energy efficiency report - pg&e, pacific gas and electric

Savings By Design Energy Efficiency Report

[Insert Program Year]

Energy Efficiency Report

Name of Project

Project Address, CA Savings By Design

Date

Project/Application Number


Architect

Company:

Street Address:

Phone Number:

Contact:

Mechanical Engineer Company:

Street Address:

Phone Number:

Contact:

Electrical Engineer (or Lighting Designer) Company:

Street Address:

Phone Number:

Contact:

Energy Efficiency Report Author Company:

Street Address:

Phone Number:

Contact:


Table of Contents Preface & Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... iii

Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2

2.0 Project Overview & Building Description ......................................................................................... 4

3.0 Energy Efficiency Measures.............................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Base Case Building Description ................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures .......................................................................................................... 6

4.0 Results & Recommendations............................................................................................................ 8

5.0 Proposed Design & Incentive Discussion ..................................................................................... 12

5.1 Discussion of Final Design ............................................................................................................... 12

Appendix A: Utility Incentive (UTIL-1) Worksheets and Additional Calculations ............................. 13

Appendix B: Assumptions, Materials & Equipment References ........................................................ 14

Appendix C: Additional Information on Energy Analysis Method ....................................................... 15

Simulation Tools ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Title 24 Standards ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Energy Savings Calculations .................................................................................................................. 15

Appendix D: Additional Information on Life Cycle Cost Method ........................................................ 16

What is Life Cycle Cost? ......................................................................................................................... 16

Why Should Organizations Care About Life Cycle Cost? .................................................................. 16

Life Cycle Cost Methodology .................................................................................................................. 16

Appendix E: Glossary of Key Terms....................................................................................................... 18


List of Tables Table 1.1 Summary of Energy Efficiency Measures ....................................................................................... 2 Table 3.1 Comparison of Energy Efficiency Design Options ......................................................................... 7 Table 4.1 Summary of Annual Energy Usage & Cost ..................................................................................... 8 Table 4.2 Summary of Annual Energy Savings ............................................................................................... 8 Table 4.3 Potential Utility Incentive Payments ................................................................................................. 9 Table 4.4 Annual Energy Use, Cost & Savings Per Square Foot ................................................................. 9 Table 5.1 Owner and Design Team Incentive Calculation ........................................................................... 12


Preface & Acknowledgements

The following persons worked on the report under contract with Pacific Gas & Electric Company: [List contributing authors]

The authors of this document take this opportunity to gratefully acknowledge the assistance and contributions of the following parties for providing the relevant information used in the report assisted in the preparation of the report: [List the PG&E representative, and the project designers, consultants, manufacturer

representatives, etc. as appropriate.]

Signed Statement by Building Owner

I have carefully read the Executive Summary contained in this report, and have reviewed the analysis. I understand the key assumptions, results and recommendations presented and I understand that future incentives depend on the installation of the energy efficiency measures as outlined in Section 3.2 of this report. Project Name Signed Print Name & Firm Date


Disclaimer The purpose of this report is to identify potential Energy Efficiency Measures that may warrant further evaluation. It is not intended for use as the basis for justifying implementation of a project without further engineering analysis and design.

The Appendices of this report provide information on specific equipment manufacturers and distributors. This information is provided only as reference and should not be taken as an endorsement of any particular manufacturer or distributor.

All information presented herein is preliminary and does not include specific design instructions. The design professionals or other persons following the recommendations contained herein accept responsibility and liability for the results.


1.0 Executive Summary

This report has been prepared by [Company Name] to examine possible energy saving measures for [Project Name] in [City], California. [Lead Designer] designed the proposed building. This report focuses mainly on Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) above and beyond the proposed design. The Whole Building Approach employed here examines a series of different design options individually and cumulatively. The major design recommendations that derive from this report include:

[Insert example here. (i.e. “The addition of R-11 insulation to un-insulated exterior walls; a high efficiency condensing-pulse boiler with variable frequency drive (VFD) on the heating hot water pump; and a 30% net reduction in lighting power density (LPD).”)]

A summary of incremental construction costs, energy usage and costs, energy savings and the payback period for the various Energy Efficiency Measures is listed in Table 1.1, Summary of Energy Efficiency Design Options. All energy costs are based upon the [name electric and natural gas rates].The highlighted columns are required.

Table 1.1 Summary of Energy Efficiency Measures & Incremental Costs

Summary of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs)

ECM No.

Summary Description of

ECM

Incremental Construction

Cost ($)

Annual Electricity Savings (kWh)3

Peak Demand Reduc.

(kW)

Annual Gas

Savings (therms)

Annual CO2

Avoided (lbs. CO2)

Annual Energy

Cost Savings1

($)

Building Owner

Incentive2 ($)

Simple Payback3 (Years)

ECM 0 Std. Design $ - 0 0 0 0 $ - $ 1,574 -

ECM 1

90% boiler & VFD hot water pump $ 5,700 (4890) 0 3273 39710 $ 3,191 $ 1,574 1.8

ECM 2

Dual pane glazing, Viracon VE1-2M $ 6,400 2000 4 1000 15204 $ 2,255 $ 1,574 2.8

ECM 3 Lighting $ 3,800 15110 14 (727) 3506 $ 2,191 $ 1,574 1.7

ECM 4 ECM 1 + ECM 2 $ 12,100 2110 4 4273 59309 $ 7,531 $ 1,574 1.6

ECM 5 ECM 1 + ECM 3 $ 9,500 13110 15 3273 55532 $ 3,691 $ 1,574 2.6

ECM 6 ECM 2 + ECM 3 $ 11,200 17110 17 2773 52325 $ 6,191 $ 1,574 1.8

ECM 7 ECM 1 + ECM 2 + ECM 3 $ 15,900 20110 19 4273 75131 $ 10,631 $ 2,050 1.5

ECM 8 ECM 9 ECM

10 Table 1.1 compares all energy efficiency design options to the Title 24 Standard Design building description described in Section 3.1. The Incremental Construction Cost is the total additional initial


cost of the measures listed in the Summary Description of EEM column. The Simple Payback column includes the financial benefit of the utility incentive award for the installed measures. [When each EEM is evaluated on an individual basis, significant reductions in projected energy consumption are realized in the modeled results for EEM 1 (VFD). This is reflected in the relatively short payback period of 1.1 years. EEM 1 provides an annual energy cost savings of ___% a year. EEM 2 (VFD chillers) had a smaller impact on reducing electrical energy consumption, less than 1.5% annually with an annual energy cost savings of only ___% a year. Etc…..

The building upgrade costs for the VFD pumps are approximately $______, $_____ to upgrade EEM__, etc…. However, since funds are available through Savings by Design, the cost of these upgrades will be reduced. We estimate that this building will receive between $1000 and $2,000 in utility rebates depending on which EEMs are implemented.

To qualify for incentives under the Savings by Design Program, EEM__, EEM__ and EEM__ are the only combinations that would meet the minimum 10% energy reduction. Because the utility incentive reduces the initial cost of the EEMs, combinations of Energy Efficiency Measures that would not be attractive by themselves, become more financially attractive. Implementing EEM__ or EEM__ would provide the greatest energy savings for the initial cost of the investment. ]

1

1 Annual Energy Cost Savings are based on the following Utility Rate Schedules: Electricity: PG&E E-19S (Firm) Natural Gas: PG&E G-NR2

2 Owner Incentive includes Savings By Design incentive and any other applicable energy award or incentive, including the Green Kickers. See Appendix D for details. 3 Simple Payback = (Incremental Measure Costs - Incremental Owner Incentive) / Annual Energy Cost Savings


2.0 Project Overview & Building Description The scope of this report covers the [number] building[s] located at [address]. These buildings are typically occupied from [insert days and hours of operation], and is approximately [size] sf. The gross conditioned floor area of [this/these] building[s] is [gross conditioned floor area]. [Insert additional details of building description including type of construction [e.g., wood frame, metal frame and/or steel columns, poured or tilt-up concrete, steel roof deck, etc.]; the overall Window Wall Ratio (WWR), the general distribution of glazing by orientation, and whether there is spandrel glazing.]


3.0 Energy Efficiency Measures

[Insert a detailed discussion of energy efficiency measures here.]

3.1 Base Case Building Description

The Base Case describes the existing building conditions before any EEMs have been implemented. [The Base Case building exceeds the Title 24 Standard Design by ___%]

Base Case Envelope

[Roof Assembly: Flat roof, wood roof rafters w/ R-19 batt insulation.

Exterior Wall Assemblies: 6” metal studs w/ R-11 batt insulation; spandrel glass with R-7.5 rigid

polystyrene insulation.

Floor Assembly: Slab-on-grade, with un-insulated raised slab over parking garage area.

Glazing Type(s): Generic, dual glazed, metal frame windows and French doors; not NFRC-

tested.]

Base Case Lighting

[The Title 24 Allowed LPD for the building is 1.32 watts/sf. The Base Case LPD is 1.25 watts/sf.

Standard 4’ T-8 fluorescent lamps, ballasts and fixtures are assumed: 1-lamp @32 watts/fixture,

2-lamp @ 62 watts/fixture, and 3-lamp @ 93 watts/fixture.

Entry down lights and wall sconces are assumed to be 75w standard incandescent fixtures;

No lighting controls.]

Base Case Mechanical System & Service Hot Water

[Package VAV System with 3 air handling units (AHUs): 10,000 cfm for the 1st floor, 15,000 cfm

for the 2nd floor, and 18,000 cfm for the 3rd floor.

One central boiler, 80% AFUE -- 2,000,000 Btuh output capacity – for space heating and service

hot water;

DX cooling units have EER=10.1 and integrated air economizers; 40% minimum CFM in all VAV

boxes w/ reheats in perimeter zones;

Standard efficiency fan & pump motors.]


3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures

EEM 0: The Title 24 Standard Design EEM 1: [90% AFUE boiler and VFD hot water pump

Description: A condensing boiler with an AFUE of 90% replaces the 80% boiler in EEM 0. Note that several manufacturers (e.g., Munchkin, Voyager) also make boilers in the 94%-95% AFUE range. Also included in this run is a variable frequency drive (VFD) -- also called a variable speed drive (VSD) – which replaces the single speed hot water pump in EEM 0.

Incremental Construction Cost: $5,700 as provided by Jack Delaney, Lewis Cost Estimators, San Francisco, CA (415) 779-5320; includes condensate drain, and all other special labor and equipment. EEM 2: Dual pane glazing, Viracon VE1-2M, NFRC-tested

Description: NRFC-tested fenestration (windows, clerestories and French doors) with a U-Factor = 0.52 and SHGC=0.38 equivalent to Viracon VE1-2M.

Incremental Construction Cost: $6,400 for 1,422 sf @ $4.50/sf provided by Chuck Smith of AGA of Oakland, CA (510) 652-8044. ] EEM 2,3,4, etc: [Similar to EEM1 and EEM2.]


Table 3.1 Comparison of Energy Efficiency Design Options Comparison of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs)

Lighting Fenestration HVAC Energy Power Occupant Boiler VFD (Other) (Other)

Conservation Density Sensors U-factor SHGC AFUE Pump Measure No. (Watts/sf) (Yes/No) (%) (Yes/No)

ECM 0 1.20 No 1.19 0.80 80.0 No ECM 1 1.20 No 1.19 0.80 90.0 Yes ECM 2 1.20 No 0.52 0.38 80.0 No ECM 3 0.92 Yes 1.19 0.80 80.0 No ECM 4 1.20 No 1.19 0.80 90.0 Yes ECM 5 0.92 Yes 1.19 0.80 90.0 Yes ECM 6 0.92 Yes 0.52 0.38 80.0 No ECM 7 0.92 Yes 0.52 0.38 90.0 Yes ECM 8 ECM 9

ECM 10 Table 3.1. Comparison of Energy Efficiency Design Options compares the Energy Efficiency Design Options of each EEM for Power Density (W/sqft), Occupant Sensors (Yes or No), U-Factor, Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC), Boiler Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE), Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) Pump (Yes or No), and Other Energy Efficiency Design Options.


4.0 Results & Recommendations

Table 4.1 Summary of Annual Energy Usage & Cost Summary of Annual Energy Usage & Cost

EEM No.

E l e c t r i c i t y N a t u r a l G a s

Annual Energy Cost1 ($)

Annual Peak Annual Annual Annual Usage Demand Cost1 Usage Cost1 (kWh) (kW) ($) (Therms) ($)

ECM 0 135,110 94 $ 11,255 7,273 $ 9,936 $ 21,191 ECM 1 140,000 94 $ 12,000 4,000 $ 6,000 $ 18,000 ECM 2 133,110 90 $ 10,000 6,273 $ 8,936 $ 18,936 ECM 3 120,000 80 $ 8,000 8,000 $ 11,000 $ 19,000 ECM 4 133,000 90 $ 10,100 3,000 $ 3,560 $ 13,660 ECM 5 122,000 79 $ 10,500 4,000 $ 7,000 $ 17,500 ECM 6 118,000 77 $ 7,500 4,500 $ 7,500 $ 15,000 ECM 7 115,000 75 $ 7,000 3,000 $ 3,560 $ 10,560 ECM 8 ECM 9

ECM 10 Table 4.1. Summary of Annual Energy Usage & Cost compares each EEM to the Title 24 Standard Design for Electricity Usage (kWh), Peak Demand (kW), Annual Electricity Cost ($), Natural Gas Usage (Therms), Annual Gas Cost ($), and Total Annual Energy Cost ($).

Table 4.2 Summary of Annual Energy Savings Summary of Annual Energy Savings

EEM No.

E l e c t r i c i t y N a t u r a l G a s Annual Energy

Cost1 ($)

Usage Savings (kWh)2

Demand Reduction

(kW)

Cost Savings1

($)

Usage Savings (therms)

Cost Savings1

($)

ECM 0 0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 ECM 1 -4,890 0 -$745 3,273 $3,936 $3,191 ECM 2 2,000 4 $1,255 1,000 $1,000 $2,255 ECM 3 15,110 14 $3,255 -727 -$1,064 $2,191 ECM 4 2,110 4 $1,155 4,273 $6,376 $7,531 ECM 5 13,110 15 $755 3,273 $2,936 $3,691 ECM 6 17,110 17 $3,755 2,773 $2,436 $6,191 ECM 7 20,110 19 $4,255 4,273 $6,376 $10,631 ECM 8 ECM 9

ECM 10


Table 4.2. Summary of Annual Energy Savings compares each EEM to the Title 24 Standard Design for Electricity Usage Savings (kWh), Peak Demand Reduction (kW), Annual Electricity Cost Savings ($), Natural Gas Usage Savings (Therms), Gas Cost Savings ($), and Total Annual Energy Cost Savings ($).

Table 4.3 Potential Utility Incentive Payments

Potential Utility Incentive Payments

EEM No.

Percent Building Owner Incentives Design Team Incentives Total Incentives

Exceeds Natural Green

Kickers ($)

Natural Owner & Incentive

Title 24 Electricity Gas Kickers Total Electricity Gas Total Design Team per Sq.Ft.

(%) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($/SF)

ECM 0 15.25 $ 274 $

1,300 $

157 $

1,731 $ 90 $ 426 $

516 $ 2,247 $ 0.07

ECM 1 16.00 $ 274 $

1,300 $

157 $

1,731 $ 90 $ 426 $

516 $ 2,247 $ 0.07

ECM 2 16.50 $ 274 $

1,300 $

157 $

1,731 $ 90 $ 426 $

516 $ 2,247 $ 0.07

ECM 3 17.00 $ 274 $

1,300 $

157 $

1,731 $ 90 $ 426 $

516 $ 2,247 $ 0.07

ECM 4 17.25 $ 274 $

1,300 $

157 $

1,731 $ 90 $ 426 $

516 $ 2,247 $ 0.07

ECM 5 19.00 $ 274 $

1,300 $

157 $

1,731 $ 90 $ 426 $

516 $ 2,247 $ 0.07

ECM 6 19.20 $ 274 $

1,300 $

157 $

1,731 $ 90 $ 426 $

516 $ 2,247 $ 0.07

ECM 7 22.00 $ 350 $

1,700 $

205 $

2,255 $ 150 $ 500 $

650 $ 2,905 $ 0.10 ECM 8 ECM 9 ECM

10 Table 4.3. Potential Utility Incentive Payments compares each EEM to the Title 24 Standard Design for Percent Exceeds Title 24 (%), with regard to Building Owner Incentive, Design Team Incentive, and Total Incentive for the Owner & Design Team ($), including the Incentive per Square Foot ($).

Table 4.4 Annual Energy Use, Cost & Savings Per Square Foot Annual Energy Use, Cost & Savings Per Square Foot

EEM No.

Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Energy

Electricity

Electricity

Natural Gas Natural Gas Energy Energy

Cost Energy

Cost Cost

Savings Usage per Sq.

Ft. Usage per Sq. Ft. Cost per Sq. Ft. Savings per Sq. Ft.

(kWh) (kWh/sf-yr) (Therms) (Therms/sf-

yr) ($) ($/SF) ($) ($/SF)

ECM 0 135,110 4.50 7,273 0.242 $

21,191 $0.71 $ -

$ -

ECM 1 140,000 4.67 4,000 0.133 $

18,000 $0.60 $

3,191 $

0.11

ECM 2 133,110 4.44 6,273 0.209 $

18,936 $0.63 $

2,255 $

0.08 ECM 3 120,000 4.00 8,000 0.267 $ $0.63 $ $


19,000 2,191 0.07

ECM 4 133,000 4.43 3,000 0.100 $

13,660 $0.46 $

7,531 $

0.25

ECM 5 122,000 4.07 4,000 0.133 $

17,500 $0.58 $

3,691 $

0.12

ECM 6 118,000 3.93 4,500 0.150 $

15,000 $0.50 $

6,191 $

0.21

ECM 7 115,000 3.83 3,000 0.100 $

10,560 $0.35 $

10,631 $

0.35 ECM 8 ECM 9 ECM

10 Table 4.4. Annual Energy Use, Cost & Savings per Square Foot normalizes all relevant data per gross square foot of conditioned space.

Table 4.5 Summary of Economic Analysis Summary of Economic Analyses

Simple Payback1 30 Year Annual Incremental Building Simple Life Life

Energy Energy Cost Construction Owner Payback Cycle Cycle Cost Conservation Savings Cost Incentive Period Cost Savings Measure No. ($) ($) ($) (Years) ($) ($)

ECM 0 $ - $ - $ 1,731 - $ 222,672 $ - ECM 1 $ 3,191 $ 5,700 $ 1,731 1.8 $ 186,023 $ 36,649 ECM 2 $ 2,255 $ 6,400 $ 1,731 2.8 $ 208,088 $ 14,584 ECM 3 $ 2,191 $ 3,800 $ 1,731 1.7 $ 210,754 $ 11,918 ECM 4 $ 7,531 $ 12,100 $ 1,731 1.6 $ 178,032 $ 44,640 ECM 5 $ 3,691 $ 9,500 $ 1,731 2.6 $ 173,754 $ 48,918 ECM 6 $ 6,191 $ 11,200 $ 1,731 1.8 $ 189,706 $ 32,966 ECM 7 $ 10,631 $ 15,900 $ 2,255 1.4 $ 165,159 $ 57,513 ECM 8 ECM 9

ECM 10

Cost Assumptions ECM 0 Title 24 Standard Design ECM 1 $4200 for pulse boiler + $1500 for VFD HHWP ECM 2 $1.50 / sf added for Blomberg dual pane metal windows with Viracon glazing ECM 3 Average $0.13 per sf per 10% LPD reduction ECM 4 Combined costs as described above ECM 5 Combined costs as described above ECM 6 Combined costs as described above ECM 7 Combined costs as described above ECM 8 ECM 9

ECM 10


Table 4.5. Summary of Economic Analysis compares project cost and savings in terms of both simple payback and a life cycle cost analysis. For life cycle cost analysis methodology, see Appendix D.


5.0 Proposed Design & Incentive Discussion

Table 5.1 Owner and Design Team Incentive Calculation The Building Owner Incentive was calculated as:

Electricity: _____ % Below Title 24 x $1.00 x ________ kWh Saved Annually = $_______

Natural Gas: $1.00 x ________ Therms Saved Annually = $_______

Peak Demand: $100.00 x ________ Peak kW Reduced = $_______

TOTAL OWNER INCENTIVE $_______

The Design Team Incentive was calculated as:

Electricity: _____ % Below Title 24 x $1.00 x ________ kWh Saved Annually = $_______

Natural Gas: $0.333 x ________ Therms Saved Annually = $_______

Peak Demand: $33.33 x ________ Peak kW Reduced = $_______

TOTAL DESIGN TEAM INCENTIVE $_______

5.1 Discussion of Final Design [For the final building design, the Building Owner has decided to follow EEM ___ because it exhibited the highest incentive/energy savings/lowest cost of all design options. The Proposed Design annual energy Use is _____ kBtu/sf-yr. This Proposed Design exceeds Title 24 by ___%. EEM ___ includes VFD pumps and chillers and decreasing the lighting power density (LPD) to 1.0 W/sf. The lighting features of this design include an LPD of 0.92 and occupant sensors. The fenestration features of this design include a U-factor of 0.52 and an SHGC of 0.38. The HVAC features of this design include a boiler AFUE of 90% and a VFD Pump. The overall incremental measure cost for EEM ___ is $_____. The energy savings are ____kWh, ____ therms, and _____kW as compared to EEM 0. The Building Owner Incentive was calculated as $_____ and the Design Team Incentive as $_____, using the Title 24 Standard Design as a baseline, etc. Also discuss payback period, lifecycle cost, and other factors having to do with the measure chosen.]


Appendix A: Utility Incentive (UTIL-1) Worksheets and Additional Calculations


Appendix B: Assumptions, Materials & Equipment References


Appendix C: Additional Information on Energy Analysis Method

Simulation Tools

[The performance method was employed for each of the energy efficiency design scenarios investigated for this report. Building performance was modeled using the current state-approved EnergyPro version ___ software program as the building energy analysis tool for all measures. This program uses the Energy Plus hourly simulation tool, distributed by the U.S. Department of Energy, as the calculation engine. The Energy Plus simulation engine is considered to be one of the most accurate simulation tools for this application, and it evaluates energy use and peak demand requirements on an hourly basis. EnergyPro reports projected net annual building performance, as calculated by DOE-2.1E, relative to Title 24 requirements.] [List the electronic file names and dates created]

Title 24 Standards

The 2013 version of the Title 24 Building Efficiency Standards serves as the baseline for energy performance comparison in this report. Implemented in July 2014 the 2013 Standards are also known as the AB970 Standards, since this amendment was legislated by State Assembly Bill 970. This report will commonly refer to the baseline energy usage allowance permitted by this standard as being the Title 24 Standard Design energy use.

Energy Savings Calculations

[Each measure (EEM 1, EEM 2, etc.) was compared to the Title 24 Standard Design in order to determine savings above compliance levels. The results from these runs can be seen in Table 4.3. Total electrical and natural gas consumption returned in DOE-2.1E’s Building Energy Performance Summary (BEPS) report for each EEM were compared to the same figures for EEM 0 in order to estimate the net energy savings, measure costs, and, projected incentive payment amounts for each scenario.]


Appendix D: Additional Information on Life Cycle Cost Method

What is Life Cycle Cost?

The life cycle cost (LCC) of any piece of equipment is the total “lifetime” cost to purchase, install, operate, maintain, and dispose of that equipment. Determining LCC involves following a methodology to identify and quantify all of the components of the LCC equation. When used as a comparison tool between possible design or overhaul alternatives, the LCC process will show the most cost-effective solution within the limits of the available data.

The components of a life cycle cost analysis typically include initial costs, installation and commissioning costs, energy costs, operation costs, maintenance and repair costs, down time costs, environmental costs, and decommissioning and disposal costs.

Why Should Organizations Care About Life Cycle Cost?

Many organizations only consider the initial purchase and installation cost of a system. It is in the fundamental interest of the plant designer or manager to evaluate the LCC of different solutions before installing major new equipment or carrying out a major overhaul. This evaluation will identify the most financially attractive alternative. As national and global markets continue to become more competitive, organizations must continually seek cost savings that will improve the profitability of their operations. Plant equipment operations are receiving particular attention as a source of cost savings, especially minimizing energy consumption and plant downtime.

Life Cycle Cost Methodology

A life cycle cost (LCC) analysis was performed on this project using the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) support software, QuickBLCC version 2.8-01, for each of the conservation measures considered here.

The reference/guideline for all assumptions, equations, and discounting factors used in this report come from NIST Handbook 135, Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program.2 The most recent edition (April 2000) of the above handbook uses energy price indices based on Department of Energy (DOE) forecasts for the years 2001 to 2031. The DOE discount rate for 2001 is 3.4% real3 (exclusive of general price inflation). Using this rate results in estimated life cycle cost in constant dollars, neglecting the effects of standard inflation.

A simplified LCC formula for computing the LCC of energy conservation projects in buildings can be stated as follows:

2 National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 135, Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program, p.5-3. 3 Annual Supplement to NIST Handbook 135, Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis – April 2000, p 1-2.


LCC = I + Repl - Res + E + OM&R (3) where: LCC = Total LCC in present-value dollars of a given alternative, I = Present-value investment costs, Repl = Present-value capital replacement costs, Res = Present-value residual value (resale, scrap, or salvage value) less disposal costs, E = Present-value energy costs, and OM&R = Present-value non-fuel operating, maintenance, and repair costs.

This formula takes advantage of UPV (uniform present value) factors to compute the present value of annually recurring costs, whether constant or changing. By using appropriate UPV factors, the LCC can be calculated without first computing the future annual amount (including price escalation) of each annually recurring cost over the entire study period, summing all those costs by year and discounting them to present value. Instead, only the annual amount in base year dollars (i.e., a one-time amount) and the corresponding UPV factor need to be identified.

For this analysis, it was assumed that the variables Repl, Res, and OM&R would either be zero or equal for both the proposed building and the associated alternative. Therefore Equation (1) reduces to: LCC = I + E or LCC = I + g(UPV*g) + e(UPV*e) (4) where: g = Annual natural gas cost, UPV*g = Uniform Present-Value factor for natural gas, e = Annual electricity cost, and UPV*e = Uniform Present-Value factor for electricity, and the study period for all measures is based

on a 20 year life cycle.

A summary of the simple payback and Life Cycle Cost analysis is given in Table 6. Each positive result for Life Cycle Cost savings shown indicates that the corresponding proposed measure is cost-effective over the lifetime of the project.

If applicable: A complete printout of the NIST-BLCC99 output for this analysis follows.


Appendix E: Glossary of Key Terms

Allowed LPD: The maximum lighting power density, in watts/sf, allowed by the prescriptive lighting Title 24 standards based on the Complete Building Method and Area Category Method.

Annual Site Energy Use: The total annual on-site energy use of the building, in kBtu per square foot of gross conditioned area, for all fuel sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas). Energy components include space heating, space cooling, indoor fans, heat rejection, pumps, domestic (service) hot water, lighting, receptacle and process loads.

Annual Source Energy Use: The total annual energy use of the building, in kBtu per square foot of gross conditioned area, for all fuel sources. The Title 24 standards assign a source energy multiplier of natural gas, fuel oil and LPG of 1.00, whereas electricity is assigned a source energy multiplier of 3.00 (see Source Energy below). Only one-third of the total energy needed to produce electricity and transmit it to a building is assumed to be useful electricity that is used on-site. Where source energy was used to compare performance prior to the 2005 Title 24 Standards, TDV is the current method

for energy valuation and is based on the cost for utilities to provide the energy at different times.

Building Owner Incentive: The portion of the Savings By Design monetary award that goes to the building owner after all the required energy efficiency measures have been installed in the building per the Title 24 documentation submitted to PG&E.

Base Case: The combination of all building energy attributes and measures which, collectively, meet or exceed the Title 24 energy standards applicable to the proposed building.

Design Team Incentive: The portion of the Savings By Design monetary award that goes to the Design Team after all the required energy efficiency measures have been installed in the building and all documentation submitted to PG&E.

Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM): An individual energy efficiency measure or combination of energy efficiency measures added to the proposed building as compared to the energy features which define the Standard Design (EEM 0).

Incremental Measure Cost: The incremental cost is an estimated dollar amount of the extra first cost of designing, equipment, and labor of the EEMs compared to the Title 24 Standard Design. Green Kickers: Additional incentives offered to the Owner for projects that qualify. The kickers include: End Use Monitoring Incentive Enhanced Commissioning Incentive Green Building Certification Incentive


Each Green Kicker is calculated as 10% of the Owner Incentive and is paid at project completion. If the project qualifies, the additional incentive can be included in all incentives calculations in the EER. See the 2010-2012 SBD Participants Handbook for eligibility details. Gross Conditioned Floor Area: The total gross conditioned floor area of the building, in square feet. The area includes both directly conditioned and indirectly conditioned space as defined in the applicable standards. NFRC Ratings: The rated Thermal performance, both U-Factor and Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC), of a fenestration unit – window, clerestory, French door or skylight – according to the procedures and with the certification of the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC). Further information about NFRC and its rating system, as well as an online directory, can be obtained at www.nfrc.org.

Percent Below Title 24: The overall energy performance of proposed building as compared with Title 24 standards; expressed as the percentage (%) better than (i.e., “below”) the Title 24 Standard Design energy use, excluding process energy component. This value is listed in the UTIL-1 worksheet or equivalent form in Appendix A.

Simple Payback Period: The length of time, in years, required for the energy cost savings associated with one or more building energy efficiency measures to pay for the added first (incremental) installed cost of those same energy efficiency measures. Within this report, the incremental cost is adjusted by the inclusion of the incentive paid by the Savings By Design program to the building owner. Time Dependent Valuation – TDV values energy differently depending on the time it is used. For example, electricity saved on a hot summer afternoon will be worth more in the compliance process than the same amount of electricity saved on a winter morning. The value assigned to energy savings through TDV more closely reflects the market for electricity, gas, propane and other energy sources and provides incentives for measures, such as thermal storage or daylighting, that are more effective during peak periods.

Title 24 Standard Design: The reference version of the building as input within the simulation tool (energy software program) which includes all the minimum Title 24 energy efficiency measures. State-approved Alternative Calculation Methods (ACMs) are required to create the Standard Design automatically based on a variety of Envelope, Lighting and Mechanical attributes of the proposed or candidate building.

Title 24 Standards: The current (2008) California building energy code as defined by the AB 970 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, effective January 1, 2010 and related manuals which can be viewed or downloaded at the California Energy Commission web site at:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-400-2008-001/CEC-400-2008-001-CMF.PDF

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-400-2008-001/CEC-400-2008-001-CMF.PDF

http://www.nfrc.org

energy efficiency report - pg&e, pacific gas and electric

Documents