Chemical Processing - August 2007 - (Page 17) ENERGY SAVER << Survey results reveal cost reduction strategies Learn what large companies do to manage their energy costs Large energy consumers took a bLow to the chin in the wake of the 2005 hurricane season. Fuel shortages and the resulting price spikes forced many companies to seriously think about reducing energy consumption. state, federal, and non-governmental (ngo) organizations stepped up provision of information and assistance programs. Facility managers were encouraged to obtain energy assessments to track energy consumption and outline potential improvements. web sites offer “how-tos” on technologies and procedures that reduce energy waste. but just how do companies currently manage energy costs? the alliance to save energy (ase) asked this question in a november 2005 Internet survey. the ase (www.ase. org) is a non-profit coalition of business, government, consumer and environmental leaders that promotes energy efthe survey wasn’t scientific in that it wasn’t based on a random sample of the total industrial facilities population. It was limited to the more than 4,000 readers of the ase’s industrial information newsletter (www.steamingahead. org), which implies the average respondent’s interest in energy efficiency is somewhat greater than that of the broader population of industry. one-hundred large energy-user responses were compiled. most were from the u.s. the results show that 33% use caPeX projects, 30% use business plans, 23% oPeX projects, 8% price shop and 6% do nothing. Further breaking down the results, of the 100 respondents, 73 were manufacturing end users. of those, 37% use caPeX projects, 27% use business plans, 26% oPeX projects, 5% price shop and 4% do nothing. For the 27 institutional end users who completed the survey, the breakdown of the results was 37% use business plans, 22% use caPeX projects, 15% use oPeX projects, 15% price shop and 11% do nothing, according to the ase survey results. one unanswered question regards the veracity of survey responses. It’s quite possible for an organization to have competing energy cost control perceptions. Finance people, for example, may perceive it as a procurement issue. this is at odds with engineers, who often focus on capital projects, and with facility directors, who may concentrate on operations and maintenance (o&m), excluding all others. what’s worse is that these department directors often compete for internal resources to pursue their vision at the expense of others. an energy management strategy survey can easily generate varied responses within companies as well as across industries. this survey’s results suggest companies with an interest in energy cost containment pursue a more proactive strategy than simply switching fuels or shopping for the lowest price. specifically, 86% of survey respondents seek to proactively control their energy consumption and waste. How do these companies prefer to achieve those savings? they are almost equally split among: 1) occasional low-cost projects, 2) strategic capital investments; and 3) multi-year business plans that organize people, procedures, and investments. the merits of the strategies are available at www.ase.org/section/topic/industry/strategies. CP Christopher Russell, contributing editor CRussell@Putman.net http://www.energypathfinder.com, blog: http://energypathfinder.blogspot.com august 2007 • 17 Companies interested in energy cost containment are more proactive. ficiency worldwide to benefit the economy, environment and energy security. It translates energy efficiency into opportunities to improve business performance. the survey asked: “which of the following best describes the energy cost-reduction strategy taken by your organization (or the organizations you observe)?” • Do nothing: pay the fuel bill on time to avoid late fees; • Price-shop: find the lowest fuel prices available; • OPEX projects: pursue occasional, low-cost (noncapital) projects when time and resources permit; • CAPEX projects: select strategic, capital (hardware) projects that improve plant performance; or • Business plan: Follow a multi-year business plan that budgets for projects and staff training, and identifies energy-smart standard operating procedures. the survey results revealed that 86% of end users use proactive strategies. Passive cost control strategies — just paying the fuel bill on time, fuel switching, or shopping for a lower-priced fuel — are far more likely to be pursued by institutional end users (e.g., campuses, healthcare, museums, etc. (26%) than by manufacturing end users (9%). www.chemicalprocessing.com http://www.steamingahead.org http://www.steamingahead.org http://www.ase.org http://www.ase.org http://ase.org/section/topic/industry/strategies http://energypathfinder.blogspot.com http://www.chemicalprocessing.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.