Transcript Slide 1

California Commissioning Collaborative
Advisory Council Meeting
February 7, 2008
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Agenda
9:00 AM
Continental Breakfast
9:30 AM
Welcome, Introductions, and Announcements
Phil Welker, PECI
9:40 AM
CCC Program Updates
CCC Staff
10:20 AM
CPUC Strategic Planning Update
Peter Turnbull, PG&E
10:50 AM
Break
11:05 AM
Evaluation Findings and Recommendations
11:20 AM
Discussion of EM&V Issues
12:00 PM
Lunch
12:45 PM
Verification of Savings - Phase 2 Proposal
David Jump, QuEST
1:15 PM
PG&E Benchmarking Program
Peter Turnbull, PG&E
1:45 PM
Green Building Standards: California Codes
Dave Walls, California Building Standards
Commission
2:30 PM
Demo: Universal Translator
Reinhard Seidl, Taylor Engineering
3:15 PM
Wrap - Up
Phil Welker, PECI
Bing Tso, SBW
2
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Introductions & Announcements
3
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Strategic Planning Update
• December: Proposed budget for 2008-2011
– Board of Directors review, discussion and vote
• January/February: Board approval of budget proposal
– 2008 budget consistent with 2006 and 2007
– 2009-2011 budget will ramp up to provide increased funding for
policy and M&V initiatives
4
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Strategic Planning Update
2008 Budget
Stakeholder
2008
CEC
$50,000
PIER
$150,000
PG&E
$92,616
SCE
$65,076
SDG&E
$16,080
SCG
$11,160
SMUD
$25,000
Total
$409,932
5
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Strategic Planning Update
2009-2011 Budget
Stakeholder
2009
2010
2011
Total
CEC
$84,000
$112,000
$140,000
$336,000
PIER
$198,000
$264,000
$330,000
$792,000
PG&E
$132,000
$176,000
$220,000
$528,000
SCE
$102,000
$136,000
$170,000
$408,000
SDG&E
$42,000
$56,000
$70,000
$168,000
SoCal Gas
$24,000
$32,000
$40,000
$96,000
SMUD
$18,000
$24,000
$30,000
$72,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$2,400,000
Total
6
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
CCC RCx Toolkit: Update and Follow-on Work
Hannah Friedman
PECI
7
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
CCC RCx Toolkit – Brief Overview
Website launched RCx Toolkit on January 30
http://www.cacx.org/resources/rcxtools/
• Variable Flow Pumping System Workbook:
– Reduce flow rate
– Reduce differential pressure setpoint
– Reset differential pressure setpoint
• Variable Flow Fan System Workbook:
–
–
–
–
Reduce VAV box minimum flow setpoint
Reduce duct static pressure setpoint
Reset duct static pressure setpoint
Reset supply air temperature (can also be applied to constant
volume fan systems)
8
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
CCC RCx Toolkit – Brief Overview
• Utility Consumption Analysis Tool
– Input monthly bills to determine average daily use in calendar
month
– Prorates and interpolates energy use when utility bills do not
coincide with a single calendar month, as is most often the case
– Allows a user to input other comparison data, such as degreedays
9
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
CCC RCx Toolkit – Brief Overview
• Findings Workbook
– Helps track and report RCx investigation and implementation
activities
– Automates the creation of tables for reporting
– Allows measures not selected for implementation to be
automatically filtered from reports
– Facilitates the estimation of cost savings with embedded
California rate tariffs
– Includes drop-down categories to group RCx findings
10
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Funding Process for Follow-on Work
• CCC Cx R&D Task 4
(CCC’s contract with CEC, managed by PECI): $90k
– Gather Advisory Council comments
– Incorporate comments into planning
– Proceed to Work Authorization process; gain approval from CEC
Commissioners
• PIER 2008 tools funding: ~$150k
– Amendment to existing PIER/CCC contract, adding funds to
specific tasks
11
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Planning for PIER-funded Follow-on Work
Cost
Task
Process for Delivery
CCC Cx R&D Task 4: $90k
$40k
$25k
$25k
RCx calc tools pilot test and revisions
CCC staff manages pilot process, sub to
QuEST for tool revisions
Additional RCx calculation tools
CCC issues RFP for RCx tools work
(contract managed by CCC staff)
Guide for Verification of Savings
Sub to QuEST and PG&E Energy
Services
PIER 2008 tools funding: ~$150k
~$75k
~$75k
Additional RCx calculation tools
CCC issues RFP for RCx tools work,
(contract managed by CCC staff)
Tools supporting savings verification
CCC issues RFP for RCx tools work
(contract managed by CCC staff)
12
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Additional RCx Calculation Tools
• Potential areas for RCx tool development
– Correlation tool: defining an accurate relationship between two
variables, for use in energy savings calculations (bin-type)
• i.e., Using trend data, automated correlation of airflow to outside air
temp, filtering out hours when AHU is off
• Not included in existing tools
– Calcs for additional common measures
– Calcs for additional findings with most common calculation errors
– Other? CCC’s RFP will be open to proposed tools
13
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Verification of Savings Tools
• Scope of RFP
– To be determined once VoS Guideline is under development and
extent of funding is determined
• Scope likely to include:
– Simple tools to streamline savings verification for common
measures; must be immediately usable and practical
14
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
CPUC Strategic Planning Update
Peter Turnbull
PG&E
15
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Break
10:50 – 11:05
16
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Evaluating Savings from California
Retrocommissioning Programs
Bing Tso, P.E.
Sr. Project Manager, SBW Consulting, Inc.
17
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Background
•
•
SBW involved in California program implementation and evaluation since
early 1990s
Past RCx evaluations
– 2002-3 Oakland Energy Partners Tune-Up
– 2004-5 QuEST Building Tune-Up
– 2004-5 UC/CSU/IOU Partnership (MBCx)
•
Current RCx evaluations (2006-8 programs)
– RCx evaluation contract group (10 programs)
– Partnerships contract group (RCx projects)
– Persistence study (revisit past evaluated projects)
18
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Past evaluation overview
•
•
•
Combined, 36 large commercial facilities, with hundreds of measures.
Measure savings range: 200 – 1.4 million kWh/year.
Sampling schemes tailored to programs:
– Stratified sample of measures
– Random sample of projects, variable analysis rigor for measures
– Random sample of projects, all measures analyzed at same rigor level
19
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Cx impact evaluation at a glance
•
•
•
Baseline data collection (implementer + evaluator as
needed)
Post-implementation data collection (evaluator)
Techniques:
–
–
–
–
•
Short-term metering / trend logs
One-time measurements
Customer records
On-site interviews and observations
Predominantly IPMVP Option B
–
–
Analysis rigor commensurate with savings size and
uncertainty
Flexibility necessary
20
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
10 things to keep in mind
•
•
Ultimate goal: optimize precision of savings estimates within fixed
budget
Apply judgment to balance many factors:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Project size in program
# of Cx measures in project
% of project savings each measure represents
Analysis difficulty / uncertainty
Baseline data quality
Data availability
Installation probability
Customer tolerance
Ongoing changes to affected systems
Evaluation budget for project
21
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Evaluated results: gross first-year savings
22
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Projected savings persistence
5.7 - 7.2 year evaluated Effective Useful Life, vs. 8.0 years ex ante
Based on assumed measure lives, augmented with evaluation field
information
100%
% of first-year savings
•
•
80%
OEP kWh
60%
OEP therm
BTU kWh
40%
BTU therm
20%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Years after im plem entation
23
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
What did we learn?
•
•
•
Flexibility and cooperation between implementer and evaluator can lead
to successful, well-verified program.
“Commissioning the retrocommissioning” can help realize savings.
Diligent M&V throughout program improves savings estimation:
– Capture baseline conditions thoroughly
– Use best possible measurements and assumptions to estimate savings
– Take post measurements to verify performance and savings
•
More work needed to see if savings last, and if not, how to make them
last.
24
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Program M&V versus Evaluation M&V
•
Measurement approach for EM&V may not be the same as that needed for
program activities.
•
Program measurements geared towards helping customers make
decisions.
•
For a sampled EM&V site, we must maximize precision of that site’s savings
estimate.
•
Program may be unable to afford the EM&V standard for all sites. Their
techniques may be rougher, but as long as they are unbiased, overall
results should be OK.
25
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Looking ahead
•
2006-08 Retrocommissioning program portfolio
ID
Sample Points per..
Million $ of
Projected N
Budget
000 MMBTU
of Projects Sample N
Program Name
PGE2056
Monitoring-Based Persistence Commissioning
13
6
3.70
0.25
PGE2070
Data Centers
12
5
2.78
0.27
PGE2071
Hospitality Energy Efficiency Program
15
6
2.16
0.18
PGE2072
Hospitals Pilot
12
5
2.13
0.11
PGE2090
Airflow/Fume Hood Control Re-Commissioning
37
10
3.17
0.10
PGE2091
Retrocommissioning Services and Incentives Program
66
13
1.65
0.11
PGE2094
Macy’s Comprehensive Energy Management
9
5
1.94
0.13
SCE2508
Retro-commissioning
182
19
1.63
0.14
SCG3528
SDGE3027
Retro-commissioning Partnership with SCE
Retro-commissioning Program
Total
7
28
382
5
10
84
34.01
3.14
2.26
0.69
0.17
0.15
General RCx
283
2.06
2.26
0.15
0.13
•
•
47
$2.6 million evaluation budget
All PG&E
164
50
Plus evaluation of RCx activities in various 2006-08 Partnership programs
26
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Data collection and analysis methods
•
Gross savings
– Site-specific M&V plans for all sampled projects
– Baseline and post data collection
• data from customer controls systems
• inspections
• special metering by evaluation team
– Site-, system-, & measure-specific engineering models used to estimate
savings
– Indirect measures (i.e., suggested by program, implemented by customer,
but not paid for by the program)
– Spillover measures (i.e., implemented by the customer because of what
program taught them, but not specifically recommended by the program)
•
Net savings (accounts for freeridership)
– Analysis of all completed projects
– 3 analysis levels, depending on ex ante savings
27
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Plan elements
28
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Evaluation Milestones
•
Final evaluation plan
•
Sample selection, detailed data collection (pre/post) and analysis
Mar - Dec 2008
•
Further data collection (post only) and analysis
Jan – Oct 2009
•
Draft evaluation report
Nov 16, 2009
•
Final evaluation report
Feb 1, 2010
Feb 23, 2008
29
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Discussion Topics
• Implementation and Evaluation Overlap
– Data collection is done by both – potential for sharing this effort?
• Measure Life
– Key issues
– Research needs
• Interactive Effects / Net Impact
– Current derating factors – too conservative? Not conservative enough?
• CCC Role
– Research, demonstration, working groups?
30
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Lunch
12:00 – 12:45
31
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Status Report: Verification of Savings
David Jump
QuEST
32
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Status
Phase I Task
Deliverable
Document St akeholder Object ives
Def init ion of Object ives Report
Develop Cat egorizat ion Framework
Exist ing Met hods Report
Document Exist ing Met hods
Develop Evaluat ion Framework
Evaluat ion Framework Document
33
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Major Findings – Phase I
• Significant risk to RCx programs continuance if
evaluation returns poor realization rates & poor program
cost effectiveness
• Stakeholders desire for RCx programs to continue
• Ex-ante savings estimates subject to multiple sources of
error
• Savings may not persistence due to lack of feedback
• Program best practices recommend M&V, though few
use it
• Evaluation protocols require M&V, but often lack access
to baseline data
34
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
TAG & Advisory Committee Feedback
• Need for understanding M&V and data requirements that
address RCx projects and programs
• Desire to have practical and uniform guidance among all
California utilities
• Need for means verifying savings persistence, esp. first
year
• Need to establish appropriate M&V guidance ahead of
the solicitations for the next program funding cycle
(preferred by June 2008)
• Desire to get feedback and buy-in from program
evaluators
35
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Phase II – Proposed Changes
Current Phase II Tasks
Level of
Effort Proposed Phase II Tasks
Level of
Effort
Revise Phase I Deliverables
5%
Revise Phase I Delivarables
5%
New Methods Proposal
Final Evaluation and
Categorization
Develop Research Policy
Roadmap
15%
Develop Practical Option
B/Option C M&V Guideline for
RCx Projects
Develop Research Policy
Roadmap
25%
Create and Implement a
Dissemination Plan
10%
Create and Implement a
Dissemination Plan
20%
10%
15%
5%
36
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Additional VoS Scope Items
1.
Add a Technical Project Manager ($5K)
–
–
2.
Oversee projects
Facilitate TAG meetings, coordinate reviewers
Add 3 paid reviewers ($7.5K)
–
Obtain quality assurance and input on guidelines from
experienced stakeholders
37
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Guideline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Specific Option B / Option C method
Purpose
General Overview of M&V
How to assess goals and resources to select M&V method
M&V Plan and M&V Requirements
Specifying the data requirements
Describing baseline model development
Describing post-installation M&V activities
Calculating and reporting savings
Uncertainty requirements
Common issues
Reporting savings
Additional Content:
– Examples of key concepts
– Example M&V plan and savings report
38
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Research Policy Roadmap (a report)
• Pilot and testing phase to provide feedback on the
guideline and ways to improve it,
• Development of other verification guidelines (adherent
and not adherent to IPMVP),
• Evaluation and categorization of other known methods to
understand applicability of methods in various situations
under different objectives,
• Validation of methods with project and program data and
examples of actual implementation,
• Development of case studies of projects utilizing the
guideline through Utility and Third Party Programs, and
CEC Emerging Technology projects,
• Identification of tools and resources that facilitate
inclusion of M&V in RCx projects, such as template M&V
plans, forms, worksheets, and reports.
39
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Dissemination Plan
• Review and inclusion in professional organization
publications
– Efficiency Valuation Organization Website
– ASHRAE Guideline 14, TC 4.7, TC 7.6, Guideline 30P (Cx Gude
for Existing Buildings)
• Papers presented at ASHRAE, NCBC
• Two training sessions (N and S Cal):
– Providers (to implement)
– Program managers (to manage)
– Other interested parties
40
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Future Activities Recommended
• RCx/M&V Guideline additional resources:
– M&V Plan templates and savings reports (est. $8K for Option
B/Option C methods)
• Case Studies of Option B / Option C M&V
• Develop Additional Guidelines
– Methods adherent to IPMVP, e.g.
• Option A – measurement of key parameters
• Option D – calibrated simulation
– Methods not adherent to IPMVP, e.g.
• Benchmarking
• Calculation and inspection/performance
verification
• Ex-post savings estimation
41
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
PG&E Benchmarking Program
Peter Turnbull
PG&E
42
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Green Building Standards: California Codes
Dave Walls
California Building Standards Commission
43
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Universal Translator
Reinhard Seidl
Taylor Engineering
44
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Future Agenda Topics – April 21
• Topics of Interest
– Special Guests?
– Other Ideas?
• Discussion:
– Ideas?
45
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
2008 Meeting Dates
•
•
•
•
April 21 – Monday, coincides with NCBC, Newport Beach
June 12 – Thursday
August 28 – Thursday
November 6 – Thursday
46
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Adjourn
Thanks to SMUD for hosting today!
47
©California
Commissioning Collaborative