GWCC MV Year 2 Report 09_30_2019.pdf

1 © 2015 Trane All rights reserved

Confidential and Proprietary Information of Trane U.S. Inc.

Measurement and Verification Report

Reconciliation Year 2 (July 2018 - June 2019)

Trane – Georgia/Alabama District

Ingersoll Rand

4000 DeKalb Technology Parkway

Building 100

Atlanta, GA, 30340

2 © 2015 Trane All rights reserved

Executive Summary

Trane U.S. Inc. ‘Trane’ is pleased to provide this Measurement and Verification(M&V) report as part of the Guaranteed Energy Savings Performance Contract (hereinafter the “Agreement”), dated September 28, 2015.The purpose of this report is to provide the update on energy savings to the Georgia World Congress Center Authority (Georgia World Congress Center and Centennial Olympic Park) as a result of the energy efficiency retrofits project implemented in 2015 and 2016 by Trane. This report involves the M&V period of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. The following analysis was performed for the Georgia World Congress Center Authority to determine the energy savings of the M&V performance period of Year-2. Trane concluded that the total cost savings for the Yr-2 of the performance contract was $2,347,901 which exceeds the guaranteed savings $2,105,801 by $242,101.

Performance Period – Current Year

Table 1 and 2 summarizes the energy savings and cost savings for the second year of the Guaranteed Period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 based on the collected data via BAS trends, occupancy schedule, utility bills retrieved from Georgia Power website for electricity, Scana Energy Marketing Inc., City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management, visual inspections and measured data during the M&V activities. Total cost savings have been calculated utilizing the agreed upon rates in the contract for electricity, gas and water.

Table1: Guaranteed Vs. Actual Savings by Utility type

Table 2: Guaranteed Vs. Actual Cost savings by ECM type

Utility Guaranteed Savings

Verified Savings

Ahead / (Behind)

Electricity (kWh) 20,995,194 23,072,616 2,077,422 Electric Demand (kW) 4,027 4,765 738

Water (kGallons) 17,437 20,313 2,876 Natural Gas (therms) 243,045 258,386 15,341

ECMs Guaranteed Savings

Verified Savings

Ahead / (Behind)

B Central Plant $389,285 $436,013 $46,727 Lighting Retrofit $1,470,717 $1,649,494 $178,777 Water / Kitchen $199,605 $215,956 $16,351

Water motor upgrades $2,215 $2,461 $246 Retro-commissioning $43,978 $43,978 $0

Total Cost $2,105,800 $2,347,901 $242,101

PROJECT LIFETIME TOTAL

(2 YEARS)

Cost

$6,058,245

Electricity

46,087,426

Reduced CO2 Emissions

34,974 MT

3 © 2015 Trane All rights reserved

Table of Content

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PERFORMANCE PERIOD – CURRENT YEAR

PROJECT OVERVIEW

PROJECT SUMMARY

PREMISES EVALUATED:

PROJECT SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF GUARANTEED SAVINGS

PERFORMANCE SAVINGS SUMMARY

OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE SAVINGS

TOTAL ENERGY SAVINGS SUMMARY TABLE

ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION APPROACH

BASELINE DATA

ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

OPTION A - RETROFIT ISOLATION METHOD

OPTION A ECMS MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION DETAILS:

ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURE SAVINGS - LIGHTING 10

VERIFICATION APPROACH 11

SAVINGS CALCULATION:

INTERIOR LIGHTING:

ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURE SAVINGS - WATER 13

VERIFICATION APPROACH 13

WATER RELATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY SAVINGS RETROFIT;

WATER RELATED GAS SAVINGS RETROFIT;

ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURE SAVINGS - WATER FEATURES MOTOR UPGRADES 18

OPTION “B” -- RETROFIT ISOLATION WITH ALL PARAMETER MEASUREMENT

ECM 7: RETRO-COMMISSIONING ECMS 19

OPTION C - CONTINUOUS METERING GUARANTEE

OPTION “D” – CALIBRATED SIMULATION

TRANE TRACETM 700 MODEL SIMULATION DETAILS FOR NEW B CENTRAL PLANT: 23

MODEL CHANGES

CALENDAR

WEATHER

CHILLER PERFORMANCE

BOILER PERFORMANCE

TRANE TRACETM 700 M&V RESULTS

UTILITY RATE:

ELECTRICITY

NATURAL GAS

WATER AND SEWER

ESCALATED RATES

BASELINE ADJUSTMENTS

ROUTINE ADJUSTMENTS:

NON-ROUTINE ADJUSTMENTS:

OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITIES

TRANE INTELLIGENT SERVICES (TIS)

TRACKING ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES

IDENTIFYING INEFFICIENT OPERATION

APPENDIX

4 © 2015 Trane All rights reserved

Project Overview

The GWCC, located in downtown Atlanta, Georgia, was constructed in 4 Phases beginning in 1976 (Phase 1), 1984 (Phase 2), 1992 (Phase 3) and 2002 (Phase 4). The facility consists of three main buildings connected by a common lobby/concourse area. Owned by the State of Georgia and operated by the Georgia World Congress Center Authority, the GWCC encompasses 3.9 million square feet and is the fourth largest convention center in the nation, in terms of exhibit hall space. The Georgia International Plaza includes a pedestrian plaza on Andrew Young International Boulevard, adjacent to the Georgia World Congress Center. The Red Deck parking structure is a seven level, 2,000 car parking deck. The Gold Deck parking structure is a 300 car parking deck. The Yellow lot has 1,284 spaces and the marshalling yard next to it has 1,377 spaces. Centennial Olympic Park (C.O.P.), located in downtown Atlanta, consists of 21 acres of green space along with three major water features, one restaurant/visitors center, two pavilions, one amphitheater and the facility operations building.

Project Summary Retrofitted ECMs under this project are:

o ECM1: New B Building Central Energy Plant o ECM2: GWCC Interior Lighting o ECM3: GWCC Exterior Lighting o ECM4: COP Exterior Lighting o ECM5: Water / Kitchen o ECM6: Water Feature Motor Upgrades o ECM7: Building A Retro-commissioning o ECM8: Exhibit Hall Lighting Retrofit

Premises Evaluated:

The list of facilities specifically included in the IGA are:

o Georgia World Congress Center Building A o Georgia World Congress Center Building B o Georgia World Congress Center Building C o International Plaza o Red Parking Deck o Gold Parking Deck o Yellow Parking Lot and Marshalling Yard o Centennial Olympic Park o Googie Burger and Visitors Center

UTILITY SUMMARY

Georgia Power:

Account #: 3448002

Serves: Building A, B and C (4 meters combined

Rate (tariff): RTP-DA (real-time pricing, day ahead) / MLM-8 (multiple load management) billing structure

Scana Energy Marketing, Inc:

Account: # 23088255009

Serves: 99.7% of the total natural gas consumption of the facility

Rate: Marginal Rate

City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management:

Serves: The entire building system

Rate: Commercial rate schedule

5 © 2015 Trane All rights reserved

Project Summary

Table 4 and 5 summarizes the guaranteed savings and actual savings for the second year of the performance Period, July 1, 2018- June 30, 2019.

Summary of Guaranteed savings

Table 3: Summary of Guaranteed Savings

ECM # ECM Description Electricity kWh

Demand

KW

Nat. Gas Therms

Water kGal

Proposed Savings (Year 2)

1 B Central Plant: Option D 3,664,892 540 264,619 2,096 $389,285 2 Interior Lighting: Option A 8,998,197 1,872 -39,431 5,680 $807,911 3 GWCC Exterior Lighting: Option A 4,236,490 729 0 0 $367,413 4 C.O.P. Exterior lighting: Option A 698,433 159 0 0 $60,572 5 Water / Kitchen: Option A 373,739 0 4,015 6,102 $199,605 6 Water motor upgrades: Option A 58,744 0 0 0 $2,215 7 Building. A ReCx.: Option B 308,047 17 41,618 1,472 $43,978 8 Exhibit Hall Lighting 2,656,652 710 -27,776 2,087 $234,820

TOTAL 20,995,194 4,027 243,045 17,437 $2,105,800

Figure 1 Guaranteed Savings

Performance Savings Summary

Table 4: Summary of Year 2 Verified Savings

ECM # ECM Description Electricity

KWh Demand

KW

Nat Gas Therms

Water kGal

$$ Savings

1 B Central Plant 4,485,846 887 232,441 1,921 $436,013 2 Interior Lighting 9,705,262 1,759 -16,036 7,090 $894,133 3 GWCC Exterior Lighting 3,894,479 861 - - $337,753 4 C.O.P. Exterior lighting 673,451 152 - - $58,406 5 Water / Kitchen 47,953 - 4,463 7,047 $215,956 6 Water feature motor upgrades 65,271 - - - $2,461 7 Building A Retro-commissioning 308,047 17 41,618 1,472 $43,978 8 Exhibit Hall Lighting 3,892,308 1,089 (4,099) 2,784 $359,203

Grand Total 23,072,616 4,765 258,386 20,313 $2,347,901

Figure 2: Year 2 Actual Savings

Operational and Maintenance Savings As defined in the contract and agreed to by the Customer and Trane are the Operation and Maintenance savings for year two.

Table 5: Operational and maintenance savings (Cost Avoidance) Year 2

ECM # ECM Description O&M Savings Year 2

1 Lighting Material Cost Avoidance (Lamps and Ballasts) $261,423

2 Domestic Water Operational Cost Avoidance $617

3 Chiller repair cost avoidance $51,500

4 Chiller major maintenance cost avoidance $185,400

Total Non-Measured Project Benefits $498,940

Total Energy Savings Summary Table

Table 6. Total Energy Savings Summary

Energy Conservation Measurement and Verification Approach

This section summarizes the savings generated during the Year-2 guarantee period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019.

Baseline data The project base year’s energy consumption data for the pre-retrofit condition is based on the performance and operation of the Georgia World Congress Center (“GWCC”) in the calendar year 2013, established by a full building energy simulation in Trane TraceTM 700. With this tuned model in place, baseline data for this reporting period (performance period) is July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. The electric bills were collected from Georgia Power from four electric meters, gas bills from Scana Energy Marketing, Inc., and water bills from City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management. Chiller and boiler plant performance trend data including operational conditions such as equipment efficiencies and runtimes, collected from Trane’s BAS. Weather data was used for the Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson International Airport weather station over the 12 months period.

Energy Savings Calculation Methodology The avoided energy costs (i.e., Energy Savings) was measured and calculated following the guidelines provided by International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocols (IPMVP). IPMVP provides four Options (A, B, C and D) for developing and determining savings and implementing a quality M&V process. The method to calculate avoided energy costs will vary depending on the type of M&V option selected for each of the Energy Conservation Measures.

For this project’s measurement and verification process, Trane and Customer mutually agreed upon Option A and Option D methods for various ECMs provided by the IPMVP to calculate the savings as stated in the contract.

Table 7. M&V Option used by ECM

ECM # ECM Description M&V Option Used

1 B Central Plant D 2 Interior Lighting A 3 GWCC Exterior Lighting A 4 C.O.P. Exterior lighting A 5 Water / Kitchen A 6 Water feature motor upgrades A 7 Building A & C Retro commissioning B 8 Exhibit Hall Lighting A

Option A - Retrofit Isolation Method Savings determination based on Option A is a combination of measured and estimated factors when variations in factors are not expected. Measurements are spot or short-term and are measured at the component or system level, both in the baseline and post-installation cases. This method involves defining the key performance parameters of the Energy Conservation Measure as outlined in the Contract. Estimated factors are supported by historical or manufacturer’s data and were agreed upon by both the parties, customer and Trane in the contract. Measurements included the key performance parameter(s), which define the energy use of the ECM. The verification techniques for Option A determine energy savings by measuring the capacity or efficiency of a system before and after a retrofit, and multiplying the difference by an agreed-upon factor, such as hours of operation or load on the system. Savings are determined by means of engineering calculations of baseline and post-installation energy use based on measured and estimated values. For this project, savings were determined using combination of spreadsheet calculations and Trane TraceTM700 simulation model. Dollar savings were calculated using the agreed upon rates in the contract for electricity, gas and water.

The ECMs that were included in ‘Option A’ Measurement and Verification process are:

o ECM2: GWCC Interior Lighting o ECM3: GWCC Exterior Lighting o ECM4: COP Exterior Lighting o ECM5: Water / Kitchen o ECM6: Water Feature Motor Upgrades o ECM8: Exhibit Hall Lighting Retrofit

Option A ECMs measurement and calculation details:

Energy Conservation Measure Savings - Lighting

This energy conservation measure (ECM) involves the installation of high efficiency lighting at the majority of the buildings included in the project.

Table 8: Summary of all lighting ECM savings

Utility Guaranteed

Savings Verified Savings

Ahead / (Behind)

Ahead/(Behind)

Electricity Use(KWH) 16,589,772 18,165,499 1,575,727 9%

Electric Demand(KW) 3,470 3,861 391 11%

Natural Gas(Therms) -67,208 -20,135 47,072 70%

Water(kgal) 7,767 9,873 2,106 27%

Cost Savings $1,470,717 $1,649,494 $178,777 12%

The lighting efficiency improvement project aimed to reduce the connected lighting load while maintaining the lighting level. A qualified electrician measured Pre (existing) and Post (new) power wattage for a randomly preselected fixtures of each type of

Lamp/Ballast configurations that represent 75% of the total savings.

Each measurement recorded the number of operating lamps, burned out lamps and fixtures connected to the switch, verified by turning the switch on and off. The average wattage per lamp/ballast configuration is defined as the wattage representation of the entire lighting population. Operating time data was agreed upon for both parties (Trane and the customer).

Savings calculation:

Exterior lighting

The calculation of savings for Exterior Lighting was determined through an Excel spreadsheet model. The mean power of each lamp type was determined from the pre and post measurements. The difference between the measured Pre and Post lamp/ballast power wattage was compared and savings were calculated as:

KWh Savings = (Baseline Energy) – (Post-Installation Energy)

KWh Savings = [{Sum of kW/Fixture (Pre) * Quantity)}-{Sum of kW/Fixture (Post)*Quantity}]*Hours of Operation

Where:

Baseline Energy = Energy value (kWh) determined from pre-retrofit measurements based on existing (or Pre-installation) lighting KW.

Post-Installation Energy = Energy value (kWh) determined from pre-retrofit measurements based on post-installation lighting KW

Table 9: Summary of savings calculation for exterior lighting ECM

ECM3: Exterior Lighting Cost Savings, $ Electricity Savings, kWh Demand Savings, kW

Guaranteed $427,986 4,934,922 887

Verified savings $396,158 4,567,930 1,013 Variance -$31,827 (366,992) 126

% Surplus/(Behind) (7.44%) (7.44%) 14.2%

Buildings/Area included for lighting update:

o - Building A o - Building B o - Building C o - Centennial Olympic Park o - Googie Burger-visitor center o - A' Marshaling Yard o - Red Deck o - West Plaza o - Yellow lot o - North Side Drive

The short fall in savings due to the implementation of the Exterior Lighting ECM was due to a fixture miscount error made during the IGA phase. Due to this discrepancy, Trane, GWCC and the lighting contractor decided to offset the savings by upgrading the existing interior fluorescent fixtures to LED technology in different areas throughout the facility, such as meeting rooms, concourses, back of house, etc.

Interior lighting:

Interior lighting savings calculation was determined through the Trane TraceTM 700 Energy model in coordination with a specialized lighting analysis spreadsheet tool. All changes to the initial model with construction As-Built data as well as measured data for pre and post lighting were input in the Templates section of the software. For the first M&V period, it was necessary to modify the lighting internal load templates in the energy model, and thus the expected lighting impact of occupied spaces were updated accordingly. Changes to the lighting density for this ECM (using post-M&V measurements and as-built data) in the model was done. Based on the lighting audit, the lighting power density (LPD) in

Watts per square foot was calculated for each Trane TraceTM 700 internal load template, as shown in Table

9.

Table 10: Updated Lighting Power Densities

Trane TraceTM 700 Internal Load Template Lighting Power Density (W/sf)

A Offices 0.46

B Offices 0.74

Back of House 0.47

C Ballroom 0.97 Concourse A 0.27

Concourse B 0.29 Concourse C 0.42

Conference Rooms 0.96

Junior Achievement 1.51 Kitchen 0.59

Show Floor A 0.32 Show Floor B 0.34

Show Floor C 0.30

Measurement of this ECM is a one-time measurement and will not be measured and calculated after year 1 M&V performance year period. Year1 verified savings numbers were presented in place of this year’s savings as agreed upon in contract with escalated utility rates for dollar savings.

Table 11: Summary of savings calculation for interior lighting

Energy Conservation Measure Savings - Water

Water energy conservation measure (ECM) consisted of water conservation retrofits of bathroom fixtures-urinals, faucets, and showerheads, Kitchen fixtures – kitchen Hand Sinks, Kitchen Dish Sprayers and Pedal

Valve on Prep Sinks and Ice Machines. The calculation of savings for this ECM was determined through an

Excel Spreadsheet model. The energy savings and savings verification process and calculation method is presented below.

Table 12. Summary of savings calculation for water retrofit ECM

Utility Guaranteed

Verified Savings

Guaranteed $$ Savings

Verified $$ Savings

Ahead / (Behind)

Bathroom fixtures, Kitchen Dish Sprayers & Aqua Ice Machines Water (kgal)

6,102 7,047 $183,596 $212,015 $28,419

Aqua Kit & Aqua Kit (Therm) 4,015 4,463 $1,919 $2,133 $214 ICE Machine, A, B, C and WCICE A & B (KWh)

373,739 47,953 $14,089 $1,808 -$12,282

Cost Savings $199,605 $215,956 $16,351

Measurement of this ECM is a onetime measurement and will not be measured and calculated in future M&V performance year period. Year1 verified savings numbers were presented in place of this year’s savings as agreed upon in contract with escalated utility rates for dollar savings.

The methodology uses existing (pre) and as-built (post) fixture counts and measured flush rates as well as the agreed upon stipulated parameters described in the agreement. Pre (existing) and Post (new) water flow or per flush rates for a sample of Plumbing fixtures were measured (A sample of 10 fixtures of each

GWCC Interior Lighting ECMs kWh kW Therms kgal Cost

Savings

Guaranteed Savings 11,654,849 2,582 -67,207 7,767 $1,042,732

Verified savings 13,597,570 2,847 -20,135 9,873 $1,253,336

Variance 1,942,721 265 47,072 2,106 $210,604

% Surplus/(Behind) 16.67% 10.28% 70.04% 27.12% 20.20% type were used which represented 75% of the total savings). The average Flow/Flush rates were the values representing the entire plumbing fixture population. The difference between the measured Pre and Post

Flow/Flush rates were compared and that became the basis for the savings.

The energy savings for the Water ECM are determined by correctly applying the utility rates to the calculated actual energy units. The water consumption baseline for each building was calculated by factoring in the number of people, times the average number of flushes per day, times number of days per year of use, times the average water flow (gallons per flush). GWCC and Trane collaboratively agreed upon this assumptions and the results throughout the calculations process. The annual energy savings are determined by subtracting the Post Retrofit (as built) water consumption (gal), and costs, from the pre-retrofit (baseline) water consumption (gal) and costs. The post retrofit measured flow rates were used to develop the average flow rate by fixture type. Energy savings calculation was done by;

Water Fixtures:

𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 $ = (𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑙 − 𝐴𝑠𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑡 𝑔𝑎𝑙)

∗ (𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 ( 𝑔𝑎𝑙 ) + 𝑆𝑒𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 ( 𝑔𝑎𝑙

Figure 3 Water ECM Calculation Spreadsheet Snapshot

Water related electrical energy savings retrofit;

The Pre (existing) and Post (new) sample of electrical energy consumption of ice machines were measured . The average electrical energy consumption was the value representing the entire ice machine population. The difference between the measured electric al energy consumption were compared and that became the basis for the savings.

Water related gas savings retrofit;

Energy Conservation Measure Savings - Water Features Motor Upgrades

During the construction of the project, two of the new pump motors were not installed based on the following:

Main Water Feature motor in Building B was decommissioned.

Fish Pond Water Feature 2 had already a high efficiency motor in place

For the remaining of the pumps replaced by this project (2 total), motor kW prior to retrofit and after retrofit was measured and recorded. The annual operating hours for each water feature motors were stipulated. The difference between the measured Pre and Post motor kW was compared and became the basis of the savings.

Measurement of this ECM is a one-time measurement and will not be measured and calculated after year 1 M&V performance year period. Year2 verified savings numbers were presented in place of this year’s savings as agreed upon in contract with escalated utility rates for dollar savings.

Table 13. M&V results for water features motor upgrade ECM

OPTION “B” -- Retrofit Isolation with All Parameter Measurement

This option is based on periodic or continuous measurement of energy use taken at the component or system level when variations in factors are expected. Energy or proxies of energy use are measured continuously. Periodic spot or short-term measurements may be sufficient when variations in factors are not expected. Savings are determined from analysis of baseline and reporting period energy use or proxies of energy use. Direct measurements and estimated values, engineering calculations and/or component or system models often developed through regression analysis. Adjustments to models are not typically required.

Pre-M&V Post-M&V

# Location kW Amp Volts Power Factor kW Amp Volts Power Factor

1 Main 6.98 15 480 0.539 - - - -

2 Fish Pond 1

8.3 208 -

9 208 -

3 Fish Pond 2 - - - - - - - -

4 Maple Pond - - - - - - - -

5 Flare

5.3 488 -

5 488 -

ECM 7: Retro-commissioning ECMs

7a. Building A: Updating single zone units’ chilled water and hot water coil operation Trends were created in the JCI Metasys BAS to monitor and validate the performance of the retrocommissioning work done in the single zone units located in the Concourse are of Building A. Based on the retrocommissioning sheets, all units passed the established functional performance test, indicating all changes were done and successfully implemented. However, analyzing the collected data it was verified that seven out of fifteen unit’s retrocommissioned were operating as specified in our scope of work and the rest were operating differently. These units are listed in Table 14 below. In addition, a comparative chart is shown In Figures 4 and Figure 5 showing one AHU operating with wild coils and another unit following the sequence specified in the contract.

Table 14.- Units operation status

Correct Operation Incorrect Operation

S-2; S-3, S-7, S-8, S-9, S-12, S-15 S-1, S-4, S-5, S-6, S-10, S-11, S-13, S-14

Figure 4: Building A AHU-S1 showing incorrect operation

/0

/1

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:0

:1

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

/2

/1

:0

:0

/2

/1

:3

:0

Building A - AHU S1

CLG-C.PointHistory (% open) SF-C.PointHistory ()

Figure 5 Building-A AHU-S3 showing correct operation

7b. Building A: Concourse and Exhibit Hall Single Zone Units Simultaneous Heating/Cooling Trends were created in the JCI Metasys BAS to monitor and validate the performance of the retro-commissioning work done in the single unit located in the concourse area in Building A. It was validated that all of these units have the same zone temperature set point when operating at the same time. It was also confirmed that the supply air temperature is very similar for each unit, which confirms the statement that these units are not fighting each other for cooling or heating the concourse area.

Table 15. Concourse unit settings/performance May 2019

Air Handling Unit CHW Valve Pos. HW Valve Pos.

AHU-S1 100% 0%

AHU-S2 100% 0%

AHU-S3 100% 0%

AHU-S4 100% 0%

AHU-S6 100% 0%

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

/1

/1

:1

:0

Building A - AHU S3

CLG-C.PointHistory (% open) Fan On Off

7c. Building A: Outside Air Unit RCX Trends were created in the JCI Metasys BAS to monitor and validate the retro-commissioning work done in the Outside Air Unit (OAAHU) in Building A. It was verified that the preheat coil temperature set point was changed from 80F to 50F and also the leaving air temperature set point was set to 55F. However, during the retro-commissioning work done during the project’s construction phase, it was detected that the Temperature Low Limit Sensor was bad and needed replacement. This sensor being out of service will prevent the unit from operating.

Figure 6 OAAHU-1 changed preheat setpoint.

Option C - Continuous Metering Guarantee

This option is based on continuous measurements of energy use taken at the system level when variations in factors are expected. Energy or proxies of energy use are measured continuously. This method involves collecting utility bills throughout the guarantee period and comparing them to the adjusted baseline.

Energy savings are calculated using the following equation:

Avoided Energy Use (Savings) = (Baseline Energy Use) adjusted – (Post Installation Energy Use)

Where;

Adjusted-baseline Energy is defined as the baseline energy and any routine and non-routine adjustments needed to adjust it to the conditions of the reporting period.

This option was not included in this project.

OPTION “D” – Calibrated Simulation Option D, involves the use of computer simulation software to predict facility energy usage for the baseline and/or reporting period. Option D can be used to assess the performance of all ECMs in a facility; however, the simulation tool also allows estimating the savings attributable to each ECM within a multiple-ECM project. As the system is complex, ECM interactive effects are also complex, unpredictable changes in the occupancy and schedule of the buildings make the computation of non-routine adjustments so inaccurate that Options A, B or C would create excessive error in the savings determination for this facility.

For this project, Option D method was used to calculate the savings for ECM 1 New Central Energy Plant in Building B. Data was trended in the Building Automation System (BAS). The collected data was input in an updated detailed energy simulation model built in collaboration with Griffith Engineering, Inc. (GEI).

The energy model was created using Trane TraceTM 700 to help predict energy usage over the course of the year. The model is "calibrated" so that it predicts an energy pattern that approximately matches actual metered data for baseline energy usage with acceptable accuracy during the baseline year. The following inputs were revised for this M&V period based on unique information from the site.

Calendar / occupancy schedule

Weather data

Chilled water plant performance

Hot water plant Performance

For Option D, two calibrated models are included; one corresponds to the baseline case (no ECMs) and another includes all of the implemented ECMs. In either case, the models and measured energy data are under the same set of operating conditions. Savings with Option D can be calculated using two forms of Equations, Equations 1f) and 1g) given by IPMVP guideline.

Avoided energy (Savings) = Baseline energy from the calibrated model [hypothetical or without ECMs] – Reporting-period energy from the calibrated model [with ECMs]

Or, Avoided Energy (Savings) = Baseline energy from the calibrated model [hypothetical or without ECMs] - Actual calibration-period energy +/- Calibration error in the corresponding calibration reading

Trane TraceTM 700 model simulation details for new B Central Plant:

Model Changes

The energy model used for M&V involves two separate simulations of the building, with the difference in energy usage between the two representing the savings. The baseline simulation of the model was built upon a previously calibrated model, with an adjusted baseline and lighting improvements already included.

The proposed simulation incorporates the changes that have been made to the chiller and boiler plants.

Because of this, the model updates for calendar and weather have been made to both simulations. The chiller and boiler performance updates are only made to the proposed simulation.

Calendar.

The custom calendar for the energy model was modified based on the actual event schedule obtained from the GWCC. Based on actual events, the TRACE calendar assigns each day of the simulation to one of eight different day types. The calendar was updated with newly received event data from the period of July 2018 through June 2019.

The baseload kW used in the calendar methodology increased to 4,700 kW from the previous M&V period, where 4,500 kW was used.

Figure 7 GWCC’s typical raw event schedule

Weather

Actual weather data for Atlanta (Hartsfield Jackson International Airport weather station) was obtained and used for the model simulation. The obtained data was input into a full year’s weather file for the model. Since this M&V period spans the latter half of 2018 and the first half of 2019, the corresponding months within the updated weather file correspond to the actual years covered.

Chiller Performance

For each chiller, the weighted average kW/ton during the M&V period was calculated based on 15-minute interval data. The table below shows the average weighted efficiency used in the model for each chiller.

The efficiencies in kW/ton were weighted based on the calculated tonnage at that interval versus the overall sum of tonnages. Only periods when the chiller is on and actively running are considered.

Chiller Tag Name in TRACE Model Average kW/ton

B-1 4160 Chiller 1 0.615

B-2 4160 Chiller 2 0.495

B-3 4160 Chiller 3 0.587

B-4 VFD Chiller 0.490

Boiler Performance

In order to estimate an average boiler efficiency, new measurements were taken via combustion and condensate analysis. However, there were issues at the time of visiting, such as clogged condensate drains causing a backup in the boiler. Because of these issues, data was not able to be gathered from each boiler.

What data was able to be gathered is shown in the following table.

Table 17. Boiler efficiency results based on combustion test

Fire Rate O2% Excess Air %

Stack Temperature

(°F)

Supply Temperature

(°F)

Return Temperature

(°F)

Resulting Efficiency

(BTS-2000)

Boiler 1 P7 (77%) 5.70% 33.40% 124°F 130°F 118°F 90.4%

Boiler 3 P7 (77%) 4.60% 25.50% 115°F 103°F 95°F 93.3%

Boiler 5 P7 (77%) 5.30% 30.10% 120°F 100°F 94°F 91.8%

The result of the combustion analysis was an average boiler combustion efficiency of 91.84% with 111°F supply water temperature (methodology from BTS-2000 was used to calculate the efficiency). This result is compared to manufacturer’s data, which suggests the boilers should operate at 92.1% efficiency at these conditions.

The results extrapolated to normal full load conditions with 140-150F entering water temperatures, was 86.2%. Adding in the existing plant inefficiencies modeled in the baseline, resulted in an average plant efficiency of 73.7%. Additionally, the graphs below show the three curves used in the model generated or confirmed from the combustion tests and plant trend data.

Figure 8: Power Consumed Curve (generated from combustion tests)

Figure 9: OA Reset Curve (confirmed with plant trends)

Figure 10: HW Reset Curve (Generated from Manufacture’s data and combustion tests)

Trane TraceTM 700 M&V Results

Based on the two simulations in the energy model, the savings were determined for the chiller and boiler plant improvements. A monthly energy consumption report has been generated from the model showing the difference in consumption between the two simulations. The tables below summarize the M&V results and compare them to the project guaranteed savings.

Table 18: M&V Year 2 Trane TraceTM 700 Results - Electric

Description Modeled Baseline (kWh)

Modeled Proposed

(kWh)

Modeled Savings (kWh)

July 2018 4,552,595 4,062,508 490,088

August 2018 4,200,234 3,761,894 438,340

September 2018 4,006,999 3,557,767 449,232

October 2018 3,728,481 3,339,021 389,459

November 2018 3,289,236 2,968,148 321,089

December 2018 3,241,845 2,938,322 303,524

January 2019 3,035,389 2,716,324 319,065

February 2019 3,395,285 3,073,558 321,728

March 2019 3,161,813 2,852,251 309,562

April 2019 3,464,538 3,109,363 355,175

May 2019 3,621,086 3,237,434 383,653

June 2019 3,448,541 3,043,607 404,933

Total Annual: 43,146,040 38,660,194 4,485,846

Table 19 – M&V Year 2 Trane TraceTM 700 Results – Gas

Modeled Baseline (Therms)

Modeled Proposed (Therms)

Modeled Savings

(Therms)

July 2018 116,428 86,153 30,276

August 2018 106,069 78,379 27,690

September 2018 108,193 78,334 29,859

October 2018 121,673 91,917 29,755

November 2018 41,577 34,909 6,669

December 2018 42,283 35,943 6,340

January 2019 42,586 36,055 6,530

February 2019 41,863 35,158 6,704

March 2019 38,903 32,395 6,508

April 2019 95,711 72,652 23,059

May 2019 105,985 76,959 29,026

June 2019 106,088 76,062 30,025

Total Annual: 967,357 734,917 232,441

Table 20 – M&V Year 2 Trane TraceTM 700 Results – Water

Modeled

Baseline (kgal) Modeled

Proposed (kgal) Modeled

Savings (kgal)

July 2018 5,495 5,259 236

August 2018 4,869 4,656 212

September 2018 4,577 4,363 214

October 2018 3,488 3,300 187

November 2018 1,693 1,585 108

December 2018 1,523 1,420 103

January 2019 1,334 1,221 113

February 2019 1,737 1,628 109

March 2019 1,798 1,692 106

April 2019 2,628 2,471 157

May 2019 3,215 3,034 182

June 2019 3,152 2,959 193

Total Annual: 35,509 33,588 1,921

Utility Rate:

Electricity

GWCC’s Georgia Power electricity bill associated with the main facility (Buildings A, B, & C) is based on input from four meters which are combined (multiple load management) from a billing perspective. The

Georgia Power GWCC electricity-billing tariff is an RTP-DA (real-time pricing, day ahead) / MLM-8 (multiple load management) billing structure. A mutually agreed upon rates by both Trane and the customer were used to calculate the savings for this performance period. The agreed upon rates are given in table below:

Table 21: Electricity Energy Rates used for Energy Cost Reduction Calculations

GWCC Incremental Electricity Rates

ECM # ECM Description Incremental $/kWh rate Notes

1 B Central Plant $0.07 1 2 Interior Lighting $0.09 2 3 GWCC Exterior Lighting $0.09 2 4 C.O.P. Exterior Lighting $0.09 2 5 Water/Kitchen $0.04 3 6 Water feature upgrades $0.04 3 7 Building A&C Retro-commissioning $0.04 3 8 Exhibit Hall Lighting $0.09 2

Natural Gas The marginal natural gas rate is based on the main meter serviced by Scana Energy Marketing, Inc.

(Account # 23088255009) as its usage represents 99.7% of the total natural gas consumption

Table 22: Rates Used for Energy Cost Reduction Calculations

Rate

Effective Marginal therm Rate $0.48 / therm

Water and Sewer

City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management bills the Georgia World Congress Center facility under a commercial rate schedule. The following table shows the mutually agreed upon rates by Trane and the customer to calculate the savings for this performance period:

Table 23 Water and Sewer Rates Used for Energy Cost Reduction Calculations

Water Use (CCF) Wastewater (CCF) Combined W/WW

Case Charge $6.76 $6.76 $13.51

1-3 CCF $2.66 $10.03 $12.69

4-6 CCF $5.50 $14.05 $19.55

7 & above CCF $6.34 $16.16 $22.51 Security Sub-charge $0.15 $0.00 $0.15

Effective Rates

Water Rate $8.48 $21.60 $30.09

Escalated Rates Rates escalation has been established in the Investment Grade Audit Agreement document, ARTICLE 2, Scope of Energy Audit and Energy Audit Report, Section 2.3.8.2 Acceptable Proposed Savings. The following table shows the escalated rates that was used for Year-2 M&V report.

Table 24: Escalated Rates Used for Energy and Operational Cost Reduction Calculations

Utility / Item Escalation Rate

Electric 3%

Natural Gas 3%

Water 3%

Material/commodity cost savings 3%

Allowable contract labor saving 3%

Baseline Adjustments

Trane reserves the right to make baseline adjustments in response to changes to the facility(s) or deviations in the operating parameters per the PACT Agreement. Trane has periodically reviewed systems and facility operations in order to determine if all of the operational parameters are as per contract; if there will be any changes on any of the parameters baseline adjustments is done.

Routine adjustments:

The baseline utility data for the electric meter and New Central Chilled Water Plant Performance data is always adjusted for weather conditions and occupancy calendar in order to have a valid comparison for savings calculation. For electric demand (kW) and consumption (kWh) - the adjustment is made based on cooling degree-days and for natural gas consumption (therms) - the adjustment is based on heating degree-days. Adjusted baseline data is derived from the Trane TraceTM 700 software and accounts for hourly weather conditions. The building(s) occupied and/or equipment and/or lighting utilized is a variable which is adjusted for if the hours of operation for every M&V period. GWCC’s event calendars is used to input the occupied hours and number of occupancy for the performance period.

Avoided Energy use (Savings) = (Baseline Energy ± Routine Adjustments to the Reporting period conditions) – Reporting period Energy

Non-Routine adjustments:

Trane also reserves the right to make baseline adjustments in response to changes to the facility(s) or deviations in the operating parameters. A non-routine adjustment will need to be made to the baseline model to account for something that was modified during the M&V period that is not typical. Some changes that can lead to the need for non-routine adjustments in GWCC include, but are not limited to:

o Additions to the building, such as a new exhibit hall or wing of the building.

o Changes to the rentable locations of the building, such as when an exhibit hall or other large space become ineligible for rented activities. Alternatively, previously not rented space may have become rentable.

o Major equipment changes including new plant heating or cooling equipment, HVAC airside systems, lighting retrofits, and base loads.

o Increased ventilation rates for code compliance and the addition of heating and/or air-conditioning to areas that previously had no environment conditioning.

o The non-routine adjustments is described by the equation as follows;

Avoided Energy Use (Savings) = (Adjusted Baseline Energy Use) – (Reporting Period Energy Use) ±

Non-Routine Adjustments of the baseline energy to reporting period conditions

Where;

Adjusted Baseline Energy is defined as the baseline energy and any routine adjustments needed to adjust it to the conditions of the reporting period

Owner’s Responsibilities Besides, above mentioned non-routine adjustments list, Trane also reserves the right to make baseline adjustments for below listed points for owner’s responsibility. Customer agrees to contact Trane within seven (7) calendar days of commencement of any changes or additions of equipment or environments. At

Trane’s discretion, the Baseline may be adjusted based on the data or newly discovered information. The baseline may be adjusted for failures by Owner to perform its obligations under the Agreement or in the event, any representation or warranty made by Owner under the Agreement is false or misleading. The

GWCCA shall be responsible for maintaining the following operating parameters during the Contract Time:

Table 25. System operating conditions based on Contract

ECM

Post-Retrofit

Operating Parameters Permissible Variance

Operating period

ECM 1: B Central Plant

(1) Primary heating hot water supply temperature set point 180°F with reset based on Schedule below.

(1) +10°F, - no limit (See Schedule)

24x7, 365 days

(2) Condenser Water approach to be set at 7°F with a minimum of 60°F (CW entering chiller – OA wet bulb = 7)

(2) +/- 2°F

(3) CHW supply temperature set point of 42°F

(3) -2°F, + no limit

ECM 2: Interior Lighting Retrofits

Operating hours per daily GWCC show schedule of period in question

N/A

Per operating hours from

GWCC show schedule

ECM 3: GWCC

Exterior Lighting

Parking Lot and Deck lighting per daily GWCC show schedule of period in question

N/A Dusk to Dawn and

Area lighting from dusk to dawn and adjusted for GWCC show schedule of period in question

N/A per operating hours from

GWCC show schedule

ECM 4: C.O.P.

Exterior Lighting

Area lighting from dusk to dawn and adjusted for C.O.P. show schedule of period in question

N/A Dusk to Dawn and per operating hours from C.O.P. show schedule

ECM 5: Water / Kitchen

Usage per daily GWCC show schedule of period in question

N/A 24x7, 365 days

ECM 6: Water Feature Motor

Upgrades

Usage per daily GWCC show schedule of period in question

N/A 24/7, 365 days

ECM 7a: Targeted Retrocommissioning

- OAAHU

Post-commissioning OAAHU Preheat set point of 40°F

+3°F, - no limit 24x7, 365 days

ECM 7b: Targeted Retrocommissioning

- SZ and Exhibit Hall

Simultaneous Heating and Cooling

Post-commissioning heating and cooling space set point deadband range of 4°F

-0°F, + no limit 5am –

Midnight. 365 days

ECM 7c: Targeted Retrocommissioning

– Building “A” SZ Coil Control

Post-commissioning Cooling and Heating coil valve position set to 0% when the unit supply fan is off

None on CHW, +10% on HW (if required for freeze protection)

Per operating hours from

GWCC show schedule

ECM 8: Exhibit Hall Lighting Retrofits

Operating hours per daily GWCC show schedule of period in question

None

Per operating hours from

GWCC show schedule

Trane Intelligent Services (TIS)

Trane Intelligent Services (TIS) is Trane’s cloud based energy management platform. TIS allows us to gain a deeper understanding of the way the GWCC operates through the use of analytics and data trends. As part of the project, the GWCC was linked to the TIS platform. Trane personnel have been continuously monitoring the performance of the GWCC and using the TIS platform to proactively address inefficient operations. The following pages will give a glance into how TIS has helped maintain the operational efficiency of the GWCC chiller plant.

Below is a sample of the live energy dashboard that is being used at the GWCC. This dashboard brings in data points from all of the electricity and gas meters in the GWCC. The dashboard then displays the consumption and demand metrics in easy to read graphical displays. The dashboard sums up similar utilities into one value for the building. In the case of the electrical consumption, there are five meters on the GWCC and each is brought in to one “virtual,” meter in the dashboard.

The display above can be used in a “kiosk,” format to create awareness in the GWCC. It allows patrons to see the real time energy consumption of the building that they are visiting. In addition, it gives insight into all of the energy conservation measures the GWCC has undertaken.

Tracking Energy Conservation Measures

The spectral analysis is 2D way of displaying energy consumption. Each vertical columns represents an individual day. Each day starts at 00:00 at the top and progresses down to 24:00 at the bottom. The color shading represents electrical demand in kW.

In a different format, the progress of the construction and implementation of the energy conservations measures are shown below. There was a clear decrease in both consumption and demand across the construction period. The data used in these graphs is pulled directly from TIS and allows for long term tracking, trending and base lining.

Identifying Inefficient Operation

The image below shows a graph for ineffective heating HW temperature control. The graph shows that the boiler is not controlling leavings water to set point for two boilers, Boiler-B4 and Boilers-B6. This issue may result in decreased operating efficiency or increased wear of boiler mechanical components. This also may lead to occupant discomfort and a higher number of complaints.

We also found that the building B Boiler plant is not maintaining the supply water temperature to the active set point; it appears that it is maintaining the temperature to the design set point instead. Correcting this issue will lead to longer equipment life.

Appendix

Appendix A. Monthly Electric Bill (2015 to 2019)

Month Meter Read Billing Days

Total kWh Peak KW Demand

Electric Service Total

1-Jan 1/26/2015 34 5,352,397 9,520 $420,539

1-Feb 2/24/2015 29 5,026,843 13,230 $394,749

1-Mar 3/25/2015 29 5,118,023 11,119 $381,936

1-Apr 4/24/2015 30 5,256,410 12,776 $375,580

1-May 5/26/2015 32 5,299,430 11,367 $390,150

1-Jun 6/24/2015 29 5,229,045 12,215 $456,356

1-Jul 7/24/2015 30 5,816,344 12,339 $566,053

1-Aug 8/25/2015 32 6,054,105 13,678 $646,313

1-Sep 9/24/2015 30 4,948,966 10,735 $566,523

1-Oct 10/23/2015 29 4,845,814 10,206 $408,652

1-Nov 11/23/2015 31 5,596,865 12,679 $382,147

1-Dec 12/23/2015 30 4,269,184 9,239 $321,546

1-Jan 1/26/2016 34 5,630,868 11,167 $415,702

1-Feb 2/24/2016 29 5,322,798 11,367 $400,991

1-Mar 3/25/2016 30 5,494,040 11,281 $388,039

1-Apr 4/25/2016 31 5,060,897 10,049 $354,524

1-May 5/24/2016 29 4,138,200 8,095 $299,942

1-Jun 6/23/2016 30 3,767,784 7,841 $359,319

1-Jul 7/25/2016 32 4,815,527 10,611 $394,359

1-Aug 8/24/2016 30 4,610,862 11,842 $482,418

1-Sep 9/23/2016 30 4,627,320 12,911 $480,864

1-Oct 10/24/2016 31 4,590,709 12,350 $350,322

1-Nov 11/22/2016 29 3,303,038 6,734 $231,479

1-Dec 12/22/2016 30 3,087,282 6,226 $207,242

1-Jan 1/25/2017 34 3,590,848 6,161 $281,548

1-Feb 2/23/2017 29 3,213,611 8,051 $266,177

1-Mar 3/24/2017 29 3,188,373 6,885 $246,868

1-Apr 4/25/2017 32 3,215,056 6,885 $233,634

1-May 5/24/2017 29 3,283,700 9,358 $228,234

1-Jun 6/23/2017 30 3,691,235 8,365 $336,608

1-Jul 7/25/2017 32 3,746,609 7,420 $340,909

1-Aug 8/24/2017 30 3,480,695 7,295 $398,888

1-Sep 9/25/2017 32 3,494,430 9,029 $407,378

1-Oct 10/24/2017 29 3,423,400 9,218 $276,545

1-Nov 11/21/2017 28 2,912,004 5,994 $210,696

1-Dec 12/21/2017 30 3,320,126 8,494 $210,966

1-Jan 1/24/2018 34 4,257,164 7,187 $322,928

1-Feb 2/22/2018 29 3,789,373 8,786 $296,052

1-Mar 3/23/2018 29 3,582,360 7,285 $247,353

1-Apr 4/24/2018 32 3,863,780 7,484 $266,462

1-May 5/24/2018 30 4,028,029 9,455 $272,525

1-Jun 6/25/2018 32 4,186,674 8,132 $369,302

1-Jul 7/25/2018 30 3,985,508 7,949 $364,755

1-Aug 8/24/2018 30 4,392,446 12,080 $451,824

1-Sep 9/25/2018 32 4,199,905 10,357 $445,638

1-Oct 10/24/2018 29 3,696,751 7,808 $241,093

1-Nov 11/21/2018 28 3,558,237 11,702 $246,451

1-Dec 12/21/2018 30 3,300,824 6,021 $222,793

1-Jan 1/24/2019 34 3,910,181 8,689 $305,983

1-Feb 2/22/2019 29 4,190,065 10,211 $312,093

1-Mar 3/25/2019 31 4,057,842 8,159 $293,477

1-Apr 4/24/2019 30 3,843,056 7,609 $264,223

1-May 5/23/2019 29 3,699,860 9,909 $262,637

1-Jun 6/24/2019 32 4,495,003 8,861 $349,023

Appendix B. Avoided Cost Analysis

• Let’s Consider an Example:

Car 1 (GWCC Baseline Year) Car 2 (GWCC After Retrofits)

Fuel Efficiency: 15mpg 20mpg

Annual Mileage Driven: 10,000 miles 15,000 miles

Annual Gas Bill ($2/gal): $1,333.33 $1,500

• Observations:

• Car 2 is more fuel efficient, but its annual gas bill is higher. Why? Because it was driven 5,000 miles more than Car 1.

• So, what is avoided cost? Consider if Car 1 was driven 15,000 miles/year as Car 2 was, what would Car 1’s gas bill have been?

• Answer: $2,000 year

• So the car owner’s avoided cost would be $2,000 - $1,500 = $500

• Stated differently, keeping the annual mileage constant (15,000 miles), if the car owner had chosen to drive Car 1, his/her gas bill would’ve been $500 more than if he/she chose to drive Car 2. Therefore by choosing to drive Car 2, the car owner avoided $500 in gas cost

• This same logic can be applied to the GWCC facilities when comparing guarantee years to the baseline year.