Herbert E. Hirschfeld, P.E. and Joseph S. Lopes Applied Energy Group, Inc. Metering America 2005...
-
Upload
amber-poole -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Herbert E. Hirschfeld, P.E. and Joseph S. Lopes Applied Energy Group, Inc. Metering America 2005...
Herbert E. Hirschfeld, P.E.and
Joseph S. LopesApplied Energy Group, Inc.
Metering America 2005April 13, 2005
Submetering Case Studies with Load Management and
Time-Sensitive Pricing
Submetering with LM & TSP Case Studies: Hirschfeld & Lopes
• Residential Electrical Submetering• Conversion of master-metered apartment
buildings to submetering• Transfers payment responsibility from
owners to residents, retains bulk rate• Proven energy savings: 18-26% or more• Allocates energy costs fairly, reduces waste
and adversarial issues
Background
Submetering with LM & TSP Case Studies: Hirschfeld & Lopes
• Load Management• Control of appliances/end uses by utility
or customer to reduce peak demand• Incentives for load reduction available
from utility, states, grid operators (ISO)• Time-Sensitive Pricing
• Vary prices by time of day, day of week, or utility system conditions (critical peak)
• Real-time pricing, time-of-use (TOU)
Background
Submetering with LM & TSP Case Studies: Hirschfeld & Lopes
New submetering technology provides 2-way communications, enabling remote monitoring and control, including: Load management of key appliances (A/C, Heat) Interval Meter reading for time-sensitive rates,
monitoring of load control events Other: Monitoring of comfort (temperature), safety
(smoke/CO2 detectors, fire/door alarms) Submetering plus load management and/or
time-sensitive pricing means more benefits, small incremental cost = more cost-effective
Submetering as a Catalyst
Submetering with LM & TSP Case Studies: Hirschfeld & Lopes
Case Studies: Enhanced Submetering
Waterside Plaza
New York City rental apartment complex; built early 1970’s; 1470 units, all-electric with heat pump units in each apt.
Clinton Hill Apartments
Brooklyn, NY coop apartment complex; built in 1940’s; 1225 units; 66% own, 34% rent; recent electrical upgrade; room A/C’s
Submetering with LM & TSP Case Studies: Hirschfeld & Lopes
Case Study: Waterside Plaza
All-electric rental apartment complex: electric costs a major concern
Dual System installed (1997)• 2 functions enabled with shared PLC
communications system: submetering and energy management system (EMS)
• Designed to satisfy both owners and tenants: Housing agency (HPD) wanted EMS with resident
override feature (no rent reduction issues); Owner wanted electrical submetering (requires rent
reduction process) Incentive $ for both EMS and Submetering
Meter
PLC
Control Relays
Submetering with LM & TSP Case Studies: Hirschfeld & Lopes
Case Study: Waterside Plaza
Chronology of System Operation 1997-1999: EMS shuts off heat pump units at
scheduled times energy and cost savings 1999-2004: After Privatization, Submetering
for opt-in units (EMS optional); higher rents for opt-out units (EMS mandatory)
2004 on: Price-responsive load management NYSERDA R&D Program incentives for equip. upgrade Incentives from NY ISO for load control; Voluntary
participation by tenants; incentives ($100K for 2004) shared by owner and participating residents
Submetering with LM & TSP Case Studies: Hirschfeld & Lopes
Case Study: Waterside Plaza
Comparison of Electric Costs for Submetered vs. Non-Submetered for typical building (#40)
$106 $113
$48$65
$96 $89 $83 $82
$110$131
$199
$302
$64 $72
$38$53
$77 $72 $68$46
$70$82
$129
$185
Mar '04 Apr '04 May '04 June '04 July '04 Aug '04 Sept '04 Oct '04 Nov '04 Dec '04 Jan '05 Feb '05$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
Mon
th B
ill $
Submetered Tenants Non-Submetered Tenants
Waterside PlazaMonthly Electric Cost Mar ‘04–Feb ‘05
Ave. Submetered tenant bills were 33% less than Non-Submetered for 12 month period; 38% less for winter; 19% less for summer
(* app. 180 apts. in each group)
Submetering with LM & TSP Case Studies: Hirschfeld & Lopes
Case Study: Clinton Hill Apartments
Chronology of Events Pre-2001: Master-metered, insufficient
electric service (A/C) 2002: Electrical upgrade, NYS Code requires
metering; shareholders opt for submetering; meters installed in basement
2003-2004: Submetering installed and tested; implemented early 2004 (shareholders only); rental apt. owners await DHCR approval before charging for electric
2004: NYSERDA Program for Time-Sensitive Pricing applied to submetered residents; shadow period June 2004 – March 2005; full-scale April 2005 (planned); total electric costs allocated to each apartment based on both WHAT and WHEN kWh is used
Submetering with LM & TSP Case Studies: Hirschfeld & Lopes
Case Study: Clinton Hill Apartments
Time-Sensitive Pricing Typical Building Profile vs. Rate Structure (weekdays) Rates: Peak=3x offpeak; Shoulder=2x offpeak. based on algorithm
CP CP CP CP
OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP
SH SH SH SH
PK PK PK PK
SH SH SH SH
OP OP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Tota
l Met
er k
W
0
2
4
6
8
10
TO
U R
AT
E L
EV
EL
(M
ult
iple
of
Off
-Pea
k P
rice
)Peak Day: 01/10/2005Weekday
Weekday TOU Price Level (right scale)Critical Peak (Right Scale)
Building 325 - Master Meter • Critical Peak rate (6-10pm, red bars on graph) designed to address building peak on 3-5 hottest days per summer month
• Building is billed for kWh and peak kW (any hour)
• Weekend has 6-10 pm Shoulder peak period (could be billing peak)
Submetering with LM & TSP Case Studies: Hirschfeld & Lopes
Case Study: Clinton Hill ApartmentsBenefits of Submetering
Participants (Shareholders) vs. Non-Participants (Renters): Participants pay for their electricity, so they
waste less and use about 35% less than renters
434
551 574 551 532
405
488446 468
328
405 421 402 380
287353
323 346
June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 Sept 2004 Oct 2004 Nov 2004 Dec 2004 Jan 2005 Feb 2005
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Mo
nth
kW
h
Participants (Owners) Non-Participants (Renters)
ClintonHill - All Buildings: Time-of-Use BillingAverage Monthly kWh
• App. 825 apts. are participants vs. 400 non-participants
• Participants use less than Non-participants every month
Submetering with LM & TSP Case Studies: Hirschfeld & Lopes
Case Study: Clinton Hill ApartmentsBenefits of Time-Sensitive Pricing
Participants vs. Non-Participants: Participants receive “shadow” bill (what they
would pay under TOU rate)
47% 50%45% 43% 42%
55%
48%43%
40% 40%
55%59%
51%
60% 59%65%
56% 55% 55% 55%
June 2004July 2004
August 2004Sept 2004
Oct 2004Nov 2004
Dec 2004Jan 2005
Feb 2005
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Per
cen
t S
aver
s
Participants (Owners) Non-Participants (Renters)
ClintonHill - All Buildings: Time-of-Use BillingPercent Savers under TOU Rate (vs. flat rate)
Higher rate of savers under TOU for participants (avg. 57%) than for non-participants (avg. (45%)
Submetering with LM & TSP Case Studies: Hirschfeld & Lopes
Case Study Conclusions Submetering alone saves energy, confirming
NYSERDA studies citing 18-26% reduction Submetering plus load management reduces both
peak kW and energy usage (kWh); qualifies building and residents for incentives, including utility and state curtailment programs
Submetering plus Time-Sensitive Pricing also shifts usage, reduces peak on utility system and on building demand
Incremental cost of adding load management and time-sensitive pricing to submetering (with common communications) is small compared to savings potential, improving cost-effectiveness of system