energy champ challenge - efficiency vermont champ challenge ... used game theory approach ... 4...
TRANSCRIPT
Energy Champ Challenge Lessons learned & what’s next?
February 4, 2016
Jeremy King (VGS)
Brian Reilly (BED)
Introduction
• What is the Energy Champ Challenge (ECC)?
Energy efficiency program
Launched Spring 2015
Targeting Burlington’s MF
Used game theory approach
End date: 12/31/2016
http://www.energychampbtv.com/
Introduction cont.
• Why did we create the Energy Champ Challenge?
Hard market to reach
Potential for energy savings
Access for renters to EEC funds
City of Burlington Climate Action Plan
SOV 2016 Comprehensive Energy Plan Goals
Benefits
• Whole building energy assessment
• Lower energy bills
• More comfortable homes
• Lower tenant turnover
• Increase asset value
• Improved durability
• Reduced maintenance
• TOS waived
Burlington’s MF Market • Approx. 2,000 MF’s in Burlington but…
Wide variance in the type of buildings, age, size etc.
Roughly 85% heat with NG
15 % heat with Propane/Oil or ESH
Building Type Total Finished (SF) No. of Buildings Sum of No. of Units
2 Family 2,145,347 1,041 2,091
3 Family 994,036 369 1,113
4 Family 750,787 239 966
Apartments 5+Units 3,790,116 367 4,477
Total 7,680,286 2,016 8,783
Burlington’s MF Market (cont’d) (Buildings with 5+ units)
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181 201 221 241 261 281 301 321 341 361
Fin
ish
ed
sf
x10
00
Dispersion of Finished Living Area
Building Count
City-wide market potential
• Assuming average results across the remaining 2 – 4 MF buildings, what would be the value of projects in the City and the savings that could be achieved? Potential Natural Gas Savings
Remaining 2-4 Unit MF Buildings 1,604
Average Annual Building Usage (CCF) 1,804
Total 2-4 MF Consumption @ 50% Market Share (CCF) 1,446,808
Average Reduction (CCF) 19%
Total Potential Reduction (CCF) 274,894
Potential Savings to Tenants $382,102
Average Project Cost $5,700
Value of Remaining Projects $4,571,400
Burlington’s MF buildings (cont’d) 1899 1960
Yr Built No. of Buildings
1899 or older 956
1900-1950 862
1951 -1980 128
1981-2015 76
Program Design
• Free energy audit and energy report
• Project management and inspection
• Up to 75% VGS incentive
• Up to 75% WX incentive from BED +DI
• GMCU (VGS)
• Lake Monsters ballgame – Sept. 2015
Program Flow
Program admin queries usage.
Data exchanged. Eligibility
confirmed.
Apt. Owner Calls into ECC Call
Center
No NG service
High kWh
BED walks thru property to
assess EE opp.
VGS walks thru property to assess EE
opp.
NG service
Low kWh
BED & VGS coordinatedelivery of
services
Med to High kWh at HSMTR and/or
tenant meter
Med to High Gas
usage
Program Qualifications
• In Burlington
• Multi-unit residential rental
• VGS
>50kBTu/sf/yr Gross
• BED
HSMTR > 1,500 kWh/yr (125kWh/mo)
Tenant meter > 4,200 kWh/yr (350kWh/mo)
Measures
• VGS Not especially focused on air-sealing, attic, wall and
basement insulation If it is cost-effective VGS can offer an incentive to
accomplish it
• BED LED DI DHW Advanced Power Strips Existing Programs WX of TEPF & ESH homes
Challenges
The program faces challenges from several sources:
Owners
Program Admin./Auditors
Contractors
Owners
• These are investment properties
• Utilities are a small percentage of operating costs: Mortgage $24,000
Taxes $8,000
Maintenance $3,000
Water and Sewer $1,100
Energy - NG $2,500
- Electric $1,375
Energy is only 10% of this building’s operating cost and often is not a cost bourn by landlords
Owners (cont’d)
• Owners are reluctant to permit audit for a number of reasons: Don’t want to disturb/ stir up tenants Don’t want building identified as inefficient or
substandard Afraid the auditor will find code violations and force
expenditure May not want to resolve health & safety or
maintenance issues, such as… K&T vermiculite, gas leaks, venting issues, moisture issues, etc.
Owners (cont’d)
• Owners may be reluctant to allow audit for a number of reasons: May be worried we will find other issues (not energy
related)…
Are wary of what will happen to the information or who we will share it with
Don’t want to take time our from their primary occupations
Are discouraged about how some tenants treat buildings
Program Admin./Auditors • Program has proven to be very time consuming up front for the
administrator Multiple parties to schedule lots of data entry
• Need permission from owner, not from tenants • Need access to the entire building • May require multiple operators for blower door tests • Audit may take considerably more time than single family • Opportunities are often not “standard” weatherization measures
Fuel switch DHW consolidation and conservation Drain Water Heat Recovery Ductwork upgrades Steam pipe insulation and air vent replacement Control upgrades/modification
Contractors
• Burlington is a difficult work environment Parking issues including sidewalk permits Other permits and ordinances More attention to lead-safe is required
• Difficult buildings Complex, multistory Old Health & safety issues interrupt process
• Difficult tenants Intolerant of disturbance Tenants often don’t care about energy bills
• Some contractors are refusing to work on multifamily buildings in Burlington
Case Studies
• VGS Only
2-4 Bradley St.
• BED Only
56 Wright Ave.
• VGS/BED
207 Archibald St.
147-153 Loomis St.
Case Study: VGS Only Project
2-4 Bradley St.
• VGS Only
• relatively low electric loads
• 107,000Btu/sf/yr
• Under contract
• $16,700 project
• 3.77yr. SPB
• May be additional 600CCF/year from furnace replacements
2-4 Bradley St.
• 6 units- tenants pay utilities
• 969CCF (30%) estimated shell savings
• 2 furnaces replaced 12/25 $400 rebate each
• May be 600CCF/year from 4 additional furnace replacements
2-4 Bradley St.
• Walls void of insulation
• Multiple blower doors required to test
• Estimated at 1.25CFM50/sf exposed surface area
56 Wright Ave.
• Completed as BED Only
• 3 Family, 1935, 1,066sf
• Initial meeting Owner,
VGS, BED, Paul Scheckel and VT Energy Cont. & Supply
• $5,825 WX Package
• Pre- $1,936/yr or 13,168 kWh ESH
3,040cfm@50Pa
• Post- $897/yr or 6,106 kWh ESH
1,440cfm@50pa
• 7,062 kWh reduction
Customer Options Matrix
Scenario A (1-Natural Gas Meter)
SPACE HEATING (SH) OPTIONS
OPTIONS :
Current
Annual
Space
Heating
(SH) Costs
Est. Space Heat
Installed Costs
BED SH
Incentive
VGS SH
Incentive
SH
Project
Cost after
incentives
SH Annual
Energy
Savings
VGS Annual
CS Charge
Net SH
Annual
Energy
Savings New SH Cost
% Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(yrs)
A. $1,975 $ 11,000 $ 2,000 $ 400 $ 8,600 $ 1,399 $ 241 $ 1,158 $ 817 59% 7.4
B. $1,975 $ 19,500 $ 2,000 $ 1,200 $ 16,300 $ 1,399 $ 241 $ 1,158 $ 817 59% 14.1
C. $1,975 $ 6,900 $ 2,000 $ - $ 4,900 $ 1,660 $ 241 $ 1,419 $ 556 72% 3.5
D. $1,975 $ 10,500 $ 3,497 $ - $ 7,004 $ 921 $ - $ 921 $ 1,054 47% 7.6
E. $1,975 $ 8,500 $ 2,831 $ - $ 5,670 $ 921 $ - $ 921 $ 1,054 47% 6.2
F. $1,975 $ 7,500 $ 5,625 $ - $1,875.0 $ 395 $ - $ 395 $ 1,580 20% 4.7
A. Single NG boiler with Indirect tank for DHW
B. Three separate integrated boilers for space heat and DHW
C. 3 Rinnia's and 3 NG DHW tanks (not rental tanks)
D. 3 Heat Pump's and 3 Heat Pump Water Heaters
E. 1 Multi-Head Heat Pump and 1 Heat Pump Water Heater
F. Weatherize the building and keep ESH and EDHW in place
Case Study: VGS and BED
207 Archibald St.
• VGS/BED
• Very High Utility Cost
• Existing natural gas usage too low to qualify on own gas alone.
Case Study: VGS and BED 207 Archibald St. Energy Comparison
VGS 67
54%
BED 57
46%
ENERGY COMPARISON (Million BTU)
VGS $764.4 24%
BED $2,479.1
76%
COST COMPARISON
• 673ccf OF NATURAL GAS = 30,000Btu/sf/yr
• 16,808 kWh ELECTRICTY (10,580 kWh SPACE HEAT)
Case Study: VGS and BED
Final outcomes: • Rinnai space heater eliminates 3442kWh of ESH (BED FS rebate) • VGS and BED split the cost of the shell upgrades based on the post fuel-switch space heating
ratio. • Project cost
WX $2715. VGS & BED split. FS - TBD
• Owner cost WX $675 40% of Total Cost up to $2k
• Tenant savings - $792/yr NG & kWh
Challenging project: • Lots of 3-way negotiation • Project depended on fuel switch • Questions about who does analysis and writes report
207 Archibald St. Result
38
Case Study: VGS and BED
147-153 Loomis St.
• VGS/BED
• 1st ECC Project
• Initiated from TOS
• Measures included: DHW
Basement WX
Dryer FS
Clothes Washer
Case Study: VGS and BED 147-153 Loomis St. Energy Comparison
Space Heat 2116 ccf
58%
Domestic Hot Water
1514 ccf 42%
Natural Gas End Use Comparison (ccf)
Case Study: VGS and BED
Impediment and Opportunity
• 9 water heaters some don’t draft well
$ 1104/yr in rental fees
• Condensing DWH $12,500- ($2,200 in rebates)
>1500CCF/yr for domestic hot water reduced to ~550CCF/year
$2187/yr savings in DHW
• Enabled $4000 shell upgrade saving $350/yr
147-153 Loomis St. Results
2015 ECC Results
No of Inquiries 96
Inquiries in Progress, incl proposals 86
No. of project (audits) proposals 47
Project completions 7
No. of Residential Units 345
No. of Commericial Units 16
Total Sq footage (heated) 271,926
Avg Sq footage of ECC participant
(total heated sq footage) 3,162
**Typical MF building is 3-4 units
ECC Projects and Actual Results
• Average savings, paybacks and IRR from the ‘customer’ perspective:
AVERAGES -> Measure Life
Total Project
Cost
Customer
Project Cost
% reduction
(CCFs)
Savings
($/yr)
Customer
Payback
(yrs) IRR
Proposed (n = 45) 22 $7,559 $1,993 19% $477 4 8.9%
Actual (n = 7) 22 $5,708 $1,428 20% $520 4 11.0%
• Wide range of results, however:
Total project costs range from $1,500 - $20,000
Owner project cost from $500 - $4,800
CCF reductions from 10% to 34%
ECC Projects Site EUI(kBtu/sf/yr)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
110+100 +90 +80 +70 +60 +50 +0 - 49
% o
f B
uild
ings
EUI (kBtu/sq/ft)
ECC Projects Site EUI(kBtu/sf/yr)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
EUI
(kB
tu/s
f/yr
)
EUI Distribution
(Total Energy Use)
Passive House Primary Energy (Site)
15.8kBtu/sf/yr
The Lessons Learned
• Pay careful attention to what is motivating the individual landlord
• Prioritize buildings Based on energy intensity and landlord motivation
• Do initial “walk-throughs” with landlord Identify issues that they may have to resolve before
we can recommend other measures: Especially beneficial for owners of multiple buildings
• Make it clear that they can call an end to an audit at any point and contact us after they have “cleared things up”
The Lessons Learned (cont’d)
• Don’t waste additional time on dead ends:
Landlords who…
Pull multiple no-shows
Fail to notify tenants or otherwise don’t make the building fully available
Or owners who don’t show interest in going forward
• Make sure that landlord knows that they are responsible for making building available for contractor