Joe Whitefield is director of the office for energy services at Middle Tennessee State University. He can be reached at jwhitefi@mtsu.edu. This is his first article for Facilities Manager.
There are many compelling reasons for colleges and universities to implement an energy management program. Administrators often cite energy and environmental stewardship, economic stewardship, and an increasing number of academic mission support opportunities as being important to them. Well-designed and implemented energy management projects and initiatives can, of course, meet many of these desires. Why then is comprehensive energy management so rare given these motivations and the significant opportunities that exist? Let me suggest the two areas I feel are most often at the heart of the problem.
First, there is often a lack of understanding by the energy management team about the primary motives of the campus administration related to prioritizing programs, projects, and initiatives. Colleges and universities are in the education business first. They are in the energy/utilities business only because utilities are necessary (a necessary evil according to some) to support the primary mission. Energy management is not truly independent of the core mission and should, like all other campus projects, appropriately consider the mission and motives of the campus.
Second, many proposed energy management projects/initiatives are either not adequately designed to specifically deliver on a primary motive or they do not communicate their benefits in terms of the primary motive. Poor performance or inadequate communication of good performance will diminish the impact of an initiative. This can, in turn, prevent a campus from receiving all of the benefits that come from sound energy management activities.
Simply put, establishing the expectations and delivering on them defines success. This article intends to address both sides of the issue by identifying the campus motives, designing an energy program to support them, and offering some suggestions for improved project implementation.
Identifying Motives
British economist Lionel Robbins defined economics as "the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses."1 The term "scarce" implies only that there is a limit to the resource (budget, time, manpower, etc.) and its use must be prioritized for consideration against other possible uses. The degree of scarcity is not the issue, only that some limit exists and decisions must be made relative to prioritizing resource expenditures and any resultant trade-offs.
This basic definition also serves as a model for evaluating energy management programs and initiatives for higher education institutions. Given the fact that capital and operating budgets for colleges and universities are limited, and many alternative uses exist, all expenditures must typically be justified. As such, projects and initiatives are often said to be "competing" for funding. Energy management projects/initiatives are no exception. If they require the use of scarce resources (which they always do), then they must compete against other campus projects/initiatives on a cost and benefit basis.
Energy projects typically have an advantage over other types of projects on a campus in that they provide or free up additional resources in the form of savings. Even so, establishing energy management projects as a priority can be difficult. Some of the difficulty may begin with the term "energy management" itself. It is sometimes referred to as energy conservation, energy efficiency, or even sustainability. Each of these references is a different, possibly overlapping, component of the larger category, but independently not the whole category of energy management. For this article, energy management will be considered as the organizational efforts to efficiently manage the use and costs of utilities while effectively providing for the needs of the campus. Yet, even this definition could mean something different to different people depending on their values and expectations, and what their previous experience has been.
Think back to previous conversations with different individuals on energy. Were the conversations with administrators similar to the conversations with building occupants? How about the financial officials, building maintenance staff, consultants, designers, contractors, legal council, procurement officials, etc? My experience as an energy manager is that these conversations usually differ greatly. Even the same issues are usually tailored and presented differently to different groups or individuals. Any and all of these people can have a significant influence on the development, implementation, and perceived success of an energy management project/initiative.
With so many people (representing several groups) having different interests and levels of participation in the process, it is important to have a clear understanding of their expectations. Table 1 is a sample of different groups/individuals and their possible interest in energy initiatives. With so many interests and performance criteria to be addressed, is there any wonder why energy management projects have a difficult time competing with other projects for priority position for scarce resources? All it takes is poor or mediocre performance in one of the areas of interest to put the brakes on quality projects and initiatives denying the campus of needed benefits.
The lesson is simply that the energy manager should identify and account for the different motives for the campus. Individual interests should be articulated, quantified, and rolled-up to represent the collective campus. To help with this task, I suggest starting with an evaluation of campus motives (See sidebar, "Energy Management Motives Evaluation"). This evaluation uses a rating system to help quantify the relative importance of likely motives behind an energy management program. These motives include:
It is possible to have needs and desires in each of the motivational areas. Typically a campus will have greater needs and/or desires in one or two areas and lesser in others. For instance, it is common for older campuses to be struggling under the weight of deferred maintenance (M&O needs) brought on and compounded by lack of adequate funding (financial needs). These campuses may still be quite interested in environmental issues and other considerations as well. Yet, the higher-rated maintenance and financial motives should have an undeniable imprint on the energy management program.
Whatever tool or methodology is employed, it is important for the energy manager to identify and quantify the motives. They will establish the expectations of performance for energy management projects so that they can be justified against other projects competing for the same priority. Knowing the primary and secondary expectations will allow the development of projects whose benefits specifically address the expectations.
Developing the Projects and Initiatives
Once the motives are established, the energy manager is better equipped to develop the project, or series of projects, with the goal of meeting the expressed need or desire behind the motives. There are numerous project/initiative opportunities from which to choose to tailor a comprehensive program.
They include:
Each of the project/initiative opportunities should bring some measurable benefit to a campus and can be matched with one or more of the motives. The campus is now in a position to develop a specific list of projects/initiatives. Once again, the challenge is to select the appropriate projects/initiatives that represent the best use of a scarce resource (budget) considering the alternative uses (other projects/initiatives). This prioritization of energy management projects/initiatives should be easier now that the motives have been established and prioritized.
Another factor to consider when planning the energy management projects/initiatives is the availability of in-house expertise and the need for contracted expertise. Consultants, designers, energy service providers, etc. can provide essential services necessary for successful projects. When employing contracted service providers to develop and implement a project, the campus must also share the motive behind the project. Do not assume that they have the exact same interest or motive. Ultimately, priority and trade-off decisions may be required and everyone will be better off if the expressed motives serve as the drivers. I have been involved in several "expectations" meetings with contracted service providers where the campus motives are presented, discussed, clarified, and bought into. These meetings, particularly early in the process, have proven to be useful.
Project Implementation Suggestions
Now that the framework for an energy management program exists and specific projects/initiatives are being developed, let's consider some ways to improve the implementation process and the subsequent perception of the campus personnel and facility occupants. These suggestions are for energy management projects involving both retrofit and new construction applications.
There are three primary suggestions for retrofit projects. First, design phases of a project to be accomplished quickly. Energy projects tend to be long and drawn-out and people lose patience waiting for their completion. The benefits of the project can be greatly overshadowed by the inconveniences of the project schedule. Completing projects or phases of projects can be a boost to everyone involved in the project. Second, include various measures within the scope of the project that have a "public effect." So many measures produce savings or efficiency improvements that are significant but are not seen or felt by the facility occupants. There should be a sense that the older buildings are becoming modernized. Lighting measures, various plumbing fixture upgrades, improved space temperature control, noise reduction, etc., can provide the psychological effects for facility occupants not found in other measures. Third, simplify and improve the operations and maintenance of the facilities as a result of any project. Many good projects are not completely successful due to their inability to be operated or maintained by the current staff. Complicated software routines, lack of training, or just the perception of increased workload will create operational barriers that decrease the effectiveness of the project. Strive for easing M&O requirements rather than increasing them. LED exit signs, for example, have the benefit of having their lamps replaced every 15+ years instead of two or three times in a single year like incandescent signs. The reduction in labor activity is often more valuable than the actual energy savings achieved by the low-wattage signs.
New construction projects offer even greater opportunities for energy efficiency than retrofit projects. Efficiency should be designed in at the very beginning and not "value-engineered" out at the end. The key is to understand the priorities and trade-offs of such decisions on both the initial cost of construction and the operational costs of the facility over its life. I find post-construction, operational costs are rarely considered to any great extent in the design process. As such, the campus may be unknowingly saddled with a poor performing building that is expensive to maintain and operate.
Having said that, there are two primary suggestions for new construction projects. First, establish an energy (btu/sf) or energy cost ($/sf) budget for the operation of the facility. For instance, an annual cost per square foot budget (i.e., $1.50/sf) will drive many of the design decisions and subsequent trade-offs by establishing the facility performance as a priority. Design reviews (particularly of electrical and mechanical systems) can be more meaningful to an owner by incorporating the operational impacts of design decisions and designer intent. In addition, this priority will also need to be communicated with M&O personnel and facility occupants to ensure that their functional needs are being addressed while the facility is operating efficiently. Second, have the designer document their projections with an energy report. This establishes the design intent, performance standards, and the operational parameters required to achieve the performance. It also serves as a record for future verification efforts. A sample energy report can be obtained by e-mailing the Center for Energy Efficiency at Middle Tennessee State University (cee@mtsu.edu)
Summary
Campuses are in the business of accomplishing their core educational mission by allocating scarce resources that have alternative uses. Poor energy management practices definitely hinder the accomplishment of the core mission by using scarce resources in an ineffective manner. On the other hand, a well-designed and implemented energy management program can contribute many benefits to the campus mission. This positive result is more easily achieved when the campus motives are understood and serve as the basis for the specific projects and initiatives making up the energy management program.