results from minnesota’s existing building commissioning program

Chris Plum, Mark Hancock

Center for Energy and Environment

Results from Minnesota’s Existing

Building Commissioning Program

21st National Conference on Building Commissioning

AIA Quality Assurance

The Building Commissioning Association is a Registered Provider with The

American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems (AIA/CES). Credit(s) earned on completion of this program will be reported to

AIA/CES for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for both AIA members and non-AIA members are available upon request.

This program is registered with AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or

construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material

of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing,

or dealing in any material or product.

Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be

addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

21st NCBC Conference

Presentation Description

CEE administers the state program to perform existing building

commissioning (EBCx) on state government buildings in

Minnesota.

Investigations of 227 buildings containing nearly 19 million square

feet located on 50 sites throughout the state were performed.

The participation rate in the program is very high, which provides

a useful measure of the potential for broadly implemented EBCx

programs.

Several best practices for program managers were identified.

We included a rigorous quality assurance process which resulted

in a number of lessons learned, especially the need for a

meaningful provider certification if customers are to receive

consistent, high quality EBCx projects.


At the end of this session, participants will be able to:

1. Identify several best practices for Existing Building Commissioning

1. Requires specialized training

2. Would benefit from a rigorous certification process

2. Understand how to identify buildings where EBCx can be effective

1. Cost effectiveness of the investigation must be considered

3. See how quality assurance improves customer outcomes

Learning Objectives


PBEEEP

Created in 2008 by MN State Legislature

Meet two important needs:

Access to technical services that will identify savings

Access to funding to implement identified savings

Designed in partnership with PECI

Providers were selected before program development


PROGRAM BACKGROUND “Public Buildings Enhanced Energy Efficiency Program” = PBEEEP

Standard Process

Application

Screening

Investigation

Implementation

Verification



Apply Screen Investigate Implement Verify

Unique features of a State Sponsored program

Competitively Bid Phases

Scope of work was well defined

List of typical measure had to be checked

Equipment was listed in detail

All energy consuming equipment

Anything that affected the energy consuming equipment

State statute limited measures to 15 year payback or less



Distinctive Uses

Community Colleges

Prisons

Laboratories

Armories

Museums

State Offices

Parking Garages


CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDINGS State Government Buildings

State Government Buildings CBECS Estimates for MN

825 buildings over 50,000

square feet

45 buildings can be rated by

Energy Star

9 State Agencies

Distance:10 to 300 miles


CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDINGS State Government Buildings

4,600 buildings over 50,000

square feet

1,800 over 100,000 sq. ft.

542 ENERGY STAR labeled buildings with 102,873,953

square feet

1.8% of US Building stock


SELECTION FOR INVESTIGATION Self- selection followed by screening

> 50,000 sq ft Applied and Screened InvestigatedAll State Government Buildings

51.4 million sq ft

3,047 buildings

1,428 sites

4,860 MMBTU

18.3227 50 2,087

34.3550 bldgs71 sites3,000MMBtu

44 million sq ft825 buildings145 sites4,345 MMBtu

Processed thru PBEEEP

90%

11%

44% of all of all energy

Key attributes Need one or more of these

Building Automation with DDC capable of trending

Trend 1,000 or more points at a time

15 minute interval

Memory for several hundred thousand points

Remote access highly desirable

Observed potential for optimization

Motors > 10 HP

Variable Occupancy Schedule

EUI >80 kBtu/ft2yr


SCREENING CRITERIA Developed over the course of the program

Period 2010-2012 for both programs

PBEEEP

Results of Studies

17,800,000 kWh found

95,000 Dt found

$21.07 per MMBtu

Large MN Utility

Results of Implementation

29,600,000 kWh saved

58,000 Dt saved

$23.65 per MMBtu


PBEEEP IS A UTILITY SCALE PROGRAM Comparison with large state utility program


PBEEEP WORKED ACROSS MANY UTILITY

TERRITORIES

37 different utility companies

3 offer study rebates

27 of 71 sites had one utility for electric and gas

Means 2/3 have two utility companies

All sites had both electrical and gas (or district)

savings

Coordination of programs is uncommon


Summary of Most Commonly Identified

Energy Savings Measures

Number

Finding Type

Payback (years)

Affected area (%)

Site energy savings

(kBtu/ft2yr)

135 Time of day enabling is excessive 1.1 66% 3.3 97 Economizer operation not optimal 4.4 71% 2.0 88 Excess enabling of equipment 0.7 68% 2.1 88 Retrofit - Efficient Lighting 8.2 33% 1.2 44 Zone setup/setback 0.9 16% 2.6 23 Other controls 11.3 14% 3.1 21 Lighting on more hours than necessary 4.7 12% 1.1 21 Other retrofit (mostly faucet aerators) 1.9 10% 0.8 17 Deferred maintenance 2.9 12% 1.2 14 Leaky/stuck valve 1.9 4% 3.9 116 All others 6.7 107% 1.7 664 Total 3.9 412% 2.1

Note that an affected area of 412% means there

were 4.1 measures per building, on average


HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL OVERALL EXCELLENT SAVINGS AND HIGH PARTICIPATION

Program Wide Savings of 7.2%

Could we do even better?

Source # Projects Savings/project

2010 NCBC (PECI) 122 3.0 kBtu/ft2

PBEEEP 50 8.1 kBtu/ft2

Building Population Energy used in Bldgs

>50,000 ft2

Participation

All MN (CBECS) 47,600 MMBtu ?

Minnesota Government 4,345 MMBtu

2,087 MMBtu = 48%


QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS RESULTS Meeting the base standard for a final report

Expected Process Actual Process

Investigation

Mid Point Review

Investigation

Final Review

6-9 month process

Midpoint review only

submitted 50% of time

4.1 total review cycles

18 month process

Final reviews required

significant rework

QA Process found many issues to address


Investigation payback is the payback period based only on the investigation cost;

Implementation payback is based only on the cost of implementation

PROJECT PORTFOLIOS

Provider Sites Buildings Area

Investigation

Cost Savings $

Million BTU

Saved

Investigation

Payback

Implementation

Payback kbtu/sft

A 8 34 2,706,030 520,500$ 270,803$ 32,946 1.9 5.0 12.2

B 7 29 2,546,229 458,813$ 247,497$ 24,976 1.9 3.5 9.8

C 9 36 2,534,193 442,158$ 239,668$ 22,129 1.8 5.3 8.7

D 7 39 3,555,996 556,810$ 292,120$ 25,983 1.9 4.3 7.3

E 4 15 1,964,321 296,000$ 150,075$ 13,555 2.0 1.4 6.9

F 5 23 2,098,880 323,777$ 126,350$ 12,070 2.6 1.6 5.8

G 9 42 3,083,884 582,111$ 224,689$ 15,903 2.6 2.6 5.2

Total 49 218 18,489,533 3,180,169$ 1,551,202$ 147,562 2.1 3.7 8.0


Results of Calculation Reviews

SAVINGS CALCULATIONS REQUIRED

REVISION MOST OF THE TIME Initial submitted savings calculations were reduced by an average of 34%

14% of submitted results were within 2% of

approved value

20% were below the approved value and the

reported savings were INCREASED

66% were above the approved value and the

reported savings were DECREASED


The unequal distribution of savings due to measures associated with economizer operations is seen as one of the strongest signs that not all providers were equally well prepared to do EBCx work

COMPARING SCHEDULING AND

ECONOMIZER MEASURES

Degree of difficulty shows need for certification

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

A B C D E F G

kBtu

/sq

. ft.

Provider

Scheduling


The scale for all the reported savings graphs is the same.

Controls includes adjustments and strategies including all reset schedules (HW, CHW, SAT, DSP), controls hunting, and all VFD issues

SAVINGS FROM CONTROLS MODIFICATIONS

WERE DISAPPOINTING (7% of total) Again, almost no findings from three providers

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

A B C D E F G

kBtu

/sq

. ft.

Provider

Controls


IF YOU COULD CHANGE ONE THING, WHAT

WOULD IT BE?

Have a method for selecting previously trained providers

A recognized certification process would deliver this


The cost of screening, investigation and administration (including

quality control) were near the expected value, but the cost of

implementation was lower.

The cost of implementation is consistent with other EBCx programs

PROGRAM CAME IN UNDER BUDGET Even the rigorous QA process did not exceed its target cost and it helped

lower total program costs

ActualBudget

Screening

Investigation

Admin/QA

Implementation


The number of long (> 3 year) payback items that were

selected for implementation was encouraging as it affirmed the idea of bundling high and low payback items for increased total savings.

PROGRAM SUCCESS:

RATE OF IMPLEMENTATION IS HIGH Due to fast payback and confidence that savings will be realized


Qualified providers who understand the specialty of

existing building commissioning are essential to identify

all the potential savings

A good customer relationship will increase the rate of

implementation

Programs should address all energy sources at a site

Careful selection of buildings is necessary for a cost-

effective program; some buildings have minimal savings

opportunities.

BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED Without a quality assurance process, we would not have known….



Gustav Brandstrom, PE Tim Ellingson, PE

Neal Ray Angela Vreeland, PE

Russ Landry, PE Christie Traczyk

Pam Klocek

State of Minnesota

Department of Administration, Real Estate and Construction Services

Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources

US Department of Energy

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds

THANK YOU To the entire team

THANK YOU

Mark Hancock, PE [email protected]

Christopher Plum [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Poster child site

MN History Center

20 Years old

Museum, 490,000 ft2

Site EUI dropped from 159

in 2009 to 78 in 2012

3.2 year payback


EXISTING BUILDING COMMISSIONING Case Study of Success

Major BAS upgrade 2 years before

Lighting study rejected by client

Used waste heat from chiller to eliminate need for summer boiler

Revised schedule at the space, not building, level (12 AHU’s)

Added VFDs

Cafeteria grill ventilation interlock

Low flow faucets (300 kids per day)


Scheduling: Not just reading the hours posted on the front door

Minnesota History Center Energy Saving Opportunities

results from minnesota’s existing building commissioning program

Technology

state program

state sponsored program

large state utility

energy efficiency program

ncbc conferenceselection

program managers

mn state legislature

state agencies distance