Lately, much of the United States has experienced unseasonably cold weather for the month of December. Record lows have been recorded in many states. While no meteorological records have been set in Maine this month, the weather has been colder and snowier here also. This early winter has us seriously concerned about energy cost and supplies in Maine.
Electricity in Maine is purchased from other states and produced locally from a variety of sources including renewables and hydro. Increasingly, power is produced from gas-fired power plants. When gas was plentiful and relatively cheap we enjoyed the benefits of stable electricity costs. As gas distribution pipelines lately have been extended to many new communities and businesses, conversion to gas has been very popular. Unfortunately, this has pushed the limit of existing gas pipeline capacity in our region.
Last Saturday afternoon (December 14th), a new record of sorts was set. The spot market price for electricity in Maine set a record at $1.00 per Kw/Hr. The “spot market price” is the price of power that one utility company pays another for power. The typical price is $0.02 to $0.06 per Kw/Hr, thus this peak price was nearly a staggering 1700% spike! Most electric utilities buy power on the spot market for their daily peak power demands. These daily peaks are biggest during the Monday through Friday work week, reflecting the combined demand of business and residences. The typical daily peak demand duration is two to six hours, and happens twice a day, morning and late afternoon/evening. Saturday’s record spot price wasn’t due to the unusual demand, as it was on a weekend, or the uncharacteristic wintry weather. This record price is a frightening precursor of energy price hikes to come. These extremely high spot market prices ultimately will be borne by ratepayers.
So then, why was the cost so high? Ironically, efficient natural gas-powered generators were operating at extremely reduced capacities due to a shortage of gas at the Calpine power plant in Westbrook, while a few miles away the Cousins Island oil-fired power plant (that is frequently idled) ran at full capacity. It burned expensive oil and spewed comparatively high emissions to the atmosphere. Last year, the Cousins Island plant produced power for only one day out of the entire year. Even more ironic is the fact that the Cousins Island plant is for sale; a buyer has been located and has likely scheduled demolition for next summer to clear the site for a residential assisted living community development.
The long-term solution will require additional gas pipeline capacity and/or imported Canadian purchased power. Both of these solutions will be contentious, political, costly, and at minimum require three years for completion. In the meanwhile energy conservation remains our best value.
While outfitting your home or business with LED seasonal string lights is a relatively simple task, effectively applying LED lighting for indoor or outdoor area lighting is very challenging. Unlike string lights that are generally individual mini LEDs, area lighting bulbs and fixtures are groups of multiple tiny light sources. The light emitted from these bulbs and fixtures tends to be very directional and does not diffuse like the nearly obsolete incandescent bulbs and now-popular CFL bulbs and fixtures.
Although these lights have significant benefits for longevity and energy usage, they haven’t been used widely due to this challenge. As manufacturers improve the photometric qualities of the fixtures by applying innovative diffusers and reflective enclosures, their use has become more widespread leading to higher volumes produced and lower unit prices. Retrofit kits are also becoming more readily available.
When properly applied by specialists such as those at Thayer Corporation, LEDs are increasingly becoming the preferred lighting technology for both retrofit and new construction for many applications. There are other characteristics of LED lights such as the Color Rendering Index (CRI) and Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) that can be chosen to give spaces markedly different appearances and utility as well. Increasingly, clients are asking us more about the “non-flicker” properties of LEDs.
Older fluorescent lights flicker at a rate of 100-120 Hz, which isn’t noticeable to most, except those with light sensitivity. Some building occupants with diseases such as autism, epilepsy, lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease and vertigo are especially impacted by the flickering, sometimes called the “beat effect.” Anecdotally, building managers tell us that even some healthier occupants also suffer from chronic headaches and irritation due to the flickering. Fortunately, LEDs have no beat effect at all.
Aside from their excellent life, low energy consumption, selected health and productivity benefits, low environmental impact (mercury-free) and efficacy, occupants really like how well-applied lighting can transform the appearance of a space. Yet another benefit to consider, Efficiency Maine has excellent incentives to help defray installation costs in both their Prescriptive Rebate Program and even more generous Custom Program.
Like the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.” We have found the effective application of LED lights really calls for the experience and expertise of lighting specialists. Call us today and ask to talk to our professionals for an opinion about the use of LEDs in your building.
Energy usage benchmarking is an invaluable tool that is lowering energy costs and increasing value for thousands of buildings around the country. The most well-known and utilized program is the Energy Star Program run by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The program provides an accurate comparison to both industry averages as well as “best in class” spaces that earn the Energy Star credential. It works is by entering 13 months of all-energy usage along with other critical details about your building/space into a sophisticated cloud-based computer program. Your building is then compared to thousands of other buildings that are similar. The Energy Star Program has been in existence for decades and claims to have a database of over 40% of all commercial spaces in the U.S. These comparison buildings and spaces are for similar building types and usages in similar climates. The program yields a report, rich in data that is helpful to review with a trained professional.
According to a recent study conducted by the EPA, modern buildings that were benchmarked consistently reduced their energy use by 2.4 percent per year, and saved an average of 7 percent just by virtue of the comparison alone not accounting for improvements made as a result of the knowledge. Buildings that started out performing the most poorly saved the most.
A good way to think of benchmarking is like finding your building’s “MPG,” just like you would with a vehicle. Poor MPG can be indicative of problems with a car, but unless you know what’s normal for that vehicle, then you may not necessarily see that there are any issues. Managing the energy efficiency of your building is important to its value, longevity and your business performance. You might benefit from knowing how efficiency and/or usage improvements can affect your bottom line. Previously unidentified problems can also be detected just like your doctor taking your blood pressure annually comparing it to your historical norms and other healthy standards.
Credentialing that can come from achieving the Energy Star Certification can significantly improve your core business as well. This certification is for those “best in class” buildings that are in the top 25% percentile of peer buildings. Nowhere is this more important than in the hospitality industry and commercially leased spaces. The Maine Department of Tourism has a Green Lodging Certification Program. Owners have found that this certification consistently leads to higher booking levels and guest loyalty. Similarly landlords with better bonafide “Green” credentials are able to attract and retain better tenants, have lower vacancy rates and consistently receive higher rents prices. Given credible means of comparison consumers are able to make more informed decisions just like trading up to autos with a higher MPG.
There are many benefits to benchmarking that include, but are not limited to, identifying potential for reducing owning and operating costs, uncovering possibly undetected issues with HVAC and electrical systems and credentialing such as the Energy Star certification.
If you would like to know how your building(s) compare call us today and ask a trained energy expert about benchmarking. It always the best place to start if you are considering improvements. It is a simple, effective, and advantageous place to start. If your building qualifies, we provide this valued service at no cost to you.
Call In The Experts™ today. Ask for me if you wish. I’ll let you know what the potential is for benchmarking your building.
The United States is full of an aging stock of tenant-occupied buildings that lack energy efficiency and need capital investment.
Many existing leases are “net leases,” where the tenant is required to pay operation cost while the landlord pays the capital expenses. The challenge with this type of lease is that the landlord is separated from the cost of operating a building, and may have no desire to invest their own money into making a system more efficient when they don’t benefit from the merits of reduced energy cost.
On the other hand, gross leases are where the owner of the building pays for both building operation and capital expenses, regardless of utilities tenants use, and the tenant only pays to occupy the space. The landlord will see advantages to updating the building, but the only change the tenant may see is increased rent.
In both cases, there is a divide between interests of the landlord and tenant, but Green Leases align those interests by creating goals and shaving cost and savings. They are legal agreements that outline how buildings are to be occupied, managed and operated in such a way that promotes accountability for sustainability.
Fundamentally, Green Leases create a sharing formula where the tenants pay additionally in proportion to some negotiated percentage of their new energy savings until improvement is amortized. This creates a win-win situation, as tenants benefit from reduced operating costs and owners benefit from necessary capital improvements, potential improved tenant retention and renewal, and increased building value.
To understand more how Green Leases work, consider this example. Before a Green Lease is implemented, the projected payback period (the amount of time that the new savings pays for the upgrades that have taken place) is calculated. Let’s say a building needs $20,000.00 worth of work, and the projected annual savings are $5,000.00. The payback period for the project is 48 months, or four years, which is found by diving the estimated cost of the building updates ($20,000.00) divided by the projected annual savings of $5,000.00. The tenant would agree to pay 75% of the monthly savings (about $312.50) until the renovations are paid off, at which point the savings go to tenant, while the owner enjoys improved tenant retention and satisfaction, and investment into his building.
According to a CoStar study on environmentally-friendly buildings, in a commercial green lease agreement, tenants will see increased productivity in their employees (almost a 5% increase), while landlords will find that their buildings are more attractive to potential renters.
Green leases are not a panacea for neglecting HVAC equipment; however, by supplementing them with a proactive preventative maintenance plan, they are a priceless tool in saving cost. They align interest with tenants and owners who are looking to save money, improve sustainability, and increase the value of their building. There are many model leases and lease languages that have already been legally vetted and successfully implemented. The biggest impediment to utilization is awareness and unfeasibility.
Portland is the postcard city of Maine. Busy streets host tourists sampling blueberry jams and enjoying lobster rolls on the wharf, shoppers with arms full of L. L. Bean bags, meandering down the cobblestone, business people at lunch meetings on patios. We’re all proud to be Mainers, proud of the allure that draws people from all over the world to visit us during all seasons, designating us “Vacationland.” We’re the second—yes, the second—greenest state in the country right behind Vermont. That’s more reason for our residents to be proud, and protective, from our mountains to our shores; especially when our own South Portland could be the point of delivery for an unfavorable crude oil product called “tar sands.”
Currently, the Portland Pipeline Corp. operates a terminal and a pair of parallel, 236-mile-long underground pipes in South Portland that supply crude oil from below Casco Bay to a refinery in Montreal. These pipes are over sixty years old, and cross major Maine watersheds, including Sebago Lake. Portland Pipeline Corp. has stated having no immediate plans to reverse the flow of the line; however, the South Portland City Council chose to ask voters in November if they would like an ordinance to preemptively prevent tar sands crudes from streaming through the city (click here to read more).
Tar sands (also referred to as oil sands) represent approximately two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves. They are essentially grains of sand that are wrapped in layers of clay, water and bitumen, a heavy, viscous, black oil. Sands are gritty, not liquid and therefore cannot be pumped from the ground; they must be mined and then diluted with a plethora of volatile organic chemicals before they can be transported through pipelines.
Separation of the oil from sands requires an abundance of clean hot water, which unfortunately cannot be recycled, and must be stored in aboveground open-air ponds that can contaminate water through evaporation and seepage. It takes about two tons of tar sands to produce one barrel (42 gallons) of oil.
There is a sensitivity to oil transport in any form, by ship, rail, and of course, pipeline. Look at the recent spill in Mayflower, Arkansas where 200,000 gallons of oil cascaded from the 65-year-old Pegasus pipeline owned by Exxon Mobil. Pipes constructed before the 1970s commonly have problematic hairline cracks due to faulty weld techniques.
Another hot topic in the energy world is hydrofracking. Hydrofracking is a technique for extracting natural gas and other elements like uranium and petroleum. Water, sand and chemicals are mixed and injected at high pressure into wells drilled from shale beds. The pressure creates small fractures that are usually smaller than one millimeter.
Through hydrofracking, the United States has become energy independent, and the price of natural gas has dropped tremendously. However, fracking does have disadvantages such as increased seismic activity in areas where hydrofracking is conducted, serious depletion of fresh water. Also, where toxic chemicals are being forced into the ground at high pressures, land and water supplies are becoming contaminated.
Remember ethanol? Yes, ethanol, that high-cost, low-yield by-product of corn that now isn’t much more than an additive in gasoline. Ethanol was supposed to revolutionize the face of energy. Ethanol was supposed to be a cleaner, greener way to wean America from foreign oil dependence by powering our homes and vehicles into the future.
But as some environmentalists will tell you, take into consideration what resources are depleted to grow corn. Corn is not a perennial crop; it needs to be completely replanted every single season, and fertilized amply. Land needs to be cultivated annually if crops are not rotated. For every 26.1 pounds of corn—about 104 ears of corn—one gallon of ethanol is produced. All things considered, corn isn’t much cleaner than gasoline. Also, corn prices have nearly tripled over the last six years, which has made feed more expensive for livestock farmers.
There’s a common theme between the harvesting of tar sands, fracking and ethanol, and it’s this: we have an inherent, societal inability to assess detrimental environmental externalities and net economic benefit. What that means is that without considering the potential impact on the environment and rapidly depleting resources, these bandwagons are jumped upon blindly.
At Thayer, we’re seeing an increased tendency for consumers to rush into converting to natural gas units without considering the equipment they have to upgrade. Natural gas may seem like a more economical option, but take the opportunity to develop a long-term plan. Natural gas may cost more where a comprehensive preventative maintenance plan could effectively prolong equipment life, save more money, and present less of an environmental strain.
DBIA reports that design-build makes up 40% of commercial construction in US!
As a market leader and innovator of design-build projects for more than two decades, Thayer Corporation is excited to report that, according to the Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA), design-build projects consistently make up nearly 40% percent of non-residential U.S. construction projects. To read more, click here.
Thayer has conducted seminars, written numerous articles and papers and actively educated on the subject of design-build for over twenty years. Design-build (D/B) is an integrated delivery process: we assume full responsibility for an entire project, from designing to installing, exerting a level of quality rarely found in the “plan and spec” world. We favor the D/B process for several reasons. Mainly, our work comes with the promise of a single point of contact and accountability;guaranteed system performance, no opposing opinions over plan execution, and no taking the cheap way out of a situation by cutting corners. D/B projects save time and money, and lead to earlier occupancy.
One of the largest evangelists of the D/B process is the US Department of Defense (DOD). Following the events of September 11th, 2001 the DOD was compelled to use a faster delivery model to serve and upgrade facilities around the world. They found that, compared to conventional methods, the D/B process was faster, more cost effective, and there was better project performance. The DOD now requires all projects to use D/B methods.
More information on our D/B projects can be found by clicking here.
