Electric Utility Incentive Programs. Marcus Wilcox, President Cascade Energy, Inc.

Transcription

1 Electric Utility Incentive Programs Marcus Wilcox, President Cascade Energy, Inc.

2 Agenda Why do utilities offer incentive program? Energy vs. Demand vs. Demand Response Influence of Rates No Brainers? New Construction, Retrofit, O&M, Prescriptive Typical Energy Efficiency Incentives Typical Demand Incentives Discussion of Demand Response Do s and Don ts 2

3 Cascade Energy, Inc. GCCA Service Partner Energy Efficiency We don t sell equipment, we have no vendor preferences Offices in Oregon, Utah, and Washington 75 people Industrial energy efficiency consulting Food processing, pulp & paper, petrochemical, manufacturing, etc. Refrigeration, compressed air, pumping, fans, controls, process upgrades Worked on 700 to 800 ammonia refrigeration systems Services include: Traditional retrofit or new construction efficiency projects Tune-ups (i.e., kaizen blitzes or retro-commissioning) Energy management tools and software Design and management of utility energy efficiency programs Corporate energy management e.g. Americold, etc. e.g. Sysco, SuperValu, Ben E. Keith, etc. Approximately 300 DCs and PRWs 3

4 National Spending on Efficiency 4

5 Why Utilities Offer Incentives 1. Because someone makes them Integrated Resource Plans State Utility Commissions State Initiatives 2. Because they need to Need to add resources Energy efficiency is the lowest-cost resource 3. Because they want to Good customer service Healthy customers = healthy utility! Can sell excess power to neighbors for a profit 5

6 Conservation is Lowest-Cost 6

7 PNW Plan for Conservation Cumulative Resource (Average Megawatts) SCCT CCCT Geothermal New Wind RPS Wind Energy Efficiency 7

8 Energy vs. Demand vs. DR 1. Energy Efficiency Incentives kwh targeted Easiest to do 2. Demand Incentives Peak kw targeted Harder to do 3. Demand Response (DR) Initiatives On call to shed load during times of system distress This is a contract relationship, often voluntary participation 8

9 Types of Programs Retrofit projects Replace or upgrade existing equipment New construction or expansion projects Incremental cost for more efficient technology Also applies when equipment is at end of life/failed O&M programs Making low or no-cost improvements Strategic Energy Management programs Implementing facility or company-wide programs ISO is emerging 9

10 Never Say No Brainer or Never Energy rates vary from 1 to 16+ /kwh Incentives vary from 0% to 100% of project cost Northern vs. southern climates Humid vs. dry climates Long vs. short operating hours Systems at fully vs. lightly loaded New technology & reduced cost LED was $1500/fixture 2 years ago Every project and every site can have radically different economics! 10

11 Energy-Oriented Incentive Programs Typically X /kwh, up to Y% of project cost Commonly 5 to 30 /kwh Commonly 50% to 70% of project cost May have a minimum allowable simple payback May vary by technology or retrofit vs. new construction Also prescriptive rebates $X/light fixture $Y/hp for variable frequency drives O&M or energy management programs Co-funding of O&M measures Watch performance for 1 to 5 years Pay for performance 11

12 Sample #1 Energy Incentives 12

13 Sample #2 Energy Incentives 13

14 Sample #3 Energy Incentives 14

15 Sample #4 Energy Incentives 15

16 Sample #5 Energy Incentives 16

17 Peak Demand Incentive Programs Targeting reduction in peak draw May specify time of day, day of week, and/or month of year Much more difficult to do Must guarantee that peak is being reduced May not allow controls projects Must be hard-wired, constant loads 17

18 Intro to Peak Demand vs. Energy Sample Distribution Center Weekly Power Profile Demand (kw or kva) = Peak 15 Minute Reading kw Energy (kwh) = Area Under Curve Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Weekday 18

19 Targeted Time Periods Sample Distribution Center Daily Power Profile On-Peak Period kw :00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 Time of Day 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 19

20 Demand Shifting Sample Distribution Center Daily Power Profile On-Peak Period 600 kw :00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 Time of Day 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 20

21 Sample #1 Demand Incentives 21

22 Demand Response Initiatives May be offered by utility or 3 rd -party aggregator May receive payments simply for signing up Receive payments for responding to an event call Response is usually optional Response may be locally or remotely controlled Can shed some or all load May be able to utilize backup generators 22

23 Sample Demand Response Event 3000 Refrigerated Warehouse DR Event 2500 kw :12 0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00 Time of Day 23

24 Typical Incentive Program Flow 1. Contact utility & sign necessary paperwork 2. Identify efficiency opportunities 3. Have required energy analysis & reporting complete 4. Ensure clarity on end-game process & deliverables 5. Get utility OK to implement project 6. Ensure clarity with implementation team on roles and responsibilities 7. Implement project 8. Commission or fine-tune project 9. Follow process for Measurement & Verification (M&V) 10. Gather invoices, document internal costs 11. Submit final report to utility program 24

25 Sage Advice Engage utility program early Coming to them late will fail Let utility program know if the project scope or timeline has changed Always include contingency in budgets Ensure clarity on whether internal costs (labor) count toward project cost Ensure contractors and vendors track and document costs per needs of program Be careful with Demand Response regarding your insurance policies Be careful with Demand Response regarding customer expectations for temperature 25

26 Where is the Opportunity? Refrigeration (40% to 70%) Warehouse Lighting (10% to 25%) Battery Charging (5% to 15%) Dock & Freezer Doors (Heaters & Blowers) Exterior / Parking Lot Lighting Freezer Floor Heating Offices (Lighting, HVAC, Plug Loads) Dry Warehouse HVAC Truck/Maintenance/Storage Out Buildings 26

27 Case Studies Retrofit Project Commissioning / Tune-Up Corporate Energy Management 27

28 Case Study #1: Warehouse Retrofit Two -5 F warehouses, 200,000 ft 2 28

29 Project Background Very high kwh/ft 2 Struggled to maintain temperature Forced to run system inefficiently (3 suction) Substantial non-energy benefit Served by a dedicated utility meter Savings would be clear Utility incentives and state tax credits available Allowed for aggressive measures Proven technologies First energy efficiency project for customer 29

30 Energy Efficiency Upgrades New evaporator coils Variable speed drive technology Evaporator fans Screw compressor Condenser fans Required new MCC and electrical room Refrigeration computer control Upgraded compressor microprocessor panels Premium efficiency compressor & condenser fan motors Energy savings: 50% Utility incentives and state tax credits: reduced to 1½ year payback 30

31 New Evaporator Coils Original coils performed poorly. Tests indicated they were providing half rated capacity. Large coils were mounted on stands at each end of main aisle. Fans powered with VFD control. 31

32 Variable Frequency Drives 32

33 Computer Control System 33

34 Upgraded Compressor Microprocessors 34

35 Utility History Before Project 25,000 Warehouse 4 & 5 Energy Use - Before Project 20,000 Average kwh/day 15,000 10,000 5, Avg. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month of Use 35

36 Utility History After Project Warehouse 4 & 5 Energy Use - After Project 25,000 20,000 Project Implementation Begun Sept. 01 Average kwh/day 15,000 10,000 5, Avg Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month of Use 36

37 Economic Summary Energy savings: 2,600,000 kwh/yr Percent reduction: 50% of refrigeration Cost savings: $100,000/yr Implementation: $640,000 Simple payback: 6.4 years (before incentives) Utility incentive: $312,000 Tax credit (28% NPV): $179,000 Final payback: 1.5 years (after incentives) 37

38 Case Study #2: Distribution Center Control System Fine-Tuning Large distribution center Many zones, from ice cream to 50 F 1,060 hp of compressors (2) 335 hp single-stage economized for freezer (3) high-stage totaling 350 hp (1) 40 hp booster for ice cream Focused on control system fine-tuning 38

39 Facility Layout & Control Interface 39

40 Evaporator Control Fine-Tuning 40

41 Freezer Compressor Fine-Tuning Raised from 3 psig to 5 psig Improved Staging Criteria 41

42 Compressor Stop & Force Unload 42

43 Corrected Compressor Current Transformer Calibration Issues 43

44 Condenser Fine-Tuning Changed from PPP,FFF to P,F,P,F,P,F Reduced from 160/150 to 125/115 Reduced from 170/160 to 125/115 44

45 Calibrated Economizers to Take Lead from High-Stage Compressors 45

46 Corrected Sensor Offsets 46

47 Short-Term Results 1,200 Plantwide Impact of Commissioning: Before & After 1,100 1, Lower AND Smoother kw Commissioning Changes on 10/ /05 10/10 10/15 10/20 10/25 10/30 11/04 11/09 11/14 Date 47

48 Long-Term Results 48

49 Economic Summary Percent reduction: 40% of refrigeration 30% of total plant Cost savings: $300,000/yr Capital cost: Zero Commissioning cost: $20,000 Simple payback: <1 month 49

50 Case Study #3: Sysco Corp EM Largest food services company in North America $37 billion in sales Restaurants, healthcare, educational facilities, and lodging 110 food distribution centers (DCs) Freezers, coolers, dock, and dry warehouse space Rolled out program in March, 2006 Announced by #2 at Sysco Aggressive goals: 10% after 1st year 25% after 3rd year Another 5% by 6th year Three-Prong approach Develop energy management program & tools Tune-ups at every DC in 18 months Retrofits and high-efficiency new construction 50

51 Benchmarking Across Company Cubic feet weighted by freezer, cooler/dock, and dry as well as average wet bulb for a normalized Efficiency Factor Entire company can be benchmarked Rank within company Rank within benchmark group Rank within region Top 25% is desirable Bottom 25% is not! This report is seen across company. Requires monthly collection of 500+ utility bills 51

52 Sysco in 2005 Energy Use vs Facility Size - June Utility Bills 2005 kwh/day - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Weighted Cubic Feet 52

53 Sysco in 2007 Energy Use vs Facility Size - June Utility Bills kwh/day - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Weighted Cubic Feet 53

54 Sysco in 2010 Energy Use vs Facility Size - June Utility Bills kwh/day ,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Weighted Cubic Feet 54

55 Companywide Performance Total Broadline Energy Intensity kwh/day/1000 weighted ft Companywide kwh/ft 3 Reduced by 1/3 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 55

56 Questions or Feedback? Marcus H. Wilcox, President, P.E. Cascade Energy, Inc. 56