An Evaluation of ComEd s Retro- Commissioning Program

Transcription

1 An Evaluation of ComEd s Retro- Commissioning Program Randy Gunn, Managing Director, Navigant George Malek, Portfolio Manager, ComEd 21 st National Conference on Building Commissioning

2 AIA Quality Assurance The Building Commissioning Association is a Registered Provider with The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems (AIA/CES). Credit(s) earned on completion of this program will be reported to AIA/CES for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for both AIA members and non-aia members are available upon request. This program is registered with AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product. Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

3 Presentation Description This presentation will cover the following topics: Industry drivers in Illinois Northern Illinois utilities retro-commissioning program Impact evaluation findings Process evaluation findings Evaluation conclusions and recommendations Implementer s response to the evaluation

4 Learning Objectives At the end of this session, participants will be able to: 1. Understand the energy efficiency environment in Illinois and the drivers for retro-commissioning services 2. Identify the specific evaluated results for ComEd s retrocommissioning program a) Realization rates b) Net-to-gross estimates, including free riders and spillover c) Customer satisfaction with the program, program components, and retrocommissioning service providers 3. Discuss implementer s response to the evaluation

5 Energy Efficiency Legislation in Illinois The 2007 Illinois Power Act (Public Act ) established historic electric energy efficiency and demand response goals, propelling Illinois to a position of national leadership. A subsequent 2009 act provided gas energy efficiency goals as well. 1,000, , , , , , , , , ,000 - PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5 PY6 EE Goal - % of energy delivered Spending Screen - % of revenue MWh Target MWh Achieved 0.0 PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5 PY6 PY7 PY8 - EE Goal Spending Screen

6 RCx Market Drivers in Illinois ComEd experience with commissioning MORES pilot Experienced practitioners NCBC involvement ComEd partnership with gas utilities (Nicor Gas, Peoples Gas/North Shore Gas) Strong local network of service providers Tremendous savings potential from operational changes and system optimization Very sizable target market Commercial real estate Hospitals Education Lodging/hospitality

7 Retro-Commissioning Program Key Features Incentive is the cost of engineering study and M&V Study performed by ComEd-approved service provider Electric and gas savings opportunities identified Ideal candidate building: > 500 kw peak demand > 150,000 ft 2 conditioned space Building Automation System No planned upgrades to major systems Customer implementation requirement of $15,000 or $30,000 Measure implementation deadline

8 Utility Joint Delivery Model Integrys (Gas Utility) Coordination Agreement Cost Allocation Agreements ComEd (Electric Utility) Coordination Agreement Cost Allocation Agreements Nicor (Gas Utility) 3 rd Party Implementer (Nexant) RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP

9 Program Design and Process Flow Application Planning/ Investigation Implementation Verification Screen potential candidate buildings for suitability Select RCx service provider Define savings goals and project schedule Interview building personnel and inspect documentation Collect trend data on energy usage by building systems Identify operational improvements, estimate costs and savings Customer selects measures from list of recommendations Contractor hired by customer to install measures Customer notifies implementer when complete Service provider verifies correct implementation of measures Data collected to confirm energy savings Calculations updated as necessary Quality control and oversight at each stage by IC

10 ComEd PY4 RCx Participants Projects by Building Type Savings by Building Type Lodging 2 Mixed use 1 Museum 1 Other 1 Office/data 6.8% Mixed use 1.8% Lodging 1.3% Museum 0.7% Other 0.3% Education 5 Office/data 5 Education 11.3% Office 24 Office 49.0% Hospital 11 Hospital 28.8%

11 Summary of Impact Evaluation Approach The impact evaluation approach for PY4 continues to be to conduct an audit of the RCx service providers savings assumptions and estimates Navigant conducted a file review for a sample of 24 of 50 program participants, including checking engineering estimates Navigant conducted on-site surveys with short-term measurements and/or new data trending for 11 of 24 customers from the file review sample

12 Summary of Process Evaluation Approach Navigant s process approach included: Reviews of program documents In depth interviews with ComEd s program manager, and the program implementer s (Nexant) project manager In-depth interviews with 8 of 9 RCx service providers Telephone surveys with 25 of 50 customer participants, conducted by a subcontractor (Opinion Dynamics)

13 Program Year 4 Impact Evaluation Results The RCx agents savings estimates were generally quite good Evaluators estimate realization rates (RR) = evaluators estimates of gross savings/implementers savings estimates 9 of 24 electric projects and 8 of 14 gas projects reviewed had RRs of 100% or more 8 of 24 electric projects and 5 of 14 gas projects reviewed had RRs of 80% to 99% Overall electric RR = 92% Overall gas RR = 103%

14 PY4 Electric Program Savings by End Use Savings by Measure End Use 2% 3% 4% 3% 19% 69% Air Handler Chilled Water Cooling Tower Heat Other Ventilation

15 PY4 Electric Program Savings by Measure Type Savings by Measure Type 37% 57% Optimization Repair Retrofit Scheduling 5% 1%

16 Program Year 4 Net to Gross Analysis This analysis attempts to adjust savings estimates for naturally occurring savings and spillover Free riders are customers who would have implemented the measures without the Joint Utilities RCx program Spillover are additional savings that customers implement outside of the program, but due to the program s influence

17 Program Year 4 Net to Gross Approach A major effort was made to increase survey response rates About 61% of customers participated, double the rate from PY3 8 of 9 service providers participated, an increase of about 50% from PY3 Navigant also piloted an updated approach to estimating NTG ratios by averaging survey responses of customers and service providers

18 PY4 Net to Gross Results The overall NTG ratios were 1.04 for electric and 1.02 for gas Customers reported free ridership of about 17% for electric and 18% for gas Service providers reported free ridership rates of 2% for electric and 1% for gas Customers only reported spillover of less than 1%, but service providers reported spillover of 11% for gas and 14% for electric

19 PY4 Process Evaluation Results RCx service providers (RSPs) were generally satisfied with program processes. A few issues: Only 9 of 23 registered RSPs completed at least one project in PY4 RSPs were somewhat concerned about paperwork requirements It s challenging for RSPs to assist customers to complete projects by the May 31 st deadline

20 PY4 Process Evaluation Results (2) Participant customers reported high satisfaction with virtually all aspects of the program: The overall RCx program: 96% satisfied Nexant staff: 96% satisfied Their RSP: 100% satisfied Information provided in the study: 96% satisfied The amount of commitment required: 96% satisfied

21 PY4 Process Evaluation Results (3) Barriers to participation include: Many customers not being familiar with the program The upfront spending requirement, based on uncertain savings Customer legal reviews before committing can sometimes be considerable Timing of projects with utility program years can be an issue for some customers

22 Conclusions The program s net ex post (evaluation verified) savings = 25 GWh for PY4. This is about 7% of ComEd s total non-residential EE savings, or 4% of ComEd s overall EE savings The increased survey response rates and updated approach for estimating net savings produced net savings estimates that all parties seemed satisfied with, unlike the situation in PY3 Participants and RSPs are quite satisfied with the program and its components

23 Key Impact Recommendations Increasing program participation is the best way to increase program savings Encourage RSP to use more standardized savings calculators, to increase RRs in PY5 Try to increase ex ante demand savings estimates, to produce better demand savings estimates More completely document and record all savings estimates, even for measures with very favorable economics

24 Key Process Recommendations Focus on assisting all eligible RSPs to complete one project in PY5/6 Assist the RSPs as needed to keep projects moving toward completion by May 31 st ComEd may want to consider allowing projects to take more than one year in some cases

25 Implementer s Response to the Evaluation In general, very pleased with evaluation results The extra effort that went into identifying the best person to discuss each project prior to evaluation proved to be extremely worthwhile, as did the effort to improve the survey instruments Agree that all approved service providers should perform at least one RCx; those that do not are required to re-bid for approval during every-other-year RFP process or else will be removed from the program Disagree that customers are asked to commit to the project based on uncertain savings. Analysis of savings estimates from that point in the process on earlier projects demonstrated that these estimates were within a few percent of the final verified savings on a program level We are continuing to evolve the program to address the concerns of SPs and customers discussed in the evaluation

26 ComEd RCx Program Results to Date

27 Verified kwh Savings by Building Type Other 6% Data Center 4% Education 8% Hospital 28% Office 51% Lodging 3%

28 Number of Measures by Type Chiller/chilled water system 36 Cooling tower optimization 38 Compressed air 14 Other 28 Equipment scheduling 203 Pump optimization 35 Economizer and outdoor air control 107 Fan optimization/air distribution 159

29 Verified kwh Savings by Measure Type Cooling tower optimization 4% Pump optimization 3% Chiller/chilled water system 4% Other 2% Compressed air 3% Equipment scheduling 36% Economizer and outdoor air control 15% Fan optimization/air distribution 32%

30 Top 10 Individual Measures by kwh Savings 18 Verified kwh savings, millions

31 THANK YOU Randy Gunn, Navigant George Malek, ComEd