CWEB.055/July 25, 2000
Low-income energy services have ridden a roller coaster of support over the years, while there has steadily been a need for weatherization, bill-paying assistance, education and other energy-related help--a need which still, despite this gilded age of widespread prosperity, may be rising.
"Basically, the need is still great, but some of it is harder to reach," particularly weatherization, believes manager Chuck Eberdt of the Energy Project, a partnership of state government and community action agencies that works for efficient, affordable energy services for low-income Washingtonians. "Considering the widening gap between rich and poor, I'd say the need is growing, despite our efforts." He cited a state study a few years ago estimating that all eligible low-income Washington homes would be weatherized by the year 2038, at then-current paces of work. "The funding roller coaster hasn't helped us pick up the rate any," noted Eberdt in an e-mail interview with Con.WEB.
He has seen some bright spots for low-income energy services, from certain utilities and Bonneville Power Administration, as well as from public-purposes funding in Montana and (beginning in 2001) in Oregon. "Such public-purpose funding seems to be the best approach," according to Eberdt. "A program with stable funding and neutral third-party oversight can be comprehensive and effective . . . And it needs to be ironclad, in some way impervious to future attack, so that it can't be overturned or rolled back to an ineffectual funding level."
Making a Difference
Low-income energy services can make a substantial difference in the lives of economically struggling people.
"Usually, when people think of the low-income program, they think of the weatherization program and energy savings," Eberdt said. "But the benefits go beyond that. There are other benefits that result from our holistic approach and because we combine our resources with housing rehab funds. Because of the rehab funds, we often can do more complete and more effective weatherization. For the clients this equates to health, safety and comfort right off. But the money they aren't spending on energy can be applied to other necessities--food, rent, clothing, medicine. It can mean not becoming homeless or not having to move."
Eberdt shared a couple of stories. "The classic from an energy savings perspective is the fixed-income senior in a mobile home in Renton [WA] who saw her winter bills go from $180 to $75 per month. While something like a 30-percent savings is more the norm, savings like this aren't uncommon."
He also told about an 800-square-foot Olympia home where a couple and their asthmatic toddler lived, and how a holistic approach worked. "During the interview the mother noted that every time they turned on the furnace, a gust of dust blew through the heating register. When the crew went into the crawl space to insulate the floor and put down the ground vapor barrier, they checked the ducts. They were severely damaged--some gaping holes and squashed in a few places. Every time the family called for heat, the system would suck in a blast of dust from the crawl space floor. Certainly not what you want an asthmatic child to experience. Installing new, insulated ducts dealt with both an energy problem and a health problem at the same time."
From a larger perspective, low-income weatherization keeps homes on the market, Eberdt said. And when low-income people have lower electric bills, utilities (and their ratepayers) gain in reduced arrearages, uncollectibles, site visits and the like.
Roller Coaster Ride
Before joining the Energy Project in 1993, Eberdt served as a Super Good Cents trainer, taught classes on a variety of residential energy topics, organized conferences and worked in residential construction. He started in the energy business a quarter-century ago with training for installation of solar hot-water systems.
Eberdt moved to Seattle in 1981, and has observed regional energy conservation history ever since. "The image I get is one of going along on a roller coaster until it sharply plunges toward a huge drain. The low-income program experience isn't too different, except that we have had to fight harder to be included."
As one example of the up-and-down nature of low-income program funding, Eberdt cited the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). "LIHEAP peaked nationally in about 1985 with funding of $2.4 billion per year. Today we have far more households in poverty and higher energy costs, but only $1.3 billion in federal funds to address the problem."
Similar funding inconsistency in utility conservation programs has led to the demise of many low-income program contractors, and, ironically, a switch by many weatherization providers from in-house crews to outside contractors. "That may have an economic advantage, but the flip side is that it can be difficult to get contractors to perform up to our standards or to get the technical expertise to do the work properly." Weatherization technologies have advanced considerably over the years, Eberdt noted, well beyond caulking and weatherstripping.
Northwest utilities started low-income programs some 20 years ago, according to Eberdt. Investor-owned utilities in Washington and Oregon received permission to offer conservation around 1978, about the same time Seattle City Light ran a low-income seniors program and Tacoma City Light and Snohomish PUD booked some attic insulation jobs as distribution system expenses. BPA launched a weatherization inititiative in 1982-83, which subsequently brought in many other publicly owned utilities in the state. Rate discounts, bill assistance and energy education are other notable low-income energy services. With a few exceptions, the first two of these are absent of utility funding.
The mid-1990s brought what Eberdt called "probably the low point to date" in regional low-income energy program history, with deep cuts in federal, BPA and utility funding that led to "severe belt tightening" around Washington and even agency closures elsewhere. This followed the advent in the early 1990s of the total resource cost test, whose application "pushed funding levels down for a while."
But the recent past hasn't been uniformly grim, Eberdt acknowledged. Some highlights have included Avista Utilities' demand-side management distribution charge (which he said "breaks through the utility's disincentive to fund conservation"), shareholder funding of low-income programs from Puget Sound Energy ("Because of that funding we have been able to demonstrate the viability of measures the utility tariff previously did not support"), BPA's adoption of U.S. Department of Energy program specifications in 1996, and Bonneville's low-income weatherization funding extensions, now good through 2006. Oregon's public-purposes funding "could be a huge boon for low-income households there, assuming things don't go astray in implementation."
"It is because of the aforementioned successes," Eberdt said, "that our programs have not suffered as much as they might have."
Program design changes by BPA and utilities also have helped, according to Eberdt. "Both PSE and Avista have broadened their scope in a way that really helps us treat the house holistically. I really can't praise these changes enough."
Looking Ahead
Eberdt believes low-income energy services will remain the province of the public sector. "I don't see a market role serving low-income," he said. "The market isn't going to approach the home the way we do. For-profit entities want to minimize cost and maximize profit. They want to just do the fat measures and easy houses. They don't have the interest of the clients or the community foremost in their minds."
He advocates vigilance for those advocating for low-income energy services. "We still have areas to improve . . . I can't help but feel . . . that any of our gains could disappear at a moment's notice if we aren't watchful, so long as we do not have a stable, statewide funding mechanism and a comprehensive, uniform basic program design. A change in utility personnel or commissioners and it can be a whole different ball game."
Meanwhile, Eberdt questions the proliferation of natural gas-fired combustion turbines as the energy industry's resource of choice. "We use electricity to excess. Now we have to build how many environmentally damaging plants to feed that excess? Gas CTs are not clean--they are just cleaner than coal . . . I don't see wisdom in rushing out to build a bunch of pollution-belchers to solve the problem" of potential brief peak-period shortages. "Maybe we should give people an incentive to use less at those times. If you make it worth their while, it's not a hardship; it's a sound economic decision."
Eberdt also is somewhat skeptical of distributed generation. "Without strong pro-public policy, I think there is good potential that distributed generation will benefit only large or wealthy end-users. The rest of us will be left with a deteriorating system and ever-increasing costs to fix it.
"That's where vision comes in," he continued. "It's not just to figure out what is technologically feasible, or the lowest cost when we don't properly value the environmental costs and the societal benefits, but how it is implemented equitably and in the public interest."--Mark Ohrenschall
Seattle City Light is seeking up to 100 average megawatts of renewable energy to help it meet load growth over the next 10 years.
Seattle's municipal electric utility issued a July 10 request for proposals for power from renewable sources, with an Aug. 25 deadline for submittals.
"We are just very interested in . . . seeing a whole wide range of opportunities to look out and review, and we want to take this as an opportunity to really broaden our [resource] portfolio and take a discrete step into new renewables," City Light's strategic planning director Nancy Glaser told Con.WEB. "We've got a very green portfolio already," she added, and the renewables RFP "seems like an opportunity to not just understand better what's out there, but to take care of some of our very real resource needs."
More than 60 percent of Seattle's power supply derives from four large city-owned hydro plants, noted a City Light news release. "We intend to be nothing less than the greenest utility in the nation," said superintendent Gary Zarker. "Our citizen-owners and elected officials have spoken on this, and we intend to deliver."
Seattle Seeks Conservation, Renewables
Elected officials spoke in a Seattle City Council resolution adopted April 10 that pledged the city to "a long-range goal of meeting the electric energy needs of Seattle with no net greenhouse gas emissions . . . Immediately, City Light will meet growing demand with no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions," by, in part, "Using cost-effective energy efficiency and renewable resources to meet as much load growth as possible."
Over the next 10 years, said Glaser, City Light base-case scenarios project a need for an additional 200 aMW, up from the utility's current total load of slightly more than 1,100 aMW. "Between conservation and renewables, we hope to see how much of our load growth we can meet," she said.
City Light is updating the energy conservation potential in its service territory, a process Glaser believes will "lead us to significantly increase our programmatic conservation goals as a course of our strategic resources assessment."
But while the utility believes it has reasonably good knowledge of energy-saving prospects, "We don't feel like we've understood how much viable renewable resource is available to us." An open solicitation "seemed like the best way to get a good handle of that."
RFP Details
Seattle's RFP calls for "proposals for providing up to 100 aMW of capacity and energy from renewable resources for a period ranging from 1-20 years for meeting City Light's load growth over the next 10 years."
It defines renewable resources as biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, landfill and wastewater treatment gas, or wind. Any hydro proposals, Glaser said, would "have to pass some strict environmental review" including Endangered Species Act and fish issues.
The RFP contains no quotas for specific types of renewables, stating, "City Light will consider a broad range of proposals and technologies." Said Glaser: "All things being equal we'd be more inclined to spread it out. But we don't know what we're going to get. We don't know if anything will be offered in that kind of quantity from a single resource." The only size requirement for proposals is a minimum 1 aMW.
City Light leaves open the possibility of partial ownership of renewable projects, along with potential power purchases. "Initially we were thinking that it made sense to contract for resources," said Glaser. "To the extent you have a long-lived resource, there may be some relatively higher costs to develop something up front anyway. One of the advantages to make sense of something like that is to gain an equity interest in a project . . . as opposed to contracting for output and having basically nothing when the contract's done."
City Light doesn't set explicit price guidelines in the RFP, although pricing details are among the information required in proposals. Submittals also must include resource type, specific location, term of agreement for resource output, output characteristics of the resource, output guarantees, shaping services/costs, outage descriptions, component manufacturer[s], transmission plans, air emissions profile and environmental attributes.
"We certainly want to be clear we're making some good decisions in the spirit of the environment and cost to our ratepayers," said Glaser.
A committee will evaluate proposals, based on various criteria regarding price, risks, project characteristics, environmental characteristics, system factors and business factors. A shortlist of respondents is scheduled to be chosen by Oct. 2, followed by interviews and negotiations. City Light plans to wrap up the selection process by Dec. 1.
"If somebody has something they could bring to the table soon, I think that would be seen as a plus," said Glaser. City Light faces a "fairly large resource deficit"-- even assuming a full entitlement from Bonneville Power Administration beginning in 2001, and expanded conservation programs--in the absence of its 80 aMW share of the recently sold Centralia coal-fired plant.
Initial interest in Seattle's renewables RFP appears to be strong. "I'm getting national and international phone calls from developers," Glaser reported, three days after the official issuance.--Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
Solar energy needs supportive policies, governmental funding and greater public awareness to reach its vast potential as a renewable energy source, believe many participants in a recent Seattle conference.
Solar technologies are proven in 
widespread applications, and their costs, while still quite high compared to conventional energy sources, have dropped considerably in recent years. Worldwide solar production is greatly expanding. Green power markets offer much promise. And even Seattle has a decent summer solar resource--although the Northwest's overall solar prospects are somewhat clouded by low electric rates and gray skies.
These were among the themes emerging from the July 8 Solar in Seattle gathering, which attracted 100-plus people to a Seattle Center meeting room with a solar photovoltaic tracking system on its roof. "Solar will even work on a cloudy day in Seattle," noted photovoltaics project manager Mike Nelson of Washington State University Cooperative Extension Energy Program, describing the nearly 10-percent real-time output from the PV system.
Solar Prospects
Washington is home to an impressive list of solar energy companies, including Xantrex Trace Engineering, whose vice president and general manager, Ron Pitt, addressed the Seattle conference.
Solar "should be in the mainstream," he declared. "There's no reason in the world we shouldn't have hundreds of thousands of homes with solar panels on their roofs." Trace makes the renewable energy equivalent of computer software: inverters that switch direct current electricity to usable alternating current. This year, Pitt said, the company will ship power inverters for 75 megawatts worth of solar systems, enough electric capacity for the city of Bellevue, WA. Trace now claims total inverter shipments for 250 MW of installed solar capacity. "I find it hard to believe we would have sold that many systems if the technology only worked in southern California," he said.
Pitt called for national net-metering legislation as "the only solution" to the patchwork of grid-interconnection standards for solar, calling it "the single biggest challenge we face." Solar also requires public money. "Where solar power is successful, it's always gotten a kick-start from state or federal government incentive programs," which can later be discontinued. "There's no reason why Washington state shouldn't have incentive programs for putting solar power into place." Finally, Pitt urged solar advocates to "walk the walk." He asked for a show of hands from solar salespeople in the audience, followed by hands going up from a much smaller number who have solar panels on their own homes.
Globally, the solar industry's annual production is about 250 MW, according to David Love of SunWize Technologies, and it's projected to grow five times that much in 10 years. The industry has expanded about 40 percent annually in the past six years. The cost for solar modules (exclusive of other system elements) is now in the range of $4 to $5 per watt, down from $20/watt in 1980 and $3,000/watt in the 1950s, according to Love.
Still, an audience member acknowledged it would still take many years--at least five to 10-- for solar to compete economically with traditional energy sources. "It's going to take a technological advance to do it," believes Pitt. For his company, the next big hurdle is increasing conversion efficiency from the current peaks of 90-95 percent.
Solar Markets, Policies, Resource
The market for remote and stand-alone solar PV systems is well-established, reported Christy Herig of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, while space-based and central-station solar represent "minor markets." With the emergence of distributed generation, she believes solar's future lies in grid-connected residential and commercial applications.
Leading solar-energy countries make it happen, according to Herig. Japan has bought down the costs of solar energy applications, at one time paying $10/watt, now $4/watt. Australia pays $5.50 per watt up to $8,250. Germany offers federal low-interest loans and production incentives. In the United States, she said, 13 states (including Oregon and Montana) have public-purposes funding, and seven states have renewable portfolio standards. Herig listed a number of ways to support solar: net metering, tax incentives, low-interest financing, production incentives, green pricing programs and municipal policies. "It needs to be a package," she said. "You can't just do a single policy."
Net metering is available in Washington, and, according to consultant Tom Starrs, "well on its way to implementation." He sees great promise in green power: "One of the real potential breakthroughs in this market is these green power markets that are emerging. There's already substantial evidence that solar power and wind power to a lesser extent really command a premium from consumers."
Nelson, meanwhile, described the "surprisingly good [solar] resource" available around Puget Sound. Seattle's semi-arid maritime summer climate actually brings better solar potential than Flagstaff, AZ in July. Overall, according to Nelson, Seattle's annual average daily solar radiation exceeds the national average in solar-popular Germany. And a tracking solar PV system in Seattle can match the annual energy output of a fixed PV system in the sunny climes of Ashland, OR. "The biggest problem we have are trees shading [solar] arrays and the seasonality of the resource," he said.
Nevertheless, the Northwest faces some daunting solar obstacles. A 1999 article co-authored by Herig ranks Washington, Idaho, Montana and Oregon at the very bottom of all 50 states for solar attributes and incentives, based on residential electric rates, policies and emissions mitigation values. The break-even turnkey cost for solar is about $2/watt or less in all the Northwest states--again the lowest in the country.
How to make solar work in Seattle? Herig suggested devoting .1 cent per kilowatt-hour of electric revenues to solar. This would bring in $9 million-plus annually, she said, enough to install up to 3 MW of solar capacity each year. It would cost $10 a year for the average residential customer, $122 apiece for commercial customers and $5,000 annually for industrial customers, while creating 1,500 jobs, according to her calculations.
Many conference attendees believe the word needs to be spread about solar energy. Variations on that theme were frequently listed as key barriers by groups brainstorming at the conference's end. Economic issues also were cited.--Mark Ohrenschall
Bonneville Power Administration's proposed conservation augmentation program has flaws that could limit utility participation, according to several stakeholders at a June 28 ConAug working group meeting.
These stakeholders suggested substantive changes in BPA's proposed ConAug structure, including the basic approach, eligible conservation and payments. ConAug is intended to gain energy efficiencies to help Bonneville meet its expected need for an additional 1,500 average megawatts of power to serve customers during the five years starting October 2001.
Bonneville officials acknowledged stakeholder concerns about ConAug, although they indicated the initiative may fare better than skeptics think, and in any case the agency wants to test the conservation market through ConAug. Proposals could be solicited by Bonneville starting within the next couple of months.
Meanwhile, much greater consensus between BPA and stakeholders has emerged for a new utility participation option in Bonneville's conservation/renewables discount. This so-called "melded option" would provide utilities with a base level of funding, and, according to BPA, would promote cost-effective resource decisions by paying customers the value of the energy savings for installed conservation measures.
ConAug Concerns
BPA's June 20 draft proposal for ConAug includes three notable revisions. It explictly notes that ConAug-related load reductions by participating utilities "will not impact future net requirement determinations" for future BPA power purchases--an issue broached at a late May ConAug working group meeting (see Con.WEB, June 27, 2000). The draft also would move up the timetable, by allowing utilities to individually negotiate ConAug proposals with BPA as soon as their BPA subscription contracts are signed, and by proposing to issue an Invitation to Reduce Load Through Conservation in August or September.
These provisions, though, failed to alleviate some fundamental concerns of some ConAug stakeholders.
Stan Price of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council argued for "more revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary" changes in ConAug. "This proposal . . . attempts to get utilities to bail Bonneville out of a dilemma it has created by requesting those utilities develop proposals absent a guarantee of what price Bonneville will pay for the conservation it needs to get," he said, describing as "very difficult under the current proposal for a utility to make a reasoned judgment of what kind of conservation it can achieve, having to take on all the risk." He suggested "a different trajectory"--instead of utilities offering ConAug proposals to BPA, Bonneville should make proposals to utilities to "buy back that precious commodity . . . to get out of the dilemma it created."
Bonneville needs to motivate utilities to participate in ConAug, Price said, and that entails paying more for load reductions. "If you oversold the plane and are asking people not to, voluntarily, take the flight, you're going to have to offer more than a red eye and an in-flight movie," he said. "That's sort of what it feels like here."
Steve Weiss of the Northwest Energy Coalition believes BPA should seek conservation that reduces Bonneville's actual load or that lessens the agency's power-service obligations, describing the latter as "just as valuable to Bonneville."
BPA's current ConAug proposal will likely appeal only to utilities that get all their power from Bonneville, according to conservation manager Tom Eckman of the Northwest Power Planning Council. And collectively they won't achieve BPA's proposed ConAug target of 60-90 aMW in fiscal years 2002-2006. "If you decrement [their loads], you've got to pay market-based costs" to attract utilities that get only portions of their power from BPA.
BPA is likely to continue as a low-cost power wholesaler well into the future, Eckman noted. He believes the agency should look beyond the next five-year rate period in determining payments for conservation that may prove increasingly valuable as cheap BPA power grows ever more popular.
Seattle City Light's Jim Todd concurred with Eckman. His utility's power purchases on the open market cost much more than its BPA allotment: "Why would we want to decrement our lowest-cost resource? That wouldn't make sense."
Bonneville's acting energy efficiency vice president, John Pyrch, told stakeholders they had raised "some excellent points" that go beyond ConAug to the larger issue of Bonneville's conservation role.
Nevertheless, he described his "marching orders" from BPA management to "move ahead and test the conservation market. That's what we're designing here. ConAug doesn't have to solve all of our conservation problems. It doesn't have to capture all the megawatts" of the 166 aMW of energy savings BPA has pledged to pursue from various sources in 2002-2006. Bonneville plans to issue its initial ConAug solicitation, see what happens and, if necessary, make adjustments. Pyrch acknowledged "certain constraints" put on ConAug by top BPA managers, but said, "We'll work with that also. We may need something else. We've got to go through this one to test it."
BPA's Tim Scanlon reiterated BPA's need to reduce load through ConAug with "measurable and reliable savings," but he noted Bonneville "may surprise people" in how it responds to conservation proposals. The agency already is committed to valuing energy savings beyond 2006, to the extent utilities keep load on BPA. Scanlon also said the agency wanted to avoid being "prescriptive" in seeking ConAug proposals, which explains the lack of specifics on pricing.
"We'd like to tap into all the knowledge and experience to acquire conservation as cost-effectively as possible," Scanlon said. "We say in our proposals and our principles that we will value the attributes of conservation resources."
'Melded Option' Support
While the ConAug discussions the afternoon of June 28 revealed considerable differences of opinion, a morning meeting brought out considerable consensus on an important detail for BPA's conservation/renewables discount.
Stakeholders expressed virtually unanimous support for a so-called "melded option" for utilities pursuing the discount. Under this arrangement, according to BPA, utilities will automatically qualify for $32,850 per year or the maximum annual cumulative C&R discount (whichever is less), to spend on administrative and marketing activities with minimal documentation.
Utilities would still have to spend money on qualifying activities related to the discount to earn this basic level of funding, but administrative and marketing costs up to $32,850 would require little documentation as long as it supported discount-related activities. Administrative and marketing expenses above that level are the customer's responsibility. To recoup spending above this base level, "The customer will receive the cumulative value of the electric energy savings for all installed and documented conservation measures," according to a BPA handout, regardless of what the measure costs the customer.
This option "encourages people to acquire cost-effective conservation, and it rewards them for doing it for less than the value, which is what we're supposed to be doing anyway," BPA's Mark Johnson told Con.WEB.
The melded option received favorable comments June 28 from representatives of industrial customers, Tacoma Power, Oregon Municipal Electric Utilities, Seattle City Light, Emerald PUD, Public Power Council, Eugene Water & Electric Board, Grant County PUD, the Conservation and Renewable Energy System (CARES) and the Oregon Office of Energy. No one spoke in opposition.
Bonneville officials held open the possibility of continuing to offer a straight cost reimbursement option for utilities, with limitations on eligible measures and administrative spending. Pyrch said it would be "a lot simpler and easier to have one option" for larger utilities, but BPA first wanted to gauge customer interest in the cost-reimbursement approach. --Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
After more than a year of work, the Regional Technical Forum has nearly finished its major task of recommending measures and activities eligible for Bonneville Power Administration's energy conservation/renewable energy wholesale rate discount.
The RTF's draft recommendations have been circulating and, with whatever further revisions, will be sent to BPA by the Sept. 1 deadline, according to RTF chair Tom Eckman of the Northwest Power Planning Council.
Bonneville will seek opinions on the RTF's recommendations, and the agency plans to adopt the final list of measures and activities within a few months. BPA wants to give its customers as much planning time as possible in advance of the discount's official debut in October 2001.
The RTF officially formed in mid-1999 as a Council advisory committee, and was asked by Bonneville for recommendations on "a comprehensive list of recommended conservation and direct application renewable measures for which savings or production may be deemed that would be eligible for the C&R discount; protocols for identifying conservation savings and values for unique applications; a process for resolving differences between the RTF recommendations and sponsors estimates of savings; criteria for renewables projects that would qualify for the discount; a process for updating the list; and a process for tracking and reporting regional results per dollar of expenditure and the allocation of funds among conservation, renewables and low income weatherization," according to a summary of the first RTF meeting in July 1999.
The upcoming RTF final recommendations will "to the best of our ability" respond to BPA's request, Eckman said. "It's been a . . . lot of work," he told Con.WEB. "We're getting there. It's taking a lot of horsepower to make it happen. The members of the RTF are working diligently to make sure what we report out utilities can make use of in their program planning and simplify their lives for reporting purposes."
The draft recommendations cover a wide range of measures and activities in the residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural sectors, along with utility system efficiencies and an "other" category.
Detailed definitions are provided for residential technical assistance, lighting, plug loads, water, building envelope and HVAC equipment. Commercial sector general categories are technical assistance, lighting, plug loads, water, building envelope, HVAC equipment and process energy. In the industrial sector are found technical assistance, lighting, water, building envelope, HVAC and process energy, while the agricultural categories cover technical assistance, irrigation and crop mix changes. Utility system categories are distribution system efficiencies, voltage reduction, power factor improvements, transformers, service connection standards, remote feedback or load control equipment, and station service loads. The "other" category lists LED traffic lights, street and area lighting, vending machines, energy code enforcement support and contractor training and support. A range of renewable energy categories also are included.
Eckman said the RTF plans to develop an interactive Web-based program, in which utilities can select measures for a program, plug in anticipated numbers and learn the expected rate credits for measures with deemed savings. Other potential Web options include means for utililities to analyze specific resource options and request additions to the eligibility list. The software should be ready by early 2001. "We'd like to have this software available so that people could use it for their budget planning for the rate discount period at least the first year," he said.--Mark Ohrenschall
Four ongoing market transformation initiatives will receive continued funding, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance board of directors decided July 11-12 in Boise.
The Alliance board also endorsed bylaw changes that will revise the board's composition effective next year, and approved an open-ended process for considering unsolicited market transformation proposals beginning this fall.
Project Decisions
Four current 
Alliance-funded ventures--Scientific Irrigation Scheduling, Lighting Design Lab, Building Operator Certification and Commissioning Public Buildings in the Pacific Northwest--were extended by the board, although the SIS project became considerably smaller.
A proposal to continue SIS only in Montana passed 11-7, a slim margin given the 60-percent majority required on Alliance board votes. That decision came after the board informally agreed with a staff recommendation to let lapse at year's end the SIS venture as currently constituted in the four Northwest states.
Recently available U.S. Census Bureau information indicates scientific irrigation scheduling--which helps farmers use a proper amount of water on their crops at the right time, based on soil moisture and weather conditions--already is widely practiced in the Northwest. Nearly 40 percent of regional farm acreage with pressurized irrigation systems use SIS, and close to 50 percent of high-value crop acreage, reported Alliance staffer Ken Anderson. Alliance officials previously thought SIS was much less prevalent.
"Our judgment is 50 percent is high enough, whether we caused it or not," Alliance executive director Margie Gardner told the board. "It is close enough to being self-sustaining, enough people are doing it and consultants are available, that we don't need to be doing it."
An Alliance survey of 42 SIS-participating farmers found 55 percent would not increase their use of scientific irrigation scheduling, a finding Anderson called "the most disheartening part of the survey." Water is the lifeblood of irrigated agriculture, he noted, and many farmers aren't necessarily inclined to change their watering practices on the advice of outsiders.
Anderson praised the work of the Alliance's SIS contractors--state cooperative extension agencies in Oregon and Washington, the Idaho Department of Water Resources Energy Division and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Montana. They had proposed a $4.3 million contract extension over four years. But Alliance officials believe trying to further SIS practice would yield only marginal benefits and require very long-term support--longer than the Alliance's current funding charter through 2004.
The board narrowly endorsed an $860,000 four-year funding extension for Montana, where the program got a later start, SIS practice is uncommon and private-sector SIS consultants aren't available. The board also unanimouly approved $388,000 to help support the Agri-Met weather station system.
SIS has been the Alliance's only venture focused on the Northwest agricultural sector, but Anderson noted several other market transformation initiatives, particularly motor-related programs, apply to farms and ranches. Alliance officials also hope to receive future proposals for agriculture-related ventures. "It seems like our money would be better spent in other arenas for agriculture at this time," said Gardner.
The Alliance will continue spending money to help transform a distinctly different market, commercial lighting, with the board's 12-1 approval of nearly $2.6 million over three years for the Lighting Design Lab.
The Seattle-based institution, which celebrated its 10th anniversary last December, represents "an important piece" of the Alliance's commercial lighting work, Alliance staffer Marci Sanders told the board. "It really is more about providing the education and training and technical assistance to lead to better design practices," she said. "The opportunities to improve lighting [efficiency] in this region are more from design changes than technological changes, although there is some room for that as well."
Alliance board members favorably commented on the Lab. "This to me is a real good example of infrastructure support . . . having a lab set up where builders or owners can come in and actually talk with experts and set up lighting to see how it works," said board member Brian Hedman. "It seems like one of the most powerful ways you can get the information that's really practical to commercial and residential-type [building] owners."
The Lab's services have expanded well beyond Puget Sound; Alliance board members from Idaho and Montana said people in their states have benefitted from access to the Lab and its high-quality objective information on energy-efficient lighting technologies.
In other decisions, the Alliance board unanimously approved more funding for two other ongoing ventures, Commissioning Public Buildings in the Pacific Northwest and Building Operator Certification.
The commissioning venture seeks to make building commissioning standard practice for government, school and other public-sector structures. A total of 35 demonstration projects are in progress, according to Alliance staffer John Jennings, and "momentum is growing" for the practice of commissioning. "We can really use this project as a springboard to the private sector," he told the board, which endorsed $865,000 in additional funding through 2003.
Building Operator Certification, which trains building operators in energy-efficient practices and technologies, will receive $373,000. With this money the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council (which runs BOC in Washington and Oregon) will develop a continuing education curriculum, while the Northwest Building Operators Association will market BOC to Montana and explore continuing education needs.
Board Composition Changes
The board adopted changes to the Alliance bylaws that will restructure the board's composition effective October 2001. This is designed to reflect changes in funding sources and ensure continuing accountability to stakeholders, while maintaining diversity among board members, according to the Alliance.
Montana and Oregon public-purposes funding, reduced Alliance contributions from Bonneville Power Administration (reflecting its actual wholesale load from publicly owned utilities), and requested money from large publicly owned utilities are the primary funding changes. The Alliance will seek funding from BPA, utilities and public-purposes administrators; such entities will have guaranteed board seats by meeting a minimum level ($300,000 annually in direct contributions, and a "fair share" amount based on retail loads). Guaranteed seats also are retained for each of the four Northwest states, and at least one apiece for representatives of end-use customers, energy efficiency businesses and environmental/energy efficiency organizations.
The board will still be divided into three "pods"--one for investor-owned utilities/state public-purposes administrators, one for BPA/publicly owned utilities and one for non-utility/public-interest parties. But the board could be expanded to as many as 26 people--up from the current 18 voting members--with maximum sizes of six in the IOU/administrators pod and 10 in the other two pods. The number of directors could vary based on funding changes or board decisions to seek a balance of perspectives.
Open Proposal Process
The Alliance wants to hear new ideas for market transformation projects, and the board endorsed a new process to receive and consider unsolicited proposals any time.
"This is an opportunity to throw a wide net and see what comes back; maybe some old tires and shoes, but some gems, too," said Alliance staffer Lisa Logie.
Proposals will first be reviewed by the Alliance staff using criteria from the organization's strategic plan. Then the staff will conduct what Logie called "due diligence" on submitted proposals. Staff can reject proposals during these two phases; promising ideas will be considered by the board's portfolio committee, which will make a recommendation to the full board, which will make final decisions.
The Alliance plans to have a Web site open for unsolicited proposals by mid-October, according to Logie.--Mark Ohrenschall
Pacific Power has substantially boosted its energy efficiency programs for Oregon business customers.
Pacific's enlarged offerings (including more financial incentives) help fulfill a pledge from parent PacifiCorp's merger with ScottishPower, in which the utility agreed to double its annual Oregon energy efficiency program spending to $6 million. The new commercial/industrial initiatives also represent a transition of sorts to Oregon's public-purposes funding, which starts in fall 2001.
The investor-owned utility has added financial incentives to its Energy FinAnswer program, created a new incentive program for lighting retrofits, and revised incentives for energy-efficient retrofits in small commercial facilities. Pacific also has arranged to acquire Oregon Business Energy Tax Credits from customers, and use the credits on its own tax returns.
In some cases the combination of incentives and tax credit payments can cover nearly 80 percent of the initial costs of energy efficiency projects. "That's unheard of in the power industry," Pacific's Nancy Goddard said at a June 29 forum of the Oregon chapter of the Association of Professional Energy Managers. "We think we have some pretty good news and we want you to take advantage of it during this limited time phase."
Indeed, with Oregon public-purposes funding drawing near, Pacific's timetable is short. Projects must be installed by year's end at the latest for BETC tax credit purchases, and by Aug. 1, 2001, for incentive payments. "We're anxious to get projects moving," Goddard told the APEM gathering in suburban Portland. She believes the new offerings will make efficiency projects easier to sell to company managers, and will enhance opportunities for efficiency businesses.
Expanded Efficiency Programs
As part of its 1999 merger with ScottishPower, PacifiCorp signed a stipulation to double efficiency spending in Oregon for three years (see Con.WEB, Aug. 31, 1999). That 
agreement was superseded, though, by the passage of Oregon's electric industry restructuring legislation, which created public-purposes funding equal to 3 percent of revenues for investor-owned utilities, beginning in late 2001 and most likely administered by an independent entity. Given this new circumstance, "It was clear to us we needed to roll programs out in short order," Goddard said. "We didn't have long to run them." Pacific met its goal of launching new and revised programs by the second quarter of 2000, she noted.
The utility worked closely with a stakeholder advisory group--which includes representatives from customer, regulatory, advocacy and government entities--in developing the expanded Oregon offerings. Pacific sought to build on existing programs, rather than craft entirely new initiatives that would take longer to establish and market, according to Goddard. In addition, "We wanted the incentives to be high enough to move the market," while still meeting cost-effectiveness guidelines.
The big change to Energy FinAnswer is the addition of incentive payments. Pacific will continue to offer up to 100-percent financing for efficiency measure costs (repaid on electric bills), but now Oregon commercial, industrial and irrigation customers can receive cash incentives of 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of annual savings, up to 50 percent of measure costs. "We're not expecting a lot of people will want to finance when we pay that much toward project costs," Goddard said. Pacific will still provide engineering services as well.
FinAnswer participation is open to efficiency initiatives in new commercial construction or industrial facilities of any size, and commercial retrofits in facilities larger than 20,000 square feet. Criteria include a minimum one-year simple payback and lighting savings capped at 50 percent of the total for comprehensive projects. Pacific also requires customer-financed commissioning, which can be included in project cost calculations for incentive payments.
The utility also has rolled out an incentive program for lighting retrofits in commercial or industrial facilities larger than 20,000 square feet; a prior such program was available only for smaller spaces. It pays up to 50 percent of cost for T-8 and T-5 fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts, compact fluorescents, exit signs, high-pressure sodium lamps, interior lighting controls, and interior fluorescent delamping. Simple paybacks must be longer than one year, and at least half a facility's lighting must be upgraded, or it must qualify for a $500 incentive.
A third significant programmatic change comes in an updated incentive offering for retrofitted facilities smaller than 20,000 square feet. "We kept the small retrofit more or less as is; we just adjusted the incentive levels so it lined up with the lighting retrofit program," Goddard said. In addition to lighting incentives, this initiative pays for more-efficient air conditioners and heat pumps, along with programmable thermostats. This program, too, limits incentives to 50 percent of project costs and requires paybacks of more than one year.
In another new twist, Pacific earlier this year earned approval for a plan involving Oregon's Business Energy Tax Credit. "Pacific Power acquires the BETC from qualifying businesses and provides a payment to the business of 28.87% of eligible measure costs . . . [as] calculated before any utility incentive payment," according to a utility fact sheet. "Pacific Power then takes the 35% tax credit over five years on its return."
Goddard said the utility has allotted up to $1 million for BETC acquisitions, which are available for qualifying projects installed this year in facilities of customers with electric use less than 1 average megawatt in the past year. "It's pretty neutral [financially] for us," she said. "We're doing it as a service to help get the projects built." BETC payments are separate from Pacific's total $6 million efficiency program budget for Oregon. "A lot of that [$6 million] is for incentives," said Goddard. Pacific has made that money available, and plans to work with as many customers as possible to improve their energy efficiency.
Pacific also plans to launch new residential program offerings this year, she noted.
And, in a different venue, the utility has started discussions with regulators and stakeholders on establishing a system benefits charge for its Washington service territory. The latest thinking is to assess the energy-saving potential and then set the SBC accordingly, Goddard said. It could be in place by January 2001.--Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
Halogen torchiere lamps are hot items--so hot that regional utilities and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance are working to douse these potentially dangerous and definitely energy-guzzling lights.
Halogen torchieres--tall skinny floor lamps topped with reflector bowls--are immensely popular. But they also waste immense amounts of energy, and pose a safety risk in the form of fire hazard.
Halogen torchieres (a type of incandescent) consume 1 percent of the nation's electricity, according to the book "Seven Wonders: Everyday Things for a Healthier Planet" by John Ryan--"more than wiping out the energy saved by compact fluorescent bulbs," he writes. And they operate at temperatures that can exceed 1,000 degrees, which has resulted in hundreds of documented fires and injuries, and more than 30 deaths, according to the Energy Ideas Clearinghouse.
Northwest utilities and the Alliance have found one way to cool down the halogen market: torchiere turn-in events, where consumers can bring in halogen lamps and get discounts on energy-efficient (and safer) qualified compact fluorescent products under the ENERGY STAR label.
"The word is out there about the dangers of the halogens," said Ecos Consulting's Maggie Nilsson, who has helped coordinate torchiere turn-ins in the Northwest and beyond. "People didn't know they had an alternative . . . Now they know there are substitutes" that provide fine lighting and save energy.
Northwest utilities have sponsored 18 torchiere turn-ins over the past 15 months in collaboration with the Alliance and its residential lighting programs. These events led to more than 12,000 permanently unplugged halogens in 1999 alone, and the purchase of roughly as many ENERGY STAR lamps that collectively save an estimated 4.3 million kilowatt-hours annually. Alliance project coordinator Marci Sanders called these "pretty phenomenal successes." And Nilsson reported "nothing but positive reaction" from consumers.
The Alliance has assembled a free informational kit for utilities on how to run a torchiere turn-in, covering details ranging from planning, timelines and retail partnerships to advertising and publicity. "This event is a fun way to educate your customers about new energy-efficient lighting technologies on the market," reads a cover letter. "Past events have proven tremendous consumer support for substitutes to standard lighting technology. Your turn-in will show consumers there is a smarter way to light their homes. By establishing a consumer demand for these products, your utility also could stimulate local retailer interest in efficient lighting."
Halogen Popularity and Problems
Torchiere turn-ins are a creative response to the proliferation of halogen torchiere lamps.
Nearly 100 million such lamps have been sold since the mid-1980s, reported to Ecos' Chris Calwell, and about 50 million remain in use. "These fixtures are attractive, portable, dimmable, and inexpensive to purchase," according an Energy Ideas Clearinghouse fact sheet. "They provide high quality, bright light, without the glare of standard ceiling mounted fixtures. And they are often marketed as energy efficient."
But halogen torchieres have major shortcomings. Fire danger is the biggest, with at least 435 fires, 114 injuries and 32 deaths related to halogen torchieres, documented by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Halogens operate at temperatures ranging from 750 degrees to 1,100 degrees or more, "much higher than combustion temperatures of common household materials," EIC said. And halogens typically are 50-percent less efficient than standard incandescents.
ENERGY STAR-labeled compact fluorescent torchieres are a preferable alternative, according to EIC. They use 82-percent less energy than standard halogens, operate at much lower temperatures (100 degrees), generally last 10,000 hours, provide good color rendering, and lack the noise and flicker of conventional fluorescent lamps.
CF torchieres cost slightly more, EIC noted, but in the Northwest they can pay back in reduced energy costs in less than two years. Most halogen torchieres retail for less than $20, while non-subsidized CF torchieres typically cost in the range of $30 to $50, according to Nilsson, but correspondingly less with utility discounts offered at many turn-in events.
Torchiere Turn-Ins
Torchiere turn-ins evolved from the Alliance's ENERGY STAR Residential Lighting Fixtures program, according to Nilsson. It was believed that strong safety and efficiency aspects "could be used as a marketing angle . . . our wedge into the market" for CF torchieres and other ENERGY STAR lighting products.
Nilsson credited Pacific Rim Resources in Seattle with the original concept for torchiere turn-ins, the first of which took place in Milwaukee, WI in October 1998. It was reportedly a rousing success. "In the first 90 minutes, all 690 Energy Star torchieres manufactured by Lights of America (LOA) and distributed by Home Depot had been sold--a remarkable one every eight seconds," according to a 1999 Home Energy article by Calwell of Ecos Consulting. A total of 813 halogens were recycled that day.
Another turn-in later that fall in Sacramento, CA led to recycling of about 2,500 halogen torchieres, and sales of 1,500 Energy Star models. "The message from this event was clear," wrote Calwell. "Customers are willing to pay as much or more for Energy Star units than they paid for halogens. Energy Star can sell, not just on price, but on value--with greater safety, large energy savings, and longer bulb life all contributing to that message."
In the Northwest, utilities up and down the Interstate 5 corridor, as well as others in eastern Washington and Idaho, have sponsored turn-in events since spring 1999. Locations have included Home Depot stores, utility headquarters, a fire station, a high school and even a hydroelectric plant in Idaho Falls.
The turn-ins frequently have been preceded by a local media event focused on safety. A recent Seattle City Light media kit, for example, promoted a "Great Torchiere Cook Out," in which City Light employees were to roast marshmallows from the heat of eight halogen torchieres, followed by a turn-in event three days later at local Eagle Hardware & Garden stores. "It's not enough to make consumers aware of the dangers of halogen torchiere floor lamps," said City Light's Anne Ducey in a press release. "We want to let them know there are safe, economical and energy saving alternatives as well."
Portland General Electric has helped sponsor five turn-ins and, according to the Alliance's Sanders, "They've mastered it." The investor-owned utility wanted to hold events at retail outlets, according to PGE's John McLain, so it approached Home Depot about turn-ins at company stores in the Portland/Vancouver WA area. The chain expanded its variety of available energy-efficient torchieres, and was "very surprised" that the higher-end models sold out, according to McLain. "We showed them the difference and really converted them . . . The torchiere became the biggest-selling item in the lighting section, is what we were told from Home Depot." The five local turn-ins in late 1999 and early 2000 resulted in 8,430 halogens retired, and 11,273 ENERGY STAR torchieres sold. PGE had set a goal of 5,000. "We were very, very, very pleased with the response from Home Depot and the response from customers," he said.
PGE doesn't plan to hold more turn-ins, but it expects to work further with Home Depot to promote other energy-efficient products. "We are trying to be continually opportunitistic in working with local retail and the Alliance and getting some smart, fun things done here in Portland," said McLain.
For consumers, the safety message resonates more than energy efficiency, Nilsson noted, although turn-in organizers don't want to scare people. "We are sort of de-emphasizing the hazards but still focused on safety," she said, after retailers indicated they were "concerned about liability" from halogen torchieres. In addition to safety and energy savings with CF torchieres, long bulb life (five to seven years) offers another advantage for consumers. "It's those three things that sell the product," said Nilsson.
Looking ahead, the Alliance is continuing its residential lighting efforts for at least another 2/1-2 years, and the collaborative anticipates coordinating additional turn-in events with Northwest utilities, according to Nilsson. No events are currently scheduled, although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is promoting a nationally coordinated turn-in in October and will provide advertising templates for use by local utilities.
Utilities interested in participating in this national event or sponsoring torchiere turn-ins should contact David Weigel at Ecos Consulting: phone, (503) 525-2700, ext. 105; e-mail, dweigel@ecosconsulting.com.--Mark Ohrenschall
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