POLICY DEBATES important to the future of Northwest energy conservation are highlighted in this issue of Con.WEB. Each is reported separately, but none is occurring in isolation. First, Bonneville Power Administration is unveiling its proposed for-profit Energy Services Business, which has already received a skeptical review from the region's energy efficiency industry. Look for this topic to converge at some point with the Regional Review. Speaking of which, the Conservation, Renewables and Public Purposes Work Group has put together for the Review's steering committee a final report notable for its lack of consensus. The group did muster conceptual support for the proposed Market Transformation Trust--now tentatively renamed the Northwest Conservation Collaborative. However, as we report, many key details for the collaborative remain to be resolved. In this issue, we also examine alternative financing approaches for public-sector energy efficiency, and a BPA report detailing the many successes of Oregon's Resource Conservation Manager program. And, in the Briefs department, a Benton County PUD study has found that homes built to the 1991 Washington State Energy Code saved twice as much money on energy bills as predicted.
Check it out. And please feel welcome to share any thoughts with us via [marko@newsdata.com] e-mail.
[ IOD | Con.WEB Archives | NW EnerNet ]
Bonneville Power Administration wants to make money in the energy services business--but so do many private-sector firms that already provide energy efficiency goods and services throughout the Northwest. BPA's proposed Energy Services Business received a skeptical review July 24 from members of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council, a trade group for the energy efficiency industry. Many questioned Bonneville's potential role as a federal competitor and even whether BPA was capable of turning a profit in the energy services marketplace. On the other hand, some NEEC members saw opportunities to work with BPA, and described specific roles Bonneville could fill.
The big question: Would Bonneville expand the regional energy services pie, to everyone's benefit, or would it merely grab pieces away from the private sector?
"We believe, because of who we are, we can reach customer needs and market niches that would otherwise be underdeveloped or not met at all, and thereby make the marketplace bigger," BPA energy services vice president Terry Esvelt told the July 24 NEEC gathering at Sea-Tac Airport.
Bonneville's ESB would provide a number of potential services, primarily aimed at the federal sector and at small- and medium-sized retail utilities. These could include resource management/energy accounting, financing (although not loans per se), engineering analysis, power factor and power quality assistance, environmental services, building commissioning and demand-side management measurement and evaluation. BPA projects the "revenue-generating" elements of ESB--separate from market transformation and existing conservation contracts--would bring in $5.4 million in 1997 and cost $8.4 million. By 2001, however, BPA projects they would generate $20 million at a cost of $18 million. Esvelt emphasized the ESB needs to at least break even in the third year and cover all its costs by the fifth year, or it will disappear.
NEEC board member Will Miller doubted BPA could earn a profit by the third year. Given Bonneville's overstaffing and the time needed to develop an energy services business, "It's a nigh-on impossible task you have in front of you," he told Esvelt. And because of BPA's bureaucratic nature, "You do not have a clue about how to make it in the private sector." Esvelt conceded a squeeze between not losing money but also not making too much money, lest eyebrows be raised. He also touted the customer-service orientation of BPA's energy services staff.
On the broader issue of whether BPA as a federal agency should make money, many NEEC members were resistant. "I have a philosophical problem with Bonneville trying to create a profit center out of conservation," said Fred Gordon of Pacific Energy Associates. Describing himself as feeling "a little bit like a tribe of Indians when white men came in and said, 'I want to settle on this little square here,'" Gordon suspected ESB is an attempt by Bonneville to keep a high profile in conservation and to retain its talented staff members. His general attitude toward the ESB is "respectful distrust."
BPA's potential conflicts with private-sector firms appear to be most pronounced in the federal market. Uncle Sam represents "an immense market opportunity," a BPA ESB overview noted. Federal agencies are collectively the largest energy users in the world, spending an estimated $9 billion on energy in 1994. They need to cut costs because of budget constraints, and they are also under executive order to reduce their energy consumption 30 percent from 1985 levels by 2005. Esvelt acknowledged there are "thousands" of private firms vying for this lucrative business, but he insisted there is plenty for everyone--including Bonneville, whose work, he suggested, could also open doors for private-sector purveyors of efficiency goods and services. "We're broad, but not deep [in our energy services expertise]. We need a stable of partnerships."
BPA's Tim Scanlon cited a specific example in which Bonneville provided technical analysis and other services to help the General Services Administration seek funding for energy efficiency projects. GSA subsequently received more than $1 million for work Scanlon assumed would be performed by the private sector. Subcontracting with BPA might be simpler and require lower overhead for private firms than going through the federal procurement process, suggested Greg Page of Abacus Engineered Systems.
Still, some NEEC members had qualms about BPA's plans for the federal sector. "It's not clear to us how BPA is going to develop markets that wouldn't ordinarily be developed," said Dale Silha of Johnson Controls. Resource management, financing, engineering analysis, power quality--"All these services are currently being provided [privately] in an integrated, turn-key fashion for federal customers," he said, encouraging BPA to adopt "more of a steer, not row, philosophy" for developing energy services. Pat Stephens of Control Contractors wondered why BPA didn't join forces with the Federal Energy Management Program to serve federal agencies. And Honeywell's Francis Sheridan said his firm was cut off by one federal client who bolted to BPA--an example of direct competition. "I'm skeptical [about the ESB]," he said, but added, "I'm willing to be convinced."
NEEC members made a number of suggestions about how BPA could enhance the Northwest's energy services marketplace. Gordon proposed BPA serve as an arbitrator for the quality of installations in buildings. Miller thought BPA could independently track energy savings on pay-for-performance contracts, thereby easing customer suspicions. Another suggested role for BPA was conservation education.
At the meeting's end, Esvelt said, "I do believe the opportunities are there for us to partner, and that's what we're going to push for, to see how they can be fully developed . . . to find out how we can really make a difference for customers."
For its part, NEEC plans to put together a formal response to the ESB and submit it to the Regional Review, according to administrative director Stan Price.--Mark Ohrenschall
SIDEBAR LINKS:
Return to Contents
Energy conservation and renewable resources have a future in the Northwest--but widespread regional agreement on exactly what kind of future has yet to materialize.
A regional policy group exploring those issues concluded its work in mid-July with a final report notable for its lack of consensus. The Conservation, Renewables and Public Purposes Work Group of the Regional Review did manage to agree on a set of guidelines for regionally coordinated market transformation funded by utilities for $30 million annually--guidelines that closely resemble the proposed Market Transformation Trust. The work group also reached some consensus on renewables, including the need to finish currently committed projects, provide end-use customers a "green power" option and continue research, development and demonstration activities--all, however, within existing budgets.
In the end, besides market transformation, the work group came to no conclusion on any mechanisms (beyond marketplace forces and utility activities) to promote conservation and renewables, or even whether such means were necessary.
"We have made a lot of progress. I can't tell you we've made a lot of consensus progress," work group co-chairperson Jim Davis told the Regional Review steering committee at the July 11 gathering in Seattle.
A major ideological fault line developed between those who trust in the marketplace and those who believe in an activist government/utility role to promote conservation and renewables. For example, according to the work group's final report, some members thought that with the existing proposal for regional market transformation " . . . little, if anything, remains to be done at the regional level to ensure that local conservation opportunities are developed. These parties were persuaded that market forces in a competitive environment will deliver most or all of the conservation that makes sense." Under this line of thinking, local utilities along with energy suppliers and energy service companies will be "strongly motivated" to offer energy efficiency as part of their competitive strategies.
However, other work group members "believe that much conservation will still be left on the table," the report said. "These parties argued that competitive efficiency services are likely to be offered primarily to larger customers and, even there, will capture only conservation with fairly short paybacks. They also suggested that market-driven conservation will pay little attention to that increment of conservation justified by its combination of economic and environmental value."
The differences in ideology translated into vastly different approaches to funding conservation and renewables. Paul Murphy, on behalf of the Direct Service Industries, argued that conservation no longer produces any systemwide benefits, since new electric resources cost more than average electric rates and since competition will preclude any future cost transfers. "As a result, each individual consumer will reap the entire benefits of conservation through reduced power bills," he wrote. "Therefore, there is no longer any justification to fund conservation or energy efficiency activities through the imposition of system-wide fees for the use of electricity."
On the other side of the spectrum, the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition noted the economic and environmental benefits of energy efficiency, but described "significant" market barriers such as lack of access to capital, short payback expectations and inadequate information. NCAC advocated collecting and spending $215 to $245 million per year (about 3 percent of the region's retail power sales revenue) to achieve all cost-effective conservation and low-income weatherization.
Other proposals for conservation and renewables range far and wide (a sampling of proposals submitted to the steering committee is available on the Regional Review Web site).
Another gap developed on the issue of local control vs. wider accountability for conservation, according to Marc Sullivan of Seattle City Light, who chaired the conservation subcommittee of the work group. He described it as "a very tough issue for public power." Officially, the Public Power Council wrote to the Regional Review that its member utilities would continue local conservation programs, but local governing boards would determine program levels, funding (including the disposition of any "meters charge") and customer incentives. In a separate proposal, a number of organizations (including Seattle City Light, Eugene Water & Electric Board, Emerald People's Utility District, city of Ashland and Salem Electric Cooperative) pushed for a "reasonable accountability system" that would include "effective consequences" for utilities that performed poorly in local conservation.
Although the work group did not produce substantial consensus after several months of meetings, Sullivan said he was not discouraged. It took more than five years to develop and put into place the 1980 Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, he noted. "The progress is going to be incremental."
The work group's report will be incorporated into the larger Review process, which is scheduled to produce preliminary draft recommendations by Aug. 22.--Mark Ohrenschall
Return to Contents
The idea of transforming markets for energy efficiency enjoys widespread support around the Northwest, but making it happen collaboratively involves such devilish details as money, equity among participants, governance and time frame. Those were among the issues raised at a July 15 meeting of the convening committee for the proposed regional Market Transformation Trust, now tentatively renamed the Northwest Conservation Collaborative.
This collaborative, as proposed in a draft paper, would be a non-profit corporation jointly funded by regional utilities to the tune of up to $30 million annually. That money would be funneled toward the goal of "effecting permanent changes in the markets for targeted, cost-effective energy efficiency products and services that result in high and lasting market penetration. The Collaborative is based on the belief that by transforming markets it is possible to achieve improvements in the efficiency of electricity use without the need for large, long-term utility incentives." Previous examples of successful market transformation, as cited in the paper, include more stringent energy codes, along with efficiency increases in manufactured housing and refrigerators.
Among the unresolved details, however, is money. As envisioned in the draft proposal, collaborative funding would be roughly split between Bonneville Power Administration (on behalf of its public utility customers) and regional investor-owned utilities (from each based on their percentage of total regional sales). However, the IOUs, in a joint restructuring proposal submitted July 10 to the Regional Review, advocated a two-year interim market transformation fund into which all retail utilities, public and private, would contribute based on their share of regional load. After two years, the IOUs want a universal meter charge, approved by state legislatures, to fund market transformation for the region.
Although the committee deferred serious funding talk on July 15, it did discuss other major issues, including equity among collaborative participants. Utilities funding regional market transformation want some benefits flowing to their individual service territories and their customers, although a perfect cost-benefit balance is acknowledged as virtually impossible. The draft proposal contends: "In the long run, if the market is successfully transformed, it will bring down the cost of the more efficient product for every purchaser, regardless of service territory."
Addressing the local vs. regional dynamic, Washington Water Power proposed that participating utilities have the option of spending some of their regional funding share in their local service territories--"thinking regionally, acting locally," as Water Power's Bruce Folsom described it. At least half of the proposed collaborative ventures require considerable local involvement to succeed, he argued. WWP is committed to regional market transformation, Folsom said, but it wants to assure benefits for its customers.
Water Power's proposal drew a favorable response from commissioner Bill Gillis of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission; he said it increased his "comfort level" and offered a "higher level of accountability for individual utilities." IOUs generally are very attentive to regulator views on market transformation, a relatively untested and initially expensive conservation approach that focuses more on changing markets and less on acquiring resources. PacifiCorp's John Graham urged considerable discussion with regulators about market transformation, which he called "fundamentally and radically different that what we've done in the past."
Among some committee members, the Water Power plan raised questions and concerns. What level of scrutiny would the collaborative retain over local market transformation endeavors? How is it decided what's appropriately local and what's appropriately regional? What happens if a utility chooses to go local and then underperforms? Would this proposal effectively create individual veto power over the collaborative's activities? Would it undermine the whole notion of a collaborative?
Governance was another key topic. As proposed in the draft, the collaborative would be governed by a 15-member board, with five members apiece from each of three groups: BPA and public utilities, IOUs, and government/public interest/education/trade allies. Both IOU and public-power people said they wanted to further discuss representation and governance issues.
Underscoring the long-term nature of market transformation, committee members did agree the collaborative should strive for at least a 10-year life, including a five-year "midterm review." However, funding commitments were notably excluded from that goal.
The draft proposal was scheduled for revisions through the end of July; the committee is scheduled to meet again Aug. 12, potentially to approve a final proposal--Mark Ohrenschall
Return to Contents
Financing energy efficiency can be tricky these days, particularly for government and school buildings. Public-agency budgets are tightening, utility rebate programs are dwindling and the region's low electric rates make for longer payback periods for conservation projects. However, there are solutions: A number of alternative financing methods were outlined at a July 16 conference near Seattle, sponsored by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Management Program and the General Services Administration.
The potential sources of capital include energy-saving performance contracting, private financiers and utilities. And, as a number of workshop speakers stressed, the human resource matters, too. People form partnerships to develop financing, and people--especially those responsible for building operations and maintenance--also play a pivotal role in ensuring energy efficiencies really happen.
"The bottom line is, get the [efficiency] projects done using those two [financial and human] resources," urged John Archibald, deputy director of FEMP.
Energy efficiencies make economic sense, he said. The federal government gains $4 in savings for every $1 invested in energy efficiency. And the average federal project pays for itself in four years, while it lasts 14 years. "The most expensive decision you can make is the decision not to do anything," Archibald said, describing unneeded energy consumption as a "waste of the taxpayer's dollar and a waste of the voter's dollar."
Lack of capital was cited by many speakers as the single biggest obstacle for efficiency projects in the public sector. One way to surmount that obstacle is energy-saving performance contracting, in which energy service companies pay all the up-front costs--from building audits to acquisition, installation, operation and maintenance of energy-efficient equipment--and share in the resulting cost savings.
Energy-saving performance contracting (known as ESPC) has many advantages, consultant Shirley Hansen told the conference. It provides efficiency upgrades at no up-front cost, reduces building operating costs, frees money for other purposes, improves comfort and productivity of people in buildings, offers a positive cash flow and includes guaranteed results. She called ESPC "a marvelous fit" and "the only growth industry in the energy efficiency industry." ESCOs see a great need and opportunity in the public sector, along with the possibility for long-term business, Hansen said. Yet they also perceive disadvantages in the long sales cycle, bureaucratic processes and the potential of termination for convenience.
For ESCOs and the public sector, private capital is available for energy efficiency projects. Lenders consider a number of factors, according to John Christmas of Hannon Armstrong & Co. of Virginia. These criteria include a project's economics, technologies, financial terms and amount, the contractor's experience and collateral. Ultimately, he said, "What drives this market is not the availability and cost of capital . . . If the project makes sense, the private lending community is going to participate."
Traditional banks have been a relatively untapped capital source for energy efficiency, but they, too, have money for qualifying projects. U.S. Bank's Ron Olson suggested the efficiency industry build relationships with local bankers and push to get projects funded. "There's plenty of people out there willing to make it work," he said. "We'll work with you, if we understand the needs." Olson also noted banks have many financial products available besides loans, such as lease arrangements.
Although electric utilities are greatly reducing their energy efficiency rebate programs, they do continue to offer other financial services. Bonneville Power Administration, under its proposed Energy Services Business,could provide direct reimbursements, shared-savings arrangements, energy service charge financing and equipment leases, according to BPA energy services vice president Terry Esvelt.
PacifiCorp provides financing and other services through its Energy FinAnswer program. The Portland-based investor-owned utility offers to finance up to 100 percent of efficiency improvements for commercial and industrial customers and recoup the investment through an energy service charge on electric bills. FinAnswer is flexible, stressed PacifiCorp's Sandra VanKempema, and has worked for schools, wastewater plants, swimming pools and office buildings. "You need to tell us what you need," she said.
Washington Water Power offers a tax-exempt leasing program and also uses third-party financing to help customers make energy efficiency projects happen, along with some continued rebates, according to WWP's Blaine French. He outlined many financing opportunities for the public sector, including banks, ESCOs, tax-exempt leasing and internal capital. "There's no one right way to do this. Look at each project on an individual basis."
Financing is not just available from large institutions. Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative in northern California developed leasing programs for solar photovoltaic systems and for geothermal heat pumps. And last year, it made a short-term $200,000 equipment loan to a developer, according to Paul Bony. He envisions a National Energy Services Cooperative to promote, finance and install energy efficiency measures for customers.
Despite its critical importance, money is not the only factor in energy efficiency. People make a big difference, too.
"People use energy; equipment doesn't," said consultant Will Miller, describing the Resource Conservation Manager program. "Getting people involved is a very critical part of this."
Clint Lougheed of the Washington state Department of General Administration agrees. He described a major energy efficiency project at South Seattle Community College--jointly financed by Seattle City Light, an ESCO and the state government--that cut energy consumption 40 percent at the campus, saving 2 million kilowatt-hours of electricity. Beforehand, Lougheed convened a meeting of school administrators, trustees, facilities managers, teachers and students. "I can't make a project work until I get these people together," he said. "I try to put myself in their position." Especially important are the facilities managers and maintenance staff. "These are the people who run the facility . . . If they're not involved from day one in the process, you're likely to have a project that fails." He also emphasized open communications among all the project stakeholders. Without it, "You probably won't save the energy expected."--Mark Ohrenschall
Return to Contents
For many years, the thermostat in the library of an Oregon elementary school had been set at 72 degrees. That also served--unbeknownst to school officials--as the thermostat setting for the entire school on nights and weekends, even though the boiler had been set to fire up whenever the interior temperature dipped to 55 degrees--which never happened. As a consequence, the school burned way too much money on heating.
In an Oregon school district, watering the middle school football field cost five times as much as watering the larger high school field. As it turned out, the water meter on the middle school field had the wrong meter unit and the school district was paying 10 times the actual amount of water consumed. The result: a $54,000 water-overcharge credit to the district.
Both these cases owe their discovery and solution to the Resource Conservation Manager program, a utility-funded resource efficiency and education program in seven Oregon school districts that operated from 1993 to 1995.
Founded on the idea of hiring people to monitor resource consumption in fine detail and seek potential savings, the RCM program succeeded grandly in conserving both money and resources. In the 1993-94 school year, according to a recent Bonneville Power Administration report, the RCM program achieved savings of $809,590 at a cost of $469,423--a net gain of $340,167. As for resources, the report catalogued RCM program savings of 3.4 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, 282,729 therms of natural gas, 884,574 cubic feet of garbage and 1.54 million gallons of water. The BPA report described RCM as a "win-win program for the utility sponsors and for the school district participants." Utilities reduced their DSM costs through collaboration and were still able to promote the program individually, as a form of customer service. Schools, meanwhile, slashed their utility bills while generating additional money for conservation endeavors and discretionary spending. The U.S. Department of Energy recognized these achievements last year in awarding Energy Smarts--the umbrella program for which RCM was the flagship venture--a national energy award in the energy technology and education category.
Another sign of success: the original RCM program has spawned a number of successors. Most of the participating school districts and all the utility sponsors are moving ahead with their own RCM versions, as are private-sector firms like North American Energy Services, according to BPA's Elly Adelman. (Editor's note: Con.WEB will feature some of these RCM ventures in the August issue.) Chain stores are emerging as a major potential RCM market, she noted. And one of the most popular RCM variations is real-time energy accounting software, which Adelman believes fits well with a post-RCM evolution towards technology-based services, including billing consolidation for chains and franchises, outage reporting, Internet access and other real and potential offerings.
The initial RCM project sprang from the 1990 passage of Measure 5 in Oregon, which limited property-tax collections and led to average school district budget cuts of 5 to 10 percent. Adelman said "interested and concerned folks from utilities" put their minds together and tried to answer the question: "What can utilities do to support the schools in a way that supports our mission?"
Through the RCM program, the seven participating school districts hired resource conservation managers charged with looking in depth at electricity, water, natural gas and solid-waste consumption, and recommending efficiencies--both operational and behavioral (see Conservation Monitor, December 1993). In the Salem-Keizer schools, significant savings came from scheduling improvements, turning out lights and other "habit changes," according to conservation supervisor Terry Kelly of Salem Electric. The RCM program also led to energy efficiency work at a number of Salem-area schools, such as lighting redesigns and installation of occupancy sensors. Building relationships with key school officials through the RCM program helped make these projects happen, Kelly believes. "I think they're more aware of what we have to offer," he said. "Once you build these bridges, then it works out better."
School people also appreciated the RCM program, the BPA report found. Follow-up surveys and interviews showed that saving money was the best-liked program feature--in fact, all seven districts cut their resource costs sufficiently to pay RCM salaries, which in any case had been guaranteed by the sponsors. Other perceived benefits included awareness of habits/conservation, seeing results, teaching students and staff about conservation/recycling, and saving energy. The main obstacles to program success included changing behavior, attitude and habits, educating people on conservation needs, securing cooperation and participation, having enough time, getting people to turn off lights and creating support for the program. After the program ended, all but two of 22 school managers queried indicated they would participate again.
"In some ways you could make the argument RCM is market transformation," Adelman said. It provides customer service and fosters relationships, a critical element for DSM in the competitive energy marketplace. And, not least, it conserves resources. In the end, she said, "I think we've learned something [through RCM] about [looking through] customers' eyes."--Mark Ohrenschall
Return to Contents
A recent study conducted by the Benton County Public Utility District found that homes built to the 1991 Washington State Energy Code saved twice as much money on energy bills as predicted. The study compared energy usage in homes built to the state's 1986 code with homes built to the 1991 WSEC, which brought the 1986 code up to full Model Conservation Standards.
The homes in the study averaged 2,144 square feet in size, and all of them used heat pumps for space heating. Frank Dallas, Benton PUD marketing and sales manager, said most homes in Benton County PUD's service area use either gas or heat pumps for space heating. In addition, ensuring that all the homes studied used the same space-heating method made it easier to compare savings between the 1986 and 1991 codes.
The study used metered histories for the homes for a two-year period, from Jan. 1, 1994 to Dec. 31, 1995. As a result of the study, Benton PUD estimated homes built to the 1991 code saved 1.31 kilowatt-hours per square foot and $130.83 annually, based on the PUD's residential rate of 4.65 cents/KWh.
Benton's results differed from earlier studies by showing higher dollar savings but lower energy savings. A December 1989 Washington State Energy Office study estimated cost savings of $57 per year for homes averaging 1,650 square feet, while a WSEO report from July 1993 estimated energy savings of 1.84 KWh per square foot for homes built to the 1991 code, compared to the 1986 code.
Dallas said the higher dollar savings "is good news." As for the savings-per-kilowatt-hour discrepancy, one reason may be that Benton County has fewer heating degree days than the homes used in the 1993 study; another is that the 1993 study only examined the heating season, while Benton PUD covered two years of electricity use.
Dallas said Benton PUD is almost finished with a study of cost savings in Super Good Cents homes. That study should be completed in October.--Jude Noland
Nothing lasts forever, including the free technical assistance hotline the Utility Code Group has been providing for information on Washington state's non-residential energy code. As of Aug. 1, calls to the hotline will cost $3.49 per minute. Based on historical use of this service, the Utility Code Group estimates the average cost per call will be about $20--for the "same timely, expert advice" as before.
The hotline is one of the training and technical assistance services provided free to the design and construction industry for the last 2-1/2 years, as support for implementation of Washington's non-residential energy code. The state's electric and gas utilities have financed these services, but their funding ends in March 1997. Changing the NREC technical assistance hotline from a free to a paid service is part of the transition. The intent of the transition strategies, according to the UCG, is to "test the market value of the services provided under the NREC Implementation Plan."
As of Aug. 1, the phone number for the NREC technical assistance hotline is 1-900-PER-NREC (1-900-737-6732).--Jude Noland
A Portland-area commercial building has won top honors in the 1996 Architecture and Energy Awards Program: Building Excellence in the Northwest. The Norm Thompson Headquarters in Hillsboro received the Honor Award in the juried competition, which is intended to recognize architectural excellence that successfully integrates energy-efficient design. Other criteria include environmentally sensitive design, use of passive technology (such as siting, building geometry, landscaping and daylighting), innovative use of technology and project marketability/transferability. The clothing company's headquarters building also was the first commercial construction project to earn Earth Smart resource- and energy-efficient certification from Portland General Electric.
Bonneville Power Administration and Portland General Electric sponsored the competition, which was administered by the American Institute of Architects/Portland Chapter.
Other winners:
The role of energy efficiency in an increasingly competitive energy future will be explored in a Sept. 11 forum at the Monarch Hotel in Portland. Sponsored by Bonneville Power Administration, "Energy Innovations for Tomorrow's Marketplace" will feature panel discussions, displays and exhibits, and addresses by BPA administrator Randy Hardy and Paul Hawken, author of the popular book, "The Ecology of Commerce." Cost of the forum is $96.
In addition to Hardy and Hawken, the forum will include a panel discussion, "The Customers of Tomorrow," in which panelists will discuss what they want and expect from their electric providers in future. Two other panel discussions are scheduled--"Innovative Services for the Next Millenium" and "The Role of Energy Efficiency in the New Market"--along with a presentation by the Electric Power Research Institute entitled "Technology 2000." Also featured will be an electric vehicle available for test rides. For more information, contact the Northwest Public Power Association, at (360) 254-5731; fax, (360) 254-5731; e-mail, power9999@aol.com.
Return to Contents
Con.WEB is sponsored by Eugene Water & Electric Board, Clark Public Utilities, Seattle City Light, Tacoma City Light, Idaho Power, Montana Power, PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric, Puget Power and the Bonneville Power Administration. OFFICES: Mail-P.O. Box 900928, Seattle, WA 98109-9228. EXPRESS: 117 West Mercer, Seattle, WA 98119. TELEPHONE-(206) 285-4848. FAX-(206) 281-8035. E-MAIL-iod@newsdata.com. Con.WEB was created by the Energy NewsData Web team, including: Publisher-Cyrus Noë; Editor-Mark Ohrenschall; Associate Editor-Jude Noland; Contributing Editors-Pamela Russell and Ben Tansey; Webmaster-Whitney Dickinson; General Manager-Brooke Dickinson; Office Manager-Denise Lee; Production Assistant-Michael Katayama; Administrative Assistant-Christina Smith; Graphic Design-Mike Katayama
[ IOD | Con.WEB Archives | NW EnerNet ]
Please contact lisaw@newsdata.com
if you have questions or comments
about this website or call 206/285-4848.
Last modified: July 31, 1996
http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/conweb/conweb7.html
Copyright © 1996 Energy NewsData
