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This report is protected under the copyright laws of Australia and other countries as an unpublished work.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.


© 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

http://www.evo-world.org/


© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 iv


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


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


#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


© 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.


© 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


3.3. Conference and Function Centre ...................................................................................... 15

3.3.1. Site features ............................................................................................................... 15


3.4. Manufacturing site ............................................................................................................. 16

3.4.1. Site features ............................................................................................................... 16


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


© Energetics Pty Ltd 2015 vii

Contact Details .................................................................................................................................... 30


© 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

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/140061energysaver.pdf



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





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



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



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.



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



Implemented Initiatives at large office building

Initial annual savings estimate (MWh)


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


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.


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



Table 3: Implemented ECMs – Workers Club

Workers Club Initial annual savings estimate (MWh)


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


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.


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)


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



Conference and Function Centre Initial annual savings estimate (MWh)


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


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




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)


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



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


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


Natural Gas 873,868 848,600 25,268 2.9% ±14.2% 11 months data for savings

Conference and Function Centre – Option C


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 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



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



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).



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.



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.



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)




Appendix B. M&V Review: Workers Club

Workers Club M&V Results


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


Adjusted Baseline Usage (kWh electricity, MJ gas) 2,141,80818 873,868

Actual Usage (kWh electricity, MJ gas) 1,685,08619 848,600



Modelling Uncertainty (@95% confidence) ±7.2% ±14.2%


$68,508 $379


480 2



513,600 0


2,114,000 2,106,000


24.3% 0.0%

18 Based on a post-retrofit period of 11 months. 19 Based on a post-retrofit period of 11 months.



Workers Club M&V Actual versus Predicted Energy Consumption


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)


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)




Appendix C. M&V Review: The Conference and Function Centre

The Conference and Function Centre M&V Results


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



Modelling Uncertainty (@95% confidence) 14.5% 101.5%


$60,990 $2,943


427 13



718,600 0


1,634,000 969,000


44% 0%



The Conference and Function Centre M&V Actual versus Predicted Energy Consumption


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)


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)


R2 = 0.974Relative Precision = ±101.5% (@95%)

Est Savings (MJ) = 197,201 MJ (12 months)Est Savings (%) = 18.7% (decrease)



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


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



350,700 N/A


8,810,000 N/A


4% N/A

Verified Savings Relative to Estimated Savings of Implemented Projects Identified by ES Program audits (%)

N/A N/A



Manufacturing site M&V Actual versus Predicted Energy Consumption


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



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

http://www.energetics.com.au/

Measurement and Verification of savings from select Energy ... · Line #1 1.150 kWh per unit Line...

Documents

Transcript of Measurement and Verification of savings from select Energy ... · Line #1 1.150 kWh per unit Line...