california commissioning collaborative advisory council meeting february 7, 2008 © california...

California Commissioning CollaborativeAdvisory Council Meeting

February 7, 2008

©California Commissioning Collaborative

2


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

1:45 PM Green Building Standards: California CodesDave Walls, California Building Standards Commission

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

3:15 PM Wrap - Up Phil Welker, PECI

3


Introductions & Announcements

4


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

5


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

6


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

7


CCC RCx Toolkit: Update and Follow-on Work

Hannah Friedman

PECI

8


CCC RCx Toolkit – Brief Overview

Website launched RCx Toolkit on January 30http://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)

9



• 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

10



• 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

11


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

12


Planning for PIER-funded Follow-on Work

Cost Task Process for Delivery

CCC Cx R&D Task 4: $90k

$40k RCx calc tools pilot test and revisionsCCC staff manages pilot process, sub toQuEST for tool revisions

$25k Additional RCx calculation toolsCCC issues RFP for RCx tools work (contract managed by CCC staff)

$25k Guide for Verification of SavingsSub to QuEST and PG&E EnergyServices

PIER 2008 tools funding: ~$150k

~$75k Additional RCx calculation toolsCCC issues RFP for RCx tools work,(contract managed by CCC staff)

~$75k Tools supporting savings verificationCCC issues RFP for RCx tools work (contract managed by CCC staff)

13


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

14


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

15


CPUC Strategic Planning Update

Peter Turnbull

PG&E

16


Break

10:50 – 11:05

17


Evaluating Savings from California Retrocommissioning Programs

Bing Tso, P.E.

Sr. Project Manager, SBW Consulting, Inc.

18


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)

19


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

20


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

21


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

22


Evaluated results: gross first-year savings

23


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

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Years after implementation

% o

f fi

rst-

year

sav

ing

s

OEP kWh

OEP therm

BTU kWh

BTU therm

24


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.

25


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.

26


Looking ahead

Sample Points per..

ID Program NameMillion $ of

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

Projected N of Projects Sample N

• $2.6 million evaluation budget• Plus evaluation of RCx activities in various 2006-08 Partnership programs

• 2006-08 Retrocommissioning program portfolio

27


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

28


Plan elements

29


Evaluation Milestones

• Final evaluation plan Feb 23, 2008

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

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

• Draft evaluation report Nov 16, 2009

• Final evaluation report Feb 1, 2010

30


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?

31


Lunch

12:00 – 12:45

32


Status Report: Verification of Savings

David Jump

QuEST

33


Status

Phase I Task Deliverable

Document Stakeholder Objectives Definition of Objectives Report

Develop Categorization Framework

Document Existing Methods

Develop Evaluation Framework Evaluation Framework Document

Existing Methods Report

34


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

35


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

36


Phase II – Proposed Changes

Current Phase II TasksLevel of

Effort Proposed Phase II TasksLevel of

Effort

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

New Methods Proposal 15%Final Evaluation and Categorization 10%Develop Research Policy Roadmap 15%

Develop Research Policy Roadmap 5%

Develop Practical Option B/Option C M&V Guideline for RCx Projects

25%

Create and Implement a Dissemination Plan

Create and Implement a Dissemination Plan

10% 20%

37


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

38


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

39


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.

40


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

41


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

42


PG&E Benchmarking Program

Peter Turnbull

PG&E

43


Green Building Standards: California Codes

Dave Walls

California Building Standards Commission

44


Universal Translator

Reinhard Seidl

Taylor Engineering

45


Future Agenda Topics – April 21

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

• Discussion:– Ideas?

46


2008 Meeting Dates

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

47


Adjourn

Thanks to SMUD for hosting today!

california commissioning collaborative advisory council meeting february 7, 2008 © california...

Documents