Energy Management at Bonneville Power Administration...ERMC Enterprise Risk Management Committee EUI...

Academic Director: William Jones PhD,

MIM Team: Heath Nieddu, Ian Barker,

Rodrigo George & Qingru Meng

Portland State University

09/20/2013

Energy Management at Bonneville Power Administration

of 131 FINAL VERSION 09/20/2013

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 4

ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................. 4 DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................... 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 9

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 11

CLIENT PROJECT CHALLENGE / PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING ............................................................................. 11 CLIENT GOALS ....................................................................................................................................... 11 PROJECT APPROACH TO MEET CLIENT GOALS ............................................................................................... 11 PROJECT TEAM/CONSULTANT GOALS ......................................................................................................... 12 PROJECT WORK PLAN DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 12

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................................ 13

STAKEHOLDER GROUP ....................................................................................................................... 13

BENCHMARKING ................................................................................................................................ 13

BENCHMARKING KEY FINDINGS IN ORDER OF RELEVANCE ................................................................................ 14

GAP ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 16

SUMMARY OF SEG ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT (EMA) .................................................................... 16 PSU MIM ISO 50001 GAP ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 17 COMPARISON OF PSU GAP ANALYSIS WITH SEG’S EMA ....................................................................................... 17 KEY METHODOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES .................................................................................................................. 17 KEY METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 17 SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SEG ANALYSIS AND PSU ISO 50001 GAP ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS .......................................... 18 KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SEG ANALYSIS AND PSU GAP ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 18 KEY AREAS IN WHICH THE PSU TEAM EXPANDS UPON THE CONCLUSIONS SEG ........................................................... 18 PSU MIM ISO 50001 GAP ANALYSIS SCORING................................................................................................... 19 GAP ANALYSIS KEY FINDINGS (APPENDIX N) ......................................................................................................... 21 HOW KEY FINDINGS CHANGED OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 21

AGENCY DECISION FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................... 23

BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................... 23 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................... 23 CONNECTIONS TO AGENCY STRATEGIC DIRECTION ......................................................................................... 24 DECISION MAKERS ................................................................................................................................. 26 DECISION CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................. 26 MAJOR RISKS ........................................................................................................................................ 27 SUMMARY OF ENMS IMPACT ON KEY ENTERPRISE RISKS ........................................................................................ 27 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................................... 31 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION ...................................................................................................................... 32 FINANCIAL CRITERIA SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 33


DISCUSSION OF KEY VARIABLES FOR FINANCIAL EVALUATION ............................................................................ 33 KEY VARIABLES ................................................................................................................................................ 33 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 34 SCENARIO 0: STATUS QUO ................................................................................................................................ 34 SCENARIO 1: STEP-UP ...................................................................................................................................... 35 SCENARIO 2: STEP-UP PLUS............................................................................................................................... 36 SCENARIO 3: MAX IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................. 37 RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................................ 38

STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 39

STRATEGIC COMPONENTS .................................................................................................................. 39 DEFINE AN ENERGY POLICY ............................................................................................................................... 39 ADOPT STRATEGIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING .......................................................................................... 40 ENABLING COMPONENTS ................................................................................................................... 42 IDENTIFY AN ENERGY MANAGER ........................................................................................................................ 42 DEVELOP AN INTERNAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY TRAINING AND AWARENESS PROGRAM ................................................... 43 FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS .............................................................................................................. 44 INVEST IN AN ENERGY MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM ................................................................................. 44 ESTABLISH AN INTEGRATED ENERGY INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK ....................................... 44

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .................................................................................................................... 46

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 49

WORKS CITED .................................................................................................................................... 50

APPENDIX A: INTERNATIONAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT STANDARDS ................................................. 52

ISO 50001 ........................................................................................................................................... 52 ANSI/MSE 50021-2013 ....................................................................................................................... 52 EN16001:2009 .................................................................................................................................... 52

APPENDIX B: RESEARCH PLAN AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 54

PROJECT APPROACH TO MEET CLIENT GOALS ............................................................................................... 54 RESEARCH DESIGN STRUCTURE .................................................................................................................. 54 KEY ANALYTIC QUESTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 54 LYNCHPIN ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 56 SUGGESTED POSSIBLE HYPOTHESES ............................................................................................................ 57 RESEARCH METHODS ............................................................................................................................... 58 RESEARCH MATRIX ................................................................................................................................. 59

APPENDIX C: ISO 50001 CYCLE OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT ....................................................... 60

APPENDIX D: ISO 50001 DATABASE SURVEY RESULTS FOR 2011 ......................................................... 61

APPENDIX E: ST. MARY’S CEMENT INTERNAL ENMS STRUCTURE ........................................................ 62

APPENDIX F: DELOITTE DBRIEFS ENERGY & RESOURCES SERIES .......................................................... 64


APPENDIX G: TVA SUSTAINABILITY BENCHMARKING REPORT ............................................................ 66

TVA INTERNAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 67

APPENDIX H: TVA (TREES) INTERFACE ................................................................................................ 69

APPENDIX I: US DEPARTMENT OF STATE UTILITY DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT 70

APPENDIX J: TECHNICAL TEAM AND STAKEHOLDER MATRIX .............................................................. 73

BPA TECHNICAL TEAM ............................................................................................................................ 73 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS MATRIX .............................................................................................................. 74

APENDIX K: SEG ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT ...................................................................... 75

APPENDIX L: ISO 50001 ENMS GAP ANALYSIS – PSU 2013 .................................................................. 77

APPENDIX M: BPA METERING MAP .................................................................................................... 96

APPENDIX N: GAP ANALYSIS STRATEGIC RECOMMNEDATIONS .......................................................... 97

APPENDIX O: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ...................................................... 98

STATUS QUO (0) .......................................................................................................................................... 98 STEP UP (1) .................................................................................................................................................. 99 STEP UP PLUS (2) ....................................................................................................................................... 100 MAX IMPLEMENTATION (3) ...................................................................................................................... 101

APPENDIX P: EXPLANATION OF KEY VARIABLES ............................................................................... 102

APPENDIX Q: BPA AGENCY DECISION FRAMEWORK ......................................................................... 104

APPENDIX R: DOE EGUIDE FOR ISO 50001 IMPLEMENATION ............................................................ 105

APPENDIX S: BPA FACILITY PORTFOLIO BASELING ENERGY INTENSITY .............................................. 109

APPENDIX T: SITES RECOMMENDED FOR METERING (5000SQ/FT+) .................................................. 113

APPENDIX U: STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) ..................................................................................... 115

CLIENT PROJECT CHALLENGE / PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING ........................................................................... 115 CLIENT GOALS ..................................................................................................................................... 116 PROJECT APPROACH TO MEET CLIENT GOALS ............................................................................................. 116 PROJECT TEAM/CONSULTANT GOALS ....................................................................................................... 117 PROJECT WORK PLAN DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 117 TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION ........................................................................................................................... 117 TASK 2: CONSULT WITH BPA TECHNICAL ADVISORY TEAM ................................................................................... 120 TASK 3: CONDUCT RESEARCH .......................................................................................................................... 121 TASK 4: ANALYZE RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 123 TASK 5: CREATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BPA’S USE OF AN ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BASED ON ISO 50001 ... 125 TASK 6: DELIVER PERIODIC REPORTING AND FINAL PRESENTATION ......................................................................... 126


SCHEDULE & SUMMARY OF KEY DELIVERABLES ........................................................................................... 126 PROJECT SCHEDULE GANNT CHART ......................................................................................................... 129

ABBREVIATIONS

ACRONYMS

ACEEE American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

ADF BPA’s Agency Decision Framework

AICC Audit and Internal Controls Committee

ANSI The American National Standards Institute

APSC Agency Prioritization Steering Committee

ASF Agency Strategy Forum

BOB Business Operations Board

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

BPA Bonneville Power Administration

BPA HQ BPA Headquarters on Lloyd District

BPAX BPA Connection - Intranet

BTU British Thermal Unit

BTU/sf/yr BTUs per square foot per year

BUD Bonneville User Domain

CAB Capital Allocation Board

CBR Component Balance Rating

CCN Control Center Network

CDD Cooling Degree days

CONTR BPA Contractor

COE US Army Corps of Engineers


CO2 Carbon Dioxide

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EE Energy Efficiency

EIS Energy information System

EISA 2007 Energy independence and Security Act of 2007

EMA Energy Management Assessment

EnMS Energy Management System

EnPIs Energy Performance Indicators

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPAct 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005

ERMC Enterprise Risk Management Committee

EUI Energy Use Intensity (also Energy Use Index)

FAM Facilities Asset Management

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System

FRPP Federal Real Property Profile

GIS Geographic Information System

GSA U.S. General Services Administration

GSF Gross Square Footage

GUI Graphic User Interface

HDD Heating Degree Days

HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning

IBS Internal Business Services

IECC International Energy Code Council

ISO International Standards Organization


ISO 9001 Quality Management System

ISO 14001 Environmental Management System

ISO 50001 Energy Management System

KPI Key Performance Indicator

kWh Kilowatt hour

kWh/sf Kilowatt hour per square foot

LED Lighting-Emitting Diode

LOE Level of Effort

LR Level of Rigor

MIM Masters of International Management

MV90 BPA’s ITRON revenue metering platform

MtCO2 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide

NPV Net Present Value

NW Facilities Operations

OHSAS 18001 Occupational Health and Safety Management System

O&M Operations and Maintenance

PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Act Methodology

PEH BPA’s Energy Efficiency ORG

PMC Power Services Management Committee

PSU Portland State University

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

SEGEMA Strategic Energy Group Energy Management Assessment

SEMP Strategic Energy Management Plan

SEUs Significant Energy Users

SOP Standard Operational Procedure


TCR The Climate Registry

TMC Transmission Services Management Committee

TRMC Transacting Risk Management Committee

TREES Tririga Real Estate Environmental Sustainability IBM proprietary software

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

VFA BPA’s Facilities Capital Planning and Management platform

XAT Performance Scorecard Cross Agency Targets

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Benchmark A standard against which something can be measured or assessed.

CBECS

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey - National sample survey

that collects information on the stock of U.S. commercial buildings, their

energy-related building characteristics, and their energy consumption and

expenditures.

Electricity Reductions (kilowatt-hours)

The Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator uses the Emissions &

Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) U.S. annual non-base

load CO2 output emission rate to convert reductions of kilowatt-hours into

avoided units of carbon dioxide emissions. Most users of the Equivalencies

Calculator who seek equivalencies for electricity-related emissions want to

know equivalencies for emissions reductions from energy efficiency or

renewable energy programs. These programs are not generally assumed to

affect base load emissions (the emissions from power plants that run all the

time), but rather non-base load generation (power plants that are brought

online as necessary to meet demand). For that reason, the Equivalencies

Calculator uses a non-base load emission rate (EPA, 2013).

EO 13423

Executive Order (EO) 13423, "Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy,

and Transportation Management," was signed by President Bush on January

24, 2007. EO 13423 instructs Federal agencies to conduct their environmental,

transportation, and energy-related activities under the law in support of their

respective missions in an environmentally, economically and fiscally sound,

integrated, continuously improving, efficient, and sustainable manner.

EO 13514

Executive Order (EO) 13514, "Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy,

and Economic Performance," was signed by President Obama on 5 October

2009. This EO does not rescind/eliminate the requirements of EO 13423.

Instead, it expands on the energy reduction and environmental performance

requirements for Federal agencies identified in EO 13423. The goal of EO


13514 is "to establish an integrated strategy towards sustainability in the

Federal Government and to make reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

(GHG) a priority for Federal agencies."

Energy Aspect

Element of the organization’s activities, goods or services that can affect

energy use or energy consumption and is significant if it accounts for a high

proportion of total energy consumption and has a potential for more efficient

energy use, increased use of embedded renewable energy or increased

energy exchange with the rest of society (BSI Standards Publication, 2009).

Energy Model

A software program that calculates the energy use of various energy using

systems within a building. The resulting ‘model’ is used by design firms to

compare the energy impact of system options, estimate the energy use of a

building and its systems, and as a compliance tool to demonstrate a buildings

meets the requirements of a code, policy or program.

Energy Star Portfolio Manager

An interactive energy management tool that allows you to track and assess

energy and water consumption across your entire portfolio of buildings in a

secure online environment. Enter energy consumption and cost data into your

Portfolio Manager account to benchmark building energy performance, assess

energy management goals over time, and identify strategic opportunities for

savings and recognition opportunities.

Energy Star Score A national building energy use ranking against comparable buildings.

EUI

Energy Use Intensity (or Index) is a metric of total building energy use

commonly used in benchmarking. EUI is the sum of all fuels used in the

building per year divided by the building’s floor space and is expressed in

thousands (kilos) of British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot (sf) of

occupied space per year.

Plug Loads Devices that plug into wall outlets.

Roll-Wave planning Method for building timelines incrementally as more information & deliverables

are defined throughout the project.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BPA in May requested a team of graduate students at Portland State University’s (PSU)

Master’s of International Management (MIM) program assess BPA’s energy practices.

The Ask: What is the best way to implement an energy management system at BPA, and how

should BPA use the ISO 50001 framework?

Response: The Bonneville Power Administration would likely realize energy efficiency

gains by designating an energy manager to lead key elements of the energy management

system (EnMS) described in ISO 50001.

Before this project, the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) in 2012 assessed BPA’s current

energy management maturity and suggested recommendations that align with ISO

50001. The PSU team used a different methodology to assess BPA’s current maturity,

and tried to provide more specifics about how to execute recommendations.

The PSU team conducted secondary research, a survey-driven gap analysis, and

external benchmarking to understand BPA’s performance in relation to its peers.

The PSU team used BPA’s Agency Decision Framework (ADF) to analyze alternatives.

BPA’s current maturity is low relative to the ISO 50001 framework, benchmarked peers,

and in terms of documented efficiency gains, but increased investments would likely

lead to increased energy efficiency. The PSU team found five benchmarking sources in the

US and Canada. These included two industry reports and three individual organizations.

The PSU team conducted multiple rounds of interviews with over 20 individuals ranging

from managers, to key technical stakeholders.

The PSU team’s gap analysis found a roughly 60 percent gap between BPA’s current

processes and those processes that would likely be required by an ISO 50001 audit.

BPA scored below the median on TVA’s 2012 sustainability benchmarking report.

Most benchmarked organizations designated an energy manager and this is a lynch-pin

element needed to drive most parts of ISO 50001.

The benchmarked organizations valued their data management systems. Technical

teams we interviewed wished to make better use of the current MV90 system.

Policy and training were the largest gaps between BPA’s current state and ISO 50001.

We assessed that a range of 2 to 15 percent to be conservative based on the US State

Department’s results and the Deloitte survey study results. BPA since 2003 has

documented 2 percent efficiency gain.

BPA would likely receive the greatest benefit over a five-year period if it made upfront

investments in an EnMS. The PSU team relied on a net present value (NPV) estimate and a

discussion amongst team members to rank alternatives against seven decision criteria.

The alternative that received the highest average score in the ADF (Scenario 2) included

designating one full time manager, investing in a data management system, and

increasing metering to all sites larger than 5,000 square feet.


o This assumed that BPA would achieve a 15 percent energy gain by the fifth year

after the investment and that the population of sites metered (42) represents

most of BPA’s energy consumption.

o The net present value estimate was roughly $8 mil, while the total first year cost

was roughly $.6 mil. The payback period was 5 years.

o This alternative scored highly on a number of other decision criteria.

The PSU team provided an implementation plan that puts in place strategic components required to execute this recommendation.


INTRODUCTION

CLIENT PROJECT CHALLENGE / PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is a federal nonprofit entity based in the

Pacific Northwest. Although BPA is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, it is self-

funding and covers its costs by selling its products and services. BPA markets

wholesale electrical power from 31 federal hydro projects in the Columbia River Basin,

one nonfederal nuclear plant and several other small nonfederal power plants. About

one-third of the electric power used in the Northwest comes from BPA. BPA’s service

territory includes Idaho, Oregon, Washington, western Montana and small parts of

eastern Montana, California, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming.

As part of its responsibilities, BPA promotes energy efficiency, renewable resources and

new technologies. BPA also funds regional efforts to protect and rebuild fish and wildlife

populations affected by hydroelectric power development in the Columbia River Basin.

In 2012, the Department of Energy (DOE) conducted an ISO 14001 audit of BPA. One

of the recommendations resulting from this audit was a conversation around the

possibility of BPA integrating portions of ISO 50001 into its operational practices.

BPA’s FY13 sustainability cross agency targets call for a gap analysis of the agency’s

ability to implement Energy Management Standards not limited to but including

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 50001. PSU graduate

degree candidates at the School of Business Administration completed this gap analysis

and made recommendations on implementing an EnMS.

CLIENT GOALS

A recommendation on how BPA should plan and manage its facilities’ energy

consumption using the Agency Decision Framework (ADF). The range of the

alternatives to answer this question goes from doing nothing, to building a fully

certified energy management system not limited to but including ISO 50001.

A comprehensive gap analysis that includes a cost analysis and Level of Effort

(LOE) assessment associated with implementation of the above recommendation

A high level implementation strategy and timeline

PROJECT APPROACH TO MEET CLIENT GOALS

The PSU team acted as consultants for BPA. The PSU team conducted primary and

secondary research in order to develop an understanding of how BPA consumes power

at its facilities, how other commercial and industrial organizations are applying energy


management framework ISO 50001, and what practical steps BPA could take to

manage its energy use internally.

The team used existing data at BPA to gain insight into BPA’s facilities landscape and

augmented that data with interviews/surveys where necessary. Students also identified

and analyzed other organizations that had implemented energy management ISO

50001 as models for BPA’s energy management recommendations.

The team took the results and created the following (Appendix U):

Input for ADF decision framework

Energy Management System gap analysis based on ISO 50001

Alternative scenarios of four varying degrees of implementation of Energy

Management Systems ISO 50001

EnMS implementation recommendations

A cost/benefit and LOE estimate

Final written report and presentation

There are administrative and unseen costs and risks that cannot be predicted by the

PSU team to implement of a fully certified energy management system ISO 50001. The

PSU team identified the major costs and benefits involved in implementing an energy

management system, and provided an evidenced-based, understandable analysis of

likely costs and benefits as well as associated risks.

PROJECT TEAM/CONSULTANT GOALS

To provide the deliverables listed above

To consider how ISO 50001 is being applied domestically and internationally

To maintain appropriate project management infrastructure, including: plan

development and approval, reporting, execution, and accountability of plan tasks

PROJECT WORK PLAN DESCRIPTION

Work plan items included:

1. Conducted project initiation and kick-off meeting(s) with client in order to gain a

consensus on the projects goals and outcomes

2. Consulted with BPA technical advisory team to understand key constraints and

needs for the implementation of an energy management system at BPA

3. Conducted primary/secondary research and benchmarking analysis to

understand how BPA and other organizations have or have not benefited from

the implementation of energy management systems. (Appendix B)


4. Synthesized research results into various forms of analysis, including: current

over-all assessment, cost/benefit analysis for three levels of implementation of an

EnMS, an LOE analysis, comparison of BPA results to benchmarks, and inputs

into ADF.

5. Analyzed and identified strategic recommendations and action plan on how BPA

should approach energy management at BPA facilities using Energy

Management Systems including but not limited to ISO 50001

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Per the statement of work above, research on international energy management

standards other than ISO 50001, such as EN16001:2009 and ANSI/MSE 50021-2013

was completed and can be found on Appendix A.

STAKEHOLDER GROUP

Primary research was conducted at BPA headquarters with a cross functional team

comprised of energy efficiency experts, civil and mechanical engineers, resource

efficiency managers, public utilities metering specialists, environmental policy and

governance subject matter experts.

A total of 20 different resources were interviewed and consulted in 5 business lines

throughout BPA which included Power Services, Transmission Services, Internal

Business Services, Corporate Strategy and Environment, Fish and Wildlife.

The Stakeholder Analysis Matrix on Appendix J lists all ISO 50001 Energy Management

System components and matches them to corresponding internal organizations that

may be directly or indirectly impacted as BPA considers the implementation of an

EnMS.

BENCHMARKING

According to ISO, Europe leads the world in ISO 50001 certifications, counting 363

organizations throughout 19 countries which were documented as certified as of 2011.

This is the most current data available from ISO at the time of this writing. (International

Standards Organization, 2011). At that time, North America showed only 1 organization

certified for 2011, St Mary’s Cement. Appendix D

The disparity does not mean that other organizations across North America are not

implementing Energy Management Systems, but it does serve as a clear indicator that

Energy Management is still in its infancy in North America.


Google, on July 29, 2013 became the first company in North America to obtain a multi-

site ISO 50001 certification for the energy management system covering its corporate

data center operations and six US data centers (Energy Manager Today, 2013).

BENCHMARKING KEY FINDINGS IN ORDER OF RELEVANCE

1. TVA Benchmarking Report and Internal EnMS

a. The benchmark for manning sustainability efforts is a rough average of 1.2

FTE per billion dollars of annual revenue. Based on BPA’s revenues, this

suggests that BPA should be manned at about 3.8 FTEs for its

sustainability efforts.

b. TVA focuses on the half of its buildings that are significant energy users,

and it bases the determination on what buildings experience electricity

cost of over $20,000 to $30,000 annually.

c. Eighty percent of their utility costs go to electricity.

d. TVA stated that 25 percent of their facilities were metered.

e. TVA has an FTE clerk that enters data manually for over 500 utility bills,

which takes 20 hrs. /per week. They use a centralized data entry system.

Further details of TVA EnMS are located in (Appendix G)

2. Deloitte Study

a. Concern for electricity efficiency for consumers and businesses appears to

be slightly softening due to the increasing relevance of natural gas and

stable energy prices.

b. The average time to achieve efficiency targets is roughly 4 years.

c. Goals are getting more difficult to achieve as ‘low hanging fruit’ projects

are done.

d. The largest group of firms, 30 percent, is targeting a 25 percent total

electricity efficiency gain. The second largest group (25 percent of

respondents) is targeting a 10-14 percent electricity efficiency gain from

their efforts.

Details of the Deloitte report can be found in (Appendix F)

3. US Department of State

a. Buildings of gross square footage of over 5,000 sq. ft. are the focus of

their energy efficient efforts, and they represent about 10 percent of their

building portfolio.

b. The departure from ‘home grown’ systems to commercially developed

enterprise systems was a major milestone and gave the Bureau more


relevant means to analyze their data and make strategic decisions when

managing its portfolio.

c. Decentralizing data gathering through customized front-end interfaces with

single points of entry significantly decreased costs and time spent.

d. The Department was able to document energy performance

improvements ranging from 10 -15 percent.

US Department of State details are located in (Appendix I)

4. St. Mary’s

a. St Mary’s was the most dedicated to a variety of ISO standards because

they are an industrial company.

b. Energy represents 40 percent of their total operating costs.

c. St. Mary’s gained the first ISO certification and realized an 8 percent

absolute reduction in energy operating costs from their efforts.

d. Employee awareness and training was essential for behavioral change.

Further details of St. Mary’s Cement EnMS can be found in (Appendix E)


GAP ANALYSIS

SUMMARY OF SEG ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT (EMA)

In Q1 2012, the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) sponsored BPA’s participation in their

Commercial Energy Improvement (CEI) program. The Strategic Energy Group (SEG)

generated a report that included recommendations for improvement based upon their

own proprietary analysis tool. These recommendations were based upon the Strategic

Energy Group’s criteria and ISO 50001 compliance benchmarks, and they were not

weighed against any internal BPA criteria.

The SEGEMA tool is based on ISO 50001 standards and is composed of 3 main

components: strategic, enabling and functional. SEG broke each topic area up into a

series of characteristics grouped into four levels of increasing rigor using the

established requirements for compliance with the ISO 50001 standards. The EMA is

designed to identify the specific actions needed to gain organizational balance, increase

momentum and contribute to sustainability.

Level of Rigor Score

Energy Management Continuum

According to ETO’s EMA, BPA’s Level of Rigor (LR) score of 0.43 points to BPA’s

primary tactical approach to energy management internally within the agency.

(Appendix K)

0.0 - 1.00 Tactical Approach

1.01 - 2.00 Strategic Approach

2.01 - 3.00 Operationally Integrated Approach

3.01 - 4.00 Continuous Improvement Approach

0.43


PSU MIM ISO 50001 GAP ANALYSIS

SEG’s EMA report was an important first step in the process of developing a more

mature EnMS at BPA. In spite of the existence of some methodological differences and

levels of detail, there many similarities in conclusions and recommendations between

the SEG analyses and our own. This has helped to validate and underscore key

recommendations made by our team. This section will review key points of the PSU

MIM ISO 50001 gap analysis, and also highlight important differences between the

earlier SEG analysis and our own.

Comparison of PSU Gap Analysis with SEG’s EMA

Our team began work with the goal of being able to recommend how BPA might best

“plan and manage its facilities’ energy consumption through the agency’s decision

framework (ADF)”. At this point in time, more than a year had passed, and some of

SEG’s recommendations had already begun to be implemented.

We looked to identify up-to-date opportunities for energy management improvement, to

make a general EnMS maturity assessment, and also to examine ways to inform

management’s decision-making process around implementing an EnMS.

Key Methodological Similarities

The SEG work and our own were both partially based upon a gap analysis using the

ISO 50001 standard to look for areas of opportunity in managing an EnMS. For the sake

of continuity, our team adopted some of the language utilized by SEG in their 2012

analysis in its own ISO 50001 gap analysis.

Key Methodological Differences

1. Our team based our criteria for formulating action plan suggestions on our

research, conversations with our sponsor and interviews with technical team.

Suggestions were shaped using our analysis in combination with the ADF.

2. Our team looked at industry best practices and benchmarked efforts made by

similar organizations like the TVA.

3. Our team did not assume that ISO 50001 compliance was necessarily the most

desirable scenario for BPA. We researched other energy management standards

beyond ISO 50001 to determine what other standards might be of use to BPA

prior to conducting our gap analysis.

4. Our team conducted simple cost-benefit analyses of several levels of EnMS

standard implementation in order to arrive at its action plan suggestions/strategic

recommendations.


5. Our team conducted interviews with the key stakeholders/technical teams

beyond management to identify areas of opportunity not highlighted by our gap

analysis.

6. Our team utilized stakeholder interviews and information from our secondary

research in assessing the maturity level at which ISO 50001 items have been

implemented.

7. Our team examined ways to determine whether or not there is a “business case”

for various implementation scenarios to aid management’s decision-making

process around improving the EnMS.

Similarities between SEG analysis and PSU ISO 50001 gap analysis conclusions

1. A well-defined energy policy should be in place, and is essential to providing the

foundation for an energy management plan.

2. Designating an Energy Manager is ideal to maximize the effectiveness of an

EnMS.

3. A detailed energy management plan must be in place in order to guide

operational plans and energy use targets.

4. An infrastructure conducive to collecting, tracking, storing, analyzing and

reporting key data at regular intervals is necessary to measure progress and to

set goals.

5. Training around the implementation of an EnMS and occupant behavior is key

element in maximizing the effectiveness of an EnMS.

6. It is important that BPA acknowledge the long-term financial benefit of energy

efficiency projects and include the use of financial calculations that show this

benefit for accurate cost-benefit analysis of energy efficiency expenditures.

7. Overall awareness of and organizational commitment to energy efficiency as a

priority throughout the organization is core to long-term success.

Key differences between SEG analysis and PSU gap analysis conclusions

The SEG analysis and PSU ISO 50001 gap analysis point to similar conclusions. The

SEG EMA session in 2012 was an important first step in developing a more mature

EnMS at BPA. Our team attempted to provide enough information to actually choose a

path forward and likely implementation steps.

Key areas in which the PSU team expands upon the conclusions SEG:

1. An Energy Manager is ideal, but there are various ways of appointing one:

designating an existing employee in an existing position, placing an existing

employee into a newly created FTE, or hiring from the outside into a newly

created position. Our group recognizes and addresses these scenarios.


2. The SEG analysis did not provide a way to determine the extent to which

metering or other EE expenditures are cost effective. Our team has examined

this issue of implementation with reasonable cost data.

3. Development of a targeted energy management policy is dependent upon the

existence of data. Our team suggests taking steps that will provide this data and

support further sound policy and procedures in an iterative fashion.

4. Our analysis also acknowledges the need for increased energy use data

collection and normalization at BPA facilities. The SEG analysis suggested that

this should happen but did not provide specifics with regard to implementation.

PSU MIM ISO 50001 Gap Analysis Scoring

The graphic on the next page provides an idea of the maturity of BPA’s EnMS relative to

ISO 50001 standards based upon our team’s analysis and survey results from

interviews with key stakeholders through the lens of a Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA)

cycle of continuous improvement. (Appendix C)

Each component contains several line items, and these line items (57 total) are

individually scored with one of three possible percentile rankings: Not in Place: 0

percent, Partially in Place: 50 percent, or In Place: 100 percent.

The result of “38 percent complete” can give the reader a false sense of precision. This

number is the result of each of the 57 line items receiving a blunt score, rather than a

sign of precision. This method serves to give an estimate of system maturity.

The following graphic shows our assessed level of “completeness” for each ISO 50001

item category, and our over-all assessment of complete or partially complete vs.

incomplete items. (Appendix L)


Roughly 65 of 172 line items were at least partially in place according to our

assessment. This is a reflection of the limited maturity of the EnMS.

Program Totals

Not in place

Partially in place

In place

Element subtotals: 107 57 8

Program Total: 172 points available

65

Total Program percentage % complete: 38

38%


Gap Analysis key findings (Appendix N)

BPA is at a roughly 40 percent readiness level for ISO 50001 certification based

on surveys of experts and our research findings.

The lack of an energy management information system limits BPA’s ability to

improve energy performance.

The absence of an overall policy limits the urgency around the EnMS program

from an ISO 50001 perspective.

There is no current EnMS manager to be held accountable for various aspects of

an EnMS program.

There is little or no internal energy efficiency awareness and training program

There is poor governance and minimal operational controls in place that support

an effective EnMS through the control of records, internal audits and corrective

action procedures.

How key findings changed overall assumptions

We reviewed our main assumptions after our research and concluded the following:

1. Our first key assumption was that ISO 50001 was a valid framework to use as a

reference for an EnMS program. We found no evidence to refute the assumption,

and we found that it provided a helpful way to talk about the necessary

components to implement an EnMS.

2. Our second key assumption was that the cost of implementing an EnMS is less

than not implementing one, which we found to be probably true over a roughly

five-year period based on the limited financial information we could gather. For a

detailed example see the Alternative Evaluation section of the ADF, specifically

the finance criteria.

3. Our third key assumption was that BPA has reached a maturity level at which it is

ready to implement a more mature EnMS. We found this assumption to be true

based on the following:

BPA has already employed sustainability analysts who work on the topic of

energy management as a portion of their portfolio and are ready for the next

level of maturity.


We also found there were projects in place to identify major energy users in

the non-commercial sites, indicating key data needed for determining where

to deploy meters would soon be in place.

We found general enthusiasm from the technical team in regards to improving

our ability to understand energy consumption across both commercial and

non-commercial sites.

Our analysis found that BPA was slightly more mature than the ETO study

conducted in February of 2012, which indicated BPA is moving in the right

direction.


AGENCY DECISION FRAMEWORK

BACKGROUND

In this section we use the findings from our gap analysis and benchmark analysis as

input into a scenario evaluation framework.

We have followed the BPA ADF process and presented it in the following pages in order

to provide our conclusions in a format relevant to BPA, and meet our project’s core

objectives of comparing alternatives and recommending a course of action.

The ADF provides a structured and consistent process for identifying actions that best

deliver on BPA’s business objectives while appropriately addressing significant risks. It

demonstrates to decision makers the full range of issues, perspectives, alternatives and

risks, and provides a well-documented basis for decisions. (Appendix Q)

OBJECTIVES

Establish, document, implement and maintain systems and processes necessary to

improve energy performance at BPA facilities.

The achievable outcomes of a mature EnMS include:

Increase scope and boundaries of BPA’s current energy management system by

increasing metering in the largest 16 non-commercial sites.(Appendix S)

Reduce energy intensity by 7 percent for all BPA metered facilities by FY19

through active energy management, operations & maintenance projects, capital

investments, policies and training

Combine expertise of energy efficiency program managers, mechanical &

electrical engineers and policy analysts to drive energy performance

improvement at BPA.

Meet reporting requirements to the DOE, EPA and TCR with higher accuracy and

timeliness of data acquisition.

Increase organizational commitment and accountability from Power,

Transmission, Internal Business Services and all levels and functions of the

organization, including top management, which directly impact energy

management at BPA facilities.

Enable BPA to evaluate and prioritize the implementation of new energy-efficient

technologies and improve the reliability of BPA energy-consuming facility assets.

Align and integrate the EnMS with other management frameworks such as those

for existing quality, environment, risk management and internal audits.


CONNECTIONS TO AGENCY STRATEGIC DIRECTION

Stakeholder Perspective

S5 – Energy Efficiency: BPA and public power cooperatively accomplish public power’s

share of regionally cost-effective energy efficiency and demand management.

Achieving electric energy efficiency within BPA facilities and operations is not verifiable

unless there is a robust internal EnMS in place that can monitor, track and report

consumption in an accurate, timely and reliable manner. Reduction of the cost of power

delivery to consumers can only be achieved and validated by establishing,

implementing and maintaining a framework that systematically enables achievement of

continual improvement in energy performance, efficiency and conservation.

S8 – Climate Change: BPA is prepared for the physical, economic and policy changes

stemming from climate change developments, and promotes and implements cost-

effective strategies to address these changes.

Potential changes that climate change poses to the energy sector may require electric

system investment. Regulations may begin to price CO2 emissions and further promote

investments in conservation, renewable energy and smart grid technologies. In order for

BPA to internally advance energy efficiency investment which will ultimately reduce the

region’s carbon footprint, a robust internal EnMS will be required to maximize use of

energy-consuming assets.

Internal Operations Perspective

I1 – Operational Excellence: BPA meets the demands of business operations efficiently

and effectively through standardized, continuously-improved systems and processes.

The adoption of a framework which can integrate energy performance into management

practices will help BPA broaden its use of disciplined, repeatable and standardized

business processes and systems. Following a Plan-Do-Check-Act process for energy

management will drive continual improvement within internal systems and processes

that support effective business operations.

I3 – Governance & Internal Controls: BPA’s governance and internal controls are

robust, balanced and adhered to across the organization.

An EnMS will create transparency and facilitate communication across the organization

ensuring an effective governance structure is in place based on adequate controls, clear

guidelines, and appropriate policies and procedures for directing day-to-day business

operations related to energy management.


I4 – Asset Management: BPA maximizes the long-term value of FCRPS power and

transmission assets through integrated asset management practices.

Energy-consuming facilities which support power and transmission assets are also

aging and need increased maintenance or replacement. As BPA manages its assets

and capital investment decisions with a comprehensive understanding of the long-term

costs, benefits, risks, and strategic opportunities it faces, the implementation of an

EnMS will ensure adequate, efficient and reliable energy performance within its

facilities. This will enable BPA to employ a more rigorous, risk-informed and transparent

facility asset management program that applies leading practices in planning,

prioritizing, investing, operating and maintenance of energy-consuming assets.

I5 – Technology Innovation: BPA solves business challenges and enables

breakthroughs using a program of disciplined research and technology innovation that is

recognized to deliver high value to the region.

The adoption of an internal EnMS will assist BPA to evaluate and prioritize the

implementation of new energy-efficient technologies and continuously refocus

resources on the most promising efforts that improve the reliability, cost-effectiveness

and efficiency of energy-consuming facility assets.

I6 – Collaboration: BPA strengthens collaborative relationships internally and externally

to support achievement of objectives.

Implementing a robust internal EnMS will foster a culture of collaboration and continual

energy performance improvement within BPA facilities. As issues, priorities and

alternatives are identified and addressed in alignment with agency policy and cross-

functional team’s allocated resources, long-term objectives that benefit the region as a

whole including the environment will be met.

I7 – Risk-Informed Decision Making & Transparency: BPA’s processes, decision making

and performance are transparent, risk-informed and based on structured analysis.

The current process is not a standardized repeatable framework. The implementation of

an EnMS, appropriate to BPA’s size and facilities’ portfolio, would inform decisions

regarding the procurement of energy services and products through risk analysis and

opportunity identification inherit within energy management and in accordance to

specific criteria, including business, legal, environmental, people and process.

People & Culture Perspective

P1 – High Performance: We excel with clear performance expectations to deliver the

mission.


Making persons working for the organization aware of the importance of conformity with

the energy policy and procedures will set clear performance expectations that are

designed to drive business outcome. Defining roles and responsibilities as well as

providing meaningful feedback and recognizing high performance within BPA’s internal

energy management program will allow BPA to achieve it mission and improve energy

performance.

P3 – Right Skills & Competencies: We develop skills and competencies needed to meet

current and future business challenges.

Surveying whether staff with energy responsibilities have the relevant background,

training, and capabilities to effectively carry out their job functions/tasks will help BPA to

identify training needs associated with the EnMS. Providing the required training will

optimize the capability of BPA’s workforce by leveraging current skills and

competencies to improve BPA’s energy performance and future business challenges.

By developing its talent through training in energy management, BPA will meet

changing business needs as well as maintain a competitive edge in the labor market.

DECISION MAKERS

The implementation of an EnMS will ultimately be a topic to be discussed and approved

by the BOB (Board of Business Operations) which includes the COO (Chief Operating

Officer) and other Tier I & II executives, specifically in IBS and NW which manage BPA

facilities.

DECISION CRITERIA

The following decision criteria were used to rank four scenarios. Each criterion could be

assigned points ranging from 0-4. Since this was a qualitative analysis, we assumed

that slight differences should not necessarily mean that two scenarios should receive

different scores. Therefore, some criteria received the same score across multiple

alternatives.

The method used to rank the alternatives was mostly through qualitative discussion.

PSU team members debated what the score should be based on the available

evidence.

Business/Finance: Rank based on net present value estimate of each scenario

based on readily available information and reasonable assumptions. Two

scenarios only differed slightly and received the same score.

Legal/Regulatory: Rank based on the extent to which the proposed solution

manages a volatile regulatory environment

Environment: Rank based on the extent to which the solution provides a net

environmental benefit


Public Interest: Rank based on the extent to which the solution helps BPA lead

by example when it comes to energy conservation and the general public easily

values the improvement

BPA’s Processes: Rank based on the extent to which the alternative helps

establish a more efficient processes with minimal disruption

BPA’s People: Rank based on the extent to which BPA uses its human

resources in the best way possible

Time to Implement: Rank based on the extent to which the payback period

relative to other alternatives

MAJOR RISKS

Summary of EnMS impact on key Enterprise Risks

Identified

Enterprise Risks

Level of relevance to

an improvement in

the EnMS

Effect on Impact Affect Likelihood

Business Continuity

and Asset Health

Reliability

High High High

Cyber Attack Moderate Moderate Moderate

Regulatory and

Compliance Moderate Moderate Moderate

Net Secondary

Revenue Low Low Low

BPA’s Energy Risk Management Group created a business risk framework in 2012 that

focuses on managing hazards (Bonneville Power Administration, 2013). In this section

we will identify which hazards from the Energy Risk Management Group framework are

most significant to an EnMS and briefly discuss how an EnMS can affect the impact and

likelihood assumptions of these hazards. We will not attempt a quantitative analysis of

how the risk changed before and after the implementation of an EnMS because we do

not yet have the required data.

The following hazards are addressed because they are associated with the adoption of

an EnMS:


Business Continuity (I) and Asset Health and Reliability (G)

Cyber Attack (K)

Regulatory and Compliance (A)

Net Secondary Revenue (C)

Each of these risks will now be discussed against the backdrop of how an EnMS

decreases their likelihood or impact.

Business Continuity (I) and Asset Health and Reliability (G)

Definition: “A lack of adequate Business Continuity preparedness leads to BPA being

unable to appropriately respond to an act of nature or man that disrupts critical business

functions, interrupts service to customers, harms people or the environment, or

damages BPA’s reputation as an effective steward of the FCRPS. Short-term

deferments of investment in aging infrastructure lead to major power and transmission

reliability events that may require highly-accelerated investments to remediate.”

Warning: One characteristic that is consistent with events that hinder business

continuity is surprise. There will be warnings generated both internally and externally for

some event types, but not for others. Deficiencies in asset health are more dependent

on internally generated warnings.

Impact: The impact of these types of events is that they require accelerated

investments to remediate. An EnMS does require more upfront investment, with the

hope that it reduces the reaction costs. A mature EnMS system includes the collection,

collation, synthesis, and reporting of metering information. This metering data could

provide early warning, and event diagnosis.

Recovery: Recovery time and cost should be reduced because of the existence of an

EnMS. With more accurate metering and data management, it should be easier to

identify what parts of the business are being affected.

Conclusion: Of the Enterprise Risks listed, we believe a mature EnMS will have the

greatest positive impact on this risk. The EnMS is designed not only to find areas to

gain marginal efficiencies, but can also illustrate power usage through the system

through more effective monitoring. This data analysis function has been used to react

and mitigate to malfunctioning equipment in the past on a limited basis.

Cyber Attack (K)

Definition: “Cyber-attacks on BPA’s BUD and CCN networks by an internal source with

specialized knowledge or external source impair BPA’s ability to operate the FCRPS

and maintain reliability, and have the potential to spread to COE/BOR systems.”


Warning: There will generally be very little warning of a cyber-attack, but again an

EnMS helps inform analysts about irregularities in power use. Having better diagnostic

tools and feeding data to the appropriate information security analyst when appropriate

should provide better early warning.

Impact: The impact of a cyber-attack is variable, but could conceivable affect business

continuity. Cyber-attacks against critical infrastructure are rare but impactful. Critical

infrastructure has become a more attractive target to nation states in the past couple

years, and adversaries are making large investments into understanding how to

manipulate machine language and SCADA systems. These systems were previously

considered too complex for general targeting, but adversaries are maturing their ability

to attack these systems. The Enterprise Information Security department at BPA should

be able to provide the most current analysis on the level of threat BPA faces and likely

impacts to its networks.

The impact of maturing an EnMS on the cyber-attack risk is both positive and negative.

On the one hand it increases detection and recovery of an attack. On the other hand,

the deployment of meters can introduce further complexity. Our interviews indicated that

these meters are able to do more than just passively record power usage, but can in

some cases actually manipulate various aspects of facility functions. This sort of

functionality represents an attractive target for formidable adversaries. Vulnerabilities on

these systems would require adequate controls.

Recovery: The EnMS could aid the recovery, or delay the recovery if the EnMS has

been compromised by a cyber-attack.

Conclusion: The determination of the net effect of an EnMS on the risk of cyber-attack

will require a risk assessment jointly written by the Enterprise Security function at BPA

and EnMS program analysts. It should be noted that these sorts of risk are present any

time new technology is adopted, and that technology innovation is a strategic objective

on BPA’s roadmap. If the processes are in place to manage the security of

implementing new technology, than many of the concerns associated with deployment

of more meters should be addressed.

Regulatory and Compliance (A)

Definition: “Frequent regulation changes, new rulings, reinterpretation of laws and

regulations or application in new situations lead to higher costs of compliance and/or

consequences of being found to be out of compliance.”

Warning: The Government Affairs and Legal departments should be able to provide

warning on the instability of the regulatory environment. The EnMS does not provide

warning related to this risk.


Impact: The more volatile the regulatory environment, the more insurance against

forthcoming regulations is required. An EnMS system provides preemptive measures

against future regulations related to energy efficiency.

Recovery: An EnMS directly improves BPA’s ability to react to an increase in regulation

regarding energy efficiency.

Conclusion: The Executive Order 13514 and the EPAct 2005 nominally cover all

federal agencies, although all references in these regulations to “agency” refers to DOE.

BPA is held accountable to DOE and held accountable to its own internal regulations

and operational exemptions. Because of this structure, BPA is able to mitigate the

regulatory risk by having the flexibility to conduct its own feasibility analysis.

Although BPA is probably managing this risk effectively at this time, the maturing of an

EnMS could indicate to regulators that more strict oversight is not needed in the future.

Net Secondary Revenue (C)

Definition: “Low stream flows and/or market prices that continue to be suppressed due

to the overabundance of natural gas lead to severe underachievement of Net

Secondary Revenue, impacting BPA’s ability to meet its strategic objectives.”

Warning: Industry analysts, economists, engineers, and business analysts probably

provide warning of the increase of the use of natural gas, and its effect on the price of

energy during critical situations. A mature EnMS helps diagnose use and overuse in our

own system, and may provide a helpful stream of data in regards to what energy may

be available for resale.

Impact: An EnMS does not directly impact this risk, but it is impacted by the risk. If the

risk is realized, then assumptions about the financial benefit used in modeling

cost/benefit of an EnMS will need to be recalibrated. For example, any energy saved is

valued using average revenue per kWh. This average is bounded on the high end by

the sale price in these Secondary Revenue transactions. If the price would to fall, so

would the average value of the energy saved through a mature EnMS.

Recovery: An EnMS will probably not affect the recovery from this market risk.

Conclusion: This risk should be monitored in order to ensure that any future

cost/benefit analysis on the value of the EnMS is valid.


ALTERNATIVES

This group considered four main alternative scenarios summarized in the table below.

Further discussion is provided in the following section and in the appendix.

1. Status Quo This scenario relies on two or three main analysts working

on a part-time basis to manage data related to energy use

by reading scanned PDFs of utility bills, entering them

manually into Access database and using excel

spreadsheets to perform analysis of non-normalized raw

data. Without an energy policy in place, metering efforts are

happening on an ad-hoc basis without necessarily following

a uniform process for implementation.

2. Step-up This scenario suggests BPA makes an increased

investment in order to streamline data acquisition and

meter targeted SEUs*. This scenario relies on increased

use of the current data management system, MV90, by

increasing key analysts’ focus on the EnMS. This scenario

suggests maturing through the years until CAPEX

investments help realize double digit energy intensity

reductions.

3. Step-up Plus

This scenario includes the designation of a full time EnMS

Manager, deploying meters to facilities above 5,000 sq. ft.

and the investment in a robust data management system.

These changes accelerate EnMS maturity, but are more

costly.

4. Max

Implementation

This scenario suggests that BPA implement a certifiable

ISO 50001 program. This is the most expensive scenario

because it is labor and process intensive.

*Targeted SEU’s (Appendix S)


ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION

In this section we compare these scenarios to the decision criteria. This section

identifies to what extent each alternative meets our decision criteria. The results drive

our recommendations. Below is a summary table and a discussion follows. Points are

assigned based on how well the scenarios compared to each other. (Higher scores are

better).

Scenario

Average Rating (0 to 4 range)

Avg Business

/Finance

Legal/

Regs

Env Public

Interest

Process People Time

Status Quo (0) 1.4 0 1 1 1 2 2 1

Step-up (1) 2.3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4

Step-up Plus (2) 3.3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3

Max

Implementation

(3)

2.7 3 3 3 3 2 3 2

Before we dive into the four scenarios, we will explain how we analyzed the financial

criterion and what variables we used. We will then return to a discussion of the four

scenarios and how they performed against the various criteria.


Financial Criteria Summary

Description Status

Quo (0)

Step-up

(1)

Step-up

Plus (2)

Max

Implementation

(3)

Cost Total Year 1 Cost $96k $264K $603k $728k

Total Yearly Cost $96k $184K $293k $320k

Benefits Percent Savings in 5th

year 2% 12% 15% 15%

Dollar value of

efficiency gain in 5th

year

$33k $665k $922k $954k

Net

Present

Value of

gains

(Initial stages plus

perpetuity)

=(FV/(1+i)n…)+Future

Value (n=5) / i

($1 mil) $6.5 mil $7.9 mil $7.8 mil

Payback

period,

yrs.

N/A 3.3 4.9 5.2

Appendix O

DISCUSSION OF KEY VARIABLES FOR FINANCIAL EVALUATION

The financial evaluation here used limited data and subjective judgments of the

BPA environment. We created an analysis in Excel to accompany this evaluation so

that key assumptions can be refined in the future.

Key variables

Cost Variables

Cost to deploy meter: Includes material and labor to install

Lump sum payouts to install specialty meters at big sites

Annual cost to maintain a meter

Total number of meters deployed, and total number of new meters deployed

Man hours dedicated to EnMS on an annual basis


Avg. dollar cost of a man-hour

Initial cost of data management system

Annual cost of data management system

Training costs

Benefit Variables

Total BPA energy consumption

Market value of a kWh

Likely efficient gains under different scenarios

Required rate of return (used to discount future cash flows)

Explanation of key variables (Appendix P)

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION DISCUSSION

The alternatives were judged on their ability to meet financial, legal, public interest,

process, people, and time requirements.

Scenario 0: Status Quo

Definition: This scenario relies on two or three main analysts working on a part-time

basis to manage energy use data. Without an energy policy in place, metering efforts

are happening on an ad-hoc basis without necessarily following a uniform process.

Financial: The points allotted to this criterion are 0 because net present value is below

zero.

Legal/Regulatory: The points allotted to this criterion are 1. BPA is not taking additional

steps through an EnMS to mitigate a volatile regulatory environment. BPA continues to

mostly rely on its unique status to manage regulatory risk.

Environmental: The points allotted to this criterion are 1. Although many steps are

being taken across BPA to protect the environment, little is known about to what extent

an EnMS provides net environmental benefit. The single point is based on the

assumption that the 2 percent efficiency gain since 2003 probably led to reduction of

GHG.

Public Interest: The points allotted to this criterion are 1. BPA can claim to the public

that they are conducting energy management based on 2 percent efficiency gains and

this claim is probably easily valued and understood. The public interest is probably

addressed less in the Status Quo scenario than in other scenarios.

Process: The points allotted to this criterion are 2. The ultimate goal is to achieve

maximum benefit with the most limited impact to current business processes. The status


quo scenario would provide the least amount of disruption to current processes, but also

the least amount of maturity improvement. A score of 2 reflects a net neutral impact.

People: The points allotted to this criterion are 2. BPA is leveraging its current

resources but it could probably be doing so in better ways. There are currently manual

data entry processes that could be automated, and work efforts could be more focused.

Time: The points allotted to this criterion are 1. Although the initial financial evaluation

indicated that NPV is negative and there is no payback period, there is a probable

modest energy efficiency gain of 2 percent achieved in the next five years of this

scenario.

Scenario 1: Step-up

Definition: This scenario suggests BPA makes an increased investment in order to

streamline data management and increase meter deployment to targeted SEUs. This

scenario relies on increased use of the current data management system, MV90, by

increasing key analysts’ focus on the EnMS. This scenario suggests maturing through

the years until CAPEX investments help realize double-digit energy intensity reductions.

Financial: The points allotted to this criterion are 2. Our estimate of this alternative

produced a positive net present value of roughly $6.45 mil and a payback period of

roughly 3.3 years. The assumed efficiency gains are 2 percent of total kWh

consumption for the first two years, 7 percent for the next two years, and 12 percent for

all the following years. This is a lower NPV than the following two alternatives.

Legal/Regulatory: The points allotted to this criterion are 2. The step-up scenario

represents a slightly more proactive management of regulatory risks because more time

is being spent to discover efficiency opportunities. The following two alternatives

addressed this criterion to a greater degree.

Environmental: The points allotted to this criterion are 2. Although many steps are

being taken across BPA to protect the environment, little is known about to what extent

energy management aids those efforts. The 2 points are based on the assumption that

the 12 percent efficiency gain will probably lead to reduction of GHG.

Public Interest: The points allotted to this criterion are 2. While BPA can claim that it is

stepping up efforts above the status quo alternative, it cannot point to a change in hiring

practices. The following two scenarios will probably be interpreted by the public more

easily as practicing what BPA preaches.


maximum benefit with the most limited impact to current business processes. The step-


up scenario will require process changes, but without a single, accountable manager,

those changes could be more painful than under other scenarios. This means it scores

lower the following two alternatives.

People: The points allotted to this criterion are 2. This scenario asks analysts to

increase their work efforts, but does not fundamentally change how human resources

are arranged. There is no single person taking primary responsibility for the program.

Time: The points allotted to this criterion are 4. This criterion has the shortest payback

period of the four alternatives.

Scenario 2: Step-up Plus

Definition: This scenario includes the hiring of a full time EnMS Manager, deploying

meters to facilities above 5,000 sq. ft. and the investment in a robust data management

system. These changes accelerate EnMS maturity, but are more costly.

Financial: The points allotted to this criterion are 3. This scenario achieved the highest

NPV by a slim margin at $ 7.9 mil, and a payback period of roughly 5 years. The

assumed efficiency gains are 2 percent of total kWh consumption for the first two years,

7 percent for the next two years, and 15 percent for all the following years.

Legal/Regulatory: The points allotted to this criterion are 3. The step-up scenario

represents proactive management of likely regulatory risks and sends a preemptive

message to regulators that BPA is focusing on an EnMS independently. This

management includes the designation of a manager, who is likely to also establish

efficiency targets. Efficiency targets are not required by ISO, but they have been

required by recent regulations.

Environmental: The points allotted to this criterion are 3. The three points are based on

the assumption that appointing a manager will drive environmental benefit and that

there is a direct correlation between higher efficient and a reduction in GHG.

Public Interest: The points allotted to this criterion are 3. BPA can reasonably claim to

the public that they major steps to conduct energy management.

Process: The points allotted to this criterion are 4. The step-up plus scenario will

require process changes, but with a single, accountable manager, those changes

should be less painful than in other scenarios. Also, the manager will not be constrained

with following ISO processes that may limit efficiency, giving BPA the greatest flexibility

to mold processes to their own environment.

People: The points allotted to this criterion are 4. This scenario represents the ideal use

of human resources because it allows a single individual to focus their efforts.


Time: The points allotted to this criterion are 3. The payback period for this scenario

was slightly longer than the step up scenario (5.2 years versus 4.9).

Scenario 3: Max Implementation

Definition: This scenario suggests that BPA implement a certifiable ISO 50001

program. This is the most expensive scenario because it is labor and process intensive.

Financial: The points allotted to this criterion are 3. This scenario represents NPV of

$7.8 mil, coupled with a payback period of 5.2 years. The assumed efficiency gains are

2 percent of total kWh consumption for the first two years, 7 percent for the next two

years, and 15 percent for all the following years.

Legal/Regulatory: The points allotted to this criterion are 3. The max scenario

represents proactive management of likely regulatory risks and sends a preemptive

message to regulators that BPA is focusing on an EnMS independently. This

management includes the designation of a manager, who is likely to also establish

efficiency targets. Efficiency targets are not required by ISO, but they have been

required by recent regulations.

Environmental: The points allotted to this criterion are 3. The three points are based on

the assumption that appointing a manager will drive environmental benefit and that

there is a direct correlation between higher energy efficiency and a reduction in GHG.

Public Interest: The points allotted to this criterion are 3. BPA can claim to the public

that they are conducting energy management and using the ISO certification, they can

easily justify that they are doing their utmost to manage energy use. The average

constituent is probably unfamiliar with ISO standards.


maximum benefit with the most limited impact to current business processes. This

scenario has the greatest potential to impact current processes. There will be a

manager to oversee these efforts, but that role may be overwhelmed with the process

change required by an ISO auditor. The net process disruption probably outweighs the

net process improvement.

People: The points allotted to this criterion are 3. The scenario should include more

training, and with a single, accountable manager, it is more likely that the training will be

effective compared to other scenarios.

Time: The points allotted to this criterion are 2, because it had a payback period of 5.2

years.


RECOMMENDATION

With the highest score of 3.3 on a scale of 1 to 4, we recommend BPA to adopt

SCENARIO 2, or STEP-UP PLUS.

This scenario includes the following components:

adoption of an internal energy policy

designation of a full time EnMS Manager

deploying meters to all facilities above 5,000 sq. ft

investment in a robust data management system

SCENARIO 2 has an estimated NPV of $ 7.9 mil and a payback period of roughly 5

years.

The assumed efficiency gains are 2 percent of total kWh consumption for the first two

years, 7 percent for the next two years, and 15 percent for the following years.

This scenario represents proactive management of likely regulatory risks and sends a

preemptive message to regulators that BPA is focusing on an EnMS independently.

Due to expected efficiency gains ranging from 2 percent to 15 percent, improved

environmental performance through the reduction in GHG emissions is assumed.

This scenario does not require certification and centralizes efforts with a single,

accountable manager. This gives BPA has greater flexibility to mold processes to their

own environment eliminating constraints inherent within standards such as ISO.

The investment in an automated and dynamic reporting system optimizes FTE usage

eliminating inaccuracy and freeing up time for efforts directly related to energy

efficiency.

The above alternative evaluation was used to create our strategic recommendations

contained in the next section as well as the implementation plan that follows.


STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS

STRATEGIC COMPONENTS

Define an Energy Policy

A clearly defined energy policy that supports the EnMS needs to be in place and many

other items in this analysis are directly or indirectly dependent upon it. Policy maker’s

job is made harder by the lack of data about energy consumption. The following EnMS

policy characteristics should be present in order to maximize effectiveness of the EnMS

and consequently energy performance:

defines the scope (property/sites, facilities/buildings, activities/operations and

management team) and boundaries (energy systems, processes, equipment and

people/functions) of the EnMS.

commits to energy efficiency and continual improvement and considers

applicable legal requirements and compliance.

provides a framework for setting, documenting, implementing and reviewing

measurable energy objectives and achievable targets.

assigns roles, responsibilities and authorities to the resources with the relevant

background, training and capabilities required for the effective implementation

and maintenance of the EnMS.

offers guidance for internal communication between various levels and functions

within the organization as well as document control for the planning and

operation associated with significant energy aspects.

identifies the key characteristics of operations which have significant energy

impact that should be monitored, tracked and verified for continual improvement.

establishes an internal EnMS audit plan in regular intervals that ensures non-

conformities are identified and that corrective and preventive actions are taken to

mitigate energy impacts.

ensures continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the EnMS through

top management review in planned intervals.

establishes need for data and reporting in order to make optimal decisions about

energy use.

This recommendation is supported by ETO EMA report, ISO 50001, EN 160001 and

ANSI SEP standards.


Adopt Strategic Energy Management Planning

Strategic Energy Management Plan

A Strategic Energy Management Plan (SEMP) will provide BPA with a clear strategy for

coordinating the various efforts required to achieve the long-term goal of the energy

management policy. A SEMP is a comprehensive plan, or roadmap for addressing

energy efficiency across the organization and its assets, enabling the company to

change its business practices and deliberately undertake a wide variety of energy

management actions to aggressively control and lower energy consumption on a

sustained basis.

ETO suggests the following SEMP objectives and specific areas of organizational focus

in order to achieve economic, environmental and social benefit from an EnMS:

gain and maintain the organizational commitment needed to successfully apply

best practices in managing energy consumption to reach energy reduction goals

identify and apply best practices in facility operations to minimize energy related

operating costs and enhance the reliability and longevity of building systems,

equipment and infrastructure

identify and invest in financially attractive facility upgrades that reduce the cost of

asset ownership and contribute to reaching energy reduction goals

establish and use purchasing and procurement standards that minimize company

life cycle costs and total cost of ownership

adopt and apply new construction practices using integrated design principles to

reduce the cost of asset ownership and contribute to reaching its energy

reduction goals

engage and empower employees and building occupants as partners in

organizational efforts to effectively manage energy use and reduce consumption

track and report energy performance to assure organizational accountability and

continuous improvement in efforts that effectively manage energy use and

reduce consumption

The identified objectives can be customized with input from the Executive Sponsor,

Energy Manager and technical team to determine the appropriate level of detail required

to assure organizational accountability and plan follow-through.

The following are quantitative sub-components which should be defined within the

SEMP:

Energy consumption baselines

Energy performance indicators (ENPIs)


Energy Intensity reduction targets

EUI benchmarks

Operational Plans

Operational plans are tactical and outline specific facility O&M improvements, capital

projects, and behavioral activities to be undertaken.

The operational planning is comprehensive and should include all O&M improvements,

capital projects, and behavioral activities which require organizational resources to

implement. In addition to the financial and human resources required, expected cost

savings should be forecasted and verified for comparison to facility specific energy

reduction targets and the overall organizational goal.

Metering Plan

BPA’s Facility Asset Management has been working on a Metering Plan which is guided

by:

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Section 103, Energy Use

Measurement and Accountability

Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and

Economic Performance, requires that 15 percent of an agency’s portfolio comply

with the Guiding Principles of Federal High Performance Sustainable Buildings

2010 Sustainability Action Plan in Goal #1 presented to DOE for the metering of

BPA facilities as our intent to comply with the intent of the E.O. 13514

DOE’s Document, Guidance for Electric Metering in Federal Facilities

We recommend that FAM continue to develop, implement and enhance its metering

plan as a lead organization with support from Power and Transmission services

technical stakeholder groups and decision makers. The technical details included within

the metering plan should define the SEUs and priority sites based on ongoing project

activities such as any major new construction and/or retrofit.

The SEMP, O&M and metering strategy should be multi-year plans adjusted at the end

of every fiscal year to ensure alignment between projects, departmental budgets,

energy targets and agency goals, organizational resource availability and the agency’s

strategic direction. (Appendix M)


ENABLING COMPONENTS

Identify an Energy Manager

ISO, SEG, and ANSI all suggest that an Energy Manager be designated. Top

management should appoint an individual with the appropriate skills and competence

who has the responsibility and authority to:

ensure the EnMS is established, implemented, maintained and continually

improved.

ensure that an energy policy appropriate to the nature and scale of the

organization’s energy use and consumption is defined and adopted.

ensure that planning of energy management activities, objectives and targets is

designed to support the organization’s energy policy.

define and communicate roles and responsibilities to facilitate energy

management as well as the means and time frame for achieving improvement.

promote awareness of the energy policy and energy management objectives at

various levels of the organization.

conduct a full energy review to evaluate past and present energy use and

consumption, identify areas of significant energy use and prioritize opportunities

for improving energy performance.

assist in identification of training needs associated with the operation of the

EnMS.

document and communicate internally and externally on the EnMS and energy

performance.

monitor, measure and analyze EnPIs and relevant variables related to significant

energy uses.

report to top management on energy performance as well as EnMS performance.

review evaluation of compliance with legal requirements, EnMS audit results and

implement corrective and preventive actions for continual improvement.

The designation of an Energy Manager can be carried out in two ways. First, it can be

accomplished by designating an existing individual to carry out all of the necessary

responsibilities. The potential advantage of this is avoiding the costs associated with

adding 1 FTE to staff, though there are likely FTE gains resulting from the re-distribution

of this individual’s workload / duties to other staff. Second one FTE can be designated.

The hiring of an Energy Manager is necessary to ensure the efficiency and success of

the EnMS and introduces the key variable of accountability.


Develop an Internal Energy Efficiency Training and Awareness Program

The EnMS should emphasize raising occupant awareness amongst SEUs and goal-

subject facilities. The Energy Manager should assure relevant staff has the

competence, education, training, skills and experience required to meet program goals.

Customized training for individuals and organizations which directly support the energy

management objectives of the agency should be a priority and should communicate:

importance of organizational commitment, accountability and conformity to BPA’s

internal energy policy.

roles, responsibilities and authorities delegated within BPA’s EnMS.

financial, operational and environmental benefits of improved energy

performance.

impact of energy use and consumption at the facility level as it relates to the

overarching agency energy targets.

correlation between occupant behavior and energy performance.

the means by which any person working for, or on behalf of, the organization can

make comments, report non-conformities or suggestions for improvements at the

facility level as well as the EnMS as a whole.

availability of energy efficiency incentive programs which the agency is eligible

for or subscribes to.

reward and recognition programs in place for individual and business lines with

outstanding contributions to the agency’s energy management activities.

Our research made clear that BPA energy efficiency training and awareness campaigns

were outwardly focused on its federal programs. Our research has also verified that

greater energy performance improvement occurs in organizations that dedicate time

and resources to training their own employees and internal business lines on energy

efficiency and occupant awareness, based on the ETO report, benchmarking studies

conducted and international standards.


FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS

Invest in an Energy Management Information System

BPA should invest in a platform that can improve operational effectiveness, financial

and environmental performance. Monitoring and measurement equipment can range

from utility meters up to intelligent systems capable of:

direct integration with basic and advanced meters, offline spreadsheets and data

exchange with third-party billing systems

consolidating raw data, integrating databases, producing automatic reports and

interfacing with other related systems

providing a centralized repository with single points of entry of utility consumption

data at the facility level

accurately measuring and tracking energy and environmental performance,

evaluating cost reduction and ROI for opportunities to reduce energy

project portfolio management across all enterprise locations through integrated

analytics and automated tracking and notification processes

being customized to BPA’s requirements for operational and document control of

internal records in conformity with EnMS standards and agency policy

BPA decision makers will have to decide between investing in an energy management

information system or leveraging its internal systems like MV90 and VFA based on their

own internal criteria and available budget. BPA is currently managing data manually and

does not use any of its internal systems in an integrated manner based on the

interviews with key sustainability analysts accountable for data gathering and reporting.

BPA will probably soon outgrow a solution based on patching together current systems

and data because of the complexity and size of BPA’s energy consumption footprint.

The commercially available platforms designed especially for energy and environmental

performance management would cost more in the near term, but probably offer better

analytic and reporting capabilities and greater returns over a five-year period.

Establish an Integrated Energy Information Analysis and Reporting Framework

BPA will receive multiple benefits from imbedding reporting and analysis into its EnMS

at the policy and operational levels, including:

advanced visibility into resource consumption, operational costs and

environmental performance benchmarks

the display of the interconnectedness between real estate, space management,

facility maintenance, capital projects and energy management in a single

technology platform


automated evaluation of asset deficiencies and identification of maintenance

projects that improve energy efficiency through integrated databases

comprehensive analysis operational, financial and environmental benefits with

alternative comparison

prioritization and optimization of financial and environmental returns from energy

reduction investments in alignment with organization’s business strategy

strategic performance improvement through a dynamic platform for people,

process and technology

BPA should establish a reporting framework that fully integrates all components

of the EnMS together, and integrates with other types reporting. The need for

integrated analysis and reporting for strategic decision making will be the lynchpin to

whether BPA realizes the net present value of all its energy efficiency gains that offset

the investments suggested within this study.


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Here we illustrate the key elements of our implementation plan which integrates SEG and PSU recommendations based on DOE’s implementation e-guide. (Appendix R)

Task 1

Establish the structure of the for EnMS implementation

- Appoint management representative & assign members of energy team

- Review ETO/PSU strategic recommendations

- Identify key internal influencers

- Establish scope & boundaries of the EnMS

- Develop the implementation plan & timeframe for execution

NW

Task 2

Draft Energy Policy

- Review sample energy management policies created by other organizations

- Identify operations with significant energy impact

- Establish communication channels

- Draft internal energy policy within BPAM guidelines

Energy Team

Task 3

Secure Top Management Commitment

- Understand your business drivers/case

- Prepare EnMS/Energy Policy sales pitch

- Brief top management and secure commitment

Energy

Management

Representative

Task 4

Create Organizational Awareness

- Communicate energy policy to all key stakeholders within the organization

- Review/Modify current SOPs to support the implementation of the energy policy

- Refine final draft and route for approval through TAC process

Energy Team

Task 5 Define, approve and communicate BPA's Energy Policy for internal operations NW

M2 M3 M1

ACTION ITEMQ1 Q2 Q3 Q4

M2 M3M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M1I. Define Energy Policy

Staff ResponsibleM1

STRATEGIC COMPONENTEstablish and formalize your energy policy to include a mission statement with guiding principles and goals

pertaining to energy management . The mission statement will contain an essential theme that will help build

momentum for the overall energy program.

1

2

3

4

5

Task 1

Formulate a Strategic Energy Management Action Plan

- Identify internal & external legal/compliance requirements

- Establish energy consumption baseline

- Determine energy performance indicators (EnPIs)

- Determine significant energy users (SEUs)

- Benchmark portfolio Energy Use Intensity (EUI)

- Define an document energy objective & targets (XATs)

Energy Team

Task 2

Document Operational Plans for goal-subject facilities

- Identify energy opportunities

- energy assessments

- O&M improvements

- capital projects

- behavioral activities

- Prioritize opportunities based on determined criteria

- capital requirement/ financial investment criteria

- ease of implementation/ impact on employee bandwidth and available resources

- correlation with other organization objectives/ non-financial benefits

- Forecast expected cost savings & energy efficiency gains

- compare facility specific targets to the overall organizational goal

- investigate available utility rebates & internal support programs

Energy Team

Task 3

Formalize an internal Metering Plan & Implementation Strategy

- establish scope and boundaries of metering plan (SEUs)

- define metering equipment standards and requirements

- determine systems for metering data collection, communication & storage

- align metering approach with ongoing project activities/major construction

- elaborate strategy for streamlined data capture from metered sites

- allocate resources/budget for ongoing metering efforts

Energy Team

Task 4

Obtain management approval

- review energy management plans with executive leadership

- demonstrate the contribution toward energy policy goals

- adjust as needed based on management feedback

Energy

Management

Representative

Task 5

Execute Plans

- Monitor and report on progress against the plan, objectives and long-term goal over

timeNW

ACTION ITEMStaff Responsible

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M1 M2

STRATEGIC COMPONENTDevelop a SEMP and annual operational plans for projects and activities that includes behavior, operations,

maintenance and equipment energy efficiency. Establish and use a baseline for energy consumption and

system efficiency as the basis point for developing, planning, and implementing projects and activities, and

linking them to the established targets and long-term goals.

M3 M1 M2 M3II. Adopt Strategic Energy Management Planning

4

1

2

3

5


Task 1

Appoint an Energy Manager

- chair the energy management committee

- draft energy policy

- establish a SEMP and annual operating plans

- develop BPA's internal metering plan

- coordinate the identification & implementation of projects and activities

Energy

Management

Representative

Task 2

Create a cross functional energy management committee

- including site coordinators responsible for carrying out projects and activities

- ensure participation from the key functional areas across the organization

- identify staff training needs associated with the implementation of EnMS

- schedule and deliver tailored training courses to site energy coordinators as needed

Energy Manager

Task 3

Determine significant energy users

- establish criteria for significance

- develop tools and techniques for applying criteria

- identify key sites for meeting energy use efficiency targets

- prepare list of your energy systems

- record significant energy uses and the methods used

Energy Team

Task 4

Acquire, analyze and track energy data

- Identify data needs

- determine availability of data

- investigate tools for analyzing and tracking data

- choose and implement an energy data management tool

Energy Team

Task 5 Implement, maintain and continually improve the EnMS Energy Team

ENABLING COMPONENTIdentify an Energy Champion, create an energy management committee and assign site area coordinators to

work with the energy champion and employees/occupants to support planning, communication and

implementation of energy efficiency projects and activities.


Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

M1 M2 M2 M3I. Identify an Energy Manager

M3 M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M1

1

2

3

4

5

Task 1

Increase strategic framework for internal energy efficiency messaging

- evaluate past energy awareness activities and effectiveness

- improve coordination with sustainability messaging/existing team meetings

- utilize multiple delivery channels

- understand target audience and tailor messaging accordingly

- improve purpose and intent of messaging

Energy Team

Task 2

Determine optimal avenues for communicating the energy policy & objectives

- newsletter articles/SharePoint

- BPAX intranet communication/sustainability report

- visible signage/electronic suggestion boxes

- related training activities/webcasts

Energy Team

Task 3

Communicate across the organization

- consider appropriate ways for soliciting energy efficiency ideas from employees

- implement most effective energy efficiency ideas

- plan publicity campaign to raise awareness for staff in all departments

- report back to contributors on ideas implemented and results

- consider recognition rewards for contributed ideas with measurable improvements

Energy Team

Task 4

Ensure competence and awareness of personnel

- define competencies and assess personnel awareness

- develop and implement plan to address training needs

- provide incentives for energy efficiency actions initiated by staff

Energy Team

Task 5Regularly schedule and deliver energy awareness communication activities

- evaluate effectiveness of awareness campaign and adjust as necessary Energy Team

ENABLING COMPONENTProvide basic awareness of energy use and efficiency opportunities, and encourage employee and occupant

participation. Motivate and empower employees and building occupants to impact energy use.

M2 M3 M1 M2 M3II. Develop an Internal Energy Efficiency Training and Awareness Program

M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M1


Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

M1

4

1

2

3

5


Task 1

Assess internal system capabilities

- assemble team of SMEs on Intron MV90 revenue metering system

- map current data flow for energy at BPA facilities

- establish requirements for capturing existing & future metered data

- identify resource requirements & constraints of MV90 system

Energy Team

Task 2

Research vendor managed Energy Management Systems

- research available vendor systems based on requirements

- benchmark with organizations that have adopted similar systems

- evaluate cyber-security concerns/requirements

- establish Total Cost of Ownership (TOC)

Energy Team

Task 3

Evaluate options and choose platform for monitoring and tracking energy use at BPA

- the following aspects should be considered:

- business & functional requirements

- integration with other data systems

- ability for customization

- ease of implementation & training requirements

- cost of implementation and maintenance

Energy

Management

Representative

Task 4

Deploy an Energy Management Information System

- expand MV90 capability to include BPA metered facilities by gaining access to

interval data in real time

- gain approval and connect existing meters to MV90 platform

- monitor and track metered sites data through BPA MV90 platform; or

- issue RFP for vendor managed and maintained EIS

- review terms & conditions for software purchase/license

- allocate budget/resources for deployment

Energy Team

Task 5Monitor, track and verify energy performance for metered sites and continually

integrate targeted SEUs which have new meters installedEnergy Team

FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTInvest in a platform that can improve operational effectiveness, financial and environmental performance by

monitoring and measuring through equipment and platforms ranging from utility meters up to intelligent

energy data management systems.


Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

M1 M2 M2 M3I. Invest in an Energy Management Information System

M3 M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M1

1

2

3

4

5

Task 1

Data Normalization

- Energy data is normalized for operating parameters, weather, and/or all other

elements appropriate to BPA operations

Metering

- Site level meters have the capability to capture energy data on an interval basis that

allows for intra-day readings

- Metered energy data is stored in a centralized location for easy analysis and review

as needed

Site level consumption

- Site-level consumption has been base-lined and opportunities for savings within

each major system is well understood

Variance analysis

- Energy use information, appropriately summarized and in a format that is

meaningful to employees in general, is broadly disseminated and used for raising

energy consumption awareness

- Energy intensity reports that examine large variances from established energy

reduction targets and previous periods are delivered at least monthly to technical

staff and operating area managers

Cost Analysis

- Energy cost and consumption data from utility bills is stored in a centralized location

for easy analysis and review as needed

Energy Team

FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTEstablish metrics for measuring energy usage normalized for operating conditions that staff cannot control

and track energy performance. Targets are generated and variances from expected performance are tracked

and tagged for follow-up and appropriate information is provided to senior management to show that energy

efficiency investments are worthwhile.

M2 M3 M1 M2 M3II. Establish an Integrated Energy Information Analysis/Reporting Framework

M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M1


Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

M1

5


CONCLUSION

The advancement of energy management at BPA facilities per the recommendations in

this paper is directly connected to the agency’s strategic direction as it pertains to

energy efficiency, operational excellence and the reduction of its carbon footprint in the

region. Energy management systems offer insight into asset health and system

reliability, mitigates exposure to unexpected regulation, and reduces operational costs.

Defining an energy policy, designating an energy manager and investing in a data

management system are undeniable components of an effective EnMS. Our

benchmarking and gap analysis studies confirmed those statements as did literature

review and previous assessments conducted by the ETO.

Qualitative and quantitative analysis in this study serve not as a final or definite answer,

but as a starting point for further discussion and decision making based on the agency’s

priorities and allocated resources to internal energy management.

The notion that maturing energy management internally is a gradual process was

confirmed in our studies. We are confident that BPA will benefit from improved energy

performance and governance by implementing an EnMS.

The size of net energy efficiency gains that BPA may realize will greatly vary according

to metering footprint, human and capital investment, and the project timeline.

Considering BPA’s size and complexity, significant dedication to change management

will be required to build organizational commitment and promote awareness throughout

all levels of the organization.

As a leader in energy-efficiency programs within the Pacific Northwest, BPA has a clear

opportunity to ‘walk the talk’ as it matures the way it internally manages energy.


WORKS CITED

American National Standard. (2013). ANSI/MSE 50021-2013 - Superior Energy performance - Additional requirements for Energy Management Systems. ANSI.

Bonneville Power Administration. (2013). Agency Decision framework. Portland: BPA.

BSI Standards Publication. (2009). BS EN 16001:2009 Energy Management Systems - requirements with Guidance for USe. BSI.

DEKRA. (2013). Energy Management Systems - ISO 50001 and Superior Energy Performance. DEKRA.

Deloitte. (2013). The Power Shift: Businesses take a New Look at Energy Strategy. Deloitte Development LLC.

Energetics Incorporated. (2012). Superior Performance Certificatin Protocol. Energetics Incorporated.

Energy Trust of Oregon. (2012). 2012/2013 Proposed Action Plan. Portland: Strategic Energy Group.

Energy Trust of Oregon. (2012). Energy Management Assessment. Portland: Strategic Energy Group.

Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Clean Energy. Retrieved 08 15, 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html

George Tech Research Corporation. (2012). Industrial Facility Best Practice Scorecard - Superior Energy Performance. George Tech Research Corporation.

Georgia Tech Research Corporation. (2011). ISO 50001 Correspondence table for the eGuide. Georgia Tech Research Corporation & US DOE.

International Standards Organization (ISO). (2011). ISO 50001 2011 Survey Database. ISO.

International Standards Organization (ISO). (2011). Win the Energy Challenge with ISO 50001. ISO.

International Standards Organization. (2011). Energy Management Systems - Requirements with Guidance for use. ISO.

International Standards Organization. (2011). ISO 50001 2011 Survey Database. ISO.

Navigant Energy. (2012). TVA Benchmarking Participant Report. Navigant.

New Buildings Institute. (2013). EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PIER PROGRAM: Improving the Real World Performance of Commercial Buildings. New building Institute.

PECI. (2013). Commercial Project Anlaysis Using EIS. PECI.


Russell, C. (2013). Onsite Energy Manager Pilot Program: A survey of Practices and Lessons Learned. Washington DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

St. Mary's Cement. (2012). EnMS Business Case at St. Mary's Cement canada. St.Mary's Cement.

Strategic Energy Group. (2012). Strategic Energy Management Template.

Superior Energy Performance. (2012). A Roadmap for Achieving Continual Improvements in Energy Performance. ANSI.

Sustainable Real Estate Roundtable. (2011). ISO 50001: 2011 Energy Management Systems. New York: Sustainable Real Estate Roundtable.

Tenessee Valley Authority. (2013). Tririga Real Estate Environmental Sustainability (TREES) at TVA & The Stet Department. TVA.

US Department of Energy - Advanced Manufacturing office. (2012). ISO 50001 Energy Management Standard and Superior Energy Performance. Energy Federal Contractors Group (EFCOG).

US Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (2006). Guidance for Electrical Metering in Federal Buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Energy Management program.

US Department of Energy. (2013, 04 12). Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Retrieved 05 31, 2013, from ISO 50001 Energy Management Standard: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/energymanagement/

US Department of Energy. (2013, 04 12). Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy: DOE eGuide for ISO 50001. Retrieved 05 31, 2013, from ISO 50001 Energy Management Standard: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/energymanagement/

US DOE Advanced Manufacturing office. (2012). ISO 50001 Energy Management Standard and Superior Energy Performance. Energy Federal Contractors Group (EFCOG).


APPENDIX A: INTERNATIONAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT STANDARDS

ISO 50001

The request to ISO to develop an international energy management standard came

from the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) which had

recognized industry’s need to mount an effective response to climate change. Experts

from 44 ISO member countries were able to draw from numerous national energy

management standards, specifications and regulations to develop the framework which

was initially published in 2009.

Its purpose is to enable organizations of all sizes to integrate energy aspects into every-

day management practice based on a model of continual improvement. The ultimate

goal is to improve energy performance by establishing systems and processes that help

reduce energy cost, GHG emissions and environmental impact.

The standard can be tailored to organizational requirements depending on the

complexity and successful implementation depends primarily on commitment from all

levels of the organization specifically top management.

ANSI/MSE 50021-2013

Developed with the assistance of 29 organizations which ranged from governmental to

private companies such as EPA and Ford Motor Company, the ANSI Standard requires

ISO 50001 implementation with additional requirements to meet Superior Energy

Performance (SEP) standard certification. While applicable to organizations of all sizes,

SEP has thus far only developed specific program requirements for the industrial sector.

While ISO 50001 focuses on energy policy and the implementation of components

related to energy aspects, SEP’s goal is for organizations to demonstrate the achieved

continual improvement in energy performance during the elected performance

improvement period. SEP has a three-year requirement for the implementation of

improvements after a one year baseline period and uses a scorecard to evaluate level

of compliance (Silver, Gold, or Platinum - respectively, a 5 percent, 10 percent, or 15

percent improvement over baseline at the time of review).

EN16001:2009

This standard helps organizations in 30 European countries establish the systems and

processes necessary to improve energy efficiency. Its components are practically the

same as ISO 50001 and do not establish absolute requirements for energy performance


beyond the commitments in the energy policy of the organization and its obligation to

comply with relevant legislation. Therefore, the success of the system depends on

commitment from all levels and functions of the organization, especially top

management.

Also based on a PDCA methodology, EN16001 describes the requirements for an

organization’s to complete certification or self-declaration of their energy management

system. It can be used independently or integrated with any other management systems

such as ISO 14001.


APPENDIX B: RESEARCH PLAN AND METHODOLOGY


(This paragraph should be drastically reduced if not removed) The PSU team will

conduct primary and secondary research in order to develop an understanding of how

BPA consumes power at its facilities.

Create a recommendation on how BPA should plan and manage its facilities’

energy consumption. The range of the alternatives to answer this question goes

from doing nothing to building an ISO certified system.

Create a comprehensive gap analysis to aid executive-level decision process to

address changes to agency policy on energy management.


The team will use existing data at BPA to gain an overview of BPA’s facility landscape

and augment that data with interviews/surveys and do the same for other agencies.

The team will take the results of this research and deliver the following by 9/13/2013:



Alternative scenarios of three varying degrees of implementation of Energy



A cost/benefit and LOE estimate


RESEARCH DESIGN STRUCTURE

This research design includes key analytic questions, lynchpin assumptions and leading

hypotheses. The research design will also explain research methods. (This should lead

into three or four paragraphs. I will address each questions, assumptions and

hypotheses with a paragraph)

KEY ANALYTIC QUESTIONS

Definition:

Key analytic questions transform client goals into relevant research questions


Question 1.1: What is the current-state of BPA’s energy management efforts at

its facilities?

Sub-questions:

To what extent does BPA use international standards to manage its energy at its

facilities?

How has BPA managed energy at its facilities in the past?

How does BPA currently measure its energy use?

What organizations are responsible for energy management?

How many facilities does BPA currently manage?

Of the facilities that BPA manages, how many of have energy management

goals?

How much do BPA’s current energy management practices cost?

How much energy does BPA’s current energy management practices save?

Question 1.2: What are the relevant international standards for energy

management?

Sub-questions:

What are the relevant energy management frameworks or standards that are

relevant to BPA?

How do these standards relate to ISO 14001, and international standard that

BPA has received an audit on?

What specific parts of those standards could literally be applied to BPA?

Which parts of those international standards should probably be applied to BPA

given BPA’s strategic goals?

Question 1.3: How well is the rest of the international power industry managing

power at its facilities?

Sub-questions:

What firms represent BPA’s international counterparts?

At those firms, which organizations are responsible for managing energy at their

agency’s facilities?

How do those firms currently measure their energy use?

Do those firms use international standards for energy management?

How many facilities do those firms currently manage?


Of the facilities that those firms manage, how many of have energy management

goals?

How much did it cost to institute an energy management system?

How much do those firms pay for their current energy management systems on

an on-going basis?

How much energy do those firms save from their energy management efforts?

Question 1.4: What are the relevant BPA strategies, objectives, and goals that

indicate to what degree BPA should adopt an energy management

system?

Sub-questions:

What are BPA’s key strategic objectives and goals and do any of them relate to

energy management at BPA’s facilities?

Question 1.5: What are the current plans for energy management in the future?

Sub-questions:

What plans does BPA currently have to manage its energy in the future?

Question 1.6: What are the likely outcomes if BPA adopts various degrees of an

energy management system?

Sub-questions:

What is the relationship between energy management system adoption and

energy savings?

How much will it cost BPA to implement various degrees of an energy

management system?

LYNCHPIN ASSUMPTIONS

Definition

Lynchpin assumptions are the assumptions used in analysis that are so important that if

they were removed, then the analysis would be invalid.

Assumption 2.1: ISO 50001 is a valid energy management framework.

Assumption description:


ISO 50001 is one of the most known frameworks referenced in the industry for energy

management and is considered “the” standard. Are there other frameworks that can be

used/applied that are not an international standard?

Assumption 2.2: The cost of implementing an Energy Management System is

less costly than not implementing one


Considering the amount of energy that could be put back into the grid by optimizing

energy consumption required for operation of transmission facilities, it seems that

implementing an active energy management system will cost less than not doing

anything at all. However, what do the financial projections look like and do they support

this assumption?

Assumption 2.3: BPA has reached a maturity level at which it is ready to

implement and active Energy Management System


Had BPA not reached a point where it is seriously considering the implementation of an

EnMS through a standard like ISO 50001, it would not have set this as one of their main

policy targets for FY13 nor would it have engaged PSU MBA team to pursue further

research, analysis and recommendations. However, depending on the recommendation

is BPA ready to allocate resources and budget to obtain the benefit of having an

operating EnMS?

SUGGESTED POSSIBLE HYPOTHESES

Definition

The following hypotheses are the starting positions that team members will attempt to disprove (or prove).

Hypothesis 3.1: BPA will receive the most financial benefit if it fully adopts ISO

50001 and it is capable of doing so.


Investment is implementing ISO 50001 is less than the benefits incurred


Hypothesis 3.2: BPA would receive the most financial benefit if it adopts a

hybrid energy management system comprised of internally created

standards and ISO 50001 standards, and it is capable of doing so.


Investment is implementing a hybrid EnMS is less than the benefits incurred

Hypothesis 3.3: BPA would receive the most financial benefit by adopting a

hybrid energy management system comprised of internally created

standards as opposed to fully implementing ISO 50001


Investment is implementing a hybrid EnMS is less than implementing ISO 50001

Hypothesis 3.4: BPA would receive the most financial benefits if it maintains its

current energy management system level of effort, and it is capable of

doing so.


Investment is implementing an EnMS is greater than the benefit incurred

RESEARCH METHODS

Definition

The following section describes our likely research methods and which ones should be

applied in which cases

Method 4.1: Secondary and exploratory

Method 4.2: Focus groups

Method 4.3: Interviews

Method 4.4: Surveys


RESEARCH MATRIX

PRIMARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

To what extent does BPA use international standards to manage its energy at its facilities?

How has BPA managed energy at its facilities in the past?

How does BPA currently measure its energy use?

What internal organizations are responsible for energy management?

What are BPA’s key strategic objectives and goals and do any of them relate to energy management at BPA’s facilities?

What plans does BPA currently have to manage its energy in the future?

PRIMARY QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

How many facilities does BPA currently manage?

Of the facilities that BPA manages, how many of have energy management goals?

How much do BPA’s current energy management practices cost?

How much energy does BPA’s current energy management practices save?

SECONDARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

What firms represent BPA’s counterparts?

At those firms, which organizations are responsible for managing energy at their agency’s facilities?

How do those firms currently measure their energy use?

Do those firms use international standards for energy management?

What are the relevant energy management frameworks or standards that are relevant to BPA?

How do these standards relate to ISO 14001, and international standard that BPA has received an audit on?

What specific parts of those standards could literally be applied to BPA?

Which parts of those international standards should probably be applied to BPA given BPA’s strategic goals?

SECONDARY QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

What is the (financial) relationship between energy management system adoption and energy savings?

How much will it cost BPA to implement various degrees of an energy management system?

How many facilities do those firms currently manage?

Of the facilities that those firms manage, how many of have energy management goals?

How much did it cost to institute an energy management system?

How much do those firms pay for their current energy ?

How much energy do those firms save from their energy management efforts?

Research Guide


APPENDIX C: ISO 50001 CYCLE OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT


APPENDIX D: ISO 50001 DATABASE SURVEY RESULTS FOR 2011

Top 10 countries for ISO 50001 certificates - 2011

1 Spain 95 6 Denmark 26

2 Romania 65 7 India 25

3 Sweden 62 8 Korea, Republic of 19

4 Germany 42 9 Taipei, Chinese 11

5 Italy 30 9 United Kingdom 11


APPENDIX E: ST. MARY’S CEMENT INTERNAL ENMS STRUCTURE

Our team was able to directly contact St. Mary’s Cement and inquire about their

becoming the first ISO 50001 certification in North America.

The majority of the findings from St. Mary’s support the notion that the implementation

of an EnMS is a gradual process that evolves and is optimized over time. As processes

are formalized and systems put in place, energy is managed pro-actively, financial

savings are accumulated and reinvested in additional energy management, thus

promoting a cycle of continuous improvement.

Early in 2006, a team of employees at the Bowmanville Plant in Ontario, Canada formed

E=MC², an Energy Management Conservation Committee. This cross-functional team

was tasked with creating ways to reduce the operation’s energy consumption. As a

leading manufacturer of cement and related construction products in North America,

energy represented 30 percent of the cost of operating the business.

The conservation committee includes representation from all departments which affect

the business such as Production, Procurement, Mining, Maintenance, Finance and

others. This ensures that strategic suggestions, directions and activities provided by the

committee lead to improved energy performance tracked through a performance

scorecard system.

St. Mary’s internal energy management program focuses on Process, Programs and

Projects in 5 key areas:

Energy Data Management

Energy Supply Management

Energy Use in Facilities

Equipment Efficiency


Organizational Integration

With support from top management, the St. Mary’ s team created a Sustainable Energy

Plan to capture tracking and measurement efforts, identify opportunities, guide the

company’s energy efficiency priorities and investments and communicate the status of

energy management activities to key stakeholders.

The team reduced electrical consumption by 9.4 million kWh and $2 million in direct

energy costs have been avoided since 2006. This represents approximately an 8 to 10

percent reduction in energy operating costs per year. The targeted activities included

process optimization, improved thermal efficiency, utilization of specialist system control

for process activities, retrofitting light fixtures, installing occupancy sensors in the office

space, adding monitoring and control software and load shifting, rescheduling operation

to off-peak hours.

Their program has also secured funding from external sources such as the Sustainable

Technology Development Canada (STDC) to invest in equipment improvement and

tapped into financial incentives available through the Electricity Retrofit Incentive

Program (ERIP).

Employee awareness and training is also a key component of the program for the

behavioral change required when maturing energy management. Energy use is

communicated in real-time to employees in the plant through energy data displays,

newsletters highlighting conservation issues and awards are published, training

opportunities are promoted and a rewards and recognition program is in place. (St.

Mary's Cement, 2012)

The consolidation of frameworks is also an important aspect of the evolution that led St.

Mary’s Cement to become the first ISO 50001 certified organization in North America.

With previous adoption and certification of ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001

frameworks, the organization already understood the benefits of putting in place formal

processes which would further help them improve energy performance.

St. Mary’s example shows that the type of organization and its level of commitment will

greatly weigh on the decision to pursue ISO 50001. As an industrial firm, the ISO 50001

certification yielded positive results for St. Mary’s Cement considering energy

represented approximately 30 percent of their operating cost.


APPENDIX F: DELOITTE DBRIEFS ENERGY & RESOURCES SERIES

Deloitte and the Harrison Group on March 2013 completed a survey of more than 600

business decision makers responsible for energy management within their companies

across the US in the last 3 years.


Those companies surveyed that set the most aggressive energy reduction targets were

primarily motivated by competitive advantage derived from potential financial savings,

although this motivation may be getting weaker. Since the recent economic recession,

the focus on cost cutting has led companies to achieve energy savings in most of the

‘low hanging fruit’ projects. As companies are deciding to tackle larger projects,

electricity costs have stabilized with the availability of natural gas. Fears of electricity

rate increases have continued to ease despite volatile prices, according to the study.

Energy management is seen more as a means to meet increasing regulatory

requirements rather than a motivation based on a sense corporate social responsibility

and reduced environmental impact. Nationally, attitudes and behaviors toward carbon

cost as a measure of performance have shifted as the national debate on carbon Cap

and Trade have also cooled down.

Most companies are reporting a marginal degree of success and, goals are getting

more difficult to achieve as the easy things have been done. The study looked at the

hurdles inherent in energy management and concluded that bureaucracy and the length

of time required for investments to pay off were the greatest challenges.

Roughly 33percent of the companies surveyed have on-site energy generation and 15

percent plan to do so through renewable supply systems or on-site cogeneration. The

majority of the companies (69 percent) currently do not participate in renewable energy

purchase programs offered by their electricity suppliers because of high cost.

A total of 40 percent of the companies surveyed allocated a pool of funds for energy

efficiency programs and which averaged 12 percent of the total capital budget for

companies with $500MM+ in revenues. Pay-off period requirement for investments in

energy efficiency solutions average 4 years and are required by 6 out 10 of the

companies surveyed. About 50 percent of them have a specific Internal Rate of Return

(IRR) of 21 percent on average for energy efficiency projects.


APPENDIX G: TVA SUSTAINABILITY BENCHMARKING REPORT

The TVA produced a benchmarking report that focused on staffing and expenses for

sustainability functions, which meet specific sustainability goals. Ten organizations

participated, 8 of which are utility companies including BPA.

The benchmark results for sustainability were normalized for 5 factors including

revenue, employees, customers, net power generated and sustainability projects and

used quartile calculations.

Sustainability FTE per $ Billion Revenue

For FTE, the benchmark median is 0.58 FTE per $ billion revenue and ranged from 0.39

(1st quartile) to 1.37 (3rd quartile). BPA placed slightly above the first quartile.

Sustainability FTE per Thousand Company FTE


For FTE, the benchmark median is 0.35 FTE per thousand company and ranged from

0.21 (1st quartile) to 0.46 (3rd quartile). BPA placed between the first quartile and the

median benchmark.

Sustainability FTE per TWh Net Power Generated (1TWh=1,000,000 MWh)

For FTE, the benchmark median is 0.059 FTE per TWh net power generated and

ranged from 0.028 (1st quartile) to 0.096 (3rd quartile). BPA placed below the first

quartile.

Sustainability FTE per Sustainability Project

For FTE, the benchmark median is 0.22 FTE per sustainability project and ranged from

0.17 (1st quartile) to 0.43 (3rd quartile). BPA placed well below the first quartile. Since

the definition of what constitutes a project is subjective, this is a less objective

benchmark.

The broad range between industry peers evidences the diversity of work being

performed which covers reduction of energy, water, waste, GHG emissions and others

as well as a small sample size. (Navigant Energy, 2012)

Nevertheless, based on TVA’s 2012 benchmarking report on sustainability, it is also

evident that BPA consistently is below the benchmark median and the 1st quartile.

TVA INTERNAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (IEMP)

The TVA represents perhaps one of the most comparable agencies for BPA to

benchmark against for the size of its portfolio and the mission that it is bound to. The

TVA is a government owned corporation founded in 1933 and is the largest public

power provider serving 9 million people in the southeastern area of the US.

The TVA building territory extends over 47 dams, 20 fossil plants and 3 nuclear plants.

A total of 1,391 buildings are subject to the EO 13423 3%/year energy reduction goals.

This represents roughly 55 percent of the total number of buildings and approximately

33 percent of the total square footage recorded in 2012. The remaining 1,138 buildings

are used to generate, transmit and control electricity and are classified as “excluded”

under EPAct05 and the EO.

In order to manage the portfolio, the TVA has adopted a facility and real estate

management database software called Tririga TREES.

The TREES system is operated on TVA internal servers reducing cyber security risk.

Many data streams interface with the TREES system, including: Smart meter data,


utility invoice wizard, CAD integrator, custom GUI for manual utility data entry, Energy

Star Portfolio Manager automated benchmarking system, annual FEMP energy

management reports, site survey, GIS data and FRPP reports. (Appendix H)

Proportionately, the TVA holds a very similar situation to BPA: roughly 25 percent of

their goal subject buildings are metered and billed for electricity consumption on a

monthly basis. The remaining buildings energy use is calculated from past energy

surveys and adjusted to account for energy efficiency improvements. The TVA has an

FTE assigned to validate utility data, but uses a GUI that automatically feeds the data

through TREES for reporting. The FTE spends approximately 20 hours a week to enter

1500 utility bills (energy/water/sewer) into the system.

Electricity represents 80 percent of utility costs at the TVA and it has chosen to

segregate its SEUs by energy cost, not necessarily square footage. Thresholds are set

for annual consumption between $20,000 and $30,000 worth of electricity. The installed

meters cost between $5,000 and $10,000 depending on the infra-structure and building

design. Different from DOE Guidance for Electric Metering in Federal Buildings, TVA

has found the cost of meter maintenance much higher than $25.00 considering the

significant investment in TREES.

Upgrading their system to a newer version in order to benefit from the dynamic reporting

capabilities is one of its main priorities at the moment for TVA.


APPENDIX H: TVA (TREES) INTERFACE


APPENDIX I: US DEPARTMENT OF STATE UTILITY DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT


The US State Department’s Bureau of Overseas Building Operations is landlord to 70

million gsf across 200+ locations across the world and manages the utilities for 19,221

buildings which cover embassies, consulates, diplomatic housing, warehouses and

related properties.

Based on the data elements necessary for the Federal Real Property Portfolio (FRPP)

which requires reporting for buildings larger than 5,000 gsf, a total of 10 percent of the

portfolio or roughly 2000+ buildings are actively managed.

With a large and diverse portfolio, a complex web of databases, lack of building meters

and inconsistent data input quality, the bureau decided to invest in energy management

information system. After commissioning an independent study of 10 environmental

sustainability software providers the bureau adopted the TREES system.

The Bureau for many years used a ‘home grown’ system to manage its portfolio of

buildings. The need for an industry-leading system that could do more than just collect

data quickly became evident. The use of ‘intelligent systems’ that can interconnect

property management databases, track compliance, generate interactive internal

dashboards and customizable external reports offered the means for the organization to

mature its program and increase its ‘reach’ within its vast inventory of building scattered

across the globe.

The ability to customize the TREES system has given the Bureau of Overseas Building

Operations (OBO) the possibility to roll out its Building Management Information System

(BMIS) as a distributed model with a front-end interface that can eliminate the duplicate

entries. Technical barriers are gradually being broken down by linking financial and

metering systems to the utility management system as future iterations of the software

are deployed. TREES is the first application of OBO headquarters’ BMIS system

distributed to overseas Post users. The custom front-end interface has allowed users to

enter data in a consistent manner all over the world. As they move around the postings,

they have a familiar set of tools to help them manage their local portfolios.

The ability to filter the portfolio by building type, climate zone, gsf, consumption, cost or

FTE provides the Bureau with more relevant reports to analyze consumption and make

strategic decisions about its portfolio. The system does have built-in the ability to collect

real-time weather observations (HDD & CDD) and provide comparisons against the

metrics, but the real-time data feed is currently not available for our use.

Energy performance improvement in the range of 10 to 15 percent was demonstrated

from localized studies of behavioral change at a single post where the manager

provided monthly feedback on cost and consumption to the housing pool residents.

Future plans to incorporate this “Residential Portfolio Manager” tool into the TREES

system are underway.


By empowering several levels of its users through a decentralized model, a large

amount of man-hours previously required for data gathering and reporting has shifted to

a focus on performance. Increased awareness and compliance tracking are now offered

by the system. The next frontier lies in leveraging opportunity identification and project

tracking.


APPENDIX J: TECHNICAL TEAM AND STAKEHOLDER MATRIX

BPA TECHNICAL TEAM

Name Org Role

Brad Wright NWM Program Manager Civil Engineering

Caitlin Hirneisen NWP Program Analyst Sustainability

Dan Krauss NWF Facilities Operations BPA HQ

Guy Kyle NWP Operations & Planning Manager

Jason Gamby KSM Public Utilities Specialist Metering

Jeff Lane SE Operational Excellence Consultant

Jennifer Riehl CONTR Resource Efficiency Manager

Jennifer Williamson PEJD Engineering Services

Matt Tidwell PEH Policy Development Specialist

Mira Vowles PEJD General Engineer

Rick Hodges PEJC Public Utilities Specialist

Ryan Fedie PEJD Supervisory Mechanical Engineer

Sonya Baskerville DKN Manager, National Relations Office

Stephan Capps NW Director of Facilities

Stephen Sander KEP Physical Scientist Environmental

Terry Oliver ST Chief Technology Innovation Officer

Thane Miller CONTR Facilities Engineering

Todd Amundson PEJD Mechanical Engineer

Tony Koch PEJD Mechanical Engineer


STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS MATRIX

Organization/ Functional area

>>>

Exec

Off

ice (

A)

Ris

k (

DB

)

Go

vern

an

ce (

DG

)

Pu

blic A

ffair

s (

DK

)

Inte

rnal A

ud

it (

DN

)

Fin

an

ce (

F)

F&

W (

KE

)

En

vir

o. P

lan

& A

nal (K

EC

)

Po

ll. P

rev.

& A

bate

me

nt

(KE

P)

Fis

h &

Wil

dlife

Pro

g (

KE

W)

Cu

st

Su

pp

(K

S)

Gen

era

lCo

un

sel

(LC

)

Sa

fety

(N

F)

HC

M (

NH

)

IT (

NJ

)

Secu

rity

(N

N)

Su

pp

ly C

hain

(N

S)

Inte

rnal B

us

. S

erv

ice

s (

N)

Po

wer

(P)

Co

rp S

tra

teg

y (

S)

Tra

ns

mis

sio

n (

T)

TE

(E

ng

.Tec

hn

ical svcs)

TF

(T

ran

sm

. F

ield

svcs

)

TG

(T

ran

sm

. In

tern

al O

ps)

TO

(S

yste

m o

pe

rati

on

s)

TP

(P

lan

nin

g &

Aset

Mg

t)

TS

(T

ran

sm

. M

kt

& S

ale

s)

EnMS component

not applicable

sc

op

e

de

fin

itio

n

4.1 General Requirements

4.3 Energy Policy

Pla

n

4.4.2 Legal, requirements

4.4.3 Energy Review

4.4.4 Energy Baseline

4.4.5 Energy Performance Indicators

4.4.6 Objectives, Targets

Do

4.2 Management Responsibility

4.5.2 Competence, Training

4.5.3 Communication

4.5.4 Documentation

4.5.4.2 Control of Documents

4.5.5 Operational Control

4.5.6 Design

4.5.7 Procurement of Energy Services

Ch

ec

k

4.6.1 Monitoring, Measurement

4.6.2 Evaluation of Compliance

4.5.3 Internal Audit

4.6.4 Nonconformity, Corr. Action

4.6.5 Control of Records

Ac

t 4.7 Management Review


APENDIX K: SEG ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT


APPENDIX L: ISO 50001 ENMS GAP ANALYSIS – PSU 2013

Question Category: Energy Policy

EnMS Element 1: Energy Policy (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.3)

Indicators of Conformity

Status

Finding / Corrective Action Notes

Not in

place

Partially in place

In place

1.

Has top management defined the organization's energy policy? Is the policy consistent with other corporate policies affecting the business?

X

Existing energy policy in BPAM or

plans to add it BSC measures and Strategy Maps linked with Energy linked to Energy Policy

2.

Does your procedure (process) for the energy policy ensure that the policy is appropriate to the nature, scale and energy impacts of its activities, products, and services that are within the defined scope of your energy management system?

X

3.

Does your energy policy within the defined scope of your EnMS commit to energy efficiency and continual

X

Question Category: Energy Policy POINTS AVAILABLE

EnMS Element 1: Energy Policy (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.3) 16

Question Category: Planning

EnMS Element 2: Energy Review, baseline & performance indicators (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.4.3) 8

EnMS Element 3: Legal and Other Requirements (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.4.2) 14

EnMS Element 4: Energy objectives, energy targets and energy management action plans (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.4.6) 10

Question Category: Implementation and Operation

EnMS Element 5: Resources, roles, responsibility and authority (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.2.1 & 4.2.2) 8

EnMS Element 6: Competence, training and awareness (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.5.2) 12

EnMS Element 7: Communication (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.5.3) 8

EnMS Element 8: Documentation (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.5.4) 10

EnMS Element 9: Control of Documents (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.5.4.2) 18

EnMS Element 10: Operational Control (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.5.5) 6

EnMS Element 11: Design & Procurement of Energy Services, Product Equipment and Energy (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.5.6 & 4.5.7) 8

Question Category: Checking

EnMS Element 12: Monitoring, measurement & analysis (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.6.1) 6

EnMS Element 13: Evaluation of compliance (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.6.2) 2

EnMS Element 14: Nonconformity, corrections, corrective action and preventive action (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.6.4) 12

EnMS Element 15: Control of Records (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.6.5) 6

EnMS Element 16: Internal audit of the EnMS (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.6.3) 18

EnMS Element 17: Management review (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.7) 10

TOTAL 172

Question Category: Management Review

Not in place = 0 points Partially in place = 1 point In place = 2 points

The responses are totaled for the entire questionnaire resulting in your score. The highest score possible, 172, indicates all components of the 17 elements are ‘In place’ in your

EnMS (85 questions/components x 2 points for each component ‘In place’ = 170 points). This baseline assessment enables you to focus on continual improvement. In the

electronic version of the EnMS Gap Analysis Questionnaire provided with the EnMS Toolkit, the second tab titled "Summary Chart", contains a bar chart to give you a visual

depiction of the degree to which you conform to the ISO 50001 EnMS Standard. This chart can be used in management presentations to show the progress of your EnMS

implementation.

Hints

1) List of Required Documentation and Records: The ISO 50001 EnMS Standard requires physical (or electronic) evidence of certain documents and records. This includes, for

example, the organization's energy policy. There is a list at the end of this gap analysis questionnaire that highlights which itEnMS require physical (or electronic) evidence in the

form of documentation or records. The list is organized by each of the 17 elements in the Standard. Elements of the ISO 50001 EnMS Standard that require documentation are

indicated in bold text in the gap analysis questionnaire for easy reference to the requirements of the Standard.

2) List of Reference Material: The second part of the list at the end of this gap analysis questionnaire is a list of reference materials you may already possess that could help

you identify your current EnMS status. This list is organized by each of the 17 elements of the Standard.


improvement?

4.

Does your energy policy within the defined scope of your EnMS commit to complying with applicable energy legal requirements and other energy requirements?

X

5.

Does your procedure (process) for the energy policy provide a framework for setting and reviewing energy objectives and targets?

X

6.

Does your procedure ensure that the energy policy is documented, implemented, and maintained?

X

7.

Does your procedure (process) for the energy policy communicate the policy to all persons working for or on behalf of the organization?

X

8.

Does your procedure (process) for the energy policy make the policy available to the public?

X

Status subtotals:

0 0 0

Status Total: 0 16 points available

Percentage complete:

0

Question Category: Planning

EnMS Element 2: Energy Review, baseline & performance indicators (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.4.3)

Indicators of

Conformity

Statu

s


Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place

9. Does your procedure (process) for energy review address: Identifying energy aspects of activities, products, and services within the defined scope of the EnMS that it can control and those which it can influence taking into account planned or new developments, or new or modified activities, products and services? Is there a risk assessment process to determine significance or priority of identified energy aspects/impacts?

Energy Management checkpoint in the project review board Energy Management as topic of annual audit planning process

X X

10. Determining those aspects that have or can have significant impact on the environment?

Environmental criteria tied to Energy Aspects within business

X X

Respondents said partial but did not find evidence


case/ADF in an actual project

11. Maintaining a documented up-to-date list of all aspects including those that are significant?

X

12. Ensuring that significant energy aspects are considered in developing, implementing and maintaining the EnMS?

Energy Management as an annual Balance Scorecard Measure

X X

Methodology section of Sustainability XAT defines scope, baseline and corrective action measures

Status subtotals: 0 0 0


Percentage complete: 13

EnMS Element 3: Legal and Other Requirements (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.4.2)

Indicators of

Conformity

Status


Not in

place

Partially in

place

In plac

e

13. Does your procedure (process) for legal and other energy requirements address: – Identifying applicable legal requirements related to your organization's energy aspects?

EPAct 2007 (Metering in Federal Facilities) - In Balance Scorecard EO 13514 (Reducing Energy Intensity at Federal Facilities) – In Balance Scorecard Impacts Decision Frameworks for New Buildings/Construction of internal facilities

X

EPAct 2007 (Metering in Federal Facilities) EO 13514 (Reducing Energy Intensity at Federal Facilities)

– Accessing applicable legal requirements related to your organization's energy aspects?

X

– Determining how the legal requirements apply to your organization's aspects?

X

– Identifying other energy requirements to which your organization subscribes?

X

– Accessing other energy requirements to which your organization subscribes?

X


– Determining how other energy requirements to which your organization subscribes apply to your organization's aspects?

X

14. Does your procedure ensure that legal and other energy requirements to which the organization subscribes are considered in developing, implementing and maintaining your organization's energy management system?

X




EnMS Element 4: Energy objectives, energy targets and energy management action plans (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.4.6)

Indicators

of Conformity

Statu

s

Finding / Corrective Action Notes Does your procedure (process) for Objectives, Targets and Programs address:

Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place

15. Establishing and maintaining documented energy objectives and targets at relevant functions and levels within the organization? Have specific energy improvement objectives been communicated to all relevant business units and employees, contractors and suppliers?

Sustainability XAT Cross Agency Targets (BSC) - distributed agency-wide

X

16. Establishing measurable objectives and targets, where practicable, that re consistent with the energy policy, including the commitments to energy efficiency, compliance with legal and other energy requirements and continual improvement? Determine whether the facility has prepared and implemented sufficient written policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable standards and consistency in implementation practices, and to provide guidance on how to meet applicable standards.

X X

REASON: No energy policy

17. The legal and other energy requirements, its significant energy aspects, its technology options and its financial, operational and business requirements and the views of interested parties when establishing and reviewing objectives and targets?

Energy management measures are part of the BSC which include all lead/support

X X

.


→Confirm that the facility has established compliance standards to be followed

organizations

18. Does your procedure (process) address establishing and maintaining programs for achieving your organization's objectives and targets, including designating responsibility for achieving objectives and targets at relevant functions and levels of your organization? →Verify, where possible, that the facility has taken steps to achieve compliance with its energy standards. →Verify that the facility has a program in place to review the full range of capital projects, maintenance modifications, process changes, and R&D initiatives to identify potentially significant consequences.

2013 Accountability Matrix within the BSC to a person and Tier I, II, III Performance Contract Evaluation

X FY14 drive accountability to lower tiers of the organizations where implementation

19. Does your procedure (process) address establishing and maintaining programs for achieving your organization's objectives and targets, including the means and time-frame by which the objectives and targets are to be achieved? Verify that the facility has a program in place to review the full range of capital projects, maintenance modifications, process changes, and R&D initiatives to identify potentially significant consequences. Since Accountability is partial, means to meet objective is also partial

All BSC measures are time bound

X




Question Category: Implementation and Operation

EnMS Element 5: Resources, roles, responsibility and authority (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.2.1 & 4.2.2)

Indicators of

Conformity

Statu

s

Finding / Corrective Action Notes Does your procedure (process) for resources, roles, responsibility and authority address:

Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place


20. Management ensuring the availability of resources (human resources & specialized skills, internal infrastructure, technology and financial resources) essential for the implementation and control of the energy management system? Verify if the roles and responsibilities cover: Legal/regulatory tracking; Updating/reviewing documentation control procedures; Training; Policy and procedure development; Contractor oversight; Follow-up to inspections/audits/periodic reviews; Updating the energy policy; Identifying energy aspects/impacts of on-site operations; and, Responding to external requests for information

X

21. Defining, documenting and communicating the roles, responsibilities and authorities to facilitate effective energy management? Verify that the roles are clearly defined, documented, and understood and that there are no redundancies or gaps in the

coverage.

Resource assignment

X

22. Top management appointing a specific management representative who, irrespective of other responsibilities, has defined responsibilities and authority for: – Ensuring that an energy management system is established, implemented, and maintained in accordance with the requirements of ISO 50001? Interview staff from various operating departments to confirm that energy roles and responsibilities are clearly understood within the facility.

Tier II management representative assigned

X

– Reporting on the performance of the energy management system to top management for review and as the basis for improvement?

Sustainability Executive Steering Committee oversight

X




EnMS Element 6: Competence, training and awareness (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.5.2)

Indicator

Status



Does your procedure (process) for competence, training and awareness address:

s of Conformi

ty

Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place

23. Identifying training needs to ensure that any person(s) performing tasks on the organization's behalf that have the potential to cause (a) significant energy impact(s) identified by the organization is/are competent on the basis of appropriate education, training, or experience? The importance of complying with established performance criteria and the potential consequences of departure from specified energy operating procedures; Adequate detail to motivate personnel to prevent, detect, and correct violations; and, The facility offers all staff an opportunity to attend internal energy training sessions.

Training Department conducting training regularly

X

FAM is conducting ongoing training (?)which one

24. Identifying training needs associated with the organization's energy aspects and its EnMS? Providing training or taking other actions to meet these needs? Identify a sample of facility personnel who perform tasks that can cause significant energy impact.

X

25. Making persons working for the organization or on its behalf aware of: – The importance of conformity with the energy policy and procedures and with the requirements of the energy management system?

→Verify that these staff members have received appropriate energy training relative to the job functions/tasks performed.

X

– The significant energy impacts, actual or potential, of their work and the energy benefits of improved personal performance? Confirm that the facility promotes energy awareness through periodic memoranda, use of bulletin boards, energy newsletters, award programs, etc.

X


– Their roles and responsibilities in achieving conformity with the energy policy and procedures and with the requirements of the energy management system, including design & procurement of energy services, product equipment and energy requirements? Confirm whether staff with energy responsibilities have the relevant background, training, and capabilities to effectively carry out their responsibilities.

X

Supply Chain training

– The potential consequences of departure from specified operating procedures?

x

No Corrective Action in place




EnMS Elément 7: Communication (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.5.3)

Indicators of

Conformity

Statu

s

Finding / Corrective Action Notes Does your procedure (process) for Communication address:

Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place

26. Establishing and maintaining procedures for internal communication between the various levels and functions of your organization with regard to your organization's energy aspects and energy management system?

Organizational Communication address specifically Energy Management

X

BPAX, Sustainability of Operations through Public Affairs, Sustainability Report

27. Establishing and maintaining procedures for receiving, documenting, and responding to relevant communication from external interested parties with regard to your organization's energy aspects and energy management system?

X

28. The organization's decision on whether to communicate externally on its significant energy aspects and the documentation of that decision?

X

If the decision is to communicate externally on its significant energy aspects, does the organization have a method(s) for this external communication?

X





EnMS Element 8: Documentation (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.5.4)

Indicator

s of Conformi

ty

Statu

s


Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place

29. Does your energy management system documentation include: – An energy policy, objectives and targets for your organization?

X

- A description of the scope

of the energy management system?

Identified SEUs and criteria for defining them

X Thane Miller’s TESF EnMS goal for FY14

– A description of the main

elements of the energy management system and their interaction and reference to related documents?

X

– Documents and records

required by the ISO 50001 Standard (at minimum those bolded in this gap analysis tool)?

X

Targets are documented, policy not

– Documents and records the organization determined necessary to ensure the effective planning, operation and control of processes that relate to its significant energy aspects?

X




EnMS Element 9: Control of Documents (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.5.4.2)

Indicator

s of Conformi

ty

Statu

s


Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place


30. Does your document control procedure(s) address the need to control documents required by the energy management system and by the International Standard? Evaluate whether: There are systems in place to ensure that all required reports are sent to regulators in a timely fashion; The documentation/records system clearly identifies the maintenance retention period and disposition of records; and, Employees have access to energy documents they need to conduct job activities.

Energy consumption for BPA facilities sent as report to DOE annually

X X

Resources have access to energy data and documents but process is labor intensive and gives room for inaccuracy Partial Document Control procedures exist but not in conformance with international standard

31. Does your document control procedure(s) address the need to: – Approve documents before they are issued?

X X

– Review and update them as necessary, and re-approve them before reissuing them?

X

X

– Ensure changes and the current revision status of documents is identified?

X

X

– Ensure current documents are available at points of use?

X

X

– Ensure documents are legible and easily identifiable?

X

X

– Ensure that external documentation you deem necessary for the planning and operation of the energy management system are identified and their distribution controlled?

X

X

– Ensure obsolete documentation is not unintentionally used?

X

X

– Identify obsolete documentation if it needs to be retained for any purpose?

X

X




EnMS Element 10: Operational Control (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.5.5)

Indicator

Statu

s Finding / Corrective Action Notes


Does your procedure (process) for Operational Controls:

s of Conformi

ty

Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place

32. Identify those operations that are associated with the identified significant energy aspects consistent with your organization's energy policy, objectives and targets?

Energy management sustainability cross agency targets

X

Operational controls do not relate back to energy policy since it is inexistent and are limited to scope defined within methodology section for XAT targets

33. Establish and maintain documented procedures to control situations for those operations where absence of documented procedure(s) could lead to deviation from your energy policy, objectives and targets?

EUI benchmarking is done for metered/occupied sites in yearly targets

X Operational controls to avoid deviation from objectives and targets are established but not documented.

34. Plan these operations in order that they are carried out under specific conditions, stipulate operating criteria, establish, implement and maintain energy procedures related to goods and services used by the organization and communicate applicable requirements to suppliers and contractors?

FAM’s O&M guidelines

X

Documentation and dissemination of information is still an ongoing process and linkage to legal requirements could be strengthened




EnMS Element 11: Design & Procurement of Energy Services, Product Equipment and Energy (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.5.6 & 4.5.7)

Indicators of

Conformity

Status

Finding / Corrective Action Notes Do you establish and maintain a procedure (process) for energy performance improvement that addresses how to:

Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place

35. Identify the potential energy performance improvement opportunities and operational control in the design of new, modified and renovated facilities, equipment systems and processes? Confirm that the procedures have been updated, as appropriate, in response to new information or program reviews.

FAM’s SAP (Sustainability Action Plan)

X

36. Procure energy services, products and equipment that have, or can have, an impact on significant energy use of the organization?

X

37. Does your organization periodically review and, where necessary, revise the energy performance improvement opportunities and procurement procedures?

X


38. Does your organization periodically define, document, incorporate and revise energy purchasing specifications and procedures where practicable?

X




Question Category: Checking

EnMS Element 12: Monitoring, measurement & analysis (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.6.1)

Indicators of

Conformity

Statu

s

Finding / Corrective Action Notes Do you establish and maintain a procedure (process) for monitoring and measurement that ensures:

Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place

39. Key characteristics of your operations (that can have a significant energy impact) are monitored and measured on a regular basis?

Access database with all energy consumption data

X

Though energy consumption data is monitored and measured on regular basis, process is labor intensive and delayed. More rigor required

40. Information is documented to monitor performance, applicable operational controls, and conformity with the objectives and targets of your organization?

Quarterly Energy data performance charts

X Though documented performance is in conformity with objectives, scope is narrow. More rigor required

41. Monitoring and measurement equipment is calibrated and maintained and all associated records are retained?

Only meters serviced by PUD are calibrated

X

Station service is metered with a variety of meters (SCADA, pulse output, etc.) and require different calibration measures and frequency. More rigor required.




EnMS Element 13: Evaluation of compliance (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.6.2)

Indicators of

Conformity

Statu

s

Finding / Corrective Action Notes Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place

42. Does your procedure (process) to meet the organization's commitment to compliance ensure that you periodically evaluate compliance with applicable energy legal requirements and other energy requirements to which the organization subscribes?

Sustainability XAT in BSC

X

Though energy intensity reduction and metering as a subcomponent of the Energy Management targets are present in BSC, periodic evaluation of compliance to energy legal requirements is not in place




EnMS Element 14: Nonconformity, corrections, corrective action and preventive action (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.6.4)

Indicator

Status



s of Conformi

ty

Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place

43. Do you establish and maintain a procedure (process) for controlling non-conformities and taking corrective and preventive actions?

Energy & Water consumption monitor and control methods

X

Though non-conformities are currently identified, they are narrow in scope and data collection methods are inappropriate for BPA’s portfolio size and lead to delayed corrective action

44. Does the procedure for controlling non-conformities and taking corrective and preventive action ensure that: – Actual non-conformity (-ies) are identified and corrected and their energy impact(s) are mitigated?

X

– Actions are taken to investigate and eliminate the causes of nonconformities so that they do not occur again?

X

– Actions are determined to eliminate the causes of potential non-conformities and to prevent their recurrence?

X

45. Are any measures taken to identify, correct, mitigate, prevent or eliminate the nonconformity (-ies) consistent with the magnitude of the problems and the energy impacts encountered?

X

46. After corrective and preventive actions have been taken, are they reviewed and the program adjusted accordingly by implementing and documenting any new changes that result from the findings?

X




EnMS Element 15: Control of Records (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.6.5)

Indicators of

Conformity

Statu

s

Finding / Corrective Action Notes Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place

47. Has your organization created and maintained records as necessary that demonstrate compliance with the EnMS and conformance to the requirements of the ISO 50001 Standard, including evaluation of compliance with energy legal

X

Documents are maintained, but not necessarily in conformance with ISO 50001 standard or evaluation of energy legal requirements in place. Need for a process regardless of ISO 50001 conformance.


requirements and other energy requirements to which the organization subscribes and the implementation of procedures and results achieved?

48. Does your procedure (process) for records management describe how the records will be identified, stored, protected, retrieved, retained, and disposed?

X

49. Are the records themselves legible, identifiable, and traceable?

SharePoint Site

X




EnMS Element 16: Internal audit of the EnMS (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.6.3)

Indicators of

Conformity

Statu

s

Finding / Corrective Action Notes Does your procedure (process) for an internal energy management system audit:

Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place

50. – Ensure that internal energy management system audits are conducted at planned intervals?

X

Environmental Management System has a planned internal audit control procedure based on ISO 14001 but not for energy management

– Determine whether the energy management system conforms to planned arrangements for energy management including the requirements of the ISO 50001 Standard?

X

– Determine whether the energy management system has been properly implemented and is maintained?

X

– Determine whether the energy management system provides information on the results of audits to management?

X

51. Plan, establish and maintain the energy management audit program taking into consideration the energy importance of the operation(s) concerns and the results of previous audits?

X

52. – State the responsibilities and requirements for planning and conducting audits?

X


– State the responsibilities and requirements for reporting results?

X

– Define the audit criteria, scope, frequency and methods and explain how you have determined them?

X

53. Ensure that the selection of auditors and the conduct of the audits maintain the objectivity and impartiality of the audit process?

X




Question Category: Management Review

EnMS Element 17: Management review (ISO 50001:2011(E), Paragraph 4.7)

Indicators of

Conformity

Statu

s

Finding / Corrective Action Notes Does your procedure (process) for Management Review:

Not in

place

Partially in

place

In place

54. Ensure continuing suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness of the energy management system through top management review of it at planned intervals? Confirm that a review process exists to update the policy and to communicate changes to appropriate stakeholders.

X

Though there permanent review of energy targets by senior management, suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the system is not being reviewed by top management

55. Ensure that opportunities are assessed for improvement and the need for changes to the energy management system including the energy policy and energy objectives and targets are assessed?

X

Changes to energy targets based on assessed opportunities are being done, but not as it relates to policy or the EnMS as a whole

Ensure that the results of the management reviews are documented?

X Partial results and review of energy targets documented

56. Contain input which includes the following: results of energy management system audits, communication from external interested parties and the performance of the energy management system? The extent to which objectives and targets have been met, status of corrective and preventive actions, follow-up actions from previous management reviews, changing circumstances, and recommendations for improvement



57. Ensure that the outputs from the management review include any decisions and actions related to possible changes to the energy policy, objectives and other elements of the energy management system, consistent with the commitment to continual improvement?





Program Totals

Element subtotals: 0 57 8

Program Total: 65 172 points available

Total Program percentage complete:

38

Required Documents and Records Reference Materials

Element 1: Energy Policy

- Organization's energy Policy - Energy Policy

Element 2: Energy Review, baseline & performance indicators

- List of significant aspects

- Results of energy aspects identification process

- List of all aspects - List of critical business functions

Element 3: Legal and Other Requirements

- Laws, regulatory and other code requirements

- Voluntary standard agreements

Element 4: Energy objectives, energy targets and energy management action plans

- energy objectives and targets - List of performance measures

- List of programs associated with significant aspects

- Energy management & Action Plan

- Strategic resource management Plan

- Communication Plan

Element 5: Resources, roles, responsibility and authority


- Roles, responsibilities, and authorities for the energy management system - Job descriptions for key on site staff for programs to address significant aspects

- Budgets

- Work schedules

- Organizational charts

- Staffing assignments

Element 6: Competence, training and awareness

- Training material and signup sheets

- Shift change meeting notes

- Training records

- Resumes of staff responsible for key programs

- Roster of fully equipped and trained emergency personnel with the authority to perform essential functions and activities


Element 7: Communication

- The organization's decision whether to communicate their energy aspects externally - Key presentations

- Newsletters

- Town meeting presentations

- PR releases

- Web based information

- Communications with customers, suppliers, contractors and other external parties

- Correspondence with management

- Master call list for employees

- Internal communication procedure

- External communication procedure

- Sample script

Element 8: Documentation

- Documents and records determined by the organization to be necessary to ensure the effective planning, operation and control of processes that relate to its significant energy aspects - Description of the main elements of the EnMS and their interaction and reference to related documents

Element 9: Document Control


- List of key documents

- Legal documents

- Permits

Element 10: Operational Control

- Operational Control Procedures - Procedures for different media

(where the absence of documented procedures could lead to deviation from the

- Contractor energy plans

energy policy and the objectives and targets) - Operational controls

- Sampling procedures

- Preventative maintenance plan for equipment

Element 11: Design & Procurement of Energy Services, Product Equipment and Energy

- Opportunities List

- Procurement Policies

- Energy Incident Management procedure


Element 12: Monitoring, measurement & analysis

- Records associated with calibration and maintenance of monitoring and measurement equipment

- Records of monitoring and measurements

- Information to monitor performance, applicable operational controls and conformity with the organization's energy objectives and targets

- Reports of progress toward meeting objectives and targets

- Monitoring equipment calibrations

- incident Management reports

- Permits, licenses and other approvals

Element 13: Evaluation compliance

- EnMS audit and regulatory compliance audit reports

Element 14: Nonconformity, corrections, corrective action and preventive action

- New changes to the program resulting from findings once the corrective and preventive actions have been taken

- Reports of identified nonconformance, corrective action plans and corrective action tracking

- Reports of hazardous material spills or other energy incidents

Element 15: Control of Records

- Records as necessary to demonstrate conformity to the requirements of the EnMS and of the International Standard. - Training, energy

management audit and management review

- Sampling and monitoring data

- Equipment maintenance records


- Record retention policy

- Vital legal and financial records (accounts receivable; contracting and acquisition files; official personnel files: social security, payroll, retirement, and insurance records; and property management and inventory records)

- Logs and notes for emergency response exercises

Element 16:Internal energy management system audit

- Self assessments

- energy management audit reports

Element 17: Management review

- Results of management reviews - Senior managers meeting minutes

- Change to energy management system

- Results of management review


APPENDIX M: BPA METERING MAP


APPENDIX N: GAP ANALYSIS STRATEGIC RECOMMNEDATIONS

STRATEGIC ACTION ITEMS CATEGORY ANALYSIS ITEMS LOE COST TIME FRAME COMMENTS

Designation of an Energy ChampionOrg. Structure /

PolicySEG Action Item EHV LOW Q1 FY14

ISO, SEG, and ANSI all suggest that an Energy Champion be

designated; and we agree based upon our own analyses. The

designation of an Energy Champion can be carried out in two ways:

One, it can be accomplished by designating an existing individual to

carryout all of the necessary responsibilities. The potential

advantage of this is avoiding the addition of 1 FTE to staff. The

disadvantage of this is that it is an 1FTE equivalent position and it

requires offloading the duties previously carried out by the

designated individual to be partially or totally re-designated to

others. It is our position that adding 1FTE, though more expensive, is

the optimal decision for ensuring the success of an EnMS

Create clearly defined policy that supports EnMS Policy PSU ISO GAP 1-8 "Energy Policy" EHV LOW Q1 FY14

A policy needs to be in place. Many other items in this analysis are

dependent upon a policy being in place. The EnMS policy

characteristics in items 2-8 should be present in order to maximize

effectiveness. This idea is also supported by ETO report and ANSI SEP

standards.

Clearly define EnMS framework, objectives Policy PSU ISO GAP 9-12 "Planning" EHV LOW Q1 FY14

A clearly defined EnMS is not in place. There is insufficient data for

“energy review” to take place. Items 9-12 are dependent upon this

EnMS and, more specifically, data collection and processing for

precision review to take place.

Maintain Legal Compliance/ Awareness Policy / Enabling PSU ISO GAP 13-14 "Planning" EHV LOW Q1 FY14

BPA is, by virtue of its function, legally compliant. How much further

this is carried are dependent upon POLICY and the identification of

key energy aspects. No special action required at this time.

Clarify Energy Objectives, Targets, and

Responsibilities. Policy PSU ISO GAP 15-19 "Planning" EHV LOW Q1 FY14

These are in place to some degree and are dependent upon a policy

and specified targets being in place.

Facilitate communication between stakeholders PolicyPSU ISO GAP 26-28 "Implementation and

Ops"EHV LOW Q1 FY14

Communication must be facilitated to a greater degree between

stakeholders. Key stakeholders must be made aware of one another

and ccountability introduced around communicating. This is

supported by ISO 50001, ETO report, and ANSI SEP standards.

Determine appropriate level of document

controlPolicy

PSU ISO GAP 30-31 "Implementation and

Ops"EHV LOW Q1FY14

Doc control per ISO standard not cost effective: labor intensive, not

necessarily accurate. Level of doc control to be determined

Document operational controls procedures PolicyPSU ISO GAP 32-24 "Implementation and

Ops"EHV LOW Q1 FY14

BPA is primarily looking at targets, not POLICY. This should change.

Operational controls should reflect policy

Establish a periodic review policy for energy

usersPolicy


Ops"EHV LOW Q1 FY14

There is no periodic review policy for procurement of optimal energy

users

Drive accountability within lower tiers of the

organizationPolicy/Enabling PSU ISO GAP 43-46 "Checking" EHV LOW Q1 FY14

Accountability for non-conformity is an essential aspect of

encouraging performance. Put POLICIES and METRICS in place that

allow INDIVIDUALS to be held accountable for non-conformity to

EnMS standards

Create policy for maintenance of records Policy PSU ISO GAP 47-49 "Checking" EHV LOW Q1 FY14

Policies for EnMS records management do not exist. Create policy for

the generation and maintenance of records that demonstrate

conformity with EnMS standards. Include standards for storage,

identification, tractability and review.

Establish internal audit plan of EnMS records Policy PSU ISO GAP 50-53 "Checking" EHV LOW Q1 FY14, ongoing

EnMS internal audit procedures & related not in place. Establish

specific policy around internal audit of EnMS records. Audits should

have the following characteristics: *They are conducted at planned

intervals, determine level of compliance with EnMS, determine to

what degree the EnMS has been properly implemented and

maintained, verify that the EnMS is providing audit results to

management, have an audit process that is able to be modified and

maintained on the basis of previous audits, clearly state

responsibilities and requirements for planning and conducting audits

as well as reporting results. Audit criteria, scope, methods should be

clearly stated and there should be transparency with regard to how

these were determined. Auditable materials should be

consolidated for ease of access.

Review EnMS adequacy Policy PSU ISO GAP 54 "Management Review" EHV LOW Q1 FY14

No such policy exists. Review of the adequacy, effectiveness and

process of the EnMS by top management should be part of the target

review process.

Follow-up on actions from previous management

reviewsPolicy PSU ISO GAP 55-57 "Management Review" EHV LOW Q1 FY14

No such policy exists. Shifting review from examining targets to

examining systems will ensure quality of outputs. Ensuring follow-up

actions from previous management reviews, changing circumstances,

and recommendations for improvement are implemented feed the

continuous improvement cycle.

ENABLING ACTION ITEMS CATEGORY ANALYSIS ITEMS LOE COST TIME FRAME COMMENTS

Define Roles & ResponsibilitiesPolicy / Org

Structure


Operation"EHV LOW Q1FY14

Partially in place. Ensure resources are in place for the

implementation and control of EnMS. This includes the designation

of roles and responsibilities.

Provide EnMS training Policy / AdminPSU ISO GAP 23-25 "Implementation and


Partially in place. Energy Management specific training should be

matured and readily available. Accountability must be introduced to

ensure compliance with Energy Management standards.

Facilitate communication between stakeholders Policy / AdminPSU ISO GAP 26-28 "Implementation and


Partially in place. Communication must be facilitated between

traditionally "siloed" positions. Stakeholders must be made aware of

one another and be held to a specified standard re: quality and

frequency of contact.

Foster organizational commitment Policy / AdminPSU ISO GAP 39-42 "Implementation and


Partially in place. More rigor needed. Organizational commitment to

compliance with EnMS must be made clear and communicated.

Measures for the ongoing monitoring and measuring of EnMS

compliance should be put in place. Data collection and review must

be facilitated in order to make informed decisions and to measure

progress accurately.

Communicate expectation to stakeholders Policy / AdminPSU ISO GAP 29 "Implementation and


Partially in place. Level of ISO Compliance / Energy Efficiency

appropriate to BPA must be made explicit and targets must be

communicated to stakeholders.

Functional Action Items CATEGORY ANALYSIS ITEMS LOE COST TIME FRAME COMMENTSCollect and store data securely for review Process DOE/SEG "Data Capture" action items HIGH Ongoing Collect and store data securely for review

Review data at specified intervals Process DOE/SEG "Data Capture" action items DHV HIGH Ongoing Review data at specified intervals

Specify centralized repository Process DOE/SEG "Data "Review" action items DHV LOW Ongoing

Discuss review of metered data centralized location with key

management to inform EnMS policy and targets with an emphasis on

continuous improvement against backdrop of ADF framework.


APPENDIX O: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

STATUS QUO (0)

CostStage3

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5

Costtodeployanadvancemeter -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Costtodeployabasicmeter -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

AdditionalLumpSumMeterDeploymentCost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$Costtomaintainameter -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TotalNumberofMetersDeployed 150 150 150 150 150

TotalNumberofAdvancedMetersDeployed -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TotalNumberofBasicMetersDeployed -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Manhours 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Costofmanhour 57.44$ 57.44$ 57.44$ 57.44$ 57.44$

Initialofdatamanagementsystem -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Annualcostofdatamanagementsystem 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$

3rdPartyVerifiedScenario -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Training/FacilityOperations,hrs 0 0 0 0 0Training/EnergyManagement,hrs 0 0 0 0 0

NumberofFOStrainees 0 0 0 0 0

TotalInitialCost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$YearlyCost 96,160$ 96,160$ 96,160$ 96,160$ 96,160$

TotalYear1cost 96,160$

Stage1 Stage2

BenefitStage3


TotalBPAengeryconsumption,kWh 27,333,333 27,333,333 27,333,333 27,333,333 27,333,333MarketvalueofakWh 0.060$ 0.060$ 0.060$ 0.060$ 0.060$

HawethorneEffect 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%TotaladditionalgainexpectedthroughO/Mactivities 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

TotaladditionalgainexpectedthroughCAPEXdecisions 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%TotalpercentgainfromEnMS 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

TotalkWhgain 546,667 546,667 546,667 546,667 546,667MarketvalueofkWHgain 32,800$ 32,800$ 32,800$ 32,800$ 32,800$

Stage1 Stage2

NetPresentValueStage3 Stage4

Year 1 2 3 4 5NetValue (63,360)$ (63,360)$ (63,360)$ (63,360)$ (63,360)$ (63,360)$

NetPresentValue (58,667)$ (54,321)$ (50,297)$ (46,571)$ (43,122)$ (792,000)$

Stage1,NPV (112,988)$

Stage2,NPV (96,869)$Stage3,NPV (43,122)$

Stage4,NPV (792,000)$

IRR 0.08NPV (1,044,978)$

Paybackperiod,yrs n/a

Stage1 Stage2


STEP UP (1)

CostStage3

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5Costtodeployanadvancemeter 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$

Costtodeployabasicmeter 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$AdditionalLumpSumMeterDeploymentCost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Costtomaintainameter 25$ 25$ 25$ 25$ 25$TotalNumberofMetersDeployed 166 166 166 166 166

TotalNumberofAdvancedMetersDeployed 16 16 16 16 16TotalNumberofBasicMetersDeployed 0 0 0 0 0

Manhours 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500Costofmanhour 57.44$ 57.44$ 57.44$ 57.44$ 57.44$

Initialofdatamanagementsystem -$ -$ -$ -$ -$Annualcostofdatamanagementsystem 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$

3rdPartyVerifiedScenario -$ -$ -$ -$ -$Training/FacilityOperations,hrs 160 160 160 160 160

Training/EnergyManagement,hrs 360 360 360 360 360NumberofFOStrainees 20 20 20 20 20

TotalInitialCost 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$YearlyCost 183,869$ 183,869$ 183,869$ 183,869$ 183,869$


Stage1 Stage2

BenefitStage3

Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5TotalBPAengeryconsumption,kWh 92,407,995 92,407,995 92,407,995 92,407,995 92,407,995

MarketvalueofakWh 0.060$ 0.060$ 0.060$ 0.060$ 0.060$HawethorneEffect 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

TotaladditionalgainexpectedthroughO/Mactivities 0% 0% 5% 5% 5%TotaladditionalgainexpectedthroughCAPEXdecisions 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%

TotalpercentgainfromEnMS 2% 2% 7% 7% 12%TotalkWhgain 1,848,160 1,848,160 6,468,560 6,468,560 11,088,959

MarketvalueofkWHgain 110,890$ 110,890$ 388,114$ 388,114$ 665,338$

Stage1 Stage2

NetPresentValue

Stage3 Stage4

Year 1 2 3 4 5NetValue (152,979)$ (72,979)$ 204,245$ 204,245$ 481,469$ 481,469$

NetPresentValue (141,647)$ (62,568)$ 162,136$ 150,126$ 327,680$ 6,018,360$

Stage1,NPV (204,215)$Stage2,NPV 312,262$

Stage3,NPV 327,680$Stage4,NPV 6,018,360$

NPV 6,454,086$IRR 0.08

Paybackperiod,yrs 3.3 0.3

Stage1 Stage2


STEP UP PLUS (2)

Cost

Stage3Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5

Costtodeployanadvancemeter 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$Costtodeployabasicmeter 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$

AdditionalLumpSumMeterDeploymentCost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$Costtomaintainameter 25$ 25$ 25$ 25$ 25$

TotalNumberofMetersDeployed 192$ 192$ 192$ 192$ 192$TotalNumberofAdvancedMetersDeployed 42$ 42$ 42$ 42$ 42$

TotalNumberofBasicMetersDeployed -$ -$ -$ -$ -$Manhours 4040 4040 4040 4040 4040

Costofmanhour 57.44$ 57.44$ 57.44$ 57.44$ 57.44$Initialofdatamanagementsystem 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$

Annualcostofdatamanagementsystem 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$3rdPartyVerifiedScenario -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Training/FacilityOperations,hrs 160 160 160 160 160Training/EnergyManagement,hrs 360 360 360 360 360

NumberofFOStrainees 20 20 20 20 20TotalInitialCost 310,000$ 310,000$ 310,000$ 310,000$ 310,000$

YearlyCost 292,976$ 292,976$ 292,976$ 292,976$ 292,976$TotalYear1cost 602,976$

Stage1 Stage2

BenefitStage3






Stage1 Stage2


Year 1 2 3 4 5NetValue (479,995)$ (169,995)$ 137,458$ 137,458$ 629,383$ 629,383$




NPV 7,915,600$

IRR 0.08Paybackperiod,yrs 4.9 0.9

Stage1 Stage2


MAX IMPLEMENTATION (3)

Cost

Stage3


Costtodeployanadvancemeter 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$

Costtodeployabasicmeter 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$

AdditionalLumpSumMeterDeploymentCost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Costtomaintainameter 25$ 25$ 25$ 25$ 25$

TotalNumberofMetersDeployed 217 217 217 217 217

TotalNumberofAdvancedMetersDeployed 42 42 42 42 42

TotalNumberofBasicMetersDeployed 25 25 25 25 25

Manhours 4040 4040 4040 4040 4040Costofmanhour 57.44$ 57.44$ 57.44$ 57.44$ 57.44$

Initialofdatamanagementsystem 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$

Annualcostofdatamanagementsystem 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$

3rdPartyVerifiedScenario 23,000$ 23,000$ 23,000$ 23,000$ 23,000$

Training/FacilityOperations,hrs 160 160 160 160 160

Training/EnergyManagement,hrs 480 480 480 480 480

NumberofFOStrainees 20 20 20 20 20

TotalInitialCost 408,000$ 408,000$ 408,000$ 408,000$ 408,000$YearlyCost 320,494$ 320,494$ 320,494$ 320,494$ 320,494$


Stage1 Stage2

BenefitStage3






Stage1 Stage2


Year 1 2 3 4 5NetValue (601,313)$ (193,313)$ 124,640$ 124,640$ 633,365$ 633,365$




NPV 7,816,169$

IRR 0.08Paybackperiod,yrs 5.2 0.2

Stage1 Stage2


APPENDIX P: EXPLANATION OF KEY VARIABLES

Cost to deploy meter: Includes material and labor to install

The cost to deploy a meter was estimated using interview data of internal BPA experts

and a DOE paper (US Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy, 2006). The cost should include material and labor and is considered average

for a single meter. The cost to deploy a meter was broken up into two tiers, with $5000

for an advanced meter and $1000 for a basic meter. Advanced meters were counted as

deployed to sites with over 5000 sq. ft., while sites under 5000 sq. ft. received basic

meters.

Lump sum payouts to install specialty meters at big sites

BPA experts indicated that certain meters will require expensive installations on a one-

time basis. This variable allows entering this cost at the beginning of the EnMS

investment cycle.

Annual cost to maintain a meter

This evaluation relies on a DOE paper titled, “Guidance for Electrical Metering in

Federal Buildings,” to provide the avg. annual cost to maintain a meter.

Total number of meters deployed, and total number of new meters deployed

This metric assumes that certain sites are already metered, and that new meters will be

deployed. An assumption about new meters is made here.

Man-hours dedicated to EnMS on an annual basis

This metric makes multiple assumptions. The first is that an FTE working full time on

EnMS represent 2040 labor hours a year. The second assumption is that there are

currently analysts who spend roughly 500 hours a year on EnMS, for a combined 1500

hours in the current state scenario. In the step up scenario we estimated the FTE hours

to be increased to 2000. In the step-up plus and the Max scenario the total hours

allotted were 4040.

Avg. dollar cost of a man-hour

This number is $57.44 and obtained from the Human Capital Management Department.

(US Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2006)

Initial cost of data management system

This is the upfront cost of purchasing an application to manage the flow of data.

Annual cost of data management system


This is the annual cost to maintain and upgrade a data management application.

Training costs

Training costs are separated into multiple inputs.

Total BPA energy consumption

Total BPA energy consumption is established as 109 mil kWh according to the BPA

sustainability metrics and analytics database.

The energy consumed for this variable was derived from an analysis on the power

consumption of the largest sites. The spreadsheet for this is provided in Appendix S.

Market value of a kWh

The market value of a kWh is estimated at $.06. This represents the benefit of the

energy saved, which can now be sold.

Likely efficient gains under different scenarios

This evaluation relies on three assumptions. There are three stages in our scenarios,

and in each stage we make qualitative assumptions about likely efficiency gains. These

assumptions can be refined as time goes on.

In the first stage, we assume that simply metering a site will lead to at least a 2 percent

efficiency gain, which benefits BPA every year. This is referred to as the Hawthorne

effect (US Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2006).

This represents the floor of our expected efficiency gain spectrum. The high end of our

spectrum is 15 percent efficiency gain, which BPA would benefit from every year. The

high end of the spectrum was established by receiving data from the US State

Department benchmarks (US State Dept. Interview).

Required rate of return (used to discount future cash flows)

This required rate of return helps represent what future cash flows are worth to us today. It is a discount rate for the present value of money calculations. This number was simply assumed as reasonably 8 percent. Other rates can be used. Changes in the discount rate do profoundly change outcome scenarios, although the four scenarios should remain relatively ordered in terms of their attractiveness compared to each other.


APPENDIX Q: BPA AGENCY DECISION FRAMEWORK


APPENDIX R: DOE EGUIDE FOR ISO 50001 IMPLEMENATION

Step 1 Getting Started

Step 1.1 Make the business case

Step 1.1.1 Identify key internal influencers

Step 1.1.2 Understand your business drivers

Step 1.1.3 Prepare sales pitch

Step 1.1.4 Brief top management

Step 1.2 Secure top management commitment

Step 1.2.1 Establish the scope and boundaries

Step 1.2.2 Appoint a management representative

Step 1.2.3 Assign the members of the energy team

Step 1.2.4 Define the energy policy

Step 1.2.5 Create organizational awareness

Step 1.2.6 Ensure continual awareness

Step 1.3 Establish the structure for EnMS implementation

Step 1.3.1 Set the timeframe for implementation

Step 1.3.2 Develop the implementation plan

Step 1.3.3 Establish communication channels

Step 1.3.4 Celebrate success often

Step 1.4 Understand the role of documents and records

Step 2 Profile Your Energy Situation

Step 2.1 Identify, evaluate and track legal and other requirements

Step 2.1.1 Identify and access legal requirements

Step 2.1.2 Identify and access other requirements

Step 2.1.3 Establish a process for evaluating and updating requirements

Step 2.1.4 Plan for evaluating compliance with legal and other requirements

Step 2.2 Acquire, analyze and track energy data

Step 2.2.1 Identify data needs


Step 2.2.2 Determine availability of data

Step 2.2.3 Formulate a process for acquiring and recording data

Step 2.2.4 Investigate tools for analyzing and tracking energy data

Step 2.2.5 Choose and implement an energy data management tool

Step 2.3 Determine significant energy uses

Step 2.3.1 Prepare a list of your energy systems

Step 2.3.2 Develop an energy balance

Step 2.3.3 Determine criteria for significance

Step 2.3.4 Record significant energy uses and the method used

Step 2.3.5 Analyze and track significant energy uses

Step 2.4 Identify energy opportunities

Step 2.4.1 Use energy assessments

Step 2.4.2 Utilize other methods

Step 2.5 Prioritize energy opportunities

Step 2.5.1 Get the right people together

Step 2.5.2 Review relevant organizational information

Step 2.5.3 Determine criteria

Step 2.5.4 Develop tools or techniques for applying criteria

Step 2.5.5 Apply criteria to prioritize opportunities

Step 2.6 Establish a baseline and determine energy performance indicators (EnPIs)

Step 2.6.1 Get stakeholder requirements for measuring performance

Step 2.6.2 Establish a baseline

Step 2.6.3 Develop a list of possible EnPIs

Step 2.6.4 Determine factors that affect EnPIs

Step 2.6.5 Select and test EnPIs

Step 2.6.6 Analyze EnPIs to determine performance

Step 3 Develop Objectives, Targets and Action Plans

Step 3.1 Establish energy objectives and targets


Step 3.1.1 Get the right people together

Step 3.1.2 Provide appropriate inputs

Step 3.1.3 Define and document objectives and targets

Step 3.1.4 Obtain management approval

Step 3.1.5 Communicate the energy objectives and targets

Step 3.2 Formulate energy management action plans

Step 3.2.1 Select projects based on resources and other factors

Step 3.2.2 List the actions needed

Step 3.2.3 Develop the schedule

Step 3.2.4 Assign roles and responsibilities

Step 3.2.5 Document and regularly update the action plans

Step 4 Reality Check: Stop! Look! Can I Go?

Step 4.1 Review the status of your efforts

Step 4.2 Perform a sanity check on resources

Step 4.3 Identify accomplishments and lessons learned

Step 4.4 Conduct a management review

Step 4.5 Communicate across the organization

Step 5 Manage Current State and Improvements

Step 5.1 Manage and control information

Step 5.2 Determine operational controls

Step 5.2.1 Determine and establish effective operating criteria

Step 5.2.2 Operate according to established controls

Step 5.2.3 Communicate operational controls

Step 5.3 Ensure competence of personnel

Step 5.3.1 Define competencies

Step 5.3.2 Assess personnel against competencies

Step 5.3.3 Develop plan to address training needs


Step 5.4 Ensure awareness of personnel

Step 5.4.1 Define awareness requirements

Step 5.4.2 Plan and implement training

Step 5.5 Define purchasing specifications for energy supply

Step 5.6 Incorporate energy considerations in procurement

Step 5.7 Manage energy considerations in design

Step 5.8 Communicate internally

Step 5.9 Decide on external communications

Step 6 Check the System

Step 6.1 Monitor, measure and analyze key characteristics

Step 6.2 Calibrate monitoring and measuring equipment

Step 6.3 Evaluate legal and other compliance

Step 6.4 Plan and conduct internal audits

Step 6.5 Take action to correct and prevent nonconformities

Step 6.6 Check and use the evidence

Step 7 Sustain and Improve the System

Step 7.1 Collect information for management review

Step 7.2 Conduct management reviews

Step 7.3 Ensure continual improvement


APPENDIX S: BPA FACILITY PORTFOLIO BASELING ENERGY INTENSITY

Electricity (KWH) Total

2003 Field HQ St Serv Ross kWh kBTU

Entire BPA Portfolio*Station Service + HQ + Ross + metered field (including leased s i tes + projects ) Changes (2003-2012)

KBTU SQFT KBTU / SQFT 2.7% reduction

2003 397,422,188 3,295,814 120.58

2010 385,412,125 3,293,814 117.01

2011 396,064,843 3,293,814 120.25 2.1% reduction

2012 389,122,079 3,315,045 117.38

Owned*Station Service + HQ + Ross + metered field (excluding leased s i tes + projects )

Changes (2003-2012)KBTU SQFT KBTU / SQFT

2003 393,381,806 3,295,814 119.36 2.3% reduction

2010 381,371,744 3,293,814 115.78

2011 391,160,420 3,293,814 118.76

2012 386,712,750 3,315,045 116.65 1.7% reduction

Metered*HQ + metered field (excluding leased s i tes + projects )

*Exclues Station Service and Ross Changes (2003-2012)KBTU SQFT KBTU / SQFT

2003 117,641,893 2,483,677 47.37 10.0% reduction

2010 105,223,875 2,481,677 42.40

2011 110,175,950 2,468,968 44.62

2012 106,422,879 2,496,747 42.62 9.5% reduction

Metered/Occupied*HQ + metered/occupied field (excluding leased s i tes )

*Exclues Station Service and Ross Changes (2003-2012)KBTU SQFT KBTU / SQFT

2003 51,224,753 910,257 56.28 56.3 14.5% increase

2010 65,823,191 1,033,643 63.68

2011 69,129,156 1,033,643 66.88

2012 66,923,125 1,038,363 64.45 64.2

Consumption Reduction

Intensity Change

Intensity Reduction


Intensity Reduction


Intensity Reduction


Everything 22,609,216 9,998,000 79,567,320 --- 112,174,536 382,755,386

Owned 22,048,635 9,998,000 79,567,320 --- 111,613,955 380,842,604

Metered 22,048,635 9,998,000 --- --- 32,046,635 109,347,651

Metered/Occupied 3,665,621 9,998,000 --- --- 13,663,621 46,622,207



Everything 17,651,060 10,918,000 79,567,320 119,560 108,255,940 369,384,582

Owned 17,090,479 10,918,000 79,567,320 119,560 107,695,359 367,471,800

Metered 17,090,479 10,918,000 --- --- 28,008,479 95,568,891




Everything 18,048,951 11,318,000 81,243,168 116,700 110,726,819 377,815,573

Owned 17,465,693 11,318,000 81,243,168 116,700 110,143,561 375,825,415

Metered 17,465,693 11,318,000 --- --- 28,783,693 98,214,034




Everything 17,263,036 10,858,000 81,123,717 113,828 109,358,581 373,146,950

Owned 16,885,426 10,858,000 81,123,717 113,828 108,980,971 371,858,491

Metered 16,885,426 10,858,000 --- --- 27,743,426 94,664,494


Natural Gas (Therms) Total

2003 Field* HQ Ross* therms kBTU

Everything 58,193 46,025 42,450 146,668 14,666,802

Owned 36,917 46,025 42,450 125,392 12,539,202

Metered 36,917 46,025 --- 82,942 8,294,242

Metered / Occupied - 46,025 --- 46,025 4,602,546

*no data available, assumed same as FY2010


2010 Field HQ Ross therms kBTU

Everything 58,193 59,633 42,450 160,275 16,027,544

Owned 36,917 59,633 42,450 138,999 13,899,944

Metered 36,917 59,633 --- 96,550 9,654,984

Metered / Occupied 24,575 59,633 --- 84,208 8,420,793




Everything 70,185 78,577 33,731 182,493 18,249,270

Owned 41,042 78,577 33,731 153,350 15,335,005

Metered 41,042 78,577 --- 119,619 11,961,916




Everything 49,867 78,926 30,959 159,751 15,975,129

Owned 38,658 78,926 30,959 148,543 14,854,259

Metered 38,658 78,926 --- 117,584 11,758,385


Total Energy SQFT Total Intensity

2003 kBTU Field HQ Ross SQFT KBTU / SQFT

Everything 397,422,188 1,796,478 700,700 798,636 3,295,814 120.58

Owned 393,381,806 1,796,478 700,700 798,636 3,295,814 119.36

Metered 117,641,893 984,341 700,700 798,636 2,483,677 47.37

Metered / Occupied 51,224,753 209,557 700,700 --- 910,257 56.28



Everything 385,412,125 1,796,478 700,700 796,636 3,293,814 117.01

Owned 381,371,744 1,796,478 700,700 796,636 3,293,814 115.78

Metered 105,223,875 984,341 700,700 796,636 2,481,677 42.40

Metered / Occupied 65,823,191 332,943 700,700 --- 1,033,643 63.68



Everything 396,064,843 1,796,478 700,700 796,636 3,293,814 120.25

Owned 391,160,420 1,796,478 700,700 796,636 3,293,814 118.76

Metered 110,175,950 971,632 700,700 796,636 2,468,968 44.62




Everything 389,122,079 1,817,709 700,700 796,636 3,315,045 117.38

Owned 386,712,750 1,817,709 700,700 796,636 3,315,045 116.65

Metered 106,422,879 999,411 700,700 796,636 2,496,747 42.62



Number of BPA Sites*

*Number of sites does not reflect the total number of buildings. There are approximately 1100 buildings which are not necessarily all electrified.

M/O= 17

Metered = 145

All – Leased = 581

All BPA = 601

17%

10%

1%72%

BPA Portfolio Metered vs Station Service

Metered/Occupied

Metered

Leased/projects

Station Service


APPENDIX T: SITES RECOMMENDED FOR METERING (5000SQ/FT+)

SQFT Estimated Consumption (kWh)

Ross Complex 797,154 32,298,180.62

Celilo Converter Station (Starr Complex) 187,402 7,592,941.45

Bell Substation 75,124 3,043,788.93

Olympia Substation & Maintenance HQ 61,260 2,482,063.12

Alvey Substation & Maintenance HQ 61,100 2,475,580.42

Covington Substation & Maintenance HQ 56,117 2,273,684.89

Chemawa Substation & Maintenance HQ 55,290 2,240,177.44

Redmond Substation & Maintenance HQ 49,848 2,019,684.66

Snohomish Substation & Maintenance HQ 45,245 1,833,185.54

Munro BPA System Control Center 40,489 1,640,487.33

Keeler Substation 32,541 1,318,459.29 Grand Coulee TLM Maintenance

Headquarters 32,272 1,307,560.25

Chehalis Substation 30,782 1,247,190.12

Ashe Substation & Maintenance HQ 28,430 1,151,894.46

Garrison Substation 27,520 1,115,024.11

McNary Substation 25,539 1,034,760.20

Midway Substation 22,256 901,743.34

John Day Substation 21,093 854,622.22

Custer Substation & Maintenance HQ 17,704 717,310.57

Maple Valley Substation 14,688 595,111.71

Chief Joseph Substation 12,987 526,192.52

Santiam Substation 12,275 497,344.51

Monroe Substation 10,800 437,582.14

Hot Springs Substation 10,551 427,493.44

Columbia Substation 9,192 372,431.02

Troutdale Substation 9,041 366,312.97

St Johns Substation 9,014 365,219.02

Anaconda Substation 8,620 349,255.37

Kalispell Substation 8,588 347,958.83

Valhalla Substation 8,096 328,024.54

Hanford Substation 7,864 318,624.62

Troutdale Maintenance HQ 7,520 304,686.82

Conkelley Substation 6,568 266,114.77

Libby Substation 6,423 260,239.82

Longview Substation 6,406 259,551.03

Port Angeles Maintenance HQ 6,177 250,272.67

Pearl Substation 5,866 237,671.93

Port Angeles Substation 5,824 235,970.22


Tacoma Substation 5,663 229,447.00

Lane Substation 5,404 218,953.14

Fairmount Substation 5,232 211,984.24

Alcoa Substation 5,030 203,799.83

Hatwai Substation 4,760 192,860.28

Sno-King Substation 4,710 190,834.43

Murray Substation 4,700 190,429.26

Oregon City Substation 4,132 167,415.68

Kitsap Substation 4,078 165,227.77

Buckley Substation 4,073 165,025.19

Albany Substation 4,060 164,498.47

Lower Monumental Substation 3,965 160,649.37

Walla Walla Substation 3,951 160,082.13

Little Goose Substation 3,945 159,839.03

Potholes Substation 3,620 146,671.05

Intalco Substation 3,488 141,322.82

Toledo Substation 3,420 138,567.68

Bakeoven Compensation Station 3,413 138,284.06

Lower Granite Substation 3,196 129,491.90

Fairview Substation 3,128 126,736.75

Bellingham Substation 3,108 125,926.41

North Bonneville Substation 3,011 121,996.28

Eugene Substation 2,688 108,909.33

Moxee Substation 2,520 102,102.50

Boundary Substation 2,464 99,833.55

Heyrend Storage yard 2,400 97,240.47

Sifton Substation 2,364 95,781.87

South Tacoma Substation 2,225 90,150.02

Rock Creek Substation 2,100 85,085.42


APPENDIX U: STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

Client Name: Stephan Capps, NW Workplace Services (BPA)

From: Rodrigo George, William Jones, PhD, Ian Barker, Qingru Meng, and Heath Nieddu

Date: 05/22/2013

Re: Energy Management at BPA Facilities

CLIENT PROJECT CHALLENGE / PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING

“The Bonneville Power Administration is a federal nonprofit agency based in the Pacific

Northwest. Although BPA is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, it is self-funding and

covers its costs by selling its products and services. BPA markets wholesale electrical

power from 31 federal hydro projects in the Columbia River Basin, one nonfederal

nuclear plant and several other small nonfederal power plants. About one-third of the

electric power used in the Northwest comes from BPA. BPA’s service territory includes

Idaho, Oregon, Washington, western Montana and small parts of eastern Montana,

California, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming.”

“As part of its responsibilities, BPA promotes energy efficiency, renewable resources

and new technologies. The agency also funds regional efforts to protect and rebuild fish

and wildlife populations affected by hydroelectric power development in the Columbia

River Basin.”

BPA in 2012 conducted an ISO 14001 audit. One of the results was that the agency

should consider integrating portions of ISO 50001 into its operational practices.

BPA’s FY13 sustainability plan calls for a gap analysis of the agency’s ability to

implement Energy Management Standards not limited to but including ISO 50001.

Members of PSU’s graduate business program can complete this gap analysis and

make a recommendation on the appropriateness of implementing an Energy

Management System (EnMS). A PSU-sponsored MIM Capstone Project team

(including current BPA employee) is ready to conduct an analysis by the end of fiscal

year 2013 (9/13/2013).


CLIENT GOALS

A recommendation on how BPA should plan and manage its facilities’ energy

consumption using the agency’s decision framework (ADF). The range of the

alternatives to answer this question goes from doing nothing to building a fully

certified energy management system not limited to but including ISO 50001.

A comprehensive gap that includes a detailed cost analysis and Level of Effort

(LOE) associated with implementation of the above recommendation



The PSU team mentioned above will act as consultants for BPA. The PSU team will

conduct primary and secondary research in order to develop an understanding of how

BPA consumes power at its facilities, how other - commercial and industrial

organizations are applying energy management framework ISO 50001, and what

practical steps BPA could take to manage its energy use internally.

The team will use existing data at BPA to gain an overview of BPA’s facility landscape

and augment that data with interviews/surveys if necessary. Students will do the same

for any other - organizations if those agencies are found to offer helpful examples for

energy management ISO 50001 implementation. Every attempt will be made to find

valid industry benchmarks and internal metrics to assess BPA’s performance towards

reaching the standard ISO 50001.

The team will take the results of this research and deliver the following by 9/13/2013:



Alternative scenarios of three varying degrees of implementation of Energy



A cost/benefit and level of effort (LOE) estimate


There are doubtless administrative and unseen costs and risks that cannot be predicted

by the PSU team to implement of a fully certified energy management system ISO

50001. The PSU team will be able to identify the major costs and benefits involved in

implementing an energy management system, and provide an evidenced-based,

understandable analysis of likely costs and benefits as well as associated risks.


PROJECT TEAM/CONSULTANT GOALS

To provide the deliverables listed above

To consider how ISO 50001 is being applied domestically and internationally

To maintain appropriate project management infrastructure, including: plan

development and approval, reporting, execution, and accountability of plan tasks

PROJECT WORK PLAN DESCRIPTION

Brief overview of the work tasks to be taken to support project goals.

1. To conduct project initiation and kick-off meeting(s) with client in order to gain a

consensus on the projects goals and outcomes

2. To consult with BPA technical advisory team to understand key constraints and

needs for the implementation of an energy management system at BPA

3. To conduct primary/secondary research and benchmarking analysis to

understand how BPA and other organizations have or have not benefited from

the implementation of energy management systems

4. Synthesize research results into various forms of analysis, including: current over

all assessment, cost/benefit analysis for three levels of implementation of an

EnMS, an LOE analysis, comparison of BPA results to benchmarks, and inputs

into ADF.

5. To analyze and identify strategic recommendations and action plan on how BPA

should approach energy management at BPA facilities using Energy

Management Systems including but not limited to ISO 50001

6. To maintain regular status updates to BPA stakeholders per agreed timeline and

provide final report no later than September 13th, 2013

Task 1: Project initiation

Task Purpose

Gain common understanding between BPA’s NW Workplace Services and PSU’s Team

on the goals, deliverables, and deadlines for this project.

Sub-Task 1.1: Introductions

Sub-task Purpose:

The purpose of this sub-task is to introduce the PSU team to the BPA team and

stakeholders, and to introduce the PSU team to each other.

Sub-Task Activities:


Rodrigo George will be the central point of contact between the BPA team and

the PSU team. He will provide all initial meeting date coordination activities.

The PSU team’s Academic advisor, William Jones, PhD, will meet BPA’s project

sponsor, Stephan Capps, Director of Facilities, to establish a mutual

understanding of the projects goals and achievable deliverables.

The PSU team will convene a kick-off meeting to confirm understanding of BPA’s

needs and initiate discussions as to the appropriate approach to meeting those

needs.

The PSU team will meet with Guy Kyle, Project Oversight Liaison, in order to

confirm project goals, and discuss BPA’s reporting needs throughout the project.

Deliverables/Products/Dates:

Task/Sub-

Task

Deliverable To Client Client Review

Period

Final to Client

1.1 Establish primary

communication liaison

March 20th,

2013

N/A N/A

1.1 PSU Academic

Advisor to meet with

BPA project sponsor

April 11th,

2013

N/A N/A

1.1 PSU Team kick-off

meeting

April 25th, 2013 N/A N/A

1.1 Academic Director to

meet with BPA

Project Oversight

Liaison and present

Final SOW

May 14th, 2013 N/A N/A

1.1 Write progress

reports to client*

Weekly on

Fridays*

N/A N/A

*Please refer to appendix with decision flowchart

Sub-Task 1.2: PSU Team Establishes Communication Methods, Document Sharing Infrastructure, and Meeting Schedule

Sub-task Purpose:

PSU creates project infrastructure.



PSU Team confirms expectations for constant communication, best times to

communicate, and best methods, whether in-person, or through technology.

PSU Team creates a document-sharing infrastructure to store, exchange, and review all

project deliverables and research data.

PSU Team exchanges availability dates and determines a window for a weekly meeting.

Deliverable/Products:

Task/Sub-

Task


Period

Final to Client

1.2 Establish

communication


1.2 Create document

share


1.2 Establish weekly

meetings


Sub-Task 1.3: Review and confirm goals, BPA’s schedule for receiving deliverables, and SOW sign-off

Sub-task Purpose:

The purpose of this sub-task to ensure that the Scope of Work actually addresses

BPA’s goals and that the PSU team clearly understands what dates BPA desires needs

various deliverables.


PSU Team reviews Scope of Work (SOW), focusing on BPA’s stated goals, and

ensures that the Scope of Work provides a clear path to help BPA reach those goals.

PSU Team shares the SOW with the BPA team, and allows for a BPA review period.

Both PSU and BPA teams sign the SOW.


Task/Sub-

Task


Period

Final to Client

1.3 SOW PSU Peer April 27, 2013 April 27- May N/A


Review 8th, 2013

1.3 SOW BPA Peer

Review (Final)

May 9th, 2013 May 1-9th, 2013 May 14th, 2013

1.3 SOW sign-off May 14th, 2013 May 14th-17th ,

2013

May 17th, 2013

Task 2: Consult with BPA Technical Advisory Team

Task Purpose

To understand the current context, key constraints, and needs for the implementation of

an energy management system at BPA with input from SMEs.

Task Activities

PSU Team members will meet those Technical Advisory Team members who are

available to discuss the current challenges to energy management.

PSU Team members who meet with Technical Advisory Team members will create a

notes document and place it in the research library, as well as brief the project team at

the next weekly meeting.

Sub-Task 2.1: Meet with Technical Advisory Team Members

Sub-task Purpose:

To discuss current challenges in EnMS at the facility level.


Rodrigo George to help schedule and facilitate small group meetings with the Technical

Advisory Team.

Each team member who conducts an interview creates a notes document and briefs the

project team on the contents of interview. Attempt to identify during these interviews

candidates for future surveys during the primary research phase.

Update project research plan with the input from interviews.


Task/Sub-

Task


Period

Final to Client


2.1 Technical Advisory

Team Interviews


2.1 Meeting with Director

of Facilities for

Executive Steering

Committee Meeting


2.1 Executive Steering

Committee

Presentation

May31st, 2013 My 31st – June

6th, 2013

June 6th, 2013

2.1 Briefing to Executive

Steering Committee

June 7th , 2013 N/A June 7th

2.1 Adjust research plan June 7th, 2013 June 7th-June

13th, 2013

June 13th, 2013

Task 3: Conduct research

Task Purpose

To conduct primary/secondary research and benchmarking analysis to understand how

BPA and other organizations have or have not benefited from the implementation of

energy management systems

Task Activities

Conduct secondary research in order to gain baseline understanding of energy

management at BPA and throughout the power utility industry. Determine any gaps in

research to be filled by primary research.

Conduct primary research on BPA and other firms identified as benchmark candidates.

Sub-Task 3.1: Secondary Research

Sub-task Purpose:

Conduct secondary research in order to gain baseline understanding of energy

management at BPA and throughout the power utility industry. Determine any gaps in

research to be filled by primary research.



Consult Kerry Wu, PSU’s business librarian to ensure that the most relevant secondary

research sources are being used.

Conduct secondary and exploratory research. Utilize the PSU library, BPA-available

data and on-line resources. Share key findings within the PSU team on a weekly basis.

Identify potential candidate firms in the power utility industry to serve as benchmarks.


Task/Sub-

Task


Period

Final to Client

3.1 Consult PSU

Business Librarian


3.1 Develop Research

Design

N/A N/A N/A

3.1 Secondary Research N/A N/A N/A

3.1 ID benchmark

domestic &

international

candidates

N/A N/A N/A

Sub-Task 3.2: Primary Research

Sub-task Purpose:

To fill gaps in secondary research by conducting through direct investigation, data

collection, and experimentation so that the PSU team gains the most timely and

complete picture of BPA’s energy management practices at its facilities. These same

activities should be conducted for the identified benchmark candidates.


Design primary research plan.

For portions of the primary research plan that involve surveys, interviews, focus groups,

etc., ensure that questions to be used are reviewed by academic professionals and

client to determine if they will provide valid and reliable results. For portions of the

primary research plan that involve analyzing data to create models or descriptive

statistics, identify what qualified academic professionals can review this analysis.


Design a set of consistent metrics to be used to assess both BPA and benchmark

candidates.

Conduct primary research on BPA facilities’ power consumption for internal operations

and the same research methods on benchmarking candidates. Interview and gather

data from people identified as facility resources in the Technical Advisory interview

stage.

Organize secondary and primary data into excel spreadsheets and information

graphics.


Task/Sub-

Task


Period

Final to Client

3.2 Conduct primary

research at facilities

May 30th , 2013 May 30th -Aug

1st, 2013

August 1st,

2013

3.2 Deliver research

results in technical

memo form

Aug 15th, 2013 Aug 15th – Aug

22nd , 2013

Aug 22nd ,

2013

Task 4: Analyze Results

Task Purpose

Synthesize research results into various forms of analysis, including: current overall assessment, cost/benefit analysis for three levels of implementation of an EnMS, an LOE analysis, comparison of BPA results to benchmarks, and inputs into ADF.

Sub-Task 4.1: Overall Assessment

Sub-task Purpose:

To provide an overall conclusion regarding the results of research.


Discuss within the PSU team research findings.

Write a memo summarizing the overall management of energy at BPA facilities.


Task/Sub-

Task


Period

Final to Client


4.1 Discussion of

research findings

Aug 20th, 2013 Aug 20th-27th,

2013

Aug 27th, 2013

4.1 Write technical

memo

Sept 1st, 2013 Sept 1-6th, 2013 Sept 13, 2013

Sub-Task 4.2: Cost/Benefit Analysis of Three Levels of EnMS implementation

Sub-task Purpose:

To illustrate a set of forecasts based on research findings based on three EnMS

implementation scenarios. One scenario will be no ISO 50001 implementation, one

scenario for a partial implementation blended with BPA’s other EnMS practices, and a

third scenario of complete ISO 50001 implementation.


Use research findings to create up to three forecasts for implementation costs under the

described scenarios.

Net out the costs and the benefits for each scenario and illustrate those results in a

graphic.


Task/Sub-

Task


Period

Final to Client

4.2 Integration of

Cost/Benefit analysis

into final report

Sept 1st, 2014 Sept 1-6th, 2013 Sept 13th, 2013

Sub-Task 4.3: Level of Effort (LOE) Analysis

To establish the level of effort (LOE) required to support the implementation of Energy

Management System within BPA’s organization

Sub-task Purpose:

To identify efforts required to implement an Energy Management System at BPA

facilities which have neither a definable discrete set of predetermined tasks nor a

measurable tangible output



Level of Effort (LOE) planning session

Inventory of support-type activities

Integration of LOE into overall cost/benefit analysis


Task/Sub-

Task


Period

Final to Client

4.3 Integration of LOE

into final report Sept 1st, 2014 Sept 1-6th, 2013 Sept 13th, 2013

Sub-Task 4.4: Benchmark Analysis

Sub-task Purpose:

To compare BPA’s current EnMS performance results to other energy agencies.


Design graphic comparing results of pre-designed metrics of BPA’s energy

management at its facilities and compare it to other commercial and industrial

organizations that have applied energy management standards to their operations.

Summarize the results in a memo.


Task/Sub-

Task


Period

Final to Client

4.4 Integration of

benchmark analysis

into final report


Task 5: Create Recommendations for BPA’s use of an Energy Management System based on ISO 50001

Task Purpose

Synthesize research and analytic results into a set of recommendations supported by evidence discovered through the engagement.

Task Activities


Write a memo that describes the team’s key recommendations, and supports those recommendations with evidence discovered in the engagement.


Task/Sub-Task

Deliverable To Client Client Review Period

Final to Client

5 Recommendation Memo

Sept 1, 2013 Sept 1-6, 2013 Sept 13, 2013

Task 6: Deliver periodic reporting and final presentation

Task Purpose

Provide BPA Stakeholders a final presentation of results.

Task Activities

Provide BPA Stakeholders a final presentation of results.


Task/Sub-Task

Deliverable To Client Client Review Period

Final to Client

6 Final written report and presentation to BPA

Sept 13, 2013 Sept 13 – 20, 2013

Sept 20, 2013

SCHEDULE & SUMMARY OF KEY DELIVERABLES The following summarizes the key deliverables/dates and a general project schedule. Task/Sub-

Task Deliverable To Client Client Review

Period Final to Client

1.1 Establish primary communication liaison

March 20th, 2013

N/A N/A

1.1 PSU Academic Advisor to meet with BPA project sponsor


1.1 PSU Team kick-off meeting


1.1 Academic Director to meet with BPA Project Oversight Liaison and present Final SOW


1.1 Write progress reports to Weekly on N/A N/A


client Fridays

1.2 Establish communication


1.2 Create document share April 25th, 2013 N/A N/A

1.2 Establish weekly meetings


1.3 SOW PSU Peer Review April 27, 2013 April 27- May 8th, 2013

N/A

1.3 SOW BPA Peer Review (Final)

May 9th, 2013 May 1-9th, 2013 May 14th, 2013

1.3 SOW sign-off May 14th, 2013 May 14th-17th , 2013

May 17th, 2013

2.1 Technical Advisory Team Interviews


2.1 Meeting with Director of Facilities


2.1 Executive Steering Committee Presentation

May31st, 2013 My 31st – June 6th, 2013

June 6th, 2013

2.1 Briefing to Executive Steering Committee

June 7th , 2013 N/A June 7th

2.1 Adjust research plan June 7th, 2013 June 7th-June 13th, 2013

June 13th, 2013

3.1 Consult PSU Business Librarian


3.1 Develop Research Design

N/A N/A N/A

3.1 Secondary Research N/A N/A N/A

3.1 ID benchmark domestic & international candidates

N/A N/A N/A

3.2 Conduct primary research at facilities

May 30th , 2013 May 30th -Aug 1st, 2013

August 1st, 2013

3.2 Deliver research results Aug 15th, 2013 Aug 15th – Aug 22nd Aug 22nd , 2013


in technical memo form , 2013

4.1 Discussion of research findings

Aug 20th, 2013 Aug 20th-27th, 2013

Aug 27th, 2013

4.1 Write technical memo Sept 1st, 2013 Sept 1-6th, 2013 Sept 13, 2013

4.2 Integration of Cost/Benefit analysis into final report


4.3 Integration of LOE into final report


4.4 Integration of benchmark analysis into final report


5 Recommendation Memo

Sept 1, 2013 Sept 1-6, 2013 Sept 13, 2013

6 Final written report and presentation to BPA

Sept 13, 2013 Sept 13 – 20, 2013

Sept 20, 2013


PROJECT SCHEDULE GANNT CHART


Scope Approval

The following signatures accept the project work scope as outlined in this document. As the project moves forward, it may become necessary to alter the deliverables presented here in order to best cover the intent of the project. Should that occur a written work order will outline all work scope changes. No work scope changes are valid until all parties agree on changes and have signed the modified work scope.

Bonneville Power Administration

Portland State University, School of Business Administration: MBA, MIM, MSFA, MIM Capstone Team Members

Signature Client Representative Here, Date Signature Team Member Here, Date

Guy Kyle, 05/22/2013 Rodrigo George 05/22/13

Signature Client Representative Here, Date (Add other signature lines if needed) Signature Team Member Here, Date

Stephan Capps 05/22/13 Heath Nieddu 05/22/2013

Signature Team Member Here, Date

Qingru Meng 05/22/213

Signature Team Member Here, Date (Add other signature lines if needed)

Ian Barker 05/22/13

Capstone Project Faculty Advisor

William M. Jones, Ph.D./Date School of Business Administration Portland State University

Energy Management at Bonneville Power Administration...ERMC Enterprise Risk Management Committee EUI...

Documents

Transcript of Energy Management at Bonneville Power Administration...ERMC Enterprise Risk Management Committee EUI...