Transcript Using Energy Performance Rating to Link Business Actions to Environmental Priorities Bill White U.S.

Using Energy Performance Rating
to Link Business Actions to
Environmental Priorities
Bill White
U.S. EPA – Region 1
National Symposium on Environmental Information
Las Vegas, NV
November 30, 2005
Southwestern Connecticut - Fairfield
County
• High value economic
climate
• Ten Fortune 500
companies
• Numerous other
corporate headquarters
• Global financial
services center
Southwestern Connecticut has big
environmental challenges
• Non-attainment for ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard
• High fine particle levels
• Summertime exceedances of standard are driven by:
– High electricity demand from air conditioning loads
– Electricity transmission and distribution systems are old and
low capacity – can’t import enough power to meet high
demand
– Dirty local power plants must be dispatched to meet demand
on peak days
• State has adopted greenhouse gas emissions targets
SW Connecticut’s old electricity
infrastructure causes other problems
• Electric reliability is shaky
– Annual threats of brownouts and blackouts undermine highvalue business climate
– Raises prices – local generation is both dirty and expensive
– Congestion pricing places cost burden on local business
customers
• Proposed solutions face barriers
– New transmission lines are expensive and face significant
local opposition
– Additional generation cannot add to local air quality
problems
Energy Efficiency appeals to many
players in SW Connecticut
• State Environmental regulators prefer zero emissions
solutions to energy infrastructure and reliability
problems.
• Business community thinks that the grid operator
ISO-New England and electric distribution utilities
have been overly focused on transmission upgrades they want to take action – and get credit for it.
• Utility regulators need to shore up reliability of local
power grid and ameliorate impacts of congestion
pricing.
Despite EE’s advantages, key
players were skeptical
• Company facility managers doubted that any
energy efficiency opportunities remained in
their buildings: “We’re doing a good job.”
• Utility energy efficiency program
administrators:
– had already spent millions upgrading buildings in
the region
– believed they already know how to improve
energy performance - new approaches were
unlikely to add value
What did EPA bring to the table?
Performance Measurement
• Businesses
– Constantly measuring performance across their operations
– Want to know how they compare to the competition
– Senior corporate officers must report performance to boards
and shareholders
• Environmental regulators
– Need to show environmental results to the public
• Utility regulators
– Need to show energy savings and peak energy savings
• Utility efficiency programs
– Need to show that public benefit energy efficiency funds are
achieving results
Millions were spent on energy
efficiency: Why spend more?
• Traditional utility energy efficiency programs
are prescriptive and focused on equipment
replacement – not performance
• Savings calculations were engineering
estimates based on component efficiencies –
not actual performance
• Modern building systems are complex and
require ongoing maintenance and tune-ups to
achieve optimal performance
EPA had extensively studied the status
quo in building energy performance
400% variation
in energy use intensity of buildings
(Source: Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey)
Variation that is not explained
by age, technology, hours, size, climate
New technologies alone do not
guarantee performance
Weak Correlation: Code vs. Simulated EUI
California Office Buildings
y = 0.0021x
R2 = 0.1321
Buildings 20% better
than code can have an
energy performance
score ranging from
1-100.
50.0%
% Electricity Savings relative to code
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
Not sending right
market signal.
10.0%
0.0%
0
20
40
60
80
-10.0%
-20.0%
Energy Star Score (based on National Average Occupancy)
Source: NBI, California Board for
Energy Efficiency, EPA
100
120
Did CT companies and utilities really
know well their facilities performed?
• EPA was skeptical of utility and company claims that they knew
how well their buildings were performing - meetings suggested
they were not using performance measurement tools.
• Until recently, a standardized, comparable metric of whole
building energy performance did not exist!
• EPA’s Energy Performance Rating System was developed to
meet this need.
• You can’t manage what you don’t measure!
U.S. EPA Energy
Performance Rating
Is 10 MPG high or low for an
automobile?
Is 90 kBtu/SF/YR high or low
for a hotel?
Answer: Even
some facility
experts don’t
know
Answer: Common
Knowledge
Fuel
Efficiency
MPG
Energy
Efficiency
1 - 100
Energy Intensity of Office Buildings
Number of Buildings
* Normalized EUI varies
widely
* 30 kbtu/ft2 to 340 kBtu/ft2
*Age and equipment not
significant drivers of EUI
100
75
50
25
1
29.9
86.0
121.1
165.7
339.4
EPA Rating &
Energy Intensity
Best Performers
(kBtu/ft2-year)
Worst Performers
The ENERGY STAR Approach
Commit to
continuous
improvement
Make
benchmarking a
regular part of
organizational
practices
How Does the Energy Performance
Rating System Work?
Uses actual energy consumption data
Easy-to-use, secure, web-based, simple data requirements
Easy-to-understand 1-100 performance score
Normalizes for Building Variables
Weather, size, occupancy, hours of operation, number of
computers
Use it to: Benchmark, Compare, Inform, Track and
Measure, and Reward Success
Recognition: Earn the ENERGY STAR
Buildings that score 75 or
better can now apply for
the ENERGY STAR.
Qualifying buildings must
also meet standards for
indoor air quality, lighting,
ventilation, and thermal
comfort (ASHRAE)
0
25
50
75
100
Good information is not necessarily
good news
• Initial benchmarking results
for 12 million square feet of
prime office space revealed
an average score of 23 out
of 100
• Several company facility
managers did not believe the
results, and were concerned
about their jobs
• Utilities did not like poor
performance reports for
buildings they upgraded
• Many participants
questioned the
benchmarking tool – and
EPA
Performance information must
persuade decision makers
• EPA’s business partner - The Business Council of
Southwest Connecticut (SACIA) - had access to senior
corporate decision makers.
• EPA and SACIA worked with other major players, CT DEP,
CT DPUC, CT ECMB, and electric utilities.
• Benchmarking results got everyone’s attention:
Bringing just four of the benchmarked buildings up to
average performance would save 27-41%, equivalent to
almost 150 million kBTU per year, $2 million in annual
savings, and thousands of pounds of greenhouse gas
emissions and other pollutants
OK, we believe you, now what?
• EPA proposed whole building energy performance pilot
program called “retro-commissioning.”
• Partnered with national experts to design program.
• Comprehensive approach to building energy performance
looking at operations, maintenance, and equipment
upgrades.
• Utilities, companies, and regulators ultimately supported
the program due to potential revealed by benchmarking
performance measurement.
• CT DPUC approved $950,000 for the pilot project.
Pilot Program is delivering results
• Five buildings were selected to participate.
• One building has already documented energy
savings of over 30%.
• Others expect savings of 10-20% or higher
• Initially skeptical electric utilities are proposing to
more than double funding for the program this year to
over $2 million.
• Many other companies in SW CT are already
expressing interest.
• Regulators are supporting expansion of performancebased energy efficiency programs throughout the
state.
Conclusion: Performance Metrics
are powerful tools, but:
• They must be credible.
• They must be easy to understand across many
different groups.
• They must be easy to use.
• When using them, EPA must be honest and open
about their proper use and limitations:
– Don’t overstate the capabilities of your tools and information.
– Take all questions seriously -the customer is always right.
Closing observations - so far
• EPA has tremendous credibility with the public and
state regulators - use it wisely!
• Recognition from EPA is a strong motivator, especially
for senior corporate officials.
• Voluntary programs like Energy Star rely on
information to motivate partners to take action.
• Think about which decision makers - state regulators,
businesses, utilities - need to take action, and make
sure they get the information.
• Be aware of the potential impact of the information you
are providing.
Contact Information
Bill White
[email protected]
U.S. EPA – Region 1
Energy Team
ENERGY STAR Contact in New England
617-918-1333
1-888-STAR-YES
www.energystar.gov