Evaluating and Benchmarking Retro-Commissioning Programs. Randy Gunn, Managing Director - Navigant

Transcription

1 Evaluating and Benchmarking Retro-Commissioning Programs Randy Gunn, Managing Director - Navigant

2 AIA Quality Assurance The Building Commissioning Association is a Registered Provider with The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems (AIA/CES). Credit(s) earned on completion of this program will be reported to AIA/CES for AIA members. Certificates of the Completion for both AIA members and non-aia members are available upon request. This program is registered with AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product. Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation. 2

3 Session Learning Objectives Evaluation of Utility EBCx Programs At the end of this session participants will be able to: 1. Compare EBCx programs in participants regions using actual savings data from top performing programs 2. Evaluate the effect of commissioning services, program costs and customer incentives that vary from program to program 3. Identify programs with higher than average energy savings and lower than average program costs. 4. Determine how certain program features may be contributing to high program savings and low program costs. 3

4 Presentation Learning Objectives At the end of this presentation, participants will be able to: 1. Understand how retro-commissioning programs energy savings and costs can be compared in a useful manner 2. Understand the range of normalized program energy savings and costs among large RCx programs operating in the USA 3. Understand Massachusetts utilities involvement in retrocommissioning 4. Understand how well Massachusetts retro-commissioning projects have performed, lessons learned and recommendations 4

5 Benchmarking Presentation Synopsis This presentation will cover the following topics: Purposes of EE benchmarking analysis How program energy savings and costs are normalized so that programs operated by utilities and agencies of different sizes can be reasonably compared Normalized RCx program energy savings Normalized RCx program costs Programs with relatively high energy savings and low costs Conclusions and recommendations Possible future areas of research 5

6 Purposes of EE Benchmarking EE Benchmarking and best practices analyses can be used for a variety of purposes, including: Providing guidance for setting new program goals and budgets. Providing reality checks for DSM planning/potential studies, to help calibrate the models and ensure the results are consistent with industry experience. To identify features of high savings and/or low cost programs, to provide ideas for possible program improvements for other utilities. To better understand how programs that sound similar in name vary between different utilities and program administrators. 6

7 Normalization Challenges in Comparing EE Programs Utilities and state-wide program administrators have widely varying numbers of customers, revenues, EE program budgets, goals, energy rates, etc. To make program savings statistics more comparable, we divide the actual savings by the sector-specific baseline sales for each utility or administrator, to develop statistics on energy savings as a percentage of baseline utility sales. So, if utility #1 has annual savings of 1,000,000 kwh and C&I baseline sales of 100,000,000 kwh, the savings as a percentage of baseline sales is 1%. To make program costs stats more comparable, we generally use actual program costs per Kwh saved. So, if utility #1 s program annual costs were $200,000, their costs per kwh saved would be $0.20. ($200,000/1,000,000 kwh saved). 7

8 RCx Programs Included in Analysis It was surprisingly difficult to get good savings and cost data on RCx-only programs. For many utilities, RCx programs are bundled with Custom and other types of programs. We had pretty good data on programs in the Northeast and Midwest from previous projects. So we included: Northeast Utilities: CT Light and Power program. Program pays for about 40% of the cost of the RCx study. Illinois: Ameren, ComEd, and DCEO. Programs pay for 100% of RCx study costs. Customers agree to pay for implementation costs up to caps. Maryland: Baltimore G&E. Program pays for up to 75% of the cost of RCx services. Xcel Energy: CO and MN programs. Programs pay for up to 75% of the cost of RCx studies and up to 60% of the cost of implementation. 8

9 Data Sources RCx energy and peak demand savings come from utilities or agencies 2012 EE annual regulatory reports to state public utility commissions. RCx 2012 program costs also come from these sources. Baseline utility sales and peak demands come from EIA Form 861 data that utilities have to file with the Federal government. The IL, MD and NE Utilities programs are evaluated annually by independent evaluators. Navigant evaluated the IL IOU programs, as well as the MD program. The Xcel programs were evaluated by an independent evaluator in the past five years. 9

10 Ameren & ComEd s RCx Programs Savings Save the Largest Percent of Total C&I Program Savings RCx Savings as a % of CI Portfolio Savings 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% XE (CO) Xcel MN BGE DCEO CL&P ComEd Ameren (IL) 10

11 Ameren, CL&P, and DCEO Save the Most Energy as a Percentage of C&I Baseline Sales RCx Energy Savings as % of C&I Sales 0.12% 0.10% 0.08% 0.06% 0.04% 0.02% 0.00% XE (CO) ComEd BGE Xcel MN DCEO CL&P Ameren (IL) 11

12 Ameren, BG&E, and CL&P have the Largest Peak Demand Savings as Percentages of C&I Baseline Peaks RCx Peak Demand Savings as % of Peak Demand 0.10% 0.09% 0.08% 0.07% 0.06% 0.05% 0.04% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% Xcel MN ComEd XE (CO) CL&P BGE Ameren (IL) 12

13 Ameren, ComEd, and CL&P Have the Lowest Program Costs Per First Year kwh Saved RCx First Year $/kwh $0.25 $0.20 $0.15 $0.10 $0.05 $- Ameren (IL) ComEd CL&P Xcel MN XE (CO) BGE DCEO 13

14 Ameren, BG&E, and Xcel Energy (CO) Have the Lowest Program Costs Per Peak kw Saved RCx First Year Costs $/kw $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $- Ameren (IL) BGE XE (CO) ComEd CL&P Xcel MN DCEO 14

15 Ameren and CL&P s Programs Have Energy Savings Above the Median and Costs Below the Median $0.25 X Axis = 2012 Electric Energy Savings as a % of Sales Y Axis = 2012 $/First Year kwh DCEO $0.20 XE (CO) BGE $0.15 Xcel MN 0.00% 0.02% 0.04% 0.06% 0.08% 0.10% 0.12% 0.14% $0.10 ComEd CL&P $0.05 Ameren (IL) $- High Savings, Low Costs 15

16 Ameren and BG&E have Peak Demand Savings Above the Median and Costs Below the Median Xcel MN $3,500.0 $3,000.0 X Axis = 2012 Electric Peak Demand Savings as a % of Sales Y Axis = 2012 $/First Year kw Intersection at Medians $2,500.0 $2,000.0 $1,500.0 CL&P ComEd $1, % XE (CO) 0.02% BGE 0.04% 0.06% 0.08% 0.10% 0.12% Ameren (IL) $500.0 $- High Savings, Low Costs 16

17 Conclusions Benchmarking is not a horse race. It s generally not feasible to produce completely apples to apples comparisons between utilities. One difference between these programs is whether air compressor systems are included in RCx programs or not. Ameren, BG&E, and DCEO include them in RCx, while ComEd and Xcel have separate industrial EE programs that include compressors. Retro-commissioning program savings account for 2% to 18% of these utilities total savings from C&I EE programs. RCx programs generally save 0.1% of utilities C&I baseline sales or less. Median program costs are about 13 cents/kwh saved, and range from about 6 cents/kwh to 20 cents/kwh. This is generally low cost savings. 17

18 Future RCx Program Research Include CA and more western US programs in future analyses. Investigate differences between utilities rebate structures to try to determine how big an effect that has on program savings. Try to get some utilities and program administrators like NYSERDA to report on RCx program savings and spending separately from Custom or other umbrella programs. CL&P did so for this presentation. 18

19 Randy Gunn, Managing Director Company Name Website Address