Butler Printing and Laminating,

in Butler, New Jersey, installed

a variable frequency drive

(VFD) on the noisy exhaust fan

of its incineration system, and

the operation has become

noticeably more tranquil. Not

to mention, the quieter fan now

uses about one-third less electricity, which Butler predicts

will save $38,500 annually. 

Seeking a way to quiet its

notoriously noisy fan and

improve its efficiency, Butler

teamed with GPU Energy, a

New Jersey utility and a Motor Challenge

Allied Partner. Technical and financial assistance came through GPU’s Customer Flex

Program. “Through programs like the Customer Flex one, we can help our industrial

customers cut energy use and save money,”

explains Lou Holzberger of GPU Energy.

Butler, a commercial printing and coating facility, makes wall coverings, pool 

liners, and window shades. To handle production, the company operates seven 

(continued on page 2)

GPU Energy Helps Customer Reduce Noise Level 

and Save Energy

DOE’s 3rd Industrial Energy Efficiency Expo Highlights Government/

Industry Partnerships that Save Energy and Cut Pollution

On February 7-9, more than 100 exhibitors

and 1,000 industry representatives

attended DOE’s Third Industrial Energy Efficiency Symposium and Exposition in

Washington, D.C. Why? To celebrate

major advances in industrial energy efficiency, increased competitiveness, and

pollution prevention. 

“[This] event shows how far we’ve

come in recognizing how important partnerships are in improving energy efficiency, productivity and our nation’s

environment,” said Secretary of Energy Bill

Richardson. “I’m proud that one of our own

initiatives—Industries of the Future—has

played such a big part in supporting our

country’s most energy-intensive industries.” 

The “Industries of the Future” approach

encourages the most energy-intensive

industries—including the chemical, forest

products, agriculture, steel, aluminum,

metalcasting, glass, mining and petroleum

industries—to set their own research and

development priorities, and then costshare projects with partners from both the

public and private sectors. This strategy

maximizes available research and development resources to meet the DOE goal of

decreasing industrial energy use by 25 percent by 2010. 

At the event, DOE signed new agreements with the glass and steel industries.

These agreements signify all the partners’

commitment to pooling public and private

resources, as well as their commitment to

the “Industries of the Future” process. 

Dan Reicher, DOE Assistant Secretary

for Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy, presented the Industry Recognition

Awards to formally acknowledge those

who have played a significant role in the

“Industries of the Future” process. 

The fan on the RTO is more energy efficient after a 

VFD was installed.

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

www.motor.doe.gov

Formerly Turning Point • March 1999

INSERT:

Compressed Air Challenge Supplement

Issue Focus: 

Utility Financing and Services

IN THIS ISSUE

GPU Energy and Butler Printing . . . . . . . . . . . 1

DOE’s 3rd Industrial Energy Efficiency 

Expo Highlights Government/Industry 

Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Steam Challenge Sets Initiatives for Year . . . 2

Guest Column: Turning to Utilities for

Financing Energy Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Energy Service Company— Providing 

Value to a Large Industrial Facility . . . . . . . . 4

Performance Optimization Tips . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance . . . . . . 7

Coming Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
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 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, March 1999

GPU Reduces Noise and Saves Energy

continued from page 1

customized web printing presses, and it

changes coating mixes and modifies equipment as needed for a particular job. Frequent switching from one press to another

means the machines have considerable

downtime, and rarely do all seven presses

operate simultaneously.

To comply with EPA’s Clean Air Act,

Butler uses a regenerative thermal oxidizer

(RTO), which incinerates volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) from printing solvents.

The large fan, driven by a 250-hp motor,

draws VOCs into the incinerator to be converted into carbon dioxide and water

vapor. Before the upgrade, inlet vanes controlled airflow to the fan. The RTO’s fan

whirred non-stop at full speed, 18-20

hours per day—regardless of the number of

presses in operation or the air volume. 

GPU representatives analyzed the fan to

determine baseline airflow and usage, then

agreed with a VFD installation. Last summer, Butler installed the VFD and quickly

saw—and heard—results. Now the fan

varies from 40% to 80% of capacity,

depending on the number of presses in

operation. The upgrade has hushed the fan

and has helped Butler save on energy use.

While not as quiet as a library, “the 

50 to 60 decibel level is minor compared

to how it was in here, “ declares Pete

Weber, Butler project engineer. “We’ve got

a good unit, and so far it’s running pretty

well,” he adds.

The project cost Butler about $21,000.

However, because it met the Flex Program’s energy and demand savings criteria,

GPU rewarded Butler with a rebate of

nearly $14,000, making the payback just

over 2 months. 

Steam Challenge Sets Initiatives for Year

The Steam Challenge

Steering Committee met

in Columbus, Ohio, on

January 28 and 29

to discuss the goals of the

program and the initiatives for the upcoming year. Participants were industrial users

of steam, steam-related product suppliers,

service providers, trade associations, and

energy resource organizations. As highlights, John Hoh of the National Board of

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors spoke

on safety considerations in operating steam

systems, concluding that efficiently operating systems are highly correlated with safe

workplaces. Dan Dvorak of DuPont presented factors affecting the quest for energy

efficiency in his company and suggested

approaches for gaining broader support

within the company.

Participants set goals in six focus areas

for the upcoming year to increase awareness of the opportunities in steam systems

and provide resources to capture these

economic and environmental opportunities. 

Training: Increase awareness of training

opportunities rather than design new

courses, and encourage people to take

courses by making information about them

more easily accessible. A list of training

courses is being compiled along with indication of courses with true merit. 

Technical: List the top technical references, based on the basic areas of steam

generation, distribution, end use, and

recovery. Following will be collection and

review of additional tools and products.

Benchmarking and Best Practices: Pull

together information on best practices

including articles, tips, reprints, end user

newsletters, third party reports, and others. 

Marketing and Communications: Evaluate how different types of organizations

should participate and be recognized. This

is part of a multi-year outreach effort showing the value of steam system projects.

Business Management: Provide information to upper-level executives to motivate them to initiate energy efficiency

programs plant-wide. 

Program Evaluation: Establish the parameters and develop methods of parameter

measurement for evaluation of program

success. This information will be used to

identify policies that could influence

industrial steam system efficiency, supporting those which are favorable. 
Energy Matters, March 1999 3

Guest Column

Turning to Utilities for

Financing Energy Projects

By Paul L. Lemar, Jr., 

Resource Dynamics Corporation

With electric utility deregulation either

underway or expected soon in almost

every state in the U.S., most utilities are

developing new approaches to working

with their industrial customers. Previously, demand-side management offered

utilities an easy way to help customers

upgrade their plant equipment and

improve energy efficiency. As utility

rebates become a thing of the past, a

number of utilities are creatively helping

their industrial customers improve efficiency. More and more, utilities are turning to financing programs to assist their

customers and maintain a role in plant

energy projects. Some utilities have

launched unregulated subsidiaries to

deliver energy services or invest in customer facilities such as on-site electricity

generation or chilled water plants. For

these entities, financing is playing a crucial role—finding the money for a project

can often mean go or no go.

Financing of energy equipment is a

growing market. In 1997, 32% of all

equipment purchased was financed with

leasing, and 93% of all businesses have

used leasing to purchase equipment.

Energy equipment, however, is leased

much less than 32% of the time. Leasing

energy projects is on the rise, however,

primarily with HVAC and power generation equipment. Controls, motors and drives, lighting, envelope improvements,

and boilers are other types of energy

equipment that are also being leased.

Usually, these utility financing programs are structured around the utility’s

finance partner. In many cases, a utility

has allied itself with a large, national

financial firm that offers high-level service

and competitive rates. Another alternative,

a leasing broker, is used by utilities to

offer services not available from larger

firms, such as financing from multiple

sources. A third option, a “phone book”

approach, requires that the utility treat

each financing opportunity as a bid which

it in turn submits to a number of sources,

including local banks. The pros and cons

of these approaches are as follows:

What this means for the industrial customer is that the quality of the financing

offered by the utility depends on who is

the utility’s partner. In some cases, utilities

have offered financing themselves,

although this trend is definitely on the

downturn.

Financing options available depend

largely on the size of the deal and who is

the customer. In the past, the leasing community has focused on leasing equipment

such as trucks, automobiles, and computers. Now, with interest rates low and

financing companies becoming more

aggressive, more and more leasing companies are willing to finance energy

equipment. If the equipment is being

installed as part of a performance contract

which “guarantees” energy savings, this

does not necessarily make the deal a

“slam dunk” to finance. If the leasing 

contract is separate from the performance

contract, there may not be any assurance

that the customer will apply the savings to

making the lease payment. In the end, it is

usually the credit history of the customer

that determines whether a lease is

approved or not.

The package that a leasing company

will put on the table depends on the size

of the project and who needs the money.

Smaller projects, under $75,000-

$100,000, are usually treated as “application-only”, which means that less

paperwork is required and higher rates

are involved. Deals over $100,000 are

treated more as commercial leases, and a

variety of options exist:

■ Finance leases—these, also known as

capital leases, require that the customer purchase the equipment at the

end of the lease, usually for $1. The

customer uses the depreciation of the

asset as well as the interest portion of

the payment as tax deductions.

■ Operating leases—these are often

referred to as “off-balance sheet”

financing, and are not recorded as debt

on the balance sheet. To qualify for

such treatment, the lease must pass a

number of tests, known as the FASB 13

(named after the Financial Accounting

Standards Board Statement Number

13). Basically, the lease allows the customer to purchase the equipment,

renew the lease, or return the equipment at the end of the lease. The entire

lease payment is treated as a tax

deduction.

■ True leases—these offer the tax benefits of the operating lease without passing all of the FASB 13 rules. As such,

the customer has the option to renew

the lease, purchase the equipment, or

return the equipment at lease end. 

(continued on page 5)

Approach

National

finance 

partner

Lease broker

Phone book

Pros

Can offer high

level of service

(even dedicated

point of contact

on-site) and may

offer the most

competitive

rates.

Service can be

fairly responsive,

and can “shop”

deals around to 

a variety of

sources. Usually

results in higher

approval rate on

deals.

Requires no real

structure or

commitment on

the part of the

utility.

Cons

Sometimes looks

only for best

deals, and may

turn down deals

that are financeable but involve

riskier credits.

Service usually

responsive but

not dedicated as

with national

firm. In addition,

rates may be a

bit higher.

Sources can

become unresponsive or simply quote high

rates.
4 Energy Matters, March 1999

Energy Service Company—Providing Value to a Large Industrial Facility

By Gary Koelbl,

Planergy Services, Inc.

What is an ESCO?

In simple terms, an Energy Services

Company (ESCO) is a business that provides energy management services to an

energy user. As new technologies

emerged in the 1990s, ESCOs expanded

their services from relatively simple lighting and HVAC retrofits in commercial

office buildings, government facilities,

and light industrial plants to more engineering-intensive projects for industrial

complexes. Some ESCOs also offer package deals for fuels, steam, hot and chilled

water, and electricity for large plants. An

ESCO may be an independent company

or it may be a subsidiary of a larger

energy supplier; and, the key staff people

include both financial and technical 

specialists.

Today, many ESCOs still focus on

energy efficiency projects in the lighting

and HVAC fields because they are relatively easy, many times the payback is

short, and the technology is reliable.

However, there are a few ESCOs that

work with large industrial clients such as

oil refineries, chemical plants, paper

mills, and power plants. Projects in these

facilities are more complex, but they do

provide ample opportunities for significant energy savings. Unfortunately, plant

resources, such as time, expertise, and

capital to implement energy projects are

not always available. For these users, production and reliability projects often take

priority because product output drives

profitability. Nonetheless, plant managers

and operators should be aware that

improved production and energy savings

work hand in hand to multiply profitability. A strong commitment from both the

client and ESCO will make the efforts

rewarding.

Services benefit the end user

An ESCO provides a myriad of energy

management services. The process usually

starts with a plant-wide energy survey that

includes payback analyses and recommendations. Usually, after the “first cut”,

a contract to provide energy savings,

called the Energy Services Agreement

(ESA), is signed by both parties. Following

that, the ESCO will provide engineering

expertise for more detailed efficiency

studies and submit applications and

reports to local utilities for subsidy programs, if available. For each selected

energy savings measure, the equipment

modification and vendor choice are

agreed upon between the user and ESCO.

When specific applications are identified

and approved, the ESCO will provide,

usually at no cost to the user, the metering

devices for the Monitoring and Verification (M&V) procedures. Then, the ESCO

engineer will help coordinate the equipment baseline studies and reports. A key

factor in the energy management program

is the continual measurement of savings,

so the baseline should cover the full range

of operation prior to installing the energy

savings measure. The baseline (old)

minus the “new” power readings equal

the energy reduction. The other ingredient

for a savings analysis is run time. Trend

charts or operation logs are used to establish the “hours-per-year” profiles. Combining energy reduction data and hours

run time gives the kWh savings.

Usually, the ESA has a stipulated term,

say 5 years, during which time the savings

are “shared” between the user and the

ESCO; and, this is how the ESCO gets

paid for its services. This is not an additional expense to the user because the

sharing is taken out of expense payments

that would normally have gone to the

energy supplier. After the ESA term

expires, all savings go to the user.

If the industrial user does not have a

budget for energy savings projects, the

ESCO may arrange “Pay-for-Performance”

project financing. The ESCO will pay for

some or all of the project costs, including

equipment and installation. Then, an

“agreed-to” portion of the monthly energy

savings is paid to the ESCO to cover its

costs and profit margin. The dollar

amount and term of the arrangement will

depend largely on the economics and

payback period. Today, most industrial

users require a one-year maximum simple

payback, whereas ESCO project financing

can extend that up to 5 years. This is not

financing in the normal sense because

there is no stated interest rate and no

fixed monthly payment, but the sharing

amount is set in the ESA. Pay-for-Performance financing offers a major benefit to

the user because he pays only for the

measured savings. The financial risk associated with the project performance is

borne by the ESCO. The user’s obligation

is to run the plant as he normally would

within the parameters established for the

energy savings measure. 

With energy saving projects, additional

benefits available to the user include

improved equipment reliability and better

process control. Equipment retrofits usually provide state-of-the-art design modifications for easier maintenance as well as

better efficiency. In a real sense, the

ESCO can provide a focus for a large

plant to really accomplish some energy

saving projects that may otherwise go

unnoticed. 

Case Studies

Planergy Services, Inc, Richmond, California, is an industrial ESCO with projects in several refineries, gas and liquid

pipelines, paper mills, and other industrial

plants. It has incentive-based contracts

with PG&E for Northern California, Texas

Utilities for central and west Texas, and

Houston Light and Power for Houston,

Texas. These utilities will pay incentives,

over and above energy bill savings, to 

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

continued from page 4

users in their respective service areas who

install energy savings measures and monitor and report the savings through Planergy. The case studies will focus on

projects at two refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Chevron, Richmond, CA

In 1993, the Richmond refinery converted its Vacuum Gas Oil plant to a

Diesel Hydrotreater plant, decreasing the

feed rate by some 60%. Lower flow rates

caused many of the pumps to operate

well below their best efficiency points

and that resulted in dramatically

decreased equipment reliability and availability. Chevron reliability personnel evaluated several proposals to improve the

situation, but return-on-investment hurdles, budget, and manpower priorities

precluded any immediate action. Two

years later, Planergy approached Chevron

as a potential candidate for the PG&E

Energy Partners program. When the

Chevron Energy Coordinator and others

learned they could get pump rerates and

variable speed drives at no cost, they

immediately started the process to

upgrade the plant equipment.

With a $1.2 million investment from

Planergy, Chevron installed two variable

speed drives (VSDs), rerated a multi-stage

pump and a power recovery turbine, and 

changed the operating

procedures on two

reactor charge pumps.

The result for Chevron

is over $750,000 per

year energy savings,

and significantly

improved reliability

and availability. 

In more detail, one

VSD was installed on a

2250-hp “DHT” firststage charge pump and

the other on a 700-hp

transfer pump. Energy

savings came from

reducing power losses through flow control valves. The internal elements for the

2250-hp second-stage charge pump and

an associated 400-hp power recovery turbine were completely redesigned to

improve their efficiencies from 50% to

70%. Although installed for many years,

the power recovery turbine had been idle

because it was not properly matched to

the system. In the ISO-MAX unit, the procedure change allowed operators to use

the back-up 4000-hp pump 90% of the

time and use the 5500-hp pump only

when needed. Thus, they operate the most

efficient pump based on plant feed rate.

These measures demonstrate a variety of

methods available to improve energy efficiency and equipment reliability. 

Follow-on projects at Richmond

include a Fluid Cat Cracker controls

improvement project to save about 1 MW;

rerating the steam turbines in No.1 Power

Plant for 4 MW; 5 additional power

recovery turbines for 17 million kWh per

year; and some other pump modifications

for 5 million kWh per year. 

Equilon, Martinez Refining Company

Equilon management has recognized

the importance of energy savings and has

established a budget to support their 

700-hp transfer pump on which one VSD was installed.

Guest Column

continued from page 3

However, the lease is recorded as debt

on the balance sheet. The entire lease

payment is treated as a tax deduction.

Within the $75,000-100,000 range, a

customer may be able to arrange for an

application-only lease or apply for a commercial lease. Usually, the cut-off varies

by lender.

As an option to internally-financed

projects or their usual source of financing,

industrial customers should consult their

local utility to see if a financing program

exists for their use. It never hurts to have

more options, and it may be that the utility and their finance partner will aggressively seek lower rates, thereby putting a

better lease on the table.

Send comments/questions to pll@rdcnet.

com; (703) 356-1300 (phone); (703) 

356-2230 (fax).

energy projects. Equally important, they

have formed a committee to promote

energy savings within the refinery. Their

energy program started with a refinerywide survey of pumps and fans using

electric motors over 100 hp. The survey

included a one-hour interview with reliability and operations personnel for each

of six zones. Planergy engineers assisted

with the survey, and with collecting the

equipment specifications and trend usage

data. After the sorting was done, about

30 applications were looked at in more

detail. More than half were pump retrofits

and the rest were VSDs on pumps and

fans. For an estimated one-million-dollar

investment, the expected annual savings

are $680,000.

Some unique applications under consideration at Equilon include adding stages

to a pump to allow a 2-pump instead of 

3-pump operation, and installing a flowstraightening device called a Cheng Rotational Vane to reduce flow turbulence and

increase pipe system efficiency. 
6 Energy Matters, March 1999

Performance 

Optimization Tips

Understanding the Changing

Needs of Your Systems

By Don Casada,

Motor Challenge

Program, Oak Ridge

National Laboratory

Note: This article,

focusing on understanding the changing picture of system operations, is the

second of a series dealing with potential

pitfalls in field measurements of motor systems. The first appeared in the November

1998 issue of Turning Point. 

Wherever you’re reading this, take a look at

the electrically-operated equipment around

you. How many of those devices are currently operating? How many are constant

loads? Here in my home office, I see a

clock, portable heater, desoldering iron,

oscilloscope, test loop pump, the computer

on which these words are being composed,

and probably 20 other devices, including

the lights that let me see all this stuff. Some

are presently energized and run about

99.9% of the time (the clock); others aren’t,

and operate less than 0.1% of the time (the

desoldering iron). Although the patterns are

certainly different than residential, industrial systems likewise see varying loads. 

A cornerstone of any process or system

optimization effort involves developing a

thorough understanding of how demand

varies with time and creating a system that

can respond both efficiently and effectively.

We wouldn’t expect grocery stores to set cash

register clerk schedules based on the checkout queue at 7 a.m. on Sunday (although

experience at times suggests that could be the

case). Likewise, a single snapshot in time of

an energy consuming system usually won’t

suffice in optimizing its operation.

Figure 1 is an example of a load profile

for a pumping system. Although the flow

requirements vary by more than a factor of

five, it can readily be seen that nearly 90%

of the time, the flow requirements are

between 0.5 to 1.5 thousand gpm. Clearly,

any energy optimization process would

primarily consider this load range. The

information conveyed in Fig. 1 can be

arranged in any number of fashions; the

key point is to clearly reveal the distribution of load conditions.

How does one develop such a profile?

A permanent monitoring and logging program could provide the requisite data, and

may be both feasible and desirable for

large (hundreds of hp) systems, but it is

often not practical for small and intermediate size systems. Are there alternative

methods that can be used to establish a

reasonably accurate profile for small and

intermediate size systems without the

expense and complication of a comprehensive monitoring and automated data logging program? The answer, in many cases,

is yes. Let’s use a chilled water system (Fig.

2) to illustrate. Assume that our present

focus is on the tower water pumping portion of the system (which removes heat

from the chillers), and that there is no existing electronic data logging for the system.

A good first step in any situation is to

apply a little common sense (an increasingly less common commodity), and consider whether the processes supported by

the system are, in fact, likely to change

with time1. In this case, it is reasonable to

expect that the loads on the chilled water

system would vary

significantly with the

time of year and to a

lesser extent, the

time of day and

week; therefore,

variation in tower

water pump operation would be

expected. To understand pump operational efficiencies,

the numbers of

pumps running, flow

rate, head, and

motor input power 

across the course of the year are needed.

Existing pressure and flow instrumentation,

supplemented by motor power or current

monitors could be used in conjunction

with a temporarily installed electronic data

logging system to accumulate data over the

course of several months. Should we set up

the system and let it start acquiring data for

us? Maybe, but consider some alternative

courses of action first:

1. Interview operators. Or more precisely,

shoot the bull with them. Get to know what

drives them and makes their life difficult.

Most operators are quite willing to share

their opinions about the “idiot that designed

this system,” and what they have to do to

make it work. Let operators know why

you’re asking, and make it clear that you’re

looking to them for advice. If you can help

address their problems in conjunction with

any energy-saving action, your chance for

success will be greatly improved. 

Any energy reduction action that makes

life more difficult for operators may very

well, over the long haul, result in greater

energy consumption, since the operator’s

principal focus is to keep things running; and

energy costs are usually well down on the

priority list. On the other hand, any action

that makes their life easier will encourage

a relationship that can help in identifying

other energy-saving opportunities.

Operators can help develop estimates

that, although less precise than logs, can

often provide a fairly accurate picture of

operational patterns. More importantly,

operator “interviews” can shed a great deal

of light on reasons for the existing conditions that careful data logging would

entirely miss. For example, an operator 

(continued on page 7)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Hours/year Cumulative %

< 0.5 0.5 to

1.0

1.0 to

1.5

1.5 to

2.0

Flow rate (1000s of gpm)

Hours/year Cumulative %

2.0 to

2.5

> 2.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

FV 2

FV 1

BPV

PCV

(5 tower pumps)

F

F

P

(3 towers)

Individually

controlled

cooling loads

3 chillers

(4 chilled

water pumps)

Figure 1. Annual flow rate requirements 

distribution.

Figure 2. Chilled water system with heat rejected to a tower water system.
Energy Matters, March 1999 7

continued from page 6

might note that up until a couple of years

ago, one pump in winter and two pumps

in summer worked fine in removing heat

from Chiller A. But recently, three pumps

have been required during the summertime, and even with the additional pump

running, chiller condenser pressure is 

2 psig greater in the summer than it was

previously. Information such as this should

immediately raise a flag and spur questions

about what has caused the degradation.

Any number of factors could be involved,

such as a malfunctioning bypass valve or

condenser pressure control, pump degradation, or scale buildup on the condenser

heat exchanger tubes, any of which is

deleterious to energy-efficient operation.

On the other hand, if the operator states

that the same number of pumps are run

year-round, a different flag should be raised,

since our common sense suggests that load

variation would be expected to result in

variation in supporting pump operation. 

2. Find and review manual operator logs,

if available. If logs don’t include all the 

desired information, request that the operator logs be supplemented to include the

missing parameters. This can be valuable

in two senses—the needed data will be

acquired and it will give you and the operators a chance to discuss why the information is important to system optimization.

3. Develop a separate manual log maintained by non-operations personnel on an

energy reduction team2. An advantage to

this is that it provides a mechanism to ensure

that desk jockeys get out into the field. In

many instances, simply being around operating equipment and the folks who operate

it will help flag problem areas that are

independent of the data being logged.

4. If initial review and discussions indicate

that relatively narrow regions dominate the

load profile (as in Fig. 1), concentrate more

refined data collection efforts on those

regions. It may be possible to get comprehensive, accurate data that represents 80-

90% of the load duration with only two or

three sets of test data instead of a much

more massive accumulation via manual or

electronic logs.

Things change. The establishment of a

load vs. time profile is a critical part of the

optimization effort. It is sometimes a

tedious job, but it can often be simplified.

Accurate data are, of course, important.

But communications, particularly with

operations staff, can significantly reduce

the detailed monitoring effort needed to

develop at least an approximate system

profile. Equally importantly, these discussions can reveal opportunities that would

have never been recognized with a more

precise, objective, but silent electronic

data log. 

Comments/questions welcome by e-mail:

a85@ornl.gov.

1Generally speaking, the proper sequence for optimizing any system is to start at the end goal of the

system and work backwards. In this case, the tower

water pumps should only be considered after

addressing the loads, the chilled water, and the

chillers.

2It should be clear from this article that the author

believes that any energy reduction effort should

include a strong operations presence, so it is not

suggested that operators can be bypassed in the

data collection process. Rather, this recommendation is based on the observation that engineer’s

computers produce much better results when the

fingers pressing the keyboard and moving the

mouse have dirt, grease, and burn marks on them.

The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance—Helping Industrial Customers Improve Efficiency

The Alliance—collaboratively funded by

the public utilities and investor-owned utilities serving Washington, Oregon, Idaho,

and Montana—sponsors cost-effective,

energy efficiency projects in

the region to help protect the

environment and lower electricity costs for Northwest electric utility customers. The

Alliance uses a tool called market transformation to achieve

the savings. After examining a

market and determining what

barriers are preventing energyefficient products and services

from being offered there, the Alliance, in

collaboration with experts in that particular

field, devises and implements a strategy to

remove those barriers.

The Northwest Energy Efficiency

Alliance recently initiated two projects that

it expects will lower electricity costs for

Northwest industrial customers as well as

improve productivity. The first, Sav-Air, is

an innovative measurement and reporting

system for industrial compressed air systems. Compressed air, a commonly used

industrial commodity, is almost never measured. Sav-Air is intended to help identify

inefficiencies in existing systems and spur

cost-effective improvements that also

increase the efficiencies of

industrial processes. 

Sav-Air’s services include a

preliminary system audit and

installation of metering equipment. Once the system is 

evaluated, upgrade recommendations will be made and monitoring will continue to verify

savings. The Alliance estimates

that savings of up to 25%

could be achieved at industrial sites

through the improved systems.

The second project is an industrial

motors program called DrivePower that is

working to improve the average fleet efficiency of Northwest motors. The goal of

DrivePower is two-fold. First, the project

will work with reconditioning shops to

improve the quality of motor reconditioning techniques. Shops that meet certain

performance standards will be given a preferred service provider status. Recommended preferred providers will be marketed to industrial companies that have a

need for motor reconditioning. 

Second, the project will work with

industrial companies on the efficiencies

that can be gained through comprehensive

motor system management. Research

shows that currently many firms think of

motors and their components as discrete

items without much thought to the efficiency of the system or the implications of

decisions on purchasing new equipment or

reconditioning older equipment. Very few

look at the entire system as an opportunity

to derive additional “profit” through

reduced operating costs, lowered maintenance, reduced unplanned outage, better

control, etc. 

DrivePower plans to establish a circuit

rider program that will work with industrial

customers to take advantage of these additional benefits of looking at ways to

improve the entire motor system.

For more information about the Alliance

or Alliance projects, visit their Web site at

www.nwalliance.org or call Shawn

Wolfersperger at (800) 411-0834 ext. 235.
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 

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-10099-588 • March 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

UNDERSTANDING PUMP SYSTEMS/PSAT WORKSHOPS

The following sessions present the fundamental of optimizing industrial and municipal

pump systems. The workshops will present case studies and will focus on the Pump System

Assessment Tool (PSAT).

■ March 25 in Taunton, MA

■ June 6 in Milwaukee, WI

■ June 20 in Chicago, IL

■ August 29 in San Diego, CA

Call Anna Maksimova at (360) 754-1097, ext. 100 for more information.

ASD WORKSHOPS

These workshops address the fundamentals of ASDs and demonstrate the ASDMaster 

Software.

■ April 1 in Columbia, SC

■ June 1-2 in Reading, PA

■ June 10 in Springdale, AK

Call Anna Maksimova at (360) 754-1097, ext. 100 for more information.
Compressed Air ChallengeTM 9

By Floyd Barwig, 

Compressed Air ChallengeTM 

Advisory Board Chair

On behalf of the sponsors of the Compressed Air ChallengeTM, it brings me great

pleasure to announce Fundamentals of

Compressed Air Systems—a new training

on compressed air systems. This 1-day

training is now available nationwide, with

workshops being offered in most major

cities (see insert). What makes this training

unique is the way it was developed, its

focus on system efficiency, and how it is

being offered across the country. The target

audience is plant engineers and maintenance supervisors, but anyone interested in

learning more about a systems approach is

welcome to attend. 

Fundamentals is the result of a remarkable 2.5-year voluntary collaboration of the

best minds in the compressed air business—users of compressed air, system consultants, equipment manufacturers and

distributors, state and federal government,

an association of plant engineers, energy

efficiency organizations, and utilities. I

have never been involved in anything quite

like this effort, which has brought together

so many different groups that share the

common goal of improving the performance of industrial compressed air systems. 

Raising awareness within U.S. industry

is what the Compressed Air ChallengeTM is

all about. That is, awareness about the

benefits of applying a “best practices”

approach to the management of industrial

compressed air systems. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that these systems

use 90 billion kWh per year. In most

plants, 20%-50% of the energy used to

power these systems can be saved while

maintaining the same level of productivity.

This is an overlooked opportunity to

reduce costs, improve system reliability,

and increase production capacity.

The Fundamentals training takes a comprehensive look at the compressed air 

system, its various components and operational practices, and then assists participants in laying out seven steps to take in

order to identify and take advantage of

missed opportunities. Participants will

learn how to:

■ calculate energy costs of compressed air

■ improve compressed air system reliability

■ establish a baseline

■ match system supply to actual production requirements

■ find leaks

■ attain better control of the compressed

air system

Each workshop is brought to you by

several organizations involved in developing the curriculum. They are taught by two

expert instructors drawn from a pool of 25

highly qualified and carefully selected

individuals. Every effort has been taken to

develop and present a curriculum that is

technically accurate and product neutral.

As a package, the training is an interactive

learning experience for both the student

and instructor. The focus is on giving participants information that they can take back

to the plant and immediately put to use.

To learn more about the Compressed

Air ChallengeTM and how to participate,

please contact the Web site at www.

knowpressure.org, or call (800) 862-2086

for a registration form for a training workshop near you.

Compressed Air 

ChallengeTM Sponsors

Introduce New 

Training Workshops

Compressed Air ChallengeTM

Sponsors

U.S. Department of Energy

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority

NEES Companies

Iowa Energy Center

Illinois Department of Commerce and

Community Affairs

Honeywell, Inc.

Energy Center of Wisconsin

Eastern Utilities

Duke Solutions, Inc.

Consortium for Energy Efficiency

Compressor Distributors Association

Compressed Air and Gas Institute

Association of Ingersoll-Rand Distributors

A Special Supplement to Energy Matters
10 Compressed Air ChallengeTM

Working to Improve Compressed Air System Effectiveness

Compressed air systems are used to perform a variety of functions in businesses

and industries throughout the United

States. Though sometimes overlooked, a

properly designed and maintained compressed air system can play a

big part in making a business

successful. The Compressed

Air & Gas Institute (CAGI), a

non-profit trade association of

manufacturers of components

of compressed air systems, has

been working to improve the

performance of compressed air systems

and equipment in the United States for

over 80 years. End users can rely on the

expertise within CAGI and the standards

and educational material produced by the

institute to properly select equipment,

improve equipment reliability, and

enhance productivity.

CAGI is a sponsor of the Compressed

Air ChallengeTM and has played a leading

role in providing technical support. CAGI

also is a DOE Motor Challenge Allied 

Partner. 

Tools and Resources to Help You 

Improve Efficiency

CAGI members work to improve the

effectiveness of compressed air systems

and to increase the satisfaction of users of

compressed air systems with those systems.

The institute has developed many publications that address compressed air systems

and system components, including compressors, filters, tools, and dryers. Among

these publications is the Compressed Air &

Gas Handbook. The handbook provides a

wealth of information about compressed

air systems and compressed air equipment

that will answer most questions posed by

end users. A companion video

series is being developed to

provide information about

compressed air systems in an

easily understood manner.

In addition to educational

publications, CAGI has developed a number of standards to

help end users specify the equipment that

will provide the performance that they

need. CAGI standards deal with all aspects

of compressed air systems, including methods for testing and rating the performance

of various types of filters, dryers, and compressors; compressor noise emission test

standards; and pneumatic tool safety

codes. The standards are intended to aid

end users in the selection of equipment,

and purchasers are advised to specify and

buy equipment that has been tested to

CAGI standards.

The following CAGI projects also

address compressed air system effectiveness and efficiency:

■ a common means of reporting performance through standardized data sheets

that will allow purchasers to more easily compare products. Data sheets for

rotary screw compressors and two types

of compressed air dryers have been

developed and will be implemented

this year. Data sheets for other types of

compressors, filters, and blowers are

forthcoming. 

■ a searchable database will become

active this fall. The database will be

accessible via the Internet and will contain the information found on the standard data sheets.

■ development with DOE of an educational video on compressor selection.

The video will complement the series of

videos that the institute has been producing to address proper selection,

installation, and maintenance of compressed air systems and components. 

■ co-hosting the Fundamentals of Compressed Air Systems training sessions

that are being conducted by the Compressed Air ChallengeTM this spring.

■ continued active participation in the

work of the Compressed Air ChallengeTM, including promotion of training sessions and development of a more

advanced training curriculum.

CAGI in collaboration with the Compressed Air ChallengeTM, the Motor Challenge Program, and other organizations

plays a part in improving the competitiveness of U.S. businesses by enhancing the

performance of compressed air systems, a

critical but sometimes overlooked factor in

the success of many businesses. 

For more information about the Compressed Air & Gas Institute, visit the CAGI

Web site at www.cagi.org.

Fundamentals of Compressed Air Systems Seven Step Action Plan

The Fundamentals of

Compressed Air Systems training program is

designed to prepare the

participant to develop

and follow a seven-step

action plan. The purpose of the action plan

is to produce results—

lower operating costs

and greater reliability.

ACTION PLAN

1. Develop a basic block diagram.

2. Measure your baseline (kW, pressures, and leak load) and determine costs, with tools available.

3. Work with your compressed air system specialist to implement an appropriate compressor control strategy.

4. Once controls are adjusted, re-measure to get more accurate readings of kW, pressures, and to determine

leak load. Re-calculate energy use and controls.

5. Walk through to check for obvious preventive maintenance items and other opportunities to reduce costs

and improve performance.

6. Identify and fix leaks and correct inappropriate uses—know costs, and re-measure as above.

7. Evaluate Steps 1-6 and begin implementation of an awareness and continuous improvement program, 

and report results to management.
Compressed Air ChallengeTM 11

Ford Plant Cuts Costs by Optimizing Performance of its Compressed Air System 

Through a partnership with Detroit Edison,

Ford Motor Land Services embarked on a

project to improve the efficiency of the

compressed air system at its Woodhaven

Plant. Over the last year, Ford has implemented a number of cost effective actions

at the plant that are resulting in improved

compressed air system performance and

cost savings.

The 2.7 million-square-foot Woodhaven

Stamping Plant, located in Woodhaven,

Michigan, processes approximately 1,600

tons of steel per day into body panels for

Ford vehicles. 

With a project team comprised of plant

management and skilled trade personnel,

Ford Motor Land Services and Detroit Edison energy managers designed and implemented a plan to reduce the plant’s high

leakage rate and the $1.8 million in electricity costs attributable to the compressed

air system. Empowering and involving two

experienced hourly machine repairmen,

Scott Brooks and Mike Rounsifer, was key

behind this effort. Their personal commitment and passion to reduce compressed air

consumption has made this effort a success.

After just 6 months of effort, the plant

has reduced their average standard-cubicfeet-per-minute (scfm) flow by approximately 18% (from 25,000 scfm to 20,500

scfm) and cut electricity costs by approximately $400,000 per year. One 800-hp

reciprocating compressor was taken completely off line and remaining in-service

compressors are consuming slightly less

energy. 

Actions Implemented in the Second Half

of 1998:

The Woodhaven plant undertook the following actions in its efforts to improve

compressed air system performance.

■ Assembled an Air Leak Detection/Correction team. Two machine repairmen

were assigned to identify and correct

significant leaks. Management support

was gained for this activity by presenting a cost-benefit analysis. Leak correction activities occur primarily during the 

July and December plant shutdown,

during lunch breaks, and unscheduled

downtime. This effort is credited with

reducing air consumption approximately 2,500 SCFM (4,000,000 kWh).*

■ Replaced leaking seals on the stamping

press die automation valves, reducing

approximately 1000 SCFM (1,600,000

kWh).*

■ Lowered air header pressure approximately 5 psig, resulting in electrical savings of 2,300,000 kWh.*

■ Replaced existing flow measuring orifice plates with low loss venturis to

measure discharge flow from two of the

largest air compressors. Replaced orifice

plate in main system header with an

averaging pitot tube.

■ Developed posters and banners to publicize the leak detection/correction

effort with the production staff. This

year’s budget includes funding to train

the production staff on the cost of air

and electricity and to continue to build

awareness.

■ Began shutdown of small (30 hp each)

dedicated satellite air compressors.

These satellite compressors were

installed to supply 110 psig compressed

air to some of the stamping press

robots. After testing, the team demonstrated that five out of seven of these

compressors could be shutdown. Supply air for these robots was returned to

the plant’s lower pressure (70 psig)

main air header. The need for the two

remaining satellite compressors is still

under evaluation. The projected energy

and maintenance savings for this project is $55,000 annually. 

“We are very happy with the results we

have achieved so far from the improvements we made to our compressed air system. We want to continue to operate as

efficiently and cost effectively as possible,

so we have planned several efficiency

measures for this year,” explains Joe 

Ghislain of Ford Motor Land Services.

Actions being evaluated for 1999 include

refurbishing blanker die automation 

valves, replacing leaking counter balance

pressure regulating valves, replacing air

driven vacuum pumps with electric vacuum pumps, correcting improper use of

compressed air, compressed air and electrical departmental billing, adding a parttime electrician to the Air Leak Detection/

Correction Team, and installing energy-efficient compressed air dryers and motors,

among other actions.

*Based on

1. 12 months of operation

2. Compressor hp average = 4.25 SCFM

(kW = 5.4 SCFM)

3. Electrical Power Cost: 0.0435 $/kWh

Ford Motor Land Services’ 2.7 million-square-foot Woodhaven Plant.

After just 6 months of effort, the plant has reduced their average standardcubic-feet-per-minute (scfm) flow by approximately 18% (from 25,000 scfm to

20,500 scfm) and cut electricity costs by approximately $400,000 per year.
12 Compressed Air ChallengeTM

The Compressor Distributors Association and the Compressed Air ChallengeTM

The formation of the Compressed Air ChallengeTM spurred the creation of the Compressor Distributors Association by bringing

together several independent compressor

distributor associations. Distributors for

Atlas Copco, CompAir LeROI, Gardner

Denver, Quincy and Sullair pooled their

resources and formed the Association. 

Manufacturers’ distributor organizations

from across the nation represent the largest

resource pool available to help form and

implement the Compressed Air ChallengeTM goals. The several hundred privately-owned compressor distributorships,

along with their sales force, are the backbone of the compressor industry. They represent the compressor industry to the vast

majority of compressed air users. 

The service departments of local compressor distributors have technicians available to adjust controls and verify proper

performance of the components in a normal compressed air system. In most cases,

their sales force are the individuals who

will advise the users on supply equipment,

system design, and proper uses for an

energy-efficient system. 

As the Compressed Air ChallengeTM

begins its first rollout training sessions, it is

the local distributors who are filling the

classrooms and eagerly learning the concepts developed. These same people are

the ones who will be filling future classrooms with the industry users, their customers, in order to further these energy

saving guidelines. The involvement and

support of the Compressor Distributors

Association is and will be crucial in the

marketing, training and implementation of

the Compressed Air ChallengeTM. The

Compressor Distributors Association

embraces the concepts and future thinking

of the Compressed Air ChallengeTM and is

pleased to be playing a part in its success.

DOE Supports Systems Approach to Compressed Air

Improvements to major fluid systems

(pumps, fans, and air compressors) represent up to 62% of potential savings for

manufacturing plants, as reported in DOE’s

U.S. Industrial Electric Motor System Market Opportunities Assessment. The greatest

efficiency opportunities are found in taking

a systems approach—evaluating all aspects

from input power to the work performed

by the system. DOE’s Office of Industrial

Technologies (DOE/OIT) began working

with the industrial compressed air market

in 1995 to identify possible joint projects

to encourage a systems approach to compressed air.

The Compressed Air ChallengeTM, initiated in 1997 by DOE/OIT, the American

Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,

and the Energy Center of Wisconsin, is in

keeping with DOE/OIT’s mission of partnering with industry, and other government

and non-governmental organizations. The

purpose is to significantly improve the

resource efficiency and competitiveness of

the materials and process industries.

DOE/OIT has partnered with the Compressed Air ChallengeTM to develop the

publication Improving Compressed Air System Performance: A Sourcebook for Industry. The Sourcebook is available for $19.95

by calling (800) 862-2086.

As a sponsor of the Compressed Air

ChallengeTM, DOE is excited to be participating in a national rollout of the Fundamentals of Compressed Air Systems

Training this spring. A listing of the training

sites is enclosed. Call (800) 862-2086 for a

registration form. Please register early, as

demand is expected to be high. 

Helping Plant/Facilities Engineers Make the Best Use of Compressed Air Systems

By J. Bruce Medaris, 

CPE, Executive Director, AFE

The level of knowledge among plant and

facilities engineers regarding compressed

air systems varies widely from ‘expert’ to

none. The vast majority have very little

knowledge of the high cost of this fourth

utility, or what they can do to dramatically

improve their operating efficiency. The

Association for Facilities Engineering (AFE)

entered into the Compressed Air ChallengeTM to help change this situation. The

Challenge was conceived to educate

industry about best practices in compressed air systems, through which substantial energy savings could be realized.

AFE enthusiastically joined the Compressed Air ChallengeTM under the auspices

of the AFE Foundation, a not-for-profit

organization representing about 9,000

plant and facilities engineers throughout 

the country and abroad. It was, and is, the

intention of the AFE Foundation to assure

that the people responsible for the physical

plant were educated as to the actions they

could take to make better, more efficient

use of their compressed air systems. AFE is

dedicated to the proposition that the

plant/facilities engineer is the linchpin connecting upper management to the realities

of operating and maintaining the physical

plant. They are the people who are

charged with operating and maintaining

their plants as efficiently as possible within

the mission and goals of the company.

The Compressed Air ChallengeTM is

seen as a means of delivering the required

level of knowledge on best practices for

compressed air systems in a standardized

format and content to all who need it.

AFE holds a seat on the Compressed Air

ChallengeTM Project Development Committee in the interest of obtaining the best

possible compressed air training content

and quality for the engineers they represent. In addition, AFE is looking forward to

a process of certification in compressed air

systems as a means of providing a standard

of reference for dealings between and

among those involved in compressed air

audits of plants, distributors, and plant personnel. (AFE currently certifies plant engineers and plant maintenance managers.)

Conducting the compressed air training

is a sensible decision for both financial and

technological reasons, but for AFE, the

Challenge presents an opportunity to

immerse its members in an environment

committed to education, in keeping with

the AFE mission: “To Learn, Lead, and

Influence.”
Arizona

Phoenix 6/17/99 Mesa Pavilion Hilton

California

Los Angeles 4/15/99 Radisson Hotel

San Diego 6/11/99 Town & Country Resort & 

Conference

Colorado

Denver 5/6/99 Doubletree Hotel

Connecticut

Hartford 5/26/99 Northeast Utilities

Florida

Jacksonville 5/4/99 Holiday Inn Airport

Tampa 6/22/99 Ramada Airport Inn & 

Conference Center

Georgia

Atlanta 6/4/99 Wyndam Garden Buckhead

Idaho

Boise 5/18/99 Doubletree Hotel Downtown

Illinois

Rockford 4/9/99 Holiday Inn Rockford

Peoria 4/13/99 Pere Marquette

Chicago 4/20 and ComEd Technical Training

4/21/99

Iowa

Cedar Rapids 6/7/99 Kirkwood Community College

Des Moines 6/8/99 Des Moines Area Community 

College

Iowa/Illinois

Quad Cities 5/25/99 Eastern Iowa Community College

Kansas

Kansas City 6/15/99 Best Western Inn and Conference 

Center

Maryland

Baltimore 5/21/99 Sheraton

Massachusetts

Worchester 4/13/99 Ramada Inn Worchester

Boston 6/4/99 Four Points Sheraton

Michigan

Detroit 6/3/99 Hyatt Regency Dearborn

Minnesota

Minneapolis 4/28/99 Doubletree Hotel Minneapolis 

Airport at the Mall

Missouri

St. Louis 4/15/99 Edwardsville, Southern Illinois 

University Facility

Montana

Missoula 4/28/99 Holiday Inn Missoula

New Jersey

Woodbridge 5/25/99 Sheraton Hotel at Woodbridge 

Place

New York

Buffalo 5/18/99 Buffalo Marriott

Syracuse/Albany 6/8/99 Radisson Plaza Syracuse

New York City 6/11/99 LaGuardia Sheraton

Oklahoma

Oklahoma City 6/22/99 Biltmore Hotel

Ohio

Cleveland 5/4/99 Cleveland East Marriott

Oregon

Portland 5/18/99 Oregon Institute of Technology

Pennsylvania

Allentown 5/12/99 Days Inn & Conference Center

Philadelphia 6/4/99 Holiday Inn Valley Forge

Pittsburgh 6/8/99 Holiday Inn Pittsburgh Airport

York/Lancaster 6/10/99 Holiday Inn Visitor’s Center

Rhode Island

Providence 5/11/99 Holiday Inn Downtown

South Carolina

Greenville 6/11/99 Hilton Towers Greenville

Tennessee

Knoxville 5/13/99 Hilton Knoxville Airport

Nashville 5/28/99 Renaissance Marriott Nashville

Texas

Dallas 5/28/99 Dallas Marriott Quorum

San Antonio 6/14/99 Doubletree San Antonio

Utah

Salt Lake City 5/26/99 Hilton Salt Lake City

Virginia

Richmond 6/11/99 Hilton Richmond Airport

Washington

Spokane 5/11/99 Cavanaugh’s River Inn Spokane

Seattle 6/9/99 Radisson Hotel Seattle Airport

Wisconsin

Eau Claire 5/11/99 Quality Inn

Green Bay 5/18/99 Comfort Suites

Janesville 5/24/99 Ramada Inn

Madison 5/25/99 Dane Co. Expo Center

Waukesha 6/9/99 Country Inn

For more information or a registration form, call (800) 862-2086

Compressed Air ChallengeTM: 

Fundamentals of Compressed Air Systems Training