Geothermal Heat Pumps are Renewable AND our Most Efficient HVAC Technology

Geothermal Heat Pumps are Renewable AND our Most Efficient HVAC Technology

• 

By Doug Dougherty, President and CEO
The question arises from time to time in building industry blogs about whether or not geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) are a source or renewable energy. GHPs don’t fit neatly into any box, but suffice it to say that their appeal is for their efficiency AND the abundant renewable energy that they provide.
GHPs use the ground as a moderate-temperature heat source during the winter and a heat sink during the summer. They draw renewable (yes, renewable) thermal energy from the ground during the winter to heat buildings, and reject heat from buildings back into the ground in summer, thus replenish-ing the heat drawn from the ground during the previous season.
As for efficiency, it’s a lot easier to reject heat from a building to the ground (~55 deg. F) com-pared to outside air that can be in excess of 100 deg. F on a hot summer day. And in winter, it’s easier to recover heat from the ground (~55 deg. F) compared to outside air that can be <40 deg. F. Consider the ground as a readily available renewable storage battery for heat that thin air (in the case of standard air-to-air heat pumps) simply cannot provide.
In his article, “Drill, Baby Drill,” (Buildings magazine online, Feb. 13, 2012), author Eric Woodroof, Ph.D. says, “GHPs reduce the kilowatt-hours required for air conditioning. When you also consider that when a utility promotes GHP applications (as a Demand-Side Management method), the utility will have reduced demand during peak periods, requiring less generation plants and less pollution.”
It is true that GHPs have higher installation costs than traditional air-to-air heat pumps, because of the cost of drilling vertical boreholes (not “wells”), or excavation for horizontal closed loop systems of pipework that comprise ground heat exchangers. GHPs also require expert, qualified design and installation of ground loops to achieve their full energy efficiency and savings potential. But ground loops are guaranteed to last over 50 years, posting a small fraction of life cycle cost. Indeed, in many cases ground heat exchangers will outlive the buildings that they serve.
Woodruff provides an excellent analysis of GHP efficiencies, citing an example of a 5-ton air-to-air heat pump, “which would move 5 x 12,000 BTU/hour, which equals 60,000 BTUs per hour. If the air-air Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) is 10, that means we use ~6 kW every hour we run the air-air heat pump. In contrast, a GHP would have a SEER of 20 during the summer, which means you would only need ~3 kW. Thus, the GHP reduces demand by ~3 kW, reducing emissions and helping the utility shave peak demand during the summer.”
“In the winter,” says Woodruff, “the SEER of the GHP drops from 20 to 13.65 (COP = 4), meaning that the unit will draw 4.4 kW to move 60,000 BTU/hour. 4.4 kW equals about 15,000 BTU/hour of input energy, with the remaining 45,000 BTU/hour coming from the earth. The total fuel/energy usage is still less than conventional sources (fossil fuels) because the GHP gets ~75% of the energy from the earth (~45,000 BTU/hour), which avoids fuel that could be going into a natural gas fired heater/boiler.”
Most people think of renewable energy as easy-to-measure electricity (kilowatts) for the grid. But GHPs produce renewable energy measured in BTUs that are consumed without the transmission grid. Renewable thermal energy (BTUs) produced by GHPs is now being recognized by governments as a compliance measure under state mandates that require utilities to buy electricity from renewable power generators like wind and solar. Maryland and New Hampshire passed laws last spring recognizing GHPs as a renewable resource that qualifies for utility Renewable Energy Credits, just like wind- and solar-generated electricity.
Those credits are earned according to the electricity use avoided by GHPs compared to standard HVAC systems. New metering devices can measure the temperature differential (ΔT) of incoming and outflowing fluid through a GHP, then accurately count the number of BTUs produced by the earth. A simple conversion to kilowatts equals the renewable electricity equivalent production of GHPs. Reduced energy use through the deployment of GHPs ultimately means less pollution from coal- and natural gas-fired power plants.
According to Oak Ridge National Laboratory Buildings Technologies Research and Integration Director Patrick Hughes, Ph.D., “GHPs capture a distributed, thermal form of renewable energy that is available everywhere. GHPs use the only renewable energy resource that is available at every building’s point of use, on-demand, which cannot be depleted (assuming proper design of the heat exchanger) and is affordable in all 50 states.” Regarding GHPs’ use of electricity, Hughes says, “Although GHPs consume electrical energy, they move 3 to 5 times more energy between the building and the ground than they consume while doing so.”
The distributed thermal renewable resource offered by GHPs is already at the load, unlike the vast majority of wind and solar power generation resources that require costly and difficult to site transmission lines. And with GHPs, Hughes says, “The renewable resource is available on demand, unlike wind and solar, which may or may not be available when needed.”
Given both the energy that GHPs recover from the ground in winter, and their recycling of heat to the earth in the summer months, the thermal energy tapped by GHPs in indeed renewable. With proper system design and consideration of soils and other factors, GHPs have been proven to save from 40 to 70 percent on heating and cooling bills (including hot water heating). Those numbers can only get better with new units now being manufactured that promise to deliver even more renewable energy from the earth. And collectively, GHPs offer a 24-7 / 365-days-per-year solution to intermittent renewable power production from wind and solar sources.

Comparing HVAC Systems

Comparing HVAC Systems
Central heating & cooling systems have been considered a necessity in our homes and businesses for many years. When comparing available systems, consumers should carefully consider safety, installation cost, operating costs, maintenance costs, and comfort.
Types of Systems
There are two basic types of systems — those that require a flame to operate (i.e., combustion based), and those that do not. Most central systems presently installed create heat by combustion, just as they did in the early part of the century. These systems use a furnace to burn a fossil fuel (such as oil, natural gas or propane) or, in some instances, wood. More advanced, non-combustion systems operate by transferring or moving heat from one location to another.
Combustion-Based Systems
Until the last few years, combustion-based systems have been the preferred heating systems for home and business owners because of their moderate installation and operating costs, and wide availability in the market place. Unfortunately, there are a number of serious safety and related maintenance concerns with these systems.
Some combustion-based systems present an explosion hazard if the storage or delivery of their fuel is not carefully controlled. Explosions due to improperly installed or maintained gas pipes and delivery systems are often in the news. Since these systems require a flame to operate, failures or improper installation of system components (for example, heat exchanger, damper, chimney, or flue) can result in property loss to fire. Fortunately, smoke detectors have saved many lives that might have been lost to fires caused by combustion-based heating systems.
In addition to heat, combustion-based heating systems also create by-products such as carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is a result of the incomplete burning of fuel in combustion-based systems. Incorrectly installed systems, chimneys that are blocked by birds nests, or downdrafting can cause carbon monoxide to remain inside of buildings. This is especially dangerous in modern, well-sealed buildings, where it is difficult for outside combustion air to reach the furnace, and where carbon monoxide can be trapped and build up over time. Furnaces, water heaters, and other appliances must be properly vented outside.
Combustion-based systems that deliver heat through ducts present occasional "blasts" of hot air. This not only reduces comfort directly, but tends to dehumidify the air. The addition of a central humidifier (with its associated installation, operating, and maintenance costs) can correct this humidity problem.
Combustion based central heating systems are often coupled with low-efficiency central air conditioners. This raises installation and operating costs significantly, while adding an entirely separate unit to be maintained.
Heat Transfer Systems
Non-combustion or heat transfer systems include air-source heat pumps and geothermal heat pumps (GHPs). Air-source heat pumps operate by capturing heat from outdoor air and transferring it inside of a home or business, while geothermal systems capture and transfer heat from the earth.
Nearly all heat transfer systems can be reversed, providing central cooling as well as heating. Some heat pumps and most GHP systems also provide domestic hot water at low operating costs.
Heat Pumps
Beginning in the 1970s, air-source heat pumps came into common use. They have the advantage of no combustion, and thus no possibility of indoor pollutants like carbon monoxide. Heat pumps provide central air conditioning as well as heating as a matter of course. And they are installation-cost competitive with a central combustion furnace/central air conditioner combination.
Heat pumps operate by moving or transferring heat, rather than creating it. During the summer, a heat pump captures heat from inside a home or business and transfers it to the outdoor air through a condensing unit. During the winter, the process is reversed. Heat is captured from outdoor air, compressed, and released inside.
Much less electricity is used to move heat rather than create it, making heat pumps more economical than resistance heating. However, in all but the most moderate climates, the heating ability of the heat pump is limited by freezing outdoor temperatures. So electric resistance heat is used to supplement outdoor-air-source heat pump during the coldest weather, preventing "cold blow."
Depending on climate, air-source heat pumps (including their supplementary resistance heat) are about 1.5 to 3 times more efficient than resistance heating alone. Operating efficiency has improved since the 70s, making their operating cost generally competitive with combustion-based systems, depending on local fuel prices. With their outdoor unit subject to weathering, some maintenance should be expected.
Geothermal Heat Pump Systems
More recently, even more advanced and efficient heating and cooling systems have emerged using heat transfer to and from the earth. Sometimes called geothermal or ground-source heat pumps, these systems move or transfer heat like the air-source heat pumps. However, they exchange heat with the earth rather than the outdoor air.
Since earth temperature remains relatively constant throughout the year, GHP systems operate more efficiently than air-source heat pumps and generally without the use of resistance heat. And because they are working from those constant earth temperatures, there are no blasts of hot air or "cold blow" as with other systems.
Nearly all GHP systems on the market have the ability to provide low-cost domestic hot water, further increasing their operating efficiency. Thus, GHP systems are generally 2.5 to 4 or more times more efficient than resistance heating and water heating alone, and have no combustion or indoor air pollutants.
Since there is no outdoor unit (as with air-source heat pumps or the central air conditioners used with combustion-based systems), no weather-related maintenance is required.
Although their installation cost is somewhat higher due to the required underground connections for heat transfer to and from the earth, GHP systems provide low operating and maintenance cost and greater comfort.
Conclusions
When comparing heating systems, safety, installation cost, operating costs, and maintenance costs must be considered. To simplify the selection process, installation, operating, and maintenance costs can be combined into a life-cycle cost — the cost of ownership over a period of years. The table below compares the various types of central heating systems:

Compare	Safety	Installation Cost	Operating Cost	Maintenance Cost	Life-Cycle Cost
Combustion-based	A Concern	Moderate	Moderate	High	Moderate
Air-Source heat pump	Excellent	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate
GHP	Excellent	High	Low	Low	Low

Consumers who take the necessary steps to insure the safety of combustion-based systems (frequent inspection and maintenance, smoke detectors, carbon-monoxide detectors, and other safety precautions) may wish to consider these moderate life-cycle cost systems. Others should consider more advanced heat transfer systems — heat pumps (with their moderate installation, operating, and maintenance costs), orGHP systems (with their low operating and maintenance costs and high levels of comfort).
A recent study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency showed that GHP systems generally have the lowest life-cycle cost of all systems available today. The study also shows that GHP systems have the lowest impact on our environment. And consumers rank their comfort and satisfaction with GHP systems higher than all others. While a higher initial investment is required, the investment is paid back through low energy bills (enhancing resale value), excellent family safety, and real comfort.

Better Life: Ohio Retiree Saves Neighbors Money on Energy, Reduces Pollution, Creates US Jobs

Print this page

Posted March 29, 2011 in Curbing Pollution, Living Sustainably, Solving Global Warming

Tags:

ASHRAE, climatemaster, darrelcubbison, energyefficiencytaxcredit, geothermalheatpump, groundsourceheatpump, newconcordohio, oakridgenationallaboratory, ohio

More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebook_like |

|

With his pressed Oxford shirt and his white hair neatly combed, Darrel Cubbison, a retired member services manager at Guernsey-Muskingum Electric Cooperative in Southeastern Ohio, doesn’t look like much of a revolutionary.

Darrel Cubbison promotes energy-saving ground-source heat pumps among his rural Ohio neighbors
Still, he promotes a radical platform among his rural neighbors. Do as he’s done, he says as they discuss high heating and cooling bills. You’ll slash your energy costs, reduce air pollution almost in half, create jobs. And, heck, you’ll even cut the home maintenance you’re stuck performing every month.
That’s a kind of radicalism I get behind 100 percent!
Cubbison’s cause, more precisely, is the ground-source heat pump, the most amazing heating and cooling technology you’ve probably never heard of: “I’m a great believer in geothermal,” says Cubbison, using the technology’s other name. According to researchers at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), GSHP systems can save the average home or building owner 45 percent on energy costs. Each unit of energy pumped into a GSHP system yields 3.5 units more, these researchers note.
That’s a 350 percent return on an energy investment.
How do GSHP systems accomplish these miracles? I’m not an engineer, so I’ll just give you the basics. (For more technical information, check out this April 21st webcast offered free by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers: “Ground Source Heat Pump Systems—Putting the Earth to Work for You.”)
To perform their magic, GSHPs employ a device known as a heat exchanger, instead of a furnace, air-source heat pump and/or air conditioning unit. That heat exchanger, located inside a home or commercial building, connects to a network of underground, environmentally benign, fluid-filled pipes. Because the temperature just a few feet below the earth’s surface is relatively constant—between about 45 and 70 degrees, depending upon where you live—when the fluid in the pipes circulates through the heat exchanger, it absorbs a building’s heat in the summer, transferring it outdoors. In winter, the system imports the ground’s heat inside. Somehow, you get free hot water with that, too. (I’ve mentioned I’m not an engineer, right?)
Cubbison “got interested in geothermal several years ago,” he says, “when we at Guernsey-Muskingum were trying to save our members money, while still having all the comforts of a conventional heating and cooling system.” After doing a bit of research, 14 years ago he and his wife installed a GSHP system at their 2200-square-foot home in New Concord. That first summer, their cooling bill totaled $69. Not for a month, mind you. But for the whole air-conditioning season. (Adjusted for inflation, that’s less than $98 today.) And he’s had to perform virtually no maintenance on the system.
Up front, GSHP systems will cost you more. Cubbison is the first to tell his neighbors that. But the over the long haul, GSHPs are the least expensive HVAC systems around, according to ORNL’s Building Technologies Research and Integration Center. That’s probably one reason more than 25 of Cubbison’s neighbors in a 2.5 square-mile rural area have switched to GSHPs. “When we got our system, it took less than seven years to pay itself back,” Cubbison notes. “But the cost of other fuels has gone up. So now you’ll get your payback sooner.” That’s especially true now: The federal government offers a 30 percent credit for Energy Star-certified GSHP systems installed before 2017, and many state and local incentives are available, too.
The savings ground-source heat pumps offer individual building owners can accrue to the nation, as well. If every single-family home in the US ran on a GSHP, we’d save about 4 percent of the energy we use as a nation—4 percent of all the energy we use as a nation, not just the energy we use for buildings. And if every single-family home in the US ran on a GSHP, each year, homeowners and renters would have 52 billion extra dollars in their pockets and bank accounts. We’d eliminate the amount of air pollution 48 million cars create annually.
The more of us who switch to GSHPs, the more we cut energy prices because reducing demand reduces cost. It also reduces the number of power plants we need to build and operate, lowering energy prices further. The GSHP revolution will be good for the nation’s economy in other ways, too. If only 15 percent of the nation’s building stock converted from conventional HVAC systems to GSHPs, we’d add 100,000 new jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.
And in this list of positives, did I mention that “pretty much the whole industry is based in the US,” says Dan Ellis, President and CEO of ClimateMaster, a GSHP manufacturer based in Oklahoma City? His company has added 300 new jobs there since 2006, despite the economic crisis and the decline in housing starts. “Not only are 98 percent of the manufacturers based in the US,” he says, “but 90-plus percent of our suppliers are based here, too.”
Not bad for a revolutionary technology almost no one has ever heard of.
Darrel Cubbison is working on that.

• permalink
• comments (2)

More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebook_like |

|

Comments are closed for this post.

←Older Posts | Archives | Newer Posts→

Portable Turbine Power – Uprise Energy

Whilst everyone wants to embrace the idea of renewable, clean commercial energy the reality is that there will be many occasions when it’s simply not realistic. The humble petrol generator, for example, is a mainstay in just about every venture outside of a settlement; from festivals to theme parks to less-pleasant uses such as military installations and motorway work. It’s easy to forget that something so commonplace could be so detrimental to the environment.

But a new upstart called Uprise energy think they may have a solution to providing ‘off the grid’ green business energy – a first generation portable turbine.

Whilst ‘portable’ might be overselling it somewhat – it’s the size of a caravan and would need a 40 foot shipping container to transport overseas – the Uprise Portable Power Centre is not only the first of it’s kind, it also houses the most advanced wind turbine in the world.

Video – Uprise Energy Portable Turbine in Action

Portable Turbine Power

Possible to set up and provide power to ‘any location on terra firma’ in a matter of hours and is completely operable by a single person, the Uprise Portable Power Centre could well be the future from any business that’s committed to using green commercial electricity. Thanks to it’s advanced


turbine, the Uprise Portable Power Centre has been optimised for low wind-speed environments and produces power for less than domestic utility power suppliers – and is capable of delivering energy into the grid or like a standalone generator.

Each turbine is capable of powering up to 15 homes in 12mph winds, a number which raises to 71 in 20mph gusts. Intelligent by design, the machine will also lay itself down when it senses a storm overhead or if it’s in danger of overloading.

Interestingly, the Portable Power Centre is also capable of harnessing other sources of energy as a back-up, including air-to-water and biomass-to-hydrogen – in addition to being capable of rotation 360-degrees for optimum wind-capture. We’d love to see these elegant-looking windmills wherever commercial energy is needed on the move or off the grid; campsites, sports events and show-grounds could soon be powered by one of these.

Net-Zero Energy Buildings Rake in the Savings

Net-Zero Energy Buildings Rake in the Savings

 

    

Energy efficiency is sweeping the nation as everyone tries to reduce their energy bills in some form or another. The latest trend: net-zero energy buildings. These buildings will produce all the power they consume with zero carbon emissions, and although they remain somewhat uncommon now, they are quickly gaining significance and popularity.
As buildings are accountable for nearly 75 percent of all electricity consumption, they remain one of the largest opportunities to save billions of dollars every year. Technologies involved in this type of project may include hardware solutions, energy efficiency control devices and even smart grid solutions.
The use of dynamic electrochromic glass is one of the most effective hardware solutions as it will let those inside the building control the amount of light and heat being allowed through the window. This glass is able to shift from clear to tinted through a small electric current. When it’s clear, about 63 percent of light will pass through, which is ideal on winter days when natural light will help to illuminate the building and solar heat will help to warm it. In its tinted state, very little solar heat will be allowed through, but it will still provide enough light to reduce the internal lighting, making it perfect for those hot summer days. For the average commercial building, these windows are useful in lowering the electricity peak load by 15 to 20 percent.

Another tool used in net-zero energy buildings is a hybrid load-shifting efficiency technology. For example, ice storage is used as a way to shift peak air conditioning load by using low-priced electricity at night to freeze water. It is then used the next day during a discharge cycle to lower the temperature of the building during peak hours. Operating chillers at night can improve energy efficiency by up to eight percent.
Commercial buildings are not alone. Homeowners are also taking part in transforming their houses into net-zero energy buildings. These homes may use insulated structural panels, geothermal heating and cooling, solar panels, high-efficiency appliances, and even on-demand water heating. Such houses have already begun construction in places like Summerville, South Carolina and Frederick, Maryland. Even with a high initial price tag, these houses are sure to pay for themselves with the amount of energy they save.
The goal of these net-zero energy buildings is to use resources more efficiently, reduce energy usage, and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. If you’re trying to jump on the bandwagon to lower your energy bills but the costs of these solutions are a bit too high, consider looking into working with an energy consultant. Not only will they help to make your building more efficient, they may also lead you to lower energy rates.
Sarah Battaglia
Energy Curtailment Specialists,

As New York City Phases Out No. 6 Heating Oil, What Should Building Owners Do?

 As New York City Phases Out No. 6 Heating Oil, What Should Building Owners Do?

No. 6's days are numbered.

In August 2010, the New York City Council passed Local Law 43, which under a proposed Department of Environmental Protection rule amendment requires all buildings in the five boroughs using No. 6 heating oil to switch to a cleaner alternative—either No. 4 oil, No. 2, or natural gas. Buildings with heat and hot water boilers and burners using No. 6 oil have the option of first converting to No. 4 oil by 2015, or they can switch directly to No. 2 oil, gas, or both. Buildings using No. 4 heating oil have until 2030 to switch to No. 2 oil, gas, or both. All newly installed boilers, however, must also burn No. 2 oil, gas, or both.

Although only 1% of New York City's building stock (approximately 10,000 buildings) have boilers that burn No. 6 and No. 4 heating oil, which are high in sulfur, nickel, and other pollutants, they account for 90% of the city's soot pollution, more than all the cars and trucks in the city combined.

Switching to No. 4 Oil

If your building is currently using No. 6 oil, you can make a relatively inexpensive switch to No. 4 oil. The switch involves using up the No. 6 oil in the tank, cleaning the tank if necessary, adjusting burner settings, making some minor modifications to the oil pump and oil lines, and starting to use No. 4 oil. The DEP estimates the conversion will cost approximately $10,000.

Switching to No. 2 Oil and/or Gas

Buildings already using No. 4 oil—or buildings using No. 6 that want to bypass switching to No. 4—have the option of converting to either No. 2 oil or gas. They can also switch to a dual-fuel system that burns both No. 2 oil and gas, which is known as an interruptible system.

In an interruptible system, gas is used approximately 95 percent of the time. When gas demand is high, say on a very cold day, Con Ed may temporarily shut off the gas supply and require the building to burn No. 2 oil until peak gas usage subsides.

The switch from No. 4 to No. 2 oil is similar to the switch from No. 6 to No. 4, but it's a bit easier and less expensive because there is no pre-heating equipment, which is needed to decrease the viscosity of the very heavy No. 6 oil. If they are in good condition, the existing boiler and oil tank used for either No. 6 or No. 4 oil can still be used with No. 2, but a dual-fuel burner for burning both oil and gas in an interruptible system will have to be installed.

A heating system that burns only gas—known as a firm gas system—will also require a new burner. Tanks previously using No. 6 will also have to be decommissioned if you are converting to a gas-only system.

 

Gas Requirements

Both interruptible and firm gas systems require a number of capital costs. First, even if the building already uses gas service for cooking, a larger gas main may be needed for the additional gas supply for heating. New gas piping may have to be installed from the gas main to the boiler room, and a gas booster pump may also be necessary to increase the gas pressure to ensure adequate supply to the burner. Gas-based heating systems also require a dedicated gas-meter room, which must be enclosed, fire-rated, and located as close as possible to where the gas main enters the building. The room must also have proper ventilation, and it cannot be used for storage.

Fuel Costs

Historically, No. 2 oil has been more expensive than No. 4, which has been more expensive than No. 6. Because of the amount of refinement each grade of heating oil requires, the relative price position of the three fuels should remain consistent. The price of natural gas, however, has fluctuated relative to heating oil. Currently it is less expensive than No. 2.

One benefit of an interruptible system is that it gives buildings the flexibility of burning both No. 2 oil and gas, depending on the price of each. Keep in mind, however, that switching to an interruptible system may require installing a dual-fuel burner and other equipment that a system burning only No. 2 oil doesn't need. Firm gas systems also require new equipment, but utilities typically offer less expensive rates for firm gas than they do for interruptible systems.

Rebate Programs for Converting

Con Edison

To defray the significant upfront costs of switching from oil to gas or to an interruptible oil/gas system, Con Edison offers a rebate program for small to midsize residential properties. The program, available to New York City and Westchester buildings with five to 75 units, offers a rebate of $500 per unit and an equipment rebate up to $15,000. The building must have existing gas lines for cooking, and the work must be installed by a licensed New York State contractor participating in the Con Ed Multi-Family Energy Efficiency Program. For more information: www.coned.com/sales/naturalgas/multi_res.asp

NYSERDA

For buildings with more than five units converting from No. 6 heating oil to No. 2 oil, gas, or other clean-fuel alternatives, NYSERDA's Multifamily Carbon Emissions Reduction Program provides rebates of $30 per ton of reduced carbon emissions, up to $175,000. The program, however, is not accepting any more applications for conversions to firm gas systems until further notice. For more information: http://getenergysmart.org/MultiFamilyHomes/OilConversions/Overview.aspx

Zones on Public Lands

October 17, 2012

Interior Department Approves Solar Energy Zones on Public Lands

Solar zones in six Western states will spur development on public lands like the Ivanpah solar project, shown here, being built on BLM land in California. Credit: BrightSource Energy

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) on October 12 finalized a program to spur development of solar energy on public lands in six Western states. The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for solar energy development provides a blueprint for utility-scale solar energy permitting in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. The PEIS establishes solar energy zones with access to existing or planned transmission, incentives for development within those zones, and a process for consideration of additional zones and solar projects.
The Solar PEIS establishes an initial set of 17 Solar Energy Zones, totaling about 285,000 acres of public lands. The zones will serve as priority areas for commercial-scale solar development, with the potential for additional zones through ongoing and future regional planning processes. If fully built out, projects could produce as much as 23,700 megawatts of solar energy, enough to power approximately 7 million U.S. homes. The program also allows, on a case-by-case basis, for the possibility of carefully sited solar projects outside the solar energy zones on about 19 million acres in "variance" areas. See the DOI press release and the complete list of the solar energy zones.

Clark Township is Rewarded for Energy Conservation

Clark Township, located in Clark, NJ is rewarded through the EPAct Gives Back™ Program for taking initiatives in energy conservation.

EPAct Gives Back

The lighting system alone will save tax payers more than $33,350 per year in utility costs.

(PRWEB) October 15, 2012

Through the use of energy efficient technology, Clark Township has significantly reduced energy consumption and carbon emissions at the Clark Township Town Hall. Specifically, the lighting technologies which were implemented into the facilities have met and exceeded the requirements of the 2005 Energy Policy Act (EPAct) to be certified as “Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings.” Through the EPAct Gives Back™ program the Township has been rewarded for their initiatives and stewardship.
The energy saving measures demonstrates Clark Township strong commitment to the local environment and tax paying community. The lighting system alone will save tax payers more than $33,350 per year in utility costs. The reduction in energy consumption decreases the Township’s carbon emissions by 62,747 lbs. (31 tons) a year. This is equivalent to the Township removing 6 cars off of local roads or planting 156 additional trees in the community.
Clark Township went through an intense engineering analysis and inspection process in order to meet all the requirements of the Energy Policy Act, administered by Walker Reid Strategies, Inc., and have received certificates for their achievements in Energy Conservation. Their commitment to a greener facility is admirable and an example to other institutions.
About Clark Township, NJ
Clark Township, NJ is the product of many years of economic, political and social change. First established from Lenape Indian Hunting Grounds, it became a crossroad of the American Revolution. The community developed into an agricultural paradise that allowed many immigrants to strive for the American Dream.
About Walker Reid Strategies
Walker Reid Strategies is a Licensed Engineering Firm that specializes in the EPAct 2005 §179D Certifications. The Firms staff administers the EPAct Gives Back™ program and oversees all engineering analysis and inspections required. Walker Reid is headquartered in South Florida and is committed to the development of sustainable buildings and reducing America's Carbon Footprint through Energy Conservation and the 2005 EPAct§179D Incentive.

LL87: Energy Audits & Retro-commissioning

LL87: Energy Audits & Retro-commissioning
	The intent of this law is to require buildings to undertake the audits that lead to energy efficiency retrofits, which generally result in major cost and energy savings. Local Law 87 (LL87) mandates that buildings 50,000 gross square feet or larger undergo periodic energy audit and retro-commissioning measures, as part of the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan (GGBP). Please review this section to learn more about LL87, how to comply, and where to get help. About LL87 How to Comply Where to Get Help
	About LL87LL87 requires large buildings to undergo an energy audit once every 10 years, along with retro-commissioning to "tune up" the building's existing energy systems and ensure efficient operation. The information, which will be compiled in an energy efficiency report, will be broken down into five categories: basic team information general building information energy end use breakdown energy conservation measures from the audit retro-commissioning data In alignment with annual benchmarking, these measures will work to optimize buildings' energy performance. Read Local Law 87: Energy Audits and Retro-commissioning (in PDF) Read Detailed Summary of Local Law 87 (in PDF) Energy Audits and Retro-commissioning Rule On September 13, 2012, the Department of Buildings published the final rule (in PDF) to provide more details on how to perform energy audits and retro-commissioning to comply with LL87. Updates on the rule are listed below: A public hearing occurred on March 23rd, 2012, at 1 pm, at 280 Broadway, 3rd Fl. The public comment period is now closed. Audits and retro-commissioning completed prior to the issuance of the final rule but in accordance with the law will be deemed in compliance. UpdatesCheck back here for updates. [back to top]
	How to Comply Steps for Compliance These are the necessary components to comply for LL87. Details on how to submit the energy efficiency report will be forthcoming. Energy Audits Energy auditor who is a certified or registered design professional Level II ASHRAE energy audit conducted, at a minimum List of Energy Conservation Measures (ECM), including capital improvements that would reduce energy use and/or cost of building operation Implementation cost, savings and simple payback Benchmarking report as conducted via EPA's Portfolio Manager for LL84 compliance Breakdown of energy usage by system and predicted energy savings by system after implementation of proposed measures General assessment of how tenant energy usage impacts base building energy consumption Retro-commissioning Retro-commissioning agent who is certified, registered or licensed professional Base building systems inspected for defects, cleanliness, valve operation, damper operation, sensor calibration and programmed set points Parallel systems checked for even load distribution Lighting levels measured and deemed appropriate for their operation Include list of equipment and findings in report Buildings Required to Benchmark Building owners can determine if their buildings are required to comply by checking the 2012 benchmarking compliance list for covered buildings (in PDF). Listed buildings must also comply with other GGBP laws: Local Law 84: Benchmarking (LL84), and Local Law 88: Lighting Upgrades and Sub-Metering (LL88). NOTE: Gross square footage (GSF) listed by the New York City Department of Finance (DOF) are estimates solely for identifying buildings under LL87. Disputing Benchmarking Compliance List If you see your building on the list of covered buildings, and believe its listing is inaccurate, please contact DOF at benchmarking@finance.nyc.gov to dispute building square footage or the number of buildings on a tax lot. Include in your email the following: The building(s) borough, block and lot numbers Contact name Contact email address or telephone number Reason for dispute with your commercial square footage NOTE: All other inquiries should be directed to the Department of Buildings at sustainability@buildings.nyc.gov. Energy Audits and Retro-commissioning Compliance Deadlines Beginning with calendar year 2013, the first energy efficiency reports for covered buildings in existence and for new buildings will be due in the calendar year with a final digit that is the same as the last digit of the building's tax block number, as illustrated in the chart below. The building's energy audit and retro-commissioning report must be completed prior to filing an energy efficiency report. Year first EER is due 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Last digit of tax block number 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 Early Compliance An energy efficiency report, including both an energy audit report and a retro-commissioning report, can be submitted between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2013, in order to achieve early compliance. In such cases, the next required report for the building would be due in the tenth calendar year after the first assigned due date for the report; for example if the due date would have been 2015, satisfying the early compliance would make the due date 2025. Exemptions Buildings are exempted from the requirement for energy audits if they have achieved EPA Energy Star label or U.S. Green Building Council LEED® certification for at least two of the three years preceding the filing date, or have been documented by a registered design professional as an EPA Energy Star or LEED® certification equivalent. Buildings are exempted from retro-commissioning if the building has achieved LEED® certification and earned credit for the appropriate existing building commissioning credits. [back to top]
	Where to Get HelpThe City is dedicated to helping building owners achieve successful compliance and continues to look for ways to provide resources. To seek assistance complying with the requirements for LL87, go to the LL87 section of Outreach & Training. Financing and Incentives Visit the Financing and Incentives page for energy audit, retro-commissioning and other requirements.