energy solutions MEASUREMENT &VERIFICATION& ELLEN FRANCONI, ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE,

Transcription

1 7 G energy solutions MEASUREMENT &VERIFICATION& ELLEN FRANCONI, ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE, PHD, LEED AP, BEMP TRACY PHILLIPS, 7 TH GENERATION ENERGY SOLUTIONS, CEM, LEED AP Rocky Mountain ASHRAE Conference Denver, Colorado April 15, 2011

2 PRESENTATION LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1) Understand M&V objectives 2) Balance M&V risk with value 3) List M&V requirements 4) Understand the relationship between Operational Verification and Savings Verification

3 PRESENTATION TOPICS M&V Basics Balancing risk with value Operational verification Savings verification

4 M&V BASICS - WHAT Transparent reporting of energy savings relative to historical or some normal reference baseline. A procedure to quantify avoided energy use or demand resulting from energy conservation measures. Source: EVO/IPMVP

5 M&V BASICS - WHAT Verify installation ti and operation Monitor & Track Cx Construct t Energy Efficiency i Projects Reconcile Measure performance Determine savings Measure & Verify Design Develop M&V Plan Gather Baseline Data

6 M&V BASICS - WHY ECM feedback to improve savings Develop the business case for efficiency Document financial transactions (ESCOs) Increase confidence for financiers Improve design and operational practices Source: EVO/IPMVP Volume I

7 M&V BASICS - HOW Baseline + Adjustments 1,000,000 Energy 750, ,000 Savings 250,000 Baseline Period Reporting Period Measured Energy Source: IPMVP Training Materials

8 M&V BASICS - HOW Four IPMVP M&V Options Option A: ECM Isolation Option B: ECM Isolation Option C: Whole Building Option D: Whole Building Data Source Key parameters measured All parameters measured Utility billing data Simulation data and utility billing data Savings Analysis Engineering calculations Component analysis Regression analysis Simulation analysis

9 M&V BASICS - HOW Operational Verification Least Rigorous Most Rigorous Visual Spot Short- Functional Inspection Measurements term performance trending testing Ongoing monitoring and tracking Adapted from BPA Report: Research Supporting an Update of BPA s Measurement and Verification Protocols

10 M&V BASICS - HOW Savings Verification Least Rigorous Most Rigorous Engineering Engineering calcs with calcs with field inspection measurements Short-term energy-use measurements IPMVP Adherent Energy models using interval data Whole building calibrated simulation Adapted from CCC Method Evaluation Matrix

11 M&V BASICS - HOW Risk Verification uncertainty from instrumentation, model, sampling Value Accurately determine savings Source: IPMVP Training Materials

12 M&V BASICS - HOW Document Description Links List reference docs here IPMVP Volume I IPMVP Volume III New Construction Basic concepts and methods, measurement, uncertainty, examples Baseline definition, overview of methods FEMP M&V Guidelines, ESCO focus, owner support; version 2.2 application document, calibration ocs/fy00osti/26265.pdf methodology, sample selection FEMP M&V Guidelines, version 3.0 ASHRAE Guideline IPMVP concepts +, calibration criteria, instrumentation, data management, regression techniques, examples Source: IBPSA Training Materials, see gy.gov/femp/pdfs/mv_ guidelines.pdf shrae.org/store

13 LEED 2009 D&C M&V Intent Requirements Reference Guide Provide for ongoing accountability of energy consumption over time M&V Plan Option B or Option D savings method 2, Vol. III 1 Year M&V Period Process for corrective action M&V rigor and value IPMVP Volume III overview M&V activities timeline

14 LEED D&C M&V Dilemma M&T objective with M&V requirements No measured baseline for Option B approach Option D approach is costly Value to owner may lie in path and not destination

15 LEED D&C M&V DILEMMA Verified Savings Commissioning As-Designed Model Calibrated Model Metering Performance Data

16 BETHKE ELEMENTARY CASE STUDY

17 LEED 2.2 NC EAC5 M&V PLAN Verified Savings Calculations Operation Verification 3 Cooling tower (CT -1) VFD. Occupied / Unoccupied mode. - cooling tower fan operation interlocked with cooling water pump operation. - VFD will modulate fan speed to maintain chilled water supply at 60 F (adj.) 4 Cooling water Pump interlocked with chilled water - pump operation interlocked with circulation pump. chilled water distribution pump loop (P -4) operation.

18 M&V IMPLEMENTATION PSD Approach Commission i building Compare actual against anticipated Compare actual against other prototypes 2010 Fiscal Year (July June 2010) Building Year Constructed OK? Floor Area Max Peak Demand Energy Cost Energy Use [ft 2 ] [W/ft 2 ] [$/ft2 Year] [kbtu/ft2 year] Energy Star Rating Operations Office , Zach Elementary* , Bacon Elementary , Fossil Ridge High School , Kinard Middle , Rice Elementary , Bethke Elementary , *Includes 7,200 sq.ft. of modular classrooms

19 M&V OVERVIEW M&V Objectives Transparent reporting Quantify energy efficiency savings Balance risk with value M&V Approach Flexible and adaptable Range of methods Operational verification complements savings verification M&V Application Owner s project requirements Coordination of efforts Operational Verification Savings Verification

20 OWNER S M&V PROJECT REQUIREMENTS Similar to Owner s Project Requirements associated with enhanced Cx Should (at a minimum) contain the following components Responsibility matrix Metering requirements Integration with Cx Operational verification scope and approach Reconciliation Savings verification scope and approach Verified savings calculation

21 DEVELOPING THE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX Building Owner Targeted vs. projected building performance ECMs: risk vs. value Facility Understanding measures Manager Make quantifiable cases for change Modeler Better understanding of model assumptions Design Engineer How measures / systems really perform Impact of design considerations

22 RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX Person Modeler Responsibilities Calibrate model based on utility data (less rigorous) Calibrate model based on utility data, model informed by operational verification (more rigorous) Provide energy performance results to M&V agent Facility Manager Assist to set up trends Facilitate M&V agent s off site monitoring Inform M&V and Cx agents regarding operational changes or problems Provide monthly utility bills to Modeler and M&V agent Cx Agent Assist to set up trends and install metering equipment Provide Cx plan and reports to M&V agent M&V Agent Assist to set up trends Perform spot measurements Install metering equipment Analyze monitored data Determine calibration adjustments Revise energy savings calcs (Option D, work with modeler) Develop M&V report Develop additional materials and perform training

23 OWNER S M&V PROJECT REQUIREMENTS Metering requirements Verified savings calculation Integration ti with Cx Savings verification scope/approach Operational verification scope/approach Reconciliation

24 M&V PLAN FROM M&V OPR ECM Description Savings Variability Approach Lighting Retrofit fixtures $33,000 Low Option A Chiller Replace chiller $27,250 Med Option B CHW reset Based on valve position o $5,600 High Option B Optimize economizer Boiler stack economizer Static pressure reset yg controls SAT reset Economize based on RAT -2F $6,200 Med Option B Install on boilers $1,100 Med Inspection Reset based on VAV box damper position yg point Reset based on worst case zone $4,150 High Option B Oxygen trim Maintain stack oxygen set $650 Low Inspection $1,200 High Inspection

25 RECONCILIATION Operational verification Monitoring and tracking

26 OPERATIONAL VERIFICATION CASE STUDY Owner: GSA Department of Transportation Location: Lakewood, CO Project: LEED M&V Size: 128,814 ft 2 office building with a 113,230 ft 2 parking garage Occupants: 380 federal employees Completion Date: October 2004 M&V Approach: Option D, informed by performance monitoring Awards: LEED Silver

27 M&V APPROACH Inspection of lighting systems Spot measurements of temp, flow, kw Short-term term monitoring of air distribution system and CHW plant Integrated with Cx Functional performance testing Assisting with trends and instrumentation

28 COMBINING CX, M&VAND M&T M&T Cx M&V

29 OPERATIONAL VERIFICATION DATA ANALYSIS Time series data Defining schedules Identifying operational problems Load shapes Average daily load shapes Variations in day-type equipment energy usage Used to estimate monthly or annual energy consumption Performance analysis Check relationships between different variables

30 DATA ANALYSIS TIME SERIES DATA AHU-1 OA Damper and CHW Valve OAT rises above 55F, OA damper closes to minimum, and CHW valve opens 100% 90% 80% 40 70% 60% OAT CHW Valve OA Damper 50% 40% 30% 10 20% 10% 0 0% 11/8/05 23:55 11/9/05 2:51 11/9/05 5:47 11/9/05 8:43 11/9/05 11:39 11/9/05 14:35

31 DATA ANALYSIS TIME SERIES DATA AHU-1 VFD Operation 100% % AHU starts operation at 2 a.m., and quickly satisfies zone conditions, then "coasts" until normal occupancy between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. 80% % 60% % 40% % 20% SF VFD RF VFD SA velocity pressure % 0%

32 DATA ANALYSIS TIME SERIES DATA 1.2 Haas School of Business Chillers November 22 to 29, 2010 Chiller 1 On continuously Chiller Stat us Outside air temperature Outside Air Temp perature Chiller 2 OFF 0 11/22/ /23/ /24/ /25/ /25/ /26/ /27/ /28/ Chiller 1 Status Chiller 2 Status Outside Air Temp

33 DATA ANALYSIS TIME SERIES DATA 1.2 Chiller 1 ON only at higher outdoor air temperatures Haas School of Business Chillers Jan 21 to Mar 14, Outside Air Temperature Chiller Status Chiller 2 (small unit) cycling to maintain minimum load /21/2011 1/22/2011 1/23/2011 1/24/2011 1/24/2011 1/25/2011 1/26/2011 1/27/2011 1/28/2011 1/29/2011 1/30/2011 1/31/2011 2/1/2011 2/2/2011 2/3/2011 2/4/2011 2/5/2011 2/6/2011 2/7/2011 2/7/2011 2/8/2011 2/9/2011 2/10/2011 2/11/2011 2/12/2011 2/13/2011 2/14/2011 2/15/2011 2/16/2011 2/17/2011 2/18/2011 2/19/2011 2/20/2011 2/21/2011 2/21/2011 2/22/2011 2/23/2011 2/24/2011 2/25/2011 2/26/2011 2/27/2011 2/28/2011 3/1/2011 3/2/2011 3/3/2011 3/4/2011 3/5/2011 3/6/2011 3/7/2011 3/7/2011 3/8/2011 3/9/2011 3/10/2011 3/11/2011 3/12/2011 3/13/2011 3/14/2011 Chiller 1 Status Chiller 2 Status Outside Air Temp

34 DATA ANALYSIS LOAD SHAPES Metered Demand Profile 650 School of Business - Post-retrofit vs Baseline Building pow wer (kw) :00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00 Time of Day Baseline Weekday kw Baseline Weekend kw Post-retrofit Weekday kw Post-retrofit Weekend kw

35 DATA ANALYSIS PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS AHU-1 Outside Air Damper Operation 100% 90% OAD economizing 80% 70% Damper Po osition 60% 50% 40% 30% OAD performing DCV 20% 10% 0% OAD closed during unoccupied periods Hour

36 M&V SUMMARY M&V Owner s Project Requirements M&V Plan Operational Verification Reconciliation Savings Verification

37 SAVINGS VERIFICATION Least Rigorous Engineering calcs with inspection Most Rigorous Engineering Short-term Energy Whole calcs with field energy-use models building measurements measurements using calibrated Option A or Option B interval simulation data Option B or Option C IPMVP Adherent Option D Adapted from CCC Method Evaluation Matrix

38 SAVINGS VERIFICATION Option B ECM boundary, all parameters measured Least Rigorous Most Rigorous Engineering calcs Interval-data empirical models Interval-data component models Interval-data component models with system interactions

39 SAVINGS VERIFICATION Option B Process Establish baseline load-energy use relationship through analysis Test adequacy of model Measure and record post-install performance Use model to make adjustments, determine savings

40 SAVINGS VERIFICATION OPTION BE EMPIRICAL MODELS Source: CACx Guidelines for Verifying Existing Building Commissioning Project Savings

41 SAVINGS VERIFICATION OPTIONO B: INTERVAL DATA EMPIRICAL MODEL Source: Guidelines for Verifying Existing Building Commissioning Project Savings

42 SAVINGS VERIFICATION OPTION B: INTERVAL-DATA COMPONENT MODEL Post-install analysis Source: Guidelines for Verifying Existing Building Commissioning Project Savings

43 SAVINGS VERIFICATION OPTION B: INTERVAL-DATA COMPONENT MODEL Baseline analysis stems from ASHRAE 90.1 PRM Requires part-load-ratio assumption

44 SAVINGS VERIFICATION Option D Calibrated whole-building simulation Least Rigorous Most Rigorous Non-calibrated model Calibration at utility billing data level Calibration at utility billing data and component level

45 SAVINGS VERIFICATION Option D Process Collect building data, weather data Create weather file, update model inputs Calibrate simulation model to utility billing data Inform calibration with inspection, Cx, performance data Apply adjustments to baseline model Occupancy, equipment schedules, setpoints Calculate savings

46 M&V IMPLEMENTATION Option D Approach Collect performance data* Update proposed-design energy model Adjust baseline model for independent variables such as occupancy, schedules,.. Calculate energy savings * Assumes building is operating as intended Risk versus value? 35, (kwh) Electric 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Gas (M MBtu) Modeled Elec FY 2009 Elec Modeled Gas FY 2009 Elec Fiscal Year 2009

47 MODEL CALIBRATION Checking Modeling Assumptions Annual Gas (MMBt tu)

48 MODEL CALIBRATION Original model Electric (kwh) 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10, ,000 0 Fiscal Year 2009 Bethke Elementary Gas (MBtu) Modeled Elec Actual Elec Modeled Gas Actual Gas Improved Gas Modeling Assumptions Elec Gas Total Cost Original kbtu/ft2 year $ Modeled ,590 FY 2009 Actual ,387 Error 20% -54% -29% -5% Electric (kwh) 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Bethke Elementary Fiscal Year 2008/ Gas (MBtu) Modeled Elec Actual Elec Modeled Gas Actual Gas Elec Gas Total Cost Improved Gas kbtu/ft2 year $ Modeled ,900 FY 2009 Actual ,387 Error 32% -13% 1% 18%

49 BETHKE ELEMENTARY M&V CALIBRATION Checking calibration criteria (monthly data)* Mean ERRmonth +/- 15% 100 * (M-S) / M Mean ERRyear +/- 10% ERRmonth / 12 CV(RMSEyear ) +/- 10% ( [(M-S) 2 / 12]) 0.5 * From FEMP M&V Guidelines v. 2.2 and ASHRAE Guideline Example calculations for Elec Gas Min ERRmonth 5% 2% Max ERRmonth 66% 658% Mean ERRyear 32% 4% CV(RMSEmonth) 40% 31% gas CALIBRATION DATA Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Year Average Model (MMBtu) , Utility FY 2009 (MMBtu) , Mean ERR 21% 6% 18% 10% 124% 658% 27% 24% 41% 11% 2% 30% 4% MSE ,002 RMSE 42 CV(RMSE) 31%

50 RESOURCES MS Excel Energy Charting and Metrics (ECAM) at (Excel add-in) Universal Translator at Tools ASHRAE Inverse Modeling Toolkit (RP-1050) Energy Explorer from Prof. Kelly Kissock, Univ. Dayton Software Weather Data htm plus/ cfm/weather_data.cfm

51 SUMMARY Select M&V approach to maximize value for client while controlling risk Educate client/gbci about costs/value Couple savings verification with operational verification Aim to have LEED M&V Plan serve as scope of work else a la carte approach Coordinate verification activities to minimize costs

52 QUESTIONS Thank you for attending! Ellen Franconi, Tracy Phillips,