B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Page 1 Energy Smart Industrial (ESI):...

B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

Energy Smart Industrial (ESI): Energy Management Offering

RTF

August 4 2009

BPA, Cascade Energy, Strategic Energy Group


Today’s Agenda Energy Management and The 6th Power Plan

Overview of Energy Management Offering

– Including Case Studies

Monitoring Targeting & Reporting Overview

Key Challenges

Evaluation Plan and Timeline for Results

Next Steps


6th Plan Industrial Overview – 5 Year

Regional Target

– 224 aMW

BPA Share of 5 Year Target

– 94 aMW

– 19% of BPA’s

total 5 year target

Industrial Initiative - 5 Year

24%

8%

7%

3%22%

17%

9%7%

3%0.2%

Industrial Process

Industrial Lighting

Air Compressor

Fans

Pumps

Industrial Motors

EMS

CVR

Transformers

DEI


Energy Management 5 Year Target

– ~20 aMW

BPA 5 Year Target

21%

42%

37%Plant EnergyManagement

Energy ProjectManagement

Integrated PlantEnergy Management


Energy Management in 6th Plan

Conservation MeasureFirst Cost ($/kWh)

Deployment Basis % Savings

Measure Applicability

Achievable Potential Lifetime

Plant Energy Management $0.021 Retrofit 12% 27% 50% 10Energy Project Management $0.123 Retrofit 29% 27% 75% 11Integrated Plant Energy Management $0.197 Retrofit 50% 22% 50% 11

Measure Description Measure Description Measure Description

This level of energy management includes basic energy efficiency projects where utility incentives and other subsidies are available - supported with comprehensive demand-side assessments and, good preventative maintenance practices based on system-specific guidelines and supported by system operator training (e.g., CAC, PSAT, etc.).

This level of energy management includes assignment of an energy engineer, tracking energy costs, identification and prioritization of capital projects, application of systems optimization tools and practices on a few key systems in the facility.

Compliance with, or equivalency to, the American National Standard for energy management, which includes development and implementation of an energy management plan (policy, accountabilities, goals, department/system level targets and measurements, etc.) to support continuous improvement of energy intensity and independent verification of energy savings.

Enhanced O&M for multiple systems tied to equipment improvements.

Enhanced O&M including comprehensive dmand side assessment, and addressing leaks, or other waste, that is clearly visible.

Use of system assessment standards to identify system energy efficiency improvement opportunities will assist plants in meeting their continuous improvement goals.

BETTER BEST

Energy Project Management Integrated Plant Energy Management

GOOD

Plant Energy Management


Energy Smart Industrial Overview Contract with Program Partners

– Cascade Energy Engineering

– Strategic Energy Group

– Evergreen Consulting

Broad program encompassing:– Field outreach to identify and drive conventional projects:

• Energy Smart Industrial Partners (ESIPs)

– Lighting, small industrial, future industry-specific offerings.

– Energy Management• One of the biggest new program offerings

Two year contract beginning October 1st 2009.– 1st year savings goal: 12 aMW

– 2nd year savings goal: 15 aMW


ESI Energy Management Each project will be treated as custom

Each reviewed and approved by BPA Field Engineers

M&V protocols derived from the International Performance Measurement & Verification Protocol (IPMVP)

Three Program Offers – End User can choose any or all.

1. Energy Project Manager (EPM) Funding

– This is not an energy efficiency measure, but is a catalyst.

– It is a funding mechanism tied to goals set by the End User (cents per kWh of annual savings goal subject to minimum and maximum funding levels)

2. Track and Tune (T&T)

– O&M Program Offering. This will be a custom EE measure.

3. High Performance Energy Management (HPEM)

– EM Coaching (One-on-One or Peer Group) to help End Users adopt core EM principles. This will be a custom EE measure


Track & Tune Overview


Track & TuneWhat is being offered?

Site or sub-system tune-up (aka retro-commissioning)

Normalized efficiency tracking system

What is the primary goal?

Improve plant energy performance through O&M improvements

– An attractive business opportunity for the End User

– Documentable, low-cost savings for the program

Minimum Size Requirements?

Sub-System > 1,000,000 kWh/yr

Plant-Wide > 4,000,000 kWh/yr

Funding of services?

Tune-up and initial tracking tool funded by BPA

Measure funding?

CRC/CAA towards the cost of implemented action items

Repeat payments?

Incentives paid annually for documented savings seen through ongoing tracking tool


Track &Tune Motto:“Do the little stuff well”

Industrial Refrigeration:– Temperature and pressure set-points, algorithms, sequencing

order, coil cleaning, valve adjustment and repair, eliminate non-condensables, etc.

Compressed Air:– Fix leaks, compressor sequencing, operate in optimal part-load

mode, avoid wasteful end uses, shutoff loads when not in use, etc.

Hypothesis:– Many systems of moderate complexity will have a similar list.


Track and Tune Steps Step 1: Identify a Plant, Process, or Subsystem with potential

Step 2: Install a measurement system (instrumentation and software) that all parties use as a tool to gauge energy use and progress – funding provided by ESI program

Step 3: Identify a specific set of actions to improve performance and maintain savings over time – funding for technical services provided

Step 4: Make the changes – co-funding for the package of upgrades

Step 5: Ongoing tracking of performance for 5 years. Plan to provide incentive in succession of five 1-yr measures.


International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol

Track & Tune M&V methods strive to meet the requirements, methods, and spirit of the IPMVP

Options A, B, and C

– Use Option A (Retrofit Isolation w/ Key Parameter Measurement)

– Use Option B (Retrofit Isolation w/ All Parameter Measurement)

– Use Option C (Whole Facility Measurement)

Track &Tune M&V Methods UseIPMVP Fundamentals


M&V: Conventional Custom Projects versus Track &Tune

Conclusions:

•Track &Tune savings and methodology are robust due to extended M&V process.

•Track &Tune methods make O&M measures a very firm EE resource.

M&V IssueConventional Custom

Capital Project T&TBaseline Definition Measured: Typically 1 - 4 weeks Measured: Targeting 2 months for

sub-metered projects. Multiple years of utility and production data are typically available for whole facility applications.

Post-installation Measurement Short term: Typically 1 to 4 weeks Measured: 5 yearsCorrection for production or seasonal variations

Loads or operations are analytically extrapolated and modified using engineering judgment

Regression analysis

Degradation or improvement of system performance over the course of measure life

Not addressed Degradation seen (and hopefully addressed) for first 5 years. Cumulative savings (whether trending up or down) are measured continuously over the first five years.

Means of assessing savings impact of "non-routine" changes after installation

Potentially seen in the evaluation, but otherwise not addressed

Re-baselining where appropriate


Track & Tune Case Studies


110 Refrigerated Warehouses

– Facility Tune-Ups

– Energy Management

– Some Capital Upgrades

– Some Efficient New Construction

Document savings by tracking kWh/day/weighted cu-ft

Continuing to pursue greater energy savings

Case Study 1: Sysco

Corporation

Total Broadline Energy Intensity

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0kW

h/d

ay/1

000

wei

ght

ed f

t3

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

SYSCO Broadline Monthly Savings vs Baseline Period

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Per

cen

t

27.9% Savings1


SYSCO Identified Savings from Tune-ups

Savings never lower than 7% (across 105 facilities).

12.6% average savings identified.

Identified savings are conservative

Sites are shown how to find savings on their own.

Sites saved significantly more than was identified.

Identified Savings by Sitefrom tune-up effort

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25% More

Identified Savings

Nu

mb

er o

f S

ites

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Frequency

Cumulative %


SYSCO Realized Savings(YoY, FY08 versus FY06)

Actual Savings by Sitefrom tune-up effort plus some capital upgrades

0

5

10

15

20

25

-12% -9

%

-6%

-3% 0% 3% 6% 9% 12%

15%

18%

21%

24%

27%

30%

33%

36%

39%

42%

45%

Mo

re

Savings(FY06 to FY08)

Nu

mb

er o

f S

ites

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cu

mu

lati

ve P

erce

nt

Frequency

Cumulative %


Monthly Average Energy Use(shown in average kWh per day)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Calendar Month

Ave

rag

e kW

h/d

ay

2007

2008

2009

Track &Tune Case Study 2: Dairy First Year Savings:

– 2,600,000 kWh

– $175,000

– 15%

Upgrade Cost:

– $70,000

Changes made:

– Refrigeration, pumping, chilled water, glycol, cooling tower, process, HVAC and lighting

Savings Calculated:

– Normalized Energy Use

– kWh/gallon versus 12-month baseline

Kaizen Blitz: June 2008


Dairy Production Normalization Two ways of showing kWh per

gallon of milk

kWh/gallon versus Month – removes seasonal influence

kWh versus Gallons of Production

– Clearly demonstrates before and after performance

– Demonstrates continued Year 2 performance

Monthly Energy Use per Gallon

.000

.100

.200

.300

.400

.500

.600

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Calendar Month

kWh

per

Gal

lon

of

Pro

du

ct2007

2008

2009

Kaizen Blitz: June 2008

Monthly Energy Use versus Gallons

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,400,000 2,600,000 2,800,000 3,000,000 3,200,000 3,400,000 3,600,000 3,800,000 4,000,000

Monthly Production (gallons)

Mo

nth

ly k

Wh

Baseline: 6/07-6/08

1st Year: 6/08-6/092nd Year: 6/09-6/10

Linear (Baseline: 6/07-6/08)Linear (1st Year: 6/08-6/09)


High Performance Energy Management (HPEM)


21

Coaching through a continuous improvement process (similar to ISO, Lean, etc…)

Includes organizational and technical aspects

Builds on Energy Project Manager and Track & Tune

Savings come from:

– More projects that we are already measuring (Conventional Custom Projects & Track & Tune)

– O&M and Behavioral changes that are measured through Monitoring Tracking & Reporting analysis (similar to whole facility Option C in IPMVP). Annual savings quantified and incented for this category of savings. Plan to provide cents/kWh incentive in succession of five 1-year measure lives

High Performance Energy Management (HPEM)


22

Assess: Compelling business case?

Commit: Establish Sponsor, Champion, Team,…

Identify: Where, how energy is used – set baseline

Plan: Vision through action plan is communicated

Take Action: Implement and track progress

Review: Report and Recognize

1

2

3

4

5

6

Assisting customers through the High Performance Energy Management

process:


23

BC HydroEPA Energy Star

High Performance Energy Management is similar in concept

to: NEEA


One-on-one coaching

Structured Network Group

– 10 – 12 industry focus, or non-competitive customers

– Monthly facilitated meetings (or webinars)

– Peer group learning, sharing, and support

– Individual support as well:

• Management assessment

• Attend energy team meetings

• Connection to technical services

• Monitoring, Targeting, and Reporting

Delivery of HPEM


Monitoring Targeting & Reporting Relevance to

ESI Energy Management Same Model Serves Dual Purposes

– For the Participating Site:

• Recognize and Seize Opportunities

• Recognize and Address Backslipping

• Quantification of Savings Achieved

– For the Track &Tune and High Performance Energy Management Measures within the ESI Program:

• Quantification of Savings Achieved

• Similar Methodology to IPMVP Option C – Whole Facility Assessment


What is MT&R?

Monitoring: collecting data and analyzing against a “performance model”

Targeting: setting performance targets

Reporting: communicating the information to improve performance, and communicating the results.

“You can’t manage what you don’t measure”


• Monitors energy consumption over time

• Relates energy consumption to “drivers”

• Helps set targets to track and manage

• Compares consumption to targets

• Identifies changes and variances

• Calculates energy savings

What does MT&R do?


The process of MT&R

Define the scope

Collect data

Establish the performance model

Create a baseline

Establish targets

Track performance - CUSUM analysis

Quantify energy savings


10,000 foot view:6 Plants CombinedLong Term/Trend Data

1,500 foot view:Individual Plants

Long Term/Trend Data

Floor view:Individual Projects

Short Term

Overall Company Electrical Usage

Plant 61 meter

Plant 44 Meters

Plant 13 Meters

Plant 22 Meters

Plant 31 Meter

Plant 51 Meter

Process ACompressorLighting Process B

Metrics & Analysis at Multiple Levels


MT&R: Reporting

Department/System Operating Targets

• Compressed Air• Pumps• Boiler

Supervisor Targets Shift or Daily

At least Shift

Daily

Monthly

Shift or Daily

At least Shift

Daily

Monthly

• Pulping• Paper Machine• Bleach Plant

• Compressed Air• Pumps

• Pulping• Paper Machine

• Department Process Efficiency e.g. kWh/ton, Btu/ton

• Overall Process Efficiency

e.g. kWh/ton, btu/ton

Managers


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

0 50 100 150 200

Production (tonnes)

Ele

ctr

icit

y (

kW

h)

Base Consumption High Elimination Improved

Best Historical Specific Arbritray

Options for quantifiableperformance targets

MT&R: Performance Targets


-250,000

-200,000

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

-

50,000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35

Week

CU

SU

M E

lect

rici

ty (k

Wh)

Critical Points

MT&R: CUSUM


Important Considerations for Track & Tune and HPEM Savings

Count savings only once! Re-Baselining Measurement

– Identifying and getting the right “production” data

– Balancing – or optimizing – collection of sub-meter data• Cost versus “accuracy”

– Changes in key drivers (plant, equipment, feed stock, etc.)

– Monitoring equipment calibration error

– Identifying and addressing outlier data

Investigation bias

– Equitable investigation to both increases or decreases in facility energy use

– Savings and “Opportunity Register” should be in line.


Avoid Double-Counting of Savings

Scenario ResolutionCapital Project that affects energy use within the Measurement Boundary of a Track & Tune Project

Make a "non-routine adjustment" that subtracts the energy savings associated with Capital Project from the T&T Savings (with an understanding of the timing and variability of savings from the Capital Project)

HPEM takes place concurrent with a capital project, or subsystem level T&T project

Make a "non-routine adjustment" to subtract energy savings of Track & Tune project and/or capital project from the HPEM Savings

HPEM and Track & Tune at the whole facility level are tackled simultaneously

This would be seen as a single measure since the savings are measured in the same way, using the same measurement boundary


“Re-Baselining” Periodic survey of facility processes

– Determine if major changes were made that impact energy use

Determining a ‘transition’

– Will change that has occurred be captured through existing normalization method?

– If no, then major change forces a re-baselining.

Capturing savings pre and post-transition

– Quantify savings going into the transition and claim

– Assess whether these savings are maintained after the transition

– Re-establish new baseline after transition

– Add savings achieved after the transition


Program Evaluation Plan

Early Evaluation (Cadmus Group)

– Will kick-off this month

– Evaluators will be reviewing program documents, data collection, recommending real-time adjustments to improve program effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

– Will develop long-term evaluation approach (late 2009 or early 2010)

Long-term Evaluation (TBD)

– Expect to evaluate Energy Management measures – will use EM Data Collection tool developed by Cascade (data starts collection Oct 1st 2009)


Next Steps

Questions, input and feedback

– Due to BPA by August 18th

– Contact:

• Todd Admundson, [email protected]

• Danielle Gidding, [email protected]

BPA, Cascade, SEG and Evergreen will review and provide unified response to input and feedback

October 1st Implementation


Questions?


More information on IPMVP Concepts relevant to T&T and

HPEM Savings


Key Concepts from International Performance Measurement & Verification Protocol (IPMVP

Methods of Savings Quantification:

– Retrofit Isolation (Option A or B) – relevant to subsystem T&T

– Option C, Whole Facility or Sub-Facility Level –relevant to facility wide T&T and to HPEM

Adjustments: Account for Changes in Static Factors (non-routine) & Changes for Independent Variables (routine).

Boundary of Measurement [whole facility or process/sub-system].

Duration of the Baseline and Reporting Periods.

Savings Analysis Using Statistical Tools.


Key Concepts (cont.) Long “Reporting Period” (aka post-installation monitoring)

equates to higher confidence in savings.

“Non-routine Adjustments” to Savings

– IPMVP specifically mentions:

• facility size

• design and operation of installed equipment

• the number of weekly production shifts – would tend to be reflected in regression

• types of occupants – usually not an issue for industrial projects

– To which we would add the following when they affect the energy use within the “Measurement Boundary”

• Electrical energy use impacts of fuel switching or CHP

• Processes contracted out or brought inside

• Capital EE projects. Key concept – no double counting of savings.


IPMVP “Measurement Boundary”

T&T FocusIPMVP Type

Likely Measurement

System CommentDiffuse Action Items Throughout Facility

Option C Meter level: billing history + real time kW

Effects can only be captured and measured at this level.

Refrigeration System Option C Meter level: billing history + real time kW

Too many loads are affected to submeter. System makes up a large percentage of plant load.

Compressed Air System Supply and End Uses

Option B kWh Transducers on Each Compressor

Expecting improvements both in terms of how efficiently compressed air is generated and consumed.

Compressed Air Leak Reduction

Option A using proxy

Compressed Air Flowmeters as Proxy for Energy Use

Air flow measurement might present the best insight into system performance and energy savings in some situations.

Paper Machine Vacuum Systems

Option B or Option B with proxy

kWh or Current Transducers on Each Vacuum Pump

Amps would be proxy for kWh.


EPM Funding


Background for EPM

Situation: Large industrial customers are short on staff to spearhead and manage efficiency projects

Target: Increase industrial end user staffing and expertise devoted to electrical energy efficiency

Proposal: Direct co-funding of industrial end user staffing to deliver custom projects. Link delivery of savings to continued funding.


Details of Energy Project Manager (EPM) EPM is not a “measure”!

EPM will serve as ESI program point of contact at industrial end user facility

EPM is employee of end user

ESI program funds some or all of EPM salary

EPM is a specific person, not a pool of labor

End user determines:

– The individual filling the EPM position

– EPM compensation level

– Existing or new employee

One EPM may be shared between multiple sites

An EPM+ is also enrolled in HPEM

An EPM can act as Resource Conservation Manager (RCM), Project Manager, or Energy Efficiency Engineer as needed


EPM Goals & Funding Mechanism

ESIP works with end user to set annual savings goal for EPM

– This process repeated annually

EPM funding directly tied to magnitude of goal

– Minimum annual funding per participating site = $25,000

– Maximum annual funding per participating site = $250,000

– Minimum of 1,000,000 kWh savings target each year

– Annual EPM funding = expected at $0.025 per kWh of target

– Year 2 and beyond funding is only offered to end users that have achieved their previous year’s goal

Mechanism for under performance

B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Page 1 Energy Smart Industrial (ESI):...

Documents

Transcript of B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Page 1 Energy Smart Industrial (ESI):...