From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
Pre installation evaluation 2013-08-12
1. Pre-Installation Evaluation of
Industrial Projects
Jonathan B. Maxwell and Betsy Ricker, ERS
Carley Murray, NYSERDA*
*Any opinions expressed, explicitly or implicitly, are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority
IEPEC Chicago August 2013
2. Objectives
Primary
Discuss methods, advantages, and
disadvantages of very early impact evaluator
involvement in a large industrial process
program
Also share
Procedure
Case
studies of pre-retrofit activity
IEPEC Chicago 2013
3. What is Pre-Installation Impact
Evaluation?
Core
activity: Project engineering review
before savings claims are finalized
Pre-installation
savings calculation review
Baseline characterization
Pre-installation metering
Also/possibly:
Early
free ridership assessment
Early post-retrofit review & metering
Training PA and their technical advisors
IEPEC Chicago 2013
4. Why Do It?
Benefits
for evaluators
Evaluator
inspection in pre-retrofit state
Input regarding administrator M&V plan
•
Opportunity for independent direct M&V
Baseline
perspective at time of decision-making
Evaluator-administrator convergence/training
Bottom
Line:
Increased
engineering rigor
less variability, greater confidence in results
IEPEC Chicago 2013
5. Why Do It?
Benefits
for program administrators
Evaluator-administrator
convergence/training
Adjustment to savings estimates prior to incentive
calculation
Increased depth of engagement with facilitators
Less disturbance to customers
Bottom
line:
Better
realization rates
Fewer surprises
IEPEC Chicago 2013
6. Why Not Do It?
Added
Planning
$2k to $10k per project evaluator cost; less but some admin
• Modest ex post savings later
Sunk evaluation costs on projects that don’t matriculate
Monthly meetings
Risks
cost for evaluators and administrators
added calendar time to processing
Short notice rush analysis required
Baseline can require research. Admin waits?
Added
bureaucracy before closing the deal
IEPEC Chicago 2013
7. How It Works
ID candidate projects
Evaluator review
New facility
Existing
facility
Pre-install site
visit. Possible
metering
Tracking
Evaluator & administrator meet on
analysis, baseline, and proposed preinstallation metering.
Evaluation review
memo
Evaluator &
administrator
meet
Post-install site
visit
IEPEC Chicago 2013
8. How It Works – Screening
Establish
screening criteria in advance
Example:
All
over 5 GWh/yr or 10,000 MMBtu/yr
All over intermediate size range and process,
complex baseline, capacity expansion, controls, etc
Sample others in intermediate range
Evaluator
or administrator can ID projects
IEPEC Chicago 2013
9. How It Works - Variations
Are
early evaluator findings advisory or
definitive to program?
Is free ridership assessed? Is result shared? Is
it considered when setting incentives?
Formality of communication
Who does the M&V?
IEPEC Chicago 2013
10. Case Studies
Paper
includes four case studies
Good
Working together on M&V approach
Evaluator influencing administrator on baseline
characterization, and vice versa
Bad
Lost sunk costs
No consensus on baseline
Timing challenges
IEPEC Chicago 2013
11. Summary
Pre-Installation Impact Evaluation
Advantages:
Better
evaluation engineering & statistical quality
Better
realization rates
Fewer
bad surprises at end of evaluation
Costs:
More
labor
Calendar
concerns
IEPEC Chicago 2013
12. Shameless Plug
3:30 panel this afternoon
“Real Time” Evaluation: Benefits, Drawbacks and Practical
Applications
Perspectives
Different jurisdictions: Oregon, California, and New York
Different subjects: Process, impact, and market effects
Different actors: Evaluator, implementer, administrator
and that is just the panelists!
IEPEC Chicago 2013
13. Thank You!
Co-authors:
Betsy Ricker, ERS
Carley Murray, NYSERDA
Evaluation Client:
Judeen Byrne, and Jennifer Meissner, NYSERDA
Program Administrator: Cheryl Glanton, NYSERDA
Jon Maxwell, ERS
(978) 521-2550 x205
jmaxwell@ers-inc.com
IEPEC Chicago 2013
Hinweis der Redaktion
Early timely free ridership assessment (not NYSERDA scope)“Greater confidence” in both engineering (believe in site analysis) and statistical (lower variability and better relative precision) contexts.
“Better” means “bigger” for PAs, or at least “closer to 1.0.”
$6k NYSERDA impact evaluator & 40-hr budget. Running high so far.Horror stories (ref CPUC Lockheed panel)
For NYSERDA the administrator IDs. Know at least one other jurisdiction where the evaluator has the responsibility
NYSERDA: Advisory, no, no, no, moderately formal, administrator for the most partCPUC: Definitive, yes, yes, no, formal, administrator for the most partOPA: Unknown, yes, yes, yes, unknown, evaluator
Ex 1: Condensing economizer in ethanol plant. Lost 90% of savings due to noncompletion of boiler. Lost sunk cost & early ID on lost method—billing analysis no longer viableEx 2: Chemical distillation. Admin convincing evaluators that added M&V was not worthwhileEx 3: Beverage bottling: Evaluators not made aware of project until virtually the installation date (administrators had short notice as well)Ex 4: Data center: Baseline characterization