Integrated Solutions for Optimized Performance (ISOP) Final Technical Report

Abstract

The goal of this project was to demonstrate technical feasibility of an integrated approach for deep energy retrofits by packaging innovative technologies with smart communicating controls that represent the next generation of energy efficiency. The integrated solutions for optimized performance (ISOP) package integrates (i) advanced lighting and plug load controls; (ii) intelligent daylight harvesting through automated self-powered shades and window films; (iii) advanced HVAC controls sequences (ASHRAE Guideline (GDL) 36); and (iv) fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) and continuous commissioning (CCx) using advanced analytics. These technologies address energy use across multiple building end uses that represent more than 60% of the energy consumption in all commercial buildings. The project was structured to be implemented over three budget periods: Budget Period 1 scope included site selection, project design, site-specific customization of technology packages, procurement of technologies, initiation of installation of technologies, the development of a measurement and verification plan and collection of pre-retrofit data collection. The first year go/no-go decision was based on securing host sites representing 250,000 sq. ft. of occupied operational spaces, savings analysis, technology procurement and initiation of installation. Budget Period 2 planned to complete technology installations and initiate data collection of post-retrofit performance data. The second year go/no-go was to be the completion of technology installations and commissioning, metering and data collecting to support the requirements laid out in site specific M&V plans. Budget Period 3 planned to collect and analyze post-retrofit performance data and provide data and reporting to support energy efficiency rebate programs. After the team completed activities planned for Budget Period 1, the team reached a Go/No-Go Decision Point. At that point, TRC recommended that DOE discontinue the project without prejudice due to challenges with securing demonstration sites to meet the full 250,000 sf of occupied operational spaces and DOE concurred. In Budget Period 1, the TRC team developed criteria to recruit and evaluate potential demonstration host sites. TRC worked with Princeton University, the project demonstration partner, to identify buildings on their campus as potential candidates for the demonstration. Following the selection of demonstration sites, the TRC team customized energy technology packages according to the needs and characteristics of each site. TRC defined technology specifications, identified vendors, and conducted analysis to estimate energy and cost savings potential. The project team then developed schedules for technology procurement processes and scheduled for installation at all selected demonstration sites. The project team worked with Princeton University and DOE to develop an approach to verify energy savings achieved through measurement and verification (M&V) 2.0 methods. Princeton University initiated open bids to procure the necessary materials and installation contractors. Bid results came back higher than estimates due to a couple of factors – lack of familiarity of the bidders with the proposed technologies and lack of local trained installers to execute the installation of these new measures. Due to the higher bids, projects no longer met the internal cost-effectiveness criteria used by Princeton to proceed with procurement of the full suite of technologies as proposed in ISOP. Princeton had already procured parts of the ISOP package as part of a campus-wide initiative for FDD and lighting retrofits, but with the higher costs for other ISOP components, Princeton could no longer commit to the full ISOP package on the selected sites. Based on this, the team reached the Go/No-Go decision point, where they decided not to proceed with the project. Princeton is separately installing portions of the ISOP package where they individually meet Princeton’s payback criteria but on a different schedule than would have been needed for the DOE ISOP project. The team has learned several lessons from project progress in the first budget period. The team will utilize these lessons in future projects, as should any team which proceeds with a project around the ISOP technology. The first lesson is that more information about the proposed sites is required earlier in the process (perhaps even at the proposal stage) in order to have a successful demonstration. Technical details not evident earlier in the process (such as the TLED limitations for ALCS) can derail project execution. The second lesson is that pricing of emerging technologies is highly variable due to lack of familiarity of local installers and distributor with the proposed technologies as well as alternate bids using products they were more familiar with, but that cost more than the ones proposed by TRC. Finally, the last major lesson is that the host site’s internal project criteria is of critical importance. Based on these higher installed costs and lack of an informed installer base for the products proposed for this project, the project does not meet Princeton’s simple payback goals of five years.