Higher Education Technical Assistance Program August 1, 2013 · DOE’s Technical Assistance Program •Strategic Energy Planning • Program & Policy Design and Implementation •Financing

1 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov

States & Energy Efficiency in Higher Education

August 1, 2013

DOE’s State and Local Technical Assistance Program

2

DOE’s Technical Assistance Program

• Strategic Energy Planning

• Program & Policy Design and Implementation

• Financing Strategies

• Data Management and EM&V

• EE & RE Technologies

Priority Areas

• General Education (e.g., fact sheets, 101s)

• Case Studies

• Tools for Decision-Making

• Protocols (e.g., how-to guides, model documents)

Resources

• Webinars • Conferences & in-person trainings

• Better Buildings Project Teams

Peer Exchange &

Trainings • Level of effort will vary

• In-depth efforts will be focused on:

• High impact efforts

• Opportunities for replicability

• Filling gaps in the technical assistance marketplace

One-on-One

3

• Trainings, peer exchange, and partnering with DOE

Upcoming TAP Webinars: States & Emerging Technologies, Thursday, August 15th Energy Efficiency in Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities, September 11th www.eere.energy.gov/wip/solutioncenter/wip_events.html

Better Buildings Challenge and Alliance, including States & Universities www.eere.energy.gov/challenge/home, www.eere.energy.gov/alliance/node/9

• Resources

UC Irvine Implementation Model www.eere.energy.gov/challenge/implementation-model/university-of-california-irvine

Building Technologies Office’s Commercial Buildings page www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/index.html

National Renewable Energy Lab’s Climate Neutral Research Campuses www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/climate_neutral/

DOE & EPA’s Labs for the 21st Century www.labs21century.gov/

Federal Energy Management Program’s Best Practices Guide for Energy Efficient Data Center Design www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/eedatacenterbestpractices.pdf

Improved Solution Center resource portals for policies/programs and technology deployment live later this year

Priority Area: Program Design & EE & RE Technologies

4

• Visit the Solution Center www.eere.energy.gov/wip/solutioncenter/

• Submit an application for assistance www.eere.energy.gov/wip/solutioncenter/technical_assistance.html

• Sign up for TAP Alerts, the TAP mailing list, for updates on our latest and greatest [email protected]

How to Tap into These and Other TAP Offerings

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Energy Efficiency in Data Centers and Labs

Energy Efficiency in Higher Education Caleb Rockenbaugh PE, LEED-AP August 1, 2013

6

Learning Objectives

• Introduction to the Climate Neutral Research Campuses web resource

• Overview of high energy uses in Higher Education – Data Centers and Labs

• Introduction to Energy Efficiency in Data Centers and Labs

Energy Efficiency in Higher Education

7

http://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/climate_neutral/

8

9

10

Labs are Energy Hogs!

• 3 to 8 times as energy intensive as office buildings

Total Site Energy Use Intensity BTU/sf-yr for various laboratories in the Labs21 Benchmarking Database

Typical

Office Building

11

• Core information resources

– Design Guide

– Case Studies

– Energy Benchmarking

– Best Practice Guides

– Technical Bulletins

• Design process tools

– Env. Performance Criteria

– Labs21 Process Manual

Labs21 Toolkit http://www.labs21century.gov/

12

Six Lab EE BIG HITS

1. Scrutinize the air changes: Optimize ventilation rates to the lowest safe level occupied and unoccupied

2. Tame the hoods: Compare exhaust device options

3. Get real with loads: Right-size HVAC systems

4. Just say no to re-heat: Minimize simultaneous heating and cooling

5. Drop the pressure drop: Use lower pressure-drop HVAC designs

6. Use energy recovery in most climates

13

Data Center Energy

Data centers are energy intensive facilities.

• 10-100x more energy intensive than an office

• Server racks well in excess of 30 kW

• Surging demand for data storage

• EPA estimate: 3% of U.S. electricity

• Power and cooling constraints in existing facilities.

Photo by Steve Hammond, NREL

14

BPG Table of Contents

• Summary

• Background

• Information Technology Systems

• Environmental Conditions

• Air Management

• Cooling Systems

• Electrical Systems

• Other Opportunities for Energy Efficient Design

• Data Center Metrics & Benchmarking

15

CPUs ~65C

(149F)

GPUs ~75C

(167F) Memory

~85C (185F)

CPU, GPU & Memory, represent ~75-90% of heat load …

Safe Temperature Limits

Photo by Steve Hammond, NREL

16

Data center equipment’s environmental conditions should fall within the ranges established by ASHRAE as published in the Thermal Guidelines.

Environmental Conditions

ASHRAE Reference: ASHRAE (2008), (2011)

(@ Equipment Intake) Recommended Allowable

Temperature Data Centers ASHRAE

65 – 80F

59 – 90F (A1)

41 – 113F (A4)

Humidity (RH)

Data Centers ASHRAE

42F DP –

60% or 59oF DP

20% –

80% & 63F DP

Environmental Specifications (F)

17

Psychrometric Bin Analysis

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018

0.02

0.022

0.024

0.026

0.028

0.03

0.032

0.034

0.036

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Hum

idity

Ratio (

lb W

ate

r/lb

Dry

Air)

Dry-Bulb Temperature (ºF)

Boulder, Colorado TMY3 Weather Data

TMY3 Weather Data

Class 1 Recommended Range

Class 1 Allowable Range

60ºF

50ºF

40ºF

Rela

tive H

um

idity

80% 60% 40% 20%

100%

70ºF

60ºF

50ºF

40ºF

Rela

tive H

um

idity

80% 60% 40% 20%

100%

80ºF

Design Conditions (0.4%): 91.2 db, 60.6 wb

18

Estimated Savings

Baseline

System DX Cooling with no economizer

Load 1 ton of cooling, constant year-round

Efficiency (COP) 3

Total Energy (kWh/yr) 10,270

RECOMMENDED RANGE ALLOWABLE RANGE

Results Hours Energy (kWh) Hours Energy (kWh)

Zone1: DX Cooling Only 25 8 2 1

Zone2: Multistage Indirect Evap. + DX (H80) 26 16 4 3

Zone3: Multistage Indirect Evap. Only 3 1 0 0

Zone4: Evap. Cooler Only 867 97 510 57

Zone5: Evap. Cooler + Economizer 6055 417 1656 99

Zone6: Economizer Only 994 0 4079 0

Zone7: 100% Outside Air 790 0 2509 0

Total 8,760 538 8,760 160

Estimated % Savings - 95% - 98%

19

Energy Savings Potential: Economizer Cooling

Energy savings potential for recommended envelope, Stage 1: Economizer Cooling.12

(Source: Billy Roberts, NREL)

20

Energy Savings Potential: Economizer + Direct Evaporative Cooling

Energy savings potential for recommended envelope, Stage 2: Economizer + Direct Evap. Cooling.12

(Source: Billy Roberts, NREL)

21

1. Reduce the IT load - Virtualization & Consolidation (up to 80% reduction).

2. Implement contained hot aisle and cold aisle layout. ̶ Curtains, equipment configuration, blank panels, cable entrance/exit ports,

3. Install economizer (air or water) and evaporative cooling (direct or indirect).

4. Raise discharge air temperature. Install VFD’s on all computer room air conditioning (CRAC) fans (if used) and network the controls.

5. Reuse data center waste heat if possible.

6. Raise the chilled water (if used) set-point. ̶ Increasing chiller water temperature by 1⁰ F reduces chiller energy use by 1.4%

7. Install high efficiency equipment including UPS, power supplies, etc.

8. Move chilled water as close to server as possible (direct liquid cooling).

9. Consider centralized high efficiency water cooled chiller plant ̶ Air-cooled = 2.9 COP, water-cooled = 7.8 COP.

Data Center Energy Conservation Measures

22

Caleb Rockenbaugh 303.275.3238

[email protected]

RSF II 21 kBtu/ft2 $246/ft2 Construction Cost

QUESTIONS?

AUGUST 1, 2013

California’s Higher Education

Statewide Energy Efficiency Partnerships

University of California / California State University / Investor Owned Utility (UC/CSU/IOU) Partnership

California Community College / Investor Owned Utility (CCC/IOU) Partnership

24

Introduction

Small business based in San Francisco, satellite office in LA

30 year history in energy consulting

Energy Program Development and Management

Energy Engineering

Efficiency, Renewables and Distributed Generation

Clients primarily Utilities, Universities, Colleges, Schools, State & Local Governments

Program Administration and Management Consultant for Statewide Higher Ed Partnerships

Andrew D. Meiman, PE

Principal

As a Principal with Newcomb | Anderson |

McCormick (NAM), Andrew is responsible for

developing and managing large-scale, multi-

stakeholder energy efficiency programs. Since

2006, he has been the Statewide Program

Manager for the UC/CSU/IOU Energy

Efficiency Partnership. He holds an MBA from

the Darden Graduate School of Business

Administration at the University of Virginia, and

a BS in Aerospace Engineering from the

University of Colorado at Boulder. He is a

registered Professional Engineer (Mechanical)

in California.

25

Agenda

1. Partnership History

2. Program Description and Elements

3. Program Management

4. Typical Projects

5. Project Funding

6. Issues and Challenges

7. Q&A

26

California Public Utilities Commission $1.9B Energy Efficiency Portfolio

$589M , 62% $190M , 20%

$95M , 10%

$38M , 4% $38M , 4%

2013-14 Average Annual Budget $950M/yr

IOU Delivered Programs

Third Party Programs

State & Local Gov't Partnerships

Regional Energy Networks

Evaluation

IOU

Portfolio

27

Partnership Background

2004-05 UC/CSU/IOU Partnership

2006-08 & 2009 Bridge Statewide Partnerships

CCC/IOU Partnership

UC/CSU/IOU Partnership

CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(CDCR)/IOU Partnership

State of California/IOU Partnership

2010-12 & 2013-14

28

Partner Overview: UC and CSU

10 UC Campuses, 5 UC Medical Schools

23 CSU Campuses

UC and CSU 2011Combined

210 million gross square feet

$310 million annual energy spend

1.9 Terawatt hours (TWh)/year

190 million Therms/year

Energy spend approximately

2/3 UC and 1/3 CSU

29

Partner Overview: CA Community Colleges

72 Districts encompassing 112

campuses, 72 approved off-campus

centers and 23 separately reported

District offices

2.6 million students annually - over

70% of the state’s public college

students

Approximately 80% in IOU service

territories

Annual Energy Usage

706 million kWh

26 million therms

$162 million annual energy costs

$6.9 billion in total annual operating

costs

30

Summary Accomplishment – kW Reduction

Key:

UC/CSU

CCC

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Cumulative kW Savings

Year

31

Summary Accomplishment – kWh Savings

Key:

UC/CSU

CCC

-

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

350,000,000

400,000,000

450,000,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Cumulative Annual kWh Savings

Year

32

Summary Accomplishment – Therm Savings

Key:

UC/CSU

CCC

-

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Cumulative Annual Therm Savings

Year

33

Program Description and Elements

The Higher Education Energy Efficiency Partnerships are designed to

Identify energy savings opportunities

Provide funding and support for energy efficiency projects

Provide a framework and mechanism for the implementation of a comprehensive

sustainability policy

Provide outreach and education to partners

The Partnerships comprise four key elements

Retrofit projects

Monitoring-Based / Retro-Commissioning (MBCx / RCx) projects

New Construction projects (NC)

Training and Education

34

UC/CSU/IOU Outlook

2013-14 Goals and Incentive Budgets

UC Statewide Energy Partnership Program (SEPP)

extension

CSU Special Repairs Fund

kW kWh Therms Funding

PG&E 7,086 31,193,172 2,231,520 13,810,942$

SCE 3,416 15,295,509 - 6,042,730$

SCG - - 2,102,979 2,102,979$

SDG&E 700 25,250,000 774,000 6,744,000$

Total 11,202 71,738,681 5,108,499 28,700,651$

2013-14 Program Goals

35

CCC/IOU Outlook

2013-14 Goals and Incentive Budgets

Priorities for 2013-14 100% participation from all Districts and campuses

Proposition 39

Focus on direct, deep and ongoing energy savings activities

Support Board of Governor’s Sustainability Initiatives

Provide customized offerings that best meet needs of campuses

kW kWh Therms Funding

PG&E 1,040 4,577,950 327,502 2,026,912$

SCE 3,110 11,197,954 - 2,679,729$

SCG - - 432,900 458,874$

SDG&E 500 3,085,500 50,000 772,007$

Total 4,650 18,861,404 810,402 5,937,522$

2013-14 Program Goals

36

Common Elements Across Partnerships

Management Structure

Project Types

Incentive Rates

Core Processes

37

Consistent Management Model

Executive Teams provide strategy and policy guidance

Integrated Management Teams

Representatives from all IOUs and Partner organizations

Manage day-to-day issues

Approve projects and monitor progress

Training and Education, Outreach and Marketing Teams

Consistency in process where possible

Leverage other statewide teams and policies (e.g., Savings by Design)

Use core Energy Efficiency (EE) services within utility (e.g., project

technical review resources)

38

Organization Role Responsibilities

Investor Owned

Utilities

Utility Program Manager Overall program administrator

Integrate Partnership into overall energy efficiency

initiatives and ongoing programs

Provide incentive funding

Interface with the California Public Utilities

Commission (CPUC)

Provide strategic and policy direction

Due Diligence Reviewer Provide pre-installation savings estimates

Verify post-installation actual savings

Account Representative Provide outreach to campuses with program

information

Regularly touch base on project status

Maintain customer relationships

IOUs Provide Overall Administration

39

Organization Role Responsibilities

Office of President,

Chancellor’s Office

Program Manager

Project Review, Resource Allocation

Integrate with Sustainability Policy

Participate on Partnership teams

Financing Coordinate overall program and project financing

Provide project construction financing

Manage ongoing program financing portfolio

Centralization Through System Offices

40

Campuses Develop and Deliver Projects

Organization Role Responsibilities

Campus,

Medical Center, or

other University

Facilities

Energy Manager,

Facilities Manager

Develop Projects

Coordinate with Project Managers (PMs), or be PM

Integrate with Campus Sustainability Policy

Project Manager Implement projects (can be from Capital Projects or

Facilities)

Procure necessary equipment and services

Deliver projects on time and budget

Coordinate with Office of President, Chancellor’s

Office

Engineering Consultant Coordinate with Project Manager

Provide engineering assistance, analysis, and/or

reports

Implementer Coordinate with Project Manager

Deliver Projects

41

Statewide Program Manager Represents All

Partners

Organization Role Responsibilities

Newcomb Anderson

McCormick (NAM)

Program

Administration and

Management (PAM)

Consultant

Provide overall program management and administration

Support project and application development and

tracking, train campuses on P6 use

Coordinate Partnership teams and activities among all

four IOUs and Partners

Coordinate outreach, education and training programs

Report to IOUs, CPUC, and Partnership Teams

Interface to IOUs, maximize statewide consistency within

and between statewide partnerships

Assist IOUs with planning, goal setting and forecasting

42

Program Incentives – UC/CSU and CCC

Measure Incentive Rate Incentive Cap

Lighting retrofits $0.24/kWh 50% of total measure cost

All other retrofit types, RCx, MBCx $0.24/kWh 80% of total measure cost

All Gas Measures $1.00/therm 80% of total measure cost

New Construction – Whole Building Approach $0.10/kWh above core

$1/therm

$100/kW

Design Team Incentive =

1/3 of Owner incentive

75% of incremental measure

cost

Design Team Incentive

capped at $50,000

New Construction – Systems Approach

• Lighting

• HVAC and Refrigeration

• Others

• All

$0.15/kWh

$0.25/kWh, $1.00/therm

$0.19/kWh, $1.00/therm

$100/kW

75% of incremental measure

cost

43

Program Web Sites and Project Tracking Tools

UC/CSU

Primavera P6 web for project tracking

www.uccsuiouee.org

CCC

Custom web-based database & tracking

tool

www.cccutilitypartnership.com

44

http://greenbuildings.berkeley.edu/

best_practices.htm

Campus Best Practices - Awards and Case Studies

45

Typical Projects at Colleges and Universities

Building HVAC and Central Plant Upgrades Central plant expansion

Constant volume to variable volume retrofits

Laboratory fume hood system retrofits

New or upgraded Energy Management Systems (EMS)

New boilers, chillers, motors, steam traps

Demand control ventilation in gyms, lecture halls

Swimming Pool Systems Pool covers

Condensing pool boilers

Pool pump Variable Frequency Drives

Monitoring-Based / Retro-Commissioning (MBCx / RCx)

Food Service Technology Projects

46

Typical Projects at Colleges and Universities

Lighting Retrofits

New generation 25 watt T8 lamps

T5 or T8 high bay lighting in gyms

LED retrofits

Bi-level stairwell and corridor lighting

Occupancy sensors

Daylighting control

Reducing Plug Loads

Vending machine controllers

Network PC power management

47

Ways Projects are Funded

On-Bill Financing

UC Office of the President (UCOP) Cap. Improvement Bonds

Energy $Mart

American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Loans

CA Energy Commission (CEC) Loan Program

Performance contracting – Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) Customize approach to meet campus needs

Best source of information is from other CCC Districts

Local and State Bonds

Scheduled Maintenance Budget and Block Grant Funding

Many projects pay for themselves in 3 - 5 years through avoided costs

48

UC Example: Systemwide Strategic Energy Plan

Formed Basis for Funding Authorization

UC Strategic Energy Plan

Published in February 2009

Identified $950 million of efficiency projects

Campuses selected approximately $250 million of those projects to implement in 2009-12 program cycle

UC Regents authorized $178 million in external financing and $8 million from campus/auxiliary sources, and the balance from Partnership incentives

Campuses selected an additional $100 million of projects for 2013-14

In January 2013, UC Regents authorized an additional $74 million in external financing and $8 million from campus/auxiliary sources, again with balance from Partnership incentives

49

CCC/IOU - Proposition 39

CCC’s will receive $40M for FY 2013-14

Distributed on an FTES basis to all CCC Districts

Energy efficiency and renewable projects

$150 million of new projects identified so far

Implementation will parallel CCC/IOU

Partnership process to leverage utility

incentives

Money to be distributed later this year

after CEC approval of program Guidance

Adopted by voters Nov. 2012 to close corporate tax loopholes

$550 million annually to K-12 and CCC’s for Energy Projects

50

Current Issues and Challenges - UC/CSU/IOU

Comprehensive, long-payback projects

Certainty of annual savings accomplishment due to schedule

slippage

Availability of CSU funding sources

Communicating successes and leveraging best practices

Mismatch between CPUC and University planning cycles

51

Current Issues and Challenges - CCC/IOU

“Confederation” of 72 Districts and 112 Campuses independently

controlled by locally elected Boards. Chancellor’s Office can influence

and provide incentives

Energy use responsibilities usually “split” – Budget Officers, Facilities

Directors, M&O Directors – “Energy Managers” are almost non-existent

Energy Efficiency usually a second priority – limited expertise and

resources

In many cases, construction bond programs nearing completion

Lack of a state bond

Estimated $35.8 Billion needed over next 10 years to meet enrollment &

modernization needs

Turnover of campus staff

Addressing these challenges requires extensive Outreach and flexible

offerings to meet wide variety of CCC needs

52

Some Keys to Success

Identify and document program potential with actual

projects

Secure the funding at program level if possible – make the

economic case and remove the barriers

Implement a workable program management structure

Fit into broader sustainability framework

Provide the tools and make results visible

One size does not fit all, but there are opportunities in

scale – take advantage of them!

53

Contact Information

Andrew D. Meiman, PE

Principal

Newcomb | Anderson | McCormick

415-896-0300

[email protected]

Utility Savings Initiative

North Carolina’s Public Building’s Energy

Efficiency Program

Len Hoey

Renee Hutcheson

Utility Savings Initiative (Existing Buildings)

•Started in 2002-03

•Requires 30% reduction in Btu /sq. ft./ yr by 2015

•DOE Better Buildings Challenge

•Primary funding source - performance contracts

•Primary keys to success – site visits & training

•UNC Energy Leadership Challenge

Energy Summit

•Results:

27% Decrease in EUI

47% Increase in cost

$553 million in avoided costs

Utility Savings Initiative (New Buildings)

•Requires 30% better than ASHRAE 90.1-2004

•On par with current energy code + commissioning

•HiPerB (High Performance Buildings)

Participants

Baselines

Modeling

M&V

Utility Savings Initiative Contact Information

North Carolina Energy Office:

[email protected]

919-733-1891

[email protected]

919-715-1158