Energy efficiency is taking the shock out of power bills

Among facilities managers, even the soundest sleepers may be tormented at night by this bad dream: an old building is leaking energy like a sieve; in one zone people are too cold, in another they’re too hot and in a third zone, all lights are burning and conditioned air is circulating though no one is there.

The worst part of this nightmare is waking up to a reality that is not much better.

Outdated boilers, chillers, HVAC and lighting systems are greedily consuming power, and utility meters are spinning at peak-demand rates. What remains of the public’s goodwill is flying out the windows along with tax dollars.

At city hall or the courthouse, officials feeling the budget pinch are calling on all departments to cut costs while maintaining services. Energy costs make an obvious target, since taken as a single item they are often second only to payroll expenses.

Unfortunately, there is often no money for the upgrades that would make facilities more energy efficient. But the good news is that cities and counties of all sizes are making progress in spite of such obstacles.

In fact, local governments are leading the way for both public and private facilities in energy efficiency, according to Jack Werner, business director for Public Technology Inc. (PTI), the non-profit technology arm of the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the International City/County Management Association.

Werner estimates that 700 or so cities and counties are actively working on energy conservation programs and other projects that promote sustainability — the balance between a strong economy and healthy environment.

“[Cities and counties] are really ahead of the times and have been for a number of years,” Werner says. “The federal government is realizing that a lot of this is happening at the local level.”

Local governments are improving facilities’ efficiency with help from various state and federal agencies and private industry. Some make headway bit by bit with existing maintenance funds; others take on major projects through financing methods that include performance contracts, loans and rebates.

Success story in the desert

Reducing energy costs can involve a wide range of projects, including:

* tightening the seat of building envelopes;

* retrofitting or upgrading energy consumers from motors to chillers to lighting systems;

* changing the timing of energy use to take advantage of cheaper, off-peak power; and

* improving overall energy management in buildings.

Sierra Vista, Ariz., a city of 38,000 near the Mexican border, has taken each of these steps in its energy program. Along with water conservation, the city’s energy conservation efforts have trimmed annual utility costs by around $168,000.

“We have kind of an aggressive, pro-active energy approach,” says John Taylor, operations manager for the public works department. “There’s always something we can save on.”

Sierra Vista’s first move was to analyze equipment and energy use in all major buildings, including city hall and the library, community center and airport. Employees were asked about any lighting or temperature problems in their work areas.

Armed with a list of priorities, the city began retrofitting lighting fixture and has now replaced all incandescent and mercury vapor lights with energy-efficient ones, according to Taylor.

Four-lamp T-12 fixtures were replaced with two-lamp T-8 fixtures, reducing their kilowatt load by 60 percent. Likewise, replacing four 40-watt fluorescent lamps with one T-8 lamp, reflectors and efficient ballasts cut energy use by 75 percent.

At the city-operated airport, energy conservation measures cut the utility bill in half in spite of a recent doubling of the terminal’s size from 4,000 to 8,000 square feet.

The city used everything from shade plantings and natural-air cooling to motion sensors and low-E windows to make the airport more efficient. Low-E glass, developed through a partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and private industry, blocks the passage of heat in and out of buildings.

The city signed a five-year contract with a vendor for a computerized management system, which enables better overall control of energy use at the airport and other major buildings. Improving this control has been important in handling the wide temperature ranges of southern Arizona.

The system sets baseline temperatures for building zones, runs logs and times equipment to run in off-peak hours when possible. It also monitors heat buildup and opens air “economizers” for natural cooling when temperatures outside drop below 70 degrees.

The city has also taken steps like replacing older HVAC units, covering roofs with a reflective coating, installing low-E windows on the south side of City Hall and increasing preventive maintenance.

Sierra Vista has earned state awards for excellence in energy efficiency in nine of the city program’s 10 years. The public works department, with support from officials like the mayor, has led the drive for efficiency, according to Taylor.

“It really kind of comes from within the department,” he says. “It’s not something that necessarily started at the top.”

Funding has come largely out of the maintenance budget. In addition, a partnership between the city, the state energy office and the local electric utility has led to a state grant of $8,000 and utility rebates, including an anticipated $1,500 rebate for efficiency measures in the library.

In addition to utilities and state energy offices, the following are resources available to local governments looking for money and ideas. Any programs involving federal funds are contingent, of course, on the outcome of 1996 budget debate.

Funding Partnerships

For the past 17 years, the DOE’s Municipal Energy Management Program has funneled money to more than 300 cities and counties for energy projects. The money is awarded through a partnerships with PTI, which is made up of more than 130 cities and counties. The 1996 federal budget currently allocates around $1.8 million for this partnership.

In PTI’s view, energy efficiency is a key element in an integrated set of facilities issues, such as indoor air quality, the impact of materials and access to transit options. All are important to consider in both new construction and the renovation of existing buildings.

Within PTI, energy efficiency is the focus of the Urban Consortium’s Energy Task Force (UCETF). The Urban Consortium is a group of 50 to 75 of PTI’s biggest members.

The UCETF awards DOE funds to cities and counties for energy projects, with the goal of helping larger local governments develop and test technologies and strategies and share their results with a broader audience.

After an annual RFP, cities and counties compete for technology transfer or research and development grants. Those with at least 100,000 residents can receive around $25,000 for technology transfer projects. For a research and development grant up to $75,000, applicants must have populations of at least 250,000.

“The key thing in the RFP process is to make sure that what [cities and counties] will be doing will have some impact on their ability to deliver services in general,” says Werner.

The impact on public services may come directly from a particular tech, nology project or from the savings the project creates. The UCETF also favors proposals that include partnerships with other public entities, private industries or research entities like universities.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, with a population of 105,000, was one of 23 local governments to receive funding in 1995, getting $20,000 to help make its city hall more efficient and set up a technology demonstration lab within the building.

The city also received $25,000 from a local energy services company, a $16,000 rebate from the local utility and committed $17,000 in general fund property taxes to the project.

Built on an island in the Red Cedar River in 1923 as a memorial to Cedar Rapids’ veterans, the city hall is on the National Register of Historic Places. Consequently, Cedar Rapids wanted both to upgrade the facility and to preserve its character.

The city plans to take advantage of methods — including those used by other local governments with historic buildings — studied in the demonstration lab. The city will also host workshops and produce a video of the project to help share its experiences.

The city hall operates on steam heat, electricity and some natural gas. It has a tendency to be overheated in some areas and, simultaneously, too cold in others. “The building is fighting itself to make the people inside more comfortable,” says William Hoekstra, the city’s transportation and parking director.

Cedar Rapids had previously applied for a UCETF grant to upgrade the city hall but was turned down because, Hoekstra says, “I failed to describe the historical significance of the building.”

Hoekstra was recruited to direct the city hall project after cutting annual energy costs in the ground transportation center from $175,000 to $47,000, through improved control of HVAC and lighting systems,

Other local governments receiving 1995 grants from the UCETF include:

* Montgomery County, Md., for a project to develop standardized controls that optimize energy efficiency of Variable-Air-Volume (VAV) systems and related equipment. The county is partnering with a local utility and a controls company to report results.

* The city and county of San Francisco, for a study of alternative methods of financing and implementing large-scale, multi-year energy retrofits; and

* Philadelphia, for a test of induction lighting in both historic and modem municipal buildings.

In addition to funding, PTI also provides publications and videos on energy efficiency and is currently developing a detailed technical guidebook for sustainable buildings, due out in March both in hard copy and on the Internet.

Institutional Conservation Programs

Public or private, non-profit schools and hospitals are eligible for DOE funds through institutional Conservation Programs (ICP), which provided around $947 million between fiscal years 1979 and 1995 that affected over 78,000 buildings. ICP estimates the grants have led to $5.7 billion in energy-cost savings.

Schools or hospitals competing successfully for ICP grants receive up to 50 percent of the cost of technical assistance (TA) audits and conservation measures, such as storm windows, insulation and energy management controls. In cases of hardship, ICP may pay up to 90 percent.

TA audits are conducted by independent engineers who analyze a facility’s energy users and report on the potential costs, savings and payback periods of efficiency projects. Audits must be completed to qualify the facility for conservation measure funds, although applicants may or may not seek ICP funds for the audits.

ICP divides a project’s cost by anticipated savings to calculate the payback period. Those with a payback of between two and 10 years are eligible, with an average payback for funded projects of four to five years.

Money reaches schools and hospitals in two ways: the traditional program and the coordinating agency program. In the former, state energy offices review applications and make recommendations to DOE Regional Support Offices. The DOE offices then award grants by August 31.

In the coordinating agency program, the states themselves award grants. DOE transfers funds to the states, and the Support Offices simply provide oversight.

The Syracuse, N.Y., school district has received more than $1.2 million from ICP in recent years and cut around $400,000 from energy bills. The district completed four cogeneration projects with ICP grants and a fifth through a performance contract.

The cogeneration projects consist of 60-kilowatt, natural-gas fueled units that meet about 80 percent of each facility’s electric power demand. The units are staged to assist with both water and space heating and cooling.

Green Lights

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Green Lights program encourages use of efficient lighting in the effort to reduce electric power plant emissions. More than 1,200 entities, including cities and counties, have become Green Lights Partners by signing a Memorandum of Understanding, in which they agree to appoint an implementation manager, survey all lighting fixtures in their facilities and set up a demonstration upgrade.

Partners also commit to upgrading 90 percent of their facilities within five years, maximizing energy savings without downgrading lighting quality.

In turn, EPA provides support in six areas:

* The lighting services group provides technical support through free workshops, an information hotline and an extensive upgrade manual.

* The decision support system provides computer software for surveying facilities and choosing the most appropriate lighting.

* The financing directory is a database of information on utility-sponsored assistance and other third-party financing options including rebates and loans. The product information program provides current performance reports and pricing information on energy-efficient lighting products.

* Ally programs facilitate contact with private lighting companies and electric utilities.

* News releases and public service ads help generate publicity for partners’ projects.

San Diego County has upgraded lighting in 13 facilities with help from the Green Lights program. The county is saving more than $375,000 a year in energy costs and has received $515,000 in rebates from the local electric utility. Leon County, Fla., another partner, has cut around $90,000 in annual costs through lighting upgrades that have covered about half the county facilities’ square footage, including the courthouse, where T-8 and compact fluorescent lamps were installed.

Federal Examples

The Federal Energy Management Program is aimed strictly at improving efficiency in federal buildings, as mandated by the 1992 Energy Policy Act.

However, local governments may find examples of projects in the program after which they can model their own energy efforts. The federal government is implementing many of the same types of retrofits, performance contracts and partnerships as are cities and counties. At DOE headquarters, for example, more than 30,000 light fixtures have been upgraded for an annual savings of $400,000.

“Everything we’re doing is directly transferrable to state and local governments,” according to FEMP’s Tatiana Muessel.

Unfortunately, FEMP, Green Lights and other programs are not likely to meet all the technology and funding needs of cities and counties taking on energy projects. But tapping into these resources can be a good way to get things started.

A small grant may lead to matching monies from states, utilities or energy services companies, which can fund a demonstration project in part of a facility. Interest-begins to stir among officials and department employees, and momentum builds.