EVALUATION, MEASUREMENT, AND VERIFICATION OF THE … · • Overall, good accuracy with installation matching project file documentation. Field staff were able to locate and verify

EVALUATION, MEASUREMENT, AND VERIFICATION OF THE MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT, TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT, AND MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT (MTM) NON-RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS

Jan 31, 2020 Program year 2018

Prepared for:

Submitted by:

MTM Non-Residential Programs Impact Evaluation Report PY 2018

Page 1

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 3

Portfolio-Level Ex-Post Net-to-Gross Savings ..................................................................................... 3

Key Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 5

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 7

OVERVIEW OF MEASURE AND VERIFICATION APPROACH AND SAMPLING .................... 7

General M&V Approaches ..................................................................................................................... 7

Sample Design .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Stratified Ratio Estimation Sampling ................................................................................................. 9

Non-Residential Projects Sampled ..................................................................................................... 9

Energy and Demand Savings Estimation ........................................................................................... 10

EM&V Protocols ................................................................................................................................... 10

Interactive Effects and Coincidence Factors .................................................................................. 10

SITE LEVEL GROSS EX-ANTE AND ESTIMATING EX-POST SAVINGS ................................. 11

Site Modesto- 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Site Modesto- 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Site Modesto- 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Site Modesto- 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Site Modesto- 5 ..................................................................................................................................... 21

Site Modesto- 6 ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Site Modesto- 7 ..................................................................................................................................... 26

Site Modesto- 8 ..................................................................................................................................... 28

Site Modesto- 9 ..................................................................................................................................... 30

Site Modesto- 10 ................................................................................................................................... 33

Site Modesto- 11 ................................................................................................................................... 35

Site Modesto- 12 ................................................................................................................................... 38

Site Turlock- 13 ...................................................................................................................................... 40

Site Turlock- 14 ...................................................................................................................................... 43

Site Turlock- 15 ...................................................................................................................................... 45

Site Turlock- 16 ...................................................................................................................................... 47

Site Turlock- 17 ...................................................................................................................................... 49

Site Turlock- 18 ...................................................................................................................................... 51

Site Merced- 19 .................................................................................................................................... 53

Site Merced- 20 .................................................................................................................................... 56

Site Merced- 21 .................................................................................................................................... 58

ESTIMATING PROGRAM LEVEL EX-POST SAVINGS .......................................................... 61

NET-TO-GROSS VALUES .................................................................................................... 63

EUL AND LIFECYCLE SAVINGS .......................................................................................... 64

ENERGY AND DEMAND RESULTS BY MEASURE CATEGORY ............................................ 65

MTM Non-Residential Programs Impact Evaluation Report PY 2018 Report PY 2018

Page 2

PROGRAM FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 67

PORTFOLIO SUMMARY BY UTILITY ................................................................................... 69

Evaluated Savings Summary by Utility ............................................................................................. 69

Portfolio Level Gross and Net Savings by Utility ............................................................................ 70

Portfolio Level EUL and Lifecycle Savings by Utility ...................................................................... 74


Page 3

MTM Non-Residential Programs Impact Evaluation Report PY 2018 P R O G R A M Y E A R 2 0 1 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Modesto Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District, and Merced Irrigation District (MTM) contracted Anchor

Blue Consulting (Anchor Blue) and INCA Energy Efficiency Consulting (INCA) to conduct their Non-Residential

Programs Impact Evaluation for Program Years 2018. This evaluation report details evaluation and research

findings. Program evaluation objectives are as follow:

• Review and assess quality of program tracking data, project files, and documentations

• Provide an unbiased and independent program evaluation combining onsite visit data, analysis, and

desk research

• Present actionable recommendation to MTM with the goal of improving program and tracking

efficiencies and accuracies

Por tfolio-Level Ex-Post Net-to-Gross Savings

The MTM Non-Residential Program Impact Evaluation follows the California Evaluation Framework1 and the

California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols2 for reporting and adhere to International Performance

Measurement and Verification Protocols (IPMVP) as our approach to estimating energy and demand savings

detailing the following sections:

• Reporting Context

• Overview and Documentation of Specific Evaluation Effort

• Gross Savings

• Net Savings

• EM&V Summary and Conclusions

This evaluation aimed at a combined 15% precision level at 90% confidence for Program Year 2018

combining the three utilities population of projects using a stratified sampling strategy. This results in 21

samples where Anchor Blue conducted project file reviews, onsite verification activities including verifying

installation, collecting operational data when appropriate, and verifying equipment nameplates and model

numbers.

1 CPUC California Evaluation Framework June 2014 2 CPUC California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols: Technical, Methodological, and Reporting Requirements for Evaluation Professionals April 2006


Page 4

The selected evaluated savings represents 4,562,698 kWh and 609 kW which covers 25% of energy and

17% demand savings claimed for MTM’s Non-Residential program savings in PY2018.

The overall energy and peak demand savings realization rates are 101.5% and 172% across MTM

programs. Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the net-to-gross results by end-use category. Results by utility is

reported in Section Portfolio Summary by Utility in this report.

Table 1 MTM Non-Residential Portfolio-Level Electric Savings 2018

End-Use Category

Gross Annual Ex-Ante Energy Savings (kWh)

Energy Savings Realization Rate

Gross Annual Ex-Post Energy Savings (kWh)

Net-to-Gross Ratio

Net Annual Ex-Post Energy Savings (kWh)

Non-Res Cooking

- 102% - 0.6 -

Non-Res HVAC 412,605 102% 419,020 0.85 356,167

Non-Res Lighting 12,881,730 102% 13,082,024 0.8 10,465,619

Non-Res Motors - 102% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Pool Pumps

963 102% 978 0.6 587

Non-Res Refrigeration

615,760 102% 625,335 0.6 375,201

Non-Res Shell 2,040 102% 2,072 0.6 1,243

Non-Res Process 946,832 102% 961,554 0.6 576,932

Non-Res Comprehensive

3,146,742 102% 3,195,670 0.6 1,917,402

Non-Res Behavior

- 102% - 0.7 -

Other - 102% - 0.7 -

TOTAL 18,006,672 18,286,652 13,693,151

Source: Anchor Blue Analysis

Table 2 MTM Non-Residential Portfolio-Level Demand Savings 2018

End-Use Category

Gross Annual Ex-Ante Demand Savings (kW)

Demand Savings Realization Rate

Gross Annual Ex-Post Demand Savings (kW)

Net-to-Gross Ratio

Net Annual Ex-Post Demand Savings (kW)

Non-Res Cooking

- 172% - 0.6 -

Non-Res HVAC 133 172% 227 0.6 136

Non-Res Lighting

3,022 172% 5,183 0.8 4,146

Non-Res Motors

- 172% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Pool Pumps

0 172% 0 0.6 0


Page 5


62 172% 106 0.6 63

Non-Res Shell - 172% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Process

11 172% 19 0.6 11

Non-Res Comprehensiv

e 398 172% 683 0.6 410

Non-Res Behavior - 172% - 0.7 -

Other - 172% - 0.7 -

TOTAL 3,625 6,218 4,768


Key Findings

The gross impact evaluation results are based on 21 onsite visits where samples are drawn from all MTM

Non-Residential Programs. After reviewing relevant project files and datasets specific to each site, the team

designed the Measurement &Verification (M&V) specific site plans.

When onsite, our team performed data collection activities such as verifying installation count, make and

model of equipment, operational data, and other relevant variables supporting M&V activities. Where

appropriate, Anchor Blue installed loggers onsite to collect a minimum of 4 weeks of operational data. Some

sites require billing data analysis which Anchor Blue worked with each of the MTM utilities to acquire customer

billing data. Main findings are outlined below:

• Overall, good accuracy with installation matching project file documentation. Field staff were able to

locate and verify measures in operating conditions as stated in project files.

• At one of the school sites, Anchor Blue found LED Downlights malfunctions where lighting fixtures were

falling out of the fixture housing. Utility might want to discuss with implementor on quality of hardware

and installation for LED Downlights.

o Develop a quality control review process for custom project calculations and documentation.

One of the utilities had calculation errors in a custom calculation for ex-ante savings which

caused a large discrepancy between ex-ante and ex-post savings. Anchor Blue recommend

implementing a review step when possible for custom projects. Refer to individual site reports

for more details.

• Recommend reviewing project documentation and database savings consistencies. A few sites have

different saving numbers comparing the utility tracker versus project documentation.

o One of the sites in the sample was dropped due to documentation of project inconsistency

between database and project documentation due to an administrative error

o Several other sites’ documented savings are different compared to the recorded ex-ante

savings in the database. Refer to individual site reports for more details.

• Demand energy savings calculations have lower level of rigor across all utilities resulting in a wide

variant of realization rates across projects.


Page 6

o Exterior lighting systems do not yield demand savings due to operating hours not coinciding

with utility peak periods. Several sites’ demand saving realization rates varied from 100%

due to exterior fixtures not yielding demand savings and demand savings were included in

the ex-ante demand savings calculation.

o Building Types have specific coincidence demand factors as outlined in the CMUA Technical

Reference Manual3. Demand savings realization rates for several school sites were less than

100% due to peak coincidence demand factor (CDF) of relocatable classrooms primary and

secondary schools in Climate Zone 12 being 0.02 and the ex-ante savings did not account for

the CDF.

o Demand savings were not calculated for some non-lighting end-use measures, the CMUA

Technical Reference Manual is a good reference for future non-lighting demand savings

calculations.

• Unanticipated operating condition changes and site-specific operating hours are drivers to realization

rate varying from 100%

o At a large retail site, one of the areas was undergoing renovation at the time of site visit

o Upon interviewing and collecting on-site operating hours information, Anchor Blue was able to

apply site and equipment specific operating hours for the ex-post saving calculations

3 CMUA 2016 Technical Reference Manual access at:

https://www.cmua.org/files/2016%20CMUA%20POU%20TRM_Final_v692016.pdf



Page 7

INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes Anchor Blue’s impact evaluation of MTM’s Non-Residential program energy and

demand savings for PY 2018. MTM conducts regular impact evaluations for their Non-Residential programs.

The purpose of this impact evaluation is to develop ex-post energy and demand savings results adhering to

the CEC POU EM&V Guidelines and the California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols.

The CEC POU EM&V Guidelines specify the reporting requirements for EE program evaluations. The

components of an impact study include sampling and statistical precision, gross savings, net-to-gross

estimation, and EM&V reporting requirements.

The CEC Framework are summarized below:

• Contextual Reporting: Evaluation covering a significant portion of the POU’s portfolio, assess risk or

uncertainty in selecting the components of the portfolio evaluated. EM&V savings reported consistent

with the SB 1037 annual report.

• Overview and Documentation of specific Evaluation Effort: States the portion of portfolio

evaluated, including EUL and lifecycle savings. Documents all engineering and analysis algorithms,

assumptions, survey instruments, and methodology. Documentation of data collection instruments and

metering equipment and protocols.

• Gross Savings: Review of program baseline, characterizes the population of participants, discussion

of sampling approach, design, and precision. Reports ex-post savings extrapolated to program

population, and explanation of differences between ex-ante and ex-post savings.

• Net Savings: Includes a quantitative assessment of net-to-gross or indicating the sources of NTG

assumptions.

• EM&V Summary and Conclusions: Report clearly recommendations for improving program

processes, assesses the reliability of the verified savings and areas of uncertainty.

OVERVIEW OF MEASURE AND VERIFICATION APPROACH AND SAMPLING

General M&V Approaches

As a means to reduce EM&V costs while maintaining the target statistical confidence. The three Irrigation

Districts of Modesto, Turlock, and Merced implemented a joint EM&V. The three sets of Non-Residential

programs are similar in scope, customer characteristics, and geographical proximity.

This impact evaluation study aims at evaluating MTM’s energy and demand savings claimed for the Non-

Residential programs for Program Year 2018. The Anchor Blue team used a stratified sampling approach to

balance efficiency with target ±15% precision at 90% confidence level.

For projects that received an onsite visit, the team collected site-specific operating conditions, verified

measure installations, and took notes of conditions that might impact energy saving results. Using data

collected onsite, the team developed a realization rate which is the ratio of ex-ante vs. ex-post savings. From

there, the realization rate is extrapolated to the population of participants to estimate ex-post savings for all

projects in PY2018.


Page 8

Net-to-Gross (NTG) ratios were estimated to account for spillover and free rider effects based on measure

type. NTG values were derived from the DEER database.

Sample Design

The EM&V population universe of projects consists of all program participants in the three utilities’ Non-Residential Programs. The Non-Residential projects are divided into three strata, results are weighed according to the stratum weight. The sampling approach results in 21samples. If each of the utilities were to evaluate their own programs with the same sampling precision, the total sample sites would be 40 sites. By combining the three utilities into one EM&V effort, approximately 50% reduction in sample sites is achieved with corresponding budgetary savings. The following table presents a breakout by utility of claimed ex-ante savings, the number of projects completed in PY 2018, and the sample of projects drawn from each utility. Table 3. Claimed Gross Ex-Ante Savings, Completed Projects, and Sampled Projects by Utility

Utility Gross Ex-ante kWh

kWh Share

Number of Projects

Projects Share

Sampled Projects

Sampled Share

Modesto 5,753,618 32% 135 55% 12 57%

Turlock 10,228,738 57% 102 41% 6 29%

Merced 2,024,316 11% 10 4% 3 14%

Total 18,006,672 100% 247 100% 21 100%


Two sources of data are of importance for our evaluation work. The first is the SB1037 Report for PY2018, submitted to the California Energy Commission as documentation of the MTM’s annual program achievements. Data within in the SB1037 Report includes:

• Measures installed

• File Record Number

• Gross energy savings

• Gross demand savings if available This information provides an overview of results at the measure and program level, but not at the project level. Project level information was provided by MTM for PY2018 from their project records. At the project level, this data includes:

• Application number/project ID

• Customer or project name

• Customer account number

• Measure type

• Baseline and measure description and quantity

• Rebate amount


Page 9

Project level information is included in the detailed project information datasets, which Anchor Blue received after the sample population was selected. Stratified ratio estimation sampling was employed. The sample was drawn with the goal of achieving a sampling precision of 90 percent +/- 15 percent at the project level.

Stratified Ratio Estimation Sampling

Stratified ratio estimation combines a stratified sample design with a ratio estimator. Both stratification and

ratio estimation take advantage of supporting information available for each project in the population. In the

case of the Non-Residential programs, the supporting information is ex-ante energy savings per project.

• Stratified Random Sampling. In this method, the sample population is divided into subgroups (i.e., strata) based on a known characteristic such as savings or incentive level. Stratified random samples can produce estimates with smaller coefficients of variation than simple random samples. Stratum one includes the largest projects, stratum 2 the intermediate, and stratum 3 the smaller projects

• Ratio Estimation is a sampling method that can achieve increased precision and reliability by taking advantage of a relatively stable correlation between an auxiliary variable and the variable of interest. For the evaluation of energy efficiency programs, the most frequency utilized ratio is the realization rate between ex- ante savings and ex- post savings and incentive levels.

By using the ex-ante energy savings per project as the stratification variable, the CV in each stratum is

reduced, thereby improving the statistical precision. Moreover, the sampling fraction can be varied from

stratum to stratum to further improve the statistical precision. In particular, a relatively smaller sample is

selected from the accounts with small energy savings, but the sample is forced to include a higher proportion

of the projects with larger levels of energy savings.

Non-Residential Projects Sampled

The population of accounts for the non-residential existing buildings programs consists of a total of 246 projects.

These projects have a very wide range of energy savings extending from 459 kWh to 930,601 kWh, with the

median being 21,399 kWh. The population CV of the energy savings is large, and stratified ratio estimation

sampling provides the best methodology to attain both a sampling precision of 90% (+/- 15%) at the project

level, as well as a very high percentage of overall sampled ex-ante savings. The final sample consists of 21

projects, 9% of total projects, but more importantly, 31% of the total ex-ante electric energy savings. Some

swapping of sites within stratum was performed to ensure that each utility was represented within each stratum.

Table 4 identifies each sampled site with utility, project type, ex-ante savings, sample strata, and sample weight.


Page 10

Table 4. Sample with Utility, Ex-ante Savings, Sample Strata, and Sample Weight

Utility - Site Sample Strata Ex-Ante kWh Savings Stratum Weight

Modesto -1 Stratum 1 499,329 2.2












Turlock -13 Stratum 1 600,220 2.2






Merced -19 Stratum 1 930,601 2.2

Merced -20 Stratum 2 307,413 7.5

Merced -21 Stratum 3 274,003 12.6

Energy and Demand Savings Estimation

EM&V Protocols

This evaluation is conducted adhering to the CEC POU EM&V Guidelines, the California Energy Efficiency

Evaluation Protocols and referencing the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol

(IPMVP)4 for appropriate energy efficiency measures evaluation protocol. For specific evaluation

methodology by site, refer to the individual site-reports in Section “Site Level gross Ex-Ante and Estimating Ex-

Post Savings”.

Interactive Effects and Coincidence Factors

MTM utilities are located in California’s Climate Zone 12. Some energy efficient equipment’s energy and

demand savings are impacted by their interaction with other equipment or systems. Anchor Blue reviewed the

CMUA Technical Resource Manual for assumptions appropriate for climate zone 12, these variables are:

• Lighting/HVAC/Refrigeration Energy and Demand Interactive Factors

• Baseline and Efficient Coincidence Factors

These factors are applied to measures of evaluated projects when appropriate.

4 For IPMVP document, access at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31505.pdf


Page 11

SITE LEVEL GROSS EX-ANTE AND ESTIMATING EX-POST SAVINGS

Site Modesto- 1

Project Summary  The site is a multi-story parking garage located in Modesto, California. The site upgraded its exterior Metal Halide (MH) pole lamps and MH wall mounted units as well as its T12 fixtures to LED fixtures. All claimed lighting upgrades were verified as installed. Hours of operation were verified by site staff, with the exception of twenty-three MH wall packs in the stairway and by elevator that operate 8,760 hours/year. The ex-ante estimate of hours of operation for these twenty-three fixtures was 4,150 hours/year. No interactive effects are accounted as these fixtures are exterior. A coincident diversity factor was not accounted in the ex-ante calculation while they are for the ex-post calculation. The energy realization rate is

104.2% and the peak demand savings realization rate is 88.2%.  Table 5. First-Year Project Savings Summary 

  Ex-ante  Ex-post  Realization Rate 

Energy Savings  (kWh/Year) 

499,329 520,051  104.2% 

Peak Demand Savings  (kW) 

51.86

  45.72  88.2% 

Source: Project Documentation, Anchor Blue Analysis 

Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  In the baseline, the site had:

• Thirty-six (36), 2-lamp, 4-foot T12 F40 fixtures,

• Five hundred and sixty-two (562), 2-lamp, 8-foot T12 F96 fixtures,

• Eighteen (18), 4-lamp, 8-foot T12 F96 fixtures,

• Twenty-three (23), 150W MH wall packs,

• Six (6), 200W MH wall packs,

• Nineteen (19), 400W Pole Lights,

• Four (4), 200W Pole Lights. The ex-ante hours of operation for the T12 lamps was assumed to be 8,760 hours/year. The wall packs and pole lights were assumed to follow a dusk-to-dawn operation of 4,150 hours/year.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded to:

• Thirty-six (36), 2-lamp, 4-foot, 18W high lumen LED fixtures,

• Five hundred and sixty-two (562), 2-lamp, 4-foot, 15W LED fixtures,

• Eighteen (18), 2-lamp, 4-foot, 18W high lumen fixtures,

• Twenty-three (23), 60W LED wall packs,

• Six (6), high lumen 90W LED wall packs,

• Nineteen (19), 150W LED Pole Lights,

• Four (4), 100W LED Pole Lights. The site maintenance manager confirmed the ex-ante estimates for hours of operation, except for the 60W wall packs. These are located in the stairway and by elevator and operate 8,760 hours/year.

Comments on Ex-Ante Calculations 


Page 12

The ex-ante calculations used a standard lighting algorithm for the energy savings. The algorithm is listed as

follows: 

  Energy Savings: 

ΔkWh = ((WattsBASE – WattsEE) / 1000) x Annual Operating Hours 

Where, 

ΔkWh: Annual energy saved (in kWh),

WattsBASE: Connected load of the baseline fixtures,

WattsEE: Connected load of energy efficient fixtures.

  Demand Savings: 

ΔkW = ((WattsBASE – WattsEE) / 1000)

Where,

ΔkW: Peak demand saved (in kW),



The ex-ante calculations do not include HVAC interactive effect factors and coincident demand savings factors

as outlined in the Customized Calculated Savings Guidelines for Non-Residential Programs, Version 6.0.5

Onsite Visit and Ex-Post Savings Calculations

M&V Method  Anchor Blue collected following data during the onsite visit: 

• Confirmed the wattage and quantity of the fixtures  • Obtained new estimates for operating hours.

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May 2019. Anchor Blue visually verified the lighting count, verified most of the operating hours as matching ex-ante estimates, and revising some operating hours based on input from the site maintenance manager.

Ex-post Calculations and Assumptions  The ex-post calculations used a standard algorithm with onsite findings to get the energy savings. 

  Annual Energy Savings Algorithm 

ΔkWh = ((kWBaseline – kWEE) / 1000) x HOURS  x DIEEnergy

Where,  kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures  kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures 

HOURS: Average hours of use per year  DIEEnergy :DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1

5 More information is available at: http://www.aesc-inc.com/download/spc/2013SPCDocs/PGE/Customized%202.0%20Energy%20Savings.pdf, page 84.

http://www.aesc-inc.com/download/spc/2013SPCDocs/PGE/Customized%202.0%20Energy%20Savings.pdf



Page 13

Summer Coincident Peak kW Savings Algorithm  

ΔkW = ((kWBaseline – kWEE) / 1000) x DIEDemand x CDF 

  Where,  DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand = 0.72 (for hospitals)    The energy realization rate is 104.2%. The realization rate for demand savings is 88.2% The divergence from a 100% energy realization rate was due to operating hour changes to a subset of fixtures. For demand,

the change is due to the use of coincident diversity factor values in the ex-post calculations. 


Page 14

Site Modesto- 2

Project Summary  The site is an unconditioned warehouse with an attached, conditioned office area located in Modesto, CA. The

site upgraded lighting throughout the facility. The difference in the realization rate for the energy and peak

demand savings at the site is due to variations in hours of operation compared to the ex-ante calculations.

Table 6. First-Year Project Savings Summary 



428,598 386,610 89%


45 43.8

97%


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  In the baseline, the site had a combination of high bay T8 and T12 fluorescent fixtures, as well as a few

incandescent lights and metal halide outdoor lighting fixtures. All of the indoor lights were on continuously and

the outdoor lights operated at night. In the baseline, the site had:

• Eighty (80), 2-Lamp, 4-foot T8 fixtures,

• Six (6), 2-Lamp, 4-foot T8 fixtures,

• Four (4), 6-Lamp, 4-foot T5 High Bay fixtures above the Mezzanine,

• Two Hundred and Twenty (220), 6-Lamp, 4-Foot T5 High Bay fixtures,

• Two Hundred and Sixteen (216), 4-Lamp, 4-Foot T5 High Bay fixtures.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site replaced all the fixtures with efficient LED fixtures on a one-to-one basis. They are:

• Eighty (80), 2-Lamp, 4-foot 30W LED fixtures,

• Six (6), 2-Lamp, 4-foot 43W LED fixtures,

• Four (4), 75W High Bay LED luminaires with motion sensors,

• Two Hundred and Twenty (220), 131W High Bay LED luminaires,

• Two Hundred and Sixteen (216), 131W High Bay LED luminaires.

Comments on Ex-Ante Calculations  The ex-ante calculations used a standard lighting algorithm for the energy savings. The algorithm is listed as

follows: 

Energy Savings: 


Where, 




Page 15




Where,




The ex-ante calculations do not include HVAC Interactive Effects Factors and coincident demand savings

factors as outlined in the Customized Calculated Savings Guidelines for Non-Residential Programs, Version

6.0.6


M&V Method  Anchor Blue collected following data during the onsite visit:

• Confirmed the number and type of installed fixtures

• Discussed operations with the facility contact

• Determined if the facility was conditioned or unconditioned

• Installed data loggers to determine hours of operation in some areas

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May 2019. Anchor Blue verified the lighting count, occupancy sensors,

and operational hours.

Ex-post Calculations and Assumptions  The ex-post calculations used a standard algorithm with onsite findings to get the energy savings.

Annual Energy Savings Algorithm 

ΔkWh = ((kWBaseline – kWEE) / 1000) x HOURS x DIEEnergy

Where,

kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures  kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures  HOURS: Average hours of use per year  DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1



  Where,  DIEDemand :DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1





Page 16

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand =0.536 for a warehouse. 

The energy realization rate is 89%. The realization rate for demand savings is 97%. The difference in the

realization rate for the energy and demand savings at the site is due to hours of use of the lights being

significantly lower than the ex-ante estimates. In the office area, the ex-ante estimates is 3,952 while the

logged hours showed 2,932 hours.


Page 17

Site Modesto- 3

Project Summary  The site is a car dealership located in Modesto, California. The site upgraded three types of exterior lighting:

• One-Hundred and Fifteen (115) of the pole floodlights throughout the parking lot,

• Forty-two (42) wall mounted exterior floodlights

• Eight (8) exterior door entry area up-lights. The difference in the realization rate for the energy savings at the site is due to a slight difference in efficient hours of operation between ex-ante and ex-post assumption. The peak demand savings realization rate is not applicable as there is no demand savings for exterior lights.



Energy Savings 

(kWh/Year) 

345,937 382,284 110.5%


0 0 NA


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded with the following baseline:

• One hundred and fifteen (115) pole metal halide floodlights,

• Forty-two (42) wall mounted metal halide floodlights

Eight (8) entry way metal halide up-lights. The ex-ante hours of operation were assumed to be 4,015 hours

per year, a dusk to dawn operation assumption. However, in reviewing the POU TRM reference document,

dusk to dawn operation for the Modesto geographic area is estimated to be 4,100 hours per year, which

Anchor Blue used for its ex-post assumption.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded its exterior lights to:

• One hundred and fifteen (115), 230W LED pole floodlights.

• Forty-two (42), 55W LED wall mounted floodlights.

• Eight (8) , 50W LED exterior door entry area up-lights. Hours of operation are assumed to be 4,100/year, a dusk to dawn setting with sensors. These hours are based on the POU TRM.

Comments on Ex-Ante Calculations  The ex-ante calculations used a standard lighting algorithm for the deemed energy savings. The algorithm is

listed as follows: 

Energy Savings: 

ΔkWh = N x ΔkWh/fixture


Page 18

Where, 


N: Number of fixtures replaced,

ΔkWh/fixture: Deemed annual energy saved per fixture  

Demand Savings: 

ΔkW = N x ΔkW/fixture

Where,

ΔkW = Peak demand saved (in kW),

N = Number of fixtures replaced,

ΔkW/fixture = Deemed demand savings per fixture.



• Confirmed the wattage and quantity of the fixtures

• Confirmed the operating schedule

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May 2019. Anchor Blue visually verified the lighting count and confirmed

operational hours with site staff.




Where,

kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures  kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures 

HOURS: Average hours of use per year  DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1 (Exterior Lights)



 

Where,  DIEDemand :DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1(Exterior Lights)

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand =0 (Exterior Lights)

The difference in the realization rate for the energy savings at the site is due to the slight difference between the ex-ante and ex-post assumptions for hours of operation. The realization rate for demand savings is not applicable since there is no demand savings for exterior lights.


Page 19

Site Modesto- 4

Project Summary  The site is a big box retail building located in Modesto, California. The site upgraded its interior fluorescent tube lamps to LED tube lamps. All claimed lighting upgrades were verified and assumed hours of operation were found to be appropriate. No interactive effects or coincident diversity factors were accounted in the ex-ante calculation. These factors were utilized for the ex-post calculation. The energy realization rate is 106% and the peak demand savings realization rate is 103.5% as a result of applying the interactive effects and coincident diversity factors. Table 8. First-Year Project Savings Summary 



266,998 283,017 106%


32.73

40.66 106%


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded two-thousand seven hundred and fifty (2,750) T8 lamps with two-thousand seven hundred

and fifty (2,750) TLED lamps.

The ex-ante hours of operation were assumed to be 6,935 hours per year. Anchor Blue found these estimated

hours of operation to be appropriate as store staff reported the lights were on from 6:00 AM to midnight

each day.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded its interior lights to two-thousand seven hundred and fifty (2,750) 18W TLED lamps.

Anchor Blue found that the ex-ante estimate hours of operation estimate of 6,935/year appeared reasonable, representing an operating schedule from 6:00 AM to midnight each day.


follows: 

Energy Savings: 


Where, 




 


Page 20



6.0.7

Demand Savings: 


Where,













Where,

kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures  kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures  HOURS: Average hours of use per year  DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.06 (Large Retail)



  Where,  DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.20 (Large Retail)

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand = 0.88 (Large Retail)

Although the number of lamps installed and the ex-ante estimate for hours of operation were confirmed, the

energy realization rate is 106% and the realization rate for demand savings 103.5%. The ex-ante calculation did not include interactive effects or diversity factors.





Page 21

Site Modesto- 5

Project Summary  The site is a small grocery located in Modesto, California. The site upgraded its interior T8 and T12 fixtures to LED fixtures. All claimed lighting upgrades were verified, but hours of operation were modified to reflect information provided by the site staff. No interactive effects or coincident diversity factors were accounted in the ex-ante calculation, but are utilized for the ex-post calculation. The energy realization rate is 106.6% and the peak demand savings realization rate is 66.0%.



Energy Savings 

(kWh/Year)  66,064 70,421  106.6% 


6.96  

8.87  127% 


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded:

• Fourteen (14) of their 2-lamp, 4-foot T8 fixtures,

• One hundred and thirty-seven (137) of their 4-lamp, 4-foot T8 fixtures,

• Two (2) of their 2-lamp, 8-foot T12 fixtures.

The ex-ante hours of operation were assumed to be 6,552 hours per year for all lights, but this estimate was revised after consulting with store staff.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded to:

• Fourteen (14) 32W 2-lamp, 4-foot LED fixtures in their offices and restrooms,

• One hundred and thirty-seven (137) 45W 4-lamp, 4-foot LED fixtures in their stockroom and sales area, and,

• Two (2) 40W 2-lamp, 8-foot LED fixtures in their walk-in refrigerator. The store manager stated that all the lights are on 20 hours/day, except for the walk-in refrigerator, which is on a motion detector. He estimated that the motion detector is rarely activated; perhaps one hour/day. The hours of operation were revised for the non-walk in lights to 7,300 hours/year, and for the walk in, 365 hours/year.


follows: 

Energy Savings: 


Where, 




Page 22




Where,






6.0.8










Where,

kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures  kWEE : Connected load of LED fixtures  HOURS: Average hours of use per year  DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 0.96 (Grocery)



  Where,  DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.28 (Grocery)

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand = 0.69 (Grocery)





Page 23

The energy realization rate is 106.6%. The realization rate for demand savings is 127% The divergence from

100% was due to operating hour changes and the use of interactive effect and coincidence factor values in

the ex-post calculations.


Page 24

Site Modesto- 6

Project Summary  The site is a dairy farm located in Modesto, CA. The site upgraded outdoor and milking area lighting

throughout the facility. The difference in the realization rate for the energy and peak demand savings at the

site is minor and appears to be due to minor changes in the lights installed between project initiation and

completion.




64,376 65,780 102%


10.27 3.1 30%


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  In the baseline, the site had primarily metal halide lights, with a few halogen and incandescent fixtures.

Outdoor lights operate roughly dusk to dawn and milking areas are on continuously.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site replaced all the fixtures with efficient LED fixtures on a one-to-one basis.


follows: 

Energy Savings: 


Where, 




Demand Savings: 


Where,








Page 25



operational hours with site staff. Anchor Blue found two additional fixtures being included.




Where,

kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures  kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures  HOURS: Average hours of use per year  DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1 (Exterior Lights)



  Where,  DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1 (Exterior Lights)

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand = 0.53 (Warehouse)

The difference in the realization rate for the energy and demand savings at the site appears to be due to

minor changes in the project scope due to two additional lights being included.


Page 26

Site Modesto- 7

Project Summary  The site is an automobile dealer located in Modesto, CA. The site upgraded exterior lighting around the

facility. The difference in the realization rate for the energy and peak demand savings at the site is due to

variations in hours of operation compared to the ex-ante calculations.




62,319 74,538 120%


0 0 NA


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  In the baseline, the site had exterior metal halide lights which operated at night.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site replaced all the exterior metal halide fixtures with efficient LED fixtures on a one-for-one basis.

Comments on Ex-Ante Calculations  The ex-ante calculations used a standard lighting deemed algorithm for the energy savings. The algorithm is


Energy Savings: 


Where, 




Demand Savings: 


Where,




Since these fixtures are all outdoors and operate only at night there are no interactive effects or demand

savings associated with this project.




Page 27



• Obtain the utility meter numbers

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit on May 20, 2019. Anchor Blue verified the lighting count and operational

hours. Anchor Blue also noted the presence of solar cells on the facility which may affect billing data.




Where,

kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures  kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures  HOURS: Average hours of use per year  DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1 (Exterior Lights)



  Where,  DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1 (Exterior Lights)

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand = 0 (Nighttime Lighting)

The difference in the realization rate for the energy and demand savings at the site is due to hours of use of

the lights being significantly lower than the ex-ante estimates. Anchor Blue compared the calculated savings to

the bills between 6AM and 6PM before and after the project and found 74,171 kWh/year in savings for the

two meters that appeared to be affected by the project. This is extremely close to the ex-post calculated

savings of 74,538 kWh/year, indicating that the ex post hours of operation are correct.


Page 28

Site Modesto- 8

Project Summary  The site is an elementary school located in Modesto, California. The site upgraded its HVAC units and controls

throughout the facility. The difference in the realization rate for the energy and peak demand savings at the

site is due to the difference between prescriptive savings and actual billed savings.




44,118 61,389 139%


35.3 130 368%


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  In the baseline, the site had a central chiller and boiler with pneumatic controls supplying their heating and

cooling needs.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site remodeled and replaced the central chiller and boiler with 31 Rheem packaged HVAC units. Of

these, 25 are 4 ton units, three are 3 ton units, one is a 2.5 ton unit, and two are 2 ton units. All of the units

were installed in March 2018.

Comments on Ex-Ante Calculations  The ex-ante calculations were based on prescriptive savings, but used 27 4 ton units, two 3 three ton units,

one 2.5 ton unit, and three 2 ton units.

ΔkWh = Prescriptive savings per unit x Number of units



• Confirmed the number and size of the new HVAC units


• Discussed the remodel and operations with facility staff

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May, 2019. During the site visit, Anchor Blue discussed the project and

facility operations with site staff, and visually confirmed the installation and operation of 31

new Rheem packaged HVAC units.

Ex-post Calculations and Assumptions  The ex-post calculations were based on billing data from the site, with the baseline from January 1, 2016 to

February 15, 2018 and the efficient period from March 21, 2018 through July 16, 2019. Based on

discussions with facility staff, the calculations were separated into three time periods: occupied, unoccupied,

and summer.


Page 29


ΔkWh = ∑TMY3 hours(kWbaseline−kWEE)

Where,

kWBaseline: Pre-installation facility kW usage at each TMY3 temperature

kWEE: Post-installation facility kW usage at each TMY3 temperature

TMY3 hours: Hours at each outside air temperature during a typical meteorological year


ΔkW = ((kWpeak, baseline – kWpeak, EE)

Where, kWpeak,baseline: Average baseline kW for temperatures occurring between 2 and 5 PM from July 24-26, 2018 kWpeak,EE: Average efficient kW for temperatures occurring between 2 and 5 PM from July 24-26, 2018

The difference in the realization rate for the energy and demand savings at the site is due to Anchor Blue’s use of billing data instead of prescriptive savings per ton.


Page 30

Site Modesto- 9

Project Summary  The site is a light industrial complex located within Modesto Irrigation District’s service area. The site upgraded its interior fluorescent tube lamps to LED tube lamps as well as its paint room and assembly area high bay metal halide lamps to LED high bay fixtures. Detailed information on hours of operation were not included in the project workpapers. Only information on the base and efficient technologies, the savings expected by measure type, and the number of units were provided. Hours of operation were inferred from the information provided. All but six of the LED high bay lights were found. The owner stated that these six were in storage, awaiting future installation. Despite not having all measures verified as installed, the realization rates are above 100% for both energy and demand. This is due to adjusting hours of operation, based on the interview with company staff, and the inclusion of coincidence factors and interactive effects.




34,226  39,538 115.5% 


8.43 10.61 126% 


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded:

• Forty (40) high bay metal halide fixtures with forty (40) LED high bay fixtures.

• Twelve (12) T12, eight-foot, two lamp fixtures with twelve (12) TLED conversion reflector kits.

• Eighty-two (82) T12, four-foot, two lamp fixtures with eighty-two (82) TLED, four-foot, two lamp fixtures.

• One (1) T12, four-foot, four lamp fixture with one (1) TLED, four-foot, four lamp fixture. The ex-ante hours of operation were estimated to be 3,000 hours per year. Based on the interview with company staff, these hours were adjusted to 3,600 hours per year.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded its lighting fixtures as follows:

• Forty (40) 220W LED high bay fixtures.

• Twelve (12) 30W TLED, eight-foot, two lamp fixtures.

• Eighty-two (82) 15W TLED, four-foot, two lamp fixtures.

• One (1) 30W TLED, four-foot, four lamp fixture. Hours of operation were modified based on the interview with company staff. They indicated that the site is occupied about 14 hours/day, but they are not open weekends. The hours were calculated as follows:

• 52 weeks x 14 hours x 5 days/week = 3,640 hours/year


follows: 


Page 31

Energy Savings: 


Where, 




 

Demand Savings: 


Where,






• Documented the wattage and quantity of the fixtures installed.

• Estimated the operating schedule based on interviewing company staff.

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May 2019. Anchor Blue visually verified each fixture installed, finding six LED high bay fixtures not installed. Lighting operational hours were estimated based on interviewing company

staff.  Ex-post Calculations and Assumptions  The ex-post calculations used a standard algorithm with onsite findings to get the energy savings.



Where,

kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures  kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures  HOURS: Average hours of use per year 

DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.04 (except for high bay, which was 1.0) 



Where,

DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.18 (light industrial, except for high bay,

which was 1.0) 

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand = 0.92 (Light Industrial)


Page 32

Despite the fact that six fewer high bay lights were installed, the energy realization rate is 115.5% and the

realization rate for demand savings 125.8%. The ex-ante calculation did not include interactive effects or diversity factors and the hours of operation were increased.


Page 33

Site Modesto- 10

Project Summary  The site is a small retail store located in Modesto, California. The site upgraded its interior metal halide spot lights with LED track-head fixtures. All 25 installations were verified, but hours of operation were modified to reflect information provided by site staff. No interactive effects or coincident diversity factors were accounted in the ex-ante calculation but are included in the ex-post calculation. Primarily driven by a reduction in hours

of operation, the energy realization rate is 66.3% and the peak demand savings realization rate is 63.4%. 




9,275 6,152  66.3% 


1.75  

1.11  63.4% 


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded twenty-five (25) of their MH spot lights with twenty-five (25) LED track heads. The ex-ante hours of operation were assumed to be 7,000 hours per year for the lights, but this estimate was revised after consulting with store staff.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded to twenty-five 47W LED track heads. The store manager stated that these lights are on 12 hours/day. The hours of operation were revised to 4,380 hours/year, based on this information.

Comments on Ex-Ante Calculations  The ex-ante calculations used a standard lighting algorithm for deemed energy savings. The algorithm is


Energy Savings: 


Where, 




Demand Savings: 


Where,





Page 34



• Confirmed wattage and quantity of the fixtures installed.

• Estimated the operating schedule based on interviewing company staff.

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May 2019. Anchor Blue visually verified the lighting count and obtained new estimates for operating hours.




Where,

kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures  kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures  HOURS: Average hours of use per year 

DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.06 (for Small Retail) 



Where,

DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.20 (Small Retail)

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand =0.70 (Small Retail)

The energy realization rate is 66.3%. The realization rate for demand savings is 63.4% The divergence from 100% was due to operating hour changes and the use of interactive effect and coincidence factor values in

the ex-post calculations. 


Page 35

Site Modesto- 11

Project Summary  The site is a small fast food restaurant in Modesto, California. The site replaced strip curtains, walk-in gaskets, and under counter drawer gaskets on their refrigerated cases. The difference in the realization rate for the energy and peak demand savings at the site is due to the ex-ante values not being consistent with prescriptive savings values found in the CMUA TRM and Modesto ex-ante calculator.




5,948 5,172 87%


0.67 0.608 91%


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  In the baseline, the site had missing or damaged strip curtains and door gaskets on some of their refrigerated cases.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site replaced 22 linear feet of strip curtains on their walk-in cooler, 16.5 feet of gaskets on the walk-in cooler, and 8.5 feet of gaskets on under counter refrigerated drawers.

Comments on Ex-Ante Calculations  The ex-ante calculations used prescriptive savings for the strip curtains and gaskets. The TRM and Modesto ex-ante algorithms are listed as follows:

Energy Savings: 

Strip Curtain ΔkWh = (savings per linear foot of strip curtain) x (linear feet of strip curtain replaced)

Where, Savings per linear foot of strip curtain= 176 kWh in climate zone 12 Linear feet of gaskets replaced= 22

Gasket ΔkWh = (savings per linear foot of gasket) x (linear feet of gaskets replaced)

Where, Savings per linear foot of gasket= 52 kWh Linear feet of gaskets replaced= 25


Strip Curtain ΔkW = (savings per linear foot of strip curtain) x (linear feet of strip curtain replaced)

Where, Savings per linear foot of strip curtain= 0.014 kW for climate zone 12 Linear feet of strip curtain replaced= 22

Gasket ΔkW = (savings per linear foot of gasket) x (linear feet of gaskets replaced)

Where,


Page 36

Savings per linear foot of gasket= 0.012 kW Linear feet of gaskets replaced= 25 The ex-ante calculation results do not match the prescriptive savings found in the Modesto ex-ante calculator and California TRM for this climate zone.



• Confirmed the installation of the strip curtains and gaskets

• Measured the linear feet of strip curtains and gaskets in good condition

• Confirmed the affected refrigeration equipment

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May 2019. Anchor Blue verified the presence of 38 linear feet of 8” wide strip curtains and approximately 16 linear feet of gaskets on the walk-in cooler, as well as approximately 9 feet of gasket on under counter drawers. Due to the difficulty of precisely measuring the gaskets, Anchor Blue accepted the invoice measurements of 16.5 feet of walk-in gaskets and 8.5 feet of under counter drawer gaskets. It is likely that only part of the strip curtains were replaced and Anchor Blue accepted the 22 feet of strip curtains listed on the invoice as the portion replaced. The affected coolers were medium temperature refrigeration units, but it was not practical to obtain nameplate data from the refrigeration system.

Ex-post Calculations and Assumptions  The ex-post calculations used a standard algorithm with onsite findings to get the energy savings. The CMUA TRM includes strip curtain savings but not door gaskets, which were found in the Modesto ex-ante calculator.


Strip Curtain ΔkWh = (savings per linear foot of strip curtain) x (linear feet of strip curtain replaced)

Where, Savings per linear foot of strip curtain= 176 kWh in climate zone 12 Linear feet of gaskets replaced= 22

Gasket ΔkWh = (savings per linear foot of gasket) x (linear feet of gaskets replaced)

Where, Savings per linear foot of gasket= 52 kWh Linear feet of gaskets replaced= 25 Demand Savings:

Strip Curtain ΔkW = (savings per linear foot of strip curtain) x (linear feet of strip curtain replaced)

Where, Savings per linear foot of strip curtain= 0.014 kW for climate zone 12 Linear feet of strip curtain replaced= 22

Gasket ΔkW = (savings per linear foot of gasket) x (linear feet of gaskets replaced)

Where, Savings per linear foot of gasket= 0.012 kW


Page 37

Linear feet of gaskets replaced= 25 The difference in the realization rate for the energy and demand savings at the site is due to the prescriptive savings values Anchor Blue used from the TRM and Modesto ex-ante calculator which do not match the ex-ante results. However, no detailed ex ante calculations were provided, so it is unclear exactly where the differences originate.


Page 38

Site Modesto- 12

Project Summary  The site is a small fast food restaurant in Modesto, California. The site replaced door gaskets on their refrigerated cases. Anchor Blue found the specified number of gaskets and agreed with the prescriptive savings for this project.




2,834 2,834 100%


0.49 0.654 133%


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  In the baseline, the site had missing or damaged door gaskets on some of their refrigerated cases.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site installed 54.5 linear feet of door gaskets on their refrigerated cases.

Comments on Ex-Ante Calculations  The ex-ante calculations used prescriptive savings for door gaskets. The algorithm is listed as follows:

Energy Savings: 

ΔkWh = (savings per linear foot of gasket) x (linear feet of gaskets replaced)

Where, Savings per linear foot of gasket= 52 kWh Linear feet of gaskets replaced= 54.5


ΔkW = (savings per linear foot of gasket) x (linear feet of gaskets replaced)

Where, Savings per linear foot of gasket= 0.012 kW Linear feet of gaskets replaced= 54.5



• Confirmed the installation of the strip curtains and gaskets

• Measured the linear feet of strip curtains and gaskets in good condition

• Confirmed the affected refrigeration equipment

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May, 2019. Anchor Blue verified the presence of approximately 12 linear feet of gaskets on the medium temperature reach-in door, 8 linear feet on the low temperature beverage refrigerator, 12 feet on two medium temperature drawers, 12 feet on the reach-in freezer, and 19


Page 39

feet on the CLS medium temperature walk-in. This is slightly more than the amounts listed on the invoice overall, but it is possible that some short sections of gasket did not need replacement, so Anchor Blue accepted the gasket amounts from the invoices. It was not practical to obtain nameplate data from the refrigeration system.

Ex-post Calculations and Assumptions  The ex-post calculations used a standard algorithm with onsite findings to get the energy savings. The algorithm is based on prescriptive savings per linear foot of gasket replaced.


ΔkWh = (savings per linear foot of gasket) x (linear feet of gaskets replaced)

Where, Savings per linear foot of gasket= 52 kWh Linear feet of gaskets replaced= 54.5 Demand Savings:

ΔkW = (savings per linear foot of gasket) x (linear feet of gaskets replaced)

Where, savings per linear foot of gasket= 0.012 kW linear feet of gaskets replaced= 54.5 Anchor Blue found that the ex-ante calculations were consistent with the prescriptive savings for this measure and the length of gaskets found at the facility.


Page 40

Site Turlock- 13

Project Summary  The site is a school within the Turlock Unified School District. The site upgraded lighting throughout classrooms, administrative building, and throughout the exterior of the school. The difference in realization rate for the energy and peak demand savings at this site is due to ex-post savings using logged operating hours on site and the inclusion of DEER 2016 HVAC interactive factors and coincident demand factors as outlined in the CMUA POU TRM. The tracker savings also has a slightly different savings from the documented savings in the project files.




600,220 497,581

83%


299.56 6.0

2%


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  The site completed a lighting retrofit throughout the school ground including administrative buildings, classrooms, exterior, and the gyms. A variety of baseline lighting fixtures were replaced such as Fluorescent T8 lamps in most classrooms, offices and libraries, downlights in the theater, Metal Halide exterior fixtures.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site retrofitted fixtures with LED fixtures such as TLEDs and LED Troffers, Downlights, Area lights, Canopy and Flood lights.


follows: 

Energy Savings: 


Where, 






Where,





Page 41





• Confirmed installation, categorized and counted the fixtures as per the space type (air-conditioned or non-conditioned)

• Deployed DENT Lighting loggers in 3 representative classrooms and 1 administrative office and logged operating hours

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May 2019. Anchor Blue verified the lighting count and operational hours. The fixtures the exterior operates from 11:15pm to 6am in the morning confirmed with the school’s facility manager with the exception of the pool deck lights. The lights were turned on when there were practice or events at night. Anchor Blue also verified classroom hours by logging 3 representative classrooms and one administrative office area for a period of 2 weeks. The average extrapolated annual hours of the classrooms were 1,187 hours/year which was lower than the ex-ante assumption of 1,690 hours/year. The administrative area logger hours extrapolated to 3,285 hours/year which is higher than that of the ex-ante assumed hours. Some downlights at the theater areas were malfunctioning as the clips securing the fixture housing were failing and the downlights fell out of the housing. There were also a few missing A-lamps in the dressing room in the theater building.




Where,

kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures  kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures 

HOURS: Average hours of use per year 

DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.06 (Secondary School), 1.0 (Exterior) 



Where,

DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.0 (Secondary School)

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand =0.02 (Secondary School)

The difference in the realization rate for the energy and demand savings at the site is due to (1) Anchor Blue using logged hours specific for site (2) Anchor Blue inclusion of DEER 2016 HVAC interactive factors and coincident demand factors for building type and area type (3) Difference in exterior lighting fixture operating hours ex-ante assumption vs. hours reported by facility manager. (4) The ex-ante savings reported


Page 42

in the tracker and the documented savings were slightly different, and (5) Anchor Blue observed that a few

fixtures were taken out by students or teachers.  


Page 43

Site Turlock- 14

Project Summary  The site is an unconditioned warehouse located in Modesto, CA. The site upgraded lighting throughout the facility and added motion sensors. The difference in the realization rate for the energy and peak demand savings at the site is due to substantially lower usage in the warehouse than in the ex-ante calculations.




349,958 429,695 123%


27.06 18.95 70%


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  In the baseline, the site had a combination of high bay T8 and T12 fluorescent fixtures, as well as a few incandescent lights and metal halide outdoor lighting. All of the indoor lights were on continuously and the outdoor lights operated at night.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site replaced all the fixtures with efficient LED fixtures on a one-to-one basis and installed occupancy sensors on the indoor lights.


follows: 

Energy Savings: 


Where, 






Where,




The ex-ante calculations do not include HVAC Interactive Effects Factors and coincident demand savings factors as outlined in the Customized Calculated Savings Guidelines for Non-Residential Programs, Version 6.0.1


Page 44





• Determined if the facility was conditioned or unconditioned

• Installed data loggers to determine hours of operation in some areas

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May 2019. Anchor Blue verified the lighting count, occupancy sensors, and operational hours. The facility is largely unoccupied and the lights are rarely on.

Ex-post Calculations and Assumptions  The ex-post calculations used a standard algorithm with onsite findings to get the energy savings. The

modified algorithm uses interactive effects to calculate savings.



Where,

kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures 

kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures  HOURS: Average hours of use per year 

DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1 (Unconditioned Warehouse)



Where,

DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.0 (Unconditioned Warehouse)

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand =0.53 (Unconditioned Warehouse)

The difference in the realization rate for the energy and demand savings at the site is due to hours of use of

the lights being significantly lower than the ex-ante estimates.


Page 45

Site Turlock- 15

Project Summary  The site is a school within the Turlock Unified School District. The site upgraded lighting throughout classrooms, administrative building, and throughout the exterior of the school. The difference in realization rate for the energy and peak demand savings at this site is due to ex-post savings including DEER 2016 HVAC interactive factors and coincident demand factors as outlined in the CMUA POU TRM. In addition, the ex-post savings calculations used logged hours from the site which showed slightly higher hours than the deemed hours. The tracker savings (104,829 kWh) showed significantly different savings from the documented savings in the project files (58,056 kWh).




104,829 71,341

68%


30.4 0.6 2%


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  The site replaced lighting fixtures throughout the school grounds, in each of the classrooms, multiple 2-lamp, 3-lamp, and 4-lamp 4ft T12s were replaced with LED lamps. In addition, CFL wall packs around school exterior wall were replaced by LED Wall Packs. The parking area lights were also replaced.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site retrofitted lighting fixtures with LED lamps. Classrooms were retrofitted with 4 ft 12W LEDs. Exterior wall packs and canopy lights were upgraded to LED fixtures. Where lights in classrooms were controlled by manual switch, exterior wall packs were on a time clock.


follows: 

Energy Savings: 


Where, 




 

Demand Savings: 


Where,





Page 46

The ex-ante calculations do not include HVAC Interactive Effects Factors and coincident demand savings factors as outlined in the Customized Calculated Savings Guidelines for Non-Residential Programs, Version 6.0.1






Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May 2019. Anchor Blue verified the lighting count and operational hours. The fixtures the exterior operates from 11:15pm to 6am in the morning confirmed with the school’s facility manager. Anchor Blue also verified classroom hours by logging a representative classroom for a period of 2 weeks. The extrapolated annual hours of the classroom are 2,302 hours which is used in the ex-post savings calculations.

Ex-post Calculations and Assumptions  The ex-post calculations used a standard algorithm with onsite findings to get the energy savings. The modified algorithm uses interactive effects to calculate savings.



Where,

kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures  kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures  HOURS: Average hours of use per year  DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.04 (Relocatable classrooms), 1.07 (Primary

School), 1.0 (Exterior)



Where,

DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.0 (Primary School)

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand =0.02 (Primary School and Relocatable Classrooms)

The difference in the realization rate for the energy and demand savings at the site is due to (1) Anchor Blue inclusion of DEER 2016 HVAC interactive factors and coincident demand factors in ex-post savings. (2) Difference in fixture operating hours deemed vs. hours logged and reported by facility manager. (3) The ex-ante savings reported in the tracker and the documented savings were significantly different.


Page 47

Site Turlock- 16

Project Summary  The site is a large retail store in Turlock, CA. The site installed anti-sweat heater controls on 152 feet of frozen food case doors. The energy realization rate for the site is 100% while the demand realization rate is 980%.




98,952 98,952 100%


9 88.16 980%


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  In the baseline, the site had frozen reach-in cases with constantly on anti-sweat heaters.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site installed a 24-channel sweat miser to control the operation of the anti-sweat heaters on the cases.

Comments on Ex-Ante Calculations  The ex-ante calculations used prescriptive savings for the anti-sweat heater controls. The algorithm is listed as follows:

Energy Savings: 

ΔkWh = (savings per linear foot of case) x (linear feet anti-sweat heater controls installed)

Where, Savings per linear foot of case= 651 kWh for low temperature cases in climate zone 12 Linear feet of anti-sweat controls= 152

  Demand Savings:  ΔkW = (savings per linear foot of case) x (linear feet anti-sweat heater controls installed)

Where, Savings per linear foot of case= 0.58 kW for low temperature cases in climate zone 12 Linear feet of anti-sweat controls= 152 The ex-ante calculations are consistent with the TRM prescriptive calculator.



• Confirmed the installation and operation of the Sweat Miser controller

• Confirm cycling of the anti-sweat heaters in the cases

• Determine the number of affected cases and feet of doors

Summary of Site Visit 


Page 48

Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May, 2019. Anchor Blue verified the presence of the Sweat Miser controller and the cycling of the anti-sweat heater controls. The Sweat Miser was installed in the back area of the store and operating normally, but did not have any user readout or controls from which readings could be taken. Anchor Blue used a non-contact voltage detector to verify that the case heaters were cycling on and off. At the time of the site visit, the heaters were cycling on for about two seconds and then off for about one second. Anchor Blue found slightly more cases onsite than listed in the application, but three of the cases, with a total of eight doors, were new since the project according to store staff. The remaining 28 cases had 106 affected doors. The application listed 152 feet of affected cases, which is slightly less than the length of counted doors. It is possible that there were more new cases than indicated by store staff or that the measurements only the glass area.

Ex-post Calculations and Assumptions  The ex-post calculations used the TRM prescriptive calculator to determine savings, which were consistent with the ex-ante calculations.


ΔkWh = (savings per linear foot of case) x (linear feet anti-sweat heater controls installed)

Where, Savings per linear foot of case= 651 kWh for low temperature cases in climate zone 12 Linear feet of anti-sweat controls= 152 Annual Demand Savings Algorithm

ΔkW = (savings per linear foot of case) x (linear feet anti-sweat heater controls installed)

Where, Savings per linear foot of case= 0.58 kW for low temperature cases in climate zone 12 Linear feet of anti-sweat controls= 152 The realization rate for this project is 100%, based on the equipment found at the site and prescriptive savings.


Page 49

Site Turlock- 17

Project Summary  The site is a school within the Turlock Unified School District. The site upgraded lighting throughout classrooms, administrative building, and throughout the exterior of the school. The difference in realization rate for the energy and peak demand savings at this site is due to ex-post savings including DEER 2016 HVAC interactive factors and coincident demand factors as outlined in the CMUA POU TRM. The tracker savings also has different savings from the documented savings in the project files.



Energy Savings 

(kWh/Year) 

64,404 67,118

104%


37 0.8

2%


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  The site replaced lighting fixtures throughout the school grounds, in each of the relocatable classrooms, multiple 2-lamp, 3-lamp, and 4-lamp 4ft T12s were replaced with LED lamps. In addition, CFL wall packs around school exterior wall were replaced by LED Wall Packs.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site retrofitted lighting fixtures with LED lamps. Classrooms were retrofitted with 4 ft 12W LEDs. Exterior wall packs and canopy lights were upgraded to LED fixtures. Where lights in classrooms were controlled by manual switch, exterior wall packs were on a time clock.


follows: 

Energy Savings: 


Where, 






Where,





Page 50

The ex-ante calculations do not include HVAC interactive effect factors and coincident demand savings factors as outlined in the Customized Calculated Savings Guidelines for Non-Residential Programs, Version 6.0.1






Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May 2019. Anchor Blue verified the lighting count and operational hours. The fixtures the exterior operates from 11:15pm to 6am in the morning confirmed with the school’s facility manager. Anchor Blue also verified classroom hours by logging 2 representative classrooms for a period of 2 weeks. The extrapolated annual hours of the two classrooms were 1,120 hours/year and 865 hours/year, both of which were lower than the deemed 1,690 hours. Due to the large variance from the two loggers and the data collection period being close to end of school year, Anchor Blue decided to use the original deemed hours.




Where,

kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures  kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures  HOURS: Average hours of use per year  DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.04 (Relocatable classrooms), 0.98 (General

School Grounds), 1.0 (Exterior)



Where,

DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.0 (Primary School)

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand =0.02 (Primary School and Relocatable Classrooms)

The difference in the realization rate for the energy and demand savings at the site is due to (1) Anchor Blue inclusion of DEER 2016 HVAC interactive factors and coincident demand factors. (2) Difference in exterior lighting fixture operating hours deemed vs. hours reported by facility manager. (3) The ex-ante savings reported in the tracker and the documented savings were slightly different.


Page 51

Site Turlock- 18

Project Summary  The site is an office building located in Turlock, California. The site upgraded its exterior metal halide floodlights to LED floodlights. All claimed lighting upgrades were verified and assumed hours of operation matched the POU TRM values. The energy realization rate is 100%. However, the peak demand savings

realization rate is 0% as the exterior fixtures are only on during non-peak hours. 




2,296  2,296  100% 


0.56  

0  0% 


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  In the baseline, the site had eight, 95W wall mounted metal halide floodlights with magnetic ballasts. The ex-ante hours of operation were assumed to be 4,100 hours per year, a dusk to dawn operation assumption. Review of the CMUA TRM reference document found this assumption to be accurate.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded its exterior lights to eight, 25W LED wall mounted floodlights. Hours of operation are assumed to be 4,100/year, a dusk to dawn setting with sensors. These hours match the POU TRM.


follows: 

Energy Savings: 


Where, 






Where,





Page 52



• Confirmed the wattage and quantity of the fixtures  • Confirmed the operating schedule 

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May 2019. Anchor Blue visually verified the lighting count

and confirmed operational hours with site staff. 




Where,


kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures  HOURS: Average hours of use per year  DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.0 (Exterior)



Where,

DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.0 (Exterior)

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand =0 (Exterior)

The energy realization rate is 100%. The realization rate for demand savings is 0% since the on hours do not

overlap with utility peak demand. 


Page 53

Site Merced- 19

Project Summary  The site is a poultry processing facility located in Merced, California. The site upgraded compressed air systems throughout the facility. The difference in the realization rate for the energy and peak demand savings at the site is due to a substantial increase in compressed air usage. Merced did not report demand savings in their SB1027 Reporting.




930,601 701,292 75.4%


0 94.6 NA


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  In the baseline, the site had five 75 HP, one 100 HP, and two 125 HP air compressors. The system operated 24/7, but some of the compressors cycled off, particularly on weekends when facility demand is lower. The baseline air compressors had an average efficiency of 20.5 kW/100 acfm at their rated pressure of 125 psig. According to site personnel they sometimes also employed as many as three portable compressors to meet load demands. There was a discrepancy in the model for one of the 75 HP compressors between the ex- ante documentation and the information provided by the facility, but this was not significant to the baseline operation.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site installed a 400 HP, variable speed Atlas Copco ZT-315-VSD air compressor, removed the portable compressors and two of the 75 HP compressor. An additional 75 HP compressor was shut down. In addition to this, at some point the facility replaced one of the constant speed 125 HP compressors with a variable speed unit, but this was not detailed in either the ex-ante report or the information provided by the facility. In addition to the variable speed compressors, the facility also installed a new vacuum blower purge dryer and associated piping and filters for the new equipment.

Comments on Ex-Ante Calculations  The ex-ante calculations used three weeks of data logging on the compressors to determine the power usage of the air compressors and calculated air usage at the facility using compressor specifications. The ex- ante calculations then estimated usage for the system with the new compressor and dryer, and the removal of the old compressors based on their specifications. They expected a 184 cfm reduction in weekday usage and a 71 cfm reduction in weekend usage based on the new equipment, in addition to more efficient operation. Operation was relatively constant during weekdays, and operated at a reduced, basically constant level on weekends.

Energy Savings: 

ΔkWh = (baseline weekday cfm x kWBASE/100 cfm – efficient weekday cfm x kWEE/100 cfm) x

100) x weekday hours + (baseline weekend cfm x kWBASE/100 cfm – efficient weekend cfm x kWEE/100 cfm) x 100) x weekend hours

Where,


kWBASE/100 cfm: Efficiency of baseline compressors


Page 54

kWEE/100 cfm: Efficiency of efficient compressor system Weekday hours: Weekday hours per year Weekend hours: Weekend hours per year. Demand Savings:

ΔkW = (baseline weekday cfm x kWBASE/100 cfm – efficient weekday cfm kWEE/100 cfm) x 100

Where,


kWBASE/100 cfm: Efficiency of baseline compressors kWEE/100 cfm: Efficiency of efficient compressor system.



• Confirmed the operation and pressure of the compressed air system


• Noted the model numbers of all the operating compressors

• Took spot readings of power, voltage, current, and power factor on the compressors

• Installed current (amp) loggers on the compressors to monitor their operation for several weeks

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May, 2019. Anchor Blue verified the operating air compressors and worked with facility staff to install data loggers on them. The facility and compressed air system operate continuously throughout the year. The system pressure varies between 103 and 108 psig.

Ex-post Calculations and Assumptions  The ex-post calculations used a standard algorithm with onsite findings to get the energy savings. The algorithm used each compressor curve separately to calculate air flow at 105 psig for each compressor and applied the average baseline efficiency of 20.46 kW/100 cfm to the entire system, with a small increase in air usage for the baseline system relative to the efficient system. This increase averaged 184 cfm on weekdays and 71 cfm on weekends. Energy Savings:

ΔkWh = calculated baseline weekday cfm x kWBASE/100 cfm x 100 - logged weekday kW

Where,


WattsBASE/100 cfm: Efficiency of baseline compressors, average of 20.46 kW/100 cfm Weekday hours: Weekday hours per year Weekend hours: Weekend hours per year. Demand Savings:

ΔkW = (baseline weekday cfm x kWBASE/100 cfm x 100 – efficient weekday average kW)

Where,


kWBASE/100 cfm: Efficiency of baseline compressors, 20.46 kW/100 cfm kWEE/100 cfm: Efficiency of efficient compressor system.


Page 55

The difference in the realization rate for the energy savings at the site is due to a substantial increase in airflow between the time of the ex-ante report and the ex-post evaluation. The ex-ante report found an average flow of 2,106 cfm during the week and 831 cfm on weekends. Anchor Blue found a weekday average of 3,108 cfm and a weekend average of 1,849 cfm on weekends, indicating a significant increase in usage at the facility. No ex-ante demand savings were reported.


Page 56

Site Merced- 20

Project Summary  The site is a Home Improvement and Garden Big Box Retail Store located in Merced, California. The site upgraded lighting throughout the sales floor, receiving area, offices, and customer bathrooms. The difference in the realization rate for the energy and peak demand savings at the site is due to ex-ante energy savings calculation from application carrying an error, efficient fixture wattage differences in ex-ante calculation compared to lighting spec sheets, and ex-post adjustments for HVAC interactive factors and Coincidence factor. Merced did not report demand savings in their SB1037 Reporting.




307,413 533,692 174%


0 83.4 NA


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  The site had 6-lamp 4-ft T8 High Bay fixtures in the sales floor and receiving area and 2’x4’ 3-lamp T8’s in office areas and customer bathrooms in the baseline case. The store hours are 6am-10pm Monday through Saturday and 7am-9pm Sundays. Lights are on from 6am-11pm Monday through Saturdays, and 7am- 11pm on Sundays. The annual operating hour is 6,084 hrs.

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site replaced the sales floor High Bay fixtures with High Bay TLED fixtures and replaced office and bathroom fixtures with 2’x4’ LED Troffers. The site has the same operating hours.

Comments on Ex-Ante Calculations  Anchor Blue found an error in the ex-ante calculations where the calculation spreadsheet subtracted the energy savings from the baseline energy use instead of subtracting efficient energy use from the baseline energy use. This causes the reported ex-ante energy savings to be much less than the ex-post savings. According to the CMUA TRM. The ex-ante calculations should use a standard lighting algorithm for the energy savings. The algorithm is listed as follows:

Energy Savings: 


Where, 






Where,


Page 57








• Categorized and counted the fixtures as per area type

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in June 2019. Anchor Blue verified the lighting count, fixture type, and operational hours.

Ex-post Calculations and Assumptions  Upon reviewing spec sheets for the efficient fixtures, the LED High Bay fixture wattage should be 112.2 Watts as opposed to the 96 Watts used in the ex-ante calculation. Anchor Blue applied the spec sheet wattages to the efficient fixture assumptions when calculating ex-post savings. The ex-post calculations used a standard algorithm with onsite findings to get the energy savings. The modified algorithm uses interactive effects to calculate savings.



Where,


kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures  HOURS: Average hours of use per year  DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.06 (Large Retail)



Where, DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.20 (Large Retail)

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand =0.85 (Large Retail)

The realization rate for the energy savings is mostly contributed to errors in the ex-ante calculations. The differences in efficient fixture wattage assumed vs. documented in the efficient equipment spec sheet also contributed to the variance. In addition, the Energy interactive factor was adjusted in the ex-post calculation to 1.06 as compared to 1.12 which was used in the ex-ante calculation. No ex-ante demand savings were reported.


Page 58

Site Merced- 21

Project Summary  The site is a big box retail building located in Merced, California. The site upgraded its interior fluorescent tube lamps to LED tube lamps as well as its exterior wall mounted metal halide floodlights to LED floodlights. A verification issue was the extensive remodeling that has been completed or is currently underway at the site. The area for fitting rooms is under construction, the café is not functioning as it is being remodeled, and some sales floor area is still being or has been modified. It is expected that lighting similar to what was retrofitted will exist in the remodeled areas, but it is uncertain it will be an exact lighting fixture for lighting fixture re-model. Not counting the lighting in the areas currently being remodeled would lead to artificially high realization rates when compared the ex-ante energy savings claim since many lamps are not currently functioning. However, in the long run, the remodeled areas will be functional again. The decision was made by Anchor Blue to eliminate counting the lighting in the areas currently being remodeled, resulting in a new baseline with fewer lamps. Doing this will allow for calculation of a more realistic realization rate. However, in recognition of the fact that the claimed savings were based on the original ex-ante lamp counts and the fact that future lighting (likely with many of the efficient lamps utilized) will happen in the remodeled areas, the realization rate is applied to the original ex-ante claimed savings. The assumed interior hours of operation were found to be appropriate, but for the exterior fixtures, the hours of operation were lowered to match the POU TRM suggested value. No interactive effects or coincident diversity factors were accounted in the ex-ante calculation while they were for the ex-post calculation. The energy realization rate is 105.2% and the peak demand savings realization rate is 96.4%, based on the adjusted baseline to accommodate remodeling. Merced did not report demand savings in their SB1037 Reporting.




274,003  196,376 72% 


0 45.56 NA


Description of Baseline Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded one-thousand and thirty-four (1,034) T8 two lamp fixtures in the original retrofit project. The adjusted ex-ante number that takes into consideration the remodeling activity is seven hundred and forty-four (744) T8 two lamp fixtures. The Anchor Blue team found seven hundred forty-four efficient (744) LED two lamp fixtures. In addition to these T8 two lamp fixtures, fifteen (15) exterior metal halide floodlights were replaced with fifteen (15) exterior LED floodlights. The ex-ante hours of operation for the interior lights were assumed to be 5,800 hours per year. Anchor Blue found these estimated hours of operation to be appropriate as store staff reported the lights were on about 16 hours each day. The exterior lighting hours of operation were assumed to be 4,380/year, a dusk to dawn setting with sensors. However, this value is higher than the 4,000/year recommended by the CMUA TRM.


Page 59

Description of Efficient Equipment and Operation  The site upgraded its interior lights to seven hundred and forty-four (744) 32W TLED fixtures and fifteen (15) 25W LED floodlights. Anchor Blue found that the ex-ante estimate hours of operation estimate of 5,800/year appeared reasonable, representing an operating schedule of about 16 hours each day. The exterior ex-ante hours of operation assumption of 4,380/year surpass the 4,100/year estimate for this climate zone from the CMUA TRM. Anchor Blue used the 4,100/year value for its ex-post calculations.


follows: 

Energy Savings: 


Where, 






Where,






• Confirmed the wattage and quantity of the fixtures 

• Confirmed the operating schedule 

Summary of Site Visit  Anchor Blue performed a site visit in May 2019. Anchor Blue visually estimated the lighting count, taking into

account the remodeling activity. Interior lighting operational hours were confirmed with site staff. 

Ex-post Calculations and Assumptions  The ex-post calculations used a standard algorithm with onsite findings to get the energy savings. The

modified algorithm uses interactive effects to calculate savings. 



Where,


Page 60

kWBaseline: Connected load of baseline fixtures  kWEE: Connected load of LED fixtures  HOURS: Average hours of use per year  DIEEnergy: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.06 (Large Retail)



Where, DIEDemand: DEER Interactive Effects Factor for energy savings = 1.20 (Large Retail)

CDF: Coincident Diversity Factor for peak demand =0.85 (Large Retail)

Although the number of lamps installed (using the adjusted baseline approach) and the ex-ante estimate for interior hours of operation were confirmed, the energy realization rate is 105.2%. No ex-ante demand savings were reported.


Page 61

ESTIMATING PROGRAM LEVEL EX-POST SAVINGS

The share of sampled ex-ante savings to total ex-ante savings is used as a multiplier to develop a total

stratum level gross ex-ante and ex-post savings. The next step was developing a weight that identifies the

stratum share of the total ex-ante program savings to be extrapolated to the program-level. Table 26

summarizes the realization rates by project and the overall program realization rate weighted by stratum.

The program level realization rate derived is 101.6%.

Table 26. Program-Level Electric Gross Energy Ex-Post Savings and Realization Rates

Site Ex-ante Savings (kWh)

Project Realization Rate

Ex-post Savings (kWh)

Stratum Weight

Extrapolated Ex-Ante Savings (kWh)

Extrapolated Ex-Post Savings (kWh)

Stratum Weighted Realization Rate

Modesto -1 499,329 104% 520,051.0 2.2 1,091,728.1 1,137,033.6

Modesto -2 428,598 89% 379,610.0 2.2 937,081.8 829,975.0

Modesto -3 345,937 111% 382,284.0 2.2 756,352.7 835,821.4

Modesto -4 266,998 106% 283,017.0 2.2 583,761.4 618,785.1

Modesto -5 66,064 107% 70,421.0 7.5 493,271.3 525,803.1

Modesto -6 64,376 102% 65,780.0 7.5 480,667.7 491,150.8

Modesto -7 62,319 120% 74,538.0 7.5 465,309.0 556,542.9

Modesto -8 44,118 139% 61,386.0 7.5 329,410.0 458,342.7

Modesto -9 34,226 116% 39,538.0 12.6 430,245.3 497,020.9

Modesto -10 9,275 66% 6,152.0 12.6 116,593.4 77,335.0

Modesto -11 5,948 87% 5,172.0 12.6 74,770.6 65,015.7

Modesto -12 2,834 100% 2,834.0 12.6 35,625.4 35,625.4

Turlock -13 600,220 83% 497,581.0 2.2 1,312,314.1 1,087,905.4

Turlock -14 349,958 123% 429,695.0 2.2 765,144.2 939,480.2

Turlock -15 104,829 68% 71,341.0 7.5 782,712.7 532,672.3

Turlock -16 98,952 100% 98,952.0 7.5 738,831.7 738,831.7

Turlock -17 64,404 104% 67,118.0 12.6 809,604.4 843,721.3

Turlock -18 2,296 100% 2,296.0 12.6 28,862.4 28,862.4

Merced -19 930,601 75% 701,292.0 2.2 2,034,655.4 1,533,296.8

Merced -20 307,413 174% 533,692.0 7.5 2,295,319.6 3,984,846.9

Merced -21 274,003 72% 196,376.0 12.6 3,444,413.7 2,468,586.8

TOTAL 4,562,698 4,489,126 18,006,675 18,286,655 101.55%


Demand savings are calculated using the same stratified weighting method. Ex-post demand savings are

estimated using the overall realization rate of 172%.

Table 27. Program Level Electric Gross Demand Savings and Realization Rate

Site Ex-ante Peak Demand (kW)

Project Realization Rate

Ex-post Peak Demand (kW)

Stratum Weight

Extrapolated Ex-Ante Peak Demand (kW)

Extrapolated Ex-Post Peak Demand (kW)

Stratum Weighted Realization Rate


Page 62

Modesto -1 51.9 88% 45.7 2.2 99.6 100.0

Modesto -2 45.0 97% 43.8 2.2 86.4 95.8

Modesto -3 0.0 N/A 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0

Modesto -4 32.7 124% 40.7 2.2 62.9 88.9

Modesto -5 7.0 127% 8.9 7.5 45.6 66.2

Modesto -6 10.3 30% 3.1 7.5 67.4 23.1

Modesto -7 0.0 N/A 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0

Modesto -8 35.3 368% 130.0 7.5 231.5 970.7

Modesto -9 8.4 126% 10.6 12.6 93.1 133.4

Modesto -10 1.8 63% 1.1 12.6 19.3 14.0

Modesto -11 0.7 91% 0.6 12.6 7.4 7.6

Modesto -12 0.5 133% 0.7 12.6 5.4 8.2

Turlock -13 299.6 2% 6.0 2.2 575.3 13.1

Turlock -14 27.1 70% 18.9 2.2 52.0 41.3

Turlock -15 30.4 2% 0.6 7.5 199.4 4.5

Turlock -16 9.0 980% 88.2 7.5 59.0 658.3

Turlock -17 37.0 2% 0.8 12.6 408.8 10.1

Turlock -18 0.6 0% 0.0 12.6 6.2 0.0

Merced -19 0.0 N/A 94.6 2.2 0.0 206.9

Merced -20 0.0 N/A 83.4 7.5 0.0 622.7

Merced -21 0.0 N/A 31.7 12.6 0.0 398.7

TOTAL 597 23 609 2,019 3,463 171.53%


Table 28 summarizes gross energy and demand ex-post savings at the program level.

Table 28. Summary of Program-Level Electric Gross Energy and Demand Ex-Post Savings

Gross Program Ex-ante Savings (kWh)

Strata Weighted Energy Realization Rate

Gross Program Ex-post Savings (kWh)

Gross Program Ex-ante Demand (kW)

Strata Weighted Demand Realization Rate

Gross Program Ex-post Demand (kW)

18,006,675 102% 18,286,655 2,019 172% 3,463 Source: Anchor Blue Analysis


Page 63

NET-TO-GROSS VALUES

The Anchor Blue Team conducted a desk research for recent NTG value updates with the objective of

identifying the appropriate NTG values for the program evaluation. The following California data sources

have been reviewed:

• DEER 2016 NTG Table

• Recent California Impact Evaluations:

o 2015 Non-Residential ESPI Custom Lighting Impact Evaluation

o 2015 Non-Residential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

The NTG values from our desk research are applied to the gross energy and demand savings to yield net

savings results summarized in Table 29.

Table 29 Program-Level Gross and Net Energy and Demand Ex-Post Savings

Gross Ex-ante Savings (kWh)

Gross Ex-ante Savings (kW)

Net-to-Gross Ratio Net Program Ex-Post Savings (kWh)

Net Program Ex-Post Peak Demand (kW)

18,286,655 3,463 0.75 13,693,151 4,768 Source: Anchor Blue Analysis


Page 64

EUL AND LIFECYCLE SAVINGS

To estimate the program lifecycle ex-post savings, Anchor Blue reviewed Effective Useful Life (EUL) estimates

from the E3 calculators. The first year estimated energy savings are multiplied to the EUL to estimate lifecycle

savings. Each site project might contain multiple measures with different EULs. The EUL applied to the lifecycle

saving estimates is the average of MTM’s E3 submittal. The lifecycle Electric Savings are summarized in Table

30.

Table 30 Program-Level Ex-Post Lifecycle Electric Savings

Gross Program Ex-Post Lifecycle Savings (kWh)

Net Program Ex-Post Savings (kWh)

Average Effective Useful Life

Gross Program Lifecycle Ex-Post Savings (kWh)

Net Program Lifecycle Ex-Post Savings (kWh)

18,286,655 13,693,151 9.4 169,500,101 133,633,144 Source: Anchor Blue Analysis


Page 65

ENERGY AND DEMAND RESULTS BY MEASURE CATEGORY

Table 31 report energy savings by end-use reporting category. Results of demand impacts are summarized in

Table 32.

Table 31. PY 2018 Gross and Net Ex-Post Portfolio-Level Electric Savings

End-Use Category




Net-to-Gross Ratio


Non-Res Cooking

- 102% - 0.6 -

Non-Res HVAC 412,605 102% 419,020 0.85 356,167

Non-Res Lighting 12,881,730 102% 13,082,024 0.8 10,465,619


Non-Res Pool Pumps

963 102% 978 0.6 587


615,760 102% 625,335 0.6 375,201

Non-Res Shell 2,040 102% 2,072 0.6 1,243

Non-Res Process 946,832 102% 961,554 0.6 576,932


3,146,742 102% 3,195,670 0.6 1,917,402

Non-Res Behavior

- 102% - 0.7 -

Other - 102% - 0.7 -

TOTAL 18,006,672 18,286,652 13,693,151


Table 32. PY 2018 Gross and Net Ex-Post Portfolio-Level Demand Savings

End-Use Category




Net-to-Gross Ratio


Non-Res Cooking

- 172% - 0.6 -

Non-Res HVAC 133 172% 227 0.6 136

Non-Res Lighting

3,022 172% 5,183 0.8 4,146

Non-Res Motors

- 172% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Pool Pumps

0 172% 0 0.6 0


62 172% 106 0.6 63


Page 66

Non-Res Shell - 172% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Process

11 172% 19 0.6 11

Non-Res Comprehensiv

e

398 172% 683 0.6 410


Other - 172% - 0.7 -

TOTAL 3,625 6,218 4,768



Page 67

PROGRAM FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The gross impact evaluation results are based on 21 onsite visits where samples are drawn from all MTM

Non-Residential Programs. After reviewing relevant project files and datasets specific to each site, the team

designed the Measurement &Verification (M&V) specific site plans.

When onsite, our team performed data collection activities such as verifying installation count, make and

model of equipment, operational data, and other relevant variables supporting M&V activities. Where

appropriate, Anchor Blue installed loggers onsite to collect a minimum of 4 weeks of operational data. Some

sites require billing data analysis which Anchor Blue worked with each of the MTM utilities to acquire customer

billing data. Main findings are outlined below:

• Overall, good accuracy with installation matching project file documentation. Field staff were able to

locate and verify measures in operating conditions as stated in project files.

• At one of the school sites, Anchor Blue found LED Downlights malfunctions where lighting fixtures were

falling out of the fixture housing. Utility might want to discuss with implementor on quality of hardware

and installation for LED Downlights.

o Develop a quality control review process for custom project calculations and documentation.

One of the utilities had calculation errors in a custom calculation for ex-ante savings which

caused a large discrepancy between ex-ante and ex-post savings. Anchor Blue recommend

implementing a review step when possible for custom projects. Refer to individual site reports

for more details.

• Recommend reviewing project documentation and database savings consistencies. A few sites have

different saving numbers comparing the utility tracker versus project documentation.

o One of the sites in the sample was dropped due to documentation of project inconsistency

between database and project documentation due to an administrative error

o Several other sites’ documented savings are different compared to the recorded ex-ante

savings in the database. Refer to individual site reports for more details.

• Demand energy savings calculations have lower level of rigor across all utilities resulting in a wide

variant of realization rates across projects.

o Exterior lighting systems do not yield demand savings due to operating hours not coinciding

with utility peak periods. Several sites’ demand saving realization rates varied from 100%

due to exterior fixtures not yielding demand savings and demand savings were included in

the ex-ante demand savings calculation.

o Building Types have specific coincidence demand factors as outlined in the CMUA Technical

Reference Manual9. Demand savings realization rates for several school sites were less than

100% due to peak coincidence demand factor (CDF) of relocatable classrooms primary and

secondary schools in Climate Zone 12 being 0.02 and the ex-ante savings did not account for

the CDF.

o Demand savings were not calculated for some non-lighting end-use measures, the CMUA

Technical Reference Manual is a good reference for future non-lighting demand savings

calculations.

9 CMUA 2016 Technical Reference Manual access at:




Page 68

• Unanticipated operating condition changes and site-specific operating hours are drivers to realization

rate varying from 100%

o At a large retail site, one of the areas was undergoing renovation at the time of site visit

o Upon interviewing and collecting on-site operating hours information, Anchor Blue was able to

apply site and equipment specific operating hours for the ex-post saving calculations


Page 69

PORTFOLIO SUMMARY BY UTILITY

Evaluated Savings Summary by Utility

The selected evaluated savings represents 4,562,698 kWh and 854 kW which covers 29% of energy and

41% demand savings claimed for MTM’s Non-Residential program savings in PY2018.

The overall energy and peak demand savings realization rates are 101.5% and 85.83% across MTM

programs.

Table 33 Shows the breakdown of the project statistics by utility. There are a total of 246 projects from the

three utilities, where Anchor Blue sampled 21 projects to achieve a sampling precision of 90% (+/- 15%).

Table 33. Claimed Gross Ex-Ante Savings, Completed Projects, and Sampled Projects by Utility

Utility Gross Ex-ante kWh

kWh Share

Number of Projects

Projects Share

Sampled Projects

Sampled Share

Modesto 5,753,618 32% 135 55% 12 57%

Turlock 10,228,738 57% 102 41% 6 29%

Merced 2,024,316 11% 10 4% 3 14%

Total 18,006,672 100% 247 100% 21 100%


Table 34 summarizes the share of evaluated claimed savings as percentage of total claimed savings by each utility. Table 34 Share of Evaluated Claimed Savings as Percentage of Total Claimed Savings by Utility

Utility Total Gross Annual Ex-Ante Energy Savings (kWh)

Evaluated Gross Annual Ex-Ante Energy Savings (kWh)

Percent of the Total Energy Savings Evaluated

Modesto 5,753,618 1,830,022 32%

Turlock 10,228,738 1,220,659 12%

Merced 2,024,316 1,512,017 75%

Total 18,006,672 4,562,698 25%



Page 70

Por tfolio Level Gross and Net Savings by Utility

Tables below summarizes the gross and net savings by end-use category specific to each utility.

The realization rate is applied to each of the categories included in the EM&V combined sample. The net-to-

gross ratios are taken from DEER database.

Table 35 Modesto PY 2018 Gross and Net Energy Savings by End-use Category

End-Use Category




Net-to-Gross Ratio


Non-Res Cooking

- 102% - 0.6 -

Non-Res HVAC 170,742 102% 173,396 0.85 147,387

Non-Res Lighting

2,132,664 102% 2,165,824 0.8 1,732,659

Non-Res Motors

- 102% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Pool Pumps

963 102% 978 0.6 587


300,468 102% 305,139 0.6 183,084

Non-Res Shell 2,040 102% 2,072 0.6 1,243

Non-Res Process

- 102% - 0.6 -


3,146,742 102% 3,195,670 0.6 1,917,402

Non-Res Behavior

- 102% - 0.7 -

Other - 102% - 0.7 - TOTAL 5,753,618 5,843,079 3,982,362



Page 71

Table 36 Turlock PY 2018 Gross and Net Energy Savings by End-use Category

End-Use Category




Net-to-Gross Ratio


Non-Res Cooking - 102% - 0.6 -

Non-Res HVAC 46,288 102% 47,008 0.85 39,957

Non-Res Lighting 9,850,935 102% 10,004,104 0.8 8,003,284


Non-Res Pool Pumps - 102% - 0.6 -


315,284 102% 320,186 0.6 192,112

Non-Res Shell - 102% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Process 16,231 102% 16,483 0.6 9,890


102% - 0.6 -


Other - 102% - 0.7 - TOTAL 10,228,738 10,387,782 8,245,242


Table 37 Merced PY 2018 Gross and Net Energy Savings by End-use Category

End-Use Category




Net-to-Gross Ratio


Non-Res Cooking - 102% - 0.6 -

Non-Res HVAC 195,575 102% 198,616 0.85 168,824

Non-Res Lighting 898,131 102% 912,096 0.8 729,677




9 102% 9 0.6 5

Non-Res Shell - 102% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Process 930,601 102% 945,071 0.6 567,042


102% - 0.6 -


Other - 102% - 0.7 - TOTAL 2,024,316 2,055,791 1,465,548



Page 72

The following tables summarizes gross and net demand savings by utility and end-use category:

Table 38 Modesto PY 2018 Gross and Net Demand Savings by End-use Category

End-Use Category




Net-to-Gross Ratio


Non-Res Cooking

- 172% - 0.6 -

Non-Res HVAC 126 172% 215 0.6 129 Non-Res Lighting

398 172% 682 0.8 546

Non-Res Motors

- 172% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Pool Pumps

0 172% 0 0.6 0


52 172% 88 0.6 53

Non-Res Shell - 172% - 0.6 - Non-Res Process

- 172% - 0.6 -


398 172% 683 0.6 410

Non-Res Behavior

- 172% - 0.7 -

Other - 172% - 0.7 - TOTAL 973 1,669 1,138


Table 39 Turlock PY 2018 Gross and Net Demand Savings by End-use Category

End-Use Category




Net-to-Gross Ratio


Non-Res Cooking - 172% - 0.6 - Non-Res HVAC 7 172% 12 0.6 7

Non-Res Lighting 2,624 172% 4,501 0.8 3,601



Non-Res Refrigeration 10 172% 17 0.6 10

Non-Res Shell - 172% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Process 11 172% 19 0.6 11

Non-Res Comprehensive - 172% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Behavior - 172% - 0.7 - Other - 172% - 0.7 - TOTAL 2,652 4,549 3,630



Page 73

Table 40 Merced PY 2018 Gross and Net Demand Savings by End-use Category

End-Use Category




Net-to-Gross Ratio


Non-Res Cooking - 172% - 0.6 - Non-Res HVAC - 172% - 0.6 - Non-Res Lighting - 172% - 0.8 - Non-Res Motors - 172% - 0.6 -


Non-Res Refrigeration - 172% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Shell - 172% - 0.6 - Non-Res Process - 172% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Comprehensive - 172% - 0.6 -

Non-Res Behavior - 172% - 0.7 - Other - 172% - 0.7 - TOTAL - - -



Page 74

Por tfolio Level EUL and Lifecycle Savings by Utility

EUL is an estimate of the median number of years that the measures installed under a program are still in

place and operable. The DEER databases are the sources for estimates of EUL. The following table

summarizes the Portfolio Level EUL and Lifecycle savings by Utility.

Table 41 Modesto PY 2018 EUL and Lifecycle Savings

End-Use Category



Average Measure Life

Gross Lifecycle Ex-Post Energy Savings (kWh)

Net Lifecycle Ex-Post Energy Savings (kWh)

Non-Res Cooking

- - - - -

Non-Res HVAC 170,742 147,387 15 2,561,123 2,210,803

Non-Res Lighting

2,132,664 1,732,659 11 23,459,304 19,059,253

Non-Res Motors - - 10 - -

Non-Res Pool Pumps

963 587 - - -


300,468 183,084 12 3,605,610 2,197,004

Non-Res Shell 2,040 1,243 10 20,400 12,430

Non-Res Process

- - 15 - -


3,146,742 1,917,402 - - -

Non-Res Behavior

- - - - -

Other - - - - - TOTAL 5,753,618 3,982,362 5 29,646,437 23,479,490



Page 75

Table 42 Turlock PY 2018 EUL and Lifecycle Savings

End-Use Category






Non-Res Cooking - - - - -

Non-Res HVAC 46,288 39,957 15 694,320 599,348

Non-Res Lighting 9,850,935 8,003,284 11 ######## 88,036,119


Non-Res Pool Pumps - - - - -


315,284 192,112 12 3,783,408 2,305,341

Non-Res Shell - - 10 - -

Non-Res Process 16,231 9,890 15 243,465 148,350


- - - - -

Non-Res Behavior - - - - -

Other - - - - - TOTAL 10,228,738 8,245,242 11 ######## 91,089,158


Table 43 Merced PY 2018 EUL and Lifecycle Savings

End-Use Category






Non-Res Cooking - - - - -

Non-Res HVAC 195,575 168,824 15 2,933,625 2,532,353

Non-Res Lighting 898,131 729,677 11 9,879,441 8,026,443


Non-Res Pool Pumps - - - - -


9 5 12 106 64

Non-Res Shell - - 10 - -

Non-Res Process 930,601 567,042 15 ######## 8,505,636


- - - - -

Non-Res Behavior - - - - -

Other - - - - - TOTAL 2,024,316 1,465,548 13 26,772,187 19,064,496
