Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Lighting Research Center (commercial/industrial), Profile #57


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



In March 1988, the Lighting Research Center (LRC) was established within the School of Architecture at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. The LRC is the largest university-based research center for lighting in the United States. The center emphasizes lighting research and development, technology transfer, and education. The LRC has ties with other lighting laboratories and centers, and receives input from all sectors of the lighting, building, and utility industries.



Current LRC activities include the Partners program, the National Lighting Product Information Program (NLPIP), the Graduate Education in Lighting program, the Research and Development in Efficient Lighting program, the Research and Development in Human Factors program, the Technology Transfer program, and the Outreach Education program.



Research topics covered by the LRC include: lighting and safety, lighting and security, visibility of exit signs, illuminance levels, and people’s acceptance of efficient lighting technologies. The LRC also looks at the needs of DSM and energy conservation programs, as well as longer-term issues that relate to efficient lighting.



LRC expenditures for FY 1988 through FY 1992 total $6,686,200, with expenditures of $2,162,000 in FY 1992. Funding for the center comes from a diverse group of sources including government (44%), utilities (34%), manufacturers, associations, universities, and consulting firms.



The Lighting Research Center has helped to fill a critical information niche in the efficient-lighting industry, focusing its projects on areas where little information exists. A real emphasis has been placed on conducting the LRC as a business rather than a "typical" university-based research organization in order to avoid being cast as a group of "academics" whose work does not focus on everyday business needs. Perhaps the most unique feature of the LRC is its publication of product specific performance information, which other organizations either cannot or will not publish.



The staff of the LRC believes that it has greatly impacted the lighting manufacturing industry through its product performance reports which affect manufacturer sales, manufacturer marketing, and lighting specifier product selection.

 


[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE 15 PAGE PROFILE IN PDF FILE FORMAT]


This profile was produced by
 

Buckeye Power, Residential Load Control, Profile #58


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Buckeye Power’s Residential Load Control program is offered to the member consumers of each of its 27 member cooperatives. Through the program, 81,000 residential electric water heaters throughout the Buckeye service area may be controlled during peak demand periods. Additionally, approximately 2,800 residential electric space heating systems are controlled through the program.



The primary goal of the Residential Load Control program is to prevent exceedance of the historical record peak demand. Each member cooperative pays a monthly demand charge, which is based on the cooperative’s percentage contribution to the total system demand at the time of the peak of record. Thus, each time a new peak of record occurs, each cooperative’s monthly demand charge is recalculated. The monthly demand charge may increase or decrease, depending on how much demand the cooperative was responsible for at the time of the new peak. As of May 1993, the system peak of record of 967 MW occurred in the evening on December 21, 1989. Through voluntary control and participation in the Residential Load Control program, member cooperatives have successfully limited the frequency with which new system peaks are reached. Prior to the December 1989 peak, Buckeye’s system peak was 912 MW on December 24, 1983.



Each water heater controlled is estimated to save 1 kW. With 81,000 water heaters controlled in the winter of 1992-93, Buckeye had control over 81 MW. In addition, approximately 2,800 switches are installed on electric space heating equipment with average savings of 5 kW per switch, for a deferrable load of 14 MW in 1992-93.



Over the entire period that the program has been implemented, the duration of each water heater deferral has averaged 1.6 hours. The longest deferrals occurred during the winter of 1989-90, when some water heaters were turned off for 6.1 hours.



Space heating deferrals have been occurring since the winter of 1989-90. A total of 13 deferrals have been necessary, for an average of 4.0 hours per deferral.



The program has operated with little need for change in its implementation strategy. Perhaps the biggest changes for the program have been the installation of a new satellite communications system and PC-based central computer control facility. Buckeye evaluates the load control system’s performance with 15 load monitoring points located throughout the service territory. Information from these points is transmitted via the satellite communication system back to Buckeye’s central load control computer. With the success of the Residential Load Control program, Buckeye has shown that with careful planning and foresight, a program can update its equipment to a state-of-the-art system that enhances the program capability, creates opportunities to improve communication within the service territory, and has a favorable payback period.

 

[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE 17 PAGE PROFILE IN PDF FILE FORMAT]


This profile was produced by

Public Service of Oklahoma, Ground Source Heat Pump Research Project (commercial), Profile #59


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Jim Ezell of Public Service of Oklahoma notes that, "Ground source heat pumps are really a product of Oklahoma. While the technology can be applied across the United States and perhaps around the world, it has its genesis in Oklahoma." Thus it is fitting that this profile focuses on the PSO program and incorporates the national perspective by using detailed analytical work done by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.



Ground source heat pumps, like water and air coupled heat pumps, have distinct advantages over conventional HVAC systems but have been criticized by some environmentalists as electrification technologies whose primary purpose is to increase energy sales. Nevertheless, utilities and energy policymakers simply cannot ignore the fundamental efficiencies of these systems and must carefully analyze their potential applications compared to standard HVAC systems, taking into account geographic location, fuel availability, and regional power sources.



While ground source heat pumps have been installed in a variety of applications for more than 30 years, recent advances in the technology have opened up the market for increased installations. Ground source heat pumps work on the same principle as air source heat pumps. Instead of exchanging heat with the air, a loop of water and antifreeze is circulated through the ground. Through the loop, heat is extracted from the ground during the winter, and deposited into the ground in the summer.



Public Service of Oklahoma (PSO) promotes installation of ground source heat pumps through its Good Cents Commercial and Good Cents Apartments programs. These programs offer financial incentives for installing energy-efficient heat pumps. Incentives are the same regardless of whether the heat pump is ground source, air source, or water source.  Additionally, customers may receive a lower winter heating season electric rate if they meet several program criteria, including installation of an energy-efficient electric heat pump. Customers who meet all Good Cents criteria also receive higher incentives than those who install heat pumps unaccompanied by other energy-efficiency measures.



Although there are many benefits to ground source heat pump systems, there are also some obstacles that may make their installation less desirable or impractical to a building owner. First, he or she must be willing to take a long-term view regarding system benefits. The systems have high first costs, which, even when offset by PSO’s incentive, are typically not paid back through low operating costs and energy savings for five to seven years. Second, the building site must be of appropriate size and geology. Horizontal loop systems require a sizeable footprint and both horizontal and vertical systems require geological characteristics that are amenable to trenching or drilling.

 

[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE 18 PAGE PROFILE IN PDF FILE FORMAT]


This profile was produced by

Central Maine Power, Pilot Efficiency Buy-Back Program (industrial), Profile #60


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Central Maine Power’s Pilot Efficiency Buy-Back program (EBB) was implemented in the spring of 1987. CMP hoped to quickly achieve large energy savings by targeting its major commercial and industrial customers. Interested customers submitted proposals for improving the electric efficiency of their facilities. There were no requirements as to the types of measures installed. Savings requirements were very high. Proposed projects had to save a minimum of 500,000 kWh per year and shift (or reduce) winter on-peak demand by 500 kW. Qualifying projects received funding from CMP which could reach a maximum of half the project cost.



A total of ten projects qualified for the program. To date, eight projects have been completed, one participant went out of business, and one project is still underway. Three projects were completed in 1989, two projects were completed in 1990, and three projects were completed in 1991. The program formally ended in March 1992. The EBB program was terminated because CMP believed that the services offered by the program could be provided through a combination of the Power Partners program and a revised Retrofit Rebate program.



Participants with completed projects are Bates College; Data General computer components company; Boise Cascade pulp and paper company; Statler Tissue Company; Sugarloaf ski area; Champion Paper; and Sunday River ski area. The ongoing project is a Veterans Administration Hospital.



Measures installed through the program included compact fluorescent lamps, variable frequency drives, high intensity discharge lamps, refiner replacements, central controls for heating and cooling, cogeneration, compressors, ground wood storage tanks, snow gun nozzles, energy control systems, and energy monitors.



Annual energy savings for the program total 33,162 MWh, and winter peak demand savings for the program total 4,849 kW. Energy savings per participant average 4,145 MWh.



CMP program costs total $5,630,600 for 1988 through 1992. Customer incentives made up 90% of the total program cost. The utility paid an average of $703,825 per participant and program participants paid an average of $614,441 each. The Results Center calculated an average cost of saved energy for the program from 1988 through 1992 at a 5% discount rate of 1.64¢/kWh.

 




[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE 21 PAGE PROFILE IN PDF FILE FORMAT]


This profile was produced by