Energy Champ Challenge Lessons learned & what’s next?

February 4, 2016

Jeremy King (VGS)

Brian Reilly (BED)

Introduction

• What is the Energy Champ Challenge (ECC)?

Energy efficiency program

Launched Spring 2015

Targeting Burlington’s MF

Used game theory approach

End date: 12/31/2016

http://www.energychampbtv.com/

Introduction cont.

• Why did we create the Energy Champ Challenge?

Hard market to reach

Potential for energy savings

Access for renters to EEC funds

City of Burlington Climate Action Plan

SOV 2016 Comprehensive Energy Plan Goals

Benefits

• Whole building energy assessment

• Lower energy bills

• More comfortable homes

• Lower tenant turnover

• Increase asset value

• Improved durability

• Reduced maintenance

• TOS waived

Burlington’s MF Market • Approx. 2,000 MF’s in Burlington but…

Wide variance in the type of buildings, age, size etc.

Roughly 85% heat with NG

15 % heat with Propane/Oil or ESH

Building Type Total Finished (SF) No. of Buildings Sum of No. of Units

2 Family 2,145,347 1,041 2,091

3 Family 994,036 369 1,113

4 Family 750,787 239 966

Apartments 5+Units 3,790,116 367 4,477

Total 7,680,286 2,016 8,783

Burlington’s MF Market (cont’d) (Buildings with 5+ units)

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181 201 221 241 261 281 301 321 341 361

Fin

ish

ed

sf

x10

00

Dispersion of Finished Living Area

Building Count

City-wide market potential

• Assuming average results across the remaining 2 – 4 MF buildings, what would be the value of projects in the City and the savings that could be achieved? Potential Natural Gas Savings

Remaining 2-4 Unit MF Buildings 1,604

Average Annual Building Usage (CCF) 1,804

Total 2-4 MF Consumption @ 50% Market Share (CCF) 1,446,808

Average Reduction (CCF) 19%

Total Potential Reduction (CCF) 274,894

Potential Savings to Tenants $382,102

Average Project Cost $5,700

Value of Remaining Projects $4,571,400

Burlington’s MF buildings (cont’d) 1899 1960

Yr Built No. of Buildings

1899 or older 956

1900-1950 862

1951 -1980 128

1981-2015 76

Program Design

• Free energy audit and energy report

• Project management and inspection

• Up to 75% VGS incentive

• Up to 75% WX incentive from BED +DI

• GMCU (VGS)

• Lake Monsters ballgame – Sept. 2015

Program Flow

Program admin queries usage.

Data exchanged. Eligibility

confirmed.

Apt. Owner Calls into ECC Call

Center

No NG service

High kWh

BED walks thru property to

assess EE opp.

VGS walks thru property to assess EE

opp.

NG service

Low kWh

BED & VGS coordinatedelivery of

services

Med to High kWh at HSMTR and/or

tenant meter

Med to High Gas

usage

Program Qualifications

• In Burlington

• Multi-unit residential rental

• VGS

>50kBTu/sf/yr Gross

• BED

HSMTR > 1,500 kWh/yr (125kWh/mo)

Tenant meter > 4,200 kWh/yr (350kWh/mo)

Measures

• VGS Not especially focused on air-sealing, attic, wall and

basement insulation If it is cost-effective VGS can offer an incentive to

accomplish it

• BED LED DI DHW Advanced Power Strips Existing Programs WX of TEPF & ESH homes

Challenges

The program faces challenges from several sources:

Owners

Program Admin./Auditors

Contractors

Owners

• These are investment properties

• Utilities are a small percentage of operating costs: Mortgage $24,000

Taxes $8,000

Maintenance $3,000

Water and Sewer $1,100

Energy - NG $2,500

- Electric $1,375

Energy is only 10% of this building’s operating cost and often is not a cost bourn by landlords

Owners (cont’d)

• Owners are reluctant to permit audit for a number of reasons: Don’t want to disturb/ stir up tenants Don’t want building identified as inefficient or

substandard Afraid the auditor will find code violations and force

expenditure May not want to resolve health & safety or

maintenance issues, such as… K&T vermiculite, gas leaks, venting issues, moisture issues, etc.

Owners (cont’d)

• Owners may be reluctant to allow audit for a number of reasons: May be worried we will find other issues (not energy

related)…

Are wary of what will happen to the information or who we will share it with

Don’t want to take time our from their primary occupations

Are discouraged about how some tenants treat buildings

Program Admin./Auditors • Program has proven to be very time consuming up front for the

administrator Multiple parties to schedule lots of data entry

• Need permission from owner, not from tenants • Need access to the entire building • May require multiple operators for blower door tests • Audit may take considerably more time than single family • Opportunities are often not “standard” weatherization measures

Fuel switch DHW consolidation and conservation Drain Water Heat Recovery Ductwork upgrades Steam pipe insulation and air vent replacement Control upgrades/modification

Contractors

• Burlington is a difficult work environment Parking issues including sidewalk permits Other permits and ordinances More attention to lead-safe is required

• Difficult buildings Complex, multistory Old Health & safety issues interrupt process

• Difficult tenants Intolerant of disturbance Tenants often don’t care about energy bills

• Some contractors are refusing to work on multifamily buildings in Burlington

The Stuff We Find Out There

Venting Issues

Unauthorized Living Spaces

Subcontractor Sabotage

Non-Human Residents

Attic Insulation Project?

Champ

Case Studies

• VGS Only

2-4 Bradley St.

• BED Only

56 Wright Ave.

• VGS/BED

207 Archibald St.

147-153 Loomis St.

Case Study: VGS Only Project

2-4 Bradley St.

• VGS Only

• relatively low electric loads

• 107,000Btu/sf/yr

• Under contract

• $16,700 project

• 3.77yr. SPB

• May be additional 600CCF/year from furnace replacements

2-4 Bradley St.

• 6 units- tenants pay utilities

• 969CCF (30%) estimated shell savings

• 2 furnaces replaced 12/25 $400 rebate each

• May be 600CCF/year from 4 additional furnace replacements

2-4 Bradley St.

2-4 Bradley St.

• Walls void of insulation

• Multiple blower doors required to test

• Estimated at 1.25CFM50/sf exposed surface area

2-4 Bradley St.

• Bath fan venting issues

56 Wright Ave.

• Completed as BED Only

• 3 Family, 1935, 1,066sf

• Initial meeting Owner,

VGS, BED, Paul Scheckel and VT Energy Cont. & Supply

• $5,825 WX Package

• Pre- $1,936/yr or 13,168 kWh ESH

3,040cfm@50Pa

• Post- $897/yr or 6,106 kWh ESH

1,440cfm@50pa

• 7,062 kWh reduction

Customer Options Matrix

Scenario A (1-Natural Gas Meter)

SPACE HEATING (SH) OPTIONS

OPTIONS :

Current

Annual

Space

Heating

(SH) Costs

Est. Space Heat

Installed Costs

BED SH

Incentive

VGS SH

Incentive

SH

Project

Cost after

incentives

SH Annual

Energy

Savings

VGS Annual

CS Charge

Net SH

Annual

Energy

Savings New SH Cost

% Annual

Savings

Simple

Payback

(yrs)

A. $1,975 $ 11,000 $ 2,000 $ 400 $ 8,600 $ 1,399 $ 241 $ 1,158 $ 817 59% 7.4

B. $1,975 $ 19,500 $ 2,000 $ 1,200 $ 16,300 $ 1,399 $ 241 $ 1,158 $ 817 59% 14.1

C. $1,975 $ 6,900 $ 2,000 $ - $ 4,900 $ 1,660 $ 241 $ 1,419 $ 556 72% 3.5

D. $1,975 $ 10,500 $ 3,497 $ - $ 7,004 $ 921 $ - $ 921 $ 1,054 47% 7.6

E. $1,975 $ 8,500 $ 2,831 $ - $ 5,670 $ 921 $ - $ 921 $ 1,054 47% 6.2

F. $1,975 $ 7,500 $ 5,625 $ - $1,875.0 $ 395 $ - $ 395 $ 1,580 20% 4.7

A. Single NG boiler with Indirect tank for DHW

B. Three separate integrated boilers for space heat and DHW

C. 3 Rinnia's and 3 NG DHW tanks (not rental tanks)

D. 3 Heat Pump's and 3 Heat Pump Water Heaters

E. 1 Multi-Head Heat Pump and 1 Heat Pump Water Heater

F. Weatherize the building and keep ESH and EDHW in place

56 Wright Ave.

56 Wright Ave

Case Study: VGS and BED

207 Archibald St.

• VGS/BED

• Very High Utility Cost

• Existing natural gas usage too low to qualify on own gas alone.

Case Study: VGS and BED 207 Archibald St. Energy Comparison

VGS 67

54%

BED 57

46%

ENERGY COMPARISON (Million BTU)

VGS $764.4 24%

BED $2,479.1

76%

COST COMPARISON

• 673ccf OF NATURAL GAS = 30,000Btu/sf/yr

• 16,808 kWh ELECTRICTY (10,580 kWh SPACE HEAT)

Case Study: VGS and BED

Final outcomes: • Rinnai space heater eliminates 3442kWh of ESH (BED FS rebate) • VGS and BED split the cost of the shell upgrades based on the post fuel-switch space heating

ratio. • Project cost

WX $2715. VGS & BED split. FS - TBD

• Owner cost WX $675 40% of Total Cost up to $2k

• Tenant savings - $792/yr NG & kWh

Challenging project: • Lots of 3-way negotiation • Project depended on fuel switch • Questions about who does analysis and writes report

207 Archibald St. Result

38

Case Study: VGS and BED

147-153 Loomis St.

• VGS/BED

• 1st ECC Project

• Initiated from TOS

• Measures included: DHW

Basement WX

Dryer FS

Clothes Washer

Case Study: VGS and BED 147-153 Loomis St. Energy Comparison

Space Heat 2116 ccf

58%

Domestic Hot Water

1514 ccf 42%

Natural Gas End Use Comparison (ccf)

Case Study: VGS and BED

Impediment and Opportunity

• 9 water heaters some don’t draft well

$ 1104/yr in rental fees

• Condensing DWH $12,500- ($2,200 in rebates)

>1500CCF/yr for domestic hot water reduced to ~550CCF/year

$2187/yr savings in DHW

• Enabled $4000 shell upgrade saving $350/yr

147-153 Loomis St. Results

HE Condensing WH

2015 ECC Results

No of Inquiries 96

Inquiries in Progress, incl proposals 86

No. of project (audits) proposals 47

Project completions 7

No. of Residential Units 345

No. of Commericial Units 16

Total Sq footage (heated) 271,926

Avg Sq footage of ECC participant

(total heated sq footage) 3,162

**Typical MF building is 3-4 units

ECC Projects and Actual Results

• Average savings, paybacks and IRR from the ‘customer’ perspective:

AVERAGES -> Measure Life

Total Project

Cost

Customer

Project Cost

% reduction

(CCFs)

Savings

($/yr)

Customer

Payback

(yrs) IRR

Proposed (n = 45) 22 $7,559 $1,993 19% $477 4 8.9%

Actual (n = 7) 22 $5,708 $1,428 20% $520 4 11.0%

• Wide range of results, however:

Total project costs range from $1,500 - $20,000

Owner project cost from $500 - $4,800

CCF reductions from 10% to 34%

ECC Projects Site EUI(kBtu/sf/yr)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

110+100 +90 +80 +70 +60 +50 +0 - 49

% o

f B

uild

ings

EUI (kBtu/sq/ft)

ECC Projects Site EUI(kBtu/sf/yr)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

EUI

(kB

tu/s

f/yr

)

EUI Distribution

(Total Energy Use)

Passive House Primary Energy (Site)

15.8kBtu/sf/yr

The Lessons Learned

• Pay careful attention to what is motivating the individual landlord

• Prioritize buildings Based on energy intensity and landlord motivation

• Do initial “walk-throughs” with landlord Identify issues that they may have to resolve before

we can recommend other measures: Especially beneficial for owners of multiple buildings

• Make it clear that they can call an end to an audit at any point and contact us after they have “cleared things up”

The Lessons Learned (cont’d)

• Don’t waste additional time on dead ends:

Landlords who…

Pull multiple no-shows

Fail to notify tenants or otherwise don’t make the building fully available

Or owners who don’t show interest in going forward

• Make sure that landlord knows that they are responsible for making building available for contractor

Final Thoughts

We all have a long way to go to reach the City and State goals!

Study groups looking into Benchmarking buildings and building labeling.

Evaluate results and impact on budget

Extend to other cities?

Winooski, St. Albans, Vergennes, Middlebury?

Promote adoption of TOS elsewhere