Evaluation of Energy Savings Projects

**USAG-Group 1**

**&**

**USAG-Group 4**

for

United States Army Garrison, Fort Detrick

Fredrick, Maryland

*Presented to:*

Lt. Col. Donald Archibald

Director of Safety, Environment and Integrated Planning

Fort Detrick

Fredrick, Maryland

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.0555555555555554in"
height="0.5138888888888888in"}*Prepared by:*

1401 Walnut, Suite 400

Boulder, Colorado 80302

[www.nexant.com](http://www.nexant.com/)

Contact: Lia Webster

<lwebster@nexant.com>

303.402.2493

Draft for Review

August 30, 2003

# Executive Summary {#executive-summary .unnumbered}

On February 24, 1997 the Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) #97CXS0272A was
signed which authorized the parties[^1] at Ft. Detrick to procure
Utility Energy Savings Contracting (UESC) services from Allegheny Power
Systems (APS). The contract extends for 10 years, and project payback
schedules may extend to 20 years. The contractor finances initial
project costs, and the ongoing energy cost savings resulting from a
project are used to pay for that project. Project payments to APS are
invoiced in the monthly electric utility bill.

APS teamed with Cogenex, an energy services company (ESCO), to provide
energy services to Ft. Detrick. Thirteen separate delivery orders have
been implemented at Ft. Detrick under the BOA, six by the Army and seven
by National Cancer Institute (NCI). The total investment from these
projects is more than \$25 million with annual cost savings projected to
be just under \$3 million. This review deals specifically with two of
the five delivery orders implemented by the Army, designated USAG-1 and
USAG-4. The two project reviewed required an initial investment of just
under \$3 million with scheduled cost savings of \$228,000 per year
using 1996 utility rates.

Ft. Detrick staff has contacted Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
personnel and expressed some doubts about whether the promised savings
are actually being delivered. In response to these concerns, FEMP has
engaged the services of Nexant to evaluate the measurement and
verification efforts at Ft. Detrick to determine if the savings reported
by Cogenex are reasonable.

The primary focus of this review is to evaluate whether or not the
reported savings are actually being accrued for USAG-1 and USAG-4. This
involved evaluating the measurement and verification procedures
prescribed for the projects, and judging the relative strengths and
weaknesses of the approaches used in order to gauge the accuracy of the
reported savings. M&V includes verifying that the baseline conditions
were adequately established and that the new equipment and systems are
working properly and have the *potential to perform*. A secondary focus
of this review is to verify that the contractor is adhering to
contractual requirements, and is fulfilling all ongoing obligations

Some examination of known changes in usage patterns to determine their
effect on the overall energy use and savings is also included. Weather
conditions, base strength, operating hours post-2001, and other factors
are evaluated. A cursory examination of overall base energy use was
conducted to validate or refute the potential to see the effect of the
savings in the overall utility bills.

### Findings {#findings .unnumbered}

-   The USAG--1 and USAG-- 4 projects are consistent with typical
    performance contracts. Although these projects do not use "best
    practice" strategies in every case, the energy savings predicted and
    reported are reasonable. Savings were determined using standard
    engineering analysis methods and procedures. M&V strategies
    generally correspond with common practices and comply with the FEMP
    M&V Guidelines.

-   Allocation of project risks is accomplished by M&V strategy used,
    which is determined through negotiations prior to contract award.
    Risk allocation in these projects is appropriate. The Army is
    responsible for fluctuations that arise from changing usage
    patterns, and the ESCO is responsible for their installed
    equipment's *potential to perform*.

-   The measurement and verification strategies used in these projects
    utilize a retrofit isolation approach, rather than utility bill
    analysis. Utility bill analysis has a limited range of applications
    in the M&V of energy savings.

-   Ten percent of the cost savings claimed from USAG-1 and USAG-4
    projects are based on operations and maintenance savings. These
    savings were negotiated prior to contract award, and do not have any
    verification activities associated with them.

-   Utility bill analysis has limited value without conducting a
    thorough analysis that requires careful tracking of historical
    information. Examination of overall base energy use indicates the
    savings are a small portion of the total energy use and that savings
    may be difficult or impossible to detect through utility bill
    analysis. The application of a utility data M&V strategy for some of
    the sub-metered buildings would be appropriate, but would require
    substantial analysis.

-   Many known changes have occurred at Ft. Detrick since the
    implementation of these energy savings projects which have a direct
    affect on overall energy consumption as well as the savings
    generated by the energy conservation measures. Weather conditions,
    base strength, operating hours, and other factors are constantly
    changing. Several substantial mission changes at Ft. Detrick were
    reported to occur after implementation of these projects, including
    activities related to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the
    anthrax mail incidents. Although we know that these events resulted
    in substantial operational changes, they were not adequately
    reported when various building managers were interviewed. Overall,
    the information compiled by site staff indicated increases in
    occupied space as well as run hours.

-   Our ability to verify specific project savings is hampered by
    incomplete project documentation. Although Cogenex has provided
    details in the original proposals as well as in annual savings
    reports, it is difficult to follow their procedures from assumptions
    or measurements to savings values. Some of the missing
    documentation, such as post-installation reports, were required but
    not produced, while other items, such as commissioning reports, were
    not required.

-   Turnover in both contractor and site staff has left a hole in the
    historic memory of the project. Successful projects require
    substantial due diligence by site personnel to verify the baseline
    conditions were properly defined, that the project components were
    properly installed, and commissioned. Although these activities may
    have been conducted, they are apparently not documented.

-   Weather data used in the engineering analyses to predict savings
    were from a more costal site than Ft. Detrick. The decision to use
    this weather site was agreed to during project development, and is a
    provision in the delivery orders. The impact of using other weather
    data on the savings calculations is an interesting question, but
    holds little value in the context of the existing contractual
    agreements.

-   In general, Cogenex is taking the appropriate steps to verify annual
    savings and that the savings reported are realistic.

### Recommendations {#recommendations .unnumbered}

-   Operations and maintenance (O&M) of the installed measures is the
    responsibility of Ft. Detrick. Steps should be taken to ensure that
    proper O&M procedures are being conducted for all equipment expected
    to provide energy savings.

-   In order to improve confidence in the energy savings reported by
    Cogenex, Army should assign a staff member at Ft. Detrick to keep
    track of required periodic M&V activities, and work directly with
    the contractor to witness and document that these activities are
    being properly conducted and reported.

-   Do not expect to see the savings in the utility data. If a utility
    bill monitoring approach is desired by Ft. Detrick, then a
    specialized assessment should be conducted, using software such as
    Metrix, to evaluate the changes in baseline loads and energy use
    resulting from scheduling, weather, occupancy, building additions or
    modifications, mission changes, internal equipment changes and so
    on.

-   Cogenex should modify the procedure for applying metered operating
    hours. Either apply usage groups in a manner consistent with method
    LE-B-01 as outlined in Chapter 13 of the FEMP M&V guidelines or use
    the operating hours projected during project development for
    duration of contract.

-   Get as-built listing of lighting equipment from Cogenex which shows
    room numbers (not just building #s) and new lighting equipment
    specifications, and make this information available to those
    responsible for the maintenance of lighting equipment.

-   The new chiller plant and cooling tower in Building 374 need to be
    commissioned to ensure proper operation and realize savings. The
    Army should ensure the performance of the new chiller is verified as
    part of the commissioning process.

-   The Army should continue to work with Cogenex to ensure the proper
    operation & maintenance of the installed equipment for the duration
    of the contracts.

Table of Contents

[Executive Summary 2](#executive-summary)

[Findings 2](#findings)

[Recommendations 4](#recommendations)

[1 Introduction 8](#introduction)

[2 Measurement & Verification of Energy Savings
9](#measurement-verification-of-energy-savings)

[2.1 M&V Options A, B, C & D 9](#mv-options-a-b-c-d)

[Option A 10](#option-a)

[Option B 10](#option-b)

[Option C 11](#option-c)

[Option D 11](#option-d)

[2.2 Steps To Verify Savings 11](#steps-to-verify-savings)

[Baseline Verification 11](#baseline-verification)

[Post-Installation Verification 12](#post-installation-verification)

[Regular Interval Performance Period Verification
12](#regular-interval-performance-period-verification)

[3 Risk Allocation in Performance Contracts
13](#risk-allocation-in-performance-contracts)

[4 Contract Requirements 16](#contract-requirements)

[4.1 Utility Rates 16](#utility-rates)

[4.2 M&V Requirements 17](#mv-requirements)

[5 Overview of Projects 19](#overview-of-projects)

[5.1 Group USAG - 1 19](#group-usag---1)

[5.2 Group USAG-4 20](#group-usag-4)

[6 Annual Performance USAG -- 1 20](#annual-performance-usag-1)

[7 Measurement and Verification (M&V) Strategies Used in Group USAG-1
23](#measurement-and-verification-mv-strategies-used-in-group-usag-1)

[7.1 M&V for Lighting 23](#mv-for-lighting)

[Conclusions 24](#conclusions)

[Recommendations 25](#recommendations-1)

[7.2 M&V for Programmable Thermostats
25](#mv-for-programmable-thermostats)

[Conclusions 26](#conclusions-1)

[Recommendations 26](#recommendations-2)

[7.3 M&V for Chiller & Towers (Bldg. 374)
26](#mv-for-chiller-towers-bldg.-374)

[Conclusions 28](#conclusions-2)

[Recommendations 28](#recommendations-3)

[7.4 M&V for Chiller & Windows (Bldg. 1301)
28](#mv-for-chiller-windows-bldg.-1301)

[Conclusions 29](#conclusions-3)

[Recommendations 29](#recommendations-4)

[8 Annual Performance USAG -- 4 30](#annual-performance-usag-4)

[9 Measurement and Verification (M&V) Strategies Used in Group USAG-4
32](#measurement-and-verification-mv-strategies-used-in-group-usag-4)

[9.1 M&V For HVAC Measures 32](#mv-for-hvac-measures)

[Programmable Thermostats (ECM-3) 32](#programmable-thermostats-ecm-3)

[Controls (ECM-4) 33](#controls-ecm-4)

[Variable Speed Pumping (ECM-5) 34](#variable-speed-pumping-ecm-5)

[Motors (ECM-2) 34](#motors-ecm-2)

[Air-Side Economizer (ECM-7) 34](#air-side-economizer-ecm-7)

[Domestic Hot Water Modifications (ECM-6)
35](#domestic-hot-water-modifications-ecm-6)

[Pipe Insulation (ECM-8) 35](#pipe-insulation-ecm-8)

[Conclusions 35](#conclusions-4)

[Recommendations 36](#recommendations-5)

[9.2 M&V For Lighting Measures (ECM-1)
36](#mv-for-lighting-measures-ecm-1)

[Conclusions 37](#conclusions-5)

[Recommendations 38](#recommendations-6)

[10 Utility Usage 39](#utility-usage)

[Weather Impacts 43](#weather-impacts)

[Weather Site Used 45](#weather-site-used)

[Changes in Mission, Changes in Operations
46](#changes-in-mission-changes-in-operations)

[Added Square Footage 48](#added-square-footage)

[11 Summary of Findings and Recommendations
50](#summary-of-findings-and-recommendations)

[Findings 50](#findings-1)

[Recommendations 51](#recommendations-7)

Index to Tables & Figures

[Table 1: Overview of M&V Options A, B, C, & D
9](#__RefHeading___Toc50111272)

[Table 2: Responsibility Issues in Performance Contracts
14](#__RefHeading___Toc50111273)

[Table 3: Utility Rates in Original BOA Section B.5.d
16](#__RefHeading___Toc50111274)

[Table 4: Impact of Annual Escalation on Utility Rates
16](#__RefHeading___Toc50111275)

[Table 5: Summary of Measurement & Verification Requirements in BOA
17](#__RefHeading___Toc50111276)

[Table 6: Summary of Costs and Savings from USAG-1 and USAG-4
19](#__RefHeading___Toc50111277)

[Table 7: Summary of ECMs and Projected Savings in Group USAG-1 (1996
rates) 19](#__RefHeading___Toc50111278)

[Table 8: Summary of ECMs and Projected Savings in Group USAG-4
20](#__RefHeading___Toc50111279)

[Table 9: Reported Annual Performance for USAG-1 in Performance Years 1
-- 3 21](#__RefHeading___Toc50111280)

[Table 10: Reported Electric Savings for USAG-1 in Performance Years 1 -
3 21](#_Ref49932311)

[Table 11 Reported Steam Savings for USAG-1 in Performance Years 1 - 3
22](#__RefHeading___Toc50111282)

[Table 12: Reported Water Savings for USAG-1 in Performance Years 1 - 3
22](#_Ref49932345)

[Table 13: Lighting Savings (kWh) for USAG-1
24](#__RefHeading___Toc50111284)

[Table 14: Programmable Thermostat Savings
26](#__RefHeading___Toc50111285)

[Table 15: Claimed savings used to support guarantee
28](#__RefHeading___Toc50111286)

[Table 16: Achieved Savings based on actual chiller operation
28](#__RefHeading___Toc50111287)

[Table 17: USAG-4 As-Built Projected Savings and Year 1 Reported Savings
30](#__RefHeading___Toc50111288)

[Table 18: USAG-4 Year 1 Reported Savings
31](#__RefHeading___Toc50111289)

[Table 19: Reported Cost Savings for USAG-4 Performance Year 1
31](#__RefHeading___Toc50111290)

[Table 20: Summary of HVAC Controls Measures for USAG-4
33](#__RefHeading___Toc50111291)

[Table 21: Electricity Usage and Scheduled Savings at Ft Detrick
40](#__RefHeading___Toc50111292)

[Table 22: Projected Electric Savings for Sub-Metered Buildings
42](#__RefHeading___Toc50111293)

[Table 23: Correlation Between Sub-metered Electrical Usage And Weather
45](#__RefHeading___Toc50111294)

[Table 24: Summary of Operational Changes for USAG-1 Buildings Since
November 1999 46](#__RefHeading___Toc50111295)

[Table 25: Summary of Operational Changes for USAG-4 Buildings Since
July 2001 47](#__RefHeading___Toc50111296)

[Table 26: Summary of Building Additions for Buildings in USAG-1 and
USAG-4 48](#__RefHeading___Toc50111297)

[Table 27: Summary of Additional Square Footage Installed at Ft. Detrick
48](#__RefHeading___Toc50111298)

[Figure 1: Baseline vs. Post-Installation Electrical kWh Usage, 1996 to
2003 39](#__RefHeading___Toc50111299)

[Figure 3: Energy Use and Savings at Ft Detrick
41](#__RefHeading___Toc50111300)

[Figure 4: Electric kWh Used and Cooling Degree Days, 1995 to 2002
43](#__RefHeading___Toc50111301)

[Figure 6: Annual Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and Heating Degree Days for
Ft. Detrick 1994 to 2002 44](#__RefHeading___Toc50111302)

# Introduction

On February 24, 1997 the Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) #97CXS0272A was
signed which authorized the parties[^2] at Ft. Detrick to procure
Utility Energy Savings Contracting (UESC) services from Allegheny Power
Systems (APS). The contract extends for 10 years, and project payback
schedules may extend to 20 years. The contractor finances initial
project costs, and the ongoing energy cost savings resulting from a
project are used to pay for that project. Project payments to APS are
invoiced in the monthly electric utility bill.

APS teamed with Cogenex, an energy services company (ESCO), to provide
energy services to Ft. Detrick. Thirteen separate delivery orders have
been implemented at Ft. Detrick under the BOA, six by the Army and seven
by National Cancer Institute (NCI). The total investment from these
projects is more than \$25 million with annual cost savings projected to
be just under \$3 million. This review deals specifically with two of
the five delivery orders implemented by the Army, designated USAG-1 and
USAG-4.

Ft. Detrick staff has contacted Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
personnel and expressed some doubts about whether the promised savings
are actually being delivered. In response to these concerns, FEMP has
engaged the services of Nexant to evaluate the measurement and
verification efforts at Ft. Detrick to determine if the savings reported
by Cogenex are reasonable.

The primary focus of this review is to evaluate whether or not the
reported savings are actually being accrued for USAG-1 and USAG-4. This
involved evaluating the measurement and verification procedures
prescribed for the projects, and judging the relative strengths and
weaknesses of the approaches used in order to gauge the accuracy of the
reported savings. M&V includes verifying that the baseline conditions
were adequately established and that the new equipment and systems are
working properly and have the *potential to perform*. A secondary focus
of this review is to verify that the contractor is adhering to
contractual requirements, and is fulfilling all ongoing obligations

Some examination of known changes in usage patterns and occupied square
feet of space to determine their effect on the overall energy use and
'actual' savings is also included. Weather conditions, base strength,
operating hours post-2001, and other factors will be evaluated to
determine the effects on energy use and savings.

A cursory examination of overall base energy use will be conducted to
validate or refute the potential to see the effect of the savings in the
overall utility bills. It is expected that the savings are a small
portion of the total energy use and that such effects may be difficult
or impossible to detect.

# Measurement & Verification of Energy Savings

Measuring and verifying savings from performance contracting projects
requires special project planning and engineering activities. M&V is an
evolving science, although several common practices exist. These
practices are documented in several resources including the
*International Performance Measurement & Verification Protocol*[^3]
(IPMVP, 2001), FEMP *M&V Guidelines version 2.2*[^4]*,* and ASHRAE
Guideline 14[^5].

IPMVP was written by and for technical, procurement, and financial
personnel in government and the private sector to establish a framework
for verifying performance in financed energy projects. The FEMP *M&V
Guidelines* are an application of IPMVP to federal energy projects and
are intended to be fully consistent with IPMVP, although some variances
do exist.

The M&V protocol mandated for the Ft. Detrick projects is the FEMP *M&V
Guidelines.* These guideline group M&V methodologies into four
categories: Options A, B, C, and D. The options are generic M&V
approaches for energy and water saving projects. Options A, B, C, and D
are consistent with those defined in the IPMVP. Having four options
provides a range of approaches to determine energy savings with varying
levels of uncertainty, cost, and methodology.

## M&V Options A, B, C & D

The four generic M&V options are summarized in Table 1 and described in
more detail below. Each option has advantages and disadvantages based on
site-specific factors and the needs and expectations of the agency.
While each option defines a savings determination approach, all savings
are estimates since savings cannot be directly measured.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111272 .anchor}Table 1: Overview of M&V Options
A, B, C, & D

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| M&V Option      | Performance     | Operation       | Savings         |
|                 | Factors^1^      | Factors^2^      | Calculation     |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Option A --     | Based on a      |                 | Engineering     |
| Stipulated and  | combination of  |                 | calculations,   |
| Measured        | measured and    |                 | component or    |
| Factors         | stipulated      |                 | system models.  |
|                 | factors.        |                 |                 |
|                 | Measurements    |                 |                 |
|                 | are spot or     |                 |                 |
|                 | short-term      |                 |                 |
|                 | taken at the    |                 |                 |
|                 | component or    |                 |                 |
|                 | system level.   |                 |                 |
|                 | The stipulated  |                 |                 |
|                 | factor is       |                 |                 |
|                 | supported by    |                 |                 |
|                 | historical or   |                 |                 |
|                 | manufacturer's  |                 |                 |
|                 | data.           |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Option B --     | Based on spot   |                 | Engineering     |
| Measured        | or short-term   |                 | calculations,   |
| Factors         | measurements    |                 | component or    |
|                 | taken at the    |                 | system models.  |
|                 | component or    |                 |                 |
|                 | system level    |                 |                 |
|                 | when variations |                 |                 |
|                 | in factors are  |                 |                 |
|                 | not expected.   |                 |                 |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | Based on        |                 |                 |
|                 | continuous      |                 |                 |
|                 | measurements    |                 |                 |
|                 | taken at the    |                 |                 |
|                 | component or    |                 |                 |
|                 | system level    |                 |                 |
|                 | when variations |                 |                 |
|                 | in factors are  |                 |                 |
|                 | expected.       |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Option C --     | Based on        |                 | Based on        |
| Utility Billing | long-term       |                 | regression      |
| Data Analysis   | whole-building  |                 | analysis of     |
|                 | utility meter,  |                 | utility billing |
|                 | facility level, |                 | meter data.     |
|                 | or sub-meter    |                 |                 |
|                 | data.           |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Option D --     | Computer        |                 | Based on        |
| Calibrated      | simulation      |                 | computer        |
| Computer        | inputs may be   |                 | simulation      |
| Simulation      | based on        |                 | model           |
|                 | several of the  |                 | calibrated with |
|                 | following:      |                 | whole-building  |
|                 | engineering     |                 | and end-use     |
|                 | estimates,      |                 | data.           |
|                 | spot-,          |                 |                 |
|                 | short-term, or  |                 |                 |
|                 | long-term       |                 |                 |
|                 | measurements of |                 |                 |
|                 | system          |                 |                 |
|                 | components, and |                 |                 |
|                 | long-term       |                 |                 |
|                 | whole-building  |                 |                 |
|                 | utility meter   |                 |                 |
|                 | data.           |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

^1^Performance factors indicate equipment or system performance
characteristics such as kW/ton for a chiller or watts/fixture for
lighting.

^2^Operating factors indicate equipment or system operating
characteristics such as annual cooling ton-hours for chillers or
operating hours for lighting.

M&V evaluations for both Options A and B are made at the retrofit or
system level and are often referred to as a "retrofit isolation"
approach. Option C and Option D evaluations are made at the
whole-building or whole-facility level.

### Option A {#option-a .unnumbered}

Stipulated values based on short-term measurements, calculations, or
simulation models are used to estimate savings. Savings are fixed over
the contract term and do not change with actual performance or usage.

Option A is an approach designed for projects in which the potential to
generate savings must be verified, but the actual savings can be
determined from short-term data collection, engineering calculations,
and stipulated factors. Post-installation energy use is not measured
throughout the term of the contract. Post-installation and baseline
energy use is estimated using an engineering analysis of information
that does not involve long-term measurements.

### Option B {#option-b .unnumbered}

Savings are based on annual or continuous measurements. Estimated
savings will vary over the contract term based on actual performance or
usage.

Option B involves a retrofit or system level M&V assessment. The
approach is intended for retrofits with performance factors and
operational factors that can be measured at the component or system
level. Continuous measurements provide long-term persistence data on the
energy use of the equipment or system. Shot term measurements can be
used in some instances when variations in the measured factor do not
occur. These data can be used to improve or optimize the operation of
the equipment on a real-time basis, thereby improving the benefit of the
retrofit. Option B verification procedures involve the same items as
Option A but generally involve more end-use metering.

### Option C  {#option-c .unnumbered}

Savings are based on actual energy consumption as measured by the
utility meter(s) and/or or regression modeling. Estimated savings will
vary over the contract term.

Option C verification techniques determine savings by studying overall
energy use in a facility. The evaluation of whole-building or
facility-level metered data is completed using techniques ranging from
simple billing comparison to multivariate regression analysis. In
general for federal performance projects, billing comparison methods are
not recommended for estimating energy savings. Generally, the overall
level of savings must be more than 10% of total metered usage for this
methodology to be effective. Analysis must consider changes in weather,
occupancy, load, and operations and adjust the baseline accordingly.

### Option D {#option-d .unnumbered}

Savings are based on the results of a calibrated computer simulation
model. Estimated savings may vary over the contract term.

Option D involves calibrated computer simulation models of component or
whole-building energy consumption to determine energy savings. Linking
simulation inputs to baseline and post-installation conditions completes
the calibration. Characterizing baseline and post-installation
conditions may involve metering performance and operating factors before
and after the retrofit. Long-term whole-building energy use data may be
used to calibrate the simulation(s).

## Steps To Verify Savings

Regardless of the M&V method chosen, similar steps are taken to verify
the potential for the installed energy consideration measures (ECMs) to
generate savings. Verifying the potential to generate savings can also
be stated as confirming that:

-   The baseline conditions were accurately defined,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The proper equipment/systems were installed,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The equipment/systems are performing to specification, and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The equipment/systems have the potential to generate the predicted
    savings.

### Baseline Verification {#baseline-verification .unnumbered}

Either the federal agency or the ESCO may define baseline conditions.
Baseline physical conditions (such as equipment inventory and
conditions, occupancy, nameplate data, energy consumption rate, control
strategies, and so on) are typically determined through surveys,
inspections, investment-grade audits, and spot or short-term metering
activities. Baseline conditions are established for the purpose of
calculating savings and in case operational changes that occur after
measure installation mandate baseline energy use adjustments.

In almost all cases after the measure has been installed, one cannot go
back and re-evaluate the baseline. It no longer exists! Therefore, it is
very important to properly define and document the baseline conditions.
Deciding what needs to be monitored, and for how long, depends on
factors such as the stability of the baseline, the variability of
equipment loads, and the number of variables that affect the load.

### Post-Installation Verification {#post-installation-verification .unnumbered}

Post-installation M&V is conducted by both the ESCO and the federal
agency to ensure that the proper equipment/systems that were installed
are operating correctly and have the potential to generate the predicted
savings. Verification methods may include surveys, inspections, and spot
or short-term metering. Commissioning of installed equipment and systems
is expected. Commissioning assures that the building systems perform
interactively in accordance with the design documentation and intent.
Commissioning is generally completed by the ESCO. In some cases,
however, it is contracted out by the federal agency.

### Regular Interval Performance Period Verification {#regular-interval-performance-period-verification .unnumbered}

At least annually, the ESCO and the federal agency verify that the
installed equipment/systems have been properly maintained, continue to
operate correctly, and continue to have the potential to generate the
predicted savings. Although annual reports may be required for
establishing savings guarantees, more frequent verification activities
are recommended. This ensures that the M&V monitoring and reporting
systems are working properly, it allows fine-tuning of measures
throughout the year based on operational feedback, and it avoids
surprises at the end of the year.

# Risk Allocation in Performance Contracts

One of the purposes of M&V is to reduce risk to an acceptable level,
which is a subjective judgment based on the agency's priorities and
preferences. In performance contracts, risks are allocated between the
ESCO and the owner. Allocation of risk is accomplished through a
carefully crafted M&V strategy. The "Responsibility Matrix" in FEMP's
*M&V Guidelines,* shown in Table 2, details risks and responsibilities
that should be considered when developing performance contracts,
especially M&V requirements. These risks fall into three primary
categories: *Financial*, *Operational*, and *Performance*.

"Risk" in the M&V context refers to the uncertainty that expected
savings will be realized. Assumption of risk implies acceptance of the
potential monetary consequences. Both ESCOs and agencies are reluctant
to assume responsibility for factors they cannot control, and
stipulating certain parameters in the M&V plan can match up
responsibilities. Using stipulations means that the ESCO and agency
agree to use a set value for a parameter throughout the term of the
contract, regardless of the actual behavior of that parameter.

If no stipulated values are used and savings are verified based entirely
on measurements, then all risk resides with the ESCO, who must show that
the guaranteed savings are realized, regardless of contributing factors.
Alternatively, the agency assumes the risk for the parameters that are
stipulated. In the event that the stipulated values overstate the
savings or reductions in use decrease the savings, the agency must still
pay the ESCO for the agreed-upon savings. If the actual savings are
greater than expected, the agency retains all of the savings.

Risk related to usage stems from uncertainty in operational factors. For
example, savings fluctuate depending on weather, how many hours
equipment is used, user intervention, or maintenance practices. Since
ESCOs often have no control over such factors, they are usually
reluctant to assume usage risk. The agency generally assumes
responsibility for usage risk by either allowing baseline adjustments
based on measurements, or by agreeing to stipulated equipment operating
hours or other usage-related factors.

Performance risk is the uncertainty associated with characterizing a
specified level of equipment performance. The ESCO is ultimately
responsible for selection, application, design, installation, and
performance of the equipment and typically assumes responsibility for
achieving savings related to equipment performance. To validate
performance, the ESCO must demonstrate that the equipment is operating
as intended and has the potential to deliver the guaranteed savings.

Using stipulated values for determining savings can be a practical,
cost-effective way to minimize M&V costs and allocate risks.
Stipulations used appropriately do not jeopardize the savings guarantee,
the agency's ability to pay for the project, or the value of the project
to the government. However, stipulations can shift some risk to the
agency, and the agency should thoroughly understand the risks before
accepting them. Risk is minimized through a carefully crafted M&V
requirements including diligent estimation of the stipulated values.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111273 .anchor}Table 2: Responsibility Issues in
Performance Contracts[^6]

  ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------
  **FACTOR**        **DESCRIPTION**

                    

  **Financial**     

  Interest rates    Neither the ESCO nor the agency has significant control
                    over the prevailing interest rate. During all phases of
                    the project, interest rates will change with market
                    conditions. Higher interest rates will increase project
                    cost, finance term, or both. The timing of the Delivery
                    Order signing may affect the available interest rate
                    and project cost. Clarify when the interest rate is
                    locked in, and if it is a fixed or variable rate.

  Energy prices     Neither the ESCO nor the agency has significant control
                    over actual energy prices. For calculating savings, the
                    value of the saved energy may either be constant,
                    change at a fixed inflation rate, or float with market
                    conditions. If the value changes with the market,
                    falling energy prices place the ESCO at risk of failing
                    to meet cost savings guarantees. If energy prices rise,
                    there is a small risk to the agency that energy saving
                    goals might not be met while the financial goals are.
                    If the value of saved energy is fixed (either constant
                    or escalated), the agency risks making payments in
                    excess of actual energy cost savings.

  Construction      The ESCO is responsible for determining construction
  costs             costs and defining a budget. In a fixed-price
                    design/build contract, the agency assumes little
                    responsibility for cost overruns; however, if
                    construction estimates are significantly greater than
                    originally assumed, the ESCO may find that the project
                    or measure is no longer viable and drop it. In any
                    design/build contract, the agency loses some design
                    control. Clarify design standards and the design
                    approval process (including changes) and how costs will
                    be reviewed.

  M&V costs         The agency assumes the financial responsibility for M&V
                    costs directly or though the ESCO. If the agency wishes
                    to reduce M&V cost, it may do so by accepting less
                    rigorous M&V activities with more uncertainty in the
                    savings estimates. Clarify what performance is being
                    guaranteed (equipment performance, operational factors,
                    energy cost savings) and that the M&V plan is detailed
                    enough to verify it satisfactorily.

  Delays            Both the ESCO and the agency can cause delays. Failure
                    to implement a viable project in a timely manner costs
                    the agency in the form of lost savings and adds cost to
                    the project. Clarify the schedule and how delays will
                    be handled (e.g., penalties or price adjustments).

  Major changes in  The agency (or Congress) controls major changes in
  facility          facility use, including closure. Clarify
                    responsibilities in the event of a premature facility
                    closure, loss of funding, or other major change.

  **Operational**   

  Operating hours   The agency generally has control over the operating
                    hours. Increases and decreases in operating hours can
                    show up as increases or decreases in "savings"
                    depending on the M&V method (e.g., operating hours
                    improved efficiency of equipment vs. whole building
                    utility analysis). Clarify if operating hours are to be
                    measured or stipulated and what the impact would be
                    should they change. If the operating hours are
                    stipulated, the baseline should be carefully documented
                    and agreed to by both parties.

  Load              Equipment loads can change over time. The agency
                    generally has control over hours of operation,
                    conditioned floor area, and intensity of use (e.g.,
                    changes in occupancy or level of automation). Changes
                    in load can show up as increases or decreases in
                    "savings" depending on the M&V method. Clarify if
                    equipment loads are to be measured or stipulated and
                    what the impact would be should they change. If the
                    equipment loads are stipulated, the baseline should be
                    carefully documented and agreed to by both parties.

  Weather           A number of ECMs are affected by weather. Neither the
                    ESCO nor the agency can control the weather. Changes in
                    weather can increase or decrease "savings" depending on
                    the M&V method (e.g., equipment run hours efficiency
                    improvement vs. whole building utility analysis). If
                    weather is "normalized," actual savings could be less
                    than payments for a given year, but will "average out"
                    over the long run. Weather corrections to the baseline
                    or ongoing performance should be clearly specified and
                    understood.

  Life of equipment Equipment life is dependent on the original selection
                    (contractor controlled) and operations and maintenance.
                    Warrantees usually cover failures in the first year.
                    Extended warrantees (often tied to service contracts)
                    are available and assure that the agency won't continue
                    paying for equipment that is no longer functional.
                    Clarify who is responsible for repair and replacement
                    of failed components throughout the term of the
                    contract.

  User              Many ECMs require user participation to generate
  participation     savings (e.g., control settings). The savings can be
                    variable and the ESCO may be unwilling to invest in
                    these measures. Clarify what degree of user
                    participation is needed, and utilize monitoring and
                    training to mitigate risk. If performance is
                    stipulated, document and review assumptions carefully
                    and consider M&V to confirm the capacity to save (e.g.,
                    confirm that the controls are functional).

  **Performance**   

  Equipment         Generally, the ESCO has control over the selection of
  performance       equipment and is responsible for its proper
                    installation and performance. The ESCO also generally
                    is responsible for demonstrating that the new
                    improvements meet expected performance levels including
                    standards of service and efficiency. Clarify who is
                    responsible for initial and long-term performance, how
                    will it be verified, and what will be done if
                    performance does not meet expectations.

  Maintenance       Responsibility for maintenance is negotiable; however,
                    it is often tied to performance. Clarify how long-term
                    maintenance will be assured, especially if the party
                    responsible for long-term performance is not
                    responsible for maintenance. \[As a primary source of
                    long-term performance risk, this section on maintenance
                    may be expanded\].

  Operation         Responsibility for operation is negotiable and it can
                    impact performance. Clarify how proper operation will
                    be assured. Clarify responsibility for operations and
                    implications of equipment control.
  ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------

#  Contract Requirements

The energy savings projects at Ft. Detrick were implemented as part of a
Utility Energy Saving Contract (UESC) program authorized by the US
Department of Energy. The basic operating agreement (BOA) is a framework
agreement that outlines the requirements for entering into specific
delivery order contracts between the parties at Ft. Detrick (NCI, Army,
SAIC) and Allegheny Power. The BOA has 8 Modifications in place, and 13
individual delivery orders have been released.

## Utility Rates 

The utility rates to be used to value savings are included in the BOA as
well as the delivery order agreements. The values in the original BOA
and those listed in the USAG-1 and USAG-4 delivery orders are the same
in every case, and are shown in Table 3.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111274 .anchor}Table 3: Utility Rates in
Original BOA Section B.5.d

+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| > **Commodity**           | > **Rate**                               |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| > Electric energy (kWh):  | > \$0.04195/kWh                          |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| > Electric demand (KW):   | > \$0.0/kW                               |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| > Natural gas (therms):   | > \$0.65/therm (firm rate)               |
|                           | >                                        |
|                           | > \$0.28 to 0.52/therm (interruptible    |
|                           | > rate)                                  |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| > Fuel oil:               | > \$0.0/gal                              |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| > Water (1000 gal):       | > 1.3077/kgal                            |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| > Steam (KLBG):           | > \$5.8027/klbg                          |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+

The delivery orders for USAG--1 and 4 both call for a two--percent per
year escalation rate for utility costs to account for inflation. This
two percent escalation rate is used in the calculation of energy and O&M
cost savings. The rates resulting from escalating the 1996 base utility
rates by 2% per year are shown in Table 4. Use of annual cost escalation
factors is an accepted practice and is utilized in many performance
contracts.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111275 .anchor}Table 4: Impact of Annual
Escalation on Utility Rates

  --------------- --------------- ------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
                  **Escalation                  **6**      **10**     **15**     **24**
                  Year:**                                                        

  **Annual        **Commodity**   **1996**      **2002**   **2006**   **2011**   **2020**
  escalation                                                                     
  rate: 2%**                                                                     

  Electrical      kWh             \$0.0419500   \$         \$         \$         \$
  Energy                                        0.047243   0.051137   0.056459   0.067474

  Electrical      kW              \$ -          \$-        \$ -       \$ -       \$ -
  Demand                                                                         

  Steam           1000 lbs        \$5.8027000   \$         \$         \$         \$
                                                6.534783   7.073459   7.809670   9.333279

  Water/Sewer     1000 gallons    \$2.1472000   \$         \$         \$ 2.88984 \$
  combined                                      2.418096   2.617425              3.453636

  Fuel Oil        Gallons         \$0.7500000   \$         \$         \$         \$
                                                0.844622   0.914246   1.009401   1.206328

  Propane         Gallons         \$1.8300000   \$         \$         \$         \$
                                                2.060877   2.230760   2.462939   2.943440

  Natural gas -   Therms          \$0.6500000   \$         \$         \$         \$
  firm rate                                     0.732006   0.792346   0.874814   1.045484
  --------------- --------------- ------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

## M&V Requirements

Several requirements outlined in the BOA are fundamental to the
measurement and verification of energy savings. The M&V requirements of
interest from the BOA are outlined in the following table.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111276 .anchor}Table 5: Summary of Measurement &
Verification Requirements in BOA

+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **BOA        | **Item and Content**                                  |
| Section**    |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.3          | \(b\) M&V based on most recent FEMP M&V Guide         |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.3          | \(d\) Each ECM to have M&V plan to determine achieved |
|              | savings                                               |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.3          | \(e\) Post-install M&V report required and must be    |
|              | accepted by government; should project savings for    |
|              | 1^st^ year                                            |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.3.3        | \(b\) Commissioning required by contractor            |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.13.2       | Energy Baseline and ECM Energy Savings Verification:  |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.13.2 (c)   | Outlines specific requirements for a "complete        |
|              | measurement plan for each of the applicable ECMs."    |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.13.2 (c)   | \(1\) M&V Overview                                    |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.13.2 (c)   | \(2\) Site Specific M&V plan including: Objectives;   |
|              | Parameters to be monitored; Sampling Plan; Data       |
|              | collection plan                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.13.2 (c)   | \(3\) Pre-installation energy & performance baseline  |
|              | including: equipment/systems; baseline energy use;    |
|              | factors influencing baseline energy use; performance  |
|              | factors                                               |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.13.2 (c)   | \(4\) Post-installation conditions, including:        |
|              | equipment/systems; post-installation energy use;      |
|              | factor affecting post-installation energy use         |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.13.2 (c)   | \(5\) Determination of energy savings                 |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.13.2 (c)   | \(6\) Plan for future measurements                    |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.13.2 (c)   | \(7\) Plan for resolving disputes                     |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C.15         | The following table is required for proposed ECMs:    |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| <table>      |                                                       |
| <colgroup>   |                                                       |
| <col         |                                                       |
| style="wi    |                                                       |
| dth: 10%" /> |                                                       |
| <col         |                                                       |
| style="wi    |                                                       |
| dth: 10%" /> |                                                       |
| <col         |                                                       |
| style="wi    |                                                       |
| dth: 10%" /> |                                                       |
| <col         |                                                       |
| style="wi    |                                                       |
| dth: 10%" /> |                                                       |
| <col         |                                                       |
| style="wi    |                                                       |
| dth: 10%" /> |                                                       |
| <col         |                                                       |
| style="wi    |                                                       |
| dth: 10%" /> |                                                       |
| <col         |                                                       |
| style="wi    |                                                       |
| dth: 10%" /> |                                                       |
| <col         |                                                       |
| style="wi    |                                                       |
| dth: 10%" /> |                                                       |
| <col         |                                                       |
| style="wi    |                                                       |
| dth: 12%" /> |                                                       |
| </colgroup>  |                                                       |
| <tbody>      |                                                       |
| <tr          |                                                       |
| class="odd"> |                                                       |
| <td><p>A</p> |                                                       |
| <p>ECM       |                                                       |
| NO.</p></td> |                                                       |
| <td><p>B</p> |                                                       |
| <            |                                                       |
| p>APPLICABLE |                                                       |
| BUILD        |                                                       |
| ING</p></td> |                                                       |
| <td><p>C</p> |                                                       |
| <p>ECM       |                                                       |
| COST         |                                                       |
| ($)</p></td> |                                                       |
| <td><p>D</p> |                                                       |
| <p>ANNUAL    |                                                       |
| ENERGY OR    |                                                       |
| DEMAND       |                                                       |
| SAVI         |                                                       |
| NGS</p></td> |                                                       |
| <td><p>E</p> |                                                       |
| <p>ENERGY    |                                                       |
| OR DEMAND    |                                                       |
| (UNI         |                                                       |
| TS)</p></td> |                                                       |
| <td><p>F</p> |                                                       |
| <p>ENERGY    |                                                       |
| OR DEMAND    |                                                       |
| RATES        |                                                       |
| ($/UN        |                                                       |
| IT)</p></td> |                                                       |
| <td><p>G</p> |                                                       |
| <p>ANNUAL    |                                                       |
| COST         |                                                       |
| SAVINGS      |                                                       |
| ($)</p></td> |                                                       |
| <td><p>H</p> |                                                       |
| <p>ECM       |                                                       |
| SIMPLE       |                                                       |
| PAYBACK      |                                                       |
| (YEA         |                                                       |
| RS)</p></td> |                                                       |
| <td><p>I</p> |                                                       |
| <p>ANNUAL    |                                                       |
| ENERGY       |                                                       |
| SAVINGS      |                                                       |
| (MB          |                                                       |
| TU)</p></td> |                                                       |
| </tr>        |                                                       |
| </tbody>     |                                                       |
| </table>     |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+

The M&V requirements outlined in the BOA were not closely followed in
development and implementation of the Ft. Detrick delivery orders
reviewed, as discussed below.

Although Section C.3 of the BOA specifically calls for a
Post-Installation M&V report, no evidence of post-installation M&V
reports was found for either USAG-1 or USAG-4. Post-installation M&V
activities verify the ECM is installed properly and has the potential to
generate the predicted savings. Commissioning activities were also
required and are key in ensuring ECMs are installed properly. Since no
specific commissioning documentation was required, the completion of
proper commissioning activities cannot be confirmed.

Section C.3 of the BOA requires an M&V plan for each ECM and Section
C.13.2 lists detailed requirements for the M&V Plan for each ECM. The
format detailed in C.13.2 is followed, but not for each individual
measure. Instead, measures were grouped into technology categories and
the M&V plans were combined. Two categories were used in USAG-4
(Lighting and HVAC) and three categories in USAG-1 (Lighting, HVAC, and
Envelope). Not presenting an individual M&V plan for each ECM makes it
difficult to discern exactly what activities were planned or are
required during the performance period. This proposal format has
contributed to the difficulty in evaluating Cogenex's fulfillment of
responsibilities during the performance period.

Similarly, Section C.15 of the BOA requires reporting detailed
information for each ECM, including: cost, energy savings, and cost
savings. The ECM cost and savings information was also summarized and
presented in technology categories. Costs and savings were presented in
technology categories rather than including the data for each individual
measure. USAG-1 and USAG-4 both have 8 individual measures, which were
grouped into 2 categories in USAG-4 (Lighting and HVAC) and four
categories for USAG-1 (Lighting, HVAC, Water, and Envelope). USAG-1
reporting is more detailed than USAG-4. Not listing the savings by
individual ECM in the original proposal has made the review of reported
savings more difficult.

# Overview of Projects

The two delivery orders reviewed, USAG-1 and USAG-4, represent \$2.81
million in initial investment, and are scheduled to provide over
\$228,000 annually in energy cost saving using 1996 utility rates. The
details of each delivery order agreement are outlined in the following
sections, and an overview presented in Table 6.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111277 .anchor}Table 6: Summary of Costs and
Savings from USAG-1 and USAG-4

  ----------- -------------- ----------- -------------- ------------ ------------ -----------
  **Project   **Initial      **Annual    **Completion   **Number of  **Contract   **Years
  Name**      Project        Energy Cost Date**         Buildings    Length       Completed
              Investment**   Savings                    Included**   (Years)**    (as of July
                             proposed                                             2003)**
                             (1996 \$)**                                          

  USAG-1      \$2,021,847    \$132,791   October 31,    19           20           3
                                         1999                                     

  USAG-4      \$786,175      \$95,215    July 31, 2001  25           20           1

  Totals:     \$2,808,022    \$228,006                  44                        
  ----------- -------------- ----------- -------------- ------------ ------------ -----------

## Group USAG - 1

The delivery order for USAG - 1 included work in 19 buildings covering
277,000 square feet. The buildings included are: 199, 201, 263, 374,
504, 505, 521, 660, 718, 722, 810, 839, 1301, 1302, 1304, 1309, 1315,
1422, 1430. Eight separate measures were implemented, and their
scheduled savings are shown in Table 7 using un-escalated 1996 rates
from the BOA.

Cost savings due to operations and maintenance (O&M) saving have been
stipulated as 10% of the annual energy cost savings. The original O&M
savings contributed \$13,000 in cost savings. This value was later
increased to account for window replacement. Although documentation of
this change was not located, the annual performance reports include
increased O&M savings.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111278 .anchor}Table 7: Summary of ECMs and
Projected Savings in Group USAG-1 (1996 rates)

  ------------ ---------------- ----------- ----------- --------------- -------------- ----------- -------------- --------------- ------------
  **ECM**      **Electricity,   **Steam,    **Water,    **Electricity   **Steam Cost   **Water     **O&M          **Total Cost    **Fraction
               kWh**            1,000 lbs** 1,000       Cost Savings**  Savings**      Cost        Savings**      Savings**       of Total**
                                            gallons**                                  Savings**                                  

  Lighting     813,166                                  \$34,112                                   \$3,411        \$37,524        26%

  Occ. Sensors 21,250                                   \$891                                      \$89           \$981           1%

  Motors       8,222                                    \$345                                      \$34           \$379           0%

  T-stats      246,674          2,264                   \$10,348        \$13,137                   \$2,349        \$25,834        18%

  Chiller &    789,110                                  \$33,103                                   \$3,310        \$36,413        25%
  Tower                                                                                                                           

  EMCS & Econ  146,672          1661                    \$6,153         \$9,638                    \$1,579        \$17,370        12%

  Chiller &    373,807          1,067                   \$15,681        \$6,191                    \$2,187        \$24,060        17%
  Windows                                                                                                                         

  Water                                     223                                        \$479       \$48           \$527           0%

  **Total**    **2,398,901**    **4,992**   **223**     **\$100,634**   **\$28,967**   **\$479**   **\$13,008**   **\$143,088**   **100%**
  ------------ ---------------- ----------- ----------- --------------- -------------- ----------- -------------- --------------- ------------

## Group USAG-4

The delivery order for USAG-4 included work in 25 buildings totaling
about 341,000 square feet. Buildings included were: 100, 121, 243, 262,
263, 326, 621, 623, 949, 949A, 950, 1077, 1431, 1432, 1435, 1500, 1504,
1520, 1532, 1540, 1533, 1534, 1535, 1536, and 1538. Eight separate
measures were implemented, and their scheduled savings are shown in
Table 7.

Cost savings due to operations and maintenance (O&M) saving have been
stipulated as 10% of the annual energy cost savings. Using 1996 rates
from the BOA, O&M savings contributes \$8,600 in cost savings.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111279 .anchor}Table 8: Summary of ECMs and
Projected Savings in Group USAG-4

  --------------- --------------- ---------- ------------ --------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  **Measure**     **Electric      **Steam    **Natural    **Electricity   **Steam Cost  **Gas Cost     **Total Energy **O&M Cost  **Total     **% Total
                  Savings - kWh** Savings    Gas Savings  Cost Savings**  Savings**     Savings**      Cost Savings** Savings**   Cost        Cost
                                  (MLbs)**   (therms)**                                                                           Savings**   Savings**

  Programmable    666,088         422        35,538       \$ 30,851       \$ 2,704      \$ 25,504      \$ 59,059      \$ 5,906    \$ 64,965   80.1%
  thermostats -                                                                                                                               
  measured                                                                                                                                    

  Programmable    161,071         479        4,675        \$ 7,460        \$ 3,068      \$ 3,355       \$ 6,423       \$ 1,390    \$ 7,813    9.6%
  thermostats -                                                                                                                               
  stipulated                                                                                                                                  

  HVAC Controls   46,056          \-         8,758        \$ 2,133                      \$ 6,286       \$ 6,286       \$ 844      \$ 7,130    8.8%

  Lighting        117,716         \-         \-           \$ 5,452                                     \$ -           \$ 545      \$ 545      0.7%
  Retrofits                                                                                                                                   

  Occupancy       70,090          \-         \-           \$ 3,246                                     \$ -           \$ 325      \$ 325      0.4%
  sensors                                                                                                                                     

  VAV Pumping     50,876          \-         \-           \$ 2,356                                     \$ -           \$ 235      \$ 235      0.3%
  Building 1435                                                                                                                               

  Motors 1504     2,889           \-         \-           \$ 134                                       \$ -           \$ 13       \$ 13       0.0%

  Airside         2,859           \-         \-           \$ 132                                       \$ -           \$ 13       \$ 13       0.0%
  Economizer 1520                                                                                                                             

  DHW             \-              \-         80           \$ -                          \$ 57          \$ 57          \$ 6        \$ 63       0.1%
  Cross-connect                                                                                                                               
  in 1540                                                                                                                                     

  Pipe Insulation 1,029           \-         \-           \$ 48                                                       \$ 4        \$ 4        0.0%
  1532                                                                                                                                        

                  **1,118,674**   **901**    **49,051**   **\$ 51,812**   **\$5,772**   **\$35,202**   **\$71,825**   **\$        **\$        
                                                                                                                      9,281**     81,106**    
  --------------- --------------- ---------- ------------ --------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ----------- -----------

# Annual Performance USAG -- 1

The performance period for USAG-1 began November 1, 1999. The cost
savings reported for the first three performance years were 104%, 114%,
and 110% of the guaranteed annual cost savings, as shown in Table 9. The
reported savings for electricity, steam, and water during the first
three performance years are detailed in the following tables.

There were some performance issues early on after the implementation of
USAG-1 (overheating of the CG office and the building 374 chiller) that
led to disagreements about equipment responsibilities. Based on our
review of communications between involved parties, these were addressed
by Cogenex and were not directly related to the efficiency of the
equipment. All retrofit projects need to be commissioned to ensure that
the installed equipment is working as intended and to fix problems as
they arise. As allowed in the contract, the customer called attention to
them to Cogenex, who appeared to respond to them in a timely manner.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111280 .anchor}Table 9: Reported Annual
Performance for USAG-1 in Performance Years 1 -- 3

  -------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Date**       **Performance   **%            **Reported     **Guaranteed
                 Year**          Guarantee**    Amount**       Amount**

  2000           Year 1          104%           \$ 181,345     \$174,308

  2001           Year 2          114%           \$ 199,764     \$174,535

  2002           Year 3          110%           \$ 192,845     \$174,767
  -------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

[]{#_Ref49932311 .anchor}

Table 10: Reported Electric Savings for USAG-1 in Performance Years 1 -
3

+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| ** **          | **E          | **Year 1**  | **Year 2** | **Year    |
|                | lectricity** |             |            | 3**       |
|                |              |             |            |           |
|                | **(kWh)**    |             |            |           |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| **Measure**    | **Projected  | **%         | **%        | **%       |
|                | Savings**    | Savings**   | Savings**  | Savings** |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| Lighting       | 813,166      | 102%        | 111%       | 114%      |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| Occ. Sensors   | 21,250       | 118%        | 117%       | 119%      |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| Motors         | 8,222        | 139%        | 500%       | 500%      |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| T-stats        | 246,674      | 97%         | 100%       | 92%       |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| Chiller &      | 789,110      | 100%        | 100%       | 36%       |
| Tower          |              |             |            |           |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| EMCS & Econ    | 146,672      | 59%         | 48%        | 51%       |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| Chiller &      | 373,807      | 134%        | 123%       | 72%       |
| Windows        |              |             |            |           |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| Water          |              |             |            |           |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| **Totals:**    | *            | **103%**    | **106%**   | **77%**   |
|                | *2,398,901** |             |            |           |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+

Operational and maintenance cost savings are stipulated to be 10% of the
energy cost savings *projected* in the proposal. These savings were
negotiated prior to contract award, and do not have any verification
activities associated with them. Explanation of why these cost savings
will occur was provided in the proposal for the lighting measures only.

The measurement and verification efforts for the energy savings are
detailed in the next section.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111282 .anchor}Table 11 Reported Steam Savings
for USAG-1 in Performance Years 1 - 3

+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
|                | **Steam**    | **Year 1**  | **Year 2** | **Year    |
|                |              |             |            | 3**       |
|                | **(1,000     |             |            |           |
|                | Lbs)**       |             |            |           |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| **Measure**    | **Projected  | **%         | **%        | **%       |
|                | Savings**    | Savings**   | Savings**  | Savings** |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| Lighting       | 0            |             |            |           |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| Occ. Sensors   | 0            |             |            |           |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| Motors         | 0            |             |            |           |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| T-stats        | 2264         | 97%         | 100%       | 86%       |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| Chiller &      | 0            |             |            |           |
| Tower          |              |             |            |           |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| EMCS & Econ    | 1661         | 4%          | 120%       | 70%       |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| Chiller &      | 1067         | 357%        | 350%       | 298%      |
| Windows        |              |             |            |           |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| Water          | 0            |             |            |           |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| **Totals:**    | **4,992**    | **121%**    | **160%**   | **126%**  |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-----------+

[]{#_Ref49932345 .anchor}

Table 12: Reported Water Savings for USAG-1 in Performance Years 1 - 3

+----------------+-------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
|                | **Water**   | **Year 1**  | **Year 2** | **Year    |
|                |             |             |            | 3**       |
|                | **(1000     |             |            |           |
|                | gallons)**  |             |            |           |
+----------------+-------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| **Measure**    | **Projected | **%         | **%        | **%       |
|                | Savings**   | Savings**   | Savings**  | Savings** |
+----------------+-------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| Water          | 223         | 100%        | 100%       | 100%      |
+----------------+-------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
| **Totals:**    | **223**     | **100%**    | **100%**   | **100%**  |
+----------------+-------------+-------------+------------+-----------+

# Measurement and Verification (M&V) Strategies Used in Group USAG-1

The following sections discuss the M&V strategies applied to the top
four cost saving measures in USAG-1, including lighting retrofit,
programmable thermostats, chiller and cooling tower in building 374, and
chiller and window replacement in building 1301.

## M&V for Lighting

The M&V approach being used calls for estimated fixtures wattages and
measuring operating hours throughout the contract term.

As outlined in the proposal, Cogenex is conducting annual measurements
of operating hours on a sample of fixtures to determine the 'actual'
savings. This approach accounts for changes in operating hours that may
occur throughout the contract term. If operating hours increase, actual
energy consumption will increase, but so will the savings relative to
the baseline case.

Lighting equipment performance (power in Watts) is based on 'standard'
fixtures powers or nameplate data. This is an acceptable approach for
lighting and is commonly used in performance contracting. Cogenex
predicted baseline energy use by taking an inventory of the existing
lighting equipment. It is common for a fluorescent lighting system to
contain a mixture of lamps and ballasts types.[^7] Inaccurate accounting
of lamp & ballast combinations in the baseline case can lead to
significant errors in the estimation of the savings (less or more). It
is impossible to reconstruct or verify the baseline inventory of lamps
and ballasts without conducting inspections prior to or during
construction.

Operating hours are based on building schedules and light fixture
monitoring. A review of the fixture monitoring results shows that the
monitoring is not being performed in a manner typical of performance
contracts. Usually, spaces are divided into 'usage groups' that reflect
the operation and schedule of a typical space. Typical groups might be
office, corridor, 24 hour, laboratory, storage, etc. The average
operating hours for each group are calculated and then applied to the
balance of the spaces in that usage group and the new savings are
calculated.

Cogenex is monitoring the operating hours of a number of fixtures and
then calculating the average run time of all fixtures from all usage
groups, effectively using a single usage group. This average run-time
value is compared to the average run-time used for the original savings
estimates. If the measured value is 114% of the original value, then the
predicted savings are adjusted upwards by 14%.

While superficially this approach may make sense, it is not a
statistically valid approach for a number of reasons, nor is it
consistent with the FEMP M&V Guidelines. First is that all usage groups
are being averaged together which dilutes their contribution to the
total savings. Second, it includes buildings retrofit not only under
USAG-1 but USAG‑4, NCI-3, and NCI‑5. The USAG and the NCI buildings
serve different missions and should not be combined. Third, the method
is subject to bias based on what samples are selected each year.
Choosing a large number of sites that operate 8,760 hours per year will
bias the results upwards. Despite the problems identified in the
measurement approach, it is expected that savings from the lighting
retrofits are being realized.

Cogenex is measuring the lighting levels to verify that adequate light
is being provided, as required in the contract. This is not a FEMP M&V
requirement but is considered good practice as it demonstrates that the
desired services (lighting levels) are being provided.

Lighting savings account for 25% of the total annual cost savings of
USAG-1. Claimed lighting savings for the last three years are
illustrated in Table 4 below. For every year, the savings are greater
than the guaranteed amounts.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111284 .anchor}Table 13: Lighting Savings (kWh)
for USAG-1

  ---------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
  ECM              Guaranteed       FY2000       FY 2001      FY 2002

  Lighting         813,166          831,499      898,990      927,009

  Occ. Sensors     21,250           25,013       24,945       25,287

  Total            834,416          856,512      923,935      952,296

  Relative to                       102%         111%         114%
  guaranteed                                                  
  ---------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------ ------------

Operations and maintenance cost savings are stipulated to be 10% of the
projected energy savings. O & M savings are anticipated due to the
installation of electronic ballasts and T‑8 lamps that have longer
lifetimes than their conventional counterparts. There is little
precedent to suggest that an O&M savings of 10% of the energy savings is
reasonable or not.

### Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}

-   Despite the problems with the application of the M&V approach, the
    savings estimates are reasonable and likely valid.

-   Proper baseline characterization cannot be confirmed since
    documentation of removed lamps & ballasts or commissioning is not
    available.

-   The lighting monitoring being conducted combines usage groups and
    projects, which significantly reduces its value. Monitoring in this
    fashion does not reduce the uncertainty in the savings estimates and
    may in fact increase it.

-   Post-retrofit lighting levels are being monitored, as required by
    the delivery order.

-   As built savings calculations and variations from design were not
    provided in documentation. O&M manuals include several equipment
    types without addressing locations.

-   There is insufficient evidence to support the O&M savings of 10% of
    the energy savings. This does not suggest that the number is
    unreasonable, only unsupported.

### Recommendations {#recommendations-1 .unnumbered}

-   Modify procedure for applying metered operating hours. Either adhere
    to usage groups consistent with method LE-B-01 as outlined in
    Chapter 13 of the FEMP M&V guidelines or use the operating hours
    projected during project development for duration of contract

-   Get as-built listing of lighting equipment from Cogenex which shows
    room numbers (not just building #s) and new lighting equipment
    specifications. Low powered ballasts are used in many areas, and
    efforts should be made to ensure that the same ballast type is used
    for replacements. This information should be made available to those
    responsible for maintenance of lighting equipment.

## M&V for Programmable Thermostats

Programmable thermostats save energy by reducing the heating set point
or raising the cooling set point during unoccupied hours. They do not
improve equipment efficiency; they reduce heating and cooling energy
use. The long-term effectiveness is dependant on personnel acceptance of
the programming. Changing the thermostat program can reduce or eliminate
the thermostats' effectiveness.

[]{.mark}

The savings predicted by spreadsheet simulation models developed prior
to project implementation are stipulated for the duration of the
contract. No annual verification activities are scheduled for this
measure. Operations and maintenance of this measure is the
responsibility of the Army although Cogenex has performed significant
O&M as part of their annual verification activities.

Cogenex has reported savings as *Projected,* *Claimed*, and *Achieved*.
They have claimed the level of saving projected in the proposal, as
specified in the M&V plan. Cogenex has also calculated the actual
savings achieved based on-site conditions, and adjusting the thermostat
programming to maximize energy savings.

Cogenex can legitimately claim savings no matter what the programming is
changed to because the thermostats have the *potential to perform* and
they are not responsible for usage (set point) changes. It is common for
programmable thermostats to have their programming changed over time due
to real or perceived comfort issues and common misunderstandings about
how thermostats work.

Verification of energy savings is typically accomplished via engineering
calculations or building simulation using Typical Meteorological Year
(TMY) weather data. Cogenex is using bin-hour energy load calculations
on each affected building, which is appropriate for this measure.
However, savings will fluctuate with real weather conditions but the
reported savings values are *not* adjusted for weather conditions.
Actual weather will vary from year to year and affect the actual
savings, but will average out over the course of a long-term contract.
This is a typical approach intended to limit M&V costs.

In 2000, Cogenex monitored runtimes of fans and compressors to verify
that the programmable thermostats were functioning as intended. Fourteen
A/C units in six different buildings were monitored. Of the fourteen,
two thermostats were reprogrammed and two others were removed entirely.
Cogenex responded by testing the programming of all thermostats and
making hardware changes that prohibit user changes instead of relying on
password protection.

In late 2001, Cogenex identified thermostats that had been reprogrammed
or removed and adjusted the savings accordingly. Buildings where Cogenex
reprogrammed the thermostats to accommodate new schedules have had their
estimated savings adjusted accordingly.

The following table shows the *Claimed* savings in electricity and steam
that have been reported for the first three performance years. Note that
these values have *not* been adjusted to reflect actual weather
conditions. Savings represent 16% of the total project savings.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111285 .anchor}Table 14: Programmable Thermostat
Savings

  ----------------------- -------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  Thermostats             Projected      FY 2000     FY 2001     FY 2002

  Electricity, kWh        246,674        238,087     246,674     227,643

  Steam, kLbs             2,264          2,186       2,264       1,941

  Relative to projected                  97%         100%        89%
  ----------------------- -------------- ----------- ----------- -----------

### Conclusions {#conclusions-1 .unnumbered}

-   Cogenex's method of estimating savings is appropriate. Actual
    savings will fluctuate every year but over the contract term should
    approach the estimated values.

-   If the Army reprograms or removes a thermostat on its own, Cogenex
    may still claim savings from that thermostat.

### Recommendations {#recommendations-2 .unnumbered}

-   The sustained savings from programmable thermostats is primarily a
    function of how they are used. It is the Army's responsibility to
    ensure that thermostats are not reprogrammed or removed. If set
    points or schedules need to be changed to accommodate new building
    usage or obtain comfortable conditions, the Army should work with
    Cogenex to do so.

-   Cogenex should continue their practice of annual downloading and
    uploading (and reporting) the programmed set points and schedules.

## M&V for Chiller & Towers (Bldg. 374)

Building 374 had two 300-ton chillers despite having a maximum cooling
load of 110 tons. In addition, the cooling tower controls operated the
fan continuously when the outside temperature was above 60^o^F. Cogenex
replaced one 300-ton chiller with a 125-ton centrifugal chiller, added a
variable speed drive (VSD) onto the cooling tower fan, and replaced the
pump motors with smaller and more efficient motors.

The measurement and verification approach was described in the proposal
as CH-A-02; short-term measurement of chiller performance. However, we
could find no evidence of baseline chiller performance measurements and
conclude that the current savings estimates are based on manufacturer's
specifications (this makes it FEMP M&V method CH-A-01). This method
(CH-A-01) is the most commonly used method for verifying chiller savings
since it requires no specific chiller measurements due to their cost and
complexity. This method uses engineering equations with Typical
Meteorological Year (TMY) weather data.

Tower fan savings resulting from the variable speed drive (VSD) are
included with the chiller savings. The Direct Digital Controls (DDC)
system installed as a separate measure monitors the temperatures and
run-times of the chiller plant equipment and cooling tower. The DDC
system results verify that the VSD is working as intended but the
results are not used to calculate the savings.

[]{.mark}

The savings predicted by spreadsheet models developed prior to project
implementation are stipulated for the duration of the contract. No
annual verification activities are scheduled for this measure.
Operations and maintenance of this measure is the responsibility of the
Army.

[]{.mark}

Cogenex has reported savings as *Projected,* *Claimed*, and *Achieved*.
They have claimed the level of saving projected in the proposal, as
specified in the M&V plan. Cogenex has also calculated the actual
savings achieved based on-site conditions.

In 2000, the new chiller was installed but not operating due to a
disagreement between Cogenex and the Army. At issue is the incorrect
installation of an existing condenser water control valve that was not
part of the proposed project. In the existing state, operation of the
new chiller under DDC control presented the risk of shutting off the
condenser water flow, which would damage the chiller and void the
warranty. Cogenex offered to correct the situation for a fee; the Army
chose to have an independent contractor perform the work, which was not
competed by the end of FY 2000. Instead, the old chiller was used and
there were no real chiller savings in 2000. There were some small
savings from cycling the tower fan, but the tower was not using the VSD
to modulate the speed.

At the end of FY2001, the condenser water valve was not corrected and
the new chiller was still not operational. For the first two performance
years (FY 2000 & FY 2001) Cogenex is claiming savings from this measure
because they feel that the chiller was not being used for reasons beyond
their control. In performance year 3 (FY 2002), the Army subcontractor
corrected the condenser water valve and piping. However, problems with
the chiller seals, cooling tower water supply, and chiller lubrication
prevented the chiller from operating at full capacity. Cogenex reported
savings for the portion of the year that the chiller was operating but
claimed the full savings for the year.

The following tables illustrate the actual and claimed savings for the
previous three years. The chiller and tower measure at building 374
represent 24% of the total USAG-1 project annual cost savings.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111286 .anchor}Table 15: Claimed savings used to
support guarantee

  ---------------------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  Building 374 Chiller & Tower Projected   FY 2000    FY 2001    FY 2002

  Chiller kWh                  735,257     735,257    735,257    735,257

  Tower kWh                    53,853      53,853     53,853     53,853

  Total                        789,110     789,110    789,110    789,110

  Relative to projected                    100%       100%       100%
  ---------------------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111287 .anchor}Table 16: Achieved Savings based
on actual chiller operation

  ---------------------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  Building 374 Chiller & Tower Projected   FY 2000    FY 2001    FY 2002

  Chiller kWh                  735,257     0          0          286,505

  Tower kWh                    53,853      Some       Some       Some

  Total                        789,110     0          0          286,505

  Relative to projected                    0%         0%         36%
  ---------------------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------

### Conclusions {#conclusions-2 .unnumbered}

-   There were no chiller savings and minimal tower savings for the
    first two years due to chiller non-operation. The chiller savings
    for FY 2002 were pro-rated for the portion of the year that the
    chiller did operate.

-   Cogenex appropriately claimed the projected savings for this
    measures since non-performance of this measure was outside of their
    control.

-   Despite the problems with the application of the stated M&V
    approach, the savings estimates are reasonable and likely valid.

### Recommendations {#recommendations-3 .unnumbered}

-   Now that the condenser water valve problem has been corrected, the
    new chiller plant and cooling tower in Building 374 need to be
    commissioned to ensure proper operation and realize savings.

-   The Army should ensure the performance of the new chiller is
    verified. As part of the commissioning process, Cogenex should
    measure chiller performance (kW/ton) to verify that the new chiller
    is performing as expected and has the capacity to save energy.

## M&V for Chiller & Windows (Bldg. 1301)

This project encompasses a number of measures including: installation of
direct digital controls on the existing chiller and air handlers,
installation of a new chiller (to replace window mounted units) and air
handlers, efficient motor upgrades, fume hood controls, and window
replacement. Part of this building is a laboratory with fume hoods; fume
hoods require large amounts of outside air to replace the air discharged
by the fume hoods. This considerably increases the heating and cooling
energy required. Fume hood control reduces the amount of air that needs
to be replaced, thus reducing the amount of outside air that needs to be
conditioned. In addition to the energy savings, an additional \$16,273
was claimed as annual O&M savings as an avoided cost for replacing the
old windows with energy-efficient windows.

The method used to verify the savings from is project is Option D:
Building simulation. Weather data is historical average for Baltimore.
The original savings estimates were based on a bin-hour calculation
method; the post-installation savings were estimated from the HAP
simulation (Hourly Analysis Program) from Carrier. This represents a
change in M&V calculations. Both the bin-hour and the HAP method are
limited due to their inability to calibrate the energy consumption to
the building's energy meter(s). In general, the accuracy of this method
is a function of the time and effort put into it; model calibration is
not a trivial task. No discussion on efforts to calibrate the models or

### Conclusions {#conclusions-3 .unnumbered}

-   Accuracy of the energy savings predicted by an Option D simulation
    model depends on careful development and calibration of the model.

### Recommendations {#recommendations-4 .unnumbered}

-   It would be more appropriate to use the same methodology to
    calculate the baseline energy as is used to determine the post
    installation energy. The Army could request Cogenex modify their
    calculation methodology for future performance reports.

# Annual Performance USAG -- 4

The performance period for USAG-4 began August 1, 2001. The cost savings
reported for the first performance year were 97% of the guaranteed
annual cost savings. The reported savings are detailed in the following
tables. Cogenex reported 100% of projected electric savings, 76% of
steam savings and 95% projected natural gas savings for the first year.

Operational and maintenance cost savings are stipulated to be 10% of the
energy cost savings *projected* in the proposal. These savings were
negotiated prior to contract award, and do not have any verification
activities associated with them. Explanation of why these cost savings
will occur was provided in the proposal for the lighting measures only.

The measurement and verification efforts for the energy savings are
detailed in the next section.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111288 .anchor}Table 17: USAG-4 As-Built
Projected Savings and Year 1 Reported Savings

  ------------------ --------------- ----------- ------------- ----------- ------------- -----------
                     **kWh**                     **Steam                   **Natural gas 
                                                 (1,000 Lbs)**             (Therms)**    

  **Measure**        **Projected     **Year 1    **Projected   **Year 1    **Projected   **Year 1
                     Savings**       Reported    Savings**     Reported    Savings**     Reported
                                     Savings**                 Savings**                 Savings**

  Lighting Retrofits 117,716         116%        \-            \-          \-            \-

  Lighting Occupancy 70,090          119%        \-            \-          \-            \-
  sensors                                                                                

  Motors 1504        2,889           100%        \-            \-          \-            \-

  Programmable       161,071         100%        479           100%        4,675         100%
  thermostats                                                                            
  (stipulated)                                                                           

  Programmable       666,088         96%         422           49%         35,538        92%
  thermostats                                                                            
  (measured)                                                                             

  HVAC Controls      46,056          100%        \-            \-          8,758         100%

  VAV Pumping in     50,876          100%        \-            \-          \-            \-
  1435                                                                                   

  DHW Cross-connect  \-                          \-            \-          80            100%
  in 1540A/B                                                                             

  Airside Economizer 2,859           100%        \-            \-          \-            \-
  in 1520                                                                                

  Pipe Insulation in 1,029           100%        \-            \-          \-            \-
  1532                                                                                   

  **Totals:**        **1,118,674**   **100%**    **901**       **76%**     **49,051**    **95%**
  ------------------ --------------- ----------- ------------- ----------- ------------- -----------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111289 .anchor}Table 18: USAG-4 Year 1 Reported
Savings

  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------
  **Item**                                     **Amount**

  Total Electric \$                            51,970

  Total Steam \$                               5,772

  Total Gas \$                                 35,202

  Total Energy \$                              89,637

  Total O&M \$                                 9,281

  Total Savings \$                             98,918

  Guaranteed Savings \$                        101,801

  \% Guarantee met                             97%
  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111290 .anchor}Table 19: Reported Cost Savings
for USAG-4 Performance Year 1

  ------- ----------- --------------- ------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ --------- ---------- ---------- --------- ----------
                                                               Rate Used:   0.0463       6.405     0.7176                          

  **ECM   **Measure   Measure         **Savings -   **Steam    **Natural    **Electric   **Steam   **Gas \$** **Energy   **O&M     **Total
  \#**    type**                      kWh**         (MLbs)**   Gas          \$**         \$**                 \$**       \$**      Savings
                                                               (therms)**                                                          \$**

  3       HVAC        Programmable    637,505       206        32,862       \$29,527     \$2,704   \$25,504   \$54,427   \$5,906   \$60,333
                      thermostats -                                                                                                
                      measured                                                                                                     

  3       HVAC        Programmable    161,071       479        4,675        \$ 7,460     \$3,068   \$ 3,355   \$13,883   1390      \$15,273
                      thermostats -                                                                                                
                      stipulated                                                                                                   

  4       HVAC        HVAC Controls   46,056        \-         8,760        \$ 2,133     \$ -      \$ 6,286   \$8,420    \$ 844    \$9,264

  1       Lighting    Lighting        136,412       \-         \-           \$ 6,318     \$ -      \$ -       \$6,318    545       \$6,863
                      Retrofits                                                                                                    

  1       Lighting    Occupancy       83,376        \-         \-           \$ 3,862     \$ -      \$ -       \$3,862    325       \$4,187
                      sensors                                                                                                      

  5       HVAC        VAV Pumping     50,876        \-         \-           \$ 2,356     \$ -      \$ -       \$2,356    \$ 235    \$2,591
                      Building 1435                                                                                                

  2       HVAC        Motors 1504     2,889         \-         \-           \$ 134       \$ -      \$ -       \$134      13        \$ 147

  7       HVAC        Airside         2,859         \-         \-           \$ 132       \$ -      \$ -       \$132      \$13      \$ 145
                      Economizer 1520                                                                                              

  6       HVAC        DHW             \-            \-         80           \$ -         \$ -      \$57       \$ 57      \$ 6      \$63
                      Cross-connect                                                                                                
                      in 1540                                                                                                      

  8       HVAC        Pipe Insulation 1,029                    \-           \$48         \$ -      \$ -       \$ 48      \$ 4      \$52
                      1532                                                                                                         

                                      1,122,073     685        46,377       \$51,970     \$5,772   \$35,202   \$89,637   \$9,281   \$98,918
  ------- ----------- --------------- ------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ --------- ---------- ---------- --------- ----------

\*O&M cost savings 10% of projected savings

# Measurement and Verification (M&V) Strategies Used in Group USAG-4

The following sections discuss the M&V strategies applied to all eight
cost saving measures in USAG-4. measures include controls, programmable
thermostats, variable volume pumping, air side economizer, domestic hot
water modification and pipe insulations, lighting retrofits, and
occupancy controls.

## M&V For HVAC Measures

There were several HVAC measures conducted as a part of USAG-4. In
descending order of cost savings reported, the measures are:
programmable thermostats, controls, variable speed pumping, motors,
air-side economizer, domestic hot water modification, and pipe
insulation.

### Programmable Thermostats (ECM-3) {#programmable-thermostats-ecm-3 .unnumbered}

The programmable thermostats were installed in 18 buildings as a part of
USAG-4, and save energy by reducing run-time rather than improving
system efficiency. The thermostats allow space temperature set points to
be outside of normal comfort ranges during unoccupied times. The
long-term effectiveness is dependant on personnel acceptance of the
programming. Changing the thermostat program can reduce or eliminate the
thermostats' effectiveness.

Two methodologies are specified for verifying the savings. For the
buildings with smallest cost savings (buildings 121, 243, 262, 326, 621,
623, 949, 949A, 950, 1432, 1500, 1532) the savings predicted by
spreadsheet simulation models developed prior to project implementation
are stipulated for the duration of the contract. No verification
activities are scheduled for these installations.

The other M&V strategy is applied to the buildings with the highest
energy savings (buildings 100, 1077, 1431, 1435, 1520, and 1540A/B).
Each year, Cogenex downloads the programming from the thermostats to a
computer, and the energy simulation models for are re-run based on the
actual occupancy schedule in place. Programming is updated as allowable
for current occupancy.

During the baseline development, Cogenex metered the run time of several
air handlers and rooftop units from both groups of buildings. Airflows
and construction specifications were taken from original building
drawings. The proposal listed several additional parameters to be
metered in the group of buildings with the highest energy savings. No
metered data were included in the proposal, so its use in developing the
engineering models cannot be verified.

The engineering models predict systems usage based on average weather
data for a site over many years. Actual weather will vary from year to
year and impact the actual savings, but is thought to average out over
the course of a long-term contract. This is a reasonable and common
approach used in predicting savings in weather dependant systems.

The weather data used for this project was from Patuxent River Naval Air
Station, which experiences more coastal weather patterns than Ft.
Detrick. The decision to use the Patuxent river data was agreed to
during project development, and is a provision in the delivery order.

Cogenex reported savings for this measure in Year 1 were 92% of the
savings originally predicted. Operational changes for two buildings were
detailed, and the re-runs of the engineering models were included for
each building.

### Controls (ECM-4) {#controls-ecm-4 .unnumbered}

Controls modifications were implemented in 11 building as a part of
USAG-4. The primary controls changes are summarized in Table 20.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111291 .anchor}Table 20: Summary of HVAC
Controls Measures for USAG-4

+-------------+-------------+------------------------------------------+
| *           | **          | **Description**                          |
| *Building** | Equipment** |                                          |
+-------------+-------------+------------------------------------------+
| 949         | Pumps       | -   Enable/lock-out pumps based on       |
|             |             |     outside air temperatures             |
+-------------+-------------+------------------------------------------+
| 1431        | Boiler &    | -   Enable/lock-out boiler and pump      |
|             | pump        |     based on outside air temperatures    |
+-------------+-------------+------------------------------------------+
| 1432        | Boiler      | -   Modulate hot water temperature set   |
|             |             |     point based on outside air           |
|             |             |     temperature                          |
+-------------+-------------+------------------------------------------+
| 1504        | Boiler      | -   Modulate hot water temperature set   |
|             |             |     point based on outside air           |
|             |             |     temperature                          |
+-------------+-------------+------------------------------------------+
| 1520        | Boilers     | -   Modulate hot water temperature set   |
|             |             |     point based on outside air           |
|             |             |     temperature                          |
|             |             |                                          |
|             |             | -   Enable/lock-out steam boiler based   |
|             |             |     on outside air temperatures          |
+-------------+-------------+------------------------------------------+
| 1532        | Pumps &     | -   Enable duel temperature water pumps  |
|             |             |     based on outside air temperature     |
|             | Chiller     |                                          |
|             |             | -   Reset chilled and condenser water    |
|             |             |     set points based on outside air      |
|             |             |     temperature                          |
+-------------+-------------+------------------------------------------+
| 1533, 1534, | Pumps       | -   Enable duel temperature water pumps  |
| 1535, 1536, |             |     based on outside air temperature     |
| and 1538    |             |                                          |
+-------------+-------------+------------------------------------------+

The energy savings for these controls changes were estimated using
engineering models, and no annual verification activities are included
for this measure.

Printouts of the spreadsheet models are included in the appendix of the
proposal, but provide little value without explanation. Key assumptions
and analysis methods used in the engineering models are not discussed at
all.

The largest savings come from the boiler controls in Building 1520.
Savings estimates for this measure were based on gas usage data metered
during the baseline.

### Variable Speed Pumping (ECM-5) {#variable-speed-pumping-ecm-5 .unnumbered}

A constant volume chilled water pumping system in building 1435 was
converted to a variable volume pumping system through the installation
of variable speed drives (VSDs) and the replacement of three-way valves
at the cooling coils with two-way valves.

No annual verification activities are scheduled for this measure.
Savings are stipulated based on spreadsheet models, which are included
in the appendix of the proposal. The energy savings are predicted in a
typical fashion using pump affinity laws. Flow rates were estimated for
various ranges of outdoor air temperatures, and average weather data
applied. The key to the accuracy of the saving prediction is the ability
of the VSDs to modulate flow to the levels forecasted. No verification
activities have been conducted, so the accuracy of the reported savings
is unknown.

### Motors (ECM-2) {#motors-ecm-2 .unnumbered}

High efficiency motors were proposed for buildings 949, 1077, 1504, and
1520. The annual savings report indicates that only one motor was
installed in the condenser fan of a rooftop unit in Building 1504. It is
unclear why the scope of work changed, since no post-installation M&V
report was issued.

The M&V plan for this measure calls for the complete measurement of
baseline and post-installation motor conditions, including watts, amps,
volts, power factor, RPM, and operating hours. These measurements were
not yet taken at the time of the proposal.

It appears that savings reported are based in initial savings
calculations (2,889 kWh), rather than using the pre-and
post-installation power and run time measurements. Although not precise,
this initial savings estimate is likely very close to the actual even
though these initial estimates used an assumed load factor of 70%. The
post-installation power draw reported in the annual saving report
indicates an actual load factor of 66%.

The first year M&V report states that the equipment installed in
building 1504 is no longer in place, but that a new rooftop unit
installed by Ft. Detrick has a similar operating efficiency. The savings
for this measure are stipulated and continues to be counted toward
meeting the savings guarantee. Based on contract requirements, it is
appropriate for Cogenex to continue to count these savings.

### Air-Side Economizer (ECM-7) {#air-side-economizer-ecm-7 .unnumbered}

Airside economizer capability was added to the existing roof top unit
(RTU) in building 1520. Economizer operation allows for "free" cooling
using outdoor air when conditions allow. Cogenex predicted that "free"
cooling would be utilized when the outdoor air temperature is between 60
and 69°F.

The savings are stipulated based on the spreadsheet analysis included in
the proposal. No verification activities are scheduled for this measure.

Although the calculation methodology is reasonable, the ability of this
ECM to perform is questionable. Based on the average weather data used
in the analysis, the outdoor air conditions at 60 to 69°F will
correspond to wet bulb temperatures of 56 to 61°F (40 to 100% relative
humidity). Cooler, dryer air is typically required to provide cooling. A
review and modification of the control sequence to operate the
economizer at lower outside air temperatures is recommended.

### Domestic Hot Water Modifications (ECM-6) {#domestic-hot-water-modifications-ecm-6 .unnumbered}

The two domestic hot water systems in buildings 1540A and 1540B were
connected to reduce hot water storage and tank losses by allowing both
buildings to operate using one system. Energy savings result from the
use of only one hot water storage tank instead of two. Energy savings
for this measure are stipulate based on a spreadsheet model. No annual
verification activities are scheduled for this measure, which is
appropriate due to the low level of cost savings and low probability of
usage or maintenance issues arising.

### Pipe Insulation (ECM-8) {#pipe-insulation-ecm-8 .unnumbered}

This measure insulated the existing condenser water piping in building
1532. The insulation will cover existing electric heat tape, and will
reduce the required run time of the tape, which is used to prevent
freezing.

Savings from this measure were calculated using an engineering model,
which used historical weather data to estimate existing and projected
energy usage. No ongoing measurement and verification activities are
contractually required for this measure, which is appropriate due to the
low level of cost savings and low probability of usage or maintenance
issues arising.

### Conclusions {#conclusions-4 .unnumbered}

-   Cogenex used industry standard engineering calculations to predict
    energy savings for the HVAC measures. All verification requirements
    in the Delivery Order were fulfilled in the first year M&V report.
    Although the weather site used does impact savings estimates,
    reported savings are reasonable.

-   There are no requirements for Cogenex to provide ongoing
    verification that the control strategy changes made in ECM-4 are
    still in place.

-   Estimated savings from the installation of variable speed drives are
    reasonable, but are not being verified.

-   Although the high efficiency motor installed by Cogenex was removed,
    it is appropriate for the savings to continue to be counted.

-   Some modification of the control sequences may be required to
    achieve the savings predicted from use of the airside economizer in
    building 1520.

### Recommendations {#recommendations-5 .unnumbered}

-   Army personnel should periodically verify the control changes in
    ECM-4 are still operating properly.

-   Army personnel should check thermostats for tampering/interview
    occupants in-between Cogenex's annual site visits

-   Army personnel should periodically check VSDs for proper modulation
    and ensure they are not operating in "hand"

-   O&M for the airside economizer is the responsibility of the Army.
    Army personnel should ensure dampers and actuators are maintained,
    the control sequences verified, and sensors calibrated.

-   Review the control sequences used to operate the economizer and
    modify them if needed to operate the economizer at lower outside air
    temperatures.

## M&V For Lighting Measures (ECM-1)

Lighting retrofits were conducted in 12 buildings and occupancy sensor
controls were installed in 18 buildings.

Cogenex predicted baseline energy use by taking an inventory of the
existing lighting equipment and estimating the lighting equipment power
based on 'standard' fixture powers or nameplate data. This is an
acceptable approach, but its accuracy depends on precision of the
equipment inventory. Since detailed commissioning and acceptance
documentation is not available, the validity of the baseline cannot be
determined.

It is common for a fluorescent lighting system to contain a mixture of
lamps and ballasts types, which can cause a wide variance in the energy
use of similar fixtures. Inaccurate accounting of lamp & ballast
combinations in the baseline case can lead to significant errors in the
estimation of the savings (less or more). For USAG-4, most of the
fixtures were reported to have energy intensive equipment installed (F40
T-12 lamps and magnetic ballasts). As with other measures, it is
impossible to reconstruct or verify the baseline accuracy after
installation of the new equipment.

The M&V Plan for lighting calls for one time metering of operating hours
and holding them constant for the duration of the contract. Operating
hours for fixtures without controls are assumed to be the same before
and after the lighting retrofit. Post-retrofit operating hours for
fixtures with occupancy sensor controls require a single run time
measurement.

The sampling plan outlined in the M&V plan for lighting states that
usage groups based on operating schedules will be used for short-term
monitoring. It also states that individual operating hours will be
determined by metering a representative number of fixtures with in each
usage group.

The measurement and verification methodology actually applied in the
first year M&V report is substantially different than the description in
the delivery order. It is not clear if this procedure was determined
under a separate agreement.

The M&V procedure followed in the first annual report for USAG-4 used
metered operating hours from seven other projects installed at Ft.
Detrick over several different years. This is the same flawed
methodology used for the USAG-1 project (as discussed in Section 7.1).

Cogenex is monitoring the operating hours of a number of fixtures and
then calculating the average run time of all fixtures from all usage
groups, effectively using a single usage group. This average run-time
value is compared to the average run-time used for the original savings
estimates. If the measured value is 114% of the original value, then the
predicted savings are adjusted upwards by 14%. While superficially this
approach may make sense, it is not a statistically valid approach for a
number of reasons, nor is it consistent with the FEMP M&V Guidelines.

[]{.mark}

For the first performance year for USAG-4, the use of this 'flawed'
methodology had little on predicted savings. The measured hours were
within 0.2% of the predicted hours.

Run-time metering of the lighting fixtures with occupancy sensors was
also combined with several other projects across several years. The
application of this metered data resulted in the predicted savings from
occupancy sensors increasing by 19%. The method of selecting fixtures to
be metered is not specified and is subject to bias and can influence
results.

Savings estimates for lighting retrofits did not include HVAC
interactions (cooling reduction, heating penalty), which is a
conservative approach.

Cogenex required to measure the lighting levels each year to verify that
adequate light is being provided. Lighting levels for USAG-1 were not
reported in the first year M&V report.

### Conclusions {#conclusions-5 .unnumbered}

-   Year 1 M&V report used metered hours to calculate savings, rather
    than using stipulated hours as called for in the M&V plan.

-   Despite the problems with the application of the M&V approach, the
    savings estimates are reasonable and likely valid.

-   Proper baseline characterization cannot be confirmed.

-   Documentation of commissioning is not available.

-   As built savings calculations and variations from design were not
    provided in documentation.

-   Metered run hours for Year 1 averaged from other projects but still
    same as originally estimated; savings from occupancy sensors marked
    up slightly.

-   O&M manuals include several equipment types without addressing
    locations.

### Recommendations {#recommendations-6 .unnumbered}

-   Modify procedure for applying metered operating hours to adhere to
    usage groups or use projected hours for duration of contract

-   Get as built listing of lighting equipment from Cogenex that shows
    room numbers (not just building #s) and new lighting equipment
    specifications. Low powered ballasts are used in many areas, and
    efforts should be made to ensure that the same ballast type is used
    for replacements. This information should be made available to those
    responsible for maintenance of lighting equipment.

# Utility Usage

Much of the concern regarding performance of these projects stems from
the utility usage at Ft. Detrick. Even though many projects have been
implemented, Army staff is unable to discern a decrease in electricity
usage at the base. Electrical usage is tracked through the main APS
meter, and some buildings have Army owned electrical sub-meters.

Electrical energy is measured in two units -- kilowatts demand (kW) and
kilowatt hours (kWh). Demand indicates the instantaneous size of the
connected load (power), and kWh measures the duration of load (energy).
APS/Cogenex's delivery orders with Ft. Detrick contain target reduction
amounts in kWh, but do not quantify nor claim cost savings from demand
reductions. This is a conservative approach since Ft. Detrick does pay
demand changes.

#### Main Electric Meter {#main-electric-meter .unnumbered}

One Allegheny Power meter records 99% of the electricity supplied to Ft.
Detrick. The monthly consumption of electricity from 1999 through 2002
is plotted alongside the average monthly consumption from the baseline
period of 1996 to 1999 in Figure 1. Savings from projects began accruing
in 2000, as detailed in Table 1.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111299 .anchor}Figure 1: Baseline vs.
Post-Installation Electrical kWh Usage, 1996 to 2003

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.583333333333333in"
height="4.452083333333333in"}

The overall savings in electric usage at Ft. Detrick scheduled by all
thirteen delivery orders is currently about 12% of the total average kWh
consumption at the base. The overall percent of electricity saved by
these projects has been increasing over the last several years as the
projects have been completed. Projected savings for FY99 were 1%, in
FY00 that increased to 8%, and FY01 was 12% of total electrical
consumption.

To illustrate the effect that all projects combined may have on the
overall electrical usage, the Table 21 illustrates the actual energy use
plus the claimed savings for each performance year. By adding the
savings onto the actual usage, the 'baseline' energy use can be
reconstructed. Based on the findings from review of these performance
contracts, it is probable that this 'baseline' reflects what the actual
usage would have been in the absence of the performance contracts.

Table 21: Electricity Usage and Scheduled Savings at Ft Detrick

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
                     **FY99**          **FY00**          **FY01**          **FY02**

  **Total kWh**      **138,708,000**   **136,644,600**   **136,565,045**   **139,323,476**

  Savings, kWh                                                             

  USAG 1                               2,481,363         2,532,701         1,849,739

  USAG 2                                                                   5,587,444

  USAG 3                                                 2,563,428         2,563,428

  USAG 4                                                                   1,127,005

  NCI 1                                1,247,618         1,247,618         1,247,618

  NCI 2                                1,229,540         1,229,540         1,229,540

  NCI 3                                1,744,397         1,744,397         1,744,397

  NCI 4                                946,362           946,362           946,362

  NCI 5                                                                    1,125,223

  NCI Chiller                                            1,529,756         1,529,756

  Total Savings                        7,649,280         10,264,046        17,420,757

  **What Usage Would **138,708,000**   **144,293,880**   **146,829,091**   **156,744,233**
  Have Been, kWh**                                                         
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

The information can be presented in graphical form to show the relative
magnitude of the savings relative to the total usage. The figure below
shows that the savings are large enough to be observed (on an annual
basis) by 2002, but still comprise less than 12% of the baseline use.
This is usually too small a fraction to determine with any degree of
statistical confidence using an Option C analysis. Utility savings of
20% or greater can be tracked if weather and site changes are carefully
considered, as discussed in the next section.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111300 .anchor}Figure 2: Energy Use and Savings
at Ft Detrick

![](media/image3.wmf)

#### Utility Bill Analysis (Option C) {#utility-bill-analysis-option-c .unnumbered}

The energy savings from these projects are too small to be detected
using utility bill analysis M&V approach (Option C). Regression models
of electricity and gas bills provide little to no indication that
utility bills have changed. This is not to say that savings are not
occurring, it says that they are too small to observe or have been
offset by increases in usage due to changes in operation beyond the
control of the contractor. It is difficult to detect savings in a single
building with a stable mission that are less than 10 to 15% of total
energy consumption with any degree of reliability. It is impossible to
detect savings of less than 5% at a site with multiple buildings and
changing schedules. Utility savings of 20% or greater can be tracked *if
weather and site changes are carefully considered.*

A proper Option C analysis will include the development of
multi-variable regression models using historical utility, weather, and
site data. One common approach is to utilize the software package
Metrix[^8] and develop a model of the building's utility consumption.
This is an ongoing effort that requires tracking and quantifying the
impact of operational changes at the site, accounting for number of days
in each billing period, importing actual weather data, accounting for
changes in occupied space and changes in installed equipment. It is an
inexact science whose results are subject to manipulation.

#### Sub Metered Buildings {#sub-metered-buildings .unnumbered}

Proper analysis of sub-metered electrical data is subject to the
requirements discussed for the main meter. Implementation of a thorough
Option C analysis could likely detect savings in the electrical use of
some of the building with electrical sub-meters. This may be a problem
since the analysis requires knowing the number of days in each billing
period. Army personnel are responsible for reading and recording the
consumption measured by the electric sub-meters, and the reading dates
vary and are not available.

This review includes a cursory look at the sub-metered energy use data
that is available. Appendix A includes the graphical analysis of this
sub-metered data as well as some weather and seasonal analyses.

Five of the buildings in USAG-1 have electrical sub meters. The
sub-metered data does not cover the baseline period (prior to July 31,
1999) for USAG-1. Therefore, utility analysis on those facilities is
futile since there is no basis for comparison.

Fourteen of the buildings in USAG-4 have sub-metered electrical use.
Several of these building have scheduled electrical savings that are a
substantial percentage of the overall consumption. A cursory look at the
baseline and post-installation electrical usage as compared to scheduled
energy savings is shown in Table 22.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111293 .anchor}Table 22: Projected Electric
Savings for Sub-Metered Buildings

  ----------- -------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- -------------- -------------- ------------- ----------
  **Group**   **Building**   **Project    **Electric   **Average   **Average      **Annual kWh   **Projected % **Actual %
                             Completion   Meter?**     Annual      Annual         Saved          baseline      baseline
                             Date**                    baseline    Post-install   (proposed)**   saved**       saved**
                                                       kWh**       kWh**                                       

  USAG4       1435           7/31/01      Yes          833,455     1,022,291      393,984        47%           -23%

  USAG4       1077           7/31/01      Yes          247,680     237,086        82,177         33%           4%

  USAG4       1431           7/31/01      Yes          80,207      64,936         22,057         27%           19%

  USAG4       1500           7/31/01      Yes          44,662      31,505         8,666          19%           29%

  USAG4       949            7/31/01      Yes          202,298     207,360        39,246         19%           -3%

  USAG4       1520           7/31/01      Yes -a, b    1,317,347   1,198,560      237,354        18%           9%

  USAG4       950            7/31/01      Yes          45,035      41,539         7,538          17%           8%

  USAG4       1532           7/31/01      Yes -a, b, c 642,112     578,927        84,597         13%           10%

  USAG4       1432           7/31/01      Yes          222,938     221,018        26,936         12%           1%

  USAG4       1533-38        7/31/01      Yes for      440,182     458,116        30,551         7%            -4%
                                          1534, 1535,                                                          
                                          1536, 1538                                                           

  USAG4       1504           7/31/01      Yes          373,702     346,953        25,616         7%            7%

  USAG4       623            7/31/01      Yes          252,044     267,316        16,447         7%            -6%

  USAG1       839            10/31/99     Yes - a, b   No baseline                23,603                       
                                                       data                                                    

  USAG1       1422           10/31/99     Yes - a, b   No baseline                316,711                      
                                                       data                                                    

  USAG1       374            10/31/99     Yes          No baseline                1,029,255                    
                                                       data                                                    

  USAG1       718            10/31/99     Yes          No baseline                34,689                       
                                                       data                                                    

  USAG1       810            10/31/99     Yes          No baseline                419,871                      
                                                       data                                                    
  ----------- -------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- -------------- -------------- ------------- ----------

Without analysis or adjustments, the data appears to show savings for
some of the buildings (1500, 1431, 1532) while no savings are indicated
for other buildings (1435, 1077, 949). As mentioned earlier, an accurate
Option C analysis would be required to determine if these observations
are valid. Several of the sub-metered buildings show moderate
correlation with weather, as discussed in the next section.

### Weather Impacts {#weather-impacts .unnumbered}

The utility consumption at most facilities, including the Fort Detrick
facilities, is affected by the weather. Air conditioning loads tend to
be responsible for setting the maximum electrical peaks during the year,
and annual natural gas and steam usage are directly related to the
winter heating requirements. The coincidence of peak electrical use at
Ft. Detrick with hot weather can be observed in Figure 3.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111301 .anchor}Figure 3: Electric kWh Used and
Cooling Degree Days, 1995 to 2002

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.001388888888889in"
height="2.967361111111111in"}

Actual weather data from Ft. Detrick[^9] are shown in Figure 4. The
values presented are cooling degree and heating degree-days, which are a
measure of variance from 65 degrees. Years 1994 to 1997 are much cooler
than 1998 through 2002.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111302 .anchor}Figure 4: Annual Cooling Degree
Days (CDD) and Heating Degree Days for Ft. Detrick 1994 to 2002

![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.000694444444444in"
height="3.122916666666667in"}

Since much of the campus uses centralized heating and cooling plants,
the energy use at individual buildings is not significantly affected. By
comparing the severity of the weather to the energy use, the
relationship between weather and energy use can be established. Cooling
degree-days (CDD) indicate how hot the summer is; heating degree-days
(HDD) indicate how cold the winter is. Buildings that are significantly
affected by weather conditions will have a strong correlation between
energy use and HDD or CDD. A strong correlation exists for R^2^ values
of 0.85, and approaches a perfect correlation at 1.0. The results of the
analysis are shown in Table 23.

Twenty of the buildings included in these projects have electric
sub-meters, and only 3 showed any significant correlation between
weather and electrical consumption, indicating that weather was an
important factor in energy use. Buildings 949, 1432, and 1435 (all in
Group USAG-4) had R^2^ values in the range of 0.50 to 0.65, which
indicates a moderate correlation between utility usage and weather
conditions. Of the 17 other facilities that are sub-metered, 4 buildings
in USAG-4 (718, 1504, 1520, and 1532) had R^2^ results in the range of
0.25 to 0.37, which indicates a mild connection between utility usage
and weather conditions. The remaining 10 buildings showed no
relationship between weather and electrical usage.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111294 .anchor}Table 23: Correlation Between
Sub-metered Electrical Usage And Weather

  ------------- ------------ ---------- --------------- ------------ ---------------
  **Project**   **Building   **R^2^:    **Correlation   **R^2^: HDD  **Correlation
                Number**     CDD vs.    to Cooling      vs. kWh**    to Heating
                             kWh**      Load**                       Load**

  USAG4         949          0.61       Moderate        0.51         Moderate

  USAG4         1432         0.57       Moderate        0.65         Moderate

  USAG4         1435         0.48       Moderate        0.56         Moderate

  USAG1         718          0.37       Mild            0.36         Mild

  USAG4         1532         0.36       Mild            (0.11)       None

  USAG4         1504         0.27       Mild            0.34         Mild

  USAG4         1520         0.25       Mild            (0.41)       None

  USAG1         839          0.20       None            0.09         None

  USAG4         1500         0.16       None            0.19         None

  USAG4         623          0.10       None            0.09         None

  USAG4         950          0.09       None            0.00         None

  USAG4         1077         0.04       None            0.01         None

  USAG1         374          0.03       None            0.19         None

  USAG1         1422         0.02       None            0.02         None

  USAG4         1538         0.02       None            0.01         None

  USAG4         1534         0.02       None            0.01         None

  USAG4         1535         0.02       None            0.01         None

  USAG4         1536         0.02       None            0.01         None

  USAG4         1431         0.01       None            \-           None

  USAG1         810          0.00       None            0.02         None
  ------------- ------------ ---------- --------------- ------------ ---------------

[]{.mark}

### Weather Site Used {#weather-site-used .unnumbered}

Weather data is used in the building performance models to predict
energy use (and savings). The weather data used for these projects was
from Patuxent River Naval Air Station, which experiences more coastal
weather patterns than Ft. Detrick. The decision to use the Patuxent
river data was agreed to during project development, and is a provision
in the delivery orders. The impact of using other weather data on the
savings calculations is an interesting question, but is outside of the
scope of this review and holds little value in the context of the
existing contractual agreements.

The engineering models predict systems usage based on average weather
data for a site over many years. Actual weather will vary from year to
year and impact the actual savings, but the annual savings are thought
to average out over the course of a long-term contract. This is a
reasonable and common approach used in predicting savings in weather
dependant systems.

Although none of the measures installed by Cogenex call for an
adjustment in annual savings due to weather, the severity of the seasons
contributes to the performance of the efficiency measures. For example,
setback thermostats provide energy savings based on the ability to reset
space temperature set points during unoccupied periods of time. During
hot weather, the persistently high cooling loads will not allow for as
much reduction in run time as during milder periods. Similarly, other
measures such as VSDs on the chilled water pumps would not ramp down as
much during seasons with high cooling loads.

The impacts of weather are outside of the control of the ESCO and the
owner. Estimating savings using long-term average weather conditions is
a reasonable and common approach used to minimize risk to both parties.

### Changes in Mission, Changes in Operations {#changes-in-mission-changes-in-operations .unnumbered}

Ft. Detrick is a very large facility with many operations and missions
running concurrently. Tracking changes in operation at a large facility
such as this one is a very challenging task, and without proper planning
at the onset, almost impossible. This is one of the primary reasons that
in performance based energy savings projects the ESCO is responsible for
equipment performance factors and the owner accepts responsibility for
usage issues.

Since the implementation of USAG- 1 in November of 1999 and the
completion of USAG--4 in November 2001, two large impact mission changes
have occurred at Ft. Detrick. Army staff reports that substantial impact
of site operations due to the September 11 terrorist attacks and the
Anthrax mail scare.

Army personnel surveyed facility managers at Ft. Detrick to determine
the various site and operational changes that have occurred at the
buildings involved in these two delivery orders since construction was
completed. Table 24 and Table 25 summarize the information we received
from personnel at Ft. Detrick regarding USAG-1, which does not seem to
adequately reflect the mission changes that were reported to have
occurred.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111295 .anchor}Table 24: Summary of Operational
Changes for USAG-1 Buildings Since November 1999

  ------------------ ----------- ------------- ----------- -------------- ------------- --------------- ---------------
  **Building**       **Group**   **Contact**   **Mission   **Change in \# **Change in   **New or        **Changes in
                                               or Function occupants      hours of      removed         equipment
                                               Change?**   (Strength)**   occupancy**   equipment       operations
                                                                                        (lighting,      (such as
                                                                                        HVAC, plug      set-points,
                                                                                        loads)**        operating
                                                                                                        strategies)**

  199                USAG1       J. Mahon      no change   no change      no change     2 additional    no change
                                                                                        7.5 ton units   

  201                USAG1       D. Galloway   no change   no change      no change     no change       no change

  263                USAG1       J. Mahon      no change   no change      no change     no change       no change

  374                USAG1       D. Emerson    no change   no change      no change     yes \*          Unknown

  504                USAG1       G. Wilson                                                              

  505                USAG1       G. Wilson                                                              

  521                USAG1       P. Goodrich   yes \*\*    yes \*\*\*     no change     yes \*\*\*\*    no change

  660                USAG1       L. Cole       no change   no change      no change     no change       no change

  718                USAG1       H. Cook                                                                

  722                USAG1       G. Wilson                                                              

  810                USAG1       M. Quinn      no change   no change      no change     no changes that 
                                                                                        I know of       

  839                USAG1       B. Krull                                                               

  1301               USAG1       D. Emerson    no change   approx 10+     No            Lab             Unknown
                                                                                        renovations -   
                                                                                        Phase I-IV      

  *1302*             USAG1       D. Emerson    no change   no change      no change     no change       no change

  1304               USAG1       D. Emerson    no change   no change      no change     no change       no change

  1309               USAG1       D. Emerson    no change   no change      no change     no change       no change

  1315               USAG1       D. Emerson    no change   no change      no change     no change       no change

  1422               USAG1       P. Schaffert  no change   77             no change     Bldg under      no change
                                                                                        renovation      

  1430               USAG1       L. Cole       no change   no change      no change     no change       no change

  \* Added cold room                                                                                    
  on back of                                                                                            
  greenhouse range,                                                                                     
  women\'s locker                                                                                       
  room renovation,                                                                                      
  ETO exhaust move                                                                                      

  \*\* Our                                                                                              
  mission/function                                                                                      
  has expanded,                                                                                         
  because of more                                                                                       
  tenants arriving                                                                                      
  on post.  Also,                                                                                       
  now have General                                                                                      
  Court-Martial                                                                                         
  Convening                                                                                             
  Authority.                                                                                            

  \*\*\* Added more                                                                                     
  attorneys,                                                                                            
  interns, and                                                                                          
  contractors.                                                                                          

  \*\*\*\* Added a                                                                                      
  courtroom, judge's                                                                                    
  chamber,                                                                                              
  deliberation room                                                                                     
  and bathroom.                                                                                         
  Divided a                                                                                             
  conference room in                                                                                    
  to 3 offices and a                                                                                    
  large room into 2                                                                                     
  offices.                                                                                              
  ------------------ ----------- ------------- ----------- -------------- ------------- --------------- ---------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111296 .anchor}Table 25: Summary of Operational
Changes for USAG-4 Buildings Since July 2001

  -------------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ---------------
  **Building**   **Group**   **Contact**      **Mission   **Change in \# **Change in   **New or       **Changes in
                                              or Function occupants      hours of      removed        equipment
                                              Change?**   (Strength)**   occupancy**   equipment      operations
                                                                                       (lighting,     (such as
                                                                                       HVAC, plug     set-points,
                                                                                       loads)**       operating
                                                                                                      strategies)**

  100            USAG4       B. Schmidt       no change   no change      no change     no change      no change

  121            USAG4       C. Hicks         MEO         YES(3          no change     YES(new 2-ton  YES
                                                          additional                   A/C unit)      
                                                          persons)                                    

  243            USAG4       D. Galloway      no change   no change      no change     no change      no change

  262            USAG4       D. Galloway      no change   no change      no change     no change      no change

  326            USAG4       D. Emerson       no change   no change      no change     no change      no change

  621            USAG4       C. Beach         yes \*      17             no change     yes \*\*       yes \*\*\*

  623            USAG4       C. Beach         no change   23             no change     no change      no change

  949            USAG4       D. Strickland    no change   no change      no change     no change      no change

  949A           USAG4       D. Strickland    no change   no change      no change     add 4x4 wall   no change
                                                                                       outlets        

  950            USAG4       PX Gas Station   no change   no change      no change     no change      no change

  1077           USAG4       T. Kuhn          no change   37             0600 - 1700   new AC         no known major
                                                                                       compressor -   change
                                                                                       6/03           

  1431           USAG4       E. Gelwicks                                                               

  1432           USAG4       B. Bell          no change   additional 3   0600:1830     some new       no change
                                                          person                       equipment      

  1435           USAG4       J. Mahony                                                                 

  1500           USAG4       R. Spencer       no change   no change      no change     no change      no change

  1504           USAG4       D. Eskildsen                                                              

  1520           USAG4       D. Twigg         no change   no change      no change     no change      possibly

  1532           USAG4       L. Cole          no change   no change      no change     no change      no change

  *1534*         USAG4       L. Cole          no change   no change      no change     no change      no change

  *1535*         USAG4       L. Cole          no change   no change      no change     no change      no change

  *1536*         USAG4       L. Cole          no change   no change      no change     no change      no change

  *1537*         USAG4       L. Cole          no change   no change      no change     no change      no change

  *1538*         USAG4       L. Cole          no change   no change      no change     no change      no change

  1540           USAG4       1SGT                                                                      
                             VonReichenbach                                                           

                                                                                                      
  -------------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ---------------

\* Installation of new computer room to co-locate/secure JMLFDC Servers

\*\* Contracting for installation of A/C and improved wiring to
accommodate new computer room.

\*\*\* Will need programmable thermostats adjusted to accommodate new
computer room.

### Added Square Footage {#added-square-footage .unnumbered}

Since the baseline utility usage was defined in 1996, substantial new
space has been added to the Garrison. Additions in square footage have a
direct impact on utility consumption, and would be considered in an
Option C utility analysis.

Approximately 236,000 square feet were added to facilities included in
USAG-1 and USAG-4 projects, as shown in Table 26. This is an increase of
38% to the existing square footage of 618,000. An additional 140,000
square feet of space has been added elsewhere at Ft. Detrick, as shown
in Table 27.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111297 .anchor}Table 26: Summary of Building
Additions for Buildings in USAG-1 and USAG-4

  ---------- -------------------------------- ------------ --------------- -------------
  **Fiscal   **Bldg. Number and Type Space**  **Building   **SF Added**    **Project**
  Year**                                      \#**                         

  FY 97      Bldg. 949 - Multi-purpose        949          3,774           USAG4
             Addition to Youth Center                                      

  FY 97      Bldg. 1432 - Construct Admin     1432         2,880           USAG4
             Bldg.                                                         

  FY 97      Bldg. 1504 - Addition to Fire    1504         3,058           USAG4
             Station                                                       

  FY 97      Bldg. 1520 - Bldg. Addition for  1520         2,051           USAG4
             Education Center                                              

  FY 99      Bldg. 839 - Addition to Fitness  839          3,400           USAG1
             Center                                                        

  FY 99      Bldg. 949 - Youth Center Gym     949          2,200           USAG4
             Addition                                                      

  FY 99      Bldg. 1077 - Construct Admin     1077         9,030           USAG4
             Bldg.                                                         

  FY 99      Bldg. 1432 - Admin Bldg.         1432         8,640           USAG4
             Addition                                                      

  FY 99      Bldg. 1435 - Construct Admin     1435         48,690          USAG4
             Bldg.                                                         

  FY 99      Bldg. 1500 - Admin Renovations   1500         500             USAG4

  FY 99      Bldg. 1532 - Construct Community 1532         14,578          USAG4
             Activities Bldg.                                              

  FY 99      Bldg. 1533 - Construct Barracks  1533         24,632          USAG4

  FY 99      Bldg. 1534 - Construct Barracks  1534         24,632          USAG4

  FY 99      Bldg. 1535 - Construct Barracks  1535         24,632          USAG4

  FY 99      Bldg. 1536 - Construct Barracks  1536         24,632          USAG4

  FY 99      Bldg. 1538 - Construct Barracks  1538         24,632          USAG4

  FY 99      Bldg. 1540 - Construct Company   1540         14,390          USAG4
             Ops Bldg.                                                     

                                                           **236,351**     
  ---------- -------------------------------- ------------ --------------- -------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50111298 .anchor}Table 27: Summary of Additional
Square Footage Installed at Ft. Detrick

  ------------ ------------------------------------------ ----------- -------------
  **Fiscal     **Bldg. Number and Type Space**            Building \# **SF Added**
  Year**                                                              

  1999         Building 700                               700         1440

  FY 01        Bldg. 393 - Construct Recycling Facility   393         4,100

  FY 01        Bldg. 953 - Storage Bldg. @ Youth Center   953         412

  FY 01        Bldg. 1090 - Guard House @ Old Farm Gate   1090        128

  FY 01        Bldg. 1102, Phosphorous Removal System @   1102        288
               Sewer Plt.                                             

  FY 01        Bldg. 1418 - MWR Car Wash                  1418        1,067

  FY 01        Bldg. 1507 - Physical Fitness Center       1507        37,985

  FY 01        Bldg. 1658 - Restrooms @ Pond              1658        400

  FY 01        Fac 1659, Grill Pavilion @ Pond            1659        256

  FY 01        Fac. 1663 - Picnic Shelter                 1663        3,200

  FY 01        Bldg. 1779, Storage Bldg. @ Child Care     1779        360
               Center                                                 

  FY 02        Bldg. 1300 -- Admin                        1300        864

  FY 02        Bldg. 1438 - USAMRIID Storage Bldg.        1438        10,000

  FY 97        Bldg. 1420 - Generator Plant at USAMISSA   1420        728

  FY 97        Bldg. 1686 - Storage Addition              1686        940

  FY 98        Bldg. 393 - Medical Waste Incinerator      393         7,500
               Addition                                               

  FY 98        Bldg. 1232 - Skeet Bldg.                   1232        84

  FY 98        Bldg. 1233 - Skeet Bldg.                   1233        84

  FY 98        Bldg. 1234 - Trap Bldg.                    1234        72

  FY 99        Bldg. 119 - Construct Warehouse Bldg.      119         3,200

  FY 99        Bldg. 910 - Additional Racquetball Court   910         1,208

  FY 99        Bldg. 1425 - Admin Addition                1425        4,817

  FY 99        Bldg. 1434 - Construct Health and Dental   1434        25,000
               Clinic                                                 

  FY 99        Bldg. 1689 - Storage Addition              1689        920

  FY 99        Bldg. 1776 - Addition to Child Care Center 1776        2,196

  1995         JMLFDC Trailers                            Modular     2880

  1997         JMLFDC Trailers                            Modular     6441

  1997         JVAP Trailers                              Modular     4888

  1998         JVAP Trailers                              Modular     2160

  2001         USAMMA (IBM Trailer)                       Modular     3072

  2001         TATRC Trailers                             Modular     2160

  2002         AFMESA                                     Modular     5000

  2003         USACEHR trailers                           Modular     6840

  **Total:**                                                          **140,690**
  ------------ ------------------------------------------ ----------- -------------

# Summary of Findings and Recommendations

The primary focus of this review is to evaluate whether or not the
reported savings are actually being accrued for USAG-1 and USAG-4. This
involved evaluating the measurement and verification procedures
prescribed for the projects, and judging the relative strengths and
weaknesses of the approaches used in order to gauge the accuracy of the
reported savings. M&V includes verifying that the baseline conditions
were adequately established and that the new equipment and systems are
working properly and have the *potential to perform*. A secondary focus
of this review is to verify that the contractor is adhering to
contractual requirements, and is fulfilling all ongoing obligations.

### Findings {#findings-1 .unnumbered}

-   The USAG--1 and USAG-- 4 projects are consistent with typical
    performance contracts. Although these projects do not use "best
    practice" strategies in every case, the energy savings predicted and
    reported are reasonable. Savings were determined using standard
    engineering analysis methods and procedures. M&V strategies
    generally correspond with common practices and comply with the FEMP
    M&V Guidelines.

-   Allocation of project risks is accomplished by M&V strategy used,
    which is determined through negotiations prior to contract award.
    Risk allocation in these projects is appropriate. The Army is
    responsible for fluctuations that arise from changing usage
    patterns, and the ESCO is responsible for their installed
    equipment's *potential to perform*.

-   The measurement and verification strategies used in these projects
    utilize a retrofit isolation approach, rather than utility bill
    analysis. Utility bill analysis has a limited range of applications
    in the M&V of energy savings.

-   Ten percent of the cost savings claimed from USAG-1 and USAG-4
    projects are based on operations and maintenance savings. These
    savings were negotiated prior to contract award, and do not have any
    verification activities associated with them.

-   Utility bill analysis has limited value without conducting a
    thorough analysis that requires careful tracking of historical
    information. Examination of overall base energy use indicates the
    savings are a small portion of the total energy use and that savings
    may be difficult or impossible to detect through utility bill
    analysis. The application of a utility data M&V strategy for some of
    the sub-metered buildings would be appropriate, but would require
    substantial analysis.

-   Many known changes have occurred at Ft. Detrick since the
    implementation of these energy savings projects which have a direct
    affect on overall energy consumption as well as the savings
    generated by the energy conservation measures. Weather conditions,
    base strength, operating hours, and other factors are constantly
    changing. Several substantial mission changes at Ft. Detrick were
    reported to occur after implementation of these projects, including
    activities related to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the
    anthrax mail incidents. Although we know that these events resulted
    in substantial operational changes, they were not adequately
    reported when various building managers were interviewed. Overall,
    the information compiled by site staff indicated increases in
    occupied space as well as run hours.

-   Our ability to verify specific project savings is hampered by
    incomplete project documentation. Although Cogenex has provided
    details in the original proposals as well as in annual savings
    reports, it is difficult to follow their procedures from assumptions
    or measurements to savings values. Some of the missing
    documentation, such as post-installation reports, were required but
    not produced, while other items, such as commissioning reports, were
    not required.

-   Turnover in both contractor and site staff has left a hole in the
    historic memory of the project. Successful projects require
    substantial due diligence by site personnel to verify the baseline
    conditions were properly defined, that the project components were
    properly installed, and commissioned. Although these activities may
    have been conducted, they are apparently not documented.

-   Weather data used in the engineering analyses to predict savings
    were from a more costal site than Ft. Detrick. The decision to use
    this weather site was agreed to during project development, and is a
    provision in the delivery orders. The impact of using other weather
    data on the savings calculations is an interesting question, but
    holds little value in the context of the existing contractual
    agreements.

-   In general, Cogenex is taking the appropriate steps to verify annual
    savings and that the savings reported are realistic.

### Recommendations {#recommendations-7 .unnumbered}

-   Operations and maintenance (O&M) of the installed measures is the
    responsibility of Ft. Detrick. Steps should be taken to ensure that
    proper O&M procedures are being conducted for all equipment expected
    to provide energy savings.

-   In order to improve confidence in the energy savings reported by
    Cogenex, Army should assign a staff member at Ft. Detrick to keep
    track of required periodic M&V activities, and work directly with
    the contractor to witness and document that these activities are
    being properly conducted and reported.

-   Do not expect to see the savings in the utility data. If a utility
    bill monitoring approach is desired by Ft. Detrick, then a
    specialized assessment should be conducted, using software such as
    Metrix, to evaluate the changes in baseline loads and energy use
    resulting from scheduling, weather, occupancy, building additions or
    modifications, mission changes, internal equipment changes and so
    on.

-   Cogenex should modify the procedure for applying metered operating
    hours. Either apply usage groups in a manner consistent with method
    LE-B-01 as outlined in Chapter 13 of the FEMP M&V guidelines or use
    the operating hours projected during project development for
    duration of contract.

-   Get as-built listing of lighting equipment from Cogenex which shows
    room numbers (not just building #s) and new lighting equipment
    specifications, and make this information available to those
    responsible for the maintenance of lighting equipment.

-   The new chiller plant and cooling tower in Building 374 need to be
    commissioned to ensure proper operation and realize savings. The
    Army should ensure the performance of the new chiller is verified as
    part of the commissioning process.

-   The Army should continue to work with Cogenex to ensure the proper
    operation & maintenance of the installed equipment for the duration
    of the contracts.

###  {#section .unnumbered}

[^1]: Army, National Cancer Institute (NCI), and Science Applications
    International Corporation (SAIC)

[^2]: Army, National Cancer Institute (NCI), and Science Applications
    International Corporation (SAIC)

[^3]: *International Performance Measurement & Verification Protocol*
    available through [www.ipmvp.org](http://www.ipmvp.org/)

[^4]: *M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Federal Energy
    Management Projects version 2.2* are available through
    <http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/financing/espc/measguide.html>

[^5]: *ASHRAE Guideline 14-2002 Measurement of Energy & Demand Savings*
    available through [www.ashrae.org](http://www.ashrae.org/)

[^6]: From *M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Federal
    Energy Management Projects* version 2.2

[^7]: For four-foot fixtures (the most common type), both F34 lamps and
    F40 lamps may be present. Using F34s instead of F40s does reduce
    power consumption (and lighting levels) and may cause overestimation
    of the baseline if only F40 lamps are assumed to be present.
    Similarly, magnetic and energy efficient magnetic ballasts may both
    be present, although the energy efficient magnetic ballasts consume
    much less energy.

[^8]: Metrix Software is sold for about \$3000 through Optimum Energy
    <http://www.optimumenergy.com/software/metrix.html>

    or through Abraxas Energy
    <http://www.abraxasenergy.com/products.php>

[^9]: Degree-day calculations were provided by Larry Potter at Ft.
    Detrick using weather data recorded at the base.