James J. Winebrake, Ph.D.

Andy Berger

Steve Harwanko

Adam Johnson

Integrated Science and Technology Program

James Madison University

Harrisonburg, VA 22807

Prepared under a grant from

The Alliance to Save Energy

Washington, DC

October 7, 1997

We would like to thank several people who made this project possible. Ted Jones from the Alliance to Save Energy was a major force in pulling this project together and bringing it to the attention of decision-makers in and out of Washington, DC. Terry Brennan of the National Park Service supplied the inspiration and vision on how this model partnership can be integrated into the larger mission of the park service and how the partnership can be applied to other park environments. Lastly, Charlie Newton of Shenandoah National Park provided the day-to-day support and oversight for student projects at the park. The students learned a great deal from Mr. Newton and gained insights into energy efficiency and renewable energy systems that would have been impossible to garner from traditional text book learning.

Appendix A. FEDS and Energy Audit Study

Appendix B. Renewable Energy Design Analysis

Energy consumption at our national parks is a growing concern. Faced with tighter budgets, national parks must address methods for reducing energy consumption at their facilities. This is not an easy task. With some exceptions, energy managers at national parks are occupied with day to day crises and have little time or resources available to analyze energy consumption data or develop strategic plans for implementing cost saving, energy conservation measures.

One currently unused resource that could provide assistance to park energy managers is local university students. Many universities throughout the country have energy or environmental programs where large cadres of students are interested in obtaining ‘real world experience.’ These universities are often in close proximity to national parks.

In the summer of 1997, the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), the Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Shenandoah National Park (SHEN), and James Madison University (JMU) initiated a project that would help develop a model for university-national park energy partnerships. This report represents the culmination of those model-building activities.

The document is designed to help guide universities and national parks through the energy partnership process and to provide information about the pitfalls and ‘lessons learned’ from the JMU-SHEN experience. The document is a compilation of activities, processes, successes, problems, and other issues that arose during the development of the JMU-SHEN Energy Partnership model. With this document and the model developed herein, it is hoped that other universities and national parks will be able to form the mutually beneficial alliances that we have found so valuable.

The report first discusses the general aspects of the partnership building process and illustrates these concepts through experiences of the JMU-SHEN partnership. Next, the report presents the results of three major activities JMU students conducted with SHEN over the course of the summer. For each activity, the report offers some background, a detailed account of the activity, and lessons learned for that activity. The appendices of this document include the detailed reports and other material integral to the project.

The idea of developing an energy partnership between a university and a national park was first generated through discussions among JMU, ASE, NPS, and SHEN. It appeared that in order for NPS to meet the energy efficiency goals outlined in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, as well as various executive orders and internal directives, NPS would need help. Resources at the park service were limited, and many parks did not have the time, personnel, or budgets for conducting extensive energy analyses.

Thus, an idea was born to link together university students and national parks in order to (1) help the parks identify energy savings opportunities, and (2) give students an opportunity to gain some ‘real world’ problem-solving experience in the energy field. This latter point is as important as the former. In this case, conducting a series of energy related activities that had no educational value to the university students would be a one-sided approach and not ideal; likewise, conducting activities that were solely academic and offered no practical benefits to the national park were also less than optimal.

In our pilot project, JMU students worked closely with energy managers, building managers, and various other personnel at SHEN. The JMU students were undergraduate students studying in the Integrated Science and Technology (ISAT) Program at JMU. This program has at its core a science and technology curriculum, although students are taught many of the economic, political, and social issues that surround technical problems. In conducting the partnership activities, we used the full spectrum of ISAT student skills; thus, many activities discussed in this report will likely be applicable not only to science and engineering departments, but also environmental studies, economic, political science, computer science, and education departments. It should be noted that this helps expand the universe of national park activities and universities that may be eligible for partnership development.

We found ourselves proceeding along a course depicted in Figure 1. This figure illustrates the steps that we followed in building the pilot partnership. Each of these steps is discussed in more detail below.

The first step in the partnership process was to contact potential partners and gauge interest in the idea. In our case, JMU and ASE took the first steps and met with energy managers at SHEN and NPS to discuss the idea. At these initial meetings much of the time was spent getting to know each other’s skills and needs and building a comfortable working relationship. We learned that a single meeting is not enough to cover the intricacies and details of the partnership project. In fact, it took several meetings before we clearly delineated what our individual goals were in light of the partnership idea. It is suggested that the first meeting of partners merely be used to discuss the partnership idea and to brainstorm about particular activities—often it is useful for other interested parties to attend this first meeting, such as regional DOE offices, state energy offices, non-profit groups, etc. Subsequent meetings can be held among the university and park personnel in order to further discuss various activities.

Often funding will be required to proceed with the partnership project. Funding is sometimes needed to support student work, faculty time, park personnel time, equipment purchases, and other activities. Unfortunately, funding is not always available and often the main barrier behind the development of mutually beneficial partnerships. We believe that some stated contribution (whether in-kind or actual) is necessary in order to move these partnerships forward and to signify the level of commitment from each of the partners.

It is often uncomfortable to discuss funding requirements among potential partners at initial meetings. We suggest such discussions take place early—there is no sense in pursuing an activity that needs funding if you know funding is not available. (However, even if funding is not available, there are still some activities that can be carried out without funding. These should be identified and pursued if desired).

Our pilot project included funding to provide income for three students for a summer, a stipend for the faculty member advising and training these students, supplies, and travel. Our entire budget for the project was less than $16,000. This, of course, does not monetize the amount of time committed by park personnel and others that assisted in the partnership project. This budget also included efforts to record and develop the partnership as a model for other universities and parks. Thus, we feel that $10,000 may be a good target budget for summer-long partnership projects. This can fund 1-3 students for a summer, can provide some faculty support, and can assist in purchasing supplies and/or travel services.

One key ingredient in these partnerships is the role the students play. Since the students will be doing the bulk of the analytical and energy-related work (with faculty guidance), they need to be responsible and skilled in the area they will be exploring. For our pilot project, we proceeded through an application process whereby ISAT students at JMU applied for the three summer positions. Within the ISAT program, students can concentrate in a number of different areas, including Energy and Environment, and so we narrowed our search down to students who were focusing in these areas. In the application process, students had to provide information about their courses, grades, references, and why they should be selected for the position.

Three students were selected for this pilot project. All were junior ISAT students that had a concentration in either Energy or Environment. Thus, these students had taken energy courses in the past and understood the basic concepts behind energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. Because they were ISAT students, they also had some experience in conducting economic and political analyses. This is an important consideration for those universities that are not necessarily engineering schools, but would like to pursue an energy partnership with a national park. Many of the activities that are discussed in this report can be accomplished without having participated in an engineering, or even energy-related, curriculum. In fact, some activities may require more accounting or computer systems background than engineering.

In early discussions about developing a model partnership, several concepts emerged that we believed would be beneficial to illustrate. Most importantly, we wanted to identify and ‘test-drive’ activities that could be adopted by typical universities and national parks. Having limited time and resources, we tested those activities that we felt were applicable to a broad range of parks and universities, offered mutually beneficial experiences for students and parks, and covered a diverse range of skills and applications.

These activities (and others) were discussed extensively at initial meetings between SHEN and JMU. Participants needed to identify activities that met the following criteria:

1. served the needs of the park;
2. served the needs of the students;
3. were not beyond the skill level of the students;
4. did not require continual and comprehensive oversight by park personnel;
5. could be done at the park and at the university;
6. could be practicably completed over a given time frame; and,
7. had the potential for actualization and implementation.

There are a variety of energy activities that can be carried out by students, ranging from data input to comprehensive building audits. From our discussions, we put together the list identified in Table 1. This list is by no means complete, but merely presents some ideas that other partnerships may wish to pursue. We have grouped these activities into four broad categories:

• Data Collection, Management and Analysis;
• Auditing and Use Assessment;
• Needs Assessment; and,
• Public Awareness.

For the JMU-SHEN pilot project, we chose three activities: (1) conduct a Federal Energy Decision System (FEDS) analysis on several SHEN buildings; (2) conduct a renewable energy design analysis for several photovoltaic (PV) applications within SHEN; and (3) design and populate a database system for SHEN’s utility bills. Again, these activities were chosen for their diversity, their relationship to our student skills, and the practical benefits their results could provide to both SHEN and the students. Each of these activities is discussed later in this report.

• Develop database system for utility/consumption data
• Collect data on maintenance for energy systems
• Develop and maintain database of equipment inventory and replacement
• Conduct trend analysis to determine consumption patterns
• Conduct analysis to determine seasonal patterns of consumption
• Conduct analysis to determine environmental problems associated with energy usage

• Conduct lighting audits
• Conduct comprehensive energy audits
• Survey personnel to determine energy use behavior patterns

• Conduct FEDS/FRESCA analysis to identify possible energy conservation measures
• Conduct economic analysis to determine costs/benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects
• Provide engineering design analysis for implementation of renewable energy technologies

• Create public outreach documents, web pages, multimedia pieces that educate the public about energy consumption, energy conservation, and renewable energy technologies
• Organize special events (e.g., energy awareness week) for park visitors
• Provide educational workshops to personnel and visitors at interpretation centers

Even though the university and park personnel may have a close working relationship, it is still recommended that some written agreement be developed between the partners. This written agreement (often in the form of a Memorandum of Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding) provides a detailed list of activities, expectations, deliverables, and timelines for the partnership work.

After agreement is achieved on the activities that students will perform, the work begins. Faculty involvement is necessary in order to ensure that the students are conducting themselves professionally and that they receive the technical help they need. Also, because we wanted to avoid over-burdening park personnel, students had to balance working independently with their reliance on park personnel for information and data. One method we used was weekly meetings with faculty, regular meetings (approximately every three weeks) with park personnel, extensive use of electronic communication, and regular (monthly) reporting of activities. This communication allowed park personnel to monitor student progress and intervene when necessary and when time allowed.

Work began after a detailed milestone chart was developed. The milestone chart provided key dates and activities that both the park and students could track. Some activities were by their nature intrusive—e.g., building audits. These activities required sufficient lead-time so that park personnel would be prepared for these visits. In addition, some buildings required clearance for visitors, and this had to be provided ahead of time.

We recommend that concrete deliverables be identified and defined in the MOU or other documentation. Both the park and students need to know each other's expected deliverables at the end of the work cycle. Often these deliverables will be in the form of written documentation, likely to include recommendations for energy efficiency or renewable energy opportunities; but deliverables could also be software systems, public relations products, databases, or survey studies.

One activity that emerges from an energy partnership is the implementation of a recommended work project. By implementing a student recommended idea, students feel that their work was justified. In addition, the park feels that their contribution to the student work will pay off through energy savings. However, implementation requires foresight. Partnerships that will likely have an implementation component (for example, a solar energy installation or an energy efficient retrofit) need to consider funding opportunities for implementation. Park personnel and universities should be exploring funding opportunities throughout the project work cycle. Non-traditional funding mechanisms should be heavily considered--for example, performance contracting by energy service companies. In such cases, these companies should become involved in the project during the time at which students are working. Companies may be able to advise or direct students to focus their work on projects that the companies will be willing to support in the future.

Lastly, an evaluation process is needed. During this process the park and the university (and others involved) should meet to discuss the entire project and review the results. This evaluation should not only be focused on the particular recommendations or accomplishments of the students; it should also include evaluation of the entire partnership process, the 'lessons learned' from the project, and the educational experience achieved for both the students and park. These evaluation sessions will help foster the future development of other partnership projects. In fact, the university-park relationship would best be viewed as a long-term relationship instead of just a summer or semester of work. With a long-term perspective, universities and parks are more willing to tackle larger projects and to consider evaluation ideas in future projects.

The first activity performed by JMU at SHEN was an analysis using the Federal Energy Decision System (FEDS) software. FEDS is a product of the DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). Based on energy audit data, FEDS can suggest energy retrofits, along with economic and environmental impact assessments. FEDS is often used with the DOE Save Energy Audit program whereby federal facilities are audited by professional auditors. FEDS provides those auditors with another level of analysis not normally conducted by standard audits.

JMU students conducted FEDS analyses on five park buildings. The first step of this process was training. Although the students had conducted basic energy analyses before, there was a fair amount of "real world" training that was needed in order for the students to feel comfortable conducting their own FEDS analysis. Training took the form of practice audits on school buildings and sample FEDS computer runs using that data. Thus, both auditing principles and use of the FEDS software were taught using practice and hypothetical buildings. This practice was performed at the university campus.

Students then worked with SHEN to identify a list of buildings that SHEN wanted analyzed. From this list, five buildings were chosen. The buildings represented a host of new and old vintage buildings; buildings also represented various functionality, including administration, housing, and maintenance.

Students visited the five buildings and conducted FEDS audits approximately once a week for five weeks. Audits took on average a day to perform. The remainder of the week was used to input this data into FEDS and conduct and interpret the FEDS analysis. Results of the analysis were discussed with faculty and park personnel and are included in the report in Appendix A. The FEDS report was developed by the student primarily responsible for the FEDS work.

There were a number of lessons learned from the FEDS component of this project. The major lessons are listed below with a short description of each. These and others are referred to in the FEDS report mentioned above.

• Flexibility is important. The JMU-SHEN pilot project conducted a FEDS study as a way to demonstrate how this software would work in a university-national park partnership situation. FEDS entails a comprehensive approach that requires students to understand auditing guidelines and the operation of the FEDS software. Here, a team approach may work best (e.g., one student could become the 'lighting expert', another the 'HVAC expert', another the 'software expert', etc.). The important lesson is that one should maintain flexibility in the study design so that it can be tailored to the skills and interests of the students, while still meeting the needs of the park.

• Training is needed and the project must match student skills. Projects undertaken at a park must match the skills of the students. For example, if students are only knowledgeable of lighting technologies, then it may be better to have them conduct comprehensive lighting audits and to avoid building audits that include HVAC, window, and insulation analysis. Certainly, if the student skills are available it is worthwhile to challenge the students to learn new technical material; however, given a short period of time, we found that having the students apply what they currently know to be a better approach.

The second project that was conducted at SHEN was a design analysis for several potential photovoltaic (PV) sites within the park. SHEN had been considering PV in the park for some time, but had not been able to conduct the appropriate analyses for their applications. This activity provided us an example of a quantitative renewable energy project. Lessons learned from this example could be applied to similar projects at SHEN and other parks.

Students at JMU evaluated four sites where PV may potentially be used to supply remote and cost-effective power. The evaluation consisted of (1) conducting a load analysis based on the equipment that was to be powered; (2) determining the PV modules, batteries and balance of system that was needed to power this equipment; and (3) determining the costs, based on vendor communication, for installing the PV system. The projects included the following:

• Transmissometer receiver (used for measuring visibility at SHEN);
• Transmissometer transmitter;
• Radio repeater station; and,
• Web-camera (used to transmit live picture of the park over the Internet).

Students conducted extensive research on PV technologies and developed spreadsheets to assist in the load and module calculations. Much of the vendor information was found electronically on the Internet and through telephone communication. The full report detailing the renewable energy aspects of this project is included in Appendix B. The student responsible for this component of the project developed this report.

PV design analysis is a concrete project that university students can perform for parks. Students at both the undergraduate and graduate level can perform these analyses, since they require only basic math skills and a knowledge of PV and electrical systems, which can be obtained from a variety of sources. Several of our lessons learned from this component of the project are listed below:

• Students must get clear information from the park. Since the park is the ultimate user of the system, the park needs to identify exactly the type of energy equipment that it would like to replace or install. This equipment will define the load needed by the PV system and is the critical input to any renewable energy analysis.

• Project must match student skills. As mentioned in the FEDS section above, the types of projects analyzed must match the skills of the student.

• Should use resources of laboratories and vendors. There is a substantial amount of information about PV and renewable energy technologies available. In addition, there are services, such as Sandia National Lab's PV Design Assistance Center, that students should access throughout their project.

• Results should be presented in clear fashion for purpose of discussion. Many park personnel are not familiar with renewable energy technologies. Therefore the reports must be concise and clear and the student must be able to effectively communicate both the basic concepts behind the renewable energy technology, and the specific operational aspects of that technology in the context which it will be used.

• Visit the potential renewable energy site. Many renewable energy projects look good on paper, but may in fact be impossible to implement for other reasons. For example, tree overhangs may disrupt a PV project, or poor water flow at certain times of the year may affect a hydro project. Students should visit the sites, with appropriate park personnel, to explore these issues.

• Consider the users of the renewable energy equipment. Sometimes the energy manager at the park is not the user of the equipment that will be powered by renewable energy. Make sure that the user is comfortable with the decision to use renewable energy technologies and that all the caveats and issues of using such technologies are discussed.

Analyzing energy data for trends and peaks is a well-known way to identify potential energy savings opportunities. Parks typically have large quantities of energy data that exist in files, folders, and energy bills. But park personnel do not necessarily have the software systems or the time to digitize these data and conduct appropriate analyses. Such analyses are important for park energy managers who need to manage and monitor their energy systems for optimal operation. The last activity of the JMU-SHEN project was the development of a utility bill database system that allows the park to input energy data and produce reports that track energy use and costs.

For this project, students at JMU developed database management software that would allow the park to input and track energy data taken from utility bills (primarily consumption and cost data). The system also allows the park to collect and report bill accounting information (such as check numbers and payment dates). To demonstrate the usefulness of such a system, JMU students created a database management system for park electricity consumption data. Additional systems for gas, propane, steam, water, or oil could be developed using the electricity version as a model.

The first attempt at this component of the partnership was a database management system that only tracked and reported energy consumption data. This was subsequently changed after discussions with the park, which thought that including accounting information would be extremely helpful. Students added database fields for tracking bill payments (namely check number and pay date).

Students began to populate the database with data from park electricity bills. This was a formidable task. For this partnership project, students input data for five buildings to demonstrate the usefulness of the database system. Future population of the database may occur during later phases of this project.

Database-related projects are useful tasks that students can perform for national parks. These projects relieve the park of a tedious and sometimes daunting workload that is often necessary for reporting purposes. In addition, these projects provide an opportunity for students not studying in the energy field to work in this area (for example, computer science majors). Nevertheless, there were several lessons learned on this project:

• Big projects need lots of time commitment. Database management projects are time consuming by nature. This should be included in your resource planning. For instance, the development and population of a large database system will likely require several students working full-time through a summer.

• Commercial software packages may be best. Although we developed our own database system, we would recommend that partnerships first research commercial packages that perform similar functions. The final product we developed is attractive and serves the original purpose as defined, but a large amount of time was used in its development. This time could have been spent populating a commercial database. Of course, budgets must be able to support the purchase of a commercial product.

• Accounting features are important. In the database system we developed, we included features that allow the user to track bill payments (namely, check number and pay date). This feature was not found in commercial packages; yet, the park (and others we talked to) suggested that such a feature was critical.

• Address metering and bill payment concerns. One problem that became apparent as we populated the database was that not all utility bills corresponded to a particular building; that is, some buildings were collectively metered and billed with one utility bill. This makes tracking energy consumption for particular buildings difficult. In addition, bill dates and payments are not always on a consistent monthly basis. These issues do not present insurmountable problems, but should be considered when developing a database system.

In addition to the lessons learned in each of the individual projects presented above, there are some lessons learned that apply to the entire partnership process. These are discussed below.

• On-site supervision is not required, but regular communication is. We developed projects that consumed the least amount of time from already over-burdened park staff. Of course, different parks will have different constraints on their staff time. Although the work we conducted did not always require us to be at the park, we did communicate frequently by phone, e-mail and regular meetings.

• Include training in the project budget. Partnerships should not forget that a major component of the partnership is the real-world education of university students. Because of this, partnerships are encouraged to include training activities in project workplans. This, of course, means budgeting for these activities. Students should be trained by a faculty member or by another professional.

• Continuous communication throughout the project period. Faculty advisors should accept the burden of acting as a communication liaison among students and park personnel. JMU kept in constant communication with SHEN and others, mostly by e-mail and monthly reports.

• Media activities are important. When possible, partnerships should take advantage of the media resources at their respective organizations. Media releases, press conferences, or other media events can help generate interest in the project and bring needed attention to a serious problem (energy consumption in our national parks).

We believe the JMU-SHEN Energy Partnership represented the first step in a new way for reducing our national park's energy costs. This is critical in today's era of tighter budgets and more demands on park personnel. University-National Park Partnerships provide opportunities that will benefit both the students and the parks--clearly a win-win proposition.

This report identified both the process by which a partnership can form, and the activities in which a partnership can participate. Of these activities, several were tested during the summer of 1997. The results of these tests demonstrated that as long as park activities fall within the skill ranges of motivated students, much could be accomplished at little cost.

The next steps of the JMU-SHEN pilot project exist at both a micro- and macro-level. At the micro-level, the partnership hopes to implement some of the renewable energy and energy efficiency projects identified at the park and to evaluate the students' role in this implementation. At the macro-level, the partnership hopes to develop a 'tool-kit' and marketing plan based on its experiences that will encourage other universities and national parks to create their own energy partnerships.

Government, industry, universities, and non-profit organizations need to begin to take strong positions in encouraging partnerships like the one demonstrated by JMU-SHEN. This can be done in a variety of ways. First, federal agencies should establish budgets for such projects. Since the projects fulfill two missions of most agencies (i.e., reducing energy costs and educating the public), these budgets could be justified on multiple grounds. Second, industry needs to reach out to universities to develop relationships that benefit both parties. Industry should take on as part of its corporate responsibility the education and training of America's future leaders. Third, universities need to resist the 'ivory tower' mentality, and begin to move learning away from the classroom and into the 'real world'. The understanding gained by a student working on a real problem oftentimes far exceeds that gained from a text book