Pollution Engineering - April 2009 - (Page 31) Energy SAVINGS Energy performance contract The RTO manufacturer financed the project under an energy performance contract, which required no capital investment by the company. Jim Griffin, a regional sales manager for the RTO manufacturer, explains: “Soliant was interested in the oxidizer replacement project and the energy savings it would generate, but they had already budgeted their capital resources for expanding production to meet increasing demand. It’s a story I hear frequently from customers and it’s the primary reason [we] began financing energy projects.” “As a small company, we thought it was a good way to implement a greener solution without a large capital outlay,” said Jeff Bailey, vice president of operations for Soliant. “The performance guarantee ensured both sides have a vested interest in improvement.” As part of the arrangement, Bailey’s company agreed to pay the RTO manufacturer a fixed monthly fee from the natural gas savings generated by the RTO replacement. In return, the manufacturer guaranteed the RTO’s measurable thermal efficiency for the full contract term. The contract also included bonuses for exceeding the guaranteed thermal efficiency and penalties for falling short of the guarantee. This means that if the RTO performance were to fall below the guaranteed level, the manufacturer would pay for the additional gas usage, and thus has a powerful incentive to address the issue immediately. It is not uncommon that savings from energy projects begin to deteriorate long before the payback period is over. The contract tackled this issue by putting the risk of ongoing performance on the equipment supplier, while giving the end user and the supplier a vested interest in continuous monitoring and system tune-ups to maximize energy savings. Overall, the company’s net monthly operating expense has been reduced because of the performance contract, since the average natural gas savings has exceeded the monthly payment for the equipment. As an additional benefit, at the end of the contract term the company will own the equipment outright and thus keep all the energy savings for themselves. “Soliant was in a position where their production depended on the operation of two 25-year-old oxidizers that cost them $66,000 per month in gas alone. By using the EPC to fund the RTO replacement, at the end of the contract they will have a new RTO that costs them just $9,600 per month to run,” said Griffin. Bioremediation and Bioaugmentation We Put The Puzzle Together Site Characterization and Monitoring 400 M Microcosm Tests BCI BIOAUGMENTATION CULTURE ETHENE TCE+DCE TCA+DCA 200 CHLOROETHANE 0 4/2 5/1 6/4 6/24 7/14 8/3 8/23 Contaminant Analysis Biogeochemical Characterization PCR Tests for Dehalococcoides Presence of Methanotrophs & Ethenotrophs Native Microbes vs. Bioaugmentation Donor Selection Mineral Nutrient Selection Bioaugmentation Cultures Bioremediation Consulting Watertown, MA 617.923.0976 www.BCILabs.com Acclimated to your site water Remediate TCE/TCA mixtures Tolerate high sulfates and chlorides APRIL2009 www.pollutionengineering.com 31 http://www.pollutionengineering.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.