# Presentation: 148409

## M&V Case Study

**	****Nexant, Inc.****	****	****November 2001**

- following the FEMP SuperESPC Process

## Hypothetical VAMC

- Veteran's Administration Medical Center located in Hypothetical, UT
-  A main hospital (276 beds) plus outlying buildings totaling 1,000,000 sf. of facility.

## Project Timeline: Five Stages

_**Investigate**_** **opportunities to save energy & improve infrastructure
_**Develop**_** **preliminary design and savings estimates
_**Refine**_ design and savings to provide acceptable project
_**Implement**_** **project as proposed
_**Perform**_**.** Agency enjoys realized savings

## Stage 1- Investigate

- Agency desires to reduce energy costs and obtain new equipment through SuperESPC contract
- Agency- inexperienced with performance contracting procurement- seeks support from DOE to pursue project

## Current Energy Costs

- Current energy costs are $2,600,000 annually, or $2.60/sf.
- Relative to other facilities, significant room for improvement.

- * Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use,
- Forms EIA-871A through F of the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption
- Survey.

*Stage 1- Investigate*

## Find Opportunities

- Agency is not experienced in energy systems, seeks advice from X-Co
- X-Co is currently maintenance contractor for existing (but antiquated) EMCS
- X-Co is an approved SuperESPC contractor in that region
- Agency seeks to pursue sole-source Delivery Order (DO) to simplify process and take advantage of existing relationship (Contractor-Identified project)

*Stage 1- Investigate*

## Stage 2- Develop Measures

- Agency invites X-Co to find energy-conservation and infrastructure improvement opportunities
- X-Co conducts initial survey of facilities
- X-Co develops Initial Proposal to address energy and infrastructure needs

**Notes:**
These 2 bullets say the same thing – delete one or change both

## X-Co Submits Initial Proposal

- Six measures are proposed
- Lighting
- Energy Management & Control System
- Convert air handlers to variable air volume
- Plate-Frame Heat Exchanger Free Cooling
- Solar Domestic Hot Water
- Run-around loop (heat / cool recovery for OR)
- Electricity costs reduced by 13%; gas costs by 15%; O&M by $25,000.

*Stage 2- Develop Measures*

## Initial Proposal Finances

- $3.8 Million investment
- $374,000 savings
- 10 year SPB ~ 20 year term

*Stage 2- Develop Measures*

## Initial M&V Approach Proposed

- X-Co proposed Option C (Utility bill analysis w/ weather correction) to reduce M&V costs
- Option C can show* total* savings but not *individual* measure savings

*Stage 2- Develop Measures*

## Initial M&V Approach – Discussed with Agency

- Agency wants reassurance that each measure is performing
- Also, agency predicts major facility changes
- buildings being constructed & demolished
- changes in veteran population predicted

*Stage 2- Develop Measures*

## Option C Issues

- Savings must be much greater than variation
- Facility conditions must be stable

*Stage 2- Develop Measures*

**Notes:**
Option C requires savings much greater than normal or predicted utility meter variation. Large changes will complicate using this method.

## Stage 3- Refine Proposal

- Initial Proposal included limited discussion of measurement & verification (M&V) approach, but not complete plan
- Agency likes proposal so far, but feels that many items still need to be addressed
- ESCO and Agency negotiate to select desired measures, discuss M&V approach, and negotiate price

**Notes:**
X-Co presented Initial Proposal to Agency for consideration and discussion

## Refine Proposal (cont’d)

- Agency signs Notice of Intent to Award in order to proceed
- X-Co conducts Detailed Energy Survey (DES) in order to better define baseline and estimate savings
- During DES, more measurements will be taken and additional savings opportunities will be sought
- VA signs Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Interagency Agreement (IAG) with DOE for support services

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## Negotiate Measures and Cost

- SPB=10 years implies Term~20 years, but...
- Agency wants Term <=15 years, which implies SPB<=7.5 years
- Agency willing to sacrifice savings to meet term of 15 years
- Measures dropped or modified to reduce overall SPB to 7.5 years
- Dropped measures reduce total investment and total savings

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## Revised Proposal

- C-Co completes Detailed Energy Study
- X-Co submits revised proposal
- Three measures proposed
- Lighting
- Energy Management & Control System
- Convert air handlers to variable air volume; install variable speed drives
- Electricity costs reduced by 15%, gas by 5%, O&M by $10,000

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## Revised Proposal Finances

- $2.35 Million investment
- $332,000 savings
- 7.5 year SPB = 15 year Term

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## Negotiate M&V

- Option C approach- although relatively inexpensive and reasonably accurate- does not suit agency for three reasons:
- Does not verify performance of individual measures
- Difficult to implement when new buildings are added and old ones removed
- Difficult to implement when occupancy and/or mission are not stable
- Some combination of Options A & B to be explored

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

**Notes:**
I would rethink this

## Revised M&V Plan

- Option C dropped because
- Did not satisfy desire to verify individual measure performance.
- Difficult to implement when buildings are added or demolished
- Savings not substantial enough for analysis
- M&V approach changed to Options A & B to satisfy agency desire to verify each ECM
- Still need to keep M&V costs within reasonable constraints

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## Revised M&V Plan (cont’d)

- Measure parameters that X-Co controls
- Equipment performance (kW, supply temps...)
- Stipulate parameters that Agency controls or no one controls
- Operating hours (Agency controls)
- Weather conditions (No one controls)
- Long-term measurements assure long-term performance (Option B)

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## M&V Costs

- M&V costs are balanced against project risks
- Risk is combination of cost savings and uncertainty in the savings estimate
- Annual M&V costs should be less than 10% of annual savings

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## Lighting M&V

- Lighting accounts for $208k of savings, 60% of project.
- Savings from lighting projects can be reliably estimated with minimal measurements
- Long-term monitoring will likely not improve savings estimates or show significant changes over time
- Need to minimize M&V cost- savings here can cover M&V costs elsewhere
- Option A is appropriate despite large savings because risk is low

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## Lighting: Option A (LE-A-02)

- X-Co suggests using LE-A-02 with measurement of fixture powers
- Fixture powers measured once on a sample of common existing fixture types (2-lamp, 3-lamp...) before and after retrofit
- Stipulate hours based on schedules for each usage group (office, exam, patient room...)
- Stipulate heating & cooling load interactions based on accepted methods
- Long-term activity: inspect to see that T-8s, electronic ballasts still present and functional

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## Lighting M&V Comments

- VA decided against measuring operating hours during DES because of changing occupancy
- Agency accepts usage risk by using estimated operating hours
- Measuring fixture power pre- and post-retrofit provides more reliable savings estimates than using lighting tables
- Interactive heating & cooling effects estimated using the method of Rundquist
- Rundquist, “Calculating Lighting and HVAC Interactions," *ASHRAE Journal* 35, no. 11 (1993).

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

**Notes:**
Were op hours measured? If so, state on other slide

## EMCS and VAV M&V

- Energy Management & Control System interact with Variable Air Volume conversion
- EMCS decreases heating & cooling energy use through better control of supply air temps and outside air volume control
- Fan motor energy savings
- VAV decreases heating & cooling energy use through reduced air volume for heating & re-cooling
- How to allocate savings to each measure?

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

**Notes:**
This does not make sense to me!

## EMCS & VAV Savings

- EMCS and VAV interact
- Allow interactive savings to be claimed on EMCS system
- Avoid double-counting of savings on VAV

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## EMCS M&V

- HVAC energy use fluctuates with weather
- EMCS performance depends on commissioning and sensor calibration
- EMCS savings more difficult to estimate
- EMCS are ‘riskier’ projects- long-term measurements preferable to stipulated values
- Energy savings of $52,000 suggests some monitoring warranted, but M&V costs shouldn’t exceed 10%, or $5200.

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

**Notes:**
EMCS “riskier” because the system can be disables or changed by users

## EMCS O&M Savings

- Existing EMCS system is old and pneumatic, needs frequent repair or adjustment
- O&M savings of $10,000 based on existing budget of 100 man-hours at $50/hr plus $5,000 in parts per year
- These expenses will be eliminated with the replacement of pneumatics with new electronic components
- X-Co will assume responsibility for new system (for an annual fee)

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## EMCS: Option B (GVL-B-01)

- Parameters measured during DES _(Baseline)_
- Fan motor power and schedule
- Air temperatures (outside, mixed, hot & cold deck)
- Air flow quantities and duct static pressure
- Parameters monitored w/EMCS _(Post-Retrofit) _
- Fan motor power
- Air temperatures (outside, mixed, hot & cold deck)
- Duct static pressure
- Speed of VSD

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

**Notes:**
Seasonal measurements????

## EMCS: Option B (cont’d)

- Savings based on reduced:
- heating loads due to temp reset
- cooling loads due to temp reset
- reduced outside air heating and cooling loads
- Savings calculated based on _baseline_ airflow to capture interaction with VAV measure
- EMCS monitors itself- no or minimal additional equipment required, but extra effort will be required to collect and process data and to calibrate sensors

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## VAV M&V

- Converting constant-volume dual-duct system to variable-air-volume dual-duct system
- Variable speed drives (VSDs) used to moderate air flow and maintain constant duct static pressure.
- VAV/VSD project performance is highly variable, makes them a ‘riskier’ project
- Energy savings of $52,000 suggests some monitoring warranted, but M&V costs shouldn’t exceed $5,200/yr*.*

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

**Notes:**
WRONG NUMBERS FOR THIS MEASURE
Again EMCS in use should reduce costs to 10%

## VAV: Option B (GVL-B-01)

- Parameters measured during DES _(Baseline)_
- Fan power (short-interval)
- Fan schedule
- Parameters monitored w/EMCS _(Post-Retrofit) _(every 15 minutes)
- Fan power Fan speed
- Fan schedule

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## VAV: Option B (cont’d)

- Fan energy savings based on difference between baseline power and EMCS-monitored value
- Heating and cooling savings based on airflow changes at _post-retrofit_ operating temperatures to prevent double-counting savings from EMCS measure

*Stage 3- Refine Proposal*

## Stage 4-Implement

- Agency satisfied with technical approach, project cost, finance term, and M&V plan
- Agency signs Delivery Order
- X-Co begins construction
- X-Co commissions each measure
- Agency approves and accepts each measure
- X-Co submits post-installation report and first-year savings estimate for each measure

## Stage 5-Perform

- X-Co collects (remotely) and reviews EMCS data on monthly basis
- X-Co performs annual site activities
- X-Co submits annual M&V reports
- Agency approves M&V reports
- Agency pays ESCO
- Agency enjoys energy cost savings

##  M&V Long Term Activities

- Lighting: Inspect fixtures annually
- verify *potential to perform*: are the efficient lights & ballasts still present?
- EMCS: Calibrate sensors, verify routines, collect data
- VAV: EMCS collects load data
- Annual reporting and true-up
- What are the actual cost savings?
- Was the savings guarantee met?

*Stage 5 - Perform*

## First Year M&V- Lighting 

- Annual inspections confirm presence of proper equipment operation to verify *potential to perform*
- Lighting savings based on stipulated hours and measured powers (Taken once following installation)

*Stage 5 - Perform*

## First Year M&V- EMCS

- Data collected from EMCS on monthly basis, reviewed for completeness, and archived
- Energy use based on schedules, delivered air temperatures, outside air used
- Procedures from M&V plan used to adjust energy adjusted to reflect what would have occurred during typical year.

*Stage 5 - Perform*

## First Year M&V- VAV

- Air flow and fan power data obtained from EMCS
- Fan energy based on measured power
- Heating and cooling loads calculated based on air flow and temperature
- Heating & cooling energy use adjusted for typical year per M&V plan

*Stage 5 - Perform*

## Conclusions

- Project implemented with no capital cost to Agency
- New infrastructure, better lighting quality, better building comfort, reduced energy use, reduced O&M headaches
- Financing fit within Agency constraints (15 years)

## Lessons Learned

- M&V Option A on lighting reduces cost without significantly increasing risk
- M&V Option B on EMCS and VAV assure long-term performance through continuous *measurements*
- X-Co or Agency could use EMCS to further improve facility operation
- Agency got what they wanted once they understood what they wanted