Lessons learned from CEE’s public building recommissioning program PBEEEP. Tasked with improving the energy performance of public buildings, PBEEEP aimed to transform Minnesota’s existing building commissioning market from an audit to an energy investigation. Program staff screened over nine hundred buildings to identify buildings where an energy investigation would be cost effective, then calculated site-specific energy savings to determine the paybacks of recommended energy efficiency measures. This process identified lower average savings for existing building commissioning than other studies, which is of note for policy makers and practitioners. All sites achieved energy savings, many while the study was in progress.

1. Results of Minnesota’s Public Buildings
Enhanced Energy Efficiency Program
(PBEEEP)
ACEEE Summer Study
August 16, 2012
Christopher Plum
Mark Hancock
Christie Traczyk
Center for Energy and Environment
212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560
Minneapolis, MN 55401

2. Highlights
 Engagement → Savings
 Existing Building Commissioning (EBCx)
is cost effective in a large population of
buildings
 Projects benefit from quality assurance
 Benchmark performance was not
predictive of savings potential
Page 2

3. Program Goals
 Save energy in state buildings
 Support state’s 1.5% annual reduction goal
 Standardize Existing Building
Commissioning (EBCx)
 Determine savings potential of EBCx in
large buildings
Funding from State of Minnesota Department of
Administration with additional funds from American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Page 3

4. Site Selection and Recruitment
 There are 1,276 buildings at 97 potential
sites with 39.5 million sq ft
 75% participated in PBEEEP
 Reminder were already engaged in other
programs
Page 4

5. The Screening Process
 The value proposition:
 Free study if you implement all measures
with a 3 year payback
 Original design used benchmark, utility
bills and application form to select sites
 Would have produced only about 10 sites
 Site visits used to determine energy
savings potential and get accurate
information for investigation phase
Page 5

6. The Screening Process
 CEE conducted the screening
 Saved time and money
 Standardized assessment
 Gave engineers good background on sites
 Created a relationship with the facility
 Cost of $.01 per sq ft
 2 people on-site for 1 day/average
Page 6

7. The Screening Process: Selection Criteria
 HVAC attributes
 Pump and motor sizes
 Building automation system
 Building area >100,000 sq ft at site
 Observations
 Hours of operation
 Whole building (site) energy use
 EUI > 110 kbtu/ft2 and/or value relative to peers
Page 7

8. Project Geographic
Distribution
Page 8

9. The Investigation Process
 Trending and engineering calculations to
create a financial grade report
 Average investigation cost $62,000
 370,000 sq ft was the average area
13% quality assurance cost
4% administrative cost
 CEE provided assistance as needed
 Quality assurance reviews
 Training and calculation assistance
Page 9

10. Results: Energy Savings
Area Total Energy Savings
Investi- # # of Building
Site Type
gated Bldgs Area Median Low High
State 60% 5 87 6,268,865 9.6% 2.1% 24%
University
Community
50% 15 176 4,483,939 4.7% 0.2% 9.9%
College
State Prison 73% 7 100 3,195,200 5.7% 2.2% 15.3%
Office
43% 6 6 1,525,822 5.8% 1.0% 15.2%
Building
Other 66% 10 26 1,791,584 10.6% 1.3% 27.5%
Total 55% 43 395 17,265,410 7.3% 0.2% 27.5%
Page 10

11. Results: Energy Savings
# Finding Type MMBTU MMBTU Payback Savings
Saved Saved (Years) (kBtu
<3yrs /ft2)
203 Scheduling 63,490 52,993 1.7 3.2
31 Over ventilation 11,183 8,416 2.6 4.8
5 Retrofit energy/ht recovery 8,181 1,137 8.7 13.1
32 Setpoints 7,530 6,724 0.8 2.9
3 Retrofit boilers 7,347 0 11.3 10.3
11 Other Controls 6,746 2,075 3.3 4.3
70 Lighting retrofit 6,669 265 7.3 1.5
Page 11
These account for 79% of savings identified

12. Results: Energy Savings
Total Energy and Cost
Savings (aggregate) Total
Electric Savings
Annual Savings (kWh) 17,824,466
Annual Cost Savings ($) $874,999
Peak Demand Savings
Annual Savings (kW) 1,051
Annual Cost Savings ($) $21,228
Gas Savings
Annual Savings (Therms) 766,805
Annual Cost Savings ($) $479,858
Other Energy Savings
Annual Savings (MMBtu) 9,122
Annual Cost Savings ($) $169,488
GHG reductions (US Tons) 19,007
Page 12

13. Results: Program Payback
Project Phase Total Program Average Project
Screening $260,489 $5,542
Investigation $3,304,358 $70,360
Implementation $5,111,988 $108,768
Total Cost $8,676,835 $184,670
Savings $1,545,672 $32,886
Payback 5.6 years 5.6 yrs
Implementation 3.3 years 3.3 yrs
Only Payback
Page 13

14. Results: Energy Savings just by Participating
 Engagement with program drove energy savings
(this is before implementation)
Page 14

15. Lessons Learned: Project Management
 Deadlines work
 Early projects ran very long
 Quality assurance was a new experience for many
 Many providers did not take guidelines or training
seriously enough
 Providers missed opportunities to build client
relationships
Page 15

16. Lessons Learned: Provider Competence
Project Savings By Provider
30%
Percentage Site Energy Savings
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
A (n=7) C (n=6) D (n=7) B (n=9) E (n=3) F (n=9) G (n=3)
 EBCx industry (profession) needs –
Training and Standards
Page 16

17. Lessons Learned: Benchmarks for Site
Selection
30%
% Savings Found
25%
20% R² = 0.0002
15%
10%
5%
0%
25% 75% 125% 175%
Actual EUI as % of Benchmark
 Benchmark performance was not a good
predictor of energy savings potential by EBCx
Page 17

18. Implications for Program and Policies
 EBCx can save at least 4% in large buildings
 Facilities that are engaged save energy
 EBCx industry needs standards and quality
assurance
 On-site screening is a cost effective way to
select good buildings for full EBCx
Page 18

19. Questions
Thank you for your interest.
Contact information
Chris Plum MBA, PhD
Program Manager
State of Minnesota PBEEEP
Phone: (612) 335-5825
cplum@mncee.org
www.mncee.org
Page 19