Term paper

Topic: Federal Energy Management Program.

Submitted to: submitted by:
Neha tikoo Shaeeb mohd khanday
Roll no: B-53

Introduction:
The USA Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) promotes energy
efficiency and the use of renewable energy resources at federal sites, helping
agencies save energy, save taxpayer dollars, and demonstrate leadership with
responsible, cleaner energy choices, because as the largest energy consumer in the
United States, the federal government has both a tremendous opportunity and a
clear responsibility to lead by example with smart energy management. The
Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) facilitates the Federal
Government's implementation of sound, cost-effective energy management and
investment practices to enhance the nation's energy security and environmental
stewardship (The position of steward). This is delivered through project
transaction services, applied technology services, and decision support services.
The Federal Government, as the nation's largest energy consumer, has a
tremendous opportunity and clear responsibility to lead by example. FEMP is
central to this responsibility, guiding agencies to use funding more effectively in
meeting Federal and agency-specific energy management objectives. The mission
of The Federal Energy Management Program is to reduce the cost of government
by advancing energy efficiency, water conservation, and the use of solar and other
renewable energy sources and by helping to manage utility costs. FEMP
accomplishes its mission by leveraging both Federal and private resources to
provide technical and financial assistance to other Federal agencies, which take
actions and make investments that increase energy efficiency and renewable
energy utilization, and reduce water consumption in their buildings, facilities and
operations. The Federal Government is the nation’s largest single energy
consumer. Federal building stock in the United States and overseas is widely
distributed geographically and functionally diverse. Energy is used for a wide
variety of purposes by more than one hundred agencies and government-related
organizations. Energy use in the Federal Sector varies widely across agencies,
depending on their mission. Some agencies use energy only in office facilities;
others maintain large fleets of vehicles; still others have specialized applications
such as research and development operations that use energy in highly intensive
ways. Each agency has a unique set of technical and financial assistance needs that
reflect the characteristics of its building stock, operations, and management
structure, adding to the complex nature of achieving Federal energy management
goals and objectives. The Executive Order confirms current goals, and establishes
new goals of improving efficiency in federal buildings by 35 percent by 2010 from
the 1985 baseline, and reducing green house gas emissions attributable to Federal
buildings energy use by 30% from 1990 levels by 2010. In addition, the Executive
Order extended energy efficiency improvement goals to include laboratory and
industrial facilities, and also will narrow the definition of exempt building snot
subject to the goals of Executive Order 12902 which it supplants. The Executive
Order provides direction for Federal procurement of energy in emerging
competitive markets, and reaffirms commitment to increased use of renewable
energy technologies. New provisions strengthen Administration oversight of, and
agency accountability for, achieving energy management goals. The Executive
Order acknowledges the need for agencies to allocate funding and personnel
resources in order to achieve the established goals. Trained Federal energy
managers and procurement staff are essential to efficient and timely development
of cost-effective projects and streamlined contracting processes necessary to
attract private investment.
Between 1985 and 1998, the government achieved a 18.7 percent reduction in site
based energy intensity. While efficiency improvement goals are measured by
reductions in site energy intensity, FEMP continues to make sure that cost saving
energy efficiency and renewable energy projects are completed regardless of
whether energy is measured at the site or the source. Since 1985, absolute energy
use in Federal buildings has declined 27 percent measured at the site, and 14.3
percent measured at the source. The energy bill for Federal buildings was$2.2
billion less in 1998 than in 1985, and cumulative energy bill savings of $18.8
billion dollars have accrued over the period. Additional cost savings will accrue
over the life of investments already completed. While these savings reflect
government downsizing and declining energy prices, as well as investment in
efficiency, reaching FY 2005 and 2010 goals through energy management will
save as much as an additional $1 billion annually relative to 1995 levels. Based on
agencies’ FY 1998 reporting, the government is on track to achieve its FY2005
and 2010 goals, yet faces significant challenges in doing so. Among those
challenges are: energy price uncertainty due to restructured energy markets;
interest rate fluctuation impact on availability of private sector financing; and,
diminishing savings opportunities over time as large, relatively easy efficiency
projects are completed. The current Federal market for alternatively financed
efficiency is dynamic, and FEMP must monitor the market and remain flexible in
its approach to serving the needs of its customers and the private sector entities
that are providing investment. The ability to serve customers is enhanced as the
market develops through the generation and reuse of reimbursable funds to assist
additional project development. Recognizing the need for agencies to provide
resources to prepare the way for private sector investment, a $5,000,000 budget
request for support of alternatively financed energy projects at Department of
Energy sites is made under the Energy and Water Development appropriation
account. In order to help accommodate these initiatives, FEMP has reduced its
request under the Interior appropriations account by $2.4 million from FY 2000
budget request levels.
FEMP will undertake preparatory activities to identify quantify and plan for
pursuing energy, water, and cost savings opportunities in these areas. Full
implementation of programs will be deferred until current efforts are robustly
established. The government faces emerging challenges and risks in an
increasingly complex restructured energy market, and in the unresolved
environmental policy challenge presented by global climate change.
The federal government has set itself ambitious goals for energy efficiency. The
Energy Policy Act of 1992 and a series of Presidential executive orders have
established the goal of reducing energy consumption about 30 percent below the
1985 consumption by the year 2005. Because the federal government spends about
$8 billion each year on energy purchases to operate its 500,000 buildings (3.2
billion square feet of space), power its vehicles, and perform its mission, energy
savings are an important way to reduce the cost of government. The federal
government is, in fact, the largest energy consumer in the country, using more
energy than the entire state of Alabama. The Federal Energy Management
Program has the task of leading this continuing effort. It goes straight to the
bottom line of deficit reduction. Since 1985 energy efficiency measures have
saved the government $9 billion, enough to provide the annual energy needs of the
state of Vermont. Energy efficiency measures will save more money than all of the
base closures (and without the negative economic impacts of base closures). The
efficiency gains to date, if we considered the government as an enterprise, would
have paid for the investments needed to make those efficiency improvements and
would pay for all of the other projects needed to reach the 30 percent savings goal.
It gives us free pollution prevention along the way and by 2015 it will have given
the federal government a net "profit" of over $15 billion.
Current FEMP program areas include:
 • Operations and Maintenance
• Greenhouse Gases
• Water Efficiency
• Data Center Efficiency
• Industrial Facilities
• Federal Fleet Management
• Sustainable Buildings and Campuses

Emergence of Federal Energy Management program.

During the 1800's and early 1900's when utility prices were decreasing the control
of energy was important. Automatic controls were developed in the late 1800's and
a workable night thermostat was developed in the very early 1900's.
Not until the 1970's, with multiple energy crises, and increasing costs, did the idea
of conserving energy become really important to building owners. A profession
was born, the Energy Manager and equipment developed to reduce costs. Federal
energy management came into being in mid 1970’s in response to oil embargo, as
many in the federal government believed it should try to manage its own energy
use better. Through federal energy management program, the federal department
of energy worked to provide leadership to improve efficiency and fuel flexibility,
not only in building but also in transportation and industrial process energy, and to
facilitate the transfer of developed knowledge to other federal agencies. There are
about 500000 buildings in the federal sector at 29 agencies that report FEMP.
There are approximately 8000 federal sites where the government owns and
operates buildings and thousand more where it leases space. The federal
government uses more energy than any other individual group in the country and
federal buildings use about 40% of the government energy budget. Tax payers
approximately $11.2 billion for that energy in 1992. Federal energy management
program energy saving goal have realized, achieving a 10% reduction from 1985
to 1995. Another 10% reduction in forecast for the period from 1995 to 2000. EPA
act affirmed 20% saving by the year 2000 that President Bush had ordered.
President ordered 12902 signed by President Clinton in 1994 increased the energy
reduction goal to 30% from the base year 1985 and extended the completion date
to the year 2005. Industrial efficiency improvement is included to reduce energy
by 20% between 1995 to 2005.
After a successful emergence FEMP start achieving its mission through two
primary strategies:
1: Create and sustain a core level of Federal energy management as
institutionalized activity at all Federal agencies.
2: Assist agencies to access private sector capital to fund capital energy
efficiency, water conservation and renewable energy projects by Federal agencies.

FEMP leads the interagency effort focused on the Federal energy management
mission. We lead, coordinate, and assist agencies to install cost-effective
technologies and to take other actions to achieve statutory and Executive Order
goals. The FEMP program is customer driven and needs based. it provide
information, expertise, technical assistance, project financing vehicles, policy
guidance, and inter agency coordination that help agencies achieve significant
energy and cost savings in their facilities. FEMP priorities are implemented
through integrated programs and an aligned field organization that includes
regional support offices, National laboratories and private sector contractors.
FEMP apply three key business principles to drive organizations:
1: Partnering creates greater cooperation, higher probability of successful
implementation, increased responsiveness to customer needs and greater
opportunity for innovative action. We support and encourage agencies to pursue
many ways to acquire funding and implement energy efficiency and renewable
energy projects at their facilities. Partnering with states, utilities and energy
service companies (ESCOs) multiplies the ability of FEMP and other agencies to
assist Federal sites across the country with cost-effective energy management
solutions.
2: Leveraging capitalizes on the shared interests among FEMP, non-Federal
organizations, and other Federal agencies to achieve our individual objectives in
mutually supportive ways. Thus, FEMP advances efficient and renewable
technologies developed by other parts of the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. It leverages the DOE-EPA Energy Star program to increase
the energy efficiency of the annual $200 billion of Federal procurement activity.
3: Cost recovery, where justified, stretches the value of appropriated funds and
accelerates investment and cost savings. Agency payment, in the form of up-front
funding or as part of realized savings, affirms proper design, delivery and value of
direct services offered.

Strategies:
FEMP’s strategy succeeds with consistent funding of the core program across
time, including core activities of the project financing program, and stable funding
for capitalizing the reimbursable services aspects of the program. As the financial
assistance program matures, costs recovered will allow provision of increased
support of energy and cost savings as demand by agencies increases, without the
need for increased appropriations. The FY 2001 budget request is designed to
achieve the FY 2005 and FY 2010 goals through support of the following:
• 1: The FEMP core program, including providing technical information,
training, and non-cost recovered technical assistance; providing policy
guidance, maintaining rules and regulations, and general promotion related
to private sector financing of efficiency and renewable projects coordinating
the utility incentive program; promoting renewable technology use; leading
interagency policy, coordination, and reporting; providing education,
outreach, and recognition of agency and individual accomplishments; and
managing and directing the program, including program planning, analysis,
and policy development functions.
• 2: Funding for delivery of FEMP services that directly support agencies use
of available alternative financing resources across the government. To the
extent to which these funds are recovered through granted reimbursable
authority, additional projects will be supported in future years. It is
anticipated that up to $1 million in recovered funds will be utilized in FY
2001 in addition to the requested appropriated funding. Actual cost recovery
will depend upon agencies’ demand for FEMP services.
• 3: Funding for cost-recovered technical assistance operating in conjunction
with the delivery of FEMP services. Costs recovered will be tracked and
utilized through an accounting system that is integrated back into the FEMP
Program.
• 4: Project approaches that show promise of achieving energy and cost
savings with minimal capital investment, such as promotion of procurement
of highly efficient products and equipment, improving operations and
maintenance, and instituting sustainable design concepts in new buildings
and major renovations.
• 5: Necessary prepatory activities prior to expanding the reach of private
sector financing mechanisms for efficiency and renewable energy projects
in Federal mobility applications and leased space.
• 6: Federal leadership in energy management to promote an aggressive
energy and cost-savings culture in agencies and by demonstrating success in
DOE’s own facilities.
• 7: Federal/State cooperative efforts to service Federal sites and to transfer
the FEMP technical assistance and alternative financing model to state and
local governments, broadening the overall impact of FEMP’s efforts to save
taxpayer dollars.
• 8: Develop improved metering and data analysis capabilities to allow for
real-time decision- making. This is a somewhat broad category and includes
concepts such as improved real-time energy use metering (you can’t manage
 what you don’t measure), implementation of commissioning programs (e.g.,
new system commissioning, recommissioning/retrocommissioning, and
continuous commissioning), and automated diagnostics.
• 9: Develop guidance and tools implementing new O&M strategies such
as reliability centered maintenance programs, as well as guidance on
new or advanced maintenance technologies such as infrared thermography
and vibration analysis.
• 10: Identify possible incentives for government and contracted O&M
staff to better maintain and more efficiently operate energy intensive
equipment/systems. The agency- identified needs (contracting improvements,
increasing site resources, and outreach/technical guidance) and the FEMP
O&M-program- identified cornerstones are seen as quite complementary, as the
potential program activities will demonstrate.

Federal Energy management program benefits. The FEMP core

program helps agencies help themselves. FEMP act to institutionalize energy
efficient management practices and to create agency capacities to sustain and
further energy and cost savings. FEMP does this through a broad-based,
interconnected program that disseminates critical knowledge and skills to other
Federal agencies, in a context of sound planning, analysis, and policy
interpretation. The core program provides continuously updated training, skills,
and technical know-how to agencies, enabling them to recognize and take
advantage of new and important energy-saving technologies and techniques. We
analyze, plan, and coordinate with agencies on emerging issues, such as electric
utility restructuring and global climate change, identifying implications for Federal
energy management and procurement and potential responses to those
implications. Core program activities ensure the long-term effectiveness of the
Government’s effort, renewing its technical and policy bases as broader trends
shape future opportunities. FEMP saves the government money by reducing
duplication and overlap in technical information, training and assistance services.
We ensure consistency and high quality policy, technical guidance, reporting, and
analysis through a core focus on interagency coordination and cooperation.
The FEMP project financing program supports agencies’ access to private sector
funding for efficiency and renewable energy projects. The project financing
program responds directly to the significant reduction of appropriations included
in agency budgets for capital intensive energy efficiency and renewable energy
projects. It support Federal sites’ use of private sector financing by offering
technical services and access to FEMP-negotiated energy savings performance
contracts (Super ESPCs) with Energy Service Companies (ESCOs). FEMP
technical services also support projects (on a cost-recovered basis) that use utility
financing and performance contracts issued by other agencies. FEMP provides
single access points for FEMP procurement and technical services for private
sector financed projects and are also planning to support direct technical assistance
services on a cost reimbursed basis. FEMP is organized to allow for ease of access
to technical, financial and program experts at DOE Regional Support Offices and
several National Laboratories, energy audit and technical services contractors, and
DOE contracting officers at DOE headquarters, Golden Field Office, and Oak
Ridge Operations Office. The services of these entities are available to agencies on
a pay-as-you-go basis, or on a delayed reimbursement basis out of realized cost
savings.
Potential program benefits from FEMP are significant as is evident from the
magnitude of the opportunity and the record of past success. The sheer magnitude
of opportunity is clear: the Federal government is the nation’s single largest
energy consumer and, therefore, represents a substantial commitment of Federal
dollars every year. In FY 1998, the Federal government’s buildings, facilities, and
energy intensive operations consumed 866.0 trillion Btu (quads) of primary
energy. This is equivalent to the energy required by the State of West Virginia.
The benefits flow from the large number of efficiency financing options underway
at Federal sites. Assessment of these benefits should include important activities
that are not directly driven by FEMP, such as the Army Corps of Engineers’
energy saving performance contracting activities. FEMP regularly assesses the
federal market demand for FEMP services. Preliminary indications are that the
market will largely consist of the Navy, Marines, and most civilian agencies. The
total combined effect of FEMP’s portfolio, including the FEMP Service, Utility
Incentives Program, Procurement Challenge, and Technical Services, is assumed
to occur in these segments of the total Federal energy market - about 50% of the
total.

Review of Literature.
1
Assessing the Potential for a FEMP
Operations and Maintenance (O&M), Program to Improve Energy Efficiency
W.D. Hunt
G.P. Sullivan
October 2002
Prepared for the
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Federal Energy Management Program.
Executive Order 13123 mandates that Federal agencies reduce energy use by 35%
relative to 1985 energy use by the year 2010. To satisfy this mandate, Federal
agencies will need to utilize many different energy management approaches. One
approach that to date has not been fully explored is that of improved operations
and maintenance (O&M). The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Federal
Energy Management Program (FEMP) is developing program offerings in support
of improved Federal O&M activities to further the ability of agencies to meet the
2010 energy reduction goal. This assessment was completed to determine the
potential benefits of an expanded FEMP O&M program offering, while also taking
into account the expressed O&M needs of the Federal agencies. The main
conclusions of this assessment are summarized as follows:
1- The potential energy savings available to the Federal facilities sector through
improved O&M practices is conservatively estimated to be 10%. If achieved, these
energy savings can contribute significantly to the effort aimed at meeting the
mandated 2010 energy reduction goal of 35%. This also represents an annual
potential energy cost savings of $301 million based on the 1985 baseline.
2- There are additional significant operational benefits available to Federal sites
that improve O&M practices including:
• extended equipment life – reducing future capital funding
requirements
• healthier, safer, and more productive work environments
• improved building occupant comfort - reducing occupant trouble
calls/complaints.
3- The agency feedback/input process used in this assessment identified the
following needs for O&M program offerings:
• Model O&M incentive contract language and the ability to
effectively
administer contracts because well over 50% of the Federal floor space
O&M is now outsourced, and this amount is expected to grow in the
coming years.
• Guidance on an array of O&M issues, strategies, and practices
(i.e.,
commissioning, metering, controls design and operation, etc.)
• Additional FEMP O&M training course offerings including
specialized training (i.e., boiler and chiller operations, maintenance of control
systems, site auditing, etc.).

4- Recommendations for the FEMP O&M program offerings through FY04 are as
follows:
 • Begin activities aimed at the key areas of needs and opportunities:
develop
model language and performance incentives for O&M outsourcing,
provide technical assistance to agencies in applying new O&M-based
technologies and strategies, provide technical assistance in the area of
metering and sub- metering, and develop technical guidance on a range of
energy-efficiency-related O&M issues such as O&M contract
management, building and equipment commissioning, building and
equipment metering, and incorporating O&M requirements into new
building designs.
• Build O&M program visibility in FY03 through focused outreach
and
communication activities.
• Develop a long-range O&M program plan that targets a 3- to 5-year
implementation window.

2001 FEMP Customer Survey.

An informal survey was administered at the end of the FEMP Operations and
Maintenance Management workshops held in February 2001 (Honolulu, HI) and
February 2002 (Portland, OR). Attendees at the 2001 workshop were asked the
following question:
What are the two or three things that FEMP could do to help your O&M program?
Attendees at the 2002 workshop were asked two questions:
• What are your top two O&M headaches?
• How can FEMP help with your O&M program?
Although three distinctly different questions were asked in two different
workshops, some trends emerged in the responses.
• 1 More training was easily the most frequent response. The most frequently
cited training need was for more money for agency staff to attend training.
The need for more specialized equipment or topical (e.g., setting up a
maintenance program) training was also frequently mentioned.
• 2 There is a need for technical guidance on O&M issues. Specific guidance
topics mentioned included designing direct digital control systems in new
buildings maintaining control systems, and primers on technologies and
strategies.
• 3 Many would like to have an effective message on the benefits of O&M to
obtain management (resource) support.
• 4 Several mentions were made of the lack of incentives to do a better job.

Results of the 2001 FEMP customer survey were released in February 2002. The
study intended to collect information from FEMP customers on their use of and
satisfaction with various FEMP services, determine an impact of FEMP services
(project implementation and FEMP influence), and identify agency need for
assistance with technologies and services. One key finding related to O&M
appeared in this report – “Non-participants most needed services are whole-
building design, and maintenance and operations services” (US DOE 2001b). The
report went on to recommend that information regarding operations and
maintenance be developed and made available to the Federal sector by FEMP.

KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM LITERATURE.

The assessment has incorporated the input and findings of a variety of sources
including interviews with agency O&M staff, literature reviews on O&M
practices, and previously completed studies on the effectiveness of Federal
building operations programs and the implications of various O&M strategies. The
resulting key findings are as follows:
KEY FINDING 1: There is a significant opportunity for O&M improvements in
the Federal sector and FEMP can and should play a key role in capturing this
opportunity. The literature searches and documented experiences of the FEMP
ALERT teams clearly demonstrate the energy and cost savings potential available
through improved O&M (low cost/no cost) of building energy using systems.
While the savings estimates from these sources vary from 5% to 30%, the authors
(conservatively) feel that 10% energy savings is achievable in the Federal sector
through improved O&M practices.
KEY FINDING 2: The majority of the O&M services in Federal buildings are
provided via outsourcing. Further, Federal agencies are very interested in finding
ways to more effectively manage these contracts. It is believed that well over 50%
of the Federal space is maintained by an outsourced O&M contract. Further, the
outsourced square footage is expected to grow in the coming years as a result of
the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-270) and
renewed interest, particularly by the Department of Defense, in the A-761 process.
Agencies readily identified contracted O&M services as a key area concern and,
thus, opportunity. The specific concerns given were:
• 1 Current contract language is dated and does not accurately or completely
list O&M requirements.
• 2 O&M contractors lack incentives to operate building energy using system
efficiently under the current contract.
• 3 Agency staffs overseeing O&M contract performance seem to lack either
the technical expertise to verify work is being completed, or the time
resources to verify work is being correctly completed.
KEY FINDING 3: Advances in O&M technologies, approaches, and strategies do
not appear to have penetrated the Federal buildings O&M sector. Cited studies and
field observations have documented that most Federal sites administer
maintenance on a breakdown and/or preventive basis. Examples of predictive
and/or reliability centered maintenance programs at Federal sites are rare.
Likewise, many people interviewed felt new Federal buildings are generally not
adequately commissioned and that there are significant opportunities available
through recommissioning/retrocommissioning.
Finally, “new” technologies or techniques such as predictive maintenance
technologies are typically under-employed in the Federal sector.
KEY FINDING 4: Metering has been and will continue to be an area of need in
the Federal building and energy sectors. You can’t manage what you don’t
measure applies to O&M as much as it does to other programs. Of late, there has
been some renewed interest in this area as a result of the metering requirements for
Federal sites contained in the proposed Senate version of the comprehensive
energy legislation. 2 Regardless of the driver, increased metering capabilities will
greatly assist Federal sites in more effectively monitoring their equipment status,
operational effectiveness, and building energy performance.
With these findings in mind, the following recommendations are made.
RECOMMENDATION 1: In FY03, FEMP needs to fund and begin activities
aimed at key areas of needs and opportunities as identified in this report.
Recommended specific activities are as follows:
a. Address the issue of outsourcing of Federal O&M activities
• 1 Develop improved O&M outsourcing contract language that clearly calls
out O&M activities to be performed by the contractor.
• 2 Identify and implement performance incentives in outsourced O&M
contracts. 3Equip the Federal O&M contract managers with the tools, skills,
and resources they need to effectively oversee (verify) contractor
performance.
b. Provide technical assistance to agencies and develop pilot programs aimed at
applying new O&M-based technologies and strategies such as commissioning
activities, establishing reliability centered maintenance programs, wider-spread
use of predictive O&M technologies (e.g., infrared thermography), and
demonstrations of automated diagnostics.
c. Provide technical assistance to agencies in the area of metering to include
assisting sites in developing and implementing metering plans, identifying ways to
finance site metering activities, and identifying new metering technologies.
d. Develop technical guidance on a range of issues that concern Federal O&M
staff such as O&M contract management, building and equipment commissioning,
building and equipment metering, and incorporating O&M requirements into new
building planning and design.
Note that there are many pilot and partnering opportunities for several of these
areas because several agencies have already expressed an interest. Further, all
pilots should include verification of results, analysis of effectiveness (including
possible impact if applied across the Federal sector), recommendations for
improvements, and outreach aimed at Federal O&M staff.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Build FEMP O&M program visibility in FY03. The
primary benefit of program visibility is that it provides Federal O&M staff and
O&M stakeholder groups a common point for information exchange. A number of
separate O&M initiatives begun in FY02 and earlier (see Appendix C) have
already established some visibility for FEMP in the area of O&M. The
recommended activities listed below are aimed at increasing FEMP O&M
program visibility:
a. Develop an updated and expanded O&M Best Practices Guide.
b. Increase the FEMP O&M training course offerings. Present the FEMP O&M
course “Operations and Maintenance Management” more than once a year.
Develop and deliver new O&M training courses that meet more specific agency
needs such as O&M auditing, boiler maintenance and operation, and maintenance
of building control systems.
c. Participate in nationally recognized conferences such as Energy 2003 and the
World Energy Engineering Congress by presenting papers, chairing sessions, and
managing program tracks.
d. Build relationships with customers and stakeholders;
• 1 Start-up an O&M working group under the Interagency Energy
Management Task Force. This activity links FEMP O&M efforts with the
agency energy program managers.
• 2 Continue to participate in the Federal Facilities Council’s Standing
Committee on Operations and Maintenance. This activity links FEMP O&M
efforts with agency O&M program managers.
• 3Identify other potential stakeholders such as the International Facility
Management Association (IFMA) and BOMA International and build on
these key relationships.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Develop long-range FEMP O&M program plan.
Develop an O&M program plan targeting a 3- to 5-year implementation window.
Develop specific goals, activities, and programs to positively affect the way O&M
programs are designed, implemented and evaluated by FEMP’s Federal customers.

2
Review of Literature for Inputs to the National Water Savings Model and
Spreadsheet Tool–Commercial/Institutional
Camilla Dunham Whitehead, James D. Lutz, and Moya Melody
Water and Energy Technology Team
Energy Analysis Program
Energy and Environment Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley CA 94720
May 2009

The work described in this paper was supported by the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Alternative Fuels Policy, Office of Policy of the U.S. Department
of Energy under Contract Number DE-AC02-05CH11231.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the Water
Sense program to reduce national water use by promoting water efficient products
and practices. By affixing its label to water efficient products, Water Sense helps
inform consumers’ decisions about product purchases. In addition to identifying
products for its indoor residential labeling program, Water Sense identified three
commercial/institutional products to evaluate for labeling: flushometer valve
toilets, urinals, and pre-rinse spray valves.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) is developing a computer model
and spreadsheet tool to help estimate the water savings attributable to the Water
Sense commercial/institutional labeling program. This National Water Savings–
Commercial/Institutional (NWS-CI) model is patterned after the National Water
Savings– Residential model, which was completed in 2008. Calculating the
quantity of water and money saved through the Water Sense labeling program
requires three primary inputs:
(1) The quantity of a given product in use;
(2) The frequency with which units of the product are replaced or
Installed in new construction; and
(3) The number of times or the duration a product is used in various settings. A
building used for public assembly, for example, may experience a frequency of
use different from that of a school.
To obtain the information required for developing the NWS-CI model, LBNL
reviewed various resources pertaining to the three Water Sense-labeled
commercial/institutional products. The data gathered ranged from the number of
commercial buildings in the United States to numbers of employees in various
sectors of the economy and plumbing code requirements for commercial buildings.
This document summarizes information obtained about the three products’
attributes, quantities, and use in commercial and institutional settings that is
needed to estimate how much water EPA’s Water Sense program saves.
Summary of Data Used as Inputs to Model
Table 5.1 outlines the inputs LBNL developed for the National Water Savings
model for commercial and institutional products (NWS-CI). Table 5.1 summarizes
information regarding the frequency or duration of use; the savings between the
standard and the Water Sense flow rate; and the rate of replacement based on
projected product lifetimes of flushometer valve toilets, urinals, and pre-rinse
spray valves. In developing the inputs they indirectly utilized data regarding
square footage of commercial/institutional buildings, plumbing codes, and
employment rates, among others.

Product Frequency of Savings per Annual Lifetime

Use Unit Replacement (years)
(1994 Standard Rate (%)
—
Water Sense
Target)
Flush o meter 3 flushes per 1.6 – 1.28 = 4 25
Valve Toilet employee per day 0.32
gallon per flush

Urinal 3 flushes per male 1 – 0.5 = 0.5 4 25

employee per day gallon
per flush

Pre-Rinse 2 hours per day 1.6 – 1.28 = 5 5

Spray Valve 0.32
gallon per
minute

How companies are handling the issue of Federal Energy

Management Programs.

The energy savings project often begins with the development of ideas that would
generate energy savings, and in turn, cost savings. Below are some of the projects
that have been accomplished by adopting federal energy management program:
1: Great Lakes Naval Training Center - Department of Defense:
This comprehensive project was a partnership between the Great Lakes Naval
Training Center and Commonwealth Edison.
Total Project Cost: $14.7 Million
Energy Conservation Measures: mechanical, electrical, and lighting upgrades.
Completion Date: Projects were initiated in spring of 1997and completed January
of 1998.
Annual Energy Savings: estimated $1.4 Million.
Payback: 10 years
Utility: Commonwealth Edison financed the project and provided engineering
services.
FEMP Support: Technical and contractual support from FEMP staff.
2: Dallas Veterans Administration Medical Center - Office of Veterans
Affairs:
This project was a partnership between the VA and Texas Utilities Electric
Company which implemented a Thermal Energy Storage (TES) system in the
facility. The TES was the first of its kind for the VA.
Total Project Cost: $2.2 Million
Energy Conservation Measure: Thermal Energy Storage.
Completion Date: The project was initiated in February of 1996 and completed by
September of the same year.
Annual Energy Savings: estimated $1.4 million.
Payback: 7 years
Utility: Texas Utilities Electric Company. They facilitated the project and
provided $500,000 of the total project cost.
FEMP Support: Technical and contractual support from FEMP staff.
3: Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine - Department of Defense:
This project was recently awarded to Central Maine Power through its area wide
contract.
Total Capital Investment: $1.7 Million
Energy Conservation Measures: lighting, heating controls, building envelope, and
hot water systems.
Completion Date: Project was awarded in spring of 1999 and will be completed by
end of the year in 1999.
Annual Energy Savings: estimated $180,000
Payback: less than 10 years
Utility: Central Maine Power
FEMP: Training and education through Federal Utility Partnership Working
Group.
Other Special Projects: FEMP may also provide a limited amount of financial
assistance that is specifically directed to increasing the visibility, and encouraging
the early adoption, of selected energy products or services whose widespread
application would likely have a strong impact on Federal energy savings. Those
are instances where the provision of a small amount of financial assistance to
launch a project can demonstrate sufficient leadership to overcome initial
resistance of agency managers to try a new technology, despite its excellent energy
savings potential. Thus, this approach is designed to promote and expedite the
introduction of products and services into Federal sector use; for example, an
emerging technology, such as the sulfur lamp, that has recently been developed by
another program in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Companies and agencies are trying their best to meet the sustainability targets and
issues, including:
○ Achieve 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020
○ Achieve 26% reduction in potable & 20% reduction in industrial,
landscaping, & agricultural water consumption by 2020
○ Comply with new EPA storm water management guidance
○ Achieve 50% recycling & waste diversion by 2015
○ Requires that 95% of all applicable procurement contracts will meet
sustainability requirements
○ Requires 15% of buildings meet the Guiding Principles for High
Performance and Sustainable Buildings by 2015
○ Design all new federal buildings which begin the planning process by
2020 to achieve zero-net energy by 2030
○ Pursue cost-effective & innovative strategies, such as highly
reflective & vegetated roofs
Using this time-tested fuel-switching technique in existing federal boilers helps to
reduce operating costs, increase the use of renewable energy, and enhance our
energy security. To help the nation uses more domestic fuels and
renewable energy technologies—and increase our energy
security—the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) in the
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, assists government agencies in developing
biomass energy projects. As part of that assistance, FEMP has
prepared this Federal Technology Alert on biomass cofiring
technologies. This publication was prepared to help federal
energy and facility managers make informed decisions about
using biomass cofiring in existing coal-fired boilers at their
facilities. One of the most attractive and easily implemented biomass energy
technologies is cofiring with coal in existing coal-fired boilers. In biomass
cofiring, biomass can substitute for up to 20% of the coal used in the boiler. The
biomass and coal are combusted simultaneously. When it is used as a
supplemental fuel in an existing coal boiler, biomass can provide the following
benefits: lower fuel costs, avoidance of landfills and their associated costs, and
reductions in sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and greenhouse-gas emissions. Other
benefits, such as decreases in flue gas opacity, have also been documented.
Biomass cofiring is one of many energy- and cost-saving technologies to emerge
as feasible for federal facilities in the past 20 years. Cofiring is a proven
technology; it is also proving to be life-cycle cost-effective in terms of installation
cost and net present value at several federal sites.

Energy-Saving Mechanism
Biomass cofiring projects do not reduce a boiler’s total energy input requirement.
In fact, in a properly implemented cofiring application, the efficiency of the boiler
will be the same as it was in the coal-only operation. However, cofiring projects
do replace a portion of the nonrenewable fuel coal with a renewable fuel biomass.
Cost-Saving Mechanisms
Overall production cost savings can be achieved by replacing coal with
inexpensive biomass fuel sources e.g., clean wood waste and waste paper.
Typically, biomass fuel supplies should cost at least 20% less, on a thermal basis,
than coal supplies before a cofiring project can be economically attractive.
Agencies for utility-scale power generation projects, acquiring steady, year round
supplies of large quantities of low-cost biomass can be difficult. But where
supplies are available, there are several advantages to using biomass for cofiring
operations at federal facilities. For example, federal coal-fired boilers are typically
much smaller than utility-scale boilers, and they are most often used for space
heating and process heat applications. Thus, they do not have utility-scale fuel
requirements. In addition, federal boilers needed for space heating typically
operate primarily during winter months.

In the USA, federal programs currently exist for energy efficiency and
conservation policies, which are issued to federal agencies through executive
orders. A major development in renewable energy policy is Executive Order
12902 (Greenberg et al., 1996). This order requires federal agencies to conduct
comprehensive facility audits and identify the potential opportunities to partner
with private sector firms in an effort to integrate energy efficient practices such as
renewable sources of energy. Federal agencies often rely on the General Services
Administration (GSA) to procure utilities that are both cost-effective and
environmentally responsible. Options are presented by GSA to tenants to make
them aware of renewable energy opportunities, costs, and benefits. The GSA
currently considers opportunities for solar and other renewable energy in building
design and retrofits, in accordance with several executive orders. When GSA
performs an energy audit of a facility, renewable opportunities are identified and
implemented if they are found to be life-cycle cost effective. The GSA has a stated
goal of providing an integrated approach that seeks to balance cost, environmental,
social, and human benefits with the mission and functional needs of the customer
agency (Layne and Lee, 2001). Known as the federal government “landlord” for
many agencies, GSA also provides a role as model for other agencies and the
commercial sector in the innovative provision of real estate. As a publicly-funded
organization GSA records are in the public domain and access to government
innovations provide societal and cultural changes that attempt to lead the industry.
Energy conservation standards are also issued by the federal government to
motivate agencies to set and meet energy conservation goals. Renewable energy
fits into the federal government by offering agencies a way to minimize the
environmental impact their facilities have on surroundings, in addition to setting
an example for the private sector in socially responsible business practices (Wells,
2003). Integrating renewable energy is an option for all federal agencies to meet
the conservation goals set for them. Moving into the future, more agencies will
consider the use of renewable energy as a realistic and achievable method to reach
these goals.
In order to provide an organized method for analysis of renewable energy systems
in new or existing buildings, the proposed decision model was developed to
provide guidance to facility and property professionals to incorporate into their
analysis and to help guide decisions on how, when, where and why to incorporate
renewable energy.
Commercial organizations may find federal, state and local tax exemptions and
loan guarantees for similar financing of renewable energy installations. Financial
benefits can also be created as the renewable energy system comes online and
potentially generates energy savings. Energy contracts are also available through
the DOE. These are contracts put in place with qualified vendors and utility
providers who could work with federal agencies on renewable energy projects.
In certain areas of the USA there exist regulated utility green pricing programs,
competitive renewable power, and renewable energy certificate programs (Bird et
al., 2004). These types of programs may be available depending on the facility
location and involve private sector firms such as solar providers and wind farms
offering renewable energy that can be sent to a federal facility at a discounted rate
in comparison to traditional sources of energy. In some cases, federal agencies
have the ability to purchase this type of renewable energy at discounted rates.
Similar contracts are available to commercial and not-for-profit organizations;
however, federal government discounts do not apply.

The Metcalfe Federal Building located in Chicago is a 28-storey building

comprising 839,636 square feet. The building was constructed in 1991. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the major tenant within the facility.
The building integrated an 84-panel solar rooftop system that supplements the
overall electrical requirements of the facility in October 2000. EPA helped install
this 10-kW photovoltaic system in an effort to demonstrate self-generated
renewable energy systems and educate the public on emerging technologies
(Environmental Protection Agency, 2007). Energy costs were normalized for fiscal
year 1999, up to current data available in 2007. The Clark Street Federal Building
located in Chicago was used for comparison since it is powered by a non-
renewable source of energy. The similarities between these two buildings are
location, weather conditions, federal agencies as tenants, and similarity of size.
The Clark Street Federal Building is a total of 593,641 square feet on 12 floors.
This building is used for comparison in an effort to observe any similarities or
trends in electricity costs over the same time period. Identified as a retrofit, the
results of the feasibility study on the Metcalf Federal Building centered on
photovoltaic panels as a realistic technology application. Forecasted minimum cost
impact over the next seven years was the primary driver for this technology
selection. In October 2000, the 84-panel solar rooftop system became operational
at the Metcalfe building. Fiscal year 2001 for the Metcalfe Building was the first
full year of operation with the solar panel system. Over the next six years, the
facility would experience fluctuations in electricity costs. Analyzing results from
the first full year of using the solar panel system, the energy costs at the facility
increased by 9 per cent. The following fiscal year of 2002 electricity costs were
down by 11.6 per cent. Costs would increase again in fiscal year 2003 by 22.4 per
cent. As the facility moved forward in time, energy costs began to gradually
decrease after reaching a high point for the time period of this case study. When
comparing statistical cost data to the Clark Street Federal Building, operating on
non-renewable sources of electricity, a similar trend of increased and decreased
costs arises. This similar trend could suggest that factors in that area of the
country, such as weather or general utility costs, were the driving force behind cost
fluctuations, therefore minimizing the solar impact at the Metcalfe facility.

Another example is The US Custom House located in Portland, Maine is a 25,269

square foot facility. The three-story building houses the Department of Homeland
Security. A geothermal project was completed in October 2001 that integrated
three 1,500 feet vertical geothermal wells (General Services Administration,
2007b). Energy is converted through the geothermal system using natural heat
from the ground. This facility is currently the only federally owned facility in the
nation that uses a geothermal system. Many agencies have entered leases with
private sector companies to occupy other geothermal facilities. Actual energy costs
for the Portland Maine U.S. Custom House were compared with the Laconia, New
Hampshire Federal Building. Both facilities are located in similar areas of the
country, have experienced closely related weather patterns, both house and are
owned by federal agencies, and are of similar size and age. Electricity costs were
normalized for both facilities.
A major indicator to proceed with this project, based on the decision model, is
accomplishing the first federally owned facility with an integrated geothermal
system. The age of this facility led to the project being identified as a retrofit. Due
to natural resources in the area, geothermal was identified as a realistic choice in
technology. The feasibility study resulted in questionable or unconfirmed cost
estimation since accuracy was difficult as this was the first project of this kind.
Energy costs at the US Custom House have remained relatively stable up until
fiscal year 2002 which was the first full year of the geothermal system use. From
that point, total energy costs for the facility have been characterized by various
percentage increases and decreases from year to year. Costs decreased by 3.4% for
the first full year of geothermal use, but began to increase the following year by
almost 60 per cent. Electricity costs have been unstable since the system was
brought online in October 2001. The Laconia Federal Building has experienced
similar fluctuations in electricity. The integration of a geothermal system at the US
Custom House has overall had a negative impact on electricity costs and total costs
are now significantly higher than those paid out prior to project completion. Data
were collected of normalized electricity costs per year for the US Custom House
and the Laconia Federal Building. Fiscal year 2002 was the first full year for
which the geothermal system was used in the US Custom House. Data’s were
compares normalized electricity costs per year between both buildings. Results
from this case study are that the geothermal system is primarily a complementary
source of energy in addition to non-renewable sources. Cost increases could be
attributable to several factors such as the cost to efficiently manage and maintain
the geothermal system, new tenants with higher energy demand, and overall
mechanical system changes. The potential benefits outside of the non-existent
energy savings are reduced pollution and impact on the surrounding environment.

Critical appraisal of FEMP.

1: Opportunity to Lead by Example.

• Help transform the market

• Demonstrate and deploy new technologies
• Requires carrot and stick approach
• Need involvement of senior management
• US public sector represents about 14% of GDP, which is about average
worldwide
2: US Federal Footprint.

Building Energy Usage by Type:

• Electricity = 45%
• Natural Gas = 34%
• Fuel Oil = 9%
• Coal = 5%
• Other = 7%

Mobility Energy Usage by Type:

• Jet Fuel = 66%
• Navy Special = 23%
• Auto Gas = 6%
• Diesel = 4%
• Other = 1%
The federal government consumes 1.6% of the nation’s total energy budget, or
$17.4 billion in annual energy costs.

3: FEMP Mission
The Federal Energy Management Program strives to enhance energy security,
environmental stewardship, and cost reduction within the federal government by:
Facilities
• Advancing energy efficiency and water conservation;
• Promoting the use of renewable energy, sustainable building design, and
distributed energy resources;
• Improving utility management decisions; and

Fleets
• Promoting the advancement of alternative fuels and advance technology
vehicles;
• Improving fleet efficiency measures to reduce and displace petroleum fuels
in fleets; and
• Facilitating, monitoring, and evaluating progress of all covered agencies.

4: Federal Requirements.
➢ Epact 2005 set new baselines for Federal agencies in energy and water
conservation, renewable energy use.
 ➢ Executive Order 13423 set even higher goals for Federal agencies to
achieve

○ Improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases by 3%

annually or 30% by 2015 (2003 baseline)
○ Reduce water usage by 2% per year through 2015 (2007 baseline)
○ Reduce fleet petroleum consumption by 2% annually and increase
non- petroleum fuels by 10% annually through 2015 (2005 baseline).
○ Ensure at least 15 percent of building inventory incorporates
requirements described in the Guiding Principals & Sustainable
Buildings MOU.
○ Requires sustainable practices in acquisitions

5: FEMP Market Transformation.

 Tech demos

Product EE recommendations
FEMP tools
Tech Assistance

Alt
Financing

Outreach and
Comm.
6: Facility Building Consumption by Agency.
7: Water Consumption by Agency.
Reference:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/

Http://www.europarl.eu.int/facts/

Http://www.ornl.gov/sci/femp/

http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/government.aspx.

http://www.cee1.org/com/com-kit/prv-guides.pdf.

http://www.cuwcc.org/resource-center/resource-center.aspx.

http://www.dalbyrc.qld.gov.au/services/documents/water/urinal_s
avings.

ttp://www.greenworkplace.ca/Large%20outsourcing%20report.

http://www.conservacap.com/Project
%20Succusses/Munroe_Regional_Medical_Center.

http://www.plumbingsupply.com/sloan-flushometer-parts.html

http://www.waterrating.gov.au/publications/pubs/water-efficient-
toilets

http://www.pnl.gov/dsom

http://www.peci.org.

http://www.femp.energy.gov.

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/stations/find_station.php.