IJEM Vol2 Iss4 Online COMPLETE

Volume 2 | Issue 4 | 2020
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)
International Journal of
Energy Management
Steven Parker, PE, CEM, Editor-in-Chief
Vol. 2, No. 4—2020
Contents
Editor’s Desk—How We Spent Our Summer Vacation (Part 2)
5
9 Building Energy Management System (BEMS): A Management

Information System (MIS) Approach—Shail Derashri
27 U.S. States and Cities: The Unstoppable Move Toward 100%

Renewable Energy—Nancy L. Najarian
55 High Plume Fan Staging Strategies for Energy Reduction; Nicholas Keller,
Patrick Casey
69 Grid Power Daily Regulation by Combined-cycle Power Plant—Temur K.

Mikiashvili, Baadur Sh.Chkhaidze, Tengiz S. Jishkariani, Omar D. Kiguradze, Gia
O. Arabidze
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, Virginia Tech; 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 2020

Samer Zawaydeh, President; George (Buster) Barksdale, President-Elect; Dr. Fotouh Al-Ragom,
Secretary; Tim Janos, Treasurer; 2020 Regional Vice Presidents: Maryanne Strobel, Region I;
Ray Segars, Region II; Richard G. Lubinski, Region III, Jerry Casey, 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, 2020, by the Association of Energy Engineers, 3168 Mercer University Drive, At-
lanta, 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.
2021 Energy Events
Mark Your Calendars
Boston, MA
March 24 – 25, 2021
Hynes Convention Center
east.aeecenter.org
Long Beach, CA
May 19 & 20, 2021
Long Beach Convention
and Entertainment Center
west.aeecenter.org
Dublin, Ireland
Sept. 22 – 23, 2021
Citywest Convention Center
europe.aeecenter.org
New Orleans, LA
Conference Oct. 20 – 22, 2021
Expo: Oct. 20 & 21
Ernest N. Morial Convention Center
world.aeecenter.org
Get In Touch Find us on Social Media or visit...

aeecenter.org/events
Active Membership
18,000 Energy
Industry Professionals
We Are AEE
Current Certifications
30,000 Certified
Energy professionals worldwide trust the
Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) to
promote the interests of those engaged Industry Professionals
in the energy industry and to foster
action for sustainable development. Our Global Presence
members operate in the dynamic fields of
energy engineering, energy management,
105 Countries
renewable and alternative energy, power
generation, energy services, sustainability, Local Level Commitment
and all related areas. 61 U.S. Chapters
Join Our Community Growing Base
Find us on Social Media or visit... 27 Student

aeecenter.org/membership Chapters
Association of Energy Engineers | 3168 Mercer University Drive | Atlanta, Georgia 30341 | (770) 447-5083
Volume 2, Number 4 5
Editor’s Desk
How We Spent
Our Summer Vacation (Part 2)
To continue on the Editor’s Desk from our last issue (Vol. 2, No. 3), this editorial
continues the story of our (so-called) vacation, which started in mid-February and
was intended to end in early April. To recap, my wife and I were on a sailing cruise
out of Nouméa, New Caledonia, in the South Pacific, with a plan to sail along the
northern coast of Australia, through Indonesia, and finishing in Singapore. It was
going to be the adventure of a lifetime. Things did not go as planned.
I want to state up front that the views and opinions expressed in this editorial
are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the
Association of Energy Engineers.
When I sent Vol. 2, No. 3 to press, we had spent nearly 3 months in Amsterdam
waiting for Ecuador (where we permanently reside) to reopen its borders and
hoping our airline would return to
international flights. With the end
of May upon us and our tourist
visas set to expire, I contacted
our airline (again) to ask about
altering our final destination.
During previous discussions,
our airline had informed us that
changing the final destination was
not an option once the first leg
had commenced. The airline was
willing to refund the last flight leg
and sell us a new ticket to a new
destination, but during the height I mentioned our tourist activity of renting
a pair of Renault Twizys™ and driving
of the pandemic, international
around, site-seeing the tulip fields in The
flights were going for full-fare Netherlands. What I forgot to say was the
rates. (For the record, tickets to the cars are fully street-legal, electric vehicles.
USA cost around $6k per person, They seat 2 people with the passenger
coach, with most flights routed sitting behind the driver. While the car is
through NYC—this when NYC small in stature, is holds its own on the
highway. If they ever start selling them
was the Covid-19 epicenter.) All of where I live, I want one.
this supported our reasoning for
staying in Amsterdam for as long as we could. However, this time we were running
out of options. While the Netherlands unofficially said they would be lenient of
travelers overstaying their visas during the pandemic, there would be no official
visa extensions, and penalties “may” be waived.
During this last discussion, the airline was much more accommodating. In
fact, they asked where we would like to go and when. While our original airline
does not fly to Dallas, they put us on a code-share airline. With all the changes that
occurred over this trip, our airline never charged so much as a change fee.
My wife and I had discussed three possible alternative destinations: Portland,
Oregon; Miami, Florida; or Dallas, Texas.
• Portland, Oregon (PDX)

Pros: Closest to immediate family and friends, we know the area well,
relatively few Covid-19 cases daily.
Cons: Would have to rent a place to stay until we can return home, furthest
from our final destination (more connections and more time in airplanes).
• Miami, Florida (MIA)

Pros: Closest to our final destination with direct flights (when flights resume)
to Ecuador.
Cons: Would have to rent a place to stay until we can return home, don’t
know the area, relatively high number of Covid-19 cases daily.
• Dallas, Texas (DFW)

Pros: Close to extended family, friends offered a place to stay (south of Ft.
Worth) where we could socially distance.
Cons: Don’t know the area, (airline did not resume direct flights to Ecuador).
We decided to fly to DFW and arrived June 2nd. When we arrived in the
USA, the CDC announced that we would be required to quarantine for 2
weeks. This was not unexpected, nor was it that inconvenient. We were going to
quarantine at a friend’s house.
We then learned that the Ecuadorian government had decided to open
its borders effective June 4th. Arriving travelers would have to quarantine for
2-weeks. If you arrived with a negative Covid-19 PCR test taken less than
72-hours before arrival, you could quarantine at home. Otherwise, you would be
required to stay inside a government-approved hotel room (think house arrest) for
2 weeks at the travelers’ expense (payable in advance). The hotel would provide
room service (at a cost), occupants would not be allowed to leave their rooms. After
a while, the Ecuadorian government realized that 72-hours was a bit tight to get
Covid-19 PCR test results, so they eventually relaxed it to 7-days.

I started calling Covid test centers in the county to identify a location that
could give us a Covid-19 PCR test and deliver results within the allotted time.
What I learned was that no Covid test center in the county would give us a
Covid-19 PCR test. To qualify for a Covid-19 test, test centers would typically
require you have one or more of the following: a) show outward signs of having
Covid-19, b) a doctor’s referral, c) be a resident of the state, and d) have medical
insurance. Each of these factors disqualified us from getting a Covid-19 test. I did
finally locate one test center (in another county) that would give us the Covid-19
PCR test, but they said it would take around 6 to 8 days to receive results. There
was no way to expedite results. I not only called various medical centers, I also
spoke with the county health office—same story, no help. To make matters worse,
the airline we planned to use to fly to Ecuador no longer had a direct flight. We
were going to have to fly from DFW through Miami to get to Ecuador.
The expat communities in Ecuador are very helpful. Through a local
Facebook group, we communicated with one expat that had recently travelled
to Miami and had returned to Ecuador complying with the new Covid-19 entry
requirements. The Covid-19 test centers located in the Miami-Dade County area
had a much more open testing policy and had been providing test results in 3 days.
We came really close to renting a car and driving to Miami.
As an alternative, we spoke with family and friends in the Austin, Texas, area
and heard that some local testing centers in Austin might have a more open testing
policy. One of our friends who lived near Lake Travis (east of Austin) invited us to
stay with him while we looked into testing. So, we moved south to Austin on June
20th.
Once in Austin, I started contacting Covid-19 test centers, searching for
one that would give us the appropriate test. I eventually found a private medical
center that had an open testing policy. By this time, Covid-19 cases in both Texas
and Florida were surging. It was also becoming difficult to schedule a flight from
Austin through Miami to Ecuador. Flights available one day would disappear
from the schedule a few days later—flights were being cancelled.
We eventually committed and purchased new airline tickets. We scheduled
our Covid-19 tests for 6 days before our flight. I did this for two reasons. 1)
If a flight was cancelled, we would hopefully be put on a flight to arrive the
next day. Hopefully, the date of the Covid-19 test would still meet government
requirements. 2) The plane was scheduled to arrive at 11:55 pm. If the flight were
6 minutes late, we would arrive on (technically) the next day. I did not want a
government bureaucrat to decry the test no longer satisfied the 7-day requirement.
Call me paranoid, but we are talking about Ecuador, and I’ve seen stuff like this
before.
When we arrived for our Covid-19 test, we were told results should arrive in
5 business days. Because we do not have medical insurance in the U.S. (we have
medical insurance in Ecuador, where we live, and our travel insurance had long
expired), the test cost us around $250.00 per person. For the record, the test
procedure is “uncomfortable,” and I’ll leave it at that. My test results came in early.
My wife’s results came in two days later (but in time). The good thing is that both
tests showed the required negative results.
We departed Austin on July 16th. I was amazed at how many people inside
the airport are still not wearing masks, given that masks are mandated by the city,
the airport, and the airlines. [Editor’s opinion: Some people are just arrogantly
stupid.] The flights were uneventful. Arrival was on time. The arrival process in
Ecuador (checking our health declaration forms and Covid-19 test results) was
organized and well run. Because Ecuador still has curfews in all its cities and
provinces, we spent the night at a hotel next to the airport. The hotel room door
had a tape seal declaring the room had been sanitized (that was comforting). Our
driver—a person we have known for a long time—picked us up the next morning
and drove us home. In total, this trip spanned 5 months and had us spend nights
on 5 continents.
As expected, our two dogs
were initially glad to see us
return, but it did take a few
days (and lots of treats) for
them to forgive us for being
away for so long. Dogs are cool
that way.
Of course, I hope all of
you are doing well. Please
wear a mask when in public.
I also hope your lives are
very much stress free. Please
make it stress free for others
by wearing a mask while in
public. Now that all this is said
and done, we are considering
another big move. That story;
however, will have to wait for
another time.
Steven Parker, PE, CEM
Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Energy Management
A journal of the Association of Energy Engineers
saparker@aeecenter.org
Building Energy Management

System (BEMS): A Management
Information System (MIS) Approach
Shail Derashri
ABSTRACT
Today energy efficiency is recognized as being one of the critical concerns

that the society will encounter in the years to come for dealing with the looming
energy crisis due to constant depletion of non-renewable energy sources, their
impact on the environment, and the strengthening of renewable resources as a
fulfiller of energy demand. Higher energy efficiencies have a big contribution to
developing environmental sustainability. Research shows that buildings account
for almost 40% of the total energy consumed in a country. The main objective
in smart buildings thus becomes lowering the effect of energy consumption on
the environment as much as possible by monitoring energy efficiencies. Building
energy management systems (BEMS) enables the monitoring and management
of energy consumption within a building, which is often based on occupancy.
This article gives an overview of the building energy management system
and highlights the advantages and challenges as well as enablers and barriers
that building energy management system as a management information system
(MIS) in terms of its cost, installation, usage and personnel skill requirement.
The Internet of Things (IoT) paradigm is gradually finding its way in virtually
every industry. Building energy management based on IoT can gather data
inexpensively and accurately. This article also sheds light on emerging issues in
the building energy management system’s cloudification endeavor and the lack
of data sources’ correlation resulting in sub-optimal data quality and detail in
using big data technologies to enable effective analytics for prompt decision-
making.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Internet of Things (IoT) model is increasingly becoming common

in almost every industry; however, it is not limited to usage of sensors, and
measuring and controlling areas of interest. It also encompasses the intelligence
approach to control systems that have the capacity to control building energy
management systems (BEMS) [12].
Buildings have untapped energy savings potential, which can be discovered
using the correct analysis. With the help of complex software which link their
data to IoT, and recommend and support in building operations, the building
owners are able to improve the energy efficiency of the building, enhance
the building operations using building data analytics, and provide support to
management decisions on operations and management (O&M) improvements,
capital investments, and manpower planning.
The basis of a productive building data analytics system is its capability
to obtain accurate and actionable understandings from large and diverse data.
Building energy management systems are a consolidated set of software that
deliver the required analytical ability to a building by deriving meaning from the
gathered data. Contemporary building energy management systems monitor
numerous data collection points across various buildings and thus generate,
gather, and record several data points in every time interval. It can give alarms
for any deviations from the set operational limits, and the analytical abilities can
help in achieving an optimized system [11].
Today, when energy management is the primary need, the construction of
buildings is taking place to provide maximum comfort for its occupants with
minimum energy consumption. This is made possible by deploying sensors and
controllers, which can not only control simple tasks like switching the lights on
or off, but also handle complex tasks of control air and water flow for heating,
ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems in the building. BEMS
handles not only the energy consumption areas by optimizing resources but is
also responsible for controlling various other areas of the building like security
with password protection and gate barriers, closed-circuit television (CCTV)
cameras, fire alarms, elevators, and escalators.
This system thus analyses requirements within a building and controls the
associated facility network. To work accurately, there needs to be an input of
information that is current and correct. This information is provided by the
sensors, which send data to the BEMS network that directs the controllers to act
in accordance to the pre-defined requisites like maintaining of temperature in
the building, entry or exit of personnel, etc.[13].
WHAT IS A BUILDING ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
A building energy management system is a micro-processor-based system

complete with dedicated computers and network that is designed for structured
data gathering, systems control, and inter-system communication. It is an

effective tool in the hands of operation personnel, which provides an effective
as well as efficient control of all the systems in the building [7]. This system is
capable of monitoring and controlling all the equipment (such as HVAC, water,
lighting, fire alarms, public announcement, CCTV monitoring, escalators,
elevators, stand-by power, building and parking access) that are a part of the
building system [5]. Such a capability helps to optimize energy consumption
for handling increasing energy demands. It does this by improving efficiency
through integration and management of available energy resources including
generation, distribution, storage and consumption. These sets of processes are
run using information and communication technologies, and sensors to monitor
and enhance building resources, which include both its energy resources and the
associated infrastructures, while offering occupant comfort [2].
The building energy management system is designed with four primary
aims:
1. Identifying unusual energy consumption patterns and trends (improving
energy management)
2. Optimizing operations of equipment/appliances within a building
(identifying inefficiencies)
3. Achieving resident comfort in an indoor environment
4. Eliminating loss of energy (reducing peak electrical demand) [14]
The main components that make up an entire building energy management

system are sensors, actuators, and intelligence. Sensors help the buildings
to gather information regarding resource availability and real-time ambient
conditions like temperature, wind, humidity, etc. Actuators are identified as
a device that can be controlled (for example, switches, curtains, elevators,
doors, and windows, etc). Intelligence is defined as usage of technologies and
techniques for making decisions, in a way—using the data provided by the
sensors to evaluate the data, the limitations, and the objectives, and making
decisions to manage the various actuators in the building. As sensors become
affordable, installing more sensors enables sophisticated approaches to monitor
and control the system effectively. An IoT-based real-time monitoring system
helps to achieve optimum use of energy. Operational parameters can be
regulated and controlled using sensors and software in real-time to optimize
performance and efficiency [5].
Thus, the BEMS can be a very powerful MIS system that can not only
provide significant efficiency improvements in building systems but also be a
foundation for management decisions. Typically, buildings use varied types
of energy sources like electricity, gas, diesel, coal and renewable sources of
energy to operate their various facilities and equipment [13]. Therefore, a

robust building energy management system will be aimed at managing all the
following:
1. Energy Monitoring (smart metering of electricity, gas and water, demand
responsive systems)
2. Lifts and lighting (include daylight meters, occupancy sensors, elevator
demand)
3. Alarm detectors (includes fire, smoke and watering detectors)
4. Supervising (includes parking lot occupancy, security.
5. Ambient conditions (includes lighting, HVAC, etc.) [2]
Operational Advantages of Building Energy Management System

There are a host of operational advantages associated with BEMS.
Some of the advantages are:
1. Automatic and simplified operations with routine and repetitive functions.
2. Quicker and better responsiveness to occupant needs and conditions.
3. Reduced energy cost through centralized management of control and
energy management.
4. Better facility management via past data, maintenance management and
auto alarm reports.
5. Programming flexibility per facility requirements, size, and expansion.
6. Improved operating cost via auto record keeping and multi-system
integration [4].
There are also certain challenges associated with the implementation of

BEMS. These challenges can be understood as humanistic and organizational
factors and can be segmented into cost, installation usage, and marketing of
BEMS [1].
BUILDING ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AS AN MIS TOOL
Building energy management systems, when viewed as an MIS tool,

becomes a performance-based management system that presents the user with
appropriate information that enables the viewing of energy performance at
various levels within a building. Based on this, the people and departments can
plan, decide, and implement appropriate actions for managing the building’s
energy needs and generate financial benefits [3].
As an MIS, the BEMS has two vital roles to play: first, it improves the
decision making ability of the managers based on the data gathered and
analyzed, and second, when the decision making and decisions remain fixed and
only the input data changes, it supports different types of managers decisions.
Thus, as an MIS, the building energy management system acts as the
organizational information source by providing the required information to
the managers and supporting them in defining the problems being faced,
understanding those problems, finding the solutions to them and making
decisions to implement those solutions. The system uses exact operational
control, reliable data collection and rapid data processing to convert the
data into useful information that the managers use for planning, organizing,
leadership and motivation, reporting and control activities. This process is
achieved within a short period of time and has a high accuracy and efficiency.
To carry out the management activities, a mediator, who acts as the manager
of the building energy management system is required so that services that are
better for the management are given.
BEMS helps to solve problems in two ways: first, by being an information
source to the organization, and second by identifying the problem. The value of
the building energy management system is thus realized in the system’s ability to
declare the problem, possibility for the managers [1].
The savings potential attached to the implementation of building energy
management system is primarily dependent on three factors:
1. Process type operating on the site.
2. Organizational maturity in terms of its energy management systems and
practices.
3. Abilities, skill level and motivation of the operational staff.
Out of the three factors listed above, the most important factor to look
at building energy management system as an MIS tool is the human factor.
Factoring in for the human factor can make it tough to define the savings linked
to implementation of building energy management system in advance [3].
Benefits of Building Energy Management Systems as an MIS tool

There are several documented results of implementing BEMS, like decrease
in operational variance and an impetus to industry best practices. Simultaneously,
there is wide-ranging literature dedicated to creating a methodical and efficient
approach to the management of energy, which needs to be tailor-made to
fit each building rather than adopt a standardized system. Because the aim
of installing a BEMS is to present information to people that enables energy
improvement projects, the organizational framework that propels those projects
is vital to the success of the BEMS. It is therefore necessary to understand that
an implementation of BEMS alone will not save money, and for it to realize its
full potential, the system must be formed with a thorough understanding of the
larger perspective of the structured management of energy.
The benefits of BEMS can initiate productivity improvements by constant
elimination of wasted consumption when it forms the background of an
energy management program that holds continuous improvement as its aim.
By gathering performance data, the best practices can be immediately found,
low-efficiency work methods can be challenged, and deviations from benchmark
performance can be swiftly identified and corrected. An efficient management
system will use the performance reports generated by BEMS to:
1. Identify and investigate the root cause for either a good performance or a
poor performance.
2. Encourage best practices in operations by eliminating sources of poor

performance and boosting sources of good performance.
3. Provide support for implementation of energy-saving projects by

summarizing the loss in terms of costs to operate the present poor energy
performance, making visible the costs of current energy performance and
providing a baseline against which savings projects can be compared.
4. Demonstrate the success or benefits of projects that have been implemented

[3].
The volume of savings that can be realized by implementation of a

building energy management system depends a lot on the operator’s skill
level to observe energy consumption trends and being able to understand
how the process is performing. Savings materialize by elimination of the
root cause of low performance and giving impetus to the causes of a good
performance. At a strategic level, employing the building energy management
system could aid in reducing the business risk that an organization faces due to
fluctuating and unpredictable energy prices. As a result of tackling variability
in operation and giving a boost to investment in energy conservation projects,
the energy consumption and performance trends become predictable, whereby
the organization is in a position to negotiate energy supply agreements, plan its
investment in areas other than energy, accurately mitigate the fluctuations in
energy prices, and adopt technologies that save time, manpower and resources
as a result of increased operational predictability.
ADVANTAGES OF IMPLEMENTING BEMS
BEMS offers unique tailor-made advantages to buildings that will vary

in size—from a single building with less than 100,000 sq. ft. area to a super
cluster of buildings that have a collective area of more than 20 million sq.
ft. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory conducted a survey on 96
participant organizations along with more than 100 supporting partners (these
are not the building owners, but represent the support functions to the building,
e.g., vendors, utilities, etc.) with over 5900 buildings, which amounted to over
518 million sq. ft. area. The participants recognized a set of advantages and
challenges for BEMS.
The participants of the survey (Figure 1) identified a wide range of
advantages from multiple perspectives of a building owner, energy manager,
and building operator. While energy savings and utility cost savings were the
common drives for implementing a BEMS, it was surprising to note that the
driver of “data to inform retrofits and validate savings” was just as high as the
drivers of energy savings and utility cost savings. This discovery hinted at the
importance of having access to relevant data for considering payback period and
return on investment when looking at implementing energy saving measures.
Having ready access to data allows it to be used for management decisions
other than energy and utility cost savings like sizing a retrofit, identifying the
need of retrofit and validate savings from various types of energy efficiency
projects, which also take into consideration the financial aspects and time saved
by building staff.
The participants also acknowledged the advantage of improved occupant
comfort through the implementation of a building energy management system.
This advantage is not limited to energy savings by maintaining the workspace
temperature, but also recognizes the productivity improvement of building
occupant by maintaining proper lux levels across work areas, running elevators
in an odd-even floor setting, consolidation of data at one location, firewalling
building data—thus addressing security risks, etc.
Another advantage that the survey participants agree to is the O&M
building staff’s increased efficiency through improved operations. With the use
of a building energy management system, the O&M staff could quickly, pro-
actively and efficiently address any deviations in the O&M trends of a building.
This knowledge becomes essential for the management to approve budgets
for planning and implementation of any scheduled maintenance activities,
predictive maintenance activities or equipment overhauls. The peak demand
reduction ties into the fact that management is interested in plugging sources
of energy loss, thus it is possible to plan purchase of additional equipment that
16
Figure 1. Advantages of implementing BEMS (Source: US Department of Energy [11])

may be required for an expansion project, or re-allocate the saved energy costs
to another department without looking at ways to generate capital.
ENABLERS AND BARRIERS FOR

BUILDING ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory survey on 96 participant

organizations, along with more than 100 supporting partners and over 5900
buildings which amounted to over 518 million sq. ft. area also put forth a set
of enablers and barriers for BEMS. [11] These are discussed in the following
sections.
Enablers
The enablers selected by a percentage of participants and their supporting
partners of the survey indicate the significance of cooperation with stakeholders
extending from top management to the organization’s information technology
(IT) team (Figure 2). It was noted that the enablers were more planning and
process based rather than leaning toward the technical aspects. This shows
the need to allot more time to training, so that the use of BEMS tools can be
prioritized to form a part of the building’s operations staff’s job responsibilities
[10]. Such efforts ensure that resources utilization is optimized by the time saved
by building staff.
There was also agreement that it was essential for the data stream to be
organized and available. The immediate and real-time access to performance
data created the ability of faster decision making and helped in planning resource
allocation. It was also essential to view the energy performance of the building
in terms of its carbon footprint to ear-mark additional investments in BEMS
and charting the strategy change in business by better tracking. Accordingly,
investors, banks or the company’s stakeholders could be approached to support
the financial planning of the organization and the vision and objectives of the
organization can be revisited to align them in a way that the building remains
profitable in the market.
Embedded analytics in the operational process is achieved via the use of
building energy management system and this has far-reaching effects in terms
of production planning, work scheduling, man-power planning, work shift
allocation, and the resource planning associated with these decisions. The IT
department plays a key role as an enabler in the implementation of the building
energy management system and it is a best practice if it is involved in the
implementation of the system from an early stage.
18
Figure 2. Enablers to success of a building energy management system (Source: US Department of Energy [10])
The other enablers, recognized by the building owners, were the utility
savings and integration of the building energy management system with work
orders and the maintenance work.
Barriers
The major barrier of BEMS is that it cannot meet the special demands of
each person. Mostly, as a management information system, it requires a decision
support system to be able to analyze the data from a management perspective
rather than just an operational perspective. The challenges that pose as barriers
and reasons of failure of the building energy management system can be
divided into humanistic, organizational and technological factors as seen below:
BEMS Barriers Linked to Humanistic Factors

1. Information gap from managers and users about their information needs
and requirements.
2. Paucity of awareness of the needs of the users by programmers and
designers.
3. Low level of participation of the managers and users in system design.
4. Limited understanding of the managers about the software and information
systems.
5. Resistance to change for acceptance of the system.
6. Lack of accuracy specification provided by manager for the data to be
collected.
7. Unavailability of suitable consultants for designing the system and software.
8. Undefined procedures and methodology and stages of creating the system.
BEMS Barriers Linked to Organizational Factors

1. No provision of good conditions for the participation of managers, users
and system directors.
2. Non-reliable consistency and high complexity of the existing manual
systems.
3. Absence of analysis and evaluation of existing systems and power usage.
4. Sub-standard training conditions for the BEMS system experts and end
users.
5. Shortage of human resources with management and computer fields.
6. Poor and incomplete documentation.
7. Unsuitable implementation of the system.
8. No clarity regarding the quality criterion of the building energy information
systems.
9. Absence of serious consideration and adequate investment in BEMS [1].
BEMS Barriers linked to Technological Factors

Building energy management system is still evolving, and to stay
futuristic, it becomes essential that the technologies associated with it stay ahead
of the technology curve. As of today, there are certain technological factors that
act as barriers to its adaptation on a large-scale basis:
1. Lack of bridge between data acquisition technologies and point-to-cloud
data processing technologies because the later needs to upgrade to match
the data acquisition [8].
2. On-site mobile databases that have cloud computing capability need to be
established that can help in real-time data analysis and faster implementation
of actions [4].
3. Absence of self-programming appliances requires human intervention
causing performance deviations [9].
The Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory survey showed that lack of

staff time to review the reports of BEMS dashboards, and to investigate and
implement findings, was the prime barrier (Figure 3). This could be linked to
the workload of the O&M teams, leaving them with little time to utilize and
prioritize the use of building energy management tools within their jobs.
Another barrier was the absence of integration of the existing metering
with the new BEMS. This would require upgrading the existing meters to smart
meters and require upfront capital investment because of the sub-standard
data quality that came with existing meters, data loggers and equipment. If not
upgraded, the outdated equipment would create problems in maintaining the
data quality, and challenges to assimilate data from separate sources, especially
with the use of older meters use for the control systems, which would pose a
huge hurdle in data integration. Owners work every day with the challenges and
inefficiencies of working with data streams saved in multiple locations [10].
The fact that as an MIS, the building energy management system would
not auto-generate savings but would require people with specific skill sets and
in-depth understanding to act on the reports that the BEMS generates was also
recognized as a barrier. This calls for regular training and workshops, which
can help in prioritizing the use of BEMS tools and integrate them with daily
operations of various teams (like O&M team) across the building. Importance of
a well-designed and tailor-made system was recognized against a standardized
system that could pose a lot of redundancies and system complications. The
barrier for a standardized system remains that the building staff would also have
to deal with a data overload if the BEMS is improperly designed, or if there is
lack of automation of the analytics [11].
In addition to the barriers listed above, cost of obtaining, implementing and

Volume 2, Number 4
Figure 3. Barriers to the success of building energy management system (Source: US Department of Energy [10])
21
training on the BEMS forms a major hurdle because the return on investment
for the BEMS may not be clear because the hidden savings in the form of time
and resources saved is often difficult to calculate at the beginning. At times, the
savings are attributed to the energy saving projects undertaken, rather than to
the system that provided the analysis, which made the energy saving project
possible, and as a result, implementation of the BEMS is seen as an operational
cost and not as a capital investment. With the average payback periods for
an entry-level BEMS hovering around 18 months, getting top management
to approve the cost of obtaining and maintaining a BEMS depends a lot on
highlighting the value additions that the system brings to the organization.
Today there are a host of companies offering BEMS and in such a highly
competitive market it becomes essential that the organizations looking to
install and implement the system have an awareness of the systems available,
understanding of the organization’s goals and objectives and a knowledge of the
type of reports that the various available systems provide. A lack of awareness
or knowledge on these can contribute to the availability of numerous building
energy management systems in the market to become a barrier to the purchase
of a system altogether.
PITFALLS THAT PREVENT MAINSTREAMING OF BEMS
The pitfalls that can prevent BEMS from becoming mainstream can be
understood by looking at Figure 4, which presents a snapshot of the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory survey results that are identified by a percentage
of participants. The first drawback is the prerequisite skill sets to operate the
system and draft actions based on the analysis of the performance reports. If
top management is unable to understand the system benefits and the power of
its analysis, there will be a lack of interest to invest in the system. Although this
decision can be compensated for by additional activities such as conducting
energy audits at regular intervals, to stay abreast with the market trends and stay
in the competition, it becomes essential that the building has access to real-time
data so the decisions are quicker and the speed to take actions is increased.
The second drawback is the high amount of capital investment needed as
a “first cost” of the building energy management system. BEMS with the basic
analysis tools can have a payback period of as much as 18 months. The high
payback period makes the system unattractive to top management. In addition,
there are also the recurring costs of software updates, the purchase of additional
analysis tools, and costs of training the building staff on a periodic basis. When
seen as a whole, these costs tend to act as a deterrent to the adoption of a

Volume 2, Number 4
23
Figure 4. Pitfalls that prevent the mainstreaming of BEMS (Source: US Department of Energy [10])
building energy management system by an organization.

The survey points out that there is currently no mandate or incentive for
adopting a building energy management system in the existing energy codes. If
the energy codes undergo a revision such that they create support for having a
building energy management system component in building energy codes, then
the system can widen its reach and as a result, become more mainstream not
just in terms of providing a platform to improve operational excellence, but also
as an MIS tool that enables quick decision making based on the performance
reports that get generated [10].
CONCLUSION
Sustainable energy management is a continuous process and not a destination

defined by a series of projects or initiatives. The use of “Plan, Do, Check, Act”
continuous improvement cycle from managerial perspective can facilitate the
installation and implementation process of a building energy management
system by planning policies, goals, targets and resources that encourage its use.
This will require training, communication, and infrastructure to support the
new system and its associated processes. A managerial perspective will check the
performance of the system by looking at the corrective actions taken and review
of internal audits that are triggered by the performance reports generated by
the system. The findings of the internal audits will be directed towards the top
management for review and any associated actions to be taken [6].
The arrival of IoT technologies holds the possibility to transform the
relic methods used in a building energy management system. However, the
advantages of using IoT come with some issues, like linking data collection and
analysis point through cloudification, and the need for necessary support systems
that should be developed with it (like availability, feasibility, and reliability of the
cloud system).
Building energy management clearly has its set of advantages when used
for automation, productivity improvement, efficiency enhancement, resource
availability, enriched data quality and an overall reduction of a building’s energy
consumption. However, these advantages get challenged by certain barriers like
cost, insufficient automation, lack of trained personnel, etc. To reap the full
benefits of a building energy management system, the challenges and barriers
to the installation and implementation of the system need to be countered with
the system’s set of advantages and enablers.
There are a range of effective methods (i.e., use of in-house team or a
third party) for employing the building energy management system to locate
and mend operational processes. However, there is a requirement to enhance

data integration and management, steer through the various building energy
management system vendor choices and increase the priority of finding any
existing or manifested faults. Owners that give enough staff time to examine and
evaluate the analytics, and focus on the prospects discovered and recognized,
realize the benefits. Ineffectively making use of building energy management
system tools, owners can move from reactive to proactive building operations
that are constantly updated by data analytics.
The utilization of building energy management system and its various
analytical tools has grown considerably in the past 20 years; however, there are
still challenges when trying to take these practices past the early market adopters.
While the technological advancements in building energy management system
will assist in decreasing the amount of time that is required for the implementation
of an analytical-tool-based performance monitoring system, and increasing the
value addition that comes from the system’s analytics, the market will have to
develop an ever expanding infrastructure that would need to encompass both
the service providers as well as skilled operations workforce that can contribute
to realizing the ability of those advancements in technologies, which can play
a vital role in transforming the use of a building energy management system to
a standard operations cost rather than a high capital investment decision that
needs the top management to plan in stages and approvals.
References
[1] Babaei, M. and J. Beikzad. 2016. Management information system, challenges and
solutions. Czech Republic, Europe: European Online Journal of Natural and Social
Sciences.
[2] Benavente-Peces, C. 2019. On the Energy Efficiency in the Next Generation of Smart
Buildings—Supporting Technologies and Techniques.
[3] Brunswick, E.N. 2010. Energy management information systems: planning manual and
tool. Office of Energy Efficiency of Natural Resources Canada.
[4] Canbay, Ç.S. 2003. Optimization of HVAC control strategies by building management
systems case study: Özdilek Shopping Center. Turkey, Europe: Izmir Institute of
Technology.
[5] Council, N.P. 2018. Refresher course for certified energy managers and auditors. New
Delhi: Bureau of Energy Efficiency.
[6] Imel, M.R. 2015. Monroe County, “Florida A Case Study in Sustainable Energy
Management,” Energy Engineering, 112-1, pp 47-66. The Fairmont Press, Lilburn, GA.
[7] Escobar, D., F. Garcia and C. Cadena-Gaitan. 2013. Building Automation System (BAS)
implementation: A literature review. Malaysia, Australia.
[8] GhaffarianHoseini, A., J. Tookey and A.H. GhaffarianHoseini. 2014. Application of
nD BIM Integrated Knowledge-based Building Management System (BIM-IKBMS) for
Inspecting the Post-construction Energy Efficiency. New Zealand, Australia/Oceania:
Massey University.
[9] Jabbour, N., E. Tsioumas, D. Papagiannis, M. Koseoglou and C. Mademlis. 2019. An
Integrated Energy Management System for Nearly Zero Energy Buildings. 259-265. IEEE.
[10] Kramer, H. 2019. Survey on the Enablers and Barriers to EMIS, Smart Energy Analytics
Campaign. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. US Department of Energy.

[11] Kramer, H., G. Lin, J. Granderson, C. Curtin, E. Crowe and R. Tang. 2019. Synthesis
of Year Three Outcomes in the Smart Energy Analytics Campaign. US Department of
Energy.
[12] Noran, O., I. Sota and P. Bernus. 2019. Towards Next Generation Building Management
Systems.
[13] Tariq, W., A. Mustafa, Z. Rasool, S.M. Haseeb, S.M. Ali, A. Mustafa, S. Khan and W.
Saad Irfan. 2012. Building Management System for IQRA University. Asian Journal of
Engineering, Sciences & Technology, 2, 106-109.
[14] Xianing, J., W. Guanqun, S. Yi and S. Chongbo. 2018. Smart building energy management
based on network occupancy sensing.
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Shail Derashri is a “love-to-learn” individual with a passion for energy
conservation and sustainability. She is the first woman to gain the CEM
(Certified Energy Manager—International) certification in India and the
first Level 3 Certified Thermographer in India. Shail is a Certified Energy
Auditor through the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (Government of India). She
began her professional journey by earning her bachelor’s degree in chemical
engineering and an MBA in entrepreneurship and operations from Rollins
College (Florida). She has gained over a decade of experience and expertise
in efficiency improvements, predictive maintenance, failure analysis and
industrial training. Shail has worked to develop business strategies that provide
economic sustainability to the “Partners in Hope” PANUA project in Naivasha,
Kenya. She has been honored by AEE as “Young Energy Professional of the
Year—2016” and “Energy Engineer of the Year—2018”. The Society of
Energy Engineer and Managers (SEEM) has recognized her with the “Best
Performance—Energy Auditor 2017”. She has been associated with Academy
for Conservation of Energy—an ISO 9001 company with an industry respected
reputation in handling domestic and international energy audits, predictive
maintenance, equipment efficiency evaluation and industrial engineering
projects. Shail Derashri may be contacted at info@syguruace.com.
U.S. States and Cities: The Unstoppable

Move Toward 100% Renewable Energy*
Nancy L. Najarian
ABSTRACT
A study published in August 2019, Renewables on the Rise: A Decade of

Progress Toward a Clean Energy Future, describes the “explosive growth in the key
technologies developed to power America with clean, renewable energy (RE).”
At present, America produces almost five times as much RE from solar and
wind as in 2009; currently wind and solar power provide nearly 10% of the
U.S.’s electricity. States have ramped up their investments in energy efficiency
combined with natural gas efficiency programs, and thus the U.S. has saved
more than two times as much energy in 2017 over 2009.
Although the federal government lacks leadership to combat climate
change, cities and states are adopting bold renewable energy targets. Five states
set targets of 100% renewable electricity standards, 127 cities have committed
to 100% renewable energy, and 6 cities have achieved it. We will address how
states and cities are changing their approach to reducing carbon emissions and
those that lead in RE usage and/or have achieved their goals. In a webinar in
May 2020, we covered new opportunities that may exist for energy professionals
to apply their experience and help these states and cities meet their goals, and
what effects the current pandemic may have on future job opportunities, and
states’ and cities’ budgets as they influence the use of solar and wind power.
GOOD NEWS
As I finish writing this article, the world finds itself in the midst of the
Coronavirus pandemic. Now the human race is not only faced with the
existential threat of climate change, but most of us feel threatened everyday
living through a pandemic. We need good news; no, we need some great news.
On the renewable energy front, I do have good news to share. Despite the
lack of federal leadership and waning federal tax credits, the U.S. has continued
to make significant progress in adopting solar and wind power, developing
*Originally published in the AEE East Energy Conference proceedings; however, the conference
was cancelled.
new technologies that advance the industries, and making strides in creating a
clean energy economy. The objective of this article is to share several success
stories, and illuminate the various approaches that have worked in states and
cities across the country. With these, I hope to inspire others, including energy
professionals, to press their legislators for even more aggressive renewable energy
goals and to attain them, and offer more incentives that draw investment into
renewable energy sector. As this pandemic has taught us, our interconnections
are what make us strong and vulnerable at the same time. In this respect, we
must also work with stakeholders and demand the necessary upgrades to our
infrastructure that will support an America that can rely on 100% renewable
energy.
STATES, COUNTIES AND CITIES

ARE READY FOR 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY
According to the Sierra Club’s “Ready for 100” website, 163 cities
across the U.S. and 13 counties and 10 states (Washington, D.C. included as
such) have adopted ambitious 100% clean energy goals. [2] Most of these
entities have a series of goals that culminate with a commitment to use 100%
renewable energy by 2045 or 2050. Virginia is the most recent member of this
group; its Virginia Clean Economy Act was just signed into law in March 2020.
Washington D.C. distinguishes itself as the most ambitious of the states. As part
of the Clean Energy D.C. Omnibus Act of 2018, D.C. committed to achieve
100% clean, renewable electricity supply across the district by 2032, a goal that
includes the White House! Six cities in the U.S. already have hit their targets
of 100% renewable energy. They are: Aspen, Colorado; Burlington, Vermont;
Georgetown, Texas; Greensburg, Kansas; Rockport, Missouri; and Kodiak
Island, Alaska. Half of these cities use 100% wind energy, and the rest use a mix
of 100% renewable electricity.
Alternative sources of energy (non-fossil fuel) abound; States differ their
foci, some using a mix of hydroelectric power, nuclear, biomass, and algae.
There also are varied opinions on what constitutes clean energy. For purposes
of this article, I am concentrating on solar and wind power to look at the growth
of renewable energy. These two are universally considered clean energy, and
sources to which every state in the U.S. has access. To help appreciate the extent
to which solar and wind power are supplying energy to households, and also
how much farther we need to go, the U.S. Census in 2018 estimated there are
127 million households in the U.S.
A Decade of Progress
A report produced for the Environment America Research and Policy
Center in August 2019 covers in depth the significant progress the U.S. has
made in: powering the country with wind and solar, developing battery storage,
introducing electric vehicles into widespread use, early efforts at electrifying
transport, and reducing energy demand with energy efficiency measures. The
study looked at increases in these sectors over the past decade (2009-2018) and
the statistics presented show growth and hope on all fronts. Overall, in 2018
wind and solar combined produced 10% of all electricity generated in U.S.—
almost 5 times the amount as in 2009. [3]
Wind Energy
• According to the study, in 2009, 2.1% of the nation’s electricity was
powered by wind, enough for 7 MN homes. Over the next decade, use of
wind power increased 3 times. By 2018 wind produced 7.2% of the nation’s
power—an 8% increase over 2017.
• The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) reports that as of 2020, in
the U.S. power harnessed from the wind has surpassed 100 GW of installed
capacity, providing enough energy to power over 32 million homes (1/4 of
all U.S. households). In addition, the price of wind energy has fallen by 70%
in the past decade. The AWEA estimates use of wind energy in 2018 helped
avoid the equivalent of 43 million cars’ worth of CO2 emissions. [4]
• The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) reports that as of the beginning
of 2019, 41 states had at least one installed wind turbine. Of these 41 states,
Texas has the most—more than 13,000, and the greatest installed wind
capacity, at 24.2 GW. [3]
Solar
• Solar too has made dramatic strides; 40 times the amount of solar power has
been generated in 2018 over 2009, and it now equals 2.53% of electricity in
the U.S. This is a 27% increase over 2017, and enough to power 9 million
homes. [3]
Electric Vehicles (EVs)

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
transportation causes 27% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., and thus
electrifying the transport sector of the U.S. is a growing priority. The first
modern EVs appeared on U.S. roads in the late 2000s. In 2010, EVs (including
plug-in hybrids) numbered only in the 100s. By 2019, there were over 1 million
EVs (including plug-in hybrids) sold in the U.S. The growth is recent and
dramatic; in the first 7 months of 2019, sales increased 14% over 2018, and that
followed an increase of 86% in sales over 2017. Tesla Model 3 is the best-selling
luxury car in America, and over 40 models of EVs are available ranging from
SUVs to luxury cars. To support the growth, charging stations now number
66,000 ports in 22,000 stations across the U.S. [3]
Battery Storage
Battery storage development is a key element in helping the U.S. fully make
use of its vast potential for renewable energy. From 2009 to 2018 battery storage
capacity in the U.S. increased 18 times. Bloomberg’s New Energy Finance
predicted that the cost of utility scale lithium batteries will fall by 52%, and that
the U.S. will exceed 100 GW of installed battery storage by 2040. That would
be a 100-fold increase over today’s capacity.[3]
Energy Efficiency
A survey by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
(ACEEE) found that electric efficiency programs across the U.S. saved more
than twice as much energy in 2017 as in 2009, with states ramping up their
investments in efficiency. In 2017 energy efficiency programs saved enough
electricity to power more than 2.5 million homes. [3]
Smart Cities
A smart city is a municipality that uses information and communication
technologies (ICT) to increase its operational efficiency, share information with
the public and improve both the quality of government services and citizen
welfare. [5] In a 2018 study done of 140 smart cities internationally, 12 U.S.
cities ranked among the top 50. [6] As part of their sustainability commitments,
cities are connecting networks and technology that can address issues of traffic,
safety, energy efficiency in buildings, street lighting, and even offer Wi-Fi
hotspots to residents who do not have broadband access at home. While smart
city technology is still developing, the concept and policies are finding a place
in state’s and city’s sustainability plans to lower carbon emissions and ultimately
improve the safety, health and wellbeing of their residents.
With or Without the Federal Government

Whether the goal is 2030, 2040, 2050 or even right now, states, cities, and
some counties across the U.S. are leading the charge to relying upon 100%
renewable energy for power. Since the 2016 presidential election, the U.S.
executive branch clearly has been unsupportive and, in certain cases, tried
to dismantle a set of policies, incentives, and investments that the previous
administrations had put into place. With the announcement that the U.S. would
leave the Paris Climate Treaty, states and cities did not shy away from carrying
the torch to increase use of renewable energy. They took action as responsible
leaders of Americans’ efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and with it
develop a clean energy economy.
What Motivates States and Cities?

What is it that drives states and cities to forge ahead on their own,
creating laws that cause real change in the makeup of their energy sources?
Many factors are at play. The size of the state or city, a natural endowment of
particularly windy regions, sunny days per year, or rural areas and farmland
can influence the decision. Political makeup of governments, existing workforce
with transferrable skills from energy sectors, and environment of activism, all
play roles. In some cases, it is the result of an event; a natural disaster that
points glaringly to the need for battery storage to prevent further disturbance to
a state’s grid. Industry is increasingly making demands for renewable energy in
response to their own customers’ pressure to use 100% renewable energy. And
as was the case in Virginia recently, a recent election that changed the makeup
of the state legislature combined with an effective grassroots coalition that said,
“enough is enough, we want to grow our clean economy and not the fossil fuel
industry.”
Governments and policy makers, energy professionals, industry, residents,

and advocates for change can all learn lessons and best practices from the early
adopters, and even from some of the newer participating states and cities.
Although in reality, all states will need to achieve even more ambitious goals to
make the necessary impact on global warming; what follows are examples of
states and cities that are showing progress and approaches that work.
Leadership and Policy are Critical

Leadership and policy are the main drivers of change in states and cities,
creating incentives for industry and individuals to invest in renewable energy.
Policy can be driven by the executive branch along with legislative branches
of state governments, or by mayors of cities with their city councils. Laws,
executive orders and regulations promote use of renewable energy and often
include energy efficiency goals. A clean energy economy does not necessarily
belong to one or the other political party; renewable energy is becoming a
bipartisan issue.
The Role of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)

Since the first Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) was passed in Iowa in
1999, RPSs have been a driving force for states to develop renewable energy
options for their residents and industry. In 2019 states with RPPs have been
very active in revising them, according to the National Conference of States
Legislatures. [7] An RPS requires that a specified percentage of the electricity
that utilities sell comes from renewable resources. RPS requirements may apply
only to investor-owned utilities (IOUs). Many states also include municipalities
and electric cooperatives (Munis and Co-ops), sometimes with a lower target.
RPSs are used to diversify states’ energy resources, promote domestic
energy production and encourage economic development. These are helping to
drive the U.S.’ $64 billion market for wind, solar and other renewable energy
sources. In its 2019 annual status report on U.S. RPSs, the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory attributed roughly half of the growth U.S. renewable
energy generation since 2000 to state renewable energy requirements. The

report noted that nationally the role of RPS policies diminished over time,
representing in 2017 only 34% of all U.S. renewable energy capacity additions.
However, within particular regions—the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West—
RPS policies continue to play a central role in supporting renewable energy
growth. [7]
State renewable portfolio standard policies vary widely on several elements
including:
• RPS targets,
• the entities they include, and
• resources eligible to meet requirements and cost caps.
Most state targets are between 10% and 45%. However, 14 states—
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New
Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, as well
as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands—have requirements
of 50% or greater.
Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) and Carve Outs

Utilities that are subject to these RPS mandates must obtain renewable
energy credits or certificates (RECs). These represent the environmental benefits
of 1 MW of renewable energy generation. RECs are created when renewable
energy is sent out to the grid and is used to verify that utilities are meeting their
targets.
Eligible resources for RPS compliance include wind, solar, biomass,
geothermal and some hydroelectric facilities—depending on the size and
vintage. Several states also include additional resources such as landfill gas, tidal
energy, combined heat and power, and even energy efficiency.
Also, within their RPSs, states have established carve-outs and renewable
energy credit multipliers for specific energy technologies, such as offshore
wind or rooftop solar. The intent is to promote a diversified resource mix
and encourage deployment of certain technologies. At least 21 states and
Washington, D.C., have credit multipliers, carve-outs, or both for certain energy
technologies in their RPS policies.
Jobs and the Economy

The workforce needed to support their states’ and cities’ growth in the clean
energy economy motivates governments to foster investment in educational
systems that train their residents with new skills to provide the labor needed to
work in the industries. Support for academic institutions that conduct research
and development, often in partnership with industry, promotes innovation and

introduces technologies that bring down the cost of renewable energy and/or
improve related industries like battery storage.
In September 2019, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics published a
survey of 20 occupations with the highest percentage of projected change in
employment between 2018 and 2028. The top two are in renewable energy:
• Solar photovoltaic installers are projected to increase 63%. With a 2018
median pay of $42,680, this occupation requires a high school education
and installers receive on the job training.
• Wind turbine service technicians are projected to increase by 57%, and with
a 2018 median income of $54,370 per year, this profession too does not
require a post-secondary degree.
These jobs are accessible to a wide range of residents, and because many
wind farms are located in more rural areas, they offer Americans living outside
of urban settings options that did not exist in most states a decade ago.
Which States are Leading the Charge?

The leaders in 2018 for overall use of wind and solar renewable energy are
North Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma and Indiana, states that produced at least
40% of their electricity needs with wind and solar: North Dakota supplied over
54% of its needs in total.
Wind
• Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa and Illinois were the states with most
additional wind generation 2018 versus 2009. California, North Dakota,
Colorado, Minnesota and Michigan are included in top producers of wind
generation in 2018.
Solar
• California, Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada and Texas are the five states
with the greatest increase in solar power 2009-2018, with Massachusetts,
New Jersey, Florida, Utah and Georgia following those states in solar power
usage in 2018.
Battery Storage
• California, Illinois, Texas, West Virginia and Hawaii led the nation
in battery storage additions from 2009 to 2018; and Arizona, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Indiana join these five as part of the top 10
states to employ battery storage.
Looking more closely at states and cities that have achieved use of 100%
renewable energy or met their RPS is instructive. In selecting the entities, I
have sampled from different geographic parts of the country, places that are
characterized as having more wind or solar potential, more conservative or
liberal leaning governments, and some rural and some more urban.
The choices are meant to reinforce that there is more than one path to
achieving renewable energy goals, and even to surpass them.
STATES SUCCEEDING: TEXAS, IOWA, NORTH CAROLINA
Texas
While California, for its sheer geographical size and population, often
receives prominence in the news about its renewable energy achievements,
Texas is an equally interesting study in success. It has an abundance of wind,
solar, and biomass resources across geographically diverse regions, and a
renewable energy potential that is considered among the largest in the nation.
Yet it also is recognized worldwide for its crude oil-refining capacity and natural
gas industries.
Texas made a long-term commitment to build upon its energy experience,
diversify its energy sources, and utilize a trained a workforce to take the lead in
renewable energy production and services. As a result, Texas has become the
top state in wind generation capacity and biodiesel production, and 5th in solar
energy. [3]
A Strategy for Energy Independence

A 2014 report from the Office of the Governor, Economic Development
and Tourism presents Texas’s approach to diversifying its energy portfolio:
“Renewable energy is a vital component of Texas’s all of-the-above strategy

for energy independence and leadership. Reliance on a single source of
energy can threaten energy security and heighten price volatility. Energy
diversification across different sectors (fossil fuel, nuclear, and renewable)
and geographies (high plains wind and coastal wind, for example) can help
make Texas energy more robust and flexible. A diverse energy portfolio can
also better respond to changing economic and geopolitical conditions.” [10]
Texas’s years of experience in the energy industry has afforded it with a

skilled workforce, academic institutions suited to research and development in
renewable energy equipment and technologies, and an appetite to become an
early adopter of wind power. Ultimately, Texas is a state that others can learn
from to grow the use of renewable energy and develop industries to support its
use.
Texas Energy Grid

Texas is the only mainland state with its own grid. The Texas Interconnection
Region is operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), and
ERCOT is separate from the rest of the nation. 75% of the Texas’s landmass
and 85% of the electrical load are in this region. This makes a unique situation
as the utilities within ERCOT are exempt from most federal regulation. A
membership-based, nonprofit corporation, ERCOT’s members include electric
utilities, generators, and transmission providers. The Public Utility Commission
of Texas (PUC) has oversight of ERCOT. PUC monitors the electric and
telecommunications industries.
Policy—The Backbone of Progress

Texas considers its RPS to be one of the most effective and successful in the
nation. A brief history:
• In 1999, Texas adopted the Texas Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).
It required 2,000 MW of new renewable energy capacity to be installed
statewide by 2009. The legislature also restructured the state’s electric
industry, allowing consumers to begin choosing their Retail Electricity
Provider (REP).
• In 2002, the law was enacted, effectively deregulating the Texas electricity
market, and fostering competition among REPs, which drove down costs
and approved service. Through deregulation some customers can select and
receive renewable energy.
• There are currently 42 REPs and most offer a 100% renewable plan to their
customers as an option.
• In 2005, the Texas Legislature extended the RPS; it expanded the state’s
generating capacity from renewable energy sources to 5,880 MW by 2015.

Volume 2, Number 4
Figure 1. Texas ranks first in U.S.-installed wind capacity and number of turbines Source: U.S. Energy
Information Administration, Annual Electric Generator Inventory [11]
37
It included a target of 10,000 MW by 2025, with 500 MW coming from

non-wind sources. They also established requirements for electric utilities
and other REPs to serve a specified amount of customer demand with
sources of renewable electricity.
• In early 2010, 15 years ahead of schedule, Texas’s installed capacity reached
the 10,000 MW target. [10]
Business Incentives
Business incentives provided by the Texas legislature are an important part
of the success story.
• In 2003 the Texas legislature authorized the $295 million Texas Enterprise
Fund (TEF), a “deal closing” fund created to attract businesses and new
jobs to Texas. [10]
• As of 2014 Texas had invested over $4.7 million in renewable energy-
related projects that created 270 jobs. Fast forward 4 years and Texas
currently boasts over 25,000 direct wind industry jobs (2018) and a total
capital investment in the wind industry of $46.5 billion. [12]
• In 2005 the legislature created another fund, The Texas Emerging Technology
Fund (TETF), supporting research, development, and commercialization
of emerging technologies. As of 2014, the TETF invested over $46 million
to renewable energy-related projects such as solar cells, algae biofuels, and
advanced batteries. [10]
• Renewables Franchise Tax Deduction provides exemption of the system’s
cost for those companies solely engaged in manufacturing, selling, or
installing solar or wind devices. Other businesses that install solar or wind
energy systems are eligible for a franchise tax deduction of 10% of the
system’s cost. [10]
• Renewables Property Tax Exemption apply to residential, commercial, and
industrial renewable energy devices. The exemption is applicable to most
renewable technologies, including solar, wind, and biomass. [10]
Supporting Infrastructure
With the success of the Texas’ RPS and wind industry, constraints in its
transmission capacity emerged. Texas wind resources are greatest in the western
part of the state; however, the majority of the population and power demand
lies in the eastern half of the state. In addition, West Texas wind blows hardest
at night when energy demand and prices are low.
Responding to these challenges, the PUC collaborated with ERCOT and
established the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) transmission
project in West Texas. In 2013, the $6.9 billion CREZ transmission project
relieved the statewide east-west congestion and transmitted 18.5 MW of wind

power to the state’s more populous areas. This enabled Texas to provide three
times more available wind power as any other state.[10]
Utility-scale Energy Storage Technology

Texas is adapting this technology to mitigate intermittency by absorbing
short-term fluctuations in renewables output so that customers can receive
reliable electric service.
• In 2011, the Texas Energy Storage Association (TESA) helped pass a law,
SB 943, critical to energy storage project developers in ERCOT territory,
where transmission utilities are responsible for the cost of interconnection,
not project developers. [10]
• In March 2012, the PUC adopted a set of rules allowing energy storage
facilities to buy and sell electricity at wholesale rates, to competitively
service the grid as dispatchable plants for both ancillary services and longer-
term energy storage. [10]
Research and Development, Education, Jobs and Manufacturing

Research and Development: Texas businesses and institutions are key drivers of
U.S. research and development activity in the renewable energy sector. As early
as 2012, Texas ranked No. 4 in the nation in clean energy-related patents and in
2013 was 4th in the nation for overall venture capital investment in 2013. [10]
Research is aimed at improving existing wind power equipment designs and
innovating new ones; including experimenting with different windmill sizes and
configurations designed for specific situations, such as small-scale generation
and offshore wind farms. Texas has employed its universities that house leading
researchers and nationally recognized degree programs to develop wind energy
technologies and management for the future. Examples include:
• In 2014, Texas invested $2.2 Million in Texas A&M University’s (TAMU)
Wind Energy Center for a collaborative project to bring together researchers
from universities across the state to develop and increase the capacity of
offshore wind energy technology, and help bring it to market.
• The state’s TETF award was matched with a $50 million award from
the U.S. Department of Energy, an initial $13.3 million investment from
industry members of the GoWind consortium, and a $1 million total
investment from the participating Texas universities.
Education: The Texas Renewable Energy Education Consortium (TREEC)

is a group of 12 statewide Texas colleges devoted to educating Texas’s
renewable energy workforce. The consortium works to offer degrees, certificates,
professional development, and technical training, and offers courses in wind,
solar, energy efficient building design, and fuel cells.
Manufacturing: Texas ranks first nationally in the number of manufacturing

facilities related to wind, including assembly plants, tower manufacturing, and
other component production. The AWEA estimates that at least 45 Texas
facilities are involved in the windmill manufacturing business.
Industry Demand
• In November 2013, Microsoft announced a 20-year contract to secure all
the power from RES America’s 110 MW Keechi wind project, which came
online in June 2015. Without Microsoft’s backing, the developers indicated
the wind project would not have been built.
• Between 2013 and 2014, Google purchased three wind farms in Texas: a
$75 million, 182 MW wind farm; a $200 million, 161 MW Spinning Spur
wind project; and the 240 MW Happy Hereford wind farm. (Google sends
the power to a data center in Oklahoma and sells overflow power into the
regional grid on the wholesale market.)
Offshore Wind
While the majority of Texas’s wind power development is onshore, Texas
has unique coastal sovereignty that allows the state to claim jurisdiction 10.3
miles into the Gulf of Mexico, more than three times the distance claimed by
other states. However, because electricity prices in Texas are low because of
cheap wind coming from West Texas wind farms, they are not high enough
to justify the expense of engineering and building off the coast. Texans may
see offshore oil drillers begin to use wind-powered generation to run their
operations in the Gulf of Mexico, sooner than there are offshore wind farms.
Solar
While much of the focus has been on Texas’s development of wind
generation, the industries that support the equipment and technology, and
workforce development, Texas also ranks in the top five states with the greatest
increase in solar power 2009-2018. To date there has been $4.6 billion
investment in the solar industry in TX and is currently ranked 2nd, for installed
solar capacity in 2018 that produced 4,063 GW. [3]
Implementation
Under demand response management, participating consumers agree to
reduce or modify electricity use when the grid’s capacity is stressed. Incentives
are available to participating large electricity users in the ERCOT market to
compensate for the reductions.
Smart Grid Technology: Texas is tied with California as the top-ranked states
for smart meter deployment. Texas’s deregulated and competitive energy
markets allow retail power providers to use those assets to increase customer
pricing programs and engagement efforts.
Research and Development (R&D)

Texas also invested in R&D for solar. Texas A&M University (TAMU) in
collaboration with a California-based solar company, PPA Partners, launched
the $600 million Center for Solar Energy (CSE), the world’s largest solar
photovoltaic (PV) R&D facility in June 2013. The CSE hosts a large assortment
of leading-edge PV technologies, serves as a test site, and generates electricity
for the entire TAMU campus. The center also serves as an incubator for solar
entrepreneurs to fast-track technologies to market, with access to a prototype
manufacturing facility. [10]
Solar Training Initiatives in Texas

State and community colleges across the state offer a variety of solar
training programs for new and experienced solar industry workers, as well as a
Solar Energy Technology PV certificate program, Solar Technology Associate
Degree, and a variety of solar training programs for new and experienced solar
industry workers.
Industry and Jobs

Texas’s solar equipment manufacturing sector is anchored by a world-
leading cluster of semiconductor design and fabrication companies that
form a link between the microelectronics industry and solar power. Global
semiconductor leaders and a number of solar energy equipment companies
are directly engaged in solar energy manufacturing in Texas. In 2019 the Solar
Foundation reported there were over 10,000 solar jobs in Texas, with about 50%
in installation, and approximately 20% in manufacturing and another 20% in
wholesale trade and distribution.
Texas, as an early adopter of solar and wind power, used legislation, tax
incentives, investment, education and partnering with industry to meet and
surpass the goals set out in its RPS. With full acknowledgement that Texas’s
main industry is petroleum and related industries, it is a state that has proved it
can also be a leader in the use renewable energy, innovation, and manufacturing.
Iowa
Iowa’s experience as a smaller state with less experience in energy
development than Texas, is an equally compelling story of how to develop a
vibrant renewable energy sector. Iowa was in fact the first state in the U.S. to
adopt an RPS; in 1983 it was called the Alternative Energy Law. It required
Iowa’s two investor-owned electric utilities to own or contract for a combined
total of 105 MW of renewable generating capacity from renewable energy
production facilities approved by the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB). [15] By the
end of 2018, Iowa exceeded its RPS goals with nearly 8,500 MW of generating
capacity from renewable resources at utility-scale power facilities.
Implemented in 2004, the Iowa Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
required all electric utilities operating in the state, including those not rate-
regulated by the IUB, to offer their customers the option of purchasing
alternative electricity supplies generated by wind, solar and other renewables.
This enabled customers to support development of renewable energy sources in
the state.
In 2008 the Iowa State Legislature also directed the IUB to set energy
efficiency standards for each regulated electric and natural gas utility in the
state. Municipal and cooperative utilities were required to set their own energy
efficiency goals. The utilities could increase efficiency and reduce consumption
with improved infrastructure or through customer programs.
Electricity
Coal-fired power plants traditionally supplied Iowa’s energy; however, as
of 2016, these plants produced less than 50% of the electricity generated in
the state. During the same period, wind power, now the state’s second-largest
generation source, grew from less than 10% of Iowa’s net generation to 34%.
Under bipartisan leadership, Iowa has become the second in the nation (behind
Texas) in installed wind capacity, and second only to Kansas in wind energy
as a percentage of total electricity generation. The strongest winds occur in
northwestern Iowa, and although there are wind facilities across the state, most
of the wind farms are located in the state’s north and west.
Wind
Wind energy investments have created nearly 10,000 jobs in Iowa directly.
This is good news for Iowa, as wind turbine technician is the second-fastest
growing job in the U.S. [16]
In 2018:
• 2.08 million Iowa homes were powered by wind, cutting carbon emissions
that year by 8.8 million metric tons
• Almost 4,700 wind turbines produce 10,100 MW of wind online representing
$16 billion in capital investment
• 10 factories build parts for wind turbines
• The state has attracted investment from major wind industry players
including turbine and blade manufacturer Siemens Gamesa Renewable
Energy and blade manufacturer TPI Composites.
The Wind Industry’s Importance to an Agricultural State

Annual state and local tax payments by wind projects are $58 million with
annual land lease payments of $20-$30 million, based on state and national
averages from the Berkeley Lab and National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Bill Menner, Executive Director of the Iowa Rural Development Council
recently wrote in The Gazette: “Farmers and landowners earn between $20
and $30 million each year by leasing their land to wind developers for the
construction of turbines. Wind energy is truly a cash crop for Iowans.…This
reliable, drought-proof income… doesn’t prevent farmers from staying focused
on what they do best. Since a wind turbine only takes up around a quarter of
an acre, a typical wind farm leaves around 98% of the surrounding agricultural
lands undisturbed. That means even as Iowa wind powers more and more of
our economy, Iowa farmers can continue to feed the world as we have for so
long.” And as our economy evolves, wind is poised to play a front-and-center
role in powering a bright future—for farmers and everyone else.
The role of job creation in a largely rural state is a driving factor in
developing the wind industry. In January 2020 Brian Selinger, team leader for
the Iowa Energy Office at the Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA),
said of the 10,000 jobs that wind energy supports, “Many of those involve
technicians educated by Iowa Lakes Community College in Estherville…and
work with students who can veer into engineering, repair, maintenance, and
other high-demand jobs. Wind and solar jobs are part of a mix as IEDA looks
for ways to bolster local economies when there is “no magic wand…. It’s been
impressive to have those stable, well-paying jobs.” Professor Lutat from the
college shared, “We can’t turn out enough graduates to meet demand. Many
students are paying next to nothing for tuition while working internships and
are graduating to jobs that pay $60,000 to $80,000 a year. These are recession-
proof jobs…. Somebody has to maintain the infrastructure out there.”
Solar
Only a small amount of solar photovoltaic electricity is generated in the
state, almost all from distributed (customer-sited, small-scale) facilities. The
amount of solar power potential increases from east to west across Iowa.
Currently there are just under 900 Iowans employed in the solar industry.
North Carolina
North Carolina’s recent Clean Energy Plan, presented to the Governor
Cooper in September 2019, was a direct result of the executive’s October 2018
executive order calling for a 40 percent reduction in statewide greenhouse gas
emissions by 2025. The order tasked the Department of Environmental Quality
with developing a clean energy plan for North Carolina. [17]
North Carolina’s Clean Energy Plan

The Clean Energy Plan (CEP) plan laid out the following goals:
• Reduce electric power sector greenhouse gas emissions by 70% below 2005
levels by 2030 and attain carbon neutrality by 2050.
• Foster long-term energy affordability and price stability for North Carolina’s
residents and businesses by modernizing regulatory and planning processes.
• Accelerate clean energy innovation, development, and deployment to create
economic opportunities for both rural and urban areas of the state.
The CEP is to be a living document, modified as needed. It lays out a

vision through 2030, and the intention is to revise it every 3-5 years. It made
short-term (1 year), medium-term (1-3 years), and long-term (3-5 years)
recommendations; many recommendations and action items are interconnected,
but not interdependent.
North Carolina has an impressive record on clean energy; it is the second

largest solar generator in the country, somewhat surprising considering that it is
a traditionally heavy fossil fuel state.
In 2017, the North Carolina legislature passed its first major piece of
legislation since 2007. The requirements of the bill are:
• Competitive Procurement of Renewable Energy (CPRE)—which directs
Duke Energy to procure 2,660 MW of renewable energy over a 45-month
period through CPRE, and a third-party administrator was selected.
• The creation of a program for large businesses, universities, and the military
to directly procure renewable energy.
• The creation of a rebate program for 20 MW of rooftop solar installations
per year for 5 years.
• Created a framework for solar leasing in North Carolina, including
Commission oversight of lessors and consumer protections.
• Duke Energy to offer 40 MW of community solar in North Carolina.
Participants are compensated at Duke’s avoided cost rate for energy
generated by their portion of the community solar facility.
• Directs North Carolina Policy Collaboratory at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill (Collaboratory) to study the values and services
that energy storage can provide to North Carolina and to make policy
recommendations.
• An 18-month wind energy moratorium on the issuance of permits for new
wind energy projects by the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
or the Coastal Resources Commission and expansive study of wind impact
(expired at end of 2018).
The impact of this law and North Carolina’s earlier efforts to develop the
solar energy in particular, have resulted in some impressive statistics:
• North Carolina now ranks 2nd after California for solar power installed,
with a cumulative installed capacity of 6,152 MW.
• 5.73% of the state’s energy is derived from solar power, enough to power
over 700,000 homes, and the cost of that has decreased by 38% over the
past 5 years. [19]
• Over 6600 people work in the industry, placing the state 11th in the nation.
• The solar industry has invested $8,681.25 million in North Carolina,
including $888.54 million in 2019.
46
Figure 2. North Carolina Annual Solar Installations 2010 to 2019

• There are 296 (48 manufacturers, 131 installers/developers, 117 others).

• The growth in solar is projected at 4,149 MW over the next 5 years.
Questions About the Future

Although North Carolina ranks 2 nd in solar installations, it is facing
challenges to continue to improve its use of solar energy. Duke Energy is one
of the nation’s largest electric suppliers. It produces the majority of the state’s
electricity, most of it from coal, gas, and nuclear.
Duke controls distribution and transmission across most of the state.
With a few narrow exceptions, third-party electricity sales are prohibited.
Solar companies cannot erect panels and sell the output to anyone other than
a regulated utility. In addition, they cannot sell their power unless they are
connected to a grid run almost exclusively by Duke.
As a result of the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) in
North Carolina independent solar developers own the vast amount of North
Carolina’s solar power capacity. However, new solar projects are not coming
online because Duke has been introducing new tests and surcharges for grid
connections. The 2017 legislation has not helped; solar farms are still waiting to
connect under the old PURPA scheme, and that has delayed a new competitive
bidding program that was supposed to take its place. For the second time in
3 years, the utility has asked for an increase in rates, in part to cover coal ash
cleanup and a multibillion-dollar grid improvement plan.
The most consensus among groups and experts on both sides of the aisle
is for wholesale competition; in which the state’s co-ops and large energy
consumers could buy from the power producer that delivered the lowest price
or cleanest electricity. Most agree that there is no silver bullet. The options
attracting the most attention are:
• Create a regional transmission organization (RTO) or an independent
service operator such as PJM, that includes Ohio and Mid-Atlantic states.
The state’s only operating wind farm is in PJM’s territory; the farm supplies
renewable electrons to Amazon for data centers outside North Carolina.
• An energy imbalance market, a voluntary collection of utilities and other
system operators in which real-time kilowatt-hours, not power plants, are
bought and sold as needed, a model practiced in the Western states that
allows solar and wind energy to be sold from one state to another.
• An all-source procurement system, where Duke would maintain its control
of the grid and distribution. However, rather than plan for and build new
generation sources to meet power needs, Duke would issue a request for
proposals for a certain amount of capacity from a variety of “fuels” such as
solar, battery storage, and gas. Colorado did this 2 years ago and the scheme
produced the lowest prices of storage combined with wind and solar in the
U.S.
• Retail competition. The state had considered deregulation in 2000, but
decided against it after the crisis California experienced from deregulation.
Given the variety of options available, the general consensus is the first
step toward competition in North Carolina is a comprehensive study of all the
options, including what has worked in other states. North Carolina’s current
challenges were taken into account during the recent legislative session in
Virginia, as legislators went through the arduous process of marking up and
finally passing the Virginia Clean Energy Act of 2020.
CITIES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PLANS
Cities and mayors across the U.S. are seeing the transition to clean energy
economies as an opportunity, as much as an obligation. Powering a city with
100% clean energy saves taxpayer dollars, helps residents save money, creates
good jobs, and fosters a better quality of life. Cities that have either achieved
their commitments to 100% renewable energy, or made commitments and are
making progress, are:
• Retaining money in local governments through the lowered costs of solar
and wind technology, and reduction in water usage by fossil fuels; a critical
issue to drought prone areas.
• Job creation
• Saving residents money: through lowered health care costs (those on the
front lines of fossil fuel plants often suffer from pollution) and lowered
energy rates year over year.
There is no one way to embrace a 100% renewables goal and cities have
varied reasons for and approaches to doing so. The inspiration for a city to act
and make the switch to 100% clean energy is as individual as are the cities who
commit; and as more do, there will be more data available and lessons to share
with each other.
Greensburg, Kansas—Achieved 100% Renewable Energy in 2013

Located in central Kansas, the small city of Greensburg was nearly wiped
out by a tornado that destroyed 95% of the town. Although nearly wiped off
the map in May 2007, Greensburg’s community rallied at meetings in a big tent
outside of town and hatched a plan. They redefined the town, and in many ways
the way the country thinks about sustainability and energy at the local level.
The city adopted the motto, “Rebuilding…Stronger. Better. Greener,” and
put sustainability at the core of its economy and identity. In Mayor Bob Dixon’s
words, “We did not just want to be a surviving community. We wanted to be a
thriving community. As our ancestors built a community for us, we needed to
build a community for future generations.”
Greensburg at a Glance
• Population 785 (down from 1,400 pre-tornado)
• Legislative commitment, as part of Sustainable Comprehensive Plan
• Kansas: RPS 20% by 2020 (voluntary); allows community solar
• Utility: Greensburg Utilities (municipal)
Their Plan and Legislation

Developing a Sustainable Comprehensive Plan alongside the Long-Term
Recovery Plan, the City Council committed to 100% renewable energy in
December 2007. They also adopted a requirement that all buildings greater
than 4,000 square feet must be LEED Platinum—promoting energy efficiency.
The nonprofit Greensburg Green Town was formed; it helped educate and
empower residents on sustainability and clean energy. What followed was
community dialogue that fostered a better understanding of and support for the
clean energy transition.
How Did they Do It?

Using energy efficiency, small-scale solar and geothermal, and a majority of
energy from wind power, Greensburg met its goal. They recognized that “The
wind that destroyed Greensburg is also the wind that would make us energy
sustainable.” The 12.5-MW Greensburg wind farm is located right outside of
the town, and is able to provide more energy than the town needs. The two-
thirds of power produced in excess, Greensburg sells back as renewable energy
credits. Initial purchasers of the carbon offsets included ice cream favorites Ben
and Jerry’s and Clif Bar. The John Deere dealership that is housed in a LEED
Platinum-certified space, also doubles as a wind turbine distributor serving
Greensburg and the surrounding region.
Benefits and Lessons Learned

Rebuilding the town in an ecofriendly way was estimated to cost 20%
more. But the investment, which includes the following features, is paying
off; Greensburg saves $200,000 annually in energy costs for 13 of its largest
buildings. They do so by:
• Using a net metering ordinance to make renewable energy more affordable
for all residents
• Have the most LEED certified buildings per capita in the country
• Became the first city in Kansas to use all LED streetlights
• Installed wind turbines atop the arts center, hotel, hospital and school.
Aspen Colorado—Achieved 100% Renewable Energy by 2015—

Third in the Country
Best known as a glamorous ski town in the Rocky Mountains, in 2005
Aspen established the “Canary Initiative,” acknowledging that mountain towns
like Aspen were seeing the impacts of climate change before others. Acting
like “canaries in the coal mine,” they needed a concerted effort to protect their
environment and “their powder days.” Mayor Steve Skadron described the
process: “A lot of hard work, a commitment to a long-term goal and having
a vision is years later, we’ve accomplished what we thought was impossible...I
wanted to have confidence that what we’re doing is more than just a measure for
us to celebrate our own successes. I want to make sure that we have things that
are replicable and scalable for other communities to adopt.” [20]
Aspen at a Glance
• Population 6,658 (permanent residents)
• Legislative commitment, part of Canary Action Plan in 2007
• Colorado: Renewable portfolio standard (RPS) 10-20% by 2020 for
municipal utilities; allows community choice aggregation, power purchase
agreements, community solar
• Utility: City of Aspen Utilities (municipal)
• Key Entities Involved: Mayor, City Council, Utilities Department,
Environmental Health Department, City’s Canary Initiative [20]
Legislation and Change

• In 2005, Aspen’s City Council adopted the Canary Action Plan and
committed to a community-wide greenhouse gas emissions reduction
goal of 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (below 2004 levels), as well as a
renewable energy target and energy efficiency initiatives.
• Between 2004 and 2014 Aspen achieved a 7% reduction in community-

wide emissions and 42% reduction in emissions associated with City
of Aspen operations, and the city assumes an emissions “budget” that
decreases 2% every year.
• By 2014 Aspen achieved use of 75-80% renewable energy. Because the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is based in nearby Golden,
Aspen enlisted NREL to help them assess their energy supply and demand
options. NREL helped define what qualified as “renewable” and identified
the most feasible and cost-effective opportunities to meet the 100% goal.
• In 2015 Aspen contracted with Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska to
buy wind power from Nebraska and South Dakota; wind took the place of
the remaining coal on the grid and Aspen hit the 100% mark.
• Aspen’s current mix of renewable energy is approximately 50% wind, 45%
hydropower, and the remaining 5% from solar—including solar at the
water treatment plant and solar thermal powering an affordable housing
neighborhood—and landfill gas.
• Hydropower had been a source of energy in Aspen since the 19th century,
when the city was the first west of the Mississippi River to tap the power of
were the first in the West.
Atlanta, Georgia—First City in Georgia and

Largest in the South to Make the Commitment
Atlanta is driven by the desire to fuse clean energy, equity, and sustainability
goals. In voting for 100% renewable energy city wide by 2035, the City Council
stated, “Whereas the City’s commitment to 100% clean energy will create good
local jobs for Atlanta residents, reduce air pollution and associated public health
risks, reduce the strain on water resources, and save consumers money... And
these sources of energy have significant public health co-benefits associated
that can help address pressing environmental justice challenges in sensitive
communities in Atlanta.”
Atlanta at a Glance
• Population: 472,522
• Electric Utility: Georgia Power (Southern Company)
• 100% renewable energy for city buildings by 2025; community-wide
by 2035, and part of the City’s Sustainability Initiative, “The Power to
Change.”
Clean Energy, Equity and Sustainability Goals

Atlanta’s City Council’s unanimous vote put into law the agreement to
power all municipal facilities (including recreation centers, schools, libraries,
water and wastewater treatment plants, and the world’s busiest airport,
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport) with clean energy by 2025,
and the entire community by 2035. The next step was for the City of Atlanta
Mayor’s Office of Resilience to develop a plan by January 2018, with includes
interim milestones, budget projections, equity metrics, and financing options.
With outside consultants, and residential/pubic engagement, the city studied
policy scenarios to lead to the transition to 100% clean power.
Accomplishments to Date
• In 2015, Atlanta launched Solar Atlanta, a request for proposals to install
solar on municipal buildings, such as recreation centers and fire stations.
• Participated in the U.S. Department of Energy’s SolSmart solar program,
which led to streamlining the solar-permitting process for homeowners and
businesses; the success of the program earned Atlanta the SolSmart Gold
designation.
• In 2017 an update to the City’s Sustainable Design Guidelines for municipal
building stock. This ordinance requires all new construction, as well as
major renovations of City-financed projects, to achieve LEED Silver
certification, and all existing earn LEED certification for existing buildings.
• Mandated benchmarking and disclosure (monitoring and reporting
energy and water consumption, a practice that has been proven to drive
energy savings on its own, along with regular energy and water audits) in
commercial buildings larger than 25,000 square feet. This includes 80% of
the footprint of the City’s entire commercial sector.
• A national leader in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Better Buildings
Challenge. More than 114 million square feet of Atlanta’s building stock is
committed to reducing its energy and water consumption 20% by 2020.
• Coca Cola and Interface, two of Atlanta’s major businesses, confirmed
their support pledging their own 100% renewable energy goals.
Challenges Ahead
Georgia Power, Atlanta’s electricity provider has a portfolio that currently
is using just 2% renewable energy, favoring other energy sources such as coal,
natural gas, and nuclear. However, the utility is cited among the top utilities in
the country for solar capacity. Georgia Power’s long-term plan calls for adding
about 1,600 MW of renewable capacity, mostly in solar power, by 2021.
CONCLUSION
As Americans’ daily lives are completely changed by the current pandemic,

it is often difficult to remember or even focus on the fact that in November 2020
there will be a presidential election.
If a new president is elected, there is no doubt there will be renewed
leadership from the U.S. on climate change, including renewable energy.
However, even if there is no changing of the guard, the lessons one can draw
from states and cities give me faith that the U.S. will continue to make progress,
reducing reliance on fossil fuels and replacing them with 100% renewable
energy. As related costs diminish and innovation continues, states and cities will
push forward to do what is necessary, with or without the support of the U.S.
government. States will benefit from the progress and mistakes made by others,
and mayors will share best practices. The jury is out if we as a nation and a
world will meet the fast approaching deadlines to combat climate change. It is
clear, however, that we can if we set our minds to it. After all, enough sunlight
hits the Earth every hour to supply the world’s energy needs for an entire year.
[10]
References
[1] Renée M. Nault, Argonne National Laboratory, Basic Research Needs For Solar Energy
Utilization, September 2005. Available at authors.library.caltech.edu/8599/1//SEU_
rpt05.pdf.
[2] https://www.sierraclub.org/ready-for-100/commitments. Accessed April 13, 2020.
[3] Sundby, Johnathan, Weissman, Gideon Weissman, Sargent, Rob. (2019, August).
Renewables on the Rise, A Decade of Progress Toward a Clean Energy Future.
Environment America Research & Policy Center and Frontier Group. FRG-AME_
Renewables-On-The-Rise_2019_v1a.pdf. Accessed September 2019.
[4] https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/caucus/2020/01/31/
iowa-leading-caucuses-and-climate/4627651002/. Accessed April 14, 2020.
[5] https://internetofthingsagenda.techtarget.com/definitio n/smart-city. Accessed April 10,
2020.
[6] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b3c517fec4eb767a04e73ff/t/5b513c57aa4a9
9f62d168e60/1532050650562/Eden-OXD_Top+50+Smart+City+Governments.pdf.
Accessed April 10, 2020.
[7] https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx#ia. Accessed
April 10, 2020.
[8] https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/us-renewables-portfolio-standards-2. Accessed April
13, 2020.
[9] https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/leading-the-way-
on-clean-energy/. Accessed April 14, 2020. (Originally posted in April 03, 2017.)
[10] https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/business/renewab leenergy-report.pdf. Accessed
April 14, 2020.
[11] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Electric Generator Inventory.
Washington, DC. Posted August 2019.
[12] https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/business/Renewa bleEnergy.pdf. Accessed April 14,
2020.
[13] Lee, N., Flores-Espino, F. and Hurlbut (2017, September). Renewable energy zone (REZ)
transmission and planning process: a guidebook for practitioners. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory and United States Agency for International Development. https://
greeningthegrid.org/Renewable-Energy-Zones-Toolkit, accessed 8 September 2019.
[14] https://www.solarstates.org/#state/texas/counties/sol ar-jobs/2019. Accessed April 9,
2020.
[15] https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=IA#38. Accessed April 14, 2020.
[16] https://wcfcourier.com/opinion/columnists/guest_col umnists/guest-column-clean-
energy-is-bipartisan-issue/article_ee28af23-356b-5e50-87e7-1675a61c1c8d.html.
Accessed April 14, 2020.
[17] https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/climate-change/clean-energy-plan/NC_Clean_Energy_Plan_
OCT_2019_.pdf. Accessed April 7, 2020.
[18] https://www.thesolarfoundation.org/solar-jobs-census/factsheet-2019-NC/. Accessed
April 9, 2020.
[19] https://seia.org/state-solar-policy/north-carolina-solar. Accessed April 9, 2020.
[20] https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/blog/RF100-Case-Studies-
Cities-Report.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2020.
[21] https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/blog/RF100-Case-Studies-
Report-2017.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2020.
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Nancy Najarian is a clean energy consultant and international development
professional with over 15 years’ experience initiating, designing, and managing
projects in the U.S. and developing countries. She has won over $275 million
in new business contracts and grants for clients in the past 5 years. In addition
to new business development, Ms. Najarian creates strategic partnerships,
and develops strategies to achieve market entry for companies working in the
business to government, business to business, and business to consumer markets.
In support of this work, she manages and writes technical proposals and
papers on renewable energy, energy efficiency, infrastructure, construction, and
sustainability projects in the U.S. and worldwide. Ms. Najarian is a member of
the Clean Energy Working Group that recently led a coalition of 40 Virginian
grassroots groups in an ultimately successful effort to pass the Virginia Clean
Energy Act and the Solar Freedom Bill. Her advocacy work includes organizing
educational forums for elected national, state and local officials that highlight
policy changes, regulatory reforms, and laws necessary to support the growth
of renewable energy and energy efficiency. At the 2019 AEE World Energy
Conference and Expo, Ms. Najarian presented a Poster and Paper Sharing and
Learning Best Renewable Energy Practices in the Developing World. Based
in Northern Virginia, Ms. Najarian is a member of AEE’s National Capital
Chapter and Council on Women in Energy and Environmental Leadership
(CWEEL). She received her B.A. from New York University, and her M.S. from
Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. Nancy Najarian may be
contacted via email at nancynaj@gmail.com.
High Plume Fan Staging Strategies for

Energy Reduction
Nicholas Keller, PE, CEM, CCP, BECxP, LEED-AP
Patrick Casey, FE
ABSTRACT
Reducing energy and related cost in laboratories while maintaining safe

operating parameters is a focus of laboratory owners and operators across the
facility industry. Recent developments have created opportunities to operate
equipment safely at lower energy consumption levels through the integration of
both new technology and updated control strategies. This article discusses the
integration of advances in laboratory exhaust air technology with fan staging
control strategies to reduce the energy consumption of high plume fans.
This work was done as a part of multiple energy reduction projects
at large commercial research facilities with mixed use tenants performing
various research and business operations functions. The existing high plume
exhaust fans initially were operating under different control strategies employed
to maintain exit velocities at the fans. Integrating high plume fan sensing
technology allowed elimination of bypass air and staging fans to operate at
lower individual volumetric flow during safe exhaust air dilution levels. Field
measurements demonstrated and confirmed this energy conservation approach.
INTRODUCTION
Laboratory facilities are one of the highest consumers of energy on a per

square foot basis. The number of laboratories is increasing as they are needed
for accelerated scientific pursuit. They therefore are a potential target for energy
reduction. Environmentally conscious owners and users are driving the need
for energy conservation measures that maintain reliability and safety, while
decreasing demand and carbon footprint. Comprehensive efforts are ongoing to
understand energy and water consumption in laboratories and explore alternate
more efficient measures.
This goal of reducing energy consumption within laboratory environments
has led the industry to focus on reducing the energy required to condition make-
up air for the laboratory spaces through multiple avenues. From a traditional
constant volume supply system, the current approach has been to a variable
volume system. Other avenues are: 1) reducing air flow to reduce air change
rates, 2) effectively recovering energy from exhaust air and transferring to make
up air, and 3) ensuring the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC)
system’s required for conditioning of the make-up air are efficient.
Studying and implementing options to reduce the energy consumption of
laboratory exhaust fans has not been a focus of the industry because of safety
requirements related to the dispersion and dilution of contaminated laboratory
exhaust. The arrangement is further described below. Currently, high plume
fans are used for dispersion of laboratory exhaust. To maintain a constant
discharge velocity a bypass arrangement is provided at the plenum of these
exhaust fans. Fans transporting laboratory exhaust air typically use bypass
air to ensure exit velocities are maintained when space ventilation rates are
lower than the flow required to maintain exit velocity. After bypass air flow is
eliminated through high plume fan active sensing, maintaining total system air
flow while reducing fan set power consumption through fan staging strategies is
an emerging beneficial approach. Fan staging strategies with fans operating in
a lead/standby configuration and without bypass or not using bypass have also
proved to be effective in reducing energy consumption at these fan sets.
Recent developments in the reliable and cost-effective monitoring of
exhaust air contamination have opened the opportunity to study and implement
new strategies to reduce energy consumption by laboratory high plume exhaust
fan sets by reducing required fan flow and exit velocities.
These strategies are made possible because of the recent introduction of
more robust sensing technology. Combining the elimination of bypass air flow
and fan staging strategies using laboratory exhaust active sensing results in
energy consumption reduction opportunities that should be evaluated for new
and existing laboratory facilities.
Active sensing strategies that incorporate sensors with an extended long-
term useful life, reliability, and accuracy are critical to the cost effective, safe,
and consistent operation of these fan sets throughout the life cycle of the
equipment and facility.
Figure 1 illustrates active chemical sensing applied to a lab exhaust system.
Shown in this example is a lab exhaust system that incorporates multiple
risers. The system includes a multipoint air sampling system that draws air
samples from each exhaust riser and provides detection using a photoionization
detector (PID) as its main sensor. The PID is a highly sensitive device capable
of detecting hundreds of airborne compounds at trace concentration levels.
Monitoring each riser provides improved detection as it enables the sensing
system to more readily detect the presence of contaminants in each riser before
they are diluted by the potentially clean air from the other risers as the air flows
combine at the fan set’s plenum. When contaminants are present within any
of the monitored risers, with newer technologies, the active sensing system is
capable of protecting its PID sensor from over exposure, thus preventing drift
and reliability issues.
The output of the active sensing system (Figure 1) is a setback signal that
is communicated to the fan controls to enable the exhaust fans to operate at a
lower exit velocity if contaminants are not present. However, if contaminants
are present within any riser, setback will be disabled. Further, the frequency with
Figure 1. Typical High Plume Fan Active Sensing

which a system will be placed in setback is limited to prevent fan hunting and
mechanical ware on the fan system.
The elimination of bypass air is the first opportunity for savings presented
by high plume fan active sensing. The details are described as follows:
Laboratory high plume exhaust fan sets are selected to ensure system
design maximum flow expectations can be met by the fan set. Fan redundancy,
typically N+1, is integrated into the fan set selection through the addition of a
fan that will operate upon failure of another operating fan within the fan set.
Individual fans within the fan set will be selected to operate in their efficient
range while effectively maintaining required plume height by meeting flow
rate and resultant nozzle velocity requirements. Contaminated exhaust fan set
plume height requirements are determined through dispersion analysis based
on building configuration and location, fan set location, outdoor air intake
positioning, and the exposure risk the contaminated exhaust poses. Typically,
these considerations require the discharge velocity of any given fan set to meet
the design requirements detailed through the dispersion analysis to be met
or ANSI Z9.5 velocity requirement of a minimum 3,000 feet per minute exit
velocity to always be maintained.
Typical fan set and system control strategies range from the fans operating
at constant speed allowing the fan set bypass damper to operate to maintain
plenum and duct static pressure or variable flow fans that operate to maintain
duct or plenum static pressure set point until the fan set reduces to its minimum
allowable speed and flow for required plume height. When the variable fan set is
at its minimum speed and flow operating point, the bypass damper modulates to
maintain static pressure within the duct and constant volume at the operating fans.
The implementation of a typical design approach and control strategy,
as defined and driven by the owner’s project requirements, established goals,
anticipated occupancy, type of space use, and operating approach expectations,
creates opportunities to integrate high plume fan set active sensing technology.
Often, post construction changes in space use and occupancy due to adjustments
in process or tenant occupancy can result in inefficient fan set operation,
higher bypass air volumetric flow, or an increase in intrinsic redundancy to
N+2. Inevitable deviation from design assumptions and expectations can be
automatically managed through high plume fan active sensing integrated with
energy efficient control strategies to allow the fan set to operate safely while
consuming less power across changes to exhaust requirements. The intrinsic
reliability designed into these fan sets allows for fan staging opportunities to be
taken advantage of when integrating reliable and cost-effective contaminant
sensing technology. These two characteristics result in fan staging opportunities
to be common to many fan sets installed and operating today.
DISCUSSION
The authors used a different operating strategy that resulted in an energy

efficient operation. Instead of operating fewer fans at higher speeds (at which
the fans operate closest to peak efficiency), operating additional fans, with each
fan at lower speed, can often result in a lower total power consumption by the
fan set. When an additional fan is staged on, the total system flow remains
constant and the plenum static pressure remains unchanged, but the flow per
fan is reduced. Because the flow at each fan is reduced, the discharge velocity
is also reduced, which results in a lower velocity pressure at the discharge of
each individual fan. Depending on fan set and individual fan characteristics, the
lower discharge pressure at each fan results in lower power consumption despite
the fan operating at a lower efficiency point. Testing was performed on a high
plume fan set designed with three fans drawing from a common plume fitted
with a bypass air damper. The fan set maintains at a constant duct static pressure
set point of 1.75-inch water column (-in WC) at two risers serving a portion of
the facility. The authors confirmed the total flow and inlet static pressure remain
unchanged by staging, as detailed in the field test data shown in Table 1.
Table 1 shows the operating conditions of an energy recovery unit (ERU)
fan set operating with one fan and two fans with constant system conditions.
The fans on this unit modulate speed to maintain the duct static pressure
setpoint. Under the ventilation load that occurred during testing, one fan
was capable of satisfying the demand alone meeting the duct static pressure
setpoint of 1.75-in WC, but near maximum capacity (operating at 57.2 Hz,
approximately 95.3% speed). These operating conditions resulted in an
inlet static pressure of 2.76-in WC at the fan set common plenum and total
system flow of 37,434 cfm, as measured by a certified balancer. After these
conditions were determined with the system operating just one fan, a second
fan was energized to modulate in parallel with the first fan. To serve the
ventilation demand (maintain duct static pressure of 1.75-in WC) with two
fans, each fan operated at 38 Hz, approximately 63.6% speed. The plenum or
fan inlet static pressure for two fans operating was measured to be the same
as the plenum or inlet static pressure with just one fan operating. The total
system flow was measured to be 37,911 cfm. The inlet static pressure with
two fans was identical to that with one fan operating and the total system
air flow increased by a negligible amount (~1%). However, the power draw
serving the ventilation demand with just one fan was 39.1 kW, while the total
power draw for two fans serving the same demand was 25 kW (12 kW and 13
kW, respectively). Simply by staging on a second fan, a power reduction of
approximately 14.1 kW was achieved.
Table 2 shows the operating conditions on another ERU fan set operating
with one fan and two fans. The fans on this unit modulate speed to maintain
the duct static pressure setpoint. Under the ventilation load that occurred
during testing, one fan could satisfy the demand alone, meeting the duct static
pressure setpoint of 1.75-in WC sensed at 2/3 of the length of the riser, but near
maximum capacity (operating at 52 Hz, approximately 86.7% speed). These
operating conditions resulted in an inlet static pressure of 3.06-in WC and a
total system flow of 25,320 cfm, as measured by a certified balancer. After these
conditions were determined with the system operating one fan, a second fan was
energized to modulate in parallel. To serve the ventilation demand (maintain
duct static pressure of 1.75-in WC) with two fans, each fan operated at 39.7 Hz,
approximately 66.2% speed. The inlet static pressure for two fans operating was
measured to be 3.07-in WC and the total system flow was measured to be 25,225
cfm. The inlet static pressure with two fans was differed by just 0.01” WC from
that with one fan operating and the total system air flow decreased by a negligible
amount (>1%). However, the power draw serving the ventilation demand with
just one fan was 22.2 kW, while the total power draw for two fans serving the
same exact demand was 18 kW (8.9 kW and 9.1 kW, respectively). By staging on a
second fan, a power reduction of approximately 4.2 kW was achieved.
The unique attribute that each fan in an exhaust fan set pulls from a
common plenum but discharges into an individual fixed opening is central to the
energy reduction opportunity through staging. Because the discharge pressure
at each fan decreases with the system flow distributed across two fans and fan
openings rather than one and the plenum pressure remains constant because the
system flow is maintained, the total static pressure across each fan is decreased.
Overall, this results in a system operating with the same air flow and a lower
total static pressure. Per the standard air flow brake horsepower (BHP) equation
shown below, this results in a lower brake horsepower for the system.
BHP = (CFM × TSP) / (ηfan × 6,356)
This can also be demonstrated using the manufacturer’s fan curves,

manipulated with the affinity laws. If the speed and inlet static pressure are
available, the air flow can be determined by using the fan inlet static pressure
curves, adjusted based on speed using the affinity laws. This flow can be used to
determine the pre-staging flow per fan. That flow can be used with the fan speed
to determine the pre-staging BHP per fan. To predict the new speed after staging,
divide the total flow by the new number of fans operating. Use this flow and the
inlet static pressure to determine the new speed after staging using the fan inlet
static pressure curves. Once the new speed and flow per fan are known, the fan
BHP curve can be used to determine the new BHP per fan upon staging. Figure
2 is a chart depicting the fan curve manipulation detailed above specific to the

Table 1. Air Flow Characteristic Testing with Fan Staging Example 1
Table 2. Air Flow Characteristic Testing with Fan Staging Example 2

Volume 2, Number 4
61
62
Figure 2. Fan Curve Analysis with Fan Staging Example 1

fan set in Example 1. It includes the original 100% speed manufacturer curves.
Additionally, it shows the curves of a single fan and two fans operating to the same
point (in yellow). It is evident from this chart that satisfying that demand with two
fans results in a significant BHP reduction compared to a single fan.
There are limits to the effectiveness of staging on additional fans at the same
system flow. As more fans are staged on, the energy reduction per additional
fan decreases, because the individual fan discharge pressure reduction is less,
because the same flow is spread over multiple fan openings. The lower individual
fan flow and lower speeds negatively affect the equipment operating efficiencies.
At a certain point, the decrease in efficiency will become greater than the energy
savings from the discharge pressure reduction. At that point, energizing another
fan will increase in power consumption. Two such examples are shown in Table
3 and Table 4.
As detailed in Tables 3 and 4, staging from a single fan to two fans results
in power savings for these units. However, staging from two to three fans results
in an increase in power consumption because of the reduced benefits created
by lowering the individual fan discharge restriction and the increase in energy
penalty driven by decreased wire to shaft efficiency at lower speeds.
The plots in Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate the point above graphically. Each
plot contains power versus flow curves for two different ERUs, each with one or
two fans operating. kW was calculated from the BHP from the manufacturer data
and calculated part load efficiencies for the motor and variable-frequency drive
(VFD). The air flow values at which the lines intersect indicate at what point fans
should be staged up or down. Below this air flow, it is more beneficial to operate
one fan. Above this air flow, two fans consume less energy, by a significantly
growing margin as air flow is increased above that point. For Example 5, the
fan speed corresponding to the intersection is approximately 39.5 Hz for one
fan operating and 29.5 Hz for two fans operating. For Example 6, the fan speed
corresponding to the intersection is approximately 41 Hz for one fan operating
and 31 Hz for two fans operating. They would ideally be used as the lag on and
lag off points, respectively, for transitioning between one and two fans operating.
In addition to staging individual fans of a common fan set to reduce
overall power consumption, the authors tested the same approach to separate
fan sets serving a common duct system. Power consumption measurements at
constant system flow while staging on additional fans at the separate fans sets are
provided in Table 5. As detailed, the fan sets originally operate independently
to meet system flow requirements with two fans operating. Staging on two
additional fans, one on each set, allows the overall power consumed by the two
fan sets to decrease because of a reduction in discharge pressure by distributing
system flow over the additional fans of each fan set.
64
Table 3. Fan Staging Example 3 Power Only
Table 4. Fan Staging Example 4 Power Only


Volume 2, Number 4
Figure 3. Fan Staging Example 5 Power versus Flow Comparison

65
66
Figure 4. Fan Staging Example 6 Power versus Flow Comparison

Table 5. Separate Fan Staging Example Power Only
Integrating reliable and cost-effective high plume laboratory high plume

exhaust fan active sensing allows facility designers to appropriately size
laboratory high plume exhaust fan sets to optimize the function of safety and
energy consumption while meeting demand requirements. Recent developments
in sensing strategies by high plume fan manufacturers has created sensors that
are longer lasting, more reliable, and have higher accuracy for longer periods.
These new sensors’ characteristics have increased return on investment metrics
for these opportunities and confidence in applying these energy conservation
strategies. Facility operators will benefit from the integration of laboratory
exhaust high plume fan active sensing to ensure optimal operation of these
fan sets based on the operating characteristics of their facility today and
vary with changes to laboratory use and occupancy regardless of process or
tenant changes without required manual intervention or system logic changes.
Strategies around eliminating bypass air and fan staging, as detailed in this
article, are key to long term high efficiency laboratory facility operation.
CONCLUSION
High plume fan sets are a unique design where multiple fans serve a common
plenum and connected ductwork system while discharging through individual
fixed opening built up stacks. Fan staging maintains system air flow leaving the
laboratories unaffected by changes in fan operation. Energy reduction takes
place through spreading the system flow across additional fans, decreasing the
discharge pressure of each fan pushing into its individual fixed built up stack
opening. Staging strategies need to be carefully implemented to ensure proper
fan staging points as lower efficiencies and a reduction in the benefits of reduced
discharge pressure affect the power consumption of the fan set. Operating these
fan sets at lower velocities cannot be done safely without the use of high plume
fan active sensing.
Bibliography
ASHRAE Laboratory Design Guide, Planning and Operation of Laboratory
HVAC system, 2nd edition, 2015.
Laboratory Ventilation, ANSI/AHIA/ASSP Z9.5 American Industrial Hygiene

Association.
DiBerardinis L, Baum J, Gatwood G, Seth A; Laboratory Design Health &
Safety Considerations, John Wiley and Sons, 2010.
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Nicholas Keller, PE, CEM, CCP, BECxP, LEED-AP is a principal at
ICO Energy and Engineering and has over 20 years in the commissioning,
energy, and engineering field with extensive experience in power generation,
central plant and distributed energy, and commercial facility operations
including critical use environments.
Patrick Casey, FE, is a commissioning and energy engineer at ICO Energy

and Engineering working on projects to increase reliability and operability while
reducing energy consumption and environmental impact. Mr. Casey is a recent
graduate of Boston University making significant contributions to ICO Energy
and Engineering’s energy and critical facility projects in his 2 plus years in the
field.
Grid Power Daily Regulation by

Combined-Cycle Power Plant
Temur K. Mikiashvili, PhD, CEM; Baadur Sh.Chkhaidze, PhD, CEM
Tengiz S. Jishkariani, PhD, CEM; Omar D. Kiguradze, PhD, CEM
Gia O. Arabidze, PhD, CEM
ABSTRACT
High efficiency of gas turbine combined cycle (GTCC) units provides

their wide introduction in contemporary grids. Such units are predominantly
used for base (unchanged) loads, where the control algorithm of gas turbines
function with the “so-called” control along the temperature control curve. It
is designed so that the control system, to maintain high steam parameters and
provide high heat efficiency of the unit, increases exhaust gas temperature
of the gas turbine by means of an impact on the combustion process during
unloading the unit. However, such algorithm does not provide significant
unloading of the unit overnight as the increase of the gas temperature is
restricted with the allowable temperature (610-630°C) of the surfaces of
heating of the heat recovery steam generators (HRSG). Hence, unloading
value of the units is restricted and a possibility of using them for a daily
control of the power of the grid is minimum.
It seems that the application of the gas turbine combine cycle units for just
the base loads is an outdated approach. Significant (deep) unloading of the units
during the night hours is economically beneficial for the power systems of a lot
of countries, especially when using imported fuels, which is not possible with
the unit control system; however, technically it is achievable. For the significant
unloading of the units, it is necessary to improve their control algorithm so
that unloading occurs with the pre-planned temperature change of the gasses
in the gas turbine, which will not result in the overheating of the surfaces of
heating of the HRSGs. The application of such algorithm will significantly
improve flexibility of the operation of GTCC units, grow their role in the power
regulation of the electric systems and expand the area of their use.
Possibilities of participation of combined-cycle power plants in grid power
daily regulation are reviewed in the article. New control principle significantly
increasing an unloading range of such power generating unit without shutting
down and technically reconstructing the equipment is proposed. An expected
unloading value when applying the proposed method is estimated.
INTRODUCTION
The combined-cycle power generating units (plants) are directly designed

to generate power under the base load schedule and its value does not change
in the daily (as well as seasonal) cycle. However, at such power systems, where
the share of the seasonal hydropower plants is high, the share of the flexing
generators is low and the base power generation is conducted with expensive (in
most cases, imported) fossil fuel, it becomes necessary for the combined-cycle
power generating units to participate in the daily regulation with maximum
unloading during the night time and loading during the daytime.
Daily regulation is quite an issue for gas-steam units (power generating
units) within which 2/3 of the power generation comes from the gas turbines.
Here, the algorithm of automatic control of the gas turbine power functions
with the standard software (control along the temperature control curve)
attempting to maintain high exhaust gas temperature during the unloading
process of the power generating units. At this moment, the temperature of
the exhaust gas, as usual, increases when the power of the power generating
units reduces and at certain power, it achieves limit value, which is critical for
the heating surface (610-630°C) of the heat recovery steam generators. This
is the minimum power that can technically be achieved at the combined-cycle
base power generating units. Often, even deeper unloading of the equipment
becomes necessary, and this is impossible with standard power control
software of the gas turbines. In such case, one of the solutions is to change the
algorithm of the gas turbine control and switch it to an open-cycle gas turbine
control mode.
This article is dedicated to the thermo-dynamic analysis of the combined-
cycle power generating units when operated with incomplete load and various
power control modes.
The goal of the work is to estimate deep unloading possibilities of the gas
turbine combined-cycle power generating units, which is urgent for the daily
regulation of the electrical system power with such units.
Daily Regulation Issue

Let us review the task on the example of 230-MW combined-cycle power
generating (GE206 FA) unit the structure of which is 1 x (2+2+1) = 2 gas
turbines, 2 steam exhaust gas boilers, 1 steam turbine (Figure 1). Image of the
daily regulation of the power grid with these power-generating units showing
the necessity of its deep unloading is provided in Figure 2. Unloading value
reaches 14% and on average, minimum loads make up 40 to 70% of the
established power.
Figure 1. Layout of GE206 FA combined-cycle power generating unit
Generally, the combined-cycle power generating unit having 2+2+1

structure can be unloaded by simultaneous unloading of two gas turbines, two
HRSG and a steam turbine before the temperature of the exhaust gas in the gas
turbine reaches its maximum allowable value. Further unloading is achievable
by switching off one gas turbine and one HRSG. However, even in such a case,
the unloading depth is limited by the increase of the exhaust gas temperature.
According to the manufacturer’s data, unloading of the GE206FA combined
unit along the temperature control curve is possible up to approximately 41%
- b-b - Figure 2, but due to the fact that it is often required to unload thermal
power plants within the daily cycle and it is not recommended to daily switch
off the gas turbine due to its reliability and durability, the power of the power
generating unit is reduced when running two gas turbines. This decreases the
unloading depth to approx. 73% - a-a - Figure 2. It is clear from the drawing
that the thermal power plant cannot satisfy the unloading requirement of the
grid with two gas turbines—big amount of the modes is located under the
line—a-a or it satisfies it on the account of unallowable increase of the exhaust
gas temperature, which is critical for the HRSG.
The above proves how complex it is to unload the power plant with
the standard final temperature control software. Therefore, it is urgent for
the participation of the combined-cycle power generating units in the daily
regulation of the power generation, to switch to the open-cycle control software.
This task requires pre-evaluation of the efficiency change of the power-
generating unit in the open-cycle control software modes.
In the following, we will conduct efficiency analysis of perfect gas-steam
combined cycle when controlling the gas turbines with two different software.
Thermodynamic Efficiency of a Perfect Gas-steam Turbine Cycle

Thermodynamic analysis of the gas-steam combined cycle is a simplified
form of the analysis in which polytropic and mechanic efficiency coefficients
72
Figure 2. Daily regulation of electrical system power by GE206 FA combined-cycle power generating unit
of the compressor, gas turbine and steam turbine as well as electrical efficiency
of the electrical generator, etc. are not considered. It will provide qualitative
drawing of the perfect combined cycle efficiency in the partial loads of the unit
and various modes of the power control, which is sufficient to identify general
tendencies and specify further directions of the detail study.
At the initial stage let us get the formula to estimate thermal efficiency
coefficient of perfect combined cycle. For this purpose, let’s review T-S diagram
of this cycle—Figure 3 (scale not maintained). Let’s use the following definitions
and indexes:
Q1S, Q2S is the heat supplied and rejected in the steam cycle;
Q1G, Q2G is the heat supplied and rejected in gas cycle;
ηHRSG = Q1S/Q2G is the efficiency of the exhaust gas heat return (thermal
efficiency of HRSG);
ηG = 1 – Q2G/Q1G,
ηS = 1 – Q2S/Q1S, and
ηCC = (Q1G – Q2G + Q1S - Q2S)/Q1G, respectively, are the coefficients of
thermal efficiency of gas cycle, steam cycle and combined cycle.
Figure 3. TS diagram
of gas-steam perfect
combined cycle (internal
reversible)
Using these definitions and indexes, from the energy balance condition
we arrive at the following formula of the coefficient of thermal efficiency of
the perfect combined cycle (gas-steam combined cycle without combusting
additional fuel):
ηCC = ηG + ηHRSG x [ηS – (ηG x ηS)] (Eq 1)
(The formula in Equation 1 has been derived by the authors of the article)
Control of Gas Turbine Power in Combined-cycle

Power Generating Unit
As mentioned before, control of the gas turbine power in the combined
cycle (unloading, overloading) is conducted along the temperature control
curve according to which high value of the temperature is maintained at partial
loads of the gas turbines. The purpose of such control is to provide high initial
parameters of the steam cycle and achieve maximum efficiency of the combined
cycle in partial loading of the power generating unit. It is aimed at regulating
the gas turbine with the quantitative method (by maintaining constant value
of the initial temperature). This is control by adjustment of the mass air flow
brought to the combustion chamber by the guide vanes of the compressor (vane)
and change of the heat supply in direct proportion to the air supply.
The changes of the initial and final temperatures of the gas turbines, as
well as the change of the thermodynamic efficiency of the perfect gas cycle
in conducting the quantitative control (the result is derived by the estimation
model elaborated by the authors for certain assumptions and standard initial
conditions) are given in Figure 4. As seen from the drawing, the temperature of
the exhaust gas reaches critical values (610-630˚C) at 60% of the air flow which
corresponds to 55% of the gas turbine load. For further unloading it becomes
necessary to reduce the exhaust gas temperature, which is possible by switching
to the qualitative control of the gas turbines when the fuel flows within the
combustion chamber are reduced when constantly supplying air. Respective
diagrams of such control are given in Figure 5.
Control of Power of Combined-cycle Power Generating Unit

Thermodynamic efficiency of the 2+2+1 structure GTCC unit and
temperature of the exhaust gas versus the unit load in quantitative (control
along the temperature control curve) and qualitative regulations is given in
Figure 6.
As seen from diagrams, thermodynamic efficiency of the combined-cycle
power generating units at partial loads is higher when unloading is performed
with quantitative control of the gas turbine (abc - curve in Figure 6) and it is
less when unloading is performed with qualitative control of the gas turbine
(ade - curve in Figure 6). Although the difference is minor, priority in unloading
the power generating unit should be given to the quantitative power control.
However, the increase of the exhaust gas temperature reaching its limit value
(~120%, bb - point) at ~60% load, for further unloading, requires switching
to the qualitative power control. Respectively, unloading of the reviewed type
power generating unit can be conducted in two stages: by quantitative power
control to 60% (a-b and aa-bb curves) and by qualitative control below 60% (d-e
and dd-ee curves).

Volume 2, Number 4
Figure 4. Change of thermodynamic characteristics in perfect gas turbine cycle when changing air
and fuel flows (quantitative control)
75
76
Figure 5. Change of thermodynamic characteristics in perfect gas turbine cycle when changing fuel
flow (qualitative control)

Volume 2, Number 4
Figure 6. Thermal efficiency of 2+2+1 structure combined-cycle power generating unit and
temperature of exhaust gas at various loads in quantitative and qualitative regulation of the gas
turbines
77
Such a scenario will significantly increase the unloading range of the

combined-cycle power generating units (at least to 30%), enabling them to
participate in the daily regulation of the grid as the base power generating units
without any technical restrictions.
To implement the proposed power adjustment scenario, it will be required
to elaborate hybrid software for managing the combustion process in the gas
turbines, which will incorporate the software of the open and combined cycle gas
turbines into one common control philosophy. For elaboration of such software,
accurate quantitative dependences should be estimated using manufacture tests
of the gas turbines (for what calculation results provided in this study, which are
derived based on a number of assumptions and simplifications are insufficient).
Considering the results of a recent study [1], the authors hope that
elaboration of the hybrid software of the management of the combine-
cycle power generating units and its further application will not result in the
deterioration of their ecological values.
CONCLUSION
Gas turbine combined-cycle power units are highly efficient (50-60%) because
they are used for the base loads. Such power units are not adapted for daily power
regulation in the power grids, however, often there exists such a requirement.
The study conducted by the authors showed that in small power grids, deep
unloading of the combined-cycle power units during the nighttime is extremely
important, which is hard to achieve with standard control software.
The authors believe that the simplest way to resolve this issue is to upgrade
the power control software of the power unit, for example, by merging open and
combined-cycle control algorithms, and this does not require the reconstruction
of the equipment. The study shows that with the merged (combined) software,
it is possible to achieve deep unloading of the base combined-cycle power units
without any significant deterioration of their efficiency.
The authors believe that to specify the results of theoretical study, it
is necessary to conduct experimental studies during which true unloading
boundaries of gas turbine combined cycle units will be determined by using an
advance control algorithm. This will allow us to widely introduce the results in
the combined-cycle power plants and significantly increase their advantage over
the other thermo power plants.
References
[1] Roointon Parvi, Gerald D. Moore, GER-4211/(03/01), GE Energy Services,
Atlanta, GA/GE Power System.
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Temur Mikiashvili, PhD, CEM has been working for the Georgian
Technical University since 1990. At various times he led energy efficiency and
thermal power plant optimization projects, conducted research on combined-
cycle energy unit operation regimes. He has published over 80 scientific articles,
6 textbooks and 2 monographs. Professor Mikiashvili is an executive director
of Georgian Association of Energy Engineers (GAEE). Dr. Mikiashvili may be
contacted via email at temurmikiashvili@yahoo.com.
Baadur Chkhaidze, PhD, CEM has been working for the Georgian
Technical University since 1968. At various times he led renewable energy
chapter in Sakenergo State Institution. He has published over 90 scientific
articles, 1 textbook and 1 monograph. Prof. Chkhaidze is a vice president of
Georgian Association of Energy Engineers. Dr. Chkhaidze may be contacted
via email at bchkhaidze@yahoo.com.
Tengiz Jishkariani, PhD, CEM has been working for the Georgian
Technical University since 1969. At various times he led energy efficiency,
thermal energy transformation and optimization projects; and conducted
research on fuel use and combustion process optimization. He has published
over 146 scientific articles, 28 textbooks and 4 monographs. Prof. Jishkariani is a
member of the Georgian Energy Academy and Georgian Association of Energy
Engineers. Dr. Jishkariani may be contacted via email at tengish@yahoo.com.
Omar D. Kiguradze, PhD, CEM has been working for the Georgian
Technical University since 1971. At various times he led adoption of energy
saving technologies in different sectors of industry, and carried out research
of optimization of calorimeters and thermal devices. He has published over
130 scientific articles, 10 textbooks and 2 monographs. Prof. Kughuradze is a
member of the Georgian Energy Academy and Georgian Association of Energy
Engineers. Dr. Kughuradze may be contacted via email at kiguradzeomar@
gmail.com.
Gia Arabidze, PhD, CEM has been working for the Georgian Technical
University since 1972. At various times he led energy efficiency projects in
households and industrial facilities. He has published over 140 scientific articles,
25 textbooks and 4 monographs. Prof. Arabidze is a member of the Georgian
Energy Academy and the Academy of Engineering, and Georgian Association
of Energy Engineers. Currently, Professor Arabidze is a Dean of Power
Engineering and Telecommunication Faculty at Georgian Technical University.
Dr. Arabidze may be contacted via email at giagiorgi@hotmail.com.
New
e
Onlinm s
Progra le
Availab
Now
Get Certified & Excel

R
AEE’s certification and training programs Certified Energy Manager Certified Measurement &
Verfification Professional
have helped more than 30,000

professionals gain recognition for their TM
®
technical knowledge and industry Certified Business

Energy Professional
expertise. Our programs are recognized

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

®
utilities, energy service companies, and Energy Efficiency Practitioner
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
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)

IJEM Vol2 Iss4 Online COMPLETE

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 Vol2 Iss4 Online COMPLETE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 2 | Issue 4 | 2020

Volume 2 | Issue 4 | 2020

International Journal of Energy Management

Published by the Association of Energy Engineers

Over 18,000 professionals in 105 countries trust the Association of

ISSN: 2643-6779 (Print) Editor Steven Parker

9 Building Energy Management System (BEMS): A Management

27 U.S. States and Cities: The Unstoppable Move Toward 100%

69 Grid Power Daily Regulation by Combined-cycle Power Plant—Temur K.

JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ENERGY ENGINEERS®

ISSN: 2643-6779 (print)

Steven Parker, PE, CEM

AEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2020

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

AEE MEMBERSHIP CHANGES

Get In Touch Find us on Social Media or visit...

Find us on Social Media or visit... 27 Student

• Portland, Oregon (PDX)

• Miami, Florida (MIA)

• Dallas, Texas (DFW)

Covid-19 PCR test results, so they eventually relaxed it to 7-days.

Building Energy Management

Today energy efficiency is recognized as being one of the critical concerns

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Internet of Things (IoT) model is increasingly becoming common

WHAT IS A BUILDING ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

A building energy management system is a micro-processor-based system

data gathering, systems control, and inter-system communication. It is an

The main components that make up an entire building energy management

energy to operate their various facilities and equipment [13]. Therefore, a

Operational Advantages of Building Energy Management System

There are also certain challenges associated with the implementation of

BUILDING ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AS AN MIS TOOL

Building energy management systems, when viewed as an MIS tool,

Benefits of Building Energy Management Systems as an MIS tool

2. Encourage best practices in operations by eliminating sources of poor

3. Provide support for implementation of energy-saving projects by

4. Demonstrate the success or benefits of projects that have been implemented

The volume of savings that can be realized by implementation of a

ADVANTAGES OF IMPLEMENTING BEMS

BEMS offers unique tailor-made advantages to buildings that will vary

Figure 1. Advantages of implementing BEMS (Source: US Department of Energy [11])

ENABLERS AND BARRIERS FOR

The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory survey on 96 participant

BEMS Barriers Linked to Humanistic Factors

BEMS Barriers Linked to Organizational Factors

BEMS Barriers linked to Technological Factors

The Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory survey showed that lack of

PITFALLS THAT PREVENT MAINSTREAMING OF BEMS

building energy management system by an organization.

Sustainable energy management is a continuous process and not a destination

and mend operational processes. However, there is a requirement to enhance

Campaign. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. US Department of Energy.

U.S. States and Cities: The Unstoppable

A study published in August 2019, Renewables on the Rise: A Decade of

STATES, COUNTIES AND CITIES

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

With or Without the Federal Government

What Motivates States and Cities?

Governments and policy makers, energy professionals, industry, residents,

Leadership and Policy are Critical

The Role of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)

energy generation since 2000 to state renewable energy requirements. The