Free For All! EVO’s Newest Documents Now Available to General Public

In 2009 EVO released a number of documents that were initially available to Subscribers only. Many of these are now available to the general public for free download, including:

2009 IPMVP – English & FrenchEVO released an amended edition of IPMVP Volume I in September, 2009. This 2009 edition is re-structured to add an appendix with US- and France-specific references – and to allow for the addition of other region-specific materials. The US references were moved from the 2007 main document into the appendix, while the France materials are brand new. This modification invites local customization of the IPMVP and demonstrates EVO’s interest in making it reflect local differences or special local resources. This practical example of “thinking globally and acting locally,” enhances the IPMVP’s value to the energy efficiency community worldwide. It is now available to the general public on EVO’s Web site under Products-IPMVP.

2009 IPMVP – Spanish
EVO released the Spanish translation of the 2009 amended IPMVP Volume I, with Spain-specific references included in Appendix C, in late 2009 to Subscribers only. This Spanish translation was made possible with the support of Union Fenosa - an integrated energy company which operates on gas and electricity markets. It is now available for free download to the general public on on EVO’s Web site under Products-IPMVP.

IEEFP- EnglishEVO also published the International Energy Efficiency Financing Protocol (IEEFP) in 2009, which provides guidelines for financiers around the world to evaluate and finance energy efficiency and savings-based renewable energy projects. While the IEEFP is now available to the general public, only Subscribers will be able to use EVO’s electronic Subscriber Repository for tools and resources to help financiers capitalize on energy efficiency opportunities (currently being developed). The IEEFP is available for free download on EVO's Web site under Products – IEEFP

Hard Copy
You may also order print bound copies of the IPMVP and IEEFP at the EVO online bookstore (If you're an EVO Subscriber, don’t forget your Subscriber discount - click here to get your discount code)

--
Betsy Wilkins
EVO Communications

Risky Business? How-tos for Investing in Building Upgrades

The ENERGY STAR® Building Upgrade Manual, a "strategic guide to help plan and implement profitable energy saving building upgrades,” claims that businesses can maximize energy savings by sequentially following its five building upgrade stages (1) retrocommisioning; 2) lighting; 3) supplemental load reductions; 4) air distribution systems; and 5) heating and cooling systems). It also states that business “[e]nergy management begins with a senior-level commitment to continuous improvement in energy efficiency. Executive leadership demonstrates this commitment by issuing a formal energy policy for the organization and by supporting the energy objectives with adequate financial and staffing resources.” But how do executives know what adequate financing is – and how can they best secure the capital needed to implement energy saving changes to buildings?

The process recommended in the ENERGY STAR manual begins with management and planning steps. First among them is benchmarking to identify the best opportunities for energy savings. Since these upgrades will represent an investment, you’ll next need to conduct financial analysis based on the company’s cash flow to rank and select from the opportunities revealed in the benchmarking process.

Your project analysis should consider that, in addition to dollar savings, there are several other benefits from incorporating energy efficiency into your business strategy. One of those is that ENERGY STAR upgrades offer “superior returns at a lower risk than many other investments,” as illustrated in Figure 1 of the 2004 edition of the Manual (p. 3). As the EPA points out, improving energy performance is a multi-faceted investment, offering long-term, low-risk returns, reductions in energy consumption and costs, increases in worker productivity, and improved asset value.

Once you’ve determined that energy efficiency upgrades are a good investment for your business, you’ll likely want to seek financing for them. Options include grants, rebates and loans now being offered by utilities, governments and non-profit organizations, as well as more traditional sources like financial institutions and capital markets.

EVO has developed the International Energy Efficiency Financing Protocol (IEEFP) which provides guidelines for Local Financing Institutions (LFI) around the world to evaluate and finance energy efficiency and savings-based renewable projects (Energy Savings Projects). The IEEFP is a long-term "grass roots" solution to financing Energy Savings Projects. It is envisioned that the IEEFP will ultimately become the global "blue print" for educating and training LFIs around the world on the special intricacies and benefits of financing Energy Savings Projects.

The IEEFP's objective is to create a better understanding by LFIs and other global stakeholders on how Energy Savings Projects generate savings from existing operating expenses of end-use consumers, and how this equates to new cash flow and increased credit capacity for end-use consumers to repay EEP loans.

At the core of the IEEFP is the need to measure and verify energy savings created by the Energy Savings Projects to ensure sustainability of the reduced energy costs and the resulting available cash flow to repay the LFIs. The International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) provides an overview of current best practice techniques available for verifying results of energy efficiency, water efficiency, and renewable energy projects in commercial and industrial facilities. It may also be used by facility operators to assess and improve facility performance.

Listen to the EVO Insights podcast interview with EVO Board member Tom Dreesen in which he discusses the background and purpose of the IEEFP – including responses to the challenges posed by: corporate capital funding methods, commercial lending practices, and subsidies for energy efficient behavior.

--Betsy Wilkins
EVO Communications

Seeking Ideas for California Self-Generation Incentive Program M&E

As part of its planning process for future program M&E, the M&E Subcommittee of the Working Group of California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) is reaching out to a broad industry audience to find out what types of studies and reporting tools others working in the DG arena are currently conducting and using – or wish they were.

The SGIP has provided capacity-based incentives to support existing, new, and emerging distributed energy resources in California since 2001, after its creation as a peak load reduction program in response to California Assembly Bill (AB) 970 (Ducheny, 2000). The program provides rebates for qualifying distributed energy systems installed on the customer's side of the utility meter. Initial qualifying technologies included photovoltaics (PV), wind turbines, fuel cells, internal combustion engines, microturbines, and gas turbines. Beginning January 1, 2008, the SGIP was limited by statute to providing incentives for wind and fuel cell technologies only. Current qualifying technologies include wind turbines, fuel cells, and corresponding energy storage systems.

On October 11, 2009, California Senate Bill (SB) 412 (Kehoe, 2009) was signed into law to take effect in January 2010. SB 412 authorizes the CPUC, in consultation with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), to determine eligible technologies for the SGIP based on the requirement that they “achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.”

With the shift in program goals and purposes (and related changes in eligible technologies), along with the continuing increase in interest in and growth of the DG market in California and around the globe, it was deemed appropriate to consider a potentially parallel shift in M&E activities – both for studies conducted, as well as the way their results and related information is reported and made accessible to interested parties.

Past and current SGIP M&E efforts include:
Annual Impact Evaluations: Analyses of the impacts of the SGIP in each year of operation. Areas of assessment include: Electrical energy production and demand reduction; operating and reliability performance characteristics; electrical, thermal and overall efficiencies and the contribution of SGIP technologies to electricity system efficiency and reliability; the impact of employment of renewable fuels by SGIP technologies; the extent to which SGIP technologies provide net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions; and the relationship between DG technologies and operation, and T&D system performance and operations.

Process and Retention Evaluations (including Program Administrator (PA) Comparative Assessments): Analyses of SGIP processes and the interaction between these processes and current market needs. Process evaluations and PA comparative assessments include reviews of administrative styles and processes, marketing and outreach, implications of different approaches, and external variations. Retention studies assess the long-term persistence of impacts from self-generation technologies, and find the technical degradation factor (time and use related change in efficiency) and the effective useful life (the median number of years that the technologies are still in place and operational).

Cost-Effectiveness Studies: Assessments of the cost-effectiveness of the SGIP, based on SGIP-specific projects and incentive structures. The September 2005 preliminary cost-effectiveness assessment was based on the cost-effectiveness analysis framework report using metered project performance information. In accordance with that framework, cost-effectiveness was evaluated from three perspectives: participant (project owners within the SGIP), nonparticipant (ratepayers), and society as a whole. The 2007 report on solar PV costs and incentive factors is intended to provide information on metered PV performance and reported PV system costs for PV systems implemented under the SGIP, and is meant to examine the relationships of PV performance, cost, and incentive design.

Renewable Fuel Use Reports: Assessments of the extent to which SGIP technologies employ renewable fuels. Reports include analysis of the compliance of renewable fuel use projects receiving incentives under the SGIP with renewable fuel use requirements, identification of the operational and cost characteristics of RFU projects, and evaluation of the implications of increased renewable fuel use on the SGIP.

Miscellaneous Topical Studies: Including an in-depth analysis of useful waste heat recovery and level 3/3N performance, performance degradation studies of SGIP PV and CHP projects, and studies on improving dispatch of SGIP technologies, and strategic location of DG technologies in highly congested T&D areas.

M&E Reporting tools are currently primarily written reports which are distributed electronically to the SGIP Working Group and related stakeholders, and posted on the CPUC and PA sites. Related presentations are typically given to the Working Group, PA staff, CPUC Energy Division staff, and, sometimes, at public workshops hosted by the CPUC.

To download published SGIP M&E reports, visit www.pge.com/sgipreports

The SGIP M&E Subcommittee seeks your input on:
-- M&E studies you have either been involved with or think would be of use as the SGIP moves into its next phase, as governed by CA SB 412 legislation
-- M&E reporting tools that might make it easier to share the wealth of information the program has and will continue to garner and develop.

Please share your ideas by posting a comment.

--
Betsy Wilkins
EVO Communications

Where do good intentions LEED again?

Mark Stetz a fellow EVO-ite gave me permission to repost his complete article that he wrote in preparation for a class he is teaching at Greenbuild.  The article already appeared at  consilienceblog.org, but I thought it would be of value to our readers as well.
The article address one of the main shortcomings of the LEED certification that I have continued to hear since I joined the energy industry.
Buildings and Energy Efficiency: Are Intentions Good Enough? by Mark Stetz, P.E., CMVP, FIGP
One of the benefits claimed for LEED-certified buildings is their reduced energy use, resource consumption, and carbon footprint relative to their peers. Designing a building to be energy-efficient, take advantage of solar energy and day lighting, use emerging technologies, and using a commissioning agent seems like a good way to lower energy and resource use. Achieving design goals requires that specialists from many different disciplines work together in a harmonious relationship, but the greatest danger to any relationship is failed expectations.
The LEED rating system scores buildings by assigning points based on land, material, water, and energy use over a building’s lifetime. One of the weaknesses of the LEED system is that points are based on design intent and not verified performance. For years, the USGBC claimed that LEED-certified buildings used less energy than the average building, although they had little supporting evidence. This claim was based solely on expectations of superior performance. Critics were quick to argue that the point- and expectation-based rating system would not result in well-designed cost-effective buildings. [1]
The USGBC – partly out of curiosity, partly in response to its critics – commissioned a study to investigate how LEED-certified buildings actually operate rather than rely on how the designers and builders think they operate. The 2008 study by Frankel and Turner [2] showed that design intentions are unfortunately often not realized. Of the 552 LEED-certified buildings in existence at the time, only 121 had utility data available for review. Of those 121 buildings, 40% did not meet their energy target and more than 20% had energy use intensities greater than code requirements! While debate continues over the validity of the statistical and evaluation methods used, the report suggests that over half of the buildings met or exceeded expectations. But for a program that emphasizes energy efficiency as one of its key attributes, how is it that 20% of these buildings did not even perform up to code?
For conventional buildings, code-compliance is based on design intent rather than post-occupancy verification. Since the Frankel & Turner study did not evaluate individual non-LEED buildings, it is not possible to show how many conventional buildings live up to their design intent. Additional analysis of the same buildings conducted by National Research Council Canada [3] reached similar conclusions, with the good news that on average, LEED buildings do save energy but that individual buildings may not. But no one occupies the average building any more than they have the average 2.3 children.
In an attempt to address some of the weaknesses with LEED 2.2, LEED 3.0 – released April 2009 – further emphasizes designing for and achieving energy reductions. The point system has been revamped to make it align more with the USGBC’s goals of energy and carbon reductions. Energy efficiency (EA-1) can now earn a building up to 19 points and the Measurement &Verification credit (EA-5) – which validates energy use - is now worth 3 points. To enable additional post-evaluation research, USGBC will require post-occupancy access to the water and energy bills, access that needs to be maintained even if the building changes owners. Although some critics have suggested that certification be revoked if an individual building ever fails to live up to its claims [4], the USGBC has not yet taken that draconian step.
Lessons learned from studying existing buildings – LEED and non-LEED alike – support the continued integration and cooperation of disciplines when designing, constructing, and commissioning buildings so that they work as a system rather than a collection of parts. They also show that performance monitoring during the life of the building is equally important. Only 25% of LEED-certified buildings apply for and receive the M&V Credit EA-5 [5], possibly because there are easier and cheaper ways of earning points. Unfortunately, receiving the M&V credit only requires writing an M&V plan; there is no requirement that it be implemented. The expectation that someone will carry out the M&V plan will continue to be a weakness with the LEED system.
Benefits of building performance monitoring include not just cost control and the ability to claim carbon emissions, but also feedback for the designers and operators to apply to their next project. Building simulation models may appear reliable because they are done on a computer, but many building characteristics are unknown and unknowable, so assumptions are used instead. For example, a building may be designed as a 9 to 5 office building but the tenants actually operate 24/7. The resultant energy use will be significantly greater than originally estimated, but with no real verification, it would appear that the building is less efficient than intended. In this case, the assumed occupant behavior does not match reality. Only by verifying the actual energy use and comparing it to the models can assumptions and building performance can be validated.
If LEED-certified buildings are to live up to their expectations, performance cannot be based on design intent. Hope is not a plan. The goals of energy, cost, water, and carbon reductions need to be demonstrated in practice if the LEED program is to maintain credibility. The new LEED 3.0 requirements are a step in the right direction; the rest is up to those who design, build, commission, and occupy buildings. 
About the author
Mark Stetz, P.E. CMVP, FIGP, is the Principal of Stetz Consulting LLC and an energy engineer specializing in building performance verification and energy audits. He will be teaching Building Performance Verification at Greenbuild in 2009 and Measurement & Verification at the ASHRAE Winter Meeting in 2010. Mark is also on the Advisory Board of the Institue of Green Professionals.
1. LEED Scores Early Successes but Faces Big Challenges
E Source Technical Brief ER-04-3
Platts Research & Consulting 2004
2. Energy Performance of LEED® for New Construction Buildings
Cathy Turner, Cathy; Frankel, Mark
New Buildings Institute May 2008
http://www.newbuildings.org/measuredPerformance.htm
3. Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but...
Newsham, G.R.; Mancini, S.; Birt, B.
National Research Council Canada
NRCC-51142 August 2009
https://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/projects/irc/post-occupancy.html
4. A Better Way to Rate Green Buildings
Henry Gifford 2009
http://www.EnergySavingScience.com
5. Personal communication with Brendan Owens, USGBC 2009.
--
Nathan Shetterley (nathan.shetterley@gmail.com)
EVO Director of New Media

College reacting to the uptick in Need for M&V professionals

I love to see this type of news, it makes me feel confident that colleges are paying attention to the Market and reacting to real demand, and actually preparing kinds for real jobs.

FTA:

Lakes Region Community College has received a $168,500 grant through the N.H. Public Utilities Commission, sponsored by the N.H. Division of Economic Development…

…Students completing the training satisfactorily will be able to apply for the Building Performance Institute (BPI) Building Analyst certification, allowing them to become energy auditors, analysts, building operators, resource conservation managers, technical service representatives, measurement and verification technicians, and many other related professions.

I wonder if they are linked in anyway to IPMVP or the AEE…

--
Nathan Shetterley (nathan.shetterley@gmail.com)
EVO Director of New Media

McKinsey Describes IPMVP as Foundational

In a July 2009 wide ranging report, the global consulting firm McKinsey & Company provided analysis of the barriers to energy efficiency in the USA, on page 107 in the printed report, it identifies the need to achieve “appropriate” evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V). Interestingly it wisely notes that: “providing a ‘perfect’ EM&V system is not possible; instead, a ‘sufficient’ EM&V system” is needed.

The report further describes that ‘sufficient’ EM&V should be:

a) consistent (internally consistent and stable over time);

b) simple in design (to balance value against complexity and cost); and

c) involve both measurement of energy consumption and review of activities undertaken.

IPMVP is described as a “shared foundation for EM&V” which “might provide the consistent methodology upon which energy efficiency program managers can build.”

From the report:

As California's efforts to improve energy efficiency have show, even in a state that has taken a relatively aggressive approach to capturing energy efficiency, the issues surrounding attribution can be complex. Detailed EM&V programs that cause a slowdown in the pursuit of energy efficiency are unlikely to merit their expense. Fore example, in some California programs, discussions of attribution sought to resolve differences of $70 million in incentives, of a total program spend of $2.1 billion - with benefits that exceed $4 billion. A detailed EM&V program that risks disruption the pursuit of energy efficiency is unlikely to deliver savings equal to the opportunity cost. For example, slowing the capture of the $4 billion in benefits by four months decreases their present value by $70 million.

The International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) provides a basis for analyzing project-level savings from energy efficiency measures. Though the IPMVP primarily address project savings in commercial and industrial sectors, it could provide the basis for broader measurement of energy efficiency programs. Development of this protocol has been supported by the Department of Energy and provides the basis for measurement in federal Energy Services Performance Contracts. A shared foundation for EM&V of this sort might provide the consistent methodology upon which energy efficiency programs managers can build.

--
Nathan Shetterley (nathan.shetterley@gmail.com)
EVO Director of New Media

A triple play for energy efficiency

I’ve been spending most of my time in Chicago as of late, and it’s a bit of a baseball town, so you’ll have to excuse the reference.

I saw this in my inbox today from smartmeters.com:   Chicago association describes office building smart grid.

FTA: 

The Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Chicago has plans to develop the nation’s first smart grid program specifically for an office building.  The group filed an official application for 50 percent matching funds worth $92.7 million from the US Department of Energy (DOE).  The total cost of the project has been estimated at $185.4 million.
The program will implement smart grid technology throughout more than 260 commercial buildings in the downtown Chicago area.  The association represents more than 80 percent of the building space in the central business district – buildings that account for an estimated gigawatts of energy during times of peak demand.

Now I don’t know if they are going to get credit for the energy efficiency or just the demand response, but in all cases it’s big win for the ESCO industry who with the correct use of building automation can now energy the (virtual) generation market as partners with their clients.

I’d love to hear from anyone who has experience providing virtual generation independently from a utility.

If this works as I understand energy efficiency can save/make money by:  reducing utility costs, reducing carbon emissions, and selling the shedded load back to the grid as a virtual source of energy.  Plus they are getting grant money to do it, does that make it a grand slam?

--
Nathan Shetterley (nathan.shetterley@gmail.com)
EVO Director of New Media