**[Metering Workshop Notes 3-29-06]{.underline}**

**Attendees:**

  --------------- --------------- ------------ -------------------------------------- --------------
  **Name**        **Title**       **Agency**   **Email**                              **Phone**

  Bill Hamele     Facilities Engr Forest       <whamele@fs.fed.us>                    703-605-4522
                                  Service                                             

  Sandy Morgan    Engr Proj Mgr   USDA/ARS     <smorgan@ars.usda.gov>                 301-504-4895

  Charles Johnson Energy/Water PM USDA         <Charles.d.johnson@usda.gov>           202-720-2941

  Ngan Pham       Energy PM       NARA         <Ngan.pham@nara.gov>                   202-357-5471

  Vic Petrolato   Engineer        DOE          <Victor.petrolato@ee.doe.gov>          202-586-4549

  Brian Connor    Lead Energy     DOE          <Brian.connor@ee.doe.gov>              202-586-3756
                  Tech. Spec.                                                         

  Terry Sharp     Commercial      ORNL         <sharptr@ornl.gov>                     865-574-3559
                  Project Mngr                                                        

  David Guthrie   Energy          DOI/FWS      <David_guthrie@fws.gov>                703-358-2476
                  Coordinator                                                         

  Catherine       Environmental   DOT          <Catherine.johnson@dot.gov>            202-366-0266
  Johnson         Engineer                                                            

  Charnell Abrams Electrical      BEP          <Charnel.abrams@bep.treas.gov>         202-874-3463
                  Engineer                                                            

  Somchai         Mech Engr       BEP          <Somchai.paarporn@bep.treas.gov>       202-874-3749
  Paarporn                                                                            

  Henry Toney     Energy          BEP/Trsy     <Henry.toney@bep.treas.gov>            202-874-2608
                  Coordinator                                                         

  Yuri Chuhaj     Facility        OTS/Trsy     <Yuri.chuhaj@ots.treas.gov>            202-906-6032
                  Engineer                                                            

  David Purcell   Army Energy PM  HQDA         <David.purcell@hqda.army.mil>          703-601-0371

  Gordon          Energy Manger   Indian       <Gordon.delchamps@ihs.gov>             301-443-1367
  Delchamps                       Health                                              
                                  Service                                             

  Michael J.      Facility        DOI          <Michael_kastle@ios.doi.gov>           202-208-3793
  Kastle          Engineer                                                            

  Mary Heying     Civil Engineer  DOI          <Mary_heying@ios.doi.gov>              202-208-4080

  Bill Lawrence   Energy Manager  DOJ          <Bill.lawrence@usdoj.gov>              202-616-2417

  Jose Maniwang   Mgr Energy      Navy         <Jose.maniwang@navy.mil>               202-685-9255
                  Programs                                                            

  Bill Long       R&D Project Mgr US Mint/     <Bill.long@usmint.treas.gov>           202-354-7455
                                  Treasury                                            

  Charles Gaff    Energy Analyst  ERG/EPA      <Charlie.gaff@erg.com>                 203-841-0526

  Doug Belling    Mgmt Analyst    VA           <Doug.belling@va.gov>                  202-273-6675

  Tom Pruitt      Facility        DOL          <Pruitt.thomas@dol.gov>                202-693-7143
                  Director                                                            

  Robert High     Facilities Mgmt HHS-PSC      <rhigh@psc.gov>                        301-443-6340
                  -- Energy                                                           

  Dan Amon        Nat'l Energy    EPA          <Amon.dan@epa.gov>                     202-564-7509
                  Mgr                                                                 

  Latonia Parham  Chief Strategic FDA          <Latonia.parham@fda.hhs.gov>           301-827-0928
                  Initiatives                                                         

  Ernest Longford Sen. Proj. Mgr. FDA          <Ernest.longford@fda.hhs.gov>          301-827-1001

  Athanasia       Design &        FDA          <Athanasia.mantzouranis@fda.hhs.gov>   301-827-9811
  Mantzouranis    construction                                                        
                  Team Leader                                                         

  Robert Rossberg Energy Proj Mgr IRS          <Robert.j.rossberg@irs.gov>            801-620-6773
  --------------- --------------- ------------ -------------------------------------- --------------

**Ab Ream's Objectives and Introductions:**

Ab Ream (DOE) started the meeting off by reviewing Section 103 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), the section directing all federal
agencies to install meters and advanced electric meters on all federal
buildings (where practicable) by 2012, according to guidelines set forth
by DOE. Agencies must submit their implementation plan by August 6,
2006, and finish installing the meters by October 1, 2012.

Ab then summarized information found in the metering guidance issued by
FEMP, including the definition of advanced meters and standard meters,
potential uses of metered data, metering cost-effectiveness, methods of
prioritizing buildings and methods of financing.

Ab explained that OMB is considering metering progress as part of their
agency scorecard, probably in the form of a 6-month update on how the
implementation is proceeding.

**Dave Hunt's Metering Plan Template:**

Dave Hunt (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) went over the
agency-level metering plan template he wrote for this meeting. The
objective of the document is to give agencies a road map on how to most
effectively and efficiently satisfy the requirements of EPAct.

He stressed that the agencies should feel free to develop their own
format and that this template was merely one example as to how a plan
could be developed, and not meant to be taken as Gospel. That said, he
did suggest using a "milestone" rather than a narrative format, and
keeping the plan brief, meaningful, modifiable and ambitious. Other
special considerations include coordinating with sub-agencies to make
sure that both sides are on the same page, and the importance of
achieving first-time compliance, since the cost and time of upgrading a
system would be prohibitive.

Dave created the template using the FEMP guidance, and broke it up by
creating four elements (EPAct Metering Requirement, Metering Program
Structure, Agency Policy Guidance to Bureaus, Metering Implementation),
each with specific objectives. Each objective contains multiple
milestones to achieve in order to successfully meet the objective.

In walking through the template, Dave pointed out the necessity of
finding financing, and the importance of budgeting for the purchase and
implementation of the meters.

A DOI representative pointed out that Milestone 1-1 has a sub-agency
deadline in March 2007 to report their plan, while the agency's deadline
to submit their plan is in August of 2006. So how can the agency submit
their plan without any idea as to the magnitude of the work necessary at
the sub-agency level? Dave responded that in his opinion, it was going
to be impossible to have a comprehensive plan prepared by August given
the sub-agencies and bureaus that the agency was eventually going to
have to take into consideration. So for August, the important thing was
just to submit a bare-bones, easily modifiable plan. This did raise the
complaint from various agencies that it seemed foolish to submit an
ultimately meaningless plan.

A Navy representative (Jose) also noted that a complete metering plan is
due in October-December of 2006 in the template, but that the detailed
DOE guidelines weren't due out until September-October 2008. How can
agencies take advantage of the guidelines if their metering plan is
already released? And won't this cause almost certain compliance
problems for the agencies? The rushed time frame was acknowledged, but,
it was noted, the law is the law. ***(we don't really understand what
Jose was referring to here, so we may have the specifics wrong)***

The concern that OMB might take the template as a mandate was raised. Ab
and Dave assured participants that they would make clear to OMB that
this was merely a sample template, not instructions.

Terry Sharp (ONL) clarified that the agency-level plan is the only one
submitted to DOE, that the sub-agency and bureau plans were for internal
use only. He later pointed out that agencies should also look at where
they're starting from, since some agencies, like the VA, for instance,
are way ahead of the curve in metering their facilities. The VA, in
fact, may be today where other agencies hope to be in 2010.

Interior noted that previously Ab had recommended and requested a
greater level of detail (buildings, how many buildings metered per year,
percentage of electricity the metered buildings represented, etc.) but
that that detail is not in the template, nor is the chart found in the
FEMP guidance. Ab responded that although that would be ideal (and
possibly even a necessary component of a plan), it wasn't a strict
requirement, and stressed once more that Dave's template was only a
rough guide, not to be taken literally. Dave suggested that it could be
included in section 4 of the template.

Dave said that the overall plan is meant more to help the agencies
clarify their thoughts and to force them to develop a strategy than it
was for DOE's benefit. The thing to remember, though, is that the plan
is not set in stone, rather it can -- and should -- be updated over
time.

Fish and Wildlife noted that the template suggests that priority
installations be completed by the end of 2008, but that agencies are
currently fine-tuning their budgets for FY'08, so that this would be
tough to schedule. Time, therefore, is of the essence.

Dave's two main conclusions are that OMB should be here in person to
clarify how metering progress is going to be considered when drawing up
the agency scorecards, and that since agencies are already in FY'08
budgets, planning in the short-term is going to be difficult.

Dave Purcell (Army) asked if DOE/FEMP can develop generic specs to
address the additional goals found in EPAct (EPAct lists what the meters
must do and then lists several additional goals that can be met to save
more energy.) For instance, what would agencies have to do to qualify
for Time of Use metering? There was general agreement among other agency
representatives that this would be very helpful. Additionally, Dave
Purcell urged DOE to issue these specs quickly so as to be able to
include them in his plan, so as to ensure that the systems that the Army
ends up with in 2012 are both compatible with other systems and useful.
Navy concurred that further guidance would help ensure that agencies not
end up with systems that are useless beyond immediate implementation. Ab
said that he wouldn't recommend that level of detail in the plan
although he would look into the idea of writing out specs.

**Vic Petrolati's Plans for Developing DOE's Metering Plan:**

Vic Petrolati (DOE) admitted that he doesn't really know exactly how to
do this either, but that he had begun developing the plan. One
complicating factor at DOE is that there is little to no billing on
individual buildings -- instead it's all campus-style billing with one
meter per campus.

He briefly summarized DOE's previous experience with installing meters
(generally for bill allocation for major users.)

Vic also discussed the difficulties in prioritizing, given the
difficulties in knowing the energy use of individual buildings. However,
there are some available resources. Most agencies have a corporate
database on real property (age, size, type, occupancy, etc.) and DOE at
least already has data on electrical metering (standard or advanced) on
all of their buildings. Finally, he also has the energy cost and
consumption data for each DOE site, which allows him to figure out the
typical energy use for major building types (e.g. labs use about 300,000
btu/ft2.

The DOE metering plan approach is to develop a working group from the
DOE program offices for the DOE plan in August. Drafts of the goals will
be shared with DOE sites for comments. DOE sites will then submit
metering plans that address required annual actions for 2012 by October
1, 2007. Finally, a contractor will be hired to assist the site in
developing their plans.

Some components they will include in their goals are:

-   Whether additional standard meters are necessary

-   Additional requirements for new construction (this, Vic stressed,
    should be the easiest thing to address, since there's no reason to
    build new facilities without metering, even though it's not
    technically required)

-   Requirements for using and reporting on the data (since meters are,
    ultimately, useless without meaningful analysis of data)

-   The percentage of building square footage or energy consumption that
    should be metered

-   A screening approach (square footage? Energy use?)

-   The level of site funding that should be dedicated to this effort
    and how it should be prioritized (will additional appropriations be
    necessary? Should the funding come from a central fund? What role
    should ESPCs and UESCs play?)

-   Exemptions

-   Technical solutions

Their guidance to their sub-agencies will be more specific than the FEMP
guidance was, Vic said. However, he concluded that it was very difficult
to really know what to propose without actually looking at the data.

**Steve White's metering plans:**

Steve White (GSA) first clarified that GSA is responsible for the
metering of buildings that are owned, run, or operated by GSA. The
general rule is: whoever pays the energy bills will be responsible for
the metering, since they're the ones who will reap the benefits.

GSA has already done pilots in New York and Washington, DC with software
testing. The testing in New York didn't go very well, as the meters they
used didn't have storage capability, meaning that if the server crashed,
all data would be lost.

However the meters in DC went much better. With these meters, GSA owned
the data and the network on which the data was analyzed, so there were
no monthly bills to pay. The DC meters also metered power quality,
which, although it cost slightly more, showed great returns. For
instance, that data allowed them to target and repair a chiller that had
been knocked down.

Basically, his experience with utilities and their level of cooperation
has been varied. Some utilities were very helpful, others were less so.
One utility, for instance, made it very difficult to install a relevant
meter but was happy to install a different, less suitable meter that
they owned.

Steve discussed GSA's system of data management which tracks energy data
on buildings for which GSA is responsible for the energy bills -- the
Energy Usage Analysis System. It allows the user to sort by cost,
cost/ft2, use, etc. and thereby allows the user to more easily
prioritize which buildings should be metered. Computing power and
software are provided, and GSA is considering writing this capability
into performance or O&M contracts.

As far as money goes, GAO helped a lot. In one of their reports, they
had written that one of the three biggest impediments to implementation
and usage demand response programs was the lack of equipment at customer
locations. So GSA used that statement in their request for funding.
Ultimately, they received \$7 million/year to incorporate metering.
Agencies should absolutely ask GAO if they'll give them similar
appropriations.

They're writing nation-wide blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) that
would approve specific meters for specific regions -- meters they would
hopefully be able to sell at a discounted price, with the GSA logo on
them. Other agencies might be able to access these BPAs as well. They
would mainly be for equipment, not installation. Their web-based
communications infrastructure might also me able to be shared.

**Joe Loper's Selected Utility Offerings:**

Joe presented a table with various utility advanced metering
capabilities, programs, costs and incentives. It was meant merely to
illustrate the different type of approaches different utilities have.
Ultimately, it is vital that individual facilities talk to their local
utility, though, to determine what specific programs may be relevant.

Agency reps with experience with utilities underscored the unevenness
both between and within utilities as far as their metering programs.

**Jean Lupinacci's Presentation on Portfolio Manager and Target
Finder:**

Jean Lupinacci (EPA) discussed EPA's Portfolio Manager (PM) program,
which she warned could prove difficult to use without information on how
to prioritize the buildings.

PM uses an energy management approach based on successful Energy Star
partner plans and focused on performance assessment, which is necessary
for understanding resource use, can help establish baselines,
benchmarks, priorities, and goals.

It's a good benchmarking tool for both internal and external benchmarks,
as it can not only be used for month to month comparisons (or year to
year, etc.) but also for comparisons to the national stock, through
EPA's Energy Performance Rating System (?) (EPRS).

Since you "can't manage what is not measured," metering is vital,
allowing you to establish how your facility performs. This is an
important thing to know, since there is huge variation in energy
performance even among the same type of facility. EPRS has shown energy
use from 30kBtu/ft2/year to 340kBtu/ft2/year. More than a year ago,
before Hurricane Katrina and the higher energy prices, that was a
difference of \$2/ft2.

EPRS can normalize building consumption, benchmark buildings, recognize
top performing buildings, and identify potential portfolio improvement
for offices, hospitals, k-12 schools, warehouses, etc. This can be an
important tool, especially for larger agencies which have no choice but
to benchmark and prioritize their buildings. Nationwide, EPRS has
benchmarked 26,000 buildings.

Portfolio Manager, found at
[www.energystar.gov/benchmark](http://www.energystar.gov/benchmark), is
a secure program that allows for the grouping of facilities. It is an
automated benchmarking tool that will be very helpful once buildings are
metered (not necessarily practical before then, since energy consumption
information is required.)

Target Finder is a program that was originally used to help interested
parties successfully achieve the Energy Star rating. By entering zip
code, size, type and other characteristics of a building, Target Finder
can give you the average energy intensity expected for that type of
building. This will allow agencies to benchmark their buildings against
the national average, or at least to predict how much energy similar
buildings use. Although there is no online database available (so
agencies would not be able to save their data on the site), the data
could be exported to an Excel spreadsheet or something like that.

The program is password protected, the information doesn't have to be
disclosed to FOYA, and EPA doesn't look into the accounts, so there
aren't really any security risks.

**Concluding Discussion:**

Ab briefly reviewed what we covered during the day.

Vic said that the most critical issue facing agencies was where to
obtain resources. What are other agencies doing to get money? And, the
money GSA got from GAO, where did that money come from?

Dave Purcell said that they were meeting with GSA the next day to
discuss these issues, and that they would then know what appropriations
they'd be receiving for their metering program as a whole (if any), or
if they would have to take a "onesy-twosy" pay as they go approach.

Agencies wanted to know when the OMB decision on how metering would be
considered in the agency scorecard could be expected. It's unclear at
this point, although Ab is sure that something meter-related will be
there.

Joe Loper pointed out that since ESPCs have cost-effectiveness
requirements, and metering alone has no payback period officially (since
without analyzing the data, just putting a meter on a building doesn't
really do anything), could the Hawthorne effect be used as stipulated
savings for ESPCs? (The Hawthorne effect states in this case that the
mere presence of meters will cause facilities and facility managers to
be self-conscious about their energy use, whether or not any actual
improvements are made. An estimated 2% savings is expected from
installation alone, therefore.)

Ab responded that it's tricky, since stipulated savings is frowned upon,
but the data that meters collect will ultimately help reduce future
stipulated savings. Vic felt it was a workable approach, that maybe
metering could represent 10% of savings in an ESPC. Dave Hunt mentioned
that GSA's federal center did install meters as part of an ESPC under a
stipulated format about a year ago.

Wayne from NASA (appearing over conference call), sent out the statement
of work that NASA had used to contact a contractor about metering
programs ***(is this right?)***. He expects the results of the study to
be completed within six months. He also said he was visiting NASA sites
to attempt to define agency-wide standards. Finally, he mentioned that
Paul Allen of Disney was going to be coming to one of their meetings in
June to discuss Disney World's energy-saving strategies.

**Moving Forward:**

The next meeting will probably be at the end of May, and will get deeper
into the weeds, helping agencies flush out their plans (which by then
they will likely have started working on) and presenting specs for the
additional goals. Also, OMB will attend, hopefully.