CWEB.31/July.31.1998
ONCE UPON A TIME Pacific Northwest electric utilities were leaders in energy conservation, renewable energy and low-income energy services. But the changing landscape of the electric industry has led many--not all--utilities to spend less money on these public purposes. This evolution is documented by the Northwest Energy Coalition in a new report that examines public-purposes spending by 12 publicly owned and investor-owned utilities in Washington and Oregon. NWEC finds that since 1995 none of the 12 fully met the public-purposes spending guidelines recommended by the Regional Review. Although several of the utilities have exceeded the conservation guidelines, new renewable resources as defined by the Review are entirely lacking. Read about it--and NWEC's interpretaton--in this issue of Con.WEB.
Specifically in renewables, we examine the first commercial-scale wind-energy plant to be located in the Northwest, on Vansycle Ridge in northeastern Oregon. And we take a look at a spat between NWEC and Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative over PNGC's green power marketing of its Coffin Butte landfill-gas energy project.
In Portland last month, the Architecture + Energy: Building Excellence in The Northwest program honored five Oregon non-residential buildings for their integration of fine design and energy efficiency. Also in the commercial sector, we list the 35 Washingtonians who have earned Building Operator Certification.
This issue also covers the Northwest Power Planning Council's ideas for a Regional Technical Forum, the formation of a new enterprise by the Conservation and Renewable Energy System (CARES) for energy-related products and services, and a column with some thoughts on sustainable energy.
|
Comments? Advice? Send feedback to the editor. |
Major electric utilities in Washington and Oregon are falling short of the public-purposes spending guidelines recommended by the Regional Review, according to a new report from the Northwest Energy Coalition.
NWEC, noting the historic public-purposes leadership by Northwest utilities, interprets funding cutbacks in energy conservation and renewable energy initiatives as a consequence of electric industry changes. And in the coalition's view, this highlights the need for a competitively neutral public-benefits levy on electricity sales.
"Utilities are preparing for the significant challenges they will face in a more competitive power market by rushing to cut costs," said coalition director Sara Patton in a news release. "As a result, vital investments in conservation, new renewable energy and low-income weatherization are falling by the wayside." Patton told Con.Web NWEC "is not trying to condemn the utilities; we're trying to put as much pressure as possible on public policies that establish a competitively neutral public-benefits charge."
The NWEC study examined spending on energy conservation, renewable energy resources, low-income weatherization and low-income bill assistance by 12 Washington and Oregon utilities--publicly owned and investor-owned--from 1995 through 1998. NWEC (formerly known as the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition) then compared the utility-supplied data to the Regional Review standards for public purposes.
In its final report issued in December 1996, the Regional Review steering committee made the following recommendation, among many others: "To ensure that cost-effective conservation, renewable resource development and low-income weatherization are sustained during the transition to competition and beyond, the Steering Committee recommends that by July 1, 1997, and annually thereafter for a period of 10 years, 3 percent of the revenues from the sale of electricity services in the region ($210 million in 1995) be dedicated to those purposes. After 10 years, this commitment should be re-evaluated. Three percent of revenues is roughly 65 percent of what was spent for these purposes by the region's utilities and Bonneville in 1995."
However, according to the NWEC report, none of the 12 utilities have met the Review's prescription in all three public-purposes categories in any year since 1995, although several have spent considerably beyond the recommendations for energy conservation.
The 12 utilities are PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric, Puget Sound Energy and Washington Water Power--all investor-owned--and eight publicly owned utilities in the two states: Clark Public Utilities, Emerald People's Utility District, Eugene Water & Electric Board, Lewis County PUD, Salem Electric, Seattle City Light, Snohomish County PUD and Tacoma Public Utilities. (Emerald, EWEB, Puget Sound Energy, Seattle City Light and Snohomish PUD are members of NWEC.)
The NWEC analysis comes with several notable caveats.
It does not, for example, account for any Bonneville Power Administration conservation funding, which, although in substantial decline, still amounted to more than $20 million in 1997 for public utilities surveyed in the report. "The Comprehensive Review established a standard for conservation investments based upon the knowledge that BPA was no longer funding local energy efficiency investments," explained NWEC, which "did not include BPA expenditures in the data in order to determine how utilities are picking up where BPA left off.
"Patton said in 1995, when BPA announced it would be ramping down its conservation spending, the public utilities committed to picking up the slack. "That hasn't happened," she said.
The report also excludes utility conservation loan programs, except for administrative expenses and utility costs to provide below-market interest rates.
And the study focuses exclusively on public-purposes spending as a percentage of retail revenues--not results from that spending.
In renewables, the report acknowledges but does not credit utility investments in renewable resources built or committed to before 1996, in keeping with the Review's recommendations for new renewables. No utility surveyed measures up in new non-hydro renewables, even though the timing of the Review standard eliminates the region's two major wind-energy projects now under construction--in Wyoming and northeastern Oregon--along with methane-recovery and wood-waste plants. Seven of the 12 utilities in the survey have some direct involvement in these renewable projects.
Finally, the NWEC report omits the Review's suggested schedule, which states: "The Steering Committee recommends that by July 1, 1999, each of the Northwest states enact legislation that ensures that all electric utilities operating within its borders are meeting the minimum standard for investment in the development of conservation and renewable resources and provision of weatherization and energy-efficiency services to low-income consumers. Utilities should demonstrate compliance with the minimum standard by July 1, 1999. 
Public utilities may
satisfy the standard in aggregate. If this minimum standard is not being met, the legislation should provide for the assessment of a uniform system benefits charge that ensures the collection and investment of funds for these purposes."
The Review also suggested that public-purposes funding be established concurrent with open retail access for electric customers--which to date has been established only in Montana among the four Northwest states.
Still, NWEC concluded that its study and a separate report by the Washington state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) on declining utility public-purposes spending "provide overwhelming evidence of the urgent need to restore funding in important public purpose investments with a mechanism which does not impair any utility's competitiveness. The significant economic, environmental and social benefits of these investments will be lost if we do not put a restoration mechanism in place . . . A public benefit charge assessed on every kilowatt-hour sold is a competitively neutral mechanism to restore these investments and would give Northwest utilities the tools they need to reclaim their leadership in clean, affordable energy."
The NWEC report is a "clear indication and not a surprising one that the level of investment [in public purposes] is dropping off," said K. C. Golden, energy manager of CTED. Golden, who participated in the Regional Review, attributed the decline to competitive pressure and uncertainty faced by utilities. Golden sees a need to "create neutrality for investments that are competitive overall but not for the individual making them."
A public-purposes charge is one way to do this, Golden agreed. But legislation isn't required to make that happen. "There is nothing to my knowledge to keep a public utility from adopting such a policy," he said. "Utilities have many of the tools at their disposal to do something like that."
Specific Findings
The NWEC report contains specific spending figures for all 12 utilities on their recent spending on energy conservation, renewable energy, low-income weatherization and low-income bill assistance.
Energy conservation: Emerald PUD, EWEB and Seattle City Light have exceeded the Review standard of 2.03 percent of revenues spent on energy conservation (excluding low-income weatherization) in every year from 1995 through 1998. (All 1998 figures are projected.)
Salem Electric passed this muster in 1995 and 1997, and anticipates rising to 4.4 percent in 1998. Tacoma Public Utilities spent slightly more than 2 percent in 1995 and expects to do so in 1998. (Tacoma also invested $11.4 million of BPA money in conservation in its service territory in 1997.) Clark Public Utilities checked in at 2.4 percent in 1996, but has dropped down to well below 1 percent in 1997 and 1998.
The highest spending percentage on energy conservation among publicly owned utilities belongs to Emerald, which earmarked about 6 percent of revenues in 1995 and 1996, 3.7 percent in 1997 and a projected 4.9 percent in 1998. EWEB rose steadily from 2.5 percent in 1995 to 4.8 percent (estimated) in 1998. Seattle City Light has fluctuated between 2 and 3 percent these four years. And it spent $6.3 million of Bonneville funds on conservation in 1997.
Snohomish PUD, meanwhile, also spent a fair amount of BPA conservation money in 1997: $2.6 million, according to the NWEC report. However, Snohomish's own funding of conservation has not exceeded 1.7 percent of revenues in any year since 1995, and is projected at .9 percent in 1998. Lewis County PUD ranked at the bottom of the eight public utilities surveyed in its overall conservation spending, dropping from 4 percent of revenues in 1995 to about .5 percent in 1997 and 1998. "Lewis converted much of its conservation investment into loans for energy efficiency improvements after 1995," the NWEC study noted.
Among the four IOUs surveyed, Washington Water Power "maintained the highest steady level of investment in conservation," according to the report. WWP has come in at around 1.2-1.3 percent of revenues since 1995. Water Power also "led the nation with the first public benefit charge for conservation," the study acknowledged.
The other three investor-owned utilities exhibit varying declines in conservation spending, the NWEC report shows. Portland General Electric invested 2.4 percent of revenues in 1995, but has been at 1 percent or less since 1996. Puget Sound Energy spent about 1.3 percent of revenues on conservation in 1995, but dropped considerably below 1 percent in the subsequent years. PacifiCorp's decline is the most striking among IOUs, falling from 2.1 percent of revenues in 1995 to a projected .24 percent in 1998 (for its Pacific Northwest service territory).
Among the 12 utilities surveyed, spending on low-income bill assistance ranged from zero in a given year to 1.35 percent of revenues (Seattle City Light). The average amount in 1997 among the 12 utilities was .38 percent.
For more information on the study, contact NWEC: e-mail, nwec@nwenergy.org; phone, (206) 621-0094; fax, (503) 223-4554. --Mark Ohrenschall and Jude Noland
Rising amidst the rolling wheat fields of northeastern Oregon is the first large-scale wind-energy plant in the Pacific Northwest.
The Vansycle Ridge wind project, under construction north of Pendleton, is scheduled for completion by the end of this year, and the start of operations by early 1999. Its 38 giant turbines will be collectively capable of generating 24.9 megawatts of electricity (although wind farms, of course, only produce power when the wind blows). The energy from Vansycle Ridge is committed to Portland General Electric.
This is actually the second major wind-energy project being built for the Northwest. The Wyoming Wind Energy Project--owned by PacifiCorp (79 percent) and Eugene Water & Electric Board (21 percent), with Bonneville Power Administration as a major power purchaser--also is under construction. (See Con.WEB, Oct. 31, 1997, for a story on the Wyoming project.)
International Scope
Although located in the geographic center of the Northwest, Vansycle Ridge is truly national and even international in scope. The developer is ESI Energy, an affiliate of a subsidiary of the holding company that owns Florida Power & Light. The wind turbines come from Vestas, a Denmark company that is the world's largest turbine manufacturer. And the purchaser of all the energy produced at Vansycle Ridge will be PGE, a subsidiary of Enron, a natural gas and electricity conglomerate active around the world.
Vansycle Ridge has long been eyed by PGE as a renewable energy resource. Earlier this decade the investor-owned utility contracted with Kenetech Windpower to buy Vansycle Ridge's output, but Kenetech filed for bankruptcy in 1996. Zond Development subsequently bought the project assets from Kenetech through bankruptcy court, and reached a 30-year power-purchase agreement with PGE in late 1996 (see Con.WEB, Dec. 19, 1996). Shortly thereafter, Enron acquired Zond, which, to avoid any conflict of interest, assigned its 50-percent ownership in Vanscyle Ridge to the other 50-percent owner, ESI Energy.
"Our role is basically we've agreed to buy the power," said PGE spokesman Kregg Arnston. The IOU, which has proposed to sell its electric-generating assets, is yet uncertain how it will use this wind energy.
"Vansycle's purpose is to test the technology and the price," Arnston said. "It's part of our least-cost plan commitment to renewable technology. As is generally known with renewables and green power, it's expected the cost will be somewhat higher than other non-renewable options." Specific cost projections were unavailable from PGE and ESI. Vansycle Ridge will be eligible to apply for a 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour federal tax credit over 10 years if it goes into operation by July 1999, according to Jeff King of the Northwest Power Planning Council.
Published reports have quoted project manager Collie Powell's estimate of $30 million to $35 million as the total cost of the Vansycle Ridge wind venture.
Powell declined to discuss costs in an interview with Con.WEB, but he did note the estimated project completion date of December 1998. "We're moving ahead," he said on July 28. "We've got towers and turbines going up . . .
"We will build a quality project on schedule and on budget and it will provide low-cost energy," he said.
Although Vanscycle Ridge is the only current Northwest project for ESI, "Considering the wind resource we'd be foolish to sit here and think some entity, be it us or others, wouldn't end up building others . . . We're hopeful by the time we're done we will have done such a good job we will be the preferred provider of this type of power."
Vansycle Ridge
For geographical reference, Vanscyle Ridge is located about 15 miles southeast of the point where the Columbia River bends westward toward the Pacific Ocean to form the Oregon/Washington border. From another vantage it is north and west of the Blue Mountains.
Vansycle Ridge occupies high ground above vast undulating wheat fields, some shimmering golden in the brilliant July sunshine, others fallow. It is located a few miles north of Helix (population 165), which, ironically, has a road named Solar.
The project site lies on two private farms where wheat is grown and cattle are grazed, according to Umatilla County Planning Department documents. ESI Vansycle Partners has acquired wind-power lease rights to 4,900 acres, but expects to disturb only about 10 of those acres with the turbines and associated infrastructure (such as roads and power lines).
Vansycle Ridge, obviously, is a windy place. How windy? No specific figures were available from the developer; Powell described the local wind resource as "abundant. I don't think we'd be doing it if it wasn't."
A regional wind research cooperative--funded by PacifiCorp, Portland General, the Power Council, BPA, Oregon Office of Energy and EWEB--has measured a long-term annual average wind speed of 17.4 miles per hour at a site in Kennewick at the northern end of the same ridge as Vansycle Ridge, according to cooperative director Stel Walker of Oregon State University. "The winds correlated fairly well . . . except maybe in winter the flow may be different in Vansycle." Walker said Vansycle Ridge is well-positioned for summer winds blowing west from the Columbia River Gorge, as well as storm-driven winds in wintertime coming from a southwesterly direction.
In any case, the wind at Vansycle Ridge is good enough for ESI Energy. Spokesman Dale Thomas told Con.WEB in early 1997 that "ESI's purpose is to invest in renewable energy projects and to make money off of them, obviously. Anything that looks like a good investment . . . this was one of them." He specifically cited the existence of a power-purchase agreement with Portland General.
Thomas in mid-July described ESI Energy as a "fairly well-diversified independent power production company that tends to specialize in clean-fuel technologies." Its portfolio includes geothermal, solar, natural gas, waste-to-energy and wood-burning plants, along with wind. In addition to "sizable projects" in California, ESI is developing wind projects in Michigan, Iowa, Texas and Oregon. Altogther, according to Thomas, the firm's completed and in-development wind projects total more than 1,000 MW of capacity.
Notable Lack of Opposition
In addition to its distinction as the inaugural Northwest commercial-scale wind project, Vansycle Ridge is notable for its apparent lack of opposition--in particular contrast to other proposed wind-energy ventures farther west around the Columbia River Gorge.
When the Umatilla County Planning Commission considered ESI Vansycle Partners' request for a conditional-use permit at a Sept. 25 meeting, no one formally objected to the project, according to a county summary of the meeting. Among those attending were several local residents along with representatives from the Blue Mountain Audubon Society, Oregon State energy and wildlife agencies, and the Renewable Northwest Project. In addition, no opposition emerged in 11 letters previously sent to the planning department.
"There is widespread local and regional support for the project," the planning department concluded in October. "The applicant has taken every opportunity to involve interested parties in the public process and has briefed a number of groups . . . No comments opposing the project have been received to date."
The department cited many positive features about the Vansycle Ridge proposal. Wind energy represents "a source of sustainable, clean electrical power" and a "viable alternative to electric generating plants that burn hydrocarbons such as coal and natural gas." The project will benefit the local economy, through increases in employment, purchasing and property tax revenues. Also, the department said, "The developer has the experience and the financial strength for the project to succeed."
In addition, county planners anticipated only minimal impacts on local farming practices, land-use patterns, scenic values and noise. There are no known Native American cultural resources on the site.
And the project's effects on wildlife and their habitat are envisioned as slight--even for birds. "Compared to other wind energy sites, this area gets relatively little bird use," according to the planning department. An avian study of the area found "relatively few federally listed species and state sensitive species that use the area." A lack of nests indicated "relatively poor habitat (not much prey available in the actively farmed areas)."
Still, to minimize bird injuries and deaths, the county encouraged ESI Vansycle Partners to stick to its plan to place turbines in "downdraft" and not "updraft" areas, and avoid as much as possible creating nesting and perching opportunities for birds on the turbines and power line facilities. An ongoing avian monitoring program is a condition of the county permit.
The Vansycle Ridge project is subject to a host of local, state and federal government standards, according to the county. All necessary permits needed to be approved before the county would allow construction to begin, and they were. Umatilla County planner Bob Perry said the county issued its final conditional-use permit for Vansycle Ridge around April 1 of this year. (King said that the 24.9 MW capacity for the project falls just below the 25-MW threshold that triggers review through Oregon's energy facility siting process .)
More Project Details
The Vansycle Ridge wind plant will consist of 38 separate turbines in two rows; one row will have 28 turbines stretched over three miles, the other 10 turbines over a mile, according to an article in the East Oregonian newspaper.
Each three-bladed turbine will be affixed to a tubular tower mounted on a concrete pad, according to the county planning department. Each turbine measures some 250 feet to the highest point of the blades.
Electricity produced from the turbines will be sent--initially underground, and then through above-ground lines--to a nearby substation located adjacent to an existing Bonneville Power Administration 69-kilovolt transmission line, according to the county planning department. At the substation, power generated from the wind will be stepped up from 34.5 KV to 69 KV and then sent into the Northwest grid.
These particular turbines have been designed and manufactured in Denmark by Vestas, according to Maj-Britt Jensen, the Vansycle Ridge project manager for Vestas-American Wind Technology. She described Vestas as the world's leading wind-turbine manufacturer, with 24 percent of the international market.
The V-47 Vestas turbines going up on Vansycle Ridge represent "the most cost-effective turbine we have," she said. This is their first application in the United States,
 |
| A turbine tower awaits unloading at the Vansycle Ridge wind project in northeastern Oregon. (Photo by Mark Ohrenschall) |
These are "pitch-regulated turbines," according to Jensen. "That means the blades are able to pivot 90 degrees along their own longitude and axis, so that at low wind speeds we can turn a larger surface up toward the wind and catch the small amount of wind there is. At higher wind speeds," she continued, "we can pivot the blade so that less of the structure is suffering from the load on the turbine." These turbines are designed to produce power at wind speeds ranging from 8 mph to 56 mph.
All 38 turbines are scheduled to be installed by early fall, she noted. ESI's Thomas said the current estimated on-line date is early 1999. The plant must be commercially operable by the end of 1999 as a condition of PGE's power-purchase agreement, according to Arnston.--Mark Ohrenschall
The Northwest Energy Coalition and Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative recently traded barbs over the effect of how two PNGC members are marketing their share of the 2.5-megawatt-capacity Coffin Butte landfill-gas energy project in Oregon.
NWEC gave the project's cost structure its annual "Turkey" award because, the coalition said, it rewards customers who elect to purchase "dirty" power. PNGC responded by saying NWEC got its numbers wrong and doesn't understand the economics of the project.
The coalition's "Turkey" award singles out "egregious conduct" that undermines energy conservation, clean renewable resources, and other public benefits. The coalition said the award was given for Coffin Butte's pricing structure, which it said "effectively rewards customers who choose to buy dirty power."
PNGC rejected the coalition's assessment, and said it was disappointed the coalition "would stoop to a name-calling attack on PNGC without first getting the facts."
While calling Coffin Butte a "fine example of an environmentally sound energy project," coalition director Sara Patton said "we object to . . . how PNGC and its members are using the money generated by marketing" the project's output.
NWEC said two of PNGC's 13 member cooperatives--Douglas and Umatilla--"are offering their members a chance to choose clean power by paying 2 cents/KWh over the co-ops' normal electric rate" for power from the facility. "However, instead of using the proceeds to promote the development of new renewable energy projects, the co-ops are using the revenue to lower the electric rates of the members who do not choose to buy clean Coffin Butte power."
"It is reprehensible to use the responsible choices of customers who elect to pay more for clean energy to reward customers who opt for dirty power," said Jeff Shields, NWEC board chair and Emerald PUD general manager. "The hard-earned money that people elect to spend on environmentally friendly energy should promote further development of clean energy, not subsidize continued reliance on energy that harms our environment."
"They obviously don't understand the economics," said Dave Piper, PNGC president and chief executive officer. "We're sending the coalition a green calculator to help them get their numbers straight."
"None of the money received by cooperatives for green power has gone to subsidize other customers," PNGC said, "but only to help make the environment cleaner."
PNGC's Piper said all 13 PNGC members that participate in the project get proportional shares of the output, but only three cooperatives-Douglas, Umatilla and Central, all in Oregon--market their shares to their members as green power. The others meld the higher cost--Coffin Butte's cost of power is about 4 cents/Kwh--into their rate structures.
NWEC made similar criticisms of the project in April, saying that co-op members who choose Coffin Butte "will not be promoting the development of new landfill gas projects because Coffin Butte is already part of Douglas and Umatilla's standard power mix." At that time, Pete West of the Renewable Northwest Project said the Douglas/Umatilla green marketing pilot "doesn't pass the test," but would if the premium paid by members went toward conservation programs.
PNGC member Coos-Curry Electric Cooperative is not marketing its Coffin Butte share as green, although it has plans to do so once Douglas and Umatilla's pilots ferret out successful strategies. In the meantime, manager Edwin Schlender said he is paying above-market rates for Coffin Butte, "but if anything, [the green marketing members] are helping us with those carrying costs. It helps the whole membership," he said. "That's what makes co-ops work.
"As far as none of this money being used for additional green power," he continued, "that is erroneous, because we are looking at expanding Coffin Butte. If those marketing now are able to get some extra money from members that want to help the next phase, that's helping."
Piper made the same point. "To the extent customers of these utilities vote for green power by buying it, we can justify the expansion of the project and know there's a market for it. If they don't and they are not willing to pay a premium, then we can't make that investment." Piper said there are no "scientific" criteria for knowing at what point the landfill project could be expanded, "but if there's significant interest, then that'll give us justification." The facility was built to be expanded; a second phase would double the current capacity.
Both Piper and Schlender also emphasized buyers are being given a clear choice and an opportunity to "vote with their dollars." The marketing members are "being right up-front," Schlender said. "The people marketing it are being straightforward, letting [their customers] know the score. Their people have the choice of saying yes or no."
Schlender also lodged a complaint about NWEC's tactics: "All they can do is criticize the talent of others." --Ben Tansey
Five Pacific Northwest buildings have been honored for blending fine design with efficient energy use and other beneficial environmental and human qualities.
These buildings were recognized June 26 through Architecture + Energy: Building Excellence in the Northwest, an annual program sponsored by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and the American Institute of Architects/Portland.
The program, held at the exquisitely renovated McMenamins Kennedy School in north Portland, featured a juried competition that resulted in the five awards. It was open to any new or significantly renovated non-residential building in the four-state Northwest.
Architecture + Energy also emphasizes learning. The June 26 gathering included a morning session on lessons learned from previous award-winning buildings, and an afternoon "jury with the jury" exercise in which participants formed and shared opinions on projects submitted for the awards competition.
Discussions in the lessons learned and jury with the jury workshops were dynamic and wide-ranging. They touched on a multitude of issues relating to building design strategies (including siting and orientation), energy-saving technologies, aesthetics, financing, owner and designer perspectives, and the impact of the buildings on their human occupants.
One example: Professionals involved in the design of the Pacific Gas Transmission headquarters in Portland--which won an A + E award in 1997--went into some detail on their strategies for building orientation, glazing, daylighting and an ice-storage system for heating and cooling. They also described the project financing, the many-player design process and the professional fee structure, among other issues.
Challenges and opportunities--both realized and missed--were forthrightly examined.
"We would've enjoyed the ability to express in architectural form more energy [efficient] components," acknowledged project architect Jeff Reaves. However, he added, "We had to work very closely within existing design guidelines set by the city of Portland. We couldn't risk having the design shot down, so we were unwilling to really go out and push the envelope from a design standpoint . . . We had a lot of great ideas [but] we decided to be a little more conservative."
This professional education aspect "is really the heart of our effort with A + E," said Alliance lead project developer Jeff Harris at the conclusion of the jury with the jury workshop.
The awards ceremony, too, provided a learning opportunity.
Juror Kevin Hydes, vice president of Keen Engineering, described the A + E program as unique in North America. He outlined the four specific criteria by which he and his fellow jurors assessed projects submitted for the awards competition.
Following are the award-winners in each of those four categories, along with comments:
Shared Vision:
Juror Raymond Cole, professor of environmental design at the University of British Columbia's School of Architecture, described the 1990s re-emergence of environmental concerns in architecture, and the technical nature of environmentally successful design. However, he noted, "The process is becoming as important if not more important than the technical aspects. How we put them in place is where the real problems and challenges lie." Accordingly, close collaboration among the design team is critical. "The notion of common vision is a characteristic one starts to see in most environmentally progressive buildings," Cole said.
He lauded this feature in the IWA building, which was designed in 1979. Specifically, he cited the design team's immediate vision of solar energy opportunities, even before more conventional HVAC and electrical solutions were explored. In fact, he said, this is believed to be the first solar-assisted air-to-air heat pump in a commercial building in Oregon. Insulation levels--R-19 in the walls, R-13 in the roof--"still stand up pretty good today."
The IWA headquarters also fits well in its surroundings. And, Cole noted, the building displays the admirable quality of longevity. "All the [energy-saving] technologies and features have been robust through time."
Jurors noted the combination of passive and active systems for heating, cooling and ventilation, according to AIA/Portland. One juror commented: "The architect and engineer recognized how to let each component do what it could do best; for example, windows let in light and louvers were used for ventilation."
The much newer Optimize Technology building (designed in 1995) also incorporated energy efficiency into its design. Efficiency, according to Cole, was made the major goal of the design team when it crafted a set of working principles for the building's design. Long-term costs were accorded higher priority than short-term prices. A healthy working environment for people was another primary consideration.
This building "provides a humane working environment in an industrial setting," according to the AIA release. "Jurors commented on the clarity of the building's goals and intentions--to conserve energy and resources, and to craft a durable, high-performance facility on a modest budget--which were maintained through the design and construction process."
Enhancing Human, Environmental and Economic Performance:
"That project hit all of us as enhancing human, environmental and economic performance," said juror Gail Lindsey, an architect who is founder and president of Design Harmony.
The building designers clearly looked beyond traditional architectural boundaries, Lindsey noted. For example, the project includes a healing garden enjoyed by patients as well as people in the local community. Some day it might even serve as urban wildlife habitat, further extending the context.
Lindsey also lauded the project for such features as non-toxic paints and extensive use of daylighting.
Economy of Means/Appropriate Technology:
Juror Robert Sardinsky, known as Sardo, quoted Amory Lovins' observation that using nuclear power to make 70-degree heat for homes is equivalent to cutting butter with a chain saw.
Appropriateness, appropriateness, appropriateness.
"Economy of means is about doing more with less," said Sardo, founder of a lighting consulting, design and outfitting firm. "The term that I've coined is elegant frugality. Being smart about it. Keep it as simple as possible . . . Use brain over brawn. Harness renewables . . . Use good siting and space planning . . . Select the most appropriate tools for that specific job.
"People use power or energy, not buildings," he concluded.
The Burley building is thrifty and functional, according to Sardo. It takes great advantage of views, prevailing breezes and daylighting. It also reinforces a sense of team, and exhibits an element of playfulness. And it encourages alternative transportation, with a bicycle maintenance area and shower/locker facilities for cycling employees.
Cornerstone Award:
"The Cornerstone Award is a reminder to everyone that starting very simple and taking a few good steps is the way you get started on this path" to environmentally sustainable design, said juror Steve Ternoey, founder and chief designer of LightForms. "If everybody did it, it could have a profound impact on the way commercial buildings are designed in the United States."
Two-thirds of the annual energy costs in commercial buildings derive from lighting along with cooling required to remove unwanted heat from interior spaces, according to Ternoey.
The refurbished Portland City Hall addresses those "tremendous impacts" through such features as high-quality efficient lighting, low-emissivity windows that reduce solar heat gain, trees for exterior shading, and large interior spaces. Ternoey called the building "a truly people-pleasing space."
In conclusion, Ternoey encouraged building designers to seek modest environmental, human and economic performance gains in each project, then expand the scope progressively in future work. "Over time, with very simple steps, we think we can collectively have a sustainable future," he said.
In addition to the Portland program, a workshop highlighting successful energy-efficient design is planned later this year east of the Cascades.
For more information on the Architecture + Energy program, visit the Alliance Web site at http://www.nwalliance.org/projects/projectoverview.asp?PID=45, or the AIA/Portland Web site at http://www.aiaportland.com/events/aande/index.htm. --Mark Ohrenschall
Thirty-five facility operators in Washington have been awarded Building Operator Certification-Level 1 by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council.
This certification, according to a NEEC news release, recognizes individuals who have demonstrated knowledge and competency in the energy-efficient operation and maintenance of buildings and equipment.
Building Operator Certification is offered by NEEC, with support from the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, to prepare facility operation and maintenance staff for certification. These staff people can influence building energy consumption through decisions about heating and lighting systems, thermostat settings, and equipment. (See Con.WEB, May 29, 1998, for a story on BOC.) Participants in the BOC program attend eight months of training courses, complete tests, and conduct on-the-job project assignments to earn certification, which is recognized in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana.
Following is a list of people in the public and private sectors in Washington who have received BOC certification, according to NEEC:
Bill Ackerman, maintenance craftsperson, Bainbridge Island School District, Bainbridge; Robert Allpress, engineering technician, Naval Submarine Base Bangor, Silverdale; Brian Anderson, facilities engineer, ELDEC Corp., Lynnwood; Graydon Baker, instructor, Homebuilders Institute, Sedro Woolley; Shannon Blas, engineering technician, Naval Submarine Base Bangor, Silverdale; Marvin Calvert, maintenance man I, Newport Community Hospital, Newport; Norman Clare, Building Officer, Trident Refit Facility (U.S. Navy), Silverdale; Lee Clemetson, Facilities Team Leader, The Boeing Co., Seattle; Tom Courrier, maintenance mechanic, The Boeing Co., Spokane; David Erickson, senior technician, Battelle Northwest National Laboratory, Sequim; Jack Evans, maintenance foreman, Bainbridge Island School District, Bainbridge.
Also, Patrick Fallon, senior technician, Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim; Randall Ferguson, maintenance electrician, The Boeing Co., Spokane, WA; Dave Gilmore, maintenance assistant, Kitsap County, Port Orchard; Michael Hanley, maintenance supervisor, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle; Billy Hefley, maintenance worker, Monroe School District, Monroe; Fred Hoffer, electrician, Ferndale School District, Ferndale; Steven Hudspeth, supervisor, U.S. Navy, Naval Station Everett, Everett; Michael Johnson, electronic controls mechanic, U.S. Navy, Naval Station Everett, Everett; Eugene Knizek, mechanic, Boeing Aircraft Co., Spokane, WA; John Lake, project administrator, Snohomish County PUD, Everett; David LaVille, maintenance man I, Newport Community Hospital, Newport; Jim Lobach, plant manager, Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, Connell.
And, Michael Murphy, director of facilities and transportation, Ferndale School District, Ferndale; Mike Nichol, electrician, East Valley School District No. 361, Spokane; Larry Phillips, electronic mechanic, U.S. Navy, Naval Station Everett, Everett; Joey Quintos, building equipment mechanic, Lake Washington Technical College, Kirkland; John Royer, assistant maintenance director, Mead School District No. 354, Mead; Eldon Samp, project administrator, Snohomish County PUD, Everett; David Shields, engineering technician, Trident Refit Facility (U.S. Navy), Silverdale; Lang Smith, plant and programs manager, ELDEC Corp., Lynnwood; Jay Snyder, project administrator, Snohomish County PUD, Everett; Albert Ungren, engineering technician, Naval Submarine Base Bangor, Silverdale; Michael Washburn, HVAC specialist, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle; Kevin Watier, project administrator, Snohomish County PUD, Everett.
For more information about Building Operator Certification, including current training schedules, contact Cynthia Putnam at (206)292-3977 or via e-mail at cmputnam@aol.com.
The notion of a Regional Technical Forum with responsibilities for evaluation standards, tracking and assessment of energy conservation (and to some extent renewable energy) initiatives is being floated by the Northwest Power Planning Council.
The Council has released a draft proposal for initiating an RTF, following up on a 1996 congressional directive for such an entity, and the Regional Review's subsequent support. Public comments on the Council's RTF ideas are invited through Aug. 21.
Under the draft proposal, the Council believes the RTF should have the following primary goals to be consistent with the intentions of Congress and the Review:
"In 1995," the proposal reads, "the Bonneville Power Administration . . . began to shift responsibility for financing and acquiring conservation savings over to its utility customers. This shift in responsibility was intended to reduce Bonneville's costs and permit utilities to better tailor their programs to local situations. Congress recognized that one implication of this shift would likely be a more diversified approach to conservation acquisition across the region. Consequently, in 1996 it directed Bonneville and the Northwest Power Planning Council . . . to convene a Regional Technical Forum . . . to develop standardized protocols for verifying and evaluation conservation savings."
"The Comprehensive [also known as Regional] Review's recommendations were based on its perception that the region needed to track conservation activities and renewable resource development systematically to assess whether public purpose goals are being achieved," according to the Council's draft proposal. "The Comprehensive Review also stated that the uniform standards for verification and evaluation will become increasingly important as consumers gain access to energy service markets where utilities and new market entrants can expect to compete for 'public purpose' funds to meet consumer demands for energy services."
The draft proposal "is meant to stimulate discussion on how the RTF should be organized and operated to achieve the goals that both Congress and the Comprehensive Review set forth." Among the questions addressed in the proposal are the goals, structure, membership, sponsorship/funding and scope of work for an RTF.
The Council has offered a number of its own ideas. Most prominently, it proposes to "carry out the functions enumerated for the RTF by the Congress and Comprehensive Review with the assistance of a standing advisory committee. Under this proposal the Council would be responsible and accountable for the policies and conclusions related to the RTF." The standing RTF advisory committee would include representatives of utilities, the private sector, Bonneville Power Administration, public-interest groups, governments, academia and national laboratories.
"This option is being proposed because it relies on existing infrastructure and expertise," according to the proposal. "The Council and its staff have carried out most of the functions envisioned for the RTF . . . for the last 15 years," such as a regional assessment of utility conservation achievements started in 1991.
The Council also is accountable to Northwest governors, unlike other RTF options such as an independent Council committee or an independent entity functioning similar to the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
As for funding, the Council proposes to "[s]upport RTF activities from the Council's budget and potential future contributions from funds collected in each state to support 'public purposes.'" Other options include a voluntary arrangement to accomplish the RTF functions, and service fees to supplement the Council's budget. Neither of these is considered viable by the Council.
The proposal for tracking includes a continued role for the Council in setting goals for cost-effective conservation--with the advisory committee--and establishing goals for renewable and other resources. The RTF, using standardized reported data from utilities and others, "would compare the level of activity and expenditures reported with the Comprehensive Review's 'public purpose' goals." The RTF would assess the findings, tracking "both the amount of money spent the results (e.g. savings, number of homes weatherized, etc.) achieved." However, it "would not attempt to assess the level of conservation being developed by private market activities (i.e., without the use of 'public purposes' funding)."
The Council also offers thoughts on establishing standards for verifying and evaluating energy savings, and providing feedback and suggestions.
All the Council proposals come with other potential options listed.
During a panel discussion at a July 22 Council meeting in Portland, representatives of utilities, state governments and public-interest groups all expressed support for the idea of an RTF, according to Eckman. "The general consensus of the panel members was that the Council should take the functions of the RTF on as a Council function and fund it through its standard Council budget," he reported. The panel showed "less unanimity of support for outside contributions" to fund the RTF.
There is no timeline for setting up an RTF, Eckman said, although, "Our desire is to get it going as soon as possible. We have not had the resources to maintain the continuity in the trackign since 1995."
At an April 1997 meeting (covered in the April 25, 1997, issue of Con.WEB), representatives of utilities, governments, regulators, public-interest groups and the private sector expressed interest in an RTF and acknowledged a need for accountability for public-purposes funds. At the same time participants raised questions about the role, direction and organizational structure of an RTF; the sensitivity of sharing information in an increasingly competitive industry also arose as an issue.
The Council is accepting written comments on its draft RTF proposal through Aug. 21, and will also listen to people's thoughts on the subject at its Aug. 11-12 meeting in Portland. For more information, call the Council at 1-800-222-3355, or visit its Web site at http://www.nwppc.org. --Mark Ohrenschall
Attachment:
The Conservation and Renewable Energy System is launching a new business: the CARES Energy Services Enterprise.
The new company--created by Vancouver, WA-based CARES and three of its seven Washington public utility district members--will bring "comprehensive energy-related products and services" to customers, a news release said, with the aim of providing "a customer-focused response to electric industry deregulation and competition."
It's the opposite of the old approach to non-residential conservation, said CARES managing director John Graham, when utilities would offer customers money to install energy-efficient equipment. Now, "We're going from the customer perspective," Graham said. "What are your operating issues and problems?"
To solve those problems, CARES ESE will offer an "integrated suite" of energy-related products and services. The business will start by focusing on improving the energy efficiency of facilities and instituting operational and process improvements, Graham said. It will add other services according to demand. "We have the capability to do other things . . . it's meant to be quite comprehensive."
Another aim of CARES ESE, Graham said, is to get public utilities involved in offering such value-added services. "A lot of other folks in the market are already offering these services," he said--primarily power marketing companies and larger investor-owned utilities. "We want to get the publics out there." Graham also expects the competition for electron sales in a restructured market will become so intense that "other services will make the difference" in retaining customers.
CARES members Benton County, Grays Harbor County and Klickitat County PUDs are backing the line of credit for CARES ESE, Graham said. The new company will first market its services to customers in those service areas. Customers of CARES' other member utilities can also participate--and CARES ESE will work with customers from other utilities as well. An example, Graham said, would be an industrial customer with facilities in several different utility service territories that decides to contract with one company for improvements at all the sites.
Unlike the former utility-conservation-program days of cash grants, rebates and utility financing, CARES ESE will work on third-party financing that will be ultimately paid off by the customer. Graham added, however, that most of the work will be done on a performance-contracting basis, so customers will ultimately benefit from the investments. In addition, CARES ESE will make third-party financing available for the customer. Graham added that 15 to 20 customers have already been approached, and the response has been very positive. --Jude Noland
I've been daydreaming.
Daydreaming about sustainable energy, in current practice and in future possibilities.
It must have been triggered by the long days of summer sun across the wide skies east of the Cascades. That, and some free time. Our family left Seattle in early July to visit central and eastern Oregon, then swung back home through southeastern Washington. It was primarily vacation, but I took the opportunity to do a little field work as well.
This modest combination of research and rumination led to no particularly unique conclusions. Just the reaffirmation that sustainable energy is a process--fitful, tedious, difficult, yet enormously valuable for our society and the natural environment, and thus a worthwhile journey.
Around The Bend and Beyond
Our first destination, the Sunriver Resort south of Bend, showed signs of this progress, along with opportunities still to be tapped. I admired a twin-tube compact fluorescent bedside lamp and the double-paned windows throughout the house my parents rented. But I also noticed the water heater registering on the low end of the efficiency scale. It reminded me of the inconsistent efficiencies in our own 1959 suburban Seattle home (which we are incrementally trying to improve).
Sunriver also contributes to energy sustainability with its extensive, and popular, network of bicycle paths. It saved us a number of car trips. But while pedaling through the neighborhoods under the sparkling high desert sunshine, I wondered about the absence of visible solar-energy applications. Solar, admittedly, is expensive for heating and electricity even in the sunniest climes. Yet here's an opportunity: Sunriver already shows environmental consciousness through its outstanding nature center and adjoining observatory, along with well-forested homesites and well-preserved riparian areas along the Deschutes River. Solar energy--education along with practical uses--would be a natural extension in this region with a respectable solar resource.
On our way out of town, we stopped at the nearby High Desert Museum just south of Bend. A fascinating place with superb displays on the natural world and human culture of the Intermountain West--and their occasionally uneasy coexistence--the High Desert Museum has embraced sustainable energy with a 5-kilowatt-capacity photovoltaic system installed in late 1994 by PacifiCorp.
I wrote about this system in the March 1995 issue of our predecessor publication, Conservation Monitor, calling it "a pioneering example in Oregon of PV put to commercial use and hooked up to a utility grid. In addition, the museum's prominence should boost the public visibility of this maturing renewable resource."
The PV system's power is reported to be reliable if expensive (see Con.WEB, Sept. 27, 1996). However, it is located atop administrative offices and lacks public visibility. I found no mention of it in the public areas of the museum--although we had two small children in tow and I didn't conduct an exhaustive search--nor could I see it anywhere from our tour of the grounds. This struck me as a lost opportunity. Some 200,000 people (all with an interest in learning) visit the museum each year; even simple printed handouts about the PV system could provide tremendous sustainable-energy education.
Education, of course, is itself a process, which I saw happening elsewhere in our journey.
From central Oregon we ventured eastward, visiting John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, where the starkly dramatic landscape slowly reveals millions of years of natural history, then winding through the mountains and ponderosa-pine forests of northeastern Oregon. We camped alongside the John Day River one night, the Grand Ronde River the next--soothing waters and vital life forces.
Efficient Agriculture
The waters of the Grand Ronde watershed are vital to irrigated agriculture, my focus at our next stop in La Grande (pronounced La Grand by locals, La Gronde by those of us with French-speaking pretensions). Rich Topielec--an Oregon State University extension agent serving as Oregon project coordinator for the regionwide program, a venture of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance-- generously shared a couple of hours with me to discuss SIS and tour local fields.
We'll cover this project in more detail in a coming issue of Con.WEB; it's also in progress in Washington, Idaho and Montana. Suffice it to say here that SIS, in summary, takes assorted information on soils, moisture, plants and weather to help irrigators optimally water their crops (in amount and timing). This practice can save considerable water and (pumping load) energy, improve crop quality and yield, and benefit the rural environment. Although used by some farmers, SIS is not commonly applied in Northwest agriculture.
Rich and others throughout the region are working with irrigators to expand scientific irrigation scheduling. The primary tool is education: demonstration projects, workshops, technical assistance, informal
 |
| Rich Topielec in a primrose field in the Grand Ronde Valley. (Photo by Mark Ohrenschall) |
In the fields of the Grand Ronde Valley, the SIS project is visible in small brightly colored flags planted amidst rows of crops: mint, potato, sugar beet, primrose, grass seed. These flags mark the position of sensors that monitor the moisture content of soil--information of potentially great value to irrigators. These baton-sized sensors cost about $20, and the meters to read them go for $200. Market transformation, Rich noted, must be affordable. "We're taking the low-tech approach," he said, "trying to get some habits established for irrigation scheduling."
We drove on straight-flat rural roads and stopped by a mint field pummeled by a recent hailstorm. In 30 minutes, this farmer lost perhaps three-fourths of his crop. Now the ground was littered with brown leaves and empty stalks; occasional patches of deep-green mint only highlighted the devastation.
Indeed, farmers have many things on their minds besides electric bills. They are in the business of raising crops, not saving energy. As such they are continually challenged by natural forces, free-market economics, government regulation--much of it beyond their control.
But they can control their irrigation practices, and there lies promise for SIS and sustainable energy agriculture. As we drove around the Grand Ronde Valley, Rich pointed out a number of farmers interested in new ideas. If these farmers adopt SIS as a beneficial practice, their neighbors could well follow suit, and on and on until it becomes the norm. This process will take much time and much effort--but it is well under way.
Cold Efficiency
Also under way is the process of improving the energy efficiency of a vital but largely invisible industry in the Northwest: refrigerated storage. These refrigerators aren't the kitchen kind. These are massive warehouses where a variety of food items (ranging from fruit to meat to dairy products to fish to French fried potatoes) are kept in varying states of cold prior to distribution. If you like to eat in late 20th Century style--i.e. fresh apples in February and frozen yogurt in July--you should be grateful for refrigerated storage.
Marcus Wilcox knows this industry well. He is a partner in Cascade Energy Engineering, which works extensively with Northwest refrigerated storage companies to improve their energy efficiency. One of the specific and most promising technologies advocated by Cascade is computer-controlled variable-frequency drives for evaporator fans. These fans blow cold air throughout refrigerated storage spaces. The VFDs, meanwhile, adjust the speed of the fans so they keep those spaces appropriately cold, while using much less energy by not running full speed all the time. (We'll also cover this in more detail in a coming issue of Con.WEB).
Marcus acknowledges this isn't a very glamorous energy-efficient product, nor is it widely used--yet. But experience has made him an ardent believer in evaporator fan VFDs, and he's working to make others believe, too, with Alliance support.
I met Marcus at his home in Walla Walla and, while our kids frolicked together under maternal supervision, we set off on a tour of evaporator fan VFDs in practice in southeastern Washington. He showed me the VFDs themselves--ranging in size from a toaster oven to a modest file cabinet--along with the computers that control their operation. He pointed out the evaporator fans whirring high above the floors of the refrigerated storage rooms. He emphasized the essential energy-saving role of facility operators.
Throughout the Northwest, Marcus estimates there is 40 million square feet of industrial refrigerated storage capacity--the equivalent of 1,000 football fields. Perhaps 50 of those fields now employ evaporator fan VFDs. In addition to the usual energy efficiency barriers--first cost (as much as $400 installed cost per horsepower), human inertia, lack of information--this technology also must overcome an industry perception that slowing fan speeds will cause inadequate cooling and thus hurt the quality of the stored product.
But encouraging case studies suggest that evaporator fan VFDs may possibly enhance the quality of fruit stored in controlled-atmosphere rooms, by reducing weight losses. This is an ace-in-the-hole for this technology, and in fact dwarfs the real and prospective energy-saving benefits in importance. As Marcus rightly points out, energy efficiency has to be economically viable for businesses. Earlier over the phone he told me: "Say you've got $1.5 million worth of fruit in a [controlled atmosphere] room and you've got fans that use $5,000 a year worth of electricity. What's your priority going to be?"
Blowing In The Wind
Between our visits to La Grande and Walla Walla, we detoured to the site of the first substantial wind-energy project under construction in the Northwest, on Vansycle Ridge north of Pendleton (see the story in this issue for details).
This is momentous for Northwest sustainable energy, and I grew excited as we drove through the shimmering-golden wheat fields of northeastern Oregon. Finally, after all the years of dashed hopes and paper projects, renewable energy from the wind is being physically manifested in the region.
My wife Janice good-naturedly shared at least a little of my enthusiasm, while our two kids, Rachel and Willie, kept looking for the windmills that we never saw--and began to wonder when we would reach the next Dairy Queen.
We didn't get the chance to visit the actual site, but I saw enough to stir my idealism: signs pointing to the wind project, a turbine tower lying on a truck bed awaiting unloading, construction trailers at the site entrance. I conjured a pioneering analogy to the nearby Oregon Trail, and even to that scene in "The Wizard of Oz" where Dorothy and her friends first gaze upon the Emerald City shining in the distance (I told you I was daydreaming).
Now, sitting at my computer in my office, vacation a distant memory, other perspectives come to mind. Vansycle Ridge is a very small energy project, about 25 megawatts in capacity. It is being developed not by starry-eyed dreamers like myself, but by an affiliate of a subsidiary of a large Florida utility holding company that aims to make some money. And the electricity will be purchased by Portland General Electric, a subsidiary of Enron, an internationally ambitious energy conglomerate that sees a market for renewable energy.
Gazing out the window, I daydream about a sustainable energy future for Rachel and Willie, and I wonder what the seeds planted today by people like Rich Topielec, Marcus Wilcox and the Enronites will sprout in a generation's time, and beyond.--Mark Ohrenschall
Registration is open for Building Operator Certification training courses beginning this fall in the Tri-Cities of Washington.
BOC is a professional certification program for people who operate and maintain commercial and public buildings. Participants attend seven courses in energy-efficient building systems maintenance, complete test and in-facility projects, and receive certification from the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council, which operates the BOC program in Washington and Oregon with support from the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
The Tri-Cities courses begin Sept. 24; registration is open through Sept. 10.
For more information, contact BOC project manager Cynthia Putnam: e-mail, cmputnam@aol.com; phone, (206) 292-3977; or any of the following local utility representatives: Nancy Philipp, Benton County PUD, (509) 582-1269; Darroll Clark, Franklin County PUD, (509) 546-5944; Jeff McCullough, city of Richland, (509) 942-7438.
Grant/cooperative agreement funding for state agencies with energy efficiency responsibilities are available through the federal National Industrial Competitiveness through Energy, Environment and Economics (NICE3) program.
Up to $6 million is available nationwide in fiscal year 1999 for state energy, environmental, business development or other agencies responsible for energy efficiency, cleaner production, the environment, industrial development, or industrial competitiveness, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
NICE3 seeks to improve energy efficiency, promote cleaner production and improve industrial competitiveness. It provides funding for innovative projects that have completed the research and development phase and are ready to demonstrate a fully integrated commercial unit.
Proposals are due Oct. 10.
For more information, contact DOE's Jim Damm: phone, (303) 275-4788; e-mail, jim_damm@nrel.gov. For an application, visit http://www.eren.doe.gov/golden/solicitations.html.
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.com.
Con.WEB was created by the Energy NewsData Web team, including: Publisher-Cyrus Noë; Editor-Mark Ohrenschall;
Contributing Editors-Jude Noland; Cassandra Sweet
Contributing Writers-Jim DiPeso; Lynn Francisco; Kari Hanson; Garrett Hering; Amber Schwanke; Ben Tansey
Web Production-Michelle Noe
General Manager-Brooke Dickinson.
Please contact Mark Ohrenschall,
marko@newsdata.com,
with questions or comments on this site.
Copyright ©2004 Energy NewsData Corporation
Return to Contents