[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ONSITE RENEWABLE ENERGY INTEGRATION
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 15, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-113
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-617 PDF WASHINGTON: 2010
___________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PETE OLSON, Texas
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
November 15, 2010
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Acting Chairman,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Judy Biggert, Acting Minority Ranking
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
Mr. Joseph Ostafi IV, Regional Leader, Science and Technology
Division, Group Vice President, HOK
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Biography.................................................... 15
Mr. Michael Lopez, Director of Facility Operations, Bolingbrook
High School, Romeoville, Illinois
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Biography.................................................... 20
Mr. Daniel Cheifetz, Chief Executive Officer, Indie Energy
Systems Company, LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 22
Biography.................................................... 28
Dr. Jeffrey P. Chamberlain, Department Head, Electrochemical
Energy Storage Research, Energy Storage Initiative Leader,
Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division, Argonne National
Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 31
Biography.................................................... 37
Ms. Martha G. VanGeem, Principal Engineer and Group Manager,
Building Science and Sustainability, CTL Group
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 39
Biography.................................................... 43
Discussion
Economic Considerations and Job Creation....................... 44
Technology Demonstration to Commercialization.................. 45
Public Education and Community Engagement...................... 47
Renewable-Ready Building Standard.............................. 48
Renewable-Ready Buildings...................................... 50
The Most Effective Measures Toward Efficient Schools........... 50
Social-Behavioral Factors...................................... 51
Curtain Wall Systems and Exterior Glass........................ 52
Next Steps for Policy Makers................................... 54
Geothermal Power and DOE Buildings Technology Program.......... 55
Vehicle and Stationary Battery Storage Programs at DOE......... 56
Siting Energy Storage R&D in Federal Agencies.................. 59
Research Prioritization........................................ 60
Encouraging Market Development................................. 60
American Competitiveness and Job Creation...................... 63
Closing........................................................ 65
OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ONSITE RENEWABLE ENERGY INTEGRATION
----------
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2010
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Chicago, IL.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., Dirksen
Federal Courthouse, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois,
Ceremonial Court Room 2525, Hon. Russ Carnahan presiding.
field hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Options and Opportunities for
Onsite Renewable Energy Integration
monday, november 15, 2010
9:30 a.m.-11 a.m. central standard time
dirksen federal courthouse
219 s. dearborn street
chicago, illinois
ceremonial court room 2525
Purpose
On Monday, November 15, 2010 the House Committee on Science &
Technology will hold a field hearing entitled ``Options and
Opportunities for On-site Renewable Energy Integration.''
The hearing will examine the integration of renewable energy
systems in the built environment. Witnesses will discuss the state of
the building industry and how federal research programs can help
continue the industry's efforts to adopt renewable energy into their
designs and practices. Opportunities for the adoption of simulation-
driven design, storage integration, and measurement and verification
technologies will also be discussed. Furthermore, the hearing will
consider research, development, and demonstration needs that are not
currently being adequately addressed by the industry or the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE).
Witnesses
Mr. Joseph Ostafi IV is the Regional Leader for the
Science and Technology Division and also Group Vice President
of HOK a global architectural firm that specializes in
planning, design, and delivery solutions for buildings and
communities. Mr. Ostafi will provide a broad overview of what
it means to integrate renewable energy into buildings and
discuss some technical issues which need additional research to
ease integration.
Mr. Michael Lopez is the Director of Facility
Operations for Bolingbrook High School, the first Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified School in
Illinois and the third high school in the United States. Mr.
Lopez will discuss the environmental and energy efficient
initiatives of the Valley View School District.
Mr. Daniel Cheifetz is the Chief Executive Officer of
Indie Energy Systems Company, which is a global leader in smart
geothermal technology for heating and cooling both existing and
new buildings. Mr. Cheifetz will discuss the incorporation of
geothermal energy and related system integration technologies
into the built environment.
Dr. Jeffrey P. Chamberlain is the Department Head for
Electrochemical Energy Storage and is also the Energy Storage
Major Initiative Leader of the Chemical Sciences and
Engineering Division at Argonne National Laboratory. Dr.
Chamberlain will discuss how research in vehicle storage
technologies relate to stationary storage technologies used in
buildings.
Ms. Martha G. VanGeem, PE, Principal Engineer & Group
Manager of Building Science and Sustainability of CTL Group a
industry leader in engineering and scientific services. Ms.
VanGeem will discuss the role of industry and federal research
programs in developing technologies and standards to integrate
renewable energy into buildings.
Background
In 2009 the Department of Energy (DOE) reported that buildings
accounted for 80 percent (or $238 billion) of total U.S. electricity
expenditures. From 1980 to 2006, total building energy consumption in
the United States increased more than 46 percent, and is expected to
continue to grow at a rate of more than 1 percent per year over the
next two decades. Carbon emissions from buildings in the U.S.
approximately equal the combined carbon emissions of Japan, France, and
the United Kingdom. This is about 38 percent of the emissions emitted
in the country. Tackling public concerns about the high costs of
energy, the looming threat of global climate change, and the nation's
economic wellbeing requires continual assessment of federal building
technology programs.
The importance of energy efficiency and sustainability in buildings
has been recognized in various federal laws, executive orders, and
other policy instruments in recent years. Among these are the energy
policy acts (EPAct) of 1992 and 2005 (P.L. 102-486 and P.L. 109-58),
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140),
and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).
Through these laws the DOE is authorized to carry out a range of
activities to increase energy efficiency in a number of economic
sectors.
While these programs continue to demonstrate success in developing
technologies and practices for high-performance buildings, advancing
the state of technology far beyond what is currently available will
require the programs to incorporate entirely new technologies and
approaches into their R&D agendas.
Steps to first reduce total energy consumption, and then to use the
remaining energy more efficiently, have been and continue to be the
country's first line of defense to reduce the cost of energy and to cut
carbon emissions in the building sector. As the country has become more
effective in using these techniques, new approaches to drastically
reduce traditional energy consumption by integrating on-site renewable
energy into the built environment have garnered more attention and have
been incorporated into public law and into practice.
Modern practices of using energy efficient technologies and
addressing other environmental concerns have generally been termed
``green building design.'' While the concept has existed for a long
time, the practices did not really emerge until the 1990s. Since then
terms such as ``green building,'' ``high-performance building,'' and
``high-performance green building'' have been defined in public law,
both by several different Federal agencies and by stakeholders in the
building community. For example, a ``high-performance building'' is
defined by EISA as a building that integrates and optimizes, on a life
cycle basis, all major high performance attributes, including energy
conservation, environment, safety, security, durability, accessibility,
cost-benefit, productivity, sustainability, functionality and
operational considerations. To move beyond energy efficiency and into
integrating renewable energy into building design, new terms have been
developed, such as ``net-zero energy,'' which also has been defined in
many ways.
Net-Zero Energy
In general, a net-zero energy building produces as much energy as
it uses over the course of a year. Some building scientists intended
for these buildings to have no net environmental impact or even a
``minus-impact'' which would mean the building would provide a net
environmental benefit. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
has studied four different definitions including: net-zero site energy,
net-zero source energy, net-zero energy costs, and net-zero energy
emissions (Box.1). The diversity in these definitions illustrates that
these are fairly new concepts still under discussion by the building
community.
Box.1 NREL Zero-Energy Buildings: Definitions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Torcellini, P.; Pless, S.; Deru, M. (NREL); Crawley, D. (U.S.
DOE). (2006). Zero Energy Buildings (ZEB): A Critical Look at the
Definition. NREL/CP-550-39833. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
DOE's Net-Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative aims to
realize marketable net-zero energy commercial buildings by 2025. The
program brings architects, engineers, builders, contractors, owners,
and occupants together to optimize building performance, comfort, and
savings through a whole-building approach to design and construction.
The program is divided into three interrelated strategic areas designed
to overcome technical and market barriers: research and development,
equipment standards and analysis, and technology validation and market
introduction. Key research areas include: commercial lighting
solutions; indoor environmental quality; building controls and
diagnostics; and space conditioning. These types of research will help
decrease the cost of integrating renewable energy in the built
environment.
Federal programs to deploy renewable technologies have helped
owners incorporate renewable energy systems into their buildings. For
example, financing the cost of a residential photovoltaic (PV) system
through home equity loans, mortgage loans, or cash in combination with
state and utility incentives has helped reduce the cost of systems.
Nevertheless, right now not every owner is ready to make the necessary
up-front financial investment in a renewable energy system.
Renewable Ready Buildings
One concept which may help ease the adoption of renewable energy
systems for building owners who are not ready to make the up-front
investment is the idea of ``renewable ready'' buildings. As with many
of the approaches in the green building sector, ``renewable ready'' is
not well defined, but some builders are beginning to take this approach
into consideration as they look toward ``greening'' their building
designs. In general, this means that the construction of new buildings
or renovations of buildings should be constructed ``ready'' for future
renewable energy installations. Advocates of this approach believe that
planning ahead for a renewable energy system maximizes the potential of
that renewable energy source in the future.
It is in the planning for a renewable energy system where there is
a wide variety of elements that could be considered to make a building
``renewable ready.'' The variety of elements is highly dependent on the
kind of renewable energy system to be installed in the future. The
design and element differences between making a building ready for
solar panels versus a geothermal energy system may be very different.
Moreover, there are building codes which may impede the ability to
design and adopt renewable energy systems for buildings. For example,
codes pertaining to roof heights and slopes could be barriers to the
adoption of PV. In contrast, some building codes could also be used to
encourage the adoption of ``renewable ready'' designs. For instance, in
March of 2010 the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) released Standard 189.1--Standard for
the Design of High-Performance, Green Buildings. This new standard
includes a provision for ``renewable energy ready'' elements and is the
first set of model codes and standards for green building in the U.S.
Finally, another barrier to the adoption of ``renewable ready''
buildings is the siting of the building. For example, the orientation
and location of a building's axes and surfaces, and the building's
proximity to trees and other plantings, affect its heating and cooling
requirements. Siting may also impact the ability to incorporate
renewable energy generation on the building or on-site.
Community Planning
Consequently, renewable energy experts including scientists at NREL
have been working on ``net zero-energy communities'' which are defined
as ``one that has greatly reduced energy needs through efficiency gains
such that the balance of energy for vehicles, thermal, and electrical
energy within the community is met by renewable energy.'' In some
cases, planning a community where the renewable energy systems can be
sited in a variety of ways may ease the adoption of renewable energy
systems. For example, NREL has explored siting renewable energy system
within the built environment (rooftop), on-site (parking structure,
along roadways, etc.) or on unbuildable areas such as brownfield sites.
This flexibility could also allow for the adoption of a variety of
integrated renewable energy systems such as solar PV and a wood biomass
boiler.
Systems Integration
Even after building completion, systems are rarely optimized
together to improve overall energy efficiency and environmental
performance. A typical building is comprised of a complex array of
components (wood, metals, glass, concrete, coatings, flooring, sheet
rock, insulation, etc.) and subsystems (lighting, heating, ventilation
and air conditioning, appliances, landscape maintenance, IT equipment,
electrical grid connection, etc.), all of which are developed
individually by independent firms that do not often design and test
their performance in conjunction with other components and systems.
Adding renewable energy generation as well as storage capacity to these
systems is complicated, yet is already being done. But the
inefficiencies attributable to this fragmentation of the building
components and systems, and the lack of monitoring and verification of
a building performance, point to a critical need for a more integrated
approach to building design, operation, and technology development. An
approach that couples buildings sciences, architecture, and information
technologies could lead to entirely new buildings with subsystems that
are able to continuously communicate with each other and respond to a
range of factors including renewable energy generation. Wide-scale
deployment of these types of net-zero energy high performance buildings
may require federal programs to play a larger coordinating role in the
development of the common technologies, codes, and standards.
Mr. Carnahan. Good morning. I think we'll get started. Just
by way of introduction, my name is Russ Carnahan. I am a Member
of Congress from St. Louis, Missouri, and I serve on the
Science and Technology Committee with my colleague, Mrs.
Biggert, who's here in her hometown. So I'm glad to join her
here this morning and, really, to kick off this field hearing
on Options and Opportunities for Onsite Renewable Energy
Integration. Thanks for joining us. I'd also like to thank the
staff here at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse for hosting
today's hearing.
As many of you know, our nation's buildings have a
surprisingly large environmental footprint, consuming about 70
percent of all electricity off the grid, emitting almost 40
percent of all carbon emissions, and using roughly 60 percent
of all raw materials in the U.S. However, with these challenges
also come, I believe, great opportunities.
According to a recent U.S. Green Building Council report,
greater building efficiency can be about 85 percent of our
future U.S. demand for energy. And a national commitment to
green building has the potential to generate two and-a-half
million American jobs. These opportunities and a desire to
bring a greater awareness to these issues are what led
Congresswoman Biggert and I to found the Bipartisan High-
Performance Buildings Caucus in 2007. To date, the Caucus has
over 30 Members of Congress and works with over 150 building
trade associations, private companies, and design firms to
heighten awareness and inform policymakers and their staffs
about major impacts buildings have on our economy, our
environment, our energy future, and companies' bottom line.
I want to thank Congresswoman for her strong leadership and
support over the past years on these issues that are so
important to both of us, to Members on the Science Committee,
on the High-Performance Buildings Caucus, but also to our
constituents. I look forward to working with her and all of our
other colleagues in the new Congress to continue these issues.
As our nation continues on the road to recovery, we have a
real opportunity to make lasting investments in our nation's
future by rethinking our built environment and investing in
high-performance buildings. In April of last year, this
Committee held a hearing focused on building and industrial
energy efficiency. This was a very informative hearing, and
reconfirmed for everyone who attended energy efficiency is the
number one priority when it comes to addressing our energy
crisis. That being said, we're here today to talk about another
vital part of the solution; integrating renewables into our
built environment.
As our witnesses will explain, we are already integrating
renewables into our built environment, yet there are far too
many barriers to integration that can be overcome through
better technology. However, we cannot rely on improved
technology alone to solve these problems. We must have a
combination of technology, smart federal policy, and targeted
investments for us to reach our goals. I look forward to
hearing suggestions and ideas on what specific research and
development needs exist to help overcome these barriers and
what the federal government's proper role is in encouraging
these activities in the private sector and academia.
I also want to thank today's witnesses for taking time out
of their busy schedules to be here to join us today, this week
in Chicago, during the big GreenBuild Conference going on. I
look forward to seeing that successful conference, and you know
we have a big delegation from St. Louis here, from my home
city.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Russ Carnahan
Thank you all for joining us at today's hearing on ``Options and
Opportunities for Onsite Renewable Energy Integration.'' I would also
like to thank the staff of the Dirksen Federal Courthouse for hosting
today's hearing.
As many of you know, our nation's buildings have a surprisingly
large environmental footprint consuming 70 percent of all electricity
off the grid, emitting almost 40 percent of all carbon emissions and
using roughly 60 percent of all raw material in the U.S. However, with
these challenges also comes great opportunity. According to a recent
U.S. Green Building Council report, greater building efficiency can
meet 85% of future U.S. demand for energy, and a national commitment to
green building has the potential to generate 2.5 million American jobs.
These opportunities and a desire to bring greater awareness to
these issues led Congresswoman Biggert and I to found the bipartisan
High-Performance Buildings Caucus in 2007. The Caucus has over 30
Members of Congress and works with over 150 building trade
associations, private companies and design firms to heighten awareness
and inform policymakers about the major impact buildings have on our
economy, the environment and our energy future.
I want to thank the Congresswoman for her strong leadership and
support over the past years on these issues that are so important to
the both of us and I look forward to continuing our efforts here today
and in the future.
As our nation and continues on the road to recovery we have a real
opportunity to make lasting investments in our nation's future by
rethinking our built environment and investing in high-performance
buildings.
In April of last year, this Committee held a hearing focused on
building and industrial energy efficiency. This was a very informative
hearing and re-confirmed for everyone who attended that energy
efficiency is the number one priority when it comes to addressing our
energy crisis. That being said, we are here today to talk about another
part of the solution: integrating renewables into out built
environment.
As our witnesses will explain, we are already integrating
renewables into the built environment. Yet, there are many barriers to
integration that can be overcome through better technology. However, we
cannot rely on improved technology alone to solve these problems--we
must have a combination of technology, smart federal policy and
targeted investments for us to reach our goals. I look forward to
hearing suggestions on what specific research and development needs
exist to help overcome these barriers and what the federal government
can do to better encourage these activities.
I want to thank today's witnesses for taking time out of their busy
schedules to join us here today and I look forward to hearing how we
can best proceed in these endeavors.
Mr. Carnahan. And I want to recognize Congresswoman Biggert
now for five minutes for her opening statement.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to all
of our witnesses. We appreciate your efforts to be here and
participate in today's important hearing. I am also
particularly pleased that my good friend and colleague, Russ
Carnahan, was able to be here today to chair this hearing and
kick off the festivities for the U.S. Green Building Council's
annual international conference expo. As Congressman Carnahan
just mentioned, we have the distinct honor of leading, I think,
the most exciting Caucus in the House of Representatives.
Officially known as the High-Performance Building Caucus,
we have hosted over 50 lunch meetings in the last two years on
every subject important to the definition of a high-performance
building. So, today's hearing isn't just a twist in our usual
Caucus collaborations, but it is just a way to--another way to
take our show on the road and raise awareness for the
importance of high-performance buildings, and nowhere is the
concept of high-performance buildings more important and more
evident than right here in my own backyard. I don't live right
in Chicago, but I'm part of the metropolitan suburban area.
But Chicago is the home to many high-performing building
firsts, like the Chicago Center For Green Technology, the first
rehabilitated municipal building in the nation to achieve the
LEED platinum status. And, in 2007, the Exelon Headquarters and
Chase Tower became the largest office space to earn the LEED
platinum rating for commercial integrators. Another great
example, and one that you will soon hear more about, is
Bolingbrook High School, located in the suburban district.
Bolingbrook High School is among the first of new construction
LEED-certified high schools in the nation.
So, what do these building project examples have in common,
and how is renewable energy integration important to them?
Well, these building projects have been constructed with a
comprehensive building efficiency program. Once in place, an
efficiency program can help reduce energy demand and the need
for new energy capacity over the life of the project, improve
building efficiency, begin coordinating design and construction
to accommodate changes in technology and building function.
As the demand for electricity, costs, and materials rise
over the next two decades, the building projects I previously
mentioned have the foundation in place to utilize existing
renewable technologies or incorporate technologies that have
yet to be deployed. Such an advantage can save homeowners,
building managers, or school districts precious time and
resources. The existing applications of renewable technology,
LEED-certified buildings are already paying off. Some case
studies show solar panels with geothermal heating systems will
lead to a 15 to 20 percent savings in energy costs with payback
occurring two to five years earlier than anticipated.
So the long-term renewable technology options, however,
hold great promise, but need more work. An energy storage
solution, such as solar thermal heating or on and off-site
stationary batteries can offer a significant savings for both
the end users and generation of electricity. So this technology
has been demonstrated in limited amounts that need more
development before deployment on any broad scale.
While successful at policy, some renewable technologies
still encounter other challenges that prevent more widespread
implementation. State laws or outdated local statutes have not
been updated to accommodate neighborhood planning or renewable
energy site planning. So, in order to enjoy the fruits of
renewable energy integration, we need to cultivate a culture of
adoption for those technologies. So we're going to have some
really interesting testimony today.
And, with that, I want to thank you all for being here this
morning, and look forward to your testimony, to working with
you to advance renewable energy integration in buildings when
Congress returns to the energy issues in the coming year. I
again thank the Chairman for being here and for all his work on
the Caucus, for all that has been accomplished and will be
accomplished. I hand it back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Biggert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Judy Biggert
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, welcome to each of our witnesses. We
appreciate your efforts to be here and participate in today's important
hearing. I am also particularly pleased that my good friend and
colleague, Russ Carnahan, is able to join me to chair today's hearing
and kick off the festivities for the U.S. Green Building Council's
annual International Conference and Expo.
As Russ just mentioned, we have the distinct honor of leading the
most exciting Caucus in the House of Representatives. Known officially
as the High Performance Building Caucus, we have hosted over fifty
lunch briefings in the last two years on every subject important to the
definition of a high performing building. So, today's hearing isn't
just a twist in our usual caucus collaboration--it is another way to
take our show on the road and raise awareness for the importance of
high performance buildings.
No where is the concept of high performance buildings more
important--and more evident--than right here in my own backyard.
Chicago is home to many high performing building ``firsts'', like:
The Chicago Center for Green Technology, the first rehabilitated
municipal building in the nation to achieve LEED Platinum status.
And, in 2007, the Exelon headquarters in Chase Tower became the
largest office space to earn a LEED Platinum rating for Commercial
Interiors.
Another great example--and one we will soon hear more about--is
Bolingbrook High School, located in my suburban district. Bolingbrook
High School is among the first of new construction LEED certified high
schools in the nation.
So, what do these building project examples have in common--and how
is renewable energy integration important to them?
These building projects have been constructed with a comprehensive
building efficiency program. Once in place, an efficiency program can
help reduce energy demand and the need for new energy capacity over the
life of the project.
Improved building efficiency begins with a coordinated design and
construction plan to accommodate changes in technology and building
function. As the demand for electricity--and cost of materials--rise
over the next two decades, the building projects I previously mentioned
have the foundation in place to utilize existing renewable
technologies, or incorporate technologies that have yet to be deployed.
Such an advantage can save homeowners, building managers, or school
districts precious time and resources.
Existing applications of renewable technologies in LEED certified
buildings are already paying off. Some case studies using solar panels
or geothermal heating systems report a fifteen to twenty percent
savings in energy costs, with payback occurring two to five years
earlier than anticipated.
Long-term renewable technology options, however, hold great promise
but need more work. Energy storage solutions, such as solar thermal
heating or, on and off-site stationary batteries can offer significant
savings for both the end-users and generators of electricity. These
technologies have been demonstrated in limited amounts and need more
development before deployed on any broad scale.
While successful, or promising, some renewable technologies still
encounter other challenges that prevent more widespread implementation.
State laws or outdated local statutes have not been updated to
accommodate neighborhood planning or renewable energy site planning. In
order to enjoy the fruits of renewable energy integration, we need to
cultivate a culture of adoption for those technologies.
With that, I would like to thank you all for being here this
morning. I look forward to your testimony and to working with you to
advance renewable energy integration in buildings when Congress returns
to energy issues next year.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
It's my pleasure, now, to introduce our panel. Really, we
have a great, excellent, and accomplished, and diverse group
that's here today, so we appreciate you being here. I want to
start with Mr. Joseph Ostafi. He's the regional leader for
Science and Technology Division and the group vice president
for HOK, which is headquartered in my home city of St. Louis.
Welcome.
Mr. Ostafi. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. And, next, Mr. Daniel Cheifetz is the CEO for
Indie Energy Systems Company. Welcome.
Next, Dr. Jeffrey Chamberlain. He is the department head of
Electrochemical Energy Storage and the Energy Storage Maker
Initiative Leader of the Chemical Services and Engineering
Division at Argonne National Lab. That is one long title.
Welcome.
And, next, Ms. Martha VanGeem. She is the Principal
Engineer and Group Manager for Building Science and
Sustainability at CTL Group.
And, for our last introduction, I want to recognize
Congresswoman Biggert to introduce our last panelist.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is now my pleasure to introduce Michael Lopez, director
of Facility Operations for Bolingbrook High School and the
Valley View School District. Just a few weeks ago, I had the
pleasure of touring the Bolingbrook High School with Mr. Lopez
and Principal Mitchem. I think we had a very informative
behind-the-scenes tour of the school building and its high-
performing attributes. I'd like to point out that their use of
water-condensed recovery system and the excellent
implementation of day-lighting throughout the school is so
impressive as sustainable solutions. Mr. Lopez has worked in
the construction, academic, and architectural field, and is
presently responsible for the comprehensive energy management
of 20 schools in the Valley View School District.
So, welcome, Mr. Lopez.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Welcome all.
We will start with Mr. Ostafi. Pleased, and I want to
recognize you. And, just to remind the witness, we'll recognize
you for five minutes. Your full written testimony will be
placed in the record, and we'll follow that up with questions
from myself and Mrs. Biggert.
So, Mr. Ostafi.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH OSTAFI IV, REGIONAL LEADER, SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, GROUP VICE PRESIDENT, HOK
Mr. Ostafi. Thank you. Good morning. And I thank you,
Chairman Carnahan and Congresswoman Biggert, for the
opportunity to discuss innovations and opportunities for on-
site renewable energy integration. I appreciate the opportunity
to testify here today.
Architects, engineers, and planners are implicitly center
stage in the design, construction, commissioning, and
validation processes. We actively engage and coordinate with
building owners and occupants, as well as operators and
maintenance staff, to apply their goals to collectively forge
environments which meet their current and future needs. We not
only have the ability to influence the incorporation of a
renewable energy system into the built environment, but also
the social obligation to design high-performance buildings for
today and net-zero buildings for the future.
Perhaps, surprisingly, one of the most frequent obstacles
that impede integration of renewables into the built
environment remains political and financial. Even though the
federal government and many states have chosen to lead by
example, there still remain many states and privately funded
organizations which have fewer mandates and incentives to
comply. Without continued and increasing governmental mandates
and subsidies or drastic breakthroughs in efficiencies, the
equation will remain lopsided. The clear solution in this case
includes measures which make renewables more cost-competitive
compared with traditional fossil-based energy sources. This
could be eased by continued advancements in renewable
manufacturing processes or through significant advancements of
their efficiency. Until these technological advancements are in
place, continued federal and state subsidies, as well as policy
mandates which encourage their integration, shall remain in
place.
On a more applied level, on-site renewable energy sources
are ultimately directly tied into complex building and
management systems. Real-time monitoring and optimization
controls which constantly measure and communicate information
from vast mechanical, electrical and information-based
technology systems to its operators and users with the
anticipation of aggregation will ultimately optimize
performance results.
The environmental and energy modeling technologies
available to the design community rarely can account for the
human condition with accurate results. We find that with high-
performance buildings, many incorporated renewable technologies
do not perform the way they were intended to. To this end,
additional applied research and better computational modeling
tools could enhance our understanding of the physiological
human needs and the complex interplay of measurement
verification and control systems which ultimately moderate
high-performing building outcomes.
Three additional areas, briefly, in which applied research
could further enhance renewable integration and overall
building performance include on-site renewable systems which
specifically address dense urban environments, including solar
wind and solar thermal. As the majority of commercial and
office buildings are located in urban environments, it's
difficult to repeatedly and reliably harness renewable energy
sources on-site.
Secondly, most buildings and infrastructure do not run on
DC power, which is the predominant output of renewables.
Control systems, micro inverters, and meters need to better
adopt to swing between DC and AC power voltages in a more
efficient and real-time, cost-effective way. This, coupled with
the ability to store solar energy, could drastically contribute
to better all efficiency integration.
An importance is placed on natural daylight in the built
environment today. Oftentimes, this increases the demand for
glass facades while reducing the artificial interior lighting
loads. Exterior glazing systems are traditionally the worst-
performing elements in the building's exterior envelope system,
and artificial light loads consume a significant amount of
building energy load.
More research needs to address higher thermal-performing
curtain wall systems, to include face change or self-regulating
systems in which the ability to store heat when needed, reflect
solar gain and glare when not, and are thermally resistant to
harsh exterior temperatures, which can, in turn, ultimately
mitigate energy use for interior lighting consumption. To this
end, more reliable, qualitative research can be applied to
interior renewable lighting concepts, such as solar fiberoptic
systems, which use daylight and fiberoptic technology to
naturally light spaces.
In summary, to take renewable energy technology integration
to the next level, we must apply research which looks at each
system as more than just a part of the whole.
We need multi-disciplinary research that applies
optimization to renewables which can benefit the entire
infrastructure of a building, a campus, and even a
municipality. Finally, we need research with comprehensive and
scaleable results which encompass all sciences, from political,
economic, and behavioral to the core physical sciences and
engineering.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Ostafi.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ostafi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph Ostafi IV
Chairman Gordon and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to discuss ``Opportunities for Onsite Renewable Energy
Integration.'' I appreciate the opportunity to testify today at this
important hearing.
Many of you are probably aware that buildings account for 40% of
energy use and emissions in the US. Without stepped-up renewable
integration this trend is expected to outpace that of any sector. To
curtail this, it is essential that buildings' energy use be
significantly reduced. What I would like to outline today are
significant challenges and obstacles which hinder the design
community's ability to integrate innovative renewable energy
technologies into the built environment.
Architects, engineers and planners are implicitly center stage in
the design and building process. We actively engage and coordinate with
building owners and occupants, as well as operations and maintenance
staff to apply their goals to collectively forge environments which
meet their current and future needs. At a minimum, compliance with
building and energy codes is necessary, though the preference is to
exceed those minimum standards. Buildings, as well as campuses and
communities, are a dynamic interplay of complex cybernetic systems. It
is through this interaction of society and technology that the ultimate
outcome of how a building or environment performs is demonstrated.
Often times, design consultants have not only the ability to influence
the incorporation of renewable energy systems into the built
environment, but also the social obligation to design high-performance
buildings, ultimately reducing the demand the built environment has on
our natural resources as well as our dependency on foreign resources.
With that responsibility also comes accountability when buildings do
not perform as originally intended.
At the onset of building design, the opportunities to produce
``greener'' buildings are rarely hindered by the ability to incorporate
higher-performing technologies, but rather are often challenged by
financial and political issues. Even when renewable energy systems are
incorporated the positive net effect is sometimes compromised by the
building location, user behavior, or by the overall building
operational subsystems not effectively communicating amongst themselves
and the occupants. All of these factors contribute to marginalize
design intent and ultimately building performance. I would like to
articulate those inherent issues and provide some insights into
additional areas which could provide enhanced building performance
benefits through further technological innovation and applied research.
Challenge: Financial/Political
One of the most obvious and frequent obstacles which impede the
integration of renewables into the built environment remain political
and financial. Though many States and the Federal government have
chosen to lead by example, requiring new and renovated government
buildings to meet stricter energy standards, there still remain many
State and privately funded organizations which have fewer mandates and
incentives to comply. As of September, 2010 there are seven US States
which do not have simple energy standards or executive orders to
develop or encourage high performing buildings beyond basic energy
codes such as the 2004 or 2007 ASHRE 90.1. Likewise, only about half of
the US States and Territories have tax credits, rebates, grants, or
even local utility involvement to incentivize and offset the initial
costs of incorporating renewable technologies. Even government-mandated
policies like the Federal Energy Management Plan which is designed to
encourage the use of on-site renewables on Federal projects, often
establish conditional requirements tied to life-cycle cost analysis.
Too often the first cost decisions outweigh simple payback durations
which lead to short-sighted fiduciary decisions outweighing long-term
performance issues.
Today, many renewable technologies including solar, wind, and solar
thermal are much more expensive to utilize and employ than conventional
fossil-based utility sources, and many current building project
stakeholders are quickly overlooking the long-term benefit. Without
governmental mandates or forms of continued subsidy the equation is
lopsided. The clear solution in this case includes measures which make
renewables more affordable and cost competitive compared with
traditional energy sources at the outset of a buildings
conceptualization. This imbalance could be eased by continued
advancements in their manufacturing costs and overall efficiency of
performance, and further reinforced by continued Federal and State
subsidies, as well as policy mandates requiring their integration.
Challenge: Technology and the Inability to Predict Unpredictable Human
Behavior
As Americans forge ahead in their quest for more sustainable built
environments, there are fewer technical limitations when
conceptualizing better performing buildings. Downstream from the design
concepts and design intents are some of the technical challenges which
do not allow them to operate or perform to their best ability. One of
those challenges is related to the interface between people and
technology; essentially the behavior of its occupants.
On-site renewable energy sources are ultimately directly tied into
complex building management systems. As a result, a higher dependence
is placed on integrated building management and energy systems
technologies. Real-time monitoring and optimization controls are
constantly measuring and communicating information from vast
mechanical, electrical, and information-based technology systems of a
building to its operators and users with the anticipation that they
will produce highly optimized and reliable results. Unfortunately, the
measurement science of predicting the outcome is lacking, and hardware
and software compatibility of these components and systems are not
designed to interact with themselves or the end users.
To this end, two areas which would have compounding benefits from
increased research are enhanced computational environmental and energy
modeling tools and more open sourced building management systems
architecture. Environmental and energy modeling technologies rarely can
account for the human condition; that is, how users really behave in
their environments when complex indoor-outdoor and mixed-mode
strategies interact with more capricious factors such as day-light,
natural ventilation, and building occupancy utilization. For example,
we can make predictions that might account for a building occupant
opening a window to let in a breeze, but it would be difficult to
determine very specifically when he/she might do that, under what
temperature conditions, or that on the same day, someone else might
have turned on all the lights on a building floor during daylight hours
on a sunny day.
Challenge: Lack of Integration Among Building Modeling Systems
What furthers this lack of predictable modeling is a deficiency in
the inability of complex heating, cooling, ventilation, IT, and
electrical systems of effectively and efficiently interacting amongst
themselves when factoring in the human condition. This whole building
systems and occupant science could be enhanced by creating more open-
source measurement and verification technologies which are designed to
interact and predict with whole building systems complexities. And as
we look toward achieving net zero milestones, these enhanced technology
needs should also incorporate emissions measurements of their source
energy.
From a more direct technological standpoint, some additional areas
in which research could further enhance efficiencies and overall
building performance include:
1. On-site renewable systems which specifically address dense
urban environments including solar, wind, solar thermal
As a majority of commercial and office buildings are
located in urban environments often times it is difficult not
only to harness renewable energy sources at the site, it is
sometimes impossible to predict the long-term viability of its
utilization on a site-by-site basis. Currently, most zoning
regulations do not directly preserve solar access rights which
would contribute to the implementation of renewables. Also,
current efficiency rates of solar panel technology do not
enable taller buildings with limited real estate foot prints
enough space to utilize and implement on-site solar
applications at ratio which has dramatic increases in energy
performance.
2. Solar power
Most buildings and their infrastructure do not run on DC
power, which is the predominate output of renewables. Control
systems, micro inverters, and meters need to better adapt to
swing between DC and AC power voltages in a more efficient,
real-time and cost effective way. Better efficiency of
conversion and storage of solar energy, including DC to AC
power inverters, could contribute toward better efficacy and
integration with other building power needs and times of
occupancy.
3. Daylighting, views and the curtain wall
With the increased importance placed on day-light and views
in built environments, often times this increases the demands
for curtain wall systems (glass facade), the exterior glass
system which are traditionally the worst performing elements in
building envelop systems. More research needs to address higher
performing curtain wall systems, even including phase change or
self-regulating systems which have the ability to store solar
heat when needed, reflect solar gain when not, and are more
thermally resistant to harsh exterior environments which
ultimately reduce energy and interior lighting consumption.
4. Supply side technologies
Finally, we cannot look at renewable energy technologies
exclusively from the demand side. On the supply side, water, is
often overlooked as a renewable energy as well as a resource.
Additional research and technological innovation which can
safely and effectively reuse grey water into a buildings
overall water demand needs could benefit from reduced off site
municipal management demands by enabling on-site purification
for non-potable or even ideally potable use.
While technology has been and will continue to be a critical
component of the success of renewable energy integration, technical
solutions alone are not sufficient to reach the goals of optimization
which lie ahead of us. It is important to understand the complex
relationship between technological sustainable development, the
behavioral impacts of occupants and building owners, and the policy and
financial costs of implementation; but more importantly, that future
solutions must encompass the multitude of these challenges if we are to
achieve optimal results.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Biography for Joseph Ostafi IV
Mr. Ostafi has more than 14 years of architectural experience with
science and technology focused clients for the clean energy, biotech,
pharmaceutical, and light industrial research and development for both
private and publicly funded entities. He currently serves as a managing
principal and Vice President for HOK (Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum), a
full service architecture, engineering and planning design firm
headquartered in St. Louis, MO. As a regional leader of the
architecture Science and Technology practice, his focus surrounds fully
integrated thinking of design, planning, sustainability of research
laboratories of all kinds for Federal, State, Higher education and
corporate clients. The experience of serving this variety of clients in
US and international markets has equipped him to work at the center of
multidisciplinary teams and carry complex projects to a successful and
timely completion. Joseph is a frequent speaker at various industry and
technology conferences on topics related to alternative energy research
and renewable energy design, planning and technology integration,
including Tradeline, Labs21, CleanTech, and is a member of the AIA and
USGBC.
Mr. Carnahan. Next, I want to recognize Mr. Lopez for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF FACILITY OPERATIONS,
BOLINGBROOK HIGH SCHOOL, ROMEOVILLE, ILLINOIS
Mr. Lopez. Thank you. First, I want to thank Congresswoman
Biggert for inviting me, and for Chairman Carnahan and this
Committee allowing me the opportunity to provide testimony at
this morning's hearing.
The perspective I would like to share with you today is the
relevance and importance of integrating renewable energy
systems on-site into our living environments and, in
particular, the K through 12 segment of education. Sixty
million people, 20 percent of our population, go to school each
day as students, teachers, staff, or administrators.
Collectively, they attend over 100,000 public and private
schools throughout the country. These learners and educators
spend a substantial amount of their daily lives interacting
within a manmade environment, an environment that has a
significant impact on their well-being, performance, and
achievement.
More than just providing comfort and protection from
inclement weather, these structures create a learning
environment that can either support or detract from the mission
of our educational system. The relevance of the renewable
energy systems on-site for schools is significant in many
respects. First, schools, represented as a market segment, are
significant consumers of non-renewable energy; gas,
electricity, and water. Leveraging this market has the
potential to influence policy and decision-making at all
levels. As an example, I mentioned in my written testimony
recent legislation allowing school districts to provide energy
consortiums for wind production. This is a direction that
school districts have shown an interest in.
Secondly, reducing our reliance on non-renewable resource
production and distribution can result in a reduction of
capital investment needs for the utility providers. Utility
companies currently are challenged to provide uninterrupted
service during peak demands. As an example, our district
currently participates in a voluntary load response program
offered by our electric company, which is designed to curtail
electric usage at peak times and reduce demand on the utility
companies' transmission systems.
Thirdly, the reduction of school utility bill costs can
result in redirecting funds into the classroom. In reference to
this point, our school district spends $3.2 million annually on
gas and electricity. This represents over 20 percent of our
facility operation budget and almost two percent of our entire
district budget. Like all school systems, we continue to be
challenged by both budgets and taxpayers to find ways to reduce
operation of costs in our district.
And, fourth, reducing our reliance on utility rates and
ongoing rate increases, trying to reduce the tax impact on
local communities. As utility costs increase over the long
term, school districts, the largest taxing body in most
communities, can realize budget reductions as they migrate
towards renewable energy systems as the primary means of their
energy sources.
These bullet points speak to the need for long-term vision
regarding how we approach our reliance on energy sources,
obviously, not just in our educational market, but all market
segments. From the perspective of the educational market, I
have witnessed the growing pledge by educational leaders to
better understand and implement sustainability in school
communities. As I discuss sustainability with my colleagues in
various school districts and related industries, a common theme
emerges: ``Green is good.'' Our commitment to invest in
technologies and systems that have a beneficial impact to our
environment are evident in what we in the school industry have
achieved to date.
I share with you in this testimony some positive green
initiatives we have implemented in our school district.
Collectively, they have produced significant financial savings
and continue to reduce our usage of gas, electricity, and
water. However, these initiatives continue to rely on the
consumption of non-renewable resources. We are charged with
continuing to optimize efficiencies in our building system and
operations, but we recognize that, long term, we will begin to
see diminishing returns on our investments into non-renewables.
In the case of our LEED-certified high school, which was
designed in early 2000, the district explored opportunities for
incorporating renewable energy systems, such as solar panels.
However, the return on investment at first cost, as well as
physical constraints, met us when incorporating this technology
into the project. Our desire to continue to explore other
renewable opportunities in current and future projects is
encouraged by dialogue such as that in today's hearing. For
example, renewable rate design concepts supplied large scale to
demonstration of employment problems in the educational market
can positively impact price points on the rate of technologies
and systems.
The time for renewable resource wide-scale applications is
no longer futuristic thinking. It is a technology knocking on
our front doors. I would be remiss if I did not point out the
myriad of other benefits that result in creating a long-term,
green-schooled environment. There is substantial research that
supports the correlation into the green schools, and improves
student health, decreased absenteeism, improved student
performance, and operating cost savings.
Additionally, evidence points to green schools increasing
teacher retention, increasing property values, and, in general,
providing a conduit for collaborative ventures within the
community.
These benefits underscore the significance that the
emerging green technologies play in our learning environments.
We thought about what this Committee is charged with, and feel
that your continued advocacy for renewable resource technology
development and market deployment can have real impact for the
60 million children and adults that enter school buildings
every day. Articulating the vision that would bring these
technologies into the educational community demonstrates a
commitment to our future generations.
I want to thank this Committee again for the opportunity to
participate in this hearing. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Lopez.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Lopez
Sustainability is the balance of economic, environmental and social
objectives in ways most likely to create long term value, without
taxing the resources on which we depend.
This report discusses the implementation of a long range strategic
initiative for sustainability in the secondary learning environment. In
general, it focuses on the opportunities available for those in
educational leadership positions to influence and shape policy and
decision making at a local level, while relying on resources made
available through a broad array of funding and R&D sources.
Three key components that define the success of a comprehensive
initiative for sustainability include:
1. Educating decision makers and stakeholders on the relevance
of sustainability.
2. Developing a strategic approach to creating healthy
learning environments with available resources.
3. Defining a long range plan to reduce the dependency on non-
renewable resources.
Educating decision makers and stakeholders on the relevance of
sustainability
There are many factors that can impact the success (or failure) of
a school district wide initiative, not the least of which is the means
by which the message is communicated. Without the awareness and support
of the senior leadership in a school organization, the program will not
generate the impetus necessary to initiate the steps to succeed. In the
case of sustainability, the factors to be communicated include an
acknowledgment of global impact, budgetary impact, impact to the
learning environment, and educational opportunities in the classroom.
The Global Impact of our decisions on how we build, renovate and
operate facilities is tremendous: Buildings consume over 40 percent of
the energy used in our country, and account for 38 percent of carbon
emissions. 70 percent of electricity in the United States is consumed
by buildings. As a nation, we use 5 billion gallons of water per day to
flush toilets. The air pollution created from burning fossil fuels used
to heat and generate electricity for buildings has an enormous negative
impact on our health, environment and property. Recognizing the direct
correlation between decisions we make at the local level (gas, electric
and water consumption), and the global impact of these decisions,
demands one to reflect on the value we can create through environmental
stewardship. Our decisions relating to facilities in the school
community share these consequences to the environment.
As reported in Kats' study (2006), a green school could lead to the
following annual emission reductions per school:
1,200 pounds of nitrogen oxides, a principal
component of smog.
1,300 pounds of sulfur dioxide, a principal cause of
acid rain.
585,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, the principal
greenhouse gas.
150 pounds of coarse particulate matter (PM10), a
principal cause of respiratory illness and a contributor to
smog.
By choosing to build, renovate and operate green schools, we assert
our commitment to being conscientious leaders in our communities.
The Budgetary Impact to a school district on how they build,
renovate and operate their facilities is equally impressive: The United
States will see nearly $90 billion in K-12 school construction between
2010 and 2012, according to estimates by McGraw-Hill Construction, a
leading national construction forecaster. Many school decision makers
across the country will weigh the cost and value of implementing
sustainable features in their projects. According to the Sustainable
Buildings Industry Council (SBIC), school districts can save 30 to 40
percent on utility costs each year for new schools and 20 to 30 percent
on renovated schools by applying sustainable, high performance design
and construction concepts. Using less energy than conventionally
designed schools, sustainable schools not only have lower utility
bills, they also have the potential to lower market-wide energy costs
by reducing demand (Kats, 2006). Additionally, the potential payback to
the nation's power grid is enormous if schools invest in upgrading the
energy performance of their new and existing facilities.
When considering implementing sustainable features in the design of
new and renovated facilities, evidence suggests that there is a first
cost premium to going green. This is the result of specifying higher
quality materials and construction, and more efficient building
systems. However, over time, these systems demonstrate a favorable
return on investment, both in terms of healthier indoor environments
and savings in energy and water. A 2006 study of 30 green schools
nationwide showed that a 2 percent increase in first cost, about $3 per
square foot, paid back $10 per square foot in energy and water savings
over the course of the buildings' service lives (Kats, 2006).
Probably the most relevant information to communicate regarding
sustainability in a learning institution is the Impact to the Learning
Environment. A significant amount of research has been published
correlating student performance and health benefits to the learning
environment. Healthy schools have been shown to improve student focus,
retention, and test scores; enhance teacher performance; and lower
absenteeism among students and teachers.
Among these studies, a report published by Air Quality Sciences
titled ``Green, High Performance Schools'' (2009) cites the following
examples of school specific studies relating positive impacts from
improving the indoor environment:
``An analysis of two school districts in Illinois found that
student attendance rose by 5 percent after incorporating cost-
effective indoor air quality improvements'' (Illinois Healthy
Schools Campaign 2000).
``A study of Chicago and Washington D.C. schools found that
better school facilities can add three to four percentage
points to a school's standardized test scores, even after
controlling for demographic factors'' (Schneider 2002).
``A recent study of the cost and benefits of green schools for
Washington State estimated a 15 percent reduction in
absenteeism and a 5 percent increase in student test scores''
(Paladino & Company 2005).
Many other studies supporting the positive correlation between
student performance and the environmental condition of school
facilities can be found in publications from the National Clearinghouse
for Educational Facilities and the United States Green Building
Council.
Incorporating Educational Opportunities in the Classroom can
further underscore the relevance of sustainability; by integrating our
sustainable strategies in an educational forum, we pass on our
commitment to environmental stewardship to future generations. The
important point to make here is that sustainable education needs to be
an integral part of the curriculum, not an amendment to it. Teachers
face a myriad of challenges educating students on a standard
curriculum, on a daily basis; adding to their course load may not
improve the overall learning experience of the students. So a
successful approach should weave sustainable elements into a well
balanced curriculum.
Developing a strategic approach to creating healthy learning
environments with available resources
One of the greatest challenges facing school districts today is
balancing diminishing financial resources with the operational needs to
run the district. Staff salaries and benefits, curriculum,
transportation, food service, and facility operations all compete for
dwindling funds from taxing bodies. The challenge for many school
districts has been to develop creative approaches to providing
educational support services while trying to minimize the impact to the
classroom. When it comes to facility management and other support
services, making wise investments and decisions in the infrastructure
and capital improvements helps the district mitigate its operational
costs.
In the case of Valley View School District (in a collar county of
Chicago), developing a comprehensive approach to energy and
environmental management was key to alleviating the rising costs
associated with the operation of an expanding school district. Faced
with a growing population in the late 1990's, the district embarked on
an extensive expansion program, resulting in the construction of
several new schools and renovations to existing facilities. The
construction of a new high school in early 2000 enabled the district to
apply sustainable features to a flagship project for the district,
resulting in the first LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) certified school in Illinois, and the fourth certified high
school in North America. Bolingbrook High School opened its doors to
students in August 2004, and has served as a catalyst for subsequent
sustainable development in the district.
In 2009, the school district gave definition to its sustainable
program by terming it the Comprehensive Energy and Environmental
Management Initiative (CEEMI). Through the CEEMI program, the district
has developed a road map for implementing sustainable projects and
initiatives that have resulted in substantial savings and improvements
to the district.
The attached presentation has been used as a tool to share with
various stakeholders and communities, the positive impact sustainable
measures have had on the Valley View School District. [see attachment].
Defining a long range plan to reduce the dependency on non-renewable
resources
The ultimate goal of a comprehensive energy and environmental
management program should be to reduce the reliance on non-renewable
energy sources. The aforementioned ``strategic approach to creating
healthy learning environments with available resources'' is a viable
measure to mitigate energy consumption, but as a long term permanent
plan, it has its limitations. As indicated in a report to the 110th
Congress, ``economic and environmental concerns--namely energy
security, international competitiveness, high energy prices, air
pollution and climate change--are now driving policy proposals to
support renewable energy R&D and market deployment''.
Given the daily challenges school districts face in educating our
children, it is difficult for school leaders to focus on long term
strategic energy initiatives which rely on promising technologies, such
as wind, solar and biomass. Nonetheless, as major consumers of energy
in our country, school districts throughout the nation can have a
positive influence in efforts to reduce reliance on non-renewable
resources. The benefits that can be derived from leveraging the school
communities' assets are tremendous:
Reduction of carbon emissions on a national scale
Reduction of capital investment needs for utility
companies, by reducing the load on utility grids
Reduction of school utility bill costs, which can
redirect funds towards the classroom
Reduction of need for local tax increases associated
with utility costs for school systems
Many states have recognized the benefits of green design in public
facilities by legislating new school construction to be LEED certified.
Using this concept as momentum for long term planning, educational
leaders should partner with current and future energy research programs
that lead to innovative applications of renewable resources on a large
scale. For example, Illinois recently passed legislation that allows
school districts to form consortiums to build wind turbines to generate
power off site, and receive credit from utility companies at current
costs of electricity. Strategies such as this save taxpayers' dollars,
preserve educational spending for the classroom, benefit the global
environment, and demonstrate to children and families the importance of
environmental stewardship. A continuation of this type of legislation,
based on on-going research and development of emerging technologies, is
vital to achieving long term initiatives in the school environment.
The opportunity for educational leaders to participate in the
discussion and application of renewable energy technologies has
immeasurable value, and will allow learning environments to share in a
legacy of sustainability.
Biography for Michael Lopez
Mr. Lopez is a licensed architect with 26 years experience in the
design and construction of educational, institutional, commercial, and
residential buildings. He graduated with a professional degree in
Architecture from the University of Notre Dame in 1984, and has worked
for several architectural and corporate firms over the course of his
career. Additionally, he served as an adjunct instructor for Purdue
University Calumet for several years, teaching courses in their
Department of Construction Technology.
Prior to his current position, Mr. Lopez was a Senior Project
Manager with Wight & Company, a multi-disciplined architectural and
construction management firm. While at Wight, he was involved in the
design and construction of Bolingbrook High School, the first LEED
certified school in Illinois.
In 2008, he became Director of Facility Operations for Illinois'
Valley View Community Unit School District, a district comprised of 20
schools from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, with a student
population of 18,000, and a staff of 2,500. Mr. Lopez is responsible
for the school district's ``Comprehensive Energy and Environmental
Management Initiative'', or CEEMI, a comprehensive approach for
creating a sustainable environment for the district's 2.5 million
square feet of facilities and 463 acres of green space.
Mr. Lopez is a member of the International Association of School
Business Officials, a member of the United States Green Building
Council, and a member of Rotary. He is a LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) Accredited Professional. He is registered with
the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, and is
licensed to practice architecture in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.
Mr. Lopez is married to his wife of 25 years, and has three
children, including one college graduate. He resides in Munster,
Indiana.
Mr. Carnahan. I next want to recognize Mr. Cheifetz for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL CHEIFETZ, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INDIE
ENERGY SYSTEMS COMPANY, LLC
Mr. Cheifetz. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Carnahan,
Representative Biggert, staff, guests, other panelists. My name
is Daniel Cheifetz. I'm the CEO of Indie Energy Systems
Company. We're a leading developer of smart geothermal
technology systems for heating and cooling buildings by
integrating them with their on-site geothermal energy resource
in a way that decreases the cost of adoption and radically
increases energy efficiency. We are a private company
headquartered in Evanston, Illinois. Forty percent of our staff
is in R&D and engineering, while another 40 percent is in our
high-tech geothermal energy field construction division.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on
a subject that is important, hopeful, and exciting. How can we
realistically integrate our built environment with on-site
renewable energy? I hope that, in the written testimony, I've
given enough detail for you. I'd like to summarize.
Our goal, as a company, is to develop technologies to
change the price performance curve so that on-site renewables
can become de facto standard in our built environment. We have
created a set of technologies for on-site geothermal energy
systems for buildings: building-ground simulation technology, a
real-time data network for measurement and verification, smart
servers that use real world, rich data for ongoing dynamic
control and extreme energy optimization, and technology to
lower the construction costs of geothermal energy fields while
improving quality and feasibility.
We have focused on defining and improving the applications
of on-site geothermal to national retail, multi-unit
residential, educational, and corporate campuses, health care,
and a number of other market segments, both new and retrofit,
standalone, and district. Some of them perhaps you're familiar
with. North Central College in Napierville. There's a
Walgreen's that just opened in Oak Park, Illinois. There is a
wonderful, senior, affordable, multi-unit facility in Pilsen,
all of which are great examples of how geothermal can feasibly
and practically be applied in a wide range of buildings.
They are replicated across the country. Each of these
applications represents billions of square feet of buildings
that will generate returns on investment of billions of dollars
a year while creating thousands of jobs. This is an integrating
technology since no one company can, or should, try to do this
themselves. So we've created a technology that can be embedded
in the practices and products and services of other
organizations; architecture, engineering, construction firms,
building automation systems, as well as national research
initiatives.
While the technology can be applied domestically and can be
exported internationally, one of the interesting things about
geothermal as a renewable technology is that it must be built
on site. Energy fields cannot be built somewhere else and
shipped here; they need to be built where the buildings are. As
we grow this industry, it cannot be outsourced or off-shored.
Local workers will build local geothermal properties in their
own communities.
To bring this about, we need applied R&D focused on
delivering incremental breakthroughs in the short term. They
would attract capital to projects and products, and have an
almost immediate effect on job creation. One of the areas of
this R&D that's really needed is in the construction of the
geothermal energy field itself. Because no matter how much
additional efficiency we can squeeze out of the system, and no
matter how much we are able to reduce costs with hybrid systems
and new materials, the physical construction of a geothermal
energy field will remain the largest barrier to adoption, since
that is where the greatest incremental cost is incurred.
The R&D required to produce semi-automated, high-speed
production drilling equipment are based on, actually, things
that already exist. It would be quickly amortized over the
billions of dollars of value that they would generate. There's
no doubt that this equipment will be developed and manufactured
somewhere. Our question is, ``Why can't we do it?'' In a sense,
that's the whole idea of our hope, amongst these panelists, and
what we can do together. The foundation's been built. More work
will be done by ourselves and other companies, but this is a
great opportunity to pool our efforts and get some things done.
Science is needed, for sure, but not rocket science.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here with
you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cheifetz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel Cheifetz
Good morning Chairman Carnahan, Ranking Member Biggert and Members
of the Subcommittee, staff, and guests.
My name is Daniel Cheifetz. I am the CEO of Indie Energy Systems
Company. Indie Energy is a leading developer of smart geothermal
technology systems for heating and cooling buildings by integrating
them with their on-site renewable geothermal energy resource in a way
that decreases the cost of adoption while radically increasing energy
efficiencies. We are a private company headquartered in Evanston,
Illinois. Forty percent (40%) of our employees are in R&D and
engineering, while 40% are in our high-tech energy field construction
division.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on a
subject that is important, hopeful, and exciting.
I have been asked to address four areas:
1. Examples of geothermal integration projects, including the
demonstration project that was a recipient of a U.S. Department
of Energy competitive funding award
2. The Smart Geothermal technology Indie Energy has developed
to enable widespread adoption of geothermal-based heating and
cooling systems for the built environment
3. The state of the market and the need for innovation
4. R&D recommendations for the Committee to consider related
to the adoption of integrated geothermal systems in individual
buildings as well as campus and district systems
Selected current projects
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Selected current projects
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Smart Geothermal TM Technologies
The following breakthrough technologies have driven Indie Energy's
market leadership in the Chicago metropolitan area:
1) RightSize TM energy field and hybrid mechanical
system designs that deliver the lowest build cost with the
highest energy efficiency.
2) ProvenGround TM turnkey energy fields utilize
the Company's exclusive drilling technology, which provides a
dramatically higher standard for quality, speed, and cost of
construction.
3) GeoPod TM measurement and verification systems
monitor the Smart Geothermal system remotely, in real-time, and
provide cost and carbon savings information, dashboard displays
for owners and public, and maintenance alerts.
4) EnergyLoop TM controls and adaptive optimization
systems provide ongoing improvements in cost savings and energy
efficiency by controlling the dynamic interactions between the
building, ground and grid.
The Potential of Onsite Geothermal and the Need for Innovation
For decades, we have known a lot about geothermal for heating and
cooling buildings.
We have known that geothermal energy exchange is an effective,
renewable way to significantly reduce heating and cooling costs and
greenhouse gas emissions.
We have known that anything that can be done with an HVAC/R
(heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration) system can be
done with a geothermal system--a mechanical system that couples the
building with the ground.
We have known that geothermal-based heating and cooling has been
successfully used in every climate, and in every building type. In
fact, a DOE report at the end of 2008 stated that these systems ``. . .
use the only renewable energy resource that is available at every
building's point of use, on-demand, that cannot be depleted (assuming
proper design), and is potentially affordable in all 50 states.''
However, what we know is not always consistent with what we do.
Less than one-tenth of one percent of buildings make use of their
onsite earth resource for heating and cooling. It is as if our rooms
are still illuminated by kerosene lamps because we have not been able
to deploy a technology for electric lighting.
This is due to technical, financial, and educational gaps.
Innovation is the key to bridging those gaps, and Indie Energy's
mission is to develop and deliver the technology innovations needed to
enable a widespread transformation of our built environment to one much
more healthy economically and environmentally through the use of smart
geothermal technology systems.
Beyond First Generation Geothermal
Compared to conventional, first generation geothermal, Indie Energy
Smart Geothermal TM technology provides substantial economic
benefits on two fronts: lower build cost, and radically higher
operating efficiencies. Indie Energy has developed high-resolution
state-of-the-art technology for understanding the dynamic thermal
exchange between the building, its use, and the earth (the geothermal
energy field). This has allowed Indie Energy to develop and prove a
range of innovative products and solutions for simulation, measurement,
verification, control and optimization which are currently powering
Indie Energy's turnkey systems and which can also be embedded by
channel partners in third-party-built systems.
These innovative technologies enable extremely energy efficient
geothermal heating and cooling systems whose performance can be proven.
Even more importantly, these technologies overcome the most significant
barrier to adoption 2--the high first cost of the system
with inadequate return on investment.
Indie Energy has proven its enabling, embeddable technologies for
integrating onsite renewable geothermal energy in millions of square
feet of commercial, public, and institutional geothermal building
systems, both new and existing, in the Chicago metropolitan area.
A number of R&D initiatives have been undertaken:
Indie Energy has been awarded a $2.45 million matching competitive
grant by DOE to demonstrate what the DOE called its ``transformative
technologies'' at a retrofit of a 166,000 square foot, three-building
campus. Some of the technologies demonstrated are a district system (in
which one geothermal energy field is shared by three buildings), Indie
Energy's GeoPod TM for real-time measurement and
verification utilizing a moving baseline, and Indie Energy's Smart
Geothermal Network TM and EnergyLoop TM Controls.
In order to help develop standards for smart geothermal system
technology, Indie Energy has engaged the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
to evaluate its GeoPod TM technology.
In order to assist in the development of shared research databases,
Indie Energy is working with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
to make Indie Energy's Smart Geothermal Network TM available
to researchers and projects nationwide.
In order to push the envelope in materials science to develop
breakthroughs in thermal transfer and storage media, Indie Energy has
entered into an R&D relationship with the University of Illinois at
Chicago.
In order to advance the state of the art in geothermal energy field
construction, Indie Energy has entered into a multi-year joint R&D
agreement with GeaWelltech, the Swedish manufacturer of the specialized
geothermal drilling equipment used by Indie Energy.
Is There a Market?
There is no well-defined onsite geothermal heating and cooling
industry in 2010. Rather, it is a fragmented landscape populated by
engineering and architecture firms, drillers, HVAC installers, and
equipment manufacturers with occasional ESCO and utility companies
making appearances.
There are many data points and trend lines that point to the
possible emergence of an industry that could drive large scale growth
of an onsite geothermal industry for renewable heating and cooling:
In 2005 the geothermal heat pump market was a $2.5 billion industry
\1\ in the United States. Since then, there has been significant growth
driven in large part by rising energy costs, policy changes for
greenhouse gas curtailment, and federal tax incentives passed in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Manufacturers of geothermal
heat pumps shipped 36,439 units in the U.S. in 2003, and 63,683 units
in 2006. Data posted in 2005 show more than 600,000 geothermal heat
pumps in operation in the U.S. alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Galst, Liz, NY Times, With Energy in Focus, Heat Pumps Win
Fans, August 13, 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A market report published by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2008
suggests that geothermal technology for heating and cooling buildings
could become a major contributor to the national energy policy
movement, with the potential to save $38 billion annually in energy
costs \2\. The report identifies key technologies required for this to
take place. (These are the technologies that Indie Energy has developed
and proven.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Hughes, Patrick, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Geothermal
(Ground-Source) Heat Pumps:Market Status, Barriers to Adoption, and
Actions to Overcome Barriers, December, 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Chicago Climate Action Plan has recently (September
2010) published recommendations of the Environmental Law and Policy
Center's Clean and Renewable Energy Working Group \3\ that the City
undertake geothermal projects for one hundred million square feet of
existing buildings over the next ten years to reduce 0.271 million
metric tons of greenhouse gases. While Indie Energy discounts these
figures in its own projections of near-term market size, they suggest
that the potential market in the top ten metropolitan areas in the U.S.
is approximately $4 billion for its Smart Geothermal TM
technology alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://elpc.org/2010/10/19/report-of-the-clean-and-renewable-
energy-working-group-released
A Way Forward through Applied R&D
I come out of the software industry. We bet our futures on
exponentially accelerating price performance ratios. We saw the power
of DARPA and the resultant Internet. It's the technology wave my
company rode, and if you have ridden a wave like that, you get to feel
its characteristics in your bones. Renewable energy and clean
technology is such a wave.
As Ray Kurzweil has pointed out in his Law of Accelerating Returns,
``. . . technology, particularly the pace of technological change,
advances (at least) exponentially, not linearly, and has been doing so
since the advent of technology, indeed since the advent of evolution on
Earth.'' And that rate of exponential growth itself grows
exponentially.
About half of the growth in the U.S. GDP since World War II is
related to the development and adoption of new technologies. That fact
has not been lost on the rest of the world. So, it's not a question of
whether there will be technological change in onsite renewable energy
technology, or even when it will start. It has started in earnest in
many places around the world that are starting to ride up the
exponential innovation curve. The only question is whether we in the
U.S. will participate before the curve gets too steep for us to earn
our place as technology pioneers once again.
In addition to longer term, very high dollar ``pure'' research, we
can achieve exponential improvements with a combination of additive
steps as long as we think and design with a whole systems approach, and
as long as we are not driven so much by the competition of others as by
the prospect of a competing, unhappy, alternate future.
To bring this about we need a significant portion of our nation's
R&D to be applied R&D, focused on delivering incremental breakthroughs
in the short term. These are breakthroughs that could be market-ready
Of not ``shovel-ready'') and quickly move into the supply chain. They
would attract capital to products and projects and have an almost
immediate effect on job creation.
Here are some of the things that are opportunities for onsite
renewable energy integration:
We would like to see low-grade-heat combined heat and power engines
that we can plug into our systems to make them more energy efficient
and the grid smarter.
We would like to see variable speed compressors; better heat
exchangers; and low temperature (140F and below) heating systems
standards so that systems can be incrementally more efficient and
feasible for demanding applications.
We expect more--in fact we are planning on seeing more--in-building
wireless sensor and actuator networks from companies such as EnOcean so
that we can implement more affordable systems and healthier, more
productive, ground-coupled buildings.
Even relatively simple things like infrared smarter ``thermostats''
that can measure more than just dry bulb temperature would help us and
our engineering and architecture partners create more comfortable and
efficient micro zones in buildings that we could then interactively
balance with all the other energy flows in the building and between the
building and ground.
All these things will further enrich our building/energy simulation
technology, populate our Smart Geothermal Network with real-time data
for measurement and verification while providing our EnergyLoop TM
Engine with rich data for ongoing dynamic control and extreme energy
optimization.
Additional investments need to be made in technology to lower the
construction cost of geothermal energy fields while improving quality.
No matter how much additional efficiency we can squeeze out of a
system, and no matter how much we are able to reduce costs with hybrid
designs and new materials, the physical construction of the geothermal
energy field will remain the largest barrier to adoption since that is
where the greatest incremental cost is incurred. It is indicative of
the underdeveloped state of onsite geothermal that almost without
exception the equipment (drill rigs and compressors) used to construct
the geothermal energy field has not seen a significant technological
breakthrough. The R&D required to produce semi-automated high-speed
production drilling equipment would be quickly amortized over the
billions of dollars of value that they would generate. There is no
doubt that this equipment will be developed and manufactured somewhere.
Why not here?
Wherefore Art We?
It is not clear at this point if onsite renewable energy for
buildings has found its real home in Washington D.C.. ARPA-E is a
terrific new entity, but it may be more oriented to the ``pure and
big'' than the ``small, distributed, and now''. Onsite geothermal has
had an identity crisis vis-a-vis geothermal power, but it is not clear
how well its relocation to the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy's (EERE) Building Technologies Program is working.
Wherever the program ends up, it should lose the ``Geothermal Heat Pump
Program'' tag. As instrumental as some of the equipment manufacturers
have been in getting incentives for ``GHP systems'', developing a real
science and industry to integrate buildings with onsite renewable
geothermal energy will not get the support it needs if it continues to
be thought of as a collection of ``heat pumps'', ``wells'', and
``loops''.
Conclusion
It used to take twenty years for a new technology to really become
ubiquitous. We don't have twenty years for this new technology to
become the standard for how we build our new buildings and fix our
existing ones. Fortunately, this is not the kind of disruptive
innovation that requires a whole new delivery mechanism, or the
unseating of historical incumbents. This new energy infrastructure
plugs into almost all the engineering, architectural, and construction
channels that exist. These are channels that are actually motivated by,
and have a hunger for, breakthroughs that can be effectively and
pragmatically designed and delivered to their clients with lower risk
than the status quo. This is not a technology where we have to create
the need in order to build demand. The need is recognized, and there is
a huge pent-up demand.
Indie Energy has created a set of technologies that enable the
widespread adoption of onsite geothermal renewable energy systems for
buildings. It is an embeddable technology that can work with the
offerings and practices of engineering and architectural firms. In
fact, that kind of collaboration is how many of our projects came about
in the Chicago area. While the technology can travel, geothermal energy
fields must be built onsite, where the buildings are--they cannot be
built somewhere else and then shipped here. As we grow this industry,
it cannot be outsourced or off-shored. Local workers will build local
geothermal properties in their own communities. It will take a number
of decades for us to fix our existing building stock; by then, we will
be building new buildings again, and the standard for their mechanical
systems will be based on onsite renewable smart geothermal.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you here today.
Biography for Daniel Cheifetz
Daniel Cheifetz, CEO and Founder, Indie Energy Systems Company
Mr. Cheifetz is an experienced technology entrepreneur, whose
achievements include a leadership role in the successful IPO of Open
Text (Nasdaq: OTEX) in 1996. With more than 30 years of executive
leadership in technology companies, he brings an extensive track record
to the growing clean energy industry.
Experience
Indie Energy Systems Company, CEO 2006-present
Open Text (OTEX), Exec. VP, Development, Board member
Odesta Systems Corporation, Founder and CEO
Education
Grinnell College, BA
Mr. Carnahan. And next, Dr. Chamberlain.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY P. CHAMBERLAIN, DEPARTMENT HEAD,
ELECTROCHEMICAL ENERGY STORAGE RESEARCH, ENERGY STORAGE
INITIATIVE LEADER, CHEMICAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING DIVISION,
ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Chamberlain. Thanks. Good morning, Chairman Carnahan,
Congresswoman Biggert, and Committee staff. My name's Jeff
Chamberlain. I am the Department Head for Electrochemical
Energy Storage and Energy Storage major initiative leader at
Argonne National Laboratory. I have a Ph.D. in physical
chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology. And, before
I came to Argonne, I worked as a researcher, developing
products for private industry at Cabot Microelectronics, now
Oak Chemical, and Angus Chemical Company, now owned by the Dow
Chemical Company.
I'm honored to be here to talk with you today about the
need for energy storage technology for renewable energy systems
for on-site generation, both for individual buildings and small
community-based systems. Thank you for inviting me to this
hearing to offer my testimony. Thank you, also, for holding
this particular hearing. The questions you are asking are
critically important. A portfolio of renewable energy balanced
with nuclear and coal-generated power, combined with the
electrification of the U.S. vehicle fleet, will ultimately
enable a new era of energy security for the citizens of the
United States, as well as have an enormous impact on America's
economic prosperity and our environment.
I'll first answer your query directly now, then supply some
more background with the remainder of my time. There is,
indeed, a gap in the research portfolio in the U.S. and the
need for energy storage technology for on-site renewable energy
generation. This gap could be filled by a coordinated research
effort across the national labs, and connected directly to
industry. The research that is being performed in the U.S. and
around the world for this application is essentially aimed at
testing existing technologies that were developed for other
applications. Specifically, for example, batteries that are
used in automobiles may be repurposed, at the end of their
useful life, for transportation as stationary batteries.
The second example is that modules from large, megawatt
systems that are being developed with a grid are also being
tested for the smaller scale applications in question. But it
is vital to perform research to develop technology directly for
a given application. For example, small, light-weight, lithium
ion batteries have been developed for portable application,
such as for cars and electronics. While the implications and
technology needs for the stationary systems are different, size
and weight are not nearly as important for stationary
applications. Here, efficiency, durability, and cost are the
main drivers.
Some energy storage solutions for stationary applications
include large tanks of chemicals, called flow batteries, where
we see the pumping of entire lakes where the water inclines for
later electricity generation as it is passed, using gravity,
through a turbine. The point is, not all energy storage
technologies are the same, and it is not sufficient to hope
that a technology developed for one application might fill the
need of another.
Right now, the U.S. is a world leader in developing energy
storage technologies for vehicles, thanks to our investment in
energy technology research at the Department of Energy's
national laboratories. At Argonne, Lawrence Berkley, and other
national labs, we invent new materials using both theory and
experiment scaled at their useful level, put them in battery
cells, and test them. The battery technologies developed at
Argonne are being used by industry to power electric cars that
will soon be on the road. BASF, Toyota America, and the Silicon
Valley start-up Columbia systems are already basing to
commercialized materials developed at Argonne.
Looking forward, we expect our technology to power millions
of cars in the coming years, and expect our continuing research
to bring down the price of those cars while increasing their
range in power. However, the United States has not made the
same continued investment in larger battery technologies
intended for both grid scale and on-site stationary
applications. We do perform world-class research developing
systems that generate electricity from wind and solar sources,
but we do not currently have the technology to save that
electricity to light, heat, and cool the buildings at the times
when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.
The work we've done on transportation scale batteries is
useful in creating larger energy-scaled storage systems, to a
point. We're working to validate battery technologies that have
been developed for other applications. For example, car
batteries that reach the end of their useful life in a vehicle
might still be useful for stationary applications. But that
approach, although it may yield some useful results, is not as
effective as full-scale research and development addressed in
energy storage as a whole, from cell phone batteries all the
way up to grid storage.
Right now, we have real gaps in our storage research
portfolio, and we cannot fill those gaps without large-scale,
long-term, well-funded, and well-coordinated research programs
that bring together the best and most innovative scientists and
engineers in academia, industry, and the national laboratories.
The good news is that, at present, no other countries have
succeeded in creating large-scale energy storage technology.
Japan, Korea, and China are ahead of the U.S. in developing
large, coordinated R&D efforts to address the stationary energy
storage need. Even so, we have a real opportunity to take
international leadership in this field, which has been
identified as a $200 billion opportunity, as I noted in my
written testimony. But we must act swiftly and efficiently to
create a nationwide, fully coordinated effort to address energy
storage at every level, with a portfolio that's balanced across
need and across laboratories and universities, and coordinated
with industry. And the funding for this research must reflect
the scope of our mission and the potential value of this
technology to our national security, our economic future, and
our environment.
Lastly, we already have a model of success through DOE's
Vehicle Technologies Program and EERE. A variety of research
projects have been funded across the laboratory complex and
coordinated with industry in a way that is resulting in
commercialization of enabling storage technology for
transportation applications. A comparable program can be and
should be developed throughout the Department of Energy, with a
focus on stationary energy storage systems. The seeds for such
an effort are already coordinated through the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. Ultimately,
success will require fully funded, long-term, national vision
of a fully integrated system at every scale.
I'd be pleased to answer any questions from the Committee.
Again, thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Doctor.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Chamberlain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey P. Chamberlain
It is widely recognized that the continued and increasing reliance
on fossil fuels by the citizens, businesses, and government
organizations in the U.S. is not sustainable over the long term. One
concept that is gaining popularity among scientists and engineers,
businessmen, and policymakers is that of integrating renewable energy
generation into a distributed use model, in which sun and wind energy
is converted into electricity and used locally, at scales from
individual buildings up to and including communities that include both
buildings for residential and business or government use.
There are a wide variety of technologies and business models that
are being considered to enable the adoption of an integrated, on-site
energy generation and use model. Energy must be harnessed, either by
solar cells and arrays, or by wind turbines, and then either inverted
from DC to AC for immediate use, or stored for later inversion and use.
``Smart grid'' technologies are also capable of being used to ensure
efficient use of energy, and the individual buildings and communities
must still be integrated effectively into the larger regional grid.
Although there are significant complexities regarding the integration
of the various required technologies, the attractive prospect of
reducing overall energy consumption as well as significantly reducing
the consumption of fossil fuels is driving both policy makers and
businesses around the world to carefully examine and develop both the
technologies and the business models needed to make on-site renewable
energy generation and use a reality.
Below is a simple diagram (figure 1), illustrating the essence of a
Cornell project, ``CU Green,'' (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/
May08/cugreen.hawaii.aj.html) developed for an experimental setup in
Hawaii in June 2008. Even in this simplistic illustration, one can see
the importance both for new technology development, as well as the
importance of integrating the technologies across the system.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
This testimony focuses on one aspect of the variety of technologies
needed to enable the adoption of on-site renewable energy integration:
Energy Storage. In figure 1, outside of the battery in the PHEV, there
is a notable lack of energy storage listed as a requirement for this
microgrid environment. Taken from the European Union Microgrid Project,
figure 2, below, shows in great detail the complexity and variety of
energy storage technologies that can be used in on-site renewable
energy generation. Note the wind and solar indicators in the lower
left-hand corner, and how the energy can flow into various storage
devices for end use. Of course, no single system will have this great
number of energy storage devices, but this particular European project
was set up to test the various technologies available on the market
today.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The role of Energy Storage in on-site renewable energy generation.
At its essence, the main role of energy storage in on-site
renewable energy generation is to mitigate the intermittent nature of
electricity generated by conversion of sun or wind energy. Power
generated by coal-burning or nuclear plants is ramped up and down
according to consumer demand. Such is not the case for either wind or
solar energy conversion, and, in the case of on-site renewable energy
generation without the ability to store energy, the consumer would be
left only having useful electricity when there is either substantial
wind or sun to convert to electricity. When an effective energy storage
technology is integrated into the on-site generation system,
electricity generated by the solar or wind conversion can be stored and
used when the demands warrants its use.
As storage technologies are adopted for on-site renewable
generation, they will be used for other applications as well, thereby
increasing the total value of both the investment into the systems'
development and the value of the systems themselves. Energy storage
systems that will be of use to the microgrid application can also be
used for grid load management and as back-up power supplies for
communities. If integrated to the grid properly, utilities will be able
to use battery systems to store electricity generated during off-peak
periods to supplement demand during high-peak usage. Likewise, such
energy storage systems can also be used during power outages or during
natural disasters to supply electricity when grid operation is
interrupted.
The table in figure 3, below, shows in detail the relative value of
storage technologies in grid applications. This table is from an
article by John Peterson, of Alt Energy Stocks, entitled ``Grid-Based
Energy Storage; a $200B Opportunity.'' Peterson's estimates are based
in great part on the 2010 Sandia report, entitled ``Energy Storage for
the Electricity Grid: Benefits and Market Potential Assessment Guide; a
Study for the DOE Energy Storage Systems Program,'' by Jim Eyer and
Garth Corey, of Sandia.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The information presented in the table, and the extensive study by
Eyer and Corey, show both the tremendous economic value of storage for
the grid, and the wide array of valuable applications in the grid. The
salient take-home points of the information in figure 3 are:
1) assuming adoption of energy storage technology onto the
future grid, the economic value of such technology is over
$200B
2) the value of storage technology for on-site renewable
generation (contained in rows 15, 16, and 17) are relatively
modest, but still in the billions of dollars
3) most research in the area of storage for the grid focuses
on on-grid applications, not off-grid (or tangent-grid)
applications as would be the case for storage for on-site
renewable energy generation.
Energy Storage R&D for transportation applications: useful for the
grid?
As the automotive industry moves from purely internal combustion
propulsion to hybrid-electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and pure
electric vehicles, businesses are commercializing new battery
technologies that go beyond the standard lead-acid technology used by
consumers today. OEMs have successfully integrated nickel-metal hydride
(NiMH) battery systems into HEVs (e.g. Toyota Prius or Ford Escape
Hybrid), and are beginning to integrate lithium ion batteries into some
HEV applications as well (e.g. Johnson Controls-Saft lithium ion
batteries for Mercedes' S400 hybrid). For PHEV and EV applications,
OEMs are adopting a wide variety of lithium ion battery technologies.
Notable and timely examples include the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf,
both of which are entering the market at the end of 2010. Both cars
contain advanced lithium ion battery packs for propulsion.
Research at the DOE National Laboratories, and around the world, is
ongoing in a race to develop the best performing lithium ion battery
technology, to enable full penetration of PHEV and EV automobiles into
the consumer market by decreasing cost and improving the performance of
the battery systems, in terms of how much energy can be safely stored
and retrieved in a given battery.
For over 40 years, Argonne has been a leader in performing research
into electrochemical energy storage systems. Notably, this research has
focused in the last 10-14 years on lithium ion battery systems,
including basic materials research and development, systems and cost
modeling, diagnostics of materials and systems, and performance testing
of electrochemical cells and complete systems. Argonne also evaluates
the performance of hybrid electric systems in vehicles as a complete
system.
DOE's battery research programs managed by the Office of Vehicle
Technologies in EERE span multiple national laboratories as well as
universities and industry. Through DOE's programs, Argonne works in
concert with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Sandia National
Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, as well as the Army Research Laboratory, NASA, and the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. Likewise, the National Laboratories involved in
DOE's battery research programs interact directly with industry, from
materials suppliers like Dow Chemical, DuPont, 3M and BASF, to battery
manufacturers such as Johnson Controls, A123 and Ener1, to the OEMs
(GM, Ford, Chrysler), through the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium
(USABC).
The work performed by the group above has a primary focus on
developing and testing new materials for advanced battery systems for
use in transportation applications. Separately, DOE, though the Office
of Electricity, has a variety of funded programs focused on enabling
known technologies for use in a variety of stationary applications,
mostly at megawatt scale.
Many businesses are now working to determine the technical and
financial potential for aftermarket use of these large car batteries,
particularly for grid storage. The concept is that, 1) at the end of
useful life in an automobile, a lithium ion battery still has the
capability of storing energy, but not in a useful way for automobile
propulsion, and 2) by extracting further value from the expensive
battery system (currently between $5000 and $15,000), the upfront cost
of the battery system can be offset, and in a way subsidized by the
extraction of value at the end of its useful life in a car.
A pertinent example (figure 4) of such an effort is being made by
General Motors. GM has recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding
with ABB Group, a Swiss-Swedish consortium, to investigate and quantify
the value of a ``used'' Chevy Volt battery system for application on
the grid (Energy Matters, September 22, 2010).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This serves merely as one example of how the automotive and battery
industries are rapidly moving to determine if their automotive
batteries can cross over for effective use in grid applications. In the
U.S., A123 Systems (an MIT startup), Johnson Controls (world's largest
battery maker), and Ener1 (an Indianapolis battery maker) are all
working quickly to adapt their battery technologies either for direct
use on the grid, or for after-market use, when the effective life in an
automobile ends. Outside the U.S., Panasonic-Sanyo, GS Yuasa, and NEC
in Japan, and LG Chem, Samsung, and SK in Korea, as well as Lishen and
ATL in China are all working quickly toward adapting their vehicle-use
batteries for grid application.
In all likelihood, advanced batteries intended originally for use
in automotive applications will have use and value in grid
applications, including for individual buildings. However, this current
focus by advance battery manufacturers and OEMs exposes the primary
weakness in the U.S.'s R&D portfolio aimed at filling the energy
storage need for on-site renewable electricity generation: the PHEV and
EV battery systems were developed specifically for transportation
applications, where a primary driver in the technology development is
energy density, both gravimetric and volumetric. Batteries for electric
cars must be as lightweight and small as possible. However, for on-
site, stationary applications, the size and weight of the battery
system is of significantly less importance. Instead, efficiency and
cost are the primary drivers for stationary applications.
Energy Storage research for stationary applications is primarily
focused on demonstration projects
As the U.S. endeavors toward net-zero communities, including on-
site renewable energy generation and energy storage, the question
arises: what is the best technology for storing energy locally, for
individual buildings or small communities?
To answer this question, DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy and DOE's Office of Electricity have sponsored
multiple projects across the laboratory complex and directly with
industry. For example, as a result of Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007, DOE formed the National Laboratory Collaborative on
Building Technologies, in which Argonne, Lawrence Berkeley, NREL, Oak
Ridge, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory are to work together
on building efficiency improvements, including investigating energy
storage as part of the answer. A more direct example is the case in
which DOE has funded American Electric Power in Ohio, to install at
test a 25-kW lithium ion ``neighborhood'' battery to reduce strain on
the grid during peak load demands. Likewise NEDO in Japan has sponsored
similar demonstration projects that utilize known lithium ion and flow
battery technologies for microgrid applications. Separately, DOE's
Office of Electricity actively participates in the international
cooperation known as Energy Conservation through Energy Storage, or
ECES. European, North American, and Asian governmental offices
participate in the activity.
Figure 5 below (Gil Weigand, Oak Ridge, in Green Car Congress, May
5, 2010) illustrates how on-site renewables generation will fit into an
overall net-zero neighborhood architecture. Note that there are several
places and needs for energy storage technology. One technology alone
will not fill each of these needs.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In every example project described above, the primary objective
seems to be to determine whether a known technology can be utilized for
grid and microgrid applications. Technologies being tested and
validated include lithium ion, lead acid, sodium sulfur thermal
systems, pumped hydro, flywheel, ultra capacitor, sodium metal halide,
and flow batteries. Until very recently, the primary focus around the
world in energy storage for stationary applications has been an attempt
to apply or adapt known energy storage technologies for these emerging
applications. During the last several years, efforts have begun, to
enable fundamental research on new materials and systems aimed
specifically for use in stationary applications. These efforts are
relatively small; this is where the largest gap exists that would
prevent the most effective adoption of storage technology for on-site
renewable energy generation.
DOE's Office of Electricity has begun to fund small materials
research projects at Sandia National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, and DOE's ARPA-E has funded over 10 new high-risk,
high-reward materials-based projects aimed specifically at stationary
storage applications. One example is 24M technologies, a spin-out from
A123, with Professor Yet-Ming Chiang, MIT, as a founding partner. This
project aims to develop entire new battery systems for both
transportation and grid applications, starting from fundamentally new
developments in materials physics and chemistry.
Coordinated Research and Development can address the existing gap
The opportunity before us today is to perform groundbreaking
research to develop innovative, efficient, and low-cost energy storage
technologies that will enable the most effective use of on-site
renewables generation. The clear gap in our research in the U.S., and
even across the globe, is that almost all materials research has been
aimed either at transportation applications, or at megawatt-sized
stationary applications.
State of research in U.S. for stationary storage for buildings and
small communities:
- there are already multiple programs
- focus is on adapting automotive technologies, and
integrating megawatt-scale technologies (e.g. pumped hydro)
- focus exists on integration technologies, modeling,
``smart'' grid creation
- Lacking: direct work on new energy storage technologies
Europe's programs--same gap as U.S.
Asian programs--same gap as U.S.
In both Europe and Asia, though, it appears there is a more
advanced strategy for coordinating the effort with respect to storage.
It is the opinion of the author that the best method for addressing
the gaps described above is to combine a new strategic investment by
DOE in research and development in the U.S. focused directly at the
development of energy storage systems for buildings and small
communities, and, importantly, to coordinate the research effort
effectively with the resources already available to DOE. Specifically,
the talent and skills needed to develop advanced energy storage
technologies, from inception, to modeling and theory, through materials
and systems development, and performance and full utilization testing,
already reside in the DOE National Laboratory system. Also, there a
both startups and large-cap businesses ready to commercialize any
technology developed in the laboratories. If developed and managed
properly, R&D funds could be utilized with great efficiency, if the
various organizations worked in concert, collaborating toward a
singular, well-defined mission. Further, a particular project on energy
storage for on-site small-scale stationary applications could be
incorporated into a larger, coordinated national effort at developing
knowledge and technology for energy storage across a large variety of
both stationary and portable applications.
Biography for Jeffrey P. Chamberlain
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Department Head, Electrochemical Energy Storage
Energy Storage Major Initiative Leader
Jeffrey Chamberlain is the Manager of the Battery Research
Department in Argonne National Laboratory's Chemical Sciences and
Engineering Division. The work in the battery department at Argonne
spans from the basic materials science for discovering and designing
new materials, to modeling new electrochemical systems, to engineering
operating test cells, all the way to testing of materials, cells, and
entire energy storage systems. The battery testing facilities are
world-class, and serve as a lead lab for DOE in performance analysis
for advanced batteries.
Jeff also is the leader of the laboratory-wide Energy Storage
Initiative. The work involved is coordinated into four research areas:
Advanced Battery R&D, Process Engineering for pilot-scale studies of
battery materials, Energy Storage studies for power grid management,
and Energy Storage R&D in advanced power train systems.
Prior to joining Argonne, Dr. Chamberlain performed industrial
research at several companies, notably Cabot Microelectronics, Nalco,
and Angus (purchased by Dow), focusing his work on the chemistry at the
interface between suspended metal-oxide particles and their surrounding
solutions. Products developed from Jeff's work in industry have been
applied in semiconductor processing, coatings manufacture, and mineral
processing.
Dr. Chamberlain studied vacuum-based surface chemistry at the
Georgia Institute of Technology, and received his Ph.D. in Physical
Chemistry. Prior to his graduate studies at Georgia Tech, Jeff received
his Bachelors of Science in Chemistry from Wake Forest University.
Mr. Carnahan. And, finally, Ms. VanGeem.
STATEMENT OF MARTHA G. VANGEEM, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER AND GROUP
MANAGER, BUILDING SCIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY, CTL GROUP
Ms. VanGeem. Thank you for this opportunity to testify
before you today. I will be speaking to you on the genesis of
the renewable-ready requirements and their advantages and
disadvantages in the ASHRAE USGBC/IES Standard 189.1, the
standard for the design of high-performance green buildings.
I've been a member of this committee, responsible for drafting
the language in the Standard, since its inception in 2006.
However, today, I'm speaking for myself and not for ASHRAE
or the Counsel.
The intention of the renewable-ready provision in the
Standard is to assure that building design includes a plan to
accommodate future installations of common renewable energy
systems, such as PV, solar, thermal, and wind. The renewable-
ready requirements were appealing to the Committee because
renewable energy is expensive and, therefore, less cost-
effective when compared to other energy-saving measures
required by the Standard. While cost-effectiveness was not a
criteria for requirements in the Standard, the future usability
of the Standard is somewhat dependent on practicality and
economics.
The Committee Members and the public had a spectrum of
views on this issue, from not having a mandatory requirement,
due to their cost, to mandating a portion of energy from all
buildings be renewable. Those in favor of renewable energy
requirements said they were in place in some European
countries, and that the way to drive down cost is to mandate
it. Furthermore, in order to meet the goal of net-zero energy
buildings, on-site renewable energy will be necessary.
Requiring a small amount now will cause designers to start
incorporating on-site renewable energy systems, and experience
will be gained. The renewable-ready requirements were included
as a compromise provision. The basis of this was that, once a
building is constructed, the future installation of renewable
systems could be prohibitively expensive, even if the costs of
the renewable systems decrease.
Installation of these systems as a retrofit is more
expensive if the initial building design did not account for
the additional structural loads or did not provide readily
available space for the renewable system, its pathways,
conduit, and piping.
In addition, the structure of the Standard lent itself to
the renewable-ready requirement compared to a rating system
such as LEED. In a rating system, it's straightforward to have
a point that requires on-site renewable energy. The user of the
rating system can then decide whether or not to implement on-
site renewable energy. It's the user's choice.
In a standard written in mandatory language, such as 189.1,
if on-site renewable energy is in the mandatory section, it's
required for all buildings and is not a choice. Although the
requirement was based on PV arrays on the roof, other methods
of meeting the requirement include PV arrays within
fenestration and on opaque walls, PV arrays on racks above
parking or on window shades, solar-thermal hot water systems
located on roofs or elsewhere on the site, or wind turbines
designed for use on roofs or on the ground.
Recognizing that some building projects do not have
sufficient access to solar resources, an exception was added
for buildings located in areas without a certain amount of
annual solar energy for buildings or for buildings shaded by
other buildings or structures, by hills, by mountains, or by
trees. This exempts portions of Western Oregon and Washington,
the upper Midwest, New England, and buildings on shaded sites.
Some of the advantages or disadvantages of renewable- ready
have been discussed. It is also challenging to design for a
renewable energy system before that system is chosen.
The requirement will encourage the least expensive
renewable- ready pathways in infrastructure, and not
necessarily the method that is most appropriate or cost-
effective for that building.
Another disadvantage is that the term ``associated
infrastructure'' in the Standard is not specifically defined.
It's not clear how much detail needs to be included in the
design or on the design drawings.
Renewable-ready can be viewed as an interim solution. The
189.1 Committee made a consensus decision on how far they could
reach with a green building standard given the current state of
renewable energy technologies, including their costs and
designer awareness.
The country's goal should be that the entire sunlit surface
of all future buildings be a converter of sunlight to
electricity or hot water.
In summary, the renewable-ready portion in ASHRAE 189.1 is
a compromise position between cost effectiveness and the
ultimate goal of having on-site renewable energy in all
buildings. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. VanGeem follows:]
Prepared Statement of Martha G. VanGeem
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today. I will
be speaking to you on the subject of ``renewable ready.'' I will
discuss the genesis of renewable-ready requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE/
USGBC/IES Standard 189.1-2009, Standard for the Design of High
Performance Green Buildings, as well as its advantages and
disadvantages.
I have been a member of the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and Standards
Project Committee (SPC) \1\ 189.1 (the committee responsible for
drafting the language in the standard) since its inception in 2006. I
have been a member of ASHRAE since 1984 and have been involved in
standards project committee work at ASHRAE since 1987. However, today I
am speaking for myself and not for ASHRAE nor the SPC 189.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The SPC became a Standing Standards Project Committee (SSPC)
after the standard was published in early 2010. I was a member of SPC
189.1 and am now a member of SSPC 189.1.
Renewable ready--What does this mean?
``Renewable ready'' in ASHRAE 189.1-2009 requires that the building
site include provision for future installation of renewable energy
systems. Specifically, the language from ASHRAE 189.1-2009 states:
7.3.2 On-Site Renewable Energy Systems. Building projects
shall provide for the future installation of on-site renewable
energy systems with a minimum rating of 3.7 W/ft2 or
13 Btu/h . ft2 (40 W/m2) multiplied by
the total roof area in ft2 (m2). Building
projects design shall show allocated space and pathways for
installation of on-site renewable energy systems and associated
infrastructure.
Exception: Building projects that have an annual daily average
incident solar radiation available to a flat plate collector
oriented due south at an angle from horizontal equal to the
latitude of the collector location less than 4.0 kWh/m2
. day, accounting for existing buildings, permanent
infrastructure that is not part of the building project,
topography, or trees, are not required to provide for future
on-site renewable energy systems.
ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1-2009, Standard for the
Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings, American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
(www.ashrae.org).
The intent of this provision is to assure that the building design
includes a plan to accommodate future installations of common renewable
energy systems such as photovoltaic, solar thermal, or wind. By
definition in ASHRAE 189.1-2009, on-site renewable energy systems also
include geothermal energy but not the energy associated with ground-
source heat pumps. The requirement is for the building design documents
to indicate the space, pathways, conduit, and piping for the planned
future renewable energy system.
Why a requirement for renewable ready and not a renewable energy
requirement?
The Compromise. The renewable ready requirements were appealing to
the committee because renewable energy is expensive and therefore less
cost effective when compared to other energy-saving measures required
by the standard. While cost-effectiveness was not a criteria for
requirements in the standard, the future usability of the standard is
somewhat dependent on practicality and economics. The committee members
and the participating public\2\ had a spectrum of views on this issue--
from mandating that a portion of energy from all buildings be renewable
to not having a mandatory requirement due to the cost of these systems.
The renewable-ready requirements were included as a compromise
position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The committee before publication had up to 34 members with some
being added and removed at various times. The meetings of the committee
were open to the public. Four public review drafts of the standard
received over 2800 comments from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis of this compromise position was that once a building is
constructed, the future installation of such systems could be
prohibitively expensive even if the costs of the systems themselves
decrease. Installation of these systems as a retrofit in an existing
building is more expensive if the initial building design did not
account for additional structural loads or did not provide readily
available space for the renewable system and its pathways, conduit, and
piping. Accounting for structural loads and providing space for these
systems in initial building design reduces the cost compared to adding
them to the building in the future. In addition, the capital costs of
renewable systems are expected to decline as their use increases. Costs
are anticipated to decrease due to production on a larger scale and
technological improvements that are gained from mass scale production.
Mandatory provisions versus a rating system. In addition, the
structure of the standard, with mandatory, prescriptive, and
performance requirements, lent itself to the renewable-ready
requirement compared to a rating system such as LEED-NC.
ASHRAE 189.1-2009 is written in mandatory language\3\ so that the
requirements are clear and it can be adopted by building codes and used
in design specifications. ASHRAE 189.1-2009 is currently a
jurisdictional compliance option of the International Green
Construction Code (IgCC) TM, which is a model code under
development by the International Code Council (ICC) \4\. As a document
in mandatory language, ASHRAE 189.1-2009 differs significantly from the
LEED \5\ family of point-based rating systems wherein one or more
points are achieved for implementing a measure. In point-based rating
systems, any particular measure generally does not need to be
implemented. Historically, the least expensive measures are implemented
and more expensive measures are ignored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ It is not a guide or guideline, which often contain advice,
considerations, or background information. ASHRAE will soon publish a
user's manual for ASHRAE 189.1-2009 with this type of guidance.
\4\ www.iccsafe.org
\5\ www.usgbc.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely, codes or standards written in mandatory language
generally have two paths. All projects must comply with either (1) all
mandatory plus all prescriptive requirements (the prescriptive path),
or (2) all mandatory plus all performance requirements (the performance
path). The prescriptive path generally offers a simpler method of
compliance with little or no calculations whereas the performance path
often involves complex calculations.
In a rating system, it is straightforward to have a point that
requires on-site renewable energy requirements. The user of the rating
system can then decide whether or not to implement on-site renewable
energy; it is the user's choice.
In a standard written in mandatory language, such as ASHRAE 189.1-
2009, the implications are different than in a rating system. If on-
site renewable energy is in the mandatory section of the standard, it
is then required for all buildings complying with the standard and is
not a choice. ASHRAE 189.1-2009 has a requirement in the prescriptive
section 7.4.1.1 for on-site renewable energy systems (with an exception
for shaded buildings) but no such requirement in the mandatory or
performance sections.
Previous unpublished versions. The 189.1 committee through ASHRAE
released four drafts for public review. The 2nd public review draft
included a mandatory requirement for on-site renewable energy power
systems:
7.3.2 On-site Renewable Energy Power Systems. Building
projects shall contain on-site renewable energy power systems
with an electrical rating not less than 1.0% of the service
overcurrent protection device rating. The rating of the on-site
renewable energy power system shall be the nameplate rating in
kVA (dc).
Exceptions to 7.3.2:
(a) Building projects with an on-site solar water
heating system that provides 100% of the domestic hot
water needs or has a peak capacity equivalent to not
less than 2.5% of the service overcurrent protection
device rating for the building project. The system
shall be certified in accordance with SRCC OG-100.
(b) Building projects that demonstrate compliance
using the Performance Option in 7.5 and provide any
combination of energy cost and CO2e savings
achieving a minimum of 10.0% total.
ASHRAE Proposed Standard 189.1P, Standard for
the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except
Low-Rise Residential Buildings, Second Public Review,
February 2008, American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
(www.ashrae.org).
This required that (1) approximately 1% of the energy use of the
building be renewable, (2) as an exception, approximately 2.5% of the
energy use be solar-thermal (at the solar-thermal peak) or solar-
thermal provide all of the hot water needs, or (3) as an exception, the
building had to save additional energy. In response to comments from
the public reviews and a change in some of the members of the
committee, the committee changed the language to the current language
in the 2009 standard, previously cited.
Although it must be recognized that each member of a committee
votes yes or no for a particular reason that is generally not
documented, the issues with the mandatory language from the 2nd public
review were threefold.
First, to many on the committee, the requirement for on-site
renewable energy was a severe cost burden. These members expressed
opinions that each dollar that could be invested in on-site renewable
could be invested in other energy-saving measures that were much more
cost-effective. Those in favor of mandatory renewable energy
requirements expressed opinions that mandatory on-site renewable energy
requirements were in place in some European countries and that the way
to drive down costs of renewable energy is to mandate it. Once
mandated, costs would come down due to volume efficiencies and
technological gains as demand increased. Furthermore, in order to meet
the goal of net-zero energy buildings, on-site renewable energy will be
necessary. Therefore, requiring a small amount now will cause designers
to start incorporating on-site renewable energy systems and experience
will be gained.
Second, the alternative requirement for 2.5% solar-thermal in the
first exception seemed like a large amount for some buildings. Also,
the requirement for 100% of the hot water demand seemed problematic for
times when and locations where the solar-thermal has traditionally been
required to have conventional back-up hot water.
Third, the alternate requirement for increased energy savings in
the second exception meant that a whole building energy analysis would
need to be performed. Without this provision, the standard allowed a
prescriptive path that did not require a whole building energy
analysis. These analyses generally cost at least $30,000 and often
considerably more. It also seemed burdensome to require these analyses
for building projects that did not have adequate access to solar or
wind resources--the most common sources of renewable energy.
As a result, the committee developed the renewable-ready text in
the mandatory section as a less-expensive, compromise position. Since
the prescriptive section has requirements for on-site renewable energy
(with an exception for shaded buildings), the only way to avoid using
on-site renewable energy generation when using ASHRAE 189.1-2009 is to
use the more complicated energy performance path.
More on what renewable ready requires
The phrase ``renewable ready'' does not occur in the mandatory
requirements in section 7.3.2 of ASHRAE 189.1-2009. To meet the
mandatory requirement, provided above, the building design drawings
must show allocated space, pathways, and associated infrastructure for
generating electricity or solar-thermal of 3.7 W/ft2, as a
minimum rating, multiplied by the roof area.
Whereas the 2nd public review draft considered approximately 1%
generation of energy from on-site renewables as sufficient, the
requirement in ASHRAE 189.1-2009 is based on how many photovoltaic
arrays could reasonably be placed on a roof. This was calculated by
assuming that photovoltaic arrays generate approximately 8 to 10 W/
ft2, and that slightly less than 50% of the roof area is
available for photovoltaic arrays, assuming the other 50% of the roof
space is for pathways and mechanical equipment. Although the
calculation is based on photovoltaic arrays on a roof, the renewable
energy source can be placed anywhere on the site. For a one-story
building, the 3.7 W/ft2 requirement can be 30% or more of
the energy use of the building. For some one-story buildings, the
renewable-ready requirement is three times more than that required in
the prescriptive path. ASHRAE is currently in the process of changing
the renewable-ready requirement so that it does not exceed the
requirement in the prescriptive path in section 7.4.1.1 of ASHRAE
189.1-2009.
Although the requirement was calculated based on photovoltaic
arrays on the roof, other methods of meeting the renewable-ready
requirement include provisions for:
Photovoltaic arrays within fenestration and on opaque
walls, although these systems are generally not as efficient as
optimally oriented systems on a roof
Arrays on racks above parking or on window shades
Solar thermal hot water systems located on roofs or
elsewhere on the site
Wind turbines designed for use on roofs or on the
ground
The renewable-ready design for photovoltaic arrays, solar thermal
hot water systems, and wind turbines must account for the additional
structural loads of these systems. Solar-thermal systems require the
design of associated tank(s) and piping between the collectors and the
tanks. Wind turbines on roofs require the structural design of the
building accommodate the appropriate loads and serviceability
requirements, including lateral loads, torsion, and vibration.
Pathways from the energy source to the electrical panel (or to the
point of hot water use for solar-thermal) are required. For
photovoltaic arrays, this requires identifying pathways for the
conduits from the arrays to the inverter, and then from the inverter to
the electrical panel. Shading of one portion of an array can lead to
significant losses in power generation from other arrays when they are
connected in series. Therefore, shade is an important consideration
when designing a photovoltaic system.
Exception to the renewable-ready requirement
Recognizing that some buildings projects do not have sufficient
access to solar resources, an exception was added for buildings located
in areas without specified amounts of annual solar energy and for
buildings shaded by other buildings or structures, hills or mountains
(topography), or trees. Specifically, it exempts building projects that
have an annual daily average incident solar radiation, measured a
specific way, of less than 4.0 kWh/m2 . day. This exempts
portions of western Oregon and Washington, the upper Midwest, and New
England, as shown below.
Additional advantages and disadvantages
In addition to the advantages and disadvantages of renewable-ready
previously discussed, it is challenging to design for a renewable
energy system before that system is chosen. The renewable-ready
requirement will encourage the least expensive ``renewable ready''
pathways and infrastructure and not necessarily the renewable energy
method that is most appropriate or cost effective for that building.
Another disadvantage is that the term ``associated infrastructure'' in
the standard is not specifically defined. It is not clear how much
detail needs to be included in the design or on the design drawings.
Renewable ready can be viewed as an interim solution. The 189.1
committee made a determination on how far they could reach with a green
building standard given the current state of renewable energy
technologies--their costs, designer awareness, existing laws, and
financial incentives. To meet the longer term objective of on-site
energy generation, the U.S. government could support greater research
in photovoltaic cells that can be applied/installed as the surface for
all building materials, with the possible exception of vision glazing.
The country's goal should be that the entire sunlit surface of all
future buildings should be converting sunlight and daylight in general
to power (e.g. electricity) or thermal energy (e.g. domestic water
heating or swimming pool heating).
The U.S. government could also require that all new federal
buildings, as well as substantial remodels to existing buildings, have
on-site renewable energy power generation. This percentage could be
steadily increasing over time.
In summary, the renewable-ready option in ASHRAE Standard 189.1-
2009 is a compromise between cost-effectiveness and the ultimate goal
of having on-site renewable energy in all buildings.
Biography for Martha G. VanGeem
Martha VanGeem is a principal engineer and manager of CTLGroup's
Building Science and Sustainability Group. She serves as a project
principal investigator and specialized in-house consultant in the areas
of green buildings and infrastructure, energy efficiency, energy codes,
thermal mass, mass concrete, and moisture migration. Since joining
CTLGroup in 1982, her experience has included over 500 large and small
consulting, testing, and research projects. Ms. VanGeem has
investigated moisture problems and performed energy analyses for
numerous concrete, steel and wood framed buildings. In the area of
sustainability, Ms. VanGeem serves as principal investigator on LEED
TM projects and others, and has developed environmental
life-cycle inventories (LCIs) and life-cycle assessments (LCAs) of
cement, concrete, and other construction products. Ms. VanGeem is a
licensed professional engineer, a LEED TM Accredited
Professional, and a Registered Energy Professional for the city of
Chicago. She received her bachelor's degree of civil engineering from
the University of Illinois-Urbana and her MBA from the University of
Chicago. She is a member of many energy and green building standards
committees including ASHRAE energy standards (SSPC 90.1 and SSPC 90.2),
ASHRAE/USGBC/IES High Performance Green Building Standard (SSPC 189.1),
the GBI Green Building Standards Energy and Resources Subcommittees,
ACI 130, and ASTM E60. She presents on various aspects of green
buildings on a regular basis, and has authored 93 articles and
published reports. Two of her articles have won awards--the Charles C.
Zollman Award from the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute in 2006
and the F. Ross Brown Award from Construction Canada in 2005.
Discussion
Mr. Carnahan. And I want to start. I'll recognize myself
for five minutes to start, and then we'll switch back and forth
between myself and Congresswoman Biggert.
Economic Considerations and Job Creation
I guess I want to focus a little bit on what Mr. Cheifetz's
talked about with regard to impact and the economy. I think
it's important. We all talk about so many benefits. We've heard
about benefits to the kids in school, to the environment, the
bottom line of companies. I guess the thing I want to ask--and
I'll start with Mr. Cheifetz, since you make the point so
well--the impact on the economy and jobs and local firms. We've
seen lots of statistics about so many of the technologies and
equipment that have been put in these high-performance
buildings and pilots that are made by U.S. small companies. And
the more we're encouraging the use of these products, the more
telling those small companies are in their creating of jobs,
and the multiplier effect of that. But I guess I want to ask
every one of you to just focus on the job creation
possibilities that are involved with many of these
technologies, and how we'd be best to run that.
Mr. Cheifetz. Thank you. Our view of it, and our
experience, has been that these systems drive a lot of jobs in
a lot of different areas. They drive direct construction jobs.
What we're doing is that we're taking people who are now, let's
say, underemployed in the construction sector, and whether it's
retraining water well drillers to do geothermal, whether it's
getting construction people back in the field to do work, these
projects get people back to work and create new jobs, because
we're talking about a new kind of energy infrastructure, and
new skills and jobs are required. We've seen that with our own
experience here in the Chicago area.
At the same time, it pulls a lot of work from existing
trades. The folks who do HVAC work are doing retrofits. All
these things have an additive effect that is significant in
terms of job creation. In addition, we create jobs in
engineering and technology, as well, because as you heard, we
invest a lot in our own folks to develop the instrumentation
and systems that are needed. And then, as we enable other firms
that we work with to get back to work and do more work, that
just brings more people to the table. It seems that there's no
question that we want and need these technologies. We've just
been waiting to see how we can do it. As we unlock that door,
we're going to see thousands, we think tens and tens of
thousands of jobs, being created in rather short order.
We're not talking about a new infrastructure that has to be
put in place to transmit energy. We're not talking about
something that has to be created over five or ten years. And
we're not talking about systems that require long payback
periods. The payback periods of the systems, especially with
the American Recovery and Investment Act incentives, are now
under five years. So, even the most risk-averse and capital-
constrained firms, whether public or private, see their way to
make this investment in a very short term.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. Start with Mr. Ostafi.
Mr. Ostafi. I think one of the interesting things about
renewable energy is that many of these systems are manufactured
all over the world, I think the least of which is here in the
United States. I mentioned, and other people on the panel here
have mentioned, the manufacturing process of renewable energy.
Let's take PV, for an example. If it could be optimized and
made more efficient, could we possibly be manufacturing more
solar panels here in the United States as opposed to being
manufactured in China or elsewhere?
I think the manufacturing process of PV is one of the
reasons it makes it so expensive. So, if there are some
technological breakthroughs that can allow us to make that
process less expensive, bring more of those panel manufacturers
here in the United States, I think that's an opportunity to
create more jobs. I think you can take that argument and apply
it towards wind turbines, curtain wall system facades, and many
other things mentioned here today.
But that's certainly an opportunity to bring more jobs
here.
On the installation and maintenance side, a lot of these
systems require people with skills that don't necessarily
translate from traditional mechanical and electrical and
ventilation system opportunities. So, is there a way to train
new workforce that specifically has knowledge for portable
tanks or for wind turbines for solar thermal applications? So
that they can verify commission and install those different
systems here in the U.S. and create new jobs for our diverse
new use of componentry?
Mr. Carnahan. I see my time is up, so I'm going to
recognize Congresswoman Biggert for five minutes.
Technology Demonstration to Commercialization
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just thinking back, and having been on the Science
Committee since 1999, it's taken a while to get to this point
where you're all here and we're hearing so much about the
environment and the high-performance building, which is great.
But, again, I'd like to know--well, I know we did the EPAct in
2000--that was a bill in 2005, which really was looking at the
alternatives of alternative energy and how we were going to do
this. And I can remember having a meeting at Argonne with the
then-Secretary Bodman and looking at the fuel cells and how big
they were and saying, ``How soon can you get them small enough
to, you know, fit in a car?'' And I think talking about the
fuel cells and the stationary fuel cells was kind of like maybe
we skipped that and we went right to vehicles and how to do
that.
And this is off story, but what can we do now to really
move forward with this in this economy to really--what's
happening why we aren't--you know, this is so important now
that people, I think, realize in the school districts and
people that are, you know, building a home are realizing they
can do more, and the commercial buildings. But how do we get
from the demonstration technology? You know, we always talk
about, in the--so many of the companies that are starting, and
they've got their research labs and universities or are
developing themselves, but then they get to what we call the
value gap. You know, the demonstration, but they can't quite
push over to the commercialization of these technologies, and
some of them go under because of lack of capital. So, how do we
move from that to--and I don't know who wants to try and get
into that, but----
Dr. Chamberlain. I'll take a stab at that. That's a very
big question. I think that's why we're all hesitating here.
Thanks for that question.
Coming from industry into the laboratory, I notice that
same gap, and several of us notice that same gap; that valley
of death that exists, particularly for high-technology products
like the ones in this field, and also particularly when you
look at the difficulty of the economy that we're in currently.
My personal belief is, the answer is investing in a way
that's sensible. And by that, what I mean, particularly coming
from a laboratory perspective, is if Congress, through the
Department of Energy, continues to invest in technologies like
the ones described in the panel today, it can be done in a way
that directly engages industry to shorten that gap, to bridge
that valley of death, to encourage the collaboration directly
with industry and the performance of R&D. That, in short, would
be my answer to a number of ideas that are methods and vehicles
that are contractual vehicles that are demonstrated to move
high-tech R&D at Argonne and other labs and universities
directly to industry through one-on-one collaborations.
Mrs. Biggert. It was interesting what you said in your
testimony, that we're really trying to use technology that was
developed for something else to make it apply to something
rather than starting with an idea and carrying it through for
that particular need. How can we change that? I--you know,
we've had the America COMPETES Act, and we passed that out of
our Committee and out of the House, but it hasn't gone through
the Senate, and probably will not this year as we start over
again. That's, you know, where we really are looking at; the
innovation and creativity that we need to do this.
Mr. Cheifetz. If I may give it a shot.
A few things, frankly, is that, whether you're public or
private, decision-makers don't like risk and they don't like
uncertainty. So I think it's great that this Committee and
Subcommittee is developing a shared language and a shared
vision, that people can start having confidence in going
forward. And that's very important, because I hate to put it
this way, but when it comes to business or the public, when
mommy and daddy are fighting, everybody's paralyzed.
So we need to know, as soon as possible, that we have
enough of a consensus and a shared vision and the will to go
forward year over year and decade after decade, if possible, to
get us from here to there. It would help us with things like
access to capital because, as you know, that's frozen up right
now, and it's for that reason.
So if we could develop a shared language that we could
commit to that still allowed us to be faithful to our own
principles, I don't see why that's not possible. If we could
give the finance community an understanding that these are
investments that we're serious about and that are safe and have
good returns, and if we could identify some specific and
realistic, pragmatic things that we can do in common to get
things done and prove them out in short term to build our
confidence, that would bring more capital to the market in, I
think, a whole new way.
So it's not a one-answer-fits-all, but I think it's a set
of small things that we can do. We're in a dynamic now that's
not moving, and sometimes very subtle things can make a very
big difference. If you look at this panel, you've got a world-
class architectural firm, you have a true user representing
schools across the country, you have people talking about
storage technology--and we know that the ground is a leaky
storage battery--and we have the evolution of standards right
here at this one table. You have a microcosm of how we can make
a difference and go forward. I think that's going to be
required to really, kind of, crack the door open. And then,
with your help, I'm sure we can go forward.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
Okay. Ms. VanGeem.
Ms. VanGeem. Well, coming from the codes and standards
arena, I would say that you could continue to help push
renewable requirements and energy codes and standards. All
high-performance building requirements take methods that are
available and not common and push them to be more common.
And, as we heard, energy saved over the life of the school
or the company can then be used to help that school do other
investments, or help the company hire more people or do more
research itself.
So, the only other thing I could think of would be some
sort of tax incentives or financial incentives for the
buildings that do go ahead and do this large, initial cost;
this would be helpful.
Mrs. Biggert. It's interesting that, in 2005, there were
those, but people didn't use them.
Mr. Lopez.
Mr. Lopez. Just from the applications that I've said,
educating the end user is a key component, particularly when
you're talking about--you know, speaking from the school
segment. They represent a large segment of our community, and
then I think as they become educated in the benefits to
renewable resources in research and technology, by leveraging
their combined power/buying power, will have an influence on
R&D.
You know, just small examples, I know the Illinois
Department of Energy currently has a LEED for Schools project,
and I think having that component, which combines energy
efficiency with the educational segment, I think that also
tends to drive our need, recognizing that schools want to be
part of that, and the industry sees that, and they develop
based on those needs.
But just building on a small scale. We get to our high
school, we were interested in using highly recycled content in
our products, and the manufacturer that produced the brick
block for our building didn't have that available at the time,
but he went ahead and retooled his manufacturing process to
incorporate a higher recycled content in his product, and we
forwarded that and marketed that as part of his product.
So I think end users, with their ability to leverage their
combined resources, can make a difference on the R&D side, as
well.
Public Education and Community Engagement
Mrs. Biggert. Just one follow-up to that, if I might.
I would assume that you had a referendum. The school
district?
Mr. Lopez. Yes, we did.
Mrs. Biggert. And that passed.
Mr. Lopez. It did pass.
Mrs. Biggert. The first time.
Mr. Lopez. It passed the first time, with the highest
margin the second time.
Mrs. Biggert. So you educated--the end user would be the
homeowners.
Mr. Lopez. Correct. Again, as we went through the process,
it was an educational component for everybody involved, because
it was early 2000, and we were fairly new, as far as the
community and the public. And, so, a big process of
implementing green technology was to educate the public to a
greener use, as well as the senior leadership administration.
Mrs. Biggert. Well, you're very good at it. We were at your
school.
Mr. Lopez. Thank you.
Mrs. Biggert. I know firsthand.
I hand it back.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
I want to follow up on that. So, when this was sold to the
voters, part of that incorporated the new technologies in that
campaign?
Mr. Lopez. It was a component--or, I mean, there was a
multifaceted campaign. It was obviously new in the area to
build new. Part of that, though, was to demonstrate how we
could develop new efficiently and effectively. And, again, the
whole challenge brought about through the Design Committee--at
the time, I was involved in the design end. We brought that to
the owners of the community, that we were interested in
pursuing something that was cutting edge in terms of applying
technologies. And, so, it was a component of the entire cell of
the referendum. I think maybe it was not very much aware, at
all, of green technology like most communities at the time,
and, so, there was an opportunity there to raise that awareness
during the course of the design process.
Mr. Carnahan. And I bet there are a lot of other
communities that are thinking about this that would like to
know how you did that. I know because, certainly, that can be
the important part of getting community volume, which can make
a big difference.
Mr. Lopez. Absolutely. And, you know, you look at the--we
continue to sell energy efficiency to our community. As I go
around, I talk to the financial benefits and savings to the
taxpayers. Essentially, they look at us as a consumer of their
tax money, and the things we point out are actually savings. We
have a sheet from year to year. Just simply last year, from
2009 to the fiscal year 2010, we've seen a 30 percent savings
in electric bills by employing new technology in our school
district, and that sells well to our taxpayers.
Renewable-Ready Building Standard
Mr. Carnahan. I want to ask the--Ms. VanGeem laid out the
case for the renewable-ready standards, and I want to get the
other panel members thoughts about that.
Ms. VanGeem. So, actually, the renewable-ready is in the
mandatory part of the standard. In the prescriptive part,
you're actually required to use renewables, unless you're in
one of these shaded areas or darker areas, areas with less
solar--and then you have to use it, unless you're going to do
the performance path, which requires a lot of calculations. And
the same thing is in the IECC that just passed--the hearings
were a week or so ago. The next version of that's going to
require either renewable or more efficient equipment or some
other options. And there's other state codes and municipal
codes that do the same thing; that you either have to be
renewable or do something else; such as save a lot more energy
in the building.
And, so, as we make those things in the options harder,
renewable will become the easier choice, and I think that's
where it's going.
Mr. Carnahan. Other panel members on that?
Mr. Cheifetz. Yeah. I think it's important, from our
experience, that the standards and regulations be driven at
least as much by the market than by other places. We've seen,
even with things like LEED, that when there's a disconnection
between the desire to come up with the right kind of
prescriptive solution and the actual things, like energy
efficiency in buildings, there can be a disconnect. They can
also confuse the market, and what we need in the market is
confidence, we need capacity, and we need to fix a fee
affordable in terms of cost. And that's where I think we need
to be more creative about how to develop these standards in a
way that can instill that confidence and help create that
capacity.
One thing that we can do better, for instance, is we could
utilize the national labs, I think, in a more effective way
from the private sector, not only in terms of using and
commercializing what they develop on the science side, but also
getting them--having them help us vet and educate the world
about--what are the real-world working solutions, and how they
do work. So, instead of it being theoretical, take it down to
practical applications, where the national labs would have a
lot of authority and are believed as such by lots of people.
If they could look at situations where these technologies
have been deployed, evaluate them qualitatively, and then give
their objective report on ``What has saved money? What's
accessible? What's renewable-ready?'' Without having to re-
invent the whole world, we probably could start getting case
studies in the marketplace rather quickly, and they won't have
to be one size fits all. We could have many things, but the
national labs, if they could, could, I think, help us a lot to
educate and inform the market, and help companies like ours
quite a bit.
Dr. Chamberlain. Obviously, the last part I agree with, but
the first part of your point I would strongly agree with. If
the standards and needs in the long term teach the users and
our government the long-term financial benefit, then there's a
real purpose for the standards. Even though you know I'm a
scientist, I would say I'm a capitalist at heart. So as long as
it's correctly crafted to benefit the business, not only
directly from the standards themselves, or policy, but also
that it's recognized and put together in a way that, in the
long term, it really does educate the user as to the long-term
benefit financially.
Mr. Lopez. Just to the point of some standards--we'll need
standards as the basis for introducing the rules. I agree with
the statements that it's important to have the standards
reflect the use of renewable technologies. I do think they
shouldn't be too prescriptive. I like the concept of where
states are going towards requiring, let's say, a LEED silver
certification for new construction in new schools, and I think,
again, that reflects on the interest of having public funds
going towards something that's a very sustainable investment.
But being too prescriptive, saying exactly what needs to be
done, doesn't allow the flexibility for the design committee to
come up with different alternatives, and sometimes even more
creative alternatives, to what can be applied to a particular
situation.
Renewable-Ready Buildings
Mr. Ostafi. I would just like to add, I think, from a
design community perspective, to this day, we still have many
clients that want renewable energy systems integrated into
their buildings, and, for a myriad of reasons that we have
discussed today, they don't get incorporated today, but they
still want that ability to plug into renewable energy later.
And I think providing renewable-ready standards for projects
built today makes a tremendous amount of sense, because the
last thing we want ten years from now, when renewable energy
systems become less expensive to manufacture, less expensive to
install, the last thing we want are a bunch of buildings which
are obsolete, that cannot incorporate them into their existing
infrastructure.
So I think it makes a tremendous amount of sense, as we
think ahead towards net-zero buildings, which there's a big
push towards their greenhouse gas emission inventories. I think
we need buildings built today that are renewable-ready for
tomorrow.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you all. I'll go back to Mrs. Biggert.
The Most Effective Measures Toward Efficient Schools
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lopez, you are, I think, very fortunate to have such a
community and be able to build a school like that, but there's
an awful lot of school districts that don't have the resources
to institute a complete range of sustainable building measures
and practices. But they must be able to do some things to lend
them to becoming green. How can they do that? What are some of
the highest leverage or lowest cost measures that we can take
to improve building energy use and efficiency that somebody in
the building could do.
Mr. Lopez. Sure. So, with regards to non-renewables, those
are more, ``Turn your lights off.'' Simple as that. I think a
lot of what we encounter are behavioral issues, like how people
go to work and expectations of having a room being more
comfortable than they might have their own house. I think when
they're home, they turn the heat down or they turn the lights
off, but I think that behavior is not always prevalent in the
public places or places of employment.
And, so, kind of reteaching that or making people aware of
the impact of that in the workforce and in the community is
well met. Again, that's something we've done recently as part
of our savings. I mentioned that we saw a 30 percent reduction
in our utility bills this last year, and a large part was just
behavioral change. Telling 2,500 employees that, you know,
``We're going to make the building a little cooler in the
winter, a little warmer in the summer. And, you know, we're
going to ask that you--we're going to start turning lights off
for you at certain times of the day. We're going to turn the
computers off.''
You know, some of these things, it's just change in
behavior. So there's low or no cost to some of these
implementations. And, as we go forward, part of this program
that we have is to take those low-end group type of elements,
try to find a substantial savings where we can adopt little
cost, and I think, for a lot of school districts and a lot of
municipalities, the employees are given initiatives such as
that without a lot of cost upfront.
Mrs. Biggert. What would be some obstacles to these
measures?
Mr. Lopez. Buy-in of the senior leadership.
Mrs. Biggert. Uh-huh.
Mr. Lopez. That's a key component. I'm sure a lot of school
districts, municipalities, a lot of commercial buildings, a lot
employ these types of things, but if you don't have a senior
leadership or the senior administration on board with that,
it's difficult to implement some of these features.
And, so, that's sort of a process that's part of the--
what's important to the processes is, backing the education
component, is making the senior leadership or senior
administration aware of some of the advantages of these types
of elements. And I think money speaks when people start to hear
the benefits that we derive from energy efficiency. It gets
their attention.
We've taken the show on the road, so to speak, with
identifying energy opportunities as part of that written packet
that you have. And you can see there's a lot of different areas
where we're able to save money; simple things, like putting
frequency drives on motors, looking at more efficient
mechanical equipment. All these things behind us really save a
substantial amount of money, and they don't always cost a lot
of money upfront. There's a lot of room out there to do things
before large capital investments, and that's part of the
message we're trying to get out, is to know how to do things at
low cost or no cost.
Social-Behavioral Factors
Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Ostafi, you emphasized in your testimony
the human factor, the behavioral factors in a building design
such as the use of lights and windows or opening windows.
Somebody like the big buildings here in Chicago or wherever,
you can't open them. Will that change, or what are those kind
of factors?
Mr. Ostafi. I would like to think that that will change.
The reason why many high-rise buildings, for example, do not
have operable windows is because the building itself is heated
and cooled through a central system that takes care of the
whole building at once and tries to maintain a sort of even-
keel temperature and humidity in the building at all times.
There's also a pressure differential issue that comes into
play in high-rise buildings that sometimes prohibits the use of
opening windows, because the pressure differential between the
outside atmosphere and the inside atmosphere become very
different.
Mrs. Biggert. I think that there is a new building in
Chicago, The Legacy, that's being built that will have windows
that open.
Mr. Ostafi. I think that there are ways to make it happen.
You have to rethink the way we heat and cool large buildings.
We need more sophisticated sensors and measurements and
verification systems throughout buildings that can constantly
take the pressure and the humidity levels and temperature at
all times in the building in various locations.
If we apply more of a zone or a systems type of look at the
way we heat and cool individual spaces, that could introduce
natural ventilation into buildings more. But I think, to get to
your earlier point of the human factor, when we design
buildings--engineers and architects--we rely on a lot of
information that, quite frankly, is outdated. We think that
people will open windows when it's 70 to 72 degrees outside and
60 percent humidity--you know, the perfect, ideal, human
temperature conditions--and what we're learning, as I
articulated earlier--is that people open windows in much more
extremes than that. In fact, at night, when it's cool.
So I think what I was getting to earlier was a lot of more
current research needs to be done about what is truly
comfortable for humans and in today's standards and in
different environments and different regions across the U.S.,
because I think that the window of opportunity, no pun
intended, is open. Ventilated buildings are much broader than
what we're currently using today.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. I give back.
Curtain Wall Systems and Exterior Glass
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
I wanted to go back to Mr. Ostafi. You had mentioned in
your written testimony, and oral, as well, the need for
research in the area of curtain wall systems or exterior glass
for buildings. Who is really doing the cutting-edge research in
that right now, and can you describe some of those
technologies?
Mr. Ostafi. Much to our own chagrin, the Swiss are doing
the most innovative products in that regard, and Europe, and I
would say that's true for a lot of the systems that we're
talking about today. A lot of renewable energy systems are much
more efficient than what we're utilizing here in the United
States exists in Europe, and they've been used for decades,
since the '80s. What is causing that leap of that technology to
be incorporated into the United States manufacturing and our
own products? I don't have the answer to that. Maybe some other
panelists do.
What I was articulating about curtain wall systems earlier
is a product that is available in Europe, and my point was that
curtain wall systems, glass facades are the worst violator of
thermal conductivity in a building, yet we like glass because
it allows us to view and brings in natural light; all the
qualitative aspects of being in spaces.
So some of the innovative technologies that I see happening
in other countries are curtain wall systems which are able to,
through phase-change properties, absorb solar gain when it's
not needed and able to transmit so they're gaining through a
glass wall when it is needed. And there are ways to sort of
regulate how that transfer of energy happens through a window
system. There are solar-optic window systems that mitigate
direct light coming into buildings which cause glare, which,
again, is an uncomfortable human factor.
So there are these technologies and systems that certainly
exist and are in use, but just not cost-effective to
incorporate in the United States.
Mr. Carnahan. I know, even, there's a St. Louis-based,
small company that has actual window shades to do some of that
in maybe a more low-tech----
Mr. Ostafi. Yes.
Mr. Carnahan. --way, but I'd be interested to hear from any
of the other panel members about their experience or knowledge
about those kinds of systems.
Ms. VanGeem. I think----
Mr. Carnahan. Ms. VanGeem.
Ms. VanGeem. Yes. I think that, as you travel abroad, or as
I've traveled abroad, I notice that in Europe and in China and
other places, each person really takes this whole concept of
saving energy personally, and I don't know if it's because
their disposable income is lower or what, but I agree that
we've seen studies that 50 percent of energy use is behavioral,
as he stated.
And I do want to emphasize that these all-glass facades are
some of the biggest energy hogs. And, before you asked the
question, I was going to say that, you know, we can control the
day-lighting just by opening and shutting the curtains and
different things that are behavioral that we don't do in this
country.
And, so, you can limit the amount of glazing to 20 to 30
percent of the window-to-wall ratio and still get enough
daylight harvest area where you can use controls to reduce your
lighting. So you don't need this hundred percent glass facade;
you can use 20 to 30 percent glass, and then get enough day-
lighting that you can turn off the lights.
Mr. Carnahan. Any others?
Mr. Ostafi. I would just add, you mentioned sort of what we
would call passive strategies, Congressman Carnahan, and that
are low-tech solutions to some of these problems. And we're
looking at ways to incorporate portable panes as solar shading
devices on the exterior of buildings.
So we're constantly looking for ways for renewable energy
sources to perform, sort of, double-duty. Can they harness
energy and provide shading at the same time? Yes, they can, and
we can do that. I think that's the challenge for us as
scientists, engineers, planners, administrators, is to look at
ways for renewable energy systems to perform double-duty, to
perform capabilities of doing more than just what their face
value is.
Mr. Cheifetz. But we have to work on the double engine of
market force and some regulation, because I think we've all had
the experience of designing a beautifully efficient and also
lovely building and have that all be value-engineered out when
it comes down to the budget and getting the building built. And
it often comes down to that issue, at the end, of people
shaving money, and they're shaving, really, the wrong thing.
We have to change their perception of what they are allowed
and not allowed to do by their tenants, by their owners, by
their purchasers, by their investors, to know that they're not
allowed to do that anymore. Whether it's, you know, bad glass
or inefficient heating systems or poor design, cutting corners
is just unacceptable. And now that it's more difficult to build
lower-quality things in a more demanding environment, that's
helping, but it's just one of the things that we have to keep
attention on, because, by itself, things sink down to the
lowest common denominator in the market.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Mrs. Biggert.
Next Steps for Policy Makers
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
I guess that reminds me of just like prevention. You have
prevention in health, where you're not going to get sick or
delay something if you know you have a genetic disposition to
something. So it's the same thing with prevention, is how you
show, you know, the real, true savings that you're going to
have after you put the money in upfront, and how long will it
take, I think.
What can we do, as policymakers, to move forward faster?
I know Congressman Carnahan and I have a bill that has been
introduced to really showcase the federal buildings, to show
energy efficiency, and, of course, that's turning off the
lights, but that can lead to a lot more than that. And we have
a bill for the Personnel Training Act, which was to provide
federal workers with the know-how to maintain and to really
sustain high-performance buildings. I don't know whether it's
going to go, but hopefully. It's also in the Senate, so I think
that the Senate has--it's passed the Senate, so hopefully we
will be able to move that forward.
But I don't know if you know anything about the bill; if
it's a good policy or what other policies--there's, you know, a
few other bills that are out there that we're working on. But
how can we move forward, or what would you see that as?
Mr. Lopez. Well, I mean, speaking from an engineer's point
of view, the market deployment is important to cost. I think
making these technologies readily available in the market is
important, because I think the community is ready to implement
these. As I mentioned and you've heard up here before, cost is
preventing a lot of us from doing that.
We recently took advantage of a lot of grant opportunities,
and the State of Illinois has offered a lot of nice grants,
matching grants for funding these type of programs. And it's
actually allowing us to do things that we would not otherwise
be able to do.
For example, we're going to put up a new chiller plant at
one of our schools with a 50 percent match grant from the
state, and that's also allowed us to do a little bit more than
just put in a chiller plant. We're looking at ice generation/
ice storage technology as a part of that.
So, by reducing our cost by maybe 50 percent, and these
other grant components, too, as we brought it to the CEO,
reducing our upfront cost allows us to maybe explore some even
more innovative approaches to what we want to do. Helping us
get our costs down has a significant impact to how we move
forward.
Mrs. Biggert. Glad to see the State of Illinois is funding
some of that right now.
Mr. Lopez. Yeah.
Mrs. Biggert. Yes.
Ms. VanGeem. So, as I said in my written statement, that,
as far as federal policy, one thing that the government could
do would be to mandate that all federal buildings--new federal
buildings or major retrofits--use renewable energy.
And the concept is just to use a small percentage; you'd
get one percent, or something like that, so that we can see
what systems work best and are most cost effective. It doesn't
have to be, something like ten percent, which is actually what
the 189 standard comes out to for most buildings.
So that's what I would recommend.
Mr. Cheifetz. From a policy perspective, it would be
interesting to see you try to help the utilities stay or become
more responsive to these issues instead of saying one thing and
doing another. It would be useful to look at basic regulations
when it comes to building and environmental safety issues,
including water safety, across the board so it's not different
every time you step into another county or jurisdiction.
It would be interesting to see you develop a more clear
conversation about things like federal guarantees. Everything
from the SBA, who, although they try to do the right thing,
have problems at the local level. The banks not knowing exactly
if they are in conformance and not knowing if they can lend
more. So there are many small things. Take as an example the
education sector, which, by itself, if a non-profit's going to
take advantage of the ARRA incentives, that suggests that one
could put together power purchase agreements and energy supply
agreements similar to what's been done in other sectors already
and make those systems available on an energy savings basis to
institutions of learning. That's still an area where that's not
enough understanding, even among large financial institutions,
and they don't have the appetite for looking at things on a
pooled basis, project to project.
So, again, if we could develop a set of qualitative
standards working in concert with the labs and other people--I
don't know if, from a policy perspective, you can do anything
to short-circuit what sometimes happens when we're trying to do
the right thing--but we have a bureaucratic situation where it
has trouble doing it. So policy, and you create teams that try
to break through those issues. But those are the types of
things we'd like to see.
Geothermal Power and DOE Buildings Technology Program
Mrs. Biggert. You said in your testimony that you weren't
clear how--it wasn't clear how well the relocation of the
geothermal R&D activities to the DOE Buildings Technology
Programs. Could you expound on that?
Mr. Cheifetz. Sure. I'm sure we're not the only renewable
energy that has problems finding a home. Ours is particularly
interesting because geothermal is often thought of as being
geothermal power producing electricity, a hot-rock geothermal.
And a ground-source geothermal hasn't gotten the same attention
in the place where the Geothermal Program was. Now it's in
Buildings, which pays a lot of attention to buildings
themselves.
So, if you're talking, for instance, about developing
breakthroughs, specialized building equipment to make it less
expensive to get this infrastructure built in this country, it
would make sense to have that in the Geothermal program.
However, when it comes to what we really do, which is design a
system that combines the building with the ground, that would
probably more properly be in Buildings, but Buildings is
interested now singularly in emerging technologies and not so
much in things that they think of as heat pumps, which I think
I also mentioned. As long as we keep thinking of this renewable
technology as wells, heat pumps, and loops, it's going to be
doomed to get understanding of what its potential is.
So I'm not saying we have to form something new. I think
that the onus is more on us to reach out to those departments
and have more conversations and try to begin some more kinds of
initiatives so they can understand what we're doing and what's
possible. It may be helpful for you to help that dialogue go
forward as a result of some of the hearings we're doing. I
think that would be very useful. So we're caught in a funny
place, but, certainly, there's a way to get something done with
something as straightforward, pragmatic, obvious, and needed as
our little technology that can be deployed everywhere at a very
good return on investment according to the DOE itself.
Mrs. Biggert. I give back.
Vehicle and Stationary Battery Storage Programs at DOE
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
I want to turn to Dr. Chamberlain, to ask you to expand on
your vision as what the stationary battery storage R&D program
ought to look like. We, by most counts, have a pretty
successful vehicle battery program. What part of that Vehicle
Technologies Program could be incorporated, or are they so
different that they really should just be standalone entities?
Can you kind of give us your vision of what that ought to
ideally look like? You know, take advantage of what
advancements have already been in the vehicle arena, but we
could really kick off the stationary research.
Dr. Chamberlain. I can comment on that. Thank you for the
question. In the area of vehicle technologies, energy storage
for transportation purposes, the research across the Argonne
laboratory complex and our international laboratory, Lawrence
Berkeley, are the two heat labs in this area. Their work runs
across the spectrum from very basic research from theoretical
physics of solid state materials up through inventing new
materials--understanding and inventing new materials in the lab
scale with gram quantities, to incorporating those in the small
cells and testing them, to working directly with industry to
make larger quality and quantity materials--or, improved
quality and larger quantity materials for actual testing in
true devices.
And, at Argonne, Argonne is the DOE lab for testing for
performance of vehicle batteries from around the world--the
technology from around the world. Similarly, Sandia does abuse
testing, so they have the kind of bunkers available for
actually destroying and exploding batteries and seeing what
happens during the most catastrophic type of event. And, at
Idaho National Laboratory, they actually do in-vehicle seat
testing.
So the comparison I would make is, in the Vehicle
Technologies Program, energy storage research across the labs
and at universities, we do span the entire spectrum from the
very basic to the full-out, applied, and testing full systems.
By comparison, with regards to stationary storage, right now,
we're only focused on that far end of the spectrum, this
testing validation. As a country, we're relying almost wholly
on companies to develop new technologies or to implement
existing technology for stationary storage.
So, the very fundamental studies, the very basic studies of
how to store energy, whether that's electrochemical or
geothermal, Congresswoman Biggert mentioned earlier that all
the work that went into hydrogen energy storage from the
Vehicle Technology's perspective were last at A+. You could
also store energy in the form of hydrogen. You could convert
energy from wind and solar back into converting water to
hydrogen for use in generating electricity to charge a car in
your home or to charge your home.
So, the point is, that entire spectrum of research from
basic to applied in stationary energy storage does not exist
today in the scope of what's funded out of the Department of
Energy. For the most part, it's focused, because it's a small
program, on implementation. So that's a lack.
And, to your other part of your question, What could we
capitalize on in the other vehicle technologies programs around
the country to enable, say, a more expedited beginning of a new
program in stationary storage? The answer is that the brains
already exist. The electrochemists and the physicists that
think a lot about charge transfer and how to structure a nano
material to get an ion and an electron in and out of a
material, that brain power already exists in the lab. The
ability to test and validate technology already exists in the
lab. The only gates that need to be opened are to open those
minds in a way of actively funding and having the wherewithal
in the political will for long-term investment, to fund the
kind of research dedicated toward looking at new systems that
would absolutely not work for a transportation-related
application, but may be highly effective for a stationary one.
Does that answer the question that you were asking?
Mr. Carnahan. Mostly. I guess what I'm looking for--And
that's good that, sort of, the brains and labs and conceptual
part of that exists. And, I guess, as a practical matter, does
it make sense to have those be two separate entities, or is
that something that could continue in the same program; really
looking at those two different models, the stationary and the
vehicle----
Dr. Chamberlain. Yeah, that's a good----
Mr. Carnahan. --implementation.
Dr. Chamberlain. That is a good question. I don't speak for
my friends at DOE, but the way I phrase it often is that the
folks in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability would love to fund the basic research, in my
opinion. They just don't have the funding, as compared to the
folks in the Office of Vehicle Technologies, who have a very
healthy program, but it's not in the scope of their mission to
worry about any technology that can't be used for
transportation-related research.
So, coming from the funding perspective, I think it has to
come from separate sources. But, in terms of the actual work, I
would say, on the basic side, it does make sense to have the
same physicists, chemists, and engineers looking at it from a
charged transport perspective. But, from the technology
development side, it may or may not reside in the same pocket.
Mr. Carnahan. Because I think we all see the promise of the
science, but, you know, we're dealing with limited funding
sources, and does it make sense to expand their mission to look
beyond the Vehicle Program when we're in the era of limited
resources? And would that be the more cost-effective way for us
to do that.
Dr. Chamberlain. Well, that is a good question. I'll offer
my personal opinion. I think that's why we're here, I guess. I
can't represent all of Argonne, but I believe the answer is,
yes, it does make sense. Almost all of the questions, I think,
center around one central theme, in my opinion, at a higher
level, and that is, ``Does Congress, as a whole unit, or the
federal government, as a unit, have the political will to make
a long-term investment.''
We've heard a lot of versions of what I'm saying here now,
both in your questions and on the panel. And I guess my advice
or plea would be that now is absolutely the right time to do
that. Even in the time of economic difficulty we're facing, if
you look carefully at what's happening in Japan, Korea, China,
and Europe, and the investments being made there, it's a little
frightening, when you consider the automotive industry and the
electronics industry; how all of our manufacturing jobs have
moved to Asia. Right now, there happens to be a perfect storm
brewing for us to actually manufacture these technologies on
American soil. And, rather than talk about the possible
negatives of not jumping on the opportunity early--and, again,
I'm speaking strictly from an energy storage perspective--even
though energy storage is an ancillary need of this overall on-
site renewables question that you're asking, the estimations of
the value, just from a gross domestic product perspective of
energy storage for stationary, range in the low tens to high
tens of billions of dollars, and that's strictly for making and
selling batteries. It doesn't even include the overall
efficiency gains an average consumer or a business would
achieve by having a green building that would put storage as a
piece of it.
And then, if you come at the calculation from a different
perspective and look at kilowatt hours generated in a plant,
say in making batteries, or you could also look at it from
overall sales revenue of a given company, there are public
companies out there where you could do these calculations. The
market possibilities are in the tens of billions. Already there
are examples, like MicroSun Technologies here in Lisle,
Illinois, which is a tens-of-millions-of-dollar revenue company
versus the Johnson Controls staff, which is a multi-billion
dollar, multi-national company.
You can see that companies that earn, like A123 in
Massachusetts, in the tens of millions--low tens of millions
already employ hundreds and low thousands of both factory
workers and high-end engineering- and scientist-type jobs;
high, million-dollar jobs. Because you've just projected, on
the back of the envelope, to the potential for the market,
you're looking at an enormous infrastructure for jobs being
created in this country.
I've gone off tangent a little bit from your question.
Mr. Carnahan. That's okay. And I've gone over time, and I
just want to--I'd like to be able to follow up this kind of
information that I think my colleague and I would love to have
in hand to be able to continue this conversation with our
colleagues, to help make the case for some of this continued
research, and do we need to do a separate program or expand the
mission of some of these existing programs.
And I give it to you.
Siting Energy Storage R&D in Federal Agencies
Mrs. Biggert. I guess, following up on that, if there were
funding, and we don't know which on-site storage technology has
the most potential to be deployed, maybe you know that, but
would this type of work be best suited for the Office of
Science in the Department of Energy, or are you talking about,
from those two to the electricity or transportation performance
arena? I'm not sure whether, you know, you would divide it that
way or whether there should be something set up in DOE just for
this.
Dr. Chamberlain. That's a very good question. As you both
already know, there are energy storage technologies and
research being funded out of a variety of offices in the
Department of Energy, from ARPA-E to the Office of Science to
the EFRCs, from EERE and Vehicle Technologies group, and OE. So
there's a wide variety of established funding vehicles.
My personal belief is, it is a combination of those
varieties of funding vehicles wherein the value of the overall
program is identified. And I think it's up to the laboratories
to actually integrate those programs, to have healthy
relationships with industry, whether it's the power grid
operators or the OEMs that make vehicles in Michigan. It is up
to the labs to pull together the variety of sources of funding
and make sense of them in a way that we can deliver it quickly
and efficiently in the industry.
Now, obviously, I've dodged your question, but----
Mrs. Biggert. A lot of people do.
Dr. Chamberlain. --in this particular case, I'll go ahead
and go out on a limb and say that the opportunity is now to
deliver technologies. Coming from industry, I can tell you that
there is enough research and knowledge out there now to focus
on the more applied side.
From industry, I can tell you, stepping into the National
Lab, everything we do--we say we're variants on the laboratory
from basic to applied. In industry, research would tell you
it's all basic. Compared to what they do in industry, what we
do in the Lab is basic, and that's as it should be.
But my real point is, the opportunity for us today is to
focus on the applied work that would be required to very
rapidly deliver technologies to industries, say, in the next
three to ten years as opposed to the next ten to twenty years.
But I would still say the corporate balance, across the Office
of Science and in the applied offices, would be a valuable
thing.
Research Prioritization
Mrs. Biggert. The batteries and the energy storage is, I
think, in focus right now. So I think you're right; the
opportunity, you know, is there. We need to seize it. But so
many times it comes back to, well, do we need a DOE or an
outside organization or somebody to do a systemic assessment
and prioritize the research? Now, this happened with nuclear,
and I--to me--I was really working on that, and we had the
opportunity to look at Ginna, and all of a sudden, ``Well,
there has to be this systemic assessment.'' And then everything
folded, and there's not--nothing is moving forward right now,
which I think is a tragedy. This is something long-term we need
to do, too.
But is a systemic assessment necessary, or should it be?
I mean, I hope that we can do it in theory and get it done,
but everybody brings this up.
Dr. Chamberlain. I think, yes, but I also think that our
department's been moving very quickly in the last six months to
do some of those assessments. Some reports already exist.
I refer to some in my written testimony, but I think I
would say yes, but let's start with the reports that have
already been written by those that are tightly wound with the
grid operators and the idea of smart grid and what it means to
the energy storage question with regard to where we're heading;
grid both for on-site renewables and overall grid storage.
I think a lot of the information already exists, and I
would start there before we even think about putting a panel
together to answer those questions.
Ms. VanGeem. I would tend to agree with Dr. Chamberlain.
There are a lot of NREL and EPA and DOE reports out about the
concern of lessons learned with different case studies and
things. And I do want to emphasize the need for the storage.
One of the NREL reports said that one of the times we need
renewable energy most is when, on the hot days, the sun goes
behind the clouds. And, so, we need the storage.
And then, the other thing we need is this whole concept of
renewables, especially if the PVs are DC-powered. And, so, you
know, how do we get that to AC? And I think there are enough
reports out there that we know those needs, and you can just
follow through with them.
Mrs. Biggert. I guess I was just considering, well, you
know, we need somebody to bring all those together.
Ms. VanGeem. Yeah. But it's--right. We may just need
someone to bring it together, but I don't think you need to
start over. Right.
Mrs. Biggert. I give back.
[Discussion held off the record.]
Encouraging Market Development
Mr. Carnahan. I wanted to get back to, I guess, what the
federal government's role could be in moving forward as the
largest owner of office space, renter, operator, using the size
and the capacity to really help building the market. And I
think some of that can be done with our practices, whether it's
the way we look at building new buildings, looking at the life-
cycle costs upfront so we're not just, you know, finding a
building that costs X. When we know if we're looking at the
life-cycle cost, that's always going to come out better, and
it's going to help our technologies.
I guess other things that I want to just kind of open to
the panel, things that you think that we can do in terms of how
we operate our federal government building inventory. It could
help, really, build the marketplace and drive this market, but
it will also help grow the private sector in what they're
doing. And I'll just start from this end, and we'll go across.
Mr. Ostafi. Sure. Thank you for that question.
Actually, I believe the reality is the federal government
is doing a lot right now, actually. Their requirements and
mandates exceed ASHRAE standards by, I think, 20 percent or so,
in terms of the energy performance of GSA office buildings. In
fact, our firm is working on an office building in Denver for
the federal courthouse, the Byron Rogers Building, and that
group of constituents--the owners, and operators, and
maintenance folks of that building--want that building to work
towards being a net-zero building. And we're seeing this across
other GSA office buildings, as well. And the reality is, it
doesn't cost a lot more money to make a building perform 30
percent better than the current ASHRAE standards. It doesn't.
And our bigger clients are figuring that out, finding that out,
and pushing the design community to take it to the next level.
So I actually applaud what the federal government is doing,
but I would say there are still loopholes in some of the
federal energy management plans that say to constituents and
operators of a building, ``If it doesn't make financial sense,
don't do it.'' I think we just have to mandate that they do it,
and I love the idea proposed earlier that we mandate a certain
percentage of renewable-energy integration into those
buildings, because that doesn't exist today. I think one
percent is too low. I think it should be three to four to five
percent. Because, for office buildings, solar energy, for
example, can produce a lot of artificial lighting, can help a
lot of those systems in a building operate more efficiently at
a simple payback time period.
Mr. Carnahan. Mr. Lopez.
Mr. Lopez. I like your question to the extent that it seems
to be similar to the argument I'm making, that we can take a
public entity, like our school systems now in the country,
which represent--and I don't know the number, but it's got to
be several billion square feet of space of buildings throughout
the country, but take that and leverage it.
Also, I'm hearing that the research community seems to be
advanced to a point where they're willing to deploy a lot of
these technologies, and are able to deploy them. I think
connecting that to the actual marketplace, I think, from the
design community and from the end user, there's a willingness
there to start to implement these technologies.
The biggest obstacle I do see is still the cost of some of
these, and applying them, particularly dealing with the taxing
bodies and funds of that sort, where people do look at first
cost versus long-term cost. And, unfortunately, that's part of
the education; showing people what the return on investment is
on anything that we purchase. But part of what helps that
return investment is, a lot of times, being able to tap into
public money grants, funds. When we look at solar opportunities
and wind opportunities, they're just not there in terms of the
financial. But to see that, you know, an entity could, whether
state or federal, make available funds to reduce those first
costs, then the return on investment would be much more
desirable, and it makes a project a go as opposed to a not-go.
So I see the financial need to provide the financing or the
granting of funds for marketplace projects as significant. It
would have significant impact.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. I know a lot of school districts
are going to be looking at yours as an example----
Mr. Lopez. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. --in this evolution.
Mr. Cheifetz.
Mr. Cheifetz. Yes. And thanks for the question. First, I'd
say set the bar very high. In keeping with what you've heard,
let's not do something that we'll only have one chance to do,
and it's not as good as it can be. In fact, set the bar so high
that it forces all your supply chain to look at more
innovative, smaller companies, ways of doing business
differently than we usually do in that sector, because,
typically, when you present something like this, it's the
bigger companies, the established players that will do the
work, and, usually, they're not the most innovative or cost-
effective providers, if the truth be told.
So I'd say, in addition to the basic mandate, mandate a
higher quality of outcome. In fact, make the whole thing
outcomes-based from the top to the bottom. Higher standards,
but also outcomes in terms of payback, in terms of quality, in
terms of accountability, in terms of long-term life-cycle
reporting so that it doesn't happen, and then it goes away. And
let's use this as a laboratory to figure out how to improve
everything beyond the federal governments' buildings and use it
as a great example of how to do it.
I think, often, we don't achieve that as a goal. In fact,
it's sometimes the example of doing things in a less cost-
effective, more bureaucratic way. So I'd say very high
standards forces the kind of tough work, forces your supply
chain to do things a little differently, be more innovative, be
more accountable, and be more outcome-based.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Dr. Chamberlain.
Dr. Chamberlain. I guess I would answer the question with a
question that may be embarrassingly naive. We have standards
for efficiency for vehicles, and we set goals for those, for
the automotive companies. Is it too simplistic to try do that
for new or retrofitted buildings? I know it's a significantly
more complex question, but I would think, thinking locally,
we're building buildings and retrofitting buildings at Argonne;
federal buildings. Why isn't there--maybe there already is--a
standard measurement of efficiency that needs to be achieved?
So, I guess what I'm talking about is something simple, just
setting a target and mandating that target.
Ms. VanGeem. So I think that there are targets. They're
either in the form of a prescriptive requirement or an energy
use impacts-type thing, so your question is exactly where I'm
coming from. You could mandate that all federal buildings have
one percent renewables or up to ten percent or even higher. If
it's one or two stories, you could probably go to 20 to 30
percent.
And the goal should be that the entire sunlit portion of
the building, except maybe some windows used for day-lighting,
should be either PV or solar thermal so that you're using the
whole building shell to generate energy, and I need to figure
out a way to work the geothermal in there. But I think that
everything's out there that you need. And, so, just by using
federal buildings as an example, you could do this.
Mr. Lopez. I think that----
Mr. Carnahan. Yes.
Mr. Lopez. --part of the answer is that the mindset is on
non-renewable technology right now. I think the standards in
the other departments--designers, users--try to achieve that
through non-renewables. We say, ``How can we put in more
efficient equipment? How can we slow down the motors on
equipment?''
So it's still--but it's still relying on non-renewables. I
think the mindset needs to change as to how you make that jump
from doing what we do every day to looking at a solar-panel
infrastructure and wind-generated landscapes and things like
that.
Ms. VanGeem. Well, we need both, and the standards are
getting--the standards are 30 to 40 percent more efficient than
they were in 2004. But you need both; you need the jump in the
non-renewables and the renewables to ever begin to approach net
zero, which is the goal.
Mr. Carnahan. Okay. Very good. Thank you all. I'm going
to--do you have another round?
American Competitiveness and Job Creation
Mrs. Biggert. I don't really have a question. I think just
to close, unless a question comes out of it.
Going back to, we were talking about, you know, public
policy and America competing with other countries, and it is
something that we really have to focus on; you know, the
gathering storm with a national heading that Dr. Augustine
talks so much about, and how there's a renewable energy
council, and he's on the board, as well as Bill Gates and them.
I think this is something that--and I've been to one of their
meetings, and I think that this is something that we really
have to face, is that we have to have the creativity and
innovation to compete in the global economy. And this is--I
wanted to talk about why the other countries are moving
forward. And the timing is really bad, obviously, with the
economy as such, and I know that it's going to be very, very
difficult for funding for some of this. And, to me, the
creativity and innovation sciences is the most important thing
next to national defense, because this is the only way that
we're going to be able to create new jobs. You know, we're no
longer just a manufacturing country. We have a lot of
technology, but we have to have the technology to stay ahead of
other countries, and our labs do a great job, our universities
and industry, yet we face so many barriers that maybe we've
created, as well as just, you know, the actual economy. So this
is something.
I want to go out and write up about that--about this
hearing that we've had today, because I think you've all
brought up so many points of importance of what you're doing
and how that benefits our country, but it also benefits, you
know, the economy and what we're really working on right now.
So, if you have any ideas, be sure, you know, to let us know,
because what we've--for years, I would go into schools and talk
to kids. I started where I asked, you know, what did they want
to do when they grew up. And, for a while, it was, ``Be Michael
Jordan.'' So that dates me, as far as--but that was it. But
then it was the president, and, now, so many of the kids really
want to be engineers and scientists. And, so, we really have to
tap into that, because our science and math is not at all good,
and we're having reverse grade ranges. We've had, you know, the
foreign students coming here. Now they're going home instead of
staying here, too.
So there's so much to be done, and we're running ahead of
opportunity for job creation and also, you know, helping so
much with the environment. So I really applaud all of you. I
just hope we can, you know, find the means to make this happen
faster, and we won't if we don't participate. So, thank you all
for coming.
Mr. Cheifetz. How would it be best to let you know, as we
say? Because a little bit of encouragement goes a long way.
Mrs. Biggert. Okay.
Mr. Cheifetz. In both directions.
Mrs. Biggert. Well, maybe we'll have some more hearings on
that, you know, to the Committee itself, in Washington. But,
also, just if you have some ideas of what we should be looking
at or ideas for more legislation or for whatever, I'll give you
my card.
Mr. Cheifetz. Very good. Thank you. I'll be glad to.
Mr. Carnahan. I think you can see why I enjoy so much
working with my colleague, Congresswoman Biggert. She not only
knows the issues well, she has a great passion that she brings
to this.
And, so, again, just thank you.
And to all the panelists, you really have given us some
additional good ideas and inspiration. To me, it's one of the
best Committees in Congress, to serve on Science and
Technology, because it's the place where America has made such
a difference historically; in science and technology. It's also
the place where most of our economic growth has come from in
this country. And we're in a place now, at kind of the
crossroads, where we have an edge in some of these
technologies, but we won't for long.
And, so, it's an opportunity, I really think, we have to
grasp, but it's more than that; it's a race that I think we can
win. But it's also strategically important to competing
globally and being able to make things here at home and to be
self-sufficient. It just ties into so many things. And a lot of
this does--not all of it. Not certain a lot of this is driven
in the private sector, but I think our public policy has to be
in line with this, has to work closely with the private sector,
but it's also an opportunity where, frankly, there's been a
good deal of bipartisan cooperation. We've seen, you know, far
too much political bickering in Washington. This is an area
where I think there's some good basis for bipartisan to work
together, and something I think we can actually get done.
Closing
So, again, just thanks to all of you. You've given us some
good ideas. We welcome others, and we'll be sure you have our
contact information. And we look forward to working with you in
the months ahead. Thanks. And I just want to also thank Larry
Collins and the Dirksen Courthouse for offering the courtroom
here today.
We're going to keep the Committee record open for two weeks
for any additional statements from the members or to answer any
follow-up questions we may ask of the witnesses.
So, with that, we're going to wrap up the hearing, and we
will be in touch.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]