1 / 31

BPA EnergySmart Grocer Program Evaluation

BPA EnergySmart Grocer Program Evaluation. Deborah Swarts, Josh Arnold, Mary Klos, Roger Hill, Kevin Cooney, and Gary Cullen Summit Blue Consulting. Program Description. A BPA third-party program that promotes efficiency improvements in commercial refrigeration. Customers include:

kirsi
Download Presentation

BPA EnergySmart Grocer Program Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. BPA EnergySmart Grocer Program Evaluation Deborah Swarts, Josh Arnold, Mary Klos, Roger Hill, Kevin Cooney, and Gary Cullen Summit Blue Consulting

  2. Program Description • A BPA third-party program that promotes efficiency improvements in commercial refrigeration. Customers include: • National chain supermarkets • Independent grocers • Corner grocers • Specialty shops (ice cream, butchers, etc.) • Regional chain grocers • Convenience stores • Florists • Liquor stores • Restaurants

  3. Measure Categories • Program Measures fall into three categories: • Deemed savings: The costs and savings for these measures have been deemed by the Regional Technical Forum (RTF). • Deemed calculated savings: The RTF has reviewed the EnergySmart Grocer software and determined that given reliable inputs, the software appropriately calculates savings. • Provisionally deemed savings: This designation means that the RTF has uncertainty in these measures and they require more research before a “deemed” status can be approved.

  4. Measures Within Categories • Deemed savings measures • Auto-closures • CFLs and general lighting • Gaskets • PC Controls • Deemed calculated savings measures • Energy efficient cases • Doors • Efficient compressor – low temp • Electronically Commutated Motors • Air cooled condenser • Floating head controls • Refrigeration – VFD – Motors • Provisionally deemed measures • Case lighting • Anti sweat controls • Night covers • Vending machine controls

  5. Program Savings Information by Year

  6. Program Savings by Measure Type

  7. Evaluation Objectives • Assess program operation and barriers • Assess opportunities for application to other third-party programs • Estimate measure and program realization rates • Assess the strengths/weaknesses of two evaluation approaches: • Billing analysis • Engineering analysis

  8. Process EvaluationGoals • Develop a comprehensive understanding of the program • Identify programmatic or organizational barriers • Make recommendations for possible improvement • Assess opportunities and barriers for potential future third-party program administration

  9. Process EvaluationMethodology • Review program materials, including logic model • Interview program stakeholders • Research commercial refrigeration programs for benchmarking and best practices • Submit early findings reports to BPA

  10. Process EvaluationStakeholder Interviews • 36 Stakeholders Interviewed (February—April 2009) • Utility representatives • End-use customers • Trade Allies • PECI staff • BPA Energy Efficiency Representatives • BPA Program Staff • Interviews included questions about program roles, communication, delivery, and satisfaction

  11. Process Evaluation Major Findings • Program found to be highly regarded by all parties, with some fine-tuning opportunities • There is a stakeholder perception of a need to clarify roles and responsibilities • Economic downturn has affected end-use customer uptake • The program’s use of one-on-one and personal visits (I2I) are critical to program success • Program success provides strong evidence to support adding more third-party programs

  12. Process EvaluationRecommendations: Roles and Responsibilities • Review proposed logic model and discuss roles • Clarify communication channels among program stakeholders • Engage PECI to address administrative requirements • Review service agreements with utility representatives

  13. Process Evaluation Recommendations: Marketing & Outreach • Field Energy Analysts (FEAs) and Utility Representatives are the most trusted source for program information. • To improve implementation even more: • Develop FEA presentation scripts • FEAs leverage local utility reps • FEAs identify local success stories • Create local case studies for different target markets • Utilize the local utility names and contacts

  14. Process Evaluation: OpportunitiesFuture Third-Party Initiatives • History and Vision of BPA • Successful history of innovation provides favorable framework • Structure of BPA • The wide geographic range of both the BPA structure and member utilities along with the diverse population and socio-economic characteristics of the member utilities lend themselves to third-party initiatives • Third-party implementer expertise with current program • Access to Research & Resources • BPA’s internal expertise and access to other research organizations in the NW • Human Resources • BPA and member utilities have experienced staff

  15. Process Evaluation: RecommendationsFuture Third-Party Initiatives • Engage BPA member utilities in a voluntary advisory group • Fully Develop “New Initiatives Checklist” • Implement pilot phase with review prior to “open enrollment” • Incorporate workplan development period into contract to leverage third-party implementer expertise

  16. Impact Evaluation Approaches • Both an engineering and billing analysis are useful • Comparative results from the two are similar • Billing analysis: • Cannot assess small-scale impact measures • Can assess hard to separate multiple measures thatare installed together • Lower cost • On-site engineering analysis: • Can assess small impact loads • Some difficulty with hard to separate multiple measures • On-site verification of installed measures

  17. Billing Analysis Methodology • Fixed-Effects Regression Approach • Pre-installation bills are compared to post-installation bills • Each customer serves as his or her own control • Fixed effects control for differences between customers • Statistically Adjusted Engineering Model • Savings estimates from tracking system were used • Coefficients represented realization rate on the savings

  18. Billing Analysis Sample • Collecting billing data was a challenge • Many utilities were involved • Billing data was in a different format from each utility • Had to balance cost of data collection with value of additional cases • Final sample design covered 80% of savings by including 15 utilities

  19. Billing Analysis Results • Three measures had both sufficient savings and a sufficient number of cases to estimate statistically significant realization rates at the 90% confidence level. 1.27 1.07 0.77

  20. Engineering Analysis Methodology • Assess the EnergySmart Grocer Software • Spot measurements combined with logging of temperatures and current • Use of system data logs where available • Three weeks of monitoring for weather dependent measures • Comparison of results with previous studies commissioned by BPA • Specifications for installed systems used along with measured data

  21. Assessment of the EnergySmart Grocer Software • Modeling logic is sound • Fundamental engineering principles with arrays of DOE 2.1 simulations • Quality input data is utilized by the model • User friendly interface • Reasonable results based on review of model inputs • The proprietary nature of the model algorithms leaves uncertainty on how the estimates are derived

  22. Engineering Evaluation Sample • Goal was to focus on the largest savings in order to estimate program cost-effectiveness • Ten largest sites by deemed calculated savings were chosen • Represented 35% of program savings and 50% of non-deemed program savings • High efficiency cases and refrigeration controls made up the largest portion of both the sample and non-deemed program savings • Night covers and auto-closers were primary missing measures within the ten largest sites

  23. Engineering Site Visit Information Measures not monitored were verified during site visits

  24. Site-Monitoring Performed • Floating Head/Suction Pressure Controls and VFD Modulating Compressors and Condensers – nine sites • Pre-installation data not available • Spot measurements of temperature and power factors • Installed data loggers or acquired trend log data from the building automation and control system • Data collection covered minimum of 16 days • Electronically Commutated Motors – seven sites • Pre-installation data not available • On-site measurement of post-installation true power • Installed data loggers • Data collection covered minimum of 16 days

  25. Site-Monitoring Performed (cont.) • Anti-Sweat Heater Controls and Low ASHC Doors – two sites • Spot measurements used to verify which breakers operated anti-sweat heaters, the supply voltage, and the range of switching • Multi-week logging employed • Long term weather data from nearest available station for weather dependent measures • The data logging was primarily of single phase current, but with some three phase logging also performed for comparison purposes • The spot measurements used Fluke 43B and Amprobe ACD-31P devices

  26. Engineering Analysis Results • Overall program savings corresponded well with predicted savings • ECMs showed substantially higher savings than predicted • High efficiency low temperature reach in cases also exhibited high savings, primarily due to the inclusion of ECMs • VFDs contributed substantially less savings than predicted, probably due to the presence of staged controls previously

  27. Summary of Measure Realization Rates • Measure group realization rates ranged from 0.77 for lighting to 3.12 for Electronically Commutated Motors • The overall program realization rate was found to be 1.15. • Recommendation to apply measure-level recommended realization rates to evaluated period. Make program and engineering adjustments in future to align RRs.

  28. Lighting and Electronically Commutated Motor Realization Rates • For lighting, there did not appear to be any significant issues with the calculation methodology or assumptions. A few possible reasons for the realization rate include: • The effects of other measures and equipment (interactive effects) • Stores did not actually install the lamp and ballast combinations listed for the retrofit • Stocking hours have been extended since the lighting retrofit. • Emergency lights could be in use and operating 8,760 hours per year • Additional lights have been added since the retrofit • It is our assessment that existing motors are running at higher loads than anticipated by the GrocerySmart model

  29. Program Cost-Effectiveness • Using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, the program was found to be cost effective with a TRC of 1.42 • Other cost-effectiveness test results in table below

  30. Summary • The program level measure realization (1.15) was close to the ex-ante impact estimates. • Based on the TRC test, the program is cost effective (TRC=1.42) • The combination of a billing analysis and engineering analysis proved effective • Engineering approach best for measures with impacts that are relatively small compared to whole building loads • Billing analysis less costly and provides good results for measures with relatively large impacts compared to whole building loads • The program is well received among the member utilities

  31. Discussion • Contact Information: • Gary Cullen: gcullen@summitblue.com, 360-718-8392, x 304 • Deborah Swarts: dswarts@summitblue.com, 360-314-6298, x 302

More Related