Due to the Thanksgiving Holiday, there will not be an Energy Rant this week. Please check back next week for a new post. Have a great Thanksgiving!
Most energy efficiency programs are required by regulators to be evaluated to ensure ratepayer money is being spent wisely and reported savings are being achieved. If only such oversight were to happen for the millions/billions/gazillions being shelled out to state and local governments in the name of energy efficiency.
State and local governments have Amazon-wide budget gaps to fill, and I can assure you that earmarks (dirty word) for energy efficiency will find their way to plug budget holes to keep buildings open, replace roofs, buy new lawn mowers and pickup trucks, and avoid staff reductions.
We in Wisconsin have already experienced this during the last recession. Starting in about 2000, most money collected by utilities for programs was turned over to Madison to be distributed from the ivory tower. The recession of 2001 resulted in a major budget gap (major at that time – it probably looks like a hairline fracture compared to what we have now). There, coming in from investor owned utilities, was a nice cash stream of $80 million per year. The state government swiped half of it. It pretty much eviscerated the energy efficiency programs and brought the industry to a slow crawl. Incentives were pathetic.
Thankfully, the Public Service Commission has taken control of cash flow now to help ensure ratepayer money is used to save energy, reduce demand, and delay/avoid construction of power plants and transmission systems as intended, rather than filling in a tiny portion of a humongous budget hole. Now energy efficiency incentives in the state are what I consider to be very attractive.
These federal funds should either be funneled through established credible program delivery channels such as utility programs or, in some cases, state governments (as long as it is out of reach of the legislative and executive branches), or there should be third party impact evaluation of projects emanating from block grants to local governments and other private sector grant writers.
If there is no oversight, vendors, consultants, engineers, architects, whoever can declare whatever savings they want. Or worse, as noted above, the funds will go toward new park benches and decorative street lights.
We welcome the oversight and technical review of our work because we are going to do things right regardless of whether others review our work. In a competitive market, the more technically astute and persnickety the reviewers are, the better for us. While LEED® takes its lumps for being too cumbersome, time consuming, and nit-picky, I think it would be a big mistake to slack off the review process. It will weaken a strong brand.
The bottom line is, if you have no rigorous third party review, you can expect pennies on the dollar of proclaimed savings.
written by Jeffrey L. Ihnen, P.E., LEED AP
Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: demand, efficiency programs, energy efficiency, Energy Efficiency Stimulus, federal funds, impact evaluation, incentives, LEED, power plants, Public Service Commission, ratepayer, technical review, transmission systems, utilities, utility programs
Categories : LEED, Stimulus
Talk about an oxymoron. Years ago this was a favorite saying of my roommate and I as we lambasted dopey ads on TV, on paper, or over the airwaves.
Fewer years ago, once I got into this energy efficiency profession, I was speaking with a utility energy-efficiency program guy who frequently interacts with regulators. This was during a stakeholder meeting for quantifying energy saving potential by sector and by technology. (technology = lighting, furnaces, chillers, etc.) Knowing buildings systems rarely work as they are supposed to, I asked, “Have you considered retrocommissioning (RCx) as an energy efficiency program?” His answer in effect was, that would be great, but it would be double dipping since customers have already been incentivized for energy efficiency. I didn’t have a response for that. I do now.
Incentives are based on building systems working as they should. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Buildings almost always use more energy than they do on paper (or computer). See the recent Illinois LEED performance report, Figure 14. Buildings underperform badly compared to design models. I would venture to guess that the majority of this discrepancy is lousy controls.
Therefore, my response to the “buildings have already been incentivized and therefore, RCx is double dipping” is twofold:
- Incentives for efficient equipment and systems are many times actually too low. The building’s systems and controls are performing so poorly that the boiler actually has to make more hot water and the chiller has to make more chilled water than planned. The lights are saving more because they are on longer than they should be. If you’re going to waste energy, you may as well do it efficiently (oxymoron alert). The more you spend, the more you save! Other measures probably under-predict savings but these are typically control measures and control measures make up a small fraction of incentives and associated savings that programs take credit for – a thesis based on my experience – a thesis I am very confident with.
- Savings from RCx IS NOT double dipping. When I poll our own recent RCx projects, I find that 75% of the savings are derived from measures that either (1) fix control issues that wouldn’t even be eligible for incentives in the first place or (2) implement measures that are required by energy code. Some buildings aren’t built to comply with prescriptive energy code requirements – imagine that! and (3) implementing new measures that exceed code requirements.
- Incentives in many cases are too low because systems perform poorly (the more you spend, the more you save)
- Incentives in other cases are too high because they are controls-based and the control sequences are wasting energy
- Reducing over-use and fixing things that aren’t even incentive-eligible almost certainly outweigh fixing control issues on measures that were already incentivized. Therefore, the net of RCx measures is all new unrealized savings.
By the way, the utility mentioned above has an RCx program now.
written by Jeffrey L. Ihnen, P.E., LEED AP
Comments : 7 Comments »
Tags: chiller, control measures, efficiency, energy, energy code, energy efficiency, incentives, RCx, regulators, retrocommissioning
Categories : LEED, Retrocommissioning (RCx)