; CCC_AC meeting_020708_savings
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

CCC_AC meeting_020708_savings

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 47

  • pg 1
									California Commissioning Collaborative
       Advisory Council Meeting

              February 7, 2008




                                 ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Agenda
9:00 AM    Continental Breakfast

9:30 AM    Welcome, Introductions, and Announcements    Phil Welker, PECI

9:40 AM    CCC Program Updates                          CCC Staff
10:20 AM   CPUC Strategic Planning Update               Peter Turnbull, PG&E
10:50 AM   Break
11:05 AM   Evaluation Findings and Recommendations      Bing Tso, SBW
11:20 AM   Discussion of EM&V Issues
12:00 PM   Lunch
12:45 PM   Verification of Savings - Phase 2 Proposal   David Jump, QuEST
1:15 PM    PG&E Benchmarking Program                    Peter Turnbull, PG&E
                                                        Dave Walls, California Building Standards
1:45 PM    Green Building Standards: California Codes
                                                        Commission

2:30 PM    Demo: Universal Translator                   Reinhard Seidl, Taylor Engineering

3:15 PM    Wrap - Up                                    Phil Welker, PECI




                                                                                                          2
                                                                        ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Introductions & Announcements




                                                                  3
                                ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Strategic Planning Update

• December: Proposed budget for 2008-2011
   – Board of Directors review, discussion and vote


• January/February: Board approval of budget proposal
   – 2008 budget consistent with 2006 and 2007
   – 2009-2011 budget will ramp up to provide increased funding for
     policy and M&V initiatives




                                                                                        4
                                                      ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
                          Strategic Planning Update

2008 Budget
 Stakeholder      2008

 CEC            $50,000

 PIER          $150,000

 PG&E           $92,616

 SCE            $65,076

 SDG&E          $16,080

 SCG            $11,160

 SMUD           $25,000

 Total         $409,932




                                                                      5
                                    ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
                                            Strategic Planning Update

2009-2011 Budget
Stakeholder   2009       2010        2011         Total

CEC            $84,000   $112,000    $140,000      $336,000

PIER          $198,000   $264,000    $330,000      $792,000

PG&E          $132,000   $176,000    $220,000      $528,000

SCE           $102,000   $136,000    $170,000      $408,000

SDG&E          $42,000    $56,000     $70,000      $168,000

SoCal Gas      $24,000    $32,000     $40,000       $96,000

SMUD           $18,000    $24,000     $30,000       $72,000

Total         $600,000   $800,000   $1,000,000   $2,400,000



                                                                                         6
                                                       ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
CCC RCx Toolkit: Update and Follow-on Work

Hannah Friedman
PECI




                                                                   7
                                 ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
CCC RCx Toolkit – Brief Overview

Website launched RCx Toolkit on January 30
http://www.cacx.org/resources/rcxtools/

• Variable Flow Pumping System Workbook:
    – Reduce flow rate
    – Reduce differential pressure setpoint
    – Reset differential pressure setpoint

• Variable Flow Fan System Workbook:
    –   Reduce VAV box minimum flow setpoint
    –   Reduce duct static pressure setpoint
    –   Reset duct static pressure setpoint
    –   Reset supply air temperature (can also be applied to constant
        volume fan systems)

                                                                                           8
                                                         ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
CCC RCx Toolkit – Brief Overview

• Utility Consumption Analysis Tool
   – Input monthly bills to determine average daily use in calendar
     month
   – Prorates and interpolates energy use when utility bills do not
     coincide with a single calendar month, as is most often the case
   – Allows a user to input other comparison data, such as degree-
     days




                                                                                        9
                                                      ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
CCC RCx Toolkit – Brief Overview

• Findings Workbook
  – Helps track and report RCx investigation and implementation
    activities
  – Automates the creation of tables for reporting
  – Allows measures not selected for implementation to be
    automatically filtered from reports
  – Facilitates the estimation of cost savings with embedded
    California rate tariffs
  – Includes drop-down categories to group RCx findings




                                                                                   10
                                                   ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Funding Process for Follow-on Work

• CCC Cx R&D Task 4
  (CCC’s contract with CEC, managed by PECI): $90k
   – Gather Advisory Council comments
   – Incorporate comments into planning
   – Proceed to Work Authorization process; gain approval from CEC
     Commissioners


• PIER 2008 tools funding: ~$150k
   – Amendment to existing PIER/CCC contract, adding funds to
     specific tasks



                                                                                    11
                                                   ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Planning for PIER-funded Follow-on Work

Cost      Task                                      Process for Delivery

CCC Cx R&D Task 4: $90k
                                                    CCC staff manages pilot process, sub to
$40k      RCx calc tools pilot test and revisions   QuEST for tool revisions
                                                    CCC issues RFP for RCx tools work
$25k      Additional RCx calculation tools          (contract managed by CCC staff)
                                                    Sub to QuEST and PG&E Energy
$25k      Guide for Verification of Savings         Services

PIER 2008 tools funding: ~$150k
                                                    CCC issues RFP for RCx tools work,
~$75k     Additional RCx calculation tools          (contract managed by CCC staff)
                                                    CCC issues RFP for RCx tools work
~$75k     Tools supporting savings verification     (contract managed by CCC staff)



                                                                                                           12
                                                                           ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Additional RCx Calculation Tools

• Potential areas for RCx tool development
   – Correlation tool: defining an accurate relationship between two
     variables, for use in energy savings calculations (bin-type)
       • i.e., Using trend data, automated correlation of airflow to outside air
         temp, filtering out hours when AHU is off
       • Not included in existing tools
   – Calcs for additional common measures
   – Calcs for additional findings with most common calculation errors
   – Other? CCC’s RFP will be open to proposed tools




                                                                                              13
                                                              ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Verification of Savings Tools

• Scope of RFP
   – To be determined once VoS Guideline is under development and
     extent of funding is determined
• Scope likely to include:
   – Simple tools to streamline savings verification for common
     measures; must be immediately usable and practical




                                                                                     14
                                                     ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
CPUC Strategic Planning Update

Peter Turnbull
PG&E




                                                                 15
                                 ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Break

10:50 – 11:05




                                                16
                ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Evaluating Savings from California
Retrocommissioning Programs
Bing Tso, P.E.
Sr. Project Manager, SBW Consulting, Inc.




                                                                            17
                                            ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Background

•   SBW involved in California program implementation and evaluation since
    early 1990s
•   Past RCx evaluations
     – 2002-3 Oakland Energy Partners Tune-Up
     – 2004-5 QuEST Building Tune-Up
     – 2004-5 UC/CSU/IOU Partnership (MBCx)
•   Current RCx evaluations (2006-8 programs)
     – RCx evaluation contract group (10 programs)
     – Partnerships contract group (RCx projects)
     – Persistence study (revisit past evaluated projects)




                                                                                             18
                                                             ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Past evaluation overview

 •   Combined, 36 large commercial facilities, with hundreds of measures.
 •   Measure savings range: 200 – 1.4 million kWh/year.
 •   Sampling schemes tailored to programs:
      – Stratified sample of measures
      – Random sample of projects, variable analysis rigor for measures
      – Random sample of projects, all measures analyzed at same rigor level




                                                                                                19
                                                                ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Cx impact evaluation at a glance
•   Baseline data collection (implementer + evaluator as
    needed)
•   Post-implementation data collection (evaluator)
•   Techniques:
     –   Short-term metering / trend logs
     –   One-time measurements
     –   Customer records
     –   On-site interviews and observations
•   Predominantly IPMVP Option B
     –   Analysis rigor commensurate with savings size and
         uncertainty
     –   Flexibility necessary




                                                                                             20
                                                             ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
          10 things to keep in mind
•    Ultimate goal: optimize precision of savings estimates within fixed
     budget
•    Apply judgment to balance many factors:
    1.     Project size in program
    2.     # of Cx measures in project
    3.     % of project savings each measure represents
    4.     Analysis difficulty / uncertainty
    5.     Baseline data quality
    6.     Data availability
    7.     Installation probability
    8.     Customer tolerance
    9.     Ongoing changes to affected systems
    10.    Evaluation budget for project




                                                                                              21
                                                              ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Evaluated results: gross first-year savings




                                                                      22
                                      ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Projected savings persistence
•   5.7 - 7.2 year evaluated Effective Useful Life, vs. 8.0 years ex ante
•   Based on assumed measure lives, augmented with evaluation field
    information




                                    100%
         % of first-year saving s




                                    80%
                                                                                                                         OEP kWh
                                    60%                                                                                  OEP therm
                                                                                                                         BTU kWh
                                    40%                                                                                  BTU therm


                                    20%


                                     0%
                                           1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
                                                                   Years after im plem entation

                                                                                                                                                  23
                                                                                                                  ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
What did we learn?
•   Flexibility and cooperation between implementer and evaluator can lead
    to successful, well-verified program.
•   “Commissioning the retrocommissioning” can help realize savings.
•   Diligent M&V throughout program improves savings estimation:
     – Capture baseline conditions thoroughly
     – Use best possible measurements and assumptions to estimate savings
     – Take post measurements to verify performance and savings
•   More work needed to see if savings last, and if not, how to make them
    last.




                                                                                               24
                                                               ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Program M&V versus Evaluation M&V

•   Measurement approach for EM&V may not be the same as that needed for
    program activities.
•   Program measurements geared towards helping customers make
    decisions.
•   For a sampled EM&V site, we must maximize precision of that site’s savings
    estimate.
•   Program may be unable to afford the EM&V standard for all sites. Their
    techniques may be rougher, but as long as they are unbiased, overall
    results should be OK.




                                                                                             25
                                                             ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
        Looking ahead
•       2006-08 Retrocommissioning program portfolio

                                                                                         Sample Points per..
                                                                    Projected N           Million $ of
        ID    Program Name                                          of Projects Sample N   Budget      000 MMBTU
PGE2056       Monitoring-Based Persistence Commissioning                   13          6                3.70              0.25
PGE2070       Data Centers                                                 12          5                2.78              0.27
PGE2071       Hospitality Energy Efficiency Program                        15          6                2.16              0.18
PGE2072       Hospitals Pilot                                              12          5                2.13              0.11
PGE2090       Airflow/Fume Hood Control Re-Commissioning                   37         10                3.17              0.10
PGE2091       Retrocommissioning Services and Incentives Program           66         13                1.65              0.11
PGE2094       Macy’s Comprehensive Energy Management                        9          5                1.94              0.13
SCE2508       Retro-commissioning                                         182         19                1.63              0.14
SCG3528       Retro-commissioning Partnership with SCE                      7          5              34.01               0.69
SDGE3027      Retro-commissioning Program                                  28         10               3.14               0.17
                                                            Total         382         84               2.26               0.15
                                                      General RCx         283        47                 2.06              0.15
    •    $2.6 million evaluation budget            All PG&E       164       50                          2.26              0.13
    •    Plus evaluation of RCx activities in various 2006-08 Partnership programs

                                                                                                                      26
                                                                                      ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Data collection and analysis methods
•   Gross savings
     – Site-specific M&V plans for all sampled projects
     – Baseline and post data collection
          • data from customer controls systems
          • inspections
          • special metering by evaluation team
     – Site-, system-, & measure-specific engineering models used to estimate
       savings
     – Indirect measures (i.e., suggested by program, implemented by customer,
       but not paid for by the program)
     – Spillover measures (i.e., implemented by the customer because of what
       program taught them, but not specifically recommended by the program)
•   Net savings (accounts for freeridership)
     – Analysis of all completed projects
     – 3 analysis levels, depending on ex ante savings




                                                                                                 27
                                                                 ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Plan elements




                                     28
     ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Evaluation Milestones
•   Final evaluation plan            Feb 23, 2008

•   Sample selection, detailed data collection (pre/post) and analysis
                  Mar - Dec 2008

•   Further data collection (post only) and analysis
                             Jan – Oct 2009

•   Draft evaluation report          Nov 16, 2009

•   Final evaluation report          Feb 1, 2010




                                                                                               29
                                                               ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Discussion Topics

• Implementation and Evaluation Overlap
    – Data collection is done by both – potential for sharing this effort?


• Measure Life
    – Key issues
    – Research needs


• Interactive Effects / Net Impact
    – Current derating factors – too conservative? Not conservative enough?


• CCC Role
    – Research, demonstration, working groups?


                                                                                               30
                                                               ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Lunch

12:00 – 12:45




                                                31
                ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Status Report: Verification of Savings

David Jump
QuEST




                                                                     32
                                     ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Status

Phase I Task                         Deliverable

Document St akeholder Object ives    Def init ion of Object ives Report
Develop Cat egorizat ion Framework
                                     Exist ing Met hods Report
Document Exist ing Met hods
Develop Evaluat ion Framework        Evaluat ion Framework Document




                                                                                             33
                                                             ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Major Findings – Phase I

• Significant risk to RCx programs continuance if
  evaluation returns poor realization rates & poor program
  cost effectiveness
• Stakeholders desire for RCx programs to continue
• Ex-ante savings estimates subject to multiple sources of
  error
• Savings may not persistence due to lack of feedback
• Program best practices recommend M&V, though few
  use it
• Evaluation protocols require M&V, but often lack access
  to baseline data

                                                                             34
                                             ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
TAG & Advisory Committee Feedback

• Need for understanding M&V and data requirements that
  address RCx projects and programs
• Desire to have practical and uniform guidance among all
  California utilities
• Need for means verifying savings persistence, esp. first
  year
• Need to establish appropriate M&V guidance ahead of
  the solicitations for the next program funding cycle
  (preferred by June 2008)
• Desire to get feedback and buy-in from program
  evaluators


                                                                             35
                                             ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Phase II – Proposed Changes
                               Level of                                         Level of
 Current Phase II Tasks         Effort Proposed Phase II Tasks                   Effort

 Revise Phase I Deliverables     5%    Revise Phase I Delivarables                  5%

 New Methods Proposal           15%    Develop Practical Option                    25%
 Final Evaluation and                  B/Option C M&V Guideline for
 Categorization                 10%    RCx Projects
 Develop Research Policy               Develop Research Policy
 Roadmap                        15%    Roadmap                                      5%

 Create and Implement a         10%    Create and Implement a                      20%
 Dissemination Plan                    Dissemination Plan




                                                                                             36
                                                             ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Additional VoS Scope Items

1.       Add a Technical Project Manager ($5K)
     –     Oversee projects
     –     Facilitate TAG meetings, coordinate reviewers
2.       Add 3 paid reviewers ($7.5K)
     –     Obtain quality assurance and input on guidelines from
           experienced stakeholders




                                                                                           37
                                                           ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Guideline
•   Specific Option B / Option C method
•   Purpose
•   General Overview of M&V
•   How to assess goals and resources to select M&V method
•   M&V Plan and M&V Requirements
•   Specifying the data requirements
•   Describing baseline model development
•   Describing post-installation M&V activities
•   Calculating and reporting savings
•   Uncertainty requirements
•   Common issues
•   Reporting savings
•   Additional Content:
    – Examples of key concepts
    – Example M&V plan and savings report

                                                                                    38
                                                    ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Research Policy Roadmap (a report)
• Pilot and testing phase to provide feedback on the
  guideline and ways to improve it,
• Development of other verification guidelines (adherent
  and not adherent to IPMVP),
• Evaluation and categorization of other known methods to
  understand applicability of methods in various situations
  under different objectives,
• Validation of methods with project and program data and
  examples of actual implementation,
• Development of case studies of projects utilizing the
  guideline through Utility and Third Party Programs, and
  CEC Emerging Technology projects,
• Identification of tools and resources that facilitate
  inclusion of M&V in RCx projects, such as template M&V
  plans, forms, worksheets, and reports.
                                                                             39
                                             ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Dissemination Plan

• Review and inclusion in professional organization
  publications
   – Efficiency Valuation Organization Website
   – ASHRAE Guideline 14, TC 4.7, TC 7.6, Guideline 30P (Cx Gude
     for Existing Buildings)
• Papers presented at ASHRAE, NCBC
• Two training sessions (N and S Cal):
   – Providers (to implement)
   – Program managers (to manage)
   – Other interested parties




                                                                                 40
                                                 ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Future Activities Recommended
• RCx/M&V Guideline additional resources:
   – M&V Plan templates and savings reports (est. $8K for Option
     B/Option C methods)
• Case Studies of Option B / Option C M&V
• Develop Additional Guidelines
   – Methods adherent to IPMVP, e.g.
      • Option A – measurement of key parameters
      • Option D – calibrated simulation
   – Methods not adherent to IPMVP, e.g.
      • Benchmarking
      • Calculation and inspection/performance
        verification
      • Ex-post savings estimation
                                                                                    41
                                                    ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
PG&E Benchmarking Program

Peter Turnbull
PG&E




                                                            42
                            ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Green Building Standards: California Codes

Dave Walls
California Building Standards Commission




                                                                           43
                                           ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Universal Translator

Reinhard Seidl
Taylor Engineering




                                                       44
                       ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Future Agenda Topics – April 21

• Topics of Interest
   – Special Guests?
   – Other Ideas?
• Discussion:
   – Ideas?




                                                                  45
                                  ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
2008 Meeting Dates

•   April 21 – Monday, coincides with NCBC, Newport Beach
•   June 12 – Thursday
•   August 28 – Thursday
•   November 6 – Thursday




                                                                            46
                                            ©California   Commissioning Collaborative
Adjourn

Thanks to SMUD for hosting today!




                                                            47
                            ©California   Commissioning Collaborative

								
To top