Browse all documents

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

This 1996 case study examines St. Charles Medical Center's evaluation of EPA's Green Lights and ENERGY STAR Buildings programs. It details the use of performance contracting via Johnson Controls Incorporated and rebates from the Bonneville Power Administration to fund eleven energy conservation measures (ECMs) across three stages of implementation, aiming to reduce emissions and operational costs while preparing for CFC phaseouts.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • St. Charles Medical Center evaluated participation in two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs: the Green Lights Program, launched in 1991 to reduce air pollution via energy-efficient lighting, and the ENERGY STAR Buildings Program, which focuses on comprehensive facility upgrades. The EPA defined profitable improvements for the ENERGY STAR Buildings Program as those having an "Internal Rate of Return of 20%."
  • The hospital's energy conservation strategy relied on partnerships with Johnson Controls Incorporated (JCI) and the Bonneville Power Administration. JCI acted as a performance contractor, providing financial and technical assurances that guaranteed energy cost reductions, meaning "Not a dime of our hospital’s money was spent until the final proposal was signed and the project construction began". Additionally, the Bonneville Power Administration provided an "Energy Rebate" as a financial incentive for specific retrofitting projects.
  • The facility considered eleven energy conservation measures (ECMs) divided into three stages. Stage I focused on Green Lights projects and simple upgrades (such as exit sign conversion and incandescent retrofits). Stage II involved Variable Air Volume and controls. Stage III included a heat recovery chiller and variable-flow pumping system, which were intended to increase heating/cooling capacity and ensure compliance with "EPA’s expected chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) phaseout requirements".

Cite the original document

APA
Jubeir, J., & Day, R. (1996). ST. CHARLES MEDICAL CENTER. World Resources Institute. https://pdf.wri.org/bell/case_1-56973-173-x_full_version_english.pdf
Chicago
Jubeir, Julie, and Robert Day. ST. CHARLES MEDICAL CENTER. World Resources Institute, 1996. https://pdf.wri.org/bell/case_1-56973-173-x_full_version_english.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Jubeir |first1=Julie |last2=Day |first2=Robert |title=ST. CHARLES MEDICAL CENTER |publisher=World Resources Institute |date=1996 |url=https://pdf.wri.org/bell/case_1-56973-173-x_full_version_english.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{jubeir1996charles, author = {Jubeir, Julie and Day, Robert}, title = {{ST. CHARLES MEDICAL CENTER}}, institution = {World Resources Institute}, year = {1996}, url = {https://pdf.wri.org/bell/case_1-56973-173-x_full_version_english.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated