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, 2007 

i 

Executive Summary 

ES-1. INTRODUCTION

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and other severe storms 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 the 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 supply and rising costs, our Department is sending 

teams of qualified efficiency experts to 200 of the nation’s most energy-intensive factories. Our 

Energy Saving Teams will work with on-site managers 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 nation’s largest manufacturing plants — those that 

consume a total of 1 trillion British thermal units (Btu) 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 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 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 Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs), (2) a telephone 

consultation with a systems expert at the DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Information 

Center, or (3) other technical materials and 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 and energy cost savings of about $500 million. These 

savings, if fully implemented, could reduce CO2 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 
ii 

very large plants, clearly suggest that assessments are an expedient and cost-effective way to significantly 

affect large amounts of energy use. 

Building on the success of the 2006 initiative, ITP has expanded the effort in 2007 with the goal of 

conducting 250 more assessments in large U.S. industrial 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 developed 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 comprehensive review of the results from the 2006 assessments 

is presented, along with a summary of key accomplishments and findings.

ES-2. DOE ITP PRECEDING THE 2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENTS

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, decision software tools, end user and specialist 

qualification training, and Collaborative Targeted Assessments (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 decision to focus on large plants. 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 Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) Manufacturing Energy Consumption 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. THE 2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT APPLICATION PROCESS

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 United 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 Office personnel, who confirmed the information from 

the application such as the type of assessment requested (steam or process heating), potential dates for 
iii 

conducting the assessment, plant description and address, 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. THE SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT PROCESS

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. When an Energy Expert makes contact with a plant, he identifies a 

Plant Lead who has to agree to stay with the Energy Expert during the entire three-day assessment. The 

Energy Expert, Plant Lead, and other plant personnel who participate in the assessment identify some 

“target” opportunities to investigate using the DOE software. The target opportunities chosen are often 

ones with the potential to achieve significant 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 three or four target opportunities are investigated during an assessment. 

On the last day of the assessment, a required Closeout 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 report. No opportunities are discussed 

at the Closeout Meeting or presented in the assessment report without the Plant Lead’s approval. 

The positive effect of using this approach for conducting 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 increases the likelihood that many of the identified opportunities will 

implemented ; and 3) plant opportunities are investigated that often can result in significant energy and 

cost savings for the host plant. 

ES-5. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE 2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT RESULTS

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 majority of large U.S. industrial sites 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 heating assessments were conducted. 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-metallic mineral products, 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 CO2 savings identified in the 2006 

steam and process heating assessments is exceptionally large. An overall summary of the results from the 

2006 assessments is presented in Table ES-1, for all assessments, for steam assessments, and for process 

heating assessments. Some key results 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 $364,300,000 $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 CO2 savings (million metric tons 

CO2/year) 

4.04 2.92 1.11 

Recommended CO2 savings per assessment (metric tons 

CO2/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 CO2 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), heavy fuel oil (#5, #6), coal, coke, coke oven gas, black 

liquor, blast furnace gas, propane, and hog fuel, are analyzed for CO2 content. Coefficients for converting 

fuel consumption (MMBtu) into metric tons of CO2 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 CO2 emissions reduction — if all 

assessment recommendations are implemented — is about 4.04 million metric tons of CO2. 
v 

In performing the steam and process heating assessments, Experts used standard — or “pick-list” 

descriptions — whenever possible in classifying the identified 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 top 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 energy 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 potential savings become real savings is the payback 

period for implementation. Payback is defined as follows. 

Savings payback period= (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 assessment 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 show 

that the majority 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 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 categories 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 the 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 identified 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 - 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 condensing steam turbine 1.5% 0.6% 

1.3 - Improve boiler efficiency 1.5% 1.6% 

1.6 - Improve steam generation 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 condensate 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 maintenance program 0.7% 0.8% 

1.9 - Improve condensate tank vent feedwater 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 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% 
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 heating measures 2.8% 1.8% 

1.3 - Use of proper heating methods 2.7% 3.1% 

5.3 - Control oven makeup 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 furnace 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 fixtures, 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% 

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

Implementation results for assessed plants were reported about six months after the 2006 assessments 

were completed. Participants are committed to reporting 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 status of each savings opportunity identified in the 

assessment reports, categorizing each as either 1) immediately implemented, 2) in progress, 3) planning, 
viii 

under review, or awaiting funding, 4) rejected, or 5) tried 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 assessmentsa

 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 CO2 savings (metric tons/year) 234,000 984,300 1,285,800 

CO2 savings per assessment (metric 

tons/year) 

1,307 5,500 7,200 

a

All percentages in the table and associated 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 

Spinoffa 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 assessed plant as a direct and immediate result of their 

assessment experience. These opportunities may have been suggested by the Energy Expert, but not documented in 

the report, or the plant may have identified 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. The percentages noted below are data based on the 

179 plant responses. Several key trends are indicated: 

• Assessed plants reporting results have implemented or are pursuing implementation of 70% of the 

potential energy cost savings identified in their 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 are pursuing 52% of the natural gas energy savings 

and 71% of the total site energy savings identified in the assessments. 

• Assessed plants select measures with near-term 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 Deemed 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. Interviewers 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 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 energy 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 played 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 their organizations with respect to energy efficiency. 

Nearly 70% of assessed plants reported having a written 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 the 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 initiatives, including software tool and training 

development, the IAC program, the Collaborative Targeted 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 (summer 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 the program are clear reflections of the value of the 

assessments to U.S. industry and the states. 
x 

No one anticipated that the average assessment in 2006 would recommend improvements to 

annually save $2.5 million in energy costs, 247,000 MMBtu of natural gas, and 20,200 metric tons 

of plant CO2 emissions. These results are far larger than anticipated. 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 process 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 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 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 attractive 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 cost savings. These results suggest the substantial value 

of implementing the findings from the assessments.

Based on the six-month follow-up interviews with 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 additional 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 totaling $30.4 million per year, natural gas savings of 3.5 

trillion Btu per year, and 0.2 million metric tons of reduced CO2 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 assessments — 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 were useful with respect to encouraging 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. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................1

2. DOE ITP EFFORTS PRECEDING THE 2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENTS ............................................2

2.1 Plant-Wide Assessments...............................................................................................................2

2.2 Industrial Assessment Centers......................................................................................................3

2.3 ITP Decision Software Tools .........................................................................................................3

2.3.1 Process Heating Assessment and Survey Tool (PHAST) and Process Heating 

Scorecard ....................................................................................................................................4

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

2.4 ITP End User Training...................................................................................................................4

2.5 ITP Specialist Qualification Training..............................................................................................4

2.6 Collaborative Targeted Assessments............................................................................................4

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

3. THE 2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT APPLICATION PROCESS..........................................................6

4. THE SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT PROCESS........................................................................................7

4.1 A Unique Approach .......................................................................................................................7

4.2 The Energy Experts Performing the Assessments .......................................................................7

4.3 Conducting Save Energy Now Assessments – The Full Process.................................................8

4.3.1 Preparation Activities.........................................................................................................8

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

4.3.3 Save Energy Now Assessment Reports and Follow-Up .................................................12

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

5. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE 2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT RESULTS .................................16

5.1 Location and Industry 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 Implemented Measures Are Saving $30.4 Million Per Year...41

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

Savings Opportunities ........................................................................................................................43

5.6 Implementation of Identified Opportunities by State and Industry ..............................................45

6. KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND FINDINGS FROM THE 2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT EFFORTS........48
xii 
1 

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. INTRODUCTION

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and other severe storms 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 the 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 supply and rising costs, our Department is sending 

teams of qualified efficiency experts to 200 of the nation’s most energy-intensive factories. Our 

Energy Saving Teams will work with on-site managers 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 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 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 nation’s largest manufacturing plants — those that 

consume a total of 1 trillion British thermal units (Btu) 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 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 Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs), (2) a telephone 
2 

consultation with a systems expert at the DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Information 

Center, or (3) other technical materials and 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 and energy cost savings of about $500 million. These 

savings, if fully implemented, could reduce CO2 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 are an expedient and cost-effective way to significantly 

affect large amounts of energy use. 

Building on the success of the 2006 initiative, ITP has expanded the effort in 2007 with the goal of 

conducting 250 more assessments in large U.S. industrial 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 developed 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 comprehensive review of the results from the 2006 assessments is 

presented, along with a summary of key accomplishments and findings. 

2. DOE ITP EFFORTS PRECEDING THE 2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENTS

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. 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 assessment (PWA) is a systematic assessment of plant-wide operations that addresses a 

variety of generic and industry-specific technology 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 productivity and to decrease waste and emissions. The PWA is 

tailored to the facility by the assessment team, and plants 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 environmental impacts are estimated for implementation of 

identified projects. In many cases, projected cost savings 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 assessment 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 opportunities 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/plant_wide_assessments.html. 

2.2 Industrial Assessment Centers 

Sponsored by 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 engineers 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 nearly 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/industry/bestpractices/iacs.html. 

2.3 ITP Decision Software Tools 

The ITP program developed a suite of software-based decision tools to help industrial plant personnel 

identify energy efficiency improvements for plant process 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 Profiler, or “Quick PEP,” online software tool that helps 

industrial plant personnel to quickly understand how energy 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 reducing 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 Association to develop the process heating tool, and with the Air 

Movement and Controls Association to develop the fan tool. 

The DOE steam and process heating decision tools, described 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 equipment that uses fuel, electricity, or steam (though only 

the direct-fuel-fired systems modeling is presently developed) and identifying the most energy-intensive 

equipment. PHAST performs energy (heat) balances on furnaces to identify ways to improve efficiency. 

PHAST has several calculators that compare the performance of individual pieces of equipment under 

various operating conditions. The Process Heating Scorecard is a pre-screening tool. 

2.3.2 Steam System Scoping Tool (SSST), Steam System 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 improvement 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 achieved by up to 18 different improvements. 3E-Plus 

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

user. 

More details about all of the DOE ITP decision software tools can be found at the following web link: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/software.html. 

 2.4 ITP End User Training 

DOE ITP conducts instructor-based training for end users that focuses on reviewing key plant energy 

savings opportunities in plant utility and process systems. 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, pumping 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 Qualification training focuses on how to use individual ITP software tools to make valid 

estimates of energy and cost savings in industrial plants. 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 three- to four-hour hour exam is given during the last 

half day of training. Trainees who pass this exam are 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 use 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/industry/bestpractices/training.html. 

2.6 Collaborative Targeted Assessments 

Starting in fiscal year 2001, the ITP program sponsored 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 for 
5 

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 two primary benefits of the CTAs were that plant 

personnel had the opportunity to reinforce the information 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 addition, the average process heating CTA identified about 

$1.1 million per year in potential savings, and the average steam CTA identified about $600,000 per year 

in potential savings.

 2.7 How Save 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 already 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 and 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 information to plant personnel about the types and 

magnitudes of energy savings opportunities available in industrial plant systems and with 

an introduction to the decision software tools. 

5. The Specialist Qualification training provided 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 training 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 assessment 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 (MECS) data. This data indicates relatively 

few manufacturing plants in the U.S. use the 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 total 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. THE 2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT APPLICATION PROCESS

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 United 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 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. 

Applicants for assessments also completed a user agreement 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 the assessment to consider investing in the energy 

savings opportunities that the assessment identified, 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 the energy savings opportunities identified. 

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

24 months after the assessment. 

8. Provide information to DOE on replication of the 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 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 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 description and address, and who the Energy Expert 

should initially contact. This information was forwarded to the ORNL Save Energy Now staff so that they 
7 

could begin the process of identifying the Energy Experts to perform the assessments 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. THE SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT PROCESS

 4.1 A Unique Approach 

Save Energy Now assessments use 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. Save Energy Now assessments are done in no more than 3 days, 

so, by necessity, they are very focused assessments. When an Energy Expert makes contact with a plant, 

he identifies a Plant Lead who has to agree to stay 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 investigate using the DOE software. The target opportunities 

chosen are often ones with the potential to achieve significant 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 Closeout 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 report. No opportunities are discussed 

at the Closeout Meeting or presented in the assessment report without the Plant Lead’s approval. 

The positive effect of using this approach for conducting 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 increases the likelihood that many of the identified opportunities will 

implemented ; and 3) plant opportunities are investigated that often can result in significant energy and 

cost savings for the host plant. 

The remainder of this section describes the overall process used in carrying out the DOE assessments — 

how the “Energy Experts” were chosen to conduct 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 for 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 were chosen — 21 steam experts and 9 process heating 
8 

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 December 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 assessment 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 assessment on the dates requested by the individual plant; 2) 

the capabilities of the Energy Experts relevant to performing 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 almost all cases these requests could be accommodated. 

4.3 Conducting Save Energy Now 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 for the assessment began after the Energy Expert was 

designated for the assessment and he or she called the contact 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 days of assessment activities. The Plant Lead’s role and 

full participation are vital to making the process work and getting full value from the assessment. The 

assessment truly begins when the Energy Expert 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 first 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 conference room ensures that the Energy Expert and 

Plant Lead can efficiently work together with the DOE software tools for assessment analyses. Setting up 

the closeout meeting is important to ensure that the assessment results are discussed with plant personnel 

— ideally with upper management participation — at the end of the assessment. 

Program Documents

The Energy Expert provides a number of documents and forms to the Plant Lead before arriving at the 

site, the most important being 1) a copy of the plant 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 prior 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 investigated in three days. The objective is to identify 

opportunities that can be good vehicles for training the Plant 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 need 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 software 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 intense, with much to be accomplished to achieve the 

goals of the assessment. Figure 2 illustrates the major 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 the 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 participants 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 personnel have had an initial exposure to the DOE steam 

or process heating tool, the team has done a thorough walk-through of the plant areas relevant to 

assessment analyses, the scope of the assessment has been 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 software to investigate the opportunity. At the same time, 

the Plant Lead is also entering data into a second copy 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 opportunities that are investigated for the assessment. Some 

opportunities will be clear “winners” that the expert and 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, significant 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, under the leadership of the Energy Expert. The Expert 

and Plant Lead should be reaching agreement on the opportunities 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 submitted for review on day 3 and approved by plant personnel before the 

assessment is completed. 

Assessment Day 3

The main activities for Day 3 are wrapping up the opportunity 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 developing 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 presentation if comfortable doing so; otherwise, the 

Energy Expert makes this presentation. The closeout presentation covers 

• an overview of the assessment activities conducted, 
12 

• a discussion of Plant Best Practices identified during 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 plant personnel who participated in the assessment, and a 

site-approved version of the assessment 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 software 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 Expert 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 within 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 personnel who participated in the assessment, and 

• a summary of the energy management questionnaire 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 Expert 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 opportunities with associated dollar and energy savings, and 

a summary of any Best Practices identified at the plant. The Energy Expert uses specific “pick list” words 

to describe the identified opportunities. 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 opportunities associated with “reduce excess air” were 

identified. 

Figure 4 shows the template for the narrative portion of the Assessment Summary Report. The Experts 

were directed to keep the narratives brief — preferably no longer than 2 to 3 pages. The narrative is 

intended to provide some background information on the assessment, highlight the main energy savings 

opportunities identified in the assessment, and characterize them as near-, medium-, or long-term 

opportunities (defined in Figure 4). 
13 

 

Figure 3. Template of the first page of the Assessment Summary Report. 
14 

Figure 4. Template for the narrative section of the Assessment Summary Report. 

The format for entering data into the Draft Assessment Savings Spreadsheet is shown in Figure 5. The 

Expert provides energy information for the participating plant, consumption and cost of natural gas, 

electricity, and “other” fuels. The expert also enters data on the identified opportunities (much of it the 

same data as summarized in the Assessment Summary Report), and also enters low and high estimates of 

capital expenses to implement each identified opportunity. These conceptual capital expense estimates are 

not based on detailed analyses, but on the experts’ 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 technical 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 to 
15 

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 information on individual plants is reported by the DOE 

in public documents. All of the information provided 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 assessments, 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 information is gathered through interviews 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 emission 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 personnel 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 Scoping 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. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE 2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT RESULTS

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 majority 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 Texas, with 30, and Louisiana, with 15. In 17 states, 

4 or more assessments were completed. 
17 

Figure 6. In 2006, 200 assessments were performed in 40 states and one territory (Puerto Rico). In 17 of these 

states, 4 or more assessments were conducted. 

Figure 7. The majority of the year 2006 assessments were performed in the 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-metallic mineral products, and fabricated metal products.
18 

Table 1. The 18 major industrial sectors represented by the 200 assessed plants.

INDUSTRY 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 heating 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 and 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 process heating assessments in 30 states. The total potential 

energy cost savings from the identified 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 major U.S. industry groups, with 6 of these industries 

accounting for potential cost savings from identified opportunities of $445 million per year. 
21 

5.2 Summary of Overall Results 

The magnitude of the recommended potential cost, natural gas, and CO2 savings identified in the 2006 

steam and process heating assessments is exceptionally large. 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 results 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 gas 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 the results for steam and process heating. For steam 

the total energy savings of about 32 million MMBtu per year is less than the natural gas savings of about 

39 million MMBtu per year. However, for process heating the total energy savings of about 17 million 

MMBtu per year is more than the natural gas savings of about 14 million MMBtu per year. This is 

because the steam assessments 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 additional fuel to run the turbine. In process heating 

assessments, energy switching opportunities were not as significant. 

Estimates for CO2 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), heavy fuel oil (#5, #6), coal, coke, coke oven gas, black 

liquor, blast furnace gas, propane, and hog fuel are analyzed for CO2 content. Coefficients for converting 

fuel consumption (MMBtu) into metric tons of CO2 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 identifies the coefficients that were used to convert 

energy savings into CO2 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 ($/year) $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 CO2 savings (million metric 

tons CO2/year) 

4.04 2.92 1.11 

Recommended CO2 savings per assessment 

(metric tons CO2/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 CO2 impacts.

Fuel EIA Factors 

(lb CO2/MMBtu) 

Fuel EIA Factors 

(lb CO2/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 CO2 emission reductions for the U.S. industry groups that 

conducted assessments in 2006. The total potential CO2 emissions reduction — if all recommendations 

are implemented — is about 4.04 million metric tons of CO2. 

Figure 12. The total potential CO2 emissions reduction for the year 2006 assessments was 4.04 million metric 

tons of CO2. Estimates of CO2 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 CO2 emissions was calculated for Textile Product Mills (NAIC 

314). This increase is traced to fuel switching 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 opportunities. 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 heating, respectively, used for the assessments. 

Tables 6 and 7 present detailed information on cost, energy, and CO2 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 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. 
25 

Table 4. The steam system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessments and 

Steam assessment “picklist” savings projects Description 

1.1 – Reduce steam demand by changing the process steam requirements 

Eliminating or optimizing the operation of steam-using process equipment reduces required rates which in turn reduces boiler fuel (and energy) consumption rates. 

1.2 – Use an alternate fuel When switching from a fuel with a lower theoretical combustion efficiency (e.g. natural gas) 

efficiency (e.g. fuel oil with a lower hydrogen content), a lower boiler fuel (and energy) cons

Switching to a less costly fuel (on an energy basis) will reduce operating cost.

1.3 – Change boiler efficiency 

Energy is saved if boiler efficiency is improved since boiler losses are reduced, and less fue

needed to achieve a desired steam production rate. 

1.4 – Change boiler blowdown rate 

Boiler blowdown constitutes a pressurized, hot water loss from a boiler (energy loss). Actio

boiler water treatment) which allow a reduction in this loss improve boiler efficiency. 

1.5 – Install blowdown flash to low-pressure steam 

Blowdown water (superheated liquid) flashes to steam when pressure is lowered in the exit directed to a low pressure header reduces needed boiler steam generation rate. This in tur

(and energy) use rate. 

1.6 – Change steam generation conditions 

For boilers producing superheated steam, reducing output temperature (e.g. by removing a 

reduce boiler fuel (and energy) use. For boilers producing saturated steam, improving steawetness) improves downstream process heating and lowers boiler steam output and fuel (a

consumption rate is reduced. 

1.7 – Add or modify operation of backpressure steam turbine 

If a backpressure turbine is taken out-of-service, steam usage, boiler load and fuel (and enrate are reduced. If a new backpressure turbine is added to reduce steam flow through pre

steam flows through pressure reducing valves will be reduced but total steam usage will increduce total energy costs if the electricity savings (related to the turbine drive) are greater tboiler fuel consumption rate. 

1.8 – Add or modify operation of condensing steam turbine 

If the isentropic efficiency of a utilized condensing turbine is improved (e.g. by rebuilding), a required to drive the turbine load. This in turn reduces boiler load and fuel (and energy) concondensing turbine is taken out-of-service, steam usage is reduced, boiler load decreases energy) consumption is lowered. 

1.9 – Modify feedwater heat recovery exchanger using condensate tank vent 

The main condensate receiver is typically vented to atmosphere when flash steam forms at pressure. Flash steam passed through a heat exchanger can be used for boiler feedwater 

of hotter water to the feedwater system reduces boiler fuel (and energy) consumption rate. 

1.10 – Modify feedwater heat recovery exchanger using boiler blowdown 

When superheated blowdown water undergoes a pressure reduction after leaving the boileto steam and a hot water fraction remains. This hot water may be passed through a heat exfeedwater or process fluids thereby reducing steam use for heating. 
26 

1.11 – Change condensate recovery rates 

If the amount of formed condensate returned to the boiler is increased, hotter water is fed bfeedwater system, lowering feedwater heating requirements and feedwater chemical treatm

1.12 – Modify the medium pressure condensate flash system 

When the pressure of condensate formed in a high-pressure system is reduced, flash steam steam is supplied to the medium-pressure steam header, an amount of boiler-produced steboiler load and fuel (and energy) consumption rates are reduced. 

1.13 – Modify the low pressure condensate flash system 

When the pressure of condensate formed at a given pressure is reduced flash steam formssupplied to the low-pressure steam header, an amount of boiler-produced steam is displace

fuel (and energy) consumption rates are reduced. 

1.14 – Implement steam trap maintenance program 

An improved steam trap maintenance program results in a reduced number of traps failed i

mode. If trap steam leaks are reduced, less steam energy is lost in the condensate system 

fuel (and energy) consumption rates are reduced. 

1.15 – Implement steam leak maintenance program 

An improved steam leak maintenance program reduces the number of steam leaks (lost enmust be generated in the boiler to satisfy process loads and boiler fuel (and energy) consureduced. 

1.16 – Improve insulation Improving insulation quality (e.g. replacing ineffective wet insulation or increasing insulation 

insulating uninsulated components will reduce energy loss from hot steam components. 

1.17 – Other Miscellaneous projects may minimize or eliminate the need for boiler-generated steam. The

energy by reducing the use of process energy or by improving the efficiency of converting f

heating (e.g. steam) energy. 

1.18 – Feedwater heat recovery, general 

Available process waste heat other than condensate tank vent energy or liquid blowdown h

heat exchanger to heat boiler feedwater. Hotter water fed back into the boiler feedwater sys

heating requirements. 

1.19 – Deaerator heat recovery 

Boiler water deaerators are often vented to atmosphere. The installation of a heat exchang

feedwater or process heating. This heating reduces needed boiler output. 

1.20 – Multiple boiler optimization 

Optimization of overall steam generation efficiency in multi-boiler systems requires selectio

loads to maximize their efficiencies and minimize total boiler fuel use while meeting total sterequirements. 

1.21 – Reduce or recover vented steam 

Steam is vented from steam headers when steam supplied by backpressure turbines exceeprocess needs. Steam is also vented from some plant processes (e.g. furnace decoking). I

reduced or vented steam is recovered (for process heating) boiler steam load and fuel (and rates are reduced. 
27 

Table 5. The process heating “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessments and 

Process heating assessment “picklist” savings project Description 

1.1 – Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases 

Reduced oxygen reflects a reduction in excess air entering the heating equipm

available heat, and consequently, the efficiency. Excess air can be lowered by 

fuel ratios, closing off air leaks into the equipment or maintaining a slightly pos

to exclude outside air. 

1.2 – Eliminate excess unburned hydrocarbons (CO, H2, CH4, soot in the 

exhaust gases) 

Unburned hydrocarbons represent unburned or partially-burned fuel. They can improving the thoroughness of air-fuel mixing in burners or avoiding operating 

with insufficient excess air. 

1.3 – Use of proper heating methods - replace inefficient and uneconomical methods with economical/efficient system 

Some heating equipment is either obsolete or poorly matched to the needs of twith modern equipment which takes the unique needs of the process into acco

1.4 – Use of alternate fuel or energy source 

In certain situations, fuels like by-product gases may be available at lower cost Waste energy from other nearby operations might be able to be used in the proconsideration. 

1.5 – Use of oxygen for combustion Using oxygen to enrich or replace combustion air lowers the weight flow of nitro

gases, increasing available heat and efficiency. Flame temperatures will also in

enhance radiation heat transfer to the furnace and its load. 

1.6 – Use of process or exhaust air for combustion 

If this air contains sufficient oxygen (usually 18% or more) and is at elevated teused as a combustion air source. Its heat content will raise the available heat o

process. 

1.7 – Use of outdoor air for combustion or make-up air 

In a closed building with space heating in use, drawing combustion air from insexhausting it through the stack wastes the energy that air contains. Heated rep

needed. Drawing combustion air from outdoors bypasses the building heating 

burden on it. 

1.8 – Improving heat transfer in a furnace-oven 

The work load must be exposed as effectively as possible to the source of radiThis will entail steps like changing loading patterns, increasing burner or hot airelocating heat sources so they "see" more of the load surface. 

1.9 – Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat exchangers, heater tubes, electrical heating elements 

Buildups of scale, soot and dirt reduce the thermal conductivity of tubes, heatin

exchangers. Heat turned back by these deposits short-circuits out the exhaust, slowing the process and lowering efficiency. 

1.10 – Use of flue or exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheating 

This is one of the most effective ways to recycle waste heat. Incoming ambient routed through a heat exchanger and preheated with energy extracted from the gases. Every unit of energy transferred to the air is one less that must be provi
28 

1.11 – Load or charge preheating using heat from flue or exhaust gas or other source of waste heat 

Instead of exhausting flue gases from the process at high temperatures, they aincoming cold charge materials. This raises the load partway to its processing lowers the amount of energy neeed to support the process. 

1.12 – Heat cascading - use of flue or exhaust gas heat from a higher temperature process to supply heat to lower temperature processes 

Waste gases from one process can be used to heat a lower temperatuure proc

1.13 – Heat recovery from hot products or other heat sources (i.e. from walls) from a furnace - oven 

Products are often removed from ovens or furnaces at elevated temperatures a

the open air. Cooling them with forced air in an enclosure will heat the air, whic

heating another process. 

1.14 – Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steam generation or absorption cooling 

Heated exhaust gases can be routed through waste heat boilers, hot water genchillers to perform a variety of heating or cooling roles. 

1.15 – Proper insulation and maintenance of furnace structure or parts 

Maintain furnace and oven insulation to avoid localized losses through the wallConsider increasing the thickness or efficiency of the existing insulation to furth

1.16 – Reduce-eliminate internal cooling Some furnaces contain components protected from overheating with cooling w

sure excessive amounts of cooling media aren't used. 

1.17 – Reduce-eliminate openings and air leakage in the furnace 

Openings allow radiant energy to escape and ambient air to leak in. As much a

openings and leaks. As an added measure, maintain the furnace or oven at a spressure to prevent in-leakage. 

1.18 – Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down - avoiding delays, waits, cooling between operations etc. 

Heating equipment efficiency is highest at 100% of design capacity. Underload

equipment 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 temperaentered, they contribute to wasted heat. Lowering their mass causes a correspamount of energy they extract from the process. 

1.20 – Control (reduce) make up air for ovens to meet the process safety requirements 

Ovens handling flammable solvents or vapors must have sufficient fresh air vecombustible materials well below their lower flammable limit. Any ventilation in required amount wastes energy. 

1.21 – Eliminate use of continuous flame curtains, pilots where possible 

Flame curtains and door pilots insure burnoff of flammable prepared atmosphefurnace doors and out vents. If the process atmosphere has been changed to a mixture, these ignition sources are no longer necessary. 
29 

Table 6. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2 emissions from identifi

steam opportunities in pick-list categories.

Year 2006 Steam Savings Opportunity 

Recommendations 

Recommended 

total cost savings 

($/year) 

Recommended total 

energy savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

Recommended total 

natural gas savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

Recomme

total CO2 s

(metric 

CO2/ye

1.1. Reduce steam demand $88,998,211 17,095,100 8,477,210 1,185,31.2. Use alternate fuel $77,872,418 -767,204 14,025,074 376,01.3. Improve boiler efficiency $42,924,885 5,331,486 3,920,092 283,71.7. Add / modify backpressure steam turbine $33,920,079 -72,338 130,360 165,81.11. Improve condensate recovery $23,611,773 2,617,146 2,137,589 151,01.8. Add / modify condensing steam turbine $22,944,292 -84,576 2,323,230 162,91.14. Implement steam trap maintenance program $15,059,433 2,066,722 1,936,950 109,11.16. Improve insulation $10,492,536 1,526,111 986,368 100,91.4. Improve boiler blowdown rate $9,041,315 845,627 802,898 46,41.10. Improve blowdown feedwater heat recovery $8,913,673 1,164,823 1,111,856 61,01.20. Optimize multiple boilers $6,289,083 -711,436 407,380 69,21.17. Other – miscellaneous steam $6,123,237 575,249 453,979 45,61.18. Feedwater heat recovery - general $6,075,461 940,806 916,842 51,51.15. Implement steam leak maintenance program $2,618,451 482,085 347,719 25,11.21. Reduce / recover vented steam $2,126,961 390,332 245,652 26,51.13. Improve low pressure condensate flash $1,979,381 312,877 309,438 14,51.12. Improve medium pressure condensate flash $1,385,000 168,314 168,404 8,91.6. Improve steam generation conditions $1,124,000 116,342 -8,970 15,81.19. Improve deaerator heat recovery $774,734 87,595 69,250 6,51.5. Install blowdown flash to low pressure steam $490,978 90,218 100,714 3,41.9. Improve condensate tank vent feedwater heat 

recovery $437,900 62,126 58,279 2,9

3.1. Use flue / exhaust gas for combustion air preheating $301,669 38,379 27,499 2,32.2. Clean heat transfer surfaces $233,139 32,471 32,471 1,73.5. Use waste heat for cooling $230,470 24,325 24,325 1,21.1. Reduce flue gas oxygen content $201,614 27,911 27,911 1,45.1. Improve furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown $73,900 0 0 6.2. Other - miscellaneous process heating $41,821 17,095,100. 5,286. 2

TOTALS $364,286,414 32,365,778 39,037,806 2,920,1
30 

Table 7. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2 emissions from identifi

process heating opportunities in pick-list categories. 

Year 2006 process heating savings opportunity 

recommendations 

Recommended total 

cost savings 

($/year) 

Recommended total 

energy savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

Recommended total 

natural gas savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

Recomme

CO2 sa

(metric tons 

3.4. Furnace heat recovery $19,639,200 2,066,169 1,379,149 183.3. Heat cascading $16,201,119 1,988,789 1,508,206 146.2. Other - miscellaneous process heating $13,978,712 1,481,904 1,407,733 81.3. Use of proper heating methods $12,753,467 1,400,583 1,400,583 74.1. Proper furnace insulation / maintenance $11,693,585 1,903,439 1,363,402 121.1. Reduce flue gas oxygen content $8,696,097 1,567,558 877,950 11.5. Use oxygen for combustion $7,022,724 1,106,595 743,427 71.6. Use process or exhaust air for combustion $6,978,720 709,900 709,900 33.2. Improve load charge preheating $6,926,397 858,431 814,017 44.3. Reduce / eliminate furnace openings and leakage $5,249,615 729,741 661,720 45.1. Improve furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown $4,687,509 474,365 473,831 23.1. Use flue / exhaust gas for combustion air 

preheating $4,613,692 630,986 417,531 4

2.1. Improving furnace / oven heat transfer $3,948,977 435,839 435,839 21.4. Use alternate fuel or energy source $3,686,128 877,792 877,792 46.1. Other - non process heating measures $3,271,917 124,894 27,965 1.16. Improve insulation $1,919,891 237,393 222,871 5.3. Control oven makeup air $1,911,641 233,730 238,406 3.5. Use waste heat for cooling $1,378,430 104,386 103,433 2.2. Clean heat transfer surfaces $824,622 115,780 115,780 1.3. Improve boiler efficiency $175,882 17,758 17,676 5.4. Eliminate continuous flame curtains, pilots $125,000 17,361 17,361 1.1. Reduce steam demand $80,600 7,670 7,670 4.2. Reduce-eliminate internal cooling $65,290 7,613 7,613 1.7. Use outdoor air for combustion or makeup air $20,000 2,500 2,500 1.20. Optimize multiple boilers $12,400 1,630 1,630 5.2. Reduce weight of fixtures, trays, etc. $3,300 330 330 

Totals $135,864,915 17,103,135 13,834,314 1,12
31 

Figure 13. The top ten steam opportunity categories for the year 2006 assessments could result in $334 

million per year of plant energy savings. 

Figure 14. The top ten process heating opportunity categories 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 energy 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 potential 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 majority 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 CO2

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 $106,205,296 2,893,349 874,802 

4+ years 68 $20,470,354 104,694 259,060 

Spinoffa 30 $1,552,000 24,936 1,324 

Totals 1153 $500,151,330 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 

Spinoffa 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 assessed plant as a direct and immediate result of their 

assessment experience. These opportunities may have been suggested by the Energy Expert, but not documented in 

the report, or the plant may have identified 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 steam recommendations had estimated paybacks of less 

than two years. The total recommended savings for steam opportunities with paybacks of less than 2 years 

was $263 million/year. 

 

Figure 16. For the 2006 assessments, 73% of the process 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 they do hold promise for potential implementation. 

The majority of the identified opportunities in the top 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 these categories: use alternate fuel, improve boiler 

efficiency, add/modify backpressure steam turbine, 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 individual 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 categories 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 opportunity categories showed average potential cost 

savings greater than 1% of plant energy costs (Table 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. 
35 

Table 9. Estimated annual cost savings and payback periods for assessment-identified steam system savings o

Payback periods 

0 – 9 months 9 months – 2 years 2 – 4 years 4+ years 

Steam assessment opportunity type # opps Annual savings # opps Annual savings # opps Annual savings # opps Annual sav

1.1 - Reduce steam demand 53 $47,796,894 29 $35,422,406 15 $3,177,800 9 $2,263,11.2 - Use alternate fuel 8 $23,752,103 4 $23,705,000 4 $22,953,815 2 $7,461,501.3 - Improve boiler efficiency 58 $13,063,094 35 $17,400,684 21 $11,287,107 15 $1,174,001.7 - Add/modify backpressure steam turbine 12 $6,155,320 12 $4,372,284 20 $21,009,646 8 $2,382,821.11 - Improve condensate recovery 14 $13,455,016 25 $7,334,357 10 $1,958,400 5 $373,001.8 - Add/modify condensing steam turbine 8 $4,564,842 3 $2,046,500 4 $16,267,950 1 $65,001.14 - Implement steam trap maintenance program 30 $11,169,397 22 $3,797,036 1 $16,000 2 $31,001.16 - Improve insulation 32 $7,090,313 37 $2,987,023 6 $284,200 1 $54,001.4 - Improve boiler blowdown rate 20 $6,147,466 10 $2,131,786 6 $592,604 5 $169,451.10 - Improve blowdown feedwater heat recovery 24 $4,690,674 17 $2,970,099 7 $1,240,900 1 $12,001.20 - Optimize multiple boilers 4 $1,584,754 4 $811,000 1 $42,329 1 $3,851,001.17 – Other – miscellaneous steam 6 $655,416 10 $4,570,289 4 $697,532 1.18 – Feedwater heat recovery - general 3 $741,250 2 $3,534,211 2 $1,800,000 1.15 - Implement steam leak maintenance program 21 $1,907,230 18 $622,823 3 $80,974 1 $7,421.21 - Reduce / recover vented steam 6 $1,262,980 3 $602,981 3 $261,000 1.13 - Improve low pressure condensate flash 1 $533,000 4 $1,352,600 4 $86,321 1 $7,461.12 - Improve medium pressure condensate flash 2 $766,000 1 $619,000 1.6 - Improve steam generation conditions 6 $1,079,000 1 $45,000 1.19 - Improve deaerator heat recovery 5 $774,734 1.5 - Install blowdown flash to low pressure steam 2 $317,900 3 $173,078 1.9 - Improve condensate tank vent feedwater heat recovery 1 $79,000 1 $76,000 2 $282,900 3.1 - Use flue/exhaust gas for combustion air preheating 2 $301,669 2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces 1 $233,139 3.5 - Use waste heat for cooling 1 $164,000 1 $66,471.1 - Reduce flue gas oxygen content 2 $201,614 5.1 - Improve furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown 1 $73,900 6.2 - Other - miscellaneous process heating 1 $41,821 

Total 321 $148,067,718 243 $115,063,965 114 $82,084,478 53 $17,918,25
36 

Table 10. Estimated annual cost savings and payback periods for assessment-identified process heating system sav

Payback periods 

0 – 9 months 9 months – 2 years 2 – 4 years 4+ years 

Process Heating Opportunity Type # opps Annual savings # opps Annual savings # opps Annual savings # opps Annual savin

3.4 - Furnace Heat Recovery 4 $7,030,000 12 $9,216,918 11 $3,392,282 3.3 - Heat Cascading 9 $5,115,310 16 $8,352,112 6 $2,712,797 2 $20,900 6.2 - Other - Miscellaneous Process Heating 11 $4,754,928 8 $4,547,984 2 $2,245,000 4 $2,030,800 1.3 - Use Of Proper Heating Methods 8 $4,105,180 7 $4,453,259 5 $4,195,028 4.1 - Proper Furnace Insulation / Maintenance 15 $3,720,060 25 $6,983,712 6 $949,885 3 $39,928 1.1 - Reduce Flue Gas Oxygen Content 51 $5,701,115 15 $2,213,663 5 $781,319 1.5 - Use Oxygen For Combustion 4 $2,304,105 4 $3,558,462 4 $800,157 1 $360,000 1.6 – Use Process Or Exhaust Air For Combustion 5 $6,391,720 2 $587,000 3.2 – Improve Load Charge Preheating 5 $825,036 11 $4,259,422 10 $1,841,939 4.3 - Reduce / Eliminate Furnace Openings And Leakage 8 $1,268,628 13 $3,663,813 4 $317,174 5.1 - Improve Furnace Scheduling, Loading, Shutdown 7 $4,334,529 2 $219,050 2 $133,930 3.1 - Use Flue / Exhaust Gas For Combustion Air Preheating 5 $2,320,798 9 $2,152,430 3 $95,496 1 $44,968 2.1 - Improving Furnace / Oven Heat Transfer 3 $352,000 5 $2,545,960 3 $1,051,017 1.4 - Use Alternate Fuel Or Energy Source 2 $2,156,128 1 $1,530,000 6.1 - Other - Non Process Heating Measures 2 $153,061 3 $720,262 5 $2,393,194 1 $5,400 1.16 - Improve Insulation 1 $8,000 3 $1,829,588 2 $41,098 1 $41,205 5.3 - Control Oven Makeup Air 7 $864,480 4 $995,161 1 $52,000 3.5 - Use Waste Heat For Cooling 2 $516,600 2 $861,830 2.2 - Clean Heat Transfer Surfaces 3 $824,622 1.3 - Improve Boiler Efficiency 1 $7,900 3 $112,600 3 $49,782 1 $5,600 5.4 - Eliminate Continuous Flame Curtains, Pilots 1 $125,000 1.1 - Reduce Steam Demand 1 $2,000 1 $78,600 4.2 - Reduce-Eliminate Internal Cooling 1 $54,000 1 $11,290 1.7 - Use Outdoor Air For Combustion Or Makeup Air 1 $20,000 1.20 - Optimize Multiple Boilers 1 $12,400 5.2 - Reduce Weight of Fixtures, Trays, etc. 1 $3,300 

Total 157 $52,913,600 141 $55,878,396 79 $24,120,818 15 $2,552,101 
37 

 

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 identified 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 backpressure 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 condensing steam turbine 1.5% 0.6% 

1.3 - Improve boiler efficiency 1.5% 1.6% 

1.6 - Improve steam generation 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 condensate 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 maintenance program 0.7% 0.8% 

1.9 - Improve condensate tank vent feedwater 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 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 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 heating measures 2.8% 1.8% 

1.3 - Use of proper heating methods 2.7% 3.1% 

5.3 - Control oven makeup 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 furnace 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 fixtures, 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 opportunities could individually save industrial plants more 

than 1% of their total energy costs. 

Figure 20. Many of the identified process heating savings 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 reported about six months after the 2006 assessments 

were completed. Participants are committed to reporting 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 status of each savings opportunity identified in the 

assessment reports, categorizing each as either 1) immediately implemented, 2) in progress, 3) planning, 

under review, or awaiting funding, 4) rejected, or 5) tried 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. The percentages noted below are data based on the 

179 plant responses. Several key trends are indicated in these tables: 

• Assessed plants reporting results have implemented or are pursuing implementation of 70% of the 

potential energy cost savings identified in their 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 are pursuing 52% of the natural gas energy savings 

and 71% of the total site energy savings 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 assessmentsa

 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 CO2 savings (metric tons/year) 234,000 984,300 1,285,800 

CO2 Savings per assessment (metric tons/year) 1,307 5,500 7,200 a

All percentages in the table and associated 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 2006a

 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 CO2 savings (metric tons/year) 193,400 716,200 896,600 

CO2 Savings per assessment (metric 

tons/year) 

1,900 7,000 8,700 

a

All percentages in the table and associated 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 2006a

 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 (MMBtu/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 (MMBtu/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 CO2 savings (metric tons/year) 40,570 268,100 389,100 

CO2 Savings per assessment (metric 

tons/year) 

500 3,500 5,100 

a

All percentages in the table and associated text are based only on energy and costs data for the 76 responding 

plants that had process heating assessments.
43 

Table 16. Distribution of payback periods for savings opportunities, by implementation status.

Payback category Immediately 

implemented 

In progress Planned Rejected Tried and 

rejected 

Spinoffa 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 focus on training plant personnel and fostering their 

adoption of energy assessment tools. Interviewers asked 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 energy 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 played 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 about the culture in their organizations with respect to energy efficiency. 

Nearly 70% of assessed plants reported having a written 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 assessments were influential in their use of the software 

tools following the assessments. 

Figure 22. More than 90% of participants 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 implementation results by state and three-digit NAIC industry categories. 

Tables 17 and 18 summarize implementation data for energy 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 opportunities 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 $179,430,273
47 

Table 18. Distribution of energy cost savings identified 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 $179,430,273 
48 

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 the assessment efforts 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 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 initiatives, including software tool and training 

development, the IAC program, the Collaborative Targeted 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 (summer 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 reflections of the value of the assessments to U.S. 

industry and the states. 

No one anticipated that the average assessment in 2006 would recommend improvements to 

annually save $2.5 million in energy costs, 247,000 MMBtu of natural gas, and 20,200 metric tons 

of plant CO2 emissions. These results are far larger than anticipated. 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 process 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 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 attractive 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 
49 

applications, can also result in substantial energy cost savings. These results suggest the substantial value 

of implementing the findings from the assessments.

Based on the six-month follow-up interviews with 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 additional 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 totaling $30.4 million per year, natural gas savings of 3.5 

trillion Btu per year, and 0.2 million metric tons of reduced CO2 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 found that the assessments were useful with respect to 

encouraging 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 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.