Science & Technology FacilityBuilding Commissioning Project

EEWG Meeting at Energy2006

Otto Van Geet & Sara Farrar-Nagy

August 10, 2006

Science and Technology Facility (S&TF)

• Renewable energy process/manufacturing research– Near-term technologies such as thin-film solar cells– Next-generation technologies such as organic and nano-

structured solar cells

• 2-story laboratory and office building• 71,347 gross square feet• NREL South Table Mountain campus in Golden, CO• $22.7 million for construction, $29.8 million total

S&TF Building Energy Systems

• VAV supply and exhaust for all lab and office areas• Underfloor air distribution in offices with CO2

monitoring• Evaporative cooling system assist• Exhaust air energy recovery• Adjacent building central plant expansion with high-

efficiency chiller and boiler to serve the S&TF load• Heat exchanger generates chilled water directly from

the cooling tower• Process and specialty gas pathways and toxic gas

monitoring• 100% daylighting in office areas, good daylighting in

laboratories, and lighting control throughout

S&TF Project Schedule

• Final design completed 2003• Bid documents finalized early

2004• Competitive construction

contractor selection: M.A. Mortenson Company

• Construction started Feb. 2005• Substantial completion June 21

and ribbon cutting July 7, 2006

Overall Cx Goals

• Achieve energy savings– Building Cx is critical to successful

operation of energy efficient systems

• Achieve cost savings for O&M– Operating costs of Cx buildings are

8–20% below non-Cx buildings

• Educate staff– Future buildings will apply Cx– Existing buildings retro-Cx

• Recognition for LEED Rating– Fundamental Building Systems Cx

prerequisite & Additional Cx credit

S&TF Commissioning (Cx) Procurement

• Cost comparison with 3 lab building Cx projects in region: NOAA, LANL & Sandia

• Based on DOE/PECI “Model Commissioning Plan & Guide Specifications”

• Competitive RFP for 3rd party Cx Authority (CxA) services, contracted by owner

• Selected Engineering Economics, Inc. (EEI)• $115k contract for preliminary design phase

through 1-year post occupancy

S&TF Cx Scope:Integrated Responsibilities

• CxA– Documentation: plans and reports– Design and submittal reviews– Coordination and spot checking performance tests– LEED prerequisite and credit requirements

• Construction contractor & subs– Complete pre-functional checklists– Complete functional performance testing– Address deficiencies

• Owner– Review and approve CxA deliverables

S&TF Cx Scope:Building Systems1. Central building automation including linkages to

remote monitoring and control sites, excluding any security-related controls

2. Laboratory air supply and exhaust systems and controls

3. Life safety systems and the toxic gas monitoring system: verify HVAC systems interlock and operate per code under emergency situations

4. Central plant: boilers, chillers, pumps, etc.5. Process and specialty gas, including hazardous

production materials, N2, LN2, and Argon6. All HVAC including TAB procedures and ductwork

cleaning7. Process cooling water including deionized water8. Emergency power9. Lighting controls10.Domestic hot water

Milestones through Design

• Design Phase Commissioning Plan• Intensive design review at 100% of Preliminary

Design (Title I)• Preliminary Design Phase Commissioning Report• Intensive design reviews at 50% and 95% of Final

Design (Title II)• Construction Phase Commissioning Plan including:

– Construction document specifications – Sample pre-functional checklists and functional performance

test documentation

• Final Design Commissioning Report

Milestones through Construction

• Updated Construction Phase Commissioning Plan– Final pre-functional checklists

and functional performance test procedures based on submittals

• Monthly progress reports• Final Commissioning Report

– Completed checklists and functional performance tests

• LEED documentation requirements– Recommissioning manual

Summary Results – Design Phase

• Critical items flagged as incomplete/incorrect– Would have impacted construction cost &

operational efficiency– Design team responded through the final design

development phase

• Cx specifications in construction bid package – CSI sections 01810, 15999, and 16999– Construction Phase Commissioning Plan addendum

• LEED 2.1 prerequisite and additional credit– Satisfied several technical requirements

Summary Results – Construction

• Cx punchlist of outstanding issues still to resolve

• Ventilation air control items• Lighting control problems

– Sensors– Automation control program

• Owner training• Cx cost

– 0.5% of construction budget– $1.60/ft2 of building area

Lessons Learned

• Specify, define, and require Design Intent and Basis of Design documents in the contract for the A/E design team services

• Contract for third-party Cx authority services early – During the conceptual design phase or perhaps even earlier

• DOE/PECI “Model Commissioning Plan & Guide Specifications” sample contract statement of work is a helpful resource– Requires significant and careful revisions to apply to a

particular project and the specific design processes and building systems to be commissioned

Energy Modeling Analysis and Baseline Performance Comparison

NREL S&TF - Golden, Colorado &EPA S&TC - Kansas City

NREL & EPA-KC

• Similar size (70,000 sf +)• NREL lab includes prototype manufacturing• Both are VAV labs, and have runaround heat recovery,

and efficient central plants• NREL design is more aggressive with daylight, fan

measures, fan coil sensible cooling and raised supply air temperatures

• EPA-KC maintains higher winter indoor humidity levels than planned at NREL & used electric humidification

NREL S&TF Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs)

• In addition to VAV fume hoods

• Lab ventilation air heat recovery (runaround loop)

• Fan coils for lab sensible cooling w/o requiring extra expensive conditioned OA

• Increased supply air temperatures

• Lab fan power minimization and exhaust fan staging

• High efficiency condensing boiler

• High efficiency VSD chiller

• Office under floor air system

• Evaporative cooling

• Process cooling water energy recovery to ventilation

• Daylighting controls for office & labs

ECM ResultsMeasure

Incremental Cost ($) Savings ($/yr) Payback (yrs)

VAV w/o HR $300,000 $92,120 3.3

Add HR $80,000 $36,487 2.2

Lab supplementary cooling & raised primary SATs

$150,000 $14,873 10.1

Overhangs, & glazing $4,400

Lighting power density $5,694

Daylight controls $10,000 $4,111 2.4

Office underfloor air & evap cooling

$20,000 $3,103 6.4

Chiller plant upgrades $33,000 $12,607 2.6

Tower free cooling $60,000 $6,754 8.9

Process CHW for preheat $48,000 $4,752 10.1

Lab AHU evaporative $20,000 $3,758 5.3

Fan pressure drops $19,064

Fan staging $37,500 $4,691 8.0

Boiler & DHW $24,000 $8,972 2.7

NREL S&TF Budget/Baseline Analysis:

• LEED Version 2.1 / ASHRAE 90.1-1999 Energy Cost

Budget (ECB)

• Labs21 - Refinements to 90.1-1999 ECB

• LEED Version 2.2 / ASHRAE 90.1- 2004

Performance Rating Method (PRM)

• 71,347 gsf

USGBC LEED Credit Interpretations for Lab Ventilation

• These are all over the map

• Allowable lab fan power can be the same in the budget as in the proposed model

• Allowable lab fan power in the budget can be increased, if the proposed design has low-velocity coils

• Lab exhaust systems are are “unregulated,” process energy

• This study uses straight ASHRAE ECB & PRM methods to determine budget/baseline allowable fan power

NREL STF Cost Comparison

41%

46%

28%

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

An

nu

al E

ner

gy

Co

st

Savings Fraction 41% 46% 28%

Savings ($/yr) $0 $95,773 $0 $119,927 $0 $92,897

Electricity ($/yr) $106,839 $92,705 $118,130 $92,705 $185,311 $190,295

Natural Gas ($/yr) $128,697 $47,058 $141,560 $47,058 $144,940 $47,058

Budget Model (90.1-1999

ECB)

Proposed Model (90.1-1999 ECB) &

Budget Model (Labs21 1999

ECB)

Proposed Model (Labs21 1999 ECB) &

Baseline Model (90.1-2004

App. G)

Proposed Model (90.1-

2004 App. G) &

NREL STF Energy Comparison

58%

61%

45%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400A

nnua

l Ene

rgy

Con

sum

ptio

n (k

Btu

/sf)

Savings % 58% 61% 45%

Savings 0 164 0 188 0 161

Electricity 80 70 87 70 128 150

Gas 204 50 222 50 233 50

Budget Model (90.1-1999 ECB)

Proposed Model (90.1-1999 ECB) &

Savings

Budget Model (Labs21 1999 ECB)

Proposed Model (Labs21 1999 ECB)

& Savings

Baseline Model (90.1-2004 App. G)

Proposed Model (90.1-2004 App. G)

& Savings

EPA-KC S&TC Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs)

• In addition to VAV fume hoods• Lab ventilation air heat recovery (runaround loop)• Lab exhaust fan modulation (5000 - 3000 fpm)• Multiple (six) modular boiler plant• High efficiency, low-flow, chiller plant• Process cooling water tower free cooling (not counted

by ASHRAE/LEED)• Daylighting controls for small open office areas

ECM Results – PaybacksMeasure

Incremental Cost ($) Savings ($/yr) Payback (yrs)

VAV w/o HR $300,000 $287,951 1.0

Lab space temp setbacks $50,000 $30,498 1.6

Exhaust runaround loop $150,000 $32,608 4.6

Supply fan penalty -$3,721

Variable exhaust fan system $20,000 $19,129 1.0

Chiller, CW pump & tower efficiency $5,708

VSD pumps & C/HW dT $5,150

Boiler & DHW plant upgrades $50,000 $11,302 4.4

Office fans 10% static penalty -$413

Office return fan VSD $1,875 $1,710 1.1

Lighting (Actual LPDs) -$3,843

Lighting (Daylighting Control) $2,627

Glazing, shading, & insulation $15,200 $1,116 13.6

White roof $6,700 -$1,308 n.a.

Use gas dehumidification $40,000 $17,721 2.3

EPA-KC S&TC Budget/Baseline Analysis

• LEED Version 2.1 / ASHRAE 90.1-1999 Energy Cost Budget (ECB)

• Labs21 - Refinements to 90.1-1999 ECB

• LEED Version 2.2 / ASHRAE 90.1- 2004 Performance Rating Method (PRM)

• 71,955 gsf

• Simulation results verified with utility bills

EPA KC STC Cost Comparison

8%

20% 8%

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000A

nnua

l Ene

rgy

Cos

t

Savings % 8% 20% 8%

Savings $0 $24,655 $0 $71,675 $0 $28,495

Electricity $179,421 $206,936 $228,350 $206,936 $227,617 $252,615

Gas $131,387 $79,217 $129,478 $79,217 $132,710 $79,217

Budget Model (90.1-1999 ECB)

Proposed Model (90.1-1999 ECB) &

Savings

Budget Model (Labs21 1999

ECB)

Proposed Model (Labs21 1999

ECB) & Savings

Baseline Model (90.1-2004 App.

G)

Proposed Model (90.1-2004 App.

G) & Savings

EPA KC STC Energy Comparison

17%

26% 15%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400A

nnua

l Ene

rgy

Con

sum

ptio

n (k

Btu

/sf)

Savings % 17% 26% 15%

Savings 51 86 0 50

Electricity 120 142 158 142 148 173

Gas 182 110 180 110 184 110

Budget Model (90.1-1999 ECB)

Proposed Model (90.1-1999 ECB) &

Savings

Budget Model (Labs21 1999 ECB)

Proposed Model (Labs21 1999 ECB)

& Savings

Baseline Model (90.1-2004 App. G)

Proposed Model (90.1-2004 App. G)

& Savings

Conclusions

• Labs21 budget model is only budget/baseline to treat lab fans & fan

ECMs fairly

• Significant savings beyond VAV are technically & economically feasible

• If internal gains require airflows above minimum settings, fan coil

sensible cooling provides significant savings, particularly when primary

air supply air temperatures can be reset

• 30% energy cost savings over ASHRAE 90.1-2004 PRM not practical for

labs because of process (plug) loads, 15% is reasonable goal.

• LEED energy point the same under LEED 2.1 and 2.2

Acknowledgements

• DEMP Model Program

• Labs21 Program

• NREL Facilities Management and Sustainable NREL Program

Renewable Fuel Heating Plant (RFHP)

• Heat STM buildings with wood using local sources– Also supports local small business

• Renewable Energy showcase• Risk considerations

– O&M, wood fuel price, R&R

• Future opportunities

NREL Heating System

Present• Two natural gas

fueled boiler plants heat water

• Hot water pumped to buildings

Proposed• New wood chip

fueled boiler plant• New pipes connect

all heating systems• Existing boilers

remain

STM Heat Plants

FTLB Central Plant

SERF Energy Center will also serve S&TF

RFHP Would Heat Major STM Buildings

• Wood chip fueled RFHP added to Central Plant

• New pipes connect to SERF/S&TF

• Additional pipes could serve RSF and other buildings

RSF

Conceptual RFHP Layout

Wood chip boiler with fuel storage

RFHP would cut STM natural gas usage by 80%

• S&TF,SERF, FTLB, OTF, TTF, and AFUF could be heated with 3,600 tons/year of wood chips (360,000 therms/year).

• Current gas use is 450,000 therms/year.

NREL Using Renewable Energy

ESPC

• Pros:– No large NREL or DOE investment required– Begins with feasibility study at no cost and no

commitment– Quickest option (design/build)– Could incorporate long-term fuel supply in contract

• Cons:– Delayed revenue (but no NREL investment)

• Current Status: AMERESCO developing Initial Proposal, EA beginning

• Expected economics: $2M investment, 15-year term• Tentative schedule:

– Initial Proposal: July 31– NOIA: September 30– Final Proposal: January 2007– Award: April 2007– Const. Completion/Acceptance: October 2007