Transcript Document 7801344

Technical Working Group Status
Updates
Federal ESPC Quality Assurance
Steering Committee
http://www.dc.lbl.gov/federal-espc/
January 25th, 2004
Washington, DC
Energy Savings Discrepancy
Resolution Update
http://www.dc.lbl.gov/mv/savingsverification/esdr.php
Acknowledgements
Jim Heller, NFESC
Dan Magro, NFESC
Revised Scope
Two approaches to be pursued in parallel
– Macro or Agency-level approach (analysis
to be done by LBNL)
– Micro or site-specific approach (analysis to
be done by ORNL)
Macro Analysis – Basic
Concept
Navy Sites Dataset
Baseyear
Savings ($) From
ESPC as a %
of Utility Bill in
Navy Sites Award Year
Site 1
0
Site 2
0
Site 3
0
Site 4
0
Site 5
0
Site 6
0
Site 7
0
Site 8
5.7%
Site 9
7.4%
Site 10
5.2%
Site 11
5.5%
Site 12
8.7%
Site 13
29.0%
Site 14
3.4%
Site 15
2.9%
Site 16
9.1%
Site 17
11.9%
Site 18
5.6%
Site 19
8.1%
Site 20
25.3%
Site 21
11.0%
Site 22
10.0%
Site 23
15.1%
Site 24
16.8%
Site 25
12.0%
Site 26
19.1%
1st Performance 2nd Performance
Period Year
Period Year
Savings (MMBTU)
From ESPC as a
% of Utility Bill in
MMBTU/
%
Award Year
$/KSF
KSF
% ($) % (MMBTU) % ($) (MMBTU)
0
2599
281 135
116 128
103
0
1054
109 112
104 125
110
0
1062
123 106
108 125
112
0
1922
509 103
106 103
107
0
708
113 117
108 123
115
0
3088
650 107
100 110
94
0
1933
361 100
93
5.4%
1,003
173
99
96 132
83
4.2%
1,290
335
94
93 122
93
4.1%
1,063
431 144
104 139
103
6.9%
1,543
234
77
90
94
83
3.9%
1,264
104 117
131 105
126
27.9%
1,503
253
77
79
85
76
2.0%
1,385
264 111
116 117
114
1.2%
1,098
257 134
103 142
99
2.9%
1,244
166 130
96 136
94
7.6%
1,606
228
98
105 114
100
3.1%
1,835
218 113
101 102
95
3.3%
960
189 103
102 104
99
24.4%
1,530
447 118
99
9.5%
911
186
97
97 116
112
4.8%
1,553
199
70
126
10.8%
1,168
219 122
98
3.8%
1,474
96
83
89
2.2%
1,811
261
64
73
9.2%
1,011
190 103
101
Perform ance Period Energy Use (First Year)
Energy Intensity (Baseline Year = 100)
140
120
100
80
y = -58.955x + 104.2
R2 = 0.109
60
40
20
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Annual ESPC Projected Savings as a % of Utility Bill
0.3
Perform ance Period Energy Use (2nd Year)
Energy Intensity (Baseline Year = 100)
140
120
100
80
y = -102.88x + 105.11
R2 = 0.2731
60
40
20
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Annual ESPC Projected Savings as a % of Utility Bill
0.3
Performance Period Energy Cost (First Year)
Normalized Energy Cost (Baseline Year = 100)
160
140
120
100
80
y = -76.811x + 111.01
R2 = 0.0955
60
40
20
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Annual ESPC Projected Savings as a % of Utility Bill
0.3
Perform ance Period Energy Cost (2nd Year)
Normalized Energy Cost (Baseline Year = 100)
160
140
120
100
y = -94.112x + 121.5
R2 = 0.1666
80
60
40
20
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Annual ESPC Projected Savings as a % of Utility Bill
0.3
Basis of Macro Approach
• Red line is unadjusted baseline & black line is
linear fit of actual data
• Analysis is based on actual utility data
reported by 26 Navy sites
• Limited dataset - analysis will benefit by
including data from more sites either from
Navy and/or from other agencies
• Analysis is using source energy to account for
fuel switching projects
• Percentages are used to allow combining
data for comparisons
Macro Approach – Key Findings
• Load creep and utility unit costs significantly increase
baseline
– Both are increasing year to year
– ESPC performance parallel to unadjusted baseline
• Load creep happening at both ESPC sites and at
sites where no significant EE activity has taken place
– Accounts for 25% of the energy cost increase
– Need for upward adjustment of the baseline when
calculating savings from ESPC projects
• Most Navy sites have experienced higher utility costs
(approx. 10% per year), which can’t be explained by
poor ESPC performance
• These two factors largely responsible for discrepancy
between the guaranteed energy savings in ESPCs
and actual utility bills
Estimated Adjustments
to Baseline
Year One
Year Two
Energy Use
104%
105%
Energy Cost
111%
121%
Next Steps
• Expand the macro analysis by including more sites
• Evaluate impact of other variables such as square
footage increase, climate, ESCO payments for
O&M savings, activity level (tempo)
• Prepare a report detailing the macro analysis and key
findings and submit it to the Federal ESPC Steering
Committee
• Publish a FEMP Focus article explaining the reasons
for discrepancy between guaranteed savings from
ESPCs and visible savings in the utility bills
• ORNL to conduct site-specific analysis at five ESPC
sites
• Target date for completion: Summer 2005