Kristina Eastham is an artist based in Seattle who earned a degree in art from Cornish College of the Arts. She worked as a preschool teacher for several years where she continued creating art with the children. More recently, she has utilized her skills in design and the Adobe Creative Suite as a freelance designer, focusing on projects that allow her to be creative. One example provided is designing marketing materials for an energy consulting firm. She finds she thrives most when spending her day designing and doing what she loves.

1. K r i s t i na
E a s t h a m
P o r t f o l i o
2 0 1 6

2. Hello,
My name is Kristina, but my friends all call me Kris -
and I love making beautiful things.
I always dreamt of being an artist, as many little dreamers do.
I painted my way through High School and attended Cornish
College of the Arts, here in Seattle. Then, as things work out,
I became a preschool teacher. For the next several years,
my art was made mostly with finger paints and play-doh.
Though it was both delightful and rewarding, albeit covered in
glitter and germs, I decided I needed to start utilizing the full
range of my skills. Over the last few years I've learned how
to use the Adobe Creative Suite - as well as the less fun, but
necessary standards of office productivity. I have discovered
that while I am more than competent as an administrative
assistant, I truly shine when I get to spend my day designing
and doing what I love.

3. GREATER INSIGHT INTO WHAT DRIVES ENERGY USE INTENSITY
IN SEATTLE’S MULTIFAMILY SECTOR
Within the 1,500 multifamily buildings benchmarked, two notable trends were observed regarding
energy use. Buildings with smaller living units (i.e., a higher density of living units) use more
energy per square foot than buildings with larger units. Additionally, taller buildings typically
used more energy per square foot than shorter buildings. These findings can help building owners
understand the energy performance of a building relative to its unique characteristics.
LARGE OFFICE, MULTIFAMILY AND HOTEL FACILITIES
ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY
Large buildings with a high energy use intensity account for a significant portion of citywide energy
use. The distributions of EUI and total energy use for office, hotels, and high-rise multifamily
show there is room for improvement in these sectors.
3,216
buildings
281
million square feet
68
Median
ENERGY STAR score
(non-residential buildings)
99%
Compliance Rate
2013 BENCHMARKING HIGHLIGHTS:
5. Building Characteristics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In total, the 3,016 buildings analyzed in this report emitted 343 thousand metric tons of greenhouseIn total, the 3,016 buildings analyzed in this report emitted 343 thousand metric tons of greenhouseIn total, the 3,016 buildings analyzed in this report emitted 343 thousand metric tons of greenhouseIn total, the 3,016 buildings analyzed in this report emitted 343 thousand metric tons of greenhouseIn total, the 3,016 buildings analyzed in this report emitted 343 thousand metric tons of greenhouseIn total, the 3,016 buildings analyzed in this report emitted 343 thousand metric tons of greenhouseIn total, the 3,016 buildings analyzed in this report emitted 343 thousand metric tons of greenhouse
gases in 2013 (CO2e, or “carbon dioxide equivalent”).e, or “carbon dioxide equivalent”).e, or “carbon dioxide equivalent”).e, or “carbon dioxide equivalent”).e, or “carbon dioxide equivalent”).e, or “carbon dioxide equivalent”).e, or “carbon dioxide equivalent”).12 Seattle’s high usage of carbon-neutralSeattle’s high usage of carbon-neutralSeattle’s high usage of carbon-neutralSeattle’s high usage of carbon-neutralSeattle’s high usage of carbon-neutral
hydropower makes electricity a comparatively small contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.hydropower makes electricity a comparatively small contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.hydropower makes electricity a comparatively small contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.hydropower makes electricity a comparatively small contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.hydropower makes electricity a comparatively small contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.hydropower makes electricity a comparatively small contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.hydropower makes electricity a comparatively small contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
While electricity made up nearly two-thirds of energy consumption, it was the source of onlyWhile electricity made up nearly two-thirds of energy consumption, it was the source of onlyWhile electricity made up nearly two-thirds of energy consumption, it was the source of onlyWhile electricity made up nearly two-thirds of energy consumption, it was the source of onlyWhile electricity made up nearly two-thirds of energy consumption, it was the source of onlyWhile electricity made up nearly two-thirds of energy consumption, it was the source of onlyWhile electricity made up nearly two-thirds of energy consumption, it was the source of onlyWhile electricity made up nearly two-thirds of energy consumption, it was the source of onlyWhile electricity made up nearly two-thirds of energy consumption, it was the source of only
10% of emissions. In contrast, natural gas accounted for only 30% of energy consumption, but10% of emissions. In contrast, natural gas accounted for only 30% of energy consumption, but10% of emissions. In contrast, natural gas accounted for only 30% of energy consumption, but10% of emissions. In contrast, natural gas accounted for only 30% of energy consumption, but10% of emissions. In contrast, natural gas accounted for only 30% of energy consumption, but10% of emissions. In contrast, natural gas accounted for only 30% of energy consumption, but10% of emissions. In contrast, natural gas accounted for only 30% of energy consumption, but10% of emissions. In contrast, natural gas accounted for only 30% of energy consumption, but10% of emissions. In contrast, natural gas accounted for only 30% of energy consumption, but
was the source of over 70% of greenhouse gas emissions.was the source of over 70% of greenhouse gas emissions.was the source of over 70% of greenhouse gas emissions.was the source of over 70% of greenhouse gas emissions.was the source of over 70% of greenhouse gas emissions.was the source of over 70% of greenhouse gas emissions.was the source of over 70% of greenhouse gas emissions.was the source of over 70% of greenhouse gas emissions.was the source of over 70% of greenhouse gas emissions.
12 GHG emissions reported are “site” emissions. Calculations used the following emissions factors, with unit conversionsGHG emissions reported are “site” emissions. Calculations used the following emissions factors, with unit conversionsGHG emissions reported are “site” emissions. Calculations used the following emissions factors, with unit conversionsGHG emissions reported are “site” emissions. Calculations used the following emissions factors, with unit conversionsGHG emissions reported are “site” emissions. Calculations used the following emissions factors, with unit conversionsGHG emissions reported are “site” emissions. Calculations used the following emissions factors, with unit conversionsGHG emissions reported are “site” emissions. Calculations used the following emissions factors, with unit conversionsGHG emissions reported are “site” emissions. Calculations used the following emissions factors, with unit conversionsGHG emissions reported are “site” emissions. Calculations used the following emissions factors, with unit conversions
where necessary: electricity, 25.62 lbs CO2e/MWh; natural gas, 53.02 kg CO2e/mmBtu; steam, 182.85 lbs CO2e/kLb.where necessary: electricity, 25.62 lbs CO2e/MWh; natural gas, 53.02 kg CO2e/mmBtu; steam, 182.85 lbs CO2e/kLb.where necessary: electricity, 25.62 lbs CO2e/MWh; natural gas, 53.02 kg CO2e/mmBtu; steam, 182.85 lbs CO2e/kLb.where necessary: electricity, 25.62 lbs CO2e/MWh; natural gas, 53.02 kg CO2e/mmBtu; steam, 182.85 lbs CO2e/kLb.where necessary: electricity, 25.62 lbs CO2e/MWh; natural gas, 53.02 kg CO2e/mmBtu; steam, 182.85 lbs CO2e/kLb.where necessary: electricity, 25.62 lbs CO2e/MWh; natural gas, 53.02 kg CO2e/mmBtu; steam, 182.85 lbs CO2e/kLb.where necessary: electricity, 25.62 lbs CO2e/MWh; natural gas, 53.02 kg CO2e/mmBtu; steam, 182.85 lbs CO2e/kLb.where necessary: electricity, 25.62 lbs CO2e/MWh; natural gas, 53.02 kg CO2e/mmBtu; steam, 182.85 lbs CO2e/kLb.where necessary: electricity, 25.62 lbs CO2e/MWh; natural gas, 53.02 kg CO2e/mmBtu; steam, 182.85 lbs CO2e/kLb.
BENCHMARKING
Serving up energy savings
QFC: Broadway Market
64,000 sf
TThe Kroger company, which owns 50 QFC groceryhe Kroger company, which owns 50 QFC grocery
stores in the Seattle area, is as serious aboutstores in the Seattle area, is as serious about
saving energy as it is about food. Since 2000,saving energy as it is about food. Since 2000,
the company has reduced energy use acrossthe company has reduced energy use across
all of its 2,640 U.S. grocery stores by 34.6%. Atall of its 2,640 U.S. grocery stores by 34.6%. At
its Broadway Market QFC location, a variety ofits Broadway Market QFC location, a variety of
energy-saving improvements have been madeenergy-saving improvements have been made
over the past decade, such as:over the past decade, such as:
▶ All refrigerated cases have LEDs andAll refrigerated cases have LEDs and
temperature controlstemperature controls
▶ Waste heat from refrigeration system is usedWaste heat from refrigeration system is used
to heat hot waterto heat hot water
▶ Refrigerator coils are automated to defrost only when necessaryRefrigerator coils are automated to defrost only when necessary
▶ Store lighting and HVAC is controlled for occupancyStore lighting and HVAC is controlled for occupancy
▶ Upgraded to more energy efficient equipment throughout the storeUpgraded to more energy efficient equipment throughout the store
Seattle City Light developed custom rebate programs for some of the store’sdeveloped custom rebate programs for some of the store’s
unique energy-saving methods, in addition to providing prescriptive rebates.unique energy-saving methods, in addition to providing prescriptive rebates.
Since 2007, the store has saved 7.4% on electricity, 37% on natural gas andSince 2007, the store has saved 7.4% on electricity, 37% on natural gas and
14.1% on water. The building earned an ENERGY STAR certification in 2013.14.1% on water. The building earned an ENERGY STAR certification in 2013.
In addition to its energy-saving efforts, Kroger has set a goal to reduce water useIn addition to its energy-saving efforts, Kroger has set a goal to reduce water use
across its U.S. stores by 25 percent over the next 5 years, and participates in theacross its U.S. stores by 25 percent over the next 5 years, and participates in the
EPA Green Chill program to reduce refrigeration leaks, which are harmful to theEPA Green Chill program to reduce refrigeration leaks, which are harmful to the
ozone layer.ozone layer.
“From a business perspective, to stay
competitive in the market you have to reduce
your utility costs. As a grocery store, which have
narrow profit margins, every little bit counts.
”
- Aaron Sprague, QFC Facility Energy Engineer- Aaron Sprague, QFC Facility Energy Engineer
Image credit: QFC
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
Seattle
Prepared by
September 2015
Building Energy Benchmarking
Analysis ReportAnalysis Report 2013 Data
2. Accomplishments
SEATTLE HELP DESK IN 2013
▶ Help desk responded to 9,695 calls and emails.
▶ 64% of owners and managers required to report
received assistance.
▶ 98% of inquiries responded to in 3 days or less.
2. Accomplishments
Compliance Rates
Seattle’s benchmarking ordinance has achieved a high compliance rate each year of
implementation. About 3,240 non-residential and multifamily buildings 20,000 square feet or
larger (about 282 million square feet total) were required to report 2013 energy data. This includes
about 50 newly constructed or renovated buildings required to report for the first time. About
half of all buildings in the dataset are multifamily housing.
As of December 2014, 99% of these buildings had 2013 energy performance data reported by a
manager, owner or vendor to the City. This represents 99.4% of the total square footage subject
to the requirement. The 2012 calendar year was the first year that all buildings 20,000 square feet
or larger were required to report data. The overall compliance rate of 99% in 2013 improved over
the already high rate of 93% in 2012, due largely to higher reporting by non-residential buildings.
2013 Data ≥20,000 SF
as of December 2, 2014
Buildings % of buildings
compliant
Area
million sf
% of building
sf compliant
Non-Residential 1,651 99.0% 178.6 99.2%
Multifamily 1,565 99.5% 102.4 99.7%
Total 3,216 99.2% 281.0 99.4%
Help Desk: Free Technical Assistance for Benchmarking
To help building owners meet the annual benchmarking and reporting requirement, Seattle
provides free technical assistance available weekdays during business hours (8am–5pm, M–F) for
telephone and email questions. In 2014, Resource Media conducted an assessment of Seattle’s help
desk to capture the impact of this investment. The study found an ongoing need for assistance
Table 1: 2013 Annual Benchmarking Reporting Compliance Rates
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
500
1,000
CallVolume
Month
9
EMI Consulting worked with Seattle City Light to develop a 54
page report that benchmarks how well buildings in Seattle are
using their energy. I designed and implemented both the layout
and a clear and consistent hierarchy of information to be used
throughout the report. I created custom assets as well as using the
analysis and data visualizations provided by The EMI Consulting
team. This report is available online and was distributed
throughout the City of Seattle offices.
Seattle Energy Benchmarking Report

4. BRANDING VINTAGE
A few years ago I opened a small online business with a friend
buying and selling vintage clothing. Once we'd decided on a name
that reflected our Northwest style, I set to work creating our look. I
started with some cloud imagery at first, but decided in the end to
let the clothing speak for it’self. I selected some of the items that
best showcased our style and staged them like glamorous laundry
hung out to dry. Out of a love of vintage style and a series of late
night conversations, Grey Skies Vintage was born.
Grey Skies Vintage Etsy Shop

5. As an artist I had never, at least in the technical sense, heard
of a “white paper” before working at EMI Consulting. They are
a Seattle firm that specializes in working with public utility
companies' energy efficiency programs. Using the white
papers to showcase thought leadership and their knowledge
of trends in the industry was crucial to marketing the firm in
such a research-driven field.
I worked with a small team of engineers to concisely and
clearly present very dense technical information to ensure it
was both accessible and understandable, without becoming
overly simplified. All while maintaining brand consistency
across all published materials.
WHITE PAPERS
www. EMIConsulting.com | Seatlte, WA | 206.621.1160
RESULTS
This section first presents the high level regional LCOE comparisons and then shows more
detail in the direct comparison of ASHP to natural gas, electric, and oil furnaces. In the details,
we call out nuances that are critical for forward thinking, such as historic variability of natural gas
prices, climate dependent heating demand,
and limited access to heating fuels. The results
of the state-by-state LCOE comparisons of
ASHPs, natural gas, electric and oil furnaces
are presented in the following section.
For all regions and the U.S. as a whole, ASHP
are more cost-effective than oil and electric
furnaces, but not as cost effective natural gas.
Figure 1 shows the average LCOE by region, as
well as the national average. As shown, natural
gas furnaces have the lowest national average LCOE, followed by ASHPs. Oil is a little more
expensive, on average, than ASHP while electric furnaces have the highest average LCOE for all
regions nationally. Ranges for LCOE (shown as error bars) are widest for states in the South and
West due to the varied climates and prices within these regions. All states are weighted equally
in the regional and national LCOE averages.
Figure 1: Regional and National Average LCOE
Comparison of Air Source Heat Pump to
Natural Gas Heating
Nearly half of residential customers heat their homes using natural gas, making it the most com-
mon fuel for residential space heating (EIA, 2013), Natural gas is currently inexpensive relative
to other energy sources, but it has experienced considerable price volatility in the past. In addi-
tion, natural gas is inaccessible to many homes around the country due to gaps in infrastructure.
These nuances should be considered when determining the economic viability of residential
heating systems.
For all regions and the U.S. as
a whole, ASHP are more cost-
effective than oil and electric
furnaces, but not as cost
effective natural gas.
www. EMIConsulting.com | Seatlte, WA | 206.261.1160
REAL WORLD PROGRAM EXAMPLES
In this section, a historical summary of real world utility-owned customer-sited programs is
provided. As shown in Figure 5, only a handful of utilities have implemented utility-owned
customer-sited solar electric programs. The earliest programs were started by municipal utilities
in the early 1990’s, followed by regulated utilities in the 2000’s, and most recently includes
unregulated utility subsidiaries. This list is not exhaustive, and more detailed program profiles
can be found in Appendix A.
The Early Programs: Municipal Utilities
The first utility-owned customer-sited PV program dates back to 1993, with Sacramento Municipal
Utility District’s (SMUD) internationally recognized and award winning PV Pioneer I program. This
was later followed by a similar program by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
(LADWP) in 1998, though considerably larger in its goal and budget (SMUD’s goal toward the U.S.
Million Solar Roofs Initiative by 2010 was 25,000 roofs, while that for the LADWP was 100,000).
Both of these early programs were structured as rooftop-hosting programs where customers
voluntarily hosted a utility-owned solar system on their roofs. The systems were installed by
contracted installers on the ‘utility side of the meter’, meaning the electricity did not feed into the
home, but fed directly onto to the grid, thus the electricity was utility-owned as well.
Figure 5. Timeline of Utility-Owned, Customer-Sited PV Programs
Heat Pumps: An UnTapped Resource
For Energy Savings Programs
Regional and State-Level Ecoomic Analysis in Heating Applications
Utility Ownership of Customer-Sited Solar
An Overview of Arguments, Utility Programs, and the Regulatory Landscape
Lower Customer
Barriers
Utility
Monoply
Not
Cost-Effective
Customer Adds
Grid Value
Utility Adds
Grid Value
Reduce Soft
Costs
$$$ $
Utility-Owned Solar Program Debate
FAVOR OPPOSED
COST

6. Comparison of Levelized Cost of Energy
for ASHPs vs.
Oil Furnaces & Electric Furnaces
Source: AHRI
Annual ASHP Shipments
ThousandsofASHPUnits
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OF
AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS
Air source heat pumps (ASHPs) are HVAC systems
that operate by transferring heat. They have the
advantages of being highly efficient, functional,
accessible across the country in all climates, and able
to provide both heating and cooling.
In recent years,
there has been
a sharp increase
in annual U.S.
shipments
of ASHPs—
according to the
Air Conditioning
Heating and
Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI), shipments have increased 43% since
2009. This market boost parallels improvements in
heat pump technology and efficiency. Modern cold
climate air source heat pump efficiency has improved
and these heat pumps can provide sufficient space
heating in very cold regions without the need for
supplementary heating
systems (i.e. oil or gas
furnaces).
According to the latest EIA
RECS report, space heating
represents over 40% of
the average residential
customer annual energy
consumption. Heat pumps
account for 9% of this
market and have substantial
room for growth. In 47
states, the cost of heating
with ASHPs is lower than
the cost of heating with electric furnaces; in 40 states,
the cost is lower than heating with both electric and oil
furnaces. In many of the states where electric and oil
heating is still common, heat pumps have an economic
advantage over these systems.
increase in U.S. ASHP
shipments since 2009
heat consumed annually in an
average U.S. home
Natural Gas
49%
Other
13%
Propane
6%
Oil
6%
Heat
Pump
9%
Electricity
17%
U.S. Residential Heating Fuels
Source: EIA RECS, 2009
ASHP Less Expensive than:
Electric Furnaces Only
Electric & Oil Furnaces
Neither Electric nor Oil Furnaces
states in
which heating
with ASHPs is less
expensive than with
either electric or oil
furnaces
40
43% 38,737,000Btu
Source: EMI Consulting, 2015
Tech Insight:
Trends in Air Source Heat Pumps
THE UTILITY-OWNED SOLAR PROGRAM DEBATE
Lower Customer
Barriers
Utility
Monoply
Not
Cost-Effective
Customer Adds
Grid Value
Utility Adds
Grid Value
Reduce Soft
Costs
$$$ $
Utility-Owned Solar Program Debate
FAVOR OPPOSED
COST
FAIRNESS
Is utility ownership unfair to solar
companies and does it violate anti-trust laws?
COST Can a utility-owned solar program truly be
cost effective?
VALUE Is utility ownership necessary to maximize the
value of solar?
ROOFTOP SOLAR GROWTH IS CREATING
CHALLENGES FOR UTILITIES
With the recent unprecedented growth in customer-
sited solar photovoltaics (PV), forecasters expect
increased challenges for electric utilities — including grid
constraints and reduced revenues. To mitigate these
issues, regulated utilities are considering a wide range
of strategies, such as rate restructuring, changes in net
metering, and “value of solar” tariffs.
Another possible strategy has been the subject of
considerable debate: regulated utility-owned customer-
sited solar (RUCS). While some utilities have successfully
petitioned their state regulators for rate-based RUCS
programs in the U.S., historically there have been very
few. The first two (SMUD, LADWP) were established in
the 1990’s and since then there have been only five
additional programs (SCE, Duke Energy, Dominion, TEP,
APS) offered across the country. These programs have
had varying levels of success, yet serve as valuable case
studies for today’s solar and electric industries.
FUELING THE DEBATE:
FAIRNESS, COST & VALUE
EMI Consulting conducted an extensive review of
available literature and held discussions with key
stakeholders to assess industry perspectives and
explore current trends in RUCS. Research indicates the
debate centers on three key questions:
Utilities have been granted monopoly
status and have unfair advantages
Utilities can provide greater customer
choice and reduce barriers to
solar adoption
Utilities can reduce soft costs,
manage revenue loss better,
and may earn a rate of return
on solar
Regulators may not consider rooftop
solar to be the least cost option
compared to other larger scale
deployments
Utilities are best suited to manage
and add value for grid support
Customers are best suited to manage and
add value for grid support if compensated
appropriately
OPPOSEDIN FAVOR
Source: EMI Consulting, 2015
states allow regulated
utilites to own
customer-sited solar
homes and businesses with solar;
one third installed in 2014 alone
questions are
central to the
controversy35 600,000
Tech Insight:
Utility Ownership of Rooftop Solar
LIMITATIONS & LEGAL QUESTIONS
To date, regulators have limited the scope of RUCS
programs to either serve low-income and less credit
worthy customers or to provide electric grid benefits.
In many states, neither state legislators nor public
utility commissions have addressed the regulatory
status of RUCS, and the legal status remains unknown
or unspecified.
States in which third-party owners (TPO) participate in
the solar market could potentially become regulatory
battlegrounds. As more utilities consider this business
model, it is likely that this topic will pervade regulatory
proceedings.
HOW SHOULD UTITILITIES, REGULATORS &
THE SOLAR INDUSTRY PROCEED?
As the number of distributed solar installations
increases, so will the national conversation
surrounding RUCS. There are valid points from both
perspectives regarding regulated utilities developing
customer-sited solar programs. EMI Consulting found
there is limited information regarding the true costs
and benefits of pursuing this business model.
Moving forward, utilities and policymakers alike will
need to fully comprehend the implications on fairness,
cost, and value resulting from the RUCS model. A
better understanding of the regulatory, political, and
market conditions of RUCS is critical to determine
if ownership of rooftop solar is an economical and
justifiable resource to explore.
For more information on how EMI Consulting can help bring clarity on this or other issues, please contact us.
*Map refers to regulated utilities only. Public or municipal utilities with utility-owned customer-sited solar programs are not depicted.
CURRENT U.S. REGULATORY LANDSCAPE
FOR UTILITY-OWNED SOLAR
Copyright © Free Vector Maps.com
Ownership Allowed
Ownership Not Allowed
Status Unknown/Unspecified*
Pending Legislation
TPO Allowed
TPO not Allowed
Source: EMI Consulting, 2015
www.emiconsulting.com(206) 621-1160 info@emiconsulting.com 83 Columbia Street, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104
CREATIVELY ENGINEERING THE ENERGY FUTURE
The EMI Consulting Engineering Analysis and Technology Assessment team mission is to apply
our unique engineering talents to help expand clients’ clean energy and efficiency resources.
MichaelKerstin SeanErica Dave Andrea Jess
Beyond the work I did on EMI Consulting's white papers, I
was tasked with making sure that all in-house marketing
materials met the established brand guidelines. One of
the biggest challenges was to keep the voice of the brand
consistent and accessible while covering a broad range of
very technical topics. I found working with the engineers to
push them to further my understanding, so that I could pass
it on to others, became one of my greatest assets to the
company.
LIVING THE BRAND

7. I have been painting since before I could hold a paintbrush, but over the last few years I have had
several showings based on an ever-growing series of octopi. I am endlessly fascinated with their
complex texture and endlessly moving tentacles. These are a few of the pieces that I have been most
pleased with recently. The pieces shown are acrylic on reclaimed wood.
OCTOPI ON PARADE

8. Thank you!
k r i s t i n a e a s t h a m @ g m a i l. c o m 2 0 6 . 2 7 6 . 8 6 5 2 1 1 5 Pr e fo n t a i n e P l. S . S e a t t l e, WA 9 8 1 0 4