Background:,, Energy,use,and,management,at,UC,Berkeley ......•...

Background: Energy use and management at UC Berkeley Before Implementation of the Energy Management Initiative:

• UC Berkeley spends $17 million per year to supply electricity to the central campus.

• Due to insufficient state funding for utilities, $6-‐9 million has been diverted annually from campus discretionary spending to pay for power.

• UC Berkeley does not use energy as efficiently or as wisely as we could. Energy services – like heating or lighting – are too often managed as if energy is “free,” a scenario that encourages waste.

• The campus community rarely knows how much energy we use or how much it costs.

• Campus energy usage has increased by almost 2% per year or nearly 33% since 1990.

• Energy intensity (usage per square foot) in campus buildings has been increasing.

Some of the opportunities and challenges related to energy use on campus:

• UC Berkeley wants to be a leader in energy efficiency and management. • We have an aggressive greenhouse emissions reduction target: the campus

has committed to reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2014. Roughly 80% of campus emissions are from energy usage.

• Our buildings have generally been built such that they can provide efficient heating and cooling.

• UC Berkeley has a temperate climate, requiring less heating and no cooling (except for research and other specialized environments).

• We have old buildings: 70% are more than 75 years old. • We often have inefficient and old energy systems that operate well beyond

their intended manufactured life. • The number of staff who repair and maintain the buildings has dropped by

40% since 1990 – from 135 to 81. • Most people on campus do not know how much energy is used in their

buildings. • There are numerous initiatives to reduce energy in individual buildings led

by faculty, staff, and students. • New buildings on campus are significantly more complex and energy

intensive relative to existing building stock. Energy Management Initiative (EMI) impacts at UC Berkeley:

• Campus has eliminated the annual increase of 2% in electricity use while maintaining program and square footage growth at business as usual rates. Campus electricity use has flat lined and is now trending towards a sustained reduction in usage.

• Electricity savings alone accounts for $1.5 million of the $2 million in total savings.

• Through the Energy Incentive Program (EIP), campus departments stand to receive $870k in cash payments. (See Figure 1, attached)

• UC Berkeley does not use energy as efficiently or as wisely as we could – the Energy Office continues to find significant opportunities to reduce energy waste.

• The Outreach campaign continues to increase campus awareness on how much energy we use and how much it costs, and change the mentality as if energy is “free,” a scenario that encourages waste.

• Campus steam consumption has also declined in the same period in part due to efforts by the Energy Office.

• A campus-‐wide energy policy implementation is underway, covering important areas that lead to energy wastage such as system and operation changes, as well as instituting a workflow process to improve energy performance of renovation projects $5M or less.

FY 2013 and Beyond: The Energy Management Initiative continues to decouple growth in research and teaching from growth in resource use, and improve energy management in campus facilities by:

1. Increasing building re-‐tuning efforts thru increased Energy Office staffing levels.

2. Carrying small, high-‐impact, retrofit and building system upgrade projects. 3. Expanding the Energy Incentive Program (EIP) to a larger set of buildings. 4. Benchmarking campus buildings via certified online databases. 5. Installing more smart meters and dashboards throughout campus. 6. Increasing energy outreach efforts and student energy surveys. 7. Continuing communications engagement via “refresh and repeat” strategies.

APPA Effective and Innovative Practices Award Submittal

UC Berkeley’s Energy Incentive Program: Providing Financial Incentives to Promote Conservation by Building Occupants In 2010, UC Berkeley’s embarked on an Operational Excellence program, with the goal of increasing administrative efficiencies and cost savings to offset drastic reductions in support from the State of California. The result of the initial study was the creation of five major cost saving initiatives, among them the Energy Management Initiative. This Initiative, funded by projected savings, constituted a significant expansion of an existing, robust energy conservation program by creating a dedicated Energy Office within the Physical Plant-‐Campus Services Department with engineering and skilled trades employees dedicated to conservation efforts and the hiring of a newly created campus Energy Manager. Other elements included a new campus energy policy that sets performance standards for minor renovations, and a Marketing and Outreach program managed by the campus Sustainability Office. At the core of these expanded but traditional efforts was an innovative Energy Incentive Program, which focused on electrical loads that are (or should be) controlled by building occupants, primarily lighting and operating schedules for HVAC systems. We developed algorithms for separating the savings attributed to occupant initiated conservation from other conservation activities funded by the campus, compared those savings to a known historic baseline, and paid the Operating Units (building owners) $.10 per kwh for the electricity saved. The premise was simple: we would rather pay our academic units for conservation than to pay the local utility for unnecessary consumption. The Result: In the first year, the overall Initiative was projected to save $ 1.4 million and actually saved over $2 million overall. Of this amount, the Incentive Program made payments of $874,021 Institutional Benefit (100 pts) The Energy Management Initiative will deliver $2-‐3 million in annual energy savings when operating at full capacity. These savings represent at least a 10% reduction from business as usual. In addition, the EMI will also help make buildings more comfortable, reduce system downtime and be a significant contributor to UC Berkeley’s GHG emissions reduction efforts. A summary of the expected future savings can be found in Table 3, below: Table 3: EMI Savings Estimates FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

Planning Estimates Electricity Cost Increase 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Steam Cost Increase 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Building Elec. Intensity Increase 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% EIP Savings Ramp Rate 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% myPower Campaign Ramp Rate 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Primary Savings

Energy Incentive Program Buildings 931,250 882,761 891,589 900,505 909,510 918,605 Residence Halls 232,433 234,916 238,452 242,040 245,683 249,380 On-‐going Commissioning Steam 139,314 139,000 209,543 210,590 211,643 212,701 SEP Acceleration -‐ 120,000 144,720 174,532 175,405 176,282 IT Energy Savings -‐ 25,000 25,125 25,251 25,377 25,504 Total Primary Savings 1,302,997 1,401,677 1,509,428 1,552,918 1,567,618 1,582,472 Secondary Savings Avoided Costs -‐-‐ Electricity 683,558 702,616 720,251 738,330 756,862 775,859 Avoided costs -‐-‐ Maintaining SEP -‐ 55,894 76,780 119,358 73,853 81,471 Total Secondary Savings 683,558 758,510 797,031 857,688 830,715 857,330

Total EMI Savings 1,986,555 2,160,187 2,306,459 2,410,606 2,398,332 2,439,803

Innovativeness, Creativity, and Originality (300 pts) Of the approximately $2.3m in annual savings the project is ultimately projected to achieve, the Energy Incentive Program (EIP) will pay back operating units for the energy savings that drop their total consumption below their established baseline. Key to this was establishing a baseline that had already passed. At Berkeley, the baseline was set as FY 2011. While we know of at least a few universities that have done this, many have all-‐electronic building meters. We forged ahead with a program to establish baselines using a mix of electronic and manually-‐read meters and a process to revise them (either up or down) if a given operating unit believed it had exceptional or otherwise unusual energy use in the baseline year. FY 2012 was the first year of data modeling using electronic metering, building occupant engagement and public display of the collected data. The first round of incentive payments has been made this year, with Operating Units receiving $874,021 (A breakdown of incentive payments by operating unit can be found as Appendix 1, below). Portability and Sustainability (300 pts) The Energy Incentive Program can be duplicated at almost any facility (or campus) where a user or group’s energy use can be monitored. A basic program requires only that individual buildings have electrical meters in order to establish a baseline and monitor progress. In the most basic version, conventional glass faced analog meters can be read by setting up a route and using student labor to do the readings. It is also possible to install newer generation clamp on metering that can transmit readings to a remote location and/or an Energy Information System program and web site. Whichever metering method is utilized, simply establish a baseline, and track the reduction in energy consumption that the user or group achieves by engaging employees in buildings. A similar program has been in place at another university in the bay area. The results at that campus yielded electrical savings of 3% of the campus total for the first several years of operation. Berkeley’s MyPower website has had 22,000 “hits” per year since it launched. Many additional campuses have expressed interest, based on our first year results, and we have offered to provide assistance to help them start their own programs.

Management Commitment and Employee Involvement (150 pts) At UC Berkeley, the Energy Incentive Program is part of a larger Operational Excellence program that seeks to reduce the campus’ overall energy use. The Operational Excellence Program is overseen by an Executive Committee comprised of the Chancellor, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, Vice Chancellor of Administration and Finance and the Faculty head of the Operational Excellence Program Office. This group initially reviewed the program proposal and approved Phase I funding for the period just concluded. Additionally, the committee has just approved Phase II funding (and additional positions) for the next two years based on Phase I results. As part of the Marketing and Outreach effort, we’ve appointed volunteers as Power Agents to encourage involvement within their buildings and assist in educating and motivating building occupants. The Energy Management Initiative was commissioned in 2011 after years of planning. The Energy Management Initiative has had the utmost support of central campus administration, and the Incentive Payments are the proverbial carrot that get operating units to seriously look at their energy consumption and engage with the program, it’s outreach and education efforts, and work collaboratively to find energy savings in new arenas. Documentation, Analysis, Customer Input, and Benchmarking (150 pts) Thus far, input from the campus community has been very positive. Large-‐format displays in high-‐traffic buildings display the energy used by the building as well as others of comparable size (energy savings “races” are part of the outreach and education effort, especially with plans to have residence halls compete against one another!). Once the metering data is captured by the Energy Office, payments of the Energy Incentive Program are calculated and disbursed in conjunction with the central campus budget office. The metering data is available on a website (http://mypower.berkeley.edu) which promotes comparisons and benchmarking, either building to building or consumption through time for a single building. The metering data then becomes part of an ever-‐increasing set that can be used to model large-‐scale changes (i.e. seasonal changes, benefits from re-‐commissioning older buildings, etc.). This kind of data is crucial to the planning and analysis a public university the size and complexity of UC Berkeley must engage in to maintain world-‐class facilities. Summary In the past three years, the Energy Management Initiative has, through a number of outreach and education efforts along side the Energy Incentive Payment program, set UC Berkeley on a course for sustainable energy. That course, as outlined in a proposal from UC President Janet Napolitano aims to make the University of California a zero net energy user by 2025. Incentivizing users along the way is a novel approach; rather than allowing supply-‐demand economics regulate energy use, UC Berkeley’s plan aspires to change the campus culture to see energy savings as more than a matter of economics, but as an issue with wider implications for our state, nation and planet.

University of California Berkeley

2000 Carleton Street

Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871

510 643-7264 fax Energy Office, Physical Plant – Campus Services physicalplant.berkeley.edu/energyoffice.html _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ENERGY MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE | ENERGY INCENTIVE PROGRAM DESIGN 1

Energy Incentive Program Design Energy Management Initiative Operational Excellence April 1, 2012 Executive Summary The University currently spends $17 million annually in electricity costs for central campus and other state-‐funded buildings (excluding auxiliary, or self-‐funded, buildings). Of this, $6-‐9 million per year is diverted from campus discretionary spending, due to insufficient state contribution for utilitiesi. The Energy Management Initiative (EMI) is one of seven projects under Operational Excellence (OE) and is projected to generate $3-‐4 million in annual energy savings. These savings will be in addition to a projected $3 million in annual savings to accrue from Strategic Energy Plan (SEP) projects, though a portion of the projected EMI savings are derived from additional SEP projects after 2012ii. The Energy Incentive Program (IP) is one of four EMI projects. The others are the creation of an Energy Management Office, an Energy Outreach Program, and a strengthened campus Energy Policy. The Incentive Program is projected to contribute roughly $500,000 in annual electricity savings, assuming a 3% reduction from current electricity consumption in central campus buildingsiii. The bulk of these savings will accrue to campus Operating Units (OUs), while a smaller amount will accrue to the central campus. The IP will achieve electricity savings by establishing a baseline level of electricity consumption for OUs and crediting or charging each OU based on its annual energy usage relative to its baseline. This financial incentive program aims to shift OUs from a “free energy” mentality to a “vested interest” stance on electricity savings. This document is intended to introduce OUs and building managers to the Incentive Program.



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Incentive Program Goals

The Energy Incentive Program (IP) will contribute to the larger Energy Management Initiative (EMI) by transferring partial responsibility for energy savings to campus Operating Units (OUs) (i.e. Dean and Vice Chancellor portfolios). This transfer will be achieved by establishing a baseline level of electricity consumption for central campus buildings and instituting a system of financial incentive payments beginning in the first year and incentive/overage costs (year two and thereafter) to OUs based on actual electricity consumption relative to the baseline. The IP will contribute roughly $500,000 in annual electricity savings to the EMI target of $3-‐4 million in annual energy cost savings (and roughly 10,000 tons of CO2e emissions reductions) for the campus. The IP will be mutually supportive of the other EMI elements (the Energy Management Office, Outreach Program, and Energy Policy), but is designed so that it can be implemented independently.

Experience from UC Berkeley and other campuses indicate that OUs should be able to achieve persistent electricity consumption reductions of 3-‐5% through low-‐cost measures, such as turning off unused lights and equipment. Evidence from campus residence hall competitions indicates that up to 10-‐20% reductions can be achieved through more aggressive measuresiv. The IP electricity savings goals will be achieved through behavioral change and energy management strategies among building occupants and managers. Other EMI efforts, including on-‐going commissioning of buildings (i.e. maintaining savings from building retrofits), additional Strategic Energy Plan (SEP) projectsv, and changes in IT server managementvi, will target energy savings through building and equipment efficiency. Incentive Program Design Program Scope The Incentive Program will pertain exclusively to electricity consumption by Operating Units occupying central campus buildings and selected off-‐campus state-‐funded buildings. Operating Units will be responsible for electricity usage for all OU assigned space and resulting from space leased within applicable buildings if the OU receives income from that lease. Auxiliary units and self-‐funded buildings will not be subject to the Incentive Program, because these units are already billed directly for monthly electricity consumption by Physical Plant & Campus Services (PPCS). The IP will apply to operating unit occupants of buildings regardless of the building’s metering technology. While the ongoing installation of automated metering, dashboard energy monitoring displays, and supporting software will enhance the engagement by building occupants and managers with the IP and other behavioral-‐based efforts, the IP can and will be implemented for buildings that retain analog meters.



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Electricity Baseline Establishing the baseline The electrical consumption performance targets (in kWh) for each Operating Unit will be based on the most recent year for which consumption data is available. For almost all buildings this baseline will be based on FY 2010-‐11 consumption. A one-‐year baseline is appropriate for two reasons. First, many existing buildings have been retrofitted through the SEP since 2006, making a multi-‐year baseline more complex and staff-‐intensive. Also, basing the baseline on data collected after any major SEP retrofits ensures that OUs occupying these buildings will not be unduly credited with savings resulting from the retrofit. Second, campus buildings have shown a steady annual increase in electricity consumption of between 1 and 2% since 1990, so using the most recent year of consumption data will yield a higher baseline. This will increase Operating Units’ opportunity for electricity savings and enhance the effectiveness of the financial incentive. Baseline consumption and resulting energy incentive payments and overage costs will be applied to OUs. However, many of our buildings are occupied by multiple OUs. This presents a technical challenge to the Incentive Program because sub-‐metering (the ability to record energy usage by floor or building section) is currently unavailable to the campus. Even with the ongoing installation of automated metering and supporting software, electricity consumption can only be measured at the building level. To resolve this challenge, Operating Units’ baselines will be established by prorating building-‐level consumption based on the portion of a building’s square footage assigned to each OU. Prorating will be based on the percentage of assigned space (primarily office, lab, and studio space) listed for each OU by the campus Space Management office. Unassigned space (primarily restrooms, hallways, and lobbies) will be prorated in proportion to OU assigned space. The table below shows how the initial baseline would be established through prorating for a typical building, shared by multiple Operating Units.

Division Building Division ASF

Total Assigned

Square Footage (TASF)

% TASF

FY10-11 TOTAL BLDG Electric Use

(kWh)

Div. Electric Baseline

(kWh)

Operating Unit A Edifice 275 112,512 0.25% 1,217,230 3,043 Operating Unit B Edifice 269 112,512 0.24% 1,217,230 2,921 Operating Unit C Edifice 84,510 112,512 75.11% 1,217,230 914,261 Operating Unit D Edifice 27,458 112,512 24.40% 1,217,230 297,004



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Adjusting the baseline

To ensure a fair spread of electricity credits and overage costs among operating units, the initial baseline will be adjusted to reflect the higher electricity consumption of certain spaces, such as labs, fabrication shops, and computer facilities. The initial adjustment will occur before the Incentive Program is launched by submitting the initial prorated baselines to each OU for review. During the review period, OUs will have three months to accept the initial baseline or petition for an adjustment to Energy Management Steering Committee. If an adjustment is sought, the Energy Management Steering Committee will investigate the claim and decide to either retain the initial baseline or adjust it. It will be in the interest of the operating unit to seek upward adjustment of the initial baseline so as to maximize the opportunity for electricity savings and incentive payments if the baseline does not include major electricity uses such as lab equipment and computers. Operating units will also have the opportunity to request a baseline adjustment on an annual basis once the Incentive Program has been launched. Requests will be accepted for review by the Energy Management Steering Committee in cases where the OU’s electricity consumption is likely to be dramatically altered (e.g. major building retrofits, major equipment purchases, expansion, relocation, etc). The purpose of the adjustment process will not be to give OUs the ability to simply opt out of electricity reduction strategies. Rather, the adjustment process is intended to ensure that key elements of the University’s missions (e.g. research, teaching, student services) are not hindered by the Incentive Program. Program Implementation The Incentive Program will be implemented through a two-‐year roll out between April of 2012 and June of 2014 consisting of the phases shown in the table below. Each July OUs will have the opportunity to seek adjustment of their baseline for the new assessment year (i.e. adjustments to 2013-‐14 assessment year will be reviewed in July 2013). OUs will also have the opportunity to adjust the past year’s incentive payment or overage charge assessment during this same time (i.e. adjustment of 2013-‐14 overage charges reviewed in July 2014). Throughout the ongoing program, all OUs will receive monthly meter reports indicating actual consumption relative to baseline and cumulative incentive payment or overage cost for the year. Operating Units occupying buildings with automated meters will receive reports on the first day of each month for the past month’s consumption. Operating Units occupying buildings with analog meters will receive their reports up to two weeks into each month for the past month’s consumption to allow time for processing meter data.



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Financial Incentive/Overage Cost Design

At the end of each assessment year, operating units will receive an annual report indicating actual consumption for the year relative to the baseline. Operating units that achieved consumption reductions below the baseline will be assessed an incentive payment calculated by multiplying the total electricity reduction below the baseline (in kWh) by a price per kWh to be announced at the beginning of each assessment year. Operating units that have consumption increases above the baseline will be assessed an overage cost calculated by multiplying the total electricity increase above the baseline (in kWh) by a price per kWh to be announced at the beginning of each assessment year. For example, the price per kWh for the 2013-‐14 assessment year will be announced on July 1, 2013 and assessed on June 30, 2014. The price will be based on the average electricity price per kWh paid by the campus from the past year. This approach provides certainty to OUs so they can make reasonable choices based on monthly consumption reports.

Program Phase Timeline Phase activity Trial Period 4/1/12 – 6/30/12 • Operating units review initial baselines

• Adjustment to initial baselines • Monthly consumption reports to operating units

indicating actual consumption relative to baseline • No incentive payments or overage costs assessed

Production Phase I

7/1/12 – 6/30/13 • Monthly consumption reports to operating units indicating actual consumption relative to baseline

• Incentive payments assessed and paid to operating units on 6/30/13 (7/16/13 for analog meters).

• No overage costs assessed

Production Phase II

7/1/13 – 6/30/14, 7/1/14 – 6/30/15, et seq…

• Annual adjustment process for 2013-‐14 baseline adjustments (7/1/13 -‐ 7/31/13)

• Monthly consumption reports to operating units indicating actual consumption relative to baseline

• Incentive payments and overage costs assessed and paid on 6/30/14 (7/16/14 for analog meters)



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Conclusion The Energy Management Initiative Incentive Program will partially shift accountability for electricity savings from the central campus to each Operating Unit, through building occupant behavioral change and building manager energy management strategies. This will be achieved by establishing an incentive payment and overage cost scheme to give Operating Units a vested interest in decreasing building-‐level electricity consumption. By giving Operating Units a financial incentive to reduce electricity use, the Incentive Program aims to achieve the larger energy savings goals of the Operational Excellence Energy Management Initiative and contribute to the achievement of UC Berkeley’s ambitious Greenhouse Gas reduction targets of returning to 1990 CO2e emissions levels by 2014. i Operational Excellence. Feb 2011. Design Phase Business Case: Energy Management Initiative ii Operational Excellence. Feb 2011. Design Phase Business Case: Energy Management Initiative iii PPCS Expense Budget and Savings Target: From the Design Phase iv Operational Excellence. Feb 2011. Design Phase Business Case: Energy Management Initiative v The UC system has partnered with PG&E through the Strategic Energy Plan (SEP) to fund multiple projects to reduce energy use in new and existing campus buildings. Projects have been realized and planed for all UC Berkeley buildings over 50,000 sq ft between 2009 and 2012. For additional information/clarification, call Chris Christofferson at 415.971.7065



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871


ENERGY MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE | INCENTIVE PROGRAM | FAQS DOCUMENT MEMO 1

Energy Incentive Program: FAQs Document Energy Management Initiative Operational Excellence April 1, 2012 Executive Summary This memorandum proposes a Frequently Asked Questions document to support the roll out of the Trial Period of the Energy Management Initiative (EMI) Energy Incentive Program (EIP) as proposed January, 2012. The FAQs document provides further information on the Program based on the Draft Energy Incentive Program Design dated February, 2012.



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



FAQs Outline In April 2012, Operating Units will receive letters from Physical Plant -‐ Campus Services (PP-‐CS) announcing each Operating Unit’s electricity baseline. These letters will include an attached FAQ document that will provide greater detail in areas of anticipated concern. The document will include the following question topics and responses:

1) How does the Energy Incentive Program relate to Operational Excellence?

The Energy Incentive Program (EIP) is one of four projects of the Energy Management Initiative, one of seven Operational Excellence (OE) projects. The EIP is administered by the PP-‐CS Energy Office. An advisory Steering Committee of campus stakeholders has oversight over the EIP and other EMI projects.

2) Why is the campus initiating this program? What is the purpose?

The University currently spends $17 million annually on electricity for the central campus and other state-‐funded buildings (excluding auxiliary, or self-‐funded, buildings). Of this, $6 – 9 million per year is diverted from campus discretionary spending. On average, the utility costs are 10 cents per kilowatt-‐hour (kWh). The EIP is designed to achieve a 3% reduction from current electricity usage in central campus buildings, accruing roughly $500,000 in annual electricity cost savings and avoidance. The EIP will also contribute to achieving the campus goal of returning to 1990 Greenhouse Gas emissions levels by 2014.

3) How will the program work?

The EIP will achieve electricity savings by establishing a baseline level of electricity usage for campus Operating Units and crediting or charging each OU based on its annual electricity usage relative to its baseline. The EIP is a financial incentive program that encourages energy-‐saving behavior and management choices by shifting Units away from viewing “energy as free.”

4) Who will be affected by this program?

The EIP will focus exclusively on electricity usage by Operating Units occupying central campus buildings and selected off-‐campus, state-‐funded, buildings. Operating units will be responsible for



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



electricity usage for all Unit-‐assigned spaces and resulting from space leased within applicable buildings if the Unit receives income from that lease. Auxiliary Units and self-‐funded buildings will not be subject to the Program, because these units are already billed for monthly electricity usage by PP-‐CS. While many electricity meters on campus have been converted to automated digital ones, buildings with analog meters will still be included in the EIP.

5) How will electricity usage baselines be established?

The electricity usage baselines (in kWh) will be established based on FY2010-‐11 electricity usage data for the buildings wholly or partially operated by a given Operating Unit. Each Unit’s baseline will account for only the portion of the Unit’s building(s) operated by that Unit. This will be achieved by prorating building-‐level usage data based on the portion of a building’s square footage assigned to each Unit according to the campus Space Management & Capital Programs office. The example table below demonstrates how the prorating process works:

Units

Building

Division Assigned Square Footage (ASF)

Total Assigned Square Footage

(TASF) % TASF

FY2010-‐11 TOTAL BLDG Electric Use

(kWh)

Div. Electric Baseline (kWh)

Operating Unit A Edifice 275 112,512 0.25% 1,217,230 3,043 Operating Unit B Edifice 269 112,512 0.24% 1,217,230 2,921 Operating Unit C Edifice 84,510 112,512 75.11% 1,217,230 914,261 Operating Unit D Edifice 27,458 112,512 24.40% 1,217,230 297,004

6) Can an Operating Unit seek to adjust its baseline?

During the Trial Period of the Program (April 1 – June 30, 2102), Operating Units may request further information about or seek an adjustment of their baseline by following the procedure outlined in the attached Baseline Adjustment Process Memorandum dated April 1, 2012. Baselines may also be adjusted on an annual basis in certain cases.



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



FY2010-‐11 baseline or current year usage may be adjusted for the following reasons:

Adjustment Reason When Reduce initial energy baseline

Strategic Energy Plan (SEP) projects End of each FY

To Unit apportionments Space changes in shared buildings End of each FY Reduce in-‐year energy usage

System failures (e.g. failure of variable speed motor drive)

End of each FY

Increase original energy baseline

Significant program expansion (subject to Steering Committee approval)

End of each FY

7) When will this program take effect?

Program Phase Timeline Phase activity

Trial Period 4/1/12 – 6/30/12 • Operating units review initial baselines • Appeals to initial baselines • Monthly usage reports to operating units indicating actual

usage relative to baseline • No incentive payments or overage costs assessed

Production Phase I

7/1/12 – 6/30/13 • Monthly usage reports to operating units indicating actual usage relative to baseline

• Incentive payments assessed and paid to operating units on 6/30/13 (7/16/13 for analog meters).

• No overage costs assessed

Production Phase II

7/1/13 – 6/30/14, 7/1/14 – 6/30/15, et seq…

• Annual appeals process for 2013-‐14 baseline adjustments (7/1/13 -‐ 7/31/13)

• Monthly usage reports to operating units indicating actual usage relative to baseline

• Incentive payments and overage costs assessed and paid on 6/30/14 (7/16/14 for analog meters)



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



8) How will Incentive Program payments and overage charges be calculated? How often will they be

assessed? At the end of each fiscal year, Operating Units will receive an annual report indicating actual usage for the year relative to the baseline. Operating Units that achieved usage reductions below the baseline will be given an incentive payment calculated by multiplying the total electricity reduction below the baseline (in kWh) by a price per kWh to be announced at the beginning of each assessment year. Operating Units that use more than their baseline will be assessed an overage charge calculated in a similar way; overage charges will not be assessed until the second year of the program (FY2013-‐14).

In general, the price per kWh that will be used during a given fiscal year will be announced in July of that fiscal year and used to calculate payments and overage charges at the end of the fiscal year.

FAQs Responsibilities The FAQs document and web page will be maintained and updated by an Energy Office Representative or the Energy Analyst. For any questions about this document, call Chris Christofferson at 415.971.7065.



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871


ENERGY MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE | INCENTIVE PROGRAM | PROCESS MEMO 1

Energy Incentive Program: Baseline Adjustment Process Memorandum Energy Management Initiative Operational Excellence April 1, 2012 Executive Summary This memorandum proposes a structure the baseline adjustment process included in the Trial Period of the Energy Management Initiative (EMI) Energy Incentive Program (EIP). The Trial Period will cover a three-‐month period from April 1 to June 30, 2012. During this phase Operating Units will be informed of their proposed baselines (based on FY2010-‐11 electricity usage data) and given the opportunity to request clarifying information on, or adjust, the Unit’s electricity usage baseline. Please contact the Energy Office at [email protected] for further information or to make a request.



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Process Outline In April 2012, Operating Units (OUs) will receive letters from Physical Plant – Campus Services (PP-‐CS) announcing the OU’s electricity baseline. These letters will include one summary table which contains the information below (see sample Baseline Summary table below): Sample Baseline Summary Table: For EVCP -‐-‐ University Library

Operating Unit EVCP – University Library Buildings wholly or partially operated by Unit 20 Building(s) total assignable SF 3,005,157 Operating unit assignable SF 1,017,523 FY 2010-‐11 electricity consumption 40,563,318 Unit’s electricity consumption baseline 13,734,426 Unit’s % of total assignable SF 34%

The letters will direct OUs to email the Energy Office to request information and indicate the nature of

the OU’s concern no later than June 1, 2012. Once the request has been received, the review process will proceed through the following steps:

1) The OU will be provided with Space Management and Usage History summary tables (see examples below) and be invited to schedule a meeting with a representative of the Energy Office to review the information.

a. Space Management Summary

Data Evans Hall Gardner Stacks

Haas School

Building total SF 277,388 189,425 238,270 Building total common space 137,664 56,321 106,402 Building total ASF 139,724 133,104 131,868 Unit’s % of building total ASF 6% 100% 24% Building total electricity consumption (FY 2010-‐11) 3,123,047 4,341,901 3,292,836 Unit’s electricity consumption baseline (kWh) 181,249 4,341,901 801,884



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



b. Electricity Usage History Summary

Building East Asian Library Month FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Jul 75,225 83,928 Aug 84,880 81,439 Sep 87,763 81,369 Oct 85,461 83,200 Nov 69,777 75,021 Dec 64,040 67,363 Jan 64,372 65,769 Feb 62,268 60,989 Mar 70,768 38,002 Apr 71,847 68,425 May 75,135 70,542 Jun 77,371 72,359 Total 888,907 878,406

2)

a. If the OU accepts the baseline after reviewing further information, this acceptance will be filed. The adjustment process will conclude.

b. If the OU does not accept the baseline, the review process will proceed to Step 3.

3) a. If the OU rejects the Assignable SF (ASF) in any or all buildings, OU will be directed to Space

Management and Capital Programs (SMCP) to seek adjustment of the assignable SF on file for that OU. The review process will be suspended pending communication with SMCP.

b. If the OU accepts the Assignable SF, but rejects the pro-‐rated electricity usage figure of any or all building(s), the review process will proceed to Step 4.

4) The OU will be requested to provide a statement in regards to the baseline stating both the discrepancy between the proposed baseline and the OU’s alternate baseline with evidence to support this discrepancy (e.g. energy intensive uses by other OUs in same building).

5) Statement of baseline adjustment will be reviewed by the Energy Office.



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



a. If Energy Office staff determines the request to be without merit, based on the evidence, the

request process will conclude.

b. If Energy Office staff determines the baseline adjustment request merits further investigation, review process will proceed to step 6.

6) Energy Office staff will investigate the stated discrepancy and attempt to quantify it.

a. If Energy Office staff verifies the discrepancy to a reasonable degree, baseline will be adjusted, pending Energy Manager approval. Review process will conclude.

b. If Energy Office staff finds the evidence presented incomplete or inadequate, review process will proceed to Step 7.

c. If Energy Office staff disproves the discrepancy, review process will proceed to Step 8.

7) The OU will be directed to resubmit evidence no more than once. Repeat Steps 5 and 6.

8) The OU will be notified of negative determination of the review and presented with documentation supporting the determination. The OU will be asked to acknowledge this notice.

a. If OU accepts determination, the review process will conclude.

b. If OU rejects determination, the review process will proceed to Step 9.

9) The Energy Manager will schedule a meeting with the OU liaison and the Energy Office staff who

processed the review to record the nature of OU’s concern and seek resolution.

a. If the OU and Energy Manger are able to reach a resolution, the review process will conclude.

b. If the OU and Energy Manger are unable to reach a resolution, the process will proceed to step 10.

10) The Energy Office will present the OU’s baseline adjustment review and all supporting documentation

to the EMI Steering Committee (or designated member(s) of the Steering Committee).

a. If the Steering Committee determines the review does not merit further consideration, OU will be notified and the review process will conclude.



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



b. If the Steering Committee elects to consider the baseline adjustment request, Steering

Committee will make a final determination of the request and direct the Energy Office on next steps.

If you have questions about this document, call Chris Christofferson at 415.971.7065



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871


ENERGY MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE | ENERGY USE ADJUSTMENT 1

Energy Use Adjustment Energy Management Initiative Operational Excellence March 11, 2013 Executive Summary The Energy Management Initiative (EMI) is one of seven initiatives under Operational Excellence (OE) to implement a set of projects with the collective goal of reducing annual administrative expenses by $75 million, improve operational effectiveness, and instill a culture of continuous improvement. The EMI alone is projected to generate $3-‐4 million in annual energy savings and cost avoidance. The goal of this initiative is to achieve cost savings and avoidance through the reduction in energy usage of existing operations and planned campus expansion. Sources of savings will primarily include building system retrofits, monitoring-‐based commissioning (MBCx), increased operations and maintenance of facilities, and energy end-‐user behavioral changes.

The Energy Incentive Program (EIP) is a subset of the EMI. It is focused on economic incentives to encourage savings based on changes in occupant behavior. Because the buildings are not submetered, the savings from occupant initiatives are comingled with savings from the other activities and the electricity usage readings need to be adjusted in order to isolate EIP savings from other, simultaneous, conservation activities funded from different sources.

The initial basis of baseline for each Operating Unit (OU) creation is a pro rata apportionment of total

building electricity usage based on the relative square footage occupied by building occupants based on the OU to which they report. This methodology assumes that electricity usage is relatively uniform across a given building. Adjustments may be necessary if it is determined that there are dissimilar usage patterns or, changes in occupancy that change the proportion of space that an OU occupies. Other adjustments may be made to reflect significant increase in energy usage caused by changes in research activity.

Through this document, the EMI will outline the procedures for electricity use adjustments requested

by OU based on occupancy and use, and the more complicated disaggregation of Strategic Energy Plan (SEP) savings and other non-‐incentive plan savings from reductions seen at a whole building meter. This document is divided into two parts covering i) Baseline and In-‐Year Adjustment, and ii) SEP Savings Adjustment. If you have questions about this document, call Chris Christofferson at 415.971.7065.



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Section One: Baseline and In-‐Year Adjustment

The EIP uses historical FY2010-‐2011 electricity usage data as baseline. Each building in the program has its own dedicated electricity meters that records usage. Electricity use is pro rated by square footage to each OU using the assignable square footage information found in FacilitiesLinki.

OUs may request an adjustment to the baseline or in-‐year (current) electricity usage under certain

conditions.ii Baseline and in-‐year adjustments may be requested on an annual basis for reasons such as, but not limited to, the followingiii: i) space changes in shared buildings, ii) major equipment or system failures (e.g. failure of a variable speed motor drive), iii) significant program expansion (subject to Steering Committee approval), iv) capital project renovations (subject to Energy Office approval), and v) the addition of a new building to campus.

All adjustment requests are reviewed in conjunction with OU input, and verified with relevant campus

parties (e.g. Capital Projects, Physical Plant, Space and Capital Resources) and written documentation (e.g. historical electricity use, building repair and maintenance work orders, construction or renovation as-‐built documents). The Energy Office serves as the primary receiver and reviewer of baseline adjustment requestsiv, and in certain cases, may require the input of the Steering Committee to arbitrate OU requests. The accompanying Appendix A flow chart details the baseline and in-‐year adjustment process and decision rights.

The following are four baseline and in-‐year adjustment examples that demonstrate the process and outcomes. The intent is to outline a simple methodology to address electricity usage changes that may be attributable to significant building renovations, dramatic program changes, electricity use intensity discrepancies and new spaces or buildings that have been recently occupied beneficially.

1. Earl Warren Hall (Executed) Type: Baseline adjustment, dissimilar electricity use intensity Administration and Finance (A&F) did not occupy this building in baseline year but moved in before the EIP had started. The adjustment was requested by the OU to i) include this building in portfolio, and ii) to adjust for energy usage differences between the office space (occupied by A&F) and the data center, rather than using the FacilitiesLink square footage breakdown. This request was reviewed thoroughly and granted on grounds that A&F had moved in by June 2012, and that existing electricity submeters were already in place to segregate load between offices and data center (lighting, UPS and associated cooling equipment). This adjustment methodology included reviewing site plans and interviewing building facilities personnel as well as field verifying the number of building occupants. A&F is now responsible for 5% of the building’s electricity while occupying 30%



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



of its assignable square footage. The remaining 95% of the building’s electricity use was assigned to the only other OU occupying the building.

2. Sutardja Dai Hall (Executed) Type: Baseline adjustment, new building and significant load increase The Vice Chancellor for Research OU requested a baseline adjustment to better reflect an increasing electricity use as occupants moved into the newly-‐constructed building. The monthly electricity readings for July and August 2012 showed an uncharacteristically high overage – a subsequent investigation revealed that i) occupants were still in the process of moving in during FY10-‐11, and ii) the energy-‐intensive Marvell Nanofabrication facility were in the process of relocating from Cory Hall. As a result, the baseline year electricity use was reset to FY11-‐12 instead of FY10-‐11 to allow a grace 2-‐year move-‐in period. The baseline electricity use at this building was increased from 7.3 to 8 million kilowatt hours annually.

3. Cory Hall (Executed) Type: In-‐year (current) adjustment, significant load migration This is an adjustment initiated by the Energy Office for the migration of Marvell Nanofabrication facility in the basement levels of this building to Sutardja Dai. This was a significant contributor to the electricity reduction seen at the building meter and subsequently contributed to an electricity use increase in Sutardja Dai Hall (see #2 above). In the absence of any meaningful submetered data of the research facility, the Energy Office and College of Engineering agreed to reset the baseline electricity year to FY11-‐12 instead of FY10-‐11. This resulted in a baseline electricity use decrease from 6.1 to 5.3 million kilowatt hours annually.

4. Calvin Lab (Executed) Type: Baseline and in-‐year (current) adjustment, building end-‐use repurposing and OU change This is an adjustment initiated by the Energy Office after a review of the significant electricity reduction at the building meter when there was no centrally-‐funded or preventive maintenance effort to which the reduction could be attributed. An investigation revealed that the building had been completely vacated when the former occupants were relocated to the new Energy Biosciences Building, and will be repurposed to house a new computing research group by the College of Engineering. After a review of main building electricity data, it is proposed that the departing OU (Vice Chancellor for Research) will be credited for savings seen up until September 2012. As for the incoming incumbent, the building will be given a 2-‐year grace move-‐in period before the new baseline is established.



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Section Two: SEP Savings Adjustment

The EIP was designed to reward building occupants and managers for reducing campus electricity usage. Thus, centrally-‐funded energy conservation projects, namely those from the SEP program as well as efforts from the Energy Office skilled trades, must be deducted from savings seen at the whole building electricity meter before the EIP awards savings to individual OUs.

SEP savings are reported based on a variety of methods, including but not limited to, calculations and

short-‐term monitoring. In MBCx-‐type (adjustments to heating, ventilation and air-‐conditioning systems) projects, a 3-‐month monitoring period of the whole building energy usage before and after the project completion date is required. In retrofit-‐type projects (lighting and HVAC equipment replacement and overhaul) projects, savings are typically calculated and may have supplemental one-‐time or short-‐term measurements. It is important to note that savings from SEP projects comprise of a combination of the following i) actual reductions seen at the building meter based on 3 months of monitoring that is then extrapolated, or ii) estimated reductions and cost avoidance calculated based on one-‐time or short-‐term measurements used in conjunction with historical data.

The method for adjusting for SEP savings in the EIP includes a review of one full year of electricity data

for a building before and after a SEP project is completed to understand building energy use patterns and correlate energy reductions that can be attributed to a particular project. This method assumes that other building energy use patterns remain relatively unchanged (i.e. no significant increases) during the period in which SEP projects are carried out. This presents an inherent calculation inaccuracy in that OUs may also benefit from SEP savings, but would ensure that OUs are not charged for overages that result from the cost avoidance portion of the SEP savings that are not seen at the meter. Determining a Savings Adjustment Factor (SAF):

SEP projects are classified into three separate types: HVAC retrofit, lighting retrofit and MBCx.

Anticipated, or best available, savings from these projects are reported to PG&E when a project is completed. The savings estimated in these projects are composed of i) energy usage avoidance, and ii) energy usage reductions at the meter. A SAF is necessary to discern between both types of savings since the EIP was designed to only reward building occupant and operator behavior change that resulted in reductions seen at the building meter. Thus, savings from SEP projects will be adjusted out using a SAF calculated from the following:

SAF = (EUpre -‐ EUpost ) / ESrep



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Where, SAF = ratio of energy savings of SEP project relative to reductions seen at main meter

EUpre = electricity usage of building in preceding period before SEP project is completed. Preferably, 12 consecutive months ending with the month before the SEP project was completed.

EUpost = electricity usage of building in succeeding period after SEP project is completed. Preferably, 12 consecutive months starting with the month after the SEP project was completed preferred. Latest month included is June 2012 (before EIP start).

ESrep = reported best available SEP savingsv

To avoid the comingling of building meter electricity reductions that are attributable to both the SEP program and behavior change, Savings Adjustment Factors (SAF) will be used to isolate out SEP savings. SAFs will be derived only from using historical SEP and building electricity use data – for SEP projects where the latest month used in the EUpost period is on or before June 2012 (Requirement #1). This assumes that, coinciding with the official kickoff of the EIP (Production Phase I), a widespread energy-‐savings behavior had begun to permeate campus culture through efforts of the EIP beginning July 2012.

Three SAF values – one for each type of SEP project described above – will be calculated using this

method from historical data and projects. Beginning July 2012, any SEP projects that do not meet Requirement #1 (see above paragraph) will be adjusted out using one of the three SAF values calculated. Note that a low calculated SAF value (e.g. when less than 0.3) would trigger an investigation by the Energy Office to better understand the historical and current energy usage patterns in a building as well as a review of the SEP project to ascertain savings. Listed on the following page is an example of how the SAF is calculated:



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Based on a review of 20 SEP projects from 2008 through 2011, the following are proposed SAF values

for each project type:

SEP Project Type Lighting Retrofit HVAC Retrofit MBCx Number of Projects Reviewed 4 6 10 Mean SAF 0.508 0.333 0.439

Example One: Determining a SAF Value Tang Center MBCx Project A MBCx project was completed at the Tang Center at the end of 2008. Based on the SEP project data provided to PG&E, the estimated electricity savings was 529,453 kWh per year, occurring annually. To calculate the SAF, the following data is used: Project Details

Project completion date: December 2008 EUpre months: December 2007 through November 2008 EUpost months: January 2009 through December 2009 (meets Requirement #1) Reported annual savings from SEP project, ESrep = 529,453kWh 12 months electricity use before SEP project, EUpre = 1,653,666 kWh 12 months electricity use after SEP project, EUpost = 1,251,944 kWh

Thus, the SAF is calculated using the following:

SAF = (EUpre -‐ EUpost ) / ESrep = (1,653,666 – 1,251,944) / (529,453) = 0.759



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Adjusting the Baseline:

Once SAF values have been determined, electricity use baselines for each building will then be adjusted

downwards based on the reported SEP savings adjusted with the appropriate SAF value (ES,adj = SAFi * ESrep,i). SEP projects completed after the EIP baseline year will result in the baseline electricity data being adjusted downwards for all 12 months, whereas SEP projects completed during the EIP baseline year would result in electricity data being adjusted only for months before the SEP project was completed.

Adjusted SEP savings are divided equally based on the number of days in each month, and subtracted from the non-‐adjusted months in the baseline year. Depending on when the projects are completed, a baseline adjustment may or may not involve all the months in the baseline year. The following are examples of baseline adjustments using the SAF method:



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Example Two: Davis Hall MBCx Project This building had one MBCx project completed after the EIP baseline was established, and thus, savings must be retroactively applied to all months in the baseline year. Project Details

Project completion date: December 2011 EUpost months: January 2012 through December 2012 (fails Requirement #1) Reported annual savings from SEP project, ESrep = 374,188 kWh Adjusted SEP savings using SAF, ESadj = ESrep,i * SAFi = (374,188 kWh)*(0.439) = 164,269 kWh

Month Non-‐adjusted Baseline Adjusted Baseline FY12-‐13 Actuals July 109,800 93,122 102,590

August 119,793 103,115 102,025 September 118,212 102,072 102,649 October 120,304 103,626 113,106 November 111,615 95,475 106,306 December 107,057 90,379 95,097 January 122,232 105,554 97,375 February 142,464 127,400 March 147,763 131,085 April 144,230 128,090 May 141,327 124,649 June 124,715 108,575

Subtotal (until January) 809,013 712,252 719,148

Total 1,509,512 1,345,243 (11% lower) Note: Numerical values in table are in units of kilowatt-‐hours (kWh).



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Example Three: Barker Hall MBCx and Lighting Retrofit Projects This building had two SEP projects completed after the EIP baseline was established, and thus, savings must be retroactively applied to all months in the baseline year. Lighting Retrofit Project Details


MBCx Project Details

Project completion date: January 2012 EUpost months: February 2012 through January 2013 (fails Requirement #1) Reported annual savings from SEP project, ESrep = 221,496 kWh Adjusted SEP savings using SAF, ESadj = ESrep,i * SAFi = (221,496 kWh)*(0.439) = 97,237 kWh


August 299,227 286,381 244,385 September 311,237 298,805 237,929 October 312,819 299,973 249,509

November 272,237 259,805 221,220 December 260,726 247,880 211,613 January 263,169 250,323 206,644 February 232,653 221,050 March 260,829 247,983 April 258,651 246,219 May 260,836 247,990 June 275,284 262,852

Subtotal (until January) 2,001,934 1,912,840 1,616,026




Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Example Four: California Hall MBCx Project This building had one MBCx project when the EIP baseline was being established, and thus, savings must be retroactively applied to months before the SEP project was completed. In this case, the baseline was only adjusted for the months of July through April. Project Details





Total 457,198 415,949 (9% lower) Note: Numerical values in table are in units of kilowatt-‐hours (kWh).



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Example Five: Evans Hall MBCx, HVAC and Lighting Retrofit Projects This building had two SEP projects (lighting and MBCx) completed after the EIP baseline was established and one project completed (HVAC) when the baseline was being established. Thus, for the lighting and MBCx projects, the baseline electricity use will be adjusted downwards for all months whereas for the HVAC project, a downward adjustment will only apply from July through May. HVAC Retrofit Project Details

Project completion date: December 2011 EUpost months: January 2012 through December 2012 (fails Requirement #1) Reported annual savings from SEP project, ESrep = 68,928 kWh Adjusted SEP savings using SAF, ESadj = ESrep,i * SAFi = (68,928 kWh)*(0.333)

= 22,953 kWh Lighting Retrofit Project Details


MBCx Project Details

Project completion date: January 2012 EUpost months: February 2012 through January 2013 (fails Requirement #1) Reported annual savings from SEP project, ESrep = 253,107 kWh Adjusted SEP savings using SAF, ESadj = ESrep,i * SAFi = (253,107 kWh)*(0.439) = 111,114 kWh



Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Example Five: Evans Hall MBCx, HVAC and Lighting Retrofit Projects (continued)


August 277,377 252,702 203,171 September 282,032 258,153 198,163 October 295,436 270,761 198,106

November 278,877 254,998 194,328 December 243,871 219,196 167,296 January 259,852 235,177 181,981 February 242,153 219,866 March 256,130 231,455 April 242,298 218,419 May 235,042 210,367 June 235,683 213,691





Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Example Six: McCone Hall Lighting Retrofit Project This building had one lighting retrofit project when the EIP baseline was being established, and thus, savings must be retroactively applied to months before the SEP project was completed. In this case, the baseline was only adjusted for the months of July through August. Project Details

Project completion date: September 2011 EUpost months: October 2011 through September 2012 (fails Requirement #1) Reported annual savings from SEP project, ESrep = 141,869 kWh Adjusted SEP savings using SAF, ESadj = ESrep,i * SAFi = (141,869 kWh)*(0.508) = 72,069 kWh







Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



Example Seven: Tan Hall HVAC Retrofit Project This building had one HVAC retrofit project after the SEP project was completed, and thus, savings must be retroactively applied to all months in the baseline year. Project Details

Project completion date: September 2012 EUpost months: October 2012 through September 2013 (fails Requirement #1) Reported annual savings from SEP project, ESrep = 434,954 kWh Adjusted SEP savings using SAF, ESadj = ESrep,i * SAFi = (434,954 kWh)*(0.333) = 144,840 kWh







Berkeley, CA 94720-1384 510 644-4871



i UC Berkeley. FacilitiesLink – a web-‐based space management tool developed and maintained by Space Management & Capital Programs. More information can be found at the following web address (last accessed March 11, 2013): http://smcp.berkeley.edu/ ii Operational Excellence. April 2012. Energy Incentive Program: Baseline Adjustment Process Memorandum. Baseline adjustment forms can be found on the following web address (last accessed March 11, 2013): http://physicalplant.berkeley.edu/files/Campus%20Energy%20Office%20Page/EIP_Baseline_Adjustment_Request.doc iii Operational Excellence. April 2012. Energy Incentive Program: FAQs Document. iv Operational Excellence. April 2012. Energy Incentive Program Adjustment Request. v These are best estimated savings reported by consultants at the time of SEP project completion. These savings may be subject to in-‐depth evaluation by the California Public Utilities Commission, but are usually only verified by consultants for compliance with PG&E’s rebate and/or incentive program requirements.

Example Eight: University Hall HVAC Retrofit Project This building had one HVAC retrofit project after the SEP project was completed, and thus, savings must be retroactively applied to all months in the baseline year. Project Details

Project completion date: July 2012 EUpost months: August 2012 through July 2013 (fails Requirement #1) Reported annual savings from SEP project, ESrep = 63,913 kWh Adjusted SEP savings using SAF, ESadj = ESrep,i * SAFi = (63,913 kWh)*(0.333) = 21,283 kWh





Background:,, Energy,use,and,management,at,UC,Berkeley ......•...

Documents

Transcript of Background:,, Energy,use,and,management,at,UC,Berkeley ......•...