Y MATTERS GRE

N

E

We are introducing some editorial changes in this issue of the newsletter. Our

coverage will now include a more comprehensive energy systems approach that

captures the full spectrum of productivity-enhancing energy efficiency

opportunities for industry. As reported in previous issues, in 1998 the U.S.

Department of Energy’s Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) together with

industrial partners initiated two additional Challenge programs: the Compressed

Air ChallengeTM (see March 1998 issue) and the Steam Challenge (see May, July

1998 issues). In upcoming issues, we also will be highlighting the new Combined

Heat and Power Challenge (see CHP Summit on page 5), as well as the longestablished DOE Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) Program. In covering these

activities, this newsletter will continue to emphasize innovative, hands-on

examples of how your peers in industry are improving their operations.

In order to address the newsletter to both our traditional and our new

audiences, we convened an editorial board on October 13 and 14, 1998. The

editorial board comprises industry and program representatives for motor, steam,

and compressed air. (See mast head on page 2 for board members names and

organizations.) During the 2-day meeting, participants discussed the goal of

Turning Point, its strengths and weaknesses, its integration of the OIT Challenge

programs, layout, themes/topics for the next year, and distribution. To reflect our

expanded focus, we considered several new names for the newsletter and have

decided to rename it Energy Matters to better represent the resources available

through the OIT Industries of the Future partnerships that offer a variety of

technical assistance to industry.

Another important task of the editorial board was to develop an editorial

calendar for the year—Turn the page for your copy of the 1999/2000 Editorial

Calendar. Please note that in March and May we will be running supplements on

compressed air and steam in addition to our regular feature. News and technical

information on all five programs will be in each issue. Future special supplements

on Combined Heat and Power and IAC will be added.

Let us know if you would be interested in submitting an article related to any of

the editorial features. Send suggestions to:

Notice to Readers

Julia Oliver

Communications Manager

U.S. DOE

(510) 637-1952 phone

(510) 637-2017 fax

julia.oliver@oak.doe.gov 

or... 

Erika Ericksen

Energy Matters Editor

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

(303) 275-3914 phone

(303) 275-3619 fax

erika_ericksen@nrel.gov

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NIT ED STAT S OF A ERICA

M

An Office of Industrial Technologies 

Bimonthly Publication Focusing on

Energy Efficiency Opportunities for Today

www.oit.doe.gov

Formerly Turning Point
MATTERS 

1999-2000 Editorial Calendar

MayEditorial Feature: Motor, Steam, Compressed AirSystems Management

Topics: Overview article; end user/supplier article; initial purchase specs; repair/

replace; dollars justified to purchase anenergy-efficient motor; repair specs; datamanagement; planned upgrades.Supplement: Steam SystemsArticle deadline: 3/23/99January 2000Editorial Feature: Reliability Based Maintenance(RBM) Topics: Introduction and definition of terminology; methodology; 20%/80% rule;when to apply; routine maintenanceschedules (trending); case treatment.Article deadline: 11/19/99

JulyEditorial Feature: Selling an Energy-Efficient Project to Management

Topics: Real-life example of sale; how totalk about real-time money; “how to sell”

checklist.Article deadline: 5/21/99MarchEditorial Feature: ASD TechnologiesTopics: Motor/pump/drive relationship;repairing motors to be operated withASDs; when to use; when not to use; picking pumps (fixed vs. variable).Article deadline: 1/21/00

March 1999Editorial Feature: Utility Financing and ServicesTopics: Site audits and recommendations;

financing options; motor/compressors/HVAC consultations; power quality; preferred providers; third party providers;

real-time energy accounting.Supplement: Compressed Air Systems

Article deadline: 1/29/99

NovemberEditorial Feature: New/Applied TechnologiesTopics: What are the new technologies tohelp save energy; applied technologies;burner management; vendor/end userstory.Article deadline: 9/22/99

vices;

n

rfac

t

motor

elp

team

E

gov 

gov
Y MATTERS GRE

N

E

IN THIS ISSUE

GM Seizes Opportunity to Improve 

System Efficiency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Order Your Copy Now. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Will Electric Power Reliability Change 

with Restructuring? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Energy and the Pulp and Paper 

Industry—How Will Electric Utility 

Deregulation Affect You? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

December Summit Produces Goal 

to Double Combined Heat and 

Power Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Optimizing Your Energy Costs in a 

Deregulated Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Northeast Premium Efficiency 

Motor Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Motor Challenge Partner McBroom Electric

Helps Customer Save Energy and Money. . . 9 

Root Cause Failure Analysis On 

AC Induction Motors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Compressed Air ChallengeTM Announces 

First Wave of One-Day Training Sessions . . . 11

Steam Challenge: Improve Your Boilers

and Steam Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Pump Sourcebook Can Help You 

Improve Your Pump Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Learn from Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Coming Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

As the world’s largest automobile

manufacturer, General Motors (GM)

accounts for almost 33% of cars

and light trucks sold in the United

States. But even that doesn’t stop

them from looking for ways to

improve system efficiency. When it

came time to relocate the water

booster pumping system, GM

designed and built a more energyefficient one in its Pontiac Operations

Complex, cutting energy consumption by

over 80% (225,100 kWh per year) and saving over $11,000 annually. With a capital

investment of $44,966 in the energy efficiency portion of the system, this translated

to a payback period of 4.0 years.

GM took advantage of an opportunity to

save money and energy when renovations

to its Pontiac Complex required the relocation of the facility’s city water booster 

(continued on page 2)

GM Seizes Opportunity to Improve System Efficiency and 

Save Energy and Money

Order Your Copy Now

Don’t forget to order your copy of the

United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities Assessment by

calling (800) 862-2086. The report details

motor-driven system use in the industrial

sector. You can find out

what the key motor system

energy saving opportunities are in your industry.

And, you can use the

report to benchmark

your current motor system purchase and management procedures

against concepts of best

practice. The report

contains valuable facts

such as:

■ Improvements to

the major fluid systems (pumps, fans

and compressors) represent 62% of

potential savings.

■ Typical savings for an industrial facility

are around $90,000 per year; for paper

mills, petroleum refineries, and inorganic chemical plants (the three highest

motor system energy consuming industry groups) the annual savings are

$659,000, $946,000, and $283,000,

respectively.

■ Potential industrial motor system energy

savings using mature, proven, costeffective technologies equal roughly 

11% of current 

annual usage or 75 

billion kWh per year.

■ Motor systems used 

only for production 

processes consumed 

23% of all electricity 

sold in the United 

States.

■ And much more.

You may order either the

Executive Summary or the

entire report from the Clear-inghouse at

(800) 862-2086.

You can also access the Web site at

www.motor.doe.gov/mcnew.htm for the

Executive Summary and Sections 1-4 of 

the report.

GM’s Pontiac Complex

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NIT ED STAT S OF A ERICA

M

An Office of Industrial Technologies 

Bimonthly Publication Focusing on

Energy Efficiency Opportunities for Today

www.oit.doe.gov

Formerly Turning Point • January 1999
ENERGY MATTERS

(formerlyTurning Point) is 

published bimonthly by the U.S.

Department of Energy’s (DOE)

Office of Industrial Technologies. 

Information contained in the

newsletter can be reproduced

without permission provided due

acknowledgement is given (the

U.S. Department of Energy’s

Energy Matters newsletter) and a

copy of the publication is 

supplied to the editor.

■

EDITORIAL BOARD

Bob Asdal, Hydraulic Institute

Floyd Barwig, Iowa Energy 

Center, representing Compressed

Air Challenge

Rob Boteler, representing

National Electrical Manufacturers

Association

Lynda Butek, representing 

Electrical Apparatus and Service

Association

Don Casada, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory

Steve Darby, Darby Electric

Anthony Galdi, Johnson & 

Johnson

Glenn Hahn, Spirax Sarco

Fred Hart, U.S. DOE, Steam 

Challenge

Kim Holshouser, U.S. Electrical

Motors

Roy Jones, representing

Compressed Air and Gas Institute

John Machelor, Macro 

International

Rick Payton, Rockwell 

Automation/Reliance Electric

Bill Stafford, Technical 

Association of the Pulp and Paper

Industry

Howard Snyder, Weirton Steel

Chuck Whelan, DuPont

■

COMMENTS? 

Contact: 

Julia Oliver, DOE, at 

(510) 637-1952, or e-mail

julia.oliver@oak.doe.gov

Erika Ericksen, 

Energy Matters Editor, at 

(303) 275-3914, or e-mail 

erika_ericksen@nrel.gov

1617 Cole Blvd., MS 1713

Golden, CO 80401

2 Energy Matters, January 1999

GM Improves System Efficiency

continued from page 1

pumping system. Partnering with Detroit

Edison on this Motor Challenge Showcase

Demonstration project, GM replaced the

original system’s five 60- to 100-hp pumps

with three 15-hp pumps whose speed

could be adjusted to meet plant requirements. Detroit Edison evaluated cost-savings opportunities by monitoring electricity

consumption prior to system upgrades and

again after the project was completed. In

addition to Detroit Edison’s help, U.S. Electrical Motors supplied the motors to drive

the pumps. In particular, a new switch

reluctance prototype motor design was

installed on one of

the pumps.

As the water

demands of the

plant decreased

over time, the original system only

used a single 100-

hp pump and even

it was oversized.

The pump operated

continuously, even

during plant shutdowns. The team

felt GM could

achieve significant

savings by closely

matching the

installed pumping

capacity to the

actual demand for

water. Also, eliminating the holding

tanks used in the previous system and tying

the pumping system directly to the city

water enabled the system to take advantage of the available city water main pressure. And instead of using a recirculating

flow line to modulate the flow to the plant,

the project team decided to vary the motor

speed to match the pumping requirements

to the flow demand. Two of the pump

motors used 

VFDs and the third a switched reluctance

unit. This pump-speed modulation provided additional operating cost savings

through improved flow control. Finally,

with the new city water pumping system

located one-half mile closer to the facility’s

primary water demand location, pipe friction head loss was decreased. 

The use of three smaller pumps provided another performance improvement

over one large pump. During any 24-hour

period, a single pump operated as the lead

pump with the other two serving as backups in case additional pumping was

required or the lead pump failed. Every 24

hours, a different pump was designated as 

the lead pump, so

each pump had

equal running

time. This set up

improved system

reliability and 

flexibility, allowing

one pump to be

isolated from the

system for maintenance or repairs

while the others

served the 

complex.

The GM project

shows how companies can capture

opportunities to

improve system

performance and

achieve the corresponding benefits.

The technologies

used in this project are not unique; VFDs

can be applied to many pumping systems.

Their high operating efficiencies and ability to match flow energy to system requirements can result in substantial cost savings. 

Water Booster Pumping System
Energy Matters, January 1999 3

Will Electric Power Reliability Change with Restructuring?

By John Kueck, Manager of Electric

Machinery Center, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN

Restructuring of the United States’ electric

utility industry is progressing at different

speeds across the country. After restructuring has been completed in an area, control

of the grid becomes the responsibility of

the Independent System Operator (ISO). In

California, an ISO is controlling the power

flow for the entire state, and a Power

Exchange has been established that is providing the mechanism for commercial

power transactions in the state. In Alabama,

Georgia, and Tennessee, restructuring is

only in the discussion stages. This disparity

possibly may be attributed to customers in

these southern states not having the same

level of concern with their electric rates as

customers in California, the Northeast, and

central Midwest.

Will the trend to restructuring or this

difference in the rate of restructuring result

in any impact on reliability? In theory,

restructuring should actually improve the

reliability of the bulk power system

because control of the grid will be performed much more rigorously and over a

wider area. The ISOs use state-of-the-art

computer systems to monitor and continuously analyze the health of the grid. In

general, the areas of the country where

restructuring has not taken place are typically controlled by central control areas.

These function in much the same way as

an ISO, but over a smaller area, with commercial ties to generation, and not always

with the same degree of rigor. 

There is an interesting issue, however,

that is developing in parallel with restructuring. In a restructured system, electrical

reserves are supplied by separate commercial entities, whereas, in the past, the generation suppliers had enough reserves to

serve the needs of the area. Many utilities

are no longer building large scale generating capacity because of a number of constraints—inability to find suitable sites,

environmental concerns, and uncertainty

over the future of a deregulated industry. In

addition, some of the larger generating stations around the country have been out of

service for modifications or other reasons.

But, in theory, this should not be a problem

because regulations require that a certain

amount of reserve generating capacity

always be maintained.

In areas that are controlled by ISOs,

reserve generation is

now purchased as a service instead of just being

supplied by the utility as

part of doing business.

Independent providers

are setting up shop just

to provide this type of

service. Occurrences in

Illinois and California

last summer showed

that, when needed, this

reserve generation will

be purchased regardless

of the price. These two occurrences last

summer happened when reserve generating capacity was needed for reliable operation of the grid, but there were very few

suppliers on the market. Those suppliers

who had generating capacity essentially

had a corner on the market for a short time

and demanded extremely high prices for

their service. They were paid, and the margin was maintained, but there has been

some concern about the level of reserve

margin available in some regions.

What’s the Risk?

One area where more frequent interruptions may likely occur is for customers

who have reduced their electric rates by

using the special interruptible load rate.

This special rate is for customers that have

a manufacturing or agricultural process

that can be interrupted occasionally with

no significant economic impact, and who

want to have lower rates in return for having their power interrupted occasionally.

These customers, in the new deregulated

scheme of things, may be looked on as

reserve margin. In the past, this type of customer was rarely dropped because even

though he was interruptible, he was still a

ratepayer. The new philosophy of reliable

grid operation is to maintain the security of

the transmission system (the backbone) of

the grid at all times, and, if needed, to cut

load to accomplish this. The first loads to

be cut, in the event of a disturbance, are

going to be the interruptible loads. 

During the June 27, 1998, California

heat wave that resulted in malfunctions at

several generating stations, the ISO called

for dropping the interruptible load to ensure

that the margin of generating reserve was maintained. Exactly how

much this service interruption is used in a

deregulated market is, in

the long term, going to

depend on market

forces. However, as the

market becomes

“leaner,” customers who

opt for interruptible service may want to consider that interruption, as a method for ensuring reserve

margin, may be on the increase. 

What’s the Opportunity?

In fact, with restructuring, there may be

possibilities for large electricity consumers

to become a player on the new markets.

Customers with large amounts of load that

could be scheduled a day in advance may

be able to take advantage of restructuring

to schedule their load usage so they could

contract for these large load blocks to be

turned off if needed. They may then be

able to sell these blocks to the system as

reserve rather than using the traditional

interruptible rates. 

Note: For those interested in finding out

more on the California ISO, check out the

Web site at http://oasis.caiso.com/.

Send comments or questions to the author

at Ku5@ornl.gov.

TERMINOLOGY

Spinning Reserves—unloaded generation, which is synchronized and ready to

serve additional demand.

Non-Spinning Reserves—operating

reserve that is not connected to the system, but capable of serving demand

within a specific time.
4 Energy Matters, January 1999

Energy and the Pulp and Paper Industry—How Will Electric Utility Deregulation Affect You?

by Christine Greenberg

Originally published in TAPPI JOURNAL,

Vol. 81, No. 3

Another evolution in American industry is

taking place and it involves our source of

power. Deregulation of the existing electric

utility industry is coming quickly and will

have a major impact on all industry manufacturers. How will this deregulation take

place? What effect will it have on electricity prices and reliability? How can the pulp

and paper industry take advantage of it?

The coming evolution has the potential to

lead to a new cycle of prosperity and

growth. The following examination of the

market forces driving this evolution suggests that we may be able to take advantage of the coming changes to generate

increased value.

Energy in the Pulp and Paper Industry

So what is happening in the pulp and

paper industry? Energy is certainly a key

component, comprising 15-30% of product cost. Clearly, the procurement and use

of energy need to be effectively managed

to minimize the impact on the product’s

profit margin. Energy is also a product, as

by-products of the manufacturing process

serve as raw materials for energy production (e.g., biomass, hog fuel, and black

liquor). Although energy production and

use are core to the manufacturing process,

energy strategies need to be constructed

around the core business of pulp and

paper manufacturing. 

Energy has traditionally been procured

only through the available channels: make

it or buy it from your local utility provider.

There are huge regional variations in delivered energy cost. This places regional margin pressures on pulp and paper producers

and complicates the “make it or buy it”

decision-making process. Negotiations

with local utilities have been sporadic and

opportunistic, and the utilities have been

both cooperative and antagonistic in their

responses. 

The pulp and paper industry needs better than 90% uptime to break even, and

any reliability issues introduced by energy

production or supply could have severe

consequences. The industry is using a

greater degree of computer-based control

products, and the definition of electric supply reliability is changing from minutes per

outage to number of cycles per outage.

Greater pressures exist for uninterruptible

supply.

Capital effectiveness is appropriately

the current hot term in the industry. The

industry-wide return on capital lags behind

the chemical and allied products industry

average by all measures. Energy assets consume 20-30% of capital spending in the

industry and comprise a significant portion

of the existing asset base. The fleet is

aging; environmental pressures loom. The

need for significant investment in infrastructure improvements and replacement

takes necessary and increasingly scarce

capital away from the core pulpmaking

and papermaking processes.

Environmental pressures on the pulp

and paper industry are a way of life. The

industry has done well to promote the

stewardship of its vital forest, water, and air

assets. The very renewable nature of wood

products may help extend their product life

cycles. Similarly, energy produced with

renewable resources, such as trees and

hydroelectric power, may command a premium in the future electric marketplace. In

the interim, however, licensing for hydroelectric plants is becoming prohibitively

cumbersome, and proposed restrictions on

particulate emissions may greatly restrict

the use of wood-fired boilers.

Convergence: What can the Electric

Industry Provide that the Pulp And Paper

Industry Needs?

To take full advantage of the changes,

the pulp and paper consumer needs 

something different. He needs innovative

products that are specifically designed for

each consumer. The new products and services will need to fill a unique niche at

each unique mill site and must be capable

of responding to those differences. For

example, an electric supply contract with

100% firm delivery may be required at one

mill, while a mill with on-site generation

may only need a portion of its energy contract to be firm. Similarly, in a mill that

runs several grades, a fixed monthly energy

price, regardless of use, may allow a more

favorable product cost allocation, whereas

a mill running only one grade may want a

pay-as-you-use type of contract. 

The companies that deliver the new

products and services need to continue to

push the envelope of innovation in discovering the optimal solution. They also need

to acknowledge the immense knowledge

base that already resides in the pulp and

paper industry, and tap into that resource

to ensure practical and workable solutions.

New providers need to be responsive, flexible, and forthright. 

New channels of delivery will need to

be developed. The traditional methods of

supply contracts, capital upgrades, and

project financing need to evolve. For

example, a mill may be limited in production due to its steam production capability.

The mill could fill this need with a capital

investment in a boiler upgrade through traditional vendors. Another option is for the

mill to turn to an energy services provider,

who will sell it steam at the point of use. A

mill with multiple fuel capabilities may

continue to purchase fuels from several

vendors, or it may turn to a financial institution to provide a fixed cost/Btu “price

hedge,” leaving the risk manager with the

responsibility to negotiate the appropriate

fuel supply contracts. 

The disaggregated electric utility industry, together with the pulp and paper industry, needs to consider “virtual” vertical

integration. Perhaps the cogeneration units

at the mill become the”GENCO” for the

local distribution company to serve the

local community. Or, the pulp mill may

become the fuel supplier to the GENCO,

which in turn supplies power to the converting facility. The notion of “energy is 

(continued on page 5)
Energy Matters, January 1999 5

continued from page 4

energy’ needs to be fully exploited, with

novel tolling arrangements and buy/sell,

point-of-use, and other contracts being

developed.

Pulp and paper companies and energy

companies need to migrate from provider

(traditional contractual) relationships to

partner relationships. The limited scope of

supply and proprietary nature of traditional

relationships need to be replaced with flexible arrangements with full-service suppliers,

who are prepared to capitalize on shared

skills and technologies, and focused on filling the need instead of the requirement.

New relationships should be performance

based, where both partners will derive

benefits from improved performance.

Conclusion

Potential opportunities resulting from

the deregulation of the electric utility industry abound. The pulp and paper industry is

an important energy consumer and needs

to leverage its position to influence the evolution of the deregulated energy marketplace. The electric utility industry needs to

be prepared to respond with innovative

products and services, delivered in a nontraditional manner through nontraditional

channels. Each industry needs to closely

examine the competencies that are resident

in the other. Both need to work together to

forge solutions that will propel them into

future profitability. 

UNDERSTANDING DEREGULATION (Originally published in TAPPI JOURNAL, Vol. 81, No. 3)

Pulp and paper companies have traditionally been vertically integrated. They owned the

forest, the equipment to harvest the trees, the woodyard, the pulp mill, the paper mill, the

converting facilities, and even some distribution and merchant companies. Recently, the

industry has begun to disaggregate into discrete operations, allowing companies to focus on

specific markets and manufacturing processes with the hope of leading to higher profitability. Meanwhile, regulatory and legislative initiatives are being promulgated to encourage a

similar disaggregation of the vertically integrated electric utility industry into a group of

GENCOs (generating companies to make power), TRASCOs (transmission companies to

move power), and DISCOs (distribution companies to deliver power).

The move toward less regulation started in 1992 when the Energy Policy Act enabled

wholesale trading of electricity. An active market has developed, with most of the trading

occurring between regulated investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities, and rural electric

co-ops. In 1996, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) enacted new rules,

Orders 888 and 889, which provide “open access” to transmission systems. These orders

are intended to enable additional parties to have access to the wholesale electric market

and to the “captive” transmission assets owned by the electric utility industry. Independent

power producers, merchant plants, and other qualifying GENCOs are now guaranteed

equal access to transmission assets.

Independent systems operators (ISOs) have been established to ensure fairness in access

to transmission assets. These ISOs—or in some areas, a power exchange or pool—will be

responsible for dispatching generating assets on an economic basis, thus ensuring that all

generators bidding into the market enjoy an equal opportunity to participate. 

Deregulation of the retail electric market is taking place substantially at the state level,

although two national initiatives have been proposed. As of August 1997, 16 states have

passed or are actively considering retail open access, with implementation time lines ranging from 1998 to 2000. The definition of retail open access varies from state to state, but

there are some important similarities: 

■ Utilities will “unbundle” their rates into basic components of generation, 

transmission, and distribution. 

■ Customers will be permitted to choose their generation supplier.

■ Existing utilities will be compensated for their “stranded” assets.

■ Regulated utilities will maintain distribution rights for their franchise territories 

(a local distribution company, or LDC). 

■ A default generation provider will be designated and will have an obligation to serve.

December Summit Produces Goal to Double Combined Heat and Power Systems

A recent summit, held December 1, 1998,

in Arlington, Virginia, resulted in strong

support from governmental, nongovernmental, international, and industry representatives for increasing the deployment of

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems.

Nearly 200 attendees recognized CHP, also

known as cogeneration, as a way to

improve local economic development

while reducing the environmental risks

from burning fossil fuels. Conference Chair

Dan Reicher, Assistant Secretary for Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy at DOE,

challenged the United States to double the

CHP deployed in the country by 2010 to

46 GW—equivalent to eliminating 40 million cars from U.S. roadways. 

Reicher also hailed the formation of the

U.S. CHP Association, comprised of energy

consumers, system owners, equipment

manufacturers and environmental groups.

(Access www.nemw.org\uschpa for more

information on this association.) Acting

chair of the association, Peter Carroll,

responded with a similar challenge to

increase the electric generation efficiency

to 65%—more than double the current

U.S. efficiency, but close to the Danish efficiency of 60%. David Doniger, counsel to

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

administrator for Air and Radiation, echoed

Reicher’s praise for CHP as an emissions

reduction strategy and EPA’s Paul Stolpman

promised to consider CHP as a possible

Energy Star Building Technology. DOE’s

new CHP Challenge program will work to

eliminate barriers that discourage adoption

of CHP technologies and systems. Further

information on the CHP Challenge is available at www.oit.doe.gov.
6 Energy Matters, January 1999

Performance 

Optimization Tips

Optimizing Your 

Energy Costs in a 

Deregulated Environment

By Don Casada,

Motor Challenge

Program, Oak Ridge

National Laboratory

Here in the United

States, we have

become accustomed

to electricity always being available—

when we want it and however much of it

we want. Our level of dependence has, in

the course of less than a century, transformed electricity from the domain of luxury to necessity. 

The provision by utilities of reserve

margin to accommodate changing load

requirements and potential generation loss

has been a fundamental part of the electrical infrastructure. And, generally speaking,

the electric utility industry has done a fantastic job of meeting our demands. But,

there has been an associated cost. We pay

for the cost of building the reserve and we

pay for the cost of maintaining some of it

as standby capacity. Historically, these

costs, though real, have often been transparent by virtue of being embedded in the

overall rate structure.

As the country moves toward restructuring, these types of costs will become less

transparent, particularly for larger users.

There will be more rate structures available, and in many cases, the rates will

more directly reflect cost components. One

of these manifestations will be time of day

rates (or even real-time pricing), a structure

that is already being used by some industrial customers. These rates inherently

reflect the time dependent cost of production of the electrical provider. An example

marginal cost of electrical production1 for

two regional groups during a spring and

summer week in 1997 is shown in Figures

1 and 2. The marginal cost reflects the

incremental cost of energy production at

the particular point in time. Note that even

in the April time frame, when the cost variation is less than half that for July, there are

considerable daily swings.

It is important to note

that the actual prices

paid by end users may

vary considerably more

than this, particularly at

the high end, since the

marginal cost does not

reflect embedded capital costs. 

The Atlanta-Fulton

County Water Treatment

facility in Alpharetta,

Georgia, is already on a

rate schedule that

approaches real-time

pricing, and the plant is

making operational and

design changes to

reduce costs under this

new environment. Each

day, the local electric

utility, Georgia Power,

provides the water plant

with hour-by-hour cost

rates for the following

day. The water treatment

plant responds to the

price schedule by doing

most or all of the pumping of raw water from

the river to a pre-treatment storage reservoir during low cost

hours. Three 1000-hp, 30 million gallonper-day (MGD) pumps are used for this service, so the loads involved are quite large.

According to General Manager Michael

Leonard, the plant is recommending more

than doubling the raw water reservoir

capacity to over one billion gallons, providing more than ten days capacity in storage. 

Any form of energy conversion, including kinetic to potential and vice-versa,

involves inefficiency. Storage of energy for

subsequent use thus inherently involves

losses during both the storing and recovery

processes. In the case of pumping systems,

the principal loss source is friction in the

system. For example, if the flow rate is

doubled, the energy losses attributable to

friction are quadrupled.2 So if a user simply

switches from pumping at a constant flow

rate across the course of the day to a

scheme where all the pumping is done in

half the time at a reduced energy cost rate,

the waste frictional energy will increase,

even though the energy cost may be lower. 

But if the user is really smart, the system

can also be modified to minimize the negative energy effects of the greater pumping

rate and reduce costs even further. For

example, in conjunction with the efforts of

Atlanta-Fulton County to add more raw

water storage capacity, they plan to add a

54-inch pipe (to supplement the existing

54-inch line), thereby doubling the pipe

area between the river pumps and the storage reservoir. There is about 7000 feet

between the river pumps and the storage

reservoir, and since frictional losses are

proportional to the length of pipe, close

attention to friction is important. Figures 3

and 4 illustrate the frictional head loss and

the attendant electrical power requirements just to overcome the pipe friction,

assuming clean pipe and 80% wire-towater efficiency. At a flow rate of 90 MGD,

doubled pipe area reduces the frictional

power by more than 260 kWe. Thus, the

increased pipe area essentially offsets the 

(continued on page 7)

¢/kWhr

Date

4/13 4/14 4/15 4/20 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19

PJM

Southern

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Figure 1. Marginal costs, one week in April 1997 ¢/kWhr

Date

7/13 7/14 7/15 7/20 7/16 7/17 7/18 7/19

PJM

Southern

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Figure 2. Marginal costs, one week in July 1997

(Note the difference in y-axis scaling for the two figures)
Energy Matters, January 1999 7

continued from page 6

frictional losses that would have otherwise

accompanied the higher flow rate operation, making this an energy-neutral change.

A side benefit of minimizing frictional

losses is that it makes the head against

which the pumps operate less variable

with the number of operating pumps,

allowing them to be more precisely

matched to the system.

According to Gary Dodd, Operations

Supervisor at the treatment plant, Fulton

County has also increased the diameter of

the piping in their distribution system,

allowing the station to operate at lower

discharge header pressure while improving

pressure at the far end of the system.

Although there is limited storage capacity

in the distribution system, the reduced

operating pressure at the plant has also significantly reduced on-peak costs, since

water demand peaks often are coincident

with electrical cost peaks. 

The point of this discussion is that in a

restructured electric market, the end users

who are most flexible in their ability to

adjust electrical consumption patterns will

be those who profit most. One way of

increasing flexibility is to transfer some of

the responsibility for reserve capacity from

the electric utility grid to

the end user. That

capacity can take on the

form of stored energy,

stored product, or an

alternative or auxiliary

power supply. In the

case of the water treatment plant, both product (albeit an unfinished

product) and energy are

stored in the reservoir.

And if it is done in a

thorough, systematic

fashion, both energy and

energy costs can be

reduced.

There can be tremendous cost savings opportunities associated with

taking on the responsibility of providing the

energy and/or product

storage capability. Using

off-peak hours is clearly

a dominant part of that

opportunity. But another

possibility is to effectively act as virtual 

reserve electrical capacity—i.e., it isn’t real

capacity, but if it is made available to be

shed from the grid, even for relatively short

periods, it could have the same effect as

putting more generation into service. In the

evolving grid control structure, such a

capability could well become a sellable

commodity. Storage also inherently promotes service availability, helping users to

withstand external events such as loss of

power and internal problems (such as

pump failure).

Those who are preparing for electrical

restructuring, like the employees at the

treatment facility in Atlanta, will be best

equipped to respond to the changing market, and may in fact help influence the

restructured environment. It is likewise

clear that for those who don’t prepare, the

times may be very lean.

Send comments to A85@ornl.gov; (423)

576-4271 phone; or (423) 576-0493 fax.

Acknowledgements

The author appreciates the information provided by

Michael Leonard, Gary Dodd, and Waymon Jones

of the Atlanta/Fulton County Water Treatment Plant,

Steve Bolles of Woodard & Curran, and Brendan

Kirby and John Kueck of ORNL.

1

Source: Resource Data International

(http://www.resdata.com) POWERdat Information

System.

2

Frictional power increases by a factor of eight

when the flow rate is doubled (and nothing else is

changed), but if the goal is to move a given volume

of fluid, the pumps would only run half as much if

the flow rate were doubled, and thus the frictional

energy is only four times that for the lower flow rate.

SOME AREAS TO CONSIDER IN PREPARING FOR DEREGULATION:

■ Review the facility electrical loads, and identify those loads that can tolerate electrical

service interruption, classifying them by the length of acceptable interruption. This list

will help not only identify loads that you can currently afford to turn off, but may also

help in recognizing areas where improvements could be made.

■ Inquire with your electrical service provider about alternative rate schedules, such as realtime pricing. You can use this information to not only optimize your current electrical costs

but to help clarify the cost-effectiveness of on-site solutions, such as those identified below.

■ Provide more storage capacity for the product if the product turnover time period is short

(such as in a water treatment system).

■ Store energy that can be used in lieu of active energy from the grid (in the case of liquid

in elevated storage, the product of the mass and elevation of the liquid represents stored

energy).

■ Minimize friction losses in pumping systems to support high fluid transfer rates during

off-peak hours. This may mean increasing pipe sizes or providing parallel pipe sections.

■ Consider alternative energy sources for short duration use. On-site power sources can

provide not only emergency power, but can be used during periods when grid power is

particularly high.

0

25

20

15

10

5

Frictional head loss, ft

Flow rate, MGD

0 20 100 40 60 80

Single 54-inch pipe

Two 54-inch pipes

Figure 3. Frictional head loss, 7000 feet of clean pipe

0

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Frictional head loss, ft

Flow rate, MGD

0 20 100 40 60 80

Single 54-inch pipe

Two 54-inch pipes

Figure 4. Electrical power required to overcome frictional head loss,

assuming 80% wire-to-water efficiency
8 Energy Matters, January 1999

The Northeast Premium Efficiency Motor

Initiative hit full-scale implementation last

June. The Initiative is a combined effort of

23 electric utilities in Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New

Jersey. Its goal is to increase the availability, sale, and purchase of “Initiative Qualifying” 3-phase electric motors so they

become the “products of choice” for end

users when purchasing decisions are made.

The Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) was integral in designing the

Initiative. Initiative planning included

aligning the Initiative with the Motor Challenge Program and utilizing the program

specifications outlined by the Consortium

for Energy Efficiency (CEE). Through a

competitive bidding process, the utilities

selected Applied Proactive Technologies,

Inc. (APT) of Springfield, Massachusetts, to

deliver the Initiative to the field.

Motor Challenge provided the Initiative

and utility personnel with training on

MotorMaster+ software and the availability

of other resources through the program.

Upon motor failure, customers can

either repair or replace their motor. They

can (1) rewind the failed motor, (2) buy an

EPAct efficient motor, or (3) purchase a

premium efficiency motor that meets the

CEE levels, which are somewhat higher

than efficiency levels set by EPAct.

The Northeast Premium Efficiency

Motor Initiative provides financial incentives to customers to cover a portion up to

the full “incremental cost difference”

between an EPAct motor and an “Initiative

Qualifying Motor.” (See table.) Motors

included in the initiative are NEMA design

A and B, electric, 3-phase, Open Drip

Proof (ODP) and Totally Enclosed Fan

Cooled (TEFC) 1200, 1800, and 3600-rpm

motors between 1-200 horsepower, which

meet the CEE efficiency levels. The largest

savings for the customer are in purchasing

and properly applying the most energy-efficient motor. The incentives provided by the

Initiative make it an even easier decision.

Initiative participants receive comprehensive training, which includes Point-ofPurchase materials such as brochures and

display stands; an efficient motor selection

guidebook pamphlet; a slide presentation;

Initiative logos for advertising slicks; 

Rolodex cards; qualifying motors per manufacturer quick-reference-cards; and DOE

materials. They also receive training on

how to sell energy efficiency to customers.

As a value-added service and to assist

in the identification and selection of qualifying motors, the Initiative provides participating distributors with a copy of

MotorMaster+ software. The software

enables distributors to provide customers

with a print out of the estimated energy

and dollar savings. With the Initiative’s

incentive included in the calculation and

the first cost reduced or eliminated, it is

easy for customers to see the benefits associated with purchasing the more energyefficient Initiative Qualifying motor.

Distributors also make the software available to their customers.

The Initiative has targeted, and is

actively enlisting, the participation of over

350 motors distributors within the service

territories of the participating utility companies. Close to 1,500 of the distributors’

staff have been trained on the Initiative’s

policies as well as on MotorMaster+.

How does the end user benefit?

The real winners are the customers or the

end users of the motors and the environment. The customers receive:

■ The cash incentive that results in a payback that can be immediate for motors

under 50 hp to 3 years for the larger

motors.

■ Reduced costs on the “2nd price tag”

(the energy cost of operating the motor

over the years), which can be thousands

of dollars in electricity per motor.

■ Increased reliability from a motor that

runs cooler.

■ Extended manufacturers’ warranties.

■ Better constructed motors.

■ The avoided cost benefits from

unplanned downtime and production

losses.

■ Increased competitiveness by lowering

operating costs.

■ Access to MotorMaster+ 3.0 software.

Utility representatives and Initiative personnel will assist customers with completing

the paperwork. To date, over 700 rebateshave been paid totaling over $50,000.

The Initiative expects to provide incentives

to the tune of $700,000 for 1999.

Here’s an example of the savings you,

as a customer, can expect: You purchase

an EPAct efficient (93%), 40-hp, 1800 rpm,

TEFC motor for $2200, which would obligate you to buy $17,948 in energy a year

(8740 hrs/year, $0.08/kWh, 80% load). You

would need to spend $500 more to purchase the most efficient motor (94.6%) for

the job, but that motor would save you

over $300 a year in energy costs or $3000

over the motor’s life.

(continued on page 9)

The Northeast Premium Efficiency Motor Initiative

Open Drip-Proof (ODP)

Premium Efficiency Motor Incentives

NEMA Nominal Efficiency Customer

Size Speed (RPM) Incentive

HP 1200 1800 3600 ($/Motor)

1 82.5% 85.5% 80.0% $36

1.5 86.5% 86.5% 85.5% $36

2 87.5% 86.5% 86.5% $36

3 89.5% 89.5% 86.5% $41

5 89.5% 89.5% 89.5% $50

7.5 91.7% 91.0% 89.5% $59

10 91.7% 91.7% 90.2% $68

15 92.4% 93.0% 91.0% $81

20 92.4% 93.0% 92.4% $90

25 93.0% 93.6% 93.0% $117

30 93.6% 94.1% 93.0% $135

40 94.1% 94.1% 93.6% $162

50 94.1% 94.5% 93.6% $198

60 95.0% 95.0% 94.1% $234

75 95.0% 95.0% 94.5% $270

100 95.0% 95.4% 94.5% $360

125 95.4% 95.4% 95.0% $540

150 95.8% 95.8% 95.4% $630

200 95.4% 95.8% 95.4% $630

Totally Enclosed Fan-Cooled (TEFC)

Premium Efficiency Motor Incentives

NEMA Nominal Efficiency Customer

Size Speed (RPM) Incentive

HP 1200 1800 3600 ($/Motor)

1 82.5% 85.5% 78.5% $40

1.5 87.5% 86.5% 85.5% $40

2 88.5% 86.5% 86.5% $40

3 89.5% 89.5% 88.5% $45

5 89.5% 89.5% 89.5% $55

7.5 91.7% 91.7% 91.0% $65

10 91.7% 91.7% 91.7% $75

15 92.4% 92.4% 91.7% $90

20 92.4% 93.0% 92.4% $100

25 93.0% 93.6% 93.0% $130

30 93.6% 93.6% 93.0% $150

40 94.1% 94.1% 93.6% $180

50 94.1% 94.5% 94.1% $220

60 94.5% 95.0% 94.1% $260

75 95.0% 95.4% 94.5% $300

100 95.4% 95.4% 95.0% $400

125 95.4% 95.4% 95.4% $600

150 95.8% 95.8% 95.4% $700

200 95.8% 96.2% 95.8% $700
Energy Matters, January 1999 9

continued from page 8

With the initiative’s cash incentive of

$180, it would cost only $320 more to

purchase the qualifying premium efficient

motor over the EPAct one. With annual

savings of $300 a month, that is a payback

of 1.06 years.

Choosing the option of rewinding a 40-

hp standard efficient motor (88.4%) would

cost you $880 on average. However,

rewinding would result in a 2% efficiency

loss and would cost you approximately

$18, 887 in annual energy costs—$1239

more than if you went with the qualifying

premium efficient motor and $939 more

than with an EPAct model. Choosing the

most efficient motor for the job over

rewinding would result in a 1.3 year 

payback.

As this example shows, you will benefit

the most by purchasing a qualifying premium efficient motor over an EPAct motor

and rewinding. However, to achieve the

greatest savings, you must properly install

and apply the motor within your specific

system—especially for centrifugal fluid system loads (e.g., pumps and fans). MotorMaster+ can help you evaluate these

specific applications. 

Not only does the customer benefit

from purchasing the most efficient motor,

but the environment benefits from the

reduced carbon emissions that are displaced from the generating plants burning

less fossil fuel (coal and oil) to produce the

energy. In addition, this reduces the need

to build new power plants.

For the Northeast Region, if all the

motors sold represented a 2% efficiency

increase over EPAct, then the region could

save 36 GWh per year and millions of

pounds of carbon emissions. 

According to Ipsita Ganguili, Program

Administrator for the Initiative, “working

with Motor Challenge has been a tremendous resource for the Initiative. The distributors view the software, the case studies,

and the demonstration studies as useful

sales tools and the Clearinghouse as a

valuable resource for them as well as their

customers.”

For more information on the Initiative, call

1-888-45MOTOR (456-6867).

Motor Challenge Partner McBroom Electric Helps Customer 

Save Energy and Money 

Between 1996 and

1998, McBroom

Electric Company

Inc. initiated and

successfully completed the biggest

and most complex

project in its 66-year

history. The project? A million-dollar installation of nearly 800 energy-efficient

motors, totaling over 13,000 horsepower,

at the Cummins Engine Company in

Columbus, Indiana. The installation saves

Cummins an estimated $200,000 per year

in motor energy costs.

Indianapolis-based McBroom Electric

sells, repairs, and maintains electric motordriven systems for a wide range of industrial customers. As a Motor Challenge

Allied Partner, McBroom uses several

Motor Challenge tools and publications,

but has found MotorMaster+ software, the

Motor Challenge case studies, and the fact

sheet entitled “Frequently Asked Question

on the Energy Policy Act of 1992” to be

particularly valuable when working with

customers.

McBroom put some Motor Challenge

tools to use while managing the installation of the energy-efficient motors in Cummins’ existing and new machining lines. As

a participant in Cummins’ Joint Energy

Committee, McBroom was invited to perform a comprehensive audit of the motors

in Cummins’ manufacturing process. “We

utilized MotorMaster+ software to do the

inventory,” says Bob Campbell, McBroom

vice president of sales, “and based on what

Cummins had in place, we were able to

project a very short payback period for

energy-efficient motors versus the standard

units they were using.” 

As a result, Cummins decided to

change-out an initial 300 motors on its

engine block, rod, and insert machining

lines and replace them with energy-efficient T- and U-frame motors. The replacement occurred over 12 months, with most

of the work performed on weekends and

scheduled shutdowns. According to

Howard Stogdill, maintenance manager of

the Columbus assembly plant, “Doing this

replacement was a major maintenance

process for us, and it brought up other

issues like couplings, belts, and pumps...”

The second installation took place on

two machining lines being constructed to

manufacture the new Signature 600

engine. These lines used a total of 500

motors ranging in size from 1

⁄2 to 200

horsepower. McBroom’s analysis showed

that Cummins could save $128,000 in

annual energy costs on the new lines with

energy-efficient motors. 

“The benefit to McBroom is that Motor

Challenge has provided us with a lot of

tools and resources...that help us provide

better service to motor users...and even

though we had our own motor audit system, using things like the MotorMaster raw

data sheets makes us more efficient and

keeps us from having to reinvent the

wheel,” explains Campbell.

U.S. ELECTRICAL MOTORS

PLAYS A ROLE

Motor manufacturer U.S. Electrical

Motors (USEM) has been involved in the

Motor Challenge Program since 1993.

Over the years, USEM has participated

in various Motor Challenge activities that

have provided an opportunity for them

to forge new business relationships. One

such activity was the 1995 Motor Challenge Efficient Motor Systems teleconference, hosted at the Indiana University

and Purdue downlink site by McBroom

Electric (a USEM distributor). A Cummins

Engine Company employee attended the

teleconference and initiated discussions

with McBroom Electric and USEM that

eventually lead to the million-dollar

installation of energy-efficient motors at

Cummins’ assembly plant in Columbus,

Indiana. USEM worked through McBroom Electric, the lead on the project. “It

was a wonderful opportunity to attend a

jointly sponsored event by one of our

distributors and have it ultimately result

in a total order value for USEM of over a

million dollars . Cummins also benefited

by choosing the most energy-efficient

motors available for the job,” explains

Rob Boteler, USEM.

MOTOR

CHALLENGE

The Energy Savings

Network—Plug Into It

A

L

L

Y
10 Energy Matters, January 1999

Root Cause Failure Analysis On AC Induction Motors

By John M. Machelor,

Motor/Drives Systems 

Specialist, Motor Challenge

Program, MACRO International Inc.

This is the third in a

series of articles by

Mr. Machelor. In the

September 1998

issue, John focused

on some of the most

common electrical

failure modes of inservice induction motors and how to identify their root causes. The present article

continues this focus.

Undervoltage: This root cause condition,

which occurs when the supply voltage is

more than 10% lower than the motor rated

voltage, frequently results in motor overheating. As the motor’s supply voltage is

reduced, the motor’s current draw will

increase because the motor needs constant

power (volts x current) to supply the constant external load. As discussed in the

September 98 article, motor heating

increases with current with resultant detrimental effects on the motor’s insulation.

Up until now, we have focused our

attention on root causes resulting in excessive heat being generated within the motor

itself (windings/core iron). There is another

group of conditions that, when present,

interfere with the motor’s ability to cool

itself. The end result, however, is the

same—excessive heat leading to premature

insulation failure. These conditions are

associated with the application environment of the motor. They include: (1) partially/totally blocked ventilation passages,

(2) damaged/destroyed external cooling

fans, (3) foreign substance buildup on

motor surfaces, (4) motor operating at

higher than rated altitude, (5) motor operating at higher than rated ambient temperature, and (6) motor operating in direct

sunlight for long periods of time. Contamination is the root cause of conditions (1), 

(2), and (3), while misapplication/ignorance

is the root cause of conditions (4), (5), and

(6). Let’s look at contamination first.

Most contamination occurs in the air

surrounding the motor in the form of

chemical agents, particulates, dirt, etc.

Chemicals and acids can attack and

destroy external cooling fans, especially

aluminum ones. Also, particulates/dirt can

build up on fan blades causing imbalance

of the fan and eventual cracking and

breaking off of blades. Particulates/dirt can

also build up on the motor surfaces themselves blocking cooling air ventilation passages as well as “blanketing” the motor so

as to interfere with normal heat transfer

from the motor to the outside air.

Conditions like altitude, ambient air

temperature, and sunlight easily can be

overlooked when applying motors. “Standard” AC induction motors meet NEMA

requirements of 3300 feet maximum altitude. At higher altitudes, the thinner air

reduces motor cooling ability so that a

standard motor will run hotter under these

conditions. Likewise, NEMA defines the

maximum ambient temperature for a standard induction motor as 40° C (104° F). 

At higher ambients, a standard motor will

run hotter.

I want to use the condition of direct

sunlight to summarize the foregoing discussion as well as to illustrate an actual situation I encountered while running a

Reliability Based Maintenance (RBM) program at a large end user. The situation was

such that dozens of pump motors were

being exposed to not one but ALL SIX of

the adverse environmental conditions just

described. Most of the motors had partially

or totally blocked vent passages. Most of

the motor external cooling fans were either

damaged or missing entirely! A black tarlike contaminant covered the surface of

most of the motors. To add insult to injury,

these pump motors were operating at

higher than normal altitude and ambient

temperature, and were exposed to summer

sun all day long. The failure rate for these

poor units was 20% per month and the

failures were almost entirely due to insulation breakdown from excessive heat! This

unfortunate situation illustrates two very

important points: (1) a pre-mature motor

failure can be attributed to one root cause

only, but is more likely due to multiple root

causes “teaming up” together; and (2) an

established RBM program will go far to

identify and eliminate these root causes.

There is one significant cause of insulation breakdowns that is unrelated to excessive heat. That cause is high humidity

conditions, which result in condensation

on the motor insulation even though the

motor is totally enclosed. This problem

usually results from two scenarios: (1)

long-term storage of the motor in a warehouse where there is no controlled environment and (2) alternate heating/cooling

(on/off) cycling of the motor that occurs

under normal service conditions. In either

case, long-term exposure of the insulation

to excessive moisture can gradually

weaken it to the point of breakdown. A

controlled environment warehouse with

regulated humidity levels will solve problem (1). Problem (2) can be addressed by

the use of single-phase space heaters

wrapped around the stator end turns or

providing a low-level DC “trickle current”

through one of the motor’s phase windings

during off periods. Either method helps to

keep the inside of the motor dry and condensation-free.

The next article will address root causes of

mechanical motor failures.

For these articles, the author draws on over

thirty years of experience in the design and

application of AC induction motors. Readers are

welcome to send questions, comments, or suggestions to John Machelor at:

E-mail: jmachelo@macroint.com or 

macrojmm@aol.com

Phone: (540) 639-4271

Fax: (540) 639-4272
Energy Matters, January 1999 11

Compressed Air ChallengeTM Announces First Wave of One-Day Training Sessions

The Compressed Air ChallengeTM has

announced the schedule for its first wave of

Level-One training sessions. The training is

focused on ways to improve productivity,

energy savings, and profitability through

better planning and operation of compressed air systems. Level-One training is

targeted to plant engineers, maintenance

supervisors and other industry personnel

responsible for compressed air systems

within an industrial or commercial setting.

The one-day session will include information on how to calculate the energy

costs of compressed air systems, how to 

cut the cost of operating these systems, and

strategies for improving system efficiency

and reliability.

The first wave of one-day training sessions will be held beginning in February

1999. The schedule is as follows:

■ Chicago . . . . . . . February 18, 1999

■ Las Vegas . . . . . . February 22, 1999

■ Dallas . . . . . . . . March 1, 1999

■ Newark . . . . . . . March 8, 1999

■ Atlanta . . . . . . . . March 15, 1999

Additional Level-One training will be

offered throughout 1999 at various locations across the United States.

The Compressed Air Challenge is a

national initiative created by industry, government, and not-for-profit volunteers

committed to improving the efficiency and

reliability of industrial and commercial

compressed air systems—ultimately leading to reduced operating costs and

increased production.

For more information on training sessions and related materials available

through the Compressed Air Challenge,

call toll-free 1-800-862-2086.

Steam Challenge: Improve Your Boilers and Steam Distribution

There are many opportunities to improve

the efficiency of both boilers and the steam

distribution system through improved

maintenance and operation. Here are a

few examples how: 

Water Treatment—This is

an important aspect of boiler

operation that can affect efficiency or result in plant damage if neglected. Without

proper water treatment, scale

can form on boiler tubes,

reducing heat transfer and causing a loss in

boiler efficiency by as much as 10 to 12

percent. Water treatment represents a substantial portion of overall boiler operating

costs. Therefore, improved efficiency

throughout the steam system reduces this

significant operating cost. 

Condensate Return—Recovering hot

condensate for reuse as boiler feed water is

another way to improve system efficiency.

The energy used to heat cold makeup

water is a major part of the

heat delivered for use by the

steam system, requiring an

additional 15 to 18 percent of

boiler energy for each pound

of cold makeup water. 

Load Controls—There have

been great advances in boiler

control technology as older pneumatic and

analog electronic control systems have

given way to digital, computer-based distributed control systems. These systems are

more reliable and can extend boiler life.

Modern, multiple burner control, coupled

with air trim control can result in fuel savings of 3 to 5 percent. For example, a

boiler economic load allocation system

optimizes the loading of multiple boilers

providing steam to a common header so as

to obtain the lowest cost per unit of steam.

Honeywell Inc.’s Industrial Automation

and Control Division commonly recommends this technology to help customers

reduce boiler fuel consumption by 1 to 3

percent and improve performance. 

For information on the Steam Challenge

program or steam efficiency issues call

(800) 862-2086.

Pump Sourcebook Can Help Improve Pump Systems

Motor Challenge is publishing a

new reference book on energy

efficiency in pumping systems

for industry. Improving Pumping System

Performance: A Sourcebook for Industry is

the second in a series of sourcebooks

developed by Motor Challenge. A sourcebook on compressed air systems optimization is also available, and sourcebooks on

fan systems optimization and motor & drives are under development.

The sourcebook provides an overview of

industrial pumping systems, a roadmap for

identifying system improvement opportunities, 12 fact sheets detailing these opportunities, a directory of programs, resources,

and tools, and other relevant information.

The Hydraulic Institute members of the

Life Cycle Cost Committee provided input

to Motor Challenge on the Sourcebook. Call

the Challenge Programs Information Clearinghouse at (800) 862-2086 for information

on availability and cost of this publication. 

NEW

Learn from Experience

Order a copy of Learning from Experiences

with Industrial Electric Motor Drive Systems, CADDET Analysis Series No. 24.

This report outlines the principles of electric motors and variable speed drives. It

examines the major barriers to the acceptance of energy-efficient systems along

with the national practices and programs

of many CADDET member countries. The

report contains more than 30 demonstration projects from 11 CADDET member

countries, covering all aspects of industrial

drive systems. The lessons learned from

these projects are summarized in a convenient checklist.

Order your copy by calling Eric Stragar,

American Council for an Energy-Efficient

Economy, at (202) 429-0063. The publication cost is $45.00.
SRETTAMYGRE

N

E

U.S. Department of Energy

EE-20, 5G-067

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

First Class

U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit No. 258

Golden, Colorado

Coming Events 

September 16 Delaware Valley Energy Efficiency Conference (emphasis on energyefficient lighting and motors for commercial and industrial applications), 

sponsored by PA Dept. of Environmental Protection and Villanova 

University; call Jim McTish at (610) 832-6098 or access the Web at 

www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/fieldops/se/se.htm.

September 29 ASDMaster Training Workshop, cosponsored by Motor Challenge Allied 

Partner, Green Bay, WI; call Anna Maksimova at (360) 754-1934.

October 1, 2, 6, ASDMaster Training Workshops, cosponsored by Motor Challenge Allied 

Partners. In Cleveland, OH (Oct. 1 and 2); Wausau, WI (Oct. 6). Call 

Anna Maksimova at (360) 754-1934.

October 28-31 Pump Users Expo 98, Cincinnati, OH; access www.pump-zone.com/

meetings/expohome.html or call (818) 885-6279.

October 19, 27, 29 ASDMaster Training Workshops, cosponsored by Motor Challenge 

Allied Partners. In Cincinnati, OH (Oct. 19); Montpelier, VT (Oct. 27);

and Oklahoma City, OK (Oct. 29). Call Anna Maksimova at 

(360) 754-1934.

November 5 How to Get the Most Out of Electric Motor Systems, Prescott, AZ, 

AZ Department of Commerce; call Gary Graham at (602) 280-1419.

INFORMATION

CLEARINGHOUSE

Do you have questions about 

using energy-efficient electric

motor systems? Call the OIT Challenge

Programs Information Clearinghouse 

for answers, Monday through Friday

9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (EST).

Fax: (360) 586-8303, or access our

homepage at www.motor.doe.gov

HOTLINE: (800) 862-2086

DOE Regional Support Office 

Representatives

■ Tim Eastling, Atlanta, GA, 

(404) 347-7141

■ Lili Griffin, Boston, MA, 

(617) 565-9714

■ Julie Nochumsom, Chicago, IL, 

(312) 886-8579

■ Gibson Asuquo, Denver, CO, 

(303) 275-4841

■ Julia Oliver, Seattle, WA, 

(510) 637-1952

■ Maryanne Daniel, Philadelphia, PA, 

(215) 656-6964

This document was produced for the Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by the

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE

national laboratory.

DOE/GO-10099-587 • January 1999

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

N ITE D STAT S OFA ERICA

M

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NI TE D ST AT S OF A ERICA

M

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper

containing at least 50% wastepaper, including

20% postconsumer waste

GET READY TO TURN YOUR VISIONS INTO REALITY

The Third Industrial Energy Efficiency Symposium and Exposition, “Turning Industry Visions

into Reality,” is set for February 7-9,1999, in Washington, D.C. Mark your calendar to

attend this national conference on energy efficiency and clean manufacturing in U.S.

industry. The event will highlight leading-edge thinking and advanced technologies to meet

emerging energy, environmental, and market demands. Check out the Web page at

www.oit.doe.gov for current information on this conference, or call (877) OIT-SYMP.

INTERNATIONAL FORUM FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY DEVELOPMENTS

On September 20-22, the 2nd International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Motor Driven Systems will be held in London, United Kingdom. This event, cosponsored by the U.S.

Department of Energy, builds on the success of the 1996 Lisbon Conference, providing an

international forum for energy efficiency developments in motors, drives, and their applications. Deadline for workshop and poster session papers is February 28, 1999. Call +44 1235

432383 or e-mail carol.johnstone@aeat.co.uk for more information.