Retro-commissioning A Solution for Todays Modern Facilities

Retro-commissioning A Solution for Todays Modern Facilities Retro-Commissioning: A Solution for Today’s Modern Facilities Mark F. Miller, PE, CCP, CEM, LEED Strategic Building Solutions, LLC (SBS) Evan Wyner, PE, CCP, CBCP, LEED Strategic Building Solutions, LLC (SBS) INTRODUCTION In a climate of escalating utility costs, increasing operating budget pressures, and recent additions of new modern buildings, the energy and operational savings present in the nation’s inventory of existing building can be likened to “gold waiting to be mined”. Contrary to intuition, the nation’s recently constructed energy efficient buildings contain substantial energy savings potential therefore, it is largely being ignored. Increasingly, Retro-Commissioning is being employed to realize this un-tapped savings potential, create a high return-on- investment (ROI), and improve building performance. BACKGROUND The limited world energy supply, governance instability in oil-producing nations, increasing demand, and the associated escalation in energy costs in the US have been making headlines recently. Given the finite supply of fossil fuel and the rapid growth in worldwide energy consumption, it is likely that the trend in energy price escalations will continue for the foreseeable future. These realities have made the national energy policy a topic of much debate, particularly with regard to the emphasis placed on energy conservation versus alternative energy sources or increasing supplies of traditional energy sources. Clearly, as a facilities management professional, identifying and pursuing energy conservation within the facilities under your stewardship is usually the most financially viable strategy for mitigating the effects of the escalating energy costs in the near term. The United States (US) commercial building segment, defined as all buildings except residential housing and goods producing industries such as manufacturing, agriculture and construction, is a large and growing segment of energy consumption. It is expected to grow at two-thirds the rate of Gross Domestic Product growth through 2025 according to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 published by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA). In 2003 the commercial building sector consumed 17,548 trillion BTU’s of energy for the 4.9 million commercial buildings in the US, encompassing more than 71.6 billion square 1feet of floor space. Using a conservative nominal energy cost of $ 10 per MMBTU, the energy bill for commercial buildings in the US exceeds $175 billion annually. Most facilities management professionals intuitively know that there is energy savings potential present in our nation’s inventory of commercial buildings. However it is common to be unaware of the pervasiveness and the magnitude of energy savings potential present in the facilities managed on a daily basis. A heavy emphasis has been placed on new and alternative energy technologies through the news media and vendor marketing and sales efforts. The energy services industry heavily markets the capital intensive energy conservation retrofits and guaranteed energy savings programs. As many are already aware, buildings under construction are increasingly receiving energy efficiency attention through the new building commissioning process and sustainable design and construction practices such as the United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). While the inventory of older buildings (greater than 10 years) are a focus for energy efficiency retrofits, upgrades, and renovations by the energy service companies and performance contractors, the inventory of relatively new buildings (less than 10 years old) is largely being ignored. There are two primary reasons this inventory of buildings are being overlooked: 1) it is widely believed that since these facilities are relatively new and of an energy efficient design, opportunities for savings do not exist; and 2) the energy services industry is not advocating savings initiatives because it would not be a profitable business venture as neither capital intensive retrofits or new equipment is required. From research done to support the efficacy of new building commissioning, we know that without a thorough and focused performance validation effort during construction, deficiencies and inefficiencies are an inevitable outcome. A widely sighted survey supporting new building commissioning conducted by the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory studied 60 recently constructed building and found that 50% suffered from control problems; 40% had HVAC equipment problems, 15% had missing equipment; and 2. While this study is widely used to help around 25% had malfunctioning system efficiency componentsjustify the need for new building commissioning, it can also provide ample justification for retro-commissioning existing buildings. Excessive energy consumption is frequently an outcome of attempts to mitigate construction deficiencies. This is further compounded by changes in space usage and the reality that operational efficiency in buildings tends to degrade over time without a regular focused fine tuning effort. Given the reality that facilities management budgets have not kept pace with the needs, all facilities managers are faced with limited resources, both financial and human. As a result the facility manager does not have the luxury of having adequate staff with the time and expertise necessary to address past construction deficiencies and provide the ongoing focused fine tuning efforts necessary to optimize the operation of the buildings under its management. Typical Commercial Building Energy Uses The very factors that lead to ignoring the energy savings potential in the large category of relatively new buildings, in Source: US Energy Information Administration fact make these buildings the most financially attractive for facilities management professionals to pursue. The advantage of focusing conservation efforts on these newer facilities is that typically all the tools necessary to optimize operations already exist. These buildings do not require expensive retrofits or equipment replacement, yet according to industry professionals, a savings potential of 5% to 20% is very achievable. This impressive impact on total building energy consumption is possible because retro- commissioning can impact all major energy using systems in the building including; water heating, cooling and ventilation, lighting and space heating. THE RETRO-COMMISSIONING SOLUTION Building commissioning has received wide spread acceptance in the design and construction industry, and today many major construction programs include some form of building commissioning as part of the construction process. Retro-commissioning applies a similar process to existing buildings that have never been commissioned. This is related to re-commissioning, which applies this process to existing buildings that have previously been commissioned. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and Portland Energy Conservation Inc (PECI) define retro-commissioning as; “a systematic investigation process for optimizing building performance by identifying and implementing relatively low-cost operational and maintenance improvements.” The overall impact of Retro-commissioning can be tremendous; in addition to energy savings, it is common to resolve comfort complaints, improve indoor air quality, and reduce premature equipment failures. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy identified retro-commissioning as one of the top energy efficiency opportunities, (based on energy savings, cost effectiveness, and success likelihood) of 38 new technologies and strategies evaluated from energy 3efficiency programs implemented throughout the 1990’s. “The Cost-Effectiveness of Commissioning New and Existing Commercial Buildings: A Meta-Analysis of Energy and Non-Energy Impacts in Existing Buildings and New Construction in the United States” is the latest and most comprehensive study of commissioning to date. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and completed in 2004, this study documents the results from 106 existing building commissioning projects that saved on average 15% of the total building’s energy consumption and had a one (1) year payback from energy savings alone. The study estimates a US wide annual energy savings potential of $18 billion plus non-energy benefits if commissioning were to be comprehensively adopted in the US. The authors’ experience for typical total building energy savings potential through retro-commissioning is consistent with this study and the conventional wisdom in the industry of 5% to 20% savings. This range in savings potential has proven to be applicable to a variety of facility types including; office buildings, classroom buildings, schools, science laboratories and museums. The tremendous savings potential from retro- commissioning is being noticed by policy makers, government agencies, and utility company energy conservation programs. The federal government, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (Idaho, Montana, Oregon Washington), the cities of San Diego and Oakland, and utility sponsored energy conservation programs such as NYSERDA, the Connecticut Energy Conservation Fund, Excel Energy, NSTAR (formerly Boston Edison), Portland General Electric, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District, are examples of pilot and/or full retro-commissioning programs that are underway in the country. CONCLUSION Given the current state of energy costs and the likelihood of further escalations, a greater emphasis on energy conservation is inevitable. Energy policy makers, utility company programs, and government agencies are beginning to recognize the cost effectiveness, the tremendous savings potential, and the non-energy benefits of the retro-commissioning process. Now is an ideal time to explore retro- commissioning as a possible solution for your facility. References: 1. Energy Information Administration- “2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey” 2. Gregerson, J. 1997 “Commissioning Existing Buildings” Tech Update TU-97-3 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 3. Nadel, S. 2002 “Screening Market Transformation Opportunities: Lessons from the Last Decade, Promising Targets for the Next Decade.” In Proceedings of the ACEEE 2002 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 4. Mills, E., Bourassa, N., and Piette, M.A., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Friedman, H. and Haasl, T., Portland Energy Conservation, Inc., Powell, T. and Claridge, D., Energy Sytems Laboratory, Texas A&M University “The Cost-Effectiveness of Commissioning New and Existing Commercial Building: Lessons from 224 Buildings” from the proceedings of the National Conference on Building Commissioning: May 4-6, 2005