impact evaluation of oregon industrial...

IMPACT EVALUATION OF OREGON INDUSTRIAL

TRANSITION PROJECTS Final Report

Funded By:

Prepared For: Ben Bronfman, Fred Gordon, and Charlotte Rollier

Energy Trust of Oregon, Inc.

Prepared By: Steven Scott, PE

MetaResource Group 1014 SE 50th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97215 [email protected]

and Jennifer Stout

Currents Consulting 3133 Douglas Circle

Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 [email protected]

January 21, 2005

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................... 1 A. Introduction...................................................................................... I B. Overview of the Data Collection Approach and Calculation

Methodology.................................................................................... I Approach and Methodology for Evaluating kWh Savings for

Projects with Industrial Process Measures .........................................II Approach and Methodology for Evaluating kWh Savings for

Projects with Commercial-Type Measures ......................................VI Approach and Methodology for Evaluating Peak Demand

Reduction ......................................................................................... IX Calculation of Overall Verified kWh Savings and Peak kW

Reduction by Program and Year, End-Use, and Customer Type.. XIV C. Summary of kWh Savings and kW Impact Results.....................XV D. Evaluation Observations ........................................................... XXII

I. INTRODUCTION................................................................ 1 A. Methodology....................................................................................1

Energy Savings Results ............................................................................ 1 Peak Demand Reduction........................................................................... 2

B. Summary ..........................................................................................2

II. DATA COLLECTION APPROACH ................................... 5 A. Introduction......................................................................................5 B. Collection Approach to Analyze Energy Savings (kWh) for

Projects with Industrial Process Measures.......................................5 Site Visits to Evaluate Process Measure Energy Savings......................... 5 Phone Surveys to Evaluate Process Measure Savings.............................. 8

C. Data Collection Approach to Analyze Energy Savings (kWh) for Projects at Industrial Facilities Involving Commercial-Type Measures ..........................................................................................9 Site Visits to Evaluate Commercial-Type Measure Savings .................... 9 Phone Surveys to Evaluate Commercial-Type Measure Savings........... 10Deeming of Commercial-Type Measure Savings................................... 10 Final Disposition..................................................................................... 11

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page i

Table of Contents

D. Data Collection Approach to Analyze Peak Demand Reduction (kW) ............................................................................................13 Process Measures.................................................................................... 14 Commercial Measures ............................................................................ 14 Final Disposition..................................................................................... 14

III. SAVINGS ADJUSTMENT METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS......................................................................... 17 A. Introduction....................................................................................17 B. Energy Savings Adjustment Methodology for Industrial

Process Measures ...........................................................................17 Customer 1001 – Metals Manufacturing ................................................ 19 Customer 1002 – Secondary Wood Products ......................................... 20 Customer 1003 – Other Industry (Laundry) ........................................... 20 Customer 1009 – Water Supply.............................................................. 21 Customer 1010 – Secondary Wood Products ......................................... 21 Customer 1015 – Food Processing ......................................................... 22 Customer 1016 – Wastewater Treatment................................................ 23 Customer 1019 – Primary Wood Products ............................................. 23

C. Energy Savings Adjustment Methodology for Commercial-Type Measures at Industrial Facilities ...........................................24

D. Peak Demand Analysis Approach Used by Evaluators .................25 Short-Duration Current Spikes ............................................................... 26 Definition of Peak Demand .................................................................... 26

E. Calculation of Free-Ridership Scores ............................................27 F. Calculation of Spillover Effects.....................................................29 G. Additional Energy Efficiency Opportunities .................................29 H. Calculation of Overall Verified Energy Savings by Program

and Year, End-Use, and Customer Type .......................................32 I. Summary of Savings and Peak Demand Reduction Results..........33 I. Described Non-energy Benefits.....................................................40

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page ii

Table of Contents

Appendices Appendix A: Energy Trust of Oregon Industrial Transition Project

Evaluation Reports.........................................................................49 Project Evaluation Summary – Paper Conversion Plant......................... 51 Project Evaluation Summary – Wastewater Treatment Plant................. 56 Project Evaluation Summary – Primary Wood Products........................ 60 Project Evaluation Summary – Semiconductor Manufacturer ............... 66 Project Evaluation Summary – Water Treatment Plant.......................... 71 Project Evaluation Summary – Animal Food Manufacturing ................ 76 Project Evaluation Summary – Fish And Seafood Wholesaler .............. 80 Project Evaluation Summary – Metals Casting ...................................... 85 Project Evaluation Summary – Food Processing.................................... 95 Project Evaluation Summary – Wastewater Treatment Plant............... 100 Project Evaluation Summary – Secondary Wood Products.................. 105 Project Evaluation Summary – Food Processing Dairy........................ 110 Project Evaluation Summary – Wood Products.................................... 115 Project Evaluation Summary – Wood Products.................................... 121 Project Evaluation Summary – Plastics Manufacturer ......................... 126 Project Evaluation Summary – Plant Nursery ...................................... 131 Project Evaluation Summary – Distribution Warehouse ...................... 136 Project Evaluation Summary – Wood Products.................................... 141 Project Evaluation Summary – Wood Products Fibers......................... 145 Project Evaluation Summary – Wood Products.................................... 150 Project Evaluation Summary – Wood Products.................................... 156 Project Evaluation Summary – Fruit Storage Warehouse .................... 161 Project Evaluation Summary – Wood Products.................................... 166 Project Evaluation Summary – Wood Products.................................... 172 Project Evaluation Summary – Food Products ..................................... 178 Project Evaluation Summary – Water Treatment ................................. 183 Project Evaluation Summary – Wood Products.................................... 188 Project Evaluation Summary – Food Products ..................................... 194 Project Evaluation Summary – Food Products ..................................... 200 Project Evaluation Summary – Wood Products.................................... 207 Project Evaluation Summary – Wood Products.................................... 212 Project Evaluation Summary – Paper Products .................................... 218

Appendix B: Sample Survey Instrument ..........................................223

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page iii

Table of Contents

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page iv

Executive Summary

A. Introduction

The Energy Trust of Oregon, Inc. (Energy Trust) is an independent nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation dedicated to energy efficiency and renewable energy development in Oregon. Under an agreement established with the Oregon Public Utility Commission in January 2002, the Energy Trust receives funding from a 3% public purpose charge paid by the customers of Portland General Electric (PGE) and PacifiCorp, Oregon’s two major investor-owned electric utilities. These funds are in turn invested by the Trust in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

This impact evaluation, conducted by MetaResource Group (MRG) with assistance from Currents Consulting, covers industrial projects in the “transition” program funded by the Energy Trust and operated by PGE and PacifiCorp between March 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003. Any project at an industrial facility with a completion date that fell within this time period was considered an Industrial Transition Project. The Industrial Transition Program was essentially a limited-duration extension of the utilities’ existing programs.

This evaluation concerns projects at industrial facilities that include either process measures (such as compressed air, refrigeration, motors and motor systems, pumps, and fans) or commercial-type measures (i.e., lighting and HVAC).

The Energy Trust has two overall goals for this impact evaluation:

• To develop reliable estimates of program savings and peak demand reduction for the Industrial Transition Program.

• To report observations and make recommendations to help the Trust: 1) improve the modeling and analysis of energy savings and peak demand reduction for its own energy efficiency programs; and 2) improve the independent evaluation of those savings.

B. Overview of the Data Collection Approach and Calculation Methodology

Altogether, site visits or phone surveys were used to evaluate 95% of project kWh savings for both utilities for all measures (process and

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page I

Executive Summary

commercial-type) at industrial facilities. Site visits were conducted by MRG and Quantec, LLC (in a previous effort).1 Phone surveys were conducted by MRG. MRG “deemed”2 the remaining 5% of kWh savings from small projects at industrial facilities (involving only commercial-type measures). The evaluators determined that the transition program achieved a net-to-gross ratio3 of 0.939, with a net program savings of 53,028,423 kWh annually.

The evaluators used three approaches for estimating peak demand reduction – deemed, calculated, and observed (described below). Sixty-six percent of process measures and 7% of commercial-type measures were found to have impacts greater than zero. These measures were found to have achieved a net-to-gross ratio of 1.131, with a net peak demand reduction of 4,251 kW. The final disposition for all the measures is described later in this Executive Summary.

The approach and methodology used by MetaResource Group for developing reliable kWh savings and kW impact estimates are described in more detail below. Each description is divided into: 1) process measures at industrial facilities; and 2) commercial-type measures (i.e., lighting and HVAC) at industrial facilities.

Approach and Methodology for Evaluating kWh Savings for Projects with Industrial Process Measures

Summary

Overall, industrial process measures accounted for 84% of PGE’s and PacifiCorp’s total estimated industrial kWh savings for the transition program. Site visits by MRG and Quantec accounted for evaluation of 96% of all process measure kWh savings, while phone surveys resulted in evaluation of 4%. Thus, 100% of process measure kWh savings received

1 Evaluation of the Transition C&I Retrofit Programs. Hossein Haeri, Quantec, June

16, 2004. www.energytrust.org/Pages/about/library/reports/Eval_Trans_C&I_Retrofit.pdf

2 “Deemed” means that the evaluators simply assigned these estimated savings as the final savings because for these projects, the evaluators did not do any project-specific data gathering or analysis.

3 The ratio of the savings verified by the evaluators divided by the utility’s estimated savings, applied to peak demand reduction.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page II

Executive Summary

direct confirmation. Descriptions of the site visits and phone surveys conducted are provided below. Table ES-1 and Figure ES-1 provide a useful visual overview of the approach and disposition described below.

Site Visits to Evaluate Process Measure kWh Savings

A total of 58 site visits involving process measures were performed. Of those 58, MRG conducted 49 and Quantec conducted nine.4 Altogether, these visits evaluated 96% of the utilities’ total estimated kWh savings from process measures.

MRG’s approach for gathering project data and verifying operating conditions through the site visits involved the following:

• Before conducting each site visit, MRG evaluators examined the utility project reports, including the original energy analysis and the follow-up documents verifying savings (variously labeled by the utilities’ consultants as “verification” or “commissioning” reports).

• A MRG evaluator met with a facility staff person familiar with the energy efficiency project under review. Each site visit included: 1) a walk-through of the facility focusing on the installed energy efficiency measures; 2) an interview with the staff person; 3) where possible, collection of data from the participants’ own energy monitoring and control systems (for example, operating hours and detailed time-series system metrics); and 4) where appropriate and practical, installation of short-term metering by the evaluator. The following types of data were gathered through the site visits:

− Presence or absence of the installed measures.

− Any differences between the documented energy efficiency measures and those observed on site.

4 Of the 58 site visits conducted to evaluate process measure savings, MRG’s 49

accounted for 83% of the estimated process measure savings evaluated and Quantec’s 9 visits accounted for the other 17%.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page III

Executive Summary

− Any modifications to the production process, or changes in production capacity that might impact the efficiency measures.

− Any differences between the utility-documented operating parameters for the energy efficiency measures and those observed.

− Evidence of free ridership. (During the site visit, the customer was asked a series of questions about the likelihood that they would have installed the efficiency measures in the absence of the incentives.)

− Evidence of spillover.5 (During the site visit, the customer was asked whether they had installed any additional energy efficiency measures without incentives.)

The final disposition of the site visits conducted by MRG is as follows:

• MRG was able to arrange and complete site visits to all 49 projects identified as candidates.

• For 16 of those 49 sites, the evaluators conducted short-term metering (typically one week).

• For 8 of those 49 sites, the evaluators asked for and received data from the participants’ own energy monitoring and control systems.6

5 Generally there are three types of spillover: 1) The customer installs measures at

the same site that are in addition to those installed as part of the program project; the customer attributes their decision to the influence of the program, but does not receive an incentive for these additional measures. 2) The customer installs measures at another site that are in addition to those installed as part of the program project; the customer attributes their decision to program participation, but does not receive an incentive for these additional measures. 3) In the broader market, other customers undertake projects; the attribute their decisions to the influence of the program, but do not receive incentives.

6 Data included equipment hours of operation from the customers’ own equipment meters and, in some cases, detailed time-series system metrics from computerized control systems.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page IV

Executive Summary

• For three sites, the evaluators requested data from participants, but it was not provided. In all three cases, because these data were not available, MRG deemed the savings.

Following each site visit, MRG used the information gathered to make any necessary adjustments to the utilities’ reported kWh savings and to calculate the project’s realization rate and free-ridership score. The methodologies employed by the MRG evaluators to make these adjustments varied from site to site in relation to the data available, the particular production equipment and process, the types of energy efficiency measures, and other site-specific circumstances. More information on the methodologies is provided in the body of this evaluation and in the individual reports in Appendix A.

Some of the most common differences between the utilities’ assumptions and data, and those observed in the site visits include:

• Differences between assumed and actual operational parameters.

• Inadequate modeling approaches for kWh savings estimation. This was observed for three medium-sized projects where the modeling was overly simple as compared to actual operating conditions (details provided in body of report).

• Changes by customers in measure usage, hours of operation, and maintenance.

• Imperfect estimates of baseline and measure energy use.

• Calculation errors in baseline and measure energy use.

The MRG evaluators adjusted the kWh savings data accordingly to obtain a realization rate.7 The methodologies used by MRG for determining the savings adjustment varied according to the available information. In the majority of cases, engineering analysis was used; for some, a simple prorated adjustment was made. Methods used are described in more detail in Section III below.

7 The realization rate is obtained for each energy efficiency measure by dividing the

evaluators’ verified energy savings by the “final” savings reported by the utility (i.e., the savings reported in the utility’s final project verification or commissioning report).

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page V

Executive Summary

Phone Surveys to Evaluate Process Measure Savings

MRG evaluated the remaining 4% of kWh savings from process measures through brief phone surveys of 26 smaller, less complex projects.8 The evaluators interviewed the facility staff person most familiar with the energy efficiency project to evaluate the following:

• Presence or absence of the efficiency measures as described in project files;

• Any differences between the utility-documented energy efficiency measures and those observed on site;

• Any differences between the utility-documented operating hours for the energy efficiency measures and those reported by the respondent;

• Free ridership (the same approach was used as described above for the site visits); and

• Spillover (the same approach was used as described above for the site visits).

The evaluators then used the data gathered to make any necessary adjustments to the utilities’ reported savings and to calculate the project realization rate and free-ridership score.

Approach and Methodology for Evaluating kWh Savings for Projects with Commercial-Type Measures

Overall, commercial-type measures (i.e., lighting or HVAC) installed at industrial facilities accounted for 16% of the total estimated industrial kWh savings. MRG’s evaluation approach involved a combination of site visits, phone surveys, and deeming of savings. Eight site visits conducted by Quantec and one conducted by MRG resulted in evaluation of 40% of

8 The evaluators were able to reach all but one participant with process measures

targeted for phone surveys. This one project involved replacement of one 20-HP motor, for estimated savings of 1,228 kWh per year.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page VI

Executive Summary

commercial-type measure kWh savings at industrial facilities.9 Another 27% was evaluated by MRG through phone surveys. Thus, 67% of kWh savings from commercial-type measures was directly evaluated. MRG deemed the remaining 33% of savings from commercial measures.

Final Disposition

Table ES-1 and Figure ES-1 below provide an overview of the evaluation approach and project disposition for evaluating the utilities’ estimated kWh savings.

Table ES-1: Impact Evaluation Approach and Final Disposition for kWh Savings

PROCESS MEASURES

COMMERCIAL-TYPE MEASURES PROJECT SUMMARY

SITE VISITS

PHONE SURVEYS

SITE VISITS

PHONE SURVEYS

DEEMED

PROJECTS EVALUATED BY MRG 49 26 1 18 66

PROJECTS EVALUATED BY QUANTEC 9 0 8 0 0

TOTAL NUMBER OF PROJECTS 58 26 9 18 66

TOTAL PERCENT OF PROCESS-TYPE AND COMMERCIAL-TYPE SAVINGS

96% 4% 40% 27% 33%

9 Of the nine total site visits conducted to evaluate commercial measure savings,

MRG’s one site visit accounted for 10% of the estimated commercial measure savings evaluated through site visits; Quantec’s eight visits accounted for the other 90%.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page VII

Executive Summary

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION

Figure ES- 1: Impact Evaluation Approach and Final Disposition for Energy Savings Estimates

49 MRG

9 Quantec

26 MRG

0 Quantec

1 MRG

8 Quantec

18 MRG

0 Quantec

66 MRG

0 Quantec

58 SITE VISITS Evaluated 96% of Process

Measure Savings

26 PHONE SURVEYS Evaluated 4% of Process

Measure Savings

9 SITE VISITS Evaluated 40% of

Commercial Measure Savings

18 PHONE SURVEYS Evaluated 27% of


66 DEEMED Evaluated 33% of


PROCESS 84 Projects with Process Measures

84% of Total Estimated Transition Program Savings

COMMERCIAL 93 Projects with Commercial Measures


TRANSITION PROGRAM 177 Total Transition Projects

Both Process and Commercial-Type Measures

100% of Process Measure Savings Directly Evaluated 67% of Commercial Measure Savings Directly Evaluated 33% of Commercial Measure Savings

Deemed

95% of Total Transition Program Savings Directly Evaluated 5% of Transition Program Savings

Deemed

MetaResource Group Page VIII

Executive Summary

Approach and Methodology for Evaluating Peak Demand Reduction

After the site visits and most of the energy savings analysis had been completed, the Energy Trust modified the evaluation scope to include analysis of peak demand reduction.

Issues Related to Peak Demand Reduction Analysis

Analyzing peak demand reduction is considerably more complex than determining energy savings. The challenges faced by the MRG evaluators are summarized below and described in more detail in the report body.

• The major complexities involved in analyzing peak demand reductions are related to the definition of peak demand (i.e., the timing of peak demand events and their coincidence with other plant loads and the utility peak).

• Some of the utility consultants’ reports did not include determination of peak demand reduction and for those that did the analytical rigor varied.

• For those reports that did include peak demand reduction, key pieces of information were reported in varying ways and locations.

• In the evaluators’ initial data request to Quantec, kW data were not included because at that time the scope did not include estimating peak demand reduction. Timing did not allow a second request; therefore, the Quantec projects could not be included.

• The evaluators were concerned that motor startup might contribute to short-duration current spikes. This challenge and the evaluators’ approach are described further below.

• Had the evaluators been planning to analyze peak demand from the start, they would have performed more extensive metering than they had already planned and completed for the energy savings estimations. As a result, the quality and quantity of metered data for peak demand reduction analysis was limited to data collected through 42 site visits and data provided by three end-users. Further, not all these site visits involved metering.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page IX

Executive Summary

Peak Demand Analysis Approach Used by Evaluators

The evaluators used three approaches for estimating peak demand reduction – deemed, calculated, and observed.

• Deemed: If the reduction was small and the measure was simple, or there were no metered data available, then the evaluators deemed (accepted as is) the estimate of peak demand reduction provided in the utility consultants’ energy studies.

• Calculated: Some of the utility consultants’ energy studies provided equipment load. These load figures were then compared to the equipment load data measured either by the end-user or by the evaluation team when they did metering as part of their site visits.

• Observed: Some of the utility consultants’ energy studies provided detailed modeling of the energy-using system. In these cases, the evaluators could compare the data recorded during site visits during the business day, to the peak demand from the consultants’ model.

The extra effort required for the “observed” and “calculated” approaches to more accurately determine peak demand only applied to a total of 21 projects. This was because these were the only ones for which data were available.

Short-Duration Current Spikes

One of the evaluators’ concerns was that motor startup might result in short duration current spikes. Most of the data available from the evaluators’ metering were in one-minute intervals requiring start-up current to be averaged out. To check this, the evaluators plotted the raw data first to see if any spikes were present and then calculated the results as a 15-minute average. This process filtered out any short-duration spikes while still representing peaks well. The analysis revealed that averaging does not affect the relative demand profile. In addition, a 15-minute average window is consistent with that used for billing by the utility.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page X

Executive Summary

Definition of Peak Demand

The next question was how to define peak demand for a piece of equipment. The key consideration is when demand is most likely to be coincident with peak consumption. For the customer, demand charges are based on the 15-minute maximum that occurs during the month. Continuing with the example of a motor, the 15-minute average is one estimate of how much that particular motor contributes to peak consumption. Of course, that assumes that the motor’s peak coincides with peak consumption for the whole plant. For this study, the evaluators reviewed the data from their metering efforts and data provided by the end-user and averaged the top few percent of 15-minute demand measurements in order to derive a best estimate of the maximum 15-minute demand. In the case where the evaluators metered multiple motors, they also report the peak for the sum of all motors.

Another definition of peak that is more useful for utility planners than for evaluation is the peak that coincides with the utility system’s peak. In the Northwest, the system peak is quite broad, typically extending for 10 to 12 hours during the day. During this time period, the variations of individual customers are not as important since all are combined within the system average.

For both the calculated and observed approaches, we averaged the consumption according to the time-of-day “bins” that have been established by the Northwest Power Planning Council when they determine market value of energy savings. There are four bins corresponding to: 1) peak, 2) shoulder, 3) weekday night, and 4) weekend night. The most useful peak definition for both evaluation and planning is the average during the peak bin, as mentioned above.

Final Disposition

The following is a description of the final disposition of measures assessed for their peak demand reduction:

• Process Measures: Sixty-six percent of the process measures were analyzed and found to have peak demand impacts that were greater than zero. Another 19% were analyzed, but had peak demand impacts of zero. For the remaining 15% of process measures, either the utility consultants’ reports did not include peak demand reduction estimates, or the projects had been analyzed by Quantec

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XI

Executive Summary

and kW data had not been requested from Quantec by MRG. (The Energy Trust modified the scope of the evaluation to include the analysis of peak demand reduction long after Quantec had responded to MRG’s data request.)

• Commercial Measures: Only 7% of commercial-type measures were analyzed for peak demand reduction and had estimates greater than zero; another 2% had peak demand impacts of zero. For the remaining 91%, kW data had not been requested from Quantec.

Table ES-2 and Figure ES-2 below, help clarify the evaluation of the utilities’ estimated peak kW reduction.

Table ES- 2: Impact Evaluation Approach and Final Disposition for Peak kW Reduction

PROCESS MEASURES N=103

COMMERCIAL-TYPE MEASURES

N=97

ACTION

DEEMED CALCULATED OBSERVED TOTAL DEEMED TOTAL

MEASURES ASSESSED BY MRG AND KW > 0

49 3 16 68 (66% of

measures)

7 7 (7% of

measures)

MEASURES ASSESSED BY MRG AND KW = 0

18 1 1 20 (19% of

measures)

2 2 (2% of

measures) NO KW FIGURE PROVIDED BY UTILITY

8 8 (8% of

measures)

— —

ORIGINAL DATA REQUEST TO QUANTEC DID NOT INCLUDE KW

7 7 (7% of

measures)

88 88 (91% of

measures)

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XII

Executive Summary


Figure ES-2: Impact Evaluation Approach and Final Disposition for Peak Demand Reduction Estimates

8 MEASURES (8%) No kW Data

Provided in Files

7 MEASURES (7%)KW Data Not

Requested from Quantec

PROCESS 103 Measures

COMMERCIAL 97 Measures

TRANSITION PROGRAM 200 Total Measures

Both Process and Commercial-Type

20 MEASURES (19%) Analyzed by Evaluators (Deemed, Calculated, or

Observed), but kW=0

49 MEASURES (48%)

Deemed by Evaluators

3 MEASURES (3%)

Calculated by Evaluators

16 MEASURES (15%)

Observed by Evaluators



2 MEASURES (2%) Analyzed by Evaluators(Deemed, Calculated, or

Observed) but kW=0

7 MEASURES (7%)


Indicates measures included in total Indicates measures not included in total because data not available or kW=0

MetaResource Group Page XIII

Executive Summary

Calculation of Overall Verified kWh Savings and Peak kW Reduction by Program and Year, End-Use, and Customer Type

As described above, the site visits and phone surveys yielded two key results for each energy efficiency measure: a realization rate and a free-ridership score. Spillover was not found to be a significant factor. The realization rates and free-ridership scores calculated by Quantec were also used in MRG’s evaluation.

MRG calculated a weighted average realization rate, net-to-gross ratio, and a free-ridership/spillover factor for each “summation” (category or customer type). These summations included the free-ridership scores for the projects evaluated by Quantec.

• The weighted average realization rate for each summation was calculated by dividing the total energy savings verified by the MRG and Quantec evaluators for that summation, by the total of the utility-reported energy savings.

• The net-to-gross ratio was calculated by multiplying the savings verified by the evaluators for each measure times the free-ridership score for each measure, adding these, and then dividing by the total utility-reported savings.

• The free-ridership/spillover factor was calculated by subtracting the net-to-gross ratio from the weighted average realization rate.

These weighted average realization rates, net-to-gross ratios, and free-ridership/spillover factors were applied to both the energy savings and the peak demand reduction figures. In the body of the report, an example is provided to show how the methodology described above was applied to a selected end-use.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XIV

Executive Summary

C. Summary of kWh Savings and kW Impact Results

MRG determined that for kWh savings, the transition program for industrial customers achieved a net-to-gross ratio10 of 0.939, with a net program savings of 53,028,423 kWh annually. Again, these results include Quantec’s earlier site visits. This overall result is consistent with the results of evaluations of other industrial programs with multiple projects. Industrial programs generally have high realization rates because of the amount of work that goes into estimation and verification by program implementers before the final evaluation is conducted.

In the case of peak demand reduction, because of the challenges presented by the late modification to the scope, MRG had information to assess 85% of process measures and 9% of commercial measures. Of that 85% total, 66% of the process measures yielded kW reduction results greater than zero; the remaining 19% of measures had zero kW reduction. Of the 9% of commercial-type measures, 7% yielded kW savings greater than zero; the remaining 2% was zero.

The 66% of process measures and the 7% of commercial-type measures having kW reduction rates greater than zero achieved a net-to-gross ratio11 of 1.131, with a net peak demand reduction of 4,251 kW. These measures represented 58 out of 177 total projects.

Tables ES-3 through ES-8 below show kWh savings and peak kW demand reduction results by year, end-use, and customer type.12 These savings include both results of MRG’s and Quantec’s project analyses.

• Table ES-3: Industrial Transition Program Energy Savings by Year

• Table ES-4: Industrial Transition Program Peak Demand Reduction by Year

10 The ratio of the savings verified by the evaluators divided by the utility’s estimated

savings. 11 The ratio of the savings verified by the evaluators divided by the utility’s estimated

savings, applied to peak demand reduction. 12 Note: the table data includes the savings from industrial projects evaluated by

Quantec as shown in their report published in June 2004.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XV

Executive Summary

• Table ES-5: Industrial Transition Program Savings by End-Use – All Years Combined

• Table ES-6: Industrial Transition Program Peak Demand Reduction by End-Use – All Years Combined

• Table ES-7: Industrial Transition Program Savings by Customer Type – All Years Combined

• Table ES-8: Industrial Transition Program Peak Demand Reduction by Customer Type – All Years Combined

Of particular note in Table ES-3 is the net-to-gross ratio of 0.877 for 2003 projects (as compared to over 1.0 for the other years) for kWh savings. There were two factors that accounted for the low net-to-gross ratio in 2003:

• The evaluators’ inspections found that five participants who implemented projects in 2003 had a combined realization rate of 68.6%. The savings for these projects were significant, making up 33% of the 2003 total.

• A site visit revealed that one participant making up 3% of the 2003 total was a 100% free rider. A phone survey revealed that a second customer making up 1% of the 2003 total was a 25% free rider.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XVI

Executive Summary

Table ES- 3: Industrial Transition Program Energy Savings by Year

YEAR NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS1

NUMBER OF PROJECTS

PROGRAM-REPORTED SAVINGS

(KWH/YEAR)

ADJUSTED PROGRAM SAVINGS

(KWH/YEAR)

REALIZATION RATE

FREE-RIDERSHIP/ SPILLOVER

FACTOR

NET-TO-GROSS RATIO

NET PROGRAM SAVINGS

(KWH/YEAR)

2002 77 98 23,791,459 24,487,991 1.029 0.008 1.021 24,301,218

2003 43 76 32,414,071 29,494,968 0.910 0.033 0.877 28,425,851

2004 3 3 251,146 301,354 1.200 0.000 1.200 301,354

TOTAL 123 177 56,456,676 54,284,313 0.962 0.022 0.939 53,028,4231 Fourteen customers had multiple projects taking place in different years. Therefore, the customer count is 123 rather than 109.

Table ES- 4: Industrial Transition Program Peak Reduction by Year


NUMBER OF PROJECTS

PROGRAM-REPORTED

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

ADJUSTED PROGRAM

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

REALIZATION RATE


FACTOR

NET-TO-GROSS RATIO

NET PROGRAM

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

2002 23 27 942 1,197 1.271 0.001 1.272 1,198

2003 21 31 2,817 3,206 1.138 0.054 1.084 3,053

2004 0 0 0 0 — — — 0

TOTAL 44 58 3,759 4,403 1.171 1.131 1.131 4,251

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XVII

Executive Summary

Table ES- 5 : Industrial Transition Program Savings by End-Use – All Years Combined

END-USE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS1

NUMBER OF PROJECTS


(KWH/YEAR)


(KWH/YEAR)

REALIZATION RATE


FACTOR

NET-TO-GROSS RATIO

NET PROGRAM SAVINGS

(KWH/YEAR)

REFRIGERATION & PROCESS COOLING

20 24 25,464,774 22,419,295 0.880 0.001 0.880 22,406,308

COMPRESSED AIR & VACUUM SYSTEMS

20 26 13,373,759 14,253,722 1.066 0.009 1.057 14,136,385

LIGHTING & HVAC

59 96 9,028,080 9,175,587 1.016 0.030 0.987 8,907,470

PUMPING 8 8 971,608 1,026,705 1.057 0.480 0.576 559,977

OTHER PROCESS

7 7 1,742,027 1,639,409 0.941 0.220 0.721 1,256,518

PNEUMATIC CONVEYING

7 9 5,791,592 5,681,795 0.981 0.001 0.980 5,674,757

MOTORS 5 7 84,836 87,800 1.035 0.009 1.026 87,008

TOTAL 126 177 56,456,676 54,284,313 0.962 0.022 0.939 53,028,423

1 Seventeen customers had projects involving more than one end-use. Therefore the customer count is 126 rather than 109.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XVIII

Executive Summary

Table ES- 6: Industrial Transition Program Peak Demand Reduction by End-Use – All Years Combined


NUMBER OF PROJECTS

PROGRAM-REPORTED

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

ADJUSTED PROGRAM

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

REALIZATION RATE


FACTOR

NET-TO-GROSS RATIO

NET PROGRAM

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)


12 13 1,596 1,638 1.026 0.000 1.026 1,638


12 15 730 1,070 1.466 0.011 1.455 1,062

LIGHTING & HVAC

7 7 115 115 1.000 — 1.000 115

PUMPING 8 8 311 311 1.000 0.286 0.714 222

OTHER PROCESS

3 3 229 237 1.035 0.236 0.799 183

PNEUMATIC CONVEYING

6 7 768 1,022 1.331 — 1.331 1,022

MOTORS 3 5 10 10 1.000 — 1.000 10

TOTAL 51 58 3,759 4,403 1.171 0.040 1.131 4,251

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XIX

Executive Summary

Table ES- 7: Industrial Transition Program Savings by Customer Type – All Years Combined

END-USE NUMBER OF

CUSTOMERS

NUMBER OF

PROJECTS


(KWH/YEAR)


(KWH/YEAR)

REALIZATION RATE


FACTOR

NET-TO-GROSS RATIO

NET PROGRAM SAVINGS

(KWH/YEAR)

FOOD PROCESSING

29 35 21,615,831 18,457,096 0.854 0.004 0.850 18,373,550

IRRIGATION 6 6 1,746,486 1,832,786 1.049 0.000 1.049 1,832,786

METALS MANUFACTURING

8 18 5,609,849 6,935,459 1.236 0.000 1.236 6,935,459

MICRO-ELECTRONICS

6 12 6,227,593 6,227,593 1.000 0.000 1.000 6,227,593

OTHER 27 44 3,600,689 3,579,852 0.994 0.105 0.889 3,202,763

PULP AND PAPER 3 3 3,490,877 3,478,706 0.997 0.000 0.997 3,478,706

TRANSPORTATION MANUFACTURING

5 11 866,873 963,180 1.111 0.054 1.057 916,401

WATER & WASTEWATER

7 14 1,793,940 1,659,915 0.925 0.413 0.512 918,476

WOOD PRODUCTS 18 34 11,504,538 11,149,727 0.969 0.001 0.969 11,142,689

TOTAL 109 177 56,456,676 54,284,313 0.962 0.022 0.939 53,028,423

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XX

Executive Summary

Table ES- 8: Industrial Transition Program Peak Demand Reduction by Customer Type – All Years Combined

END-USE NUMBER OF

CUSTOMERS

NUMBER OF

PROJECTS

PROGRAM-REPORTED

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

ADJUSTED PROGRAM

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

REALIZATION RATE


FACTOR

NET-TO-GROSS RATIO

NET PROGRAM

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

FOOD PROCESSING

13 14 1,424 1,301 0.914 0.001 0.914 1,302

IRRIGATION 5 5 62 62 1.000 0.000 1.000 62


3 6 28 533 1.000 0.000 1.000 533

MICRO-ELECTRONICS

1 1 207 227 1.097 0.000 1.097 227

OTHER 1 1 203 160 0.788 0.000 0.788 160

PULP AND PAPER 2 2 138 169 1.224 0.000 1.224 169


3 3 63 63 1.000 0.143 0.857 54

WATER & WASTEWATER

3 4 339 339 1.000 0.422 0.578 196

WOOD PRODUCTS 11 22 1,294 1,548 1.196 0.000 1.196 1,548

TOTAL 42 58 3,759 4,403 1.171 0.040 1.131 4,251

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XXI

Executive Summary

D. Evaluation Observations

This section summarizes the observations and recommendations made by MRG while conducting the evaluation. The body of the report contains more detailed versions.

Observation: Differences in Operating Assumptions Observed for Evaluated Sites

Differences in basic operating assumptions made by program consultants or by customers themselves can result in large differences in savings estimates. For example, a plant operator may report that the plant runs 90% of the time. However, metered data may indicate operation 50% of the time. Was the individual only providing his or her best guess? Or perhaps the metered results were exceptional in some way? The evaluator must determine what data to apply to determine actual savings through further investigation.

Recommendation:

MRG recommends standardization of how program consultants approach formulating their assumptions, including the use of short-term metering and the sharing of consistent information among analysts is recommended.

Observation: Evaluation Finds Facility No Longer Operating

One facility, a large food processor, will be closing in fall 2004. This raised the question of how much savings, if any, to attribute to the transition program.

Recommendation:

For purposes of assessing utility accomplishments under the transition program, MRG used the savings determined through their site visit and analysis, as if the facility were remaining open. However, for purposes of savings claimed by the Energy Trust, MRG provided the Trust with a figure for savings that is prorated for the fraction of time the facility operated compared to measure life. This figure is provided in the site visit report.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XXII

Executive Summary

Observation: Unreasonable Measure Life Assumption

One project evaluated by MRG involved a controls measure that was inexpensive, but had a realization rate of zero because it was not maintained properly by facility staff. Specifically, existing compressed air controls that had been neglected were renovated and put into service again, rather than being replaced by a more expensive solution such as a fully automated control system.

Recommendation:

Consultants should be encouraged to focus on optimizing the magnitude and duration of savings, rather than on implementing a least-cost solution. If the consultant proposes a least-cost solution he or she should consider and discuss with the customer: 1) whether there are adequate staff at the customer’s facility to do the required ongoing O&M necessary to maintain savings; and 2) whether those staff and their managers are committed to consistent and sustained O&M.

Observation: Variation in Realization Rates from Program Consultant Modeling

The engineering consulting firms performing industrial energy studies use good models, reasoned analytical approaches, and well thought out assumptions. Still, there is a range of model sophistication, a number of analytical approaches, and an even wider range of assumptions. Altogether, this alone can lead to a wide variation in savings results.

The approaches used in this evaluation to estimate savings tend toward simple comparisons of measured energy use, using a few basic assumptions. Projected savings were used in many cases where comparisons were within 20%. If the simple estimate fell outside of plus or minus 20%, the evaluators undertook a more detailed analysis.

Recommendation:

Program consultants could provide the model used to determine the baseline and savings to allow for consistent evaluation.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XXIII

Executive Summary

Observation: Site Visits Are Reliable and Cost-Effective for Evaluation

Site visits for the largest customers are a reliable and cost-effective way to determine program savings. The evaluators believe that being on-site to observe equipment, conduct metering, and speak to facility staff is critical to finding operational and other differences that impact savings. Because often a relatively small number of projects account for a high portion of savings, this is a cost-effective approach.

In a number of situations, information that might be available to help estimate or verify energy savings was not apparent until equipment and systems were directly observed.

Recommendation:

Site visits, and short-term metering are recommended for the largest and most critical projects.

Observation: Customer Fatigue with Evaluation

Some companies, particularly larger ones, are weary of what they view as repetitive and expensive project savings evaluation efforts. One company observed that they were paid an incentive of $60,000 for their measures, while they estimated that $40,000 was expended for the utility’s third-party consulting firm to verify the savings. This case was for a single project at one facility. Several also remarked that, particularly with the transition projects, they have had to interact with a number of different parties for analysis, engineering, incentives, verification, and evaluation.

Recommendation:

Program participants should be told to expect post-installation verification by program delivery contractors and also evaluation by independent third parties.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XXIV

Executive Summary

Observation: Data Content and Report Format Variation Among Program Consultants

While many of the consultants’ reports from the utilities’ files were very thorough and methodologically sound, key pieces of information were reported in different ways and in different places from one report to another, or sometimes not reported at all. Consistency in the type of data collected and the report format would make evaluation much more straightforward, and in some cases, possible.

Recommendation:

Energy analysis reports should include the following key pieces of information: 1) a description of equipment changes; 2) baseline energy use and peak demand; and 3) predicated energy use and peak demand.

Observation: Approaches for Assessing Demand Reduction

The evaluators observed that the approaches and reporting for demand reduction varied substantially. A set of guidelines could reduce this variation and improve consistency in demand reduction estimates.

Recommendation:

Guidelines should ask for a description of methodology, the time period of interest, and address facility and equipment system coincidence.

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XXV

Executive Summary

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page XXVI

I. Introduction

The Energy Trust of Oregon, Inc. (Energy Trust) is an independent nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation dedicated to energy efficiency and renewable energy development in Oregon. Under an agreement established with the Oregon Public Utility Commission in January 2002, the Energy Trust receives funding from a 3% public purpose charge paid by the customers of Portland General Electric (PGE) and PacifiCorp, Oregon’s two major investor-owned electric utilities. These funds are in turn invested by the Trust in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

This impact evaluation, conducted by MetaResource Group (MRG) with assistance from Currents Consulting, covers industrial projects in the “transition” program funded by the Energy Trust and operated by PGE and PacifiCorp between March 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003. Any project at an industrial facility with a completion date that fell within this time period was considered an Industrial Transition Project. The Industrial Transition Program was essentially a limited-duration extension of the utilities’ existing programs.

This evaluation concerns projects at industrial facilities that include either process measures (such as compressed air, refrigeration, motors and motor systems, pumps, and fans) or commercial-type measures (i.e., lighting and HVAC).

The Energy Trust has two overall goals for this impact evaluation:

• To develop reliable estimates of program savings and peak demand reduction for the Industrial Transition Program.

• To report observations and make recommendations to help the Trust: 1) improve the modeling and analysis of energy savings and peak demand reduction for its own energy efficiency programs; and 2) improve the independent evaluation of those savings.

A. Methodology

Energy Savings Results

Altogether, site visits or phone surveys were used to evaluate 95% of project savings for both utilities for all measures – including both process and commercial-type (i.e., lighting and HVAC) at industrial facilities. Site

ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATION MetaResource Group Page 1

I. Introduction

visits were conducted by MRG and Quantec, LLC (in a previous effort).13 Phone surveys were conducted by MRG. MRG “deemed”14 the remaining 5% of kWh savings from small projects at industrial facilities (involving only commercial-type measures). The evaluators determined that the transition program achieved a net-to-gross ratio15 of 0.939, with a net program savings of 53,028,423 kWh annually.

Peak Demand Reduction

The evaluators used three approaches for estimating peak demand reduction – deemed, calculated, and observed. These approaches are described in Section IV of this report. Sixty-six percent of process measures and 7% of commercial-type measures were found to have impacts greater than zero. The final disposition for all the measures is described in Section IV. These measures were found to have achieved a net-to-gross ratio of 1.131, with a net peak demand reduction of 4,251 kW.

It should be noted that it was beyond the scope of this project for the evaluators to do a detailed critique of the engineering models employed to estimate or verify energy savings. They therefore have only reported readily apparent observations and concerns regarding the approaches used. It should also be noted that the authors do not provide observations and recommendations in this report on the methodology used by Quantec for its evaluation.

B. Summary

The remainder of this report is divided into the following sections:

• Section II: Data Collection Approach

13 Evaluation of the Transition C&I Retrofit Programs. Hossein Haeri, Quantec, June

16, 2004. www.energytrust.org/Pages/about/library/reports/Eval_Trans_C&I_Retrofit.pdf

14 “Deemed” means that the evaluators simply assigned these estimated savings as the final savings because for these projects, the evaluators did not do any project-specific data gathering or analysis.

15 The ratio of the savings verified by the evaluators divided by the utility’s estimated savings, applied to peak demand reduction.


I. Introduction

• Section III: Energy Savings and Peak Demand Reduction Methodology and Results

• Section IV: Observations and Recommendations

• Appendix A: Energy Trust of Oregon Industrial Transition Project Evaluation Reports

• Appendix B: Sample Survey Instrument


I. Introduction


II. Data Collection Approach

A. Introduction

This report divides the description of the evaluators’ verification approach into two separate sections: 1) Data Collection Approach (Section II); and 2) Energy Savings and Peak Demand Reduction Methodology and Results (Section III). Further details on methodology for each project are provided in the site visit reports in Appendix A.

B. Collection Approach to Analyze Energy Savings (kWh) for Projects with Industrial Process Measures

Overall, 84 projects with industrial process measures accounted for 84% of the total kWh savings for PGE and PacifiCorp for the period covered in this evaluation. Together with Quantec’s previous efforts, site visits accounted for the evaluation of 96% of process measures savings, while phone surveys resulted in evaluation of 4%. Thus, 100% of process measure savings received direct evaluation. A description of the site visits conducted is provided below, followed by a description of the phone surveys.

Site Visits to Evaluate Process Measure Energy Savings

A total of 58 site visits were conducted to evaluate process measure savings: MRG conducted site visits for 49 projects involving process measures; Quantec conducted site visits for another nine projects.16 Altogether, these visits evaluated 96% of the utilities’ total estimated savings for process measures.

The approach for gathering project data and verifying operating conditions through the site visits involved the following:

• Before conducting each site visit, MRG evaluators examined the utility project reports, including the original energy analysis and

16 Of the 58 site visits conducted to evaluate process measure savings, MRG’s 49

site visits accounted for 83% of the estimated process measure savings evaluated through site visits; Quantec’s 9 visits accounted for the other 17%.



the follow-up documents verifying savings (variously labeled by the utilities’ consultants as “verification” or “commissioning” reports). Copies were made of these documents and essential data was entered into an Excel database compiled for this impact evaluation.

• The MRG evaluator then arranged to meet in-person with the facility staff person most familiar with the energy efficiency project. The utilities provided these contacts. They most often were plant or operations managers, maintenance managers or supervisors, or facility engineers.

• MRG then conducted the site visit which included: 1) a walk-through of the facility with the site contact, focusing on the installed energy efficiency measures; 2) an interview with the site contact and others as needed; 3) where possible, collection of data from the participants’ own energy monitoring and control systems (i.e., operating hours and detailed time-series system metrics); and 4) where appropriate and practical, installation of short-term metering by the evaluator (typically for one week). (See Table 1 for details on the final disposition of site visits.)

• The evaluator gathered the following types of information through the site visits:17

− Presence or absence of the installed efficiency measures as described in the utility project files.

− Any differences between the utility-documented energy efficiency measures and those observed on site.

− Any modifications to the production process or changes in production capacity that might impact the efficiency measures.

− Any differences between the utility-documented operating parameters for the energy efficiency measures (e.g., operating hours or equipment set-points) and those observed or metered by the evaluation team on site.

17 For more detail, see Appendix B – Data Collection Protocol.



− Evidence of free ridership. During the site visit, the customer was asked a series of questions about the likelihood that they would have installed the efficiency measures in the absence of the incentives. A free-ridership score was determined based on those responses. (The methodology for determining these scores is described in detail in Section III.)

− Evidence of spillover.18 During the site visit, the customer was asked whether they had installed any additional energy efficiency measures without incentives following their participation in the program, and whether the program had influenced their decision to take this further action.

The final disposition of the site visits included:

• MRG was able to arrange and complete site visits with all of the 49 projects identified as candidates.

• For 16 of those 49 sites, the evaluators conducted short-term metering (typically one week).

• For 8 of those 49 sites, the evaluators asked for and received data from the participants’ own energy monitoring and control systems.19

• For three sites, the evaluators requested data from participants, but it was not provided. In all three cases, because these data were not available, MRG deemed the savings.

18 Generally there are three types of spillover: 1) the customer installs measures at

the same site that are in addition to those installed as part of the program project; the customer attributes their decision to the influence of the program, but does not receive an incentive for these additional measures; 2) the customer installs measures at another site that are in addition to those installed as part of the program project; the customer attributes their decision to program participation, but does not receive an incentive for these additional measures; 3) in the broader market, other customers undertake projects; they attribute their decisions to the influence of the program, but do not receive incentives.

19 Data included equipment hours of operation from the customers’ own equipment meters and in some cases detailed time-series system metrics from computerized control systems.



Following each site visit, MRG used the data gathered to make any necessary adjustments to the utilities’ reported savings and to calculate the project’s realization rate and free-ridership score. Spillover was not a factor. While some customers described doing additional projects without incentives following the utility efforts, attribution to the transition program was weak and they could not quantify the savings.

The calculation methodologies used by MRG and the savings results are described in Section III. Further detail is provided in the site visit reports for each project found in Appendix A.

Phone Surveys to Evaluate Process Measure Savings

MRG evaluated the remaining 4% of savings from process measures through brief phone surveys of 26 smaller, less complex projects.20 The facility staff person most familiar with the energy efficiency project was asked to verify the following:

• Presence or absence of the installed efficiency measures as described in the utility project files.

• Any differences between the utility-documented energy efficiency measures and those observed on site.

• Any differences between the utility-documented operating hours for the energy efficiency measures and those reported by the respondent.

• Free ridership.

• Spillover.

MRG then used the data and information gathered to make any necessary adjustments to the utilities’ reported savings and to calculate the project realization rate and free-ridership score. Spillover was found not to be a factor. The calculation methodologies and the savings results are described in Section III.

20 The evaluators were able to reach all but one participant with process measures

targeted for phone surveys. This one project involved replacement of one 20 HP motor for estimated savings of 1,228 kWh per year.



C. Data Collection Approach to Analyze Energy Savings (kWh) for Projects at Industrial Facilities Involving Commercial-Type Measures

Overall, commercial-type measures (i.e., lighting or HVAC) installed at industrial facilities accounted for 16% of the total industrial savings for PGE and PacifiCorp for the period evaluated. MetaResource Group’s evaluation approach involved a combination of site visits, phone surveys, and deeming of savings. Eight site visits conducted by Quantec and one conducted by MRG resulted in evaluation of 40% of commercial-type measure savings at industrial facilities. Another 27% was evaluated by MRG through phone surveys. Thus, 67% of commercial-type measures were directly evaluated. MRG deemed the remaining 33% of savings from commercial measures (accounting for 5% of the total savings from both process and commercial-type measures).

Site Visits to Evaluate Commercial-Type Measure Savings

MRG evaluated savings from commercial-type measures at one industrial facility in the course of doing the site visit to evaluate process measures. In addition, eight site visits were conducted by Quantec to evaluate commercial measures at industrial facilities.21 Altogether, these nine site visits represented 40% of the total savings from commercial-type measures at industrial facilities. The evaluation through site visits involved the following:

• As described above for process measures, MRG first reviewed the project reports and documentation provided by the utilities and recorded essential data into the evaluation database.

• The evaluators then followed the procedure described above for arranging and conducting the site visits for process measures.

• Because the commercial-type measures represented a relatively small percentage of savings at each industrial site visited, and were inherently less complex in terms of understanding operating

21 MRG’s one site visit accounted for 10% of the estimated commercial measure

savings evaluated through site visits; Quantec’s eight visits accounted for the other 90% evaluated through site visits.



conditions and parameters, the evaluators collected only the following data:

− Presence or absence of the installed efficiency measures as described in the utility project files. The evaluators did a visual inspection, but did not count lamps or fixtures.

− Any differences between the utility-documented operating hours for the energy efficiency measures and those reported by the respondent.

− Evidence of free ridership (using the same approach as described above).

− Evidence of spillover (using the same approach as described above).

MRG then used the data and information gathered from the site visits to make any necessary adjustments to the utilities’ reported savings for commercial-type measures at industrial facilities. (The calculation methodology used is described in Section III.)

Phone Surveys to Evaluate Commercial-Type Measure Savings

MRG evaluated 27% of the savings from lighting and HVAC measures at industrial facilities through phone surveys of 18 projects (most of these also included process measures that were also evaluated).22 MRG’s approach to evaluating commercial-type measures through phone surveys was the same as described above for process measures. As the realization rate for commercial measures as a group was near 100%, no extrapolation was done to the other smaller sites; these were deemed as explained below.

Deeming of Commercial-Type Measure Savings

MRG deemed the savings for 66 small projects, representing 33% of the total savings from commercial-type measures at industrial facilities but

22 The evaluators were able to reach all participants with commercial-type measures

targeted for phone surveys.



only 5% of the overall savings for all measures, including both commercial and process measures. MRG deemed these savings for the following reasons: 1) Because savings from these projects represented only 5% of the overall savings, even if some differences were found in measures installed or in operating parameters, these differences would not impact the overall savings significantly enough to warrant the time and budget necessary for direct verification; 2) as explained above, the phone surveys and site visits yielded a realization rate of nearly 100% so extrapolation was not needed; and 3) commercial-type measures, particularly lighting, tend to be more “stable” over time, as they are not part of potential production or line changes, and are relatively simple compared to process measures. (Note that the evaluators did not deem any of the savings for process measures.)

Final Disposition

Table 1 and Figure 1 below provide an overview of the evaluation approach and project disposition for evaluating the utilities’ estimated kWh savings.

Table 1: Impact Evaluation Approach and Final Disposition for kWh Savings

PROCESS MEASURES

COMMERCIAL-TYPE MEASURES PROJECT SUMMARY

SITE VISITS

PHONE SURVEYS

SITE VISITS

PHONE SURVEYS

DEEMED

PROJECTS EVALUATED BY MRG 49 26 1 18 66

PROJECTS EVALUATED BY QUANTEC 9 0 8 0 0

TOTAL NUMBER OF PROJECTS 58 26 9 18 66

TOTAL PERCENT OF PROCESS-TYPE AND COMMERCIAL-TYPE SAVINGS

96% 4% 40% 27% 33%




Figure 1: Impact Evaluation Approach and Final Disposition for Energy Savings Estimates

49 MRG

9 Quantec

26 MRG

0 Quantec

1 MRG

8 Quantec

18 MRG

0 Quantec

66 MRG

0 Quantec

58 SITE VISITS Evaluated 96% of Process

Measure Savings

26 PHONE SURVEYSEvaluated 4% of Process

Measure Savings

9 SITE VISITS Evaluated 40% of


18 PHONE SURVEYSEvaluated 27% of


66 DEEMED Evaluated 33% of


PROCESS 84 Projects with Process Measures


COMMERCIAL 93 Projects with Commercial Measures


TRANSITION PROGRAM 177 Total Transition Projects

Both Process and Commercial-Type Measures

100% of Process Measure Savings Directly Evaluated 67% of Commercial Measure Savings Directly Evaluated 33% of Commercial Measure Savings

Deemed

95% of Total Transition Program Savings Directly Evaluated 5% of Transition Program Savings

Deemed

MetaResource Group Page 12


D. Data Collection Approach to Analyze Peak Demand Reduction (kW)

After the site visits and most of the energy savings analysis had been completed, the Energy Trust modified the evaluation scope to include analysis of peak demand reduction.

The various data collection challenges faced by the MRG evaluators are described below:

• Some of the utility consultants’ reports did not include determination of peak demand reduction – their primary assignment was to identify energy savings. For those consultants who did estimate changes in demand, their rigor in determining and documenting those reductions varied.

• For those reports that did include peak demand reduction, key pieces of information were reported in different ways and in different places from one report to another, and sometimes key information was missing. The reports often only reported peak demand reduction rather than including: 1) a detailed description of equipment affected; 2) the baseline peak demand; and 3) the predicted peak demand. This is also a significant issue for evaluation of energy savings and is a recommendation in this report.

• In the evaluators’ data request to Quantec at the outset of the project, only energy savings data were requested because at that time the scope did include estimating peak demand reduction. Timing did not allow a second request; therefore, the Quantec projects could not be included.

• Had the evaluators been planning to analyze peak demand from the start, they would have performed more extensive metering than they had already planned and completed for the energy savings estimations. As a result, the quality and quantity of metered data for peak demand reduction analysis was limited to data collected through 42 site visits and data provided by three end-users. Further, not all these site visits involved metering.



Process Measures

The evaluators examined and analyzed 66% of process measures and found them to have peak demand impacts that were greater than zero. Another 19% were analyzed, but had peak demand impacts of zero. For the remaining 15% of process measures, either the utility consultants’ reports did not include peak demand reduction estimates, or kW data had not been requested by MRG for projects analyzed by Quantec. (The Energy Trust modified the scope of the evaluation to include the analysis of peak demand reduction long after Quantec had responded to MRG’s data request.)

Commercial Measures

Only 7% of commercial-type measures were analyzed for peak demand reduction and had estimates greater than zero; the other 2% had peak demand impacts of zero. For the remaining 91%, kW data had not been requested from Quantec.

Final Disposition

Table 2 and Figure 2 below provide an overview of the evaluation approach and project disposition for evaluating the utilities’ peak demand reduction.

Analyzing peak demand reduction is considerably more complex than determining energy savings and presents a number of measurement and evaluation challenges even when it is part of an evaluation scope from the start.

• The major complexities involved in analyzing peak demand reductions are related to the definition of peak demand (i.e., the timing of peak demand events and their coincidence with other plant loads and the utility peak). A major assumption for the analysis of meter data for peak reduction was that peaks occurring during business days (08:00-18:00, Monday-Friday) would be more likely to be coincident with facility peak. This challenge and the evaluators’ approach are described in more detail below.



• The evaluators were concerned that motor startup might contribute to short-duration current spikes. This challenge and the evaluators’ approach are described further below.

Table 2: Impact Evaluation Approach and Final Disposition for Peak kW Reduction

PROCESS MEASURES N=103

COMMERCIAL-TYPE MEASURES

N=97

ACTION

DEEMED CALCULATED OBSERVED TOTAL DEEMED TOTAL

MEASURES ASSESSED BY MRG AND KW > 0

49 3 16 68 (66% of

measures)

7 7 (7% of

measures)

MEASURES ASSESSED BY MRG AND KW = 0

18 1 1 20 (19% of

measures)

2 2 (2% of

measures) NO KW FIGURE PROVIDED BY UTILITY

8 8 (8% of

measures)

— —

ORIGINAL DATA REQUEST TO QUANTEC DID NOT INCLUDE KW

7 7 (7% of

measures)

88 88 (91% of

measures)




Figure 2: Impact Evaluation Approach and Final Disposition for Peak Demand Reduction Estimates

8 MEASURES (8%) No kW Data

Provided in Files



PROCESS 103 Measures

COMMERCIAL 97 Measures

TRANSITION PROGRAM 200 Total Measures

Both Process and Commercial-Type

20 MEASURES (19%) Analyzed by Evaluators (Deemed, Calculated, or

Observed), but kW=0

49 MEASURES (48%)


3 MEASURES (3%)

Calculated by Evaluators

16 MEASURES (15%)

Observed by Evaluators



2 MEASURES (2%) Analyzed by Evaluators(Deemed, Calculated, or

Observed) but kW=0

7 MEASURES (7%)


Indicates measures included in total Indicates measures not included in total because data not available or kW=0


III. Savings Adjustment Methodology and Results

A. Introduction

Following each site visit or phone survey to collect data for the energy savings estimates (described in Section II), MRG used the data and information gathered to make any necessary adjustments to the utilities’ reported kWh savings and peak kW reduction. The methodologies employed by the evaluators to make these adjustments varied depending on a number of different factors including: 1) type of verification approach (site visit or phone survey); 2) the types of energy efficiency measures; 3) the data available from the utility project files and the customer; 4) whether the evaluators conducted metering; 5) the particular production equipment and process; and 6) other site-specific circumstances. This analysis yielded two key results:

• A realization rate for each energy efficiency measure (or sometimes groups of similar measures, as appropriate) obtained by dividing MRG’s verified energy savings by the savings reported by the utility (i.e., the savings reported in the utility’s final project verification or commissioning report).

• The free-ridership score for each energy efficiency measure.

MRG found that spillover was not a factor. While some customers described doing additional measures without incentives following the utility projects, attribution to the transition program was weak and customers could not quantify the savings.

Note that these same realization rates and free-ridership factors were also applied to the peak demand reduction figures.

B. Energy Savings Adjustment Methodology for Industrial Process Measures

Below, Table 3 lists 27 projects for both utilities combined for which the evaluators found realization rates that varied more than plus or minus 20% from the original estimates. Following this table is a description for each of these projects of the sources of divergence from utility-reported savings and the methodologies employed by the evaluators to adjust the savings



and determine the realization rate. The program-reported savings for these 27 projects are 15,579,221 kWh/year, representing 28% of the total transition program savings.

Table 3: Projects with Realization Rates for Energy Savings Different Than 1.0 (> ±0.20)

CUSTOMER EVALUATION ID NUMBER

CUSTOMER TYPE

MEASURE TYPE


(KWH/YEAR)

REALIZATION RATE

1001 Metals Manufacturing Compressed Air 59,463 2.67


1002 Wood Products Motors 4,359 1.68

1003 Other Industry Compressed Air 83,680 1.60

1004 Food Processing Refrigeration & Cooling 668,715 1.45

1001 Metals Manufacturing Refrigeration & Cooling 345,000 1.36

1005 Transportation Lighting 288,334 1.33

1006 Wood Products Pneumatic Conveying 21,229 1.33

1007 Metals Manufacturing Lighting 104,241 1.30

1007 Metals Manufacturing Lighting 381,170 1.30

1008 Food Processing Pumping 33,580 1.25


1009 Water Supply Pumping 225,298 1.21


1011 Wastewater Other Process 257,416 0.79

1012 Food Processing Refrigeration & Cooling 6,021,139 0.78


1014 Wood Products Compressed Air 154,921 0.61


1015 Food Processing Refrigeration & Cooling 4,411,416 0.58



1001 Metals Manufacturing Refrigeration & Cooling 82,450 0.53

Continued



CUSTOMER EVALUATION ID NUMBER

CUSTOMER TYPE

MEASURE TYPE


(KWH/YEAR)

REALIZATION RATE

1017 Food Processing Compressed Air 414,024 0.44




Methodologies for energy saving adjustments varied according to the available data for energy usage (short-term or one-time metering, customer-supplied data, annual operating hours, etc.), the project technology, and the information from the original energy studies. In the majority of cases, engineering analysis was used; for others, a simple prorate adjustment was made. Examples for some of the projects noted in the table above are shown in detail below, with all projects described fully in Appendix A.

Customer 1001 – Metals Manufacturing

Description of Measures

Three projects with high realization rates involve compressed air controls for four-, two-, and three-compressor air systems, respectively. Efficiency measures include sequencers; and for the two-compressor system, piping and air receivers. Another high realization rate project for this customer was a variable speed fan for a cooling tower, and the project with low realization rate was variable speed pumping.

Sources of Divergence

According to the maintenance manager, compressed air demands have likely changed for the first two compressed air systems. It is believed that in the case of the third, that the original analysis was conservative.

For the variable speed fan and the variable speed pump it was necessary to recalculate the baseline energy use for each, as the original baseline estimate could not be reconciled with metering information. This



recalculation resulted in higher savings for the fan project and lower savings for the pump project.

Methodology for Adjusting Savings

For each of the projects, savings were based upon metering the energy usage of the air compressors, fans, or pumps. Motor current was used to calculate kWh energy use for the one-week period that metering was installed, which was prorated to the full year. This energy use was subtracted from the baseline to determine actual energy savings.

Customer 1002 – Secondary Wood Products

Description of Measure

Efficient motor for the air compressor.

Source of Divergence

Hours of operation have increased substantially.


The assumption was made that energy savings were proportional to the hours of operation, and the adjustment made accordingly.

Customer 1003 – Other Industry (Laundry)


VFD air compressor.


Hours of operation have increased substantially.




The assumption was made that energy savings are proportional to the hours of operation, and the adjustment made accordingly.

Customer 1009 – Water Supply


VFD for the primary water supply pump.


The modeling approach was too simplistic and did not reflect the operating hours of the pumps.


For this evaluation, annual system daily flow data were used by MRG to build an independent model of likely pump sequencing (there are three pumps used). A revised baseline operation model was created based on these actual flows, and another model with VFD operation. The difference between the baseline and VFD models was the actual energy savings. Some additional savings were included from a decrease in filter backwash cycles.

Customer 1010 – Secondary Wood Products


Pneumatic conveying system with efficiency measure of inlet guide vanes and start/stop controls.


The savings were corrected by a reduction in hours of operation based on the owner’s current estimate.




Confirmation of the hours of operation was based on short-term metering. The metering established the hours that were used to recalculate savings, proportionately based on commissioning report calculations. Metering also confirmed the average kW load of the equipment for the recalculations.

Customer 1015 – Food Processing


This is a refrigeration system consolidation and upgrade that included new refrigeration piping for freezing tunnels and a suction line, thermosiphon oil cooling, efficient evaporator coils with VFD fans, and a computer control system.


There were no substantive differences between basic operating parameters as reported and the parameters that were found at the time of the site visit; however, the analysis of operations data indicated that savings are less than predicted. This may possibly be due to compressor part-load operation or the fact that this system continued to have efficiency upgrades even during the post-installation period. It could also be due in part to seasonal and production variations, but the limited information available on these variations suggested this would be a small adjustment to post-installation energy use.


Long-term system refrigeration operations data used included hourly motor current for thirty-two refrigeration compressors. Data were provided for both before and after measure installation. These data were used to calculate actual energy savings. Savings were confirmed with simple annual energy calculations using compressor hours of operation.



Customer 1016 – Wastewater Treatment


The plant reportedly previously used a year-around dissolved oxygen setpoint of 5.0 mg/l. This was changed to a summer “dry season” dissolved oxygen setpoint of 2.5 mg/l.


There were differences between the assumed baseline dissolved oxygen settings and those observed. The hourly data showed that the assumed dissolved oxygen level was quite different than the actual. The baseline summer setting was assumed at 5.0 mg/l, while actual values averaged 3.5 mg/l for June through August of 2002. On a monthly rolling average basis, the maximum value for DO found in 2002-2003 was 3.9 mg/l.

The verified savings estimates were originally based on a test of the blower system for various flows and dissolved oxygen results. The actual savings compare the blower system power for an entire year before and after the measure was implemented.


Hourly annual system data on blower current, blower volume, and dissolved oxygen measurements was collected for the treatment plant for 2002 and 2003 – the years before and after the measure was implemented. The annual blower energy use was calculated using these data for both the baseline operation assumed during 2002 and for the measure condition in 2003. The difference between these calculations was the actual energy savings.

Customer 1019 – Primary Wood Products


Compressed air improvements including load/unload controls, sequencer, and added receiver capacity for a three-compressor system. (There are two similar projects at this site – the other had a realization rate of 1.00.)




There was an increase in the compressed air pressure setpoint, an increase in leak loads was described, there was no apparent maintenance of the sequencer, and a new compressor had not been integrated with the sequencer.


Data on run-time hours of each compressor was used to calculate actual energy savings. One-time measures of compressor motor current were also used to calculate kWh energy use for the time period of the run-time hours, which was prorated to an entire year. This energy use was subtracted from the assumed baseline to determine actual energy savings. In the case of this project, calculated energy use was greater than the reported baseline energy use, and zero savings were assigned rather than negative savings.

C. Energy Savings Adjustment Methodology for Commercial-Type Measures at Industrial Facilities

The methodology for adjusting savings for commercial-type measures was simpler that that used for process measures.

For one group of customers, the realization rate was less than 1.0 for five lighting measures, and greater than 1.0 for another five.

• In three of these ten cases, MetaResource Group conducted phone surveys and found that operating hours had increased from the original assumptions. The evaluators then adjusted the savings proportionally. For example, in one case, operating hours had increased 33%; savings were increased 33%, resulting in a realization rate of 1.33.

• For the other seven projects, the realization rates had been determined by Quantec for their June 2004 evaluation report. As noted earlier, sites already visited by Quantec were not revisited by MetaResource Group, and it was beyond the scope of this project



to review Quantec’s evaluation work; thus, their realization rates were used directly for this evaluation.

For another group of customers the realization rate was less than 1.0 for one lighting measure, and greater than 1.0 for two others.

• The realization rate less than one resulted from a decrease in operating hours reported by the phone survey respondent. The evaluators decreased the savings proportionally.

• For the other two projects, the realization rates had been determined by Quantec and were used directly by MetaResource Group.

In most cases, respondents cited the economy as the driver for the changes in operating hours (both increases and decreases). In one case, the evaluators determined from the survey responses that the original operating hours in the utility reports were not correct.

D. Peak Demand Analysis Approach Used by Evaluators

The evaluators used three approaches for estimating peak demand reduction – deemed, calculated, and observed.

• Deemed: If the reduction was small and the measure was simple, or there were no metered data available, then the evaluators deemed (accepted as is) the estimate of peak demand reduction provided in the utility consultants’ energy studies.

• Calculated: Some of the utility consultants’ energy studies provided equipment load. These load figures were then compared to the equipment load data measured either by the end-user or by the evaluation team when they did metering as part of their site visits.

• Observed: Some of the utility consultants’ energy studies provided detailed modeling of the energy-using system. In these cases, the evaluators could compare the data recorded during site visits during the business day to the peak demand from the consultant’s model.



The extra effort required for the “observed” and “calculated” approaches to more accurately determine peak demand only applied to a total of 21 projects. This was because data were only available for these projects.

Short-Duration Current Spikes

One of the evaluators’ concerns was that motor startup might result in short duration current spikes. Most of the data available from the evaluators’ metering were in one-minute intervals requiring start-up current to be averaged out. To check this, the evaluators plotted the raw data first to see if any spikes were present and then calculated the results as a 15-minute average. This process filtered out any short-duration spikes while still representing peaks well. As shown by example in Figures 3 and 4, the averaging does not affect the relative demand profile. In addition, a 15-minute average window is consistent with that used for billing by the utility.

Figure 3: Raw Data Figure 4: 15-Minute Averaged Data

30 Sec Data

0

50

100

150

15 Minute Average

0

50

100

150

Definition of Peak Demand

The next question was how to define peak demand for a piece of equipment. The key consideration is when demand is most likely to be coincident with peak consumption. For the customer, demand charges are based on the 15-minute maximum that occurs during the month. Continuing with the example of a motor, the 15-minute average is one estimate of how much that particular motor contributes to peak consumption. Of course, that assumes that the motor’s peak coincides with



peak consumption for the whole plant. For this study, the evaluators reviewed the data from their metering efforts and data provided by the end-user and averaged the top few percent of 15-minute demand measurements in order to derive a best estimate of the maximum 15-minute demand. In the case where the evaluators metered multiple motors, they also report the peak for the sum of all motors.

Another definition of peak that is more useful for utility planners than for evaluation is the peak that coincides with the utility system’s peak. In the Northwest, the system peak is quite broad, typically extending for 10-12 hours during the day. During this time period, the variations of individual customers are not as important, since all are combined within the system average.

For both the calculated and observed approaches, we averaged the consumption according the time-of-day “bins” that have been established by the Northwest Power Planning Council when they determine market value of energy savings. There are four bins corresponding to: 1) peak, 2) shoulder, 3) weekday night, and 4) weekend night. The most useful peak definition for both evaluation and planning is the average during the peak bin as mentioned above.

E. Calculation of Free-Ridership Scores

A key component of the interviews with participants, whether conducted on-site or by phone, was to determine whether some or all of the energy efficiency measures offered under the transition programs would have been installed without the incentives. That is, to determine that portion of energy savings that might not be entirely attributable to the program. The estimates of free ridership were based on the same methodology as used by Quantec in their June 2004 report. First, participants’ were asked a series of questions:

• Had the participant already ordered or installed the measure prior to participating in the program?

• Would the participant have installed the measure without program incentives? If so:

− Would the installed measures have the same level of efficiency?



− Would all of the measures have been installed?

− Would the measures have been installed within the same timeframe (within the next two years)?

− Were the measure costs already incorporated into the participant’s short or long-term capital budgets?

− Had the equipment already been ordered before hearing about the program?

A free-ridership “score” was then calculated for each respondent depending on the answers to these questions. These scores were derived as a composite index by assigning weights to alternative combinations of responses. Table 4 shows the basis for the assigned scores.

Table 4: Methodology for Calculating Free Ridership

FREE-RIDERSHIP

SCORE

ALREADY ORDERED

OR INSTALLED

WOULD HAVE

INSTALLED WITHOUT

THE PROGRAM

WOULD HAVE

INSTALLED THE SAME LEVEL OF

EFFICIENCY

WOULD HAVE

INSTALLED ALL THE

EFFICIENCY MEASURES

PLANNING TO INSTALL

SOON

ALREADY IN THE

BUDGET

0% No No – – – –

0% No Yes No – – –

0% No Yes Yes No No No

0% No Yes Yes Yes No No

12.50% No Yes Yes No No Yes

12.50% No Yes Yes No Yes No

25% No Yes Yes No Yes Yes

25% No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

25% No Yes Yes Yes Yes No

50% No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

100% Yes Yes – – – –



In eight cases, the evaluators found that customers were partial or full free riders. The analysis further shows that, on average, 2% of the program savings would have been realized without the program incentives.

A free-ridership score specific to programs, end-uses, and customer types was also determined by weighing the free-ridership scores by estimated savings. It should be noted that some of the free ridership results calculated by end-use type in this report are not indicative of free ridership for that end-use in general. This was particularly true for pumping measures, with a weighted average free-ridership score of 63%, and “other process” measures with a score of 39%. In both cases, the sample sizes were small and one or more participants with large projects were partial or full free riders. For example, in the case of pumping measures, there were only ten pumping projects; and of those ten, one project representing 48% of the savings was a 100% free rider.

F. Calculation of Spillover Effects

Spillover effects represent potential electricity savings realized as a result of the participants’ voluntary installation of measures without program support. Spillover does not significantly impact the transition program savings. While some customers described doing additional measures without incentives following the utility projects, for the most part, attribution to the transition program was weak, and in only a few cases could participants quantify the savings.

G. Additional Energy Efficiency Opportunities

The potential for additional energy efficiency was investigated in two ways. First, a question was posed to the facility decision-maker regarding additional efficiency potential, and second, the energy analysis report was reviewed to consider what recommended measures were not pursued.

These observations for additional efficiency opportunities give insight into both the overall approach to efficiency analysis by the utilities’ program consultants and the interests and awareness in efficiency of participants. Most significantly, the program consultants approached a single system (blowers, compressed air, refrigeration, etc.) while ignoring the potential for other systems. This was likely due to both their given scope of work and their area of expertise. There is also likely a contribution by the



participant to this limited single-system approach, as they may only be able to consider and manage one major project at a time. And although, in most cases, the approach by consultants was systematic, there were still a few potential opportunities within the systems left undone (i.e., efficient refrigeration systems, where high-speed doors could have been applied).

The open-ended inquiry about additional efficiency opportunities posed during interviews resulted in various responses, depending on the decision-maker’s general attitude and awareness. For many, efficiency was externally driven, and their consideration and awareness of the potential did not go beyond those measures recommended and installed. The 9% “unspecified” responses in Table 4 indicated this awareness of the potential without knowledge of specific opportunities. In some cases, their responses were supplemented by MRG’s site-visit observations.

Most of the efficiency potential described by decision-makers (and observed by the evaluators) is for compressed air, lighting, and the application of efficient motors. The responses for no opportunities were for a new construction project and for a facility scheduled to be closed. Table 5, below, summarizes the results of this question.

Table 5: Efficiency Potential Observations Beyond Installed Measures

EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL PERCENT RESPONDENTS* (N=32)

COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEMS 41%

LIGHTING, INCLUDING OCCUPANCY SENSORS 38%

EFFICIENT MOTORS 25%

UNSPECIFIED 16%

APPLICATION OF VFD 16%

REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS 13%

DUST COLLECTION SYSTEMS 9%

VACUUM SYSTEMS 6%

NO OPPORTUNITIES 6%

PUMPING 3%

PROCESS MEASURES 3%

* Multiple mentions by respondents



When reviewing the energy analysis reports provided for each project by the utility, the evaluators noted cases where the consultant recommended additional measures but the customer did not install them. These additional measures are reported below in Table 6.

Table 6: Measures Not Implemented

MEASURES NOT IMPLEMENTED PERCENT RESPONDENTS* (N=32)

ALL RECOMMENDED MEASURES INSTALLED 49%

MUTUAL EXCLUSIVE MEASURES23 43%

COMPRESSED AIR 40%

PROCESS 20%

LIGHTING 14%

REFRIGERATION 14%

DUST COLLECTION 11%

VFD 9%

PUMPING SYSTEMS 3%


For about half of the respondents (49%), all feasible recommended measures were installed. The majority of these were options that were mutually exclusive to the installed measures – for example, air compressors of different efficiency. In another 40% of cases, there were compressed air measures recommended, but not implemented; and next most significant are process and lighting measures, at 20% and 14% of responses respectively.

23 Measures not installed because the other option was the same equipment, but with

different features or performance characteristics So the two were mutually exclusive (e.g., compressor A versus B with different performance features).



H. Calculation of Overall Verified Energy Savings by Program and Year, End-Use, and Customer Type

The evaluators then calculated an overall realization rate, net-to-gross ratio, and free-ridership/spillover factor for each “summation.” By “summation” we mean the savings summed for a particular year, end-use, or customer type. The following is a description of these calculations, with Table 7, which gives an example of these calculations for a particular end-use:

• The overall realization rate for each summation was calculated by dividing the total energy savings verified by the evaluators for that summation, by the total of the utility-reported energy savings. For example, for all compressed air measures, the total evaluator-verified savings for this end-use was divided by the total utility-reported savings to obtain the realization rate.

• The net-to-gross ratio was then calculated by multiplying the savings verified by the evaluator for each measure, times the free-ridership score for each measure, adding these, and then dividing by the total utility-reported savings.

• The free-ridership/spillover factor was then calculated by subtracting the net-to-gross ratio from the weighted average realization rate.

Below is an example of how the methodology described above was applied for a selected end-use, in this case, pneumatic conveying. The numbers from Row 12 are what appear for pneumatic conveying in the end-use summary table below, although the numbers are in a slightly different order.



Table 7: Industrial Transition Program – Sample Calculations (Pneumatic Conveying)

A B C D E F G

PROGRAM- REPORTED SAVINGS

(KWH/YEAR)


(KWH/YEAR)

REALIZATION RATE

(COLUMN B/ COLUMN A)

FREE-RIDERSHIP

SCORE

NET PROGRAM SAVINGS

(1 - COLUMN D X COLUMN B)

NET-TO-GROSS RATIO

(CELL E12 / CELL A12)

FREE RIDERSHIP/ SPILLOVER

FACTOR (CELL C12 -CELL F12)

1 299,932 180,248 0.601 0 180,248

2 32,387 25,872 0.799 0 25,872

3 475,292 405,400 0.853 0 405,400

4 776,704 862,120 1.110 0 862,120

5 21,229 28,152 1.326 0.25 21,114

6 563,339 572,175 1.016 0 572,175

7 665,082 665,082 1.000 0 665,082

8 1,181,356 1,210,010 1.024 0 1,210,010

9 1,355,242 1,364,385 1.007 0 1,364,385

10 88,600 68,222 0.770 0 68,222

11 332,429 300,129 0.903 0 300,129

12 (RESULTS SHOWN IN SUMMARY TABLES)

5,791,592 5,681,795 0.981 5,674,757 0.980 0.001

I. Summary of Savings and Peak Demand Reduction Results

The summary tables on the following pages show project impacts. These include the savings from industrial projects evaluated by Quantec from their report published in June 2004.

The summary tables are as follows:

• Table 8: Industrial Transition Program Energy Savings by Year



• Table 9: Industrial Transition Program Peak Demand Reduction by Year

• Table 10: Industrial Transition Program Savings by End-Use – All Years Combined

• Table 11: Industrial Transition Program Peak Demand Reduction by End-Use – All Years Combined

• Table 12: Industrial Transition Program Savings by Customer Type – All Years Combined

• Table 13: Industrial Transition Program Peak Demand Reduction by Customer Type – All Years Combined



Table 8: Industrial Transition Program Savings by Year


NUMBER OF PROJECTS


(KWH/YEAR)


(KWH/YEAR)

REALIZATION RATE


FACTOR

NET-TO-GROSS RATIO

NET PROGRAM SAVINGS

(KWH/YEAR)

2002 77 98 23,791,459 24,487,991 1.029 0.008 1.021 24,301,218

2003 43 76 32,414,071 29,494,968 0.910 0.033 0.877 28,425,851

2004 3 3 251,146 301,354 1.200 0.000 1.200 301,354

TOTAL 123 177 56,456,676 54,284,313 0.962 0.022 0.939 53,028,4231 Fourteen customers had multiple projects taking place in different years. Therefore, the customer count is 123 rather than 109.

Table 9: Industrial Transition Program Peak Reduction by Year


NUMBER OF PROJECTS

PROGRAM-REPORTED

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

ADJUSTED PROGRAM

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

REALIZATION RATE


FACTOR

NET-TO-GROSS RATIO

NET PROGRAM

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

2002 23 27 942 1,197 1.271 0.001 1.272 1,198

2003 21 31 2,817 3,206 1.138 0.054 1.084 3,053

2004 0 0 0 0 — — — 0

TOTAL 44 58 3,759 4,403 1.171 1.131 1.131 4,251



Table 10: Industrial Transition Program Savings by End-Use – All Years Combined


NUMBER OF PROJECTS


(KWH/YEAR)


(KWH/YEAR)

REALIZATION RATE


FACTOR

NET-TO-GROSS RATIO

NET PROGRAM SAVINGS

(KWH/YEAR)


20 24 25,464,774 22,419,295 0.880 0.001 0.880 22,406,308


20 26 13,373,759 14,253,722 1.066 0.009 1.057 14,136,385

LIGHTING & HVAC

59 96 9,028,080 9,175,587 1.016 0.030 0.987 8,907,470

PUMPING 8 8 971,608 1,026,705 1.057 0.480 0.576 559,977

OTHER PROCESS

7 7 1,742,027 1,639,409 0.941 0.220 0.721 1,256,518

PNEUMATIC CONVEYING

7 9 5,791,592 5,681,795 0.981 0.001 0.980 5,674,757

MOTORS 5 7 84,836 87,800 1.035 0.009 1.026 87,008

TOTAL 126 177 56,456,676 54,284,313 0.962 0.022 0.939 53,028,423

1 Seventeen customers had projects involving more than one end-use. Therefore the customer count is 126 rather than 109.



Table 11: Industrial Transition Program Peak Demand Reduction by End-Use – All Years Combined


NUMBER OF PROJECTS

PROGRAM-REPORTED

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

ADJUSTED PROGRAM

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

REALIZATION RATE


FACTOR

NET-TO-GROSS RATIO

NET PROGRAM

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)


12 13 1,596 1,638 1.026 0.000 1.026 1,638


12 15 730 1,070 1.466 0.011 1.455 1,062

LIGHTING & HVAC

7 7 115 115 1.000 — 1.000 115

PUMPING 8 8 311 311 1.000 0.286 0.714 222

OTHER PROCESS

3 3 229 237 1.035 0.236 0.799 183

PNEUMATIC CONVEYING

6 7 768 1,022 1.331 — 1.331 1,022

MOTORS 3 5 10 10 1.000 — 1.000 10

TOTAL 51 58 3,759 4,403 1.171 0.040 1.131 4,251



Table 12: Industrial Transition Program Savings by Customer Type – All Years Combined

END-USE NUMBER OF

CUSTOMERS

NUMBER OF

PROJECTS


(KWH/YEAR)


(KWH/YEAR)

REALIZATION RATE


FACTOR

NET-TO-GROSS RATIO

NET PROGRAM SAVINGS

(KWH/YEAR)

FOOD PROCESSING

29 35 21,615,831 18,457,096 0.854 0.004 0.850 18,373,550

IRRIGATION 6 6 1,746,486 1,832,786 1.049 0.000 1.049 1,832,786


8 18 5,609,849 6,935,459 1.236 0.000 1.236 6,935,459

MICRO-ELECTRONICS

6 12 6,227,593 6,227,593 1.000 0.000 1.000 6,227,593

OTHER 27 44 3,600,689 3,579,852 0.994 0.105 0.889 3,202,763

PULP AND PAPER 3 3 3,490,877 3,478,706 0.997 0.000 0.997 3,478,706


5 11 866,873 963,180 1.111 0.054 1.057 916,401

WATER & WASTEWATER

7 14 1,793,940 1,659,915 0.925 0.413 0.512 918,476

WOOD PRODUCTS 18 34 11,504,538 11,149,727 0.969 0.001 0.969 11,142,689

TOTAL 109 177 56,456,676 54,284,313 0.962 0.022 0.939 53,028,423



Table 13: Industrial Transition Program Peak Demand Reduction by Customer Type – All Years Combined

END-USE NUMBER OF

CUSTOMERS

NUMBER OF

PROJECTS

PROGRAM-REPORTED

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

ADJUSTED PROGRAM

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

REALIZATION RATE


FACTOR

NET-TO-GROSS RATIO

NET PROGRAM

PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

FOOD PROCESSING

13 14 1,424 1,301 0.914 0.001 0.914 1,302

IRRIGATION 5 5 62 62 1.000 0.000 1.000 62


3 6 28 533 1.000 0.000 1.000 533

MICRO-ELECTRONICS

1 1 207 227 1.097 0.000 1.097 227

OTHER 1 1 203 160 0.788 0.000 0.788 160

PULP AND PAPER 2 2 138 169 1.224 0.000 1.224 169


3 3 63 63 1.000 0.143 0.857 54

WATER & WASTEWATER

3 4 339 339 1.000 0.422 0.578 196

WOOD PRODUCTS 11 22 1,294 1,548 1.196 0.000 1.196 1,548

TOTAL 42 58 3,759 4,403 1.171 0.040 1.131 4,251



Of particular note in Table 8 above is the net-to-gross ratio of 0.877 for 2003 projects (as compared to over 1.0 for the other years). There were two factors that accounted for the low net-to-gross ratio in 2003:

• Five participants who implemented projects in 2003 had a combined realization rate of 68.6% (none were free riders so their net to gross ratio was also 68.6%). The savings for these projects were significant, making up 33% of the 2003 total.

• A site visit revealed that one participant, making up 3% of the 2003 total, was a 100% free rider. A phone survey revealed that a second customer, making up 1% of the 2003 total, was a 25% free rider.

Site visit reports for each project are provided in Appendix A. There were also several site inspections conducted by Quantec that resulted in realization rates of less than 100%. For details on the reasons for these realization rates, we refer the reader to the Quantec report.

I. Described Non-energy Benefits

Customers described a large range of non-energy benefits. In only a few cases did the plant staff suggest that they expected the benefits beforehand. Some of the non-energy benefits mentioned include the following:

• Improved product quality or productivity

• Water, natural gas, liquid nitrogen, or refrigerant savings

• Reduced maintenance

• Extended equipment life

• Improved system reliability (often for compressed air)

Only two respondents were able to assign a dollar value to the non-energy benefits. However, a number reported distinct improvements in product quality, more consistent pressures and temperatures maintained, improvements in operation ease (typical for control improvements), and increased system capacity. The percent mentions by major categories are described in Table 14 below.



Table 14: Non-energy Benefits Described

NON-ENERGY BENEFIT PERCENT MENTIONS * (N=32)

PRODUCT QUALITY OR PRODUCTIVITY 47%

IMPROVED CONTROL 47%

NATURAL GAS, WATER, OR OTHER COMMODITY 19%

IMPROVED RELIABILITY 22%

REDUCED MAINTENANCE 31%

OTHER BENEFITS 16%

NONE 16%



IV. Observations and Recommendations

Observation: Differences in Operating Assumptions Observed for Evaluated Sites

Differences in basic operating assumptions made by program consultants or by customers themselves can result in large differences in savings estimates. For example, a plant operator may report that the plant operates 90% of the time. However, metered data may indicate operation 50% of the time. Was the operator only providing his or her best guess? Or perhaps the metered results were exceptional in some way? The evaluator must do further investigation to determine what data to apply to determine actual savings. Similarly, the site visit may reveal operating hours that differ substantially from those assumed in the utility’s energy analysis report. For example, the evaluators observed that operating hours had been reduced in some types of facilities, such as wood products facilities, because of the depressed economy. For reductions or increases in operating hours, savings were adjusted proportionally.

Recommendation:

We recommend standardizing the way in which consultants approach selecting and documenting the assumptions they use in their technical studies. To use the example of operating hours, each energy efficiency report could clearly describe the number of shifts, the hours of operation for weekdays and weekends, and the number of holidays per year. This would lead to a description of the measure as it relates to the facility operation.

One of the best ways to determine hours of operation is short-term metering. This is where the evaluators typically found differences from the assumed operation. Short-term metering as part of the program’s baseline analysis, even simple single leg current metering, would establish better data on operational hours and equipment loads. In general, this metering equipment is inexpensive and easy to use. Of course, for the evaluators, a good representation of these data in any report is critical to it being useful later for comparison to the post-installation energy use.

Some of the differences in knowledge and assumptions are related to the sources of information. Each program consultant has access to different information, even on some occasions when they are



working for the same company. Although each of the different sources is credible and reasonable, the standardization of the information would be beneficial. For example, the efficiency of variable speed drives is not always taken into account – a standard table of efficiencies would result in consistent application of this information.

Observation: Evaluation Finds Facility No Longer Operating

One facility, a large food processor, will be closing in fall 2004. This raised the question of how much savings, if any, to attribute to the program from this project.

Recommendation:

For purposes of assessing utility accomplishments under the transition program, MRG used the savings determined through their site visit and analysis, as if the facility were remaining open. However, for purposes of savings claimed by the Energy Trust, MRG provided the Trust a figure for savings that is prorated for the fraction of time the facility operated compared to measure life. This figure is provided in the site visit report.

Observation: Unreasonable Measure Life Assumption

One project evaluated by MRG involved a controls measure that was inexpensive, but had a realization rate of zero because it was not maintained properly by facility staff. Specifically, existing compressed air controls that had been neglected were renovated and put into service again. However, facility staff still did not consistently do what was necessary to maintain the savings from these renovated controls; so savings were not persistent. Thus, the actual measure life of the installed measure was significantly shorter than what might often be assumed for this type of measure by most consulting engineers. A more expensive solution, such as a fully automated control system, may have been justified in this case, so that savings could have persisted despite the lack of maintenance. Alternatively, a controls vendor or consultant could have remained involved to maintain, monitor, and adjust the algorithms on the renovated equipment.



Recommendation:

Program consultants should be alert to these types of situations where poor measure maintenance and operation may compromise long-term measure energy savings. Consultants should be encouraged to focus on optimizing the magnitude and duration of savings, rather than on implementing a least-cost solution. If the consultant proposes a least-cost solution requiring consistent action on the part of staff to maintain savings, the consultant should consider and discuss as appropriate with the customer: 1) whether there are adequate staff at the customer’s facility to do the required ongoing O&M necessary to maintain savings; and 2) whether those staff and their managers are committed to consistent and sustained O&M.

Observation: Variation in Realization Rates from Program Consultant Modeling

The engineering consulting firms performing industrial energy studies use good models, reasoned analytical approaches, and well thought out assumptions. Still, there is a range of model sophistication; there are a number of analytical approaches, and an even wider range of assumptions. Altogether, this alone can lead to a wide variation in savings results.

The approaches used in this evaluation to estimate savings tend toward simple comparisons of measured energy use, using a few basic assumptions. Projected savings were used in many cases where comparisons were within 20%. If the simple estimate fell outside of ±20%, the evaluators undertook a more detailed analysis.

Recommendation:

This situation was brought to light when making calculations for a VFD pumping project, although it applies to a number of others as well. In that case, using assumed motor load values from the original consultant, from the verification report, and from what this evaluator believed to be most appropriate values, provided different actual energy use numbers. And since savings is a difference in energy use, the realization rates were significantly different.



This is a similar concern to our first Observation regarding differences in operating assumptions. In that case, establishing standardized values for consultants to use would help to minimize some differences. In some cases, it would also be useful for program consultants to publish or otherwise make clear in project documents the model used to determine the baseline and savings.

Observation: Site Visits Are Reliable and Cost-Effective for Evaluation

Site visits to the largest customers are a reliable and cost-effective way to determine program savings. The evaluators believe that being on-site to observe equipment, conduct metering, and speak to decision-makers from the facility staff is critical to finding operational and other differences that impact savings. Because often a relatively small number of projects account for a high portion of savings, this is a cost-effective approach.

In a number of situations, information that might be available to help estimate or verify energy savings was not apparent until equipment and systems were directly observed.

Recommendation:

The Energy Trust impact evaluation should continue to use onsite visits for the largest and most critical projects. When possible, the site visit should be performed perhaps three to twelve months after installation to better understand long-term savings and, for some cases, to increase the amount of post-installation energy use data.

Since many of these industrial customers will continue to implement additional projects, it could be beneficial to have the same individuals or firms that are already familiar with the sites and plant staff perform future site visits.

The short-term metering was very effective for data collection and should be continued. The equipment measured one leg of the three-phase current feed to the equipment, which is much simpler and safer than true power measurement (even as it requires several assumptions to be made). It enabled accurate determination of operating schedule and hours, and maximum and average current draw.



Observation: Customer Fatigue with Evaluation

Some companies, particularly larger ones, are weary of what they view as repetitive and expensive project savings evaluation. One company observed that they were paid an incentive of $60,000 for their measures, while they estimated that $40,000 was expended for the utility’s third-party consulting firm to verify the savings. This case was for a single project at one same facility. Several also remarked that, particularly with the transition projects, they have had to interact with a number of different parties for analysis, engineering, incentives, verification, and evaluation.

Recommendation:

Program participants should be told to expect post-installation verification by program delivery contractors and also evaluation by independent third-parties. As suggested above, using the same individuals or organizations to revisit sites will also reduce some fatigue concerns. Thoughtful scheduling when it is possible to collect information on multiple projects would be helpful for reducing fatigue. No matter who or what firm is performing the evaluation, reducing the number of process questions by asking only when new information is needed will be critical to reducing fatigue.

Observation: Data Content and Report Format Variations Among Utility Program Consultants

While many of the consultants’ reports from the utilities’ files were thorough and methodologically sound, key pieces of information were reported in different ways and in different places from one report to another or sometimes not reported at all. Consistency in the type of data collected and the report format would make verification and evaluation much more straightforward, and in some cases, possible.

A number of the consultant reports only provide energy savings and peak demand reduction. Since savings can’t be directly measured, impact evaluation requires comparison to actual predicted usage, not to savings.



Recommendation:

Key pieces of information that energy analysis reports should include are: 1) a very clear and consistent description of the equipment being replaced and the proposed energy efficiency measure or action; 2) baseline annual energy consumption and baseline monthly peak demand for the equipment being replaced; and 3) predicted annual energy use and predicted monthly peak demand for the proposed efficiency measure.

Observation: Approaches for Assessing Demand Reduction

There are well-established approaches for the estimation of energy savings. However, estimating reductions in peak demand appears to have a range of differences in approach and assumptions that may be a source for much of the variation observed. By establishing a set of guidelines for this analysis, or potentially suggesting a set of acceptable approaches, this variation can be reduced, and demand reduction estimates can be improved.

Recommendation:

For efficiency programs where peak demand reduction estimates will be required, a set of guidelines might be established to improve the consistency of results. The guidelines should first ask for a basic description of the methodology used. Three examples would be simple differences in connected load, differences based on calculations from measured demand, or differences based on system simulation modeling. The guidelines should further specify the time period of interest (likely NWPPC Bin 1), and request that issues surrounding facility and equipment system coincidence be addressed.

As other utilities have likely already considered this issue, secondary research would be an additional source for specifications or guidelines appropriate for consistency in peak demand assessment.


Appendices

Appendix A: Energy Trust of Oregon Industrial Transition Project Evaluation Reports

Appendix B: Sample Survey Instrument


Appendices


Appendix A: Energy Trust of Oregon Industrial Transition Project Evaluation

Reports

Project Evaluation Summary – Paper Conversion Plant

INDUSTRY NAICS CODE UTILITY PROJECT NUMBER(S)

Paper Conversion 1094875

322233 1094875

DESCRIPTION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY

MEASURE(S)

UTILITY PROJECT DOCUMENTATION

REVIEWED BY MRG24

OVERVIEW OF MRG SITE VISIT

DATE OF MRG VISIT & PROJECT REPORT

New VFD compressor & small compressor for fire system pressurization

Compressed Air System Energy Assessment and Addendum; Verification Results

Installation confirmed by inspection.

8/4/04 & 9/4/04

TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS REPORTED

BY UTILITY (KWH)

TOTAL SAVINGS VERIFIED BY MRG

(KWH)

REALIZATION RATE FACTORS ATTRIBUTING TO

VARIANCE

375,987

430,800 115% Original analysis conservatism, lower system pressure

PEAK DEMAND REDUCTION

REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)

REALIZATION RATE DEMAND REDUCTION APPROACH

32 62 194% Demand reductions were confirmed from observations.

DESCRIBED NON-ENERGY BENEFITS PARTICIPATION IN BETC

Water savings from replacement of the water-cooled compressor with air-cooled unit.

Unknown

24 MetaResource Group



Description of Energy Efficiency Project

Customer Description

This paper conversion plant converts large paper rolls into consumer paper such as boxed reams.

Baseline Equipment

• Quincy QNW740 modulating compressor.

• Fire suppression system pressurized by the QNW740.

Efficiency Project

• Quincy V150 variable speed compressor.

• Fire suppression system pressurized by a 5-hp reciprocating compressor operated during non-production hours.

• Additional 600-gallon air receiver.

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the compressed air system as described in the Compressed Air System Energy Assessment was 923,579 kWh annually.

Projected Energy Use

Projected energy use deduced from the Compressed Air System Energy Assessment was 599,487 kWh annually.

Projected Energy Savings

Projected energy savings described in the Compressed Air System Energy Assessment was 324,092 kWh annually. The Addendum and Addendum 2 are updated analyses that describe other energy savings figures, but none of them appear to be used in any other document.



The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 375,987 kWh annually.

Other Project Benefits

The plant has experienced water savings of $14,000 annually by replacing the water-cooled compressor with the air-cooled VFD unit. Addendum 2 estimates cooling water used at 5.25 million gallons per year.

Description of Measure Verification and Inspection by MetaResource Group

Factors Attributing to Variance

Differences between projected energy savings as reported by the utility and the energy savings as determined by MRG are due to the following reasons:

1. Energy savings as determined in this report are measured rather than calculated.

2. Original analysis included a 10% “safety factor” – decreasing predicted savings.

3. The system pressure is now lower – 94 psig vs. 105-110 psig previously.

4. Some system leaks have been repaired, reducing demand (but there is no regular procedure for compressed air leak detection and repair).

Determination of Actual Energy Savings

The metering data was used to calculate actual energy savings. Compressor motor current was used to calculate kWh energy use for the week the meter was installed, which was prorated to an entire year. This energy use was subtracted from the assumed baseline to determine actual energy savings.

Utility Project Documentation Reviewed

• Compressed Air System Energy Assessment, October 2002.

• Compressed Air System Energy Assessment Addendum.

• Compressed Air System Energy Assessment Addendum 2, May 2003.



• Verification Results, June 11, 2003.

Site Visit Description and Findings

A brief site visit was performed by Steven Scott of MetaResource Group. The site visit involved the following activities and resulting findings:

• Confirmation of Operating Parameters

− Efficiency project equipment was installed and observed operating.

− System pressure was 94 psig.

− Variable speed compressor was following load.

− Because of increased production hours (varies seasonally), the small reciprocating compressor for non-production pressurization of the fire suppression system was not operating at this time.

• Metering

− One week of VFD compressor current was recorded.

• Free Ridership

− No full or partial free ridership observed – 0% score.

• Spillover

− No other projects at this facility have been pursued that can be attributed to the utility program.

• Remaining Potential

There are a number of additional efficiency opportunities being considered for this facility:

− VFD cooling fan for air compressor (since installation this has become an available option for this compressor).

− Establishment of a regular program of compressed air leak detection and repair.



− Review and upgrade of the pneumatic waste collection system.

− Evaluation of regenerative braking option for control of unwinding paper rolls.

− Review of efficiency options for hydraulic pump motors.

− Evaluation of VFD process control for paper trimming system.

• Measures Not Implemented

− Other measures recommended by the Compressed Air System Energy Assessment were exclusive options to the measures installed and therefore could not be implemented by the customer.

Summary of Project Savings

MEASURE REPORTED SAVINGS (KWH/KW)

INSTALLED SAVINGS (KWH/KW)

REALIZATION RATE

NEW VFD COMPRESSOR AND SMALL COMPRESSOR FOR FIRE SYSTEM PRESSURIZATION

375,987

32

430,800

62

115%

194%



Project Evaluation Summary – Wastewater Treatment Plant


Waste Water Treatment

221320

1088282


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG25



Dissolved oxygen setpoint change

Energy Efficiency Study and Verification Results

Installation confirmed by description

8/25/04 & 9/26/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

262,080 145,200 55% Differences between assumed and actual system parameters.


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)


0 0 Not applicable Demand reductions were deemed.


None described Not applicable



A blower system at this wastewater treatment plant provides pressurized air to the aeration basins to control dissolved oxygen setpoint. A lower setpoint would result in lower air volume requirements, which would have lower energy demand.




Baseline Equipment

• The Verification Report describes the previously-used year around dissolved oxygen setpoint of 5.0 mg/l.

Efficiency Project

• The Verification Report describes the use of a summer “dry season” dissolved oxygen setpoint of 2.5 mg/l.

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the aeration blower system as described in the Energy Efficiency Study was 2,300,000 kWh annually.


Projected energy use deduced from the Energy Efficiency Study was 1,600,000 kWh annually.


Projected energy savings described in the Energy Efficiency Study was 700,000 kWh annually.



No other benefits were described.






1. Differences between the assumed baseline dissolved oxygen settings and those observed by MRG. Baseline summer setting was assumed at 5.0 mg/l, while actual values average 3.5 mg/l for June through August of 2002. On a monthly rolling average basis, the maximum value for DO found in 2002-2003 was 3.9 mg/l.

2. The Verification Report based savings on a test of the blower system for various flows and dissolved oxygen results. The MRG savings figure compare the blower system power for an entire year before and after the measure was implemented.


• Energy Efficiency Study, October 2002.

• Verification Results, December 31, 2003.




− System Dissolved Oxygen Setpoint: The Energy Study assumed a summer setpoint of 2.0 to 2.5 mg/l and the Verification Results reports use of a setpoint of 2.5 mg/l. MRG found the setpoint to average 2.6 mg/l for June through August 2003.


The annual blower energy use was calculated using the data provided by the customer for both the baseline operation assumed during 2002 and for the measure condition in 2003. The difference between these is the actual energy savings.

• Metering

− Hourly annual system data on blower current, blower volume, and dissolved oxygen measurements was collected for the treatment plant for 2002 and 2003 – each the year before and after the measure was implemented.



• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− Three additional aeration basins on the east side of the plant were reported to have adopted the same approach of lower summer dissolved oxygen settings (there are two on the west side). The east side has peak capacity of 40 MGD instead of the 20 MGD of the west side.


− Aside from the measure not implemented as mentioned below, there was no remaining potential described by the customer.


− There is potential for making a change to digester mixing as outlined in the Energy Efficiency Study.




REALIZATION RATE

DISSOLVED OXYGEN SETPOINT CHANGE 262,080

0

145,200

0

55%



Project Evaluation Summary – Primary Wood Products


Primary Wood Products 321113

Quad Mill 1093599 & Twin Mill 1095709


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG26



Compressed air improvements: load-unload controls, sequencer, & receivers

Revised Compressed Air Energy Evaluation; Quad and Twin Mill Compressed Air System Inspection; “Verification Results

Installation confirmed by inspection

8/3/04 & 9/5/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

Quad Mill 246,554 Twin Mill 179,818

0 179,818

0% 100%

Pressure setpoint increase, increase in leak loads, no maintenance of controls, new compressor not integrated with controls


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)


0 0 Not applicable Demand reductions were deemed.


None No






The Twin and Quad Mills for this company are both primary wood products manufacturing plants producing dimensional lumber. The mills are adjacent to each other and share some infrastructure, but have independent compressed air systems.

Baseline Equipment

• Quad Mill

− 150-HP load/unload air compressor.



− Underutilized sequencer.

• Twin Mill

− 200-HP modulating air compressor.


Efficiency Project

• Quad Mill

− Add two 3,000-gallon receivers.

− Adjust existing sequencer to properly control the three compressors.

− Adjust compressed air pressure settings to 80 psig.

• Twin Mill

− Add two 2,520-gallon receivers.



− Add load/unload controls to 200-HP compressor.

− Add ConservAir intermediate control valve and adjust setpoints so 150-HP compressor load/unloads as trim machine.

− Adjust compressed air pressure settings to 80 psig.

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the Quad Mill as described in the Revised Compressed Air Energy Evaluation was 2,034,948 kWh annually.

Baseline energy use for the Twin Mill as described in the Revised Compressed Air Energy Evaluation was 1,961,364 kWh annually.


Projected energy use for the Quad Mill deduced from the Revised Compressed Air Energy Evaluation was 1,788,394 kWh annually.

Projected energy use for the Quad Mill deduced from the Revised Compressed Air Energy Evaluation was 1,781,546 kWh annually.


Projected energy savings for the Quad Mill described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 246,554 kWh annually.

Projected energy savings for the Twin Mill described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 179,818 kWh annually.








1. The Revised Compressed Air Energy Report and the System Inspection recommended an 80 psig setpoint at the header for both mills while the systems were operated at about 100 psig.

2. While a number of compressed air leaks were apparently resolved at the time of measure installation, leak loads in the Quad Mill were described as being significant at the time of the site visit requiring a compressor run during non-production hours.

3. Maintenance/adjustment of the Quad Mill controls appeared to be insufficient to ensure savings.

4. A new 150-HP compressor was installed to replace a unit at the Quad Mill. This compressor had modulating controls, rather than load/unload, and it was not integrated into the existing control system.

5. Mechanical and electrical maintenance of each mill is independent and managed by different individuals with potentially different approaches to compressed air systems management.


Data on run-time hours of each compressor was used to calculate actual energy savings. One-time measures of compressor motor current were also used with hours to calculate kWh energy use for the time period of the run-time hours, which was prorated to an entire year. This energy use was subtracted from the assumed baseline to determine actual energy savings. In the case of the Quad Mill, when calculated energy use was greater than reported baseline energy use, zero savings were assigned.


• Revised Compressed Air Energy Evaluation, November 12, 2002.

• Quad and Twin Mill Compressed Air System Inspection, February 19, 2003.



• Verification Results – Quad Mill & Twin Mill, February 13, 2003, by D. Findlay of ESG.




− 100 psig header pressures were described.

− New Quad Mill compressor modulating control and not integrated into sequencer.

• Metering

− The hours of operation for each compressor were collected. One-time metering of loaded motor current for three Quad Mill compressors was performed and for the new compressor no load current was metered.

• Free Ridership

− No full or partial free ridership observed – score 0%.

• Spillover

− No evidence of spillover was observed.


− The dust collection system is in need of upgrade and could be a source for efficiency improvements.

− Another plant has been looking at lighting improvements.


− Most other measures recommended by the Compressed Air Energy Evaluation were exclusive options to the measures installed and therefore could not be implemented by the customer. However, one recommendation to reduce air leaks was not being pursued on a regular basis.






REALIZATION RATE

QUAD MILL 246,554

0

0

0

0%

TWIN MILL 179,818

0

179,818

0

100%

TOTAL 426,372

0

179,818

0

42%



Project Evaluation Summary – Semiconductor Manufacturer


Semiconductor Manufacturing

334413 1) 1072143; 2) 1088765; 3) 1094732


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG27



1) Integrated flow meters into FMS; 2) Discharge temperature changes - Fab 20 1.75ºF; RB1 2.7ºF; D1C 6.0ºF; 3.0) Control strategy changes for MU Air Handling Units; 3.1) Reduce discharge temperature

Energy Efficiency Study; Verification and Testing; Verification Results

Measures described during site visit.

9/27/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

4,544,811

4,544,811

100% No substantial operating differences observed


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)


0 0 Not applicable. Demand reductions were deemed.


Improved temperature control, decreased natural gas consumption, fewer chillers operated

Yes






These facilities manufacture microprocessors and related integrated circuits.

Baseline and Efficiency Project

• Project 1 - integrated flow meters into FMS

• Project 2 – Discharge temperature changes:

− Fab 20 1.75ºF reduction

− RB1 2.7ºF reduction

− D1C 6.0ºF reduction

• Project 3 – Control strategy changes for MU Air Handling Units and reduce discharge temperature

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use was not described in the Energy Efficiency Study.


Projected energy savings described in the Energy Efficiency Study were as follows:

1. 2,322,211 kWh annually

2. 808,700 kWh annually

3.0 1,218,400 kWh annually

3.1 195,500 kWh annually

The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Reports and reported by the utility were the same as the figures above.




Due to the make-up air handler control changes, these facilities have the best temperature control of any in the company – three times better with a very small standard deviation.

There has been a measurable drop in natural gas consumption due to the control changes.

For one of the spillover facilities, they run only one of two glycol chillers (and half of cooling tower fans, condenser pumps, and chilled water pump) whereas two were run before.



No substantial operating differences observed.


There were no metering opportunities or long-term system operations data to calculate actual energy savings. As a number of the critical operating parameters were confirmed, the utility reported savings were deemed.


• Energy Efficiency Study, October 2001.

• Verification and Testing, July 2002.

• Verification Results, October 7, 2002.

• Verification Results, August 12, 2003.






− The critical operating parameters are the make-up air handler temperature changes. The following were observed that matched the temperatures in the Verification Reports:

Fab 20 69.5ºF (was 70.25ºF)

RB1 70.0ºF (was 70.25ºF)

D1C 69.0ºF (was 70.25ºF)

• Metering

− Metering was not feasible and no customer data was offered.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− Spillover has involved implementation of the make-up air handler control strategy in two additional local fab facilities. Additionally, this experience has lead to the preparation of an internal company white paper on the subject, with recent adoption by a facility in another state. This control approach has now become a company-wide “best known approach.”


− Planning on control improvements, energy efficiency opportunities, and changes to meet production requirements are ongoing with Intel.

− Some particular projects are humidification system changes, vacuum pump VFD and heat recovery.


− Measures recommended by the Energy Efficiency Study that were not implemented by the customer include the following items (unless otherwise noted, these measures could not be shown to meet Intel criteria for maintaining process standards):



Retrofit existing atomizing humidifiers (being implemented without incentives)

Optimize fab exhaust to reduce make-up air volumes

Run additional make-up air handlers in parallel

Raise the chilled water temperature

Change air filter specifications




REALIZATION RATE

1) ADDED FLOW METERS AND INTEGRATED THEM INTO THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITH PROGRAMMING

2,322,211

0

2,322,211

0

100%

2) FAB 20 (FORMERLY D1B) - TEMP CHANGE 1.75 DEGREES 195,500 KWH; RB1 TEMP CHANGE 2.7 DEGREES 204,500 KWH; D1C TEMP CHANGE 6 DEGREES 408,700 KWH

808,700

0

808,700

0

100%

3.0) CHANGES IN CONTROL STRATEGY FOR THE MAKEUP AIR HANDLING UNITS IN FAB 20.

1,218,400

0

1,218,400

0

100%

3.1) REDUCE DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE

195,500

0

195,500

0

100%

TOTAL 4,544,811

0

4,544,811

0

100%



Project Evaluation Summary – Water Treatment Plant


Water Treatment Plant 221310 1044559


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG28



VFD and efficient motor and new pump for intake station

Energy Analysis Letter Report and Verification Results


8/4/04 & 8/18/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

225,298 272,000 121% As operated differences and backwash reduction


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)


154 154 100% Demand reductions were deemed.


The VFD has significantly improved plant operations. It has resulted in better performance from the filter and longer runs between filter cycles. The surge valve is no longer needed with VFD soft start.

Not applicable

Detailed Description of Energy Efficiency Project


This city’s river intake pumping station is the first step of the city’s water treatment system.




Baseline Equipment

• Motor, US Motors 350-hp, efficiency 91.5%.

• Pump, Peabody FloWay, Type 24MKM, two-stage, 6,500 gpm.

• Discharge valve for controlling pump output.

Efficiency Project

• Motor, US Motors 350-hp inverter duty, efficiency 95.4%.

• Pump, FloWay, Type 24MKM, two-stage, 6,250 gpm.

• Variable frequency drive, Allen Bradley, 1336 Plus II, efficiency 97.5%.

• Control system for maintaining treatment plant clearwell level.

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use as estimated by the consulting engineer was 1,907,400 kWh annually. Baseline energy use in the Verification Report was 1,602,826 kWh annually.


Projected energy use for the pump with the VFD as estimated by Hatten/Johnson Associates was 1,616,200 kWh annually. Measured energy use in the Verification Report was 1,395,528 kWh annually.

Projected energy savings described by Hatten/Johnson Associates was 291,200 kWh annually. The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 225,298 kWh annually.


Implementing this VFD project for the primary water supply pump has significantly improved operations for the water treatment plant. The filters are sensitive to rapid changes in hydraulic pressure and the smoother operation from the automated control of clearwell level using the VFD



has resulted in better performance from the filters and longer runs between filter cycles. Due to the latter, there are some very small additional energy savings from less operation of the backwash pumps. A surge valve is no longer needed with the soft start capability of the VFD.




1. Inclusion of most recent information on plant operation and throughput.

2. Accounting for the reduction in backwash cycles.

3. Differences in assumptions and calculation approaches.


The annual daily flow data was used to build a model of likely pump sequencing (there are three pumps used). A revised baseline operation model was created based on these actual flows, and another model with VFD operation. The total hours of VFD pump usage was very close to that stated by operations personnel. The difference between the baseline and VFD models are the actual energy savings. Some additional savings were included from the decrease in filter backwash cycles. The calculations used to estimate savings in the Energy Analysis Letter Report could not be duplicated.


• Energy Analysis Letter Report, May 24, 1999.

• Verification Results, December 17, 2002.





• Confirmation of Equipment Installation and Operating Parameters

− System daily flows

− Hours of operation

− Backwash operation

− Non-energy benefits

• Metering

− Annual system daily flow and backwash data was collected for the Pumping Station.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− Because of the very positive experience that the city had with this VFD pumping approach, other water providers have been interested and two are implementing the same approach for their pumping stations.

− At the treatment plant occupancy sensors for lighting have been installed, but they couldn’t say that implementing the VFD pumping project was an influence.


− All remaining city water-pumping stations are being considered for VFD options, and the water treatment plant itself was reviewed for efficiency options, and potential for efficient motors, but none of these appear feasible or cost effective at this time.


− All measures recommended in the Energy Analysis Letter Report were implemented by the customer.






REALIZATION RATE

PUMP NO. 4 VFD 225,298

154

272,000

154

121%

100%



Project Evaluation Summary – Animal Food Manufacturing


Animal Food Manufacturing

311119 1061610


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG29



VFD Air Compressor Compressed Air Energy Analysis and Verification Results.

Installation confirmed by observation.

8/19/04& 9/23/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

414,024

182,600

44%

Higher system pressure, lower drive efficiency, limited maintenance and operations differences


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




More reliable compressed air system Unknown



This plant manufactures animal feed.




Baseline Equipment

Purchase of a used, fixed-speed screw air compressor was considered as the baseline for this project.

Efficiency Project

• 150-HP screw air compressor with external variable frequency drive.

• Not as part of the project and paid for directly by the customer, they also installed a new receiver and a new air dryer.

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use as described in the Verification Report was 916.448 kWh annually.


Projected energy use as described in the Verification Report was 502,424 kWh annually.




Other project benefits were described as a more reliable compressed air system.






1. A higher system and compressor pressure, 114 psig, was observed than the 100 psig assumed by the Energy Analysis.

2. A lower VFD efficiency of 90-95% is likely compared to the 96-98% efficiency used for the analysis quoted in Verification Results.

3. Limited attention to plant maintenance and operations were observed in terms of leak maintenance, equipment setpoints, and machine scheduling.


The metering data was used to calculate actual energy savings. Compressor motor current was used to calculate kWh energy use for the days that the meter was installed, which was prorated to an entire year. This energy use was subtracted from the assumed baseline to determine actual energy savings.


• Compressed Air Energy Analysis, August 2000.

• Verification Results, July 1, 2002.




− System pressure of 102 psig.

− Compressor operating pressure of 114 psig.

− Dryer in timed rather than in demand control mode.

− Air compressor in direct line operation due to failure of VFD unit.

− Open cover and personal fan observed on VFD unit to alleviate overheating (an air conditioner and enclosure is a likely solution for next summer).



• Metering

− One and one-half days of metering were collected before the VFD unit failed and the air compressor was restarted in across the line mode. It was not repaired before this evaluation was completed and so no additional metering was possible.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− No significant spillover was described.


− According to the maintenance supervisor, there are always potential efficiency opportunities for their facility, but he did not define any.


− Other measures recommended by the Compressed Air Energy Analysis were exclusive options to the measures installed and therefore could not be implemented by the customer.




REALIZATION RATE

VFD AIR COMPRESSOR 414,024

0

182,600

0

44%



Project Evaluation Summary – Fish And Seafood Wholesaler


Fish and Seafood Wholesaler

424460 1095728


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG30



Efficient refrigeration system incl. computer control; efficient condensing; efficient compressor; efficient evaporators

Verification Results, Energy Analysis Report

All measure equipment and features were found installed and in use

8/19/04 & 9/23/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

996,000 973,200 98% None


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




A dependable system needing less maintenance that can be monitored remotely. Temperatures are more constant.

Yes



Pacific Seafood is a fresh and frozen fish and seafood distribution facility.




Baseline Equipment

• Slide-valve capacity control compressors with standard efficiency motors (four units)

• Slide-valve capacity control compressors with standard efficiency motors

• Liquid injection oil cooling

• Fixed-speed evaporator fans with standard efficiency motors

• Fixed-speed condenser fans with standard efficiency motors

• Electromechanical control system

Efficiency Project

• Slide-valve capacity control compressors with premium efficiency motors (two units)

• Variable-speed capacity control compressors with premium efficiency motors (two units)

• Thermosiphon oil cooling

• Oversized evaporator coils with variable speed fans and premium efficiency motors

• Variable speed condenser fans with premium efficiency motors

• Computer control system.

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 1,823,129 kWh annually.


Projected energy use deduced from the Energy Analysis Report was 849,931 kWh annually.


Projected energy savings described in the Energy Analysis Report was 973,198 kWh annually.





The operations manager described that this ammonia refrigeration system as much more dependable and requires less maintenance. It can be monitored remotely (by our service provider) so they have more peace of mind. The system also holds more constant temperatures.



Differences between projected energy savings as reported by the utility and the energy savings as determined by MRG are likely due to small differences in the loading, usage, maintenance, and operation of the refrigeration system. For example, a 90 psig minimum condensing pressure was recommended, but the setpoint is at 100 psig.


There were no metering opportunities or long-term system operations data to calculate actual energy savings. Simple annual energy calculations using compressor run-time hours resulted in estimated energy use that was approximately 20% less than the predicted value. As the “verified” energy savings value was greater than the originally predicted savings, the original savings value was used.


• Energy Analysis Report, October 30, 2002.







− Evaporator fan speeds for the four cooler zones:

Maximum speeds 90%, 100%, 100%, 100%

Minimum speeds 40%, 40%, 40%, 40%

− Evaporator fan speeds for the four freezer zones:

Maximum speeds 95%, 100%, 100%, 100%

Minimum speeds 40%, 40%, 40%, 40%

− Evaporator fan speeds for four deli zones:

Maximum 80%, 100%, 100%, 100%

Minimum 40%, 40%, 40%, 40%

− Condenser fan speed:

Maximum 100%

Minimum 10%

− Condenser pressure setpoint – 100 psig

• Metering

− Compressor run hours was collected to estimate energy use for the refrigeration system and therefore energy savings.

• Free Ridership

− Although it is likely that an ammonia system would have been used in this new construction facility, the remainder of the efficiency measures would not have been installed and no equipment was ordered in advance – 0% score.

• Spillover

− No spillover was described.




− The operations manager suggested that high-speed doors could be applied to their refrigerated and frozen storage.


− All measures recommended by the Energy Analysis Report were implemented by the customer.




REALIZATION RATE

EFFICIENT REFRIGERATION SYSTEM 996,000

33

973,200

33

98%

100%



Project Evaluation Summary – Metals Casting


Metals Casting 331522

1) 1053896; 2) 1080951; 3) 1087960; 4) 1098703; 5) 1101976; 6) 1102688


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG31



1) Sequencer for 4 Titanium Plant air compressors, receiver, and intermediate controller. 2) VFDs on fans of 2 cooling towers and a chilled water pump; 3) Sequencer for 3 Steel Plant air compressors, receivers; load/unload controls; piping, plant modifications for 90 psig; 4) Blower motor replacement with NEMA premium efficiency motor; 5) Sequencer for 2 Crosswhite Plant air compressors, a receiver, and piping; 6) VFD on Master Melt #1 Hot Well Pump

Various Energy Analysis and Verification Reports

Installation confirmed by observation

09/02/04 & 9/27/04

Continued





BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

1,989,578 3,240,634 163% Primarily differences in assumed vs. actual operating conditions


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)


0 505 Not applicable. Demand reductions were confirmed from observations.


1, 3, 5) Improved operation – reduced operations requirements; 6) Improved level control and reduced overflow.

Yes



This facility manufactures specialty castings in steel and titanium at this facility.

Baseline and Efficiency Equipment

• Project 1 - Sequencer for four Titanium Plant Air Compressors

− Baseline – four manually controlled air compressors

− Efficiency – Sequencer controlling all four air compressors

• Project 2 – Cooling Tower #1, #4 and #5 VFD

− Baseline – six fixed-speed fans for three cooling towers and one secondary chilled water pump

− Efficiency – VFD for the six cooling tower fans and for the pump



• Project 3 – Sequencer for Three Air Compressors in Steel Plant

− Baseline – three manually controlled air compressors

− Efficiency – Sequencer controlling three air compressors

• Project 4 – NEMA Premium Efficiency Motor

− Baseline – Standard efficiency motor had failed in use – rewinding motor was baseline assumption

− Efficiency – New 60-hp motor with NEMA nominal efficiency of 95.0%

• Project 5 – Sequencer for Two Air Compressors At Crosswhite Plant

− Baseline – two manually-controlled air compressors

− Efficiency – Sequencer controlling two air compressors, receiver, and cross-connect systems.

• Project 6 – VFD on Master Melt #1 Hot Well Pump

− Baseline – Pumps control level based on float switches.

− Efficiency – Pumps control level constantly variable pump speed using VFD.

Baseline and Projected Energy Use


− Baseline energy use was. 4,030,401 kWh annually

− Projected energy use was 3,752,539 kWh annually


− Baseline energy use included other measures that were not implemented

− Projected energy use included other measures that were not implemented




− Baseline energy use was 3,256,604 kWh annually



− NA

• Project 5 – Sequencer for Two Air Compressors at Crosswhite Plant

− Baseline energy use was 1,918,192 kWh annually



− NA

Projected and Reported Energy Savings


− Projected energy savings were 277,862 kWh annually

− Revised energy savings were 350,000 kWh annually

− Reported energy savings were 359,463 kWh annually


− Projected energy savings was 535,000 kWh annually

− Reported energy savings was 345,000 kWh annually


− Projected energy savings was 454,220 kWh annually

− Revised energy savings was 440,600 kWh annually











For Projects 1, 3, and 5 the customer described improved operations and reduced manual operating requirements. For Project 6, the customer cited improved hot-well level control and reduced overflow.




• Project 1 - Sequencer for Four Titanium Plant Air Compressors

− Compressed air usage may have changed.

− Savings are based upon measured energy usage.


− Recalculation of baseline energy was necessary.

− Savings are based upon measured energy usage for CT #1 and prorated for CT#4 and #5.




− Compressed air usage has changed.



− Energy savings for this project were deemed.



− Actual savings were somewhat better than Energy Analysis estimates. That original analysis was likely conservative.


− Recalculation of baseline energy was necessary.



A variety of metering was undertaken as described above and below to determine actual energy savings.


− Compressor motor current was used to calculate kWh energy use for the period that metering was installed, which was prorated to the full year. This energy use was subtracted from the baseline to determine actual energy savings.


− The energy consumption models used by the consultants were used to recalculate actual savings

− Metering data was used to recalibrate the energy savings models.



− Savings for CT #4 and #5 were prorated based on the savings for #1 and savings for the VFD pump were deemed.




− Energy savings for this project were deemed.




− VFD motor current and backup pump on/off was used to calculate kWh energy use for the period that metering was installed, which was prorated to the full year. This energy use was subtracted from a recalibrated baseline to determine actual energy savings.



− Compressed Air Energy Analysis, June 2001.

− Verification Results, December 24, 2002.


− Chilled Water Energy Study, October 12, 2001.





− Compressed Air Energy Analysis, March 25, 2002.

− Project Evaluation, September 2, 2003.

− Verification Results, March 17, 2004.




− Compressed Air Energy Analysis, May 2003.



− Verification Results, December 31, 2003, by D. Findlay of ESG.


Several site visits were performed by Steven Scott of MetaResource Group. The site visit involved observation of the installed measures and metering installations.

• Metering

The following metering was performed:

− Project 1 - Sequencer for Four Titanium Plant Air Compressors

One week of current metering for four compressors.

− Project 2 – Cooling Tower #1, #4 and #5 VFD

One week of current metering for two fans of CT#1.



− Project 3 – Sequencer for Three Air Compressors in Steel Plant

One week of current metering for three compressors.

− Project 4 – NEMA Premium Efficiency Motor

No metering was performed for this project.

− Project 5 – Sequencer for Two Air Compressors at Crosswhite Plant

One week of current metering for two compressors.

− Project 6 – VFD on Master Melt #1 Hot Well Pump

One week of current metering for primary VFD pump plus on/off recording for backup pump.

• Free Ridership

− No full or partial free ridership observed for all projects – 0% score.

• Spillover and Remaining Potential

− The customer continues to implement efficiency projects with the Energy Trust.


− For the most part, all of the measures recommended by the various energy analysis reports were implemented by the customer. In a few cases, there were exclusive options to the installed measures that were not selected by the customer.






REALIZATION RATE

1) SEQUENCER TITANIUM-4 COMP 359,463

0

959,800

0

267%

2) VFD COOLING TOWER FAN & PUMP 345,000

0

467,500

48

136%

3) SEQUENCER STEEL-3 AIR COMP. 440,600

0

848,200

250

193%

4) NEMA PREMIUM MOTOR 10,934

0

10,934

0

100%

5) SEQUENCER CROSSWHITE-2 COMP 751,131

0

910,400

190

121%

6) VFD MASTER MELT PUMP 43,800

0

82,450

17

53%

TOTAL 1,989,578

0

3,240,634

505

163%



Project Evaluation Summary – Food Processing


Frozen Fruit Manufacturing

311411 1101653, 1101916 & 1102690


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG32



New condenser w/ VFD fans; thermosiphon oil cooling; modify compressors and piping; high-speed freezer and cooler doors

Energy Analysis Report and Verification Results


8/30/04 & 9/20/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

787,503 1,086,388 138% Use of actual performance data


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




Improved safety, improved freezing capacity and less product lost Yes



This facility prepares frozen fruit products such as blueberries, strawberries, and bananas.




Baseline Equipment

• Inadequate condenser with fixed speed fans

• Manual door on freezer

• Manual door on Number 3 cooler

• Manual control system

Efficiency Project

• Oversized condenser with VFD fans


• Compressor modifications

• Piping modifications to allow cooler isolation

• Automatic high speed door on freezer

• Automatic high speed door on Number 3 cooler

• Computer control system

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the refrigeration system as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 2,150,751 kWh annually.


Projected energy use as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 1,363,248 kWh annually.


Projected energy savings as deduced from the Energy Analysis Report and reported by the utility was 787,503 kWh annually.




The oversized condenser and the new controls have lead to improved safety as head pressures are maintained much lower and venting of ammonia by pop-off valves no longer occurs. Also associated with the lower head pressures is an improvement in freezing capacity, which has lead to less product being downgraded to low quality or other “lost” to it’s highest value.

Use of liquid N2 for supplemental freezing capacity has been constant, despite increased plant throughput.

The automatic high-speed doors are considered to be very effective, as no amount of training or encouragement motivated staff to keep manual cooler and freezer doors closed when not in use.

The plant manager now has a way to be certain that his maintenance staff is accountable and responsible for proper system operation and maintenance through the computer control system and the system is much more labor-efficient for the maintenance staff. System problems have been much less, and freezer and cooler temperatures have been more stable. Separating the cooler load from the freezing tunnel has improved capacity for their fruit freezing operations.



Differences between projected energy savings as reported by the utility and the energy savings as determined by MRG are due to the following reason:

• Use of actual system performance data by MRG. The original estimate of measure energy use appears to have been conservative.


The annual refrigeration compressor and condenser fan energy use was calculated using the data provided by the control systems vendor for the retrofit condition. These values were compared to the original baseline refrigeration energy use to determine the actual energy savings.

Energy use for the high-speed doors was deemed.




• Energy Analysis Report, April 2, 2003.

• Verification Results, Freezer Door, March 28, 2003.

• Verification Results, Cooler Door, February 3, 2004.

• Verification Results, Refrigeration System, August 15, 2003.




− 155,000 freezer door openings since installation

− 74,719 cooler door openings since installation

− Control system setpoints:

Discharge pressure 120 psig

Approach setpoint 14º F

Suction pressure 0 psig

Condenser fan speed maximum 100% and minimum 20%

• Metering

− Annual compressor load (kW) and condenser fan speed data was provided by the control system vendor.

• Free Ridership




• Spillover

− No spillover described.


− Possible compressed air improvements.

− Possible VFD evaporator fans.






REALIZATION RATE

NEW CONDENSER W/ VFD FANS; THERMOSIPHON OIL COOLING; MODIFY COMPRESSORS

668,715

0

967,600

0

145%

INSTALLATION OF HIGH-SPEED DOOR ON FREEZER

63,800

0

63,800

0

100%

REPLACED DOOR ON NUMBER 3 COOLER WITH HIGH-SPEED DOOR

54,988

0

54,988

0

100%

TOTAL 787,503

0

1,086,388

0

138%



Project Evaluation Summary – Wastewater Treatment Plant


Wastewater Treatment Plant

221320

1058915


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG33



Efficient aeration blowers

Technical Review Comments; variety of notes & calculations


8/5/04 & 9/10/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

257,416 204,000 79% Difference in assumption of pressure setpoint and air flow requirements


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




New aeration system has become critical to how they operate – the new blowers provide better turn down ratio and are integral part of major process renovation at the plant.

Not applicable






This project at a wastewater treatment plant was a major renovation of the plant, including an entirely new aeration method, replacing the surface aerators with a fine aeration from the tank bottom. A blower system provides the pressurized air to the aeration basins to control dissolved oxygen setpoint.

Baseline Equipment

• Four Lamson Model 1260 blowers with 250-HP premium efficiency motors were assumed as baseline equipment.

Efficiency Project

• Three Turblex KA5SV-GK200 blowers with 200-HP premium efficiency motors.

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the aeration system was described in the project notes as 1,908,642 kWh annually.


Projected energy use described in the project notes was 1,552,469 kWh annually.


Projected energy savings described in the project notes was 356,173 kWh annually.

The estimated energy savings described in the Technical Review Comments was 350,000 kWh annually. The energy savings from the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 257,416 kWh annually.




The new aeration system has become critical to how they operate the treatment plant. The new blowers provide a better turn-down ratio and are integral part of major process renovation at the plant.




1. Difference in assumptions of pressure setpoint – a discharge pressure of 8.3 psig was assumed in calculations and a 7.15 psig pressure was used for the Verification Results and also observed at the site visit. The annual average pressure is 7.37 psig.

2. Differences in air flow requirements – two-thirds of hours had been assumed to be flows above 6000 scfm, while actual flows appear to never exceed 4000 scfm (annual average assumed flows were 6,050 scfm while actual annual average flows are 2,800 scfm.).


Actual energy savings were determined by looking at actual air flows for the year after measure installation. The actual air flows and number of hours at each flow were used in the original calculations for both baseline and for measure – that is, the energy requirements from the original calculations were used for each flow for the baseline and for the measure condition.


• Undated notes, calculations and blower specifications, by consulting engineer.

• Technical Review Comments, May 23, 2000.

• Verification Results, September 27, 2002.






− Header pressure of 7.15 psig was observed.

− Guide vane on operating blower was set at 3.1 in a range of 2 to 8.5.

− Blower motor current was 100 Amps.

• Metering

− Twelve months of system operating printouts were provided for the treatment plant parameters and used to determine project savings.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− Another treatment facility in the same city is applying for incentives to install a small Turblex blower for use during low aeration requirements.


− For this facility, there may be remaining potential in improving the efficiency of clarifier return pumps.


− There were no measures recommended by the Energy Analysis Report that were not implemented by the customer.






REALIZATION RATE

EFFICIENT AERATION BLOWERS 257,416

42

204,000

42

79%

100%



Project Evaluation Summary – Secondary Wood Products


Secondary Wood Products

321911 1087074


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG34



Retrofit fan and motor on dust collection system; install controls

Dust Collection Energy Study and Verification Results


8/2/04 & 8/17/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

332,429 300,100 90% 1) Reconciliation of energy use and savings cited in Energy Study 2) Differences between the reported system pressure setting and hours of operation and those observed by MRG


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




There has been a significant reduction in system plugging. Value is estimated at approximately $21,000 annually.

Yes






The customer is a secondary wood products manufacturing facility.

Baseline Equipment

• Two dust collection system fans of 125 hp and 75 hp

• Transfer fan of 60 HP

Efficiency Project

• One dust collection system airfoil fan of 125 hp

• Transfer fan replaced by 15-hp high-pressure blower

• Inlet vanes and controls for maintaining constant system pressure

• Three automatic gates to close lines when equipment is shut down

• Automatic system shut down after timeout based on all gates closed

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the dust collection system as measured was 542,330 kWh annually.


Projected energy use deduced from the Dust Collection Energy Study, dated November 2001, was 303,364 kWh annually.


Projected energy savings described in the Dust Collection Energy Study, dated November 2001, was 271,165 kWh annually. Note that the baseline, projected energy use, and projected energy savings in the QEI report do not reconcile.



The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report, dated October 23, 2002, and reported by the utility was 332,429 kWh annually.


There has been a significant reduction in system plugging. When the measures were first installed, plugging was a problem at a pressure setting of 8.5", but the system hasn't plugged in about 1.5 years with current setting of 11.5". The value to the customer was estimated at approximately $21,000 annually. Each down hour is $1,500 to $2,000 of lost productivity. Unplugging typically takes 3-4 hours and it occurred about every three months. On one occasion, the system was plugged for two days.




1. Reconciliation of energy use and savings cited in the Energy Study.

2. Differences between the reported system pressure setting and hours of operation and those observed by MRG.


The installed metering failed to collect data. Annual energy use for both the baseline condition and measure were re-estimated based on updated hours of operation, observed system pressure, and motor power as measured in the Energy Study and for the Verification Results.


• Dust Collection Energy Study, November 2001, by QEI.

− The baseline, projected energy use, and projected energy savings in the consulting engineer’s report cannot be reconciled.






• Confirmation of Equipment Installation and Operating Parameters

− Hours of operation

The hours of operation found by MRG are slightly less that cited in the Energy Study.

− System Pressure Setpoint

The Energy Study assumed a setpoint of 10.5” and the Verification Results reports finding a setpoint of 8.5”. MRG found that the users had reset the pressure setpoint to 11.5” in order to reduce plugging problems.

− Control System Operation

The control system bringing the system to an idle state for breaks and lunchtime was not included in the Energy Study analysis.

• Metering

− Installed metering did not record data.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− No other projects at this facility have been pursued that can be attributed to the utility program.

− They are pursing incentives with the Energy Trust program for HVAC and lighting efficiency for a new facility being built in Redmond – this interest can be attributed to the program.




− There is likely efficiency potential remaining in the compressed air system and a small opportunity for automatic control of small, local dust control systems. The customer would like to look into the potential benefits of upgrading their ten-year old infrared curing system.


− The Dust Collection Energy Study was not provided in its entirety. From the portion of the study that was available for review, there were no measures recommended that were not implemented by the customer.




REALIZATION RATE

DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM 332,429

70

300,100

70

90%

100%



Project Evaluation Summary – Food Processing Dairy

INDUSTRY NAICS CODE

Food Processing Dairy 311511


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG35



Computer controls; efficient condenser with VFD; efficient compressor with VFD



9/02/04 & 9/04/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

2,654,565

2,654,565

100% No substantial operating differences observed


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




System monitoring provides a troubleshooting tool; they have the ability to make adjustments to optimize performance; control setpoints tighter.

Yes



This facility processes fluid milk products along with some juice beverages.




Baseline Equipment

• Manual and electro-magnetic controls

• Refrigeration compressors:

− Booster compressor, 125 hp – removed

− Booster compressor, 100 hp - removed

Efficiency Project

• Computerized refrigeration control system

• Condenser:

− Efficient motors and axial fans

− VFD fan operation

• Refrigeration compressors

Baseline Energy Use



Projected energy use deduced from the Energy Analysis Report was 1,566,154 kWh annually.


Projected energy savings described in the Energy Analysis Report was 2,334,394 kWh annually.

The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 2,654,565 kWh annually. The difference was cited to the consulting engineer.




• System monitoring enables better troubleshooting capability.

• They now have the ability to make ongoing adjustments to optimize system performance.

• Control setpoints are tighter (smaller deadband).



There was no substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Energy Analysis Report and the parameters found by MRG – therefore no difference in projected energy savings could be determined. The following information supports this conclusion:

1. Seasonal and production variations of this refrigeration system are substantial – one-time or short-term metering would not capture this variation and so was not performed.

2. System setpoints were found to be the same or very close to values found during the Verification Results and Energy Analysis Report.

3. Simple annual energy calculations using compressor hours of operation result in estimated energy use within 10% of that predicted by the Energy Analysis Report.

4. In-house analysis of savings (based on utility billings) indicated that project savings are being achieved.


There were no metering or long-term system operations data to calculate actual energy savings. As described above, simple annual energy calculations using hours of operation resulted in estimated energy use within 10% of that predicted – therefore predicted savings were accepted and reported herein.


• Energy Analysis Report, April 22, 2002.



• Verification Results, February 27, 2003.




− Hours of operation of three of four refrigeration compressors (one compressor had a failed motor and hours were not available).

− Condenser fan minimum speed 50%, maximum speed 100%

− Wet bulb approach temperature 0ºF.

− Condensing pressure 95 psig for normal operation, 125 psig during ice making.

− Suction pressure 28 psig.

• Metering

− No historical performance data was available from the refrigeration control system – short-term metering would not be useful.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− Computer control system capabilities have allowed ongoing fine tuning of refrigeration system parameters, in particular, an increase of suction pressure and lowering of head pressure.

− Motion sensors for warehouse lighting.

− Insulation of steam lines.




− Compressed air.

− Additional small lighting projects, including more motion sensors.






REALIZATION RATE

COMPUTER CONTROLS; EFFICIENT CONDENSER WITH VFD; EFFICIENT COMPRESSOR WITH VFD

2,654,565

80

2,654,565

80

100%

100%



Project Evaluation Summary – Wood Products

COMPANY / FACILITY NAME


Wood Products 5517 Wood Products 33700 5517


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG36



New baghouse system with inlet guide vanes; Start/stop controls for the Weeke dust collection



9/01/04 & 9/08/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

Baghouse: 299,932

Weeke: 32,387

180,248

25,872

60%

80%

Hours of operation have been reduced from 4160 to an estimated 2418 per year based on owner, staff and data logger information


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)


Baghouse: 64

Weeke: 4

106

6

166%

150%

Demand reductions were confirmed from observations.


Flexibility for future expansion, reduction in compressor demand, better life for baghouse bags.

Yes






This facility produces custom compressed wood cabinetry for other companies. These include various furniture products from shelving to cabinets for wide screen televisions.

Baseline Equipment

• Standard dust collection system and baghouse

• Weeke router stand alone dust collection

Efficiency Project

• Custom-designed dust collection system and baghouse:

− Multiple duct runs from each router directly to baghouse

− Automatic blast gates to open direct duct runs

− Low-pressure baghouse

− Air foil fan with inlet guide vanes and VSD control

• Weeke router dust collection:

− Automatic start/stop control to the fan and automatic blast gates

− VFD fan operation and soft start

Baseline Energy Use

• Baghouse

− Baseline energy use for the baghouse system as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 413,088 kWh annually.



• Weeke

− Baseline energy use for the dust collection system for the Weeke router as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 23,788 kWh annually.


• Baghouse

− Projected energy use deduced from the Energy Analysis Report was 162,089 kWh annually.

• Weeke

− Projected energy use deduced from the Energy Analysis Report was 11,185 kWh annually.


• Baghouse

− Projected energy savings described in the Energy Analysis Report was 250,999 kWh annually.

− The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 299,932 kWh annually. The difference was cited to QEI Energy Management, Inc.

• Weeke

− Projected energy savings described in the Energy Analysis Report was 12,603 kWh annually.

− The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 32,387 kWh annually. The difference was cited to QEI Energy Management, Inc.




• Flexibility for future equipment installation.

• Small reduction in compressor demand.

• Extended life of baghouse bags.



The only noted substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Energy Analysis Report and the parameters found by MRG was operating hours. The following information supports this conclusion:

1. Production variations of this system are substantial from baseline system – short-term metering captured some of this variation as well as interviews with owner and operators.



The conditions of operation have changed from the time of the original audit. Economic forces have reduced hours of equipment operation. Due to a turndown in the economy in general and pressure from off-shore manufacturers, production output from the company has been substantially reduced.

The basic calculations for the base equipment and new equipment were correct assumptions at the time of the audit and commissioning reports. We corrected the savings by a reduction in hours of operation based on the owner’s current estimate of hours of operation. Confirmation of the hours of operation was based on the metering information gathered on site. Confirmed, the hours were used in recalculating savings proportionately based on commissioning report calculations. Metering also confirmed average kW load of the equipment for the recalculations.


• Final Energy Analysis Report (V2), June 2002, by QEI Energy Management, Inc.



• Final Inspection Report, June 6, 2003, by QEI Energy Management, Inc.


A brief site visit was performed by Dennis Oberto of MetaResource Group. The site visit involved the following activities and resulting findings:


− Hours of operation of fans and of the Weeke router

− Operating pressure of baghouse at 8” via the photohelic

− VSD drive operation

− Operation of blast gates

• Metering

− No historical performance data was available from the fan control system – short-term metering was performed.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− None.


− Compressed air.


− Vacuum pump efficiency for the Weeke routers.




Other measures recommended by the Energy Analysis Report that were not implemented by the customer included:

− Lighting fixture upgrades in new building from 400 watt to 350 watt metal halide. This measure was not implemented due to lack of internal funding.

− Weeke router fan upgrade and efficient ducting. Removal of the Heian dust collection system negated the fan upgrade to that equipment. Friction loss in the system ducting was to be reduced with new high efficient ducting. This measure was not implemented because the customer believed the majority of savings would occur from turning off the router fan, thus the ducting was less of an issue to them.




REALIZATION RATE

BAGHOUSE 299,932

64

180,248

106

60%

166%

WEEKE 32,387

4

25,872

6

80%

150%

TOTAL 332,319

68

206,120

112

62%

165%





UTILITY PROJECT NUMBER(S)

Wood Products 5643 Wood Window and Door Manufacturing

321911 5643; 5550; 4572; & 3194


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG37



Replace 200 hp fan motors in plant 11/12 & in 13; Combine the plant 14 "main" dust collection system with new 125 hp air foil fan and bag house; Plant 7 compressed air controls; Plant 8 compressed air controls

Preliminary Energy Analysis; Report on Commissioning & Inspection for Compressed Air at Plants 7 & 8


8/13/04 & 10/15/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

1,603,022 1,533,130 96% Operational differences


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)


96.2 133.2 139% Demand reductions were confirmed from observations and deemed.


None described Yes






This facility produces millwork for windows and doors.

Baseline Equipment

• 5643 & 5550: Existing standard efficiency motors for two blower fans.

• 4572: Multiple dust collection systems in Plant 14 using cyclones and three fans.

• 3194: Plants 7 & 8 with manual on/off and individual controls for each air compressor

Efficiency Project

• 5643 & 5550: NEMA Premium efficiency motors for two blower fans.

• 4572: Consolidation of Plant 14 dust collection into the "main" system using a new 125-HP air foil fan and high efficiency primary bag house.

• 3194: Plants 7 & 8 with sequencer controls for their two and four compressors, respectively.


Projected energy savings reported by the utility were:

• 5643: Replace 200-HP fan motor in building 11/1 212,402 kWh annually

• 5550: Replace 200-HP fan motor in building 137,122 kWh annually

• 4572: Consolidate Plant 14 dust collection system 475,292 kWh annually

• 3194: Plant 7 compressed air controls 436,001 kWh annually

• 3194: Plant 8 compressed air controls and piping 672,205 kWh annually








1. For the dust collection consolidation project, the most likely differences were in the operation of the dust collection system in terms of operational differences in system air velocities and pressures.

2. The savings for the remainder of measures were deemed and there were no differences assumed.


• 5643 & 5550: Savings for motor replacements with NEMA Premium were deemed.

• 4572: The metering data was used to calculate actual energy savings. Blower fan motor current was used to calculate kWh energy use for the week the meter was installed, which was prorated to an entire year. This energy use was compared to the projected energy use to determine actual energy savings.

• 3194: For Plant 7, energy savings for compressed air controls were deemed.

• 3194: For Plant 8, energy savings for compressed air controls were deemed.


• Preliminary Energy Analysis, November 1, 1996, by Carroll, Hatch & Associates.

• Report on Commissioning & Inspection for Compressed Air at Plants 7 & 8, March 15, 2002, by Carroll, Hatch & Associates.





• Observation of Installations

− 5643 & 5550: These motors were not observed.

− 4572: The dust collection consolidation and bag house for Plant 14 were observed.

− 3194: The compressed air sequencer controls for Plants 7 & 8 were observed.

• Metering

− No metering was performed for the NEMA Premium efficient motors.

− For the Plant 14 dust collection consolidation, the 125-hp fan was metered for single-leg motor current for one week.

− For Plant 7, metering was installed, but after the data were retrieved it was discovered that the compressed air controls had been temporarily disabled.

− For Plant 8, there was not enough metering equipment available for the four compressors. It was understood that another firm had just installed metering equipment and that data was requested. Unfortunately, the logger failed for that metering attempt and no data were available.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover



− There were no particular additional efficiency opportunities described for this facility aside from additional projects (including further compressed air upgrades) being pursued through the Process Efficiency Program.




− All measures recommended in the Preliminary Energy Analysis were installed by the customer.




REALIZATION RATE

5643: REPLACE 200 HP FAN MOTOR IN BUILDING 11/12

12,402

1.8

12,402

1.8

100%

100%

5550: REPLACE 200 HP FAN MOTOR IN BUILDING 13

7,122

1.4

7,122

1.4

100%

100%

4572: CONSOLIDATE PLANT 14 DUST COLLECTION SYSTEMS WITH NEW 125 HP AIR FOIL FAN AND BAG HOUSE.

475,292

53

405,400

90

85%

170%

3194: PLANT 7 COMPRESSED AIR CONTROLS

436,001

40

436,001

40

100%

100%

3194: PLANT 8 COMPRESSED AIR CONTROLS AND PIPING

672,205

0

672,205

0

100%

TOTAL 1,603,022

96.2

1,533,130

133.2

96%

139%



Project Evaluation Summary – Plastics Manufacturer

COMPANY / FACILITY INDUSTRY NAICS CODE UTILITY PROJECT NUMBER(S)

Plastics Manufacturer 4657

Plastics 32619 4657


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG38



Variable speed centrifugal chillers

Energy Analysis Report and Post-Inspection Report


9/13/04 & 9/22/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

1,407,140 1,407,140 100% None


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




Lower maintenance costs Yes



This facility produces extruded battery separator materials.




Baseline Equipment

• Four reciprocating chillers in two independent systems (North and South)

Efficiency Project

• Two variable speed centrifugal chillers:

− Tie-in North and South chiller lines

− Inter tie both chillers to South Cooling Tower

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the process chiller systems as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 2,894,241 kWh annually.





The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 1,407,140 kWh annually by Cascade Energy Engineering, Inc.


Reduced maintenance time and costs.





There was no substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Energy Analysis Report and the parameters found by MRG – therefore no difference in projected energy savings could be determined. The following information supports this conclusion:

1. We reviewed in-house data collection for each chiller by control system.


3. In-house analysis of savings (based on process monitoring and control system) indicated that project savings are being achieved.


No conditions or operations have changed from the time of the original audit. No corrections to kW load or hours of operation of equipment were needed based on equipment metering as provided by owner. The basic calculations for the base equipment and new equipment in the audit commissioning report were assumed proper and no savings corrections were made.


• Energy Analysis Report, November 2001, by Cascade Energy Engineering, Inc.

• Post-Instillation Inspection Report, December 3, 2003, by Cascade Energy Engineering, Inc.




− Hours of operation of process lines



− Two York Model #YTG1A1C3-YTG chillers installed

• Metering

− Historical performance data was available for each chiller control system – short-term metering was not performed.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− Insulating Steam and Chilled Water Piping: This recommendation was implemented later outside the program as part of the remodel of the chiller systems.


− Compressed air system.



− One of the measures recommended by the Energy Analysis Report was an exclusive option to the measures installed and therefore could not be implemented by the customer.

Trane Variable Speed Centrifugal Chillers: This measure was the same as that installed but with lower energy savings due to efficiency differences in equipment so the customer opted for the installed measure.

− The measures below were recommended but not implemented. The reasons for not installing are indicated:

Cooling Tower VFD: the customer did not implement this recommendation due to changes in the process line and inability to shutdown the process for instillation.

Lighting System Retrofits: This recommendation was not implemented by the customer because it exceeded their 36-month payback criteria.



Insulating of Extruder Heaters and Barrels: This recommendation was not implemented by the customer due to exceeding their 36-month payback criteria.




REALIZATION RATE

VSD CHILLERS 1,407,140

207

1,407,140

227

100%

110%



Project Evaluation Summary – Plant Nursery

COMPANY / FACILITY INDUSTRY NAICS CODE UTILITY PROJECT NUMBER(S)

Plant Nursery 3801 Tree Seedlings 111998 3801


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG39



Ammonia Glycol Refrigeration System

Energy Analysis Report and Final Commissioning Report


8/27/04 & 9/13/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

705,169 634,124 90% Reduced production


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




Better product and control of systems, reduced maintenance, reduced refrigerant loss (environmental benefits) and reduced water use.

Not applicable



This nursery is part of a federal agency and produces forestry tree seedlings for planting on public and private forestlands. They provide bare root seedling plants for reforestation and restoration projects




Baseline Equipment

• R-22 Refrigeration System

− Two oversized screw chillers

− Six evaporators for each of the six cooler room

− Closed loop air cooled fluid coolers

− Electro-mechanical controls

Efficiency Project

• Ammonia Refrigeration System

− Unloadable reciprocating chillers

− Two glycol based evaporators per cooler room with VFDs

− Water defrost for ammonia evaporators provided from heat recovery from chiller

− Evaporative condenser with VFD fan

− Computer control

Baseline Energy Use


Projected Energy Use and Savings

Projected energy use deduced from the Energy Analysis Report was 381 780 kWh annually.





The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 1,086,949 kWh annually by Cascade Energy Engineering, Inc.


• Reduced maintenance and costs

• Better product

• Enhanced control of systems

• Eliminated refrigerant loss (environmental benefits)

• Reduced water use from reduced fan use, speed and relocation



There was no substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Final Commissioning Report and the parameters found by MRG except production output – therefore utility bills were analyzed for difference in projected energy savings. The following information supports this conclusion:

1. Production variations of this process refrigeration system can be substantial – one-time or short-term metering would not capture this variation and the season for operation of the cooler rooms had not yet begun, so metering was not performed by MRG. Reviewed in-house data collected by controls for the chiller system.

2. System setpoints were found to be the same or very close to values found during the Final Commissioning Report and Energy Analysis Report.

3. Simple analysis for the previous 18 months vs. month 19 to 36 electrical utility data resulted in estimated energy use within 10% of that predicted by the Energy Analysis Report.

4. Production variations for the process refrigeration systems may account for the 10% reduction in the savings. The actual cause for the difference could not be determined. Staff had no input on operational, process or production output changes to account for the variance.




The basic calculations for the base equipment and new equipment were correct assumptions at the time of the audit and commissioning reports. We corrected the savings by a proportional reduction in savings based on historic energy use pre and post installation of the equipment.


• Energy Analysis Report, June 1999, by Cascade Energy Engineering, Inc.

• Final Commissioning Report, December 6, 2002, by Cascade Energy Engineering, Inc.




− Hours of operation of cool rooms

− Ammonia chiller system

− Evaporators with VSD fans

− Setpoints for temperatures and fan speed

− Glycol system

• Metering

− Historical performance data were available for the chiller system control system –short-term metering was not performed. Utility data was analyzed for savings.

• Free Ridership




• Spillover

− None


− Additional small lighting projects.


− Other measures recommended by the Energy Analysis were exclusive options to the measures installed and therefore could not be implemented by the customer. These included:

New R-22 Direct Expansion (DX) System: This measure was similar to the installed equipment, but with lower energy and demand savings due to efficiency differences in equipment so the customer opted for the better of the two. In addition the maintenance staff indicated that they preferred to use DX evaporators. The old system had DX evaporators and had numerous problems with leaks that were costly to repair and hard to detect.

New R-22 Glycol System: This measure was the same as the installed equipment, but with lower energy and demand savings due to efficiency differences in equipment so the customer opted for the better efficiency.




REALIZATION RATE

AMMONIA GLYCOL REFRIGERATION SYSTEM 705,169

203

634,124

160

90%

79%



Project Evaluation Summary – Distribution Warehouse



Distribution Warehouse 4305

Beer, Ale and Wine Wholesaler and Distributor

424810 & 424820 4305


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG40



Efficient ammonia refrigeration system

Energy Analysis Report; Final Commissioning Report; Final Inspection Report


8/13/04 & 9/06/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

552,534 552,534 100% None


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




More reliable system; more consistent temperatures Yes



This facility is distribution warehouse for beer, wine, and other beverages. Their new facility has a single ammonia refrigeration system serving a draught cooler, package cooler, and an “ambient” room for constant temperature storage of wine and juice drinks.




Baseline Equipment

This project is new construction. Assumed baseline equipment included:

• Seven rack-mounted reciprocating packaged R-22 refrigeration systems.

• Air-cooled condensers with single-speed fans.

• Evaporators with single-speed fans.

• Timed electric defrost.

• Basic electromagnetic controls.

Efficiency Project

• Ammonia refrigeration system.

• Variable speed screw compressors with premium efficient motors.

• Thermosiphon oil cooling for compressors.

• Evaporative-cooled condensers with variable speed fans and premium efficient motors.

• Variable speed evaporator fans and premium efficient motors.

• On demand hot gas defrost.

• Computerized control system.

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the refrigeration system as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 724,948 kWh annually.







The final estimated energy savings described in the Final Inspection Report and reported by the utility was 552,534 kWh annually.


This ammonia refrigeration is a more reliable system and provides more consistent temperatures. The manufacturers of the products distributed require that warehouse temperature is maintained within a certain range. The previous R22-based system went outside that range regularly, creating hours of extra paperwork every month. The new system has done that only once – and that was due to a lightening strike causing a compressor failure.



There was no substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Final Inspection Report and the parameters found by MRG – therefore no difference in projected energy savings could be determined. The following information supports this conclusion:

1. There are substantial seasonal and load variations on this refrigeration system – one-time or short-term metering would not capture this variation and so it was not performed.

2. System setpoints were found to be the same or very close to values found during the Final Inspection Report.

3. Simple annual energy calculations using compressor hours of operation result in estimated energy use within 20% of that predicted by the Energy Analysis Report.


There were no metering opportunities or long-term system operations data to calculate actual energy savings. As described above, simple annual energy calculations using hours of operation resulted in estimated energy use within 20% of that predicted – therefore predicted savings were accepted and reported herein.




• Energy Analysis Report, May 24, 2001, by Cascade Energy Engineering.

• Final Commissioning Report, August 23, 2002, by Cascade Energy Engineering.

• Final Inspection Report, August 23, 2002, by Cascade Energy Engineering.




− Observation of efficiency project components – all specified components were observed to be installed.

− System operating parameters were confirmed.

• Metering

− No historical performance data was available from the refrigeration control system – hours of compressor operation were collected.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− No particular spillover projects have been implemented by this customer.


− There was no particular remaining potential for this facility.








REALIZATION RATE

EFFICIENT AMMONIA REFRIGERATION SYSTEM

552,534

32

552,534

32

100%

100%






Wood Products 4731 Secondary Wood Products

321911 4731


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG41



Install unloading controls and fix air leaks

FinAnswer Energy Study; Post-Installation Inspection Report


9/9/04 & 10/16/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

264,918 285,700 108% Small operating differences


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




None described Yes



This facility is a secondary wood products plant, manufacturing wood products for windows and doors.




Baseline Equipment

• Modulating control for compressors.

• Manual control for compressor start/stop.

Efficiency Project

• Load/unload control for compressors.

• Additional receiver capacity.

• Lead/lag sequencer for compressor start/stop.

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use as described in the FinAnswer Energy Report was 718,163 kWh annually.


Projected energy use deduced from the FinAnswer Energy Report was 479,933 kWh annually.


Projected energy savings described in the FinAnswer Energy Report was 238,230 kWh annually.

The final estimated energy savings described in the Post-Installation Inspection Report and reported by the utility was 264,918 kWh annually.







Differences between projected energy savings as reported by the utility and the energy savings as determined by MRG are due to the following reason:

• Small differences in operating characteristics for the compressed air systems.


The metering data was used to calculate actual energy savings. Compressor motor current and on/off status was used to calculate kWh energy use for the week the meter was installed, which was prorated to an entire year. This energy use was subtracted from the assumed baseline to determine actual energy savings.


• FinAnswer Energy Study, February 11, 2002, by SAV-AIR LLC.

• Post-Installation Inspection Report, July 2003, by Compression Engineering Corp.


A brief site visit was performed by Steven Scott of MetaResource Group. The site visit involved observation of the installation of the compressor controls.

• Metering

− One week of air compressor motor current was gathered for the lead compressor, and on/off status was recorded for the lag compressor.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− No particular spillover observed.




− No particular remaining potential was discussed.


− All measures recommended by the FinAnswer Energy Study were implemented by the customer.




REALIZATION RATE

INSTALL UNLOADING CONTROLS AND FIX AIR LEAKS

264,918

109

285,700

132

108%

121%



Project Evaluation Summary – Wood Products Fibers



Wood Products Fibers 5678

Wood Products 321911 5678


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG42



Load/unload, regulate blowers and piping upgrades



9/02/04 & 9/20/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

563,339 572,175 102% Production time


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




None Yes



This facility manufactures wood skin doors.




Baseline Equipment

• One QNW 1000-F compressor at 100% base load

• One QNW 740 compressor modulating to maintain system pressure

• Standard blowers on production lines

Efficiency Project

• QNW 740 air compressor upgrades:

− Load/Unload controls

− 4,000 gallons of compressed air storage

− Flow controller

− Install engineered nozzles

− Reduce header pressure to 80 psig

Baseline Energy Use






The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 563,339 kWh annually by Cascade Energy Engineering, Inc.




• Enhanced control of system pressure and air volume



There was no substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Energy Analysis Report and the parameters found by MRG – therefore minimal difference in projected energy savings could be determined. The following information supports this conclusion:

1. Production variations of this process refrigeration system can be substantial – one-time or short-term metering captured little variation when performed by MRG.



Production variations of this process system may account for the 2% increase in the savings. The difference is well within engineering savings calculation tolerances.

The basic calculations for the base equipment and new equipment were correct assumptions at the time of the audit and commissioning reports. We corrected the savings by a proportional increase in savings based on post installation metering of the equipment. Recalculated savings based on commissioning report calculations and metering confirmed hours of operation. Metering also confirmed average kW draw of the equipment for the recalculations.


• Energy Analysis Report, July 24, 2002, by Cascade Energy Engineering, Inc.

• Final Commissioning Report, June 20, 2003, by Cascade Energy Engineering, Inc.






− Hours of operation of compressors

− Load/Unload settings

− Pressure settings

• Metering

− Historical performance data was not available for the compressor system–short-term metering was performed on the QNW 740 compressor.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− None.


− Additional small lighting projects and Bio-filter



− Install VFD on QNW 740 Compressor: This measure was intended instead of EEM #1, but with lower energy and demand savings; so the customer opted for EEM #1 modified to include regulated blowers.

− Install VFD on QNW 740 with Regulated Air Blowers: This measure was the same as EEM #2, but with air blowers regulated; the customer opted for EEM #1 modified to include regulated blowers.

− Install VFD on QNW 150 with Regulated Air Blowers: This measure was intended instead of EEM #1, but with lower energy and demand savings; so the customer opted for EEM #1 modified to include regulated blowers.






REALIZATION RATE

LOAD/UNLOAD, REGULATE BLOWERS AND PIPING UPGRADES

563,339

8

572,175

0

102%

0%






Wood Products 4937 Wood Products 321911 4937 and 5993


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG43



4937: Dust collection system consolidation. New ducting to draw waste from Systems 1&2 to Systems 5 & 6. 5993: Replacement of old hog with two rotary grinders



9/02/04 & 9/22/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

Dust Collection: 776,704 Hog: 21,229

862,120

28,152

111%

133%

Only 2 shifts at the time of the original audit for the EEM now 3 shifts.


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




None Yes






This facility produces wood skin doorframe material.

Baseline Equipment

• Dust Collection Systems

− Fan #1 200 hp

− Fan #2 200 hp

− Fan #5 300 hp

− Fan #6 300 hp

• Hog

− 100 hp hog

− 30 hp grinder

− 20 hp grinder

Efficiency Project

• Dust Collection Systems Consolidation

− Fan #1 decommissioned (ducting removed and motor off line)

− Fan #2 decommissioned (ducting removed and motor off line)

• Hog Systems Replaced with Grinder System

− RG 42 - grinder with VSD

− RG 32 - grinder with VSD



Baseline Energy Use

• Dust Collection System

Baseline energy use for the dust collection systems as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 2,354,112 kWh annually.

• Hog

Baseline energy use for the hog system as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 67,841 kWh annually.




• Hog





The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 776,704 kWh annually by QEI Energy Management, Inc.

• Hog






• Enhanced ground product consistency for Hog system and end product.



There was only one substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Energy Analysis Report and the parameters found by MRG – therefore the difference in projected energy savings was determined based on hours of operation for the systems. The following information supports this conclusion:

1. Were only two shifts at the time of the original audit for the Hog EEM; now three shifts.

2. Production variations of the process systems can be substantial – one-time or short-term metering would capture little variation when performed by MRG.



The conditions of operation changed from time of original audit. Economic forces have increased the hours of equipment operation needed to match contract requirements. The production output from the company for this line has substantially increased. An additional shift was added to the line to keep up with the production output requirements.

The basic calculations for the base equipment and new equipment were correct assumptions at the time of the audit and commissioning reports. We corrected the savings by an increase in hours of operation based on the owner’s current estimate of hours of operation. Confirmation of the hours of operation was based on the metering information gathered on site. Confirmed, the hours were used in recalculating savings proportionately based on commissioning report calculations. Metering also confirmed average kW draw of the equipment for the recalculations.




• Preliminary Energy Analysis Report, Dust Collection Consolidation, September 6, 2002, by QEI Energy Management, Inc.

• Preliminary Energy Analysis Report, Hog Replacement, August 2002, by QEI Energy Management, Inc.

• Final Inspection Report, Dust Collection Consolidation and Hog Replacement, May 12, 2003, by QEI Energy Management, Inc.




− Hours of operation of fan and grinders

− Decommission of Fans #1 and #2

• Metering

− Historical performance data was not available for the fan or grinder systems – short-term metering was performed for each system.

• Free Ridership

− Partial free ridership for the hog replacement was observed – 25% score. They would have installed the measure without the program and had set aside budget. Although they would not have installed all the exact same elements.

• Spillover

− None.


− Additional small lighting projects.




− No additional measures were identified in the file.




REALIZATION RATE

DUST COLLECTION 766,704

168

862,120

254

111%

151%

HOG 21,229

0

28,152

0

133%

TOTAL 797,933

168

890,272

254

112%

151%






Wood Products 4631 Wood Products

321911

4631


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG44



New efficient glass oven installation

Energy Analysis Report Installation confirmed by observation

8/26/04 & 9/05/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

403,040 470,718 117% Only one long shift during audit, now 2 shifts beginning 3/04 thus increasing savings over previous EEM estimates


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)


133 141 106% Demand reductions were confirmed by calculation.


Reduced maintenance and increased production output. Likely, as they have participated in BETC at other locations, but respondent did not know






This facility produces wood and vinyl windows.

Baseline Equipment

• Two Stage GED 3000 Window Oven

− Low – 250 amps

− High – 270 amps

− Two blowers – 7.5 hp and 10 hp

− Manual Control

Efficiency Project

• Two Stage GED 3500 Window Oven

− Low – 120 amps

− High – 150 amps

− No blowers

− Programmable Logic Control (PLC)

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the dust collection systems as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 561,999 kWh annually.







The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 403,040 kWh annually by Hatten/Johnson Associates


• Reduced maintenance and increased production output.



There was substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Energy Analysis Report and the parameters found by MRG – therefore the difference in projected energy savings could be determined by hours of operation for the GED oven system. The following information supports this conclusion:

1. Operation was only one long shift at the time of the original audit for the GED oven; EEM now two production shifts.

2. Production variations of the process systems can be substantial – one-time or short-term metering captured little variation for loads when performed by MRG. The exception is hours of operation compared to the EEM baseline.



The conditions of operation have changed from the time of the original audit. Economic forces have increased hours of equipment operation. Due to an upturn in the economy in general and need for production output increases, the savings have been increased.

The basic calculations for the base equipment and new equipment were correct assumptions at the time of the audit and commissioning reports. We corrected the savings by an increase in hours of operation based on the owner’s current estimate of hours of operation. Confirmation of



the hours of operation was based on the metering information gathered on site. Confirmed the hours were used in recalculating savings proportionately based on commissioning report calculations.


Energy Analysis Report, October 22, 2001, by Hatten/Johnson Associates.




− Hours of operation of oven

− Amperage draw of oven

• Metering

− Historical performance data was not available for the oven system – short-term metering was performed for the system.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− None.


− The compressed air system could be a source for efficiency improvements.





− Preheat Heat Recovery for Washer Water: This measure was to extract heat from the compressed air system and use it in the glass cleaning system. The measure was rejected by the customer as not feasible.

− Upgrade Air Compressor System: This measure was improvements to the existing compressed air system. The measure was rejected by the customer as they are considering replacing the compressor with a more efficient one.

− Upgrade Metal Halide Lighting and Upgrade T12 Magnetic Fluorescent to T8 Electronic: This measure was not implemented as in the file under the Energy FinAnswer Commercial Program. Under the Lighting Program, T5 HO fixtures were installed instead of pulse start metal halide fixtures and T8 lamps and electronic ballasts were installed in the existing fixtures.

− Enhance Daylighting: This measure recommended adding skylights to the Production and Warehouse areas of the plant for enhanced daylighting with photocell controls on the ambient lighting. The customer opted out of this measure sighting concerns for roof integrity and water tightness.




REALIZATION RATE

EFFICIENT WINDOW OVEN 403,040

133

470,718

141

117%

106%



Project Evaluation Summary – Fruit Storage Warehouse



Fruit Storage Warehouse 6459

Food Processing, Fresh Fruit

311411 6159


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG45



Efficient ammonia engine room, efficient evaporators, high speed door

Post Installation Inspection Report; Energy Analysis Report


8/26/04 & 10/12/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

324,109 324,109 100% None


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




Better fruit condition – no shrinkage. Energy savings are similar to profit margin for this business.

Yes



This facility is a grower of pears and stores their own fruit and some cherries and apples in this controlled atmosphere and common storage warehouse. This is a new construction project.




Baseline Equipment

• Centralized R22 refrigeration system

• Three 50-HP reciprocating compressors

• Air-cooled condenser

• Evaporators with constant speed fans

• Electro-mechanical controls

• Standard door with strip curtain

Efficiency Project

• Centralized ammonia refrigeration system

• One 75-HP and one 30-HP reciprocating compressors

• Water-cooled condenser

• Evaporators with variable speed fans

• Computer controls with wet-bulb condensing pressure control

• High speed automatic door

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the refrigeration as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 428,945 kWh annually.







The final estimated energy savings described in the Post Installation Inspection Report and reported by the utility was 324,109 kWh annually.


The customer has observed that the VFD evaporator fans maintain a better fruit condition with less shrinkage. Also, for this business, energy savings are similar to the profit margin and so are a significant cost reduction. Mentioned by the Post Installation Inspection Report was that ammonia refrigeration equipment has a longer life, that this system is more flexible and be can more easily expanded, and the evaporator fan VFD offers a quieter, more comfortable work environment.



There was no substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Post Installation Inspection Report and the parameters found by MRG – therefore no difference in projected energy savings could be determined. The following information supports this conclusion:


2. System setpoints were found to be the same or very close to values described in the Post Installation Inspection Report.


There were no metering, long-term system operations, or other data to calculate actual energy savings. As described above, there were no differences in operation from the energy report assumptions – therefore savings were deemed.




Energy Analysis Report, January 13, 2004, by Cascade Energy Engineering.

Post Installation Inspection Report, January 13, 2004, by Cascade Energy Engineering.



• Observation of Efficiency Project Components

− All specified components were observed to be installed.


− Controlled atmosphere and common storage evaporator fans:

Minimum fan speed – 40%

Maximum fan speed – 90%

− Condensing fan operation:

Minimum fan speed – 40%

Maximum fan speed – 90%

− Compressor discharge pressure:

Summer peak pulldown – 120 to 160 psig

Winter stead-state operation – 90 psig

• Metering

− No historical performance data was available from the refrigeration control system.



• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− No particular spillover projects have been implemented by this customer.


− There is potential for lighting controls and, according to the refrigeration system operator, for a small screw compressor in addition to the reciprocating compressors already in place.






REALIZATION RATE

EFFICIENT AMMONIA ENGINE ROOM, EFFICIENT EVAPORATORS, HIGH SPEED DOOR

324,109

12

324,109

12

100%

100%








MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG46



Compressed Air System Efficiency Improvements Dust Collection System Efficiency Improvements

Preliminary Energy Analysis Report and Final Inspection Report


9/01/04 & 9/06/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

Compressed Air: 665,082 Dust Collection: 1,181,356

Compressed Air: 665,082 Dust Collection: 1,210,010

Compressed Air: 100%

Dust Collection: 102%

Minimal production output changes


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)


Compressed Air: 14 Dust Collection: 226

Compressed Air: 14 Dust Collection: 330

Compressed Air: 100% Dust Collection: 146%

Demand reductions were confirmed from observations and deemed.


More reliable compressor pressure. Return air to building in winter for heating and less natural gas use. Cleaner exhaust air.

Likely, but unknown by respondent






This facility produces wood cabinets.

Baseline Equipment

• Compressed Air

− Standard efficient compressor(s) system expanded for new production line

− Load/Unload part-load

− Start/Stop via Electronic Sequencer

• Dust Collection

− Standard Dust Collection System expanded for new production line

− Backward Inclined Fan

− Standard Baghouse

− Inlet Guide Vanes

− Standard Ducting

Efficiency Project

• Compressed Air

• Efficient Compressor System

− New Efficient Compressors

− Duty Based Electronic Sequencer

− Two new 2,000 gallon Air Receivers



• Dust Collection

− Efficient Dust Collection System

− Airfoil Fan

− Low Pressure Drop Baghouse

− Electronically Actuated Dampers for Fans for Minimum Flow as needed

− Up-sized Ducting for reduced friction loss and low transport velocities

Baseline Energy Use

• Compressed Air


• Dust Collection



• Compressed Air


• Dust Collection





• Compressed Air



• Dust Collection


The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 1,181,356 kWh annually by QEI Energy Management, Inc.


• Return air to building in winter for heating and less natural gas use. Cleaner exhaust air.

• More reliable compressor pressure.




1. Production variations of the process systems can be substantial – one-time or short-term metering captured little variation when performed by MRG.





The conditions at the plant, including hours of operation, have not changed from the time of the original audit. Production output from the company is about the same as indicated in the Energy Audit.

The calculations for the base equipment and new equipment were correct assumptions at the time of the audit and commissioning reports. We corrected the savings by a reduction in kW of equipment based metering information. Confirmation of the hours of operation was based on the metering information gathered on site. Confirmed hours and equipment kW was used in recalculating savings proportionately based on commissioning report calculations.


• Preliminary Energy Analysis Report, November, 2000, by QEI Energy Management.

• Final Inspection Report, November 18, 2003, by QEI Energy Management.




− Hours of operation of baghouse

− Baghouse operating Photohelic inches of water

− Hours of operation of compressors

− Compressor system line pressure

− Compressor control system operation

• Metering

− Historical performance data was not available for the systems – short-term metering was performed for each system.



• Free Ridership


• Spillover



− The lighting systems have potential efficiency improvements.






REALIZATION RATE

COMPRESSED AIR 665,082

14

665,082

14

100%

100%

DUST COLLECTION 1,181,356

226

1,210,010

330

102%

146%

TOTAL 1,846,438

240

1,879,092

344

102%

143%








MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG47



Single Low Pressure Drop Baghouse Lighting Systems

FinAnswer Energy Study and Post-Instillation Inspection Report


8/25/04 & 9/06/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

Baghouse: 1,355,242 Lighting: 302,308

Baghouse: 1,364,385 Lighting: 302,308

Baghouse: 101% Lighting: 100%

Minimal production output changes


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)


Baghouse: 161 Lighting: 35

Baghouse: 152 Lighting: 35

94% 100%

Demand reductions were confirmed from observations and deemed.


New lighting improved color rendition for product inspection and working environment

Yes



This facility produces plywood products.




Baseline Equipment

• Baghouse

− Standard Efficient Baghouse System

− T & G Pneumatic Conveying System

− Hog Pneumatic Conveying System

− Cyclone System

− Standard Efficient Baghouse

• Lighting Systems

− Lighting Fixtures

− Metal Halide

− High Pressure

− HO 8’ Fluorescent

− Flood

Efficiency Project

• Baghouse

− Efficient Baghouse System

− Combined Pneumatic Conveying System

− Single Low Pressure Baghouse

− Trimmed Inlet Vanes

− Improved Ducting Design




− Efficient Lighting Fixtures

− Metal Halide with Pulse Start

− F-32T8 Electronic High Ballast Factor (HBF)

Baseline Energy Use

• Baghouse



Baseline energy use for the lighting systems as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 1,000,024 kWh annually.


• Baghouse




Projected Savings

• Baghouse




The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 1,355,242 kWh annually by SAV-AIR, LLC



The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 302,308 kWh annually by SAV-AIR, LLC


• New lighting improved color rendition for product inspection and working environment.








The calculations for the base equipment and new equipment were correct assumptions at the time of the audit and commissioning reports. We corrected the savings by a minor reduction in kW of the Baghouse equipment based metering information. Confirmation of the hours of operation



was based on the metering information gathered on site. Confirmed hours and equipment kW was used in recalculating savings proportionately based on commissioning report calculations.


• Draft FinAnswer Energy Study, October 22, 2001, by SAV-AIR, LLC.

• Post-Instillation Inspection Report, September, 2003, by SAV-AIR, LLC.




− Hours of operation of Baghouse

− Hours of operation of lighting

• Metering

− Historical performance data was not available for the system – short-term metering was performed for the Baghouse system.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover



− Motors.





− Reduce Hog Fan Speed: This measure was rejected by customer in favor of EEM #2A as upgrade for the Baghouse.

− Install Single Low Pressure Baghouse: This measure was the similar to EEM #2A but an option for a different supplier.




REALIZATION RATE

BAGHOUSE 1,355,242

161

1,364,385

152

101%

94%

LIGHTING 302,308

35

302,308

35

100%

100%

TOTAL 1,657,550

196

1,666,693

187

101%

95%



Project Evaluation Summary – Food Products



Food Products 4234 Frozen Fruit and Vegetable Manufacturing

311411 4234


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG48



VFD for compressors 2,4,5,6; oversized suction line

Energy Analysis Report; Post-Installation Inspection Report; Final Commissioning Report


8/12/04 & 10/15/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

1,939,441 1,939,441 100% None


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




Improved liquid and vapor return, increased capacity, better control, better suction pressures

Yes



This facility prepares freeze-dried food products, fruit, and some pharmaceuticals.




Baseline Equipment

• Fixed-speed refrigeration compressors.

• Undersized, shared vapor and liquid return line to engine room.

Efficiency Project

• Variable speed refrigeration compressors.

• Compressor sequencing upgrade to controls for variable speed operation.

• Oversized suction line solely for vapor return to engine room.

Baseline Energy Use

Estimated baseline energy use for the compressors from the Energy Analysis Report was 5,226,881 kWh annually.


Projected energy savings were not explicitly described in the Energy Analysis Report. An estimate deduced from other values is 3,307,604 kWh annually.

The final estimated energy savings described in the Post-Installation Inspection Report and reported by the utility was 1,939,441 kWh annually.


The new suction line provides improved liquid and vapor return, increased refrigeration capacity, and better suction pressures. The variable speed drives provide better control and energy savings.



There was no substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Post Installation Inspection Report and the parameters found by MRG – therefore no difference in



projected energy savings could be determined. The following information supports this conclusion:


2. System setpoints were found to be the same or very close to values described in the Post-Installation Inspection Report.


There were no metering, long-term system operations, or other data to calculate actual energy savings. As described above, there were no differences in operation from the energy report assumptions – therefore savings for this project were deemed.


• Energy Analysis Report, October 17, 2001, by Cascade Energy Engineering.

• Post-Installation Inspection Report, August 21, 2003, by Cascade Energy Engineering.

• Final Commissioning Report, August 21, 2003, by Cascade Energy Engineering.




− Suction pressures:

Under high loads – suction was 19” hg and is now 17” hg

Under typical loads – suction was 17” hg and is now 13.5” hg

VFD minimum speed 30 Hz – maximum speed 60 Hz

− Other operating parameters were not modified



• Metering

− The customer reported that no historical performance data was available from their refrigeration control system. Energy usage data collected from the variable frequency drive control panels did not correlate with estimated energy use from the Energy Analysis Report and could not be used.

• Free Ridership

− The materials for the suction line upgrade were purchased several years prior to this project but never installed. The incremental cost for this project was then only for labor costs associated with completion of the project. Otherwise, no full or partial free ridership observed – 0% score.

• Spillover



− There is potential for installing high efficiency lighting, for additional refrigeration compressor VFD, and for considering of improvements for the compressed air system.


− All measures recommended in the Energy Analysis Report were installed by the customer.






REALIZATION RATE

VFD FOR COMPRESSORS 2,4,5,6 1,772,107

161

1,772,107

161

100%

100%

OVERSIZED SUCTION LINE FROM PLANT 167,334

0

167,334

0

100%

TOTAL 1,939,441

161

1,939,441

161

100%

100%



Project Evaluation Summary – Water Treatment



Water Treatment 4212 Water Treatment Plant 221310

4212


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG49



Downsize intake pump; cycle air scour; replace water pumps with siphon; improve lighting efficiency; downsize evaporative cooler; add gravity line

Energy Analysis Report; Post-Installation Inspection Report


8/26/04 & 10/15/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

740,646 740,646 100% None


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




None described Not applicable






This is a water treatment facility and is new construction.

Baseline Equipment

• Pump station original design was two 250-HP and one 350-HP vertical turbine intake pumps with one 250-HP and the 250-HP pump utilizing VFD control.

• Filter air scour original design was that cycling was feasible for one-half of the year.

• Installation of clearwell tank at same elevation as filtration system, requiring pumping.

• CFL exit signs and on-off switching for lighting.

• Evaporative cooler sized for cooling of all four pumps operating simultaneously.

• Two high service pumps were required to move finished water to the distribution header.

Efficiency Project

• Pump station efficient design is three 250-HP pumps and one 150-HP pump with one 250-HP and the 150-HP pump utilizing VFD control.

• Cycling air scour of the filters will be operated year-round, requiring only one blower to operate.

• Installation of clearwell tank was below the elevation of the filtration system, eliminating the need for pumps.

• LED exit signs and automatic occupancy switching for lighting.

• Evaporative cooler sized for cooling of only one pump that would operate in the summer months.

• Gravity line from clearwell to allow a portion of the finished water to the distribution header without pumping.



Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use was not described in the Energy Analysis Report.


Projected energy savings were described in the Energy Analysis Report were as follows:

• Downsize intake pump 101,647 kWh annually

• Cycle air scour 235,540 kWh annually

• Replace water pumps with siphon 284,700 kWh annually

• Improve lighting efficiency 1,395 kWh annually

• Downsize evaporative cooler 1,714 kWh annually

• Add gravity line 59,915 kWh annually

The final estimated energy savings described in the Post-Installation Inspection Report and reported by the utility were as follows:

• Downsize intake pump 124,966 kWh annually

• Cycle air scour 273,698 kWh annually

• Replace water pumps with siphon 284,700 kWh annually

• Improve lighting efficiency 220 kWh annually

• Downsize evaporative cooler 0.5 kWh annually

• Add gravity line 57,062 kWh annually







There was no substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Post Installation Inspection Report and the parameters found by MRG – therefore no difference in projected energy savings could be determined. The following information supports this conclusion:

1. There are substantial seasonal variations on this water supply treatment plant – one-time or short-term metering could not capture this variation and so it was not performed.

2. Systems operation and energy consumption data for this facility were requested from the customer but not provided.


Without system operation and energy consumption data no savings adjustment could be performed – energy savings were deemed to be the same as reported by the utility.


• Energy Analysis Report,” May 21, 2002, by SBW Consulting, Inc.

• Post-Installation Inspection Report, October 2003, by SBW Consulting, Inc.


A brief site visit was performed by Steven Scott of MetaResource Group. The site visit involved the verification of installation of the measures by observation.

• Metering

− Annual system performance data was requested, but was not provided.

• Free Ridership

− Full free ridership was observed – 100% score.



• Spillover

− No spillover was described aside from further investigation for other water supply and wastewater treatment efficiency improvements through the Process Efficiency Program.


− This new facility has some remaining potential in the compressed air system and in variable speed drives for the blowers in lieu of inlet vane capacity control.






REALIZATION RATE

DOWNSIZE INTAKE PUMP 124,966

30

124,966

30

100%

100%

CYCLE AIR SCOUR 273,698

54

273,698

54

100%

100%

REPLACE WATER PUMPS WITH SIPHON 284,700

52

284,700

52

100%

100%

IMPROVE LIGHTING EFFICIENCY 220

0

220

0

100%

100%

DOWNSIZE EVAPORATIVE COOLER 0.5

0

0.5

0

100%

100%

ADD GRAVITY LINE 57,062

7

57,062

7

100%

100%

TOTAL 740,646

143

740,646

143

100%

100%








MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG50



Compressor System Efficiency Improvements

FinAnswer Energy Study


8/26/04 & 9/21/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

503,700 529,980 105% Minimal production output changes


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




More reliable compressed air pressure. Unknown







Baseline Equipment

• Compressor System

− Multiple Compressors to maintain High Pressure (HP) lines

HP Compressor #1 – 200 HP Worthington “Y”

HP Compressor #2 – 250 HP Ingersoll-Rand



− Multiple Compressors to maintain Low Pressure (LP) lines

LP Compressor #1 – 125 hp Worthington

LP Compressor #2 – 125 hp Worthington

Efficiency Project




HP Compressor #2 – 250 HP Ingersoll-Rand



− 4” Crossover line and controls to LP System lines

− Low Pressure (LP) lines

Removed LP Compressor #1 – 125 hp Worthington

Removed LP Compressor #2 – 125 hp Worthington



Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the compressed air systems as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 6,568,786 kWh annually.





The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 503,700 kWh annually by Compression Engineering Corporation.


The project has provided more reliable compressed air pressure.



There was no substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Energy Analysis Report and the parameters found by MRG – therefore minimal difference in projected energy savings could be determined from the monitoring of the system by MRG. The following information supports this conclusion:



3. Calculation of annual energy use for the system, using hours of operation base on monitoring results, provided in estimated energy use within 5% of that predicted by the FinAnswer Energy Study for the project.





The calculations for the base equipment and new equipment were correct assumptions at the time of the audit and commissioning reports. We corrected the savings by a decrease in kW of equipment based metering information. Confirmation of the hours of operation was based on the metering information gathered on site. Confirmed hours and equipment kW was used in recalculating savings proportionately based on commissioning report calculations.


• FinAnswer Energy Study, October 31, 2001, by Compression Engineering Corporation.




− Hours of operation of compressor

− Removed LP Compressor #1 – 125 hp Worthington

− Removed LP Compressor #2 – 125 hp Worthington

• Metering

− Historical performance data was not available for the system – short-term metering was performed for the compressor system.

• Free Ridership




• Spillover



− Efficient Motors

− Lighting efficiency improvements



− Install New High Pressure Management System and Screw Compressor: This measure would control the existing compressors and a new Screw Compressor. Current staff did not know why the measure was not installed.

− Install New High Pressure Screw Compressor as Trim: This measure would add a new Screw Compressor with a VSD control in trim position. Current staff did not know why the measure was not installed.

− Reduce High Pressure System Leaks: This measure would reduce air leaks by 25%. Current staff did not know why the measure was not implemented.

− Slow Down Low Pressure Compressors and Energy Management Controls: This measure would install an energy management system to load and unload one compressor at a time and base load the alternate compressor as needed. Current staff did not know why the measure was not installed.

− Reduce Low Pressure System Leaks: This measure would reduce air leaks by 25%. Current staff did not know why the measure was not implemented.






REALIZATION RATE

COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEMS 503,700

58

529,980

58%

105%

100%






Food Products 3782 Food Processing 31141 3782


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG51



Ammonia refrigeration system upgrades

Final Inspection Report, Energy Analysis Report

All measure equipment and features were found installed and in use

8/27/04 & 8/30/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

6,021,139 4,717,500 78% Limitations of the modeling approach, system operation and production levels may be contributing factors


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




Per the Final Inspection Report, major non-energy benefits include: control system trending and alarms, improved compressor sequencing, and ability to modify system suction pressures. Also allowed elimination of three tunnel operator positions – work instead is now performed by refrigeration engineers using the computer control system.

Unknown, but likely






This facility was a major producer of frozen potato products. An ammonia-based refrigeration system with 15 compressors totaling 7,000 HP provides the core function for product processing and storage. This facility has been closed.

Baseline Equipment

• Manual controls

• Condensers – two BAC VLC 1000A (these using inefficient centrifugal fans were removed)

• Liquid injection oil cooling

• Condenser fan on/off control

• 13,000 pound high-pressure receiver

Efficiency Project

• Computer controls

• Condensers – two BAC ATC-1284B (these using axial fans were installed)


• Condenser fan VFD control

• 68,000 pound high-pressure receiver

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the ammonia refrigeration system as described in the Final Inspection Report was 28,760,980 kWh annually.




Projected energy use for the ammonia refrigeration system as described in the Final Inspection Report was 22,739,841 kWh annually.


Projected energy savings for the ammonia refrigeration system as described in the Final Energy Analysis Report was 5,865,756 kWh annually.

The final estimated energy savings described in the Final Inspection Report and reported by the utility was 6,021,138 kWh annually.


The Final Inspection Report describes the following non-energy benefits:

• Increased high-stage capacity

• Increased condenser capacity

• Decreased condenser belt wear

• Control system trending and alarms

• Reduced labor compared to manually sequencing compressors

• Ability to easily modify compressor sequence

• Ability to easily modify system target suction pressures

During the site visit, the last four items from the list above were cited by the Lead Refrigeration Engineer as important benefits of the control system. The high-pressure receiver was also cited as allowing the customer to more easily meet regulatory requirements for refrigerant storage and eliminate rental cost for a temporary receiver for periodic system pump-down. Because of the capabilities of the computer control system and the availability of refrigeration operators (because they no longer are manually operating compressors) three tunnel operator positions were eliminated.





No meaningful differences were discerned between system operation parameters as reported in the Final Inspection Report and as observed by MRG. The Final Inspection Report was coincident with system commissioning and involved detailed system modeling and extensive data collection beyond the resources of this evaluation.

Limitations of the Energy Analysis Report modeling approach to represent actual system behavior may be a factor contributing to variance. System operational practices and changes production levels (proprietary information) could also be contributing factors to the reduced energy savings.


There were no metering opportunities or long-term system operations data available to calculate actual energy savings. Annual compressor run-time hours were obtained from engine room logs.

These run-time hours were applied to a simple model of compressor energy used by Cascade Energy Engineering to confirm their more complex models. Although compressor annual run hours are less than described in calculations for the energy study, they are not reduced enough to represent the energy savings that were projected. The overall realization rate was assigned to each individual measure.


• Final Inspection Report, May 14, 2003, by Cascade Energy Engineering.

• Final Energy Analysis Report, May 19, 1999, by Cascade Energy Engineering.






Industrial refrigeration systems are extremely complex with hundreds of setpoints and options for their operation. Due to the limited availability of operating personnel and that the printer was not functioning, just a few key operating were recorded:

− LT suction pressure 3.8 Hg

− HT suction pressure 29.0 psig

− Condensing setpoint 14ºF wet bulb approach summer

− Condensing setpoint 18ºF wet bulb approach winter

− Typical discharge pressure 124 psig 12 PM, moderate summer day

− Typical discharge pressure 114 psig 7 AM, cool summer morning

• Settings described in the Final Inspection Report

− Condensing setpoint 16º F wet bulb approach

− Discharge pressure 110 psig, February

• Metering

− No short-term metering could be useful for the seasonal and production variations found with this industrial refrigeration system.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover



− There is no significant remaining potential at this facility, as it has been slated to be completely shut down and sold or dismantled in November 2004.



− Due to the facility shut-down, a long-term “realization rate” may be considered along with that described below. The measure was in place for approximately 22 months out of an expected measure life of 15 years. This ratio times the realization rate below yields a long-term “realization rate” of about 10%.


− All measures recommended in the Energy Analysis Report were implemented by the customer.




REALIZATION RATE

REDUCE MINIMUM CONDENSING PRESSURE TO 100 PSIG & THERMOSIPHON OIL COOLING AND RECEIVER

3,250,777

427

2,545,330

427

78%

100%

INSTALL TWO NEW ATC-1265 CONDENSERS 1,020,785

126

799,266

126

78%

100%

CONDENSER FAN VFD CONTROL 855,844

16

670,118

16

78%

100%

COMPRESSOR COMPUTER CONTROL 893,733

163

699,785

163

78%

100%

TOTAL 6,021,139

732

4,714,500

732

78%

100%






Food Products 5705 Food Processing 311411 5705 & 5809


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG52



Compressed air control retrofit; Refrigeration computer controls

Energy Analysis Report; Final Commissioning Report; Final Inspection Report

Installation confirmed by inspection.

8/27/04 & 8/31/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

4,661,516 2,800,936 60% Actual operation different than assumed


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




For compressed air, better control of air pressure and drier air. For refrigeration, less wear and better temperature control.

Yes



This facility processes, freezes, and packs vegetables.




Baseline Equipment

• Compressed Air System

− Individual air compressors use modulating control

− Open air blowoffs used to clean conveyors

− Compressors are manually started and stopped

• Refrigeration System

− Multiple freezing tunnels, each isolated on a few compressors

− Incorrect compressor volume ratio on several compressors

− Warehouses with standard evaporator coils with constant speed fans

− Manual control system

Efficiency Project

• Refrigeration System Consolidation and Upgrade

− New refrigeration piping for tunnels 2, 3 and 4

− New common suction line in engine room

− New single high-pressure receiver

− Combine condenser piping

− Correct volume ratio on several screw compressors

− Install thermosiphon oil cooling on screw compressors

− Install efficient evaporator coils with VFD fans in warehouses 1 and 3

− Install VFD fans in warehouse 2

− Computer control system




− Individual air compressors converted to load/unload control

− Additional receiver capacity

− Intermediate controller added

− Air demands reduced with filters and nozzles on blowoffs

− Air compressors integrated into computer control system

Baseline Energy Use


Baseline energy use for the compressed air system was not described in the Energy Analysis Report.


Projected refrigeration system energy savings described in the Energy Analysis Report was 4,281,257 kWh annually.

The refrigeration system energy savings described in the Final Inspection Report and reported by the utility was 4,411,416 kWh annually.

Projected compressed air energy savings described in the Energy Analysis Report was 295,409 kWh annually.

The compressed air energy savings described in the Final Inspection Report and reported by the utility was 250,100 kWh annually.


For the compressed air control upgrade, plant staff feel that they have better control of the pressure in the plant and that the air is drier than it was previously. For the refrigeration upgrades, they believe that their equipment is experiencing less wear and tear because it is not



being run at full capacity, that temperature control is more constant and they have found that they can maintain the desired lower temperatures required by the freezing tunnels.



No substantive differences between operating parameters as reported in the Final Inspection Report and the parameters were found by MRG. However, the analysis of operations data suggests that savings are less than predicted. The following points support this conclusion:

1. There are substantial seasonal and production variations on this refrigeration system. These variations are not described and thus were not used to adjust energy use.

2. As described below, actual refrigeration system operations data was used to determine energy savings.

3. Simple annual energy calculations using compressor hours of operation confirmed the analysis of actual savings using compressor motor current.

For the compressed air project, energy savings are likely close to that predicted. The following points support this conclusion:

1. There have been substantial increases in compressed air demand.

2. Controls to sequence air compressors were integrated into the refrigeration management computer, and the specified filters and nozzles to reduce air demand were installed and in use.

3. To serve this additional compressed air demand, the number of air compressors has increased from three to five.

4. As described below, hourly data showed that the compressed air sequencing controls were operating, so the ‘original intent’ of the controls appeared to be in place, and thus savings were deemed.


The long-term system refrigeration operations data provided by Cascade Energy Engineering was used to calculate actual energy savings. Compressor energy use for 2004, after measure



installation, was compared to compressor energy use before measure installation in 2003. This was confirmed with simple annual energy calculations using compressor hours of operation.

In the same fashion, the long-term system compressed air operations data provided by Cascade Energy Engineering was used to estimate energy savings. Air compressor energy use after measure installation in 2004 was compared to air compressor energy use before measure installation in 2003. Because plant compressed air demands had grown significantly over that time period and that the number of air compressors had grown from three to five, the exact magnitude energy savings could not be confirmed, although there was still a reduction in compressed air energy use. Since the data clearly showed that the air compressor controls were operating, the original project savings were deemed.


• Refrigeration System

− Energy Analysis Report; December 4, 2002, by Cascade Energy Engineering.

− Final Commissioning Report, December 10, 2003, by Cascade Energy Engineering.

− Final Inspection Report, December 12, 2003, by Cascade Energy Engineering.


− Energy Analysis Report; December 2, 2002, by Cascade Energy Engineering.

− Final Inspection Report, November 11, 2003, by Cascade Energy Engineering.


A very brief site visit was performed by Steven Scott of MetaResource Group. During the very limited time onsite, the measure installations were confirmed by inspection, but no operating parameters were collected.

• Metering

− Hourly motor current from the refrigeration control system for thirty-two refrigeration compressors were provided by Cascade Energy Engineering in their ongoing role as refrigeration consultants to the customer. Data was provided for most of 2003 and 2004, both before and after measure installation.



− Hourly motor current from three air compressors from 2003 and from five air compressors in 2004 were provided by Cascade Energy Engineering in their ongoing role as consultants to the customer on compressed air.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− No spillover was observed.


− The customer has continued to work on refrigeration system upgrades through the Process Efficiency Program. There also appears to be some remaining potential in compressed air efficiency, particularly leak detection and repair.


− All measures recommended in the Energy Analysis Reports were implemented by the customer, except for two exclusive options for a VFD compressor and for a VFD retrofit to an existing compressor, which were not selected.




REALIZATION RATE

5705: LOAD/UNLOAD CONTROLS ON THE QNW 244A COMPRESSORS, 1,000 GAL RECEIVER TANK, INTERMEDIATE CONTROL VALVE, RELAY-BASED SEQUENCER

214,829

123

214,829

123

100%

100%

5705: REDUCE AIR CONSUMPTION ON CORN LINE BY INSTALLING FILTERS AND PROPERLY DESIGNED AIR NOZZLES IN PLACE OF THE EXISTING AIR BLOWOFFS

35,271

0

35,271

0

100%

5809: SYSTEM CONSOLIDATION AND WAREHOUSE CONSOLIDATION

4,411,416

123

2,550,836

123

58%

100%

Continued





REALIZATION RATE

TOTAL 4,661,516

246

2,800,936

246

60%

100%






Wood Products 6112 Wood Products 321219 6112 and 3495


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG53



6112: Compressor System Efficiency Improvements 3495: Lighting Improvements

Energy Analysis Study and FinAnswer Inspection Report Not covered in this report.


Not confirmed in this site visit.

8/27/04 & 9/17/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

Compressor System: 579,600

581,070 100% Minimal production output changes


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)




More reliable compressed air pressure. Yes







Baseline Equipment



Compressor #1 - QNW 1000

Compressor #2 - QNW 950

Compressors switch from Base-Load and Swing-Load status

Pneumatic 1600 dryer

Receivers

o One at 34.3 CF

o Two at 67.2 CF

Efficiency Project


− Two Compressors to maintain High Pressure (HP) lines

Compressor #1 - QNW 1000 as Base-Load Compressor

Compressor #2 - QNW 371 (new) as Load/Unload with controls

Pneumatic 1600 dryer

Receiver (new) at 1500 gallon

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the compressed air systems as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 2,381,400 kWh annually.







The final estimated energy savings described in the Verification Report and reported by the utility was 579,600 kWh annually by Compression Engineering Corporation


The project provides more reliable compressed air pressure.



There was no substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Energy Analysis Report and the parameters found by MRG – therefore minimal difference in projected energy savings could be determined from the monitoring of the system by MRG. The following information supports this conclusion:



3. Calculation of annual energy use for the system, using hours of operation base on monitoring results, provided in estimated energy use within 1% of that predicted by the FinAnswer Energy Study for the project.





The calculations for the base equipment and new equipment were correct assumptions at the time of the FinAnswer Energy Study for the project. We made no corrections to the savings for the project. Confirmation of the hours of operation and kW of equipment was based on the metering information gathered on site.


• FinAnswer Energy Study, October 31, 2001, by Compression Engineering Corporation.




− Hours of operation of compressor

− Monitoring of compressor QNW 371

− Replaced QNW 950 with QNW 371

• Metering

− Historical performance data was not available for the system – short-term metering was performed for the compressor system QNW 371.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− None.







− Add Receiver Capacity: This measure would add compressed air storage adjacent to the sander. Staff interviewed did not know why the additional Receiver Capacity was not installed.




REALIZATION RATE


76

581,070

78

100%

103%








MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG54



Compressor: Replace inefficient blow-offs:

FinAnswer Energy Analysis Report and FinAnswer Inspection Report


8/27/04 & 9/19/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

Compressor: 154,921 Blow-offs: 99,538

95,075 53,760

61% 54%

Hours of operation were based on 8,760 currently 5,376 hours annually


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)


Compressor: -1 Blow-offs: 34

0

0

0%

0%

Demand reductions were confirmed from observations.


Better product quality, reduced maintenance time, more reliable pressure. Unknown







Baseline Equipment


− Compressors to maintain High Pressure (HP) lines

− Compressor - 125 hp as replacement for failed unit

• Blow-offs

− Air Bars

− Open blowing point

Efficiency Project


− Compressor to maintain High Pressure (HP) lines

− Compressor - QNW 501 Load/Unload

− Receiver at 1500 gallon

• Blow-offs

− Air Knives after new compressor

− Solenoid control valve interlocked with production machinery

Baseline Energy Use


Baseline energy use for the compressed air systems as described in the Energy Analysis Report was 674,385 kWh annually.



• Blow-offs

Baseline energy use for the compressed air systems as described in the Energy Analysis Report after instillation of new compressor was 519,463 kWh annually.




• Blow-offs






• Blow-offs




• Better product quality



• Reduced maintenance time

• The project provides more reliable compressed air pressure



There was substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the Energy Analysis Report and the parameters found by MRG – therefore the difference in projected energy savings could be determined from the monitoring of the system by MRG. The following information supports this conclusion:

1. Production variations of the process systems can be substantial – one-time or short-term metering captured variation from the when performed by MRG.


3. Hours of operation based on monitoring and on site personnel support new savings estimates.

4. Calculation of annual energy use for the system, using hours of operation based on monitoring results, provided in estimated energy use within 58% of that predicted by the FinAnswer Inspection Report for the two projects.


The conditions at the plant, including hours of operation, have changed from the time of the original audit. Production processes are about the same as indicated in the Energy Audit.

The basic calculations for the base equipment and new equipment apparently were correct assumptions at the time of the audit and commissioning reports. We corrected the savings by a reduction in hours of operation based on confirmation of the hours based on metering information gathered on site. Confirmed, the hours were used in recalculating savings proportionately based on commissioning report calculations. Metering also confirmed average kW load of the equipment for the recalculations.




• FinAnswer Energy Analysis Report, October 30, 2002, by Compression Engineering Corporation.

• FinAnswer Inspection Report, May 26, 2003, by Compression Engineering Corporation.




− Hours of operation of compressors based on log sheets

− QNW 501 installed

− 1500 gallon Receiver installed

• Metering

− Historical performance data was not available for the system – short-term metering was performed for the compressor system.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− None.



− Lighting Improvements








REALIZATION RATE


-1

95,075

0

61%

0%

BLOW-OFFS 99,538

34

53,760

0

54%

0%

TOTAL 254,459

0

148,835

0

58%

0%



Project Evaluation Summary – Paper Products



Paper Products 4103 Paperboard Mill 322130 4103


MEASURE(S)


REVIEWED BY MRG55



Multiple air compressor controller; reduce leaks; adjust air dryers

Energy FinAnswer Study; Post-Installation Inspection Report


10/15/04


BY UTILITY (KWH)


(KWH)


VARIANCE

2,093,474 2,093,474 100% None


REPORTED (KW)


CONFIRMED (KW)


106.3 106.3 100% Demand reductions were deemed.


Automatic control and alarms; no longer using rental diesel compressors; allowed one compressor to have variable load capacity vs. load/unload.

No – applied after purchase



This mill produces craft paper.




Baseline Equipment

• Manually controlled centrifugal compressors varying capacity by blow-off of overpressure

• Timed air drains or cracked open ball valves

• Air dryers not optimized for performance

Efficiency Project

• Install multiple centrifugal air compressor system controller.

• Reduce air leaks by installation of no-loss air drains.

• Adjust air dryers for best performance.

Baseline Energy Use

Baseline energy use for the compressed air system as described in the FinAnswer Energy Study was 9,751,701 kWh annually.


Projected energy use deduced from the FinAnswer Energy Study was 6,599,344 kWh annually.


Projected energy savings described in the FinAnswer Energy Study was 2,287,910 kWh annually for the controller and 864,447 kWh annually for the no-loss drains and dryer adjustments.

The final estimated energy savings described in the Post-Installation Inspection Report and reported by the utility was 1,998,081 kWh annually for the controller and 95,393 kWh annually for the no-loss drains and dryer adjustments.




The control system upgrade provides automatic control and alarms. The improvement in local controls for one of their compressors has allowed it to vary its load – this machine formerly could only run in load/unload mode. They also no longer have to use rental diesel compressors to meet air requirements.



There was no substantive difference between operating parameters as reported in the FinAnswer Energy Study and the operating parameters described by the customer – therefore no difference in projected energy savings could be determined. Systems performance data for this facility were requested from the customer but were not provided.


Without system performance data no savings adjustment could be performed – energy savings were deemed to be the same as reported by the utility.


• Energy FinAnswer Study, January 7, 2002, by SAV-AIR, LLC.

• Post-Installation Inspection Report, September 2003, by Compression Engineering.




− Header pressure varies between 94 and 96 psig.

− Verified installations of controls by observation.

− Verified installation of no-loss air drains by inspection.



− Verified installation of additional receiver capacity by inspection.

• Metering

− Annual system performance data was requested, but was not provided.

• Free Ridership


• Spillover

− Discussion focusing on the remaining potential in the compressed air system did not suggest than any spillover has occurred.


− Discussion focusing on the remaining potential in the compressed air system revealed that a positive displacement screw compressor used for trim could probably reduce energy use by allowing one centrifugal machine to be shut down.


− All measures recommended by the FinAnswer Energy Study were implemented by the customer.




REALIZATION RATE

REDUCE AIR LEAKS AND ADJUST AIR DRYERS 95,393

83.7

95,393

83.7

100%

100%

INSTALL MULTIPLE COMPRESSOR AIR SYSTEM CONTROLLER

1,998,081

22.6

1,998,081

22.6

100%

100%

TOTAL 2,093,474

106.3

2,093,474

106.3

100%

100%



Sample Survey Instrument



ENERGY TRUST – INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION EVALUATIONMetaResource Group Page 225



impact evaluation of oregon industrial...

Documents