State and Local
Climate and Energy Program
Clean Energy
Lead by
Example
GUIDE
Strategies, Resources, and
Action Steps for State Programs
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JANUARY 15, 2009
-------
If this document is referenced, it should be cited as:
U.S. EPA State Clean Energy and Climate Program
(2009). Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide: Strate-
gies, Resources, and Action Steps for State Programs.
Prepared by Joanna Pratt and Joe Donahue, Stratus
Consulting, Inc.
For more information, please contact:
Niko Dietsch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Climate Protection Partnerships Division
Tel: (202) 343-9299
E-mail: dietsch.nikolaas@epa.gov
-------
Executive Summary
State governments can achieve
substantial energy cost savings
across their facilities, operations, and
fleets through clean energy Lead by
Example (LBE) programs.
They can also demonstrate energy and environmental
leadership, raise public awareness of the benefits of clean
energy technologies, improve air quality, reduce green-
house gas (GHG) emissions, improve energy supply and
reliability, and foster markets for environmentally pref-
erable products. The LBE Guide provides information to
assist state governments as they develop and implement
effective LBE programs to achieve their clean energy
goals. It presents strategies, resources, and tools state
decision makers can use throughout the process.
EPA and other organizations recognize leading by
example as a key policy option for states seeking to
achieve their clean energy goals. For example, the
importance of LBE programs is documented in the
the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency "Vi-
sion for 2025" report. The Vision identifies LBE as a
critical component of achieving the long-term goal of
all cost-effective energy efficiency by 2025. Goal Six
of the Vision's ten implementation goals is to develop
state policies such as LBE for pursuing robust energy
efficiency practices.
BACKGROUND
State governments across the country are achieving
significant energy, environmental, public health, and
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
CHAPTER TWO
Potential LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER THREE
Establish the LBE Program Framework
CHAPTER FOUR
Screen LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER FIVE
Develop LBE Program
CHAPTER SIX
Track, Evaluate, and Report on Progress
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide
-------
financial benefits through a variety of clean energy poli-
cies and programs (U.S. EPA, 2006). One of these clean
energy strategies is "leading by example," which involves
implementing clean energy policies and programs in
buildings, facilities, operations, and fleets under their
control (U.S. EPA, 2006). State governments are finding
that such Lead by Example (LBE) programs produce
substantial energy savings while offering a range of
other benefits, including: demonstrating leadership and
the economic competitiveness of clean energy; reducing
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and air pollut-
ants; increasing fuel diversity; improving energy system
reliability; fostering markets for clean energy products,
services, and technologies; and promoting sustainable
alternatives to conventional practices.
To help states achieve these benefits, EPA has devel-
oped the LBE Guide. States can use the LBE Guide to
initiate or expand an LBE program with the objective
of establishing a comprehensive LBE program across
their buildings, facilities, operations, and fleets. A
comprehensive program typically (1) offers greater
WHAT IS CLEAN ENERGY?
Clean energy includes demand- and supply-side resources that
are less polluting ways to meet energy demand. Clean energy
resources include:
Energy efficiency - refers to using less energy to provide the
same or improved level of service to the energy consumer in an
economically efficient way. Energy efficiency measures include
a wide variety of technologies and processes, and can be
implemented across all major energy-consuming sectors.
Renewable energy - energy generated partially or entirely
from non-depleting energy sources for direct end use or
electricity generation. Renewable energy definitions vary by
state, but usually include wind, solar, and geothermal energy.
Some states also consider low-impact or small hydro, biomass,
biogas, and waste-to-energy to be renewable energy sources.
Renewable energy can be generated on site or at a central
station.
Combined heat and power (CHP) - also known as
cogeneration, CHP is a clean, efficient technology that
improves the conversion efficiency of traditional energy
systems by using waste heat from electricity generation to
produce thermal energy for heating or cooling in commercial
or industrial facilities. CHP systems typically achieve 60% to
75% fuel use efficiencies, which is a significantly higher than
those of conventional power plants.
Clean distributed generation (DG) - refers to non
centralized—usually small-scale—renewable energy and CHP.
For more information, visit the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Clean Energy Web site (http://www.epa.gov/
cleanenergy) and the ENERGY STAR Web site (http://www.
energystar.gov/).
2 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
benefits due to its broader scope, (2) increases the
cost-effectiveness of LBE activities, due to economies
of scale from bundling individual activities, (3) garners
political support by appealing to a variety of constitu-
encies, and (4) increases the visibility of LBE activities.
The LBE Guide is an important next step in EPA's ef-
forts to assist states as they develop clean energy port-
folios. It extends and supports two other recent state
policy assistance documents:
EPA's Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action,
which describes and provides information on sixteen
clean energy policies, including LBE (U.S. EPA, 2006).
The National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (Action
Plan), which is a private-public initiative designed
to overcome barriers to energy efficiency. The Action
Plans implementation framework - the Vision for
2025 - defines implementation goals for achieving all
cost-effective energy efficiency by 2025. This document
recognizes LBE programs as an important component
of this goal, and uses the presence of a strong state LBE
program as an indication of progress towards achieving
this goal (NAPEE, 2006, NAPEE, 2007).
The LBE Guide outlines:
The value of clean energy LBE programs and activities,
A set of LBE activities that states are successfully
implementing,
A process for developing, implementing, and tracking a
comprehensive LBE program that includes one or more
of these LBE activities, and
Key strategies, resources, and tools for states to use
during this process.
Throughout the LBE Guide more than 120 sidebars and
case studies are provided. These examples describe spe-
cific instances in which state and local governments are
pursuing and implementing LBE programs. Additional
THE LBE GUIDE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
While this Guide is designed primarily to assist states
in planning, implementing, developing, and operating
comprehensive LBE programs, many of the approaches
described here can also benefit local governments. Like states,
municipalities are involved in developing LBE programs for
clean energy, although specific program activities and issues
may differ. This Guide provides both examples of how certain
state activities are relevant to local governments and several
cases in which local LBE activities can inform state activities.
-------
state and local examples are presented throughout the
text. The structure of the LEE Guide and a selection
of some of the state and local examples highlighted
in each chapter of the Guide are summarized in Table
ES-1, and a brief summary of the key elements of the
Guide is provided below.
THE VALUE OF CLEAN ENERGY LBE
PROGRAMS
The LBE Guide describes a series of activities and
strategies that states can adopt to capture significant
energy, environmental, economic, and other benefits.
An overview of these benefits is provided below, along
TABLE ES-1 LBE GUIDE: ORGANIZATION AND CONTENTS
Chapter Contents and Supporting Informatio
Selected State and Local Examples
ntroduction
Contents:
Describes the overall benefits of LBE programs and outlines the
LBE process.
Wl: Efficient Buys Program - VendorNet
Montgomery Co., MD: Wind Power Purchases
CT: Demand Response Program
CT: Developing a State LBE Program
_ E Activities and Measures
Contents:
Introduces important background information on benefits and
implementation issues associated with six key types of LBE
activities. The information and examples provided in this chapter
can help inform decisions at multiple stages in the LBE program
development process, described in subsequent chapters.
Supporting Information:
Appendix B: State and Local Clean Energy LBE Programs:
Examples, Tools, and Information Resources
VA: Energy Efficiency Policy and Advisory Council
CA: Benchmarking State Facilities
MN: State Sustainable Building Guidelines
NY: "Green and Clean" State Buildings
MA: Environmentally Preferable Product Procurement
CT: Green Power Purchases
NJ: Aggregated Green Power Purchase
IL: State Agency CHP Activities
UT: Solar Power Demonstration
CO: Water Conservation in State Agencies
CT: Demand Response Program
Chapter 3: Establishing the LBE Program Framework
Contents:
Describes the first steps in establishing a framework for a
comprehensive LBE program, including selecting an LBE team and
other key participants, obtaining high level support, setting goals,
and initiating the program.
Supporting Information:
Appendix A: State Executive Orders, Legislation, Policies, and Plans
Initiating LBE Programs
Appendix C: Resources for Implementing LBE Programs
Establish LBE Team and Obtain Support
MA: LBE Champions
GA: Gaining Support for LBE Program
CT: Nonprofit Organization Participation
Set Clean Energy Goals
CA: Benchmarking Initiative
NY: "Green and Clean" State Buildings and Vehicles
Establish Mechanisms to Implement the LBE Program
SC: Energy Efficiency Act
WA: King County Model LBE Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide
-------
TABLE ES-1 LBE GUIDE: ORGANIZATION AND CONTENTS fcont.J
Chapter Contents and Supporting Information
Selected State and Local Examples
4: Screening LBE Activities and Measures
Contents:
Provides information on assessing LBE activities and measures to
create a portfolio of LBE activities and measures.
Supporting Information:
Appendix B: State and Local Clean Energy LBE Programs:
Examples, Tools, and Information Resources
Contents:
Discusses key design and implementation issues for states to
consider as they develop their LBE programs.
Supporting Information:
Appendix C: Resources for Implementing LBE Programs
Appendix D: Resources for Funding LBE Programs
Appendix E: Resources for Conducting Communications and
Outreach for LBE Programs
Appendix F: Resources on Technical and Financial Assistance to
Local Governments
Appendix G: State LBE Programs and Contacts
Ml: Energy Reduction Strategy-Financial Criteria
MA: Sustainability Program - Selection Criteria
UT: Screening Energy Efficiency Options
VT: State Agency Energy Plan
Wl: Wisconsin Energy Initiative
NV: Energy Conservation Plan
5: Developing a Comprehensive LBE Program
:
Integrate Individual Clean Energy Activities into a Program
CA: Solar Schools Program
Finance the LBE Program
VT: Procurement Policy
CO and CA: Resources about ESCOs
NH: Building Energy Conservation Initiative
IA: Iowa Energy Bank
IA, SC, CT: States Developing Ways to Share or Retain their Energy
Savings
Conduct Communications and Outreach: Building and Maintaining
Support for an LBE Program
CO: State Employee Incentives
VT: Emphasizing the Benefits of Clean Energy
Provide Technical and Financial Assistance to Local Governments
CA: Technical Assistance in Buildings
NY: Product Procurement Assistance
OR: Energy Audits and Design Reviews
PA: Energy Management Plan Assistance
TX: Schools and Local Government Program
. racking. Evaluating, and Reporting LBE Program Progress
Contents:
Provides information on how to track, evaluate, and report on the
performance of LBE programs and activities.
Supporting Information:
Appendix H: State LBE Tracking Tools and Resources
Appendix I: M&V Protocols and Guidance
Appendix J: Resources for Reporting the Results of LBE Programs
WY: Energy Conservation Improvement Program: Measurement
and Verification Plan Guidelines
MA: Data Collection Approach - Energy and CO2 Intensity
GA: Energy Tracking System
NY: Energy Utilization Index
CA and NY: State Applications of the IPMVP
CA: Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification of the 2004-2005
San Diego Local Government Energy Efficiency Program
Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
with Table ES-2 that describes the specific benefits of
six key LBE activities highlighted in this Guide.
Demonstrate leadership. Through good energy manage-
ment, state governments can proactively address the
nation's energy challenge while also being fiscal respon-
sible. Through their direct actions and by sharing their
approaches, state governments can help raise awareness
of clean energy opportunities, help develop markets for
clean energy technologies and services, make technical
and financial resources available for local clean energy
activities, and help develop and implement programs
that directly assist constituents.
Reduce energy consumption and costs. Combined, state
and local governments spend more than $11 billion
annually on energy costs, which can account for as
much as 10% of a typical government's annual operat-
ing budget (U.S. DOE, 2007a). State governments can
implement a variety of LBE activities that reduce these
costs. If a state government that spends 10% of its op-
erating budget on energy reduces its energy consump-
tion by 20% - a goal which many states have adopted
- it can reduce operating budget costs by 2% and create
significant operating budget flexibility.
Reduce air pollutants and GHG emissions. By imple-
menting LBE activities, state governments can reduce
emissions of GHGs and air pollutants (e.g., sulfur and
nitrogen compounds) associated with conventional
energy generation from fossil fuels.
Foster markets for energy-efficient products and en-
courage economic development in local and regional
communities. LBE activities can support development
of in-state markets for clean energy products, manufac-
turers, and services. Investing in energy efficiency and
clean energy can also provide an economic stimulus to
the local economy. Across the nation, energy efficiency
and renewable energy technologies and services are
estimated to have led to the creation of 8.5 million jobs
in 2006, with state government spending on energy ef-
ficiency responsible for about 64,000 of these jobs (U.S.
DOE, 2004; ASES, 2007).
Offer improved energy supply reliability. Many LBE
activities can reduce energy demand (kW) and mitigate
energy supply constraints during peak periods. Reduc-
ing peak demand makes sense from a financial perspec-
tive (i.e., due to higher peak energy demand costs and
the potential for incentive payments from utility pro-
grams) and improves reliability across the transmission
and distribution system. Reducing demand can also
reduce energy prices, which is a special concern in
areas where sales-volume-sensitive gas prices have been
steadily increasing. According to one estimate, for every
1% reduction in national natural gas demand, natural
gas prices decrease by 0.8% to 2% (Wiser et al, 2005).
Offer greater energy price certainty. State government
LBE activities can provide more reliable energy servic-
es and help governments hedge against uncertainties
associated with future fossil fuel-based energy costs
and availability (U.S. EPA, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2004a).
Promote sustainable alternatives to conventional prac-
tices. By implementing other energy and environmental
activities that complement LBE clean energy activities,
states can achieve secondary energy savings benefits.
For example, coordinating LBE activities with waste
management, water treatment, and other state programs
can lead to energy savings due to the energy implica-
tions of recycling, solid waste reduction, water conser-
vation, and landscaping strategies (Choate et al., 2005).
Provide other benefits. Clean energy LBE programs can
sometimes produce additional benefits, including:
• Improved indoor air quality and productivity in
energy-efficient and green buildings.
Increased asset value in energy-efficient buildings.
Reduced maintenance costs in energy-efficient
buildings.
LBE GOALS AND ACTIVITIES
Many states are pursuing clean energy across their
buildings, facilities, operations, and fleets. As a result,
they are reaping significant energy, environmental, and
economic benefits. These activities are being imple-
mented through executive orders, legislation, plans,
and policies to establish one or more LBE goals across
their facilities and/or fleets. Examples of state-specific
LBE goals referenced in this Guide are summarized on
Table ES-3. These goals can:
Encompass all of a state's buildings and operations,
Encompass some or all of a state's buildings,
Address some element of a state's buildings and/or op-
erations, such as new construction or energy-efficient
product procurement, and/or
Address state fleets and fuel use.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide
-------
TABLE ES-2 POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF LBE ACTIVITIES
Activity
Improve Energy
Efficiency in
Government Facilities
Potential Benefits
Improved energy efficiency in government facilities can decrease energy consumption by 35% in existing
buildings and 50% in new and renovated buildings, thus reducing energy costs and GHG and air pollutant
emissions (U.S. EPA, 2004b; 2005a; U.S. DOE, 2007b).
Reducing state government energy consumption by 20% overall (a common state goal) can reduce the
average state government's annual energy bills by as much as $16 million and save nearly 1.2 trillion Btu
annually in energy use (ACEEE, 2003).
The potential for reducing GHG and air pollutant emissions from state facilities is substantial: energy use
in commercial (including state government buildings) and industrial facilities accounts for nearly 50% of
U.S. GHG emissions (U.S. EPA, 2008b). Fossil fuel combustion for electricity generation accounts for high
percentages of CO2, SOx, and NOx emissions, which can be reduced through improved energy efficiency in
state government facilities (U.S. EPA, 2008a).
Approximately 60% of expenditures to improve energy efficiency in state facilities is for labor costs, meaning
that energy efficiency activities can increase local employment opportunities (U.S. DOE. 2004).
$1 spent on improved energy efficiency in a building can result in a $2 to $3 increase in the building's value
(U.S. EPA2004b).
Integrate Energy
Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
Measures in Green
Buildings
Incorporating energy efficiency into green building designs (i.e., by following ENERGY STAR guidelines)
can reduce energy costs by as much as 50% compared to conventional buildings, producing annual energy
savings of about $0.50 per square foot (U.S. EPA, 2008n; U.S. EPA, 20061).
Use of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and environmental measures in green buildings can:
Reduce GHG emissions.
Enhance biodiversity and ecosystem preservation.
Reduce construction and demolition debris and other waste streams.
Produce secondary energy saving benefits through water efficiency, recycling, and other activities that
require significant amounts of energy.
Procure Energy-
Efficient Products
State governments spend on the order of $11 billion on energy bills annually. A state energy-efficient product
procurement program can save up to 10% of a state's electric utility bill (LBNL, 2002, Harris et al., 2004; U.S.
EPA, Undated; U.S. DOE, 2007a).
ENERGY STAR-qualified products typically use 25% to 50% less energy than conventional products and, in
some cases, can offer energy cost savings of up to 90% compared to conventional products (U.S. EPA, 2007c;
2008).
A typical state or local government that purchases a basket of ENERGY STAR-qualified products (including
computers and monitors, vending machines, exit signs, copiers, and traffic signals) can reduce energy costs
by more than $200,000 per year, equivalent to lifetime savings of $1.5 million (U.S. EPA, Undated).
By procuring these ENERGY STAR products, a state can achieve annual CO2 savings of about 1,900 tons,
equivalent to life-cycle savings of about 16,500 tons (U.S. EPA, Undated).
Purchase Green Power
Purchasing green power avoids use of conventional fuels, thus reducing statewide GHG emissions and other
environmental impacts (U.S. EPA, 2008s). For example, purchasing 100 million kWh of green power can avoid
emissions of about 78,000 metric tons of CO2, equivalent to removing 14,000 passenger vehicles from the
road (U.S. EPA. 2008c).
States that purchase green power from their utility reduce exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices (U.S. EPA,
2004b; NYSERDA, 2003).
Generating green power can lead to local job creation for state and local governments. For example, the
manufacture, construction, installation, and maintenance of 1 MW of solar photovoltaics, which is sold as
green power, requires and sustains 22 jobs (Apollo Alliance, 2007).
Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
TABLE ES-2 POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF LBE ACTIVITIES (cont.)
Activity
Use Clean Energy
Supply Technologies
Potential Benefits
Generating clean energy can be cheaper than purchasing electricity through the grid.
Generating clean energy supply can substantially reduce statewide GHG emissions and other environmental
impacts (U.S. EPA, 2008s).
Combined heat and power (CHP) systems are generally 40% more efficient than separate heat and power
generation systems, thus requiring 40% less source energy and reducing state wide energy costs (U.S. EPA,
2007b).
Implement Other
Energy-Saving
Opportunities
Demand response (DR) programs aimed at lowering system peaks can reduce energy costs and produce
revenues for state governments through incentive payments from utilities and electricity grid operators.
Water efficiency measures preserve a valuable natural resource while potentially saving a significant amount
of energy. Nationally, water supply and wastewater treatment account for nearly 1% of total electricity
generation (U.S. EPA, 2008d).
Improvements in water efficiency in state facilities through the installation of metering and monitoring
systems can decrease annual energy consumption by 10% (Watergy, 2002).
State recycling programs can result in significant energy savings - diligent recycling can conserve 70% to
90% of the energy required to produce products from virgin materials (Choate et al., 2005). Recycling 1 ton of
office paper saves 10.2 million Btu and recycling 1 ton of aluminum cans conserves 206.9 million Btu (Choate
etal., 2005).
Descriptions of each of these LBE activities are provided in Table ES-4, Six Key LBE Activities and Selected State Examples Included in the Guide.
To achieve these goals, states are implementing LBE
activities that fall into one of six categories. These
activities and a selection of the state examples provided
in this Guide are summarized in Table ES-4. The six
categories are:
Improve energy efficiency in government facilities.
Integrate energy efficiency and renewable energy mea-
sures in green buildings.
Procure energy-efficient products.
Purchase green power.
Use clean energy supply technologies.
Implement other energy-saving opportunities.
Beyond these six stationary-source energy efficiency
and clean energy supply LBE activities, there are op-
portunities for states to lead by example in the trans-
portation sector. The LBE Guide does not address these
transportation activities. However, information about
EPA's transportation programs, policies, regulations,
and tools, is available in the EPA Office of Transporta-
tion and Air Quality Planning's State and Local Trans-
portation Resources Web site (http://www.epa.gov/
otaq/stateresources/index. htm).
ESTABLISHING A LEAD BY EXAMPLE
PROGRAM
States can use the LBE Guide to initiate or expand an
LBE program toward the objective of establishing a
comprehensive LBE program across all their buildings,
facilities, and operations. The steps involved in the
LBE process, and specific actions states can undertake
to achieve each of the steps are illustrated in Table ES-
5. These steps include:
Establish the LBE program framework, which includes
selecting the LBE team, establishing the business case
for the program and obtaining program support,
setting LBE goals, and establishing the mechanisms
required to initiate the program.
Screen LBE activities and measures.
Develop a comprehensive LBE program.
Track, measure, and report on LBE program progress.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide
-------
TABLE ES-3 EXAMPLES OF LBE GOALS AND TARGETS FOR STATE LBE PROGRAMS
State/Title
Goal or Target
Virginia
Executive Order 48
Establishes a goal for state agencies to reduce annual energy costs by 20% by 2010. State-owned
facilities over 5,000 square feet are required to be designed consistent with LEED and ENERGY STAR
rating systems.
~rgy Efficiency in Existing and New Government Facilities
New Hampshire
Executive Order 2005-4
Requires the state to reduce energy consumption in state facilities by 10% in accordance with the
ENERGY STAR Challenge.
Intearate Enerav Efficiencv and Renewable Enerav Measures in Green Buildinas
Washington, D.C. Requires all publicly-owned and publicly financed buildings to be designed to meet LEED-Silver
Green Building Act of 2006 certification standards for environmental performance and earn 75 points on the EPA energy
performance rating system, using the ENERGY STAR Target Finder tool.
Procure Energy-Efficient Products
Colorado
Executive Order 0012 07
Requires Department of Personnel and Administration to develop policies for state agencies to
purchase ENERGY STAR-qualified equipment.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Act 141
State Fleets and Fuel Use
Requires the Department of Administration to set renewable energy purchase goals for six agencies
with an overall goal that renewable energy account for 10% of state energy purchases by 2008 and 20%
by 2012.
Georgia Directs state agencies to increase employee commute miles saved by 20% through compressed and
Executive Order 2.28.06.02 alternating work schedules and teleworking.
Best practices for developing and implementing suc-
cessful and cost-effective programs, which are based on
state LBE experiences, are provided in Table ES-6.
LBE GUIDE TOOLS AND RESOURCES
The LBE Guide provides a set of tools and resources to
assist states in developing and implementing their LBE
programs. These include:
Preliminary Assessment Tools. An important task when
developing an LBE program is to screen potential LBE
activities and measures to determine which ones are
most likely to help meet state goals. This can involve
evaluating a building's energy performance, tracking
GHG and air pollution emissions, and calculating
energy and financial savings. Key tools for states to use
8 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
when assessing LBE options are summarized in Table
ES-7. States can use these tools when:
Assessing building performance.
• Developing emissions inventories.
Estimating potential energy savings.
Assessing financial costs and benefits.
Additional Resources. The LBE Guide provides a wealth
of additional resources for states to use as they develop
their LBE programs. These resources are identified and
described throughout the Guide and are summarized,
by subject area in the appendices. Table ES-8 presents
a summary of some of the key resources, organized by
LBE Guide chapter.
-------
TABLE ES-4 SIX KEY LBE ACTIVITIES AND SELECTED STATE EXAMPLES
Activity Summary of Activity
Improve State and local governments are
Energy responsible for more than 16 billion
Efficiency in square feet of building space for
Government a total energy cost of about $11
Facilities billion (U.S. DOE, 2007a). Energy
use in state government facilities
can consume operating budgets
and account for as much as 90%
of a state government's GHG
emissions (Massachusetts, 2004).
Improving energy efficiency in state
government-owned and leased
facilities through a comprehensive
energy management approach
can lead to significant energy,
environmental, economic,
and other benefits. States are
demonstrating annual savings on
the order of $1 million - $15 million
dollars, depending on efficiency
programs and goals.
Selected Examples
Provided in Guide
Wl: Wisconsin Energy Initiative
VA: Energy Efficiency Policy and
Advisory Council
CA: Benchmarking State Facilities
Ml: State Facilities Energy Savings
Plan
MT: 20x10 Initiative
NH: ENERGY STAR Challenge
Participant
OR: Building Commissioning
Program
WA: Building Commissioning
Program
NC: Sustainable Energy Efficient
Buildings Program
CO: Energy Management and
Integrated Energy-Efficient Design
in K-12 Schools
One State Example
Wisconsin used ENERGY STAR tools
and resources to systematically
replace lighting fixtures in state
buildings for its "Wisconsin Energy
Initiative" which resulted in $7.5
million in annual energy cost
savings and an emissions reduction
equivalent to the emissions of
20,000 vehicles in one year. The
state next pursued comprehensive
whole-building retrofits in 60
million square feet of office space
at a cost of $35 million which are
expected to yield $11 million in
annual cost savings with a payback
period of less than four years.
(NASEO, 2006).
Integrate The planning, design, and
Energy construction process for new
Efficiency and and renovated buildings offers
Renewable opportunities to combine energy
Energy efficiency and renewable energy
Measures design features with other measures
in Green that have environmental and
Buildings health benefits (e.g., selecting
sustainable sites, using recycled-
content materials, and landscaping
to reduce water and energy use).
These energy efficiency and
renewable energy measures are key
ways to reduce GHG emissions and
decrease the carbon footprint of
new and renovated state facilities.
NY: "Green and Clean" State
Buildings
AZ: Green Building Policy for Public
Buildings
HI: Lead by Example Initiative
MN: State Sustainable Building
Guidelines
MA: LEED-Plus Standard
NM: Lead by Example Initiative
PA: High Performance Green
Building Program
PA: Cambria State Office Building
OR: Portland Green Building Policy
Wl: Sustainable Facilities Guidelines/
Standards
Wl: Department of Natural
Resources Buildings
DC: Washington, D.C. Green
Building Policy
In New York, state agencies are
required by executive order to
follow LEED guidelines for the
construction of green buildings
and to strive to meet the ENERGY
STAR building criteria for energy
performance. Several of New York's
state agencies have partnered
to develop sustainable design
guidelines, including High-
Performance Design Guidelines
for state college and university
buildings (NYSERDA, 2001; 2005).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide
-------
TABLE ES-4 SIX KEY LBE ACTIVITIES AND SELECTED STATE EXAMPLES (cont.)
Activity Summary of Activity
Procure Energy-efficient product
Energy- procurement can be a cornerstone
Efficient of a state or local government's
Products energy management strategy
and can be particularly helpful
for fostering the development of
in-state markets for clean energy
products. Energy-efficient product
procurement can target products
as they are replaced, with many
energy-efficient products having
little or no cost premium. For
example, many ENERGY STAR-
qualified electronics and office
equipment products can be
purchased with no cost premium,
but produce significant energy cost
savings
Selected Examples
Provided in Guide
MA: Environmentally Preferable
Products Procurement
NY: New York City Energy-Efficient
Product Procurement
One State Example
In FY 2001, Massachusetts spent
$92.5 million on environmentally
preferable products. The cost
savings from the program surpassed
$544,000, with savings from
energy-efficient office equipment
alone accounting for $270,000
(Massachusetts, 2003).
Purchase Green power is electricity produced
Green Power from renewable sources (e.g., wind,
solar, biogas, biomass, low-impact
hydro, and geothermal resources)
that causes no man-made
GHG emissions, has a superior
environmental profile compared
to conventional power generation,
and was built after January 1,1997.a
By choosing to purchase green
power, state governments reduce
reliance on fossil fuel-based energy
(U.S. EPA, 2004a; 2007d) and help
reduce GHG emissions, reduce
vulnerability to conventional energy
price volatility, and improve energy
supply reliability. The price premium
for green power that covers the
increased costs of adding green
power to the power generation
mix varies across the country. In
2006, the national average was
about 2C per kWh (Bird et al., 2007).
Techniques such as aggregated
purchasing can lower this premium
significantly.
ME: Aggregating Green Power
Purchases
PA: Green Power Purchase
Commitment
CT: Green Power Purchases
NJ: Aggregated Green Power
Purchase
MD: Montgomery County Wind
Power Purchase
In Maine, the governor's 2003
energy agenda established a
goal for the state government
to purchase at least 50% of its
electricity from renewable power
sources, using energy efficiency
measures in state buildings to offset
the cost of the renewable energy.
This goal was originally met by a
contract agreement committing
over 800 state agency accounts
under one service agreement. Maine
has now increased its renewable
energy purchase to 100% (DSIRE,
2007).
10 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
TABLE ES-4 SIX KEY LBE ACTIVITIES AND SELECTED STATE EXAMPLES (cont.)
Activity Summary of Activity
Use Clean States are implementing clean
Energy Supply energy generation -such as on-
Technologies site renewable energy generation
and clean DG and CHP - to
provide a clean energy-supply
alternative that reduces GHG and air
pollutant emissions, hedges against
conventional energy price volatility,
improves energy supply reliability,
and can sometimes reduce energy
costs.
Selected Examples
Provided in Guide
AZ: Army Aviation Training Site Solar
Farm
VA: Solar Power at New State
Facilities
UT: Solar Power Demonstration
OR: Solar State Buildings
CA: Solar Technology at State
Facilities
MA: Renewable Energy Initiatives
IL: State Agency CHP Activities
NJ: Solar Power in Public School
District
CA: Solar Power at a University
OH: CHP at Ohio University
TX: CHP at the University of Texas
Wl: CHP at the University of
Wisconsin
MN: CHPat a Wastewater Treatment
Facility
One State Example
Arizona developed a solar farm to
supplement its energy use at the
Army Aviation Training Site. The
$196,000 photovoltaic system
produces 31 kW of electricity, which
has reduced grid-based electricity
purchases by 113,000 kWh, or 31%,
and saves the department $20,000
in annual energy costs (AZDOC,
2006; Arizona, 2007).
Implement
Other Energy-
Saving
Opportunities
Demand response (DR) programs
and environmental activities such
as recycling, water efficiency, and
sustainable landscaping strategies
can also result in significant energy
cost savings.
CT: Demand Response Program
MA: State Sustainability Program
CO: Water Conservation in State
Agencies
MA: Water Consumption Reduction
Goal
As an example of a state DR
program, the Connecticut Office
of Policy and Management (OPM)
administers a Demand Response
Program that coordinates demand
response activities of eleven state
agencies. OPM works with these
agencies to reduce peak electrical
loads during period of high demand
by transferring loads to distributed
generation equipment and reducing
non-essential electrical loads. These
actions enable ISO New England,
the regional grid operator, to avoid
installing additional infrastructure
that would otherwise be needed to
meet demand. As compensation,
ISO New England provides OPM
approximately $300,000 quarterly,
through third-party contractors.
This payment is allocated to
the participating agencies for
reinvestment in clean energy
projects (Connecticut OPM, 2008).
! January 1,1997 is the accepted date marking the beginning of the voluntary green power market.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 11
-------
TABLE ES-5 SUMMARY OF THE LBE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
LBE Activities
and Measures
See Chapter 2
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Improve energy
efficiency in
buildings.
Integrate energy
efficiency and
renewable
energy measures
in green
buildings.
Purchase
energy-efficient
products.
Purchase green
power.
Use a clean
energy supply.
Implement other
energy-saving
activities.
Establish the LBE Program Framework
Establish LBE
Team and
Obtain Support
See Sections 3.1-3.3
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Identify lead and
supporting LBE
clean energy
agencies.
Identify key
personnel.
Identify and
obtain high-level
support.
Identify other
key agencies
and grvoups to
help shape and
implement LBE
programs
Set Clean Energy
Goals
See Section 3.4
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Develop energy
consumption
baseline.
Assess state
context.
Set state LBE
activity goals.
Overall energy
savings and GHG
emission targets.
Existing building
targets.
New building
targets.
Energy-efficient
product
procurement
goals.
Renewable
energy targets.
Energy-efficient
procurement
goals.
State fleet and
fuel use targets.
Implement the
Track, Evaluate,
and Report on
LBE Program
Progress
LBE Program
1 See Chapter 4 See Chapter 5 See Chapter 6
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Governor issues
an executive
order.
State legislature
enacts LBE
legislation.
State establishes
LBE program
through state
planning process.
State energy
office initiates
LBE program.
Other
organizations
adopt programs
that support or
influence the
state's adoption
of an LBE
program.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Screen LBE
activities and
measures from
the universe of
LBE activities.
Develop
criteria.
Estimate costs
Select and
implement LBE
activities and
measures.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Integrate
clean energy
opportunities.
Determine
program
financing.
Conduct
communications
and outreach.
Provide technical
and financial
assistance
to local
governments.
Share
information and
access federal,
state, and local
LBE resources.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Develop tracking,
evaluation, and
reporting plan.
Establish
baselines.
Conduct
benchmarking.
Track energy
use, emissions.
and savings.
Conduct impact,
process, and/or
market effects
evaluations.
Report progress.
Revise program
based on results.
REFERENCES
ACEEE. 2003. Energy Efficiency's Next Generation:
Innovation at the State Level. Report E031. November.
Available: http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e031full.pdf. Ac-
cessed 1/15/2007.
Arizona. 2007. The Executive Budget: Fiscal
Year 2007. Available: http://www.douglasaz.gov/
StateInformation/2007DetailBook.pdf. Accessed
3/20/2007.
12 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Arizona DOC. 2006. State Agency Annual Energy Us-
age Report. Arizona Department of Commerce. June
2006. Available: http://www.azcommerce.com/dodib/
energy/stateagency_energy_progress_report-7.01.06.
pdf. Accessed 3/19/2007.
ASES. 2007. Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency:
Economic Drivers for the 21st Century. November
2007. Available: http://asesprot.0rg//images/stories/
ASES-JobsReport-Final.pdf. Accessed 7/11/2008.
-------
TABLE ES- 6 ELEMENTS OF A
SUCCESSFUL LBE PROGRAM
Build a strong LBE team. A successful LBE
program starts with a team that is com-
mitted to identifying the mix of activities,
measures, and approaches best suited to
the individual state. The process of building
a strong team includes identifying a state
agency to lead the LBE effort and selecting
team representatives, from this and other
state agencies, who can offer a range of
expertise and perspectives (e.g., on facility
management, energy efficiency, renew-
able energy, sustainability, environment).
Partners from outside state government can
also provide valuable input to the LBE imple-
mentation process and/or serve as program
champions in the community.
Secure high-level support. The support of
top-level leadership is critical to an LBE pro-
gram's success. Approaches for building and
maintaining support include involving poli-
cymakers in the early stages of the process,
identifying one or more LBE team members
with access to key decision-makers, and
clearly articulating the value of the LBE
initiative.
Establish goals. Set clear, quantifiable LBE
goals (through executive orders, state laws,
the state planning process, or other state
initiatives) to ensure that stakeholders un-
derstand the expected outcomes, provide
for ease of measurement and reporting, and
demonstrate the feasibility of establishing
clean energy initiatives.
Develop an energy baseline. To ensure that
LBE goals are measurable and achievable,
base them on actual past and current state
energy consumption data and on projected
consumption. This requires collecting state
energy consumption data and information
on issues that affect energy use (e.g., the
number, square footage, and condition of
state facilities; fleet size; and current clean
energy technologies).
Screen LBE options based on energy sav-
ings and other criteria. Develop screening
criteria to determine the LBE activities and
measures to include in the LBE program. Key
criteria include expected energy savings,
financial issues (e.g., payback periods and
life-cycle costs), environmental benefits,
economic benefits, visibility, and feasibility.
1 Implement a systematic approach to en-
ergy efficiency. The most cost-effective
approach for improving energy efficiency
in state buildings is to follow the system-
atic process detailed in the ENERGY STAR
Guidelines for Energy Management. Ideally,
it is best applied across a portfolio of gov-
ernment buildings. If resources are limited,
states can apply the process as a "pilot" in
one or a few buildings and use the results
to advocate for further energy efficiency in
additional state buildings. A systematic ap-
proach to efficiency is a critical element of a
comprehensive LBE program.
Take advantage of available financing
mechanisms. A range of financing strate-
gies is available to states for LBE initiatives.
Because these activities compete for limited
financial resources with many other pro-
grams, it is helpful to use multiple financ-
ing options (e.g., municipal least-purchase
agreements, revolving loan funds, aggre-
gated purchases). In some cases, states need
to modify their rules to ensure that agencies
have access to a broad range of financing
mechanisms (e.g., performance contract-
ing) and accounting methods (e.g., life-cycle
cost accounting).
Conduct communication and outreach.
States can demonstrate leadership and
obtain on-going LBE support from state
agency personnel, the public, and other
community stakeholders by conducting
communication and outreach activities that
articulate the benefits of their program and
encourage participation in, and support for,
the program.
Learn from local, state, and federal sourc-
es. Many state and municipal governments
have implemented LBE programs. Staff from
these agencies - as well as the LBE plans,
model policies, and guidance they have
developed - are key LBE resources. In addi-
tion, federal programs provide resources on
designing and implementing LBE activities.
For example, the ENERGY STAR program
provides guidance and tools for incorporat-
ing energy efficiency in existing and new
buildings.
Evaluate, report on, and update the LBE
program. It is important to periodically
evaluate the state's LBE efforts and report
on the results of these assessments. Based
on evaluation results, states can expand suc-
cessful (and potentially successful) activities
and revise or eliminate unproductive LBE
activities.
Bird, L., L. Dagher, and B. Swezey. 2007. Green Power
Marketing in the United States. NREL/TP-670-42502.
Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/
resourcesfpdfsf42502.pdf. Accessed 3/28/2008.
Choate, A., L. Pederson, J. Scharfenberg. 2005. Waste
Management and Energy Savings: Benefits by the
Numbers. Prepared by ICF Consulting for U.S. EPA.
Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarm-
ing.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/TMAL6GDR3K/$File/
Energy%20Savings.pdf. Accessed 3/19/2007.
Connecticut OPM. 2008. Demand Response Program.
Available: http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.aspfa =
29946-q = 389740. Accessed 5/16/2008.
DSIRE. 2007. Maine Incentives for Renewables and
Efficiency. Database of State Incentives for Renewables
and Energy Efficiency. Available: http://www.dsireusa.
org/library/includes/incentive2. cfm ?Incentive_Code =
MEOSR&state = ME&CurrentPagelD = l&RE = l&EE
= 1. Accessed 3/19/2007.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 13
-------
TABLE ES-7 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT TOOLS
Tools/Organization Description URL/Source
Tools for Assessing Building Performance
Portfolio Manager (ENERGY
STAR)
Target Finder (ENERGY STAR)
Small Business Calculator
(ENERGY STAR)
• Enables states to rate their facilities' energy performance
and identify priority opportunities.
• Assists states in applying for the ENERGY STAR label for
facilities scoring 75 or higher.
Allows states to assess the design of new buildings and
compare simulations with existing buildings, based on data
provided.
• Helps set energy performance goals and receive an energy
rating for design projects.
• Estimates a facility's energy intensity and potential energy
cost savings from upgrades.
Life-Cycle Cost Program Enables states to evaluate alternative designs that may have
(National Institute of Standards/ higher initial costs, using a life-cycle costing method.
Technology)
http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfm?c = evaluate_performance.
bus_portfoliomanager
http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfm?c = new_bldg_design.bus_
target_finder
http://www.energystar.gov/
index.cfm?c = smalLbusiness.
sb_calculate
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/
femp/information/download_
blcc.html
Emission Inventory Tools
Clean Air and Climate Protection
Software (National Association
of Clean Air Agencies)
Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies
Calculator (U.S. EPA)
e-GRID (U.S. EPA)
• Tracks emission reductions and forecasts emissions from
proposed reduction measures.
Develops government baseline inventory.
• Translates GHG reductions into terms that are easier
to conceptualize. States can also use the calculator "in
reverse."
Allows states to obtain information on power plants.
• Develop emissions inventories for buildings.
State Inventory Tool (U.S. EPA; • Enables states to develop GHG emissions inventories
under development)
Emissions Forecasting Tool (U.S. Enables states to forecast business-as-usual emissions
EPA; under development) through 2020
http://www.cacpsoftware.org/
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
energy-resources/calculator.html
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
egrid/index.htm
http://www.epa.gov/
clima techange/wycd/s ta tean d
localgov/analyticaltools.h tml
http://www.epa.gov/
clima techange/wycd/s ta tean d
localgov/analyticaltools.h tml
Energy Saving Tool
Community Energy Opportunity • Helps identify potential community benefits resulting
Finder (Rocky Mountain from energy efficiency upgrades and renewable energy
Institute) opportunities.
Financial and Economic Analysis Tool
Cash Flow Opportunity
Calculator (ENERGY STAR)
Calculates the amount of equipment that can be purchased
using anticipated savings.
Compares costs of financing and waiting for cash.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/
business/cfo_calculator.xls
14 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
TABLE ES-8 KEY RESOURCES FOR DEVELOPING AN LBE PROGRAM
Chapter 2: LBE Activities and Measures
Databases
Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy
DOE State Energy Program
h ttp://www. dsireusa. org/
http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/topic_definition_
detail.cfm/topic = 115
Best Practices Resources
EPA ENERGY STAR Building Upgrade Manual
EPA Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action
EPA Clean Energy-Environment State Partnership Program
Technical Forum
EPA ENERGY STAR Guidelines for Energy Management
National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices
http://www.energystar.gov/index.ct :m?c=business.bus_upgrade_manual
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/state-and-local/
state-best-practices.html
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/state-and-local/
state-forum.html
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm7c = guidelines.guidelines_index
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.50aeae5ff70b817ae8ebb8
56all010aO/
Chapter 3: Establishing the LBE Program Framework
Examples of State Plans and Guidance for Implementing LBE Programs
Connecticut Leading by Example Report
Connecticut Climate Change Web site
Maine Clean Government Web Site
Massachusetts State Agency Sustainability Planning and
Implementation Guide
http://ctclimatechange.com/StateActionPlan.html
h ttp://www. ctclima techange. com/rbf_rep t.html
http://www.maine.gov/cleangovt/
http://www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/pdt Yss_guide_web.pdf
New York "Green and Clean" State Buildings and Vehicles http://www.nyserda.org/programs/State_Government/
Guidelines for Executive Order 111 exorderlllguidelines.pdf
State Executive Orders for Initiating LBE Programs
Massachusetts Executive Order 484
Virginia Executive Order 48
http://www.mass.gov/Agov3/docs/Executive%20Orders/Leading%20
by%20Example%20EO.pdf
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/initiatives/ExecutiveOrders/pdt 7EO_48.
pdf
Resources for Implementing LBE Programs
California Local Energy Efficiency Program Workbook
National Governors' Association Securing A Clean Energy
Future Initiative
http://www.caleep.com/workbook/workbook.htm
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.751bl86f65elOb568a2781
10501010aO/?vgnextoid=f080dd9ebe318110VgnVCM1000001a01010aRC
RD6fvgnextchannel=92ebc7df618a2010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD
Chapter 4: Screening LBE Activities and Measures
California Local Energy Efficiency Program Workbook
Massachusetts State Agency Sustainability Planning and
Implementation Guide
Colorado Greening Government Planning and
Implementation Guide
http://www.caleep.com/workbook/workbook.htm
http://www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/pdf/ss_guide_web.pdf
http://www.colorado.gov/greeninggovernment/guide/Guide.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 15
-------
TABLE ES-8 KEY RESOURCES FOR DEVELOPING AN LBE PROGRAM (cont.)
Chapter 5: Developing a Comprehensive LBE Program
EPA ENERGY STAR Innovative Financing Solutions: Finding
Money for Your Energy Efficiency Projects
New York "Green And Clean" State Buildings and Vehicles
Guidelines
Green California Web site
Colorado Greening Government Web site
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/COO-CFO_Paper_final.pdf
http://www.nyserda.org/programs/State_Government/
exorderlllguidelines.pdf
h ttp://www.green.ca.gov/defaulth tm
h ttp://www.colorado.gov/greeninggovernmen t/index.h tml
Chapter 6: Tracking, Evaluating, and Reporting LBE Program Progress
EPA Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation
Guide
LBNL Measurement and Verification Documents
California Technical, Methodological, and Reporting
Requirements for Evaluation Professionals
DOE Impact Evaluation Framework for Technology
Deployment Programs
New York Executive Order No. Ill "Green And Clean" State
Buildings and Vehicles Annual Energy Report
http://www.epa. gov/cleanenergy/documents/evaluation_guide.pdf
h ttp://a team, lbl.gov/mv/
http://www.calmac.org/publications/EvaluatorsProtocols_Final_
AdoptedviaRuling_06-19-2006.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/km_portal/docs/pdf/2007/impact_
framework_tech_deploy_2007_main.pdf
http://www.nyserda.org/programs/pdfs/execorderlllfinalreport7-03.pdf
Harris, J., M. Brown, J. Deakin, S. Jurovics, A. Khan,
E. Wisniewski, J. Mapp, B. Smith, M. Podeszwa,
A. Thomas. 2004. Energy-Efficient Purchasing by
State and Local Government Triggering a Landslide
Down the Slippery Slope to Market Transformation.
ACEEE Summer Study. Available: http://www.dc.lbl.
gov/LBNLDC/publications/Energy%20Effident%20
Purchasing%20By%20State%20and%20Local%20
Government.pdf. Accessed 3/19/2007.
Huang, J., H. Akbari, and H. Taha. 1990. The wind-
shielding and shading effects of trees on residential
heating and cooling requirements. Proceedings of
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air
Conditioning Engineers, February 1990, Atlanta, GA.
Also Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report
LBL-24131, Berkeley, CA.
Hull. 2008. Hull Wind. Available: http://www.hull-
wind.org/. Accessed 1/29/2008.
16 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Kats, G., L. Alevantis, A. Berman, E. Mills, and J.
Perlman. 2003. The Costs and Financial Benefits of
Green Buildings. A Report to California's Sustainable
Building Task Force. October 2003. Available: http://
www.ciwmb.ca.gov/GreenBuilding/Design/CostBen-
efit/Report.pdf. Accessed 4/27/2007.
LBNL. 2002. Potential Energy ,Cost, and CO2 Saving
from Energy-Efficient Government Purchasing. Avail-
able: http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/govern-
ment_purchasing.pdf. Accessed 10/8/2007.
Manwell, J. F., J. G. McGowan, A. Rogers, A. Ellis,
S. Wright, M. Brown, J. MacLeod. American Wind
Energy Association. 2003. Wind Turbine Siting In An
Urban Environment: the Hull, MA 660 kW Turbine,
Conference Proceedings.
Massachusetts. 2003. Program Assessment for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Environmentally
Preferable Products Procurement Program. Final
Draft. Available: http://www.mass.gov/Aosd/docs/
EPP/EPP%20Program%20Assessment%20Final%20
Report%20Dec02.doc. Accessed 1/15/2007.
-------
Massachusetts. 2004. Massachusetts Climate Action
Plan. Available: http://www.newamerica.net/files/MA-
CHmateProtPlan0504.pdf Accessed 7/14/2008.
NAPEE. 2006. National Action Plan for Energy Ef-
ficiency. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
energy-programs/napee/resources/action-plan.html.
Accessed 4/17/2008.
NAPEE. 2007. National Action Plan for Energy Ef-
ficiency: Vision for 2025. Available: http://www.epa.
gov/cleanenergy/documents/vision.pdf. Accessed
4/17/2008.
NASEO. 2006. Case Studies. Available: http://www.
naseo. org/tforces/energystar/casestudies/. Accessed
1/12/2007.
Renewable Energy Research Lab (RERL). 2006. Uni-
versity of Massachusetts at Amherst. Wind Power on
the Community Scale: Community Wind Case Study,
Hull. Available: http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/
RERL_Case_Study_Hull_Wind_One.pdf. Accessed:
6/30/08.
•U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. Federal, State, and Local
Governments; Table 1. State and Local Government
Finances by Level of Government and by State: 2005-
06. July 2008. Available: http://www.census.gov/govs/
estimate/0600ussl_l.html Accessed: 7/14/2008.
U.S. DOE. 2004. Additional Financing Sources and
Considerations. Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/info/plan/financing/additional. html. Ac-
cessed 4/17/2008.
NYSERDA. 2001. New York State. Executive Order 111
Web site. Available: http://www.nyserda.org/programs/
exorderlll.asp. Accessed 12/12/2006.
NYSERDA. 2005. Executive Order 111 Annual Energy
Report. Available: http://www.nyserda.org/programs/
pdfs/execorderl 1 Ifinalreportll-05.pdf. Accessed
2/28/2008.
U.S. DOE. 2006. The Green Power Network. Green
Power Markets, http://www.eere.energy.gov/green-
power/markets/index.shtml. Accessed 4/30/2007. Note:
Updated from U.S. DOE. 2006a.
•U.S. DOE. 2007a. State Energy Program: Projects by
Topic — What Are State and Local Government Facil-
ity Projects in the States? Available: http://www.eere.
energy.gov/state_energy_program/topic_definition_de-
tailcfm/topic = 115. Accessed 4/17/2008.
U.S. DOE. 2007b. Benefits of Whole-Building Design.
Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/high-
performance/design_approach.html#l>enefits. Accessed
2/26/2008.
• U.S. EPA. 2004a. Guide to Purchasing Green Power.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/buygreen-
power/guide.htm. Accessed 7/6/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2004b. Building Upgrade Manual. Available:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc = business.
bus_upgrade_manual. Accessed 1/12/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2005a. EPA State Clean Energy-Environment
Technical Forum. Call #11: High Performance Green
Buildings: Public Sector Opportunities for Cost-Effec-
tive Energy and Environmental Benefits. November 10.
http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/12_8High%20
Perf%20Green%20Bldgs%20Background_Final.doc
U.S. EPA. 2005b. Waste Management and Energy Sav-
ings. Avaialble: http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/
waste/downloads/Energy%20Savings.pdf. Accessed
4/18/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2006. Clean-Energy Environment Guide to
Action. Policies, Best Practices, and Action Steps for
States. Available:.. Accessed 4/10/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2007a. Clean Energy: Air Emissions. Avail-
able: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/
affect/air-emissions.html. Accessed 1/23/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2007b. CHP Efficiency Benefits. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/chp/basic/efficiency.html. Accessed
8/8/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2007c. 2006 ENERGY STAR Achievements
in Brief. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/part-
ners/pt_awards/2006_Achievements_Overview.pdf.
Accessed 2/21/2008.
•U.S. EPA. 2007d. What is Renewable Energy? Avail-
able: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/whatis/renew-
ableenergy.htm. Accessed 7/25/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2008. Key Benefits of ENERGY STAR Prod-
ucts. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc
= bulk_purchasing.bus_purchasing_key_benefits. Ac-
cessed 1/23/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008a. Air Emissions. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-
emissions.html. Accessed 3/28/2008.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 17
-------
U.S. EPA. 2008b. Green Choices Grow with ENERGY
STAR Qualified Buildings. Available: http://yosemite.
epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/lef7cd36224b56578525735
9003f533f/l el 56a04a68baa30852573ed005bea4e!Ope
nDocument. Accessed 5/8/2008.
• U.S. EPA. 2008c. Greenhouse Gas Equivalences Cal-
culator. Available: http://www.epa.gov/deanenergy/
energy-resources/'calculator.html. Accessed (at former
location - Climate Technology Cooperation Gateway
http://www.usctcgateway.net/tool/): 12/14/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2008d. Water and Energy: Leveraging Volun-
tary Programs to Save Both Water and Energy. March.
Prepared for the Climate Protection Partnerships Divi-
sion. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/
publications/pubdocs/Final%20Report%20Mar%20
2008.pdf. Accessed: 7/18/2008.
U.S. EPA. Undated. ENERGY STAR in Local and
State Government — Good for Your Budget and the
Environment. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/
ia/business/bulk_purchasing/Govt_FactSheet.pdf. Ac-
cessed 4/17/2008.
Watergy. 2002. Watergy: Taking Advantage of Un-
tapped Energy and Water Efficiency Opportunities
in Municipal Water Systems. Available: http://www.
watergy.org/resources/publications/watergysummary.
pdf. Accessed 4/19/2007.
Wiser, R., M. Bolinger, and M. St. Clair. 2005. Easing
the Natural Gas Crisis: Reducing Natural Gas Prices
through Increased Deployment of Renewable Energy
and Energy Efficiency. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Prepared for U.S. DOE. Available: http://
www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/Febru-
ary/assets/Natural-Gas.pdf. Accessed 3/19/2007.
18 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Many state governments are
pursuing clean energy Lead by
Example (LBE) programs to save
energy and money and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions across
their facilities, operations, and fleets.
These LBE programs also demonstrate leadership on
energy and environmental issues, raise public aware-
ness of the benefits of clean energy technologies, im-
prove air quality, improve energy supply and reliability,
and foster markets for environmentally preferable
products and services.
The LBE Guide provides information to assist state
governments as they develop and implement effective
LBE programs to achieve clean energy goals. It presents
strategies, resources, and tools that state decision mak-
ers can use throughout the process.
State governments across the nation are pursuing clean
energy policies and programs to help meet the growing
demand for energy and to address the environmental,
public health, and financial challenges associated with
conventional energy generation and use. Advancing
clean energy can provide many benefits including
reduced energy costs, lower emissions of air pollutants
and greenhouse gases (GHGs), increased fuel diversity,
and improved reliability and security of the energy
system (U.S. EPA, 2006b).
A key strategy for state governments is implementing
clean energy activities and measures in their facilities,
WHAT IS CLEAN ENERGY?
Clean energy includes demand- and supply-side
resources that are less polluting ways to meet energy
demand. Clean energy resources include:
Energy efficiency - refers to using less energy to
provide the same or improved level of service to the
energy consumer in an economically efficient way.
Energy efficiency measures include a wide variety of
technologies and processes, and can be implemented
across all major energy-consuming sectors.
Renewable energy - energy generated partially or
entirely from non-depleting energy sources for direct
end use or electricity generation. Renewable energy
definitions vary by state, but usually include wind, solar,
and geothermal energy. Some states also consider low-
impact or small hydro, biomass, biogas, and waste-to-
energy to be renewable energy sources. Renewable
energy can be generated on site or at a central station.
Combined heat and power (CHP) - also known as
cogeneration, CHP is a clean, efficient technology that
improves the conversion efficiency of traditional energy
systems by using waste heat from electricity generation
to produce thermal energy for heating or cooling in
commercial or industrial facilities. CHP systems typically
achieve 60% to 75% fuel use efficiencies, which is a
significantly higher than those of conventional power
plants.
Clean distributed generation (DG) - refers to non
centralized—usually small-scale—renewable energy and
CHP.
For more information, visit the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Clean Energy Web site (http://www.epa.gov/
cleanenergy) and the ENERGY STAR Web site (http://www.
energystar.gov/).
CHAPTER ONE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 19
-------
operations, and fleets. These "lead by example" (LBE)
programs frequently include actions such as:
Improving how buildings are operated and maintained
to maximize energy efficiency,
Procuring energy-efficient products, and
Purchasing green power.
In addition to the energy, environmental, and financial
benefits of LBE programs, states are demonstrating
leadership on clean energy issues and documenting
the economic feasibility of clean energy strategies. This
helps to develop markets for clean energy technologies
and services, raises awareness of clean energy oppor-
tunities, and promotes the adoption of clean energy
measures in other sectors of the state economy.
To pursue these benefits, states may need to overcome
several persistent market barriers that limit investment
in clean energy programs. These barriers include:
Limited knowledge about clean energy or LBE
programs,
Limited high-level and agency-level support,
Insufficient funding, and
Insufficient staff availability.
THE LBE GUIDE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
While the LBE Guide is designed primarily to assist states
in planning, implementing, developing, and operating
comprehensive LBE programs, local governments can also
benefit from the Guide. Like states, municipalities are also
actively involved in developing clean energy LBE programs,
although specific program activities and issues may differ.
While this Guide focuses on how states can develop LBE
programs, it also highlights examples of local LBE activities that
states can adopt and describes how certain state activities are
relevant to local governments.
The Lead by Example Guide is designed to help states
overcome these barriers. It provides a compilation of
information to assist governments in developing their
LBE programs, including step-by-step guidance, ex-
amples of successful state and local LBE programs, and
resources and tools targeted at key LBE activities. An
overview of the LBE Guide is presented in this section
and includes:
Background on the importance of LBE programs as
part of state clean energy efforts,
The key LBE activities that state governments are suc-
cessfully implementing,
The major benefits associated with LBE programs, and
An overview of how the Guide is structured and the
LBE program development and implementation pro-
cess, and
A list of the state and local government examples pro-
vided in the LBE Guide.
1.1 LBE IS A CRITICAL
STATE CLEAN ENERGY POLICY
Leading by example is a key policy option for states
seeking to achieve clean energy goals. The LBE Guide
is an important next step in EPAs efforts to assist states
as they develop clean energy strategies for their own
facilities and operations. It extends and supports two
other recent state policy assistance documents:
EPAs Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action,
which describes and provides information on sixteen
clean energy policies, including LBE (U.S. EPA, 2006).
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (Action
Plan), which is a private-public initiative designed to
overcome barriers to energy efficiency. The Action
Plans implementation framework - the Vision for 2025
- defines ten implementation goals for achieving all
cost-effective energy efficiency by 2025, recognizes LBE
programs as an important component of this goal, and
uses the presence of a strong state LBE program as an
indication of progress towards achieving this goal (see
text box on page 1-3) (NAPEE, 2006, NAPEE, 2007).
The Vision also highlights the value of LBE strategies
as an option for leveraging purchasing power, control
of significant energy-using resources, and the high vis-
ibility of public facilities to demonstrate clean energy
technologies and approaches that lower energy costs
and reduce emissions. It further stresses that strong
LBE programs involve establishing goals and processes
necessary for program implementation and periodic
reporting on progress.
The LBE Guide is offered as a tool to assist states and
local governments in making progress towards their
goals, consistent with the goals and recommendations
of these documents.
20 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER ONE
-------
1.2 WHAT STATE
GOVERNMENTS CAN DO
State LBE activities typically fall into one of the fol-
lowing areas:
1. Improve the energy efficiency of existing and
new government-owned and -leased facilities.
State governments operate many facilities, including
office buildings, public schools, colleges, and universi-
ties, which consume large amounts of energy. These
governments are responsible for more than 16 billion
square feet of building space and spend more than $11
billion annually on building energy costs, which can
account for as much as 10% of a typical government's
annual operating budget (U.S. DOE, 2007). Improving
energy efficiency in these structures can substantially
reduce energy consumption, decrease GHG and air
pollutant emissions, and lead to economic and other
benefits. In addition, states can assist local govern-
ments, which can, in turn, reach out to assist their
communities in improving building energy efficiency.
2. Integrate energy efficiency and renewable energy
measures in green buildings. The planning, design,
and construction process for new and renovated build-
ings offers opportunities to integrate energy efficiency
features with additional measures that achieve envi-
ronmental and health benefits (e.g., purchasing green
power, developing on-site renewable energy, selecting
sustainable sites, using recycled-content materials,
and landscaping to reduce water and energy use).
Implementing energy efficiency and renewable energy
measures are key ways to reduce GHG emissions and
decrease the carbon footprint of new state facilities.
By making this link between energy efficiency, renew-
able energy, and climate change, states are in a better
position to achieve results and gain support for their
programs.
3. Procure energy-efficient products. Energy-efficient
product procurement can be a cornerstone of a state's
overall energy management strategy. State and lo-
cal governments spend $50 to $70 billion a year to
purchase energy-related products, and could save a
combined total of more than $750 million annually
through energy-efficient product procurement (GEE,
2004; Harris et al., 2004; U.S. DOE, 2006.) This can be
particularly helpful for fostering the development of
in-state markets for clean energy products.
THE NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND VISION FOR 2025: ACHIEVING ALL
COST-EFFECTIVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY BY 2025
The National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (Action
Plan) recognizes that improving energy efficiency in
our homes, businesses, schools, governments, and
industries - which consume more than 70% of the
natural gas and electricity needs in the country - is
one of the most constructive, cost-effective ways
to address our nation's energy challenges. The
Action Plan, developed in July 2006 by more than 50
leading organizations representing key stakeholder
perspectives, describes policy recommendations for
creating a sustainable, aggressive national commitment
to energy efficiency through gas and electric utilities,
utility regulators, and partner organizations.
In 2007, Action Plan leaders defined a vision that
provides the framework for implementing the Action
Plan. This Vision establishes a goal of achieving all
cost-effective energy efficiency by 2025; describes
ten implementation goals for states, utilities, and other
stakeholders; describes what 2025 might look like if the
goal is achieved; and provides a means for measuring
progress. The ten Vision goals are:
1. Establish cost-effective energy efficiency as a high-
priority resource.
2. Develop processes to align utilities incentives equally for
efficiency and supply resources.
3. Establish cost-effectiveness tests.
4. Establish evaluation, measurement, and verification
mechanisms.
5. Establish effective energy efficiency delivery
mechanisms.
6. Develop state policies to ensure robust energy efficiency
practices.
Key step: Develop and implement lead-by-example
energy efficiency programs at the state and local levels.
7. Align customer pricing and incentives to encourage
investment in energy efficiency.
8. Establish state of the art billing systems.
9. Implement state of the art efficiency information sharing
and delivery systems.
10. Implement advanced technologies.
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/
vision.pdf
CHAPTER ONE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 21
-------
4. Purchase green power. Green power is electricity pro-
duced from renewable sources (e.g., wind, solar, biogas,
biomass, low-impact hydro, and geothermal resources)
that is produced with no man-made GHG emissions,
has a superior environmental profile compared to con-
ventional power generation, and was built after January
1, 1997.1 By choosing to purchase green power, states
can reduce reliance on conventional fossil fuel-based
energy, which can help stabilize energy prices and
reduce GHG emissions. Increased use of green power
WISCONSIN EFFICIENT BUYS PROGRAM-
VENDORNET SYSTEM
The Wisconsin VendorNet system serves as the purchasing
authority for the state. Additionally, VendorNet allows for
cooperative purchasing by counties, cities, school districts,
and utility districts. These entities are provided with access
to state bids and contracts through a common Web site that
is monitored by the Department of Administration's Energy
Division staff. Staff members work with purchasing agents to
specify ENERGY STAR-qualified products, where available.
Source: Harris et al, 2004; Wisconsin, 2008.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND-
WIND POWER PURCHASE
In 2004, Montgomery County, Maryland represented a group
of six county agencies, 11 municipalities, and a neighboring
county in completing the largest ever local government
purchase of wind energy. The agreement with Washington Gas
Services and their wind energy supplier. Community Energy,
Inc., is for more than 38.4 million kWh annually over two years,
representing 5% of the group's aggregate energy demand.
The deal will produce significant environmental benefits. The
emissions avoided through this purchase include over 19,000
metric tons of CO2 (equivalent to 36 million miles not driven)
and 43 tons of NOx (equivalent to 2.9 million trees).
Sources: Montgomery County, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2007.
CONNECTICUT DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM
The Connecticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM)
administers a Demand Response Program that coordinates
demand response activities among eleven state agencies.
OPM works with these agencies to reduce peak electrical
loads during period of high demand by transferring loads
to distributed generation equipment and reducing non-
essential electrical loads. These actions enable ISO New
England, the regional grid operator, to avoid installing
additional infrastructure that would otherwise be needed to
meet demand. As compensation, ISO New England provides
OPM approximately $430,000 quarterly, through third-party
contractors. This payment is allocated to the participating
agencies for reinvestment in clean energy projects
Source: Connecticut OPM, 2008.
can also provide economic benefits and improve na-
tional security.
5. Use clean energy supply technologies. Clean energy
generation technologies, such as on-site wind and pho-
tovoltaic (PV) systems and clean DG and CHP, provide
a clean energy alternative to conventional fuels that
reduces the amount of energy lost in transmission from
source to site, thereby reducing total energy demand,
and lowers emissions of GHG and air pollutants. In-
creasing use of clean energy supply can also help state
governments hedge against volatile fossil fuel-based
energy prices.
6. Implement other energy-saving opportunities.
Implementing other environmental activities, such as
recycling, water efficiency, and sustainable landscaping
activities, frequently has the secondary effect of reduc-
ing energy use. For example, using products made
from recycled or renewable materials through non-
energy-intensive methods can prevent unnecessary
depletion of natural resources and reduce the energy
required to manufacture new products and dispose
of used ones. Improving the efficiency of water and
wastewater treatment systems can reduce the amount
of energy needed to convey, treat, and distribute water.
In addition, some states are reducing energy costs and
improving energy system reliability by incorporating
demand response activities as part of their strategic ap-
proach to energy management. These activities involve
changing electricity use patterns in order to reduce de-
mand during times of peak energy use or when electric-
ity system reliability is uncertain. States can sometimes
earn additional revenue through payments from utili-
ties and grid operators as compensation for the system
reliability benefits of their demand response activities.
These LBE activities are described in more detail in
Chapter 2: Lead By Example Activities and Measures
and Appendix B: State and Local Clean Energy LBE
Programs: Examples, Tools, and Information Resources..
Beyond these six stationary-source energy efficiency
and clean energy supply LBE activities, there are
opportunities for states to lead by example in the
transportation sector, which in some states (e.g.,
California) can account for more than 50% of the state
government's energy expenditures. State LBE trans-
portation policies and initiatives include increasing the
use of alternative fuels, purchasing efficient vehicles
for state fleets, developing a fueling infrastructure for
22 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER ONE
-------
alternative fuel vehicles, and encouraging commut-
ing options such as ride-sharing and mass transit.
For more information about EPA's transportation
programs, policies, regulations, and tools, visit the EPA
Office of Transportation and Air Quality Planning's
State and Local Transportation Resources Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/index.htm)
(U.S. EPA, 2006b; U.S. EPA, 2006C).1
1.3 BENEFITS OF LBE PROGRAMS
Clean energy LBE programs can produce significant
energy, environmental, economic, and other benefits
for state governments. Specifically, LBE activities can
help states to:
Demonstrate leadership. Clean energy LBE programs
can educate policymakers and stakeholders and raise
public awareness about the multiple energy, environ-
mental, and economic benefits that clean energy offers.
Governments that practice good energy management
are demonstrating a proactive approach to addressing
the nation's energy challenge while practicing fiscal
responsibility.
Reduce energy consumption and costs.2 State govern-
ments have implemented a variety of clean energy LBE
activities that are saving energy. In many buildings,
energy efficiency upgrades can reduce energy costs by
35%, while designing new and renovated buildings to
achieve superior energy performance can lead to energy
savings of as much as 50% when compared to conven-
tional buildings (U.S. EPA, 2008b; U.S. EPA, 2004).
EXAMPLES: In North Carolina, from fiscal year (FY)
2002 through 2006 the North Carolina Utility Savings
Initiative for State Facilities saved the state an estimated
$53 million through a number of energy investments,
including energy efficiency measures that saved almost
$900,000 for switching to LED traffic lights and $3 mil-
lion for incorporating a bundle of energy efficiency mea-
sures recommended by the State Energy Office (North
Carolina, 2007).
In New York, an executive order in 2003 directed
state facilities to achieve a 35% reduction in energy
January 1, 1997 is the accepted date marking the beginning of the voluntary
green power market.
Throughout the LEE Guide, energy savings resulting from clean energy LEE
programs and activities are expressed in terms of total dollars (i.e., energy cost
savings in $) and/or kilowatt hours (i.e., energy savings in kWh), depending
on the source of information.
consumption by 2010 relative to 1990 levels. By the end
of FY 2001/2002, state agencies had reduced energy con-
sumption by 9%, saving $52 million in FY 2001/2002
alone (New York, 2003).
Reduce GHG emissions and air pollutants. Energy
use in commercial and industrial facilities account
for nearly 50% of all U.S. GHG emissions (U.S. EPA,
2008b). By implementing clean energy activities to
decrease their use of conventional fossil fuel-based
energy, state governments can reduce their emissions
of GHGs and air pollutants (e.g., sulfur and nitrogen
compounds, ozone precursors, particulate matter) as-
sociated with fossil fuel combustion.
EXAMPLE: A 660 kW wind turbine at the Massachu-
setts Maritime Academy, which supplies 25% of the
academy's electricity demand, help avoid 556 tons of
GHG emissions (Massachusetts EOEA, 2006).
Foster markets for energy-efficient products and en-
courage economic development in local and regional
communities. Clean energy LBE activities support the
development of in-state markets for clean energy prod-
ucts, manufacturers, and services (e.g., energy service
companies, renewable energy equipment installers, and
energy-efficient product manufacturers). In addition,
investing in energy efficiency and local clean energy
typically provides a greater economic stimulus to the
local economy than traditional energy purchases,
particularly when that energy comes from out of state.
Energy cost savings resulting from energy efficiency
are also available to reinvest and further spur local
economic development. State governments can provide
ASSESSING THE MULTIPLE BENEFITS OF CLEAN ENERGY
EPA is currently developing guidance for state energy,
environmental, and economic policy makers on assessing the
many benefits of clean energy. This guidebook will address
energy savings, energy system benefits, environmental quality
and related human health benefits, and economic benefits of
clean energy. While they are sometimes reported in qualitative
terms, these benefits can also be estimated using computer
simulations of a state's economy (e.g., job creation, reduction
in trade deficits), public health models (e.g., reductions in
asthma), and other analytic tools.
Assessing the Multiple Benefits of Clean Energy, will describe
each type of benefit; present methods, tools, and resources for
estimating each type of benefit; and provide information on
how states can use the results to build support for their clean
energy programs.
Source: U.S. EPA, Forthcoming.
CHAPTER ONE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 23
-------
a starting point for broader implementation of these
clean energy technologies and practices.
Offer improved energy supply reliability. Many LBE
activities are designed to reduce demand or enhance
distributed supply during periods of peak demand.
Reducing demand at peak demand times is sensible
financially (i.e., due to significantly higher on-peak
energy or power demand costs) and improves trans-
mission and distribution system reliability.
EXAMPLE: Twice during the summer of 2002, the New
York State Public Service Commission (PSC) requested
state entities to curtail their energy demand during the
day to help avoid brownouts and blackouts. Agencies
were able to reduce peak load by approximately 100
MW during these times of strain on the electric grid. The
PSC load-curtailment campaign is an important compo-
nent of the state's efforts to assure reliable electric service
for all New Yorkers (New York, 2003).
Offer greater energy price certainty. Using a clean en-
ergy supply can provide more reliable energy services
and help government energy consumers hedge against
uncertain future energy costs and availability (U.S.
EPA, 2006b).
EXAMPLE: Electricity from renewable sources provide
100% of state government needs in Maine, making state
government less susceptible to price volatility that may
accompany future constrained supply of conventional
fossil fuels (DSIRE, 2007).
Reducing demand for conventional energy can also
reduce energy prices, which is a special concern in
areas where sales-volume-sensitive gas prices have been
steadily increasing. According to one estimate, for every
1% reduction in national natural gas demand, natural
gas prices decrease by 0.8% to 2% (Wiser et al., 2005).
Promote sustainable alternatives to conventional
practices. By implementing other energy and environ-
mental activities that complement LBE clean energy
activities, states can achieve secondary energy savings
benefits. For example, coordinating LBE activities with
waste management, water treatment, and other state
programs can lead to energy savings due to the energy
benefits of recycling, solid waste reduction, water
conservation, and landscaping strategies. In terms of
recycling, the amount of energy saved from recycling
one ton of office paper or one ton of aluminum cans is
equal to more than 10 million BTU and nearly 207 mil-
lion BTU, respectively (Choate et al., 2005).
EXAMPLE-. In North Carolina, reported purchases of
recycled content office paper by state agencies totaled
$12 million in 2005. This effort conserved 115,000 trees
and reduced the CO2 equivalent of 900 cars while sav-
ing enough BTUs to supply energy to 900 homes (North
Carolina DENR, 2005).
Provide other benefits. Clean energy LBE programs
can sometimes produce additional benefits, including:
Improved indoor air quality and productivity in
energy-efficient and green buildings. Energy efficiency
upgrades can improve occupant health by enhancing
indoor air quality. Installing energy recovery ventila-
tion equipment, for example, can reduce infiltration
of air contaminants from outdoors while significantly
reducing HVAC energy loads (U.S. EPA, 2003). One
study on building performance found that the aver-
age reduction in illness as a result of improving air
quality in buildings is approximately 40% (Carnegie
Mellon, 2005).
Enhanced indoor air quality along with well-
designed lighting, greater use of daylighting, and
comfortable heating, cooling, and ventilation, can
improve employee comfort and reduce fatigue, ac-
cidents, absenteeism, turnover, and health costs—all
of which can contribute to employee morale and pro-
ductivity (U.S. EPA, 2008). Use of environmentally
preferable building materials in green buildings can
also help improve indoor air quality.
Increased Asset Value in Energy-Efficient Build-
ings. Improving energy efficiency can increase a
building's lifetime and overall value. EPA estimates
that for every $1 spent on energy efficiency improve-
ments, a building's value increases by $2 to $3 (U.S.
EPA, 2004). In addition, energy-efficient products of-
ten have longer lifetimes than conventional products.
Reduced Maintenance Costs in Energy-Efficient
Buildings. Because energy-efficient products may
require less-frequent maintenance or replacement,
cost savings over the lifetime of the product can be
significant. Reducing the number of times a product
needs to be replaced can be especially important
when replacement involves handling valuable or
antique items, which can be found in many state
government facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004).
24 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER ONE
-------
1.4 OVERVIEW OF THE
LBE GUIDE AND THE LBE
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
States can use the LBE Guide to initiate or expand
an LBE program with the objective of establishing a
comprehensive LBE program across their buildings,
facilities, and operations. They can use the LBE Guide
for guidance on both simple and more complex ap-
proaches, selecting and applying strategies appropri-
ate to their situation. The steps involved in the LBE
process, and specific actions states can undertake to
achieve each of the steps are illustrated in Table 1.4.1.
These key steps include
Establish the program framework;
Screen LBE activities and measures;
Develop a comprehensive program; and
Track, evaluate, and report on program progress.
The Guide includes strategies, resources, and tools for
states to use throughout this process. Table 1.4.2 de-
scribes how one state, Connecticut, has followed these
steps in developing its clean energy LBE program.
A list of all the state and local government examples
provided in the Guide through text boxes and case
studies is provided in Table 1.4.3. These examples are
organized according to the step in the LBE process that
they address and by section of the Guide.
The Guide is organized as follows:
Chapter 2, LBE Activities and Measures, introduces
key background information on benefits and imple-
mentation issues associated with six key types of LBE
activities. Information on the specific measures that
comprise an LBE activity is provided where appropri-
ate. The information and examples provided in this
chapter can help inform decisions at multiple stages in
the LBE program development process, described in
subsequent chapters.
Chapter 3, Establishing the LBE Program Framework,
describes the first steps in establishing a framework for
a comprehensive LBE program, including selecting an
LBE team and other key participants, obtaining high
level support, setting goals, and initiating the program.
Chapter 4, Screening LBE Activities and Measures,
provides information on assessing the universe
OVERVIEW OF CONTENTS OF THE
LEAD BY EXAMPLE GUIDE
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
LU
u
CHAPTER TWO
Potential LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER THREE
Establish the LBE Program Framework
CHAPTER FOUR
Screen LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER FIVE
Develop LBE Program
CHAPTER SIX
Track, Evaluate, and Report on Progress
Appendix A:
State Executive Orders, Legislation, Policies, and Plans
Initiating LBE Programs
Appendix B:
State and Local Clean Energy LBE Programs: Examples,
Tools, and Information Resources
Appendix C:
Resources for Implementing LBE Programs
Appendix D:
Resources for Funding LBE Programs
Appendix E:
Resources for Conducting Communications and
Outreach for LBE Programs
Appendix F:
Resources on Technical and Financial Assistance to
Local Governments
Appendix G:
State LBE Programs and Contacts
Appendix H:
State LBE Tracking Tools and
Resources
Appendix I:
M&V Protocols and Guidance
Appendix J:
Resources for Reporting the Results of
LBE Programs
CHAPTER ONE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 25
-------
TABLE 1.4.1 SUMMARY OF THE LBE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
LBE Activities
and Measures
See Chapter 2
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Improve energy
efficiency in
buildings.
Integrate energy
efficiency and
renewable
energy measures
in green
buildings.
Purchase
energy-efficient
products.
Purchase green
power.
Use a clean
energy supply.
Implement other
energy-saving
activities.
Establish the LBE Program Framework
Establish LBE
Team and
Obtain Support
See Sections 3.1-3.3
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Identify lead and
supporting LBE
clean energy
agencies.
Identify key
personnel.
Identify and
obtain high-level
support.
Identify other
key agencies
and grvoups to
help shape and
implement LBE
programs
Set Clean Energy
Goals
See Section 3.4
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Develop energy
consumption
baseline.
Assess state
context.
Set state LBE
activity goals.
Overall energy
savings and GHG
emission targets.
Existing building
targets.
New building
targets.
Energy-efficient
product
procurement
goals.
Renewable
energy targets.
Energy-efficient
procurement
goals.
State fleet and
fuel use targets.
Establish
Mechanisms to
Implement the
LBE Program
Screen LBE
Activities and
Measures
1 See Chapter 4
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Governor issues
an executive
order.
State legislature
enacts LBE
legislation.
State establishes
LBE program
through state
planning process.
State energy
office initiates
LBE program.
Other
organizations
adopt programs
that support or
influence the
state's adoption
of an LBE
program.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Screen LBE
activities and
measures from
the universe of
LBE activities.
Develop
criteria.
Estimate costs
and benefits.
Select and
implement LBE
activities and
measures.
Develop a
Comprehensive
LBE Program
Track, Evaluate,
and Report on
LBE Program
Progress
See Chapter 5 See Chapter 6
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Integrate
clean energy
opportunities.
Determine
program
financing.
Conduct
communications
and outreach.
Provide technical
and financial
assistance
to local
governments.
Share
information and
access federal,
state, and local
LBE resources.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Develop tracking,
evaluation, and
reporting plan.
Establish
baselines.
Conduct
benchmarking.
Track energy
use, emissions,
and savings.
Conduct impact,
process, and/or
market effects
evaluations.
Report progress.
Revise program
based on results.
of LBE activities and measures to formulate a portfolio
of high-priority LBE activities and measures.
Chapter 5, Developing a Comprehensive LBE Program
discusses key design and implementation issues for
states to consider as they develop their LBE programs,
including integrating multiple LBE activities, financing
the LBE program, conducting communications and
outreach, and providing technical and financial assis-
tance to local governments.
Chapter 6, Tracking, Evaluating, and Reporting LBE
Program Progress, provides information on how to
track, evaluate, and report on the performance of LBE
programs and activities.
The LBE Guide's appendices provide examples, re-
sources, and tools that can assist state governments in
developing an effective LBE program.
26 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER ONE
-------
DEVELOPING A STATE CLEAN
ENERGY LBE PROGRAM:
CONNECTICUT CASE STUDY
Connecticut's LBE program was developed
as an integral part of the Climate Change
Action Plan, the blueprint for achieving cost-
effective GHG emissions reductions across
the state. The Governor's Steering Commit-
tee recognized the importance of including
a strong LBE component in the plan and
stated that "only by leading by example can
the state of Connecticut encourage its cor-
porations and residents to make comparable
decisions" (Connecticut 2002).
A summary of the process involved in devel-
oping the Climate Change Action Plan, with
specific reference to the LBE components of
this plan, is presented below.
Getting Started: Initiate Program Planning
Framework and Set Goals Connecticut's
LBE program got its start in 2002 when the
state held a Climate Change Action Plan
Summit to establish a process for developing
a GHG emissions reduction plan. The
specific objectives of this meeting were to:
Develop a framework for a participatory
process for developing a plan to address cli-
mate change;
Identify opportunities for state agen-
cies to initiate this program by "leading by
example."
Twenty-two participants, representing 13
state agencies, attended the summit. The
framework adopted at the summit is sum-
marized in the figure. Working groups devel-
oped a short list of GHG reduction options
which included the following LBE activities:
Transportation—state vehicle fleet to turn-
over to alternative, hybrid, fuel-efficient
vehicles;
Energy—state purchase of renewable energy;
Buildings/Facilities—state buildings to meet
U.S. Green Building Council LEED-rated sil-
ver green building standards.
Identify and Screen Options
In 2003, nearly 100 organizations, includ-
ing businesses, nonprofit organizations,
state and local government agencies, and
academic institutions, worked together to
develop a set of 55 recommended actions
for reducing Connecticut's GHG emissions.
Many of these recommendations involved
LBE activities, including:
Fleet vehicle incentives and initiatives;
High performance schools and state-funded
buildings;
Shared savings program for government
agencies;
Green campus initiative;
Energy benchmarking and tracking program
for municipal buildings;
Pilot fuel-switching project;
State procurement of environmentally pref-
erable services and products;
Government clean energy purchase.
Develop a Comprehensive Program
The state developed the following LBE activ-
ities to implement the Connecticut Climate
Change Action Plan recommendations:
State Agency Energy Roundtable: a quarterly
meeting of state agency facility managers
to help them implement cost- and energy-
saving actions;
Purchase Climate Friendly Products: Gov-
ernor Rell's Executive Order 17 (February,
2008) requires that all future equipment
and appliances purchased by and for execu-
tive branch state agencies shall be ENERGY
STAR® certified, provided such equipment
and appliances are commercially available.
Use the State Fleet's Hybrid Vehicles: the
Department of Administrative Services has
purchased approximately 300 hybrid gas-
electric vehicles, which comprise 7% of the
state fleet.
Buy Locally Grown Foods: many state agen-
cies, including the Department of Correc-
tions, the Department of Mental Retarda-
tion, and public universities are reducing
emissions resulting from long-distance food
transport by buying locally grown produce;
Purchase Clean Energy: most state agen-
cies currently meet their electricity needs
through a state contract for electricity that
provides for an average of 17.5% Class 1
clean energy (plus clean energy through
CT's Renewable Portfolio Standard). From
July 2009 - 2013, the electric supply con-
tract for all CT state agencies will average
19.35% Class I plus clean energy provided
through CT's Renewable Portfolio Standard;
Increase Recycling and Composting: the De-
partments of Correction and Environmental
Protection have had effective recycling and
composting programs;
Encourage Clean Commuting and VMT
Reduction: agencies are encouraging em-
ployees to use cleaner commuting options,
such as ride sharing, mass transit, and biking
to work. In addition, several state agencies
have active telecommuting programs;
PLANNING PROCESS FRAMEWORK
Governor
Commissioner Guidance Committee
DEP, DPUC, DOT, Clean Energy Fund, OPM
Stakeholder Advisory Group
Senior Agency Staff and Other Stakeholders
| Working [Working
Group 1 Group 2
Energy efficiency improvements to state
buildings: many state buildings are upgrad-
ing energy systems and seeing energy and
cost savings. Projects include lighting and
exit sign retrofits; installation of energy
management systems; pump, motor, boiler,
and chiller replacements; vending machine
and computer energy saving devices; and
water treatment system upgrades.
Track, Evaluate, and Report on the Program
Connecticut established an emissions base-
line forecast for each policy recommenda-
tion, set a reductions goal (with respect to
the baseline), and evaluated each measure
in the context of the goal. The state also es-
tablished the following procedures to build
on this existing analysis, track progress, and
maintain support:
Track progress on each measure;
Continue to calculate GHG benefits and
costs;
Continue to analyze the co-benefits of pri-
ority policy options;
Obtain stakeholder feedback on the Action
Plan and its implementation;
Assess progress on each measure and report
on results.
Connecticut's progress reports include a
section describing the specific LBE actions
the state has taken to install clean energy
systems, purchase renewable energy, con-
struct green buildings, benchmark and
reduce energy consumption in state build-
ings, reduce vehicle miles traveled by state
vehicles, and purchase hybrid vehicles.
Sources: Connecticut 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006a,
2006b, 2006c.
CHAPTER ONE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 27
-------
TABLE 1.4.2 STATE EXAMPLES IN THE LEAD BY EXAMPLE GUIDE
Chapter One: Introduction
WI: Efficient Buys Program - VendorNet
MN: State Agency Recycling Challenge
MD: Montgomery County Wind Power
Purchase
CT: Developing a State LBE Program
CT: Demand Response Program
Chapter Two: LBE Activities and Measures
2.1 Energy Efficiency in Buildings
SC: Energy Use in State Facilities in FY
2004
VA: Energy Efficiency Policy and Council
CA: Benchmarking State Facilities
MI: State Facilities Energy Savings Plan
MT: 20 xlO Initiative
NH: ENERGY STAR Challenge Participant
OR: Building Commissioning Program
WA: Building Commissioning Program
WI: Wisconsin Energy Initiative
NC: Sustainable Energy Efficient Buildings
Program
CO: Energy Management and Integrated
Energy-Efficient Design in K-12 Schools
2.2 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures in Green Buildings
.,
AZ: Green Building Policy
HI: Lead by Example Initiative
MN: State Sustainable Building Guidelines
MA: LEED-Plus Standard
NM:Lead by Example Initiative
NY: "Green and Clean" State Buildings
NY: Collaborative for High-Performance
Schools
PA: High Performance Green Building
Program
PA: Cambria State Office Building
OR: Portland Green Building Policy
WI: Sustainable Facilities Guidelines/
Standards
WI: Department of Natural Resources
Building
DC: Washington, D.C. Green Building
Policy
NYC: Energy-Efficient Product
Procurement
MA: Environmentally Preferable Products
Procurement
PA: Green Power Purchase Commitment
CT: Green Power Purchases
ME: Aggregated Green Power Purchase
NO: Aggregated Green Power Purchase
MD: Montgomery County Wind Power
Purchase
VA: Solar Power at New State Facilities
AZ: Army Aviation Training Site Solar Farm
UT: Solar Power Demonstration
OR: Solar State Buildings
CA: Solar Technology at State Facilities
MA: Renewable Energy Initiatives
IL: State Agency CHP Activities
NO: Solar Power in Public School District
CA: Solar Power at a University
OH: CHP at a University
TX: CHP at a University
WI: CHP at a University
MN: CH P at a Wastewater Treatment
Facility
2.6 Other Energy Saving Oppt
CT: Demand Response Program
MA: State Sustainability Program
CO: Water Conservation in State Agencies
MA: Water Consumption Reduction Goal
Chapter Three: Establishing the LBE Program Framework
3.1- 3.3 Establish LBE Team and Obtain Support
MA: LBE Champions
GA: Gaining Support for LBE Program
IA: Executive Branch Participation
CA: Local Government Participation
1 WA: School Participation
NH: ESCO Participation
CT: Nonprofit Organization Participation
3.4 Set Clean Energy Goals
Executive Order Establishes Federal LBE
Goals
MA: Energy and CO2 Inventory
CA: Benchmarking Initiative
NY: "Green and Clean" State Buildings
and Vehicles
28 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER ONE
-------
TABLE 1.4.2 STATE EXAMPLES IN THE LEAD BY EXAMPLE GUIDE (cont.)
3.5 Establish Mechanisms to Implement the LBE Program
MA: Executive Order Builds on Earlier
Executive Order and Administrative
Bulletins
SC: Energy Efficiency Act
WA: King County Model LBE Program
Chapter Four: Screening LBE Activities and Measures
MI: Energy Reduction Strategy -
Financial Criteria
MA: Sustainability Program - Selection
Criteria
UT: Screening Energy Efficiency Options
VT: State Agency Energy Plan
WI: Wisconsin Energy Initiative
NV: Energy Conservation Plan
5.1 Integrate Individual Clean Energy Activities into a Program
• California Solar Schools Program
5.2 Finance the LBE Program
• VT: Life-Cycle Accounting
• CO and CA: Performance Contracting
Resources
• NY: City of Amherst Using ESCOs
• WA: Energy Performance Contracting
Program
• NY: Financing New Heating Systems
• NH: Building Energy Conservation
Initiative
• IA: Iowa Energy Bank
• OR: State Business Tax Credit for
Efficiency and Renewables
• TX: LoanSTAR Revolving Loan Program
• UT: Policy to Advance Energy Efficiency
• IA, SC, CT: States Developing Ways to
Share or Retain their Energy Savings
• WA: King County - Win Win Program
MM*l«nT5 ETI*U*M ill MiH*Łt^[«llkEslll*K*JTHraiT*im»iTI1[*lliI«g^it*B^tslliHill HiI*tflM*l*MHMtf H^H»|SBSn«I^ffs1
• MA: Obtaining LBE Support from State
Agencies
• CO: State Employee Incentives
• VT: Emphasizing the Benefits of Clean
Energy
• CO: Rebuild Colorado Training Sessions
• MA: Sustainability Planning and
Implementation Guide
5.4 Provide Technical and Financial Assistance to Local Governments
• CA: Technical Assistance in Buildings
• NY: Product Procurement Assistance
• OR: Energy Audits and Design Reviews
• PA: Energy Management Plan Assistance
• TX: Schools and Local Government
Program
• WV: Building Professionals Energy Training
CA: Energy Efficiency Financing Program
• KS: Facility Conservation Improvement
Program
• OR: State Energy Loan Program
PA: Local Government Handbook
5.5 Information Sharing: Federal, State, and Local LBE Resources
• California
• CA: Local Energy Efficiency Program
Workbook
• Colorado
• Massachusetts
• New York
• Pennsylvania
• Vermont
• Alameda County, California
• Boulder, Colorado
• Hennepin Ccounty, Minnesota
• King County, Washington
• Madison, Wisconsin
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• San Antonio, Texas
• San Francisco, California
Chapter Six: Tracking, Evaluating, and Reporting LBE Program Progress
WY: Energy Conservation Improvement
Program: Measurement and Verification
Plan Guidelines
• MA: Data Collection Approach - Energy
and CO2 Intensity
• GA: Energy Tracking System
• NY: Energy Utilization Index
• CA and NY: State Applications of the
IPMVP
CA: Evaluation, Measurement, and
Verification of the 2004-2005 San Diego
Local Government Energy Efficiency
Program
CHAPTER ONE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 29
-------
REFERENCES
•California DGS. 2007. Green California Home.
Department of General Services. Available: http://
www.green.ca.gov/default.htm. Accessed 4/25/2007.
Carnegie Mellon. 2005. Center for Building
Performance. As cited in Greening America's Schools:
Costs and Benefits. G. Kats, Capital E. Available: http://
www. cap-e. com/ewebeditpro/items/O59Fl 1233.pdf.
Accessed 4/17/2007.
CEE. 2004. Energy-Efficient Purchasing by State and
Local Government: Triggering a Landslide Down the
Slippery Slope to Market Transformation. Consortium
for Energy Efficiency, Boston, MA. Available: http://
www. ceel. org/gov/purch/2004^>urchasing.pdf.
Accessed 12/6/2006.
Choate, A., L. Pederson, J. Scharfenberg. 2005. Waste
Management and Energy Savings: Benefits by the
Numbers. Prepared by ICF Consulting for U.S. EPA.
Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.
nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/TMAL6GDR3K/$File/
Energy%20Savings.pdf. Accessed 3/19/2007.
Clinton Climate Initiative. 2008. C40 Cities: Portland.
Available: http://www.c40cities.org/bestpractices/
lighting/portlandjed.jsp. Accessed 2/29/2008.
Connecticut. 2002. Leading By Example: Connecticut
Collaborates to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
A Report Based on a Summit Held at the Pocantico
Conference Center of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
Pocantico Paper No 6. October 2-4, 2002. Available:
http://ctclimatechange.com/rbf_rept.html. Accessed
12/6/2006.
Connecticut. 2004. Connecticut Climate Change
Stakeholders Dialog: Recommendations to the
Governor's Steering Committee. January. The Center
for Clean Air Policy. Available: http://ctclimatechange.
com/ct_action_plan.html. Accessed 12/6/2006.
Connecticut. 2005. 2005 CT Climate Change Action
Plan. Connecticut Climate Change Web site. Available:
http://www.ctclimatechange.com/StateActionPlan.
html. Accessed 12/6/2006.
Connecticut. 2006a. State Government. Connecticut
Climate Change Web site. Available: http://
ctclimatechange.com/StateGovernmentRevision.html.
Accessed 12/6/2006.
Connecticut. 2006b. Taking Action in Connecticut
to Address Climate Change: Progress Made in
2005. February. Connecticut Climate Change
Web site. Available: http://ctclimatechange.com/
ReportonProgressin2005.html Accessed 12/6/2006.
Connecticut. 2006c. Personal communication with
Bryan Garcia, Connecticut Innovations, and John
Ruckes, Connecticut Office of Policy Management.
June 5, 2006.
Connecticut OPM. 2008. Demand Response Program.
Available: http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.aspfa =
29946-q = 389740. Accessed 5/16/2008.
•DSIRE. 2007. Database of State Incentives for
Renewable Energy: Maine Incentives for Renewables
and Efficiency. Available: http://www.dsireusa.org/
library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=ME
08R&state=ME&CurrentPageID=1 &RE= 1 &EE= 1.
Accessed 3/16/2007.
ENERGY STAR. 2006. ENERGY STAR Web site.
Protecting our Environment for Future Generations.
Available: http://www.energystar.gov. Accessed
12/12/2006.
Harris, J., M. Brown, J. Deakin, S. Jurovics, A. Khan,
E. Wisniewski, J. Mapp, B. Smith, M. Podeszwa,
A. Thomas. 2004. Energy-Efficient Purchasing by
State and Local Government Triggering a Landslide
Down the Slippery Slope to Market Transformation.
ACEEE Summer Study. Available: http://www.dc.lbl.
gov/LBNLDC/publications/Energy%20Effident%20
Purchasing%20By%20State%20and%20Local%20
Government.pdf. Accessed 3/19/2007.
Hatcher, K. and T. Dietsche. 2001. Manage Energy
Uncertainty: Use Quick Financing for Energy
Efficiency Projects. Available: http://www.energystar.
gov/ia/business/government/Hatcherarticle.pdf.
Accessed 3/7/2007.
Kats, G., L. Alevantis, A. Berman, E. Mills, and J.
Perlman. 2003. The Costs and Financial Benefits of
Green Buildings: A Report to California's Sustainable
Building Task Force. October. Available: http://www.
cap-e. com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F3259.pdf. Accessed
3/8/2007.
Massachusetts EOEA. 2006. State Sustainability
Newsletter. Vol. 4: Renewable Energy. Summer 2006.
30 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER ONE
-------
Available: http://www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/
pdf/4_2006_summer_renewables.pdf. Accessed
5/8/2007.
Montgomery County. 2006. Montgomery County
Signs Agreement to Purchase Wind Energy; Largest
Local Government Purchase in Country. Available:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Apps/News/
press/Display!nfo.cfm?ItemID = 895. Accessed
1/12/2007.
•NASPIRGs. 2005. Energy Efficiency: The Smart
Way to Reduce Global Warming Pollution in the
Northeast. National Association of State PIRGs.
Available: http://www.massclimateaction.org/RGGI/
PIRGEnergyEfficiency0805.pdf. Accessed 3/19/2007.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (NAPEE).
2006. National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency. July.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/
napee/napee_report.pdf. Accessed: 3/11/2008.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (NAPEE).
2007. National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
Vision for 2025: Developing a framework for Change.
November. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
documents/vision.pdf. Accessed: 3/11/2008.
New York. 2003. Executive Order No. Ill "Green and
Clean" State Buildings and Vehicles. Annual Energy
Report. July 2003. Available: http://www.ny'serda.
org/programs/pdfs/execorderl 1 Ifinalreport7-03.pdf.
Accessed 3/16/2007.
North Carolina. 2007. NC Energy Notes. Winter 2007.
Available: http://www.energync.net/resources/docs/
pubs/winter07.pdf. Accessed 3/19/2007.
North Carolina DENR. 2005. State Agency Purchases
of Recycled Products and Reduction of Solid Waste
Disposal: July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005. Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. Available:
http://www.p2pays. org/ref/38/37924.pdf. Accessed
3/19/2007.
NYSERDA. 2004b. State Government. Energy
Efficiency Improvements. Available: http://www.
nyserda. org/programs/State_Government/default. asp ?i
= 13. Accessed 12/16/2006.
Portland. Undated. LED Traffic Signals = Energy
Savings for the City of Portland. Available: http://www.
portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=111737
Accessed 2/29/2008.
U.S. DOE. 2006. FEMP FocusKFall 2003. States
and Cities Follow Federal Lead in Energy-Efficient
Purchasing. Last Updated February 20, 2004.
Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/
newsevents/fempfocus_article.cfm/news_id = 7214.
Accessed 12/10/2006.
U.S. DOE. 2007. State Energy Program: Projects by
Topic—What are State and Local Government Facility
Projects in the States? U.S. Department of Energy,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Web site. Last
updated June 2007. Available: http://www.eere.energy.
gov/state_energy_program/topic_definition_detail.
cfm/topic = 115. Accessed 8/5/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2003. Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air
Quality in Schools. Available: http://www.epa.gov/
iaq/schools/pdfs/publications/ee_iaq.pdf. Accessed
4/16/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2004. Building Upgrade Manual. Available:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc = business.
bus_upgrade_manual. Accessed 1/12/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2006a. Clean Energy Web site. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy. Accessed 12/12/2006.
• U.S. EPA. 2006b. Clean-Energy Environment Guide
to Action: Policies, Best Practices, and Action Steps
for States. April. Available: http://www.epa.gov/
deanenergy/stateandlocal/guidetoaction.htm.
Accessed 3/19/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2006c. State and Local Transportation
Services. Available: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/index.htm. Accessed 12/12/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2007. Top 10 Local Government Partners
—As of April 9, 2007. Green Power Partnership.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/partners/
toplOlocalgov.htm. Accessed 5/7/2007.
•U.S. EPA. 2008. Green Buildings: Why Build Green.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/
whybuild.htm. Accessed 5/25/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008b. Green Choices Grow with ENERGY
STAR Qualified Buildings. Available: http://yosemite.
epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/lef7cd36224b56578525735
9003f533f/l el 56a04a68baa30852573ed005bea4e!Ope
nDocument. Accessed 5/8/2008.
U.S. EPA. Forthcoming. A Guidebook for Assessing the
Multiple Benefits of Clean Energy.
CHAPTER ONE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 31
-------
•Wisconsin. 2008. State of Wisconsin, Bureau of
Procurement, VendorNet System Web page. Available:
http:/'/vendornet.state. wi. us/vendornet/default. asp.
Accessed: 2/28/2008.
Wiser, R., M. Bolinger, and M. St. Clair. 2005. Easing
the Natural Gas Crisis: Reducing Natural Gas Prices
through Increased Deployment of Renewable Energy
and Energy Efficiency. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Prepared for U.S. DOE. Available: http://
www.lbl.gov/Science-Artides/Archive/sabl/2005/
February/assets/Natural-Gas.pdf. Accessed 3/19/2007.
32 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER ONE
-------
CHAPTER TWO
Potential Lead By
Example Activities
and Measures
State governments are planning and
implementing LBE programs with
the goals of:
• Reducing energy use and energy costs,
Demonstrating the cost competitiveness of clean en-
ergy activities,
Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other
environmental impacts,
Improving energy supply reliability, and
Achieving additional energy, environmental, economic,
and other benefits.
Comprehensive programs typically include multiple
LBE activities and measures, six of which are described
in this chapter. The following information is provided
for each:
The benefits of LBE activities and measures,
Planning and implementation strategies, and
State and local government examples associated with
the activity.
The descriptions of the six key activities presented in
this chapter provide information for states to use as
they develop their LBE program. For example, when
setting LBE program goals and establishing an LBE
team (see Chapter 3, Establish the LBE Program Frame-
work), a state can draw on information about the key
goals, objectives, and participants for each of the activi-
ties being considered for inclusion in the overall LBE
program. States can likewise use the activity-specific
information on costs, benefits, and feasibility when
screening potential activities for incorporation into the
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
CHAPTER TWO
Potential LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER THREE
Establish the LBE Program Framework
CHAPTER FOUR
Screen LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER FIVE
Develop LBE Program
CHAPTER SIX
Track, Evaluate, and Report on Progress
CHAPTER TWO CONTENTS
2.1. Energy Efficiency in Government Buildings
2.2. Energy Management in Green Buildings
2.3. Energy-Efficient Product Procurement
2.4. Green Power Purchases
2.5. Clean Energy Supply
2.6. Other Energy Saving Opportunities
Related appendices:
Appendix B, State and Local Clean Energy LBE
Programs: Examples, Tools, and Information Resources.
This appendix presents examples of state and local LBE
activities, as well as resources for each of the activities
described in this chapter.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 33
-------
LBE program (see Chapter 4, Screen LBE Activities and
Measures). Similarly, this chapter presents information
on implementation strategies and best practices that can
be incorporated into a comprehensive LBE program
(see Chapter 5, Develop a Comprehensive LBE Program).
To assist states in applying the information provided
here, Table 2.6.1 (at the end of this chapter) presents
a suite of LBE-related databases and best-practice
resources.
THE LBE GUIDE AND THE CLEAN ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
GUIDE TO ACTION
Leading by example is a key policy option for states seeking
to achieve clean energy goals. For a primer on LBE actions
and opportunities, readers can view Section 3.1 of EPA's Clean
Energy-Environment Guide to Action, a recent document
that describes and provides core information on sixteen clean
energy policies.
This Section provides an overview of how to develop a state
LBE program, including information on program objectives
and benefits; best practices for designing, implementing, and
evaluating an LBE program; state examples; and resources.
The LBE Guide is an important next step in EPA's efforts to assist
states as they develop clean energy policies and projects. It
extends and supports the information presented in EPA's Clean
Energy-Environment Guide to Action.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2006a.
2.1 ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN
GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
Owned and leased facilities are an important focus
of many states' comprehensive LBE programs. State
and local governments are responsible for more than
16 billion square feet of building space, with state
facilities (including office buildings, libraries, prisons,
universities, and other facilities) accounting for ap-
proximately 5% of the nation's non-residential building
space). Combined, state and local governments spend
more than $11 billion annually1 on energy costs, which
can account for as much as 10% of a typical govern-
ment's annual operating budget (ACEEE, 2003, U.S.
DOE, 2007h).
1 Estimates of combined state and local government energy expenditures
range from $10 billion annually to $19 billion annually (EIA, 2003a, U.S.
DOE, 2007ft; U.S. EPA, 2008v; Harris et al, 2003). Estimates of square
footage of state and local building space also vary by source. The U.S. DOE
Energy Information Administration, for example, estimated that in 2003, state
and local governments account for about 13 billion square feet of floor space
(EIA, 2003a).
A state government's building portfolio makeup can
have a significant influence on its total energy use and
costs. For example, energy consumption per square
foot can vary by type of facility. As shown in the text
box on the right, state universities typically use more
energy per square foot than state office buildings and
other state facilities (e.g., prisons, courthouses) (EIA,
2003; South Carolina, 2006).
As shown in the text box on page 2-3, Energy Use in
Government Buildings, state facility energy consumption
is largely used for lighting, space conditioning, water
heating, office equipment and other miscellaneous pur-
poses that can account for as much as 90% of the GHG
emissions from state government operations (Massachu-
setts, 2004). Thus, the growing number of states taking
steps to manage their energy use and increase the energy
efficiency of their building portfolios are achieving sig-
nificant financial and environmental results.
STATE GOVERNMENT BUILDING PORTFOLIOS
State governments own and operate several types of facilities,
including office buildings, libraries, prisons, and universities,
that each has unique energy use characteristics. According to
data from the 1999 Commercial Building Energy Consumption
Survey, conducted by the Energy Information Administration
and updated in 2003, the average government-owned office
buildings uses 114,000 Btu per square foot, while the average
university and public order/safety buildings (e.g., courthouses,
prisons, reformatories) use 145,000 Btu per square foot and
87,000 Btu per square foot, respectively.
Thus, the composition of a state government's building
portfolio can have a significant influence on its total energy use
and costs. The table below shows the breakdown of energy use
in state-owned facilities in South Carolina for FY 2004.
Institution
School
Districts
State
Agencies
Total
Square
Feet (in
millions)
107
24
Public 30
Colleges with
Housing
Colleges
without
Housing
Total
169
Total
Energy
Costs (in
millions)
$104
$38
$47
$10
$199
Average
Cost per
Square
Foot
$0.96
$1.58
$1.39
$1.25
$1.12
Average
kBtu per
Square
Foot
46
118
124
72
70
Sources: EIA, 2003; South Carolina, 2006.
34 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
2.1.1 BENEFITS OF IMPROVING ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
Government leadership in improving energy efficiency
across state facility portfolios can produce significant
energy, environmental, economic, and other benefits,
including:
Reduced energy costs. Significant cost savings can be
achieved by improving energy efficiency in existing
buildings, leasing energy-efficient buildings, and
designing new buildings to be energy efficient. For a
typical office building, energy represents 30% of the
variable costs of the building and constitutes the single
largest controllable operating cost (NAPEE, 2008).
The lifetime energy cost savings produced by an ener-
gy-efficient building compared to a conventional one
can reach millions of dollars (NAPEE, 2008). Informa-
tion on the potential energy savings from improving
energy efficiency in government buildings includes:
Energy cost savings on the order of 35% or more
are possible for many existing buildings (U.S. EPA,
2008x).
Many new and renovated buildings designed for
energy efficiency offer energy cost savings of as much
as 50% compared to conventional buildings (U.S.
EPA, 2008n).
For some buildings, responsible operations and main-
tenance (O&M) practices, which can often be imple-
mented at low- or no-cost, can account for 5% to 20%
of total energy cost savings (U.S. DOE, 2006b).
• Buildings that have achieved the ENERGY STAR la-
bel for superior energy efficiency use 40% less energy
than average buildings, and offer savings of about
$0.50 per square foot per year in lower energy costs,
based on a conservative estimate (U.S. EPA, 20061;
U.S. EPA, 2006m).
For an average state, reducing state government energy
consumption by 20% overall - a common state target
(see Table 3.4.1, Examples ofLBE Goals and Targets) -
could reduce annual state government energy costs by
about $16 million while saving nearly 1.2 trillion Btu
annually in energy use (ACEEE, 2003). In New York,
where a 2001 executive order directed state agencies to
reduce energy consumption by 35% by 2010 relative
to 1990 levels, the state saved $54.4 million in energy
ENERGY USE IN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
This table presents average annual energy use by federal,
state, and local government-owned commercial buildings (any
building that is not residential, industrial, manufacturing, or
agricultural).*
End Use
Space heating
Lighting
Water heating
Miscellaneous
Office equipment
Space cooling
Ventilation
Cooking
Refrigeration
Total
Consumption
(trillion Btu)**
498
294
239
94
78
75
42
28
22
1,370
As Percentage of
Whole
36
21
17
8
6
5
3
2
100
*Data are from the 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy
Consumption Survey (CBECS), conducted by the Energy
Information Administration quadrennially. As of July 2008, data
collection for the 2007 CBECS is in progress.
**Figures are rounded to the nearest trillion Btu.
Source: U.S. DOE, 2006a.
costs from energy efficiency improvements between FY
2001/2002 and FY 2003/2004 (NYSERDA, 2005).
Reduced GHG emissions and other environmental
impacts. Improving energy efficiency in government
buildings can help reduce GHG emissions and other
environmental impacts by decreasing consumption of
fossil fuel-based energy. Energy use in commercial and
industrial facilities accounts for nearly 50% of all U.S.
GHG emissions, and fossil fuel combustion for elec-
tricity generation accounts for 40% of the nation's CO2
emissions, a principle GHG, 67% of the nation's SOx
emissions, and 23% of the nation's NOx emissions (U.S.
EPA, 2008n; U.S. EPA, 2008s). SOx andXNOx emissions
can lead to smog and acid rain, and result in emissions
of trace amounts of airborne particulate matter that
can cause respiratory problems for many people (U.S.
EPA, 2008s). At the state level, energy use in buildings
can account for as much as 90% of a state government's
GHG emissions (Massachusetts, 2004).
Increased asset value. Improving energy ef-
ficiency can increase a building's lifetime and
overall value. EPA estimates that for every $1
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 35
-------
IMtGOMtMH
Aiuu PtrfonniiK*
& Sot Goals
FIGURE 2.1.1 OVERVIEW OF ENERGY STAR
GUIDELINES FOR ENERGY MANAGEMENT
The ENERGY STAR Guidelines for Energy Management
present a seven-step approach to achieving superior
energy management and savings across a portfolio of
buildings. The steps include:
1. Make Commitment
• Establish an Energy Team
• Institute an Energy Policy
2. Assess Performance
• Collect and Manage Data
• Establish Baselines and Benchmark
• Analyze Data and Conduct Technical Assessments
and Audits
3. Set Goals
• Estimate Potential for Improvement
• Establish Goals
4. Create Action Plan
• Define Technical Measures and Targets for Each
Building
• Determine Roles and Resources
5. Implement Action Plan
• Create a Communication Plan, Raise Awareness and
Build Capacity
• Track and Monitor Progress
6. Evaluate Progress
• Measure Results
• Review Action Plan
7. Recognize Achievements
• Internal Recognition
• External Recognition
For detailed descriptions of the above steps, see
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=guidelines.
guidelines_index. (U.S. EPA. 2008e)
spent on energy efficiency improvements, a building's
value increases by $2 to $3 (U.S. EPA, 2004).
Increased economic benefits through job creation and
market development. Investing in energy efficiency can
stimulate the local economy and encourage develop-
ment of energy efficiency service markets. According
to DOE, approximately 60% of energy efficiency
investments goes to labor costs and half of all energy-
efficient equipment is purchased from local suppliers
(U.S. DOE, 2004). Across the nation, energy efficiency
technologies and services are estimated to have created
more than eight million jobs in 2006 (ASES, 2007).
Other. Other benefits from improving energy efficiency
in state government facilities include reduced summer
peak energy demand and improved indoor air quality
and productivity for occupants (U.S. EPA, 2003; U.S.
EPA, 2006b).
2.1.2 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
The most cost-effective approach for meeting a state
government's building energy needs is to engage in a
systematic process for improving energy efficiency in
portfolios of owned and leased building space and to
design energy efficient new and renovated buildings. A
portfolio-wide approach results in greater total reduc-
tions in state government energy costs and GHG emis-
sions and enables states to offset the costs of more sub-
stantial energy efficiency projects in buildings that have
higher up-front costs with the savings from projects in
other buildings. In addition, adopting a portfolio-wide
approach can help states generate greater momentum
for energy efficiency activities, leading to sustained
implementation and continued savings.
However, in cases where resources for portfolio-wide
improvements are not available, this process can be
applied to one or a few government buildings. Experi-
ences from such demonstration projects can then be
used to make the case for further energy efficiency
improvements in buildings and subsequently can be
applied to the broader buildings portfolio when addi-
tional support and/or resources become available.
A systematic approach to adopting an energy man-
agement strategy has been developed under EPA's
ENERGY STAR program, and is summarized in the
Guidelines for Energy Management and in Figure 2.1.1,
Overview of ENERGY STAR Guidelines for Energy
36 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
Management. The Guidelines for Energy Management
present the following seven-step approach to achieving
superior energy management and savings in buildings:
Step 1. Make Commitment
Step 2. Assess Performance
Step 3. Set Goals
Step 4. Create Action Plan
Step 5. Implement Action Plan
Step 6. Evaluate Progress
Step 7. Recognize Achievements
These steps for improving building-level energy
management are similar to the steps for developing
a comprehensive LBE program. Given the significant
potential benefits that implementing energy efficiency
in buildings can have, especially with respect to reduc-
tions in energy costs and GHG emissions, this section
of the LBE Guide describes the steps of the ENERGY
STAR Guidelines for Energy Management in detail, and
identifies where these steps coincide with the steps
for developing a comprehensive LBE program. When
developing their LBE programs, states can identify op-
portunities to incorporate information provided in the
Guidelines for Energy Management, which will ensure
that LBE programs lead to superior energy manage-
ment in state government buildings.
TABLE 2.1.1 ENERGY STAR PROGRAM RESOURCES
Title/Description
ENERGY STAR Tools and Guidance for Existing and New Buildings
Guidelines for Energy Management. EPA provides the seven-step Guidelines for Energy
Management to assist in developing and implementing energy efficiency action plans.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm7c ••
guidelines.guidelines_index
Guidelines for Energy Management Assessment Matrices. EPA has developed an
assessment matrix to help energy managers determine if their organization's energy
management practices are consistent with the Guidelines for Energy Management. A
second matrix allows energy managers to compare current energy management practices
to the Guidelines for Energy Management at the site-specific facility level.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/
guidelines/assessment_matrix.xls
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/
guidelines/Facility_Energy_Assessment_
Matrix.xls
Portfolio Manager. Local governments can use the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager tool
to measure and track the energy intensity of their buildings, normalized for weather and
square footage. For certain building types. Portfolio Manager can be used to rate building
performance on a scale of 1 to 100 relative to similar buildings nationwide, enabling facility
managers to assess their own facilities and identify priority energy efficiency improvements.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfm?c = evaluate_performance.bus_
portfoliomanager
ENERGY STAR Label. Buildings that achieve a rating of 75 or higher using Portfolio
Manager, and are professionally verified to meet current indoor environment standards,
are eligible to apply for the ENERGY STAR label. The ENERGY STAR label is available for
office buildings, schools, hospitals, courthouses, and other facilities.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfm?c = evaluate_performance.bus_
portfoliomanager_intro
Profiles of ENERGY STAR Labeled Buildings and Plants. EPA has compiled profiles of
ENERGY STAR-labeled government buildings, accessible at its Web page, ENERGY STAR
Labeled Buildings and Plants.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfm?fuseaction = labeled_buildings.
showBuildingSearch
Building Upgrade Manual. The ENERGY STAR Building Upgrade Manual describes a five-
step systematic approach to improving energy efficiency in existing buildings, including
recommissioning/commissioning, lighting, supplemental load reductions, fan systems
upgrades, and heating and cooling system upgrades.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm7c ••
business.bus_upgrade_manual
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 37
-------
TABLE 2.1.1 ENERGY STAR PROGRAM RESOURCES (cont.)
Title/Description Web Site
Target Finder. Target Finder lets a user establish an energy performance target for a design
project or major building renovation based on similar building types and desired energy
performance. By entering the project's estimated energy consumption, users can then
compare the estimated energy use with the target to see if the project will achieve its goal.
"Designed to Earn the Energy Star" Label. Building designs that achieve a rating of 75 or
higher using the ENERGY STAR Target Finder tool are eligible to receive the "Designed to
Earn the ENERGY STAR" designation. These buildings can apply for the ENERGY STAR label
if they remain in the top quarter of the rating scale after one year of operation.
Target Finder Opportunities Flowchart. A flow chart detailing opportunities to use Target
Finder to assess projected design performance is available at:
Integrated Energy Design Guidance. EPA provides guidance on planning and designing
buildings that integrate energy efficiency improvements. This guidance includes
information on how to use tools such as Target Finder to design buildings that achieve
energy performance goals.
Integrated Energy Design Guidance Checklist. A checklist that highlights components in
the design process that can lead to ENERGY STAR labeling is available at:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm7c =
new_bldg_design.bus_target_finder
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm7c
= new_bldg_design.new_bldg_design_
benefits
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/
tools_ reso urces/new_ bldg_ design/
Design_process_flow_diagram_101404.pdf
https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c
= new_bldg_design.new_bldg_design_
guidance
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/
tools_resources/new_bldg_design/Building
DesignGuidanceChecklist_101904.pdf
ENERGY STAR Financial Calculators
Cash Flow Opportunity Calculator. This tool can be used to: determine how much new
energy-efficient equipment can be purchased based on estimated cost savings; determine
whether equipment should be purchased now using financing, or if it is better to wait
and use cash from a future year's budget; and determine whether money is being lost by
waiting for lower interest rates.
Financial Value Calculator. This tool presents energy efficiency investment opportunities
in terms of key financial metrics. It can be used to determine how energy efficiency
improvements can affect organizational profit margins and returns on investments.
Building Upgrade Value Calculator. This calculator can be used to estimate the financial
benefits of improving energy efficiency in office buildings.
Additional ENERGY STAR Resources and Tools
ENERGY STAR for Government. This Web site provides resources for state and
local governments to use as they plan energy efficiency activities, including energy
management guidelines, information on financing options, and tools and resources to
measure and track energy use.
The ENERGY STAR Challenge. The ENERGY STAR Challenge - Build a Better World 10% at a
Time program calls on governments, schools, and businesses across the country to identify
energy efficiency improvements in their facilities and improve energy efficiency by 10% or
more. EPA estimates that if each building owner accepts this challenge, by 2015 Americans
would save about $10 billion and reduce GHG emissions by more than 20 million metric
tons of carbon equivalent — equivalent to the emissions from 15 million vehicles.
ENERGY STAR Free Online Training. ENERGY STAR offers free online training sessions on a
variety of energy performance topics.
Off the Charts. Off the Charts is EPA's ENERGY STAR e-newsletter on energy management
developments and activities.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm7c =
assess_value.financial_ tools
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm7c =
assess_value.financial_ tools
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm7c =
assess_value.financial_ tools
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm7c =
government.bus_government
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm7c =
challenge.bus_challenge
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm7c =
business.bus_internet_presentations
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/
guidelines/assess_value/Off_the_Charts_
Summer_2007.pdf
38 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
The following sections provide information on key
policy and implementation strategies for each of the
Guidelines for Energy Management steps. Table 2.1.1,
ENERGY STAR Program Resources, summarizes the
many tools and resources available to states as they
plan and implement energy efficiency improvements in
their government buildings.
Step 1: Make Commitment
Committing to improving energy efficiency in a speci-
fied portfolio of buildings is an important first step
for ensuring success. This step involves 1) identifying
a team of qualified personnel to further develop the
policy with team members responsible for coordinat-
ing activities, securing funding, and regularly assessing
progress, among other things, and 2) establishing and
committing to an energy policy to improve energy
efficiency in buildings. Successful state efforts also
frequently involve securing a commitment from the
governor's office.
These actions can be implemented as part of the larger
LBE program: for example, the "energy efficiency in
buildings" team can be a part of, or work with, the
broader LBE team, and promoting energy efficiency in
buildings can be a component of a broader LBE pro-
gram. For more information on selecting members for
a team to develop this policy, see Section 3.1, Select an
LBE Team.2 For more information on establishing an
energy policy, see Section 3.4, Set LBE Goals.
Many state governments have included in their energy
policies a range of commitments to specific actions that
can lead to easier and more effective implementation
of an overall energy efficiency program. These commit-
ments include:
Use life-cycle cost analysis. Because state governments
are concerned with long-term - as well as short-term
- benefits and costs, they are well-positioned to adopt
life-cycle cost analyses when making decisions about
purchasing energy-using products. Traditional meth-
ods for assessing project cost-effectiveness typically
focus on the initial design and construction costs. The
life-cycle cost of a product or service is the sum of the
present values of the costs of investment, capital, instal-
lation, energy, operation, maintenance, and disposal
over the life of the product (U.S. DOE, 2003). Because
life-cycle cost analysis accounts for the lower energy
Section 3.2, Identify and Obtain High-level Support, presents suggestions
for how to obtain the governor's support or other high-level backing for an LBE
program.
costs that can result from a somewhat larger initial
investment, it can be an important feature of an overall
energy policy. Many states use life-cycle cost analyses
to identify energy-efficient products that have shorter
payback periods, typically less than five years. More
information on life-cycle costing is provided in Section
5.2, Fund the LBE Program.
Purchase energy-efficient products. Committing to
purchasing energy-efficient products is key to improv-
ing energy efficiency across a portfolio of buildings.
Purchasing energy-efficient products can make
comprehensive energy efficiency upgrades more cost-
effective by reducing building energy loads, typically by
as much as 5% to 10% (LBNL, 2002). Some state and
local governments are making a procurement policy
for efficient products an explicit part of their building
energy efficiency policy. More information on energy-
efficient product procurement is provided in Section
2.3, Energy-Efficient Product Procurement.
Ensure energy efficiency is a key component of green
building strategies. Energy efficiency can be integrated
with other green buildings measures to achieve ad-
ditional energy, environmental, indoor air quality, and
water savings benefits. Designing for superior energy
VIRGINIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICY
AND ADVISORY COUNCIL
In 2007, the governor of Virginia issued an executive order
committing the state government to improve energy efficiency
in its facilities and operations and setting a goal for executive
branch agencies and institutions to reduce the annual cost
of non-renewable energy purchases by at least 20 percent of
fiscal year 2006 expenditures by fiscal year 2010. To meet this
goal, the state adopted a policy directing state agencies and
institutions to pursue a number of activities, including:
1 Design all new and renovated state-owned facilities to meet
energy performance standards at least as stringent as those
prescribed by ENERGY STAR or the LEED rating system.
1 When leasing facilities for state use, give preference to
buildings that meet ENERGY STAR or LEED standards.
1 Identify performance contracting opportunities.
1 Purchase ENERGY STAR-qualified equipment and supplies.
1 Implement all possible low-cost energy-saving activities (i.e.,
with payback periods of one year or less).
1 Pursue alternate energy procurement options.
To provide guidance in implementing this policy, the executive
order created an Energy Policy Advisory Council, led by a
Senior Advisory for Energy Policy.
Source: Virginia, 2007.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 39
-------
management is often the first step in green building,
and can improve environmental performance and
overall cost-effectiveness of a green building strategy
(U.S. EPA, 2003; U.S. EPA, 2006c). More information
on developing green building policies is provided in
Section 2.2, Energy Efficiency in Green Buildings.
Coordinate energy efficiency in buildings with climate
change goals. Many state and local governments are
taking active roles in developing climate policy by com-
mitting to reduce GHG emissions. Incorporating en-
ergy efficiency activities into their climate policies can
help governments meet their GHG emission reduction
commitments. In addition, by making the link between
climate change and energy efficiency, states are in a bet-
ter position to gain support for both programs.
Steps 2 and 3: Assess Baseline Energy
Performance and Set Goals
After making a commitment, the next two steps to im-
prove energy efficiency across a portfolio of buildings
LOCAL AND STATE ASSOCIATIONS - INTEGRATING ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
The U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), the National
Association of Counties (NACo), and the National Governors
Association (NGA) are promoting actions that link the need
for global climate protection with energy efficiency (e.g., via
building standards and practices). For example:
USCM and NACo passed resolutions supporting EPA's ENERGY
STAR Challenge to reduce energy consumption in public and
private buildings by 10% or more. They promote ENERGY STAR
tools and resources to members working to meet their climate
protection and energy efficiency goals.
The USCM Climate Protection Agreement commits mayors to
reduce GHG emissions in their cities to at least 7% below 1990
levels by 2012. The Climate Protection Center provides guidance
to mayors on leading their cities' efforts to reduce GHG
emissions linked to climate change, and publishes best practices,
including examples of cities that are taking the lead in this effort
by improving energy efficiency in their buildings and operations.
NACo launched the Green Government Initiative to provide
resources for local governments on sustainability issues,
including energy efficiency and air quality. NACo's Climate
Protection Program provides counties with best practices,
tools, and resources on developing and implementing climate
change programs.
The NGA recently launched an initiative - Securing a Clean
Energy Future - to enlist governors' support in reducing the
impacts of climate change through energy efficiency, clean
technology, energy research, and deployment of alternative
fuels.
Sources: NACo, 2002, 2005, 2005a; NGA, 2008; USCM, 2006, 2007,
and 2008.
are to assess baseline energy performance and set goals.
Assessing energy performance involves looking at how
energy is used in existing buildings and identifying
opportunities to improve energy efficiency. Setting
goals involves looking at potential savings in new and
renovated buildings as well as existing ones.
Understanding improvements in energy performance
involves periodically comparing a building's energy
usage to its baseline energy use (established at a speci-
fied time in the past). This is a key step in establishing
an effective strategy to improve energy efficiency in
buildings and set goals for future energy performance.
Key approaches for assessing baseline building energy
performance in existing buildings include:
Use available, standardized tools for baseline energy use
assessments. Standardized tools can be used to help as-
sess baseline energy use and track building energy data.
For example, EPA's ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager
is an on-line tool that can be used to assess baseline
energy performance in existing buildings and compile
data across a portfolio of buildings (U.S. EPA, 2008m).
Benchmark buildings. Benchmarking involves
comparing a building's energy performance to the
performance of similar buildings across the county.
For certain building types, EPA provides an energy
performance rating in Portfolio Manager to compare
buildings against similar buildings nationwide on a
scale of 1 to 100. For example, a rating of 75 means
that the evaluated building performs better than 75%
of similar buildings nationwide. This information can
help states prioritize which buildings to target for their
energy efficiency investments and/or to be the focus
of a comprehensive energy audit strategy (see the next
bullet, below).
Conduct technical assessments and audits. In addition
to establishing baseline energy performance and deter-
mining a building's relative performance compared to
its peers, a thorough energy performance assessment
includes comparing the actual performance of a build-
ing's systems and equipment with their designed perfor-
mance level or the performance level of top-performing
technologies. These technical assessments can be con-
ducted as part of a whole-building energy audit con-
ducted by an energy professional and used to identify
potential energy-saving opportunities. Many states have
incorporated these energy audits into energy perfor-
mance contracts, which are contracts that offer a one-
stop process for purchasing, installing, maintaining,
40 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
and often financing energy-efficiency upgrades at no
up front cost. EPA has developed a directory of energy
professionals, energy service companies (ESCOs), and
other companies that can provide states with expert
advice and technical assistance on conducting energy
audits and entering energy performance contracts.3 For
more information on energy performance contracting,
see Section 5.2, Fund the LBE Program.
State governments can establish specific energy ef-
ficiency goals for existing and new buildings to help
maintain momentum for energy management activi-
ties and to guide daily decision-making. Setting clear
and measurable goals is also critical for tracking and
measuring progress. Goals for existing buildings can
be based on the results of the baseline energy perfor-
mance assessment, while goals for new buildings can
be based on the output of energy performance projec-
tion tools and best practices. Key considerations for
setting goals for improving energy efficiency in existing
and new buildings include:
Consider potential savings. As described above, states
can use information collected during energy perfor-
mance assessments and technical audits to determine
potential energy savings and set appropriate goals
for improving energy efficiency in existing buildings.
States can also evaluate a building's benchmarking
results to estimate potential savings based on the
energy performance of similar buildings. For new and
renovated buildings, state governments can use tools
such as the ENERGY STAR Target Finder to set energy
performance targets and assess building designs. In
addition, states can consider the targets achieved by
similar buildings by reviewing other organizations' and
governments' experiences. Through July 2008, 31 states
have accepted the ENERGY STAR Challenge, estab-
lishing goals of improving energy efficiency in their
buildings by at least 10% (U.S. EPA, 2008w).
Determine appropriate scope. Goals for improving
energy efficiency in new and existing buildings can be
established at different levels, ranging from process- or
equipment-specific goals, to facility-level and portfo-
lio-wide goals. These goals can also be established over
varying time periods. Many states have established
both short-term and long-term goals for improving
energy efficiency in buildings that can lead to quick
cost savings that continue to accrue far into the future.
See http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc = spp res.pt sppsfor a direc-
tory of energy service and product providers.
Goals for improving energy efficiency in state buildings
can be part of a larger LBE goal that incorporates mul-
tiple clean energy LBE activities. For more information
on setting LBE goals, see Section 3.4, Set LBE Goals.
Steps 4 and 5: Create and Implement An
Action Plan
A regularly updated action plan for improving energy
efficiency in existing and new buildings can serve as a
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS USING ENERGY STAR TO
MEET ENERGY SAVINGS GOALS
Many state and local governments are using ENERGY STAR to
meet their energy savings goals.
1 About two-thirds of the nation's states, and more than 200
local governments, have adopted the ENERGY STAR Challenge
to improve energy efficiency in their buildings by at least 10%
(U.S. EPA, 2008o).
1 Some states, such as California and Hawaii, have directed state
agencies to give priority to ENERGY STAR-labeled buildings
when pursuing new leases (California, 2004a; Hawaii, 2006).
1 Minnesota has established a goal for the state to achieve 1,000
ENERGY STAR-labeled commercial buildings, including state
government facilities, by 2010 (Minnesota, 2007).
1 New Hampshire has entered the ENERGY STAR Challenge,
through which participants commit to reduce energy use by
10% (U.S. EPA, 2005c).
BENCHMARKING STATE FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA
California Executive Order S-20-04, issued in 2004, established
a number of energy efficiency goals for public and commercial
facilities, including state government buildings and schools.
Among these goals was a directive to state agencies to reduce
grid-based energy purchases for state-owned buildings by 20%
by 2015 from 2003 levels.
An Green Building Action Plan that accompanied the executive
order directed the California Energy Commission (CEC) to
coordinate with EPA to develop a system to benchmark and
track energy consumption in state facilities. The CEC developed
a system based on the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager tool
and tailored to California's unique needs. In August 2008, the
state reported that it had benchmarked more than 100 million
square feet of its facilities, which revealed a 4% decrease in
energy consumption in state facilities since 2003.
In addition, a bill passed by the state legislature in 2007 will
make it easier for state agencies to update energy consumption
data for benchmarked facilities. Assembly Bill 1103 requires
electric and gas utilities in the state to maintain at least 12
months of data for all non-residential buildings to which
they provide services, beginning in 2009. This data must be
maintained such that it can be uploaded into Portfolio Manager
at the building owner's request.
Sources: California, 2004a; California, 2004b; California, 2007;
California GAT, 2008.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 41
-------
roadmap for implementing energy efficiency measures
through a systematic process. Step 4, creating an action
plan involves establishing energy performance targets
for each building, identifying the technical measures
that can help meet that performance target, identifying
resources necessary to implement the action plan, and
determining roles and responsibilities of internal and
external parties.
Key strategies for developing an action plan for im-
proving energy efficiency in buildings include:
Develop whole building energy performance targets.
Once a state government has evaluated its portfolio's
performance and set portfolio-wide goals (based on
the energy savings potential of priority investments in
existing buildings and the anticipated energy savings
potential for new building designs), it can establish
energy performance targets for each existing and new
building. Establishing energy performance targets for
each building allows states to clearly articulate to build-
ing occupants and other key personnel the expected
results of energy efficiency investments in each facility,
and enables state governments to track progress and
measure results. Whole building energy performance
targets can be developed for existing buildings using the
ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager tool, which enables
users to identify baseline energy performance and set
targets based on EPA's national energy performance
rating system (U.S. EPA, 2008m). For new buildings, a
complementary tool called the ENERGY STAR Target
Finder can be used to set whole building performance
targets (U.S. EPA, 2008c). For building types not cov-
ered by these tools, EPA has developed a list of reference
energy performance targets based on national averages.4
See 2003 CBECS National Average Source Energy Use and Performance
Comparisons by Building Type (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/
tools resources/new bldg design/2003 CBECSPerformanceTargetsTable.
pdflfor a list of reference energy performance targets for building types not
currently eligible to receive ratings under EPA's building energy performance
rating system.
Use a staged approach to identify technical measures for
improving energy efficiency. For existing buildings, a
staged approach, which sequences building upgrades
in a logical, systems-oriented way, can lead to the
greatest energy savings for the available budget. When
following this approach, states can identify, for each
step in the process, appropriate technical measures
that are most likely to improve energy efficiency in a
cost-effective way. The staged approach recommended
by EPA's ENERGY STAR program involves imple-
menting the following steps in sequence (see the text
box on page 2-15 for a more detailed description of
this approach):
Conduct recommissioning.
Install energy-efficient lighting.
Purchase ENERGY STAR-labeled office equipment
and building envelope components to reduce the
supplemental load.
Install fan system upgrades.
Install heating and cooling system upgrades.
Figure 2.1.1 illustrates the benefits of implementing en-
ergy efficiency upgrades based on several of these EPA-
recommended stages. As shown in the figure, cooling
capacity can be reduced by up to 5% for a typical office
building when implementing HVAC measures after
all other upgrades. The figure also shows that imple-
menting upgrades in appropriate stages reduces the
overall cooling capacity needed, which can enable state
governments to purchase "right-sized" equipment.
"Right-sized" equipment is sized to meet the necessary
load after efficiency measures are implemented, as op-
posed to oversized equipment that serves the load, but
at a higher up-front cost.
Figure 2.1.2 illustrates how implementing upgrades in
a staged fashion can reduce a building's energy loads,
FIGURE 2.1.1. BENEFITS OF INTEGRATING ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Sequence of Upgrade
Measures
Good
Better
Best
1st
Upgrade
HVAC
O&M
O&M
2nd
Upgrade
O&M
HVAC
Lighting
3rd
Upgrade
Lighting
Lighting
HVAC
Cooling Capacity
(Tons)
760
752
722
Reduction in Cooling
Capacity (%)
0%
1%
5%
Source: NAPEE, 2008.
42 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
and result in an overall energy consumption reduction
of30%(NAPEE,2008).
While the preceding staged approach makes sense for
existing buildings, states follow a different approach
for new buildings. To help states design new building
systems and materials as an integral network that will
improve energy performance, EPA has developed the
ENERGY STAR Integrated Energy Design Guidance
to Design (U.S. EPA, 2008b). This guidance document
can help states identify cost-effective energy measures
that consider the environment, climate, building
orientation, and other features that affect performance
in new facilities. It is important to note that for new
buildings, it is essential to conduct commissioning
during the construction process and to continue
commissioning through occupancy to verify that the
new building functions as intended. Several resources
are available to help states identify energy efficiency
measures for existing buildings and new buildings,
including:
Upgrade and design guidance materials. Energy
efficiency upgrade and design guidance materials
are helpful for identifying and prioritizing techni-
cal measures to incorporate into a state's energy
efficiency action plan. For example, the ENERGY
STAR Building Upgrade Manual provides guidance
on using the staged approach for upgrading existing
buildings (see the text box on page 2-15). For new
buildings, states can use energy-efficient design
guidelines such as the ENERGY STAR Integrated
Energy Design Guidance. This document provides a
strategic management approach for incorporating
energy performance considerations into the building
design process, and can be used by design profes-
sionals to establish and achieve energy performance
goals (U.S. EPA, 2008b). States can also use the
Whole Building Design Guide, a resource developed
with EPA and DOE support by the National Institute
of Building Sciences, which provides information on
energy-efficient building design and offers numer-
ous case studies, tools, and guidance documents
(WBDG, 2008).
Best practices. States can obtain information on best
practices from other organizations that have upgraded
buildings and achieved superior energy performance.
For example, ENERGY STAR Labeled Buildings and
Plants is an EPA-maintained list of the more than
4,000 buildings that have earned the ENERGY STAR
label for energy performance (U.S. EPA, 2008r).
FIGURE 6.1.3 TYPICAL OFFICE BUILDING LOAD
PROFILE
The graphic below illustrates a typical 250,000 ft2 office
building's load profile for cooling, ventilation, lighting,
and other energy demand on a summer day in Chicago,
Illinois.
I M _ .1 D.JY
Implementing a suite of energy efficiency upgrades
could significantly reduce the building's energy
consumption. The graphic below illustrates the energy
loads for the same building after implementing several
staged upgrades, including:
1. O&M/re-commissioning measures (e.g., optimizing
temperature setpoints, HVAC scheduling, etc.)
2. Lighting measures (compact fluorescents, daylighting
controls, etc.), and
3. HVAC measures (high efficiency chillers, premium
efficiency motors, etc.).
Implementing these upgrades noticeably reduces each
energy load. The total resultant energy decrease is
approximately 30%.
12:»in. 100IH tOOun.
SOOl.m )<-)(» I!»!J>.
Source: NAPEE, 2008
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 43
-------
Many ESCOs have experience with proven techni-
cal energy efficiency measures, and can incorporate
these measures into an action plan through the energy
performance contracting process. EPA has developed a
directory of service product providers that can provide
states with expert advise and technical assistance on
entering energy performance contracts.5 For more
information on energy performance contracting, see
Section 5.2, Fund the LBE Program.
Secure necessary funding. When creating an action plan
for improving energy efficiency in state buildings, it is
important to identify the capital costs of implementing
the action plan, and to evaluate funding opportunities.
The following financial tools are available through
EPA's ENERGY STAR program to help prioritize en-
ergy efficiency investments and make the case for these
investments:
Cash Flow Opportunity Calculator. This tool can be
used to determine how much new energy-efficient
equipment can be purchased based on estimated
cost savings, whether equipment should be pur-
chased now using financing or if it is better to
wait and use cash from a future year's budget, and
whether money is being lost by waiting for lower
interest rates.
Financial Value Calculator. This tool presents energy
efficiency investment opportunities in terms of key
financial metrics. It can be used to determine how
energy efficiency improvements can affect organiza-
tional profit margins and returns on investments.
Building Upgrade Value Calculator. This calculator
can be used to estimate the financial benefits of im-
proving energy efficiency in office buildings.
Once a state government has determined the size of
the investment required to implement priority energy
efficiency upgrades, it can consider a range of financ-
ing options. Financial assistance for improving energy
efficiency in state buildings can be secured through a
number of sources. Many states administer programs
that provide incentives to state departments or agen-
cies that invest in energy efficiency, while a number of
states have identified and secured funding resources
from external sources. Energy performance contracts,
for example, can be used to implement energy ef-
ficiency upgrades at no up-front cost, often through
See http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc = spp res.pt sppsfor a direc-
tory of energy service and product providers.
a financial arrangement with an ESCO. For more
information on funding LBE programs, see Section 5.2,
Finance the LBE Program.
In cases where states do not have sufficient resources
to improve energy efficiency across a broad portfolio
of buildings, they can concentrate resources to sys-
tematically improve energy efficiency in one or a few
buildings. Experiences from such pilot projects can be
applied to a broader suite of buildings when additional
resources become available.
CASH FLOW OPPORTUNITY CALCULATOR
The ENERGY STAR Cash Flow Opportunity Calculator is a
decision-making tool that can be used to influence the timing
of energy-efficient product purchases. The tool can be used to
determine:
The quantity of energy-efficient equipment that can be
purchased and financed using anticipated savings;
Whether it is most cost-effective for the purchase to be financed
now, or to be paid for using future operating funds; and
The cost of delay: whether money is being lost while waiting
for a lower interest rate.
www.energystar.gov/ia/business/cfo_calculator.xls
Source: U.S. EPA, 2003c.
Steps 6 and 7: Evaluate Progress and
Recognize Success
Implementing an action plan for improving energy ef-
ficiency does not in itself guarantee that a building will
achieve its intended energy performance target. State
governments can verify that they are making progress
toward achieving their overall energy efficiency goal
by using tools such as the ENERGY STAR Portfolio
Manager to monitor energy performance and identify
new opportunities for energy efficiency improvements
across their portfolio (Step 6, Evaluate Progress). Chap-
ter 6, Track, Evaluate, and Report on Progress, provides
additional guidance on options for evaluating the per-
formance of an LBE program, including information
specific to tracking and evaluating energy performance
in government buildings.
Another way to sustain momentum and support for
energy efficiency activities is to obtain recognition
for achieving performance goals (Step 7, Recognize
Success). In addition to recognizing success internally,
third-party recognition opportunities include:
44 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
OVERVIEW OF EPA BUILDING
UPGRADE MANUAL STAGED
APPROACH FOR IMPROVING
ENERGY PERFORMANCE
The staged approach outlined in the 2008
ENERGY STAR Building Upgrade Manual
provides a systematic method for planning
energy efficiency upgrades in buildings that
accounts for interactions between building
energy systems, enabling organizations to
achieve greater energy savings. This ap-
proach involves the following stages:
1. Commissioning and Recommissioning:
Commissioning a new building before it be-
comes operational to ensure energy systems
were constructed as designed can produce
energy cost savings of $0.02 to $0.19 per
square foot (Mills et al., 2004). Commission-
ing can also produce non-energy benefits,
such as improved occupant comfort and in-
door air quality. One study estimates that the
average value of non-energy benefits for ev-
ery $1 spent on commissioning ranges from
$1 to as high as $2.30, when accounting
for energy efficiency rebates. Non-energy
benefits resulting from commissioning are
estimated to be $0.50 per square foot (Mills
et al., 2004; Jennings and Skumatz, 2006).
Recommissioning is a key activity in iden-
tifying technical measures for a staged
approach to improving energy efficiency
and involves periodically examining build-
ing equipment, systems, and maintenance
procedures and comparing them to initial
design intentions and current operational
needs. This process can identify no- and
low-cost technical measures for improving
energy efficiency and can result in energy
cost savings between $0.11 and $0.72 per
square foot.
2. Lighting: Improving the energy efficiency
of the building lighting system can reduce
lighting energy costs. Lighting systems can
account for up to 30% of a building's total
energy use, and savings from going beyond
standard equipment selection can be sig-
nificant: 20% to 40% for lamps and ballasts,
30% to 50% for new fixtures, 40% to 60% for
using task/ambient lighting strategies, and
30% to 50% for outdoor lighting. Improv-
ing lighting system energy efficiency can
also improve lighting quality and reduce
unwanted heat gain. Technical measures for
improving lighting system energy efficiency
include:
Design light quantity and quality to meet
task and occupant needs
Maximize lamp and ballast efficiency
Install automatic controls to turn off or dim
lighting
Establish schedules for group re-lamping
and fixture cleaning
Purchase ENERGY STAR-qualified lighting
products
Use responsible disposal practices.
3. Supplemental Load Reductions: Pur-
chasing ENERGY STAR labeled office equip-
ment and improving the energy efficiency
of building envelope components (e.g., in-
stalling window films and adding insulation
or reflective roof coating) reduces supple-
mental load energy consumption. Reducing
supplemental loads enables organizations
to install smaller fan, heating, and cooling
systems that cost less and use less energy.
4. Fan Systems Upgrades: Fan systems
can account for as much as 11% of an of-
fice building's total energy use. Technical
measures, such as properly sizing fan system
equipment, installing variable speed drives,
and converting to a variable-air-volume
system, can significantly reduce fan system
energy costs from 50% to 85%.
5. Heating And Cooling System Upgrades:
Heating and cooling systems typically ac-
count for one-third of a building's energy
use. Improving energy efficiency in these
systems can produce significant savings.
Cooling system energy savings can range
from 15% to 33% for central chiller systems
and 20% to 35% for unitary air conditioning
systems. Heating system energy savings can
range from 10% to 30% for systems that use
boilers and 5% to 25% for systems that use
furnaces. A strategy for improving heating
and cooling system efficiency involves:
Measure heating and cooling loads
Right size heating and cooling systems
Install energy-efficient chillers
Upgrade other heating and cooling system
components
Install variable speed drives on pumps and
cooling tower fans
Optimize operations.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2008x.
ENERGY STAR Qualified Buildings. Buildings achiev-
ing an energy performance rating of 75 or greater are
eligible to apply for the ENERGY STAR label. Build-
ings that have earned the ENERGY STAR label use, on
average, 40% less energy as compared to conventional
buildings, (U.S. EPA, 2008h).
ENERGY STAR Awards. EPA also provides recognition
to organizations that meet important energy savings
milestones, such as improvements of 10%, 20% and
30% relative to their initial baselines.
2.1.3 EXAMPLES OF STATE AND LOCAL
ACTIVITIES FOR IMPROVING ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS
State and local governments are using a variety of ap-
proaches to improve energy efficiency in individual
buildings and in their portfolio of government facili-
ties. The following examples provide brief descriptions
of some of these approaches. Additional examples are
provided in, Section 4.5, State Examples of Screening
LBE Activities and Measures.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 45
-------
Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings
Michigan - State Facility Energy Savings Plan
The Michigan Department of Management and
Budget is working to implement an energy savings
plan with the goal of reducing energy expenditures in
department-managed facilities by 10% by 2009, based
on 2002 levels. This plan, which involves coordinat-
ing with the Department of Labor and Economic
Growth's Energy Office to benchmark state facilities
using EPA's ENERGY STAR tools, is expected to save
the state $1.6 million annually beginning in 2009. To
help state agencies reduce energy use in their facili-
ties, the Energy Office provides assistance in securing
energy performance contracts. Since 1987, the state has
invested $17 million in energy performance contracts
that it estimates have generated more than $22 million
(Michigan, DLEG, 2008 and Michigan, DLEG, 2008a).
For example, Lake Superior State University (LSSU),
a small public university in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan,
became an ENERGY STAR partner and contracted
with an energy service provider to help measure,
track, and benchmark its energy performance, develop
and implement a plan to improve its facilities and
operations, and educate its staff and the public about
its ENERGY STAR program and achievements. This
process identified 184 facility improvement measures
providing total annual energy and operational savings
of almost $430,000 with a payback of about 11 years.
The improvements included lighting retrofits, me-
chanical retrofits, steam trap retrofits, roof and window
replacements, water saving measurements, and other
enhancements to the 42 building campus. (Michigan
Energy Office, Undated).
Web site: http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-
25676_25689_33337-103911-,OO.html
Montana -20X10 Initiative
Created by the governor in 2007, the 20 X 10 Initia-
tive calls on executive branch agencies to reduce their
energy consumption by 20% by 2010, based on 2007
levels. Agencies can achieve this goal following vari-
ous paths, but the state encourages them to adopt an
energy management strategy that first capitalizes on
the savings provided by measures with short payback
periods. Specifically, state agencies are encouraged con-
duct a comprehensive energy audit of their facilities,
and then focus on improving the energy efficiency of
their operating practices (e.g., making adjustments to
lighting and heating settings) and purchasing ENERGY
STAR-qualified equipment.
The state Department of Environmental Quality is
collecting past energy bills and using these data to
assess each agency's baseline energy performance. In
addition, this database will be used to provide agencies
with regular energy use reports so they can track their
progress in reducing energy consumption. The state's
executive branch agencies spent approximately $12
million on energy in its baseline year (2007), meaning
the initiative could potentially save the state $2.4 mil-
lion in 2010 (Montana, 2008).
Web site: http://governor.mt.gov/20xlO/
New Hampshire - ENERGY STAR Challenge
Participant
In 2004, the governor of New Hampshire issued an ex-
ecutive order directing the Department of Administra-
tive Services to develop an energy information system
that state government agencies could use to track and
report their energy use. In addition, the order requires
agencies to train staff in using EPA's ENERGY STAR
tools and to use these tools to benchmark state govern-
ment facilities. It created an Energy Efficiency in State
Government Steering Committee to develop plans to
reduce energy use in state facilities, including a plan to
conduct energy audits on all state facilities achieving
scores between 40 and 60 on EPA's national energy
performance rating system (using the ENERGY STAR
benchmarking tools) and a plan to purchase ENERGY
STAR-qualified products. The steering committee was
also responsible for developing a state government-
wide energy use reduction goal, which resulted in
a 2005 executive order that entered the state as a
participant in the ENERGY STAR Challenge, with the
goal of improving state government energy efficiency
by 10%. This second executive order also directs state
agencies to implement the steering committee's plans
for reducing energy use (New Hampshire, 2004; New
Hampshire 2005).
In 2006, the renovated Department of Justice building
became the first office building in the state to receive
the ENERGY STAR label. The state has conducted an
energy efficiency upgrade of the facility under a perfor-
mance contract that enabled the state to pay for the up-
grade using energy cost savings. The building received
new lighting and lighting controls, an advanced energy
management system, energy-efficient hot water pumps
and air conditioners, and water-efficient plumbing
46 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
fixtures. The upgrades resulted in a 37% reduction in
energy consumption and annual energy cost savings
of over $24,000. These energy savings translate to the
avoidance of more than 900 metric tons of CO2 emis-
sions annually (New Hampshire, Undated).
Web site: http://www.des.state.nh.us/ard/
dimatechange/index.html#state
Oregon - Building Commissioning Program
Under its Building Commissioning program, the Or-
egon Department of Energy provides technical assis-
tance to managers of both public and private facilities.
The state requires recommissioning or commissioning
for specified energy-related projects funded through
the state's Public Purpose Fund. These projects include
HVAC and direct digital control projects exceeding
$50,000, boiler and chiller projects exceeding $100,000,
and other energy-related projects (e.g., lighting
and lighting controls, building envelope) exceeding
$150,000 (Oregon, 2006).
Recommissioning a newly-constructed school facility
in the Silver Falls, Oregon School District revealed
discrepancies in the installation and operation of
the HVAC systems that were causing energy costs
to exceed expected costs by 32%. The school district
estimated that the recommissioning findings and cor-
rective actions would save approximately $15,000 per
year in energy costs and that the full cost of the process
would be recouped in about five years (Oregon, 2004).
Web site: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/
B US/comm/bldgcx.shtml
Washington - Building Commissioning Program
The Washington General Administration (GA) oper-
ates a Building Commissioning Program to assist
publicly-owned or -operated facilities in conducting
building commissioning. The GA partners with these
facilities and provides resources to help them build a
commissioning team, negotiate the scope of work and
commissioning cost, and ensure that both new and
existing buildings are designed and operated so that
the operational needs are met, the building performs
efficiently, and building operators are trained (Wash-
ington, 2006).
In 2003, the energy management and control system of
the Washington Department of Ecology headquarters
facility, which was designed in 1993 to exceed state
energy code by 30%, received a substantial upgrade.
This involved multiple improvements to the building's
ventilation systems, including a new digital control
system, building pressure controls, CO2 controls,
outside airflow instrumentation, and interactive kiosks
throughout the building to provide system feedback to
occupants. Following these upgrades, the entire build-
ing was re-commissioned to ensure that all equipment
was operating correctly. Once completed, these up-
grades reduced the building's energy intensity to 54.6
kBtu per square foot, considerably lower than the aver-
age 82 kBtu per square foot intensity of conventional
buildings. This achievement earned the building the
ENERGY STAR label in 2005 (U.S. EPA, 2008f).
Web site: http://www.ga.wa.gov/EAS/bcx/index.html
Wisconsin - Wisconsin Energy Initiative
As part of its Wisconsin Energy Initiative, the state
has partnered with EPA's ENERGY STAR program to
implement energy efficiency measures in existing and
new state buildings. Beginning with a lighting retrofit,
the state used ENERGY STAR tools and resources to
systematically replace lighting fixtures in 53 million
square feet of office space in state government build-
ings. The results of this initial measure were substan-
tial: over 108 million kWh of annual energy savings,
approximately $7.5 million in annual energy cost sav-
ings, and emission reductions equivalent to removing
nearly 20,000 vehicles from state roads for one year.
The state followed this initial retrofit with whole-
building examinations, pursuing new strategies for
improving energy efficiency and reducing water usage.
Under the expanded initiative, the state retrofitted an
additional 60 million square feet of office space at a total
expected cost for the upgrades of $35 million. The an-
nual savings achieved as a result of these comprehensive
assessments are expected to total $11 million. Projected
additional energy and emissions savings are significant:
15.6 million kWh; 11,472 tons of carbon, 1,156 pounds
of NOx, and 537 pounds of CH4(NASEO, 2006).
Web site: http://www.naseo.org/tforces/energystar/
casestudies/.
Energy Efficiency in New Buildings
North Carolina - Sustainable Energy Efficient
Buildings Program
North Carolina joined the ENERGY STAR Challenge
in 2005 and is working with EPA'S ENERGY STAR
program to improve its facilities' energy efficiency
by 10%. In 2007, the state legislature passed a bill
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 47
-------
requiring that the combined energy consumption for
all state government buildings be reduced by 20% by
2010, and 30% by 2015, based on FY 2004 levels. The
2007 legislation also created the Sustainable Energy Ef-
ficient Buildings Program. Under this program, all new
buildings greater than 20,000 square feet, and reno-
vated buildings greater than 20,000 square feet with
renovation costs greater than 50% of the insurance
value, must be designed, constructed, and certified to
exceed the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Standard by 30% (for
new buildings) and 20% (for renovations), and must
be commissioned to verify energy-efficient design. The
bill includes a provision that after one year of opera-
tion, the new building energy performance must be
verified. If at this time energy performance is 85% or
less than the target, corrections and modifications must
be explored (North Carolina, 2007; U.S. EPA, 2008q).
The Sustainable Energy Efficient Buildings Program is
a component of the state's Utility Savings Initiative, a
multi-program approach to reducing utility expendi-
tures in state buildings that involves strategic energy
planning, agency personnel training, and performance
contracting.
Web sites: http://www.energync.net/programs/usi.html
(Utility Savings Initiative)
http://www.energync.net/programs/docs/usi/
SessionLaw2007-546.pdf (Sustainable Energy Efficient
Buildings Program Enabling Legislation)
Fort Collins, Colorado - Energy Management and
Integrated Energy-Efficient Design in K-12 Schools
The Poudre School District in Fort Collins, Colorado
began an energy management program in 1994 with a
goal of reducing energy costs district-wide. As part of
this program, the district has implemented nearly 150
energy efficiency upgrades through 2007, producing
annual energy cost savings of nearly $440,000. To help
evaluate and track district-wide energy performance,
the district has used ENERGY STAR tools to bench-
mark each of its buildings.
As of FY 2007, 17 schools and two administrative of-
fices had earned the ENERGY STAR label, including
the new Operations Building. This building's design
integrated a number of energy efficiency measures,
including daylighting, automated lighting systems with
dimmers, on-site solar electricity generating panels,
and a geo-exchange heating system. To achieve opti-
mum energy efficiency measure integration, the design
team used EPA's ENERGY STAR Target Finder tool to
set energy targets multiple times during the early stages
of the building design process. These early evaluations
allowed the design team to use Target Finder's energy
simulation software to make adjustments to building
orientation, envelope, materials, internal systems, and
equipment. As the design process progressed, the team
was able to achieve consistent design performance rat-
ings in the 80s. The building was completed in 2002,
and after 12 months of energy use data were compiled,
the building earned a rating of 97 on the EPA national
energy performance rating system, qualifying the
building for the ENERGY STAR label. In 2005, the
Operations Building achieved a perfect rating (U.S.
EPA, 2008d).
Web site: http://www.psdschools.org/services/
operations/facilities/energymanagement.aspx
2.2 ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN GREEN
BUILDINGS
Many states have found that the new and renovated
building planning, design, and construction processes
offer opportunities to integrate energy efficiency mea-
sures with other "green" features (e.g., lowering GHG
emissions, improving indoor air quality and sustainable
site selection) that provide additional environmental,
economic, and health benefits. Energy efficiency, a
critical element of green building that is often con-
sidered first in green building design, has become the
cornerstone of many state government green build-
ing programs. In addition to enhancing a building's
GREEN BUILDING AND ENERGY STAR
When upgrading existing buildings or designing new buildings,
states are looking to green building certification programs such
as U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) design-based rating system
and the Green Globes rating system. These rating systems
standardize the elements of green building by conferring
design certification based on requirements for (1) energy and
atmosphere, (2) site sustainability, (3) water efficiency, (4)
materials and resources, (5) indoor air quality, and (6) innovative
design process.
Depending upon the rating system, it can be important to add
requirements for energy performance, such as achieving EPA's
ENERGY STAR program levels. It is also important to require
third-party verification, which is required to earn the ENERGY
STAR label on commercial buildings.
Some states and cities, such as Pennsylvania and Washington,
D.C., have found that using a combination of ENERGY STAR and
LEED is key to ensuring that new and renovated buildings meet
both energy and environmental performance criteria.
48 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
environmental profile (e.g., through reduced GHG
emissions), states have found that incorporating energy
efficiency can improve the cost-effectiveness of green
buildings.
Many terms are used to describe buildings that in-
corporate energy efficiency and other environmental
features. These terms include green buildings, high per-
formance buildings, and sustainable buildings, among
others. There is not yet a consensus on the definitions
of these terms, and energy and environmental experts
sometimes use the terms interchangeably. Regardless of
the definitions, there is often a public perception that
energy efficiency and "green" are interchangeable, and
that green buildings are energy efficient. However, this
is not always the case; some "green" buildings do not
adequately incorporate energy efficiency.
The LBE Guide uses the term "green building" as an all-
encompassing description of buildings that incorporate
energy efficiency plus other energy and environmental
features where cost effective and practical, including:
• Renewable energy supply
Combined heat and power (CHP)
Sustainable site design that minimizes stress on the
local landscape
Water efficiency and quality
Green materials and resources that minimize con-
sumption and waste
Indoor air quality
This section of the LBE Guide focuses on approaches
for ensuring that green building policies and activities
are designed to achieve energy efficiency and the asso-
ciated environmental and financial benefits that come
with combining superior energy performance and
other green features.
2.2.1 BENEFITS OF GREEN BUILDINGS
Green buildings provide the benefits of energy ef-
ficiency (see Section 2.1.1.) plus additional energy and
environmental benefits. For example, ENERGY STAR-
labeled buildings can reduce energy costs by as much
as 50% compared to conventional buildings, producing
savings of about $0.50 per square foot per year. These
energy efficiency savings are the key driver for achiev-
ing overall cost-effectiveness in green building design
(U.S. EPA, 2008n; U.S. EPA, 20061).
In addition, green buildings can provide environmental
benefits, such as lowering GHG emissions, reducing
construction and demolition debris, ecosystem protec-
tion, and conserving natural resources. The actual ben-
efits depend upon the environmental features pursued
by the building owner and developer, which can de-
pend on the rating system adopted (e.g., LEED, Green
Globe) and whether the building operates as designed.
Some of these environmental features can have second-
ary energy saving benefits. For example, many green
buildings incorporate water efficiency measures, which
can save heating energy while conserving a natural re-
source (U.S. EPA, 2008t). For more information on ac-
tivities that can have secondary energy saving benefits,
see Section 2.6, Other Energy Saving Opportunities.
2.2.2 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES FOR GREEN BUILDINGS
When planning and implementing strategies for green
buildings, states can follow the energy management
steps described in Section 2.1, Energy Efficiency in
Buildings. Other key strategies include:
Ensure that energy efficiency is specifically included in
green building policies. Energy efficiency is a critical
element of green building and is a key feature of the
design process. States have found that requiring a
ARIZONA GREEN BUILDING POLICY
In 2007, Arizona passed legislation requiring the state's largest
agencies to reduce energy consumption per square foot by
30% by July 1, 2020 based on FY 2002 levels. To help meet this
goal, the legislation included a requirement that all new state-
funded buildings be designed to meet LEED certification.
The new Arizona Department of Environmental Quality building
was designed to achieve optimal energy performance with
minimal impact on the environment. Using a 25-year lease-
to-own financing agreement, the agency was able to use a
life-cycle costing approach in designing the building. Building
design energy efficiency and renewable energy measures
include:
A reflective roof to minimize "heat island effect"
Variable frequency drives for motors
Low-e glass to reduce reliance on cooling system
Efficient lighting, including dimmers and LED exit signs
Electrical system with ENERGY STAR transformers
A 100-kW PV system connected to the grid.
The energy efficiency, renewable energy, and green measures
incorporated into the building's design have earned it both
LEED-Silver certification and the ENERGY STAR label.
Sources: ADEQ, 2006a, 2006b.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 49
-------
INCORPORATING ENERGY EFFICIENCY
INTO GREEN BUILDING POLICIES
Energy efficiency can be incorporated into green building
policies in different ways, depending on the green building
rating system used. States can take the following steps to
incorporate energy efficiency into green building policies.
LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB)
Require that the actual energy use of buildings meets
aggressive energy performance targets, based on the most
energy-efficient existing buildings in the market.
For building types covered by EPA's ENERGY STAR Portfolio
Manager rating system, the target should be at least 75, the
level at which a building is eligible to earn the ENERGY STAR
label. This is more stringent than the LEED-EB requirement
and will result in greater energy efficiency. See Develop Whole
Building Performance Targets in Section 2.1.2, Planning and
Implementation Strategies for Improving Energy Efficiency
in Government Buildings, for more detailed guidance and
strategies for building types not covered by Portfolio Manager.
Strive to achieve the greatest possible quantity of credits in the
LEED energy and atmosphere section.
Once a building has been operating for one year, compare the
building's actual performance to the energy target used during
the design phase and confirm that the building is eligible for
the ENERGY STAR, where available.
LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC)
Require design teams to meet an aggressive energy
performance target, based on the most energy-efficient
existing buildings in the market. For building types covered
by EPA's ENERGY STAR Target Finder, the target should be at
least 75, the level at which a building is "Designed to earn the
ENERGY STAR." See Develop Whole Building Performance
Targets in Section 2.1.2, Planning and Implementation Issues for
Improving Energy Efficiency in Government Buildings, for more
detailed guidance and strategies for building types not covered
by Target Finder.
Strive to achieve the greatest possible quantity of credits in the
LEED energy and atmosphere section.
Once a building has been operating for one year, compare the
building's actual performance to the energy target used during
the design phase and confirm that building is eligible for the
ENERGY STAR, where available.
Green Globes Rating System for New Buildings or Significant
Renovation
Strive to achieve the highest possible rating using the Green
Globes rating system, which requires new building designs to
achieve a rating of 75 (to be eligible for the ENERGY STAR) or
better using EPA's ENERGY STAR Target Finder. See Develop
Whole Building Performance Targets in Section 2.1.2, Planning
and Implementation Issues for Improving Energy Efficiency
in Government Buildings, for more detailed guidance and
strategies for building types not covered by Target Finder.
Once a building has been operating for one year, compare the
building's actual performance to the energy target used during
the design phase and confirm that the building is eligible for
the ENERGY STAR, where available.
combination of energy performance tools and green
building approaches from the onset can ensure that
new and renovated buildings meet both energy per-
formance and environmental criteria. An increasingly
common strategy is to use the EPA'S ENERGY STAR
platform in conjunction with the USGBC's LEED
rating system for green building design. For example,
Pennsylvania is exploring the possibility of establishing
a system that would mandate minimum point require-
ments in certain LEED categories in addition to requir-
ing new state buildings to receive at least 85 points
under ENERGY STAR certification (IEc, 2005). For
more information on incorporating energy efficiency
in green building polices, see the text box on page 2-24.
Evaluate opportunities for renewable energy sources.
While energy efficiency investments are typically a
low-cost approach to reducing GHG and air pollution
emissions in buildings, additional reductions can be
achieved with on-site renewable energy sources (e.g.,
solar photovoltaics, geothermal heating). Green build-
ings that incorporate renewable energy generation as
backup power systems can also benefit from improved
power supply reliability. For more information about
on-site renewable energy generation, see Section 2.5,
Clean Energy Supply.
Integrate energy efficiency and renewable energy into
climate change goals. Implementing energy efficiency
and renewable energy measures are key options for
reducing GHG emissions. Thus, as governments adopt
climate change goals, it is critical to develop a cost-
effective and robust strategy for advancing clean energy
within the government sector. By coordinating climate
change, energy efficiency, and renewable energy activi-
ties, states are in a better position to achieve results and
gain support for these programs.
Include requirements for third-party verification of
energy performance. Third-party verification is an im-
portant step towards ensuring that green buildings are
energy efficient. While some green building certifica-
tion only considers a building's design, third-party ver-
ification of energy performance can determine whether
a building is performing as intended. States can obtain
third-party verification from a number of sources,
including ESCOs and energy service providers.6
A number of states have included provisions in
their green building policies requiring third-party
See http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc = spp res.pt sppsfor a direc-
tory of energy service and product providers.
50 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
verification to confirm that, once they become opera-
tional, buildings meet the energy performance targets
established during the planning and design phases. For
example South Carolina established a goal to optimize
energy performance in state buildings and pursue the
ENERGY STAR label wherever possible. The legisla-
tion also includes a green building policy requiring
all new state facilities to be designed to receive either
the LEED-Silver certification or two globes using the
Green Globes Rating System. The policy specifies that
facilities designed to achieve these standards must earn
at least 40% or 20%, respectively, of the available points
for energy performance under the LEED and Green
Globes rating systems. To ensure that new facilities
achieve their intended energy performance, the legisla-
tion requires third-party verification in the fifth, tenth,
and fifteenth years of operation. Commissioning agents
must report on each building's energy performance
relative to the performance anticipated during the
design phase (South Carolina, 2007).
Consider conducting a demonstration project. When
resources and/or support for implementing a green
building policy for state government facilities are lim-
ited, states can develop a single green building to serve
as a demonstration project. These projects can be used
to showcase the energy efficiency and environmental
benefits of green buildings, while helping to make the
case for implementing a portfolio-wide green build-
ing approach as additional support and/or resources
become available.
2.2.3 EXAMPLES OF STATE AND LOCAL GREEN
BUILDING ACTIVITIES
Many states and local governments have made green
building activities the cornerstone of a comprehensive
LBE program. Examples of state green building activi-
ties are provided below.
Hawaii - Lead by Example Initiative
The Hawaii Lead by Example Initiative began in 2006
with an executive order (later codified by the state leg-
islature in Act 96) directing state agencies to improve
energy, water, and resource efficiency in their facilities.
The order established a green building policy, mandat-
ing that all state-funded newly constructed and reno-
vated buildings be designed to meet LEED certification
and achieve LEED-Silver certification where possible.
To ensure that these buildings achieve superior energy
performance, the state is following a strategic energy
management approach that involves benchmarking,
conducting whole-building energy audits, and recom-
missioning buildings in stages. In addition, a state en-
ergy coordinator is working to achieve energy perfor-
mance certification for several state buildings through
EPAs ENERGY STAR program. Through 2007, four
state government buildings had earned the ENERGY
STAR label (Hawaii, 2008).
In addition, the Hawaii Lead by Example Program is
providing innovative solutions to the end-use efficiency
strategy of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI),
a partnership established by the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) and the State of Hawaii on January 28,
2008. The goal of the HCEI is to achieve a least a 70%
clean energy basis for Hawaii within a generation.
Web site: http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/
efficiency'/state/lbe
Minnesota - State Sustainable Building Guidelines
The Minnesota Energy Security and Reliability Act of
2001 requires that new buildings receiving state bond
funding be designed consistent with sustainable build-
ing design guidelines developed by the Departments
of Administration and Commerce. The state legislature
determined that these guidelines should require build-
ings to exceed existing energy codes by at least 30%. The
resultant State Sustainable Building Guidelines are adapt-
ed from LEED rating system requirements (Minnesota,
2006). Preliminary analysis of three new state buildings
constructed according to the guidelines indicated that
the buildings' sustainable measures would result in a
combined estimated reduction of more than 2.5 metric
tons of air pollutants such as CO2, NOx, and SOx (lEc,
2005; Minnesota PCA, 2006; Minnesota, 2001).X
The guidelines are part of the broader statewide Build-
ings, Benchmarks, and Beyond (B3) project, through
which the state is working with EPAs ENERGY STAR
program to improve the energy efficiency of its own
buildings and the buildings of the state's public school
districts. The state government is a participant in the
MASSACHUSETTS GREEN BUILDING STANDARD
Massachusetts has adopted a green building standard for
new buildings of 20,000 ft2 or greater. This standard requires
affected buildings to achieve basic LEED certification and
meet a number of optional credits referenced in the LEED-
New Construction rating system guidelines, including that
energy performance must exceed Massachusetts Energy Code
requirements by at least 20%.
Source: Massachusetts, 2007.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 51
-------
ENERGY STAR Challenge, with a goal of improving
energy efficiency by 10% (U.S. EPA, 2008p) These LBE
efforts will contribute to the governor's Next Genera-
tion Energy Initiative, issued in 2006, which sets a
goal of 1,000 ENERGY STAR commercial buildings
throughout the state by 2010 (Minnesota, 2006a).
Web site: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oea/
greenbuilding/index. cfm.
New Mexico - Lead by Example Initiative
In 2006, the governor of New Mexico issued an execu-
tive order that requires new and renovated public
buildings to meet energy-efficient green building stan-
dards. The executive order requires adherence to the
LEED-Silver standards in new and renovated public
buildings that are greater than 15,000 square feet and/
or use more than 50 kW peak electrical demand. These
buildings, and smaller new and renovated buildings be-
tween 5,000 and 15,000 square feet, must also achieve a
minimum energy performance standard of 50% of the
average consumption for that building type.7
The 2006 building performance standards have be-
come an essential component of the state's strategy
for meeting the energy use reduction goal established
by executive order in November 2007. This second
Based on averages for each building type determined by the Department of
Energy.
NEW YORK COLLABORATIVE FOR
HIGH-PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS (NY-CHPS)
NYSERDA worked with the New York State Education
Department to develop NY-CHPS, a program based on the
Collaborative for High-Performance Schools, originally started
in California. The program is designed to provide an outstanding
[earning environment; a healthy, safe place to work; durability;
cost-effectiveness over the life of a building; optimization of
resources; and the long-term benefits of energy efficiency.
The NY-CHPS High-Performance Schools Guidelines include a
score sheet for benchmarking high-performance schools. The
score sheet allows for a maximum of 133 credits, and includes
the following sections:
Site (15 points)
Energy (26 points)
Materials (26 points)
Water (3 points)
Indoor Environmental Quality (32 points)
Operations and Maintenance (15 points), and
Extra Credit (16 points)
Source: NYSERDA, 2007.
order created the state government Lead by Example
Initiative and directed all executive branch agencies
to reduce energy use in state government buildings
by 20% below 2005 levels by 2015. To ensure that the
state's green buildings contribute to the energy goal,
the state is developing a database to track government
facility energy use. In addition, as a participant in the
ENERGY STAR Challenge, the state is working with
EPA's ENERGY STAR program to benchmark its facili-
ties and train its facility managers to use ENERGY
STAR tools, such as Portfolio Manager and Target
Finder (U.S. EPA, 2008p; New Mexico, 2007; New
Mexico, 2006).
Web site: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/ecmd/
GovernmentLeadByExample/State-Government.htm
New York - "Green and Clean" State Buildings
Executive Order 111, "Green and Clean" State Buildings
and Vehicles, signed in 2001 and re-authorized in 2007,
requires state agencies to follow LEED guidelines for
the construction of green buildings and to strive to
meet the ENERGY STAR building criteria for energy
performance. Executive Order 111 also requires that all
new buildings achieve at least a 20% improvement in
performance relative to the State Energy Conservation
Construction Code, and that all affected entities seek
to ensure that 20% of their annual electricity needs in
2010 are met by renewable energy sources (NYSERDA,
2001). NYSERDA issued guidelines for government
entities in developing implementation plans to meet
the requirements of the order. Further guidance is
offered through the state's Green Building Services pro-
gram, which assists government agencies in design and
LEED certification for new and renovated buildings
(NYSERDA, 2004a).
NYSERDA has partnered with several state agencies to
develop sustainable design guidelines for specific facili-
ty types within the state system, including High-Perfor-
mance Design Guidelines for state college and university
buildings and guidelines for Metropolitan Transporta-
tion Authority buildings (NYSERDA, 2005). The State
University of New York at Binghamton constructed
two buildings using these guidelines. Designed using
green building design charrettes (i.e., collaborative
brainstorming processes between the green building
team members and other stakeholders), these build-
ings include variable speed drives, additional building
envelope insulation, and energy-efficient lighting and
HVAC systems. The buildings were designed to be 25%
52 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
more energy-efficient than state building energy code
requires.
Web site: http://www.nyserda.org/programs/state.asp.
Pennsylvania - High Performance
Green Building Program
The Pennsylvania Governor s Green Government Coun-
cil (GGGC) works in partnership with over 40 state
agencies to stimulate the development and continuous
improvement of environmentally sustainable practices
in planning, policymaking, and regulatory operations.
The GGGC established a High Performance Green
Building Program that focuses on education, promo-
tion, and demonstration of high-performance green
buildings. Its Guidelines for Creating High Performance
Green Buildings describe how the design and construc-
tion of high performance green buildings represent
the best possible course for combining environmental
responsibility and economic opportunity. The Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection occupies six LEED-
certified buildings, and the state Housing Finance
Authority and Turnpike Commission headquarters both
occupy LEED-certified buildings. Six additional build-
ings are expected to earn LEED certification in the near
future (Pennsylvania DEP, 1999; Pennsylvania DEP,
2002; GGGC, 2006; GGGC, 2006b; GGGC, 2008).
In implementing and reviewing the results of its High
Performance Green Building Program, the state discov-
ered that a relatively low percentage of its green build-
ings were achieving superior energy performance. In
2003, the state began coordinating with EPA's ENERGY
STAR program and DOEs Rebuild America program to
incorporate energy efficiency elements from these pro-
grams into its green building program. The state created
a staff position to manage the integration of ENERGY
STAR and Rebuild America with the green building
program. The integration activities have included train-
ing sessions for Department of Environmental Protec-
tion staff on how to use ENERGY STAR tools to facili-
tate benchmarking and track the energy performance
of the state's green buildings (U.S. EPA, 2005d). The
state is exploring the possibility of establishing a system
that would mandate minimum point requirements in
certain LEED categories in addition to a requirement
that new state buildings receive at least 85 points under
ENERGY STAR certification (lEc, 2005).
Web site: http://www.gggc.state.pa.us/gggc/cwp/view.
asp?a = 515&q = 156859&gggcNav = \6787\
Portland, Oregon - Green Building Policy
In 2001, the City of Portland, Oregon adopted a green
building policy requiring all new and major retrofits
of city-funded or -financed projects to achieve LEED-
certified status. In 2005, this policy was modified to
require new and major retrofits of city buildings to
achieve LEED-Gold certification. Additionally, projects
are required to meet the following targets: 75% of
construction and demolition waste must be recycled;
stormwater, water use, and structural codes must be ex-
ceeded by at least 30%; and each project must include
an "ecoroof" with at least 70% vegetative coverage or
high-reflectance ENERGY STAR-qualified roofing. All
buildings are to be commissioned to be eligible for the
state Sustainable Building Business Energy Tax Credit
and all O&M practices must be consistent with city
Green Building Operations and Maintenance Guidelines
(Portland, 2005).
Web site: http://www.portlandonline.com/osd/index.
cfm?c = 41701&a = 112681.
THE PENNSYLVANIA CAMBRIA STATE OFFICE BUILDING
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's
36,000 square-foot Cambria Office Building was completed in
2000.
1 Key design measures included:
• Passive solar orientation with east/west axis, roof overhangs,
north and south facing windows, external light shelves, and
clerestories to boost natural daylighting while reducing
heating and cooling loads
• High-performance window glazing, resulting in savings of
$30,000 annually at a cost of $15,000
• High performance insulated concrete form wall systems
contribute to HVAC system downsizing
• Ground source heat pumping system for heating and
cooling with 14-kW PV panels mounted on the south-facing
roof that provides 28% of the total energy used
• Building materials selected based on their potential
environmental impact and recyclability
1 Earned a LEED® Gold rating
• Exceeds ASH RAE standards by 30%
• ENERGY STAR label (rating of 88)
1 Building cost was $98 per square foot
1 Used 50% less energy than the standard low-rise office building
located in the Philadelphia region during first year
Resulted in energy cost savings of up to 66%
Sources: Z/eg/er, 2003; NREL, 2004; NREL, 2005.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 53
-------
Wisconsin - Sustainable Facilities Guidelines and
Minimum Standards
Executive Order 145, on the Creation of High Perfor-
mance Green Building Standards and Energy Conserva-
tion for State Facilities and Operations, called for the
reduction of overall energy consumption per square
foot in state facilities by 10% by 2008 and 20% by 2010.
The order required the Department of Administration
to develop energy efficiency goals for state facilities
and campuses for 2007, 2008, and 2009. The depart-
ment was also directed to develop Sustainable Facilities
Guidelines and Minimum Standards based on LEED
criteria, which were published in 2007, and to work
with the state Building Commission and Energy Center
of Wisconsin to ensure that all new state buildings are
constructed to surpass existing commercial building
energy codes by 30%. The Sustainable Facilities Guide-
lines and Minimum Standards include requirements
that building designs be verified before and during
construction, and that building performance be veri-
fied once the building becomes operational. The Divi-
sion of State Facilities ensures that buildings designed
achieve their intended performance targets and reports
the results of the sustainable building program to the
state Building Commission twice annually.
In 2004, the state spent $127 million on energy. It is
estimated that the standards will reduce O&M costs
for the state's 6,300 buildings by as much as 30% and
reduce overall energy consumption per square foot
by 10% by 2008 and 20% by 2010. This translates into
more than $30 million in annual savings for Wisconsin
taxpayers (Wisconsin, 2007b; Wisconsin, 2007).
Web sites: http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journal_
media_detail.asp?lodd = 196-prid = 1907 (EO 145)
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/dsf/masterspec_view_new.
asp?catid = 58&lotid = 4 (Sustainable Facilities Policy
and Guidelines)
THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING
Design of the state's first green state office building, the
Department of Natural Resources' Northeast Regional
Headquarters in Green Bay, included green principles such as
daylighting, use of recycled materials and recycled waste, and
minimizing the building's footprint. The state invested $70,000
to improve the design of this building and estimates that the
improvements will save the state $500,000 over a 20-year
period.
Source: Wisconsin, 2006.
Washington, D.C. - Green Building Policy
In 2006, the Washington, D.C. city council passed
legislation requiring all publicly-owned and publicly
financed buildings be designed to meet LEED-Silver
certification standards for environmental performance.
To ensure that these buildings achieve optimal energy
performance, the legislation includes a requirement
that buildings also be designed to earn 75 points on
the EPA energy performance rating system, using the
ENERGY STAR Target Finder tool. To ensure compli-
ance with these requirements, the legislation mandates
reviews by a government agency or a certified third
party. The green building program is guided by a Green
Building Advisory Committee.
Web site: http://green.dc.gov/green/cwp/
view,a,1231,q,460953.asp
2.3 ENERGY-EFFICIENT PRODUCT
PROCUREMENT
A number of states are achieving energy, environ-
mental, economic, and other benefits by purchasing
energy-efficient products, such as electronics, office
equipment, heating and cooling systems, and light-
ing systems. Purchasing ENERGY STAR-qualified
products can save a typical state or local government
CLARIFICATION OF TERMINOLOGY
States can implement energy-efficient product procurement
as a stand-alone program or as part of broader programs for
purchasing products with other environmental attributes.
Green purchasing is generally used to describe activities
that focus on purchasing products and services that have
positive energy and environmental attributes, including energy
efficiency, recycled content, and reduced toxic content.
Energy-efficient product procurement falls within the scope of
green purchasing.
While green purchasing focuses on products that have positive
energy or environmental attributes, environmentally preferable
product (EPP) procurement assesses multiple energy and
environmental attributes to determine which of these green
product(s) are preferable in a given situation. For example,
in a facility with poor indoor air quality, paint with low-
volatile organic compound (VOC) content is both green and
environmentally preferable, while paint with recycled content
latex is green, but not the preferable product in this situation.
In most situations, energy-efficient products are considered
environmentally preferable.
This section focuses on energy-efficient product procurement.
However, green purchasing and EPP procurement programs
that include energy efficiency are also addressed.
54 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
approximately $1.5 million in life-cycle energy and
maintenance costs and prevent more than 16,000 tons
of CO2 emissions (U.S. EPA, Undated). Combined,
state and local governments across the nation could
save more than $750 million annually in energy costs
by purchasing energy-efficient products (Harris et al.,
2004). In addition, energy-efficient product procure-
ment often involves little or no incremental costs,
since conventional products can be replaced with
energy-efficient ones on a normal product replacement
schedule.
2.3.1 BENEFITS OF ENERGY-EFFICIENT
PRODUCT PROCUREMENT
Government leadership in purchasing energy-efficient
products for a portfolio of state buildings can produce
significant energy, environmental, economic, and other
benefits, including:
Reduced energy costs. Because energy-efficient products
require less energy to operate than conventional prod-
ucts, they can reduce facility energy loads and achieve
energy bill savings on the order of 5% to 10% (LBNL,
2002). ENERGY STAR-qualified products typically use
25% to 50% less energy and can offer consumer energy
cost savings of as much as 90% (U.S. EPA, 2007a; U.S.
EPA, 2008J). Energy-efficient products can also reduce
energy costs indirectly, since they do not generate as
much unwanted heat as conventional products, and
thus lower cooling loads. Table 2.3.1 summarizes the
potential energy cost savings of purchasing energy-
efficient products for five product categories. (For more
information on the energy savings associated with
specific energy-efficient products, see Table 4.3.1, Rules
of Thumb in Chapter 4.)
Reduced GHG emissions and other environmental
impacts. Replacing conventional products with energy-
efficient ones can substantially reduce GHG emissions
and other environmental impacts by decreasing use
of fossil fuel-based energy. Fossil fuel combustion for
electricity generation accounts for 40% of the nation's
CO2 emissions, a principle GHG, and 67% of the na-
tion's SO emissions and 23% of the nation's NO emis-
X X
sions, both of which can lead to smog and acid rain,
and results in emissions of trace amounts of airborne
particulate matter that can cause respiratory problems
for many people (U.S. EPA, 2008s). Replacing 100
conventional light bulbs with compact fluorescent light
bulbs (CFLs), for example, can reduce nearly 70,000
pounds of CO2 emissions over a nine-year product
lifetime (U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE, 2008). Table 2.3.1
summarizes the potential CO2 emission reductions
from purchasing energy-efficient products for five
product categories.
Reduced maintenance costs. Energy-efficient products
often have longer lifetimes than conventional products.
Because energy-efficient products require less-frequent
replacement, maintenance cost savings over the life-
time of the product can be significant. Reducing the
number of times a product needs to be replaced can be
especially important when replacement involves han-
dling valuable or antique items, which can be found in
many state government facilities.
1 Increased economic benefits through job creation and
market development. State and local governments
spend a combined $50 billion to $70 billion to pur-
chase energy-using products each year (Harris et al.,
2004). Specifying that these funds be used to purchase
energy-efficient products can stimulate the local econ-
omy and encourage development of energy-efficient
product markets. According to DOE, half of all energy-
efficient equipment is purchased from local suppliers
(U.S. DOE, 2004).
Increased reliability. When an energy-using product
reaches the end of its usable life and "burns out,"
there is often a period of inactivity before the product
can be replaced. Energy-efficient products typically
experience less-frequent periods of inactivity because
they have longer lifetimes than conventional products.
This benefit is particularly important when periods of
product inactivity can have serious consequences (e.g.,
HVAC system failure in extreme heat conditions) (U.S.
EPA, 2008x).
Improved occupant health. Some energy-efficient
products remove sources of indoor air contaminants.
Energy recovery ventilation equipment, for example,
can reduce infiltration of air contaminants from out-
doors while significantly reducing HVAC energy loads
(U.S. EPA, 2003). One study on building performance
found that the average reduction in illness as a result
of improving air quality in buildings is approximately
40% (Carnegie Mellon, 2005).
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 55
-------
TABLE 2.3.1 ESTIMATED ENERGY COST AND CO, SAVINGS FROM A SAMPLE OF ENERGY STAR PRODUCTS3
^^*^sn
Replace 5,000 computers and monitors with
ENERGY STAR-qualified products and activate
power management
Replace 10 conventional commercial dishwashers
with ENERGY STAR-qualified products
Replace 50 conventional vending machines with
ENERGY STAR-qualified products
Annual
Energy Cost
Savings
$400,000
$11,500
$7,500
Annual CO2
Savings
(Tons)
2,200
400
64
Lifetime
(years)
4
10
14
Replace 100 conventional water coolers with $3,300 28 10
ENERGY STAR-qualified coolers
Replace 50 color laser printers with ENERGY STAR- $660
qualified printers
6
5
Life-Cycle
Energy Cost
Savings
$1,450,000
$128,000b
$79,200
$26,500
$3,000
Life-Cycle
CO2 Savings
(Tons)
13,600
6,000
890
280
28
a Figures obtained from calculators on the ENERGY STAR Purchasing & Procurement Web site http://www.energystar.gov/purchasing using
default settings and an electricity rate of 9.039C per kWh. Annual costs exclude the initial purchase price and installation cost. All costs are
discounted over the product's lifetime using a real discount rate of 4%.
b Value includes water savings.
2.3.2 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES RELATED TO ENERGY-EFFICIENT
PRODUCT PROCUREMENT
When planning and implementing energy-efficient
product procurement activities, states can follow many
of the energy management steps described in Section
2.1, Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Other key strategies
include:
ENERGY STAR QUALIFICATION
Through the ENERGY STAR program, EPA and DOE develop
energy performance specifications for more than 50 product
categories. ENERGY STAR-qualified products typically use 25%
to 50% less energy and can offer consumer energy cost savings
of as much as 90% relative to conventional products.
State governments often include requirements in energy-
efficient product procurement policies for purchasers
to specify products that are ENERGY STAR-qualified. For
example, Washington, D.C. passed an act in 2004 to amend
its procurement policy to require agencies to include
specifications for ENERGY STAR-qualified products in
solicitations for energy-using products.
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2006b; U.S. EPA, 2008; LBNL, 2002; Washington,
D.C, 2004.
Adhere to energy efficiency standards and specifications.
Many state governments require energy efficiency cer-
tification for the energy-using products they purchase.
Using established standards streamlines the procure-
ment process and can lead to greater energy benefits,
since products will be required to meet minimum
performance specifications. A number of states, such
as Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and
Michigan, require government purchasers to specify
ENERGY STAR-qualified products. EPA's ENERGY
STAR program provides energy efficiency specifica-
tions for more than 50 product categories. For some
categories where ENERGY STAR specifications do
not exist, FEMP designates energy-efficient products
that perform in the top 25% in terms of energy perfor-
mance (FEMP, 2007) .8
Aggregate purchases. Some states have reduced pro-
curement costs by designating a particular government
agency as the coordinating facilitator of all state agency
purchases, which can enable bulk purchases of energy-
efficient products (U.S. DOE, 2006J). Some states, such
FEMP's specifications are consistent with ENERGY STAR's in categories
where ENERGY STAR specifications exist (FEMP, 2007).
56 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
ENERGY STAR PRODUCT SAVINGS CALCULATORS
More than 40 product calculators are available that illustrate
the cost-effectiveness of selecting ENERGY STAR-qualified
products. Purchasers can use these tools to quantify the
financial benefits of energy efficiency when making the case
for purchasing energy-efficient products to product specifiers.
Calculators can be found at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfm?c=bulk_purchasing.bus_purchasing
Source: U.S. EPA, 20081
as Wisconsin and Connecticut, allow local govern-
ments to use state government contracts to aggregate
purchases (Harris et al., 2004).
Borrow from sample procurement language. State gov-
ernments can use model contract language to specify
energy-efficient products when making purchases.
Model contract language can be borrowed from other
government and non-governmental organizations.
Both EPAs ENERGY STAR program and FEMP, for
example, provide general procurement contract lan-
guage for purchases of energy-efficient products (U.S.
EPA, 2008k; FEMP, 2007).
Combine energy-efficient product procurement with other
LEE activities. Because many energy-efficient products
have little or no cost premium, energy-efficient product
procurement can improve the cost-effectiveness of a
comprehensive LBE program. Replacing conventional
products with energy-efficient ones on a regular re-
placement schedule can have little additional cost, but
can reduce the costs of meeting targets for building
energy performance, green power purchases, and clean
energy supplies (Harris et al., 2004). Many states have
incorporated energy-efficient product procurement into
broader commitments to improving energy efficiency in
their building portfolios. For more information on im-
proving energy efficiency across a portfolio of buildings,
see Section 2.1, Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
Create strong links between the Purchasing Department
and Energy, Environment, and IT Department(s). Fos-
tering collaboration between these departments can
significantly enhance the benefits of energy-efficient
product procurement activities by bringing together
individuals with technical expertise in complemen-
tary subjects. Purchasers, who have familiarity with
vendors and purchasing procedures, can consult with
energy and environmental staff to identify priority
energy-efficient products and to quantify the benefits
of energy-efficient product procurement policies (e.g.,
by using ENERGY STAR product savings calculators).
Purchasers can also work with staff from IT and facili-
ties management departments who are often responsi-
ble for specifying office electronics and for implement-
ing energy efficiency policies, such as enabling sleep
modes on office electronic equipment.
Require life-cycle cost analyses. Traditional procurement
policies sometimes promote methods for assessing
project cost-effectiveness that encourage the purchase
of products that have the lowest initial design and
construction costs. These policies can prevent state
agencies from purchasing energy-efficient products
that generate energy cost savings but have higher initial
costs. Because the life-cycle cost of an energy-efficient
product is typically less than that of a conventional
product, many states are requiring agencies to compare
products using life-cycle cost analyses that account
for the present value of all costs associated with the
product (including initial costs, future energy costs,
and other ancillary costs) over the products lifetime. In
states with mandatory low-bid procurement require-
ments, legislative authority may be required to modify
procurement policies (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
Incorporate information on the payback periods of
energy-efficient products into investment decisions. Life-
cycle cost analyses can reveal short payback periods
(i.e., the length of time required to recoup up-front
costs) for most energy efficiency investments. Incor-
porating investments with short payback periods into
a comprehensive energy efficiency upgrade can help
reduce the overall payback period for the entire proj-
ect. For example, purchasing energy-efficient products
that reduce supplemental loads, which typically have
short payback periods, can generate significant energy
cost savings that can shorten the payback period for
a building upgrade as a whole. Similarly, behavioral
adjustments, such as setting thermostats at lower
temperatures in the winter, can often be implemented
at no cost yet produce significant savings and reduce
the payback period of a comprehensive upgrade. Table
2.3.2, ENERGY STAR Specification Overviews: Energy
Savings and Cost-Effectiveness, illustrates the payback
periods for a variety of energy-efficient products.
Train energy-efficient product users. Even as policies
are put in place to encourage the purchase of energy-
efficient products, their results are not guaranteed. It is
important to educate purchasers to help them identify
what products are energy-efficient and track the effec-
tiveness of procurement activities (NACo, Undated).
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 57
-------
TABLE 2.3.2 ENERGY STAR SPECIFICATION OVERVIEWS: ENERGY SAVINGS AND PAYBACK PERIODS3
Product Category
Appliances
Effective Date
of Current
Specification
Percent Energy
Savings Compared to
Conventional Product
Payback Period
Dehumidifiers
October 2006
15%
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
Dishwashers
January 2007
40%
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
Refrigerators and freezers
April 2008
15%
4 years (refrigerators)0
6 years (freezers)d
Room air conditioners
November 2005
10%
Not available
Room air cleaners
July 2004
45%
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
Electronics
Battery charging systems
Cordless phones
Combination units
DVD products
External power adapters
Home audio systems
Televisions
January 2006
November 2006
July 2005
January 2003
January 2005
January 2003
November 2008
35%
55%
30%
60%
35%
60%
25%
0 years (typically no retail cost
0 years (typically no retail cost
0 years (typically no retail cost
0 years (typically no retail cost
0 years (typically no retail cost
0 years (typically no retail cost
0 years (typically no retail cost
premium)
premium)
premium)
premium)
premium)
premium)
premium)
Envelope
Roof products
Windows, doors, and skylights
December 2007
September 2005
Not available
Not available
< 4 years
Not available
Lighting
Compact fluorescent lamps
Residential-style light fixtures
January 2004
August 2008
75%
75%
< lyear
< lyear
2 years for recessed cans
Office Equipment
Computers
Copiers
Monitors
Multifunction Devices
Printers, fax machines, and
mailing machines
Scanners
July 2007
April 2007
July 2007
April 2007
April 2007
April 2007
25% - 50%
65%
25%
20%
15%
50%
0 years (typically no retail cost
0 years (typically no retail cost
0 years (typically no retail cost
0 years (typically no retail cost
0 years (typically no retail cost
0 years (typically no retail cost
premium)
premium)
premium)
premium)
premium)
premium)
Heating and Cooling
Air source heat pumps
Boilers
April 2006
April 2002
5%
5%
< 5 years
< lyear
58 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
TABLE 2.3.2 ENERGY STAR SPECIFICATION OVERVIEWS: ENERGY SAVINGS AND PAYBACK PERIODS (cont.)
Product Category
Effective Date
of Current
Specification
Percent Energy
Savings Compared to
Conventional Product
Payback Period
Ceiling fans September 2006
Furnaces October 2006
Geothermal heat pumps April 2001
Light commercial HVAC January 2004
45% 0 years (typically no retail cost
premium)
15% < 3 years
30% < 5 years for new construction
5% < lyear
Ventilating fans October 2003 70% 0 years (typically no retail cost
Commercial Food Service
Commercial dishwashers October 2007
Commercial fryers August 2003
Commercial hot food holding August 2003
cabinets
Commercial ice makers January 2008
30% 2 years
premium)
15% 2 years (for typical unit)
65% 2 years
25% - 30% 4 years (for typical unit)
Commercial solid door September 2001 35% lyear
refrigerators and freezers
Commercial steam cookers August 2003
50% 0 years (typically no retail cost
premium)
Water coolers May 2004
Vending machines April 2004
August 2006 (rebuilt
machines)
45% 0 years (typically no retail cost
premium)
40% < lyear
a ENERGY STAR develops performance-based specifications to determine the most energy-efficient products in a particular product
category. These specifications, which are used as the basis for ENERGY STAR qualification, are developed using a systematic process that
relies on market, engineering, and pollution savings research and input from industry stakeholders. Specifications are revised periodically
to be more stringent, which has the effect of increasing overall market energy efficiency (U.S. EPA, 2007d).
c U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE, 2007b.
b U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE, 2007c.
e U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE, 2007d.
U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE, 2007.
U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE, 2008.
2.3.3 STATE AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
OF ENERGY-EFFICIENT PRODUCT
PROCUREMENT
Energy-efficient product procurement activities have
been implemented at the state and local government
levels using a variety of implementation approaches.
The following are examples of state and local govern-
ment energy-efficient product procurement activities.
Massachusetts - Environmentally Preferable Products
Procurement Program
The primary goal of the state's Environmentally
Preferable Products Procurement Program is to use
the Commonwealths purchasing power to reduce
the environmental and public health impacts of state
government and foster markets for environmentally
preferable products. The program, which covers a wide
range of products and services (including those that
reduce energy consumption, contain recycled content,
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 59
-------
minimize waste, conserve water, and reduce the dispos-
al or consumption of toxics), uses statewide contracts
for environmentally preferable products and provides
educational assistance and technical expertise to state
agencies and local governments. It also offers work-
shops to procurement officials and sponsors an annual
vendor fair and conference. In recent years, the program
staff have collaborated on a national level with procure-
ment officials and other organizations to pull together
resources for responsible environmental purchasing.
In FY 2001, the state spent $92.5 million on environ-
mentally preferable products, including approximately
11,000 computers, 7,600 monitors, 1,200 copiers, and
120 fax machines. The cost savings from the program
in 2001 surpassed $544,000, with the savings from
purchasing energy-efficient office equipment account-
ing for approximately $270,000 (Massachusetts, 2003).
The overall environmental benefits were substantial. It
is estimated that the program enabled the state to avoid
over 4,000 metric tons of carbon equivalent; more
than 11,000 barrels of oil equivalent; over 60,000 trees
harvested; and 625,000 feet of fluorescent lamps (Mas-
sachusetts, 2007b).
Web site: http://www.mass.gov/fpageID =
osdtopic&L = 3&sid = Aosd&LO = Home&Ll =
Buy+from+a+Contract&L2 = Environmentally+Pr
eferable+Products+(EPP)+Procurement+Program
(Program)
http://www.mass.gov/Aosd/docs/EPP/EPP%20
Program%20Assessment%20Final%20Report%20
Dec02.doc (2003 Report)
New York City - Energy-Efficient Product Procurement
Enacted on April 11, 2003, New York City Local Law
30 requires that energy-using products procured by the
city be ENERGY STAR-qualified, provided that there
are at least six competing manufacturers of the EN-
ERGY STAR product. During FY 2002, New York City
spent $90.8 million for ENERGY STAR-qualified prod-
ucts, consisting mainly of computers, monitors, print-
ers, photocopiers, fax machines, televisions, VCRs, air
conditioners, and lamps. Local Law 30 was expanded
by Local Law 119 in 2005, which adds a requirement
that FEMP water and energy efficiency standards be
considered in conjunction with ENERGY STAR when
making purchases (New York City Council, 2007; New
York City Council, 2005).
Web site: http://www.nyccouncil.info/search/
searchlook2.cfm?SEARCH = NUM.
2.4 GREEN POWER PURCHASES
Purchasing green power for their portfolio of facilities
is another way state and local governments are leading
by example. Green power refers to renewable electricity
that is produced with no man-made GHG emissions,
has a superior environmental profile compared to con-
ventional power generation, and was built after January
1,1997.9 This subset of renewable energy resources in-
cludes solar, wind, biogas, biomass, low-impact hydro,
and geothermal resources. Other renewable energy
resources, such as waste-to-energy and hydropower,
are not necessarily green power resources, since they
can have adverse environmental impacts, such as air
pollution or natural landscape disruption (U.S. EPA,
2004b; U.S. EPA, 2007h).
FIGURE 2.4.1 GREEN POWER AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
U.S. Energy Supply (not to scale)
I Renewable
Lower Relative Environmental Benefit
Higher
States can consider several options for purchasing
green power. At the point of generation, green power
can be sold directly to the customer or separated into
its two components: the physical electricity and the
technological and environmental attributes. When sold
directly to the customer, green power is often supplied
as a fixed percentage of monthly use but can also be
provided in fixed-quantity blocks (e.g., a 100 kW block
of green power). When the two components are sepa-
rated, the technological and environmental attributes
associated with renewable energy are sold as renewable
energy certificates (RECs) (also known as green tags or
tradable renewable certificates). The physical electricity,
no longer "bundled" with the technological and envi-
ronmental attributes, is sold through the grid indistin-
guishable from electricity generated from conventional
sources (U.S. EPA, 2007r). RECs can be purchased
directly from the renewable electricity generator or
January 1, 1997 is the accepted date marking the beginning of the voluntary
green power market. It is argued that renewable energy generation facilities
built after this date are the product of increasing market demand for green
power, rather than the product of regulatory action, such as renewable portfo-
lio standards, that required utilities to use renewable energy.
60 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
through several types of REC providers, including
retail and wholesale REC marketers (e.g., utilities, non-
profits, or other environmental foundations) and REC
brokers (U.S. EPA, 2004b; WRI, 2003).
Green power premiums vary, with the national average
green power premium being 2.12$ per kWh in 2006,
a decrease of 8% from the 2.36
-------
Aggregate purchases. A number of states are aggregat-
ing electricity demand to purchase green power. By
combining the needs of a number of agencies, state
they are often able to negotiate lower prices with the
utility, making green power purchases more afford-
able (U.S. EPA, 2006a). For example, the Maryland
Department of General Services recently coordinated
with the University of Maryland system in aggregating
purchases from 4,300 state accounts, procuring over
1.4 billion kWh. This effort is expected to save the
state more than $31.3 million over a two-year period
(Maryland, 2006).
Combine green power purchases with energy efficiency
upgrades. State governments can reduce the cost of
meeting green power purchase targets by complement-
ing green power purchases with energy efficiency
upgrades. Improving energy efficiency in a facility
reduces electricity loads, meaning percentage green
power goals can be met at reduced costs.
Require certification for green power products. State
governments can require that green power products be
certified as meeting consumer protection and environ-
mental standards. Certification provides assurance that
green power products reduce a state government's en-
vironmental impacts. Certification can also verify that
green power product claims are valid (e.g., with respect
to the mix of renewable energy resources) and that the
products have not been repackaged (U.S. EPA, 2006a;
PENNSYLVANIA DOUBLES GREEN POWER
PURCHASE COMMITMENT
On August 29, 2006, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell
announced that the state would be doubling its 2003 green
power purchase commitment, increasing the amount of
renewable energy as a percentage of overall electricity
consumed from 10% to 20%. This increase was achieved at a
premium rate of 0.34C per kWh and was expected to annually
reduce 950 tons of SO2 emissions, 270 tons of NOx emissions,
and 123,000 tons of CO2 emissions.
In October 2007, the governor announced that the state
government had increased its renewable energy purchases to
nearly 280 million kWh per year, or approximately 28% of the
state government's electricity demand. Of the 280 million kWh,
57% is from wind power and 43% is from hydroelectric. The 160
million kWh drawn from wind resources qualify as green power
under the EPA Green Power Partnership.
This commitment is expected to support the development of
markets for sustainable energy sources, leading to more jobs;
enhance national security; and reduce the state's demands on
natural resources.
Sources: Pennsylvania, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2006d; Pennsylvania, 2007b.
AWEA, 2004).n Certification is conferred by a number
of organizations, including the Green-e Renewable
Energy Certification Program and the Environmental
Resources Trust (U.S. DOE, 2007).
Seek fixed-price, long-term contracts. Because green
power generation requires no fuel input and is not
subject to fuel price volatility, it comes at a consistent
cost to the generator, meaning customer prices remain
relatively stable over time. While short-term contracts
might offer greater future flexibility, long-term con-
tracts can reduce a supplier's risk, which often translates
into reduced rates (U.S. EPA, 2004b; WRI, Undated).
2.4.3 STATE AND LOCAL EXAMPLES OF GREEN
POWER PURCHASES
State and local governments have used a variety of ap-
proaches to purchase green power. The following are
examples of state and local government green power
purchasing activities.
Connecticut - Green Power Purchases
In September of 2007, through the state's initial pur-
chase of electric supply via a reverse auction process,
Connecticut locked in 812 million kWh of supply for
a two-year period through June of 2009. A subsequent
auction for an additional 97 million kWh was held No-
vember 29th for supply beginning in January of 2008.
The total volume under these contracts for electric
supply is for 909 million kWh. Under these supply con-
tracts, 17.5 % of the electric supply (not including RPS)
will be green power from Class I renewable sources.
Also in 2008, Connecticut conducted a reverse auction
for electric supply. Contracts locked in for this period
were for both three and four year periods for a total
volume of 2.1 billion kWh. Under these supply con-
tracts, 19% of the electric supply (not including RPS) is
for green power from Class I renewable sources. When
RPS requirements are factored in, 28% of the electricity
used by Connecticut State government will come from
Class I renewable sources, exceeding the 20% goal in
Governor Rell's 2006 Energy Vision Plan.
Web site: http://www.ctcleanenergyoptions.com/.
"Repackaging" refers to the concern that green power can be "repackaged"
and sold as a mix of renewable energy that is already injected into the grid
to satisfy legal mandates (e.g., through renewable portfolio standards) rather
than to meet consumer demand. Repackaged renewable energy does not
result in environmental improvement, since it merely sustains the status quo
(AWEA, 2004). Renewables that are counted toward satisfying mandates may
not be used to support purchasers' environmental claims.
62 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
Maine - Aggregated Purchase Leads to 100% Green
Power Coverage
In 2003, the governor's energy agenda established
a goal for the state government to purchase at least
50% of its electricity from renewable power sources,
using energy efficiency measures in state buildings to
offset the cost of the renewable energy. This goal was
originally met by a contract agreement committing
more than 800 state agency accounts under one service
agreement. By March 2007, the state government
had increased its renewable energy purchase to cover
100% of power demands. Thirty percent of this total is
obtained through the statewide renewable energy port-
folio standard, while the remaining 70% is obtained by
purchasing RECs (DSIRE, 2007).
Web site: http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/
incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code = MEOSR&state =
ME&CurrentPagelD = l&RE = l&EE = 1.
New Jersey - Aggregated Green Power Purchase
In 1999, the New Jersey Department of the Treasury
developed a proposal to lower state government energy
costs by aggregating electricity purchases from the ac-
counts of 178 public agencies in the state, thus enabling
the group to negotiate lower energy costs through
competitive bidding in the state's recently deregulated
market. At the same time, the governor issued a man-
date that state government agencies obtain at least 10%
of their power from renewable resources. Combining
the two initiatives resulted in a purchase of nearly 500
million kWh of green power over 52 months. This
quantity of energy covers approximately 12% of the
overall electricity requirements for the agencies' facili-
ties. The effort has resulted in an estimated avoidance
of 168,948 metric tons of CO2 emissions, which is
equivalent to removing 32,490 cars from the road for
one year (New Jersey, 2003).
Web site: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/bscit/
GreenPower.pdf.
Montgomery County, Maryland - Wind Power
Purchase
In 2004, Montgomery County, Maryland represented a
group of six county agencies, 11 municipalities, and a
neighboring county in completing the largest ever local
government purchase of wind energy. The agreement
with Washington Gas Services and their wind energy
supplier, Community Energy, Inc., is for more than
38.4 million kWh annually over two years, represent-
ing 5% of the group's aggregate energy demand. The
deal will produce significant environmental benefits.
The emissions avoided through this purchase include
over 19,000 metric tons of CO2 (equivalent to 36 mil-
lion miles not driven) and 43 tons of NOx (equivalent
to 2.9 million trees) (Montgomery County, 2006; U.S.
EPA, 2007i).
Web site: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/
Apps/News/press/DisplayInfo.cfm?ItemID = 895.
2.5 CLEAN ENERGY SUPPLY
Clean energy generation technologies, which can have
significant state, regional, and national benefits, include
on-site energy generation from renewable sources
(e.g., wind, photovoltaics, biomass, and hydroelectric
power systems) and clean distributed generation (DG)
technologies. Clean DG refers to small, decentralized,
grid-connected or off-grid energy generating units,
such as combined heat and power (CHP) systems, that
are located at or near user facilities to meet on-site
energy needs. The benefits of these technologies can be
significant. For example, a CHP system with a 75% total
system efficiency can consume up to one-third less en-
ergy than a separate heat and power (SHP) system with
a total system efficiency of 49% (U.S. EPA, 2007c).12
Many states are leading by example by meeting gov-
ernment building energy demands with clean energy
generated on-site. New Mexico and California, for
example, require new construction of state facilities to
include on-site energy generation, where possible (Cal-
ifornia, 2001; New Mexico, 2005). The Arizona Work-
ing Group on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Based on a 5 MW natural gas-fired combustion turbine CHP system (U.S.
EPA, 2007b).
VIRGINIA - SOLAR POWER AT NEW STATE FACILITIES
The governor of Virginia issued Executive Order 48 in 2007.
The order established a broad commitment to reducing non-
renewable energy consumption across state government by
20% by 2010, based on 2006 levels.
The order proposes a strategy for meeting this goal. Included
in this strategy is a directive for the state Senior Advisor for
Energy Policy periodically assess the cost-effectiveness of
incorporating PV system installations in any roofing retrofit for
buildings over 5,000 square feet. Where PV system installations
with a payback period of 15 years or less are feasible, the
Department of General Services will be required to implement
the measure.
Source: Virginia, 2007.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 63
-------
has called for the governor to require state facilities to
produce 5% of their own energy needs through renew-
able sources by 2012. Utah has produced the Policy to
Advance Energy Efficiency in the State, which sets a goal
of reducing state government energy consumption by
2% by 2015 using renewable energy generated on-site.
In 2007, Oregon passed legislation requiring that 1.5%
of the total contract price for capital improvements to
public facilities be spent on solar energy technologies
(Oregon, 2008).
This section describes some of the benefits of gen-
erating clean energy on-site, identifies strategies for
planning and implementing clean energy generation
activities, provides an overview of clean energy genera-
tion technologies, and presents several state and local
government examples.
2.5.1 BENEFITS OF USING CLEAN ENERGY
By committing to using clean energy supplies for their
portfolio of facilities, states can achieve numerous
energy, environmental, economic, and other benefits,
including:
Hedge against financial risk. As with purchasing green
power, using clean energy can provide a hedge against
financial risks because clean energy supplies are not as
sensitive to market fluctuations and supply limitations
as fossil-fuel based electricity. Reduced susceptibility
to market volatility can translate into lower operat-
ing costs (U.S. EPA, 2004b). In addition, generating
clean energy on-site can sometimes be cheaper than
purchasing electricity through the grid. For example,
GENERATION CAPACITY AND PRODUCTION
Electricity production and consumption (measured in kWh)
are a function of generation capacity (measured in kW) and
time (measured in hours). In wind power generation, a system's
generation capacity is dependent on a site-specific capacity
factor, which describes the system's actual annual energy
output divided by the annual output if the system is operated at
full capacity for the entire year. Thus, electricity production can
be calculated as follows:
Electricity production (kWh) =
Capacity (kW) x Capacity factor x Time (hours)
Solar photovoltaic panels typically have capacity factors
between 0.07 and 0.17. For most wind turbines, the capacity
factor is between 0.25 and 0.30 (the Hull 1 turbine in Hull,
Massachusetts, for example, operates at 0.27). For most fossil
fuel power plants, the capacity factor is about 0.28.
Sources: EIA, 2007; AWEA, 2007b; CEC, 2007; U.S. DOE, 2007g.
the electricity from two wind turbines in Hull, Massa-
chusetts is generated at a cost of 3.4$ per kW, which is
less than half of the 8.0$ per kW it would cost the local
government to purchase electricity from the grid (Hull,
2008). When inflation and discount rates are taken
into account, the cost per kWh rises to 5.3$, still well
below the cost of purchased electricity (Manwell et al.,
2003). Hull has a municipal electric company, which
means that it distributes the electricity generated by
the wind turbines to customers in the town, and does
not need to sell the electricity to the grid. In towns
without a municipal electric company, the value of the
power produced is the selling price of energy. In Hull,
the value of the power produced is the avoided cost of
purchasing from the grid (RERL, 2006).
Reduced GHG emissions and other environmental
impacts. Fossil fuel combustion for electricity genera-
tion accounts for 40% of the nation's CO2 emissions, a
principle GHG, and 67% of the nation's SOx emissions
and 23% of the nation's NOx emissions, both of which
can lead to smog and acid rain, and result in emissions
of trace amounts of airborne particulate matter that
can cause respiratory problems (U.S. EPA, 2008s).
Using clean energy can significantly reduce a state
government's GHG emissions and other environmental
impacts by decreasing use of fossil-fuel based energy.
CHP systems, for example, can reduce CO2 emissions
by more than 50% compared to SHP systems (U.S.
EPA, 2007J).
Electricity grid benefits. Using clean energy supplies
reduces reliance on conventional energy from central-
ized generation sources. Decreasing the amount of
electricity the regional grid is required to transmit and
distribute can lower the risk of blackout and reduce
electricity losses in transmission lines. Clean energy
supply systems can significantly reduce the amount of
energy lost in transmission from source to site. Distrib-
uted generation CHP applications, for example, achieve
effective electrical efficiencies between 50% and 70%,
as opposed to 33% for conventional fossil fuel powered
plants (U.S. EPA, 2006e).
2.5.2 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES RELATED TO USING A CLEAN
ENERGY SUPPLY
Key planning and implementation considerations that
can lead to enhanced effectiveness for clean energy
supply activities include:
64 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
• Bundle clean energy supply with energy efficiency im-
provements. Energy efficiency activities can reduce the
cost of meeting percentage clean energy generation
goals. Increased energy efficiency means less grid-
based electricity is required to supplement the produc-
tion of on-site renewable energy generation systems.
Complement clean energy supplies with green power
purchases. States can achieve increased GHG emissions
reduction benefits by complementing on-site renew-
able energy generation with green power purchases.
Using clean energy supplies can also reduce the cost
of meeting percentage green power purchase targets,
since these targets are often based on reducing grid-
based electricity purchases.
Use the Solar Services Model.13 States can use the solar
services model to finance solar PV system purchases
and installations with no up-front cost. Under this
model, the state signs a long-term (often ten years)
power purchase agreement with a developer to host a
PV system on its facility. The developer then pays for
the design, construction, and installation of the system,
often arranging for third-party financing through an
investor. The developer uses revenue from the host's
electricity payments to pay off financing debt to the
investor. The host's payments are pre-determined and
are assessed much like a monthly utility payment. The
state government, as host, benefits from fixed-price
payments, reduced peak energy costs, and reduced
GHG emissions at no up-front cost. In addition, under
the solar services model, the host is not responsible for
performing or paying for maintenance on the system,
which is arranged by the developer. Ownership of the
system can be transferred to the host when the devel-
oper's or financier's costs are recovered (Sandia, 2007;
WRI, 2007).
2.5.3 CLEAN ENERGY GENERATION
TECHNOLOGIES
This section provides an overview of renewable energy
generation and clean DG technologies that can be
implemented at state government facilities.
Renewable Energy Generation Technologies
Wind. Capturing wind energy using on-site turbines
can significantly reduce grid-based electricity pur-
The solar services model is also referred to as an independent energy
purchase (IEP).
chases. For example, a 3-kW turbine14 with a 60 to 80
foot tower installed at a facility with monthly electricity
costs ranging between $60 and $100 (approximately
700 kWh to 1100 kWh) could reduce the facility's
monthly electricity bill by 30% to 60% [AWEA,
Undated(c)].15 The national average installed cost for
wind projects in 2006 was approximately $1,480 per
kW capacity (U.S. DOE, 2007b).
Solar. Heat and light from the sun provide abundant
sources of renewable energy. Solar energy is captured
using multiple technologies, including:
• Photovoltaics (PV). PV systems directly convert sun-
light into electricity using solar cells. These systems
can produce electricity even in the absence of strong
sunlight. A 10-kW system could produce 15,000
kWh annually. In a 20,000 square foot office building
that uses 15.5 kWh per square foot,16 this system
could reduce grid-based electricity purchases by
approximately 5%. PV systems are often installed on
roof tops, making them suitable for urban govern-
ment buildings. Since 2006, California has installed
more than 4 MW of PV capacity on state facilities.
In 2008, the state is planning to install as much as 24
MW additional PV capacity on state facilities (Cali-
fornia DCS, 2008).
Solar Hot Water. Passive solar hot water technol-
ogy uses sunlight to heat water that is distributed
throughout a building to provide central or space
"Small wind" turbines (turbines that have capacities of 100 kW or less)
are often better suited for installation at or near state facilities than large
utility-scale wind farm turbines, which can reach capacities as high as 3 MW
[AWEA, Undated(c); U.S. EPA, 2004b].
KWh approximations determined using most recent average retail price for
conventional electricity (9
-------
heating, reducing a buildings reliance on a con-
ventional hot water heater that uses non-renewable
energy sources (NREL, 2007b; NREL, 2007c).
• Solar Process Heating and Cooling. Solar process
heating technology captures heat from sunlight using
contained air or fluid as the medium. The captured
heat is then fanned or pumped throughout a building
to provide space heating. This technology can also be
reversed to cool buildings (NREL, 2007a).
Geothermal. Geothermal systems capture the earths
heat for use in generating electricity and providing
heating and hot water. In direct use applications, water
is piped underground where geothermal heat produces
steam, which can be used to produce electricity using
steam turbines. This type of geothermal application is
dependent on the availability of adequate geothermal
reservoirs (reservoirs of water with temperatures be-
tween 68° F and 302° F), most of which are located in
the western United States. The Idaho state capitol, for
example, is heated using direct use geothermal technol-
ogy (Idaho, 2008).
A second type of geothermal technology involves
capturing the earth's heat to warm liquid that is then
pumped into buildings to provide central heating or to
heat water. In warmer seasons, geothermal heat pumps
can exchange warm surface air for cooler below-
ground air (U.S. DOE, 2006k). Geothermal heat pump
systems are installed at shallow depths (sometimes as
shallow as 4 feet to 6 feet below the surface). Because
shallow ground temperatures are fairly constant
throughout the United States, geothermal heat pumps
can be effective in most locations (U.S. DOE, 2007c).
Biomass. Electricity-producing turbines can be fueled
by burning biomass (e.g., plant material, wood, agricul-
tural wastes, and manure). In addition, biomass can be
UTAH SOLAR POWER DEMONSTRATION
The governor's Policy to Advance Energy Efficiency in the
State calls on the state government to establish programs to
install on-site renewable energy sources to reduce energy
consumption by 2% by 2015 compared to 2005 levels. The
governor's office is currently working in coordination with
the Utah Geological Survey and the State Energy Program
to fund a 1.28 kW solar power and demonstration project at
the Department of Natural Resources facility in Salt Lake City.
Installation of the solar panels was conducted in conjunction
with a six-day course on the benefits of solar technology.
Source: Utah, 2006.
converted into combustible oil or gas biofuel by heating
it in an oxygen-free environment, a process that can be
twice as efficient as burning biomass (U.S. EPA, 2000;
U.S. EPA, 2004b).
Landfill and Sewage Methane Gas. Fitting landfills and
wastewater treatment facilities to capture methane,
which can be combusted to produce electricity, pro-
vides a source of energy from a byproduct that would
otherwise be wasted. A single methane recovery proj-
ect can produce as much as 4 MW of electricity while
reducing waste odors and pathogens (U.S. EPA, 2004b;
U.S. EPA, 2006a). In addition, a 3 MW landfill methane
project can support more than 70 full-time jobs over
the course of a year [U.S. EPA, Undated(b)].
Municipal Solid Waste. Municipal solid waste (MSW)
that would otherwise be sent to landfills can be burned
to produce steam to power electricity-generating
turbines. There are currently 89 operational municipal
solid waste energy generation facilities in the U.S. that
produce a combined 2,500 MW (U.S. EPA, 2006h).17
Low-Impact Hydropower. Hydropower projects capture
the kinetic energy of moving water to produce elec-
tricity. While hydropower is renewable and produces
relatively few GHG emissions, hydropower projects
can have other impacts on the environment, such as
obstructing fish passage and altering land resources
by impounding excessive nutrients (U.S. EPA, 2006k).
The Low-Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) confers
certification on hydropower projects that demonstrate
minimal impact on the environment (LIHI, 2008).18
Fuel Cells. Fuel cells combine oxygen and hydrogen to
produce electricity without combustion, resulting in
fewer GHG emissions. However, fuel cells require a
continuous stream of hydrogen-rich fuel and can only
be considered a renewable energy technology if they
operate on a renewably-generated hydrogen fuel, such
as digester gas or pure hydrogen generated by solar or
wind energy generating systems (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
While burning MSW can produce energy and reduce waste streams, it is
important to note that MSWcombustion can also produce NO^ SO2, and CO2
emissions if not rigorously monitored. The EPA Green Power Partnership does
not recognize electrcity generated from MSW combustion as green power (U.S.
EPA, 20071).
The EPA Green Power Partnership recognizes only hydroelectricity gener-
ated by LIHI-certified projects.
66 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
Clean Distributed Generation Technologies
Microturbines. Microturbines are small combustion
turbines with typical energy generation capacities
between 25 kW and 500 kW. Microturbines, when used
in CHP systems, can achieve efficiency levels greater
than 80% (U.S. DOE, 2006m).
THE COMBINED HEAT AND POWER PARTNERSHIP
The EPA CHP Partnership seeks to reduce the environmental
impact of power generation by fostering the use of CHP. The
partnership works closely with energy users, the CHP industry,
state and local governments, and other stakeholders to support
the development of new policies, programs, and projects and
promotes their energy, environmental, and economic benefits.
The Partnership provides tools and resources to state and
local government, industry, and energy users to encourage
deployment of CHP including a CHP Emissions Calculator,
Catalog of Technology, and CHP and Biomass Funding
Database.
Through April 2008, thirteen state government agencies
and three local governments were participating in the CHP
Partnership.
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2006f; U.S. EPA, 2006g.
Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines. Reciprocating engines
can generate between 0.5 kW and 6.5 MW of electric-
ity. These engines have low capital costs, are easy to
operate, have proven reliability, and can be used in
CHP applications (U.S. DOE, 2006n).
Combined Heat and Power. Combined heat and power
(CHP), also known as cogeneration, refers to the
simultaneous production of electricity and thermal
energy from a single fuel source. CHP systems consist
of three primary components: the unit in which the
source fuel is combusted, the electric generator, and the
heat recovery unit. CHP systems are differentiated by
their type of prime mover, or device they use to convert
fuel into electricity (e.g., microturbines, gas turbines,
and steam turbine prime movers). Prime movers can
operate using several kinds of fuel, including natural
gas, biomass, biogas, coal, waste heat, and oil.
There are many opportunities for CHP systems at state
government facilities, particularly:
Public schools and universities. Many states, including
California, Ohio, Minnesota, and New Mexico have
installed CHP systems at state university campuses to
supply campus electric and thermal demands.
• Correctional facilities. Correctional facilities are also
candidates for CHP systems. Numerous correctional
facilities across the country currently have CHP sys-
tems, including sites in New Jersey and Minnesota.
Wastewater treatment facilities. Wastewater treatment
facilities with anaerobic digesters can be strong can-
didate sites for CHP systems. The biogas flow from
the digester is used as "free" fuel to generate electric-
ity and power in a CHP system. Because they provide
critical infrastructure for maintaining public health
and the environment, power supply disruptions at
these facilities would have serious consequences.
Wastewater treatment CHP systems are in place in 23
states, representing 176 MW of capacity (U.S. EPA,
2006g).
2.5.4 STATE AND LOCAL EXAMPLES OF USING
CLEAN ENERGY
State and local governments have used a variety of
approaches to implement clean energy supply activi-
ties. The following descriptions provide state and local
government examples of using clean energy supplies.
Oregon - Solar State Buildings
The Oregon Renewable Energy Action Plan, adopted
in 2005, contains a number of policy goals and rec-
ommended actions for increasing the amount of
renewable energy in the state. Included in this plan
are several goals for increasing the amount of renew-
able energy used by state facilities through purchasing
green power and by generating renewable energy on-
site. Specifically, the plan directed the state Department
of Energy to pursue opportunities to install solar water
heating, solar electric, and passive solar technologies at
BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY -SOLAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
IN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
In cooperation with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities,
the Bayonne Board of Education installed nearly 10,000 solar
panels at the local high school and eight elementary schools
that have a combined 2 MW of electricity generation capacity,
enough to power 200 small homes for 30 years. The $13.2
million project was made possible in part due to assistance
from the state's Clean Energy Program, which provided
$5.4 million in solar equipment and installation credits. The
project is expected to save the school district more than
$500,000 yearly in avoided electricity costs. Additional benefits
include reduced reliance on fossil fuels, reduced pollution, and
decreased strain on the grid.
Source: New Jersey, 2006.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 67
-------
all new public facilities. In 2007, the state passed legis-
lation to enforce this activity. House Bill 2620 requires
that 1.5% of the total contract price of a new facility or
major renovation be spent on solar technologies. This
requirement became effective in January 2008, and the
state Department of Energy has published proposed
rules to implement the legislation. The rules include
information on project eligibility, eligible costs, avail-
able solar technologies, use of funds, and reporting
requirements (Oregon, 2005; Oregon, 2008).
Web sites: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/
docs/FinalREAP.pdf (Renewable Energy Action Plan)
http://oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/PublicSolar.shtml
(HB 2620 Web site)
California - Solar Technology at State Facilities
In 2001, the California state legislature passed a bill
requiring the state Department of Administration, in
consultation with the State Energy Resources Conser-
vation and Development Commission, to ensure that
solar energy equipment be incorporated into designs
for new state buildings and parking facilities beginning
on January 1, 2003, and that solar energy equipment be
installed at existing state buildings and parking facili-
ties by January 1, 2007. Legislation in 2007 extended
these respective deadlines to January 1, 2008 and
January 1, 2009, respectively. In addition, the governor
issued an executive order in 2004 calling on state agen-
cies to reduce non-renewable energy consumption by
20% by 2015 based on 2003 levels through a number of
energy efficiency and renewable energy activities. The
implementation plan for this order, the State of Califor-
nia Green Building Action Plan, directs state agencies to
evaluate on-site clean energy generation opportunities.
HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA -SOLAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
AT A UNIVERSITY
California State University at Hayward received the 2004 Green
Power Leadership Award for installing the largest solar electric
system at any university in the world. The 1 MW system, which
is installed on four of the university's largest buildings and
covers more than 110,000 square feet, is capable of supplying
approximately 30% of the campus' peak energy demand during
the summer months. The project was enabled by a rebate
offered by the state Public Utilities Commission for $3.55
million — half of the cost of the project. The remaining $3.55
million will be financed over 15 years using the energy cost
savings generated by the project, which is expected to total
approximately $200,000 annually. The project is expected to
reduce the university's CO2 emissions by nearly 8,900 tons.
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2007p; Energy Services, 2003.
The Department of General Services is coordinating
efforts to meet the goal of the 2004 executive order.
Since 2006, the department has directed installations of
a combined 4.2 MW of PV system capacity. Electricity
generated by these systems is transmitted directly to
state facilities under a solar services model agreement
with the local utility, which owns and maintains the sys-
tems. The state is currently planning installations of an
additional combined 23 MW of PV capacity beginning
in 2008. Overall, the state estimates that implementing
the strategies described in the Green Building Action
Plan, including developing on-site renewable energy
resources, will reduce the state's CO2 emissions by
500,000 metric tons by 2010, increasing to 1.8 million
metric tons by 2020 (California, 2001; California, 2004a;
California, 2004b; California DCS, 2008; DSIRE, 2008).
Web site: http://www.green.ca.gov/factsheets/default.
htm
Massachusetts - Renewable Energy Initiatives
In April 2007, the governor of Massachusetts es-
tablished a goal for the state to achieve 250 MW of
combined solar PV capacity by 2017. As a first step
towards achieving this goal, the governor created Com-
monwealth Solar, an initiative to provide rebates to
residential and commercial electricity customers who
invest in PV technology. The initiative is expected to
produce more than 27 MW of PV capacity by 2011. At
this time, the governor also issued an executive order on
state government Leading by Example - Clean Energy
and Efficient Buildings, which established a goal for state
agencies to obtain 15% of their electricity from renew-
able resources (including green power purchases and
on-site generation) by 2012, increasing to 30% by 2020.
To help state agencies evaluate their PV capacity, the
state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs' Lead by Example program has developed a site
selection survey that enables agencies to conduct PV
feasibility assessments for their facilities. A clean energy
committee within the Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs, including members of the Divi-
sion of Energy Resources, the Division of Capital Asset
Management, and the Operational Services Division,
is providing state agencies with technical assistance in
achieving the governor's renewable energy goals.
Web sites: http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy.htm
(Renewable Energy Programs)
http://masstech.org/solar/ (Commonwealth Solar
Initiative)
68 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
http://www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/documents/
pv_site_selection_survey.doc (Feasibility Assessment)
Illinois - Environmental Protection Agency CHP
Activities
Since 2002, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency has been providing technical assistance and
support for CHP projects throughout the state. The
agency, a partner in the EPA CHP Partnership, pro-
vides local governments, businesses, and institutions
with assistance in identifying existing CHP projects
and resources and developing future potential CHP
applications. The agency has worked with the Midwest
CHP Application Center and the University of Chicago
to develop the 2003 Illinois CHP/BCHP Environmental
Permitting Guidebook, which presents guidance for
expedited permitting for CHP applicants in the state.
The agency was also represented on a steering commit-
tee that led the first statewide CHP conference in 2002.
On a regional scale, the agency works through the
Midwest CHP Initiative to promote CHP throughout
the Midwest.
Web site: http://www.chpcentermw.org/07-02_il.html
Madison, Wisconsin - Combined Heat and Power at a
University
In 2003, the governor of Wisconsin announced a pub-
lic-private partnership to build a CHP plant near the
University of Wisconsin-Madison campus to provide
150 MW of power and meet the space heating/cool-
ing needs of the university's facilities. The CHP plant,
which became operational in 2005, can achieve 70%
efficiency and reduces energy consumption (compared
to separate heat and power systems) by 10% to 15%.
The CHP plant reduces NOx emissions by 80% and
CO2 emissions by 15%.
The state Department of Administration worked with
a private electric utility to design a facility that meets
CHP AT A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY (WWTF)
The Albert Lea Municipal WWTF takes a normal waste product-
methane-from anaerobic digesters that treat the water and
uses it to fuel their CHP system to provide thermal and electric
power onsite. The WWTF uses four 30 kW microturbines to
generate 120 kW of electricity and 28 MMBtu of thermal energy
per year, which is used for space heating and to heat the
facility's anaerobic digesters. Installed in 2003, the $250,000
project has an estimated payback of four to six years.
Source: Midwest CHP, 2005.
the university's needs, provides reliable power for
residential and commercial businesses in the area,
and produces fewer emissions than conventional heat
and power systems. The department negotiated with
the utility to include the CHP plant development in a
package of clean energy projects that also included in-
stalling 37 PV fixtures on campus. In addition, the util-
ity agreed to provide additional fuel discounts to the
CHP AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY
Kent State University, a partner in EPA's Combined Heat and
Power Partnership, has received the Ohio Department of
Development's Award for Excellence in Energy, as well as
the 2007 ENERGY STAR CHP Award for its operation of two
generators that supply both power and heat to the University.
The generators combine to supply 13 MW of electricity,
matching nearly 90% of the university's electricity in winter
months and about 60% of the university's electricity in summer
months. Steam recovery units installed with the generators
capture 60,000 pounds of steam per hour to be distributed
to campus facilities, providing for 55% of the school's heating
demands.
The system operates at 71% efficiency and achieves a 19%
energy consumption reduction compared with separate heat
and power systems. EPA estimates that the system reduces CO2
emissions by approximately 13,000 tons annually.
Sources: Kent State University, 2005; Kent State University, 2007.
CHP AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS-AUSTIN
Since 1998, campus space at the University of Texas-Austin has
increased by over 2 million square feet and energy demand has
increased by more than 8%. However, due to the university's
continual investment in CHP, fuel consumption since that time
has increased by only 4%.
The most recent addition in 2004 included expansion of an
existing natural gas-fired combustion turbine and heat recovery
steam generator system. With the installation of a 25 MWe
(megawatts-electric, often distinguished from megawatts-
thermal in CHP applications) steam turbine, the renovated
system produces up to 61 MWe of electricity, 280,000 Ib/hr of
steam, and 150,000 Ib/hr of boiler feedwater. The steam and
hot water are used for space heating, space cooling, domestic
hot water, boiler preheat, and process steam in 160 campus
buildings.
To maximize efficiency and overall performance, the system
uses operational management software developed by
Lightridge Resources. With an estimated operating efficiency
of 60%, the University of Texas at Austin's CHP system
requires approximately 24% less fuel than typical onsite
thermal generation and purchased electricity. Based on
this comparison, the system reduces CO2 emissions by an
estimated 136,000 tons per year.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2007o.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 69
-------
state that could yield savings approaching $100 million
over 30 years (Wisconsin, 2007c; MGE, 2008).
Web site: http://www.mge.com/about/powerplants/
cogen/.
2.6 OTHER ENERGY SAVING
OPPORTUNITIES
Many states are leading by example by implementing
other energy and environmental activities that comple-
ment the LBE activities described in the preceding
sections. While not always directly intended to reduce
energy consumption, these activities can have second-
ary energy saving benefits. This section describes four
of these activities.
CONNECTICUT DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM
In Connecticut, the state Office of Policy and Management
(OPM) administers a Demand Response Program that
coordinates demand response activities of eleven state
agencies. OPM works with the agencies to reduce peak
electrical loads during period of high demand by transferring
loads to distributed generation equipment and reducing
non-essential electrical loads. As compensation for reducing
peak loads, which enables the regional grid operator to avoid
installing additional infrastructure that would be needed to
meet demand, OPM receives approximately $300,000 quarterly
from ISO New England, the grid operator, through third-party
contractors. This payment is allocated to the participating
agencies for reinvestment in clean energy projects.
Source: Connecticut OPM, 2008.
MASSACHUSETTS STATE SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM
Recycling is a cornerstone of the Massachusetts State
Sustainability Program. In 2004, the state adopted a goal
of achieving a government recycling rate of 50% by 2010.
Accomplishments under this program include:
Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, the Operational Services
Division collected 2.8 million feet of fluorescent lamps, 4,000
other mercury-containing lamps, 350 pounds of elemental
mercury, and 160,000 pounds of batteries.
The Bureau of State Office Buildings Office Paper Recycling
program recycled 640 tons of paper in FY 2002, saving over
10,000 trees.
The Department of Environmental Management placed 15
recycling containers next to the dumpsters at the beach
entrances and heavy-use areas to mitigate contamination from
improper disposal of non-recyclable materials. About 2,400
pounds of material were collected with average contamination
rates reduced to 1%.
Sources: Massachusetts, 2004; Massachusetts, 2007c.
2.6.1 DEMAND RESPONSE
Demand response refers to changing electricity usage
from normal consumption patterns in response to
change in the price of electricity over time. This often
involves changing electricity use patterns in response to
utility incentive payments designed to reduce demand
during times of peak energy use or other times when
electricity system reliability is uncertain. Participating
in utility demand response programs can be an effective
way to achieve energy system reliability benefits and
reduce energy costs, and several states are saving en-
ergy costs by incorporating demand response activities
as part of a strategic approach to energy management.
In 2004, the governor of California issued an execu-
tive order directing state agencies to reduce energy
consumption in advance of private electricity custom-
ers during electrical emergencies, to help protect
energy system reliability. As part of this mandate, the
order directs agencies to work with electric utilities to
coordinate agency responses to electrical emergencies
and to participate in utility-based demand response
programs (California, 2004a; California, 2004b).
2.6.2 REDUCING SOLID WASTE AND
RECYCLING
Considerable quantities of energy are consumed to
manufacture everyday products, such as office paper,
computers, and ink toner cartridges. Using products
made from recycled or renewable materials through
non-energy-intensive methods can prevent unneces-
sary depletion of natural resources and reduce the
energy required to manufacture new products and
dispose of used ones. Diligent recycling can conserve
70% to 90% of the energy required to produce products
from virgin materials. The amount of energy saved
from recycling one ton of office paper or one ton of
aluminum cans is equal to 10.2 million Btu and 206.9
million Btu, respectively (Choate et al., 2005).
RECYCLING - ENERGY RELATIONSHIP
Recycling one pound of steel saves 5,450 Btu of energy,
enough to light a 60-watt bulb for over 26 hours.
Recycling one ton of glass saves the equivalent of nine gallons
of fuel oil.
Recycling aluminum cans requires only 5% of the energy needed
to produce aluminum from bauxite. Recycling just one can
saves enough electricity to light a 100-watt bulb for 3V2 hours.
Source: Pennsylvania, 2007.
70 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
Most states administer programs to purchase recycled-
content products and collect used products to be recy-
cled. In 2005, North Carolina state agencies purchased
$12 million in recycled-content office paper. This effort
conserved 115,000 trees, saved enough energy to sup-
ply nearly 900 homes for a year, and reduced CO2 emis-
sions equivalent to removing 915 cars from the road
for a year (North Carolina DENR, 2005). In Florida,
the state office recycling program recycled nearly
235 tons of white paper—34% of all paper used—over
two years. In addition to avoiding 700 cubic yards of
solid waste, this effort saved the state nearly $7,000 in
fees for hauling the garbage and earned the state more
than $9,000 in sales of the salvaged materials (Florida,
2004). In 2005, state government recycling efforts co-
ordinated by the Pennsylvania Department of General
Services generated $32,000 in salvaged paper sales and
$546,000 in salvaged metals sales (GGGC, 2008). In
Minnesota, 21 of the state government's largest build-
ings have joined the State Agency Recycling Challenge
in an effort to achieve a 60% recycling rate in each
agency. In the month of February 2007 alone, these
buildings combined to save approximately 200,000
pounds of recycled material (Minnesota RRP, 2007.).
2.6.3 WATER EFFICIENCY
The conveyance, treatment, distribution, and end-
use of water, along with the treatment of wastewater,
require a significant amount of energy. The energy
required to pump purchased water for end use is ap-
proximately 0.6 kW per 1,000 gallons distributed (Uni-
versities Council on Water Resources, 1999). Accord-
ing to a 2008 EPA report on the relationship between
water and energy use, it is estimated that water supply
and wastewater treatment nationwide require 30 billion
kWh per year and 7 billion kWh per year, respectively
— approximately 1% of total annual U.S. electricity
generation at a cost of $3 billion (U.S. EPA, 2008u).19 In
California, where the energy intensity of water convey-
ance and treatment is high, water-related energy use
constitutes 19% of the state's annual energy use and
32% of its annual natural gas use (CEC, 2006).
At the system level, increasing the energy efficiency
of system operations (e.g., through process improve-
ments, use of efficient pumps and motors) and shifting
discretionary uses of energy to off-peak times (e.g., by
For more information, see EPAs 2008 report, Water and Energy: Leverag-
ing Voluntary Programs to Save Both Water and Energy at http://www.ener-
gystar.gov/ia/partners/publications/pubdocs/Final%20Report%20Mar%20
2008.pdf.
increasing water storage capacity) can reduce energy
consumption. Energy efficiency measures can reduce
energy consumption in most water systems by 25%
(Watergy, 2002). In New York, NYSERDA encourages
municipal water, wastewater, and solid waste treatment
facilities to adopt energy-efficient practices through
cost-sharing research, business development programs,
and demonstrations (NYSERDA, 2004b).
At the facility level, states can improve indoor wa-
ter efficiency by installing water-efficient fixtures
EPA WATERSENSE LABEL
The EPA WaterSense Program labels products that meet water
efficiency and performance criteria. Labeling criteria have
been established for plumbing fixtures (e.g., toilets and sink
faucets), landscape irrigation equipment, and other commercial
products. In general, products that receive the WaterSense
label are 20% more water-efficient than conventional products.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2007b.
MASSACHUSETTS WATER CONSUMPTION REDUCTION GOAL
Some states have taken the initiative of setting goals for
reducing state government water consumption. Massachusetts,
for example, has a goal of reducing water consumption by
15% in state agencies by 2010. The state plans to achieve
this objective by taking cost-effective steps such as reducing
outdoor water use through green landscaping techniques,
replacing old fixtures, inspecting and repairing leaks, and
identifying options for using reclaimed water.
Source: Massachusetts, 2004.
COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION ACTION STEPS FOR
STATE AGENCIES
The Colorado Greening Government initiative developed
a list of action steps for state agencies to reduce water
consumption, including:
Implementing water efficiency awareness programs.
Reducing non-essential water uses, including vehicle washing,
decorative fountains, and routine athletic field watering.
Focusing on restroom water use, which can account for as
much as half of total water demand, by:
• Replacing old toilets that use 3.5 gallons per flush (gpf) with
1.6 gpf units.
• Installing water-saving aerators on faucets.
• Installing pressure-reducing valves to reduce consumption.
Limiting allowed watering hours to times when evaporation is
lowest (i.e., early morning or later in the evening).
Planting drought-tolerant native plants.
Eliminating once-through cooling systems.
Source: Colorado, 2005.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 71
-------
(e.g., toilets, faucets). Installing water metering and
monitoring systems, for example, can reduce energy
consumption by up to 10% (Watergy, 2002). Exterior
water consumption reduction strategies include:
Collecting and using rainwater for landscape irrigation.
Planting roof areas to reduce loss of storm water.
Increasing reliance on native plant species that are
adapted to the local environment, which can increase
water efficiency by as much as 50% (U.S. DOE, 20061).
Altering irrigation schedules to reduce peak demand
(U.S. EPA, 2002).
Some states have reduced exterior water consumption
through a technique called xeriscaping that replaces
water-intensive landscaping materials with locally
adapted plants, shrubs, mulch, and other materials. Xe-
riscaping efforts at the Colorado State Laboratory are
expected to save more than 780,000 gallons per year,
reducing maintenance costs by an estimated $4,000
annually (Colorado, 2006b). Legislation in Florida and
Texas requires that the state departments use xeriscap-
ing practices on certain new state construction projects
(U.S. EPA, 2002).
2.6.4 TREES AND VEGETATION
Trees and vegetation and responsible landscaping prac-
tices can significantly reduce energy consumption by
moderating exposure to sun and wind. In general, large
trees or bushes planted close to a building's side will
produce substantial energy savings, although benefits
vary based on orientation, size, leaf cover, and distance
of trees and vegetation from a building.
According to EPA, to achieve maximum cooling sav-
ings, deciduous trees should be planted to the east,
southeast, southwest, and —especially —the west of a
building to shade wall exteriors (U.S. EPA, 2003b).20
A joint study by LBNL and the Sacramento Municipal
Utility District placed varying numbers of trees in
containers around houses to shade windows and then
measured their energy use (Akbari et al., 1993). Cool-
ing energy savings ranged between 7% and 40% and
were greatest when trees were planted to the west and
southwest of buildings. Another study by LBNL, which
modeled the effects of trees on homes in various cities
throughout the United States, suggests that a 20% tree
Planting trees to the direct south, however, should generally be avoided,
since these trees will provide relatively little summer shade and will obstruct
desired winter sunlight (U.S. EPA, 2007e).
canopy would result in annual cooling savings of 8% to
18% and annual heating savings of 2% to 8% (Huang et
al., 1990).
Trees and vegetation can also reduce winter heating
costs by shielding wind. Trees and large bushes, par-
ticularly evergreens, planted to the north or northwest
can serve as windbreaks and protect buildings from
cold winter winds. One study indicates that properly
placed wind-shielding trees can produce heat energy
savings of 10% to 15% (LBNL, 2005).
The presence of trees and smaller vegetation in the
urban environment can also provide energy benefits
during the summer months through evapotranspira-
tion —the process through which trees and vegetation
absorb water through their roots and emit water vapor
through their leaves. Different species of trees can
process varying amounts of water, ranging from a few
gallons a day up to several thousand gallons a day. In
combination with shading, evapotranspiration can
reduce peak summertime air temperatures by as much
as 9°F in some regions, which can translate into signifi-
cant energy cost savings (U.S. EPA, 2007m).
REFERENCES
ACEEE. 2003. Energy Efficiency's Next Generation:
Innovation at the State Level. Report E031. November.
Available: http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e031full.pdf.
Accessed 1/15/2007.
ADEQ. 2006a. ADEQ Recognized as First State
Government Building in Arizona to Receive Energy
Star Award. Available: http://www.azgovernor.gov/
er/documents/021706_ADEQEnergyStarAward.pdf.
Accessed 1/12/2007.
ADEQ. 2006b. The Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality Building. Available: http://
www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/p2/download/
gbbrochure.pdf. Accessed 1/12/2007.
Akbari H., S. Bretz, J. Hanford, D. Kurn, B. Fishman,
and H. Taha. 1993. Monitoring Peak Power and
Cooling Energy Savings of Shade Trees and White
Surfaces in the Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD) Service Area: Data Analysis, Simulations,
and Results. Report LBL-34411. Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
72 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
TABLE 2.6.1 CHAPTER 2: POTENTIAL LBE ACTIVITIES AND MEASURES: SELECTED RESOURCES
Description
The Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy
provides information on state and local government
renewable energy and energy efficiency incentives.
http://www.dsireusa.org/
DOE State Energy
Program
DOE's State Energy Program (SEP) provides grants to states
and directs funding to state energy offices from technology
programs in DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_
program/topic_definition_detail.cfm/
topic=115
EPA ENERGY STAR
Building Upgrade
Manual
EPA's ENERGY STAR Building Upgrade Manual provides
information on implementing a staged upgrade approach to
improving energy efficiency in buildings.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfm?c=business.bus_upgrade_manual
EPA Clean Energy-
Environment Guide to
Action
EPA's Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action is designed
to share the experiences and lessons learned from successful
state clean energy policies and help states evaluate these
options, programs, and policies to determine what is most
appropriate for them. The Guide to Action describes 16 clean
energy policies, details the best practices and attributes of
effective state programs, and provides resources for more
information.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-
programs/state-and-local/state-best-
practices.html
EPA Clean Energy-
Environment State
Partnership Program
Technical Forum
EPA's State Technical Forum conference calls foster peer-
to-peer exchanges among state officials on policy design,
implementation, and evaluation issues related to their efforts
to advance clean energy
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-
programs/state-and-local/state-forum.
html
EPA ENERGY STAR
Guidelines for Energy
Management
EPA's Guidelines for Energy Management are based on
the successful practices of ENERGY STAR partners. The
Guidelines for Energy Management for energy management
assist organizations in improving its energy and financial
performance.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm7c =
guidelines.guidelines_index
National Governor's
Association Center for
Best Practices
NGA's Center for Best Practices evaluates public policy
innovations and ensures that all governors are aware of
these advances by Publishing research reports, policy
analyses, issue briefs, and a variety of other materials on
timely issues. The center also Hosting policy workshops,
seminars, academies, and cross-state learning labs across
the country
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menui
tem.50aeae5ff70b817ae8ebb856all010aO/
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 73
-------
Apollo Alliance. 2007. Community Jobs in the Green
Economy. Available: http://www.apolloalliance.org/
resources_communityjobs.php. Accessed 2/26/2008.
Arizona. 2007. The Executive Budget: Fiscal
Year 2007. Available: http://www.douglasaz.gov/
StateInformation/2007DetailBook.pdf. Accessed
3/20/2007.
Arizona DOC. 2006. State Agency Annual Energy
Usage Report. Arizona Department of Commerce. June
2006. Available: http://www.azcommerce.com/dodib/
energy/stateagency_energy_progress_report-7.01.06.
pdf. Accessed 3/19/2007.
ASES. 2007. Economic and Jobs Impacts of Renewable
Energy and Energy Efficiency. Available: http://www.
ases.org/jobs_report.pdf. Accessed 12/12/2007.
AWEA. 2004. Green Pricing Resource Guide.
Available: http://www.awea.org/greenpower/
greenPricingResourceGuide040726.pdf. Accessed
8/20/2007.
AWEA. 2007b. Wind Energy Basics. Available:
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html. Accessed
9/27/2007.
•AWEA. Undated(c). The Economics of Small Wind.
Available: http://www.awea.org/smallwind/toolbox2/
factsheet_econ_of_smallwind.html. Accessed 7/9/2007.
Bird, L., L. Dagher, and B. Swezey. 2007. Green Power
Marketing in the United States. NREL/TP-670-42502.
Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/
resources/pdfs/42502.pdf. Accessed 3/28/2008.
California. 2001. CA Government Code Section
14660. Available: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=l 4001-
15000&file=14660-14684.1. Accessed 5/30/2008.
California. 2004a. Executive Order S-20-04by the
Governor of the State of California. Available: http://
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/energy/ExecOrderS-20-04.htm.
Accessed 1/12/2007.
• California. 2004b. Green Building Action Plan.
Available: http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/green/
GreenBuildingActionPlan.pdf. Accessed 8/29/2008.
California. 2007. Assembly Bill 1103 - An Act
to Add Section 25402.10 to the Public Resources
Code, Relating to Energy. Available: http://www.
Ieginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_n01-1150/
ab_l 103_bill_20071012_chaptered.pdf. Accessed
8/29/2008.
California DCS. 2008. Solar Power Installations at
State Facilities. Available: http://www.green.ca.gov/
factsheets/solarpvfactsheet.htm. Accessed 2/27/2008.
•California GAT. 2008. Green Action Team Meeting,
August 6, 2008. Available: http://www.documents.dgs.
ca.gov/green/meetings/20080806_GAT_Status_of_
Major_Deliverables-A.pdf. Accessed 8/29/2008.
Carnegie Mellon. 2005. Center for Building
Performance. As cited in Greening America's Schools:
Costs and Benefits. G. Kats, Capital E. Available: http://
www. cap-e. com/ewebeditpro/items/O59Fl 1233.pdf.
Accessed 4/17/2007.
Case, S. 2004. Environmental Purchasing Policies 101:
An Overview of Current Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing Policies. Available: http://www.cec.org/
files/pdf//NAGPI%20Policy%20Paper2e.pdf. Accessed
5/23/2007.
CEC. 2006. California's Water-Energy Relationship.
Presentation. Lorraine White, Advisor to Vice Chair
Pfannenstiel, A Symposium: Improving the Efficiency
of California's Water and Energy Systems. March
28. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/process/
water/2006-03-28_symposium/WHITE_CEC.PDF.
Accessed 1/15/2007.
• CEC. 2007. DER Equipment - Photovoltaic Systems.
Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/distgen/
equipment/photovoltaic/cost.html. Accessed 7/19/2007.
Choate, A., L. Pederson, J. Scharfenberg. 2005. Waste
Management and Energy Savings: Benefits by the
Numbers. Prepared by ICF Consulting for U.S. EPA.
Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.
nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/TMAL6GDR3K/$File/
Energy%20Savings.pdf. Accessed 3/19/2007.
•Colorado. 2005. Water Conservation and Water
Quality: Action Steps for Improvements. Available:
http://www.colorado.gov/greeninggovernment/
programs/water/actionsteps.htm. Accessed 3/20/2007.
Colorado. 2006b. Greening State Government
Status Report. Available: http://www.colorado.gov/
greeninggovernment/reports/Status_Report.pdf.
Accessed 3/20/2007.
74 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
Connecticut. 2005. DEP Becomes First State
Agency to Buy Clean Energy. Available:
http://www.ctdimatechange.com/documents/
DEPFirstAgencytoBuyCleanEnergy.pdf. Accessed
1/12/2007.
Connecticut. 2006. Energy Vision for a Cleaner,
Greener State. Available: http://www.ct.gov/
governorrell/Ub/governorrell/energyplan.pdf. Accessed
2/26/2008.
Connecticut. 2007. Clean Energy Options. Available:
http://www.ctcleanenergyoptions.com/. Accessed
1/12/2007.
Connecticut OPM. 2008. Demand Response Program.
Available: http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.aspfa =
2994&q = 389740. Accessed 5/16/2008.
DSIRE. 2007. Maine Incentives for Renewables and
Efficiency. Database of State Incentives for Renewables
and Energy Efficiency. Available: http://www.dsireusa.
org/library/indudes/incentive2. cfm ?Incentive_Code =
MEOSR&state = ME&CurrentPagelD = l&RE = l&EE
= 1. Accessed 3/19/2007.
DSIRE. 2008. Green Building Action Plan for State
Facilities. Available: http://www.dsireusa.org/library/
indudes/incentive2. cfm ?Incentive_Code= CA49R&st
ate=CA&CurrentPageID=l&RE=l&EE=l. Accessed
5/23/2008.
EIA. 2003. 2003 Building Characteristics Overview.
Characteristics by Activity. Available: http://www.
eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/pba99/intro.html. Accessed
8/5/2008.
EIA. 2003a. Commercial Buildings Energy
Consumption Survey (CBECS): Commercial
Energy Uses and Costs. Building Characteristics,
Table C2. Total Energy Expenditures by Major Fuel
for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003. Available: http://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_
tables_2003/2003set9/2003pdf/c2.pdf. Accessed:
8/6/2008.
EIA. 2007. Generation and Consumption of Fuels for
Electricity Generation, May 2007. Available: http://
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/'epm_sum.html.
Accessed 8/20/2007.
Energy Services. 2003. Energy Services Bulletin:
California universities share lessons learned from
building PV systems. Energy Services 22:5.
Available: http://www.wapa.gov/es/pubs/
esb/2003/03oct/esb!04.htm. Accessed 3/20/2007.
FEMP. 2007. Energy-Efficient Products. Available:
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/femp/procurement/
eep_requirements.html. Accessed 9/12/2007.
Florida. 2004. State Government: Leading by Example.
Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/
recycling/pages/Newsletter/JanuaryNewsletter.htm.
Accessed 1/12/2007.
GGGC. 2006. High Performance Green Buildings
Guidelines. Available: http://www.gggc.state.pa.us/
gggc/cwp/view.asp?a = 5156-q = 156978. Accessed
1/15/2007.
GGGC. 2006b. Pennsylvania Governor s Green
Government Council. High Performance Green
Buildings Web site. Available: http://www.gggc.state.
pa.us/gggc/cwp/view.asp?a = 3&q = 151742.
GGGC. 2008. Green Plan: 2006-2007. Available: http://
www.gggc.state.pa.us/gggc/cwp/view.asp?a = 520&q =
157195. Accessed 2/26/2008.
Harris, J., M. Brown, J. Deakin, S. Jurovics, A. Khan,
E. Wisniewski, J. Mapp, B. Smith, M. Podeszwa,
A. Thomas. 2004. Energy-Efficient Purchasing by
State and Local Government Triggering a Landslide
Down the Slippery Slope to Market Transformation.
ACEEE Summer Study. Available: http://www.dc.lbl.
gov/LBNLDC/publications/Energy%20Efficient%20
Purchasing%20By%20State%20and%20Local%20
Government.pdf. Accessed 3/19/2007.
Hawaii. 2006. Act 96: An Act Relating to Energy.
Available: http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/
efficiency/state/Act96_reprint.pdf. Accessed 4/20/2007.
Hawaii. 2008. Report to the 2008 Hawaii State
Legislature. Available: http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/
info/energy/publications/LBE-all-07.pdf. Accessed
5/9/2008.
Huang, J., H. Akbari, and H. Taha. 1990. The wind-
shielding and shading effects of trees on residential
heating and cooling requirements. Proceedings of
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air
Conditioning Engineers, February 1990, Atlanta, GA.
Also Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report
LBL-24131, Berkeley, CA.
Hull. 2008. Hull Wind. Available: http://www.
hullwind.org/. Accessed 1/29/2008.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 75
-------
•Idaho. 2008. District Heating Systems in Idaho.
Available: http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/energy/
alternative_fuels/Geothermal/detailed_district.htm.
Accessed 2/28/2008.
lEc. 2005. Analysis of Green Building Programs.
Final Report. Prepared for the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and the
Massachusetts Sustainable Design Roundtable.
September 30. Available: http://www.keystone.org/spp/
documents/12_8IEc%20Final%20Report.pdf. Accessed
3/20/2007.
•Jennings, J. and L. Skumatz. 2006. Non-Energy
Benefits (NEBs) from Commissioning Schools,
Prisons, and Other Public Buildings. 2006 ACEEE
Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
Kats, G., L. Alevantis, A. Herman, E. Mills, and J.
Perlman. 2003. The Costs and Financial Benefits of
Green Buildings. A Report to California's Sustainable
Building Task Force. October 2003. Available:
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/GreenBuilding/Design/
CostBenefit/Report.pdf. Accessed 4/27/2007.
Kent State University. 2005. Kent State Receives
Governor's Award for Excellence in Energy. Available:
http://einside.kent.edu/ftype = art&id = 4480.
Accessed 1/12/2007.
Kent State University. 2007. EPA Recognizes Kent
State with 2007 ENERGY STAR Award. Available:
http://einside.kent.edu/ftype = art&id = 81993&.
Accessed 2/28/2008.
LBNL. 2002. Potential Energy .Cost, and CO2 Saving
from Energy-Efficient Government Purchasing.
Available: http://wwwl. eere. energy.gov/femp/pdfs/
government_purchasing.pdf. Accessed 10/8/2007.
LBNL. 2005. Energy Saving Potentials and Air Quality
Benefits of Urban Heat Island Mitigation. Available:
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgifarticle
= 3550&context = Ibnl. Accessed 2/26/2008.
LIHI. 2008. Low-Impact Hydropower Institute.
Available: http://lowimpacthydro.org/cf.aspx. Accessed
1/29/2008.
Manwell, J. E, J. G. McGowan, A. Rogers, A. Ellis,
S. Wright, M. Brown, J. MacLeod. American Wind
Energy Association. 2003. Wind Turbine Siting In An
Urban Environment: the Hull, MA 660 kW Turbine,
Conference Proceedings.
• Available: http://www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/
published/2003/AWEA_Hull_2003.pdf. Accessed
7/1/2008.
Maryland. 2006. New State Electricity Contracts
will Save Maryland Taxpayers 31.3 Million. DCS/
USM Partnership Maximizes Energy Savings Energy
Administration. Available: http://www.energy.state.
md.us/press/2006/2006-ll-20.pdf. Accessed 1/19/2007.
Massachusetts. 2003. Program Assessment for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Environmentally
Preferable Products Procurement Program. Final
Draft. Available: http://www.mass.gov/Aosd/docs/
EPP/EPP%20Program%20Assessment%20Final%20
Report%20Dec02.doc. Accessed 1/15/2007.
• Massachusetts. 2004. Massachusetts Climate Action
Plan. Available: http://www.massclimateaction.org/
pdffMAClimateProtPlan0504.pdf. Accessed 1/12/2007.
Massachusetts. 2007. Online Services.
Available: http://www.mass.gov/eoaf/docs/
administrativebulletinl2.doc. Accessed 1/12/2007.
Massachusetts. 2007b. Environmentally Preferable
Products (EPP) Procurement Program. Available:
http://www.mass.gov/fpageID = osdtopic&L = 3&sid =
Aosd&LO = Home&Ll = Buy+from+a+Contract&L2
= Environmentally+Preferable+Products+(EPP)+Proc
urement+Program. Accessed 1/12/2007.
Massachusetts. 2007c. Recent State Sustainability
Initiatives. Available: http://www.mass.gov/envir/
Sustainable/. Accessed 1/12/2007.
MGE. 2008. West Campus Cogeneration Facility.
Available: http://www.mge.com/about/powerplants/
cogen/. Accessed 2/28/2008.
Michigan DLEG. 2008. State Facility Energy
Savings Plan. Available: http://www.michigan.gov/
dleg/0,1607,7-154-25676_25689_33337-103911-,00.
html. Accessed 5/22/2008.
Michigan DLEG. Undated. ENERGY STAR Label
for Buildings. Michigan Department of Labor &
Economic Growth. Available: http://www.michigan.
gov/documents/CIS_EO_Inside_Energy_Star_
Incentive_59090_7.pdf. Accessed 4/24/2007.
76 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
Michigan DLEG. 2008a. Public Building Energy
Efficiency. Michigan Department of Labor & Economic
Growth. Available: http://www.michigan.gov/
dleg/0,1607,7-154-25676_25689—,OO.html. Accessed:
6/22/08.
Michigan Energy Office.Undated. Lake Superior
State University: Obtaining ENERGY STAR Status.
Available: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/
CIS_EO_Lake_Superior_State_99-0025_155683_7.
pdf. Accessed 6/22/2008.
Midwest CHP. 2005. Albert Lea Wastewater Treatment
Facility. Midwest CHP Application Center. Available:
http://www.chpcentermw.org/pdfs/Project_Profile_
Albert_Lea_Wastewater_Treatment_Center.pdf.
Accessed 4/19/2007.
Mills, E., H. Friedman, T. Powell, N. Bourassa,
D. Claridge, T. Haasl, and M.A. Piette. 2004.
The Cost-Effectiveness of Commercial-Buildings
Commissioning. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Available: http://eetd.lbl.gov/EMills/PUBS/
Cx-Costs-Benefits.html Accessed 1/15/2007.
Minnesota. 2001. Minnesota Sustainable Design
Guide. Available: http://www.msdg.umn.edu/default.
htm. Accessed 1/15/2007.
Minnesota. 2006. Sustainable Building Guidelines
(MSBG) Version 2.0 Available: http://www.csbr.umn.
edu/B3/. Accessed 1/13/2007.
Minnesota. 2007. State Agency Energy Conservation:
A Progress Report on Governor's Executive Order 05-
16. Available: http://www.savingenergy.state.mn.us/
files/Saving%20Energy%20Report%20to%20the%20
Governor%2004%2007.pdf. Accessed 4/26/2007.
Minnesota PCA. 2006. Green Building Web Site.
Updated June 2006. http://www.moea.state.mn.us/
greenbuilding/index. cfm.
Minnesota. 2006a. Office of the Governor, Tim
Pawlenty Web Site. Governor Pawlenty Introduces
Next Generation Energy Initiative -- December
12, 2006. Available: http://www.governor.state.
mn.us/mediacenter/pressreleases/2006/december/
PROD007863.html. Accessed: 6/30/2008.
Minnesota RRP. 2007. Minnesota Resource Recovery
Program: State Agency Recycling Challenge. Available:
http://www.rro.state.mn.us/Challenge.htm. Accessed
3/19/2007.
Montana. 2008. 20 X 10 Initiative. Available: http://
governor.mt.gov/20xlO/. Accessed 5/12/2008.
Montgomery County. 2006. Montgomery County
Signs Agreement to Purchase Wind Energy; Largest
Local Government Purchase in Country. Available:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Apps/News/
press/Displaylnfo.cfmfltemID = 895. Accessed
1/12/2007.
NACo. Undated. Environmental Purchasing Starter
Kit: Case Study on Energy Efficiency. Available:
http://www.naco.org/Content/ContentGroups/
Programs_and_Projects/Environmentall/Energy/
Energy-Efficiency.pdf. Accessed 5/25/2007.
NACo. 2002. Green Government Initiative: Climate
Protection and Air Quality. Available: http://
www. naco. org/GreenTemplate. cfm ?Section=Air_
Quality&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.
cfm&TPLID=88&ContentID=24090. Accessed:
7/02/2008.
•NACo. 2005. Energy Management.
Available: http://www.naco.org/Template.
cfm?Section=New_Technical_Assistance&Template=/
TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.
cfm&TPLID=62&ContentID=14019. Accessed:
7/02/2008.
NACo. 2005a. NACo Endorses EPA's ENERGY
STAR Challenge. Available: http://www.naco.org/
Template, cfm ?Section=Media_Center&template=/
ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.
cfm&ContentID=24553. Accessed: 7/02/2008.
NAPEE. 2008. Sector Collaborative on Energy
Efficiency Accomplishments and Next Steps: A
Resource of the National Action Plan for Energy
Efficiency. July. Available: http://epa.gov/cleanenergy/
energy-programs/napee/collaborative.html.
NASEO. 2006. Case Studies. Available: http://www.
naseo. org/tforces/energystar/casestudies/. Accessed
1/12/2007.
National Governors Association (NGA).
2008. Securing a Clean Energy Future: A Call
to Action. Available: http://www.nga.org/Files/
pdf/0712SCEFCALLTOACTION.PDF. Accessed:
6/26/08.
New Hampshire. 2004. Executive Order 2004-07.
Available: http://www.sos.nh.gov/EXECUTIVE%20
ORDERS/Benson2004-7.pdf. Accessed 5/12/2008.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 77
-------
New Hampshire. 2005. Executive Order 2005-04.
Available: http://www.nh.gov/governor/orders/
documents/Executive_order_2005-4.pdf. Accessed
5/12/2008.
New Hampshire. Undated. Department of Justice
Building, Energy Efficiency Improvement Project,
ENERGY STAR Certification. Available: http://
des. nh.gov/pdf/project_description.pdf. Accessed
1/15/2007.
New Jersey. 2003. New Jerseys Green Power
Purchasing Program. Available: http://www.state.nj.us/
dep/dsr/bscit/GreenPower.pdf. Accessed 1/12/2007.
New Jersey. 2006. NJBPU Unveils Largest East Coast
Solar Project. Available: http://www.njdeanenergy.
com/html/5library/press/pr_njbpu-largesolar.html.
Accessed 1/19/2007.
New Mexico. 2005. Session Laws of 2005: Chapter 176.
Available: http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/05%20
Regular/bills/house/HB0032.pdf. Accessed 5/30/2008.
New Mexico. 2006. Executive Order 2006-1. Available:
http://www.governor.s tate. nm. us/orders/2006/
EO_2006_001.pdf. Accessed. 5/12/2008.
New Mexico. 2007. Executive Order 2007-53.
Available: http://www.governor.state.nm.us/
orders/2007/EO_2007_053.pdf. Accessed 5/12/2008.
New York City Council. 2005. Local Law 119 (2005).
Available: http://www.nyccouncil.info/pdf_files/bills/
Iaw05119.pdf. Accessed 4/19/2007.
New York City Council. 2007. Search Legislation and
Site by Keyword(s). Available: http://www.nyccouncil.
info/search/searchlook2.cfm?SEARCH = NUM.
Accessed 1/12/2007.
North Carolina. 2007. Session Law 2007-0546.
Available: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/
Senate/HTML/S668v6.html. Accessed 5/12/2008.
North Carolina DENR. 2005. State Agency Purchases
of Recycled Products and Reduction of Solid Waste
Disposal: July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005. Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. Available:
http://www.p2pays. org/ref/38/37924.pdf. Accessed
3/19/2007.
NREL. 2004. Improved Sustainability of Buildings
through a Performance-Based Design Approach.
NREL/CP-550-36276. Available: http://www.nrd.gov/
docs/fy04osti/36276.pdf. Accessed 1/12/2007.
•NREL. 2005. Analysis of the Design and Energy
Performance of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection Cambria Office Building.
March. NREL/TP-550-34931. Available: http://www.
nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/34931.pdf. Accessed: 6/22/08.
•NREL. 2007a. Solar Process Heating. Available:
http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_solar_process.html.
Accessed 7/6/2007.
NREL. 2007b. Concentrating Solar Power. Available:
http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_csp.html. Accessed
7/6/2007.
•NREL. 2007c. Solar Hot Water. Available: http://www.
nrel.gov/learning/re_solar_hot_water. html. Accessed
7/6/2007.
NYSERDA. 2001. Executive Order 111 Web site.
Available: http://www.nyserda.org/programs/
exorderlll.asp. Accessed 1/12/2007.
NYSERDA. 2003. Using Wind Power to Hedge
Volatile Electricity Prices for Commercial and
Industrial Customers in New York. Available:
http://www.powernaturally.org/About/documents/
WindHedgeExSumm.pdf. Accessed 8/6/2007.
NYSERDA. 2004a. Green Building Services Web
Site. Available: http://www.nyserda.org/Programs/
Green_Buildings/Default.asp. Accessed July 2006.
NYSERDA. 2004b. Municipal Water and Wastewater
Treatment. Available: http://www.nyserda.org/
Programs/Environment/muniwaterwwt. asp. Accessed
1/12/2007.
NYSERDA. 2005. Executive Order 111 Annual Energy
Report. Available: http://www.nyserda.org/programs/
pdfs/execorderl 1 Ifinalreportll-05.pdf. Accessed
2/28/2008.
NYSERDA. 2007. NY-CHPS Version 1.1 High
Performance Schools Guidelines. Available: http://
www.emsc.nysed.gov/facplan/NYSERDA/NY-CHPS_
Ver_l.l_Feb_07.html. Accessed 4/20/2007.
Oregon. 2004. Case Study: Retro-Commissioning.
Silver Falls School District Gets What It Paid for.
Available: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/
BUS/comm/docs/Silverton.PDE Accessed 1/15/2007.
78 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
Oregon. 2005. Renewable Energy Action Plan.
Available: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/
docs/FinalREAP.pdf. Accessed 5/23/2008.
Oregon. 2006. Commissioning for Better Buildings
in OR. Available: http://egov.oregon.gov/ENERGY/
CONS/BUS/comm/bldgcx.shtml. Accessed 1/12/2007.
Oregon. 2008. Administrative Rules for HB 2620.
Available: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/
docs/Solar_Public_Buildings_Final.pdf. Accessed
2/28/2008.
Pennsylvania. 2006. Governor Rendell: Pennsylvania
Redoubling Its Purchase Of Green Electricity.
Available: http://www.state.pa.us/papower/cwp/view.
asp?A = ll&Q = 455731. Accessed 1/12/2007.
Pennsylvania. 2007. Recycling Saves Energy.
Available: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/
airwaste/wm/RECYCLE/FACTS/benefits3.htm.
Accessed 1/16/2007.
Pennsylvania. 2007b. At Nearly 30% Green, PA is
Largest State Purchaser of Clean Energy. Available:
http://www.state.pa.us/papower/cwp/view.asp? A =
= 468674. Accessed 2/26/2008.
Pennsylvania DEP. 1999. Guidelines for Creating
High Performance Green buildings: A Document
for Decision Makers. Prepared for the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection. http://www.
gggc.state.pa.us/gggc/cwp/view.asp?a = 3&q = 151854.
Pennsylvania DEP. 2002. The "Greening" of State
Government — Green Government Council.
Available: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/hess/legacy/
FS3020GGGC.pdf. Accessed 1/17/2007.
Portland. 2005. Green Building Resolution (2005).
Portland Office of Sustainable Development. Available:
http://www.portlandonline. com/osd/index. cfm ?c =
41701&a = 112681. Accessed 5/7/2007.
Renewable Energy Research Lab (RERL). 2006.
University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Wind Power
on the Community Scale: Community Wind Case
Study, Hull. Available: http://www.ceere.org/rerl/
about_wind/RERL_Case_Study_Hull_Wind_One.pdf.
Accessed: 6/30/08.
Sandia. 2007. Technical Issues Concerning Third Party
Financing for Renewable Energy. Sandia National
Laboratories. Available: http://energy.sandia.gov/
technicallissues.htm. Accessed 1/30/2008.
South Carolina. 2006. Energy Use in South Carolina's
Public Facilities, Fiscal Year 2004. Available: http://
www.energy.sc.gov/publications/2004%20Energy%20
Use%20in%20SC%20Public%20Facilities.pdf.
Accessed 8/5/08.
South Carolina. 2007. Energy Efficiency
Act. Available: http://www.scstatehouse.net/
sessl 17_2007-2008/bills/3034. doc. Accessed
5/23/2008.
Universities Council on Water Resources. 1999.
Realizing the Benefits from Water Conservation.
W Maddaus. Available: http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/
updates/pdf/Vl 14_A2.pdf. Accessed 10/29/2007.
U.S. Conference of Mayors. 2008. Mayors Climate
Protection Center Web Site. Available: http://
usmayors.org/climateprotection/. Accessed 6/20/08.
U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM). 2007. Mayors
Climate Protection Center Web Site, Best Practices.
Available: http://usmayors. org/climateprotection/
bestpractices.htm. Accessed 6/26/08.
U.S. Conference of Mayors. 2006. The U.S. Conference
of Mayors Partners with ICLEI to Combat Global
Warming. June 5. Available: http://www.usmayors.
org/74thAnnualMeeting/iclei_060506.pdf. Accessed
6/20/08.
U.S. DOE. 2003. Guidance on Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Required by Executive Order 13123. Available: http://
wwwl. eere. energy.gov/femp/pdfs/lcc_guide_rev2.pdf.
Accessed 8/5/2008.
U.S. DOE. 2004. Additional Financing Sources and
Considerations. Available: http://www.eere.energy.
gov/buildings/info/plan/financing/additional.html.
Accessed 5/10/2007.
U.S. DOE. 2006a. Annual Energy Use in Commercial
Buildings: Government Buildings. Available: http://
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/government/
piegovernment.html. Accessed 2/21/2008.
U.S. DOE. 2006b. Energy-Efficient Operation and
Maintenance for Government Buildings. Available:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/
government/maintain.html. Accessed 5/3/2007.
U.S. DOE. 2006J. Government Purchase Programs.
Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/
alternatives/govt_purchase_prog.cfm?print. Accessed
1/19/2007.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 79
-------
•U.S. DOE. 2006k. Geothermal Heat Pumps. Available:
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/heatpumps.
html. Accessed 7/9/2007.
U.S. DOE. 20061. Best Management Practice #3: Water-
Efficient Landscaping. Federal Energy Management
Program. Available: http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/
femp/water/water_bmp3.html. Accessed 4/20/2007.
•U.S. DOE. 2006m. Microturbines. Available: http://
www.eere.energy.gov/de/microturbines/. Accessed
2/26/2008.
•U.S. DOE. 2006n. Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines.
Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/de/gas_fired/
tech_basics.html. Accessed 2/26/2008.
U.S. DOE. 2007. Buying Green Power. Available:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/buying/index.
shtml. Accessed 9/18/2007.
U.S. DOE. 2007b. Annual Report on U.S. Wind
Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends:
2006. Available: http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/
windandhydro/pdfs/41435.pdf. Accessed 9/27/2007.
U.S. DOE. 2007c. Selecting and installing a
Geothermal Heat Pump System. Available: http://
www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/space_
heating_cooling/index.cfm/mytopic = 12670. Accessed
7/19/2007.
U.S. DOE. 2007e. Green Pricing. Available: http://
www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/pricing.
shtml?page = 1. Accessed 2/28/2008.
U.S. DOE. 2007f. Renewable Energy Certificates.
Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/
markets/certificates.shtml?page = 1. Accessed
2/28/2008.
U.S. DOE. 2007g. Photovoltaics: The Basics. Available:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/cfm/faqs/third_level.
cfm/name = Photovoltaics/'cat = The%20Basics.
Accessed 2/4/2008.
U.S. DOE. 2007h. State Energy Program: Projects by
Topic —What Are State and Local Government Facility
Projects in the States? Available: http://www.eere.
energy.gov/state_energy_program/topic_definition_
detail.cfm/topic = 115. Accessed 3/23/2007.
•U.S. EPA. 2000. Biomass Energy. Available:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.
nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BNJXH/$File/
biomassenergy.pdf. Accessed 7/6/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2002. Water-Efficient Landscaping:
Preventing Pollution & Using Resources Wisely.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/water-
efficient_landscaping_508.pdf. Accessed 3/20/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2003. Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air
Quality in Schools. Available: http://www.epa.gov/
iaq/schools/pdfs/publications/ee_iaq.pdf. Accessed
4/16/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2003b. Cooling Summertime Temperatures:
Strategies to Reduce Urban Heat Islands. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/resources/pdf/
HIRIbrochure.pdf. Accessed 4/10/2007.
•U.S. EPA. 2003c. Cash Flow Opportunity Calculator.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/Region8/humanhealth/
children/2003/CashFlowEnergyPerfEnvProtection.pdf.
Accessed 10/8/2007.
•U.S. EPA. 2004. Building Upgrade Manual. Available:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc = business.
bus_upgrade_manual. Accessed 1/12/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2004b. Guide to Purchasing Green
Power. Available: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/
buygreenpower/guide.htm. Accessed 7/6/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2005c. ENERGY STAR Challenge
Participant Story: New Hampshire. Available: http://
www.energystar.gov/index.cfmffuseaction = challenge.
showChallengeStory&ch_id = 40. Accessed 5/9/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2005d. Delivering Solid Green in
Pennsylvania with ENERGY STAR. Available:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/networking/
meeting_2005/lZeigler.pdf. Accessed 5/23/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2006a. Clean-Energy Environment Guide
to Action. Policies, Best Practices, and Action Steps
for States. April. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
stateandlocal/guidetoaction.htm. Accessed 4/10/2007.
•U.S. EPA. 2006b. I-BEAM Text Modules: Indoor Air
Quality and Energy Efficiency. Available: http://www.
epa.gov/iaq/largebldgs/i-beam_html/ch4-iaqe.htm.
Accessed 1/12/2007./
80 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
U.S. EPA. 2006c. ENERGY STAR Off the Charts:
Summer 2006. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/
ia/business/guidelines/assess_value/off_the_charts_
summer_2006.pdf. Accessed 1/12/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2006d. 2006 Award Winners. Green
Power Partnership. Available: http://www.epa.gov/
greenpower/winners/index. htm#common. Accessed
5/7/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2006e. What Is CHP? Available: http://www.
epa.gov/chp/what_is_chp/why_epa_supports_chp.htm.
Accessed 1/12/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2006f. Producing Reliable Energy &
Preserving the Environment. Available: www.epa.gov/
chp. Accessed 1/15/2007.
•U.S. EPA. 2006g. CHP Project Resources. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/chp/project_resources/catalogue.
htm. Accessed 1/15/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2006h. Electricity from Municipal Solid
Waste. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
muni.htm. Accessed 7/24/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2006L Awards/Certificates. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/chp/awards/winners2005.htm. Accessed
1/15/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2006k. Electricity from Hydropower.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/hydro.htm.
Accessed 7/9/2007.
U.S. EPA. 20061. Summary of the Financial Benefits
of ENERGY STAR-Labeled Office Buildings.
Available: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/
publications/pubdocs/Summary_of_the_Financial_
Benefits_23June06_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 5/8/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2006m. Energy-Efficient, Environmentally
Safe Buildings Win EPA Recognition. EPA Press
Release, February 2,2006. Available: http:/'/yosemite.
epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/68b5f2d54f3eefd285257015
00517fbf/718da57064766be48525710900637d06!open
document. Accessed 5/8/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2007a. 2006 ENERGY STAR Achievements
in Brief. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/
partners/pt_awards/2006_Achievements_Overview.
pdf. Accessed 2/21/2008.
•U.S. EPA. 2007b. How to Conserve Water and Use It
Effectively. Available: http://www.epa.gov/OW/you/
chap3.html. Accessed 1/15/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2007c. CHP Efficiency Benefits. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/chp/basic/efficiency.html. Accessed
8/8/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2007e. Monitor Power Management.
Available: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/
power_mgt/mmd_factsheet_template. doc. Accessed
8/15/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2007f. Water Sense Label. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/label.htm. Accessed
8/14/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2007h. What is Renewable Energy?
Available: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/whatis/
renewableenergy.htm. Accessed 7/25/2007.
•U.S. EPA. 2007L Top 10 Local Government Partners
—As of April 9, 2007. Green Power Partnership.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/partners/
toplOlocalgov.htm. Accessed 5/7/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2007J. CHP Environmental Benefits.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/chp/basic/
environmental.html. Accessed 2/26/2008.
•U.S. EPA. 2007k. Office Building Energy Use Profile.
Available: http://epa.gov/cleanrgy/pdf/sector_
meeting27]un07/4bi_officebuilding.pdf. Accessed
9/28/2007.
U.S. EPA. 20071. Program Information: EPA Green
Power Partnership. November 2007.
U.S. EPA. 2007m. Heat Island Effect: Trees and
Vegetation. Available: http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/
strategies/vegetation.html. Accessed 4/10/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2007o. Combined Heat and Power
Partnership. Available: http://www.epa.gov/chp/
awards/winners2005.htm. Accessed 1/12/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2007p. Award Winners. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/greenpower/pdf/2004awards.pdf.
Accessed 1/19/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2007q. EPA Recognizes Connecticut as
One of the Nation's Top Green Power Purchasers.
Press Release. November 19, 2007. Available:
http:/'/yosemite. epa.gov/opa/admpress. nsf/names/
r01_2007-ll-19_ct. Accessed 2/26/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2007r. What is Renewable Energy?
Available: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/whatis/
renewableenergy.htm. Accessed 7/25/2007.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 81
-------
•U.S. EPA. 2008. ENERGY STAR Qualified Products.
Available: http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfm?fuseaction = find_a_product. Accessed 2/21/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008b. Integrated Energy Design Guidance.
Available: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc
= new_bldg_design. new_bldg_design_guidance.
Accessed 2/21/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008c. Target Finder. Available: http://
www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc = new_bldg_design.
bus_target_finder. Accessed 1/17/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008d. Building Design Profile Poudre
School District Operations Building Ft. Collins, CO
80521. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfmfc = new_bldg_design.poudreschool_cs. Accessed
1/12/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008e. Guidelines for Energy Management.
Available: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc =
guidelines.guidelines_index. Accessed 2/21/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008f. Department of Ecology
—Headquarters Facility 330 Desmond Drive SE
Olympia, WA 98504. Available: http://www.energystar.
gov/index.cfmffuseaction = labeled_buildings.
showProfile&profile_id = 1001747. Accessed
1/12/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2008h. Green Choices Grow with ENERGY
STAR Qualified Buildings. Press Release 2/12/2008.
Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/
dc57b08b5acd42bc852573c90044a9c4/l el 56a04a68
baa30852573ed005bea4e!OpenDocument. Accessed
2/21/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008L ENERGY STAR Purchasing and
Procurement. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/
index.cfmfc = bulk_purchasing.bus_purchasing.
Accessed 1/12/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2008J. Key Benefits of ENERGY STAR
Products. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/
index.cfmfc = bulk_purchasing.bus_purchasing_key_
benefits. Accessed 1/23/2008.
•U.S. EPA. 2008k. ENERGY STAR Products:
Procurement Language. Available: http://www.
energystar.gov/index.cfmfc = bulk_purchasing.
pr_proc_generic. Accessed 1/23/2008.
U.S. EPA. 20081. EPA Green Power Partnership.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/. Accessed
2/22/2008.
•U.S. EPA. 2008m. ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager.
Available: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc
= evaluate_performance. bus_portfoliomanager.
Accessed 2/26/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008n. Green Choices Grow with ENERGY
STAR Qualified Buildings. Available: http://yosemite.
epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/lef7cd36224b56578525735
9003f533f/l el 56a04a68baa30852573ed005bea4e!Ope
nDocument. Accessed 5/8/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008o. ENERGY STAR Challenge
Participant Organizations. Available: http://www.
energystar.gov/index.cfmffuseaction = challenge.
showWelcome&sortby =function&showAH = TRUE.
Accessed 5/9/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008p. ENERGY STAR Challenge:
Participating States. Available: http://www.energystar.
gov/ia/business/leaders/Summary_of_States3.pdf.
Accessed 5/12/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008q. ENERGY STAR Challenge: North
Carolina. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfmffuseaction = challenge.showChallengeStory&ch_
id = 22. Accessed 5/12/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008r. ENERGY STAR Labeled Buildings
and Plants. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/
indexxfrnffuseaction = LABELED_BUILDINGS.
Accessed 5/16/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008s. Air Emissions. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-
emissions.html. Accessed 3/28/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008t. Why Build Green. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/whybuild.htm.
Accessed 5/27/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008u. Water and Energy: Leveraging
Voluntary Programs to Save Both Water and
Energy. March. Prepared for the Climate Protection
Partnerships Division and Municipal Support Division.
Available: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/
publications/pubdocs/Final%20Report%20Mar%20
2008.pdf. Accessed: 7/18/2008.
•U.S. EPA. 2008v. ENERGY STAR for Government.
Available: http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfmfc=government.bus_government. Accessed
8/5/2008.
82 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
U.S. EPA. 2008w. ENERGY STAR Challenge
Participants. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/
index.cfm?fuseaction=challenge.showWelcome&sortby
=function&showAll=TRUE. Accessed 8/5/2008.
•U.S. EPA. 2008x. ENERGY STAR Building Upgrade
Manual. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfm?c=business.bus_upgrade_manual. Accessed
8/12/2008.
U.S. EPA. Undated(b). Green Power from Landfill
Gas. Available: http://www.epa.gov/lmop/docs/
LMOPGreenPower.pdf. Accessed 9/28/2007.
•U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE. 2008. Purchasing and
Procurement Savings Calculator: CFLs. Available:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/bulk_
purchasing/bpsavings_calc/CalculatorCFLsBulk.xls.
Accessed 2/20/2008
Utah. 2006. Solar Energy Design & Installation
Training at DNR. Available: http://geology.utah.gov/
whatsnew/news/archives/new0406. htm. Accessed
1/12/2007.
Virginia. 2007. Executive Order 48. Available:
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/initiatives/
ExecutiveOrders/2007/EO_48.cfm. Accessed 5/9/2008.
Washington. 2006. Building Commissioning.
Available: http://www.ga.wa.gov/EAS/bcx/index.html.
Accessed 1/15/2007.
•Washington, D.C. 2004. Procurement Practices Act.
Avaialble: http://counsel.cua.edu/dclaw/GovCont/
Procurement.cfm and http://www.dccouncil.
washington.dc.us/images/00001/20041214143141.pdf.
Accessed 5/30/2008.
Watergy. 2002. Watergy: Taking Advantage of
Untapped Energy and Water Efficiency Opportunities
in Municipal Water Systems. Available: http://www.
watergy.org/resources/publications/watergysummary.
pdf. Accessed 4/19/2007.
WBDG. 2008. Whole Building Design Guide. National
Institute of Building Sciences. Available: http://www.
wbdg.org/. Accessed 3/19/2008.
Wisconsin. 2006. Governor Signs 'Green Buildings'
Executive Order to Raise Environmental and Energy
Efficiency Standards in State Buildings. Available:
http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journal_media_detail.
asp?locid = 196-prid = 1905. Accessed 1/12/2007.
Wisconsin. 2007. Sustainable Facilities Policy.
Available: http://www.doa.state.wi.us/category.
asp?linkcatid = 783&linkid = 135&locid = 4. Accessed
2/21/2008.
Wisconsin. 2007b. Executive Order # 145. Available:
http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journal_media_detail.
asp?locid = 196-prid = 1907. Accessed 1/12/2007.
Wisconsin. 2007c. Doyle Administration Endorses
Innovative Co-Generation Power Plant Near UW-
Madison Campus. Available: http://www.doa.state.
wi.us/press_releases_detail.asp?prid = 136&divid = 4.
Accessed 1/12/2007.
WRI. 2003. Renewable Energy Certificates: An
Attractive Means for Corporate Customers to Purchase
Renewable Energy. Available: http://pdf.wri.org/
gpmdg_corporate_5.pdf. Accessed 7/30/2007.
WRI. Undated. Developing "Next Generation" Green
Power Products for Corporate Markets in North
America. Available: http://pdf.wri.org/corporate_
guide_6.pdf. Accessed 8/6/2007.
Ziegler, P.M. 2003. Green Buildings: Breaking
New Ground With Sustainable Design: Using
"Green For Less" Principles and Technologies To
Design High Performance "Green Buildings" on a
Conventional Building Budget...Building Green in
Pennsylvania. Governor's Green Government Council,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. December 3. http://
www. keystone, org/spp/documents/12_8green_for_less_
Zeigler.pdf.
CHAPTER TWO | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 83
-------
84 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER TWO
-------
CHAPTER THREE
Establish the LBE
Program Framework
This chapter builds on the
descriptions of activities and
measures provided in Chapter 2
and describes a key element of
the LBE implementation process:
establishing a robust framework to
support a comprehensive program.
Establishing the framework is a critical step towards
developing a comprehensive LBE program that (a)
achieves expanded energy and other benefits, (b)
leverages economies of scale across the programs, (c)
encourages broader political support, and (d) results in
increased visibility and support. The program frame-
work described here serves as the basis for effective
screening, program development, and evaluation, which
are the subjects of the remaining chapters of this Guide.
Establishing the LBE program framework includes the
following actions:
Select a team - that includes the necessary expertise
and represents the appropriate agencies - to be respon-
sible for developing and implementing the program,
and tracking and measuring progress;
Establish the business case for the LBE program and
work with key participants and stakeholders to obtain
high-level support for the program;
Identify agencies, organizations, and stakeholders
who can help define, initiate, and implement the LBE
program;
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
CHAPTER TWO
Potential LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER THREE
Establish the LBE Program Framework
CHAPTER FOUR
Screen LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER FIVE
Develop LBE Program
CHAPTER SIX
Track, Evaluate, and Report on Progress
CHAPTER THREE CONTENTS
3.1. Select an LBE Team
3.2. Establish Business Case and Identify and Obtain
High-Level Support
3.3. Identify Key Agencies and other Groups to Help
Shape and Implement LBE Programs
3.4. Set LBE Goals
3.5. Initiate an LBE Program
Related appendices:
Appendix A, State Executive Orders, Legislation, Policies,
and Plans Initiating LBE Programs: summarizes and
provides links to actions states have taken to initiate LBE
programs
Appendix C, Resources for Implementing LBE Programs:
contains examples and information resources on
implementing LBE programs, including several state-
developed agency guidance materials.
CHAPTER THREE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 85
-------
Set clean energy goals or targets for state government
facilities, operations, and/or fleets, based on the state's
baseline energy use and other considerations; and
Initiating the LBE program - a variety of approaches
can be used to get an LBE program started - in some
cases the LBE team conducts the ground work to
encourage a governor, state legislature or other entity
to establish its LBE goals; at other times LBE goals are
initiated by the governor, or other entity, and the LBE
team then implements the program.
Each of these steps is addressed in greater detail below.
In addition, the information on key LBE activities
presented in Chapter 2, Lead by Example Activities and
Measures, can be used to help guide decisions during
this first step, and Table 3.5.2, at the end of this chapter,
presents selected resources to help establish an LBE
program framework, including examples of LBE plans,
guidance, and executive orders.
3.1 SELECT AN LBE TEAM
Establishing a team committed to developing a robust
LBE program is a key step in the overall implementa-
tion process. This team can be informal or officially
authorized by the governor. It is often composed of
individuals with expertise in the specific LBE activi-
ties the state is considering for inclusion in its LBE
program, as described in Chapter 2, Lead by Example
Activities and Measures. Issues to consider when put-
ting together an LBE team are described below.
3.1.1 IDENTIFY LEAD AND SUPPORTING LBE
CLEAN ENERGY AGENCIES
States typically assign one agency to lead and coordi-
nate LBE efforts. This lead agency can be selected in
the following ways:
An existing state office can be the logical lead agency for
a clean energy LBE program. For example, the Georgia
Environmental Facilities Authority (Division of Energy
Resources), which promotes energy efficiency and
renewable energy programs for public and private
entities, is the lead agency for state LBE clean energy
activities.
States can establish new entities to implement state en-
ergy policies and programs. In Massachusetts, the State
Sustainability Program was established to make recom-
mendations to the Executive Office of Environmental
STATE AGENCIES FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION ON THE LBE TEAM
Energy Office
Environmental Protection Office
Clean Energy Fund
Office of Sustainability
Facilities Management Office
Department of Transportation
Procurement Office
Department of Education
Public Utility Control
Department of Administrative Services
Office of Policy and Management
Department of General Services
Department of the Treasury
Housing Office
Economic Development Office
Affairs and the Executive Office for Administration
and Finance to promote innovative sustainable
practices - including clean energy activities - in state
operations (Massachusetts, 2002). In 2007, the new
governor of Massachusetts established an executive
order directing these two state agencies to create a
Lead by Example program. The program is charged
with coordinating efforts at state agencies, including all
University of Massachusetts campuses and all state and
community colleges, to reduce their environmental
impact through a variety of measures including energy
conservation and clean energy (Massachusetts, 2007;
Massachusetts, 2008).
States can designate or work with an existing govern-
ment-level entity that addresses a related issue, such
as climate change. For example, many states have
legislative commissions or executive advisory groups
on climate change (Pew Center on Global Climate
Change, 2006). If such a body already exists, it can pro-
vide clean energy LBE leadership and/or help appoint
an LBE team. In Connecticut, the Governor's Steering
Committee on Climate Change, which is comprised of
the chairmen and commissioners of energy, environ-
mental, transportation, and other state agencies, led
a Climate Change Action Plan Summit in 2002. The
overall goal of the summit was to establish a process for
developing a GHG emissions reduction plan, with one
objective to identify opportunities for state agencies
to lead by example in the areas of climate change and
clean energy (Connecticut, 2002).
To support the lead LBE agency, a variety of state
agencies and offices - including the state energy
86 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER THREE
-------
office - can participate on the LBE team and take on
related responsibilities. For example, in Connecticut,
representatives of 13 state agencies gathered with the
Governor's Steering Committee (described above) for
the Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan Summit
to establish an initial framework for developing the
LBE component of the state's climate change action
plan (Connecticut, 2002, 2006).
3.1.2 IDENTIFY KEY PERSONNEL
It is important to identify key personnel who have
responsibility for clean energy and related issues (e.g.,
staff involved in sustainability, facility management,
and/or environmental programs), and are positioned to
participate on the LBE team. Selecting team members
typically involves the following approaches (CaLEEP,
2006; Massachusetts, 2006b; NYSERDA, 2006):
Select staff who are actively involved in decisions
regarding energy consumption and who can vouch
for LBE actions that will save energy (e.g., facilities
managers, construction planners, fleet operators, and
procurement directors).
Identify the champions who are already working to
implement clean energy activities within their agencies
or offices.
Include managers who will be part of the decision-
making process. Their support, perspective, and cred-
ibility will be essential in ensuring the success of the
LBE program.
Include key finance personnel, fiscal department staff,
and capital planning staff, who need to understand the
savings and other economic benefits of the LBE
pannng sa, wo nee o
cost savings and other economic benefit
program prior to lending their support.
Include personnel who are concerned about the costs
of clean energy. They may provide important perspec-
tives and/or become important allies after getting more
information.
3.2 ESTABLISH THE BUSINESS CASE
AND IDENTIFY AND OBTAIN HIGH-
LEVEL SUPPORT
Creating a sustainable LBE program requires identify-
ing high-level policymakers whose support is critical
to the success of the program, and providing them with
the appropriate information. These high-level policy-
makers can include:
The governor.
Key legislators (e.g., legislators on finance, treasury,
taxation, energy, resources, environment committees).
Mayors and other elected officials.
Administrators of key state agencies (e.g., finance,
natural resources, and energy agencies).
Local government officials, including representatives of
school authorities (e.g., boards of regents, local school
commissioners) and their advisors.
Approaches for building support and gaining sustained
backing for an LBE program include:
Involve policymakers in the early stages of the LBE
process. Provide these individuals with data regarding
LBE opportunities and include them on the LBE team.
This can assist in gaining support and provides an early
LBE CHAMPIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS
The LBE program in Massachusetts was initiated when the
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
hired a director to develop a new state sustainability
program (including clean energy activities) and to coordinate
state sustainability LBE efforts. Several state agencies in
Massachusetts were already implementing LBE activities but
there was no program coordination or integration.
In talking with personnel at other state agencies, the new
director discovered that while agency staff often understood
the importance of sustainability it was not a priority with
their supervisors. Consequently, agency personnel wanted
an executive order to give them official authorization to act.
The governor ultimately issued Executive Order 438, which
created a Sustainability Coordinating Council to develop the
State Sustainability Program, and requires all state agencies
to reduce energy consumption through energy efficiency and
conservation.
Source: Massachusetts, 2006b.
GAINING SUPPORT FOR GEORGIA'S
CLEAN ENERGY LBE PROGRAM
The Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority and the
Department of Administrative Services worked with Georgia
Power to determine state facility energy consumption levels
for over 4,000 state accounts. By consolidating state accounts,
they were able to obtain strategic rate changes that yielded
$2.1 million in electric cost savings. This savings helped
convince the governor to issue an LBE Executive Order to help
achieve additional savings.
Sources: Georgia, 2006a, 2006b.
CHAPTER THREE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 87
-------
opportunity to hear policymakers' perspectives and
address their concerns.
If possible, identify influential persons to participate on
the LBE team. These are individuals with contacts and
influence who can help the LBE champions present
their case to key decision-makers who have the author-
ity to initiate and approve the program.
Clearly articulate the value of the proposed LBE program
and describe why policymakers should support it. In-
clude information on:
• Context
Purpose of LBE program
• Key benefits
Proposed activities
Costs and how they will be met
Strategies for addressing barriers
• Description of how the benefits of clean energy LBE
action relate to the broader national energy and envi-
ronmental context.
It is not always necessary for all of these components to
be presented in detail. A broad description, reinforced
by evidence of the benefits of similar programs else-
where, can be an effective way to begin.
3.3 IDENTIFY KEY AGENCIES AND
OTHER GROUPS TO HELP SHAPE AND
IMPLEMENT LBE PROGRAMS
The LBE team can call on a wide variety of groups
to provide input to help initiate, shape, and imple-
ment the program, and/or serve as champions in the
community. For example, environmental nonprofit
organizations may be motivated to support LBE pro-
grams because of the environmental benefits of energy
EXECUTIVE BRANCH PARTICIPATION IN IOWA
Iowa's Executive Order 41 requires the state to reduce energy
consumption in all conditioned facilities (i.e., buildings that
are actively heated or cooled by a heating, ventilation, or air-
conditioning system) by an average of 15% by 2010 (based on
2000 levels). It directs state agencies to obtain at least 10% of
their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010 and
establishes requirements governing state fleets.
Source: Iowa, 2005.
efficiency and clean energy. Private sector firms can
also play an important role, drawn by the potential
for promoting local economic activity and providing
a boost to energy services firms and other emerging
industries. The decision to involve partners is often
based on a state's LBE priorities, as determined by
considering the benefits, costs, and implementation
issues associated with specific activities and measures,
as described in Chapter 2, Lead by Example Activities
and Measures.
An overview of the agencies and organizations that can
assist in initiating and developing an effective clean
energy LBE program is presented below. Roles, re-
sponsibilities, and examples of how these groups have
participated are also provided.
Executive Branch. The executive branch typically plays
a key leadership role in LBE initiatives. Many state
governors have issued executive orders that set energy
savings goals for existing buildings, define energy and
environmental performance standards for new build-
ings, set fuel economy targets for state-owned or leased
vehicle fleets, create green power purchasing policies,
and create efficiency guidelines for purchasing energy-
using equipment. The executive branch also has broad
powers to change policies and practices involving state
facilities, fleets, purchasing operations.
EXAMPLES-. Wisconsin's Executive Order 145, is-
sued in 2006, establishes a comprehensive set of LBE
requirements for state government buildings. The
most significant requirement is for the Department of
Administration (DOA) to set goals for reducing overall
energy usage in state facilities, office buildings or com-
plexes, and campuses by at least 10% by 2008 and 20%
by 2010, from a 2005 baseline. To help state agencies
achieve these goals, the order directs the DOA to estab-
lish programs to conduct energy analyses in state-owned
buildings, ensure that new state facilities are constructed
to be 30% more energy efficient than the existing code
requires, establish sustainable building operation guide-
lines based on LEED, and ensure that new construction
incorporates an integrated design process. The order also
requires state agencies to examine the feasibility of en-
tering into performance contracts and directs the DOA
to pursue opportunities to demonstrate PV and other
renewable technologies at state facilities. Lastly, it directs
the DOA to develop centralized reporting procedures
and to report annually to the Governor's Office and
the state Building Commission (Wisconsin Office of the
Governor, 2006).
88 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER THREE
-------
Ohio's Executive Order 2007-02S, issued in 2007, requires
state agencies to immediately implement energy saving
activities as directed by a 2006 law passed by the state
legislature, rather than waiting until the date mandated
in the law. Such activities include: developing rules for
energy efficiency and conservation standards; designing a
life-cycle costing methodology; and implementing a plan
for energy-efficient product procurement. The order also
directs the Department of Administrative Services to de-
velop a tool that state agencies can use to track and mea-
sure energy consumption and to calculate each agency's
GHGs.1 The order directs each state agency to conduct
energy audits in its facilities using the tool, to facilitate
comparisons between similar state facilities. Following
these audits, agencies are directed to reduce energy con-
sumption by 5% within one year and a 15% reduction
within four years. The order also creates the position of
energy advisor to the governor to be responsible for coor-
dinating the state's energy policy, including the state's LBE
activities (Ohio Office of the Governor, 2007).
In 2007, Florida's governor issued Executive Order
07-126, which establishes a goal for state agencies to
reduce current levels ofGHG emissions by 20% by 2012,
25% by 2017, and 40% by 2025. To help achieve these
goals, the order directs state agencies to immediately
conduct energy audits of state facilities and prohibits
state agencies from entering into new leases for office
space that does not meet ENERGY STAR buildings
standards. In addition, the order directs the state
Department of Management Services to adopt LEED
standards for new and existing state facilities and to
develop energy efficiency measures and guidelines for
state agencies. In 2008, the department issued energy
consumption reduction guidelines for facilities managers
and employees, and adopted a state facility energy policy
(Florida, 2007; Florida, 2008).
State Legislature. Some states have enacted legislation
to establish their LBE goals and programs. Legislative
authority may also be required when modifying pro-
curement regulations.
EXAMPLES: In Washington, House Bill 2247 requires
energy audits at state facilities. If the audits produce
energy-saving opportunities, the improvements must be
implemented by using performance contracting (Wash-
ington, 2006).
In June 2007, the Ohio Department of Administrative Services adopted
EPAs ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager in response to the requirements of
Executive Order 2007-02S. For more information on the state's use of the
ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager tool, see http://www.das.ohio.gov/gsd/oes/
auditguide.htm.
California's Assembly Bill 532 requires the Department
of Administration, in consultation with the State Energy
Resources Conservation and Development Commission,
to install solar energy equipment on all existing state
buildings and state parking facilities, where feasible, by
January 1, 2009. It defines solar energy to be "feasible"
if there is adequate space on the building and the solar
energy equipment is cost-effective (CLI, 2008).
• State Energy Office. In many states, the energy office
develops and administers a range of clean energy
programs, including LBE programs, and provides tech-
nical assistance and training to state agency staff and
facility managers. State energy offices also share their
technical expertise with other state agencies, local gov-
ernments, school districts, and other public organiza-
tions to identify clean energy opportunities statewide.
EXAMPLE: In North Carolina, the State Energy Office
provides energy information and assistance for all state
sectors, including state and local government agencies,
state universities, community colleges, and schools. Its
Utility Savings Initiative is a comprehensive approach
for reducing utility expenditures and resource use in
public buildings within all these sectors. The goals of this
LBE initiative include developing an agency strategic
energy plan, providing training and resources for agency
personnel, implementing no- and low-cost operation and
maintenance conservation measures, and encouraging
investments in energy projects and use of performance
contracts and guaranteed energy savings contracts to
fund these projects (North Carolina, 2006).
State Department of General Services, Facilities Author-
ity, and Department of the Treasury. One of these agen-
cies typically serves as the custodian of state facilities.
They administer state capital construction programs
and establish guidelines for construction, operation,
and purchasing practices. Consequently, these agencies
may become involved in clean energy LBE activities re-
lated to state facilities (e.g., developing and implement-
ing energy efficiency measures in new and existing
buildings, establishing energy efficiency performance
standards, and procuring energy-efficient products).
EXAMPLES: The Georgia Environmental Facilities
Authority (GEFA) administers programs that provide
financial assistance and protect the state's environment,
including energy programs; water, wastewater, and solid
waste infrastructure improvements; land conservation;
recycling; and fuel storage systems. The Division of Ener-
gy Resources serves as the state energy office for Georgia,
and in that role promotes energy efficiency, renewable
CHAPTER THREE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 89
-------
energy, and energy assistance programs throughout the
state. GEFA worked with the Governor's office to issue
Executive Order 22806, which directs agencies to "lead
by example" by promoting clean energy. The authority
also provides information, technical assistance, and
other resources to state agencies as they implement the
Georgia Governor's Challenge, which commits all state
agencies to reduce energy consumption per square foot
in state facilities 15 percent below 2007 levels by 2020
(Georgia, 2006; GEFA, 2008).
In Pennsylvania, the Department of General Services
administers a performance contracting program for state
agencies. The department has established a performance
contracting outreach program for local and county gov-
ernments, K-12 schools, and other government entities
(Pennsylvania, 2006).
State Housing and Economic Development Offices.
These agencies operate a variety of programs, including
low- and moderate-income housing and development
programs, state mortgage financing programs, and en-
terprise zone and brownfield redevelopment initiatives.
One way these agencies can become involved in LBE
activities is to encourage energy efficiency practices
or other clean energy measures in affordable housing
developments.
EXAMPLE-. For example, two Massachusetts agencies,
MassHousing and the Massachusetts Technology Col-
laborative (MTC), recently joined with the nonprofit
Enterprise Foundation to launch the Massachusetts
Green Communities Initiative—a $209-million initiative
to build 1,000 energy-efficient, environmentally friendly,
affordable homes in the state (Massachusetts, 2006a).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION
San Francisco adopted green building standards for affordable
housing developments. The first development features energy-
efficient systems, daylighting, natural ventilation, low-flow
plumbing fixtures, and solar panels that will meet 12% of the
building's energy demand (San Francisco, 2005).
SCHOOL PARTICIPATION IN WASHINGTON
Western Washington University adopted an initiative,
introduced by the Students for Renewable Energy, to establish
a student fee to purchase green power for the campus. At $1.05
per credit per quarter, the fee is expected to provide enough
revenue to supply all 35 million kWh of the school's 2005-2006
electricity demand with clean energy.
Sources: Apollo Alliance, 2005; U.S. EPA, 2006b.
Local Governments. In many cases, local governments
have initiated and adopted their own LBE programs.
Some states work with local governments to educate
local officials about these opportunities and to coordi-
nate, pool, and set common criteria for such initiatives.
States can also provide financial assistance, education,
training, and technical assistance to local governments.
EXAMPLE-. For example, Arizona's Municipal Energy
Management Program (MEMP), administered by the
state Commerce Department, provides training, tools,
technical assistance, and grants to municipal and tribal
governments to help implement energy saving projects
(Arizona, 2005).
School Districts, Colleges, and Universities. There are
many opportunities to improve energy efficiency
and purchase or generate clean onsite power at K-12
schools, colleges, and universities. One option is to
use efficiency savings in operating budgets to finance
new energy projects, thereby freeing up capital budget
dollars for other uses. In fact, some colleges and uni-
versities have found that investing in energy efficiency
projects provides better yields than the market (U.S.
EPA, 2006c). In addition, states work with their state
school systems to implement clean energy activities
within school facilities.
EXAMPLES: An example of a state university investing
in clean energy projects is the university-owned and
-operated CHP system at the University of North Caro-
lina (UNC) at Chapel Hill. This system provides space
heating and cooling, sterilization, domestic hot water,
humidification, and cooking for the campus and UNC
hospitals (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
On the state level, the Ohio School Facilities Commis-
sion administers the state's comprehensive public school
construction program, and helps school districts fund,
plan, design, and build or renovate schools. In 2007, the
Commission adopted the LEEDfor Schools Green Build-
ing rating system as part of its school design standards.
Schools in districts that were approved for funding after
September 2007 are required to meet at least LEED
Silver Certification, with a goal of meeting the LEED
Gold level. In July 2008, the Commission approved
school construction and renovation projects of more
than $1.9 billion in 40 school districts. The projects will
be financed by a combination of state and local funding
(OSFC, 2008).
In April 2008, the Wisconsin lieutenant governor is-
sued the Wisconsin ENERGY STAR School Challenge
90 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER THREE
-------
to encourage 100 Wisconsin public school districts to
commit to reducing energy consumption by 10% or more
across their building portfolios. In the first two months
after issuing the challenge, the number of participating
school districts reached 30, including two school districts
that had already been recognized as ENERGY STAR
Leaders for improving energy efficiency across their
building portfolios by 20%. In addition to committing
to reducing energy consumption by 10%, participants
in the challenge agree to measure and track the energy
performance of their buildings using the ENERGY STAR
Portfolio Manager, develop and implement energy
management plans consistent with the ENERGY STAR
Energy Management Guidelines, and educate staff,
students, and community members about the benefits of
improving energy efficiency (Wisconsin Office of the Lt.
Governor, 2008).
Utility Energy Programs. Utilities that administer
energy efficiency, demand response, and onsite dis-
tributed generation programs can support a state's LBE
efforts by providing technical assistance to state facility
managers and new facility design teams. In some cases,
utilities provide funding and incentives to state agen-
cies for implementing clean energy projects.
EXAMPLE: In California, the state Department of
General Services is collaborating with three investor-
owned utilities to implement nearly $17 million worth of
energy-saving programs in state facilities and to provide
technical resources to ensure that the energy projects de-
liver cost-effective energy savings according to guidelines
established by the California Public Utilities Commission
and the California Energy Commission. Administered
by the utilities under the auspices of the CPUC, this pro-
gram includes the state's largest office buildings, prisons,
and some smaller state buildings (California, 2006).
• Energy Service Companies (ESCOs). ESCOs can per-
form energy project assessments and/or conduct full
energy efficiency projects on a performance contract-
ing basis. In such projects, the state does not provide
upfront capital; instead, the ESCO develops and
finances the project, verifies energy efficiency savings,
and uses these savings to cover the cost of capital. A
number of states have established programs to coordi-
nate performance contracts for state agencies.
EXAMPLE-. The Texas State Energy Conservation Office
(SECO) developed performance contracting guidelines
under its State Agencies Program. The agency pays for
projects out of savings realized through the program
(Texas, 2006).
State Treasurers and Public Pension Fund Managers.
Pension fund trustees and state treasurers provide
policy direction for fund managers and are increasingly
looking for opportunities to enhance the value of their
portfolios. Some state treasurers and public pension
fund managers invest in clean energy investments and
upgrades on state property. This type of investment
not only provides an opportunity for fund managers to
"green" their portfolios, but also saves money and in-
creases the value of the assets and the overall portfolio.
EXAMPLE-. In California, for example, the state trea-
surer started the Green Wave program to encourage
pension fund investment in energy efficiency and renew-
able energy retrofits and upgrades on state property
(California State Treasurer's Office, 2006).
Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit organizations can
serve a variety of roles. In some states, nonprofit organi-
zations are instrumental in helping to establish the LBE
program from "the bottom up" by using their analytical,
educational, and/or outreach skills to obtain support
for the program. In some cases, nonprofit organiza-
tions provide technical assistance, financial incentives,
and other support for cost-effective energy-efficient
building design, construction, renovation, equipment,
lighting, and appliances. Some states establish and work
with nonprofit organizations as third party administra-
tors to develop and oversee the LBE programs.
EXAMPLES-. For example, Efficiency Vermont was es-
tablished by the Vermont legislature and Public Service
Board as the nation's first statewide energy efficiency
utility. Efficiency Vermont provides technical assistance
and financial incentives to help Vermonters and their
public agencies pay for energy-efficient building design,
construction, and renovation (Efficiency Vermont, 2006).
Iowa established the State of Iowa Facilities Improve-
ment Corporation (SIFIC), a nonprofit corporation that
helps agencies implement energy efficiency measures
(Iowa, 2006).
WORKING WITH ESCOS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
New Hampshire's Building Energy Conservation Initiative
(BECI) uses performance contracting to pay for energy retrofits
and building upgrades with the energy savings from the
project, rather than depending on funding through capital
appropriations. Under this program, a pre-qualified group
of ESCOs submits proposals to conduct the work based
on a predetermined list of energy conservation measures
established by the BECI.
Source: New Hampshire, 2006.
CHAPTER THREE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 91
-------
Private Sector Firms. Many states have found that they
can achieve significant benefits from partnering with
private sector organizations. This can be particularly
true in the case of green power purchases and clean
energy generation, where consistent cooperation with
private utilities can lead to discounted costs.
EXAMPLE-. In Wisconsin, for example, the state part-
nered with a private energy service provider to construct
a 150 MW CHP plant near the University of Wisconsin
at Madison that provides steam and water for campus
facilities as well as 45 MW of its energy demand. The
remaining energy output will be available for residential
and commercial uses. The agreement includes a provi-
sion that enables the state to obtain fuel discounts that
could yield savings approaching $100 million over 30
years. The utility has also agreed to work with the state
to address air quality concerns associated with plant
operations. (Wisconsin DOA, 2003).
State- and Municipally-owned Water and Wastewater
Entities. State and municipal water supply, treatment,
and distribution operations, as well as wastewater
treatment facilities, typically use large amounts of en-
ergy. There can be significant opportunities to reduce
net energy demand through improvements in energy
efficiency and the generation of clean energy at these
facilities. Several states work with water and waste-
water treatment facility managers to implement LBE
activities.
EXAMPLES-. In New York, for example, NYSERDA offers
technical and financial assistance, including cost-sharing
research, demonstrations, and business development
programs, to encourage municipal water, wastewater,
and solid waste facilities to adopt energy-efficient tech-
nologies (NYSERDA, 2004).
In California, the State and Consumer Services Agency
has worked with municipal water and wastewater
utilities to reduce energy consumption by 15%. Facility
improvements included adjusting operation schedules,
increasing storage capacity, and installing equipment
controls (FYP, 2003).
3.4 SET LBE GOALS
Goals are high-level statements that provide the overall
context for what the state is trying to accomplish.
Setting a goal or series of goals is an important step
that specifies the level of clean energy to be attained
within the state's facilities, operations, and fleets during
PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER
ESTABLISHES FEDERAL LBE GOALS
On January 24, 2007, the President issued an executive
order on "Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management" establishing the following LBE
goals for state agencies:
Reducing GHG emissions by 3% annually or by 30% overall, by
FY 2016, based on FY 2003 levels.
Ensuring that 50% of renewable energy consumption comes
from new sources, and that on-site renewable energy projects
be considered where possible.
Reducing water consumption intensity by 2% annually or by
16% overall, by FY 2016, based on FY 2007 levels.
Requiring procurement of sustainable products.
Ensuring that new construction and major renovation of
federal buildings comply with the Guiding Principles for Federal
Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings, and
that 15% of existing buildings meet these principles by FY 2016.
Ensuring that agency fleets annually reduce consumption of
petroleum by 2% and increase alternative fuel consumption by
10% by FY 2016.
Ensuring that ENERGY STAR features are enabled on all
appropriate office equipment.
Source: White House, 2007.
a stated time period. When establishing these goals,
states can consider the benefits, costs, and implementa-
tion issues associated with specific LBE activities, as
described in Chapter 2, Lead By Example Activities and
Measures. The following sections provide information
on how to establish an LBE goal or goals and present a
number of state examples.
3.4.1 ESTABLISH LBE GOALS
Many states have enacted LBE executive orders, legisla-
tion, plans, and policies that establish clean energy
goals for their facilities and/or fleets. Setting clear LBE
goals and targets for state agencies can serve a variety
of purposes:
Help ensure that all players know the expected outcomes.
This is especially true when the goals are established by
the governor or another official; demonstrating high-
level commitment to LBE goals can be an effective
means of garnering support for an LBE program.
Provide for ease of measurement and reporting. Having
quantifiable goals provides a straightforward means of
evaluating progress and providing feedback when mid-
course corrections are necessary.
92 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER THREE
-------
Demonstrate the feasibility of establishing clean energy
initiatives. Setting LBE goals demonstrates the econom-
ic, practical, and political feasibility of establishing an
LBE program, and encourages other entities to pursue
clean energy strategies.
The process of setting LBE goals involves consideration
of past and projected energy consumption, as well as
other factors. These factors, and examples of state LBE
goals, are described below.
Develop an Energy Consumption Baseline
In order to set LBE goals that are measurable and
achievable it is important to use actual data and projec-
tions of future consumption. This approach involves
collecting data on state energy consumption and estab-
lishing reduction goals based on 1) existing, past, and
projected consumption and 2) issues that affect energy
use, such as climate, the condition of the public facili-
ties, number and square footage of state facilities, fleet
size, and current clean energy technologies.
States can collect energy consumption data (e.g.,
electricity use in kWhs, electricity demand in kW, total
fleet mileage, and miles per gallon data) at various lev-
els, including the state (i.e., energy consumption by all
state agencies), state agency, facility, or project levels.
Data can be obtained in a number of ways, including:
Sending an energy consumption questionnaire to each
state agency or facility.
Collecting energy provider invoices and utility bills
that are paid by each state agency.
Working with utilities to obtain energy consumption
records from the utilities.
Using existing studies, such as state or regional energy
potential studies, state energy plans, or facility surveys
that have already identified energy consumption data
for relevant sectors within the state.
Once annual energy consumption data are collected,
some states use commercially available energy account-
ing software, or contract with a private service and
product provider (SPP), to construct a database that
enables them to track and analyze energy consumption
for all state facilities. Alternatively, state LBE teams can
use existing databases to help establish their LBE goals.
EXAMPLE-. For example, the South Carolina Savings
Matrix is a spreadsheet tool developed by the South
Carolina Energy Office (SCEO) to track energy and cost
savings from all SCEO-sponsored projects since 1995.
Data were grouped by category, including a category
for energy efficiency projects in state and local govern-
ment agencies. The South Carolina Savings Matrix has
enabled SCEO to demonstrate the benefits of its energy
efficiency activities. Energy office managers have used
the matrix to assess the relative benefit of their energy
efficiency projects (U.S. DOE, 2007).
In cases where states are severely resource constrained,
it is possible to begin estimating baseline energy con-
sumption and potential reductions in consumption
with a relatively small effort (i.e., a "pilot program"
focusing on a single agency or facility). This effort can
then be expanded by collecting baseline data on addi-
tional state facilities and/or end-uses as resources allow.
MASSACHUSETTS' ENERGY AND CO2 INVENTORY
Massachusetts established an Energy and Carbon Dioxide
(CO2) Inventory to analyze trends in statewide CO2 emissions
from energy consumption, and use the findings to provide
guidance on how to further decrease emissions.
The state the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA)
created an FY 2002 baseline by state agency, and updates this
information annually based upon energy consumption reports
completed by the state agencies.
Source: Massachusetts, 2004, 2006b.
CALIFORNIA BENCHMARKING INITIATIVE
California Executive Order S-20-04 established an LBE goal
of reducing grid-based energy purchases for state-owned
buildings by 20% by 2015, compared to a 2003 baseline.
The Order and an accompanying Green Building Action Plan
directed the California Energy Commission to develop a
methodology for establishing an energy-use benchmarking
system that is simple, California-specific, and coordinated with
the ENERGY SMART benchmarking system.
The CEC established an interagency Green Team to ensure
progress toward these goals and hired a contractor to execute
the benchmarking effort. The contractor worked with the
state and California utilities to create ENERGY STAR Portfolio
Manager accounts for each agency and facility (which
include data on energy use, square footage, year built, and
identification of meters), develop a data release form for all
state agencies to sign, allowing utilities to automatically upload
energy data to Portfolio Manager, and establish the data base.
California anticipates that by the first quarter of 2008,
the 2003 baseline will be completed and that utilities will
continue to regularly upload energy consumption data to
enable comparison among buildings and tracking building
performance over time.
Sources: California 2004, 2004a, 2007; Miller, 2008.
CHAPTER THREE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 93
-------
Additional information on how to collect energy
consumption data and establish an energy baseline
is presented in Section 6.3, Conducting Energy and
Emissions Tracking and Benchmarking. Information
on how to estimate energy reductions resulting from
potential clean energy activities, including simple rules
of thumb, is provided in Section 4.3, Estimate Benefits
and Costs of Prospective LBE Activities.
Assess State Context and Other Issues
Other issues to consider when setting goals include:
State context. It is important for LBE goals to be con-
sidered in conjunction with other state clean energy
programs, and to reflect the states unique priorities
and goals related to the environment, economy, and
energy infrastructure.
Sequencing. Some states have set overall goals for state
government (e.g., a reduction in state government en-
ergy expenditures) and then developed LBE programs
to move the state toward these targets. Other states
have chosen to assess where LBE programs are cost-
effectively achievable, and then set their goals to suit.
Scope. Some states, such as New York, Colorado, and
Massachusetts, have enacted comprehensive LBE
NEW YORK'S "GREEN AND CLEAN" STATE BUILDINGS AND
VEHICLES
New York's Executive Order 111, adopted in 2001, establishes a
comprehensive LBE energy efficiency and renewable program.
Applicable to all state agencies and departments, the order sets
the following goals:
Energy consumption in all state-owned, leased, or operated
buildings must be reduced by 35% by 2010, relative to 1990
levels
State agencies must set peak electric demand reduction targets
for each facility by 2010
New state buildings must achieve at least a 20% improvement
in energy efficiency performance relative to the state building
energy code
Renovated state buildings must achieve a 10% improvement in
energy efficiency performance
All state entities must ensure that 20% of their annual electricity
needs are met by renewable energy sources by 2010
At least 50% of new light-duty vehicles must be alternative-
fueled vehicles by 2005, and 100% of all new light-duty
vehicles (with the exception of specialty, police, or emergency
vehicles) must be alternative-fuel by 2010
Sources: NYSERDA, 2001, 2002.
programs that include goals for many LBE activities.
Other states have established a single goal focusing on
a clean energy target for state buildings or fleets.
1 Quantitative versus qualitative goals. Whenever pos-
sible, it is important to establish quantitative goals that
can be used to measure the progress of LBE activities.
Goals can be structured in a variety of ways, depending
on a state's preferred LBE approach. Clean energy goals
typically fall within the following categories:
An Overall Energy Savings Goal for All State LBE Activi-
ties. Some states have established an overall energy
savings goal, denned in terms of a reduction in energy
use or GHG emissions that can be met through clean
energy.
Energy Savings Goals for Existing State Buildings. These
goals are typically structured as goals to reduce energy
consumption in existing state buildings by some stated
percentage within a set timeframe, from a specified
baseline.
Energy Savings Goals for New and Renovated State
Buildings. These goals can require achieving a certain
percentage improvement in energy efficiency perfor-
mance, a specified energy usage per square foot (e.g.,
an energy budget), energy efficiency design require-
ments, and/or other performance standards.
Energy-Efficient Procurement Goals. A number of
states have elected to purchase ENERGY STAR-labeled
products whenever feasible or cost-effective. State gov-
ernments can require or encourage the use of energy
performance contracts that enable them to invest in
energy-saving equipment, using future utility cost sav-
ings (or avoided costs) to pay for the improvements.
Some states have developed cost-effective programs for
achieving energy-efficient product purchasing targets
by designating a particular government agency as the
coordinating facilitator of all state agency purchases.
Renewable Energy Goals. These goals typically take the
form of requirements to obtain a certain percentage
of electricity usage from renewable energy sources.
States can also establish a minimum renewable energy
purchase volume (e.g., in megawatt-hours, MWh) by a
given date or set targets for on-site generation of clean
energy.
94 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER THREE
-------
Energy Savings Goals for State Fleets and Fuel Use.
These targets include requiring the purchase of a
specified percentage of fuel-efficient or alternative-fuel
vehicles for state fleets, setting mileage standards,
establishing minimum requirements for the use of
biofuels, and developing programs to encourage clean
energy actions related to commuting.
3.4.2 EXAMPLES OF STATE LBE GOALS
Table 3.4.1, Examples of LBE Goals and Targets presents
examples of how states have set their LBE goals. Ap-
pendix A, State Executive Orders, Legislation, Policies,
and Plans Initiating LBE Programs, provides a more
detailed summary of, and links to, these state actions.
TABLE 3.4.1 EXAMPLES OF LBE GOALS AND TARGETS
State/Title
Goal or Target
Overall LBE Enerav Savinas and GHG Emission Redu
Washington
Executive Order 05-01
State agencies must reduce energy purchases by 10% by September 1, 2009 from a fiscal year (FY)
2003 baseline, using all practicable and cost-effective means available, including energy efficiency
programs and use of on-site renewable resources.
Massachusetts
Executive Order484
Establishes a goal for GHG emissions from state operations to be reduced by 25% by 2012, 40% by
2020, and 80% by 2050, based on a FY 2002 baseline.
Existing Buildin;
Arizona
Arizona Revised Statutes 34-451
State agencies must reduce energy use in buildings by 10% per square foot of floor area by 2008
and 15% per square foot of floor area by 2011, based on FY 2002 levels.
Iowa
Executive Order41
State-owned conditioned facilities must reduce energy consumption per square foot per degree day
by an average of 15% from 2000 levels by 2010.
Nevada
NRS Title 58, Chapter 701 -Energy
Policy
The Director of the Office of Energy is directed to prepare a state energy reduction plan to reduce
grid-based energy purchases for state-owned buildings by 20% by 2015.
New Hampshire
Executive Order 2005-4
New and Renovated Buildings
Maine
Title 5 MRSA 1764-A
The state shall reduce energy consumption in state facilities by 10% in accordance with the ENERGY
STAR Challenge.
Statute establishes a target for state-funded new buildings and renovations over 5,000 square feet
to exceed state energy efficiency standards in effect for commercial and institutional buildings by at
least 20%.
Michigan
Executive Directive 2005-04
Requires that all new construction and major renovation of state-owned facilities be consistent with
LEED standards and score a minimum of 26 points on the LEED scorecard. Also requires the ENERGY
STAR assessment and rating program to be extended to all state buildings.
New Mexico
Executive Order 2006-01
New public buildings in excess of 15,000 square feet and/or using over 50 kW peak electrical
demand must be designed to meet LEED-Silver standards and must achieve a minimum delivered
energy performance standard of 50% of the average consumption for that building type.
New construction and renovation of existing buildings between 5,000 and 15,000 square feet will
achieve a minimum delivered energy performance standard of 50% of the average consumption for
that building type.
Oregon
OAR 330-130
All renovation and construction projects for state facilities must exceed Oregon's energy
conservation building codes by at least 20%.
CHAPTER THREE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 95
-------
TABLE 3.4.1 EXAMPLES OF LBE GOALS AND TARGETS (cont.)
State/Title
Goal or Target
Virginia
Executive Order 4 8
Washington, D.C.
Green Building Act of 2006
Establishes a goal for state agencies to reduce annual energy costs by 20% by 2010, relative to
2006 levels. State-owned facilities over 5,000 square feet and renovations of greater than 50% are
required to be designed consistent with LEED and ENERGY STAR rating systems.
New non-residential public buildings greater than 10,000 square feet must meet LEED-Silver
standards, be designed to achieve 75 points on the ENERGY STAR Target Finder rating scale, and be
benchmarked annually using ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager.
Energy- Efficient Procurement
Maryland State agencies shall purchase ENERGY STAR products when purchasing energy-using products
Executive Order 01.01.2001.02 or shall purchase products in the top 25% in energy efficiency for products where ENERGY STAR
labeling is not available.
Colorado
Executive Order 0012 07
Connecticut
Executive Order 17
Requires Department of Personnel and Administration to develop policies that require state
agencies to purchase equipment that is ENERGY STAR qualified and to ensure that energy-saving
features are enabled where ENERGY STAR-qualified equipment is available and cost-effective.
Requires that all future equipment and appliances purchased by and for executive branch state
agencies shall be ENERGY STAR® certified, provided such ENERGY STAR® certified equipment and
appliances are commercially available.
Renewable Energy
Arizona
Executive Order 2005-05
Connecticut
Executive Order 3 2
Oregon
Renewable Energy Plan
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Act 141
State agencies are directed to ensure that all new state-funded buildings derive at least 10% of their
energy from renewable sources.
State governments and universities are directed to replace an increasing share of electricity with
renewable energy, toward the goal of increasing Class 1 renewable purchases to 20% by 2010, 50%
by 2020, and 100% by 2050.
Establishes a goal for 100% of the state government's total electricity needs to be met by renewable
energy sources by 2010.
Requires the Department of Administration to set renewable energy purchase goals for six agencies
with an overall goal that renewable energy account for 10% of state energy purchases by 2008 and
20% by 2012.
State Fleets and Fuel Use
Georgia
Executive Order 2.28.06.02
Connecticut
Executive Order 22
Iowa
Executive Order 41
Nevada
Nevada Administrative Code
486A.160
State agencies and departments are ordered to permanently increase employee commute miles
saved by 20% through compressed work schedules, alternate work schedules, and teleworking,
where appropriate as determined at the agency or department level.
Requires 20% reduction in the overall state fleet by July 1, 2009 and specifies that vehicle purchases
of cars and light trucks must be vehicles that are classified by the U.S. EPA as "best in class" for
estimated highway gasoline mileage.
Directs agencies to ensure that 100% of non-law enforcement, light-duty vehicles procured by 2010
are alternative-fuel (AFVs) or hybrid-electric.
All agencies shall ensure that bulk diesel fuel procured by the state contains at least 5% renewable
content by 2007, 10% renewable content by 2008, and 20% renewable content by 2010.
State fleets containing 10 or more vehicles must acquire AFVs or EPA-certified ultra-low emission
vehicles. Beginning in FY 2000, 90% of new vehicles purchased must be either AFVs or low-emission
vehicles (LEVs).
96 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER THREE
-------
TABLE 3.4.1 EXAMPLES OF LBE GOALS AND TARGETS (cont.)
State/Title
Goal or Target
Rhode Island
Executive Order 05-13
Order establishes that all new light duty trucks must achieve a minimum of 19 miles per gallon
(mpg) and be certified LEVs, and that all new passenger vehicles achieve a minimum of 23 mpg.
Wisconsin
Executive Order 141
State agencies are required to reduce petroleum-based gasoline use in state-owned vehicles by
20% by 2010 and 50% by 2015, and to reduce petroleum-based diesel fuel use by 10% by 2010 and
by 35% by 2015.
a Examples of state goals for fleets and fuel are presented in this table because many states have adopted these goals. However, this is not
one of the clean energy activities described in the LBE Guide.
Source: Appendix A, State Executive Orders, Legislation, Policies, and Plans Initiating LBE Programs.
3.5 INITIATE AN LBE PROGRAM
States have designed their LBE programs based on a va-
riety of models and launched them in different ways. In
some cases the LBE team conducts the ground work to
encourage a governor, state legislature or other entity to
establish LBE goals. In other cases, these goals are initi-
ated by the governor or state legislature, and the LBE
team then implements the program. Examples of both
approaches are presented below. Mechanisms that states
have used to successfully initiate their LBE programs
incorporate one or more of the following approaches:
The state governor issues an executive order that estab-
lishes clean energy LBE goals and requirements for an
LBE program.
The state legislature enacts LBE legislation that estab-
lishes clean energy LBE goals and requirements for an
LBE program.
The state government initiates an LBE program as part
of a broader energy plan, climate plan, sustainability
plan, or other comprehensive plan or policy.
The state energy office or other agency initiates a clean
energy LBE program.
• Local governments, universities, or other state or local
groups adopt LBE programs that support state goals
and/or influence the state to adopt an LBE program.
States can determine appropriate mechanisms for
implementation based on their review of potential LBE
activities, described in Chapter 2, Lead by Example
Activities and Measures, since some activities might
require specific types of enabling authority (e.g., large
expenditures on clean energy generation systems may
require legislative authority).
Table 3.5.1 provides a summary of the mechanisms
that states have used to initiate LBE programs. The
table differentiates between mechanisms that 1) have
been used to establish quantitative goals or to require
a state government to take a specific LBE action and
2) encourage or recommend (but do not require)
LBE action. Many states have used a combination of
complementary mechanisms to produce an effective,
comprehensive LBE program. Appendix A: State Ex-
ecutive Orders, Legislation, Policies, and Plans Initiating
LBE Programs provides more detailed descriptions of
the approaches taken by each state and provides links
to sources.
CHAPTER THREE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 97
-------
TABLE 3.4.1 SUMMARY OF STATE EXECUTIVE ORDERS, LEGISLATION, POLICIES,
AND PLANS INITIATING LBE PROGRAMS (THROUGH APRIL 2008)
Approach
e Executive Orders. Legislation. Policies, and Plans Initiating LBE Programs (Through April 2008)
Transportation and Vehicle Procurement Other LBE
Activities
Energy Efficiency in Buildings
Equipment Procurement
Legislation
Piarv Policy, or
OBlW
New Buildings
EMSDng
Buldlngs
ENERGY
LEED
Standards
Energy.
Efficient
Product
Procurement
ENERGY
STAR
iJiMlirii-jUm
Renewable
Energy Use
Cwan Energy
Fleet
Efficiency
Renewable
Ctt»r
Water
Efficiency.
Recycling, etc
ID
IL
LA
ME
MO
MA
Ml
No ASM,
NoMMy
NOA.MI
Key
Directs or requires implementation of LBE action, directs or requires action to be taken toward implementation of LBE action, requires attainment of a specific LBE goal, or otherwise
establishes numerical targets for specific LBE activities.
Promotes --but does not require -- LBE action, recommends LBE action, requires the development of recommendations for LBE action, establishes general or non-numerical goals, or requires
pursuit of opportunities to implement LBE activities generally.
Has not been enacted or is currently under consideration
While states labeled "No Activity" may have individual LBE programs, these programs were not in tiated by an LBE goal (i.e., via an execut ve order, legislation, plan, policy).
Source: Appendix A, State Executive Orders, Legislation, Policies, and Plans Initiating LBE Programs
98 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER THREE
-------
3.5.1 GOVERNOR ISSUES AN LBE EXECUTIVE
ORDER
Many state governors have issued executive orders
establishing LBE goals, programs, and specific require-
ments for state agencies to follow. Executive orders
typically have the following advantages:
Since it is signed by the governor, an executive order
gives the states clean energy LBE activities an official
status.
Top-level commitment to a coordinated set of clean en-
ergy policies is key to ensuring effective follow-through
on implementing LBE activities.
Executive orders are a time-efficient means of estab-
lishing clean energy objectives for state governments.
A series of executive orders can be issued over time to
change and/or expand LBE program requirements as
technology and information improves (see Massachu-
setts text box).
Executive orders can be used to create cabinet-level
task forces or similar formal offices to pursue clean
energy policy goals (e.g., Delaware Energy Task Force,
Iowa Energy Coordinating Council, Florida Energy
2020 Study Commission, New Mexico Solar Power
Task Force, Oregon Renewable Energy Action Plan,
West Virginia Energy Task Force, and Wisconsin En-
ergy Efficiency and Renewables Task Force).
Executive orders can be effective as a mechanism for
reinforcing a governor's energy plan. In Utah, for
example, Executive Order 2006-04 (Utah, 2006a) was
used to codify LBE goals set forth in the governor's
policy for advancing energy efficiency (Utah, 2006b).
On the other hand, a potential disadvantage associated
with executive orders is that they require a governor
who is convinced of the value of LBE activities and
takes the lead on ensuring the order is implemented.
As such, executive orders can be rescinded or go unen-
forced after a new governor takes office. To be effective
and enduring after the issuing governor leaves office,
executive orders can be reinforced with complemen-
tary legislation or administrative rules that build on the
framework provided by an executive order.
MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE ORDER BUILDS ON
EARLIER EXECUTIVE ORDER AND ADMINISTRATIVE
BULLETINS
In 2002, the Massachusetts governor issued Executive
Order 438, which created a Sustainability Coordinating
Council with the responsibility of developing and
maintaining a State Sustainability Program. The order
required state agencies to work with the Council to
develop policies to:
Reduce energy consumption in state facilities.
Reduce GHG emissions by 25% by 2012 based on 2002
levels.
Promote environmentally-appropriate facility siting.
Increase purchase of environmentally preferable
products.
Building on the goals of this initiative, the state
Executive Office for Administration and Finance issued
three administrative bulletins in 2006:
Bulletin 11 directed the Sustainability Coordinating
Council to develop guidance for state agencies to help
reduce energy consumption by 15% by 2010.
Bulletin 12 established the "LEED-Plus" design standard
for new construction and major renovations of facilities.
Bulletin 13 established minimum requirements for use
of bio-fuels in state vehicles and buildings by state
agencies.
In 2007, the new governor issued Executive Order 484,
which incorporated the goals set forth in Executive
Order 438 and Bulletins 11 and 12. In addition. Executive
Order 484 included the following goals:
Reduce GHG emissions from state government
operations by 40% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, based on
2002 levels.
Reduce energy consumption per square foot in state
buildings by 20% by 2012 and 35% by 2020.
Obtain 15% of energy demand from renewable sources
by 2012, and 30% by 2020.
Reduce potable water use by 10% by 2012 and 15% by
2020 based on 2006 levels.
Sources: Massachusetts, 2002; 2006c; 2006d; 2006e; 2007.
CHAPTER THREE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 99
-------
3.5.2 STATE ENACTS LBE LEGISLATION
A second mechanism for establishing LBE initiatives is
to enact state legislation. This can be accomplished via
a comprehensive package or through sequential bills
targeting individual LBE initiatives. Legislation that
mandates a comprehensive package of policies, such as
the South Carolina Energy Efficiency Act, can provide
a robust framework for an LBE program. In addition,
certain aspects of an LBE program may require legisla-
tion. For example, legislation may be required:
If changes to tax codes are necessary, such as appropriat-
ing funds to finance the LBE program.
1 To provide funding sources to establish LBE programs
(e.g., an initial endowment for a revolving loan fund).
To modify procurement regulations such as implement-
ing life-cycle costing for purchasing decisions, releas-
ing state agencies from mandatory low-bid require-
ments when buying Green Power, or allowing agencies
to enter into long-term energy service agreements for
performance contracting.
Other uses of legislation are to:
Establish key components of state LBE programs. For
example, Montana, Texas, and Iowa have enacted
SOUTH CAROLINA ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT
South Carolina passed legislation that establishes
comprehensive requirements for a state LBE program. The
Energy Efficiency Act established requirements fora state
energy plan and policy and established the state energy office.
The Act includes the following requirements:
Implementation of energy efficiency standards in state-owned
and -leased buildings, including public school buildings, which
must provide for life-cycle cost-effectiveness.
State agency energy conservation planning, metering, and
reporting.
Energy conservation savings requirements, which specified that
an agency's budget must not be reduced by the full amount of
money saved through energy conservation measures.
Performance contracting requirements.
Establishment of a revolving loan fund for energy efficiency.
Energy-efficient product procurement.
Lease purchase agreements with energy efficiency product
vendors and utility companies.
Guaranteed energy, water, or wastewater savings contracts
for the evaluation, recommendation, and implementation of
energy, water, or wastewater conservation measures.
Source: South Carolina Legislature Online, 2005.
legislation to create revolving loan funds that can be
used to finance energy efficiency improvements in state
facilities. Colorado and Washington have passed bills
to facilitate performance contracting in state facilities.
Authorize a government department or agency to over-
see the implementation and operation of a state's LBE
program. Legislation in Maine, for example, created
the Clean Government Initiative (Maine, 2006), which
assists state agencies and state-supported institutions
of higher learning to incorporate environmentally sus-
tainable practices into all state government functions.
While legislative authority provides a solid founda-
tion for an LBE program, the legislative process can
be slow and uncertain, resulting in delays and/or lack
of support for the anticipated LBE legislation. States
have found that pairing legislation with a high-profile
executive order can provide an LBE program with both
momentum and longevity.
3.5.3 LBE PROGRAM INITIATED THROUGH
THE STATE PLANNING PROCESSES
A third mechanism is to initiate an LBE program
as part of a broader state energy plan, climate plan,
sustainability initiative, or other comprehensive initia-
tive. States can incorporate LBE policies into these
plans and/or use the LBE activities as a key driver for
implementing these plans. For example, Connecticut's
Climate Change Action Plan is a blueprint for achiev-
ing cost-effective GHG reductions within the state.
The inclusion of LBE activities played a major role in
developing the plan, since the state recognized the
importance of adopting clean energy activities within
its own operations prior to encouraging other sectors
to implement similar programs. (See Section 1.5, Over-
view of the LBE Process, for more detailed information
about how Connecticut developed its Climate Change
Action Plan.)
Incorporating LBE policies into a related clean energy
plan can be an important first step in building support
for a comprehensive LBE program. However, such
policy and planning decisions often lack the direct-
ness of an executive order or legislation. Also, as with
executive orders, policy and planning decisions can be
revised, dropped, or unenforced when the executive
administration changes. Combining these policy initia-
tives with statutory legislation or with an executive or-
der can provide the reinforcement necessary to ensure
effective implementation.
100 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER THREE
-------
3.5.4 STATE ENERGY (OR OTHER) OFFICE
INITIATES PROGRAM
In some states, the energy agency (or other office
involved with clean energy, environmental, and/or
facilities management issues) initiates the state's LBE
program. This state agency may conduct background
research and assemble preparatory data (e.g., on the
costs and benefits of an LBE program) that can be in-
strumental in providing information that the governor
needs to enact an executive order or that can help spur
legislative action.
In New York, for example, NYSERDA prepared a draft
executive order on energy efficiency in state buildings
and fleets, based on an analysis of federal Executive
Order 13123, Greening the Government through Ef-
ficiency Energy Management, and information on LBE
activities obtained from other states. NYSERDA shared
the draft order with the governor's office and key state
agencies, and worked with these offices to develop sup-
port for Executive Order 111, "Green and Clean" State
Buildings and Vehicles. (See Section 3.2, Identify and
Obtain High-Level Support, for additional information
on ways to gain policymaker support for clean energy
LBE programs.)
3.5.5 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OR OTHER
STATE/PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS ADOPT
PROGRAMS THAT INFLUENCE STATE LBE
ACTIONS
Clean energy LBE actions taken at the local level and
by nonprofit organizations, regional groups, universi-
ties, and other organizations in the state can influence
LBE action at the state level by serving as models and
by reaching out to actively engage state governments.
In both ways, these organizations can assist states by
illustrating the potential energy savings and cost sav-
ings from clean energy actions.
Local Governments
Many local governments have developed their own
LBE and other clean energy initiatives that can serve
as models for state activities. In some instances, local
governments have also reached out to include state
governments in their clean energy LBE activities. States
can look toward these local actions to help build a case
for their own state LBE program. For example:
• Salt Lake City's Green initiative provides an example
that can serve as a model for states. This initiative
includes numerous LBE activities, such as high-
performance buildings, green power purchases,
building energy conservation, water conservation, and
recycling. The city also requires new and renovated
public buildings to be LEED-Silver certified.
Salt Lake City has significantly reduced its energy
costs through this program. The city replaced its city
and county buildings' incandescent bulbs with more
energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs, saving over
$33,000 a year and reducing carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions by 344 tons per year. The city also saves over
$32,000 a year on its energy costs from the installa-
tion of 861 LED traffic signals, an initiative it plans to
expand to include all of its 1,630 traffic signals. This
expanded measure is expected to save over 500 tons of
CO2 each year with an annual cost savings of $53,000.
The city invested a portion of the savings from these
energy conservation measures in renewable energy; it
is now the largest purchaser of Blue Sky wind energy in
the state (Salt Lake City, 2005).
Burlington, Vermont is a local government that has
reached out to include state government in its clean
energy LBE activities. Burlington produced a climate
action plan in 2000 that established goals for reducing
GHG emissions in the city, including emissions from
municipal government operations. It formed the Alli-
ance for Climate Action to implement the action plan's
recommendations. Part of the Alliance's mission is to
expand its activities beyond the city level by involving
regional and state entities. The state Department of
General Services and the University of Vermont, along
with numerous local government agencies, have joined
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON - MODEL CLEAN ENERGY LBE
PROGRAM
In 1989, King County, Washington established an
environmental purchasing program that enables county
government purchasers to select environmentally preferable
office equipment, automotive parts, vehicles, maintenance
products, and construction and landscaping materials. Overall,
the program saved the county $675,000 in 2005.
The county also provides guidance to other governments,
including a model policy for procuring environmentally
preferable products and a description of the program and its
benefits.
In 2006, King County was appointed to the Responsible
Purchasing Network, an organization of federal, state, and
local governments; non-profits; and private firms that assist
jurisdictions in designing and implementing environmental
purchasing programs.
Source: King County, Washington, 2006.
CHAPTER THREE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 101
-------
Burlington as members of the Alliance and are working
to implement the 10% Challenge initiative to reduce
GHG emissions by 10% by 2010.
U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
Inspired by a challenge from the mayor of Seattle in 2005,
an agreement was passed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors
pledging to take local action to reduce global warming. The
agreement goals are based on the targets outlined in the Kyoto
Protocol, and include such actions as purchasing green power,
improving energy efficiency in existing buildings, purchasing
only ENERGY STAR equipment and appliances for public use,
promoting sustainable building practices using LEED standards,
increasing fuel efficiency of municipal fleets, improving water
conservation and efficiency practices, and educating the public
about the need to take action.
Source: U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2005.
Regional Organizations
Regional organizations can also influence and/or pro-
vide support for state-level LBE actions. For example:
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency works in partner-
ship with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Washington State Department of Ecology to pro-
tect public health in four counties. By implementing
its own clean energy policies at the sub-state level, the
agency serves as a bridge between state and local LBE
activities (Puget Sound Clean Air Energy 2006).
The Conference of New England Governors and Eastern
Canadian Premiers developed a Climate Change Action
Plan in 2001 with the goal of reducing GHG emissions
to 1990 levels by 2010, and to 10% below 1990 levels
by 2020. One action item was for governments to "lead
by example" by reducing emissions within the public
sector by 25% by 2012. The plan called on governments
to encourage the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles and
sustainable building design, to educate government
employees about clean energy opportunities, to create
THE NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE
The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is a non-profit
regional organization that brings together state and local
governments, electric utilities, public interest groups, and
energy efficiency industrial representatives to encourage
marketplace adoption of energy-efficient products and
services. The alliance supports and creates partnerships with
local government associations in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and
Washington, providing a forum for information sharing.
Source: NWEA, 2006.
a market for environmentally preferable products, and
to develop a regional clearinghouse of operations and
maintenance best practices. The plan has had a signifi-
cant influence on several state LBE programs, includ-
ing Connecticut's Climate Change Action Plan, which
includes LBE as a major component (NEG-ECP, 2006).
Nonprofit and Other Organizations
Nonprofit organizations have developed clean energy
initiatives and conduct other activities that can provide
support for state LBE programs. For example:
The Rocky Mountain Climate Organization (RMCO)
started the Colorado Climate Project, which is modeled
after several state climate change initiatives. RMCO is
a coalition of more than 30 local governments, utilities,
businesses, and nonprofit organizations whose goal is
to communicate the effects of climate change and pro-
vide information on how to address these impacts. The
project's mission is to reduce the state's contributions
and vulnerability to climate change by developing and
promoting a Colorado Climate Agenda of actions to
reduce the state's GHG emissions. The recommended
agenda will be presented to the state's governor, legisla-
ture, and other policymakers (RMCO, 2006).
THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON RENEWABLE ENERGY (ACORE)
HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE
The ACORE Higher Education Committee (HEC) is an extra-
governmental entity that supports and influences state
government LBE activities. The HEC aims to demonstrate
the potential for a transition to a cleaner, more secure, more
reliable, and less expensive energy future, and to develop
educational materials and curricula about energy in schools. To
achieve these objectives, the committee established goals to
encourage 100 U.S. colleges and universities to:
Purchase 100% renewable energy by 2010.
Invest at least 10% of their endowments into funds that support
renewable energy companies by 2010.
Create renewable energy courses of study by 2010.
Source: ACORE, 2006.
The Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)
is a nonprofit organization working to advance energy
efficiency in the Northeast. NEEP composed a letter to
the governor of Connecticut commenting on recom-
mendations by a working group of representatives from
the Department of Public Utility Control, the Office
of Consumer Counsel, and the Energy Conservation
Management Board in the report On Energy Efficiency
Opportunities at State Facilities. NEEP voiced support
102 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER THREE
-------
for the recommendations, suggested six additional
opportunities for improving energy efficiency in state
facilities, and offered its assistance in implementing
these recommendations. (NEEP, 2005; Department of
Public Utility Control, 2006).
The Association of Washington Cities (AWC) is a private,
nonprofit corporation that represents Washington's
cities and towns before the state legislature and other
state organizations. Through its Local Government En-
ergy Project, the AWC provides assistance to member
governments on energy efficiency and energy policy
matters. The association also monitors regional and
state energy policy issues and represents its constituent
cities in state and federal energy policy development
(Association of Washington Cities, 2006).
The National Governors Association (NGA) launched
its Securing a Clean Energy Future (SCEF) Initiative
in July 2007 with the objective of enlisting all U.S.
governors in enacting clean energy policies at the state
level. NGA is developing a variety of tools, including
guides, reports, regional workshops, and national sum-
mits, to help governors understand the specific energy
challenges in their states and implement policies to
address these challenges. In addition, the SCEF initia-
tive emphasizes the role of public-private partnerships
to assist states in achieving their clean energy goals.
In one such partnership, Greening State Capitols, the
SCEF Initiative has joined with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
to conduct energy audits of state capital complexes. A
team of Wal-Mart engineering experts will perform
energy audits for up to 20 state capital complexes dur-
ing 2008 and 2009. The audits, which will be free to the
states, will recommend energy efficiency improvements
and provide estimates of resulting CO2 emissions. A
second partnership is with the Climate Savers Comput-
ing Initiative (CSCA), a nonprofit initiative founded
by Google and Intel to encourage the use of more
energy-efficient computers and servers in state of-
fices and agencies. Participating states agree to reduce
energy consumption from a majority of their comput-
ing equipment by: 1) pledging to purchase computer
equipment that meets or exceeds ENERGY STAR
ratings, 2) optimizing existing computer systems by
educating employees about energy efficient computer
power management strategies, 3) and over time, pur-
chasing computing equipment with increasing levels of
energy efficiency. (NGA, 2008, 2008a, 2007).
Another recent NGA initiative is the Advanced Energy
Strategies for Buildings Policy Academy, designed to
help states develop an action plan and implementation
strategy around improving energy use in buildings.
NGAs Center for Best Practices selected seven states
to participate in this program.The state teams will
work with leading experts to develop action plans that
identify cost-effective strategies for reducing energy
use in buildings; design new policies, programs, and
measures that promote energy efficiency and renewable
energy; and develop innovative financing and funding
options (NGA, 2008b).
REFERENCES
ACORE. 2006. Higher Education Committee (HEC).
Available: http://www.acore.org/programs/hec/.
Accessed 12/12/2006.
Apollo Alliance. 2005. New Energy for Campuses,
Energy Saving Policies for Colleges and Universities.
The Apollo Alliance. Available: http://www.
energyaction.net/documents/new_energy.pdf. Accessed
12/11/2006.
Arizona. 2005. Arizona Department of Commerce
Energy Programs. Available: http://new.azcotntnerce.
com/Energy/. Accessed 12/11/2006.
Association of Washington Cities. 2006. Local
Government Energy Project Web site. Available: http://
www. awcnet. org/portal/studionew. asp ?Mode=bl &
WebID=l&UID=&MenuActionTypeID=80&Menu
ActionParm=l 00&OriginPage=/portal/studionew.
asp&EDate=&ChannelLinkID=1394. Accessed
3/7/2007.
Burlington. 2006. Alliance for Climate Action 10%
Challenge. Available: http://www.lOpercentchallenge.
org/. Accessed 4/30/2007.
CaLEEP. 2006. California Local Energy Efficiency
Program. Available: http://www.caleep.com/. Accessed
12/12/2006.
California. 2004. Executive Order S-20-04, Green
Building Initiative. December. Available: http://gov.
ca.gov/executive-order/3360/. Accessed: 2/26/2008.
California. 2004a. Green Building Action
Plan. Available: http://www.green.ca.gov/
GreenBuildingActionPlan/default.htm. Accessed:
2/26/2008.
CHAPTER THREE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 103
-------
TABLE 3.5.2 CHAPTER 3: ESTABLISH THE LE PROGRAM FRAMEWORK: SELECTED RESOURCES
Title and Description
menting LBE Progr;
Connecticut
The Leading by Example report details steps taken by the
Connecticut state government to establish framework for
developing a Climate Change Action Plan for the state. This
report and other links on the Connecticut Climate Change
Web site provide information on the process used to develop
the plan and current LBE initiatives for implementing the
plan.
Report: http://ctclimatechange.com/
StateActionPlan.html
Web site: http://www.ctd/matechange.
com/'rbf_rept.html
Maine
Maine's Clean Energy Government Website details the
energy-related accomplishments of Maine's Clean
Government Initiative - including energy efficiency in state
buildings, energy efficiency in fleets, and use of renewable
energy.
http://www.maineenergyinfo.org/
examples.html
Massachusetts
The Agency Sustainability Planning and Implementation
Guide is intended to help state agencies understand the
environmental impacts of their day-to-day operations and
implement specific actions as part of the broader State
Sustainability Program.
http://www.ncprq/ectgreen.com/
Documen ts/AgencySusGuide.pdf
http://www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/
pdf/ss_g uide_web.pdf
New York
NYSERDA has developed "Green and Clean" State
Buildings and Vehicles Guidelines to aid state agencies in
implementing Executive Order No. 111.
http://www.nyserda.org/prog rams/State_
Government/exorderlllguidelines.pdf
State Executive Orders for Initiating LBE Programs
Massachusetts
Executive Order 484 establishes goals for state agencies for
energy consumption reduction, GHG emission reductions,
and use of renewable sources.
http://www.mass.go\//Ago\/J/docs/
Executive%20Orders/Leading%20by%20
Example%20EO.pdf
Virginia
Executive Order 48 establishes goals for state agencies to
reduce annual energy costs.
h t tp://www. governor, virgin ia.gov/
initiatives/ExecutiveOrders/pdf/EO_48.pdf
Resources for Implementing LBE Programs
California Public
Utilities Commission
California's Local Energy Efficiency Program (CALeep)
designs and implements energy efficiency strategies for
communities—maximizing the use of existing energy
efficiency initiatives and resources.
h t tp://www. caleep. org/
National Governors'
Association
Securing A Clean Energy Future is an NGA initiative that
provides state governments with resources on clean energy
opportunities. The Web site provides best practices and state
initiatives.
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/
menuitem.751bl86f65elOb568a278110501
010aO/?vgnextoid=f080dd9ebe318110Vgn
VCMlOOOOOlaOWWaRCRD&vgnextchann
el=92ebc7df618a2010VgnVCM1000001aO
WlOaRCRD
104 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER THREE
-------
California. 2006. California & Utilities Join Forces to
Save Energy in State Buildings, State Leads by Example
on Energy Conservation; Officials Urge Private Sector
to Take Advantage of California Investor-Owned
Utilities' Programs & Incentives. Available: http://
www.dgs.ca.gov/Press/06-07/060829.htm. Accessed
12/11/2006.
California. 2007. Green California Web site. Available:
http://www.green.ca.gov/default.htm. Accessed:
2/26/2008.
California Legislative Information. 2008. Assembly
Bill No. 532 Available: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0501-0550/ab_532_
bill_20071013_chaptered.pdf. Accessed 7/28/2008.
• California State Treasurer's Office. 2006. The "Green
Wave" Environmental Investment Initiative. Available:
http:/'/www. treasurer, ca.gov/greenwave/. Accessed
12/11/2006.
Connecticut. 2002. Leading By Example: Connecticut
Collaborates to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
A report based on a summit held at the Pocantico
Conference Center of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
Pocantico Paper No 6. October 2-4. Available:
http:/7ctclimatechange.com/rbj'_rept.html. Accessed
12/6/2006.
Connecticut. 2006. Personal communication with
Bryan Garcia, CT Innovations, and John Ruckes,
Connecticut Office of Policy Management. June 5, 2006.
Department of Public Utility Control. 2006. Report
to Governor M. Jodi Rell on Energy Efficiency
Opportunities at State Facilities. Department of Public
Utility Control, Office of Consumer Counsel, Energy
Conservation Management Board. Available: http://
www. neep. org/newsletter/1 Q2005/Report_to_Gov_
Rell_05.pdf. Accessed 1/12/2007.
• Efficiency Vermont. 2006. Residential/Commercial.
Available: http://www.efficiencyvermont.com/pages/.
Accessed 12/11/2006.
Florida. 2007. Executive Order 07-126. Available:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ClimateChange/
filesf200707_13_eo_07_126.pdf. Accessed 9/09/2008.
•Florida. 2008. Serve to Preserve Summit on Climate
Change. Available: http://dms.myflorida.com/other_
programs/serve_to_preserve/leading_by_example/
executive_orders_partnership_agreements. Accessed
9/09/2008.
FYP. 2003. Water/Wastewater Guide 1: Reduce Energy
Use in Water and Wastewater Facilities Through
Conservation and Efficiency Measures. Flex Your
Power. Available: http://www.fypower.org/pdj7BPG_
Water l_Con6-Eff.pdf. Accessed 4/4/2007.
Georgia. 2006. Personal communication with Kevin
Kelly, Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority. June
8, 2006.
•Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority. 2008.
Governor's Energy Challenge. Available: http:/'/www.
gefa.org/Index.aspx?page=385 Accessed 7/28/2008.
Hawaii. 2006. Act 96: An Act Relating to Energy.
Available: http://www.hawaU.gov/dbedt/info/energy/
efficiency/state/Act96_reprint.pdf. Accessed 4/20/2007.
•Iowa. 2005. Executive Order Number 41. Available:
http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/Incentives/IA09R.
pdf. Accessed 5/8/2007.
• Iowa. 2006. Iowa State Facilities Program. Available:
http://www.iowadnr.com/energy/ebank/sfp.html.
Accessed 12/11/2006.
King County, Washington. 2006. Environmental
Purchasing Program. Available: http://www.metrokc.
gov/procure/green/index.htm. Accessed 12/12/2006.
Maine. 2006. Welcome to Maine Clean Government.
Available: http://www.maine.gov/cleangovt/. Accessed
12/12/2006.
Massachusetts. 2002. Executive Order 438: State
Sustainability Program. Available: http://www.
lawlib.state. ma. us/ExecOrders/eo438. txt. Accessed
4/25/2007.
Massachusetts. 2004. Agency Sustainability Planning
and Implementation Guide. Commonwealth of
Massachusetts State Sustainability Program. Prepared
by the State Sustainability Coordinating Council &
State Sustainability Program Staff. Available: http://
www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/pdf/ss_guide_web.
pdf and http://www.ncprojectgreen.com/Documents/
AgencySusGuide.pdf. Accessed: 4/25/2007,11/14/2008.
Massachusetts. 2006a. Massachusetts
Green Community. Available: http://www.
greencommunitiesonline. org/massachusetts/. Accessed
12/11/2006.
CHAPTER THREE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 105
-------
Massachusetts. 2006b. Personal communication with
Eric Friedman and Ian Finalyson, Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs. June 1, 2006.
•Massachusetts. 2006c. Bulletin 11—Energy
Conservation at Executive Agencies. Executive
Office for Administration and Finance. Available:
http://www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/pdj7anf_
administrativebulletinll.pdf. Accessed 4/25/2007.
Massachusetts. 2006d. Bulletin 12—Establishment
of Minimum Standards for Sustainable Design
and Construction of New Buildings and major
Renovations by Executive Agencies. Executive
Office for Administration and Finance. Available:
http://www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/pdj7anf_
administrativebulletinl2.pdf. Accessed 4/25/2007.
Massachusetts. 2006e. Bulletin 13—Establishment
of Minimum Requirements for Bio-Fuel Usage in
State Vehicles and Buildings by Executive Agencies.
Executive Office for Administration and Finance.
Available: http://www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/pdf/
anf_adtnimstrativebulletinl3.pdf. Accessed 4/25/2007.
• Massachusetts. 2007. Executive Order 484: Leading
by Example - Clean Energy and Efficient Buildings.
Available: http://www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/
pdf/07_eo484.pdf. Accessed 6/22/2007.
Massachusetts. 2008. Leading by Example. Executive
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Available:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeamodulechunk
&L=l&LQ=Home&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent
&f=eea_lbe_lbe_program&csid=Eoeea. Accessed:
11/23/2008.
Miller, J. 2008. Memo on California's Building Energy
Use Data. February 14.
NEEP. 2005. Letter to Governor Rell, March 22, 2005.
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships. Available:
http://www.neep.org/policy_and_outreach/letter_Gov_
Rell _3.22.05.pdf. Accessed 4/25/2007.
NEG-ECP. 2006. The Conference of New England
Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate
Change Action Plan: 2006 Discussion Paper. Available:
http://www.neg-ecp-environment.org/newsletters/
News_2006_DISCUSSION_PAPER_Climate_Change_
Action_Plan.pdf. Accessed 3/7/2007.
New Hampshire. 2006. Building Energy Conservation
Initiative. Available: http://nh.gov/oep/programs/
energy/beci.htm. Accessed 12/11/2006.
New Jersey. Undated. About SmartStart Schools.
Available: http://www.njsmartstartbuildings.com/
smartstartschools/about/index.html. Accessed
6/28/2007.
National Governors Association. 2008. Securing a
Clean Energy Future Web site. Available: http://www.
nga.org/ci. Accessed: 2/26/2008.
National Governors Association. 2008a. Greening
State Capitols. February. Available: http://www.nga.
org/Files/pdf/0802GREENCAPITOLS.PDF. Accessed:
2/26/2008.
•National Governors Association. 2008b. News
Release: NGA Center to Help States Improve Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Buildings. No-
vember. Available: http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/
menuitem.6c9a8a9ebc6ae07eee28aca950101 OaO/?vgne
xtoid=42f8293b0669dllOVgnVCM1000001a01010aR
CRD&vgnextchannel=759b8f2005361010VgnVCM10
OOOOlaOlOlOaRCRD. Accessed: 12/01/2008.
National Governors Association. 2007. News Release:
Governors Announce Groundbreaking Energy
Efficiency Partnership with Climate Savers Computing
Initiative. November 7. Available: http://www.nga.org/
portal/site/nga/menuitem.6c9a8a9ebc6ae07eee28aca9
501010aO/?vgnextoid= b219f02788a 16110 VgnVCMl 0
OOOOlaOlOlOaRCRD. Accessed: 2/26/2008.
North Carolina. 2006. Energy Conservation.
North Carolina State Energy Office, Department of
Conservation. Available: http://www.energync.net/
efficiency/government.html. Accessed 12/11/2006.
NWEA, 2006. Local Government Associations.
Available: http://www.nwalliance.org/ourwork/
projectsummary.aspx?ID=53. Accessed 4/4/2007.
NYSERDA. 2001. New York State. Executive Order 111
Web site. Available: http://www.nyserda.org/programs/
exorderlll.asp. Accessed 12/12/2006.
•NYSERDA. 2002. NYSERDA State Energy Planning
Web site. New York State Energy Plan 2002. Available:
http://www.ny~serda.org/Energy^Information/'energy•_
state_plan.asp. Accessed 12/12/2006.
NYSERDA. 2004. Municipal Water and Wastewater
Treatment. Available: http://www.nyserda.org/
Programs/Environment/muniwaterwwt. asp. Accessed
12/11/2006.
106 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER THREE
-------
NYSERDA. 2006. Conversation with Brian Henderson,
Charl-Pan Dawson, and Matthew Brown of NYSERDA.
June 2, 2006.
Ohio Office of the Governor. 2007. Executive Order
2007-02S. Available: http://www.governor.ohio.
gov/Portals/0/Executive%20Orders/Executive%20
Order%202007-02S.pdf. Accessed: 7/29/2008.
•Ohio School Facilities Commission. 2008. OSFC's
Green Schools Initiative. Available: http://www.osfc.
state.oh.us/. Accessed 7/28/2008.
Pennsylvania. 2006. Guaranteed Energy Savings.
Pennsylvania Department of General Services.
Available: http://www.dgs.state.pa.us/dgs/cwp/
view.aspfa = 3&q = 1136766-dgsNav = \. Accessed
12/11/2006.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2006. State
Action Maps. Available: http://www.pewclimate.org/
what_s_being_done/in_the_states/state_action_tnaps.
cfm. Accessed 12/7/2006.
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. 2006. Healthy People,
Healthy Places, Healthy Planet. Available: http://www.
pscleanair.org/. Accessed 12/7/2006.
RMCO. 2006. Rocky Mountain Climate Organization
Web site. Available: http://www.rockymountainclimate.
org/index.htm. Accessed: 12/7/2006.
Salt Lake City. 2005. Energy Conservation, Buildings
and Municipal Operations. Available: http://www.
slcgreen.com/pages/energy.htm. Accessed 12/12/2006.
San Francisco. 2005. San Francisco Becomes First City
in the Country to Adopt Green Building Standards.
Press Release. Available: http://www.sfgov.org/site/
mayor_page.asp?id = 33620. Accessed 12/11/2006.
South Carolina Legislature Online. 2005. South
Carolina Code of Laws (Unannotated) Current
through the End of the 2005 Regular Session.
Available: http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t48c052.
htm. Accessed 12/12/2006.
Texas. 2006. Performance Contracting Guidelines.
Available: http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/sa_pc.htm.
Accessed 12/11/2006.
U.S. Conference of Mayors. 2005. Resolution
Endorsing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement. Available: http://usmayors.org/uscm/
resolutions/73rd_conference/en_01. asp. Accessed
3/7/2007.
U.S. DOE. 2006. Buying Green Power. Large
Purchasers of Green Power Montgomery County
(MD). Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/
greenpower/buying/customers.shtml?page =
l&companyid = 327. Accessed 12/11/2006.
•U.S. DOE. 2007. Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. South Carolina Savings Matrix
Delivers Accountability. November-December.
Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_
program/feature_detail_info.cfm/start=l/fid=76.
Accessed: 2/28/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2006a. CHP Partnership Case Study, The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/chp/pdf/unc.pdf. Accessed
12/11/2006.
•U.S. EPA. 2006b. Green Power Partnership,
Partnership List, Western Washington University.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/partners/
partners/westernwashingtonuniversity. htm. Accessed
12/17/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006c. Clean Energy-Environment Guide to
Action: Policies, Best Practices, and Action Steps for
States, Section 3.1: Lead by Example. April. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/
state-and-local/state-best-practices.html. Accessed:
July 27, 2008.
Utah. 2006a. Executive Order 2006-0004: Improving
Energy Efficiency. Available: http://www.rules.utah.
gov/execdocs/2006/ExecDocl 13478.htm. Accessed
12/12/2006.
Utah. 2006b. Utah Policy to Advance Energy Efficiency
in the State. Available: http://energy.utah.gov/energy/
policy'/utah_policy_to_advance_energy_efficiency_in_
the_state.html. Accessed 12/12/2006.
Washington. 2006. Energy Savings Performance
Contracting: House Bill 2247. Washington State
Department of General Administration. Available:
http://www.ga.wa.gov/eas/epc/espc.htm. Accessed
12/11/2006.
CHAPTER THREE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 107
-------
•White House. 2007. Executive Order: Strengthening
Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation
Management. January 24, 2007. Available: http://www.
whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070124-2.
html. Accessed 3/21/2007.
Wisconsin DOA. 2003. Doyle Administration
Endorses Innovative Co-Generation Power Plant Near
UW-Madison Campus. Press Release, May 09, 2003.
Wisconsin Department of Administration. Available:
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/press_releases_detail.
asp?prid=136&divid=4. Accessed 4/4/2007.
Wisconsin Office of the Governor. 2005. Governor
Signs 'Green Buildings' Executive Order to Raise
Environmental and Energy Efficiency Standards in
State Buildings. Available: http://www.wisgov.state.
wi.us/journal_media_detail.asp?locid = 196-prid =
1905. Accessed 12/27/2006.
Wisconsin Office of the Governor. 2006. Executive
Order #145. Available: http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/
journal_media_detail.asp?locid = 19&prid = 1907.
Accessed 12/12/2006.
Wisconsin Office of the Lieutenant Governor. 2008.
Lt. Governor Lawtons Energy Star School Challenge.
April 24. Available: http://ltgov.wisconsin.gov/issues_
view.asp?issueid=27&locid=126. Accessed 7/28/2008.
108 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER THREE
-------
CHAPTER FOUR
Screening LBE
Activities and Measures
This chapter addresses the second
important step in developing a LBE
program: screening an initial set of
potential LBE activities and measures
(as described in Chapter 2) to
identify a subset for inclusion in the
state's LBE portfolio.
To assist in this process, several "rules of thumb" are
presented that can be used to establish a high-level
estimate of the benefits and costs of LBE activities
and measures. For states seeking a tailored analysis,
a series of well-regarded and interactive "preliminary
assessment tools" are also provided. This chapter also
describes options for those interested in working with a
consultant, efficiency program administrator, or energy
services company (ESCO) for detailed technical as-
sistance on activity and measure selection. Information
is also presented on methods for refining these initial
screening results over time as state priorities are clari-
fied and additional resources become available.
This chapter is organized around the following four key
steps in screening LBE activities and measures:
Selecting an initial set of LBE activities and measures
for assessment.
Developing criteria to use in assessing the prospective
LBE activities and measures.
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
CHAPTER TWO
Potential LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER THREE
Establish the LBE Program Framework
CHAPTER FOUR
Screen LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER FIVE
Develop LBE Program
CHAPTER SIX
Track, Evaluate, and Report on Progress
CHAPTER FOUR CONTENTS
4.1. Select initial LBE activities and measures
4.2. Develop assessment criteria
4.3. Estimate costs and benefits of LBE activities
4.4. Select LBE activities and measures
4.5. State examples of screening LBE activities and
measures
Related appendices:
Appendix B, State and Local Clean Energy LBE
Programs: Examples, Tools, and Information Resources.
This appendix presents examples of state and local LBE
activities, as well as resources for each of the activities
described in this chapter.
Appendix H, State LBE Tracking Tools and Resources.
This appendix presents both simple and complex tools
that states can use to estimate energy consumption
reductions from LBE activities and the environmental
and economic benefits associated with these
reductions.
CHAPTER FOUR | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 109
-------
Estimating the costs and benefits of each LBE activity
and measure using simple assessment tools and rules of
thumb.
1 Selecting the LBE activities and measures to include
the state LBE program, using the selection criteria to
assess the relative costs and benefits of each potential
activity or measure.
4.1 SELECT LBE ACTIVITIES AND
MEASURES FOR SCREENING
The first step in LBE screening is to identify the broad
set of prospective activities and measures for consid-
eration. This set of options can include all or some
of those identified in Chapter 2, Lead by Example
Activities and Measures. The decision on which activi-
ties and measures to include is based on how likely
each is to assist states in meeting their overall LBE
goals, as identified when establishing the LBE program
framework (see Chapter 3, Establish the LBE Program
Framework).
4.2 DEVELOP ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
After identifying a broad set of activities and mea-
sures for consideration, states can develop criteria for
determining which to include in their LBE program.
Developing criteria involves balancing priorities and
requirements specific to state needs and circumstances.
Criteria may include:
Energy Savings. States can compare anticipated energy
savings across LBE activities or establish a minimum
threshold, such as a specific percentage contribution
toward an LBE goal.
EXAMPLE-. One criterion used by the Connecticut
Working Group on energy efficiency opportunities at
state facilities is potential energy savings (Department of
Public Utility Control, 2005).
Financial Criteria. Common criteria are payback
periods and life-cycle costs. Funding availability for
candidate LBE activities can also be an important
financial criterion, since states might want to save
money and reduce administrative effort by prioritiz-
ing activities for which funding is readily available or
easily obtained. Some funding mechanisms are avail-
able only for specific activities (e.g., loans for energy
efficiency investments typically cannot be used to fund
green power purchases). (See Section 5.2, Funding
the LBE Program, for more information on funding
mechanisms.)
EXAMPLE: The Colorado Greening Government Plan-
ning and Implementation Guide directs state agencies to
prioritize actions that take into account life cycle costs
and to select the ones with the shortest payback periods
(Colorado, 2006).
Environmental Benefits. Criteria can address key envi-
ronmental concerns, such as requiring LBE activities
to contribute a certain percentage to state government
GHG emission reduction goals.
EXAMPLES-. In Pennsylvania, the Governor's Green Gov-
ernment Council was directed to facilitate government
practices that would reduce state government's emissions
to zero (Pennsylvania, 1998).
A Colorado executive order requires the state Green-
ing Government Coordinating Council to implement
activities that prevent pollution and conserve natural
resources, in addition to saving energy (Colorado, 2005).
1 Economic Development. States can look for activities
that encourage local economic development and job
growth in the state.
EXAMPLE-. For example, an executive order directs the
Oregon Sustainability Board to encourage state LBE
activities that support in-state bio-energy markets (Or-
egon, 2006).
Visibility. Criteria can focus on LBE activities that are
highly visible or are likely to have spillover effects into
the private sector. This can include giving priority to
LBE activities in state facilities (e.g., schools) where
the public has the most contact, or to energy-efficiency
product procurement activities that can stimulate the
local economy and encourage the development of en-
ergy efficiency service markets.
Feasibility. Criteria can be based on likelihood of
success or ease of implementation. Feasibility criteria
can be informed by LBE activities in other states and
may include political feasibility, such as timing (e.g.,
activities that can be implemented within the current
election term) and addressing the clean energy needs
of key stakeholders.
EXAMPLES-. In addition to considering energy savings,
the Connecticut Working Group on energy efficiency
110 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FOUR
-------
opportunities at state facilities identified activities based
on their ability to be implemented immediately (Depart-
ment of Public Utility Control, 2005).
The governor of Pennsylvania directed the Interagency
Task Force on Energy to facilitate activities that foster
strong working relationships with stakeholders (Pennsyl-
vania, 2002).
When developing feasibility criteria, it is helpful to
identify barriers to the state's ability to implement LBE
activities and measures. States can select options for
which barriers are minimal or for which there are clear
strategies for overcoming them. A variety of barriers
are applicable across all LBE activities and measures,
including lack of management commitment, limited
information and knowledge, limited time and staff
availability, lack of comprehensive measurement tools
and methodologies, financial barriers, policy and
political disincentives and issues, and length of time
required for decision-making (NAPEE, 2008).
In addition, states encounter barriers that affect spe-
cific types of LBE activities. Assessing these barriers
can provide states with valuable information when
determining the most appropriate activities to include
in their LBE program. Table 4.2.1 presents a summary
of barriers by type of LBE activity and options for
overcoming them. Additional information on develop-
ing strategies for lowering both activity-specific and
general LBE barriers is provided in Chapter 5, Develop
LBE Program.
4.3 ESTIMATE BENEFITS AND COSTS
OF LBE ACTIVITIES
The next step in screening LBE activities and measures
is conducting an initial estimate of the potential ben-
efits and costs based on the criteria identified above.
The simple screening tools described in this section
can help quantify the energy savings, costs, emis-
sion reductions, and other effects of prospective LBE
options at a level of rigor that is sufficient for initial
purposes.
Prior to using these tools, it is important to gather
baseline information on the energy consumption and
size (e.g., building square footage, number of vehicles)
of state facilities, operations, and fleets, and associ-
ated expenditures. As noted in Section 3.4.1, Establish
LBE Goals, this information may have already been
collected for the purpose of setting LBE goals. For
more information on developing a baseline, see Sec-
tion 6.3, Conduct Energy and Emissions Tracking and
Benchmarking.
Section 4.3.1 presents rules of thumb for obtaining an
initial impression of the quantitative costs and benefits
of prospective LBE activities and measures, and Sec-
tion 4.3.2 summarizes tools to help make further as-
sessments of the effects of LBE activities.
MICHIGAN - FINANCIAL CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPING AN
ENERGY REDUCTION STRATEGY
The Michigan Department of Management and Budget (DMB)
is developing an energy reduction strategy to reduce utility
expenditures by 10% for DMB-managed and owned buildings
by the end of 2008 based on utility expenditures in 2002.
Criteria for determining the overall strategy include:
1 Ensure "low-hanging fruit" has been picked.
1 Focus on improvements that offer 20%-40% rate of return.
1 Strive for a payback of five years of less.
LBE activities selected on the basis of these criteria include:
1 Energy conservation and use reduction measures.
1 Green power renewable energy (purchasing methane landfill
gas).
1 Improved maintenance and upkeep.
1 Procurement and billing management.
1 Renegotiation of energy contracts.
Sources: Michigan, 2005 and 2007.
MASSACHUSETTS STATE SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM:
SELECTION CRITERIA
The Massachusetts Agency Sustainability Planning and
Implementation Guide outlines a wide range of LBE activities
and measures related to:
1 GHG emission reduction strategies.
1 Sustainable design and construction (new and existing
facilities).
1 Environmentally preferable purchasing.
It directs state agencies to prioritize and select LBE measures
based on:
1 Overall cost.
1 Potential environmental impact.
1 Payback period.
1 Ease of implementation.
Source: Massachusetts, 2004.
CHAPTER FOUR | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 111
-------
TABLE 4.2.1. BARRIERS TO INDIVIDUAL LBE ACTIVITIES
LBE Activity
Possible Response
Energy Efficiency
Measures in Existing
Buildings
Leasing, rather than owning, state facilities can be
a barrier to retrofit programs because the building
owner, rather than the state, is responsible for the
building infrastructure. Thus, states have limited
influence on whether energy efficiency measures
are implemented.
Make the case to the building owner and manager
that energy cost savings result from energy
efficiency measures.
Incorporate ENERGY STAR criteria into lease
agreements when they are renegotiated for
renewal
Establish executive orders or legislation to direct
state agencies to give preference to ENERGY STAR
and LEED-certified spaces when pursuing building
spaces for lease.
Energy Efficiency
Measures in New
Buildings / Green
Buildings
High capital costs present a financial hurdle.
Actual energy and cost savings are sometimes less
than anticipated.
Architects and designers may be unwilling to
commit the additional effort needed to make the
integrated design process fully effective.
In some cases it may make sense to incorporate
green principles in a retrofitted building rather
than design a new structure, since it is easier to
access the O&M budget and to make the case
using life-cycle cost analysis.
When making the case for green buildings, use
realistic estimates of benefits.
States can choose to offer designers and architects
energy performance bonuses to be distributed
only if the building meets an agreed-upon
efficiency target.
Consider innovative funding mechanisms, such as
performance contracting.
Energy- Efficient
Product Procurement
Some states require government purchasing
agents to make purchase decisions based on
products with the lowest upfront costs. However,
energy savings from energy-efficient products are
not realized until the products are employed.
Purchasing authority is sometimes dispersed
across agencies.
When mandatory low-bid requirements are in
place, legislative authority may be required to
modify procurement regulations to require life-
cycle costing.
Investigate the possibility of aggregating
purchasing contracts among state agencies.
Green Power
Purchasing
The market can fail to value the benefits of
renewable energy.
Green power is more expensive than conventional
generation.
Externalities are not included in the price of
conventional electricity.
Set targets to ensure green power usage.
Provide recognition for green power users.
Offer exemptions from utility fuel clause
adjustment and future environmental control
costs.
Clean Energy
Generation
New technologies must compete with mature
power generation technologies.
Regulatory disincentives, such as non-uniform
interconnection standards and environmental
permitting, can present barriers to implementing
new clean energy technologies.
Build on knowledge from private sector through
communications outreach.
Establish interagency partnerships to create
leverage on industry.
Establish tax credits and subsidies.
Standardize interconnection standards (i.e., at the
federal level).
112 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FOUR
-------
ADVANTAGES OF USING SIMPLE SCREENING TOOLS
Benefit and cost calculations based on rules of thumb and/or
simple screening tools require relatively little analytical work,
are usually transparent, and are easily adapted to an initial
screening of LBE activities, which may be repeatedly revised
and redefined over the course of the program development
and implementation.
4.3.1 RULES OF THUMB
Rules of thumb can be used to provide rough estimates
of the benefits and costs of prospective LBE programs
and help determine the specific activities and measures
to pursue. These rules of thumb are typically simple
calculations that produce first-order approximations
suitable for an initial screening. While these calcula-
tions require relatively little analytical work and are less
data-intensive than other approaches, they necessarily
provide only approximate, "ballpark" estimates. Cost
and benefit estimates derived from rules of thumb can
vary greatly based, for example, on region, weather
conditions, and other factors. As a result, they are not
typically the sole basis for making final decisions about
which LBE activities to include in a state program and
are rarely, if ever, used to make energy savings claims
in a regulatory setting.
Table 4.3.1 provides rules of thumb for the following
LBE activities:
Energy Efficiency in Buildings
Green Buildings
Energy-Efficient Product Procurement
Green Power Purchases
Clean Energy Generation
4.3.2 PRELIMINARY CLEAN ENERGY ANALYSIS
TOOLS
The rules of thumb described above provide rough
estimates for the purpose of screening LBE activities.
Numerous tools and resources exist for going beyond
these rough numbers to develop more rigorous calcula-
tions of the benefits and costs of LBE activities and
measures. Eleven easy-to-use clean energy analysis
tools, categorized by type of tool, are summarized in
Table 4.3.2. States can use these tools to: 1) help assess
the energy performance of energy efficiency approach-
es being considered in new and existing buildings, 2)
estimate GHG and air pollutant emission reductions,
3) estimate energy savings at the community level, and
4) investigate the financial impacts of efficiency invest-
ments. If states require a higher degree of accuracy or
precision in their results than what is offered by rules
of thumb or preliminary assessment tools, they can fol-
low the suggestions in the text box below (See "Further
Quantitative Analysis").
Estimating the benefits of LBE activities and measures
can be conducted prospectively or retrospectively with
respect to program implementation. The tools and
resources describe in this chapter are prospective
in nature. However, once states have implemented
a suite of activities it is important to look backward
and conduct a retrospective assessment of program
effectiveness. This topic and the related post-imple-
mentation step of tracking the progress of LBE activi-
ties and measures are addressed in detail in Chapter
6. A In addition, Appendix H, State LBE Tracking
Tools and Resources, contains an annotated inventory
of a wide range of tools for tracking energy savings,
environmental emissions, economic benefits and other
clean energy impacts and evaluating LBE programs
and activities
FURTHER QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Ultimately, more extensive analysis may be needed beyond
the rules of thumb and preliminary assessment tools that
provide an initial sense of the costs and benefits of LBE
activities. Because the development of LBE activities is
typically an ongoing, iterative process, further analysis is
useful over time to make revisions to LBE program activities,
design, and implementation, based on program experience
and retrospective evaluations. A detailed analysis requires
assembling extensive data on baseline energy consumption by
state facilities and clean energy generation, including:
Making plausible and transparent assumptions about future
trends for energy consumption.
Considering hiring outside expertise to help conduct the
energy analysis, and using more sophisticated quantitative
assessment tools.
Assessing the amount of time and effort to invest in analysis
- often, there are diminishing returns. The initial investment
provides a large amount of helpful information about the
measures, but reaching the next level of precision may require
considerably more expense and analytical expertise.
Ensuring that the state has its own expertise even if outside
experts conduct the analysis. It is important to understand the
underlying assumptions of the model, assess whether those
assumptions are appropriate to the state, and communicate
results to key stakeholders.
CHAPTER FOUR | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 113
-------
TABLE 4.3.1 RULES OF THUMB
ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS
^^^|^^^9^^^^^^^fl^^^^^^^9
Standard
lighting retrofits:
$0.90-$1.20per
square foot.3
High-efficiency
packaged and
split system A/C
equipment: $100-
$180 per ton more
than standard
efficiency models. b
Premium Efficiency
Motors (incremental
costs vs. standard
replacements):
about $16 per horse
power (HP) forl
HP-10 HP motors;
$8/HPforllHPto
100HP.C
Variable frequency
drives (VFDs): $150-
$200, installedd
Commissioning
new buildings:
$0.50-$3.00 per
square foot.6
Retro-
commissioning
buildings: $0.05 and
$0.40 per square
foot.6
Existing
buildings: overall
consumption
reductions of
20% to 30%, with
reductions as
highas35%-40%,
depending on
aggressiveness.'
Retro-
commissioned
commercial
building: average
savings of 1.7 kWh/
ft2 and average
overall energy
savings of 15%J
Lighting retrofits:
save 10%-20%
of total electric
consumption
in gas-heated
buildings. h
High efficiency
packaged and split-
system cooling
equipment: 25%
less cooling energy
than standard
equipment and
10%-15% less than
ASH RAE standard.'
Building Operator
training: 0.35-1.2
kWh/ft2peryear.k
Existing buildings:
reducing
consumption by
20% to 30% can
produce savings
from 6%-9% of total
annual costs.1
Converting
constant volume
HVAC systems to
variable air volume
systems: can save
between $0.107
ft2 to $0.20/ft2 or
10%-21% of HVAC
energy costs. m
Installing premium
efficiency motors
and VFDs: Potential
energy cost savings
are 50-85%.d
Peak energy-
reducing
measures: produce
proportionally
greater cost savings
than those that
have mostly off-
peak savings.
Commissioning
new buildings:
average savings of
$0.05/ft2.j
Retro-
commissioning
existing buildings:
save around $0.277
ft2, resulting in 15%
energy savings and
a payback period of
0.7years.j
Existing buildings:
improved comfort
and better air
quality can increase
productivity.
Retrofitted
buildings:
Increased savings
from enhanced
productivity can
equal up to 10
times the energy
cost savings."
Existing buildings:
1% productivity
improvements can
offset entire annual
utility costs.0
Existing buildings:
For every $1 spent
in local economy,
energy efficiency
generates 57C- 84C
more economic
activity than does
payment of energy
bills."
Existing Buildings:
energy efficiency
investments can
increase asset value
by$2.00-$3.00for
each $1.00 spent.q
Existing buildings:
a lighting power
reduction of
40% increases
an ENERGY STAR
rating by 10 points.9
Retro-
commissioned
buildings: annual
non-energy savings,
such as extended
equipment life
and improved
air quality, are
approximately
$0.26/ft2.j
see next page for footnote information
114 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FOUR
-------
TABLE 4.3.1 RULES OF THUMB (cont.)
ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN
BUILDINGS FOOTNOTES
a The estimate assumes basic 1-for-l lamp
replacement and 1 electronic ballast per fix-
ture to achieve the same illumination. Lamp
and ballast costs total $20 for T8 - 800
series equipment, V2 hour of labor at $457
hour and 6-foot by 8-foot fixture spacing.
Architectural design assistance and use of
Super-TS lighting can increase costs, but
may result in fewer lamps and fixtures, bet-
ter quality lighting design and greater en-
ergy savings (CEE, 2004).
b California DEER, 2005.
c Arizona Public Service. Premium motor re-
placement program. Based on analysis of
proprietary data conducted by Summit Blue.
d U.S. EPA. Undated(a);
e According to the Federal Energy Manage-
ment Program (FEMP) Operations and
Maintenance Best Practices Guide, retro-
commissioning for an existing building
generally costs between $0.05 and $0.40
per square foot (FEMP, 2004). Median retro-
commissioning costs are $0.27 per square
foot (Mills et al., 2004) with a typical range
of $0.13 - $0.45 per square foot.
f U.S. EPA., Undated(a); U.S. EPA. 2004; U.S.
EPA, 2006h.
9 For a typical building, a lighting power
reduction of 40% increases the building's
ENERGY STAR rating by about 10 points (U.S.
EPA. 2006J).
h Lighting energy comprises 34% of non-
space heat energy in commercial buildings.
Retrofitting T12 lighting with standard T8
systems saves about 32% of lighting power
while delivering the same or improved illu-
mination (Advance Transformer 2005 cata-
log Energy-Savings T12 magnetic ballast and
T8 low-output electronic ballast-different
lamp configurations). Total electric savings
is 34% x 32% = 11%. Older T12 ballasts are
less efficient than new magnetic ballasts;
therefore, retrofitting older systems will
save more than 11% of building electricity.
Lighting retrofits reduce cooling loads and
increase electricity savings, but can increase
heating loads slightly. New lighting designs
can employ delamping, Super-T8 or T5 sys-
tems to increase savings (U.S. DOE, 2006d).
1 Estimate assumes baseline efficiency of 9.2
energy efficiency ratio (EER) (ASHRAE Stan-
dard 90.1-2004 minimum requirements for
air-cooled equipment efficiency) and 12.5
EER for High-efficiency equipment (ASHRAE
90.1, section that permits omission of
economizers due to high efficiency cooling
equipment).
1 A comprehensive study of 106 buildings
conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley Na-
tional Laboratory (LBNL) estimates that
retro-commissioning existing buildings can
produce annual energy savings of 15% and
annual energy cost savings of roughly $0.26
per square foot, depending on the aggres-
siveness of the retrofit. The study also esti-
mates a median retro-commissioning cost
of $0.27 per square foot, 15% energy savings,
and a payback period of approximately 0.7
years, depending on the aggressiveness of
the retrofit (Mills et al., 2004).
k Summit Blue Consulting, 2006.
1 A report by BOMA International and Kingsley
Associates estimates that energy expenses
account for approximately 30% of a build-
ing's total costs. If a building reduced energy
consumption by 20% to 30%, a reasonable
target in many existing buildings, a building's
total annual costs could be reduced by 6%
to 9% (BOMA International and Kingsley As-
sociates, 2006).
mU.S. EPA. 20061.
n EPA estimates that increases in employee
comfort related to improvements in energy
performance can increase productivity in
upgraded buildings. Revenue generated
from this increase in productivity can equal
as much as 10 times the energy cost savings
received from performing upgrades (U.S.
EPA. 2004).
0 In a typical office building, the 30-year life-
cycle costs are overwhelmingly comprised
of personnel costs, with a comparatively
small portion due to initial building capital
or O&M costs. In dollar terms, annual costs
per square foot come to ~$200 for person-
nel, ~$20 for lease/mortgage costs, ~$2 for
utilities, and ~$2 for maintenance. Thus, very
small improvements in staff productivity can
more than compensate for major changes in
the initial capital cost or building O&M. A 1%
improvement in staff productivity equals the
entire utility cost of a typical building (Smith,
2002).
p When money goes toward paying energy
bills, much of it often leaves the state,
whereas when money is spent on other
goods and services (whether it is a clean
energy investment in energy efficiency and
local green energy, or non-energy con-
sumption), much more remains locally,
creating economic growth and jobs within
the state. The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) estimates that for every dollar spent
in local economies, energy efficiency gener-
ates 57C to 84C more economic activity than
does the payment of energy bills (Hatcher
and Dietsche, 2001). The measure of how
much economic activity can be generated
in a community by different combinations
of purchasing and investment is called the
economic multiplier. Depending on regional
characteristics, energy-efficient LBE activi-
ties can have a high economic multiplier.
The California Sustainable Building Task
Force report estimates an economic multi-
plier of 2.23:1 for energy efficiency, meaning
that for every dollar spent on energy effi-
ciency in California, $2.23 is generated (U.S.
DOE, 1996; Kats et al., 2003).
q Simple steps to improve energy efficiency
can have substantial returns. Over a long
time period, reductions from even small en-
ergy efficiency improvements can more than
offset the implementation costs. EPA esti-
mates that investments in energy-efficient
equipment and buildings can increase the
asset value by $2.00 to $3.00 for each $1.00
spent (U.S. EPA. 2004).
CHAPTER FOUR | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 115
-------
TABLE 4.3.1 RULES OF THUMB (cont.)
Green buildings:
cost premiums
average $3/ft2-$5/
ft2, or less than 2% of
initial costs.
New high-
performance green
buildings: cost
premium range from
2%-7%, depending
on the specific
design features
integrated. LEED
green buildings:
additional cost of
certified projects:
0%-2.5%, Silver
0%-3.5%, Gold
0.5%-5%, Platinum
4.5%+ .b
New green
buildings: mean
savings is 27%;
mean value for
actual consumption
is 1% lower than
modeled.d
New green
buildings:
50% reduced
consumption
compared to
conventional new
buildings.6
New green
buildings: energy
cost savings
compared to
conventional design
as high as $0.47/ft2.f
Commissioning new
buildings: average
savings of $0.057
ft2.j
Installing high-
performance
lighting: productivity
improvements of
0.7%-26%witha
median of 3.2%. h
Incorporating
daylighting:
productivity
improvements of
0.45% -40%, mean
of 5.5%. h
Increasing natural
ventilation:
productivity
improvements of
3%- 18%, mean of
8.5%.h
High-performance
buildings: simple
payback period can
be as short as 2.0
years for offices, 2.1
years for libraries,
and 2.6 years for
schools.1
GHG emissions
reductions: as high
as 36%.k
Reduced indoor
and outdoor water
consumption:
30% and 50%,
respectively. k
Reduced waste
consumption:
50%-75%.k
Value of non-energy
benefits: 25%-50%
of the value of
annual electricity
cost savingsJ
a Based on 2002 Green Building Roundtable and Prepared for the U.S. Senate. The report outlines trends, benefits, and barriers to green
building practices (USGBC, 2003; Kats, 2003).
b The premiums for LEED certified green buildings are average ranges (Syphers, 2003).
c Kats et at., 2003.
d A joint study by LBNL, USGBC, U.S. EPA, and U.S. DOE reviewed the modeled and actual energy performance of 21 LEED certified buildings
across the country. Although the mean value for actual consumption was 1% lower than the modeled value, there was a wide variation
around the mean. (Diamond, 2006).
e Consumption can be reduced by as much as 50% in energy-efficient green compared to conventional buildings (U.S. DOE, 2006b). New
York City defines High Performance as 40% more efficient (New York City, 1999). Pennsylvania Cambria Building consumes 50% as much
energy as a conventional new office building (Deru and Hancock, 2003; Ziegler, 2003).
f A study of 33 LEED certified buildings assessed the financial value of the benefits of green building design. The combined financial benefits
were found to be more than 10 times the average initial investment required to design and construct a green building. Energy cost savings
alone were estimated at $0.47/ft2 per year ($5.79/ft2 net present value over 20 years), exceeding the average incremental cost associated
with green buildings. (Kats et at., 2003).
9 Mills et at., 2004.
h Loftness, 2005. A 1.5% increase in productivity (or a little over 7 minutes each workday) is equal to $998 per year, or $4.44/ft2 per year,
assuming an average employee salary of $66,469 and an average space per employee of 225 ft2 (Kats et al, 2003).
' A Minnesota study quantified the benefits of 41 high performance commercial buildings in the state. The study compared their high
performance design to the same (hypothetical) buildings designed to meet minimum requirements of the MN Energy Code (MOEA, 2005).
J From research completed for NYSERDA (Barkett, 2006).
116 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FOUR
-------
TABLE 4.3.1 RULES OF THUMB (cont.)
ENERGY-EFFICIENT PRODUCT PROCUREMENT - ALL PRODUCTS
tnergy savings
tnergy (_osi savings
Energy-efficient as
Energy-efficient product Energy-efficient
opposed to conventional procurement: savings of
products: cost premium 3%-12% of total building
varies with each product, energy consumption.3
but most often the
difference is slight.
product procurement:
energy cost savings of
4%-17% relative to total
commercial energy
costs.3
Emission Reductions
1 MWh of electricity saved:
through energy-efficient
product procurement equals
emissions reductions of: e
1,364 pounds of CC>2
5.6 pounds of SO2
2.2 pounds NOX
a A comprehensive study of energy-efficient product procurement programs for federal, state, and local governments assessed major
energy-use categories including HVAC, office equipment, washers, lighting, motors, and transformers. Basing its assessment on ENERGY
STAR ratings and FEMP guidelines, the study found that diligent energy-efficient product procurement would yield roughly 3% to 12%
energy savings by 2010, relative to total energy consumption. The study also found that energy-efficient product procurement would yield
roughly 4% to 17% energy cost savings by 2010, relative to total energy costs. (Harris and Johnson, 2000).
b Columbia University, Undated. c U.S. EPA. Undated(b). d U.S. EPA. 2004.
e Energy Information Administration, 2005.
ENERGY-EFFICIENT PRODUCT PROCUREMENT - BY TYPE OF PRODUCT
Appliance
Dehumidifiers
October 2006
15%
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
Dishwashers
January 2007
40%
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)b
Refrigerators and freezers
April 2008
15%
4 years (refrigerators)0
6 years (freezers)d
Room air conditioners
November 2005
10%
Not available6
Room air cleaners
July 2004
Battery charging systems
January 2006
45%
Electronics
35%
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
DVD products
January 2003
60%
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
External power adapters
January 2005
35%
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
Televisions
November 2008
25%
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
Roof products
December 2007
Envelope
Not available
< 4 years
Compact fluorescent lamps January 2004
Lighting
75%
< 1 year'
Office Equipment
Computers
July 2007
25% - 50%
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
CHAPTER FOUR | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 117
-------
TABLE 4.3.1 RULES OF THUMB (cont.)
ENERGY-EFFICIENT PRODUCT PROCUREMENT - BY TYPE OF PRODUCT
Copiers
Monitors
Multifunction Devices
Printers, fax machines, and
mailing machines
Scanners
April 2007 65%
July 2007 25%
April 2007 20%
April 2007 15%
April 2007 50%
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
Heating and Cooling
Air source heat pumps
Boilers
Ceiling fans
Furnaces
Geothermal heat pumps
Light commercial HVAC
Ventilating fans
April 2006 5%
April 2002 5%
September 2006 45%
October 2006 15%
April 2001 30%
January 2004 5%
October 2003 70%
< 5 years
< lyear
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
< 3 years
< 5 years for new construction
< lyear
0 years (typically no retail cost premium)
Commercial Food Service
Commercial dishwashers
Commercial fryers
Commercial ice makers
Commercial solid door
refrigerators and freezers
October 2007 30%
August 2003 15%
January 2008 25% - 30%
September 2001 35%
2 years
2 years (for typical unit)
4 years (for typical unit)
lyear
Water coolers
Vending machines
May 2004
April 2004
August 2006
(rebuilt machines)
45 % 0 years (typically
40%
no retail cost premium)
< lyear
a EPA and DOE develop performance-based specifications to identify efficient products in the market place that will be cost-effective to
the consumer and will offer the expected functionality. These specifications, which are used as the basis for ENERGY STAR qualification,
are developed using a systematic process that relies on market, engineering, and pollution savings research and input from industry
stakeholders. Specifications are revised periodically to be more stringent, which has the effect of increasing overall market energy
efficiency (U.S. EPA, 2007).
b U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE, 2007c. c U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE, 2007b. d U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE, 2007a.
e U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE, 2007d.
U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE, 2008.
118 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FOUR
-------
TABLE 4.3.1 RULES OF THUMB (cont.)
GREEN POWER PURCHASES
Green power, about 2C/kWh. Premiums vary by
utility but range from 0.2C/kWh-17.6C/kWha
Renewable energy certificates (RECs): IC/kWh
(in ME) -about 5C/kWh (in MA). Solar REC prices
in NJ are the highest at 25C/kWhb
RECs offered by a certificate marketer: 0.5C/
kWh -7.5C/kWh, with an average of 2.3C/kWh.
RECs are also available at $5.50/ton CO2 to $127
ton CO2, with an average of $9.80/ton CO2C
N/A
Utility green power
programs: For some
utility green power
programs, the premium
can be negative, thus
reducing energy bills.
These premiums have
been as low as -0.13C/
kWha
Purchasing 1 MWh of green power is
equivalent to:d
0.14 passenger cars not driven for one year;
0.52 acres of pine or fir forests storing
carbon for one year;
16 tree seedlings grown for 10 years;
0.21 tons of waste recycled instead of
landfilled; and
71 gallons of gasoline.
a Premiums vary by utility provider. Premiums for the Xcel Energy's WindSource program, the OG&E Electric Services' OG&E Wind Power
program, and Austin Energy's GreenChoice program have all been negative at times (U.S. DOE, 2006c).
b LBNL compiled data from Evolution Markets for average monthly REC prices from August 2002 to December 2006 (Wiser, 2007).
c U.S. DOE, 2006c.
d The environmental impacts of green power purchasing can be better understood by translating emission reductions into tangible real-
world concepts - for example, converting pounds of CO2 avoided into an equivalent number of cars removed from the road or trees
planted. The fossil fuel electricity generation emission factor used for CO2is 1,380 pounds per MWh. (U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation
Gateway, 2006).
CLEAN ENERGY SUPPLY
Small-scale CHP plant: installed cost of
S1.60/W for systems less than 500 kW, and
about $1/W for systems between 0.5 MW and
5 MW.a Installed costs for on-site CHP systems
average around S2.90/W in California.b
Solarphotovoltaics: average shipment price
in 2004 was S3.00/W; the average price in
2005 was $3.20/W.C Total costs, including the
inverter, installation, and balance of system
range from $6-$9 per peak Watt.d Installed
costs for PV modules average around S8.70/W
in California and S7.90/W in New Jersey.b
Small wind turbine: including installation,
ranges from $14,700-$20,800 for a low-
range model; $28,100-$59,600 for a mid-
range model; and $105,000 and $115,000,
respectively, for two elite models.6 Installed
costs for on-site wind generation average
around $3.60/W in California.b
CHP systems: energy savings as
highas40%.f
10 kW solar PV system:
generates 9,700 kWh/year to
16,800 kWh/year, depending on
the location of the system.9
Wind turbine with 84-foot
tower and 7-foot diameter
(rated at 900 W): generates 96
kWh/month at an average wind
speed of 10 mph and 155 kWh/
month at 12 mph.e
Wind turbine with 140-foot
tower and 50-foot diameter
(rated at 65 kW): generates
3,674 kWh/month at 10 mph
and5,992kWh/monthat!2
mph.e
CHP systems: as high
as 40% of the cost of
operating separate heat
and power systems.'
CHP systems: equivalent
to about 2.6 Ibs NOX/
MWh, 5.8 Ibs SOx/MWh,
and 1,200 Ibs CO2/MWh.'
10 kW solar PV system:
from about $600-$1,400
per year, depending on
the geographic location
of the system.9
900Wwind turbine: cost
savings range from $97
mo.-$14/mo per installed
turbine.h
10 kW solar PV system:
from 12,000 lbs-20,000
Ibs of CO2,10 lbs-90 Ibs
of SOX, and 4 Ibs- 90 Ibs
of NOX per year.j
65 kW wind turbine:
range from $330/mo
-$540/mo. Per installed
turbine.h
Single 10-meter wind
turbine with 750 kW
capacity with wind
speeds ranging between
12.5 and 13.4 mph: 2.36
million Ibs of CO2,13,800
Ibs of SOX, and 8,600 Ibs
of NOxin one year.k
see next page for footnote information
CHAPTER FOUR | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 119
-------
TABLE 4.3.1 RULES OF THUMB (cont.)
CLEAN ENERGY SUPPLY
FOOTNOTES
a ACEEE, 1995. Costs escalated to 2007 as-
suming 2% annual inflation.
b Installed costs from a review of on-site gen-
eration programs in NJ and CA - the two
states with the most installed solar in the
U.S. From the public Statewide Self Genera-
tion Incentive Program Data (SGIP, 2007).
Also used in the analysis completed for the
Self Generation Incentive Program: Program
Administrator Comparative Assessment
(Cooney and Thompson, 2007). Information
about the New Jersey Customer On-Site
Renewable Energy Program is available at
http://www.njcep.com/.
c EIA, 2006. In dollars per peak Watt.
d ASES, 2007.
e On-site wind electricity production reduces
the amount of conventional fossil fuel used
as an energy source. On-site generation
capacity depends on the particular turbine
model and the wind speed available at a par-
ticular site. The Wisconsin Focus on Energy
initiative has compiled a table of 14 small
wind turbine models ranked by electricity
generation potential. The smallest of these
models, which has an 84-foot tower and an
area sweep of 36.9 ft2, can produce 96 kWh/
month at an average wind speed of 10 mph
and 155 kWh/month at 12 mph. The largest
model, which has a 140-foot tower and a
sweep of 1,963 ft2, can produce 3,674 kWh/
month at 10 mph and 5,992 kWh/month at
12 mph. The cost of the 12 smaller systems,
including installation, ranges from $14,700
to $20,800 for a low-range model; $28,100
to $59,600 for a mid-range model; and
$105,000 and $115,000, respectively, for two
elite models (Wisconsin Focus on Energy,
2005).
f CHP systems are typically 40% more effi-
cient than separate heat and power genera-
tion systems, meaning CHP systems require
40% less source energy to achieve the same
output that conventional separate systems
achieve (U.S. EPA, 2006b).
9 This estimate assumes a PV system with a
DC rating of 10 kW, a DC to AC derate factor
of 0.77, an array tilt equal to the latitude of
Seattle and Albuquerque in degrees, an array
azimuth of 180°, and cost of electricity rang-
ing from 6C/kWh to 9.0C/kWh. Calculations
were obtained using the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) PV Watts calcula-
tor (RReDC, 2006)]. Analysis was run for Se-
attle, WA and Albuquerque, NM for low and
high exposure, respectively.
h Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate
Customers by End-Use Sector, Year-to-Date
through January 2007 and 2006. Average
for 2006 for the commercial sector was
about 9 cents/kWh (EIA, 2007).
1 Combined heat and power systems provide
substantial percentage reductions in total
emissions amounts. Emissions factors from
the EGrid annual average (U.S. EPA, 2006f).
J Emissions for solar PV systems estimated us-
ing the California Energy Commission Clean
Power Estimator. Assumptions included a
10 kW ac system, 30 degree tilt. Southern
orientation, and 20% PV output adjustment
factor. Analysis was run in Seattle, WA and
Albuquerque, NM for low and high exposure,
respectively. (CEC, 2007b).
k The American Wind Energy Association esti-
mates that operating a single 10-meter wind
turbine with a 750 kW capacity for one year,
with wind speeds ranging between 12.5 and
13.4 mph, can displace a total of 2.36 million
pounds of CO2,13,800 pounds of SOX, and
8,600 pounds of NOX that would otherwise
be emitted through the generation of con-
ventional energy (Wisconsin Focus on En-
ergy, 2005). Note that the emissions factors
in the first bullet of the 'Emissions Reduc-
tions' column (EPA, 2006f) can be applied to
other sizes of wind turbine, if energy output
is available.
TABLE 4.3.2 CLEAN ENERGY ANALYSIS TOOLS
Tools/Organization Type Description Inputs
Outputs URL/Source
Tools for Assessing Building Performance
Portfolio
Manager
(ENERGY STAR)
Web-based
tool
• Enables states to • Facility space type. ENERGY STAR energy
rate their facilities' ., . , . performance rating
Meter information. „ „„.
energy performance (1-100).
and identify priority
opportunities.
• Assists states in
applying for the
ENERGY STAR label
for facilities scoring
75 or higher.
• Energy type.
Energy use.
• Portfolio profile,
including information
on status, progress.
financials.
performance.
environment, and
energy intensity.
http://www.energystar.
gov/index.cfm?c =
evaluate_performance.
bus_portfoliomanager
120 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FOUR
-------
TABLE 4.3.2 CLEAN ENERGY ANALYSIS TOOLS (cont.)
Tools/Organization Type Description Inputs Outputs URL/Source
Target Finder
(ENERGY STAR)
Web-based
tool
• Allows states to Facility location. Projected ENERGY
assess the design of type, size, STAR energy
new buildings and occupancy, number performance rating
compare simulations of computers, and (1-100).
with existing
buildings, based on
data provided.
• Helps set energy
performance goals
operating hours per
week.
• Energy target rating
• Projected energy
reduction (%) (from
an average building).
or energy reduction „ .
• Projected energy use
target, energy source, . .
and receive an energy estimated energy
rating for design usage, and energy
projects.
rate.
iniensi w.
• Projected annual
source energy use.
• Projected site energy
use.
• Projected energy
http://www.energystar.
gov/index.cfm?c =
new_ bldg_ design .
bus_ target_finder
costs.
Small Business Web-based • Estimates a facility's Facility size.
Calculator
(ENERGY STAR)
Life-Cycle
calculator energy intensity and ,_ .,.
. , Facility type.
potential energy
cost savings from
Computer
upgrades.
Enables states to
• Energy intensity
(energy used per
square foot).
Previous 12 months ^_1...1:_, .
energy bill figures.
roiennai cost
savings from energy
efficiency upgrades.
http://www.energystar.
gov/index.cfm?c =
small_business.sb_
calculate
• Initial and contract • Costs and benefits http://wwwl.
Cost Program software evaluate alternative costs
(National
Institute of
Standards/
Technology)
designs that may have
... .... Base-year energy
higher initial costs,
rnctc
using a life-cycle
costing method.
of energy and water
conservation and
renewable energy
projects.
• Maintenance and
repair costs.
• Time period.
1 • bmissions inputs.
Economic analyses
(net savings, savings-
to-investment
ratio, rate of return.
eere.energy.gov/
femp/informa tion/
download_blcc.html
payback period).
Emission Inventory Tools
Clean Air Computer • Tracks emission
and Climate
Protection
Software
(National
Association
of Clean Air
Agencies)
• Fuel and energy use Equivalent GHG
software reductions and by type of source emissions from fuel
forecasts emissions (e.g., coal, solar, and electricity use.
Greenhouse Gas Web-based
Equivalencies
Calculator (U.S.
EPA)
from proposed wind).
reduction measures.
Sector information
presented in reports
outlined by sector, by
location, by source.
Develops government ,_ . . . ,.
,. . Emissions factors or by indicator.
baseline inventory. ,
(default provided)
http://www.
cacpsoftware. org/
• Translates GHG • Quantity of emission Gallons of gasoline http://www.epa.gov/
calculator reductions into reductions (e.g., not consumed. | cleanenergy/energy-
terms that are easier metric tons of CO2
to conceptualize. equivalent).
States can also use
the calculator "in
reverse."
• kWh of electricity not
consumed.
• Number of cars and
light trucks not driven
in one year.
resources/calcula tor.
html
CHAPTER FOUR | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 121
-------
TABLE 4.3.1 RULES OF THUMB (cont.)
Tools/Organization Type Description
e-GRID(U.S. 1 Online
EPA)
State Inventory
database
Interactive
• Allows states to
obtain information on
power plants.
Develop emissions
inventories for
buildings.
Enables states
Tool (U.S. EPA) spread-sheet to develop GHG
Emissions
Forecasting
Tool (U.S. EPA)
emissions inventories
Interactive
• Enables states to
spread-sheet forecast business-
as-usual emissions
through 2020
Inputs Outputs URL/Source
Year of data. NOX,SO2,CO2,
• Plant(s) or state(s) of and mercury, with
interest emissions reported
in tons, input and
output rates.
• Generation resources
mix, in MWh and
percentage.
• State-specific data • Comprehensive GHG
(pre-loaded default emissions inventory
data used otherwise) covering multiple
industry sources
h ttp://www.epa.gov/
cleanen ergy/egrid/
index.htm
h ftp://www.epa.gov/
clima techange/wycd/
s ta teandlocalgov/
analyticaltools.html
• State assumptions • Estimation of future http://www.epa.gov/
relating to future emissions through
growth and linear extrapolation of
clima techange/wycd/
s ta teandlocalgov/
consumption patterns State Inventory Tool analyticaltools.html
output and federal
forecasts
1^ ^UjWIiUly^H
Community Web-based • Helps identify
Energy calculator potential community
Opportunity benefits resulting
Finder (Rocky
Mountain
Institute)
from energy
efficiency upgrades
and renewable energy
opportunities.
Community • Energy savings.
and building
characteristics.
• Building energy
consumption.
Energy costs.
• Emissions data.
.
Dollar savings.
• Reductions in
CO2, NOx,and SO2
emissions.
• Job creation.
http://www.
energyfinder.org
Financial and Economic Analysis Tool
Cash Flow Web-based
Calculates the
Opportunity calculator amount of equipment
Calculator that can be purchased
(ENERGY STAR)
using anticipated
savings.
• Compares costs of
financing and waiting
for cash.
Facility size.
• Suggested spending
on energy efficiency
• Energy costs and 2
savings target
_. . , Potential lost savings
• Financing rate and
due to waiting
term
one year to avoid
% savings to be
committed to
upgrades.
financing.
• Potential cost of
waiting for better
http://www.energystar.
gov/ia/business/cfo_
calculator.xls
interest rate.
4.4 SELECT LBE ACTIVITIES AND
MEASURES
Once states have assembled information on the ob-
jectives, assessment criteria, barriers, and estimated
program impacts of each activity/measure, they can
analyze these data to determine which LBE activities
and measures to include in their initial LBE portfolio.
Table 4.4.1 presents a sample spreadsheet that states
can use to help make this recommendation. This ap-
proach is intended to illustrate just one approach for
comparing and assessing alternative LBE activities. In-
dividual jurisdictions may prefer to develop their own
analytic tools to help with this purpose.
122 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FOUR
-------
4.5 STATE EXAMPLES OF SCREENING
LBE ACTIVITIES AND MEASURES
The activities and measures included in LBE programs
across the country vary according to the state's specific
goals, assessment criteria, and the screening methods
used. The following examples illustrate a variety of ap-
proaches that states have used to identify the activities
and measures in their LBE portfolios.
Utah—Energy Efficiency Policy Options: a Method for
Screening Options
The Utah Governor announced a goal of increasing
energy efficiency in the state by 20% in 2015. This goal
covers all sectors and applies to all forms of energy
use. The state commissioned an analysis of 23 potential
policies, programs, and initiatives for consideration
in meeting its goal, including the following three LBE
initiatives:
Adopt energy efficiency requirements for state agen-
cies, including universities and colleges. Support en-
ergy efficiency for local government and K-12 Schools,
including the expansion of Utah's Revolving Loan
Fund.
Implement energy efficiency education in K-12
schools.
Each option was screened according to the following
criteria:
Energy savings per year (measured against a business-
as-usual baseline)
Cost and cost effectiveness (measured by net economic
benefit)
Environmental and social benefits
Political and other considerations
Based on this analysis, each option was assigned a
priority level of high, medium, or low. The first option,
adopting energy efficiency requirements for state agen-
cies, received a "high priority" rating and was recom-
mended for consideration by the governor and other
key decision makers. The remaining options were
rated as medium priority, and were not recommended
for further consideration. (Geller et al., 2007.)
Web site: http://energy.utah.gov/energy/utah_energy_
efficiency_strategy.html
Vermont—State Agency Energy Plan for State
Government
The Vermont Department of Buildings and General
Services created the Comprehensive Environmental
and Resource Management Program in 2003 to ensure
sustainable state government operations. This program
was the impetus for legislative changes leading to a re-
vised State Agency Energy Plan for State Government
issued in 2005. The plan stresses the importance of
selecting and implementing LBE actions that:
Reduce state operating costs through energy savings
Reduce environmental impacts
Sustain existing and create new Vermont businesses
that develop, produce, or market environmentally pref-
erable products
Demonstrate the economic benefits of clean energy
activities to other states and to the private sector.
The plan focuses on the three programs listed below.
State agencies are required to develop agency imple-
mentation plans that describe the actions they will take
to comply with each of these programs, as appropriate
to their operations.
New and existing building infrastructure development,
including O&M practices in existing infrastructure.
The mid-term goal is to reduce energy consumption in
existing and new state buildings and correctional facili-
ties by 20%. State agencies are required to implement
the following ten steps for each existing building: 1)
benchmarking, 2) low cost/no cost use-habits, O&M
improvements, 3) energy audits, 4) additional low cost/
no cost use-habits and O&M measures, 5) technical
energy analysis, 6) funding analysis and grants po-
tential investigations and applications, 7) ranking and
selection of energy savings measures (ESMs) that have
associated costs, 8) schedule/streaming, 9) construc-
tion or implementation and commissioning, 10) moni-
toring and evaluation. In step 7, the plan recommends
prioritizing ESMs according to the following criteria:
• ESMs in buildings with sub-standard energy perfor-
mance should receive the highest priority.
Best cost-benefit, life cycle cost
Lowest simple payback
Highest gross energy savings ranking
Renewable energy projects receive priority, when
feasible
CHAPTER FOUR | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 123
-------
in
.2
S
IU
'i/i
(O
V
o
o
(fl
I
01
CD
4)
U
W
_
Ł
S
4)
i
O
o
o
til
w
IU
\
\.
«!.
X
r«
\.
VV\
^•v'»
%/ « i1
1 ffflll
E o = i ~Ł ti5
Ł 15 > -Ł ra ^
Ł "S :? S t ^
III III
1 °i 3
lit
S S °
= o> ^
If It
• c -J^ S
i ifi a,
l s 1 S
« aj c: ^J
I l|l II
i (u E ra ia
1 III
I s&j
If!
c
=
1
costing iienily $3
=
tt
o
2
95 totals appiox
i
o
1
1
s
=
1
0
s>
i
5
i
1
If
; -s
U
i 2
J H=
i
'
•4
f
>
c
,^
1
1
r
c
'
9
>
c
c
•i
1
1
;
c
4
1
3-
.
>
^
i
c
C1
1
1
4
1
'
7
|P
>
c
C
J
1
1
]
c
s|
3
S1
h
>
•
^
>
C1
r
"1
^
•;
3
J
C
fl
41
c o
n
li
•e
•c o
II
II
2 S
~ 3
o E
&m
^ m
e s
124 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FOUR
-------
Availability of grant money
Highest public visibility and educational benefits.
New construction and major renovations must be
conducted according to the following five-step process:
1) planning and design, 2) construction and com-
missioning, 3) facility operation and maintenance, 4)
training occupants about how the building functions
and required usage protocols that optimize comfort
and energy efficiency, and 5) monitoring energy usage
and adjusting usage protocols.
State purchasing and contract administration policies
and practices. The plan establishes a general commodi-
ties purchasing policy to encourage the purchase of
environmentally preferable products. This policy also
encourages economically sound purchases by consider-
ing the total life cycle cost of these purchases.
Transportation activities relating to fleet vehicles,
personal vehicles, and employee commuter driving
practices. Transportation policies cover the state fleet
(passenger cars, light duty trucks, and heavy duty
trucks) and employee commutes to and from work.
The plan sets an initial target of 10% reduction in en-
ergy and anticipates that more aggressive targets may
be set individually by agencies or departments. Energy
reduction strategies include: minimizing personal
vehicle reimbursed mileage opportunities, right-sizing
vehicles, instituting vehicle maintenance procedures,
ensuring that purchasing decisions require fleet ve-
hicles to be among the most fuel-efficient and lowest
emission vehicle models in each class, adopting strate-
gies to reduce on-the-job miles, instituting no-idling
campaigns and policies, and encouraging alternative
reduced-emission fuels or fuels that reduce emissions
of greenhouse gases. (Vermont, 2005.)
Web site: http://www.bgs.vermont.gov/sites/bgs/files/
pdfs/BGS-CERMP.pdf
Wisconsin Energy Initiative—A Phased Approach to
Implementing Energy Efficiency in State Buildings
Wisconsin instituted the Wisconsin Energy Initiative
(WEI) in 1992 to comprehensively address energy
savings opportunities, with a goal of reducing energy
use in state buildings by 15%. The state Department
of Administration (DOA) hired an ESCO to conduct
audits of energy use in state facilities and to implement
improvements in the following order:
Installation of Energy-Efficient Lighting in State-
owned Building Space. Lighting was replaced first, in
part because it was easiest to implement and could
be funded from the maintenance budget. Another
reason for targeting lighting first is that it is important
to upgrade the lighting system early in the building
upgrade process to have a significant impact on how
other building systems (especially heating and cool-
ing systems) use energy.1 To help gain buy-in and
demonstrate that lighting quality is comparable to that
of less efficient options, the first lighting replacement
was completed without prior notice on the floor where
state office engineers were located. Subsequently, aging
electrical ballasts and lighting fixtures were replaced
one building or campus at a time. More than 700,000
fluorescent T-8 lamps, 350,000 ballasts, and tens of
thousands of exit signs and CFLs were installed, result-
ing in annual energy savings of over $5 million.
Installation of Energy Efficient Lighting in Local
Schools and Municipal Facilities. In this phase, the
DOA worked with the Cooperative Educational School
Agencies (CESAs) to leverage private funds to improve
energy conservation in schools across the state.
Upgrading Mechanical Equipment. The state entered
into performance contracts to upgrade HVAC, other
mechanical equipment, and water-saving devices
in state buildings, campuses and other institutions.
Improvements included lighting occupancy sensors,
stream traps, air handling and distribution systems,
and ultra-low flow toilets. More difficult and time-
consuming than improving lighting, DOA estimated
that this phase would save enough energy to heat
10,000 Wisconsin homes and reduce state expenditures
by $6.8 million annually.
Upgrading Specifications for New Buildings. DOA
also upgraded its specifications for new buildings to
include the most up-to-date energy-savings and green
technologies, including daylighting, building automa-
tion systems, heat recovery systems, and co-generation.
(Wisconsin 2002; Mapp et al., 2006; Mapp, 2007.)
Web site: http://www.doa.state.wi.us/press_releases_
detail, asp ?prid= 123 &divid=4
1 For more information on the staged approach to upgrad-
ing buildings for energy efficiency, see EPAs ENERGY STAR
Building Upgrade Manual at http://www.energystar.gov/
index.cfm?c=business.bus_upgrade_manual.
CHAPTER FOUR | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 125
-------
Nevada—Energy Conservation Plan for State
Government
In its State of Nevada Energy Conservation Plan for
State Government, the state's Office of Energy outlined
its plan for implementing measures to reduce both
total energy usage and peak energy loads in state build-
ings. Measures were identified based on whether they
could be implemented immediately in the short term,
or in the long term, as follows:
Immediate Measures: measures that can be performed
at the present time requiring no additional funding or
legislative support. These include behavior modifica-
tion measures such as:
Turn off lights when leaving a room
Turn down heaters for the night
Eliminate unnecessary appliances
Keep lighting fixtures, filters, and heating and cool-
ing coils clean.
Short-term Measures: measures that can be performed
within the fiscal year requiring no funding in addi-
tion to current budgets and/or legislative support,
including:
Replace incandescent bulbs with CFLs
Acquire photocells to automatically turn lights on
and off
Clean and maintain filters, coils, and vents
Long-term Measures: measures that cannot be accom-
plished within the fiscal year and/or require additional
funding or legislative support, including:
• Perform energy audits on all buildings
Incorporate energy efficiency guidelines for all new
construction and building retrofits
• Purchase only ENERGY STAR equipment (Nevada,
2001.)
Web site: http://energy.state.nv.us/conservation%20
plan%20for%20state%20government.pdf
REFERENCES
ACEEE. 1995. Small-Scale Cogeneration—CADDET
1. Available: http://www.aceee.org/store/proddetail.cf
m?CFID=1432925&CFTOKEN=15743820&ItemID=6
5&CategoryID=10. Accessed 5/10/2007.
Arizona. 2006. Arizona Revised Statutes Title
34—Public Buildings and Improvements, Chapter 4
Structure of Buildings, Article 3, Energy Conservation
and Solar Design Standards. Available: http://www.
azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=34.
Accessed 4/26/2007.
ASES. 2007. Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.:
Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 2030. Available:
www.ases.org/climatechange. Accessed 5/9/07.
Barkett, B., N. Wobus, R. Freeman, D. Violette,
S. Dimetrosky. 2006. Non-Energy Impacts (NEI)
Evaluation: Final Report. Summit Blue Consulting and
Quantec.
Bird, L. and K. Cardinal. 2004. Trends in Utility Green
Pricing Programs (2003). NREL Technical Report
TP-620-336833. NREL, Golden, CO. Available: http://
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40777.pdf. Accessed
12/14/2006.
• BOM A International and Kingsley Associates.
2006. BOMA Kingsley Quarterly. Practical Industry
Intelligence for Commercial Real Estate. The Green
Issue Spring 2006. Available: http://www.energystar.
gov/ia/business/comm_real_estate/downloads/
BOMAKingsleyNewsletter.pdf. Accessed 12/12/2006.
California DEER. 2005. California Database for
Energy-Efficient Resources. Available: http://www.
energy.ca.gov/deer/. Accessed 5/10/2007.
• CEC. 2000. Energy Accounting: A Key Tool
in Managing Energy Costs. California Energy
Commission. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/
reports/effidency_handbooks/400-00-001B.PDF.
Accessed 1/2/2007.
CEC. 2002. California Distributed Energy Resource
Guide. DER Equipment. Photovoltaic Systems.
California Energy Commission. Available: http://www.
energy.ca.gov/distgen/equipment/photovoltaic/cost.
html. Accessed 12/14/2006.
126 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FOUR
-------
CEC. 2004. California Distributed Energy Resource
Guide. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/distgen/
equipment/chp/performance.html. Accessed 1/17/2007.
CEC. 2007. Clean Power Estimator. Available: httf:ll
www.dean-power.com/cec/default.asp. Accessed
5/1/2007.
CEE. 2004. High-Performance Commercial Lighting
Systems Initiative. Available: http://www.ceel.org/com/
com-ltfcom-lt-id.pdf. Accessed 5/10/2007.
Colorado. 2005. Executive Order D005-05: Greening
of State Government. Available: http://www.colorado.
gov/governor/eos/d00505.pdf. Accessed 4/26/2007.
Colorado. 2006. State of Colorado Greening
Government Planning and Implementation
Guide. Available: http://www.colorado.gov/
greeninggovernment/guide/Guide.pdf. Accessed
4/26/2007.
• Columbia University. Undated. Environmental
Stewardship: Guide to Green Computing. Available:
http://www.environment.columbia.edu/docs-wycd/
green_guide/Purchasing.html. Accessed 5/10/2007.
Cooney, K., P. Thompson. 2007. Self Generation
Incentive Program: Program Administrator
Comparative Assessment. Summit Blue Consulting.
Department of Public Utility Control. 2005. Report
to Governor M. Jodi Rell on Energy Efficiency
Opportunities at State Facilities. Department of Public
Utility Control, Office of Consumer Counsel, Energy
Conservation Management Board. Available: http://
www. neep. orglnewsletter/I Q2005/Report_to_Gov_
Rell_05.pdf. Accessed 1/12/2007.
Deru, M. and E. Hancock. 2003. Preliminary
Energy Analysis of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection's Cambria Office Building.
NREL/TP-550-33106. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Ebensburg, PA. Available: http://www.nrel.
gov/docs/fy03osti/33106.pdf. Accessed: 12/14/2006.
Diamond, R., Opitz, M., Hicks, T., Vonneida, B.,
Herrera, S. 2006. Evaluating the energy performance
of the first generation of LEED-certified commercial
buildings. Proceedings of ACEEE 2006 Summer Study.
LBNL-59853. Available: http://epb.lbl.gov/homepages/
Rick_Diamond/LBNL59853-LEED.pdf. Accessed
5/10/2007.
Energy Information Administration. 2005. Electric
Power Annual with data for 2005. Available: http://
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html.
Accessed 5/10/2007.
Energy Information Administration. 2006. Solar
Thermal and Photovoltaic Collector Manufacturing
Activities 2005. Table 50. Available: http://www.eia.
doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/solarreport/solar.
html. Accessed 5/4/2007.
Energy Information Administration. 2007. Electric
Power Monthly. April. Available: http://www.eia.doe.
gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum. html. Accessed
5/1/2007.
•FEMP. 2004. O&M Best Practices, A Guide to
Achieving Operational Efficiency. Release 2.0. Federal
Energy Management Program. Available: http://wwwl.
eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/omguide_complete.pdf.
Accessed 12/12/2006.
FEMP. 2007. Building Life Cycle Cost (BLCC)
Program. Federal Energy Management Program.
Available: http://wwwl. eere. energy.gov/femp/
information/'download_blcc.html. Accessed 4/5/2007.
Geller, H., Baldwin, S., Case, P., Emerson, K., Langer,
T., and S. Wright. 2007. Utah Energy Efficiency
Strategy: Policy Options. October. Available: http://
www.swenergy.org/pubs/UT_Energy_Efficiency_
Strategy.pdf. Accessed 11/27/2007.
Harris, J. and F. Johnson. 2000. Potential Energy, Cost,
and CO2 Savings from Energy-Efficient Government
Purchasing. In Proceedings, 2000 ACEEE Summer
Study.
Hatcher, K. and T. Dietsche. 2001. Manage Energy
Uncertainty: Use Quick Financing for Energy
Efficiency Projects. Available: http://www.energystar.
gov/ia/business/government/Hatcherarticle.pdf.
Accessed 12/12/2006.
Illinois. 2005. 30 Illinois Compiled Statutes 500/45-60.
Available: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.
asp?ChapAct=30 ILCS 500/&ActName=Illinois%20
Procurement%20Code.&ChapterName=FINANCE&C
hapterID=7&ActID=532. Accessed 4/26/2007.
Kats, G. 2003. Green Building Costs and Financial
Benefits. Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
Available: http://www.masstech.org/renewableenergy/
green_buildings/GreenBuildingspaper.pdf. Accessed
5/1/2007.
CHAPTER FOUR | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 127
-------
Kats, G., L. Alevantis, A. Herman, E. Mills, and J.
Perlman. 2003. The Costs and Financial Benefits of
Green Buildings: A Report to California's Sustainable
Building Task Force. October. Available: http://
www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/News477.pdf. Accessed
12/12/2006.
Loftness, V., V. Hartkopf, B. Gurtekin. 2005. Building
Investment Decision Support (BIDS): Cost Benefit
Tool to Promote High Performance Components,
Flexible Infrastructures, and Systems Integration for
Sustainable Commercial Buildings and Productive
Organizations. Carnegie Mellon University Center
for Building Performance and Diagnostics. Available:
http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/BIDS_color.pdf.
Accessed 5/9/2007.
Mapp, J., Bair, N., and B. Smith (Wisconsin Division
of Energy). 2006. State Government Buildings:
Meeting the ENERGY STAR Challenge. 2006. ACEEE
Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
Mapp, J. 2007. Personal conversation with Jim Mapp,
Energy Star Coordinator, Wisconsin Division of
Energy Services. November 1.
Massachusetts. 2004. Agency Sustainability Planning
and Implementation Guide. Available: http://www.
ncprojectgreen.com/Documents/AgencySusGuide.pdf
Accessed 4/26/2007 and 11/24/2008.
• Massachusetts. 2006. Personal communication with
Eric Friedman and Ian Finalyson, Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs. June 1, 2006.
Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth,
Energy Office. 2007. State Facility Energy Efficiency.
Available: http://www. michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-
154-25676_25689_33337—,OO.html. Accessed
11/24/2007.
Michigan Department of Management and Budget.
2005. Energy Efficiency in State Government. October
4. Available: http://www.mwalliance.org/image/docs/
conference/2005_MEEA_conf_doc-28.pdf. Accessed
11/19/2007.
Mills, E., H. Friedman, T. Powell, N. Bourassa,
D. Claridge, T. Haasl, and M.A. Piette. 2004.
The Cost-Effectiveness of Commercial-Buildings
Commissioning. A Meta-Analysis of Energy and
Non-Energy Impacts in Existing Buildings and New
Construction in the United States. LBNL-56637.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. December.
Available: http://eetd. lbl.gov/EMills/PUBS/Cx-Costs-
Benefits.html. Accessed 12/12/2006.
•MOEA. 2005. High Performance Building Design in
Minnesota. Available: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/
oea/publications/highperformance-weidt.pdf. Accessed
3/7/2007.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (NAPEE).
2008. Sector Collaborative on Energy Efficiency
Accomplishments and Next Steps. July. Accessed:
September 5, 2008. Available: http://www.epa.gov/
cleanenergy/documents/sector_collaborative.pdf
•Nevada. 2001. State of Nevada Energy Conservation
Plan for State Government. April 13. Available: http://
energy.state.nv.us/conservation%20plan%20for%20
state%20government.pdf. Accessed 11/21/2007.
New York City. 1999. High Performance Building
Guidelines. Available: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ddc/
html/ddcgreen/. Accessed 1/18/2007.
North Carolina. 2005. State Energy Office Utility
Savings Initiative Web Site. Available: http://www.
energync.net/programs/usi.html. Accessed 12/24/2007.
NREL. 2003. Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource
Technology Characterizations. Available: http://
www.eea-inc.com/dgchp_reports/TechCharNREL.pdf.
Accessed 12/14/2006.
Oregon. 2006. Executive Order No. 06-02:
Sustainability for the 21st Century. Available: http://
sustainableoregon. net/sust_act/2006_exec_order. cfm.
Accessed 4/26/2007.
Pennsylvania. 1998. Executive Order 1998-1:
Governor's Green Government Council. Available:
http://www.gggc.state.pa.us/gggc/lib/gggc/
documents/1998-1.pdf. Accessed 4/26/2007.
Pennsylvania. 2002. Executive Order 2002-8:
Governor's Interagency Task Force on Energy.
Available: http://www.oa.state.pa.us/oac/cwp/view.
asp?A=351&Q=175752. Accessed 4/26/2007.
Rhode Island. 2001. State Programs and
Sustainable Development Inventory, Analysis, and
Recommendations Report. Governor's Growth
Planning Council. Available: http://www.planning.
state, ri. us/gpc/pdf/_%20INVENTORY%20
ADDENDUM.pdf. Accessed 4/25/2007.
128 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FOUR
-------
RMI. 2006. Community Energy Opportunity Finder.
Rocky Mountain Institute. Available: http://www.
energyfinder.org/. Accessed 12/14/2006.
Rogers, C., M. Messenger, and S. Bender. 2005.
Funding and Savings for Energy Efficiency Programs
for Program Years 2000 through 2004. California
Energy Commission. Staff Paper. Available: http://
www.fypower.org/pdf/CEC%20_Trends2000-04.
pdf#search = %22cost%20new%20construction%20
dollars%20per%20kwh%22. Accessed 1/17/2007.
•RReDC. 2006. PV Watts: A Performance Calculator
for Grid-Connected PV Systems. Renewable Resource
Data Center Web site. Available: http://rredc.nrel.gov/
solar/calculators/PVWATTS/versionl/ and http://
rredc.nrel.gov/solar/codes_algs/PVWATTS/revhist.
html Accessed 12/14/2006.
• SGIP. 2007. Statewide Self Generation Incentive
Program Data. Available: http://www.energycenter.org/
ContentPage.asp?ContentID=279&SectionID=276&Se
ctionTarget=35. Accessed 5/9/2007.
SGIP Handbook. 2007. Southern California Gas
Company, Southern California Edison, San Diego
Regional Energy Office, San Diego Gas and Electric
and Pacific Gas and Electric. Available: www.pge.com/
b2b/newgenerator/incentive/2007handbookandforms.
shtml Accessed 5/10/2007.
Smith, D. 2002. Why Green Buildings Fatten Your
Bottom Line. Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce.
2 May 2002. Available: http://www.djc.com/news/
en/11132991.html Accessed 12/12/2006.
Southern California Edison. 2006. 2006 Energy
Efficiency Annual Report. Available: http://www.
sce.com/NR/rdonlyres/900C5004-997F-4404-86EE-
79F717C7D1 C2/0/EEAR2006Report.pdf
STAPPA/ALAPCO, ICLEI, and U.S. EPA. 2006. Clean
Air and Climate Protection Software. Available: www.
cacpsoftware.org. Accessed 12/14/2006.
Summit Blue Consulting. 2006. Long Term
Monitoring and Tracking Report on 2005 Activities.
Prepared for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
April 18, 2006.
Syphers, G., M. Baum, D. Bouton, W. Sullens. 2003.
"Managing the Cost of Green Buildings." KEMA.
Available: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/greenbuilding/
Design/ManagingCost.pdf. Accessed 5/4/2007.
U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation Gateway.
2006. Greenhouse Gas Equivalences Calculator.
Available: http://www.usctcgateway.net/tool/. Accessed
12/14/2006.
U.S. DOE. 1996. National Renewable Energy Lab. The
Jobs Connection: Energy Use and Local Economic
Development. November. Available: http://www.
localenergy.org/pdfs/Document%20Library/The%20
Jobs%20Connection.pdf. Accessed 12/21/2006.
•U.S. DOE. 2006a. Green Power Network. Available:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/
pricing.shtmlfpage = 26-companyid = 163. Accessed
12/14/2006.
•U.S. DOE. 2006b. High Performance Buildings:
Design Approach. Available: http://www.eere.energy.
gov/buildings/highperformance/design_approach.
html#whatis. Accessed 3/7/2007.
U.S. DOE. 2006c. The Green Power Network.
Green Power Markets, http://www.eere.energy.gov/
greenpower/markets/index.shtml. Accessed 4/30/2007.
Note: Updated from U.S. DOE. 2006a.
U.S. DOE. 2006d. 2006 Buildings Energy Data Book.
Available: http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/.
Accessed 5/10/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2002a. EPA Administrator Whitman
Announces 729 of the Nation's Top Energy
Performance Buildings. Release date: 3/21/2002.
Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/
blab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/f5049c5c6e5d
5c7885256b8300763d82?OpenDocument. Accessed
12/12/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2002b. ENERGY STAR Cash Flow
Opportunity, Version 1.1. Available: http://www.
energystar.gov/ia/business/cfo_calculator.xls. Accessed
12/14/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2004. ENERGY STAR Building Upgrade
Manual. December. Available: http://www.energystar.
gov/index.cfm?c = business.bus_upgrade_manual.
Accessed 12/12/2006.
•U.S. EPA. 2005. Putting Energy Into Profits: Energy
Star Guide for Small Business. Available: http://
www.energystar.gov/ia/business/small_business/
energyintoprofits.pdf. Accessed 12/14/2006.
CHAPTER FOUR | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 129
-------
U.S. EPA. 2006a. Catalogue of CHP Technologies.
Available: http://www. epa.gov/CHP/basic/catalog.
html. Accessed 12/14/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006b. Combined Heat and Power
Partnership. Available: http://www.epa.gov/CHP/
partnership/index.html. Accessed 12/14/2006.
•U.S. EPA. 2006c. Explore eGRID Data. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid/index.htm.
Accessed 12/14/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006d. Green Power Partnership. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/grnpower/index.htm. Accessed
12/14/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006e. Power Profiler. Available: www.
epa.gov/cleanenergy/powerprofiler. htm. Accessed
12/14/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006f. The CHP Emissions Calculator.
Available: http://www. epa.gov/chp/basic/calculator.
html. Accessed 12/14/2006.
•U.S. EPA. 2006g. Analytical Tools and Data Sources.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/
stateandlocalgov/analyticaltools.html. Accessed
4/5/2007.
• U.S. EPA. 2006h. Clean-Energy Environment Guide
to Action. Policies, Best Practices, and Action Steps
for States. April. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
stateandlocal/guidetoaction.htm. Accessed 4/10/2007.
•U.S. EPA. 2006L I-BEAM Text Modules: Indoor Air
Quality and Energy Efficiency. Available: http://epa.
gov/iaq/largebldgs/i-beam/text/energy _efficiency.html.
Accessed 5/10/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2006J. Are You Ready to Take Advantage of
the New Commercial Tax Incentives? Available: http://
www.energystar.gov/ia/business/comm_bldg_tax_
incentives.pdf. Accessed 12/21/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006k. Bulk Purchasing Fact Sheet.
Available: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/
bulk^purchasing/Govt_FactSheet.pdf. Accessed
12/14/2006.
U.S. EPA. 20061. Calculate Your Savings. Available:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc = small_
business.sb calculate. Accessed 12/14/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006m. Life Cycle Cost Estimate for 100
ENERGY STAR Qualified Compact Fluorescent
Lamp(s). Savings Calculator. Available: http://
www.energystar.gov/ia/business/bulk_purchasing/
bpsavings_calc/Compact_Fluorescent_Bulk.xls.
Accessed 12/14/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006n. Portfolio Manager Overview.
Available: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc
= evaluate_performance. bus_portfoliomanager.
Accessed 12/14/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006o. Target Finder. Available: http://
www.energystar.gov/index.cfmffuseaction = target_
finder.&CFID = 452193&CFTOKEN = 40565253.
Accessed 12/14/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006p. ENERGY STAR for K-12 School
Districts. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/
index.cfmfc = kl2_schools.bus_schoolsk!2. Accessed
12/14/2006.U.S. EPA. 2007. ENERGY STAR Product
Specifications. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/
index.cfm?c = prod_development.prod_development_
index. Accessed 12/11/2007.
•U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE. 2007a. Purchasing and
Procurement Savings Calculator: Residential
Freezers. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/
ia/business/bulk_purchasing/bpsavings_calc/
CalculatorConsumerResidentialFreezer.xls. Accessed
11/12/2007.
•U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE. 2007b. Purchasing and
Procurement Savings Calculator: Residential
Refrigerators. Available: http://www.energystar.
gov/ia/business/bulk_purchasing/bpsavings_calc/
CalculatorConsumerResidentialRefrigerator.xls.
Accessed 11/12/2007.
U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE. 2007c. Dishwashers
Savings Calculator. Available: http://www.energystar.
gov/ia/business/bulk_purchasing/bpsavings_calc/
CalculatorConsumerDishwasher.xls. Accessed
1/23/2008.
U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE. 2007d. Room Air
Conditioners. Available: http://www.energystar.
gov/index.cfmfc = roomac.pr_room_ac. Accessed
1/23/2008.
130 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FOUR
-------
•U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE. 2008. Purchasing and
Procurement Savings Calculator: CFLs. Available:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/bulk_
purchasing/bpsavings_calc/CalculatorCFLsBulk.xls.
Accessed 2/20/2008.
•U.S. EPA. Undated(a). 2004 Achievements in Brief.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/appdstar/pdj7030105_
CPPD4pg%20Final%20for%20Web.pdf. Accessed
1/15/2007.
U.S. EPA. Undated(b). Right-Sizing and
Designing Efficient Power Supplies. Available:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_
development/revisions/downloads/computer/
RightSizeDesignEfficientPowerSup.pdf. Accessed
5/10/2007.
•U.S. Green Building Council. 2003. Building
Momentum: National Trends and Prospects for High-
Performance Green Buildings. Available: http://www.
usgbc.org/Docs/Resources/043003_hpgb_whitepaper.
pdf. Accessed 5/10/2007.
Vermont. 2005. Vermont State Agency Energy Plan
for State Government. Available: http://www.bgs.state.
vt.us/pdf/VTStateEnergyPlan.pdf. Accessed 4/26/2007.
Washington. 2001. RCW 43.82.150: Inventory of state-
owned or leased facilities- Report. Available: http://
apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.82.150.
Accessed 4/25/2007.
Wisconsin. 2002. Press Release: Wisconsin
Department of Administration's "Wisconsin Energy
Initiative." Available: http://www.doa.state.wi.us/
press_releases_detail. asp ?prid=123 &divid=4
Accessed 11/16/07.
Wisconsin. 2003. Governor Doyle Streamlines Power
Transmission and Generation Siting Processes,
Calls for Energy Conservation and Renewables.
Press Release September 09, 2003. Available: http://
energytaskforce.wi.gov/docview.asp?docid=5. Accessed
4/26/2007.
•Wisconsin Focus on Energy. 2005. Using Wind
Energy: Small-Scale Systems Fact Sheet. Available:
http://www.focusonenergy.com/data/common/
dmsFiles/W_RI_MKFS_smallwindfactsheet.pdf.
Accessed 12/14/2006.
Wisconsin. 2006. Wisconsin Legislative Council Act
Memo: 2005 Wisconsin Act 141 [2005 Senate Bill
459]. Prepared March 27, 2006. Available: http://www.
Iegis.state.wi.us/2005/data/lc_act/actl41-sb459.pdf.
Accessed 3/21/2007.
•Wiser, R., C. Namovicz, M. Gielecki, R. Smith.
2007. Renewables Portfolio Standards: A Factual
Introduction to Experience from the United States.
LBNL-62569. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
April. Available: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMP/
reports/62569.pdf. Accessed 4/30/2007.
Ziegler, P.M. 2003. Green Buildings: Breaking
New Ground With Sustainable Design: Using
"Green for Less" Principles and Technologies to
Design High Performance "Green Buildings" on
a Conventional Building Budget. Building Green
in Pennsylvania. Governor's Green Government
Council, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. December
3. Available: http://www.keystone.org/spp/
documents/12_8green_for_less_Zeigler.pdf. Accessed
1/17/2007.
CHAPTER FOUR | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 131
-------
Ill It
132 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FOUR
-------
CHAPTER FIVE
Developing a
Comprehensive LBE Program
This chapter describes key design
options, implementation issues,
and best practices that states
can consider as they develop a
comprehensive LBE program.
The following five recommendations are critical to pro-
gram success, and are discussed in this chapter:
Energy savings can be increased by integrating clean
energy activities within the LBE program. This can be
accomplished at the program outset or over time, as
resources permit. (See Section 5.1.)
Consider all available funding options and identify
those best suited for implementing a comprehensive
and cost-effective program. States can explore legisla-
tive, policy, and/or other changes to address financial
obstacles. (See Section 5.2.)
Communications and outreach are key to demonstrat-
ing the benefits of clean energy and building and main-
taining support for the LBE program. (See Section 5.3.)
Work with, and provide assistance to, local governments
as they develop their own LBE programs. Encouraging
local governments to implement clean energy pro-
grams is an effective way for states to achieve their own
LBE goals. (See Section 5.4.)
Enhance LBE program effectiveness through network-
ing and information-sharing with federal, state, local,
and other organizations. (See Section 5.5.)
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
CHAPTER TWO
Potential LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER THREE
Establish the LBE Program Framework
CHAPTER FOUR
Screen LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER FIVE
Develop LBE Program
CHAPTER SIX
Track, Evaluate, and Report on Progress
CHAPTER FIVE CONTENTS
5.1. Integrate individual clean energy activities into a
program
5.2. Finance the LBE program
• Financial vehicles
• Funding sources
Summary of barriers and solutions
5.3. Conduct communications and outreach: build and
maintain support for an LBE program
• State agency personnel support
• Community support
5.4. Provide technical and financial assistance to local
governments
5.5. Information sharing: federal, state, and local LBE
resources
Related appendices:
Appendix B, State and Local Clean Energy LBE Programs:
State and Local Examples, Tools, and Information
Resources: presents examples of state and local LBE
activities and provides resources for each activity.
Appendix C, Resources for Implementing LBE Programs:
contains examples and resources on implementing LBE
programs, including several state-developed agency
guidance materials.
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 133
-------
CHAPTER FIVE CONTENTS (cont.)
Appendix D, Resources for Funding LBE Programs:
provides examples of how states have used funding
vehicles and sources to finance their LBE programs, and
provides other resources about funding options.
Appendix E, Resources for Conducting Communications
and Outreach for LBE Programs: provides examples of
state approaches for conducting communications and
outreach for LBE programs and other resources.
Appendix F, Resources on Technical and Financial
Assistance to Local Governments: presents examples of
states that provide technical and financial assistance to
municipalities.
Appendix G, State LBE Programs and Contacts: Provides
information about each state's LBE initiatives, including
relevant state agencies, name and email address of state
contacts, and Web site URLs.
5.1 INTEGRATE INDIVIDUAL CLEAN
ENERGY ACTIVITIES INTO A PROGRAM
Developing an integrated and comprehensive LBE pro-
gram that consists of multiple clean energy activities
can achieve the following benefits:
Increase the overall benefits. An integrated LBE pro-
gram includes multiple clean energy activities - energy
efficiency, green power purchases, clean energy gen-
eration - rather than focusing on just one approach.
Having a diversified energy strategy increases program
benefits, such as reducing the risk of supply disruption,
and achieves broader positive spill-over effects, such as
CALIFORNIA SOLAR SCHOOLS PROGRAM
This program illustrates one way to integrate energy efficiency
with renewable energy measures. Between 2004 and 2006, 31
California schools were awarded $4.5 million from the Solar
Schools Program to purchase and install 675 kW of solar PV
power. Grant eligibility was tied to meeting energy efficiency
and energy education goals. The schools were required to
have already installed high efficiency fluorescent lighting or
other energy efficiency measures with equal or greater energy
savings in at least 80% of classrooms, and to have established
a curriculum plan to educate students about the benefits of
energy conservation and solar energy.
Funding was provided by the CEC's Emerging Renewables
Program with a matching amount from the California Attorney
General's Alternative Energy Retrofit Account (AGAERA).
Source: CEC, 2006c.
increased employment in clean energy technology and
service sectors.
Enhance the cost-effectiveness of LBE activities by
leveraging interactions. Integrating multiple LBE
activities can result in interactions that produce
greater economic benefits than an approach centered
around a single strategy. For example, commitments
to purchase specified quantities of electricity from
green power sources (or to purchase onsite renewable
energy systems) can be increased using savings gener-
ated by building energy efficiency activities. Once the
upfront costs of the energy efficiency activities are
repaid, the recurring energy cost savings can be used
to offset the cost premium associated with green power
purchases or renewable energy systems (for example,
see the text box at right on California's Solar Schools
Program). Similarly, the benefits of energy-efficient
product procurement can be increased when products
are purchased using a systematic approach to improv-
ing energy efficiency in buildings. Because efficiency
reduces the energy load, states can then upgrade their
heating and cooling systems using smaller, "right-
sized" equipment. Sequencing product purchases and
energy efficiency measures using this staged approach
can lead to greater overall energy cost savings.
1 Achieve political support. A comprehensive program
can win broad support by appealing to a variety of con-
stituencies with different interests, including legislators
and agency personnel. An integrated program can
help lessen any reservations about clean energy and
can provide the impetus for stakeholders to mobilize
resources for LBE activities.
• Increase the visibility of LBE activities. States that de-
velop a comprehensive clean energy LBE program can
establish a single contact (or office) that provides con-
sistent and comprehensive information. This increases
visibility and provides a single point of reference for
agency customers and the public. Examples include
New York's "Green and Clean" State Buildings and
Vehicles program (New York, 2004) and Massachusetts'
State Sustainability Program (Massachusetts, 2004).
In practice, it is not always possible to start with an
integrated program. Many states begin with a more
targeted, activity-specific approach that builds towards
a comprehensive program over time. This can ensure
that LBE needs match available resources and increase
opportunities for achieving a few quick LBE successes
134 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
to demonstrate success and provide a basis for further
funding and sustained momentum (CALeep, 2006).
5.2 FINANCING THE LBE PROGRAM
This section describes options for financing the LBE
program (which includes selecting vehicles for financ-
ing the program and choosing sources of funding) and
presents a summary of the key strategies for overcom-
ing financial barriers to implementation. The text box
below provides a brief overview of the topics covered.
Additional funding information is available in Appen-
dix D, Resources for Funding LBE Programs.
5.2.1 FINANCIAL VEHICLES
Financing refers to the use of loans, bonds, energy per-
formance contracts, lease-purchase agreements, grants,
and other mechanisms to pay for clean energy activi-
ties. Table 5.2.1 summarizes seven financial vehicles in
terms of nine key metrics. A more detailed description
of each vehicle is provided below.
FINANCING LBE PROGRAMS
Financial Vehicles (Section 5.2.1)
• Capital budgets and procurement budgets ("cash")
• Loans
• Public bonds
• Energy performance contracts
• Tax-exempt lease-purchase agreements
• Grants and rebates
• Other short-term financing alternatives
Funding Sources (Section 5.2.2)
• Public benefits funds
• Revolving loan funds
• Aggregated purchasing contracts for green power, equipment
procurement, and service contracting
• Pension funds
1 Private foundations (e.g., grants)
• Other procurement and accounting methods
Summary of Strategies for Overcoming Financial Obstacles
(Section 5.2.3)
• Consider multiple financing options.
• Modify state purchasing rules and develop standard
agreements for sharing or retaining energy savings.
• Address "split incentives" issues
TABLE 5.2.1 SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL VEHICLES FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES
Energy Lease-
Key Performance Purchase Grants and Other (RANs,
Aspect Cash3 Loans Bonds Contracts Agreements Rebates BANs, TANsb)
Interest N/A
Rates
Financing
Term
Often done Lowest tax- Can be taxable Low tax-exempt N/A
at taxable exempt rate. or tax-exempt. rate.
rates.
N/A Repayment May be 20 years Typically up to
Other N/A
Costs
terms over 12 or more.
months may
need voter
approval.
Minor closing
Underwriting,
Up to 12 years
10 years but is common, and
may extend to up to 20 years
20 years. is possible for
large projects.
Term limited
to useful life of
equipment.
May have to None.
costs, if any. legal opinion, 1 pay engineering 1
insurance. costs if contract
is not executed.
Low, short-term
tax-exempt
rates.
N/A Less than one
year.
Some may have Issuing costs
matching grant from lender.
requirements.
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 135
-------
TABLE 5.2.1 SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL VEHICLES FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES (cont.)
Energy
Key Performance
Aspect Cash3 Loans Bonds Contracts
Approval
Process
Internal.
Depends on Usually RFP usually
financing requires voter required;
term. Subject approval/ public internal
to potential referendum; approvals
legislative bond counsel needed.
and charter opinion letter
Lease-
Purchase
Agreements
Internal
Grants and
Rebates
Application
approvals made to
needed; simple manager of
attorney letter PBF, utility, or
required.
foundation.
limitations. required.
Approval Current Fast, if short Can be Legislative Fast; generally Depends on
Time budget term. lengthy— authority within a week availability
period.
Funding
Flexibility
N/A
Budget
Used
Relatively
process may may facilitate of receiving of funds and
take years. approval.
all requested funding cycle.
documentation.
Very difficult to Relatively Flexible. Can Prescriptive for
flexible. go above the 1 flexible; an set up master public funds.
dollar ceiling. underlying lease, which competitive
municipal lease allows drawing for foundation
Operating Operating Capital.
or capital. or capital.
depending
on terms.
Greatest Direct Fast, if voter Low interest
is often used. down of funds, funding.
as needed. Can
finance entire
project cost.
Operating Operating.
or capital.
depending
on terms and
conditions.
Provides Allows capital
N/A
Reduces activity
Benefit access if approval rate because it performance 1 equipment cost as funding
included in is not is backed by the guarantees, purchase using usually does
budget. necessary. full faith and | which help operating not have to be
credit (taxing in approval dollars.
powers) of the process.
public entity.
repaid.
Greatest Insufficient Often higher Very time Identifying Identifying the Availability
Hurdle funding taxable consuming. the activity to activity to be of funds;
available interest rates;
for statutory
activities. limitations
regarding
term and
amounts.
be financed; financed.
selecting the
energy service
provider.
may be very
competitive.
Other (RANs,
BANs, TANsb)
Internal
approvals
needed;
attorney's letter
required.
Fast; similar
to tax-exempt
lease.
Based on
expected
source of
repayment
(bond, revenue.
or tax).
Operating or
capital.
Low-cost access
to short-term
funds that allow
the immediate
installation
of energy
efficiency
equipment to
save money
sooner.
Repayment
must be
made within
the current
operating
period.
a While cash is typically considered to be a source of funds rather than a financing vehicle, it is included in this table for comparison
purposes.
b RANs = Revenue Anticipation Notes, BANs = Bond Anticipation Notes, TANs = Tax Anticipation Notes.
Sources: Zoblerand Hatcher, 2003; U.S. EPA, 2004a; Thumann and Woodroof, 2008.
136 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
Capital Budgets and Procurement Budgets
States can finance clean energy by "paying cash" from
existing capital and procurement budgets. The benefits
of tapping these budgets include their ready availability
and lack of associated interest payments. At the same
time, the capital budgeting process can be complex
(compared to using procurement budgets) and may
introduce numerous financial, practical, and political
constraints, including:
Capital budget dollars are often scarce, already com-
mitted, and subject to a funding ceiling. Jurisdictions
under serious fiscal pressure sometimes impose freezes
on capital spending.
The process for requesting new capital dollars can be
time- and resource-consuming.
Political considerations can be important, since autho-
rization for requesting new capital dollars can require
legislative and/or taxpayer approval (e.g., a voter
referendum).
In addition, both existing capital budgeting and pro-
curement policies can impede cost-effective energy
efficiency investments. For example:
Government capital budgeting and procurement prac-
tices often prescribe first cost accounting, with lowest
bid requirements, that fail to consider life-cycle costs.1
Capital budgeting often does not allow borrowing from
operating budget savings even when they offset a capi-
tal cost premium.
To address these barriers, states have introduced a num-
ber of innovative strategies and techniques, including:
Institute life-cycle cost accounting and procurement pro-
cedures, which take into consideration both the lower
net capital and future operating costs of clean energy
investments. For example, states can require clean
energy investment and procurement decisions to be
based on the lowest life-cycle cost (rather than the low-
est first costs) and can modify life-cycle procurement
procedures to require vendors to provide both equip-
ment investment costs and estimated lifetime energy
costs. Life-cycle cost accounting can go beyond calcu-
lating direct lifetime cost savings to include the energy,
First costs are the upfront costs that are incurred before an investment
generates any savings.
environmental, and other social costs or benefits that
accrue to society at large. However, these social costs
and benefits can be more difficult to measure.2 For ad-
ditional information on life-cycle costing, see Section
5.2.3, Strategies for Overcoming Financial Obstacles.
Directly specify minimum energy efficiency requirements
for products. For example, some states require products
to be ENERGY STAR-qualified, obviating the need to
justify higher upfront costs.
• Require capital activities to meet energy performance
targets. States have required new state construction
and renovations to be compliant with ENERGY STAR
building requirements.
Reform budgeting procedures to allow agencies to borrow
from operating budgets to supplement capital budgets,
thus expanding the pool of available funds.
Loans
A loan is a debt instrument between a lender (e.g.,
a bank, commercial lender, or a state revolving loan
fund) and a borrower (e.g., a state agency) in which
the lender agrees to provide a stated amount of money
to be repaid over a period of time, along with interest.
Loans can be structured to be repaid monthly, quar-
terly, semi-annually or annually. The payments can be
"level" (i.e., the same every period) or may require a
balloon payment at the end. Interest rates can be fixed
or variable, taxable, or tax-exempt. Short-term loans
(i.e., usually less than 12 months) can be repaid from
the operating budget - which provides an advantage
EPA is preparing A Guidebook for Assessing the Multiple Benefits of Clean
Energy to provide information on understanding and quantifying the multiple
benefits of clean energy activities [U.S. EPA, Forthcomingfa)]).
VERMONT'S STATE ENERGY PLAN: LIFE-CYCLE
ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS
Vermont's State Agency Energy Plan requires that, where
applicable, life-cycle cost analyses must be used when
purchasing equipment or products. The state plan also requires
building investments to be undertaken on a lowest life-cycle
cost basis. The plan defines life cycle cost as the "amortized
annual cost of a product, including capital costs, installation
costs, operating costs, maintenance costs and disposal costs
discounted over the lifetime of the product plus the energy and
environmental externalities costs or benefits." The objective
of using life cycle analysis in Vermont is to show positive cash
flow within a specified period of time after implementing the
measure.
Source: Vermont, 2005.
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 137
-------
over using the capital budget since there are fewer re-
strictions (e.g., voter approval is typically not required
when using the operating budget). Long-term loans
(e.g., longer than 12 months) are subject to any long-
term debt restrictions the state may have.3
Banks will make loans for energy-efficient equipment
purchases; however, they typically require a down
payment that can be 20% or more, or is secured by
compensating balances. The borrower's ability to
negotiate favorable terms on the down payment, inter-
est rate, and payment structure depends primarily
on the lender's perception of the risk involved (U.S.
EPA, 2008). However, some state agencies offer loan
programs for public and non-profit agencies that offer
below-market terms and can be used for clean energy
activities. For example, revolving loan funds provide
a key source of debt for state and local government
LBE clean energy projects. These funds are designed
to be self-supporting, in that states establish a pool of
capital (funded, for example, by the state's PBF policy)
and provide low-interest loans to borrowers that then
"revolves" over a multi-year period as payments are
returned to the fund and lent anew to other borrowers
(U.S. EPA, 2006b). (See Section 5.2.2., Funding Sources,
for additional information on revolving loan funds and
how state agencies have used these as finance sources
for energy efficiency improvements in their facilities.)
Public Bonds
Bonds are debt instruments sold by public- and
private-sector organizations that enable borrowing
from the capital market (U.S. EPA, 2008). They allow
amortization of capital costs over a multi-year repay-
ment term and are therefore well suited to LBE invest-
ments that accrue annual energy cost savings. Public
bonds can also be offered as investment vehicles - with
no federal and, in many states, state income tax liabili-
ties to the investors - that can result in lower interest
rates than commercial lending or equipment leasing
arrangements. On the other hand, bonds can involve
a lengthy approval time, since they may require public
referenda and/or legislative approval.
These vehicles take many forms, including4:
Because most energy efficiency activities have a simple payback of more
than one year, short-term financing typically works best as bridge financing, as
long as long-term financing is also available.
Industrial development and revenue bonds are also common and used to
acquire assets that are, in turn, leased to private sector organizations. There-
fore, they are usually inappropriate for LBE clean energy investments.
Revenue bonds, which are supported directly from the
revenues of the activity being financed.
General obligation bonds, which are backed by the fed-
eral, state, or local issuing entity, and typically require
voter approval. They generally provide the most favor-
able interest rates since they are subject to the least risk.
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs), which were
established in May 2005 by federal legislation that
provides for $1 billion of tax-credit bonds to be issued
between 2006 and 2008 to finance renewable energy
projects for public utility companies. These bonds,
which can be issued by states, provide the equivalent
of an interest-free loan for qualified energy projects.
(Bond Buyer Online, 2005; ELPC, 2006).
Some states have worked with educational, health, and
environmental bond issuance authorities to fund LBE
activities or have added LBE features to planned facility
bonds. For example, New Jersey's Economic Develop-
ment Authority, in partnership with New Jersey's Board
of Public Utilities, offers a variety of renewable energy
and energy efficiency incentives (New Jersey, 2007).
It is important to consider the ancillary costs associated
with issuing a bond. Bond issues can:
Involve a time-consuming, costly, and complex process
that requires an extensive legal opinion, setting up a
trustee, and retaining accounting services to ensure
compliance.
Require taxpayer approval or be subject to other re-
strictions on new debt. Meeting these requirements can
be time consuming and result in political vulnerability.
Incur costs to rate the bond, obtain insurance, set aside
a cash reserve for the first year, and pay for printing
or marketing fees - additional costs that can exceed
$50,000. (EPA, 2004c.)
Adding these bond issuance costs to the cost of energy
efficiency activities can change the economics of the
activity, depending on its size. Therefore, although a
public bond may provide the lowest stated interest
rate, it may or may not have the lowest net total cost.
In addition, as with capital budget requests, bond
requests are often assessed using accounting protocols
that do not recognize their reduced operating costs
even though they may more than offset the debt service
obligations (EPA, 2004c).
138 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
Energy Performance Contracts and Tax-
Exempt Lease-Purchase Agreements
States often look for financing options that allow
them to pay for capital investments by drawing on
operating budgets. Energy performance contracts
and tax-exempt lease-purchase agreements are both
well-matched to LBE activities that generate a stream
of energy cost savings. As long as future energy costs
are budgeted at current levels with rate escalators, an
ongoing revenue stream will be generated that can pay
for the investment. Both of these financial vehicles are
described below.
Energy Performance Contracts
An energy performance contract is an arrangement
with an energy service company (ESCO) or energy
service provider (ESP) to implement and manage
energy savings projects over their lifetime. The ESCO
or ESP acts as the general contractor responsible for
all aspects of the project and assumes the associated
technical and performance risks. Energy performance
contracts bundle energy-saving investments (e.g., en-
ergy audits, design and specification of new equipment,
ongoing maintenance, measurement and verification of
product performance, indoor air quality management,
and personnel training) and financing into a package
that can be attractive to public agencies. The contract
allows a state to finance energy-saving capital improve-
ments - usually over a 7-20 year term - with no initial
capital investment by using money saved through
reduced utility expenditures. As shown in Figure 5.2.1,
about 82% of all performance contracts involve public
entities [i.e., municipal facilities, universities, schools
and hospitals (referred to as "MUSH") plus federal and
public housing].
An ESCO typically provides a guarantee that energy
cost savings will meet or exceed annual payments cov-
ering all activity costs. Such guaranteed savings agree-
ments are the most common type of performance con-
tract for public sector clients.5 If the savings do not oc-
cur, the ESCO pays the difference. Some performance
contracts include a reserve fund to cover potential
shortfalls, while others provide security enhancements
in the form of performance bonds or letters of credit.
In some instances, performance insurance or "shared
savings" may be available. When surplus energy sav-
ings result from the project, these savings are shared
Another type of agreement is an "own-operate" agreement, in which the
ESCO maintains ownership of the facility, and sells back its "output" to the
state entity.
FIGURE 2.4.1 GREEN POWER AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
federal
22%
blic housing
presidential
3%
commercial
9%
MUSH/
58%
industrial
6%
PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING RESOURCES
Rebuild Colorado's Energy Performance Contracting Web site
Colorado launched Rebuild Colorado in 1997 to help building
owners identify and implement energy saving opportunities.
The Web site provides guidance materials, case studies, and
information on the benefits of performance contracting and
steps for success (Rebuild Colorado, 2006b). Web site: http://
www.state.co.us/oemc/rebuildco/epc.htm
California Energy Commission Resources
CEC has compiled a variety of handbooks on financing energy
efficiency projects, including:
How to Hire an Energy Service Company provides guidance
on selecting and working with ESCOs (CEC, 2000). Web site:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/efficiency_handbooks/400-
OO-OOIE.PDF
Summary of Energy Service Companies: Summary of
Responses, a directory of California ESCOs, many of which
provide services in other states (CEC, 2005). Web site: http://
energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-400-2005-001/CEC-
400-2005-001.PDF
• For other resources on ESCOs, see Appendix E, Resources for
Funding LBE Programs.
CITY OF AMHERST, NEW YORK: USING ESCOS
Amherst, New York, which has an electricity budget of
$2.7 million and a total operating budget of $100 million,
used an energy performance contract to implement energy
efficiency upgrades in a number of its facilities.
The town entered into a guaranteed savings agreement with
an ESCO that maximized the amount of new equipment that
could be purchased from the energy savings. The result was
a $5.2 million project that included the city's ice skating rinks,
police station, three community and recreational centers, four
libraries, a museum, and the local wastewater treatment facility.
The ESCO guaranteed $5 million in savings on these projects.
The actual savings exceeded projected savings by 16%.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2004c.
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 139
-------
between the state and the ESCO or ESP, as negotiated
in the energy performance contract (U.S. EPA, 2008).
Financing may be offered as part of the performance
contract. However, because ESCOs are private sector
firms that borrow at taxable, commercial rates, it is
often possible for a state to secure better financing ar-
rangements by taking advantage of lower, tax-exempt
interest rates available to government entities.
Several states have created enabling legislation and
developed model ESCO programs. For example, the
Kansas Facility Conservation Improvement Program
enables public agencies to enter agreements with pre-
approved ESCOs. Through this program, agencies can
continuously rely on the expertise of ESCO staff and
use the program's low-cost financing to fund activities
(Kansas Corporation Commission, 2003b).
FINANCING NEW HEATING SYSTEMS IN THE
SHENENDEHOWA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, CLINTON
PARK, NEW YORK
In the face of escalating energy and maintenance costs, the
Shenendehowa Central school district installed new energy-
efficient equipment that could be paid for from future energy
cost savings. With assistance from NYSERDA, they hired an ESP
that guaranteed energy savings.
Instead of bundling the financing under the performance
contract, the district chose to obtain the funds directly from
a commercial lender using a tax-exempt lease-purchase
agreement for a 10-year term. The lease-purchase agreement
contained non-appropriation language, which limited
payments to the operating budget savings. This financing
option allowed school officials to successfully install energy-
efficient equipment without raising taxes.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2004c.
WASHINGTON ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING
PROGRAM
In 2001, Washington passed legislation requiring state agencies
to perform energy audits in their facilities. The legislation
requires agencies to use energy performance contracts to
conduct upgrades in facilities where audits reveal energy
saving opportunities. The Washington Department of General
Administration has designed a program to assist state agencies,
local governments, and other public institutions in entering into
energy performance contracts. The Department has formed an
Energy Team to administer the program and provide program
participants with a pre-qualified list of approved ESCOs, an
experienced energy engineer to provide technical assistance,
and assistance obtaining low-interest state treasurer financing.
Source: Washington, 2007.
Tax-Exempt Lease-Purchase Agreements
A tax-exempt lease-purchase agreement, also known
as a municipal lease, is a low-interest financing vehicle
exclusively available to the public sector.6 These mecha-
nisms are frequently used as the financing instrument
underlying energy performance contracts because they
allow governments to avoid using capital budgets to
pay for energy efficiency upgrades. Because tax-exempt
lease-purchase agreements often include non-appropria-
tion language (that effectively limits an agreement's pay-
ment obligation to the current operating budget period),
these agreements do not constitute debt in most states
and therefore typically do not require voter approval.
Lease-purchase agreements, unlike commercial rental
agreements, enable the lessee to own the equipment at
the end of the lease term. This is a standard arrange-
ment for many agencies, which already lease a portion
of their equipment. It is often possible to add a clean
energy activity to an existing leasing agreement, espe-
cially if a master lease is in place with a lending institu-
tion (Hatcher and Dietsche, 2001; Zobler and Hatcher,
2008; NAESC, Undated, U.S. EPA, 2008).7
Grants and Rebates
Governments and private foundations offer grants for
specific activities with definable social benefits. Grants
do not have to be repaid, which reduces the financing
needed to complete a project and effectively reduces
the associated payback period.
Most energy-related rebates are funded by Public
Benefits Funds (PBFs), which are administered by state
energy offices, local utilities, or other program admin-
istrators (see Section 5.2.2, Funding Sources - Public
Benefits Funds and System Benefits Charges for more
information).
Other Short-Term Financing Alternatives
Because most clean energy programs and activities
cannot be paid off within a single fiscal year, states
often must decide whether to enter long-term financ-
ing agreements or to delay the activity. For a budgeted
activity (i.e., for which funds will become available in a
known time frame), an alternative is for a state to start
Lenders do not have to pay federal income tax on the interest earned on
qualifying transactions and pass the benefit through to the borrower (lessee).
A master lease is similar to a "lease line of credit" in that it allows a variety
of equipment with different useful lives and delivered at different times to be
financed under one agreement, thereby reducing the paperwork required for
approval.
140 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
the activity immediately by issuing notes (i.e., a prom-
ise to pay). Common notes that government entities
can issue include Tax Anticipation Notes (TANs), Bond
Anticipation Notes (BANs), and Revenue Anticipation
Notes (RANs). These short-term (e.g., less than 12
months) debt securities can be issued in anticipation
of collecting future tax, bond, or revenues needed to
pay for the activity, but they must be paid off in full
at the end of their term. While this payment schedule
may make short-term notes inappropriate for financing
most energy efficiency projects, in some cases it can be
a good business decision to mix financial vehicles (e.g.
via a short-term note and a long-term agreement) to
minimize the costs of delaying activities.
5.2.2 FUNDING SOURCES
This section describes how and when to use differ-
ent funding sources, which are distinguished from
financial vehicles. Sources of funding for LBE activities
- including PBFs, revolving loans, pension funds, and
private foundations - are accessed through the finan-
cial vehicles described above to provide the capital for
clean energy activities. For example, a funding source
such as a revolving loan fund or a state-run PBF can
provide funding to a state agency via a financial vehicle
such as a loan or a grant.
Energy Efficiency Program Administrators
States can work with their energy efficiency program
administrators, such as utilities (e.g., PG&E) or
third-party entities (e.g., the Mass Technology Trust
or Efficiency Vermont) to obtain funding for their
LBE programs. These organizations deliver efficiency
measures and services with monies collected via public
benefits funds, utility cost recovery mechanisms, or
other funding sources. .
In the case of a PBF (also called a system benefits
charge), state fund dedicated to supporting energy
efficiency and/or renewable energy, paid for by a "per
kWh" surcharge on electricity sales (typically 2 to 5
mills per kWh).8 As of 2006,19 states had implement-
ed PBF programs for energy efficiency, collecting and
reinvesting more than $1 billion per year, and 16 states
were collecting more than $300 million per year for
clean energy supply (U.S. EPA, 2006b). While PBFs are
typically used to support clean energy programs aimed
at homeowners and the private sector, several states use
them to pay for LBE activities.
1 mill = one-tenth of a cent.
EXAMPLE: the Mass Technology Collaborative (MTC) -
an entity that oversees the allocation of funding from the
Massachusetts Renewable Trust, a fund generated from
system benefits charges - provided funding in the form
of a grant to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife to evaluate the potential for integrating renew-
able energy and energy efficiency technologies into the
design of a new state facility (EOEEA, 2007).
Revolving Loan Funds
Revolving loan funds are capital funds that make loans,
collect payments, and then re-lend the loan payments
to finance new activities. The original capitalization
can come from sources such as PBFs, oil overcharge
refunds, legal settlements, bond issues, or billing cor-
rections. Revolving loan funds typically offer below-
market rate long-term loans for energy efficiency or
renewable energy activities.
Revolving loan funds can vary from state to state, ac-
cording to type of qualifying project, financing terms,
maximum loan amounts, interest rates, fees, and ap-
plication and approval processes. Some revolving loan
funds cover all capital expenditures while others are
on a cost-shared basis. To contribute to state energy
goals and be self-sustaining, revolving funds must be
well-capitalized (e.g., large enough to meet a significant
NEW HAMPSHIRE BUILDING ENERGY CONSERVATION (BECI)
INITIATIVE
The New Hampshire BECI prompted an evaluation of options
for improving energy efficiency in state-owned buildings. The
state's Treasury Department was concerned about increasing
the state's debt, which could adversely affect its credit rating.
State officials determined that by setting up a tax-exempt
master lease program (MLP) to underwrite its performance
contracts, the state could obtain lower cost financing. Because
the non-appropriation language of the MLP would allow
the lease to be repaid from operating funds, there would
be minimal impact on the state's credit rating. The state
arranged two rounds of MLP funding for its facilities, totaling
approximately $25 million.
This low-cost financing enabled state officials to install a
broader range of energy-efficient equipment than if they
had used the financing bundled into an ESP's performance
contract. As a result, more projects met the legislated payback
requirements. Ten buildings have been renovated through the
BECI program. Avoided energy costs for these facilities exceed
$200,000 annually. When fully implemented, it is anticipated
that the BECI will be responsible for upgrades in more than 500
state-owned buildings, with energy savings of up to $4 million
a year. These energy efficiency improvements will reduce CO2
emissions by approximately 35,000 tons per year.
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2004c; New Hampshire, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2006b.
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 141
-------
IOWA ENERGY BANK
The Iowa Energy Bank combines private and public funds to
finance energy efficiency improvements in state facilities by
using saved energy costs to pay for the projects. The Energy
Bank conducts an energy audit and engineering analysis, and
negotiates financing terms with private lenders. The bank
has facilitated more than $130 million in energy efficiency
measures since its inception in 1989. Common energy
efficiency improvements include fluorescent lamp and ballast
replacement, motor replacement, exit sign replacement, pipe
insulation, lighting controls, low volume toilets, biomass fuels,
envelope insulation, and wind energy purchases.
Source: Iowa, 2006.
OREGON: STATE BUSINESS TAX CREDIT FOR
EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES
Oregon's Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC), which any business
and public entity can qualify for, has stimulated business
investment in energy conservation, renewable energy resources,
recycling, and less-polluting transportation fuels since 1980.
The tax credit is 35% of the eligible project costs (i.e., the
incremental cost of the system or equipment that is beyond
standard practice). The credit is taken over five years: 10% in the
first and second years and 5% each year thereafter. The unused
credit can be carried forward up to eight years. Recipients with
eligible project costs of $20,000 or less can take the tax credit
in one year. Through 2003, more than 7,400 Oregon energy tax
credits had been awarded. Altogether, these investments saved
or generated energy worth about $215 million a year.
A key feature of the program is its innovative "pass-through
option," in which a project owner can transfer a tax credit
to a pass-through partner in return for a lump-sum cash
payment (the net present value of the tax credit) upon project
completion. The pass-through option allows public entities and
businesses with and without tax liability to use the energy tax
credit by transferring their tax credit for an eligible project to a
partner with a tax liability.
Source: Oregon, 2006a.
LOANSTAR REVOLVING LOAN PROGRAM
The Texas LoanSTAR (Saving Taxes and Resources) Program is
a self-sustaining program of the State Energy Conservation
Office (SECO), which provides low-interest loans to finance
energy conservation in public facilities. Loans are repaid using
cost savings from verified energy reductions. Legislatively
mandated to be funded at a minimum of $95 million at all
times, the LoanSTAR Program had funded projects in 191
facilities as of April 2006, with energy savings averaging 15%,
an average payback period of 5.6 years, and 3% annual interest
rates. The program has achieved cumulative energy savings of
more than $210 million and has prevented 7,073 tons of NOx,
2.1 million tons of CO2, and 4,788 tons of SO2.
Sources: SECO, 2006b and ACEEE, 2007
portion of the market need) and/or long-term (e.g., to
allow funds to fully recycle and be re-loaned to a siz-
able number of borrowers). To maintain a large pool of
capital, it is important for states to consider tradeoffs
such as the balance between private and public sector
loans and between short-term and long-term loans.
Additionally, if a fund holds only a few loans made to
similar types of borrowers, it can be exposed to default;
a fund with many diverse loans spreads the risks.
A number of states have revolving loan funds that are
successfully providing capital for clean energy activi-
ties, including LBE activities. These funds can be coor-
dinated with tax incentives [e.g., the Oregon Business
Energy Tax Credit (BETC)], have varying degrees of
private commercial lender involvement (e.g., the New
York Energy Smart Loan Program), or can be run as a
direct lender (e.g., Texas LoanSTAR Program).
EXAMPLE: The Maryland Energy Administration pro-
vides loans to state agencies for cost-effective energy ef-
ficiency improvements in state facilities through its State
Agency Loan Program (SALP), which awards about
$1 million in new loans each fiscal year. State agencies
pay zero interest with a 1% administration fee. Their
repayments are made from the agency's fuel and utility
budget, based on the avoided energy costs of the activity.
This self-sustaining fund is capitalized with national oil
overcharge funds (MEA, 2005).
Pension Funds
Some states use pension funds to invest in clean energy
activities. Pension fund managers seek a mix of invest-
ments that ensure stable returns for their contributors
after they retire, and energy cost savings can generate a
solid return to the pension fund.
EXAMPLES: Washington Real Estate Holdings, a real
estate manager for the Washington State Investment
Board, which manages the state's pensions, completed
a $3.5 million SMART ENERGY and energy efficiency
upgrade of Union Square that lowered building energy
costs by 40% and created 30 jobs for a year (Feldman,
2005).
CalPERS (California Pubic Employees Retirement
System) and CalSTRS (California State Teachers Retire-
ment System), which are among the country's largest
pension funds for state and local government employees,
hosted a conference in 2005 on environmental investing
in San Jose, California, stating that "there is a growing
demand in our global economy for cleaner, more efficient
energy and technological solutions" (CalPERS, 2005.)
142 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
Private Foundations
A number of private foundations (e.g., nonprofit organi-
zations or charitable trusts) help fund scientific, educa-
tional, or other charitable activities. The most common
types of financing provided by these foundations include
grants and program-related investments (which are
usually set up with a repayment schedule). While foun-
dations are sometimes reluctant to finance government
activities, clean energy activities that meet a foundations
specific objectives (e.g., improved indoor air quality in
public buildings) may qualify for assistance.
5.2.3 STRATEGIES FOR OVERCOMING
FINANCIAL OBSTACLES
The previous two sections describe financial vehicles
and funding sources that states can use to finance their
clean energy LBE programs. This section summarizes
strategies and best practices states can use to mitigate
financial barriers to their LBE programs.
Consider Multiple Financing Options. LBE activities
compete with many other programs for limited finan-
cial resources. In addition, capital is often difficult to
access and financial requirements may be difficult to
meet. Strategies for addressing financial issues include:
STATES ARE DEVELOPING WAYS TO SHARE OR RETAIN THEIR
ENERGY SAVINGS
Iowa Executive Order 41 requires agencies to retain energy
savings and reinvest them in facility infrastructure.
South Carolina legislation states that an agency's budget must
not be reduced by the full amount of money saved through
energy conservation measures. Instead, energy savings must
be divided among the agency, the general fund, and debt
retirement of capital expenditures on energy efficiency. In
addition, the legislation requires the use of financial incentives
to encourage agencies to reinvest their energy cost savings
into energy conservation areas, where practical.
Recent Connecticut legislation requires development of a
strategic plan to improve the management of energy use in state
facilities. The resulting financial benefits to states and the overall
electric system will be measured and distributed as follows:
75% retained by electric ratepayers
12.5% reinvested in EE programs in state buildings
12.5% invested in EE programs and technologies for energy
assistance programs administered by the Department of Social
Services.
Sources: Iowa, 2005; South Carolina, no date given; Connecticut, 2007.
Use alternative financing options, including mu-
nicipal lease-purchase agreements, performance
contracting, and revolving loan funds.
Reform budgeting procedures to allow agencies to
borrow from operating budgets to supplement capi-
tal budgets.
Communicate the fact that in the long run, cost-
effective clean energy LBE activities help extend
limited financial resources.
Modify State Procurement and Accounting Rules. State
policies sometimes present barriers to implementation.
Some states have modified their public procurement
and accounting methods to encourage energy efficien-
cy investments and renewable energy procurements.
Barriers and potential solutions include:
Modify purchasing requirements that require using
least first-cost and lowest bid approaches. This is
critical because performance contracts and other
energy-saving investments can increase upfront capi-
tal costs while resulting in lower life-cycle costs over
the long term. In some cases, legislative authority or
policy changes may be needed to modify procure-
ment regulations to require life-cycle costing. For
example, the Vermont State Agency Energy Plan for
State Government requires life cycle cost analyses to
be conducted on state purchases, where applicable
(Vermont, 2005). (Also see Section 5.2.1, Financial
Vehicles, Capital Budgets and Procurement Budgets.)
Permit long-term contracting, which is often needed
to implement performance contracts.
• Revise financing and leasing regulations so that
public entities can pass through tax benefits (i.e., tax
UTAH POLICY TO ADVANCE ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN THE
STATE - FINANCING OPTIONS
The governor's policy for improving energy efficiency in state
facilities recognizes the need for agencies to explore a variety
of methods for funding energy-saving programs in buildings,
including:
Funding from the state legislature
Utility energy-efficiency contracts
Performance contracts
Petroleum violation escrow fund
Federal grants
Source: Utah, 2006.
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 143
-------
credits) to private entities. This is necessary for at-
tracting private investors.
Modify budgeting and accounting practices so that
agencies or facilities are allowed to keep a portion
of the energy cost savings. Otherwise, energy cost
savings could simply result in reduced budgets in
subsequent years, discouraging facility managers
from developing energy efficiency activities.
• Change state budget "scoring" rules, so that the ben-
efits of performance contracting, bond issues, or other
debt obligations are considered along with their costs.
Develop standard agreements for sharing or retain-
ing energy savings. State budget policies sometimes
require savings from LBE activities to be deducted
from an agency's or department's budget and trans-
ferred to the state general fund, rather than benefit-
ing the agency or department. States are addressing
this problem by revamping purchasing rules, devel-
oping standard agreements and protocols, issuing
executive orders, and passing legislation for sharing
or retaining energy savings.
Aggregate Purchasing Contracts for Green Power, Equip-
ment Procurement, and Service Contracting. Purchasing
authority is often dispersed across agencies. Some
states have lowered their costs by aggregating purchas-
ing contracts across state agencies. For example, com-
bining the electricity requirements of several agencies
into a single contract enables states to negotiate lower
prices for green power.
EXAMPLES: The California Local Energy Efficiency Pro-
gram coordinates municipal LBE programs that are, in
many cases, very small jurisdictions with limited energy
use. By coordinating their green power purchases, these
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON - WIN WIN PROGRAM
More than 130 government agencies throughout King County,
Washington take advantage of the county Fleet Administration
Division's Win-Win Program. The program uses savings
from aggregated purchases to provide services to regional
government agency fleets. These services include acquisition,
maintenance, replacement, and disposal of more than 3,000
vehicles and equipment, worth over $2 billion. Agencies can
save up to $4,000 per vendor when purchasing fleet-related
products through the county. The county provides these
services at cost-government agencies can obtain services
through the program at the same cost of purchasing on their
own, while benefiting from the county's expert advice.
Source: King County, 2006.
municipalities can obtain better rates for their green
power purchases.
In 2004, the New York Municipal Wind Buyers Group
was able to negotiate a 5% price reduction from the ini-
tial 2€/kWh premium on a renewable energy purchase
that aggregated the energy demands of 27 communities
(Bird and Swezey, 2004).
In Colorado, a 2007 executive order directs the state
Department of Personnel and Administration to pursue
opportunities to aggregate purchases of hybrid and al-
ternative fuel vehicles with neighboring states (Colorado,
2007).
Address "Split Incentives" Issues. Split incentives involve
situations where the economic benefits of reducing
energy consumption do not accrue to the entity that
takes the action. Two types of split incentives can occur
when implementing LBE programs:
State building occupants may not have an incentive
to pay the upfront costs of energy efficiency since
they do not see the savings from their investments.
Increased communications and outreach (e.g., work-
shops and employee recognition programs) that raise
the profile of clean energy LBE activities and their
benefits can help overcome this barrier.
When states lease facilities from private owners, the
owners may pass energy costs on to the building oc-
cupants and therefore have no incentive to purchase
energy-efficient equipment or implement other clean
energy measures. Similarly, designers and contrac-
tors for new buildings do not pay life-cycle operating
costs, which instead fall on the tenants. Requiring
life-cycle cost accounting and taking advantage of
financial vehicles - such as performance contracting
and municipal lease-purchase agreements - can help
address these concerns. Other strategies include mak-
ing the business case for energy efficiency to building
owners and managers, and establishing an award
system that gives the owner a share of the benefits.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT-LEASED BUILDINGS
States can lead by example by using their spending power to
encourage private sector building owners to adopt energy-
efficient building standards. California, Hawaii, and Virginia have
used executive orders or legislation to direct state agencies to
give preference to ENERGY STAR and LEED-certified spaces
when pursuing building spaces for lease or purchase.
Sources: California, 2007; Hawaii, 2006; Virginia, 2007.
144 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
EXAMPLE: In Wisconsin, state officials are working to
incorporate ENERGY STAR criteria into lease agree-
ments when they are renegotiated for renewal (Mapp et
al, 2006).
5.3 CONDUCT COMMUNICATIONS
AND OUTREACH: BUILDING AND
MAINTAINING SUPPORT FOR AN LBE
PROGRAM
Once an LBE program or activity has been initiated,
it is important to continue to build and maintain sup-
port to ensure effective program implementation. This
section outlines communication and outreach strate-
gies for obtaining ongoing LBE program or activity
support from state agency personnel, the public, and
other community stakeholders. Additional resources
are provided in Appendix E, Resources for Conducting
Communications and Outreach for LBE Programs.
5.3.1 GAIN STATE AGENCY PERSONNEL
SUPPORT
Despite its many benefits, clean energy is often as-
signed a lower priority than other issues. In addition,
the relevant agency, facility, or managers may find it
difficult and time-consuming to implement new LBE
activities, or may not have the specific knowledge or
staff support needed to do so. States can employ a vari-
ety of methods to mitigate these barriers while gaining
the support of state staff. These strategies include:
Develop Contacts With State Employees. It is impor-
tant to identify state employees who might represent
roadblocks to LBE efforts, as well as those who can be
champions for the state LBE program, and to share in-
formation about the merits of LBE activities with these
individuals. For example:
Develop contacts with high-level personnel, especial-
ly facility and finance managers, who might present
potential roadblocks to LBE efforts.
• Identify the champions in each state agency who are
working to implement clean energy activities and
give them the implementation support.
Identify staff who maybe uncertain about the merits
of LBE activities and include them in program plan-
ning and implementation.
Supplement limited staff availability by hiring interns
(Massachusetts, 2006a) and obtaining governor sup-
port for hiring additional staff (Utah, 2006).
Provide Incentives to Key State Agencies and Personnel.
Giving verbal and/or written credit to state agencies
and employees who are instrumental in helping to
plan, implement, and participate in LBE activities com-
municates the importance of these activities, thereby
encouraging others to offer support and instill clean
energy awareness into the institutional culture.
EXAMPLE: Colorado recognizes state employees who
have promoted the goals and objectives of its Greening
the Government program (Colorado, 2005).
Require participation in LBE program design. States can
require key personnel to participate in LBE program/
MASSACHUSETTS APPROACH TO OBTAINING LBE SUPPORT
FROM KEY STATE AGENCIES
A key reason for the success of the Massachusetts State
Sustainability Program has been the ability of the lead LBE
agency, the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), to
successfully develop contacts with key state agency personnel.
This process involved engaging high-level EOEA officials to
contact each of the agency commissioners and ask them
to appoint sustainability coordinators. EOEA also develops
contacts with building facility directors and key finance staff.
To date, EOEA has been able to obtain the support of key
personnel in 50 of the largest state agencies, with the largest
potential clean energy impacts. One effective approach for
gaining support from these key personnel involved highlighting
the non-environmental benefits (e.g., cost savings, personnel
savings) in addition to the environmental and energy benefits
of the program.
Source: Massachusetts, 2006a.
STATE EMPLOYEE INCENTIVES IN COLORADO
Through its Employee Sustainability and Pollution Prevention
Incentive Awards Program, Colorado offers recognition to state
employees who excel in promoting the goals and objectives
of Executive Order D005 05, Greening of State Government.
Selection criteria include:
Degree of innovation
Longevity of outcome (i.e., length of impact)
Potential for environmental results and improvements
Level of impact
Application to Executive Order goals
Effect on public awareness of opportunities for incorporating
sustainable practices
Source: Colorado, 2006b.
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 145
-------
activity development and ensure participation through
a regular reporting and meeting process.
EXAMPLE: When the New York "Green and Clean"
State Buildings and Vehicles Executive Order was
enacted, the governor obtained support by convening
agency heads in a state panel to implement the order
and follow up with regular reports to the governor's of-
fice (NYSERDA, 2006).
Improve coordination among state agencies. The ex-
pertise required for an effective LBE program is often
dispersed across different state agencies. Consequently,
coordinating among agencies that have varied techni-
cal and programmatic focus (e.g., energy efficiency,
finance, facilities construction and management, envi-
ronmental issues) can be instrumental in implement-
ing clean energy programs.
5.3.2 CONDUCT COMMUNICATIONS AND
OUTREACH WITH STATE AGENCY PERSONNEL
Conducting communications and outreach with state
agency personnel is integral to gaining and maintaining
support for the implementation of clean energy pro-
grams. The following strategies can help states ensure
that staff at all levels are well informed so that they can
effectively implement state LBE program and activities.
• Develop a communications and outreach plan. States
can develop and implement a communications and
outreach plan that outlines their approach for inform-
ing staff about the LBE program, its benefits, and how
to support these efforts. A successful plan includes
identification of the communications goal, target audi-
ence, key messages, strategies, specific activities to im-
plement the strategies, and an approach for evaluating
the plan's effectiveness. EPA has developed guidelines
and support materials for developing a communica-
tion plan for ENERGY STAR activities, which can be
applied to many clean energy LBE communication
VERMONT: EMPHASIZING THE BENEFITS OF CLEAN ENERGY
This 2005 state plan includes a chapter describing ways to
obtain buy-in from state agency staff through education,
promotion, and communication, including to:
Explain why the state LBE program is critical to reducing global
warming; what state policies, laws, and agreements have been
instituted; and how to implement LBE plans and strategies.
Provide statistics on past and present electrical and heating fuel
usage as compared to targeted energy usage goals.
Source: Vermont, 2005.
activities (U.S. EPA, 2006h). In addition, EPA is
developing a guide to help states determine how to
design, implement, and evaluate a program to educate
and inform stakeholders about climate change and the
benefits of clean energy [U.S. EPA, Forthcoming(b)].
Emphasize the broad range of clean energy benefits. The
benefits of clean energy LBE programs are sometimes
not obvious to state officials, state agency staff, and oth-
er participants in the LBE process. Using outreach ma-
terials, education and training sessions, and guidance
documents to report the dollars and kWh saved, GHG
emissions avoided, and other environmental, economic,
and energy reliability benefits can be an effective way to
promote clean energy (also see Section 5.3.3, Communi-
cate the Benefits of Clean Energy to Stakeholders).
Develop outreach materials. States can develop
outreach materials to educate state employees about
LBE plans and engage their active participation in
implementing the plans. Communication materials,
from very simple reminders to more detailed materials
and fact sheets, can describe the state's LBE activities,
agency staff responsibilities, and information about the
benefits of LBE programs.
EXAMPLES: Minnesota Executive Order 04-08 requires
state departments to biannually email fact sheets to
state employees about steps they can take at work and at
home to reduce air pollution (Minnesota, 2005).
California has developed fact sheets describing state
LBE measures (e.g., green building initiatives and solar
power in state facilities), which include statistics on ac-
complishments (Green California, 2006b).
Provide Training Sessions, Workshops, and Conferences.
LBE training sessions, workshops, and written guid-
ance can help show agencies how to develop their own
LBE plans quickly and at low cost.
EXAMPLE: In Colorado, Rebuild Colorado offers energy
management training workshops for state agency staff.
Colorado held a Greening of State Government Confer-
ence to inform state employees, including purchasing
officials, energy managers, facilities staff, custodial man-
agers, and fleet managers, of the benefits of the state's
LBE program and to share information on successful
strategies, lessons learned, and available resources
(Colorado, 2006a).
Educate new employees. It is important to ensure that
new employees are informed about the LBE program,
146 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
the specific measures that are being implemented, and
related benefits.
Develop LBE guidance documents. Knowing how an
LBE activity applies to a particular office and its em-
ployees can increase the level of participation by state
personnel and improve the effectiveness of an LBE
program. Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and
Vermont, for example, have developed guidance docu-
ments for state agencies that provide an approach to
implementing their LBE program, including strategies
for promoting the program and communicating its
benefits to state employees.
5.3.3 COMMUNICATE THE BENEFITS OF
CLEAN ENERGY TO STAKEHOLDERS
Creating a sustainable, effective LBE program involves
persuading stakeholders about the initiative's merit.
Thus, it is important to describe the benefits of the LBE
program to the public, the private sector, and other
community stakeholders, and to explain why these
benefits are in their interest. States can communicate
these benefits to stakeholders in a variety of ways:
Develop a clean energy LBE Web site. Web sites provide
an important source of information for the public.
EXAMPLES: The Energy Resources Council of Maine
has developed a Web site for energy consumers, called
MaineEnergyInfo.com. One section of the site describes
state LBE accomplishments and activities (Maine, 2006).
The California Green Action Team, maintains a Web-
based online media center that includes links to photos
and videos highlighting LBE accomplishments (Green
California, 2006a).
Issue press releases. States can issue press releases to an-
nounce new LBE policies, explain the benefits of clean
energy, and highlight LBE successes.
EXAMPLE: An August 2006 press release announced the
Pennsylvania governor's decision to double the state's
green power purchase (e.g., wind and hydroelectric ener-
gy) from 10% to 20% of the state government's electricity
consumption. The press release states that by leading the
way on renewable energy resources, the state will create
jobs, enhance homeland security, and provide significant
environmental improvements (Pennsylvania 2006d).
Publish newsletters, brochures, and fact sheets. States can
develop outreach materials to explain the benefits of
clean energy and illustrate the state's role in taking the
lead in clean energy activities.
EXAMPLES-. Massachusetts publishes quarterly newslet-
ters that highlight LBE activities and provide informa-
tion on innovative and cost-effective sustainability
activities at state agencies, authorities, and colleges
(Massachusetts, 2006b).
California has recently initiated an on-line newsletter
to share information on the state's actions to meet its
energy efficiency and resource conservation goals (Green
California, 2006b).
For states targeting municipal LBE programs, it can be
helpful to work within "community outreach channels"
to help build program support. A community outreach
channel is an organization or process that deals with
core issues of concern in the community, such as
managing public buildings, reducing pollution, creat-
REBUILD COLORADO TRAINING SESSIONS
The Colorado Governor's Office of Energy Management and
Conservation's Rebuild Colorado offers a variety of technical
services to state agencies and institutions, cities, counties,
schools, and other local governments. Services include Energy
Management Training Workshops for State Agencies, which
are monthly, 90-minute, teleconferences for facilities and
maintenance staff of state agencies and higher education
institutions. Sessions are held on a variety of topics in energy
management, including, for example, retro-commissioning.
Source: Rebuild Colorado, 2006a.
MASSACHUSETTS AGENCY SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING AND
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE
The Massachusetts State Sustainability Program developed
a planning and implementation guide for state agencies that
articulates the program's goals and offers specific strategies
for agencies and employees to increase sustainability in
state government. The guide is organized according to
five LBE program areas: climate change/energy efficiency,
waste reduction and recycling, sustainable design, water
conservation, and environmentally preferable purchasing.
It includes a five-step sustainability plan template and a sample
action plan worksheet to help agencies identify sustainability
activities and the key staff necessary to ensure program success.
The guide serves as a foundation from which agencies can
develop sustainability plans. It also encourages agencies
to incorporate their own ideas into the program, with the
aim of producing greater interest in the program's effective
implementation.
Source: Massachusetts, 2004.
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 147
-------
ing jobs, serving disadvantaged populations, and/or
creating economic development opportunities.
EXAMPLE: CALeep, for example, used the existing
outreach channel of the San Joaquin Valley Regional
Jobs Initiative (originally established to increased em-
ployment) to promote energy efficiency in municipalities
(CALeep, 2006).
Clean energy LBE activities frequently involve new
technologies or practices that might be perceived as
unproven, and can present barriers to implementation.
Strategies for addressing these perceptions include:
Conduct communication and outreach. States can use
workshops, presentations, and fact sheets to illustrate
successful LBE programs launched by other states, and/
or to provide tangible program benefits.
Provide incentives. When developing green buildings,
some facilities managers, architects, and designers
must commit sufficient effort to make the integrated
design process fully effective. States can communicate
the importance of these actions by offering design-
ers and architects energy performance bonuses if
the building meets an agreed-upon energy efficiency
target.
EXAMPLE-. Rebuild Colorado provides grants to state
agencies, school districts, and universities as an incen-
tive for public facilities managers to participate in its
high-performance building design program (U.S. DOE,
2007).
Offer technical expertise. In some cases, the perceived
concern involves a real operational or financial risk
(e.g., new clean energy technologies may involve O&M
risks, and some regions might have limited access
to ESPs with well-established track records). States
can help relieve these risks by obtaining technical
expertise and screening or preauthorizing vendors or
contractors.
5.4 PROVIDE TECHNICAL AND
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS
While some local governments are already leading by
example through clean energy programs9, other city
and county governments lack sufficient staff and re-
sources to initiate LBE programs. Consequently, it can
be important for states to provide technical support
and financial assistance to local government agen-
cies - public hospitals; public schools, colleges, and
universities; and other city- and county-level govern-
ment facilities. Assisting local governments with their
LBE activities can enable states to meet statewide clean
energy and GHG goals.
BENEFITS OF STATE TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Facilitate development and implementation of local clean
energy programs
Encourage information sharing among state and local agencies
Help states meet their statewide clean energy targets
Help ensure the development of consistent and successful
clean energy practices
EXAMPLE: In July 2007, the Maryland governor
launched the emPOWER Maryland initiative, with the
goal of reducing statewide per capita energy consump-
tion by 15% by 2015. One of the seven steps intended to
help the state government reach this goal is to expand
the Community Energy Loan Program (CELP), which
provides in low-interest revolving loans to local govern-
ments and nonprofit organizations to install energy
efficient improvements (Maryland, 2007).
Working with local governments can also lead to
enhanced information-sharing networks that can both
increase awareness of the benefits of clean energy
at the local level and provide opportunities for local
governments to share their LBE successes with states.
(Additional resources are provided in Appendix F,
Resources on Technical and Financial Assistance to Local
Governments.)
See, for example, Section 3.5.5, Local Governments or Other State/Public
Organizations Adopt Programs that Support State Goals and/or Influence
State Adoption of LBE Programs and Chapter 2, Potential Lead by Example
Activities and Measures.
148 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
5.4.1 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
A number of states have developed technical assistance
programs for local governments and other public
entities. Examples of successful state LBE technical as-
sistance programs are presented below.
California: Technical Assistance in Existing and New
Buildings
The CEC's Energy Partnership Program offers techni-
cal assistance to cities, counties, and hospitals by
helping these local groups identify opportunities to
improve energy efficiency in buildings. The program
provides such technical services as conducting energy
audits, preparing feasibility studies, developing equip-
ment performance specifications, reviewing existing
proposals and designs, reviewing equipment bid speci-
fications, and assisting with contractor selection and
commissioning. The CEC also helps identify state loans
and other financing sources for project installation
(CEC, 2006b).
Web site: http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/
partnership/index, html
TYPES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
1 Training seminars and workshops
1 Guidance documents and resources, including clean energy
LBE Web sites for local governments
1 Outreach programs
1 School partnerships and energy education programs
1 Direct assistance, such as conducting energy audits, preparing
feasibility studies, and assisting with contractor selection and
building commissioning
1 Energy management and planning support
Technical Assistance Topics
1 Energy efficiency measures
Energy management technologies
1 Green building design
1 Building codes
1 Energy accounting
1 Retrofit financing
1 Building commissioning
• ENERGY STAR resources
Energy-efficient procurement practices
New York: Energy-Efficient Product Procurement
Assistance
As part of its Energy Smart initiative, NYSERDA
administers the New York State Local Government
Energy-Efficient Product Procurement Program
(GEEP-NY) to provide local governments with tools,
education, and guidance to assist them in purchas-
ing or leasing ENERGY STAR equipment. Resources
include fact sheets, case study briefs, demonstration
projects, an electronic resource center, a model for
estimating savings potential, a "how-to" guide, and
PowerPoint briefings (NYSERDA, 2004a).
Web site: http://www.nyserda.org/programs/geep-ny/
index.asp
Oregon: Energy Audits and Design Reviews for Public
Schools and Local Governments
The Oregon Department of Energy provides technical
assistance to public schools and local governments by
conducting energy audits, assessments, and design re-
views. Through its Building Commissioning Program,
the department helps train building operators to im-
prove building documentation, detect potential energy
deficiencies, and tune up building control systems.
Resources include commissioning handbooks and a
toolkit that guides public school and local government
building managers through the commissioning process
(Oregon, 2006b, 2006b).
Web sites: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/
GOV/govhme.shtml (Energy Information for
Governments)
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/BUS/comm/
bldgcx.shtml (Building Commissioning)
Pennsylvania: Energy Management Plan Assistance
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection has developed communication materials
(including a Web site and a PowerPoint presentation)
to provide energy conservation assistance to local gov-
ernments, and assists local governments in developing
energy management plans based on initial evaluations
of energy efficiency improvement opportunities. The
Web site contains a list of information and resources
on conservation and energy efficiency measures,
alternative energy approaches, and financial incentives
(Pennsylvania, 2006a).
Web site: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/energy/cwp/
view.aspfa = 13796-q = 485061
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 149
-------
Texas: Schools and Local Government Program
Administered by the Texas SECO, this program pro-
vides services to help public school districts, colleges,
universities, and nonprofit hospitals establish and
maintain energy efficiency programs through school
partnerships, energy management training workshops,
and direct energy-related services. The school partner-
ships component of the program includes activities
such as helping schools establish student-involved
energy projects and developing energy-related edu-
cational materials. The energy management training
workshops cover both the administrative aspects of
clean energy LBE programs (e.g., energy accounting
NEW JERSEY CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM: PROVIDING
FINANCING FOR SCHOOLS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
New Jersey's Clean Energy Program administers the Clean
Energy Financing for Schools and Local Governments program,
which offers financial incentives and low-interest financing
to schools and governments to develop energy efficiency and
renewable energy generation projects. The program combines
a rebate program with incentives and financing, giving schools
and local governments the flexibility to implement cost-
effective projects immediately.
The following sample analysis for a comprehensive energy
efficiency building upgrade, developed by the New Jersey
Clean Energy Program, illustrates potential costs and savings:
Sample Cost Savings Analysis
PROJECT COSTS
Comprehensive energy efficiency $500,000
upgrade (includes lighting and HVAC)
Installation of a 200 kW solar energy
system
$1,200,000
Total project costs $1,700,000
FINANCING
New Jersey Clean Energy Program
Grant
Total financing— 15 -year term at 4.8%
$890,000
$810,000
Total finance payment $6,321 per month
SAVINGS
Energy savings (from efficiency
upgrades and solar system installation)
Monthly cost savings (Years 1-15)
Annual cost savings (Years 16-25)
$8,917 per month
$2,596 per month
$35,000 per year
Total savings (over and above the
cost of the equipment and financing
charges)
$817,280
Source: New Jersey, 2005.
and retrofit financing) and the technical aspects
(e.g., energy management technologies and building
design). Direct technical support is provided through
facility-related services that address energy accounting,
energy-efficient facility O&M, indoor air quality, water
conservation, and comprehensive energy planning.
SECO also offers a Preliminary Energy Assessment
Service to assist energy managers in reducing costs,
increasing available capital, spurring economic growth,
and improving working and living environments. The
assessment service offers recommendations for energy
efficiency upgrades at no cost (SECO, 2006a).
Web site: http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/sch-gov.htm
West Virginia: Building Professionals Energy Training
Program
This program, administered by the West Virginia De-
velopment Office, disseminates information concern-
ing current energy codes and building technologies to
local government officials and county and school facili-
ties managers. With the assistance of DOE, program
staff organize training seminars covering topics such as
"Overview of the 2000 International Building Codes,"
"High Performance Schools," and "ENERGY STAR
Portfolio Manager" (West Virginia, 2006).
Web site: http://www.wvdo.org/community/code.html
5.4.2 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
State agencies responsible for clean energy LBE pro-
grams can provide direct financial assistance to local
governments and/or provide resources about financial
opportunities available through other sources.
A number of state programs offer loans to local gov-
ernments that can be paid by using savings from the
energy efficiency upgrades funded by the loan. Other
states help local governments with their energy savings
performance contracting and/or provide guidance on
financing opportunities for local agencies. Examples
of state financial assistance programs for local govern-
ments are provided below.
California: Energy Efficiency Financing Program
This CEC program provides low-interest loans to
schools, hospitals, and local governments to fund
energy audits, feasibility studies, and energy efficiency
measures. The interest rate is 4.5%, and the maximum
loan per application is $3 million. Recipients who com-
plete their projects within 12 months of the loan and
meet all requirements specified in the loan application
ISO Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
receive a reduced interest rate of 4.1%. The repayment
schedule is negotiable up to 15 years and is based on
the annual projected energy cost savings from the ag-
gregated projects (CEC, 2006a).
Web site: http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/
financing/index, html
Kansas: Facility Conservation Improvement Program
This program enables local governments to use an
energy service performance contract to access financ-
ing for planning and implementing LBE activities. The
state program has a master agreement with four pre-
approved ESCOs that provide services ranging from
activity identification and assessment to design man-
agement. Leases for energy savings activities through
the program are tax-exempt to benefit the public agen-
cies, and the interest paid by the lessee is exempt from
federal and Kansas income tax (Kansas Corporation
Commission, 2003a).
Web site: http://www.kcc.state.ks.us/energy/fcip/
financing.htm
Oregon: State Energy Loan Program (SELP)
This program provides low-interest loans for public,
residential, and commercial energy efficiency activities
(including projects in schools, cities, counties, Indian
tribal communities, and state and federal agencies).
Eligible activities include energy production from
renewable resources, using recycled materials to create
products, using alternative fuels, and installing energy
saving technologies such as energy-efficient lighting
and weatherization. Limited funds are also available for
energy evaluations for schools and public buildings. As
of December 2007, 765 loans exceeding $420 million
had been made through SELP. Of these, more than
200 loans were made to municipal organizations. Loan
terms vary from five to 15 years. The program is self-
supported (using no tax dollars) and most loans are
designed so the energy savings from the project equal
the loan payment (Oregon, 2006d).
Web site: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/LOANS/
selphtn.shttnl
Pennsylvania: Local Government Handbook
Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protec-
tion (DEP) developed a handbook for local govern-
ments, developers, and businesses that describes the
DEP's financial and technical assistance programs
across a range of environmental and energy topics
(Pennsylvania, 2008).
Web site: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/ocrlgs/lib/
ocrlgs/localgoverntnenthandbook2008.pdf.
5.5 INFORMATION SHARING:
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LBE
RESOURCES
Clean energy programs and activities are being imple-
mented and funded across the country on federal,
state, and local levels. LBE managers and administra-
tors can increase the effectiveness of their programs by
coordinating with other agencies, programs, and orga-
nizations, sharing information about their experiences,
and sharing LBE-related resources and tools.
5.5.1 OPPORTUNITIES FOR NETWORKING
AND INFORMATION SHARING
Successful implementation of an LBE program or ac-
tivity can require considerable information and techni-
cal expertise, and involve skills ranging from designing
programs to conducting financial analyses. Network-
ing, one-on-one discussions, and sharing information
with officials from other states and municipalities can
provide insights about methods, best practices, useful
tools, and strategies for alleviating barriers (see Ap-
pendix G, State LBE Programs and Contacts, for a list of
LBE initiatives by state, including contact information).
In addition, organizations that include representatives
from multiple states (e.g., the National Association
of State Energy Officials) can serve as clearinghouses
for information on clean energy and LBE programs.
MARYLAND'S JANE E. LAWTON CONSERVATION LOAN
PROGRAM (JELLP)
Maryland operates the Jane E. Lawton Conservation Loan
Program (JELLP) - which recently replaced the Community
Energy Loan Program (CELP) - to provide local governments,
nonprofits, and businesses with financial assistance to reduce
operating costs associated with energy efficiency upgrades
(e.g., technical assessments, plans and specifications, and
construction costs). Eligible projects include those that save
energy and have a simple payback of seven years or less.
Energy savings generated by efficiency upgrades can be the
major source of loan repayment. Currently, the program funds
nearly $1.5 million in new projects each fiscal year; a total of
58 loans have been made providing more than $15 million
for energy efficiency improvements, with cumulative energy
savings of more than $20 million.
Sources: Maryland, 2006; Maryland, 2008.
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 151
-------
LEVERAGING TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND CREDIBILITY
The Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), which works with
private and public sector partners to advance energy efficiency,
has assisted municipalities in implementing energy-efficient
traffic signals. CEE helps municipalities adopt the ENERGY STAR
traffic signal specification, which is based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers standard. This provides cost savings
to municipalities that may not have had the resources to
develop a specification of their own. But more importantly,
having a technically sound and well-established specification
helps pave the way for more rapid adoption of energy-efficient
traffic signals. Having a credible specification provides an
assurance to traffic departments of the safety and reliability of
the signals.
Source: CEE, 2006.
These organizations provide a forum for discussion
and can facilitate information-sharing sessions among
governments.
Exchanging information about LBE goals, plans, pro-
grams, and issues can be especially helpful when states
share similar situations. For example, information
sharing can be particularly beneficial among states with
extensive college systems that include many large uni-
versities with their own physical plant, purchasing of-
ficers, and administrators. States, including California
and New York, have assembled extensive information
on how to implement LBE activities and have shared
this information via Web sites, published guidance
documents, presentations, and training sessions (CEC,
2007a and NYSERDA, 2004c).
5.5.2 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL
INFORMATION RESOURCES
Numerous federal, state, and local resources are avail-
able to LBE managers and administrators as they
establish their programs. An extensive list of resources
is provided in the appendices to the LBE Guide. This
section highlights some of the key federal and state
information sources.
Federal Government Information Resources
The federal government sponsors a variety of programs
and provides technical assistance to states implement-
ing LBE programs. Table 5.5.1, Federal Government
Information Resources, presents a summary of the ma-
jor federal programs that address clean energy issues
and provide guidance documents and other resources
relating to LBE programs.
State Information Resources
Several states have developed Web sites with substan-
tial LBE support documents, including language for
executive orders, legislation, and regulations; LBE
implementation guides; and resources for particular
LBE activities. Examples are presented in Table 5.5.2.
Local Information Resources
Local governments are also developing clean energy
LBE programs. Table 5.5.2 summarizes some of the
LBE guidelines, best practices, and other resources that
municipalities have developed.
REFERENCES
ACEEE. 2007. Potential for Energy Efficiency, Demand
Response, and Onsite Renewable Energy to Meet
Texas's Growing Electricity Needs. Available: http://
aceee.org/pubs/E073.htm. Accessed 3/7/2007.
Bird, L. and B. Swezey. 2004. Green Power Marketing in
the United States: A Status Report. NREL/TP-620-36823.
September 2004. Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/
greenpower/pdfs/36823.pdf. Accessed 4/26/2007.
Bond Buyer Online. 2005. Proposed Tax-Credit
Energy Bonds Will Find a Market, Players Say. July
21, 2005. Available: http://www.elpc.org/documents/
CREBArticle07-15-05.pdf. Accessed 12/9/2006.
CALeep. 2006. Local Energy Efficiency Program
Workbook. March. Available: www.caleep.com/
workbook/workbook.htm. Accessed 12/16/2006.
California. 2007. Green California, Department of
General Services, State Facilities Leasing. Available:
http://www.green.ca.gov/GreenBuildings/leases.htm.
Accessed: 2/18/2008.
•CalPERS. 2005. CalPERS and CalSTRS to Host
Conference on Environmental Investing March 29
in San Jose, California. March 8, 2005 Press Release.
California Public Employees' Retirement System.
Available: http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jspfbc
= /about/press/pr-2005/march/env-conference.xml.
Accessed 12/16/2006.
CEC. 2000. How to Hire a Construction Manager for
Your Energy Efficiency Project. Handbook. P400-00-
001E. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/
efficiency_handbooks/400-00-001E.PDE Accessed
12/16/2006.
152 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
TABLE 5.5.1 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION RESOURCES
Description
URL/Source
EPA Clean
Energy-
Environment
State and Local
Program
This program assists state and local governments in their clean
energy efforts by providing technical assistance, analytical tools, and
outreach support. It includes two programs:
The Clean Energy-Environment State Partnership is a voluntary
partnership program that supports state efforts to develop and
implement cost-effective clean energy strategies that achieve public
health and economic benefits. Through this partnership program,
EPA provides technical assistance tailored to states' needs.
• The Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action provides an
overview of clean energy programs, including LBE opportunities
and information resources available to states.
The Clean Energy-Environment Municipal Network provides
resources that supports local governments' efforts to use clean
energy strategies to advance their community priorities.
EPA is currently developing Municipal Clean Energy Best Practices
guidance that will provide best practices information and resources
about energy efficiency, energy supply, transportation and air
quality, urban planning and design, waste management strategies
to reduce energy use, and cross-cutting programs and resources.
A key resource for both programs is the:
Energy Efficiency Resources Database, which provides planning,
policy, technical, analytical, and information resources for state
and municipal governments.
Program Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-
programs/state-and-local/index.html
State Partnership Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
energy-programs/state-and-local/state-
partnership.html
Guide to Action:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-
programs/state-and-local/state-best-
practices.html
Municipal Network Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-
programs/state-and-local/local.html
Municipal Best Practices:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-
programs/state-and-local/local-best-
practices.html
Energy Efficiency Resources Database:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-
programs/napee/resources/da tabase.h tml
EPA Combined
Heat and Power
Partnership
The voluntary CHP Partnership seeks to reduce the environmental
impact of power generation by promoting the use of CHP. The
Partnership works closely with energy users, the CHP industry,
state and local governments, and other stakeholders to support the
development of new projects.
The Catalog of CHP Technologies offers information for
regulators, policymakers, and agency officials on CHP systems and
applications.
Partnership Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/chp
Catalog of CHP Technologies:
http://www.epa.gov/CHP/project_
resources/catalogue.h tm
EPA ENERGY The ENERGY STAR program provides numerous resources to
STAR Program governments, schools, and businesses to help them achieve
superior energy management and realize resulting cost savings and
environmental benefits. A list of ENERGY STAR resources applicable
to LBE activities is provided in Section 2.1, Energy Efficiency
Measures in Government Buildings.
http://www.energystar.gov
EPA
Environmentally
Preferable
Purchasing
This EPA program provides assistance in purchasing products and
services that have a reduced impact on the environment. The Web
site describes options for procuring environmentally preferable
office equipment, information on green buildings, and opportunities
for networking with representatives of other green programs. It also
contains a list of Web-based tools to assist with environmentally
preferable purchasing.
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/epp/pubs/
about/about.htm
EPA Green
Power
Partnership
The EPA Green Power Partnership is a voluntary program to boost
the market for green power sources. State and local government
partners receive EPA technical assistance and public recognition.
The Guide to Purchasing Green Power provides an overview of
green power markets and describes opportunities and procedures
for buying green power.
Partnership Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower
Guide to Purchasing Green Power:
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/
buygreenpower/guide.h tm
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 153
-------
TABLE 5.5.1 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION RESOURCES (cont.)
National Action
Plan for Energy
Efficiency
Description
The National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency presents policy
recommendations for creating a sustainable, aggressive national
commitment to energy efficiency through gas and electric utilities,
utility regulators, and partner organizations. The National Action
Plan Web site contains resources, technical support, and networking
opportunities.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/actionplan/
eeactionplan.htm
DOE Building
Technologies
Program
This program works in partnership with private and public sector
organizations to improve building efficiency. The Web site provides
assistance on energy efficiency in buildings; it contains guidelines,
training information, information on financial resources, and a
database of high performance buildings.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings
DOE Federal
Energy
Management
Program
FEMP works to reduce the operating costs and environmental
impacts associated with federal facilities and to improve the energy
efficiency of federally-procured products. Resources include an
online database of federal high performance buildings, an annual
training conference, and various workshops.
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/femp/
DOE Solar
Energy
Technologies
Program
This program aims to develop strategies for implementing solar
technologies around the country. Through such programs as the
Million Solar Roofs initiative and the Solar America Initiative, the
federal government partners with state and local governments to
encourage the expansion of solar energy.
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/solar/
DOE State This program provides funding and technical assistance resources
Energy Program to state energy offices. Many states have used State Energy Program
resources to support LBE programs.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_
program/
DOE Technical
Assistance
Project
TAP helps state and local officials in cross-cutting areas that are not
currently covered by existing DOE programs. Assistance is available
on: system benefit charges; renewable or energy efficiency portfolio
standards; use of clean energy technologies; and use of renewable
energy on public lands.
http://www.ornl.gov/adm/wfo/exthome.
htm
DOE Wind and
Hydropower
Technologies
Program
This program aims to improve wind energy technology, and develop
cost-effective technologies that will enhance environmental
performance and improve energy efficiency. The Web site presents
opportunities for using wind and water for energy generation and
provides resources on financing projects.
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/
windandhydro/
TABLE 5.5.2 STATE INFORMATION RESOURCES
California
Description
The Green California program is the product of the governor's
creation of a Green Action Team to implement sustainable policies
statewide. The program provides information on how the state is
leading by example by reducing energy and resource consumption.
The Web site offers information on LBE opportunities, including
a library of resources and fact sheets, and multiple guidance
documents pertaining to sustainable building design/performance,
onsite energy generation, and environmentally preferable
purchasing.
http://energy.ca.gov/reports/efficiency_
handbooks/index.html
154 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
TABLE 5.5.2 STATE INFORMATION RESOURCES (cont.)
California
Description
California's CALeep helps local governments leverage existing
energy efficiency initiatives and resources to design and implement
energy efficiency strategies for their communities. CALeep has
produced the Local Energy Efficiency Program Workbook, which
provides guidance for communities establishing energy programs.
The CALeep Web site contains resources prepared by other state
programs and federal sources. It also includes sources from cities,
including the U.S. Council of Mayors Selected Best Practices
for Successful City Energy Initiatives guide and examples from
individual cities.
www.caleep.com/workbook/workbook.
htm
Colorado
The Greening Colorado Government Web site serves as a
clearinghouse for government agencies seeking information on LBE
opportunities. The site provides resources for planning and tracking
LBE programs, strategies for implementing energy-efficiency
improvements, links to relevant executive orders and legislation,
and information on opportunities for obtaining technical assistance.
h ttp://www. colorado.gov/
greeninggovernment/index.html
Massachusetts The Massachusetts State Sustainability Program was developed to
reduce the environmental impact of state agency operations and
to promote sustainable practices statewide. The program includes
initiatives for emission reductions, recycling, sustainable building
design, and environmentally preferable purchasing. The Web site
provides resources about LBE strategies and opportunities for
financial assistance. A Planning and Implementation Guide provides
information on the environmental impacts of day-to-day operations
and how to implement specific LBE actions.
http://www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/
Planning and Implementation Guide http://
www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/pdf/
ss_guide_ web.pdf
New York
NYSERDA is responsible for implementing and guiding a number of
state LBE programs, including a comprehensive program for green
buildings and vehicle and equipment procurement. A guideline
document—"Green and Clean" State Buildings and Vehicles
Guidelines—provides information to assist state entities in developing
detailed implementation plans and directing future projects.
http://www.nyserda.org/programs/State_
Government/default.asp?i = 13
Pennsylvania The Governor's Green Government Council assists the state
government in adopting sustainable practices. The Council Web site
provides information on its LBE programs, including green building,
energy conservation, and environmentally preferable purchasing,
and provides guides for adopting green practices in offices and
schools. The section on high performance green buildings program
provides an extensive list of resources and tools for state officials.
http://www.gggc.sta te.pa.us/gggc/site/
default.asp
Vermont
The Vermont State Agency Energy Plan for State Government
provides a strategy and guidance to address energy resource
consumption issues in three primary areas of state governmental
operations including building infrastructure development and
operations and maintenance, state purchasing and contract
administration policies and practices, and transportation
h ttp://www. bgs.s ta te.vt. us/pdf/
VTStateEnergyPlan.pdf
Database of
State Incentives
for Renewable
Energy
This database is a comprehensive source of information on state,
local, and selected federal incentives that promote renewable
energy and energy efficiency.
h ttp://www. dsireusa.org
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 155
-------
TABLE 5.5.3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION RESOURCES
Alameda County,
California
Alameda County has developed Implementation Guidelines for
its model environmental procurement policy. The county's model
policy has been adopted by several California local governments.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/epp/LawPolicy/
AlaPollmp.doc
Boulder,
Colorado
Boulder, Colorado has developed a Historic Building Energy
Efficiency Guide for implementing energy efficiency measures in
historic government buildings. Energy efficiency measures can
be implemented without compromising historic authenticity and
architectural or aesthetic integrity.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.
php?op tion=com_ content&task= view&id=
82176fltemid=22
Hennepin
County,
Minnesota
The Board of Commissioners in Hennepin County has authorized
the creation of a Lead by Example Incentive Fund that will award
a combined $100,000 to county departments that invest in
environmentally preferable products. The Board has developed a
set of Lead by Example Initiative Guidelines to assist department
staff in meeting the program's requirements.
http://wwwa.co.hennepin.mn.us/files/
HCInternet/EPandT/Environment/
Green%20Government/LBE%202007%20
guidelines%20and%20instructions.pdf
King County,
Washington
The King County Environmental Purchasing Program has
established a Model Environmentally Preferable Products Policy for
local governments and other organizations.
http://www.metrokc.gov/procure/green/
mdpolicy.htm
Madison,
Wisconsin
The Madison Mayor's Energy Task Force has developed a Blueprint
for Madison's Sustainable Design and Energy Future to recommend
strategies for the city to lead by example in energy efficiency and
renewable energy.
h ttp://www. cityofmadison.com/mayor/
pdfs/GreenCapitalReport_l.pdf
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
The Philadelphia High Performance Building Renovation Guidelines
provide guidance on major government renovation projects. Each
guideline includes an overview of project materials, implementation
strategies, and benefits.
http://www.phila.gov/pdfs/
PhiladelphiaGreenGuidelines.pdf
San Antonio,
Texas
San Antonio has developed an Energy Efficiency Plan that outlines
measures the city plans on implementing to reduce energy
consumption in local government facilities and operations.
http://www.sanantonio.gov/enviro/pdf/
Cosa Energy Plan RevlO-03.doc
San Francisco,
California
The San Francisco Municipal Green Building Compliance Guide
provides guidance for the design and construction of new
government buildings in San Francisco.
http://www.sfenvironment.com/aboutus/
innovative/greenbldg/gb_compliance_
guide.pdf
CEC. 2005. Summary of Energy Services
Companies, Summary of Responses. Staff Report.
CEC-400-2005-001. January. Available: http://
energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-400-2005-001/
CEC-400-2005-001.PDF. Accessed 12/16/2006.
CEC. 2006a. Energy Efficient Financing. Available:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/financing/index.
html. Accessed 12/16/2006.
CEC. 2006b. Energy Partnership Program. Available:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/partnership/index.
html. Accessed 12/16/2006.
CEC. 2006c. New Information about the Solar Schools
Program. Available: http://www.consumerenergycenter.
org/school/solar-school.html. Accessed 12/16/2006.
CEC. 2007a. Green California Web Site. Available:
http://www.green.ca.gov/default.htm. Accessed 4/24/07.
156 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
CEE. 2006. Energy-Efficient Traffic Signals Fact Sheet.
Consortium for Energy Efficiency, Boston, MA.
Available: http://www.ceel.org/resrc/facts/led-fx.php3.
Accessed 12/16/2006.
Colorado. 2005. Greening Colorado Government.
Colorado Greening Government Web site. Available:
http://www.colorado.gov/greeninggovernment/index.
html. Accessed 12/16/2006.
Colorado. 2006a. Greening of State Government
Conference. Colorado Greening Government Web
site. May. Available: http://www.colorado.gov/
greeninggovernment/events/conference/2006/index.
html. Accessed: 12/16/2006.
Colorado. 2006b. The Governor's Pollution Prevention
Advisory Board's Employee Sustainability and
Pollution Prevention Incentive Awards ProgramlE12006.
Available: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/el/p2_
program/emplawards.html. Accessed 12/16/2006.
Colorado. 2007. Executive Order D0012 07. Available:
http://www.colorado.gov/governor/press/pdf/executive-
orders/2007/ExecutiveOrder-Greening-Government-
ImplementationMeasures.pdf. Accessed 4/26/2007.
Connecticut. 2007. Public Law 07-242, An Act
Concerning Electricity and Energy Efficiency, Section
101. Available: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/ACT/
PA/2007PA-00242-ROOHB-07432-PA.htm. Accessed
11/27/2007.
DSIRE. 2007. Database of State Incentive for
Renewable Energy. Available: http://www.dsire.org/.
Accessed 4/5/2007.
ELPC. 2006. Clean Renewable Energy Bond
Allocations Announced. Environmental Law and
Policy Center. Available: http://www.elpc.org/energy/
farm/crebs.php. Accessed 12/9/2006.
EOEEA. 2007. Massachusetts Executive Office of
Energy and Environmental Affairs. Leading by
Example Program: Sustainable Design Initiative
Web site. Available: http://www.mass.gov/envir/
Sustainable/initiatives/initiatives_SusD.htm#MTC.
Accessed: 3/11/08.
Feldman, R. 2005. Apollo Washington "policy menu"
shoots for the stars. Sustainable Industries Journal
Northwest. May 1. Available: http://www.sijournal.
com/commentary/1512972.html. Accessed 12/16/2006.
Flex Your Power. 2006. Energy Efficient Affordable
Housing Opens in San Francisco. March 26. Available:
http://www.fypower.org/news/index.php?page_id =
4486-edition = 566. Accessed 12/28/2006.
•Florida. 2007. Energy Act of 2006. Available: http://
www.dep.state.fl.us/energy/energyact/default.htm.
Accessed 4/25/2007.
Green California. 2006a. Media Center. Green
California News and Events Web site. October 31.
Available: http://www.green. ca.gov/NewsandEvents/
MediaCenter.htm. Accessed: 12/16/2006.
Green California. 2006b. Welcome to Green
California News. Green California Web site. Available:
http://www.green.ca.gov/Newsletter/default.htm.
Accessed: 12/16/2006.
Hatcher, K. and T. Dietsche. 2001. Manage energy
uncertainty: Use quick financing for energy efficiency
projects. Public Management, May.
Hopper, N., C. Goldman (Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory), D. Gilligan and T. Singer
(National Association of Energy Service Companies),
D. Birr (Synchronous Energy Solutions). 2007. A
Survey of the U.S. ESCO Industry: Market Growth and
Development from 2000 to 2006 LBNL-62679. May.
Available: http://eetd. lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/62679.
pdf. Accessed: 11/23/2008.
•Iowa. 2005. Executive Order Number 41. Available:
http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/Incentives/IA09R.
pdf. Accessed: 11/27/2007.
Hawaii. 2006. Act 96: An Act Relating to Energy.
Available: http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/
efficiency/state/'Act96_reprint.pdf. Accessed 4/20/2007.
Iowa. 2006. Iowa Energy Bank. Available: http://www.
iowadnr.com/energy/ebank/index.html. Accessed
12/16/2006.
Kansas Corporation Commission. 2003a. Facility
Conservation Improvement Program (FCIP). Web site
revised June 6, 2005. Available: http://www.kcc.state.
ks.us/energy/fcip/index.htm. Accessed 12/16/2006.
Kansas Corporation Commission. 2003b. Facility
Conservation Improvement Program (FCIP) Project
Financing. Available: http://www.kcc.state.ks.us/
energy/fcip/financing.htm. Accessed 12/16/2006.
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 157
-------
King County. 2006. Win Win Program. Available:
http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/flett/win-win.stm.
Accessed 4/26/2007.
Maine. 2006. MaineEnergylnfo.Com, a Project
of the Maine Energy Resources Council. State
Government Leading by Example. Available: http://
www.maineenergyinfo.com/examples.html. Accessed:
12/16/06.
Mapp, J., Bair, N., and B. Smith (Wisconsin Division
of Energy). 2006. State Government Buildings:
Meeting the ENERGY STAR Challenge. 2006. ACEEE
Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
Maryland. 2006. Maryland Energy Administration
Energy Solutions for Local Governments. Available:
http://www.energy.state.md.us/programs/government/
energy_brochure.pdf. Accessed 12/16/2006.
Maryland. 2007. EmPOWER Maryland. Press
Release. Available: http://www.gov.state.md.us/
pressreleases/070702.html. Accessed 3/10/2008.
Maryland. 2008. Maryland Energy Administration.
Community Energy Loan Program. Available:
http://energy.maryland.gov/incentives/state-local/
janeelawton.asp. Accessed: 10/24/2008.
Massachusetts. 2004. Agency Sustainability Planning
and Implementation Guide. Commonwealth of
Massachusetts State Sustainability Program. Available:
http://www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/pdj7ss_guide_
web.pdf. Accessed 12/16/2006.
Massachusetts. 2005. Recent State Sustainability
Initiatives. Massachusetts State Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs State Sustainability Program.
Available: http://www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/.
Accessed 12/15/2006.
Massachusetts. 2006a. Personal communication with
Eric Friedman and Ian Finlayson, Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs. June 1, 2006.
Massachusetts. 2006b. State Sustainability Program
Newsletters. State Sustainability Program Web site.
Available: http://www.green. ca.gov/Newsletter/default.
htm. Accessed 12/15/2006.
MEA. 2005. Maryland Energy Administration State
Agency Loan Program November 2005. Available:
http://www.energy.state.md.us/programs/government/
stateagencyloan.htm. Accessed 12/15/2006.
Minnesota. 2005. Clean Air Minnesota Executive Order
Implementation Guide 1/20/05 Version. Available
at: http://www.moea.state.mn.us/lc/ippat/0408-
Implementationguide.pdf. Accessed 12/16/06.
Montgomery County. 2004. Regional Wind Power
Purchase. Available: http://www.montgomerycountymd.
gov/content/dep/awards/wind.doc. Accessed 4/26/2007.
NAESC. Undated. Money for Your Energy Upgrades:
An Introduction to Financing Energy Efficiency
Upgrades in the Public Sector. Presentation by Neil
Zobler, Catalyst Financial Groups, Inc. Available:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/Selj?_Guide_ES_
Finance.pdf. Accessed 12/15/2006.
New Hampshire. 2006. Building Energy Conservation
Initiative. Available: http://nh.gov/oep/programs/
energy/beci.htm. Accessed 12/16/2006.
New Jersey. 2005. Clean Energy Financing for State
and Local Governments. Updated October 25.
Available: http://newjersey.sierraclub.org/ConCom/
CoolCitiesfCEF_Schools_and_Local_Gov_2.pdf.
Accessed 8/28/07.
New Jersey. 2007. New Jersey Economic Development
Authority: Clean Energy Financing and Assistance
Programs Web Site. Available: http://www.njeda.com/
clean_energy_assistance.asp. Accessed9/8/2007.
New York. 2004. Executive Order No. 111: "Green
And Clean" State Buildings and Vehicles Guidelines.
George E. Pataki Governor December 2004, Second
Edition. Available: http://www.nyserda.org/programs/
State_Government/exorderl 1 lguidelines.pdf. Accessed
12/15/2006.
NYSERDA. 2004a. Local Government Energy-
Efficient Product Procurement Program in New York
(GEEP-NY). New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority. Available: http://www.nyserda.
org/programs/geep-ny/index.asp. Accessed 12/16/2006.
NYSERDA. 2004b. State Government. Energy
Efficiency Improvements. Available: http://www.
nyserda. org/programs/State_Government/default. asp ?i
= 13. Accessed 12/16/2006.
NYSERDA. 2004c. New York State Research and
Development Authority Web site. Available: http://
www.nyserda.org/default.asp. Accessed 12/12/2006.
NYSERDA. 2006. Conversation with Brian Henderson,
Charl-Pan Dawson, and Matthew Brown. June 2, 2006.
158 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
•ORNL. 2003. U.S. DOE Research and Technical
Assistance Program. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Available: http://www.ornl.gov/adm/wfo/exthome.
htm. Accessed 4/5/2007.
Oregon. 2006a. Business Energy Tax Credits.
Available: http://egov.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/
BUS/BETC.shtml. Accessed 12/16/2006.
Oregon. 2006b. Commissioning for Better Builders in
Oregon. Available: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/
CONS/BUS/comm/bldgcx.shtml. Accessed 12/16/2006.
Oregon. 2006b. Energy Information for Governments.
Available: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/
GOV/govhme.shtml. Accessed 12/16/2006.
Oregon. 2006d. Energy Loan Program. Available:
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/LOANS/selphm.
shtml. Accessed 12/16/2006.
• Pennsylvania. 2006a. Energy Conservation Help for
Local Governments. Available: http://www.depweb.
state.pa.us/energy/cwp/view.asp?a = 1379&q =
485061. Accessed 12/16/2006.
Pennsylvania. 2006b. Governor's Green Government
Council. Available: http://www.gggc.state.pa.us/gggc/
site/default.asp. Accessed 12/16/2006.
Pennsylvania. 2008. DEP Handbook for Local
Governments, Developers, and Businesses. Available:
Accessed 12/16/2006.
Pennsylvania. 2006d. PAPowerPort Web site.
Governor Rendell: Pennsylvania Redoubling its
Purchase of Green Electricity. August 29. Available:
http://www.state.pa.us/papower/cwp/view.aspfA =
116-0.= 455731. Accessed: 12/16/06.
• Rebuild Colorado. 2006a. Energy Management
Training Workshops for State Agencies. Rebuild
Colorado Web site. December 2006. Available:
http://www.colorado.gov/rebuildco/services/energy•_
management/state/index.html. Accessed: 12/16/06.
• Rebuild Colorado. 2006b. Energy Performance
Contracting. Rebuild Colorado Web site. November.
Available: http://www.state.co.us/oemc/rebuildco/epc.
htm. Accessed 12/16/2006.
SECO. 2006a. Energy Management Training.
Available: http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/sch-gov.htm.
Accessed 12/12/2006.
SECO. 2006b. LoanSTAR Revolving Loan Program.
State Energy Conservation Office, Austin, TX.
Available: http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/ls.htm.
Accessed 12/16/2006.
SERA. 2005. Mayor Helps Celebrate Grand Opening
of Affordable, Green Apartments. March 15. San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Available: http://
www.fypower.org/pdj7SF_Green_PlazaApts.pdf.
Accessed 12/15/2006.
South Carolina. No date given. South Carolina
Code: Chapter 52 Energy Efficiency, Article 6 State
Government Energy Conservation, Section 48-52-630
Energy conservation savings; division; reinvestment.
Available: http://www.scstatehouse.net/CODE/
t48c052.doc. Accessed 11/27/2007.
Thuniann, A. and E. Woodroof. 2008. Energy Project
Financing- Resources and Strategies for Success,
Fairmont Press, Atlanta - Chapter 3 - Choosing the
Right Financing for Your Energy Efficiency and Green
Projects with ENERGY STAR*, by Zobler, N. and
Hatcher, K. June.
U.S. DOE. 2006a. Building Technologies Program.
Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/.
Accessed 12/16/2006.
U.S. DOE. 2006b. Federal Energy Management
Program. Available: http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/
femp/. Accessed 12/16/2006.
U.S. DOE. 2006b. Solar Energy Technologies Program.
Available: http://wwwl. eere. energy.gov/solar/.
Accessed 12/16/2006.
U.S. DOE. 2006d. State Energy Program. Available:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/.
Accessed 12/16/2006.
U.S. DOE. 2006e. Wind & Hydropower Technologies
Program. Available: http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/
windandhydro/. Accessed 12/16/2006.
U.S. DOE. 2007. Rebuild Colorado: A Systematic
Approach to Improve Performance of Public Buildings.
March-April. Available: http://www.eere.energy.
gov/state_energy_program/feature_detail_info.cfm/
fid=63?print. Accessed 11/27/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2003. Cash Flow Opportunity Calculator.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/Region8/humanhealth/
children/2003/CashFlowEnergyPerfEnvProtection.pdf.
Accessed 10/8/2007.
CHAPTER FIVE | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 159
-------
U.S. EPA. 2004a. Easy Access to Energy Improvement
Funds in the Public Sector. Available: http://www.
energystar.gov/ia/business/easyaccess.pdf. Accessed:
12/16/06.
• U.S. EPA. 2004b. Guide to Purchasing Green Power.
ISBN: 1-56973-577-8. September. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/greenpower/buygreenpower/guide.htm.
Accessed 12/16/2006.
• U.S. EPA. 2004c. A Primer for Public Sector Energy,
Facility, and Financial Managers from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY STAR
Program. Innovative Financing Solutions: Finding
Money for Your Energy Efficiency Projects. Available:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/COO-CFO_
Paper_final.pdf. Accessed: 12/9/2006.
•U.S. EPA. 2006a. CHP Project Resources. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/CHP/project_resources/catalogue.
htm. Accessed 12/16/2006.
•U.S. EPA. 2006b. Clean Energy-Environment Guide
to Action. Policies, Best Practices, and Action Steps
for States. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
stateandlocal/guidetoaction.htm. Accessed 12/16/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006d. EPA's State and Local Clean Energy
Programs. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
stateandlocal/partnership.htm. Accessed: 12/16/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006e. Green Partnership. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/greenpower. Accessed 12/16/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006f. National Action Plan for Energy
Efficiency. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/
actionplan/eeactionplan.htm. Accessed 12/16/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006g. Producing Reliable Energy &
Preserving the Environment. Available: http://www.
epa.gov/chp. Accessed 12/16/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006h. Draft a Communications Plan.
ENERGY STAR Web site. Available: http://www.
energystar.gov/index.cfm?c = drafting_plan.
ck_drafting_plan. Accessed: 12/16/2006.
U.S. EPA. Forthcoming(a). Clean Energy Benefits
Assessment Guidebook.
•U.S. EPA. Forthcoming(b). Climate Change/Clean
Energy Education and Outreach Guide.
U.S. EPA. 2008. ENERGY STAR Building Upgrade
Manual. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfm?c=business.bus_upgrade_manual. Accessed:
10/24/2008.
Utah. 2006. Utah Policy to Advance Energy Efficiency
in the State. April 26. Available: http://www. energy.
utah.gov/energy/governors_priorities/utah_policy_
to_advance_energy_efficiency_in_the_state.html.
Accessed 9/29/2006.
Vermont. 2004. The Vermont Statutes Online. Title 3:
Executive Chapter 45: Administration 3 V.S.A. § 2291.
State Agency Energy Plan. Available: http://www.leg.
state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title = 03&Chapter
= 045&Section = 02291. Accessed 12/16/2006.
Vermont. 2005. Vermont State Energy Plan for State
Government. July. Available: http://www.bgs.vermont.
gov/sites/bgs/files/pdfs/BGS-VTStateEnergyPlan.pdf
.Accessed: 10/11/08, 4/26/2007 and 12/16/2006.
Virginia. 2007. Executive Order 48 (2007). Energy
Efficiency in State Government. Available: http://www.
governor.virginia.gov/initiatives/ExecutiveOrders/2007/
EO_48.cfm. Accessed: 2/17/2008.
• Washington. 2007. Energy Saving Performance
Contracting. Available: http://www.ga.wa.gov/EAS/
epc/espc.htm. Accessed 9/14/2007.
• West Virginia. 2006. Building Professionals Energy
Training Program. Available: http://www.wvdo.org/
community/code.html. Accessed: 12/16/2006.
Zobler, N. and K. Hatcher. 2003. Financing energy
efficiency projects. Government Finance Review,
February. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/
business/government/Financial_Energy_Efficiency_
Projects.pdf. Accessed: 12/16/2006.
160 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER FIVE
-------
CHAPTER SIX
Tracking, Evaluating,
and Reporting LBE
Program Progress
This chapter provides information
on how to track, evaluate, and report
on the performance of LBE programs
and projects.
This information is primarily intended to help states
measure and improve their LBE programs and projects
after they have been implemented. The tracking and
benchmarking methods presented here can be used for
other purposes, such as developing energy use base-
lines to help in establishing LBE goals (see Chapter 2,
Getting Started) and screening LBE activities and mea-
sures to determine which are the most likely to meet
LBE energy savings goals (see Chapter 4, Screening LBE
Activities and Measures).
An overview of the tracking, evaluating, and reporting
process is summarized in Figure 6.1. The following
four steps are involved:
1 Step 1: Plan. The tracking, evaluation, and reporting
plan defines what will be tracked and evaluated, when
to conduct the evaluation, and how to present the
results to target audiences. (See Section 6.1, Step 1:
Develop a Tracking, Evaluation, and Reporting Plan.)
Step 2: Track and Benchmark. Tracking is the process
of recording and documenting the performance of key
indicators (e.g., energy savings and cost savings), or
changes in key indicators, associated with an LBE pro-
gram or project. The benchmarking process involves
comparing the energy use of a building or group of
buildings with other structures with similar character-
istics and/or assessing how energy use varies from a
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
CHAPTER TWO
Potential LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER THREE
Establish the LBE Program Framework
CHAPTER FOUR
Screen LBE Activities and Measures
CHAPTER FIVE
Develop LBE Program
CHAPTER SIX
Track, Evaluate, and Report on Progress
CHAPTER SIX CONTENTS
6.1. Step 1: Develop a tracking, evaluating, and reporting
plan
6.2. Step 2: Conduct energy and emissions tracking and
benchmarking
6.3. Step 3: Conduct evaluations
6.4. Summary of tracking and evaluation approaches
6.5. Step 4: Report LBE program results
Related appendices:
Appendix H, State LBE Tracking Tools and Resources.
Provides information to help states identify and
effectively use a variety of tracking tools, including tools
for assessing building performance, emission inventory
tools, energy savings tools and others.
Appendix I, M&V Protocols and Guidance. Summarizes
federal guidelines that are designed for determining
savings from individual projects (e.g., IPMVP, FEMP M&V
Guidelines, and ASHRAE Guideline 14) as well as state
and utility Program M&V guidelines
Appendix J, Resources for Reporting the Results
of LBE Programs. Provides examples of how states
have reported the results of their LBE programs and
summarizes guidance on state reporting.
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 161
-------
baseline. (See Section 6.2, Step 2: Conduct Energy and
Emissions Tracking and Benchmarking.)
Step 3: Evaluate. Evaluation involves collecting and
analyzing new data and using it in conjunction with in-
formation gathered from the tracking and benchmark-
ing process to assess the LBE program or project. (See
Section 6.3, Step 3: Conduct Evaluations and Section
6.4, Summary of Tracking and Evaluation Approaches.)
Step 4: Report Progress. Once an LBE program has been
implemented, it is important to periodically report on
the program results and use the evaluation results to to
modify and improve the LBE program, as appropriate.
Reports can be targeted to different audiences, includ-
ing a high level executive summary for the public and
political leaders, and a detailed assessment for state
agency staff and others. (See Section 6.5, Step 4: Report
LBE Program Results.)
Tracking LBE program and project data, conducting
evaluations, and reporting results are critical to suc-
cessful LBE efforts. These actions help states:
Assess the performance of the state's LBE program and
projects.
Improve existing and future programs and projects.
Present findings and conclusions to the governor,
agency director, the public, and others.
The program performance metrics that states typically
assess include energy savings (kWh) and cost savings.
Some states also quantify and report demand sav-
ings (kW),1 avoided air pollution and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, and other program benefits such as
investment or job creation.2 Techniques for evaluating
savings range from simple analyses with limited physi-
cal measurements to the use of sophisticated surveys
and analysis tools with real-time monitoring of energy
and emissions data.
Demand is expressed in kWand refers to the power requirement of a
system at a given time (e.g., a specific time of day), or the amount of power
required to supply customers at a given time. For example, annual average
demand savings are defined as total annual energy savings divided by the
hours in the year. Peak demand reductions involve determining the maximum
amount of demand reduction during a specified period of time (NAPEE,
2007).
The LEE Guide focuses on the direct benefits of LEE programs, defined as
energy savings (in kWH), demand savings (in kW), cost savings, and emission
reductions. Additional information on how to assess these and other energy
system benefits, environmental quality and related human health benefits,
and economic benefits will be provided in EPAs A Guidebook for Assessing the
Multiple Benefits of Clean Energy (U.S. EPA, Forthcoming).
The remaining sections in this chapter provide guid-
ance for those who are directly involved in carrying out
tracking, evaluation, and reporting functions. For ad-
ditional information on evaluation issues and methods,
see the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency's
Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation
Guide (NAPEE, 2007).
TRACKING AND EVALUATION TERMINOLOGY
Terms used for tracking and evaluation can have different
meanings for different applications. Common definitions are
described below.
Baseline: Conditions, including energy consumption and
related emissions, that would have occurred in the absence
of a program or project or that existed prior to program
implementation. The baseline period is also referred to as
the business-as-usual (BAU), pre-implementation, or pre-
installation period.
Benchmarking: Establishing energy use, emissions, or
generation characteristics best practices standards (e.g., miles
per gallon, energy use per square foot, emissions per unit of
energy consumed, percent renewables per agency) for the
purposes of comparing the performance of existing operations
and establishing targets for those operations. Automated
benchmarking enables states to electronically upload building
utility data into a performance rating system, such as ENERGY
STAR. This capability allows governments to set up a system
that automatically measures and tracks energy performance of
all facilities, sets baselines, tracks CO2 emissions, and receives
the benefits of a performance rating system with no manual
data entry.
Evaluation: Conducting studies and activities aimed at
determining the effects of a program or project. Evaluation can
include any of a wide range of assessment activities associated
with understanding or documenting program/project
performance; assessing program -related markets and market
operations; or assessing program-induced changes in energy
efficiency markets, levels of demand or energy savings, and
program cost-effectiveness.
Indicator: A value or set of values that together or individually
provide an indication of the status or direction of a project or
program.
Measurement and Verification (M&V) . Data collection,
monitoring, and analysis associated with calculating gross
energy and demand savings from individual sites or projects.
M&V can be a subset of program impact evaluation. When M&V
is used to evaluate projects as part of a program evaluation, the
term EM&V can be used.
Reporting Period: The time following implementation of a
program or project during which savings are to be determined.
The reporting period is also referred to as the post-
implementation or post-installation period.
Tracking: Recording and documenting critical information
or indicators that define the program and its quantitative and
qualitative performance—used for baseline establishment,
program management, and evaluation.
162 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
FIGURE 6.1. AN APPROACH TO TRACKING, EVALUATION, AND REPORTING
STEP 4: Report
Report evaluation findings;
assess results; modify LBE program or
project as needed
STEP 1: Plan
Develop the Tracking,
Evaluation, and Reporting plan: establish
goals; define performance indicators;
specify evaluation and reporting
approaches; allocate resources
Implement Program
or Project
Tracking, Evaluation,
and Reporting Cycle
STEP 3: Evaluate
Conduct impact, process, and/
or market evaluations to determine
benefits
STEP 2: Track/Benchmark
Develop tracking system;
establish baseline reporting conditions;
establish reporting period conditions;
collect and organize performance data
Source: Schiller, 2006
6.1 STEP 1: DEVELOP A TRACKING,
EVALUATION, AND REPORTING PLAN
Developing a plan for tracking, evaluating, and report-
ing LBE program and/or project results is an important
first step. It is important to develop this plan during the
LBE program design phase so that the program budget,
schedule, and resources can properly take evaluation
requirements into account. It is also a way to ensure
that data collection required to support expected
efforts is accommodated at the time of program or
project implementation.
DEFINITION OF PROGRAM VERSUS PROJECT
A program refers to a group of projects with similar
characteristics that are used in similar applications. For example,
a program could be an LBE activity to improve the energy
efficiency of its existing public buildings or the implementation
of energy-efficient procurement across all agencies within a
state. The term is also used more generally to refer collectively
to the overall suite of state clean energy LBE actions.
Project refers to a single activity at one location, such as an
energy-efficient lighting retrofit in a state building or the
purchase of energy-efficient products within a state facility or
agency.
Programs are often evaluated using a sample (versus a census)
of projects, with the results applied to all projects that comprise
that program.
Source: NAPEE, 2007.
The plan describes the key performance indicators that
will be tracked, specifies an evaluation approach, and
outlines reporting requirements. A well-designed plan
can help ensure that tracking and evaluation efforts are
effective, reported results are meaningful, and adequate
resources are available. Figure 6.1.1 summarizes the
basic components and steps for developing the plan.
An overview of selected issues related to LBE planning
is provided below.
DETERMINE EVALUATION GOALS
When determining program evaluation goals, it is
important to consider key characteristics of the LBE
program, including the stage of development (i.e., pilot
programs, full-scale implementation, and mature pro-
grams). Table 6.1.1 illustrates how different stages of
LBE program development are likely to have different
program, evaluation, and tracking goals. For example,
when implementing a new LBE program to improve
the energy efficiency of state office buildings, a state
may decide to conduct a pilot program in a limited
number of facilities before implementing the program
on a larger level. The evaluation goals and approach
for this pilot program may be different than for a well-
documented, "mature" program that has been operat-
ing for a number of years.
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 163
-------
FIGURE 6.1.1. SAMPLE OUTLINE FOR A TRACKING,
EVALUATION, AND REPORTING PLAN
Overview of a Tracking, Evaluation, and Reporting Plan
1 Identify evaluation goals and objectives in light of
overall LBE program goals
1 Specify characteristics of the program and project
1 Specify implementation strategies
1 Specify types of evaluations (i.e., impact, process, and/or
market) that will be conducted
1 Specify level of accuracy for the tracking and evaluation
analysis
1 Determine the timing of tracking, evaluation, and
reporting
1 Define budget and resource requirements
1 Develop quality assurance procedures
Tracking (see Sections 6.2 and 6.4)
1 Determine the type of information to be tracked (e.g.,
are data to be collected for state-owned facilities,
facilities for which the state pays the utility bills, or all
facilities, including those the state rents and does not
pay utility bills?)
1 Determine the specific data to collect
1 Determine who will collect the data and conduct the
tracking
1 Determine the format and period of data collection
1 Identify the software tools that will be used to collect
and track the data
1 If benchmarking will be used, define the parameters,
sources of data, and tools for establishing the
benchmark. Energy benchmarking is externally-
based (e.g., buildings are compared to other, similar
buildings) or internally-based (e.g., energy use at a state
government building or group of buildings is compared
to other buildings owned by the state).
Evaluation (see Sections 6.3 and 6.4)
1 Identify type(s) of evaluation to be conducted (i.e.,
impact, process, and/or market effects evaluations) and
how it will occur. For example, for an impact evaluation:
1 Decide who will conduct the evaluation
1 Specify the M&V options, methods, and techniques to
be used for each LBE measure
1 Specify data analysis procedures, algorithms,
assumptions, data requirements, and data products
1 Specify the metering points, period of metering, and
analysis and metering protocols (if any)
Reporting (see Section 6.5)
1 Specify the target audience. Consider developing
multiple reports based on audience.
1 Specify the report format, contents, and how results will
be documented
1 Identify reporting schedule.
WHY TRACK, EVALUATE, AND REPORT?
Tracking, evaluating, and reporting on LBE programs and
projects provide states with timely information to improve
program implementation. Tracking and evaluation can help
states answer the following questions:
Is the program/project achieving its objectives? If so, how and
why?
How well has the program/project worked? What is the
magnitude of program/project savings?
How reliable is the program/project? will it continue to
generate benefits into the future?
What changes are needed to improve the program/project?
Should the program/project be expanded, adjusted, or
cancelled?
By answering these questions, states can:
Identify program approaches that are the most effective and
determine how to improve future programs.
Decide where to focus for greater savings.
Identify metrics that can be used in future estimates of benefits
(e.g., energy savings per square feet of office space).
By communicating results and benefits to key audiences,
states can document progress being made towards their LBE
goals and promote the benefits of clean energy, describe
recommendations for improvement, and obtain continued
support for their programs and projects.
DETERMINE LEVEL OF DETAIL FOR PLAN
Plans can change over time and vary in level of detail,
depending on the desired scale and rigor of the track-
ing and evaluation effort. For example, an evaluation
effort might cover a five-year program implementation
period plus three years of additional follow-up evalu-
ation. However, if the first two years of evaluation
indicate benefits consistent with what was expected,
evaluation efforts could be scaled down for the final
years. A well-prepared but simple plan is more useful
than a complex but incomplete one.
DETERMINE TIMING FOR THE EVALUATION
Timing of evaluations is a key issue. While tracking
occurs continuously during the development and
implementation of a program or project, evaluation
typically occurs at fixed intervals. The best time to
conduct evaluations is at the mid-point of a program
or at regular intervals (e.g., annually) so that they can
provide more timely and useful information. Evalua-
tions that occur only at program completion are not
suited to influencing or improving the program or
related follow-on efforts.
164 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
TABLE 6.1.1 SAMPLE GOALS FOR KEY PROGRAM TYPES
Program Type
Pilot Program
Sample Program Goals
Sample Evaluation and Tracking Goals
Develop and document theory of how program
will work (i.e., a "program logic model").
Define program outcomes.
Assess cost-effectiveness.
Establish indicators of, and metrics for, program
performance.
Measure participant satisfaction.
Assess measurement methods and program scope.
Evaluate and track established indicators to
determine if program achieves expected savings
and if it should be expanded or curtailedBrequired
accuracy is high.
Test tracking, evaluation, and analysis methods.
Document costs and benefits.
Use information to estimate potential for
expanded program.
Include thorough process evaluations.
Full-Scale
Implementation
Attain program goals and benefits.
Incorporate program refinements into formal
program design.
Transform the market.
Track and evaluate established indicators to
determine if program achieves expected savings
and if it should be continued-required accuracy is
medium (assuming higher accuracy evaluation in
the pilot program confirmed benefits).
• Document costs and benefits.
Document impacts attributable to the program.
Analyze implementation processes (process
evaluation).
Continue process evaluations.
May include market evaluation element.
Mature Program
Strengthen goals and continue benefits.
Transform the market.
Same as full-scale implementation, but with a
market evaluation component.
Accuracy requirements may be low, since benefits
are already well-documented through pilot and
full-scale implementation evaluations.
ASSESS AVAILABLE RESOURCES
Another key issue to consider is budgeting. Evalua-
tion budgets are typically between 1% to 8% of total
program budgets. Challenges include balancing the
cost, effort, and rigor of various approaches with the
value of the information generated by these efforts.
States can compare the costs of achieving high levels of
confidence in the evaluation with the value of the ben-
efits. In this way, evaluation involves risk management,
where low-risk projects require less evaluation rigor
than high-risk projects. The amount of acceptable risk
is tied to: (1) the amount of savings expected from the
program, (2) whether programs are expected to grow
or shrink, (3) the uncertainty of expected savings, (4)
the risk of not knowing the program results, and (5)
the resources available to state agencies.
It is important to plan early to ensure that adequate
resources (e.g., staffing, funding) are available to meet
the tracking, evaluation, and reporting objectives and
realistically anticipate the required costs and levels of
effort. A simple and less rigorous, but well thought out
and adequately funded, evaluation effort usually pro-
vides better results than a rigorous but under-funded
effort.
Readers seeking additional information on evaluation
planning can see Section 7 of the Model Energy Ef-
ficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide. It addresses
how evaluation planning and reporting is integrated
into the program implementation process, as well as
key issues and questions to determine the scope and
scale of an impact evaluation.
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 165
-------
WYOMING ENERGY CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM: MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION PLAN
GUIDELINES
The Wyoming Business Council State Energy Office (WBC)
administers the Wyoming Energy Conservation Improvement
Program (WYECIP), which supports public and non-profit
facility owners in using energy performance contracts (EPCs) to
finance energy conservation improvement projects.
WBC has established a guidance manual for facility managers
on how to use EPCs and work with ESCOs. The manual
includes guidelines for developing a project-specific M&V plan
that includes the following information:
Details of baseline conditions and data collected.
Documentation of all assumptions and data sources.
Items that will be verified.
Responsibilities for conducting the M&V activities.
Schedule for all M&V activities.
Discussion of risk and savings uncertainty.
Details of engineering analysis performed.
Details of baseline energy and water rates.
Performance period adjustment factors for energy, water, and
O&M rates, if used.
Methodology for energy and cost savings calculations.
Details of any O&M cost savings claimed.
Definition of O&M reporting responsibilities.
Definition of, and format for, post-implementation,
commissioning, annual, and periodic reports.
Discussion of how and why the baseline may be adjusted.
Definition of preventative maintenance responsibilities.
Source: Wyoming Business Council, 2007, 2007a.
6.2 STEP 2: CONDUCT ENERGY
AND EMISSIONS TRACKING AND
BENCHMARKING
This section focuses on data requirements and meth-
odology issues for tracking and benchmarking energy
use, demand, energy savings, and avoided emissions
from energy efficiency and renewable energy pro-
grams and projects.
6.2.1 ESTABLISHING A TRACKING SYSTEM
All energy and demand savings analysis involves gath-
ering data on baseline and reporting period energy use,
together with information that affects energy use. This
tracking process generally involves:
Collecting data to define the baseline or benchmarks
before a program or project starts. This includes
documenting:
Key indicators such as baseline energy use and
demand, saved energy and demand, reduced energy
costs, and emission reductions.
Factors that affect baseline energy use and demand,
such as weather (e.g., heating and cooling degree
days),3 facility occupancy, square feet of building(s)
involved, and facility operating hours.
Baseline equipment and systems
Collecting data that describe the same conditions after
program implementation.
Baseline and post-implementation energy use and
demand can be determined through site surveys; spot,
short-term, or long-term metering; engineering analy-
ses; computer simulations; and/or billing data analysis.
Regardless of analysis approach, the types and quanti-
ties of data to be collected and tracked can be extensive
and complex so it can be important to establish a
database of this information. Some states have already
established comprehensive databases that contain in-
formation for a wide range of program needs, and that
can be tapped when developing an LBE program or
project tracking system.
EXAMPLE: Vermont has developed a robust IT system
that contains historical and current customer informa-
tion including for example, building characteristics,
key staff/contacts, metered energy and demand, imple-
mented measures, measure savings assumptions, project
tracking, and other data. This data system supports im-
proved planning and evaluation, and serves as a tool for
increased management effectiveness (Parker et al., 2008).
The first step in tracking LBE program progress is to
establish an inventory of energy use for at least one
year. This first year of data helps form a baseline or
benchmark, which can then be used to measure the
success of future LBE programs or projects.
Data on energy use can be collected at four different
monitoring levels4:
Heating and cooling degrees, typically reported on a monthly basis, are
calculated as the difference between outside air temperature and typical heat-
ing and cooling indoor temperature settings. They are indicative of relative
heating and cooling requirements and ambient temperatures.
The four levels are described in terms of energy use at facilities or buildings.
However, the same hierarchy can be used for generation assets (for renewable
energy programs) or vehicle fleets (for transportation programs).
166 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
State Level: State authorities gather information on
energy consumption for all government agencies. Typi-
cally, one state agency (e.g., the real estate/facilities or
energy/environmental agency) takes the lead, setting
up a reporting template and aggregating the data.
State Agency Level: Facility managers collect the infor-
mation necessary to monitor energy consumption for
all facilities owned or leased by their agency.
Facility Level: Agencies owning or leasing multiple
buildings can collect data for each facility. This level
is particularly suited for benchmarking, and captures
the interactive effects of a particular project (e.g., en-
ergy efficient lighting typically gives off less heat than
conventional systems and may result in an increase
in heating loads in winter). However, complications
can occur if an agency does not pay for utilities in one
or more of its rented facilities and/or rents space in a
building without submeters.
Project Level: Within facilities, it is possible to measure
energy consumption by end use (e.g., lighting, cooling,
ventilation, space heating, and appliances) to evalu-
ate the impact of specific energy efficiency measures.
While this level of monitoring requires project-specific
evaluation processes, it yields more detailed, end-use
level information about savings, cost-effectiveness,
and savings potential, thereby helping states prioritize
across individual strategies and measures. However,
end-use level monitoring does not capture the interac-
tive effects of whole building analysis.
The information to collect depends on the desired level
of detail and type of system or software used. States
collecting data on energy use and/or costs by for all
government-owned facilities can follow one of two
key approaches (both of which can be conducted by
consultants or internal staff):
Collecting energy provider invoices and utility billings
that are paid by each state agency
Sending an energy consumption questionnaire to each
state agency.
While the first method is typically faster, the second
method has the advantage of transferring more re-
sponsibility to the state agency level, requiring them to
collect and track their own energy consumption data.
Once energy consumption (and/or demand) informa-
tion is gathered, states can use commercially available
energy accounting software to construct a database to
store and display the data by multiple criteria, such as
consumption by fuel type, by building or vehicle type,
or by agency. Management of energy bills can also be
subcontracted to private service and product providers
(SPPs) that help organize and assess agency energy
consumption, including organizing data into a data-
base. These firms assess this information to provide
the state with detailed information on energy costs and
use, enabling identification of cost saving opportuni-
ties, better management, and improved efficiency. A list
of SPPs is provided in Appendix H, State LBE Tracking
Tools and Resources.
MASSACHUSETTS' DATA COLLECTION APPROACH: ENERGY
AND CO2 INVENTORY
Massachusetts established an Energy and CO2 Inventory for
FY 2002 for all state agencies. Fuel consumption data were
gathered and analyzed to determine total government CO2
emissions, individual agency emissions, emissions from each
fuel type, and emissions categorized by end-use function (i.e.,
buildings and transportation).
For fuel oil, gasoline, diesel, ethanol, compressed natural
gas (CNG), and propane, data were collected centrally from
purchasing records and vendor reports from state contracts.
This was accomplished with the cooperation of the Operational
Services Division, the state's central purchasing agency.
Electricity and natural gas data were more difficult to obtain,
since statewide contracts for these energy types were not
in place. When consumption data were not available, the
procurement records of cost data from the state accounting
system were used to estimate consumption for those agencies.
The state is working to obtain more accurate agency-by-agency
natural gas and electricity consumption data in the future.
Source: Massachusetts, 2004.
GEORGIA'S ENERGY TRACKING SYSTEM
The Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority issued an RFP
to develop an energy accounting system to track and analyze
energy consumption and costs for all state facilities. The
goal is to secure an in-house system that enables the state to
accurately report its energy consumption and identify, initiate,
and manage facility-specific or agency-wide cost savings
strategies. The system will enable benchmarking of buildings
against similar buildings using the EPA Portfolio Manager tool.
It will also feature the ability to:
Create groups of similar facilities (e.g., prisons, office buildings,
dorms)
Compare facilities (within a group and between groups)
according to criteria such as cost per kWh, cost per therm,
energy expenditure per square foot, energy expenditure per
occupant, and energy use per square foot per degree day basis.
Sources: Georgia, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c.
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 167
-------
ENERGY ACCOUNTING
Energy accounting is the term used to describe the process of
tracking energy consumption and costs on a regular basis.
CEC's handbook. Energy Accounting: A Key Tool in Managing
Energy Costs, provides background information about energy
accounting, and describes energy accounting methodologies.
Information on commercially available energy accounting
software packages is also provided.
Source: CEC, 2000.
Another option for states and municipalities is to track
energy use and conduct building energy benchmarking
using EPA's Portfolio Manager tool, which rates facility
performance relative to similar buildings nationwide
based on EPAs national energy performance rating
system. Benchmarking enables states to rank their
individual facilities on energy performance and to
compare each facility with other buildings (and to it-
self) over time. EPA has worked with SPPs to integrate
the ENERGY STAR energy performance rating system
into their efficiency assessments in order to directly
calculate the ENERGY STAR score for eligible building
types.5 By using Portfolio Manager, SPPs can apply the
energy performance rating system without duplicating
data entry efforts (see Section 6.2.3, Benchmarking and
Assessing Potential Energy Savings for more informa-
tion about benchmarking and Portfolio Manager).
TRACKING RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Renewable energy can replace conventional energy sources
through the installation of on-site renewable energy devices.
For example, the installation of solar panels or solar hot water
heaters results in reduced energy consumption from traditional
providers. Consumption of on-site renewable energy is
frequently accounted for separately and is treated as "direct"
energy savings rather than being included in total energy
consumption.
The CEC and the Western Governors' Association is developing
a renewable energy tracking system, the Western Renewable
Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS), to track and
account for renewable energy generation and registering RECs
(CEC, 2006).
Information on WREGIS is at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/
portfolio/wregis/index.h tml.
Tracking total energy consumption and demand
requires collecting information on all forms of energy,
The energy performance rating (measured from 1 to 100) indicates the
percentile rank of the buildings compared to similar buildings nationwide.
The rating system accounts for the impacts of year-to-year weather variations,
building size, location, and several operating characteristics. Buildings with
ratings of 75 or greater may qualify for the ENERGY STAR label.
including electricity, natural gas, propane, fuel oil, and
gasoline. To assess energy use, states also distinguish
between the energy consumed for building operation
and the energy used for transportation. This distinction
enables states to construct indicators related to energy
use, such as building energy consumption and demand
per square foot, and vehicle fuel use per mile.
To compare energy consumption data and accurately
estimate energy and demand savings, states often
account for the quantity of upstream energy that is
consumed to produce the electricity consumed onsite.
In this case, it is important to distinguish between site
energy, which includes only the amount of energy con-
sumed at the facility, and source energy, which includes
the site energy plus the energy required to generate,
transmit, and distribute electricity to a site (e.g., a
building). Source energy can be a better measure than
site energy for comparing total building energy use
across fuel types since it enables a complete assessment
of the impacts of clean energy in a building, including
the associated environmental and economic impacts.6
EPAs Portfolio Manager tool rates energy performance
based on source energy.
If the electricity is purchased from the grid, site energy
is converted to its source equivalent using standard
site-source energy conversion factors such as those
shown in Table 6.2.1. As illustrated in the table, for
electricity use, the source energy consumed annu-
ally by a building is about three times the site energy
consumed annually by that building. Because the con-
version factors are based on the national average, it is
preferable to use more accurate state- or region-specific
factors, which may be available from utilities, energy
service providers, or state energy or public utility agen-
cies (U.S. EPA, 2007a, 2007b).
TABLE 6.2.1 SITE AND SOURCE ENERGY
CONVERSION FACTORS3
Fuel Type
Electricity
Steam
Site
1
1
Source
3.340
1.45
a National averages do not account for regional electricity
generation differences.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2007a.
EPAs Portfolio Manager energy performance rating system is based on
source energy (U.S. EPA, 2007).
168 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
6.2.2 TRACKING AIR EMISSIONS
Emissions from electricity generation and fuel combus-
tion include criteria air pollutants and GHGs. Criteria
air pollutants include the six most common air pol-
lutants in the United States: carbon monoxide, lead,
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur
dioxide. The primary GHG is CO2, although states also
track other GHGs with high global warming potential,
such as methane.
Air emissions are categorized as either direct or indi-
rect. Direct emissions occur at the site being evaluated
(e.g., from fuel combustion in boilers or gasoline used
in a truck). Indirect emissions occur off-site (e.g., in
a power plant that generates the electricity used in a
facility). Indirect emissions are typically accounted
for through inventories of energy-using systems and
equipment. GHG accounting standards, such as the
DOE's 1605b program (U.S. DOE, 2007) and the
California Climate Action Registry (California Climate
Action Registry, 2007) protocols provide methods for
these calculations.
Once an energy use inventory has been constructed,
it is possible to calculate emissions resulting from
energy consumption by using emissions factors, which
are expressed in units of emissions per unit of energy
consumed or per volume consumed (e.g., pounds of
NOx per kWh produced, pounds of CO per thousand
gallons of gasoline consumed). Table 6.2.2 describes
databases and tools for identifying emission factors
and tracking air emissions.
TABLE 6.2.2. TOOLS AND
RESOURCES FOR TRACKING AIR
EMISSIONS AND IDENTIFYING
EMISSION FACTORS
Portfolio Manager: In addition to track-
ing and benchmarking the energy use of
facilities. Portfolio Manager uses EGrid, a
comprehensive data source on the environ-
mental characteristics of all domestic elec-
tric power generation, to provide estimated
carbon emissions for facilities based on their
energy consumption.
Emissions & Generation Resource Integrat-
ed Database (eGRID): This EPA tool provides
a comprehensive data source on the envi-
ronmental characteristics of all domestic
electric power generation. It contains de-
fault emission factors at varying levels of de-
tail, including by generating company, state.
North American Electric Reliability Council
(NERC) region, and U.S. average. It provides
numerous search options, including by indi-
vidual power plants, generating companies,
states, and regions of the power grid. The
current version contains U.S. power plant
emission totals for 1996 through 2000, and
2002 through 2004. Web site: http://www.
epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid/index.htm
Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact
Evaluation Guide - Chapter 6, Calculating
Avoided Air Emissions: A resource of the Na-
tional Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, this
chapter describes two general approaches
for determining avoided air emissions: emis-
sion factor and scenario analysis approaches.
It presents several methods for calculating
both direct onsite avoided emissions and re-
ductions from grid-connected electric gen-
erating units and describes considerations
for selecting a calculation approach. Web
site: h ttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/docu-
men ts/evalua tion_guide.pdf
Power Profiler Tool: This is a Web-based
tool that generates reports on the air emis-
sions rates of electricity consumption by ZIP
code. Web site: www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
powerprofiler.h tm
EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Pro-
gram (EIIP): The EIIP is sponsored jointly by
EPA and the National Association of Clean
Air Agencies (NACAA). It provides guidance
on how to conduct emissions inventories
and can be used as a reference for method-
ological issues. Web site: http://www.epa.
gov/ttn/chief/eiip/
GHG Protocol: The World Resources In-
stitute and the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD)
developed internationally-recognized GHG
accounting standards and corresponding
tools for developing local GHG invento-
ries. The EPA Climate Leaders Program also
provides guidance for developing local
inventories based on the WRI/WBCSD pro-
tocol. Web sites: http.Y/www.ghgprotoco/.
org and http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/
resources/index.html
Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP)
Software: This Windows-based software
tool helps state and local governments
develop GHG and criteria air pollutant emis-
sions inventories and strategies to reduce
GHG and air pollution emissions. It allows
the user to create a cross-sector emissions
inventory, including building, transport,
and waste management sectors, and helps
quantify the emissions reduction of existing
and proposed measures. Web site: http://
www.cacpsoftware.org/
Combined Heat and Power Emissions Cal-
culator: This tool compares the anticipated
carbon, CO2, SO2, and NOx emissions from
a CHP system to the emissions from a num-
ber of systems using separate heat and pow-
er, and calculates the emissions reductions
achieved by the CHP system. It also presents
the carbon equivalency of these emissions
reductions in terms of acres of trees planted
and number of cars removed from the road.
Web site: www.epa.gov/chp
(Additional resources are available in Ap-
pendix H, State LBE Tracking Tools and
Resources.)
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 169
-------
6.2.3 BENCHMARKING
Once a baseline description of energy consumption,
demand, energy costs, and/or air emissions has been
developed, states can use this information to identify
potential energy savings from LBE programs and
projects, set targets to reduce energy consumption,
prioritize LBE projects, and track progress over time.
One way to gauge the efficiency of energy use is to
compare, or benchmark, an LBE project with similar
projects. States can conduct the following types of
benchmarking:
External Benchmarking. External benchmarking in-
volves comparing the building(s) being evaluated with
other, similar buildings (e.g., other office buildings
or K-12 schools). In addition to helping states track
performance against similar facilities, the results can be
used to compare energy performance against a national
performance rating, identify best practices for improv-
ing buildings performance, increase understanding of
how to analyze and evaluate energy performance, and
identify high-performing buildings. States can use the
ENERGY, STAR Portfolio Manager tool, described
in more detail on in the text box at right, to conduct
this benchmark comparison for select building types.
Portfolio Manager normalizes for weather and other
buildings and operational characteristics, and provides
a benchmark score on a scale of 1-100. Portfolio Man-
ager data are based on a national Commercial Building
Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) survey con-
ducted every four years by the Department of Energy's
Energy Information Administration, which includes
data on building characteristics and energy use from
thousands of buildings across the United States. (U.S.
EPA, 2008; U.S. EPA, 2008a).
Internal Benchmarking. With internal benchmark-
ing, states can compare the energy use and demand
(e.g., building efficiency), energy generation (e.g., via
clean power), or emissions for the building or port-
folio of buildings that they are evaluating with other
state-owned or leased buildings. Energy performance
benchmarks are typically denned in terms of energy
use and/or demand per square foot, and can be as
simple as the average energy consumption per square
foot of all the state's buildings. This comparison enables
states to identify buildings with the greatest potential
for improvement, establish best practices that can be
replicated in other state-owned or leased facilities, and
to track performance over time, States that commit
to a 10% improvement in energy efficiency - regard-
less of their starting levels of efficiency - can receive
PORTFOLIO MANAGER AND AUTOMATED BENCHMARKING
EPA's Portfolio Manager is an on-line, interactive, software tool
that allows the user to monitor and manage energy data. It uses
basic building data (e.g., size, type, and annual energy use) to
calculate energy performance compared to similar buildings
nationwide. States can use this rating to determine whether
a building has a high, low, or typical energy-use intensity
compared to other buildings.
Data can be entered for individual or groups of buildings.
Buildings can be grouped by various criteria, including by
agency and by building manager. Portfolio Manager includes
an easy-to-read facility summary page that provides detailed
information for each building entered. The software also tracks
changes in energy intensity (e.g., energy per square foot) over
time.
To minimize the data entry associated with Portfolio Manager,
a data transfer technique called automated benchmarking has
recently been developed. This user-friendly capability uploads
building utility bills directly into Portfolio Manager. This allows
governments to set up a system that automatically measures
and tracks energy performance of all facilities, sets baselines,
and estimates CO2 emissions, with no manual data entry. EPA
is collaborating with SPPs (which provide energy information,
management, and bill handling services to states and other
organizations) to offer ENERGY STAR benchmarking as part
of their standard software package for planning, tracking, and
managing energy costs.
California provides an example of a state that conducts
automated benchmarking. The state owns 1,566 facilities
across 34 state departments and about 16,000 buildings, and
has adopted EPA's Portfolio Manager as its benchmarking
tool. To meet Green Building Executive Order S-20-04,
the Department General Services, the California Energy
Commission, and the state's investor-owned utilities worked
together to integrate automated benchmarking capabilities into
the utility billing process. With this capability, it will be easier
for facility managers to track energy consumption against the
2003 baseline, and help meet the state's energy reduction goal
of 20% by 2015.
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2007; ENERGY STAR, unpublished; and Miller, 2008.
assistance and recognition under the ENERGY STAR
Challenge. (U.S. EPA, 2008; U.S. EPA, 2008a).
Energy Utilization Indices. States can also conduct
benchmarking based on developing their own bench-
mark metrics (e.g., the energy use performance of fa-
cilities in the top percentile of the existing state facility
stock). For example, states can use energy accounting to
develop information on performance or energy utiliza-
tion indices (EUIs) for all buildings of interest based on
such factors as building type (e.g., office buildings, hos-
pitals, prisons), size (e.g., less than 10,000 square feet,
between 10,000 and 100,000 square feet, and greater
than 100,000 square feet), or vintage (e.g., pre-1960, be-
tween 1960 and 1990, and newer than 1990). The state
170 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
FIGURE 6.2.1 NEW YORK'S ENERGY UTILIZATION INDEX (EUI)
NYSERDA benchmarking efforts compare energy reduction targets for buildings against an energy use per square foot metric, which encom-
passes the square footage of most of the state buildings (i.e., 14,000 buildings at a total of 400 million square feet). This EUI metric accounts for
the expansion (e.g., new building construction, building purchases) and contraction (e.g., facility consolidation, building sales) of state-owned
and -operated space when compared to a base year. The EUI projection for each year is compared to the EUI for the base year of 1989 to 1990.
The figure below illustrates projected EUI reduction targets to 2010 (35% reduction) and the energy consumption that will be avoided as a result
of these energy efficiency improvements, compared to the base year. In 2002, the average reduction in EUI per square foot was close to 17,000
Btus/Sq. ft. or 9%, representing about 25% of the 2010 target EUI reduction of about 67,000 Btus/Sq. ft.
Annual Energy Utilization Index Reduction and Projections {Btus/Sq.ft.)
Patterned area between lines
represents avoided energy
consumption from ene gy-
efficiency projects
Bjse Year EUI with No Eiergy
Efficiency Improvements
Actual Reductions
EUI Target Reduction Schedule
Source: NYSERDA, 2003.
can then look at all the buildings that are larger than,
say, 50,000 square feet and set an EUI benchmark (or
target) equal to the 80th percentile in terms of kWh per
square foot. Thus, 20% of the 50,000 square foot and
larger buildings would meet or exceed the benchmark
and 80% would have a target for improvement. Figure
6.2.1 provides an example of how New York established
an EUI and target for its public buildings.
To share resources and experiences, states can work
with other organizations that actively benchmark
buildings, including the International Facility Manage-
ment Association (IFMA, 2006), the Building Owners
and Managers Associations (BOMA, 2006), and Trade-
line, Inc. (Tradeline, 2006).
6.3 STEP 3: CONDUCT EVALUATIONS
As shown in Table 6.3.1, states can conduct three
types of evaluations to assess their LBE programs:
impact, process, and market effects evaluations. Impact
evaluations involve determining the net benefits (e.g.,
energy savings, demand savings, emission reductions,
renewable energy generated, cost savings) resulting
from a program or project and are the focus of this sec-
tion (see Section 6.3.1). Process evaluations and market
effects evaluations are described briefly in Sections
6.3.2 and 6.3.3, respectively.
In terms of scope, impact and process evaluations can
be conducted at the program and project levels, while
market evaluations are appropriate only for program-
level analyses. Program evaluations estimate the total
effects of all similar projects undertaken by the state,
such as all energy efficiency lighting retrofits in state
office buildings or a state LBE green power purchasing
program. Project-level evaluations assess individual
installations (e.g., an evaluation of an energy efficiency
retrofit in a single building or a stand-alone PV system).
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 171
-------
TABLE 6.3.1 TYPES OF EVALUATIONS
Evaluation Types
Impact Evaluations
Description
Information Derived
Quantifies direct and indirect benefits of a program
or project.
Determines the amount of energy and/or demand
saved, the value of cost reductions, the amount of
emissions reductions, and possibly, levels of indirect
benefits.
Process Evaluations
Indicates how to improve the structure of a
program or project. These evaluations often involve
conducting a survey of program stakeholders,
analyzing their feedback, and using this information
to identify opportunities for program improvement.
Determines how well program or project processes
are performing and if these systems can be improved.
Market Effects
Evaluations
Indicates how a program affects the overall supply
chain and market, including the extent to which a
program influences future programs.
Determines changes that have occurred in state
operations and/or private markets, and evaluates how
the marketplace is different as a result of the program.
6.3.1 IMPACT EVALUATIONS
Impact evaluations involve determining and quantify-
ing the direct and/or indirect benefits of a program or
project. Direct benefits include net energy savings, cost
savings, and emission reductions. Indirect benefits in-
clude job creation associated with the development of a
green building industry, the health benefits of reduced
air emissions from reduced fuel combustion, and
economic benefits associated with reduced spending
on imported energy supplies. This section focuses on
direct benefits associated with reduced energy use (i.e.,
energy efficiency) and more efficient or cleaner genera-
tion (e.g., cogeneration and clean power).
MODEL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION
GUIDE
This Action Plan guide provides detailed information on the
processes and approaches for quantifying energy and demand
savings, and avoided emissions resulting from energy efficiency
programs. While the Guide focuses on impact evaluations, it
also presents information on process and market evaluations.
The Guide is intended to assist in the implementation of the
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency's five key policy
recommendations for creating a sustainable, aggressive
national commitment to energy efficiency.
Source: NAPEE, 2007.
Measurement and verification (M&V) is a subset of
impact evaluation that refers to the process of deter-
mining the direct benefits associated with reduced
energy demand and or efficient or cleaner generation
at a single project site (e.g., an energy-efficient lighting
retrofit in a state facility) using one or more techniques
ranging from simple estimates of savings to actual
measurements and computer simulations. For simplic-
ity, this section refers to energy savings M&V, although
M&V approaches can also be applied to cost savings
and emissions reductions through the use of conver-
sion factors (e.g., to $/kWh or CO2 per kWh).
ASSESSING THE MULTIPLE BENEFITS OF CLEAN ENERGY
EPA is currently developing a guidance document for state
energy, environmental, and economic policy makers on
assessing the many benefits of clean energy. This guidebook
will address energy savings, energy system benefits,
environmental quality and related human health benefits, and
economic benefits of clean energy. While they are sometimes
reported in qualitative terms, these benefits can also be
estimated using computer simulations of a state's economy
(e.g., job creation, reduction in trade deficits), public health
models (e.g., reductions in asthma), and other analytic tools.
The guidebook will describe each type of benefit; present
methods, tools, and resources for estimating each type of
benefit; and provide information on how states can use the
results to build support for their clean energy programs.
Source: U.S. EPA, Forthcoming.
A key step in conducting project-level M&V is to
collect baseline and reporting period data, including
energy, demand, and cost savings. This enables the
analyst to make initial comparisons of the baseline and
reporting period (i.e., post-implementation). In terms
172 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
of reporting, results are typically presented for the first
year of performance followed by regular interval (e.g.,
annual) M&V activities aimed at: (a) verifying the
operation of the installed equipment/systems, (b) deter-
mining current year savings, and (c) estimating results
for subsequent years to assess the persistence of savings.
Numerous resources are available to help states evalu-
ate the direct impacts from clean energy activities,
including energy savings, cost savings, and emission
reductions from LBE programs (see Appendix H, State
LEE Tracking Tools and Resources) Other indirect
energy, economic, and environmental benefits can also
be measured. Methods and tools for estimating these
benefits are described in EPA's forthcoming guidebook
on Assessing the Multiple Benefits of Clean Energy (U.S.
EPA, Forthcoming).
Measurement and Verification Basics
Energy savings from an LBE project can be determined
by comparing energy use before and after implementa-
tion of an energy savings project, using the following
equation:
Energy savings = (Baseline energy use) - (Reporting
period energy use) ± (Adjustments)
Baseline Energy Use is the energy consumption that
would have occurred without implementing the project
or program. It is sometimes referred to as "business-as-
usual" (BAU) energy use.
Reporting Period Energy Use is the energy consumption
that occurs after the project or program is implement-
ed. It is sometimes referred to as "post-installation"
energy use.
Adjustments ensure that baseline and post-installation
energy use are measured under the same set of condi-
tions (e.g., weather conditions, building occupancy,
operating hours). For example, corrections for weather
and occupancy may be required if the project involves
heating or air-conditioning systems in a building (e.g.,
a more efficient air conditioner may consume more
electricity after it is installed if the weather is warmer
after installation as compared to before installation)
or the number of occupants changes. On the other
hand, weather does not influence the energy savings
associated with most retrofits to industrial processes.
Additional information on how to address these issues
is provided below in Impact Evaluations - Savings
Adjustments.
CALCULATING THE BASELINE
A first step in conducting impact evaluations is to establish a
baseline. The baseline, also referred to as the "business-as-
usual" scenario, defines the conditions, typically including
energy consumption and may also include related demand
and emission reductions that would have occurred without
implementing a project or program.
Results are then calculated as the difference in energy use (and
demand and emissions, as appropriate) between the baseline
and the new project or program. The two primary options for
determining baselines are:
1 Project-specific baselines. A project-specific baseline uses
the circumstances associated with the project or program
to define the baseline. With an energy efficiency project this
might involve using historical energy use or emissions data
for a particular facility. For a renewable energy generation
project, the baseline might be associated with historical power
purchases from a local distribution company.
1 Multi-purpose or standards baselines. For this type of
baseline, energy use and emissions calculations are based on
the energy codes or regulations that define energy use (e.g.,
state equipment efficiency standards) or conventional building
practice guidelines.
The basic approach to M&V is illustrated in Figures 6.3.1
and 6.3.2. Figure 6.3.1 presents a sample calculation of
energy and cost savings from a school energy-efficient
lighting project. Figure 6.3.2 illustrates the process of
comparing energy use patterns of the pre-installation
(baseline) period to the post-installation period.
One or more approaches can be used to estimate base-
line and post-installation energy use, including:
Inspections—inspections can document the existence,
characteristics, and operation of baseline or post-
installation equipment and systems, as well as factors
affecting energy use.
Engineering Methods—standard formulas and assump-
tions can calculate the energy use of the baseline and
post-installation energy systems.
Statistical Analyses—analyses can be conducted to
compare "before" and "after" electric bills while tak-
ing into consideration changes in weather, facility
occupancy, factory operating hours, and other factors.
These assessments often involve using multivariate
statistical models.
Computer Simulation of System Performance—many
computer models can predict the energy use of system
performance, including F-Chart for active and pas-
sive solar energy systems (F-CHART Software, 2005),
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 173
-------
FIGURE 6.3.1. SAMPLE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY PROJECT-
CALCULATION OF DIRECT
BENEFITS
A school district replaces its existing light-
ing with energy-efficient lighting. More than
100 school buildings replace 30,000 fixtures
that each consume 92 watts with the same
number of fixtures that each consume 61
watts. The hours of operation for the lights
are estimated at 3,000 per year. In this case,
a typical M&V approach would involve con-
ducting an inventory of all the pre-retrofit
and post-retrofit lighting fixtures to deter-
mine the reduction in power demand and
then measuring the operating hours of a
sample of fixtures in all the schools to deter-
mine actual energy savings.
The savings are equal to the difference
between the baseline energy use and the
post-retrofit energy use. (This assumes, for
example, that the school classroom hours
do not change and that the retrofit does not
increase the number of lighting fixtures.) For
this project, the baseline energy usage is the
sum of the baseline kWh consumption for
the original fixtures and the post-retrofit en-
ergy usage is the kWh for the new fixtures.
The following simplified equation can be
used to determine estimates of energy sav-
ings for lighting efficiency projects:
kWh savings t = [(kW/fixture baseline x
Quantity baseline) - (kW/fixture post x Quan-
tity post)] x Operating hours
Where:
kWh savings t = kWh savings realized during
post-installation time period t
kW/fixture baseline = lighting baseline de-
mand per fixture
kW/fixture post = lighting demand per fixture
during post-installation period
Quantity baseline = quantity of affected fix-
tures before the lighting retrofit
Quantity post = quantity of affected fixtures
after the lighting retrofit
operating hours = total number of post-
installation operating hours (assumes num-
ber is the same before and after the lighting
retrofit)
(Note that there are 1,000 watt-hours in a
kWh)
Thus, the energy savings equal:
[(92 watts/fixture x 30,000 fixtures) - (61
watts/fixture x 30,000 fixtures)] x 3,000
hours= 2,790,000,000 watt hours or about
2.8 GWh hours per year.
During the pre- and post-installation inven-
tories of light fixtures, wattage values can be
determined by fixture measurements with
a power meter or from manufacturer data.
Operating hours can be obtained from mea-
surements of the number of hours that the
fixtures are operating. This is typically done
for a sample of the fixtures using a type of
meter that records, over a period of time,
the on and off status of light fixtures.
The calculated savings can be modified to
account for a variety of factors. For a light-
ing project, these could include uncertainty
in the savings calculation (e.g., uncertainty
in operating hour measurements), baseline
adjustments (e.g., minimum lighting fixture
standards imposed by a state), and/or addi-
tion of savings for transmission and distribu-
tion losses between the school buildings
and the power plant. Another common
modification might be to account for the
interactive savings associated with the light-
ing retrofit. For example, there might be
a reduction in savings associated with an
increase in classroom heating due to less
lighting and thus less heat from the lights.
However, for simplicity, no modifications are
assumed in this example.
To determine cost and emission savings, fac-
tors can be applied to the electricity savings
estimate. For example:
Costs savings, based on $0.10/kWh, would
be $279,000 per year
CO2 emission reductions, based on 1.5
pounds per kWh, would be 2,092 tons per
year of CO2 reduction
Source: Schiller, 2006.
FIGURE 6.3.2. HYPOTHETICAL COMPARISON OF ENERGY USE BEFORE AND AFTER A PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
Implementation
1,000,000
750,000 -
01
E? 500,000 -
o>
250,000
Jan-01
Jan-02
Jul-02
Month
Jan-03
Jul-03
Jan-04
174 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
DOE-2 for buildings (LBNL, 2006; U.S. DOE, 2006),
and a number of other calculation tools (Texas A & M,
2006) These models are typically calibrated with actual
performance data.
1 Metering and Monitoring—baseline and post-instal-
lation energy use can be measured and monitored
through metering and accounting for non-energy fac-
tors, such as weather conditions.
Integrative Methods—these methods combine some or
all of the preceding approaches. For example, metering
and engineering methods can calibrate computer simu-
lations of baseline and post-installation buildings that
receive efficiency retrofits.
Savings Adjustments
Before considering how to adjust for changes in energy
use from the baseline to the reporting period, it is im-
portant to understand the factors that cause energy use
to vary, including:
WEATHER NORMALIZATION
To isolate the impact of clean efficiency, the effects of weather
(e.g., fluctuation in annual mean temperatures over time) on
overall energy consumption need to be considered. This ensures
that energy consumption calculations reflect comparable
year-to-year energy consumption rather than changes due
to variation in weather. The best way to normalize weather
impacts is to use regression models that indicate a statistically
valid relationship between energy use and outdoor ambient
air temperature on a project-by-project basis. However, a
simplified approach is to use heating and cooling degree days.
Heating and Cooling Degree Days (HDDs or CDDs) are measures
of how cold or warm a location is over a period of time relative
to a base temperature, most commonly specified as 65°F (i.e., if
the average outside air temperature on a given day is below this
base temperature, heating will be required; if the temperature is
above this base temperature, cooling will be required).
HDDs are summations of negative differences between
the mean daily temperature and the 65°F base; CDDs are
summations of positive differences from the same base. For
example, CDDs for a station with daily mean temperatures
during a seven-day period of 67°, 65°, 70°, 74°, 78°, 65°, and
68°, are 2 (i.e., 67°-65°), 0, 5, 9,13, 0, and 3, for a total of 32
CDDs for the week.
HDDs and CDDs are used in energy analysis as an approximate
indicator of heating and cooling energy requirements. States
can normalize energy consumption by dividing the space
heating- or air conditioning-related energy consumption of a
particular month or year by the HDDs or CDDs corresponding
to that month or year.
Building Area Change: Changes in building size strong-
ly influence energy consumption. If square footage is
added to a facility, energy use is expected to increase.
Operations and Schedule Changes: Changes in building
occupancy or schedules for building and equipment
operation affect energy use. If a building is open longer
hours, more energy is used for heating, cooling, and
lighting. If a school cafeteria brings in pre-cooked
meals in disposable containers instead of cooking and
dishwashing on site, kitchen energy use is reduced.
Weather: Energy used for heating and cooling varies
because of changing temperatures. Seasonal changes
cause increased energy use for heating in the winter
and increased use of electricity for cooling during the
summer.
Variations in energy consumption due to the struc-
tural or activity changes described above need to be
factored out of the impacts calculation. This can be
accomplished by collecting basic activity data such as
the square footage of buildings, number of occupants,
miles traveled per vehicle, and weather characteristics.
Indicators such as energy consumption per square foot
allow for normalization of facility energy consumption
based on the area in which energy is consumed. Such
indicators are useful for comparing energy consump-
tion among various buildings, projects, or facilities.
BUILDING ENERGY SIMULATION PROGRAMS
For over 30 years, engineers and scientists have been
developing computerized models that describe how the energy
use of buildings changes in response to independent variables,
such as weather. The sophistication and complexity of these
models is quite varied. To learn about some of the building
simulation models that are publicly available, see the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory Simulation Research Group Web
page at http://gundog.lbl.gov and the Texas Energy Systems
Laboratory Web page at < http://esl.eslwin.tamu.edu/ >.
Source: NAPEE, 2007.
Rigor of M&V Analysis
Two ways to categorize M&V approaches for estimat-
ing energy or demand savings are by using either a
"deemed savings" approach or a project-specific mea-
surement ("measured savings") approach. For simpler
energy efficiency measures whose performance char-
acteristics are well known and consistent, a deemed
savings approach maybe appropriate. This method in-
volves multiplying the number of installed measures by
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 175
-------
the estimated (or deemed) savings per measure, which
are derived from validated historical evaluations.
"DEEMED" AND "MEASURED" SAVINGS
Deemed savings usually apply to the most common energy
efficiency measures. Deemed savings are the per-unit energy
savings that can be claimed from installing consistent and well-
understood measures. Examples include agreed-to savings
per fixture for a lighting retrofit or per vehicle for purchasing
alternative fuel vehicles. Since they are stipulated and not
subject to change, deemed savings can help simplify program
planning and design. However, deemed savings can result in
inaccurate estimates of savings if the projects or products do
not perform as expected (e.g., if energy-efficient lights fail
earlier than expected.)
Measured savings approaches typically result in a higher level
of rigor through the application of end-use metering, billing
regression analysis, or computer simulation. Measured savings
approaches are usually used for custom measures and large-
scale projects. These approaches add to administrative costs
but may provide more accurate savings values.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2006a.
As discussed earlier in this chapter, more rigorous
M&V approaches may be appropriate for larger and
more complex efficiency projects, projects with a
significant amount of savings, and projects with sig-
nificant savings uncertainties. One way to identify the
appropriate level of rigor - and to increase transpar-
ency - is to adopt a formal M&V protocol.such as the
commonly-used International Performance Measure-
ment and Verification Protocol (IPMVP).7 Many states
base their M&V approaches on the IPMVP, coupled
with their own requirements (e.g., the level of required
accuracy and precision).
Regardless of the specific methods adopted, there are
two key elements to the M&V process:
Verifying the potential to generate savings: this involves
confirming that (1) baseline conditions are properly
defined, and (2) the proper equipment and systems
were installed and are performing to specification. This
is evaluated through a review of designs, pre-installa-
tion savings estimates, and inspections.
Estimating energy savings: energy savings are calcu-
lated based on deemed savings values, energy bills, or
calibrated computer simulation. As described above,
it may be sufficient to verify the potential to generate
A 2007 version of the IPMVP was recently released; see http://www.evo-
world.org/.
savings and then simply stipulate that the LBE project
savings will be deemed savings. In other situations, it
may be preferable to determine the measured savings
using one of four IPMVP options (described in more
detail in the next section). When selecting the M&V
option to use for a LBE project, it is important to re-
view the objectives of the impact evaluation.
Some states, particularly those with aggressive time-
lines for implementing energy efficiency programs and
with limited budgets, reach an advanced agreement
on which LBE projects can be estimated using deemed
savings and which projects require measured savings
approaches. In general, deemed savings approaches are
most reliable for technologies that:
Deliver energy savings independent of human factors,
such as contractor installation practices or consumer
behavior (e.g., plug-in products).
Have a clear standard by which to compare efficient
and less efficient products [e.g., the Federal National
Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) Stan-
dard or ENERGY STAR designation].
Have been promoted by other efficiency programs;
have well-established usage patterns, measure life, and
performance history; and where usage is not driven by
weather.
The IPMVP and Other M&V Protocols
A variety of M&V protocols and procedures have been
established, including national-level guidelines such as
the IPMVP (which are designed for determining savings
from individual projects) and state guidelines (which
specify their jurisdictional requirements for M&V).
Table 6.3.2 lists some of the key M&V protocols and
guidance. More detailed information on each resource is
provided in Appendix I, M&V Protocols and Guidelines.
The IPMVP provides a framework and definitions that
can help states develop M&V plans for their projects
(e.g., implementing individual energy efficiency
measures in a facility, conducting a whole building
analysis).8 It includes guidance on current best prac-
tice techniques for determining energy savings and
verifying the results of energy efficiency, renewable
energy, and water efficiency projects in commercial
IPMVP covers project rather than program energy savings and describes
what should be included in a project M&V plan. Some state programs, such
as NYSERDA and the California Public Utilities Commission, already use the
IPMVP.
176 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
TABLE 6.3.2 M&V PROTOCOLS AND GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS3
ASHRAE Guideline 14-2002 Measurement of Energy and
Demand Savings
Federal Energy Management Program M&V Guidelines
International Performance Measurement and Verification
Protocol
Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide
State and Utility Program M&V Guidelines
California Utility Standard Performance Contracts (SPC)
Program
NYSERDA Energy $martSM Commercial/Industrial
Performance Program
State of Hawaii Guide to Energy Performance Contracting
State of Texas Programs
http://www.ashrae.org/; ASHRAE, 2006
http://ateam.lbl.gov/mv/; Applications Team, 2006
http://ateam.lbl.gov/mv/docs/26265.pdf; U.S. DOE, 2000
http://www.evo-world.org/index.php7option = com_content6-task =
view&id = 616-ltemid = 80
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/pdt Vevaluation_guide.pdf
http://www.pge.com/biz/rebates/spc_contracts/2001_manuals_forms/
index.html; PGbE, 2006
http://www.nyserda.org/programs/CommerciaLlndustrial/cipp.asp;
NYSERDA, 2004
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/efficiency/state/performance/
http://www.oncorgroup.com/electricity/teem/candi/default.asp; TXU
Electric Delivery, 2007
Texas Loan Star Program http://www.seco.cpa. state.tx.us/ls_guideline.htm; SECO, 2007
a For the purposes M&V, the terms protocol and guideline are typically used interchangeably.
and industrial facilities. It is not a "cookbook" of how
to perform specific project evaluations, but provides
guidance and key concepts that are used in the U.S. and
internationally (IPMVP, 2002).
The IPMVP provides a flexible set of four M&V ap-
proaches (Options A, B, C, and D) for evaluating energy
savings in buildings. These four generic M&V options
are summarized in Table 6.3.3. These options provide
a range of approaches designed to match project costs
and savings requirements with particular energy ef-
ficiency measures and technologies. States can select an
option based on the specific project features, including:
Complexity of the project
Uncertainty of the project savings
Potential for changes in key factors between the base-
line and post-installation period
Value of project savings
M&V options differ in their approach to the level,
duration, and type of baseline, as well as the project
performance period. For example, in terms of mea-
surement levels:
M&V evaluations using Options A and B are made at
the end-use, system level (e.g., lighting, HVAC).
Option C evaluations are conducted at the whole
building or whole-facility level.
Option D evaluations, which involve computer simula-
tion modeling, are made at the system or the whole-
building level.
In terms of measurement type and duration:
Option A involves using a combination of stipulation
and measurement of the key factors needed to deter-
mine energy savings.
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 177
-------
Options B and C involve using spot, short-term, and
continuous measurements.
Option D may include spot, short-term, or continuous
measurements9 to calibrate the model.
Spot measurements are one-time measurements (e.g., of the power draw
of a motor). Short-term measurements can take place for a week or two, such
as determining the operating hours of lights in an office. Continuous metering
involves measuring key factors, such as power consumption or outdoor tem-
perature, throughout the term of the valuation, which may continue for years.
While these options are directly associated with energy
efficiency projects, the basic concepts are also appli-
cable to clean power, transportation, and distributed
generation activities. Each option has advantages and
disadvantages based on project-specific factors and
the needs and expectations of the participants. While
each option defines a savings determination approach,
it should be noted that options A-D produce estimates
of savings and not direct measurements. Since M&V
TABLE 6.3.3 IPMVP MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION OPTIONS
M&V Option
Option A. Partially Measured Retrofit
Isolation: Savings determined by partial
field measurement of the energy use
of the system to which a measure was
applied, separate from the energy use of
the rest of the facility. Focuses on physical
assessment of equipment changes to ensure
the installation is to specification. Key
performance factors (e.g., lighting wattage or
chiller efficiency) are determined with spot
or short-term measurements. Operational
factors (e.g., lighting operating hours or
cooling ton-hours) are stipulated based on
analysis of historical data or measurements.
Performance factors and proper operation
are measured or checked annually.
How Savings Are
Calculated
Engineering
calculations
using spot or
short-term
measurements,
computer
simulations, and/
or historical data.
Dependent
on number of
measurement
points.
Approximately 1%
to 5% of project
construction cost
of items subject
to M&V.
Typical Applications
Lighting retrofit where power draw is
measured periodically. Operating hours of
the lights are assumed to be one-half hour
per day longer than a store's open hours.
Used for simple project types where high
accuracy is not required.
Option B. Retrofit Isolation: Savings
determined after project completion by
short-term or continuous measurements
taken throughout the term of the contract at
the device or system level. Performance and
operations factors are monitored.
Engineering
calculations using
metered data.
Dependent on
number and
type of systems
measured and the
term of analysis/
metering.
Typically 3% to
10% of project
construction cost
of items subject
to M&V.
Application of controls to vary the load on
a constant speed pump using a variable
speed drive. Electricity use is measured
by a kWh meter installed on the electrical
supply to the pump motor. In the base year,
this meter is in place for a week to verify
constant loading. The meter is in place
through the post-retrofit period to track
variations in energy use.
Used for simple project types where high
accuracy is not required.
Option C. Whole Facility: After project
completion, savings determined at the
"whole-building" or facility level using
current year and historical utility meter (gas
or electricity) or sub-meter data. Short-term
or continuous measurements are taken
throughout the post-retrofit period.
Analysis of utility
meter (or sub-
meter) data
using techniques
from simple
comparison
to multivariate
(hourly or
monthly)
regression
analysis.
Dependent on
number and
complexity of
parameters
in analysis.
Typically 1% to
10% of project
construction cost
of items subject
to M&V.
Multifaceted energy management program
affecting many systems in a building.
Energy use is measured by gas and electric
utility meters for a 12-month base year
period and throughout the post-retrofit
period.
Used for comprehensive and/or multi-site
project types. Varying levels of accuracy
possible.
178 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
TABLE 6.3.3 IPMVP MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION OPTIONS (cont.)
M&V Option
Option D. Calibrated Simulation: Savings
determined through simulation of facility
components and/or the whole facility.
Simulation routines must be demonstrated
to adequately model actual energy
performance measured in the facility.
How Savings Are
Calculated
Calibrated energy
simulation/
modeling;
calibrated
with hourly or
monthly utility
billing data and/
or end-use
metering.
Dependent on
number and
complexity
of systems
evaluated.
Typically 3% to
10% of project
construction cost
of items subject
to M&V.
Typical Applications
Multifaceted energy management program
affecting many systems in a building but
where no base year data are available.
Post-retrofit period energy use is measured
by gas and electric utility meters. Base year
energy use is determined by simulation
using a model calibrated by the post-
retrofit period utility data.
Used for comprehensive and/or multi-site
project types. Varying levels of accuracy
possible.
Source: IPMVP, 2002.
STATE APPLICATIONS OF THE IPMVP
California
The 2006 California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols
require the IPMVP as the basis for planning M&V activities for
impact evaluations. A basic level of M&V is defined as involving
a statistically adjusted engineering model with metering/
monitoring per IPMVP Option A.
An enhanced level of rigor is also defined that is based on IPMVP
Option B (retrofit isolation) or Option D (calibrated simulation).
Details are defined in a program M&V plan that is expected to
be reviewed for adequacy on a case-by-case basis.
New York
NYSERDA's Commercial/Industrial Performance Program offers
several strategies to obtain financial incentives for energy
efficiency projects in government, industrial, commercial, and
other buildings. M&V protocols are based on the 2002 IPMVP
(Options A-D) and FEMP M&V Guideline 2.2.
Source: Schiller, 2006.
involves measuring the absence of energy, direct esti-
mates are not possible.
One readily available resource for tracking energy
efficiency at the whole building level is the ENERGY
STAR Portfolio Manager. It employs an M&V method-
ology that is similar to IPMVP Option C, as described
above. Table 6.3.4 presents a comparison of the energy
rating requirements of IPMVP Option C and Portfolio
Manager. Both methodologies encourage monitoring at
the whole building level, which assesses the interactive
effects of multiple energy conservation measures
(ECMs). One minor difference is that the IPMVP de-
termines savings separately for each meter or sub-meter
serving a building so that performance changes can
be assessed for separately metered parts of the facility,
whereas Portfolio Manager aggregates all meters in a
building so that performance changes can be assessed
at the facility level. This approach promotes system-
wide energy reductions and facilitates the recognition
of top-performing buildings. Additionally, because the
Portfolio Manager approach combines multiple meters,
it must account for differences among fuel types. This is
done by converting utility meter data into source energy
(or primary energy) consumption. If a building has only
one meter and one fuel type, such as a supermarket
powered by electricity, the two methods of analysis are
identical.
Program-Based EM&V Guidance Documents
The IPMVP and other M&V guidance documents
described above focus on determining energy savings
from individual projects. Evaluation, Measurement, &
Valuation (EM&V) protocols provide established pro-
cedures for determining savings from a large number
of similar projects, or a program. These procedures
are usually associated with utility-sponsored energy
efficiency programs where a regulatory body oversees
and/or reviews the evaluation results for the purposes
of ensuring ratepayer value and improving programs.
In these situations, a sample of projects is investigated
and the savings from these investigated projects are
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 179
-------
TABLE 6.3.4 COMPARISON OF IPMVP OPTION C AND ENERGY STAR PORTFOLIO MANAGER REQUIREMENTS
IPMVP Option C Requirements
Uses utility meters or whole building sub-meters to assess energy
performance of a whole building.
Several meters may be used to measure the flow of one energy
type into a building.
Meters serving non-interacting energy flows for which savings are
not to be determined can be ignored, such as separately metered
outdoor lighting circuits.
If several different meters are read on separate days, each meter
having a unique billing period should be separately analyzed. The
results can be combined after each individual analysis.
Energy data are often derived from utility meters, either through
direct reading of the meter, or from utility invoices.
Savings reported under Option C include the impact of any other
changes made in facility energy use (positive or negative).
Savings should be determined separately for each meter or sub-
meter serving a building so that performance changes can be
assessed for separately metered parts of the facility.
Must have 9 to 12 months of continuous energy use data to
establish a base year before implementation of an energy
management plan.
Option C usually requires 12, 24, or 36 months (i.e., one full year or
multiple years) of continuous base year (daily or monthly) energy
data, and continuous data during the post-retrofit period.
The plan should specify details of how calculations of variables
should be made or measured (e.g., run-time hours, electrical
consumption in a lighting fixture, kW/ton).
Energy use is normalized for weather (degree days may be used)
and occupancy (e.g., hours of operation, days of occupancy/week).
Other parameters predicted to have a significant effect on energy
savings should be included in routine adjustments.
Savings targets are advised to be > 10% at the facility level.
ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager Requirements
Same.
Same; participants of Portfolio Manager may enter/use several
meters for measuring energy flow.
Same; only meters that are associated with indoor or space type
energy savings are included in energy savings calculations.
Portfolio Manager combines all utility meters in a single building
and then performs an analysis on the whole building.
Same.
Same.
Savings are determined at the building level and not at the
individual meter level.
Same; must have 11 months of continuous use data to establish
a benchmark before implementation of an energy management
plan.
Users can compare any two 12-month periods, even if they
overlap. They can choose to set the 12-month periods to comply
with IPMVP.
Same; variables and units are displayed on the screen in Portfolio
Manager.
Same; in addition, other parameters predicted to have a significant
effect on energy savings are included in regression models (vary
depending on space type).
Portfolio Manager users may set targets at any level; EPA typically
encourages targets of 10% or better.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2006b.
then extrapolated to the entire population of partici-
pants. The overall approach is called program impact
evaluation. A key resource for information on pro-
gram-based evaluation methods and policy guidance
is the Action Plan's Model Energy Efficiency Program
Impact Evaluation Guide. The California Measurement
Advisory Council (CALMAC) also has established
guidance for conducting program impact evaluations.
6.3.2 PROCESS EVALUATIONS
The goal of process evaluations is to produce improved
and more cost-effective programs. These evaluations
usually consist of surveying program stakeholders,
analyzing their feedback, and identifying opportunities
for program improvement. Thus, process evaluations
indicate whether best practices are being incorporated
180 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
EVALUATION RESOURCES
The Nation Action Plan for Energy Efficiency's Model Energy
Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide provides:
• A framework that jurisdictions and organizations can use to
define their "institution-specific" evaluation requirements
• Standard evaluation planning and implementation process
that can be used for calculating savings
• Definitions, best practices on key evaluation issues, and a list
of evaluation resources.
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/
evaluation_guide.pdf
The CALMAC Web site provides a comprehensive resource for
program impact evaluation guidance. The site contains:
• California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols:
Technical, Methodological and Reporting Requirements for
Evaluation Professionals. These protocols and predecessor
versions have been used for hundreds of evaluations of
California programs (http://www.calmac.org/publications/
EvaluatorsProtocols_Final_AdoptedviaRuling_06-19-2006.
pdf; California, 2006).
• A searchable database of over 400 evaluation reports on
a variety of general and program specific topics. Web site:
http://www.calmac.org; (CALMAC, 2007)
The CEE Market Assessment and Program Evaluation
Clearinghouse provides a source of evaluation reports for
programs throughout the United States. Web site: http://www.
ceel.org/eval/clearinghouse.php3.
and consider participant satisfaction. Administrators
often want early and timely process evaluation feed-
back to make program changes as needed or to review
early findings. Process evaluations are particularly
valuable when:
The program is new or has many changes
Benefits are being achieved more slowly than expected
There is limited program participation or stakeholders
are slow to begin participating
The program has a slow startup
Participants are reporting problems
The program appears not to be cost-effective
Process evaluations are usually accomplished through
data collection (e.g., surveys, questionnaires, and
interviews) from administrators, designers, partici-
pants (such as facility operators), implementation staff
(including contractors, subcontractors, and field staff),
and key policymakers. Other elements of a process
evaluation can include: (1) workflow and productivity
measurements; (2) reviews, assessments and testing
of records, databases, program-related materials, and
tools; and (3 ) collection and analysis of relevant data
from third-party sources (e.g., equipment vendors,
trade allies). To ensure credibility, the process evalu-
ation is often conducted by a third-party that is inde-
pendent of the program implementers.
Table 6.3.5 lists examples of the issues that are typically
assessed during a process evaluation. Typical process
evaluation results involve recommendations for chang-
ing a program's structure, implementation approaches,
or program design, delivery, and goals.
TABLE 6.3.5. ELEMENTS OF A TYPICAL PROCESS EVALUATION
Program Design
1 The program mission
1 Assessment of program logic
1 Use of new practices or best practices
Program Administration
1 Program oversight
1 Program staffing
1 Management and staff training
Program information and reporting
Program Implementation
1 Quality control
1 Operational practiceBhow program is implemented
1 Program targeting, marketing, and outreach efforts
1 Program timing
Participant Response
1 Participant interaction and satisfaction
1 Market and government allies interaction and satisfaction
6.3.3 MARKET EFFECTS EVALUATIONS
Market effects evaluations estimate the extent to which
a program influences future clean energy activities.
These evaluations often involve a significant undertak-
ing since they are designed to determine whether the
market, in and outside of government, is changing.
For example, a market effects study could evaluate in-
creases in the adoption of the products or services be-
ing promoted by an LBE program. Such an evaluation
might answer the question of whether more state office
buildings are implementing energy efficiency technolo-
gies as a result of the LBE effort. Market effects are
sometimes considered the ultimate test of a program's
success, since they indicate whether LBE best practices
will continue in the government and marketplace, even
after the LBE program ends.
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 181
-------
Market effects evaluations usually consist of surveys, re-
views of market data, and analysis of the survey results
and collected data, and ask the following questions:
Are the state agencies that undertook LBE programs
implementing additional programs or incorporating
additional technologies in their facilities that were not
directly induced by the LBE program? This might indi-
cate that the facility operators have become convinced
of the value of the initial LBE programs, and are under-
taking their own programs.
Are agencies that did not implement LBE programs
now adopting LBE-encouraged concepts and technolo-
gies? This might indicate that pilot programs have
convinced other facility operators of the advantages of
the LBE concepts.
Are private facility operators undertaking programs
that were influenced by public sector LBE activities?
This might indicate a "crossover" of public to private
investments.
Possible results from a market assessment include:
Total market effects
Estimate of how much of the market effect is due to the
program being evaluated
Estimate of whether the market effect is sustainable.
6.3.4 EXAMPLE OF A PROGRAM EVALUATION
Figure 6.3.3 presents a case study of an evaluation
of San Diego's Local Government Energy Efficiency
(LGEE) program. This study combined an impact eval-
uation to estimate the electric and natural gas energy
savings from the program with a process evaluation to
assess the program design and implementation process.
FIGURE 6.3.3. EVALUATION, MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION
OF THE 2004-2005 THE SAN DIEGO LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENERGY
EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
^^^
Net Savings
Goals
Project Savings
Gross Net
Coincident Peak kW 650 466
Annual kWh 6,499,574
Therms 85,447
4,662,034
33,812
373
% of Goal
57%
3,729,627 57%
27,050
32%
The San Diego LGEE program is a perfor-
mance contract incentive program that
targets energy efficiency retrofit projects
of local government facilities. Sponsored
by the San Diego Regional Energy Partner-
ship (SDREP) and administered and imple-
mented by the San Diego Regional Energy
Office (SDREO), the program is designed to
reduce local governments' upfront costs
for upgrading or installing cost-effective,
high-efficiency energy savings measures
and energy management and information
systems in local government-owned and
tenant-occupied buildings, water facilities,
and other high-energy use facilities.
SDREO conducted a process and impact
evaluation of its 2004-2005 LGEE pro-
gram, which included 68 energy efficiency
projects and 29 energy management system
projects. The evaluation included the fol-
lowing data collection and analysis activities:
Review of program documents and develop-
ment of an LGEE Program Logic Chart
Analysis of data in the Program Activity
Tracking Database
In-person and telephone interviews with
local government partners and SDREO pro-
gram managers
Telephone interviews with a program M&V
consultant
Site inspection and analysis of claimed
energy savings of a sample of completed
projects
The SDREO impact evaluation concluded
that while the program achieved significant
electrical energy savings, the savings were
below program goals. A larger shortfall for
natural gas savings was identified.
Process evaluation activities focused on
assessing the LGEE program design and
implementation process. SDREO examined
the LGEE program objective, market barriers,
and elements of the program design (e.g.,
market sector, program strategy, program
offerings, incentive pricing) by reviewing
program and project activities, character-
izing program participation, and surveying
local government participants.
Program recommendations included:
A timeframe of at least three years, and pref-
erably four years, should be allowed for con-
tract negotiations with the program admin-
istrator, investor-owned utility (IOU) service
provider, and local government participants.
Additional time should be provided follow-
ing implementation for contractors to com-
plete M&V reviews.
The project management offering could be
reworked so that human resources are of-
fered, rather than just project management
money. Cities that choose not to take proj-
ect management funds should have access
to more funds in the form of incentives.
Source: Nexant, 2006.
182 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
6.4 SUMMARY OF TRACKING AND
EVALUATION APPROACHES
Table 6.4.1 summarizes typical evaluation approaches,
performance indicators, and data to be collected for
different types of LBE programs. Note that the primary
performance indicator is usually energy saved, with
other indicators flowing from the energy savings.
6.5 STEP 5: REPORT LBE
PROGRAM RESULTS
After a state's LBE program is up and running, energy
savings are being tracked, and the evaluation plan is in
place, it is important for states to report on the ongoing
results of its program. While reporting requirements
are frequently imposed by the legislation or executive
TABLE 6.4.1 SUMMARY OF TRACKING AND EVALUATION APPROACHES
BY TYPE OF CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM
Program Type and
Description
Energy efficiency
in new buildingsB
designing new and
renovated state-
owned facilities
that reduce energy
use and minimize
environmental impacts.
Typical Evaluation Approaches
Impact, process, and market
evaluations.
Typical impact evaluations
compare energy use of energy
efficient designs with standard
buildings or existing building
codesBbenchmarking is often
used.
Energy savings usually analyzed
with computer simulations.
Examples of Performance
Indicators to be Tracked and
Evaluated
Energy savings per square foot
Energy cost savings (and cost-
effectiveness)
Emissions reduced
"Sustainability" indicators
Emerging technology
indicators
Job creation
Data Collected to Measure
Primary Indicators
Number and characteristics of
buildings retrofitted or built
Energy efficient building
characteristics
Schedule
Program costs
Weather data
Building characteristics
Building occupancy
Energy costs
Emission factors per unit of
energy
Characteristics of standard
design buildings
Energy efficiency in
existing buildings^
implementation of
energy conservation
measures to improve
the energy efficiency of
existing state and local
facilities.
Impact and process
evaluations.
Typical impact evaluations
compare energy use of
retrofitted building with what
energy use would have been
without retrofitBbenchmarking
is often used.
Energy savings usually
calculated with deemed
savings, some measurements,
computer simulations, and/or
utility bill analyses.
Energy savings per square foot
Energy cost savings (and cost-
effectiveness)
Emissions reduced
"Sustainability" indicators
Emerging technology
indicators
Job creation
Number and characteristics of
buildings retrofitted
Types of retrofits
Schedule
Program costs
Weather data
Building characteristics
Energy costs
Emission factors per unit of
energy
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 183
-------
TABLE 6.4.1 SUMMARY OF TRACKING AND EVALUATION APPROACHES BY TYPE OF CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM (cont.)
Program Type and
Description
Energy- efficient
products procurements
minimum energy
efficiency specifications
are established for a
range of products (e.g.,
appliances, equipment,
vehicles).
Typical Evaluation Approaches
Impact, process, and market
evaluations.
Typical impact and market
evaluations compare changes
in number and types of energy-
efficient products that are sold;
can be compared with other
markets that do and do not
have similar programs.
Examples of Performance
Indicators to be Tracked and
Evaluated
Program purchases in dollars,
percent of total purchases,
energy and cost savings,
emissions savings
Environmental benefits
Job creation
Cost-effectiveness of
procurement program
Percentage of procurement
affected
Impact on vendor
Procurement practices
Lessons learned
Data Collected to Measure
Primary Indicators
Types and number of
equipment purchases
(e.g., number of light bulbs
purchased)
Schedule
Equipment and program costs
Schedule
Number and location of
vendors and manufacturers
involved
Green power
purchasing^
purchase and use of
renewable energy for
state and local facilities.
Impact, process, and market
evaluations.
Typical impact and market
evaluations compare changes
in amount of green power
purchases (e.g., MWh)
and types of green power
purchases (e.g., PV, wind);
can be compared with other
markets that do and do not
have similar programs.
Program purchases in dollars
and kWh
Program purchases as a
percent of total of power
purchases
Energy and cost savings
Emissions savings
Job creation
Cost-effectiveness of
purchasing program
Price stability impacts
Impact on green power
industry
Lessons learned
Types of power procured
kWh of power procured
Location of power sources
Clean energy
generations
generating onsite
renewable power (e.g.,
wind and PV) and/or
using near-site clean
DG technologies for
backup or emergency
power.
Impact and process
evaluations.
Market evaluation can include
whether program has influence
on increased sales of clean
energy generation systems.
Clean energy generated per
year
Energy cost savings (and cost-
effectiveness of system)
Net energy use of facility
(considering fuel purchases)
Emissions impact
Peak demand reductions from
use of on-site generation.
Job creation
Price stability impacts
Number and characteristics of
generation systems
Operational schedule
Program costs
Weather data
Facility characteristics
Energy costs
Emission factors per unit of
energy
Lessons learned
184 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
order initiating the LBE activities, it should be under-
taken by program managers regardless. The audience
for LBE reporting varies by state but usually includes
state agencies, including the budget agency and any
advisory council; the governor; the state legislature;
and the public.
Reporting requirements vary by state, but typically
include some or all of the following:
A Narrative Description of the LBE Actions Taken Dur-
ing the Year. The State of Colorado Greening Govern-
ment Status Report, for example, includes a description
for each state agency of (1) new high performance
building projects, (2) energy management activities,
and (3) energy performance contracting (Colorado,
2006). Some states also include specific factors that
contributed to program successes and the barriers and
challenges faced during implementation (Washington,
2005). Other states provide in-depth descriptions of
some of their key clean energy projects.
Data on Energy Use. A key component of LBE reports
is information on annual energy use compared to
baseline energy use and LBE targets, by state facility,
agency, or the entire state. For example, Wisconsin
reports annual energy use in BTU/sq. ft./year for its
baseline year and subsequent years. Data are provided
for each state agency and school system, and for indi-
vidual facilities (Wisconsin, 2006).
Additional Data Tracked by the State. Some states also
report detailed information on other data that they
track to evaluate their LBE programs. In New York, for
example, NYSERDA issues an annual energy report
based on data provided by individual agencies that
includes (New York, 2003):
Building square footage
• Number of buildings
Energy use (in MMBTUs) and the percentage of
state energy use by fuel type
Estimated cost of energy by fuel type
NO , SO,, and CO, emissions and emission reduc-
x' 2' 2
tions by fuel type (other states track and report GHG
emissions)
Average EUI in BTUs/sq. ft. for base year, reporting
year, and target year
• Avoided cost savings
Peak electricity demand
Number of clean vehicles purchased
Renewable generation—both kWh purchased and
generated on-site
Number of buildings that meet ENERGYSTAR
criteria
Summary of Findings from Program Evaluations. State
reports can also include a summary of the findings
from any program evaluation that has been conducted.
A complete analysis of evaluation results may be pro-
vided as a separate document.
Recommendations for Revising the LBE Approach. It is
important to include any recommendations for chang-
ing or adding new LBE activities to better meet LBE
targets. In addition, tracking and evaluation methods
can be reviewed and revised, as needed.
Appendix J, Resources for Reporting the Results of LBE
Programs, provides additional information on ways
that states are reporting the results of their LBE activi-
ties. It includes state reports, tracking forms, agency
survey forms, and additional guidance.
REFERENCES
Applications Team. 2006. Measurement and
Verification Documents. Available: http://ateam.lbl.
gov/mv/. Accessed 1/9/2007.
ASHRAE. 2006. Advancing HVAC&R to Serve
Humanity and Promote a Sustainable World. Available:
http://www.ashrae.org/. Accessed 1/9/2007.
•BOMA. 2006. National Association of Building
Owners and Managers International Web site.
Available: http://www.boma.org. Accessed:
12/28/2006.
California. 2006. California Energy Efficiency
Evaluation Protocols: Technical, Methodological,
and Reporting Requirements for Evaluation
Professionals. April. Available: http://www.calmac.
org/publications/EvaluatorsProtocols_Final_
AdoptedviaRuling_06-19-2006.pdf. Accessed 1/9/2007.
California Climate Action Registry. 2007. California
Climate Action Registry Web Site. Available: http://
www.climateregistry.org/Default.aspx?refreshed=true.
Accessed: May 8, 2007.
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 185
-------
CALMAC. 2007. Welcome to CALifornia
Measurement Advisory Council (CALMAC).
Available: http://www.calmac.org. Accessed 1/9/2007.
• CEC. 2000. Energy Accounting: A Key Tool
in Managing Energy Costs. California Energy
Commission. January. Available: http://www.energy.
ca.gov/reports/efficiency_handbooks/400-00-001B.
PDF. Accessed: 12/16/2006.
CEC. 2006. Western Renewable Energy Generation
Information System. What is WREGIS? Available:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/portfolio/wregis/index.html.
Accessed 1/9/2007.
Colorado. 2006. State of Colorado Greening
Government Status Report. August. Available: http://
www.colorado.gov/greeninggovernment/reports/
Status_Report.pdf. Accessed: 12/16/2006.
Connecticut. 2004. Energy Management in State
Facilities: A New Direction. A Report Prepared
Pursuant to Public Act 03-132. The Office of Policy &
Management Strategic Management Division. February
3. Available: http://www.opm.state.ct.us/pdpd2/
energy/PA_03-132_Report.doc. Accessed: 12/16/2006.
•ENERGY STAR. Unpublished. Automated
Benchmarking With Energy Star Portfolio Manager -
Opportunities For States.
F-Chart Software. 2005. F-Chart Software Web site.
Available: https://www.fchart, com/index.shtml.
Accessed: 12/16/2006.
• Georgia 2006a. Energy Accounting and Analysis for
Georgia State Government Request For Proposals
(RFP). Issued by the Georgia Environmental Facilities
Authority, Division of Energy Resources. February.
Georgia. 2006b. Personal communication with Kevin
Kelly, Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority. June
8, 2006.
Georgia. 2006c. Georgia Environmental Facilities
Authority (GEFA) EnergyCAP Tracking System
Web site. Available: http://www.gefa.org/Index.
aspx?page=184. Accessed: 2/28/2008.
• IFMA 2006. International Facility Management
Association Web site. Available: http://www.ifma.com.
Accessed: 12/28/2006.
IPMVP. 2002. International Performance
Measurement & Verification Protocol: Concepts and
Options for Determining Energy and Water Savings,
Volume 1. DOE/GO-10202-1554. March. International
Performance Measurement & Verification Committee.
Available: http://www.evo-world.org/index.phpfoption
= com_content&task = view&id = 61&Itemid = 80.
Accessed: 12/06/2006.
•LBNL. 2006. DOE-2. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory Simulation Research Group. DOE-2 Web
site. Available: http://gundog.lbl.gov/dirsoft/d2whatis.
html. Accessed: 12/16/2006.
Massachusetts. 2004. Fiscal Year 2002 Massachusetts
Greenhouse Gas Inventory for State Agencies.
Massachusetts State Sustainability Program. February.
Available: http://www.mass.gov/envir/Sustainable/
pdflMA_GHG_Inventory_FY02_web.pdf. Accessed:
12/16/2006.
Miller, J. 2008. Memo on California's Building Energy
Use Data. February 14.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (NAPEE).
2007. Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact
Evaluation Guide. Prepared by Steven R. Schiller,
Schiller Consulting, Inc. Available: http://www.epa.
gov/cleanenergy/documents/evaluation_guide.pdf.
Accessed: December 7, 2007.
Nexant. 2006. Final Report. Evaluation, Measurement
6- Verification of the 2004-2005 Local Government
Energy Efficiency (LGEE) Program of the San Diego
Regional Energy Office (SDREO). CPUC Program
#1301-04. Submitted to SDREO. July 1.
NYSERDA. 2003. Executive Order No. Ill "Green
And Clean" State Buildings and Vehicles Annual
Energy Report, July 2003. Prepared by New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority
and the Advisory Council on State Energy Efficiency.
Available: http://www.nyserda.org/programs/pdfs/
execorderlllfinalreport7-03.pdf. Accessed: 12/16/06.
•NYSERDA. 2004. Enhanced Commercial/Industrial
Performance Program. Available: http://www.nyserda.
org/programs/Commercial_Industrial/cipp.asp.
Accessed 1/9/2007.
186 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
Parker, S., B. Hamilton, and M. Wickenden. 2008.
What Does it Take to Turn Load Growth Negative?
A View from the Leading Edge. Vermont Energy
Investment Corporation and Efficiency Vermont for
the 2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency
in Buildings. Accessed: 11/08/2008.
PG&E. 2006. 2001 SPC Program Manual and Forms.
Available: http://www.pge. com/biz/rebates/spc_
contracts/2001_manuals_forms/index.html. Accessed
1/9/2007.
Schiller, S. 2006. Personal communication with Steven
Schiller, Independent Consultant. 12/5/06.
SECO. 2007. LoanSTAR Technical Guidelines.
Available: http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/ls_guideline.
htm. Accessed 1/9/2007.
Texas A&M. 2006. Texas A&M System Energy Systems
Lab. TEES, the Engineering Agency of the State of
Texas Web site. Available: http://esl.eslwin.tamu.edu/
resources/software.html. Accessed: 12/16/2006.
Tradeline. 2006. Leading-Edge Resources for Facilities
Planning and Management Web site. Available: http://
www.tradelineinc.com/. Accessed: 12/28/2006.
•TXU Electric Delivery. 2007. Energy Efficiency
Programs. Available: http://www.oncorgroup.com/
electricity/teem/candi/default.asp. Accessed 1/9/2007.
U.S. DOE. 2000. M&V Guidelines: Measurement and
Verification for Federal Energy Projects. Version 2.2.
DOE/GO-102000-0960. Available: http://ateam.lbl.
gov/mv/docs/26265.pdf. Accessed 1/9/2007.
U.S. DOE. 2006. DOE-2 Web site. Available: www.
doe2.com. Accessed: 12/16/2006.
U.S. DOE. 2007. Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. Impact Evaluation Framework for
Technology Deployment Programs. July. Available:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/km_portal/docs/
pdf/2007/impact_framework_tech_deploy_2007_
main.pdf. Accessed: 2/20/2008.
U.S. DOE. 2008. Energy Information Administration.
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption
Survey - Commercial Energy Uses and Costs Web
site. Available: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/.
Accessed: 3/22/2008.
•U.S. DOE. 2007. The Office of Policy and
International Affairs. Enhancing DOE's Voluntary
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (1605(b)) Program
Web Site. Available: http://www.pi.energy.gov/
enhancingGHGregistry/index, html. Accessed:
5/8/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2006a. Clean Energy-Environment Guide
to Action: Policies, Best Practices, and Action Steps
for States. April. Available: http://www.epa.gov/
cleanenergy/pdf/gta/guide_action_full.pdf. Accessed:
12/16/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006b. Unpublished analysis conducted
by EPA staff based on information contained in the
ENERGY STAR Overview Web site (http://www.
energystar.gov/index.cfm?c = evaluate_performance.
bus_portfoliomanager) and IPMVP Library of
Documents, Volume 1 (http://www.evo-world.org/
index.php? option = com_content&task = view&id =
61&Itemid = 80).
U.S. EPA. 2007. Portfolio Manager Tool. Available:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfmfc = evaluate_
performance. bus_portfoliomanager. Accessed:
1/9/2007.
U.S. EPA. 2007a. ENERGY STAR Performance Ratings
Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use.
December. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/
ia/business/evaluate_performance/site_source.pdf.
Accessed: 2/23/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2007b. Understanding Source and Site
Energy Web site. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/
index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_benchmark_
comm_bldgs. Accessed: 2/23/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2008. ENERGY STAR Building Upgrade
Manual. Available: http://www.energystar.gov/index.
cfm?c=business.bus_upgrade_manual. Accessed:
11/10/2008
U.S. EPA. 2008a. Guidelines for Energy Management.
Available: http:/'/www. energystar.gov/index.
cfm?c=guidelines.download_guidelines. Accessed:
11/10/208
•U.S. Green Building Council. 2006. What is LEED?
Available: http://www.usgbc.org/. Accessed 1/9/2007.
CHAPTER SIX | Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide 187
-------
Washington. 2005. State of Washington, Department
of General Administration. Sustainability Progress
Report, for the period of Year 2: July 1, 2004—June 30,
2005. October 15. Available: http://www.ga.wa.gOV/S
ustainability/2005SustainabilityReport.pdf. Accessed:
12/16/2006.
Wisconsin. 2006. Energy Use in State-Owned
Facilities, Fiscal Year 2005. April. State of Wisconsin,
Department of Administration. Available: http://www.
doa.state.wi.us/docs_view2.asp?docid = 990. Accessed:
12/16/2006.
Wyoming Business Council. 2007. Wyoming
Energy Conservation Improvement Program:
Program Manual. July 1. Available: http://www.
wyomingbusiness. org/pdf/energy/I - WYECIP_
Program_Manual_7-l-07.pdf. Accessed: 2/23/2008.
Wyoming Business Council. 2007a. Wyoming Energy
Conservation Improvement Program: Program
Manual: Appendix IK WYECIP Contract Attachment
F, Measurement and Verification Plan Guidelines.
May 22. Available: http://www.wyomingbusiness.org/
pdf/energy/Appx_l K- WYECIP_Contract_Attach_
FMandV_Plan_Guide.pdf. Accessed: 2/23/2008.
188 Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide | CHAPTER SIX
-------
-------
EPA430-R-09-003
JUNE, 2009
www.epa.gov
State and Local
Climate and Enemy Program
------- |