1 / 13

Technical Working Group Status Updates

Technical Working Group Status Updates. Federal ESPC Quality Assurance Steering Committee http://www.dc.lbl.gov/federal-espc/ January 25th, 2004 Washington, DC. Energy Savings Discrepancy Resolution Update. http://www.dc.lbl.gov/mv/savingsverification/esdr.php Acknowledgements

ling
Download Presentation

Technical Working Group Status Updates

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Technical Working Group Status Updates Federal ESPC Quality Assurance Steering Committee http://www.dc.lbl.gov/federal-espc/ January 25th, 2004 Washington, DC

  2. Energy Savings Discrepancy Resolution Update http://www.dc.lbl.gov/mv/savingsverification/esdr.php Acknowledgements Jim Heller, NFESC Dan Magro, NFESC

  3. Revised Scope Two approaches to be pursued in parallel • Macro or Agency-level approach (analysis to be done by LBNL) • Micro or site-specific approach (analysis to be done by ORNL)

  4. Macro Analysis – Basic Concept

  5. Navy Sites Dataset

  6. Basis of Macro Approach • Red line is unadjusted baseline & black line is linear fit of actual data • Analysis is based on actual utility data reported by 26 Navy sites • Limited dataset - analysis will benefit by including data from more sites either from Navy and/or from other agencies • Analysis is using source energy to account for fuel switching projects • Percentages are used to allow combining data for comparisons

  7. Macro Approach – Key Findings • Load creep and utility unit costs significantly increase baseline • Both are increasing year to year • ESPC performance parallel to unadjusted baseline • Load creep happening at both ESPC sites and at sites where no significant EE activity has taken place • Accounts for 25% of the energy cost increase • Need for upward adjustment of the baseline when calculating savings from ESPC projects • Most Navy sites have experienced higher utility costs (approx. 10% per year), which can’t be explained by poor ESPC performance • These two factors largely responsible for discrepancy between the guaranteed energy savings in ESPCs and actual utility bills

  8. Year One Year Two Energy Use 104% 105% Energy Cost 111% 121% Estimated Adjustments to Baseline

  9. Next Steps • Expand the macro analysis by including more sites • Evaluate impact of other variables such as square footage increase, climate, ESCO payments for O&M savings, activity level (tempo) • Prepare a report detailing the macro analysis and key findings and submit it to the Federal ESPC Steering Committee • Publish a FEMP Focus article explaining the reasons for discrepancy between guaranteed savings from ESPCs and visible savings in the utility bills • ORNL to conduct site-specific analysis at five ESPC sites • Target date for completion: Summer 2005

More Related