Comprehensive Campus Energy Master Plan

Final Presentation

December 2014

Presentation of Energy Master Plan

• Review individual utilities systems

• Future growth impact

• Recommendations

• Follow up of sustainability goals and projections discussion

• Implementation plan

Comprehensive Campus Energy Master Plan

1. Develop a thorough understanding of existing utility systems – Reliability limitations – Efficiency – Capital renewal requirements

2. Evaluation of replacement and expansion options – Future campus growth – Life cycle cost analysis and comparison – Feasibility assessment (operational, sustainability, etc…)

3. Implementation plan – A utility project list synchronized with the 10-year campus plan – A schedule of funding requirements – A benchmark of current efficiencies with future milestones

Summary of Campus Energy Challenges

• Fiscal Year 2014 – Natural gas* 1,700,000 Million Btu’s $16.4 M/yr – Liquid natural gas 194,000 Million Btu’s $4.6 M/yr – Oil 96,000 Million Btu’s $2.4 M/yr – Electric Purchased 150,000 Million Btu’s $6.0 M/yr TOTAL 2,140,000 Million Btu’s $29.4 M/yr

* Includes fuel for on-site cogeneration

• Utility infrastructure is a significant asset (value ~$800 M)

• Campus operations rely upon uninterrupted utility services

• Goals to reduce energy use, fuel costs and carbon footprint

• Need to support future expansion

1,690,000 Million Btu’s

150,000 Million Btu’s

80,000 Million Btu’s

150,000 Million Btu’s

Review of Campus Energy System

LNG

Oil

Natural Gas

Regional Power Supply

Regional Fuel Supply Capacity Cost Carbon emissions

Distribution Capacity Reliability Efficiency

District CHW

Plants

Generation Plants / Utility Supply Capacity Reliability Efficiency Balance energy

CEP (cogeneration)

Electric Substation

(~33% of site load)

Steam

Electric

Chilled Water

Buildings • Heating • Electric • Cooling

Future Planning

• Near Term (2014-2022) – 2012-2021 Capital

Improvements Projects – Input from Design &

Construction Management and Campus Planning

• Long Term(>2022) – Campus Master Plan

Campus Planning (Near Term)

• 1.2 M sf of net new growth – 60% Academic – 10% Lab – 5% Assembly – 25% Parking

Campus Planning (Long Term)

• Near Term (2014-2022) – 1.2 M sf of net new growth

• 60% Academic • 10% Lab • 5% Assembly • 25% Parking

• Long Term (>10 years) – 5.7 M sf of new growth

• 60% Academic • 5% Lab • 25% Assembly • 10% Parking

Steam Generation System HRSG 100

BOILER NOS. 200, 300, 400

• Boiler Capacity

• Turbine Summary

HRSG/Boiler

No.

Boiler Capacity

(pph)

Firm Capacity

(pph) Second

Fuel

100 100,000 100,000 ---

200 125,000 --- Diesel

300 125,000 125,000 Diesel

400 125,000 125,000 Diesel

Total 475,000 350,000 ---

Turbine No. Turbine Type

Capacity (kW)

G-1 Comb. Turb. 10,000

STG-1 Steam Gen. 2,000

STG-2 Steam Gen. 4,000

Total --- 16,000

Space for

Future Capacity

• On Site Fuel Storage Fuel Type

Capacity (gal) Comment

LNG 36,000 Short Term

72,000 Space For Add.

Fuel Oil 500,000

Existing Steam Fuel Use Profile Becauseof pipeline limitations burning LNG and Diesel increases annual fuel costs by ~ $4.7 million based on current load profile.

Near Term Steam Load

Long Term Future Growth

Option Consideration

• Install natural gas boiler • Install 8 MW combustion turbine

– W/ absorption chiller – W/ additional HP steam turbine

• Install 10 MW combustion turbine (new plant) – W/ absorption chiller – W/ additional HP steam turbine

• Install 12 MW combustion turbine (new plant) – W/ absorption chiller – W/ add. HP steam turbine

• Install biomass (new plant) – Just to replace secondary fuel usage – Base loaded boiler

Steam Generation Options - Annual

Opt No. Description

Capital Costs ($M)

Annual Costs

($M/yr)

Present Value ($M)

Total Energy

(MMBtu/YR)

Regional Energy Equiv.

(MMBtu/YR)

CO2 Savings

(TPY)

1 Install N.G. Boiler 10.8 26.8 555 2,260,000 2,520,000 ---

2A 8 MW CT 34.8 23.5 532 2,290,000 2,350,000 3,600

2B 8 MW CT W/ Abs 35.8 23.5 532 2,290,000 2,350,000 3,600

2C 8 MW CT W/ STM TURB 37.9 23.4 534 2,290,000 2,350,000 3,800

3A 10 MW CT 55.3 23.9 555 2,360,000 2,400,000 300

3B 10 MW CT W/ Abs 56.2 23.9 555 2,360,000 2,400,000 300

3C 10 MW CT W/ STM TURB 58.3 23.8 557 2,360,000 2,400,000 400

4A 12 MW CT 61.3 23.6 557 2,360,000 2,390,000 800

4B 12 MW CT W/ Abs 62.2 23.6 552 2,360,000 2,390,000 800

4C 12 MW CT W/ STM TURB 64.3 23.6 559 2,360,000 2,390,000 900

5A Biomass (60 KPPH) 44.0 27.5 593 2,350,000 2,620,000 400

5B Biomass (60 KPPH Base) 44.0 26.5 581 2,420,000 2,690,000 34,000

5C Biomass (100 KPPH) 68.1 26.3 599 2,490,000 2,750,000 51,800

With Pipeline Limits

Opt No. Description

Capital Costs ($M)

Annual Costs

($M/yr)

Present Value ($M)

Total Energy

(MMBtu/YR)

Regional Energy Equiv.

(MMBtu/YR)

CO2 Savings

(TPY)

1 Install N.G. Boiler 10.8 30.9 613 2,260,000 2,520,000 ---

2A 8 MW CT 34.8 27.9 594 2,290,000 2,350,000 3,500

2B 8 MW CT W/ Abs 35.8 27.9 594 2,290,000 2,350,000 3,500

2C 8 MW CT W/ STM TURB 37.9 27.8 595 2,290,000 2,350,000 3,700

3A 10 MW CT 55.3 28.5 620 2,360,000 2,400,000 100

3B 10 MW CT W/ Abs 56.2 28.7 623 2,360,000 2,400,000 100

3C 10 MW CT W/ STM TURB 58.3 28.7 625 2,360,000 2,400,000 100

4A 12 MW CT 61.3 28.4 623 2,360,000 2,390,000 600

4B 12 MW CT W/ Abs 62.2 28.4 623 2,360,000 2,390,000 600

4C 12 MW CT W/ STM TURB 64.3 28.4 626 2,360,000 2,390,000 600

5A Biomass (60 KPPH) 44.0 31.5 649 2,350,000 2,620,000 500

5B Biomass (60 KPPH Base) 44.0 27.5 595 2,420,000 2,690,000 39,200

5C Biomass (100 KPPH) 68.1 26.5 605 2,490,000 2,750,000 53,000

Steam Generation Recommendation

• Recommendation (if New Gas Pipe Line is Available) – Install 8 MW combustion turbine (Economics and reliability)

• Natural Gas Pipe Line Contingency Plan – Install second phase on LNG storage – Determine the value of carbon reduction – 8 MW combustion turbine option is preferred pending value of

carbon reduction

Steam Distribution System • Distribution:

– 8,700 LF Walkable tunnel – 7,000 LF Trench – 35,000 LF Direct buried piping

• Piping condition – 65% Good condition (46,700 LF) – 20% Fair condition (14,800 LF) – 15% Poor condition (9,300 LF)

• Steam efficiency – Estimated distribution loss 15%

(Representative of piping condition) – 70% of steam generated is utilized

by building

Steam Distribution System • Distribution:

– 8,700 LF Walkable tunnel – 7,000 LF Trench – 35,000 LF Direct buried piping

• Piping condition – 65% Good condition (46,700 LF) – 20% Fair condition (14,800 LF) – 15% Poor condition (9,300 LF)

• Steam efficiency – Estimated distribution loss 15%

(Representative of piping condition) – 70% of steam generated is utilized

by building

Near Term Distribution Analysis

720 LF 2 BLDG 7,500 PPH

780 LF 3 BLDG 8,550 PPH

4,850 LF 27 BLDG 32,500 PPH

1,800 LF 11 BLDG 1,270 PPH

940 LF 20 BLDG 31,290 PPH

• Existing distribution can support near term growth – Piping needed to connect

future buildings

• Opportunities to improve reliability – Strategic pipe segments for

redundancy – Medium pressure and low

pressure augmentation stations

Chilled Water System

• Existing system summary – 7 District chiller plants – 12 Individual cooling systems

• Chiller summary – 13,280 tons of W/C – 5,730 tons of absorption – 930 tons of A/C – 19,940 tons Total

• Chiller age – 11,810 tons of 0-10 years – 2,550 tons 11-20 years – 5,580 tons > 20years – 600 Ton utilize CFC or HCFC

Energy for chilled water generation represents ~10% of the total building energy use

Existing Chilled Water Capacity

13,800 tons: Total Load (Incl. Indiv. System) 19,940 tons: Total Chiller Capacity

District Name

Peak Load

(Tons)

Total Chiller

Capacity (Tons)

Chiller Firm

Capacity (Tons)

Available Capacity

(Tons)

ISB* 3,400 5,650 4,150 750

Polymer* 2,270 2,620 1,720 -550

LGRC* 1,440 1,550 900 -540

Whitmore 1,150 1,550 1,150 ---

Honors 1,350 1,900 1,400 50

Mullins 320 1,300 650 330

* Research / Lab facilities

Near Term Chilled Water Capacity

District Name

Replace Aging Chillers

& Ex. Redundancy

(Tons)

Chillers for New

Buildings (Tons)

Chillers to add ex.

Buildings to Districts (Tons)

Total New Chiller

Capacity (Tons)

ISB 390 970 --- 1,360

Polymer 3,560 420 1,270 5,250

LGRC 540 --- --- 540

Whitmore --- --- --- ---

Honors --- --- --- ---

Mullins 1,300 --- --- 1,300

New Library 340 290 520 1,150

Indiv. System 880 3,550 --- 4,430

Total 5,480 5,230 1,790 14,280

Future near term chilled water load 20,180 tons (potential) Continue to use 14,360 tons of existing chiller capacity through near term

Future Chilled Water System Options

• Potential future options – District CHW system (status quo) – Central chilled water plant – Indiv. system for future only

• Chiller generation options – Electric centrifugal – Steam driven chiller

• Absorption • Steam turbine

– Thermal Energy Storage • Chilled water storage • Ice storage

Individual District Comparison

Advantages to District System • Facilitates dispatch of select units

to manage load profile • Reduces cooling tower water

treatment • Reduces appearance of industrial

equipment on campus • Facilitates winter cooling • Extends equipment life and

reduces unplanned outages by continually monitor equipment functions

• Reduces equipment repair costs through fewer units centrally located

• Reduces building electrical requirements allowing existing electric feeders to be re-allocated

Recommended District Site Plan

Cost to centralize entire campus ~$50 M, with an annual savings of $700,000 per year.

Existing Electrical Main Substation

• 26.1 MW campus peak load in September 2013 – Maximum power

generation 16 MW – Current utility feeder firm

capacity is 27 MW • 37.0 MW campus peak at

near term growth – Lab space – Data center – Cooling for building not

currently air conditioned – Tillson Farm Substation

Tillson Farm Substation

• New High Voltage Substation

• New Feeders to existing switch stations – (2) 14.3 MW Feeders to

each Switch Station – Firm capacity 42.9 MW

Existing Campus Feeder Capacity

Future Campus Feeder Capacity

Transfer Feeder Loads

Opt 1 Increase Feeder Capacity

Option No. 1 - Larger Feeders

Opt 2 – New North Switch Station

Option No. 2 – New North Switch Station

Electrical Option Comparison

Top 20 Building Unitary Energy Use

Total Energy Consumed by Top 50 Bldgs

Campus Wide Energy Conservation Average Energy Reduction per Building

Dynamic System Operation

LNG

Oil

Natural Gas

Regional Power Supply

District CHW

Plants

Steam

Electric

Chilled Water

BUILDING LOAD

PROFILES

Renewables

33% of total electric load

Renewables

Cogeneration System

(70% efficient)

Are buildings operating efficiently?

Which renewable energy systems are cost effective?

Will there be times when grid power is cheaper then cogen power?

When is cost effective to operate absorption cooling?

Some Variables: Renewable fuels cost Electric Rate Gas Rate Load Profile

Management & Flexibility

LNG

Oil

Natural Gas

Regional Power Supply

District CHW

Plants

Steam

Electric

Chilled Water

BUILDING LOAD

PROFILES

Renewables

Real-time Campus-wide Energy Management System

33% of total electric load

Utility Rates

Building Operation

Site Loads

Steam or Electric

Cogen Operation

Renewables

Cogeneration System

(70% efficient)

Load Management Summary

• Reduce Existing Building Energy Use 177 Kbtu/gsf – At least 5% to 10% energy reduction possible

• A 10% site energy reduction is an average of 20% reduction for top 25 buildings (~$25 Million in capital)

• Capital renewal projects could reduce energy use another 5%

• Coordination of the existing energy rates with ongoing DCAMM study is crucial

• Load management projects would include…

• Steam Distribution Improvements

• Chilled Water Capital Renewal

• Chilled Water System Optimization

• Load shifting (thermal storage)

• Building Design Enhancements

• Building Energy Conservation Measures

• Renewable Energy Systems

• Alternative Technologies

Renewable Projects (PPA)

• ~8.0 MW Solar Project – Parking lots – Rooftops – Off Site

• Anaerobic Digester

Sustainable UMass

• Executive Order 484 – Directives – Energy Related Targets

• Energy Use (Kbtu/sf) • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (absolute basis) • Renewable Power Purchasing

• UMass Challenges – Future Campus Development (through 2022)

• 12% increase in area results in a 26% increase in load – 29% increase in lab area – 12% increase in air conditioning for existing buildings

– Many of the cost effective Energy Conservation Measures have been performed

– Executive Order 484 Accounting

164

155

131 135 133 126 123

136

125 128 131

140 142 143 141 138 136 136 138

0%

6%

20% 18% 19%

23% 25%

17%

24% 22% 20%

15% 13% 13% 14% 16% 17% 17% 16%

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

Ener

gy U

se (m

easu

red

at th

e bu

ildin

g) K

Btu/

sf

Historical Energy Use at the Buildings

Executive Order 484 Energy Target 2 35% Reduction by Fiscal Year 2020 (based on Fiscal Year 2004)

Currently there are no cost effective means to achieve Target 2

Does not include fuel use for on-site power generation

Master Plan Projects

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

KBtu

/yr/

gsf Executive Order 484 Target

Net Campus Energy Use

Campus Energy Use (w/ Cogeneration) • Based on Total Campus Energy Use (electric and fuel)

Campus Energy Use with Regional Credit

Projects TBD

Solar PV (Regional)

Cogen (Regional)

Master Plan Projects

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

KBtu

/yr/

gsf Executive Order 484 Target

Net Campus Energy Use

Campus Energy w/ Regional Savings

Equivalent Carbon Emissions

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Met

ric To

nnes

per

yea

r

Campus Efficiency

Solar PV

Additional Reductions Needed to MeetEO484

Executive Order 484 Target

~34,000 TPY short of the target in Fiscal Year 2020

Carbon Emissions on a per SF Basis

-

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Tonn

es p

er p

er 1

000

gsf/

yr

Campus Efficiency

Solar PV

Additional Reductions Needed to Meet EO484

Executive Order 484 Target

Executive Order 484 Plan

• Establish that the existing targets as stated cannot be achieved with cost effective projects

• Identify cost implications for not complying with Executive Order 484 targets as currently written

• Develop a standard approach for comparison of projects that are not self-funding

• The initial framework of the plan can be established in the Energy Master Plan

• Review with state agencies

Sustainability Message Board

Sustainability – Flat Screen Display

Schedule / Implementation Plan

RISK AND POTENTIAL LOST OPPORTUNITY

Summary

• Campus growth projected 12% over the next 8 years • Projected $190 million identified in utility projects to address

– Reliability – Efficiency

• Sustainability – Develop a plan to address Executive Order 484 and establish

sustainability goals – Recognize all previous campus efforts – Develop the process to prioritize projects to meet sustainability

goals

Additional Slides for Questions

Difference in Energy Accounting

UMass Amherst

Regional Power Plant

Fuel

Fuel

Electric

UMass Amherst

Regional Power Plant

Fuel

Fuel

Electric

Local Regional

Solar Solar

Recommended Redundancy Guideline

Building or System Type Heating Cooling Electric

Laboratory/Research 100% 100% 100%

Academic 100% 100% 100%

Administrative 100% 100% 100%

Residence / housing 50% 50% 100%

Support 0% 0% 100%

District / Central 100% 100% 100%

Notes: 100% - refers to one full standby unit or service 50% - refers to two units each sized at 75% of the load 0% - refers to capacity sized for system peak load

Utility Feeder Capacity

Switch Station Description

Total Capacity (MW)

West Feeder Outage (MW)

East Feeder Outage (MW)

West Feeder 18G1 14.3 --- 14.3

Feeder 18G2 14.3 14.3 14.3

East Feeder 17K3 5.0 5.0 5.0

Feeder 17K7 8.0 8.0 ---

Total --- 41.6 27.3 33.6