retro commissioning evaluation in massachusetts nstar ......questions related to specific materials,...
TRANSCRIPT
Retro‐Commissioning Evaluation in Massachusetts –NSTAR Perspectives
Erik C. Mellen, Senior Research Analyst – Northeast Utilities
AIA Quality Assurance
The Building Commissioning Association is a Registered Provider with The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems (AIA/CES). Credit(s) earned on completion of this program will be reported to AIA/CES for AIA members. Certificates of the Completion for both AIA members and non-AIA members are available upon request.
This program is registered with AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product.
Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.
2
3
Evaluation of Utility EBCx Programs
At the end of this session participants will be able to:
1. Compare EBCx programs in participants’ regions using actual savings data from top performing programs
2. Evaluate the effect of commissioning services, program costs and customer incentives that vary from program to program
3. Identify programs with higher than average energy savings and lower than average program costs.
4. Determine how certain program features may be contributing to high program savings and low program costs.
Session Learning Objectives
4
At the end of this presentation participants will be able to:
• Understand Massachusetts utilities’ evaluation involvement in RCx
• Understand how well Massachusetts RCx projects have performed, lessons learned from other evaluations and recommendations
Presentation Learning Objectives
5
Overview / Agenda
•Summary of RCx Activity in Massachusetts
•Evaluation Activity in Massachusetts & Connecticut
•Evaluation Results and Problem Areas
•Lessons Learned and Implementing Them
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000
160,000,000
180,000,000
200,000,000
RCx (kWh)
C&I Retrofit(Total kWh)
6
NSTAR RCx Savings – It’s peanuts….for now
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000
160,000,000
180,000,000
200,000,000
2013E
Compressed Air
Refrigeration
Process
RCx
VSD
CHP
HVAC
Lighting
RCx = 0.5% ‐ 2.5%
7
Implications for Evaluation in Massachusetts?
Evaluation priorities generally a function of savings weight
• Small Savings = low probability of focused evaluation• However, projects captured in sample of “Custom” HVAC evaluations
• 2010 Custom HVAC Impact Evaluation (DNV GL)
• 2012 Custom HVAC Impact Evaluation (DNV GL, ongoing)
NU peers in CT have taken a focused, census approach to evaluation
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Office (1 Site) Manufacturing(1 Site)
School (1 Site)
Realization Rate(Massachusetts, 2010)
8
Commercial & Industrial Evaluation Process ‐MA & CT
Initial Population Analysis – examination of population, project stratification is conducted and sample is drawn
Site Plans & Outreach – application materials reviewed, site plans worked up and site outreach initiated
Onsite Walkthroughs – observation of operating conditions, discussions with site personnel and installation of power loggers
Metered Data Analysis – power loggers retrieved, final conversations with site staff had and initial data analysis begins
Presentation Of Results – individual site reports are presented and overall impact evaluation report finalized and presented
9
Evaluation of RCx in CL&P Operations ‐ Electric
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17
Forecasted Sample (kWh)
Metered Sample (kWh)
Realization Rate
Some trending around 70%
Additional trending around 40%
10
Evaluation of RCx in CL&P Operations ‐ Gas
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
S1 S2 S3 S4
Forecasted Sample (CCF) Metered Sample (CCF) Realization Rate
•Larger sites seem to show some trending
•However, large site sample points exhibit correlation biases
•Additional data points needed to draw conclusions
11
CL&P Segment Results – Electric
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
Schools (10 Sites) Offices (6 Sites) Medical (1 Site)
Forecasted Sample (kWh)
Metered Sample (kWh)
Realization Rate
12
CL&P Segment Results – Gas
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Schools (4 Sites)
Forecasted Sample (CCF)
Metered Sample (CCF)
Realization Rate
13
Feedback From Evaluators – What’s the Problem?
Documentation• Errors consistently observed• Impact = Minor
Installed Quantities• Differences between scoped and evaluated quantities exist in a few instances
• Impact = Minor
Operations• Discrepancies between scoped and evaluated frequently observed
• Impact = MAJOR!!!!
Biggest problem for RCx projects
14
Operational Issues – Specific Onsite Observations
“The measures are no longer functioning or not functioning as designed.”
“Equipment (turned) off was brought back online.”
“Some lighting controls not implemented, and AHU schedules not fully implemented.”
“The user would need to switch over the schedule manually. Based on the data collected, this manual switch‐over has not occurred.”
15
Operations Effect On Savings Persistence–It’s Not GreatBehavioral Issues
•Many installations necessitate the customer manage the equipment properly, but as previously indicated, in many instances they aren’t•No matter how well savings are estimated, customer behavior dictates performance for installations involving hands on management and influences evaluated realization rates
Suggestions?•Customers need to have some “skin in the game,” or have their own interests aligned with the utilities’ interests•To a certain extent, utilities need to hedge their exposure to this behavioral risk until the situation improves
16
Implementing Lessons Learned in Massachusetts
Aligning Customer Interests With Utility Interests• Requirement for continuous monitoring helps ensure projects are well
managed• “Pay for performance” incentivizes customers to manage RCx
measures well
Hedging Our Exposure• Projects receive short measure lives to account for lower savings
persistence, 3 years• In comparison to other commercial & industrial efficiency incentives,
RCx receives a lower incentive, $0.07/kWh
Looking Forward• Ongoing study of RCx “best practices” is being conducted with results
anticipated soon• Possible training programs to educate customers on use of equipment
/ installations
