Fall 2002

ISSUE FOCUS: 

Energy and 

Environmental Issues

By Frank Moskowitz, DRAW Professional

Services, Cave Creek, AZ

Compressed air is one of the most important

utility requirements of the typical industrial

manufacturer. Compressed air is used

throughout many applications and

processes such as pneumatic tools, pneumatic controls, compressed air-operated

cylinders for machine actuation, product

cleansing, and blow-offs. Without a consistent supply of quality compressed air, a

manufacturing process can stop functioning.

Compressed air is the third most important utility to industry (behind heating, ventilating and air conditioning—HVAC—and

lighting), and is commonly the most misunderstood system. Compressed air systems hold one of the keys to

greater productivity, efficiency

and profitability. 

The Compressed Air Challenge® (CAC) is a national collaboration created to assist

industrial facilities in achieving

greater reliability, improved

quality control, and lower

operating costs for their compressed air systems. The CAC

encourages facilities to take a

systems approach to optimizing compressed air operation.

Taking a systems approach

means looking beyond individual components to assess

how well your compressed 

air system meets actual production needs. This is known

as “matching supply with

demand”. It also means identifying the root causes of system

problems, rather than treating

the symptoms.

The CAC has one purpose in mind—

helping you improve the performance of

your compressed air system.

In the United States, compressed air

systems account for $1.5 billion per year in

energy costs, and 0.5% of emissions. Many

industries use compressed air systems as

power sources for tools and equipment

used for pressurizing, atomizing, agitating,

and mixing applications. Optimization of

compressed air systems can provide energy

efficiency improvements of 20% to 50%.

The Industrial Technologies Program, a

program within the DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network,

Compressed Air’s Role in Productivity

IN THIS ISSUE

Compressed Air’s Role 

in Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Get Pumped: Meet the 

Newest PSAT Instructors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Refinery ID’s $52.5 Million in Savings 

Via Plant-Wide Energy Assessment . . . 6

Making Good Motor Decisions—

The Ellensburg Wastewater 

Treatment Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

When Utility Costs Rival Labor Costs, 

Management Takes Notice . . . . . . . . . . 9

Ask the Clearinghouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Letters to the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

EM Extra Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

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

“TURNING INFORMATION INTO ENERGY SOLUTIONS FOR INDUSTRY”

INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NITED STAT S OFA

ERICA

M

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

www.oit.doe.gov 

www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices

In industrial settings, 90% of companies use compressed

air in some aspect of their operations.

A California refinery’s plant-wide

assessment identifies $52.5 million

in energy savings. See page 6.

(continued on page 2) 

Coors Brewing Co./PIX 03232
2 Energy Matters, Fall 2002

ENERGY MATTERS

is published quarterly by the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s

(DOE) Industrial Technologies

Program). 

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

Rob Boteler, representing

National Electrical Manufacturers

Association

Lynda Butek, representing 

Electrical Apparatus Service 

Association

Eric T. Fletty, Business 

Development Manager, TAPPI

Gary L. Goehring, Alcoa 

North American Extrusions

Glenn Hahn, Spirax Sarco

J. Bruce Medaris, Facilities 

Consulting Services and 

Executive Director, Compressed

Air Challenge®

Michael R. Muller, Center for

Advanced Energy Systems, 

Rutgers University

Arvind Thekdi, E3M, Inc.

Chuck Whelan, DuPont 

■

DOE STAFF

Chris Cockrill, BestPractices,

Motors

Fred Hart, Technology Manager 

Grace Ordaz, Plant-wide 

Assessment

Peter Salmon-Cox, Lead 

Technology Manager, Technology

Delivery and BestPractices 

■

COMMENTS? 

Contact: 

David Wagman, Energy Matters

Editor, at 303-275-3602, 

e-mail david_wagman@nrel.gov

or Karen Atkison, Associate 

Editor at 303-275-3730, e-mail 

karen_atkison@nrel.gov

1617 Cole Blvd., MS 1609

Golden, CO 80401

For new subscriptions, go to

www.oit.doe.gov/

bestpractices/explore_library/

energy_matters.shtml

For address/subscription changes,

please contact the editor.

provides an assortment of tools and

resources to help industrial end users

achieve efficiency improvements and

related cost savings.

The CAC has developed two levels of

training for plant engineers: “Fundamentals

of Compressed Air Systems” and “Advanced

Management of Compressed Air Systems.”

Compressed air systems can give you fairly

direct indications that a problem exists, but

finding the right solution and fixing the

problems aren’t always obvious.

■ That new super-fast packaging machine

you just installed was supposed to

package 1,000 widgets an hour. However, the compressed air pressure delivered to the machine just can’t seem to

be sustained. It fluctuates by 20 PSI during different times of the day. In order to

avoid shutdowns, the output of the

packaging machine has been reduced

to only 300 widgets per hour. The

machine seems to run properly at this

level and the pressure fluctuations don’t

result in shutdowns. However, the

costly end result is lower productivity.

■ The computer numerical control (CNC)

milling machine, which can mill an aluminum component in two hours, is critical for a new contract your company

just received from a major aerospace

manufacturer. You need to produce

three of these components per shift. The

low-pressure safety switch on the

milling machine is set at 95 psig (that’s

where you were told to set it by your

boss). Any pressure below that will shut

it down. Momentary pressure dips during the day are indeed causing the

milling machine to occasionally shut

down. Scrap rate is at two pieces per

shift. The end result is less productivity,

overtime to make up lost parts, and a

high-dollar scrap rate. 

There are many more examples of how

compressed air systems behave erratically.

Perhaps you are already thinking of your

own compressed air system-related problems. You’re not alone.

Problems Widespread

In today’s industrial settings, approximately 90% of companies use compressed

air in some aspect of their operations. Of

this percentage of users, approximately

two-thirds have some form of problem

with their systems (either obvious or not).

Some of these problems have arisen from

installing incorrect types of compressors,

improper cleanup equipment, inappropriate control methods or unsound installation practices. The bottom line is that the

Compressed Air’s Role in Productivity

continued from page 1

Schematic of a typical compressed air system used in an industrial setting.

(continues) Energy Matters, Fall 2002 3

problems are costly in the long run. These

hidden costs can be seen in reduced

equipment life and noticeable operating

costs. These are all symptoms of a much

larger problem: the general lack of understanding of compressed air systems. There

is no such thing as a foolproof compressed

air system. Even the best of systems have

the potential for serious problems. 

Almost every compressed air system has

room for performance improvement, from

a modern system in a two-year-old plant to

one that has been modified and updated

over the last 40 years. 

If you use compressed air in your 

facility, your best defense against such

experiences is to have a fundamental

understanding of how your compressed air

system functions and what forces (outside

or inside) are influencing it.

Improving the performance of your

compressed air system will not only reduce

energy costs, but will lead to: 

■ Reduced downtime

■ Increased throughput

■ Lower scrap rate

■ Improved product quality 

■ Longer equipment life.

Using compressed air systems efficiently can have a significant effect on

costs as well as increase productivity and

reliability. For a compressed air system to

work efficiently and reliably, both the supply side (the compressors, air treatment

equipment, and primary storage) and the

demand side (the distribution, secondary

storage systems, and the end-use equipment) must be managed. A properly managed supply side will result in clean, dry,

stable air being delivered at the appropriate pressure in a dependable, cost-effective

manner. A properly managed demand side

minimizes wasted air and uses compressed

air for appropriate applications.

Systems Approach

Improving and maintaining peak compressed air system performance requires

addressing both the supply and demand

sides of the system and how the two interact. This practice is referred to as taking a

“systems approach” because the focus is 

shifted away from the individual components to the total system performance.

Applying the systems approach usually

involves the following:

1. Develop a basic block diagram of your

system

2. Measure your baseline (kilowatts, pressure, and leak load) of your system to

determine the costs to operate

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 kilowatts, pressure and leak load

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

opportunities to reduce costs and

improve performance

6. Identify and fix leaks, correct inappropriate uses; then, knowing costs, remeasure and adjust controls as above

7. Evaluate results from the first six steps

and implement an awareness and continuous improvement program.

With compressed air systems, system

dynamics (that is, changes in demand over

time) are especially important. The use of

controls, storage, and demand management to effectively design a system that

meets peak requirements, but also operates

efficiently at part load, is key to achieving

a high-performance compressed air system.

Demand Side Issues

Production interruptions are usually caused

by the demand side. Let’s identify several

common areas where energy savings might

be available: 

■ Find and fix leaks: Leaks are constantly

occurring in an operating system, and

often consume up to 30% of the total

demand in a plant. Check all of the

plant’s point-of-use connections for the

(continued on page 4) 

1. Calculate compressed air as a cost of

production. Compressed air is seldom

considered as a contributing cost of production. Instead, compressed air costs

are typically blended into overhead and

often thought of as free. Do you know

your actual costs for producing compressed air?

2. Control energy costs at the source.

Existing compressed air systems in the

U.S. consume an estimated 90 billion

kilowatt-hours per year of electricity.

Are your compressed air energy costs

under control?

3. Balance your compressed air system

and save. Many of today’s compressed

air systems have been pieced together

over the years in an attempt to meet the

growing needs of production and facility expansion. The result is often an

unbalanced system with various components negatively interacting to create

artificial demands and poor air quality.

This certainly has a negative effect on

man-hours and production. Do you

experience inconsistent air quality and

fluctuating air pressure?

4. Sharpen your competitive edge. Compressed air is vital to the operation of

every industrial plant. An efficient compressed air system will increase productivity and ensure better product quality.

The more reliable your compressed air

system, the lower the cost is to produce

your product—not to mention on-time

delivery and increased customer satisfaction. Are you looking for a competitive edge?

5. Optimize your compressed air system.

Compressed air energy can cost 7 to10

times more than electrical energy when

it comes to doing mechanical or process

related work. An optimized system

ensures that efficient and effective compressed air is available for the lowest

possible cost. Have your production and

management teams implemented a plan

to enhance your compressed air system?

HOW CAN THE COMPRESSED AIR CHALLENGE® BENEFIT YOU? 

BY HELPING YOU LEARN TO DO THE FOLLOWING
4 Energy Matters, Fall 2002

slightest hissing sound. An ultrasonic

leak detector can identify leaks, even in

a noisy industrial plant.

■ Avoid the improper, yet common, practice of leaving manual condensate

drains partially open in an effort to

ensure moisture-free performance at a

particular point-of-use. Even a timed

electrical drain operating for 10 seconds

open every 30 minutes can cost hundreds of dollars in compressed air each

year. Look into zero air loss-type drains.

■ Regulate all point-of-use operations at

the lowest practical pressure using a

good quality regulator. Be sure to use a

good quality regulator, as poor quality

regulators tend to drift and track. If the

regulator tracks or drifts up 5 PSI, the

application will use more air. 

■ Modify and, if possible, eliminate blowoffs. Because many blow-off applications use compressed air simply because

it is there, check to see if a blower or fan

could accomplish the same objective.

Engineered nozzles are an excellent

substitute for open pipes or hoses.

■ Shut off the air supply to “idle” production equipment.

■ If one point-of-use requires air pressure

at a much higher level than the rest of

the system, consider putting it on its

own dedicated system. Don’t run the

entire system’s pressure for a single use

or point-of-use application. Consider

using a separate compressor, amplifier,

or booster that is sized for the function. 

Piping Issues

The piping should be of the proper

diameter to ensure that the air gets where it

needs to go, when it needs to get there,

and as close to the originating pressure and

in the quality and quantity required. 

■ Minimizing pressure drop requires a

systems approach in designing and

maintaining the system. Air treatment

components, such as aftercoolers, moisture separators, dryers, and filters,

should be selected with the lowest possible pressure drop at specified maximum operating conditions of flow and

temperature. When installed, the recommended maintenance procedures

should be followed and documented. 

■ The pressure drop through the system

also increases as the square of airflow

rate (velocity). High volume intermittent

demands can create peak airflow rates

causing significant pressure fluctuations.

Supply Issues

In a multiple compressor system, all

compressors should be baseloaded except

for one, which should be trimming. 

■ Evaluate your need for modulating

compressors. A modulating compressor

operating at 40% output could still be

consuming 80% of its power. There are

other compressor controls that may be

better suited for trimming. 

■ Lower the output pressure: For every 2

PSI change from rated pressure, the

brake horsepower (BHP) required will

change 1% from the rated BHP. Increase

the pressure by 10 PSI and the BHP will

go up 5%. Decrease the pressure by 20

PSI and the BHP will go down 10%.

■ The electrical energy used by an industrial air compressor is converted to heat.

A properly designed heat recovery system can recover 50% to 90% of this

thermal energy. The recovered heat can

be used for supplemental space heating,

industrial process heating, water heating, makeup air heating, and boiler

makeup water preheating.

■ Utilize pressure/flow controllers. The

higher the pressure delivered to the

plant, the higher the artificial demand

and the leakage. Pressure/flow controllers are high-performance pressure

regulators installed on the supply side

of the compressed air system. They

have two simple effects on compressed

air systems: they create stored air volume to handle peak requirements and

lower system pressure to reduce artificial demand and leaks. ●

Compressed Air’s Role in Productivity

continued from page 3

In 2002 a Compressed Air Challenge

Training Program Evaluation was conducted for the U.S. DOE in cooperation

with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

As of July 2002:

■ 3,872 individuals had attended the Fundamentals of Compressed Air Systems

training course

■ 966 individuals had attended the

Advanced Management of Compressed

Air Systems training course

■ Phone surveys interviewed 200 participants (100 end users +100 vendors) 

■ Technical review by CAC Ad Hoc Committee, to be published by U.S. DOE

CAC Training Evaluation Findings

■ Estimated annual savings from participants in the training is approximately

$12 million

■ 76% of customers participating in CAC

systems training reported making significant capital or operating improvements

to their compressed air system since

attending the training

■ Participants found the sessions both

useful and of high quality

■ Using conservative estimates, participants saved 8% of compressed air system energy on average as the direct

result of the training

■ End users who implemented compressed air system efficiency measures

experienced significant non-energy

benefits, including:

• Reduced downtime

• Reduced system moisture and contamination

• More consistent system pressure.

What are you waiting for? Visit the Compressed Air Challenge® web site for more

information on training and events:

www.compressedairchallenge.org

EVALUATING COMPRESSED AIR CHALLENGE® TRAINING
Energy Matters, Fall 2002 5

Tom Angle and Dan Wood want to pump

you up.

Tom and Dan are among a growing

number of pump specialists who scored

high marks on a challenging exam and successfully completed a challenging training

course, enabling them to become Qualified

Pump System Assessment Tool (PSAT)

instructors.

PSAT is a software

program that helps

users assess energy

savings opportunities

in pumping systems

by relying on field

measurements of flow

rate, head, and either

motor power or current to perform the

assessment. Using algorithms from

Hydraulic Institute standards and motor

performance characteristics from U.S.

DOE’s MotorMaster+ database, PSAT estimates existing pump and motor efficiency

and calculates the potential energy and

cost savings of a system optimized to work

at peak efficiency. 

DOE has offered PSAT training sessions

since 1999. Demand has been high for the

software and training, and continues to

grow. To meet the demand and increase

the number of PSAT experts to assist end

users, DOE is working with the pumping

industry and its Allied Partner, the

Hydraulic Institute, to train and qualify

experts in the use of PSAT. 

Among the latest to become Qualified

PSAT instructors are Tom Angle, Director of

Engineering and R&D at Weir Specialty

Pumps in Salt Lake City, and Dan Wood,

Manager of Educational Services at

Flowserve Corp. in Irving, Texas. Energy

Matters spoke with Tom and Dan to learn

more about what PSAT can do to enhance

pump efficiency, lower costs and help

industry use energy more wisely.

Tom Angle sees PSAT as particularly

important because few university engineering programs teach pump system applications. The techniques of the trade become

“almost tribal knowledge” as a result, he

says. PSAT training helps disseminate this

important knowledge throughout industry.

Tom sees two big advantages to training.

First, it helps demonstrate to pump users

that there’s a big upside potential to getting

a better system in place. Second, it shows

that better system will pay off in terms of

lower operating costs and greater efficiency.

“By educating our customers, it lessens

the chances that a pump is misapplied,”

Tom said.

Misapplied? How

could that happen?

Easily, Tom said.

A basic issue is that

most everyone working on a system design

tries to ensure that the

system has enough

capacity to handle

production needs.

After all, so the thinking goes, no one criticizes a system that includes a 50% safety

factor. But almost everyone knows what

happens if a system’s 5% “shortfall” affects

productivity.

But overspecifying a system can have its

down side. For one thing, operating a

pump below its optimal level can lead to

cavitation and excessive wear and tear,

Tom said. For another, the overall system

may not work optimally.

Tom cites an extreme real-world example of overengineering to make his point. A

few years ago, a customer wanted a highspeed pump. Based on the customer’s system condition points, the pump had to run

at 6,300 RPM. The process was a low-flow

application of about 200 gallons per

minute at 4,600 feet of head, translating to

about 420 hp. The problem was that the

net positive suction head simply wasn’t

going to work. The customer rethought the

system in its entirety and asked what might

happen if the application needed 2,000

feet of head instead of 4,600 feet. In that

case, just 173 hp would be needed to

operate the pump system. This meant not

just a 50%-plus savings in horsepower, but

a savings of 2,600 feet of head, too.

Had the customer not taken a systems

approach to looking at his system, Tom

said, he would have lost half of the total

pressure across a control valve that in the

end wasn’t needed after all. 

Dan agrees that a big benefit of taking

the sort of systems approach that PSAT offers

is that end users can see not only big energy

savings, but first-cost savings as well.

Designing an optimal system increases 

Get Pumped: Meet the Newest PSAT Instructors

Tom Angle—Qualified PSAT Instructor

Director of Engineering and R&D

Weir Specialty Pumps

440 West 800 South

Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Tel: 801-530-7808

Fax: 801-530-7865

angle@weirsp.com

Don Casada—Qualified PSAT Instructor

Diagnostic Solutions, LLC

7525 Wickham Road

Knoxville, TN 37931

Tel: 865-938-0965

Fax: 865-947-4658

DonCasada@icx.net

Darryl Cox—Qualified PSAT Instructor

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Box 2009, MS 8038

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8038

Tel: 865-576-6460

Fax: 865-574-0382 

dfv@ornl.gov

Arnie Sdano—Qualified PSAT Instructor

Director of Engineering

Fairbanks Morse

3601 Fairbanks Ave.

Kansas City, KS 66106

Tel: 913-371-5000 ext. 4152

Fax: 913-371-6969

arnie.sdano@pentairpump.com

Dan Wood—Qualified PSAT Instructor

Manager, Advanced Technology

Flowserve Corporation

4343 W. Royal Lane

Irving, TX 75063

Tel: 972-915-1628

Fax: 972-443-6961

dwwood@flowserve.com

QUALIFIED PSAT SPECIALISTS

Tom Angle, 

PSAT Instructor, 

Weir Specialty Pumps

Dan Wood, 

PSAT Instructor,

Flowserve

(continued on page 6) 6 Energy Matters, Fall 2002

The Equilon oil refinery in Martinez, California, conducted a plant-wide energy

assessment in May 2001. The assessment

focused on three key areas: utilization of

waste energy, process debottlenecking, and

operations optimization. The resulting recommendations can be implemented in refineries throughout the

industry. 

The assessment identified potential annual savings of $52,485,000

with an estimated capital requirement of $30,993,000, and a 

6-month payback. The study identified energy savings of 6,230,600

million British thermal units per

year (MMBtu/year). This represents

savings of approximately 12% of

the total energy used at the facility.

The Martinez Refinery, located

30 miles northeast of San Francisco, began operating in 1915. It is now

part of Equilon Enterprises LLC, a joint venture between the U.S. refining, marketing,

and transportation assets of Shell Oil Co.

and Texaco Inc. Equilon refines and markets gasoline and other petroleum products

under both the Shell and Texaco brand

names in 31 western states. 

The refinery processes primarily San

Joaquin Valley crude oil at the rate of

165,000 barrels of oil per day. It is a highconversion refinery comprising catalytic

cracking, hydrocracking, and coking operations as well as the basic distillation and

catalytic reforming processes. The plant

includes lubricants and asphalt facilities.

Energy costs for the facility were approximately $185 million in 2000. This energy

was provided by a combination of purchased natural gas and power from waste

streams from the petroleum refining

processes.

Assessment Overview

Encouraged by the Industrial Technologies Program, the Martinez plant initiated

the plant-wide energy efficiency assessment in the spring of 2001. The Industrial

Technologies Program co-sponsored the

assessment as part of its efforts to improve 

industrial efficiency, waste reduction, productivity, and global competitiveness for

Industries of the Future. Plant assessment

partners included the Martinez refinery

and Houston-based Shell Global Solutions.

The study’s objectives were to identify

operational savings and highly leveraged

investment opportunities to reduce energy

consumption. Operational savings include

those gained by modifying the operation of

existing equipment, generally requiring no

initial capital investment. Highly leveraged

capital is that invested in a project that

returns the initial investment in 2 years or

less. Assessment personnel considered

process operation requirements as well as

the efficiency of energy procurement, distribution, and conversion to useful work. 

Assessment staff reviewed the entire

energy supply and use chain, including:

■ Procurement of supplemental energy

(usually natural gas and electrical

power) 

■ Conversion of chemical to thermal

energy (combustion efficiency or conversion from electricity to horsepower) 

■ Distribution efficiency (losses in getting

the heat or power to its process use)

■ End use of energy in the refining

process.

The analysis revealed that optimizing the

refining process operations to require less

energy, while maintaining throughput and

product specifications, would provide

much of the available benefit. The assessment team employed a methodology that

identified a wide range of conservation

opportunities that met a 2-year or less simRefinery ID’s $52.5 Million in Savings 

Via Plant-Wide Energy Assessment

The Martinez Refinery was the focus of a plant-wide

energy assessment.

reliability (by reducing vibration, radial

loads, and pump failures, among other

things), improves efficiency, and may lead

to energy savings.

“It all blends together,” Dan said.

A number of chemical and refinery customers are currently requesting PSAT training through Dan’s office at Flowserve. Dan

estimates the number of professionals who

ultimately could benefit from this sort of

training may number in the thousands.

Tom agrees, saying that more people

than ever before are talking about lifecycle costing. 

That’s one of the chief positive aspects

to the systems approach that PSAT offers,

he said. “The economics are so irrefutable,

it’s something that will and has to succeed.”

And the benefits don’t flow just to large

contractors who are building systems from

scratch. Smaller-sized contractors working

on site upgrades can benefit from the systems approach that PSAT training affords.

The PSAT workshops offered by dedicated industry professionals like Tom Angle

and Dan Wood prepare other professionals

by offering them extensive experience in

pumping systems to use PSAT in their system assessments. Participants learn: 

■ How to accurately acquire input data

for PSAT 

■ How to prescreen pumping systems to

select the “vital” systems for further

review 

■ How to use the PSAT software 

■ The difference between measurements

and requirements 

■ The importance of a systems perspective. 

Participants who complete the workshop and pass a qualifying exam will be

recognized by DOE as Qualified Pump

System Specialists, and will be listed on

the BestPractices Web site. Specialists

assist industrial customers in using PSAT to

evaluate their pumping systems. 

If you are a pump system professional

interested in the PSAT qualification

process, please contact Vestal Tutterow,

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory at

202-646-7957. Check the BestPractices

training calendar for announcements of

upcoming PSAT qualification workshops. ●

Meet the Newest PSAT Instructors

continued from page 5

(continues) Energy Matters, Fall 2002 7

ple payback period. The total cost of the

energy assessment was $275,000; DOE

provided $100,000 in cost-share funding.

Assessment Implementation

The plant assessment began with a

benchmarking evaluation of energy use,

identifying both the procedural and hardware differences that distinguish the Martinez plant from the industry leaders in

energy-efficient refining. As part of the data

collection for this evaluation, all of the

fired equipment (i.e., any equipment that

burns fuel, including all process heaters

and boilers) was performance tested using

API-532 methodology. This methodology

uses the flue gas temperature and stack stoichiometry to calculate the thermal efficiency of fired equipment. 

Assessment personnel collected process

data that included material properties,

flows, temperatures, and pressures for most

of the major process streams in every unit.

Next, they compared actual performance

to the petroleum industry’s best practices

standards to identify opportunities for

improvement. The team then estimated the

cost of each proposed change and evaluated the return on investment against the

criteria for highly leveraged investment. 

A joint team of refinery and corporate

personnel then met with the operating and

technical support personnel for each of the

refinery processing units. This team conducted a data-based review of current

operations, looking for opportunities to

apply industry-leading operational practices and hardware design. Because many

process-related ideas involve some tradeoff

between process yields and energy use, the

team supported whichever outcome

resulted in the greatest economic benefit.

Opportunities were considered in the

following three primary areas.

1. Utilization of waste energy 

■ Flaring

■ Steam vents and leaks

■ Fouling in condensing turbines and

educators (i.e., steam-powered venturis

used to draw a vacuum on a steam turbine surface condenser)

■ Boiler blowdown control

■ Surface condenser vacuum

■ Heat exchanger bypassing

■ Fired equipment excess air and excess

draft

■ Unit recycle and minimum flow

■ Energy conservation equipment (This

equipment includes waste heat boilers,

air preheat, hydraulic turbines, steam

turbines to minimize letdown, feed/

effluent exchangers.)

2. Process debottlenecking

■ Furnace limits (tube metal temperature

limits that constrain the maximum firing

rate on furnaces in coking service)

■ Condenser limits (heat transport limitations in distillation column overhead

condensers that limit column capacity

at a given operating pressure).

3. Operations optimization

■ Management systems and targets (optimization instructions given to operating

personnel to control unit operation)

■ Distillation

■ Use of minimum steam pressure

■ Furnace and heat exchange

■ Cost of power

■ Hydrogen system optimization

■ Condensate return

■ Heat integration.

Once the energy-saving opportunities were

reviewed, the assessment team estimated

the energy savings that would be gained by

implementing the most promising ideas.

This was accomplished by using historical

operational data and by developing a scope

estimate of the necessary changes. The

team also identified process risks associated

with these changes. Recommendations

were limited to process technology already

successfully implemented in other facilities.

The assessment produced recommendations with an estimated annual benefit of

more than $52 million. The scope of these

changes ranges from procedural modifications to significant hardware redesign. 

Actions Identified 

The assessment identified opportunities in

the following primary areas.

■ Improve the efficiency of fired equipment. Fired equipment accounts for

most of the heat release within a refinery. Some efficiency improvement can

be achieved by lowering furnace draft

and excess oxygen. The majority of the

savings will result from additional stack

heat recovery. Estimated savings:

$11,796,000.

■ Utility system optimization. Utility system savings can be obtained from minimizing condensation on turbine drives

and by biasing steam production to the

most efficient boilers. Estimated savings:

$5,368,000.

■ Maintenance. Refinery energy systems

often require periodic renewal. The

opportunities at Martinez will involve

heat exchanger cleaning and insulation

repair. To achieve significant energy and

cost savings, Equilon would need to

invest in maintenance measures, primarily for insulation repairs and heat

exchanger cleaning. Total expenditure

is estimated at $9,850,000. Estimated

savings: $14,288,000

■ Quench elimination. Quenching a

process (reducing a process temperature

by mixing with a colder fluid) often

occurs in refinery operations. The recommendations focus on optimizing

stripping steam and water injections

needed for process control. Estimated

savings: $13,106,000

■ Hot rundown between units. Retaining

the heat in the intermediate processing

stream going from one unit to another is

much more efficient than cooling the

streams for storage and then reheating

them when needed. Implementing the

process control necessary to do this has

the additional benefit of reducing working inventory. Estimated savings:

$4,270,000

■ Eliminate waste. These recommendations identify processing that can be

eliminated without affecting output.

Estimated savings: $2,667,000

■ Other process changes. Most of these

recommendations involve adding hardware or controls to improve process

results while reducing energy consumption. Estimated savings: $1,000,000. ●

Here is how your company can adopt

the PWA methodology and strategy 

to achieve significant savings. For 

PWA program information, contact

Grace Ordaz, DOE, 202-586-8350; 

e-mail, grace.ordaz@ee.doe.gov. To

start your own PWA, contact Bob

Leach, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,

865-946-1352; e-mail leachre@ornl.gov.

And, to respond to annual PWA solicitations, visit www.oit.doe.gov.
All wastewater treatment plant operators

know that sooner or later they are going to

have to make an expensive decision: do

they rewind or replace a failed motor? 

Making this decision means knowing

facts about the motor’s efficiency, maintenance history, and costs—not only the initial costs to buy or rewind a motor, but also

its lifetime operating costs.

An important part of making this decision is having confidence “that we will be

making the most economical choice,” said

Irma Grogan, Ellensburg, Washington’s

Wastewater Treatment Plant Foreman. She

knows first hand what it’s like to make

these decisions. 

The Ellensburg Wastewater Treatment

Plant was constructed in 1974 and remodeled in 1982. The plant services the City of

Ellensburg, which has a population of

approximately 15,000. This secondary

treatment facility was designed as a complete mixed activated sludge plant with

capacity to treat 8 million gallons per day.

It currently processes an average of 3.5

million gallons daily.

In 2001, Grogan had to determine

whether to replace or to rewind two large

50 horsepower (hp) aerator motors in the

North Pond. The aerator company’s representative had made a recommendation for

a premium efficiency motor, but Grogan

wanted to do her own analysis. She used

the MotorMaster + 3.0, a motor management software program to analyze two

alternatives: rewind the existing motors, or

replace them with energy-efficient models.

MotorMaster+3.0 is a software program

that analyzes motor and motor system efficiency. Designed for utility auditors, industrial plant energy coordinators, and

consulting engineers, MotorMaster+3.0 is

used to identify inefficient or oversized

facility motors and compute the energy and

demand savings associated with selection

of a replacement energy-efficient model.

The MotorMaster+ 3.0 software program

was developed by the Washington State

University Cooperative Extension Energy

Program, and is funded by the U.S. DOE.

Initial use of the MotorMaster+ software

by Ellensburg showed it was more costeffective to purchase new motors than to

rewind the existing motors. Grogan then

used the software to compare the costeffectiveness and simple payback of various

new 50 hp motors. Review of MotorMaster’s database information, depicted in

the accompanying chart, showed that buying a new standard efficiency motor was

warranted. 

Lessons Learned

MotorMaster+ software simplified the

repair-versus-replace decision-making

process. Grogan first had to determine if

Ellensburg should replace or rewind the

motor, with all expenses considered. Then

she looked at costs and her budget. Finally,

she presented the idea to her boss, her recommendations supported by hard data

from Motor Master+.

“MotorMaster+ gave me the numbers I

need to justify the purchase,” Grogan said. 

Her review provided her with a number

of tangible results:

■ A reliable process to determine repair

versus replace decisions for motors

■ A complete, plant-wide database of 

80 motors ranging in size from 1

⁄2 hp to

100 hp

■ Knowledge that the plant’s motors are

not wasting energy

8 Energy Matters, Fall 2002

Making Good Motor Decisions –The Ellensburg Wastewater Treatment Plant

MotorMaster+ proved a useful tool at a Washington State water treatment plant.

Ellensburg’s dilemma: replace or rewind a 

50 hp aerator motor? (continued on page 11) 

COMPARISON OF MOTOR REWIND V. REPLACEMENT COSTS AND EFFICIENCIES

Annual Savings/Motor Simple Payback

Options Cost/Motor Efficiency (kWh and $/year) (Years) 

Rewind $10,275 89% None N/A

existing motor 

Replace with new $ 6,878 92% 2,970 kWh and $110/yr Immediate 

standard motor ($1,650 savings over 

motor’s life) 

Replace with $12,673 93.6% 4,837 kWh and $179/yr 32 

NEMA Premium ($2,685 savings over 

motor motor’s life) 
Energy Matters, Fall 2002 9

Mark Rawlings, Plant Maintenance Manager, thought he had the numbers wrong

when a recent calculation showed that his

company, Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., was

paying almost as much in utility costs as

his annual salary – just to run a single 250

hp motor.

The motor had failed and Rawlings had

to decide whether to repair it or replace it

with a new one. Company policy for this

type of decision was simple—compare the

cost of repair to the cost of buying a new

motor, then pick the less expensive of 

the two.

For this particular decision, however,

Rawlings factored another cost into the

equation—the cost of electricity to run the

motor. This made all the difference in his

final decision: replace the old motor with a

new, energy efficient one.

At 93% efficiency running 24 hours a

day, 6 days a week, the existing motor was

costing Woodgrain $52,000 a year in electricity bills. The electricity cost was so surprising that “I called our representative at

Idaho Power to confirm the rate information I was using,” said Rawlings. Idaho

Power confirmed the rate schedule and

encouraged Rawlings to explore efficient

motor options.

With the help of Dennis Bowns, a field

consultant with the Electric Motor Management program, Rawlings used MotorMaster+ software to compare the existing motor

t comparable new energy efficient models. 

The MotorMaster+ software program was

developed by the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Energy Program

(the Energy Program), and is funded by the

U.S. DOE via the Industrial Technologies

Program’s BestPractices Program (formerly

the Motor Challenge Program).

MotorMaster+ analyzes motor and

motor system efficiency. Designed for utility auditors, industrial plant energy coordinators, and consulting engineers,

MotorMaster+3.0 is used to identify inefficient or oversized facility motors and compute the energy and demand savings

associated with selection of a replacement

energy-efficient model.

In its application at Woodgrain Millwork, the software identified a new motor

with 1.3% greater efficiency, which would

save the company as much as $600 annually. The new motor was also priced comparably to the cost of the rewind and

mechanical repairs, which were expensive

due to catastrophic failure. 

Rawlings concluded it was the best

choice and bought it to replace the failed

motor. This decision is estimated to save

Woodgrain $600 annually, equivalent to

an electricity savings of 20,700 kWh. 

Lessons Learned

Rawlings learned much from this simple

analysis. First, the company’s current repair/

replace policy ignored the costs of operating a motor and is costing them money in

the long run. Second, there are good software tools available to make life cycle costing and comparison shopping easy, and

help make the pitch to management.

“The fact that I could generate a written

report for management comparing our

options helped convince management to

buy the new efficient motor,” said Rawlings. Third, the analysis tools are only as

good as the information at hand on the

motors in the plant. Without an inventory

that provides good data such as rewind

and repair history, hours of operation,

nameplate data, and more, the tools won’t

be of much help. Finally, since it takes time

to do this analysis, doing it in advance of a

motor failure can prevent a hasty decision

that costs more in the long run. 

Using these lessons, Rawlings committed his department to develop a motor

inventory for its 500 motors. Once established, the inventory will track spares on

hand, rewind history, and be used for

repair/replace decision making with energy

efficient motors. Rawlings worked with

consultant Bowns to streamline the process

by collecting only the most important

motor data, and focusing on one set of

motors in the plant at a time. He’s now

completed work on some 75 of the largest

support systems motors that keep the

buildings running. The next phase of the

inventory focuses on specialty motors that

run equipment such as molders and are

hard to replace. 

Rawlings and Bowns are exploring

ways to speed up the collection process by

using a handheld computer loaded with

the inventory spreadsheet to enter data

directly from the plant floor. Data is

entered directly from the plant floor into

the handheld computer then transferred to

a computer for analysis later. With equipment motor nameplate data accessible on

the plant floor, decisions are made based

on amperage evaluations at motor control

centers without interruption of the production process. The handheld computer is

also used to anticipate materials that might

be required prior to dispatching electrical

staff to problem motor locations, again saving valuable time. 

Rawlings plans to use the inventory

data collected to date to generate reports

that demonstrate savings opportunities. He

expects these to be convincing enough to

change the way the company makes

repair/replace decisions. He knows that

when utility costs rival labor costs, his

management takes notice.

Benefits

■ Annual electricity cost savings of $600

from replacement of just one 250 hp

motor with a new energy efficient

model. Over the life of the motor, a savings of $6,000 is expected. Rawlings

has more than 500 motors in its plant.

■ Annual electricity savings of 20,700

kWh

■ Rapid data collection using hand-held

computer motor inventory tool– 55

motors in one month’s time

■ New motor inventory will track spare

motors on hand, provide rewind history,

be used for repair/replace decision making and choosing efficient motors. ●

When Utility Costs Rival Labor Costs, Management Takes Notice 
10 Energy Matters, Fall 2002

Ask the

Clearinghouse

Benefits of Reducing Steam

System Pressure 

This column highlights key questions from

industrial customers to the Industrial Technologies Program’s Clearinghouse. Through

the Clearinghouse, you can access the full

portfolio of resources and get technical

advice about motor, steam, compressed air,

combined heat and power, and process

heating systems. 

Clearinghouse engineers and technical

staff expertly answer industrial efficiency

questions, 11 hours a day, Monday-Friday.

The Clearinghouse also has access to

industry experts around the country. Call

the Clearinghouse at 800-862-2086, or go

to www.oit.doe.gov/clearinghouse/.

Q: How much energy can I save if I

reduce my boiler pressure from 120

psig to 75 psig? My local natural gas company says I would save nothing, but the

U.S. Department of Energy’s 2001 Steam

Digest contains a case study that claims a

chemical plant saved more than $142,000

annually by reducing its steam pressure. I

am confused.

A: There is no simple way to determine

the energy and fuel savings due to

reducing your steam system operating pressure. Savings can come from at least seven

sources. Each source’s contribution

depends heavily upon how your steam system is currently designed and operated. In

addition, some operational disadvantages

and steam quality concerns may arise from

operating at low pressure.

Steam at 120 psig is at a higher temperature than steam at 75 psig. The steam also

contains more enthalpy, or energy per

pound. Saturated steam and liquid properties are summarized below:

Steam Liquid

Pressure Enthalpy Enthalpy Temperature

(psig) (Btu/lb) (Btu/lb) (°F)

120 psig 1,192.7 321.8 350

75 psig 1,185.5 290.4 320

Examining the sources of boiler losses

will help you understand how lowering

boiler pressure saves energy. The seven

ways that energy savings occur are:

■ Reduced thermal losses through steam

distribution line insulation (due to the

lower steam temperature). The amount 

of the reduction depends upon the distribution line size, length, and insulation type and thickness. 

■ Reduced losses through uninsulated

steam distribution system valves and

fittings. The amount of the reduction

depends upon the number, size, and

type of valves and fittings, and whether

removable insulated jackets are used at

the facility.

■ Reduced boiler blowdown losses. This

energy savings benefit occurs because

the liquid being blown down is at a

lower temperature. The savings depend

upon the blowdown rate (which, in

turn, is dependent upon whether an

automatic blowdown control system is

in use), and whether a blowdown heat

recovery system is in place.

■ Reduced energy losses from steam

leaks and failed steam traps. At lower

pressures, the leak rate or mass passing

through an orifice is reduced resulting

in energy savings. In addition, each

pound of steam lost has a lower

enthalpy and contains less energy. Savings also depend upon the magnitude of

current steam losses.

■ Reduced makeup-water heating

requirements. The boiler makeup water

must be heated to 320°F, rather than

350°F. The quantity of makeup water

required depends upon water treatment

considerations (which dictate the boiler

blowdown rate), plus steam leaks,

deaerator steam venting, condensate

return, and other steam losses. Makeup

water heating requirements also depend

upon whether the makeup water is preheated by a blowdown heat exchanger

and/or a stack gas economizer.

■ Reduced stack gas temperature. The

boiler flue gas exit temperature must be

greater than—on the order of 100°F—the

boiler water temperature in order for efficient heat transfer to occur. A reduction

in steam temperature can allow for a corresponding decrease in flue gas temperature. A rule of thumb is that a 40°F

reduction in stack gas temperature leads

to a 1% improvement in boiler efficiency. The amount of energy saved

depends upon whether or not an economizer is used to recover stack waste

heat. Flue gas minimum temperature limits must also be maintained to minimize

the formation of acidic condensate that

can cause corrosion in flue gas passages.

■ Reduced boiler skin losses. Since the

temperature of the liquid in the boiler is

reduced, there is a reduction in surface

heat transfer losses. Energy savings are

dependent upon boiler type (firetube

versus watertube), surface area, and

current degree of insulation. 

The Boiler Efficiency Institute’s Boiler

Efficiency Handbook indicates that a typical annual savings due to reducing boiler

pressure is 1%. A number of operational

issues must be considered when reducing

pressure. By running a boiler at a lower

pressure, the boiling action in the boiler

becomes much more violent, causing

water to be carried over into the steam system. Producing low-quality steam can lead

to boiler shutdowns due to low water level

trips; damaged steam pipes and valves due

to water hammer, vibration, corrosion and

erosion; reduced capacity of steam heaters;

and, overloaded steam traps.

Other experts recommend conducting a

detailed investigation to determine operational effects before reducing steam pressure

on an individual boiler. As the steam density

and enthalpy are reduced, the steam velocity in the distribution system must be

increased to supply the same thermal

energy to various loads. Increased velocity

increases friction losses and leads to pressure drops within the system. Insufficient

steam supply could result. Pressure reducing

stations (if present) must be reset, and mud

blowdown must be timed at a point when

the boiler is operating at partial load to

avoid upsetting circulation. A change in

pressure relief valve sizes may also be necessary. We recommend you consult your

local boiler manufacturer’s representative.

Initiate your steam system improvement

program by visiting Industrial Technologies

Program’s BestPractices Steam website at

www.oit.doe.gov/best practices/steam.

From this website, you can download

steam tip sheets, case studies, technical

references, and financial tools. You can

also download the useful Steam System

Survey Guide (Oak Ridge National Laboratory ORNL/TM-2001/263, May 2002) at

www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/steam/

pdfs/steam_survey_guide.pdf, or order it

through Industrial Technologies Program’s

Clearinghouse. A Steam System Assessment

Tool is under development and should be

available in late 2002.

(continues) Energy Matters, Fall 2002 11

Letters to the Editor 

Energy Matters welcomes

your typewritten letters and

e-mails. Please include your

full name, address, organization, and

phone number, and limit comments to 200

words. Address correspondence to:

David Wagman, Letters to the Editor

NREL, MS 1609

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401

E-mail: David_Wagman@nrel.gov

We publish letters of interest to readers

on related topics, comments, or criticisms/

corrections of a technical nature. Preference is given to articles that appeared in

the previous two issues. Letters may be

edited for length, clarity, and style. ●

Q: We have been to several plants that

utilize plastic injection molding

machine technology. We have yet to see

one of these machines with insulation

around the barrel heaters used to melt

incoming product. If insulation is applied,

could damage occur to thermocouple and

electrical leads due to overheating the

outside of the barrel?

A: Most manufacturers of plastic injection molding machines now provide

shrouds over the barrel bands to create an

“oven effect.” In other words, heat radiated

from the barrel is reflected back. The

shrouds are placed some distance from the

barrel, however, so convective heat transfer still occurs. 

One energy efficiency approach for

uninsulated molding machines is to retrofit

custom-fitted insulated vests over the barrel. Insulation should not be installed on

the back of the barrel. These vests can

result in overdriving the internal temperature and possibly shortening the life of lead

wires. Unfortunately, the use of insulated

vests can also lengthen cool down periods.

A longer cool down time can decrease production rates. 

A preferred alternative is to replace the

mica or ceramic knuckle-type band heaters

typically supplied by European companies

with insulated barrel and nozzle heaters.

Insulated barrel band heaters have a thin

layer of highly conductive material

between the heating element and the inner

surface and are backed by a layer of low

thermal conductivity insulation. This construction directs heat inwards toward the

barrel. Insulated barrel heaters with mica

or mineral insulation are available that

have a temperature withstanding capability

of 1000 °F to 1400 °F. 

A recommended approach is to retrofit

one injection molding machine within a

plant, then use watt-meters to measure the

“before” and “after” energy consumption

per part produced. In this manner, annual

energy savings and the cost effectiveness of

an insulated barrel heater retrofit project

can be demonstrated to plant management.

Energy savings on the order of $20,000 to

$40,000 per year per plant have been

reported—with variations due to the number and size of injection molding machines,

number of band heaters on each barrel,

operating schedule, and electrical rates. 

Use of insulated barrel heaters to

increase productivity is possible because

the replacement heaters can tolerate a

higher current density than standard

heaters. A higher current density means the

heat-up portion of the productivity cycle

can be reduced, resulting in faster and more

efficient production. Insulated barrel heaters

also reduce heat loss into the building

space, decreasing the demands on the ventilation and space conditioning system. ●

Energy Matters Extra contains links to help

you learn more about compressed air’s role

in enhancing productivity in manufacturing processes, the Pump System Assessment Tool instructors, and how your plant

may be able to achieve energy cost savings

through a Plant-wide Assessment. Check

out all the original Energy Matters newsletter articles and research topics through

the online archives.

Log on to Energy Matters Extra at www.

oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/energymatters/

emextra. ●

EXTRA 

■ Confidence in the decision to replace

an older, inefficient motor with a new,

standard motor

■ Savings of $1,650 over the life of each

50 hp motor replaced. 

Grogan has used MotorMaster 3.0+

software for more than just making this

purchase decision. With the help of Steve

Dunnivant, a field consultant with the

Electric Motor Management program, all of

Ellensburg’s motor inventory and maintenance logs have been entered into MotorMaster 3.0+. Once this was done,

Dunnivant made additional visits to Ellensburg to train Grogan and her staff to take

full advantage of all the software has to

offer. MotorMaster+ can generate everything from a basic motor inventory list to

payback comparisons using local utility

rates and downsizing comparisons.

“MotorMaster+ is easy for us to work

with, and having assistance was important,” Grogan said. After this training, Grogan and her staff began testing all of the

plant’s motors to determine their efficiency.

What they learned was interesting. “We

found that we don’t have antiquated

motors. We have old, efficient motors. The

motors were good to begin with,” Grogan

said. She also learned that the plant’s original design was energy efficient. “We aren’t

using as much energy as everyone thought;

it’s not wasted,” she said.

Grogan hopes that she won’t have to

replace many motors in the next 5 to 10

years, but on one point, she is certain: “I’ll

use MotorMaster 3.0+ when I am looking

at replacing or rebuilding.” 

To download the latest version of

MotorMaster+ and the latest version of the

motors catalog database, visit http://mm3.

energy.wsu.edu/mmplus/default.stm. ●

Ellensburg Wastewater Treatment Plant

continued from page 8
INFORMATION

CLEARINGHOUSE

Do you have questions about 

using energy-efficient process

and utility systems in your industrial

facility? Call the Industrial Technologies

Program’s 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.oit.doe.gov/

clearinghouse.

HOTLINE: 800-862-2086

DOE Regional Office Representatives

■ David Godfrey, Atlanta, GA, 

404-562-0568

■ Scott Hutchins, Boston, MA, 

617-565-9765

■ Brian Olsen, Chicago, IL, 

312-886-8579

■ Jack Jenkins, Denver, CO, 

303-275-4824

■ Chris Cockrill, Seattle, WA, 

816-873-3299

■ Joseph Barrett, Philadelphia, PA, 

215-656-6957

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-102002-1660 • Fall 2002

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NITED STAT S OFA ERICA

M

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper

containing at least 50% wastepaper, including

20% postconsumer waste

AIRMASTER+ SPECIALIST WORKSHOP, SACRAMENTO, CA 

■ February 25–February 27, 2003

For more information, contact Amanda Dosch, adosch@ppc.com. Hosted by Sacramento

Municipal Utility District 

CHEMICALS AND PETROLEUM – TEXAS TECHNOLOGY SHOWCASE, HOUSTON, TX

■ March 17–March 19, 2003 

For more information, call David Salem, Chemicals and Petroleum Team 202-586-8710. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, CO 80401-3393

PRSRT STD

U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit No. 258

Golden, Colorado

BestPractices

The Industrial Technologies Program’s

BestPractices initiative and its Energy Matters newsletter introduce industrial end

users to emerging technologies and wellproven, cost-saving opportunities in motor,

steam, compressed air, and other plantwide systems. 

Coming Events

To keep up-to-date on Industrial Technologies Program’s training and other events,

check the calendar regularly on Energy Matters Extra at www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/

energymatters/emextra.