Guest blog

By Paul Baier

Vice President of Sustainability Consulting, Groom Energy

www.groomenergy.com

Why do so many companies fail to capitalize on the abundant opportunities to save money through improved energy purchasing and efficiency?

One reason may be the lack of high-level positions for energy management at many companies. This is a practically a “no brainer” because the position can often pay for itself in four to five months.  Sustainability leaders should advocate for this role either within their own group or at the corporate level.

Opportunities to save money are everywhere. In our consulting work we consistently see opportunities to reduce overall energy spend by 5 percent to 15 percent through projects with a two to three year payback period. This is serious money for companies with energy budgets approaching $50 million, and starts to really add up for firms in the $500 million range.

A typical project may improve energy purchasing practices or increase energy efficiency. For example, one organization realized $4 million in savings with renegotiated contracts for electricity. Another saved $200,000 per year through implementation of a demand response program. Yet another found $350,000 through lighting upgrades and incentives. Finally, a wholesaler reduced its electricity use in its frozen warehouses by 80 percent after converting to LED lighting.

Generating savings need not require a capital investment. Zero capital projects exist as well. One retailer, for example, saves $60,000 per year at each of its distribution warehouses by adjusting the temperature set points for its frozen and refrigerated warehouse to be cooler at night and warmer during the day when electricity rates were 50 percent higher. This same retailer saves $15,000 annually by recharging its electrical forklifts at 6 p.m. instead of 3 p.m., as was previously the custom, in order to take advantage of reduced electricity rates.

Why aren’t other companies exploiting these kinds of opportunities? There are many reasons, such as:

  1. There is often a prevailing attitude that “savings” projects are “deferred maintenance” with dubious returns and should only be done when absolutely necessary.
  2. Incentives at the corporate and local levels are often misaligned (e.g. production targets vs. overall energy spend).
  3. Getting capital requests “through the system” often requires strong internal selling skills and determination to get things done, which may be lacking for some energy project requests.
  4. Operations engineers are often overwhelmed with keeping operations (production lines, warehouses, offices) running and do not have the time, inclination, expertise or the proper incentives to look for and implement energy savings initiatives.
  5. Lack of knowledge in the CFO’s office about the opportunity

A lack of energy accountability, another contributing factor, is very common. Who owns the company’s energy budget? It’s surprising how often this question results in a “blank stare” when posed to companies we consult. They often have executives responsible for revenue, overall budgets and managing health care costs, for example, but not for corporate energy expenditures.

This lack of energy ownership can cost companies millions. In many cases, senior management does not realize how much they’re spending on energy across all sites, or that energy is often second only to health care in terms of overall cost growth.

At the local level, a lack of ownership leads to huge waste. For example, at one very large manufacturing facility, certain machines and operations were needlessly left running during the third shift, yet no one “owned” the responsibility for determining when the machines could be shut off, costing the company $40,000 in energy in one month.

Energy accountability, visibility, and corporate management are the first steps to pursuing these changes and realizing the potential savings.  A corporate-level energy manager — typically a director-level, but can be vice president-level if energy spend is large enough — who works with senior management and a cross-functional corporate energy management team is essential. Corporations, especially outside of energy intensive industries, such as steel, are increasingly starting to establish these positions.

We recommend:

  • Establish a corporate-level director of energy management with responsibilities for driving improved energy purchasing and consumption practices. For highly decentralized organizations, this role will be a corporate services function for the line.
  • Increase CEO and CFO education about the total dollar amount of corporate-wide energy spend.  The CFO should especially be pushing their organizations hard for projects that increase energy efficiency.
  • Drive energy spend visibility by calculating energy spend for the overall corporation, its lines of business, and individual facilities and plants.
  • Include energy spend in quarterly operations reviews
  • Establish an energy management cross-functional team that meets at least quarterly.

Revenue growth for many companies in this current economic environment is very difficult. Enhanced margins can be achieved through energy reduction, which begins with corporate visibility and an empowered, corporate energy manager

Elisa Wood is co-author of “Energy Efficiency Incentives for Businesses 2010: Eastern States,” available at www.realenergywriters.com.

 

Share

By Reid Smith

October 27, 2010

When solar energy companies think about how to reduce the cost of their product, typically a lot of time and money goes toward increasing the efficiency of solar panels and their manufacturing process. Reducing the production cost decreases the final cost the consumer will have to pay.

However, few solar companies start by making the building more energy-efficient, even though this effort can significantly drop consumer costs. Energy efficiency lowers the demand for energy in a building. If a building needs less energy, it requires fewer solar panels, which drives down the cost of the installation for the building owner.

But you may be wondering, how significant are the energy savings in a building after energy efficiency upgrades?

Buildings are large energy consumers, accounting for 40 percent of US energy consumption, according to the US Department of Energy. Homes make up 22 percent.

Not only are buildings big energy users, but they are also big energy wasters.  In fact, 40% of the energy we use in buildings is wasted due to poor insulation and air leaks.

So the first thing to do is improve the building envelope. After that, it’s important to consider how solar energy will be used in the building and what kind of installation is most efficient. People tend toward solar photovoltaic panels because PV has become the image of solar energy, said Rick Reed, president of Solaray Corporation, at the Solar Power International conference in Los Angeles earlier this month.

But solar PV is typically only about 20 percent efficient, whereas solar thermal is about 90 percent efficient. “Many people are heating their water from solar PV instead of using solar hot water systems,” he said. “This doesn’t make any sense.”

Solar thermal systems use much simpler, reliable technology and are much cheaper to install than PV systems. Still, they are largely an after-thought in the US.

For consumers, the cost of solar thermal and energy efficiency upgrades are typically much less than solar PV installations.  However, most consumers interested in upgrading their homes to solar do not realize how much energy their houses could save before installing solar PV. And historically their solar installers have not told them either. Why would a solar PV installer want to promote energy efficiency if it would translate to selling fewer panels?

Thankfully, that’s changing, partly because new financing options focus on reducing the overall cost of solar for the consumer, rather than on simply selling them solar panels. As a result, more solar companies are beginning to move into the energy efficiency business. SolarCity is one example of a company that now combines energy efficiency services with solar installation.

This has huge implications. Retrofitting 40 percent of the residential and commercial building stock in the US would create over 625,000 full-time jobs over a decade, spark $500 billion in new investments, and generate as much as $64 billion a year in cost savings for ratepayers, according to a September report by The Center for American Progress.

So if you have been scared away by daunting up-front costs of solar, now may be the perfect time to get a home energy audit and begin discussing solar financing options available in your area. You may be surprised what you find.

To read the full report by The Center for American Progress, Efficiency Works: Creating Good Jobs and New Markets Through Energy Efficiency, go to http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/08/pdf/good_jobs_new_markets.pdf

Reid Smith is the editor of Energy Efficiency Markets.

 

Share

By Elisa Wood

November 5, 2009

Scientific research has brought us products that offer greater energy efficiency. But is research, itself, energy efficient?

Evan Mills, staff scientist with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, raises this question and points out what may be a largely untapped market for energy efficiency companies: research labs. (See Environmental Science & Technology, http://eetd.lbl.gov/emills/pubs/pdf/sustainable-scientists.pdf.)

US researchers “unwittingly” spend about $10 billion annually on energy, he says in the article, and could cut the bill by half through sustainable practices.

It’s important to take a look at research efficiency because labs are often energy intensive. Researchers may work in hyper clean environments with sophisticated air ventilation, or they may need data centers with vast air-conditioning. Thus, a lab’s utility bills can be “staggering,” he says. Consider CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, whose 230-MW capacity needs costs $80 million per year; or the US Department of Energy’s data centers, which pay $100 million per year for energy.

Money saved through efficiency could be channeled into more research. Yet only 1 to 3% of research labs operate in “green” facilities. LBNL has created a model energy efficient lab setting at its Molecular Foundry, a nanotechnology lab in Berkeley, California. With LEED gold certification, the facility has achieved energy savings 28% beyond California’s already aggressive building standard. http://www.kawneer.com/kawneer/north_america/en/news/releases/LBNL_Release_FINAL.pdf

Typically, laboratory’s can find energy savings by using  premium-efficiency fume hoods and laboratory equipment, avoiding over-ventilation, limiting pressure drop in the ventilation system, engaging in energy recovery, minimizing simultaneous heating and cooling, and properly sizing space conditioning equipment to match energy needs, according to Mills.

He recommends that we reduce energy costs by including efficiency requirements in research solicitations. Labs could then calculate the cost of efficient equipment or building improvements into a proposal’s capital expenditures.

“Doing the right thing isn’t the only reason to strive for improved sustainability,” Mills says in the article. “The scientific enterprise depends on availability of ample energy and can be fettered by its cost. In the 1980s, LBNL’s particle accelerators were responsible for the vast majority of site-wide energy use. Indeed, the Bevatron’s [a particle accelerator] energy budget only allowed for ten months of experiments each year. At the time, raising the energy efficiency of the process (e.g., through improved magnets and power supplies) trimmed consumption and costs sufficiently to enable a full year of experiments to be conducted.”

Today, it appears energy research has succumbed to the syndrome of the cobbler’s children who have no shoes. Science discovers efficiencies, but doesn’t necessarily put them to use for its own purposes. Given our growing mastery of common efficiency practices in homes and businesses, research labs represent a new frontier for the energy efficiency industry.

Visit Elisa Wood at http://www.realenergywriters.com/ and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Share

By Elisa Wood

August 13, 2009

The energy industry tends to get stuck on certain words. Silver bullet is one of them. Insiders and policymakers often like to say there is no silver bullet to fix US energy woes. We need a portfolio of solutions – renewables, efficiency, smart grid, transmission expansion, coal sequestration, etc.

That may be true, but Tom Casten begs to differ. Casten is a bit of a rock star in the field of decentralized power. He has more than 30 years in the business and leadership positions in key organizations. It’s not unusual to see him quoted on energy not only in the trade press, but also in magazines like Forbes. So folks looking at alternatives tend to listen to him.

“I think there is a silver bullet, and I think it is all about the way the world makes power,” he said at the International District Energy Association conference in June. (Listen to his presentation at www.districtenergy.org.)

Or rather, it’s about the way the world wastes energy.

“Generation inefficiency is the elephant in the room. Nobody talks about. We put all kinds of policies into doing other things and ignoring that because most of industry makes money on this inefficiency,” he said.

The inefficiency he describes is the waste heat that power plants emit. It accounts for about two-thirds of plant fuel use, and it ends up floating into the sky unused. Weirdly, we know how to solve this problem, we have for decades – through combined heat and power plant. These plants marshal the waste heat and pipe it, so that it can be used for other purposes, such as steam energy for a college campus or an industrial process.

We use combined heat and power to generate only about 80,000 MW, about 9 percent of US total electric capacity. Of course, combined heat and power doesn’t make sense in all circumstances.  But an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study released in December says the US could increase combined heat and power to 20% of capacity.  Some Europeans countries have achieved this level –and they lack the large number of factories found in the US that can use the waste heat.

ORNL says it would take some regulatory tweaking to move the market to 20%. But one thing is for certain, there is no lack of interest in combined heat and power these days. The US Department of Energy recently offered $156 million in grant money for combined heat and power projects. By the time bids closed in mid-July, the DOE had received 359 applications for projects totaling $9.4 billion, according to Rob Thornton, IDEA president. “We knew it was going to be oversubscribed, but we never envisioned it being a 25 to 1 ratio,” he said.

Whether waste energy will emerge as the silver bullet remains to be seen, but clearly there is no longer a shortage of those aiming this bullet toward its target, the elusive werewolf of inefficient energy.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter

Share

By Elisa Wood

February 19, 2009

The ink is dry on President Obama’s signature to the federal stimulus bill and word is out that energy efficiency receives more than $20 billion. How will homeowners and businesses benefit?

Two sources offer an excellent break-down on the incentives: the Alliance to Save Energy and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a unit of the US Department of Energy. EERE goes so far as to give the page numbers in the bill that address certain incentives.

Here is a snap shot of where some of the energy efficiency funds will go.

Housing & Buildings

  • $5 billion for low-income weatherization assistance, plus an expansion of people who are eligible. An increase in the funding level to $6,500 per home.
  • About $4.75 billion to Housing and Urban Development for public, low-income and Native American housing
  • Tax credit for existing homes extended and increased to 30 percent of cost, up to $1,500 for 2009 and 2010
  • About $8.9 billion for federal buildings, including $4.5 billion for green buildings and $3.6 billion for Department of Defense energy efficiency initiatives

Appliances

  • $300 million for the Energy Star Program and for matching grants to states that offer rebates to consumers for buying Energy Star appliances.

Technology

  • $4.5 billion for smart grid projects
  • Up to $2.3 billion allotted for a 30 percent investment tax credit given to those who manufacture renewable energy, energy storage, energy conservation, efficient transmission, and carbon capture and sequestration items.

Transportation

  • $400 million to encourage the use of plug-in hybrids
  • $17.7 billion for public transportation and rail
  • $2 billion for the manufacture of advanced batteries

Other

  • $3.1 billion for state energy programs and $3.2 billion in block grants for local governments
  • $500 million to prepare workers for jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency
  • $9.75 billion for public safety and other government services, including renovation to “green” schools

Further details are available at http://ase.org/content/article/detail/5388 and http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/enn.cfm

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Share