CWEB.086/February.27.2003
Northwest utility conservation savings dropped more than 50 percent in 2002 from their record high in the energy crisis year of 2001, according to preliminary figures compiled by the Northwest Power Planning Council.
The easing of the energy crisis, saturation of some measures and utility financial woes all likely contributed to this conservation decline, according to one Council official.
Bonneville Power Administration and Northwest investor-owned and large publicly owned utilities project 2002 programmatic energy savings of slightly less than 68 average megawatts, a number not expected to change significantly with further reporting (and which incorporates Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance activities).
 |
| These are the annual collective regional conservation numbers from Bonneville Power Administration, investor-owned utilities and the four largest publicly owned utilities, as compiled by the Northwest Power Planning Council, adjusted for BPA co-funding. |
Those same entities in 2001 reported nearly 150 aMW of conservation acquisitions, an annual total unsurpassed in the 25-year history of regional utility energy-saving initiatives (accounting for BPA co-funding adjustments), a Council spreadsheet shows.
The 2001 figures reflect widespread attention to conservation during the 2000 and 2001 energy crisis, report Council officials. These bountiful savings also were relatively inexpensive, gained on total spending of $150 million.
Yet the apparent sharp decline in 2002, even though it still exceeds annual regional conservation totals from the late 1990s, raises a question of whether the Northwest is again hopping aboard the conservation roller coaster.
From a historical perspective, regional utility energy-saving programs have now saved about 1,560 aMW since 1978, the Council reports.
A Tale of Two Years
In late 2000 and well into 2001 skyscraping wholesale power market prices hit the Northwest and led to many utility rate increases, some in the range of 50 percent (BPA raised its wholesale rates an average of 46 percent). That period also featured urgent and extensive public calls for energy conservation, along with many new and/or accelerated utility conservation initiatives (see the Conservation in Demand category in the Con.WEB back issues/subject index section). Compact fluorescent lamps were especially popular, with more than 8 million sold or distributed free by utilities regionwide in 2001.
"Clearly, during the energy crisis of 2000 and 2001, when wholesale electricity prices rose to an extent we'd never seen before , utilities realized that energy conservation reduces their demand for power and can reduce the amount they have to buy on the market," said Council chairman Larry Cassidy in a news release.
BPA programs accounted for 30.5 aMW in 2001, according to the Council's summary. Portland General Electric led Northwest retail utilities with 29.1 aMW, followed by PacifiCorp (20.4 aMW), Avista Utilities (18.4 aMW), Puget Sound Energy (17.6 aMW) and Seattle City Light (12.3 aMW). Altogether BPA, the region's six major investor-owned utilities and four largest public-power utilities notched 149.8 aMW of savings, a number that includes Alliance-related savings.
In 2002, though, these same utilities project substantial conservation declines. The regional total of 67.6 aMW is a "fairly complete" number that likely won't vary more than 5 percent with further utility reporting, Council economic analyst Ken Corum told Con.WEB.
The easing of the energy crisis contributed to the lower conservation numbers in 2002, he indicated. Some level of saturation with energy-saving technologies, such as CFLs, may also be at work.
In addition, he said, "Rates are up and there's pressure on utilities' budgets because they're trying to get back a measure of financial health again, because a lot of them borrowed rather than raised rates right away, so their ratepayers are paying things back. In a situation like that they look for ways to save money. Wholesale prices are down, so conservation doesn't look like as good a deal."
As for 2003 regional conservation numbers, Corum said he "wouldn't be surprised to see it drop off" once again.--Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
Proposed renewable energy and energy conservation standards for Washington utilities generated a broad spectrum of opinions at a Feb. 18 state legislative committee hearing.
The legislative fate of these so-called portfolio standards, which would be the first in the Northwest, remained uncertain as of late February.
Supporters touted portfolio standards as a means to overcome market barriers to renewables and conservation, create substantial economic benefits around the state, diversify the state's energy supply, hedge risks and stabilize utility energy-saving investments. One speaker called portfolio standards "just a gentle nudge to the energy industry to get them moving in the direction of renewables and efficiency."
A consultant who assessed House Bill 1544 said the efficiency standards would slightly raise electric rates but substantially lower bills, while renewables standards would create no discernible rate or bill impacts over 20 years.
Meanwhile, concerns and outright opposition emerged from other quarters, including representatives from some utilities, industrial customers and business. Although virtually all expressed support for conservation and renewables, they raised issues on the mandatory nature of portfolio standards, the lack of incentives, diminished local control and cost worries. Kristen Sawin of the Association of Washington Business told the House Technology, Telecommunications and Energy Committee: "A whole host of my members would love it if the Legislature would get into the business of mandating their markets so their paychecks are more assured. I don't think this is a business the Legislature wants to get in."
HB 1544, as originally written, would require investor-owned and publicly owned Washington utilities to serve 5 percent of retail loads with qualifying renewables by 2010, 10 percent by 2015 and 15 percent by 2023. Efficiency standards would begin with annual program savings equaling three-fourths of 1 percent of retail load starting in 2005, rising to 3.75 percent by 2009. A slightly different set of energy-saving requirements would kick in from 2010 to 2012.
As of Feb. 26 the legislation remained in committee, but the bill's sponsor, Rep. Zack Hudgins, told Con.WEB he was "optimistic" on the chances for passage.
Energy Portfolio Standards: Pro
HB 1544 proponents speaking Feb. 18 included representatives of advocacy groups, businesses engaged in efficiency and renewables, and a couple of rural landowners.
Opening the discussion, Rachel Shimshak of Renewable Northwest Project said new renewables supply less than 2 percent of Washington's electricity, despite their abundant statewide potential. HB 1544 would help create a market for renewables, she said, adding to economic development and energy diversity with a "reasonable" and "flexible" standard. Incentives help, she said, but standards are needed as well.
Speaking to business opportunities, Barrett Stambler of PPM Energy cited a growing interest in wind energy. "Even though environmental issues are important, we are seeing [utility] customers more and more looking to wind power as a way to hedge their future price risk and give stable rates to customers. We as a company are not doing wind power because we think it's the right thing to do. Quite frankly, we're doing it because it's going to make us money."
Vestas-American Wind Technology is considering a Northwest manufacturing plant, although the plans are on hold, said Vestas' Scott Kringen (see Con.WEB, Dec. 20, 2002, for more on Vestas' plans). "To make that kind of investment, we need to see policies like HB 1544 passed."
A renewables portfolio standard in Texas led to construction of more than 1,000 MW wind capacity in 2001, said Jeff Trucksess of Renewable Energy Systems, an international wind developer that has opened a Portland office. Supportive policies will spur activity, he said.
Rural economic development from renewables was described by Bruce Morley of Klickitat County. He said he organized Wyoming ranchers and Oregon farmers to develop wind power on their lands, which, in both locales, helped some agriculturists keep their properties.
From the demand side, Stan Price of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council said Washington's efficiency industry employs 4,000 people and contributes $750 million in annual economic activity to the state. The efficiency component of HB 1544 "creates a more stable and predictable environment for our businesses to operate in, by creating predictability of utility conservation programs. Many of our customers simply don't do these energy efficiency projects absent utility conservation programs."
Representatives from several energy efficiency businesses echoed that theme. After 20 years in the efficiency business, said Mark Longmeier of Northwest Energy Services, "One thing's a constant: our market and our business activity is a direct function of the level of participation by various utilities, to provide incentives and getting involved in energy efficiency projects. We know, just from our experience, that investments in energy efficiency do provide a significant impact on the bottom line to companies. It makes them more profitable, makes them more competitive." Longmeier cited energy-intensive grocery stores as an example. "We can reduce energy consumption anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of the store. Being a cost item, that tracks directly to their bottom line."
Electric rate and bill impacts of HB 1544 were reviewed by consulting economist Jim Lazar with two other firms. Overall, said Lazar, the bill's efficiency provisions would lead to "slightly higher electric rates and significantly lower electric bills to consumers." For example, Puget Sound Energy eventually would have annual rate increases of about one-fourth of 1 percent, while bills would decline 5 percent. Snohomish County PUD and Avista Utilities would end up with similar rate increases and customer bill reductions of about 8 percent.
A renewables portfolio standard would effectively be a wash for power rates and bills (compared to conventional power generation), while adding diversity to the state's energy mix, he said.
Through 2023, Lazar told the committee, HB 1544 would generate $2.2 billion in cumulative savings. "The present value of that is on the order of $1 billion economic benefit to the state economy," primarily accruing in the later years.
Portfolio Standard Concerns, Opposition
HB 1544 opinions tilting toward the negative range of the spectrum came from a host of speakers, representing utilities, industrial customers and the Association of Washington Business.
Many of them view an energy portfolio standard as a government mandate that diminishes local decision-making.
"We are locally controlled bodies by elected commissioners," said Stu Trefry of the Washington PUD Association. "They value local control very much. Mandates go against that local control." He said Washington PUDs support renewables and efficiency, in word and practice, and the association has taken a neutral position on HB 1544.
Dave Clinton, representing Washington Rural Electric Cooperative Association, expressed "mixed feelings" about energy portfolio standards. "I share the goals of this legislation. I want to see cost-effective conservation, renewables, cogeneration pursued. I feel like the cooperatives have been leaders, at least for their size, anyway, in that area ... I'm concerned about the uses of mandates. I'd prefer we instead focus in identifying the barriers," such as permitting processes for renewables.
Avista Utilities likewise backs conservation and renewables, but doesn't support portfolio standards legislation, said Avista's Bruce Folsom. His investor-owned utility already is required to consider renewables in its resource acquisitions. HB 1544 is "one size fits all," he said. "We see nothing but mandates and no incentives. We don't think this is a market-driven bill."
In addition, Folsom and some others worried about the potential financial impacts of forcing utilities to purchase increasing amounts of renewables.
"Our utility has been hammered for the last two years by energy markets for a variety of reasons dealing with power supply issues," said Al Aldrich of Snohomish PUD. "Our customers now pay some of the highest rates in the state. They and we are very cost-conscious. We can't support a piece of legislation that requires us to buy renewables, without cost controls attached to it."
Energy diversity is a reasonable idea, said Tim Boyd of Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities. However, he continued, "End-users, industrial customers need one thing: reliable, reasonably priced power. Unfortunately, wind power, the renewable of choice today, is neither." Intermittently generating wind requires firm backup power sources, probably natural gas-fired, which effectively doubles the cost, said Boyd. Utility customers will ultimately pay the costs, and, "Now is not the time to raise electric rates."
The retail green power mandate for larger Washington utilities "is working wonderfully," he said. "We see no reason to change it now." (See Con.WEB, Jan. 30, 2003, for a report on that program's first year.)
PacifiCorp supports HB 1544, said representative Kathleen Collins, but wants the energy efficiency standards excised, because the IOU already is pursuing a "pretty aggressive energy efficiency program" in Washington through its integrated resource plans and demand-side management rate surcharge.
Legislative Leanings
Hudgins, a freshman House Democrat from Tukwila, south of Seattle, believes HB 1544 will move forward. "I'm optimistic it's going to pass," he told Con.WEB Feb. 26. "We've got a very diverse group of folks who are supporting it," with farmers and ranchers, energy efficiency and renewable energy businesses, labor and environmental advocates. "I see this as a real opportunity to create jobs, to do economic development, especially in rural areas, and to help the environment."
Acknowledging concerns about mandates and costs, Hudgins said some changes to the bill were under discussion, with "a lot of different possibilities" in play. "Everybody wants to get to the same goal" of encouraging renewables and conservation. "That's what we're looking at."
He said energy portfolio standards are a bipartisan issue with minimal fiscal impact on state government--$100,000 a year starting in 2007, to set up a renewables credit trading system. "We're trying to be as flexible and accommodating to power producers as possible."
At the Feb. 18 hearing, other committee members raised other issues. Rep. Richard DeBolt wondered about the possibility of collusion among power producers and price-gouging of consumers, and whether Washington, given siting constraints, could host sufficient wind power to meet the requirements (Shimshak and Stambler responded with alleviations for these concerns). Rep. Lois McMahan suggested in one exchange that efficiency services are already being provided and making market inroads, without state standards.--Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
As it embarks on its seventh year of existence, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance has compiled a solid record, Alliance officials believe.
The regional collaborative has helped transform a number of markets, particularly in the residential sector, and has generated substantial energy savings at a relatively low cost since its formation in late 1996, executive director Margie Gardner told the Alliance board in late January. In 2002 alone, she said, Alliance-funded ventures saved roughly 30 average megawatts at an approximate cost of $20 million. Overall the Alliance has chalked up a quarter of regional energy savings over the past six years.
Looking ahead, Gardner sees the Alliance engaging more in pushing emerging energy-efficient technologies and practices to market, in close partnership with local utilities. She predicts the collaborative eventually will settle into an annual funding level in the range of $20 million.
 |
First, though, comes renewal of the Alliance's regional financial support, from Bonneville Power Administration, utilities and public-purposes money from Oregon and Montana. The Alliance's current funding period expires at the end of 2004, and Gardner said the Alliance needs to press its case--as "an effective and successful regional collaboration"--for more money and time.
Also on the organizational to-do list are continuing efforts on local connections and commercial sector ventures, and development of integrated strategies for residential and industrial markets.
State of Alliance
Speaking to the Alliance board Jan. 23 in Bellevue, WA, Gardner gave a "State of the Alliance" talk, declaring that, "We have contributed to changing markets, I'm going to say permanently."
She listed several examples. The Northwest has led the nation in market penetration of resource-efficient washing machines, with the help of an Alliance venture that also contributed to higher federal energy efficiency standards for these ubiquitous appliances (see Con.WEB, June 27, 2002). Along with utility efforts, a retail network fostered by the Alliance's compact fluorescent lamp initiative helped the Northwest outsell California 2-to-1 in CFLs per person during the energy crisis. An Alliance collaboration with window manufacturers helped increase the market share of energy-efficient residential windows from less than 20 percent to 70 percent in about two years. And Building Operator Certification, one of the first Alliance-funded ventures, now is expanding around the nation.
Citing Northwest Power Planning Council figures, Gardner said Alliance programs account for some 25 percent of regional conservation since 1997, or about 100 aMW. On spending, the Alliance tallies 15 percent of Northwest conservation dollars in the last six years. The average cost of Alliance-credited savings is about $1 million per average megawatt, about half the regional average over the past two decades. Administrative costs hover around 8 percent for the lifetime of the collaborative.
In addition, Gardner thinks the Alliance has been "quite successful" spreading benefits around the entire region and covering different customer classes. Alliance project allocation per sector comes close to the regional revenue percentages from the commercial, industrial, residential and agricultural sectors, she said, although industrial and residential lag slightly behind.
"This machine is performing well, and I think everyone here should take credit for that and feel good about it," she told board members.
A Look Ahead
Gardner also discussed Alliance priorities for 2003 and beyond.
On the financial side, the executive director noted a tighter operating budget this year (see related story), in keeping with the region's "difficult economic times." She thinks future Alliance funding will amount to about $20 million annually, and the collaborative will need to continue to coordinate with utilities and public-purposes funding administrators. Staffing levels may rise slightly from the current 26 positions, depending on project activities, but administrative costs should remain below 10 percent.
To date the Alliance has spent or allocated $142 million of its total $164 million available from its beginnings in late 1996 through 2004.
Gardner also noted the changing nature of Alliance projects. Many early ventures, she said, targeted retail mass markets such as residential appliances and lighting through already developed approaches. Now the Alliance frequently looks to nurture efficiency services and products for key customers, who serve as early adopters. This strategy underscores the importance of working closely with local utilities.
The Alliance also is working on overall strategies for major markets. The Commercial Buildings Initiative is already under way (see related story for three new ventures within CBI), and similar umbrella approaches are under development for the residential and industrial sectors.
In the background, but drawing closer, is the issue of the Alliance's continued existence. Current contracts with funding entities extend through 2004 and, said Gardner, "By the end of 2003 I want to be close to make sure we're in the right place with those particular funders. Critical to this is all of us sending the message that the Alliance is an effective and successful regional collaboration."
The Alliance's case for extending its work also rests on an outside independent review of the organization's performance. The same day as Gardner's talk, the Alliance board approved up to $150,000 for this assessment, which is being managed by a board committee and scheduled for completion by fall.--Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance spending plans for 2003 generated a lively discussion among Alliance board members about the organization's growth and costs.
A sizable majority of board members meeting Jan. 23 in Bellevue, WA ultimately appeared comfortable with the Alliance's fiscal direction. That includes a $25.4 million budget for 2003 (which would be the largest annual spending for the collaborative) and modest staffing increases, both of which reflect additional market transformation project activities. A $3.6 million 2003 operations budget received board approval on a 17-2 vote.
"I haven't heard anybody suggest a list of things we stop doing," said board member Mark Kendall, adding that the Alliance has already "grabbed a lot of low-hanging fruit" in its market transformation endeavors, and that "harder projects" lie ahead.
Spending Plans
From 1999 through 2002, Alliance total annual spending ranged from $15.6 million to $20.4 million. Adminstrative costs (separate from project administrative costs) varied from 7 percent to 9 percent.
In 2003 the Alliance plans to spend substantially more on projects than last year: $21.8 million, compared with $17.1 million in 2002. Administrative spending would drop slightly, from $1.8 million to $1.7 million. "We cut a number of areas even with a 27-percent increase in anticipated project activity," said board member Mat Northway. Board member Ken Keating noted the Alliance has underspent its forecasts each year.
The Alliance expects 54 percent of the 2003 money to fund existing projects, with another 32 percent earmarked for new ventures. Operations would consume 7 percent of total spending (not 14 percent as erroneously reported earlier by Con.WEB), market research and development 4 percent, and evaluations 3 percent.
In addition to approving an operations budget, the Alliance board formally endorsed up to three more staffers (contingent on future project approvals), which would increase the total number of staff to 29.
Board Discussion
Most board members supported the budget and staffing increases as reflective of the Alliance's role in transforming markets for energy efficiency. "I think our growth is certainly attributable to the projects we've taken on," said board member Larry Bryant. "It is proportional to the number of staff we need in-house ... to carry out that good work."
The evolving nature of Alliance projects also factors into the spending plans, according to board member Fred Gordon. For example, he said, the Commercial Buildings Initiative requires more planning, market interactions, communications and other activities than, say, transforming the washing machine market. "Either we take on the next level of ambition with more money or staff, or we don't," he said. "I don't think we go there without more staff."
Alliance staff also can benefit utilities. "I look upon this organization as an extension of my staff," said board member Steve Ottenbreit, from Snohomish County PUD. "It allows me some capability in some areas I don't have and also to leverage staff resources, to work in conjunction with the Alliance and its members."
Some Alliance board members from utilities think the collaborative actually may offer too many opportunities for collaboration. "Sometimes I do feel a little bombarded with programs sent to utilities. I'd like to see some prioritizing of them," said board member Fred Tulp, from Clark Public Utilities. "A very well-organized program sent to a utility is easier to accept. We might be a larger utility, but we have very few staff to do conservation."
Board member Richard Beam believes the Alliance's dwindling pot of funding--approximately $22 million remains unallocated through 2004--calls for looking carefully at new ventures and ensuring they make financial sense, carry reasonable goals and meet high cost-effectiveness and payback standards.
Board member Norm Beckert said he was concerned about the Alliance's rate of expansion. The Alliance has experienced "an average compound growth rate of 14 percent on these budgets" since 1999, "a bigger number than anything I've ever seen from any utility in what they've done in a comparable period," he said. "We continue to grow here. I don't know when it's going to stop."
A related question came from board member Darlene Nemnich. "Will this organization that is growing and still growing be a concern among people who make the decisions to fund?" Officials at her utility, Idaho Power, might prefer Alliance staffing numbers in the 20s and not the 30s, she said. Board member Lynn Kittilson also wondered about perception issues with staffing levels, although she called the Alliance spending plans "reasonable."
Board member Jon Powell said cost-effectiveness of Alliance ventures for customers of his organization, Avista Utilities, remains the "number one consideration" for Avista renewing its Alliance funding.--Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is stepping into an entirely different market with an initiative seeking energy savings from more efficient utility distribution systems that would operate at reduced voltages.
This represents a novel gambit for the regional market transformation collaborative, which has generally targeted products and services for end uses in homes, business, industries and agriculture.
Alliance officials believe conservation voltage reduction is a proven concept with potentially large and cost-effective regional savings: 28.2 average megawatts by 2010, and possibly as much as 274 aMW by 2020. Lower voltages translate to less power used in homes and small businesses, while still enabling power-using equipment to function properly.
"We think it's a great project for a lot of reasons," said Alliance project development manager Jeff Harris.
Some Alliance board members were more hesitant, as the $2.8 million venture received funding approval Jan. 24 by a 15-5 vote. At least one board member preferred a smaller first-phase demonstration effort.
The Alliance board, meeting Jan. 23-24 in Bellevue, WA, also endorsed about $2.8 million for initiatives in three market niches within the commercial building sector: hospitals, regional grocery chains and new kindergarten through 12th-grade schools. Another $1 million was earmarked for an ongoing pilot project involving operations and maintenance services for small rooftop HVAC systems.
With these funding decisions the Alliance has spent or allocated $142 million since its formation in late 1996, with another $22 million remaining through its current funding period, which ends in 2004.
Conservation Voltage Reduction
Board member Ken Keating called this "one of the most unusual projects we've considered, because the market is so different than what we've defined as our markets." The primary audiences are found within utilities, he said, specifically officials for transmission/distribution systems and regulatory matters (the latter for cost recovery).
National standards require voltages to residential customers of 120 volts, plus or minus 6 volts, according to Harris. Utilities commonly send power out from substations at 126 volts, to cover losses along distribution lines and ensure voltages stay above the minimum 114 volts. But if distribution system efficiency is improved through various applications the Alliance plans to demonstrate, voltages could be lowered, conserving energy for most household and small business electric-using devices. (This won't apply to thermostatically controlled loads, notably space- and water-heating).
"Lower voltages use less energy," Harris said. "It's been proven over and over again the last 20 years. It does fly in the face of conventional wisdom in the electrical engineering community, but it's true." Each 1 percent drop in voltage saves 0.7 percent of energy, the Alliance calculates. Most voltage reduction energy savings, 80 percent to 90 percent, occur in the customer's premises; lights, computers and other power-consuming equipment shouldn't be affected, as voltages remain within national standards.
Utilities benefit from reduced line losses, which typically average about 7 percent, Harris said. CVR also can deliver improved system control and reliability, which are vital concerns for utilities. Snohomish County PUD put in place a CVR program and found voltage complaints disappeared. Lost revenues with CVR reportedly do not pose a concern among Northwest utilities.
Despite its promise, conservation voltage reduction has been hampered by lack of utility awareness and knowledge of how to accomplish it, along with uncertainty over results, according to Harris. On the opportunity side, he sees considerable utility interest in making the most of distribution systems, especially after the energy crisis, and available capital. The number of market players to influence also is relatively small.
The Alliance first plans to substantiate the costs, benefits and different methods of CVR, through demonstration projects. Next comes expanded practice and, finally, incorporation into common standards for both large and small utilities. (The 272 aMW savings projection by 2020 assumes CVR on 80 percent of feeders serving Northwest residential and light commercial customers.)
Harris believes the market transformation process will take five years and $3.5 million from the Alliance, although the board approved funding only through 2005. Board member Norm Beckert advocated an engineering team-based smaller-scale demonstration venture costing less than $1 million, to verify CVR as financially viable for utilities. He and four other board colleagues voted no.
Commercial Markets: Hospitals, Regional Grocery Chains, New Schools
 |
| (Courtesy of BetterBricks) |
The Alliance has crafted a unified approach to promoting energy efficiency in the commercial sector, under its Commercial Buildings Initiative, known as BetterBricks. Within the broad framework of the commercial building market, Harris said, the collaborative identified nearly 30 distinct markets for potential targeted programs, then winnowed that list based on criteria including market interest and readiness for energy efficiency, size, leveraging and packaging opportunities, spillover potential, geographic spread and current efforts.
Three markets emerged as top market-transformable priorities: hospitals, regional grocery chains and new kindergarten through 12th-grade schools.
Some 250 Northwest hospitals consume nearly 5 percent of regional commercial power, according to Harris. Saving energy in these facilities generates a direct financial benefit for hospitals, an especially attractive idea in a time of rising power and other costs. But Harris and Keating outlined some conservation barriers in this market, including air-volume requirements, limited capital availability and facility managers with little energy efficiency expertise.
With this initiative the Alliance--in cooperation with hospital groups and local utilities, and its own credible experts--plans to demonstrate ways of incorporating energy efficiencies into new facilities, as best practices, and to promote efficiency-related services and training for existing hospitals. The Alliance hopes to raise the efficiency capabilities of hospital facility managers, who in turn can help persuade hospital financial officials about the bottom-line benefits of saving energy.
Board member Richard Beam, energy manager with Providence Health Systems, believes facility managers will enthusiastically back this initiative, and will appreciate support in selling efficiency to financial decision-makers. He also said electricity typically accounts for about 1 percent of hospital operating costs, and saving energy competes with many other ventures for capital dollars. "All in all I think the program can be successful, but I think it's a difficult task," he said.
The board voted 18-2 to spend $1.5 million over three years on this venture. Estimated savings are 17.2 aMW by 2010 and 79 aMW by 2020, at a levelized cost of 1 cent per kilowatt-hour.
Like hospitals, grocery stores consume a lot of energy, although it amounts to a "very tiny fraction" of operating costs, Keating said. And energy savings directly bolster financial results.
Regional grocery chains own about 6,500 Northwest stores, occupying a market segment distinct from (and competitive with) national chains, according to Harris. Many of these stores are undergoing renovations, Harris said, presenting a timely opportunity to integrate energy-saving strategies. Among the hurdles to increased efficiency in this sector are bad experiences with earlier technologies, capital constraints and a dearth of internal staffers promoting energy savings.
The Alliance believes it can foster energy efficiency in these local stores through its own specialists, working with wholesalers providing support services such as store design/construction and technology assistance, refrigeration service contractors and others. Utilities also have a key collaborative role, Harris said. Financial gains and improved competitiveness are prime selling points, although prospects for increased sales (with daylighting, for example) also could resonate with regional chain officials.
By a 17-4 vote, the Alliance board allocated $952,000 toward this venture for three years. Anticipated energy savings are 17.8 aMW by 2010 and 88 aMW by 2020, at what Harris called "fairly low cost."
New kindergarten through 12th-grade schools "are highly visible, public buildings that touch a wide cross section of population and thus represent a significant vehicle for BetterBricks messaging about efficiency and building performance," according to a slide read by Keating. Although green building has captured much attention, he described a lack of focus specifically on energy efficiency in new school construction. And once schools are built, opportunities dim for cost-effective efficiency retrofits.
The Alliance plans to join with other entities to help develop a Northwest energy efficiency standard for new schools, "to create a clear path for schools districts and other folks to pick this up and run with it," said Harris. He called it "a highly leveraged approach," with modest Alliance funding of $295,000 over two years--approved unanimously by the board. Estimated energy savings are 1.9 aMW by 2010, based on 65 new schools, at a levelized cost of 1.7 cents/KWh.
In addition, the Alliance board voted 17-2 to provide an additional $1 million for one year to continue a pilot venture promoting energy-efficient operations and maintenance of rooftop packaged HVAC systems. The Alliance, in this second phase, wants to test the regional market for private services such as coil cleaning, thermostat control checks, outdoor airflow measurements, economizer adjustments and refrigerant changes. "This is our dominant peak technology [rooftop HVAC] and it's our best shot at influencing a dominant peak technology," said board member Fred Gordon. If such premium services eventually find a sizable market, "We could get a lot of megawatts out of this sector while serving a bunch of different parts of the region," said Keating.--Mark Ohrenschall
[Editor's note: This is the fifth in a series of Con.WEB articles on green building. Previous articles covered the growing interest among buyers and builders in green building, resource-efficient farm worker housing in central Washington, green buildings in Eugene and the Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center in Portland.]
A new environmental learning center near Seattle blends extensive renewable energy and energy-saving features into its stewardship-based teaching mission.
The 255-acre IslandWood facility on Bainbridge Island encompasses a watershed with forest, stream, wetlands, marsh, pond and bog, and a trail system to guide exploration by youngsters and adults.
Sprinkled around the site are 23 buildings (and 16 other exterior site structures) with a cornucopia of green measures. Those include, for energy, a 21.7-kilowatt-capacity solar electric system (Washington's largest), solar water-heating, natural ventilation, daylighting, under-floor radiant heating, and in one building a straw bale circular wall enclosing a highly energy-efficient wood stove.
 |
| This RAIS wood stove is very energy-efficient, radiating heat for IslandWood's art studio. (Photo by Mark Ohrenschall) |
These and other resource efficiencies--such as a biologically based wastewater treatment system, expansive use of recycled and locally generated materials, and numerous water-conserving measures--helped IslandWood earn gold-level designation from the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. It is Washington's first LEED gold project.
IslandWood, which officially opened in September, is likely to make a far-reaching impression. About 4,000 elementary school students are expected each year on residential visits, plus their teachers, as well as adults, families and other students taking other programs.
"For our firm, and each of us that worked on the project, it's just been one of those great projects of your life to be involved in something that would impact kids and multiple generations," said Bert Gregory of Mithun, the facility's architect/design team lead.
 |
| A 21.7-kilowatt-capacity solar electric system is installed on the roof of IslandWood's Learning Studio. (Photo by Mark Ohrenschall) |
IslandWood (formerly known as Puget Sound Environmental Learning Center) cost $52 million, including $31 million for the buildings, $5 million for land acquisition and $15 million for operations and scholarship endowments. More than $48 million has been raised to date, almost entirely from private sources.
Developing IslandWood
IslandWood began taking shape in 1997, when co-founder and now board president Debbi Brainerd learned of an 1,100-acre Bainbridge Island property available from Port Blakely Tree Farms, which formerly owned a mill on the site, near the island's main town, Winslow. "I was overwhelmed by the beauty of what was here," she told a late August workshop at the center. "I wanted to reserve a piece of it and build a school in the woods."
First she undertook some learning of her own, and found that although Washington mandates environmental education, fully half of Seattle public school fourth-graders received none. "The biggest challenge was there was not a facility close by," Brainerd said. Teachers suggested an experienced faculty staff an environmental learning center.
A 255-acre parcel was purchased in 1998, selected from the 1,100-acre site for affordability as well as biological diversity, said Brainerd.
Another important decision came in selecting an architect. Brainerd whittled down the list of prospective firms from 32 to two, both from Seattle, and ultimately chose Mithun. Brainerd said Mithun officials distinguished themselves from the other finalist firm by enthusiastically describing how they would engage children in the design process. "Kids are our biggest customer," she said.
Design Process/Issues
From the beginning, IslandWood yearned to be green. "Our focus from the start was walking our talk," said Brainerd.
The facility also expanded beyond traditional environmental education. Gregory described the mission: "to create a magical place; to inspire environmental and community stewardship by providing hands-on learning experiences that link science, technology and the arts in a natural setting."
Mithun very early identified two primary clients: the kids and the site.
 |
| IslandWood co-founder and board president Debbi Brainerd points out a feature of the Living Machine waste- water treatment system. (Photo by Mark Ohrenschall) |
Many ideas were solicited from youngsters, whose imaginations envisioned a tree house, a campfire even in the rain, a suspension bridge and a tower more than 100 feet high in the forest canopy, all of which have been or will be incorporated into the center. Mithun architects also schooled themselves, spending three days as kids at an environmental education facility on the Olympic Peninsula, plus a rain-soaked overnight camp at the IslandWood site.
In crafting an overall site plan Mithun examined topography, soils and ecological features (particularly wetlands and forests), using what Gregory called a "composite overlay" approach to settle on areas most suitable for building. IslandWood's core developed area lies in the west-central section of the property, near an adjoining elementary school and public road.
"It's a campus project involving multiple structures in multiple locations, with each building having its own kind of criteria, what's going to shape the building, how it's organized," Gregory said. "It was very complicated to try to keep all of that in order, designing a whole campus all at once."
Gregory also said he had never worked on a site with so many trees (heavily forested now, the site had been logged over the years, as recently as the 1970s). "It was a very extensive and expensive tree survey to survey any tree over 6 inches [diameter] in the areas we were potentially going to site buildings, and then to make a lot of effort to try to preserve the trees to the maximum potential."
IslandWood features were guided by two programs, according to Gregory: an early version of LEED and BUILT GREEN/Build a Better Kitsap. Mithun targeted LEED gold, the second highest ranking. "Platinum is a real stretch," he told the workshop. "You spend an awful lot of money."
In addition to siting considerations, design of water and energy systems were vital elements of IslandWood's development.
In water, Mithun worked from the basic principles of protect, collect, conserve, reuse and restore, Gregory said. IslandWood is connected to a local water system but it also gathers rain water and applies a broad range of H20-saving measures. The center installed a Living Machine that treats waste biologically. Altogether IslandWood uses about 30 percent to 50 percent less water than a comparable facility, according to Gregory.
Minimizing electricity consumption from the grid was another key principle. Designers didn't really consider a net-zero-energy approach, for cost reasons, Gregory said. The design team balanced what he called the "four e's:" economics, environmental impacts, educational opportunities and the experience of IslandWood.
The solar electric system generates more than half the power for the main classroom building when occupied, and solar water heating supplies 40 percent of hot water for the kitchen and dining hall. IslandWood also takes advantage of natural ventilation, high-efficiency lighting and structure orientation to limit energy consumption--altogether the facility came in 25 percent to 30 percent below code, according to Gregory.
IslandWood also features substantial amounts of local materials. All the interior trim originated from trees on the site, as did half the siding, Gregory said. Many stones fashioned into the design came from Washington. Recycled items also are abundant.
IslandWood Features
A site tour during the August workshop revealed some of IslandWood's special features.
The tour began after lunch in the dining hall, which sports ceiling fans, carbon dioxide sensors and a roll-up awning to control daylight. Among the locally crafted items are tabletops of reclaimed wood from a Bainbridge Island farm; benches, coat racks and door handles from fallen madrona trees; and fireplace mantels carved from madrona trees found dying on the site, festooned with native salmon, eagle, owl and mice. Kids measure their collective food wastes in compost buckets, which Brainerd said typically weigh about 50 pounds per day at the start of their stay, but fall to less than 5 pounds daily by the end.
A short walk away stands the classroom building known as the Learning Studio, topped by PV panels on a roof pitched at the most efficient solar-collecting angle. A cleared meadow in front, designed primarily for children's play, also enhances solar production. A computer display of actual solar-powered generation is planned, to help kids grasp the idea of power from the sun.
Heating, cooling and lighting elements in the Learning Studio also take advantage of nature's resources. Operable louvers regulate interior sunlight according to season. Natural ventilation circulates throughout this and every other building (there is no air conditioning), while propane-fueled under-floor radiant heating supplies warmth as needed in the cold months. "Radiant heating and natural cooling is a good combination," said Gregory. Mithun estimates inside temperatures will fall below 65 degrees for 5 percent of total annual hours, and rise above 82 degrees 1.5 percent of total annual hours. Meanwhile, daylighting helps illuminate the classroom spaces.
 |
| This straw bale wall wraps around IslandWood's art studio. (Photo by Mark Ohrenschall) |
Other features in the Learning Studio include composting toilets, bathroom stalls made from melted milk cartons, floors from different recycled materials, countertops of sunflower and soybean shells, and a computer laboratory.
A third major building in IslandWood's central developed area is the main center, with temperature-sensitive louvers on the roof, motor-opened skylights, a recycled plastic walkway connecting to the dining area, and a north-side location for the Great Hall to limit heat buildup with large gatherings. A huge center roof beam in the hall was originally milled at Port Blakely, and helicoptered back to IslandWood from Montana. One end of the beam rests on a Salish Indian house post with a carving of a grandmother and her outstretched arms--an example of the center's inclusion of cultural history links.
Also in the central area is a glass-enclosed Living Machine, a gravity-fed wastewater treatment system using "a natural biodegradation process in which aquatic plants, microorganisms, and snails consume the organic matter and produce a highly-treated effluent that can be re-used or applied safely to the surrounding soil," according to an IslandWood fact sheet. The water receives tertiary treatment and comes out potable. This is deemed an experimental approach in Washington, Gregory said, and it required separate state approval. "This is really educational," he said; estimated payback for such systems in urban areas is 15 years.
Elsewhere in IslandWood, residential lodges have underground wetland systems for wastewater treatment, and also employ solar water heating. Visiting students enjoy a Friendship Circle, featuring a covered campfire area with two separate roofs with center openings.
And an art studio features a wall built with straw bale, although Gregory said steel columns actually support the roof structure. Inside sits what Brainerd called "the most energy-efficient stove in the world," a RAIS model from Denmark that radiates heat for 10 hours.
'Cadillac' of Environmental Learning Centers
As the tour concluded, Brainerd described herself as an architectural client with certain demands. Gregory called this "the best kind of client," because of her vision.
Brainerd was complimentary of Gregory and Mithun, too. IslandWood ended up costing $184 per square foot, she said. "Other developers can't believe" that price tag, she said. "You get into the natural world, and you're still connected to some domestic comforts. I think he did a great job," she said.
A couple of workshop participants considered the buildings a little heavy on woodwork, but that was the only complaint heard by this reporter that summer day.
And what about the kids?
A video played on the tour showed a 9-year-old girl from a Seattle elementary school. "This is a really nice place," she said. "It really looks like you're in a forest." A teacher said IslandWood generated interest and excitement among some kids who normally didn't participate in class. Another teacher described IslandWood as the "Cadillac" of environmental learning centers--not an especially resource-efficient analogy, but expressive nonetheless.
"We are getting just wonderful reactions from visitors, typically," said IslandWood communications coordinator Christine Llobregat. "They come to IslandWood not quite knowing what we're all about, because we're new. After they go on a tour, they're very excited and overwhelmed almost at everything we have to offer in terms of an educational facility for outdoor education."--Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
A wind developer has appealed a Montana regulatory decision on the price for a mandatory utility power purchase from its proposed wind farm.
Whitehall Wind claims the 1 cent per kilowatt-hour rate set by the Montana Public Service Commission in December violates federal and state laws governing qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). Whitehall is seeking to build a 50-megawatt-capacity wind farm near Butte, for which it has gained QF certification from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and thus the right to sell generated power to a utility.
Whitehall's Jan. 31 petition--filed in Jefferson County District Court, 5th Judicial District--said the PSC's rate falls well below NorthWestern Energy's avoided cost and the current market price for power, and "actively discourages" QF project development.
"The main point is that they set the rate too low, at 1 cent," Whitehall attorney Michael Uda told Con.WEB. "If that's the case, all of NorthWestern's acquisitions are going to have to be at 1 cent, if that's avoided cost."
Whitehall's suit asks the court to send the case back to the PSC for further rate-setting, or to require the commission to set a price of 3.2 cents/KWh, equivalent to small QF rates. Alternatively, the company suggested the court could establish a suitable rate on its own, in the range of 3.1 cents/KWh to 4 cents/KWh, consistent with recent Montana projects.
NorthWestern spokeswoman Claudia Rapkoch declined comment on the suit. She previously expressed support for the PSC's December ruling. PSC attorney Martin Jacobson also declined comment.
No hearing on the case had been set as of Feb. 25.
Windy Dispute
In its Dec. 18 decision, the Montana PSC decided 3-2 that Whitehall could sell power to NorthWestern as a PURPA qualifying facility. But the commission established the purchase price at NorthWestern's short-term avoided cost, now about 1 cent/KWh.
The PSC order cited an occasional need for "significant balancing of competing interests and cautious approaches to approving price and terms" for QF sales to utilities. NorthWestern is a restructured utility and a temporary default supplier, which "could raise legitimate questions regarding long-term contracts," the order said. (See Con.WEB, Jan. 30, 2003 for more details.)
NorthWestern spokeswoman Rapkoch called the ruling "appropriate under the circumstances." Her utility (formerly known as Montana Power) recently issued another wind power solicitation, bids for which were due Feb. 14.
Whitehall Wind was a rejected bidder in NorthWestern's ill-fated 2001 request for wind proposals, which became embroiled in controversy and eventually resulted in a canceled power-purchase agreement with Montana Wind Harness (see Con.WEB, Aug. 29, 2002).
Whitehall, owned by Minnesota-based Navitas Energy, subsequently approached NorthWestern about buying power from its planned 50-MW project near Whitehall, MT, but was rebuffed. The firm then took the QF path.
The Jan. 31 filing acknowledges Whitehall "largely agrees" with the key fact findings and conclusions of law in the commission's Dec. 18 order. But the firm strongly disagrees with the PSC's price.
"Whitehall Wind's complaint with the Commission is its refusal to set a reasonable rate for the Whitehall Wind project despite several federal and state directives that require the Commission to do so," the suit reads.
"The Commission agreed with Whitehall Wind that NorthWestern Energy, ... as a utility, must purchase output from the Whitehall Wind project. However, the Commission has rendered that requirement meaningless by inexplicably deciding to set the rate for the project at $10.639 per megawatt hour ... approximately one-third of current market prices and less than half of the $31.65 price that NWE insisted was a good deal for ratepayers when it presented a wind contract to the Commission for approval less than a year ago. The evidence at hearing before the Commission was undisputed that the $10.639/Mwh price was inconsistent with state law requiring the Commission to set the rate for new QF projects in such a fashion to encourage the development of QFs." It also jeopardizes the project, according to the appeal, because Whitehall faces a December expiration of the federal wind energy production tax credit, which affects development costs.
The company asks district court to remand the case to the PSC for an "individualized rate," or to require the commission to set a 3.2 cents/KWh rate, consistent with the price from small QFs under 3 MW. Whitehall said the court alternatively could set its own rate somewhere between 3.1 cents/KWh and 4 cents/KWh.--Mark Ohrenschall
OFFICES: Mail-P.O. Box 900928, Seattle, WA 98109-9228. EXPRESS: 117 West Mercer, Seattle, WA 98119.
TELEPHONE-(206) 285-4848. FAX-(206) 281-8035. E-MAIL-newsdata@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; Ben Gilbert; Kari Hanson; Garrett Hering; Bill Rudolph; 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 ©2003 Energy NewsData Corporation
Return to Contents