Early in 2010 we reported that three things needed to happen to be able to meet the climate change challenge of this decade. At the top of that list was the need to focus on energy efficiency in the private and public sector. The article revealed that many cities are initiating changes toward energy efficiency. As they invest in energy efficiency projects -- from changing to LED traffic lights to installing timers on cold drink vending machines -- they are realizing millions of dollars in cost savings in a short period of time. (See -2010: Climate change solutions require common sense and political will).

In the private sector, Center for Energy & Climate Solutions for the Cool Companies project has found that companies that include clean, efficient energy technologies in their management strategies lower costs as well as see improvements in productivity through improved product quality and employee morale. The project was created by Dr. Joe Romm, “Climate Progress” blog editor and author of “Cool Companies” and other books including his latest book “Straight Up.” As 2010 comes to a close there is little incentive from the U.S. government for companies to invest in energy efficiency, and energy prices have been lower. But Romm says there are several reasons for companies to invest now. “Fuel prices are pretty high even though we are in the middle of deep economic downturn, and by all accounts they will be back up as economy rolling again,” Romm says. “This is an opportunity to save money with a low-risk, high-return investment. These projects have 30 to 40 percent rates of return on investment.”

Energy-saving projects reported on Center for Energy & Climate Solutions for the Cool Companies website include:

• Chicago's McCormick Place Convention Center, which installed a combined heat-and-power system that saves $1 million a year in energy costs and cuts carbon dioxide emissions in half.
• DuPont's 1,450-acre Chambers Works in New Jersey, which reduced energy use per pound of product by one-third, and cut global warming pollution per pound of product by nearly half. Even as production rose 9 percent, the total energy bill fell by more than $17 million a year.
• A South Carolina aluminum refiner that analyzed its dust collection system and found that a few modest operational changes would save $104,000 a year, reduce energy consumption 12 percent a year, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 2,500 tons a year with no capital outlay whatsoever.

Saving money is one benefit companies that invest in energy efficiency enjoy. Another is improvements in productivity and product quality. “Energy and cost savings comes with productivity benefits,” Romm says. “There is the also opportunity to tout how green you are.” Energy-saving design often improves lighting and comfort and gives employees control over lighting, heating and cooling in there work area. Managers are finding that these things significantly improve productivity.

The examples of increased productivity and the money saved with energy-saving building design are remarkable:

• Control Data Corporation's Operations Group in Sunnyvale, California upgraded lighting for $15,000. Energy use dropped 65 percent, saving $7,000 a year. The reduced glare cut the number of input errors, raising productivity by an estimated six percent, saving $28,000 a year - four times the energy cost savings. When Lockheed built an energy-efficient engineering facility with natural day lighting in Sunnyvale, California, they saved $300,000 to $400,000 a year on energy bills, and productivity rose 15 percent.
• One of the best-documented increases in productivity from energy-efficient design is West Bend Mutual Insurance Company's move to a new 150,000-square-foot headquarters near Milwaukee, Wisconsin. A detailed study of productivity in the old building during the 26 weeks before the move and the new building for 24 weeks afterwards found productivity increased 7 percent when new, energy-friendly work stations were fully functional. The productivity gains were worth at least $364,000. The award-winning design uses a host of energy-saving features, all on a $90 per-square-foot budget. Even in open-office areas, workers have individual control over both temperature and air flow using radiant heaters and vents built directly into their furniture and controlled by a small desktop panel. The same panel controls lighting and white noise that masks nearby sound. The high-tech workstations paid for themselves in under one year, thanks to annual electricity costs 40 percent lower than the old facility.

Unfortunately only about a third of U.S. manufacturers are looking at their energy usage when they could be saving billions of dollars. “The good news is that more and more companies are, but most companies don’t do what the best companies do,” Romm says.

He attributes lack of interest in energy efficiency to the short-sighted decision-making that has come with the downsizing many companies have experienced in the last decade.”Companies have lost a lot of their knowledge base,” Romm says. “They are focused on making more sales and new products. Energy efficiency is not as sexy, but saving several hundred-thousand-dollars a year on the bottom line can add up.”

Lighting is one area where new technology offers companies energy and money savings today. Forty percent of electricity used in commercial buildings is for lighting. Many buildings are still using lighting that was designed when people were writing or using a typewriter on horizontal desktops rather than looking at a vertical back-lit computer screen. The result is inefficient and inappropriate lighting for today’s work areas.

“There’s lots of great efficiency hardware in advanced lighting and lighting controls,” Romm says. “If a company hasn’t done a lighting upgrade in the last decade, they should do a lighting upgrade.”

Another way to save a significant amount of energy is Combined Heat and Power (CHP), a set of technologies that produces both electricity and steam from a single fuel at a facility near the consumption point. Any company that is burning gas or other fuel in a boiler to make steam for heating can convert to CHP. The energy created in the fuel combustion can be used to power a turbine to make electricity. Then the heat from the process can be used to make steam.

Dan Bullock, program manager for Clean and Renewable Energy at Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC), says CHP is the most efficient way to use fossil fuel and reduce emissions. “Compared to coal plants, carbon emissions from CHP is less than half, and depending on installation, could be close to a third of emissions,” he says.

In Texas, mostly large industrial facilities have used CHP, which is a significant amount of the state’s electricity. “What most people don’t realize is that CHP in Texas statewide accounts for 100,000 megawatts or 20 percent of the state’s electricity, compared to wind at 9 percent,” Bullock says.

Although CHP is used primarily in large industrial facilities Bullock says there is potential for the technology to be implemented at medium scale industrials such as gas producer, air products and other manufacturing plants. The technology can even work for waste water treatment plants, hospitals, hotels, office buildings and prisons. Currently in Houston, Texas Medical Center has 45 megawatt CHP system. Texas A&M and The University of Texas Austin also have some buildings that are using CHP.

For more information about the benefits companies can gain by investing in energy efficiency checkout Joe Romm’s book, “Cool Companies: how the best business boost profits and productivity by cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”

Other resources:
Center for Energy & Climate Solutions - www.cool-companies.org
CHP information: Gulf Coast Clean Energy Project - www.gulfcoastcleanenergy.org