The Energy Program Tricycle: Which Wheel Should You Put in Front? Laurie Gilmer, P.E., CFM, SFP, LEED AP, CxA Conrad Kelso, P.E., CEM
Meet our Presenters Laurie Gilmer, P.E., CFM, SFP, LEED AP, CxA Vice President at Facility Engineering Associates IFMA and ASHRAE Instructor, Subject Matter Expert, committee leader and contributor Conrad Kelso, P.E., CEM Office Manager/Project Manager at Facility Engineering Associates Building Re-Tuning and Energy Expert/Trainer
Learning Objectives 1. Understand the different energy conservation approaches 2. Learn the advantage and disadvantages of each methodology 3. Learn when to apply each approach to gain the best value in your energy management program
Agenda The energy conservation challenge Three approaches Creating an energy management program Case studies benefits and uses
Limited Resources Worldwide Reserves Annual Demand Years Remaining Petroleum (billion barrels) 1,656 33.31 49.7 Natural gas (trillion cubic feet) 6,973 121.4 57.5 Coal (million short tons) 979,791 8,186 119.7 Water (billion cubic meters) 53,789 3,909 N/A EIA, CIA, World Bank, IEA 15% due to energy production
Limited Resources Buildings consume 46% of energy in the U.S. Energy consumption is the largest controllable cost in a building Easily addressed U.S. Energy Consumption by Sector as of January 2016 Buildings 46% Industrial 29% Transportation 25% http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec2_2.pdf
The Perception: Facilities is a Cost Center
Facilities is an Investment in Organizational Success The FM s challenge: Reduce Cost Add Value
Meeting Performance Requirements: Standards ASHRAE 90.1 Energy codes IECC Local/regional Benchmarking ENERGY STAR Mandatory http://www.iccsafe.org/about-icc/overview/international-code-adoptions/ https://www.energycodes.gov/status-state-energy-code-adoption
States with Mandatory Benchmarking Cities as of July 2015 Austin, TX Boston, MA Minneapolis, MN New York, NY Philadelphia, PA San Francisco, CA Seattle, WA Washington, DC Kansas City, MO Atlanta, GA Portland, OR
The Changing Landscape: Mandatory Programs Score = 75 Energy Star Label Potential Rating system models based on US DOE s Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)
Meeting Performance Requirements: Non-Mandatory Global Reporting Initiative Sustainability Certification Programs We will continue to look for innovative solutions to further improve the energy performance or our stores, even while experiencing major transformations in our business. Starbucks Coffee Internal Programs FEA has committed to operating as a sustainable company by reducing our carbon footprint, managing our resources more effectively, and providing services to our clients that allow them to operate their facilities more efficiently. Facility Engineering Associates We are continually assessing and improving our processes to reduce emissions and waste, conserve energy and natural resources, and reduce the potential for environmental impacts from our activities and operations. Chevron
Agenda The energy conservation challenge Three approaches Creating an energy management program Case studies benefits and uses
Commissioning A process of ensuring that the building systems are operating in accordance with the design intent and the owner s requirements Defines the building systems performance criteria Provides a validated baseline for building performance Provides a means of tracking and evaluating building performance over time
The Commissioning Process Create a plan defining the objectives and requirements Select a commissioning team Identify the systems to be commissioned Execute the plan and document the results 1 2 3 4
Energy Audit A process by which an auditor conducts a walk-through of a building and identifies opportunities for energy and cost savings Provides recommendations for optimizing building systems Allows for a better understanding of how your facility operates Can tailor results to budgets, energy-saving goals, or how much you plan to accomplish
Energy Audit Levels I Walk-through analysis II Energy survey and engineering analysis III Detailed analysis of capital-intensive modifications
Building Re-Tuning A systematic process to identify and correct building operational problems that lead to energy waste http://cbei.psu.edu/retuning-training-and-cases/ Improves energy efficiency and tenant comfort Diagnoses malfunctioning or broken equipment and maintenance issues May be taken over by a facility manager or other in-house personnel
Building Re-Tuning Methods Observation-Driven Walkthrough of building and equipment following a checklist of visual and simple measurement checks Within BAS Interface Check for and correct a limited set of operational control issues within the building automation system (BAS) Data-Driven Deeper investigation of complex control issues from the BAS and energy meters
Agenda The energy conservation challenge Three approaches Creating an energy management program Case studies benefits and uses
Six Mistakes People Make 1. Believing nothing can be done 2. Not understanding what is important to the organization and how decisions are made 3. Lack of a plan 4. Not using the information and/or tools already available 5. Installing complex systems and/or technologies without the skills to operate and maintain performance 6. Lack of communication with building occupants
Elements of an Energy Management Program 1. Know your drivers 2. Set the goal 3. Baseline and benchmark 4. Assess facilities 5. Identify changes (capital renewal, O&M) 6. Implement measures 7. Monitor performance 8. Continuously improve
Advantages of the Three Approaches Building Re-Tuning Quick to implement Benchmarking Easy fixes Low cost Data collection/analysis Option of third-party of inhouse performance Operations-focused Long-term vision Energy Audit Flexible scope Identifies opportunities for savings Cost savings Energy conservation Apply to existing buildings Greater understanding of building Commissioning Tests functionality Confirms design intent Deliverable of report Availability of LEED points Third-party conducted
Comparison of the Three Approaches Commissioning* Energy Audit Building Re-Tuning Description Process Event Program Cost $$$ $$ $ Implementation time 666 66 6 Level of Detail High Low - High Low Effort Required High Moderate Moderate Duration of Service 2-6 months 3-6 weeks 1 day Frequency of Service Continuous/3-5 years 3-5 years Continuous Service Provider Third party Third party Third party or in-house Energy Savings Types Outcome/Intent No/low cost, capital intensive Verification/validation of system operation, identification of programmable and operational changes No/low cost, capital intensive (depending on audit level) Energy and water conservation measures, recommendation (project list) No/low cost, operational changes Improved operations (decrease cost and energy and water usage, increase occupancy comfort) Deliverable Plan, report Report Program, execution plan Appropriate for Large/complex systems Any building/system Facilities with in-house FM Reference ASHRAE 0-2013 ASHRAE Procedures for Pacific Northwest National Commercial Building Energy Laboratory Audits *references commissioning for existing buildings (retro-commissioning)
Linking the Right Approach to Your Program Commissioning Energy Audits Building Re-Tuning Large buildings or complex systems Any commercial, institutional, or multiresidential facility In-house O&M team Not previously commissioned Uncertainty of investment commitment Limited budget Fine tuning desired List of recommendations desired Immediate changes desired
Agenda The energy conservation challenge Three approaches Creating an energy management program Case studies benefits and uses
May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 kbtu/sf Commissioning Case Study: Austin Convention Center Owner Objectives: Ensure correct operation Verify/document proper coordination and performance Identify performance deficiencies Improve operational efficiency Identify opportunities for optimization Meet retro-commissioning requirements for LEED 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Austin, TX Built 1992 930,452 SF Monthly EUI Chilled Water - North Electricity - South Electricity - North Natural Gas - South Natural Gas - North
Commissioning Case Study: Top Energy Conservation Measures 1. Adjust the space temperature set points to match intended design $115,000 2. Reducing lighting fixtures wattage $66,000 3. Lower set points for hot water storage heaters/turn off water heaters not used $2,500
Capital and O&M Savings Capital Energy Conservation Measures Annual energy savings: 4,866,919 kbtu Annual cost savings: $155,433 Simple Payback: 0.7 year Operational and Maintenance Energy Conservation Measures Annual energy savings: 7,234,935 kbtu Annual cost savings: $121,385 Simple Payback: Immediate
Energy Audit Case Study: Office Building Owner Objectives: Reduce EUI Achieve/comply with LEED Increase ENERGY STAR score Reduce GHGs Reduce water consumption Maintain/increase comfort level Arlington, VA Built 1991 688,956 SF DCA Utilities Relative Costs Sewage 5% Water 7% Gas 21% Electricity 67%
Energy Audit Case Study: Recommendations Objective Current Goal Site EUI (kbtu/sf) 111.9 94.5 Source EUI (kbtu/sf) 289.7 244.8 ENERGY STAR Score 53 69 (LEED cert.) Reduce EUI Reduce water consumption Temperature setbacks Replace motors with higher efficiency Install lighting control system Actively monitor water use Chemical-free water testing Sub-metering to reduce sewer charge
Building Re-Tuning Case Study: Georgia Tech Owner Objectives: Increase ENERGY STAR score Identify opportunities for energy savings Methods Used: Observation-Driven Within BAS Interface Atlanta, GA Built 2002 209,000 SF Zone Temperature and Damper Position over Time http://cbei.psu.edu/retuning-training-and-cases/
Building Re-Tuning Case Study: Recommendations Implemented Electricity savings of 18.2% over 11 months, compared to projected usage
Linking the Right Approach to Your Program: Why Was It a Good Fit? Commissioning: Austin Convention Center LEED certification desired Energy Audits: Office Building, Virginia LEED certification desired Building Re-Tuning: Georgia Tech Dedicated staff to continue BRT Not previously commissioned Looking to reduce energy/water usage BAS in place for analysis Identify performance and systems issues Improve ENERGY STAR score with benchmarking Improve ENERGY STAR score through ongoing BRT
Which Method Is Right for You? Ask yourself How complex is your building system? Do you have an in-house staff? Are you looking to receive a plan or report deliverable? Do you desire short- or long-term changes? How sure are you of an investment commitment? How much time and money are you willing to invest? Are you trying to reach a program goal (LEED, ENERGY STAR, etc)?
Summary Commissioning A successful energy management program will leverage your talent pool and resources to achieve your desired outcome Energy Audit Building Re-Tuning
Questions? Laurie Gilmer Laurie.gilmer@feapc.com Conrad Kelso Conrad.kelso@feapc.com
Thank You! Laurie Gilmer Laurie.gilmer@feapc.com Conrad Kelso Conrad.kelso@feapc.com For a copy of this presentation, go to: http://www.feapc.com/knowledge-center