Developing a Labs21 Energy Metering/Sub-Metering Strategy Notes from the Symposium at the Labs21 2009 Annual Conference September

23, 2009

Symposium Presenters Larry Clark, Facilitator Jim Plourde, Schneider Electric Mark Schores, Siemens Raymond Benton, Johnson Controls Paul Mathew, LBNL Purpose: To strengthen participation in and report on activities to date on a Labs21/I2SL initiative to create an industry-government working group to understand what technologies, approaches, and tools are already available, what technology is needed to develop a robust strategy for sub-metering energy use in laboratory facilities. Overview Presentations by various working group members concluded that a metering and benchmarking protocol or strategy for labs is necessary for owners, operators, and users to understand and therefore better manage the consumption of energy resources. In general, o Lab personnel need to understand their responsibilities to safely and efficiently operate their facilities o That aggressive metering will increase accountability and cooperation toward these goals with users, owners, and operators. Case Studies were presented including: o Siemens developed sophisticated metering system so they could invoice several clients within the same building. o Johnson Controls provides metered data in a variety of formats Chart, diagnostics, analysis Allows for proactive management and behavior modification The Labs21 Benchmarking Tool was presented: o Labs21 created an energy benchmarking tool to enable a comparison of energy performance o The tool is being used by EnergyStar to rate lab energy performance o Currently 190 lab buildings are benchmarked for energy use o More are necessary to create better comparisons o Labs operating in the Southwest are needed In all, earth has 17 climate zones, 15 of which occur within the United States Therefore the tools has the capacity for a broader level of participation More lab data would add greater assurance for a robust level of comparison Sub-metered data would enhance the value of the tool The objective for the symposium, a working session, is to: determine what metrics people want gathered benchmarking data so the metrics can be compared develop a protocol on how to collect better metrics

Four groups of approximately 10 symposium participants were organized to work with panelists to address their priorities for lab metering. Each group provided its summary (provided in brief below) and reported these to the industry participants. The panelists were expected to respond to these but little time remained for a full review (this needs to be done through follow-up meetings of the working group). Breakout Sessions Group 1: Metering application needs o Looking to improve reporting Benchmarking o How do we maintain benchmark? Baselines annually adjusted o Fine-tune how business units within a University setting are using utilities Separate research buildings from other utility use o Develop a campus standard for metering new buildings o Automated demand management o Installing sub-meters on emergency power o Reliable meters o Continuous calibration application Metric Priorities o Top Three: Carbon footprint Dollar cost Total consumption o Btu/sq ft o Individual building input o Total energy intensity and energy intensity by utility o Weather normalization To show justification for changes o Adjusting for occupancy load o Electric, lighting, cooling, heating Would a metering protocol be useful? o Yes Metering will almost always pay off Begin with the end in mind! What do you want to see in a final report? Which decision-maker will see the data and how will they use it? Group 2: Metering application needs o Utility (rates) Sub-meter utilities/equipment Water Motor control Panels Hoods/sashes

 o Water o Natural gas/oil o Steam o Electric o Trend analysis o Billing o Fault detection o Demand side vs. supply side o Forensic o Metrics should contain: Dashboard Graphics Universal flags Cost allocation Metric Priorities o Energy utilities o Submetering CHW o Compressed Air o BAS occupancy lights o High Impact o High Dollars o O&M vs. Cap

Boilers Tower water meters Sewage/evaporation

Group 3: Metering Application Needs o Cost allocation, equitable distribution, and occupant participation Electricity Steam Chilled Water Compressed Air o Research facility Meter for constant feedback to occupant; no incentive for researchers to be conservative Cycle savings back? Maximize/encourage user-level savings and cooperation. Educate tenants on cost, offer strategies, feedback Translate information to be relevant to users o Identify Outliers Define audience and different needs/different reporting methodologies Meter install/design considerations Downtime, safety, etc. o Who takes ownership of the information obtained from meters? What does that person do with the information? Next steps? Baseline, benchmarking equipment

Sub-metering Better, bigger technology = higher energy costs Sub-metering to determine optimal equipment placement Cost of sub-metering vs. information usefulness Presenting relevant information to multiple stakeholders

In general, group reports indicated that: People want easy to receive reports Benchmark to see where one stand over time and in comparison to other facilities o Baseline adjustments The more sub-metering the better for comparisons Going from reactive to proactive management is necessary Only meter things which can be corrected Date is worthless, actionable information is key!