BPA, in partnership with its public power utility partners, acquires savings from many types of energy efficiency programs and offerings, some of which require site-specific savings estimates. This report documents the first comprehensive impact evaluation of the Site-Specific Savings portfolio.
BackgroundThe Site-Specific Savings portfolio typically accounts for almost half of BPA’s total energy efficiency achievements. However, there have been no previousevaluations of this portfolio.BPA and its customer utilities apply significant resources to estimation of site-specific savings. BPA has undertaken this evaluation to determine what portion of these savings can be verified through the independent data collection and analysis of an appropriately trained team of engineers and technicians.
- Estimate first-year kWh savings for the portfolio and for separate domains as needed to understand the savings performance of important portions of the portfolio.
- Estimate the lifecycle cost-effectiveness of the portfolio and its domains.
- Identify opportunities for improving M&V practices (including data collection and savings estimation) and evaluation methods.
For Non-Lighting measures, the overall realization rate is 1.03. Both Option 1 and 2 have realization rates greater than 1, but the Option 2 realization rate of 1.07 is higher than Option 1 RR of 1.02. As shown in Figure 4, sector makes a difference, with reported and evaluated savings much closer for Industrial measure than for commercial. Evaluation found at least 10% more savings for Commercial savings for both Option 1 and 2.
Based on the Total Resource Cost Test the evaluation found that the savings for Non-Lighting measures have a Benefit to Cost ratio of 2.85, somewhat higher than for Lighting measures. This ratio for Option 1 (3.17) is higher than for Option 2 (2.25).
Evaluated savings for this program are substantially lower than reported, yet due to its small size, the impact on the portfolio is not substantial. The ESRP realization rate of 0.49 is the lowest among all the domains. The factors leading to this low realization rate include incomplete implementation of measure and downstream reuse of a large portion of the “saved” water. Even with this low realization rate, these savings still have a benefit to cost ratio of 2.76.
Adherence to Protocols
- Avoid Embedded Realization Rates. Best practice is to apply realization rates to the total savings for a domain or portfolio rather than in the individual measure savings data maintained the reporting system. Do not allow utilities to apply realization rates to their savings estimates prior to reporting savings to BPA.
- Enhance the M&V Protocols
- Avoid or Improve Simplified Saving Calculators: Some Option 2 projects use “deemed” values or simplified calculators for Non-Lighting measures. These do not provide reliable site-specific estimates of savings. Require that site-specific savings estimates be in accordance with BPA M&V protocols or that simplified calculators are upgraded to conform to the RTF guidelines for Standard Protocols.
- Clarify BPA M&V Protocols. The BPA M&V Protocols do not provide clear direction on when and how to compute first-year vs. lifetime savings. They are also not aligned with RTF Guidelines on the definition of current practice baseline. Both issues should be clarified.
- Improve Quality Control for ESRP projects. The savings for this domain are being overestimated, although this domain accounts for only 3% of the portfolio. Provide additional quality control review of M&V data collection and modelling for these projects.
- Improve Lighting Calculators: The BPA and Option 2 lighting calculators are not consistent and they both lack key features. Improve the BPA Lighting Calculator and require that Option 2 calculators include the same improvements.
- Improve and Simplify Program Documentation: Ensure that project documentation includes working M&V models, the M&V protocol used, project invoices, and improved TAP coding. Also, investigate opportunities for reducing redundancy or unnecessary reporting and for developing tools that reduce the reporting effort and facilitate quality control.
- Improve Future Evaluations: Align future evaluations with updated M&V protocols, consider faster or real-time evaluation approaches and simplify end-user contact.