Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Coleman, Philip

Publications and source records attributed to Coleman, Philip.

5 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Recommended vs. Actual Escalation Rates For ESPCs: Is the Guidance Good?

Escalation rates applied to the savings from energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) and related financed energy projects play a large role in their scope and costs. The U.S. Department of Energy’sFederal Energy Management Program (FEMP) employs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to package projections of real (uninflated) energy prices and general inflation forecasts developed by two other federal government entities. The main output from this exercise is NIST’s Energy Escalation Rate Calculator (EERC), which is strongly recommended by FEMP for use in performance contracts and relied on by federal agencies and others conducting performance contracts as an objective source for their projects’ escalation rates. This study investigated whether the rates prescribed by EERC (and a coarser NIST tool that preceded it) have provided users with estimates that approximate actual changes in energy prices over the years. The results are encouraging: the NIST tools slightly under-estimated actual electricity prices and somewhat over-estimated those for natural gas. Concern regarding the latter is mitigated, however, because a) it is seen as due primarily to the increasing surplus of natural gas from the “fracking revolution” in the 2010s, and b) natural gas savings were found to account for only 14.4% of the total savings from the largest population of federal ESPCs (FEMP’s indefinite quantity ESPC contract, representing roughly 430 projects), compared to almost four times that (56.8%) for electricity savings. Consequently, reliance on EERC appears to be a sound policy.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Better bang for your buck? Comparing savings realization from ESPCs and direct-funded projects

Energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) offer an opportunity to tremendously scale decarbonization projects, given their paid-from-savings premise. However, prospective customers still question whether ESPC is worth the effort and expense. This study evaluates the savings realization rates of ESPCs compared to direct-funded projects using ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager (ESPM) benchmarking data. It compares normalized EUIs from ESPM before and after energy conservation projects implemented via ESPC or direct funding in roughly 450 federal buildings. This documented change, ideally a savings, can then be compared to the estimated savings from the energy conservation initiative in order to generate a rough realization rate. Preliminary results indicate a notably greater savings realization rate for the ESPC buildings (median = 105% of estimated savings) than those that underwent direct-funded projects (median = 46%). Because of a shortage of good quality data and the wide range in results, the difference is only significant at the p < 0.20 level. However, the higher savings realization of ESPCs corroborates the authors’ 2014 findings using a different comparison method. With continued soft government funding and regulatory impediments for climate change mitigation in the U.S., financed, paid-from-savings project models (e.g., ESPC, PACE, EaaS and others) certainly merit more attention. This study’s results are particularly compelling (and encouraging) given the country’s likely reliance on these vehicles to address existing building retrofits.

Earni, Shankar↗
DOE OSTI2021

eProject Builder (ePB) v3.1

eProject Builder (ePB) is a secure, web-based system that enables agencies and ESCOs to securely: (1) preserve, track, and access energy project information for the life of the contract (2) quickly generate data and reports for their portfolio of projects (3) develop project scenarios using standardized amortization calculations (4) benchmark new projects against historical project data

Larsen, Peter↗
DOE OSTI2020

M&V in ESPC: The U.S. Federal Experience and Implications for Developing ESPC Markets

The United States Federal Government has been conducting guaranteed savings energy savings performance contracts for over 20 years and now relies on ESPC for the majority of its energy efficiency work. Along with a related financed project type, these deals resulted in $4.2 billion of project investment in the five years ending in 2016, a pace that has even accelerated since. Measurement and verification (M&V) on the projects is the key to assuring savings realization and persistence. Perceived as a weakness or burdensome added cost in the early years of the program, M&V has become a strength. All energy conservation measures (ECMs) have some form of measurement – defined as a measured baseline establishment followed by at least one measurement of the main energy-saving parameter taken in the performance period for each ECM. The government’s in-house energy consulting office, the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), now recommends measurement of these “Option A” M&V ECMs throughout the contract term, usually annually. Moreover, a significantly higher percentage of projects are now characterized by more ambitious M&V, including Option B (all parameter measurement) for most generation (including renewable) and some efficiency measures, and more frequent Option C (whole facility utility bill analysis) for “deep retrofit” projects with multiple, interactive ECMs. Coincident with this progress in M&V has been a much greater embracing of ESPC by the federal agencies, resulting in the enormous rate of projects now executed. This paper traces the evolution of M&V in federal ESPC and argues that the heightened credibility of the savings has contributed significantly to the procurement vehicle’s long-term viability. This focus on savings integrity via M&V has been learned over two decades for U.S. federal ESPC, but countries with developing ESPC markets would be wise to emphasize it as their markets emerge, allowing them to avoid some of the “growing pains” experienced in the U.S.

Coleman, Philip↗