SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The key efficiency evaluation, measurement, and verification resource for novices and experts. Includes definitions, concepts, and steps for calculating savings, avoided emissions, and other impacts.
Issued in 2001, Presidential Executive Order 13221 directed federal agencies to purchase products with low standby power, with the goal of 1) reducing energy consumption in federal facilities, and 2) drawing attention to the problem of high standby power consumption, with guidance provided by the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). At that time, standby power was newly recognized as an increasing building energy load. Since then, procurement of products with low standby power have been set in place in acquisition processes, and the purchasing power of the federal government continues to influence manufacturers’ design decisions related to standby power. In recent years, FEMP has shifted effort from direct manufacturer outreach for data collection, to integrating low standby requirement into broader acquisition programs including Energy Star and Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). Another milestone has been the labeling of low standby products on the GSA Advantage website to simplify and enhance compliance. Looking forward into the program’s future, this question arises “How do we design programs over time to reflect market and technology changes, by adjusting programmatic requirements while maintaining effectiveness?” This paper discusses that question for the case of standby power, which transitioned from covering a single to multiple environmental attributes, both in the context of the program’s past and future.
In fall 1975, 10 distinguished United States Senators from the Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee summoned a group of elite aviation experts to Washington, DC. The Senators were holding hearings regarding the state of the American airline industry, which was struggling in the wake of the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the dramatically increasing cost of fuel. Providing testimony were presidents or vice presidents of United Airlines, Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, and General Electric. Other witnesses included high-ranking officials from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Air Force, and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Their Capitol Hill testimony painted a bleak economic picture, described in phrases that included immediate crisis condition, long-range trouble, serious danger, and economic dislocation.
Large-scale EE programs would modestly increase tariffs but reduce consumers' electricity bills significantly. However, the primary benefit of EE programs is a significant reduction in power shortages, which might make these programs politically acceptable even if tariffs increase. To increase political support, utilities could pursue programs that would result in minimal tariff increases. This can be achieved in four ways: (a) focus only on low-cost programs (such as replacing electric water heaters with gas water heaters); (b) sell power conserved through the EE program to the market at a price higher than the cost of peak power purchase; (c) focus on programs where a partial utility subsidy of incremental capital cost might work and (d) increase the number of participant consumers by offering a basket of EE programs to fit all consumer subcategories and tariff tiers. Large scale EE programs can result in consistently negative cash flows and significantly erode the utility's overall profitability. In case the utility is facing shortages, the cash flow is very sensitive to the marginal tariff of the unmet demand. This will have an important bearing on the choice of EE programs in Indian states where low-paying rural and agricultural consumers form the majority of the unmet demand. These findings clearly call for a flexible, sustainable solution to the cash-flow management issue. One option is to include a mechanism like FAC in the utility incentive mechanism. Another sustainable solution might be to have the net program cost and revenue loss built into utility's revenue requirement and thus into consumer tariffs up front. However, the latter approach requires institutionalization of EE as a resource. The utility incentive mechanisms would be able to address the utility disincentive of forgone long-run return but have a minor impact on consumer benefits. Fundamentally, providing incentives for EE programs to make them comparable to supply-side investments is a way of moving the electricity sector toward a model focused on providing energy services rather than providing electricity.
Provides policymakers with principles and recommendations to understand and manage concerns about bill and rate impacts resulting from requiring utilities to provide efficiency programs.
Provides key considerations for policymakers, energy efficiency program administrators, and program partners om implementing successful energy efficiency financing programs for existing buildings.
Motor systems are an integral part of our industrial and commercial facilities. They provide the motive force behind the fans, pumps, compressors, chillers, and conveyors in these facilities. Given their centrality to any facility’s operations, they are a critical energy end use to understand, particularly when developing technologies and policies to meet sustainability goals, improve productivity, and enhance resilience. In the late 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted two seminal studies to better understand the installed stock and energy savings opportunities of industrial and commercial motor systems. In the industrial sector, The United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities Assessment used primary data collected through onsite assessments and led to a greater understanding of the installed base of motor systems, their characteristics, and the opportunities for energy savings (U.S. Department of Energy, 2002). Notable findings included the following: Industrial motor systems consumed 679 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 1994, representing 23 percent of U.S. electricity consumption. Cost-effective energy efficiency measures could result in 62-104 billion kWh of energy savings annually. Sixty-two percent of the energy savings potential was from fan, pump, and compressor end use equipment. Nearly half of motor system electricity consumption was attributable to approximately 3,500 facilities, or 1.5 percent of U.S. manufacturing facilities. Opportunities for Energy Savings in the Residential and Commercial Sectors with High Efficiency Electric Motors provided an evaluation of the installed stock of motor driven equipment in U.S. commercial and residential buildings and opportunities for utilization of high efficiency motors and variable speed technologies (Arthur D. Little, 1999). Notable findings included the following: Commercial motor systems consumed 343 billion kWh in 1995, with refrigeration and space conditioning constituting 93 percent of the total. Cost-effective energy efficiency measures could result in 51 billion kWh of energy savings annually. Due in no small part to these seminal studies, motor system technologies and usage characteristics have changed drastically since the late 1990s. Greater awareness of cost-effective strategies for reducing motor system electricity consumption have been developed and deployed. This includes several software tools, literature, and utility and government programs promoting energy efficiency improvements in motor driven systems. Additionally, several rounds of energy efficiency standards have been enacted, resulting in improved installed motor efficiency. The cost of variable speed drives has dropped substantially, and combined with utility rebate programs, has led to their greater adoption. Further, since these results were published, the U.S. manufacturing sector has undergone a massive transformation. Due to global competition, some sectors have relocated operations overseas. Others have brought operations onshore to avail low cost and abundant natural gas. Additionally, automation and robotics have pervaded the entire sector. Consequently, these two reports likely do not represent the current state of motor driven systems in U.S. industrial and commercial facilities. As cited in recent studies, the lack of current information on motor system electricity consumption and use characteristics limits the ability to conduct analysis on energy savings potential, develop technologies to address energy and productivity gaps, and develop programs to promote energy efficiency practices and technologies for motor systems (International Energy Agency, 2007; UNIDO, 2010; McKane and Hasanbeigi, 2011; Waide and Brunner, 2011). Specifically, the lack of information affects a range of stakeholders: Governments must rely on outdated information when setting research agendas, developing policies, and designing energy efficiency programs and offerings. Utilities and energy efficiency programs cannot identify the current market needs or potential impact when designing rebate and energy efficiency programs. Electric grid planners cannot identify motor system usage characteristics when developing plans to support the resilience of the electric grid. Manufacturers of motors, motor driven equipment, and drives are hampered when developing technologies to meet the needs of their market. Motor system end users are limited in their ability to identify energy saving opportunities within their own facilities because they do not have reliable benchmark information. In response to the lack of current information and analysis on industrial and commercial motor systems, the DOE initiated an update to these two studies. Launched in 2016 and led by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), the Motor System Market Assessment (MSMA) provides an updated, more comprehensive assessment of the installed stock of motor systems in both the industrial and commercial sectors, a review of the supply chains supporting motor and drives in the U.S., and the performance improvement opportunity available from using best available technologies and maintenance and operation practices. The outcomes of the MSMA are documented in three U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System Market Assessment reports, with this report being the first listed: 1. Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed Base (this report) documents the findings on the installed base of motor systems in the U.S. industrial and commercial sectors. Quantification of energy savings potential is not documented in this report but in Volume 3. 2. Volume 2: Motors and Drives Supply Chain Review reviews the state of supply chains for motors and drives installed in U.S. industrial and commercial facilities, focusing on advanced motor and drive technologies and their constituent materials. 3. Volume 3: Energy Savings Opportunity analyzes the energy performance improvement opportunity for the installed base of U.S. industrial and commercial motor systems. This report has been prepared as a reference for motor system stakeholders. It provides factual information as could be best determined by the assessment results and avoids speculating on any findings.
University Park, Maryland (“UP”) is a small town of 2,540 residents, 919 homes, 2 churches, 1 school, 1 town hall, and 1 breakthrough community energy efficiency initiative: the Small Town Energy Program (“STEP”). STEP was developed with a mission to “create a model community energy transformation program that serves as a roadmap for other small towns across the U.S.” STEP first launched in January 2011 in UP and expanded in July 2012 to the neighboring communities of Hyattsville, Riverdale Park, and College Heights Estates, MD. STEP, which concluded in July 2013, was generously supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The STEP model was designed for replication in other resource-constrained small towns similar to University Park - a sector largely neglected to date in federal and state energy efficiency programs. STEP provided a full suite of activities for replication, including: energy audits and retrofits for residential buildings, financial incentives, a community-based social marketing backbone and local community delivery partners. STEP also included the highly innovative use of an “Energy Coach” who worked one-on-one with clients throughout the program. Please see www.smalltownenergy.org for more information. In less than three years, STEP achieved the following results in University Park: • 30% of community households participated voluntarily in STEP; • 25% of homes received a Home Performance with ENERGY STAR assessment; • 16% of households made energy efficiency improvements to their home; • 64% of households proceeded with an upgrade after their assessment; • 9 Full Time Equivalent jobs were created or retained, and 39 contractors worked on STEP over the course of the project. Estimated Energy Savings - Program Totals kWh Electricity 204,407 Therms Natural Gas 24,800 Gallons of Oil 2,581 Total Estimated MMBTU Saved (Source Energy) 5,474 Total Estimated Annual Energy Cost Savings $\$61,343$ STEP clients who had a home energy upgrade invested on average $\$4,500$, resulting in a 13% reduction in annual energy use and utility bill savings of $325. Rebates and incentives covered 40%-50% of retrofit cost, resulting in an average simple payback of about 7 years. STEP has created a handbook in which are assembled all the key elements that went into the design and delivery of STEP. The target audiences for the handbook include interested citizens, elected officials and municipal staff who want to establish and run their own efficiency program within a small community or neighborhood, using elements, materials and lessons from STEP.
Many energy efficiency financing programs could achieve greater uptake and impact by more effectively recruiting participants. This report examines some of the primary factors that have contributed to high participant uptake among successful financing programs. We review best practices in partnerships (Chapter 2), direct marketing (Chapter 3), and program design (Chapter 4) that facilitate robust participation. This report is primarily designed for state and local governments that have established energy efficiency financing programs or are considering doing so and are seeking insight into how they can ramp up program participation. In disseminating lessons learned from well-established programs that have experienced success in their target markets, the objective is to help scale up the large number of energy efficiency financing programs that seek to replicate these successes. This report can inform states, local governments, and other entities that will establish or expand clean energy financing programs with funding made available under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Most energy efficiency measures produce energy savings that vary over the course of a year. The value of the hourly electricity savings also varies over the course of a year because the cost of generating, transmitting and distributing electricity during peak demand periods may be significantly higher than during off-peak, or lower load, hours. But many planning and program activities across the United States are missing this important element. A variety of trends are changing the electricity system, including increased adoption of other distributed energy resources, electrification of buildings and vehicles, and relative costs for natural gas-fired and renewable energy generation. Knowing when energy efficiency occurs and the value of the energy or demand savings to the electricity system—the time-sensitive value of efficiency—provides public utility commissions, utilities and other decision makers with key information needed to procure the optimal amount of energy efficiency for their system. The report begins with a discussion of our approach to determining use cases and examples, and then examines the need for time-sensitive efficiency data. Next, it examines five use cases in which states, independent system operators/regional transmission operators (ISOs/RTOs), utilities, and efficiency program administrators consider the TSV-EE: (1) energy efficiency program planning and evaluation, (2) distribution system planning, (3) electricity resource planning (4) electricity rate design, and (5) state and local government activities. The report concludes with areas for future research on the time-sensitive value of efficiency.
Many states have implemented ratepayer-funded programs to acquire energy efficiency as a predictable and reliable resource for meeting existing and future energy demand. These programs have become a fixture in many U.S. electricity and natural gas markets as they help postpone or eliminate the need for expensive generation and transmission investments. Industrial energy efficiency (IEE) is an energy efficiency resource that is not only a low cost option for many of these efficiency programs, but offers productivity and competitive benefits to manufacturers as it reduces their energy costs. However, some industrial customers are less enthusiastic about participating in these programs. IEE ratepayer programs suffer low participation by industries across many states today despite a continual increase in energy efficiency program spending across all types of customers, and significant energy efficiency funds can often go unused for industrial customers. This paper provides four detailed case studies of companies that benefited from participation in their utility’s energy efficiency program offerings and highlights the business value brought to them by participation in these programs. The paper is designed both for rate-payer efficiency program administrators interested in improving the attractiveness and effectiveness of industrial efficiency programs for their industrial customers and for industrial customers interested in maximizing the value of participating in efficiency programs.
Estimates of the total opportunity for investment in cost-effective energy efficiency in the United States are typically in the range of several hundred billion dollars (Choi Granade, et al., 2009 and Fulton & Brandenburg, 2012).1,2 To access this potential, many state policymakers and utility regulators have established aggressive energy efficiency savings targets. Current levels of taxpayer and utility bill-payer funding for energy efficiency is only a small fraction of the total investment needed to meet these targets (SEE Action Financing Solutions Working Group, 2013). Given this challenge, some energy efficiency program administrators are working to access private capital sources with the aim of amplifying the funds available for investment. In this context, efficient access to secondary market capital has been advanced as one important enabler of the energy efficiency industry “at scale.”3 The question of what role secondary markets can play in bringing energy efficiency to scale is largely untested despite extensive attention from media, technical publications, advocates, and others. Only a handful of transactions of energy efficiency loan products have been executed to date, and it is too soon to draw robust conclusions from these deals. At the same time, energy efficiency program administrators and policymakers face very real decisions regarding whether and how to access secondary markets as part of their energy efficiency deployment strategy.
Many electric utilities operate energy efficiency incentive programs that encourage increased dissemination and use of energy-efficient (EE) products in their service territories. The programs can be segmented into three broad categories—downstream incentive programs target product end users, midstream programs target product distributors, and upstream programs target product manufacturers. Traditional downstream programs have had difficulty engaging Small Business/Small Portfolio (SBSP) audiences, and an opportunity exists to expand Commercial Midstream Incentive Programs (CMIPs) to reach this market segment instead.
Proposes a new resource for utility regulators to plot a course through regulatory options available to surmount barriers to aggressive and sustained utility investment in energy efficiency programs.
Appliance energy efficiency standards and labeling (S&L) programs have been important policy tools for regulating the efficiency of energy-using products for over 40 years and continue to expand in terms of geographic and product coverage. The most common S&L programs include mandatory minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) that seek to push the market for efficient products, and energy information and endorsement labels that seek to pull the market. This study seeks to review and compare some of the earliest and most well-developed S&L programs in three countries and one region: the U.S. MEPS and ENERGY STAR, Australia MEPS and Energy Label, European Union MEPS and Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label and Japanese Top Runner programs. For each program, key elements of S&L programs are evaluated and comparative analyses across the programs undertaken to identify best practice examples of individual elements as well as cross-cutting factors for success and lessons learned in international S&L program development and implementation. The international review and comparative analysis identified several overarching themes and highlighted some common factors behind successful program elements. First, standard-setting and programmatic implementation can benefit significantly from a legal framework that stipulates a specific timeline or schedule for standard-setting and revision, product coverage and legal sanctions for non-compliance. Second, the different MEPS programs revealed similarities in targeting efficiency gains that are technically feasible and economically justified as the principle for choosing a standard level, in many cases at a level that no product on the current market could reach. Third, detailed survey data such as the U.S. Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) and rigorous analyses provide a strong foundation for standard-setting while incorporating the participation of different groups of stakeholders further strengthen the process. Fourth, sufficient program resources for program implementation and evaluation are critical to the effectiveness of standards and labeling programs and cost-sharing between national and local governments can help ensure adequate resources and uniform implementation. Lastly, check-testing and punitive measures are important forms of enforcement while the cancellation of registration or product sales-based fines have also proven effective in reducing non-compliance. The international comparative analysis also revealed the differing degree to which the level of government decentralization has influenced S&L programs and while no single country has best practices in all elements of standards and labeling development and implementation, national examples of best practices for specific elements do exist. For example, the U.S. has exemplified the use of rigorous analyses for standard-setting and robust data source with the RECS database while Japan's Top Runner standard-setting principle has motivated manufacturers to exceed targets. In terms of standards implementation and enforcement, Australia has demonstrated success with enforcement given its long history of check-testing and enforcement initiatives while mandatory information-sharing between EU jurisdictions on compliance results is another important enforcement mechanism. These examples show that it is important to evaluate not only the drivers of different paths of standards and labeling development, but also the country-specific context for best practice examples in order to understand how and why certain elements of specific S&L programs have been effective.
There are over 200 energy efficiency loan programs—across 49 U.S. states—administered by utilities, state/local government agencies, or private lenders.1 This distributed model has led to significant variation in program design and implementation practices including how data is collected and used. The challenge of consolidating and aggregating data across independently administered programs has been illustrated by a recent pilot of an open source database for energy efficiency financing program data. This project was led by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Investor Confidence Project, the Clean Energy Finance Center (CEFC), and the University of Chicago. This partnership discussed data collection practices with a number of existing energy efficiency loan programs and identified four programs that were suitable and willing to participate in the pilot database (Diamond 2014).2 The partnership collected information related to ~12,000 loans with an aggregate value of ~$100M across the four programs. Of the 95 data fields collected across the four programs, 30 fields were common between two or more programs and only seven data fields were common across all programs. The results of that pilot study illustrate the inconsistencies in current data definition and collection practices among energy efficiency finance programs and may contribute to certain barriers.
The major activity undertaken in the NASA Energy Efficient Engine Program has been completed. This paper reports on the progress made toward achieving the program goal of developing advanced technology to significantly reduce fuel consumption and operating costs of future subsonic transport-type propulsion systems. An additional goal was that the advanced concepts be compatible with future environmental regulations. Along with the results obtained, a brief overview of the design details of both the General Electric and Pratt and Whitney energy efficient engines and the overall program scope are presented. Overall, this program has been highly successful; the technology developed during its course is, and will continue to be, effectively employed in both current and future advance transport aircraft engine designs.