Post on 02-Jun-2018
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
1/80
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
2/80
OVERARCHING MESSAGE
There is a compelling need as well as an economic case
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in existingbuildings. The Empire State Building case study providesan example of how this can be done. However, significant
challenges remain that must be addressed in order toquickly and cost-effectively capture the full greenhouse
gas reduction opportunity for building retrofits on awidespread basis.
2
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
3/80
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
I. Motivation: The retrofit of the Empire State Building was motivated by the owners desirereduce greenhouse gas emissions, to demonstrate how to retrofit large commercial buildings effectively, and to demonstrate that such work makes good business sense.
II. Project Development Process: Using ESB as a convening point, a collaborativeteam was formed to develop the optimal retrofit solution through an iterative process that invexperience, energy and financial modeling, ratings, metrics, and robust debate.
III. Key Findings: At current energy costs, ESB can cost-effectively reduce energy use by38% and save (a minimum of) 105,000 metric tons of CO2 over the next 15 years.
IV. Implementation: Three different stakeholders will implement the 8 savings measures ova 5-year period using various implementation mechanisms.
V. Key Lessons: Key lessons relate to strategies to maximize cost-effective savings,balancing CO2 savings with economics, and streamlining the project development process.
VI. Industry Needs: Challenges in each stage of the retrofit process are hindering theachievement of long-term goals.
3
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
4/80
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. Implementation
III. Key FindingsII. Process
I. MOTIVATION
The retrofit of the Empire State Building was motivated by the buildingownerships desire to:
1) Prove or disprove the economic viability of whole-building energ
efficiency retrofits.2) Create a replicable model for whole-building retrofits.
3) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I. Motivation
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
5/80
5
Prior to 2008, the Empire State Buildings performance was average compareto most U.S. office buildings.
Annual utility costs:
$11 million ($4/sq. ft.) Annual CO2 emissions:
25,000 metric tons (22 lbs/sq. ft.)
Annual energy use: 88 kBtu/sq. ft.
Peak electric demand: 9.5 MW (3.8 W/sq. ft. inc. HVAC
I. MOTIVATION1) Prove or disprove the economic viability of whole-building energy efficretrofits.
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
6/80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
T o t a l E S B C a p
i t a l B u d g e
t ( m
i l l i o n
$ )
Capital Budget Adjustments for Energy Efficiency Projects
6
With a $500 million capital improvement program underway, ownershipdecided to re-evaluate certain projects with cost-effective energy efficiencand sustainability opportunities in mind.
I. MOTIVATION1) Prove or disprove the economic viability of whole-building energy efficretrofits.
2008Capital
Budget forEnergy-Related
Projects =$93m+ 0%
EnergySavings
Sum of adds /changes / deletes
= +$13m
New CapitalBudget w /EfficiencyProjects =
$106m+ 38% Energy
Savings
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
7/807
Energy efficiency and sustainability provide amenities (lower energy costeasier carbon reporting, daylighting, etc.) that set the building apart fromsurrounding tenant space.
($30,000)
($25,000)
($20,000)
($15,000)
($10,000)
($5,000)
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
N o m
i n a l
D o l
l a r s
( $ )
Year in Lease
Illustrative: Tenant Utility Cash Flow
Annual cost/savings NPV
If tenants understand (and cancapture) the value of extrainvestments up front, they aremore likely to make them.
I. MOTIVATION1) Prove or disprove the economic viability of whole-building energy efficretrofits.
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
8/80
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. Process
I. MOTIVATION
The retrofit of the Empire State Building was motivated by the buildingownerships desire to:
1) Prove or disprove the economic viability of whole-building energ
efficiency retrofits.2) Create a replicable model for whole-building retrofits.
3) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I. Motivation
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
9/809
I. MOTIVATION2) Create a replicable model for whole-building retrofits.
There are known opportunities to cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gasemissions, yet few owners are pursuing them.
Building efficiency measures are identifiedas having negative costs.
Source: NRDC - http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/blueprint/default.asp
Cutting U.S. Global Warming Pollution 80% by 2050: Cost & Payoff by Sector
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
10/8010
ESB ownership wants to demonstrate how to cost-effectively retrofit a larmulti-tenant office building to inspire others to embark on whole-buildingretrofits.
I. MOTIVATION2) Create a replicable model for whole-building retrofits.
8
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
11/80
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. Process
I. MOTIVATION
The retrofit of the Empire State Building was motivated by the buildingownerships desire to:
1) Prove or disprove the economic viability of whole-building energ
efficiency retrofits.2) Create a replicable model for whole-building retrofits.
3) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively.
I. Motivation
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
12/801
We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2050 to stabilizethe climate.
I. MOTIVATION3) Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Business as usual global emissions*
5562
85
64%68%
76%
2008 2030 2050
We need to be at20 GtCO2e by2050 to mitigateclimate change
Today, were at55 GtCO2e
*Source: McKinsey Analysis, IPCC, Stern Review (2006)
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
13/801
The building sector must be a large part of the solution as it is the largestcontributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
We need to be at20 GtCO2e by2050 to mitigateclimate change
Source: EIA data - Table 12.2: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/envir.html
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
M i l l i o n
M e t r i c
T o n s o f
C a r
b o n
D i o x i d e
Year
U.S. CO2 Emissions by End-Use Sector: 1980 - 2006
Buildings Industry Transportation
Buildings are responsible for 38%
of CO2 emissions in the U.S.
I. MOTIVATION3) Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
14/801
Nearly 75% of U.S. commercial buildings are over 20 years old (and thusready for retrofit). Retrofitting existing buildings must be part of the solut
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Before 1920 1920 to 1945 1946 to 1959 1960 to 1969 1970 to 1979 1980 to 1989 1990 to 1999 2000 to 2003
M i l l i o n s q u a r e
f e e t o f
C o m m e r c i a l
B u i l d
i n g
Year Constructed
U.S. Commercial Building Space by Age
Source: EIA data - Table 12.2: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/envir.html
72% of the U.S. commercial stockwas constructed before 1990.
I. MOTIVATION3) Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
15/80
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. Process
I. MOTIVATION
I. Motivation
The goal with ESB has been to define intelligent choices whichwill either save money, spend the same money more efficiently,or spend additional sums for which there is reasonable paybackthrough savings. Addressing these investments correctly willcreate a competitive advantage for ownership through lowercosts and better work environment for tenants. Succeeding inthese efforts will make a replicable model for others to follow.
- Anthony E. Malkin
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
16/80
II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Using ESB as a convening point, a collaborative team was formed todevelop the optimal solution through a rigorous and iterative process thatinvolved experience, energy and financial modeling, ratings systems,technical advice, and robust debate. Key points include:
1) Five key groups and a host of contributors used a collaborative aniterative approach.
2) A 4-phase project development process helped guide progress.
3) A variety of complementary tools were used and developed totriangulate to the best answer.
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
17/8017
II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS1) Five key groups and contributors used a collaborative and iterative appr
The project development process, which the team focused on, is the first towards executing and verifying the success of a retrofit.
Project development is focused on understanding current performance, analyzing
opportunities, and determining which projects to implement.
ProjectExecution
Measurement &Verification
2010 2025Retrofit Project Timeline
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
18/8018
Core team members for the project development process included the CliClimate Initiative (CCI), Johnson Controls Inc. (JCI), Jones Lang LaSalleRocky Mountain Institute (RMI), and the Empire State Building (ESB).
Owner Empire State
Building Company LLC
Project Manager Jones Lang LaSalle
Energy ServiceCompany
Johnson Controls Inc.
Project Advisor Clinton Climate Initiative
Design Partner &Peer Reviewer
Rocky Mountain
Institute
OperationsReviewer Empire State
Building Operations
II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS1) Five key groups and contributors used a collaborative and iterative appr
Team Organization Chart
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
19/8019
Many other contributors, in addition to the core team, provided additionalexpertise to fully explore all opportunities.
II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS1) Five key groups and contributors used a collaborative and iterative appr
Leasing agents
3rd party review
Financialexperts
M&V experts
Architects
Ownership/
Management
EngineersSustainabilityExperts
EnergyModelers
Contractors
GoalSetting
BrainstormingCharrettes
Benchmarking
Contractor Estimates
DesignDrawings
EnergyModeling
Financial/LCCAModeling
ToolDevelopment
FieldVerification
ProjectDevelopment
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
20/80
II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Using ESB as a convening point, a collaborative team was formed todevelop the optimal energy efficiency retrofit solution through a rigorousiterative process that involved experience, energy and financial modelingratings systems, technical advice, and robust debate. Key points include:
1) Five key groups and a host of contributors used a collaborative aniterative approach.
2) A 4-phase project development process helped guide progress.
3) A variety of complementary tools were used and developed totriangulate to the best answer.
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
21/8021
Project activities (audits, workshops, presentations, analyses, reports, etc.were divided into 4 phases.
II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS2) A 4-phase project development process helped guide progress.
Phase I: Inventory& Programming
Phase II: DesignDevelopment
Phase III: DesignDocumentation
Phase IV: Final Documentation
Tenant Initiatives (prebuilts,design guidelines, energymanagement) Report
Tuned eQUEST model
Model (eQUEST, financial,GHG) outputs
Integrated SustainabilityMaster Plan Report (inc.Energy Master Plan)
April 14th kick-off meeting May 7 th /May 14th team
workshops June 2 nd Presentation to
Ownership
Baseline Capital ProjectsReport
Baseline EnergyBenchmark Report
June 18 th TheoreticalMinimum workshop
July 2 nd workshop July 15 th Presentation to
ownership
July 30 th Tenant Focusworkshop
August 13th eQUESTworkshop
August 27 th Presentation toOwnership
Sept. 10 th workshop Sept 29th Presentation to
Ownership October 6-8 th Finance
workshop (Boulder) Nov 10 th Presentation to
Ownership
A c t
i v i t i e s
O u t p u
t s
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
22/80
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
23/80
23
Significant time was spent 1) refining energy and financial model inputs to eoutputs were accurate and 2) understanding the critical relationship betweeneconomics and CO2 reductions.
II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS2) A 4-phase project development process helped guide progress.
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 D o l l a r s
( $ )
Incremental Cash Flow for
each Package of Measures
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
A b s o l u t e
M e t r i c
T o n s o f
C O 2
CO2 Emissions for each
Package
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
24/80
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
25/80
25
Industry standard and newly developed design tools, decision-making tooand rating tools helped to evaluate and benchmark existing and futureperformance.
II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS3) A variety of tools were used and developed to triangulate to the best an
Design Tools Decision-Making Tools Rating Tools
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
26/80
III. KEY FINDINGS
At current energy costs, the Empire State Building can cost-effectivelyreduce energy use by 38% and save (a minimum of) 105,000 metric tonsCO2 over the next 15 years.
1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures totenant engagement deliver these results.
2) Key reductions in peak cooling and electric loads are possible.
3) Enhanced work environments are created.
4) Various green certifications can be obtained.
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
27/80
27
The Empire State Building can achieve a high level of energy and CO2reduction cost-effectively.
III. KEY FINDINGS1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures to tenantengagement deliver these results.
NPV Max
NPV Mid
NPV Neutral
Max CO2
Reduction
($25,000)
($5,000)
$15,000
$35,000
0 40,000 80,000 120,000 160,000
N e t
P r e s e n t
V a l u e o f
P a c
k a g e o f
M e a s u r e s
T h
o u s a n
d s
Cumulative metric tons of CO2 saved over 15 years
15-Year NPV of Package versus Cumulative CO2 Savings
There are diminishing (andexpensive) returns forgreater efficiency.
A solution thatbalances CO2reductions andfinancial returns isin this range.
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
28/80
28
Achieving an energy reduction greater than 38% appears to be cost-prohib
III. KEY FINDINGS1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures to tenantengagement deliver these results.
($2,000)
$0
$2,000
$4,000
C o s
t p e r
M e t r i c
T o n o f C
O 2
Cost per Metric Ton of CO2 by Individual Measure
The average cost per ton of carbon dioxide saved for
the first 90% of the savings is -$200/tonwhile theaverage cost per ton for the last 10% is over $300
per ton.
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
29/80
29
Energy and CO2 savings in the optimal package result from 8 key projects
III. KEY FINDINGS1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures to tenantengagement deliver these results.
9% 6%5%
5%5% 3% 3% 2%
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
A n n u a
l E n e r g y
U s e
( k B t u )
T
h o u s a n
d s
Annual Energy Savings by Measure
38%Reduction
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
30/80
30
Taking the right steps in the right order ensures loads are minimized prior investigating expensive new equipment or controls.
III. KEY FINDINGS1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures to tenantengagement deliver these results.
Reduce Loads
Use Efficient Technology
Provide Controls
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
31/80
31
WINDOWS:Remanufacture existing insulated glass units (IGU) within theEmpire State Buildings approximately 6,500 double-hung windows to includesuspended coated film and gas fill.
III. KEY FINDINGS1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures to tenantengagement deliver these results.
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
32/80
32
RADIATIVE BARRIER:Install more than six-thousand insulated reflectivebarriers behind radiator units located on the perimeter of the building.
III. KEY FINDINGS1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures to tenantengagement deliver these results.
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
33/80
33
TENANT DAYLIGHTING / LIGHTING / PLUGS:This measure involvesreducing lighting power density in tenant spaces, installing dimmable balland photosensors for perimeter spaces, and providing occupants with a pluload occupancy sensor for their personal workstation.
III. KEY FINDINGS1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures to tenantengagement deliver these results.
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
34/80
34
CHILLER PLANT RETROFIT:The chiller plant retrofit project includes theretrofit of four industrial electric chillers in addition to upgrades to controlvariable speed drives, and primary loop bypasses.
III. KEY FINDINGS1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures to tenantengagement deliver these results.
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
35/80
35
VAV AIR HANDLING UNITS:Replace existing constant volume units withvariable air volume units using a new air handling layout (two floor-moununits per floor instead of four ceiling-hung units).
III. KEY FINDINGS1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures to tenantengagement deliver these results.
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
36/80
36
DDC CONTROLS:The measure involves upgrading the existing controlsystems at the Empire State Building.
III. KEY FINDINGS1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures to tenantengagement deliver these results.
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
37/80
37
DEMAND CONTROL VENTILATION:This project involves the installation ofCO2 sensors for control of outside air introduction to chiller water and DXHandling Units.
III. KEY FINDINGS1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures to tenantengagement deliver these results.
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
38/80
38
TENANT ENERGY MANAGEMENT:This project will provide tenants withaccess to online energy and benchmarking information as well as sustainabtips and updates.
III. KEY FINDINGS1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures to tenantengagement deliver these results.
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
39/80
39
Though it is more informative to look at financials for the package of meacapital costs and energy savings were determined for each individual mea
III. KEY FINDINGS1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures to tenantengagement deliver these results.
ProjectDescription
ProjectedCapital Cost
2008 CapitalBudget
IncrementalCost
EstimatedAnnualEnergy Savings*
Windows $4.5m $455k $4m $410k
Radiative Barrier $2.7m $0 $2.7m $190k
DDC Controls $7.6m $2m $5.6m $741k
Demand Control Vent Inc. above $0 Inc. above $117k
Chiller Plant Retrofit $5.1m $22.4m -$17.3m $675k
VAV AHUs $47.2m $44.8m $2.4m $702kTenant Day/Lighting/Plugs $24.5m $16.1m $8.4m $941k
Tenant Energy Mgmt. $365k $0 $365k $396k
Power Generation (optional) $15m $7.8m $7m $320k
TOTAL (ex. Power Gen) $106.9m $93.7m $13.2m $4.4m
*Note that energy savings are also incremental to the original capital budget.
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
40/80
III. KEY FINDINGS
At current energy costs, the Empire State Building can cost-effectivelyreduce energy use by 38% and save (a minimum of) 105,000 metric tonsCO2 over the next 15 years.
1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures totenant engagement deliver these results.
2) Key reductions in peak cooling and electric loads are expected.
3) Enhanced work environments are created.
4) Various green certifications can be obtained.
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
41/80
41
The selected package of measures reduces peak cooling requirements by 3(1600 tons) enabling immediate and future CapEx avoidance.
III. KEY FINDINGS2) Key reductions in peak cooling and electric loads are expected.
NPV Max Package
NPV Mid Package
NPV NeutralPackage
CO2 Max Package-20,000
-10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 N e t
P r e s e n t
V a l u e
( $ )
T h
o u s a n
d s
Reduction in Peak Cooling Capacity
Cost of Cooling Efficiency
The 1600-ton load reduction allows forthe chiller retrofit instead ofreplacement/adding capacity.
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
42/80
42
The optimal package of measures also reduces peak electrical demand by MW, benefitting both the building and the utility.
III. KEY FINDINGS2) Key reductions in peak cooling and electric loads are expected.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
O f f i c e
B u i
l d i n g P e a
k D e m a n
d ( M W )
CurrentPeak
Capacity
Office Building Electrical Capacity
FuturePeak
Capacity
If on-site back-up generation is desired,options include:
Cogeneration; Gas-fired/bio-fuel fired generation; Fuel cells; Renewables (PV/wind); and Purchasing new capacity from Con
Edison
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
43/80
III. KEY FINDINGS
At current energy costs, the Empire State Building can cost-effectivelyreduce energy use by 38% and save (a minimum of) 105,000 metric tonsCO2 over the next 15 years.
1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures totenant engagement deliver these results.
2) Key reductions in peak cooling and electric loads are expected.
3) Enhanced work environments are created.
4) Various green certifications can be obtained.
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
GS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
44/80
44
This package of measures also results in enhanced indoor environmentalquality and additional amenities for tenants:
III. KEY FINDINGS3) Enhanced work environments are created.
Better thermal comfort resulting from better windows, radiativebarrier, and better controls;
Improved indoor air quality resulting from DCV; and Better lighting conditions that coordinateambient and task lighting.
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
45/80
III. KEY FINDINGS
At current energy costs, the Empire State Building can cost-effectivelyreduce energy use by 38% and save (a minimum of) 105,000 metric tonsCO2 over the next 15 years.
1) Eight interactive levers ranging from base building measures totenant engagement deliver these results.
2) Key reductions in peak cooling and electric loads are expected.
3) Enhanced work environments are created.
4) Various green certifications can be obtained.
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
46/80
46
This recommended package of measures helps to earn 12 LEED EBOMpoints, an Energy Star score of 90, and a 72% Green Globes score.
III. KEY FINDINGS4) Various green certifications can be achieved.
Package EnergySavings* Energy Star LEEDPoints
GreenGlobes
NPV Max 20% 82 8 64%
NPV Mid 38% 90 12 72%
NPV Neutral 45% 91 13 76%
CO2 Max 48% 92 13 78%
III KEY FINDINGS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
47/80
47
The Empire State Building will be pursuing the Energy Star label as well aGold certification under the LEED for Existing Buildings: Operation &Maintenance Rating System.
III. KEY FINDINGS4) Various green certifications can be achieved.
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
48/80
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
Clear energy targets and responsible parties must be determined for each the 8 major savings measures to fully maximize the environmental andeconomic benefits.
1) Three stakeholders, with different implementation mechanisms, wdeliver the savings.
2) The project will be financed out of cash flow, though other financopportunities are being investigated.
3) Work has already started and will be complete by 2013 (55% of thsavings will be in place by December 31, 2010).
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
IV IMPLEMENTATION
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
49/80
49
Johnson Controls, the Empire State Building, and Tenants are eachresponsible for delivering some of the total savings.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION1) Three stakeholders, with different implementation mechanisms, will dethe savings.
61%
22%17%
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
Adjusted Baseline JCI ESB Tenant NPV Mid
A n n u a
l E n e r g y
S a v
i n g s
( k B t u )
Energy Savings by Implementation Stakeholder
IV IMPLEMENTATION
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
50/80
50
Who implements each project?Project Description Implementer
Windows Johnson Controls
Radiative Barrier Johnson Controls
DDC Controls Johnson Controls
Demand Control Vent Johnson Controls
Chiller Plant Retrofit Johnson Controls
VAV AHUs Empire State Building
Tenant Day/Lighting/Plugs Tenants & Empire State Building
Tenant Energy Mgmt. All
IV. IMPLEMENTATION1) Three stakeholders, with different implementation mechanisms, will delthe savings.
IV IMPLEMENTATION
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
51/80
51
Johnson Controls Inc will deliver 61% of the total savings using a performcontract mechanism. Five different performance contracts have a total cos$20 million and guaranteed savings of ~20% percent.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION1) Three stakeholders, with different implementation mechanisms, will dethe savings.
How does the Performance Contract work? 1. ESB pays JCI guaranteed maximum price for capital cost of all
projects2. ESB accrues energy savings as a result of the
retrofit projects if savings are too low,
JCI pays ESB the difference.3. Savings guarantee term is 15 years JCI
61%ESB22%
ESB/Tenants
17%
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
52/80
52
Empire State Building will deliver 22% of the total available savings as aihandling units and pre-built spaces are replaced over the next 4 years.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION1) Three stakeholders, with different implementation mechanisms, will dethe savings.
JCI61%
ESB22%
ESB/Tenants
17%
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
53/80
53
ESB is responsible for helping/incentivizing tenants to pay for and achievnearly 20% of the total available energy savings as spaces turnover.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION1) Three stakeholders, with different implementation mechanisms, will dethe savings.
JCI61%ESB
22%
ESB/Tenants
17%
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
54/80
54
The team has identified 3 programs that will help to reduce and manage teenergy use:
IV. IMPLEMENTATION1) Three stakeholders, with different implementation mechanisms, will dethe savings.
1. Tenant pre-built program: The proposed green pre-built design will save $0.7- $0.90/sq. ft. in operating costs annually for an additional cost of $6/sq. ft. ahelp ESB demonstrate design principles for all tenants to endorse.
2. Tenant design guidelines: Design guidelines, based on the pre-built program,will provide green ESB standards. Tenants can verify the economic validity orecommendations by accessing the eQUEST model or tenant financial tool.
3. Tenant energy management program: ESB will begin sub-metering all tenantspaces and manage a feedback/reporting tool to inform tenants about theirenergy use. This program will also assist tenants with their own carbon reporefforts.
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
55/80
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
Clear energy targets and responsible parties must be determined for each the 8 major savings measures to fully maximize the environmental andeconomic benefits.
1) Three stakeholders, with different implementation mechanisms, wdeliver the savings.
2) The project will be financed out of cash flow, though other financopportunities are being investigated.
3) Work has already started and will be complete by 2013 (55% of thsavings will be in place by December 31, 2010).
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
56/80
56
The additional $13.2 million required for energy efficiency projects will bfor out of cash flow.
V. O2) The project will be financed out of cash flow, though other financingopportunities are being investigated.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
T o t a l E S B C a p i
t a l B u d g e
t ( m
i l l i o n
$ )
Capital Budget Adjustments for Energy Efficiency Projects
2008Capital
Budget forEnergy-
RelatedProjects =$93m+ 0%
EnergySavings
Sum of adds /changes / deletes
= +$13m
New CapitalBudget w /EfficiencyProjects =
$106m+ 38% Energy
Savings
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
57/80
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
Clear energy targets and responsible parties must be determined for each the 8 major savings measures to fully maximize the environmental andeconomic benefits.
1) Three stakeholders, with different implementation mechanisms, wdeliver the savings.
2) The project will be financed out of cash flow, though other financopportunities are being investigated.
3) Work has already started and will be complete by 2013 (55% of thsavings will be in place by December 31, 2010).
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
IV IMPLEMENTATION
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
58/80
58
The projects to be implemented via the Johnson Controls performance conwill be complete by October 2010. The remaining projects will be compleDecember 2013.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION3) Work has already started and will be complete by 2013.
April2009
October2010
December2013
Chiller Plant Retrofit Finalengineering &subcontractor
awards
DDC Controls
Demand Control Ventilation
Windows
Radiators
AHU replacement
Tenant Energy Management
Tenant Lighting, Daylighting, Plugs
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
59/80
V. LESSONS LEARNED
Key lessons learned for the retrofit of large commercial office buildingsinclude:
1) The maximum cost-effective savings are achieved by:
a) Taking a whole-systems, dynamic, life-cycle approach;b) Coordinating projects with equipment replacement cycles; andc) Addressing tenant spaces.
2) At a certain point, there is tension between CO2 savings andbusiness value (even with anticipated CO2 regulations).
3) The process can and must be streamlined.
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
V LESSONS LEARNED
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
60/80
60
A. Teams must take a whole-systems, dynamic, life-cycle approach.
V. LESSONS LEARNED1) Several approaches help maximize cost-effective savings.
Reduce Loads
Use EfficientTechnology
Provide Controls
Capital Cost
Utility Savings
Utility Rebates
Tax Implications
O&M Impacts
Escalation Assumptions
Discount Rate
Future Cost of CO2
Tenant Utility Structure
V LESSONS LEARNED
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
61/80
61
B. Projects are most cost-effective when coordinated with equipmentreplacement cycles.
V. LESSONS LEARNED1) Several approaches help maximize cost-effective savings.
($100,000,000)
($80,000,000)
($60,000,000)
($40,000,000)
($20,000,000)
$0
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
N e t
P r e s e n t
V a l u e o f
P a c
k a g e o f
M e a s u r e s
Cumulative metric tons of CO2 saved over 15 years
15-Year NPV of Package versus Cumulative CO2 Savings
IncrementalCapEx
AbsoluteCapEx
V LESSONS LEARNED
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
62/80
62
V. LESSONS LEARNED1) Several approaches help maximize cost-effective savings.
C. More than half the savings exist within tenant spaces dont ignore them!
Balance of DDC
Retrofit Chiller
Tenant Daylighting/Lighting/Plugs
VAV AHU's
Bldg Windows
Tenant EnergyManagement
Radiative Barrier Tenant DCV
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
Measures that only affect the Base Building Measures within Tenant Space
A n n u a l
E n e r g y
S a v
i n g s
( k B t u )
Energy Savings: Base Building vs. within Tenant Space
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
63/80
V. LESSONS LEARNED
Key lessons learned for the retrofit of large commercial office buildingsinclude:
1) The maximum cost-effective savings are achieved by:a) Taking a whole-systems, dynamic, life-cycle approach;b) Coordinating projects with equipment replacement cycles; andc) Addressing tenant spaces.
2) At a certain point, there is tension between CO2 savings andbusiness value (even with anticipated CO2 regulations).
3) The process can and must be streamlined.
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
V LESSONS LEARNED
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
64/80
64
V. LESSONS LEARNED2) At a certain point, there is tension between CO2 savings and business v
Maximizing business value leaves considerable CO2 on the table.
20%
19%
7%3%
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
Adjusted Baseline NPV Max NPV Mid NPV Neutral CO2 Max Year 15
A n n u a l
E n e r g y
C o s
t i n
D o l
l a r s
Energy Cost Savings by Package
Choice package to
maximize NPV.
V LESSONS LEARNED
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
65/80
65
V. LESSONS LEARNED2) At a certain point, there is tension between CO2 savings and business v
Attempting to save CO2 faster may be cost prohibitive.
NPV Mid
NPV Mid Acclerated
($40,000,000)
($30,000,000)
($20,000,000)
($10,000,000)
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
N e t
P r e s e n t
V a l u e o f
P a c
k a g e o f
M e a s u r e s
Cumulative metric tons of CO2 saved over 15 years
15-Year NPV of Package versus Cumulative CO2 Savings
Acceleration reduces theNPV as projects become
out of sync withreplacement cycles
V LESSONS LEARNED
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
66/80
66
V. LESSONS LEARNED2) At a certain point, there is tension between CO2 savings and business v
Anticipated CO2 regulation in the U.S. doesnt change the solution set though European levels of regulation would.
($30,000,000)
($20,000,000)
($10,000,000)
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000$40,000,000
$50,000,000
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
N P V ( $ )
Cumulative CO2 Savings (Metric Tons)
15-Yr NPV and Cumulative CO2 Savings at Fluctuating Carbon Costs
No Regulation .33% CA: Low Carbon Economy Act1.34%: RGGI 2% CA: Lieberman Warner
8.8% CA: EU OTC
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
67/80
V. LESSONS LEARNED
Key lessons learned for the retrofit of large commercial office buildingsinclude:
1) The maximum cost-effective savings are achieved by:a) Taking a whole-systems, dynamic, life-cycle approach;b) Coordinating projects with equipment replacement cycles; andc) Addressing tenant spaces.
2) At a certain point, there is tension between CO2 savings andbusiness value (even with anticipated CO2 regulations).
3) The process can and must be streamlined.
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
V LESSONS LEARNED
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
68/80
68
V. LESSONS LEARNED3) The process can and must be streamlined.
Several opportunities to reduce the time and cost of the project developmprocess exist.
Project DevelopmentTime
Improved Process Apply Insights Improved Tools Optimized ProjectDevelopment Time
T i m e a n
d C o s
t s
Opportunities to Improve Project Development Process
Reduction intime and costs?
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
69/80
VI. INDUSTRY NEEDS
This project was a great test lab, but what now? If all buildings need to beretrofitted to profitably reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2050we have a lot of work to do in a short amount of time.
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
Opportunity Areas: Residential, Commercial, Industrial
Barriers: What is preventing us from reaching our goal?
Outcome: 75% Reduction by 2050
Strategies: What is the most impactful way to overcome barriers?
Coordination: Who is working on what and what can you do?
VI INDUSTRY NEEDS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
70/80
Project
Origin
Project
Development
Construction &
Commissioning
Financing&
Contracting
Measurement
& Verification
70
VI. INDUSTRY NEEDS
Barriers exist in each phase of the retrofit process. Below are the major bathis team believes are paramount to overcome in order to reach our 2050
Retrofit Project Phases
c. Projectdevelopmentanalysis tools
c. Policye. Engineering
capacityf. Cost of
measures
g. Financing(base buildingand tenant)
h. Performance-based designandconstructioncontracts
TBD TBDa. Selecting theright buildingsfor whole-systemsretrofits
b. Developingsolutions forall buildingtypes
VI. INDUSTRY NEEDS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
71/80
71
VI. INDUSTRY NEEDSa) Select the right buildings for whole-systems retrofits
Retrofitting the right buildings in the right order can reduce the societal c($/metric ton) for carbon abatement.
1
3
2
4
VI. INDUSTRY NEEDS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
72/80
72
VI. INDUSTRY NEEDSb) Develop solutions for small to mid-range commercial buildings.
Most retrofit or energy service companies only address large commercialbuildings or residential buildings. Yet 95% of the U.S. building stock is smmid-sized buildings that consume 44% of total energy use.
Source: EIA data
VI. INDUSTRY NEEDS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
73/80
73
VI. INDUSTRY NEEDSc) Develop better project development tools.
Significant time was spent creating the energy and financial models for thbuilding and then iterating between them. Quicker and simpler tools coulaccelerate the process.
VI. INDUSTRY NEEDS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
74/80
74
d) Use policy and regulation to incentivize deeper savings and to make theprocess cheaper and more transparent.
Federal stimulus money, city or state mandated retrofits, and more sharedon opportunities and performance will make retrofits faster and cheaper.
Source: Recovery.gov
MAYOR BLOOMBERGAND SPEAKER QUINN
ANNOUNCE MAJORPACKAGE OFLEGISLATION TOCREATE GREENER,
GREATER BUILDINGSPLAN FOR NEW YORKCITY
VI. INDUSTRY NEEDS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
75/80
75
e) Increase workforce capacity of whole-systems trained auditors, engineeroperators, and commissioning agents.
There is a lack of American engineers who are trained and ready to rebuilefficient buildings, cities, and cars.
Source: RAND Issue paper - http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241/IP241.pdf
Science &Engineering
There is no negawatt university Amory Lovins
VI. INDUSTRY NEEDSf ff
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
76/80
76
f) Determine how to make efficiency measures and renewable energytechnologies more cost-effective.
Value-chain analyses can help determine opportunities for cost reductionstechnologies that can save significant amounts of energy.
Additional controls; Easy to install methods to retrofit exterior wall systems to increase thermal
resistance; LED lighting; DALI lighting controls; Chilled beam systems; Heat recovery systems;
Green roofs; Rainwater collection; Condenser water savings; Dessicant systems; and Even higher performance windows.
VI. INDUSTRY NEEDS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
77/80
77
g) Determine solutions for both base building and tenant financing.
Availability of capital is a major hurdle and a variety of innovative solutiowork for large, small, owner-occupied, and leased spaces is needed.
VI. INDUSTRY NEEDS
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
78/80
78
h) Standardize (and use) performance-based design and construction contra
Design and engineering parties are often incentivized by different outcomthus deterring the group from optimizing energy efficiency.
Get paid for what you save, not what you spend.
CONCLUSION
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
79/80
CONCLUSION
VI. NeedsV. Key LessonsIV. ImplementationIII. Key FindingsII. ProcessI. Motivation
There is a compelling need as well as an economic casefor reducing greenhouse gas emissions in existing
buildings. The Empire State Building case study providesan example of how this can be done. However, significantchallenges remain that must be addressed in order to
quickly and cost-effectively capture the full greenhousegas reduction opportunity for building retrofits on a
widespread basis.
For more information please contact:
8/10/2019 Esb Overview Deck
80/80
Rocky Mountain Institute
For more information, please contact:
Kathy Baczko
Clinton Climate InitiativeNew York City Director +1 646 981 6472kbaczko@clintonfoundation.org
Anthony E. MalkinEmpire State BuildingOwner
Iain Campbell
Johnson Controls, Inc.VP & GM, NA Solutions, Building Efficiency+1 414 524 7701iain.a.campbell@jci.com
Ray QuartararoJones Lang LaSalleNortheast Regional Manager, International Director +1 212 812 5857Ray.quartararo@am.jll.com
Amory LovinsRocky Mountain InstituteChief Scientist+1 970 927 3851ablovins@rmi.org
More project information available at:www.esbsustainability.com