Industry Drivers of Commissioning: Programs & Legislation

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Industry Drivers of Commissioning: Programs & Legislation"

Morgan Paul
5 years ago
Views:

1 Industry Drivers of Commissioning: Programs & Legislation Michael C. English, PE, CCP, LEED AP Senior Partner, Horizon Engineering Associates, LLP Randy Gunn Managing Director, Navigant George Malek, PE, LEED AP Energy Efficient Portfolio Manager, ComEd

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 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.

3 Course Description It is happening everywhere energy costs are skyrocketing. The government and energy providers are taking preventative action with a focus on rigorous energy cost reduction. This session will delve into the details of NYC s actions via PlaNYC and also take a look at programs, such as ComEd s retro-commissioning program, offering free services and subsidized energy saving improvements.

4 Learning Objectives At the end of this session, participants will be able to: 1. Identify the Local Laws associated with the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan 2. Use evaluative criteria to identify how their building(s) can achieve compliance and what benefits they can expect to see. 3. Identify the general goals and objectives of independent evaluations of utility energy efficiency programs. 4. Identify the specific evaluation results of ComEd s Retro-Commissioning program, in terms of realization rates, net-to-gross estimates, and customer satisfaction with the program, program components, and retro-commissioning service providers.

5 Greener, Greater Buildings Plan Local Law 84: Benchmarking Local Law 85: New York City Energy Code Revision Local Law 87: Energy Audits and Retro- Commissioning Local Law 88: Lighting Upgrades and Sub-metering PlaNYC

6 Local Law 85: Benchmarking Overview Assess current situation, establish baseline Buildings over 50,000 sf need to submit total energy and water use using Energy Star Portfolio Manager

Local Law 85: Benchmarking Process Gather info, submit to Portfolio Manager Confirmation email must be

7 Local Law 85: Benchmarking Process Gather info, submit to Portfolio Manager Confirmation must be kept for at least three years There are numerous third-party firms that are able to complete this process

8 Local Law 85: Benchmarking Benefits Allows building owners ability to chart progress and compare their situation to similar buildings Better position to plan and implement improvements

Local Law 85: Benchmarking Compliance Tips The first year s deadlines was extended to August 1, 2011, but each subsequent year must be submitted by May 1

9 Local Law 85: Benchmarking Compliance Tips The first year s deadlines was extended to August 1, 2011, but each subsequent year must be submitted by May 1 st ConEd can take up to 15 business days to process a request for aggregate usage Quarterly fines of $500 per building may be assessed for non-compliance

10 Local Law 84: NYC Energy Code Revision Overview Important changes to NY State Energy Code Requires all renovations to adhere to the Code. Previously, renovations impacting >50% of a building would be exempt

11 Local Law 84: NYC Energy Code Revision Process All project applications must include: signed and sealed statement by a registered design or energy professional, an energy analysis and construction details

12 Local Law 84: NYC Energy Code Revision Benefits Many renovations in NYC involve >50% of the building, this law closes this loophole

Local Law 87: Energy Audit and Retro-Commissioning Overview Buildings over 50,000 sf must file an Energy Efficiency Report (EER) with department of buildings EER consists of an ASHRAE Level

13 Local Law 87: Energy Audit and Retro-Commissioning Overview Buildings over 50,000 sf must file an Energy Efficiency Report (EER) with department of buildings EER consists of an ASHRAE Level II energy audit and retro-commissioning study of base building systems Due once every 10 years, starting in 2013, staggered schedule based on the last digit of the building s tax block number

Local Law 87: Energy Audit and Retro-Commissioning Process Energy Audit: Breaks down total energy use and cost into various end uses, such as heating, air

14 Local Law 87: Energy Audit and Retro-Commissioning Process Energy Audit: Breaks down total energy use and cost into various end uses, such as heating, air conditioning or lighting and shows the potential for savings. Optimizing the energy efficiency and operations of existing base building systems through system adjustments

Local Law 87: Energy Audit and Retro-Commissioning Benefits Planning tool to develop future capital investment projects/budget Savings in energy costs Healthy

15 Local Law 87: Energy Audit and Retro-Commissioning Benefits Planning tool to develop future capital investment projects/budget Savings in energy costs Healthy building which improves occupant productivity LL87 applied to nine buildings, 70 energy conservation measures were identified with $3.36 million in energy costs

16 Local Law 87: Energy Audit and Retro-Commissioning Compliance Tips Early compliance: submit as early as 2013, prior to your scheduled filing. This way, your next filing is due 10 years after the first. Last digit of tax block number Year first EER is due

Local Law 87: Energy Audit and Retro-Commissioning Compliance Tips Both the energy audit and retro-commissioning study must be completed no more than

17 Local Law 87: Energy Audit and Retro-Commissioning Compliance Tips Both the energy audit and retro-commissioning study must be completed no more than four years before the EER is filed EER must be filed between 1/1 and 12/31 of the calendar year in which the report is due and every 10 th year thereafter.

Energy Efficiency Legislation in Illinois The 2007 Illinois Power Agency Act (Public Act 95-0481) established historic electric energy efficiency and demand response goals, propelling Illinois to a

18 Energy Efficiency Legislation in Illinois The 2007 Illinois Power Agency Act (Public Act ) established historic electric energy efficiency and demand response goals, propelling Illinois to a position of national leadership ,000,000 MWh Saved - Target vs. Achieved EE Goal - % of energy delivered PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5 PY6 PY7 PY8 EE Goal Spending Screen Spending Screen - % of revenue , , , , , , , , ,000 - PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5 PY6 MWh Target MWh Achieved (Subsequent 2009 Act provided gas energy efficiency goals also)

19 RCx Market Drivers in Illinois ComEd experience with Commissioning MORES Pilot Experienced practitioners NCBC Involvement Small but strong local network of service providers Tremendous savings potential from operational changes and system optimization A very sizable target market Commercial Real Estate Hospitality Hospitals

Retro-Commissioning Program Key Features Incentive is the cost of engineering study and M&V Study performed by ComEd-approved service provider

20 Retro-Commissioning Program Key Features Incentive is the cost of engineering study and M&V Study performed by ComEd-approved service provider Electric and Gas 500 kw and larger 150,000 sq ft and larger Measure implementation deadline Customer implementation requirement of $15,000 or $30,000

21 Utility Joint Delivery Model Integrys (Gas Utility) Coordination Agreement Cost Allocation Agreements ComEd (Electric Utility) Coordination Agreement Cost Allocation Agreements Nicor (Gas Utility) 3 rd Party Implementer Nexant RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP 21

22 Program Design and Project Flow Process Investigation/ Application Planning Verification Implementation Screen potential candidate buildings for suitability Define Savings goals and project schedule Interview building personnel Review building documentation Inspect building systems Test equipment and controls (targeted functional performance tests) Gather and analyze HVAC and lighting data (EMS trend data) Develop recommendations/ estimated costs and savings (e.g. Master List of Deficiencies and/or Investigation Report) Customer selects and implements Verify that measures have been implemented correctly and are operating as intended Update energy savings calculations as necessary

23 RCx Participants in ComEd s PY3

24 Summary of Impact Evaluation Approach Generally the impact evaluation approach for PY3 is to conduct an audit of the RCx service providers savings assumptions and estimates. Navigant conducted a file review for a sample of 18 of 34 program participants, including checking engineering estimates. Navigant conducted on-site surveys with short-term measurements for 9 of 18 customers from the file review sample.

25 Summary of Process Evaluation Approach Navigant s process approach included: Reviews of program documents. In depth interviews with ComEd s program manager, and the program implementer s (Nexant) project manager. In-depth interviews with 5 of 9 RCx service providers. Telephone surveys with 8 of 34 customer participants. These were conducted by a subcontractor, Opinion Dynamics.

26 Program Year 3 Impact Evaluation Results The RCx agents savings estimates were generally quite good. Evaluators estimate realization rates (RR) = evaluators estimates of gross savings/implementers savings estimates. 12 of 18 projects had RRs of 100% to 110%. 3 of 18 projects had RRs of 90% to 100%. 2 of 18 projects had RRs of 80% to 90%. 1 project had a RR of 49%. Overall RR = 95%.

27 Electric Program Savings by End Use

28 Electric Program Savings by Measure Type

29 Program Year 3 Net to Gross Analysis This analysis attempts to adjust savings estimates for naturally occurring savings and spillover. Free riders are customers who would have implemented the measures without the ComEd program. Spillover are additional savings that customers implement outside of the program, but due to the program s influence.

30 Program Year 3 Net to Gross Results Unfortunately, we could only reach 8 of 34 customer participants to survey. Five of the customers interviewed report that the were previously aware of all of the performance issues identified. Four report that they were previously aware of all of the performance solutions identified by the RCx studies. The FR rate was 0 for 4 customers, 5% for 1 customer, and 44%-55% for 3 customers.

31 PY3 Net to Gross Results (2) Five customers reported installing ECMs outside of ComEd s programs. Five customers reported installing capital EE measures. Two customers reported installing additional RCx measures. However, only one customer reported significant program influence for their EE measure installations. Concluded that spillover was low, and overall NTG = 71%.

32 PY3 Process Evaluation Results RCx service providers (RSPs) were generally satisfied with program processes. A few issues: RSPs found that they spent about 40% -60% of their time in the planning phase, greater than the 25% of total fees they get then. RSPs were somewhat concerned about redundant paperwork requirements. RSPs were somewhat concerned about approval delays in some program phases.

33 PY3 Process Evaluation Results (2) Participant customers reported high satisfaction with all aspects of the program: The overall RCx program. Program and implementer staff. Their RSP. Information provided in the study. The amount of commitment required. All participants would recommend the program to peers at other companies.

34 PY3 Process Evaluation Results (3) Barriers to participation include: Many customers not being familiar with the program. The upfront spending requirement, as savings are unknown at that time. Customer legal reviews before committing can sometimes be considerable. For RSPs, lack of presence in ComEd s service area is a barrier.

35 PY3 Process Evaluation Results (4) Customers and RSPs have different ideas about where customers learn about the program: 3 of 8 customers surveyed learned about the program from a colleague or word of mouth. 2 of 8 customers surveyed learned about it from the ComEd website. RSPs believe that they are the primary source of information about the program to customers.

36 PY3 Process Evaluation Results (5) The program implementer conducted a review of RSP performance based on a variety of factors, including: Quality of RCx reports, and quality improvements over time. Energy savings per project and costs/kwh conserved. Meeting deadlines & customer satisfaction. Based on this review, one RSP was removed from the program for PY4.

37 Conclusions The program s net ex post (evaluation verified) savings = 15.4 GWh for PY3. This is about 3% of ComEd s total EE savings. The biggest adjustment to the program savings estimates was a 29% reduction for free riders. Participants and RSPs are quite satisfied with the program and its components.

38 Key Recommendations Encourage RSPs to document all ECM savings in an unburdensome way. Better estimate natural gas savings for PY4, when IL gas savings targets start. Try to better set up customer participation in evaluation surveys during implementation. Re-assess the time requirements for each phase of the program application process. Streamline the application and review process as much as possible.

39 Key Recommendations (2) Increase customer awareness of the program by: Helping RSPs develop their own case studies for the program. Continue to monitor the leads generated by the RSPs, and the conversion rates into program applications. Increase engagement of ComEd account managers in program outreach.

40 Implementer s Response to the Evaluation In general, the implementation team does not feel that the NTG analysis is conclusive and that the results are not in line with market conditions. Given the type of measures (optimization and scheduling), It is unlikely that the building personnel would have known about such measures without the rigorous analysis and trending required by the program. Respondents may feel obligated to state that they were aware of deficiencies when asked in such a way

41 Implementer s Response to the Evaluation (2) Program statistics related to participation contradicts customers response. Need a better response rate to achieve representative sample and need to maximize the likelihood of appropriate customer contact. 100% Percent Contribution of Outreach Campaigns to RCx Applications Percent of Total Applications 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Trade Association Account Manager Web/Mass Collateral Target Leads Service Provider 0% RCx PY 1 RCx PY 2 RCx PY 3 RCx PY 4 RCx PY 5 Program Year

Michael C. English, PE, CCP, LEED AP P: 212.400.

com Randy Gunn, Navigant Randy.gunn@navigant.

42 Michael C. English, PE, CCP, LEED AP P: F: E: Randy Gunn, Navigant George Malek, PE, LEED AP, ComEd

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

Evaluating and Benchmarking Retro-Commissioning Programs Randy Gunn, Managing Director - Navigant AIA Quality Assurance The Building Commissioning Association is a Registered Provider with The American