Energy efficiency measures and programs submitted by BBCAT to the City, 6 September 2005
 
Back to home page 

Back to BBCAT events page

1. Cover letter

Big Bend Climate Action Team

bigbendcat@comcast.net

 

Gary Brinkworth, Planning Director

City Electric Department, Tallahassee

 

September 6, 2005

 

Dear Gary:

 

Thank you very much for working with us during your planning process. We have benefited from the education you’ve given us, and we believe that you, as well as we, have acquired some new perspectives on integrated resource and demand-side management planning. We especially appreciate your invitation to submit our lists of recommended new DSM measures and programs for your consideration and analysis. Our two lists, the “Measures” list and the “Programs” list, accompany this letter.

 

These measures and programs, along with the city’s other DSM initiatives, are the first of two “pie pieces” we’d like you to show in a pie chart to the City Commission and adopt as a routine planning tool for the future. These DSM initiatives represent the “energy efficiency” pie piece. The other two are renewable energy and fossil fuels.

 

We’d like to call your attention to the first of our recommended “measures.” We realize that is not, strictly speaking, a DSM measure, but we suggest thinking of it that way. The object is to save energy by way of demand-side management, and this will certainly help with that. Measure 1 is worded as follows:

       Retain all measures that pass the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test after preliminary screening. Do not, in preliminary screening of the cost effectiveness of DSM measures, reject any measure that passes the TRC. We appreciate that the city has modified its practice to retain a fraction of the DSM measures that pass the TRC, but we believe all TRC-passing measures merit further consideration. For example, with this approach, the nine measures listed at the top of the list of Potential Residential DSM Measures prepared by Black and Veatch would be retained since they pass the TRC — and were there to be reanalyses of those measures by Navigant, the measures which pass TRC would be retained.
       As we understand it, DSM cost-effectiveness evaluations compare the cost of the DSM option with the cost of generation avoided by that option. At present, the generation alternative that should be used for comparison is the NFPP, and, importantly, the cost of debt service (principal and interest costs for construction of the generation option) should be included in the comparison. We want to work with you to develop a method to reasonably consider the environmental/health/climate impacts of energy resource alternatives, including in DSM cost effectiveness evaluations.
       If this procedure does not seem feasible to you, please allow us to meet with you and discuss it until we reach agreement.

 

If you adopt that measure, then your “energy-efficiency pie piece” should be a noticeable, if small, wedge on the resource pie chart. It will depict energy efficiency, not negatively (as a loss of revenue or a decrement in demand), but positively (as a resource that will help to meet the City’s energy needs). We look forward to seeing that pie piece grow over the years.

 

We are now going to turn to the second task you gave us—the “renewable-energy pie piece,” if you will. We’ll be working on these contributions to your Integrated Resource Plan until you ask us to turn them in.

 

Again, we very much appreciate the opportunity to work with you and hope we can continue in the same vein.

 

Sincerely,

 

[signed by Ellie Whitney and Steve Urse for the Big Bend Climate Action Team]
2. List of measures

Efficiency (DSM) measures recommended to City Electric by BBCAT

6 September, 2005

 

(Note: we have also provided a list of DSM programs and there is some overlap between the two lists.)

 

You gave us the charge of developing a list of “creative, innovative DSM measures that the City is not currently implementing.”

 

In general, we believe that measures should be selected not only to reduce demand at a cost less than the cost of generation, but also to enhance the following: 

  • economic development (providing opportunities for local businesses to benefit)
  • technical support for small businesses
  • local jobs
  • support for development of clean energy industry in the region
  • support for dissemination of clean energy outlets for the region

Note: in the following narrative, “financial incentive” refers to giveaways, interest-free and low-interest loans, rebates, leases at low cost, and combinations of these (such as loans plus rebates; or free design and marketing services plus rebates).

 

Contents of the following pages:

Measure 1. Revised cost-effectiveness screen

Measure 2. Gossamer or other energy-efficient fans

Measure 3. Meter for monitoring in-house electrical use and its effect on bills

Measure 4. Free use of electric test meters to locate inefficient appliances

Measure 5. Instrument to measure heat coming in from windows, walls, etc.

Measure 6. Duct sealing

Measure 7. Unprecedentedly aggressive promotion of solar water heating, residential and commercial

Measure 8. High-efficiency devices for vending machines

Measure 9. Refrigerator recycle

Measure 10. Free trees and low-cost leasing of hydraulically operated tree planter

Measure 11. Rebates or other financial incentives for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles

Measure 12. Financial incentives for purchase and installation of high-efficiency swimming-pool pumps

Measure 13. Financial incentives for purchase and installation of Energy Star appliances

Measure 14. Progressive rate structure to ease impact of  rising rates on low-income customers.

 

Measure 1. Revised cost-effectiveness screen. Retain all measures that pass the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test after preliminary screening. Do not, in preliminary screening of the cost effectiveness of DSM measures, reject any measure that passes the TRC. We appreciate that the city has modified its practice to retain a fraction of the DSM measures that pass the TRC, but we believe all TRC passing measures merit further consideration. For example, with this approach, the nine measures listed at the top of the list of Potential Residential DSM Measures prepared by Black and Veatch would be retained since they pass the TRC — and were there to be reanalyses of those measures by Navigant, the measures which pass TRC would be retained..

 

As we understand it, DSM cost-effectiveness evaluations compare the cost of the DSM option with the cost of generation avoided by that option. At present, the generation alternative that should be used for comparison is the NFPP, and, importantly, the cost of debt service (principal and interest costs for construction of the generation option) should be included in the comparison. We want to work with you to develop a method to reasonably consider the environmental/health/climate impacts of energy resource alternatives, including in DSM cost effectiveness evaluations.

 

If this procedure does not seem feasible to you, please allow us to meet with you and discuss it until we reach agreement.

 

Measure 2. Gossamer or other energy-efficient fans

 

From FSEC (http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bldg/active/bdac/prototype/cfan.htm):

 

We suggest that the City offer financial incentives for the purchase and installation of gossamer-type fans. Perhaps a loan program would be appropriate with the addition of rebates specifically for low-income situations. Information follows.

“Developed at the Florida Solar Energy Center, the Gossamer Wind® series ceiling fans can provide significant energy savings. Compared to conventional ceiling fans, they consume approximately half the energy in operation, saving an estimated $20 per year in electricity costs while providing the same or greater air velocities. To date, more than half a million Gossamer Wind ceiling fans have been purchased across the country, saving users more than $10 million annually. These savings can be further augmented by the reduced air conditioning from raising thermostat temperatures. This is possible since the enhanced air flow allows people to be equally comfortable at temperatures that are 2-4 oF higher. This web page describes the development and performance of these unique fans along with purchase information.”

These fans were designed by a Cal Tech physicist who created the propeller for the first human powered aircraft. The blades provide air-moving efficiency that is superior to that of any other ceiling fan ever designed. They use 40% less energy than the average ceiling fan, saving the customer $10 to $20 a year in energy costs, but they also permit people to raise the thermostat setting, saving much more. They come with an optional “smart control,” an infrared sensor that activates them when someone enters the room and turns them off when the person leaves. They also have an optional energy-efficient light kit that provides up to 10,000 hours of superior lighting without a lamp change (and can save up to $100 in reduced energy use for lighting over its life).

 

The website gives a table of these fans’ energy use compared with that of conventional fans and a link to a research report.

 

According to the website, the fans are currently available at Home Depot stores across the nation in several models. All have an Energy Star efficiency rating. They are priced from $119 to $179.

 

We’d like to ask that the City offer these to customers with instructions to turn up their thermostats and to turn off the fans when they are not in the room (or use the smart control that turns them off automatically).

 

 

Measure 3. Meter for monitoring in-house electrical use and its effect on bills

 

Your staff member, Bob Seaton, described this device to one of us and can provide you with details. We suggest this be considered as a pilot program and/or as a low-income program measure.

 

 

Measure 4. Free use of electric test meters to locate inefficient appliances

 

We understand that the City currently owns and uses these meters. We’d like to ask that you allow customers to borrow and use them, too. We learned of them while reading about Osage, Iowa’s Osage Municipal Utilities on the Department of Energy website (http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/success/osage_muni.shtml). This is one of that utility’s measures and looks to us like a winner. It should cost a minimum of staff time. It should be very low in cost because the utility owns the meters and only loans them out. It involves the customer in becoming interested in his own electricity use.

 

 

Measure 5. Instrument to measure heat coming in from windows, walls, etc.

Do you use an infrared thermometer, or a heat flow meter in your energy audits? If not, we think you should. Al Simpler and Steven Service use them very effectively and customers learn a lot from seeing them used. One of the suppliers we found on the web was a British company, Omega.com (http://www.omega.com/Temperature/pdf/OS-650_KIT.pdf), but no doubt you know much more about companies and suppliers.

 

We’d like one or both of these instruments used in your energy audits and we recommend that the customer routinely be present to see the heat measurements.

 

If possible, we’d like the utility’s auditors to experiment with the use of one infrared scanner (purchase cost of about $1,500) in a pilot program and report their impressions of the customer-education value.

 

 

Measure 6. Duct sealing. You already have duct repair and insulation as a loan or rebate measure. Sealing would be an excellent candidate to expand this program and make it more effective. We recommend that you consider Austin Energy’s way of doing it (at www.austinenergy.com, search for “duct diagnostics”). The customer signs up for the services of a participating company certified to perform duct testing and sealing. Austin provides a rebate (if we understand this correctly) after the company submits its diagnostic sealing report. Whatever way you do it, we think it imperative that there be quality control. Someone has to certify that the ducts have been properly sealed.

 

 

Measure 7. Unprecedentedly aggressive promotion of solar thermal water heating, both residential and commercial. On our “program” list, we recommend a solar thermal water-heating program, but regardless of how that fares, we would like to see solar water heating favored by your DSM program through financial incentives. The federal rebate coming in 2006-2007 combined with a financial incentive from the City should help to promote the idea that solar energy is worthy of support as a clean energy option for the future. Perhaps the way to go would be to combine a loan with a rebate in a pilot program aimed at market transformation. This is probably best implemented, not as a low-income measure, but as a measure aimed at enthusiasts and trend setters.

 

 

Measure 8. High-efficiency devices for vending machines. On Austin Energy’s website, we read the claim that “The VendingMiser, CoolerMiser”, and SnackMiser family of products are a breakthrough in the power management of cold beverage and snack vending machines. Energy Miser products can reduce the electricity use of cold drink vending machines and reach-in coolers by up to 40% and save your business over $100 in electricity costs per vending machine annually. Let Austin Energy provide you with these free, energy-saving devices, complete with free installation - a $200 value!”  If Austin Energy does this, shouldn’t we? This is at http://www.austinenergy.com/search/dosearch.cfm (search for “miser”).

 

 

Measure 9. Refrigerator recycle. Austin Energy boasted (in March, 2005) of having “the first refrigerator-freezer recycling center in Texas. . . . Austin Energy hopes to collect as many as 3,500 old energy-guzzling refrigerators or freezers annually, saving owners and the utility an estimated 3.8 million kilowatt-hours worth of electricity each year - enough electricity to power 300 homes year round.” A press release says: “Customers will be paid $35 (a maximum of $70) for each working refrigerator or freezer. The center, operated by Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., will be the first stop in a process to recycle 98% of the parts and materials as well as capture ozone-depleting refrigerants in a safe and environmentally friendly manner.” We’d like your consultant to look into this and discover if it’s as cost-effective as Austin claims and would work in Tallahassee.

 

 

Measure 10. Free trees and low-cost leasing of hydraulically operated tree planter. The Osage Municipal Utility offers as one of its measures “A hydraulically operated tree planter leased at low cost to replace dead elms and to cut air-conditioning costs by up to 50%. Trees donated from Osage Nursery.” We thought this was a creative and ingenious measure. Perhaps our city could donate trees from its tree farm off Miccosukee Rd. just west and north of the Leon County public works/maintenance shops. Since the 1960s, the City has planted trees for free but only in rights-of-way.

 

 

Measure 11. Rebates or other financial incentives for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Austin Energy is investigating this possibility and we’d like you to keep it in mind for the future. Plug-in electric vehicles in large numbers could create a significant off-peak demand, enhance the utility’s income, and relieve some of the downtown air-pollution problems that cars create.

 

 

Measure 12. Financial incentives for both residential commercial purchase and installation of high-efficiency, two-speed swimming-pool pumps. This might be a good candidate for loan programs.

 

 

Measure 13. Financial incentives for purchaseand installation of Energy Star appliances. We ask that the City establish a program of rebates and loans specifically to cover a portion of the extra cost associated with the purchase and installation of  Energy Star appliances when replacing appliances in existing homes.

 

 

Measure 14. Progressive rate structure to ease impact of rising rates on low-income customers. In view of the inevitability of rising costs of energy, no matter in what form it is supplied, whether from coal, from natural gas, from new DSM programs and measures, or other, we strongly urge that the City provide relief to low-income customers by freezing their rates while allowing rates for other customers to rise, perhaps according to a graduated scale. We think that, at least, the cost of the first 500 kwh in a month should not rise. The next 500 kwh should rise a little, and perhaps the rates could be stepped on up in 500 kwh increments.
3. List of programs

Efficiency (DSM) programs recommended to City Electric by BBCAT

6 September 2005

 

(Note: we have also provided a list of DSM measures and there is some overlap between the two.)

 

In general, we believe that programs should be selected not only to reduce demand at a cost less than the cost of generation, but also to enhance the following:

  • economic development (providing opportunities for local businesses to benefit)
  • technical support for small businesses
  • local jobs
  • support for development of clean energy industry in the region
  • considerations for low-income home builders, buyers, and sellers

 We ask that if and when you have these programs evaluated for cost effectiveness, you use the same screening method as is recommended in Measure 1 of our “Measures List.” Compare the cost of the DSM option with the cost of generation avoided by that option.  At present, the generation alternative that should be used for comparision is the NFPP, and, importantly, the cost of debt service (principal and interest costs for construction of the generation option) should be included in the comparison.  

 

With respect to the low-income category, please note that Program 1B (Good Cents) and Program 5 (Customer survey and proposed program) are targeted to that sector.  Also note that low-income families, although not specifically singled out, can benefit from most of the other programs.

 

One of our hopes with respect to the programs we are recommending is that they will help not only to reduce demand but to help transform the market by generating enthusiasm in the community for sustainable and fossil fuel— independent energy sources. We would like to encourage Tallahassee citizens to think of our city as The All-American City for the 21st Century, skilled at combining the best thinking anywhere in the world to find proven resources to meet our energy needs.  And we would like Tallahassee to continue to draw on the creative expertise of the community and to envision and discuss nontraditional measures and programs applicable to our uniqueness.

 

Contents of the following pages:

             

Program 1. Green building program

Program 2. Green roofs

Program 3. Solar thermal water-heating systems for individual buildings

Program 4. Photovoltaic rebate program as per Austin Energy with net metering

Program 5. Customer survey and program targeted to low-income customers

Appendixes A and B (provided separately)

 

Program 1. Green building program. . Since we believe enforcement of Florida’s strong building code is lacking, perhaps especially in the area of  energy-efficiency, we urge that the City provide further incentives for green building. A key person should be responsible for implementation of this program. Green buildings should be favored by expedited permitting including environmental permitting.

 

Elements of a strong building program can be selected from the following programs, among others. Austin’s program, in particular, goes much farther than Florida’s building code requirements, but all of those shown here have features we think desirable. After securing cost effectiveness data related to our recommendations, we would like to work with you to design a new construction program that is best suited for Tallahassee. In this effort we would like to draw from the “best practices” for green building programs that have been identified by experts in this area — as detailed on eebestpractices.com.

A. Austin Utilities. Austin’s building programs are an important tool to empower the city’s economic development efforts. They are offered in four categories:

a. The residential program is for building professionals, home sellers, and home buyers. It rates new and remodeled homes using sustainable guidelines on a scale of one to five stars and  provides marketing support for appropriately rated homes. Homes are rated in six areas:

                  ·                 Energy efficiency

                  ·                 Testing

                  ·                 Water efficiency

                  ·                 Materials efficiency

                  ·                 Health and safety

                  ·                 Community

The higher the rating, the better the price the homeowner can get for the home. Details are on the webpage:  http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder/programs_res.htm

b. The commercial program is for architects, designers, builders, contractors and others. Austin Energy offers consultation with designers, engineers, and construction professionals. It informs these professionals on resource-efficient building materials and systems, how to reduce construction and operations waste, as well as environmental and financial issues to consider during the design and construction process. Many services are free to Austin businesses. Services include:

  ·   Technical seminars and individualized technical assistance

                  ·    Programming assistance, construction document review

                  ·    Marketing for new structures

                  ·   Technical analysis for energy efficiency, resource conservation,

healthy indoor environments

                  ·    Assistance in coordinating rebates when applicable

Commercial building owners who work with the Green Building Program’s commercial staff can realize lower operating costs, increased employee productivity, and higher indoor air quality. For details, see: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder/programs_com.htm

c. The multifamily building program works with developers, owners, designers, architects, and builders to help build new and remodel existing energy-, water-, and resource-efficient housing so that it is durable and cost-effective. The services offered, particularly the review of plans and climate control equipment can lead to longer-lasting, lower-maintenance properties that are comfortable and healthy for residents. Services include                 

 

               ·       Sustainablity consultation for developers, designers, owners, and builders for

                                         new construction, remodeling, and renovation

                  ·       Facilitation of links to incentives for remodels and/or new construction for electric,

                                         gas, and water conservation, water efficiency, and other measures

                  ·       Marketing assistance

The program also offers “S.M.A.R.T. Housing” compliance, consulting, and review. “S.M.A.R.T.” stands for safe, mixed income, accessible, reasonably priced and transit oriented, and the review stimulates the creation of reasonably priced homes in Austin. It offers developers incentives by way of a single point of contact to advocate through the city development process and provides fee waivers for developments in which at least 10 percent of the units meet the “reasonably priced” standard, by serving families at or below 80 percent of the Austin Area Median Family Income. The policy also requires that all new construction meet Green Builder Standards. The reference website for all this is:  http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/ahfc/smart.htm

Austin offers two case studies of multifamily building successes:

     Gables Central Park Apartments

    (http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder/docs/cs_gables.pdf)

 

                     Metropolis Apartments

     (http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder/docs/cs_metro.pdf)

The second of these was a renovation of a project in a run-down, crime-ridden neighborhood that brought the buildings back to their highest and best use and improved the values of neighboring properties.

d. The municipal building program is for architects, designers, builders, and contractors of city and public facilities. Austin brought together several City Departments as well as local AIA, CSI, and AGC; representatives to develop a three-volume set of Municipal Guidelines objectives include:

· To encourage the design and construction of buildings that surpass current energy and land development codes. Standards for design excellence relate to energy and water conservation and environmental impact.

· To encourage building healthy structures that have good indoor air quality, and provide source control as well as adequate ventilation using natural systems.

· To encourage designers to specify materials that do not contribute to overconsumption of nonrenewable resources.

· To facilitate the integration of environmental concerns from the outset of a project.

The webpage reference is: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder/programs_mun.htm

 

B. Santa Monica (California) Green Building Program. The Santa Monica Green Building Program offers financial incentives for buildings and innovative building technologies certified to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards, awarding two types of grants to promote green building throughout the city. With respect to renewable energy technologies, LEED awards 1 to 3 points based on the percentage of the total energy load met using renewable energy, including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydro, and bio-gas strategies. Renewable energy points are awarded for electric power generation only. However, additional points are available for reducing the overall energy consumption of buildings, which may be accomplished through other renewable energy strategies.

Grants for new private sector buildings are based on the level of certification attained under the LEED standards and range from $20,000 to $35,000. All new construction and major renovation in commercial, affordable housing, mixed use, and multi-family residential that register for LEED (LEED-NC) certification are eligible to apply.

In the interest of promoting the adoption of new technologies designed to reduce the environmental impact of buildings, the City also offers Innovative Technology Grants for energy efficient systems and urban runoff mitigation technologies. These grants do not apply to self-generation technologies, only energy efficiency measures. However, hybrid systems, such as solar absorption chillers or solar-assisted heating systems, may be considered. Grants cover 50% of the cost of eligible systems up to a maximum of $5000.

Innovative Technology grants are available for all building types including commercial, affordable housing, mixed use, and single- and multi-family residential in both new and retrofit applications.

 

Santa Monica’s green building program is described on its website:

http://greenbuildings.santa-monica.org/


Information about the U.S. Green Building council and LEED is available at www.usgbc.org.

 

C. Sacramento Zero Energy Homes Program.

 

a. Treasure Homes. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) has partnered with Treasure Homes to build 32 super-efficient homes with solar power roofs. SMUD and local builders have worked together to develop the Zero Energy Home (ZEH), which features the latest in energy efficiency equipment, tighter building standards and solar roof tiles to generate electricity. The combination of energy efficiency and solar power can reduce annual energy bills by as much as 60 percent.

The homes at Treasure’s new Fallen Leaf @ Riverbend community in North Natomas, Calif., will include a 2-kilowatt solar system as a standard feature. The 32-home community is designed for first-time, entry-level and first move-up homebuyers.

The solar system includes solar panels with a low profile design that can be attached, without traditional racks, directly to the house framing to minimize roof penetrations. Each home also features the latest energy efficiency features including appliances, windows, lighting, HVAC (including low air infiltration), a 90 percent efficient furnace, ducts buried in attic insulation, a tankless water heater, fluorescent lighting in all permanent fixtures, and third party inspections to ensure the homes have minimum air leakage and duct leakage.

Altogether, the solar system and advanced energy efficiency measures are designed to reduce the homes’ energy use by as much as 66 percent and a homeowner’s combined monthly electric and gas bill by as much as 60 percent. All homes will meet SMUD Advantage Home as well as the ENERGY STAR Home program requirements and exceed California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards by 24 percent.

SMUD is working with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America program, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and ConSol, a leading building energy consultant, in designing the Fallen Leaf ZEHs. SMUD has also partnered with another builder, Morrison Homes, to offer these homes at prices close to those of homes without built-in solar power.

SMUD is a national leader in the development and implementation of solar or PV (photovoltaic) technology. SMUD leads all publicly owned utilities in the United States with more than 9.3 megawatts of installed solar panels on area buildings, homes and on parking structures and in numerous arrays. SMUD is now emphasizing customer-owned solar energy systems installed atop homes and businesses. SMUD has set goals of 10 percent renewable energy in its mix by 2006 and 20 percent by 2011.

b. Premier Homes. Premier Homes contracted with GE Energy (www.gepower.com) to provide roof-integrated solar systems as standard equipment on all 95 Zero Energy Homes in Premier Gardens. This is the third Premier Homes community to which GE Energy has supplied solar systems. SMUD provided substantial incentives to Premier Homes to utilize building-integrated solar technology. Home areas range in size from 1,285 to 2,248 square feet.

Other partners in this enterprise were ConSol and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Premier Gardens’ total solar power output was expected to be about 300 MW/hours annually.

The contract was valued at $1.5 million for the equipment. Installation began in the third quarter of 2004 and was completed in the second quarter of 2005. Homes began selling in the mid-$200,000 range in the summer of 2005.

According to advertising copy, “The Zero Energy Homes in Premier Gardens offer residents a remarkable savings. Initial bills show charges ranging from $30 a month to zero to credits when excess electricity was sold back to SMUD. On Autumn days, power continues to be generated by the solar roof tiles meeting a large portion of their needs.”

SMUD certified all Premier Gardens homes as SMUD Solar Advantage homes, which certifies the homes will exceed the current California Title 24 energy cooling requirements by 50 percent. In addition, the homes meet the requirements to be rated as ENERGY STAR® Homes by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy. One reference for this project is: http://builtbypremier.com/P_Gardens/news_zeroenergy.html

D. Super Good Cents (SGC) Manufactured, Energy-Efficient Homes. A company that calls itself Good Cents seems to be a nationally recognized new home construction program (although we learned of it only recently). The program can be tailored to achieve the energy efficiency and marketing goals of [a] utility. One of its products is the “4GoodCents Manufactured Home,” which features improved levels of insulation and high-efficiency heating and cooling systems. These upgrades improve overall performance just as they do for site-built homes, resulting in similar energy savings for the utility and the customer. This particular brand of manufactured home is heated with electricity and is certified by the State Energy Offices where it is manufactured: Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and California:

http://www.goodcents.com/Programs/energy.htm

 

We wonder if, in the interest of affordable housing and energy efficiency, the City should offer rebates for the construction and purchase of such homes.

 

Examples of the use (in the Pacific Northwest) of Super Good Cents homes follow. The first four are projects with the Eugene, Oregon Water and Electric Board (EWEB).

a. Eugene, Oregon’s Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation. Several Lane County organizations work with Eugene Water & Electric Board’s (EWEB) Super Good Cents (SGC) program providing residents with affordable, energy-efficient housing. The nonprofit Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO) has been addressing the needs of Eugene/Springfield’s low income residents since incorporating in 1979. Their new “lease-to-own” housing subdivision, The Field of Dreams, is proving how home ownership and low utility bills go together. “It only made sense to include energy efficient features in the homes to keep the utility bills as low as possible,” reports John Hubbird NEDCO Executive Director. NEDCO also operates the Threshold Program that trains individuals about budgeting, credit, home loan process and responsibilities of home ownership. Recently, NEDCO, EWEB and the future home owners met on the construction site, in a not-yet completed house. The participants sat on the floor and learned about SGC houses, EWEB services, and how to manage their electrical usage. Reference: http://eweb.org/home/energy/ideas/new_construction/9612_affordable.htm

b. Eugene’s St. Vincent de Paul Society (SVdP) is building another example of energy efficiency and affordable housing working together. They are now working on a 18 duplex SGC subdivision at Walnut Grove Phase 2, on Bennett Lane in north Eugene. This project is being constructed by Meili Construction and Youth Build of America. Youth Build is a program of the Northwest Youth Corps. It helps disadvantaged and disconnected youth between the ages of 16 and 22 earn a GED while gaining skill and confidence with on the job training.

Commonly, houses qualify for SGC by installing R30 floor insulation, R21 wall insulation, R49 ceiling insulation, insulated doors, and vinyl-framed windows with argon gas and low-e coating. Houses or apartments built to these standards save between 20 percent and 30 percent in heating costs over state energy code standards. These homes often use energy-efficient water heaters and appliances. They also take advantage of water-conserving fixtures, high-efficiency heating systems and energy-efficient lighting. SGC homes also include automatically controlled ventilation systems that provide good indoor air quality. When occupants have more control of their environment, they are better able to manage their utility bills and their comfort. The reference is the same as for (a).

c. Lane County (Oregon)’s Housing Authority and Community Services Agency (HACSA) is a 47-year-old nonprofit governmental corporation established by Lane County to provide affordable housing and related services to low-income residents. In just the last three years, HACSA has built more than 120 energy-efficient, affordable housing units. The reference is the same as for (a).

d. Springfield/Eugene (Oregon)’s local Habitat for Humanity affiliate purchases property and then uses community volunteers’ labor and donated materials to build low income housing. The buyers of the homes must meet an income range and provide 500 hours of sweat equity. Over time, the resident repays Habitat the assigned value of the resources that went into the construction of the house. The Women’s Project house is an example of an SGC home built with all-volunteer, woman labor. A quotable quote associated with this project is, “Why would anyone build a house with an affordable mortgage and unaffordable utility bills?” Lowering monthly operating costs reduces the chances that the buyer will default on mortgages. The reference is the same as for (a).

d. Kootenai, Idaho Super Good Cents Manufactured Homes. The Kootenai Electric Cooperative offers an incentive of $1,000 for these homes. Reference http://www.kec.com/energy_info/efficiency_rebates/SGC_homes/SGC_homes.htm

e. Montana Super Good Cents Manufactured Homes. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality assists with the promotion of these manufactured homes.

Program 2. Green roofs.

 

In July of this year, Salt Lake City played host to the mayors of U.S. cities who attended the Sundance Summit, a three-day mayors’ retreat on climate change. From the story on that summit (http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2005/07/14/little-sundance/), we learned that Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has implemented measures on everything from tree planting and bike paths to renewable-energy standards and requirements that “all of our major big-box [stores] have to do green roofs.”

 

Then we learned that the University of Central Florida in Orlando has a Student Union with a green roof. According to their press release, “green roofs are attractive building additions which reduce energy use, storm water runoff, and increase habitat conservation. University of Central Florida research on green roofs includes monitoring pollution, balancing the water budget, and reducing energy use [as much as 50%— this is being monitored].The Student Union building at the center of campus is the location for a side-by-side 1,600 square foot green roof and a regular flat conventional roof. The plant media is a mixture of Big River Industries gravelite expanded clay, vermiculite, pearlite, and peat moss. The media depth is about 4-6” with under drain. A cistern provides storage for runoff with return irrigation. The native plants are dune sunflower, blanket pinwheel daisy, painted daisy, coral honeysuckle and Simpson’s stopper. Confederate jasmine is also used. See inspiring photos at http://www.stormwater.ucf.edu.” We ask that you contact Marty Wanielista (wanielis@mail.ucf.edu) for more information on this inspired melding of pollution control, water management, and energy conservation.

 

Even more recently (mid-August, 2005) we learned that the new draft  DCA language in the Guidebook for Protecting Springs has a section strongly advocating use of green roofs, except in individual buildings exceeding 40,000 sq. ft. or developments exceeding 1,000,000 sq. ft. If we understand the communication correctly, in areas of high or moderate vulnerability to water pollution, green roofs will be required. (Linda Jamison, personal communication, 18 August 2005).

 

It takes a long time to come up on the screen, but you can view a visual presentation of the green roof measure at:  

 

http://www.stormwater.ucf.edu/EPA%20Green%20roof%20Presentation%20details.ppt.

 

According to another website (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/EP240), city governments, large corporations, and other entities with significant financial resources are sponsoring green roof programs and leading the way in promoting the adoption of green roof technologies. In New York City, the Earth Pledge Green Roofs Initiative has a mission of spreading and supporting the installation of green roofs. With support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, they have established a network of stakeholders, educators, developers, and government agencies in order to facilitate the expansion of green roofs. The city of Chicago installed a green roof on its city hall in 2001. The city co-sponsored, with Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, a green roof conference in 2003. The Ecoroof Program in the city of Portland, Oregon, promotes green roofs by researching technologies and informing and assisting community members. The Ford Motor Company has installed a 10.4-acre green roof atop its assembly plant in Dearborn, Michigan.

 

 

Program 3. Solar thermal water-heating systems for individual buildings. These can be thought of as “mini distributed-generation power plants” but they are also DSM measures in that they reduce demand on fossil fuel generating plants.

 

We ask that Tallahassee institute a program similar to that in Lakeland, Florida.  The equipment (solar panels, hot water tank, and meter) is owned and maintained by the City utility and the customer is charged for hot water usage. Lakeland Electric guaranteed a fixed rate for customers (see the separate analysis provided to you by BBCAT member LucyAnn Walker-Fraser).

 

Santa Clara, California (Department of Water and Sewer) has a similar program, in which the equipment is leased to its customers.

 

Many other utilities offer rebates and zero-interest loans for solar thermal hot water. Appendix A to this document shows a sampling. LucyAnn Walker-Fraser has worked up a cost-estimate spreadsheet for a solar water-heating program (see Appendix B).

 

 

Program 4. Photovoltaic rebate program as per Austin Energy with buy-back (net metering). Austin Energy has recently amended its energy resource plan to include a strong commitment to solar energy. They describe that commitment this way (from Austin Energy’s Strategic Plan, http://www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Newsroom/Reports/strategicPlan.pdf:

 

1. A PV rebate program to feature rebate levels of $5.00/watt for PV made outside of Austin and $6.25/watt for PV made locally (pending legal review)— the highest rebate level in the country.

 

2. A highly visible public awareness program to involve the installation of PV education projects at middle schools, branch libraries and community centers.

 

3. A highly visible community demonstration project to create the first zero-energy affordable home subdivision (this may be more affordable than the Sacramento zero-energy homes listed in Program 1.

 

4. A commitment to support a solar rebate program for a minimum of ten years.

 

5. A commitment to conduct a study to determine the comprehensive value of solar energy.

 

We’d like to see, added to this, promotion of a City net-metering system. One of us (Ed Oaksford) believes that “our local utility should be helping to subsidize solar systems that are distributed throughout our community and capable of providing energy that the City could buy back. That along with extensive conservation measures can go a long way towards providing clean energy that is distributed in a fashion that would be much more secure than centralized power generation facilities. That means that Tallahassee has to institute an aggressive conservation and solar incentive program to move things ahead. That strategy is apparently good enough for the TVA which appears to be currently trying desperately to wean itself off of coal, even though coal is ‘cheap’ and easily available.”

 

The states of Kentucky and Tennessee provide examples of a buy-back program that seems to be working well. They participate in a dual-metering option for residential/small-commercial and commercial consumers through the Green Power Switch Generation Partners program. Consumers participate as either residential or commercial customers by connecting their power-generating systems to the grid. TVA purchases the power output at $.15 per kWh and the consumer receives a credit for the power generated. The owner of a qualifying residential system receives a $500 payment when the site is connected to the grid. The goal for the entire program is 5 MW.

 

 

Program 5. Customer survey and program targeted to low-income customers.

 

In addition to the measures and programs we’ve recommended, we believe there are ways to improve the efficiency with which DSM programs are delivered. The following  are examples of those sorts of  initiatives. 

 

First, there are likely some gains to be made by coordinating delivery of efficiency measures to low-income households. Examples include:

 

a.  The Urban League could deliver efficiency measures that are part of the city’s DSM offerings as well as the weatherization measures that are part of the federal programs it administers.

 

b.  The city’s electric billing department could refer bill-challenged low-income households to the Energy Services department for an audit.

Second, there are also likely some gains to be made by focusing DSM marketing efforts to save energy in residential households that consume large amounts of electricity due to inefficient energy use.  We ask that the City:

 

a. set a goal to  reduce the energy consumption of the top tier of usage for those households to nearly a median usage;

 

b.allocate resources to this goal; and

 

c. monitor results to ascertain aggregate energy use  reductions that are achieved from those allocations.

 

This effort should be an intensive, targeted program for the households selected. It would offer those households a complete, coordinated package of measures designed to achieve the goal.  It should be designed for varying incomes of those households. For example:

 

a. For low-income households, offer a complete, coordinated package - grants, assistance, and zero-interest loans for weatherization, HVAC, free shower heads, free compact fluorescent (CF) bulbs.

 

b. For moderate-income households, offer low-interest loans, full consultation, free CF bulbs and showerheads.

 

Sufficient staff, whether from the city or from the Urban League (mentioned above) would conduct home diagnostics, homeowner education, and follow-up of audits. We believe that the City’s consultant should be able to work up estimates of cost and impact for such a program.

Back to BBCAT events page