You are here
Projects Updates for Energy Conservation and Building Standards (ECBS) SWATeam
- Associated Project(s):Attached Files:
Dear Energy Conservation and Building Standards SWATeam,
The iCAP Working Group met today, and would like to thank you for your report!
In the hopes that it will provide some assistance as you formulate your recommendations for the revised iCAP, to be presented at the iCAP Forum on October 22nd, we wanted to provide you with some additional files:
1) A "template" for the iCAP sections that we ask that you use. This was written using Transportation as an example, but it should be easily adaptable.
2) A "resources" document that summarizes the 2010 iCAP strategies, excerpts from a document that was put together back in FY13 summarizing progress at that time, a set of links to relevant pages on the iCAP Portal, and a list of the questions in the STARS report that are relevant to your team. The STARS report is how our campus gets "graded" on our sustainability performance, so these questions may inspire ideas for things the campus should be doing.
3) A table of performance in your area. You may wish to fill this in with your proposed goals, and include it in the template.
4) A summary of all of our emissions in different categories, for context.
5) The Clean Air Cool Planet calculator itself, updated for FY2014, in case you wish to dive into how the calculations are performed.
We hope this information will be helpful to your team. If there is anything we can do to help you with your important work in the coming month, please just ask!
Professor Benjamin J. McCall
Associate Director for Campus Sustainability
Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
The attached file shows the heating degree days for each fiscal year and the Energy Use Intensity.
Wow! So the weather does seem to have had a big influence here. I wonder if there's a way to quantify that? Could we, for example, break out the BTUs spent on steam from the total BTUs, and then consider two metrics: (1) non-steam EUI, and (2) steam EUI per Heating Degree Day?
This might give us better metrics for our performance?
Thanks so much,
From: Helmink, Karl J
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:07 AM
Cc: Marquissee, Mike
Subject: RE: Updated progress report
Yes, Mike Marquissee and Kent presented the data to our Utilities and Energy Services group. This is where the BTU/ sq. ft. and heating degree day charts came from. I assume that Mike's group put these charts together with Kent's oversight.
I am not deeply aware of all of the details that go into the development of these charts. ( It is pretty complex in my opinion.)
Mike, attached is a copy of the FY 14 year ending updates that came forward from our swat team. FYI If you can clarify any of the mentioned items, that might be helpful.
Also, we don't normalize any of the RCx data. One can easily get lost in the numbers, and I prefer to focus on the real meter readings.
All, attached is an analysis overlaying the heating degree days with the EUI. The reported EUI is not normalized for weather changes. - Mike Marquissee
- Associated Project(s):
Attached here are the agenda and other relevant materials for the September 25, 2014 meeting of the iCAP Working Group.
see fileAttached Files:
see fileAttached Files:
The attached file is a summary of the energy consumption of individual campus buildings in FY14.Attached Files:
Fred Hahn, Doris Reeser, Brian Deal, Claire McConnell, Karl Helmink, Josh Whitson, Dhora Patel, Kevin Duff, Eva Sweeney
Campus needs a comprehensive Energy Conservation Master Plan. The SAIC report is now outdated, and the Utilities Master Plan focuses on generation, not conservation.
It can be difficult to balance energy conservation goals with programmatic needs. Some examples:
Illinois Plumbing Code still limits our ability to pursue gray-water systems Historic Preservation of building exteriors impacts building envelope improvements Facility Standards call for buildings designed for a 100 year life. Is this appropriate in all cases?
Life Cycle Analysis of buildings - not merely cost analysis but including program benefits, social, etc Can researchers be persuaded to e.g. run experiments at night to save peak energy costs?
Need to "connect the dots" with departments and budgets so that energy and programmatic needs are both met
Need greater involvement from Space Planning, especially for the Net Zero Square Foot goal
How much low hanging fruit is left? Energy conservation so far has been ahead of schedule but will become more difficult as we go. Most felt that achieving 30% reduction is "easy", 50% not so easy, >50% is difficult.
Can we truly achieve net zero carbon? Research activities will necessarily produce emissions and use energy.
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 is now state law; this raises the bar significantly for building energy efficiency on all projects
LEED Platinum also raises the bar starting 2015. One challenge is that connection to our central plant utilities limits every project's ability to earn energy points, due to Abbott fossil fuel use. Other points must be pursued.
Goals set should be high, because this spurs investment in projects to achieve them. We have seen the results of this already with significant increase in energy conservation funding due to iCAP.
Fume Hoods remain a major opportunity for savings, but departments need incentives to upgrade or remove.
Otherwise they will keep existing fume hoods "just in case". Possibly implement utility fee per fume hood?
** Decentralized billing for utility consumption is a major priority. Units need to be stakeholders in energy savings, if they can reap the benefits they will make more efforts to conserve.
Increase transparency/outreach so campus community can see progress. Energy Dashboards, etc.
DIA involvement should be increased (Memorial Stadium, Assembly Hall) as they are a large energy user.
** Net Zero Space initiative was discussed. Currently the iCAP targets do not align with the Campus Master Plan which shows overall growth. Space Planning needs to be involved.
Currently, departments have no incentive to give up unused or underused space. Many buildings have space that could be utilized more fully rather than construct new.
Space Planning needs much more involvement in general, this can reduce construction of new space, save energy and construction costs. Currently, F&S Planning asks units to justify space needs, but this process is not robust. Nobody has authority to say "no".
Some individuals have 3 or more private offices assigned to them around campus--wasting space.
Increase shared offices, hoteling, teleconference, etc.
Implement some kind of "rent" on building space would provide incentive to downsize?
For reference, regular building maintenance is approx. $2.50/sq.ft. exclusive of energy.Attached Files:
Energy conservation SWATeam
Intros. Ben McCall, Darah Patel (USGBC), Josh Whitson, Karl Helmink, Stephanie Lage, Morgan Johnston, Claudia Szczepaniak (clerk), Claire Mcdonal, Brian Deal, Scott Willenbrock. Overlap with this group to attend as many as possible. Tight linkage between these two groups. Brian. Sedac, icap core writer from 2010. Ben: Thanks for coming. About iSEE. New on campus being treated equally to other institutes like Beckman and igb. Three missions. Educ and outreach and campus sustainability. Not possible to make such progress on sustainability on our campus. Or a lot if progress has been made. It wouldn't be possible for me to make a difference by myself. So formed teams. I was told My job is to figure out how to implement the icap. SWATeams long lasting constantly reevaluating our progress strategies and goals. Long term version. To get there still need mechanisms for how to handle these recs. who would decide what is acceptable. Don't have that answered yet. Who will they answer to and who will they make recs to? Given that we don't have that framework we are kicking off this initial phase. To evaluate where the campus is and to identify what steps the campus could take. Not a should terminology at this time. Brian. So the former executive council? Still valid? How to put something like that back together? Who is responsible for the implementation? F&S, iSEE, VCR, housing. Not yet decided. Brian ISEE sits under VCR now right? Yes. Working to identify the other faculty member. Six people are the core group of the SWATeam. Larger consultation team to provide input data and feedback. And future public input discussions for general campus community. Specific charge now is a short report summary of how we are doing wrt 2015 targets and goals. And actions to consider to help meet those goals. In this team, good news story. Already exceeded the goals for conservation. May be other aspects of the strategies to consider etc. Brian says "Shut down the coal assets, Scott." Claudia is getting class credit about ten hours per week. Clerks. Minutes. Logistics background research. Analysis. Etc. Faculty as the chair. Brian will be the chair. He asks if we still want to be part of it? Brian says defer to josh and Karl. Karl says Kent had a Energy report from fy14. Fy13 plus July. The AEI master plan has three scenarios. Constant, historical growth rate and a doubling of the growth rate. Are you kidding me? What about this scenario? It isn't flat or growing. Per square foot. Do aft grow? In the icap we said you can't grow. Parallel discussion going on about formalizing the policy of space growth. Net zero by design. Well it may be even stronger than that. So much wasted space. Don't have space. Lincoln hall and natural history bldg went down at the same time. The idea was to set up a way to manage that. These are the bigger picture questions about how to move forward in the long hall. For now evaluate how we have done for energy conservation and building standards. Josh can walk us through it. Rcx started July 07. Not huge conservation efforts prior to that. Fy09 is when epc started. You can see how the BTU per sqft went down. Independent of petascale. Good news. Making good progress. Not weather normalized. Why up in fy13? Hot summer and lincoln hall. In discussion about utility overall campus plan. Notice some small amounts of regression and not going backwards significantly. Improvements not maintained at the level they were. What about going back to the same buildings. Law of dimishing returns apply. Some bldgs are still hitting higher groups. Preventive maintenance to maintain the savings. BJM recs to team to review the targets and strategies that are listed in the icap. Good to go through these and determine what happened. Per sq ft and actual. Implement decentralized energy billing. Charge colleges for energy use. Instead we have ECIP. Examine the items and what could be done. Discussion of EUI vs total energy. Existing buildings. Uirp. Brian Don't have control over what they do. Have no say on what they do and what they build. Uirp pays for their energy. Same with auxiliaries operational control. Research stations. Allerton not operational control. Contiguous control. Operations at allerton are different. Pay their own bills. Outside operational control. Energy is not part of it. It would be helpful for this team to clarify that point. How do we decide what counts? Dixon springs. Data from U&ES match that to the square footage. Don't count airport. Define the scope. To compare. Need to set clear criteria to apply for whether something is under our operational control. Scott asked why include petascale. Carbon neutral petascale next time. The point is the cost of doing business. It should be built into the cost of it. Providing the power should be part of their internal costs. This is giant. Can't ignore it. Need to identify the operational control. Contiguous doesn't make that much sense to me. Looking through EUI and sq ft etc is needed. Between now and when the group meets again, what should folks do? Become familiar with what we said in 2010. Review it and bring questions. Next meeting Friday is good.