Measurement and Verification of savings from select Energy ... · Line #1 1.150 kWh per unit Line...
Transcript of Measurement and Verification of savings from select Energy ... · Line #1 1.150 kWh per unit Line...
16 January 2015| REF: J/N 122143
Office of Environment & Heritage Measurement and Verification of savings from select Energy Saver audits Summary Report (Final)
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 ii
Project Details
Energy Saver Program contacts Energetics Contact
Charles Xu Anita Stadler
Description Prepared By Reviewed By Approved By Approval Date
Version 1: Initial Draft Nathan Rosaguti Helen Wetherill Leigh Rostron 07/04/2014
Version 2: Final Draft Nathan Rosaguti Anita Stadler Anita Stadler 23/04/2014
Version 3: Final Nathan Rosaguti Anita Stadler Anita Stadler 20/05/2014
About Energetics
Energetics is a specialist consultancy that uniquely integrates over 25 years experience in all aspects of business, energy and carbon management to improve your financial performance, position for market leadership and drive investor confidence. We work with you to develop innovative strategies that manage risk, optimise energy use, reduce carbon emissions and build resilience to a range of market pressures.
2013 Finalist in The BRW Client Choice Award for Best Client Relationship Management
2012 Winner of The Australian Business Award for Service Excellence
2012 Winner of The Australian Business Award for Recommended Employer
2011 Winner of The BRW Client Choice Award for Best Value
2011 Finalists in The BRW Client Choice Awards for Exceptional Service, Most Innovative, Outstanding Client Care and Best Consulting Engineering Firm with revenue under $50 Million.
2011 Winner of the Queensland CitySwitch Green Office Award for achievements in reducing office energy use.
2010 Winner of the Victorian CitySwitch Green Office Award for achievements in reducing office energy use.
Copyright
© 2014 Energetics. All rights reserved. "Energetics" refers to Energetics Pty Ltd and any related entities.
This report is protected under the copyright laws of Australia and other countries as an unpublished work. This report contains information that is proprietary and confidential to Energetics and subject to applicable Federal or State Freedom of Information legislation, shall not be disclosed outside the recipient's company or duplicated, used or disclosed in whole or in part by the recipient for any purpose other than for which the report was commissioned. Any other use or disclosure in whole or in part of this information without the express written permission of Energetics is prohibited.
Disclaimer
This report has been compiled in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. OEH and Energetics shall not be liable for any damage which may occur to any person or organisation taking action or not on the basis of this publication. Readers should seek appropriate advice when applying the information to their specific needs.
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 iii
Executive Summary
The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s (OEH) Energy Saver Program aims to encourage and reward energy efficiency improvements in NSW businesses. As part of delivering an effective program, the department recognises the value of confirming the effectiveness of the energy efficiency activities it has supported, both in terms of verifying cost savings and reductions in energy use. The energy efficiency measures implemented at four facilities were assessed using formal Measurement and Verification (M&V) techniques, based on the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP). This detailed summary report outlines the M&V approach and results at the four facilities. The discussion is focused on issues associated with conducting the M&V and is not intended to be a reflection on the Energy Saver Program nor the individual projects identified or selected for implementation. Although the level of achievement varies, M&V conducted across four sites indicates that the Energy Saver Program has been effective in promoting improved energy efficiency. The sites assessed in this report are:
a Large Commercial Office Building in Macquarie Park
a Workers Club located approximately 200km south west of Sydney
a Conference and Function Centre in the Sydney central business district
a Manufacturer of mobile garbage bins with a facility on the NSW Central Coast
The sites were selected for M&V based on information collected in Energy Saver Program post-audit progress reports. Three M&V assessments followed IPMVP1 Option C methodology, and one utilised IPVMP Option B. The level of energy savings achieved from implemented projects at the four sites are outlined in the table below.
Site Adjusted Baseline
Usage (kWh or MJ)
Actual Usage
(kWh or MJ)
Energy Savings
(kWh or MJ)
Energy Savings
(%)
Baseline Model
Uncertainty @ 95%
Notes
Commercial Office Building – Option C
Electricity 855,477 763,853 91,623 10.7% ±9.2% 4 months data for savings
Natural Gas 1,250,819 1,225,979 24,840 2.0% ±31.2% 10 months data for savings
1 IPMVP – International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol – 2012 – Efficiency Valuation Organisation www.evo-world.org
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 iv
Site Adjusted Baseline
Usage (kWh or MJ)
Actual Usage
(kWh or MJ)
Energy Savings
(kWh or MJ)
Energy Savings
(%)
Baseline Model
Uncertainty @ 95%
Notes
Workers Club – Option C
Electricity 2,141,808 1,685,086 456,722 21.3% ±7.2% 11 months data for savings
Natural Gas 873,868 848,600 25,268 2.9% ±14.2% 11 months data for savings
Conference and Function Centre – Option C
Electricity 1,731,236 1,324,610 406,626 23.5% ±14.5% 12 months data for savings
Natural Gas 1,046,435 850,234 196,201 18.7% ±101.5% 12 months data for savings
Manufacturer – Option B
Electricity
Line #1 1.150 kWh
per unit Line #3
0.343 kWh per unit
#1 0.900 kWh per
unit #3 0.287 kWh per
unit
#1 0.249 kWh per unit
#3 0.057 kWh per unit
#1 21.7% #3 16.5%
#1 ±38.7% #3 ±34.4%
#1 14 days of data for savings #2 11 days of data for savings
The above quantitative results confirm significant electricity savings. Whilst there are no identified projects that target gas savings, any calculated gas savings may be a result of interactive effects, improved management or other unidentified causes. Whilst the application of formal M&V techniques provides robust evidence of the level of achievement by participating sites, there are limitations and numerous challenges in the application of M&V. Furthermore, the application of M&V was relatively new to project proponents. This accentuated some of the challenges typically associated with M&V. Key challenges are highlighted in the table below.
Challenges Description
Modelling energy savings
Regression analysis conducted in conjunction with this M&V exercise does not explain the reason why a given variable impacts energy consumption to the extent it does, but simply tells us that a relationship exists. Thus regression analysis only highlights correlation, but correlation does not imply causation. Care must be taken to ensure a valid approach and defensible results. However, the selection of the most suitable M&V Option and development of the energy model is not always straightforward. This often involves an iterative approach that could include exploration of alternative project boundaries or identification of further independent variables that explain the variation in energy use. A final selection of the best option is at times only possible upon conducting a fairly detailed M&V regression analysis2.
M&V underperformance and implementation issues
Delays can add significantly to the cost of M&V analyses. The period of time over which the M&V activities were conducted were longer than originally anticipated for two sites:
For the Conference and Function Centre, the duration of the M&V exercise was significantly impacted by the inability to collect adequate data in a timely fashion.
For the manufacturing site, delays were experienced with the implementation of the energy savings measures due to manufacturer issues. This has impacted the timing for M&V and risked compromising the amount and quality of data available for final
2 See detailed discussion on the experience with the Manufacturing site in the body of the report
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 v
Challenges Description
analysis.
These sites highlighted the need to ensure sufficient planning is put in place prior to implementation, complete with a firm understanding of the process and data that will be required.
It is Energetics’ view that the appropriate use of M&V will significantly enhance the robustness of reported results under the Energy Saver Program and similar programs. Embedding M&V into the standard process can be achieved in an efficient and cost effective manner by focussing on the planning stage of projects.
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 vi
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. ii
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 8
2. M&V methodology ........................................................................................................................ 9
2.1. Overview of key project activities ........................................................................................ 9
2.2. M&V plans ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1. Overall approach ......................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2. IPMVP options ........................................................................................................... 10
2.3. Uncertainty ......................................................................................................................... 11
2.4. Baseline energy model ...................................................................................................... 11
2.5. Post-retrofit analysis .......................................................................................................... 12
3. Overview of projects ................................................................................................................... 13
3.1. Commercial Office Building ............................................................................................... 13
3.1.1. Site features ............................................................................................................... 13
3.1.2. Implemented energy conservation measures ........................................................... 13
3.2. Workers Club ..................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.1. Site features ............................................................................................................... 14
3.2.2. Implemented energy conservation measures ........................................................... 14
3.3. Conference and Function Centre ...................................................................................... 15
3.3.1. Site features ............................................................................................................... 15
3.3.2. Implemented energy conservation measures ........................................................... 15
3.4. Manufacturing site ............................................................................................................. 16
3.4.1. Site features ............................................................................................................... 16
3.4.2. Implemented energy conservation measures ........................................................... 17
4. Results of M&V Analysis ............................................................................................................ 18
4.1. Overview of Results ........................................................................................................... 18
4.2. Implementation issues ....................................................................................................... 19
4.2.1. Modelling energy savings .......................................................................................... 19
4.2.2. M&V implementation considerations ......................................................................... 20
5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix A. M&V Review: Commercial Office Building ............................................................ 22
Appendix B. M&V Review: Workers Club .................................................................................... 24
Appendix C. M&V Review: The Conference and Function Centre ............................................ 26
Appendix D. M&V Review: Manufacturing site ........................................................................... 28
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 vii
Contact Details .................................................................................................................................... 30
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 8
1. Introduction
The Energy Saver Program is a NSW Government initiative to provide practical support to businesses to increase energy efficiency, enhance competitiveness and drive down
operating costs.3
The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) commissioned Measurement and Verification (M&V) activities at selected the sites of Energy Saver Program participants where energy efficiency projects have been implemented. The purpose was to assess the impact energy initiatives on the energy consumption, energy cost and carbon emissions footprint of these sites. This report discusses the findings across the four sites.
Measurement and Verification offers a range of insights, including confirmation of actual energy and cost savings gained from the projects implemented compared to savings estimates during initial audits. Adopting recognised M&V guidelines such as the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) provides further benefits, such as increased confidence in the robustness of the energy savings.
The selection of the four sites selected for M&V was based on information collected in post-audit progress reports. For reasons of confidentiality, the names of the all four businesses have been omitted. The four sites represent different types of business as described below:
a Large Commercial Office Building in Macquarie Park
a Workers Club located approximately 200 km south west of Sydney
a Conference and Function Centre in the Sydney central business district
a Manufacturer of mobile garbage bins with a facility on the NSW Central Coast
A range of information sources have been used during the M&V assessment including site-specific audit reports and M&V plans which documented both the energy baseline and the conservation measures. Historical energy consumption data was obtained from energy utilities, as well as information from site operational teams on the variables that affect energy use. Post-audit progress reports also provided a valuable source of information, including the results from telephone surveys to gauge progress with implementation and confirm baseline and performance periods.
3 NSW Office of Environment and Heritage Energy Saver Program, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/140061energysaver.pdf, accessed March-2014
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 9
2. M&V methodology
2.1. Overview of key project activities
The following tasks were conducted over the course of this project by project proponents and OEH, with Energetics providing M&V services.
Energy audit
Energy Saver participants have energy efficiency investigations undertaken for their sites to identify measures to reduce energy consumption and improve efficiency.
An M&V plan was developed for each selected site.
Post-audit progress
Phone surveys were carried out with Energy Saver participants in order to complete post-audit progress reports. These surveys investigated the intent to implement projects, the progress of implementation, as well as additional questions relating to funding and M&V.
Feedback from sites was summarised with recommendations put forward as to potential candidates for M&V analysis.
Findings were presented to OEH and an M&V approach agreed for selected sites.
Measurement and verification (See Section 2.2 for an overview of the technical methods)
A review of the M&V plan was conducted to ensure alignment with IPMVP.
Data pertaining to energy consumption and site-specific activities was collected in conjunction with site contacts.
M&V analysis was conducted to determine verified project savings.
An M&V report was prepared for each site.
Project outcomes summary
Outcomes were summarised for internal and external use.
2.2. M&V plans
2.2.1. Overall approach
Formal M&V techniques described within the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP)4 were applied to calculate energy savings for the sites considered in this report. Broadly, the methodology is described by the following savings calculation:
Savings = Baseline Usage ± Adjustments – Actual Usage
The ability to create an ‘Adjusted Baseline’ (Baseline Usage ± Adjustments) is a critical step in which an energy model is developed to describe energy consumption in relation to the variables that 4 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (2012), Efficiency Valuation Organisation www.evo-world.org
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 10
influence usage. This energy model is used to forecast energy use over the same time period as the actual usage (post-retrofit period). This process is described in the diagram below:
2.2.2. IPMVP options
The IPMVP describes four generic approaches to conducting M&V of savings. The M&V approach adopted for each of the sites in this study is based on alignment with one of the four best practice M&V approaches that are defined in the IPMVP, as described briefly in Table 1.
Table 1: IPMVP M&V options
Approach Description
Option A – Key Parameter Measurement
A simplified method involving a project-specific boundary whereby the most important parameter affecting energy savings is measured. The measured values are combined with estimates for other variables to estimate savings.
Option B- Full Parameter Measurement
A more comprehensive method involving a project-specific boundary whereby the all key parameters affecting energy savings are measured. The resulting analysis determines the change in energy use (i.e. savings) for the measurement period.
Option C – Whole Site Analysis
A whole of site approach involving linear regression analysis of monthly billing data against corresponding values for independent variables. Modelling is conducted over a 12 month cycle.
Option D – Simulation This method is used when physical baseline measurements cannot be collected. Simulation software is used to accurately model the baseline. Once post-retrofit data is obtained, the model is adjusted for those conditions and calibrated to determine the overall error. The measured post-retrofit values are evaluated against the calibrated model depicting the baseline.
Each approach has its benefits and limitations. For example, selecting Option C to cover all implemented projects at the same time will make M&V more cost effective, but it does not enable savings for each project to be distinguished. For further details in selecting the right Option, please refer to the IPMVP for guidance4.
We adopted M&V Option C in the analyses of the Office Building, Workers Club and Conference and Function Centre sites (i.e. whole facility). This option was chosen for the following reasons:
M&V was conducted following project implementation using historical billing data.
Multiple Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) have been implemented.
Energy use data
Data for independent variables
Energy Model
Energy use data
Data for independent variables
Adjusted baseline Savings + uncertainty – = Actual
DA
TA
CO
LLEC
TIO
N
POST-RETROFIT PERIOD
SAVI
NG
S
CA
LCU
LATI
ON
Static factors BASELINE PERIOD
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 11
Estimated savings of implemented projects were greater than 10%.
The M&V option adopted in the analysis of the manufacturing site was Option B (full parameter measurement). This option was chosen for these sites for the following reasons:
The savings created by most types of ECMs can be determined with Option B.
Option B produces more certain results than Option A as the load patterns associated with the impacted equipment are variable.
Whilst the ECM was expected to generate in excess of 10% savings, investigating and collecting variables to construct a valid baseline model using whole site analysis (consumption) would be too costly.5
2.3. Uncertainty
A key element of the M&V process is the desire to determine and express uncertainty, in addition to determining a savings figure. Quantifying savings uncertainty involves estimating the range of the inherent inaccuracy of the savings figures that have been developed within the M&V project. Uncertainty arises from physical limitations in our ability to determine the correct figure for a data item. These errors occur in data obtained from modelling, sampling and measurement and are due to equipment inaccuracies, sampling procedures and adjustment procedures. Uncertainty is a statistical estimate of the deviation from the stated value to its true value.
M&V savings expressions should include:
savings + precision + confidence
Precision is defined as “the amount by which a measured value is expected to deviate from the true value”. Precision is expressed as a ± tolerance (e.g. ±2.7% or ±340 kWh).
Confidence level is defined as “the probability that any measured value will fall within a stated range of precision”. That is, our confidence that the true value lies within the stated tolerance. Confidence is expressed as a percentage (e.g. 95%). This report uses the following qualitative expressions for specific confidence levels.
80% confidence = likely
90% confidence = very likely
95% confidence = almost certain
As a rule of thumb, the highest confidence level is selected between the range 80% to 95% while achieving a precision value of no more than ±20% (i.e. AS/NZS 3598:2000 Level 2 Energy Audit Standard requires a precision of ±20%).
2.4. Baseline energy model
Regression analysis is a valuable technique for developing an energy model based on historical energy use, and data for independent variables such as weather or production output.
5 See discussion on attempts to relate monthly production figures with monthly billing to support an Option C style analysis in section 4.2.1
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 12
Successful energy models are used to provide a reliable prediction of energy use and to create a like-for-like comparison for determining savings.
Models rely on the following elements:
1. Accurate historical data for energy use to establish the baseline.
2. Understanding and data related to independent variables which affect energy use. These are either static changes (e.g. plant/building changes) or changes that routinely occur (e.g. changing weather patterns, rainfall, production output, etc.).
3. A defined measurement boundary to which the model relates.
Modelling of complex sites can often involve iterative analysis using one or more independent variables (multi-variable linear regression).
2.5. Post-retrofit analysis
The post-retrofit period is bounded on one side by the completion of the energy conservation measure implementation and commissioning (and normal operation), and the other by the consideration of the operating cycle of independent variables.
Post-retrofit analyses requires measurement and collection of post-retrofit data in accordance with the M&V plan, which requires the same measurement principles from the baseline measurement period to be applied to the post-retrofit measurement period.
The post retrofit data provides the information required to adjust the energy model and calculate the predicted energy consumption during the post-retrofit period (business-as-usual) which is then compared to the actual energy consumption to determine the estimated savings.
The data used in these analyses includes utility energy consumption information, as well as information on independent variables.
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 13
3. Overview of projects
In this section, the features of the individual sites are described, together with the energy efficiency measures implemented. Electricity was the primary energy source impacted by all ECM implemented by participating sites.
Overall energy savings achieved are briefly referenced, but the results of the M&V analysis are outlined in Section 4.
3.1. Commercial Office Building
3.1.1. Site features
This site is a commercial office building located in Macquarie Park with a Net Lettable Area of 14,630m2. The building comprises three levels of office space, two levels of car park, and was first opened in 1985. The building features an internal central atrium and a small cafeteria. Only base building services are included within the scope of this project and all tenant energy consumption is excluded. All projects implemented at this site received partial funding from the AusIndustry Green Building Fund.
3.1.2. Implemented energy conservation measures
This site implemented a range of energy conservation measures in a relatively short period of time, allowing them to be considered at the same time under the one M&V exercise.
Based on discussions with site management, the projects implemented included floor air distribution modifications, lift lobby and car park lighting upgrades and major efficiency upgrades to the central chilled water system including chiller replacement and installation of variable speed drives on cooling tower fans and chilled water and condenser water pumps. Excluding the floor air distribution modifications (savings estimates are not available), these projects were estimated to reduce electricity consumption of the site by approximately 8.8%, saving an estimated $39,880 per annum based on energy tariffs at the time of the Energy Saver energy audit report.
These projects formed the basis of the M&V exercise for this site. The table below summarises the initial annual savings estimate at the time of the Energy Saver energy audit report compared to the verified savings, as well as initial and actual cost estimates where available summarised.
Table 2: Implemented ECMs – Commercial Office Building
Implemented Initiatives at large office building
Initial annual savings estimate (MWh)
Initial cost estimate ($)
Actual cost ($)
Completed
Efficient Chillers 154 420,000 769,920 August 2012
VSDs6 on pumps and fans 63 31,600 N/A7 August 2012
Lighting and lighting control upgrades8 78 40,400 45,000 February 2012
6 Variable speed drives 7 Actual cost included in chiller project
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 14
Implemented Initiatives at large office building
Initial annual savings estimate (MWh)
Initial cost estimate ($)
Actual cost ($)
Completed
Lighting and lighting control upgrades9 N/A N/A 8,000 February 2012
Floor air distribution modifications N/A N/A 85,250 September 2012
Initial site estimate (rounded) ≈ 290 ≈ 490,000 ≈ 910,000
Verified savings for the site 92 MWh over 4 month period
or 275 MWh annualised
Verified savings have been annualised to allow for comparison with the initial site estimate. However, when comparing verified savings with initial annual savings estimates, it should be noted that savings estimates for some projects were not included in the Energy Saver energy audit report as denoted by “N/A” in the above table. The initial site estimate is therefore not directly comparable to the results of the Option C (whole of site) verified savings figure.
3.2. Workers Club
3.2.1. Site features
The Workers Club, first established in 1952, provides social, cultural and sporting entertainment for the welfare of its members. The Club has grown to approximately 13,000 members, supporting 16 intra-sport and recreation clubs and employing 76 staff. Onsite features include bistro and a la carte dining, shows and other entertainment, meeting and function rooms, promotions and reward activities, sporting activities, interactive machines and snooker and pool tables.
The original section of the Club is a two storey building which includes TAB facilities and members lounge with the auditorium and function areas on the second floor. In the early 90s a significant redevelopment took place and the building was extended to provide additional street frontage. This newer section contains the Bistro, gaming area and sports lounge.
The Worker’s Club Sports Arena was also considered during the energy audit. This site consists of hockey fields with an artificial surface and full lighting, a full sized football oval and grandstand, indoor sports complex, cricket nets and a shooting range.
3.2.2. Implemented energy conservation measures
This site implemented a range of energy conservation measures as summarised in the table below. These projects were all completed by September 2012 and formed the basis of the M&V exercise for this site. These projects formed the basis of the M&V exercise for this site.
The table below summarises the initial annual savings estimate at the time of the Energy Saver energy audit report compared to the verified savings, as well as initial and actual cost estimates.
8 Lift and Car park lighting 9 Lobby lighting
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 15
Table 3: Implemented ECMs – Workers Club
Workers Club Initial annual savings estimate (MWh)
Initial cost estimate ($)
Actual cost ($)
Ceiling Insulation 200 30,000 9,036
Halogen downlight replacement with LED 53 40,200 N/A10
Chiller system replacement 111 113,081 98,930
HVAC Replacement and reconfiguration 150 170,722 195,000
Initial site estimate 514 354,003 302,966
Verified savings for the site 457 MWh over 11 month period
or 498 MWh annualised
Note that verified savings have been annualised to allow for comparison with the initial site estimate.
3.3. Conference and Function Centre
3.3.1. Site features
The Conference and Function Centre comprises 16 flexible function rooms for hire, 5 lodge rooms, kitchens for food and beverage service, a two level car park, shared areas with the above building, lobby, bathrooms and a small office area for the management of operations. The function rooms vary in size and typical usage, with in excess of 2,282m2 of function space.
3.3.2. Implemented energy conservation measures
The table below summarises the initial annual savings estimate at the time of the Energy Saver energy audit report compared to the verified savings, as well as initial cost estimates.
Table 4: Implemented ECMs – Conference and Function Centre
Conference and Function Centre Initial annual savings estimate (MWh)
Initial cost estimate ($)
Completed
Domestic hotwater efficiency improvement 23 4,200 December 2011
Car Park exhaust fan VSD 22 9,400 December 2011
Chilled water reset 11 4,500 December 2011
Ionic room economy cycle 16 6,400 December 2011
Ionic room VSD 10 8,400 December 2011
Controls recommission, pneumatics check, and set-point temperature evaluation
8 6,000 December 2011
10 Actual cost included elsewhere
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 16
Conference and Function Centre Initial annual savings estimate (MWh)
Initial cost estimate ($)
Completed
Light fitting and control system upgrade 629 446,760 Partial implementation11
Initial site estimate 719 485,660
Verified Savings 407 MWh over 12 month period
It should be noted when comparing verified savings with initial annual savings estimates, that the lighting project may not have been fully implemented. The initial site estimate is therefore not directly comparable to the results of the Option C (whole of site) verified savings figure.
In addition, other measures for which there was no energy savings quantified as part of the Energy Saver energy audit, but which were proposed to be funded from savings associated with the lighting project include:
Power factor correction.
Condensing boiler installation (167.4GJ p.a. gas saving, $2,372 cost). The site decommissioned a boiler and is planning to install a condensing boiler. No update on when this would occur.
Monitoring and data logging to identify the base load consumption.
Sub-metering.
Ductwork isolation, for occupancy-based control.
Given the partial implementation of the lighting project, it is likely that these have not been implemented. However, at the time of the M&V analysis definitive confirmation12 on the status of these initiatives was not available.
3.4. Manufacturing site
3.4.1. Site features
The manufacturing site form part of one of Australia’s leading manufacturers of mobile garbage bins (MGB). The focus of the Energy Saver energy audit was on a manufacturing facility on the NSW Central Coast, which produces over 900,000 bins per year. The site operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, for approximately 51 weeks per year.
Energy is a significant operating cost for this business, with approximately 15-18% of the total cost of producing an MGB being attributable to energy consumption. The site operates four large Husky Injection Moulding Machines (IMMs), producing the MGB bodies and lids, and consuming up to 80% of the site’s energy consumption. The MGB wheels and axles are sourced from others.
11 This project is was complete on two level of the building in March 2012, but confirmation of the project status on three other levels was outstanding. Furthermore, motions detectors have not been installed. 12 This confirmation was required as M&V Option C (whole of site) was used to verify savings
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 17
3.4.2. Implemented energy conservation measures
Barrel heater insulation was identified as the greatest energy conservation measure during the Energy Saver audit. The anticipated benefits were reduced energy consumption, as well as reduced occupational health and safety risk of burns to personnel from the exposed sections and increased comfort levels of the operators.
The table below summarises the initial annual savings estimate at the time of the Energy Saver energy audit report compared to the verified savings, as well as initial cost estimates.
Table 5: implemented ECMs - Manufacturer
Manufacturing Site Initial annual savings estimate (MWh)
Initial cost estimate ($)
Barrel heater insulation 351 12,397
Initial end use energy savings estimate
24% to 34% Of the heater energy (equal to 4% of total site use)
Verified savings Line #1 21.7% Measured in kWh / unit produced over 14 days period
Verified savings Line #3 16.5% Measured kWh / unit produced over 11 days period
Note that the savings percentages in the above table as not directly comparable. The end use (i.e. barrel heater, not the production line or site) saving estimated in the initial Audit report is used above for comparing verified savings expressed per unit of production with initial percentage annual savings estimates. The actual site level savings could not be verified for this ECM on this manufacturing site.13
13 See discussion on attempts to relate monthly production figures with monthly billing to support an Option C style analysis in section 4.2
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 18
4. Results of M&V Analysis
4.1. Overview of Results
The overall results associated with the M&V of energy savings associated with implemented ECMs at the four sites in the scope of this report are detailed in the table below. Whilst there are no identified projects that target gas savings, any calculated gas savings may be a result of interactive effects, improved management or other unidentified causes. More detailed results are presented in the Appendices.
Table 6: Summary of M&V Results
Site Adjusted Baseline
Usage (kWh or MJ)
Actual Usage
(kWh or MJ)
Energy Savings
(kWh or MJ)
Energy Savings
(%)
Baseline Model
Uncertainty @ 95%
Notes
Large Commercial Office Building in Macquarie Park – Option C
Electricity 855,477 763,853 91,623 10.7% ±9.2% 4 months data for savings
Natural Gas 1,250,819 1,225,979 24,840 2.0% ±31.2% 10 months data for savings
Workers Club – Option C
Electricity 2,141,808 1,685,086 456,722 21.3% ±7.2% 11 months data for savings
Natural Gas 873,868 848,600 25,268 2.9% ±14.2% 11 months data for savings
Conference and Function Centre – Option C
Electricity 1,731,236 1,324,610 406,626 23.5% ±14.5% 12 months data for savings
Natural Gas 1,046,435 850,234 196,201 18.7% ±101.5% 12 months data for savings
Manufacturer – Option B
Electricity
Line #1 1.150 kWh
per unit Line #3
0.343 kWh per unit
#1 0.900 kWh per
unit #3 0.287 kWh per
unit
#1 0.249 kWh per unit
#3 0.057 kWh per unit
#1 21.7% #3 16.5%
#1 ±38.7% #3 ±34.4%
#1 14 days of data for savings #2 11 days of data for savings
The results for the manufacturing site are presented in units of production, since Option B was selected. This is deemed the most appropriate unit to express savings as the production volumes associated with the manufacturing site vary from day-to-day and by production line. As such, the results are presented in a way that is anticipated to be more meaningful to the manufacturing industry to report savings. Furthermore, sub-metering was installed on a minor electrical load (at direction of site staff) associated with only 2 of 4 production lines. This allows for impact of savings at a daily interval, allowing Energetics to confidently report on savings associated with the sub-metering #1 line of approx $600 during the 14 day post implementation period & #3 line of approx $160 during 10day
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 19
post implementation period (differences in days due to lack of running time on #3 during post period). However, savings calculated are only associated with the minor14 electrical load and not at the entire production line. Extrapolation of these savings against production will be pure conjecture.15
4.2. Implementation issues
Whilst the application of formal M&V techniques provides robust evidence of the level of achievement by participating sites, there are limitations and numerous challenges in the application of M&V. Furthermore, M&V is not yet embedded in the Energy Saver Program process. Key challenges experienced are highlighted below.
4.2.1. Modelling energy savings
One aspect of regression analysis and considering large quantities of data is that an obsession with determining the cause may need to be shed, with the focus on establishing whether a correlation exist between variables. Consequently the regression analysis conducted in conjunction with this M&V exercise does not explain the reason why a given variable impacts energy consumption to the extent it does, but simply tells us that a relationship exists.
Thus regression analysis only highlights correlation, but correlation does not imply causation. Care must be taken to ensure a valid approach and defensible results. However, the selection of the most suitable M&V Option and development of the energy model is not always straightforward. This often involves an iterative approach that could include exploration of alternative project boundaries or identification of further independent variables that explain the variation in energy use. A final selection of the best option is at times only possible upon conducting a fairly detailed M&V regression analysis. This frequently necessitates a trade-off due to cost considerations.
For example, attempts were made to relate monthly production figures with monthly billing to support an Option C style analysis (thus ignoring the collected sub-metered data). Analysis revealed a strong correlation between production and energy use for most production lines, but not line #1). Furthermore, applying this model to the post implementation period (June to October 2013) did not yield any verifiable savings. The lack of savings might be explained by:
the fact that at an overall site level savings are in the order of 0-10% and therefore unable to be verified with a Option C style analysis (standard limitation of option C analysis); and / or.
the measurement boundary may not have been wide enough. Thus, while savings were achieved on the sub-metered circuit, this saving was eroded by a need for increased consumption elsewhere.
Therefore, even though a good baseline model was constructed on a site level (Option C style approach) expected energy savings could not be verified. Consequently an Option B style approach, using sub-metered consumption information on a process level was adopted. Whilst not as strong a model, it described energy savings closer to what was expected.
14 Small contribution to total site spend of only ~$120k/month 15 See discussion on attempts to relate monthly production figures with monthly billing to support an Option C style analysis in section 4.2
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 20
4.2.2. M&V implementation considerations
Although the rigour demanded by M&V can be time consuming, the general feedback from sites suggests a positive experience. One indicative comment suggested that the program was:
“professional…the amount of information supplied was tremendous which highlighted areas of concerns with explanations on how these could be repaired…reduced utility account [costs] is also
extremely pleasing”.
In our assessment, most project proponents demonstrated a good understanding of M&V requirements with most M&V plans nominating appropriate measurement periods and suitable boundaries (where defined). They also made a fair attempt or better to describe the process (or the concept at the very least) required determining savings. However, obtaining data was the single biggest issue with this process, potentially due to the following:
M&V not being embedded in the process
Poor engagement with site contacts and/or starting work with the wrong contact
Scheme participants failing to send through the data as requested (incorrect data, or wrong time period) leading to repeated calls for the same data
Data not being available at all.
Delays can add significantly to the cost of M&V analyses. In particular the period of time over which the M&V activities were conducted were longer than originally anticipated for two sites:
For the Conference and Function Centre, the duration of the M&V exercise was significantly impacted by the inability to collect adequate data in a timely fashion.
For the manufacturing site, delays were experienced with the implementation of the energy savings measures due to manufacturer issues. This has impacted the timing for M&V and risked compromising the amount and quality of data available for final analysis.
These sites highlighted the need to ensure sufficient planning is put in place prior to implementation, complete with a firm understanding of the process and data that will be required. In addition, other areas for improvements, applicable not only to the four sites included in this report, but the OEH M&V program in general, were:
The standard of M&V plans incorporated in Energy Saver audit reports varied considerably based on the knowledge and expertise of the reporter.
Very few plans described a process that involved developing an energy model to describe energy use as a function of independent variables, then adjusting that model to obtain a like-for-like comparison. Most plans focussed on energy data collection and direct comparison.
Option C was incorrectly chosen for small projects. Savings must be 10% or more of total site use in order to apply Option C.
Some projects were so small that M&V is not cost effective, yet plans were still developed (this may be subjective).
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 21
5. Conclusion
The M&V results discussed in this report illustrates a transparent approach for determining energy savings. The use of the IPMVP guidelines to direct M&V analysis provides project proponents with the confidence that the significant verified energy as presented for the four sites are real. The adoption of a formal M&V approach also offers insight into:
the extent to which implementation conformed to the intent as described in the audit and progress reports; as well as
the actual energy and cost savings gained from the projects based on real data compared to the initial findings in the audit reports.
Furthermore, the use of IPMVP as a framework for M&V analysis provide project proponents with auditable internal and external reporting of energy savings and a robust framework for use by internal stakeholders to discuss the performance of projects prior to implementation, as well as post-implementation.
It is Energetics’ view that the appropriate use of M&V will significantly enhance the robustness of reported results under the Energy Saver Program and similar programs. Embedding M&V into the standard process can be achieved in an efficient and cost effective manner by focussing on the planning stage of projects.
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 22
Appendix A. M&V Review: Commercial Office Building
M&V Results - Large Commercial Office Building in Macquarie Park
Approach IPMVP Option C approach used involving whole of site regression analysis against independent variables for ambient temperature
Energy Model Electricity: Baseline (kWh) = 6816.46 x #Days + 313.44 x CDD Natural Gas: Baseline (MJ) = 1232.55 x #Days + 697.98 x HDD
Savings Analysis Electricity Natural Gas
Adjusted Baseline Usage (kWh electricity, MJ gas) 855,47716 1,250,81917
Actual Usage (kWh electricity, MJ gas) 763,853 1,225,979
Energy Savings (kWh electricity, MJ gas) 91,623 24,840
Energy Savings (%) 10.7% 2.0%
Modelling Uncertainty (@95% confidence) ±9.2% ±31.2%
Cost Savings ($) @ 15c/kWh or $15/GJ
$13,743 $373
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction estimate (tCO2-e) @ 1.05kgCO2-e/kWh or 64.13kgCO2-e/GJ
96 2
Comparison to Energy Saver Program Audit Savings
Estimated Savings of Implemented Projects Identified by ES Program audits (kWh electricity, MJ gas)
290,100 0
Energy Baseline Identified by ES Program audits (kWh electricity, MJ gas)
3,313,790 1,586,170
Estimated Savings of Implemented Projects Identified by ES Program audits Relative to Audit Baseline (%)
8.8% 0.0%
16 Based on a post-retrofit period of 4 months. 17 Based on a post-retrofit period of 10 months.
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 23
M&V Actual versus Predicted Energy Consumption - Large Commercial Office Building in Macquarie Park
The charts below reflect the actual against predicted energy consumption for this site
Electricity Chart A clear change in usage can be seen in the post-retrofit period, demonstrating the success of the implementation. Savings sit outside the uncertainty band, and can be justifiably claimed.
Gas Chart Despite some minor tremors, the actual natural gas trend has kept close o the forecast as expected as the implemented projects resulted in electricity savings.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Mar
-10
Apr
-10
May
-10
Jun-
10
Jul-1
0
Aug
-10
Sep
-10
Oct
-10
Nov
-10
Dec
-10
Jan-
11
Feb-
11
Mar
-11
Apr
-11
May
-11
Jun-
11
Jul-1
1
Aug
-11
Sep
-11
Oct
-11
Nov
-11
Dec
-11
Jan-
12
Feb-
12
Mar
-12
Apr
-12
May
-12
Jun-
12
Jul-1
2
Aug
-12
Sep
-12
Actual Monthly Electricity Consumption (kWh) Predicted Monthly Electricity Consumption (kWh)
R2 = 0.943Relative Precision = ±9.2% (@ 95%)
Est Savings (kWh) = -91,623 kWh (4 months)Est Savings (%) = 10.7% (decrease)
Baseline Period Performance Period
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Actual Period Gas Consumption (MJ) Predicted Period Gas Consumption (MJ)
R2 = 0.961Relative Precision = ±31% (@ 95%) Est Savings (kWh) = 24,840 MJ (10 months)
Est Savings (%) = 2.0% (decrease)
Baseline Period Performance Period
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 24
Appendix B. M&V Review: Workers Club
Workers Club M&V Results
Approach IPMVP Option C approach used involving whole of site regression analysis against independent variables for ambient temperature
Energy Model Electricity: Baseline (kWh) = 2131.51 x #Days + 452.86 x HDD + 328.5 x CDD + Offset Natural Gas: Baseline (MJ) = 3877.57 x #Days + 264.66 x HDD
Savings Analysis Electricity Natural Gas
Adjusted Baseline Usage (kWh electricity, MJ gas) 2,141,80818 873,868
Actual Usage (kWh electricity, MJ gas) 1,685,08619 848,600
Energy Savings (kWh electricity, MJ gas) 456,722 25,268
Energy Savings (%) 21.3% 2.9%
Modelling Uncertainty (@95% confidence) ±7.2% ±14.2%
Cost Savings ($) @ 15c/kWh or $15/GJ
$68,508 $379
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction estimate (tCO2-e) @ 1.05kgCO2-e/kWh or 64.13kgCO2-e/GJ
480 2
Comparison to Energy Saver Program Audit Savings
Estimated Savings of Implemented Projects Identified by ES Program audits (kWh electricity, MJ gas)
513,600 0
Energy Baseline Identified by ES Program audits (kWh electricity, MJ gas)
2,114,000 2,106,000
Estimated Savings of Implemented Projects Identified by ES Program audits Relative to Audit Baseline (%)
24.3% 0.0%
18 Based on a post-retrofit period of 11 months. 19 Based on a post-retrofit period of 11 months.
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 25
Workers Club M&V Actual versus Predicted Energy Consumption
The charts below reflect the actual against predicted energy consumption for this site
Electricity Chart The step change in energy usage can clearly be seen in the post-retrofit period. The saving is well below the uncertainty band, and demonstrates a successful project.
Gas Chart The natural gas trend has modelled quite closely. In the post-retrofit period, a large spike can be seen which is unexplained. Otherwise there is a minor reduction in gas use, although this sits within the modelling error band.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Actual Monthly Electricity Consumption (kWh) Predicted Monthly Electricity Consumption (kWh)
R2 = 0.907Relative Precision = ±7.2% (@ 95%)
Est Savings (kWh) = 456,722 kWh (10 months)Est Savings (%) = 21.3% (decrease)
Baseline Period Performance Period
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Actual Period Gas Consumption (MJ) Predicted Period Gas Consumption (MJ)
R2 = 0.922Relative Precision = ±14.2% (@ 95%) Est Savings (kWh) = 25,268 MJ (10 months)
Est Savings (%) = 2.9% (decrease)
Baseline Period Performance Period
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 26
Appendix C. M&V Review: The Conference and Function Centre
The Conference and Function Centre M&V Results
Approach IPMVP Option C approach used involving whole of site regression analysis against independent variables for ambient temperature
Energy Model Electricity: Baseline (kWh) = 89,018 + 93.2 x CDD + 251.6 x “Banquet Hall / Level 1 and 2 hours” Natural Gas: Baseline (MJ) = 5,408.5 x HDD – 2,013.9
Savings Analysis Electricity (kWh) Natural Gas (MJ)
Adjusted Baseline Usage (kWh electricity, MJ gas) 1,731,212 1,046,435
Actual Usage (kWh electricity, MJ gas) 1,324,614 850,234
Energy Savings (kWh electricity, MJ gas) 406,603 196,201
Energy Savings (%) 23.5% 18.7%
Modelling Uncertainty (@95% confidence) 14.5% 101.5%
Cost Savings ($) @ 15c/kWh or $15/GJ
$60,990 $2,943
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction estimate (tCO2-e) @ 1.05kgCO2-e/kWh or 64.13kgCO2-e/GJ
427 13
Comparison to Energy Saver Program Audit Savings
Estimated Savings of Implemented Projects Identified by ES Program audits (kWh electricity, MJ gas)
718,600 0
Energy Baseline Identified by ES Program audits (kWh electricity, MJ gas)
1,634,000 969,000
Estimated Savings of Implemented Projects Identified by ES Program audits Relative to Audit Baseline (%)
44% 0%
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 27
The Conference and Function Centre M&V Actual versus Predicted Energy Consumption
The charts below reflect the actual against predicted energy consumption for this site
Electricity Chart The post-retrofit consumption is significantly below adjusted baseline usage aside from January 2012 due to a zero reading in one of the independent variables. The savings are below the predicted energy savings for the project implemented, however it is understood that only partial implementation was complete during the performance period.
Gas Chart Gas savings were realised during the high gas consumption portion of the performance period in line with expectations.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Predicted Precision Series3Actual Monthly Electricity Consumption (kWh) Predicted Monthly Electricity Consumption (kWh)
Baseline Period Performance Period
R2 = 0.853Relative Precision = ±14.5% (@95%)
Est Savings (kWh) = 406,603 kWh (12 months)Est Savings (%) = 23.5% (decrease)
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
Predicted Precision Series3Actual Monthly Gas Consumption (MJ) Predicted Monthly Gas Consumption (MJ)
Baseline Period Performance Period
R2 = 0.974Relative Precision = ±101.5% (@95%)
Est Savings (MJ) = 197,201 MJ (12 months)Est Savings (%) = 18.7% (decrease)
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 28
Appendix D. M&V Review: Manufacturing site
Manufacturing site M&V Results
Approach IPMVP Option B approach used involving development of model to describe energy use per unit output
Energy Model Electricity (kWh) = Production Rate (kWh/unit) x # of units produced per day
Savings Analysis Electricity Natural Gas
Adjusted Baseline Usage (kWh/unit electricity)
Line #1 1.50 Line #3 0.343
N/A
Actual Usage (kWh/unit electricity)
Line #1 0.900 Line #3 0.287
N/A
Energy Savings (kWh/unit electricity)
Line #1 0.249kWh/unit Line #3 0.06kWh/unit
N/A
Energy Savings (%) Line #1 21.7% Line #3 17%
N/A
Modelling Uncertainty (@95% confidence)
Line #1 38.7% Line #3 34.4%
N/A
Cost Savings ($) @ 15c/kWh
N/A N/A
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction estimate (tCO2-e) @ 1.05kgCO2-e/kWh
N/A N/A
Comparison to Energy Saver Program Audit Savings
Estimated Savings of Implemented Projects Identified by ES Program audits (kWh electricity, MJ gas)
350,700 N/A
Energy Baseline Identified by ES Program audits (kWh electricity, MJ gas)
8,810,000 N/A
Estimated Savings of Implemented Projects Identified by ES Program audits Relative to Audit Baseline (%)
4% N/A
Verified Savings Relative to Estimated Savings of Implemented Projects Identified by ES Program audits (%)
N/A N/A
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 29
Manufacturing site M&V Actual versus Predicted Energy Consumption
The charts below reflect the actual against predicted energy consumption for this site
Electricity Chart A clear change in electricity usage was observed in the post-retrofit period, demonstrating the success of the implementation. Savings sit outside the uncertainty band of the baseline period, and can be justifiably claimed.
0.0000
0.0500
0.1000
0.1500
0.2000
0.2500
0.3000
0.3500
0.4000
0.4500
0.5000
SULO Machine 1 M&V
Actual Monthly Electricity Consumption (kWh/unit) Predicted Monthly Electricity Consumption (kWh/unit)
Baseline PeriodPerformance Period
0.0000
0.0500
0.1000
0.1500
0.2000
0.2500
0.3000
0.3500
0.4000
0.4500
0.5000
SULO Machine 3 M&V
Actual Monthly Electricity Consumption (kWh/unit) Predicted Monthly Electricity Consumption (kWh/unit)
Baseline PeriodPerformance Period
ENERGY SAVER M&V SUMMARY REPORT – DRAFT VERSION 2
© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 30
Contact Details
Brisbane
Level 12, 410 Queen St, Brisbane Qld 4000 Ph: +61 7 3230 8800 Fax: +61 7 3230 8811
Perth
Level 3, 182 St Georges Tce, Perth WA 6000 Ph: +61 8 9429 6400 Fax: +61 8 9429 6411
Canberra
Unit 2, 6 Napier Cl, Deakin ACT 2600 Ph: +61 2 6101 2300 Fax: +61 2 6247 9841
Sydney
Level 7, 132 Arthur St, North Sydney NSW 2060 PO Box 294 North Sydney NSW 2059 Ph: +61 2 9929 3911 Fax: +61 2 9929 3922
Melbourne
Level 6, 34 Queen St, Melbourne VIC 3000 PO Box 652, CSW Melbourne VIC 8007 Ph: +61 3 9691 5500 Fax: +61 3 9602 5599
web www.energetics.com.au abn 67 001 204 039 acn 001 204 039 afsl 329935
Energetics is a carbon neutral company