GROCERY

MONITORING-BASED
COMMISSIONING
GMBCx
Dom Lempereur & Sunny Devnani kW
www.kw-engineering.com
Engineering
 Agenda
2

 kW Engineering
 What is GMBCx?
 Our Expertise and Experience
 kW Engineering’s Proposal
 Anticipated Project Outcomes
 Discussion
A Highly-Technical Engineering
Team At Your Service
 Emphasis on High
Value & Impact
 60 Employees
• 23 Licensed PEs
• 23 with graduate degrees
 18 years in business
 High degree of
repeat clients
Our Presence in The Tri-State

 Local staff (NYC Office)

 NYSERDA RTEM Service
Provider
 NYSERDA Flextech Provider
 NYSERDA Tech Reviewer
 ConEdison M&V Provider
 ConEdison Market Partner
 PSEG LI Technical Assistance
Provider
U.S Grocery Market Overview

 EUI of 50 kWh/ft2: highest of

common commercial buildings(1)
 EUI increasing as landscape
changes due to online
marketing
 Investment priority is on front
end (not mechanical systems)
 O&M practices are reactive
 Paper-thin margins
(1.5% on average)

(1) Source US DOE 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)
 Our Expertise In Grocery Stores
6

 16 years of experience in this sector

 Recommissioned & Audited over 300 stores
 Focus on operational issues
 Delivered savings on the meter and bills
 Savings persist long after we complete projects
 Bridge the gap between the utility and the grocer
 Common GMBCx Measures
7

 Optimization
 Case lighting controls
 Anti-Sweat heaters controls
 Defrost controls
 Store lighting
 HVAC schedule/setpoint
 Adjustments
 Suction pressure
 Condensing pressure
 O&M
 Missing or bypassed relays
 Condenser motor failure
 Achieving Persistence of Savings
8

Comparison of Monthly Energy Use

300,000

250,000

200,000
Energy Use (kWh)

150,000

100,000

50,000

Baseline (2013) Verified Savings (2014) Verified Savings (2015)

 Achieving Peak Demand Reduction
9

50kW Electric Peak Demand reduction on average per site

 ComEd’s GMBCx Pilot Program

 Monitoring-Base
Commissioning Pilot
Program
 18 stores in program
 Verified sample show
> 120% realization
rate
 Transitioning from
pilot to utility program
 ComEd’s GMBCx: Success Story

11

• Whole-building approach
• No hardware
• Setup: immediate
(smart meters were present)
 ComEd’s GMBCx: Success Story

12

Savings calculated using ASHRAE

Guideline 14 M&V Approach for
Savings & Uncertainty
 ComEd’s GMBCx: Savings To-Date
13

# of Sites Status Estimated Verified Energy

Energy Savings Savings
(kWh/yr) (kWh/yr)
6 Stores Verified 808,711 978,903
12 Stores Implemented 1,364,172
+20%

• Store selection focused on smaller footprint stores

(20,000 – 40,000 sf ea)
• 12 months post install verification
 Lessons Learned
14

Utility Grocer
 Classification of a store is  Energy efficiency requires
unclear
 Too low for industrial
capital with low ROI
 Too expensive as commercial  Investment does not
 Refrigeration is specialized enhance customer
 Targeted low hanging experience
opportunities (LEDs, ASH)  Perception that utility is
 Compressors/Condensers cumbersome to work with
have been avoided
 Refrigeration controls are
different from other BMS
systems
 Market Potential In Your Territory
15

Key Foods (159)

Stop & Shop (44)

Foodtown (33)

ShopRite (30)

Total: 266 stores

* Includes O&R territory

 Market Potential In Your Territory
16

ShopRite (91)

Stop & Shop (36)

ALDI (18)

Kings (12)

Wegmans (3)

Total: 160 stores

 Market Potential In Your Territory
17

Stop & Shop (90)

Aldi (20)

Shop Rite (29)

Big Y (32)

Total: 171 stores

(Connecticut)
 Baseline of a Typical Store
18

Baseline Energy Use of 12 Stores in NY/NJ

4,500,000 900
4,000,000 800
3,500,000 700
Annua Usage (kWh)

Peak Demand (kW)

3,000,000 600
2,500,000 500
2,000,000 400
1,500,000 300
1,000,000 200
500,000 100
0 0

kWh kW

Source: kW Engineering audits

 ConEd Market Opportunity
19

Range Low High

Number of Selected Stores 266 266
Participation Rate 20% 40%
Baseline Usage 2,660,000 2,660,000
(annually, kWh per store)
Savings Potential (%) 7% 15%
Total Annual Program Savings (kWh) 10,000,000 42,000,000
Total Peak Demand Reduction (kW) 1,400 5,300
 PSEG Market Opportunity
20

Range Low High

Number of Selected Stores 160 160
Participation Rate 20% 40%
Baseline Usage 2,660,000 2,660,000
(annually, kWh per store)
Savings Potential (%) 7% 15%
Total Annual Program Savings (kWh) 6,000,000 26,000,000
Total Peak Demand Reduction (kW) 800 3,200
 Eversource Market Opportunity
21

Range Low High

Number of Selected Stores 171 171
Participation Rate 20% 40%
Baseline Usage 2,660,000 2,660,000
(annually, kWh per store)
Savings Potential (%) 7% 15%
Total Annual Program Savings (kWh) 6,000,000 27,000,000
Total Peak Demand Reduction (kW) 900 3,400

(Connecticut)
kW Engineering’s Proposal

 Pilot program in Con Edison Service territory in NY

 Program includes:
 Outreach and marketing
 Sign up 15 stores into the pilot
 Site audit with stores’ technician(s)
 Energy analysis report including SOW for each location
 Owner’s buy-in and approval to implement measures
 kW Engineering to contract with the technician to implement
the measures
 Post-install monitoring for 12 months using kW Tracker
 Pilot program close out and reporting to ConEd
 Feed into existing programs (deemed measures)
Ongoing Performance - kW Tracker
23

 Interface to ConEd’s interval metering data

 Continuously monitor performance
 Identify anomalies in interval data
 Monthly reporting of findings to clients and ConEd
 Anticipated Program Timeline
24

Task 2017 2018 2019

May

May
Sep

Aug

Dec
Aug

Sep
Nov
Dec

Nov
Mar

Feb

Feb
Mar
Jun

Jan

Jun

Jan
Oct

Oct
Apr

Apr
Jul

Jul
 

Contract signed                                                
Program Material Development                                
Customer Enrollment                                
Implementation Partner Recruitment                                
Site Screening                                
Site Investigations                                
Measures Development                                
Measures Implementation                  
Commissioning & Verification                  
Ongoing Performance Tracking                                    
Project Close out                                                
 Project Pricing
25

 As presented
 Target 3,000,000 kWh (*) savings across 15 sites
 Target 375 kW (**) Electric Demand reduction across 15 sites

Task Cost $/kWh Saved

Project Administration $150,000 $0.05/kWh
Technical Work $300,000 $0.10/kWh
Implementation $75,000 $0.025/kWh
Total Pilot Cost $525,000 $0.175/kWh

(*) based on an average 7% energy savings from baseline

(**) based on an average 25kW electric demand reduction per site
 Project Pricing
26

 As presented
 Target 2,500,000 kWh (*) savings across 12 sites
 Target 300 kW (**) Electric Demand reduction across 12 sites

Task Cost $/kWh Saved

Project Administration $150,000 $0.06/kWh
Technical Work $275,000 $0.11/kWh
Implementation $70,000 $0.03/kWh
Total Pilot Cost $495,000 $0.20/kWh

(*) based on an average 7% energy savings from baseline

(**) based on an average 25kW electric demand reduction per site
Pilot Project Outcome

 Develop cost-effective grocery sector approach

 User interval data to:
 Demonstrate a whole-building M&V approach using with regression models
developed by LBNL
 Improve persistence of energy savings
 Eliminate perception of barriers among grocers
 Increase participation in ConEd’s deemed incentive programs
 Improve cost effectiveness of energy efficiency implementation
Contact info

Dom Lempereur
Director of East Coast Operations
kW Engineering
353 W 48th St., Suite 303
New York, NY 10036
Direct: (646) 214-2096
dlempereur@kw-engineering.com

www.kw-engineering.com