With an acronym that sounded like Roadrunner passing Wile E. Coyote, the Public Building Enhanced Energy Efficiency Program (PBEEEP) contract between the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Center for Energy & Environment (CEE) wrapped up in February 2014. Seventy different sites managed by ten different state agencies participated, with over 900 buildings totaling 31,423,848 square feet. Of those participants, PBEEEP identified over 650 energy savings measures and saw a combined reduction of 6.3% in the participating buildings’ baseline energy use since 2010, which translated into a cost savings of $1.4 million annually.
We spoke with Bridget Nielsen McLaughlin, CEE’s Manager of Client & Government Affairs, to learn more.
Joel Haskard: Tell us a little bit about CEE and how you ended up managing the State PBEEEP program?
Bridget Nielsen McLaughlin: CEE is in its 35th year as a non-profit organization that promotes clean energy to strengthen the economy while improving the environment. One of the integral parts of our core mission is to help governments and nonprofit agencies spend less on facilities and functions. For this reason as well as our extensive recommissioning and program management experience, we bid on and were awarded the contract to run the State PBEEEP program. As the program concludes almost five years later, we have a chance to reflect on the opportunities and challenges and are very grateful for the experience.
Joel: Of the 900+ buildings you worked with, over 600+ were in the Minnesota State Colleges & Universities (MnSCU) system. What were some of the challenges and opportunities that you found working in that sector?
Bridget: We quickly learned that while all the colleges and universities in the MnSCU system are unified by using the same contracts, each works as a self-entity. Each has its own staff that makes decisions for their school, based on their own priorities. There were, however, efficiencies gained beyond standardized contracts. Those efficiencies were due to similarities in the basic construction and design of multiple buildings across the state. This was particularly helpful in pre-screening buildings to determine which had the most energy savings potential.
Joel: CEE—and many others—suggest recommissioning as a first step for these kinds of projects. What is recommissioning and why is it so important?
Bridget: Recommissioning extends far beyond an energy audit and looks at system optimization first, low cost improvements second, and capital improvements last. It is a systematic process to improve the operation of existing buildings so that they: (1) Meet the owner’s needs, (2) Use only as much energy as is necessary, and (3) Optimize existing building systems with a strong focus on large savings a low or no cost. Think of it as a giant tune up for your building.
Joel: I would imagine many of these projects worked across multiple utility territories. How did that go?
Bridget: It was a challenge! A statewide coordinated program offering isn’t common practice and good communication was essential. The utilities were great and willing to work with us and the State of Minnesota to provide information and maximize any customer rebate offerings. It also proved that you can maximize savings for the customer when all their utilities are involved. As the program developed, systems were integrated to help smooth the process. We worked with over 37 different utilities partners to make this happen. Two-thirds of participants had separate gas and electric utilities.
Joel: Are there a few building case studies that really stood out with impressive paybacks?
Bridget: There were quite a few that really showed the value of this approach. One was the Minnesota History Center project. You can read more here. The staff were skeptical at first when we proposed this work because the building had just completed a major upgrade project; however PBEEEP identified an additional 10% electrical and 20% gas savings, contributing to a six year program in which the History Center saw a nearly 60% reduction in energy use.
Joel: What were some of the most common energy savings measures that PBEEEP uncovered?
Bridget: The four areas that stood out most often were: time of day enabling was excessive (lights were scheduled on after normal business hours); economizers were not operating as they should; equipment was scheduled to be on when it wasn’t needed and efficient lighting retrofits. Three of the four most common areas identified involved low cost/no cost changes and the fourth is typically one of the most cost effective purchases you can make. One of the most interesting things we saw was that energy use dropped by an average of 7% in the buildings where studies were taking place even before any actual implementation. We credit this to the heightened awareness by the staff of things they could do every day to save energy.
Joel: In general, what were some of the best practices and lessons learned from PBEEEP?
Bridget: Two things went hand in hand, qualified providers that understand the specialty of recommissioning are essential to identifying all of the potential energy savings opportunities and a good customer relationship will increase the rate of implementation. This means a qualified recommissioning provider who understands the intent and nuances of the program are building a trusted relationship by really taking time to educate and inform the customer about their choices. Providing the customer with a conduit to ask follow-up questions and tailor a “building operations training manual” specific to their needs will help keep that building running optimally. When looking at maximizing the cost effectiveness of any program, it’s important to pre-screen buildings for maximum impacts and review all fuel sources at a site.
Click here to learn more about CEE and their work >>
About the Local Government Energy Action Series:
This effort tells the stories of Minnesota municipalities, counties, and schools and the tangible results of their energy-saving efforts to inspire others to take their own actions.
