I C S: T C: Ndustrial ASE Tudy HE Ement Industry

INDUSTRIAL CASE STUDY:
THE CEMENT INDUSTRY

CALMAC Study ID: PGE0251.01
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED BY
KEMA
with assistance from
LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY

SEPTEMBER 2005
INDUSTRIAL CASE STUDY:

THE CEMENT INDUSTRY
CALMAC Study ID: PGE0251.01
Final Report
Prepared for
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
San Francisco, California
Prepared by
KEMA Inc.
Oakland, California
with assistance from
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley, California
September 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................11
SECTION 2
CEMENT INDUSTRY STATISTICS ..........................................................21

2.1
Economic Statistics........................................................................................21
2.2
Energy Usage .................................................................................................21
2.2.1 Peak Electricity Demand....................................................................23
2.3
Energy Intensity .............................................................................................23
2.4
References......................................................................................................24
SECTION 3
CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS AND ENERGY USE.......................31

3.1
Introduction....................................................................................................31
3.2
Description of the Cement Production Process .............................................32
3.2.1 Mining and Quarrying........................................................................32
3.2.2 Raw Material Preparation ..................................................................33
3.2.3 Clinker Production (Pyro-Processing) ...............................................33
3.2.4 Finish Grinding ..................................................................................34
3.3
Cement Production Energy Use.....................................................................34
3.4
Technical Potential for Energy Efficiency.....................................................35
3.5
References......................................................................................................36
SECTION 4
CUSTOMER INTERVIEWS.......................................................................41
4.1
Overview........................................................................................................41
4.2
General Information.......................................................................................41
4.3
Energy Characteristics ...................................................................................42
4.4
Energy as It Relates to Overall Business Factors ..........................................42
4.5
Overall Energy Management .........................................................................43
4.6
General Decision-Making Practices ..............................................................45
4.7
Energy Efficiency Decision Making..............................................................46
4.8
O&M Practices...............................................................................................46
4.9
Attitudes Towards Energy Efficiency............................................................47
4.10 Recent Energy Efficiency Project Activity....................................................48
4.11 Energy Efficiency Information and Program Activity...................................49
SECTION 5
ENERGY-EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES .......................................................51

5.1
Portland Cement Association.........................................................................51
5.2
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition..................................................................51
5.3
Climate VISION ............................................................................................51
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.4
5.5
5.6
ENERGY STAR ............................................................................................52

Climate Leaders .............................................................................................52
References......................................................................................................53
SECTION 6
OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS .........................................................61

6.1
Energy Efficiency Opportunities ...................................................................61
6.1.1 O&M ..................................................................................................61
6.1.2 High Efficiency Equipment/Processes...............................................61
6.1.3 Process Controls.................................................................................62
6.2
Barriers to Energy Efficiency ........................................................................63
6.2.1 Barriers to Program Participation ......................................................64
6.3
References......................................................................................................64
SECTION 7
RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................71
APPENDIX A INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................................................................. A1

APPENDIX B CUSTOMER SURVEY RESULTS............................................................ B1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table 4-3
Table 4-4
Table 4-5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 3-1
Cement Industry Economic Statistics ................................................21

Cement Industry Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption..............22
General Customer/Facility Information.............................................42
Rating of Key Business Factors (0 = Unimportant, 5 =
Extremely Important).........................................................................43
Overall Energy Management Policy..................................................44
Usual Decision Making Process for Capital Improvements ..............45
Equipment-Specific O&M Practices..................................................47
Cement Industry End Use Electricity Consumption..........................22

Electric Energy Intensity Comparison ...............................................23
Simplified Process Schematic for Cement Making ...........................32
ii
1
1
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes a case study of the cement industry in California. The study was
conducted to assist the four investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E),
San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE),
and Southern California Gas Company (SCG), to improve their understanding of industrial
customers opportunities to save significant amounts of energy.
This study was conducted at the request of the California Public Utilities Commission. The study
was managed by PG&E. It was funded through the public goods charge (PGC) for energy
efficiency and is available for download at www.calmac.org.
The cement industry in California consists of 31 sites than consume roughly 1,600 GWh and 22
million therms per year. Eleven of these sites are involved in full-scale cement production, while
the remainder of the facilities provides grinding and mixing operations only. The eleven fulloperation sites account for over 90% of the California cement industrys electric use and 80% of
the natural gas use.
The goals of this case study include the following:
Develop an understanding of the key processes and associated energy consumption in the
cement industry;
Identify key energy efficiency opportunities and associated technical potential for the
cement industry;
Identify key barriers that preclude cement customers for adopting energy efficient
practices and equipment;
Examine how current PGC-funded programs can better address these customers barriers
to implementation of more energy efficiency measures.
The primary approach to this case study involved walk-through surveys of customer facilities
and in depth interviews with customer decision makers and subsequent analysis of collected data.
In addition, a basic review of the cement production process was developed, and summary
cement industry energy and economic data were collected, and analyzed.
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Section 2 summarizes California cement industry statistics
Section 3 provides an overview of the cement production process
Section 4 presents results of interviews with cement industry customers
Section 5 identifies energy efficiency initiatives in the cement industry
11
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Section 6 summarizes opportunities and barriers to increased energy efficiency in the

cement industry; and
Section 7 discusses possible ways to increase energy efficiency in the cement industry.
In addition, Appendix A shows the interview guide used to structure cement industry customer
surveys, and Appendix B provides a tabulation of survey results.
oa:projects:wpge0070:report:cement:final:1_intro
12
2
2
CEMENT INDUSTRY STATISTICS
The cement manufacturing industry is identified by North American Industry Classification

System (NAICS) code 32731 (formerly identified as SIC code 3241). The cement industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing portland, natural, masonry,
pozzalanic, and other hydraulic cements. Cement manufacturing establishments may calcine
earths or mine, quarry, manufacture, or purchase lime.1
2.1
ECONOMIC STATISTICS
In California, the cement industry employs approximately 1,990 workers and has an annual value
of shipments of about $850 million. Table 2-1 presents economic statistics for the California
cement industry, as compared to U.S. cement industry totals.
Table 2-1
Cement Industry Economic Statistics
California
U.S.
CA share of U.S.
Total establishments
31
279
11%
Establishments with 20 employees or more
15
136
11%
Number of employees
1,927
16,973
11%
Payroll ($1,000s)
93,795
735,506
13%
Number of production workers
1,461
12,524
12%
Total hours worked (1,000s)
3,118
27,294
11%
66,434
498,875
13%
Value added ($1,000s)
486,760
4,027,714
12%
Cost of materials ($1,000s)
354,774
2,479,050
14%
Value of shipments ($1,000s)
846,898
6,540,243
13%
66,207
506,015
13%
Total wages ($1,000s)
Total capital expenditures ($1,000s)
Source: 1997 Economic Census, http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/econ97.html
2.2
ENERGY USAGE
In California, the cement industry consumes approximately 1,600 GWh per year, 220 MW, and
22 million therms per year. This represents about 5% of California manufacturing electricity
consumption and 1% of California manufacturing natural gas consumption. Table 2-2 compares
cement industry electricity and natural gas use for California and the U.S.
1
U.S. Census Bureau definition, http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF327.HTM#N32731
21
SECTION 2
Table 2-2
Cement Industry Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption
Energy Use Type
GWh per year
California
U.S.
CA share of U.S
1,620
11,900
14%
MW
224
na
na
Million therms per year
22
260
8%
Source: Utility billing data, CEC forecast database, and 1998 MECS data
Figure 2-1 shows typical end use electricity consumption shares, based on 1998 Manufacturing
Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) data. Most of the usage is in the machine drive end use,
associated with grinding, crushing, and materials transport. Cement industry natural gas
consumption is concentrated in the process heating end use (about 90% of total gas
consumption), which involves clinker production in large kilns. In most cases natural gas is used
as a supplemental fuel to coal. Only one California plant utilizes gas as a primary kiln fuel. This
is a relatively small plant that produces white cement. The remainder of the natural gas usage is
associated with boiler and machine drive end uses.
Figure 2-1
Cement Industry End Use Electricity Consumption
Process
Heating
10%
Process Othe
2%
HVAC
3%
Process
Machine Drive
81%
Lighting
3%
Other
1%
Source: 1998 MECS
Of the 31 cement facilities in California, 11 are involved in full cement operation from raw
materials. The production at the remainder of the facilities involves grinding and readymix of
clinker that is produced in other facilities, either domestically or abroad. The 11 full operation
facilities account for the majority of California energy use and these large facilities tend to use
22
SECTION 2
ten to twenty times as much energy as the grinding/readymix facilities. The focus of this case
study is on the larger full-scale facilities.
2.2.1 Peak Electricity Demand
Most California cement plants have a reverse peak electric load profile (i.e. their demand is
lower during the peak hours) because they consciously defer peak load. They try to stockpile
certain crushed products when they can so that they can shut down or slow down large process
mills or fans during the on peak hours. The kilns operate at full capacity continuously.
2.3
ENERGY INTENSITY
Energy intensity can be examined by combining information on energy usage (Table 2-2) with
information on cement industry economic activity (Table 2-1). Electricity use per production
worker and per dollar of valued added are presented in Figure 2-2. Data for the overall
manufacturing sector are presented for comparison purposes. As the figure illustrates, electric
energy intensity in the cement industry is well above the industrial average. Also, the California
cement industry is slightly more electricity intensive that the U.S cement average.
Figure 2-2
Electric Energy Intensity Comparison
3.5
GWh /production worker
kWh per $ value added
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
CA Cement
US Cement
CA Mfg
US Mfg
Sources: Utility Billing Data, CEC Forecast Database, 1997 Economic Census, 1998 MECS
23
SECTION 2
2.4
REFERENCES
California Energy Commission. June 2000. California Energy Demand 2000-2010. Technical
Report to California Energy Outlook 2000 Docket #99-CEO-1. Sacramento, CA
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Economic Census. Available online:
http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/econ97.html
U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. NAICS Definitions. Available online:
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF327.HTM#N32731
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2004. 1998 Manufacturing Consumption Survey.
Available online: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/contents.html
XENERGY Inc. 1998. United States Industrial Motor Systems Market Opportunities
Assessment. Burlington, MA: US Department of Energy.
24
3
3
CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS AND

ENERGY USE
CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS AND ENERGY USE
3.1
INTRODUCTION
Cement is an inorganic, non-metallic substance with hydraulic binding properties, and is used as
a bonding agent in building materials. It is a fine powder, usually gray in color, that consists of a
mixture of the hydraulic cement minerals to which one or more forms of calcium sulfate have
been added (Greer et al., 1992). Mixed with water it forms a paste, which hardens due to
formation of cement mineral hydrates. Cement is the binding agent in concrete, which is a
combination of cement, mineral aggregates and water. Concrete is a key building material for a
variety of applications.
The U.S. cement industry is made up of either portland cement plants that produce clinker and
grind it to make finished cement, or clinker-grinding plants that intergrind clinker obtained
elsewhere, with various additives.
Clinker is produced through a controlled high-temperature burn in a kiln of a measured blend of
calcareous rocks (usually limestone) and lesser quantities of siliceous, aluminous, and ferrous
materials. The kiln feed blend (also called raw meal or raw mix) is adjusted depending on the
chemical composition of the raw materials and the type of cement desired. Portland and
masonry cements are the chief types produced in the United States. More than 90% of the
cement produced in the U.S. in 1999 was portland cement, while masonry cement accounted for
5.0% of U.S. cement output in 1999 (USGS, 2001).
Cement plants are typically constructed in areas with substantial raw materials deposits (e.g. 50
years or longer). There were 117 operating cement plants in the U.S. in 1999, spread across 37
states and in Puerto Rico, owned by 42 companies. Portland cement was produced at 116 plants
in 1999, while masonry cement was produced at 83 plants (82 of which also produced portland
cement). Clinker was produced at 109 plants (111 including Puerto Rico) in the U.S. in 1999.
Production rates per plant vary between 0.5 and 3.1 million metric tons (Mt) per year.
Fuel costs are the single largest variable production cost at cement plants. Variable costs are
typically about 50% of overall operating costs, so energy is frequently the single largest
production cost, besides raw materials. Labor is relatively small at a cement plant.
31
SECTION 3
3.2
DESCRIPTION OF THE CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS
3.2.1 Mining and Quarrying

The most common raw materials used for cement production are limestone, chalk and clay. The
major component of the raw materials, the limestone or chalk, is usually extracted from a quarry
adjacent to or very close to the plant. Limestone provides the required calcium oxide and some
of the other oxides, while clay, shale and other materials provide most of the silicon, aluminum
and iron oxides required for the manufacture of portland cement. In California, the limestone is
extracted from open-face quarries. The raw materials are selected, crushed, ground, and
proportioned so that the resulting mixture has the desired fineness and chemical composition for
delivery to the pyroprocessing systems (see Figure 3-1). It is often necessary to raise the content
of silicon oxides or iron oxides by adding quartz sand and iron ore, respectively. The quarried
material is reduced in size by processing through a series of crushers. Normally primary size
reduction is accomplished by a jaw or gyratory crusher, and followed by secondary size
reduction with a roller or hammer mill. The crushed material is screened and stones are returned.
More than 1.5 tons of raw materials are required to produce one ton of portland cement (Greer et
al., 1992; Alsop and Post, 1995).
Figure 3-1
Simplified Process Schematic for Cement Making
Limestone
Crusher
Grinder
Raw meal
Kiln
Clinker
Additives
Grinder
Cement
Limestone is the major process input. Other raw materials such

as clay, shale, sand, quartz or iron ore may be added.
32
SECTION 3
3.2.2 Raw Material Preparation

After primary and secondary size reduction, the raw materials are further reduced in size by
grinding. The grinding differs with the pyroprocessing process used. In dry processing, the
materials are ground into a flowable powder in horizontal ball mills or in vertical roller mills. In
a ball (or tube) mill, steel-alloy balls (or tubes) are responsible for decreasing the size of the raw
material pieces in a rotating cylinder, referred to as a rotary mill. Rollers on a round table fulfill
this task of comminution in a roller mill. Utilizing waste heat from the kiln exhaust, clinker
cooler hood, or auxiliary heat from a stand-alone air heater before pyroprocessing may further
dry the raw materials. The moisture content in the kiln feed of the dry kiln is typically around
0.5% (0 - 0.7%).
When raw materials are very humid, as found in some countries and regions, wet processing can
be preferable1. In the wet process, raw materials are ground with the addition of water in a ball or
tube mill to produce a slurry typically containing 36% water (range of 24-48%). Various degrees
of wet processing exist, e.g. semi-wet (moisture content of 17-22%) to reduce the fuels
consumption in the kiln.
3.2.3 Clinker Production (Pyro-Processing)
Clinker is produced by pyroprocessing in large kilns. These kiln systems evaporate the inherent
water in the raw meal, calcine the carbonate constituents (calcination), and form cement minerals
(clinkerization).
The main pyroprocessing kiln type used in the U.S. is the rotary kiln. In these rotary kilns a tube
with a diameter up to 25 feet is installed at a 3-4 degree angle that rotates 1-3 times per minute.
The ground raw material, fed into the top of the kiln, moves down the tube countercurrent to the
flow of gases and toward the flame-end of the rotary kiln, where the raw meal is dried, calcined,
and enters into the sintering zone. In the sintering (or clinkering) zone, the combustion gas
reaches a temperature of 33003600 F. While many different fuels can be used in the kiln, coal
has been the primary fuel in the U.S. since the 1970s.
In a wet rotary kiln, the raw meal typically contains approximately 36% moisture. These kilns
were developed as an upgrade of the original long dry kiln to improve the chemical uniformity in
the raw meal. The water (due to the high moisture content of the raw meal) is first evaporated in
the kiln in the low temperature zone. The evaporation step makes a long kiln necessary. The
length to diameter ratio may be up to 38, with lengths up to 252 yards. The capacity of large
units may be up to 4000 short tons of clinker per day. None of the cement plants in California
operates a wet process clinker kiln.
In a dry rotary kiln, feed material with much lower moisture content (0.5%) is used, thereby
reducing the need for evaporation and reducing kiln length. The first development of the dry
1
Originally, the wet process was the preferred process, as it was easier to mix, grind and control the size distribution of the
particles in a slurry form. The need for the wet process was reduced by the development of improved grinding processes, and
improvement of the energy efficiency of the pyroprocessing systems.
33
SECTION 3
process took place in the U.S. and was a long dry kiln without preheating (Cembureau, 1997).
Later developments have added multi-stage suspension preheaters (i.e. a cyclone) or shaft
preheater. Pre-calciner technology was more recently developed in which a second combustion
chamber has been added between the kiln and a conventional pre-heater that allows for further
reduction of kiln fuel requirements.
Once the clinker is formed in the rotary kiln, it is cooled rapidly to minimize the formation of a
glass phase and ensure the maximum yield of alite (tricalcium silicate) formation, an important
component for the hardening properties of cement. The main cooling technologies are either the
grate cooler or the tube or planetary cooler. In the grate cooler, the clinker is transported over a
reciprocating grate through which air flows perpendicular to the flow of clinker. In the planetary
cooler (a series of tubes surrounding the discharge end of the rotary kiln), the clinker is cooled in a
counter-current air stream. The cooling air is used as secondary combustion air for the kiln.
3.2.4 Finish Grinding
After cooling, the clinker can be stored in the clinker dome, silos, bins, or outside. The material
handling equipment used to transport clinker from the clinker coolers to storage and then to the
finish mill is similar to that used to transport raw materials (e.g. belt conveyors, deep bucket
conveyors, and bucket elevators). To produce powdered cement, the nodules of cement clinker
are ground to the consistency of face powder. Grinding of cement clinker, together with
additions (3-5% gypsum to control the setting properties of the cement) can be done in ball mills,
ball mills in combination with roller presses, roller mills, or roller presses. While vertical roller
mills are feasible, they have not found wide acceptance in the U.S. Coarse material is separated
in a classifier that is re-circulated and returned to the mill for additional grinding to ensure a
uniform surface area of the final product.
Traditionally, ball mills are used in finish grinding, while many plants use vertical roller mills. In
ball or tube mills, the clinker and gypsum are fed into one end of a horizontal cylinder and partially
ground cement exits from the other end.
Modern state-of-the-art concepts utilize a high-pressure roller mill and the horizontal roller mill
(e.g. Horomill) (Seebach et al., 1996) that are claimed to use 20-50% less energy than a ball mill.
The roller press is a relatively new technology, and is more common in Western Europe than in
North America. Various new grinding mill concepts are under development or have been
demonstrated (Seebach et al., 1996), e.g. the Horomill (Buzzi, 1997), Cemax (Folsberg, 1997a),
the IHI mill, and the air-swept ring roller mill (Folsberg, 1997b).
3.3
CEMENT PRODUCTION ENERGY USE
Energy use associated with mining and quarrying raw materials for cement production are not
typically included in the cement sector, but rather are accounted for in the mining sector. As
such, the cement sector energy consumption is comprised of energy used for raw material
preparation, clinker production, and finish grinding.
34
SECTION 3
Raw material preparation is an electricity-intensive production step requiring generally about 2332 kWh/short ton (COWIconsult et al., 1993; Jaccard and Willis, 1996), although it could require
as little as 10 kWh/short ton.
Clinker production is the most energy-intensive stage in cement production, accounting for over
90% of total industry energy use, and virtually all of the fuel use. Fuel use for clinker production
in a wet kiln can vary between 4.6 and 6.1 MBtu/short ton clinker (Worrell and Galitsky, 2004).
Typical fuel consumption of a dry kiln with 4 or 5-stage preheating can vary between 2.7 and 3.0
MBtu/short ton clinker, electricity use increases slightly due to the increased pressure drop
across the system. A six stage preheater kiln can theoretically use as low as 2.5-2.6 MBtu/short
ton clinker. The most efficient pre-heater, pre-calciner kilns use approximately 2.5 MBtu/short
ton clinker. Alkali or kiln dust (KD) bypass systems may be required in kilns to remove alkalis,
sulfates, and/or chlorides. Such systems lead to additional energy losses since sensible heat is
removed with the bypass gas and dust.
Power consumption for grinding depends on the surface area required for the final product and
the additives used. Electricity use for raw meal and finish grinding depends strongly on the
hardness of the material (limestone, clinker, pozzolana extenders) and the desired fineness of the
cement as well as the amount of additives. Blast furnace slags are harder to grind and hence use
more grinding power, between 45 and 64 kWh/short ton for a 3,500 Blaine2 (expressed in cm2/g).
Modern ball mills may use between 29 and 34 kWh/short ton (Worrell and Galitsky, 2004) for
cements with a Blaine of 3,500.
3.4
TECHNICAL POTENTIAL FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY
A previous analysis of the technical potential for energy efficiency improvement in the U.S.
cement industry found a potential of 180 PJ, or 40%, based on U.S. cement production
characteristics in the early 1990s (Martin et al., 1999). This report as well as a later report
(Worrell and Galitsky, 2004), evaluated the energy-saving potential of about 30 energyefficiency technologies and practices that could be applied to both wet and dry process cement
production.
For this analysis, we compare current energy use (both for electricity and for fuels) for cement
production in California in 2002 (van Oss, 2003) to best practice values for these two types of
fuel. The best practice value of 109 kWh/short ton of cement for electricity production is based
on expert judgment, taking into account the hard limestone found in California, as reported by
representatives at Hansen Permanente Cement Company. The best practice value of 2.62
MBtu/short ton of clinker is based on a plant built in Taiwan in the mid-1990s that has an
intensity of 2.64 MBtu/short ton (Die Zementindustrie Taiwans, 1994) and a plant built in India
that has an intensity of 2.58 MBtu/short ton (Somani and Kothari, 1997).
Blaine is a measure of the total surface of the particles in a given quantity of cement, or an indicator of the fineness of
cement. It is defined in terms of square centimetres per gram. The higher the Blaine, the more energy required to grind
the clinker and additives (Holderbank, 1993).
35
SECTION 3
Given these best practice values, we estimate potential electricity savings of about 32 kWh/short
ton of cement and potential fuel savings of about 0.7 MBtu/short ton of clinker. Given 2002
production of 11,166,000 short tons of cement and 11,187,000 short tons of clinker in California,
the technical potential electricity savings are about 360 GWh and fuel savings are about 7.8
TBtu, with a total technical potential savings for both fuels of about 20% over 2002 levels.
3.5
REFERENCES
Alsop, P.A. and J.W. Post, 1995. The Cement Plant Operations Handbook, (First edition),
Tradeship Publications Ltd., Dorking, UK.
Buzzi, S. and G. Sassone, 1993. Optimization of Clinker Cooler Operation, Proc. VDZ Kongress
1993: "Verfahrenstechnik der Zementherstellung" Bauverlag, Wiesbaden, Germany (pp.296-304).
Cembureau, 1997. Best Available Techniques for the Cement Industry, Brussels: Cembureau.
COWIconsult, March Consulting Group and MAIN, 1993. Energy Technology in the Cement
Industrial Sector, Report prepared for CEC - DG-XVII, Brussels, April 1992.
Die Zementindustrie Taiwans - Rueckblick und Gegenwaertiger Stand, 1994. (The Cement
Industry in Taiwan - Historic and Current Situation, 1994) Zement-Kalk-Gips 147 pp.47-50.
Folsberg, J., 1997a. "Future Grinding" Asian Cement, January 1997, pp.21-23 (1997).
Folsberg, J., 1997b. The Air-Swept Ring Roller Mill for Clinker Grinding Proc.1997 IEEE/PCA
Cement Industry Technical Conference XXXIX Conference Record, Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers: New Jersey.
Greer, W. L., Johnson, M. D., Morton, E.L., Raught, E.C., Steuch, H.E. and Trusty Jr., C.B., 1992.
Portland Cement, in Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Anthony J. Buonicore and Waynte T.
Davis (eds.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Holderbank Consulting, 1993. Present and Future Energy Use of Energy in the Cement and
Concrete Industries in Canada, CANMET, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jaccard, M.K.& Associates and Willis Energy Services Ltd., 1996. Industrial Energy End-Use
Analysis and Conservation Potential in Six Major Industries in Canada. Report prepared for
Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Seebach, H.M. von, E. Neumann and L. Lohnherr, 1996. "State-of-the-Art of Energy-Efficient
Grinding Systems" ZKG International 2 49 pp.61-67 (1996).
Somani, R.A., S.S. Kothari, 1997. Die Neue Zementlinie bei Rajashree Cement in
Malkhed/Indien ZKG International 8 50 pp.430-436 (1997).
36
SECTION 3
United States Geological Survey, 2001. Minerals Yearbook, Washington, D.C., USGS,
http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/.
van Oss, H., 2002. Personal Communication. U.S. Geological Survey, March May 2002.
Worrell, E. and C. Galitsky. 2004. Energy Efficiency Improvement Opportunities for Cement
Making: An ENERGY STAR Guide for Energy and Plant Managers. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL-54036).
37
4
4
CUSTOMER INTERVIEWS
CUSTOMER INTERVIEWS
4.1
OVERVIEW
This section presents results of in depth interviews with senior representatives from four cement
companies representing operations at five California cement plants. The interviews were
conducted by a senior KEMA-XENERGY engineer who was generally knowledgeable about
cement plant operations. The interview process included a brief technical discussion of each
facilities operations, but mainly focused on various aspects of the customers decision-making
process, especially as it applies to purchases of energy efficiency products and services.
The following survey topics are covered in this section:
General customer information;
Plant energy characteristics;
Energy as It Relates to Overall Business Factors
Energy Management
General Decision-Making Practices
Energy Efficiency Decision Making
O&M Practices
Attitudes Towards Energy Efficiency
Recent Energy Efficiency Project Activity
Energy Efficiency Information and Program Activity
A copy of the interview guidelines is provided in Appendix A and a tabulation of survey
responses is provided in Appendix B.
4.2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Table 4-1 summarizes some general information about the customers included in the interview
process.
All facilities are involved in full cement production, from quarry to finished product,
although one facility is primarily involved in grinding operations of clicker produced
elsewhere.
In general, the cement facilities are not very labor intensive, employing only 100-200
full-time workers per site.
All but one of the companies owns multiple cement facilities in California, and all
companies own cement plants outside of California (although one company has only one
U.S. facility). Only one of the companies (facilities A1 and A2) is U.S.-owned.
41
SECTION 4
CUSTOMER INTERVIEWS
Overall cement plant efficiency is generally correlated with the age of the primary
equipment.
Table 4-1
General Customer/Facility Information
Facility
Location
Interviewee(s) Title
Product
Facility Description
General Plant
Employees
Company-Owned
Plants in California
Company-Owned
Plants outside
4.3
A1
Riverside
Community and Govt.
Affairs Manager,
Financial Manager
White cement from
scratch; grey cement
from clinker produced
elsewhere
- 2 kilns, dating to
1963; clinker capacity
of 110 k tons/yr
- 4 mills, dating to
1963, with a capacity of
914 k tons/yr
A2
Oro Grande
Community and Govt.
Affairs Manager,
Financial Manager
Grey cement
B
C
Colton
Lucerne Valley
Plant Manager,
Plant Manager
Operations Supervisor
D
Tehachapi
Plant Manager
Grey cement
Grey cement
Grey cement
- 2 kilns, dating to
1962; clinker capacity
of 680 k tons/yr
- 4 mills, 2 dating to
1962 and 2 dating to
1980, with a capacity of
1,316 k tons/yr;
- 30 MW steam plant
utilizes waste heat (not
fully utilized)
Less efficient
120
3
- 1 kiln, dating to 1982,

clinker capacity of
1,543 k tons/yr
- 4 mills, 3 dating to
1966 or older and 1
dating to 1982, with a
capacity of 1,647 k
tons/yr
- 1 kiln, dating to 1991,

clinker capacity of 907
k tons/yr
- 2 mills, dating to
1971 and 1992, with a
capacity of 798 k
tons/yr
Less efficient
100-150
2
- 7 kilns, newest dates

to 1959; clinker
capacity of 1,046 k
tons/yr
- 4 mills, newest dates
to 1957, with a capacity
of 640 k tons/yr;
- 7 waste heat boilers
and 2 generators for
cogeneration
Less efficient
100-150
2
More efficient
180
1
More efficient
150-200
2
No other US plants
5 other US plants
ENERGY CHARACTERISTICS
Energy costs are the single largest variable production cost at cement plants, as indicated by all
survey interviewees. Variable costs are typically about 50% of overall operating costs in the
cement industry, so energy is frequently the single largest production cost.
Electricity was estimated to account for over 10% of overall production costs for four of the
facilities and over 30% of the production costs for one facility. All customers indicated that they
were direct-access electricity purchasers. Natural gas tended to account for only 1% to 5% of
overall production costs, as most facilities utilize other primary fuels (coal, tires, other waste
fuels) in their kilns.
4.4
ENERGY AS IT RELATES TO OVERALL BUSINESS FACTORS
In the interview, the customers were asked (unaided) to list the factors that were very important
to their business. All indicated that energy costs and market conditions were two of the factors
that were very important to their businesses. Three of the four interviewees indicated that
environmental regulations where also a very important consideration, while one customer cited
production management as a very important factor.
42
SECTION 4
CUSTOMER INTERVIEWS
In addition to energy costs, customers were asked to rate a number of factors as to their
importance to their business. Results are tabulated and summarized in Table 4-2. Clearly, the
most important factor cited is the need to comply with regulatory requirements. This is not
surprising as the plants could not operate long in non-compliance. One of the primary regulatory
factors involves compliance with air emissions standards.
The next highest rated business factors involve maintaining product quality and meeting
production requirements. Having a reliable high-quality supply of electricity was rated of
medium importance by most interviewees.
It is interesting to note that one customer with a more-efficient facility indicated that maintaining
technologically competitive was of extreme importance. This customer is owned by a company
that produces equipment for the cement industry, which most likely correlates with the customers
perception of this business factors, as well as the efficiency of the plant.
Table 4-2
Rating of Key Business Factors
(0 = Unimportant, 5 = Extremely Important)
Business Factors
Maintaining product quality and
consistency
Meeting your production schedule
Meeting regulatory requirements (such
as environmental requirements)
Keeping up technologically with
competitors
Keeping up with new or shifting market
demands
Having a reliable, high quality supply
of electricity
Maintaining your market niche
Maintaining a happy and productive
staff
Identifying and implementing cost
saving measures
A1
A2
Facility
B
4.3
4.5
5.0
2.3
3.3
3.3
2.5
2.3
1.3
D*
Average
* Interviewee did not address this series of questions.
4.5
OVERALL ENERGY MANAGEMENT
Interviewees were asked to assess the overall energy management policies at their facilities.
Responses are cited in Table 4-3. These perceptions correlate well with the overall assessment
of plant efficiency (as developed by outside sources). It appears that Customer D provides a
pretty good summary of the basic approach towards energy management as practiced by all
surveyed firms and the competing objects they must deal with. The primary difference between
43
SECTION 4
CUSTOMER INTERVIEWS
firms appears to be the degree to which they practice weight the importance of energy
management in their operations.
Table 4-3
Overall Energy Management Policy
Customer Response
A
Moderate: Energy costs are certainly a concern but capital is limited and no one really has time to
focus on energy and carry forth projects. In addition, at <one site>, the uncertainty about the plant
remaining in operation has kept us from doing any upgrades there.
Moderate - High: It is our single largest production cost. Energy use guides all of our process
operating practicing practices.
Extremely Aggressive: Energy costs are constantly reviewed vs. production - daily, weekly,
monthly and annually. Control decisions are based on power requirements.
Strong: However, maintaining consistent production and product quality is the overriding concern.
Although everyone at the plant is aware of energy and it is a key factor on which some operations
are based, we have limited operating staff. Fine-tuning for optimizing efficiency, and developing,
championing, and managing energy improvements takes staff time that is just not available given
each persons day to day responsibility. We do have special projects engineering staff, but even
they are too busy to take on energy projects that arent related to maintaining production. Also, the
plant must remain in production as much as possible. The interruptions and coordination required
for retrofits can also restrict consideration of energy retrofits.
All interviewees indicated that they, for the most part, had the information they needed to
effectively manage energy costs. However, to varying degrees, each customer indicated that
they did not necessarily have time to process all the information or act on it. One of the more
efficient companies indicated that their parent company has performed periodic process/energy
audits to help facilitate increased efficiency. Another respondent indicated that often there are
projects where energy impacts cant be determined precisely enough and the ensuing risk was
too high to justify investments.
It appears likely that the customer responses are predominantly directed at the most significant
energy-sing equipment because measures targeted there can deliver the highest level of savings.
It is not as clear that these customers are as aware of smaller-impact measures, such as fine
tuning of O&M activities, since these activities deliver relatively small levels of savings. Given
the lack of manpower, it appears that the small cost-effective projects will often be overlooked.
All customers indicated that they have implemented or would consider implementing a number
activities to manage energy costs, including: adjusting production schedules, utilizing industry
best practices/training to improve productivity, purchasing equipment to improve productivity,
and implementing conservation activities. Most customers mentioned that they would require
the appropriate price signals to trigger a shifting of their production processes. Three of the four
interviewees indicated that, in the past, they have implemented shifts in production in response to
Real Time Rate Programs. None of the customers indicated that they would consider
downsizing their production facility to reduce energy costs.
44
SECTION 4
4.6
CUSTOMER INTERVIEWS
GENERAL DECISION-MAKING PRACTICES
Interviewees were asked a number of questions about how they made investment decisions and
how energy efficiency related decisions were handled as compared to other investment decisions.
For the most part, each companys operations personnel are charged with identifying
opportunities and specifying equipment to invest in, and senior management is responsible for
approving all investments outside of normal O&M expenditures. Two of the respondents
indicated that vendors were sometimes included in the equipment specification process. One
company indicated that senior management approval was required for all expenditures over
$10,000. The general decision-making process for each firm is summarized in Table 4-4. It is
notable that the two more efficient facilities identified funds that are set aside annually for capital
improvement, indicating that these firms have institutionalized a process on continually
upgrading their facility.
Table 4-4
Usual Decision Making Process for Capital Improvements
Customer Response
A
Corporate or plant managers identify technological potential; local corporate staff review and
evaluate based on corporate criteria; ultimately goes to corporate for financial approval.
Initiated and analyzed at plant, goes to corporate for financial approval.
Plant process managers identify technological potential, cost-benefit is reviewed at the department
level and then the plant level. Local corporate staff review and evaluate based on corporate
criteria. Ultimately goes to corporate for final financial approval. Capital budget has been fairly
fixed at $4 million for the last several years. Sometimes we get funds for special projects that are
being pushed at the corporate level.
Plant manager develops the operating and capital investment for the plant within guidelines
provided by corporate management and with input from the various production section managers.
Energy saving projects compete with other capital projects. The plant manager asks for project
needs from the various division department managers and make the final determination on the
budget request. It is usually they who propose energy related projects. Sometimes with guidance
from the Plant Manager or Corporate suggestions but usually on their own initiative. The level of
capital funding depends on business and macro economic conditions. We usually have $1
million/year for capital improvements. Investments over $10K require corporate approval
although sometimes they are lumped with other projects.
Generally, returns on capital investments need to be pretty high to justify expenditures. The
interviewees from the less efficient facilities indicated that their typical targeted payback for
investments was 1.0 to 1.5 years. The interviewees from the more efficient plants indicated
somewhat high payback thresholds: one cited a maximum of three years, and one indicated that
a 1.0-2.0 year payback requirement was typical. Only one customer indicated that energyefficiency projects might be treated differently from other projects they stated that production
output related project might sometimes be given an advantage over cost-reduction projects.
45
SECTION 4
CUSTOMER INTERVIEWS
All customers indicated that their organizations required a detailed technical and financial review
before investing in all projects, and the same type of analysis was required for energy and nonenergy projects.
Critical drivers for investment in new equipment (in addition to cost-effectiveness) included:
capital availability, affects on production, market conditions, and innovation. One of the less
efficient facilities was clearly facing limited capital availability that greatly limited any capital
investments. The installation of innovative equipment was cited by an interviewee of one of the
more efficient plants. Addition considerations for installation of new equipment included: lost
production time, equipment reliability, environmental issues, safety, and effects on maintenance
costs.
4.7
ENERGY EFFICIENCY DECISION MAKING
All interviewees indicated that, for the most part, energy efficiency investments were treated
similarly to other investment opportunities. One customer noted that specific-energy is
considered in all investment decisions consistent with the fact that energy is such a large part
of operating costs. One customer noted that the availability of incentives might cause them to
look more favorably at energy efficiency investments. All companies utilize normal internal
capital resources to fund energy efficiency projects.
Two of the four companies indicated they had policies in place to specify higher efficiency
equipment when making investments. A third company had no formal procedures in place, but
expected new equipment to lower or at least be neutral with respect to specific energy. The
fourth customer, owner of a less efficient plant, had no energy efficiency purchase policy.
Only one of the four companies (at one of the more efficient facilities) indicated they had an
employee dedicated to maintaining/improving energy efficiency at the plant. An additional two
companies indicated that there were informal champions of energy efficiency at their plants.
Given the large energy costs for these facilities, it appears that most operations staff have some
directive to focus on efficient energy use, but it appears the only one company has put an
organizational emphasis on reducing energy costs.
When asked about disincentives to reducing energy operating costs, two customers cited large
exit charges as a primary factor limiting the cost effectiveness of cogeneration projects that
would take advantage of waste heat. One customer listed long project duration as a limiting
factor in participating in rebate programs. Also, caps on incentive levels limit their effectiveness
in influencing customer decisions, since many of the project involve very large capital outlays.
4.8
O&M PRACTICES
All customers indicated that the primary maintenance at their facilities was to do whatever was
necessary to keep equipment running to maximize production. They all indicated that they tried
to maintain equipments so as to minimize energy use, since energy was such a large part of their
operations. Three of the interviewees indicated that their staff had good to very good knowledge
46
SECTION 4
CUSTOMER INTERVIEWS
of energy efficiency practices. One on the less efficient customers indicated their staff had
modest knowledge.
Customers were asked about their specific policies regarding maintenance policy for various
types of equipment. Results are presented in Table 4-5. The proactive category includes limited
scheduled preventive maintenance, aggressive scheduled preventive maintenance, and predictive
maintenance. Most proactive strategies involved the limited scheduled preventive maintenance,
but one customer, at a more efficient plant, indicated they utilized predictive O&M practices for
bearing lubrication and for fan/blower wheel balancing.
Table 4-5
Equipment-Specific O&M Practices
Facility
O&M Category
A1
A2
As needed
As needed
Proactive
Proactive
Proactive
Proactive
Proactive
Proactive
Proactive
Proactive
Motor belt replacement
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
Fan/blower blade cleaning
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
Fan/blower wheel balancing
As needed
As needed
As needed
Proactive
As needed
Fan/blower airflow test
As needed
As needed
As needed
Proactive
As needed
Proactive
Proactive
Proactive
Proactive
Proactive
As needed
As needed
As needed
Proactive
As needed
Motor lubrication
Bearing lubrication
Air compressor intake filters

Compressed air water traps &
pressure regulators
4.9
ATTITUDES TOWARDS ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Three of the four customers indicated that energy efficiency equipment and practices were very
important to their operations. One of the three acknowledged that they dont have enough staff
and time to pursue most of their energy efficiency opportunities. The fourth customer indicated
that they could do much better with regard to energy efficiency, but felt they were severely
limited by capital and other resource constraints.
All customers believed that premium efficiency equipment was similar to standard equipment in
terms of procurement lead times, installation costs, and ongoing maintenance costs. Thus, they
appeared to have no predisposed bias against high efficiency equipment in terms of these
dimension of hassle cost.
The customers didnt express strong options regarding how well energy efficiency deliver on
expected energy savings. One customer indicated that they usually meet expectations due to this
customers extensive research prior to energy efficiency investments.
47
SECTION 4
CUSTOMER INTERVIEWS
When asked about energy efficiency systems they would like to have, irregardless of cost, the
interviewees were all able to provide a pretty good, and overlapping, wish list. Key measures
were (number of respondents who cited the measure are listed in parentheses):
Heat recovery for power generation (4)
More VFDs (4)
Roller mills versus ball mills (3)
Vertical calcining kilns(2)
Fewer pneumatic/more mechanical conveyors (2)
Improved compressed air system (1)
Better classifiers (1)
Better combustion controls for kilns (1)
More use of tires and waste fuels in kilns (1)
The primary factors limiting increased energy efficiency were listed as (with number of
respondents in parentheses):
To busy to research (3)
No money to research (3)
Capital constraints (3)
Too much plant down time (3)
Not worth the trouble for small items (3)
No staff time to manage the projects (2)
Insufficient reliable information on products (1)
Doesnt meet payback criteria (1)
Hard to sell to management due to savings risk (1)
Waiting to see how measures perform elsewhere (1)
Clearly the key limitations for these customers are time and money. They have limited staff and
limited capital, and most believe they are doing the best job they can with resources at hand.
They all seem willing to do more to improve their plants energy efficiency if they had more
resources.
The smaller energy efficiency items at these cement plants are likely to amount to fairly large
savings, given the overall energy intensity of these facilities. These smaller items dont seem to
get on the radar screen for these customers and are mainly seen as a hassle.
4.10 RECENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT ACTIVITY

When asked if they had installed any major capital projects over the past several years:
One customer stated they had installed no projects
One customer installed a computer analyzer for a mixer
48
SECTION 4
CUSTOMER INTERVIEWS
One customer installed classifiers on two mills and a VFD on a fan;

The last customer installed a number of measures in the past 10 years or so, including a
LOSHI vertical raw mill, a precalciner, control upgrades, and high efficiency separators.
Energy efficiency considerations were primary motivators in all investments.

The interviewees from two most efficient plants also indicated that they were planning to install
new energy efficiency equipment in the next year or so: a waste heat cogeneration plant
(possibly), a new classifier, improvements to the clinker coolers, and controls.
All of the respondents were aware of many of the newer technologies in the industry (as listed at
the top of page 4-8). They were all very receptive to the newer technologies, but they all
indicated that the associated high capital costs were prohibitive. One customer wasnt sure that
retrofitting with the newer technologies would be cost effective at his plant.
4.11 ENERGY EFFICIENCY INFORMATION AND PROGRAM ACTIVITY

All customers claimed they utilized various sources to maintain awareness of energy efficiency
measures, including: trade journals, vendors, utility staff, business associates, trade associations,
and trade shows.
Trusted sources of energy efficiency information cited by all respondents included the IEEE
Tech Committee and the Portland Cement Association (PCA). In addition, one customer cited
his corporate staff and one customer cited his local utility.
All respondents were aware of the SPC and Express Efficiency Programs, and one respondent
indicated he was aware of the availability of energy audits. Two customers were aware of recent
compressed air programs.
In terms of program participation, one customer had participated in the SPC Program and the
Express Efficiency Program and had installed a new classifier and a fan VFD under the
programs. Another customer had installed a new air compressor under the SPC Program. These
installations came at the two more efficient plants included in the interviews.
Finally, three of the four customers indicated that extending program time limits to three or more
years would further encourage installation of more energy efficiency equipment. All these
customers indicate that the planning and installation schedules in their industry did not line up
well with the relatively short program periods associated with Public Goods Funded programs.
49
5
5
ENERGY-EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES
This section presents a brief description of the key initiatives currently affecting the cement
industry.
5.1
PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION
The Portland Cement Association (PCA) is the industry association with offices in Skokie
(Illinois) and Washington, DC (PCA, 2004). The organization has a double function, as it serves
as the representation in Washington, DC, and as a research and dissemination organization and
clearinghouse focused on cement and concrete applications. Over 80% of the cement plants in
the United States are associated with the PCA. All cement companies in California are PCA
members.
The PCA annually collects data on energy and labor inputs from all its members, which are
published each year. The PCA has no special programs related to energy efficiency improvement
in the cement industry. However, PCA serves as the conduit for national programs like
ENERGY STAR and ClimateVISION (see below).
5.2
CEMENT KILN RECYCLING COALITION
The Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC) is a trade association with member companies
located throughout the United States (CKRC, 2004). Members include cement companies
engaged in the use of hazardous waste-derived fuel as well as companies involved in the
collection, processing, management, and marketing of such fuel for use in cement kilns. CKRC
and its member companies support appropriate regulations related to the use of waste-derived
fuels including scrap tires. It collects and disseminates information on the use of wastes as fuel in
clinker kilns. The CKRC is based in Washington, DC. Of the California based cement
companies, only Texas Industries (TXI) is a member of the CKRC.
5.3
CLIMATE VISION
The federal government (through the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture) and industry organizations in 12 energy-intensive economic sectors joined in a
voluntary partnership called Climate VISION. Climate VISION works with industry to identify
and pursue cost-effective solutions to reduce emissions using existing technologies; develop
tools to calculate and report emission intensity reductions; speed the commercial adoption of
advanced technologies; and develop strategies to reduce emissions intensity in other economic
sectors (ClimateVISION, 2004). The Portland Cement Association has committed to a 10%
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions per ton of cementious product produced or sold from a
1990 baseline by 2020.
51
SECTION 5
5.4
ENERGY STAR
ENERGY STAR is the primary program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency aimed at
energy-efficiency improvement. ENERGY STAR for industry (U.S. EPA, 2004a) aims at the
development and institutionalization of strategic corporate energy management in companies
participating in ENERGY STAR as a member or through the so-called Focus (see below).
Currently, nearly 500 companies are ENERGY STAR members. All cement companies based in
California are members of ENERGY STAR, except for Hanson in Cupertino. However, all
companies and the PCA, including Hanson Permanente Cement participate in the ENERGY
STAR Focus.
Within the Focus effort, the ENERGY STAR program collaborates with specific industries. The
cement industry is one of the Focus industries.1 The Focus efforts include three elements:
Tailored support for the development of a corporate energy management program,

offered through professional energy managers;
A tool to analyze the performance of a plant compared to the peers in the U.S. based on a
simplified benchmarking approach.
An Energy Guide for the focus industry, providing detailed descriptions of energy
efficiency measures in the Focus industry. LBNL prepares the Guides. The Guide for the
cement industry was published in January 2004 (Worrell and Galitsky, 2004).
Besides the three elements above the ENERGY STAR program also offers regular networking
meetings within each Focus industry and an annual energy managers networking meeting and
workshop for all ENERGY STAR participants. ENERGY STAR has offered assistance in the
development of an energy management program to several of the companies located in
California, and has closely collaborated with California Portland Cement, Mitsubishi and RMC
Pacific, while all representatives of all companies participate in the Focus networking meetings
and tele-conferences.
5.5
CLIMATE LEADERS
Climate Leaders is a voluntary industry-government partnership of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency that encourages companies to develop long-term comprehensive climate
change strategies and set greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
Members of Climate Leaders set a long-term target for GHG emission reduction for the
company. Although currently three cement companies participate in Climate Leaders, none with
facilities in California participate.
Other Focus industries (early 2004) are: breweries, wet corn milling, vehicle assembly, petroleum refining and
pharmaceuticals. Every year new Focus industries are added.
52
SECTION 5
5.6
REFERENCES
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, 2004. www.ckrc.org

ClimateVISION, 2004. www.climatevision.gov
Dutrow, E. and T. Hicks. 2003. Encouraging Development of Sustainable Energy Management
Systems in the Manufacturing Sector. Proceedings of the 2003 ACEEE Summer Study on
Energy Efficiency in Industry. Washington, DC: ACEEE.
Portland Cement Association, 2004. www.cement.org
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004a.

www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=industry.bus_industry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004b. www.epa.gov/climateleaders
53
6
6
OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS
6.1
ENERGY EFFICIENCY OPPORTUNITIES
Energy efficiency opportunities can fall into at least three primary categories:
O&M activities to ensure that the installed equipment is running efficiently
Installation of high efficiency equipment/processes
Control of the production process to ensure efficient use of inputs
Key energy efficiency opportunities, as indicated by customers and identified in literature, are
discussed next. In addition these opportunities, a number of customers also indicated that they
would be willing to shift production to off-peak periods given the right price signals, such as real
time pricing.
6.1.1 O&M
Operations and maintenance practices include elements such as motor and bearing lubrication,
motor belt replacement, fan blade cleaning, fan wheel balancing, and compressed air system
maintenance including leak minimization and filter replacement. While most customers
indicated that they tried to keep equipment in good working order, the primary focus is on
keeping equipment operating to maximize production. Energy efficiency considerations are not
the primary concern.
Preventative maintenance is generally employed at the more efficient facilities but could be
improved at other plants (see Table 4-5). Preventative maintenance includes training of plant
staff to be attentive to energy consumption and efficiency. Energy savings of up to 2 to 3
percent are possible with the institution of a rigorous preventative maintenance program.
6.1.2 High Efficiency Equipment/Processes
In cement industry, as in other energy intensive process industries, the more generic measures,
like high efficiency motors and lighting, are either already done or are so small that their impacts
are below the radar. Significant energy savings projects typically involve major process and/or
equipment modifications that are industry-specific and highly specialized. Often highly
specialized expertise is necessary to identify and be able to quantify energy savings of
technology improvements. Cement industry customers see their equipment vendors as business
partners because the vendors tend to have the specialized expertise and experience in their
particular area (e.g. crushers/classifiers, kilns, conveyors).
Some of the energy efficiency equipment opportunities identified by customers, with a primary
focus on electricity savings, include:
61
SECTION 6
Efficient materials transport system: most notably conversion of pneumatic conveyors to

mechanical conveyors, with a savings of around 1% of total plant electricity use.
Conversion of ball mills to roller mills for both raw materials and finish grinding: energy
savings in raw materials preparation can be in the order of 5% of total electricity
consumption, while installation of advanced finish grinding systems can save achieve
savings in the 20% range.
High efficiency classifiers: these do a better job of separating out fine particles from
coarse particles, which are returned to the mills. They prevent over-grinding of the fine
particles that results in unnecessary power use in the mills. Savings can be around 8%.
Conversion to more efficient kilns such as vertical precalciner kilns, which will primarily
improve the thermal efficiency of the kiln, saving on coal consumption.
Variable speed drives: for fans in the kilns, coolers, preheaters, separators, and mills, and
for other drives associated with variable loads. A comprehensive conversion to VSDs
could probably save about 5% of total plant electricity use.
Compressed air system improvements: while not a large part of a cement plants total
electricity use, there is often room for significant efficiency improvements in systems that
have not been optimized.
In addition to the equipment-related opportunities listed above, there appears to be a good

opportunity to recover waste heat from the clinker production process for the generation of
electricity. There is significant waste heat from kilns even after it is used to the maximum
possible degree to preheat incoming material. Pre-heater exhaust is often more than 700F. Two
of the studied facilities already have cogeneration plants, and several more have performed
feasibility studies.
6.1.3 Process Controls
Key opportunities for improved process controls involve clinker production and finish grinding,
as well as operation of compressed air systems.
In clinker production, computerized controls can be used in a number of applications, such as
Optimizing the mix of raw materials entering the kilns to ensure proper chemical
composition and provide for more steady kiln operation;
Optimizing the combustion process and conditions in the kiln to improve product quality
and grindability; and
Improving heat recovery, material throughput, and emissions from the clinker cooler.
Grinding mill controls optimized the flow in the mill and classifiers to improve product quality
and increase production. The increased production translates into energy savings per unit of
output.
62
SECTION 6
Overall, savings from advanced control systems are in the 2-5% range for plants that have not
already installed such system.
6.2
BARRIERS TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY
A number of barriers to increased energy efficiency were identified in discussions with cement
customers and utility representatives who are in close contact with their cement customers.
Following are some key barriers identified in the interview process.
Limited capital: many of the energy efficiency equipment improvements in the cement industry
involve large capital investments, and most customers cited limited capital availability as a key
factor limiting increases in energy efficiency. One customer cited a $4 million capital budget,
and another cited a $1 million capital budget. Two other customers did not indicate that they had
any set budget to work with and had to justify all new capital expenditures on a case by case
basis. Many targeted project cost many millions of dollars, so even the customers with assigned
capital budgets are severely constrained.
Production concerns: for all customers, keeping equipment operation and avoiding production
disruptions was of the highest priority. Additionally, cement plants do not like to shut down
except for once a year, largely because shut down stresses the ceramic insulation in the kiln.
Heat-up and cool down has to be done very carefully or the ceramic insulation will deteriorate.
Limited staff time: staffing limitations were another key barrier to increased energy efficiency.
While all customers want to stay as efficient as possible, staffs number one priority is keeping
things running.
Information: while all customers feel they have access to the information they need to make
energy efficiency improvements, several customers indicated that they did not have time to focus
on this information. Also, it appears that customer knowledge is mostly directed towards the
big ticket equipment that are the primary energy users, and their understanding of the energysaving aspects of smaller items such are preventative O&M appears to be lower.
Reliability concerns: since maintaining production is such a high priority, cement customers are
very concerned about the reliability of all new equipment, including high efficiency equipment.
While the customers dont perceive differences in reliability between energy efficient and
standard equipment, any installations of new equipment at the plant will generate some reliability
concerns.
Hassle: since staff time is limited, smaller energy efficiency projects are not pursued because
they are not worth the trouble.
Facility uncertainty: one customer indicated that they were currently investigating the feasibility
of a complete plant overhaul. Uncertainty over the overhaul project has halted any possible
efficiency projects.
63
SECTION 6
Cost effectiveness: most customers have severe cost effectiveness criteria. Two customers (with
less efficient plants) have payback cutoffs of 1.0 to 1.5 years. Only one customer indicated that
they would consider projects with paybacks of up to three years.
Exit fees: Customers have not proceeded to install cogeneration equipment that would utilize
waste heat because they would be subject to departure charges. Without the departure charges,
on-site generation with waste heat would be very close to being economic.
6.2.1 Barriers to Program Participation
While all interviewed customers were aware of the PGC-funded programs, SPC and Express,
and two of the customers had participated in the SPC program, there were several barriers to
increased program participation cited:
Short program period: in many cases it takes three to five years for these customers to
develop and implement a project, from the planning through construction stages.
Programs that have a one or two year time period dont fit well with their operations.
Limited incentives: many of the cement plant projects cost tens of millions of dollars.
Incentives of a few hundred thousand dollars dont provide much incentive for these
types of projects.
M&V requirements: past SPC M&V requirements have generally favored one-for-one
equipment changeouts where pre and post equipment efficiencies are more readily
measurable. Measures that are more holistic and affect energy use of a system are
harder to justify savings for and thus have had limited acceptance in the Program.
Program paperwork: SPC participation was limited at the beginning because the
application process was time consuming and a burden on customer staff. Utility
assistance to some customers with the applications, when necessary, has helped mitigate
this barrier.
6.3
REFERENCES
64
7
7
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides some recommendations on how to increase energy efficiency in

Californias cement industry. These recommendations address the opportunities and barriers
summarized in Section 6. It is likely that PGC funds could be used to implement some, but not
all of the following recommendations.
Increase program time limits for project implementation: if program limits were increased to
three years or more, the program participation process would fit better into customers planning
and operations schedules. For customers with severe capital constraints, the availability of an
incentive may be a driving factor in project approval. However, once an application is accepted,
it still may take months for a project to get approval of upper management. Following the
approval process, project design and implementation may take years and must fit into scheduled
plant down times.
Integrate industrial program activities with DOE and other initiatives: as presented in Section 5,
there are a number of organizations and initiatives that cement industry customers are involved
in or have access to. PGC program funding could be utilized to support energy efficiency
aspects of these initiatives directed towards California cement producers. In addition, funding
could be used to assist customers who participate in these initiatives.
Provide energy manager funding: while most customers indicate that they manage their energy
use, and that staff are committed to improving energy efficiency, only one interviewed customer
has employed a full time energy management position. It may be possible to use PGC funding to
hire industry experts to serve as energy managers at interested facilities. These experts could
take the lead on identification, planning, and implementation of energy efficiency projects. This
would help alleviate a key barrier to energy efficiency improvements limited staff time.
For example, a cement industry expert could be hired to provide energy efficiency services to
several cement facilities over a program year, maybe spending 25% of their time at each of four
plants. They could be charged with reviewing existing project plans, conducting or coordinating
energy audit activities, and managing energy efficiency projects.
Eliminate exit fees for waste heat cogeneration: currently, much of the heat generated in cement
kilns is exhausted into the air. Recovery of this energy should be encouraged, but current
regulatory practices work against the economics of customer-generation investments by adding
an additional economic hurdle, exit fees, to the cost effectiveness calculations. Customers
indicated that they are likely to seriously consider investing in waste heat cogeneration if the exit
fee hurdle were to be removed.
oa:projects:wpge0070:report:cement:7_recs
71
SECTION 7
RECOMMENDATIONS
Increase rebate limits: for cement customers, where energy efficiency projects can cost many
millions of dollars, caps on rebate levels limit their effectiveness in influencing customer
decisions. The limited incentives primarily influence the smaller projects a customer will
undertake, such as the installation of VSDs. While larger projects may also qualify for
incentives, it is likely that these projects would proceed anyway.
Make incentives conditional on customer installation of very cost-effective measures: customers

indicate that the hassle factor may cause them not to pursue some of the smaller energy
efficiency projects. If incentives for larger projects were conditional on customers implementing
many of the smaller cost-effective projects, like those with paybacks of six months or less, it may
be possible to get these smaller projects on the radar screen.
Provide audits for cross-cutting technologies: while a high level of expertise is required for
understanding and recommending energy efficiency projects particular to the cement industry,
audits may be useful in identifying good opportunities for some of the more standard end uses
such as lighting, HVAC, compressed air, and pumping. Combined with an energy manager
program, these audits could help customers more easily implement some of these smaller
projects. (Note, a small project at an energy intensive cement plant may equate to a fairly large
project at other businesses.)
Provided funding for industry-specific education and training: ongoing training of cement plant
staff, with a special focus on energy efficiency, may be useful to maintain customer interest in
improving plant efficiency. Such training could focus on the investments and practices that
generally provide the best returns for an customers efforts. Such training could be coordinated
with activities provided in other cement industry initiatives.
oa:projects:wpge0070:report:cement:7_recs
72
A
A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
INTERVIEW GUIDE
Industrial Case Study
Decision-Maker Interview Guide
Interview Tracking Information

Survey Number
Completion Date
Interviewer
Survey Length (min.)
Customer Information
SIC Code
Utility (s)
PG&E
SCE
SCG
Company Name
Street Address
City, State, Zip
Contact Name
Contact Title
Phone
Alt info (email, cell)
Contact Notes
A1
SDG&E
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
Firmographics
F1. What do you make/do at this facility?
F2. Basic Facility Description (number of buildings, process/offices, etc.)
F3. How many people work at your facility (full time equivalents)? _________ people
Not sure, this is a rough estimate
Dont know
F4. How many other separate facilities do you have in California? Outside California?
______________ in CA ______________ outside CA
Dont know
Energy Characteristics
E1. How important is energy usage relative to your overall production costs? (gas/electric?)
Not important
Somewhat Important
Very Important
E2. Could you estimate the percent of overall production costs that go to electricity? (If
necessary: 1% or less; >1%-5%, 5%-10%, over 10%)
________
E3. Could you estimate the percent of overall production costs that go to natural gas? (If
necessary: 1% or less; >1%-5%, 5%-10%, over 10%)
________
A2
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
Important Factors for Business

B1. What factor(s) do you consider to be very important to your business?
B2. How would you rate the following factors in their importance to your business? (Use a
scale of 0 to 5, where 0 is unimportant and 5 is extremely important.)
Maintaining product quality and consistency
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Meeting regulatory requirements (such as environmental reqs)
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Keeping up with new or shifting market demands

Having a reliable, high quality supply of electricity
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5

Maintaining a happy and productive staff
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Identifying and implementing cost saving measures
Keeping up technologically with competitors
B3. How would you assess the overall energy management policy at your facility?
(Minimal, moderate, extensive, )
B4. Do you have the information you need to effectively manage energy costs?
Yes
No
Notes: ______________________________________________________
A3
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
B5. Which of the following cost saving measures would you consider/have considered
implementing to reduce/manage energy costs?
Very
Unlikely
Would
Consider
Have
already
Extend or shorten production schedule

Shift production schedule
Make use of best industry practices/training to improve
productivity
Purchase equipment to improve productivity
Implement energy conservation
Layoffs and other staffing-based considerations
Downsize our production facility
B5. Would you be more likely to implement any of these with increasing energy costs? If
so which? (If asked, assume a roughly 25% increase).
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
A4
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
General Decision-Making Practices

D1. Please describe the usual decision-making process for capital improvements.
(Establishing need, initiating research, specifying, financial analysis, actual procurement)
D2. What type of investment criteria do new capital projects need to satisfy?
D3. Are energy efficiency projects evaluated differently than other projects? If so, state
differences.
D4. What type of documentation/information is needed to sell/justify an energy efficiency

project?
D5. Is this different from a production-related project? If so what is different?
D6. What are usually the critical driver(s) for new equipment? (e.g. cost savings, reliability,
innovation, productivity)
D7. What other major considerations are there for installation of new equipment? (e.g.
plant down time, worker productivity)
A5
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
D8. Who most often specifies attributes of new equipment (efficiency, features)?
D9. Who makes the final decision on purchasing?
D6.
Specifies
D7.
Final Decision
(Lower cost)
D7a.
Final Decision
(Higher cost)
President
Plant engineer
Plant electrician
Operations manager
Maintenance supervisor
Facilities manager
Purchasing department
Other: _________________
D10. Is there a dollar threshold that would involve different decision makers? If so,
indicate dollar threshold, and identify both types of decision makers above.
_________________
Notes:
Energy Efficiency Decision-Making

E1. How are energy efficiency investments generally viewed at this facility? Are they
treated differently than other capital investments?
E2. Are there any special considerations made for energy-efficient equipment or systems?
Yes
No
A6
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
E3. Are there any policies or procedures regarding energy efficiency when investing in new
equipment or systems? (e.g. new construction/renovation or process design/retrofit decisions)
Yes
No
E4. What is the approach to financing/access to capital for energy efficient equipment?
E5. Any champions of EE at your facility?

Yes
No
Notes: ______________________________________________________
Contact name and phone number: ________________________________
E6. Is there a full time energy manager? (or is anyone formally responsible for energy
management?)
Yes
No
Notes: ______________________________________________________
Contact name and phone number: ________________________________
E7. What kind of incentives or disincentives are there to reducing energy operating costs?
(e.g. Pro: recognition/awards programs, Con: reduced budget due to savings)
A7
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
O&M Practices
M1. What is the size of your maintenance staff?
_______ Full Time Equivalents
Dont know
M2. Please briefly describe the overall maintenance strategy for this plant? (include any
recent major changes)
M3. What type of maintenance policy does your company follow for each of the following
types of equipment?
Equipment
As
Needed
Unscheduled
Preventive
Limited
Scheduled
Preventive
Aggressive
Scheduled
Preventive
Predictive
Not
Applicable
Motor lubrication
Bearing lubrication
Compressed air water traps
& pressure regulators
Other 1 ______________
Other 2 ______________
M4. What, if any, O&M procedures do you do regularly to conserve energy?
M5. How would you characterize the knowledge of the O&M staff regarding energy
efficiency, overall?
A8
Dont
Know
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
Attitudes toward EE
A1. What are your thoughts generally on high efficiency equipment and practices to
improve energy efficiency?
A2. Please tell me how you think premium efficiency equipment compares to standard
equipment in each of the following categories:
a. How long it takes to procure them:
Longer
Shorter
About same
Dont know
b. Cost of installation
Higher
Lower
About same
Dont know
c. Cost of maintenance
Higher
Lower
About same
Dont know
Notes (e.g. variations by equipment type):
A3. How do energy savings usually compare with original expectations?

Savings10% or more than expected
Savings meet expectations (+/- 10%)
Savings 10-20% short of expectations
Savings over 20% short of expectations
No reliable way to tell energy savings
Dont know what original expectations were
Notes:
A4. If your facility were as energy efficient as possible, what would it have? (If cost was not
a factor, but only using existing/emerging technologies)
A9
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
A5. What are the primary factors keep you from being as energy efficient as possible?
No applicable measures for facility/processes
Waiting to see how new measures perform at other sites
Insufficient information (reliable, relevant)
Too busy to research / specify
No money to research / audit / specify
EE measures usually do not meet payback criteria
Reducing energy costs not a high priority
Capital constraints for optional EE equipment
Requires too much plant down time
Difficult to sell to management/decisionmaker
Only will do if has other benefits (e.g. productivity)
Unwilling to risk possible effect on productivity
Just not worth the trouble
Other (1):
Other (2):
Other (3):
Notes:
If clear picture of situation has not already been established ask.

A5. What would need to change for your firm to be more likely to implement cost-effective
energy efficiency measures?
A10
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
Recent Project Activity

P1. Have you implemented any major capital projects in the past 2 years?
P2. Was energy efficiency considered for any of these projects?

Yes
No
P3. Have you installed any high efficiency equipment at your facility in the past 24 months?
P4. What were the most important reasons that you installed high efficiency equipment or
new technologies? <Check all that apply. Do NOT prompt with items from the list.>
Pros
Energy cost savings
Maintenance or other cost savings
Increased system capacity/ productivity
Improved reliability / less down time
Improved worker environment
Other non-energy benefit __________________________________
Cons
Long delivery time
Increased maintenance or other costs
Decreased equipment reliability
Capital cost too high
Payback too long/savings too low/
Incompatibility with current systems
Other EE equipment detriment _______________________________
Other
Expertise of maintenance staff
Environmental compliance concerns
It was included in the systems we bought
Corporate policy
Other(1): __________________________________
Other(2): __________________________________
Other(3): __________________________________
A11
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
P4. Do you have any plans to install high efficiency equipment in the next year?
P5. Has the energy crisis in California, or the increase in your rates, had any effect on your
decision making or practices?
Yes
Notes:
No
Next I would like to ask about new production technologies designed for your industry.
P6. Are you aware of any specific new technologies for your industry? If yes, what?
Yes
Notes:
No
P7. What are your thoughts on this new technology?
P8. Are you considering (or have you already installed) this new technology(s)?
Yes, have already
Notes:
Yes, have plans to install
A12
No (if not, why not?)
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
Information on EE
I1. How do you usually become aware of new products and product improvements?
Check all that apply.
Read about them in trade journals
Sales personnel/Vendors
Utility staff/programs
Business associates/ Industry Associations
Trade shows
Other ____________________________________________________________
I2. What industry organization(s) do you trust as a source for energy-related information?
I3. Are you aware of any programs or resources provided by your utility in 2002 or 2003
that were designed to promote energy efficiency for facilities like yours?
Yes
No
Record program(s), if mentioned:
Standard Performance Contract Program
Express Efficiency
Energy audits
Technology demonstrations
Other: ______________________________________________________
I4. During the last two years, did this facility participate in any energy efficiency programs
offered by your utility or other source? (record all mentions)
Standard Performance Contract Program
Express Efficiency
Energy audits
Technology demonstrations
CEC Peak Load Reduction
Other: ______________________________________________________
Brief description of project(s):
A13
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
I5. What could the California energy efficiency programs, implemented by the utilities and
other 3rd parties utilizing Publics Goods Funding, do to further encourage you to install
more energy efficient equipment? (Prompt about factors such as information, education, and
financial incentives.)
Energy Systems
Things that will probably be covered in the Technical section of the survey, but address
here if necessary.
For each key end use address the following:
awareness of:
measures to implement
of effects
of energy savings
costs savings
payback
reasons for efficient operations or inefficient operations
M1. Do you have any electronic controls on process equipment that (check all that apply):
Unload or turn off equipment to save energy during idle periods?
Manage process equipment operation to minimize peak demand?
Have other energy management capabilities?
Not sure -- (Skip to the Water Re-Use section)
None -- (Skip to the Water Re-Use section)
A14
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
M2. Why did you install the control system(s)? Check all that apply.
To extend machine life
To increase process reliability
To increase product quality
Came with purchased equipment
For energy savings. Please compare savings with original expectations:
Savings more than expected
Savings meet expectations
Savings fall short of expectations
Savings fall far short of expectations
No reliable way to tell energy savings
Dont know what original expectations were
Other ______________________________________________
Not sure
Types of EE projects include:
replacement of lighting fixtures

automation/controls
HVAC retrofit
motors/fans
TOD scheduling for lighting
(relevant?)
VSDs
A15
compressed air
conveyor systems
process-industry specific
boiler/steam system
furnace/oven
B
B
CUSTOMER SURVEY RESULTS
B1
APPENDIX B
B2
APPENDIX B
Facility
Location
A1
A2
Riverside
Oro Grande
Colton CA
Lucernce Valley; Ontario
Tehachapi
F1. What do you make/do at this facility?
White cement from scratch, Cement; old facility, 7 kilns, Two types of grey cement
14 raw and finish mills
grey cement from clinker
produced elsewhere
Two types of grey cement
Grey cement
F2. Basic Facility Description (number of

buildings, process/offices, etc.)
Quarry, complete cement

production, 10,000-15,000
sf offices/labs
Quarry, complete cement

production, 10,000-15,000
sf offices/labs; also 7 waste
heat boiler driving 2
generators for 90% of
electricity
Quarry, cement production. 6

mills, 2 long dry kilns, 30MW
steam power plant - operated at
1.5 to 3 MW using waste heat
Quarry; 1 dry kiln with precalciner; 4 finish mills; 2 raw

mills; all are ball mills; all with
recent he classifiers
This is a nearly 100 year

old mill. It is one of two
Lehigh Plants in Ca. It has
a vertical precalciner
combined with a short
round kiln.
F3. How many people work at your facility (full

time equivalents)? _________ people
100-150
100-150
120
180
150-200
F4. How many other separate facilities do you

have in California? Outside California?
1 in CA
1 in CA
2 in CA
1 in CA
2 out of CA
2 out of CA
1 out of CA
this is only plant in US
5 other US plants (German

owner)
E1. How important is energy usage relative to

your overall production costs? (gas/electric?)
Very important
Very important
Very important
Very important
Very important
E2. Could you estimate the percent of overall

production costs that go to electricity? (If
necessary: 1% or less; >1%-5%, 5%-10%, over
10%)
over 10%
over 10%
over 10%
over 10%
over 30%
E3. Could you estimate the percent of overall

production costs that go to natural gas? (If
necessary: 1% or less; >1%-5%, 5%-10%, over
10%)
1%-5%
1%-5%
1%-5%
1%-5%
low
B1. What factor(s) do you consider to be very

important to your business?
Energy Costs, Market

Conditions, Environmental
Regulations

Regulations

Regulations

Regulations
Energy Costs, running the

plant, Production
management, Market
Issues
B2. How would you rate the following factors in

their importance to your business? (Use a scale
of 0 to 5, where 0 is unimportant and 5 is
extremely important.)
Not asked
Maintaining product quality and consistency
Meeting regulatory requirements (such as

environmental reqs)
Keeping up technologically with competitors
Keeping up with new or shifting market demands 3
Having a reliable, high quality supply of electricity 3
B3
APPENDIX B
Facility
Location
A1
A2
Riverside
Oro Grande
Colton CA
Tehachapi
Maintaining a happy and productive staff
Identifying and implementing cost saving

measures
B3. How would you assess the overall energy

management policy at your facility? (Minimal,
moderate, extensive, )
Moderate Energy costs

are certainly a concern but
capital is limited and no one
really has time to focus on
energy and carry forth
projects.
Moderate Energy costs

are certainly a concern but
capital is limited and no one
really has time to focus on
energy and carry forth
projects. In addition, at Oro
Grande, the uncertainty
about the plant remaining in
operation has kept us from
doing any upgrades there.
Moderate- High It is our single

largest production cost. Energy
use guides all of our process
operating practicing practices.
Extremely aggressive. Energy

costs are constantly reviewed
vs production . Daily, weekly,
monthly and annually. Control
decisions are based on power
requirements.
Strong However,
maintaining consistent
production and product
quality is the overriding
concern. Although
everyone at the plant is
aware of energy and it is a
key factor on which some
operations are based, we
have limited operating
staff. Fine tuning for
optimizing efficiency, and
developing, championing,
and managing energy
improvements takes staff
time that is just not
available given each
persons day to day
responsibility. We do
have special projects
engineering staff, but even
they are too busy to take
on energy projects that
arent related to
maintaining production.
Also, the plant must
remain in production as
much as possible. The
interruptions and
coordination required for
retrofits can also restrict
consideration of energy
retrofits.
B4. Do you have the information you need to

effectively manage energy costs?
Yes, For the most part. We Yes, For the most part. We For the most part. We keep
keep well informed because keep well informed because well informed because energy
energy is such an important energy is such an important is such an important cost factor.
cost factor. We are aware cost factor. We are aware Have information available but
of most technological
of most technological
not necessarily time to process
potential but do not have the potential but do not have the and analyze it.
resources to act on it.
Yes, For the most part. We

keep well informed because
energy is such an important
cost factor. We are aware of
most technological potential but
do not necessarily have the
financial or resources to act on
it. Our parent corporation is an
Yes, in general for the

most part, we do. We
keep well informed about
energy saving potential
because energy is such an
important cost factor. We
are aware of most
technological potential but
B4
APPENDIX B
Facility
Location
A1
A2
Riverside
Oro Grande
Colton CA

equipment and process
manufacturer so we have
internal access to the newest
technologies. The parent
corporation has performed
period process/energy audits of
the plant. The most recent was
two years ago.
Tehachapi
do not always have the
That being said, we do
often have projects where
the precise energy savings
cannot be predicted
precisely or guaranteed by
a vendor. So some
projects are not followed
up on due to the
performance risk involved.
B5. Which of the following cost saving measures

would you consider/have considered
implementing to reduce/manage energy costs?
Extend or shorten production schedule.
Unlikely
Unlikely
Have already - with price signal Unlikely

(real time pricing)
Shift production schedule
If there is a price signal. We If there is a price signal. We Have already - with price signal Have/would - with price signal; Would consider
(real time pricing)
did with rtp
used to do this when we
used to do this when we
were on real time rates, but were on real time rates, but
no more.
no more.
Make use of best industry practices/training to

improve productivity
Would consider
Would consider
Have already
Have/would consider
Purchase equipment to improve productivity
Would consider
Would consider
Have already
Have/would consider
Would consider
Implement energy conservation
Would consider
Would consider
Have already
Have/would consider
Would consider
Layoffs and other staffing-based considerations
Would consider / have

already
Would consider / have

already
Have already
Have/would consider
Unlikely
Downsize our production facility
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
B6. Would you be more likely to implement any

of these with increasing energy costs? If so
which? (If asked, assume a roughly 25%
increase).
Change schedule / shift

production - if price signal is production - if price signal is production - if price signal is
right
right
right
D1. Please describe the usual decision-making

process for capital improvements. (Establishing
need, initiating research, specifying, financial
analysis, actual procurement)
Corporate or plant
Corporate or plant
Initiated and analyzed at plant,
managers identify
managers identify
goes to corporate for financial
technological potential; local technological potential; local approval.
corporate staff review and corporate staff review and
evaluate based on corporate evaluate based on corporate
criteria; ultimately goes to
criteria; ultimately goes to
corporate for financial
corporate for financial
approval.
approval.
B5
Would consider
Would consider
We will consider any

option if it makes business
sense.
Plant process managers identify Plant manager develops

the operating and capital
technological potential, cost
investment for the plant
benefit is reviewed at the
department level and then the within guidelines provided
by corporate management
plant level. Local corporate
staff review and evaluate based and with input from the
on corporate criteria. Ultimately various production section
managers. Energy saving
goes to corporate for final
projects compete with
financial approval. Capital
budget has been fairly fixed at other capital projects. The
$4 million for the last several
plant manager asks for
APPENDIX B
Facility
Location
A1
A2
Riverside
Oro Grande
Colton CA

years. Sometimes we get
funds for special projects that
are being pushed at the
corporate level.
Tehachapi
project needs from the
various division
department managers and
make the final
determination on the
budget request. It is
usually they who propose
energy related projects.
Sometimes with guidance
from the Plant Manager or
Corporate suggestions but
usually on their own
initiative. The level of
capital funding depends on
business and macro
economic conditions. We
usually have $1
million/year for capital
improvements.
Investments over $10K
require corporate approval
although sometimes they
are lumped with other
projects.
3 years max. with limit of

capital available typically $4
million/year.
They need to be justified

for overall economic
efficiency and level of
production , etc. Energy
projects typically have to
payback within a year or
two
D2. What type of investment criteria do new

capital projects need to satisfy?
1.0-1.5 year payback
D3. Are energy efficiency projects evaluated

differently than other projects? If so, state
differences.
No
No
Somewhat Production output Not really. The driving factor for Not really. Energy
and specific energy is a key
all recent projects has been
projects are evaluated on
factor.
energy costs.
an overall financial sense
just like any others.
D4. What type of documentation/information is

Detailed technical and
needed to sell/justify an energy efficiency project? financial review
Detailed technical and

financial review
A detailed technical and

financial review.
A detailed technical and

financial review.
A paper study either done

in house or done by a
vendor and reqiewed in
house with the justification
and financial analysis.
D5. Is this different from a production-related

project? If so what is different?
No
No
No
Not really except there is

a Revenue stream that is
generated. Many other
projects are either
intended to improve
production or reduce
No
B6
APPENDIX B
Facility
Location
A1
A2
Riverside
Oro Grande
Colton CA
D6. What are usually the critical driver(s) for new Capital availability
equipment? (e.g. cost savings, reliability,
innovation, productivity)
Capital availability
D
Tehachapi
maintenance costs.
Production and specific energy Energy costs, reliability, overall cost savings, reliability,
innovation, productivity
use, capital availability, market production costs, capital
projections.
availability.
D7. What other major considerations are there for Lost production time,
Lost production time,
Lost production time, reliability
installation of new equipment? (e.g. plant down
reliability risk, safety,
reliability risk, safety,
risk, safety, environmental
time, worker productivity)
environmental issues (NOX) environmental issues (NOX) issues (NOX)
Production (continuity),
environmental issues (NOX)
Plant down time is

important. We never like
to shut down. Reliability
and maintenance costs
are also a concern.
D8. Who most often specifies attributes of new

equipment (efficiency, features)?
Plant staff & operating

personnel & plant process
managers and engineering
staff. Sometimes with
assistance of the vendors
The section manager sets

the performance
requirement. Vendors
often provide the final
specification and selection
and detailed installation
requirements.
Plant Staff & Operating

personnel & Corporate
engineers
Plant Staff & Operating

personnel & Corporate
engineers
Staff and operating engineers
D9. Who makes the final decision on purchasing? Plant engineer / operations Plant engineer / operations Plant engineer / operations
Process managers ops
Plant engineer and
manager specified - Sr.
manager, maintenance
operations manager
management decides - both management decides - both management decides - both low supervisor specify (also process specify; and approve low
low and high cost purchases low and high cost purchases and high cost purchases
engineer and ee manager both cost; upper management
new); Sr. management makes approve higher cost
final decisions
D10. Is there a dollar threshold that would involve Any measure outside of
different decision makers? If so, indicate dollar
normal O&M budget goes
for corporate review
threshold, and identify both types of decision
makers above.
Any measure outside of

normal O&M budget goes
for corporate review
Any measure outside of normal Any capital measure or

O&M budget goes for corporate measure outside of normal
review
O&M practices maintenance
budget goes for local
management review.
Yes Greater than 10k

capital requirements
outside the budget
technically requires
corporate approval.
E1. How are energy efficiency investments

Treated same as all
generally viewed at this facility? Are they treated investments
differently than other capital investments?
Treated same as all

investments
No not really. Production

projects are viewed more
favorably.
Not really, their costs and

benefits are evaluated
much like other projects.
Corporate requires a
minimum 18% IRR after
taxes for app projects
other than those
necessary to keep the
plant running.
They
have a 3 year capital
planning program.
Projects compete amongst
all US plants.
E2. Are there any special considerations made for No

energy-efficient equipment or systems?
No
Efficiency and specific energy is No

always considered in all
manufacturing decisions.
B7
No
Yes if incentives are

available we may take a
look.
APPENDIX B
Facility
Location
A1
A2
Riverside
Oro Grande
Colton CA
Tehachapi
E3. Are there any policies or procedures

No
regarding energy efficiency when investing in new
equipment or systems? (e.g. new
construction/renovation or process design/retrofit
decisions)
No
High efficiency motors, etc. are Yes. Energy is a consideration Nothing formal, but it is
specified.
in all decisions already. HE
understood that
motors and equipment is
improvements are
routinely specified for new
expected to lower or at
equipment and replacement
least be neutral with
respect to specific energy.
eqpt. A new position will be
charged with reviewing existing
systems and identifying whether
there is a rationale for changing
out existing equipment sucha
as motors, fans, etc.
E4. What is the approach to financing/access to

capital for energy efficient equipment?
Internal capital resources

are used
Internal capital resources

are used
Internal capital resources are

used
E5. Any champions of EE at your facility?
No. Managers are

No. Managers are
Plant manager, Operations
concerned with production; concerned with production; Supervisor
staff is not "tuned in"
staff is not "tuned in"
E6. Is there a full time energy manager? (or is

anyone formally responsible for energy
management?)
No. financial officer takes on No. financial officer takes on No. Part of Plant Manager and Yes: Not an energy manager
No
the role but is not involved in the role but is not involved in ops supervisor responsibilities per-se, but there is a person a
technical practices
technical practices
process engineer to which
energy use is a top priority and
specific job function.
E7. What kind of incentives or disincentives are Capital is very limited. Most Capital is very limited. Most
measures will require capital measures will require capital
there to reducing energy operating costs? (e.g.
Pro: recognition/awards programs, Con: reduced
budget due to savings)
B8
Internal capital resources are

used. Funds are made
available through standard
corporate cash flow techniques,
bonds, etc.
Internal corporate capital

resources are used. This
may include corporate
bonds if the climate is
right.
No. All line Managers are

concerned with production.
Two new positions, a process
engineer and an operating
engineer are charged with
maintaining and improving
energy use
Yes I am, and all

operating staff are. but
there is no official energy
manager and frequently
staff to champion a
particular project is limited.
Very few it is a significant part

of our production costs. One
significant disincentive is the
departure charges that are
levied for new generation
capacity even waste
generation capacity.
Capital is very limited.

Most major measures
require capital. We are
focused on production.
Also, with regard to a
potential cogen project,
the current PUC rules
allow lost revenue
recovery which effectively
makes a potential cogen
project not financially
attractive. Also mentioned
was the duration of
projects (long term
planning is needed for
major projects) , and
limitations on rebates to
one customer. Rebates
APPENDIX B
Facility
Location
M1. What is the size of your maintenance staff?
A1
A2
Riverside
Oro Grande
Colton CA
DK
D
Tehachapi
are usually play only a
small part in a major
capital project.
DK
NA
Operations and maintenance

are tied together.
about 20 FTE
Do whatever is necessary to
keep equipment operating
so there is no lost
production
keep equipment operating so
there are no bottlenecks and
lost production
keep equipment operating so
there is no lost production
Make as much cement as

possible as efficiently as
possible.
As needed
As needed
Limited scheduled preventitive
Limited scheduled
preventitive
Limited scheduled
preventitive
Predictive
Bearing lubrication
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
M2. Please briefly describe the overall

maintenance strategy for this plant? (include any keep equipment operating
recent major changes)
so there is no lost
production
M3. What type of maintenance policy does your
company follow for each of the following types of
equipment?
Aggressive scheduled
preventative
Motor lubrication
Limited scheduled
preventative
As needed
As needed
As needed
Predictive
As needed
As needed
As needed
Limted Scheduled Preventitive As needed
Limited scheduled
preventitive
Limited scheduled
preventitive
Limted Scheduled Preventitive Limited scheduled

preventative
As needed
As needed
Limted Scheduled Preventitive As needed
Compressed air water traps & pressure regulators As needed
We had an air
compressor survey done
by a consultant in a recent
year. But we havent
done much to implement
it. (NOTE a 2001 LBL
publication says that they
installed 2 new
compressors and other
equipment and saved
900,000 kWh or $90,000.)
M4. What, if any, O&M procedures do you do
regularly to conserve energy?
Within the limits of the

Within the limits of the
Everything possible. All
Within the limits of the controls
controls and equipment, we controls and equipment, we operations are based on energy and equipment, we try to
try to minimize energy use. try to minimize energy use. use.
minimize energy use. WE had
a survey done about 3 years
ago where we turned off all
unnecessary equipment down
to lights, AC, pumps, etc.
B9
Lubrication, cleaning
(Cleaning is a major issue
with all the dust here.),
change belts, other
manufacturers
recommended activities.
APPENDIX B
Facility
Location
A1
A2
Riverside
Oro Grande
Colton CA
Moderate
Very High
C
Savings were about 5-6%
M5. How would you characterize the knowledge

of the O&M staff regarding energy efficiency,
overall?
Moderate
A1. What are your thoughts generally on high

efficiency equipment and practices to improve
energy efficiency?
We know that we can do

We know that we can do
We are very motivated
much better but we are very much better but we are very
capital and resource limited. capital and resource limited.
We support and encourage all They are very important to

energy saving within our capital us. We encourage them
and time constraints.
but we dont have enough
staff to pursue most of
them.
A2. Please tell me how you think premium

efficiency equipment compares to standard
equipment in each of the following categories:
Similar with regard to

procurement, cost, and
maintenance

maintenance

maintenance
A3. How do energy savings usually compare

with original expectations?
Variable
Variable
A4. If your facility were as energy efficient as

possible, what would it have? (If cost was not a
factor, but only using existing/emerging
technologies)
Roller Mills vs ball mills
Better air/combustion
controls in kilns
Better air/combustion
controls in kilns
Optimized heat
recovery/power generation
Optimized heat
recovery/power generation
Optimized heat recovery/power Heat recovery power generation Heat recovery for cogen
generation
from the clinker cooler.
More VFDs where

appropriate
More VFDs where

appropriate
More VFDs where appropriate
A vertical calcining kiln
A vertical calcining kiln
A vertical calcining furnace

maintenance
Excellent
D
Tehachapi
Savings meet expectations. WE

do a fairly thorough review so
were fairly confident before the
project takes place. We have a
good energy information
database.
Generally good but most

have other priorities.
Savings are often

suspected to be short of
expectations or impossible
to calculate.
More VFDs where appropriate
VFDs on most fans.
Improved compresswed air

system
Fewer Pneumatic conveyors
Better classifiers
Mechanical conveyors in some
areas
More use of tires and
waste fuels.
A5. What are the primary factors keep you from
being as energy efficient as possible?
Too busy to research
Too busy to research

Waiting to see how new
B10
APPENDIX B
Facility
Location
A1
A2
Riverside
Oro Grande
Colton CA
Tehachapi
measures perform at other
sites
Insufficient information
(reliable, relevant)
Too busy to research /
specify
No money to research
EE doesn't meet payback

criteria
Capital constraints
Capital constraints
Capital constraints
Capital constraints
Too much plant down time
Hard to sell to mgmt - savings

risk
Not worth trouble for small
items

items

items

items
No staff time to manage project No staff time to assess/manage

project
A5. What would need to change for your firm to More staff time; more capital More staff time; more capital More staff time
be more likely to implement cost-effective energy
efficiency measures?
P1. Have you implemented any major capital

projects in the past 2 years?
No
No
Change of regulation and

More staff time; more
available capital
incentive constraints (waste
heat generation process); more
available capital
Yes - computer analyzer for mix Yes classifiers on #2 finish

mill and raw mill, VFD on ???
fan;
YES a LOSHI vertical raw

Mill
Precalciner was installed
in 1991
Control Upgrade
HE Separators 1992,
1997
P2. Was energy efficiency considered for any of

these projects?
NA
NA
Yes
Yes it was the primary

motivation for all of those
projects.
Yes all of them,

especially Controls
P3. Have you installed any high efficiency

No
equipment at your facility in the past 24 months?
No
Yes - see P1
Yes Classifiers/VFDs
improved controls.
Yes LOSHI Mill
P4. What were the most important reasons that

you installed high efficiency equipment or new
technologies? <Check all that apply. Do NOT
prompt with items from the list.>
Energy cost savings; increase Energy cost savings

capacity/productivity; improved
reliability; imporved quality
control
B11
Energy cost savings;

maintenacne cost savings;
increase productivity;
increased reliability;
APPENDIX B
Facility
Location
A1
A2
Riverside
Oro Grande
Colton CA
No
No
P4. Do you have any plans to install high

efficiency equipment in the next year?
No
P5. Has the energy crisis in California, or the

increase in your rates, had any effect on your
decision making or practices?
Yes; energy costs are even Yes; energy costs are even Yes. Has not affected us too
Yes; energy costs are even
more critical
more critical
much because we are on direct more critical
access. But Energy
management is even more
critical
P6. Are you aware of any specific new

technologies for your industry? If yes, what?
Yes; see A4
Yes; see A4
Yes; see A4
Yes; HE classifiers, mechanical To many to name .

converyors, improved controls, Veritcal mills, VFD, Heat
recovery,
VFDs on fans, roller vs. ball
mills
P7. What are your thoughts on this new

technology?
All work well; but most

involve too much captial
All work well; but most

involve too much captial
They all work well, but

significant capital changes
All work well but all are major

process change projects that
cost millions of dollars.
P8. Are you considering (or have you already

installed) this new technology(s)?
No - capital constraints
No - capital constraints
Did AC survey and installed

some VFDs. and improved
Controls. Others involve too
much capital cost, have long
payback.
Yes; have/plan to. Have already Yes Some of it.

installed most technologies to
some degree and plan to
continue as capital permits.
I1. How do you usually become aware of new

products and product improvements?
All sources mentioned
IEEE Tech Committee; PCA,

Corporate staff
IEEE Tech Committee,

PCA, SCE helps
coordinate access to
information and has
helped with rebates.
I2. What industry organization(s) do you trust as a IEEE Tech Committee; PCA IEEE Tech Committee; PCA AIEEE Tech Committee; PCA
source for energy-related information?
I3. Are you aware of any programs or resources Yes; SPC and Express
provided by your utility in 2002 or 2003 that were Efficiency
designed to promote energy efficiency for
facilities like yours?
Yes; SPC and Express

Efficiency
I4. During the last two years, did this facility

participate in any energy efficiency programs
offered by your utility or other source? (record all
mentions)
Would like to improve

clinker cooler; control
project is ongoing
Yes Energy is more
critical to every decision.
We also consider
importing product and
have port facilities.
It is all good and would

save us energy to install it
but we are not sure if it is
all cost-effective.
Yes; SPC, Express, Energy

Yes; SPC, Express
Audits; Compressed air survey
Yes; SPC, Express,

Energy Audits;
Compressed air studies
Compressed air survey
Yes; SPC, Express; New

classifier and VFD on fan
SPC; air compressor
Extend Program time limits to

3+ years
Eliminate the departure

fee for heat recovery
cogen
I5. What could the California energy efficiency

Extend Program time limits Extend Program time limits Extend Program time limits to
to 3+ years
3+ years
programs, implemented by the utilities and other to 3+ years
rd
3 parties utilizing Publics Goods Funding, do to
further encourage you to install more energy
efficient equipment? (Prompt about factors such
as information, education, and financial
B12
Yes; waste heat cogen (will

decide soon); new classifier
D
Tehachapi
cost - long delivery time
APPENDIX B
Facility
Location
incentives.)

A1
A2
Riverside
Oro Grande
Colton CA
Tehachapi
Increase max funds
Increase max funds
Increase max funds
Increase max funds
Allow more wholistic

projects that dont require
a before and after
efficiency calculation.
Remove restrictions to on site

generation.
Extend waste heat generation

incentive to more than 1 MW
Allow more long term

projects
Remove departure fee

disincentive for waste heat
generation.
Increase capital
Yes; Unload or turn off

equipment to save energy
during idle periods; Have
other energy management
capabilities
M1. Do you have any electronic controls on

process equipment that (check all that apply):
Yes; not sure specifics
Yes; not sure specifics
Yes; they have other energy

management capabilities
M2. Why did you install the control system(s)?

Check all that apply.
Increase process reliability
Increase process reliability
To increase reliability; to
To increase product
quality; for energy savings
increase quality; fore energy
savings - to allow energy-based
control
Increase product quality
Increase product quality
Energy savings
Energy savings
B13

I C S: T C: Ndustrial ASE Tudy HE Ement Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I C S: T C: Ndustrial ASE Tudy HE Ement Industry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

I C S: T C: Ndustrial ASE Tudy HE Ement Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INDUSTRIAL CASE STUDY:

THE CEMENT INDUSTRY

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY

INDUSTRIAL CASE STUDY:

CEMENT INDUSTRY STATISTICS ..........................................................21

CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS AND ENERGY USE.......................31

ENERGY-EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES .......................................................51

ENERGY STAR ............................................................................................52

OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS .........................................................61

APPENDIX A INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................................................................. A1

Cement Industry Economic Statistics ................................................21

Cement Industry End Use Electricity Consumption..........................22

Section 6 summarizes opportunities and barriers to increased energy efficiency in the

CEMENT INDUSTRY STATISTICS

CEMENT INDUSTRY STATISTICS

The cement manufacturing industry is identified by North American Industry Classification

Establishments with 20 employees or more

Number of production workers

Total hours worked (1,000s)

Value added ($1,000s)

Cost of materials ($1,000s)

Value of shipments ($1,000s)

Total wages ($1,000s)

Total capital expenditures ($1,000s)

Source: 1997 Economic Census, http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/econ97.html

U.S. Census Bureau definition, http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF327.HTM#N32731

CEMENT INDUSTRY STATISTICS

Million therms per year

Source: 1998 MECS

CEMENT INDUSTRY STATISTICS

CEMENT INDUSTRY STATISTICS

CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS AND

CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS AND ENERGY USE

CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS AND ENERGY USE

DESCRIPTION OF THE CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS

3.2.1 Mining and Quarrying

Limestone is the major process input. Other raw materials such

CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS AND ENERGY USE

3.2.2 Raw Material Preparation

CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS AND ENERGY USE

CEMENT PRODUCTION ENERGY USE

CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS AND ENERGY USE

TECHNICAL POTENTIAL FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY

CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS AND ENERGY USE

CEMENT PRODUCTION PROCESS AND ENERGY USE

- 1 kiln, dating to 1982,

- 1 kiln, dating to 1991,

- 7 kilns, newest dates

ENERGY AS IT RELATES TO OVERALL BUSINESS FACTORS

* Interviewee did not address this series of questions.

OVERALL ENERGY MANAGEMENT

GENERAL DECISION-MAKING PRACTICES

Initiated and analyzed at plant, goes to corporate for financial approval.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY DECISION MAKING

Motor belt replacement

Fan/blower blade cleaning

Fan/blower wheel balancing

Fan/blower airflow test