Talisen Technologies Enterprise Sustainability Platform Case Study: State of Missouri

Transcription

1 Talisen Technologies Enterprise Sustainability Platform Case Study: State of Missouri Dave Mosby, Senior Consultant, Talisen Technologies Former Director of the State of Missouri Facilities Management, Design and Construction Government Solutions Forum February 24, 2010 Washington, DC

2 Enterprise Sustainability Platform (ESP) Building Blocks of the Enterprise Sustainability Solution

3 ESP Data / Business Intelligence / Flow Multiple Data sources are leveraged in a distributed data environment This is the fuel to drive the data through into cloud computing and continuous data commissioning. Leading to action the action is what leads to savings.

4 At an Executive Level ESP provides: Visibility - a window into utility, energy, operating & stimulus programs Transparency data availability to all with the click of a mouse Accountability independent measurement & verification managed by internal State staff

5 Global Access Facilities Portal (GAFP) The Global Access Portal gives controlled access and security to a full system of applications for the total management of the State s portfolio of facilities. Single Sign-On limits the confusion of multiple passwords. Utility Bill Management Enterprise Energy Management Computer Aided Facilities Management Business Process Management Energy WIKI Vendor Portal Steam Star VFA

6 The ESP is monitored from the Talisen Network Operations Center (NOC) 24 hours a day / 7 days a week with full visibility of platform status and any issues state-wide. Enterprise System Monitoring

7 Vendor Portal /Facilities Communication Infrastructure The Vendor Portal is the State s portal access to the building automation systems (BAS) at individual monitored sites. Enforcement of site restrictions for: Windows RDP IP or DNS name restriction PuTTy (all protocols)

8 Utility Bill Management (UBM) Utility Bill Management gives executives and building managers access to the necessary data, at all levels of detail, to properly manage and maintain their buildings in the most energy efficient manner possible.

9 Keeping-Up with the Portfolio ESP rolls-up total expenditures, consumption by commodities over a selected time frame answering the question how much did we spend and how much did we consume. The Portfolio Analysis Dashboard views baseline, or current utility cost/consumption for a set of facilities to determine where a specific building ranks with respect to others. User may select utility type, comparison metrics and weather normalized or raw data.

10 Facilities Information: Space and Maintenance The Space Dashboard allows visibility into what square footage allocation to specific areas, departments, or clients. The business process behind the dashboard drives real time billing and cost allocation. ESP pulls data from the Computerized Maintenance Management System and displays and analyzes the PM vs. CM relationship.

11 Computer Aided Facilities Management Using ARCHIBUS/FM, the State of Missouri has created a state of the art facilities management unit. With technologies like Blackberry interfaces, touch style kiosks, & one touch supplier (Grainger) integration the maintenance staff and supervisors have the tools necessary to effectively manage: Work Orders Purchase Orders Preventative Maint. Schedules Inventory Resource Loads

12 The Measurement and Verification Portal Dashboards displays baseline, historic, and current energy data and allows for analysis of key metrics for a set of facilities. Measurement & Verification

13 Real-Time Interval Data and Monitoring at the Device Level ESP provides real time monitoring down to the device level. ESP provides a graphical view of Interval data. It is easy to see the base-load and full load day of the facility

14 Utility Usage and Cost Reporting Inventory of Utility Accounts Finds Savings Boonville Correctional Center Single Six Inch Water Meter A water account was found to be billing $425 every month even though no water was being used for last 13 years!! = $425 * 12 = $5,100 in annual savings for this one account = $5,100 * 13 = $66,300 spent over 13 years without this visibility Account # was closed immediately!!

15 SteamStar Savings This was the most aggressive and productive trap testing project I have been involved in. The overall payback taking into account trap survey costs, replacement costs and energy losses (not including labor) was about a 26 day payback. -- Dir. Of Institutional Markets Armstrong National, Inc Steam Trap Statistics 3,302 Installed Steam Traps Tested 2,981 Steam Traps In Service 568 Found Defective While the State of Missouri has saved ~ $1M annually by replacing the defective traps, there is ~ $800K left in potential annual savings in the remaining defective steam traps.

16 When You Change What You Think You Change What You Do Repairing an Existing Steam Leak Saved over $400K per year

17 Lewis and Clark Occupied in FY05, 122,000 sqft, 400 Employees, Cost $17.5 M Green Design Elements Daylighting, HE-HVAC, Recycling, Water Conservation, Native Materials Moving from Excellent to Outstanding Performance FY07 ESP Deployed FY KWhs/SF FY KWhs/SF CY KWhs/SF 9.0 % Reduction Harry S. Truman Sq. Ft. 753, FTE Built in 1983 PC 2005 FY KWhs/SF FY KWhs/SF CY KWhs/SF 28.0 % Reduction Wainwright Size: 234,599 sq. ft. Building Population: 693 Year Built: 1891 Year Commissioned: 1981 FY KWhs/SF FY KWhs/SF CY KWhs/SF 23.4 % Reduction

18 FDD in use at Lewis and Clark Building ESP real-time monitoring allowed the state energy manager to determine that the large fans on the cooling towers were running at 100% as a result of a 65 degree set point.

19 Real-Time Diagnostics Save Energy ESP is a powerful diagnostic tool. A significant problem with cross heating and cooling was discovered at the Truman Building and corrective action taken saving thousands of dollars.

20 Initial Commissioning During initial commissioning our engineers evaluate up to 2 years of utility and 2 months of BAS/interval data and prepare a detailed report with specific low cost recommendation to improve efficiency. Each facility is scored on utilizing a pass/fail scoring system evaluating equipment down to the device level.

21 FY 06 Results FY 09 $160.7 $127.1

22 Contact Me Questions Dave Mosby (O) (C)