1

Tom ArnoldVice President,Energy Efficiency & Carbon Solutions

Cost Savings from Operational Energy Efficiency: A Case Study from WCSU

2

EnerNOC Overview

•

Demand Response

–

Over 3,000 MW of demand response capacity from over 5,000 customer sites. Full service solutions provider with many flexible programs that bridge Utility and Grid Operator needs with C&I Customer capabilities

•

Operational Energy efficiency –

Monitoring Based Commissioning (MBCx) –

Real time energy visibility for the enterprise •

Energy Procurement Services

and peak billing management•

Significant resources–

Human capital –

Deep management team experience in energy and technology management –

over 350 employees–

Financial –

Strong balance sheet and impressive financial track record; publicly traded on the U.S. NASDAQ (ENOC) as of May 18, 2007.

Founded in 2001, EnerNOC provides energy solutions that save money, reduce energy usage, and mitigate energy risk. Our customers save 10-20% off their annual energy spend.

2

3

4

“Less than 5% of commercial buildings in the US are actually commissioned after construction.”

-

BCS Partners

You’ve Probably Heard All This Before…

“Closing our ‘national electric productivity gap’

could curtail up to 30% of our power consumption.”

-

Rocky Mountain Institute

“The average commercial building uses 26% more energy than needed.”

-

DOE / Energy Star

5

Common Barriers We Hear From Clients

•

Resources & Workflow–

Inadequate resources

to continuously watch over energy usage–

Time and performance management are focused on reactive maintenance calls– No organized workflow

focused on Energy Efficiency

•

Technology–

Metering and Building Management Systems not integrated–

No data to view and analyze all of energy cost drivers–

Long feedback cycle

from changes to measurable/viewable results

•

Business Model–

Lack of capital to invest in upfront capex

projects, even at controls levels–

But, limited success and trust of the Performance Contracting

model

We hear (and are focused on solving) the following barriers to operational energy efficiency at C&I sites:

5

66

Beta Case Study –

Western Connecticut State University

•

Two campuses, with 25 buildings:

•

Buildings include 283,000 square feet–Academic (classroom)

Buildings–Library–Student Center–Admin Building

WCSU spends over $2m/year on energy. They were initially skeptical that significant savings could be achieved through MBCx but were open

to trying it.

7

Savings from the Approach: WCSU

•

Energy Costs: CT energy prices spiked by 40% in 2006, busting the budget.

•

Scope:

Two campuses with 25 buildings for a total of 283,000 square feet.

Ideal Opportunity for Monitoring-Based Commissioning

WCSU faced common energy management challenges, all of which were budget-busting.

•

Lack of Visibility:

No site-specific reporting of energy use/profile to perform building-to-building or year-to-year comparisons.

•

Lack of Integration: Disparate systems monitoring building energy usage, no integrated platform.

•

Lack of Support:

University understaffed, so a “detailed evaluation”

of the BMS not a priority. Shrinking budget, capital expenditures hard to justify.

8

What is EnerNOC MBCx?•

MBCx combines advanced metering technology

with sophisticated analysis software to provide actionable insights.

•

MBCx seamlessly integrates data from disparate energy management

systems and provides a clear window into overall energy use.

•

Advanced filtering technology

processes energy-related data to identify potential opportunities for efficiency.

•

MBCx energy analysts review data to provide a set of clear and actionable recommendations

helping reduce energy consumption, prioritize maintenance issues and enhance occupant comfort.

Facilities Recommendations

CustomerEnergy Scorecard &Recommendations

9

MBCx Goes Beyond Retro-CommissioningUnlike retro-commissioning, which heavily depends on a ‘boots-on-the-ground’

approach, MBCx focuses on technological innovation to generate value.

Retro-Commissioning EnerNOCMBCx

Energy Savings One-time effortNo M&V beyond Commissioning

Constant CommissioningIntegrated M&V

Operational Impact Popped tiles, sensors, dirty boots One time walkthrough and

audit, then all remote

Data Set Temporary Samples Permanent & Exhaustive

Economics Upfront investmentOnly high priority “problem”

buildings are addressed

Monthly Fee Shared savings pricing means covers entire facilities

Energy Visibility NoneIntegration with meter data, full campus visibility for workflow prioritization

10

11

Action Recommended: Enable auto-control. This unit was habitually overridden, but from continuous monitoring, each incidence was caught with minimal loss in energy savings. As a result of this measure new protocols were established for requesting off-hours usage to further limit this issue from re-occurring.

In this example, the change in schedule represents an annual savings of $21,000 and 102-Metric Tons of CO2

avoidance.

Savings Category: No Cost

Facility managers often don’t have the time to identify maintenance issues like equipment operating during off-hours. Increased costs are an undetected result.

Examples –

Air Handling Schedules

12

Continuous application of commissioning assures permanence, higher savings

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

Time

Nor

mal

ized

Ene

rgy

Usa

ge

Monitoring-Based Comissioning (MBCx)

Traditional, periodic recomissioning

Recomissioning(without MBCx)

LostOpportunity

13

Commissioning getting national policy attention

“You can imagine real time commissioning in the same sense that a microprocessor is constantly tuning a

modern engine. It notices what the temperature of the engine is, the

temperature of the air, and its constantly tuning up…”

“Just like your garage mechanic can’t tune your car anymore.. its ok, you

take it in, the computers talk to each other and everybody’s happy”

-Steven ChuCompton Lecture at MIT, May 13,

2009

14

15

Action Recommended: Reprogram the chiller controls to reset the supply temperature

up in order to maintain the highest ΔT between the supply and the return chilled water temperatures.

In this example, the change in control strategy, to factor in varying occupancy throughout the year represents an annual savings (occurring over three months) of $4,500 and 21-mTons of CO2

avoidance. 0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

0% 10% 20% 30% 39% 49% 59% 69% 79% 88% 98%

% of Run-Hours in the Month

Chill

ed W

ater

ΔT

Savings Category: No Cost

A chiller will often show the ΔT of supply and return to be, at best, 6ºF and on average 3ºF. Optimizing ΔT for varying occupancy creates significant efficiencies.

Examples –

Chilled Water Reset

16

EnerNOC Deliverables –

Filters

Global Fault Detection & Tracking

Set-point Error Tracking Sensor range checking Operating parameter out of range Pinned or flat-lined sensor Actual vs. Intended Schedule Analysis Equipment Manual Override Detection

Terminal Units

Variable Air Volume AnalysisZone ReheatVAV Box Damper ModulationExcessive Cycling Analysis

Zones

Set-point Analysis Heating Setback Cooling Set-forward Air Starvation Analysis Zone Comfort Analysis Indoor Air Quality Analysis

Cooling Plant

Chiller Performance analysis -

kW/Ton Optimum Chilled Water Supply Temperature Optimum StagingOptimum Condenser Water Supply TemperatureCooling Tower Fan Efficiency Low/High Temperature Differential Analysis Optimum Flow analysis Optimum Pump Utilization Optimum Thermal Storage Utilization

Air Handling Units

Economizer Operation Simultaneous Heating and Cooling Excessive or inadequate ventilation Demand Ventilation Air starvation Static pressure analysis Heating/Cooling Coil Efficiency Leaking Valve Optimum Start/Stop Analysis Air Filter Analysis-

Dirty Filter

Heating Plant

Boiler Sequencing Optimization Boiler Combustion Controls Boiler Economizer Boiler Combustion Efficiency Boiler Burners Performance Boiler BlowdownLow/High Temperature Differential Analysis Boiler Efficiency Optimum Pump Utilization

We continuously collect and store data on a five minute basis, filter the data using proprietary technology, and serve it to our energy analysts for assessment.

17

Scale and Nature of Operating EE Problem

•

75 B sq ft Commercial Space, 2.5M buildings above 5K sq ft

•

A few to 50 thousands points per building•

5 minute interval data

•

Hundreds of Filters

~ 2x1013 RecordsA computing problem,

not a human discovery problem

18

19

EnerNOC Deliverables –

MBCx ScorecardOpportunities are summarized in a monthly report that lets your team focus on the highest value opportunities that fit into your capital budgeting

process.

20

21

22

23

24

What MBCx can save

•

In first 12 months WCSU identified over $275,000

in annualized energy savings –

13% of annual spend. Currently at 18%.

•

In first 12 months WCSU implemented measures with an actual M&V’d

savings of nearly $110,000

with an annual run rate of $170,000 –

8% of annual spend.•

To date, WCSU has saved nearly 200K therms

and 900 MWh

since the inception of the agreement.

MBCx Operational Cost Savings - All Fuels

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

Mar

ch 0

7

April

07

May

07

June

07

July

07

Aug

07

Sept

07

Oct

07

Nov

07

Dec

07

Jan

08

Feb

08

Ope

ratio

nal C

ost S

avin

gs

Cumulative Implementation Rate: 62%

•

WCSU was recognized for this effort in an award for best energy management project from the New England chapter of the Association of Energy Engineers.

•

There was no capital outlay on the part of WCSU –

services were paid through deductions from Demand Response payments.

25

Tom ArnoldVice President,Energy Efficiency & Carbon Solutions

tarnold@enernoc.com