1 / 23

FY2004 Energy & Water Report

FY2004 Energy & Water Report.

stormy
Download Presentation

FY2004 Energy & Water Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FY2004 Energy & Water Report • BTU Buster and H2Overachiever Awards. We will be presenting the following awards at the B&F Conference in March: BTU Buster, Energy Partner of the Year – Field, Energy Partner of the Year – HQ, Leading Edge Award, and H2Overachiever award. Send your nominations in now to SFPB! Don’t be bashful. Bring your good work and the good work of your colleagues to our attention. • Uh Oh…Energy Use is Up For the Second Consecutive Year. Energy consumption in FY 2004 was 4.5 percent higher than in FY 2003 on a BTU/GSF/Year basis. This is after a 7.7 percent increase in energy consumption from FY 2002 to FY 2003. • Why Have We Seen This Increase? While a number of labs have had energy use increases in FY 2004, our biggest challenge remains stabilizing the new RTP facilities which continue to run above projections. We continue to focus on re-commissioning at the RTP New Main. • There is Good News… After netting out EPA’s green power purchases, reportable energy consumption in FY 2004 was 17 percent below our FY 1990 baseline. Also a huge three year green power purchase at RTP ensures we will meet our FY 2005 reportable energy reduction requirements of 20 percent. SFPB’s goal has always been to reduce our actual energy use, rather than using green power credits to meet EO 13123 goals. We are striving to meet the FY 2010 energy reduction requirement of 25 percent from a FY 1990 baseline with a significantly greater contribution from actual energy use reductions.

  2. FY2004 Energy & Water Report • EPA Green Power- Now 75% of EPA’s National Electricity Use: In October, 2004, the Defense Energy Support Center awarded a 3 year, 100 million kilowatt hour per year contract for renewable power from a wood and paper pulp waste energy plant in Georgia; this meets 100% of the estimated electric use of all RTP facilities. On behalf of EPA, the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) purchased RECs for the following facilities, with delivery starting on November 1, 2004: Region 8 Headquarters (Denver, CO) – 4.7 million kWh annually. RECs are from a wind farm in Lamar, Colorado. Region 7 Headquarters (Kansas City, KS) – 4.45 million kWh annually. RECs are from a wind farm in Montezuma, Kansas. Kansas City Science and Technology Center (KCSTC) – 3.85 million kWh annually. RECs are from in Montezuma, Kansas. Golden Laboratory – 2.1 million kWh annually. RECs are from a wind farm in Lamar, Colorado. Currently EPA is purchasing green power equivalent to 75% of its electricity use nationwide, the highest percentage of any major federal agency. • Priority Laboratories*: Beginning in the 3rd Quarter of FY 2004, we started designating “priority laboratories.” These laboratories: • 1) Are among the highest 1/3 of EPA’s labs based on energy intensity (i.e., have high BTUs/GSF/year). • 2) Are significant energy consumers (i.e., use more than 2.5 percent of EPA’s total reported energy use). • 3) Have not yet been re-commissioned and/or have not yet had major mechanical system upgrades completed in the last five years. • * These priority labs are highlighted in red on select charts.

  3. 2005 Buildings & Facilities Conference. Please join OAS on March 14-17 in Philadelphia, PA for this year’s Building and Facilities Conference! To register and get more information on the workshop, visit our B&F registration Web site at https://www.enstg.com/signup/. • Thank you to all facility managers and energy reporters for submitting FY04 energy and water data in a timely manner. Your cooperation and hard work is greatly appreciated! • Contact Us: If you have any green power, energy, or water conservation needs or questions, please call the Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch at (202) 564-6371. FY2004 Energy & Water Report

  4. EPA Average Energy Use, FY 1985 to FY 2010, Projected EPA Reporting Labs (green power netted out) E.O. 13123 FY 2010 Goal EPA Reporting Labs (green power not netted out) 450,000 399,992 FY 2004 400,000 355,773 357,864 * 350,000 336,119 286,291 268,398 BTUs/GSF/Year 300,000 * * * FY 1990 Baseline 296,877 250,000 FY 2004 FY 2005 E.O. 13123 Goal E.O. 13123 Goal FY 2010 210,911 200,000 150,000 1991 2001 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1992 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 1993 • Notes: • RTP (New Main) and RTP (NCC) energy numbers are estimated. An energymetering system should be installed by September 2005. • In FY 2004, EPA’s total laboratory Gross Square Footage (GSF) was adjusted from 3,845,436 GSF to 3,685,665 GSF as a result of the GSF verification study. This resulted in a slight increase in BTUs/GSF/Year. • Due to data quality concerns resulting from a new metering and billing system, FY03 chilled water data are used as a proxy for FY04 chilled water data at RTP (Human Studies). As a result, FY2004 energy data for RTP (Human Studies) are estimated. .

  5. FY 2004 Annual Energy Use in BTUs/GSF (Compared to FY 1999-2003 Annual Average) 800,000 FY 1999- 2003, Annual Avg. 700,000 FY 2004 Annual Energy Use 600,000 500,000 BTUs/GSF/Year 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Ada Duluth Edison Golden Newport Houston Richmond Chelmsford Ann Arbor Grosse Ile Las Vegas Fort Meade Gulf Breeze Athens-ESD Athens-ORD Manchester Montgomery Narragansett Corvallis(Main) Corvallis(WRS) RTP(NCC) (Est.) Kansas City STC Cincinnati(Ctr Hill) RTP(New Page Rd.) RTP(NHEERL/RTF) Cincinnati(AWBERC) RTP(New, Main) (Est.) Cincinnati(Test&Eval) RTP(Human Studies) (Est.) • Notes: • Golden’s 2nd and 3rd Qtr natural gas consumption is based on 2nd and 3rd Qtr, FY2003 data. • Priority laboratories: Labs marked in red that show the greatest potential for energy conservation. They include: RTP (New Main), Cincinnati (AWBERC), RTP (Human Studies), RTP (NHEERL/RTF), RTP (NCC), and Duluth. • RTP (New Main) and RTP (NCC) energy numbers are estimated. An energy metering system should be installed by September 2005. • Due to data quality concerns resulting from a new metering and billing system, FY03 chilled water data are used as a proxy for FY04 chilled water data at RTP (Human Studies). As a result, FY2004 energy data for RTP (Human Studies) are also estimated. • RTP (New Main) and RTP (NCC) began reporting energy and water data in October 2002 (1st Qtr FY2003). Kansas City STC began reporting energy and water data in April 2003 (3rd Qtr FY2003). Because these three facilities do not yet have five years worth of historical data, they do not have a green bar, which represents the five-year historical average (FY1999 – FY2003).

  6. Share of Total Energy Use, EPA Reported Labs FY 2004 (Green Power Not Netted Out) RTP (New, Main) (Estimated) Corvallis (WRS) 36.6% 0.2% RTP (Page Rd.) 0.3% Cincinnati (Ctr Hill) 0.4% • This chart illustrates each lab’s share of EPA’s total reported annual energy consumption. • Energy use includes electricity (conventional and green), natural gas, fuel oil, chilled water, high temperature hot water, and steam. Newport 0.5% Cincinnati (AWBERC) Montgomery 10.3% 0.6% Grosse Ile 0.6% Cincinnati (Test Eval) 0.8% RTP (Human Studies) (Estimated) Ada 6.6% 0.9% Gulf Breeze 1.1% Ann Arbor Richmond 4.9% 1.1% Golden Fort Meade 1.3% 4.7% Manchester RTP (NHEERL/RTF) 1.4% 4.5% Kansas City STC 1.4% RTP (NCC) (Estimated) 3.7% Corvallis (Main) Edison 1.5% 2.9% Athens ESD Duluth 1.7% • Notes: • Priority laboratories: Labs marked in red that show the greatest potential for energy conservation. They include: RTP (New Main), Cincinnati (AWBERC), RTP (Human Studies), RTP (NHEERL/RTF), RTP (NCC), and Duluth. • RTP (New Main) and RTP (NCC) energy numbers are estimated. An energy metering system should be installed by September 2005. • Due to data quality concerns resulting from a new metering and billing system, FY03 chilled water data are used as a proxy for FY04 chilled water data at RTP (Human Studies). As a result, FY2004 energy data for RTP (Human Studies) are also estimated. 2.5% Houston 1.7% Narragansett 1.9% Chelmsford 1.9% Athens ORD 1.9% Las Vegas 2.0%

  7. Actual Energy Use in BTUs/GSF/FY2004 (Green Power Not Netted Out) Energy intensity, measured in BTUs/GSF/Year, indicates how efficiently each lab uses energy without regard to the size of the lab or the amount of green power it receives. 800,000 BTUs/GSF, CUP Factor Credit * 700,000 BTUs/GSF, E.O. 13123 FY05 Goal 600,000 BTUs/GSF, E.O. 13123 FY10 Goal 500,000 BTUs/GSF, Actual Energy Use BTUs/GSF/FY 2004 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Ada Duluth Edison Athens Golden Houston Newport Richmond Grosse Ile Ann Arbor Las Vegas Chelmsford Fort Meade Gulf Breeze Manchester Athens-ESD Montgomery Narragansett Corvallis (Main) Corvallis (WRS) Kansas City STC RTP (NCC) (Est.) RTP (New Page Rd.) RTP (NHEERL/RTF) E.O. 13123 FY10 Goal Cincinnati (AWBERC) Cincinnati (Test& Eval) E.O. 13123 FY05 Goal RTP (New, Main) (Est.) Cincinnati (Center Hill) RTP (Human Studies) (Est.) • Notes: • Priority laboratories: Labs marked in red that show the greatest potential for energy conservation. They include: RTP (New Main), Cincinnati (AWBERC), RTP (Human Studies), RTP (NHEERL/RTF), RTP (NCC), and Duluth. • RTP (New Main) and RTP (NCC) energy numbers are estimated. An energy metering system should be installed by September 2005. • Due to data quality concerns resulting from a new metering and billing system, FY03 chilled water data are used as a proxy for FY04 chilled water data at RTP (Human Studies). As a result, RTP (Human Studies) are also estimated. • * For an explanation of the CUP Factor Credit, see slide 16.

  8. Reported Energy Use in BTUs/GSF/FY 2004 For each lab, the yellow portion of the bar represents the reported energy consumption after energy savings from completed recommissioning projects and mechanical system upgrades are deducted, and green power purchases are credited. 800,000 BTU's/GSF, CUP Factor Credit * BTU's/GSF, E.O. 13123 FY05 Goal BTU's/GSF, Green Power BTU's/GSF, Mechanical Upgrades BTU's/GSF, E.O. 13123 FY10 Goal BTU's/GSF, Reported Energy Consumption 700,000 BTU's/GSF, Recommissioning BTU's/GSF, ESPC Savings 600,000 500,000 BTU's/GSF/FY 2004 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Ada Athens Duluth Edison Golden Houston Newport Ann Arbor Las Vegas Grosse Ile Richmond Gulf Breeze Athens-ESD Fort Meade Chelmsford Manchester Montgomery Narragansett Corvallis(WRS) Corvallis(Main) Kansas City STC RTP(NCC) (Est.) Cincinnati(Ctr Hill) RTP(New Page Rd.) Cincinnati(AWBERC) RTP(NHEERL/RTF) Cincinnati(Test&Eval) E.O. 13123 FY10 Goal E.O. 13123 FY05 Goal RTP(New, Main) (Est.) RTP(Human Studies) (Est.) • Notes: • Priority laboratories: Labs marked in red that show the greatest potential for energy conservation. They include: RTP (New Main), Cincinnati (AWBERC), RTP (Human Studies), RTP (NHEERL/RTF), RTP (NCC), and Duluth. • RTP (New Main) and RTP (NCC) energy numbers are estimated. An energy metering system should be installed by September 2005. • Due to data quality concerns resulting from a new metering and billing system, FY03 chilled water data are used as a proxy for FY04 chilled water data at RTP (Human Studies). As a result, RTP (Human Studies) are also estimated. • * For an explanation of the CUP Factor Credit, see slide 16.

  9. Energy Use in BTUs/GSF/Projected for FY 2005 For each lab, the yellow portion of the bar represents the projected energy consumption after energy savings from completed recommissioning projects and mechanical system upgrades are deducted, and green power purchases are credited. BTU's/GSF, Recommissioning BTU's/GSF, Projected Energy Use BTU's/GSF, Mechanical Upgrades 800,000 BTU's/GSF, Green Power Portion of CUP Factor Credit* BTU's/GSF, E.O. 13123 FY10 Goal BTU's/GSF, ESPC Savings 700,000 BTU's/GSF, Green Power BTU's/GSF, CUP Factor Credit* BTU's/GSF, E.O. 13123 FY05 Goal 600,000 500,000 400,000 BTU's/GSF/Estimated FY 2005 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Ada Edison Duluth Golden Newport Grosse Ile Chelmsford Richmond Las Vegas Houston RTP(NCC) Manchester Gulf Breeze Athens-ESD Ann Arbor Montgomery Fort Meade Narragansett Athens-ORD Corvallis(Main) Corvallis(WRS) RTP(New Main) Cincinnati(Ctr Hill) Kansas City STC RTP(New Page Rd.) RTP(Human Studies) Cincinnati(Test&Eval) RTP(NHEERL/RTF) Cincinnati(AWBERC) E.O. 13123 FY10 Goal E.O. 13123 FY05 Goal • Notes: • Priority laboratories: Labs marked in red that show the greatest potential for energy conservation. They include: RTP (New Main), Cincinnati (AWBERC), RTP (Human Studies), RTP (NHEERL/RTF), RTP (NCC), and Duluth. • RTP (New Main) and RTP (NCC) energy numbers are estimated. An energy metering system should be installed by September 2005. • * For an explanation of the CUP Factor Credit, see slide 16.

  10. Total Energy Cost/GSF/FY 2004 (Includes Green Power Premium Costs and CUP* O&M Costs) $10.00 $9.00 $8.00 $7.00 $6.00 $5.00 Cost/GSF/Year $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 Ada Duluth Athens Edison Golden Houston Newport Ann Arbor Grosse Ile Las Vegas Richmond RTP(NCC) Gulf Breeze Athens-ESD Fort Meade Chelmsford Manchester Montgomery Narragansett Corvallis(WRS) Corvallis(Main) RTP(Page Rd.) Kansas City STC RTP(New, Main) Cincinnati(Ctr Hill) Cincinnati(Test&Eval) RTP(NHEERL/RTF) Cincinnati(AWBERC) RTP(Human Studies) Notes: * RTP (New Main) and RTP (NCC) receive some utilities from a Central Utility Plant (CUP) located on RTP’s new consolidated campus. The total energy cost for each of these laboratories includes operation and maintenance (O&M) fees associated with operating the CUP.

  11. Total Water Use in Gallons/FY 2004 50 45 40 35 30 Water Use in Gallons FY2004 (Millions) 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ada Edison Duluth Golden Houston Ann Arbor Newport Las Vegas Richmond Grosse Ile Gulf Breeze Fort Meade Chelmsford Athens-ORD Manchester Athens-ESD Narragansett Montgomery Corvallis(Main) Corvallis(WRS) Cincinnati(Ctr Hill) RTP(NHEERL/RTF) RTP(New, Main) (Est) Cincinnati(Test&Eval) Cincinnati(AWBERC) RTP(Human Studies) • Notes: • Montgomery does not have a water meter. As a result, water consumption cannot be reported or verified. • RTP (New Main) has no water meter to verify its consumption. As a result, water consumption is an engineering estimate based on an IAG with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

  12. Water Use in Gallons/GSF/FY 2004 700 FY 2004 E.O. 13123 FY 2010 Goal 600 500 400 Gallons/GSF 300 200 100 0 Ada Golden Duluth Edison Houston Newport Ann Arbor Richmond Grosse Ile Las Vegas Chelmsford Fort Meade Manchester Gulf Breeze Montgomery Athens-ORD Athens-ESD Narragansett Corvallis(Main) Corvallis(WRS) Kansas City STC Cincinnati(Ctr Hill) RTP(NHEERL/RTF) Cincinnati(Test&Eval) Cincinnati(AWBERC) RTP(Human Studies) RTP(New, Main) (Est) E.O. 13123 FY 2010 Goal • Notes: • Montgomery does not have a water meter. As a result, water consumption cannot be reported or verified. • RTP (New Main) has no water meter to verify its consumption. As a result, water consumption is an engineering estimate based on an IAG with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

  13. Share of Total Water Use (Gallons), EPA Reported Labs FY 2004 Ada 1.2% Newport Athens-ESD 1.0% 1.3% Cincinnati(Ctr Hill) 0.8% Golden 1.3% Manchester Chelmsford 0.7% 1.4% Duluth Kansas City STC 0.5% 1.4% Grosse Ile 0.3% RTP(Human Studies) Richmond 1.6% Narragansett 0.2% 1.6% Corvallis(WRS) Houston 0.1% 1.8% Athens-ORD 2.2% Las Vegas 2.2% Gulf Breeze 2.8% RTP(New Main & NCC) Edison 27.9% 3.3% Fort Meade 3.7% Ann Arbor 4.0% RTP(NHEERL/RTF) 5.4% Corvallis(Main) 6.1% Cincinnati(Test&Eval) 15.2% Cincinnati(AWBERC) 11.9%

  14. EPA Laboratory Energy Use FY 1990 – FY 2004 (BTUs/GSF) Note: Due to data quality concerns resulting from a new metering and billing system, FY03 chilled water data are used as a proxy for FY04 chilled water data at RTP (Human Studies).

  15. EPA Laboratory Energy Use FY 1990 – FY 2004 (cont’d) (BTUs/GSF) Note: Due to data quality concerns resulting from a new metering and billing system, FY03 chilled water data are used as a proxy for FY04 chilled water data at RTP (Human Studies).

  16. RTP Energy Use Detail FY 2002 – FY 2004 (BTUs/GSF) Note: Due to data quality concerns resulting from a new metering and billing system, FY03 chilled water data are used as a proxy for FY04 chilled water data at RTP (Human Studies).

  17. CUP Factor Credit – What is it? RTP (New Main) receives chilled water (generated using electricity) and high temperature hot water (generated using natural gas) from a Central Utility Plant (CUP) located near RTP’s new consolidated main campus. RTP’s National Computer Center (NCC) also receives chilled water from the CUP. This CUP serves both the EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. During the production (and, less significantly, transport) of chilled and high temperature hot water from the CUP to EPA’s two RTP facilities, energy is lost. The amount of electricity and gas BTUs input into boilers and chillers is greater than the amount of chilled and high temperature hot water BTU’s produced because the inherent inefficiencies associated with the chillers and boilers. (This is why people say a boiler or chiller is 80% efficient, for example.) EPA is only required to report to the U.S. Department of Energy and the Office of Management and Budget the annual BTUs received at each facility. As a result, RTP (New Main) and RTP (NCC) “officially” report fewer BTUs received than most other EPA labs which have their boilers and chillers in house. The CUP Factor credit assumes a 20 percent energy loss during transport from the CUP to RTP’s two labs. The yellow striped area shows the estimated energy use if the CUP factor credit is not applied. We apply the CUP factor so that we can compare RTP performance on an equivalent basis with other EPA laboratories. Since RTP purchases 100 percent green power, the energy lost at the CUP during the generation of chilled water (using electricity) is also green. This green power lost during the transport of chilled water is represented by the green striped area.

  18. Assumptions & Methodology • For All Charts • BTUs/GSF data for RTP (Burden Jenkins), RTP (Mobile Lab), Cincinnati (Pub Warehouse), and Cincinnati (Child DevCtr) not available because square footage data not available for these buildings. • Cincinnati (Total) includes AWBERC, Test & Evaluation Center, Center Hill, Pub Warehouse, and Child Dev Ctr. • RTP (Total) equals RTP (Old, Total) for all years through FY2002. Old, Total includes ERC, Annex/Admin, NHEERL, Human Studies, Burden/Jenkins, Page Road, and Mobile Lab. Beginning in FY2003, RTP (Total) equals RTP (New, Total), which includes New Main, NCC, NHEERL/RTF, Human Studies, New Page Road, and Miscellaneous. Miscellaneous includes Burden/Jenkins and Mobile Lab.

  19. Assumptions & Methodology • Individual Charts • EPA Average Energy Use, FY85 to FY2010, Projected: Used verified GSF figures starting in FY04. • Based on engineering estimates, the following assumptions were made for projects planned in FY05: • RTP, Human Studies – Recommissioning project (12/31/05) - BTU reduction of 20 percent compared to FY03 baseline. • Richmond – ESPC like (12/30/04) – BTU reduction of 18 percent compared to FY03 baseline. • RTP, NHEERL – Recommissioning project (06/30/05) - BTU reduction of 20 percent compared to FY03 baseline. • RTP, New Main – Retrocommissioning (09/31/05) – BTU reduction of 10 percent compared to FY03 baseline. Based on planned procurements and contract renewals, the following assumptions were made for green power purchases in FY05: • Kansas City STC – 3,850,00 kWh/yr (delivery start date 10/01/04) • Golden – 2,100,000 kWh/yr (delivery start date 10/01/04) Note: Golden did not receive green power in FY04 • RTP – New procurement of 100,000,000 kWh beginning 11/01/04. • FY 2004 Annual Energy Use in BTUs/GSF: Engineering estimates used at RTP (New, Main) and RTP (NCC) to estimate EPA’s share of the metered reading for electricity, chilled water, and high temperature hot water consumption which is split between EPA and NIEHS. RTP(New, Main): A central utility plant (CUP) provides chilled and high temperature hot water. RTP (NCC): The CUP provides chilled water. Due to data quality concerns resulting from a new metering and billing system, FY03 chilled water data is used as a proxy for FY04 chilled water data at RTP (Human Studies). • Share of Total Energy Use, FY2004. Green power not netted out. • Energy Use in BTUs/GSF/FY2004 (Green Power Not Netted Out).ESPC: Green power, mechanical upgrades, and recommissioning projects are not netted out. CUP factor: For RTP (New,Main) and RTP(NCC), yellow striped area shows actual estimated energy use if the CUP conversion factor is not used.

  20. Assumptions & Methodology • Individual Charts • Energy Use in BTUs/GSF/FY2004 (Green Power Netted Out): This chart does net out green power purchases, mechanical upgrades, and recommissioning projects. • ESPCs: Ann Arbor: ESPC savings equal to average FY1993-1995 minus estimated FY2004 energy use. Ada estimated FY2004 energy use 50% less than FY2001 baseline (188,550 BTUs/GSF) due to ESPC. For all ESPC savings, the blue area shows savings, and the yellow is estimated energy use; the blue and yellow areas together equal the baseline. • Green Power: Assumed the following green power consumption during FY 2004: Chelmsford: 1,741,666 kWh; Edison: 4,605,636 kWh; Athens (ESD): 2,424,572 kWH; RTP (New Main): 25,974,239 kWh; RTP (NCC): 3,855,345 kWh; Duluth: 1,080,015 kWh; Grosse Ile: 328,560 kWh, Cincinnati (AWBERC): 10,216,356 kWh; Cincinnati (T&E): 1,600,537 kWh; Cincinnati (Center Hill): 665,880 kWh; Cincinnati (Pub. Warehouse): 28,134 kWh; Cincinnati (Child Care): 50,028; Houston: 3,401,462 kWh; Las Vegas: 1,814,027 kWh; Richmond: 1,853,400 kWh; Manchester: 2,597,490 kWh; Corvallis (Main): 283,500 kWh. • Recommissioning: * For Ft. Meade and RTP(New, Main), the purple area shows energy savings from recommissioning. The yellow area shows estimated FY04(assumed equal to FY02) energy use. Assumed energy use at Ft. Meade would have been 12% higher if recommissioning did not take place.

  21. Assumptions & Methodology • Individual Charts • Energy Use in BTUs/GSF/Estimated FY2005. Assumed FY2005 total energy use equals FY2004 energy use except for RTP(New, Main), RTP(NHEERL), and RTP(Human Studies). • ESPCs: Ada: estimated FY2005 energy use 50% less than baseline (FY2001 total BTUs/GSF) due to ESPC. • Ann Arbor: ESPC savings equal to average FY1993-1995 minus FY2004 energy use. Richmond: assumed ESPC savings equals 18 percent of FY03 energy use. For all ESPC savings, the blue area shows savings, and the yellow is estimated energy use; the blue and yellow areas together equal the baseline. • Recommissioning: RTP(New, Main) assumed FY2005 energy use decreased by 10 percent compared to FY2004 energy use due to recommissioning (12/31/04) (see Bucky's 03/06/04 forecast). This decrease was only applied to 9 months of the year. RTP(Human Studies) assumed FY2005 energy use decreased by 20 percent compared to FY2004 energy use due to recommissioning (03/31/05) (see Bucky's 03/06/04 forecast). This decrease was only applied to 6 months of the year. RTP (NHEERL(RTF) assumed FY2005 energy use decrease by 20 percent compared to FY2004 energy use due to recommissioning (06/30/05) per Dan Amon's 08/02/04 verification. This decrease was only applied to 3 months of the year. Assumed energy use at Ft. Meade would have been 12% higher if recommissioning did not take place. Ft. Meade recommissioning was substantially completed March 31, 2002. As a result, these savings were not subtracted from FY04 energy usage. For Ft. Meade, RTP(New, Main), RTP(NHEERL), and RTP(Human Studies), the purple area shows energy savings from recommissioning. The yellow area shows estimated FY05 energy use. • Green Power: For all facilities (except RTP, Chelmsford, and Cincinnati), estimated FY05 green power use equals the annual amount in each facility's green power contract. Assumed the following amounts of green power: Edison: 4,478,818 kWh, per green power contract; Kansas City STC: 3,850,000 kWh, per green contract; Manchester: 3,333,000 kWh, per green power contract; Las Vegas: 4,650,000 kWh, per green power contract; Athens-ESD: 4,150,000 kWh, per green power contract; Grosse Ile: 700,000 kWh, per green power contract; Corvallis(Main): 360,000 kWh, per green power contract; Golden: 2,100,000 kWh, per green power contract; Richmond: pro-rated annual contracted amount (1,834,500 kWh) for 10 months due to contract ending in July 2005; Duluth: 2,350,000 kWh, per green power contract; Houston: 3,350,000 kWh, per green power contract. Cincinnati Green Power: Cincinnati's annually contracted amount (15,560,000 kWh) is attributed to AWBERC, T&E, and Center Hill according to their percentage of their combined total electricity consumed during FY04 (12,482,773). AWBERC: 81.84% of combined FY04 total; attributed 12,734,304 kWh of green power in FY05; T&E: 12.82% of combined FY04 total; attributed 1,994,792 kWh of green power in FY05; Cincinnati(Ctr Hill): 5.34% of combined FY04 total; attributed 830,904 kWh of green power in FY05.

  22. Assumptions & Methodology • Green Power (Continued):RTP Green Power: Beginning in FY05, RTP purchases 100 million kWh of green power annually, which is more than the RTP labs consume on an annual basis (direct electricity and electricity used at the CUP to generate chilled water for NEw Main and NCC). FY05 green power for all RTP facilities is estimated by assuming that the same amount of electricity used in FY04 (direct electricity and the electricity used at the CUP to generate chilled water for New Main and NCC) will be used in FY05. The following is how the green power is broken up at the RTP facilities: New Main: Assumed 37,444,871 kWh of direct green electricty and 26,461,118 kWh of chilled water green electricity from the CUP (the CUP portion of the electricity assumes a 20% energy loss during transport from the CUP to New Main -- see CUP Factor credit for details). NCC: Assumed 5,550,104 kWh of direct green electricity and 3,791,447 kWh of chilled water green electricity from the CUP (the CUP portion of the electricity assumes a 20& energy loss during transport from the CUP to NCC -- see CUP Factor credit for details). NHEERL: Assumed 6,119,280 kWh of direct green electricity (amount of conventional electricity consumed during FY04). Human Studies: Assumed 6,581,760 kWh of direct green electricity (amount of conventional electricity consumed during FY04). New Page Rd.: Assumed 1,035,384 kWh of direct green electricity (amouont of conventional electricity consumed during FY04). CUP Factor Credit: The CUP Factor Credit represents the 20% of the energy used by the CUP that is not reported due to its loss in transport to New Main and NCC. New Main: New Main receives both chilled (generated using electricity) and heated water (generated using natural gas) from the CUP. The CUP factor credit is calculated by dividing New Main's FY04 chilled and heated water BTUs (267,443,490,089) by 0.8. 267,443,490,089/0.8 = 334,304,362,611 BTUs. By taking the difference between this and the reported FY04 chilled and heated water BTUs. 334,304,362,611 BTUs - 267,443,490,089 BTUs = 66,860,872,522 BTUs. This represents the 20% chilled and heated water BTUs not reported. These BTUs divided by the square footage = 64,128 BTU/GSF for the CUP factor. This number, however, accounts for the electricity and natural gas used. Since RTP's electricity is green power, the electricity portion of the CUP factor is categorized as "Green Power Portion of the CUP Factor. So, the CUP Factor for New Main covers just the 20% of the natural gas portion of the CUP energy not reported. NCC: Since NCC only receives chilled water from the CUP, which is generated using electricity, and all of NCC's electricity is considered green, all of NCC's CUP Factor Credit is counted in the "Green Power Portion of the CUP Factor." The Green Power Portion of NCC's CUP Factor Credit is calculated by dividing the NCC's FY04 chilled water BTUs (12,936,417,846) by 0.8, which equals 16,170,522,308 BTUs. By taking the difference between this and the reported FY04 chilled water BTUs: 16,170,522,308 - 12,936,417,846 = 3,234,104,462 BTUs. This corresponds to 33,928 BTU/GSF. Chelmsford Green Power: Chelmsford's green power contract is currently on hold (as of 02/10/05). To still give Chelmsford credit for green power, the remaining portion of RTP's 100 million kWh contract has been attributed to Chelmsford. RTP's Total FY05 Green Power: New Main: 37,444,871 kWh direct green power; 26,461,118 kWh of chilled water green power; 6,615,279 kWh of Green Power Portion of CUP Factor Credit NCC: 5,550,104 kWh direct green power; 3,791,447 of chilled water green power; 947,862 kWh of Green Power Portion of CUP Factor Credit. NHEERL: 6,119,280 kWh direct green power; Human Studies: 6,581,760 kWh direct green power. Page Rd.: 1,035,384 kWh direct green power. Total = 94,547,105 kWh. Chelmsford's FY05 estimated green power is then 100,000,000 kWh - 94,547,105 kWh = 5,452,895 kWh

  23. Assumptions & Methodology • Total Energy Cost/GSF/FY 2004: Includes green power premiums and CUP O&M costs. • EPA Laboratory Energy Use FY1990 TO FY2004 (BTU's/GSF/FY 2004): FY2004 BTUs/GSF are based on verified GSF. Due to data quality concerns resulting from a new metering and billing system, FY03 chilled water data is used as a proxy for FY04 chilled water data at RTP (Human Studies).

More Related