Best Practice Guide

Local Governments

Introduction

Saving Energy and Money

Energy efficiency creates jobs, new technologies and new industries - all while helping to keep the lights on for California's more than 36 million residents. In California, investing in energy efficiency programs and enforcing stringent building standards has proven a cost-effective way to help safeguard the reliability of energy resources. Over the past 25 years, approximately 9,000 megawatts (MW) of energy have been saved - the equivalent of the output of 18 500 MW power plants. And these energy savings have had a positive impact on the economy. Between 1977 and 1995, state programs and standards - designed to conserve resources - added three percent to the rate of economic growth, helping make California businesses globally competitive.

Energy represents as much as 30 percent of a building's operating costs. Government agencies in the United States spend more than $10 billion a year on energy to provide public services and meet constituent needs. For America's primary and secondary schools alone, the annual energy cost is a staggering $6 billion - more than is spent on textbooks and computers combined!

How do these costs add up? Lighting systems represent as much as 30 percent of an institutional building's energy use and 40 percent of a school's total energy use. During the hotter months, energy-intensive air conditioning systems raise energy consumption - especially as wasteful lighting systems increase the need for more powerful cooling systems. During the winter months - according to the U.S. Department of Energy - space heating represents 37% of a typical government building's energy consumption nationwide.

Unfortunately, nearly one-third of the energy used to run a typical government building goes to waste - waste that costs taxpayers money. The least efficient schools use three times more energy than the most efficient schools. Taking steps to increase energy efficiency - as occurred at top-performing ENERGY STAR rated schools - translates to a savings of 40 cents per square foot when compared to the least efficient schools.

Undertaking energy efficiency measures can reduce energy consumption - and thus, utility bills - by 30 percent or more. This 30 percent reduction can lower operating costs by $25,000 per year for every 50,000 square feet of office space. And the best part is that these improvements in energy efficiency can often be attained through no-cost or low-cost projects.

Low-cost and no-cost projects have benefits beyond reducing energy consumption and cost - they often enhance the indoor environment of a building, increasing worker morale and productivity. Most energy efficiency measures improve the comfort and attractiveness of the indoor environment. Lighting retrofits, for example, reduce energy consumption and improve visual acuity. Better vision, in turn, helps workers complete tasks and reduce eyestrain. Likewise, upgrades to heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment reduce energy costs and improve indoor air quality. At a minimum, this prevents risk of and liability for health problems like sick building syndrome and building-related illnesses. Across the United States, tens of billions of dollars each year could be saved by reducing indoor air pollution.

While occupant comfort is a worthwhile end in and of itself, improving the indoor environment also cuts costs in a number of ways. For government buildings, a better indoor environment may result in less employee turnover. Studies suggest that many energy efficiency measures can reduce absenteeism due to health issues and help prevent onsite accidents. In some cases, the physical work environment may actually help attract the best and the brightest workers - not surprising since up to 90 percent of our time is spent indoors. These benefits to worker performance could equal many more billions of tax dollars going to better use and preventing government waste.

Thoughtful energy management provides other, less tangible benefits as well. Investors are discovering that management teams successful at grappling with the complexities of energy and environmental management tend also to have the internal capacity needed to safeguard the overall financial health of a company. In fact, recent studies have linked energy management to stock market performance. And this phenomenon holds true in the public sector as well. Policies that address long-term energy and resource management needs in a coherent and responsible manner lead to fiscal savings.


Efficiency and Climate Change Mitigation.

Efficiency is key to climate change mitigation. The easiest ton of CO2 to remove from the atmosphere is the one that is not emitted in the first place. Greater energy efficiency in the Transmission and Distribution system means lower emissions in generation to deliver the same amount of consumed energy.

Lowering the amount of energy consumed (or lost) effectively increases the share of renewables in the total, assuming the gains are offset by reducing the amount of energy produced from traditional generation sources.

Fuel conservation and diversification is another crucial point for efficiency. Reducing US dependence on foreign fuel-be it oil, natural gas or coal is an obvious security boost.

Furthermore, energy efficiency is intimately intertwined with grid reliability. In many areas of the US, transmission constraints have reached the point where they not only cost consumers billions of dollars in congestion charges, they threaten the integrity of the power system itself. Over the past twenty years, the situation has continued to deteriorate to the point where now the question of installing a new line is nearly moot in some locations. By the time it was completed, demand would long since have outstripped the ability of the local grid to meet it, so a short-term solution must be implemented in the interim.

This best practice guide contains tips and tools for local governments to improve energy efficiency. Just as no two buildings are identical, no two cities will undertake the same energy management program. The tools provided illustrate some of the most innovative strategies and technologies as well as some of the most successful case studies. Learning from these stories of success, city officials are encouraged to explore the many resources listed throughout the guidebook for more detailed information.

Flex Your Power thanks the following cities and their employees for sharing their stories in this best practice guide:

  • City of Pasadena
  • City of Sacramento
  • City of San Francisco
  • City of La Mesa
  • City of Atascadero


Flex Your Power thanks the following agencies, organizations, and people for their time and comments:

  • California Energy Commission, Consumer Education Center.
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY STAR, Commercial Building Program.
  • U.S. EPA, Heat Island Reduction Initiative; State and Local Capacity Building Branch; and the Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
  • Alan Pong, Ferreira Service Inc., energy engineering services.
  • Jack Rosenthal, P.E., CEM, LEED AP, Glumac, consulting engineers for commercial, healthcare, institutional, and advanced technology sectors.


Flex Your Power is continuously updating this guide, and encourages all comments, questions and submissions of information.

If you have a story that might be suitable for this or other best practice guides, or know of new innovations or building strategies not included, please email us at success@FYPower.org.