# Presentation: 113469

## Metering - FEMP’s Perspective 

**Metering - FEMP’s Perspective**** **
- Presentation to the Interagency Energy
- Management Task Force
- by
- Ab Ream, FEMP O&M Program Lead
- October 16, 2003
- 202-586-7230
- Ab.ream@ee.doe.gov

## Asks what it costs not to meter. 

- Ask not what a meter costs.
- Asks what it costs **not** to meter.

##   Metering makes good sense- you can’t manage what you can’t measure. Without a comprehensive and common sense approach, energy and cost saving opportunities will surely be missed, particularly with respect to O&M.

-   Metering makes good sense- you can’t manage what you can’t measure. Without a comprehensive and common sense approach, energy and cost saving opportunities will surely be missed, particularly with respect to O&M.

- If Charlie could talk, he’d say:

## Effects of metering: 

| Action | Observed Savings |
| --- | --- |
| Installation of meters | 0-2% (the “Hawthorne Effect”) |
| Bill allocation only | 2 1⁄2 to 5% (improved awareness) |
| Building tune-up | 5 to 15% (improved awareness,	 and identification of simple O&M improvement) |
| Continuous Commissioning | 15 to 45% (improved	 awareness, ID  simple O&M improvements, project accomplishment, and continuing mgmt. attention) |

## HAWTHORNE EFFECT

- Initial improvement in a process of production caused by the obtrusive observation of that process. The effect was first noticed in the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric. Production increased not as a consequence of actual changes in working conditions introduced by the plant's management but because _**management demonstrated interest**_ in such improvements

## Pending Legislation would require:

**  **Within 180 days – DOE, GSA & DoD, with  representatives from the metering industry, utility industry, energy services industry, energy efficiency industry, national laboratories, universities and Federal facility energy managers, shall establish guidelines.
-   Implementation by FY 2010.

## The Tasks at Hand:

- Develop methods for calculating the cost and benefits of metering.
- Define options for alternative financing of metering.
-   Develop a process for preparing effective federal guidance on metering and the significance of the metering provisions contained in the 2003 comprehensive energy policy bill.

## 9/25/03 Metering Workshop Attendance:

_**9/25/03 Metering Workshop Attendance:**_
- National Laboratories: 			15
- Metering Companies: 				13
- Federal Agencies: 				10
- Department of Energy/Regional Offices:	  6
- Consulting Companies: 		  	  6
- ESCO/Utilities: 			 	  4
- Universities: 				  	  1
- Non-profit: 			1 (Alliance to Save Energy)
_**Conference call 8-9 a.m.**_
- Federal agencies: 10
- FEMP HQ: 1
- National Laboratories: 3

##   Guidance should be REASONABLE.  

-   Consider other program management reasons
-   better project identification,
-   improved operation and maintenance, and
-   continuous commissioning)
-   The effort can be a very cost effective stimulus to the energy program.

##   Federal buildings are very diverse. 

-   We need a FLEXIBLE framework for agencies to develop implementation plans that fit their situation.
-   Implementation plans should consider:
-   Specific constraints
-   Opportunities
-   Energy program management benefits

##   Metering should eventually include all energy sources (and water as economically appropriate) for which data use could result in better resource management.  

-   Sub-metering can include any meters on a multi-building facility beyond the utility revenue meter, or metering of large energy uses in an individual building.

##   The guidance should present a screening process that identifies the potential cost effective use of the data from meters in those buildings that should have a priority for metering.  

-   Guidance should outline a phased effort to start with easily accomplished, cost effective projects, and the use of early experience to refine follow-on efforts.

##   Initial actions:

-   access to existing utility revenue meter pulse data, and
-   metering of obviously significant buildings using rules of thumb (e.g. annual energy use over $X0,000).
-   Follow-on phases would identify and prioritize additional buildings to be metered by a cost/benefit analysis based on assessment of the specific metering costs and related potential savings.

## Possible Screening Criteria

- Energy unit costs,
- Ability to react to demand and charges
- Bill aggregation
- Total annual costs
- Energy intensity per square foot
- Potential energy savings projects
- etc.

##   Costs should include: 

-   meter cost,
-   correct installation,
-   data acquisition,
-   communication,
-   software licensing,
-   wiring
-   in-house or contracted analysis.

##   Guidance should address metering in ESPC’s and UESC’s

-   Technical guidance should be as flexible as practical, such as requiring web based communication protocols rather than specifying a protocol.
-  We should rely on private sector metering expertise.

##   Metering program reporting should be made through a simple change to the existing annual agency energy report.

-   Exceptions for individual buildings should only be granted on the basis of security or economic justification based on the lack of savings to cover the costs.

## Next steps:

-   Prepare Draft Federal Advanced Metering Guidance
-   Distribute the Draft to Identified Stakeholders
-   Consider the Value of Holding an Advanced Metering
-    Workshop in Washington DC under 2 scenarios:
- 	1.  Metering Provision in Comprehensive Energy
- 	Legislation passes
- 	2. Metering Provision in Comprehensive Energy
- 	Legislation does not pass, or is delayed.

## Thank you!

- Comments?
- Suggestions?