Metering - FEMP’s Perspective Presentation to the Interagency Energy

Management Task Forceby

Ab Ream, FEMP O&M Program LeadOctober 16, 2003

202-586-7230Ab.ream@ee.doe.gov

Ask not what a meter costs.Asks what it costs not to meter.

Metering makes good sense- you can’t manage what you can’t measure. Without

a comprehensive and common sense approach, energy and cost saving

opportunities will surely be missed, particularly with respect to O&M.

If Charlie could talk, he’d say:

Effects of metering: Effects of metering:

Action Observed Savings

Installation of meters 0-2% (the “Hawthorne Effect”)

Bill allocation only 2 ½ to 5% (improved awareness)

Building tune-up 5 to 15% (improved awareness, and identification of simple O&M improvement)

Continuous Commissioning

15 to 45% (improved awareness, ID simple O&M improvements, project accomplishment, and continuing mgmt. attention)

HAWTHORNE EFFECTHAWTHORNE EFFECT

Initial improvement in a process of production caused by the obtrusive observation of that process. The effect was first noticed in the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric. Production increased not as a consequence of actual changes in working conditions introduced by the plant's management but because management demonstrated interest in such improvements

Pending Legislation would require:

• Within 180 days – DOE, GSA & DoD, with representatives from the metering industry, utility industry, energy services industry, energy efficiency industry, national laboratories, universities and Federal facility energy managers, shall establish guidelines.• Implementation by FY 2010.

The Tasks at Hand:Develop methods for calculating the cost and benefits of metering.Define options for alternative financing of metering.• Develop a process for preparing effective federal guidance on metering and the significance of the metering provisions contained in the 2003 comprehensive energy policy bill.

9/25/03 Metering Workshop Attendance:National Laboratories: 15Metering Companies: 13Federal Agencies: 10Department of Energy/Regional Offices: 6Consulting Companies: 6ESCO/Utilities: 4Universities: 1Non-profit: 1 (Alliance to Save Energy)

Conference call 8-9 a.m.Federal agencies: 10FEMP HQ: 1National Laboratories: 3

• Guidance should be REASONABLE. • Consider other program management reasons

• better project identification, • improved operation and maintenance, and• continuous commissioning)

• The effort can be a very cost effective stimulus to the energy program.

• Federal buildings are very diverse. • We need a FLEXIBLE framework for agencies to develop implementation plans that fit their situation. • Implementation plans should consider:

• Specific constraints• Opportunities• Energy program management benefits

• Metering should eventually include all energy sources (and water as economically appropriate) for which data use could result in better resource management. • Sub-metering can include any meters on a multi-building facility beyond the utility revenue meter, or metering of large energy uses in an individual building.

• The guidance should present a screening process that identifies the potential cost effective use of the data from meters in those buildings that should have a priority for metering. • Guidance should outline a phased effort to start with easily accomplished, cost effective projects, and the use of early experience to refine follow-on efforts.

• Initial actions:• access to existing utility revenue meter pulse data, and • metering of obviously significant buildings using rules of thumb (e.g. annual energy use over $X0,000).

• Follow-on phases would identify and prioritize additional buildings to be metered by a cost/benefit analysis based on assessment of the specific metering costs and related potential savings.

Possible Screening CriteriaPossible Screening Criteria

• Energy unit costs, • Ability to react to demand and

charges• Bill aggregation • Total annual costs• Energy intensity per square foot• Potential energy savings projects• etc.

• Costs should include: • meter cost, • correct installation, • data acquisition, • communication, • software licensing, • wiring• in-house or contracted analysis.

• Guidance should address metering in ESPC’s and UESC’s• Technical guidance should be as flexible as practical, such as requiring web based communication protocols rather than specifying a protocol. • We should rely on private sector metering expertise.

• Metering program reporting should be made through a simple change to the existing annual agency energy report.• Exceptions for individual buildings should only be granted on the basis of security or economic justification based on the lack of savings to cover the costs.

Next steps:

• Prepare Draft Federal Advanced Metering Guidance• Distribute the Draft to Identified Stakeholders• Consider the Value of Holding an Advanced Metering Workshop in Washington DC under 2 scenarios:

1. Metering Provision in Comprehensive EnergyLegislation passes2. Metering Provision in Comprehensive EnergyLegislation does not pass, or is delayed.

Questions?

Comments?

Suggestions?

Thank you!