CWEB.075/March.30.2002
 |
Oregon's new public-purposes funding organization is rooted in the state's move toward open electricity markets.
The 1999 legislation creating Oregon's electric industry restructuring earmarked 3 percent of electric revenues to utilities and suppliers for energy conservation, renewable energy and low-income weatherization and housing. It deferred many implementation details to the Oregon Public Utility Commission, which in October 2000 endorsed a non-profit organization to administer most of this money--a historic shift away from investor-owned utilities.
The Energy Trust of Oregon took shape by early 2001.
Senate Bill 1149 also linked the beginning of public-purposes funding to market access for retail electric customers of PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric.
That time arrived March 1, along with the Energy Trust's official debut.
The fledgling non-profit agency has a 10-member board of directors, a small but growing staff including an executive director, a Portland office and a grant agreement with the OPUC. It also has a Web site: http://www.energytrust.org/.
The Trust is funding utility-run conservation programs as a transition to its own ventures, as well as one renewable energy project (see related story).
Restructuring and Public Purposes
Gov. John Kitzhaber signed SB 1149 into law in July 1999, enabling a limited form of open electricity markets beginning October 2001 (later postponed until March 2002) for customers of PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric.
This landmark restructuring legislation also contained provisions for public purposes, defined as "new cost-effective local energy conservation, new market transformation efforts, the above-market costs of new renewable energy resources, and new low-income weatherization."
Public-purposes funding was set at 3 percent of total electric revenues from retail customers (for PacifiCorp, PGE and other suppliers), over 10 years.
The bill allocated 10 percent of that money directly to local education service districts. The remaining 90 percent was divvied up as follows: 63 percent for new cost-effective conservation and market transformation; 19 percent for the above-market costs of new renewable resources; 13 percent for new low-income weatherization (via Oregon Housing and Community Services); and 5 percent for low-income housing (also via OHCS).
Large customers (those using more than 1 megawatt annually at any site) were allowed to gain credits against most of their public-purposes charges for qualifying conservation and renewables activities. And at least 80 percent of conservation dollars were directed for spending within the territory of the collecting utility.
SB 1149, however, punted many other key details to the OPUC: "The commission shall direct the manner in which public purpose charges are collected and spent by an electric company and may require an electric company to expend funds through competitive bids or other means designed to encourage competition." It allowed for the possibility that "funds collected by an electric company through public purpose charges be paid to a nongovernmental entity" for the conservation, market transformation and renewables portions.
Establishing Trust
The OPUC ultimately opted for an independent entity to take charge of the conservation/renewables funds, which is forecast to amount to several hundred million dollars over 10 years (the exact amount will depend on electric revenues).
In February 2000, commissioners conceptually endorsed a non-profit organization as administrator (see Con.WEB, Feb. 25, 2000).
"Many parties are interested in fostering a competitive environment for delivery of conservation and renewables resources with the public purposes funds," wrote OPUC's Lynn Kittilson in a staff memo. "Staff and a majority of the parties believe the funds should be administered by an entity charged specifically with the sole purpose of achieving the goals of the public purpose legislation. We believe a nonprofit organization operating similarly to the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ... is a good model to use. In addition to being best suited to promote competitive delivery of programs, we believe a nonprofit organization would be the most cost-effective option for administering the public purpose funds."
After more months of discussions, the OPUC in October 2000 formally approved creation of the as-yet-unnamed entity (see Con.WEB, Oct. 31, 2000). "This new organization, while accountable to the PUC, will focus its expertise in designing new energy projects and managing competitive bids," commissioner Roger Hamilton said in a news release. "We don't want Oregon to drop the ball on investing in new, clean energy resources as the electricity industry becomes more competitive."
This organization--later defined as the Energy Trust of Oregon--began taking shape, with the expectation of restructuring starting in October 2001. However, the Legislature and Kitzhaber subsequently delayed the opening until March 2002.
Organizational Status: People, Place, Policies, Plans
The Trust is governed by a board of directors initially approved by the OPUC. Steven Schell, a Portland attorney, is the board president, while John Klosterman, manufacturing vice president at Rejuvenation, Inc., serves as vice president. Christine Ervin, president and chief executive officer of the U.S. Green Building Council, is secretary and energy consultant Tom Foley is treasurer. Other board members: Andy Anderson, senior vice president for international operations at Cascade Corp.; Jason Eisdorfer, energy program director for Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon; Suzanne Johannsen, a personal financial planner for American Express; Cheryl Perrin, executive director of Campaign for America; and John Reynolds, architecture professor emeritus at the University of Oregon. OPUC's Kittilson serves as an ex officio (non-voting) board member.
In its early days, especially before staff people were hired, the Trust has relied substantially on the work of Marc Smiley, Ed Sheets, Fred Gordon, Susan Kerosky and Dulane Moran.
Margie Harris was announced as the Trust's executive director (and first full-time staff person) in November. She has since been joined by Peter West (renewable energy director), Fred Gordon (planning and evaluation director), Jan Schaeffer (communications and marketing director), Monica Gruher (finance and operations director) and Carmen Doi (office manager). The Trust is in the process of further hiring (including an energy efficiency director). A 17-person staff is projected.
The Trust also is informed by advisory councils for conservation and renewables.
Meanwhile, the Trust has established an office in Portland--sharing space with The Climate Trust--and is searching for "permanent 'green' office space," according to Harris' January report to the board.
In addition to these and myriad other details of starting a new entity, the Trust board has engaged itself on policy and planning fronts as well.
The board has approved a grant agreement with the OPUC, described on the Trust Web site as "a legal contract between the Trust and the PUC that defines the ongoing approach to fulfilling the mandate of SB 1149." Schell has called this pact "probably the key agreement of our corporate life."
The board in November adopted an interim strategic plan that includes mission and vision statements, organizational values and goals and strategies. Specifically, the plan calls for achieving 300 average megawatts of energy efficiency by 2012 and diverse renewables comprising 15 percent of Oregon's energy resources by the same year. A five-year strategic plan is tentatively due later this year.
A 2002-2003 action plan "is designed to position the Trust to begin achievement of these long-term goals and the corresponding values, vision, mission, goals, objectives and strategies defined in the interim plan." --Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
|
Energy Trust of Oregon conservation programs will be primarily utility programs in this opening year of the state's public-purposes funding.
The Trust has reached agreements with Portland General Electric and PacifiCorp to continue energy-saving initiatives from the investor-owned utilities through this year, as a transition to Trust-initiated ventures. These utility programs are estimated to cost more than $24 million altogether, which includes money for completing earlier commitments and for projects signed up in 2002 and finished after year's end. Total energy savings are forecast at about 12.5 average megawatts.
This utility-centered approach is intended to avoid a conservation decline while the Trust develops its own competitively bid initiatives. "We clearly knew that the utility programs would be the guts of the transition," said Trust board member Jason Eisdorfer.
He and his board colleagues in November reserved at least $4 million for initial Trust-originated conservation ventures in 2002. Several possibilities are under consideration, but none have yet been officially adopted. Requests for proposals for Trust-administered ventures are anticipated to come out beginning this summer and fall.
Also in the works is a plan for the Trust to essentially continue PGE's and PacifiCorp's Oregon share of regional funding for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. This should amount to roughly $13 million available through 2006.
On the renewable energy side, the Trust board has already endorsed its first project: $167,000 toward a solar photovoltaic installation on The Brewery Blocks development in downtown Portland. The board also has reserved up to 20 percent of renewable energy funds (an estimated $1.5 million) for similarly unsolicited proposals this year. Other renewables programs are under development.
Energy Conservation
The Trust is keen on sustaining energy-saving programs in the early days of public-purposes funding.
"I would hope first of all we wouldn't lose the great work PGE and PacifiCorp have done," said Trust board president Steven Schell. "I think the first thing ... is to assure there aren't going to be any significant dips in the continuation of those programs. After that, though, we want to see a competitive process for deciding how best to allocate this money in order to maximize the energy efficiency and renewables capabilities."
After months of negotiations, the Trust and the two IOUs agreed in late February on contracts for ongoing conservation initiatives in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors.
For PGE (see related story), this agreement covers residential weatherization, direct install and water-heater programs; VendingMiser applications; industrial processes; and commercial/industrial retrofits, new construction and commissioning of existing buildings. Projected cost for 2002 is $9.1 million, according to a summary sheet, and savings are estimated at 4.5 average megawatts. Another $4.2 million in costs and 2 aMW in savings are forecast for 2003, along with about 1 aMW in 2004 (customer commitments made in 2002 but realized after year's end will be honored within time limits).
PacifiCorp will offer a residential energy audit and weatherization rebate program, Energy FinAnswer and retrofit programs for small commercial and large commercial, said energy services director Jeff Bumgarner. The IOU expects to spend $9.2 million and forecasts total savings of 5.1 aMW, according to a summary sheet. (See related story on PacifiCorp).
Combined levelized costs are estimated at approximately 1.8 to 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour (on a utility basis) and under 3 cents/KWh on a total resource cost basis, according to Trust consultant Ed Sheets and new planning and evaluation director Fred Gordon.
"We've got the flexibility to adjust these programs so they might end a little earlier than December if Energy Trust programs are up and running faster, or if they're not available and all sectors are not being covered, we could ask the utilities to continue their programs for a little bit more," Sheets told the Trust board Feb. 27.
A Trust document noted that revenues are uncertain and flexibility is required, and that "it will be difficult to maintain customer access to all programs through the end of 2002 given the projected revenues. We anticipate the programs will be run in a reactive mode with minimal marketing unless and until we find we have sufficient revenues to again market more aggressively."
While the utility ventures run their course, the Trust is looking at a number of possibilities for its own initial programs: light-emitting diode (LED) traffic lights; duct- and air-sealing in manufactured homes; specialized energy efficiency services in a specific commercial sector; municipal sewage treatment facilities; buying down interest rates on state-sponsored energy loans; and energy management software for computer networks.
Initial Trust-funded initiatives will likely be "specific and relatively small-scale kinds of programmatic efforts," said Eisdorfer, while larger endeavors are developed. "What can we do that doesn't require reinventing the wheel [and] where there hasn't been a lot of focus?"
Conservation manager Tom Eckman of the Northwest Power Planning Council thinks these first Trust ventures have outsized importance. "They don't want to fail coming out of the gate," he said. "The initial offerings they make under their own banner are really important for image and showing legislators and others they can do the job."
Meanwhile, Trust officials are engaged in "listening sessions" with energy customers and clean energy suppliers, according to a fact sheet. "Responses will help the Trust design programs that capture opportunities and meet important needs. By summer and fall 2002, the Trust will begin issuing requests for proposals to engage energy vendors and service providers in our programs." Executive director Margie Harris said that as the Trust designs programs and solicits bids, "We'll be very interested in how people can deliver services more efficiently and effectively."
The resource potential is considerable. A recent draft report from Pacific Energy Associates and Stellar Processes estimated 237 aMW of achievable energy conservation available to the Trust over 10 years at levelized costs of 4 cents/KWh or below. Although less than the 300 aMW goal in the Trust's interim strategic plan, "This is not of great concern, as we believe that many types of resources are underrepresented in this rough cut and some more will be developed over the Energy Trust's ten years of authorized funding," the draft report said.
In addition, the Trust intends to provide about $13 million to the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance through 2006, continuing the funding formerly provided by PGE and PacifiCorp for its Oregon territory. A formal agreement is anticipated soon, said Alliance executive director Margie Gardner. She also mentioned potential opportunities for complementary efforts between the two entities, including programs, market research and evaluation. In addition, the Trust will have a seat on the Alliance board of directors.
Renewable Energy
The Trust's very first funded project fits in the renewables category: a solar PV system on the façade of Block 4 of The Brewery Blocks development in downtown Portland.
This 23-kilowatt system is expected to produce 16,181 KWh annually, and cost a total of $238,018. The Trust board on Jan. 30 agreed to furnish $167,000.
Trust board member John Reynolds called this "a real 'lost opportunity.' If you don't say yes now, you lose a chance for a high-visibility project." Dennis Wilde of developer Gerding/Edlen Development Co. described some urgency for a commitment, as Block 4 was already under construction and the general contractor needed a PV go-ahead by mid-February. This will be part of a larger solar-panel order by the Bonneville Environmental Foundation.
This PV project "would not have proceeded" without Trust funding, Harris said later. "We see this as exactly an example of the type of tipping-point role we can play," leveraging other resources (in this case private and utility dollars, in-kind contributions and Oregon's Business Energy Tax Credit).
Also on Jan. 30, the Trust board agreed to leave open up to 20 percent of the 2002 renewables funding pot--an estimated $1.5 million--for other such unsolicited renewable energy ventures. "There are an awful lot of ideas out there," said Reynolds. "It would be a real mistake not to open this door in this area."
Other Oregon Public-Purposes Funding
The Trust administers most--but not all--of the 3 percent of PGE and PacifiCorp electric revenues earmarked for Oregon public purposes.
Of that total, 56.7 percent is earmarked for Trust conservation (including market transformation) and 17.1 percent is designated for Trust renewables, according to the Trust Web site. Another 11.7 percent goes for low-income watherization and 4.5 percent goes for low-income housing, both overseen by Oregon Housing and Community Services.
The weatherization piece is estimated to provide $6 million annually, said Alan Kramer of OHCS. It should enable an additional 1,200 to 1,500 Oregon homes to receive weatherization each year. "That'll help greatly," he said--although the total number of homes needing weatherization approaches 170,000 in PGE and PacifiCorp service territories alone. "It's not going to solve the problem."
The housing funding, perhaps $2.5 to $3 million annually, will be put into a trust fund to help finance affordable housing, Kramer said.
Meanwhile, 10 percent of all public-purposes money goes directly for schools, via education service districts on a per-pupil basis. Energy audits are the first order of business, according to an Oregon Office of Energy summary. Recommended energy efficiency measures with simple paybacks of 10 years or less come next. Once those are completed, schools can use the dollars for other energy measures, energy conservation education and renewable energy resources. OOE reports that 17 ESDs--covering 106 school districts, 829 schools and more than 388,000 students--will get this public-purposes funding. This is forecast to total about $70 million over 10 years.
In addition, Oregon's public-purposes system allows single-metered large customers (using more than 1 aMW annually) to "self-direct" their public-purposes charges for conservation (up to 56.7 percent) and renewables (up to 17.1 percent). OOE will review and certify applications for self-directed initiatives.
The Trust board has wrestled with the issue of self-directing customers also receiving Trust funding. On Jan. 30, the board decided to allow certified self-directing customers to seek Trust funding in 2002 for separate conservation or renewables projects at the same site. --Mark Ohrenschall
|
The Energy Trust of Oregon is embarking on an ambitious mission, seeking "changes [in] how Oregonians produce and use energy by investing in efficient technologies and renewable resources that save dollars and protect the environment."
To accomplish this the Trust will have access to a very substantial budget, amounting to several hundred million dollars over the 10-year public-purposes funding period established in Oregon's restructuring legislation.
At the same time, the Trust faces a host of issues as it launches into what one observer called a "grand adventure" in the independent, non-utility pursuit of energy conservation and renewable energy.
One big issue is money, notably a lower-than-expected budget this first year and the uncertainties of future revenues tied to electricity sales.
Another broad consideration is accountability. The Trust is formally accountable to the Oregon Public Utility Commission, while informally responsible to the state Legislature, energy efficiency and renewables stakeholders, and, ultimately, Oregon electric customers who fund the Trust.
Accordingly, balance is a vital element for the Trust, among customer sectors, geographic areas, programmatic approaches and more.
As it establishes specific initiatives for both conservation and renewables, the Trust is assimilating lots of ideas with scant direction from the restructuring law.
At the same time, the organization must attend to its own development, from hiring staff to making itself known around the state.
Money
Oregon's 1999 electric industry restructuring legislation earmarked 3 percent of electricity revenues for the "public purpose" of funding energy conservation, renewable energy and low-income weatherization and housing (see related story on the Trust's formation and development).
Some estimates put the Trust's annual revenues as high as $50 million to $60 million, for its approximately 75-percent share of the public-purposes money.
But the 2002 numbers won't come close to those figures. One reason is the five-month delay in starting restructuring and public-purposes funding, from Oct. 1, 2001 to March 1, 2002. "As a consequence of that, we missed the heavy electric consumption period of the winter," said board president Steven Schell. Recession and utility rate increases also have affected electric revenues, noted board member Jason Eisdorfer, while industrial customer self-direction options for public-purposes funding add uncertainty. "We rely on somebody else's revenues," he said. "It's completely out of our hands."
The latest forecasts project $26 million in Trust public-purposes collections from March 1 to Sept. 30.
"We have a little bit of a disconnect between what the Trust is able to do and what some of the expectations in the marketplace are," said conservation resources administrator Bill Nesmith of the Oregon Office of Energy, describing a "fairly difficult, agonizing process to figure out how to stretch the fairly thin resources through this first year," and get ready for 2003 when "a full measure of revenues will be available" and the Trust is "really able to take off."
While this more abundant future awaits, the Trust wants to ensure continuity in energy efficiency offerings for Portland General Electric and PacifiCorp customers. Accordingly, the Trust has agreed to fund ongoing PGE and Pacific programs through year's end.
Ironically, the two investor-owned utilities experienced boom years for energy efficiency in 2001 stemming from the energy crisis, said conservation manager Tom Eckman of the Northwest Power Planning Council. PGE and Pacific cumulatively recorded more than 33 aMW of Oregon savings in 2001, and Pacific alone spent more than $10 million, according to utility officials.
As a result the Trust's first year will appear to represent a decline, but Eckman called 2001 "a real aberration." Over the next two years, "There will clearly be a lot more money [for the Trust] than utilities spent in any two-year period historically," he said. And although the Trust's funding is connected to electric sales and thus variable, "Their revenue swings from year to year will be a lot less than the utility budgeting process" ups and downs for conservation programs.
Trust officials acknowledge the funding vagaries, and the need to adapt to circumstances. "We'd all like to have more money available," Trust executive director Margie Harris told the board in November, stressing flexibility. Board member Christine Ervin noted the "inherently dynamic revenue" and suggested budgets should take that into account.
Accountability
The Trust is an independent non-profit entity--but not entirely independent. "They're in a fishbowl," said OOE's Nesmith. "There was no unanimity amongst the legislators that they wanted to do this [public-purposes funding]. I think [Trust officials are] feeling very accountable."
Eisdorfer agrees: "We know and believe we're accountable to the customers and to the PUC and to the Legislature. Job one is to make sure that we're responsible and accountable, and everything else flows from there."
The Trust and the OPUC in November reached a 32-page grant agreement designed "to control the manner in which the Energy Trust will receive and expend funds" in accordance with restructuring law. It spells out numerous requirements for the Trust, ranging from establishing administrative policies to reporting to the OPUC to conducting an independent management review at least every five years. It also includes "operational guidelines" to develop competitive markets for efficiency and renewables, use competitive bidding when appropriate, spend most conservation funds in the year received, and widely spread program benefits
"Most people are fairly comfortable there's a reasonable level of accountability there," said Nesmith.
But the PUC is not alone in scrutinizing the Trust. Recently, some Oregon legislators covetously eyed public-purposes funding as they struggled with a $800 million-plus state budget shortfall. One proposal called for taking $30 million of public-purposes dollars to help plug that gap, but it met "strong resistance from a lot of people, including the governor," OOE acting director Michael Grainey told the Trust board Feb. 27. "At least at this point, it seems stable. No one is actively trying to look at that."
Schell later described "some confusion on the part of the Legislature as to exactly the nature of this money." It comes from PGE and Pacific customers, he noted, not the general Oregon public, and a recent state legal opinion concluded taking the money for general-fund purposes would be unconstitutional. And from a policy standpoint, said Eisdorfer, "The last thing you want to do" in the midst of electric rate increases "is take away the programs that can help citizens and customers pay lower rates."
But Schell also acknowledged the Legislature theoretically could cancel or alter public-purposes funding. "We keep a weather eye out on the Legislature, and communicate as effectively as we can," he said
The Trust is "ultimately" answerable to electric customers, Schell said, and other agency leaders agree.
Balance
"First and foremost, this is customer money," said Eisdorfer. "We have to be remarkably responsible with what we do with it."
That means, among other consequences, "The customer segments that contribute have an opportunity to benefit from our programs," he said among other consequences, either through direct participation in programs or through broader benefits such as avoided power generation and a cleaner environment.
This customer-class balance poses a particular dilemma in pursuing cost-effective conservation: a recent preliminary analysis by Pacific Energy Associates and Stellar Processes found that residential customers are expected to furnish about 43 percent of public-purposes revenue, but the residential sector accounts for only 14 percent of prospective energy efficiencies at costs below 4 cents per kilowatt-hour.
"I think their biggest challenge is to get a broad spectrum of programs available to lots of folks, soon," said executive director Margie Gardner of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, who serves on the Trust conservation advisory committee.
Geographical equity is another consideration, specifically mentioned in the PUC grant agreement guidelines. That means the Trust must venture beyond the big customer base of metropolitan Portland; Pacific's service territory, for example, extends to other areas of the Willamette Valley as well as parts of central, eastern, southern and coastal Oregon.
Meanwhile, the restructuring law mandates that at least 80 percent of funds allocated for conservation funds be spent in the territory of the collecting utility.
An additional balancing issue will likely be found among those who provide services through the Trust, as utilities such as PGE, government agencies and private-sector firms (large and small) are all among potential bidders for Trust funding.
As an example, conservation manager Tom Eckman of the Northwest Power Planning Council said he's heard some concerns that utilities, with their extensive network of customer relationships, will have "a leg up" in bidding for commercial and industrial programs. At the same time, he noted, some large mechanical engineering firms also have formed "inroads" with large customers. "The Trust has got to work through the issue of how much value there is in maintaining programs" and momentum "and still offer an opportunity to have this work competitively bid beyond utilities."
Conservation, Renewables Ideas
In the beginning, Trust programs are essentially utility programs, while the agency considers its own potential initial ventures (see related story). Eventually, the Trust will pursue its own paths for conservation and renewables. There are no road maps--but there are plenty of ideas for directions.
For example, OOE's Nesmith thinks there is "certainly a fair amount of interest in exploring some new approaches and maybe some new ways of accomplishing conservation in the residential sector. The standard energy audit/weatherization ... approach needs to be freshened up a bit." He mentioned a more comprehensive focus (that would include ducts, furnaces and appliances) and the possibility of community-based conservation efforts.
Julie Brandis of Associated Oregon Industries likes the idea of "ways to create programs that are more associated with individual industries, as opposed to conservation projects that are one size fits all." She lauds the Trust for being "really responsive" to that concept, holding focus groups for specific business types.
Eisdorfer believes the Trust can help influence people's energy actions. "It's clearly not our main goal to simply sit and inform and have people turn out the lights," he said. "Nevertheless, there are some real opportunities there ... to combine behavior with hardware." He and others also see possibilities in combining energy savings and renewable energy. "A lot of green building concepts are both energy efficiency and renewables," he said. "We want to see what kinds of synergies we can find there."
The notion of marshaling other resources with the Trust has gained favor. Schell cited partnership potential with Bonneville Power Administration, the Alliance, Bonneville Environmental Foundation, the Power Council and the Climate Trust. Harris, speaking to a Northwest Energy Efficiency Council forum in January, wondered aloud how Trust contractors could, for example, offer Oregon's Business Energy Tax Credit to customers on the spot. "Where are the tippers that are going to move people over the line" to make energy-efficient decisions?
On the renewables side, the Trust--with a much smaller pot of money than for conservation-- faces decisions about investing in projects with various scales and technologies.
"A million dollars doesn't go a long ways in a 50-megawatt or a 100-megawatt wind project," said president Angus Duncan of Bonneville Environmental Foundation. "But doing [wind development] a lot smaller than that doesn't make a lot of sense ... Maybe the answer is issuing an RFP and inviting developers to come in to tell the Energy Trust how best to leverage its money" in a "reasonably inventive" manner.
Solar energy consultant Doug Boleyn, a member of the Trust's renewables advisory committee, thinks diversity is important; he foresees solicitations for different types of renewables. And he also sees great potential for the Trust in leveraging funds from other sources, while avoiding unnecessary subsidies. "If with 7 to 10 million dollars we can leverage another 20 or 30 million dollars worth of private investments, then that's a good thing ... Becoming a catalyst is a lot of what the Energy Trust of Oregon is all about."
The Trust also could help support retail green power, Schell suggested, perhaps by subsidizing the cost to consumers.
Although specific Trust ventures are still developing, the board has made some policy decisions that will affect programs.
At its Feb. 27 meeting, the board adopted a conservation cost-effectiveness methodology primarily based on a societal (total resource) perspective, with a 3-percent discount rate that effectively increases the amount of cost-effective savings. Utility and consumer standpoints will also be taken into account.
The board also approved policies for a fuel-neutral perspectives, an emphasis on seeking lost-opportunity efficiencies and a reliability/risk portfolio approach in which 20 percent of resources would be targeted to "higher-risk activities that bring new efficiency opportunities or more effective delivery systems into the marketplace."
Internal Matters
The Trust also is in the formative stages as an organization (see related story on organizational status).
This internal development is "a little more mundane" than other issues, said Eckman--but still vital. "They need to get their systems and people in place and moving on down the road."
Gardner, who helped create the Alliance, knows the Trust has "an awful lot of work to do. I totally sympathize with their situation--setting up contract features, doing an accounting system, let alone which programs make the most sense for their mission."
As a general organization principle, the Trust will think small and rely substantially on others to carry out initiatives. "We anticipate that we are a pass-through organization," said Schell. "In other words, we are not going to build a big staff, not build a big operation activity."
The board has approved 17 staff positions, although Harris said, "I don't want to say we'll always be 17 or when we'll be 17. We're in developmental stages ... We will grow at a reasonable pace. What we have to do is have the framework and staff in place in which to function optimally. We'll always remain compact and effective at what we do ... We won't be in the business of providing services directly. Most of our work is all going to be accomplished through contracts with direct service providers." Still, she added. "We must ensure we have the proper oversight of those contractors and the ability to evaluate results."
Meanwhile, the Trust also is working to make itself known around the state. The agency's 2002-2003 action plan describes outreach activities to a wide range of stakeholders and communities throughout Oregon.
Customers considering energy efficiency improvements will now call the Trust instead of the utilities, noted Nesmith. "It's a matter of switching gears mentally ... They've got to get some name recognition and get people plugged into this new organization. That'll be a challenge. It's going to take a little bit of work. A lot of people zone this stuff out. Hopefully, in the end, what people will notice is ... they'll get better, more responsive programs and programs that have been allowed to be a little more creative." --Mark Ohrenschall
|
As a new independent public-purposes funding agency with lots of money and lots of potential, the Energy Trust of Oregon has generated considerable attention among those interested in Oregon conservation and renewables.
Following are some thoughts on the Trust from staff and board members, along with people from regional energy agencies, the public and private sectors, advocacy groups and utilities.
Trust on Trust
In a later interview with Con.WEB, Harris described reactions she has heard in discussions with many stakeholders: "I can tell you people are very positive toward the Trust, supportive of the concept, excited in what we're able to do, very willing to provide feedback on their experiences."
"In terms of benefits to Oregon," he continued, "we have two situations where we really profit"--one, energy resource diversification and less dependence on volatile energy markets, and two, a cleaner environment (along with reduced emissions of greenhouse gases).
Eisdorfer believes utilities "have done an OK job" with conservation and renewables. "But I fundamentally believe the Trust can do better. There is no inherent conflict of interest. The Trust is going to do as well as we possibly can to get these programs implemented as cheaply as possible, doing this on a public basis, getting input, looking for good, solid investments, and also innovation."
"I just think the structure we have established creates enormous potential for doing it as well or better than anyplace we know of," he said. "The excitement is ... palpable. We're ... itching to go."
Regional Views
"For the last 20 years we've played Sisyphus with the utilities, trying to encourage them and control them and incent them to do something that's not in their economic self-interest. This is, next to the [Northwest Energy Efficiency] Alliance, the first time utilities are not in charge of deciding when and where and how much to invest in conservation and renewables. I think it's an exciting opportunity," he said.
Eckman thinks Oregonians will experience with the Trust, "generally speaking, a better environment and less increase in your power bill than otherwise." The average citizen will see "not much change, except to see more benefits flowing more broadly and more consistently; better availability [of programs] in the residential sector ... and clearly more stable availability of funding for commercial and industrial sector activities. As a general concept, the potential to participate and make yourself more efficient will increase."
Public-Sector Views
"Having said all that," he continued, "I think there's enthusiasm and a lot of good people working on it. We'll find a way to find a reasonable approach, and hopefully have a lot more flexibility.
"I think it's both an opportunity and a challenge," Nesmith said. Those opportunities include pursuing some different approaches to conservation in the residential sector.
He praised the Trust board as "diverse and engaged. That's going to be an asset. The board is not made up of the usual suspects."
Private-Sector Perspectives
The Trust will avoid the conservation roller coaster phenomenon with a "solid" and "predictable" level of funding, Price said, and the agency "can be more creative, take more risks (though prudent ones) and more fully utilize the ideas and talents of third-party providers for the design and implementation of programs. For the first time, the Trust can develop efficiency programs that are built around the special needs of energy consumers rather than the institutional needs of the regulated utilities." Taking a longer-term view and using competitive processes are also beneficial. "Most importantly, it will send a consistent market signal ... that energy efficiency is smart, sensible and in the consumer's best interest."
She thinks the Trust has experienced "some growing pains," including an initial strategic plan panned by AOI members and a board of directors with insufficient business representation. But she praised the Trust for its responsiveness--for example, by adding an experienced business person to the board and exploring more customized efficiency opportunities for industries.
"AOI members will be looking for a great deal of accountability" from the Trust, Brandis said. "We have to stay on top of it to make sure the money is spent efficiently and that the group is managed well."
The Trust has a 10-year tenure, he noted, and doesn't necessarily need to save big megawatts right away. "I think they need to meet with, and think creatively, how to continue to be involved with small contractors."
Olson believes the Trust is "potentially a very good model for how public-purpose funds can be extracted from the utility-paying public. It really does come from the public. We're all paying into this."
Advocacy Thoughts
Utilities have been in the "awkward position" of both selling electricity and encouraging customers to use less of it, an "inherent conflict of interest," Bissonnette said. The Trust represents "a completely new direction for the state and its energy policy," and in time "will really be looked at nationally as a model of how to make these investments, and make them consistent over a period of time, not up and down with the whims of the energy markets and the short-term needs of utilities."
Her RNP colleague Peter West (since named renewable energy director for the Trust) believes the new agency has greater freedom than utilities for conservation and renewables initiatives. "It's freed of the bureaucracy, the constraints of owning generation, so it can look at a system in, I think, a more objective way." He also thinks the Trust is "free to be more entrepreneurial than utilities. It's smaller ... more nimble." And it has a 10-year horizon in which to work, which should help it "deal with a whole series of things that tip the balance toward more customer-driven energy conservation, more customer-driven renewables."
Utilities
"Right now, with all this going on in the [energy] industry and the economy, I think the Trust has a lot of challenges. They also have a lot of opportunities to make it go well."
 |
Portland General Electric is taking an entrepreneurial approach to energy efficiency.
After 23 years of running energy conservation programs, Oregon's largest investor-owned utility now plans to seek demand-side business opportunities.
The IOU and the Energy Trust of Oregon have contractually agreed to continue PGE programs through December, helping to ease the utility's energy efficiency transformation.
"We definitely hope to bid on ... innovative programs through the Trust," either through requests for proposals or unsolicited bids, said Carol Brown, PGE's manager of distribution, marketing and operations. "We feel we have a lot to offer and we know our customers and we have a lot of trade ally relationships that can help us in that." Publicly owned utilities represent another market for PGE energy efficiency services, she said. The IOU recently opened its Earth Advantage National Center demonstration and training facility in suburban Portland as a resource for energy efficiency and sustainable building.
PGE took an earlier step toward independent ventures with its Green Building Services, a non-regulated consulting service (see Con.WEB, Dec. 21, 2000).
With utility stockholders now funding efficiency initiatives, not ratepayers, "We have to make it work and get revenues to cover the cost of doing business," Brown said. She called this a "different world" with "quite a bit more risk," but also expressed optimism. "I really am very proud of the [PGE energy efficiency] team, how they've taken on a new culture, looking more to the entrepreneurial side."
As for the IOU's proposed acquisition by NW Natural, "I think that with this team we offer Northwest Natural energy efficiency ... expertise that can fit into their organization really well," she said.
Transition to Demand-Side Opportunities
Under the recent agreement with the Trust PGE will carry on energy-saving programs in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors, as a transition to Trust-administered initiatives (see related story).
"We've agreed with the Trust, like with the [Oregon Public Utility] Commission the last four to six years, that we want to continue the lost opportunity market with new construction and industrial processes," said Brown. "We've agreed that's where we would focus as much as can."
Residential ventures--primarily weatherization and direct-install programs--will also continue. PGE has budgeted about $4 million from March through December 2002 for ongoing energy-saving ventures for homes, and $5 million for commercial/industrial. Most of the programmatic efficiency gains this year are forecast to come from businesses and industries--about 3.5 average megawatts for this period, compared with 1 aMW for residential. "Savings tend to be easier to acquire in the commercial/industrial side and usually at a lower-cost number," Brown noted. "In order to accommodate all customers, we need to have programs in all areas."
This contract also allows funding for customer energy-saving commitments made through December and realized in 2003 or 2004. That should cost an additional $6 million, Brown estimated, although the final number could vary based on economic or other factors.
"The Trust [agreement] is a good starting point, as far as having a contract to get us started ... to look for future opportunities," she said.
Those opportunities include seeking funds from the Trust through competitive bidding. "We've been at this for quite a while, worked in all the sectors," noted Brown.
She particularly cited PGE's penchant for trying unusual energy-saving approaches. "I think we pushed the envelope of innovation in a lot of our programs," such as on-line energy audits, schools initiatives and the Earth Advantage resource efficiency program for commercial buildings, which started slow with one building apiece in 1996 and 1997 but now counts between 40 and 60 pending projects.
Another "real positive factor" for PGE, according to Brown, is the new Earth Advantage National Center in Tualatin, south of Portland. This 10,000-square-foot facility features a display house with energy- and resource-efficient technologies; lighting displays, a lighting lab and a lighting mock-up room; a resource library; conference and training room; and education and training events. "We just see there's a lot of interest" in the center, Brown said, from PGE customers and other utilities.
Such utilities are another potential efficiency market for PGE. "We're expanding ... beyond the Trust, to look to other areas, such as municipals and the publics. They have a lot to be undertaken" with Bonneville Power Administration's conservation/renewables wholesale rate discount and conservation augmentation initiatives. "Some things we have to offer in those arenas might be good opportunities."
That encompasses services as well as programs, said PGE public power representative Jim Brands. As a services example, PGE lighting specialists could help local utilities with their own lighting initiatives. He noted that 12 to 15 public-power utilities are inside or adjacent to PGE territory, and 25 altogether are located within 2-1/2-hours drive of Portland. Four services contracts between PGE and utilities were in discusssion or pending as of late March.
In programs, Brands said Earth Advantage represents an "umbrella brand" involving residential and commercial new construction, remodels, manufactured homes and the Tualatin facility. He has talked with 40 utilities on some combination of services and programs, and 25 of them specifically about Earth Advantage.
"It's listening to the market, and then finding things that we think respond to those needs and seeing if people are interested," he said.
Historical Perspective
The end of PGE's ratepayer-funded conservation programs comes, ironically, right after the most prolific energy-saving year in the utility's 23-year history of demand-side programs.
Portland General recorded about 21.5 aMW of savings in 2001, Brown said, including about 10 aMW with commercial and industrial customers and another 6-8 aMW from more than 1 million redeemed discount coupons for compact fluorescent lamps.
The IOU's previous single-year high was 21.3 aMW in 1994, according to figures from the Northwest Power Planning Council. PGE totalled 121 aMW from 1978-2000, second among large regional utilities (Puget Sound Energy tops the chart at 218 aMW).
"I really think that it's the customers that make our programs work," said Brown. "It's like the CFL program; if you educate the customer, they tend to buy in, setting that trend to market transformation ...
"We've always been very cautious about how much money we've put into the programs as far as a rebate," she continued. "We feel that customers need to think about and take on energy efficiency as a part of their decision-making," learning about lower bills, higher-quality products and other benefits of more efficient use of power. "I really think the programs and successes of them are driven by customers," with "a lot of credit" also due to PGE energy efficiency employees. --Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
 |
With the advent of Oregon's public-purposes funding, PacifiCorp is phasing out traditional energy conservation programs for its half-million customers in the state.
The investor-owned utility is continuing its main energy-saving programs in Oregon through year's end, under an agreement with the Trust. This transition covers residential, commercial and industrial sector initiatives with an estimated total budget of $9.2 million, which includes funds for customer conservation commitments made in 2002 but accomplished in 2003 or 2004 (see related story).
"We're trying to close the chapter in how programs are delivered today to the new chapter, without the market experiencing a dramatic decrease in services," PacifiCorp energy services director Jeff Bumgarner told Con.WEB.
The IOU has no real interest in pursuing conservation funding from the Energy Trust of Oregon as a profit-seeking opportunity, according to Bumgarner. Nor does it plan to run its own energy-saving initiatives once the switch to Trust-funded initiatives is complete, except possibly for demand-side ventures benefitting the utility system.
But PacifiCorp, which does business in Oregon as Pacific Power, plans to stay "very active" communicating with the Trust and continuing to encourage its customers to use energy wisely, Bumgarner said.
Oregon's public-purposes funding, meanwhile, has no direct effect on Pacific's demand-side activities in its other five Western states.
From Tradition to Transition
Pacific's traditional demand-side management initiatives in Oregon have generally entailed working with customers to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and businesses, through funding cost-effective measures and providing efficiency-related services. "Those programs theoretically lower system costs, to help either keep rates low in the future or lower rates from what they are right now," Bumgarner explained. They also benefit customers, he noted.
The IOU has recovered the costs of these ventures in its retail rates. But with public-purposes funding established as part of Oregon's electric industry restructuring, "We will no longer have that funding mechanism to fund programs," he said.
Consequently, PacifiCorp would only run DSM initiatives if "it was extremely necessary for purposes that could be demonstrated to the [Oregon Public Utility] Commission should be recovered in another way. I wouldn't categorize it as energy efficiency anymore." A possible example: targeted load control in lieu of building a new substation.
Nor is Pacific inclined to pursue Trust-administered dollars for conservation ventures.
"Do we have an interest to compete for funds as a money-making venture, perhaps? I would say no," said Bumgarner. "Our core business is not demand-side management. It is one of our talents, based on knowledge ... We don't have any particular interest to compete with other businesses." He indicated Pacific could look anew at its plans if utility officials believed their customers were "underserved," if for example there were too few providers of conservation services.
The transition to the Trust also will influence Pacific's approach to energy resource planning for Oregon. Although the IOU will still conduct such planning, Bumgarner said, "It probably won't include demand-side management as an option in our optimization model." The OPUC is reviewing how restructuring affects integrated resource planning, said commission staffer Jack Breen, and "nothing definitive" is yet known. A formal docket on that topic is possible, said his colleague Maury Galbraith. Both indicated conservation resources would likely still be taken into account for utility planning purposes, regardless of how the savings are acquired.
In any case, Pacific will continue to promote energy efficiency, largely via customer communications. "We still want our customers to understand the product and use it efficiently," said Bumgarner. "We won't be paying directly to help encourage it."
The IOU also expects to spread the word about the Trust and other conservation facilitators. Bumgarner said he recently spoke with a customer interested in resurrecting a small hydro project on the Oregon coast, and advised the man to inquire with Pacific about net metering, the Oregon Office of Energy about tax credits and the Trust about potential renewables funding. As the Trust develops its own ventures, "We wouldn't become a total sales arm" for the ETO, he said, but, "We would certainly make sure customers are aware of services and how to reference those services."
Pacific officials also plan to share with the Trust their experiences operating energy-saving ventures. "They're all very competent people; I don't think we have a lot of advice to offer the Trust," said Bumgarner. "Where we do provide value is we have a pretty rich history in actual implementation ... We can provide and we will continue to provide our recommendations on programs that work, program delivery mechanisms, lessons learned, that type of experience."
The utility also could inform the Trust about specific conservation opportunities within its far-flung Oregon service territories, such as fast-growing areas that might warrant new construction programs.
A Little History
Pacific's conservation history dates to the very early days of Northwest utility energy-saving initiatives to save energy. "The short answer is we've been doing it for a number of years," said Bumgarner.
The Northwest Power Planning Council lists PacifiCorp's Northwest energy savings as beginning in 1978 with 0.1 average megawatt. Through 2000, Pacific's regional conservation acquisitions total 88 aMW, ranking it fourth among large regional utilities.
Among historical highlights for PacifiCorp is the Hood River Project, a novel experiment in community-based residential conservation that Pacific Power & Light operated in the mid-1980s in Hood River and neighboring Mosier, east of Portland. This two-year venture--conceived by the Natural Resources Defense Council and funded by Bonneville Power Administration--led to energy audits in 91 percent of eligible homes and major weatherization measures installed in 85 percent of homes.
In 1991 PacifiCorp launched the Energy FinAnswer program, featuring complete up-front financing for conservation measures and a subsequent energy service charge to participating customers. It was seen as an answer to numerous conservation barriers, including financing, rate impacts, cost recovery, comprehensiveness and lost opportunities, according to a 1992 article in Conservation Monitor (Con.WEB's predecessor publication). FinAnswer won a prestigious 1992 national energy management program award from the Edison Electric Institute.
In recent years, the FinAnswer has continued as one of Pacific's key demand-side programs. Bumgarner called it the "flagship" for commercial/industrial customers.
FinAnswer used to offer energy engineering services, including audits, along with below-market-rate loans for recommended energy-saving measures, he said. Those loans are no longer available, but the utility still furnishes energy services and analysis and rebates of about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour for saved energy, and $50 per peak kilowatt saved. Pacific also can arrange to buy Oregon Business Energy Tax Credits for customers at a discounted rate. In some cases, Bumgarner said, these assorted financial incentives can cover 70 percent to 80 percent of incremental costs for efficiency measures. "That's pretty good money; it moved a lot more of the market in a bigger hurry."
Bumgarner said Pacific also recently introduced two programs for small and large commercial/industrial retrofits, with fixed incentives for particular technologies.
"Those three programs are our mainstay programs in commercial/industrial markets in Oregon," he said.
Pacific's primary offering for Oregonian households has been a weatherization program, which includes a home audit and either a 6.5-percent loan or a 25-percent rebate (last year raised to 35 percent) for recommended cost-effective measures. The IOU a couple of years ago added "instant savings" as part of the audits, such as compact fluorescent lamps, low-flow showerheads, faucet aerators and water-heater adjustments.
These four ventures will continue through this year with Trust funding (see related story).
Pacific spent more than $10 million in Oregon in 2001 on these "traditional DSM" ventures, Bumgarner said. He reported total savings of close to 12 aMW. --Mark Ohrenschall
 |
Idaho's first statewide commercial energy code is on the books, along with new residential energy standards.
Gov. Dirk Kempthorne on March 27 signed House Bill 586, which requires local governments that issue building permits and enforce building codes to adopt by Jan. 1, 2003, the International Building Code as well as the International Energy Conservation Code. This new law will reportedly cover the vast majority of the state's cities and counties.
The IECC applies to both non-residential and residential construction, and will bring consistent standards to Idaho in place of the current patchwork of local codes. New Idaho buildings will be required to meet energy efficiency levels close to those mandated in Oregon and Washington. Projected annual energy savings plus overall economic benefits are valued at about $25 million.
"We consider it a historic event, a very important accomplishment in Idaho," said executive director Ken Harward of the Association of Idaho Cities, which assembled a coalition that successfully advocated in the Idaho Legislature for the energy code legislation. He listed support from building contractors associations, architects, engineers, building officials, state and county governments, representatives of the disabled, and fire officials. HB 586 received approval from substantial majorities in the state House of Representative and Senate.
"Idaho Association of Cities was really the champion here," said Jeff Harris of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. He called the new code "a huge step forward for the state."
Both Harward and Harris think the energy crisis and associated rate increases helped spur the legislation. Another contributing factor was a desire for uniform codes across Idaho. "I've had to build two or three codes within 20 miles of each other," said state Rep. Lee Gagner of Idaho Falls--the bill's sponsor and also a builder/developer--in an Alliance news release. "This offers consistency, yet gives builders flexibility in how they will meet the code."
Even with the law in place, Harris cautioned that much work still remains in implementing and enforcing the new building standards.
Long Time Coming
"We're really happy" about the energy code news from Idaho, said Alliance executive director Margie Gardner, whose organization helped support AIC's advocacy. "We've been trying in Idaho for a long, long time," she added.
Said Harris (formerly with the Northwest Power Planning Council): "It means I can take something off my to-do list that's been there for 15 years." He and others, such as consultant Ken Baker, formerly of the Idaho Department of Water Resources Energy Division, have pursued statewide energy standards for the Gem State since the mid-1980s. "I'm really very happy to see this kind of closure," said Baker.
Idaho's energy code history has been marked by variety, Harris said. Many local governments adopted the Northwest Energy Code in the 1980s, notably Idaho Falls. That was followed by the Idaho Residential Energy Standards established in 1991, which Harris said was "not as effective as it could have been," largely because it relied on builder self-certification. A 1992 study, in fact, concluded that 97 percent of new homes built in the Boise area failed to meet IRES. Through the 1990s, numerous Idaho cities and counties switched from the Northwest Energy Code to the Model Energy Code, he said.
For commercial buildings, some Idaho local governments had adopted energy standards, but a statewide code had never previously received broad political support. A 1998 proposal for a statewide commercial energy code fizzled in a legislative committee after opposition emerged from business, real estate and mechanical contractors groups (see Con.WEB, March 31, 1998).
Baker reported that 38 Idaho cities and 15 Idaho counties, containing most of the state's population, now have energy codes. And "way over 90 percent" of Idaho local governments have building codes and thus are covered under HB 586.
Passing a Code
A confluence of circumstances led to the passage of the building and energy code legislation.
Association of Idaho Cities began working on it last summer, according to Harward, with "encouragement and support" from the Alliance.
"Originally there was resistance to including an energy code," he said. "It took a lot of meetings with legislators and building contractors. We really felt building contractors were key to this, if they could see that long term it was good for their industry." AIC argued that energy standards would save consumers money, which in turn would help builders by making buildings more marketable. This reasoning "was persuasive," he said.
Baker shared numbers showing that the new Idaho standards will directly save $2.5 million a year in residential energy bills, leading to more than $20 million in economic spin-off benefits. For commercial buildings this total value is projected at $4.3 million (the difference between residential and commercial reflects the relative square footage built in each sector, Baker said).
In addition, the energy crisis substantially affected Idaho; for example, Idaho Power residential rates jumped an average of 31 percent from spring to fall 2001.
"I think it was a response to the energy crisis," said Harward. "It was really the right time to adopt energy codes." Legislators "wanted to be part of the solution," Harris said, and energy codes offered an opportunity.
Uniformity provided another compelling point. Harris cited a survey that showed about 100 different building codes in effect throughout Idaho.
Although some legislators were wary of a state mandate overriding local control, "I think in the end they saw the advantage of having consistency and minimum standards," said Harward.
Jim Storey of the Idaho Association of Building Officials agreed. "Overall, the code will probably be a very good minimum standard," he told Con.WEB. "That's what we're out here to achieve."
The Idaho House of Representatives approved HB 586 by a 50-13 vote, and later 62-2 with Senate amendments. One amendment allows local entities to "enforce all or a portion" of the code requirements, although Baker said this apparent loophole should have no real impact. "We believe jurisdictions, if required by law to adopt the code, will enforce it." Senators favored the legislation 30-0. Kempthorne signed it at a March 27 ceremony, although a subsequent governor's office press release on bill signings did not specifically mention HB 586.
Code Impacts
This new statewide energy code will most affect commercial building practices, Harris said.
The 2000 International Energy Conservation Code, created by the International Code Council, is significantly derived on the commercial side from codes in Washington and Oregon (he credited Jeff Johnson of the New Buildings Institute as "largely responsible for getting that language adopted").
Mechanical system efficiencies specified in the IECC are generally based on ASHRAE national standards, and will be "almost identical" to the Washington and Oregon codes, Harris said. For building envelopes, IECC "may actually be more stringent" than those two states, but lighting levels required under the IECC will not be as energy-efficient as in Oregon and Washington, which have "a much longer history of fairly tight lighting power densities."
For Idaho residential construction, Harris said, the international standards "would be ... fairly close to what a model conservation standard would be, maybe not quite as good as the Oregon code, but darned close." And in colder Idaho climate zones with a large number of heating degree days, the IECC standards will exceed Oregon and Washington codes.
Specific residential requirements include 0.40 average U-factors for windows, crawl spaces with either floor insulation or controlled mechanical ventilation for moisture, and duct work sealed with mastic rather than duct tape, according to the Alliance news release. Additional construction costs to meet IECC standards are projected at 86 cents per square foot.
"Most of the jurisdictions and builders have been building to better than IECC [residential] requirements for a long time," Harris said. "Only in Ada County and the Boise area has there been significant resistance to change. Unfortunately, that's also where the largest volume of homes are constructed."
Implementation/Enforcement
Now that IECC is Idaho law for local governments that issue building permits and enforce building codes, next comes putting the code into practice.
"We will be doing a whole implementation process" this year, said Baker, including training and ordinances for local governments. A statement of purpose/fiscal impact for HB 586 noted, "Local jurisdictions will incur costs to purchase new building code manuals and certify building inspectors," and, "There will be nominal costs to the Idaho Division of Building Safety for training and certification of building inspectors."
The educational process extends to builders as well as government building officials, Harris said. Administrative procedures to deal with issues and code changes also are needed.
"It's very important we get on this right away," he said. "We don't want to lose the momentum of the partnership" that supported the legislation. Local building officials need to feel comfortable with enforcement and contractors need to incorporate code requirements so they become standard practice. "If we can keep the momentum going and keep the partnership alive between all the parties, we stand a really good chance" of getting widespread compliance. --Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
 |
Recently I got an e-mail from Ken Canon of Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities asking my advice on distributed generation.
Here is what he wrote: "Knowing you are very knowledgeable about distributed generation alternatives, I thought I would seek your advice on a real-life situation.
"Assume you were planning to build a rural home and the home site was 1.25 miles from the nearest electric distribution line. The cost to underground electrical service would be $35,000 (trenching, wire, transformers, splice junctions, etc.). Peak electrical service assuming a well-insulated, efficient, all-electric house with two water pumps, a ground source heat pump and a two-person household would be 30 KW. Residential rates are in the 65 mills/KWh range and annual electrical usage is estimated to be 25,000 KWh.
"Is there a cost-effective, reliable and low maintenance alternative to grid power in this situation?"
The honest answer is that I am someone who is knowledgeable enough to write loads about distributed generation, but who in fact lives in grid-connected condominiums. The one in Seattle connects to City Light, and a recent acquisition in Long Beach, WA hooks to Pacific County PUD. My energy services technician credentials are not that solid, but all that distributed generation writing prompts me to argue that what Ken wants to know is an essence of distributed resource potential.
The model in which distributed generation powers demand-efficient space is not necessarily a rural one. But much of the hardware and control software needed for DG can be demonstrated away from the grid. Here is where a cooling, heat and power array (for example) could show what could be done in a kind of mini-web environment.
So I have asked Ken to take his problem to a better-informed venue and chair a panel this fall at the Energy Technology Showcase 2002 conference and exhibition. The dates are Oct. 21-23 at the DoubleTree Hotel at Jantzen Beach, Portland. The conference begins the morning of Monday, Oct. 21, and ends midday Wednesday, Oct. 23. The exhibit operates on Monday and Tuesday. Program, exhibit and registration details will be available on a Web site now under development.
Energy Technology Showcase 2002
The Energy Technology Showcase 2002 event is an outgrowth of initiatives from the Northwest Power Planning Council and Energy Northwest in conjunction with Energy NewsData's new Resource Dynamics project, now getting ready to publish a newsletter and stage conferences and exhibits.
We are in the process of enlisting other sponsors, including the Electric Power Research Institute's new Energy Innovations Project E2I, Natural Resources Defense Council, Bonneville Power Administration, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, the California Energy Commission, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council, Renewable Northwest Project, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
The Showcase is intended to report on prospects and problems of new energy resource technologies from the 2002 base and counting. Conventional wisdom wants to build central station generation with more transmission and pipeline support infrastructure and speeded-up siting. Alternative proposals argue the investment and environmental advantages of smaller, greener energy technologies and conservation.
A measure of both options has become the standard energy policy compromise. But it is clear that the measure of how much conventional energy is needed will depend on how successfully new energy technology products pass demonstration and deployment market tests. That is to ask, are investments in central stations with their problems of long timelines, transmission and distribution factors and environmental effects prudent investments? Or should investments move more deliberately to distributed resources and the information technology energy web with its configured supply and demand efficiencies?
Showcase presentations and panels will focus on issues that our programming advisors decide are make-or-break keys to updating what energy industry, government, environmental and business decision-makers and staff want and need to know. Subject matter includes distributed supply options and energy upgrades to operating generation and the T&D grid. Green power and energy storage are supply-side subsets.
The demand side involves energy efficiency applications on their own merits and as components of real-time energy web systems integrating supply, storage and demand.
This conference is a successor to regional conferences dating back to the Energy Revolution of 1999; Distributed Resources, Renewables and the Environment of 2000; and 2001's Conservation or Crisis: A Northwest Choice. Showcase 2002 is reaching out from a basically regional focus to national and international audiences because interest in development and deployment of the new technologies is nothing if not international in scope.
Details will be forthcoming in the weeks ahead. What's been done about Ken Canon's e-mail means that questions we could program into Showcase are most welcome. --Cyrus Noë
 |
Energy conservation and renewable energy are a form of security, beyond physical protection.
This idea lies within the "Protect Our Home" theme of Earth Day 2002 coming April 22.
"In a larger sense, there are many things we can do as individuals to make this a healthier place to live, and a safer place, in various definitions of the word," said Jim Perich-Anderson, who directs Earth Day Network's Northwest Climate Campaign. That includes "doing things to project the air and the land and the water, and doing that locally by supporting clean energy and renewables and energy efficiency, and fighting sprawl and also better transportation choices for the Northwest."
Seattle-based Earth Day Network coordinates events surrounding this annual occasion, internationally and more locally.
In the Pacific Northwest, activities around Earth Day are scheduled in all four states, many with an energy conservation/renewable energy focus. Franklin County PUD, for example, is hosting a Solar, Wind and Renewable Energy Exposition on April 20, while Bonneville Environmental Foundation, Bonneville Power Administration and others are planning an Earth Day Exposition April 28 at the Oregon Zoo. In Seattle, practical renewable energy options will be emphasized at Earth Day Celebration 2002.
"I hope that Earth Day this year will be really kind of a breath of fresh air for a lot of people," said Perich-Anderson. "With Sept. 11 and other things going on, people are wondering what's next, what they can do. I see Earth Day as a chance to let people know there's a lot of things that are possible: a clean energy future, clean jobs through clean energy, more stability in our energy infrastructure, hopefully more creative solutions to our transportation mess. They're all possible, all something we can help create."
Energy and Earth Day
This is the 32nd anniversary of Earth Day, first held in 1970. Earth Day Network coordinates activities, and encompasses more than 5,000 organizations in 184 countries.
Energy, Pollution and Climate Change is one of five "most critical environmental threats" listed by EDN, along with biodiversity loss, depleted and polluted water, vanishing forests and equity and environment.
"Energy is integral to virtually every aspect of life - it is hard to imagine life without it," said the network's energy section. "Yet many of our most serious threats to clean air, clean water, and healthy ecosystems stem from humans' energy use.
"Currently," it continues, "most energy is produced from coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium. These energy sources pollute our air and water, change the Earth's climate, destroy fragile ecosystems, and endanger human health. A large amount of the energy we generate is wasted, raising energy costs and harming the environment ... The solution is a rapid transition to energy efficiency and the use of clean, renewable energy sources such as the sun and wind." An accompanying question-and-answer sheet provides more detailed energy perspectives.
A Northwest section of the EDN Web site invites visitors to join activities, learn about the connections between energy and climate change, buy green power, get involved at university campuses and local schools, speak out for "smart" transportation and against sprawl, promote environmental justice and protect endangered species. It also lists 10 specific actions people can take, including getting ideas to cut home energy use, switching to compact fluorescent lamps, upgrading to green power, buying Energy Star products, and identifying ways to save energy at work. These all contribute regionally as well as globally, said Perich-Anderson.
To encourage Earth Day involvement he has been contacting organizations such as churches, governments, utilities and non-governmental groups. This annual celebration, he said, increases the visibility of environmental issues among the general public.
EDN serves as a "connecting link between different groups sponsoring events," said Perich-Anderson. The network lists many activities on or around Earth Day. All four Northwest states have events planned; visit the EDN Web site for state-by-state listings. --Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
OFFICES: Mail-P.O. Box 900928, Seattle, WA 98109-9228. EXPRESS: 117 West Mercer, Seattle, WA 98119.
TELEPHONE-(206) 285-4848. FAX-(206) 281-8035. E-MAIL-newsdata@newsdata.com.
Con.WEB was created by the Energy NewsData Web team, including: Publisher-Cyrus Noë; Editor-Mark Ohrenschall;
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 ©2002 Energy NewsData Corporation
Return to Contents