE's proposal, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance would administer all but the monies earmarked for low-income weatherization, which would be administered by the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services. The OPUC would oversee appropriate use of the SBC funds, set some eligibility criteria and establish reporting requirements.
PGE's Carol Brown told her Alliance board colleagues on Aug. 12 that the concept of having the Alliance administer the SBC funds is essentially a "straw man," because the proposed Customer Choice Plan will be revised as the OPUC and other stakeholders have a chance to review it. Still, it represents PGE's and Enron's approach to system benefits charges, Brown said.
Alliance board member Ken Keating said the proposal demonstrates that "a major entity sees a future for the Alliance beyond 1999," when its current funding is scheduled to expire. Dave Houser, chairman of the Alliance board, cautioned that the proposal envisions "the Alliance being a lot more than it is today," with added responsibilities for administering funds for local conservation and renewables programs. Board member Charlie Grist cited a couple of issues raised at another gathering: that the Alliance isn't set up to handle renewables and that the idea of giving local conservation money to a regional body could be problematic politically. Grist also said OPUC staff had voiced concern about taking such a regional approach until every state in the region restructures.
Meanwhile, the Oregon Citizens Utility Board has developed a list of "seven fundamental flaws" in PGE's Customer Choice Plan--one of which concerns the method for computing the system benefits charge. While PGE says it is following the Regional Review's recommendation for setting the amount of the charge, the Review actually offers two methods for calculating the 3-percent total--one on the basis of loads, the other on the basis of revenues. CUB claims PGE should be using the revenues method--which would result in a higher charge--while the utility believes it has the right to use the loads method. PGE spokeswoman Rochelle Lessner also said that under the Customer Choice Plan proposal, the utility would be just about doubling what it now spends on programs typically eligible for system benefits charge funding.
Lessner also reiterated that the plan is not in its final form. "We know there's a lot of issues here." The Oregon PUC has scheduled a prehearing conference for Oct. 8 to develop a procedure for the case. --Jude Noland and Mark Ohrenschall
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission is reconsidering the question of how Idaho Power might recover the costs of its membership in the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
In a July 16 order, the PUC denied the utility's request to institute a public-purposes charge to recover the utility's share of NEEA funding (see Con.WEB, July 25, 1997). However, the commissioners ruled that Idaho Power could capitalize and defer its Alliance costs for possible future recovery, after the PUC had enough information to determine the prudency of Alliance programs. That ruling led Idaho Power to file a petition for clarification. Also emerging was a petition for reconsideration filed by the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power that alleged several errors in the July 16 order and that prompted Idaho Power to file a cross-petition for reconsideration.
ICIP attorney Peter Richardson said the industrial customer group opposes any ratepayer funding of Idaho Power's Alliance costs, regardless of whether it's through deferred amortization or a rate surcharge. "We think they should do it through stockholder funds," Richardson said, and that's the decision ICIP wants from the IPUC.
Idaho Power, on the other hand, welcomes another review of the deferred amortization procedure--but wants an entirely different outcome: a more acceptable method of recovering Alliance costs. Customer service manager Jim Baggs said the utility filed the cross-petition for reconsideration so it could take another look at that issue.
The IPUC handled all three petitions in a Sept. 4 order that gave ICIP--as well as other interested parties--until Sept. 24 to file testimony in support of ICIP's allegation that it is not in the public interest to allow Idaho Power to defer Alliance costs for future possible recovery. The PUC denied ICIP's allegation that the deferral violates a rate moratorium and that due process was violated in the way the prehearing conference was conducted. But the commissioners also said that it "would be reasonable to allow the ICIP and any other interested party the opportunity to present formal testimony and exhibits should they so desire . . . ".
In addition, the commission gave Idaho Power the opportunity to respond to the testimony and exhibits filed last week, through a rebuttal filing due Oct. 1.
ICIP and Idaho PUC staff were the only interested parties to file testimony by the Sept. 24 deadline.
Dennis Peseau, president of Utility Resources, testified for ICIP; Peseau urged the commission to reject Idaho Power's application "in its entirety" and offered an alternative proposal: that Alliance participants "remove this effort from regulatory purview and seek to earn market rates of return for their performance . . . By taking this endeavor out from under regulatory review they will be able to earn returns that are not capped by regulation. I urge the Commission to catch the spirit of competition currently evolving in the electric utility industry by authorizing Idaho Power to participate in the NEEA as an unregulated, investor-funded activity."
Peseau also criticized the composition of the Alliance board, which has representatives from public power, investor-owned utilities, the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council and the four Northwest governors. Peseau recommends that the board include representatives of the Alliance's four target customer groups--industrial, commercial, residential and irrigation--and that "special interest groups have no representation nor be allowed to receive funds from NEEA."
IPUC staff testimony was a bit more favorable to ratepayer recovery of NEEA funds. While "as a general rule" staff does not believe it is in the public interest for regulated utilities to continue to capitalize and defer investments in efficiency programs, IPUC economist Lynn Anderson said in this case there are several reasons why it's appropriate for Idaho Power to capitalize and defer Alliance costs rather than to recover them as incurred. These primarily revolve around concerns by customers, staff and others about the prudency of Alliance programs and the need for additional information so the commission can judge whether the expenditures are "cost-effective for [Idaho Power's] customers."
Anderson also pointed out the commission has invited Idaho Power to initiate a proceeding to review all its conservation costs in light of competitive changes in the utility industry. In so doing, the PUC "indicated that even though costs may be deferred, they shouldn't be allowed to languish on the company's books, but should be reviewed and recovered in a timely manner."
Baggs said Idaho Power will review the Sept. 24 testimony before developing its rebuttal. In the meantime, the utility continues its participation in the Alliance "under the assumption we'll get some sort of order that will be palatable."--Jude Noland
In an effort to expand green building through a marketplace approach, a Washington home-builders group has launched a novel program to promote environmentally friendly practices and products in the construction of local residences.
The program--in Kitsap County across Puget Sound from Seattle--recognizes homes that incorporate standards for waste reduction, energy and water efficiency, use of resource-efficient products, construction site treatment, air quality and hazardous waste management. Such residences earn a certificate of merit, which is touted as a green-marketing edge.
Build A Better Kitsap is considered unique as a builder-created program that encourages earth-friendly construction from a wide-ranging perspective.
"What this is a real attempt at is . . . trying to harness the power of the marketplace to achieve goals, rather than dealing only with the regulatory environment," said Art Castle, executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of Kitsap County. "We're pretty excited about it," he added. "It's a very comprehensive program and at the same time is fairly simple and designed to be non-exotic."
Dave Peters of Kitsap County, which provided grant money to help get the local initiative started, believes this is the broadest of its kind in the nation. "A lot of [others] are energy efficiency programs that might mention recycled content. We're looking at the whole nine yards: energy efficiency, how to reduce waste on the job site, using resource-efficient products, indoor air quality, reducing hazardous waste. It's far more comprehensive."
The program, however, has yet to substantially change home-building practices in Kitsap County. Since starting in February, Build A Better Kitsap has attracted about 30 participating members--builders as well as associates--and awarded certificates to fewer than 10 homes (as of early September). By year's end Castle forecasts a total of 35 to 40 members and 10 to 15 certified homes.
This relatively slow start, he believes, owes at least partly to a depressed housing market in Kitsap County, which Castle attributes to such factors as military cutbacks, growth-management laws, lack of economic diversification and commuter traffic woes. New housing starts in the county this year may finish at only 50 percent of the 1994 level.
"That's affected why some more people haven't been participating," he said. "People are scrambling just to keep their heads above water and they're less likely to take an innovative step."
Nevertheless, one of the creators of Build A Better Kitsap believes the program is an early harbinger of a green building revolution.
"I think it's one of these things that is inevitable, actually," said architect David Grellier. "We're just a little bit ahead of the pack. This is how all houses will be built in 10, 20 years time," because of the rising costs of traditional materials, landfill scarcity and health hazards in construction, among other circumstances.
"It's like any new program," he continued. "You have to take a little bit more time, a little bit more care, and you have to think about things. It's a little bit harder to convince large-scale production builders to follow up on this kind of a program. It will come."
Origins of Build A Better Kitsap
Grellier is among a number of Kitsap County building and design professionals with a strong affinity for environmental sustainability. Castle, meanwhile, formerly worked for the home-builders trade group in Whatcom County and came to Kitsap with a notion to put together a green-rating program. After some discussions, the county provided a small grant that enabled the Kitsap home builders to hire writer-consultant Kathleen O'Brien, who worked with interested members to invent Build A Better Kitsap.
"Our interest is good building and also to avoid legislation" mandating green-building practices, noted Grellier. "The county's interest is to put as little stuff in the landfills as possible. We have a mutual self-interest here."
While the county furnished start-up funding, Peters noted, "It was designed to be a program by builders, for builders." And it's intended to promote environmental stewardship in home construction as well as provide an economic benefit for participants. "The motivating factor is if the builder does these things he will have something that's more marketable than another house," said Peters.
How It Works
The central element of Build A Better Kitsap is a checklist of 85 green-building options divided into eight sections: green codes/regulations, site treatment, reduce/reuse/recycle, use of resource-efficient products, energy efficiency, air quality/health, hazardous waste management and promotion of environmentally responsible home ownership. Each of the 85 options is worth a certain number of points; participants are responsible for determining how many of the criteria they meet.
In energy efficiency, for example, points can be earned by exceeding energy code requirements; using compact fluorescent lighting and light tubes; developing building/landscaping plans to naturally reduce heating and cooling loads; optimizing domestic hot-water-heating systems and air-sealing techniques; installing air-to-air heat exchangers; and orienting the house to maximize passive-solar opportunities.
There are three levels of certification, from one star to three star. The first level is modest. It requires a builder to meet state codes for energy
and ventilation/indoor air quality, as well as the Washington water use efficiency standards. Builders also must provide homeowners with a "starter kit" to promote environmentally responsible home ownership, and create a job-site recycling plan. "We wanted to make entry into the program fairly easy," explained Rick Courson, who developed the indoor air quality/health criteria, "so the one-star rating is something most builders could attain today, without too much effort and very little cost, if any."
The two-star rating requires all the one-star standards plus at least 30 points spread among the categories; this is intended to foster comprehensive green building. Thirty additional points are needed to earn three-star designation.
These higher ratings may add to the construction cost of a home, Castle and others acknowledged. But the premium is not extravagant. Builder Doug Woodside estimated he spends an additional $2,000 to $3,000 per house on measures eligible for points on the Build A Better Kitsap checklist, such as air-to-air heat exchangers and water filters. "It doesn't cost that much more to build a three-star house," he said, and besides, the savings in operating costs can be substantial, promising quick paybacks. "A poorly insulated house with a cheap heating system, it'll cost you a fortune for heating. What would you rather spend: 200 bucks a month or 50 bucks a month?" Nor, for example, does it take much extra time to establish job-site recycling, he added.
The guidelines in Build A Better Kitsap are intended to be flexible as well as locally attainable.
"It's basically a menu of options," said Peters. "It depends a lot . . . on what the client wants. If you're trying to reduce the footprint and the client wants a spreading single-story house, you're not going to argue with the client. The whole idea is it's flexible enough to get to the goal several different ways."
All these options are designed to be met with resources found in Kitsap County, notably products listed in the various categories, from recycled-content insulation and tile to low volatile organic compound (VOC) paints to compact fluorescent lights. "We didn't choose things that were extraordinarily hard to find or get," said Castle. "We did the research to determine what was available . . . It's a non-exotic program. We're not talking about straw-bale housing or anything with questionable consumer acceptance. The houses don't look any different. They're built a little more environmentally friendly."
In addition, he said some of the program options already are standard practice for some builders, such as setting up a central wood-cutting area on a job site and using advanced framing techniques that reduce lumber use while providing more cavity areas for insulation. "The primary [program] members now are the smaller builders who take the time to care about these things," said Grellier. "Some of them have been doing it anyway."
Build A Better Kitsap offers these builders some well-deserved recognition, according to Woodside. He thinks one of the main challenges for builders participating in the program is making the economic math work in their favor. "It's just a matter of sitting down with the pencil and figuring out the cost. That's the hard part for builders, especially. If you're spec-building, a lot of that stuff isn't recognized as a value by the appraiser, so you don't receive the money back when you go and sell the house." However, Woodside has commited to Build A Better Kitsap standards for all his new homes--speculative as well as custom-built.
The Bottom Line: Consumer Demand For Green Homes
Build A Better Kitsap already has won awards from the state Department of Ecology and the National Association of Home Builders. "We've got a great program and it's recognized nationally," said Woodside, who added that the Kitsap group is willing to share information about the program--for a nominal fee--with other building associations or government entities.
As Build A Better Kitsap nears the end of its first full year, the home-builders association is working on a number of issues: achieving financial self-sufficiency for the program, making it more suitable for remodels, establishing ways to quantify the environmental benefits and--not least--spreading the message.
"That's part of our mission here . . . to make people aware of it," said Grellier. The communications strategy has two paths. "We're obviously trying to reach members of the industry--builders, real estate people, architects. On the other hand, we're trying to reach the public."
If Build A Better Kitsap in particular and green building in general are to flourish, the home-buying public must know about and ask for environmentally friendly residences.
"Ultimately, the success of our program will be based on consumer demand," said Castle. "We've seen a lot of interest, consumers saying, 'Yeah, I really want this kind of house.' In an off-market, with a lot of inventory sitting, it really slows that process down."
Even so, a Woodside-built three-star Build A Better Kitsap home attracted an unusually high number of visitors when it was featured in a parade of homes this spring. Woodside said he heavily advertised the home and its environmentally benign features. "We were just swamped . . . and people liked it." Of course, he added with a laugh, "The house is still available."
In the end, builders build what people want.
"A builder's not going to do something unless it's market-driven," said Woodside. "If the consumers start finding out this [green-building] product is available and the consumers start wanting this product, then more and more of the builders are going to go on-line with the program. It's a win-win for everybody . . . The bottom line is just to get the consumers to demand, 'Hey, I want these kinds of products in my house.'"--Mark Ohrenschall
Hundreds of Washingtonians living in publicly assisted housing are getting new energy-efficient refrigerators under a national program that illustrates some of the benefits--and challenges--of collaborative energy-saving programs.
The Apartment-Sized Super Efficient Refrigerator Initiative is the brainchild of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, a Massachusetts-based organization that works to transform markets for energy-efficient products. In this case, CEE is working with housing authorities, utilities, refrigerator-maker Maytag and others to put an estimated 60,000 super-efficient small refrigerators in low-income apartments across the country.
Approximately 1,000 of the energy-saving fridges are earmarked for Washington, including about 650 for the King County Housing Authority in greater Seattle. At least two other Washington housing authorities have also purchased these units, according to Maytag. Seattle City Light, meanwhile, has helped coordinate the initiative locally, while Washington State University Cooperative Extension Energy Program is investigating with various stakeholders a potential continuation of the program.
Eventually, CEE would like to see competition among manufacturers to serve this particular niche of the refrigerator market with high-efficiency models. This program, though, has two more immediate objectives.
"One is to first of all get available product in this size range--the 12- to 15-cubic-foot range--that is more efficient," said CEE's Ed Wisniewski. "It's kind of been an underserved market." In addition, the consortium wants to familiarize housing authorities and "other institutional decision-makers" with the advantages of figuring product cost on a life-cycle basis and not simply on the purchase price.
Putting The Program Together
CEE launched the program with a request for proposals to refrigerator manufacturers. Maytag's response came out the winner.
"We looked at it as something of an experiment to see if this kind of a refrigerator could be produced economically and for a profit," said Maytag's Linda Eggerss. Although she didn't divulge any numbers, she called it a "very low profit" undertaking for the manufacturer, adding, "Not to say the project wasn't a good one and that we wouldn't consider it again."
Wisniewski said the consortium "happened to catch Maytag at a beneficial point" when the manufacturer was already retooling an Illinois production facility. "Because they were modifying things anyway, they were able to incorporate this into their product planning without any major changes," he said. "They were planning to have a 15-cubic-foot model anyway [although] the efficiency on that unit probably would not be near the [efficiency] performance of this actual unit." Maytag added a high-efficiency compressor and upgraded insulation for the program model, he noted, and eliminated a heating element between the freezer and refrigerator cavity.
"Their biggest incentive, in this size range and the assisted-housing marketplace, was they didn't have a very large market share," according to Wisniewski. To help entice Maytag, the New York Power Authority committed to finance the purchase of 20,000 of the super-efficient models for the New York City Housing Authority, and also to provide ancillary services. And CEE pledged to promote the lower-priced apartment-sized fridges to housing authorities nationwide.
Manufactured under Maytag's Magic Chef brand, these 15-cubic-foot units are 31 percent more efficient than the federal energy-saving standard for comparable refrigerators, according to Wisniewski. Previously, the most efficient such units beat the federal efficiency guidelines by 20 percent.
The energy savings for these new refrigerators vary tremendously. Seattle City Light's Yen Chin figures on annual savings of 100 to 200 kilowatt-hours per unit per year in new apartments. However, when these models replace older refrigerators in existing housing units, the yearly savings climb from a minimum of 300 to 400 KWh to as high as 3,000-plus KWh, which Chin acknowledged as extreme. Still, he said, "There's some really awful units out there." City Light will probably end up counting total average annual energy savings of 500 KWh per unit. Nationally, Wisniewski said CEE's estimate is in the range of 500 to 600 KWh per unit each year.
To date, the program has proven more popular in populous Eastern and Midwestern cities like New York and Chicago. "The West Coast hasn't taken as much advantage as the East Coast, and maybe because of the concentration of [publicy assisted housing] properties and the demand," Wisniewski said. "On the West Coast, you start getting more scattered-type housing [where] people like the large refrigerators."
Nonetheless, the King County Housing Authority has found the CEE initiative to its liking. "We're satisfied with the product, we're getting a good price, the residents will benefit, so it looks like a win-win situation for us," said Tom Tasa, the authority's director of maintenance and construction management. KCHA has ordered eight truckloads of 81 models apiece; half the shipments had been delivered as of Sept. 23.
"To be very honest, I'm buying mostly to standardize on a brand and get the better price," he said. "The energy savings is kind of a sideline." Most residents of apartments managed by the housing authority pay for their own electricity, for which they receive an allowance. These new refrigerators may cut $1 a month off electric bills for residents--"not a big savings," Tasa said. Most people getting the super-efficient fridges seem appreciative, mainly from the standpoint of having a new appliance. These models also offer such standard features as self-defrost and textured doors that don't show fingerprints.
From Chin's perspective at Seattle City Light, the CEE program offers only modest energy savings and the utility is unlikely to pursue any large-scale program to foster super-efficient apartment-sized refrigerators.
He thinks this initiative works for two reasons. "It is low-income, so that there wasn't any essential conflict that existed for Maytag wholesalers and retailers. This is not a market they traditionally look at as theirs." In addition, the economics are obvious. "The units were being sold at a price that that was lower than what these entities could buy a less-efficient unit for. 'I'm going to pay less money and the tenants are going to use less electricity?' Why would you not?"
"At some point," he continued, "less-efficient [models] don't get made, or people make a conscious decision to spend more money to buy a product that is more energy-efficient." And in any case, Chin believes, refrigerator buyers are typically much more interested in features other than energy consumption.
A Distribution Issue
The CEE initiative has also raised a distribution issue in Washington. Deliveries of the super-efficient fridges are limited to truck shipments of 81 models apiece, which is OK for large organizations like King County Housing Authority--which manages 10,000 units--but presents difficulties for smaller entities.
"One of the issues in the Northwest is you don't have housing authorities the size of Chicago or New York," said Wisniewski. "It's relatively difficult for these housing authorities to put together any sizable order [since] you have to purchase in increments of truckload quantities."
Indeed, according to Mike Lubliner of WSU Energy Extension, "We got a lot of demand for less than truckload orders and couldn't figure out a way to logistically address" this dilemma.
In some new public-housing complexes, Chin said, commitments had already been made to other, less-efficient refrigerators. "If they're aware this is available, that could alter their buying decision . . . That would fit well within the limits of full truckloads."
Lubliner recently met with representatives of Puget Sound-area utilities, the appliance recycling industry, Maytag, KCHA and state government to "talk about whether there are opportunities to bring this program back next year, focusing on not just the truckload orders on new construction [but] opportunities where we might have rolling truckload stops" so public-housing entities could get new efficient apartment-sized refrigerators as needed--such as when old units break.
"Nobody's made any commitments to this," Lubliner said. "We're going to be working to investigate the most efficient, simple, low administrative hassle factor [approach] and see if it goes." One thought is to start with a pilot program in King County and, if successful, broaden it statewide.
Another potential solution, according to Tasa, is for local Maytag distributors to stock the super-efficient apartment fridges. Although the per-unit price may not be quite as low as under the CEE program, the energy-saving models at least would be locally accessible. "I'd think the private market would provide plenty of buyers," he said, because of savings on capital costs as well as energy.
As for Maytag, its future in this specific market is unclear.
The manufacturer is motivated by profit and the CEE program was not a great money-maker, Eggerss noted. However, other considerations come into play, such as keeping plants busy churning out new products.
"This was a very low-priced refrigerator" she said. "We think the kind of programs CEE put together are very worthwhile, or we wouldn't be participating. We also have to look at it from a financial viewpoint. Can we manufacture a very high-efficiency small product and still make a profit? We'll have to evaluate that for future possible participation."--Mark Ohrenschall
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission next month will hear a case involving a small geothermal-energy developer that has been trying to sell power to Washington Water Power and other regional investor-owned utilities.
Earth Power Resources says Water Power is insisting on unreasonable terms, and it wants the commission to grant certain waivers and grandfather status with respect to avoided-cost rates. The IOU counters that the developer is not entitled to the old rates.
The PUC has set an Oct. 9 hearing to consider a complaint filed by Tulsa-based Earth Power Resources against Water Power over two small Nevada geothermal projects.
Earth Power attorney Peter Richardson said the dispute is over contract terms. He said the developer wants the "standard contract" the IPUC has historically approved for projects smaller than one megawatt. WWP is insisting on "novel language that is unacceptable to us," having to do with the utility's ability to terminate the project "if retail access comes down the road."
The developer also wants the commission to waive some of the standard security provisions. A liquid security, equal to the overpayment in the early years of the term of the contract on a levelized stream, can be waived if there is a proven fuel supply. Richardson said a test well has proven the site and the source are secure. "We've said we'd satisfy Water Power that the source is sufficient for the 20-year life of the project." But Water Power wants more security, he said.
The developer also wants to be grandfathered in under the IPUC's old avoided-cost rates and mandatory Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) project terms. Richardson said that after negotiations between WWP and Earth Power began, the IPUC reduced its avoided costs about 20 percent, to slightly more than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. And recently, the IPUC approved a new rule reducing the mandatory term for PURPA projects under 1 MW from 20 years to five years.
Earth Power hopes to develop six separate 1-MW geothermal projects around the Nevada towns of Allen Springs and Lee Hot Springs, which are about a mile apart. Some of the projects would share steam gathering and cooling towers, but each would have its own generator. Earth Power intends to sell two projects each to Water Power, Idaho Power and PacifiCorp (through its subsidiary Utah Power & Light). An agreement with PacifiCorp for one of the projects has already been completed and approved by regulators.
Water Power attorney Doug Young said Earth Power is not entitled to grandfathered rates because at the time IPUC changed the rates, the parties had not agreed on a contract. Moreover, Water Power said Earth Power would be eligible for the rates in effect when the projects are self-certified as qualifying facilities under PURPA. The parties disagree on the QF status of Earth Power's projects, and on whether an IPUC decision earlier this spring allows the site to be treated as a single QF greater than one MW or as a set of individual 1-MW QFs.
Although the IPUC recently approved an order allowing Idaho Power to limit new PURPA contract terms to five years, Water Power has only recently filed an application for similar authority.
Young said negotiations over security are also not complete. He said the IOU was willing to support a waiver of the security provisions if the parties could agree on the rates, but so far, they haven't.
Earth Power also wants to sell geothermal power to Idaho Power. But the IOU has taken the developer to court in Boise, saying it is excused from buying anything from Earth Power because of a settlement reached several years ago on another project. In that case, Nevada and Idaho regulators deferred to each other over which commission's avoided-cost rates should apply. Richardson said Earth Power spent a "tremendous amount of money" trying to sort that one out, and reached the settlement in lieu of pursuing expensive litigation. Earth Power believes the settlement applied only to the project then in question. The case is set for trial, but no date has been set--Ben Tansey
A conference and trade show on sustainable building is coming to Seattle in late October.
"Sustainable Building Northwest--Breaking Through The Barriers" is designed to foster green-building practices in the region. It is scheduled for Oct. 27 through Oct. 29 at the Seattle Center.
The conference and trade show will cover specific green-building projects in the Northwest and elsewhere and how they incorporate sustainable features while addressing financing, affordability, code requirements and permitting processes. The event also includes three tracks of technical sessions (Smart Policies for Smart Buildings, Economics of Sustainable Building and Innovative Systems and Technologies) and three workshops at specific Seattle locations (Succeeding with Green Building, Removing Barriers to Sustainable Land Development, and Market Transformation for Green Products and Services).
Also on the agenda is a panel discussion with community leaders from the public and private sectors, along with a trade show featuring products and services for sustainable building, and a resource center with assorted information services.
Keynote speakers are Paul Hawken, author of The Ecology of Commerce; Alana Probst, vice president of Ecotrust; David Gottfried, founder of the U.S. Green Building Council; and Ray Anderson, chief executive officer of Interface.
For registration and other information on the conference and trade show, 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.
The Washington State Plant Engineering & Maintenance Show and Conference--which includes displays of energy-efficient products and services and conference sessions devoted to efficiency-related topics--is scheduled for Oct. 15 and 16 at the Tacoma Dome in Tacoma.
Sponsored by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council, the event is designed for people who manage, operate and/or maintain industrial plants, commercial buildings or institutional facilities such as schools and hospitals. It will feature displays of thousands of products and services, as well as 18 conference sessions on a broad range of topics.
Admission to the Tacoma show is free; for more information on registration, visit the show's Web site; send an e-mail to showinfo@proshows.com; or call Professional Trade Shows at (510) 354-3131.
Solar homes in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana are included in the fifth annual National Tour of Solar Homes, scheduled for Saturday, Oct. 18.
The event is intended to show the public "what it's like to live with quiet, reliable, renewable solar energy," according to the American Solar Energy Society, which sponsors the tour along with the U.S. Department of Energy, the Interstate Renewable Energy Council and Home Depot.
"Many homes on the tour generate electricity using photovoltaics, and some are not tied to the utility grid at all," said ASES. "Most incorporate passive solar design and energy efficiency measures such as thermal glass, super-insulation, site orientation, and solar thermal mass for heating and cooling. Quite a few of the homes use solar energy to meet their domestic hot water needs."
In Washington, solar homes can be toured in Lyle, Arlington and Goldendale. Oregon tours will take place in the Portland area and in Eugene. In Idaho, visitors can see solar homes in Sandpoint and Moscow (along with Pullman, WA). And in Montana, a home in Whitehall will be open Oct. 18, in addition to home tours on Oct. 19 in the Missoula area and Oct. 25 in the Helena area and the Bitterroot Valley.
For more details on these tours, visit the National Tour of Solar Homes Web site, or call ASES at (303) 443-3130.
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-newsdata@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-Lisa Wachter; General Manager-Brooke Dickinson;
Office Coordinator-Christina Smith; Graphic Designer-Michael Katayama.
Please contact Denise Lee at dlee@newsdata.com if you have questions or comments
about this website or call 206/285-4848.
Return to Contents