California Institute of Technology Matthew Berbée

Director Maintenance Management & Energy Service

March, 2014

Energy history at caltech

Caltech Energy Conservation Investment Program (CECIP) Complexity and trends in the built environment

the discussion of energy CECIP process for project development retrofitting Laboratories Market transformation and the Project Handoff

2

for today…

3

energy projects at Caltech are financed through capital

revolving fund, the Caltech Energy Conservation Investment Program (CECIP)

“The cost to the utility budget during a CECIP project

does not change (vs. budget). What does change is that a portion goes to utility bills, and a portion to debt

service”

4

California Institute of Technology

4.4 Million SF of buildings 125 acres in urban setting $2.4B replacement value 120+ GWH electricity annually

− energy Intensity ~275 MBTU/SF − average UC Campus ~ 180 MBTU/SF − $15M+ annual utility bill

utility budgeting

5

Electricity Gas

Water

CECIP

AB32

utility budget mix

6

37%

59%

4%

2009: $19.7M 2014: $15.6M

34%

36%

6%

18%

6%

FY13 total budgeted vs actual (kWh)

7

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

kWh

Budgeted kWh

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

kWh

Actual kWh

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

kWh

Actual kWh

PWP

PPA

onsite cogeneration

CECIP

energy history

8

power production

Cogeneration is the production of power utilizing two different power cycles

WHAT WE HAVE TODAY • Currently the Central Utility Plant utilizes a 10MW gas turbine engine

• Waste heat from the turbine exhaust is used to generate high pressure steam

• The steam is used to turn a steam turbine that drives a 2.5MW generator

Gas Compressor Gas Turbine Engine Steam Turbine Generator 9

caltech power generation timeline

1967 Central Plant Heating

& Cooling

2004 Nat’l Energy Star Award

from DOE and EPA

2003 New Cogen

10MW Solar Mars GTG 2.5MW Tuthill Murray STG

1997 Replaced 4.5MW

Turbine with 5MW Solar Centaur

1989 4.5 MW Dresser Clark Gas

Turbine & ABCO HRSG

1984 1MW Turbonics Back

Pressure Turbine

1982 Steam Evaluation

2008 200kW - Solar PV I

2010 1.3MW – Solar PV II

2011 2MW Bloom Energy Fuel

Cells

1967 2014

10 0

5

10

15

20

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

MW

On-Site Power Production (1984-Present)

the built environment &

trends in system complexity

11

complexity in the built environment

12

Source: USGBC LA, 2014

13

complexity in the built environment

Source: USGBC LA, 2014

14

complexity in the built environment

Source: USGBC LA, 2014

energy trends at caltech

15

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

MW

h

fiscal year

1990-2013

historical power consumption at caltech

16

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

MW

h

fiscal year

1990-2013 CECIP Program Inception 2009

paradoxical effect?

17

Cahill Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics

Walter and Leonore Annenberg Center for Information Science and Technology

Warren and Katharine Schlinger Laboratory for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering

Linde + Robinson Laboratory for Global Environmental Science

Earle M. Jorgensen Laboratory

discussion of energy usage trends

23

110,000

111,000

112,000

113,000

114,000

115,000

116,000

117,000

118,000

119,000

120,000

MW

H

FISCAL YEAR

100,000 sqft added 5 fume hoods added

64,000 sqft added 102 fume hoods added

47,000 sqft added

45,000 sqft renovated 13 fume hoods added

30,000 sqft renovated 24 fume hoods added

campus energy drivers since CECIP inception

211,000 sqft added 192,000 sqft renovated 144 fume hoods added

the rest of the story

24

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

550000

600000

650000

700000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

MM

BTU

CHILLED WATER & STEAM (MMBTU)

CHW (MMBTU) Steam (MMBTU)

Poly. (CHW (MMBTU)) Poly. (Steam (MMBTU))260

265

270

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

kBTU

/SQ

FT

campus energy density (kBTU/sqft)

10% reduction

the result

25

110,000

115,000

120,000

125,000

130,000

135,000

140,000

MW

H

FISCAL YEAR

~18 GWH reduced by energy

efficiency

how to make this happen

26

• establish program criteria early

• communicate the go/no-go factors

• review ground-rules for evaluating retrofit opportunities in laboratory and other critical facilities

• delineate energy retrofit training requirements

• detail project closeout requirements beyond traditional punch/O&M/warranty

• outline requirements to “prove the efficiency benefit”

Projects Must: Exhibit verifiable savings

♦ Contain a plan for periodic

measurement & verification

♦ Return on Investment

greater than 15%

standard operating procedures

energy retrofit “play-book”

prove the benefit

28

why

leverage technology to improve operational efficiency

feedback loop based on building performance • maintain design performance

• anticipate potential trouble calls

• root cause accountability

29

building energy use drift up ~ 3% per year.

California Energy Commission

measure and prove the performance

• CECIP takes measurement and verification to another level

• in-house business processes to sustain savings

30

how much energy should the building use?

Visualizations for efficiency

Y= mx + B

optimal operating line

energy retrofits in lab space?

32

why are the savings possible?

constant air volume

variable air volume

supply and exhaust flow rates remain the same

• fume hood sash position • thermal demand • occupancy

dependent on: independent of:

supply and exhaust flow rates vary to match load

constant

ven

tila

tio

n r

ate

(C

FM)

variable

CAV CFM VAV CFM

savings

constant variable air volume

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

PR

ESSU

RE

DR

OP

[IN

. W.C

.]

AIRFLOW [CFM]

Valve Selection

AccuValve AVC 3100 Single 10" Ø Low-Pressure Accel II Celeris Single 10" Ø Low-Pressure Accel II Celeris Dual 10" Ø

Medium-Pressure Accel II Celeris Single 10" Ø Medium-Pressure Accel II Celeris Dual 10" Ø

lowering system pressure drop

If you’re living up here then the point is

more for new construction than retrofit

Lower = less energy

adding automation

prove the benefit

average % reduction from baseline

fan (kW) 60%

CHW (BTU/hr) 17%

HHW (BTU/hr) 58%

cooling energy heating energy fan energy

what matters most

improve probability of lasting benefit

energy efficiency

improving operations

Focus on the main things

the trophy

• long term benefit of deferred maintenance reduction

• improved capability to pursue LEED – EBOM

• competitive advantage, best in class research and facility & operations

• business processes and infrastructure for a proactive operations and maintenance

40

Spend $0.80/SQFT identify opportunities

Spend $XX/SQFT on implementation

Realize $3.50/SQFT/Yr avoided cost

Project Transition To Operations

With added building complexity comes a new need

41

42

Thomas Renovation

what

Project Transition to Operations

New processes for maintainable asset information transfer from design to operation.

Improve: • focus and quality of O/M information

• use of technology to support process

• longevity and operational use of commissioning testing process

• customer satisfaction

43

why

• We need this because there is DATA LOSS in the hand off

• Answer the question, how is my building performing?

• Answer the question what is the operational budget impact of the building and its systems?

• Improve: • Energy performance • Building system performance • Maintenance & Operations performance • Consistency of operations • Customer satisfaction

44

statement of work

Cx Deliverables

• Key Performance Indicators – prove program value

•Maintainable Asset list • equipment inventory • warranty information & tracking • preventative maintenance tasks

• Updated energy model • Building user guide

• Technician training, building occupant training

45

status of effort

•Contract in place with project Cx authority, Caltech Thomas Building renovation

• Caltech Design Guidelines language in review for handoff requirements & maintainable assets

• Technology integration in development

• Industry conversation gaining momentum

• Construction Owners Association of America

• California Commissioning Collaborative

• Tradeline

46

proving value…

key performance indicators • avoided trouble calls due to improved training

• improved warranty management • reduced contractor call backs • increased O/M productivity

47

simulate project hand-off of 100% CD documentation

• Focus on system integration opportunities

• Improve understanding of process touch-points,

(who uploads what, where. How are reviews managed etc.)

current action

Integrate Cx Functional Performance Test into automated

diagnostic tool, new hand-off deliverable

• reduce future RCx costs

• move towards continuous commissioning strategy

future action

questions?

50