IJEM - Vol3 - Iss2 - ONLINE April 2021

Volume 3 | Issue 2 | 2021
Official Publication

About this Journal
The International Journal of Energy Management is an official bi-monthly
publication for members of the Association of Energy Engineers. The journal Association of Energy Engineers
publishes original articles and papers detailing the latest engineering or analytical
approaches to energy management and energy efficiency.
International
Journal of
ENERGY
International Journal of Energy Management

MANAGEMENT
Published by the Association of Energy Engineers

Over 18,000 professionals in 105 countries trust the Association of
Energy Engineers (AEE) to promote the interests of those engaged in
the energy industry and to foster action for sustainable development.
Our members operate in the dynamic fields of energy engineering,
energy management, renewable and alternative energy, power
generation, energy services, sustainability, and all related areas.
aeecenter.org
ISSN: 2643-6779 (Print) Editor Steven Parker

Association of Energy Engineers | 3168 Mercer University Drive | Atlanta, Georgia 30341 PE, CEM
ISSN: 2643-6787 (Online)
Journal_Covers_1-27-21.indd 2 3/15/21 1:25 PM

International Journal of
Energy Management
Steven Parker, PE, CEM, Editor-in-Chief
Vol. 3, No. 2—2021
Contents
Editor’s Desk; Did Texas Get What It Deserved?
5
13 The Northwest End-Use Load Research (EULR) Project; Graham B. Park-

er and David Clement
36 U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon; Amanda R. Kirkeby and Zach-

ary A. Peterson
51 Illinois Solar for All: Providing Access to Solar for Low-Income Commu-
nities; Jan E. Gudell
68 Independent Market Monitors Around The World; Johanna H.J.

Koolemans-Beynen
79 Call for Papers
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ENERGY ENGINEERS®

ISSN: 2643-6779 (print)

ISSN: 2643-6787 (on-line)
2 International Journal of Energy Management
Steven Parker, PE, CEM

Editor-in-Chief
sparker@aeecenter.org

EDITORIAL BOARD
Lindsay Audin, PE, CEM, Energy Wiz, Inc.; Barry Benator, PE, CEM, Benatech, Inc.; Jeremy
Blanchard, CEM, GDS Associates; Ian Boylan, Chartered Engineer, CEM, Target Energy; Scott Dun-
ning, PhD, PE, CEM, University of Maine; LJ Grobler, PhD, PE, CEM, North-West University; Wei
Guo, Ph.D., PE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Eric Oliver, PE, CEM, Earthwide, LLC; Stephen
Roosa, PhD, CEM, RPM Asset Holdings, Energy and Sustainable Solutions; Stephen Sain, PE, CEM,
Sain Engineering Associates, Inc.; Wayne Turner, PhD, PE, CEM, Editor Emeritus.
AEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2021

George (Buster) Barksdale, President; Dr. Fotouh Al-Ragom, President-Elect; Eric Oliver, Secretary;
Tim Janos, Treasurer; 2020 Regional Vice Presidents: Adam Jennings, Region I; Ray Segars, Region
II; Jerry Eaton, Region III; Steven Morgan, Region IV; Cynthia Martin, Region V.
International Journal of Energy Management (ISSN 2643-6779) is published bimonthy by the

Association of Energy Engineers, 3168 Mercer University Drive, Atlanta, GA 30341. Production
Office: 3168 Mercer University Drive, Atlanta, GA 30341, 770-447-5083, ext. 224.
Copyright, 2021, by the Association of Energy Engineers, 3168 Mercer University Drive,
Atlanta, GA 30341. Contributed material expresses the views of the authors, not necessarily those
of the Association of Energy Engineers or the editors. While every attempt is made to assure the
integrity of the material, neither the authors, association, nor the editor is accountable for errors or
omissions.
Subscriptions: $534 for individual print subscriptions; $731 for combined print and online subscrip-
tions; $621 for online only subscriptions. Print-only institutional subscriptions are not available.
AEE MEMBERSHIP CHANGES

Please notify the Association of Energy Engineers, 3168 Mercer University Drive, Atlanta, GA
30341
Tel: 770-447-5083, ext. 224, email membership@aeecenter.org
EDITORIAL OFFICE
Articles and letters to the editor should be submitted to Steven Parker, Editor, International Journal of
Energy Management, Email: sparker@aeecenter.org.
Publication Policy
International Journal of Energy Management is a peer-to-peer communication channel for practicing energy managers. Thus, all
articles must be of a practical nature and should not be pure or basic research. If the article appears to be basic research oriented,
the author(s) must explain in a leading paragraph why practicing energy managers should know the material.
Peer review is offered if requested by the author(s), but peer review must be requested in the submission email or letter. This
will add about 6 months to the lead time before publishing. All other articles will be editor reviewed.
Transfer of copyright to AEE must occur upon submission and if any of the material has been published in other journals
previously, that source must be identified and referenced. If the previous publication was at an AEE conference or in another AEE
publication, that should also be referenced. All articles appearing in the journal are opinions and works of the authors and not
AEE or the editor.
If you are submitting an article for possible publication you hereby grant AEE the right to print and assign a release of copy-
right of submitted article to AEE. If you are submitting an article under a governmental agency and submitted work is covered in
the public domain, you hereby grant to AEE the right to reprint submitted work.
New
e
Onlinm s
Progra le
Availab
Now
Get Certified & Excel

AEE’s certification and training Certified Energy Manager
programs have helped more than

30,000 professionals gain recognition ® ®
for their technical knowledge and Certified Business

Energy Professional
industry expertise. Our programs are

recognized globally by local, state and
TM
federal governments, as well as by

®
corporations, utilities, energy service Energy Efficiency Practitioner
companies, and business professionals

and engineers like you.
Boost Your Career

Get Certified Today... ®
aeecenter.org/certifications Certified Sustainable Development Professional

Renewable Energy
Professional
TM
Association of Energy Engineers | 3168 Mercer University Drive | Atlanta, Georgia 30341 | (770) 447-5083
CLIMATE ACTION JUNE 23
CONNECT 2021
Connecting Energy Engineering & Energy

Efficiency for a Sustainable Energy Future
A VIRTUAL EVENT
earthsenergyengineers.com
Volume 3, Number 2 5
Editor’s Desk
Did Texas Get What It Deserved?
The above title may sound insensitive, after all over 20 people died as
a result of the ERCOT’s (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) failure to
maintain their electricity grid during mid-February 2021. In my defense,
I said Texas, not Texans. However, Texas is an organizational construct.
The problem was the fault of people, who happen to be Texans.
For the purpose of this editorial, I am going to discuss two separate
(yet related) failures. And, yes, I am going to assign some blame as I see it.
Because this is an editorial, it is my opinion (The Association of Energy
Engineers does not necessarily agree or disagree with my opinion). You are
allowed to agree or disagree as you see fit. If you wish to rebut, please do
so in the form of a Letter to the Editor. I promise to publish any (appropriate)
well thought out responses.
Part 1
A massive cold front powered through the United States in mid-Febru-
ary 2021. The cold front was forecasted and monitored as it moved its way
across Texas. As it crossed Texas, much of the power supply went offline,
while power demand spiked.
If you are not familiar with how a typical alternating-current (AC)
power grid operates, it is a system of balances. As demand increases, AC
frequency across the grid decreases (minutely). The decrease in frequency
causes power generation control systems (if capacity is available) to increase
power output (supply). Conversely, if demand decreases, AC frequency
increases. The increase in frequency causes generation control systems to
decrease power generation. The system fluctuates to maintain design fre-
quency, which is 60-Hz in the United States. Having excess capacity online
allows the system to respond automatically to maintain operation. Cas-
cade failures (e.g., grid outages) result from a failure to maintain adequate
excess capacity online. [NOTE: this explanation is an oversimplification
but should be sufficient for this editorial.]
The United States has three primary electric utility grid systems: East-
ern interconnect, Western interconnect, and the Texas interconnect. Most,
but not all, of Texas is on the Texas interconnect, now known as ERCOT.
Currently, the Texas population is around 29 million people. ERCOT
serves about 26 million customers within Texas. Why does most of Texas
have their own electric grid system? Basically, it starts as a result of the
Federal Powers Act of 1935. The Federal Powers Act gave the federal gov-
ernment the authority to regulate the transfer of electricity between the
states. Texas created the Texas interconnect system in 1941. The Texas
interconnect system connects multiple electric utilities within Texas. How-
ever, to avoid federal regulation, the Texas interconnect does not allow any
export of electricity across the Texas border.
During 1965, the United States experienced its worst power outage in
the nation’s history (Side Note: this power outage did not impact Texas).
As a result of the power outage, the United States, under the authority of
the Federal Powers Act, issued new regulations to improve and ensure the
reliability of the nation’s power grid. However, the Texas interconnect is
not subject to regulation under the Federal Powers Act. The new federal
regulations did, however, prompt the Texas legislation to form ERCOT
in 1970.* ERCOT became the first of nine independent system operators
(ISOs) within North America.
The Texas legislature and the Public Utility Commission of Texas
(PUCT) have jurisdiction over activities conducted by the Electric Reli-
ability Council of Texas (ERCOT). ERCOT is governed by a board of
directors. While ERCOT is responsible for grid operations, it does not
control power generation. Generation is provided by the power producers
and electric utilities (e.g., investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities, rural
electric cooperatives, private power producers, etc.) within Texas.
The Texas interconnect is a summer peaking grid. This is not surpris-
ing, if you have ever lived through a Texas summer, the heat and humidity
can be brutal. Air conditioning, driven by high heat and humidity, drives
Texas peak electric demand. Even though Texas is a significant producer
of natural gas, most winter heating in Texas is powered by electricity (heat
pumps and electric resistance heaters).
Prior to February 2021, the Texas grid peak was ~78 GW with 17%
reserve margin (ERCOT News Release, May 13, 2020). The prior winter
peak was 65.9 GW on January 17, 2018 (ERCOT News Release, February
11, 2021).
*www.ercot.com
As the massive cold front approached Texas, ERCOT issued a warning

and predicted it would set a new winter peak on the morning of February
15, 2021 (ERCOT News Release, February 11, 2021). The models appar-
ently did not fully account for the severity of the weather that hit Texas.
The massive failure of the Texas interconnect was the result of a pow-
er grid and utility system that was not designed to tolerate harsh winter
conditions, combined with a massive grid demand in excess of prediction.
According to one report, grid demand would have been around 70 GW.
That is, if the grid could have supplied it. The weather also impacted pow-
er generators. Natural gas flow was restricted to some power plants. Other
power plants were tripped offline. The outages included natural gas power
plants, coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, and wind-powered
generators. Reports ranged from 30 to 45 MW of capacity was rendered
offline (Popular Science, February 18, 2021; S&P Global-Platts, February
16, 2021; ERCOT News Release, February 15, 2021). To maintain the
grid from complete cascading failure, ERCOT began managing the grid
through rotating power outages (i.e., cutting off demand).
I would also like to point out that Texas residents not on the ERCOT
grid did not lose power. While it is conjecture, some believe that if Tex-
as had a better interconnection to the Eastern and Western grids, wide-
spread power outages may have been reduced and recovery quickened.
The problem, as I see it, is that this is not the first time Texas has
experienced significant power outages as a result of winter weather con-
ditions and they just don’t care enough to fix the problem. The last time
was 10 years ago, February 1-5, 2011, when 29 MW of power generating
capacity was knocked offline. Before that, the bad one was 1989* when
ERCOT resorted to rolling blackouts to prevent more widespread outages.
The 2011 event prompted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
to issue a report** in August 2011 making several recommendations to
improve the reliability and resilience of the Texas interconnect and power
generation. Remember that the Texas interconnect is not subject to Fed-
eral regulations, so the report made recommendations of best practices.
So, what did Texas do in response to these events and the FERC report?
*There were also cold weather events in 1983, 1989, 2006, 2008, and 2010, but 1989 was the worst
and most comparable to 2011.
**https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/08-16-11-report.pdf
Basically, nothing.
You might think that this time (2021) will be different. People died.
Texas citizens suffered; some are still suffering. Texas politicians are point-
ing fingers and contradicting themselves in their accusations. The Texas
governor and pundits on Fox News (and other conservative networks) tried
to blame the Green New Deal (which, by the way, does not exist) and the
growth in renewable energy sources, which is a sad lie. Yes, some ERCOT
managers and directors have resigned, some have been fired. There is
(again) calls for more weatherization of the power plants, transmission sys-
tems, and interconnects. Right now, it is all thoughts and prayers. Unless
the voters call for action, the Texas government will likely stall until the
public’s attention moves onto the next shiny object. The bottom line is that
had Texas learned from history, this event may likely have been avoided.
Unless action is taken, it will likely happen again.
Part 2
Deregulation of the electric grid and electricity market in Texas began
in 1995 (Texas Senate bill 373). The retail electric utility market in Texas
began the deregulation process in 1999 (Texas Senate bill 7). By 2002, it is
estimated that 85% of Texas power consumers have some level of choice
in retail electric providers. Since 2002, more than 5.6 million Texans have
participated in the deregulated market (www.saveonenergy.com).
The promise of the deregulated market was that wholesale and con-
sumer costs would decrease sufficiently to justify the consumer taking on
the increased risks and the cost of risk mitigation. In Texas, this may not
have been the case (see Figure 1). A 2009 report* by the Cities Aggrega-
tion Power Project, concluded that Texans in a deregulated market were
paying more and getting hit with bigger price increases. Similarly, in a
2014 report** by the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power concluded that
residents in the Texas deregulated markets generally pay higher electricity
costs than residents in non-deregulated*** Texas markets.
The Association of Energy Engineers has taught seminars on deregu-
*The History of Electric Deregulation in Texas, Cities Aggregation Power Project, 2009. www.tcaptx.
com/downloads/HISTORY-OF-DEREGULATION.pdf.
** Deregulated Electricity in Texas, Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, 2014.
http://tcaptx.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/TCP-793-Deregulation2014-A-1.7.pdf
*** Areas around Austin and San Antonio have opted out of retail deregulation and, as a result, have
experienced the level of escalation in utility costs compared to deregulated areas.

Volume 3, Number 2
Figure 1. Residential Electric Price Increase, 1999-2007.

(Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration)
9
lated utility markets for several years. Utility deregulation is a mandatory

topic within the Certified Energy Manager (CEM) body of knowledge. In
addition, deregulation is a significant portion of the body of knowledge for
the Certified Energy Procurement Professional (CEP) program. Some of
the key points taught about deregulated energy markets is that pricing can
become volatile and that risk management is critical when working in a
deregulated utility market. Basically, one should not engage in a deregulat-
ed market unless you understand the risks and can take appropriate actions
to mitigate those risks.
If you are not familiar with how a deregulated utility market operates,
companies that generate power provide electricity to the grid operated
by ERCOT. As the independent system operator for the region, ERCOT
schedules power on the electric grid. ERCOT maintains the flow of elec-
tricity on the grid. ERCOT also performs financial settlement for the
competitive wholesale bulk-power market and administers retail switching
for customers in competitive choice areas (www.ercot.com/about). Retail
electric providers buy electricity from ERCOT at wholesale; add admin-
istration, transmission and distribution costs; and resell that electricity to
the retail consumer. Some of these retail electricity providers are regulat-
ed utilities, other retail providers are unregulated (i.e., basically they can
charge what they want). [NOTE: this explanation is an oversimplification
but should be sufficient for this editorial.]
Many Texans were not prepared for the market risks (price volatility)
as the cold front enveloped Texas. As a result of the cold front (increased
demand) and power outages (reduced supply), electricity costs spiked more
than 10,000% (Reuters, February 15, 2021). Electricity market prices, which
had been $30.00 /MWh (3¢/kWh) on February 10, and $50.00 /MWh pre-
storm, suddenly cost more than $9,000.00 /MWh ($9.00 /kWh). [Note:
$9,000 /MWh is the maximum price allowed by the Public Utility Commis-
sion of Texas.] Wholesale price spikes are not unusual, but typically last for
brief periods (a few hours) during the summer. Electricity providers gener-
ally have ways of sending price signals to consumers allowing them to make
temporary conservation measures or pay the higher rates. Unfortunately,
the price volatility lasted for over 5 days (see Figure 2). Some Texans found
** Deregulated Electricity in Texas, Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, 2014.

http://tcaptx.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/TCP-793-Deregulation2014-A-1.7.pdf
*** Areas around Austin and San Antonio have opted out of retail deregulation and, as a result, have
experienced the level of escalation in utility costs compared to deregulated areas.
Figure 2. Texas Electricity Price, Houston Generating Region, February 14-20,

2021. (Source Data: ERCOT via Energyonline.com)
themselves facing electric bills in excess of $15,000 (The Conversation, Feb-

ruary 24, 2021). Obviously, consumers who signed up for a deregulated mar-
ket did not fully understand what they signed up for.
Deregulation offers some advantages, but those advantages come with
significant risk and responsibilities. If you are reading this editorial as an
AEE member, you are likely more experienced and have more training
on utility rate tariffs than 99% of the general public. If you have your
CEM or CEP, I will say better than 99.9%. The retail public does not
have the training, education, or tools to safely live in an unregulated util-
ity market. Texas proved that in February 2021. Now, I understand that
deregulation is not the same as unregulated. Some degree of regulation is
required to safeguard the public. The $9000 /MWh cap put in place by
the Public Utility Commission of Texas was better than nothing, but it was
likely intended to limit short-term price spikes rather than long-term spikes
resulting from a non-functional market.
If Texas utility customers thought they were getting something (low-
er electricity prices) for nothing in a deregulated utility market, now they
know better. For some, it will be an expensive lesson learned. Maybe the
Texas legislature will consider some temporary remediation for customers

caught by the extremes.
As I said earlier, unless Texas residents (Texas voters) call for action, the
Texas government will likely stall until the public’s attention moves onto
the next shiny object. Do not expect ERCOT, the power generators, or the
retail utility providers to fix this problem. If Texans do not like regulations,
then Texas retail customers need to protect themselves. Unless action is
taken, fiascos like this will likely happen again.
As I prepared this journal issue, I tried to invite a few personal/pro-
fessional contacts (with experience in the Texas region) to write an article
on the Texas debacle. I was unsuccessful. I could not let the topic slide, so
I voiced my own opinion. As I noted earlier, you may agree or disagree. If
you wish to rebut my opinion or conclusions in the form of a Letter to the
Editor, please do so. I promise to publish any (appropriate) well thought out
responses. If you wish to submit your own article on the topic, you may
find the guidelines to authors at
https://www.aeecenter.org/ijem-editorial-guidelines.
Of course, the journal is interested in articles on any topic of interest
to energy managers. I look forward to hearing from you. In the meantime,
stay safe.
Steven Parker, PE, CEM

Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Energy Management
A journal of the Association of Energy Engineers
saparker@aeecenter.org
The Northwest End-Use

Load Research (EULR) Project
Graham B. Parker, CEM, CEA
David Clement
ABSTRACT
This article highlights the Northwest End-Use Load Research

(EULR) project, an electrical end-use metering project being undertak-
en in residential and commercial buildings in the Northwest. Composed
of two studies and funded by regional electric utilities and government
agencies, the EULR project was initiated in 2017 and is managed by the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA).
Designed to fill a widely recognized need for current electrical end-
use data, the EULR project collects continuous energy consumption
data, including key heating and cooling technologies and other major
end uses, through the Home Energy Metering Study (HEMS) and the
Commercial Energy Metering Study (CEMS). HEMS involves more
than 400 residences and CEMS monitors more than 100 commercial
buildings.
By filling a large gap in our understanding of contemporary energy
end-use patterns, the EULR project will be useful to academic research-
ers, consultants, electric utilities, and energy-related government agen-
cies for many years to come. Currently, the region’s utilities and other
organizations rely on 30-year-old data collected under the End-use Load
and Conservation Program (ELCAP) to inform load forecasting, efficien-
cy savings and conservation program planning. Since ELCAP, thanks to
improved practices, codes and disruptive technologies, great strides have
been made in equipment efficiency and building energy conservation.
Additionally, greater attention has been paid to the region’s winter and
summer capacity constraint issues.
The insight gained through the EULR project will help achieve
regional conservation and clean energy goals, and satisfy utility informa-
tion needs. The collected data will provide:
• Greater understanding of the contribution of energy efficiency tech-

nologies to reduce peak demand
• Insight into the most effective ways to integrate renewable energy into
the grid to increase reliability, especially as the deployment of distrib-
uted generation and new end-use technologies increases over time
• Prioritized data by end use to inform a range of utility functions
including demand response, load forecasting, resource planning, dis-
tribution planning and program evaluation
HISTORY OF ENERGY METERING IN THE NORTHWEST
End-use Load and Conservation Program (ELCAP)

ELCAP was designed in the early 1980s to support the Bonneville
Power Administration’s (BPA’s) load forecasting and conservation pro-
gram planning functions (ELCAP 1984). ELCAP employed state-of-the-
art end-use electrical and temperature monitoring equipment developed
by Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratories in Richland, WA.* Including
single-family, multifamily and manufactured homes, and commercial
buildings across multiple sectors, ELCAP captured all electrical end uses
in residential panels and as many end uses as feasible in commercial
buildings, in addition to total-building electrical consumption.
The data were collected and downloaded over telephone landlines at
15-minute intervals and aggregated at an hourly basis from samples of
residential and commercial buildings in the Northwest (Oregon, Wash-
ington, Idaho and Western Montana). The data collection included
building audits, occupant interviews, indoor temperature and supple-
mental wood use monitoring, and, at selected sites, outside weather data
collection from installed meteorological stations.
When launched in 1983, ELCAP was the largest electrical end-use
data collection study in the country, with millions of hours of collected
data. This data supported a variety of functions, including:
• Hourly and peak load forecasting
*Currently the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) (www.pnnl.gov).

• Short and long-term annual forecasting

• Assessment of the impacts of conservation measures and load man-
agement techniques
• Evaluation of BPA’s conservation programs
• Assessment of the effects of the Northwest Power Planning Council*
proposed energy efficiency building standards
• Evaluation of BPA standard heat loss analysis procedures
• Evaluation of the performance of various computerized mathemati-
cal heat loss models.
ELCAP was expanded many times to evaluate new residential single

family and multifamily construction practices and commercial building
retrofits. At the termination of ELCAP in 1992, approximately 400 resi-
dential buildings and 80 commercial buildings were metered.
Reports and data are archived on a site maintained by Northwest
Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) at https://elcap.nwcouncil.
org/. The data continue to be used for evaluating technology energy sav-
ings and load impact by utilities, NWPCC, the Regional Technical Form,
the U.S Department of Energy and other organizations throughout the
country.
Residential Building Stock Assessment and

Commercial Building Stock Assessment
NEEA launched the Residential Building Stock Assessment (RBSA)
in 2011 to develop a characterization of the residential sector inclusive
of the region’s diverse climates, building practices and fuel choices. The
characterization includes both the principal characteristics of the homes
(e.g., size, insulation level and heating systems) and the principal char-
acteristics of the occupants and their energy use patterns (e.g., lighting,
appliances, electronics, heat pumps and gas furnaces/gas water heaters).
Field surveys were conducted on more than 1,850 sites across the North-
west, including more than 1,400 single-family, multifamily and manufac-
tured homes.
A subsidiary study of 100 single-family homes was conducted on a
subset of RBSA homes. This study collected the end-use electricity usage
*Currently the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) (www.nwcouncil.org).

of hard-wired and permanently plugged-in loads, as well as gas con-

sumption of furnaces and gas water heaters. Designed to represent as
many single-family houses across the Northwest as possible within proj-
ect budget constraints, the study collected 15-minute interval electricity
usage over the course of 2 years. The end-use data captured represented
approximately 75% of the total household electricity load.
In 2017, a second RBSA was conducted to update the original
characterization. The sample in this study includes 1,100 single-family
homes, 523 low-rise multifamily units, and 411 manufactured homes. No
end-use metering data was conducted in this study.
Specifically, the following data were collected from the second RBSA:
• Building configuration: foundation type, number of floors, room

square footage, and conditioned area and volume
• Building envelope (shell): window characteristics, insulation types
and thicknesses, and construction materials
• Air leakage: air leakage in cubic feet per minute at 50 pascals, as
measured by a blower door test
• Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC): equipment char-
acteristics, nameplate information, location and TrueFlow® air
handler flow testing and pressure measurements for electric central
forced-air heating systems
• Domestic hot water: equipment characteristics, nameplate informa-
tion, and flow rate measurements for showerheads and faucets
• Appliances: equipment characteristics (size and configuration) and
nameplate information
• Electronics: equipment characteristics and nameplate information
• Lighting: type, style, wattage, quantity, control type and location.
The sample size chosen for the RBSA allows benchmarking of energy
use within households at sufficient detail to assess the progress of chang-
es in energy efficiency and home characteristics within the region. This
study informs future energy planning efforts as well as energy efficiency
utility programs by the region’s utilities, the Energy Trust of Oregon
(www.energytrust.org) and BPA (www.bpa.org).
NEEA also conducted the Commercial Building Stock Assessment
(CBSA), a regional study of the energy use in commercial buildings,
by collecting detailed information on building characteristics, installed
equipment, and energy consumption for buildings throughout the

Northwest. The CBSA is a key input into regional power planning such
as the Northwest Power Plan, utility energy efficiency programs, codes
and standards, and energy efficiency measures. Governments have also
used this data to inform planning and policy discussions, such as energy
use intensity (EUI) targets.
NEEA has conducted four CBSAs, the first of which took place in
2003, and the most current completed in May 2020. In the recent CBSA,
site visits were completed on 932 commercial buildings across 12 build-
ing types. Data was collected through onsite assessments, building staff
interviews, and utility submission of historical energy consumption data.
Together, the RBSA and CBSA provide a rich data source for regional
utility planners, and have yielded multiple analysis reports available at
www.neea.org. For example, insight from the RBSA highlights the sig-
nificant improvement in residential building and equipment efficiency in
the decades since ELCAP ended, as shown in Figure 1. This figure shows
how lighting technology and use has changed over the years in both peak
load and time of peak use, which also provides clear evidence that cur-
rent end-use data are needed.
Development of the EULR Project and HEMS/CEMS

Despite the helpful, contemporary data collected from the RBSA
and CBSA, neither study provided electrical end-use data similar to
the 30-year-old ELCAP study. This made it imperative for the region to
undertake another comprehensive end-use load research project. Doing
so would help regional planners understand current load profiles that
may have altered the end-use performance landscape. Without this data,
the load profiles of new appliances, such as game consoles, home office
equipment and electric vehicles would remain unknown.
Without updated and continual end-use data, the region would be less
able to address capacity and intermittent resource integration issues on an
ongoing basis. It would not be able to provide the insight needed for more
precise engineering and economic analysis to better inform future invest-
ments in energy efficiency and load forecasting for capacity planning.
The need for this data was first identified through work sponsored by
the NWPCC’s Regional Technical Forum (RTF) and the Northeast Ener-
gy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) Evaluation Measurement and Verifica-
tion (EMV) Forum. Once identified, NEEP and NWPCC contracted with
18
Figure 1. Illustration of the Change in Daily Lighting Load Homes in the 1980s
to Homes in the RBSA. (Source: Northwest Power and Conservation Council,
used with permission)
KEMA NV (Keuring van Elektrotechnische Materialen te Arnhem)* to

search for and catalogue previous end-use load research studies.
In 2012, NWPCC tasked KEMA with building a business case for
end-use metering. Three years later, regional stakeholders and NEEA’s
Board of Directors requested that NEEA begin work on developing
an end-use load research project, and the EULR project was born. In
late 2016, NEEA created a prospectus and began recruiting across the
Northwest for partners to help fund the project and assist in its design.
To avoid the high upfront costs of a 1- or 2-year study large enough
to produce statistically significant results, the sample was built gradually
with costs spread over time. This approach also provided the opportunity
to refine the research to better fit regional needs.
The EULR project was organized as both a residential study and
a commercial study: the Home Energy Metering Study (HEMS) and
the Commercial Energy Metering Study (CEMS). HEMS covers homes
across Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Western Montana, and prioritiz-
es the loads that are most important to understanding residential energy
characteristics. These include ductless heat pumps, ducted heat pumps,
heat pump water heaters, central air conditioning, forced air furnaces
and electric baseboard heaters.
CEMS focuses on key end uses within the office and retail sectors,
with priority end uses including rooftop units, heat pumps, and electric
resistance heating including terminal reheat and ventilation. In addition
to the priority end uses for both CEMS and HEMS, additional end uses
are metered opportunistically at the circuit panel.
To collect the data, circuit meters will be installed in homes and com-
mercial buildings over the course of 4 years, after which all planned meters
will have logged a full year’s worth of data with some meters collecting
data for 5 years. Data collection is designed to reflect greater weather,
behavioral, and occupancy variability. This extended time period of data
collection was seen as especially important for capturing the wide annual
variation in weather-related impacts that have a large influence on winter
peak electric demand and hydroelectric resource availability.
The EULR project links this metered data to additional information
about site-specific building details and end-use details, including charac-
*KEMA is now DNV GL (www.dnvgl.com).

teristics data from the RBSA and CBSA. When analyzed together, this
information can help explain not only how much energy is consumed,
but the reasons energy is consumed.
HEMS/CEMS and EULR Project Funders

Many of the organizations that helped to scope the EULR project in
2016 and 2017 became project funders. Additional organizations joined
as governance, operational plans and budgets were developed, and a few
more organizations joined after the project began and meter installations
were underway. With NEEA serving as the project manager, there are
now 14 organizations playing a role, as shown in Table 1.
This special project is independently funded from NEEA’s base fund-
ing with a projected budget of $12.5 million over 5 years. A funding
share allocation mechanism was determined based on the size and cus-
tomer base of each funder.
Project Organization and Governance
Two governing committees were formed. The Steering Commit-
tee oversees the project and has decision authority to advance project
budgets, strategy and policy to NEEA’s Board of Directors. The Steer-
ing Committee elected a chairperson and adopted a committee charter
that gives each Steering Committee organization one representative
and one vote.
A second committee, the Working Group, was designed to advise on
technical issues and to act as a sounding board regarding project man-
agement issues. Each member of the Working Group is appointed by a
Steering Committee member. Organizations may have one or two Work-
Table 1. Organizations involved in the Program

ing Group members, at their own discretion. Both committees strive to

achieve a consensus, with the Working Group often making recommen-
dations to the Steering Committee on issues not within the Working
Group’s range of authority.
For electric utilities, academia, researchers and consultants, one of
the most important Steering Committee decisions occurred in 2019. At
the request of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies
Office, and with a recommendation from the Working Group, the Steer-
ing Committee agreed to make 15-minute interval end-use load data
publicly available, at no cost. The Steering Committee stated that this
was the best way for the EULR project to advance energy efficiency
across the nation. Fifteen-minute interval data from HEMS is presently
available to the public free of charge on NEEA’s website: https://neea.
org/data/end-use-load-research/hems.
Contractors
In 2017, the Working Group created a subcommittee to develop a
Request for Proposals (RFP) to administer HEMS. At the recommenda-
tion of the Working Group, the Steering Committee approved Evergreen
Economics, Portland, Oregon as the HEMS contractor.
In 2018, the Working Group developed another RFP to administer
CEMS. The Steering Committee approved the Working Group’s recom-
mendation of DNV GL as the CEMS contractor.
METERING, DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ARCHIVING
Home Energy Metering Study

The main objective of HEMS is to develop a robust characterization
of continuous energy consumption of key heating and cooling measures
to support utility planning of conservation programs and achievement
of clean energy goals. To do so, beginning in 2018, the study began
collecting whole-home and 1-minute interval data by electrical circuit
from Northwest homes that have one or more of the following targeted
equipment types:*
*The equipment deployed in HEMS allows capture and storage of 1-minute data to enable a
more granular analysis of equipment electricity use patterns and fault detection (corrupted data).
One-minute data are aggregated into 15-minute data for long-term public data archiving.
1. Ducted heat pumps

2. Ductless heat pumps
3. Heat pump water heaters
4. Electric forced-air furnaces
5. Central air conditioners
6. Electric baseboard heaters.
The HEMS contractor developed a comprehensive installation and

data collection quality assurance plan** that includes documentation of
processes and procedures for:
• Validating accuracy of meter installations

• Verifying circuit labeling for end uses and the metering of correct
end uses
• Validating data quality
• Visual inspection of data
• Equipment installation and maintenance to ensure equipment efficacy
• Preventing and identifying meter data errors, lost data streams and
equipment failures
• Data cleaning, storage and back-up
• Equipment repair and/or replacement and timeframes
• Addressing participant complaints, which includes the process for
notifying the serving utility, identification of utility contacts, persons
responsible for handling participant complaints, escalation proce-
dures, and expected time to resolve participant complaints
The contractor used the existing 2016–17 RBSA study as the prima-
ry sample frame. This improved cost-effectiveness by utilizing detailed
information about the homes and appliances of metering study partici-
pants, rather than recruiting homes for metering from the general pop-
ulation. Because the end-use equipment is known in each RSBA home,
the contractor was able to efficiently recruit homes with one or more of
the six target end uses.
Comprehensive sampling and recruitment plans were developed by
**The first law of ELCAP is: “You can always recover from bad analysis but never from bad data.”
This provided the inspiration to include a quality assurance plan in the EULR project.
the contractor and approved by the Working Group and Steering Com-
mittee prior to program launch. The sampling plan assured a represen-
tative allocation of homes for the target end uses and across the climate
zones of the Northwest. The sampling plan recognized the significant
challenge in recruiting homes with ductless heat pumps and heat pump
water heaters, as there are relatively few homes in the region with that
equipment installed.
Metering Equipment
Up to 20 circuits and the whole home are metered using current
transformers (CTs) that are installed in the home’s service panel and con-
nected to the data logger. Additionally, the indoor temperature is mea-
sured in all homes, and the refrigerant/vapor line (surface) temperature
is measured in homes equipped with heat pumps as a surrogate for the
operating mode of the heat pump (e.g., when the unit is in defrost mode).
Homes with supplemental heat (e.g., gas fireplaces) have a second indoor
temperature set nearby the supplemental heat as a surrogate of when
that supplemental heat is used. Exterior temperature is monitored for
homes where there are no nearby weather stations to acquire exterior
temperature data.
The metering configuration is shown in Figure 2. The pre-assembled
metering package (labeled, “In the Box”) is powered by a 110V dedicat-
ed circuit. It includes:
• An eGauge meter (https://www.egauge.net/) as the power metering

device and data logger
• A wireless gateway that communicates with and collects data from
the eGauge logger. This includes a cellular modem used to commu-
nicate with and transmit data to the cloud server.
• A Miratron (http://www.miratron.com/) receiver that accepts the
temperature data from the Miratron remote temperature sensors,
conditions the signal, and relays that signal to the eGauge logger.
Figure 3 shows an installation in a resident’s garage including the

temperature sensors and refrigerant line sensor.
Data collected from the cloud are distributed to various components
in the system. Prior to archiving, the data undergo multiple rigorous
quality assurance screens and testing. The data are then stored as raw
24
Figure 2. HEMS Metering Configuration

(Source: Evergreen Economics, used with permission)

Volume 3, Number 2
Figure 3. HEMS Metering Installation. (Source: Graham Parker)

25
15-minute data, processed and aggregated for analysis, and transferred

to a final database for permanent public storage. The size of the data-
base will vary over the course of the installations depending on the num-
ber of active sensor data streams, the duration of the project, and the
target storage format.
Commercial Energy Metering Study

CEMS is designed to obtain whole-building consumption either
through 15-minute interval or panel-level metering (current and voltage).
The following end uses are prioritized:
• HVAC:
- Rooftop units
- Heat pumps
- Electric resistance heating
• Additional identifiable end-use equipment on its own circuit:

- Other HVAC (e.g., exhaust fans, terminal reheat, etc.)
- Computer server rooms
- Electric water heating
- Refrigeration
- Uninterruptable power supply/servers
- Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations
- Lighting and plug load
- Indoor agriculture
- Vertical transport
- Solar and/or energy storage
• Temperature data (indoor and outdoor).
Metering Equipment
The metering suite is composed of several components which,
depending on site-specific circumstances, will be installed for different
functions and at different quantities. These site-specific circumstances
include locations of building panels and unit disconnects, cellular recep-
tion, mounting options for metering equipment, and how the data logger
will communicate locally with the cellular modem. The key components
of the metering suite are:
• An eGauge energy meter that acts as the power metering device, data
logger, and web server to provide user interface and push kilowatt
data to the contractor’s server. The eGauge energy meter requires
Wi-Fi or cellular connection for server communications.
• Monnit wireless temperature sensors (www.monnit.com) configured

to securely transmit their measurements via a wireless gateway. The
primary location for temperature sensors is in the rooftop unit’s sup-
ply plenum. If plenum access or wireless signal strength prohibits
the primary placement in plenums, the contractors identify a loca-
tion that improves deployment efficiency and measurement efficacy.
Additionally, there will be one wireless temperature sensor deployed
in every uniquely controlled indoor ambient zone being monitored.
• Monnit wireless gateway that communicates with and collects data

from the wireless temperature sensors. It requires a Wi-Fi connection
(via the cellular modem) to communicate with and transmit tempera-
ture data to the cloud server.
• Dry-contact KY or KYZ termination box and pulse transducer

connected to the Wi-Fi router. This provides 15-minute interval
whole-building load data without requiring work in an energized
panel exceeding the electrical hazard risk threshold.
• Telemetry/communication devices connecting the eGauge meter

and Monnit wireless gateway to the internet. The most common sce-
nario will likely use a cellular modem and wireless router to broad-
cast a Wi-Fi signal through which the eGauge meter and Monnit
gateway connect to the internet. The cellular modem provides a
secure connection to the cloud server. The eGauge meters accept
USB Wi-Fi devices that allow wireless communication and extend
the Wi-Fi range of the central router.
• Voltage and current transformers fed through electrical conduits

from the distribution or disconnect panel(s) to CEMS enclosures.
The voltage wiring will be used to measure voltage and to power the
eGauge meter, and possibly provide power to telemetry devices like
the cellular modem and wireless router, depending on the installation
scenario.
Figure 4 shows the metering equipment and HVAC return plenum

temperature sensor installed.
The building sample was drawn from the CBSA, so the building
characteristics are known. For metered buildings, the CBSA data will be
updated with specific emphasis on type and size of the HVAC systems
and other metered equipment. Additional information will be collected
including building schedules, which often change, and HVAC set points.
For sites that utilize energy management systems, the contractor will col-
lect building schedules and set points for applicable HVAC equipment
and conditioned zones.
The contractor will additionally note space type and distinct internal
loads (e.g., server room, locker room, kitchen) for each HVAC unit. They
will also take photographs of all HVAC equipment to record existing
conditions and surroundings.
Analysis and Preliminary Results

Analyses of the HEMS data will be conducted annually to utilize
the augmented data and to investigate new lines of inquiry. The specific
analysis plan is currently in the process of finalization.
In response to the stay-at-home orders and public health and safety
concerns of COVID-19, installation of new metering equipment in both
the HEMS and CEMS was suspended in the spring of 2020. Although
no new meters have been installed since that time, data collection con-
tinued from the approximately 200 homes, with metered data for over
300 of the target end uses. These data provide a unique opportunity to
understand the impacts that the COVID-19 pandemic has had from a
residential energy usage and load shape perspective. Thus, the analysis
plan will be designed to utilize the data collected during the pandemic
to gain actionable insights into the impact of COVID-19 on household
energy usage overall and for each targeted end use.
To better understand the changes in home energy use brought by
COVID-19, the contractor surveyed HEMS participants from October
to December 2020. Figure 5 shows the changes brought by increased
work-from-home frequency among the 113 responses.
Figure 6 further demonstrates the value of the HEMS data in
understanding the energy-use effects of COVID-19. This figure shows
a whole-house load profile by metered end-uses (not weather-normal-
ized) from April 1, 2019 (pre-COVID-19), to April 1, 2020 (during
Figure 4.
CEMS Metering Suite
(Source: DNV GL, used

with permission)
Volume 3, Number 2
29
30
Figure 5. Change in Work-from-Home Frequency Before and During Covid-19


Volume 3, Number 2
Figure 6. Whole Home Load Profile by End Use Before and During Covid-19
31
COVID-19). The data demonstrate water heating and space heating

(heat pump) as driving the majority of the load increase. Other end
uses have increased as well, including a clothes dryer, cooking appli-
ance, and non-dedicated circuits (e.g., lighting and plug loads). There
is also a noticeable shift in the time of day of peak usage for major end
uses (e.g., water heater, dryer, stove/range), which is likely attributed to
more cooking and cleaning at home, people working from home, and
children educated from home.
Another example of the impact of COVID-19 is shown in Figure 7.
In this figure, the average use of a single burner on the range is shown
in April 2019 (pre-COVID-19) and April 2020 (during COVID-19).
The data for this home show a total average daily kW increase in 2020,
most significantly during the weekday, and a noticeable shift in the time
of day the burner was used during the weekday.
Further analysis is planned to quantify the regional impact on
home energy use during each phase of COVID-19. This analysis, com-
bined with analysis on the CEMS sample once completed, will pro-
vide a more comprehensive and robust characterization of the energy
impacts of COVID-19.
CONCLUSION
Data from the EULR project will be useful to academic research-

ers, consultants, electric utilities, and energy-related government agen-
cies for many years to come. Using HEMS data on the more than 200
residences continuously collected to date, research is planned or has
already begun on the distribution system impacts of distributed energy
resources, electric transmission planning, end use and building model-
ing, and to characterize electric heat pump control logic, especially as
it pertains to electric resistance back-up mode during cold weather.
While COVID-19 has suspended the recruitment of HEMS homes
and CEMS buildings until mid-to-late 2021, the data currently being
collected will be instrumental in understanding the short- and long-
term impacts of COVID-19 on energy use consumption patterns. The
EULR project provides the opportunity to track and measure long-
term changes in end-use energy consumption patterns with metered

Volume 3, Number 2
Figure 7. Home Range Burner Average Hourly Load: Weekday and Weekend,
Before and During Covid-19. (Source: Evergreen Economics, used with per-
mission)
33
data from across the Northwest before, during and after the COVID-19
pandemic.
In the meantime, 15-minute interval data from HEMS can be
downloaded free of charge on NEEA’s website: https://neea.org/
data/end-use-load-research/hems.
References
(ELCAP 1984). End-use Load and Conservation Assessment Program Overview: Objectives and
Methods. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. July 1984.
(RBSA 2019). Residential Building Stock Assessment II Single Family Homes Report. Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance, Portland, Oregon. March 2019.
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Graham Parker CEM, CEA, is the President of Graham Parker
& Associates, LLC. Mr. Parker is a retired former Emeritus staff at the
Department of Energy’s (DOE) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL). In his nearly 46 years at PNNL, he focused on the design, con-
duct and analysis of the evaluations of the performance of buildings
and equipment. He has worked with domestic and international clients
to develop and promulgate energy policies, improve building energy
and water efficiency and deploy new and emerging technologies.
Mr. Parker is a Chemical Engineer graduate of Oregon State Uni-
versity. He is a Fellow in the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE)
and a member of the AEE Hall of Fame. He is a Certified Energy
Manager and Certified Energy Auditor. He is a member of the Work-
ing Group for the Northwest End-Use Load Research Project and
serves on the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Regional
Technical Forum. He is the 2005 recipient of the Presidential Award
for Leadership in Federal Energy Management and the 2017 recip-
ient of the Tom Eckman Lifetime Achievement Award for Energy
Efficiency.
David Clement is a Senior Program Manager with the Northwest

Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA). He leads the Northwest End Use
Load Research project, consisting of the Home Energy Metering Study
(HEMS) and the Commercial Energy Metering Study (CEMS). In prior
positions, David was Director of Resource Planning, Forecasting, and
Analysis for Seattle City Light, where he led five integrated resource
plans (IRPs). He also was Director of the Electric Transmission and
Western Energy Services at Cambridge Energy Research Associates,
where he consulted on regulatory policy, regional transmission organi-
zation market design, resource planning, renewables development, and
institutional investments. At PacifiCorp, he managed Corporate Stra-
tegic Planning, and worked in the Economic Development and Load
Forecasting Departments. His thesis for a Masters in Agricultural and
Resource Economics was selected for presentation at a National Acad-
emy of Sciences Annual Meeting.
U.S. Department of
Energy Solar Decathlon*
Amanda R. Kirkeby
Zachary A. Peterson
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Decathlon® Design

Challenge is a collegiate competition that challenges student teams to
design high-performance buildings that push the boundaries of the
industry. In the 2020 Design Challenge, DOE piloted the Design Part-
ners Program, a low-risk opportunity for builders and building owners
to harness student innovation and explore zero energy design for current
or upcoming projects. Design Partners provide a student team of archi-
tects and engineers with project requirements. By the end of the Design
Challenge, Design Partners receive a zero-energy design alternative and
cost estimate for their project. The collaboration allows Design Partners
to incorporate innovative concepts such as grid-interactivity, resilience,
and low embodied carbon in a low-risk environment. It also provides the
future generation of engineers and architects with invaluable experience
designing a building for a client under real-world circumstances. This
article summarizes the current policy, technology, health, and economic
trends that make zero energy buildings desirable and feasible, and pres-
ents the value of the Solar Decathlon to industry. We highlight inno-
vative solutions 2020 Design Partner pilot projects are bringing to the
building industry.
INTRODUCTION
In 2018, the buildings sector—including both residential and com-

mercial structures—accounted for 20% of global delivered energy con-
sumption [1]. Offering significant opportunities for energy savings, the
*Based on a paper presented at the 2020 Virtual AEE World Energy Conference.
building sector is slowly evolving to address energy efficiency through

high-performance design strategies. High-performance buildings extend
beyond energy efficiency and energy security to include comprehen-
sive building science, optimized mechanical systems, healthy indoor air
quality, enhanced occupant experience, and resilience. With current
socio-economic and climate issues, there is an increasing demand for
high-performance buildings to prioritize affordability, comfort, health,
durability, and safety.
Some educational programs around the globe lack consistent train-
ing curricula that provide the architecture, engineering, and construc-
tion management skills needed to effectively integrate high-performance
building measures. Emerging crises related to affordability, human
health, disaster risks, and water shortages are increasing the value of
these skills. To address the shortage of necessary design skills and assist
academic institutions to effectively integrate them into their degree pro-
grams, DOE inaugurated a high-performance building design competi-
tion in 2014 known as the Race to Zero Student Design Competition.
As of 2019, this competition is now known as the U.S. Department of
Energy Solar Decathlon® Design Challenge and focuses on two critical
goals: to integrate high performance with design in degree programs,
and to inspire students to enter sustainable building careers.
Competition results during the past 6 years demonstrate substantial
success toward these goals, including:
• More than 250% growth in the number of teams participating, from
28 teams in 2014 [2] to 103 teams in 2021 Design Challenge [3]
• Feedback from Faculty Advisors suggesting more than 500% growth
in the number of participating programs that have integrated the
Design Challenge into their curricula [4]
• Deep engagement with participating students reinforcing how
life-changing the competition experience is, solidifying their commit-
ment to sustainable building careers [4].
Through industry engagement and the Design Partners Program,
the Solar Decathlon Design Challenge is bringing real-world solutions
to current real-world issues in the building industry. Simultaneously,
the competition trains the next generation of the building workforce
with the skills and passion to create future-ready buildings.
COMPETITION BACKGROUND
The Solar Decathlon Design Challenge is a collegiate competition

comprising 10 contests that challenges student teams to design highly
efficient and innovative buildings powered by renewable energy [4].
There are 7 total divisions, including residential and commer-
cial building types. The Residential Divisions include Suburban Sin-
gle-Family Housing, Urban Single-Family Housing, and Attached
Housing. The Commercial Divisions include Elementary School,
Mixed-Use Multifamily Building, Office Building, and Retail Building.
The fundamental focus of the Solar Decathlon Design Challenge
is building science. Each participating student completes a building
science training curriculum provided by DOE to develop a strong
foundational understanding of building science and zero energy build-
ing design principles. Designs are evaluated on the understanding of
environmental challenges and the effective application of building sci-
ence strategies to address them. In tandem with building science con-
siderations, submitted designs are evaluated in 10 contests: architec-
ture, engineering, market analysis, durability and resilience, embodied
environmental impact, integrated performance, occupant experience,
comfort and environmental quality, energy performance, and presenta-
tion. The criteria entailed within each contest challenge student teams
to address all aspects of high-performance building design. Success-
ful designs integrate each design consideration into a cohesive design.
Each contest is outlined briefly next and references the Solar Decath-
lon 2021 Design Challenge Rules [4].
Architecture
Elegant, yet functional architecture positions a building for suc-
cessful market acceptance. The Architecture contest evaluates student
submissions in their ability to employ architecture to marry aesthetics
with effective building science, energy efficiency, occupant experience,
comfort, natural ventilation, energy production, and resilience.
Engineering
Efficient building design is achieved through integration of thought-
ful engineering. The Engineering contest considers the informed selec-
tion and design of all building envelope components and building
systems, including lighting, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and cool-

ing. Designs are evaluated with a holistic approach to building system
design that optimizes resource efficiency with system performance to
successfully address climate, code, and occupant experience consider-
ations.
Market Analysis
Providing effective zero energy alternatives that are financially fea-
sible is essential to successful adoption. The Market Analysis contest
evaluates an understanding of the target market with considerations
toward affordability, likelihood of adoption by intended occupants, and
cost-effectiveness of the design. This includes detailed financial analy-
sis of construction materials, with attention to life-cycle costs. Success-
ful designs also exhibit flexibility and adaptability to changing needs
of occupants to ensure the building meets the demands of the target
market.
Durability and Resilience

To address increasing demand for resiliency and energy security
in the building sector, the Durability and Resilience contest challenges
designs to incorporate materials and strategies that enhance the lon-
gevity and resiliency of the building. In addition to strategic material
selection and building envelope design, the contest evaluates designs on
the ability for the building to react to natural or manmade disruptions.
Embodied Environmental Impact

Many building materials harbor hidden environmental impacts
along their production line or upon end-of-life. The Embodied Envi-
ronmental Impact contest challenges teams to look beyond the final
product and examine environmental impact from material extraction,
manufacturing, transportation, construction, and lifetime. Evaluation
criteria consider the circular economy and the full life cycle of a build-
ing, from cradle to grave. This includes considerations of reclamation,
refurbishment, repair, reuse, and recycling of materials throughout the
building’s life cycle.
Integrated Performance
To emphasize the importance of an integrated design approach,
the Integrated Performance contest evaluates how effectively the

whole-building performance is optimized through passive and active
strategies that cross multiple building disciplines. A successful integrat-
ed design employs architectural and engineering elements that comple-
ment each other for optimal performance. For example, a building that
is properly oriented will more effectively capture passive heating, cool-
ing, ventilation, and lighting. Without one design element (e.g., build-
ing orientation), additional energy-consuming systems are required
to provide the dependent design element for interior conditions (e.g.,
mechanical HVAC).
Occupant Experience
Human-centric design is essential to successful adoption and uti-
lization of a high-performance buildings. The Occupant Experience
contest places the human experience at the center of the design strat-
egy, evaluating how the building optimizes occupants’ quality of life
while meeting the energy performance goals. This includes strategies
for efficiency, comfort, health, and safety that address operational
expectations of consumers and thoughtful selection of technologies
and appliances that are integrated into the overall design.
Comfort and Environmental Quality

Well-designed buildings provide both a comfortable and healthy
indoor environment. The Comfort and Environmental Quality con-
test evaluates the building’s capability to deliver intended comfort and
indoor environmental quality. To provide a healthy indoor environ-
ment, the design must include a comprehensive approach to indoor air
quality that incorporates ventilation, filtration, dilution, and material
selection strategies. For occupants to be comfortable, the building must
be able to control temperature and relative humidity levels, as well as
reduce exterior noise infiltration.
Energy Performance
Effective whole-building energy analysis and decision-making is the
foundation for energy performance. The Energy Performance contest
evaluates reduction of whole-building energy consumption, ability to
generate clean energy that is needed onsite, and interaction with local
grid operations. As a central component of the competition criteria,
energy performance considerations challenge student teams to develop

innovative strategies for incorporating energy efficiency measures into
their designs.
Presentation
Innovative design is insufficient on its own; presentation quality can
dramatically affect consumer perception and the likelihood of inno-
vation being adopted. The Presentation contest evaluates the student
teams on their ability to effectively communicate their design strategies,
both verbally and visually. This contest challenges the students develop
essential communication skills to convey value to a diverse audience
and inspire future professionals, incumbent industry leaders, and the
public to pursue energy efficiency and renewable energy opportunities.
INDUSTRY IMPACT
A significant component of the Solar Decathlon Design Challenge

is industry engagement. Student teams partner with industry experts to
inform specific aspects of design and gain real-world knowledge of the
building design process. This provides students with the unique oppor-
tunity to learn current strategies for efficient, integrated system design
and addresses building science considerations from leaders in the build-
ing industry. Industry engagement serves as a positive feedback loop,
with the fresh perspective of students inspiring industry experts and
industry leaders inspiring young professionals entering the industry.
The impact of the Solar Decathlon Design Challenge is not sim-
ply an educational experience for students entering the workforce; the
competition provides a low-risk testbed for innovative technologies and
for organizations to explore zero energy alternatives for current or
future projects.
DESIGN PARTNERS PROGRAM
To lower the bar of entry and increase adoption of high-perfor-

mance buildings, the Solar Decathlon Design Partners Program pro-
vides a unique, low-risk opportunity for organizations considering a
zero-energy ready design for a planned or existing building project.

The program partners builders and building owners with partici-
pating student teams in a client relationship, with the student teams
working with the Design Partner to design a zero-energy design alter-
native that meets project requirements.
The Design Partner Program allows builders and building owners
to explore zero energy design alternatives for current or future proj-
ects and visualize potential cost and energy savings, removing a large
barrier to zero energy adoption—fear of the unknown. Furthermore,
it provides an opportunity to incorporate innovative concepts such as
grid-interactivity, resilience, and low embodied carbon in a low-risk
environment.
All teams participating in the Solar Decathlon Design Challenge
are strongly encouraged to work with a Design Partner as a client.
Building owners and builders submit project opportunities to the
Solar Decathlon, which are then made available to student teams
through public posting on the Solar Decathlon website. Student teams
engage Design Partners through posted project opportunities or pro-
active engagement of an interested building owner in their imme-
diate communities. Once a partnership is established, participating
Design Partners provide student teams with project requirements
and design constraints. Design Partners meet with student teams for
no more than 30 hours over the course of the competition (January
through April) to attend design charrettes and review design deci-
sions throughout the process. The final competition deliverable is a
complete design package that is provided to the Design Partner, with
design documents, energy performance metrics, and financial and life
cycle analysis.
Design Partners is a win-win for both parties involved: student
teams gain real-world experience working with a client and the Design
Partner receives a real-world zero energy alternative to a project in
their portfolio. During the pilot of this program in the 2020 Design
Challenge, five successful Design Partnerships were formed. Three of
these Design Partnerships are highlighted next as case studies of the
success of Solar Decathlon Design Challenge in bringing high-per-
formance building solutions to the building sector.

Volume 3, Number 2
Figure 1. Interior Rendering from Purdue University of the Zero Energy James Cole Elementary School Designed
for Tippecanoe School Corporation. [Image Credit: Purdue University Solar Decathlon team]
43
James Cole Elementary School, Stockwell, Indiana

Purdue University’s student team partnered with Tippecanoe School
Corporation to design a zero-energy elementary school as a response
to increasing energy expenditures. The existing school structure was
constructed in 1988 with “energy efficiency at its core, integrating an
innovative earth berm design, daylighting, and geothermal heating/
cooling” [5]. The Purdue University team proposed a retrofit strate-
gy to improve existing energy efficiency strategies and transform the
school to a zero-energy facility (Figure 1). The design recommissioned
existing mechanical systems and incorporates smart lighting controls
to reduce energy use. Beyond energy efficiency, the Purdue University
team incorporated their novel “Biowall” technology that utilizes plant
material to filter incoming air, providing a case study for using the Solar
Decathlon Design Challenge as a successful testing ground for novel
technology solutions.
The result of the partnership was a zero-energy school that could
be used as a model for other schools. The Purdue University team was
rewarded for their successful design with second place in the Elementa-
ry School Division for the 2020 Design Challenge.
The SOlar URban CEnter (SOURCE),

City of Alexandria, Virginia
The Washington-Alexandria Architecture Center (WAAC) at Vir-
ginia Tech partnered with the City of Alexandria, Virginia to restore
an existing historic structure into an urban office center. In support of
the City of Alexandria’s carbon and greenhouse emission reduction
goals, the WAAC Solar Decathlon team designed a zero-energy retrofit
for an iconic building downtown. The budget of the project was $40
million, and construction is planned for 2023–2025.
Through this partnership, the City of Alexandria was presented
with a model for renovating historic structures that incorporates resil-
iency through a microgrid design and reduces environmental impact
through rainwater collection, shown in Figure 2. This successful part-
nership illustrates the ability for Solar Decathlon student teams to
bring direct positive impact to their immediate communities through
innovative high-performance building design grounded in real-world
solutions.

Volume 3, Number 2
Figure 2. Schematic Diagram of the SOURCE, the Solar Urban Center, Washington Alexandria Archi-
tecture Center’s Restoration of a Historic Building in Downtown Alexandria. [Image Credit: WAAC
Solar Decathlon team]
45
Henry Smothers Elementary School Modernization

The University of District of Columbia (UDC) Solar Decathlon
team partnered with District of Columbia Public Schools to mod-
ernize the local Henry Smothers Elementary School. The design
proposes an addition to the existing structure, originally constructed
in 1923, to realign the school with the District of Columbia Public
School educational specifications. UDC’s approach, a “Handshake
with History,” embraces and preserves the existing historical struc-
ture while expanding classroom spaces and incorporating aspects of
modern education, including discovery common spaces and outdoor
learning spaces.
The design effectively transforms the historic school into a micro-
grid that serves as a resilient community relief center for unforeseen
events like power outages. The incorporation of strategic energy
reduction measures, including optimized daylighting using circadian
rhythm lighting design and reduction of plug loads, led to a modeled
energy use intensity of 10 kBtu/ft 2-yr (Figure 3). With an anticipated
cost of $210/ft 2, the design fits the budget constraints initially pro-
posed of $38 million. Construction is anticipated in 2021.
CONCLUSION
The U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon is a collegiate

building design competition that provides the future generation of
building and clean energy professionals with the real-world experi-
ence and multidisciplinary skills needed to accelerate adoption of
high-performance buildings. The Design Challenge contests drive
student teams to consider all aspects of building design, from archi-
tecture to market analysis to occupant experience. Through these
evaluation criteria, the Solar Decathlon Design Challenge develops a
solid groundwork of fundamental, physics-based building science and
integrated high-performance, energy-efficient design principles. The
competition is also a platform for young professionals to engage with
industry experts and develop career connections. Beyond an educa-
tional experience, the Solar Decathlon Design Challenge harnesses
student creativity to bring innovative solutions directly to the real
Figure 3. Schemat-
ic Diagram of the
Geothermal HVAC

System Design in
the University of
District of Colum-
bia’s Proposal for
Modernizing the
Henry Smothers
Elementary School.
(Image Credit: UDC
Solar Decathlon
Team)
Volume 3, Number 2
47
world, directly impacting the current building industry.

Specifically, the Design Partners Program provides organizations
with the opportunity to partner with a student team and explore a
zero-energy alternative to a current or future project in a low-risk envi-
ronment. In doing so, the Solar Decathlon Design Challenge works to
ensure an energy secure future through educating the next generation
of building professionals and providing builders and building owners
with a low-risk opportunity to incorporate innovative high-perfor-
mance building technologies and design practices into current, real-
world projects.
References
[1] “Global Energy Consumption Driven by More Electricity in Residential, Commercial
Buildings.” U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 21 Oct. 2019. Available at
www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41753 (accessed January 27, 2021).
[2] U.S. Department of Energy Race to Zero Student Design Competition: 2014 Results. U.S.
Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/2014-results (accessed January 27, 2021).
[3] U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon: 2021 Design Challenge Teams. U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy Solar Decathlon. Available at https://www.solardecathlon.gov/2021/
design/challengesteams.html (accessed January 27, 2021).
[4] U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon 2021 Design Challenge Rules. PDF. July
2020. Available at https://www.solardecathlon.gov/2021/assets/pdfs/sd-designchal-
lenge-rules.pdf (accessed January 27, 2021).
[5] U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon 2020 Design Challenge Results. Project
Summary: Purdue University. PDF. April 2020. Available at https://www.solardecathlon.
gov/2020/assets/pdfs/ES_Second%20Place_Purdue%20_Univeristy_Project_Summary.
pdf (accessed January 27, 2021).
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Amanda R. Kirkeby is an energy engineer at the National Renew-
able Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the Integrated Applications Cen-
ter’s Applied Engineering group. She supports the U.S. Department
of Energy Solar Decathlon Design Challenge and the development of
resources for high-performance laboratories and other building-sys-
tems-related initiatives. Amanda Kirkeby has a bachelor’s in physics
from Middlebury College, Vermont, and was a member of the Mid-
dlebury’s winning Zero Energy Elementary School Team in the 2018
Race to Zero Student Building Design Competition (now the Solar
Decathlon Design Challenge). Amanda Kirkeby may be contacted via

email at Amanda.Kirkeby@nrel.gov.
Zachary A. Peterson is a technical project manager in NREL’s

Integrated Application Center’s Strategy, Policy, and Implementation
group. Zac leads complex energy projects that empower decision mak-
ers with the knowledge to adopt renewable energy and energy efficiency
strategies by providing solutions to accelerate clean energy transitions.
Zac is the assistant competition manager for the Decathlon Design
Challenge, which has inspired more than 3,100 collegiate students in 6
years to be the next generation to design zero energy buildings. Zac’s
work also focuses on grid modernization, distributed energy resource
integration, and grid-interactive buildings. Zac Peterson may be con-
tacted via email at Zachary.Peterson@nrel.gov.
Illinois Solar for All: Providing Access to

Solar for Low-Income Communities*
Jan E. Gudell, CEM
ABSTRACT
The Illinois Solar for All (ILSFA) Program provides access to the
clean energy economy for low-income communities through incentives
that make solar installations more affordable and result in measurable
savings for participants. Launched in 2019, this program creates oppor-
tunities for low-income households to benefit from rooftop solar onsite.
It also provides incentives to install solar on non-profit and public facili-
ties, and to develop community solar installations in the state of Illinois.
The Future Energy Jobs Act (FEJA), the clean energy legislation that
mandated this program, requires that tangible economic benefits flow
to program participants, that incentives are provided to projects in envi-
ronmental justice communities, and that job training opportunities are
provided. The ILSFA Program also provides extensive consumer protec-
tions and a project review process that validates site suitability to ensure
energy and renewable energy credit (REC) production and low-income
participant benefits. This article will include an overview of FEJA and
ILSFA programs, including program development and progress. The
discussion will include how the lessons learned in the first two years were
incorporated in the programs for continuous improvement.
FUTURE ENERGY JOBS ACT
The Future Energy Jobs Act (FEJA) (Senate Bill 2814) is one of the
most significant pieces of energy legislation to pass the Illinois Gen-
eral Assembly. It offers a variety of features to strengthen and expand
energy efficiency and renewable energy markets and services in Illinois
while also providing funding to establish job training programs. The law
became effective June 1, 2017.
FEJA directs a budget from utility companies of approximately $180
million annually to procure renewable energy produced in Illinois. This
requires at least 4,300 megawatts of new solar and wind power1—enough
electricity to power millions of homes—to be built in Illinois by 2030.
Most new solar development in Illinois occurs through the purchase
of renewable energy credits (RECs) by the Illinois Power Agency (IPA),
the state office in charge of managing large investor-owned electric util-
ity power purchases and ensuring that such purchases meet the state’s
Renewable Portfolio Standard2, which mandates that 25 percent of retail
power comes from new renewable sources.
The passage of FEJA enabled the development of two new state-
wide solar programs: The Adjustable Block Program (ABP), also known
as “Illinois Shines,” and Illinois Solar for All. Both programs are over-
seen by the IPA, the chief distinction between them being the ABP is
market rate, while Illinois Solar for All supports low-income customers,
non-profits and public sector entities. While there are numerous market
rate programs across the U.S., there are comparatively fewer low-income
programs. This article looks at Illinois Solar for All.
OVERVIEW OF ILLINOIS SOLAR FOR ALL
The Illinois Solar for All (ILSFA) program provides greater access
to the clean energy economy and solar energy to low-income house-
holds, non-profit organizations, and public facilities across the state
through incentives that help make solar installations more affordable.
ILSFA launched in May 2019, accepting applications for new solar proj-
ects in Illinois. Approved vendors—the entities that develop solar proj-
ects—submitted their first applications for ILSFA’s three sub-programs:
1New renewable energy includes wind and photovoltaic projects energized after June 1, 2017, or
for wind, “within 3 years after the date the [Illinois Commerce] Commission approves contracts
for subsequent delivery years.” See the Illinois Power Agency Act (20 ILCS 3855) section (c)(1)(C)iii
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=2934&ChapterID=5
2FEJA helped repair Illinois’ “broken Renewable Portfolio Standard. See the Illinois Power Agency
“Long Term Renewable Procurement Plan” p. 6.

1) Low-income Distributed Generation (DG), 2) Non-profit and Public

Facilities (NP/PF) and 3) Community Solar (CS) projects. ILSFA is a
market-driven program, meaning that the projects are developed by the
approved vendors and the relationships they cultivate with end use cus-
tomers, or “participants” as they are called in the program. The team
that administers ILSFA has minimal contact with participants and, by
design, is not part of the sales process for solar systems.
Thus, approved vendors play a vital role in the program by interact-
ing directly with customers or through a partnership with designees—
another entity that can act in most regards as an approved vendor but
does not serve as the counterparty to the ILSFA REC contracts.
ILSFA INCENTIVE—REC PRICES
What ILSFA offers to approved vendors is a high REC price and a

long-term contract that buys 15 years of REC generation upfront. After
an approved system is energized it submits for payment on the REC
agreement. The upfront payment is attractive to developers who, pri-
or to ILSFA, did not have access to incentive funding (grants or REC
purchase) to make low-income PV projects financially viable. While the
cost of photovoltaic (PV) systems has dropped significantly over the past
decade, it is still out of reach for most low-income residents without sub-
sidy, where low-income is defined in Illinois Solar for All as having house-
hold incomes at or less than 80% of Area Median Income.3 The REC
prices help make the Illinois low-income solar market viable.4
As an example, an 87-kW direct current (DC) non-profit/public
facility (NP/PF) project was awarded a REC contract which is expected
to pay out $148,923 for the purchase of 1256 RECs—15 years of pro-
duction—at a price of $118.57 /REC.
A 5.9-kW DC distributed generation (DG) project for a low-income
single-family household is expected to pay an approved vendor $16,455
for a REC award where the REC price is $143.09 /REC for a total of
115 RECs.
3See the table of maximum income for households to be eligible for Illinois Solar for All: https://
www.illinoissfa.com/app/uploads/2019/02/0219-ILSFA-income-chart-v4.pdf
4See the ILSFA REC prices at https://www.illinoissfa.com/renewable-energy-credit-prices/
Tables 1 through 4 illustrate ILSFA REC prices. Group A is for proj-

ects located in the service territories of Ameren Illinois, MidAmerican,
Mt. Carmel Public Utility, and rural electric cooperatives and munici-
pal utilities located in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator
(MISO).
Group B is for projects located in the service territories of Common-
wealth Edison (ComEd), and rural electric cooperatives and municipal
utilities located in PJM.
Table 1.
Low-Income Distributed Generation Incentive (1-to-4-unit buildings) ($/REC)
Table 2.
Low-Income Distributed Generation Incentive (5+ unit buildings) ($/REC)
ILSFA PROGRAM FUNDING
The ILSFA program is funded through three sources. First, the

Renewable Energy Resources Fund pursuant to Section 1-56(b)(2) of the
Illinois Power Agency Act is administered by the Illinois Power Agency
to purchase renewable energy credits. Second, funds from the renewable
energy resources budgets of the utilities pursuant to Section 1-75(c)(1)(O)
Table 3. Non-Profit/Public Facilities Incentive ($/REC)
Table 4. Community Solar Incentive ($/REC)
of the IPA Act. Finally, the potential additional funds from the renewable
resources budgets of the utilities pursuant to Section 16-108(k) of the
Public Utilities Act. Table 5 depicts the published project budgets for the
first two years of the program, exclusive of administration costs. Unal-
located funds within a sub-program from each program year are rolled
over to the following program year.
Table 5. ILSFA Funding, Program Years 1 and 2

APPROVED VENDORS
All ILSFA projects are developed by approved vendors who are vet-
ted and approved by the program administrator. Approved vendors are
the contractual counterparty to either the IPA or an Illinois electric util-
ity for renewable energy credits (RECs) purchased through ILSFA. As
such, Approved Vendors are the entity receiving payments from the IPA
or utility for REC delivery as contract obligations are met.
The approved vendor model helps to ensure the accuracy and qual-
ity of information submitted to the program administrator and reduce
the administrative burden on the contractual counterparties. Approved
vendors are required to work within prescribed guidelines that govern
their interaction with the marketplace and program participants. These
requirements ensure consumers are protected against unsafe and unfair
business practices and are designed to minimize risk to participants.
Approved vendors are first registered in the Adjustable Block Pro-
gram (ABP), and then ILSFA. Once approved in the ABP, approved
vendors can apply to ILSFA. REC contracts for both programs are pro-
cessed by the ABP program administrator, thus going through ABP regis-
tration process first ensures that approved vendors are screened for their
ability to legitimately conduct business in Illinois and legally act as the
counterparty for the REC agreement. By completing registration in the
ABP, approved vendors have access to the ABP target market and fund-
ing. Currently there are 52 approved vendors in ILSFA.
APPROVED VENDOR TRAINING
The program administration team provides training resources to

keep approved vendors informed of ILSFA rules, procedures, require-
ments and goals. Live and recorded webinars cover key topics including:
• Approved vendor registration
• Job training requirements
• Project and participant eligibility and verification
• Project installation QA/QC
• Project selection
• Program changes and updates

• Project application submittal.
Each approved vendor is partnered with a specific program adminis-

tration staff member who is available to provide guidance and updates on
program rules, procedures and changes, and to answer specific questions
approved vendors may have about their projects.
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS
Even well-intentioned approved vendors can potentially convey con-

fusing or misleading information about program, system, or contract
requirements and benefits, leading to financial hardship to customers
and burdensome resolution processes for the program administrator or
other agencies. ILSFA has a variety of consumer protection features that
help ensure low-income customers receive tangible value and do not
enter into agreements that are financially disadvantageous for them.
Standard Disclosures
Approved vendors must complete standard disclosure forms and
provide these to participants prior to contract execution. Standard dis-
closures include system equipment and components, warranty, financial
terms, total costs and fees, projected energy production and savings, and
other important information. Disclosures for Low-Income Distributed
Generation projects must be presented to participants at least 7 days
prior to contract execution, and the participant has 7 days after contract
execution to cancel.
Costs and Savings

Approved vendors are required to offer participants access to solar
projects with no upfront cost, and any ongoing costs and fees are not to
exceed 50% of the value of energy generated by the system, regardless
of whether the system is owned, leased, or financed through a power
purchase agreement (PPA).
Financial Requirements
Financing amounts, terms, and conditions must be based on an
assessment of the participant’s ability to repay the debt, as defined by

federal requirements.
Any loans must not be secured by the participant’s home or home
equity. Contracts must include a forbearance option and cannot include
penalties for pre-payment.
Marketing Requirements
All approved vendors must adhere to comprehensive guidelines that
govern the information used in marketing materials and the behavior of
vendors in their interactions with participants. Marketing requirements
include the use of standardized brochures that must be presented to all
participants.
Quality Workmanship
Approved vendors are fully vetted and must adhere to technical
system requirements to ensure efficient system performance, as well as
adhere to all local ordinances governing building codes, permitting, and
zoning. In addition, there are requirements that approved vendors meet
minimum site suitability guidelines and must allow all installations to
undergo photo and onsite inspections by program administrator techni-
cians.
Performance Assurance
Five percent collateral as a percent of REC contract value must be
posted for a system within 30 business days of project approval. Under-
performance by any system in either REC deliveries or community solar
subscriptions can trigger a collateral drawdown.
PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS
In each program year (PY), the ILSFA program offers one or more
project submission window(s) to allow for project review and selection.
When a sub-program is oversubscribed—when incentive values for sub-
mitted projects are higher than the available budget in a given program
year—the program administrator will apply a project selection protocol
to select projects most closely aligned with program goals. If the incen-
tive value of eligible projects submitted during the project submission
window does not exceed the available sub-program budget, a rolling-sub-

mission window is opened, and projects are evaluated on a first-come,
first-served basis until the sub-program budget is reached or until the end
of the program year, whichever comes first.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
Projects are reviewed for eligibility based on the requirements set

out in the ILSFA Approved Vendor Manual. Projects may be found inel-
igible for various reasons, most frequently due to not having complet-
ed interconnection agreements with the electric utilities. Other issues
may include incomplete documentation, such as unsigned contracts,
and technical deficiencies, such as not taking shading into account when
designing systems.
Eligibility for ILSFA varies by sub-program, with specific requirements
for participants and project types. These differences require that each sub-
program have distinct eligibility descriptions and verification processes
that are laid out in the ILSFA Approved Vendor Manual, a comprehensive
guidebook that contains the program rules and requirements.
Income Eligibility
In the DG and community solar sub-programs participants are Illinois
households whose annual income must be 80% or less of area median
income. Other than an anchor tenant, which is not a low-income house-
hold, all community solar subscribers must be low-income households.
DG Projects
DG projects must be installed behind a customer’s meter and are
used to offset the load of one or more qualifying residential households
occupying that property. An example DG project would be a 5-kW system
on the roof of a residential home, or a 30-kW system on a multi-family
building off-setting the common-area meter load.
Non-Profit/Public Facilities Projects

Non-Profit/Public Facilities (NP/PF) projects are installed onsite,
behind a customer’s meter, and used primarily to offset a single custom-
er’s load. The NP/PF incentive is intended to provide funding for PV
projects located on buildings serving non-profit customers or public facil-
ities. NP/PF projects must be located within an ILSFA-qualified low-in-

come community5 or within an environmental justice area6 in the state
of Illinois. Low income and identifying environmental justice communi-
ties is important for Illinois Solar for All because a quarter of all program
incentives are targeted to projects that are in or serving environmental
justice communities. One goal of the Illinois Solar for All program is to
allocate 25% of funding toward environmental justice communities.
Community Solar Projects

Community solar (CS) projects are interconnected directly to the
utility’s distribution system. CS projects are installed anywhere within
a utility service territory and can be subscribed to by residents who live
within that utility service territory. Subscribers to a LICS (low-income
community solar) project must be low-income residential households or
an anchor subscriber, which may be any ratepaying entity, including a
non-low-income residential household, a business, a non-profit organiza-
tion, or a public entity.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
The ILSFA program administration staff includes a team of ven-

dor managers who cultivate one on one working relationships with the
approved vendors. Vendor managers provide on-boarding orientation,
on-going education, training and assistance to approved vendors so that
they can submit eligible projects. Major revisions to program documenta-
tion, rules and processes are typically presented through an online webi-
nar open to existing and prospective approved vendors, giving approved
vendors a chance to directly ask questions of the program administration
team. Approved vendors are also able to contact vendor managers by
phone or email with questions on submitted or prospective project appli-
cations to help ensure that project development is on the right track.
5Low-income communities are defined as census tracts having a majority (50% or greater) of house-
holds at 80% or less of AMI.
6Environmental justice communities are identified through a methodology that multiplies the aver-
age of exposures and environmental effects with average socioeconomic factors. The calculation
identifies the top 25% of qualifying census block groups across the state.
Technical and Documentation Review

Projects submitted into the program undergo a thorough review of
many elements including:
• System
– One-line drawing
– Alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC) equipment
make and model, quantities, ratings cut sheets/UL listings
– Layout
– AC and DC capacity
– Structural and BOS sheets
– Interconnection agreement
– Annual kWh production
– Onsite inspection
• Site and Customer Info
– Photos of AC and DC equipment installation location
– Photos of roof surface, or ground mount location and surround-
ings
– Aerial views
– Shading analysis report
– Assessment report
▪ roof condition
▪ electrical system
▪ building structure
▪ permitting
– Billing/usage history
– Customer contract
– Site control
– Disclosure forms
– Community linkages
– Customer savings impact.
Vendor managers review several dozen data points on each project

through the process from the point it is first received into the program
all the way through project completion. At pre-determined points in the
review process, the approved vendor has the opportunity to correct iden-
tified project deficiencies within program regulations.
If, for example, deficiencies are identified in the site review, say, a
roof in poor condition, the approved vendor must present a mitigation
plan to address the issue(s) before the project is approved. Or, if the site
has obstructions (chimneys, rooftop units (RTUs), vents, parapets, near-
by buildings and trees) that would cause shading and thus reduce power
generation, the vendor manager ensures that project shading analysis
includes such obstructions to properly validate the system design and
REC production estimate. It would not be acceptable to permit a proj-
ect to move forward where the roof is in poor condition (advanced age,
visible ponding, curled shingles, cracks, etc.) without a clear plan demon-
strating how the roof will be repaired. The review process helps ensure
the system will produce for the contracted 15-year REC delivery term at
the projected REC quantities.
After the system is completed, approved by the authority having
jurisdiction and local utility, the program administrator conducts a visual
inspection of the project and reviews final documentation. Projects satis-
fying final requirements are authorized to submit an invoice for payment.
PROGRAM RESULTS
At the time of writing this article, the program has completed 2 full
program years, and is nearly complete with a third.
PY1: 2018-2019 CS Projects

Forty-five CS projects with an aggregate REC value of $170,671,249
were submitted during the PY1 project submission window. Projects
representing $130,099,340 in REC value were deemed eligible. The
incentive values were in excess of the available budget and triggered
the use of the project selection protocol – a process to select projects
most closely aligned with program goals. The project selection protocol
applies specific weights to projects in environmental justice communi-
ties and low-income communities, projects that include the participa-
tion of disadvantaged businesses, and diversity of utility territory and
project size in the overall eligible portfolio of projects. Ultimately four
projects totaling 3.9-MW (AC) of capacity and $11,372,133 REC val-
ue, were approved.

Thirty CS projects with an aggregate REC value of $167,938,938
were submitted during the PY2 project submission window. Fourteen of
these were resubmissions from PY1. Of the 30 submitted projects, 28
projects representing $157,788,936 were deemed eligible. The determi-
nation of eligible projects with incentive values in excess of the available
budget triggered the project selection protocol. Project selection resulted
in four selected projects.
PY1: 2018-2019 DG Projects

Only one 5+ unit (five or more units) multi-family residential proj-
ect was submitted during the 2018-2019 program year, but it was not
approved for funding.

During the 2019-2020 program year, one 5+ unit distributed gener-
ation project was submitted along with a batch of ten small single-fam-
ily distributed generation projects. Ultimately, 9 of the 10 single-family
projects were approved, along with the 5+ unit distributed generation
project.
PY1: 2018-2019 NP/PF Projects

Twenty-eight NP/PF projects with an aggregate REC value of
$7,740,860 were submitted during the 2018-2019 program year project
submission window. Of those, seven projects representing $2,764,612 in
REC value were deemed eligible and approved. The remaining budget
was rolled over to the next program year.

Twenty NP/PF projects with an aggregate REC value of $6,105,958
were submitted during the 2019-2020 program year’s initial project sub-
mission window. Of the 20 projects submitted in that initial window, a
total of 12 projects were deemed eligible and approved. Because this
did not result in an oversubscription, a rolling submission window was
opened. Thirteen additional projects were submitted and twelve were
found to be eligible and approved. Those projects represented an addi-
tional REC value of $2,590,429.

Seventeen projects with an aggregate REC value of $82,024,997
were submitted during the PY3 project window. Thirteen were deemed
eligible representing $55,441,514 in aggregate REC value. The deter-
mination of eligible projects with incentive values in excess of the avail-
able budget triggered the project selection protocol which resulted in the
selection of three projects with an aggregate REC value of $15,397,740.
Two of the projects will need to resize because their submitted budgets
exceed available funding.

At the time of this writing, the DG sub-program was in a rolling sub-
mission window. Eight projects representing $762,463 in aggregate REC
value were submitted and under review to determine eligibility status.

Thirty-five projects representing an aggregate REC value of
$11,707,507 were submitted. Twenty-one projects were deemed eligi-
ble, but incentive values exceeded the available budget and triggered the
project selection protocol resulting in the selection of 18 projects with an
aggregate REC value at $4,849,632.
SELECTED PROJECTS LOCATION
The map, Figure 1, depicts the location of approved projects in Illi-

nois. Owing to the size of the state and clustering of projects in certain
regions, individual projects are only visible by zooming in to a closer
view (using the online map). Red points represent low-income communi-
ty solar projects, blue represent non-profit/public facilities projects and
green are low-income distributed generation projects. The map of proj-
ects is available online at https://elevate.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webap-
pviewer/index.html?id=c37a6a8914ec4bc5861159175f9dfbcd.
The Champaign, IL, metro area, shown in Figure 2 for example,
hosts a cluster of ILSFA projects as a result the efforts of a few active
approved vendors.
Figure 1. Map of Approved Projects
LESSONS LEARNED
The first year of ILSFA was a learning curve for all involved with the
program. Solar, while being an increasingly popular generation technol-
ogy, is still new to most people in Illinois. The rules that govern Illinois
Solar for All are complex and require approved vendors to make a com-
mitment to study them, to ensure the projects they develop are eligible.
Ultimately, projects must be sold to participants, who are unfamiliar with
Figure 2. Approved Projects, Champaign Region
the complexities of Illinois Solar for All. Approved vendors have plen-
ty of work to do to assemble an eligible project. There are numerous
files and pieces of information that must be gathered and provided to
the program, each validated by program administration. This can be a
daunting and complicated process.
We found that the process of identifying required information
through review of the Approved Vendor Manual is difficult for many
approved vendors because the requirements are laid out in different sec-
tions, and the language in the manual can be difficult to follow. This can
lead to additional effort following up on items that are unclear or missing
from the project applications.
To make it easier for approved vendors to know what they need to
submit on their project applications, the program administration team
developed a Part I submissions guideline document, which functions as a
notated checklist, giving approved vendors clarifications on what is need-
ed to submit an application, all in one place. This helps approved ven-
dors save time and effort. In addition, the program administration team
produced a series of short training videos, covering a variety of practical
topics, to make things easier. The program administrator will continue to
develop helpful resources and enhancements that anticipate and respond
to approved vendor needs.
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Jan Gudell, CEM, PV Associate (NABCEP), has 16 years of
renewable energy and energy efficiency experience. He is a senior solar
program manager at Elevate Energy, a non-profit organization that
designs and implements programs to reduce costs and protect people
and the environment. In addition to being a Certified Energy Manager
(CEM), Jan Gudell is also a PV Associate certified by the North Amer-
ican Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP). Jan earned
a bachelor’s degree in science and technology studies at Cornell Uni-
versity and a master’s degree in environment and resource policy at
Tufts University. Jan Gudell can be reached via email at jan.gudell@
elevateenergy.org.
Independent Market Monitors

Around The World*
Johanna H.J. Koolemans-Beynen
ABSTRACT
In this article, I compare the responsibilities and performance of the

U.S. wholesale market monitors with those in Europe, and Latin Amer-
ica, particularly the Mexican, Colombian, and Chilean market moni-
tors. The independent market monitor is an organization or individual
retained by an independent system operator (ISO), Regional Transmis-
sion Operator (RTO),[1] the regulator, or another agency to impartially
implement market monitoring and mitigation business practices. The
IMM may report directly to the ISO’s Board of Directors, or to regula-
tors or to other instances and monitors activities of market participants
and local balancing authorities without interference from the ISO or
state regulatory agencies. The examples of independent market moni-
tors presented in this article provide a number of different approaches to
market monitoring, but it can be concluded that general good practices
in monitoring wholesale market monitoring include an emphasis on ex
ante, rather than ex post methods, and intensive and thorough data cap-
ture and analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Economic growth and development are impossible without reliable,

safe and affordable electricity. The UN’s sustainable development goals
[2] are impossible without access to electricity for all. Due to falling costs
and climate considerations, much of the electricity needed to supply the
estimated 850 million people currently lacking electricity [3], as well as
those who are currently undersupplied, will likely come from renewable
energy sources. Since evidence suggests that returns to scale will be less
important for these renewables [4], likely leading to an increasing rate of
growth of new generation projects entering the market, and since fixed
costs are a much more important part of their total costs, the degree of
competitiveness of wholesale markets will be key to incorporating these
new sources of electricity in a competitive manner. At the same time,
given the need for flexibility in incorporating these fuels, whose supply
can vary substantially from minute to minute, markets are likely to devel-
op a number of financial products, and increase demand for ancillary
services, leading to increased opportunities for market manipulation.
All of these factors mean that open, transparent, and competitive
wholesale markets with low barriers to entry and strong safeguards
against market manipulation will be key to satisfying world demand for
electricity in a low-coast, efficient way. The independent market moni-
tors are responsible for detecting attempts to exercise market power and
fraudulent behavior; evaluating market performance, detecting and sug-
gestions corrections for market design imperfections; analyzing transmis-
sion and generation blackouts, and assessing market participants’ behav-
ior. Given this description, the role played by the independent market
monitor, and the degree to which it is able to guarantee that wholesale
markets display these characteristics, is likely to be a linchpin of efforts
to integrate renewables.
BACKGROUND
The existence of a wholesale electricity market monitor is a fairly

recent development and came into being on the heels of electricity-sec-
tor reforms that began in Chile, before spreading to the U.K. and then
the U.S. and beyond. While reforms varied from country to country, they
typically included aspects such as privatization, deregulation, vertical
and horizontal break up of monopolies, and the establishment of inde-
pendent system operators and wholesale electricity markets.
Most of these reforms made some provision for monitoring these
newly created markets. As part of the U.K. reforms, grounded in the
Electricity Act of 1989, Offgem, the U.K. Office of Gas and Electric-
ity Markets was established in 1999; and the Federal Energy Regula-
tory Commission, (FERC) established its Market Observation Resource
Room only in the year after it published its order 2000, requiring the
creation of Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) [5].
Early efforts were less than impressive. In fact, the U.S. General
Accountability Office, then the General Accounting Office, noted in a
2002 study,
“To date, FERC’s initiatives to monitor competitive markets have
served more to help educate FERC’s staff about the new markets
than produce effective oversight efforts. For example, the agency’s
Market Observation Resource room makes a substantial amount
of market data available to staff in a readily usable format; how-
ever, this information has not yet been used to initiate an enforce-
ment action or to confirm or refute a problem identified elsewhere
in the agency.” [6]
Increasing evidence that deregulated markets needed more robust
monitoring efforts, notably the California energy crisis of 2001-2002 led
to a considerable ramp up of market monitoring efforts, including the
establishment of FERC’s Office of Market Investigations and Opera-
tions, now the Office of Enforcement. This crisis also gave impetus to
efforts to establish market monitor efforts at the RTOs, part of their
responsibility under FERC 2000. [7]
THE MARKET MONITOR AROUND THE WORLD
Not all countries have partially or fully deregulated wholesale elec-

tricity markets, but many of those who do either have an independent
market monitor or are contemplating establishing one. A number of
countries have their competition office monitor electricity markets, but
as we will see below, this approach has been less successful, due to the
highly specialized data and personnel needs of electricity-market moni-
toring. Although the general functions and responsibilities of the market
monitor do not differ greatly from market to market, there are a number
of small, but important differences in their powers and authorities. A
comparison of these differences can yield some useful conclusions.
In the U.S., as mentioned above, responsibility for market monitoring
at the federal level is assigned to FERC’s Office of Enforcement, which
has separate divisions for investigations, for audits and accounting, for
energy market oversight, and for analytics and surveillance. Their inter-
nal and external reports present the state of energy markets, analyze
trends, provide early warning on market issues, and makes recommen-
dations on corrective actions to the FERC Commission based on their
findings. [8]
In 2018, Division of Analytics and Surveillance surveilled over 36,000
hub and pricing nodes within the six ISO/RTOs and provided support
on approximately 50 investigations. In the same year, the Division of
Investigation staff opened 24 new investigations, closed 23 pending
investigations with no action and negotiated six settlements of over $149
million, including $83 million in civil penalties and over $66 million in
unjust profits; and the Division of Audits and Accounting completed 14
audits of energy companies, resulting in 209 recommendations for cor-
rective action and $185.1 million in refunds and recoveries. Finally, the
Division of Market Oversight continued analyzing market fundamen-
tals (including significant trends and developments), presented its annual
State of the Markets Report assessing significant events of the previous
year and its biannual reporting, and reached out to the filing community
to discuss potential system improvements and enhancements. [9]
In addition to its considerable resources, FERC also relies on the mar-
ket monitoring units of the RTOs, and many of the investigations and
audits mentioned above may have begun as referrals from the regional
level. In its Order 2000, FERC made no ruling or suggestion as to how
the RTOs would carry out these monitoring responsibilities, to allow for
differences in the organizational structure of RTOs. As a result, RTOs
have structured their market monitors in a way that is appropriate for
them. Thus, RTOs may establish market monitoring functions within
their organizations or outsource the function to third party providers.
At present, all of the U.S. RTOs have internal market monitors
except for PJM and MISO. A number of them, as well as PJM, also have
external market monitors. Monitoring Analytics is the market monitor
for PJM, while Potomac Economics monitors ERCOT, New York ISO,
ISO New England, and MISO. While RTO market monitoring units do
not have the same power to fine (and refer for criminal prosecution in
extreme cases) that FERC does, they can modify offers ex ante if they
exceed competitive reference values. Monitors can also suspend trading
privileges for financial (non-physical) participants, and request explana-
tions of suspect behavior.[10] The independence of the market monitors
from the RTOs is ensured by the fact that they report directly to the
Board of Directors of these institutions, as well as by the fact that they
can go directly to FERC in case of any dispute with the management of
the RTO.
In Europe, Nord Pool, which manages wholesale electricity trad-
ing throughout thirteen trading areas of Western Europe, has a similar
role to that of a US ISO. The equivalent to FERC is EU’s Agency for
the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER). Market monitoring is
particularly important in the European market since energy markets in
many member countries are very concentrated: A 2015 study showed
that the market share of the largest electricity producer was greater than
50 percent in 15 European countries. [11]
In 2011 the EU adopted the Regulation on Wholesale Energy Market
Integrity and Transparency (REMIT) as their regulation for managing
wholesale markets and designated ACER as the organization authorized
to enforce REMIT. [12]
ACER works with the European Network of Transmission System
Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E), a collection of forty-three trans-
mission operators throughout thirty-six European countries, to manage
a reliable transmission grid capable of meeting the needs of a wholesale
electricity market. ACER contains three organizations for market mon-
itoring. The Electricity Department has teams focused on market codes,
market monitoring, grid connection codes and infrastructure. The Mar-
ket Surveillance and Conduct Department has teams devoted to market
conduct, market surveillance and referrals. The Market Integrity and
Transparency Department has teams assigned for market data analysis,
market data reporting, and enforcement of REMIT. [13]
Based on its findings, ACER can issue recommendations to the Com-
mission on market rules, standards and procedures which could improve
market integrity and the functioning of the internal market. In the case it
finds suspected cases of market manipulation, it refers the case to the rel-
evant national regulatory agency for further investigation, and enforce-
ment.
In contrast with the U.S. and many other markets, mitigation options
are largely ex post. ACER lacks the ability to modify offers, and as a
result must rely on fines levied by the relevant regulatory agency ex post.
This is less than ideal, since such fines do not compensate consumers
for the wealth transfers caused by high prices after the event. For exam-
ple, Iberdrola was fined 25 million Euros for market manipulation that
earned them 21 million Euros in profits, but total impact on demand was
estimated at 105 million Euros. [14]
In addition, ACER is not currently doing much in area of recom-
mendations due to a severe lack of personnel and budget. Furthermore,
many European Regulatory Agencies are unable to enforce REMIT
because necessary regulations have not been implemented at the nation-
al level, and although some countries have specialized market monitors,
many countries have instructed their competition offices to monitor
energy markets, and these offices often lack specialized personnel.[15]
More recently, the number of investigations into violations of REMIT
has increased, as has the scale of sanctions for non-compliance. National
regulatory agencies issued six decisions regarding market manipulations
in violation of REMIT in 2019, with fines for a variety of market par-
ticipants, including energy exchanges, gas and electricity suppliers, and
traders. [16] And in 2020, a fine of over 37 million pounds was levied by
UK’s OFGEM to the InterGen Group of companies for market manip-
ulation, the highest ever fine for a REMIT breach.[17] These results may
indicate that necessary resources are finally being applied to this task.
Turning to Latin America, market monitoring is carried out in a
number of different ways throughout the region. It is generally, but not
always, the regulatory organizations that are charged with monitoring
energy markets. In the case of Chile, it is housed under the system oper-
ator, and in the case of Mexico, the market monitor is a third party. Here
is where some of the Latin American market monitoring functions are
carried out:
• Ente Regulador de la Electricidad (Argentina)

• Superintendencia de Electricidad (Bolivia)
• Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (Brasil)
• Coordinador Eléctrico Nacional (Chile)
• Monitor Independiente del Mercado (Mexico)
• Superintendencia de Servicios Públicos Domiciliarios (Colombia).
However, since prices in Latin American electricity markets are gen-

erally cost based, rather than bid-based (with the exceptions of Mexico
and Colombia), the role of the market monitor is quite different. [18]
In addition, although many Latin American markets deregulated in the
1990s, a number also re-regulated again, to some degree, making it diffi-

cult to make comparisons and draw conclusions.
To give one example from a cost-based, but deregulated market,
Chile implemented a wholesale electricity market in 1985, based on its
1982 Electricity Reform Law. A market monitoring unit that reports
directly to the board of directors of the National Electric Coordinator
was officially established in July of 2018. This unit monitors prices of the
wholesale and retail markets, transmission access, tendering processes,
and makes recommendations on regulatory changes. It can recommend
to the board of directors of the system operator that it disallow costs
that fall outside of audited cost parameters ex ante, as well as ex post.
It also receives and analyzes background information from third parties
that could be considered as anticompetitive behavior and it can signal
possible anticompetitive behavior to the National Economic Prosecu-
tion Office for investigation. A final decision on whether anticompetitive
behavior has taken place is taken by the Competition Tribunal and ulti-
mately by the Supreme Court. [19]
Mexico’s energy sector reform, approved in December 2013, includ-
ed provisions for the establishment of an independent monitor for the
electricity market, as well as a wholesale electricity market, and an inde-
pendent system operator (CENACE, for its initials in Spanish), among
other reforms. A consortium formed by the National Polytechnic Insti-
tute and ESTA International was appointed as the independent market
monitor, and began operations together with the wholesale market and
CENACE on January 1, 2016.
Mexico’s market monitor reviews offer prices daily, comparing them
to reference parameters developed over the first 6 months of its opera-
tions, in order to determine whether the prices offered should be accept-
ed. During the first 6 months of its operation, it found that 75% of the
prices offered were inconsistent with these parameters. Based on this
determination, CENACE ordered that market prices be recalculated,
reducing the value of electricity sold in the wholesale market by over one
billion US dollars. [20]
The Mexican market monitor is also responsible for reporting on
relevant market changes, on progress in implementing planned market
changes (since the National Electricity Law called for gradual reform),
for reviewing market rules and regulations, and for making recommen-
dations for how they should be modified to encourage a more competi-
tive market. In each of the 3 annual reports published so far, the moni-
tor has signaled a number of important design flaws, as well as cases in
which the actions of CENACE do not comply with existing regulations.
[21]
In Colombia, the Superintendency of Public Services (SSPD for its
initials in Spanish) has monitored Colombia’s wholesale electricity and
gas markets since both entities were created under the electricity sector
reforms of 1994. [22] However, it was not until 2006 that the SSPD
established a Wholesale Energy Market Monitoring Committee, which
was expanded into the Monitoring Unit for Energy and Gas in 2019. The
responsibilities of this newly-formed monitoring unit include develop-
ing methodologies to monitor the wholesale gas and electricity markets,
including the development of relevant indicators, and to publish infor-
mation on their functioning, with a particular emphasis on preventing
and mitigating the use of market power, and making recommendations
to allow regulators and the system operator to improve market efficiency
and competition.
With respect to electricity markets, their website contains daily
reports on the degree of concentration in installed capacity, actual gen-
eration and availability, declared availability, programmed vs. real gener-
ation, and the concentration of the price-setters (the only area in which
the unit signals market concentration). They also publish weekly and
quarterly reports, with a larger analytical component. In its most recent
quarterly report, in addition to the concentration in the generators set-
ting prices pointed out in the daily reports, analysis shows variations in
prices of the hydro generators that strongly suggest strategic pricing. [23]
The strong possibility that market participants are able to exercise this
kind of market power is a compelling argument in favor of constructing
market parameters of the type constructed by the Mexican market mon-
itor and modifying prices ex ante in response to price offers outside these
parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
As can be noted from the foregoing, there are a number of different

ways in which wholesale markets can be monitored, and in which the
power to initiate and carry out investigations, modify offer prices, and
punish anticompetitive behavior can be apportioned among different

agencies. Independent market monitors can be housed within the ISO,
in an independent organization, with the regulator, or even in a con-
sumer protection agency. The monitor may be able to levy fines, or may
have to turn to the regulator, or a court. They may, or may not, have the
ability to modify offer prices.
Some of these decisions seem to matter more than others. Most
importantly, market monitors must be independent, and must be seen
to be independent. However, where they are housed does not seem as
crucial. The ability to modify offer prices, on the other hand, does seem
to be an important attribute of an effective market monitor. Ex post price
modifications and fines do not offset harm to consumers, although they
may have some dissuasive effect. Whether or not the market monitor is
able to levy ex post mitigation measures, or whether it must turn to reg-
ulators, does not seem to be important, as long as the organization that
investigates and punishes wrongdoing, wherever it is, has the resources
and training to carry out this task, an important proviso.
A key tenet in all the actions of the market monitor is that ex ante
actions are generally better than ex post actions. It is much better to design
a system that makes it extremely difficult to exercise market power, by gen-
erating reference prices, automatically flagging suspicious bids and cor-
recting them before they affect market prices, as U.S. and Mexican mar-
kets do, among others, than to fine price manipulations afterwards. Clear,
fair, and transparent market rules also increase confidence in the market,
reduce information costs, encouraging new entrants. In addition, if prices
do spike, confidence in the rules, and in the application of those rules,
mean that such spikes will be understood as signed that increased genera-
tion is needed, rather than as a sign of market manipulation.
The most effective monitoring systems are those where there is a con-
tinual process of analysis of impacts, leading to suggestions for improve-
ments, incorporation of those improvements, and analysis of the impacts
of these improvements. Market monitors must have access to market
data, and have the trained personnel needed to interpret the data. And
they must have the ear of the system operator, and the regulator, so that
continuous improvements in the structure of the market can be made.
It must be kept in mind however, that collusion or market manipula-
tion is a particularly strong risk in electricity markets, due to low elastic-
ities of demand, and supply in some cases. Indeed, if markets are suffi-
ciently concentrated, it is unlikely that market monitoring will be entire-

ly successful in preventing market manipulation. Thus, in Europe, the
approach has been to encourage growth in the pan-European balancing
market, in order to bring electricity prices into closer alignment across
the region and reduce market concentration.[24]
A significant trend to incorporate independent market monitors into
markets that have not had them before can noted. In some cases, these
markets have existed for some time, and have been monitored less for-
mally, as in the case of Chile or Colombia, and in others the establish-
ment of an independent market monitor is a response to the establish-
ment of an independently operated wholesale electricity market, as is the
case with Mexico.
A number of other countries, including the Ukraine and India have
firm plans for strengthening market monitors as part of more general
electricity-sector reforms. Armenia’s recently launched system operator
will monitor its market, while in other countries, such as Pakistan and
South Africa, planned reforms have not yet made clear whether inde-
pendent market monitor will be created, what powers they will have,
or where this monitor will be housed. But as the above discussion has
shown, the need for an independent market monitor for electricity mar-
kets is clear.
End Notes and References

[1] RTOs and ISOs are used fairly interchangeably in the U.S., since the difference between
the two is by now largely semantic (see https://www.eeducation.psu.edu/eme801/
node/535)
[2] https://www.who.int/health-topics/sustainabledevelopment-goals#tab=tab_3
[3] https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019
[4] https://ilsr.org/report-is-bigger-best/
[5] until the late 1990s FERC limited its market power concerns mainly to mergers and
the issuing of licenses for trading at market rates, http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/
Reprint_209_WC.pdf
[6] https://www.gao.gov/assets/160/157237.html
[7] https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/RM99-2-00K_1.pdf
[8] OMOI Presentation in 2002, and email clarification.
[9] https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/11-15-18-enforcement_0.pdf
[10] Phone conversation and emails with Robert Sinclair, Vice President at Potomac Economics.
[11] https://ec.europa.eu/energy/data-analysis/energystatistical-pocketbook_fr
[12] https://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=O-
J:L:2011:326:0001:0016:en:PDF
[13] https://www.raponline.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/rap-keaybright-eu-marketmoni-
toring-2016-july-1.pdf
[14] https://www.facua.org/es/noticia_int.php?idioma=1&Id=9851
[15] https://www.raponline.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/rap-keaybright-eu-marketmoni-
toring-2016-july-1.pdf
[16] https://www.bakerbotts.com/thoughtleadership/publications/2019/may/remit-enforce-
mentintensifies
[17] https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/ofgem-finesintergen-37m-for-market-manipula-
tion-in-strong-message
[18] For an interesting discussion around the relative advantages and disadvantages of cost-
based vs. bid-based pricing, see http://www.cesworkshop.cl/archivos/5.FranciscoMun%C-
C%83oz.pdf
[19] Information obtained from a webinar: https://usea.org/event/independent-market-moni-
torsconversation-monitors-chile-and-colombia, and from email exchanges with the Chilean
presenter, José Benito Sanhueza Galleguillos, economist at the Market Monitoring Unit of
the National Electrical Coordinator of Chile.
[20] https://www.gob.mx/cre/documentos/reportes-sobreel-desempeno-y-la-evalua-
cion-del-mercado-electricomayorista
[21] These and other reports can be found here: https://www.gob.mx/cre/documentos/
reportes-sobre-eldesempeno-y-la-evaluacion-del-mercado-electricomayorista
[22] https://www.superservicios.gov.co/serviciosvigilados/energia-gas-combustible/energia/
mercado-deenergia-mayorista
[23] https://www.superservicios.gov.co/serviciosvigilados/energia-gas-combustible/uni-
dad-de-monitoreopara-mercados-de-energia-y-gas
[24] https://www.entsoe.eu/about/market/
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Johanna Koolemans-Beynen is Senior Program Coordinator
at the United States Energy Association (USEA), which represents the
U.S. on the World Energy Council. She coordinates USEA activities in
Colombia, India, and Honduras, under the USAID-funded Energy Util-
ity Partnership Program, focusing on the regulatory and legal framework
necessary to successfully integrate renewable energies onto the electric-
ity grid. She is also working to set up a worldwide Business Innovation
Partnership, which aims to help utilities incorporate business change
management and business process innovation principles into their grid
modernization and energy management projects.
Prior to joining the USEA she worked for various universities in
Mexico, including the Tecnológico de Monterrey, where she coordinated
on-line training at the Institute for Global Sustainability (IGS), and coordi-
nated climate-change projects at the Center for Dialogue and Analysis on
North America; and the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas
(CIDE), where she taught International Economics. Her bachelor’s degree
is from Georgetown University, and her master’s from Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity (Washington D.C.): She also completed the coursework for a mas-
ter’s degree in Economics from the Colegio de Mexico.
Call for Papers

The International Journal of Energy Management is a premier publication
of the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE). The journal is published
six times annually for the benefit of AEE’s international membership.
The journal invites original manuscripts involving energy management,
applied engineering, or analytical approaches to energy management,
including (but not limited to) energy engineering, energy awareness,
conservation, high-performance buildings, commissioning, sustainability,
utility-resource management, utility deregulation, and alternative
financing. The journal provides a peer-to-peer communication channel
for practicing energy managers, engineers, academics and sustainability
professionals.
All articles should be of a practical nature covering energy management,
energy efficiency, or other issues of interest to practicing energy managers.
If the article appears to be basic research oriented, the author(s) must
explain in a leading paragraph why practicing energy managers should
know the material. Articles should typically be 6,000 words or less (~1,000
words minimum to ~8,000 words maximum). The author(s) may choose
either editor review or peer review of their manuscripts.
Articles are published in the English language. All submissions must be
the original work of the author(s). The journal does not accept manuscripts
that have been previously published by other journals. All accepted articles
are published without costs.
All submissions should be emailed to Steven Parker, Editor-in-Chief,
at sparker@aeecenter.org. If you are interested in submitting an article to
the journal for publication, see our guidelines to authors at www.aeecenter.
org/ijem-editorial-guidelines.
FIND AEE ON...
Official Publication

About this Journal
The International Journal of Energy Management is an official bi-monthly
publication for members of the Association of Energy Engineers. The journal Association of Energy Engineers
publishes original articles and papers detailing the latest engineering or analytical
approaches to energy management and energy efficiency.
International
Journal of
ENERGY

MANAGEMENT
Published by the Association of Energy Engineers

Over 18,000 professionals in 105 countries trust the Association of
Energy Engineers (AEE) to promote the interests of those engaged in
the energy industry and to foster action for sustainable development.
Our members operate in the dynamic fields of energy engineering,
energy management, renewable and alternative energy, power
generation, energy services, sustainability, and all related areas.
aeecenter.org
ISSN: 2643-6779 (Print) Editor Steven Parker

Association of Energy Engineers | 3168 Mercer University Drive | Atlanta, Georgia 30341 PE, CEM
ISSN: 2643-6787 (Online)
Journal_Covers_1-27-21.indd 2 3/15/21 1:25 PM

IJEM - Vol3 - Iss2 - ONLINE April 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IJEM - Vol3 - Iss2 - ONLINE April 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 3 | Issue 2 | 2021

Volume 3 | Issue 2 | 2021

International Journal of Energy Management

Published by the Association of Energy Engineers

ISSN: 2643-6779 (Print) Editor Steven Parker

Journal_Covers_1-27-21.indd 2 3/15/21 1:25 PM

13 The Northwest End-Use Load Research (EULR) Project; Graham B. Park-

36 U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon; Amanda R. Kirkeby and Zach-

68 Independent Market Monitors Around The World; Johanna H.J.

79 Call for Papers

JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ENERGY ENGINEERS®

ISSN: 2643-6779 (print)

Steven Parker, PE, CEM

AEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2021

International Journal of Energy Management (ISSN 2643-6779) is published bimonthy by the

AEE MEMBERSHIP CHANGES

Get Certified & Excel

programs have helped more than

for their technical knowledge and Certified Business

industry expertise. Our programs are

federal governments, as well as by

corporations, utilities, energy service Energy Efficiency Practitioner

companies, and business professionals

Boost Your Career

aeecenter.org/certifications Certified Sustainable Development Professional

Connecting Energy Engineering & Energy

Did Texas Get What It Deserved?

As the massive cold front approached Texas, ERCOT issued a warning

Figure 1. Residential Electric Price Increase, 1999-2007.

lated utility markets for several years. Utility deregulation is a mandatory

** Deregulated Electricity in Texas, Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, 2014.

Figure 2. Texas Electricity Price, Houston Generating Region, February 14-20,

themselves facing electric bills in excess of $15,000 (The Conversation, Feb-

Texas legislature will consider some temporary remediation for customers

Steven Parker, PE, CEM

The Northwest End-Use

This article highlights the Northwest End-Use Load Research

• Greater understanding of the contribution of energy efficiency tech-

HISTORY OF ENERGY METERING IN THE NORTHWEST

End-use Load and Conservation Program (ELCAP)

• Hourly and peak load forecasting

*Currently the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) (www.pnnl.gov).

• Short and long-term annual forecasting

ELCAP was expanded many times to evaluate new residential single

Residential Building Stock Assessment and

*Currently the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) (www.nwcouncil.org).

of hard-wired and permanently plugged-in loads, as well as gas con-

• Building configuration: foundation type, number of floors, room

equipment, and energy consumption for buildings throughout the

Development of the EULR Project and HEMS/CEMS

KEMA NV (Keuring van Elektrotechnische Materialen te Arnhem)* to

*KEMA is now DNV GL (www.dnvgl.com).

HEMS/CEMS and EULR Project Funders

Table 1. Organizations involved in the Program

ing Group members, at their own discretion. Both committees strive to

METERING, DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ARCHIVING

Home Energy Metering Study

1. Ducted heat pumps

The HEMS contractor developed a comprehensive installation and

• Validating accuracy of meter installations

• An eGauge meter (https://www.egauge.net/) as the power metering

Figure 3 shows an installation in a resident’s garage including the

Figure 2. HEMS Metering Configuration