SCE Design and Engineering Services - ETCC Partners · Design & Engineering Services ZERO NET ENERGY DEMONSTRATION SHOWCASE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA RECREATIONAL CENTER

Design & Engineering Services

ZERO NET ENERGY DEMONSTRATION SHOWCASE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA

RECREATIONAL CENTER AND AQUATICS COMPLEX

ET10SCE2030 Report

Prepared by:

Design & Engineering Services

Customer Service Business Unit

Southern California Edison

March 2013

Zero Net Energy Demonstration Showcase ET10SCE2030

Southern California Edison

Design & Engineering Services November 2012

Acknowledgements

Southern California Edison’s Design & Engineering Services (DES) group is responsible for

this project. It was developed as part of Southern California Edison’s Emerging Technologies

Program under internal project number ET10SCE2030 Bach Tsan conducted this technology

evaluation with overall guidance and management from Teren Abear. For more information

on this project, contact [email protected].

Disclaimer

This report was prepared by Southern California Edison (SCE) and funded by California

utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Reproduction or distribution of the whole or any part of the contents of this document

without the express written permission of SCE is prohibited. This work was performed with

reasonable care and in accordance with professional standards. However, neither SCE nor

any entity performing the work pursuant to SCE’s authority make any warranty or

representation, expressed or implied, with regard to this report, the merchantability or

fitness for a particular purpose of the results of the work, or any analyses, or conclusions

contained in this report. The results reflected in the work are generally representative of

operating conditions; however, the results in any other situation may vary depending upon

particular operating conditions.


Southern California Edison Page iii Design & Engineering Services November 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In an effort to partner with innovators and early adopters of the ZNE concept through the

Emerging Technologies Program (ETP), Southern California Edison (SCE) is working with the

University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB), Division of Student Affairs to understand

the feasibility of achieving Zero Net Energy (ZNE) at the UCSB Recreational Facility and

Aquatics Complex.

Though specific goals of SCE and UCSB are somewhat different, the partnership is aligned to

achieve Zero Net Energy (ZNE) on the existing UCSB recreational facilities located on

campus. Because ZNE is a unique pathway to building design and construction and is still

under development, both sides of the partnership were interested in understanding and

documenting the various pathways for achieving ZNE. This project was undertaken to create

the foundation necessary to proceed with design and implementation of energy efficiency

measures (EEMs) and renewable technologies to achieve ZNE.

Because of the work of the partnership, the project team has identified over 30 EEMs to

help reduce the baseline usage of the Recreational Facility and Aquatics Complex. These

EEMs have been evaluated for energy savings, cost payback, and optimized specifically for

this facility, enabling the presentation of four example packages of ways in which the facility

can achieve ZNE with a reasonable return on investment.

Recommended packages were sorted into four categories including: ZNE based on utility-

recommended EEMs (i.e., economic-driven), ZNE based on quickest implementation, ZNE

based on quickest payback, and an innovation/pool-focused ZNE package. These packages

range in paybacks from fewer than 10 years for the economic-driven package to 23 years

for the innovation/pool-focused package. It is difficult to quantify energy savings since

combining renewable generation will eliminate grid source energy usage altogether;

however, the project team did quantify energy savings for the EEM packages. Energy

savings ranged from 600,000 kilowatt-hour (kWh) annually for the economic-driven

package to 1,600,000 kWh annually for the innovation/pool focused project.

Identifying energy savings figures and reducing baseline energy usage were found to be

essential for achieving ZNE. These tasks were performed by the project team based on the

Measurement and Verification (M&V) plan established at the beginning of the project.

Without first lowering the baseline usage, a renewable generation plant to cover the

baseline usage was shown to be uneconomical and did not fully address gas usage.

Supplemental to establishing energy savings figures, the project team documented the

Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) and Basis of Design (BOD), both considered critical in

proceeding with any complex retrofit or new construction project. It is expected, should

UCSB move forward with some or all of the EEMs, incentives from various programs will be

leveraged.

Based on the work performed as part of this project, it was determined that ZNE is feasible

for the UCSB recreational facility and aquatics complex. However, due to the complexity of

some of the measures, it is recommended that UCSB retain a design team prior to

proceeding with implementation.

Once a design team has been retained, it is highly recommended that they review the OPR,

BOD, and anticipated energy savings figures established by this project.


Southern California Edison Page iv


ACRONYMS AND INITIALIZATIONS

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers

BOD Basis of Design

cfm Cubic Feet Per Minute

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission

CSU California State University

DC Direct Current

DCV Demand Control Ventilation

DES Design and Engineering Services

DHW Domestic Hot Water

DOE Department of Energy

DX Direct Expansion

EEM Energy Efficiency Measure

ETP Emerging Technologies Program

HHW Heating Hot Water (Hydronic System)

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

IBMS Integrated Building Management System

IOU Investor Owned Utilities

IPMVP International Performance for Measurement and Verification Protocol

kW Kilowatt

kWh Kilowatt-hour

LED Light Emitting Diode

LPD Lighting Power Density

M&V Measurement and Verification

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory


Southern California Edison Page v


OPR Owner’s Project Requirements

PCM Phase Changing Materials

PV Photovoltaic

SCE Southern California Edison

SEED Sustainable Environment Engineered Design

sf Square Foot

TMY3 Typical Meteorological Year, Third Edition

UC University of California

UCSB University of California at Santa Barbara

VFD Variable Frequency Drive

VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow

W/sf Watts Per Square Foot

ZEB Zero Energy Building

ZNE Zero Net Energy


Southern California Edison Page vi Design & Engineering Services November 2012

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _______________________________________________ III

INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________ 1

PROJECT SCOPING _________________________________________________ 5

Project Conception and Scoping ................................................ 5

Initial Design Charrettes .......................................................... 6

Documenting the Owner’s Project Requirements ......................... 6

Development of a Measurement & Verification Plan ..................... 7

Documenting The Basis of Design (BOD) .................................... 8

TECHNICAL APPROACH/TEST METHOD __________________________________ 9

Energy Audit ........................................................................... 9

Baseline Energy Analysis .......................................................... 9

Baseline Model Constructions ............................................. 11 pavilion ...................................................................... 11 Rec-1 Building ............................................................ 12 Rec-2 Building ............................................................ 12 occupancy Characteristics ............................................ 12

Investigation of EEMs ............................................................ 14

Insulation and Envelope measures ..................................... 15 Lighting Measures ............................................................ 15 HVAC measures ............................................................... 16 Pool Measures .................................................................. 16 Summary of Individual Measures ....................................... 17

Potential ZNE Pathways ......................................................... 17

Building-Only Construction Projects .................................... 17 Building & Pool Construction Projects .................................. 17 Energy Efficiency Summary for Combined Packages ............. 18

EVALUATIONS ____________________________________________________ 19

Receiving Feedback From the Owner ....................................... 19

Documenting the BOD ........................................................... 19

RESULTS_________________________________________________________ 20

Recommendation of EEMs ...................................................... 20

Recommendation of Potential ZNE Pathways ............................. 22

Summary of Potential EEMs .................................................... 27

Presentation ......................................................................... 27


Southern California Edison Page vii Design & Engineering Services November 2012

RECOMMENDATIONS ______________________________________________ 29

ATTACHMENTS ___________________________________________________ 30

REFERENCES _____________________________________________________ 31

FIGURES Figure 1. California Public Utility Definition of Zero Net EnergyError! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 1. California Public Utility Definition of Zero Net Energy ........... 3

Figure 3. Project Flow Chart ........................................................ 4

Figure 4. UCSB Recreation Center – Architectural Illustration ............ 6

Figure 5 . Average Monthly Temperature Comparison ..................... 11

Figure 6. Recreational Complex Normal Hours Occupancy .............. 12

Figure 7. Recreational Complex Reduced Hours Occupancy .............. 13

Figure 8. Recreational Complex Electricity End-Use Breakdown, All

Facilities .................................................................... 14

Figure 9. Recreational Complex Gas End-Use Breakdown, All

Facilities .................................................................... 14

TABLES Table 1. Recreational Facility Scheduling ....................................... 13

Table 2. EEM List and Implementation Characteristics .................... 21

Table 3. Utility-Recommended Project .......................................... 23

Table 4. Economic-Driven Project................................................. 24

Table 5. Quickest-Implemented Project ........................................ 25

Table 6. Innovation/Pool-Focused Project...................................... 26


Southern California Edison Page 1


INTRODUCTION The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has set objectives for aggressive long-

term strategies, including the goal that new construction will reach Zero Net Energy (ZNE)

performance for all new construction of single and multi-family homes by 2020. In addition,

through implementation of deep levels of energy efficiency and clean, distributed

generation, ZNE capability will be implemented in 100% of new starts and 50% of existing

buildings by 2030.1 This is one of the first ZNE projects conducted by Southern California

Edison’s (SCEs) Design and Engineering Services (DES) as a demonstration showcase. In

addition, the project team required the utility expertise provided by DES staff with outside

design and energy consultants with previous experience with utility type evaluation work.

To help achieve these goals, the California Investor Owned Utilities (IOU) have been tasked

with investigating pathways for achieving ZNE in the various sectors of both new

construction and retrofit applications. Southern California Edison (SCE) specifically has

initiated multiple projects that include the evaluation of ZNE facilities in their territory. As

with many innovations and new ideas, the concept of ZNE is a tough sell. This could be

caused by the lack of financial information regarding the cost of implementing ZNE features

or a lack of information available regarding deep energy efficiency retrofits and renewable

generation technologies. Similarly, the lack of established ZNE projects makes investment in

this new concept difficult to justify.

The pattern of adoption for ZNE is anticipated to follow that of emerging energy efficient

technologies. For that reason, SCE has elected to include the ZNE research as part of the

Emerging Technologies Program (ETP). Similar to other concepts in the ETP, a group of

innovators and early adopters with whom SCE would like to work are expected to come

forward and help create market traction for the ZNE concept. To encourage such

participation and gain new understanding of the complexities of the development,

installation and staging of cohesive ZNE packages, ETP will undertake “Demonstration

Showcases”. These real-world projects allow various stakeholders to gain hands-on

experience with a comprehensive system of proven Energy Efficiency (EE) measures as part

of a ZNE project. In addition, among other things, Demonstration Showcase projects assist

in addressing cost, installation, and performance issues as well as aid in the discovery of

other potential barriers that could impede market acceptance.

One such Demonstration Showcase for the ZNE concept involves a partnership between

Southern California Edison (SCE) and The University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB),

Division of Student Affairs. These two partners are committed financially to the challenges

and opportunities of working together on forward-thinking, emerging technologies that will

potentially have great impact on the future of energy usage.

The UCSB, Division of Student Affairs, has discussed many sustainability goals with SCE.

Those mentioned in preliminary discussions include:

Reducing dependence on grid source power

Achieving ZNE for the recreational facilities

Creating a replicable model for achieving ZNE in other campus facilities

Because ZNE is a still developing, unique pathway to building design and construction, both

SCE and UCSB would like to understand and document the various pathways for achieving

it. Although the ultimate goals of the partners with regard to this project are somewhat

different, they are aligned to achieve ZNE on the existing UCSB recreational facilities located




on campus. Ultimately, the goal is to demonstrate the viability of a ZNE project. Combined

with other ZNE demonstrations this information will help provide the technical and financial

details necessary to steer the building industry towards pursuing CPUC ZNE goals with

minimal Utility involvement.

As more ZNE projects are demonstrated throughout the various IOU service territories, the

market barriers to achieving the aggressive, long-term efficiency goals set forth by the

CPUC will become clearer. In addition, the financial characteristics of implementing bundled

EEMs combined with renewable generation and data on associated paybacks will become

available. This will help adopters to make informed decisions about proceeding with ZNE

projects, and making investments in energy efficiency. Combined with other ZNE

demonstrations, this information will help provide the technical and financial details

necessary to help steer the building industry toward pursuing CPUC ZNE goals with minimal

utility involvement. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) provides the following

four definitions applicable to Zero Energy Buildings (ZEBs).2 Note that each definition uses

the grid for net use accounting and has different applicable renewable energy sources. In

addition, although typically renewable generation is located on site, there are “off-site” ZEBs

that have a portion of the renewable generation located off site:

1. Net Zero Site Energy: A site ZEB produces at least as much energy as it uses in a

year when accounted for at the site.

2. Net Zero Source Energy: A source ZEB produces at least as much energy as it

uses in a year, when accounted for at the source. Source energy refers to the

primary energy used to generate and deliver the energy to the site. To calculate a

building’s total source energy, imported and exported energy is multiplied by the

appropriate site-to source conversion multipliers.

3. Net Zero Energy Costs: In a cost ZEB, the amount of money the utility pays the

building owner for the energy the building exports to the grid is at least equal to the

amount the owner pays the utility for the energy services and energy used over the

year.

4. Net Zero Energy Emissions: A net-zero emissions ZEB produces at least as much

emissions-free renewable energy as it uses from emissions-producing energy

sources.3

All of these definitions could be appropriate for a building depending on the project goals

and the position of the design team or building owner. For example, a building owner may

be more interested in site energy costs and potential cost reduction, whereas organizations

such as the Department of Energy (DOE) may be more concerned with source energy and

still others with a reduction in carbon emissions.

The definition that most effectively describes the ZNE goals set forth by SCE and UCSB for

the recreational facilities is that of Net Zero Site Energy (definition 1 listed above). This

definition matches the CPUC definition as found in the California Long Term Strategic Energy

Plan: “ZNE is a general term applied to a building with a net energy consumption of zero

over a typical year. To cope with fluctuations in demand, zero energy buildings are typically

envisioned as connected to the grid, exporting electricity to the grid when there is a surplus,

and drawing electricity when not enough electricity is being produced”.4

Figure 1. is a graphical representation of the CPUC definition of ZNE in the context of

electricity usage. Theoretically, since gas usage is final and non-renewable, any use of this

fuel would disqualify the facility from achieving ZNE. This would imply that for a new

construction scenario, only electric-based systems may be used. For retrofit situations, all

systems requiring gas must be eliminated (that is, unless the NREL definition for Net Zero

Energy Emissions [the definition 4 listed above] is applied, which suggests that a




Photovoltaic [PV] system would need to be sized to create an equivalent amount of surplus

electricity to offset gas usage [an emissions-producing energy source]).

FIGURE 1. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITY DEFINITION OF ZERO NET ENERGY

As demonstrated in Figure 1., the CPUC definition of ZNE5 aligns with NREL definition 1.6

This involves offsetting the energy use of the building with on-site renewable energy

sources. This strategy can be achieved in both retrofit and new-construction scenarios. A

ZNE building would aim to instill deep energy savings of grid-connected buildings to offset

usage onsite. A part of this study is to understand the various market barriers to compliance

with the Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, specifically in the area of ZNE.

Anticipated market barriers include the cost of implementation of renewable generation.

With Solar PV plant paybacks taking typically longer than 10 years, the justification of such

an investment is difficult to make unless the consumer is motivated to achieve ZNE. The

cost of the renewable portion of a ZNE retrofit, however, can be offset by first implementing

energy efficiency technologies with financial payback anticipated in less than 10 years. An

additional market barrier is the lack of proven ZNE facilities because the benefits, both

financial and otherwise, of implementing a ZNE strategy are uncertain.




ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES

To address the project goals of real-time experience and implementation data related to

ZNE implementations, the team used a tiered approach with multiple checkpoints. Unlike

the testing of a single emerging technology, the packaged nature of developing a strategy

for achieving ZNE follows that of a design or retrofit project strategy commonly used by

architects and engineers. This process, referred to as programming, is typically used in the

very beginning of a project, prior to Schematic Design, to help develop project

requirements, costs, and features. Similar to typical programming activities, SCE and its

consultants held design charrettes, interviewed the owner to understand project

requirements, reviewed design drawings and existing facility configuration, and became

familiar with the UCSB recreational center facilities as a whole. The team determined in

these initial charrettes and meetings that this project would be energy-focused, and hence

they needed to do supplemental work in the programming phase not typical of average

design and retrofit projects. This has included (1) a site and facility energy audit, (2)

thorough energy analysis, (3) investigation and recommendation of EEMs, (4) gaining an

understanding of the feasibility of achieving ZNE at this facility and (5) proposing various

pathways and options for achieving ZNE.

The scope of the project was to understand the feasibility of achieving ZNE and presenting

various potential pathways. A Basis of Design (BOD) was created to capture and document

the decisions that lead to the construction and design phase. The BOD can then be used to

provide focus during the Schematic Design (SD), Design Development (DD), and

Construction Document (CD) phases to ensure that the original intent of the project is

maintained through planning to implementation.

Figure 2 shows the project scope and the process used therein from initial project

conception through programming to documenting the BOD.

FIGURE 2. PROJECT FLOW CHART




PROJECT SCOPING

PROJECT CONCEPTION AND SCOPING In March of 2012, the Division of Student Affairs of UCSB prepared a presentation

entitled “Moving to the 6th Wave of Innovation – A Systems Approach.” This

presentation explained the value and interest in moving toward a ZNE educational

and service environment.

The presentation begins with a quote from Dr. William Edward Deming:

“A system is a network of interdependent components that work together to

try to accomplish the aim of the system. A system must have an aim. Without

an aim, there is no system. The aim of the system must be clear to everyone

in the system. The aim of the system must include plans for the future. The

aim is a value judgment. (We are of course talking here about a man-made

system.)”

This indicates that there are educational, economic and moral functions to ZNE

systems, and highlights that the campus is looking for a holistic, systematic

approach to efficient energy usage rather than using individual Band-Aids to address

energy usage problems. The rest of the UCSB students’ presentation explains UCSB’s

vision for this ZNE project. Student Affairs has concluded that a systems approach to

Zero Net Energy will reduce the impact of budget cuts on its operations and create a

national leadership status for these campus facilities in the area of green

technologies and earth stewardship.

Since 1995, UCSB has had in place a campus sustainability plan based on a vision of

making the campus a national leader in the integration of sustainability in higher

education learning, discovery, and operations. The plan includes a commitment by

UCSB to move towards a climate-neutral campus through energy efficiency,

conservation, on-site energy generation and the strategic procurement of clean and

renewable energy. To support its ongoing efforts towards campus sustainability,

UCSB has expressed a strong interest in making its recreation center a ZNE building.

The recreation center already incorporates many aspects of energy efficient design,

along with on-site renewable energy production, making ZNE a potentially realistic

option. Achieving this level of performance will help demonstrate the ability to

achieve ZNE in the existing building market. As a pilot project, the recreation center

will also support a variety of statewide and national efforts to improve energy

efficiency, reduce peak demand and accelerate efforts towards ZNE. Figure 3 depicts

an architectural drawing.




FIGURE 3. UCSB RECREATION CENTER – ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATION

INITIAL DESIGN CHARRETTES To help the campus meet this goal, UCSB has begun to work collaboratively with a

number of organizations with expertise in ZNE design. Through the UC/CSU/IOU

Energy Partnership, SCE is actively engaging UCSB to help share energy efficiency

best practices and implement a variety of energy efficiency projects to capture

energy savings and peak demand reduction. Other organizations are also working

with the campus to deploy and evaluate new energy saving technologies through the

Public Interest Energy Research Program. As the first step in moving the project

forward, a meeting was held earlier this year to discuss opportunities and resources

for launching a ZNE demonstration project.

One of the recommendations that came out of this meeting was to host a daylong

charrette to develop design, technology, and operational strategies that can

potentially be implemented by UCSB.

DOCUMENTING THE OWNER’S PROJECT REQUIREMENTS The Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) is a document that the owner (in this case,

UCSB) will represent as his own. Therefore, care should be taken in communicating

with and gathering those requirements. Recently, this has been done through

meetings and design charettes that many are calling the “OPR process”. Because

owners typically consist of multiple stakeholders, the design team must take the lead

in writing this document for them – directing the owner(s) through a personal design

experience and to any studies that may help bring focus to the team. Once the OPR

is written during the early programming phases of design, the team can complete

the BOD document. One team member must take the lead in writing this document,

connecting it to the criteria in the OPR. It is then presented to the design team for

review. The BOD is considered complete when the design team and owner have

signed off. During this process the engineers learn more about what the owner wants

to achieve in areas such as comfort, health, “green,” and energy efficiency, among




others. Often initial energy modeling ideas are derived in the OPR and then

presented in the BOD. The result of this process is a more complete picture of the

design intent before drafting is ever started. This document is included herein as

Attachment 3 in the Appendix.

DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASUREMENT & VERIFICATION PLAN Since the OPR included a sizable energy piece that included evaluating EEMs, the

project team needed first to develop a strategy for approach. In this case, the

development of a Measurement and Verification (M&V) plan prior to moving forward

with a technical analysis was essential. The M&V plan was largely based on the

International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP). The

IPMVP is a guidance document describing common practices in measuring;

computing and reporting savings achieved by energy efficiency projects and

commonly used for reference in M&V plans. There are four general options in an

approach to IPMVP:

Option (A) Retrofit Isolation: Key Parameter Measurement

Option (B) Retrofit Isolation: All Parameter Measurement

Option (C) Whole Facility

Option (D) Calibrated Simulation

The M&V plan developed for this project, which was updated throughout the

preliminary project phase, was structured such that it addresses the following items:

Applicable M&V strategies for evaluating energy savings

IPMVP options A-D

Plan for preliminary savings estimations

Selected IPMVP options

EEM analysis (updated as conducted)

Plan for project implementation savings estimations

Recommended IMPVP options

Recommended metering/sub-metering strategies

The focus of the M&V plan was to outline the methodology used to establish credible

baseline energy usage and savings figures for a set of recommended EEMs that could

be easily transferred to the implementation phase. As indicated in the M&V plan,

EEMs were developed based on findings during a site audit, review of design

drawings, a utility bill analysis and interviews with site personnel. These suggested

EEMs were evaluated in accordance with this plan by SCE and its consultant,

Sustainable Environment Engineered Design (SEED), while adhering to the IPMVP.

Though SCE and SEED followed this M&V plan during the preliminary analysis phase,

the UCSB implementation guide remains flexible to allow for changes as the project

becomes more defined. Since the generic inputs and operating parameters of the

recommended EEMs used for the preliminary analysis typically change during the

implementation phase, a separate strategy for estimating “installed condition”

energy savings was developed for UCSB, should they decide to move forward with

any element of the project.

The M&V plan was developed for this project and included as Attachment 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_performance_measurement_and_verification_protocol#Option_.28A.29_Retrofit_Isolation:_Key_Parameter_Measurement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_performance_measurement_and_verification_protocol#Option_.28B.29_Retrofit_Isolation:_All_Parameter_Measurement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_performance_measurement_and_verification_protocol#Option_.28C.29_Whole_Facility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_performance_measurement_and_verification_protocol#Option_.28D.29_Calibrated_Simulation




DOCUMENTING THE BASIS OF DESIGN (BOD) After the presentation of EEMs and sample packages, the owners selected a project

consisting of those EEMs that aligned best with their original OPR. Based on their

feedback of presented EEMs, the owners documented their final selection of

measures to be packaged and implemented. This marks the transition from

programming to schematic design where a design team is selected and the project

moves into schematic and detailed design. The document that captures the work to

date and ensures a smooth transition into detailed design is commonly referred to as

the BOD. This document, written by the design team, lays out the concepts,

approach and execution necessary to achieve the project goals as determined

through the OPR and programming activities. Since consultants on the project team

are design engineers familiar with the significance of documenting the BOD, this

document was provided as part of the closing activities to ensure the work performed

as part of this evaluation was not lost in the transition to the project implementation

phase.




TECHNICAL APPROACH/TEST METHOD The development of an M&V plan was essential for providing a path of action for developing

appropriate EEMs and providing accurate energy savings estimates. This M&V plan is

Attachment 2 in the Appendix and provides the detailed strategy of the M&V technical

approach.

Prior to implementing the M&V plan, the project team conducted a site energy audit. This

audit, which covered all end uses, was conducted to understand any equipment deficiencies

and opportunities for EEM implementation. Facility design drawings were also reviewed to

understand current system configuration and to identify any EEM opportunities at the

system level. For example, if an outdated and inefficient system for heating and cooling is

used, an EEM opportunity may be to modernize it. Once identified, the project team

evaluated each EEM using the process outlined in the M&V plan and in accordance with the

IPMVP. Once a set of viable EEMs were identified, a separate evaluation was performed to

understand the feasibility of achieving ZNE through the combination of these EEMs and

renewable generation.

ENERGY AUDIT Since this project is energy-focused, the project team performed a detailed energy

audit on the recreational facility. This included all three buildings, the sports field and

other exterior lighting and the pools. The team made several site visits and

employed different experts. Lighting professionals assisted by walking the whole site

and pricing potential lighting retrofits. A general lack of lighting control was evident

at those initial meetings, and potential changes to lighting were viewed as “low

hanging fruit in that such improvements would be easy to make.

An audit team visited the site during the early stages of this OPR process to gather

information about the existing conditions of the building components that effect

energy consumption. Problems such as broken motorized operators of windows were

made apparent in early reports. Finally, a mechanical engineering team also made a

site visit. During this last walk-through, each piece of equipment was visited and

verified as meeting existing drawings. Occupant use was monitored and noted.

Systems were further diagrammed and studied in order to understand where the

building energy was being used. Finally, those systems were modeled in software to

see how they should interact, assisting in even further understanding of the systems.

BASELINE ENERGY ANALYSIS Multiple EEM opportunities were discovered through the site energy audit, the review

of design drawings and the utility bill analysis. Since multiple EEMs were identified,

IPMVP option D (which involves a computer simulation of whole-building energy use)

was deemed the most appropriate process for developing preliminary energy savings

estimates. The pre-construction energy use is determined by utility metering, which

is then used to calibrate the as-built model. Option D has many advantages,

including:

Allows study of potential EEMs without the high cost of installation




Can be used to study unique and groundbreaking ideas

Allows for the investigation of single EEMs on one building

Allows for the investigation of multiple EEMs on one building

Helps understand any interactive effects that may result from EEM

implementation.

Ensures compliance with the IPMVP

Reduces the need for costly and timely sub-metering of building systems

Can be used in the future to make educated decisions on remodel

The whole building-calibrated simulation method requires an accurate energy

simulation model of the as-built building to serve as the baseline. For the UCSB

recreation and aquatics complex, the baseline models were founded on as-built

drawings supplied by facilities staff. This includes the Pavilion, Rec-1 and Rec-2

facilities only. (Note that the pool and sports field lighting were evaluated separately

through IPMVP option A, as a calibrated simulation method (option D) is not

applicable.)

As stated in the IPMVP for option D: “Calibration is achieved by verifying that the

simulation model reasonably predicts the energy patterns of the facility by

comparing model results to a set of calibration data. This calibration data includes

measured energy data, independent variable, and static factor. Calibration of

building simulations is usually done with 12 monthly utility bills. These bills should be

from a period of stable operation. Detailed operating data from the facility helps to

develop the calibration model. This data will include operating characteristics,

occupancy, weather, loads and equipment efficiency”7

The goal of model calibration is not to exactly match the utility usage, but rather to

establish a “typical” usage profile for both electricity and gas by evaluating multiple

years of utility data. Though the goal is to find a period of stable operation in which

to calibrate the model, anomalies that are not considered typical usage still may be

found in the utility bills. For example, a gas leak during the month of January could

cause a large discrepancy between metered usage and modeled usage. Prior to

adjusting the model, utility bills from other similar years should be investigated to

confirm that the variance is not simply an error in the building model. Since a gas

leak would not be considered “typical,” the model should not be adjusted to match

this incongruity. Given that electricity and gas usage is rarely identical from year to

year, there will be some inherent errors in trying to match a typical year simulated

model to any figure for individual- or average-year metered usage.

For calibration purposes, monthly utility bill data supplied by SCE (electricity) and

facilities staff (gas) were used to adjust building usage parameters for the analysis

year 2010. Operating characteristics such as annual operating schedules for the

UCSB recreation facilities were obtained from building staff and through audits

performed by the M&V team to help tune the model. This includes information on

thermostat setpoints, lighting schedules, equipment schedules, equipment

efficiencies and equipment condition. Annual hours of operation and “special event”

calendars helped to calibrate the model and to add resolution to the occupancy

profiles entered into the computer simulation software. It should be noticed that

these parameters remain constant during the evaluation of all EEM runs to ensure

that an accurate snapshot of energy savings at the system level.

Typical Meteorological Year Three (TMY3) data will be used for all computer

simulations. Though it is optimum to use 2010-specific data to first calibrate the




model, it was shown through a separate analysis (see Figure 4) that 2010 weather

data is similar to the TMY3 data.

FIGURE 4 . AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE COMPARISON

There are a total of four meters, two for gas and two for electricity, which serve the

recreational facilities and aquatics complex. The Rec-1 gas and electricity meters

monitor the Rec-1 building, Pavilion building, exterior building lighting, sports field

lighting and the aquatics complex (which includes two pools and a spa). The Rec-2

gas and electricity meters monitor only the Rec-2 building. To complete the

calibration on Rec-2, certain operating parameters such as temperature setpoints,

occupancy schedule and lighting schedule were adjusted until energy usage outputs

from the model matched that of the utility bills. Since the Rec-1 buildings (including

the Pavilion) do not have their own meters, the calibration is more difficult. The

combination of all Rec-1 facilities onto one meter presents difficulties in model

calibration. Since Rec-2 has similar operating characteristics and schedules to the

Rec-1 buildings, the calibration technique used for Rec-2 could usefully be applied to

the Rec-1 facilities. For example, changes to Rec-2 occupancy, lighting or equipment

schedules would also be valid for the buildings and lighting covered by the Rec-1

meters since they are in the same area and have similar occupancy types and hours

of operation.

However, there are many system and envelope characteristics that are included in

the modeling software, major inputs used for modeling each of the buildings are

listed below.

BASELINE MODEL CONSTRUCTIONS

PAVILION

The Pavilion is a 12,960 square-foot (sf) building that includes one large multi-use

exercise area. The following building characteristics were relayed from the audit

team to the energy modeling team for baseline model construction:

R-9 wall insulation and R-27 roof insulation

Single pane windows

Lighting Power Density (LPD) of 1.6 watts per square foot (W/sf) interior

overhead lighting




A heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system with heat-only unit

ventilators containing hot water coils

REC-1 BUILDING

The Rec-1 building is a 40,722 sf building that includes large multi-use exercise

areas, a weight room, squash courts and offices. The following building

characteristics were relayed from the audit team to the energy modeling team for

baseline model construction:

R-9 insulated walls with no roof insulation

Single pane windows

LPD of 1.6 W/sf interior overhead lighting

An HVAC system with heat-only unit ventilators containing hot water coils and

DX cooling

REC-2 BUILDING

The Rec-2 building is a 51,024 sf building that includes large multi-use exercise

areas, a climbing wall and offices. The following building characteristics were relayed

from the audit team to the energy modeling team for baseline model construction:

R-11 insulated walls and R-30 insulated roof

A mixture of double- and single-pane windows

LPD of 1.0 W/sf interior overhead lighting

An HVAC system with heat-only unit ventilators containing hot water coils

OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS

Since all three buildings are part of one facility, they share similar schedules. The

project team obtained the annual schedule of the facility from site staff for use in the

baseline model calibration. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the occupancy schedules used

for normal-hours occupancy and reduced-hours occupancy. The Y-axis represents

the percent occupied with 1.00 being 100%. Table 1. shows the different times of

years that these schedules are active.

FIGURE 5. RECREATIONAL COMPLEX NORMAL HOURS OCCUPANCY




FIGURE 6. RECREATIONAL COMPLEX REDUCED HOURS OCCUPANCY

TABLE 1. RECREATIONAL FACILITY SCHEDULING

Jan 1 - Jan 2 Closed

Jan 3 - March 19 Normal Hours

March 20 - March 27 Reduced Hours

March 28 - June 10 Normal Hours

June 11 - August 28 Reduced Hours

August 28 - September 4 Closed

September 5 - September 18 Reduced Hours

September 19 - November 23 Normal Hours

November 24 - November 27 Closed

November 28 - December 9 Normal Hours

December 10 - December 18 Reduced Hours

December 19 - December 31 Closed

Rec Facility Scheduling

The calibrated baseline models for each building provided a breakdown of energy

usage per end-use. The breakdown of end-uses allowed the project team to evaluate

which end-uses may be require excessive energy and allowed for the focus of EEMs

in those areas. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the end-use breakdown for the aquatics

complex as determined through modeling.




FIGURE 7. RECREATIONAL COMPLEX ELECTRICITY END-USE BREAKDOWN, ALL FACILITIES

FIGURE 8. RECREATIONAL COMPLEX GAS END-USE BREAKDOWN, ALL FACILITIES

INVESTIGATION OF EEMS Once the baseline model was created, the EEMs were applied to understand the

energy impacts of their installation. When applying any variance to the baseline

model, such as applying an EEM, the secondary run based on that variance is

considered a parametric run. It was important that the characteristics of the EEM

entered into the model are also accurate. For the preliminary savings estimates, the

project team entered EEM characteristics on a per-measure, per-building basis. They

applied specific EEM characteristics within the model such that the measure is

accurately represented. Each EEM has a unique analysis strategy. Each has been

applied to the energy model, as appropriate, by qualified members of the project

team. The initial planned EEM simulation runs can be found in the M&V plan

(Attachment 1 of the Appendix). The simulation runs listed in the remainder of this

selection are those that proved to be viable. Some measures, such as Phase

Changing Materials (PCMs), were added late in the analysis but have also been

included.




Both SCE staff and the consultant performed Modeling and energy analysis. As one

of the first ZNE projects that Southern California Edison’s Design and Engineering

Services (DES) has done as a demonstration showcase, the project team required

the utility expertise as provided by DES staff with outside design and energy

consultants familiar with a previous experience with utility type evaluation work.

INSULATION AND ENVELOPE MEASURES

For the evaluation of insulation measures, the project team included additional

insulation in the walls and roofs as appropriate. For example, since Rec-1 has areas

with no insulation, a parametric run was initiated that switched the existing un-

insulated walls and roofs to walls with R-19 insulation and a roof with R-38

insulation. Though this was tested on all three buildings, only Rec-1 demonstrated a

significant energy savings amount. Another measure evaluated was the addition of

PCM. PCMs are installed in the same fashion as insulations and the benefits are

similar. For example, with a standard wall on a hot day, the interior of the wall will

begin to heat up as the exterior temperature and solar loads rise for the day. With

the addition of the PCMs, this process is blocked because the energy that would

normally transfer through the wall is used to change the phase of the material within

the technology. As a result, the temperature on the inside surface of the material

remains constant. Modeling of new and innovative technologies such as PCMs is

difficult because the available software does not cover them. As a result, the person

modeling the energy is forced to evaluate the technology and create a system that

mirrors the thermal and operating characteristics of it. In the case of PCMs, the

technology is expected to perform similar to that of thermal mass. To estimate

energy savings of PCMs, the modeler added 6 inches of heavyweight concrete to the

interior of the building in all locations specified to receive the PCM retrofit.

The project team also evaluated the addition of skylights and other glazing options to

assist with daylighting. It is important to note that the addition of glazing to let in

more daylight without the necessary lighting controls could actually raise energy

usage since heat can more easily enter and leave the space. For this reason, all day-

lighting simulations were performed in parallel with the addition of daylight sensors,

which dimmed or deactivated lighting as necessary.

Some of the existing glazing is older single-pane construction. Parametric runs were

performed to understand the benefits of upgrading the glazing system, though

eventually this measure was dropped due to the estimated cost of implementation.

LIGHTING MEASURES

Five lighting measures were evaluated. This includes, at the request of UCSB, a

lighting project proposed by a consultant not affiliated with this project, which

comprised a lamp and fixture replacement to reduce the LPD in Rec-1 by 0.1 W/sf.

Other lighting projects include hiring a lighting design engineer to hit a design an

LPD target of 0.9 W/sf and a more aggressive project that achieves 0.5 W/sf. To

model this, the LPD in all areas was switched to 0.9 W/sf or 0.5 W/sf, depending on

which measure was being modeled. In reality, the LPD may vary per space but the

overall goal was for the building average to reach the target LPD and to understand

the energy savings associated with the upper and lower limits of design. Since the

high-level nature of these measures did not allow for the evaluation of lighting

illumination levels in each space, the design team is tasked with ensuring that

lighting levels do not drop below Title 24 code-required and standard IES values.




HVAC MEASURES

More than 13 HVAC measures were evaluated. This included quick, inexpensive

upgrades to existing systems such as replacing boilers and pumps and direct

expansion (DX) units and adding variable frequency drive (VFD) fans. Also included

were more in-depth system renovations such as replacing the existing DX and unit

ventilator systems with a new variable refrigerant flow (VRF) heat pump system that

could recover heat by modulating and directing the flow of refrigerant to provide

simultaneous heating and cooling. The project team felt that standard options for

HVAC upgrades were appropriate and thus did not capture the innovation that should

be associated with ZNE building. For this reason, more innovative HVAC options such

as ground source heat pumps, water loop heat pumps and connecting to the campus’

central plant were analyzed.

POOL MEASURES

Pool measures included improving the efficiency of the pool itself and designing

systems around the potential harvest of energy from the pool that is currently

wasted. Since it is an outdoor pool, a large amount of energy is used to heat it.

Based on estimates that over 110,000 therms are used to heat the pool, the project

team saw the potential to capture that previously wasted energy and, with a water

loop heat pump, use it to heat all three recreational facility buildings.

Analyzing this proposed strategy requires more steps than a typical model. First, a

large glass pyramid covering the pool is modeled separately from the other buildings.

This space is kept at 82°F during cold hours so pool does not lose heat, and it is left

open to the outdoors during warm hours to take advantage of ambient heat. In this

way, the focus for consistent temperature moves from the pool to maintaining the

heat in the pyramid itself. This is done with a water loop heat pump, similar to the

ones installed in the buildings. The waste heat that collects at the top of the pyramid

is captured and an air-water heat exchanger is used to exchange heat to the hot side

of the water loop heat pumps that serve the buildings. This recapturing of heat is the

key to utilizing the facility’s waste heat effectively. The solar thermal array is sized to

cover only the hot side of the water loop heat pump since waste heat may be

sufficient to cover the hot side of the water loop heat pumps installed in the building.

As with the other options, for areas that originally only had cooling, heating is locked

out. For areas with only heat, then cooling is locked out.

Modeling included a parametric run that changed all airside HVAC units to water loop

heat pumps. On the hot side of the water loop heat pump, a boiler will be installed.

Since waste heat from a separate energy model cannot be included in energy

modeling software runs, the gas usage for space heating is simply changed to zero

after the simulation runs, because all boiler loads would be replaced with waste heat

collected from the top of the pyramid. On the cold side, a fluid cooler will be

installed. A separate load calculation is used to understand how much waste heat is

available at the top of the pyramid, assuming approximately 60,000 cubic feet per

minute (cfm) of air moving through the pyramid at all times. This is done by creating

a separate model within the same software to understand the heating requirements

necessary to keep the glass pyramid at 82°F. A supplemental hand calculation was

performed to understand how much heat could be reclaimed from the top of the

pyramid. The energy savings figure was then determined by subtracting the new

“whole building” energy use from that of the baseline case.




SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

Measures were applied as appropriate to each of the buildings. Some of those listed

in the M&V plan were not found to be viable and were not presented to UCSB. After

modeling to understand energy savings was undertaken by the project team, a

separate financial analysis was performed to understand project paybacks as well as

life cycle costs. The final list of measures identified is included in the “Results”

section of this document.

POTENTIAL ZNE PATHWAYS Investigation of EEMs on a per-measure, per-building basis was only the first step in

presenting ZNE pathways to UCSB. To demonstrate a ZNE pathway, a package of

measures that can be applied to the recreation centers and aquatics complex as a

whole must be constructed. Some of the identified measures overlapped so they

were reduced based on the different implementation parameters. For example, since

the HVAC system is outdated in some areas of the buildings, there could be multiple

options for replacement. Identifying and analyzing the various projects with different

implementation parameters resulted in a number of options for UCSB to choose from

instead of only one option that may or may not be appropriate based on the needs of

the University. These implementation parameters include:

BUILDING-ONLY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

A Utility-Recommended Project package includes:

Measures as recommended by the utility based on the experience of their

energy efficiency experts. These measures include a combination of proven

technologies and innovative deep energy retrofits while considering

financial paybacks and potential utility incentives. The package of

measures was selected to maximize energy savings.

An Economic-Driven Project package includes:

Measures that show the quickest financial payback, low implementation

cost and life cycle cost. Implementation time and maximizing energy

savings were considered but not the priority.

A Quickest-Implementation package includes:

Measures that can be implemented quickly - Energy savings and project

financials were considered but not the priority.

BUILDING & POOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

An Innovation/Pool-Focused Project package includes:

This project includes a package of measures, which cover proven

technologies and innovative retrofits that allow the building and pool

facilities to exchange energy with each other. Some measures harvest the

embodied energy of the pool to offset building usage and vice versa.

Measures were considered based on their innovative nature and energy

savings regardless of cost and implementation time.




ENERGY EFFICIENCY SUMMARY FOR COMBINED PACKAGES

Based on these parameters, the energy analysis strategy shifted to evaluate the

selected measures on a site basis. For example, one lighting project focuses on

reducing the LPD to 0.5 W/sf in each building. The total energy savings for the

project must include the energy savings associated with reducing the LPD in all three

buildings. This required a spreadsheet analysis, which takes the model outputs and

calculates total project savings. This was performed for all four packages. However,

this analysis estimates energy savings for recommended projects, the selection of

measures and a final package will be determined by UCSB. It is recommended that

once a set of measures has been determined by UCSB, these models should be

subjected to further energy modeling to understand interactive effects. Interactive

effects include the portions of energy savings lost by implementing multiple EEMs at

once. For example, if an HVAC measure were combined with a lighting measure, a

portion of energy savings would be discounted because the lighting load that the

HVAC system would have to offset has been reduced. For this reason, the cooling

energy savings when the two measures are modeled together will be less than if

modeled separately. Likewise, since improving lighting efficiency removes heat

addition to the space, heating load will increase in the winter causing HVAC systems

to use more energy. Due to this reason, the final energy savings figure may not be

represented exactly by the energy analysis performed as a part of this project. The

energy savings presented as part of this project are intended to provide an initial

estimate based on current operating conditions and identified EEMs. Since this

analysis was performed in the programming and preliminary schematic design phase,

it is expected that the EEMs will take a shape, which varies from assumptions made

in modeling. In addition, it is common for operating parameters to change after a

construction project. These variables, among others, may cause energy saving

figures to vary from initial estimates. It is highly recommended that UCSB continue

modeling as EEMs are selected and the project advances to ensure the most accurate

energy savings figures.




EVALUATIONS

RECEIVING FEEDBACK FROM THE OWNER Feedback from the University was then assembled into charts and data fields.

Rankings of systems and ideas quickly pointed to the viability and desirability of

certain systems and eliminated others. However, it also became immediately evident

that different systems would be applied to the building depending upon whatever

ideal the University and the construction implementation team decided to hold

highest. For example, the Utility (IOUs, Edison, etc.) holds the idea of a micro-DC

system high because of the tremendous potential that technology has to relieve the

grid of peak use energy. The technology, however, needs significant development to

be viable. When no “non-renewable energy” is held in highest regard, dampening the

impacts of the pool becomes of primary concern. Feedback was assembled and

organized into the BOD.

DOCUMENTING THE BOD The BOD (attachment 3 in the Appendix to this report) is the document that

summarizes the project activities, taking into account the original OPR and

subsequent feedback. This design-based document indicates a strategy for

conformance to the OPR. Furthermore, the BOD is used to document what systems

are to be commissioned by the commissioning agent. The BOD represents the design

intent and it is used to accept submittals for the construction team. The BOD is

meant to describe the system to be commissioned as well as the design assumptions

that are not otherwise included in the construction documents. The document should

be updated at each step of the design process.

The BOD in this case is only near completion, because no design team has been

chosen. Input from the design team and adjustments to the BOD need to be

implemented before design documents are underway. In this particular project, four

different design paths have been presented, and only one path can be used to

continue. ZNE projects in particular are sensitive to a well-written and -studied BOD

because the goal is to balance energy used with energy created – in cases where

determining energy used has been difficult in the past.




RESULTS

RECOMMENDATION OF EEMS Over 30 EEMS were identified and evaluated during the preliminary analysis. Some

measures were unique to one of the three buildings, while others could apply to all

buildings. Other measures specifically addressed the pool. Though some EEMs

seemed appropriate before modeling, a number of them dropped out based on a lack

of energy savings potential. Others dropped out based on measure implementation

cost. All EEMs were evaluated as described in the “Technical Approach” section of

this report. Table 1. shows the final list of EEMs as presented to UCSB and organized

by implementation time.


Southern California Edison ET10SCE2030_ 11.24.2012_SH_R01 Page 21


TABLE 2. EEM LIST AND IMPLEMENTATION CHARACTERISTICS

Peak

Period

Savings

Energy

Savings

Energy

Savings

Total

GHG

Savings

Total

Annual

Cost

Savings

Measure

Cost

Simple

paybackNet ROI LCC

kW kWh Therm lbs-CO2 $ $ yr % $

1a Consultant Lighting Project Rec 1 3.6 28,609 -251 17,955 $2,871 $ 36,895.00 12.85 8% $12,217.56

3 Install/Fix Daylight Sensors Rec 1 and Rec 2 19.6 90,553 -562 59,389 $9,343 $ 66,496.69 7.12 14% $17,747.07

7 Increase Wall Insulation to R-19 Rec 1 0.6 3,714 1,020 13,909 $1,531 $ 15,033.63 9.82 10% -$4,040.28

8 Increase RoofInsulation to R-38 Rec 1 8.3 18,307 3,907 56,233 $6,311 $ 61,530.73 9.75 10% -$17,124.14

9 Adjust Tstat Setpoint by 2 deg F All Buildings 2.9 21,624 3,081 49,549 $5,768 $ 750.00 0.13 769% -$43,786.96

10Add Evaporative Precool system to DX Unit Condensers ( Rec1 and Rec

2 Only)Rec 1 and Rec 2

5.8 23,559 -1 17,049 $2,590 $ 27,047.31 10.44 10% $25,071.13

11 Add VFD to Boiler P3_4 Pavillion 0.3 5,693 -195 1,977 $412 $ 5,007.65 12.16 8% $1,253.02

12 Demand Control Ventilation Rec 1 and Rec 2 0.1 20,140 1,947 36,001 $4,357 $ 11,232.84 2.58 39% -$19,322.84

1 Lighting Only project - Reduce LPD to 0.9W/sf All Buildings 32.9 200,829 -1,846 125,118 $20,061 $ 213,434.10 10.64 9% $41,818.68

2 Lighting Only Project Reduce LPD to 0.5W/sf (All Buildings) All Buildings 45.1 284,303 -2,672 176,477 $28,334 $ 816,759.21 28.83 3% $426,266.69

4 Install Skylights & Daylight Sensors All Buildings 26.5 117,399 -415 80,446 $12,457 $ 132,076.14 10.60 9% $52,099.12

5 Add High Performance Glazing (All Buildings) All Buildings 2.5 36,812 2,153 50,339 $6,418 $ 545,476.11 85.00 1% $465,498.38

6 PCM-Thermal Mass All Buildings 3.6 21,893 1,825 35,928 $4,416 $ 1,262,615.02 285.94 0% $1,207,585.26

13 Sw itch to 99% eff Cond Mod Boilers Pavillion and Rec 1 Only 0.4 0 632 6,952 $695 $ 30,596.90 44.01 4% $21,933.17

23 Solar Pool Pumping System Pool Only 21.4 120,255 0 87,079 $13,228 $ 138,070.00 10.44 10% $2,843.30

14Replace DX Coils w ith CHW coils, McQuay Frictionless Chiller VSD drives,

Primary/Secondary Pumps/Waterside Economizer (Rec1 and Rec 2 Only)Rec 1 and Rec 2

15.6 46,704 1,739 52,948 $7,050 $ 304,972.77 43.26 2% $229,572.16

15Sw itch to 99% eff Cond Mod Boilers/EMS Control/VFD Pump/Replace

Furnaces w ith HW Coils/Heat Exchanger for DHWAll Buildings

2.5 -2,024 2,370 24,604 $2,384 $ 97,700.41 40.98 2% $67,986.02

16 Install VRF Heat Pump System All Buildings 24.8 105,319 14,370 234,334 $27,392 $ 364,112.72 13.29 8% $60,133.37

17 Water Loop HP Option 1 -99% Eff Boiler and Fluid Cooler All Buildings 4.1 70,662 10,184 163,192 $18,975 $ 473,751.61 24.97 4% $274,665.06

18 Water Loop HP Option 2 -Ground Source Heat Pump All Buildings 15.7 115,183 14,383 241,619 $28,491 $ 1,065,942.28 37.41 3% $748,262.72

19 Water Loop HP Option 3 -Solar Thermal (hot) and Fluid Cooler (cold) All Buildings 1.4 67,085 14,372 206,670 $23,189 $ 1,729,015.58 74.56 1% $1,477,421.63

19aWater Loop HP (PVVT) Option 3a -Solar Thermal (hot) Fluid Cooler (cold)

for buildings + Solar Thermal Panels for Pool*All Buildings

1.4 67,085 112,790 1,238,778 $123,778 $10,196,605.92 82.38 1% $8,698,916.30

20Water Loop HP Option 4 - Solar Thermal (hot) and Fluid Cooler (cold) +

Glass Pyramid All Buildings

-1.9 -154,129 112,790 1,129,082 $107,115 $ 4,175,665.59 38.98 3% $2,440,627.83

21 Install Solar To cover DHW Load Rec 1 and Rec 2 0.0 0 15,731 173,041 $17,304 $ 584,225.00 33.76 3% $412,918.09

22Micro Direct DC System (All Buildings' Fans and Open Gym Area Lighting)

- Full Package*All Buildings

123.3 586,296 -1,336 409,853 $63,023 $ 1,614,455.44 25.62 4% $844,004.71

22a Direct DC Change Existing Gym/MAC lighting to LED ⱡ All Buildings 40.6 154,793 -1,336 97,393 $15,558 $ 347,573.00 22.34 4% $156,182.98

22b Direct DC Change AC Induction Supply Fan Motors to DC ECM ⱡ All Buildings 20.1 145,040 0 105,026 $15,954 $ 14,170.56 0.89 113% -$182,164.09

22c Micro Direct DC System after EEM (22a and 22b) installation* All Buildings 62.6 286,463 0 207,434 $31,511 $1,252,712 39.75 3% $862,508.49

ⱡ Savings/Project only valid if installed as part of the Micro DC system

** This figure assumes that both 22a and 22b have been installed

*Includes solar to cover all fan loads for three buildings and lighting for Open Gym Areas, can be combined with 22a, 22b to reduce solar plant requirements

Implementation Time <1 year

Implementation Time 1-2 years


Project Payback

No. Measure Description

Energy Savings and Cost Savings

Applicable Buildings




RECOMMENDATION OF POTENTIAL ZNE PATHWAYS The presentation of EEMs on a per-measure basis allowed for comparison between

the measures while showing the specifics of each technology and range of energy

that can be saved across the various end-uses. Since the ultimate goal of this project

is to demonstrate the feasibility of achieving ZNE for this facility, a number of EEM

packages were established to demonstrate that there are multiple pathways to

achieving ZNE. Of course, one potential pathway is to evaluate the current energy

usage of the buildings and size a solar plant accordingly. The project team did not

feel this fully embraced the ZNE concept, which includes reducing waste and using

most energy efficient technologies. As a result, four sets of EEM packages were

assembled. To complete the ZNE project, these EEMs should be combined with a

properly sized renewable generation plant. The implementation of the EEMs first

reduces the baseline energy usage, making the renewable generation plant size

smaller. These potential ZNE pathways are expected to be adjusted by UCSB to

ensure that the packaged EEMs fit their needs for the facility. Tables 3-6 show the

packaged EEMs and the respective energy savings. To achieve ZNE, the total energy

savings for the packaged EEMs would be subtracted from the baseline. The

remainder of electricity would need to be addressed through renewable generation.




TABLE 3. UTILITY-RECOMMENDED PROJECT

Peak

Period

Savings

Energy

Savings

Energy

Savings

Total

GHG

Savings

Total

Annual

Cost

Savings

Measure

Cost

Simple

paybackNet ROI LCC








18 Water Loop HP Option 2 -Ground Source Heat Pump All Buildings 15.7 115,183 14,383 241,619 $28,491 $ 1,065,942.28 37.41 3% $748,262.72




123.3 586,296 -1,336 409,853 $63,023 $ 1,614,455.44 25.62 4% $844,004.71



22c Micro Direct DC System after EEM (22a and 22b) installation* All Buildings 62.6 286,463 0 207,434 $31,511 $ 1,252,711.88 39.75 3% $862,508.49

Total Project Characteristics 222.6 1,166,966.0 35,646.0 1,237,129.4 $167,576.9 $ 4,302,005.28 25.67 4%


Total Project Characteristics Including Solar Pool 244.0 1,287,221 35,646 1,324,208 $180,805 $ 4,440,075.28 24.56 4%






No. Measure Description Applicable Buildings

Energy Savings and Cost Savings Project Payback

Third Party Contractor Project

*Includes solar to cover all fan loads for three buildings and lighting for Open Gym Areas,

can be combined with 22a, 22b to reduce solar plant requirements




TABLE 4. ECONOMIC-DRIVEN PROJECT

Peak

Period

Savings

Energy

Savings

Energy

Savings

Total

GHG

Savings

Total

Annual

Cost

Savings

Measure

Cost

Simple

paybackNet ROI LCC








5.8 23,559 -1 17,049 $2,590 $ 27,047.31 10.44 10% $25,071.13


1 Lighting Only project - Reduce LPD to 0.9W/sf All Buildings 32.9 200,829 -1,846 125,118 $20,061 $ 213,434.10 10.64 9% $41,818.68


Total Project Characteristics 94.9 484,045.0 21,916.0 591,582.7 77,352.6 $ 759,638.03 9.82 10%


Total Project Characteristics Including Solar Pool 116.3 604,300 21,916 678,662 $90,581 $ 897,708.03 9.91 10%










TABLE 5. QUICKEST-IMPLEMENTED PROJECT

Peak

Period

Savings

Energy

Savings

Energy

Savings

Total

GHG

Savings

Total

Annual

Cost

Savings

Measure

Cost

Simple

paybackNet ROI LCC


1a Consultant Lighting Project Rec 1 3.6 28,609 -251 17,955 $2,871 $ 36,895.00 12.85 8% $12,217.56







5.8 23,559 -1 17,049 $2,590 $ 27,047.31 10.44 10% $25,071.13

11 Add VFD to Boiler P3_4 Pavillion 0.3 5,693 -195 1,977 $412 $ 5,007.65 12.16 8% $1,253.02



Total Project Characteristics 65.9 317,518.0 23,316.0 486,397.1 60,574.6 $ 588,106.58 9.71 10%


Total Project Characteristics Including Solar Pool 87.3 437,773 23,316 573,476 $73,803 $ 726,176.58 9.84 10%




Implementation Time 2 years






TABLE 6. INNOVATION/POOL-FOCUSED PROJECT

Peak

Period

Savings

Energy

Savings

Energy

Savings

Total

GHG

Savings

Total

Annual

Cost

Savings

Measure

Cost

Simple

paybackNet ROI LCC








20Water Loop HP Option 4 - Solar Thermal (hot) and Fluid Cooler (cold) +

Glass Pyramid All Buildings

-1.9 -154,129 112,790 1,129,082 $107,115 $ 4,175,665.59 38.98 3% $2,440,627.83




123.3 586,296 -1,336 409,853 $63,023 $ 1,614,455.44 25.62 4% $844,004.71



22c Micro Direct DC System after EEM (22a and 22b) installation* All Buildings 62.6 286,463 0 207,434 $31,511 $ 1,252,711.88 39.75 3% $862,508.49

Total Project Characteristics 330.2 1,638,079.0 4,196.0 1,232,321.8 184,804.3 $ 4,266,293.44 23.09 4%


Total Project Characteristics Including Solar Pool 351.6 1,758,334 4,196 1,319,401 $198,032 $ 4,404,363.44 22.24 4%

`

*Includes solar to cover all fan loads for three buildings and lighting for Open Gym Areas,

can be combined with 22a, 22b to reduce solar plant requirements












SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EEMS

The following is a list of EEMs that Student Affairs would like to consider:

Lighting upgrades: fixtures, invertors, daylight controls to reduce lighting

power density by 50%

Model “sweet spot” sequence of operations, setpoints and sub-metering for

lighting, pools, domestic hot water and HVAC systems

Install Integrated Building Management System (IBMS): implement above

with M&V

Solar collectors: reduce gas consumption for boiler heating hot water(HHW)

demand

Two condenser boilers: replace existing conventional boilers, reduce gas

consumption

Install HHW heat exchangers and plumbing for five loops: pools A and B,

domestic hot water; showers, HVAC

Install HHW storage tanks, plumbing and controls to enable heat recovery

and rejection throughout

Photovoltaic (PV) supply: Target size 50% to 75% of annual consumption of

1,500,000 kilowatt hours (kWh)

Enclosed glazing over pool area

These and other measures, identified by SCE and its team, will be analyzed,

evaluated, and presented to the Division of Student Affairs for their consideration.

Solar collectors: reduce gas consumption for boiler HHW demand

Two condenser boilers: replace (E) conventional boilers, reduce gas

consumption

Install HHW heat exchangers and plumbing for five loops: pools A and B,

domestic hot water; showers, HVAC

Install HHW storage tanks, plumbing and controls to enable heat recovery

and rejection throughout

Photovoltaic (PV) supply: Target size 50% to 75% of annual consumption of

1,500,000 kWh

PRESENTATION On February 10, 2012, SCE and SEED met with the various stakeholders at UCSB to

discuss and present the various EEMs and potential ZNE pathways. The audience was

a diverse group of University stakeholders including representatives of the student

body, the campus facilities departments, University financial planners, utility

representatives and other consultants. The varied expertise in the group required a

background presentation of the project, which included a review of the existing

facilities and some of the obvious energy issues associated with a rec center. Also

covered was an explanation of how energy studies are accomplished with modern

modeling tools. After a short break, the presentation reviewed a series of potential




EEMs that could be applied to the building. Explanations of how these particular

EEMs were modeled were provided. A lunch break was taken before all the concepts

were coalesced at the end to present an idea of what a zero energy facility on the

UCSB campus might look like. During the presentation, stakeholders were expected

to make notes about each technology and apply rankings to the ideas that represent

the highest desires of the University. This data is tabulated and ranked to determine

which EEMs were most popular amongst the facilities and university personnel. The

final recommendations are based on this input along with the analysis of cost and

energy savings for each measure and their aggregates.




RECOMMENDATIONS Achieving ZNE involves an intensive planning, design and construction process. As a result,

much of the work performed for this Demonstration Showcase project aligns with the

programming and schematic design activities performed by architectural/engineering firms

in the planning phases. Documenting the OPR, developing an M&V plan, modeling various

EEMS, and documenting the BOD are all tasks that should be included in any innovative

design’s planning phase. Though a major goal of the project was to prove the feasibility of

achieving ZNE at this location, SCE also wanted to help stimulate forward momentum on the

project by including pre-design assistance, some programming and schematic design, and

most importantly the BOD, which is the documentation of a path of action that will

ultimately fulfill the OPR. In this case, the OPR includes achieving ZNE by implementing

innovative energy efficiency characteristics, renewable generation, reducing dependence on

grid source power, and creating a replicable model for achieving ZNE in other campus

facilities. The BOD documents created for this project provide a documented response to the

OPR and a path of action for achieving ZNE for the recreation facilities and aquatics

complex. These documents can easily be passed to the design team should UCSB move

forward with implementation. This was carefully planned to ensure UCSB had the

information necessary for an easy transition into design and eventual construction.

The goals of this Demonstration Showcase project are three-fold:

Development, installation and staging of cohesive EEMs in real-world settings

To allow various stakeholders to gain hands-on experience with comprehensive

systems of proven EEMs

Address barriers to cost, installation, and performance.

Since ZNE building is relatively new, showing that the three goals of the Demonstration

Showcase project can be achieved and a proven project deployed helps fulfill the additional

goal of gaining market traction for the concept. As this feasibility study concluded, the

project team has left the documents necessary to guide a design team in completing a

schematic design and helps it move into creating detailed design and construction

documents. It is recommended that UCSB take the work that has been performed as part of

this evaluation out to bid for the design and eventual construction of their selected EEMs

and ZNE pathway. These documents provide a head start into design and a detailed look of

how ZNE can be achieved for their facility.




ATTACHMENTS

1. UCSB Owner’s Project Requirements

UCSB_OPR.docx

2. UCSB M&V Plan

UCSB_M&V_Plan.doc

3. UCSB Basis of Design

UCSB_BOD.docx




REFERENCES

1 California Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. Achieving Maximum Energy Savings in California for 2009 and Beyond. California Public Utilities Commission, September 2008.

2 Zero Energy Buildings. A Critical Look at the Definition. Conference Paper NREL/CP-550-39833

3 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, June 2006.

4 California Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. Achieving Maximum Energy Savings in

California for 2009 and Beyond. California Public Utilities Commission, September 2008.

5 California Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. Achieving Maximum Energy Savings in California for 2009 and Beyond. California Public Utilities Commission, September 2008.

6 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol. Concepts for Determining Energy and Water Savings Volume 1. Efficiency Valuation Organization, September 2010

Documents

SCE Design and Engineering Services - ETCC Partners · Design & Engineering Services ZERO NET ENERGY DEMONSTRATION SHOWCASE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA RECREATIONAL CENTER