January-February 2011

Distributed Efficiencies

With billions in subsidy dollars to help, facility audits and retrofits are repaying energetically while also inspiring a closer look at energy management.

Tweet

When you think about it, onsite power and onsite energy conservation are two lines of attack against a common challenge: how to cut utility bills.

And although power generation—whether green/renewable or conventional—may be the sexier solution, the stronger case is made for buying low-cost, high-efficiency lighting, heating, chilling, or weatherization upgrades, as the case may be.

The process usually begins with shopping for the services of an energy auditing firm. Several varieties and specialties of these exist, both for residential and commercial work. In some states, specific expert contracting licensure is required, especially where energy rebates are offered. And these days, contractors are enjoying diverse and sometimes lavish funding streams. 

Thanks to these, the field of energy auditing has been growing rapidly, even in a tepid economy, and a host of organizations has blossomed for training and certification. By far the most extensive offerings are those of the Association of Energy Engineers, probably followed by an organization called Home Performance with Energy Star, and then the Building Performance Institute. After these three, smaller private entrepreneurial certifying organizations include the Residential Energy Services Network, Everblue Training Institute, Denby Energy, and CMC Energy Services. Still more training and exams are done in affiliation with state housing authorities or state-level contractors organization, at about half the states, at larger utilities, and at some colleges and universities.

With such a profusion of resources, no single certification exists. But there are definitely consensus “best practices” and goals which nearly all audits explore: lighting, HVAC, and weatherization, for instance, are virtually universal, as is the ranking of proposed retrofits by cost-benefit and payback analysis.

Similarly, some auditors of larger facilities routinely apply benchmarking. As Tim Michels, president of Energy Solutions Inc., of Saint Louis, MO, explains, in this approach, utility data and building energy performance are compared among assorted sites under similar weather conditions. From this, periodic reports are issued to show relative savings. Typical efficiencies turn out to be “pretty phenomenal,” matching retrofitted against unimproved sites.

Another common focus is HVAC equipment capacity. Michels continues: “By doing a full audit, you actually begin to match loads to equipment and find out that it is oversized.”

HVAC plants run most efficiently at full capacity; mismatch hardware may pile up huge losses over time. Equipment may have been designed too large, or it becomes so, he explains, “because over the years, the building has gone through a number of retrofits—double-pane, insulation—so a load to the plant is less than it used to be.”

Another waste of money occurs if oversized systems break down and are replaced with the same spec again. This will happen if auditing is overlooked.

“How much money would you have saved if you’d paused two days and done an analysis to find out how big a boiler needed to be?”, asks Michels.

Conversely, real-world auditors and audits also do vary all over the map, on everything from quality and competence to the availability of specialized or proprietary services, technologies, and methods. Just as no uniform certification of skills exists, neither is there standardization on how building audits should be done, “or even for building energy modeling” as Gene Blake, senior vice president for federal programs at MACTEC Engineering and Consulting Inc. (Alpharetta, GA), observes.

Blake says of the industry: “Right now it’s in a ‘bake off’ between the various contractors to see who can come up with the best templates and best audit reports that are most readily usable for customers.”

To illustrate some of the variety of audit approaches, then, here are case four studies of current projects:

Executive Order 13514
Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance is the title and ambition of Executive Order 13514, dated October 5, 2009. By it, federal administrators are prodded to target 25% of their facilities every year for energy audits. Resulting projects are then fundable by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the great economic stimulus package passed in 2009.

Thanks to this, contracting work at federal agencies has exploded. At the National Park Service, for example, in spring 2010 MACTEC, together with a partnering firm Gabel Associates, won a blanket purchase agreement to perform energy audits “for virtually every major park” for the Park Service, notes Blake.

As of mid-2010, audits are well underway. Lighting, roofing, heat pumps and other geothermal energy, cooling, and solar panels—“everything from upgrade of a facility to redoing the lighting and replacing ballasts, to very substantial projects beyond that, like putting in wind turbines and solar renewables” are being explored, he says.

MACTEC’s basic audit strategy begins, he says, with the standard return-on-investment (ROI) model, in which assessment teams look to find specific retrofit investments, which should be made, estimate the cost savings, and determine an approximate timeframe when each might pay off. Recommendations are then rendered into standard filings needed to fund government projects.

In the course of doing surveys, Blake adds, a key element emerging is that the energy audits are now routinely being combined with the larger facility condition assessment. This improves overall integration and reduces some duplication of effort. Through the years, multiple teams of auditors or inventory takers have been going through federal facilities—looking separately at, say, lighting, or heating, or the envelope, wear-and-tear condition, space utilization, etc. Now the thinking is, why not combine all of this into one super audit?

“It just seems kind of crazy that they don’t get some synergies between the databases they use and the nameplate information, and the way the forms are prepared,” he observes. “When you interface energy audits and your facility condition assessments, you create essentially a shopping list of projects, their cost, ROI, and how that fits into the overall life-cycle management of the building.”

Blake predicts: “Within three years, you’ll see all these audits being combined, [industrywide].”

Taking this more comprehensive approach also enables producing a long-range master plan. This catalogs all energy investment and site improvement opportunities together.

As for the immediate energy audits in progress during 2010, the basic process works as follows.

Data is first collected systematically, then plugged into MACTEC’s dedicated software tools, which output myriad recommendations.

“We lay the project into a building, using an advance technique program that will cascade the various types of energy projects into the building, one after another, so you can see the cumulative effect and the return on investment for various projects you may wish to undertake,” explains Blake. “It’s a pretty cool process.”

Not just ROI is calculated, but an assessment of what any given project will mean in terms of impact on long-term building management. This perspective is suited to the government budgeting world, “where payback is not as crucial, and where the larger [operation and maintenance] annual budget is,” says Blake.

The question is often whether to fix a roof or replace the lighting, under a given budget period, “and what is the ROI for doing each,” he states. 

Finally, what are some of the technologies being recommended?

These, Blake says, tend to be too localized to allow generalization. But MACTEC has developed what he considers a particularly effective proprietary system for extending the life of HVAC condenser coils and improving their performance, by applying specially developed coatings. Introduced about five years ago, the process is bringing “very significant cost-saving benefits” and “huge efficiency improvements,” he says.

Blake adds: “Condensers and coils that were down into the ‘40s and ‘30s [in their efficiency rates] are bumped back up into the ‘80s.”
A Municipal Makeover
After an audit and the retrofits, how much money and energy will be saved? 

In the portfolio of Energy Solutions Inc. (ESI), a 35-year-old consulting firm headed by Michels and based in St. Louis, the answer is, typically 20–25%. Payback usually come in five years or less. For example, at the University City School District, 11 buildings saved 36% on gas and 13% on electricity. Elsewhere, the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center lopped off 44% from its gas load and 12% of its electricity. Both sites were verified showing more than $1 million in energy savings after audits and upgrades, company literature states.

Similar numbers are expected, now, from a project just hitting full stride with the City of Saint Louis. In September 2009, ESI, as part of a consortium of firms half a dozen firms, won a contract to audit and retrofit several city buildings, under a comprehensive two-phase master plan. Resulting projects will be paid for by ARRA.

 

 

Re-lamping of about 200 conventional lighting fixtures in two Applebee’s Restaurant’s in New York City, using new LED bulbs

Within weeks of inking the agreement, the group had already submitted its initial plan for an energy audit of City Hall and the Carnahan Courts Building. For this, a $3.7 million block grant was sought and eventually awarded from the US Department of Energy, earmarking about $2.5 million for these buildings. A third was also studied, paid for with dollars from the local utility energy rebate fund. Together, the three sites comprise about 850,000 square feet, roughly one-fourth of the city government’s total floor space.

Emerging from the audits came a list of multiple energy opportunities, says Michels, “ranging from things with a very quick payback to major infrastructure replacements, like old chiller equipment and energy systems at City Hall, with a 15- to 20-year payback.”

According to the industry, the brightness of LEDs (currently giving off 120 lumens per Watt) is expected to soon double.

The more extensive work also complies with “some very aggressive city ordinances about being energy efficient as buildings are remodeled,” he adds. “When you blend these together with some lighting retrofits, some pump replacements, some changing from steam to natural gas, they have a lot of options.”

But unfortunately, not a lot of money: Before ARRA came along, Saint Louis “didn’t have the funds to proceed, and they weren’t willing to go out and borrow” for energy projects, even easily repayable ones. Retrofit investments of roughly $10 million, for two major buildings, could be well justified, for a 20-year payout. Nevertheless, “they elected to do only a limited number of the items that could be accomplished for the $2.5 million they set aside for it,” with ARRA funds.

Photo: Photos: Regency Lighting

Implementation begins in 2011. Following that, a second phase will undertake audits and analyses of another six city buildings, totaling about 1.2 million square feet. Combined, the two phases will cover more than half of city-owned government buildings.

Broadly speaking, Michels observes that retrofits fall into two capital categories: those with a 10-year amortization period or longer, and those which can give “a 35% reduction in energy consumption for a five-, six-, or seven-year payback.” The latter obviously will be prioritized and attacked first.

So, loosely ranked in order of viability, Michels itemizes the best retrofit opportunities as follows:

• Weatherization. “It’s always cost justified,” he says. Elsewhere in Missouri, ARRA funding is now being pumped into insulation, double-panes, and sealants for low-income homes—“about $160 million—and that’s getting it out in the trenches where it’s going to do a lot of good.”

Credentialed weatherization auditors and contractor teams are highly skilled, adds Michels. “What they’re doing saves money twice: tax-payers are not subsidizing [by paying low-income] utility bills anymore, and tenants are then paying much less on utilities.”

Next, as noted above—

• Right-sizing HVAC. “Normally, when I do an energy audit, the first thing that pops up is that the existing mechanical equipment is typically way over-sized for the loads,” says Michels. “When you have that kind of mismatch, all the equipment works inefficiently.”

A solution is, first, to—

• Create a master plan. “This identifies the points in the life cycle of equipment, where you want to replace it, and then what you should replace it with” he says, for optimal efficiency.

Moreover, even if original building conditions change or technologies are added over the years, a well-drafted master plan does not become obsolete. Future contractors “are constantly aware of changes that are available in the technology, and they'll make sure that they update and upgrade,” he notes. 

On that score, another high-impact upgrade is typically—

• Installing new technologies. Among many innovations to consider, Michels cites frictionless chillers as one that invariably gives sometimes spectacular results. A compressor called the turbo core, made by Danfoss, enables this. It has been licensed to chiller manufacturers like McCray and York and won an ASHRAE award about five years ago, he notes.

“It can really cut cooling loads in buildings,” he says. “If you’re making a move from air-cooled, rooftop type condensing unit that’s running at about 1.4 kilowatts per ton, and you can change that out to about a 0.4 kilowatt-per-ton water-cooled frictionless small centrifugal chiller, you cut your cooling costs two thirds. We see that all the time.”
Good technology moves are—

• Using demand control ventilation.  “A lot of buildings are on fixed outdoor air that doesn't respond to whether or not there’s truly a need for ventilation,” explains Michels. “So, [install] better control systems in building with demand control ventilation.”
• LED lighting. He notes: “High-brightness LEDs give 120 lumens per Watt,” and the industry claims this will soon double.

“It does look like LEDs are going to live up to the promise that people have been touting for them,” says Michels. But they remain pricey “and should be cost-justified by looking at life cycles.”

Let There Be LED
Apple-Metro Inc. owns the franchise for 31 Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar restaurants in New York City, NY. Although saving money is a primary motive, a lighting audit for this kind of enterprise doesn’t concern itself solely with dollars, but perhaps equally seeks to improve ambiance, interior design, and customer experience. It can add highlights or correct low illumination in darker spots. In this particular retrofit case, Applebee’s got these, with a restyled interior illumination, as well as cheaper operating cost.

Specifically, by replacing incandescent bulbs with light-emitting diodes (LEDs), each restaurant slashes kilowatt-hour loads by an average of about 80%.

Photo: Photos: Regency Lighting LEDs are rated for 50,000 hours’ life—as long as 20 years of operation.

Re-lamping two sites, at 42nd Street and on Broadway, on a pilot basis, the savings claim was readily proved, notes Applebee-Metro’s Mike Berry, Director of Construction and Facilities. More than 200 incandescent recessed or track lights were swapped for an assortment of Janmar brand LEDs for interiors, and, spotlighting the entrances, Dialight’s 150-W LED. Within weeks after completing the pilot, Berry ordered LED lighting for his remaining 29 franchise stores, and for another six brand new ones set to open locally in 2011.

Ultimately, though, apart from the improved lighting quality, saving money was Berry’s primary motivation. In a media announcement he noted that he might have made the change long ago, but LEDs’ high first cost was a hurdle; lately, though, prices “have come down to a level where we could consider making changes” he says, assuring a quick payback.

Berry’s vendor, Scott Whitehead, president of Atlanta-based electrical manufacturer’s representative Whitehead & Associates, performed the energy audit and specification. Whitehead compares the steady decline in LED prices to those of computers, which occurs for similar reasons: LED use intelligent chips. Thus, prices for outdoor LED flood lamps, for example, have fallen 40% to 50% in just three years.

Utility rebates funding is also common and very enticing. Combining these two factors together means, says Whitehead, “There’s definitely payback in short order,” often within three years.

Virtually maintenance-free operation is another huge plus. Bulbs are rated to last 50,000 hours. This may translate into a product life as long as 20 years—equal to probably dozens of conventional bulbs.

LED bulbs also yield much lower heat, which may reduce the burden on air conditioning, Whitehead notes.  

Lastly, utility rebates make the value proposition even more “electrifying.”

With all these incentives and benefits in view, says Berry, the prospect of doing companywide re-lamping “became a project for us that we were really excited about.”

By replacing the incandescent bulbs, the re-lamping resulted in a claimed 80% reduction in electricity usage.

On the downside, though, Whitehead cautions, an explosion in manufacturing sources has raised quality-control issues. “Some are rushing to market and have a computer chip driver that works too hard and doesn’t last.”

Heat output is actually lower than with incandescents, but if not dissipated, can cause early failure. No independent certification of bulbs exists yet, he adds, “but it’s in progress.”

Free Money, but Lukewarm Reception
ARRA funds are still plentiful and available, yet, at least in New Jersey, potential recipients seem to think it’s exhausted, or do not know how to get it, or perceive the application gauntlet too daunting.

In 2009, ARRA began channeling money to states to pay for a long list of scheduled activities. Among these are energy audits and retrofits for hundreds, and even thousands, of potential sites. In New Jersey, for example, about 512 qualified municipalities and counties can get in line for a share, notes Greg Reinert, director of communications for the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. 

Given the rules, New Jersey decided to divide its total ARRA allocation into equal-sized $20,000 lots “to be used for energy efficiency, lighting upgrades, or whatever the energy audit recommends,” he says.

Photo: @iStockphoto.com/Qwasyx Municipalities should apply for funding—it is still out there.

Adding a sweetener, the state chipped in an appropriation so that recipients could apply not only for $20,000 from the feds, with strings attached, “but our $30,000—with no matching dollars,” says Reinert.

Still another unencumbered $20,000 comes from New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities’ Clean Energy Program (NJCEP).

In total, municipalities can get “$50,000 worth of energy upgrades, without spending a dollar of their own,” plus the $20,000 ARRA matching funds, for a total of $70,000, says Reinert.

Now comes something that perplexes Reinert and others at the NJCEP: As of late 2010, although 512 cities and towns are eligible, only about 75 have applied. 

Why is this?

It may be that they don’t believe the program is a good as it sounds, he answers. “I can only speculate that in tough times they have difficulty believing that there’s not a match required. We haven’t really figured it out.”

In any case, “We’re trying to get the word out that municipalities have this funding sitting here,” he continues. “All they have to do is apply.” 

Step one, at the local level, is to pick one building—say, the city hall, a fire station, or public library. The audit itself—done free of charge for qualifying commercial, industrial, and municipal sites—“pinpoints what gives the biggest bang for the buck. Lighting, replacement windows, insulation, or sealing the shell; it could be a number of things, which obviously will vary,” he says.

Funds offered will range, as noted, from $50,000 to $70,000. “Most lighting upgrades, and such,” he says, “would easily come under that.”

Finally, to receive the funds, an applicant must also participate in either a NJCEP Commercial & Industrial program or a Utility Energy Efficiency Incentive Program, or must install building shell measures recommended by the Local Government Energy Audit Program.

In the LGEAP, the three audit tracks are described as:

1. “SmartStart Buildings,” a program giving free money and support to commercial, industrial, institutional, municipal, and educational organizations to implement energy efficiency measures
2. “Pay for Performance,” a whole-building approach to energy efficiency for sites with annual peak demand over 200 kW (waived for hospitals, non-profits, public universities/colleges, governmental entities, and affordable multifamily housing), giving free construction money and support for energy efficiency investments
3. “Direct Install,” for sites with less than 200-kW peak demand

With the surprisingly anemic uptake of Uncle Sam’s ARRA offer, it was only in late summer 2010 that the township of East Amwell became New Jersey’s first municipality to win an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant under ARRA. Using the above-mentioned Direct Install audit template, the township combed through its main township edifice and identified items for improvements—in this case, in lighting, HVAC efficiencies, and programmable thermostats. Estimated total expenses for the list came to about $72,000; this was largely offset by an NJCEP check for $57,533 raised from state utility surcharges. To cover the remaining balance of a little over $14,000, East Amwell applied for the ARRA block grant.

Once the upgrades are completed, energy savings should come to over 52,000 kWh of electricity per year, and 942 therms of gas. Combined, this will trim about $10,800 a year from site utility bills.

Reinert advises that after December 31, 2010, any remaining funds will be re-offered in 2011, though probably under a revised formula. “We may jump [the offer] up to $50,000 and allow towns that haven’t already got $20,000 to come back for more,” he says. “Because we’ve got to spend the money.”

ARRA funds must be disbursed and projects completed by April 2012. Unlike the original rules instituted in 2009, he adds, “We’re not guaranteeing that money will be there for everyone.” For further information, contact www.NJCleanEnergy.com/EECBG or call 866-NJSMART.

On a final note concerning the magnitude of retrofit work to be done here, and potential job-creation impact it would bring, Michels says emphatically: “If we did just what’s most cost effective in this country, we have roughly a two-trillion-dollar market that can’t be shipped overseas. It has to be retrofit locally. That two trillion is worth 25 million jobs or two-and-a-half million jobs for 10 years. It would pay back residentially for individuals in six years, and for businesses in three years. That’s my definition of cost-effectiveness.”

Author's Bio:  Writer David Engle specializes in construction-related topics.