Building Energy Efficiency and the Role of Utilitiescs620/EE_Buildings.pdfBuilding Energy Efficiency and the Role of Utilities ... LEED – India 362 ... GRIHA 17 buildings certified

1 January 2014 Prasad Vaidya

Building Energy Efficiency and the

Role of Utilities January 2014

Prasad Vaidya


A Building is not a Car


Outline

Challenges and Opportunities Design

Construction

Operations

Intro to Simulation Tool Utility Involvement Proposed Utility Program for Mumbai Discussion


Challenges and Opportunities

Design


Building Energy Consumption Growth

Source: 18th Electric Power Survey

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Ahmedabad Surat Pune Nagpur Mumbai Chennai Bangalore

MU

Consumption Growth from FY11-22

Comm

Res


Higher Commercial Consumption Growth

Source: 18th Electric Power Survey

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

Ahmedabad Surat Pune Nagpur Mumbai Chennai Bangalore

Consumption Growth from FY11-FY22

Comm

Res


The Need

Mumbai will add about 32 Million SF of commercial floorspace per year till 2016.

Typical buildings consume 30% more energy than ECBC levels.

Less than 1% of new the building stock achieves green building certification.

Current rating systems do not ensure performance.


The Opportunity

We already know how to do super-efficient buildings

New construction allows us to lock in efficiency for the life of the building

New construction offers the opportunity for design optimization


Typical Weekday Loadshapes

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Source: DSM Plans and Reports from Utilities


Loadshapes – Cumulative and Impact of Commercial Building EE

Assumes equal contribution from each consumer type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Commercial

Industrial

Residential

CommericalEE


Whole Building Energy Performance

~250 kWh/m2

~175 kWh/m2

~80 kWh/m2

BAU ECBC Infosys -Hyd

~60 kWh/m2

CEPT-Amd


Savings Opportunity with Design

30 50

110

190

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Envelope Products (Insulation + Glazing)

Envelope Products + Architectural Design

Whole Building Product Upgrades

kWh/

sqm

savi

ngs

Savings product and equipment upgrades

Savings with performance focused design

Whole Building Product Upgrades +

Design

30 30

20

110 110

80

Typical Office Building – Warm Humid Climate

Note: EPI for BAU ~250 kWH/sqm and EPI for ECBC ~175 kWH/sqm


Infosys - Hyderabad


CEPT NZE - Ahmedabad


NZE Features

North-South Orientation

Daylight Autonomy for 300 L and 75% time for over 90% of spaces

Window to Wall Ratio 19%

Shading and light shelves on South

U-factor Wall: 0.78, Roof 0.41

Glazing: U 1.59, SHGC, 0.31/0.21, VT 0.6/0.41

Lighting at 4.7 W/m2 with daylighting and vacancy sensor control of lights

Office equipment control with occupancy sensor control

Mixed mode ventilation and zoning for level of conditioning

Radiant cooling floor and ceiling panels for simulation lab and basement floor

VRF for Dedicated Outdoor Air System at 3.51 COP with CO2 control, VRF for equipment rooms 3.51 COP

Air cooled chiller 3.35 COP (ARI)

Passive cooling in non summer months with underground tank and evaporative fluid cooler

Premium efficiency pump motors with VFDs

Rooftop PV 27 kW


What happens in

Construction


Design Construction Process Map

Concept Design

Preliminary Design

Detailed Design

Contract Negotiation

Construction 4-8 weeks 4-8 weeks 6-12 weeks 4-6 weeks

One concept selected

Building footprint structure

fixed

Tender documents

ready

Construction Start

ULB Permit 8-20 weeks

9 months min Interiors Occupancy

2 months min

Occupancy Certificate

4 months – 10 months 9 months – 3 years


Energy Efficiency Potential – Timeline

Design Construction Operation Pre-Design

Pote

ntia

l for

ene

rgy

Savi

ngs


Implementation Success Study

50%

70%

90%

Selection Draft CD Review

CD Review Draft Field Verification

Verification

Project Stage

Implementation Rate

100% 96%

100%

78%

88% 85%

88%

91% 94%

82%

2005 (9 projects) 2004 (14 projects) Program Average (24 projects)

92% 88%

80%

91%

Source: Greden 2006


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Selection Construction Documents Construction

Mechanical Lighting Design/Controls

Glazing Envelope Insulation

Daylighting Controls

Implementation Success by Measure

Source: Greden 2006


Daylighting Controls – No Coordination

Source: Vaidya 2005


Lights are always on at the same level, even after dark. The lighting level is less than full load, suggesting dimming, but always to the same level regardless of daylight.

Lab Lights 2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0:01

0:56

1:51

2:46

3:41

4:36

5:31

6:26

7:21

8:16

9:11

10:0

6

11:0

1

11:5

6

12:5

1

13:4

6

14:4

1

15:3

6

16:3

1

17:2

6

18:2

1

19:1

6

20:1

1

21:0

6

22:0

1

22:5

6

23:5

1

Time

Amps

Calculated Potential Amps Measured Amps

Lights are always on at the same level, even after dark. The lighting level is less than full load, suggesting dimming, but always to the same level regardless of daylight.

Classroom and Lab Building

Source: The Weidt Group 2005


Photosensor looks directly at the electric lights

Classroom and Lab Building

Source: Vaidya 2005


What about

Operations


Effect of Training and Monitoring

Source: HVAC Training and Quality Assurance, Tom Downey, Proctor Engineering Group, Ltd.

Measured Savings as a Percent of Achievable Savings (Running Average)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Disaster when Feedback was Removed Production with Feedback Maintained Program Startup, Learning Curve with Technician Feedback

Monthly Data

Source: The Weidt Group


Long-term Energy Performance

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Assisted Scenario

Integrity Scenario

Unassisted Scenario

Milestone

CNC History

Tom Downey Effect

Performance Goal



Submetered Energy Use

Monitoring system displays energy enduse data It also displays the modeled energy use Online web enabled interface to view, compare and download data

The system provides data on current performance



Comparing Metered and Modeled

On a daily basis, the lighting energy matches pretty close to the modeled value. However, the actual operation may differ.



Comparing Metered and Modeled

The hourly data shows that the lighting during occupied hours is less than modeled; however the lighting during unoccupied hours is much higher



Expected vs Actual Performance

Source: Frankel 2008


Is this the right conclusion?

Although in aggregate the energy modeling in the sample above accurately predicted sample-wide energy savings (except for high energy buildings), the degree of variation in predictive accuracy on individual projects was substantial. It is clear that much work needs to be done to better align energy modeling accuracy with actual building performance outcome if this tool, as currently implemented, is to effectively serve the design community in delivering high performance buildings. The wide variability of energy modeling accuracy on an individual project basis implies significant flaws in any life-cycle energy savings comparisons undertaken by the affected projects, and calls into question how effectively this tool is used to predict the performance outcome of any given project. There is a clear need for better data on actual building use characteristics to better correlate modeling inputs with building use characteristics. –Frankel 2008


Reasons for Variation

Simulation tool defaults are not appropriate

Modelers assumptions are not correct Building is built differently Building is occupied and operated

differently Actual weather is different


Simulation Tools


ECOnirman WBP Compliance Tool

eetools.in


Utility Involvement


Market Transformation

Increasing Energy Efficiency

Number of buildings

Laggards Middle of the market

Early Adopters

Codes Standards

Incentive Programs

Rating and Recognition


Codes / Incentives / Rating

Energy Conservation Building Code - 2007 Sets minimum standard that is enforced by local

governments in the building proposal approval

Incentives offset first costs Tax rebates

Utility DSM programs

Rating, Labeling and Recognition programs LEED

GRIHA

BEE 5 Star Rating


Status of ECBC at State Level

Notification Issued Rajasthan, Odisha, &

Puducherry

Notification in progress UP, Karnataka and

Uttarakhand

Amendment Initiation Punjab, Kerala, Gujarat

Next, in 2013 MP, Haryana, Chhattisgarh,

AP, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Maharashtra

Notification Issued

Notification in Progress

Amendment Initiation

Next, in 2013


Rating and Recognition Programs As of June 2013

BEE’s Star Rating Program 136 buildings awarded star rating

Of these 33 have a 5-star rating

LEED – India 362 buildings certified

2,111 buildings registered in the program

GRIHA 17 buildings certified

350 buildings registered in the program


DSM Programs in the USA

Cost of Conserved Energy: $0.012 to 0.028 per kWh


Utility Program Examples

Intervention Types Capacity building potential

Persistence of learning

Utility account-ability to the

SERCs

Involvement of utility

personnel in program

Specific to a building

project

Training and Resource Center High MediumB Low Medium No

Component Rebates Low Low High Low with good tools Yes

Design review with recommendations Medium Medium High High Yes

Whole Building performance incentive Low Low High High Yes

Design assistance with incentives High High High Medium Yes

Codes and Standards Depends High Negotiated High No


Proposed Program For Mumbai


The Need

Mumbai will add about 32 Million SF of commercial floorspace per year till 2016.

Typical buildings consume 30% more energy than ECBC levels.

Less than 1% of new the building stock achieves green building certification.

Current rating systems do not ensure performance.


The Opportunity

Exceeding ECBC by 10% can save more than 100 kWh/m2/year, and peak demand by 50% compared to BAU buildings.

With a mature program we could save 192 MU and 40 MW peak demand over 3 years in Mumbai.

A pilot program can save 24 MU and 5 MW of peak demand.

Building Design provides opportunity for much larger savings


Barriers to EE identified

Lack of public awareness and thus the absence of a premium for energy efficient real estate

Cost of energy efficiency technologies and the unwillingness of developers or owners to look beyond a 2-3 year payback

Owners/ developes do not get reliable ROI information.

Cost of getting objective energy and financial analysis

Lack of expertise for EE in the larger design industry

Lack of easy design and analysis tools

Designers experience a 10% increase in effort for EE.


Program Overview

Program Baseline is ECBC performance

Savings are Certified by BEE recognized professionals or institutions

Design Assistance to Design Professionals and Customers provided by empanelled experts

Performance Incentive to Design Professionals for achieving program performance criteria

Performance Incentive to Customers for achieving program performance criteria


Program Target Market

Non Residential Residential

Speculative Real Estate

Owner Occ.

Whole Building Opportunity

Tenant Fit out Opportunity


Program Performance Criteria

Whole Building Design Exceed ECBC Whole Building performance by

10%

Lighting System Design Exceed ECBC Lighting System performance

by 25%

HVAC System Design Exceed ECBC HVAC system performance by

25%


Design Assistance Activities

Building Permit

Occupancy Begins

Design Meetings,

Modeling, and Design Review

M&V and Certification

of Savings

Design Document

Review

Construction Review, Site Inspection

Typical Design, Construction and Occupancy

Program Activities for Design Assistance and M&V

Construction Begins


M&V Methodology

Savings calculations using Appendix B to ECBC and IPMVP Volume III, Option D or Option B.

The participants install end-use sub-meters for lighting and HVAC energy end uses.

After Construction: On site verification of measures installed and project savings and incentives.

After 1 year of Operation: Calibrated energy models to calculate actual savings and incentives.


Pilot Program Benefit Costs

1,000,000 SF per year Cost of Conserved Energy (CCE) With EUL of 20 years = 1.19

With EUL of 10 years = 1.54

With EUL of 5 years = 2.37

CCE is the additional cost that must be invested in order to implement an energy efficiency measure; CCE includes not only the cost of the measure itself but the interest on money borrowed to pay for it.


Stakeholders

Building Industry Practitioners Corporate Owners Academic Institutions Professional Industry Organizations Certification Agency Non-profit Advocacy Groups Regulatory Commission Utilities


Discussion Points

What are the implementation challenges? What’s in it for the utility? What’s in it for the public? What are the challenges of selling this? Who else could be partners in cost or

benefits? Which stakeholders have not been listed?


Acknowledgements

Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation Institute for Sustainable Performance of Buildings

Regulatory Assistance Project CEPT University

The Weidt Group USAID


Thank you

Prasad Vaidya [email protected]