Metering - FEMP’s Perspective Presentation to the Interagency Energy Management Task Force by Ab Ream, FEMP O&M Pr

1. 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

2. Ask not what a meter costs. Asks what it costs not to meter.

3. If Charlie could talk, he’d say: 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.

4. Effects of metering:

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. Costs should include: • meter cost, • correct installation, • data acquisition, • communication, • software licensing, • wiring • in-house or contracted analysis.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. Thank you! Questions? Comments? Suggestions?