Tag Archives: energy

Top Tips and Pitfalls of Implementing Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs)

Now that we have developed an energy audit and/or retro-commissioning report, it is time to implement some of our findings. Which energy conservation measure (ECM) to implement has a lot to do with your facility’s priorities and needs. Typically, the ECM that makes the most sense to implement is the one with the greatest return on investment. When investigating implementation, one must keep in mind that some ECMs may be linked. For example, if an ECM involves upgrading your current BMS system, it may initially seem unappealing because of the long return on investment. However, you may want to consider this ECM if it is tied to another ECM, such as adding a reset control or an air side economizer. Both of these are better served if the BMS is upgraded first.

An example of a pitfall, however, includes upgrading current motors to energy efficient motors. I am always a proponent of saving energy, but this particular investment may not make sense based on your facility’s current utility rate and the run time of your motors. A real-life example of this is in a primary school we recently worked. It was identified that the existing HVAC motors were not premium efficiency motors. However, after investigation and pricing, the payback was calculated to be 180 years! This ECM was therefore not recommended, however, if the motors should fail and require replacement, it was recommended to replace them with premium efficiency motors. The most logical thing to do is to work on your low cost/no cost measures. This includes items such as schedules, thermostat recalibrations, sensor recalibrations, etc.

The key to implementing ECMs is to have a plan and document what your intentions are with your report. Identify which measures you are going to implement going forward, who is going to do the work and how you are going to check that the implementation measures were installed correctly and are working. Once we have a plan, it is crucial to share it with ownership so they understand what you are doing with the report and their recommendations

Whether you are planning to use in-house labor or contract labor, a clear scope of work is imperative to making your implementations successful. Clearly define the level of expectations, desired results and most importantly who plans to be in charge of and manage the implementation program.

Scheduling your work to minimize disruptions to your tenants and end users is also important. Having regular job check-in meetings are vital to keeping the project on track with either formal or tool box sessions.

Over the next couple of months, I will be discussing details regarding a dozen or so commonly found ECMs and the pros and cons of implementing them. Stay tuned! As always, if you have any questions, leave a comment below.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Building efficiency, commissioning, Energy, energy audit, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy usage

Existing Building Energy Consumption: Current Situations, Trends, Legislature and Solutions (Series Post #7: PlaNYC Local Law 84 and 87)

Energy use in NYC buildings contributes to 74% of citywide GHG emissions through the use of heating fuel, natural gas, electricity and steam. Energy expenses are up to $15 billion per year; therefore, NYC needed to act. NYC responded to this problem with the development of PlaNYC. In particular I’d like to focus on Local Law 84: Benchmarking (LL84) and Local Law 87: Energy Audits & Retro-commissioning (LL87).

“Released in 2007, PlaNYC was an unprecedented effort undertaken by Mayor Bloomberg to prepare the city for one million more residents, strengthen our economy, combat climate change, and enhance the quality of life for all New Yorkers. The Plan brought together over 25 City agencies to work toward the vision of a greener, greater New York. Since then, we have made significant progress towards our long-term goals.”

LL84 began in 2009 and requires owners of large buildings to annually measure and report their energy consumption through the previously mentioned benchmarking practice. In July, they upgraded the online energy star reporting tool (www.energystar.gov/portfoliomanager). They also recently released their second year benchmarking scores (read the report here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/html/plan/ll84_scores.shtml).

The first energy efficiency reports for LL87 are due at the end of this year. Due dates are based on a building’s tax block id #. Those ending in 3 are required to comply in 2013, those ending in 4 are required to comply in 2014 and so on and so forth. LL87 requires that all buildings 50,000 sf or larger undergo not only an energy audit but also retro-commissioning.
LL87 requires the following base building energy systems to be investigated:
•    Heating, ventilation and air conditioning
•    Electrical and light
•    Domestic hot water
•    Building envelope
•    Conveying systems

The approved certified engineers that can help one comply with LL87 include:
•    Certified Commissioning Professional (CCP)
•    Certified Building Commissioning Professional (CBCP)
•    Commissioning Process Management Professional (CPMP)
•    Accredited Commissioning Process Authority Professional (ACPAP)

Horizon Engineering Associates, LLP (HEA) has conducted nearly 70 energy audits and retro-commissioning projects for LL87 compliance. The facilities have ranged from museums to hospitals. Just to put into perspective how effective energy audits and retro-commissioning has been, when we surveyed 9 buildings, HEA was able to identify over 70 energy conservation measures that, when implemented, will save over $3.36 million in energy costs annually.

Has your building complied with LL84 and LL87? Are you aware of early compliance? Is your city implementing similar laws to NYC’s PlaNYC? Share your experiences in the comments below!

My next post will highlight an energy audit and retro-commissioning case study and comment on my experience with retro-commissioning.

1 Comment

Filed under Building efficiency, commissioning, Energy, energy audit, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy usage, EPA, GHG

Existing Building Energy Consumption: Current Situations, Trends, Legislature and Solutions (Series Post #5: Intro to Retro-commissioning)

Now that we have an understanding of what ASHRAE is, let’s discuss how their standards are applied, particularly with the retro-commissioning process.

When it comes to maintaining a building, it is important to keep up with the continuous environmental and economic factors attributed to occupancy and utilization patterns. This blog series is intended to highlight the different trends and avenues towards reducing a building’s carbon footprint for an optimized and energy efficient building system. We have identified that buildings present the best opportunity to make a large scale impact towards reducing energy usage. In my earlier posts, we have discussed energy audits and benchmarking as great starting points to access your building’s energy consumption and as a pathway to understanding the functionality of a building. ASHRAE has led the way in providing standards and guidelines to conduct an energy audit, benchmarking and, commissioning and retro-commissioning.

Energy auditing is a practical tool to help determine capital improvement plans. Developing a plan to replace outdated equipment with energy efficient measures is a great way to reduce energy costs. However, this method’s initial costs tend to be higher and return on investments (ROIs) take longer than those of retro-commissioning.

Retro-commissioning enables you to improve the performance of your existing systems by helping you to return your building to optimum performance. It is the number one process that can provide energy efficiency, improved tenant comfort, training for operations staff and improved documentation. Retro-commissioning is a systematic process for optimizing the energy efficiency and operations of existing base building systems. Adjustments that occur throughout this process include, but are not limited to: repairs of defects, cleaning, adjustments of valves, sensors, controls or programmed settings, and/or changes in operational practices. These items are typically low cost to no cost measures that yield high ROIs. Median commissioning costs: $0.30 and $1.16 per square foot for existing buildings and return on investments are typically 13%-15% with payback times of anywhere between 1.0 and 4.2 years. In some cases you are seeing cash on cash returns of 91%.

Good candidates for retro-commissioning include underperforming buildings, older buildings and facilities with large loads. Do you manage and/or own any of these types of buildings? What are common problems you are experiencing? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

In my next blog, I will be walking you through the retro-commissioning process and going into details about each of the four phases.

Leave a comment

Filed under Building efficiency, commissioning, Energy, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy usage

Existing Building Energy Consumption: Current Situation, Trends, Legislature and Solutions (Post #1: Introduction)

Existing Building Energy Consumption: Current Situations, Trends, Legislature and Solutions (Series Post #1: Introduction)

Our nation’s current energy appetite needs to be curbed. And while there are many solutions out there, I wanted to share my thoughts specifically with energy use and efficiency in buildings. My reason for choosing this topic is twofold: 1) Buildings account for a large portion of the US energy consumption (see more details below) and 2) Throughout my 20 years of experience with building commissioning (new construction and existing building), I have witnessed how commissioning and energy studies contribute to not only energy savings, but lower maintenance costs, increased occupant satisfaction and improved building documentation.

Why look to buildings?
The U.S. buildings sector accounted for 7% of global energy consumption in 2010. We must re-evaluate our fossil fuel consumption patterns which have been directly linked to climate change in order to mitigate the adversities we are facing. Buildings accounted for 41% of primary energy consumption in the U.S.; that is 44% more than the transportation sector and 36% more than the industrial sector. Buildings are identified as being responsible for the largest portion of our country’s carbon dioxide emissions; therefore, it seems the best way to combat climate change and create a sustainable future is to demand a higher standard from our buildings.

The federal government estimated that we can save $40 billion dollars annually by reducing energy use in commercial buildings by 20% by 2020. With people spending 90% of their lives inside buildings, we must work to provide buildings that are operating at ultimate performance. We need leadership and coordination to implement legislation. We need education to allow people to make the best choices. We need research and development to cultivate the technology and practices to ensure sustainable energy solutions. My future posts to this blog series will look at current trends in energy efficient buildings such as energy audits and the impact they have on building systems. The posts will explore the different organizations and principles set forth for better building systems such as ASHRAE. I will then tie in my personal experience and lessons learned as an active commissioning professional in order to explain and exemplify the importance of commissioning, retro-commissioning and energy audits.

I will be publishing a new post every other Thursday. Any topics and/or questions you would like me to address? Leave me a comment and I’ll make sure to reply. I hope this is the beginning of a great discussion.

9 Comments

Filed under Building efficiency, commissioning, Energy, energy audit, energy efficiency, energy usage

Presidential Promises of Oil Independence Aplenty, Results Remain Elusive

Once again, the U.S. is missing out on an opportunity to solve this country’s current energy woes. President Obama has indicated that he would like for the U.S. to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. In his latest speech on March 30, 2011 at Georgetown University, he described how we will reduce oil imports by a third by 2035. In order for this to happen, the focus will be put on producing more electric cars and trucks that run on natural gas, and developing refineries to process billions of gallons of bio fuels. There was brief mention of using alternative energy to help with reducing our oil dependence, but nowhere was building efficiency mentioned. Research report after research report has indicated that building efficiency could be looked at as the next fuel.

Our current President is no different than the Presidents before him. President Nixon declared his intent to get us off foreign oil after the Arab Embargo; and President Carter looked to get us off foreign oil after the Iran hostage situation. President Bush made the same statements after the first Iraq war too. We have been saying this for decades but not doing anything about it.

I can’t put the blame solely on our President; look at the opposition he has had to deal with over his last two years. He killed Cap and Trade due to public pressure from the Republicans as it would cost too much. He tried to develop more offshore drilling, but the rig Deepwater Horizon had its accident. Lastly, he has been pushing nuclear production but, with the last episode in the earthquake/tsunami tattered nation of Japan, the public is now skittish and wants to close nuclear plants and never reopen them.

We have been doing a lot of talking, especially my favorite Senator from Michigan who feels we need to increase electrical capacity by 40-50% to meet the needs of electricity demand for the next decade. He is shooting for a long range plan. I don’t blame him for shooting. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, you can start on developing programs for energy efficiency in buildings which constitutes for 60% of our total consumption in this nation.

We need to set our political agenda aside and come up with a realistic plan. It is my humble opinion that this plan must start with being energy efficient, which is something we could all be doing now, without waiting for further technologies to be developed and implemented.

Leave a comment

Filed under biofuel, Building efficiency, carbon, Energy, energy consumption, foreign oil, Uncategorized

Renewable Energy: Sunny Skies or Gridlocked?

It’s nice to see that the energy industry is starting to address some of the glaring problems that are out there such as energy shortage, depletion of domestic oil and gas reserves, and lack of incentives to invest in domestic energy facilities to name a few.  Renewable energy is moving front and center to become THE next energy resource. However, the solutions are not without their challenges. Energy generation and delivery still needs a good solid look as the cost to save one kW of energy using a renewable energy resource is approximately $0.11/kW, while saving that same kW through energy efficiency in existing building and homes is only at $0.03/kW.

The challenge with renewable energy is integrating it into the power grid. With the emergence of smart meters, we can see where the power is going at any given place and time. This will help to put a focus on generating plant production at the right place and at the right time. With that said, renewable energy does not have the luxury of turning itself on or off (reducing the demand that could be placed on the electrical grid). In addition, the business model for renewable energy is most effective when it is operating for the longest time possible.

Renewable energy should be baseloaded with the power generation plants to pick up on any energy swings. Smart meters would be able to anticipate when those swings will happen. The dilemma occurs when the renewable energy source does not produce enough to reach the level they were intended to produce. This can happen when units go down for maintenance, break down or don’t produce enough megawatts because the wind is not blowing or the sun is not out.

Programs like demand response can help lessen the high demand on the power grid. Having a program to reduce the peak load on the grid through end-user participation is helpful. However, when the response event comes at an inopportune time or cannot be incorporated due to other circumstances, this puts additional variables into the equation that makes renewable energy less desirable or predictable.

Energy monitoring is a great way to promote energy consumption awareness to determine the Where, Why and at What point a facility is using energy. This will allow for energy efficiency awareness and enable facility operators to be proactive. But once again, the end-user must know what to do with all the data that they are receiving. Knowing where your energy consumption stands is great, but knowing what to do with all the data once you have it is the key to energy reduction. Finding a solution to analyze the data will really help a facility to control its energy consumption. The amount of data produced is astronomical and unless the data is analyzed and trended on a regular basis, it will be of little to no value. A process needs to be developed that addresses how to use analyze and interpret the data.

All of these items and their challenges are important as we move forward to solve this country’s energy needs. These challenges can not be avoided and they need to be navigated with viable solutions. Coordinating all of the solutions together will put us in a better position for our electric infrastructure. Always have a contingency plan so that you don’t fail to plan; and be prepared so that you don’t plan to fail.

Leave a comment

Filed under Energy, energy consumption, energy monitoring, energy usage, renewable energy, smart grid, smart meters

Stirring the Debate on Greenhouse Emissions

I am deeply concerned over the battle in California involving carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. According to an article in the NY Times (California Braces for Showdown on Emissions), Californians will go to the polls on November 2 to vote on whether or not to suspend A.B. 32, the law which mandates cutting carbon and other greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This ballot initiative (Proposition 23) would suspend tight emissions standards from going into effect.

Proponents of Proposition 23 believe that the government should not be spending money on carbon reduction; that our focus should be on putting Americans back to work. They believe that the bill would cost the state jobs and raise energy prices.

Last time I checked, oil company profits just set record highs. If Proposition 23 is passed, I am not sure how this measure would create jobs. If the battle is over jobs, I would think retrofitting their plants to reduce their emissions and energy consumption would create more jobs than would be lost. I also find it hard to believe that if a person had to pay an additional $2 a week on gasoline, he would be forced into bankruptcy.

The bigger issue for me is the fundamental reason why they are trying to defeat A.B. 32 in the first place. Is cleaner air and reduction of global warming not important enough? Or, will the people that are making money hand over fist in this industry by having their pockets lined by special interest groups triumph again? If they took the money they are pouring into defeating A.B. 32 and put it towards reducing emissions, oil companies would spend a lot less, and more savings would be passed on to the customer.

Leave a comment

Filed under A.B. 32, Energy, energy efficiency, Proposition 23, Retrofit