UK-GBC ESOS SHOWCASE · Evaluation –Ipsos MORI, UCL 20 Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme. ... Implementation update Notifications received Freerider analysis and enforcement

CAMPAIGN FOR A SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT© UK Green Building Council Registered charity number 1135153

With thanks to our sponsors

UK-GBC ESOS SHOWCASE

TUESDAY 15 MARCH


WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

Richard GriffithsSenior Policy Advisor

UK-GBC


AGENDA

09:05 – Keynote speech – Lord Bourne, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, DECC

09:20 – Intro from the sponsor – Richard Jones, Managing Director HVAC UK and Nordic,

United Technologies

09:30 – The Policy Context

• Michael Jampel, Deputy Director, Business Energy Use, DECC

• Keith Brierley, ESOS Project Manager, Environment Agency

10:00 – Q&A

10.20 – The Business View

• Paul Sutcliffe, Founder & Operations Director, Sustainable Commercial Solutions

• John Davies, Head of Sustainability, Derwent London

10.50 – Discussion/Q&A

11:20 – BREAK


AGENDA

11:35 – The Showcase

• Jennie Colville, Group Corporate Responsibility Manager, RSA/Andrew Baker, Head of

Sustainability Consulting, CBRE

• Tim Crozier-Cole, Principal Consultant, Verco (NEXT)

• John Taylor, Associate Director, Carbon Credentials (Village Hotels)

12:25 – Q&A

12:50 – Summary and Closing Remarks – Richard Griffiths, Senior Policy Advisor, UK-

GBC

13:00 – Networking Lunch

14:00 – Close


KEYNOTE SPEECH

Lord BourneParliamentary Under Secretary of State

DECC


SPONSOR WELCOME

Richard JonesManaging Director HVAC UK and Nordic

United Technologies Corporation

ESOS

Richard JonesManaging DirectorUTC HVAC UK & Nordics

This presentation contains no technical data.

8

UK LEADING THE WAY WITH ESOS

ESOS marketed as an opportunity

Timely, clear guidance

Strong support

KEY DRIVERS

10

OUR ENERGY CASE STUDIES

Chiller Plant Replacement

Saves over £100K a year

Chiller Retrofit

Saves £150k a year

https://www.google.fr/url?q=http://www.e3coalition.org/LED_lighting.html&sa=U&ei=xmqDU5WVA86aqAblvoL4Dw&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAzgU&usg=AFQjCNHYHwP8k4cs4y19cRMBfym5BctF6g




11

OUR ENERGY CASE STUDIES

Plant Optimisation

Believed to be largest open loop

system in UK

Ground Source District

Cooling & Heating Scheme

Cuts energy bill 6per cent




THE POLICY CONTEXT

Michael JampelDeputy Director, Business Energy Use, DECC

&

Keith BrierleyEnvironment and Business - Senior Advisor

Environment Agency


THE POLICY CONTEXT

Michael JampelDeputy Director, Business Energy Use

DECC

Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme

UK Green Building Council ESOS Showcase

Michael Jampel

Business Energy Use, DECC

15 March 2016

Outline

• Scheme background and aims

• Benefits

• Next steps

- Evaluation of ESOS implementation

- Guide to implementing energy saving opportunities

- Business Energy Tax Review

15 Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme

Background

• Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) – Article 8

• Common EU framework

• Implementation – July 2014

• Targets large organisations – 33% of UK energy demand

(600TWh)

• Mandatory audit; voluntary implementation

• Alternative routes to compliance: ISO 50001, DECs


Scheme aims

• Energy efficiency potential

• Light touch

• Board-level role

• Overcoming barriers

• Avoiding overlaps


Estimated Benefits

• DECC estimates a reduction in energy consumption by 3TWh/year – £250m off energy bills. Savings of 52TWh over 2016-2030

• Assumptions: average savings between 0.4% and 1.1% of total energy, in addition to existing policies

• Average company could save £35,000 per year by investing £7,000 annually in measures identified through ESOS

• Buildings/industrial processes – assume 5% of potential savings implemented

• Increased productivity, competitiveness, growth


Estimated Benefits

• Targeted recommendations to stimulate energy

efficiency

• Implementation is voluntary

• Potential saving ~ 47TWh (2015) of which 43TWh has

payback less than 2 years equivalent to14% of total

energy consumption

• Further savings from energy management and

behavioural measures – no capital required


Evaluation – Ipsos MORI, UCL


Guide to implementing energy saving opportunities

• Published January 2016

• Suggested process based on best practice examples

from a number of different organisations

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-guide-to-

implementing-energy-savings-opportunities


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-guide-to-implementing-energy-savings-opportunities

Business Energy Efficiency Taxation review

• July 2015 – Budget announcement

• September 2015 – Consultation:

- simplify, reduce administrative burdens

- target policy levers

- raise the profile of energy efficiency

- improve the case for investments


Proposals

Replace CRC and CCL with new tax based on CCL

Develop a single reporting framework for large

organisations

Plus views sought on:

Balance of tax costs across fuels

Incentives


Next steps

March Budget 2016 (tomorrow)

• Government response to consultation likely to be

published by HMT

Summer 2016

• Further consultation on reporting, further engagement

with stakeholders on key issues


Outline

• Scheme background and aims

• Benefits

• Next steps

- Evaluation of ESOS implementation

- Guide to implementing energy saving opportunities

- Business Energy Tax Review



2015 SCHEME RESULTS

Keith BrierleyEnvironment and Business - Senior Advisor

Environment Agency

Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme

(ESOS)

Implementation update; and lessons learnt

Keith Brierley – Environment & Business Senior Advisor

Green Building Council ESOS event, London

15 March 2016

Implementation update

Notifications received

Freerider analysis and enforcement

Publication of notification data

Auditing

Lessons Learnt

Next compliance period

28

Notifications received

Type By 5 December

2015

By 29 January

2016

Notified

compliance

3,971 5937

Intent to comply 2,480 1000

Do not qualify 221 800

29

These notifications cover over 40,000 UK entities

Freerider analysis

Match notification data with data from Companies House and Charities Commission

Around 1750 organisations have yet to indicate their qualification status

Qualifying organisations need to submit a notification of compliance or ‘intend to comply late’ notification asap otherwise they are at risk of enforcement action

30

Enforcement

ESOS enforcement approach is published in our Enforcement and Sanctions Guidance (Annex E)

Mar’16 – start of freerider enforcement

Enforcement notices will normally be used to bring organisations into compliance

Civil penalties will only be used in the most serious cases

31

Publication of notification data

Compliance notification data published 12 February 2016 on GOV.UK website

Format is in accordance with open data principles

32

Auditing

Compliance auditing started January 2016

Aiming to audit 45 organisations by end of March 2016

This work will help us to refine our approach for risk based auditing; and

Quality assure ESOS assessments and lead assessor reviews

33

Lessons Learnt

Consequence of light touch approach no registration requirement – having to chase a lot of organisations

Improve data cross matching ‘Intend to comply’ and ‘compliance’ notifications

Allow voluntary submission of company structure

Businesses need to allow sufficient time for audits

Little up-to-date information on EED implementation in other MS

34

Next compliance period

6 December 2015 to 5 December 2019

Qualification date: 31 December 2018

Start planning your compliance approach now

DECC implementation guide published January 2016 on GOV.UK – implementing energy savings opportunities

35


Q&A

Chair: Richard Griffiths, Senior Policy and Business

Development Advisor, UK-GBC

Michael Jampel, Deputy Director, Business Energy Use, DECC

Keith Brierley, Environment and Business - Senior Advisor,

Environment Agency


THE BUSINESS VIEW

Paul SutcliffeFounder & Operations Director

Sustainable Commercial Solutions

&

John DaviesHead of Sustainability

Derwent London


THE BUSINESS VIEW

Paul SutcliffeFounder & Operations Director

Sustainable Commercial Solutions

⌃

The Energy Savings Opportunity SchemeA Practitioner’s Experience

March 2016 – Version 1.0

⌃

SCS Support Programmes

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Electricity Gas Transport

Re

du

ctio

n M

wh

Total Reduction Opportunities (Mwh)

Total reduction opportunity

27,200 MWh(8% of total baseline energy or 5.2% by spend)

across the board (electricity gas, transport)

Electricity reduction opportunity

18,700 MWh(9.2% of baseline electricity)

Gas reduction opportunity

6,500 MWh(9.3% of baseline gas)

Transport reduction opportunity

2,000 MWh(4% of baseline fuel)

⌃

Key Figures

2,000,000,

72%

200,000,

7%

600,000,

21%

Total Reduction Opportunities (£)

Electricity Gas Transport

Total reduction opportunity

£2.8macross the board (electricity, gas,

transport)

Electricity reduction opportunity

£2m

Gas reduction opportunity

£0.2m

Transport reduction opportunity

£0.6m

⌃

ESOS & MEES

Option

EPC Rating KWh / M2 / Year Annual Totals Cost

Rating Score Heating CoolingAuxiliary

PowerLighting

Hot

WaterTotal Gas kWh Electricity KWh £

Existing

Set-upF 140 47.6 24.26 85.17 49.26 2.04 208.33 258,389 872,498 £96,294

VRF C 58 12.23 5.81 34.95 24.92 2.36 80.27 12,810 422,922 £42,741

Technology focused improvement

Asset with ‘F’ rated EPC

Remodelling identified improvements:

– LED

– VRF

C rated EPC achieved and operational cost savings of £53,500 calculated

⌃

Business CaseCase Study

Tenant Feedback – key positives

Operating costs

Corporate image

Sustainability engagement

EPC rating

Bike racks & showers

Outcomes

EPC rating from E to C

35% reduction in electricity –£85k saving/yr. against 2013 baseline

Fully let (80% new tenants)

Average lease length 9 years

Rent/sq.ft. up by 25%

Significant impact on valuation

Approach

Sustainable refurbishment 2013/14

Energy efficient lighting & sensors

BMS upgrade

Variable speed fan coil retrofit

Operational efficiency

Insulation on heating & chilled water pumps/piping

ISO 14001 certification

Client:

EPAM

Property:

Capital House101,000 sq. ft. office space

Challenge:

96% of NLA expiring 2014

Poor sustainability performance

Poor tenant satisfaction

Major risk of vacant building

⌃

• Poor planning – data availability a fundamental issue

• No internal responsibility

• Board level presentation:

• Presentation of energy alone to senior board members is a missed opportunity

• Need to emphasise the overriding value of sustainability to their business

Pitfalls

⌃

Reflecting on ESOS

- Real-value of ESOS: There is a need to support/encourage obligated business to look beyond compliance

- ESOS: a burden or an opportunity for businesses?

- ESOS and ISO50001


THE BUSINESS VIEW

John DaviesHead of Sustainability

Derwent London

ESOS Showcase

March 2016

John Davies

Head of Sustainability

ESOS

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiX0qWa-LjLAhViSZoKHVgZC_AQjRwIBw&url=http://www.matteoduo.com/the-best-way-to-reach-customers-is-to-create-useful-content/&bvm=bv.116636494,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNGFeuwi-oCsZkaPZO0PIXccio8kbQ&ust=1457796096107689

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiX0qWa-LjLAhViSZoKHVgZC_AQjRwIBw&url=http://www.matteoduo.com/the-best-way-to-reach-customers-is-to-create-useful-content/&bvm=bv.116636494,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNGFeuwi-oCsZkaPZO0PIXccio8kbQ&ust=1457796096107689


AUDIENCE AND PANEL DISCUSSION

Chair: Richard Griffiths, Senior Policy and Business

Development Advisor, UK-GBC

Paul Sutcliffe, Founder & Operations Director, Sustainable

Commercial Solutions

John Davies, Head of Sustainability, Derwent London


BREAK

Coffee break: 11:20 – 11:35

Westminster Suite


THE ESOS SHOWCASE

Richard GriffithsSenior Policy and Business Development Advisor

UK-GBC


CASE STUDY: RSA

Jennie Colville, Group Corporate Responsibility Manager,

RSA

Andrew Baker, Head of Sustainability Consulting, CBRE

RSA’S JOURNEY TO ESOS COMPLIANCEJennie Colville, Group Corporate

Responsibility Manager

Andrew Baker, CBRE Head of

Sustainability Consulting

March 2016

Contents

54

1. Who is RSA?

• What do we do?

• Our energy consumption and energy management process

2. Who is CBRE?

3. RSA’s route to ESOS compliance

4. Audit findings

5. RSA’s next steps

Overview of RSA Insurance Group

55

• A leading international general insurer, focused on the UK,

Canada and Scandinavia

• 14,000 employees across core business

• 6,000 in the UK

• Regional leadership positions with our brands

Our UK energy consumption by portfolio

5645,177MWh of energy consumed annually

3,228,673

12,986

9,396,887

3,024

20,250,863

249,985

12,034,929

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

F&C Reit Group Actuarial Quality RepairCentres (QRC)

RSA Legacy RSA OccupiedEstate

SAL PensionScheme

Transport

Ene

rgy

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n (

kWh

)

Our current energy management process

57

• Group-wide carbon reduction target stated in our Corporate Responsibility Strategy 2014-2018

• To reduce our emissions by 12% per employee from a 2015 baseline by 2018 (1.9 tCO2e per

person)

• UK accounts for 42% of group carbon emissions

• In the UK, energy managed by our Corporate Real Estate Team, who report to our UK and Western

Europe COO

• Energy management and procurement outsourced to a third party

• Data collated by third party and entered onto an online GHG reporting system

• Energy projects identified and agreed in Operational Plan

• Based on maintenance logs and upgrade schedule

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

2013 2014 2015 2018Target

Gro

ss T

on

nes

of

CO

2e

per

FT

E

58

59

Strategy

• Budget

• Site type

• Consumption

• Lease events

• Other

Scoping

Real

Estate

Team

Finance Company

Secretariat

Compliance route

RSA ESOS Approach

Implementation

OUTPUTIntegration in to ongoing decision making processes

Mixed audit approach:

• Full Audits

• DECs

• Fleet Review

OUTPUTEnergy Efficiency Opportunities identified

OUTPUTMost cost effective route to compliance identified

• Qualification

• Data Collection

• Consumption

calculations

• Analysis

OUTPUTFootprint by site & division

• Integration with technical services

teams

• Stakeholder engagement

• ISO 50001

60

kWh

kWh

kWh kWh/sq ft

kWh/sq ft

LL kWh/sq ft LL kWh/sq ft kWh/sq ft LLBudget Budget

BudgetLocation

kWh kWh kWh

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Ene

rgy

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n (

kWh

)

RSA ESOS Audited Sites – Audits & DECs

Auditing Rationale

61

PREPARED BY GRAEME MURRAY – CBRE BUILDING CONSULTANCY (FINAL)

Energy Footprint

The following chart summarises the annual energy consumption (in kWh) of the qualifying parts of the organisation and represents the total energy footprint for compliance purposes.

For the purposes of calculating the ESOS footprint only the energy consumed during the qualifying period (April 2014 to March 2015) needs to be considered. The validated data has been collated by the client and is

either in the form of service charge records or utility bills.

ESOS SUMMARY

De Minimis

Under the requirements of ESOS it is permissible

to exclude minimum energy consumers (up to

10% of the total) from the process to allow the

focus to be directed at significant opportunities.

The majority of the business operation is centred

in London and as such the energy consumption is

similarly focused.

Due to structure of the organisation with regards

the individual brands it was felt that it was

important to include the majority within the

auditing process. As such only entity 7 and entity

8 which represents circa 1% of the total have

been considered as part of the de minimis

allowance.

Further to this the limited nature of the business

travel element (circa 3%) that forms part of the

qualifying consumption means that it has also

been included in the de minimis allowance.

The de minimis portion (highlighted in red)

therefore represents a total of 4% of the portfolio

which is within the permitted 10% limit as stated n

the regulations.

General Audit Findings/ Further Recommendations

The majority of the portfolio comprises of retail boutiques which are fitted out to a high standard in line with

the brands that form the corporate group. While energy conservation is actively managed through the store

management, staff and security functions there are opportunities to improve on the installed plant and

equipment as part of any future refurbishment programme. It is recognised that elements of this would need

to be discussed and agreed with each brand to ensure that it aligned with the desired look and feel of the

international labels however the benefits in terms of energy saving and in some cases reduced

maintenance should not be overlooked.

It was highlighted in a number of locations (retail boutiques/ club/ etc) that the visual appearance of the

lighting was more critical that the energy efficiency aspects and that while this is understandable significant

improvements in lighting technology over the past 18 months means that aesthetic and energy concerns

can be addressed effectively.

The majority of the office function within the UK has been centralised at the new head office which provides

a modern efficient facility encompassing the latest energy efficient systems that are capable of delivering a

significant improvement on energy performance when compared to the previous office accommodation.

The occupation of this space is still relatively new but it is essential that some of the defect and snags on

the fitout are addressed particularly with regards the BMS system and controls.

The energy monitoring system that has been installed at the head office should be used to monitor

consumption as part of any maintenance contract and KPI’s put in place to ensure the desired level of

efficiency is achieved as part of the relocation.

To ensure that any improvements are carried out in a cost effective manner it is essential that they are

considered in the context of any planned refurbishment or life cycle replacement strategy.

Audit Approach

Each of the brands within the group are structured to

operate largely independently from each other. Up until

mid 2015 each brand typically had a discreet office

element as well as the retail operation.

This arrangement was restructured such that the

majority of the brands were consolidated in mid 2015

into a central head office

This change in corporate strategy means that a number

of the assets included in the qualifying period are no

longer part of the operation and as such have been

excluded. Conversely the new head office, which was

not part of the above footprint, has been included in the

audit plan.

Due to the nature of the business a sampling approach

has been adopted with a representative selection of

each brand, location and usage included and the

potential impact of the improvements extrapolated

across the group to provide an overall picture.

In total 14 locations were surveyed which represents

approximately 67% of the total energy footprint

highlighted above and therefore provides an

appropriate cross section of the portfolio as a whole.

0 100 200 300 400

James Purdey & Sons Ltd.

Montblanc (UK) Ltd.

A.Dunhill Ltd.

A.Dunhill Club Ltd.

Richemont International…

Shanghai Tang Group

Cartier UK

Energy Intensity (kWh/m2)

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

Entity 5 Entity 6

33%

13%6%

13%

26%

5%1%

3%

Entity 1 Entity 2 Entity 3 Entity 4 Entity 7 Entity 8 Travel

Entity 1

Entity 2

Entity 3

Entity 4

Entity 5

Entity 6

Entity 7

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

650,000

Degree Day Analysis

Audit Outcomes

• Various reporting styles

• Average payback of 4 years

• Budget for quick wins approved by COO

• £1.3M to implement all recommendations

• > £300,000 annual cost savings identified

RSA’s next steps

62

• Implement most low cost and short pay-back (under 2 year) projects

• Replace lamps to LEDs

• Switch-off IT equipment out of hours

• Planned larger projects

• Boiler replacements

• Light fitting replacements and installation of lighting control system

• Senior management support to develop and

implement an ISO 50001 Energy Management

System

• Received support by explaining benefits of:

• Enhanced reputation

• Operational cost savings

• Legal compliance

• Working with CBRE on phased approach to

cover 90% of energy consumption by next

ESOS reporting period (2019)

THANK YOU


CASE STUDY: NEXT

Tim Crozier-ColePrincipal Consultant

Verco

www.vercoglobal.comEnergy and carbon advisory services

Presenter’s name:

Presented to:

Date: 15/03/2016

How Verco and NEXT used ESOS to identify potential energy savings of 15%

p. 65

Tim Crozier-Cole

UKGBC ESOS showcase event

• Approach

• Findings

• Next steps

Structure

p.66 15/03/2016 How Verco and NEXT used ESOS to identify potential energy savings of 15%

Approach


NEXT background

15/03/2016 How Verco and NEXT used ESOS to identify potential energy savings of 15% p.68

• Approx. 500 stores in the UK.• 200 further stores in over 40

countries world wide.• £4bn of sales in 2015; a pioneer

in home shopping via catalogue and online.

• CSR policy since 2007 with targets for:

• Electricity (kgCO2e/m2)• Waste (% to landfill)• Transport fuel use (L/m2)

• Use ‘Carbon Desktop’ web-based platform for M&T and reporting.

NEXT Group operational footprint 2014: 197,000 tCO2e (Scopes 1, 2 and 3)

NEXT Plc: UK ESOS Total Energy Consumption 2014/15 – 377GWh


ESOS

significant

energy uses

(94%)

6% ESOS “de

minimis”

NEXT Plc UK 2014-15 Annual Energy Spend ~ £38*m


Retail stores£19m

* Assuming average electricity 11p/kWh and gas 2.5p/kWh

Audit strategy summary


Asset

class

Cohort No.

of

sites

Floor

area

(m2)

Energy

spend

(£m/yr)

No. of

surveys

Sites surveyed

(H - high kWh/m2)

(L - low kWh/m2)

Retail

Retail Park 248 531,419 9.5 3

Bristol – Longwell Green (H)

Swindon (L)

Hedge End (Homes & Garden)

Shopping centre 121 213,331 3.9 2Bristol – Cabot Circus(H)

Hereford (L)

High street 63 129,707 1.9 2Ealing (H)

Bath (L)

Shop with warehouse 37 122,255 2.4 2London Colney (H)

Tamworth (L)

Shop with store room 23 47,494 0.9 2Nottingham (H)

London Stratford (L)

Warehouses

Warehouses 10 545,981 6.0 2Dearne Valley Boxed (new)

Elmsall Way (old)

Regional distribution centres 6 101,500 0.7 1 Bristol

Retail

DistributionHGV and vans / / 11.5 1 /

Total 36.8 15

Operation Ratings are:

• A non-dimensional means to compare energy performance.

• More informative than kWh/m2 benchmark comparison, as normalised for ‘independent variables’, in

this case for weather, opening hours and fuel type.


Explanation of Operational Ratings (used for retail audit selection)

An Operational Rating of:

• 100 = national benchmark (CIBSE TM46) i.e. typical energy performance

• <100 = more efficient (good), >100 = less efficient (bad)

Retail parks x 248


Median = 84

Audited site (BREEAM store

with solar PV roof)

Audited site

(low consumer)

Audited site

(High consumer)

Retail Park Stores

Operational Rating distributions prepared for all 5 retail property cohorts


Findings


Generally at less-efficient retail sites, greater percentage savings identified


Based on surveyed sites only

Asset class

Audit sample Audit sample + extrapolation**

Total

Capital

Exp.

(£m)

Total

Annual

Savings

(£m)*

Simple

Payback

(Years)

Total

Capital

Exp.

(£m)

Total

Annual

Savings

(£m)*

Simple

Payback

(Years)

Retail 0.2 0.1 2.0 7.7 2.9 2.6

Extrapolation approach


* Savings do not account for impact of sequential implementation of measures, so actual savings may be lower.

** Extrapolation is by asset class floor area and is INDICATIVE ONLY

• Non-audited properties categorised into high or low consumers • Savings extrapolated by floor area of relevant cohort• Identified savings ~15% of energy expenditure

Audit findings: Retail opportunities by type (<5 year payback)



Audit findings: Retail opportunities by annual saving and ROI



Quick wins (awareness, sub

metering with M&T)

Shorter

payback

Longer

payback< 5 year payback projects

Next steps and conclusions


Next steps and conclusions


• NEXT already have a ‘mature’ energy management capability.

• ESOS was a useful ‘stock take’ of current performance and options for improvement.

• Impact on retail:• Implementation of some immediate

controls actions • Consideration of using finer-grain

BMS data for enhanced M&T.• Establishing night/day consumptions

baselines by store and trigger systems

• Trialling new lighting schemes with daylight control. Improving retail environment and efficiency.

• Consideration of Operational Ratings for monitoring & reporting using Carbon Desktop.

www.vercoglobal.comEnergy and carbon advisory services

Presenter’s name:

Presented to:

Date: 15/03/2016

How Verco and NEXT used ESOS to identify potential energy savings of 15%

p. 82

Tim Crozier-Cole

NEXT Plc.

Tim Crozier-Cole

Principal Consultant

Verco

t: +44 (0)1225 816 829 m: +44 (0)7887 726 844

e: [email protected]

Overmoor, Neston Corsham, Wiltshire

SN13 9TZ United Kingdom

www.vercoglobal.com

http://www.vercoglobal.com/


CASE STUDY: VILLAGE HOTELS

Cian DugganFounder and Chief Technical Officer

Carbon Credentials

Carbon Credentials: VUR Village Hotels

ESOS Case Study

Our ESOS ResultsData Insights

Carbon Credentials’ ESOS Programme in Numbers

• 46 clients notified across 13 Industry Sectors

• 299 Audits undertaken (94 by

Carbon Credentials’ consultant team)

• Combined Energy Consumption

7.9 billion kWh

• Combined Energy Spend £445 million

Carbon Credentials’ ESOS Programme in Numbers

• Capital Expenditure £53 million

• Annual Cost Saving £31 million

• Annual Energy Saving 162 million kWh

• If implemented that is an estimated 7% annual cost saving

Summary of Energy Conservation Projects Identified from 31 clients

ESOS compliance leading to savingsVUR Village Hotels Ltd

Benefits to Individual HotelsBackground

VUR Village Hotels Ltd. (VUR) is a chain of 28 hotels across the UK. Carbon Credentials is a trusted partner of VUR having supported the Group’s:

- Energy data gathering and reporting

- Carbon Reduction Commitment reporting and audits

- ESOS and site audits for sample of 7 hotels initially

Benefits to Individual HotelsBackground

The ESOS energy audits undertaken at seven VUR Village hotels identified potential for improvements to the Building Management System (BMS) control strategy and functionality plus staff engagement across numerous sites.

VUR has, as a consequence, commissioned Carbon Credentials to do detailed audits at ALL hotels, and to deliver further BMS optimisation services across the portfolio to access quick cost, kWh and carbon savings.

ESOS Results

ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURE INVESTMENT

REQUIRED ANNUAL COST

SAVING PAYBACK

PERIOD (YEARS) CONFIDENCE

LEVEL

LIGHTING UPGRADE AND CONTROL OPTIMISATION

£127,600 £51,800 2.4 95%

HVAC PLANT AND BMS UPGRADE £344,000 £158,000 2.2 90%

BASELOAD IDENTIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT

£20,400 £14,400 1.4 90%

ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY £29,200 £12,000 3.0 80%

INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PV £120,000 £16,600.00 7.2 90%

TOTAL £641,000 £253,000 2.5 80%

The sample of 7 energy audits identified a £641,000 investmentopportunity which could result in a saving of £253,000 annuallyand a simple average payback period of 2.5 years.

Key Energy Savings Actions Identified

Total Capex

£641,000

Average

Payback

2.5 Years

Annual

Savings

£253,000

Analytics & Reporting Managed Service

Collaborative Asset Performance Programme1. Optimise Technology2. Engage with People

Capital Projects & Procurement

Energy Strategy

Diagnostic

Energy Strategy

Post-ESOS Energy Performance RoadmapObjective: To improve profitability and enterprise value by optimising energy performance in buildings

Village Hotels –Collaborative Asset Performance Plan

Post-ESOS Implementation

ESOS Opportunity Assessment estimate of BMS optimisation £15,100

Forecast of savings available from software change based on this project £17,200

Follow up actions required for implementation of programme 30

Further actions / areas of investigation with maintenance or other costs associated 9

Further actions associated with life-cycle replacement 8

Case Study – Village Maidstone

The following opportunities were identified at the start of the BMS Optimisation Process

Asset Name Village Hotel Maidstone

Asset Type Hotel

Floor Area 8,690 m2

Asset Address

Lock Lane

Maidstone

ME14 3AQ

Boilers Pre Strategy Changes:

Boilers Post Strategy Changes:

• Previous strategy meant site was running on 2 boilers

• Site now runs on 1 boiler and is off more frequently

• Comfort levels are maintained at site

Visualisation of Savings

AHU Damper Visualisation

• AHU was previously using 100% outside air – requiring significant heating during winter

• AHU now recirculates warmer air from inside the space, mixed with outside air

Actions Implemented

Visualisation of Savings

• Site level electricity data shows a significant reduction in out of hours consumption

Out Of Hours Before

Out Of Hours AfterSavings

Site Level Electricity Consumption

• Weekly gas data shows a reduction in consumption when compared to heating degree days

Actions Implemented

Site Level Gas Consumption

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

28-Dec-15 04-Jan-16 11-Jan-16 18-Jan-16 25-Jan-16 01-Feb-16 08-Feb-16 15-Feb-16 22-Feb-16

Gas Consumption

Weekly Usage Degree Days

On Monday 1st February Carbon Credentials identified a fault via the data feed from the building

Boiler 2 has been permanently enabled and the fault was causing significant temperature &

consumption fluctuations.

Boiler flow & return temperature

Boiler virtual energy meter

Fault Occurred

Additional Benefits

Boiler flow & return temperature

Boiler virtual energy meter

Fault Rectification

Results

Forecasted annual savings so far (for just one building) – over £20,000 ~11%

Client Quotes & Forecast Savings

Analytics & Reporting Managed Service

Collaborative Asset Performance Programme1. Optimise Technology2. Engage with People

Capital Projects & Procurement

Energy Strategy

Diagnostic

Energy Strategy

Post-ESOS Energy Performance RoadmapObjective: To improve profitability and enterprise value by optimising energy performance in buildings

Was ESOS good for Village?

Absolutely Yes. ESOS activities directly led to

- More engaged directors

- More engaged asset owners (Private Equity)

- Awareness of what could be done

- Time and capital released to initiate energy savingsopportunities

- Better environment for staff and customers

Leading to provable & sustainable £ cost and kWh reductions


Q&A

Chair: Richard Griffiths, Senior Policy Advisor, UK-GBC

Jennie Colville, Group Corporate Responsibility Manager, RSA

Andrew Baker, Head of Sustainability Consulting, CBRE

Tim Crozier-Cole, Principal Consultant, Verco

Cian Duggan, Founder and Chief Technical Officer, Carbon Credentials


SUMMARY AND CLOSING REMARKS

Richard GriffithsSenior Policy Advisor

UK-GBC


With thanks to our sponsors

UK-GBC ESOS SHOWCASE

TUESDAY 15 MARCH

Documents

UK-GBC ESOS SHOWCASE · Evaluation –Ipsos MORI, UCL 20 Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme. ... Implementation update Notifications received Freerider analysis and enforcement