IIEC Recent News

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The nonprofit sector has historically been overlooked by energy management programs. Energy Savings for Nonprofits (ESFN) was one of the country’s first state-sponsored energy conservation programs offered specifically for day care centers, food banks, senior centers, health care centers, family shelters, and other human service nonprofit agencies. The state of Washington contains about 1,200 human service agencies. A 1987 study found that 92% of these spent approximately 20% of their operating budgets on energy.

The Washington State Energy Office (WSEO) in cooperation with Seattle City Light, Tacoma Public Utilities, and Snohomish County PUD, designed the ESFN program in 1987 to reduce operating costs for nonprofit organizations. By using fluorescent lights, wrapping hot water tanks, caulking windows, and installing other energy efficiency measures, WSEO knew that nonprofits could greatly reduce their energy bills and thus enhance and even expand their services. The ultimate goal of the ESFN program is to have nonprofit agencies spending their money on human services instead of energy-inefficient buildings.

The program provides a combination of technical, financial, and educational assistance. Fuel-blind energy audits are performed, typically by the local utility. Based on the audits, efficiency measures are recommended. The nonprofit chooses which measures to install, and after successful completion of the retrofit an inspection occurs prior to WSEO’s reimbursement of applicable costs.

Over the program’s history a number of funding requirements have been used. For instance, initially grants of $4,500 were offered in select counties for buildings of 5,000 square feet or larger, $2,000 for buildings less than 5,000 square feet, and no-interest loans were available up to $30,000. In 1993, ESFN was budgeted to provide grants of up to $20,000 requiring a 50% match. Large fluctuations in the grant and loan amounts offered each year have been due to the different amounts of money received by WSEO from the oil overcharge funds, the principal source of funding for the program.

Through November 19, 1992, 175 nonprofit human service agencies had completed projects through the ESFN program. Annual electric energy savings for the program total 5,255 MWh. Electric energy savings per participant were greatest in FY 1991 with 88,073 kWh saved and lowest in FY 1989 at 21,383 kWh.

The costs of the retrofits that have resulted from the ESFN program are borne by three different parties: WSEO, participating utilities, and the actual nonprofit organizations. All these costs combine to create gross program costs over the lifetime of the program of $1,854,700. WSEO expenditures are made up of grants and administrative costs and total $917,800. The utilities’ share of the program costs (in grants only) total $602,300. Customer contributions (which includes loans) have totalled $334,600.

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

This profile was produced by

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

United Illuminating’s (UI) Energy Blueprint program offers financial incentives to commercial, industrial, and institutional customers who incorporate select energy-efficiency measures into the design of their new buildings, major renovations, tenant build-outs, and equipment replacement projects, as well as efficient process equipment installations. For customers who install a comprehensive set of specified program measures, additional incentives are offered. Grants are also available to cover design fees and building commissioning.

The Energy Blueprint program began in 1990. Thirty-four percent of the 185 projects initiated in the three years of its existence have been new construction projects. Lighting improvements are the most frequently installed measures. Incentives are calculated either through a Prescriptive Design Path, which includes menu-driven and custom rebates, or a "System Performance Design Path." Incentives for the System Performance Design Path are calculated based on computer modeling of the building performance.

The Energy Blueprint program offers incentives for a broad range of energy-efficiency measures. Incentives are paid for common lighting equipment and controls, heating and cooling equipment, building envelope improvements, and high-efficiency motors and variable speed drives. In addition UI pays incentives for exterior shading devices, automatic shades, louvers and drapes, high efficiency door seals, vestibule doors, dual fuel heat pumps, water source heat pumps, ground source heat pumps, condensing units, heat pump water heaters, thermal cool storage, ambient reset controls for cooling temperature, economizers, light activated or programmable set-back thermostats, heat pipes, liquid pressure pumps with superheat suppression, carbon monoxide detectors, geothermal ground loops, and process equipment and systems.

Annual energy savings from projects committed to from 1990-1992 were 2.35 GWh, 5.03 GWh, and 5.75 GWh respectively, for total annual energy savings of 13.13 GWh. Annual capacity savings were 1.5 MW in 1992, for a program total of 4.03 MW. During the first year of the program 30 contracts were signed and a total of 1.0 million square feet were involved. In 1991, 69 contracts were signed for projects, for a total of 3.1 million square feet; 26 of the 1991 contracts were for new construction projects. Participation in 1992 increased to 86 participants, for a total of 2.8 million square feet.

UI spent $2.98 million on the Energy Blueprint program between 1990 and 1992. While total expenditures have risen each year, UI’s cost per participant has dropped each year, from the high of almost $23,400 per project in 1990 to the 1992 level of $13,700. The Results Center calculation of cost of saved energy shows that the program’s cost has consistently been under 2 ¢/kWh, and in 1992 the cost ranged from 0.90 ¢/kWh to 1.39 ¢/kWh depending on the discount rate used.

 

[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE 24 PAGE PROFILE IN PDF FILE FORMAT]

This profile was produced by

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Duct testing and repair is one of the most exciting new areas for potentially huge energy savings. Recent studies and pilot programs show that these savings can be realized in southern and northern latitudes... and that the per home savings can be as high as 8-10% of total household energy use, or as much as 10-15% of household electrical use. In short, duct testing and repair represents one of the newest and largest gold mines for residential energy savings.

The recent focus on duct testing and repair is really the brainchild of three independent energy analysts. John Tooley and Neil Moyer of Natural Florida Retrofit had the insight that a tremendous amount of energy is wasted as a result of leaky ducts. They also gained the respect and support of Jim Cummings of the Florida Solar Energy Center who was simultaneously working on the same concept. Fortuitously, the three teamed up and began to champion the cause with the critical financial support of the Florida Energy Office. They found that leaky ducts are a common, if not universal problem in Florida.

This profile, unlike others in The Results Center’s 1992 and 1993 Profile Series, does not focus on any one specific utility, but instead presents brief descriptions of the "founding fathers" of duct testing and repair (the Florida Solar Energy Center and Natural Florida Retrofit), then some of the base concepts involved with duct testing and repair, and then presents the experiences of several utilities to date in this field. These utilities include The City of Lakeland (FL) Electric and Water Utility, Florida Power Corporation, Florida Power and Light, Pacific Gas and Electric, and Duke Power Company.

As alluded to above, repairing leaky ducts bears a great potential for energy savings (both electric and gas and other home heating fuels as well.) But repairing leaky ducts can have significant air quality benefits as well. Often leaky duct returns, which are under negative pressure or a mild vacuum, pull poor quality air from attics, garages, and basements. Tightening these ducts can thus enhance indoor air quality. The flip side of this equation is that by reducing leakage from a home there is a potential to upset delicate pressure balances, and with it the chance of exacerbating safety issues related to appliances that rely on combustion, such as gas hot water heaters. Thus care has to be taken and most utilities perform combustion safety tests before and after their duct repair efforts.

One of the great ironies of this emerging field is that ducts ought to be installed correctly in the first place. If they were, there would be much less need for costly and time-consuming retrofits. PG&E’s new duct testing and insulation program discussed in this profile includes a "High Performance Ducts" component in its residential new construction program. As such, builders can earn incentives for installing and testing duct systems in accordance with requirements set forth by PG&E, obviating the need for later repairs.

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

This profile was produced by

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TU Electric leads the nation’s utilities in the number of customers using thermal cool storage with 205 systems installed to date. The Thermal Cool Storage program was the first nonresidential DSM program offered by the utility, beginning full-scale in 1982. When this program began there were only three utilities in the United States offering incentives for installing thermal storage systems.

A thermal cool storage system provides air conditioning or process cooling for commercial or industrial installations by running chillers at night and in the early morning to produce cold water or ice, then storing and using that element to provide cooling for the structure during the hottest part of the day. These systems shift demand to off-peak hours, reducing peak demand.

TU’s Thermal Cool Storage program provides cash incentives to customers that install thermal storage systems. Both new and retrofitted buildings qualify. In 1993 TU offers $250/kW for the first 1,000 kW of shifted demand plus $125/kW for all remaining kW shifted. The actual installation of a thermal cool storage system can take anywhere from a few months to an entire year. These systems provide space and/or process cooling during TU’s on-peak periods (noon - 8 p.m., weekdays, June through September). In addition to cash incentives, thermal storage customers may realize additional savings by taking advantage of the Time-of-Day rate option. The utility does not physically control the loads of customers participating in the Thermal Cool Storage program. Each customer is responsible for ensuring that their thermal cool storage system is off during TU’s peak demand period.

Through 1992, the Thermal Cool Storage program had cumulative peak demand savings of 70,498 kW. Initial program participation was low during the first several years of the program in terms of the number of projects, with 27 thermal storage projects joining the program from 1982 through 1986. However, in terms of square footage, these buildings were very large on average and accounted for 22,225 kW in peak demand reductions, which is approximately 32% of total program savings. In 1992, 25 buildings joined the program.

TU did not track individual DSM program costs before 1991. In 1991 and 1992, TU spent a total of $6,098,200 on the thermal storage program. In 1992 the utility spent $2,687,000 with $1,745,600 spent on incentives. TU’s cost per participant was $107,481 in 1992.

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

This profile was produced by