### ORNL/TM-2007/138



# RESULTS FROM THE U.S. DOE

2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE:

DOE’s Partnership with U. S. Industry to Reduce Energy Consumption, Energy Costs,

and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Anthony Wright and Michaela Martin Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Bob Gemmer, Paul Scheihing, and James Quinn DOE Industrial Technologies Program



## September 5, 2007i 

## Executive Summary

ES-1. I NTRODUCTION



### In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and other severe st orms in 2005, natural gas supplies were restricted, prices rose, and industry sought ways to reduce its natural gas use and costs. In October 2005, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Secretary Bodman launched his Easy Ways to Save Energy campaign with a promise to provide energy assessments to 200 of the largest U.S. manufacturing plants. A major thrust of the campaign was to ensure that th e nation’s natural gas supplies would be adequate for all Americans, especially during home heating seasons. In a presentation to the National Press Club on October 3, 2005, Secretary Bodman said:

“America’s businesses, factories, and manufacturing facilities use massive amounts of energy. To help them during this period of tightening s upply and rising costs, our Department is sending teams of qualified efficiency experts to 200 of th e nation’s most energy-intensive factories. Our Energy Saving Teams will work with on-site ma nagers on ways to conserve energy and use it more efficiently.”

DOE’s Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) responded to the Secretary’s campaign with its Save Energy Now initiative, featuring a new and highly cost -effective form of energy assessments. The approach for these assessments drew heavily on the existing resources of ITP’s Technology Delivery component. Over the years, ITP–Technology Delivery had worked with industry partners to assemble a suite of respected software decision tools, proven assessment protocols, training curricula, certified experts, and strong partnerships for deployment . Because of the program’s earlier activities and the resources that had been developed, ITP was prepared to respond swiftly and effectively to the sudden need to promote improved industrial energy efficiency.

Because of anticipated supply issues in the natural gas sector, the Save Energy Now initiative strategically focused on natural gas savings and targeted the na tion’s largest manufacturing plants — those that consume a total of 1 trillion British thermal units (B tu) or more annually. The approximately 6800 U.S. facilities that fall into this category collectively account for about 53% of all energy consumed by industry in the United States.

The 2006 Save Energy Now energy assessments departed from earlier DOE plant assessments by concentrating solely on steam and process heating systems, which are estimated to account for approximately 74% of all natural gas use for manuf acturing. The assessments also integrated a strong training component designed to teach industrial plant personnel how to use DOE’s steam or process heating opportunity assessment software tools. This approach had the advantages of promoting strong buy-in of plant personnel for the assessment and its out comes and preparing them better to independently replicate the assessment process at the company’s other facilities.

The Save Energy Now initiative also included provisions to help plants that applied for but did not qualify for assessments (based on the 1 trillion Btu criterion). Services offered to these plants included (1) an assessment by one of DOE’s 26 university-based Indu strial Assessment Centers (IACs), (2) a telephone consultation with a systems expert at the DOE’s En ergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Information Center, or (3) other technical materials a nd services available through ITP (e.g., the Save Energy Now CD).

By the end of 2006, DOE had completed all 200 of the promised assessments, identifying potential natural gas savings of more than 50 trillion Btu an d energy cost savings of about $500 million. These savings, if fully implemented, could reduce CO 2 

### emissions by 4.04 million metric tons annually. These results, along with the fact that a large percentage of U.S. energy is used by a relatively small number ofii 

### very large plants, clearly suggest that assessments ar e an expedient and cost-effective way to significantly affect large amounts of energy use.

Building on the success of the 2006 initiative, ITP h as expanded the effort in 2007 with the goal of conducting 250 more assessments in large U.S. indus trial plants. The 2007 assessments are addressing not only steam and process heating, but also pumping, compressed air, and fan systems.

The full report reviews the tools and resources devel oped by the DOE ITP program before 2006, which are the foundation and catalyst for the Save Energy Now assessment efforts. The report describes the process by which industrial plants applied to obtain assessments in 2006 and the overall process and philosophy of conducting assessments. A comprehensiv e review of the results from the 2006 assessments is presented, along with a summary of key accomplishments and findings.



### ES-2. DOE ITP P RECEDING THE 

### 2006 S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENTS



### The approach used in conducting the Save Energy Now assessments evolved from the resources and concepts developed in the DOE ITP program over the last decade. Plant-wide assessments (PWAs), Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) assessments, de cision software tools, end user and specialist qualification training, and Collaborative Targeted Assess ments (CTAs) all contributed significantly to the development of the Save Energy Now assessment concept. These individual ITP program elements are

described in more detail in Section 2 of this report. Because these ITP activities were already well

established when Save Energy Now assessments were introduced, ITP was able to expedite its

contribution to Save Energy Now , bringing mature strategies and tools to bear immediately. ITP’s previous efforts laid the groundwork for conducting Save Energy Now assessments. The final important

element of the initial assessment efforts was the deci sion to focus on large plants. There are about 226,000 manufacturing plants in the U.S. Of these a bout 6800 plants are “large” – with annual energy costs greater than $2 million/year. These large plants, based on the 1998 Energy Information Administration (EIA) Manufacturing Energy Consump tion Survey (MECS) data, consume about 53% of the total annual industrial energy use in the U.S. Focusing on these large plants for Save Energy Now assessments resulted in the greatest potential impact on U.S. manufacturing energy use.



### ES-3. T HE 

### 2006 S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW ASSESSMENT 

### A PPLICATION 

### P ROCESS



### The application process for large industrial plants to qualify for Save Energy Now assessments in 2006 was initiated on November 8, 2005, and closed on January 17, 2006, after the majority of qualified plants had been identified. Manufacturing facilities in the Unite d States and its territories were eligible to apply.

To be considered for Save Energy Now assessments in 2006, companies completed and submitted an application form on the DOE Save Energy Now Web site. The application asked for contact information and energy use data for the plant or plants that were seeking assessments. To focus the assessments on large plants, DOE required that applicants have a total energy use of at least 1 trillion Btu per year, either in one or several plants. If the applicant’s energy use was greater than 10 trillion Btu per year, the company could potentially obtain more than one assessment.

DOE ITP program staff reviewed all of the Save Energy Now assessment applications that were submitted. DOE evaluated the total energy consumption, especially natural gas, toward qualification for obtaining assessments. All companies that completed the application process received some type of support from the DOE ITP program.

The first DOE contact with plants whose applications indicated that they met the energy use requirements to obtain an assessment was from DOE Regional Offi ce personnel, who confirmed the information from the application such as the type of assessment request ed (steam or process heating), potential dates foriii 

### conducting the assessment, plant description and addr ess, and who the Energy Expert should initially

contact. This information was forwarded to the ORNL Save Energy Now staff so that they could begin the process of identifying the Energy Experts to perform the assessments and facilitate their first contacts with the plants.



### ES-4. T HE 

### S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW ASSESSMENT 

### P ROCESS



### The Save Energy Now initiative used a unique approach for conducting in-plant energy efficiency assessments. Energy audits or assessments are typically done by energy experts who go into a plant, identify potential savings opportunities, and write reports that are left with the plant personnel after the assessments are completed. Save Energy Now assessments, in contrast, are training assessments. The 2006 assessments focused on training industrial plant personnel specifically on how to use either the DOE steam or process heating software tools. Assessments are done in no more than 3 days, so, by necessity, they are very focused assessments. Wh en an Energy Expert makes contact with a plant, he identifies a Plant Lead who has to agree to stay with the En ergy Expert during the entire three-day assessment. The Energy Expert, Plant Lead, and other plant personne l who participate in the assessment identify some “target” opportunities to investigate using the DOE so ftware. The target opportunities chosen are often ones with the potential to achieve significant plant ener gy and cost savings. The Energy Expert and plant personnel identify any data requirements for assessing th e target opportunity, obtain or measure data as necessary, and enter that data in the DOE software to quantify a specific energy savings opportunity. Often, no more than three or four target oppor tunities are investigated during an assessment.

On the last day of the assessment, a required Clo seout Meeting is held to review and discuss the opportunities identified in the assessment . Plant management are invited to attend and participate. Prior to the Closeout Meeting, the Energy Expert and the Plant Lead agree on the opportunities that will be highlighted at the meeting and documented in the final assessment re port. No opportunities are discussed at the Closeout Meeting or presented in the assess ment report without the Plant Lead’s approval.

The positive effect of using this approach for c onducting assessments is that: 1) plant personnel get hands-on experience in how to effectively use the DOE software tools and on the value of applying these tools to their operations; 2) plant personnel have buy-in to the opportunities identified and evaluated during the assessment, which increase s the likelihood that many of the identified opportunities will implemented ; and 3) plant opportunities are investigat ed that often can result in significant energy and cost savings for the host plant.



### ES-5. C OMPREHENSIVE 

### R EVIEW OF THE 

### 2006 S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENT 

### R ESULTS

ES-5.1 Location and Industry of the Assessed Plants



### The assessments were conducted in 40 states and Puerto Rico, mostly in the midwestern, eastern, and southern United States, where the ma jority of large U.S. industrial s ites are located. The states with the most assessments were Texas, with 30, and Louisiana, with 15. In 17 states, 4 or more assessments were completed.

In 2006, 114 steam assessments and 86 process heati ng assessments were conducted. The 200 plants were in 18 major U.S. industry groups, with 163 of th e assessments done in six industries: chemical manufacturing, paper manufacturing, primary metals, food, non-metallic mineral prod ucts, and fabricated metal products.

Process heating assessments were performed in 30 states, with about 82% of the potential energy cost savings in 12 states. Steam assessments were done in 36 states and one territory (Puerto Rico), and about 84% of the potential energy cost savings were in 12 states.iv ES-5.2 Summary of Overall Results



### The magnitude of the recommended potential cost, natural gas, and CO 2 

### savings identified in the 2006 steam and process heating assessments is exceptionally la rge. An overall summary of the results from the 2006 assessments is presented in Table ES-1, for all assessments, for steam ass essments, and for process heating assessments. Some key r esults include the following.

• 

### The average recommended cost savings for all of the assessments taken together was about $2.5 million per year, or 10.4% of the average plant energy bill for the assesssed plants.

• 

### The results of the assessments clear reflect the 2006 program’s focus on natural gas savings. The assessments showed that 17.3% of the natural gas used in the assessment plants could be saved if all of the recommendations from the assessments were implemented.

• 

### The average potential cost and natural gas savings identified for both steam and process heating assessments was large — about $3.2 million per year for steam and $1.6 million per year for process heating. Considering that assessments were done in only three days, including a strong tool training element, the magnitude of potential savings is surprisingly large.

Table ES-1. Summary of results for all year 2006 assessments, steam assessments, and process heating assessments

For all 200
assessments in

2006 For the 114

steam

assessments For the 86

process heating

assessments Total recommended cost savings ($/year) $500,200,000 $364,30 0,000 $135,900,000

Recommended cost savings per assessment ($/year) $2,50 1,000 $3,200,00 0 $1,580,000

Average recommended cost savings per assessment (%/year) 10.4% 11.4% 9.0%

Total recommended energy savings, site (MMBtu/year) 49,470,000 32,370,000 17,100,000
Recommended total energy savings, site, per assessment (MMBtu/year) 247,400 283,900 198,800

Average recommended total energy savings, site, per assessment (%/year) 8.8% 7.8% 10.1%

Total recommended natural gas savings (MMB tu/year) 52,870,000 39, 040,000 13,830,000
Recommended natural gas savings per assessment (MMBtu/year) 264,400 342,500 160,800

Average recommended natural gas savings per assessment (%/year) 17.3% 20.4% 13.3%

Total recommended CO 2 savings (million metric tons
CO 2 /year) 4.04 2.92 1.11

Recommended CO 2 savings per assessment (metric tons
CO 2 /year) 20,200 25,600 13,000

Note: Savings designated as “site” savings refer to energy used at the site and do not include losses that occur in the generation, transmission and distribution of energy.



### Estimates for CO 2 

### emission reductions were calculated for each assessment based on the energy savings and fuel type data provided by the Energy Experts. Currently, 22 categories of industrial fuels including electricity, natural gas, light fuel oil (#1, #2, #4), h eavy fuel oil (#5, #6), coal, coke, coke oven gas, black liquor, blast furnace gas, propane, and hog fuel, are analyzed for CO 2 

### content. Coefficients for converting fuel consumption (MMBtu) into metric tons of CO 2 

### were provided through direct consultation with EIA’s greenhouse gas voluntary reporting team. These coefficients were applied to the appropriate fuel savings to develop estimates of emissions impacts. The total potential CO 2 

### emissions reduction — if all assessment recommendations are implemented — is about 4.04 million metric tons of CO 2



### .v 

### In performing the steam and process heating assessments, Experts used standard — or “pick-list” descriptions — whenever possible in classifying the id entified opportunities. This was done so that the savings opportunity data could be analyzed by these pick-list categories.

For both steam and process heating assessments, the t op 10 opportunities capture the majority of the energy cost savings identified in the assessments. For steam assessments, the top 10 opportunities captured $334 million per year of potential savings — 92% of the total identified steam savings. For process heating assessments, the top 10 opportunities captured $100 million per year of potential savings — 74% of the total identified process heating savings.

ES-5.3 Estimated Paybacks Are Less Than Two Years for Most Identified Savings Opportunities



### While the magnitude of the potential cost and en ergy savings identified by the 2006 assessments is impressive, the impact on U.S. industry will only be proportional to the magnitude of implemented opportunities. A primary determinant of whether poten tial savings become real savings is the payback period for implementation. Payback is defined as follows.

Savings payback period= (Cost to implement oppor tunity) / (Yearly savings for the opportunity)

Most industrial plants will not consider implementing savings opportunities that have paybacks of greater than two years.

The assessment experts estimated high and low va lues of the capital costs for implementing each identified savings opportunity and used the higher va lues to estimate payback periods. The results show that the majority of the estimated paybacks fo r the identified opportunities — 76% of all steam opportunities and 73% of all process heating opportunities — were less than two years. The opportunities with estimated paybacks of less than two years also ac counted for most of the potential cost savings for both steam and process heating — for steam assessments, $263 million per year, or 72% of all potential savings; and for process heating assessments, $109 mi llion per year, or 73% of all potential savings.

Tables ES-2 and ES-3 present potential savings data in terms of the average percentages of plant energy use and energy cost represented by each individual category of opportunity. These results show that potential savings identified in many of these categori es could be greater than 1% of total plant energy costs. For the steam assessments, 14 of the opportunity categories showed average potential cost savings greater than 1% of plant energy costs. For th e process heating assessments, 17 of the opportunity categories showed average potential cost savings greater than 1% of plant energy costs.

The estimated paybacks indicate that implementation of the majority of identified opportunities should be appealing to industrial plants.vi Table ES-2. Potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and plant energy use from steam opportunities (averages of all individual id entified opportunities), by opportunity category.

Potential savings

Steam opportunity category Average percentage of plant energy costs Average percentage of plant energy use (site)

1.2 - Use alternate fuel 15.1% -0.5%

1.1 - Reduce steam demand 3.3% 3.6%

1.20 - Optimize multiple boilers 3.2% -0.3%

2.2 –Clean heat transfer surfaces 2.6% 3.2%

1.7 - Add / modify backpressure steam turbine 2.4% 0.1%

1.17 - Other - miscellan eous steam 1.9% 1.4%

1.21 - Reduce / recover vented steam 1.9% 2.4%

1.12 - Improve medium pressure condensate flash 1.6% 1.5%

1.18 - Feedwater heat recovery - general 1.6% 2.3%

1.8 - Add / modify condensing steam turbine 1.5% 0.6%

1.3 - Improve boiler efficiency 1.5% 1.6%

1.6 - Improve steam generatio n conditions 1.0% 0.8%

1.19 - Improve deaerator h eat recovery 1.0% 1.1%

1.11 - Improve condensate recovery 1.0% 1.1%

1.13 - Improve low pressure condensate flash 0.9% 0.9%

1.1 - Reduce flue gas oxy gen content 0.8% 1.0%

3.5 - Use waste heat for cooling 0.7% 0.6%

1.14 - Implement steam trap ma intenance program 0.7% 0.8%

1.9 - Improve condensate tank vent f eedwater heat recovery 0.6% 0.8%

1.10 - Improve blowdown feedwater heat recovery 0.5% 0.6%

1.16 - Improve insulation 0.5% 0.5%

3.1 - Use flue / exhaust gas for com bustion air preheating 0.4% 0.4%

1.15 - Implement steam leak ma intenance program 0.4% 0.3%

1.4 - Improve boiler blowdown rate 0.4% 0.3%

5.1 - Improve furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown 0.4% 0.0%

6.2 - Other - miscellaneous pr ocess heating 0.2% 0.2%

1.5 - Install blowdown flash to low pressure steam 0.1% 0.2%vii Table ES-3. Potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and plant energy use from process heating opportunities (averages of all individual identified opportunities), by opportunity category.

Potential savings

Process heating opportunity category Average percentage of plant energy costs Average percentage of plant energy use (site)

1.4 - Use alternate fuel or energy source 9.3% 13.1%

3.5 - Use waste heat for cooling 8.0% 8.7%

3.3 - Heat cascading 3.3% 3.4%

3.4 - Furnace heat recovery 2.9% 3.5%

1.5 - Use oxygen for combustion 2.8% 3.6%

6.1 - Other - non process heat ing measures 2.8% 1.8%

1.3 - Use of proper heat ing methods 2.7% 3.1%

5.3 - Control oven makeup air 2.7% 2.7%

6.2 - Other - miscellaneous pr ocess heating 2.6% 3.1%

2.1 - Improving furnace / ov en heat transfer 2.4% 3.0%

3.1 - Use flue / exhaust gas for com bustion air preheating 2.1% 2.2%

3.2 - Improve load charge preheating 1.7% 1.9%

5.1 - Improve furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown 1.4% 1.4%

1.6 - Use process or exhaust air for combustion 1.4% 1.5%

1.1 - Reduce steam demand 1.2% 1.5%

4.3 - Reduce / eliminate furnace openings and leakage 1.2% 1.3%

4.1 - Proper furnace insulation / maintenance 1.1% 1.3%

1.1 - Reduce flue gas oxy gen content 0.9% 1.1%

1.3 - Improve boiler efficiency 0.8% 1.1%

1.16 - Improve insulation 0.7% 0.9%

2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces 0.4% 1.6%

5.2 - Reduce weight of fixtur es, trays, etc. 0.2% 0.2%

4.2 - Reduce-eliminate inte rnal cooling 0.1% 0.1%

5.4 - Eliminate continuous flam e curtains, pilots 0.1% 0.07%

1.7 - Use outdoor air for combustion or makeup air 0.05% 0.02%

1.20 - Optimize multiple boilers 0.01% 0.03%

ES-5.4 Six-Month Results: Immediately Implem ented Measures Are Saving $30.4 Million Per Year



### Implementation results for assessed plants were re ported about six months after the 2006 assessments were completed. Participants are committed to reporti ng results at intervals of 6, 12, and 24 months after their assessments. At the writing of this report, 179 follow-up calls were completed — 103 on steam assessments and 76 on process heating assessments.

The six-month results included the implementation stat us of each savings opportunity identified in the assessment reports, categorizing each as either 1) imme diately implemented, 2) in progress, 3) planning,viii 

### under review, or awaiting funding, 4) rejected, or 5) tr ied and rejected. Savings results for the first three categories are summarized in Tables ES-4 and ES-5.

Table ES-4. Six-month results for 179 year-2006 Save Energy Now assessments a

Immediately implemented In progress Planned, under review, or awaiting funding Total cost savings ($/year) $30,397,400 $98,109,200 $179,430,300
Cost savings per assessment ($/year) $169,800 $548,100 $1,002,400
Average cost savings per assessment as % of annual plant energy costs 1.0% 2.0% 4.5%

Total site energy savings (MMBtu /year) 4,035,800 16,685,600 9,771,600
Site energy savings per assessment (MMBtu/yr) 22,500 93,200 54,600

Average site energy savings per assessment as % of annual site energy 1% 1.9% 3.6%

Total natural gas savings (MMBtu /year) 3,495,000 10,161,200 18,449,100
Natural gas savings per assessment (MMBtu/year) 19,500 56,800 103,100

Average natural gas savings per assessment (%/year) 1.4% 4.8% 6.9%

Total CO 2 savings (metric tons/y ear) 234,000 984,300 1,285,800

CO 2 savings per assessment (metric tons/year) 1,307 5,500 7,200

a All percentages in the table and asso ciated text are based only on energy and cost data for the 179 responding plants.

Table ES-5. Distribution of payback periods for savings opportunities, by implementation status.

Payback Category Immediately Implemented In Progress Planned Rejected Tried and Rejected Spinoff a 0.1% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 0.0%

0-9 months 9.6% 10.2% 14.7% 6.9% 0.3% 9 months – 2 years 4.7% 7.0% 14.5% 6.8% 0.0%
2 – 4 years 0.9% 3.1% 8.2% 4.7% 0.0%

4+ years 0.7% 0.9% 2.3% 1.8% 0.0%

a Spinoff is defined as an opportunity identified by an asse ssed plant as a direct and immediate result of their assessment experience. These opportunities may have been suggested by the Energy Ex pert, but not documented in the report, or the plant may have ident ified a new opportunity based on their assessment training or immediate application of the software tools. Plants report these opportunities during the follow-up interviews and only those that
are identified as attributed to the assessment are recorded.



### The six-month results indicated that most plants had embraced their assessments and were making progress on implementing the savings opportunities. Th e percentages noted below are data based on the 179 plant responses. Several key trends are indicated:

• 

### Assessed plants reporting results have implemente d or are pursuing implementation of 70% of the potential energy cost savings identified in thei r assessments. Projects representing the remaining 30% of identified cost savings have been either rejected or tried and rejected.

• 

### At six months, according to reports from 179 plants , about 7% of identified potential energy cost savings had been implemented, another 23% were in progress, and another 41% were planned, under review, or awaiting funds for implementation.ix • 

### Assessed plants reporting results at 6 months ar e pursuing 52% of the natural gas energy savings and 71% of the total site energy sav ings identified in the assessments.

• 

### Assessed plants select measures with near-ter m paybacks for immediate implementation. Those opportunities with longer-term paybacks are more likely to undergo additional technical review or require additional planning.

ES-5.5 Save Energy Now Assessment Process Deem ed Highly Useful and Influential in Plants’ Decisions to Implement Savings Opportunities



### The six-month interviews with assessment participants at industrial plants also provided feedback to help ITP measure the success of the assessment process and its focus on training plant personnel and fostering their adoption of energy assessment tools. Interv iewers asked them about the usefulness of the assessments in their adopting DOE software tools and technical products and the degree of influence that the assessment had on implementation of sav ings opportunities. Recall that in the Save Energy Now assessment protocol, not only were potential energy savings identified, but Energy Experts also trained participants to use the steam and process heating en ergy assessment software in their own facilities and

introduced other DOE technical tools and resources as well. Nearly 75% of plants reported that the assessment encouraged the use of DOE software and other products.

Slightly more than 90% reported that the assessment pl ayed an influential or highly influential role in their decisions to implement identified energy savings projects. Only 9% of assessment participants reported that assessments had slight or no influence on implementation.

Participants were also asked about the culture in th eir organizations with respect to energy efficiency. Nearly 70% of assessed plants reported having a wr itten CEO- or Board-approved policy in place that includes the reduction of energy consumption.

ES-6. Key Accomplishments and Findings from the 2006 Save Energy Now Assessment Efforts



### When the Save Energy Now “call to arms” was made by Secretary of Energy Bodman in October 2005, it is unlikely that anyone anticipated the impact that th e assessment effort would have on U.S. industry. The following key accomplishments and findings illustrate the value of the 2006 assessment efforts.

From October 2005 to December 2006, the DOE Industrial Technologies Program mobilized to direct and support the Save Energy Now assessment effort and accomplish the goal of conducting 200 industrial plant assessments by the end of 2006. The ability of DOE and its support contractors to achieve this goal was due largely to ITP’s past in itiatives, including software tool and training development, the IAC program, the Collaborative Ta rgeted Assessment efforts, and the Plant-Wide Assessment program. These programs provided the foundation for development of the protocols for conducting Save Energy Now assessments — specifically, the aspects of the program that defined them as “training assessments.”

Large industry and the states have, and continue to, enthusiastically support and value the Save Energy Now assessment efforts. The 2006 assessments were done in 41 states and Puerto Rico for industry plants in 18 U.S. industrial groups. The program ’s efforts are continuing in 2007 with the goal of conducting 250 assessments, and at this writing (su mmer 2007), more than 250 plants have been identified for the 2007 assessments. In addition, states including Wisconsin and California are working with DOE to support Save Energy Now assessment efforts through cost sharing. The broad-based participation of U.S. industry and expansion of th e program are clear reflections of the value of the assessments to U.S. industry and the states.x 

### No one anticipated that the average assessm ent in 2006 would recommend improvements to annually save $2.5 million in energy costs, 247,00 0 MMBtu of natural gas, and 20,200 metric tons of plant CO 2 

### emissions. These results are far larger than antic ipated. Focusing on large U.S. industrial plants having total energy use greater than 1 trillion Btu per year was a major factor in identifying large potential savings, as was the focus on steam and pro cess heating. The capabilities of the Energy Experts who performed the assessments and the quality of the DOE steam and process heating software tools also contributed to finding large potential savings in the plants.

Even though Save Energy Now assessments were done in only th ree days, they identified potential energy savings that on average equaled about 10% of the assessed plant’s energy costs. Considering the assessments’ tight schedules and training focus, it was encouraging that the average identified potential energy cost savings was about 10% of plant energy bills. Potential natural gas savings identified through the 2006 assessments was even larger, averaging about 17% of plant natural gas usage. These results show that it is not necessary to perform long-duration plant energy assessments to identify significant potential savings. The results also indicate that in large plants where assessments have not yet been performed, we can realistically expect savings in the range of 10% of total plant energy costs to be

identified.

For the assessments completed in 2006, the majority of the identified savings opportunities had estimated paybacks of less than two years. This is a very important and unanticipated result. Large potential plant energy savings were identified, and the majority of these savings were for opportunities with paybacks that made their implementation very at tractive to plant managers. And, these large savings with attractive paybacks were found in training assessments that were done in just three days.

Many of the individual steam and process heating assessment recommendations have the potential to save more than 1% of industrial plant energy costs. On average, the recommendations from each of 14 steam opportunity categories and 17 process heating opportunity categories have the potential to save more than 1% of plant energy costs. Many of the other savings recommendations, in individual plant applications, can also result in substantial energy co st savings. These results suggest the substantial value of implementing the findings from the assessments.

Based on the six-month follow-up interviews wi th 179 assessed plants, about 7% of the total number of recommendations for these plants have already been implemented, and an additional 64% are either in progress or undergoing addition al analysis, indicating the potential for the implementation of three quarters of all recommendations. So far, these 179 plants have implemented measures accounting for energy cost savings totali ng $30.4 million per year, natural gas savings of 3.5 trillion Btu per year, and 0.2 million metric tons of reduced CO 2 

### emissions per year. It is likely that one reason for this high rate of implementation is that most recommendations had estimated paybacks of less than two years. The follow-up results at 12 months and 24 months will provide a better picture of the level of implementation of the recommendations.

The philosophy and approach for conducting the a ssessments — focusing on “training assessments” rather than audits — is clearly a success. The results from six-month follow-ups indicated that 74% of the plants found that the assessments we re useful with respect to encour aging their organizations to adopt DOE software and technical products. Also, over 90% of the plants found that the assessments played influential to extremely influential roles in their implementing energy savings projects. ORNL conducted immediate follow-up phone calls with Plant Leads immediately after their assessments to discuss how they went. The results from these immediate follow- up calls were overwhelmingly positive. Plant leads perceived high value in the assessment activities, further confirming the effectiveness of the Save Energy

Now assessment approach.xi 

## Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. I NTRODUCTION

........................................................................................................................................... 1

2. DOE ITP E FFORTS P RECEDING THE 2006 S AVE E NERGY N OW A SSESSMENTS

............................................ 2

2.1 Plant-Wide Assessments....................................................................................................

........... 2

2.2 Industrial Asse ssment Centers.............................................................................................

......... 3

2.3 ITP Decision Software Tools ...............................................................................................

.......... 3
2.3.1 Process Heating Assessment and Su rvey Tool (PHAST) and Process Heating
Scorecard ......................................................................................................................

.............. 4 2.3.2 Steam System Scoping Tool (SSST), St eam System Assessment Tool (SSAT) and 3EPlus...........................................................................................................................

................... 4

2.4 ITP End Us er Training.....................................................................................................

.............. 4

2.5 ITP Specialist Q ualification Training.....................................................................................

......... 4

2.6 Collaborative Ta rgeted Assessments........................................................................................

.... 4

2.7 How Save Energy Now Assessments Evolved From ITP Activities.............................................. 5

3. T HE 2006 S AVE E NERGY N OW A SSESSMENT A PPLICATION P ROCESS

.......................................................... 6

4. T HE S AVE E NERGY N OW A SSESSMENT P ROCESS

........................................................................................ 7

4.1 A Unique Approach .........................................................................................................

.............. 7

4.2 The Energy Experts Pe rforming the A ssessments ....................................................................... 7

4.3 Conducting Save Energy Now Assessments – Th e Full Process................................................. 8
4.3.1 Preparati on Activities..................................................................................................

....... 8

4.3.2 Assessment Site Visit Activities....................................................................................... 10

4.3.3 Save Energy Now Assessment Repor ts and Follow-Up ................................................. 12

4.4 Summary of Key Save Energy Now Assessment Reports and Deliverables............................. 16

5. C OMPREHENSIVE R EVIEW OF THE 2006 S AVE E NERGY N OW A SSESSMENT R ESULTS

................................. 16

5.1 Location and I ndustry of the Assessed Plants ............................................................................ 16

5.2 Summary of Overall Results................................................................................................

........ 21

5.3 Estimated Paybacks Are Less Than Two Years for Most Identified Savings Opportunities....... 32

5.4 Six-Month Results: Immediately Implem ented Measures Are Saving $30.4 Million Per Year... 41

5.5 Assessment Process Deemed Hi ghly Useful and Influential in Plants’ Decisions to Implement Savings Oppo rtunities ..........................................................................................................

.............. 43

5.6 Implementation of Identified O pportunities by St ate and Industry .............................................. 45

6. K EY A CCOMPLISHMENTS AND F INDINGS F ROM THE 2006 S AVE E NERGY N OW A SSESSMENT E FFORTS

........ 48xii1 

## RESULTS FROM THE U.S. DOE

2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE:

DOE’s Partnership with U.S. Industry to Reduce Energy Consumption, Energy Costs,
and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

1. I NTRODUCTION



### In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and other severe st orms in 2005, natural gas supplies were restricted, prices rose, and industry sought ways to reduce its natural gas use and costs. In October 2005, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Secretary Bodman launched his Easy Ways to Save Energy campaign with a promise to provide energy assessments to 200 of the largest U.S. manufacturing plants. A major thrust of the campaign was to ensure that th e nation’s natural gas supplies would be adequate for all Americans, especially during home heating seasons. In a presentation to the National Press Club on October 3, 2005, Secretary Bodman said:

“America’s businesses, factories, and manufacturing facilities use massive amounts of energy. To help them during this period of tightening s upply and rising costs, our Department is sending teams of qualified efficiency experts to 200 of th e nation’s most energy-intensive factories. Our Energy Saving Teams will work with on-site ma nagers on ways to conserve energy and use it more efficiently.”

DOE’s Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) responded to the Secretary’s campaign with its Save Energy Now initiative, featuring a new and highly cost-eff ective form of energy savings assessments. The approach for these assessments drew heavily on the existing resources of ITP’s Technology Delivery component. Over the years, ITP–Technology Delivery had worked with industry partners to assemble a suite of respected software decision tools, proven assessment protocols, training curricula, certified experts, and strong partnerships for deployment . Because of the program’s earlier activities and the resources that had been developed, ITP was fully pr epared to respond swiftly and effectively to the sudden need to promote improved industrial energy efficiency.

Because of anticipated supply issues in the natural gas sector, the Save Energy Now initiative strategically focused on natural gas savings and targeted the na tion’s largest manufacturing plants — those that consume a total of 1 trillion British thermal units (B tu) or more annually. The approximately 6800 U.S. facilities that fall into this category collectively account for about 53% of all energy consumed by industry in the United States.

The 2006 Save Energy Now assessments departed from earlier DOE plant assessments by concentrating solely on steam and process heating systems, which are estimated to account for approximately 74% of all natural gas use for manufacturing. The assessments also integrated a strong training component designed to teach industrial plant personnel how to use DOE’s steam or process heating opportunity assessment software tools. This approach had the advantages of promoting strong buy-in of plant personnel for the assessment and its outcomes and preparing them bette r to independently replicate the assessment process at the company’s other facilities.

The Save Energy Now initiative also included provisions to help plants that applied for but did not qualify for assessments (based on the 1 trillion Btu criterion). Services offered to these plants included (1) an assessment by one of DOE’s 26 university-based Indu strial Assessment Centers (IACs), (2) a telephone2 

### consultation with a systems expert at the DOE’s En ergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Information Center, or (3) other technical materials a nd services available through ITP (e.g., the Save Energy Now CD).

By the end of 2006, DOE had completed all 200 of the promised assessments, identifying potential natural gas savings of more than 50 trillion Btu an d energy cost savings of about $500 million. These savings, if fully implemented, could reduce CO 2 

### emissions by 4.04 million metric tons annually. These results, along with the fact that a large percentage of U.S. energy is used by a relatively small number of very large plants, clearly suggest that assessments ar e an expedient and cost-effective way to significantly affect large amounts of energy use.

Building on the success of the 2006 initiative, ITP h as expanded the effort in 2007 with the goal of conducting 250 more assessments in large U.S. indus trial plants. The 2007 assessments are addressing not only steam and process heating, but also pumping, compressed air, and fan systems.

This report reviews the tools and resources develope d by the DOE ITP program before 2006, which are the foundation and catalyst for the Save Energy Now assessment efforts. The report describes the process by which industrial plants applied to obtain asse ssments in 2006 and the overall process and philosophy of conducting assessments. A comprehensive revi ew of the results from the 2006 assessments is presented, along with a summary of key accomplishments and findings.



### 2. DOE ITP E FFORTS 

### P RECEDING THE 

### 2006 S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENTS



### The approach used in conducting the Save Energy Now assessments evolved from the resources and concepts developed in the DOE ITP program ove r the last decade. This section describes those assessment efforts and resource developments that preceded the 2006 assessment activities:

• 

### Plant-Wide Assessments

• 

### Industrial Assessment Centers

• 

### BestPractices Decision Software Tools

• 

### BestPractices End User Training

• 

### BestPractices Specialist Qualification Training

• 

### Collaborative Targeted Assessments

2.1 Plant-Wide Assessments

A plant-wide asse ssment (PWA) is a systematic assessment of plant-wide operations that addresses a variety of generic and industry-specific technolog y areas and considers methods for optimizing plant processes. Assessment teams also point out energy management best practices where they see them, and review all best practices in areas such as plant steam, process heating, pumping, and compressed air systems with plant personnel. An assessment typically results in a set of recommendations for specific projects to improve energy efficiency and productiv ity and to decrease waste and emissions. The PWA is tailored to the facility by the assessment team, and plan ts are encouraged to identify and employ strategies that can be replicated for facilities and processes similar to their own.

Potential energy and cost savings and reduced enviro nmental impacts are estimated for implementation of identified projects. In many cases, projected cost sav ings result not only from electricity and/or fuel savings, but also from benefits such as increased productivity, reduced maintenance requirements, reduced production of scrap material, and process improvements.3 

### The DOE ITP program sponsored PWAs starting in 1999. Plants were selected through an open solicitation process and agreed to a minimum 50% cost share for conducting the PWAs; the maximum plant award was $100,000. PWAs were initiated in 49 facilities through fiscal year 2005. To date, 40 plants completed final reports documenting assessme nt results. The combined potential annual cost savings identified at these 40 facilities was about $200 million per year. Average investment payback periods for the identified savings op portunities were typically less than two years and in many cases less than one year. The last solicitation for PWAs was done in 2005.

More details about the DOE PWA efforts can be found at the following web link: http://www1.eere.energy.gov /industry/bestpractices/plan t_wide_assessments.html.

2.2 Industrial Assessment Centers

Sponsored b y ITP, Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs) provide energy, waste, and productivity assessments at no charge to small and mid-sized manufacturers (having gross annual sales below $100 million and annual energy bills between $100,000 and $2 million). The assessments are performed by teams of engineering faculty and students from one of 26 participating U.S. universities. IAC teams conduct one- or two-day site visits to identify energy and cost saving opportunities. In addition to direct energy and cost savings benefits, the IAC program offers industry a longer-term benefit — a trained workforce of students who become energy engineer s and contribute to improving energy efficiency throughout their careers, including playing active roles as DOE Qualified Specialists and Energy Experts.

The IAC results database is recognized as one of the most comprehensive industrial energy databases in

the world. This database includes information on near ly 100,000 cost saving opportunities identified for industry through 13,500 assessments conducted over the last 20 years. These assessments have saved IAC clients an average of more than $55,000 per year for each assessment, with paybacks typically averaging a year or less.

More details about the DOE IAC efforts can be found at the following web link: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/indu stry/bestpractices/iacs.html.

2.3 ITP Decision Software Tools

The ITP prog ram developed a suite of software-based decision tools to help industrial plant personnel identify energy efficiency improvements for plant pr ocess and utility systems. These tools use analytical models to evaluate process heating, steam, pumping, compressed air, fan, motor, and other plant utility systems. There is also a Quick Plant Energy Profile r, or “Quick PEP,” online software tool that helps industrial plant personnel to quickly understand how ener gy is used at the plant and how they might save energy and reduce costs.

All of the software tools focus on energy efficiency “opportunity” assessments — quantifying the potential savings from specific improvements. For example, there are often potential savings from increasing condensate return in steam systems or re ducing excess oxygen to furnaces for process heating.

DOE ITP has partnered with key trade associations and focused technical groups to develop the software tools. For example, DOE worked with the Hydraulics Institute to develop the pump tool, with the International Heating Equipment A ssociation to develop the process heating tool, and with the Air

Movement and Controls Associa tion to develop the fan tool.

The DOE steam and process heating decision tools, descr ibed below, were used for the 2006 assessments.4 2.3.1 Process Heating Assessment and Survey Tool (PHAST) and Process Heating Scorecard



### PHAST is a tool for surveying process heating equipmen t that uses fuel, electricity, or steam (though only the direct-fuel-fired systems modeling is presently deve loped) and identifying the most energy-intensive equipment. PHAST performs energy (heat) balances on furnaces to identify ways to improve efficiency.

PHAST has several calculators th at compare the performance of individual pieces of equipment under various operating conditions. The Process He ating Scorecard is a pre-screening tool.

2.3.2 Steam System Scoping Tool (SSST), Steam Sy stem Assessment Tool (SSAT) and 3E-Plus



### Three tools address steam systems. The SSST is a steam system pre-screening tool that allows plants to develop a greater awareness of steam system im provement opportunities in their facilities. An SSST analysis was performed for each steam assessment. The SSAT estimates the impacts of key steam system improvements for models of representative plant steam systems. SSAT generates results detailing the energy, cost, and emissions savings that could be ach ieved by up to 18 different improvements. 3E-Plus

calculates the most economical thickness of industria l insulation for operating conditions entered by the

user.

More details about all of the DOE ITP decision softwa re tools can be found at the following web link: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/indust ry/bestpractices/software.html.

2.4 ITP End User Training

DOE ITP conducts instructor-based training for end us ers that focuses on reviewing key plant energy savings opportunities in plant utility and process sy stems. End user training also introduces the ITP software tools relevant to the training provided. These sessions, typically one day long, are presently available for motors, compressed air systems, pumpi ng systems, steam systems, process heating systems, and fan systems. More than 10,000 people have attended end user training sessions, which are offered year-round throughout the United States.

2.5 ITP Specialist Qualification Training

Specialist Qu alification training focuses on how to us e individual ITP software tools to make valid estimates of energy and cost savings in industrial pl ants. This training is presently offered for the DOE ITP software tools for compressed air, pump, steam, process heating, and fan systems. These instructorbased training sessions are typically two and a half days long. The first two days focus on specific issues associated with using a particular software tool. A th ree- to four-hour hour exam is given during the last half day of training. Trainees who pass this exam ar e designated as “Qualified Specialists” for a specific software tool, and their contact information is put on the DOE ITP web site. More than 460 individuals have been designated as Qualified Specialists to u se the DOE ITP software tools, and most of the university-based IACs have staff who are Qualified Specialists. All of the Energy Experts for 2006 had achieved the Qualified Specialist designation for using the steam or process heating tools as part of the requirements for qualifying as Energy Experts.

More details about ITP end user and specialist qualification training and when these training sessions are offered can be found at the following web link: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/indust ry/bestpractices/training.html.

2.6 Collaborative Targeted Assessments

Starting in fis cal year 2001, the ITP program spons ored Collaborative Targeted Assessments (CTAs) in selected industrial plants. These three-day CTAs were done to reinforce the information presented in the end user training and to provide training on the use of the ITP decision software tools. To be selected for5 

### these CTAs, plants had to have one or more staff who had attended the ITP end user training in the area of interest (e.g., process heating for PHAST use). The tw o primary benefits of the CTAs were that plant personnel had the opportunity to reinforce the inform ation learned while attending the training workshop, and that energy efficiency improvement opportunities were identified during the CTA.

From fiscal years 2001 through 2005, 85 CTAs were performed to investigate steam, process heating, pump, compressed air, and fan system improvements. The total potential energy savings identified from these CTAs was about $40 million per year. In additi on, the average process heating CTA identified about $1.1 million per year in potential savings, and the av erage steam CTA identified about $600,000 per year in potential savings.

2.7 How S ave Energy Now Assessments Evolved From ITP Activities

Plant-wide assessments, IAC assessments, decision software tools, end user and specialist qualification training, and CTAs all contributed significantly to the development of the Save Energy Now assessment concept. Because these ITP activities were alre ady well established when these assessments were introduced, ITP was able to expedite its contribution to Save Energy Now , bringing mature strategies and tools to bear immediately. ITP’s previous efforts laid the groundwork for the assessments:

1. PWAs demonstrated that significant savings opportunities could result from assessments performed in large industrial plants.

2. IAC assessment results indicated that significant savings could be identified in small and medium-size industrial plants. Perhaps more importantly, the IAC directors, staff, and alumni who became Qualified Specialists became a significant core group of the Energy Experts who performed process heating a nd steam assessments in 2006. Also, IAC students with experience conducting energy assessments were called on to follow up after the assessments and collect implementation data from the assessment participants.

3. The ITP decision software tools provided the capability to identify significant energy savings opportunities in energy-intensive systems in industrial plants.

4. The ITP end user training provided informa tion to plant personnel about the types and magnitudes of energy savings opportunities availa ble in industrial plant systems and with

an introduction to the decision software tools.

5. The Specialist Qualification training provid ed extensive details on how the decision software tools could be appropriately applied in plant systems. The Qualified Specialists became decision software tool experts who could be called on to perform assessments in large industrial plants.

6. CTAs were the testing ground for the concepts that were adopted for the Save Energy

Now assessment process, such as the strong tr aining element, and the requirements for plant personnel to attend end user training and take an active role in the assessment. The results of the process heating and steam CTAs proved the concept, clearly showing that these kinds of assessments could yield large cost and energy savings. The reporting form for CTAs was actually used as the basis for what became the assessment summary report

form.

7. The final important element of the initial asse ssment efforts was the decision to focus on large plants. ITP did an analysis of the 1998 Energy Information Administration (EIA)6 

### Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (M ECS) data. This data indicates relatively few manufacturing plants in the U.S. use th e majority of the energy. There are about 226,000 manufacturing plants in the U.S. Of these about 6800 plants are “large” – with annual energy costs greater than $2 million/year. These large plants, based on the 1998
MECS data, consume about 53% of the tota l annual industrial energy use in the U.S. Focusing on these large plants for assessments will lead to the greatest potential impact on U.S. manufacturing energy use.



### 3. T HE 

### 2006 S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENT 

### A PPLICATION 

### P ROCESS



### The application process for large industrial plants to qualify for Save Energy Now assessments in 2006 was initiated on November 8, 2005, and closed on January 17, 2006, after the majority of qualified plants had been identified. Manufacturing facilities in the Unite d States and its territories were eligible to apply.

To be considered for assessments in 2006, companies completed and submitted an application form on the

DOE Save Energy Now Web site. The application asked for cont act information and energy use data for the plant or plants that were seeking assessments. To focus the assessments on large plants, DOE required that applicants have a total energy use of at least 1 trillion Btu per year, either in one or several plants. If the applicant’s energy use was greater than 10 tril lion Btu per year, the company could potentially obtain

more than one assessment.

Applicants for assessments also completed a user ag reement pledging that if awarded an assessment, the company would do the following:

1. Provide a single point of contact for coordination with the DOE Energy Expert.

2. Work with plant managers that participate in th e assessment to consider investing in the energy savings opportunities that the assessment identif ied, consistent with corporate financial policies.

3. Have DOE recognize the company and plants involved in the assessment for participating in

the Save Energy Now initiative.

4. Have staff from participating plants attend a DOE end user training on steam or process heating systems either before the assessment or as soon after as possible.

5. Allow a DOE Energy Expert to work with their staff to identify energy savings opportunities.

6. Allow the DOE Energy Expert to report on th e energy savings opportunities identified.

7. Provide information to DOE on progress toward im plementing the identified savings 6, 12, and

24 months after the assessment.

8. Provide information to DOE on replication of th e assessment findings at other company plants 6, 12, and 24 months after the assessment.

DOE ITP program staff reviewed all of the assessment applications that were submitted. DOE evaluated the total energy consumption, especially natural g as, toward qualification for obtaining assessments. All companies that completed the application process re ceived some type of support from the DOE ITP

program.

The first DOE contact with plants whose applications indicated that they met the size and energy use requirements to obtain an assessment was from DOE Regional Office personnel, who confirmed the information from the application such as the type of assessment requested (steam or process heating), potential dates for conducting the assessment, plant descr iption and address, and who the Energy Expert should initially contact. This information was forwarded to the ORNL Save Energy Now staff so that they7 

### could begin the process of identifying the Energy Expe rts to perform the assessme nts and facilitate their first contacts with the plants.

Applications that did not meet the minimum 1 trillion Btu per year energy use threshold received either an IAC assessment, technical support from the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Information Center staff, or a package of technical information on DOE ITP software and resources.



### 4. T HE 

### S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENT 

### P ROCESS



### 4.1 A Unique Approach

Save Energy Now assessments use a unique approach for c onducting in-plant energy efficiency assessments. Energy audits or assessments are typically done by energy experts who go into a plant, identify potential savings opportunities, and write reports that are left with the plant personnel after the assessments are completed. Save Energy Now assessments, in contrast, are training assessments. The 2006 assessments focused on training industrial plant personnel specifically on how to use either the DOE steam or process heating software tools. Save Energy Now assessments are done in no more than 3 days, so, by necessity, they are very focu sed assessments. When an Energy E xpert makes contact with a plant, he identifies a Plant Lead who has to agree to st ay with the Energy Expert during the entire 3-day assessment. The Energy Expert, Plant Lead, and other plant personnel who participate in the assessment identify some “target” opportunities to investigat e using the DOE software. The target opportunities chosen are often ones with the potential to achieve si gnificant plant energy and cost savings. The Energy Expert and plant personnel identify any data requirements for assessing the target opportunity, obtain or measure data as necessary, and enter that data in the DOE software to quantify a specific energy savings opportunity. Often, no more than 3 or 4 target opportunities are investigated during an assessment.

On the last day of the assessment, a required Clo seout Meeting is held to review and discuss the opportunities identified in the assessment Plant management are invited to attend and participate. Prior to the Closeout Meeting, the Energy Expert and the Plant Lead agree on the opportunities that will be highlighted at the meeting and documented in the final assessment re port. No opportunities are discussed at the Closeout Meeting or presented in the assess ment report without the Plant Lead’s approval.

The positive effect of using this approach for c onducting assessments is that: 1) plant personnel get hands-on experience in how to effectively use the DOE software tools and on the value of applying these tools to their operations; 2) plant personnel have buy-in to the opportunities identified and evaluated during the assessment, which increase s the likelihood that many of the identified opportunities will implemented ; and 3) plant opportunities are investigat ed that often can result in significant energy and cost savings for the host plant.

The remainder of this section describes the overall pr ocess used in carrying out the DOE assessments — how the “Energy Experts” were chosen to conduc t the assessments, the protocol for performing assessments, and the information provided to DOE after assessments are completed.

4.2 The Energy Experts Performing the Assessments

The Energy Experts in steam and process heating fo r 2006 were chosen based on two solicitations that were open to Energy Experts who had completed the Qualified Specialist training and passed the DOE Qualified Specialist exam for either the steam or process heating software tools.

The ORNL ITP support program staff conducted the first solicitation in October – November 2005. As a result of this solicitation, 29 Energy Experts we re chosen — 21 steam experts and 9 process heating8 

### experts (one with qualifications in both steam and process heating). A session to train the experts in the protocols for conducting assessments was completed in mid December 2005.

As scheduling for the assessments began in late Dece mber 2005 and early January 2006, it became clear that not enough process heating experts were available to perform the number of process heating assessments that were requested, so an additional solicitation was conducted in February 2006. Seven additional process heating experts and one additional steam expert were identified through the second

solicitation and were trained in the assessme nt protocols in March and April 2006.

The overall process of conducting assessments started with the selection of individual Energy Experts to perform each of the assessments. The initial decisions on who would do which assessment was based on: 1) availability of an Expert to perform the assessme nt on the dates requested by the individual plant; 2) the capabilities of the Energy Experts relevant to perfor ming assessments in specific industries; and 3) an attempt to minimize travel for the Energy Experts. In some cases, plants requested specific Energy Experts to perform their assessments, and in al most all cases these requests could be accommodated.

4.3 Conducting Save Energy No w Assessments – The Full Process

4.3.1 Preparation Activities



### Figure 1 illustrates the Save Energy Now assessment activities from the time of the initial contact with the host plant to when the expert arrives on site to perform the assessment. The substantial interaction between the Energy Expert and the plant during this period was designed to make the on-site assessment activities as effective as possible. The preparations fo r the assessment began after the Energy Expert was designated for the assessment and he or she called the c ontact personal at the plant (the Industrial Plant Contact).

Figure 1. Before a Save Energy Now assessment (SENA), the expert works with the Plant Lead to prepare for

a successful assessment.



### The first order of business in contacting the plant is to establish who is the Plant Lead — a very important initial step. A primary condition for assessment eligibility is that a Plant Lead be named who agrees to stay with the Energy Expert during the full three da ys of assessment activities. The Plant Lead’s role and full participation are vital to making the process work and getting full valu e from the assessment. The assessment truly begins when the Energy E xpert and Plant Lead begin preparations.9 

### Safety and Confidentiality Requirements

The Energy Expert also needs to determine what the safety requirements are for the participating plant and whether he or she will be required to comply with any confidentiality agreements. Generally the expert will attend a safety briefing early on the firs t day, but in some instances more detailed safety training may be required. Many of the plants have required the expert to sign a confidentiality agreement to protect plant information.

Logistics

Before the site visit, the Energy Expert requests that a conference room with internet connection be

reserved for the on-site assessment activities and that a closeout meeting be scheduled for the last afternoon of the assessment. Having a dedicated confer ence room ensures that the Energy Expert and Plant Lead can efficiently work t ogether with the DOE software tool s for assessment analyses. Setting up the closeout meeting is important to ensure that the assessment results are discu ssed with plant personnel — ideally with upper management participation — at the end of the assessment.

Program Documents

The Energy Expert provides a number of documents a nd forms to the Plant Lead before arriving at the site, the most important being 1) a copy of the plan t data that the company submitted in its application (the Plant Lead needs to confirm that the plant energy use data is correct), 2) a copy of the agreements the company made when filing the assessment application (the Plant Lead needs to confirm that he or she understands these agreements); and 3) the “Energy Management Practices Questionnaire” for the Plant Lead to complete and submit to the Energy Expert.

Prescreening Tools

The Energy Expert also provides a prescreening tool to the Plant Lead — for steam assessments, the Steam System Scoping Tool (SSST) and for process heating assessments the Process Heating Scorecard. The Plant Lead is to complete the prescreening prio r to the assessment (in some cases with the expert’s help). The answers that the plant provides to the SSST or Process Heating Scorecard often provide insights into savings opportunities to investigate during the assessment.

Identifying Target Opportunities

An important goal of pre-assessment activities is to identify the potential opportunities that merit investigation during the three-day assessment. The Energy Expert and Plant Lead need to do this because it is unlikely that all potential opportunities can be inv estigated in three days. The objective is to identify opportunities that can be good vehicles for training the Pl ant Lead to use the software tools and can also lead to meaningful cost and energy savings for the plant.

Software Decision Tools

The Energy Expert also informs the Plant Lead that he or she will n eed to install the steam or process heating software decision tool on his computer, and that the Plant Lead will be duplicating the software data entry that the Energy Expert does to evaluate identified savings opportunities. This is a part of the training element of the assessment process – helping the Plant Lead to become familiar with applying the software tools to estimate potential plant energy savings . The Energy Expert either provides a web link so

that the Plant Lead can download and install the soft ware tool, or he/she sends a copy of the software installation file directly to the Plant Lead so that he can install the software on his computer.10 

### Data and Measurement Needs

The Energy Expert and the Plant Lead will discuss the data needed for the software tool analysis and whether the plant has the equipment (instruments such as combustion analyzers and temperature measurement devices) for collecting the data. If not, the Energy Expert’s own equipment or equipment purchased by DOE (available through ORNL) can be used.

4.3.2 Assessment Site Visit Activities



### The on-site portion of the three-day assessment is inte nse, with much to be accomplished to achieve the goals of the assessment. Figure 2 illustrates the majo r activities of these three days. A typical assessment

schedule is reviewed below.

Figure 2. Save Energy Now assessments (SENAs) are focused, three-day training assessments.



### Assessment Day 1

The activities listed below generally take place on th e first day of the assessment, though not always precisely in this order.

• 

### Energy Expert fulfills safety requirements

• 

### Energy Expert leads meeting with Plant Lead and other plant participants

 

### Distributes sign-in sheet

 

### Distributes assessment evaluations sheets for particip ants to complete and return to the Expert

at the end of the assessment

 

### Overview of the software decision tool that will be used (steam or process heating). This is a first step in training plant personnel to use the tool.

 

### Discussion of results from the Steam System Scoping Tool or Process Heating Scorecard for the plant

 

### Walk-through of the plant (or parts to be assessed)

 

### Discussion and initial agreement on the target opportunities for investigation in the

assessment.11  

### Some data collection (possibly on the first day).

In summary, by the end of the first day the plant pe rsonnel have had an initial exposure to the DOE steam or process heating tool, the team has done a thor ough walk-through of the plant areas relevant to assessment analyses, the scope of the assessment has b een agreed on, and, ideally, data collection has begun.

Assessment Day 2

Day 2 of an assessment is the “meat and potatoes” day. Data collection continues until sufficient results are obtained to permit opportunity analyses to be performed. The entire assessment team may stay together to collect the needed data , perhaps led by the Energy Expert. In cases where there is a lot of data to collect in a short time, small teams may collect data on different systems in parallel. After the necessary data is collected, the real training element of the assessment begins.

To perform individual assessment opportunity analyses, the Energy Expert enters data into the software while explaining what he is doing to apply the softwa re to investigate the opportunity. At the same time, the Plant Lead is also entering data into a second c opy of the software, and the expert and Plant Lead work together to ensure that the same data is entered in both systems.

This process is continued for the different opportun ities that are investigated for the assessment. Some opportunities will be clear “winners” that the expert a nd Plant Lead easily agree should be included in the final report and their implementing investigated. Some will clearly not be worth pursuing further. And for some opportunities the analysis will raise questions that need to be answered by more data collection and/or more data analysis.

By the end of the second day of the assessment, signifi cant training on the use of the DOE software tool will have been done by analyzing potential savings opportunities in the plant. The Plant Lead will have hands-on experience in applying the software tool, unde r the leadership of the Energy Expert. The Expert and Plant Lead should be reaching agreement on the o pportunities that will be included in the final report for further investigation and possibly implementation.

After leaving the plant for the day (typically), the Energy Expert has enough information to draft the “preliminary report,” to be subm itted for review on day 3 and approv ed by plant personnel before the assessment is completed.

Assessment Day 3

The main activities for Day 3 are wrapping up the oppo rtunity analyses and preparing for and holding the Closeout meeting.

During the morning, the Energy Expert and Plant Lead will

• 

### finalize the calculations performed to quantify potential savings from the identified opportunities

• 

### agree on all opportunities that will be discussed during the Closeout meeting

• 

### prepare for the Closeout Meeting, including de veloping PowerPoint slides to summarize the assessment activities, and again ensure that they are agreed on what will be presented and discussed during the meeting.

Closeout Meetings are typically one to two hours long . Plant management personnel are invited to attend these meetings. The Plant Lead may making the presen tation if comfortable doing so; otherwise, the Energy Expert makes this presentati on. The closeout presentation covers

• 

### an overview of the assessment activities conducted,12 • 

### a discussion of Plant Best Practices identified dur ing the assessment (excellent operational practices such as having an effective steam trap maintenance program in place), and

• 

### a thorough review of the assessment opportunities evaluated and the estimated cost and energy savings for these opportunities.

When the Energy Expert leaves the plant on Day 3, he or she will hopefully have the completed assessment attendance list, evaluations from the plan t personnel who participated in the assessment, and a site-approved version of the ass essment preliminary report.

By the end of the assessment, the Plant Lead should have a good understanding of how to use the DOE steam or process heating software to evaluate energy savings opportunities, and should be confident that at least some of the opportunities evaluated will provide good cost and energy savings for the plant if they are implemented. Finally, participants from other company plants will now have access to someone with experience in applying and using the DOE softwa re to evaluate energy savings opportunities.

4.3.3 Save Energy Now Assessment Reports and Follow-Up



### After the site visit, the focus of the Energy Expe rt is on completing the major assessment reports and obtaining Plant Lead approval for them.

One-Day Reports

Several reports are sent to the DOE through ORNL w ithin one business day after the assessment has been completed. The “one-day” reports include:

• 

### the approved preliminary report,

• 

### a summary of assessment attendance,

• 

### a summary of assessment evaluations from plant pers onnel who participated in the assessment, and

• 

### a summary of the energy management questionnair e results submitted by the plant to the Energy Expert.

These reports are submitted electronically to ORNL and after technical review and evaluation are

submitted to DOE.

Assessment Summary Report and Savings Spreadsheet

The main post-assessment activity for the Energy Expe rt is to prepare a Draft Assessment Summary Report and a Draft Assessment Savings Spreadsheet. Figures 3 and 4 show the template used for the summary report. The first page (Figure 3) provides a summary of background information for the assessment, a summary table of the identified opportu nities with associated dollar and energy savings, and a summary of any Best Practices identified at the plan t. The Energy Expert uses specific “pick list” words to describe the identified opportuniti es. These pick lists were developed (separately for steam and process heating) so that the opportunity descriptions could be sorted by pick list phrases. For example, DOE could easily determine that many process heating opport unities associated with “reduce excess air” were

identified.

Figure 4 shows the template for the narrative porti on of the Assessment Summary Report. The Experts were directed to keep the narratives brief — preferab ly no longer than 2 to 3 pages. The narrative is intended to provide some background information on th e assessment, highlight the main energy savings opportunities identified in the assessment, and charact erize them as near-, medium-, or long-term opportunities (defined in Figure 4).13 Figure 3. Template of the first pa ge of the Assessment Summary Report.14 Figure 4. Template for the narrative se ction of the Assessment Summary Report.



### The format for entering data into the Draft Assessme nt Savings Spreadsheet is shown in Figure 5. The Expert provides energy information for the participa ting plant, consumption and cost of natural gas, electricity, and “other” fuels. The expert also ente rs data on the identified opportunities (much of it the same data as summarized in the Assessment Summary Re port), and also enters low and high estimates of capital expenses to implement each identified opportuni ty. These conceptual capital expense estimates are not based on detailed analyses, but on the expert s’ experience with implementing steam or process heating opportunities in plants.

The Energy Expert submits the Draft Assessment Summary Report to the Plant Lead for review, comment, and final approval and to ORNL for tec hnical review and comment. After approval by the plant, the report is sent to ORNL for final approval. ORNL either asks for final revisions to be made to15 

### the submitted report or approves it as submitted and forwards the report to the DOE Energy Savings Assessment Management System (ESAMS) database. The detailed plant and energy savings information

in the ESAMS database is held confidential.No info rmation on individual plants is reported by the DOE in public documents. All of the information provide d to Energy Experts for the Assessment Summary Report and the Assessment Savings Spreadsheet is held confidential by DOE. There are public reports available on the DOE Web site for many of the assessme nts, but none of these are made public until plant personnel have approved their release to the public.

Figure 5. Assessment Savings Spreadsheet template.16 

### After the Assessment Summary Report is approved as final by ORNL, the final contact between the Energy Expert and the Plant Lead occurs to see if any identified opportunities have yet been fully implemented. In most cases, no implementation has been done, but there have been cases where identified opportunities have been implemented very quickly . The Energy Expert informs ORNL of this information, and the information is submitted to the ESAMS database.

As part of their agreement with DOE, participating plants provide implementation information 6, 12, and

24 months after the assessment. This informati on is gathered through in terviews conducted by knowledgeable engineering students from DOE’s IACs. ORNL manages collection of this information, and implementation data is recorded in the ESAMS database.

Finally, ORNL manages the technical review and evaluation of all of the Save Energy Now assessment program metrics including energy, cost, and emissi on savings data, payback period information, and implementation follow-up information.

4.4 Summary of Key Save Energy Now Assessment Reports and Deliverables

The following reports and deliverables were assembled, technically evaluated and reviewed, and provided

to DOE and the ESAMS database for each of the assessments:

1. An approved preliminary report;

2. Attendance information for plant personne l who participated in the assessment;

3. An assessment evaluation summary – plant personnel responses to questions on the performance of the Energy Expert and on the value of the DOE software tools;

4. A completed energy management questionnaire;

5. An approved Final Assessment Summary Report (see figures 3 and 4);

6. A submitted Final Assessment Savings Spreadsheet (see Figure 5);

7. A completed copy of the Steam System Sc oping Tool results or the Process Heating Scorecard results; and

8. A copy (for archival purposes only, these were not reviewed and evaluated) of the SSAT or PHAST data files used in performing the assessment analyses.



### 5. C OMPREHENSIVE 

### R EVIEW OF THE 

### 2006 S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENT 

### R ESULTS



### 5.1 Location and Industry of the Assessed Plants

The assessments were conducted in 40 states and Puerto Rico, m ostly in the midwestern, eastern, and southern United States, where the ma jority of large U.S. industrial sites are located. Figures 6 and 7 show the breakdown of the 2006 assessments by state, and Table 1 shows the industry sectors represented by the plants. The states with the most assessments were Te xas, with 30, and Louisiana, with 15. In 17 states, 4 or more assessments were completed.17 Figure 6. In 2006, 200 assessments w ere performed in 40 states and one terri tory (Puerto Rico). In 17 of these states, 4 or more assessments were conducted.

Figure 7. The majority of the year 2006 assess ments were performed in th e eastern, midwestern, and

southern United States.



### Table 1 and Figure 8 show the breakdown of the assessments by type and by industrial classification, with 114 steam assessments and 86 process heating assessments. Figure 8 shows that the 200 plants were in 18 major U.S. industry groups, with 163 of the assessments done in six industries: chemical manufacturing, paper manufacturing, primary metals, food, non-metal lic mineral products, and fa bricated metal products.18 Table 1. The 18 major industrial sectors represented by the 200 assessed plants.

I NDUSTRY SECTOR Process Heating Steam TOTAL
325 Chemical manufacturing 14 39 53 322 Paper manufacturing 4 30 34 331 Primary metals 23 1 24

311 Food 7 15 22 327 Non-metallic mineral products 18 18 332 Fabricated metal products 8 4 12 324 Petroleum and coal products 2 6 8 326 Plastics and rubber products 2 3 5 334 Computer and electronic products 2 3 5 336 Transportation equipment 5 5 212 Mining 2 1 3 314 Textile product mills 3 3 333 Machinery manufacturing 2 2 312 Beverage and tobacco products 1 1

313 Textile mills 1 1 321 Wood products 1 1 323 Printing and related support activities 1 1 335 Electrical equipment, appliances, components 1 1

Other 1 1

Total 86 114 200

Figure 8. Assessments were completed in 18 major U.S. industry sectors, with 163 of the assessments in 6 industry sectors.19 

### Figures 9 and 10 show the potential savings for process h eating and steam, respectively, by state. Process heating assessments were performed in 30 states, with about 82% of the potential energy cost savings in

12 states. Steam assessments were done in 36 states a nd one territory (Puerto Rico), and about 84% of the potential energy cost savings were in 12 states.

Figure 11 shows the distribution of identified potential energy cost savings across the 18 industrial groups represented in the 2006 assessments, with 89% of the total occurring in six industries: chemical manufacturing, paper manufacturing, primary metals, petroleum and coal products, food, and fabricated metal products.

Figure 9. The year 2006 assessments included 86 proces s heating assessments in 30 states. The total potential energy cost savings from the identi fied opportunities in these assessments was $136 million per year.20 Figure 10. The year 2006 assessments included 114 steam assessments in 37 states. The total potential energy cost savings from the identified opportunities in these assessments was $364 million per year.

Figure 11. Assessments were performed for 18 majo r U.S. industry groups, with 6 of these industries accounting for potential cost savings from iden tified opportunities of $445 million per year.21 

### 5.2 Summary of Overall Results

The magnitude of the recommended potential cost, natural gas, and CO 2 

### savings identified in the 2006 steam and process heating assessments is exceptionally la rge. An overall summary of the results from the 2006 assessments is presented in Table 2, for all assessments, for steam assessments, and for process heating assessments. Some key r esults include the following.

• 

### The average recommended cost savings for all of the assessments taken together was about $2.5 million per year, or 10.4% of the average plant energy bill for the assesssed plants.

• 

### The results of the assessments clearly reflect the 2006 program’s focus on natural gas savings. The assessments showed that 17.3% of the natural g as used in the plants could be saved if all of the recommendations from the assessments were implemented.

• 

### The average potential cost and natural gas savings identified for both steam and process heating assessments was large — about $3.2 million per year for steam and $1.6 million per year for process heating. Considering that assessments were done in only three days, including a strong tool training element, the magnitude of potential savings is surprisingly large.

Table 2 shows some interesting differences between th e results for steam and process heating. For steam the total energy savings of about 32 million MMBtu pe r year is less than the natural gas savings of about 39 million MMBtu per year. However, for process hea ting the total energy savings of about 17 million MMBtu per year is more than the natural gas sav ings of about 14 million MMBtu per year. This is

because the steam ass essments identified a significant number of opportunities involving energy switching — for example, switching from natural gas to a less costly fuel, or installing a turbine to generate electricity, which would result in needing ad ditional fuel to run the turbine. In process heating assessments, energy switching opportunities were not as significant.

Estimates for CO 2 

### emission reductions were calculated for each assessment based on the energy savings and fuel type data provided by the Energy Experts. Currently, 22 categories of industrial fuels including electricity, natural gas, light fuel oil (#1, #2, #4), h eavy fuel oil (#5, #6), coal, coke, coke oven gas, black liquor, blast furnace gas, propane, and hog fuel are analyzed for CO 2 

### content. Coefficients for converting fuel consumption (MMBtu) into metric tons of CO 2 

### were provided through direct consultation with EIA’s greenhouse gas voluntary reporting team. These coefficients were applied to the appropriate fuel savings to develop estimates of emissions impacts. Table 3 id entifies the coefficients th at were used to convert energy savings into CO 2 

### impacts.22 

### Table 2. Summary of results for all year 2006 assessments, steam assessments, and process heating assessments.

For all 200
assessments in

2006 For the 114

steam

assessments For the 86

process heating

assessments

Total recommended cost savings ($/y ear) $500,200,000 $364,300,000 $135,900,000

Recommended cost savings per assessment ($/year) $2,501,000 $3,200,000 $1,580,000

Average recommended cost savings per assessment (%/year) 10.4% 11.4% 9.0%

Total recommended energy savings, site (MMBtu/year) 49,470,000 32,370,000 17,100,000

Recommended total energy savings, site, per assessment (MMBtu/year) 247,400 283,900 198,800

Average recommended total energy savings, site, per assessment (%/year) 8.8% 7.8% 10.1%

Total recommended natural gas savings (MMBtu/year) 52,870,000 39,040,000 13,830,000

Recommended natural gas savings per assessment (MMBtu/year) 264,400 342,500 160,800

Average recommended natural gas savings per assessment (%/year) 17.3% 20.4% 13.3%

Total recommended CO 2 savings (million metric
tons CO 2 /year) 4.04 2.92 1.11

Recommended CO 2 savings per assessment (metric tons CO 2 /year) 20,200 25,600 13,000

Note: Savings designated as “site” savings refer to energy used at the site and do not include losses that occur in the generation, transmission and distribution of energy.23 Table 3. Coefficients used to convert energy savings results into CO 2 impacts.

Fuel EIA Factors (lb CO 2 /MMBtu) Fuel EIA Factors (lb CO 2 /MMBtu) Black liquor 0.00 Gasoline 154.79 Blast furnace gas 604.78 Isobutane 142.04

Butane 141.80 Kerosene 157.04

Butene 141.80 Liquified petroleum (LPG) 137.72

Coal 208.59 Methane/landfill gas 115.26

Coke 225.13 Municipal refuse (dry) 145.88 Coke oven gas 103.28 Natural gas 117.08 Crude petroleum 170.50 Peat 246.56 Distillate fuel (light fuel oil) 159.43 Propane 137.66 Electricity (purchased) 1366.65 Residual fuel oil (heavy fuel oil) 173.73

Ethane 130.03 Wood waste (hog fuel) 0.00



### Figure 12 illustrates the total estimated CO 2 

### emission reductions for the U.S. industry groups that conducted assessments in 2006. The total potential CO 2 

### emissions reduction — if all recommendations are implemented — is about 4. 04 million metric tons of CO 2



### .

Figure 12. The total potential CO 2 emissions reduction for the year 2006 assessments was 4.04 million metric

tons of CO 2 . Estimates of CO 2 emission reductions were positive for 17 of the 18 U.S. industry groups that

conducted assessments in 2006.24 

### It should be noted that a slight increase in CO 2 

### emissions was calculated for Textile Product Mills (NAIC 314). This increase is traced to fuel switch ing from natural gas to a less costly fuel.

In performing the steam and process heating assessments, Experts used standard – or “pick-list” wordings whenever possible in classifying the identified opp ortunities. This was done so that the savings opportunity data could be analyzed by these pick- list categories. Tables 4 and 5 present the opportunity pick-list categories for steam and process hea ting, respectively, used for the assessments.

Tables 6 and 7 present detailed information on cost, energy, and CO 2 

### emission reductions for the steam and process heating pick list categories. Figures 13 and 14 illustrate the cost savings that resulted from the “Top 10” energy savings opportunities for steam and process heating. For both steam and process heating assessments, the top 10 opportunities capture the majori ty of the energy cost savings identified in the

assessments. For steam ass essments, the top 10 opportunities captured $334 million per year of potential savings — 92% of the total identified steam sa vings. For process heating assessments, the top 10 opportunities captured $100 million per year of potential savings — 74% of the total identified process heating savings.25Table 4. The steam system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessments and data analysis.Steam assessment “picklist” savings projectsDescription1.1 – Reduce steam demandby changing the processsteam requirementsEliminating or optimizing the operation of steam-using process equipment reduces required steam generationrates which in turn reduces boiler fuel (and energy) consumption rates.1.2 – Use an alternate fuelWhen switching from a fuel with a lower theoretical combustion efficiency (e.g. natural gas) to a fuel with a higherefficiency (e.g. fuel oil with a lower hydrogen content), alower boiler fuel (and energy) consumption rate results.Switching to a less costly fuel (on anenergy basis) will reduce operating cost.1.3 – Change boilerefficiencyEnergy is saved if boiler efficiency is improved since boiler losses are reduced, and less fuel (and energy) isneeded to achieve a desired steam production rate.1.4 – Change boilerblowdown rateBoiler blowdown constitutes a pressurized, hot water lossfrom a boiler (energy loss). Actions (e.g. improvedboiler water treatment) which allow a reduction in this loss improve boiler efficiency.1.5 – Install blowdown flashto low-pressure steamBlowdown water (superheated liquid) flashes to steam whenpressure is lowered in the exit stream. Flash steamdirected to a low pressure header reduces needed boiler steam generation rate. This in turn reduces boiler fuel(and energy) use rate.1.6 – Change steamgeneration conditionsFor boilers producing superheated steam, reducing output temperature (e.g. by removing a superheater) willreduce boiler fuel (and energy) use. For boilers producing saturated steam, improving steam quality (decreasingwetness) improves downstream process heating and lowers boiler steam output and fuel (and energy)consumption rate is reduced.1.7 – Add or modifyoperation of backpressuresteam turbineIf a backpressure turbine is taken out-of-service, steam usage, boiler load and fuel (and energy) consumptionrate are reduced. If a new backpressure turbine is added toreduce steam flow through pressure reducing valves,steam flows through pressure reducing valves will be reduced but total steam usage will increase. This action willreduce total energy costs if the electricity savings (related to the turbine drive) are greater than the increasedboiler fuel consumption rate.1.8 – Add or modifyoperation of condensingsteam turbineIf the isentropic efficiency of a utilized condensing turbineis improved (e.g. by rebuilding), a lower steam flow isrequired to drive the turbine load. This in turn reduces boiler load and fuel (and energy) consumption rates. If acondensing turbine is taken out-of-service, steam usage is reduced, boiler load decreases and boiler fuel (andenergy) consumption is lowered.1.9 – Modify feedwater heatrecovery exchanger usingcondensate tank ventThe main condensate receiver is typically vented to atmosphere when flash steam forms at the reduced receiverpressure. Flash steam passed through a heat exchangercan be used for boiler feedwater heating. The additionof hotter water to the feedwater system reduces boiler fuel (and energy) consumption rate.1.10 – Modify feedwater heatrecovery exchanger usingboiler blowdownWhen superheated blowdown water undergoes a pressure reduction after leaving the boiler, some water flashesto steam and a hot water fraction remains. This hot water may be passed through a heat exchanger to heatfeedwater or process fluids therebyreducing steam use for heating.261.11 – Change condensaterecovery ratesIf the amount of formed condensate returned to the boileris increased, hotter water is fed back into the boilerfeedwater system, lowering feedwater heating requirements and feedwater chemical treatment needs.1.12 – Modify the mediumpressure condensate flashsystemWhen the pressure of condensate formedin a high-pressure system is reduced, flash steam forms. When thissteam is supplied to the medium-pressure steam header, an amount of boiler-produced steam is displaced andboiler load and fuel (and energy) consumption rates are reduced.1.13 – Modify the lowpressure condensate flashsystemWhen the pressure of condensate formedat a given pressure is reduced flash steam forms. When this steam issupplied to the low-pressure steam header, an amountof boiler-produced steam is displaced and boiler load andfuel (and energy) consumption rates are reduced.1.14 – Implement steam trapmaintenance programAn improved steam trap maintenance program results ina reduced number of traps failed in the leaking steammode. If trap steam leaks are reduced, less steam energyis lost in the condensate system and boiler load andfuel (and energy) consumption rates are reduced.1.15 – Implement steam leakmaintenance programAn improved steam leak maintenance program reducesthe number of steam leaks(lost energy). Less steammust be generated in the boiler to satisfy process loads and boiler fuel (and energy) consumption rates arereduced.1.16 – Improve insulationImproving insulation quality (e.g. replacing ineffectivewet insulation or increasing insulation thickness) andinsulating uninsulated components will reduceenergy loss from hot steam components.1.17 – OtherMiscellaneous projects may minimize or eliminate the need for boiler-generated steam. These projects saveenergy by reducing the use ofprocess energy or by improving the efficiency of converting fuel energy to processheating (e.g. steam) energy.1.18 – Feedwater heatrecovery, generalAvailable process waste heat other than condensate tankvent energy or liquid blowdown heat can be used in aheat exchanger to heat boiler feedwater. Hotter water fedback into the boiler feedwater system lowers feedwaterheating requirements.1.19 – Deaerator heatrecoveryBoiler water deaerators are often vented to atmosphere. The installationof a heat exchanger can recover heat forfeedwater or process heating. Thisheating reduces needed boiler output.1.20 – Multiple boileroptimizationOptimization of overall steam generation efficiency inmulti-boiler systems requires selection of individual boilerloads to maximize their efficiencies and minimize total boiler fuel use while meeting total steam productionrequirements.1.21 – Reduce or recovervented steamSteam is vented from steam headers when steam supplied by backpressure turbines exceeds downstreamprocess needs. Steam is also vented from some plantprocesses (e.g. furnace decoking). If steam venting isreduced or vented steam is recovered (for process heating) boiler steam load and fuel (and energy) consumptionrates are reduced.27Table 5. The process heating “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessments and data analysis.Process heating assessment “picklist” savings projectDescription1.1 – Reduce oxygen content of flue(exhaust) gasesReduced oxygen reflects a reduction in excess air entering the heating equipment. This raises theavailable heat, and consequently, the efficiency. Excess air can be lowered by adjusting burner airfuel ratios, closing off air leaks into the equipmentor maintaining a slightly positive chamber pressureto exclude outside air.1.2 – Eliminate excess unburnedhydrocarbons (CO, H2, CH4, soot in theexhaust gases)Unburned hydrocarbons represent unburned or partially-burned fuel. They can be lowered byimproving the thoroughness of air-fuel mixing inburners or avoiding operating burners fuel-rich orwith insufficient excess air.1.3 – Use of proper heating methods -replace inefficient and uneconomicalmethods with economical/efficientsystemSome heating equipment is either obsolete or poorlymatched to the needs of the process. Replace itwith modern equipment which takes the unique needs of the process into account.1.4 – Use of alternate fuel or energysourceIn certain situations, fuels like by-product gases may be available at lower cost than the primary fuel.Waste energy from other nearby operations mightbe able to be used in the process underconsideration.1.5 – Use of oxygen for combustion Using oxygen to enrich or replace combustion air lowers the weight flow of nitrogen in the exhaustgases, increasing available heat and efficiency. Flame temperatures will also increase, and this mayenhance radiation heat transfer to the furnace and its load.1.6 – Use of process or exhaust air forcombustionIf this air contains sufficient oxygen (usually 18%or more) and is at elevated temperature, it can beused as a combustion air source. Its heat contentwill raise the available heat of the combustionprocess.1.7 – Use of outdoor air for combustionor make-up airIn a closed building with space heating in use,drawing combustion air from inside and thenexhausting it through the stack wastes the energy that air contains. Heated replacement air will beneeded. Drawing combustion air fromoutdoors bypasses the building heating system, reducing theburden on it.1.8 – Improving heat transfer in afurnace-ovenThe work load must be exposed as effectively as possible to the source of radiant or convective heat.This will entail steps like changing loading patterns,increasing burner or hot air nozzle velocities orrelocating heat sources so they "see" more of the load surface.1.9 – Clean heat transfer surfaces -radiant tubes, heat exchangers, heatertubes, electrical heating elementsBuildups of scale, soot and dirt reduce the thermal conductivity of tubes,heating elements and heatexchangers. Heat turned back by these deposits short-circuits out the exhaust, increasing losses,slowing the process and lowering efficiency.1.10 – Use of flue or exhaust gas heat forcombustion air preheatingThis is one of the most effective ways to recycle waste heat. Incoming ambient combustion air isrouted through a heat exchanger and preheated withenergy extracted from the outgoing exhaustgases. Every unit of energy transferred to the air is one less that must be provided by burning fuel.281.11 – Load or charge preheating usingheat from flue or exhaust gas or othersource of waste heatInstead of exhausting flue gases from the process at high temperatures, they are passed overincoming cold charge materials. This raises the load partway to its processing temperature andlowers the amount of energy neeed to support the process.1.12 – Heat cascading - use of flue orexhaust gas heat from a highertemperature process to supply heat tolower temperature processesWaste gases from one process can be used to heat a lower temperatuure process.1.13 – Heat recovery from hot productsor other heat sources (i.e. from walls)from a furnace - ovenProducts are often removed from ovens or furnacesat elevated temperatures and allowed to cool inthe open air. Cooling them with forced air in an enclosure will heat the air, which might be useful forheating another process.1.14 – Use of waste heat for water or aircooling, steam generation or absorptioncoolingHeated exhaust gases can be routed through waste heat boilers, hot water generators or absorptionchillers to perform a variety of heating or cooling roles.1.15 – Proper insulation andmaintenance of furnace structure or partsMaintain furnace and oven insulation to avoidlocalized losses through the walls, roof and floor.Consider increasing the thickness or efficiency ofthe existing insulation to further lower wall losses.1.16 – Reduce-eliminate internal cooling Some furnaces containcomponents protected from overheating with cooling water and air. Makesure excessive amounts of cooling media aren't used.1.17 – Reduce-eliminate openings andair leakage in the furnaceOpenings allow radiant energy to escape and ambient air to leak in. As muchas possible, seal thoseopenings and leaks. As an added measure, maintain thefurnace or oven at a slightly positive internalpressure to prevent in-leakage.1.18 – Furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown - avoiding delays, waits, coolingbetween operations etc.Heating equipment efficiency is highest at 100%of design capacity. Underloaded or overloadedequipment will consume more energy per unit of production.1.19 – Reducing weight of fixtures, trays,baskets etc.If fixtures, baskets and conveyors leave the heating process at higher temperatures than theyentered, they contribute to wasted heat. Lowering their mass causes a corresponding decrease in theamount of energy they extract from the process.1.20 – Control (reduce) make up air forovens to meet the process safetyrequirementsOvens handling flammable solvents or vapors must have sufficient fresh air ventilation to dilute thosecombustible materials well below their lower flammable limit. Any ventilation in excess of the saferequired amount wastes energy.1.21 – Eliminate use of continuous flamecurtains, pilots where possibleFlame curtains and door pilots insure burnoffof flammable prepared atmospheres escaping aroundfurnace doors and out vents. If the process atmosphere has been changed to a non-flammablemixture, these ignition sources are no longer necessary.29Table 6. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2emissions from identifiedsteam opportunities in pick-list categories.Year 2006 Steam Savings OpportunityRecommendationsRecommendedtotal cost savings($/year)Recommended totalenergy savings(MMBtu/year)Recommended totalnatural gas savings(MMBtu/year)Recommendedtotal CO2savings(metric tonsCO2/year)Number of timesthe opportunityapplied1.1. Reduce steam demand$88,998,21117,095,1008,477,2101,185,3831091.2. Use alternate fuel$77,872,418-767,20414,025,074376,056181.3. Improve boiler efficiency$42,924,8855,331,4863,920,092283,7911301.7. Add / modify backpressure steam turbine$33,920,079-72,338130,360165,894541.11. Improve condensate recovery$23,611,7732,617,1462,137,589151,081551.8. Add / modify condensing steam turbine$22,944,292-84,5762,323,230162,914171.14. Implement steam trap maintenance program$15,059,4332,066,7221,936,950109,177561.16. Improve insulation$10,492,5361,526,111986,368100,953771.4. Improve boiler blowdown rate$9,041,315845,627802,89846,438411.10. Improve blowdown feedwater heat recovery$8,913,6731,164,8231,111,85661,020491.20. Optimize multiple boilers$6,289,083-711,436407,38069,235101.17. Other – miscellaneous steam$6,123,237575,249453,97945,646261.18. Feedwater heat recovery - general$6,075,461940,806916,84251,56371.15. Implement steam leak maintenance program$2,618,451482,085347,71925,109431.21. Reduce / recover vented steam$2,126,961390,332245,65226,518121.13. Improve low pressure condensate flash$1,979,381312,877309,43814,522101.12. Improve medium pressure condensate flash $1,385,000 168,314 168,404 8,927 31.6. Improve steam generationconditions $1,124,000 116,342 -8,970 15,817 71.19. Improve deaerator heat recovery$774,73487,59569,2506,54651.5. Install blowdown flash to low pressure steam$490,97890,218100,7143,44251.9. Improve condensate tank vent feedwater heatrecovery$437,90062,12658,2792,99243.1. Use flue / exhaust gas for combustion air preheating $301,66938,37927,4992,31822.2. Clean heat transfer surfaces$233,13932,47132,4711,72413.5. Use waste heat for cooling$230,47024,32524,3251,29221.1. Reduce flue gas oxygen content$201,61427,91127,9111,48225.1. Improve furnace scheduling,loading, shutdown $73,900 0 0 0 16.2. Other - miscellaneous process heating$41,821 17,095,100.5,286.2811TOTALS $364,286,41432,365,77839,037,8062,920,12174730Table 7. Potential cost savings,energy savings, and reduction in CO2emissions from identifiedprocess heating opportunities in pick-list categories.Year 2006 process heating savings opportunityrecommendationsRecommended totalcost savings($/year)Recommended totalenergy savings(MMBtu/year)Recommended totalnatural gas savings(MMBtu/year)Recommended totalCO2savings(metric tons CO2/year)Number oftimes theopportunityapplied3.4. Furnace heat recovery$19,639,2002,066,1691,379,149181,570273.3.Heatcascading$16,201,119 1,988,789 1,508,206 141,712 366.2. Other - miscellaneous process heating$13,978,7121,481,9041,407,73388,191271.3. Use of proper heating methods$12,753,4671,400,5831,400,58374,380224.1. Proper furnace insulation / maintenance$11,693,5851,903,4391,363,402123,501491.1. Reduce flue gas oxygen content$8,696,0971,567,558877,950111,134741.5. Use oxygen for combustion$7,022,7241,106,595743,42775,387141.6. Use process or exhaust air for combustion $6,978,720 709,900 709,900 37,700 73.2. Improve load charge preheating$6,926,397858,431814,01747,427264.3. Reduce / eliminate furnace openings and leakage $5,249,615 729,741 661,720 41,577 255.1. Improve furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown $4,687,509 474,365 473,831 25,223 113.1. Use flue / exhaust gas for combustion airpreheating$4,613,692 630,986 417,531 47,676 182.1. Improving furnace / oven heat transfer$3,948,977435,839435,83923,146121.4. Use alternate fuel or energy source$3,686,128877,792877,79246,61736.1. Other - non process heating measures$3,271,917124,89427,96519,060121.16.Improveinsulation$1,919,891 237,393 222,871 11,836 75.3. Control oven makeup air$1,911,641233,730238,40611,812123.5. Use waste heat for cooling$1,378,430104,386103,4335,55242.2. Clean heat transfer surfaces$824,622115,780115,7806,14931.3. Improve boiler efficiency$175,88217,75817,67695485.4. Eliminate continuous flamecurtains,pilots $125,000 17,361 17,361 922 11.1. Reduce steam demand$80,6007,6707,67040734.2. Reduce-eliminate internal cooling$65,2907,6137,61340421.7. Use outdoor air for combustion or makeup air$20,0002,5002,50013411.20. Optimize multiple boilers$12,4001,6301,6308715.2. Reduce weight of fixtures, trays, etc.$3,300330330181Totals$135,864,915 17,103,135 13,834,314 1,121,572 40631 Figure 13. The top ten steam opportunity categories fo r the year 2006 assessments could result in $334 million per year of plant energy savings.

Figure 14. The top ten process heating opportunity ca tegories for the year 2006 assessments could result in $100 million per year of plant energy savings.32 

### 5.3 Estimated Paybacks Are Less Than Two Years for Most Identified Savings Opportunities

While the magnitude of the potential cost and en ergy savings identified by the 2006 assessments is impressive, the impact on U.S. industry will only be proportional to the magnitude of implemented opportunities. A primary determinant of whether poten tial savings become real savings is the payback period for implementation. Savings payback period is defined as (cost to implement opportunity) / (yearly savings for the opportunity). Most industrial plants will not consider implementing savings opportunities that have paybacks of greater than two years.

The Energy Experts estimated high and low values of the capital costs for implementing each identified savings opportunity and used the higher values to estimate payback periods. The results, summarized in Table 8 and Figures 15 and 16, show that the major ity of the estimated paybacks for the identified opportunities — 76% of all steam opportunities and 73 % of all process heating opportunities — were less than two years.

The opportunities with estimated paybacks of less than two years also accounted for most of the potential cost savings for both steam and process heating — for steam assessments, $263 million per year, or 72% of all potential savings; and for process heating assessments, $109 million per year, or 80% of all potential savings.

Table 8. Estimated payback periods for identified energy savings opportunities.

Payback category Number of identified opportunities Potential cost savings ($/year) Potential total energy savings (MMBtu/year) Potential total CO 2 emission reduction (metric Tons/year)

Payback data summary for all assessments completed in 2006

0 – 9 months 478 $200,981, 318 26,959,540 1,660,2284 9 months – 2 years 384 $170, 942,362 19,486, 394 1,246,223

2 – 4 years 193 $106,20 5,296 2,893,349 874,802

4+ years 68 $20,470,354 104,694 259,060
Spinoff a 30 $1,552,000 24,936 1,324
Totals 1153 $500,151,33 0 49,468,913 4,041,693

Payback data summary for all steam assessments completed in 2006

0 – 9 months 321 $148,067, 718 21,064,974 1,286,712 9 months – 2 years 243 $115, 063,965 11,678,785 731,436

2 – 4 years 114 $82,084, 478 -328,162 663,481

4+ years 53 $17,918, 253 -69,756 237,434 Spinoff 16 $1,152,000 19,936 1,059
Totals 747 $364,286,414 32,365,778 2,920,121

Payback data summary for all process heat assessments completed in 2006

0-9 months 157 $52,913, 600 5,894,566 373,572
9 months - 2 years 141 $55, 878,396 7,807,609 514,787

2 -4 years 79 $24,120, 818 3,221,511 211,321

4+ years 15 $2,552,101 174,450 21,627
Spinoff a 14 $400,000 5,000 266
Totals 406 $135,864,915 17,103,135 1,121,572

a Spinoff is defined as an opportunity identified by an asse ssed plant as a direct and immediate result of their assessment experience. These opportunities may have been suggested by the Energy Ex pert, but not documented in the report, or the plant may have ident ified a new opportunity based on their assessment training or immediate application of the software tools. Plants report these opportunities during the follow-up interviews and only those that
are identified as attributed to the assessment are recorded.33 Figure 15. For the 2006 assessments, 76% of the stea m recommendations had estimated paybacks of less than two years. The total recommended savings for stea m opportunities with paybac ks of less than 2 years was $263 million/year.

Figure 16. For the 2006 assessments, 73% of the proc ess heating recommendations had estimated paybacks of less than two years. The total recommended savings for process heating opportunities with paybacks of less than 2 years was $109 million/year.34 

### Tables 9 and 10 summarize the payback data for all of the steam and process heating opportunities by opportunity (pick list) category. The anticipated payback periods of the top ten most frequently identified steam and process heating opportunities show that th ey do hold promise for potential implementation.

The majority of the identified opportunities in the t op ten steam categories have estimated paybacks of less than two years, as shown in Figure 17. Significant potential savings with estimated paybacks between two and four years were identified in four of th ese categories: use alternate fuel, improve boiler efficiency, add/modify backpressure steam turbin e, and add/modify condensing steam turbine.

Most of the identified opportunities in the top ten process heating categories also had estimated paybacks of less than two years, as shown in Figure 18. Significant potential savings with estimated paybacks between two and four years were identified in four of these categories: furnace heat recovery, heat cascading, use of proper heating methods, and improve load charge preheating.

Tables 11 and 12 and Figures 19 and 20 present potential i ndividual savings data in terms of the average percentages of plant energy use and energy cost represented by each category of opportunity. These results show that potential savings identified in many of these categories could be greater than 1% of total plant energy costs.

For the steam assessments, 14 of the opportunity cate gories showed average potential cost savings greater than 1% of plant energy costs (Table 11). For example, the average potential plant cost savings from reducing steam demand was greater than 3% of the plant energy costs.

For the process heating assessments, 17 of the oppor tunity categories showed average potential cost savings greater than 1% of plant energy costs (Tab le 12). For example, the average potential plant cost savings from heat cascading was greater than 3% of plant energy costs.

The estimated paybacks indicate that implementation of the majority of identified opportunities should be appealing to industrial plants.35Table 9. Estimated annual cost savings and payback periods for assessment-identified steam system savings opportunities (opps).Payback periods0 – 9 months9 months – 2 years2 – 4 years4+ yearsSpin-offsSteam assessment opportunity type# opps Annual savings # opps Annualsavings # opps Annual savings # oppsAnnual savings # opps Annual savings1.1 - Reduce steam demand53 $47,796,894 29 $35,422,406 15 $3,177,800 9 $2,263,111 3 $338,0001.2 - Use alternate fuel8 $23,752,103 4 $23,705,000 4 $22,953,815 2 $7,461,5001.3 - Improve boiler efficiency58 $13,063,094 35 $17,400,684 21 $11,287,107 15 $1,174,000 1$01.7 - Add/modify backpressure steam turbine 12 $6,155,320 12 $4,372,284 20 $21,009,646 8 $2,382,829 2$01.11 - Improve condensate recovery14 $13,455,016 25 $7,334,357 10 $1,958,400 5 $373,000 1 $491,0001.8 - Add/modify condensing steam turbine8 $4,564,842 3 $2,046,500 4 $16,267,950 1 $65,000 11.14 - Implement steam trap maintenance program 30 $11,169,397 22 $3,797,036 1 $16,000 2 $31,000 1 $46,0001.16 - Improve insulation32 $7,090,313 37 $2,987,023 6 $284,200 1 $54,000 1 $77,0001.4 - Improve boiler blowdown rate20 $6,147,466 10 $2,131,786 6 $592,604 5 $169,4591.10 - Improve blowdown feedwater heat recovery 24 $4,690,674 17 $2,970,099 7 $1,240,900 1 $12,0001.20 - Optimize multiple boilers4 $1,584,754 4 $811,000 1 $42,329 1 $3,851,0001.17 – Other – miscellaneous steam6 $655,416 10 $4,570,289 4 $697,5326 $200,0001.18 – Feedwater heat recovery - general3 $741,250 2 $3,534,211 2 $1,800,0001.15 - Implement steam leak maintenance program 21 $1,907,230 18 $622,823 3 $80,974 1 $7,4241.21 - Reduce / recover vented steam6 $1,262,980 3 $602,981 3 $261,0001.13 - Improve low pressure condensate flash 1 $533,000 4 $1,352,600 4 $86,321 1 $7,4601.12 - Improve medium pressure condensate flash 2 $766,000 1 $619,0001.6 - Improve steam generation conditions6 $1,079,0001 $45,0001.19 - Improve deaerator heat recovery5 $774,7341.5 - Install blowdown flash to low pressure steam 2 $317,900 3 $173,0781.9 - Improve condensate tank vent feedwater heatrecovery 1 $79,000 1 $76,000 2 $282,9003.1 - Use flue/exhaust gasfor combustion airpreheating 2 $301,6692.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces1 $233,1393.5 - Use waste heat for cooling1 $164,0001 $66,4701.1 - Reduce flue gas oxygen content2 $201,6145.1 - Improve furnace scheduling, loading,shutdown1 $73,9006.2 - Other - miscellaneous process heating1 $41,821Total321 $148,067,718 243 $115,063,965 114 $82,084,478 53 $17,918,253 16 $1,152,00036Table 10.Estimated annual cost savings and payback periods for assessment-identified process heating system savings opportunities (opps).Payback periods0 – 9 months9 months – 2 years2 – 4 years4+ yearsSpin-offsProcess Heating Opportunity Type# opps Annual savings # opps Annual savings # opps Annual savings # opps Annual savings # opps Annual savings3.4 - Furnace Heat Recovery4 $7,030,000 12 $9,216,918 11 $3,392,2823.3 - Heat Cascading9 $5,115,310 16 $8,352,112 6 $2,712,797 2 $20,900 36.2 - Other - Miscellaneous Process Heating11 $4,754,928 8 $4,547,984 2 $2,245,000 4 $2,030,800 2 $400,0001.3 - Use Of Proper Heating Methods8 $4,105,180 7 $4,453,259 5 $4,195,028 24.1 - Proper Furnace Insulation / Maintenance15 $3,720,060 25 $6,983,712 6 $949,885 3 $39,9281.1 - Reduce Flue Gas Oxygen Content51 $5,701,115 15 $2,213,663 5 $781,319 3 $01.5 - Use Oxygen For Combustion4 $2,304,105 4 $3,558,462 4 $800,157 1 $360,000 11.6 – Use Process Or Exhaust Air ForCombustion 5 $6,391,720 2 $587,0003.2 – Improve Load Charge Preheating5 $825,036 11 $4,259,422 10 $1,841,9394.3 - Reduce / Eliminate Furnace Openings AndLeakage 8 $1,268,628 13 $3,663,813 4 $317,1745.1 - Improve Furnace Scheduling, Loading,Shutdown 7 $4,334,529 2 $219,050 2 $133,9303.1 - Use Flue / Exhaust Gas For CombustionAir Preheating 5 $2,320,798 9 $2,152,430 3 $95,496 1 $44,9682.1 - Improving Furnace / Oven Heat Transfer3 $352,000 5 $2,545,960 3 $1,051,017 11.4 - Use Alternate Fuel Or Energy Source2 $2,156,128 1 $1,530,0006.1 - Other - Non Process Heating Measures2 $153,061 3 $720,262 5 $2,393,194 1 $5,400 11.16 - Improve Insulation1 $8,000 3 $1,829,588 2 $41,098 1 $41,2055.3 - Control Oven Makeup Air7 $864,480 4 $995,161 1 $52,0003.5 - Use Waste Heat For Cooling2 $516,600 2 $861,8302.2 - Clean Heat Transfer Surfaces3 $824,6221.3 - Improve Boiler Efficiency1 $7,900 3 $112,600 3 $49,782 1 $5,6005.4 - Eliminate Continuous Flame Curtains,Pilots 1 $125,0001.1 - Reduce Steam Demand1 $2,000 1 $78,600 14.2 - Reduce-Eliminate Internal Cooling1 $54,000 1 $11,2901.7 - Use Outdoor Air For Combustion OrMakeup Air1 $20,0001.20 - Optimize Multiple Boilers1 $12,4005.2 - Reduce Weight of Fixtures, Trays, etc.1 $3,300Total157 $52,913,600 141 $55,878,396 79 $24,120,818 15 $2,552,101 14 $400,00037 Figure 17. Most of the top ten steam opportunities had estimated paybacks of less than two years.

Figure 18. Most of the top ten process heating opportunities had estimated paybacks of less than two years.38 Table 11. Potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and plant energy use from steam opportunities (averages of all individual id entified opportunities), by pick-list category.

Potential savings

Steam opportunity category Average percentage of plant energy

costs Average percentage of plant energy

use (site)

1.2 - Use alternate fuel 15.1% -0.5%

1.1 - Reduce steam demand 3.3% 3.6%

1.20 - Optimize multiple boilers 3.2% -0.3%

2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces 2.6% 3.2%

1.7 - Add / modify backpressur e steam turbine 2.4% 0.1%

1.17 - Other - miscellaneous steam 1.9% 1.4%

1.21 - Reduce / recover vented steam 1.9% 2.4%

1.12 - Improve medium pressure condensate flash 1.6% 1.5%

1.18 - Feedwater heat recovery - general 1.6% 2.3%

1.8 - Add / modify condensi ng steam turbine 1.5% 0.6%

1.3 - Improve boiler efficiency 1.5% 1.6%

1.6 - Improve steam generat ion conditions 1.0% 0.8%

1.19 - Improve deaerator heat recovery 1.0% 1.1%

1.11 - Improve condensate recovery 1.0% 1.1%

1.13 - Improve low pressure co ndensate flash 0.9% 0.9%

1.1 - Reduce flue gas oxygen content 0.8% 1.0%

3.5 - Use waste heat for cooling 0.7% 0.6%

1.14 - Implement steam trap ma intenance program 0.7% 0.8%

1.9 - Improve condensate tank vent feedwater heat recovery 0.6% 0.8%

1.10 - Improve blowdown feedwate r heat recovery 0.5% 0.6%

1.16 - Improve insulation 0.5% 0.5%

3.1 - Use flue / exhaust gas for combustion air preheating 0.4% 0.4%

1.15 - Implement steam leak maintenance program 0.4% 0.3%

1.4 - Improve boiler blowdown rate 0.4% 0.3%

5.1 - Improve furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown 0.4% 0.0%

6.2 - Other - miscellaneous process heating 0.2% 0.2%

1.5 - Install blowdown flash to low pressure steam 0.1% 0.2%39 Table 12. Potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and plant energy use from process

heating opportunities (averages of all individual identified opportunities), by pick-list category.

Potential savings

Process heating opportunity category Average percentage of plant energy

costs Average percentage of plant energy

use (site)

1.4 - Use alternate fuel or energy source 9.3% 13.1%

3.5 - Use waste heat for cooling 8.0% 8.7%

3.3 - Heat cascadi ng 3.3% 3.4%

3.4 - Furnace heat recovery 2.9% 3.5%

1.5 - Use oxygen for combustion 2.8% 3.6%

6.1 - Other - non process heat ing measures 2.8% 1.8%

1.3 - Use of proper heat ing methods 2.7% 3.1%

5.3 - Control oven mak eup air 2.7% 2.7%

6.2 - Other - miscellaneous process heating 2.6% 3.1%

2.1 - Improving furnace / oven heat transfer 2.4% 3.0%

3.1 - Use flue / exhaust gas for combustion air preheating 2.1% 2.2%

3.2 - Improve load charge preheating 1.7% 1.9%

5.1 - Improve furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown 1.4% 1.4%

1.6 - Use process or exhaust air for combustion 1.4% 1.5%

1.1 - Reduce steam demand 1.2% 1.5%

4.3 - Reduce / eliminate furnac e openings and leakage 1.2% 1.3%

4.1 - Proper furnace insulation / maintenance 1.1% 1.3%

1.1 - Reduce flue gas oxygen content 0.9% 1.1%

1.3 - Improve boiler efficiency 0.8% 1.1%

1.16 - Improve insulation 0.7% 0.9%

2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces 0.4% 1.6%

5.2 - Reduce weight of fixtur es, trays, etc. 0.2% 0.2%

4.2 - Reduce-eliminate internal cooling 0.1% 0.1%

5.4 - Eliminate continuous flame curtains, pilots 0.1% 0.07%

1.7 - Use outdoor air for combustion or makeup air 0.05% 0.02%

1.20 - Optimize multiple boilers 0.01% 0.03%40 Figure 19. Many of the identified steam savings opport unities could individually save industrial plants more than 1% of their total energy costs.

Figure 20. Many of the identified process heating s avings opportunities could individually save industrial plants more than 1% of their total energy costs.41 

### 5.4 Six-Month Results: Immediately Implemented Measures Are Saving $30.4 Million Per

Year

Implementation results for assessed plants were re ported about six months after the 2006 assessments were completed. Participants are committed to reporti ng results at intervals of 6, 12, and 24 months after their assessments. At the writing of this report, 179 follow-up calls were completed — 103 on steam assessments and 76 on process heating assessments.

The six-month results included the implementation stat us of each savings opportunity identified in the assessment reports, categorizing each as either 1) imme diately implemented, 2) in progress, 3) planning, under review, or awaiting funding, 4) rejected, or 5) tr ied and rejected. Savings results for the first three categories are summarized in Tables 13 through 16.

The six-month results indicated that most plants had embraced their assessments and were making progress on implementing the savings opportunities. Th e percentages noted below are data based on the 179 plant responses. Several key trends are indicated in these tables:

• 

### Assessed plants reporting results have implemente d or are pursuing implementation of 70% of the potential energy cost savings identified in thei r assessments. Projects representing the remaining 30% of identified cost savings have been either rejected or tried and rejected.

• 

### At six months, according to reports from 179 plants , about 7% of identified potential energy cost savings had been implemented, another 23% were in progress, and another 41% were planned, under review, or awaiting funds for implementation.

• 

### Assessed plants reporting results at 6 months ar e pursuing 52% of the natural gas energy savings and 71% of the total site energy sav ings identified in the assessments.

• 

### Plants select measures with near-term paybacks for immediate implementation (see Table 16). Those opportunities with longer-term paybacks are more likely to undergo additional technical review or require additional planning.

Table 13. Six-month results for 179 year-2006 assessments a

Immediately implemented In progress Planned, under review, or awaiting funding Total cost savings ($/year) $30,397,400 $98,109,200 $179,430,300
Cost savings per assessment ($/year) $169,800 $548,100 $1,002,400
Average cost savings per assessment as % of annual plant energy costs 1.0% 2.0% 4.5%

Total site energy savings (MMBtu /year) 4,035,800 16,685,600 9,771,600
Site energy savings per asse ssment (MMBtu/yr) 22,500 93,200 54,600
Average site energy savings per assessment as % of annual site energy 1% 1.9% 3.6%

Total natural gas savings (MMBtu /year) 3,495,000 10,161,200 18,449,100
Natural gas savings per assessment (MMBtu/year) 19,500 56,800 103,100

Average natural gas savings per assessment (%/year) 1.4% 4.8% 6.9%

Total CO 2 savings (metric tons/y ear) 234,000 984,300 1,285,800

CO 2 Savings per assessment (m etric tons/year) 1,307 5,500 7,200

a All percentages in the table and asso ciated text are based only on energy and costs data for the 179 responding plants. Note: Savings designated as “site” savings refer to energy used at the site and do not include losses that occur in the generation, transmission and distribution of energy.42 Table 14. Six-month results for 103 steam assessments completed in 2006 a

Immediately implemented In progress Planned, under

review or awaiting funding Total cost savings ($/year) $24,006,000 $75,104,100 $129,122,800
Cost savings per assessment ($/year) $233,100 $729,200 $1,253,600
Average cost savings per assessment as % of annual plant energy costs 1.1% 2.3% 5.5%

Total site energy savings (MMBtu /year) 3,281,400 12,622,700 4,109,700
Site energy savings per assessment (MMBtu/yr) 31,900 122,600 39,900

Average site energy savings per assessment as % of annual site energy 1% 1.9% 3.4%

Total natural gas savings (MMBtu /year) 2,744,600 7,314,400 13,697,600
Natural gas savings per assessment (MMBtu/year) 26,600 71,000 133,000

Average natural gas savings per assessment (%/year) 1.7% 6.7% 8.2%

Total CO 2 savings (metric tons/y ear) 193,400 716,200 896,600

CO 2 Savings per assessment (metric tons/year) 1,900 7,000 8,700

a All percentages in the table and asso ciated text are based only on energy and costs data for the 103 responding plants that had steam assessments.

Table 15. Six-month results for 76 process heating assessments completed in 2006 a

Immediately implemented In progress Planned, under

review or awaiting funding Total cost savings ($/year) $6,391,400 $23,005,000 $50,307,400
Cost savings per assessment ($/year) $84,100 $302,700 $662,000
Average cost savings per assessment as % of annual plant energy costs 1% 1.6% 3.2%

Total site energy savings (MMB tu/year) 754,350 4,062,900 5,661,900
Site energy savings per assessment (MMBtu/yr) 9,900 53,500 74,500

Average site energy savings per assessment as % of annual site energy 1% 1.9% 3.7%

Total natural gas savings (MMB tu/year) 750,400 2,846,800 4,751,500
Natural gas savings per assessment (MMBtu/year) 9,900 37,500 62,500

Average natural gas savings per assessment (%/year) 1% 2.2% 5.3%

Total CO 2 savings (metric tons /year) 40,570 268,100 389,100

CO 2 Savings per assessment (metric tons/year) 500 3,500 5,100

a All percentages in the table and asso ciated text are based only on ener gy and costs data for the 76 responding plants that had process heating assessments.43 Table 16. Distribution of payback periods for sa vings opportunities, by implementation status.

Payback category Immediately implemented In progress Planned Rejected Tried and rejected Spinoff a 0.1% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 0.0%

0 – 9 months 9.6% 10. 2% 14.7% 6.9% 0.3% 9 months – 2 years 4.7% 7.0% 14.5% 6.8% 0.0% 2 – 4 years 0.9% 3.1% 8.2% 4.7% 0.0% 4+ years 0.7% 0.9% 2.3% 1.8% 0.0%

a Spin-off measures are identified by assessed plants during follow-up interviews; some spin-off measures do not include estimates of implementation cost and are listed as a separate category.



### 5.5 Assessment Process Deemed Highly Useful and Influential in Plants’ Decisions to Implement Savings Opportunities

The six-month interviews with participants at industrial plants also provided feedback to help ITP measure the success of the assessment process and its fo cus on training plant personnel and fostering their adoption of energy assessment tools. Interviewers as ked them about the usefulness of the assessments in their adopting DOE software tools and technical products (Fig. 21) and the degree of influence that the assessment had on implementation of savings opportunities. Recall that in the Save Energy Now assessment protocol, not only were potential energy savings identified, but Energy Experts also trained participants to use the steam and process heating en ergy assessment software in their own facilities and

introduced other DOE technical tools and resources as well. Nearly 75% of plants reported that the assessment encouraged the use of DOE software and other products.

Slightly more than 90% reported that the assessment pl ayed an influential or highly influential role in their decisions to implement identified energy savings projects. Only 9% of assessment participants reported that assessments had slight or no influence on implementation (Fig. 22).

Assessed plants were also asked a bout the culture in their organizations with respect to energy efficiency. Nearly 70% of assessed plants reported having a wr itten CEO- or board-approved policy in place that includes the reduction of energy consumption (Fig. 23).44 Figure 21. Nearly 75% of participants found that the a ssessments were influential in their use of the software tools following the assessments.

Figure 22. More than 90% of partic ipants found that the assessments played an influential or highly influential role in their implementation of energy savings projects. No Effect

24%

Useful

74% Previously Used

2%

No Influence

3%

Slightly Influential

6%

Influential

22%

Highly Influential

40% Extremely Influential

29%45 Figure 23. Most of the assessed plants reported having an energy policy in place at the time of the six-month follow-up.



### 5.6 Implementation of Identified Opportunities by State and Industry

ORNL also reviewed 6-month im plementation result s by state and three-digit NAIC industry categories. Tables 17 and 18 summarize implementation data for en ergy cost savings by state and by industry. (Similar data on total energy savings, natural gas savings , and emissions reductions is available, but is not presented here for the sake of brevity.) The tables track the progress towards implementation of the identified projects, by state and by industry. Don't Know

1%

No Energy Policy

29%

Energy Policy

70%46 Table 17. Identified energy cost savings opportu nities by state. Plants in Oregon, Texas and

Louisiana top implemented cost savings at the six-month anniversary of the assessments.

State Number

of ESAs Total Identified Energy Cost Savings, $/yr Implemented: Energy Cost Savings, $/yr In-Progress: Energy Cost Savings, $/yr Planned, UnderReview or Awaiting

Funding: Energy Cost Savings, $/yr

AL 10 $15,085,072 $353,472 $3,824,094 $3,847,557

AR 3 $10,108,941 $23,000 $20,772 $9,570,502

AZ 1 $524,311 $524,311

CA 7 $7,611,038 $109,808 $1,382,005 $1,644,993

CO 1 $331,159 $135,214 $99,050 $51,997

DE 1 $232,000 $162,000 $44,000

FL 2 $1,567,121 $179,200 $373,246

GA 5 $5,038,232 $2,198,025 $38,000 $1,661,133

IA 3 $13,552,519 $15,000 $1,421,752 $14,211,500

ID 3 $4,216,158 $157,000 $505,200 $2,654,280

IL 3 $1,120,714 $193,000 $240,384

IN 9 $24,145,756 $2,214,498 $8,614,000 $12,661,660

KS 2 $920,100 $251,000 $635,100 $196,000

KY 4 $7,487,772 $188,411 $1,760,668 $1,737,093

LA 15 $76,717,879 $3,626,350 $1,962,485 $47,768,862

MA 3 $1,983,277 $423,730 $608,685 $707,874

MD 2 $630,000 $12,000 $37,000 $581,000

ME 3 $13,037,514 $755,000 $62,000 $10,799,000

MI 7 $10,084,202 $840,000 $1,481,400 $2,439,162

MN 5 $19,555,960 $2,770,000 $3,893,461 $2,551,224

MO 2 $1,642,492 $350,000 $494,170 $219,007

MS 4 $9,339,099 $36,000 $2,230,046 $4,403,750

NC 1 $243,647 $88,569 $182,700 $28,720

NE 2 $4,639,103 $2,953,777

NJ 5 $10,120,105 $2,586,170 $2,421,477

NV 1 $562,515 $95,770 $42,919

NY 3 $19,680,760 $19,197,198 $193,437

OH 3 $4,853,467 $823,298 $125,937 $28,000

OK 3 $15,981,368 $189,368 $2,847,080 $2,555,000

OR 4 $25,542,128 $3,903,400 $3,110,000 $287,094

PA 11 $10,061,386 $479,300 $1,378,600 $3,463,433

PR 1 $803,800 $310,000 $20,000

SC 1 $730,000 $460,000

TN 9 $16,919,771 $425,233 $5,586,279 $5,697,697

TX 30 $100,563,593 $7,488,752 $25,024,604 $19,811,912

UT 2 $3,271,485 $1,037,005 $2,234,480

VA 3 $2,231,309 $1,307,000 $260,000 $395,309

WA 6 $14,878,773 $311,960 $156,993 $2,995,114

WI 14 $23,232,795 $204,000 $3,025,311 $10,755,283

WV 4 $19,226,450 $363,000 $3,277,450 $5,366,020

WY 2 $1,677,558 $659,000 $832,066 Grand Total 200 $500,151,330 $30,397,388 $98,109,185 $179,430,27347 Table 18. Distribution of energy cost savings id entified and for each category of implementation. Chemical plants (325) had the highest level of identified cost savings, as well as the highest implemented energy cost savings after six months.

Industry Number of

assessment

s Total identified energy cost savings, $/yr Implemented: energy cost savings, $/yr In progress: energy cost savings, $/yr Planned, underreview or awaiting

funding: energy cost savings, $/yr

OTHER 1 $413,000 $193,000 $220,000

212 MINING 3 $11,099,657 $1,000,000 $2,519,231 $2,643,828

311 FOOD 22 $26,154,832 $1,781,500 $2,977,300 $18,568,939

312 BEVERAGE AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS 1 $331,159 $135,214 $99,050 $51,997

313 TEXTILE MILLS 1 $36,000 $12,000 $1,000 $23,000

314 TEXTILE PRODUCT MILLS 3 $2,606,490 $1,000,000 $39,000 $94,550

321 WOOD PRODUCTS 1 $2,256,000 $334,000 $622,000

322 PAPER MANUFACTURING 34 $123,440,781 $9,074,168 $8,934,817 $49,499,717

323 PRINTING AND RELATED SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 1 $479,196 $13,311 $452,574

324 PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS 8 $49,604,807 $976,210 $4,125,837 $4,260,579

325 CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING 53 $154,129,656 $9,119,987 $42,066,352 $60,794,323

326 PLASTICS AND RUBBER PRODUCTS 5 $7,044,359 $171,411 $3,614,516 $1,534,251

327 NON-METALLIC MINERAL PRODUCTS 18 $19,886,864 $286,538 $4,652,277 $4,100,300

331 PRIMARY METALS 24 $69,463,821 $3,363,580 $11,429,829 $29,465,975

332 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS 12 $22,585,645 $2,417,050 $15,627,570 $2,450,802

333 MACHINERY MANUFACTURING 2 $3,295,930 $50,000 $390,000 $2,205,000

334 COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS 5 $2,092,604 $304,730 $677,095 $464,071
335 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, APPLIANCES, COMPONENTS 1 $517,000 $412,000 $105,000

336 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 5 $4,713,528 $512,000 $196,000 $1,873,367

Grand Total 200 $500,151,330 $30,397,388 $98,109,185 $179,430,27348 

### 6. K EY 

### A CCOMPLISHMENTS AND 

### F INDINGS 

### F ROM THE 

### 2006 S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENT 

### E FFORTS



### When the Save Energy Now “call to arms” was made by Secretary of Energy Bodman in October 2005, it is unlikely that anyone anticipated the impact that the assessment efforts would have on U.S. industry. The following key accomplishments and findings illustra te the value of the 2006 assessment efforts.

From October 2005 to December 2006, the DOE Industrial Technology Program mobilized to direct and support the Save Energy Now assessment effort and accomplish the goal of conducting 200 industrial plant assessments by the end of 2006. The ability of DOE and its support contractors to achieve this goal was due largely to ITP’s past in itiatives, including software tool and training development, the IAC program, the Collaborative Ta rgeted Assessment efforts, and the Plant-Wide Assessment program. These programs provided the foundation for development of the protocols for conducting Save Energy Now assessments — specifically, the aspects of the program that defined them as “training assessments.”

Large industry and the states have, and continue to, enthusiastically support and value the Save Energy Now assessment efforts. The 2006 assessments were done in 41 states and Puerto Rico for industry plants in 18 U.S. industrial groups. The program ’s efforts are continuing in 2007 with the goal of conducting 250 assessments, and at this writing (su mmer 2007), more than 250 plants have been identified for the 2007 assessments. In addition, states including Wisconsin and California are working with DOE to support assessment efforts through cost sharing. The broad-based participation of U.S. industry and expansion of the program are clear re flections of the value of the assessments to U.S. industry and the states.

No one anticipated that the average assessm ent in 2006 would recommend improvements to annually save $2.5 million in energy costs, 247,00 0 MMBtu of natural gas, and 20,200 metric tons of plant CO 2 

### emissions. These results are far larger than antic ipated. Focusing on large U.S. industrial plants having total energy use greater than 1 trillion Btu per year was a major factor in identifying large potential savings, as was the focus on steam and pro cess heating. The capabilities of the Energy Experts who performed the assessments and the quality of the DOE steam and process heating software tools also contributed to finding large potential savings in the plants.

Even though assessments were done in only three days , they identified potential energy savings that on average equaled about 10% of the assessed plant’s energy costs. Considering the assessments’ tight schedules and training focus, it was encouragi ng that the average identif ied potential energy cost savings was about 10% of plant energy bills. Poten tial natural gas savings identified through the 2006 assessments was even larger, averaging about 17% of pl ant natural gas usage. These results show that it is not necessary to perform long-duration plant energy assessments to identify significant potential savings. The results also indicate that in large plants wher e assessments have not yet been performed, we can realistically expect savings in the range of 10% of total plant energy costs to be identified.

For the assessments completed in 2006, the majority of the identified savings opportunities had estimated paybacks of less than two years. This is a very important and unanticipated result. Large potential plant energy savings were identified, and the majority of these savings were for opportunities with paybacks that made their implementation very at tractive to plant managers. And, these large savings with attractive paybacks were found in training assess ments that were done in just three days.

Many of the individual steam and process heating assessment recommendations have the potential to save more than 1% of industrial plant energy costs. On average, the recommendations from each of 14 steam opportunity categories and 17 process heating opportunity categories have the potential to save more than 1% of plant energy costs. Many of the other savings recommendations, in individual plant49 

### applications, can also result in substantial energy co st savings. These results suggest the substantial value of implementing the findings from the assessments.

Based on the six-month follow-up interviews wi th 179 assessed plants, about 7% of the total number of recommendations for these plants have already been implemented, and an additional 64% are either in progress or undergoing addition al analysis, indicating the potential for the implementation of three quarters of all recommendations. So far, these 179 plants have implemented measures accounting for energy cost savings totali ng $30.4 million per year, natural gas savings of 3.5 trillion Btu per year, and 0.2 million metric tons of reduced CO 2 

### emissions per year. It is likely that one reason for this high rate of implementation is that most recommendations had estimated paybacks of less than two years. The follow-up results at 12 months and 24 months will provide a better picture of the level of implementation of the recommendations.

The philosophy and approach for conducting Save Energy Now assessments — focusing on “training assessments” rather than audits — is clearly a success. The results from six-month followups indicated that 74% of the participating plants f ound that the assessments were useful with respect to encouraging their organizations to adopt DOE soft ware and technical products. Also, over 90% of the plants found that the assessments played influential to extremely influential roles in their implementing energy savings projects. ORNL conducted imme diate follow-up phone calls with Plant Leads immediately after their assessments to discuss how they went. The results from these immediate followup calls were overwhelmingly positive. Plant Leads perceived high value in the assessment activities, further confirming the effectiveness of the Save Energy Now assessment approach.