CWEB.098/February.27.2004
| Correction An article in the Jan. 30, 2004 Con.WEB cited several myths that deter energy efficiency in commercial real estate, but misstated one of them. Here is a corrected version: "Another major barrier is the erroneous idea that landlords have little incentive to improve the efficiency of a tenant space since the tenant pays energy bills and would solely benefit from any savings. However, [head of RealWinWin Inc. Mark] Jewell said landlord/tenant energy responsibilities actually vary depending on the type of lease. For example, under so-called 'fixed-base leases' owners are responsible for energy costs below a predetermined 'base year' or 'expense stop' level, with the tenant paying the balance. Savings below the expense stop benefit the landlord directly by reducing energy expenses the landlord is obligated to pay, and by allowing the landlord to set a lower base year or expense stop for new tenants. Savings above the expense stop benefit the tenant, unless the lease contains a cost-recovery provision allowing the landlord to amortize and recover the cost of a capital improvement that reduces operating expenses for the tenant. By exercising this sort of lease clause a landlord can capture savings above the expense stop to help repay the cost of the energy-saving improvement." Con.WEB regrets the error. |
Proposed statewide benchmarks for renewable energy and energy efficiency have failed to pass muster in the Washington Legislature.
A bill that would have established renewables and efficiency requirements for Washington utilities was approved by two House of Representatives committees, but didn't get a full House vote by the Feb. 17 legislative deadline.
Legislators and stakeholders reportedly negotiated near to the deadline, focused toward the end on a revised version that would have created voluntary statewide renewables goals and offered tax incentives for utilities to reach them. This approach would have eliminated the energy efficiency provisions, and required integrated resource planning by all Washington utilities.
However, the time for legislative action expired. "In the end we didn't reach an agreement that everybody was happy with," said Heather Rhoads-Weaver of Northwest SEED.
Washington public utility districts had opposed mandated renewables/efficiency requirements but "were very close to signing on" to the revised proposal, said Washington PUD Association government relations director Dave Warren. However, he said the association disliked certain IRP provisions, and withdrew support. Other entities reportedly also balked.
Still, Warren and other stakeholders and one legislator contacted by Con.WEB believe the legislative debate on green energy advanced this winter despite the failure of standards legislation. "I saw a lot of good discussion on both sides of the aisles on renewables," said Warren. "People are starting to understand they're viable. It's going to be good for the state to encourage renewables. It's really how do we do it."
All sides expect an ongoing policy look at the state's role in promoting efficiency and renewables.
Meanwhile, some other state bills affecting renewables and conservation were still alive as of Con.WEB deadline Feb. 26, including proposed incentives for the solar electric industry and incentive payments for energy production from small-scale solar and wind systems.
Renewables, Efficiency Proposals
In the early days of Washington's short 60-day 2004 legislative session, two bills emerged on statewide renewables and efficiency, taking different approaches.
House Bill 2333 would have required all but small publicly owned utilities to meet increasing standards for renewables and efficiency in their resource portfolios, based on retail loads. The renewables minimum was 5 percent by 2010, 10 percent by 2015 and 15 percent by 2023. Utilities also would have had to meet 0.75 percent of annual retail load with conservation program savings by 2006, continuing annually through 2009 and growing to 0.85 percent from 2010 through 2012.
HB 2477 would have based the renewables targets on load growth, and allowed utilities to decide whether and when to participate. It would have offered tax benefits for complying utilities. (See Con.WEB, Jan. 30, 2004 for more on these bills).
Although compromises between these policy paths were under discussion at the end of January, the House Technology, Telecommunications and Energy Committee on Feb. 4 approved a substitute (but similar) version of HB 2333, on an 11-6 vote. HB 2477 never went to a committee vote.
Substitute HB 2333 then squeaked out of the House Appropriations Committee 14-13.
This is believed to be the furthest legislative progress for renewables/efficiency standards in Washington--but it proved to be the last passage.
Alternative Version
As the Feb. 17 deadline neared for passing legislation out of its chamber of origin, the efficiency/renewables standards discussion switched toward an alternative put forth by Rep. Jeff Morris, according to Danielle Dixon of the Northwest Energy Coalition.
Morris' proposed language eliminated requirements, and instead listed a statewide goal of 15 percent renewables to serve retail utility loads by 2023. Utilities could try to meet the original SB 2333 renewables targets, or seek to supply 60 percent of annual retail load growth with eligible renewables. It offered tax credits and deductions as incentives. "A lot more carrots were put in, and no sticks as far as I could tell," said Robert Pregulman of Washington State Public Interest Research Group.
Also proposed was mandatory integrated resource planning for investor-owned as well as publicly owned utilities, with exemptions for smaller publics and full-requirement Bonneville Power Administration customers.
Absent was any reference to energy efficiency standards or goals. Morris could not be reachd for comment, but Pregulman said the efficiency omission was an attempt to streamline and simplify the legislation, to focus on renewables.
 |
| Washington state capitol in Olympia (Courtesy of Washington Legislature Web site) |
This didn't please Stan Price of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council. "While most states have focused their portfolio standards on renewables only, that hardly seems like justification to abandon the region's most cost-effective energy resource in this legislation," he told Con.WEB via e-mail. "It would seem most unfortunate to have a policy which leads to an energy future where Washington state had just enough renewable energy production to power incandescent light bulbs and inefficient motors. Washington's clean energy future needs a full complement of both efficiency and renewables."
Meanwhile, the abandonment of mandated renewables acquisitions by certain dates was met favorably by the PUD Association. Warren said PUDs worried that slow-growing utilities would have to displace lower-cost resources with higher-cost renewables, potentially causing rate increases. Others also had voiced a preference for a voluntary approach with incentives attached.
With the original HB 2333, "There's at least a perception it will cause an increase in electricity rates," Rep. Toby Nixon, prime sponsor of HB 2477, told Con.WEB in early February. He thought tax incentives would help alleviate the capital costs of added renewables.
Morris' alternative approach generated many hours of discussion, and a measure of agreement, in the days before the Feb. 17 deadline, according to stakeholders.
But no proposed legislation received a House vote. "Ultimately we ran out of time, in terms of negotiations," said Dixon. "Really we were beaten by the clock."
The PUD Association had agreed to required IRPs, Warren said, but had an ultimately unresolved concern that utilities could be sued for assumptions used in their planning. "It didn't come out the final day in a form we could support," he said. "We needed a few more days to negotiate."
Other stakeholders also reportedly had reservations, according to participants.
Beyond the energy issues, stakeholders said other factors came into play this legislative year. The session is short, elections are looming in November, the House and Senate are closely divided among Republicans and Democrats, and major legislation of any kind is difficult to pass. Price believes the debate over HB 2333 became relatively more ideological. "It seemed difficult during this legislative session to maintain the focus of the discussion on what was good energy policy for the state," he said. "Much of the discussion was framed in the context of the issues of local control and state mandates."
Now What?
Proponents of renewables/efficiency standards expressed disappointment at this year's outcome.
"We think that Washington has probably missed a significant opportunity in really moving forward with … both jobs and rural economic development as a result of ensuring we move forward with efficiency and renewables," said Dixon.
Still, she and others believe green energy has gained a higher profile in policy discussions. "I think we have laid a good foundation for working together in the future and a better understanding of what the issues are," said Rhoads-Weaver.
Nixon e-mailed that the wide range of stakeholders held "an open and frank discussion of how to move forward on a renewable portfolio standard. There seemed to be a sincere consensus in the room that expanding the availability and use of renewable energy was an important state goal."
Rhoads-Weaver described as "really creative" the combining of benchmarks and incentives for renewables and efficiency. "I really hope we come up with a way to move this forward. I think from the advocates' perspective, we're looking for regulatory assurances that these technologies are going to get their fair consideration, that they're going to be utilitized in the future. Utilities are looking to make sure they can cover their costs and it's not a big impact to their customers."
Nixon, too, wants to press on with this issue. "I look forward to continuing the discussion over the interim in hope of achieving success in the next session," he said.
Stakeholders had yet to figure out future strategies, but for standards supporters, said Dixon, "All options are on the table." That includes legislative possibilities as well as a ballot inititiave.--Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
NorthWestern Energy plans a substantially expanded role for renewables and conservation in serving customers that have not chosen the open power market.
Montana's largest electric utility hopes to finish contracts by mid-2004 to buy power generated from two proposed wind energy projects, one potentially 75 megawatts capacity, the other planned at 50 MW capacity.
These would be the first large-scale wind farms in the windy Treasure State, and would culminate the utility's quest for wind power initiated in 2001. However, an official of one of the wind development companies told Con.WEB of his concerns about NorthWestern's bankruptcy and its ability to make long-term payments.
NorthWestern also wants to boost demand-side management, targeting 5 average megawatts of annual savings beginning in 2006, up from about 2 aMW gained each year now with the state's public-purposes funding.
These are part of NorthWestern's resource acquisition plan for its default supply customers, unveiled in January. This voluminous document shares the utility's vision for what it called "a balanced, reliable, low cost solution to the default supply resource mix."
A total of 150 MW of wind and 5 aMW annually of DSM are included in all four of the utility's preferred default supply energy portfolios, although other baseload and variable load resources would comprise most of the mix. The investor-owned utility wants to greatly lessen its exposure to short-term electricity markets, from which NorthWestern now gets 29 percent of its default power supply.
NorthWestern spokeswoman Claudia Rapkoch described the plan as "a work in progress." It will be scrutinized in coming months by the Montana Public Service Commission, stakeholders and the public, and subject to annual reviews and updates.
Resource Plans for Default Supply
NorthWestern is the designated electricity supplier for the 300,000 residential and commercial customers in its service territory that don't get power from another source. This default supply load ranges from 393 MW off-peak to as high as 1,078 MW at peak times; the 2004 base case forecast for default supply is 653 aMW.
The IOU gets most of its current power supply from PPL Montana, which bought generating plants from NorthWestern's predecessor, Montana Power.
In the default supply resource procurement plan, four scenarios came out as favorites based on low risk and low cost. "All four include 150 MW of wind resource; they vary only in the amount of coal resources (a difference of 100 MW) and dispatchable resources (a difference of 30 MW)," the plan states. DSM at 5 aMW annually also is included in each portfolio.
NorthWestern estimates this plan would acquire power through mid-2007 at an average price of about 3.7 cents per kilowatt-hour to 3.8 cents/KWh, "but with significantly less market risk. Post July 2007 costs will depend on the replacement cost of the current PPL Montana contracts."
This planning document represents "a starting point for public discussion," said NorthWestern chief operating officer Mike Hanson in a statement.
"What we're looking for is feedback that says, 'Yes, this is the right way to go,' or, 'No, here are some other options for you to consider,'" said Rapkoch.
The PSC is planning meetings around the state, to discuss the plan and gather comments. Commissioners also will make their own thoughts known, although commission approval of the plan is not required. PSC rate analyst Will Rosquist said NorthWestern would likely seek endorsement of power contracts stemming from the plan. Rapkoch confirmed the utility's intent to bring agreements to the PSC.
Bankruptcy court approval would be required for any contracts, but, she said, "We don't anticipate any difficulties with the bankruptcy court" in that regard.
Wind Power
One of NorthWestern's first expected actions is contracting for power from two proposed wind projects, one in central Montana, the other in southwestern Montana.
These ventures were selected by NorthWestern through a wind power solicitation issued in late 2002; a previous ill-fated request for wind proposals, launched in mid-2001, resulted in a canceled power-purchase agreement after the PSC questioned how the utility selected 150 MW proposed by Montana Wind Harness (see Con.WEB, Sept. 2003, for more on this wind saga and NorthWestern's bankruptcy filing).
 |
Discussions with developers Whitehall Wind and Windpark Solutions America are ongoing and agreements are anticipated soon, Rapkoch. The utility wants to present wind-power contracts to the commission in the first half of 2004, according to its default supply plan.
However, a Whitehall Wind official told Con.WEB he has continuing reservations about NorthWestern's bankruptcy and its ability to guarantee payments for wind energy.
"There are still some contractual issues we need to iron out," said Greg Jaunich, president of Navitas Energy, parent of Whitehall Wind. "Most of them are resting on the fact there's been a material change in NorthWestern's financial condition," with the September bankruptcy filing. "If we're going to make an investment in the Whitehall project, we're concerned who NorthWestern's successor is, how we're going to get paid, and guaranteed how we'll get paid."
He characterized discussions with NorthWestern as "exchanging ideas," and said his company would try to follow the utility's schedule.
Navitas proposes a 50-MW-capacity wind farm near Whitehall, which is some 50 miles east of Butte. Jaunich said his company is "not actively seeking a permit at this juncture," but is monitoring the wind and conducting environmental work.
The proposed project likely wouldn't start operating until at least 2005, "simply because we don't have our [federal] production tax credit," Jaunich said. The 1.8 cents/KWh wind energy PTC expired in December and has not been renewed.
NorthWestern's other planned wind energy purchase would come from a project in Wheatland County between Judith Gap and Harlowton. Windpark Solutions plans a 180-MW-capacity wind farm, built in phases. Rapkoch said the utility is negotiating for power from 75 MW.
Windpark officials could not be reached for comment, but a NorthWestern project summary said construction is hoped to start in fall 2004, with electrons spinning out by 2005.
"Once we are able to bring these contracts to the commission, certainly we'll have better direction on timing and price and when it will actually be available," said Rapkoch.
The expired wind PTC is beyond NorthWestern's control, but "certainly will be a consideration, particularly for cost," she said.
"The only other variable is our ability to bring a peaking facility into our control area. We need that to offset the [variable] wind power," said Rapkoch. NorthWestern lacks such a peaker, but hopes to rectify that with the proposed 54-MW Basin Creek gas-fired plant. "That is critical for bringing any large-scale wind project onto our system."
NorthWestern DSM
The demand side also figures into the IOU's plans for its default supply.
NorthWestern proposes a 5 aMW annual target, starting in mid-2006 after a two-year ramp-up period. It projects an average levelized cost of 1.8 cents/KWh for these savings over 10 years.
This proposal follows a thorough assessment of DSM potential within NorthWestern's service territory, conducted by KEMA-XENERGY.
It found a maximum achievable DSM potential, with 100-percent incentives, of 102 aMW over 20 years. NorthWestern concluded that goal was among the "desirable characteristics" for DSM acquisitions, though the proposed planning horizon covers 10 years. Other key features are "constant and sustainable year-over-year growth in DSM," a "desire to maintain near term default supply rate stability while minimizing long term total costs" and "[r]ecognition that, in fairness to all ratepayers, program participants should share in the cost of DSM measures to the greatest extent possible consistent with achieving plan targets and minimizing loss of cost effective DSM resource."
The utility saved about 2 aMW annually from 2000 through 2002 with its Universal System Benefits programs, funded at 2.4 percent of 1995 electric revenues, as established by the state's electric industry restructuring law. USB-funded initiatives would continue in coordination with DSM programs (and funding) for default supply customers.
"We're committed to the conservation segment of our portfolio," said Rapkoch. "We're in the process right now of building up the department that will manage that function." Program details aren't yet known, but should be more clear by summer, she said.
NorthWestern wants to continue expensing and recovering DSM costs in rates the same year. It proposes a DSM electric default supply tracker, in which rates would be adjusted based on program costs and lost revenues from savings. This would be "quite a bit different" from the USB approach, noted PSC's Rosquist.--Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
PacifiCorp is seeking renewable energy resources in grand fashion.
The investor-owned utility wants up to 1,100 megawatts of additional renewables capacity by 2010, sought through a Feb. 5 request for proposals that identifies 500 MW for delivery to its Washington, Oregon and Northern California service territories, and 600 MW for Idaho, Wyoming and Utah.
This is among the Northwest's biggest renewables solicitations, comparable to Bonneville Power Administration's since-limboed 2001 RFP for energy from 1,000 MW or more of wind capacity. It represents a potentially huge increase in PacifiCorp's renewables portfolio, which now includes about 132 MW of Wyoming and Oregon wind capacity and 26.1 MW of geothermal.
"We do see this as significantly upping the percentages of renewables in our system, which we see as beneficial for several reasons," including addressing fuel price and environmental regulatory risks, and diversifying its resource mix, said PacifiCorp environmental policy analyst Virinder Singh.
Rachel Shimshak of Renewable Northwest Project called PacifiCorp's RFP "among the largest drivers for renewables in the region," and praised the six-state utility for an initiative that "will bring significant new renewable resources to the region."
The solicitation follows from PacifiCorp's 2003 integrated resource plan, which envisioned a need for 4,000 MW of new resources by 2014, including 1,400 MW from renewables. Most of the added resources would be fossil-fueled by natural gas and coal, furnishing a projected 2,100 MW of baseload capacity and 1,200 MW of peaking capacity. The plan also calls for 450 average megawatts of demand-side management.
Renewables eligible for PacifiCorp's RFP are wind, geothermal, solar, low-emission/non-toxic biomass, digester gas, landfill gas and hydro facilities outside protected areas.
PacifiCorp anticipates the most bids from wind power, although spokesman Deston Nokes said uncertainty over the lapsed federal wind energy production tax credit could affect the number of proposals from new projects. Wind bidders are required to list prices with and without the PTC.
Proposals are due March 9, and PacifiCorp hopes to reach final agreements with winning bidders by mid-June.
Integrated Resource Planning
In a look-ahead that led to the renewables solicitation, PacifiCorp's 2003 IRP found a widening gulf between the utility's power demand and supply. It forecast annual average system load growth of about 2 percent, and noted the upcoming end of some power supply contracts along with hydroelectric relicensing issues and more stringent environmental regulations on fossil-fueled resources.
The plan listed a resource deficit of more than 1,200 MW in 2004, growing to more than 4,000 MW by 2014. "Not taking prompt and focused action to close this gap would expose PacifiCorp and its customers to unacceptable levels of cost, reliability and market risk," it said.
The IRP found "[t]he strongest resource strategy relies on a diverse portfolio of options, including strong components of renewables and demand side management, but also natural gas- and coal-fired generating resources." PacifiCorp gets nearly two-thirds of its energy from thermal resources, and purchases most of the remaining third, according to utility information.
PacifiCorp in June issued an RFP for peaking, firm and baseload resources delivered to its eastern control area. The IOU in November announced the choice of its own proposed 525-MW gas-fired plant in Utah--a self-selecting decision that has generated controversy, according to the Deseret Morning News.
The renewables solicitation expressly forbids proposals from plants owned by PacifiCorp or an affiliate, or any proposals from an affiliate.
RFP Details
The renewables RFP outlines specific amounts and delivery dates for resources sending electricity to different areas of the far-flung PacifiCorp system.
For the utility's west control area of Oregon, Washington and Northern California, the RFP seeks 100 MW starting in April 2005, 200 MW more in April 2007 and another 200 MW by April 2009. PacifiCorp wants 200 MW for its east control area (Utah, Idaho and Wyoming) in each April of 2006, 2008 and 2010. Earlier acquisitions would be considered "if economical to do so," the RFP states.
PacifiCorp's schedule was designed for the lowest present value revenue requirements, according to Singh, but the utility also will consider marketplace realities, such as developer timetables and resource interests from other utilities. "The short answer is we do have those targets, but we have to take into account ... how the wind market's working in this region."
Megawatts listed in the solicitation refer to nameplate wind capacity. "PacifiCorp will likely choose a combination of renewable resources capable of producing the energy equivalent of the stated figures," the solicitation said. Minimum bid size is 70 million kilowatt-hours (nearly 8 aMW) delivered annually.
Proposed renewables could be new or existing, according to Nokes. There are no specific location requirements, although renewable energy must be "capable of delivery to PacifiCorp's network transmission system" and proposers are responsible for such arrangements. The solicitation also mandates that PacifiCorp would own "any and all renewable energy credits and environmental attributes ('Green Tags') associated with the energy generated."
PacifiCorp's evaluation of bids will give up to 60 percent weight to price factors, 30 percent for non-price factors and 10 percent for environmental issues.
"The highest ranking bids, based on the combined price and non price ranking factors ... will be chosen for the short list. PacifiCorp intends to enter negotiations with selected short listed bidders," the RFP states.
Price and non-price elements will then be further negotiated, according to the solicitation.
"Selection for the short list and post-bid negotiations does not constitute a 'winning bid proposal,'" the RFP cautions. "Only execution of a definitive agreement by both PacifiCorp and the bidder on terms acceptable to PacifiCorp in its sole and absolute discretion will constitute a 'winning bid proposal.'" The IOU also declares its discretion to change or end the RFP, and to avoid any final agreements.--Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
Local officials have rejected a proposed mega-wind farm in south-central Washington, primarily on the grounds that turbine vibrations could affect highly sensitive gravitational research at nearby scientific facilities.
However, the Benton County Board of Adjustment's Feb. 5 decision against the planned 494-megawatt-capacity Maiden Wind Farm may not be the final word. As of late February project developer Washington Winds was seeking a way to put the matter before the Board of Benton County Commissioners.
"That would be the next step, really the only next step if there's going to be a project in Benton County," Washington Winds president Rick Koebbe told Con.WEB Feb. 9.
In denying a conditional-use permit for the proposed wind farm about 15 miles north of Prosser, the county Board of Adjustment concluded ground vibrations from Maiden turbines could interfere with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory and the Battelle Gravitation Physics Laboratory on the nearby Hanford Site. LIGO is about 6 miles distant from Maiden's proposed site, and Battelle about 12 miles.
The Benton adjusters had requested more study on potential vibrations from Maiden, said county senior planner Mike Shuttleworth. But Washington Winds said no, calling that unwarranted and too costly, and declaring further research would generate perpetually inconclusive results.
But in the absence of such information, however, the Board of Adjustment "couldn't conclusively say [Maiden] won't impact" the scientific research facilities, Shuttleworth told Con.WEB. The three board members present Feb. 5 voted unanimously against the Maiden permit, he said, finding it incompatible with surrounding land uses.
Koebbe harshly criticized the action: "These board of adjusters didn't take the facts into consideration when they made their decision." He said Maiden would comply with siting guidelines for the scientific facilities, which are already affected by other ground vibration sources.
LIGO's top official told Con.WEB the proposed wind farm's unknown potential to affect his observatory's leading-edge scientific research puts at risk a $400 million-plus taxpayer-funded investment. "The location of so large a facility so close to what are arguably the most vibration-sensitive scientific facilities in the United States immediately causes alarm," said observatory head Fred Raab.
Without more knowledge of Maiden's impacts, "We can't allow that to go forward," he said.
Appeal?
Shuttleworth said Board of Adjustment rulings are final for the county, although appealable to state Superior Court for Benton and Franklin counties.
"We don't want to [appeal to the court], because we really just don't want to get into litigation," Koebbe said in late February. "Because it's a political issue ... we're trying to work through the county commissioners and what they can do to put it in their purview." He said those discussions were continuing, as of Feb. 25.
Should Benton County ultimately deny Maiden, Koebbe said Washington Winds would not pursue legal avenues. "My opinion is, if the county doesn't want us to be here, I'm not going to litigate this issue," he said.
A "very small piece" of the proposed Maiden site lies in Yakima County, but "the project's not feasible if you don't get the Benton County part approved," he said.
Decision/Issues
The Board of Adjustment's decision was based on information presented by LIGO and Battelle, Shuttleworth said. LIGO--a joint project of California Institute of Technology and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, sponsored by the National Science Foundation--is located on what Raab called "among the quietest sites vibrationally in the United States." Both LIGO and the Battelle lab came to south-central Washington after extensive searches, he said.
"Basically what we do is we look for gravitational waves ... traveling warpages of space given off when you have really titanic violent collisions of things in space," such as merging black holes or exploding stars, he explained.
LIGO scientists are looking to understand the workings of gravity, "and how that fits into models of basic forces in the universe, the origins of the structure of the universe that we see today."
How sensitive is LIGO's work? "We use laser beams to survey the space between two suspended mirrors 2.5 miles apart in two perpendicular directions," said Raab. Over that distance, a cosmic gravitational wave generates a distortion no greater than one-tenth of one-billionth of a human hair's diameter.
Raab said he and colleagues were concerned about vibrations from "a major industrial facility," the proposed Maiden wind project.
Federal and state environmental review of the project "didn't adequately address the vibration impacts," Shuttleworth said, so the adjusters asked Washington Winds for a supplemental environmental impact statement on that topic.
The company declined. "It wouldn't do any good," said Koebbe. A Washington Winds news release said "the additional studies are unwarranted, would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and would result in providing no useful answers to the County."
Further study of vibration impacts could be endlessly refuted by LIGO and Battelle, according to Koebbe. "There's an infinite number of input variables into a vibration study," he said. These include turbine locations, numbers, size and foundation depths, as well as wind speeds and distances from the facilities, the company's news release said.
Raab said land characteristics and equipment specifications are two key variables in assessing vibration impacts.
Many other sources of ground vibration exist in the area, including the 1,150-MW-capacity Columbia Generating Station nuclear power plant and a vitrification plant on the Hanford Site, plus the Nine Canyon Wind Farm near Kennewick, Washington Winds said.
However, Shuttleworth said Benton County has no jurisdiction over Hanford facilities, and Nine Canyon is much farther away from the two scientific facilities than Maiden.
"It's distance and size," said Raab of his worries about Maiden. "There's no other density that high that close. That's the real issue."
Washington Winds, a subsidiary of Boise-based Pacific Winds, also contends Maiden would lie outside the recommended minimum four-mile buffer from LIGO and Battelle for rotating power plant equipment.
Raab said those guidelines--which he wrote in a memo some years ago--apply to plants with a few pieces, not several hundred wind turbines.
The wind energy developer offered to spend at least $500,000 to put insulators on vibration-sensitive equipment at the facilities, according to Koebbe. But this offer was not accepted, he said.
It is possible to mitigate vibrations if the levels are known in detail, according to Raab. But he said such equipment is not commercially available, and would require $5 million to $10 million to create, design and install--and the latter phase would shut down LIGO for several months.
A "secondary issue" for the county involved a local elk herd, Shuttleworth said. Maiden could further displace these elk, although specific potential impacts weren't clear.
"The elk herd is a major problem now," said Koebbe, and would be with or without Maiden. "It has nothing to do with our project."
"In the end, Benton County officials are making political decisions that scientific experiments are more important than clean, renewable energy from the Maiden wind farm that would bring about $400 million of local economic benefits to the people of Benton County," Koebbe said in the news release.
Shuttleworth told Con.WEB last year that both sets of projects entail a $400 million investment. "We don't want to have one [project] come in and make the other one unusable," he said.
Project Update
Washington Winds had hoped to begin construction in summer 2003 on what would be, at full proposed capacity, the world's largest single wind farm. But county approval is needed to arrange financing and power purchasing, Koebbe said last year.
Bonneville Power Administration helped develop Maiden's environmental impact statement and has an option to buy power from up to 400 MW of Maiden capacity. But a BPA official has said the agency isn't in the market for wind, given its financial predicaments and lack of need for new resources. "It's not likely we'd execute the power purchase agreement or execute our option," BPA's Tom Osborn told Con.WEB in August.--Mark Ohrenschall
The developer of a controversial proposed central Washington wind project has asked the state to pre-empt local land-use and zoning processes.
A Zilkha Renewable Energy subsidiary made this request Feb. 7 to the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, to which the company in early 2003 applied for site certification for its 181.5-megawatt-capacity Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project northwest of Ellensburg.
EFSEC in May required Zilkha to seek compliance with Kittitas County's wind farm regulations. Zilkha had pursued local approvals, but now wants EFSEC to assume authority.
Zilkha project manager Chris Taylor criticized the county's process as duplicative of EFSEC, inconsistent and slow. He said the siting council would consider the same issues as would the county, including the wind farm's prospective impacts on views, property values and birds. "All the facts are on the table," he said. "At the end of the day someone's going to have to make a decision."
Kittitas County finds the Zilkha request "very disappointing," said planner Clay White. The county had awaited EFSEC's draft environmental impact statement, which came out in December, to provide "solid, defensible information" for its own process. He called the Kittitas Valley review "a huge land-use decision," affecting an area larger than the city of Ellensburg.
One wind farm opponent took strong exception to the pre-emption request. "Zilkha trying to circumvent the county and go to the state is adding fuel to the fire. Now I'm really furious," said Roger Weaver, a Kittitas County real estate professional who believes Zilkha's wind farm proposal would reduce property values.
EFSEC will likely decide a course of action on considering Zilkha's pre-emption request by early March, according to siting manager Irina Makarow. It's a novelty for the agency, she added: "This is really the first time the council's going to be going through this whole process."
Kittitas Valley Wind
Texas-based Zilkha unveiled plans for the Kittitas Valley wind project in April 2002, and in January 2003 applied for EFSEC site certification, rather than undertake the county's permitting process.
In May, the state siting agency found the wind farm proposal "is not consistent and in compliance with Kittitas County land use plans or zoning ordinances." It directed Zilkha to "make the necessary application for change in, or permission under, the Kittitas County land use plans or zoning ordinances, and make all reasonable efforts to resolve the noncompliance."
Zilkha applied to Kittitas County in June, but has withdrawn the application, said White.
The county, as of December 2002, requires of wind farms a rezoning of the proposed site, a comprehensive plan amendment and a development agreement and permit. This replaced former county regulations allowing wind farms as conditional uses in certain agricultural, forest and range zoning areas.
"The County's lengthy and duplicative land use process is actually a project specific siting/permit process, which includes an invalid environmental impact statement review procedure," said Zilkha's pre-emption request. "The process being demanded by Kittitas County, if followed, will undermine the EFSEC process as well as the direction provided by the [state] legislature, and is in violation of EFSEC's preemption authority."
Zilkha contends the melding of planning/zoning and siting/permitting functions may be suitable for a large rural residential resort development in the county, such as MountainStar near Cle Elum, but not for wind projects, which the company argues are "wholly compatible with (and complementary to) rural land uses."
EFSEC already is undertaking most siting and permitting functions for Kittitas Valley, Taylor said, and should "look at zoning issues as well."
White said Zilkha could have appealed the county's revised wind farm regulations.
Zilkha also believes pre-emption would advance the state's interest in, among other things, "the provision of abundant energy at reasonable cost, with minimal adverse effects on the environment."
Zilkha had made "good faith efforts to resolve the land use inconsistencies," according to its pre-emption request. It criticized "constantly changing requirements" from the county and "unreasonable delay."
The filing said Kittitas County plans to review the adequacy of the Kittitas Valley draft EIS issued in December (see Con.WEB, Jan. 30, 2004). Zilkha believes this scrutiny is redundant (as EFSEC is the lead environmental review agency) and not allowed under state law.
White said the county doesn't want a final EIS, but it needed the draft version. "We rely on the draft EIS to set our public hearings and go through our public process," he said; EFSEC's environmental review schedule is beyond the county's control. "We're looking for solid, defensible information to be able to move forward."
It could take another 10 months or more following the draft EIS issuance for the county to make a decision, according to the Zilkha filing.
"At the end of the day, delay doesn't serve anybody but attorneys," Taylor said. A potentially two-year process for a wind farm permitting decision "is nothing short of absurb," he added.
Asked why Zilkha didn't oppose EFSEC's May ruling on seeking consistency with county rules, Taylor said, "We really wanted the county to make a land-use decision. We gave it as much time as we could."
White countered that Zilkha didn't apply for county approvals until June, nearly six months after its EFSEC application. He also said the company willingly chose state review, and that the nearby Desert Claim wind farm proposal (see related story) is "moving along smooth as silk" through the county's review process.
Weaver questioned why Zilkha should avoid the county process. "It's a land-use decision," he said. The real estate professional thinks the Kittitas Valley project would drop property values, which he suggested would create a "taking" of private property, requiring compensation. Weaver noted he opposes this particular wind farm site, not wind energy in general. Zilkha's proposed Wild Horse project in sparsely populated eastern Kittitas County would be "fine," he said.
Even without the county process, Taylor said local concerns and issues would still be addressed by EFSEC. "I don't think there's any substantive difference," he said.
If pre-emption is granted, EFSEC rules would require consideration of the county's wind farm regulations, according to Makarow. However, she added, "We don't know at this point in time how that [consideration] would actually happen."
Her agency held a procedural conference Feb. 19 in Ellensburg on Zilkha's request. "One of the main questions before the council is when to make a decision on pre-emption," Makarow said. "There's a lot of differing opinions coming from the parties." Some argue the council should decide pre-emption first and then hear the substance of Zilkha's proposal, while others believe EFSEC should consider both and then render a decision. "Our rules on pre-emption lead to different interpretations," she said.
EFSEC should decide by early March how to move forward.--Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
A proposed central Washington wind farm, as with a potential neighboring wind energy facility, would substantially change local views.
However, according to a draft environmental impact statement on the proposed 180-megawatt-capacity Desert Claim Wind Power Project north of Ellensburg, the effects on the eyes could be lessened.
"With considerable efforts to mitigate the project through visual integration, ecological restoration, sound maintenance, and community outreach from siting through operation, the visual impact could be dramatically reduced," states the recently issued draft EIS from Kittitas County. But, it adds, "This mitigation process would not, however, lead to a project that would be invisible. On the contrary, it would yield a project that would be quite noticeable but that fit better with the landscape of the Kittitas Basin and the aesthetic values of the people who live there."
The draft EIS lists several options for moderating visual impacts, including clustering small groups of turbines, placing turbines to fit in with the topography and creating uniform arrangements of turbines. Underground electrical lines and unobtrusive finishes on equipment also would help.
Many other potential effects from the proposed wind farm are outlined in the draft EIS, but most are considered minor and resolvable.
Nonetheless, Desert Claim has generated some local opposition, as has the proposed 181.5-MW-capacity Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project a short distance away (see Con.WEB, Jan. 30, 2004).
"It really does come down to visuals and property values, and everything else ties into it," said Kittitas County planner Clay White.
Desert Claim is proposed by a subsidiary of California-based enXco.
Desert Claim
EnXco applied to Kittitas County for approval of Desert Claim in January 2003 (see Con.WEB, Jan. 30, 2003). The company touted the proposed site's wind resource, transmission and power market access, and lack of "apparent environmental constraints."
Desert Claim would lie within 5,237 privately owned acres roughly 8 miles north of the county seat, Ellensburg. It would consist of up to 120 1.5-MW-capacity turbines, along with 7.4 miles of 34.5-kilovolt overhead lines sending power to a substation (or possibly two), and possibly several miles of 115-KV or 230-KV transmission lines for grid interconnection. Other infrastructure would include gravel access roads, about four meteorological towers and an operations/storage/repair facility in or near Ellensburg.
Draft EIS
The draft EIS covers a broad array of topics, and most of the prospective impacts from Desert Claim are deemed minimal and redeemable.
But not views. The project would cause "significant unavoidable adverse impacts to the visual environment," especially for nearby residents, the draft EIS said. In addition to potential turbine configuration changes to mitigate these effects, the document suggests such options as low-reflectivity and neutral-color finishes for turbines and other equipment, underground electrical systems and minimum required lighting.
Still, acknowledged White, "They're big towers." Nearly 400 feet high from ground to blade tip, these turbines would be among the tallest structures in Eastern Washington, he noted. The Kittitas County Board of Commissioners will ultimately have to decide the magnitude of the impacts, and any potential mitigation, he said.
Big Renewable Megawatts
PacifiCorp Issues RFP for up to
1,100 MW of Renewables Capacity
Shaken
Potential Ground Vibration Impacts Scuttle
Proposed Washington Mega-Wind Farm
State-Bound?
Developer Wants State to Pre-empt Local Approvals
for Proposed Central Washington Wind Farm
It's in The Eyes
Visual Effects of Proposed Central Washington
Wind Farm Could be Lessened, Draft EIS Says
 |
| The proposed site of Desert Claim is outlined above. (Courtesy of Kittitas County) |
Visual effects are always scrutinized for wind projects, said David Steeb, a Desert Claim project director. "I would agree that that has been, from day one, one of the key considerations of building a wind farm everywhere, especially in the Kittitas Valley. Their impacts on the view are just part of doing a wind project."
The environmental review process is ongoing, said Steeb, and he declined comment on prospective mitigation measures. "We want to look at the whole EIS mitigation package and we want to look at all the comments, and how it all comes out in the final EIS put together by the county. The key there is this project doesn't just hinge on one issue."
Desert Claim officials are thinking about ways to ease impacts, but, "We can't make those [mitigation] decisions ... until we see what the total picture is," said Steeb.
Another major issue, although not environmental in nature, is the potential effect of Desert Claim on property values.
The draft EIS estimates the project's initial assessed valuation at $92 million, 3.6 percent of the county's total valuation. First-year property tax revenues are projected at almost $1.1 million.
A literature review conducted for the county--separate from the draft EIS--cited two studies on the effects of wind farms on local property values. In one, assessors in 13 counties nationwide with wind projects "reported--primarily through anecdotes or impressions--that wind power facilities had not led to declines in the assessed values of nearby residential properties," said the review by Huckell/Weinman Associates. A 2003 study by Renewable Energy Policy Project looked at property sales data in 10 counties inside wind farm view areas and "did not find evidence that wind power facilities diminished property values."
Some county residents, however, believe Desert Claim would drive down property values. Any claim otherwise is "not true in any sense of the imagination," said Roger Weaver, a local real estate professional.
He said the county's information examined lower-valued properties, not higher-valued recreational/view properties found in Kittitas County, according to a Daily Record newspaper article. He suggested a more comparable study.
However, the newspaper also reported another citizen's remark that properties near proposed Kittitas County wind farms had recently sold for prices higher than purchased amounts.
On another notable wind energy concern, some birds would undoubtedly be killed by Desert Claim, the draft EIS said. It projects 1.2 to 1.8 bird deaths annually per turbine (140 to 220 altogether), mostly passerines. This falls within the range of other Northwest wind facilities, and consequently, "impacts to birds would not be considered significant."
Another aerial issue for Desert Claim involves airplanes; 27 planned turbines would infringe upon protected airspace for planes following visual flight rules for nearby Bowers Field. This could be resolved by removing, moving or lowering the height of turbines, the draft EIS said, or by shifting flight patterns away from Desert Claim.
Cumulative Wind Project Impacts
The Desert Claim draft EIS also examines cumulative impacts from this and the Kittitas Valley and Wild Horse wind ventures proposed by Zilkha Renewable Energy. (See Con.WEB, July 2003, for more on Wild Horse.)
Views, again, would be significantly affected. "Proposed wind turbines (approximately 360 cumulatively) would be significantly larger in scale than nearby rural and agricultural uses and structures, would be dispersed over a large area, and would result in some degree of visual discord or intrusion with existing uses," the draft EIS said. Desert Claim and Kittitas Valley "could cumulatively discourage residential uses" in their vicinity, the document said, but this could also help preserve agricultural lands.
"Some nearby residential users might seek to relocate if they felt that wind facilities, individually or collectively, conflicted with elements of their lifestyles," the draft EIS said.
That statement drew a sharp retort from local resident Dwight Bates, quoted in the Daily Record. "This made me and other residents very mad," he said. "We were here first. How can you invade our beautiful valley and tell us to move? Who would want to live next door to these monstrosity turbines?"
Views of Kittitas Valley and Desert Claim together "might be greater than the sum of their individual impacts," the draft EIS said. It also stated that Interstate 90 drivers would likely notice "extensive wind energy development in the Kittitas Valley area."
Substantial local economic benefits would accrue from these three wind projects of about 540 MW total capacity, the draft EIS found. It estimated nearly $16 million in additional income during construction, and about $5.3 million a year during operations. The county's total assessed value would increase by more than $270 million, a jump of more than 10 percent above the county's current total valuation of $2.5 billion for real and personal property.
"On balance, the actual effect of the projects on property taxes would likely be some combination of increased revenues and decreased levy rates," the draft EIS said. Added tax revenues would far exceed additional costs of public services for these wind facilities.
Process/Project Update
With the draft EIS completed and the public comment period ended Jan. 30, Kittitas County will assess comments and determine what needs to be done for a final EIS, White said. Once the final environmental document is completed--the schedule is uncertain--the county commissioners will make decisions on the specific county approvals needed for Desert Claim: a development permit, a development agreement with the county, a comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning of the project area.
Kittitas County's permitting process is one of two current priorities for Desert Claim, Steeb said. The other is selling the wind-generated power. With a number of Pacific Northwest utilities soliciting wind energy, Steeb is optimistic about market prospects for the project. His company also is exploring "other things not as public at this stage."--Mark Ohrenschall
More Information:
Many employees of the Pierce County (WA) Environmental Services Department had worked a long time in windowless basement offices.
So the architect designing the department's new headquarters building wanted to avoid creating a hierarchy of workspaces, some with great views, some without. The result: a long, thin structure that spreads natural light throughout the building and gives both sides of the building wonderful outdoor vistas.
"There are some pretty amazing views of the (Puget) Sound to the west and of Mount Rainier to the east," said architect Scott Wolf of Miller/Hull Partnership.
The 50,000-square-foot structure, located south of Tacoma in University Place, opened in September 2002. It won the Civic Design Merit Award from the Washington Council of the American Institute of Architects.
This daylit building is part of a burgeoning trend.
Joel Loveland, director of the BetterBricks Daylighting Lab at the Seattle Lighting Design Lab and an architecture professor at the University of Washington, has seen "a huge change, a sea change" towards greater receptivity to daylighting in the region. In the last five years, daylighting consultations at the Lab have skyrocketed, from 38 in 1998 to 374 in 2002, according to a 2003 evaluation by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
Lighting a building with free photons from the sky can reduce energy bills. But human factors--evidence that natural light and the ability to see the world outside can make for a better working environment--often are a greater attraction to pursue daylighting, say Wolf and other architects leading a daylighting surge for commercial and institutional buildings in the Northwest.
Human health and productivity benefits are key selling points for daylighting, although the direct connections are not yet fully proven. In any case, successful daylighting is dependent on appropriate building design.
Daylighting also faces some continuing barriers, including the perception (though not necessarily the reality) of higher initial costs.
Bringing Daylight into Northwest
A 2003 market transformation report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy said large Northwest architecture firms "routinely consult" with the region's daylighting labs in Seattle, Portland and Eugene. "Over 200 major projects per year now incorporate advanced daylighting strategies," it said.
The Alliance evaluation included a survey of architects for 90 projects that received daylighting consultations at the Seattle lab. At the time, about 12 percent of the surveyed projects were on hold, but the remainder of the projects were in varying stages from design to completion. Nearly three-fourths of interviewees called daylighting a "fairly significant" or "extremely significant" component of the projects. However, the evaluation said there was insufficient information to quantify the projects' energy savings.
Alliance support has helped build interest in daylighting among the region's architects, said G.Z. Brown, director of the Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory at the University of Oregon and overseer of the BetterBricks Daylighting Lab that opened in Portland two years ago.
"Without the Alliance, this wouldn't have happened," Loveland agreed.
 |
| Pierce County Environmental Services Department (Courtesy of BetterBricks Daylighting Lab Seattle, University of Washington) |
On a broader scale, a 2003 report from the U.S. Green Building Council spotlighted growing national interest in green building techniques, including daylighting. Under the Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, up to two points can be earned for daylighting buildings and providing enhanced outdoor views.
Loveland said studies providing empirical evidence for the beneficial effects of natural light on human health and productivity have helped stimulate growth in daylighting. For example, school performance studies in 1999 and 2001 by California-based Heschong Mahone Group found a strong correlation between daylit classrooms and higher reading and math test scores.
Another Heschong Mahone study, released in 1999, found that an anonymous large chain retailer experienced an average of 40-percent higher sales in stores with skylights compared to stores without skylights.
A 2003 Heschong Mahone study of a different anonymous chain--which had a less aggressive daylighting strategy and more variation in daylight conditions and building design--also experienced sales increases correlated with daylighting, but not the magnitude found in the 1999 study.
The reasons why daylighting is associated with increased sales are not fully clear. "Interviews with shoppers in the skylit stores revealed an almost total lack of awareness of the skylights but a clear perception that the store was more spacious than other similar stores. This suggests that it was the contribution of the skylights to the visual environment in the store that was responsible for the impact on the sales index," said a 2003 literature review on daylighting benefits, sponsored by the Alliance and seven other government, utility and energy research entities.
Numerous studies show people prefer daylight to electric light, according to the Daylight Dividends Web site maintained by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's Lighting Research Center. For example, a 2003 study found "a small but statistically significant reduction in negative mood" for people who worked briefly in an office with a big window during the day. No such reduction was documented for people working in the same office at night.
Before such studies were widely published, belief in daylighting's benefits "was intuitive," said Loveland. "We always knew that people liked windows, that they're a perk."
Windows do more than allow light inside. Outside views of natural settings can promote psychological well-being, according to a July 2002 article in Environmental Design+Construction magazine by Dr. Judith Heerwagen, a Seattle-based environmental psychologist.
However, Brown cautioned that a causal link between daylighting and increased productivity has not been conclusively proven. "It makes intuitive sense, but there is a complex interweaving of variables. It's hard to prove definitively," he said.
"Mood is subject to so many influences that unless the lighting is really uncomfortable, its influence is likely to be overshadowed by many other factors," the 2003 literature review concluded.
The U.S. Green Building Council report called for "robust studies" to verify and quantify productivity gains associated with green buildings. The council pointed out that the European Union spends six times as much as the United States on building research.
Nevertheless, with employee costs accounting for 90 percent to 95 percent of a building's life-cycle costs, upping productivity by improving the indoor environment is a strong selling point for building owners, Loveland said.
A high-quality indoor environment can be far more attractive to clients than energy savings, he noted. "I sell energy efficiency, but I hardly ever talk about it," Loveland said.
Energy Saving Potential
Daylighting's potential to reduce lighting electric load is not trivial, according to the Alliance report. In a simple analysis, the report estimated potential daylight savings of nearly 2 average megawatts were available in commercial buildings constructed in the four-state Northwest during 1998.
Buildings with work spaces well lit with diffuse natural light can cut electricity loads by more than 40 percent, both through reduced electric lighting loads and peak cooling demand, Loveland wrote in the winter 2004 edition of the Lighting Design Lab newsletter.
However, productivity gains can dwarf energy savings. The 2003 Heschong Mahone retail study found "the profit from increased sales associated with daylight is worth at least 19 times more than the energy savings, and more likely, may be worth 45-100 times more than the energy savings."
The U.S. Green Building Council report said the annual personnel costs for a commercial building average $200 per square foot, while average annual energy costs are about $2 per square foot. The value of a 1-percent increase in employee productivity works out to $3 per square foot annually, according to a 2003 report on green building benefits written for a consortium of Massachusetts public and private entities. Over 20 years, the net present value of a 1-percent productivity increase works out to $35 per square foot, assuming a 5-percent discount rate.
Brown said daylighting does not automatically produce energy savings in all cases. Many times, architects incorporate daylight "to create an ambience to bring out forms and textures, not necessarily to turn off (electric) lights," he said.
To produce energy savings, architects must incorporate techniques such as light shelves and careful surface choices to distribute daylight and reduce the need to artificially light dim areas in the building's interior. "You have to be much more sophisticated" in design techniques to achieve significant energy savings through daylighting, Brown said.
Controls that adjust electric lighting in response to daylight "were the item most likely to be cut out of a (daylighting) project before completion," often for cost reasons, said the Alliance's report.
Daylighting Ingredients/Barriers/Costs
What makes a good daylighting project? Architects identified several do's and don'ts that make a critical difference.
Educating clients about what makes a high-quality daylit building is the first step, said Bill Harper, associate principal of BOORA Architects in Portland.
Harper, who specializes in designing primary and secondary schools, said "value engineering" that integrates the many components of building design is essential.
For example, correct glazing selection is crucial to sizing a mechanical system in a daylit building. If the wrong kind of glass results in excessive heat loss, for example, a mechanical system sized for a daylit building may not have enough capacity to keep the building comfortable.
"The right kind of glass may cost you $20,000 more, but you'll save $30,000 on duct work," Harper said.
In addition, more natural light is not necessarily better. Too much of the wrong kind of glass in the wrong places can result in occupants getting blasted with direct sunlight or sweltering in an overheated workspace--which in turn can actually reduce productivity, Loveland said. "No kid wants to sit and do math when he's too hot," he said.
The trick is careful building orientation and use of architectural treatments, such as overhangs and clerestories, that block direct sunlight and spread diffuse light throughout the interior. The Pierce County Environmental Services building, for example, features skylight "chimneys" that bring natural light into open work areas, Wolf said. Baffles are used to prevent glare.
 |
| A daylit classroom (Courtesy of BetterBricks Daylighting Lab Seattle, University of Washington) |
Daylighting design conditions differ geographically. In the Northwest west of the Cascades, circumstances are "ideal," Brown said. Nearly two of every three days are cloudy, and the overcast produces diffuse, even lighting sought by daylighting designers, he said. East of the mountains, architects must contend with colder temperatures and frequent sunny days.
North-facing windows can be a great daylighting asset on the cloudy west side. On the east side, however, north-facing windows usually will result in excessive heat loss during winter, Loveland said in a 2003 "Lessons Learned" presentation.
Perception of higher first costs is a market barrier to green building generally, according to the U.S. Green Building Council report, even though "many green buildings are designed and constructed at comparable or even lower costs than conventional buildings."
Other market barriers were cited in a 1999 Heschong Mahone report to the California Energy Commission. Interviews with skylight manufacturers, utility energy efficiency program staff and architects cited three barriers: 1) Fear of roof leaks; 2) Perceptions by building owners that buildings with skylights are not "normal"; and 3) Lack of integrated design, which forces architects and engineers to use alternatives to standard practices.
Do daylit buildings cost more than buildings primarily dependent on conventional electric lighting? "It depends," Brown said. The incremental cost of daylighting, if any, depends on what's included in the capital cost baseline in the first place, he explained.
Daylighting does not necessarily mean more glazing, but optimized glazing used more efficiently, he said.
"In our experience with schools, a market that is really conscious of capital costs, we can show that buildings that are 60- to 80-percent daylit cost no more from the capital budget than conventional buildings, plus the kids learn more. That's a compelling insight," Loveland said.--Jim DiPeso
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 Editor-Jude Noland
Contributing Writers-Rick Adair; Jim DiPeso; Steve Ernst; Lynn Francisco;
Ben Gilbert; Garrett Hering; Amber Schwanke; Ben Tansey
Web Production-Michelle Noe
Vice President-Brooke Dickinson
Controller-Mary Noe.
Please contact Mark Ohrenschall,
marko@newsdata.com,
with questions or comments on this site.
Copyright ©2004 Energy NewsData Corporation
Return to Contents