### ORNL/TM

- 2007/138



# R ESULTS FROM THE U.S. DOE

2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE :

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

and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Anthony Wright and Michaela Martin

O ak Ridge Nat ional Laboratory

Bob Gemmer, Paul Scheihing, and James Quinn

DOE Industrial Technologies Program



## September 17 , 2007i 

## Executive Summary

ES

- 1. I NTRODUCTION



### 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 assessm ents 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 season s

. In a presentation to the National Press C lub on

Octob er 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 qualifie d 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 Secre tary’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

– Tech nology 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 ac tivities 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, t he Save Energy No w 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 68 00 U.S.

facilities that fall into this category collectively account for about 5 3 % of all energy consumed by industry in the United States.

The 2006 Save Energy Now energy assessments departed from earlier DOE plant assessment s 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 assessment s also integrat ed a strong training component designed to teach industrial plant personnel how to use DOE’s steam or process heating opportunity as sessment software tools. This approach had the advantages of promoting strong buy

- in of plant personnel for the assessment and its outcomes and prepar ing them better to independent ly replicat e the assessment process at the company’s other facilities.

The S ave Energy Now initiative also included provisions to help plants that applied for but did not qualify

for assessment s (based on the 1 trillion Btu criterion)

. S ervices 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 p romised assessment s, 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 CO 2 

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



### very large plants

, clearly suggest that assessment s are a n expedient and cost

- effective way to sig nificantly affect large amounts of energy use.

Building on the success of the 2006 initiative, ITP has expanded the effort in 2 007 with the goal of conducting 250 more assessment s in large U.S. industrial plants. The 2007 assessment s are addressing not

on ly 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 assessment s in 2006 and the overall process and philosophy of conducting assessment s. A comprehensive review of the results from the 2006 assessment s is presented, along with a summary of key accomplishments and findings.



### ES

- 2. DOE ITP P RECEDING THE 

### 2006 S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENTS



### The approach used in conducting the Save Energy Now assessments evolved from the resources and concepts developed in the DOE ITP program over the la st 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 developmen t 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 assessment s were introduced, ITP wa s 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 assessment s. The final important

element of the initial assessment e fforts 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 Informat ion 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

assessment s resulted in the greatest potential impact o n U.S. manufacturing energy use.



### ES

- 3. T HE 

### 2006 S

AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW ASSESSMENT 

### A PPLICATION 

### P ROCESS



### The application process for large industrial plants to qualify for Save Energy Now assessment s 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 assessment s 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 assessment s on large plants, DOE required that applicants have a tot al 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 o f 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 o f 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 foriii



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

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



### ES

- 4. T HE 

### S

AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW ASSESSMENT 

### P ROCESS



### The Save Energy Now initiative use d a unique appr oach for conducting in

- plant energy efficiency

assessments. E n ergy audits or assessments are typically done by energy expert s who go into a plant, identify potential savin gs opportunities, and write report s that are left with the plant p ersonnel after the

assessments are completed. Save Energy Now assessment s, in contrast, are training assessments. The

2006 assessment s focused on training industrial plant personnel specifically on how to use either the DOE steam or process heating software tools

. Assessment s 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 en tire 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 pla nt energy and cost savings. The Energy Expert and plant

p ersonnel 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 opport unity. 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 manageme nt 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

a t the Closeout Meeting or presented in the assessment repo rt without the Plant Lead’s approv al

.
The positive effect of using this approach for conducting assessment s is that: 1 ) plant personnel get

hands

- on experience in how to effectively use the DOE soft ware 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 imple mented ; and 3) plant opportunities are investigated that often can result in significant energy and cost savings for the host plant

.



### ES

- 5. C OMPREHENSIVE 

### R EVIEW OF THE 

### 2006 S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENT 

### R ESULTS

ES

- 5.1 Location and Industry of the Assessed Plants



### The assessment s 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 assessment s we re Texas, with 30, and Louisiana, with 15. In 17 states, 4 or more assessment s were completed.

In 2006, 114 steam assessment s and 86 process heating assessment s were conducted. The 200 plants were in 18 major U.S. industry groups, with 163 of the assessment s done in six industr ies: chemical manufacturing, paper manufacturing, primary metals, food, non

- metallic mineral products, and fabricated metal products.

Process heating assessment s were performed in 30 states, with about 82% of the potential energy cost savings in 12 states . Steam assessment s were done in 36 states and one territory (Puerto Rico), and about 84% of the potential energy cost savings were in 12 states.iv

ES

- 5.2 Summary of Overall Results



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

### savi ngs identified in the 2006 steam and process heating assessment s is exceptionally large. An overall summary of the results from the

2006 assessment s is presented in Table ES

- 1, for all assessment s, for steam assessment s, and for process heating assessment s . Some key results include the following.

 

### The average recommended cost savings for all of the assessment s 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 assessment s cle ar 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 assessment s were implemented.

 

### The average potential cost an d natural gas savings identified for both steam and process heating

assessment s was large

— about $3. 2 million per year for steam and $1.6 million per year for process heating. Considering that assessment s were done in only three days, including a strong

t ool training element, the magnitude of potential savings is surprisingly large.

Table ES

- 1 . Summary of results for all year 2006 assessment s, steam assessment s, and process heating assessment s

For all 200

assessments in

2006 For the 114

steam

assessment s 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 ( MM Btu/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

asse ssment (%/year) 17.3% 20.4% 13.3%

Total recommended CO 2 savings (million metric tons

CO 2 /year) 4.04 2.92 1.11

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

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



### Estimates for CO 2 

### e mission reduction s we re calculated for each assessment based on the energy savings and fuel type data pro vided by the Ener gy Expert s. 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 CO 2 

### conte nt

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

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

### emissions reduction

— if all

assessment recommendations are implemented

— is about 4.04 million metric tons of CO 2



### .v



### In performing the steam and process heating assessment s, 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 assessment s, the top 10 opportunitie s capture the majority of the energy cost savings identified in the assessment s. For steam assessment s, the top 10 opportunities captured $334 million per year of potential savings

— 92% of the total identified steam savings. For process heating assessment s, the top 10 opportunities captured $100 million per year of potential savings

— 74% of the total identified process heating sa vings.

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 p ayback period

= (Cost to implement opportunity) / (Yearly savings for the opportunity)

Most industrial plants will not consider implementing savings opportunities that have p aybacks 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

— 7 6 % 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 th e potential cost savings for both steam and process heating

— for steam assessment s, $263 million per year, or 72% of all potential savings; and for process heating assessment s, $109 million per year, or 73% of all potential savings.

Tables ES

- 2 and ES

- 3 p resent 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 assessment s, 14 of the opportunity categories showed average potential cost savings greater than 1% of plant energy costs

. For the process heating assessment s, 17 of the opportunity categories showed avera ge 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

- Impro ve 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 g as 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, load ing, 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

Ta ble ES

- 3

. Potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and plant energy use from process heating opport unities (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 fu el 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 o f 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 boi lers 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 a bout six months after the 2006 assessments were completed. P articipants are commit ted to repo rting 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 i mplementation 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 aw aiting funding, 4) rejected, or 5) tried and rejected . Savings re sults for the first three categories are summarized in Tables ES

- 4 and ES

- 5

.

Table ES

- 4

. Six

- month results for 179 y ear
- 2006 Save Energy Now assessment s a

Immediately implemented In progress Planned, under review, or awaiting funding

Total cost savin gs ($/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 s avings per assessment (MMBtu/year) 19,500 56,800 103,100

Average natural gas savings per

assessment (%/year) 1.4% 4.8% 6.9%

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

CO 2 s avings 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

Implemente d In Progress Planned Rejected Tried and Rejected Spinoff a 0.1% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 0.0%

0

- 9 months 9.6% 10.2% 14.7% 6.9% 0.3%

9 months

– 2 years 4.7% 7.0% 14.5% 6.8% 0.0%

2

– 4 years 0.9% 3.1% 8.2% 4.7% 0.0%
4+ years 0.7% 0.9% 2.3% 1.8% 0.0%

a Spinoff is defined as an opportunity identified by an 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 maki ng progress on implementing the savings opportunities. The percentages noted below are data based on the 179 plant responses. Several key trends are i ndicated :

 

### Assessed p lants reporting results have implemented or are pursuing implement ation of 7 0% of the potential energy cost savings identified in their assessments. Projects representing the remaining

3 0% of identified cost savings have been either rejected or tried and r ejected.

 

### 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

 

### Asses sed plants reporting results at 6 months are pursuing 52 % of the natural gas energy savings

an d 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 Oppor tunities



### 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 Ener gy Now

assessment protocol , not only were potential energy savings identified , but Energy Expert s 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 . N early 75 % of p lants r eported t hat the

assessment e ncouraged the u se of DOE s oftware and other products.

S lightly more than 90% r eported that the assessment p layed an influential or h ighly i nfluential role i n

t heir d ecision s t o impleme nt i dentified e nergy s avings p rojects. Only 9 % of assessment participants reported that assessments h ad slight or no infl uence on implementation

.
Participants were also asked about the culture in their organization s with respect to energy efficiency.

Nearl y 70 % of assessed plants reported having a written CEO

- or Board

- approved policy in place that

includes the reductio n 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 Technolog ies 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 200 6. 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

Assessme nt program. These programs provided the foundation for development of the protocols for conducting Save Energy Now assessment s

— specifically, the aspects of the program that defined them as ―training assessments.‖

Large industry and the states have, and c ontinue to, enthusiastically support and value the Save Energy Now assessment efforts. The 2006 assessment s 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 assessment s. 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

assessment s 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 CO 2 

### emissions. These results are far larger than anticipated. Focusing on large U.S. industrial plants having total energy use grea ter 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 Expert s who performed the assessments and the quality of the DOE steam and process hea ting software tools also contributed to finding large potential savings in the plants.

Even though Save Energy Now assessment s 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 assessment s’ 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 asse ssment s 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. Th e results also indicate that in large plants where assessment s 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 assessment s 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 recommend ations, in individual plant applications, can also result in substantial energy cost savings. These results suggest the substantial value of implementing the findings from the assessment s.

Based on the six

- month follow

- up interviews with 179 assessed plant s, about 7 % of the total number of recommendations for these plants have already been implemented, and an additional

6 4 % are either in progress or undergoing additional analysis, indicating the potential for the implementation of three quarters of all reco mmendations. 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 CO 2 

### emissions per year. It is likel y 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 recommen dations.

The philosophy and approach for conducting the assessment s

— 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 assessment s were usefu l with respect to encouraging their organizations to adopt DOE software and technical products. Also, over 90% of the plants found that the assessment s played influential to extremely influential roles in their implementing energy savings projects. ORNL co nducted

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 activit ies, further confirming the effectiveness of the Save Energy

Now assessment approach.xi 

## Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. I NTRODUCTION

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

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

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

2.1 Plant

-

Wide Assessments

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

2.2 Industrial Assessment Centers

................................ ................................ ................................ . 3

2.3 ITP Decision Software Tools

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3

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

Scor ecard

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

Plus

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 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. T HE 2006 S

AVE E NERGY N OW A SSESSMENT A PPLICATION P ROCESS

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

4. T HE S

AVE E NERGY N OW A SSESSMENT P ROCESS

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

4.1 A Unique Approach

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

4.2 The Energy Experts 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. C OMPREHENSIVE R EVIEW OF THE 2006 S AVE E NERGY N OW A SSESSMENT R ESULTS

................................ 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 Yea r

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

....... 48xii1 

## RESULTS FROM THE U.S. DOE

2006 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE:

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

and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

1. I NTRODUCTION



### In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and other severe 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

campa ign 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 season s

. In a presentation to the National Press Club on

Octob er 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 Techn ologies Program (ITP) responded to the Secretary’s campaign with its Save Energy Now initiative, featuring a new and highly cost

- effective form of e nergy s avings a ssessments

. The approach for these assessments drew heavily on the existing resources of ITP ’ s Technology Delivery component. Over the years, ITP

– Tech nology 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 swift ly and effective ly to the

sudden need to promote improved industrial energy efficiency

.

Because of anticipated s upply issues in the natural gas sector, t he 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 annual ly

. The approximately 68 00 U.S. facilities that fall into this category collectively account for about 5 3 % of all energy consumed by industry in the United States.

The 2006 Save Energy Now assessment s departed from earlier DOE plant assessment s by concentr ating solely on steam and process heating systems , which are estimated to account for approximately 74 % of all natural gas use for manufacturing. The assessment s also integrat ed a strong training component designed to teach industrial plant personnel how t o use DOE’s steam or process heating opportunity assessment

software tool s

. This approach had the advantages of promoting strong buy

- in of plant personnel for the

assessment and its outcomes and prepar ing them better to independent ly replicat e the assessme nt 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 assessment s (based on the 1 trillion Btu criterion)

. S ervices offered to these plants included (1) an assessment by one of DOE’s 26 university

- based Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs) , (2) a telephone2



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

By the end of 2006, DOE had completed all 200 of the p romised assessment s, identifying potential natural gas savings of more than 50 trillion Btu and energy cost savings of about $500 million. These

s avings, if fully implemented, could reduce CO 2 

### e missions 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 assessm ent s are a n 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 2 007 with the goal of conducting 250 more assessment s in large U.S. industrial plants . The 2007 assessment s are address ing not only steam and process heating , but also pump ing , 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 catal yst for the Save Energy Now assessment efforts. The report describes the process by which industrial plants appl ied to obtain assessment s in 2006 and t he overall process and philosophy of conducting assessment s. A comprehensive review of the results from t he 2006 assessment s is presented

, along with a summary of key accomplishments and findings.



### 2. DOE ITP E FFORTS 

### P RE CEDING THE 

### 2006 S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENT S



### The approach used in conducting the Save Energy Now assessment s evol ved from the resources and

c oncepts developed in the DOE ITP program over the l ast decade . Th is section describes those

assessment efforts and resource development s that preceded the 2006 assessment activities :

 

### Plant

- Wide Assessments

 

### Industrial Assessment Centers

 

### BestPractices Decisi on 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 system atic assessment of plant

- wide operation s that address e s 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 s team, process heating, pumping, and compressed air

systems with plant personnel . An assessment typically results in a set of recommendations for specific projects to improv e 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 progr am sponsored PWAs starting in 1999. Plants were selected through an open solicitation process and agree d to a minimum 50 % cost share for conducting the PWA s ; the maximum plant award wa s $100,000. P WAs 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 iden

tified at these 40 facilities was about $200 million per year. Average i nvestment payback periods for the identified savings opportunities w ere 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 followin g 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 energ y engineers and contribute to improving energy efficiency throughout their careers , including playing active roles as DOE Qualified Specialists and Energy Expert s

.

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

the world. This database includes information on nearly 100,000 cost saving opportunities identified for industry through 1 3

, 500 assessments conducted over the last 20 years. These assessments have saved IAC

clients an average of more than $55,0 00 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 Tool s

T he 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. The se tools use analytical models to evaluate process heating, steam, pum ping, 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 mi ght save energy and reduce costs

.
All of the software tools focus on energy efficiency ―opportunity‖ assessments

— quantifying the potential savings from specific improvement s

. For example, there are often potential savings from increasing condensate retur n 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 s team and p rocess h eating d ecision t ools, described below, were used f or the 2006 assessment s.4

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



### PHAST is a tool for survey ing process heating equipment that uses fuel, electricity, or steam (though only

the direct

- fuel

- fired systems model ing 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 eq uipment 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



### T hree 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 th eir facilities. An SSST analysis wa s performed for each steam assessment

. The SSAT estimates the impacts of key steam system improvements for mo dels of representative plant steam systems . SSAT generates results detailing the energy, cost, and emissions savings that could be achieved by up to 1 8 different improvement s . 3E

- Plus calculates the most economical thickness of industrial insulation for op erating 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 in structor

- based training for end users that focus es 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, typical ly 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 session s, 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 instructor

based training sessions are typically two and a half days long. The firs t two days focus on specific issues associated with using a particul ar 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 I TP web sit e. M ore than 460 individuals have been designated as Qualified Specialists to use the DOE ITP software tools

, and most of the university

- based IAC s have staff who are Qualified Specialists. All of the Energy Experts for 2006 had achieved the Qualified Spec ialist 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 pla nts. These three

- day CTAs were done to reinforce the information presented in the

end user training and to provide training on the use of the ITP decision software tools. To be selected for5



### these CTAs , plants had to have one or more staff who had attended the ITP end user training in the area of interest (e.g., process heating for PHAST use). The two primary benefits of the CTAs were that plant personnel had the opportunity to reinforce the information learned while attending the training workshop

,

an d that energy efficiency improvement opportunities w ere 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 sa vings 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 Assessment s Evolved From ITP Activities

Plant

- wide assessments, IAC assessments, decision software tools, end user and specialist qualification training, and CTAs all contributed significant ly to the development of the Save Energy N ow assessment concept. Because these ITP activities were already well established when these assessments were introduced , ITP was able to expedite its contribut ion 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 i n 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 Expert s who performed process heating and steam assessment s in 2006. Al so, 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 signific ant 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 avail able in industrial plant systems and w ith

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 to ol experts who could be called on to perform assessment s 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 show ing that these kinds of assessments could yield large cost and energ y savings

. The repo rting form for CTAs was actually used as the basis for what became the assessment summary report
form.

7. The final import ant element of the initial assessment efforts wa s the decision t o focus on large plants

. ITP did an analysis of the 1998 Energy Informa tion 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 6 800 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 assessment s will lead to the greatest potential impact on U.S. manufacturing energy use.



### 3

. T HE 

### 2006 S

AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENT 

### A PPLICATION 

### P ROCESS



### The applicati on process for large industrial plants to qualify for Save Energy Now assessment s 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 assessment s 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 assessment s

. To focus the assessment s on large plants, DOE required that applican

ts have a total energy use of at least 1 trillion Btu per year , either in one or several plants. If the applica nt’s energy use was greater than 10 trillion Btu per year, the company could potentially obtain

more than one assessment

.
Applicants for assessme nt s also complete d 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 c onsider 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. Ha ve 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. Al low 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 th e assessment findings at other company plants 6, 12, and 24 months after the assessment

.
DOE ITP program staff reviewed all of the assessment applications that were submitted. DOE evaluated the total energy consumption, especially natural gas, toward quali fication for obtaining assessment s. 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 requireme nts 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 they7



### could begin the process of identifying the Energy Experts to perform the assessments and facilitate their

first cont acts with the plants.

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



### 4. T HE 

### S

AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENT 

### P ROCESS



### 4.1 A Unique Approach

Save Energy Now assessment s use a unique approach for conducting in

- plant energy efficiency

assessments. E n ergy audits or asse ssments are typically done by energy expert s who go into a plant

, identify potential savin gs opportunities

, and write report s that are left with the plant p ersonnel after the

assessments are completed. Save Energy Now assessment s, in contrast, are training assessments. The

2006 assessment s focused on training industrial plant personnel specifically on how to use either the DOE steam or process heating software tools

. Save Energy Now assessment s are done in no more than 3 days,

so , by necessity, they are ver y 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 p ersonnel ide ntify 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 investigat ed during an assessment

.
On the last day of the assessment

, a require d 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 repo rt without the Pla nt Lead’s approv al

.
The positive effect of using this approach for conducting assessment s 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 i n significant energy and cost savings for the host plant

.

Th e remainder of this section describes the overall process used in carrying out the DOE assessment s

— how the ―Energy Experts‖ were chosen to conduct the assessments

, the protocol for performing

a ssessment s, and the information provided to DOE after assessment s are completed.

4.2 T he Energy Experts Performing the Assessments

The Energ y Experts in s team and p rocess h eating for 2006 were chosen based on two solicitation s that

were open to Energy Ex pert s 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 s upport program staff conducted the first solicitation in October

– November 2005. A s a result of this solicitation, 29 Energy Experts were chosen

— 21 steam experts and 9 process heating8



### experts (one with qualifications in both steam and process h eating) . A session to train the experts in the protocols for conducting assessment s was co mp le ted in mid December 2005

.
As scheduling for the assessment s began in late December 2005 and early January 2006, i t became clear that not enough process h eating experts were avai lable to perform the number of process h eating

assessment s that were requeste d, so an additional solicitation was conducted in February 2006

. S even additional process h eating experts and one addi tional s team e xpert were identified through the second

solicitation and were trained in the assessment protocols in March and April 2006.

The overall process of conducting assessment s started with the selection of individual Energy Expert s to perform each of the assessments . The initial decision s on who would do which assessment was based on:

1 ) availability of an Expert to perform the asse ssment on the dates requested by the individual p lant; 2 ) the capabilities of the Energy Expert s relevant to perform ing assessments in specific industries; and 3 ) an attempt to minimize travel for the Energy Expert s . In some cases, p lants requested specifi c Energy Expert s to perform their assessments, and in almost all cases these requests could be accommodated.

4.3 Conducting Save Energy Now Assessment s

– The Full Process

4.3.1 Preparation Activities



### Figure 1 illustrates the Save Energy Now assessment ac tivities 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 assessme nt 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).

F igure 1. Before a Save E nergy Now assessment (SENA) , the expert works with the Plant Lead to prepare for

a successful assessment

.



### The fir st order of business in contacting the plant i s to establish who is the Plant Lead

— a very important initial step. A primary condition for as sessment 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 req uirements are for the participating plant

and whether he or she will be required to comply with any confidentiality agreement s

. Generally the

e xpert wil l attend a safety briefing early on the first day , but in some instances more detailed safety training may be required. M any of the plants have required the e xpert to sign a c onfidentiality agreement

to protect plant information

.

Logistics

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

reserved for the on

- site assessment activities and that a closeout meeti ng 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 arriv ing at the

site

, t he 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 whe n 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

T he Energy Expert also provides a prescreening tool to the Plant Lead

— for s team assessment s, the Steam System Scoping Tool (SSST) and for process h eating assessment s the Process Heating Scorecard.

The Plant Lead is to complete the prescreening prior to th e assessment ( in some cases with the e xpert ’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 i mportant goal of p re

- assessment activities is to identif y the potential opportunities that merit investigation during the three

- day assessment

. The Energy Expert and Plant Lead need to do this because

it is u nlikely that all potential opportunities can be in vestigated in three days. The objective is to identify opportunities that can be good vehicles for train ing the Plant Lead to use the software tools and can also lead to meaningful cost and energy savings for the plant.

S oftware Deci sion 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 identif ied savings opportu nities

. This is a part of the

t raining 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 lin k 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 t he 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 equipm ent 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 illus trates the major activities of these three days. A typical assessment
schedule is reviewed below.

Figure 2. Save Energy Now assessment s (SENAs) are focused, three

- day training assessments.



### Assessment Day 1

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

 

### Energy Expert fulfills safety requirements

 

### Energy Expert leads m eeting with Plant Lead and other plant participants

 

### Distributes sign

- in sheet

 

### Distributes assessment evalua tions 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.

 

### Discussio n 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 colle ction (possibly on the first day).

In summary, by the end of the first d ay 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 analy ses , the scope of the assessment has been agree d on, and

, ideally, data collection has begun

.

Assessment D ay 2

Day 2 of an assessment is the ―meat and potatoes‖ day. Data collection continues until sufficient results are obtained to permit opportunity ana lyses to be performed. T he entire assessment team may stay together to collect the needed data, perhaps led by the Energy Expert

. In cases w here there is a lot of d ata to collect in a short time, small teams may collect data on different systems in paralle l . 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

whil e explain ing what he is doing to apply the software to investigate the opportunity. At the same time,

t he 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 d ifferent opport unities 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 wor th pursuing further. And for some opportunities the analys i s 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 softwar e 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

. T he Expert and Plant Lead should be reaching agreem ent on the opportunities that will be included in the final report for further investigation and possibly implementation.

A fter leav ing the plant for the day (typically), the Energy Expert has enough information to draft the

― preliminary report,‖ to be sub mitted for review on day 3 and approved by plant personnel before the

assessment is completed.

Assessment D ay 3

Th e main activities for D ay 3 are wrap ping up the opportunity analyses and prepar ing 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

, includ ing developing PowerPoint slides to summarize the

assessment activities , and again ensure that they are agree d on what will be presented and discussed during the m eeting.

Closeout Meetings are typically one to two hours long

. Plant management pers onnel are invited to attend

these meeting s

. T he Plant Lead may making the presentation if comfortable doing so ; o therwise, the Energy Expert makes this presentation. The c loseout 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 ener gy 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 f rom the plant personnel who participated in the assessment , and a

site

- approved versi on 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 s ome of the opportunities evaluated will provide good cost and energy savings for the plant if they are implemented. Final ly, participants from other company plants will now have access to someone with experience in applying and using the DOE software to ev aluate energy savings opportunities.

4.3.3 Save Energy Now A ssessment Reports and Follow

- Up



### After the site visit, t he focus of the Energy Expert is on completing the major assessment reports and obtaining Plant Lead approval for t he m

.

One

- Day Reports

Seve ral reports are sent to the DOE through ORNL within one business day after the assessment has been completed. The ― one

- da y ‖ reports include :

 

### the approved preliminary report,

 

### a summary of assessment a ttendance,

 

### a summary of assessment e valuations from pla nt personnel who participated in the assessment , and

 

### a summary of the energy management q uestionnaire results submitted by the plant to the Energy Expert

.

T hese reports are submitted electronically to ORNL and after technical review and evaluation are

su bmitted to DOE

.

Assessment Summary Report and Savings Spreadsheet

The main post

- assessment activity for the Energy Expert is to prepare a Draft Assessment S ummary Report and a Draft Assessment Savings Spreadsheet

. Figures 3 and 4 show the template used fo r the

s ummary 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 an y Best Practices identified at th e plant. The Energy Expert uses specific ―pick l ist‖ words

to describe the identified o pportunities. These pick lists were developed ( separately for steam and process

h eating ) so that the opportunity descriptions could be so rted by pick l ist phrases

. F or e xa mple, DOE could easily determine that many process h eating 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 na rrative s brief

— preferably no longer than 2 to 3 pages. The narrative i s intended to provide some background information on the assessment , highlight the main energy savings opportunities identified in the assessment , and characterize t he m as near

- , mediu m

- , or l ong

- 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 th e 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 opportuniti es (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 a nd comment. After approval by the plant, the report is sent to ORNL for final approval. ORNL either asks for final revisions to be made to15



### the submitted report or approves it as submitted and forwards the report to the DOE Energy Savings Assessment Managem ent 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 thei r 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 opportuniti es 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 subm itted 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 stud ents 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 energ y, 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 assessment s:

1. An approved preliminary r eport;
2. Attendance information for plant personnel who participated in the assessment ; 3. An assessment evaluation s ummary

– plant personnel respons es to questions on the performance of the Energy Expert and on the value of the DOE software tools;

4. A completed energy management q uestionnaire;

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

6. A submitted Final Assessment Savings Spreads heet (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 a ssessment analyses.



### 5. C OMPREHENSIVE 

### R EVIEW OF THE 

### 2006 S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENT 

### R ESULTS



### 5 .1 Location and Industry of the Assessed Plants

The assessment s were conducted in 40 states and Puerto Rico, mostly in the midwestern, eastern, and

southern Uni ted States, where the majority of large U.S. industrial sites are located

. Figures 6 and 7 show

the breakdown of the 2006 assessment s by state , and Table 1 shows the industry sectors represented by the plants

. The states with the most assessment s we re Texa s, with 30, and Louisiana, with 15. In 17 states

, 4 or more assessment s were completed.17

Figure 6

. In 2006, 200 assessment s were performed in 40 states and one territory (Puerto Rico). In 17 of these states, 4 or more assessment s were conducted.

Fig ure 7. The majority of the y ear 2006 assessment s w ere performed in the eastern, m id we stern , and

southern United States

.


### Table 1 and Figure 8 show the breakdown of the assessment s by type and by industrial classification , with

114 steam assessment s and 86 process heating assessment s. Figure 8 shows that the 200 plants were in 18 major U.S. industry groups , with 163 of the assessment s done in six industr ie s : 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

.

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

311 Food 7 15 22

327 Non

- metallic mineral products 18 18
332 Fabricated metal products 8 4 12 324 Petroleum and coal products 2 6 8
326 Plastics and rubber products 2 3 5

334 Computer and electronic products 2 3 5 336 Transportation equ ipment 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 Electrica l equipment, appliances, components 1 1

Other 1 1

Total 86 114 200

Figure 8

. Assessment s were completed in 18 major U.S. industry sectors , with 163 of the assessment s in 6 industry sectors.19



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

12 states. Steam assessment s 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 show s the distribution of identified potential energy cost savings across the 18 industrial groups represented in the 2006 assessment s, with 89% of the total occurring in six industries: ch emical manufacturing, paper manufacturing, primary metals, petroleum and coal products, food, and fabricated metal products

.

Figure 9

. The year 2006 assessment s included 86 process heating assessments in 30 states. The total potential energy cost savi ngs from the identified opportunities in these assessment s was $136 million per year.20

Figure 10

. The year 2006 assessment s included 114 steam assessments in 37 states. The total potential energy cost savings from the identified opportunities in these assessment s was $364 million per year.

Figure 11

. Assessment s 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 CO 2 

### savings identified in the 2006 steam and process heating assessment s is exce ptionally large. An overall summary of the results from the

2006 assessment s is presented i n T able 2

, for all assessment s, for steam assessment s, and for process heating assessment s. Some key results include the following

.

 

### The average recommended cost savings for all of the assessment s 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 assessment s clear ly reflect the 2006 program’s focus on natural gas saving s. The assessments showed that 1 7 .3 % of the natural gas used in the plants could be saved if all of

the recomm endations from the assessment s were implemented

.

 

### The average potential cost and natural gas savings identified for both steam and process heating

assessment s was large

— about $3. 2 million per year for steam and $1.6 million per year for process heating. C onsidering that assessment s 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 assessment s 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

gener ate electricity, which would result in needing additional fuel to run the turbine. In process heating

assessment s, energy switching opportunities were not as significant.

Estimates for CO 2 

### e mission reduction s we re calculated for each assessment based on the energy savings and fuel type data pro vided by the Energy Expert s. 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 furn ace gas, propane, and hog fuel are analyzed for CO 2 

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

### were provided through direct consultation with EIA’s greenhouse gas voluntary reporting team. These coefficients were applied to the appropriate fuel savings to develop estimates of emissions impacts. Table 3 identifies the coefficients that were used to convert

energy savings into CO 2 

### impacts

.22



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

.

For all 200

assessment s in
2006 For the 114

steam

assessment s For the 86

process heating

assessment s
Total recommended cost savings ($/year) $500,200,000 $364,300,000 $135,900,000

Recommended cost savings per asses sment ($/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 energ y savings, site ( MM Btu/year) 49,470,000 32,370,000 17,100,000

Recommended total energy savings, site, per

as sessment (MMBtu/year) 247,400 283,900 198,800

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

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

Recommended natural gas savings per

assessment (MMBtu/year) 264,400 342,500 160,800

Average recommended natural gas savings per

assessment (%/year) 17.3% 20.4% 13.3%

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

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

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

.

Fuel EIA Factors

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

Butane 141.80 Kerosene 157.04

Butene 141.80 Liquified petroleum (LPG) 137 .72

Coal 208.59 Methane/landfill gas 115.26

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

Ethane 130.03 Wood waste (hog fuel) 0.00



### Figure 1 2 illustrates the total estimated CO 2 

### emission reductions for the U.S. industry groups that

conducted assessment s in 2006. The total potential CO 2 

### emissions reducti on

— if all recommendations are implemented

— is about 4.04 million metric tons of CO 2



### .

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

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

conducted assessment s in 2006.24



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

### emissions was calculated for Textile Product Mills (NAIC 314)

. This increase is traced to fuel switching from natural gas to a less costly fuel

.
In performing the steam and process heating assessment s, Experts use d standard

– or ―pick

- list‖ wordings whenever possible in classifying the identified opportunitie s. This was done so that the savings opportunity data could be anal yzed by these pick

- list categories. Tables 4 and 5 present the opportunity pick

- list categories for steam and process heating, respectively, used for the assessment s.

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

### emission reductions for the steam and process heating p ick l ist 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

assessment s, the top 10 opp ortunities capture the majority of the energy cost savings identified in the

assessment s. For steam assessment s, the top 10 opportunities captured $334 million per year of potential savings

— 92% of the total identified steam savings. For process heating a ssessment s, the top 10 opportunities captured $100 million per year of potential savings

— 74% of the total identified process heating sa vings.25 Table 4. The steam system “p ick

- list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessment s and data ana lysis.

Steam assessment “pick

list” savings project s D escription

1.1

– Reduce steam demand by changing the process steam requirements Eliminating or optimizing the operation of steam

- using process equipment reduces required steam generation

rate s which i n 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) to a fuel with a higher efficiency (e.g. fuel oil with a lower hydrogen content), a lower boiler fuel (and energy) consumption rate results

. 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 r educed, and less fuel (and energy) is needed to achieve a desired steam production rate

.
1.4

– Change boiler

blowdow n rate Boiler blowdown constitutes a pressurized, hot water loss from a boiler (energy loss)

. Actions (e.g. improved

boiler water treatmen t) 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 stream

. Flash steam directed to a low pressure header reduces needed boiler steam generation rate

. This in turn reduces boiler fuel (and energy) use rate.

1.6

– Change steam generation conditions For boilers producing superheated steam, reducing output temperature (e.g. by removing a superheater) wil l reduce boiler fuel (and energy) use

. For boilers producing saturated steam, improving steam quality (decreasing wetness) improves downstream process heating and lowers boiler steam output and fuel (and energy) consumption rate is reduced.

1.7

– Add or m odify operation of backpressure

steam turbine If a backpressure turbine is taken out

- of

- service, steam usage, boiler load and fuel (and energy) consumption

rate are reduced

. If a new backpressure turbine is added to reduce steam flow through pressure redu cing valves, steam flows through pressure reducing valves will be reduced but total steam usage will increase. This action will reduce total energy costs if the electricity savings (related to the turbine drive) are greater than the increased
boiler fuel c onsumption 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 lower steam flow is required to drive the turbine load

. This in turn reduces boil er load and fuel (and energy) consumption rates

. If a condensing turbine is taken out

- of

- service, steam usage is reduced, boiler load decrease s and boiler fuel (and energy) consumption is lowered.

1.9

– Modify feedwater heat recovery exchanger using

conde nsate tank vent The main condensate receiver is typically vented to atmosphere when flash steam forms at the reduced receiver

pressure

. Flash steam passed through a heat exchanger can be used for boiler feedwater heating

. The addition
of hotter water to th e 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 boiler, some water flashes

to stea m and a hot water fraction remains

. This hot water may be passed through a heat exchanger to heat feedwater or process fluids thereby reducing steam use for heating.26

1.11

– Change condensate recovery rates If the amount of formed condensate returned to th e boiler is increased, hotter water is fed back into the boiler feedwater system

, lowering feedwater heating requirements and feedwater chemical treatment needs

.
1.12

– Modify the medium pressure condensate flash system When the pressure of condensate for med in a high

- pressure system is reduced, flash steam forms

. When this steam is supplied to the medium

- pressure steam header, an amount of boiler

- produced steam is displaced and boiler load and fuel (and energy) consumption rates are reduced.

1.13

– Modif

y the low pressure condensate flash system When the pressure of condensate formed at a given pressure is reduced flash steam forms

. When this steam is supplied to the low

- pressure steam header, an amount of boiler

- produced steam is displaced and boiler loa d and 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 in the leaking steam

mode

. If trap steam leaks are reduced, less steam energy is lost in the condensate system and boiler load and 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 energy)

. Less steam must be generated in the boiler to satisfy process loads and boiler fuel (and energy) consumption rates are

reduced.

1.16

– Improve insulation Improving insulation quality (e.g. replacing ineffective wet insulation or increasing insulation th ickness) and 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

. These projects save energy by reducing the use of process energy or by improving the efficiency of converting fuel energy to process heating (e.g. steam) energy.

1.18

– Feedwater heat recovery, general Available process waste heat other than condensate tank vent energy or liquid blowdown heat can be used in a

he at exchanger to heat boiler feedwater. Hotter water fed back into the boiler feedwater system lowers feedwater heating requirements

.
1.19

– Deaerator heat

recovery Boiler water deaerators are often vented to atmosphere

. The installation of a heat exchange r can recover heat for 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 selection of individual boiler

loads to maximize their efficiencies and minimize total boiler fuel use while meeting total steam production requirements.

1.21

– Reduce or recover

vented steam Steam is vented from steam headers when steam supplied by backpressure turbines exceeds downstream

p rocess needs

. Steam is also vented from some plant processes (e.g. furnace decoking)

. If steam venting is reduced or vented steam is recovered (for process heating) boiler steam load and fuel (and energy) consumption

rates are reduced.27 Table 5. The pro cess heating “p ick

- list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessment s and data analysis.

Process heating assessment “pick

list ” savings project D escription

1.1

– Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases Reduced oxygen reflects a reduct ion in excess air entering the heating equipment

. This raises the available heat, and consequently, the efficiency

. Excess air can be lowered by adjusting burner air

fuel ratios, closing off air leaks into the equipment or maintaining a slightly positive c hamber pressure

to exclude outside air.

1.2

– Eliminate excess unburned hydrocarbons (CO, H 2 , CH 4 , soot in the exhaust gases) Unburned hydrocarbons represent unburned or partially

- burned fuel

. They can be lowered by improving the thoroughness of air

- fuel mixing in burners or avoiding operating burners fuel

- rich or
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 poo rly matched to the needs of the process

. Replace it with modern equipment which takes the unique needs of the process into account.

1.4

– Use of alternate fuel or energy

source In certain situations, fuels like by

- product gases may be available at lower c ost than the primary fuel

. Waste energy from other nearby operations might be able to be used in the process under

consideration.

1.5

– Use of oxygen for combustion Using oxygen to enrich or replace combustion air lowers the weight flow of nitrogen in the exhaust gases, increasing available heat and efficiency

. Flame temperatures will also increase, and this may
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 o xygen (usually 18% or more) and is at elevated temperature, it can be

used as a combustion air source

. Its heat content will raise the available heat of the combustion

process.

1.7

– Use of outdoor air for combustion

or make

- up air In a closed building wi th space heating in use, drawing combustion air from inside and then exhausting it through the stack wastes the energy that air contains

. Heated replacement air will be

needed

. Drawing combustion air from outdoors bypasses the building heating system, red ucing the

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 radiant or convective heat

. This will entail steps like changing loading patterns, increasing burner or hot air nozzle velocities or relocating 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 con ductivity of tubes, heating elements and heat exchangers

. Heat turned back by these deposits short

- circuits out the exhaust, increasing losses, slowing the process and lowering efficiency.

1.10

– Use of flue or exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheati ng This is one of the most effective ways to recycle waste heat

. Incoming ambient combustion air is routed through a heat exchanger and preheated with energy extracted from the outgoing exhaust

gases

. Every unit of energy transferred to the air is one less that must be provided by burning fuel.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 are passed over incoming cold charge ma terials

. This raises the load partway to its processing temperature and lowers the amount of energy neeed to support the process.

1.12

– Heat cascading

- use of flue or exhaust gas heat from a higher temp erature process to supply heat to lower temperature processes Waste gases from one process can be used to heat a lower temperatuure process.

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 te mperatures and allowed to cool in the open air

. Cooling them with forced air in an enclosure will heat the air, which might be useful for heating another process.

1.14

– Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steam generation or absorption cooling H eated exhaust gases can be routed through waste heat boilers, hot water generators or absorption chillers to perform a variety of heating or cooling roles.

1.15

– Proper insulation and maintenance of furnace structure or parts Maintain furnace and oven i nsulation to avoid localized losses through the walls, roof and floor

. Consider increasing the thickness or efficiency of the existing insulation to further lower wall losses.

1.16

– Reduce

- eliminate internal cooling Some furnaces contain components prote cted from overheating with cooling water and air

. Make 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 as poss ible, seal those openings and leaks

. As an added measure, maintain the furnace or oven at a slightly positive internal pressure 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

. Underloaded or overloaded 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 h eating process at higher temperatures than they entered, they contribute to wasted heat

. Lowering their mass causes a corresponding decrease in the amount of energy they extract from the process.

1.20

– Control (reduce) make up air for ovens to meet the p rocess safety requirements Ovens handling flammable solvents or vapors must have sufficient fresh air ventilation to dilute those
combustible materials well below their lower flammable limit

. Any ventilation in excess of the safe required amount wastes ene rgy.

1.21

– Eliminate use of continuous flame curtains, pilots where possible Flame curtains and door pilots insure burnoff of flammable prepared atmospheres escaping around

furnace doors and out vents

. If the process atmosphere has been changed to a non

- flammable mixture, these ignition sources are no longer necessary.29 Table 6. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO 2 emissions from identified

steam opportunities in pick

- list categories.

Year 2006 Steam Savings Opportunity

Rec ommendations Recommended

t otal c ost s avings ($/year) Recommended t otal

e nergy s avings (MMBtu/year) Recommended t otal

n atural g as s avings (MMBtu/year) Recommended

t otal CO 2 s avings (metric tons

CO 2 /year ) Number o f t imes

t he o pportunity

a pplied

1.1

. R edu ce steam demand $88,998,211 17,095,100 8,477,210 1,185,383 109

1.2

. U se alternate fuel $77,872,418

- 767,204 14,025,074 376,056 18

1.3

. I mprove boiler efficiency $42,924,885 5,331,486 3,920,092 283,791 130

1.7

. A dd / modify backpressure steam turbine $ 33,920,079

- 72,338 130,360 165,894 54

1.11

. I mprove condensate recovery $23,611,773 2,617,146 2,137,589 151,081 55

1.8

. A dd / modify condensing steam turbine $22,944,292

- 84,576 2,323,230 162,914 17

1.14

. I mplement steam trap maintenance program $15,0 59,433 2,066,722 1,936,950 109,177 56

1.16

. I mprove insulation $10,492,536 1,526,111 986,368 100,953 77

1.4

. I mprove boiler blowdown rate $9,041,315 845,627 802,898 46,438 41

1.10

. I mprove blowdown feedwater heat recovery $8,913,673 1,164,823 1,111,85 6 61,020 49

1.20

. O ptimize multiple boilers $6,289,083

- 711,436 407,380 69,235 10

1.17

. O ther

– miscellaneous steam $6,123,237 575,249 453,979 45,646 26

1.18

. F eedwater heat recovery

- general $6,075,461 940,806 916,842 51,563 7

1.15

. I mplement st eam leak maintenance program $2,618,451 482,085 347,719 25,109 43

1.21

. R educe / recover vented steam $2,126,961 390,332 245,652 26,518 12

1.13

. I mprove low pressure condensate flash $1,979,381 312,877 309,438 14,522 10

1.12

. I mprove medium pressure condensate flash $1,385,000 168,314 168,404 8,927 3

1.6

. I mprove steam generation conditions $1,124,000 116,342

- 8,970 15,817 7

1.19

. I mprove deaerator heat recovery $774,734 87,595 69,250 6,546 5

1.5

. I nstall blowdown flash to low pressure steam $ 490,978 90,218 100,714 3,442 5

1.9

. I mprove condensate tank vent feedwater heat

recovery $437,900 62,126 58,279 2,992 4

3.1

. U se flue / exhaust gas for combustion air preheating $301,669 38,379 27,499 2,318 2

2.2

. C lean heat transfer surfaces $233,139 32,471 32,471 1,724 1

3.5

. U se waste heat for cooling $230,470 24,325 24,325 1,292 2

1.1

. R educe flue gas oxygen content $201,614 27,911 27,911 1,482 2

5.1

. I mprove furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown $73,900 0 0 0 1

6.2

. O ther

- miscellaneo us process heating $41,821 17,095,100. 5,286. 281 1

TOTALS $364,286,414 32,365,778 39,037,806 2,920,121 74730 Table 7. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO 2 emissions from identified process heating opportunities in pick

- list categories.

Year 2006 process heating savings opportunity

recommendations R ecommended total cost savings ($/year) R ecommended total

energy savings ( MMB tu/year) R ecommended total

natural gas savings ( MMB tu/year) R ecommended total

CO 2 savings (metric tons CO 2 /year ) N umber of

times the opportunity applied

3.4

. F urnace heat recovery $19,639,200 2,066,169 1,379,149 181, 570 27

3.3

. H eat cascading $16,201,119 1,988,789 1,508,206 141,712 36

6.2

. O ther

- miscellaneous process heating $13,978,712 1,481,904 1,407 ,733 88,191 27

1.3

. U se of proper heating methods $12,753,467 1,400,583 1,400,583 74,380 22

4.1

. P roper furnace insulation / maintenance $11,693,585 1,903,439 1,363,402 123,501 49

1.1

. R educe flue gas oxygen content $8,696,097 1,567,558 877,950 111,134 74

1.5

. U se oxygen for combustion $7,022,724 1,106,595 743,427 75,387 14

1.6

. U se process or exhaust air for combustion $6,978,720 709,900 709,900 37,700 7

3.2

. I mprove load charge preheating $6,926,397 858,431 814,017 47,427 26

4.3

. R educe / eliminat e furnace openings and leakage $5,249,615 729,741 661,720 41,577 25

5.1

. I mprove furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown $4,687,509 474,365 473,831 25,223 11

3.1

. U se flue / exhaust gas for combustion air preheating $4,613,692 630,986 417,531 47,676 18

2. 1

. I mproving furnace / oven heat transfer $3,948,977 435,839 435,839 23,146 12

1.4

. U se alternate fuel or energy source $3,686,128 877,792 877,792 46,617 3

6.1

. O ther

- non process heating measures $3,271,917 124,894 27,965 19,060 12

1.16

. I mprove insu lation $1,919,891 237,393 222,871 11,836 7

5.3

. C ontrol oven makeup air $1,911,641 233,730 238,406 11,812 12

3.5

. U se waste heat for cooling $1,378,430 104,386 103,433 5,55 2 4

2.2

. C lean heat transfer surfaces $824,622 115,780 115,780 6,149 3

1.3

. I mpr ove boiler efficiency $175,882 17,758 17,676 954 8

5.4

. E liminate continuous flame curtains, pilots $125,000 17,361 17,361 922 1

1.1

. R educe steam demand $80,600 7,670 7,670 407 3

4.2

. R educe

- eliminate internal cooling $65,290 7,613 7,613 404 2

1.7

. U s e outdoor air for combustion or makeup air $20,000 2,500 2,500 13 4 1

1.20

. O ptimize multiple boilers $12,400 1,630 1,630 87 1

5.2

. R educe weight of fixtures, trays, etc. $3,300 330 330 18 1

T otals $135,864,915 17,103,135 13,834,314 1,121,572 40631

Fi gure 13

. The top ten steam opportunity categories f or the year 2006 assessment s could result in $334

million per year of plant energy savings.

Figure 14

. The top ten process heating opportunity categories f or the year 2006 assessment s 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 assessment s is impressive, the impact on U.S. industry will only be proportional to the magnitude of implement ed opportunities

. A primary d eterminant of whether potential savings become real savings is the payback period for implementation . Savings p ayback period is defined as (c ost to implement opp ortunity) / (y early savings for the opp ortunity)

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

The Energy E xperts estimated high and low values of the capital costs f or implementing each identified savings opportunity and used t he higher values to estimate payback periods

. T he results

, summarized in

Table 8 and Figures 1 5 and 1 6

, show that the majority of the estimated paybacks for the identified opportunities

— 7 6 % 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

— f or steam assessment s, $2 63 million per year , or 72% of all potential savings ; and f or process heating assessment s, $10 9 million per year , or 80 % of all potential savings.

Table 8

. Estimated payback periods for identified energy savings opportunities

.

Pay back c ategory Number of identified opportunities Potential c ost s avings ($/year) Potential t otal e nergy

s avings (MMBtu/year) Potential t otal CO 2

e mission r eduction (metric Tons/year)

Payback d ata s ummary f or a ll assessment s c ompleted i n 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

Spinoff a 30 $1,552,000 24,936 1,324

Totals 1153 $500,151,330 49,468 ,913 4,041,693

Payback d ata s ummary f or a ll steam assessment s c ompleted i n 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 d ata s ummary f or a ll process heat assessment s c ompleted i n 2006

0

- 9 months 157 $52,913,600 5,894,566 373,572

9 months

- 2 years 141 $55,878,396 7,807,609 514,787

2

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

4+ years 15 $2,552,101 174,450 21,627
Spinoff a 14 $400,000 5,000 266

Totals 406 $135,864,915 17,103,135 1,121,572

a Spinoff is defined as an opportunity identified by an 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 immedi ate 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 assessment s, 7 6 % of the steam recommend ations had estimated paybacks of less

than two years

. The total recommended savings for steam opportunities with paybacks of less than 2 years
was $26 3 million/year.

Figure 16 . For the 2006 assessment s, 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 $10 9 million/year.34



### Tables 9 and 10 summarize the payback data for all of the steam and process heating opp ortunit ies by opportunity ( pick list ) categor y

. 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.

T he majority of the identified o pportunities in the t op ten steam categories have estimated paybacks of

le ss than two years , as shown in Figure 17

. Significant potential savings with estimated paybacks between two and four years were identified in f our of the se categories: use alternate fuel, improve boiler efficiency, add/modify backpressure steam turbine, and add/modify condensing steam turbine

.

M ost of the identified opportunities in the t op 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 a nd 12 and Figures 19 and 20 pre sent 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 the se categories could be greater than 1% of total plant energy costs.

For the steam assessment s, 14 of the opportunit y categories showed average potential cost savings greater than 1% of plant energy costs (Table 11) . For example

, the average potential plant c ost savings from

r educ ing s team d emand was greater than 3% of the plant energy costs.

For the process heating assessment s, 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 t han 3% of plant energy costs.

T he estimated paybacks indicate that implementation of the majority of identified opportunities should be appealing to industrial plants.35

Ta ble 9. Estimated annual cost savings and payback periods for assessment

- identified steam system savings opportunities (opps).

Payback periods

0

– 9 months 9 months

– 2 years 2

– 4 years 4+ years Spin

- offs

Steam assessment opportunity type # opps Annu al savings # opps Annual savings # opps Annual savings # opps Annual savings # opps Annual savings

1.1

- Reduce steam demand 53 $47,796,894 29 $35,422,406 15 $3,177,800 9 $2,263,111 3 $338,000

1.2

- Use alternate fuel 8 $23,752,103 4 $23,705,000 4 $22,95 3,815 2 $7,461,500

1.3

- Improve boiler efficiency 58 $13,063,094 35 $17,400,684 21 $11,287,107 15 $1,174,000 1 $0

1.7

- Add/modify backpressure steam turbine 12 $6,155,320 12 $4,372,284 20 $21,009,646 8 $2,382,829 2 $0

1.11

- Improve condensate recov ery 14 $13,455,016 25 $7,334,357 10 $1,958,400 5 $373,000 1 $491,000

1.8

- Add/modify condensing steam turbine 8 $4,564,842 3 $2,046,500 4 $16,267,950 1 $65,000 1

1.14

- Implement steam trap maintenance program 30 $11,169,397 22 $3,797,036 1 $16,000 2 $ 31,000 1 $46,000

1.16

- Improve insulation 32 $7,090,313 37 $2,987,023 6 $284,200 1 $54,000 1 $77,000

1.4

- Improve boiler blowdown rate 20 $6,147,466 10 $2,131,786 6 $592,604 5 $169,459

1.10

- Improve blowdown feedwater heat recovery 24 $4,690,674 17 $2,970,099 7 $1,240,900 1 $12,000

1.20

- Optimize multiple boilers 4 $1,584,754 4 $811,000 1 $42,329 1 $3,851,000

1.17

– Other

– miscellaneous steam 6 $655,416 10 $4,570,289 4 $697,532 6 $200,000

1.18

– Feedwater heat recovery

- general 3 $741,25 0 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 $7,424

1.21

- Reduce / recover vented steam 6 $1,262,980 3 $602,981 3 $261,000

1.13

- Improve low pressure condensate flash 1 $53 3,000 4 $1,352,600 4 $86,321 1 $7,460

1.12

- 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

- I nstall 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

- Cl ean heat transfer surfaces 1 $233,139

3.5

- Use waste heat for cooling 1 $164,000 1 $66,470

1.1

- Reduce flue gas oxygen content 2 $201,614

5.1

- Improve furnace scheduling, loading,

shutdown 1 $73,900

6.2

- Other

- misc ellaneous process heating 1 $41,821

Total 321 $148,067,718 243 $115,063,965 114 $82,084,478 53 $17,918,253 16 $1,152,00036



### Table 10. Estimated annual cost savings and payback periods for assessment

- identified process heating system savings opport unities (opps)

.

Payback periods

0

– 9 months 9 months

– 2 years 2

– 4 years 4+ years Spin

- offs

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

3.4

- Furna ce 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 3

6.2

- Other

- Miscellaneous Process Heating 11 $4,754,928 8 $4,547,984 2 $2,245,000 4 $2,030,800 2 $400,000

1.3

- Use Of Proper Heating Methods 8 $4,105,180 7 $4,453,259 5 $4,195,028 2

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 3 $0

1.5

- Use Oxygen For Combustion 4 $2,304,105 4 $3,558,462 4 $800,157 1 $360,000 1

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

- Red uce / 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

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

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 1

4.2

- Reduce

- Eliminate Intern al 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 14 $400,00037

Figure 17 . Most of the top ten steam opportunities had e stimated paybacks of less than two years.

Figure 18

. Most of the top ten process heating opportunities had estimated paybacks of less th an 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 o pportunity category Aver age 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

- Im prove 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 boil er 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 pl ant 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 Avera ge

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 insulatio n 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 co mbustion 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 mo re than 1% of their total e nergy costs.

Figure 20 . Many of the identi fied process heating savings opportunities could individually save industrial plants more than 1% of the ir 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 a bout six months after the 2006 assessments were completed. P articipants are committed to repo rting 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

assessmen

ts 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 implemen ted, 2) in progress, 3) planning,

under review

, or aw aiting funding, 4) rejected, or 5) tried and rejected . Savings results for the first three categories are summarized i n T able s 13 thr ough 16

.

The six

- month results indicated that most plants had embrace d their assessments and were maki ng progress on implementing the savings opportunities. The percentages noted below are data based on the 179 plant responses. Several key trends are i ndicated in these tables:

 

### Assessed plants reporting results have implemen ted or are pursuing implement ation of 7 0% of the potential energy cost savings identified in their assessments. Projects representing the remaining

3 0% 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 mon ths are pursuing 52 % of the natural gas energy savings

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

 

### P lants 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 y ear
- 2006 assessment s a

Immediately implemented In progress Planned, under review, or awaiting funding
Total cost saving s ($/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 16,68 5,600 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 sav ings per assessment (MMBtu/year) 19,500 56,800 103,100

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

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

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

a Al l 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, trans mission and distribution of energy.42 Table 1 4

. Six

- month results for 103 steam assessment s completed in 2006 a

Immediately implemented In progress Planned, under

review or awaiting funding Total cost savings ($/year) $24,006,000 $75,104,100 $129,122,800

Cost savings per assessment ($/year) $233,100 $729,200 $1,253,600

Average cost savings per assessment as % of annual plant energy costs 1.1% 2.3% 5.5%

Total site energy savings (MMBtu/year) 3,281,400 12,622,700 4,109,700
Site energy savings per assessm ent (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 1 33,000

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

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

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

a All percentages in the table and associated text are based only on energy and co sts data for the 103 responding plants that had steam assessments

.

Table 1 5

. Six

- month results for 76 process heating assessment s completed in 2006 a

Immediately

i mplemented In p rogress Planned, under

review or awaiting fundi ng 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 CO 2 savings (metric tons/year) 40,570 268,100 389,100

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

a All percentages in the table and associated text are based only on e nergy 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 Spinoff a 0.1% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 0.0%

0

– 9 months 9.6% 10.2% 14.7% 6.9% 0.3%

9 months

– 2 years 4.7% 7.0% 14.5% 6.8% 0.0%

2

– 4 years 0.9% 3.1% 8.2% 4.7% 0.0% 4+ years 0.7% 0.9% 2.3% 1.8% 0.0%

a Spin

- off measures are identified by assessed plants during follow

- up interviews; some spin

- off measures do not include estimates of implementation cost and are listed as a separate category.



### 5.5 Assessment Process Deemed Highly Us eful 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 pe rsonnel 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 prod ucts (Fig. 21) and the degree of influence that the

assessment had on im

plementation of savings opportunities

. Recall that in the Save Energy Now

assessment protocol, not only were potential energy savings identified, but Energy Expert s also trained participants to use the steam and process heating energy assessment software i n their own facilities and

introduced other DOE technica l tools and resources as well. N early 75 % of plants reported that the

assessment encouraged the use of DOE software and other products

.

S lightly more than 90% reported that the assessment played an in fluential or highly influential role in their decisions to implement identified energy savings projects. Only 9 % of assessment participants reported that assessments h ad slight or no infl uence on implementation (Fig

. 2 2 ).

Assessed plants were also asked ab out the culture in their organization s with respect to energy efficiency. Nearly 70 % of assessed plants reported having a written CEO

- or b oard

- approved policy in place that

includes the reductio n of energy consumption (Fig

. 2 3 ).44

Figure 2 1

. 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 play ed an influential or highly

influential role in the ir implementation of energy savings projects.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 al so reviewed 6

- month implementation results by state and three

- digit NAIC industry categories

. Tables 1 7 and 1 8 summarize implementation data for energy cost savings by state and by industry. (Similar data on total energy savings, natural gas savings, and e missions 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.46

Table 17

. Identified energy cost savings opportunities by sta te. Plants in Oregon, Texas and Louisiana top implemented cost savings at the six

- month anniversary of the assessments.47

Table 18 . Distribution of energy cost savings identified and for each category of implementation

. C hemical 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 p ro gress:

energy cost savings, $/yr Planned, u nder

review 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 $18,568,93 9

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 PA PER 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

3 35 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, APPLIANCES, COMPONENTS 1 $517,000 $412,000 $105,000

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

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



### 6. K EY 

### A CCOMPLISHMENTS AND 

### F IND INGS 

### F ROM T HE 

### 2006 S AVE 

### E NERGY 

### N OW 

### A SSESSMENT 

### E FFORTS



### When the Save Energy Now ―call to arms‖ was made by Secretary of Energy Bodman i n October 2005, it

i s unlikely that anyone anticipated the impact that the assessment effort s would have on U.S. industry. The following key accomplishments and findings illustrate the value of the 2006 assessment effort s

.

From October 2005 to December 2006, the DOE Industrial Technology Program mob ilized to

direct and support the Save Energy Now assessment effort and accomp lish the goal of conducting

200 industrial plant assessment s by the end of 2006. T he 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 progr am, 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 assessment s

— sp ecifically

, the aspects of the program that def ined them as ―training assessments.‖

Large industry and the s tates have , and continue to, enthusiastic ally support and value the Save Energy Now assessment efforts. The 2006 assessment s w ere done in 41 states and Puerto Rico for industry plants in 18 U.S. industrial groups. T he 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 assessment s. 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 t he assessment s to U.S. industry and the states

.

No one a nticipated that the average assessment in 2006 would recommend improvements to annually save $2.5 million in energy costs , 247 ,000 MMBtu of natural gas , an d 20,200 metric tons

of plant CO 2 

### emission s

. T hese results are far larger than anticipated

. F ocus in g on large U.S. industrial plants having total energy use greater than 1 trillion Btu per year was a major factor in identify ing large potential savings , as was the focus on steam and process heating. T he capabilities of the Energy Expert s who performed th e 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 assessment s were done in only three day s , they identified potential energy savings that

on aver age equaled about 10% of the assessed plant ’s energy costs

. Considering the assessment s’ tight schedules and training focus, it was encouraging that the average identified potential energy cost savings was about 10% of plant energy bills

. P otential natura l gas savings identified through the 2006

assessment s was even larger , averaging about 17% of plant natural gas usage. Th ese 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 assessment s 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 assessment s completed in 2006, the majority of the i dentified 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 day s

.

Many of the individual steam and process heating assessment recommend ations 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 en ergy costs. Many of the other savings recommendations, in individual plant49



### applications, can also result in substantial energy cost savings. These results suggest the substantial value of implementing the findings from the assessment s.

Based on the six

- mon th follow

- up interviews with 179 assessed plants, about 7 % of the total

number of recommendations for these plants have already been i mplemented, and an additional

6 4 % are either in progress or undergoing additional analysis , indicating the potentia l for t he 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 ton s of reduced CO 2 

### emissions per year. It is likely that one

reason for this high rate of implementation is that most recommendations had estimated paybacks of less

than two years. The follow

- up results at 12 months and 24 months will provide a better pictur e of the level of implementation of the recommendations.

The philosophy and approach for conducting Save Energy Now assessment s

— focusing on “training assessments” rather than audits

— is clearly a succes s

. The results from six

- month follow

ups indicated that 74 % of the participating plants found that the assessment s were useful with respect to encouraging their organizations to adopt DOE software and technical products. Also, over 90% of the plants found that the assessment s played influential to extreme ly 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 the y went. The results from these immediate follow

up calls were overwhel mingly positive . P lant L eads perceived high value in the assessment activities

, further confirming the effectiveness of the Save Energy Now assessment approach

.