Upload
derick-park
View
213
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Lessons Learned on Causes of High Energy Performance from EPA ENERGY
STAR Buildings
ASHRAE 2002 Winter MeetingSeminar 41
Thomas W. HicksU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Answer: Common Knowledge
Why Get Involved?
Is 10 MPG high or low for an automobile?
Is 100 kBtu/ft2-year high or low for a typical office building?
Answer: ??
Missing Comparative Metric
Num
ber
of
Build
ings
Large Variation in Energy Performance
Worst PerformersBest Performers
Site Energy Intensity(kBtu/ft2-year)
National data sets show large variations in energy performance exist even after significant drivers of energy intensity are normalized.
121.129.9 165.786.0 339.4
Basis: Office Buildings, 1995 CBECS
1 to 100 scale was overlayed - creating a national energy performance rating.
Energy Performance Rating
1
Worst PerformersBest Performers
Num
ber
of
Build
ings
255075100
Rating &Site Energy Intensity
(kBtu/ft2-year)
121.129.9 165.786.0 339.4
Basis: Office Buildings, 1995 CBECS
• In January 1999, EPA released an energy performance rating system which was intended to be:• Objective• Reasonably accurate• Assess performance relative to peers• Originally just for office buildings
• Recognition is offered (via the ENERGY STAR Label) for:• Buildings whose energy performance is among nation’s top 25%
while• Meeting current standards for indoor environment as verified by a
PE.
History
• Based on actual annual energy performance
• Not as-designed performance
• Source energy not site energy
• Commonly understood 1 to 100 rating scale
• Rating of 75 or greater = ENERGY STAR
• Accounts for building’s business activity• Operating & physical characteristics, climate (HDD & CDD)
• Adjusts for year to year weather variations• El Niños, La Niñas, colder/warmer than normal, etc.
Details...Inside the Box
• Benchmarking Tool Database (171 buildings)• Operating characteristics (i.e. hours, occupants, & PCs)
• Physical characteristics (i.e. size, location, & climate)
• Annual energy consumption & expenditures (by fuel type)
• Exit Interviews• 15 minutes, CBECS-like
• 91 of 171 buildings participated
• HVAC equipment and systems
• Energy management equipment and systems
• Building management
• Amenities
• Architectural characteristics
• Self-Selection Bias
Note: 25 of the 171 buildings that earned recognition were removed from the dataset since their size was less than 50,000 ft2.
Data Collection
Compared buildings earning the ENERGY STAR label in 2000 to buildings found in:
• CBECS 1995• Top 25%, Average, & Bottom 25%
• 1,228 office building records
• 530 records remained after applying screens
• Sampling weights were applied
• BOMA Energy Exchange Report 1997
• 3,364 office building records
• 92 cities in the U.S.
• Data access limited
Note: 1999 CBECS micro data is not publicly available as of presentation date.
Approach
Filters applied to 1995 CBECS data set involved:
1) ENERGY STAR eligibility requirements• Weekly hours ≥ 35
• Months in use ≥ 11
2) Removal of unreasonable records• Electricity consumption > 0
• # of workers > 0
3) More physically and operationally comparable data
• Building area ≥50,000 ft2
Screening Criteria
Basic Comparison
Size(ft2)
Hoursper
Week
OccupantDensity
(Occ/1,000 ft2)PC Density
(PCs/1,000 ft2)
YearBuilt
(Median)
ENERGY STAR 274, 917 65 2.65 2.73 1976
CBECS Top 25% 123,051 79 2.72 3.54* 1978
CBECS Average 129,677 75 2.65 3.31* 1978
CBECS Bottom 25% 119,482 79 2.43 2.73* 1974
BOMA EER 209,262 -- 3.31 -- --
* - estimated
Energy & Cost Comparison
On average…
• buildings in the top 25% have annual energy cost nearly $1/ft2 less to operate
Note: Cost in 2000 U.S. Dollars.
Site EnergyIntensity
(kBtu/ft2-year)
Energy CostIntensity
($/ft2-year)
2000 ENERGY STAR 48.9 1.16
1995 CBECS Top 25% 48.2 1.02
1995 CBECS Average 101.1 2.03
1995 CBECS Bottom 25% 217.0 3.52
1997 BOMA EER -- 2.11
• Codes and/or original design• Application of:
• energy efficient technologies• renewable energy technologies
• Regular Operations & Maintenance• High level to commitment to performance• Dedicated on-site energy manager• Occupant behavior • Some or All of the above
Does a Single Path to EE Exist?
Tendencies in Building Characteristics
ENERGY STAR
CBECS Top 25%
CBECS Average
CBECS Bottom 25%
HVAC
Boiler 62% 32% 46% 49%
Chiller 69% 26% 43% 65%
VAV 69% 36% 50% 67%
Energy Efficiency
EMS 85% 23% 43% 56%
Economizer 71% 29% 55% 73%
VSDs 57% 19% 33% 45%
Motion Sensors 47% 8% 16% 21%
Management
Energy Audit 57% 23% 24% 36%
Regular O&M 99% 92% 96% 98%
Equip. Upgrade 76% -- -- --
Percentage of Buildings in Data Set
Amenities
Percentage of Buildings
Notes:
• Data on Class A, Elevators, Escalators, Atriums, and Balconies was not available for CBECS and BOMA EER data sets.
• CBECS data on glass as the predominant exterior wall material is as follows: Top 25% (12%), Average (15%), Bottom 25% (20%). Data was not available from BOMA EER data set.
Class AGlass
Construction Elevators Escalators Atriums Balconies
57% 21% 82% 2% 30% 21%
Who’s Running the Building?
Title of Person with Daily Responsibility
BuildingEngineer Custodian
Maint.Contractor
Owner /Manager
EnergyManager No One Other
52% 20% 7% 5% 3% 1% 11%
Noteworthy: rarely have on-site energy managers, building engineers and custodians account for nearly 75%
Glass Characteristics
0 to 25% 26 to 50% 51 to 75% 76 to 100%
23% 32% 24% 21%
Single PaneDoublePane Triple Pane
45% 55% 0%
Window Types
Percentage of Glass on Exterior Wall
# of Panes for Each Window
Noteworthy: Low-e glass rare, no triple pane windows, single pane as likely as double pane, and no bias toward % of glass.
Tinted ReflectiveLow
Emissivity Operable Storm
43% 20% 10% 8% 21%
What did They Upgrade?
Lighting Cooling Heating ControlsLoad
Shifting RenewablesOccupantBehavior
65% 51% 39% 49% 22% 4% 1%
76% had completed an energy upgrade within the last 3 years, here’s what they did...
Energy Upgrade Areas
Noteworthy: majority of upgrades involves Lighting, HVAC, or controls, only 4% upgraded with renewables, and just 1% attempted to modify occupant behavior.
Renewables included installations of PV electric generation, solar DHW, and geothermal.
Operations & Maintenance
HVAC Lighting Windows
98% 58% 28%
What building systems are being actively covered in the building’s O&M plan?
O&M Areas
Why is Building Efficient?
OriginalDesign
Renovation/ Upgrade
OccupantBehavior
13% 57% 27%
In the opinion of the building manager or representative, why did the building qualify? (only 3 choices)
Reason Building is Energy Efficient
Noteworthy: Original design is the least cited reason for building being energy efficient.
Systems Covered by EMCS?
Heating Cooling Lighting Hot Water
87% 90% 29% 16%
85% have an EMCS, here’s what systems they are controlling...
Building Systems Controlled by EMCS
Noteworthy: nothing, no surprises here.
Conclusions
Sample size is relatively small and is subject to self-selection bias, but there appears to be...
• No single path to achieving energy-efficiency• High level commitment to energy-efficiency
Coupled with the• Application of good practice technologies
And• Good operating practices
• Little support that any of the following has an impact:
• Renewables• Percentage of exterior glass • Original design