Prudes Trafficking Cud

10 05 2011

Having been in the EE industry for 15+ years and regularly attending conferences around the country (for just a few years), I find myself being volunteered to contribute to these conferences with planning, presenting papers, and “peer” reviewing others’ papers.  The planning, peer reviewing, and being peer reviewed are learning experiences as I gain awareness of how others think and what they find interesting and important.  I say “awareness” and not necessarily “understanding” because quite frankly, the way some people think, baffles me.

For example, I was talking with a gun collector the other day and prior to this I had thought people collected weapons like some people collect motorcycles.  They just clean and polish them weekly, talk to them like house plants and adore their magnificence.  Wrong.  He likes going to the range and shooting them.  I can understand this because I on the other hand enjoy going to the beach and skipping silver dollars off the water.  I get a rush from feelings of wealth and power as I do this.  This is not all.  I take a Porche 911 to the beach with my rolls of silver dollars because it would be really deflating to climb into the 2002 Honda Civic after my fill of dollar skipping.

The dollar-skipping Porsche story is a lie but I was just trying to draw a comparison to the weapon thing and came up short.

I am in the midst of reviewing some papers for the International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), but fortunately they are not boring.  In fact, I even used the overarching results from one of them as a lever in a recent proposal I wrote.  I reviewed them and presented one round of comments to the authors and I truly hope they found my comments to be beneficial and constructive to improving their papers.  My comments included suggestions like moving and rearranging some things, rewriting some sentences I had to read several times to understand, separating these from those, and I found a few typographical errors.  I thought I had written quite a few comments and I hoped they weren’t PO’d, and after hearing back, I don’t think they were.

However, I also had the chance to review comments others had written for peer review of papers our staff (not I) wrote for the ACEEE Summer Study for Industry.  Whoa!  Some were quite nasty, and likely written by an academic / government prude, anonymously of course.  Some of the findings, paraphrased to be more like Wonder Bread than a habanero pepper, are provided below.

No references documenting similar work.

The topic of the paper included a financing program for energy efficiency programs that has worked spectacularly.  The paper essentially started by saying utility financing programs suck, which outside the program(s) discussed in the paper is a universal truth.  Do I need a reference to prove the Minnesota Vikings have never won the Super Bowl?  Do I need a reference to say they blew three conference championship games since 1998?

I use references when I’m uncertain of something or if I am saying something controversial or hard to believe or as you can see below, to make a point.  If I know what I’m talking about, I don’t bother with references.

Papers should include mostly the author’s expertise, gained knowledge, and wisdom of his experiences, not a compilation of other peoples’ work.  Do we want high school term papers or real-life EE market experiences and lessons learned?  Quite frankly, when I reviewed the IEPEC papers I paid no attention whatsoever to the references (don’t tell the prude police).  There were plenty of fresh data to chew on and sitting here today a couple weeks after those reviews, I don’t think they needed any references at all.

No data to back up the premise.

This was ridiculous.  Data were clearly provided to demonstrate the wild success of the reported “financing” program.  There wasn’t much data to show other financing programs suck, but I don’t need a study to tell me beer from a major league baseball game is more expensive than beer purchased from a grocery store either.

There is plenty of research on barriers to EE in scholarly publications from think tanks like ACEEE or from the DOE and national laboratories. 

The DOE?  Is this the same DOE that promoted the destruction of millions of dollars worth of working assets as economic stimulus – i.e., throwing rocks through windows to spur economic growth?  I used to work for the DOE.  I don’t need the DOE to tell me the barriers to EE.  Scholarly?  Ha ha.  It is to laugh.  (Daffy Duck)

I’ve seen lists of EE barriers and they typically miss one of the 800 lb gorillas.  One of the most notable lists of barriers comes from the 2009 McKinsey study.  A basic barrier I don’t see in their list is lack of time due to competing priorities of end users.  Since lack of time isn’t noted, is it therefore not a barrier?

One ACEEE paper, which in fact looks pretty good, does not mention risk aversion as a barrier.  I can tell you, risk aversion is a major barrier.  Many projects will not go forward without a performance guarantee.  Since risk aversion is not noted, is it not a barrier?  Maybe it is merely an obstacle!

Lacks the intellectual rigor that ACEEE requires.

Don’t rock the boat.  I think I’m going to throw up.

This sort of comment casts a cloud over ACEEE in my mind.  To be clear, I like ACEEE.  They put on good conferences and produce/sponsor some informative papers – stuff I can use.

Reads like an advertisement and offers no new information or analysis.

This is entirely bogus.  The word “Michaels” does not appear in the paper.  Yet I review one (1) paper from the last summer study for industry – one that is close to home involving Focus on Energy – and “Focus” is noted no fewer than 31 times.  For example, Focus:

  • promotes savings and technologies through
  • is a statewide energy conservation program (not efficiency?)
  • is managed by SAIC
  • program’s success comes through their active (should be “its”, not “their”)
  • program’s success results from leveraging
  • program tends to be vocal promoters
  • energy advisor has reviewed and blessed (blessed?  This is the intellectual rigor he talks about?)
  • absent a program such as Focus on Energy, would not have been installed
  • blah, blah, Focus, blah, blah

Nope.  No self promotion here!  I believe the prude should review some past works.

Ok.  I had to sneak a peak at one more paper; this time from one of the benevolent, intellectually superior, omniscient, and of course objective DOE laboratories.  This one was on the salvation that wireless technology will bring.  Have a seat; empty your mouth of any food or drink.  The paper was co-authored by a vendor of the technology using analysis provided by Honeywell.  Suely, there is no agenda or self interest in this one.

To once again clarify myself, I do not begrudge anyone for tooting their horn.  Anyone who thinks busy professionals write papers and present results at conferences with no self interest is a naïve stupe.

There is limited evidence to support the conclusions.  There is a small out of date case study but it lacks justification for any of the assertions.

C’mon dude!  The results:  Traditional financing programs: 0.  Subject “financing” program: savings of 1.5% of sales for many years.  In case you are new to EE program goals, 1.5% is enormous, like the Oregon Ducks averaging 47 points per football game or the Badgers scoring 83 points in one football game last year.  Both are incredible.  Don’t believe it?  Look it up yourself, prude!

I do not want to read high school term papers of reconstituted cud.  I do not want to read a doctoral thesis or six-line sentences full of four syllable words.  I want to read something I can use or at least find interesting.

written by Jeffrey L. Ihnen, P.E., LEED AP





Carnies, Circus Folk – Smell Like Cabbage

25 01 2011

Last week I attended the Association of Energy Services Professionals (AESP) national conference in Orlando at the Disney World Hilton.  Thankfully, it wasn’t actually in the park – hey, I don’t know man.  I would otherwise not go within 2-3 states of a crowded black hole for cash like that.

The conference expo hall “infrastructure”, including booth structure consisting of pipe framing and curtain dividers, chairs, tables, power and other things is outsourced to a company that travels from venue to venue like carnies.  For a couple thousand dollars or whatever, the exhibit space is all you get.  A $30 table rents for $275 for two days – that is correct.  A $30 table for the price you could rent a car for an entire week!  A $10 chair rented for $90 for two days.  Power to run our 30 Watt LED display lights for a couple days: $95.  Ninety five dollars for not even one kWh!  I wonder if the carnies reimburse the hotel for energy used?

Once we unpacked our stuff and set it up in the exhibit hall, a few shards of paper were scattered on the gaudy carpet of the conference center in our booth space.  Having remembered a vacuum cleaner going past a while before to clean up a neighboring booth, I asked the Hilton folks for a vacuum, if it wouldn’t be too much trouble – like if one is in the area anyway, I would like to use it for a minute.  Soon after, a woman with one of those IDs on a lanyard like those of the stage crew at a concert use, stops by.  “You asked for a vacuum?”  “Yes.  If there is one nearby and it isn’t much trouble it would be great to use it for a minute.”  “There is a charge for using a vacuum cleaner.”  “WHAT?”  Good God.  I said I would pick up the dozen shards with my fingers or just spit on it and grind it into the carpet.

When it comes to lodging, more is less.  Internet access in “expensive” hotels costs money.  No “free” coffee or breakfast.  Everything costs extra, right down to the $7 liter of Evian next to the TV.

None of this was new to me, except the vacuum thing was a bit of a “you’ve got to be kidding me” moment.

When you stay at a Holiday Inn Express, do you think the biscuits, gravy, cinnamon rolls, coffee and juice are free out of the goodness of their hearts?  HELL NO!  I happen to like Holiday Inn Express over Hilton for normal business stays because they have the “free” breakfast ready instantly in the morning and I don’t have to wait for anything.  Remember, Raisin Bran and Cool Milk and I’m Fine.

These exploits remind me of the energy efficiency and engineering business.  People who think they are getting free services from their contractors are naïve fools.  They either don’t get the “services” at all; or they get the services that completely favor the contractor (themselves), and one way or another you pay for everything they do.  They may say, “It’s absolutely free.  We don’t charge anything for our time.”  BULL.  If it isn’t charged directly, it’s built into their overhead cost which is built into their material and labor costs.

As I discussed the cost of $35 tables and $10 chairs above, you may have been thinking, “You idiot.  Why don’t you just get your own and ship it or go out and buy your own locally.”  Because there is a lot of cost and hassle built into that.  Our time is worth a lot of money.  I can chase around town to save $250 while it costs me $450 in my time to do so.  What about little issues like arriving at midnight the night before the start of the conference?  Take the day off so I can find cheap furniture?  Not.  Shipping isn’t cheap either.  Shipping our display, which is compact, but a bit heavy, runs $200.  And will the hotel just hold it for you?  Sure, for a tidy fee of $82.50.  The carnies have this all figured out.  They know exactly how much it costs to buy, ship, or go buy your own stuff locally for the show.  They price their crap just below that, so a $10 chair costs $90 to rent for a couple days.

The carnie business model is used, typically ruthlessly by “design builders”.  There is design, bid, build which may take a little extra time, but every step is competitive (e.g., “bid”) keeping cost down and quality up.  And there is design build, where you essentially agree to a floor plan, sign a blank check and put a blindfold on for a few months.  I’m no expert on the dastardly design build business, but the sales pitch goes something like this: you don’t have to waste money on expensive architects and engineers and then hassle with contractors.  You don’t have to wait for competitive bids.  Just sign this check.  We’ll fill in the numbers and take care of everything for you.  It will be wonderful, fast, and easy.  Translation: once you sign on the dotted line, the carnies will move in and provide you with the cheapest crap imaginable.  You will be a captive, ignorant sucker and we will take what we can get and you will be boxed in with no one looking out for your interests.  Everything is extra.  A LOT extra.

You get screwed for what you don’t pay for.

Design build is polluting the country with cheap and crappy buildings – energy hogs that are going to be crumbling in 30 years.  Austin Powers, as you may recall, fears only two things.  Nuclear war and… carnies – circus folk, nomads, smell like cabbage, small hands.

Tidbits

The ladies at AESP know how to put on a smooth, high-quality conference, and they deliver.  It’s a fast growing organization for a reason.  Kudos to a fine organization and event.

A couple weeks ago in Goodfellas Take California I explained, or attempted to explain at least, how mandating CFLs was bad policy.  As it turns out, the impacts are far below than anticipated.  In the 2006-2008 program years, PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) aimed, er I mean shot for, er I mean strived for incentivizing the purchase of 53 million compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs).  At nearly a $2 subsidy per lamp, the program did not meet participation targets, er I mean goals.  Not only that, evaluators concluded savings due to the program were 73% lower than anticipated.  Whoa!  That is God-awful.  We just finished a bunch of residential verification work all over California for comprehensive programs as well.  Per my involvement with that project, I don’t think the utilities will be singing a joyful song once they see those results either.

BTW, per the article, lighting is responsible for 8% of greenhouse gases.  California may have 2% of the world’s lighting (a SWAG) and residential lighting may be about 15% of the total.  Switching this lighting to CFLs would reduce GHG emissions by maybe 0.008% at the very most.  It’s probably closer to half that.  I feel cold already just thinking about it.

In a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel piece, Joel Rogers, head of the Center on Wisconsin Strategy and a leader in the national Emerald Cities initiative, states, “The first major barrier [to energy savings] is that most people don’t know much about what they can save.”  Hmmm.  Sounds an awful lot like my rant, Horse and Buggy EE Programs, where I said the powers in WI, in their infinite wisdom declared the feasibility study, the answer to Mr. Rogers’ “first major barrier” problem is actually not a problem.  The solution to Mr. Rogers’ “first major barrier” was declared a waste of money.  Mr. Rogers, please see your “Energy Advisor” with Focus on Energy, but wear a helmet.  The brick wall is hard, and stout.

written by Jeffrey L. Ihnen, P.E., LEED AP





Horse and Buggy EE Programs

8 06 2010

In many states, energy efficiency programs are meeting annual savings goals and their incentive cash is depleted in a fraction of the year.  States where energy efficiency programs are a new offering are especially quick to meet goals.  These states include Ohio, Michigan and Illinois.  These states rely heavily on lighting, which accounts for somewhere in the range of 90% of the total savings.  Even mature states like Wisconsin and California still get well over half their savings from lighting and other prescriptive measures (rebates).  Wisconsin surpassed goals and ran out of incentives last program year.

There are many ways to solve the “excess savings problem” from reducing or eliminating incentives on some things or eliminating program offerings.  In Wisconsin, they are sort of cutting incentives across the board and getting rid of comprehensive energy retrofit in existing commercial and industrial (C&I) facilities, where everyone knows the greatest potential exists.  Comprehensive energy retrofit in WI is dead because they killed feasibility studies.

Wisconsin must know something Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, New York, California, Johnson Controls, Honeywell, Siemens, and dozens of energy service companies (ESCOs) around the country are oblivious to.  These states’ programs rely substantially on comprehensive energy retrofit and it’s actually the holy grail of energy efficiency.  But not in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin instead relies on the discount model.  See Incentive or Discount, January 12, 2010.  The powers that are believe this is the most cost effective (only) way to deliver savings and that feasibility studies once paid for by the program just rot on the customer’s shelf.  But there are numerous ways to avoid this.  You just have to develop an integrated program that holds customers accountable for implementing measures.

When Wisconsin (Focus on Energy, Focus for short) took over the energy efficiency programs from the investor-owned utilities about 10 years ago, one of the goals was market transformation.  Market transformation simply means making energy efficient products and services the normal way of doing business such that ratepayer-funded programs are no longer needed, or their need is greatly reduced.  Market transformation has long since been cast aside.

Instead, Focus has been transformed into something that seems to be directly at odds with its market transformation charter.  Service providers in the market, ones with expertise and no bias (don’t sell stuff) are locked out by an apparatus that cannot work for them.  Eliminating feasibility studies was the equivalent of adding a mote full of alligators around the fiefdom with razor wire atop the castle wall to keep the serfs out.

The idea that feasibility studies are a waste of money is just plainly incorrect.  Nearly all of our feasibility studies are acted on.  Last year we kicked off a retrocommissioning program with three pilot studies – no commitment from the owners whatsoever.  We just wanted to demonstrate potential.  Two of three have already been implemented.  One has almost a year’s savings accumulated with 25-30% electric and gas savings, on their bills.  The third project is close to implementation, which will probably be completed by year’s end.

In another study, we projected 30% savings for a high school. Actual results were 40% savings, indicated by energy bills.  One college campus: 20% gas and electric savings projected, 20% savings realized.  Another campus 15% and 22% electric and gas savings projected, respectively.  Actual savings from bills: 25% and 20%.  A medical clinic with about 25% savings projected:  actual savings in the first 3 months of post-implementation operation total a full half year of projected savings.  Every one of these projects needed measure identification, cost and savings estimates, and return on investment analysis.  We started with a blank slate.

We have a study underway for a huge food processor and are projecting 3.5 million kWh savings, from only a portion of their air handling systems (68 units).  We are looking forward to moving on to the ammonia refrigeration and compressed air systems. This customer has been very progressive with energy projects over the past 7-8 years and is willing to get everything that meets their financial criteria.  In fact, when we delivered the proposal they agreed to move forward with the study on the air handlers but said, “but I don’t think you’ll find anything”.

The bottom line is, a comprehensive program that includes front-end screening, study, Implementation design, implementation, functional performance testing of measures, and customer training will be acted on by customers.  Of the 10 or so projects, including dozens of campus buildings, where we have used this process, savings have been 20% or more in every case, up to 40%, and actual savings from pre and post implementation bill comparisons have always come in above study projections.  Projects include everything from retrocommissioning to major equipment/system retrofits to new controls systems.

Ironically, we completed a “no risk” study with Focus last year including controls, refrigeration and HVAC.  The customer went forward with all recommended measures.  Again, all we started with was a customer that wanted to cost-effectively save energy, a blank sheet of paper.  No “pre-packaged” projects.  I.e., no free rider.

From a program perspective, this is very cost effective because savings are huge and concentrated and studies do not get stranded.  The problem with some (as in, not all) program administrators whether they be third parties or utilities is they are steadfastly wedded to the status quo with a divorce rate Vatican City would cheer.  The typical disjointed process with reams of paperwork and delays at the outset, no assistance between study and implementation, no hook or commitment from customers to do anything with the study, and no functional testing at the conclusion of implementation is doomed to fail.

The solutions to the “waste of money” issue are simple and they work very well, but some administrators and in some cases regulators need to open their minds and ditch their horse and buggy program paradigms.

And by the way, the attribution rate, which is the savings that occur as a result of an integrated program including feasibility studies, is near 100%.  See the food processor guy’s quote above.  He didn’t think we would find anything.  Tell me.  Would these 3.5 million kWh savings have occurred in the absence of a thorough investigation?  How does a customer who buys an efficient boiler have any idea what the incremental cost and energy savings of his new equipment are?  Does that constitute decision making based on energy efficiency?  Perhaps some programs could improve their attribution rates on C&I programs if they would actually lead customers to implement energy efficiency measures rather than chasing contractors, like lawyers chasing ambulances, to capture savings that are going to happen in the marketplace anyway.

written by Jeffrey L. Ihnen, P.E., LEED AP