Upload
branden-fletcher
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
California Commissioning CollaborativeAdvisory Council Meeting
February 7, 2008
©California Commissioning Collaborative
2
©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 Bing Tso, SBW
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 CodesDave Walls, California Building Standards Commission
2:30 PM Demo: Universal Translator Reinhard Seidl, Taylor Engineering
3:15 PM Wrap - Up Phil Welker, PECI
4
©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
5
©California Commissioning Collaborative
2008 Budget
Strategic Planning Update
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
6
©California Commissioning Collaborative
2009-2011 Budget
Strategic Planning Update
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
Total $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $2,400,000
7
©California Commissioning Collaborative
CCC RCx Toolkit: Update and Follow-on Work
Hannah Friedman
PECI
8
©California Commissioning Collaborative
CCC RCx Toolkit – Brief Overview
Website launched RCx Toolkit on January 30http://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)
9
©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 degree-
days
10
©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
11
©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
12
©California Commissioning Collaborative
Planning for PIER-funded Follow-on Work
Cost Task Process for Delivery
CCC Cx R&D Task 4: $90k
$40k RCx calc tools pilot test and revisionsCCC staff manages pilot process, sub toQuEST for tool revisions
$25k Additional RCx calculation toolsCCC issues RFP for RCx tools work (contract managed by CCC staff)
$25k Guide for Verification of SavingsSub to QuEST and PG&E EnergyServices
PIER 2008 tools funding: ~$150k
~$75k Additional RCx calculation toolsCCC issues RFP for RCx tools work,(contract managed by CCC staff)
~$75k Tools supporting savings verificationCCC issues RFP for RCx tools work (contract managed by CCC staff)
13
©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
14
©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
17
©California Commissioning Collaborative
Evaluating Savings from California Retrocommissioning Programs
Bing Tso, P.E.
Sr. Project Manager, SBW Consulting, Inc.
18
©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)
19
©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
20
©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
21
©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. Project size in program
2. # of Cx measures in project
3. % of project savings each measure represents
4. Analysis difficulty / uncertainty
5. Baseline data quality
6. Data availability
7. Installation probability
8. Customer tolerance
9. Ongoing changes to affected systems
10. Evaluation budget for project
23
©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
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Years after implementation
% o
f fi
rst-
year
sav
ing
s
OEP kWh
OEP therm
BTU kWh
BTU therm
24
©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.
25
©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.
26
©California Commissioning Collaborative
Looking ahead
Sample Points per..
ID Program NameMillion $ of
Budget 000 MMBTU
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 Retro-commissioning Partnership with SCE 7 5 34.01 0.69
SDGE3027 Retro-commissioning Program 28 10 3.14 0.17 Total 382 84 2.26 0.15
General RCx 283 47 2.06 0.15
Projected N of Projects Sample N
• $2.6 million evaluation budget• Plus evaluation of RCx activities in various 2006-08 Partnership programs
• 2006-08 Retrocommissioning program portfolio
27
©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
29
©California Commissioning Collaborative
Evaluation Milestones
• Final evaluation plan Feb 23, 2008
• Sample selection, detailed data collection (pre/post) and analysisMar - Dec 2008
• Further data collection (post only) and analysisJan – Oct 2009
• Draft evaluation report Nov 16, 2009
• Final evaluation report Feb 1, 2010
30
©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?
33
©California Commissioning Collaborative
Status
Phase I Task Deliverable
Document Stakeholder Objectives Definition of Objectives Report
Develop Categorization Framework
Document Existing Methods
Develop Evaluation Framework Evaluation Framework Document
Existing Methods Report
34
©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
35
©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
36
©California Commissioning Collaborative
Phase II – Proposed Changes
Current Phase II TasksLevel of
Effort Proposed Phase II TasksLevel of
Effort
Revise Phase I Deliverables 5% Revise Phase I Delivarables 5%
New Methods Proposal 15%Final Evaluation and Categorization 10%Develop Research Policy Roadmap 15%
Develop Research Policy Roadmap 5%
Develop Practical Option B/Option C M&V Guideline for RCx Projects
25%
Create and Implement a Dissemination Plan
Create and Implement a Dissemination Plan
10% 20%
37
©California Commissioning Collaborative
Additional VoS Scope Items
1. Add a Technical Project Manager ($5K)– Oversee projects– Facilitate TAG meetings, coordinate reviewers
2. Add 3 paid reviewers ($7.5K)– Obtain quality assurance and input on guidelines from
experienced stakeholders
38
©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
39
©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.
40
©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
41
©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
43
©California Commissioning Collaborative
Green Building Standards: California Codes
Dave Walls
California Building Standards Commission
45
©California Commissioning Collaborative
Future Agenda Topics – April 21
• Topics of Interest– Special Guests? – Other Ideas?
• Discussion:– Ideas?
46
©California Commissioning Collaborative
2008 Meeting Dates
• April 21 – Monday, coincides with NCBC, Newport Beach• June 12 – Thursday• August 28 – Thursday• November 6 – Thursday