Herbert E. Hirschfeld, P.E. and Joseph S. Lopes Applied Energy Group, Inc. Metering America 2005...

Herbert E. Hirschfeld, P.E.and

Joseph S. LopesApplied Energy Group, Inc.

Metering America 2005April 13, 2005

Submetering Case Studies with Load Management and

Time-Sensitive Pricing

http://www.spintelligent.com/

http://www.spintelligent.com/

Submetering with LM & TSP Case Studies: Hirschfeld & Lopes

• Residential Electrical Submetering• Conversion of master-metered apartment

buildings to submetering• Transfers payment responsibility from

owners to residents, retains bulk rate• Proven energy savings: 18-26% or more• Allocates energy costs fairly, reduces waste

and adversarial issues

Background


• Load Management• Control of appliances/end uses by utility

or customer to reduce peak demand• Incentives for load reduction available

from utility, states, grid operators (ISO)• Time-Sensitive Pricing

• Vary prices by time of day, day of week, or utility system conditions (critical peak)

• Real-time pricing, time-of-use (TOU)

Background


New submetering technology provides 2-way communications, enabling remote monitoring and control, including: Load management of key appliances (A/C, Heat) Interval Meter reading for time-sensitive rates,

monitoring of load control events Other: Monitoring of comfort (temperature), safety

(smoke/CO2 detectors, fire/door alarms) Submetering plus load management and/or

time-sensitive pricing means more benefits, small incremental cost = more cost-effective

Submetering as a Catalyst


Case Studies: Enhanced Submetering

Waterside Plaza

New York City rental apartment complex; built early 1970’s; 1470 units, all-electric with heat pump units in each apt.

Clinton Hill Apartments

Brooklyn, NY coop apartment complex; built in 1940’s; 1225 units; 66% own, 34% rent; recent electrical upgrade; room A/C’s


Case Study: Waterside Plaza

All-electric rental apartment complex: electric costs a major concern

Dual System installed (1997)• 2 functions enabled with shared PLC

communications system: submetering and energy management system (EMS)

• Designed to satisfy both owners and tenants: Housing agency (HPD) wanted EMS with resident

override feature (no rent reduction issues); Owner wanted electrical submetering (requires rent

reduction process) Incentive $ for both EMS and Submetering

Meter

PLC

Control Relays



Chronology of System Operation 1997-1999: EMS shuts off heat pump units at

scheduled times energy and cost savings 1999-2004: After Privatization, Submetering

for opt-in units (EMS optional); higher rents for opt-out units (EMS mandatory)

2004 on: Price-responsive load management NYSERDA R&D Program incentives for equip. upgrade Incentives from NY ISO for load control; Voluntary

participation by tenants; incentives ($100K for 2004) shared by owner and participating residents



Comparison of Electric Costs for Submetered vs. Non-Submetered for typical building (#40)

$106 $113

$48$65

$96 $89 $83 $82

$110$131

$199

$302

$64 $72

$38$53

$77 $72 $68$46

$70$82

$129

$185

Mar '04 Apr '04 May '04 June '04 July '04 Aug '04 Sept '04 Oct '04 Nov '04 Dec '04 Jan '05 Feb '05$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

Mon

th B

ill $

Submetered Tenants Non-Submetered Tenants

Waterside PlazaMonthly Electric Cost Mar ‘04–Feb ‘05

Ave. Submetered tenant bills were 33% less than Non-Submetered for 12 month period; 38% less for winter; 19% less for summer

(* app. 180 apts. in each group)


Case Study: Clinton Hill Apartments

Chronology of Events Pre-2001: Master-metered, insufficient

electric service (A/C) 2002: Electrical upgrade, NYS Code requires

metering; shareholders opt for submetering; meters installed in basement

2003-2004: Submetering installed and tested; implemented early 2004 (shareholders only); rental apt. owners await DHCR approval before charging for electric

2004: NYSERDA Program for Time-Sensitive Pricing applied to submetered residents; shadow period June 2004 – March 2005; full-scale April 2005 (planned); total electric costs allocated to each apartment based on both WHAT and WHEN kWh is used


Case Study: Clinton Hill Apartments

Time-Sensitive Pricing Typical Building Profile vs. Rate Structure (weekdays) Rates: Peak=3x offpeak; Shoulder=2x offpeak. based on algorithm

CP CP CP CP

OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP

SH SH SH SH

PK PK PK PK

SH SH SH SH

OP OP

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tota

l Met

er k

W

0

2

4

6

8

10

TO

U R

AT

E L

EV

EL

(M

ult

iple

of

Off

-Pea

k P

rice

)Peak Day: 01/10/2005Weekday

Weekday TOU Price Level (right scale)Critical Peak (Right Scale)

Building 325 - Master Meter • Critical Peak rate (6-10pm, red bars on graph) designed to address building peak on 3-5 hottest days per summer month

• Building is billed for kWh and peak kW (any hour)

• Weekend has 6-10 pm Shoulder peak period (could be billing peak)


Case Study: Clinton Hill ApartmentsBenefits of Submetering

Participants (Shareholders) vs. Non-Participants (Renters): Participants pay for their electricity, so they

waste less and use about 35% less than renters

434

551 574 551 532

405

488446 468

328

405 421 402 380

287353

323 346

June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 Sept 2004 Oct 2004 Nov 2004 Dec 2004 Jan 2005 Feb 2005

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Mo

nth

kW

h

Participants (Owners) Non-Participants (Renters)

ClintonHill - All Buildings: Time-of-Use BillingAverage Monthly kWh

• App. 825 apts. are participants vs. 400 non-participants

• Participants use less than Non-participants every month


Case Study: Clinton Hill ApartmentsBenefits of Time-Sensitive Pricing

Participants vs. Non-Participants: Participants receive “shadow” bill (what they

would pay under TOU rate)

47% 50%45% 43% 42%

55%

48%43%

40% 40%

55%59%

51%

60% 59%65%

56% 55% 55% 55%

June 2004July 2004

August 2004Sept 2004

Oct 2004Nov 2004

Dec 2004Jan 2005

Feb 2005

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Per

cen

t S

aver

s

Participants (Owners) Non-Participants (Renters)

ClintonHill - All Buildings: Time-of-Use BillingPercent Savers under TOU Rate (vs. flat rate)

Higher rate of savers under TOU for participants (avg. 57%) than for non-participants (avg. (45%)


Case Study Conclusions Submetering alone saves energy, confirming

NYSERDA studies citing 18-26% reduction Submetering plus load management reduces both

peak kW and energy usage (kWh); qualifies building and residents for incentives, including utility and state curtailment programs

Submetering plus Time-Sensitive Pricing also shifts usage, reduces peak on utility system and on building demand

Incremental cost of adding load management and time-sensitive pricing to submetering (with common communications) is small compared to savings potential, improving cost-effectiveness of system

Herbert E. Hirschfeld, P.E. and Joseph S. Lopes Applied Energy Group, Inc. Metering America 2005...

Documents

Transcript of Herbert E. Hirschfeld, P.E. and Joseph S. Lopes Applied Energy Group, Inc. Metering America 2005...