Progress 05/15/12 to 06/30/13
Outputs
Target Audience: Target audiences reached during the prior year included: 1) Community leaders in the two pilot communities of Charles City and Manning, IA. 2) Fifty-six building owners and managers from Charles City and Manning, IA that volunteered their buildings for participation in this research project. 3) Leaders from Main Street Iowa, a division of the Iowa Department of Economic Development. 4) Select managers from Iowa utility companies. 5) Interested public who read the report linked to the Krell Energy Efficiency website. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? After receiving USDA funding, we notified the three investor-owned utilities in Iowa as well as Main Street Iowa, a division of the Iowa Department of Economic Development about our research plans. A copy of the final report was linked to the Krell Energy Efficiency website, www.krellenergy.com. We then notified our contacts in the following businesses and organizations that they could access the report online: CLASS 5 Energy, the Community Vitality Center at Iowa State University, and Main Street Iowa. We have sent a letter to each of the 56 participating building owners and/or managers in the two pilot communities of Charles City, IA and Manning, IA to inform them of the energy use results for their individual buildings. This included information such as their electricity use and cost per square foot, natural gas use and cost per square foot, and total energy use and cost per square foot. It also included, if available, an ENERGY STAR rating for their building. These ratings, from 1 to 100, provided building owners with an idea of how the level of energy efficiency in their building compared to similar buildings across the nation. The average energy use and costs for the various building types (banks, churches, hotels, K-12 schools, manufacturing plants, office buildings, restaurants, retail stores, senior care facilities, grocery stores, and water plants) that were represented in the study were also provided to each building owner so that they could see how their building compared to similar buildings in the two pilot communities. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Objective 1: Evaluate the energy status of buildings in two rural Iowa communities. Pilot communities of Charles City, IA and Manning IA had 56 participating buildings. Building owners completed a building survey and provided past energy bills; data were entered into ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Program (see Tables.) Objective 2: Conduct research via interviews/discussions with community residents. Sixty community residents were interviewed to understand their attitudes, motivations and challenges in supporting an energy efficiency program. Participants included community leaders (18), and owners/managers (29) and employees (13) of participating buildings. Objective 3: Determine if there is support for a community energy efficiency program from Iowa energy providers. We attended meetings with the three investor-owned utilities (IOU) in Iowa and updated select IOU staff on this project. Some interest exists. Objective 4: Develop a financial model for promoting the program in a cost effective way to rural communities. Data were entered into ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager to obtain baseline energy use and cost for 56 buildings (Tables 1a/b, Table 2.) Building types were rated by ENERGY STAR®. This 1-100 scale assesses efficiency of buildings relative to similar buildings nationwide (50 = average energy performance; 75 or better = top performance. See Table 1a.) Table 1a. Energy Use Averages for Various Participating Building Types. Building Type (Number of Buildings in the Study) Avg. ENERGY STAR® Rating, if available Avg.Total Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) Baseline Site Energy Intensity, kBtu/Sq. Ft. National Median Site EUI*, kBtu/Sq.Ft. Above/ Below National Median Bank (4) 62 11,549 86.6 91.4 -5.8% Church (2) 69 13,495 66.6 37.0 79.9% Hotel/B&B (2) 68 13,375 90.6 71.0 27.5% K-12 School (6) 91 94,898 40.1 78.1 -43.8% Manufacturing Plant (2) N/A 146,228 516.1 N/A N/A Office Building (8) 77 7,798 53.7 66.5 -20.1% Restaurant (3) N/A 2,775 309.4 207.0 49.5% Retail Store (8) 66 10,283 54.7 50.0 9.17% Senior Care Facility (4) 70 17,160 179.8 165.4 29.2% Supermarket/Grocery (2) 23 27,860 288.7 185.0 56.1% Water Treatment Plant/Water Plant (4) N/A 8,161 N/A N/A N/A Other (11) N/A 10,695 112.4 73.5 36.7% AVERAGES for ALL BUILDINGS (56) 70 24,810 118.3 82.0 17.9% *National Median Site EUI: For buildings with a rating, this defines the site energy intensity (kBtu/Sq. Ft.) this facility would consume if it had a national energy performance rating of 50, median performance. Table 1b. Energy Use Averages for Various Participating Building Types. Building Type (Number of Buildings in the Study) Baseline Electric Use (kWh) Baseline Electric kWh per Sq. Ft. Baseline Natural Gas Use (therms) Baseline Natural Gas (therms) per Sq.Ft. Bank (4) 194,439 17.4 3,215 0.27 Church (2) 48,711 3.8 7,096 0.54 Hotel/B&B (2) 238,044 14.0 6,733 0.43 K-12 School (6) 437,071 4.7 25,669 0.24 Manufacturing Plant (2) 13,444,810 57.4 866,569 3.16 Office Building (8) 65,784 12.7 1,199 0.10 Restaurant (3) 120,688 45.7 4,438 1.53 Retail Store (8) 91,541 9.3 2,384 0.23 Senior Care Facility (4) 454,215 32.1 10,886 0.70 Supermarket/Grocery (2) 1,800,193 65.8 17,023 0.64 Water Treatment Plant/Water Plant (4) 539,209 94.0 6,602 0.62 Other (11) 131,534 23.4 4,240 0.36 AVERAGES for ALL BUILDINGS (56) 741,159 26.0 38,452 0.50 Table 2. Baseline Total Annual Energy Costs (Electricity and Natural Gas) for Participating Buildings. Charles City Buildings Manning Buildings Total Annual Energy Cost No. of Buildings % No. of Buildings % All Buildings Total % < $10,000 6 23.1 17 56.7 23 41.1 $10,001 - 20,000 7 26.9 8 26.7 15 26.8 $20,001 - 30,000 7 26.9 1 3.3 8 14.3 $30,001 - 50,000 1 3.8 2 6.7 3 5.4 > $50,000 5 19.2 2 6.7 7 12.5 Total 26 30 56 Objective 5: Meet with organizations that could become effective distribution channels for the program We met with Main Street Iowa, a division of Iowa Department of Economic Development to discuss this project. They are interested in a program that could benefit their 40+ communities. Energy providers could also be effective distribution channels. Challenges, Conclusions: The project goal was to determine feasibility for Krell Energy Efficiency (KEE) to implement the CLASS 5 (www.class5energy.com) behavior/operations-based energy efficiency program in commercial and public buildings in rural communities. Challenges noted by residents included need for flexibility to meet needs of diverse buildings and overcoming skepticism about behavior-based programs. Finances would be the biggest challenge. Community residents wanted to know a program would result in energy savings in a reasonable time, and savings would justify upfront costs of the program. Overall, respondents did not think it was feasible for most businesses to purchase an energy efficiency program, to fund a program coordinator, or to have the coordinator focus up to two hours/week on energy. Over 50% of buildings were less than 10,000 square feet with less than 10 employees, making it difficult for these building owners to justify the time commitment. This is a critical point, since success of behavior-based programs depends on having one person coordinate energy efficiency efforts and engage and motivate building occupants. A building's energy costs determine what is feasible to pay for an energy program. Among buildings studied, 41% spend less than $10,000/year on energy, and 67.9% spend less than $20,000 (Table 2.) If we assume 5% or 10% savings and a $1000 program fee, 68% or 40% respectively, of the buildings would break even or lose money. Perhaps 30% of participating buildings had enough energy use, employees, and revenue to make the current CLASS 5 program feasible. Building owners felt the assumed model of a community-wide energy coordinator would need to change to allow each business to operate the program independently. If our customers become individual businesses rather than communities, added costs of “door-to-door” sales would need to be reflected in increased product pricing, which is already a concern. KEE is a distributer of CLASS 5 energy efficiency programs, so profit from sales needs to be shared with CLASS 5. Therefore, KEE’s cost to market and sell the product to businesses is a key factor for KEE as we determine feasibility of bringing this program to rural communities.
Publications
|