Results of Minnesota’s Public Buildings Enhanced Energy Efficiency Program (PBEEEP) ACEEE Summer Study August 16, 2012 Christopher Plum Mark Hancock Christie Traczyk Center for Energy and Environment 212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560 Minneapolis, MN 55401
Lessons learned from CEE’s public building recommissioning program PBEEEP. Tasked with improving the energy performance of public buildings, PBEEEP aimed to transform Minnesota’s existing building commissioning market from an audit to an energy investigation. Program staff screened over nine hundred buildings to identify buildings where an energy investigation would be cost effective, then calculated site-specific energy savings to determine the paybacks of recommended energy efficiency measures. This process identified lower average savings for existing building commissioning than other studies, which is of note for policy makers and practitioners. All sites achieved energy savings, many while the study was in progress.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Results of Minnesota’s Public Buildings Enhanced Energy Efficiency Program (PBEEEP)
ACEEE Summer StudyAugust 16, 2012
Christopher PlumMark HancockChristie TraczykCenter for Energy and Environment212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560Minneapolis, MN 55401
Page 2
Engagement → Savings
Existing Building Commissioning (EBCx)
is cost effective in a large population of buildings
Projects benefit from quality assurance
Benchmark performance was not predictive of savings potential
Highlights
Page 3
Save energy in state buildings Support state’s 1.5% annual reduction goal
Standardize Existing Building Commissioning (EBCx)
Determine savings potential of EBCx in large buildings
Funding from State of Minnesota Department of Administration with additional funds from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Program Goals
Page 4
There are 1,276 buildings at 97 potential sites with 39.5 million sq ft
75% participated in PBEEEP
Reminder were already engaged in other programs
Site Selection and Recruitment
Page 5
The value proposition: Free study if you implement all measures
with a 3 year payback Original design used benchmark, utility
bills and application form to select sites Would have produced only about 10 sites
Site visits used to determine energy savings potential and get accurate information for investigation phase
The Screening Process
Page 6
CEE conducted the screening Saved time and money Standardized assessment Gave engineers good background on sites Created a relationship with the facility
Cost of $.01 per sq ft 2 people on-site for 1 day/average
The Screening Process
Page 7
HVAC attributes Pump and motor sizes
Building automation system Building area >100,000 sq ft at site Observations Hours of operation Whole building (site) energy use
EUI > 110 kbtu/ft2 and/or value relative to peers
The Screening Process: Selection Criteria
Page 8
Project Geographic
Distribution
Page 9
Trending and engineering calculations to create a financial grade report
Average investigation cost $62,000 370,000 sq ft was the average area 13% quality assurance cost 4% administrative cost
CEE provided assistance as needed Quality assurance reviews Training and calculation assistance
The Investigation Process
Page 10
Results: Energy Savings
Site Type
Area Investi-gated
# # of Bldgs
Building Area
Total Energy Savings
Median Low High
State University
60% 5 87 6,268,865 9.6% 2.1% 24%
Community College 50% 15 176 4,483,939 4.7% 0.2% 9.9%
State Prison 73% 7 100 3,195,200 5.7% 2.2% 15.3%Office Building 43% 6 6 1,525,822 5.8% 1.0% 15.2%