results of minnesota’s pbeeep
DESCRIPTION
Lessons learned from CEE’s public building recommissioning program PBEEEP. Tasked with improving the energy performance of public buildings, PBEEEP aimed to transform Minnesota’s existing building commissioning market from an audit to an energy investigation. Program staff screened over nine hundred buildings to identify buildings where an energy investigation would be cost effective, then calculated site-specific energy savings to determine the paybacks of recommended energy efficiency measures. This process identified lower average savings for existing building commissioning than other studies, which is of note for policy makers and practitioners. All sites achieved energy savings, many while the study was in progress.TRANSCRIPT
Results of Minnesota’s Public Buildings Enhanced Energy Efficiency Program (PBEEEP)
ACEEE Summer StudyAugust 16, 2012
Christopher PlumMark HancockChristie TraczykCenter for Energy and Environment212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560Minneapolis, MN 55401
Page 2
Engagement → Savings
Existing Building Commissioning (EBCx)
is cost effective in a large population of buildings
Projects benefit from quality assurance
Benchmark performance was not predictive of savings potential
Highlights
Page 3
Save energy in state buildings Support state’s 1.5% annual reduction goal
Standardize Existing Building Commissioning (EBCx)
Determine savings potential of EBCx in large buildings
Funding from State of Minnesota Department of Administration with additional funds from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Program Goals
Page 4
There are 1,276 buildings at 97 potential sites with 39.5 million sq ft
75% participated in PBEEEP
Reminder were already engaged in other programs
Site Selection and Recruitment
Page 5
The value proposition: Free study if you implement all measures
with a 3 year payback Original design used benchmark, utility
bills and application form to select sites Would have produced only about 10 sites
Site visits used to determine energy savings potential and get accurate information for investigation phase
The Screening Process
Page 6
CEE conducted the screening Saved time and money Standardized assessment Gave engineers good background on sites Created a relationship with the facility
Cost of $.01 per sq ft 2 people on-site for 1 day/average
The Screening Process
Page 7
HVAC attributes Pump and motor sizes
Building automation system Building area >100,000 sq ft at site Observations Hours of operation Whole building (site) energy use
EUI > 110 kbtu/ft2 and/or value relative to peers
The Screening Process: Selection Criteria
Page 8
Project Geographic
Distribution
Page 9
Trending and engineering calculations to create a financial grade report
Average investigation cost $62,000 370,000 sq ft was the average area 13% quality assurance cost 4% administrative cost
CEE provided assistance as needed Quality assurance reviews Training and calculation assistance
The Investigation Process
Page 10
Results: Energy Savings
Site Type
Area Investi-gated
# # of Bldgs
Building Area
Total Energy Savings
Median Low High
State University
60% 5 87 6,268,865 9.6% 2.1% 24%
Community College 50% 15 176 4,483,939 4.7% 0.2% 9.9%
State Prison 73% 7 100 3,195,200 5.7% 2.2% 15.3%Office Building 43% 6 6 1,525,822 5.8% 1.0% 15.2%
Other 66% 10 26 1,791,584 10.6% 1.3% 27.5%
Total 55% 43 395 17,265,410 7.3% 0.2% 27.5%
Page 11
Results: Energy Savings# Finding Type MMBTU
SavedMMBTU
Saved <3yrs
Payback (Years)
Savings (kBtu /ft2)
203 Scheduling 63,490 52,993 1.7 3.231 Over ventilation 11,183 8,416 2.6 4.85 Retrofit energy/ht recovery 8,181 1,137 8.7 13.1
32 Setpoints 7,530 6,724 0.8 2.93 Retrofit boilers 7,347 0 11.3 10.3
11 Other Controls 6,746 2,075 3.3 4.370 Lighting retrofit 6,669 265 7.3 1.5
These account for 79% of savings identified
Page 12
Results: Energy SavingsTotal Energy and Cost Savings (aggregate) Total
Electric Savings
Annual Savings (kWh) 17,824,466
Annual Cost Savings ($) $874,999
Peak Demand Savings
Annual Savings (kW) 1,051
Annual Cost Savings ($) $21,228
Gas Savings
Annual Savings (Therms) 766,805
Annual Cost Savings ($) $479,858
Other Energy Savings
Annual Savings (MMBtu) 9,122
Annual Cost Savings ($) $169,488
GHG reductions (US Tons) 19,007
Page 13
Project Phase Total Program Average ProjectScreening $260,489 $5,542
Investigation $3,304,358 $70,360Implementation $5,111,988 $108,768
Total Cost $8,676,835 $184,670Savings $1,545,672 $32,886Payback 5.6 years 5.6 yrs
Implementation Only Payback
3.3 years 3.3 yrs
Results: Program Payback
Page 14
Engagement with program drove energy savings (this is before implementation)
Results: Energy Savings just by Participating
Page 15
Deadlines work Early projects ran very long Quality assurance was a new experience for many Many providers did not take guidelines or training
seriously enough Providers missed opportunities to build client
relationships
Lessons Learned: Project Management
Page 16
EBCx industry (profession) needs –Training and Standards
Lessons Learned: Provider Competence
A (n=7) C (n=6) D (n=7) B (n=9) E (n=3) F (n=9) G (n=3)0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Project Savings By Provider
Perc
enta
ge S
ite E
nerg
y Sa
ving
s
Page 17
Benchmark performance was not a good predictor of energy savings potential by EBCx
Lessons Learned: Benchmarks for Site Selection
25% 45% 65% 85% 105% 125% 145% 165%0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%
R² = 0.000710506652781606
Actual EUI as % of Benchmark
% S
avin
gs F
ound
Page 18
EBCx can save at least 4% in large buildings
Facilities that are engaged save energy
EBCx industry needs standards and quality assurance
On-site screening is a cost effective way to select good buildings for full EBCx
Implications for Program and Policies
Page 19
Thank you for your interest.
Contact informationChris Plum MBA, PhD
Program ManagerState of Minnesota PBEEEP
Phone: (612) [email protected]
www.mncee.org
Questions