Energy Planning, Management and Efficiency in Local Context: Summary of an American-Bulgarian-Romanian Workshop (1994)

Dr. Plamen Tzvetanov, Chair of the Bulgarian delegation and Head of the Department of Systems Analysis in Energy, Institute of Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

In his presentation, Dr. Tzvetanov noted the problems that Bulgaria has faced over the last 15 years. The current energy crisis in Bulgaria is a consequence of numerous historical problems and recent factors including resources, technology, economics, and sociopolitical conditions. It is also a crisis of the system of management and, from the present point of view, a crisis of the model of development.

Bulgaria's resource problems are due to the country's limited energy resources--about 200 tons of coal equivalent per capita. A large portion of these resources is low-grade lignite (85%), which combined with the overall energy shortages, has resulted in a large proportion of power stations using this low-grade coal, an early commitment to nuclear power (two units of VVER-440 were connected to the grid in 1974 and 1975), and a strong dependency on imported energy (up to 80% of Bulgaria's primary energy resource is imported). Most of the energy imports were from Russia and other countries of Central and Eastern Europe. In the 1970s, this policy was a source of stability, but now it has left a legacy of technological, ecological, and economic problems.

Among the factors related to economic growth are the low energy efficiency (about 40% of the per unit output level of Western countries), the energy dependence of the country, the growth of energy prices, and capital investment in energy. From 1975 to 1985, investment in electricity and coal production grew 3.9 times, reaching 30% of the total in the production sector in 1985. As fuels and energy equipment were among the most significant imports, their rising prices lead to a systematic reduction in gross national product (GNP) (1.8-2%) after the mid-seventies. At present, the economy can be characterized by decreasing production indices (GNP dropped 23% from 1989 to 1993), formation of a group of unstable industries, a growing role of the private sector in the domestic retail market, inflation, and unemployment. Dr. Tzvetanov also presented the current dynamics of the energy-economy infrastructure in Bulgaria by sector and by branches of industry.

A key part of the strategy is to improve the efficiency of the entire energy system, including generation, transmission and distribution, and end-use. Bulgaria also needs to lessen its dependence on Russia to meet its energy needs. To achieve the goals of the plan, Bulgaria needs to draft legislation, create the correct economic incentives, acquire new technology, and develop delivery programs. Other elements of the energy strategy include:

• improvement of resource reliability, including stabilization and diversification of fuel and power imports; stabilization (1993-96) and increase (to 38.5 million tons in 1997) in domestic coal production; gas and oil exploration in Bulgaria and on the Black Sea shelf; and creation of an environment that is conducive to the development of renewables;

• improvement of the energy supply production structure, including improvement of the reliability of the nuclear power plant at Kozloduy; upgrading a considerable part of the existing coal plants, as proposed by Bechtel Inc.; increasing the share of combined electricity and heat production; and gasification;

• rational environmental policy, including changing to cleaner fuels, desulphurization of coal, and adding environmentally benign resources.

From an organizational perspective, Bulgaria should corporatize and commercialize the state-owned utilities, begin privatization, establish rational prices and tariffs, and develop and implement new energy laws and regulations.

In summary, the changes in Bulgaria have to be taken comprehensively. There are now a number of organizations involved in addressing these needs. For example, the Sofia Energy Center, which PNL helped to establish, now leads a pilot energy efficiency project in the town of Gabrovo which is mainly oriented toward buildings.

Gas in Bulgaria is imported from Russia by a pipeline with a technical capacity of 10 billion m³/year. Gas consumption in 1993 was about 5.2 billion m³. The gas utilization for energy purposes (36%) is mainly in conventional district heating systems. Dr. Tzvetanov proposed two programs for increasing the role of gas in home heating, which is one of the most attractive directions for improving energy efficiency.

The first is gasification of houses where district heating systems do not exist in order to give energy alternatives to the consumers and decrease the share of electricity for district heating. The electricity demand for heating in winter in Bulgaria is about 2600 MW (43% of the maximum load). The overall efficiency of this energy service is very low--around 20-22%. A study on gasification of 14 towns (850,000 inhabitants) showed that gasification is 25-40% more energy efficient and needs 22% less investment per building served than district heating. Annual family expenses for heating by gas are 50% of the cost of district heating. The gasification of these towns could decrease the

electric load maximum by 1000-2000 MW and save $600-700 million in investments.

The second direction for improving energy efficiency is using gas steam combined cycles when modernizing and extending the district heating system. There are 20 separate district heating systems in Bulgaria serving 1.5 million people living in 710,000 buildings. A study on transforming 6 district heating systems into gas combined cycles with cogeneration shows a number of advantages: additional electric capacity of 700 MW with a low-level of investment ($400-600 per KW), overall energy efficiency of 85%, short construction time (1-1.5 years), maneuverability, ecological benefits, and attractiveness for private investment. In addition to the advantages listed above, Dr. Tzvetanov noted that the two directions to more rational energy supply for heating limit the marginal prices of electricity and are also the most socially acceptable elements of the country's energy policy.

Dr. Gleb Dragan, Chair of the Romanian delegation and President of the Energy Commission of the Romanian Academy

Unlike Bulgaria, Romania has coal, gas, oil, and geothermal energy resources within its borders. Proven coal reserves are 3.815 billion tons. Probable reserves add 1.813 billion tons and potential reserves are estimated to be 5.628 billion tons. The coal resource shows several positive signs: domestic production is increasing, capital assets invested in coal mines have been adequate (leaving the infrastructure in good condition), and good technology and personnel are available for the range of coal and geological resources found in Romania. However, Romania's coal resources have negative characteristics as well: the lignite mines are deep below the hydrostatic level, the pit coal deposits are

under high pressure, the scarcity of machine parts causes equipment to sit idle, and the equipment is generally of poor reliability.

Current assessments of existing recoverable crude oil deposits and natural gas show these resources may be exhausted in 20 and 30 years, respectively. Romania exported oil as recently as 1976, but it has imported oil since then because of decreased production and increased demand. There are considerable opportunities to increase natural gas recovery, and exploration contracts have been signed with Royal Dutch Shell and Arco.

Romania has minimal installed capacity in renewable energy resources, with the exception of hydropower. Some have estimated that Romania could meet 5 to 10% of the country's primary energy demand through renewables, including geothermal, hydro, solar, and biomass.

The Romanian Electric Authority (RENEL) is a state-owned company and is responsible for all aspects of generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. Besides the generation of electric power, RENEL is also heavily involved in district heating. It provides 40% of the thermal energy household heating of 20 large towns and also provides thermal energy as steam for large industrial plants.

The main difficulties in energy supply and distribution are

• inefficient consumption of energy because of low prices and abundance of domestic fuels until 1980

• high energy intensity, particularly in the steel, aluminum, and plastics industries

• old mentalities reflected in laws and management

• passive attitude toward the environmental impacts of energy production and consumption

The major reason for the high energy consumption in Romania is the structure of the economy. Under the centrally planned economy, energy-intensive industries were developed, and in 1989 industry was responsible for over 75% of energy consumption. Any national energy efficiency programs will therefore have to give primary consideration to industry. The transition to a market economy should naturally make many of the energy-intensive industries unprofitable. Remaining industrial plants should be retrofitted in order to increase efficiency.

The Romanian Agency for Energy Conservation was established to promote national energy efficiency programs. Some of its current efforts include training staff and managers, implementing variable speed drives in industry, and improving the performance of thermal supply systems in towns.

Dr. Dragan concluded his presentation with a description of energy-related environmental damage. Power plant emissions of CO₂, sulphur, and other pollutants have caused considerable degradation of the air, soil, and water. In the short term, Romania plans to reduce the sulphur content in heavy oil, decrease NO_x emissions, and improve pollution monitoring. In the long term, EC pollution standards will be adopted and continuous monitoring of power plants will be implemented.

Dr. Dragan also discussed the government's reorganization of energy programs. The former energy and industrial ministries were combined in 1990 into the Ministry of Industries. While most energy policies are the responsibility of this ministry, energy prices are negotiated between the Ministry of Industries and the Ministry of Finance. The issue of energy prices is also a topic of ongoing discussions between the Romanian government and the International Monetary Fund.

Frank Stewart, Acting Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewables and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Office of Technical and Financial Assistance, U.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Stewart described the organization of the Department of Energy (DOE), and, in particular, the Office of Technical and Financial Assistance (OTFA). OTFA, from which state and local funding emanates, is under the Assistant Secretary for Efficiency and Renewables in DOE.

Within the OTFA are three offices responsible for energy efficiency improvements at the local, national, and international levels. These are the Office of National Programs, the Office of Grants Management, and the Office of Technical Assistance. The first two offices focus on the state and local levels. Major programs aimed at the local level include the State Energy Management Program, the Institutional Conservation Program, and the Weatherization Assistance Program. The programs are aimed at institutional buildings at the state and local level and low-income weatherization efforts.

To support the activities described above, OTFA has established local support offices in the 10 DOE regions: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle. The role of the regional offices is to grant funds to state agencies so that the states may improve the efficiency with which energy is used in their regions. In addition, the support offices have the responsibility of helping to transfer technology from the DOE laboratory structure to industrial firms.

DOE Support Offices work in consort with state energy offices and sometimes contract directly with local service providers. The profit and non-profit local-service providers, of which there are

1,200 across the country, are responsible for the energy savings in institutional buildings and in low-income housing. The people in these organizations are professionals who are committed to the goal of providing more comfortable, energy-efficient dwellings in New York City. The DOE money contributed to these local programs is matched with funds from local utilities and state governments.

Francis Murray, New York State Energy Commissioner

Mr. Murray gave general information about energy use in New York State and New York City. In New York transportation uses 40% of all energy. Only three other states in the United States use more energy than New York, yet New York uses less energy per dollar of production than all other states. New York's energy use per dollar of output is about 50% of the U.S. average.

Private utilities in New York deliver virtually all of the natural gas to retail customers and about 70% of the electricity. The New York State Power Authority, a state agency, delivers the remaining 30% of electricity, all of which is produced from hydropower plants.

Major state agencies are the New York State Energy Office (NYSEO), the New York State Energy Resource and Development Authority (NYSERDA), the New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC), and the New York Department of State (NYDOS). Coordination of the agencies is achieved by having the Commissioner of the NYSEO, Francis Murray, chair the Board of NYSERDA as well. In addition, there is a three-member State Energy Planning Board, comprised of the chairmen of NYSEO and NYPSC and the New York State Environmental Coordinator. This board establishes state policy in a public setting. The findings of this board affect all energy

agencies in New York and also affect the federal and state relationship.

The other agencies have a variety of roles, some of which will be discussed in more detail later. The NYPSC establishes rates for private utilities and works with utilities to establish the proper incentives for utilities to do energy-efficiency improvements. The NYSEO is responsible for facilitating the availability of supplies and also issues tax-exempt bonds for utility construction programs. The NYDOS is responsible for securing energy-efficiency improvements in buildings.

Mr. Murray also described one of the negatives that New York must deal with--the legacy of the West Valley nuclear spent fuel reprocessing pilot plant and all of the environmental liabilities related to this plant.

Brian Henderson, Division of Energy Services,

New York State Energy Office

Mr. Henderson described the programs and activities of the New York State Energy Office. These were representative of similar activities in other U.S. states, but were somewhat more sophisticated than average. Funding for the work has come from federal petroleum restitution funds (the petroleum industry was found guilty in the courts of overcharging for petroleum, and as a result, states received a large settlement of funds from the oil industry) and a small tax on gas and electricity sales. The energy office's basic programs include the following:

• Policy and Planning: NYSEO is responsible for overall energy policy planning in the state. Every two years a written plan is developed with cooperation from other agencies in New York, including the Public Service Commission, which is in charge of utility regulation, and the Department of Environmental Conservation. The plan, after review and comment by all

interested parties, is binding on all state agencies and the utilities.

• Codes and Standards: NYSEO develops and publishes state-level energy codes and standards for buildings and appliances. New York has aggressive insulation and energy use rules for new small residential buildings and, to a lesser degree, large residential and commercial buildings. There is also a voluntary program to encourage even more efficiency than the code requires for small residential buildings. There are also special standards for lighting equipment. Emerging federal standards may supplant state standards in time.

• Institutional Buildings: NYSEO administers a program which provides 50% matching grants to schools and hospitals to install retrofit energy efficiency measures. NYSEO also has general responsibility to make the state's own energy use better.

• Industry: NYSEO has a small effort to help state industries become more efficient. The office provides small grants for engineering studies for many different options.

• Loans: NYSEO provides low-interest loans to small businesses and building owners to install retrofit efficiency measures. At times rebates have also been offered to purchasers of certain appliances such as efficient oil burners and refrigerators.

Gunnar Walmet, Program Director, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

Mr. Walmet represented NYSERDA, which conducts applied energy research and development in New York. Its research and development budget is about $14 million, but it leverages about $50 million of investment by collaborating with other funding agents. NYSERDA also manages nuclear waste dumps at West Valley. NYSERDA is a quasi public/private agency. Its programs are directed toward five categories of research:

• Renewables: currently operating a 100-kW solar facility on Long Island

• Transportation: alternatively fueled vehicles, electric vehicles, magnetic levitation trains

• Environmental: municipal waste to energy, waste water, transportation-related pollution, chlorofluorocarbon phaseouts, and environmental externalities

• Industrial efficiency: environmental regulations, district heating, flexible options to meet changing conditions and ensure fundamental value

• Building Energy Systems: building shells, appliances, HVAC systems, lighting, energy management systems, and fuel cells.

Patrick Connally, Weatherization Field Operations Manager,

State of New York Department of State

Mr. Connally reported on the low-income weatherization programs in New York. Funding comes from a federal grant and the money is used to hire contractors to weatherize low-income dwellings (low-income here is defined as 150% of the federal definition of a low-income family). In New York, for example, a family of four with an annual income of less than $26,000 qualifies for the program. At this level 2.8 million people qualify. The program includes testing for and fixing air leakages in dwellings and testing for levels of carbon monoxide, radon, and other pollutants. Air leakage tests are done using a blower door, a large fan that pressurizes the house to find leaks. Owners of rental units qualifying for the program are expected to contribute to the investments in efficiency improvements, because the value of their rental units is being increased. Mr. Connally also presented a flow chart called an Investment Decision Chart or TIPS, which is used by auditors to ensure that everything is considered when inspecting homes.

Richard Cherry, President,

New York Urban Coalition Housing Group, Inc.

Mr. Cherry reported on his organization's low-income weatherization activities in New York City. The New York Urban Coalition is a not-for-profit agency working with governments, businesses, and Consolidated Edison (ConEd), a major, investor-owned electric utility serving New York City. The annual budget for the coalition is about $15 million, $1 million of which is contributed by business interests and the remainder of which is supplied by government grants.

A not-for-profit agency is one whose success is not rated by profit, but rather by the quality of service provided to its clients, in this case low-income people in urban areas. Local organizations like the coalition are considered essential in delivering conservation because of the need to deal with individuals at an intimate level. According to Mr. Cherry, even when offering a service, if you are asking to come into people's homes, it has to be done with tact and a sensitivity to people's privacy. It is also important to provide services that fit individual needs, which cannot be done efficiently from afar.

Programs like this are designed to make people's lives more comfortable and in the process to improve the quality of life for everyone, even those not participating in the program. Mr. Cherry described an interesting approach to negotiating weatherization of rental units with the owners of the buildings. Typically sharing of costs focuses on a percentage of total costs. The idea presented here is the ability to negotiate across different conservation measures and to propose tradeoffs. For example, if the owner wants his roof repaired, the program can agree to do so, but only if the owner improves some other aspect of the building.

Steven Reese, President, Corporation for Youth Energy Corps

Mr. Reese spoke about a unique program at the local level that combines the goals of delivering energy savings, providing jobs, and educating at-risk youth in the South Bronx as a step to high school equivalency diplomas. Youth in the program range in age from 16 to 20 and are all school dropouts. The program, Corporation for Youth Energy Corps, Inc. (YEC), uses a working environment in which a valuable product--energy-efficiency--is produced, as a way to enhance self-esteem and teach at-risk youth skills that will help them succeed in life. Part of the training includes counseling for each of the youth to help them deal with personal difficulties.

Funding for the program is provided by ConEd and the New York State Weatherization Assistance Program (NYWAP). The energy facet of the program is aimed at improving the efficiency of dwellings inhabited by low- and moderate-income people. ConEd and NYWAP supply funding and YEC's young employees provide the services, which include audits, insulation, roofing repairs, and window installation and repair.

The New York Power Authority (NYPA) was established approximately 75 years ago by New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt to supply electricity to small towns that could not profitably be served by private utilities. In addition to these towns, NYPA also currently serves government and other public buildings, including schools, hospitals, and airports. NYPA is

therefore responsible for energy conservation programs for all state government buildings.

The meeting at NYPA began with a demonstration of energy-efficient lighting. Scott Brown (Senior Power Analyst) exhibited a range of bulbs and lighting fixtures used in NYPA's direct installation programs. Mr. Brown provided information on both the use and pay-back rates for these products.

Chairman Richard Flynn gave a general overview of NYPA and its conservation programs. Five years ago NYPA realized it had the choice of building new generating plants or cutting its load. Generation would have had to be financed through bonds, and the payback was estimated at 15 to 20 years. Conservation, on the other hand, had a payback of as little as five years. Given its load structure, NYPA decided that increasing lighting efficiency would provide the easiest and fastest payback among conservation options. So far NYPA has spent $250 million for conservation. Chairman Flynn also stressed the importance of educating the public about energy conservation and he discussed NYPA 's efforts to teach elementary school children about energy and the environment.

The High-Efficiency Lighting Program (HELP) was discussed by Angelo Esposito (Manager, Energy Conservation Group). Whereas other utility companies provide rebates to customers who purchase energy-efficient products, NYPA directly installs high-efficiency lighting for its customers. Mr. Esposito listed nine lessons learned by HELP:

• Establishment of operational hours is critical to savings calculations.

• Lamp burnout rates must be documented prior to retrofit.

• Fixture prototypes should be installed to ensure customer approval of the entire project.

• Communication with facility occupants prior to construction is essential to ensure the project meets their needs.

• Costs of waste disposal should not be underestimated (many ballasts contain PCBs).

• Internal overheads can be upwards of 10% of installed costs.

• Installed costs can be reduced by combining procurement with needs.

• Needs should be communicated to the lighting industry before the project is begun as there are often supply problems.

• Utility project managers must be on site during the installation.

After the meeting at NYPA, Scott Brown took the workshop participants on a tour of the New York Public Library Annex, whose lighting had recently been overhauled by NYPA. The Romanians and Bulgarians were very impressed with the overall lighting design, particularly the attention to lighting needs (color and intensity) in different parts of the building. Mr. Brown stressed that NYPA had provided the library annex with better lighting at a lower cost than had previously existed.

Brooklyn Union Gas (BUG), incorporated in 1895, is a major investor-owned local distribution company selling natural gas to customers in New York City, specifically the boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. It also has activities through its affiliates in the exploration of gas, the development of cogeneration units, propane distribution, and the transmission of natural gas.

As Romania and Bulgaria seek to restructure their respective energy industries, natural gas may play a critical role. In fact, Bulgaria is working now with the World Bank to initiate a study on the use of natural gas in Bulgaria. A potential niche for natural

gas in Eastern European markets is in the replacement of large, inefficient, cogeneration systems that are in need of considerable work. Individual gas heaters in homes may prove to be more cost effective. Thus, the opportunity to meet with a supplier of natural gas was met enthusiastically by the Romanians and Bulgarians.

Steve Vitale (General Manager of Research, Development, and Demonstration) introduced the BUG presentation with an introductory film describing the history and status of BUG. The film focused on the need for utilities to consider the needs of customers. For many utilities who have been protected from competition because of their monopoly positions, customer focus is becoming paramount because of the recent decrease in regulation in favor of more competition.

Michael Celinski (Principal Engineer in Research, Development, and Demonstration) informed the group about the size of the company, number of employees, area served, and so forth. He also spoke about potential enhancements to BUG's market. Potential new markets represent a possible 50% increase over BUG's current market. This potential reflects in part the opening competition in both the natural gas sector and the electric utility sector. The potential includes gas cooling, in competition and/or in collaboration with electric utilities. It also includes compressed natural gas-powered vehicles, refrigeration, cogeneration, air compressors, and other activities to ease the strain on electric demand, particularly in summer when gas is plentiful.

The next two speakers discussed the importance of energy efficiency to BUG. Fred Kohl (Manager of Consumer Conservation) spoke about the efficiency programs BUG is implementing in cooperation with end users of natural gas, particularly the rebate programs offered by BUG to consumers for improved hot water heaters and gas furnaces. The rebate for efficient water heaters is around

$75 and the rebate for furnaces above 83% efficiency is capped at $135. Joseph Vaszily (Manager of Integrated Resource Management) then described the planning functions of the company and how conservation was now playing a crucial role.

Finally, Cynthia Gallo (Associate Business Development Manager of Power Systems) talked about the latest in gas heat pump technology. She focused her comments on new opportunities in the generation of electricity. These opportunities were brought about by the distributed utility concept currently being considered by many utilities and by the expected deregulation of retail sales in the electricity market.

David Hepinstall (Executive Director) described the New York City Weatherization Coalition, which is made up of 30 community organizations that implement weatherization services for poor and low-income renters in New York City. For the most part, the organizations are funded by the New York State Department of State (see above). The coalition also implements the residential low-income weatherization program for ConEd. ConEd was ordered by the New York State Public Utility Commission to implement low-income weatherization.

The organizations are decentralized in implementation and centrally organized for quality control, auditing standards, political purposes, and so forth. Dr. Hepinstall explained that decentralized implementation allows for a better understanding of the communities within which the organizations work.

The local organizations are responsible for planning, training of service providers, and auditing. The audits are first used as negotiating documents with building owners on the retrofit

measures. As mentioned in the presentation by Mr. Cherry (see above), reaching agreement with building owners on the scope and costs of retrofit measures is one of the most important assignments for these local organizations. When the local organizations finally hire contractors, who actually implement the changes to buildings, the audits serve as written agreements on the scope of work to be performed.

After a litany of public misconceptions about energy efficiency, Andrew Padian (Director of Energy Audit Services) spoke about some of the technical issues in retrofitting buildings. According to Mr. Padian, the number one thing to look for is leaks in the roof area, particularly around skylights, because of the “stack effect” in the winter. The stack effect, driven by differential indoor/outdoor temperatures and wind, creates an upward flow of warm air that results in thermal losses through the leaks. Blocking these leaks is the first step taken in most of the buildings they retrofit.

Mr. Padian also showed the group the equipment used in auditing. He discussed sick building syndrome and the importance of understanding how not to create sick buildings when closing leaks. (Sick building syndrome is an indoor air quality problem that causes ill health effects for building occupants; it results when buildings are tightly sealed and adequate ventilation is not provided.) He also talked about the work the coalition members were doing on old inefficient boilers in high-rise apartments.

In response to a question about how one expects to retrofit all of the buildings in New York City, Mr. Padian told the group that about 20% of the target buildings have already been weatherized. The number of buildings being weatherized in New York is about 40% of all buildings being weatherized in the United States. Although the pace is slow, the coalition expects to weatherize all of the buildings over the next decade or so.

After being asked about how projects are identified, Mr. Padian explained that the product being offered by the coalition sells itself by word of mouth, so potential projects come to them. There is no lack of tenants wanting to partake of the services offered, but there is often a tension between the owner of the building and the tenants about whether and how much conservation gets done.

Dr. Hepinstall and Mr. Padian took the group to two site visits in New York City. The first stop was a 79-unit apartment building in Harlem. David Reiber (Weatherization Director, Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation [NMIC]) led the tour of this building and discussed the energy audit, boiler replacement, and various DSM measures. During the tour, Mr. Reiber provided information about how broader concerns of homelessness had led the NMIC to become active in other areas, including substance abuse programs, bilingual legal services, and support of tenant associations.

The group next went to a three-story row house in the Bronx that recently had been weatherized. Bob Pollock (Weatherization Director, Banana Kelly Community Improvement Association) presented an overview of the TIPS decision-making process, described the retrofit measures used in the house, and demonstrated the use of a blower-door. In this row-house, the windows had been replaced, fluorescent lights and a low-flow showerhead were installed, and insulation and weatherstripping had been put in. Of the $6,212 in total costs, Banana Kelly paid $4,012 and the building owner paid $2,200. Mr. Pollock also described the range of activities related to housing in which Banana Kelly is involved.

Hosted by Gunnar Walmet and Norine Karins (Project Manager, Buildings), the Romanian, Bulgarian, and American delegations also visited a high-rise apartment in Queens, the Aquilar Gardens Complex. This complex is heated with two dual-fuel boilers, which had been installed by NYSERDA. NYSERDA also installed two small cogenerating truck engines that can be used during peak hours to cut the electric utility's demand charges.

According to Mr. Walmet and Ms. Karins, because it is difficult to always know when the peak hour is going to occur, it is important to have two units to improve the probability that one would be operating at peak. The engines were set up with a bias toward the production of electricity, but they could be reprogrammed to produce more hot water.

In addition to testing the equipment, this experimental project also serves as an interesting example of how one utility implemented a distributed utility concept. Finally, in response to a question about why NYSERDA chose Aquilar Gardens, a combination of technical and political considerations were cited.

Ashok Gupta (Senior Energy Analyst) provided an overview of the energy work of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC, which was founded in 1970, is a non-governmental environmental advocacy organization with 170,000 individual members. At its inception, NRDC focused on utility reform in California, but it now has a national orientation with 150 employees in five offices across the country.

The two primary energy goals of NRDC are to make generation as clean as possible and to increase demand efficiency. Over the last

few years NRDC has done considerable work on Integrated Resource Planning (IRP), which seeks to meet energy demand at the least cost while also achieving environmental goals. The main tenet to IRP is that utilities must consider reducing demand as equal to increasing supply. NRDC has worked both with utilities and with the government to ensure that policies, regulations, and tax incentives reflect this view.

Traditionally utilities make less money if they sell fewer kilowatt hours. New policies allow utilities to charge higher rates to recover investments in demand-side efficiency, allowing utilities to profit from the cleaner environment. In New York State, utilities can recover $.014 per kilowatt for avoided environmental damage. To allay fears and political pressures from customers who worry about their rates increasing, NRDC has tried to educate the consumers to focus on their bills, which will decrease if they take advantage of the utilities ' efficiency programs; NRDC also tells consumers that their rates would have gone up even more if new generating capacity had to be built.

Dr. Gupta stressed the difference between energy conservation (i.e., turning off lights and setting thermostats back) and energy efficiency. NRDC focuses on efficiency because it believes there is great potential for new technology and products to increase the quality of life and save energy at the same time. Windows, lighting, and motors are currently the products that can offer the greatest energy savings. To illustrate the potential, Dr. Gupta described a contest to build a super-efficient refrigerator. The contest was conducted by a consortium of utilities and was promoted by NRDC and other organizations, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The prize money was used to offset the initial start-up costs of producing the new refrigerators. There are now plans for competitions to design high-efficiency washing machines and other technologies.

Dr. Ivan Frisch (Provost) welcomed the group and briefed them on the size and history of the university. Founded in 1854, Polytechnic is the second oldest technical university in the United States. It has 160 tenured faculty and 3,600 students split equally among undergraduates and graduates. At any one time there are about 50 to 70 Ph.D. candidates and about 100 students supported by grants or contracts.

Annual expenditures on research and development (R&D) approach $13 million. As is the case with other R&D institutes, the trend at Polytechnic University is away from basic R&D toward near-term research to assist industries in becoming more competitive. However, this has caused some concerns to the university. The main areas of concentration are technical, engineering, environmental, and implementation infrastructure.

Polytechnic University maintains close cooperation with business and industry. For example, it does about $600,000 worth of business with Brooklyn Union Gas. Also, in cooperation with NYSERDA, the university is studying the use of gas-fired heat pumps to flatten peak demand by storing thermal heat in plastics. There are plans to build a residential prototype to see how it performs. Professors also consult with industry on their own, and there is a program in which undergraduates spend time working for industry on real-world problems. This experience prepares them for industrial careers.

In response to a question by Gleb Dragan, Dr. Frisch described the current curriculum as focusing on classic engineering, except for bio-engineering. However, Polytechnic University is considering a change to a more cross-disciplinary curriculum. For example, they want to look at “urban engineering,” the study of the interplay of roads, buildings, apartments, mass transit, etc.

Dr. Frisch also stated, in response to a question, that electromagnetic interference was a strong program at the university.

The opening remarks by Dr. Frisch were followed by brief presentations on some of the specific programs. The Mechanical Engineering Department, which was described by Sunil Kumar (Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering), is working on fluid mechanics, controls and robots, and soil mechanics. The laboratory work tends to be multidisciplinary, with staff drawn from throughout the university. Kalle Levon (Associate Professor of Polymer Chemistry) discussed the School of Chemical Engineering, which includes three professors of metallurgy. Polymers have been the school's focus since 1940, and they have about $1.7 million in polymer research, about one-half of which is funded by industry. Now the institute also is working on multifunctional materials, such as plastics, information storage, and electronics. The Ph.D. program in this field usually takes about 5 years to complete.

Richard Mandelbaum (Director, Center for Advanced Technology in Telecommunications) talked about the work he is doing on information databases and controls. He envisions, as others do, an ability to dispatch end-use loads, enabling a better balance between loads and resources and using fewer of the latter. Professor Edward Wolf (Head, Physics Department) said that he had research funding from DOE to study superconducting materials. The Management of Technology Program, which combines business and technological courses, was described by Dr. A. George Schillinger (Director, Management of Technology). Managers from many of New York 's utilities have participated in this program. The last presentation was on a new laboratory established to study industrial needs, including the need to improve energy efficiency and to limit environmental damage. The project was being funded with $250,000 from NSF, NYSERDA, BUG, ConEd, and the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCo).

During the final discussion, the group considered the role of a university: Should it be a research facility or should its goal be to teach? Dr. Frisch said he strives to create a balance so that professors can stay on top of their disciplines while ensuring that students get adequate attention.

The purpose of this tour of ConEd's Conservation Center, led by William Nicodemus, was to show the delegations an example of the kinds of promotional materials and learning facilities offered by several of the larger utilities in the United States. ConEd displayed posters, placards, computer instruction programs, and other training and educational materials it uses to promote its demand-side management programs.

Orange and Rockland Utility (O&R) hosted the delegation for their last day in New York. Michael Thorpe (Program Administrator, Demand-Side Management) and James Cuccaro (Manager, Economic Analysis) introduced the participants to O&R, an investor-owned utility in upstate New York. O&R has a peak load of about 1,000 MW, which is equally divided among residential, commercial, and industrial loads.

During the day, a number of presentations were given on energy management at O&R. Bill Atzl (Manager, Demand-Side Management Operations) talked about O&R's electric curtailment program which is designed to minimize the need for new generators. The program has three facets: 1) controllable loads, 2) temporary buy-back of power from customers, and 3) time-of-day rates, which are mandatory for customers whose load exceeds 1,000 kW. The major concerns driving O&R are rates in the near-term and regulation over the

longer term. A video on weatherization and energy-efficiency programs for low-income families was shown and discussed by Eugene Reynolds (Senior Conservation Services Representative).

O&R also arranged for two site visits for the delegation. The first was to the Reynolds Aluminum Plant. As part of a cooperative agreement between O&R and Reynolds, diesel generators were installed to produce energy during peak demand. The group also toured the U.S. Military Academy's generator site to see a nonutility generator and to see some of the DSM work done by O&R. During lunch and dinner at the academy, there were fruitful discussions about the appropriate role of a utility in selling power and at the same time striving to ensure its efficient use.

Irvin L. (Jack) White, Senior Director of Energy Programs, Pacific Northwest Laboratory

Dr. White explained how the Department of Energy (DOE) has organized its U.S. national laboratory system and spoke briefly about the laboratories that make up the system. As an example of the kinds of capability contained in the laboratory system, Dr. White described the organization and the capabilities of the Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Other laboratories, although having different capabilities and different goals, are similarly staffed and work under DOE in similar ways.

Ray Reilly, Energy Programs Directorate,

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

Mr. Reilly described the Federal Energy Decision Screening (FEDS) System, which Pacific Northwest Laboratory developed for DOE. FEDS is a menu-driven DOS-based software program that can be used by energy managers to assess the likelihood of cost-effective energy projects at a site, to target the most promising projects (e.g., lighting retrofit and fuel switching), and to estimate investment requirements and energy and cost savings.

FEDS is being developed on a multilevel basis. Level-1 runs using numerous assumptions about the “typical” facility, with only minimal energy price and installation configuration information needed as input. In Level-2, the assumptions generated in Level-1 can be replaced by the user to significantly improve the accuracy of the results. Both levels use the same “analytic engine.” All major building end-uses are considered and all significant interactions between end-uses and energy conservation options are accounted for.

FEDS estimates current building energy consumption for lighting, cooling, heating, ventilation, service hot water, and other equipment (plug loads). Currently, FEDS covers only building systems; in 1994 capability will be added to assess centralized heating and cooling plants and thermal loops; future releases will capture all energy-consuming systems.

FEDS determines the minimum life-cycle-cost retrofits to the current system (considering all interactive effects). In calculating life-cycle costs it estimates the post-retrofit consumption, the initial cost of the retrofits, recurring operations and maintenance costs for the retrofits, the value of

the change in energy consumption and operation and maintenance requirements, and the net present value of the retrofit.

Richard Jones, Office for Building Technologies,

U.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Jones gave an overview of building energy usage in the United States. While in 1991 buildings accounted for only 36% of the total U.S. energy consumption of 81.1 quads (transportation and industry accounted for the other 64%), the building sector dominates electricity use. Buildings used 20 of the 29.5 quads of total U.S. electricity in 1991, for an electricity expenditure of $135 billion. These 1991 numbers on U.S. building energy consumption can be broken down into the following end uses: space heating 33%, lighting 16%, water heating 15%, space cooling 12%, refrigeration 9%, cooking 6%, and other appliances and uses 9%. The importance of building energy use is increasing as residential and commercial building volume is growing steadily. Residential housing grew from 65 million occupied units in 1970 to 95 million in 1990 and is projected to reach 110 million in 2010. Commercial floor space grew from 40 billion square feet in 1970 to 60 billion in 1990 and is expected to reach 90 billion by 2010.

The overall program goal of DOE's Office of Building Technology (OBT) is to increase energy efficiency and expand use of renewable energy technologies by developing new, cost-effective technologies and encouraging full use of those currently available. Specific goals of the program include 1) increasing the efficiency of total energy use by 30% over 1988 levels by 2010; 2) increasing the percentage of energy derived from renewables by 75% over 1988 levels by 2005; 3) developing cost-effective technologies by 2000 to eliminate use of CFCs as refrigerants and blowing agents; and 4)

reducing federal energy use 20% per square foot by 2000 relative to 1985.

Mr. Jones described some selected information activities to improve the building heating and cooling envelope: the DOE insulation fact sheet, window performance design tools, National Fenestration Rating Council window rating and labeling, and voluntary efficiency labeling for windows and window systems. Research activities being pursued include superwindows, spectrally selective coatings and electrochromics, dynamic curtain wall systems, the “30/30” roof system, and vacuum powder insulation. Mr. Jones also discussed DOE standards, incentives, information, and R&D activities for heating and cooling equipment improvements and DOE activities to improve the efficiency of lighting and appliances, like refrigerators.

Mr. Jones also discussed the Climate Change Action Plan and how the U.S. building sector's energy use relates to global carbon emissions. The U.S. building sector's electric and fossil energy use accounted for 465 million metric tons or 8% of the global CO₂ emissions in 1989. In the residential sector, the Climate Change Action Plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 16.3 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) relative to projected levels in 2000. In the commercial sector, it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10.6 MMTCE, relative to projected levels in 2000, and will produce $8.6 billion in cumulative energy cost savings over the 1994-2000 period and $36.7 billion from 2000-2010.

He concluded by saying that a broadly based policy for improving the efficiency of energy use as an alternative to large-scale central power generation using fossil fuels will reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses, especially CO₂, and improve economic efficiency. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) greatly expands federal responsibilities for improving the efficiency of energy use

and encouraging the use of renewable energy in buildings. The Office of Building Technology's activities in standards, incentives, information, and R&D are increasing to help meet the goals established by EPAct. However, even given the substantial increase in resources requested for OBT in FY94, it is unlikely that the EPAct goals will be met without more aggressive actions.

Ralph Avellanet, Office for Oil Exploration and Production,

U.S. Department of Energy

The United States consumes approximately 17 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil, but produces only about half of what it uses (6.8 million bpd of crude oil and 1.7 million bpd of natural gas liquids in 1993). While consumption has increased slowly over the last 10 years, crude oil production peaked in the mid-1980s at 9 million bpd and has been falling by 3 to 5% a year. This is largely a function of the maturity of many of the U.S. oil fields and the modest price levels of oil (compared to the peak 15 years ago). About one-fourth of the oil produced in the United States comes from Alaska. Much of the rest is by water flooding and 10% is through enhanced oil recovery means, chiefly through steam injection.

Natural gas consumption in the United States equaled approximately 20 trillion cubic feet (TCF) in 1993, with 90% accounted for by domestic production and the remainder chiefly from Canada. Natural gas is among the “cleanest” burning fossil fuels. With concerns about clear air and the United States' increasing dependence on imported oil, natural gas use is expected to rise in the future, while oil use will remain steady or perhaps decline over the next 20 years.

DOE conducts research programs in oil and gas extraction and processing. Though on the rise, in 1993 and 1994 budgets for these activities were less than 2% of total DOE spending. Oil research focuses on developing advanced recovery processes and demonstrating advantages of modern reservoir characterization and management methods for oil recovery. Gas research is directed to advanced drilling technology, the recovery of gas from low permeability reservoirs, and improving technology for using natural gas in electric power generation and other areas.

Marjorie Witherspoon, Executive Director,

National Association for State Community Services Program

Ms. Witherspoon spoke about DOE's Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program (DOE/WAP). The National Association for State Community Services Program (NASCSP) is a membership organization comprised of state directors of the DOE/WAP and the Department of Health and Human Services Community Services Block Grant. Ms. Witherspoon talked about the need for a direct link between public policy and the persons who will be the most directly affected by the policy. She suggested that the weatherization programs provided such a link.

The weatherization assistance program has a built-in set of checks and balances from the local level through the federal level. There is a feedback loop that allows the local agencies to discuss their concerns with the states and the states to discuss concerns with the federal office. The federal office can highlight its concerns in communications with the states and, through them, to the local agencies.

The states are required to develop an annual plan to demonstrate to DOE what they plan to accomplish with funds provided

by DOE. The local agencies that operate the program review the states ' plans and, in a number of states, the local agencies work with the states to develop the plan that is submitted to the federal government.

At the state level, there is an advisory committee that is composed of state and local persons who share a concern for low-income persons and energy efficiency. At the local level, the weatherization providers are required by law to have a board of directors that is made up in equal parts of representatives of government, private business, and low-income persons. Through the advisory panel at the state level and the boards of the local agencies, the state and local operations are made much more accountable and responsive to the needs of the community.

When DOE was called upon to issue rules to implement recent changes in the weatherization statute, DOE staff conferred with state directors, members of national organizations such as NASCSP, and with national representatives of the local agencies before they published their proposed rules. This allowed DOE to hear program administrators and workers express their views on the ideal way to regulate the program. This consultation did not mean that the states or local agencies were satisfied with the final rule that was proposed. However, the final outcome was a rule that was more consistent with the information presented to DOE through these consultations and public hearings.

A private organization such as NASCSP fits a specific niche in communicating to its members various directions that the federal agency or Congress is taking with regard to the weatherization program. During the past year, NASCSP accepted a grant from DOE to establish a process for reviewing the way in which federal weatherization funds are allocated to the states. NASCSP talked with state directors representing each of the country's 10 federal regions and prepared a report to DOE that highlighted the concerns

states have about the principles that should be used when establishing a funding formula. The process also resulted in a formula designed by the panel, but on which there was not a consensus among all the states.

The formula issue was used in this discussion to highlight a directive Congress had issued to DOE. DOE was told to review its funding formula for fairness. The Department then turned to NASCSP, since most of the state weatherization directors are members of the Association. The work NASCSP performed will allow DOE to proceed with the development of a new formula with a number of issues already addressed.

James Zucchetto, Division on Infrastructure, Energy, and Environmental Engineering, National Research Council

Mr. Zucchetto reviewed the structure of the National Research Council (NRC). The NRC is the principal operating arm of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, and it provides independent and objective advice to the federal government and the general public on science and technology issues. The NRC does not conduct research through laboratories or institutes, but instead convenes panels of experts, who serve as volunteers, to address particular topics. The NRC has a standing Energy Engineering Board, and Mr. Zuchetto gave highlights of recent studies carried out under this board, including 1) a review of the Strategic Plan of DOE's Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy, 2) automotive fuel economy, 3) the National Energy Modeling System, 4) confronting climate change, and 5) a review of the state of the art and projected technology of low-heat rejection engines.

Thomas Foley, Director-Portland Office,

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

Mr. Foley gave a presentation on integrated resource planning, focusing on managing the financial risks associated with making resource decisions with an unknown future. The presentation was based generally on the simulation model used for planning by the Northwest Power Planning Council. The model simulates resource expansion decisions in the face of an unknown future. Unlike all optimization models that start from a premise of perfect information, the Council's model can make mistakes. Whereas optimization models yield results from the one way of being right, the simulation model can model all of the myriad ways of being wrong. Thus, it is more like what happens in real decision making.

In the simulation model, resource expansion decisions are simulated over hundreds of possible load forecasts within a broad range of possible futures. The model outputs contain a series of resources, when they would be built, and their associated costs. The series of outputs can be displayed as a histogram of outcomes versus costs and can be viewed as a distribution. With different mixes of resources the distributions can overlap one another. With this information, decision makers can decide which resource mix to pursue, based on how much risk they are willing to take to achieve desirable outcomes.