results of minnesota’s pbeeep

19
Results of Minnesota’s Public Buildings Enhanced Energy Efficiency Program (PBEEEP) ACEEE Summer Study August 16, 2012 Christopher Plum Mark Hancock Christie Traczyk Center for Energy and Environment 212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560 Minneapolis, MN 55401

Upload: center-for-energy-and-environments-innovation-exchange

Post on 16-Nov-2014

683 views

Category:

Technology


3 download

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

Page 1: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

Page 8

Project Geographic

Distribution

Page 9: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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 of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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 of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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 of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

Page 14

Engagement with program drove energy savings (this is before implementation)

Results: Energy Savings just by Participating

Page 15: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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: Results of Minnesota’s PBEEEP

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