Air Pollution Reductionsthrough

Facility Energy Assessments

Paula HemmerNorth Carolina Division of Air QualityFebruary 11, 2014http://www.ncair.org/planning/iee/index.shtml

2

Objectives of the Program• Target Audience

plant managers, facility operators, and company officials • Outreach Message

interdependency between air emissions, energy consumption, and energy costs

• Mitigation Effort voluntary actions to reduce air emissions using Energy Efficiency (EE)

a. reduced energy useb. cost savingsc. fast pay back time• Reporting Assistance

educate and assist facilities about multi-pollutant air emission calculations

assist facilities with understanding requirements of EPA GHG Reporting Rule

 

• Implementation of the energy assessment program by DAQ and our partners

•Marketing of the energy assessment program•Results of the program to date (Summer

2011)•Lessons learned•Plans for future work

3

Focus of Today’s Presentation

Why Energy Efficiency?4

32-56% 8%

100% Energy Input

Indirect Benefit30-51% Total Efficiency

Direct BenefitFuel Savings• Energy is a significant operating cost

(5%)• Smart companies have a long-term EE

plan• EE projects pay for themselves• EE is a free air pollution “control”

Energy Assessment Co-Benefits

Energy Assessme

nt

Gain Process

Information

Reduce Energy

Use

Reduce Emissions

Less Regulation?

Save Money

More Capital

MoreSustainable

5

Example of the Outreach Materials

Save Money

DAQ Energy Assessment Program Provide reduced-cost energy assessments No facility size or type restrictions Primary Focus – reduce facility energy costs Identify cost-effective projects - payback in less than 2

years

mechanical and aerospaceENGINEERING

• Retired engineers perform the work

• Program has operated for 20 years

• Focus on smaller facilities• Estimated Savings

200,000 MWh 700,000 MMBtu

• Professors and students perform work

• Program has operated for 20 years• Assisting facilities of all sizes• Average saving of $55,000 per

assessment• Also provide targeted assessments

Outreach on Energy Assessment Process

Pre-Assessment Data Collection -> utility bills

Site Visit Pre-Survey MeetingConduct survey with facility personnelLong-term data collection Follow-up with questions and initial findings

Written Reports within 60 days Recommendations for specific projects and policiesCost/Benefit AnalysisEnvironmental BenefitsUnderstand Financing Options

Follow-up Implementation Survey after a year

Payback = 2

years

8

Marketing the Program• Website http://www.ncair.org/planning/iee/index.shtml

• Presented the Grant with our Partners at meetingsa. North Carolina Manufacturers Association and other

industry meetingsb. Chamber of Commercec. Health and Safety and Environmental Meetingsd. Energy Efficiency Meetings and Classes

• Boiler MACT/GACT – letters to facilities subject to rule• Regional Office Staff – recommended grant to specific

companies• Word of Mouth

40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD = Boiler MACT40 CFR 63 Subpart JJJJJJ = Boiler GACT

 9

Who is Getting an Energy Assessment?

IndustryNo. of

FacilitiesFurniture & Lumber 17

Manufacturing 8

Chemicals and Plastics 5

Textiles 5

Food and Tobacco 5

Pharmaceuticals 2

Paper 1

Healthcare 2

Museums 2

Grand Total 47

15 GACT

Boilers

5 GACTBoilers

Facility subject to GACT Sister facilities received one as well

 10Typical Industrial Energy Conservation Measures

Type of Recommendation Number PercentageGauges & Meters 15 4%Boiler Tune-up 28 8%Steam 68 19%Stack Loss & Heat Recovery 31 8%Compressor 41 11%Building Envelope 5 1%HVAC/Chiller 11 3%Lighting 97 27%Motors 20 5%General - Electric 26 7%Fuel Switching 14 4%Heat Recovery 5 1%Combined Heat & Power (CHP) 4 1%Grand Total 365

Data from our grant

12

Potential Reductions from Program

• Energy Use• Cost Savings and

Payback• Air Pollution• Preliminary Results of

Implementation Surveys

13

Potential Energy Reductions

Electricity39,403 MWh

Fuel Combustion341,100 MMBtu

Stk Loss & Heat Rec.39%

Boiler Tune-up17%Gauge

s0.3%

Steam23%

Heat Re-

covery4%

Fuel Switch

ing13%

Miscell.4%CHP

5%

Fuel

Switch-ing35%

Lighting29%

HVAC

Chiller

26%

Compress.6%

Motors4%

Miscell.3%

14

Average Emissions Reductions per Recommendation

Recommendations

Biogenic GHG (CO2e

lb/yr) GHG (CO2e

lb/yr) SO2

(lb/yr) NOx

(lb/yr) Stk Loss & Heat Rec. 75,100 532,000 490 720 Steam 75,100 138,000 520 430 Boiler Tune-up 94,400 218,000 80 390 Gauges 37,300 3,000 10 30 Subtotal 281,900 891,000 1,100 1,570 Building Envelope - 157,000 0 130 HVAC/Chiller - 1,178,000 2,300 720 General - Electric - 72,000 250 70 Compressor - 88,000 240 70 Lighting - 196,000 490 150 Motors - 117,000 350 100 Subtotal 0 1,809,000 3,700 1,240Grand Total 281,900 2,700,000 4,800 2,810

15Potential Reductions from Energy Efficiency

RecommendationsNumber of Rec.

Total

Cost Savings ($/yr)

Average Capital

Cost($)

Average Payback (Months)

Electricity MWh

Fuel Use MMBtu

GHGCO2e

ton/yrSO2

ton/yrNOx

ton/yrStk Loss & Heat Rec 30 $720,000 $36,000 25

43 283,000 19,800 24 29 Steam 59 $440,000 $7,000 17

Boiler Tune-up 27 $330,000 $4,000 21

Gauges 9 $4,000 $700 26

Heat Recovery 5 $60,000 $30,000 22

23,340 44,000 14,300 51 17CHP 4 $190,000 $112,000 49

Fuel Switching 13 $1,100,000 $116,000 29

Lighting 97 $1,100,000 $25,000 24

34,340 14,000 19,700 47 14

HVAC/Chiller 10 $660,000 $144,000 22

Compressor 41 $180,000 $4,000 8

Motors 20 $270,000 $17,000 30

General - Electric 25 $270,000 $3,000 3

Building Envelope 5 $40,000 $7,000 9

Grand Total 345 $5,370,000 $506,000 23 57,763 341,000 53,800 122 60

Impact of Potential Reductions

Parameter Electricity  Fuel Combustion

Total Use in NC 138,800,000 MWh 1,826,500,000 MMBtu

Total Savings Identified 57,800 MWh 341,100 MMBtu

Percent Reduction 0.04%   0.02%  

Parameter All Energy Total NOX Emissions in NC (2011) 63,100 Tons

Total NOX Reductions Identified 60 Tons

Percent NOX Reduction 0.10%  

16

Assessments at Only 47 Facilities

18

Preliminary Results of ImplementationAverage Implementation Rate = 53%

Parameter

Electricity Savings

(MWh/yr)

Fuel Savings

(MMBtu/yr)

Cost Savings ($/yr)

GHG Reduced

CO2e tons/yrMeasures Implemented 18,730 36,420 $1,532,600 13,120Measures Recommended 37,820 80,000

Percentage 50% 46% 44% 46%

Total Project Recommendations 57,760 341,100 $5,324,900 53,800Estimated Project Results 28,880 156,900 $2,557,000 25,820

Facility reported electricity costs reduced by 50% after implementing lighting recommendations

20

Lessons Learned

• Large companies are having an assessment every 5 years

• Many decision makers are non-technical and have no time

• Need to express EE projects terms of dollars for

• Implementation may take several years

• Lighting and steam reductions have the biggest impact for cost

• Need to show facilities how to market EE in sustainability reports

• EE programs can make an impact to air quality over time

Decision MakerEmployee

a. Communicate the importance of EE in reducing air pollution

b. Maintain partnerships with NCSU & WRP - assessments & workshops

c. Publish case studies to educate facilities

d. Encourage lumber & furniture industry to use woodwaste trading

programs

e. Communicate utility EE rebate opportunities

f. Pursue funding of EE implementation

21

Future Plans

Paula HemmerNorth Carolina Division of Air Quality919-707-8708paula.hemmer@ncdenr.gov