Empire State Building PY 2 M&V Report. Empire State Building. Performance Year 2 M&V Report March 1, 2013 Rev.1 (August 15, 2013)

Transcription

1 Empire State Building PY 2 M&V Report Empire State Building Performance Year 2 M&V Report March 1, 2013 Rev.1 (August 15, 2013)

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents...i Glossary... v Executive Summary... 1 Project Overview... 6 EPC Guaranteed Savings (2007)... 9 EPC 2012 Target Savings ECM Savings... 9 Model Build ECM 1: Window Retrofit ECM 1: Window Retrofit ECM Description Pre-Installation System Conditions Post-Installation System Conditions ECM M&V Methodology PY ECM Performance Savings ECM 2: Radiator Insulation and Steam Trap Retrofit ECM 2.1: Radiator Insulation ECM Description Pre-Installation System Conditions Post-Installation System Conditions ECM M&V Methodology ECM 2.2: Steam Trap Retrofit ECM Description Pre-Installation System Conditions Post-Installation System Conditions ECM M&V Methodology PY ECM Performance Savings ECM 3: BAS Retrofit ECM 3.1: BAS Damper Retrofit and Demand Controlled Ventilation ECM Description i

3 3.1.2 Pre-Installation System Conditions Post-Installation System Conditions ECM M&V Methodology ECM 3.3: Fan Scheduling ECM Description Pre-Installation System Conditions Post-Installation System Conditions ECM M&V Methodology PY ECM Performance Savings ECM 4: Chiller Plant Retrofit ECM 4.1: Chiller Tubes and Chiller VFD Retrofit ECM Description Pre-Installation System Conditions Post-Installation System Conditions ECM M&V Methodology ECM 4.2: CHW Supply Temperature Reset ECM Description Pre-Installation System Conditions Post-Installation System Conditions ECM M&V Methodology ECM 4.3: CHW Loop Delta-T Enhancement ECM Description Pre-Installation System Conditions Post-Installation System Conditions ECM M&V Methodology ECM 4.4: CHW Pump VFD Automation ECM Description Pre-Installation System Conditions Post-Installation System Conditions ECM M&V Methodology ECM 4.5: CW Supply Temperature Reset ECM Description Pre-Installation System Conditions ii

4 4.5.3 Post-Installation System Conditions ECM M&V Methodology ECM 4.6: Cooling Tower Fan VFD Automation ECM Description Pre-Installation System Conditions Post-Installation System Conditions ECM M&V Methodology ECM 4.7: CW Pump VFD Automation ECM Description Pre-Installation System Conditions Post-Installation System Conditions ECM M&V Methodology PY ECM Performance Savings ECM 5: TEM Portal ECM 5: TEM Portal ECM Description Pre-Installation System Conditions Post-Installation System Conditions ECM M&V Methodology PY ECM Performance Savings Appendix List Appendix 1: BAS Retrofit Data Analysis Data Analysis Damper Retrofit and DCV Fan Scheduling Appendix 2: Chiller Retrofit Data Analysis Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis CHWST Reset CHW Loop Delta-T Enhancement CHW Pump VFD Automation CW Supply Temperature Reset Cooling Tower Fan VFD Automation CW Pump VFD Automation iii

5 Appendix 4: Steam Chiller Usage Data Analysis Appendix 5: Occupancy Modeling Methodology Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Inputs and Outputs Appendix 7: Utility Analysis Appendix 8: FPI iv

6 Glossary ADX AHU ARI ASHRAE ASTM ATI BAS CDD CHW CTWLT CTWST CW DCV DDC DOE ECM EPA EPC ESB FPI HDD HZ IG IPMVP LZ Mlbs MZ NFRC OA PY SF SHGC TEM VFD VSD Definition Application and Data Server Air-Handling Unit Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers American Society for Testing and Materials Architectural Testing, Inc. Building Automation System Cooling Degree Day Chilled Water Cooling Tower Water Leaving Temperature Cooling Tower Water Supply Temperature Condenser Water Demand Control Ventilation Direct Digital Control Department of Energy Energy Conservation Measures Environmental Protection Agency Energy Performance Contract Empire State Building Facility Performance Indexing Heating Degree Day High Zone Insulated Glass International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol Low Zone 1000 lbs. of Steam Mid Zone National Fenestration Rating Council Outside Air Performance Year Square Feet Solar Heat Gain Coefficient Tenant Energy Management Variable Frequency Drive Variable Speed Drive v

7 Executive Summary Empire State Building (ESB) has committed to a major sustainability retrofit to become a leading example of economic and environmental revitalization. A Johnson Controls Energy Performance Contract (EPC) was developed to install five ECMs of the Sustainability Program at ESB. The project installation phase was completed in December The Performance Period started in January This report documents the project savings for Performance Year 2, ending December Annual savings are calculated based on International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option D, which utilizes building performance simulation software (equest ). Table 1.1 shows the contract guaranteed savings, the Performance Year (PY) target guaranteed savings and the ECM performance savings. No. Energy Conservation Measure [A] Contract Guaranteed Savings (Unadjusted, from 2007 Contract) [B] PY Target Guaranteed Savings (After 2012 Baseline Adjustment) [C] PY ECM Performance Savings (Using 2012 Measurements) [D] 1 Windows Retrofit $338,508 $361,629 $391,648 2 Radiator Insulation and Steam Traps $491,191 $496,887 $558,255 3 BAS Retrofit $774,388 $771,345 $929,871 4 Chiller Plant Retrofit $611,641 $527,851 $446,904 5 Tenant Energy Management $25,000 $25,755 $0 TOTAL $2,240,728 $2,183,466 $2,326,678 Table 1.1: 2012 Project Savings For each PY, the target guaranteed savings is established using baseline adjustments including weather and occupancy factors. Performance of each ECM is then measured against the target guaranteed savings. For the 2012 performance year (January 1 to December 31), Johnson Controls ECM performance savings exceeds 2012 target guaranteed savings. ECM Performance Accounts for the following: 1. The window testing is conducted every two years. The window testing showed that the Windows Retrofit ECM performed better than the contract for the performance period The radiator insulation test uses the R values measured during the installation period (2010). The testing showed that the Radiator Insulation ECM performed better than the contract for all performance periods. 3. Steam trap savings are contracted to be non-measured savings. Steam trap surveying is used to support the annual maintenance program to identify and service leaking or failed traps. Executive Summary 1

8 4. Trending analysis for 2012 indicates that the BAS Retrofit ECM savings exceeds contract savings for Year 2. The increase in savings is due to improve fan scheduling in 2012 when compared with the contract Post-Installation scheduling assumption. 5. Johnson Controls did not claim savings for CHW Reset Controls. Trending analysis showed that CHW Reset Controls were not fully utilized during the actual operation. Since the rest of the chiller ECMs were properly installed, Johnson Controls claimed savings for full ECM performance. 8,000,000 Annual Electric Consumption Vs CDD 7,000,000 6,000,000 Electric Consumption (kwh) 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000, Electric 2011 Electric 2012 Electric CDD Figure 1.1: Reduction in ESB s 2007 Baseline Electric Utility Consumption during Performance Period Figure 1.1 illustrates that ESB s Post-Installation electric utility consumption was reduced by 29% during base load conditions and was reduced by 34% during the hottest month. Executive Summary 2

9 Winter Steam Consumption Vs HDD 20,000 Steam Consumption (mlbs) 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6, Winter Steam Usage 2011 Winter Steam Usage 2012 Winter Steam Usage 4,000 2, HDD Figure 1.2: Reduction in ESB s 2007 Baseline Steam Utility Consumption during Performance Period Figure 1.2 illustrates that ESB s Post-Installation winter steam consumption was reduced by 7% during the coldest month. Executive Summary 3

10 Year Over Year Electric Utility Costs $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,694,108 $12,853,869 $11,697,544 $11,710, Electric energy cost Occupancy Rate Electric Cost ($) $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $9,609,506 $9,874, Occupancy Rate (%) $4,000, $2,000, $ Year Figure 1.3: Reduction in ESB s 2007 Baseline Electric Utility Costs during Performance Period (Unadjusted) Figure 1.3 illustrates that ESB s unadjusted Year-Over-Year electric utility costs have decreased significantly electric costs reduced by 35% when compared with the 2007 Baseline and the consumption reduced by 29% during the same period. These numbers represent actual realized savings and not modeled savings. Executive Summary 4

11 Year Over Year Steam Utility Cost Steam cost $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,783,031 $2,661,334 $2,523,295 $2,640,800 $2,268, Occupancy Rate Steam Cost ($) $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,811, Occupancy Rate (%) $500, $ Year 0 Figure 1.4: Reduction in ESB s 2007 Baseline Steam Utility Costs during Performance Period (Unadjusted) Figure 1.4 illustrates that ESB s unadjusted Year-Over-Year annual steam utility costs steam costs reduced by 35% when compared with the 2007 Baseline and the consumption reduced by 33% during the same period. These numbers represent actual realized savings and not modeled savings. Executive Summary 5

12 Project Overview EMPIRE STATE BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM OVERVIEW The Empire State Building (ESB) has committed to a major sustainability retrofit program as an example for leading economic and environmental revitalization. ESB, in partnership with Clinton Climate Initiative, Johnson Controls Inc., Jones Lang LaSalle, NYSERDA, and Rocky Mountain Institute, project that the building can save 38% of its energy use and $4.4 million in annual utility costs. A total of eight Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) were selected for implementation as part of the ESB Sustainability Program. Each ECM, the responsible organization and associated contribution to savings is detailed below. Sustainability Program ECM Savings Total Savings $4,393,796 1 Radiator Insulation & Steam Trap Savings (JCI) 2 Windows Retrofit (JCI) 3+4 Direct Digital Controls and DCV (JCI) 5 Chiller Plant Retrofit (JCI) 6 Tenant Energy Mgmt (JCI) 7 Tenant Daylighting, Lighting, and Plugs (ESB) 8 VAV Air Handling Units (ESB) $702,507-16% $491,191-11% $338,508-8% $940,862-21% $858,305-20% $386,709-9% $675,714-15% ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACT OVERVIEW Johnson Controls developed an Energy Performance Contract (EPC) to install six ECMs of the Sustainability Program at ESB. The EPC consolidated the balance of Direct Digital Control (DDC) and Demand Control Ventilation (DCV) measures into one Building Automation System (BAS) Retrofit ECM. Therefore, five measures are documented in the EPC. The contract guaranteed savings for each ECM is listed below. Project Overview 6

13 1 Windows Retrofit $611,641-27% 2 Radiator Insulation & Steam Trap Savings 3 BAS Retrofit 4 Chiller Plant Retrofit 5 Tenant Energy Mgmt $774,388-35% $25,000-1% $338,508-15% $491,191-22% To develop the energy savings guarantee, the EPC utilizes EPC Year 2007 baseline conditions. The EPC guarantees 90% of the projected energy savings, resulting in $2,240,728 in guaranteed energy savings (Table 2.1). The EPC includes a 15 year performance term. No. Energy Conservation Measure [A] Electric kwh Savings (2007 Contract) [B] Electric kw Savings (2007 Contract) [C] Steam Mlbs Savings ((2007 Contract) [D] Guaranteed Savings (2007 Contract) [E] 1 Windows Retrofit 1,329, ,115 $338,508 2 Radiator Insulation and Steam Traps 14,870 $491,191 3 BAS Retrofit 1,621, ,744 $774,388 4 Chiller Plant Retrofit 2,963,656 1, $611,641 5 Tenant Energy Management 160,256 $25,000 TOTAL 6,074,800 1,349 37,553 $2,240,728 Table 2.1: Shows the contract savings in kwh, kw, Mlbs and total guaranteed savings for each ECM. Project Overview 7

14 PROJECT GUARANTEED SAVINGS (UNADJUSTED) Table 2.2 below shows the unadjusted project guaranteed savings for the 15 year guarantee period. Year Total Guaranteed Savings Windows Radiator Insulation/Traps Chiller Plant BAS TEM 1 $2,240,728 $338,508 $491,191 $611,641 $774,388 $25,000 2 $2,310,490 $348,731 $506,025 $630,113 $799,866 $25,755 3 $2,382,427 $359,263 $521,307 $649,142 $826,183 $26,533 4 $2,456,608 $370,112 $537,050 $668,746 $853,365 $27,334 5 $2,533,102 $381,290 $553,269 $688,942 $881,441 $28,160 6 $2,611,983 $392,805 $569,978 $709,748 $910,442 $29,010 7 $2,693,324 $404,667 $587,191 $731,183 $940,396 $29,886 8 $2,777,202 $416,888 $604,925 $753,264 $971,336 $30,789 9 $2,863,697 $429,478 $623,193 $776,013 $1,003,294 $31, $2,952,891 $442,449 $642,014 $799,449 $1,036,303 $32, $3,044,867 $455,811 $661,403 $823,592 $1,070,399 $33, $3,139,713 $469,576 $681,377 $848,464 $1,105,616 $34, $3,237,519 $483,757 $701,954 $874,088 $1,141,992 $35, $3,338,376 $498,367 $723,154 $900,485 $1,179,564 $36, $3,442,381 $513,417 $744,993 $927,680 $1,218,373 $37,918 Totals $42,025,306 $6,305,119 $9,149,024 $11,392,550 $14,712,958 $465,655 Table 2.2: Unadjusted Project Guaranteed Savings PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW Annual savings are calculated based on IPMVP Option D, utilizing building performance simulation software (equest ). Table 2.3 shows the contract guaranteed savings, the PY target guaranteed savings and the PY ECM performance savings. Project Overview 8

15 No. Energy Conservation Measure [A] Contract Guaranteed Savings (Unadjusted, from 2007 Contract) [B] PY Target Guaranteed Savings (After 2012 Baseline Adjustment) [C] PY ECM Performance Savings (Using 2012 Measurements) [D] Note: 1 Windows Retrofit $338,508 $361,629 $391,648 2 Radiator Insulation and Steam Traps $491,191 $496,887 $558,255 3 BAS Retrofit $774,388 $771,345 $929,871 4 Chiller Plant Retrofit $611,641 $527,851 $446,904 5 Tenant Energy Management $25,000 $25,755 $0 TOTAL $2,240,728 $2,183,466 $2,326,678 Table 2.3: 2012 Project Savings (a) PY Target Guaranteed Savings and PY ECM performance savings were calculated using 2007 contract rates, escalated by 3.02%. (b) PY target guarantee is shown after including the contract 8.07% average savings risk discount. (c) Johnson Controls confidence in the current equest cooling tower fan VFD savings calculation is low due to model limitations. For all practical purposes, this does not affect the overall project savings level greatly, because the magnitude of this ECM savings is low (in the order of $25,000). EPC Guaranteed Savings (2007) Using contract assumption for ECM performance, 2007 weather data, 2007 utility rates and 2007 vacancy data, the project guaranteed energy savings is $2,240,728. EPC 2012 Target Savings Using measured ECM performance, actual 2012 weather data, contract utility rates and actual 2012 vacancy data, projected energy savings would be $2,183, ECM Savings Based on actual measured ECM performance, 2012 weather data, contract utility rates and 2012 vacancy data, the PY ECM performance savings is $2,326,678. Project Overview 9

16 EQUEST MODEL SETUP OVERVIEW Modeling Software Model Author equest v3.64, build 7130 Quest Energy Group, LLC 1620 W Fountainhead Pkwy #303 Tempe, AZ Model Build A detailed architectural model of the building was created based on archive drawings, photos taken at the site, and site inspections. Site inspections included verifying wall and roof constructions, external shading, and glass types. Schedules based on building operation were used in the model. Lighting demand and energy (schedules) were put into the model based on the lighting information provided by JLL. Representative internal equipment loads by space type (office, corridor, etc.) were incorporated into the model. Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) equipment and efficiencies were added and each zone was assigned to the appropriate HVAC system. Zoning was determined by the base building core areas including elevator shafts, restrooms, corridors, etc. and the tenant occupyable areas, which were zoned using perimeter/core areas by orientation. HVAC equipment efficiencies were based on field measurements, nameplate data, or mechanical plans as available (this would tie in to your report's description of field measured data, etc.). Vacancy rates for the building were included in the model. Project Overview 10

17 1. ECM 1: WINDOW RETROFIT 1.1 ECM 1: WINDOW RETROFIT ECM Description This ECM upgraded the existing Insulated Glass (IG) for 6,514 double-hung windows to Suspended Coated Film AlpenGlass. This re-manufacturing of the (2 x 6,514 =) 13,028 IG units was done on-site at ESB. IG units were removed, delivered to a production area located on the 5th Floor and picked up for reinstallation by ESB s window contractor. Alpenglass TC88 or SC75 was used as the suspended film based on window orientation. A mix of krypton/argon gas was used between the glass and suspended film. This ECM improved the thermal resistance of the glass from R-2 to R-6 and cut the heat gain by more than half. As an additional contribution to sustainability, all existing glass removed from the windows was recycled Pre-Installation System Conditions Pre-Installation double pane windows were estimated (not measured at that time) to have 0.48 U-Value and Solar Heat GainCoefficient (SHGC). After testing, it was found that Pre-Installation window performance was 0.58 in U-Value and there would be more savings than previously estimated Post-Installation System Conditions North windows were targeted to attain U-Value and SHGC through Krypton/Argon gas fill and TC88 suspended film. S-E-W windows were targeted to attain U-Value and SHGC through Krypton gas fill and SC75 suspended film. In 2010, the post-installation North windows were tested to attain U-Value and SHGC. Post- Installation S-E-W windows were tested to attain U-Value and SHGC. All Post-Installation windows in the exterior envelope of the building were assumed to reduce heat loss and solar heat gain. ECM 1 11

18 1.1.4 ECM M&V Methodology Figure : ESB Windows when tested at ATI (left); Schematic of ATI s window testing chamber (right) IG units were sent to an independent testing agency (Architectural Testing, Inc. [ATI]) for evaluation of several window performance indices including the ones used as equest inputs (Whole window U-Value and SHGC). ATI, located in York, PA, is a premier window testing company that possesses extensive experience and testing in the field of window testing. ATI is accredited with several agencies including the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC), American National Standards Institute, Insulating Glass Certification Council, American Architectural Manufacturers Association, Window and the Door Manufacturers Association. Extensive information about ATI, ATI s work, testing facility and certificate of accreditations is given in the attached test report. A total of four old windows and six new windows were tested for performance. IG unit performance was tested in accordance with NFRC in a thermal test chamber. The two sides of the chamber were simulated for standard exterior (-0.4 F at 15mph wind speed) and interior (70 F) environment. Interior conditions were maintained using an electric heater whose output can be measured. IG unit U-factor was calculated using measured heat loss and delta-t. Whole window (IG unit and frame) performance was evaluated using a combination of gas fill test and industry standard computer simulation. Gas fill tests were performed using a standard gas chromatograph device. SHGC tests were performed using a window energy profiler device (WP4500) that measures ultraviolet, visible light, infrared transmission values and SHGC. Results from the testing were used to generate the following equest Model inputs that determine the ECM savings. ECM 1 12

19 Contract Baseline Contract Target PY Adjusted Baseline PY ECM Performance PY Actual Operation Storefront (U-value/SHGC) 1.03 / / / / / nd Floor 1.03 / / / / / th Floor 1.03 / / / / / 0.82 North (U-value/SHGC) 0.48 / / / / / East (U-value/SHGC) 0.48 / / / / / South (U-value/SHGC) 0.48 / / / / / West (U-value/SHGC) 0.48 / / / / / Window Infiltration Multiplier Table : Windows ECM Model Inputs PY ECM Performance Savings ECM target performance (per contract) and the PY Baseline adjustments set the 2012 ECM target savings at $361,629. Using ECM performance (per M&V) and the PY Baseline adjustments, Johnson Controls calculated the PY ECM performance savings to be $391,648. ECM 1 13

20 2. ECM 2: RADIATOR INSULATION AND STEAM TRAP RETROFIT 2.1 ECM 2.1: RADIATOR INSULATION ECM Description This ECM involved the installation of 6,514 insulated reflective barriers behind radiator units located on the perimeter of the building. In addition, the radiator was cleaned and the thermostat was repositioned to the front side of the radiator. This ECM will reduce the thermal heat loss through the exterior building wall Pre-Installation System Conditions Pre-Installation wall+no-insulation U-Value was estimated to be Post-Installation "wall+insulation" U-Value was estimated to be All radiator insulation in the exterior envelope of the building reduces heat loss Post-Installation System Conditions Radiator insulation in the exterior envelope was installed. Johnson Controls was unable to install the barriers in broadcasting spaces because those spaces were overheating and the radiator assemblies were removed. There will be additional savings than the tests demonstrated because of the reflective layer on the insulation ECM M&V Methodology Radiator Insulation boards were sent to an independent testing agency (ATI) for evaluation of thermal performance. ATI, located in York, PA, is a fenestration testing company that possesses extensive experience in the field of fenestration testing. ATI is accredited by several agencies including National Fenestration Rating Council, American National Standards Institute, Insulating Glass Certification Council, American Architectural Manufacturers Association and the Window and Door Manufacturers Association. Extensive information about ATI, ATI s work, testing facility and certificate of accreditations is given in the attached test report. A total of ten radiator insulation locations were tested for performance. ECM 2 14

21 Figure : Insulation Testing Equipment at ATI Radiator Insulation was tested using American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C 518, Standard Test Method for Steady State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of Heat Flow Meter Apparatus. The test method covers the measurement of steady state thermal transmission through flat specimens using heat flow meter apparatus. This is a comparative method of measurement and was be calibrated to a specimen traceable to National Institute of Materials supplied material. The cold plate was maintained at a nominal 50 F and the hot plate was maintained at a nominal 100 F. Heat flux transducer was introduced on the warm side. Insulation U-factor was calculated using measured heat loss and delta-t. Results from the testing were used to generate the following equest Model inputs that determine the ECM savings. Contract Baseline Contract Target PY Adjusted Baseline PY ECM Performance PY Actual Operation Radiative Wall U Value Table : Radiator Insulation ECM Model Inputs ECM 2 15

22 2.2 ECM 2.2: STEAM TRAP RETROFIT ECM Description The purpose of a steam trap is to prevent steam from passing its point of use and to allow condensate to be expelled as soon as it forms. They behave like automatic valves. Steam traps open, close or modulate automatically. Over time, internal parts of steam traps wear out and result in failure to open and close properly. While an open trap would result in loss of live steam, a closed trap could result in loss of heat transfer to the area and water hammering. Water hammering can eventually damage the valves and other components in steam systems, which could result in steam leaks. All the steam radiators at ESB are fitted with thermostatic steam traps. Thermostatic traps use a diaphragm or bellows, within which is a volatile liquid, sealed under vacuum. The trap opens and closes in a modulating manner dependent upon the temperature affecting it. The trap s normal state is wide open to expel air and condensate. When surrounded by steam at saturated temperature, the volatile fill flashes, creating an internal pressure equal to the surrounding pressure. This equalization of pressures allows the bellows to expand to its natural length or closed position, preventing steam from passing. The presence of condensate sufficiently cools the bellows to condense the vapor within. Once again the external pressure is greater and the bellows reverts back to its contracted, or open position, allowing the condensate to drain from the trap, permitting more steam to enter the radiator and thus, modulating action of the trap. There were several Pre-Installation traps that failed at ESB. The failure resulted in steam loss and equipment operational issues. Retrofitting all the steam traps helped reduce steam wastage Pre-Installation System Conditions All of the steam radiators at ESB are fitted with thermostatic steam traps. There were several Pre- Installation traps that failed at ESB Post-Installation System Conditions As part of the performance contract, all radiator steam traps were retrofitted ECM M&V Methodology The savings for this ECM is stipulated upon installation of the steam traps. A summary of steam trap savings from Johnson Controls change order with ESB is shown below: Steam Trap Calculated Savings $520,180 Steam Trap Guaranteed Savings $320,000 Steam Trap Guaranteed Steam Savings Table : Steam Trap Stipulated Savings 10,059,100 Mlbs ECM 2 16

23 The change order energy savings calculation showed an annual steam savings of 16,351,695 Mlbs due to the steam trap retrofit. Johnson Controls was conservative in discounting the projected savings by 38.5%. During PY2, stipulated savings equivalent to 10,059,100 Mlbs is claimed by Johnson Controls. The energy savings (in $) is calculated using the stipulated Mlbs savings and 2012 Summer Steam Rate PY ECM Performance Savings ECM target performance (per contract) and the PY Baseline adjustments set the 2012 ECM target savings at $496,887. Using ECM performance (per M&V) and the PY Baseline adjustments, Johnson Controls calculated the PY ECM performance savings to be $558,255. ECM 2 17

24 3. ECM 3: BAS RETROFIT 3.1 ECM 3.1: BAS DAMPER RETROFIT AND DEMAND CONTROLLED VENTILATION ECM Description Prior to retrofit, sample spaces were tested and it was found that the building s overall outside air intake was 0.25 cfm/sf. The goal of the ECM was to reduce the building s overall outside air intake by retrofitting the non-alerton Air-Handling Unit (AHU) with DCV and modulating dampers. Johnson Controls used American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) calculations to estimate that the minimum outside air ventilation requirement is 0.12 cfm/sf for an office building with 7 persons per 1,000SF. Minimum outside air ventilation is possible when CO 2 based DCV is combined with the ability to open dampers just enough to satisfy the ventilation demand. This cannot be achieved with the old two position dampers, but can be achieved with CO 2 based DCV controls and modulating dampers. Demand controlled ventilation is used to modulate outside air ventilation based on real time occupancy. DCV reduces unnecessary over-ventilation that may result when existing AHUs are set to provide ventilation for a maximum assumed occupancy. DCV saves energy while ensuring that ASHRAE Standard 62 ventilation rates are maintained at all times. Johnson Controls retrofitted non-alerton AHUs with CO 2 sensors on the return air duct. DCV was programmed for outside air activation at 800 ppm return air CO 2 threshold. Johnson Controls retrofitted non-alerton AHU units by replacing their two-position pneumatic damper system with new dampers (if broken), new actuators and DDC controls. The new damper system has the capability to modulate between 0% to 100% open/close position. Reducing outside air intake reduces the load on the building s HVAC system and generates energy savings Pre-Installation System Conditions Prior to the retrofit, non-alerton AHUs in the building were equipped with pneumatic dampers and actuators. Also, there was no DCV on the non-alerton AHUs. Sample spaces were tested and it was found that the building s average outside air intake was 0.25 cfm/sf Post-Installation System Conditions Johnson Controls retrofitted non-alerton AHUs with CO 2 sensors on the return air duct. DCV was programmed for outside air activation at 800 ppm return air CO 2 threshold. Johnson Controls also installed the new DDC damper system that is maintained at 10% minimum open position when the outside air temperature is higher than 68 F. During other times the damper modulates in accordance with the supply valve position. Controls were programmed so that the DCV takes precedence to temperature based damper control when return air CO 2 reaches threshold. ECM 3 18

25 3.1.4 ECM M&V Methodology The performance contract required that Johnson Controls retrofit the two-position pneumatic damper system in non-alerton AHU units with new dampers (if broken), new actuators, DCV and DDC controls (ECM Target). The new dampers, new actuators, DCV and DDC controls were verified to be operational (ECM Performance). The new dampers, new actuators, DCV and DDC controls were operated in the field as designed (Actual Performance). The analyzed plots are presented in Appendix 1. The data for the analysis was retrieved from the Metasys trend repository and from Facility Performance Indexing s (FPI) trend archive. Results from the trending analysis were used to generate the following equest Model inputs that determine the ECM savings. Contract Baseline Contract Target PY Adjusted Baseline PY ECM Performance PY Actual Operation Outside Air (cfm/sf) Table : BAS Retrofit ECM Model Inputs ECM 3 19

26 3.2 ECM 3.3: FAN SCHEDULING ECM Description The building has fans to provide AHU supply air, exhaust toilet space air and to exhaust building space air. Prior to the performance contract, the fans were manually turned On/Off and did not have DDC controls to automatically schedule On/Off. Johnson Controls installed DDC controls on the AHU fans to automatically schedule On/Off. The reduced fan run time resulted in: Reduced fan motor electric power consumption Reduced outside air intake, thereby reducing the need to condition it As part of the BAS retrofit, all non-alerton AHUs were connected to the newly installed Johnson Controls field controllers. These field controllers communicate with Network Automation Engines (NAEs) that tie into ESB s central Application and Data Server (ADX). ESB s Metasys operator workstation allows building operations personnel to program, monitor and change HVAC schedules Pre-Installation System Conditions Prior to the performance contract, the fans did not have DDC controls to automatically schedule On/Off. The fans were manually turned On/Off. The following table shows the manually operated Pre- Installation schedule. Fan Type Manually Operated Pre- Installation ON Time AHU Supply Fan (MZ and HZ) General Exhaust & Toilet Exhaust Fans 18hrs/7d (ON-Time) 24hrs/7d (ON-Time) Table : Pre-Installation Schedule Post-Installation System Conditions As part of the BAS retrofit, all non-alerton AHU supply fans were connected to BAS and the scheduling feature was enabled. The following table shows the Post-Installation conditions. Fan Type Automatically Scheduled Post-Installation ON Time (Target) Automatically Scheduled Post- Installation ON Time (ECM Performance) AHU Supply Fan (MZ and HZ) 15hrs/7d (ON-Time) 14hrs/7d (ON-Time) General Exhaust & Toilet Exhaust Fans 24hrs/7d (ON-Time) 24hrs/7d (ON-Time) Table : Post-Installation Target and ECM Performance Schedule ECM 3 20

27 3.2.4 ECM M&V Methodology The data for the analysis was retrieved from Metasys scheduling BAS page, Metasys trend repository and from FPI s trend archive. The analyzed information is presented in this Report s Appendix. Results from the BAS analysis were used to generate the following equest Model inputs that determine the ECM savings. High/Mid Fans General Exhaust and Toilet Exhaust Fans Contract Baseline 18hrs/7d (ON-Time) 24hrs/7d (ON-Time) Contract Target 15hrs/7d (ON-Time) 24hrs/7d (ON-Time) PY Adjusted Baseline 18hrs/7d (ON-Time) 24hrs/7d (ON-Time) PY ECM Performance 15hrs/7d (ON-Time) 24hrs/7d (ON-Time) Table : Fan Scheduling ECM Model Inputs PY Actual Operation 14hrs/7d (ON-Time) 24hrs/7d (ON-Time) PY ECM Performance Savings ECM target performance (per contract) and the PY Baseline adjustments set the 2012 ECM target savings at $771,345. Using ECM performance (per M&V) and the PY Baseline adjustments, Johnson Controls calculated the PY ECM performance savings to be $929,871. ECM 3 21

28 4. ECM 4: CHILLER PLANT RETROFIT 4.1 ECM 4.1: CHILLER TUBES AND CHILLER VFD RETROFIT ECM Description There were four constant speed electric chillers at ESB. This ECM provided for a retrofit of these chiller compressors with Variable Speed Drives (VSDs) and replaced chiller tubes. Chiller VSD Retrofit A constant-speed chiller reacts to lower load or lower entering-condenser-water temperature by closing its pre-rotation vanes, which throttle the refrigerant flow through the compressor in an effort to economize the energy consumption. As the vanes continue to close, they create frictional losses that affect the chiller s efficiency and limit the energy-saving potential of this approach. Use of a VSD will allow the compressor speed to modulate, in response to load, evaporator pressure, and condenser pressure. Despite the small power penalty attributed to the Variable Frequency Drive (VFD), this control measure for the chiller yields outstanding overall efficiency improvement. Most chillers operate at part-load nearly 99% of the time which enhances the overall value of this retrofit. Additionally, the soft start feature, provided by the VFD, provides additional maintenance related value from less stress on compressor motor, gears and electrical components than a traditional motor starter. With its patented Adaptive Capacity Control, the VSD drive learns and remembers optimum speeds for various load and operational conditions. Unlike constant-speed chillers, a variable-speed chiller also maintains a stable power factor. Chiller Tubes Retrofit Pre-Installation chillers at ESB were about 18 years old. The evaporator and condenser tubes were significantly degraded over time, thereby increasing the fouling factor of the tubes. Fouling impedes heat transfer, which in turn impacts chiller capacity and efficiency. Johnson Controls replaced the evaporator and condenser tubes with new tubes, thereby increasing chiller capacity, chiller efficiency and chiller life Pre-Installation System Conditions There were four constant speed electric chillers in the building. The evaporator and condenser tubes were 18 years old and were significantly fouled over time Post-Installation System Conditions The four constant speed electric chillers in the building were retrofitted with VSDs. Johnson Controls replaced the fouled evaporator and condenser tubes with new tubes ECM M&V Methodology Department of Energy (DOE) electric chiller curves available in equest were used to simulate target performance. The curves were customized for ESB by adjusting them for York prescribed full-load performance at Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) conditions 100% load at 44 F Chilled Water (CHW) temperatures and 85 F Condenser Water (CW) temperatures (ECM Target). ECM 4 22

29 Post-Installation chiller efficiency (kw/ton) was measured at the following conditions (ECM Performance): Load conditions: 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% CHW temperatures: 42 F, 44 F and 46 F CW temperatures: 65 F, 75 F and 85 F In the case of the chiller retrofit ECM, the ECM Performance and Actual Performance is one and the same. The data analysis is presented in Appendix 2. The data for the analysis was retrieved from the Metasys trend repository and from FPI s trend archive. The following equest Model inputs were used to determine the ECM savings. Contract Baseline Contract Target PY Adjusted Baseline PY ECM Performance PY Actual Operation Chiller #1 (Elec) Capacity 750 Ton (Constant Speed) 750 Ton (VFD) 750 Ton (Constant Speed) 750 Ton (VFD) 750 Ton (VFD) Chiller #1 Performance *See Baseline Chiller Curves *See Target Chiller Curves *See Baseline Chiller Curves *See Actual Data *See Actual Data Chiller #4 (Elec) Capacity 1000 Ton (Constant Speed) 1000 Ton (VFD) 1000 Ton (Constant Speed) 1000 Ton (VFD) 1000 Ton (VFD) Chiller #4 Performance *See Baseline Chiller Curves *See Target Chiller Curves *See Baseline Chiller Curves *See Actual Data *See Actual Data Chiller #5 (Elec) Capacity 1000 Ton (Constant Speed) 1000 Ton (VFD) 1000 Ton (Constant Speed) 1000 Ton (VFD) 1000 Ton (VFD) Chiller #5 Performance *See Baseline Chiller Curves *See Target Chiller Curves *See Baseline Chiller Curves *See Actual Data *See Actual Data Chiller #6 (Elec) Capacity 1000 Ton (Constant Speed) 1000 Ton (VFD) 1000 Ton (Constant Speed) 1000 Ton (VFD) 1000 Ton (VFD) Chiller #6 Performance *See Baseline Chiller Curves *See Target Chiller Curves *See Baseline Chiller Curves *See Actual Data Table : Chiller Retrofit ECM Model Inputs *See Actual Data ECM 4 23

30 4.2 ECM 4.2: CHW SUPPLY TEMPERATURE RESET ECM Description Chiller performance improves when higher temperature CHW is produced. For example, a typical centrifugal chiller's efficiency can be 15 to 25% better when producing CHW at 55 F versus 42 F. In addition, using medium temperature CHW is a common method of preventing uncontrolled dehumidification while conditioning the sensible loads. It significantly improves the savings available from free cooling waterside economization. Low CHW temperatures are required to meet the building load during hot summer days. Chiller performance improvisation, without compromising capacity requirements, can be improved by incorporating CHW supply temperature reset controls. The BAS will automatically reset CHW supply temperature setpoint in response to outside air temperature conditions. Internal operation of the chiller remains within the factory supplied Chiller Plant Controls. However, an increase in CHW supply temperature results in increased variable CHW pumping system energy consumption. This penalty can be minimized by tuning the system to maintain minimum design flow through the AHU coils Pre-Installation System Conditions The CHW supply temperature setpoint was manually maintained at a constant 44 F temperature during most of the operating times Post-Installation System Conditions The performance contract requires Johnson Controls to install a functional CHW supply temperature reset control system that is capable of achieving 42 F to 50 F reset (ECM Target). Johnson Controls verified that the CHW supply temperature reset controls were not installed (ECM Performance). Trending analysis shows that, in 2012, the building operation personnel maintained 42 F CHW supply temperature setpoint during summer and performed manual setpoint increases during shoulder season (Actual Operation) ECM M&V Methodology The implementation of CHW supply temperature reset controls was verified by analyzing CHW supply temperature vs. outside air temperature plots. Actual building operation was verified by analyzing CHW supply temperature vs. time. The analyzed plots are presented in this Report s Appendix. The data for the analysis was retrieved from the Metasys trend repository and from FPI s trend archive. Results from the trending analysis were used to generate the following equest Model inputs that determine the ECM savings. ECM 4 24

31 Contract Baseline Contract Target PY Adjusted Baseline PY ECM Performance PY Actual Operation LZ CHWST LZ CHW Control Fixed Reset to 50 F Fixed Reset to 50 F Fixed MZ CHWST MZ CHW Control Fixed Reset to 50 F Fixed Reset to 50 F Fixed HZ CHWST HZ CHW Control Fixed Reset to 50 F Fixed Reset to 50 F Fixed Table : CHW Reset ECM Model Inputs ECM 4 25

32 4.3 ECM 4.3: CHW LOOP DELTA-T ENHANCEMENT ECM Description During design operating conditions, Pre-Installation CHW loop was running less than 10 F CHW delta-t conditions. Lower CHW delta-t increases chiller efficiency. But, for any given load condition, lowering the delta-t also increases CHW pump flow and hence, its electric power consumption. A low delta-t also inhibits the ability of the chiller to operate at peak capacity. Hence, increasing the CHW loop delta-t to an optimal design setting was desired. CHW loop delta-t was increased by: Changing the three-way valves to two-way valves in the Pre-Installation AHUs that were included in project Minimizing CHW flow rate using CHW pump VFD automation Post-Installation CHW loop delta-t was targeted to operate close to 10 F at design conditions. This ECM generates energy savings by increasing chiller efficiency and also improves operational capability by increasing chiller capacity Pre-Installation System Conditions The following conditions were observed during the Pre-Installation building audit. Low Zone CHW loop design condition delta-t: less than 7.8 F Mid Zone CHW loop design condition delta-t: less than 6 F High Zone CHW loop design condition delta-t: less than 6.9 F Post-Installation System Conditions In order to achieve the objective of this ECM, the performance contract required Johnson Controls to: Change the three-way valves to two-way valves in the Pre-Installation AHUs that were included in project. Minimize CHW flow rate using CHW pump VFD automation (ECM Target). The above scope was verified to be implemented by Johnson Controls (ECM Performance). Trending analysis shows that, in 2012, the steam chillers were run during peak load conditions. Johnson Controls CHW loop delta-t instrumentation is located on the electric chillers and hence, design delta-t could not be trended. However, Johnson Controls trended the loop delta-t under part-load conditions and the summary of the results are shown below (Actual Operation). The details of the analysis are shown in the Appendix 3. Low Zone CHW loop part-load condition delta-t: 3 F -6 F Mid Zone CHW loop part-load condition delta-t: 3 F -9 F High Zone CHW loop part-load condition delta-t: 3 F -9 F ECM 4 26

33 4.3.4 ECM M&V Methodology The implementation of CHW loop delta-t was verified by checking the two-way valve implementation and the CHW VFD automation implementation. Actual building operation was verified by analyzing CHW loop delta-t vs. time. The analyzed plots are presented in this Report s Appendix. The data for the analysis was retrieved from the Metasys trend repository and from FPI s trend archive. The following equest Model inputs were used to determine the ECM savings. Contract Baseline Contract Target PY Adjusted Baseline PY ECM Performance PY Actual Operation LZ Loop Delta T 7.8 F (At Design Load) 10 F (At Design Load) 7.8 F (At Design Load) 10 F (At Design Load) 3 F to 9 F (At Part Load) MZ Loop Delta T <6 F (At Design Load) 10 F (At Design Load) <6 F (At Design Load) 10 F (At Design Load) 3 F to 8 F (At Part Load) HZ Loop Delta T <6 F (At Design Load) 10 F (At Design Load) <6 F (At Design Load) 10 F (At Design Load) Table : CHW Loop Delta-T Enhancement ECM Model Inputs 4.4 ECM 4.4: CHW PUMP VFD AUTOMATION ECM Description 2 F to 9 F (At Part Load) This ECM automated the manually controlled variable flow CHW system into an automatically controlled variable flow CHW system. The pump flow will be automatically controlled to meet the CHW loop differential pressure setpoint. The installed system was tuned in the field to find the correct differential pressure setpoint that helps the system meet varying building load conditions. Varying the speed of a motor to match the actual load improves control as well as reduces electrical motor power (kw), which may result in both comfort improvement and electrical energy savings. Varying the speed of the motor is generally accomplished by varying voltage and frequency to the motor. The motor is connected to the CHW pump. As the system s load changes, consequently so does the required motor driven output. A control program and the VFD will modulate the speed of the motor and match the output to the load. By reducing the speed of an electric motor, the energy required by the motor is reduced significantly. The actual power required is proportional to the cube of the speed. For example, if a motor s speed is reduced to 80%, the motor s energy consumption is decreased by approximately 50%. The theoretical energy savings through speed reduction is shown in the general relationship below: (bhp2/bhp1)= (W2/W1)^3 where: w2 = VFD controlled motor speed (varies) w1 = motor/fan/pump existing speed (constant) bhp2 = VFD controlled motor brake horsepower (varies) bhp1 = Brake horsepower required before VFD is installed ECM 4 27

34 The generic pump characteristic plot below illustrates that generic pump power consumption reduces with reduction in VFD speed. For example, reducing the VFD speed by 10% reduces pump energy usage by 27%. Figure : The generic pump characteristic plot illustrates that generic pump power consumption reduces with reduction in VFD speed Two-way valves on the cooling coils ensure that CHW is supplied only when there is demand at the AHU. Hence, two-way valves create differential pressure variation in the CHW loop. The VFD speed can be reduced when loop differential pressure decreases and the loop minimum flow can still be maintained. In addition to the energy savings, this ECM increases equipment reliability and decreases operating cost by reducing the load on the bearings Pre-Installation System Conditions All CHW pumps were equipped with VFDs. But the drives were not set up to adjust speed automatically with varying building differential pressure. All VFDs were operating at constant full speed during most of the operating times Post-Installation System Conditions The performance contract requires Johnson Controls to install a functional CHW pump VFD automation system that is capable of automatically varying VFD Speed between 100% and 50% (min) to meet building differential pressure setpoint (ECM Target). The CHW pump VFD automation system was fully installed and is capable of automatically varying VFD speed between 100% and 50% (min) to meet building differential pressure setpoint (ECM Performance). Trending analysis shows that, in 2012, the CHW pump VFDs were run in the manual mode at reduced speeds (Actual Operation). The verification indicates that: Low Zone pumps were operating at 67% speed from July to October and at 58% speed during rest of the time. Mid Zone pumps were operating at 67% speed from July to December and at 58% speed during rest of the time. High Zone pumps were operating at 67% speed from October to December and at 58% speed during rest of the time. ECM 4 28

35 4.4.4 ECM M&V Methodology The implementation of CHW pump VFD automation was verified by checking the Metasys software. Actual building operation was verified by analyzing VFD speed vs. time. The analyzed plots are presented in this Report s Appendix. The data for the analysis was retrieved from the Metasys trend repository and from FPI s trend archive. Results from the trending analysis were used to generate the following equest Model inputs that determine the ECM savings. Contract Baseline Contract Target PY Adjusted Baseline PY ECM Performance PY Actual Operation Flow Ctrl /Min VFD Manual (100% Speed All Times) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) VFD Manual (100% Speed All Times) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) VFD Manual (67% (July 1 to October 22nd); 58% Rest of the Time) Flow Ctrl /Min VFD Manual (100% Speed All Times) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) VFD Manual (100% Speed All Times) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) VFD Manual (67% (July 1 to October 22nd); 58% Rest of the Time) Flow Ctrl /Min VFD Manual (100% Speed All Times) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) VFD Manual (100% Speed All Times) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) Table : CHW Pump VFD Automation ECM Model Inputs VFD Manual (67% (July 1 to October 22nd); 58% Rest of the Time) 4.5 ECM 4.5: CONDENSER WATER SUPPLY TEMPERATURE RESET ECM Description Chiller performance increases significantly at lower CW temperatures. CW supply temperature reset strategy was implemented to provide low temperature CW, to the extent allowed by the chiller manufacturer. Cooling tower fan power increases to produce lower temperature CW but chiller efficiency gains typically dominate the economic considerations of this optimization strategy. Most of the energy consumed by a chiller is used to move refrigerant vapor from the evaporator (low pressure) to the condenser (high pressure). As the pressure differential between the evaporator and condenser increases, the compressor must work harder to move the refrigerant. Lowering CW temperature decreases this pressure differential, so the compressor does less work. Electric chiller efficiency improves with decreased CW supply temperature. Cooling tower controls are initially set to achieve 70 F tower water during design conditions. When ambient conditions are appropriate, the controls can be reset to produce water that is cooler than 70 F. The Cooling Tower Water Supply Temperature (CTWST) was reset to achieve 5 F cooling tower approach above ambient wet-bulb temperature and it will generate significant energy savings without wasting cooling tower fan energy. The reset was programmed to be 60 F to 75 F, when OAWBT was between 55 F and 70 F. ECM 4 29

36 4.5.2 Pre-Installation System Conditions The CTWST temperature setpoint was manually maintained at a constant 70 F temperature during most of the operating times Post-Installation System Conditions The performance contract requires Johnson Controls to install a functional CW reset control system that is capable of achieving 65 F to 70 F reset (ECM Target). Johnson Controls verified that the CW reset controls were installed and programmed to be 60 F to 75 F, when OAWBT was between 55 F and 70 F (ECM Performance). Trending analysis shows that, in 2012, the building operation personnel manually maintained CW supply temperature at 55 F to 70 F. Johnson Controls also installed a program to automatically set 71 F CW supply temperature when the steam chiller mode is selected (Actual Operation) ECM M&V Methodology The implementation of CW supply temperature reset controls was verified by analyzing Metasys programming. Actual building operation was verified by analyzing CW supply temperature vs. time trends. The analyzed plots are presented in this Report s Appendix. The data for the analysis was retrieved from the Metasys trend repository and from FPI s trend archive. Results from the trending analysis were used to generate the following equest Model inputs that determine the ECM savings. Contract Baseline Contract Target PY Adjusted Baseline PY ECM Performance PY Actual Operation Setpoint Control 70 F Fixed 65 F to 70 F Reset 70 F Fixed 60 F to 75 F Reset Table : CW Supply Temperature Model Inputs 60 F to 75 F Reset (Actual); 65 F Fixed (Modeled) 4.6 ECM 4.6: COOLING TOWER FAN VFD AUTOMATION ECM Description The cooling tower has ten cells and each of them is fitted with a separate cooling fan. Eight of the fans are single speed On/Off type. Two of the fans were fitted with manually controllable VFD. This ECM automated the manually controlled cooling tower VFD system into an automatically controlled cooling tower VFD system. The fan speed is now automatically controlled to meet the Cooling Tower Water Leaving Temperature (CTWLT) setpoint. In addition, controls were installed to automatically stage the two fan VFDs. Varying the speed of a motor to match the actual load improves control as well as reduces electrical motor power (kw) which may result in both comfort improvement and electrical energy savings. ECM 4 30

37 Varying the speed of the motor is generally accomplished by varying voltage and frequency to the fan motor. As the system load changes, consequently, so does the required motor driven output. A control program and the VFD will modulate the speed of the motor and match the output to the load. By reducing the speed of an electric motor, the energy required by the motor is reduced significantly. The actual power required is proportional to the cube of the speed. For example, if a motor s speed is reduced to 80%, the motor s energy consumption is decreased by approximately 50%. The theoretical energy savings through speed reduction is shown in the general relationship below: (bhp2/bhp1)= (W2/W1)^3 where: w2 = VFD controlled motor speed (varies) w1 = motor/fan/pump existing speed (constant) bhp2 = VFD controlled motor brake horsepower (varies) bhp1 = Brake horsepower required before VFD is installed The generic pump characteristic plot below illustrates that generic pump power consumption reduces with reduction in VFD speed. For example, reducing the VFD speed by 10% reduces pump energy usage by 27%. Figure : The generic pump characteristic plot illustrates that generic pump power consumption reduces with reduction in VFD speed In addition to the energy savings, this ECM increases equipment reliability and decreases operating cost by reducing the load on the bearings Pre-Installation System Conditions The cooling tower has ten cells and each of them is fitted with a separate cooling fan. Eight of the fans are single speed ON/OFF type. Two of the fans were fitted with manually controllable VFD Post-Installation System Conditions The performance contract requires Johnson Controls to install an automatic cooling tower VFD system (ECM Target). ECM 4 31

38 Johnson Controls verified that the manually controlled cooling tower VFD system was converted into an automatically controlled cooling tower VFD system. The fan speed is now automatically controlled to meet the CTWLT setpoint. In addition, controls were installed to automatically stage the two fan VFDs (ECM Performance). Trending analysis shows that, in 2012, the ECM was operated as designed (Actual Operation) ECM M&V Methodology The implementation of cooling tower fan VFD automation was verified by analyzing VFD speed trends. The analyzed plots are presented in this Report s Appendix. The data for the analysis was retrieved from the Metasys trend repository and from FPI s trend archive. Results from the trending analysis were used to generate the following equest Model inputs that determine the ECM savings. Contract Baseline Contract Target PY Adjusted Baseline PY ECM Performance PY Actual Operation Tower Fan VFD One Speed Fan VFD on TWRS 4 and 5 One Speed Fan VFD on TWRS 4 and 5 VFD on TWRS 4 and 5 Table : Cooling Tower Fan VFD Automation ECM Model Inputs 4.7 ECM 4.7: CW PUMP VFD AUTOMATION ECM Description This ECM automated the manually controlled variable flow CW system into an automatically controlled variable flow CW system. The pump flow will be automatically controlled to meet CW flow setpoint determined by the electric chiller the loading conditions. Varying the speed of a motor to match the actual load improves control as well as reduces electrical motor power (kw) which may result in both comfort improvement and electrical energy savings. Varying the speed of the motor is generally accomplished by varying voltage and frequency to the motor. The motor is connected to the CW pump. As the system load changes, consequently, so does the required motor driven output. A control program and the VFD will modulate the speed of the motor and match the output to the load. By reducing the speed of an electric motor, the energy required by the motor is reduced significantly. The actual power required is proportional to the cube of the speed. For example, if a motor s speed is reduced to 80%, the motor s energy consumption is decreased by approximately 50%. The theoretical energy savings through speed reduction is shown in the general relationship below: (bhp2/bhp1)= (W2/W1)^3 where: w2 = VFD controlled motor speed (varies) w1 = motor/fan/pump existing speed (constant) bhp2 = VFD controlled motor brake horsepower (varies) bhp1 = Brake horsepower required before VFD is installed ECM 4 32

39 The generic pump characteristic plot below illustrates that generic pump power consumption reduces with reduction in VFD speed. For example, reducing the VFD speed by 10% reduces pump energy usage by 27%. Figure : The generic pump characteristic plot illustrates that generic pump power consumption reduces with reduction in VFD speed In addition to the energy savings, this ECM increases equipment reliability and decreases operating cost by reducing the load on the pump bearings Pre-Installation System Conditions All CW pumps were equipped with VFDs but the drives were not set up to adjust speed automatically with varying chiller load. All VFDs were operating at constant full speed during most of the operating times Post-Installation System Conditions The savings from this ECM were not guaranteed in the contract (ECM Target). Johnson Controls installed a functional CW pump VFD automation system that is capable of automatically varying VFD Speed to meet CW flow requirements set by the electric chiller load conditions. CW pump VFD automation cannot be used when the steam chillers are operational (ECM Performance). Trending analysis shows that, in 2012, the CW pump VFDs were run in the manual mode between 50% and 62% speed (Actual Operation) ECM M&V Methodology The implementation of CW pump VFD automation was verified by checking the Metasys software. Actual building operation was verified by analyzing VFD speed vs. time. The analyzed plots are presented in this Report s Appendix. The data for the analysis was retrieved from the Metasys trend repository and from FPI s trend archive. Results from the trending analysis were used to generate the following equest Model inputs that determine the ECM savings. ECM 4 33

40 Contract Baseline Contract Target PY Adjusted Baseline PY ECM Performance PY Actual Operation CW Pump Control CV CV CV CV Table : CW Pump VFD Automation ECM Model Inputs PY ECM Performance Savings VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) ECM target performance (per contract) and the PY Baseline adjustments set the 2012 ECM target savings at $527,851. Using ECM performance (per M&V) and the PY Baseline adjustments, Johnson Controls calculated the PY ECM performance savings to be $446,904. ECM 4 34

41 5. ECM 5: TENANT ENERGY MANAGEMENT PORTAL 5.1 ECM 5: TEM PORTAL ECM Description Johnson Controls setup an improvised energy dashboard for the customer. The dashboard was developed using Johnson Controls Gridlogix software and is a web-based tool that displays a number of energy use variables. Johnson Controls provides a connection to the building controls system with automatic data transfers of electric submeter data. The dashboard shows energy use compared to relevant variables. The dashboard provides information for each floor of the building and is password protected. A series of alarms are triggered if energy use exceeds expected ranges on any tenant floor. The tenant is able to view current energy consumption in kilowatts along with associated metrics (kw/sq. ft., kw, kwh etc.) as well as historical consumption. The tenant is able to view their comparative consumption relative to other tenants who are under the same ownership structure. A web-based portal displaying tenant specific electric utility consumption is metered building-wide using a Satec BFM136 utility grade smart-meter network, endorsing energy-efficient practices within the tenant space. The EnNET /AEM platform provides 15 minute meter data and creates a normalized data base that can be used to support Time Series profiling, reporting to ISO and future integration with property management software for creating a bill based on current meter read should a tenant terminate a lease Pre-Installation System Conditions Johnson Controls Gridlogix verified the connectivity to each meter. Johnson Controls Gridlogix was not responsible for the physical connection (wired or wireless) to the existing main/sub meters or a third party device required to collect the 15 minute pulse data. The data was in a protocol format that Johnson Controls supports such as Modbus, BACnet, SNMP. Data protocol was BACnet which fully supported auto discovery. Johnson Controls Gridlogix commissioned and verified the EnNET software connection and read the meter data properly. Johnson Controls Gridlogix established the rules base and monitored notifications for successfully creating, archiving and ensuring quality of service. Johnson Controls Gridlogix commissioned the AEM application and built the web pages to properly display metering data, time series analysis, real-time metering information and created notifications based on usage parameters Post-Installation System Conditions The deployment of TEM was completed in Year Due to increasing installation of submeters and requests to contemporized existing TEM, Johnson Controls proceeded with development of enhanced TEM. During third quarter of Year 2012, a new dashboard, TEM2, went in production to meet and exceed the growing platform at the site. TEM2 platform includes customer facing interactive applications such as: A green kiosk on how to save energy tips Building/industry tweets ECM 5 35

42 Sustainability trending Information on various retrofit performed at site Tenant specific dashboard to display various matrices Reporting module tenant and administration based Energy analyzer with ability to view sub-metering at a granular level ECM M&V Methodology The basis of savings is a combination of temperature controls by building and energy monitoring by individual tenant. By using TEM, tenants can consistently monitor and take a proactive approach in reducing the demand and consumption by utilizing various avenues mentioned in TEM. The following measurements were performed to determine whether the TEM metering achieves the Guaranteed Annual Savings Amount: Johnson Controls trends the space temperature setpoints and enters the values in the equest Model. The setpoints in the room can be adjusted upward during summer and downward during winter. Johnson Controls trends the difference between site standard temperature setpoint and the tenant selected setpoint. The tenants have access to a thermostat with a slider that can change the zone setpoints by a user selected value. The slider is set so that in the summer the tenant can only select between the building standard setpoint and a higher setpoint. In winter, the tenant is able to select between the building standard setpoint and a lower setpoint. Johnson Controls inspects the tenant utility meter screens from a common sense point of view. Any newly added tenant meter screens are verified. It is the responsibility of the customer to add new meters to the system. The Customer agrees to operate the conditioned spaces in the Site within the temperature ranges scheduled in the Temperature Control table below. Operating conditions outside the range specified in this table shall constitute a Cause for Adjustment. In the event that an adjustment to the Baseline is sought, Johnson Controls shall submit the proposed Baseline adjustments to the Customer and describe the reasons for the adjustment as part of the prior year calculations described in Schedule B. ECM 5 36

43 Temperature Control Occupied room temperature during heating season: 70 F (+/- 2 F) Unoccupied low temperature limit during heating season: 55 F Heating season is: November 1 to April 30 Occupied room temperature during cooling season: 74 F (+/- 2 F) Unoccupied high temperature limit during cooling season: N/A F Cooling season is: May 1 to October PY ECM Performance Savings ECM target performance (per contract) and the PY Baseline adjustments set the 2012 ECM target savings at $25,755. Using ECM performance (per M&V) and the PY Baseline adjustments, Johnson Controls calculated the PY ECM performance savings to be $0. ECM 5 37

44 Appendix List Appendix 1: BAS Retrofit Data Analysis Appendix 2: Chiller Retrofit Data Analysis Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis Appendix 4: Steam Chiller Usage Data Analysis Appendix 5: Occupancy Modeling Methodology Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Input Table Appendix 7: Utility Analysis Appendix 8: FPI Appendix 38

45 Appendix 1: BAS Retrofit Data Analysis DATA ANALYSIS Damper Retrofit and DCV The goal of the ECM was to reduce the building s overall outside air intake by retrofitting the non- Alerton AHU with DCV and modulating dampers. Minimum outside air ventilation is possible when CO 2 based DCV is combined with the ability to open dampers just enough to satisfy the ventilation demand. This cannot be achieved with the old two position dampers, but can be achieved with CO 2 based DCV controls and modulating dampers. Demand controlled ventilation is used to modulate outside air ventilation based on real time occupancy. DCV reduces unnecessary over-ventilation that may result when existing AHUs are set to provide ventilation for a maximum assumed occupancy. Johnson Controls retrofitted non-alerton AHUs with CO 2 sensor on the return air duct. DCV was programmed for outside air activation at 800 ppm return air CO 2 threshold. Also, Johnson Controls retrofitted non-alerton AHU units by replacing their two-position pneumatic damper system with new dampers (if broken), new actuators and DDC controls. The new damper system has the capability to modulate anywhere between 0% to 100% open/close position. Outside air damper position % and return air CO 2 ppm level data for High Zone AHUs-52.5, 52.4 and Mid Zone AHU -39.4, Low Zone AHU15.8 were taken from Metasys data repository server. The analyzed data trends (shown below) indicated that outside damper position increased when the CO 2 ppm in the return air increased above the threshold level of 800ppm. The data trends demonstrate that the DCV system was installed and is operational. The data was taken from January 2012 to December 2012 period. Outside Air Damper Position increased when CO 2 level was increased> 800ppm Appendix 1: BAS Retrofit Data Analysis 39

46 Figure A.1.1: AHU 52.5 Outside Air Damper Position maintains minimum damper position (10%) and modulates when CO 2 level rises. Outside Air Damper Position increased when CO 2 level was increased >800ppm Figure A.1.2: AHU 52.2 Outside Air Damper Position maintains minimum damper position (10%) and modulates when CO 2 level rises. Outside Air Damper Position increased when CO 2 level was increased >800ppm Appendix 1: BAS Retrofit Data Analysis 40

47 Figure A.1.3: AHU 39.4 Outside Air Damper Position maintains minimum damper position (10%) and modulates when CO 2 level rises. Outside Air Damper Position increased when CO 2 level was increased >800ppm Figure A.1.4: AHU 15.8 Outside Air Damper Position maintains minimum damper position (10%) and modulates when CO 2 level rises. The following charts show the outside air damper position percentage and CO 2 ppm level trends during building occupied hours. The trends indicate that outside air dampers modulate between 0% to 100%. Also, these plots show that the outside air damper position was fixed when outside air temperature goes above 68 F. OA Position increase when CO2 level increased OA Position was at Appendix 1: BAS Retrofit Data Analysis 41

48 OA Position was at OA Position increase when CO2 level increased Fan Scheduling Figure A.1.5: Outside air damper position percentage and CO 2 ppm level trends during building occupied hours. The building has fans to provide AHU supply air, exhaust toilet space air and to exhaust building space air. Prior to the performance contract, the fans did not have the DDC controls to automatically schedule On/Off. Johnson Controls installed DDC controls on the AHU s to automatically schedule On/Off. As part of the BAS retrofit, all non-alerton AHU supply fans were connected to BAS and the scheduling feature was enabled. AHU Supply Fan Scheduling: Supply fan run status data for AHU 15-7, 15-8, 39-4 and 48-4 was taken from the Metasys data server and the trend data for each unit are shown below. The data clearly indicate that the units were operating for 12 hours/day during most of the time. A few of units operated for 15 hours/day from June to Oct. The following lists the average operating hours: Appendix 1: BAS Retrofit Data Analysis 42

49 Contract Baseline: 18 hours/day Contract Target: 15 hours/day ECM Performance and Actual: Hours/Day (12 Hours/day 42% of the Time and 15 Hours/day 58% of the Time) Operating at 12 hours/day Figure A.1.6: AHU 15-7 daily run hours trend. 0 AHU 15-8 Daily Run Hours Trend Operating Hours/day Operating at 12 hours/day Figure A.1.7: AHU 1-.7 daily run hours trend. Appendix 1: BAS Retrofit Data Analysis 43

50 Operating at 12 hours/day Figure A.1.8: AHU 39-4 daily run hours trend. Operating at 12 hours/day Figure A.1.9: AHU 48-4 daily run hours trend. The following Figure shows the average run hour histogram for a typical AHU (AHU 15-7). Appendix 1: BAS Retrofit Data Analysis 44

51 Figure A.1.10: AHU 15.7 Monthly Average Run Hours Summary Similar analysis was carried out for more sample AHU s and the observation reflected the results. The table on the following page shows the vacancy rate calculations by level and CHW zone. Appendix 1: BAS Retrofit Data Analysis 45

52 Appendix 2: Chiller Retrofit Data Analysis Chiller Curve fit Modeling Methodology Trended chiller data was used to create custom chiller performance curves in equest to best-fit the data. The data that was used to calculate chiller performance includes: VSD Input kw VSD Output Frequency (used for comparison and trouble shooting) Leaving CHWT Entering CHWT (used for comparison and trouble shooting) CHW Flow Rate Leaving CWT (used for comparison and trouble shooting) Entering CWT From the trended data, several output values were calculated, including Chiller load (tons) Adjusted chiller capacity, to account for CHWT and CWT impacts - this was calculated using the default equest capacity adjustment curve, which is typical for most centrifugal chillers % Full-Load, using calculated adjusted capacity and calculated load Chiller Efficiency (kw/ton) To compare the DOE2 default curves to the actual trended chiller data, the chiller kw was calculated for the given trend conditions for all of the data points which was then compared to the trended chiller kw by calculating the Mean Bias Error (MBE) and the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). For the entire data set, an overall MBE and coefficient of variation for the RSME was then calculated. MBE = kw measured kw calculated kw measured CV(RMSE) = n 1 kw measured kw calculated 2 n kw measured To determine the best fit for the data, the solver function in Excel was used to minimize the Coefficient of Variation for the data set while using constraints to maintain the specified full-load ARI condition efficiency. Part of fitting the data was to estimate each chiller's full-load efficiency at ARI conditions. For many of the chillers, limited or no data was available at full-loading conditions and ARI conditions (note that ARI rating conditions are 100% load at 85 F CWT and 44 F CHWT). This was due to the chiller staging strategy utilized in 2012 which involved base loading the steam chiller during on-peak electrical hours to limit the building demand. For the chillers with no trended points at ARI conditions, engineering judgment was used to determine an acceptable ARI rating for the chiller. This involved finding the full-load points available and adjusting the measured performance at that point to account for the variance in conditions from ARI rating conditions (e.g. a chiller operating at full-load with 75 F CWT typically has a lower kw/ton than the same chiller operating at 85 F CWT). Appendix 2: Chiller Retrofit Data Analysis 46

53 Low Zone CH-1 Mid Zone CH-4 Mid Zone CH-5 High Zone CH-6 Rated Efficiency at ARI conditions (kw/ton) Target Default DOE2 Centrifugal Default DOE2 Centrifugal Default DOE2 Centrifugal Default DOE2 Centrifugal Curves VSD Curves VSD Curves VSD Curves VSD Curves Source Contract Contract Contract Contract Rated Efficiency at ARI conditions (kw/ton) Curves Custom to best-fit Custom to best-fit Custom to best-fit Custom to best-fit trended data trended data trended data trended data FIM 0.55 kw/ton point comes from trended data - no points were available at 0.60 kw/ton point comes from trended data - no points were available at 0.55 kw/ton point comes from trended data - no points were available at Performance ARI conditions, closest ARI conditions, closest ARI conditions, closest 0.58 kw/ton comes from points were full load, 42 points were full load, 42 points were full load, 42 Source trended point at 100% CHWT, 75 CWT at 0.50 CHWT, 68 CWT at 0.50 CHWT, 75 CWT at 0.50 load, 42.1 CHWT, 81.3 CWT kw/ton, so this kw/ton, so this kw/ton, so this performance was degraded 10% to account for this performance was degraded 20% to account for this performance was degraded 10% to account for this After finding a best-fit for the data by solving for the curves to minimize the coefficient of variation, these custom curves and estimated ARI chiller efficiency ratings were used to calculate the FIM performance. Target and FIM performance fit information for each chiller is shown on the following pages. Appendix 2: Chiller Retrofit Data Analysis 47

54 Low Zone Electric CH-1 Target Contract Efficiency and default equest curves (0.799 kw/ton at ARI) CWT MBE Cv(RSME) % 38% % 15% % 14% % 12% % 13% % 15% Overall -0.02% 14% Efficiency (kw/ton) CH-1 BaselineCurves 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% Load (%) equest Default Centrifugal 65 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 75 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 85 CWT - CH-1, 750 ton centrifugal chiller at 0.74 kw/ton full load ARI kw/ton calculated IPLV from equest curves Low Zone Electric CH-1 FIM Performance Best-fit curve solutions (0.55 kw/ton at ARI) CWT MBE Cv(RSME) % 41% % 14% % 13% % 10% % 8% % 8% Overall 0.10% 11% Efficiency (kw/ton) CH-1 BaselineCurves 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% Load (%) equest Default Centrifugal 65 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 75 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 85 CWT - CH-1, 750 ton centrifugal chiller at 0.74 kw/ton full load ARI kw/ton calculated IPLV from equest curves Trended Data vs. Modeled Target Chiller Performance Trended Data 85 degf CWT 65 degf CWT Trended Data vs. Modeled FIM Chiller Performance Trended Data 85 degf CWT 65 degf CWT kw/ton kw/ton % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) Modeled Target Chiller Performance 65 degf CWT 75 degf CWT 85 degf CWT Modeled FIM Chiller Performance 65 degf CWT 75 degf CWT 85 degf CWT kw/ton kw/ton % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) CWT (Trended Data) 65 CWT (Modeled Target Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 75 CWT (Modeled Target Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 85 CWT (Modeled Target Performance) % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) CWT (Trended Data) 65 CWT (Modeled FIM Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 75 CWT (Modeled FIM Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 85 CWT (Modeled FIM Performance) kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) Appendix 2: Chiller Retrofit Data Analysis 48

55 Mid Zone Electric CH-4 Target Contract Efficiency & default equest curves (0.711 kw/ton ARI) CWT MBE Cv(RSME) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! % 27% % 26% % 25% % 18% % 35% Overall 6.65% 24% Efficiency (kw/ton) CH-4,5 BaselineCurves 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% Load (%) equest Default Centrifugal 65 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 75 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 85 CWT - CH-4,5, 1000 ton centrifugal chiller at 0.72 kw/ton full load ARI kw/ton calculated IPLV from equest curves Mid Zone Electric CH-4 FIM Performance Best-fit curve solutions (0.58 kw/ton at ARI) CWT MBE Cv(RSME) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! % 10% % 8% % 10% % 7% % 11% Overall 0.10% 9% Efficiency (kw/ton) CH-4,5 BaselineCurves 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% Load (%) equest Default Centrifugal 65 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 75 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 85 CWT - CH-4,5, 1000 ton centrifugal chiller at 0.72 kw/ton full load ARI kw/ton calculated IPLV from equest curves Trended Data vs. Modeled Target Chiller Performance Trended Data 85 degf CWT 65 degf CWT Trended Data vs. Modeled FIM Chiller Performance Trended Data 85 degf CWT 65 degf CWT kw/ton kw/ton % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) Modeled Target Chiller Performance 65 degf CWT 75 degf CWT 85 degf CWT Modeled FIM Chiller Performance 65 degf CWT 75 degf CWT 85 degf CWT kw/ton kw/ton % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) CWT (Trended Data) 65 CWT (Modeled Target Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 75 CWT (Modeled Target Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 85 CWT (Modeled Target Performance) % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) CWT (Trended Data) 65 CWT (Modeled FIM Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 75 CWT (Modeled FIM Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 85 CWT (Modeled FIM Performance) kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) Appendix 2: Chiller Retrofit Data Analysis 49

56 Mid Zone Electric CH-5 Target Contract Efficiency & default equest curves (0.711 kw/ton ARI) CWT MBE Cv(RSME) % 79% % 60% % 52% % 47% % 30% % 17% Overall % 49% Efficiency (kw/ton) CH-4,5 BaselineCurves 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% Load (%) Trended Data vs. Modeled Target Chiller Performance equest Default Centrifugal 65 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 75 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 85 CWT - CH-4,5, 1000 ton centrifugal chiller at 0.72 kw/ton full load ARI kw/ton calculated IPLV from equest curves Trended Data 85 degf CWT 65 degf CWT Mid Zone Electric CH-5 FIM Performance Best-fit curve solutions (0.68 kw/ton ARI) CWT MBE Cv(RSME) % 56% % 15% % 15% % 20% % 12% % 8% Overall 0.10% 16% Efficiency (kw/ton) CH-4,5 BaselineCurves 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% Load (%) Trended Data vs. Modeled FIM Chiller Performance equest Default Centrifugal 65 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 75 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 85 CWT - CH-4,5, 1000 ton centrifugal chiller at 0.72 kw/ton full load ARI kw/ton calculated IPLV from equest curves Trended Data 85 degf CWT 65 degf CWT kw/ton kw/ton % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) Modeled Target Chiller Performance 65 degf CWT 75 degf CWT 80 degf CWT Modeled FIM Chiller Performance 65 degf CWT 75 degf CWT 80 degf CWT kw/ton kw/ton % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) CWT (Trended Data) 65 CWT (Modeled Target Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 75 CWT (Modeled Target Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 80 CWT (Modeled Target Performance) % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) CWT (Trended Data) 65 CWT (Modeled FIM Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 75 CWT (Modeled FIM Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 80 CWT (Modeled FIM Performance) kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) Appendix 2: Chiller Retrofit Data Analysis 50

57 High Zone Electric CH-6 Target Contract Efficiency & default equest curves (0.817 kw/ton ARI) CWT MBE Cv(RSME) % 41% % 22% % 17% % 11% % 9% % 13% Overall -7.35% 15% Efficiency (kw/ton) CH-6 BaselineCurves 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% Load (%) equest Default Centrifugal 65 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 75 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 85 CWT - CH-6, 1000 ton centrifugal chiller at 0.85 kw/ton full load ARI kw/ton calculated IPLV from equest curves High Zone Electric CH-6 FIM Performance Best-fit curve solutions (0.55 kw/ton at ARI) CWT MBE Cv(RSME) % 12% % 11% % 8% % 9% % 8% % 27% Overall 0.10% 8% Efficiency (kw/ton) CH-6 BaselineCurves 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% Load (%) equest Default Centrifugal 65 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 75 CWT equest Default Centrifugal 85 CWT - CH-6, 1000 ton centrifugal chiller at 0.85 kw/ton full load ARI kw/ton calculated IPLV from equest curves Trended Data vs. Modeled Target Chiller Performance Trended Data 85 degf CWT 65 degf CWT Trended Data vs. Modeled FIM Chiller Performance Trended Data 85 degf CWT 65 degf CWT kw/ton kw/ton % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) Modeled Chiller Target Performance 65 degf CWT 75 degf CWT 80 degf CWT Modeled Chiller FIM Performance 65 degf CWT 75 degf CWT 80 degf CWT kw/ton kw/ton % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) CWT (Trended Data) 65 CWT (Modeled Target Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 75 CWT (Modeled Target Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 80 CWT (Modeled Target Performance) % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) CWT (Trended Data) 65 CWT (Modeled FIM Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 75 CWT (Modeled FIM Performance) CWT (Trended Data) 80 CWT (Modeled FIM Performance) kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton kw/ton % 50% 100% 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) Chiller Part Loading (%) Chiller Part Loading (%) Chiller Part Loading (%) Appendix 2: Chiller Retrofit Data Analysis % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%) % 50% 100% Chiller Part Loading (%)

58 Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 3.1 CHWST Reset Chiller performance improves when higher temperature CHW is produced. Low CHW temperatures are required to meet the building load during hot summer days. Chiller performance improvisation, without compromising capacity requirements, can be achieved by incorporating CHW supply temperature reset controls. Increase in CHW supply temperature results in increased variable CHW pumping system energy consumption. This penalty can be minimized by tuning the system to maintain minimum design flow through the AHU coils. Johnson Controls verified that the CHW supply temperature reset controls were not installed and hence, no savings were claimed in Chiller 1: CHWST vs. Outside Air Temperature Figure A shows the CHWST during various outside air temperature conditions for Chiller 1. The plot indicates that the CHWST did not vary with outside air temperature and it does not indicate any corelation with outside air temperature. It also indicates the setpoint was manually adjusted by the operating personnel. The manually operated CHWST range was between 42 F and 50 F. Figure A.3.1.1: CHWST during Various Outside Air Temperature Conditions for Chiller 1 Chiller 1: CHWST, Outside Air Temperature vs. Time Figure A shows Chiller 1 CHWST trend during summer 2012 conditions. The plot demonstrates that the outside air temperature varied from 56 F to 85 F and CHWST was maintained constant irrespective of outside air temperature change. It also demonstrated that the CHWST setpoint was operated manually. Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 52

59 Figure A.3.1.2: Chiller 1 CHWST Trend during Summer 2012 Conditions Chiller 4: CHWST vs. Outside Air Temperature Figure A3.1.3 shows the CHWST during various outside air temperature conditions for Chiller 4. The plot indicates that CHWST did not vary with outside air temperature and it does not indicate any co-relation with outside air temperature. It also indicates the setpoint was manually adjusted by the operating personnel. The manually operated CHWST range was between 42 F and 50 F. Figure A.3.1.3: CHWST during Various Outside Air Temperature Conditions for Chiller 4 Chiller 4: CHWST, Outside Air Temperature vs Time Figure A shows Chiller 4 CHWST trend during summer 2012 conditions. The plot demonstrates that the outside air temperature varied from 45 F to 90 F and CHWST was maintained constant irrespective of outside air temperature change. It also demonstrated that the CHWST setpoint was operated manually. Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 53

60 Figure A.3.1.4: Chiller 4 CHWST Trend during Summer 2012 Conditions Chiller 5: CHWST vs. Outside Air Temperature Figure A shows the CHWST during various outside air temperature conditions for Chiller 5. The plot indicates that the CHWST did not vary with outside air temperature and it does not indicate any corelation with outside air temperature. It also indicates the setpoint was manually adjusted by the operating personnel. The manually operated CHWST range was between 42 F and 50 F. Figure A.3.1.5: CHWST during Various Outside Air Temperature Conditions for Chiller 5 Chiller 5: CHWST, Outside Air Temperature vs. Time Figure A shows Chiller 5 CHWST trend during summer 2012 conditions. The plot demonstrates that the outside air temperature varied from 50 F to 90 F and CHWST was maintained constant irrespective of outside air temperature change. It also demonstrated that the CHWST setpoint was operated manually. Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 54

61 Figure A.3.1.6: Chiller 5 CHWST Trend during Summer 2012 Conditions Chiller 6: CHWST vs Outside Air Temperature Figure A shows the CHWST during various outside air temperature conditions for Chiller 6. The plot indicates that the CHWST did not vary with outside air temperature and it does not indicate any corelation with outside air temperature. It also indicates the setpoint was manually adjusted by the operating personnel. The manually operated CHWST range was between 42 F and 50 F. Figure A.3.1.7: CHWST during Various Outside Air Temperature Conditions for Chiller 6 Chiller 6: CHWST, Outside Air Temperature vs Time Figure A shows Chiller 6 CHWST trend during summer 2012 conditions. The plot demonstrates that the outside air temperature varied from 50 F to 90 F and CHWST was maintained constant irrespective of outside air temperature change. It also demonstrated that the CHWST setpoint was operated manually. Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 55

62 Figure A.3.1.8: Chiller 6 CHWST Trend during Summer 2012 Conditions 3.2 CHW Loop Delta-T Enhancement Lower CHW delta-t increases chiller efficiency. But for any given load condition, lowering the delta-t also increases CHW pump flow and hence, its electric power consumption. A low delta-t also inhibits the ability of the chiller to operate at peak capacity. Hence, increasing the CHW loop delta-t to an optimal design setting was desired. Post-Installation CHW loop delta-t was targeted to operate close to 10 F under design conditions. CHW loop delta-t was increased by: Changing the three-way valves to two-way valves in the Pre-Installation AHUs that were included in project Minimizing CHW flow rate using CHW pump VFD automation Trending analysis shows that, in 2012, the steam chillers were run during peak load conditions. Johnson Controls CHW loop delta-t instrumentation is located on the electric chillers and hence, design delta-t could not be trended. However, Johnson Controls trended the loop delta-t under part-load conditions and the summary of the results are shown below. Chiller 1: CHW Delta-T vs Outside Air Temperature Figure A shows the CHW delta-t levels for Chiller 1. Figure A shows the CHW delta-t during various outside air temperature conditions for Chiller 1. Figure A shows Chiller 1 CHW delta-t Trend during summer 2012 conditions. These plots demonstrate that the Low Zone delta-t was operating mostly between 3 F to 6 F. Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 56

63 Figure A.3.2.1: CHW Delta-T Levels for Chiller 1 Figure A.3.2.2: CHW Delta-T during Various Outside Air Temperature Conditions for Chiller 1 Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 57

64 Figure A.3.2.3: Chiller 1 CHW Delta-T Trend during Summer 2012 Conditions Chiller 4 CHW Delta-T vs. Outside Air Temperature Figure A shows the CHW delta-t levels for Chiller 4. Figure A shows the CHW delta-t during various outside air temperature conditions for Chiller 4. Figure A shows Chiller 4 CHW delta-t Trend during summer 2012 conditions. These plots demonstrate that the Mid Zone delta-t was operating mostly between 3 F to 9 F. Figure A.3.2.4: CHW Delta-T Levels for Chiller 4 Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 58

65 Figure A.3.2.5: CHW Delta-T during Various Outside Air Temperature Conditions for Chiller 4 The graph indicates that the CHW delta-t was varying from 3 F to 9 F. The trend data of CHW delta-t and outside air temperature was plotted and shown below. Figure A.3.2.6: Chiller 4 CHW Delta-T Trend during Summer 2012 Conditions Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 59

66 Chiller 5 CHW Delta-T vs. Outside Air Temperature Figure A shows the CHW delta-t levels for Chiller 5. Figure A shows the CHW delta-t during various outside air temperature conditions for Chiller 5. Figure A shows Chiller 5 CHW delta-t trend during summer 2012 conditions. These plots demonstrate that the Mid Zone delta-t was operating mostly between 3 F to 8 F. Figure A.3.2.7: CHW Delta-T Levels for Chiller 5 Figure A.3.2.8: CHW Delta-T during Various Outside Air Temperature Conditions for Chiller 5 Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 60

67 The trend data of CHW delta-t and outside air temperature was plotted and shown below. Figure A.3.2.9: Chiller 5 CHW Delta-T Trend during Summer 2012 Conditions Chiller 6 CHW Delta-T vs. Outside Air Temperature Figure A shows the CHW delta-t levels for Chiller 6. Figure A shows the CHW delta-t during various outside air temperature conditions for Chiller 6. Figure A shows Chiller 6 CHW delta-t trend during summer 2012 conditions. These plots demonstrate that the High Zone delta-t was operating mostly between 3 F to 9 F. Figure A : CHW Delta-T Levels for Chiller 6 Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 61

68 Figure A : CHW Delta-T during Various Outside Air Temperature Conditions for Chiller 6 The trend data of CHW delta-t and outside air temperature was plotted and shown below. Figure A : Chiller 6 CHW Delta-T Trend during Summer 2012 Conditions Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 62

69 3.3 CHW Pump VFD Automation This ECM automated the manually controlled variable flow CHW system into an automatically controlled variable flow CHW system. The pump flow will be automatically controlled to meet the CHW loop differential pressure setpoint. Two-way valves on the cooling coils ensure that CHW is supplied only when there is demand at the AHU. Hence, two-way valves create differential pressure variation in the CHW loop. The VFD speed can be reduced when loop differential pressure decreases and the loop minimum flow can still be maintained. The CHW pump VFD automation system was fully installed and is capable of automatically varying VFD speed between 100% and 50% (min) to meet building differential pressure setpoint. However, the trending analysis shows that, in 2012, the CHW pump VFDs were run in the manual mode at reduced speeds. Low Zone CHW Pump VFD Speed Figure A shows the VFD speed levels for the Low Zone CHW pumps. This histogram demonstrates that all Low Zone pumps were operating in the manual mode either at 58% speed or at 67% speed. Figure A.3.3.1: VFD Speed Levels for the Low Zone CHW Pumps Mid Zone CHW Pump VFD Speed Figure A shows the VFD speed levels for the Mid Zone CHW pumps. This histogram demonstrates that all Mid Zone pumps were operating in the manual mode between 53% to 70% speed. Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 63

70 Figure A.3.3.2: VFD Speed Levels for the Mid Zone CHW Pumps High Zone CHW Pump VFD Speed Figure A shows the VFD speed levels for the High Zone CHW pumps. This histogram demonstrates that all High Zone pumps were operating in the manual mode either at 58% speed or at 67% speed. Figure A.3.3.3: VFD Speed Levels for the High Zone CHW Pumps 3.4 CW Supply Temperature Reset Chiller performance increases significantly at lower CW temperatures. CW supply temperature reset strategy was implemented to provide low temperature CW, to the extent allowed by the chiller manufacturer. Cooling tower fan power increases to produce lower temperature CHW but chiller efficiency gains typically dominate the optimization. Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 64

71 Cooling tower controls are initially set to achieve 70 F tower water during design condition. When ambient conditions are appropriate, the controls can be reset to produce water that is cooler than 70 F. The CTWST was reset to achieve 5 F cooling tower approach above ambient wet-bulb temperature and it will generate significant energy savings without wasting cooling tower fan energy. The reset was programmed to be 60 F to 75 F when OAWBT was between 55 F and 70 F. Figure A.3.4.1: CTWLT during Various OAWBT Temperature Conditions Figure A.3.4.2: CTWLT Trend during Summer 2012 Conditions Figure A shows the CTWLT during various OAWBT temperature conditions. Figure A shows the CTWLT trend during summer 2012 conditions. Trending analysis shows that, in 2012, the building operation personnel manually maintained CW supply temperature at 55 F to 70 F. Johnson Controls also installed a program to automatically set 71 F CW supply temperature when the steam chiller mode is selected. Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 65

72 3.5 Cooling Tower Fan VFD Automation The cooling tower has ten cells and each of them is fitted with a separate cooling fan. Eight of the fans are single speed On/Off type. Two of the fans were fitted with manually controllable VFD. This ECM automated the manually controlled cooling tower VFD system into an automatically controlled cooling tower VFD system. The fan speed is now automatically controlled to meet the CTWLT setpoint. In addition, controls were installed to automatically stage the two fan VFDs. Johnson Controls verified that the manually controlled cooling tower VFD system was converted into an automatically controlled cooling tower VFD system. The fan speed is now automatically controlled to meet the CTWLT setpoint. In addition, controls were installed to automatically stage the two fan VFDs. Trending analysis shows that, in 2012, the ECM was operated as designed (Actual Operation). No. of Occurence Cooling Tower Fan VFD Speed Vs No. of Occurrence Twr5 Twr CT VFD Speed (%) Figure A.3.5.1: VFD Speed Levels for the CT Variable Speed Fans Figure A shows the VFD speed levels for the CT variable speed fans. This histogram demonstrates that the CT fan VFDs are operational. The analysis also demonstrated that the VFDs were modulating 64% of the operational time. Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 66

73 Figure A.3.5.2: CT Fan VFD Speed Trend during Summer 2012 Conditions Figure A shows the cooling tower fan VFD speed trend during summer 2012 conditions. The plots demonstrate the automatic modulation of the VFD speed. Date / Time CT5 VFD CT4 VFD 10/19/12 5:50 PM 57.0% 57.0% 10/19/12 4:41 PM 48.1% 48.1% 10/19/12 3:40 PM 45.7% 45.7% 10/19/12 2:30 PM 47.9% 47.9% 10/19/12 1:20 PM 43.0% 43.0% 10/19/12 12:10 PM 44.9% 44.9% 10/19/12 11:00 AM 41.2% 41.2% 10/19/12 9:50 AM 41.6% 41.6% 10/19/12 8:40 AM 39.8% 39.8% 10/19/12 7:30 AM 58.3% 58.3% Table A.3.5.1: Sample One-Day Profile of CT Fan VFD Speed Table A shows the sample one-day profile of CT Fan VFD Speed and demonstrates that both of the tower fans are ramping up at the same speeds as load increases. 3.6 CW Pump VFD Automation This ECM automated the manually controlled variable flow CW system into an automatically controlled variable flow CW system. The pump flow will be automatically controlled to meet CW flow setpoint determined by the electric chiller the loading conditions. Johnson Controls installed a functional CW pump VFD automation system that is capable of automatically varying VFD Speed to meet CW flow requirements set by the electric chiller load conditions. CW pump VFD automation cannot be used when the steam chillers are operational. Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 67

74 Figure A through Figure A shows the CW Pump-1 VFD speed trend. The trending analysis shows that, in 2012, all the CW pump VFDs were run in the manual mode between 50% and 62% speed. 60% Condenser Pump 1 VFD Speed VsTime 50% 40% VFD Speed 30% 20% 10% 0% Date / Time Figure A.3.6.1: CW Pump-1 VFD Speed Trend 70% Condenser Pump 2 VFD Speed VsTime 60% 50% VFD Speed 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Date / Time Figure A.3.6.2: CW Pump-2 VFD Speed Trend Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 68

75 Figure A.3.6.3: CW Pump-3 VFD Speed Trend Figure A.3.6.4: CW Pump-4 VFD Speed Trend Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 69

76 70% Condenser Pump 5 VFD Speed VsTime 60% 50% VFD Speed 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Date / Time Figure A.3.6.5: CW Pump-5 VFD Speed Trend 70% Condenser Pump 6 VFD Speed VsTime 60% 50% VFD Speed 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Date / Time Figure A.3.6.6: CW Pump-6 VFD Speed Trend Appendix 3: Chiller Plant Retrofit Data Analysis 70

77 Appendix 4: Steam Chiller Usage Data Analysis ESB predominately uses steam for heating system and to run the steam operated chiller for cooling load. The building receives steam from ConEdison Company (ConEd) from their district heating system. There are five steam meters for the entire building and sum of all these meters gives the total steam usage. Steam usage (lbs/hr) from all five steam meters was collected from the ConEd and was analyzed as shown below. The hourly profile indicates that the overall consumption varies from 2,000 lbs/hour in night to 40,000 lbs/hour in day time. Figure A.4.1: Steam Usage Hourly Trend The chart below indicates that building average base winter load varies from 3,000 to 7,000 lbs/hr during night time and average peak winter load vary from 26,000 to 34,000 lbs/hour during day time. During summer, the base summer load was around 2,000 lbs/hr to 3,000 lbs/hr during night time and 7,000 to 18,000 lbs/hr during day time. Further, the chart indicates the daytime consumption increased at around 5 a.m. in summer and 8 a.m. in winter. The further analysis as indicated in the subsequent section shows that the steam mainly used to operate steam chillers during the day time from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Appendix 5: Occupancy Modeling Methodology 71

78 Maximum Usage in Base Summer Usage Base Winter Usage Figure A.4.2: ESB Monthly Average Hourly Steam Usage Profile Note: Monthly Average Hourly Steam Usage = Sum of usage at a particular hour from all the months/no of days in the month The below histogram indicate the ton-hour against the hour of the day. These two plots shows that the steam chillers were operated mainly from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. All remaining hours electric chillers were in operation. Figure A.4.3: Chiller Ton-Hour Histogram (5AM to 4PM) Appendix 5: Occupancy Modeling Methodology 72

79 Figure A.4.4: Chiller Ton-Hour Histogram (5PM to 4AM) The following graph indicates the monthly steam usage details vs. HDD. The chart includes utility bill steam usage and the ConEd hourly steam usage. Both data almost matched except for some variations due to overalapping days in the bill. This chart indicates high steam usage during winter and low usage during summer period. Figure A.4.5 Monthly Total Steam Usage Vs HDD Appendix 5: Occupancy Modeling Methodology 73

80 Appendix 5: Occupancy Modeling Methodology PY building occupancy data was provided by ESB s leasing agent, Newmark Knight Frank. Actual move-in and move-out dates from the quarterly planbook were utilized to accurately calculate the vacancy rate of the building as of April, July, November, and December. Usable square feet metric from the plan book was used as the basis for the percentage calculations. The following calculation method was utilized to estimate floor level vacancy rate: Floor (n) Vacancy Rate (%) = (Total Vacant Square Feet on Floor (n))/ (Total Square Feet on Floor (n)) Where, (n) represents a specific floor. These April, July, November, and December vacancy rates were extrapolated to estimate month by month averages, which were used to calculate a total annual average vacancy per floor. The annual average vacancy rates were then used to determine an overall average vacancy rate per CHW zone based on average level vacancy rates and modeled usable square footages per level. The low CHW zone serves the concourse level through Level 5, the mid CHW zone serves Levels 6 through 41, and the high CHW zone serves Levels 42 through 103. Based on the total annual average per CHW zone, an annual vacant square footage is determined. A number of modeled levels are assumed to be vacant to match this annual vacant square footage, which is indicated by the highlighted floors in the tables on the following pages. The vacant levels have been modeled with no internal loads due to tenants (lighting and equipment), and the vacant tenant levels are assumed to have HVAC setbacks to 85 F for cooling and 60 F for heating in the tenant areas, as well as the corridors, restrooms, and building core support spaces on the vacant levels. Vacancy rate was applied to the "modeled tenant SF" and the resulting vacant spaces were setback. Non-tenant SF (=Total SF Tenant SF) was assumed to be conditioned, but not setback. Johnson Controls physically measured all the floor spaces in ESB and calculated the total building SF to be 2,575,565 SF (this includes tenant space, corridors, mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, etc). Newmark Knight Frank s plan book shows that, as much as 2,070,966 SF is used as tenant spaces. These numbers compares closely with the modeled square feet which were based on building floor plans. In the model, the vacant tenant SF is setback 24/7. In the model, occupied tenant SF, elevator shaft, corridors and stairwells are all setback per the AHU supply fan schedule. The table on the following page shows the vacancy rate calculations by level and CHW zone. Appendix 5: Occupancy Modeling Methodology 74

81 Floor Modeled Modeled CHW Vacancy Rate Annual Modeled Annual Tenant SF Total SF Zone Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Average Vacancy Average CM Low 49.4% 49.4% 49.4% 49.4% 49.4% 49.4% 49.4% 49.4% 49.4% 49.4% 49.4% 49.4% 49.4% 0.0% CO Low 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 5.0% 11.4% 0.0% LL Low 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.4% 1.4% 1.0% 0.0% Low 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 0.0% Low 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.9% Low 50.9% 50.9% 50.9% 50.9% 50.9% 50.9% 62.4% 62.4% 62.4% 62.4% 64.5% 0.0% 51.6% 100.0% Low 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Low 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 84.7% 84.7% 84.7% 84.7% 84.7% 84.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 42.3% 100.0% Mid 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 35.7% 35.7% 35.7% 35.7% 35.7% 35.7% 37.9% 37.9% 37.9% 37.9% 61.4% 61.4% 40.7% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mid 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mid 98.2% 98.2% 98.2% 98.2% 98.2% 98.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.1% 100.0% Mid 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 83.3% 100.0% Mid 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.6% 25.6% 17.0% 100.0% 20.9% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 0.0% Mid 17.8% 17.8% 17.8% 17.8% 17.8% 17.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.9% 0.0% Mid 16.2% 16.2% 16.2% 16.2% 16.2% 16.2% 16.2% 16.2% 16.2% 16.2% 6.7% 5.2% 14.5% 0.0% Mid 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mid 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 26.9% 26.9% 21.1% 0.0% Mid 45.8% 45.8% 45.8% 45.8% 45.8% 45.8% 22.4% 22.4% 22.4% 22.4% 22.4% 22.4% 34.1% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.5% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mid 68.1% 68.1% 68.1% 68.1% 68.1% 68.1% 68.1% 68.1% 68.1% 68.1% 68.1% 68.3% 68.1% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 8.7% 1.2% 0.0% Mid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Calculate d Vacant 59, ,425 Modeled Vacant SF 60, ,185 % Difference -2.2% 2.4% Appendix 5: Occupancy Modeling Methodology 75

82 Floor Modeled Modeled CHW Vacancy Rate Annual Modeled Annual Tenant SF Total SF Zone Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Average Vacancy Average High 18.1% 18.1% 18.1% 18.1% 18.1% 18.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 0.0% High 23.6% 23.6% 23.6% 23.6% 23.6% 23.6% 23.6% 23.6% 23.6% 23.6% 23.6% 23.6% 23.6% 0.0% High 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% High 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% 65.7% 65.7% 32.4% 0.0% High 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 0.0% High 34.8% 34.8% 34.8% 34.8% 34.8% 34.8% 34.8% 34.8% 34.8% 34.8% 3.3% 18.4% 30.8% 0.0% High 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 11.0% 0.0% High 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 0.0% High 29.4% 29.4% 29.4% 29.4% 29.4% 29.4% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.5% 0.0% High 14.8% 14.8% 14.8% 14.8% 14.8% 14.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% High 56.3% 56.3% 56.3% 56.3% 56.3% 56.3% 56.3% 56.3% 56.3% 56.3% 56.3% 56.3% 56.3% 100.0% High 28.3% 28.3% 28.3% 28.3% 28.3% 28.3% 28.3% 28.3% 28.3% 28.3% 28.3% 28.3% 28.3% 0.0% High 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 62.9% 100.0% High 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 0.0% High 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 0.0% High 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 100.0% 100.0% 78.7% 100.0% High 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% High 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% High 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% High 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% High 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 100.0% High 35.3% 35.3% 35.3% 35.3% 35.3% 35.3% 35.3% 35.3% 35.3% 35.3% 14.2% 14.2% 31.8% 0.0% High 71.2% 71.2% 71.2% 71.2% 71.2% 71.2% 71.2% 71.2% 71.2% 71.2% 71.2% 71.2% 71.2% 100.0% 33.8% High 45.1% 45.1% 45.1% 45.1% 45.1% 45.1% 45.1% 45.1% 45.1% 45.1% 20.7% 20.7% 41.0% 0.0% High 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% High 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% 57.1% 57.1% 57.1% 57.1% 83.1% 83.1% 49.9% 100.0% High 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% High 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 100.0% High 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 83.3% 100.0% High 55.8% 55.8% 55.8% 55.8% 55.8% 55.8% 55.8% 55.8% 55.8% 55.8% 0.0% 0.0% 46.5% 100.0% High 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 100.0% High 60.3% 60.3% 60.3% 60.3% 60.3% 60.3% 60.3% 60.3% 60.3% 60.3% 60.3% 60.3% 60.3% 100.0% High 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% High 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% High 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 66.9% 66.9% 94.5% 100.0% High 15.8% 15.8% 15.8% 15.8% 15.8% 15.8% 34.4% 34.4% 34.4% 34.4% 34.4% 34.4% 25.1% 0.0% High 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% High 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% High 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% High 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 0.0% High 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 17.2% 7.9% 0.0% High 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 0.0% High 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% High 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 18.3% 15.2% 0.0% Calculate d Vacant 228,058 Modeled Vacant SF 230,440 % Difference -1.0% Appendix 5: Occupancy Modeling Methodology 76

83 Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Inputs and Outputs equest Model Input Vacancy Mechanical Rooms, Stairwells, Elevator shafts Contract 2012 Performance Year Contract PY Adjusted PY FIM Contract Target PY Target Baseline Baseline Performance PY Actual Operation % 20% 20% 23% - per CHW 23% - per CHW 23% - per CHW Zone Zone Zone 23% - per CHW Zone Lighting, Equipment Loads Reduced Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes HVAC Setbacks No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Conditioned No No Yes Yes Yes Yes AHU Cooling Mar 1- Nov 30 Mar 1- Nov 30 Mar 1- Nov 30 Mar 1- Nov 30 Mar 1- Nov 30 Mar 1- Nov 30 Season AHU Heating Dec 1- Feb 28 Dec 1- Feb 28 Dec 1- Feb 28 Dec 1- Feb 28 Dec 1- Feb 28 Dec 1- Feb 28 Baseboard Nov 1- Apr 30 Nov 1- Apr 30 Nov 1- Apr 30 Nov 1- Apr 30 Nov 1- Apr 30 Nov 1- Apr 30 DHW Year Round Year Round Year Round Year Round Year Round Year Round Weather Location, Year NY, 2007 NY, 2007 NY, 2012 NY, 2012 NY, 2012 NY, 2012 Utility Data Corridor Roof Exterior Walls Electric Utility Rate Year Steam Utility Rate Year , Escalated 3.02% 2007, Escalated 3.02% 2007, Escalated 3.02% 2007, Escalated 3.02% 2007, Escalated 3.02% 2007, Escalated 3.02% Cooling Setpoint 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F Lighting w/sf Equipment w/sf Roof Absorptance R-Value R-value R-5 R-5 R-5 R-5 R-5 R-5 Radiative Barrier na Yes na Yes Yes Yes Number of Radiative Barriers Installed Radiative Wall U Value Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Input Table 77

84 equest Model Input Contract 2012 Performance Year Contract PY Adjusted PY FIM Contract Target PY Target Baseline Baseline Performance PY Actual Operation Storefront (U-value/SHGC) 1.03 / / / / / / nd Floor 1.03 / / / / / / th Floor 1.03 / / / / / / 0.82 Windows North (U-value/SHGC) 0.48 / / / / / / East (U-value/SHGC) 0.48 / / / / / / South (U-value/SHGC) 0.48 / / / / / / West (U-value/SHGC) 0.48 / / / / / / Window Infiltration Multiplier Plug Loads Tenant Plug Density 1.5 w/sf 1.5 w/sf 1.5 w/sf 1.5 w/sf 1.5 w/sf 1.5 w/sf Broadcasting kw Process Loads Elevator kw Exterior Lighting kw Tenant Spaces Restrooms Lighting Power (Watts/sqft) Tenant Improvement Spaces Levels served n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Levels 11,12,13,24,27,31,33,40,42,53,65,71,75 Chiller Plant Parameters Low Loop Chiller #1 (Elec) Capacity VFD VFD 750 VFD 750 VFD kw/ton Custom Curves See Baseline See Target See Baseline See Target Custom Curves from from Trended Chiller Curves Chiller Curves Chiller Curves Chiller Curves Trended Data Data Chiller #2 (STM) Capacity Overall COP hp/ton lbm/tonhr Chiller Staging Baseload Baseload Electric Chiller Electric Chiller York Chiller Curves Electric Chiller Only York Chiller Curves Electric Chiller Only York Chiller Curves Electric Chiller Only York Chiller Curves Electric Chiller Only Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Input Table 78

85 equest Model Input Chiller Plant Parameters CHW Pumping Contract Contract Contract Target Baseline PY Adjusted Baseline 2012 Performance Year PY FIM PY Target Performance PY Actual Operation Flow Ctrl /Min VFD Manual (100% Speed All Times) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) VFD Manual (100% Speed All Times) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) VFD Manual Modeled (64% Fixed); Actual ((67% (July 1 to October 22nd); 58% Rest of the Time)) Pump Power (kw) Total Pump Head (Feet) Flow (gpm) 2310 / / / / / /2 CHWST 44F (Fixed) 42F Reset to 50F 44F (Fixed) 42F Reset to 50F 44F (Fixed) Modeled (Automatic Reset 42F to 50F); Actual : (Manual Reset 42F to 50F) Loop Delta T 7.8F (At Design Load) 10F (At Design Load) 7.8F (At Design Load) 10F (At Design Load) 10F (At Design Load) Modeled (9F (At Design Load)); Actual (3F to 9F (At Part Load)) Mid Loop Chiller #3 (Stm) Capacity Overall COP York Chiller York Chiller York Chiller hp/ton Curves Curves Curves lbm/tonhr York Chiller Curves Chiller #4 (Elec) Capacity VFD VFD 1000 VFD 1000 VFD Chiller Curves See Baseline Chiller Curves See Target Chiller Curves See Baseline Chiller Curves See Target Chiller Curves Custom Curves from Trended Data Custom Curves from Trended Data Chiller #5 (Elec) Capacity VFD VFD 1000 VFD 1000 VFD Custom Curves See Baseline See Target See Baseline See Target Custom Curves from Chiller Curves from Trended Chiller Curves Chiller Curves Chiller Curves Chiller Curves Trended Data Data Chiller Staging Baseload Electric Chillers Baseload Electric Chillers Steam chillers from 7a - 4p Steam chillers from 7a - 4p Steam chillers from 7a - 4p Steam chillers from 7a - 4p Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Input Table 79

86 equest Model Input Chiller Plant Parameters CHW Pumping Flow Ctrl /Min Contract Contract Contract Target Baseline VFD Manual (100% Speed All Times) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) PY Adjusted Baseline VFD Manual (100% Speed All Times) 2012 Performance Year PY FIM PY Target Performance VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) PY Actual Operation VFD Manual Modeled (64% Fixed); Actual (67% (July 1 to October 22nd); 58% Rest of the Time) Pump Power (kw) Total Pump Head (Feet) Flow (gpm) 8000 / / / / / / 4 CHWST 44F (Fixed) 42F Reset to 50F 44F (Fixed) 42F Reset to 50F 44F (Fixed) Modeled (Automatic Reset 42F to 50F); Actual : (Manual Reset 42F to 50F) Loop Delta T <6F (At Design Load) 10F (At Design Load) <6F (At Design Load) 10F (At Design Load) 10F (At Design Load) Modeled (8F (At Design Load)); Actual (3F to 8F (At Part Load)) High Loop Chiller #6 (Elec) Capacity VFD VFD 1000 VFD 1000 VFD Chiller Curves Custom Curves See Baseline See Target See Baseline See Target Custom Curves from from Trended Chiller Curves Chiller Curves Chiller Curves Chiller Curves Trended Data Data Chiller #7 (Stm) Capacity Overall COP hp/ton lbm/tonhr Chiller Staging Baseload Electric Chillers Baseload Electric Chillers York Chiller Curves Steam chillers from 7a - 4p York Chiller Curves Steam chillers from 7a - 4p York Chiller Curves Steam chillers from 7a - 4p York Chiller Curves Steam chillers from 7a - 4p Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Input Table 80

87 equest Model Input Contract Contract Contract Target Baseline PY Adjusted Baseline 2012 Performance Year PY FIM PY Target Performance PY Actual Operation Chiller Plant Parameters CHW Pumping VFD Manual (100% Speed All Times) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) VFD Manual (100% Speed All Times) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) VFD Manual Modeled (64% Fixed); Actual (67% (July 1 to October 22nd); 58% Rest of the Time) Pump Power (kw) Total Pump Head (Feet) Flow (gpm) 3000 / / / / / / 2 CHWST 44F (Fixed) 42F Reset to 50F 44F (Fixed) 42F Reset to 50F 44F (Fixed) Modeled (Automatic Reset 42F to 50F); Actual : (Manual Reset 42F to 50F) Condenser Water System Loop Delta T 6.9F (At Design Load) 10F (At Design Load) 6.9F (At Design Load) 10F (At Design Load) 10F (At Design Load) Modeled (10F (At Design Load)); Actual (2F to 10F (At Part Load)) Number of Cells CW Loop min flow ratio Setpoint Control 70 F Fixed Reset (65 F Min) Fixed (70 F) Reset (65 F Min) Reset (60 F Min) Tower Fan VFD One Speed Fan VFD on TWRS 4 &5 One Speed Fan VFD on TWRS 4 &5 VFD on TWRS 4 &5 Modeled (Reset (60F Min)); Actual (60 to 75F Manual) VFD on TWRS 4 &5 CW Pump Control CV CV CV CV VFD Auto (100% to 50% Min) VFD Manual Modeled (56% Fixed); Actual (50% to 62%) Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Input Table 81

88 equest Model Input Contract 2012 Performance Year Contract PY Adjusted PY FIM Contract Target PY Target Baseline Baseline Performance PY Actual Operation System Type Single Zone Single Zone Single Zone Single Zone Single Zone AHU's AHU's AHU's AHU's AHU's Single Zone AHU's AHU Heat Source Hot Water Hot Water Hot Water Hot Water Hot Water Hot Water Perimeter Baseboard Steam Steam Steam Steam Steam Steam Fan Control CV CV CV CV CV CV OA Reduction - Damper Retrofit (cfm/sf) OA Reduction - DCV (cfm/sf) Typical Floor AHUs (Office) 18hrs / 7d (ON- 15hrs / 7d (ON- 18hrs / 7d (ON- 15hrs / 7d (ON- 14hrs / 7d (ON- High/Mid Fans Time) Time) Time) Time) Time) 13hrs / 7d (ON-Time) General Exhaust & Toilet Exhaust 24hrs / 7d (ON- 19hrs / 7d (ON- 24hrs / 7d (ON- 19hrs / 7d (ON- 19hrs / 7d (ON- Fans Time) Time) Time) Time) Time) 19hrs / 7d (ON-Time) Low Zone fan Schedule 5am-12pm (7 5am-12pm (7 5am-12pm (7 5am-12pm (7 5am-12pm (7 24hrs / 7d (ON-Time) d/w) d/w) d/w) d/w) d/w) No setback Cooling Setpoint 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F Heating Setpoint 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F Perimeter Heating Setpoint 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F System Type Single Zone Single Zone Single Zone Single Zone Single Zone AHU's AHU's AHU's AHU's AHU's VAV AHUs AHU Heat Source Hot Water Hot Water Hot Water Hot Water Hot Water Hot Water Perimeter Baseboard Steam Steam Steam Steam Steam Steam Fan Control CV CV CV CV CV CV OA Reduction - Damper Retrofit (cfm/sf) OA Reduction - DCV (cfm/sf) Tenant Improvement Floor AHUs (Office) Levels served n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Levels 11,12,13,24,27,31,33,40,42,53,65,71,75 High/Mid Fans 18hrs / 7d (ON- 15hrs / 7d (ON- 18hrs / 7d (ON- 15hrs / 7d (ON- 14hrs / 7d (ON- Time) Time) Time) Time) Time) 13hrs / 7d (ON-Time) General Exhaust & Toilet Exhaust 24hrs / 7d (ON- 19hrs / 7d (ON- 24hrs / 7d (ON- 19hrs / 7d (ON- 19hrs / 7d (ON- Fans Time) Time) Time) Time) Time) 19hrs / 7d (ON-Time) Cooling Setpoint 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F Heating Setpoint 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F Perimeter Heating Setpoint 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Input Table 82

89 Concourse / First Level Tenants 2nd Floor / Gift Shop Broadcast Floors Contract 2012 Performance Year Contract PY Adjusted PY FIM Contract Target PY Target Baseline Baseline Performance PY Actual Operation System Type Water-Source Water-Source Water-Source Water-Source Water-Source Water-Source Heat Heat Pump Heat Pump Heat Pump Heat Pump Heat Pump Pump Cooling Source DX DX DX DX DX DX Heating Source Heat-Pump Heat-Pump Heat-Pump Heat-Pump Heat-Pump Heat-Pump Fan Control Constant Volume Constant Volume Constant Volume Constant Volume Constant Volume Constant Volume CDW Valve 3-Way 3-Way 3-Way 3-Way 3-Way 3-Way Cooling Setpoint 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F Heating Setpoint 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F System Type Single Zone Single Zone Single Zone Single Zone Single Zone AHU AHU AHU AHU AHU Single Zone AHU Cooling Source CHW Plant CHW Plant CHW Plant CHW Plant CHW Plant CHW Plant Heating Source HW & Baseboards HW & Baseboards HW & Baseboards HW & Baseboards HW & Baseboards HW & Baseboards Fan Control Constant Volume Constant Volume Constant Volume Constant Volume Constant Volume Constant Volume Coil Valve 3-Way 3-Way 3-Way 3-Way 3-Way 3-Way OA Economizer No No No No No No DCV No No No No No No Cooling Setpoint 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F 76 F Heating Setpoint 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F 70 F Heating Assumption Steam Baseboards Steam Baseboards Cooling Assumption DX DX n/a - compensated by broadcast equipment loads n/a - accounted for in broadcast kw n/a - compensated by broadcast equipment loads n/a - accounted for in broadcast kw n/a - compensated by broadcast equipment loads n/a - accounted for in broadcast kw n/a - compensated by broadcast equipment loads n/a - accounted for in broadcast kw Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Input Table 83

90 2012 Target Model Output Empire State Building - New York Utility Costs Peak Electric Energy Steam Total Run Electric Lights HVAC Total Heating Total Electricity Steam Typical Year Costs Construction Period (kw) (W/SF) (kwh) (kwh) (kwh) (klbs) (klbs) ($) ($) ($) ($/SF) B-0 Base Design ,030,865 18,422,049 53,441,964 52,587 75,747 $10,650,964 $2,530,686 $13,181,650 $6 1 0+Steam Chiller Baseline Adjustment ,030,865 18,007,026 53,026,948 52,587 99,332 $10,572,946 $3,088,034 $13,660,980 $6 A Actual Adjusted Vacancy ,822,561 17,792,559 52,262,348 47,212 92,104 $10,368,297 $2,867,696 $13,235,993 $6 A1.2 A1.1+Condition All Corridors ,036,742 17,808,055 50,734,496 49,133 94,414 $10,128,410 $2,942,973 $13,071,383 $6 A1.3 A1.2+Extended Cooling Season (May-Oct to Mar-Nov) ,036,742 18,963,306 51,889,748 47,991 98,901 $10,361,916 $3,090,218 $13,452,134 $6 A1.6 A1.3+All Support Spaces Conditioned ,036,742 19,599,042 52,525,496 49, ,797 $10,489,286 $3,153,893 $13,643,179 $6 A1.7 A1.6+Broadcast Areas to unconditioned ,036,742 19,072,289 51,998,724 47,823 99,146 $10,385,146 $3,098,281 $13,483,427 $6 A1.8 A1.7+CW Loop Adjustment ,036,742 18,132,999 51,059,444 47,823 98,614 $10,225,744 $3,085,645 $13,311,389 $6 E-2 A1.8+Radiative Barrier ,036,742 18,132,999 51,059,444 42,956 93,126 $10,225,744 $2,905,289 $13,131,033 $6 M-3 E-2+Balance of DDC (All Units) ,036,742 16,691,702 49,618,156 29,744 80,799 $9,942,098 $2,482,473 $12,424,571 $5 M-4 M-3+DCV (All Units) ,036,742 16,712,385 49,638,852 26,828 77,880 $9,919,832 $2,381,331 $12,301,163 $5 M-5 M-4+Window Option SC75 & TC ,036,742 15,621,885 48,548,344 25,240 73,830 $9,657,624 $2,261,573 $11,919,197 $5 M-6 M-5+Chiller (kw/ton and VFD) ,036,742 15,267,477 48,193,936 25,240 73,827 $9,565,870 $2,261,512 $11,827,382 $5 M-7a M-6+New Plant (CHWL dt) ,036,742 14,496,792 47,423,252 25,240 72,403 $9,435,565 $2,221,400 $11,656,965 $5 M-7b M-7a+New Plant (CHWL CHW Reset) ,036,742 13,930,007 46,856,468 25,240 70,496 $9,276,056 $2,171,341 $11,447,397 $5 M-7c M-7b+New Plant (CHWL VSD Pumping and 2-way valves) ,036,742 13,740,246 46,666,708 25,240 69,886 $9,232,534 $2,154,399 $11,386,933 $5 M-7d M-7c+New Plant (CW Reset to 65F min) ,036,742 13,652,466 46,578,932 25,240 69,568 $9,209,289 $2,143,856 $11,353,145 $5 M-7e M-7d+New Plant (CWL VSD Pumping) ,036,742 13,652,466 46,578,932 25,240 69,568 $9,209,289 $2,143,856 $11,353,145 $5 S-1 M-7e+VAV AHUs , ,036,742 13,197,672 46,124,124 26,107 70,473 $9,131,993 $2,168,959 $11,300,952 $5 S-2 S-1+Reduced Tenant Lighting , ,480,470 13,163,088 45,533,272 26,964 70,645 $8,994,068 $2,178,972 $11,173,040 $5 S-3 S-2+VAV AHUs ,480,470 12,741,645 45,111,832 27,642 71,609 $8,916,224 $2,206,508 $11,122,732 $5 S-4 S-3+Reduced Tenant Lighting ,936,104 12,705,122 44,530,936 28,430 71,800 $8,784,558 $2,216,837 $11,001,395 $5 S-5 S-2+Steam Trap Savings ,936,104 12,705,122 44,530,936 18,371 82,409 $8,784,558 $1,896,837 $10,681,395 $5 Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Input Table 84

91 2012 Target Model Output Savings Relative to Previous Measure Utility Costs Peak Electric Energy Steam Total Run Electric Lights HVAC Total Heating Total Electricity Steam Typical Year Costs Construction Period (kw) (W/SF) (kwh) (kwh) (kwh) (klbs) (klbs) ($) ($) ($) ($/SF) 1 0+Steam Chiller Baseline Adjustment , ,016 - (23,585) $78,018 -$557,348 -$479,330 $0 A Actual Adjusted Vacancy , , ,600 5,374 7,229 $204,649 $220,338 $424,987 $0 A1.2 A1.1+Condition All Corridors ,785,819 (15,496) 1,527,852 (1,920) (2,310) $239,887 -$75,277 $164,610 $0 A1.3 A1.2+Extended Cooling Season (May-Oct to Mar-Nov) (1,155,251) (1,155,252) 1,142 (4,487) -$233,506 -$147,245 -$380,751 $0 A1.6 A1.3+All Support Spaces Conditioned (151) (0.08) - (635,736) (635,748) (1,599) (1,897) -$127,370 -$63,675 -$191,045 $0 A1.7 A1.6+Broadcast Areas to unconditioned , ,772 1,767 1,651 $104,140 $55,612 $159,752 $0 A1.8 A1.7+CW Loop Adjustment , , $159,402 $12,636 $172,038 $0 E-2 A1.8+Radiative Barrier ,867 5,488 $0 $180,356 $180,356 $0 M-3 E-2+Balance of DDC (All Units) ,441,297 1,441,288 13,212 12,327 $283,646 $422,816 $706,462 $0 M-4 M-3+DCV (All Units) (20,683) (20,696) 2,916 2,919 $22,266 $101,142 $123,408 $0 M-5 M-4+Window Option SC75 & TC ,090,500 1,090,508 1,587 4,050 $262,208 $119,758 $381,966 $0 M-6 M-5+Chiller (kw/ton and VFD) , ,408-3 $91,754 $61 $91,815 $0 M-7a M-6+New Plant (CHWL dt) (88) (0.04) - 770, ,684-1,424 $130,305 $40,112 $170,417 $0 M-7b M-7a+New Plant (CHWL CHW Reset) , ,784-1,907 $159,509 $50,059 $209,568 $0 M-7c M-7b+New Plant (CHWL VSD Pumping and 2-way valves) , , $43,522 $16,942 $60,464 $0 M-7d M-7c+New Plant (CW Reset to 65F min) ,780 87, $23,245 $10,543 $33,788 $0 M-7e M-7d+New Plant (CWL VSD Pumping) $0 $0 $0 $0 S-5 S-2+Steam Trap Savings ,059 (10,609) $0 $320,000 $320,000 $0 Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Input Table 85

92 2012 ECM Model Output Empire State Building - New York Utility Costs Peak Electric Energy Steam Total Run Electric Lights HVAC Total Heating Total Electricity Steam Typical Year Construction Period (kw) (W/SF) (kwh) (kwh) (kwh) (klbs) (klbs) ($) ($) Costs ($) ($/SF) B-0 Base Design ,030,865 18,422,049 53,441,964 52,587 75,747 $10,650,964 $2,530,686 $13,181,650 $6 1 0+Steam Chiller Baseline Adjustment ,030,865 18,007,026 53,026,948 52,587 99,332 $10,572,946 $3,088,034 $13,660,980 $6 A Actual Adjusted Vacancy ,822,561 17,792,559 52,262,348 47,212 92,104 $10,368,297 $2,867,696 $13,235,993 $6 A1.2 A1.1+Condition All Corridors ,036,742 17,808,055 50,734,496 49,133 94,414 $10,128,410 $2,942,973 $13,071,383 $6 A1.3 A1.2+Extended Cooling Season (May-Oct to Mar-Nov) ,036,742 18,963,306 51,889,748 47,991 98,901 $10,361,916 $3,090,218 $13,452,134 $6 A1.6 A1.3+All Support Spaces Conditioned ,036,742 19,611,297 52,537,736 49, ,807 $10,496,350 $3,154,377 $13,650,727 $6 A1.7 A1.6+Broadcast Area HVAC adjustment ,036,742 19,079,384 52,005,844 47,845 99,197 $10,391,406 $3,099,732 $13,491,138 $6 A1.8 A1.7+CW Loop Adjustment ,036,742 18,206,587 51,133,052 47,845 98,634 $10,227,077 $3,086,381 $13,313,458 $6 E-2 A1.8+Radiative Barrier ,036,742 18,206,587 51,133,052 41,857 91,882 $10,227,077 $2,864,491 $13,091,568 $6 M-3 E-2+Balance of DDC (All Units) ,036,742 16,281,167 49,207,636 28,359 79,457 $9,869,021 $2,436,814 $12,305,835 $5 M-4 M-3+DCV (All Units) ,036,742 16,300,433 49,226,892 25,599 76,635 $9,849,944 $2,339,012 $12,188,956 $5 M-5 M-4+Window Option SC75 & TC ,036,742 15,258,567 48,185,024 23,960 72,502 $9,591,902 $2,216,887 $11,808,789 $5 M-6 M-5+Chiller (kw/ton and VFD, Custom Curves) ,036,742 15,024,417 47,950,880 23,960 72,496 $9,504,082 $2,216,742 $11,720,824 $5 M-7a M-6+New Plant (CHWL dt) ,036,742 14,103,998 47,030,456 23,960 70,635 $9,335,255 $2,165,313 $11,500,568 $5 M-7b M-7a+New Plant (CHWL Load Reset) ,036,742 14,103,998 47,030,456 23,960 70,635 $9,335,255 $2,165,313 $11,500,568 $5 M-7c M-7b+New Plant (CHWL VFD Pumping and 2-way valves) ,036,742 13,893,614 46,820,076 23,960 69,985 $9,293,963 $2,147,256 $11,441,219 $5 M-7d M-7c+New Plant (CW Reset to 60) ,036,742 13,757,858 46,684,324 23,960 69,797 $9,261,931 $2,140,849 $11,402,780 $5 M-7e M-7d+New Plant (CWL VFD Pumping) ,036,742 13,621,297 46,547,756 23,960 70,998 $9,205,259 $2,169,727 $11,374,986 $5 S-1 M-7e+VAV AHUs , ,036,742 13,197,719 46,124,184 24,733 71,824 $9,122,013 $2,192,332 $11,314,345 $5 S-2 S-1+Reduced Tenant Lighting , ,480,470 13,159,910 45,530,100 25,572 71,918 $8,986,612 $2,200,440 $11,187,052 $5 S-3 S-2+VAV AHUs ,480,470 12,780,690 45,150,884 26,141 72,876 $8,912,282 $2,226,791 $11,139,073 $5 S-4 S-3+Reduced Tenant Lighting ,936,104 12,741,379 44,567,204 26,904 72,974 $8,783,459 $2,234,743 $11,018,202 $5 S-5 S-2+Steam Trap Savings ,936,104 12,741,379 44,567,204 16,845 62,915 $8,783,459 $1,914,743 $10,698,202 $5 Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Input Table 86

93 2012 ECM Model Output Savings Relative to Previous Measure Utility Costs Peak Electric Energy Steam Total Run Electric Lights HVAC Total Heating Total Electricity Steam Typical Year Construction Period (kw) (W/SF) (kwh) (kwh) (kwh) (klbs) (klbs) ($) ($) Costs ($) ($/SF) 1 0+Steam Chiller Baseline Adjustment , ,016 - (23,585) $78,018 -$557,348 -$479,330 $0 A Actual Adjusted Vacancy , , ,600 5,374 7,229 $204,649 $220,338 $424,987 $0 A1.2 A1.1+Condition All Corridors ,785,819 (15,496) 1,527,852 (1,920) (2,310) $239,887 -$75,277 $164,610 $0 A1.3 A1.2+Extended Cooling Season (May-Oct to Mar-Nov) (1,155,251) (1,155,252) 1,142 (4,487) -$233,506 -$147,245 -$380,751 $0 A1.6 A1.3+All Support Spaces Conditioned (153) (0.08) - (647,991) (647,988) (1,621) (1,906) -$134,434 -$64,159 -$198,593 $0 A1.7 A1.6+Broadcast Area HVAC adjustment , ,892 1,767 1,610 $104,944 $54,645 $159,589 $0 A1.8 A1.7+CW Loop Adjustment , , $164,329 $13,351 $177,680 $0 E-2 A1.8+Radiative Barrier ,988 6,752 $0 $221,890 $221,890 $0 M-3 E-2+Balance of DDC (All Units) ,925,420 1,925,416 13,498 12,426 $358,056 $427,677 $785,733 $0 M-4 M-3+DCV (All Units) (19,266) (19,256) 2,760 2,821 $19,077 $97,802 $116,879 $0 M-5 M-4+Window Option SC75 & TC ,041,866 1,041,868 1,639 4,133 $258,042 $122,125 $380,167 $0 M-6 M-5+Chiller (kw/ton and VFD, Custom Curves) , ,144-6 $87,820 $145 $87,965 $0 M-7a M-6+New Plant (CHWL dt) , ,424-1,861 $168,827 $51,429 $220,256 $0 M-7b M-7a+New Plant (CHWL Load Reset) $0 $0 $0 $0 M-7c M-7b+New Plant (CHWL VFD Pumping and 2-way valves) , , $41,292 $18,057 $59,349 $0 M-7d M-7c+New Plant (CW Reset to 60) , , $32,032 $6,407 $38,439 $0 M-7e M-7d+New Plant (CWL VFD Pumping) , ,568 - (1,201) $56,672 -$28,878 $27,794 $0 S-5 S-2+Steam Trap Savings ,059 10,059 $0 $320,000 $320,000 $0 Appendix 6: ESB equest Model Input Table 87

94 Appendix 7: Utility Analysis Degree Day Analysis: 8,000,000 7,000,000 29% Reduction in Base Consumption Electric Consumption Vs CDD Electric Consumption (kwh) 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 34% Reduction During the Hottest Month 2,000,000 1,000, Electric 2011 Electric 2012 Electric CDD Figure A.7.1: Reduction in ESB s 2007 Baseline Electric Utility Consumption during Performance Period Analyzing the electric profile which compares electric usage from the Baseline year of 2007 and Year 2 (2012) as a function of CDD clearly validates improved building performance as the Post-Installation slope is lower than the Pre-Installation and the y-intercept is lower as well. The fact that the Year 2 curve has a lower slope than the Baseline year, the building electric savings will increase during warmer ambient conditions in the summer season. For example, during a typical shoulder month of 200 CDD, the building electric savings equates to 1,263,000 kwh or $265,222 utilizing the $.21/kWh rate. In addition, during a typical summer month of 400 CDD, the electric savings would equal 1,526,000 kwh with a cost savings of $320,443 utilizing the $.21/kwh rate. The lower electric base load consumption level (y-intercept) for the Post-Installation conditions indicates a performance improvement during non-cooling conditions as well. Appendix 7: Utility Analysis 88

95 Winter Steam Consumption Vs HDD Steam Consumption (mlbs) 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2, Winter Steam Usage 2011 Winter Steam Usage 2012 Winter Steam Usage 7% to 31% Reduction in Consumption During the Coldest Month HDD Figure A.7.2: Reduction in ESB s 2007 Baseline Steam Utility Consumption during Performance Period Analyzing the thermal profile graph which compares the Baseline year (2007) and the Year 2 (2012) total building steam usage (Mlbs) as a function of HDD clearly indicates improved building performance throughout the heating seasons. The Year 2 curve has a lower slope than the Baseline curve which indicates that during colder ambient periods the building consumes less steam to maintain proper building temperature conditions. In addition, as the ambient temperature gets colder the savings rise substantially due to the improved performance of the building. For example, during a typical shoulder month of 400 heating degree days, the steam savings calculated would equate to 3325 Mlbs or $99,739 utilizing the rate of $30/Mlb. Additionally, the steam savings would elevate to a level of $214,430 during a typical winter month of 800 HDD with a $30/Mlb utility rate. The steam usage base load for the building during the non-hdd periods can be attributed to the operation of the steam chillers for cooling. The deviation in the y-intercept (steam base load) between the plotted years can be referenced back to the variation in occupancy and weather during the cooling seasons. The steam usage patterns for January and February of 2012 are significantly higher than expected due to the steam trap failures diagnosed last year and the overheating of construction areas with limited temperature control capabilities. EUI Analysis Energy Use Intensity is a measure of a building s total energy consumption compared to its size. At the Empire State Building, both electrical (kwh) and thermal steam (Mlb) have been yearly totalized and converted to kbtu. Adjusting for weather, this energy is then divided by ESB s square feet to represent EUI. When comparing ESB against other office buildings in Manhattan and around NYC, ESB is a leader. Results prove that the energy efficient steps being made at ESB have made a significant impact. Appendix 7: Utility Analysis 89

96 For the purpose of calculating ESB s EUI the following assumptions were made: a) Total square feet of 2,750,847 was used for floors LL to 84 building area. b) The broadcasting floor electric usage was deducted from total electric utility c) It was assumed that the broadcasting equipment generates a lot of heat and that minimal steam is used for space heating. d) Annual EUI was normalized for 30 year normal ( ) degree days from NOAA (Nation Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration). New York City Central Park weather Station data was used and a 65 F Base was assumed. Monthly degree day data taken from degreedays.net Figure A.7.3: Reduction in ESB s EUI during Performance Period Figure A.7.4: Median NYC Office Building EUI = (Source: NYC Local Law 84 Benchmarking Report Aug 12 - nyc.gov) Appendix 7: Utility Analysis 90

97 Figure A.7.3 shows ESB s EUI during the project PYs. Figure A.7.4 shows the EUI for median NYC office buildings. Comparing ESB's EUI against a typical office space is not an apples-to-apples comparison due to the variance introduced by broadcasting, lower level, concourse, observation deck usage patterns. But, there is still some value in comparing them as long as this variance is understood. Although LL and Concourse do not reflect normal office conditions, sensitivity analysis shows that the abnormality does not affect the overall EUI much. Figure A.7.4 histogram suggests that ESB's EUI lies within the 5% to 10% of the sample. ESB has an active energy and maintenance program that validates this level of performance. General Utility Analysis: Customer Charge ($/day) $2.13 $2.13 G&T Demand $/kw $5.81 $5.92 $8.00 $6.43 Energy Charges $/kwh $ $ $ $ Primary Demand (Jun - Sep) $/kw $10.78 $10.76 $14.97 $17.80 Secondary Demand (Jun - Sep) $/kw $12.16 $12.14 $16.06 $19.55 Primary Demand (Oct - May) $/kw $7.98 $7.97 $11.04 $11.04 Secondary Demand (Oct - May) $/kw $3.87 $3.87 $5.15 $5.15 Table A.7.1: Baseline and Performance Period Electric Utility Rate Comparison Monthly Charge $/month $2, $2, General Demand Charge $/therm/hr $ $ Steam Demand Peak $/therm/hr $99.62 $ Summer Steam Consumption First 2,500 Mlbs $/therm $2.176 $2.176 Next 7,500 Mlbs $/therm $2.428 $2.428 All additional Mlbs $/therm $2.363 $2.363 Winter Steam Consumption First 2,500 Mlbs $/therm $2.187 $2.187 Next 12,500 Mlbs $/therm $3.226 $3.226 Next 35,000 Mlbs $/therm $3.106 $3.106 Next 200,000 Mlbs $/therm $3.044 $3.044 All additional Mlbs $/therm $2.953 $2.953 Swing Steam Consumption First 2,500 Mlbs $/therm $2.275 $2.275 Appendix 7: Utility Analysis 91

98 Next 12,500 Mlbs $/therm $3.661 $3.661 Next 35,000 Mlbs $/therm $3.500 $3.500 Next 200,000 Mlbs $/therm $3.418 $3.418 All additional Mlbs $/therm $3.297 $3.297 Table A.7.2: 2007 and 2008 Steam Utility Rate Structure Customer Charge* $/day $ $ On Peak Demand Charge* $/Mlb/hr $ $ All time Peak Demand Charge* $/Mlb/hr $1, $1, Summer Steam Consumption All additional Mlbs (already includes GRT, taxes) $/Mlb $ $ Winter Steam Consumption All additional Mlbs (already includes GRT, taxes) $/Mlb $ $ Swing Steam Consumption All additional Mlbs (already includes GRT, taxes) $/Mlb $ $ *GRT taxes % % *State and City Taxes % % Table A.7.3: 2011 and 2012 Steam Utility Rate Structure Appendix 7: Utility Analysis 92

99 Appendix 8: FPI Delivered by Johnson Controls Building Efficiency, JCFPI is a Web-Based, user-friendly performance and diagnostics information management system that continuously measures the operating characteristics of heating and air conditioning systems. Using this information, facility owners and maintenance personnel can identify energy saving opportunities as well as identify equipment deficiencies before failure events occur. This information can be used to drive and focus a facility maintenance program. JCFPI simplifies complex, and often obscure data, into usable information that any user can instantly understand. Armed with JCFPI measurements, intelligent decisions regarding capital expenditures and maintenance activities can be made. Using the intuitive web-based user-interface and the built-in report generator, JCFPI can quickly recognize and then prioritize the under-performing systems. Personnel can then make adjustments and use JCFPI to verify the success of changes with immediate feedback. JCFPI provides a continuous and consistent relative-performance measurement. JCFPI is a Commission as You Go tool that transforms the traditional calendar-based maintenance strategy to a proactive condition-based strategy. The Chiller Performance analysis compares actual chiller performance to a software model of the manufacturer s part-load performance curve. The JCFPI system can be installed behind the customer s Firewall or be located in the Cloud. JCFPI can also JCFPI Reports to any e- Mail address on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. To ensure data integrity, JCFPI now is capable of ing a daily heartbeat notification or, should it occur, a data collection failure notification to the user(s). With JCFPI, managing facilities and managing the associated data becomes easier. ESB FPI Features Johnson Controls Facility Performance Indexing (JCFPI) consists of up to five available sections: HVAC & Utility Meter Performance monitoring, Chiller Performance Analysis, Measurement & Verification Reporting and Metasys BAS Diagnostics. Performance Monitoring Johnson Controls has developed patented algorithms to evaluate and measure system and facility performance. This continuous condition assessment is an extremely valuable management tool that provides facilities management with the knowledge to manage the life cycle and maintenance costs of the assets effectively. Managers will have the data they need to achieve optimum performance, increase reliability, reduce unnecessary maintenance, sustain useful asset life and improve life cycle cost. Continuous Measurement Data is continuously collected from the BAS. That data is stored in an SQL database, where the performance algorithms calculate the performance indices. Consistent performance parameters are used allowing for an apples-to-apples comparisons of system performance. Data Simplified Today s BAS systems produce tremendous amounts of data. JCFPI simplifies the vast amounts of data, and focuses the end-user on what is really important. The data is accessed thru a simple to use web page. JCFPI uses an intuitive red, yellow, green color format on the performance web page along with a zero to100-based performance index. Instead of the traditional single-point failure alarm, JCFPI evaluates the entire control strategy of each individual piece of HVAC equipment (including air handlers, chillers, boilers, roof top units, heat exchangers, variable air volume boxes, and more) using benchmarks Appendix 8: FPI 93

100 established in the twelve years of JCFPI s development. JCFPI easily evaluates large quantities of equipment and simplifies complex data for everybody - regardless of experience. Measurement and Verification Reporting JCFPI collects data from the BAS and stores that data in the JCFPI server database. The data is accessible thru the JCFPI web page. Using the calendar controls of the web pages, the user can easily select the data they need and then off-load that data in various formats directly to their computers. The trended data can be viewed as charts or in tabular formats. This data can include trended information, system runtimes and energy meter totalization. This data can then be utilized to prove energy savings and identify energy waste. The data can also be used to support the continuous measurement requirements of LEED EB certification. Advantages of ESB FPI JCFPI is used for continuous commissioning of existing buildings and for commissioning of new facilities. Unlike traditional methods for commissioning which involve limited point in time data collection, JCFPI collects and analyzes data continuously. JCFPI can be used for continuous commissioning to earn additional LEED points when applying for LEED EB certification. JCFPI will: Identify problems before typical alarm or failure events occur Identify problems you were unaware of Provide root-cause analysis Confirm existing problems Provide something unique; a relative measurement Easily identify opportunities for improving control and performance Help prioritize maintenance activities Identify when maintenance is required Enable a shift to condition-based maintenance strategies Provide a simple, easy-to-use web-based interface Provide immediate feedback as changes are implemented Validate the success or failure of maintenance or control changes Provide a Baseline performance measurement Generate performance reports based on user selections identifying the poorest performers for the period of time selected Utilize the existing points in the control system Automatically update JCFPI software JCFPI will not: Generate alarms Fix problems -It identifies problems Appendix 8: FPI 94

101 ESB FPI Dashboard A snapshot of the live FPI system at ESB is shown in Figure A6.1. This dashboard shows both the Systems and Components level summary of the building and the associated performance index range at that time. During 2012, further customer training has been completed at ESB (Nov 27th), as well as a FPI system update. This update includes the addition of any new building systems (since completion of base project 2010) associated with the ongoing floor build-outs at ESB. The current system is analyzing 1,883 systems, 10,420 components, and 20,853 points. Figure A.8.1: Screenshot Showing ESB FPI Dashboard BAS System Compliance with FPI A snapshot of a sample compliance report that is generated by FPI is shown in Figure A6.2. This particular report is from 11AM 12/19/12. The compliance report provides a way to identify poor performing systems and helps indicate the reason for underperformance. This includes, but not limited to, deviation from setpoint or command status, and helps prioritize where to focus corrective actions within the building. As ESB optimizes their building, the system compliance scores will increase and turn green. Appendix 8: FPI 95

102 Figure A.8.2: Screenshot Showing ESB FPI System Compliance ESB FPI System Diagnostics The example below shows FPI tracking zone temperature and comparing it to zone setpoint. This zone (46 th floor) is achieving poor performance as the space temperature is much higher than setpoint. Identifying problem areas like these can help ESB mitigate tenant complaints, possibly before they happen and also help to save energy. Figure A.8.3: Screenshot Showing ESB FPI System Diagnostics Appendix 8: FPI 96