Technical Forum Call: 3/25/14
Achai Broner (Noesis); Brian McCarter;
- Brian - likes how we’ve addressed the four cases regarding tenant privacy
- Achai - appreciates all of the changes
- Large MF Protocol - these guys give it their blessing
- We’ll release it next week
- Targeted MF protocol - would apply to EE projects that may deal only with common areas (only owner paid areas or measures)
Technical Forum Call: 2/25/14
John Jones; Maggie Selig; Ian Shapiro; Chris Diamond, Darrien Crimmin
- Technical Forum section of the ICP website - portal for communication
- Specific details regarding the actual energy audit and process are not covered in the protocol. But should we provide more direction regarding building asset data to be collected (Section 2.1 - mention physical attributes, etc.), and more detailed scopes of work for ECMs (is this addressed adequately in Section 4.3?)? Mention equipment inventory in particular; better defined scopes of work for the ECMs. ACTION: added “physical attributes and equipment inventories” specifically to Section 2.1. Added additional text to Section 4.2 requiring detailed descriptions of ECMs.
- Model calibration - to avoid overestimating savings, require that calibration be performed to 0 to -10% or -15%. Eliminate +15% piece. CV(RSME) – just 15%, not plus or minus, on a monthly basis. FEMP says +/-5% on annual basis. If we say only -15%, that’s fine. But don’t allow this to give a “false sense of security.” Still need to check reasonableness of savings calculations. QA mention should be put into the baseline section too. ACTION: suggested 10-15%. with CV[RSME] 15%.
- Life cycle metrics - make this a requirement instead of optional? Eliminate simple payback as an acceptable metric? Keep simple payback as an option. SIR as a requirement. ACTION: eliminated recommended SIR>1.
- Large / standard / targeted project sizes - can number of units be used as a metric for project size? (Eg., ~$3k in potential ECMs per unit, so 150+ units = large, 50-150 units = standard…). Other resources suggest large = 500+ units. Or is this based on project cost like commercial (large = ? $1M) I don’t think this matters. I think we keep the definition as we have it in the commercial.
- How do we deal with parking in the square footage - do we need to address parking in the protocol? Attached parking garages are included in the square footage.
- Baseline development
- We mention noting major renovations; should we include language that specifically excludes these utility data from the baseline development? Yes, include this language, and use the data since the renovation was completed.
- Is there a “standard” sampling approach we can suggest for tenant billing? NYSERDA MPP v5 and NYC LL84 requires that 10% of tenant billing (for each “apartment line”) be included to estimate energy usage for the building’s “tenant” portion; is there a HUD resource?
- Use of “default” values for tenant energy usage? NYC LL84 allows use of default values (provides these) for NY properties. Can this approach be used? Are there other sources of these data for other regions?
- Vacancy rates or other related adjustments are primarily a concern when they are anticipated to be different between the pre and post construction periods - should handling these be specifically mentioned in baseline development and M&V activities (can affect tenant energy usage and central heating plant energy usage) This is really an independent variable. Needs to be properly defined in the baseline, and adjusted for in the M&V during your regression analysis. ACTION: added note in M&V section regarding vacancy as an independent variable,
- Savings calculations and implementation cost estimates - discuss uncertainty in more detail? Never done on actual EE projects. Maybe more discussion of it in the M&V section? ACTION: added a line in section 7.2 mentioning that uncertainty does not need to be quantified, but activities should be employed to minimize uncertainty and risk.
- 9. SIR - should we define this specifically in the protocol? We recommend an SIR>1 Maybe a definitions section, or a separate document with definitions to start with? Check that all of the acronyms are spelled out the first time, and maybe include links to definitions of these as links in the protocol. ACTION: developing a definitions sheet in the website.
We should keep in mind that there are other items included in a project, or specific items that don’t pay back very well (like a boiler replacement. Windows too). So SIR>1 should not be a requirement. ACTION: removed suggestion of SIR>1
10. Affordable housing - good part of the utility costs are picked up by the government, so you have a third player. There are many different types of lenders, and they compete regarding whose mortgage takes priority. Finance side is complicated. The MF protocol should apply, if a project development team can work out the financial side of an affordable housing scenario. So no need for a different affordable housing protocol? No need for a separate protocol for affordable housing.
11. Sections 5, 6 and 7: are these too long? Are they specific enough?
Should we include an energy audit section in future iterations of the protocol? We should consider this. At the very least, refer to the NYSERDA modeling guidelines or an equal guideline.
NYSERDA MPP v5
- Requires that 10% of tenant billing be included to estimate energy usage for the building’s “tenant” portion (non common areas)
- NYSERDA, in collaboration with Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, developed a benchmarking tool based on a database of approximately 500 multifamily buildings from across the United States.
- The Standards for auditing provided by the Building Performance Institute must be followed for all comprehensive energy assessments performed
- The projected cost of installed measures relies on estimates that are based on previous experience and knowledge of current pricing of building materials, equipment and labor. Although there are likely other costs associated with installing measures, these can usually be aggregated into a simple percent increase above the estimated cost of materials and labor.
- Vacancy rates, and any related adjustments, are primarily a concern when they are anticipated to be different between the pre and post construction periods. Small, short term swings in occupancy (< 10%) will not require adjustment. Any adjustments must be clearly identified and fully described in the Post Construction Benchmarking Report. When necessary, adjustments will need to be applied based on the metering configuration in the affected buildings, using the following as guidance:
- Master metered baseload electricity: Partner will have the option of scaling the “Number of Units” input to match the actual number of occupied units (i.e., 100 apts. x 90% vacancy = 90 apts.) or scaling the energy consumption to reflect the number of occupied units. When scaling energy consumption, it is important to scale only the level of consumption that is estimated to be used by the apartments, net of common area use.
- Master metered heating energy (any fuel): Vacant units are often heated to safeguard from frozen pipes or because apartment-level zoning is not possible. If all units are heated, vacant or not, there is no need for adjustments. However, if heating to the units is zoned by apartment and heat is turned off or to a low “vacant” level, Partner may need to scale the energy consumption to reflect the number of occupied units. As with electricity, it is important to scale only the level of consumption that is estimated to be used by the apartments, net of common area use.
- Direct metered: Since energy consumption for direct metered projects will typically be based on a 10% sample per the Utility Data tabs, vacant units should not affect the estimate. However, if vacancy rates vary between the pre and post construction periods, consumption can be scaled by scaling the “Number of Units” to match the number of occupied apartments
NYC Local Law 84 Rule Language
- Tenant privacy laws - sampling
- (A) The owner must obtain all meter data for such energy type for a minimum of ten percent (10%) of apartments in each apartment line in the building. Apartments are considered in the same line if they have similar shape and square footage and are stacked one above another.
- If the owner is unable to obtain actual energy data as described in clause (A) of this subparagraph, the owner may calculate tenant energy use from default values by apartment, regardless of the gross floor area of any apartment. [[Table presented for NYC properties - default values]]
NYSERDA - MF Performance Program, Existing Buildings Component - Simulation Guidelines
- Methodologies for energy simulation and model calibration for buildings in NYSERDA’s Multifamily Performance Program – Existing Buildings Component
- Provides direction on assumptions for various modeled parameters or develop external calculations; consistent simulation methodology; energy simulation and model calibration practices; modeling assumptions within reasonable ranges; and realistic savings projections.
- Contains specific direction regarding model calibration (annual consumption by end use within 10% - heating, cooling and base load)
- Energy consumption of systems, equipment, and controls that are not directly supported by the software used for the project should be calculated outside of the simulation tool. External calculations may not be used to replace functions that are supported by the software tool.
- Direction regarding modeling thermal zones, and examples of modeling specific site conditions
- Modeling heating, cooling and associated plant equipment; estimating / determining efficiencies; performance and operating characteristics; modeling improvements
- Modeling of zone level controls and improvements, air infiltration and mechanical ventilation, lighting systems, envelope components, DHW, plug loads
- ASHRAE tables presented to be used for assumptions regarding lighting and envelope
Call: 2/17/14 Ian Shapiro
- NY affordable housing programs - had simulation guidelines he can send us, as well as energy auditing guidelines, benchmarking, and M&V
- Produced a large amount of data - in general produced 20% energy savings or more
- Believes the QC and third-party review was a primary reason why this program was so successful
- Should not be vague - the more detail the better; need to drill down to individual improvements
- NYSERDA MF performance simulation guidelines - reference this for energy modeling!
- Energy audit - must have a building description; say this specifically; inventory every common space; sample other spaces accurately
- Scope of work for each improvement must be thorough and included - make sure this is stressed as well
- “Ten most common mistakes in energy audits.” - Ian will send this to me
- The stronger and clearer the protocol is, the more it will be used; like LEED
Call: 2/13/14 Darien Crimmen
- Audits and retrofits (5-20 projects per year)
- Split incentives - market wants solutions;
- Affordable housing - sets rent at 30% of what it normally would be, and includes utilities (complicated calculation regarding how this is allocated)
- If protocol could figure out in general terms how financing is handled, this would be helpful
Call: 2/10/14 Gus Escher - NJ PACE
- consulting investment banker - setting up the PACE program in NJ
- smart financing mechanism not set up yet - it is a bond-based financing mechanism that will not work; working on legislation to enable this
2. It feels like the document is benchmarking-heavy, and M&V-heavy, but is too light on the requirements for the energy audit. In fact, the energy audit is somewhat loosely captured as the benchmarking stuff and the energy savings section. But there’s a LOT more to an effective energy audit than these two components. I have outlined some of the critical missing things, in my view. A building description that is detailed is absolutely essential, it forms the basis for QC of the energy audit, and to make sure that important measures were not missed. And separately, very strong written “workscopes” for each measure is absolutely essential. Otherwise, the scope of work gets lost and what gets installed is usually wrong.
TP: The protocol does not address the energy audit process specifically. Just elements that are directly related to the project from an investment perspective. The BPI-1105-S-201x Standard Practice for MF Energy Auditing will address the actual audit process, and will provide a good companion / resource to the protocol.
We do discuss components critical to development of the building description and the ECM workscopes. Should we add more to these two components - building description and ECM descriptions?
3. A very important but subtle thing is the goal of the accuracy of the calibration. At our company, we say that the modeled usage must be within +0% and -10% of the actual. We never want the model to use more energy than the actual, because that risks over predicting savings. If you want to loosen it up to between +0% and -15%, that’s fine, but stay on the conservative side. And if you disagree and you really want +/- 10-15%, then I would clarify that too.
TP: this should probably be incorporated. Would apply to LC as well.
4. I would insist on life-cycle metrics, a firm requirement, not suggest loosely suggesting it as optional. It’s quite standard by any programs that are serious about energy work. Simple payback is almost universally frowned upon.
TP: Need consensus on this item.
5. 5, 6, and 7 feel like they go on interminably and repeat themselves a good bit. I would try to tighten these sections up considerably. We’re mainly trying to make sure that what was installed was installed correctly, and then measure the savings. You’re going to lose people with vague rambling requirements like this. Short and strong and leakproof is much better.
TP: Should we shorten these sections? What does he mean?
2/7/14 Anthony Buonicore
- Title: Multifamily has many different scenarios; they divide into less than 50 units (small), 50-150 units (medium), 150+ units (large); they assumed $3k of ECMs per unit, so used this to calculate the “total cost” estimate of the project. 150 units = $450k project. He likes Large Multifamily term, and tie project size (large) to number of units…
- should we describe relationship between size of project (cost) and number of units?
- How do we deal with parking in the square footage - do we need to address parking in the protocol
- Building asset data - do we need a more specific requirement of what is needed, regarding physical composition, etc? Not just equipment, systems and SF
- Utility data - mention that you do not want to include any data from a major renovation, not that we are just noting this case in the baseline development (use representative data of what is there)
- fourth bullet - such as sales or production schedule - should be deleted from MF
- Building asset data - may want to use BOMA standard? I think that BEPA is OK
- 2.3 second bullet; we say 12 months here, but minimum 14 months in first part of baseline section
- data center reference - take this out (somewhere in baseline section)
- ECMs - dealing with uncertainty of ECMs, and pricing of measures; and talk about the EUL - do we mention these? YES; in Pricing / Cost Estimation section. And define SIR when we mention it
- M&V: requires cooperation with tenants (social behavior); submeter tenants so they can see how much they are using, down to the end-use or appliance level - this has been addressed in section 6.1
- Affordable housing - good part of the utility costs are picked up by the government, so you have a third player. There are many different types of lenders, and they compete regarding whose mortgage takes priority. Finance side is complicated. Our MF protocol should apply, if they can work out the financial side of an affordable housing scenario. So no need for a different affordable housing protocol.
2/5/14 Call with J Moore McDonough
- 360 Energy Savers
- Retrofitting MF specialists - mostly tenant is paying the utilities; sell the services to owner’s on idea of reduced repair and maintenance (reduce leakage is a big one); no make ready expenses, less operating expenses, less complaints, longer life of equipment, more lease renewals
- Mainly sell their services through referrals, or work within the rebate amount to provide these services
- largest MF contractor doing this kind of work
1/31/14 Call with DOE
Joshua Olsen, Jennifer Somers, DOE
- developing similar tools and resources regarding quality retrofits
- standard work specifications for MF upgrades - recent work on this
- MF job task analyses
- weatherization program
- want us to integrate their materials into the ICP - or reference their materials
Standard Work Specifications for MF Home Energy Upgrades - NREL / WAP / DOE
- The SWS identify the desired outcomes of a particular energy efficiency measure. They define the outcomes, stated as objectives, and then list the minimum specifications that are necessary for a properly installed measure to meet those outcomes
- Specifications for health and safety, air sealing, insulation, ventilation, baseload (plenty of specific details involved with retrofits regarding how to install, commission, maintain, etc.)
- Specifications for heating and cooling
- load calculations, equipment selection, installation, Cx, maintenance
- A great document, but details not directly applicable to the content contained in the ICP - specific details regarding installing equipment
1/28/14 Working Group
- Chris Diamond, Andy Brook, Buonicore - PACE Program, Gus Esher - NJ PACE, Ed Berzowksi - consulting engineers; Brian McCarter - CN PACE program, Darrien - Boston, affordable housing, David Johnson - Berkley, commercial, RCX, and M&V
- category 1 - owner occupied building with gross leases; building owner can access the data and receives the savings
- category 2 - tenants pay the bills; cannot get the data
- category 3 - can get some tenant data - can you establish a baseline with this subset of data?
- owner pays heat and HW, and common spaces - could create a baseline just for this portion, if ECMs only apply to these areas - language from TC (retrofit specific) - could use this language
- sampling; using models to create baseline - raises effort level, and diminishes level of rigor; availability is the key
- federal level - there is a push to get these data; may involve getting the tenants to agree; getting data from utility anonymously (HUD sampling model - certain number of units)
- use the protocol to educate on this issue, even if we don’t deal with it programmatically
- track savings between owners and tenants
- PACE financing - raise the rent to pass on the savings
- design, construction and verification
- define what is happening before construction - what needs to be put in place up front; what are the post-closing terms
- develop an operational performance verification plan pre-construction; these conditions need to be met as part of the contract; combine this with target energy budgets and key performance indicators piece
- definition of gross floor area - talk about how this is defined; can be different between rentable number versus taxable number - consistent standard; BEPA defines this - reinforce this with one sentence
1/22/14 Call with David Hatchimonji, Boulder County Commissioner’s Office
- Deal with PUC related issues - basically comes down to what the PUC mandates or allows with relation to utilities.
- Xcel should be able to give us aggregate data at a community wide level.
- PUC currently talking about privacy issues - how can communities get bldg data for purposes of benchmarking.
- 15-15 rule - when receiving aggregate data, you cannot collect data for less than 15 accounts at a time, and no one of these can account for more than 15% of that consumption. Some states have adopted similar privacy laws, this one is specific to Colorado. Places like NY are more liberal.
- Each state has its own PUC. Oversee utilities, and transportation. Rural electric companies do not fall under the auspices of the PUC.
- Have landlords put in the lease agreement that tenants must release the utility data
- Green Button initiative - Xcel rolled it out this year; allows homeowners to get current data on their usage. Essentially about accessing and viewing these data.
- Kelly Krandel - City of Boulder, knows PUC issues; 13M-1052EG docket regarding privacy issues on PUC website
1/15/14 and 1/17/14
Call: Discussion with John Jones, email@example.com, BPI
- Oversees standard and quality assurance for BPI
- Utilize BPI standards or NY standards for their projects (NYSERDA)
- Developing a MF energy auditing standard (on their site, standards under review)
- Developing building operation standard
- Developing a QA standard (Casey Murphy is the main contact)
- we don’t address project management, which they do
BPI-1105-S-201x Standard Practice for MF Energy Auditing
- ICP does not have an energy auditing section - so I don’t think we would reference this directly, unless it is in the introduction?
- Aligns with ASHRAE Level II audit
- on-site evaluation will include an evaluation of the residential units, common area public spaces and all central building systems affecting energy use in the residential space
- In addition to easily identifiable and immediate durability and health and safety issues, the on-site assessment will require that an auditor conduct certain diagnostic tests
- Utility data are required (similar requirements to ICP, although not as detailed in the description); if utility data are not available, they provide an alternative method:
- Section 8: they don’t specifically talk about developing a baseline with the model, but they are implying in Section 5 that this can be done. No details though specific to this. I see a lot of issues with this approach, but maybe better than nothing? This approach suggests an Option D approach to M&V, which would be a departure from our LC approach (Option C).
- If utility data are available, regarding the savings calcs for LC: The baseline energy simulation shall be calibrated in accordance with Sections 3.2.3, 3.3.2, and 3.4 of ANSI/BPI-2400-S-2012 Standard Practice for Standardized Qualification of Whole-House Energy Savings Predictions by Calibration to Energy Use History and shall use the same utility data analysis period and typical weather data
- They recommend a quality control plan for implementation (verification)
- They mention identifying when a formal Cx process is needed (but not required)
- Cost-Benefit analysis
- utility rates - they do not permit inflation rates; no blended rates either
- allows maintenance cost savings
- Cost estimates shall be based upon experience with previous projects, detailed conceptual estimates, R.S. Means estimation, general contractor quotes
- Uses NPV, and may consider condition assessment and associated LCCA
- Sampling - requires audit of all common spaces, and 20% of repetitive spaces; 10% of units (minimum five units); include from top, middle and bottom of high-rises
- Combustion testing - required, including safety issues and combustion efficiency tests
- Safety - includes safety testing for things like generators, parking garages (CO levels), etc
- Other topics include: IAQ improvement, building envelope (blower door testing), DHW, specifics on evaluating system types (heating-forced air, HHW, steam, AC, baseloads, elevators, motors, lighting, water efficiency, renewables, fuel switching
BPI - MF EE Building Operator
- covers recordkeeping, PM, health and safety, cleaning and sanitation, IAQ, comfort, hazards
- HVAC and mechanical system maintenance (replacing motors periodically, inspections, combustion efficiency testing, controls inspection
- Envelope inspection and maintenance, lighting timers and motion sensor inspections / installation, utility bill analysis, lamp replacement and light level checking, Energy Star appliances, water efficiency,
From PERL (HDC’s and NYCEEC’s - Program for Energy Retrofit Loans)
- auditor selection
- energy audit and benchmarking
- provide utility data and access to utility accounts to auditor and borrower (mention combining tenant meters) for benchmarking
- work scope selection, implementation and cx
- data monitoring and verification
- Mention that benchmarking tools can help facilitate baseline efforts: EPA’s Portfolio Manager. EnergyScoreCards, WegoWise, or others - as long as they satisfy the required elements
- ENERGYSCORECARDS™ is an online energy management and benchmarking tool specifically designed by BRIGHT POWER for multi-tenant buildings. Our system organizes energy and water usage data, supports financial planning for energy improvements, and tracks the progress and success of energy and water-saving efforts.
- Wegowise - The WegoWise platform automatically tracks a property’s utility consumption, adjusts for a building’s climate and construction variations, provides performance benchmarks, identifies areas of improvement, and verifies savings from building upgrades.
- Minimum of one year utility bills
- End-use energy usage (space heating, DHW, space cooling, identifiable block loads (pool heaters, sidewalk ice melting), common area or whole building electricity (depending on electric metering configuration)
- Benchmark the building by comparing to similar buildings using standardized metrics, such as energy use intensity and heating slope
- ASHRAE Level II audit - ASHRAE Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits (same)
- Training (same)
- M&V (same) - Option C approach
- FDD (same)
- Cost estimates (same)
- Require minimum 15% energy savings predicted
- Commissioning (aligns with our operational performance verification) - agent can be in house, but then is required to have third party reviewer
BPI Technical Standard for Multifamily Building Analyst (Building Performance Institute)
- Provides best practices (details for all different potential activities) for conducting energy audits of multifamily buildings and is referenced in the NYSERDA MPP Program Guidelines
- communication and reporting
- analysis - clearly document assumptions, utility analysis, develop end use energy use, develop a model, ECM savings, cost estimates
- diagnostics and inspections - identify potential future issues, diagnostics on all involved systems (ventilation, envelope, moisture, etc)
- mechanical systems - mechanical schedule, conditions assessment, setpoints and schedules, combustion efficiency, CO measurements
- electrical - schedule of lighting, motors, major appliances,
- one year utility data, at least bi-monthly (total year not acceptable)
- for sites with multiple buildings, a whole building analysis must be completed, at a minimum, for each building type on the site based on building geometry, occupancy type, and energy-efficiency characteristics (For example, if buildings of the same geometry and occupancy have undergone different renovations or have different types of HVAC equipment, an energy analysis shall be completed for each different building configuration.)
- Savings calcs: manual calcs, spreadsheets, or software approved by DOE or MF
Fannie Mae - Green Physical Needs Assessment (PNA)
- also known as a Green Property Condition Report (PCR) or Green Property Condition Assessment - similar to the ASTM E2018-08 Baseline Property Condition Report standard with the addition of green elements of interest to the client
Energy Transparency in the Multifamily Housing Sector (IMP - Institute for Market Transformation)
- Ensure building owners have access to energy consumption data for benchmarking
- several jurisdictions are requiring the disclosure of each building’s energy use intensity (EUI)
- the term “multifamily housing” references residential structures with five or more units, a typical threshold used within the housing industry for multifamily rental properties.
- Many owners of multifamily buildings cannot legally access utility bills for their own properties because of tenant privacy laws
- However, a growing number of utilities are providing aggregated tenant consumption data to building owners on a monthly or yearly basis.
- EPA Portfolio Manager: EPA is currently working with Fannie Mae to develop a 1-to-100 energy score for the multifamily sector that is scheduled to be deployed to market in late 2013
- We are going to create three (LC, SC and TC) protocols for multifamily, with essentially the baseline section being different, but the other sections being more or less identical to the non-MF LC, SC and TC
- Jeff Milum; Tracy Phillips; Jerome Gagliano (?); Chris Diamond
- tenant sub-metered data
- common areas
- Protocol: one size fits all?
- could this just address specific areas different than the LC / SC / TC?
- would most applications use Option C and non-energy modeling tools?
- M&V: will most likely be Option C, but depends on the project size (although smaller projects don’t typically need financing)
- Due diligence on the engineering side is tied to the type of financing and the scope of the project
- Energy audit can be light since the underwriting towards the savings could be smaller
- High Performance Building Model - Level II audit specific to the multifamily market (Fannie Program)
- Have auditors do the verification for the owner
- Benchmarking done on Energy Score Cards (popular in NY, online energy management program, tied to utilities - enter your meter data and it gets the monthly data automatically) or portfolio manager in Fannie programs
- Look at Wegowise, Energy Score Cards, Portfolio Manager
- Portfolio Manager: as a minimum, develop a whole-building benchmark that’s normalized to weather; then also develop a benchmark specific to the project / M&V effort in mind
- whatever benchmark / M&V method used, should work with Portfolio Manager (Chris) - should communicate back and forth with Portfolio Manager; provides consistency - whole property benchmarking
- where the data come from is of huge importance
- Have a lot of influence on the auditors, less on construction, and even less on operation (Chris has a document that talks about this)
- offering a financing product: need to select one of these approved auditing firms; after the close on the financing, not as involved in the construction, and level of verification is low (were they installed, not how well were they installed and will they perform)
- owner has a lot of control over construction and operation, so important to get them to have incentive (financial stake)
- superintendents should be required to go through a training about energy efficiency; give the owners (accountants) access to Energy Score Cards - they have a tool (an energy management software that looks at monthly energy use) to assess performance and develop incentive programs
- construction: hold engineers accountable; this is a tough piece to bring QA to
- Need to look at what types of projects and what types of financing this protocol will most often apply to
- how often do ESCos deal with these projects - not very often
- refinancing; adjustment (supplemental) to a base mortgage
Here’s the link for the HDC Technical Guidelines Manual:
Attendees: Matt, Tracy, Jeff, Audrey, Ron Herbst
- Ron - deep in product design; multi-family in NYC is one area they are involved in: energy audits, retrofit programs, chartering Clean Heat effort
- Deal with oil to gas conversions; Local Law 84 (benchmarking) and Local Law 87 (energy audits)
- Want to package all of these items under one umbrella, such as ICP protocol
- Savings must be visible on utility bills - begs Option C approach; they also typically do not use energy modeling for savings calcs (so more like SC here)
- Focus on common area cooling (not as much lighting)
- Matt - this protocol is a priority for McArthur
- Matt will send the UMP blog Tracy wrote to Ron
- Utility bill underwriting - this is a key piece to Ron’s efforts, which begs metering questions - this is going to be a major component to address in the multi-family protocol
- how do you deal with tenant metering, lack of metering, etc
- ASHRAE Level II energy audit (Local Law 87) - 2500 buildings in this class in NYC, that must do the oil to gas conversion, energy audits, and RCx. Ron wants to create a standard deliverable for these efforts. The multi-family could be a big piece of this. He is looking for examples of multi-family energy audits.
- Ron - will send a list of ECMs to us to review; wants a sample write up to use as well
- Micro Cogen - why hasn’t it taken hold? New York does have incentives for this. I never hear of it mentioned. Great for power outages, especially in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Projections are that there will be a large investment at least out there.
Quick update on LC / Allies / Webinars
Intro to what we are trying to do with Multi-Family.
Quick introduction of who are on the call:
On The Call:
- Elizabeth Stein - EDF
- Matt Golden - EDF
- Brian McCarter, SRS
- Mary Barber - EDF
- Nalin, FirstFuel
- Conor Laver, Bright Power
- Jeff Staller, HMG
- Andy Brooks, AEA
- Jerome Gagliano, PSD consulting
- Bill Miller, DOE
Conceptual: what do what expect are the key difference between LC / Multi:
Multifamily General thoughts:
- two million dollar on large multifamily building, are there different actions we would want to do to promise savings? What are the core differences?
- What are the data you can get to facilitate the baseline
- Is it master metered? Does the meter serve multiple buildings?
- have issues on the upfront data collection - ICP Protocol should speak to this issue
- Public Housing Projects in Boston
- heating and ventilation: Who controls this?
- same as it relates to independent variable
- If office building: Monthly occupancy rate (same as in apartment or multifamily buildings)
- Individually metered tenants - is the issue different than in commercial markets where tenants are individually metered?
- very seldom can you get good data - harder to get, more units often than in commercial
- Sometimes consultants are hired to do sampling - and they create assumed baselining data
- matter of scale and massive turnover makes it difficult
- Comes down to the metered level - investment should follow the meter
- Will have more confidence in that level of the retrofit - can allow for higher risk with better access to data - may need flexible structure
- Will Follow the Meter! Risk depends on level of data from the meter
- Distinguish approach based on whether master metered or not....
- Benefit to the tenant?
- For some measures whose savings are low-risk, such as refrigerators, absence of meter data for units may not matter very much.
- Do we need more than one protocol? Does not have to be one size fits all
- Quality of the data is different than commercial tenants
- Appetite for small multifamily retrofits, even with good data?
- doesn’t think the marketplace is large for small projects (no matter how good the data is), therefore we should focus on larger projects
- No one wants to finance larger than .5 million
- baseline depends on what you are trying to retrofit
- hypothetical $750K retrofit only of common areas would be basically indistinguishable from a commercial retrofit methodologically, but also would be a very rare case.
- Are funding sources different from doing retrofits on multi family? Are they government supported? Why is there a ceiling? Are they ever self financed?
- This working group is too technical to answer question
- FannieMae Information / Data
- Jerone has been on these calls
- Trying to get people in the space to agree on standard (not methodology but minimum information - what form questions and answers would take)
- forwarding this to the group
- Who are the people making financial decisions in the multifamily space?
- Jeff: had us develop protocols that were specific to investor needs (to ensure that the analysis was of the investor grade audit level that work being performed). His company develop these
- They have vetted audit protocols
- There are some gaps that need to be addressed. Was nothing else in the marketplace at the time (with Herbst Committee and Enterprise)
- Jeff will forward these along to the group
- Should we include someone from Enterprise in the group?
- Mary Ann Leshin - knows multifamily financing very well
- Meeting again about same time next month - I will send out doodle poll for a meeting in 4 weeks and what the agenda will be (who will be responsible for what)
- Need to include someone from the finance world to our working group (related management, enterprise)
Suggestions of existing standards we need to be aware of:
- BPI Multi-family building analyst standard (AEA)
- Energy Audit Standard (whole building retrofits / Best Practices)
- Does not address commissioning or finance
- does deal with subject matter that is outside our scope, e.g., health/safety etc.
- Fannie-Mae Data Collection Standard
- Benchmarking / Information Standard
- Min. Info and form.
Proposal for moving forward
- Walk through doc and redline / identify additions
Darien Crimmin: “I suggest we consider an "affordable" category, since affordable housing utility structures and utility allowances are governed by HUD and state finance agencies. It would be useful to tailor one deliverable of the ICP to affordable housing, and specifically engage key players (HUD, local housing authorities, state agencies, FHA, Fannie Mae, etc).
Additionally, HUD and DOE have recently rolled out the Better Buildings Challenge for multifamily buildings. It requires whole building benchmarking and could be a good resource”