BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF NEVADA
Application of NEVADA POWER COMPANY d/b/a NV Energy and SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY d/b/a NV Energy, seeking approval to add 1,001 MW of renewable power purchase agreements and 100 MW of energy storage Docket No. 18-06___ capacity, among other items, as part of their joint 2019-2038 integrated resource plan, for the three year Action Plan period 2019-2021, and the Energy Supply Plan period 2019-2021
VOLUME 9 OF 18
TECHNICAL APPENDIX DEMAND SIDE PLAN
ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NUMBER
DSM-17 Commercial Energy Services - NPC 2
DSM-18 Commercial Energy Services -SPPC 246
DSM-17
Page 2 of 392
Commercial Incentives NV Energy – Southern Nevada (NPC) Program Year 2017
Measurement and Verification Report March 5, 2018
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
3239 Ramos Circle Sacramento, CA 95827 916-363-8383
Page 3 of 392
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title ...... Page 1. Executive Summary ...... 1 2. Program Background ...... 3 3. M&V Methodology ...... 8 4. Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis ...... 23 5. Recommendations ...... 33 Appendix A: Project-Level Analyses ...... 36 Appendix B: Savings per Month by Rate Class...... 227 Appendix C: Calculation Methodology, Critical Peak Demand (kW) Savings ...... 230 Appendix D: Determining Energy (kWh) Savings per Month by Rate Class ...... 234 Appendix E: Procedures for Determining Updated Energy (kWh) Savings ...... 240
i Page 4 of 392
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Measurement & Verification (“M&V”) report presents the measured and verified savings for the Commercial Energy Services program that NV Energy implemented in its southern Nevada service territory (also known as the “NPC” service area) during program-year 2017 (PY2017). The program included both retrofit, new construction, non-profit agency grants, and direct install projects.
ADM Associates, Inc. (ADM) was the third-party independent contractor that performed the M&V work. The main features of the approach that ADM used for the M&V effort are as follows. NV Energy’s DSM Central (DSMC) Database, was used as the source of the final, certified, program level data. Total ex ante expected energy (kWh) savings reported for the program in the DSMC database were 136,713,468 kWh. Data with which to verify these savings were collected through review of program materials, on-site inspections, and end-use metering. Based on data provided by NV Energy, a stratified sample design was developed for on-site data collection for the M&V work. ADM used a strata boundary optimization process that minimized variance within individual stratum, leading to a more efficient sample design. The sample design allowed for the measurement and verification of ex post energy (kWh) savings to achieve 7.88% precision at the 90 percent confidence interval. The selected sample included a total of 93 projects, of which 7 were new construction projects, 65 were retrofit projects, 10 were non-profit agency grants, and 11 were direct install projects. The 93 southern Nevada projects in the M&V sample accounted for nearly 44% of ex ante expected energy (kWh) savings. ADM conducted on-site visits to a selected sample sites to verify measure installation and collect primary data for measure operating parameters that impact the ex post determination of energy (kWh) and critical peak demand (kW) savings. During the on- site M&V visits, facility staff were interviewed to determine the operating hours of the installed systems and to identify any additional benefits or shortcomings with the installed systems. For some M&V sample sites, lighting equipment, HVAC equipment or motors/VFDs were monitored to obtain accurate primary data pertaining to operating schedules and other parameters.
The results of the analysis to determine ex post savings are summarized in Table 1-1. The analysis determined that ex post verified energy (kWh) savings for the southern Nevada Commercial Energy Services program totaled 135,176,397 kWh (full-year savings) in PY2017, which gives a realization rate of 98.9%. Verified first-year savings (during calendar-year 2017) totaled 60,980,281 kWh and critical summer peak demand (kW) savings was 15,798 kW.
Executive Summary 1 Page 5 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table 1-1. Summary of Energy (kWh) and Summer Critical Peak Demand (kW) Savings
Ex Post First- Ex Post Ex Ante Annual Ex Post Annual Realization Year (2017) Summer Peak kWh Savings kWh Savings Rate kWh Savings kW Savings
60,980,281 136,713,468 135,176,397 98.9% 15,798
Executive Summary 2 Page 6 of 392
2. PROGRAM BACKGROUND
This chapter provides background information on the Commercial Energy Services (CES) Program that NV Energy offered to commercial customers in its southern Nevada service territory during 2017. It also provides an overview of the measurement and verification methods used to determine ex post savings values for the program.
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMERCIAL ENERGY SERVICES PROGRAM
The CES Program offers financial rebates for electric energy-efficiency measures to qualifying commercial applicants. Both retrofit and new construction projects are included in this program.
Under this program prescriptive rebates are available for electric energy efficiency equipment upgrades and improvements; this includes energy efficiency measures for lighting, HVAC, commercial refrigeration and miscellaneous measures. Rebates are provided for qualified equipment installed in a retrofit or as equipment replacement.
The program also offers rebates for custom measures, including most measures that reduce electric energy use that are not included in the program as prescriptive measures. Custom measure rebates are paid based on the ex ante estimated energy savings achieved. Examples of custom measures include chilled water plant control optimization, economizers, light fixture improvements not covered as a prescriptive measure, motor variable speed drives (“VSDs”), etc.
PY2017 was the second year that the Non-Profit Agency Grants (NPAG) program was fully imbedded into the CES Program. NV Energy’s Non-Profit Agency Grants (“NPAG”) program is designed to help non-profit organizations1 reduce their energy consumption and related operating costs by funding weatherization and energy efficiency retrofit projects. Projects may be funded up to $7,500. Grant applications are rated and awarded based on projected electric energy savings measured in kilowatt hours (“kWh”).
Based on project feasibility and estimated energy savings, the 2017 NPAG program awarded grants to 17 organizations for which there were a total of 23 projects. Several organizations completed multiple projects at separate premises. Table 2-1 below summarizes program participation by organization type.
1 As defined under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
Program Background 3 Page 7 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table 2-1. NPAG Summary of Participation by Organization Type
Organization Type Number of Grantees Number of Grants Community Services 7 12 Education 1 1 Medical 1 2 Religious 8 8 Total 17 23 The 2017 evaluation was based on data contained in NV Energy’s DSMC database. These data showed that there was a total of 810 projects between the three program components, Commercial Energy Services, Non-Profit Agency Grants, and Small Business Direct Install, implemented in southern Nevada representing ex ante savings of 136,713,468 kWh. Table 2-2 shows the distribution of reported ex ante savings by measure type. Table 2-2. Ex Ante Savings for CES Program, by Measure Type Percent of Ex Ante Expected Program Ex Measure Category (kWh) Savings Ante kWh Savings Custom 27,135,278 19.8% EMC, VSD pool pump &; controls 366,588 0.3% Kitchen Ventilation Controls 625,458 0.5% Lighting per Fixture/Lamp/Watt Controlled 978,174 0.7% Lighting per Watts Reduced 83,166,416 60.8% Performance Based 18,976,407 13.9% PTAC/PTHP 150,383 0.1% Reduced LPD 2,255,339 1.6% Unitary Cooling 46,401 0.0% VSD on HVAC pumps and fans 1,651,119 1.2% Window films 776,653 0.6% NPAG Lighting LED 585,251 0.4% Total 136,713,468 100.0%
Figure 2-1 shows the program ex ante savings by measure start-up month for all projects.
Program Background 4 Page 8 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Figure 2-1. Program Ex Ante Savings (kWh) by Measure Start-up Month
2.2 OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION APPROACH
The overall objective for the M&V work for the CES Program in southern Nevada was to determine the energy savings (kWh) and the summer critical peak demand (kW) reduction resulting from energy efficiency measures installed as part of the program during 2017.
The approach for the M&V work had the following main features: Available documentation (e.g., audit reports, savings calculation work papers, etc.) was reviewed for a sample of projects, with particular attention given to the calculation procedures and documentation for savings calculations. On-site data collection was conducted for a sample of projects to provide the information needed for calculating savings and demand reductions. Monitoring was also conducted at some sites to obtain verified information on measure operating characteristics. For sampled Non-Profit Agency Grant (NPAG) projects, available documentation was first reviewed for completeness and to determine project scope. Telephone interviews were conducted with grantees to verify equipment installation and typical operating hours. Annual kWh savings were determined using industry standard and proven techniques. o Analysis of lighting savings was accomplished through an evaluation model using information on operating parameters collected on-site and, if appropriate, industry standards. o For HVAC measures, the original analyses used to calculate the ex ante savings were reviewed and the operating and structural parameters of the analysis were
Program Background 5 Page 9 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
verified. For custom measures or relatively more complex measures, simulations with the DOE-2 energy analysis model were used to develop energy use values and savings from the installed measures. Energy savings curves for each sampled site were developed from site-specific data (daily operating schedules, seasonal operating variation, etc.) o Where uncertainty existed, monitoring data was collected and utilized in development of these energy savings curves. o Energy savings curves for each rate class were developed by combining individual site-specific savings curves weighted by individual site ex post savings. o These energy savings curves were then applied to calculate first year savings, savings per rate class, and critical peak demand savings.
2.3 CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT
This report documents ADM’s efforts in performing the M&V activities for the CES Program in NV Energy’s southern Nevada service territory. This report is organized as follows: Chapter 3 presents and discusses the measurement and verification methods used for this program. Chapter 4 presents the results obtained from determining kWh savings for measures installed under the program. Appendix A provides project-level measurement and verification reports for each project for which data were collected on-site. Appendix B provides kWh and kW savings for the CES Program in the southern Nevada NV Energy service territory per month by rate tariff for the years 2017 through 2020. Appendix C provides a description of ADM’s analytical steps for determining critical peak demand savings per month per rate class. Appendix D provides a detailed description of ADM’s analytical steps for determining energy (kWh) savings per month per rate class. Appendix E provides the methodology for reviewing past projects.
2.4 OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
In addition to the energy savings projects, the implementation contractor provided 36 commercial outreach events to 4,816 of NV Energy’s southern Nevada commercial customers
Program Background 6 Page 10 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 in support of the Commercial Energy Services Program. A summary of the activity, the number of events, and the number of commercial customers impacted are shown in Table 2-3.2
Table 2-3. Summary of Classes and Outreach Activities Commercial Count of Program Activity Components Customers Events Interacted Commercial Energy Efficiency 29 3,155 Presentations and Booth Events AEE Lunch-and-Learn Events 6 202 Energy Saving Kits 1 1,459 Total 36 4,816
2 A full description of energy education programs and events can be found in the 2017 NPC Energy Education Program Measurement and Verification Report provided separately from this report.
Program Background 7 Page 11 of 392
3. M&V METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the approach and methods that ADM used in measuring and verifying ex post annual kWh savings and summer critical peak demand kW reductions that resulted from measures installed in facilities of customers that obtained rebates under the CES Program in southern Nevada during 2017.
3.1 SAMPLING PLAN
Data used to calculate annual kWh savings achieved through the program in southern Nevada were collected for a sample of projects completed during 2017.
Data from the DSMC database showed that there were 810 program projects implemented in southern Nevada during 2017. DNV GL, the implementation contractor for the program, reported ex ante savings that totaled 136,713,468 kWh annually for all projects.
Inspection of ex ante data on kWh savings for individual projects, that was extracted from the DSMC database, showed that the distribution of savings was generally positively skewed, with a relatively small number of projects accounting for a high percentage of the savings. Stratified random sampling was used in the sample design to account for this positive skew and to enable ADM to achieve sampling precision of 10 percent at the 90 percent confidence interval.3 ADM used a strata boundary optimization process that adjusts strata boundaries to minimize variance within each stratum. This process allows for less variation within the stratum and a more efficient sample design.
Table 3-1 below shows the project population statistics that were used in developing the sample plan. This table includes the number of projects and ex ante energy savings of the southern Nevada CES Program sample by stratum. All projects, including direct install lighting, and NPAG, are divided into stratum based on estimated energy savings. Direct install projects accounted for 2.57% of the total ex ante estimated savings while NPAG projects accounted for 0.43%.
3 After subsequently completing the M&V analyses for this program, ADM determined that the actual sampling precision achieved ex post is 7.88 percent at the 90 percent confidence interval.
M&V Methodology 8 Page 12 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table 3-1. Population Statistics Used for Sample Design Average Standard Number Number Ex Ante Deviation of Sum of Contribution to Stratum of Savings of Ex CV M&V Savings Variance Projects per Ante Sample Project Savings Sites South 1 627 69,191 67,321 0.97 43,383,055 46 3.59E+13 South 2 43 567,845 190,234 0.34 24,417,339 10 5.14E+12 South 3 14 1,608,247 391,459 0.24 22,515,453 7 2.15E+12 South 4 8 3,549,560 657,756 0.19 28,396,476 7 4.94E+11 South 5 2 6,951,201 347,112 0.05 13,902,403 2 0.00E+00 South DI 1 67 20,450 15,003 0.73 1,370,136 4 2.38E+11 South DI 2 26 82,437 49,540 0.60 2,143,355 7 1.73E+11 South NPAG 1 12 17,082 3,089 0.18 204,982 4 2.29E+08 South NPAG 2 8 29,444 4,468 0.15 235,551 3 2.66E+08 South NPAG 3 3 48,239 5,006 0.10 144,718 3 0.00E+00 Totals 810 136,713,468 93 4.41E+13 Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 7.99%
Table 3-2 shows how the ex ante and ex post savings for the 93 projects sampled were distributed across strata. Combined, the sample sites account for 60,780,704 kWh of ex ante savings, approximately 44% of the program total.
Table 3-2. Distribution of Ex Ante kWh Savings for Sampled Projects across Strata
Sample Ex Project Size Stratum Ante Savings Smallest CES South 1 4,120,017 South 2 6,563,363 South 3 11,238,018 South 4 23,859,958 Largest CES South 5 13,902,403 Smallest DI South DI 1 67,580 Largest DI South DI 2 719,216 Smallest NPAG South NPAG 1 68,957 South NPAG 2 96,474 Largest NPAG South NPAG 3 144,718 Total 60,780,704
Sampling for the collection of program M&V data accounted for the M&V effort occurring in real time, during program implementation. Completed projects accumulate during the year as the program is implemented, and sample selection was thus spread over the entire program year. ADM used a near real-time process whereby a portion of the sample was selected periodically as projects
M&V Methodology 9 Page 13 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
in the program were completed. The timing of sample selection was contingent upon the timing of the completion of projects during the program year.
3.2 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION
After the sample of projects was selected, ADM prepared requests to NV Energy’s program implementation contractor to provide documentation pertaining to those projects. The first step in the evaluation effort was to review this documentation and other program materials that were relevant to the M&V effort.
For each project, the available documentation (e.g., audit reports, savings calculation work papers, etc.) for each rebated measure was reviewed, with particular attention given to the ex ante savings calculation procedures. Documentation that was reviewed included program forms, data bases, reports, billing system data, weather data, and any other potentially useful data. Each application was reviewed to determine whether the following types of information had been provided: Documentation for the new or retrofitted equipment, including descriptions, schematics, performance data, and other supporting information. Information about the methods used to calculate savings, including descriptions of methods used, specifications of assumptions and sources for these specifications, and correctness of calculations.
If there was uncertainty regarding a project or apparently incomplete project documentation, ADM staff contacted the implementation contractor to seek further information to ensure the development of an appropriate project-specific M&V plan.
3.3 ON-SITE DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
On-site visits to the sites of the sampled projects were used to collect primary data required for determining ex post savings impacts. Before making an on-site visit to a facility, ADM notified NV Energy in two ways.
For all sites for which there is an NV Energy Major Account Executive (MAE), ADM provided the MAEs with a list of all sites for which ADM planned to schedule M&V activities. This list included the company name, the respective MAE for the customer, the site address or other premise identification. Contact information was also provided for the customer representative that ADM intended to contact to schedule an appointment. For customers with MAEs, ADM typically provided notification at least two weeks prior to contacting customers to schedule M&V visits. Upon request from an MAE, ADM coordinated its scheduling and M&V activities with the MAE. ADM provided NV Energy staff with a list of projects for which ADM planned to schedule M&V activities. This notification to NV Energy staff also served as a request to the implementation contractor for any documentation relating to the projects. This
M&V Methodology 10 Page 14 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
list included the company name, the project ID, the site address or other premise identification. Contact information was also included for the customer representative that ADM intended to contact to schedule an appointment. PY2017 was the first year that DNVGL would verify that ADM had the correct contact information for each site, and notified customers that their projects had been selected for M&V.
During an on-site visit, ADM’s field staff accomplished three major tasks: First, field staff verified the implementation status of all measures for which customers received rebates. They verified that the energy efficiency measures were indeed installed, that they were installed correctly and that they still functioned properly. Second, field staff collected the physical data needed to analyze the energy savings that have been realized from the installed improvements and measures. Data was collected using a form that was prepared specifically for the project in question after an in-house review of the project file. A form is used that is comprehensive in addressing a facility's characteristics, modes and schedules of operation, and its electrical and mechanical systems. The form addresses various energy efficiency measures, including high efficiency lighting (both lamps and ballasts), lighting occupancy sensors, lighting dimmers and controls, air conditioning, high efficiency motors, etc. Third, field staff interviewed the contact personnel at a facility to obtain additional information on the installed system to complement the data collected from other sources.
At some sites, monitoring was conducted to gather more information on the operating hours of the installed measures. Monitoring was conducted at sites where it was judged that the monitored data would be useful for refining and improving the accuracy with which savings were calculated. Whenever possible monitoring activities were coordinated with the implementation contractor to allow for simultaneous data collection. This coordination ensures that both ex ante and ex post savings are calculated using identical datasets. Monitoring was not considered necessary for sites where project documentation allowed for sufficiently detailed calculations.
3.4 PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING KWH SAVINGS FROM MEASURES INSTALLED THROUGH CES PROJECTS
The procedures used to calculate savings resulting from NV Energy’s southern Nevada CES Program projects depended on the type of measure being analyzed. Table 3-3 shows the distribution of ex ante savings for the sampled projects across various categories of energy efficiency measures.
M&V Methodology 11 Page 15 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table 3-3. Ex Ante Energy Savings for Sample Projects
Sample Savings Ex Ante Sample Ex as Percent of Measure Category Expected Ante Savings Total Expected (kWh) Savings (kWh) Savings Custom 16,263,080 27,135,278 59.9% EMC, VSD pool pump and controls 264,000 366,588 72.0% Kitchen Ventilation Controls 61,256 625,458 9.8% Lighting per Fixture/Lamp/Watt Controlled 235,013 978,174 24.0% Lighting per Watts Reduced 32,007,323 83,166,416 38.5% Performance Based 10,810,158 18,976,407 57.0% PTAC/PTHP 17,330 150,383 11.5% Reduced LPD 47,728 2,255,339 2.1% Unitary Cooling 3,459 46,401 7.5% VSD on HVAC pumps and fans 761,207 1,651,119 46.1% Window films 0 776,653 0.0% NPAG Lighting LED 310,149 585,251 53.0% Total 60,780,704 136,713,468 44.5%
ADM used a specific set of methods to determine annual kWh savings for projects that depended on the type of measure being analyzed. These typical methods are summarized in Table 3-4. Project-specific information on savings calculations is contained in Appendix A, which also describes analytical strategies for projects for which the following strategies were not appropriate.
Applying the methods listed in 4 produced two assessments of annual kWh savings for each sample project: an ex ante savings estimate (as reported in the project documentation and program tracking system) and the ex post verified gross savings developed through the M&V procedures employed by ADM.
Energy savings realization rates were calculated for each project for which on-site data collection and engineering analysis/building simulations were conducted. Sites with relatively high or low realization rates were further analyzed to determine the reasons for the discrepancy between ex ante and ex post energy savings. In general, the primary differences between ex ante and ex post energy savings are due to differing analysis methodology for those projects that are eligible for prescriptive measures. ADM uses site specific data to inform ex post savings estimates and these site-specific data often vary from the data used to develop prescriptive ex ante estimates. More detailed information on how realization rates were achieved for such sites is included in the site- level M&V analyses for each project that are included in Appendix A.
The following discussion describes the basic procedures used for calculating ex post verified savings from various measure types. Project-specific information on savings calculation is contained in Appendix A.
M&V Methodology 12 Page 16 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table 3-4. Typical Methods to Determine Savings for Custom Measures
Type of Measure Method to Determine Savings
ADM’s custom-designed Lighting Evaluation Model, which uses data Lighting on wattages before and after installation of measures and hours-of-use data from either site contact interviews or field monitoring.
ADM uses several methods including (1) an equivalent full load hour method to calculate savings resulting from HVAC measures. HVAC (including packaged Equivalent full load hours are derived using eQuest models developed units, chillers, cooling for each territory using corresponding weather files. (2) Simulations towers, controls/EMS) with eQuest engineering analysis model, with monitored data. (3) Billing history econometric analysis.
Motors and VFDs Measurements of power and run-time obtained through monitoring.
Simulations with eQuest engineering analysis model, with monitored Refrigeration data.
Manufacturing or Process Engineering analysis, with monitored data on load factor and a Improvements schedule of operation and production data provided by the customer.
ADM performs desk reviews of project documentation and on-site Small Business Direct Install inspections of selected sites to verify claimed fixture counts, wattages, and hours of use are accurate.
All NPAG projects selected in the sample received a thorough desk review of project documentation. Telephone surveys are also Non-profit agency grants conducted with grantees to verify project scope and hours of operation.
Methods for Analyzing Savings from Lighting Measures
Lighting measures that were examined included the retrofit of existing fixtures, lamps and/or ballasts with energy efficient fixtures, or lamps and/or ballasts. These types of measures reduce demand, while not affecting operating hours. Lighting control strategies that might include the addition of energy conserving control technologies such as motion sensors or day-lighting or dimming controls were also examined. These measures typically involve a reduction in hours of operation and/or reduced fixture wattage during some hours of operation.
Analyzing the savings achieved by such lighting measures requires data for the retrofitted fixtures on (1) wattages before and after the retrofit and, (2) hours of operation before and after the retrofit. Fixture wattages are taken from a table of standard wattages, with corrections made for non- operating fixtures. When appropriate, to improve calculations, hours of operation are determined from metered data collected after measure installation for a sample of fixtures.
M&V Methodology 13 Page 17 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
To determine baseline and post-retrofit demand values for the lighting efficiency measures, ADM used in-house data on standard wattages of lighting fixtures and ballasts developed from lighting industry sources. This lighting data provides information on wattages for common lamp and ballast combinations.
As noted, ADM collects data with which to determine average operating hours for retrofitted fixtures by using Time-of-Use (TOU) data loggers to monitor a sample of “last points of control” for unique usage areas in the sites where lighting efficiency measures had been installed. Usage areas are defined to be those areas within a facility that are expected to have comparable average operating hours. For commercial customers, expected usage areas include such areas as office space, hallways/stairways, and storage areas. Typical usage areas are designated in the forms used for data collection.
ADM uses pre-fixture baseline demand, retrofit demand, and appropriate post-retrofit operating hours to calculate peak capacity savings and annual energy savings for sampled fixtures of each usage type. The on-off profile and the fixture wattages are used to calculate post-retrofit kWh usage. ADM calculates annual energy savings for each sampled fixture per the following formula:
Where:
kWhpre = amount of kWh used by pre-existing fixtures
kWhpost = amount of kWh used by post-installation fixtures
The values for insertion in this formula are determined through the following steps:
Results from the monitored sample are used to calculate the average operating hours of the metered lights for every unique building type or usage area. These average operating hours are then applied to the baseline and post-installation average demand for each usage area to calculate the respective energy usage and peak period demand for each usage area. The annual baseline energy usage is the sum of the baseline kWh for each costing period for all the usage areas. The post-retrofit energy usage is calculated similarly. The energy savings are calculated as the difference between baseline and post- installation energy usage. Savings from lighting measures in conditioned spaces are factored by the region- specific, building type-specific heating cooling interaction factors to calculate total savings attributable to lighting measures, inclusive of impacts on HVAC operation.
M&V Methodology 14 Page 18 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Methods for Analyzing Savings from HVAC Measures
Savings for HVAC measures installed at a facility were calculated by using the energy use values developed through DOE-2 simulations and engineering calculations. The HVAC simulations also allow calculation of the primary and secondary effects of lighting measures on energy use. Each simulation produces HVAC energy and demand usage values that are expected under different assumptions about equipment and/or construction conditions. There could be cases in which DOE- 2 simulation was not appropriate because data were not available to properly calibrate a simulation model; engineering analysis was then used to prepare the M&V results.
For the analysis of HVAC measures, the data collected through on-site visits and monitoring are utilized. Using these data, ADM prepares calculations of the energy savings for the energy efficient equipment and measures installed in each of the participant facilities. Engineering staff develop independent assessments of the savings through engineering calculations or through simulations with energy analysis models. By using energy simulations for the analysis, the energy use associated with the end use affected by the measure(s) being analyzed can be quantified. With these quantities in hand, it is a simple matter to determine what the energy use would have been without the measure(s).
Before making the analytical runs for each site with sampled project HVAC measures, engineering staff prepare a model calibration run. This is a base case simulation to ensure that the energy use values from the simulations have been reconciled against actual data on the building's energy use. This run is based on the information collected in an on-site visit pertaining to types of equipment, their efficiencies and capacities, and their operating profiles. Current operating schedules are used for this simulation, as are local (NOAA) weather data covering the study period. The model calibration run is made using actual weather data for a time period corresponding to the available billing data for the site.
The goal of the model calibration effort is to have the results of the DOE-2 simulation come within approximately 10% of the patterns and magnitude of the energy use observed in the billing data history. In some cases, it may not be possible to achieve this calibration goal because of idiosyncrasies of particular facilities (e.g., multiple buildings, discontinuous occupancy patterns, etc.). For these cases the engineering analysis method is employed.
Once the analysis model has been calibrated for a facility, ADM performs three steps in calculating energy savings for HVAC measures installed or to be installed at the facility. First, an analysis of energy use at a facility under the assumption that the energy efficiency measures are not installed is performed. Second, energy use at the facility with all conditions the same but with the energy efficiency measures now installed is analyzed. Third, the results of the analyses from the preceding steps are compared to determine the energy savings attributable to the energy efficiency measure.
M&V Methodology 15 Page 19 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Methods for Analyzing Savings from Motors
The energy savings from use of high efficiency motors on HVAC and non-HVAC applications are determined through an "after-only" analysis. With this method, energy use is measured only for the high efficiency motor and only after it has been installed. The data thus collected are then used in estimating what energy use would have been for the motor application if the high efficiency motor had not been installed. In effect, the after-only analysis is a reversal of the usual design calculation used to calculate the savings that would result from installing a high efficiency motor. That is, at the design stage, the question addressed is how would energy use change for an application if a high efficiency motor is installed, whereas the after-only analysis addresses what the level of energy use would have been had the high efficiency motor not been installed.
For the “after only” analysis, it is not possible to use a comparison of direct measurements to determine savings, since measured data are collected only for the high efficiency motor. However, savings attributable to installation of the high efficiency motor can be calculated using information on the efficiencies of the high efficiency motor and on the motor, it replaced. Demand and energy savings can be calculated as follows:
1 1
Where:
kWpeak = Volts x Amps (peak) x Power Factor, and Amps (peak) is the interval with the maximum recorded Amps during the monitoring period
motor efficiency, base for baseline motor, new for high efficiency motor
The annual energy savings are calculated as:
1 1
Where:
kWaverage = Volts x Amps (average) x Power Factor and Amps (average) is the average measured Amps for the duration of the monitored period.
The hours used to estimate annual energy savings in the equation above is based on the hours of operation during the monitoring period and a use factor determined from interviews with site personnel. The hours are then adjusted using an Annual Adjustment Factor based on the use factor during the monitoring period. The Annual Adjustment Factor is 1 if the monitoring period is typical for the yearly operation, less than 1 if the monitoring period is expected to be higher use
M&V Methodology 16 Page 20 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
than typical for the rest of the year, and more than 1 if the monitoring period is expected to be lower than typical for the rest of the year.
The information on motor efficiencies needed for the calculation of savings is obtained from different sources. Data on the efficiencies of high efficiency motors installed under the program should be available from program records. In some cases, the efficiencies of the replaced motors may also be noted in NV Energy’s program records. Care must be taken using nameplate efficiency ratings of replaced motors, unless a company maintains good documentation of their equipment. If a motor has been rewound it may not operate as originally rated. However, if the efficiencies of the old motors are not directly available, the efficiency values can be imputed by using published data on average efficiency values for motors of given horsepower. If the motor replacement is for normal replacement, the baseline efficiency is established as the efficiency of a new, standard efficiency motor. However, in cases of early replacement, the efficiency of the old motor is used for the length of the remaining life.4
Because most motors monitored do not run only under full load conditions, some adjustments must be made from the “industry averages” of full load efficiencies. Motor efficiency curves of typical real motors that have the same full load efficiencies are used for determining part load efficiencies.
Like motor efficiency, the power factor varies with motor loading. Motor power factor curves of typical real motors that have the same full load power factor are used for determining part load power factor.
Another factor to consider in demand and energy savings comparisons of motor change out programs is the rotor slip. Full load RPM ratings of motors vary. For centrifugal loads, such as fans and pumps, the power supplied is dependent on the speed of the driven equipment. The power is theoretically proportional to the cube of the speed, but in practice acts more like the square of the speed. In general, high efficiency motors have slightly higher full load RPM ratings (lower slip) than standard motors. Where nameplate ratings of full load RPM are available for replaced motors, a de-rating factor can be applied.5
The data needed to carry out these plans for determining savings are collected from several sources.
4 Assumptions regarding measure expected useful life were taken from the most recent Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER). See http://www.deeresources.com/. 5As an example, take the case where a new motor has a full load RPM rating of 1770 and the old motor had a full load RPM rating of 1760. The de-rating factor would be: 2 2 2 2 De-rating factor = (RPMold) / (RPMnew) = 1760 / 1770 = 0.989
M&V Methodology 17 Page 21 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
A first source of data is the information from each project’s documentation. This information should include aggregate energy used at a site, disaggregated energy usage data for certain targeted processes (if available), before (actual) and after (projected) data on production, scrap, and other key performance indicators, and final reports (which include process improvement recommendations, analyses, conclusions, performance targets, etc.). A second source of data is the energy use data that NV Energy collects for these customers. A third source is information collected through on-site inspections of the facilities. As a fourth source of data, selected end-use equipment are monitored to develop information on operating schedules and power draws.
Methods for Analyzing Savings from VFDs
A variable-frequency drive (VFD) is an electronic device that controls the speed of a motor by varying the magnitude of the voltage, current, or frequency of the electric power supplied to the motor. The factors that make a motor load a suitable application for a VFD are (1) variable speed requirements and (2) high annual operating hours. The interplay of these two factors can be summarized by information on the motor's duty cycle, which essentially shows the percentage of time during the year that the motor operates at different speeds. A good candidate for a VFD has a duty cycle that has good variability in speed requirements, with the motor operating at reduced speed a high percentage of the time.
Potential energy savings from the use of VFDs are usually most significant with variable-torque loads. Variable-torque loads have been estimated to account for 50 to 60 percent of total motor energy use in the non-residential sectors. Energy saving VFDs may be found on fans, centrifugal pumps, centrifugal blowers, and other centrifugal loads, where the duty cycle of the process provides a wide range of speeds of operation.
ADM’s approach to determining savings from installation of VFDs involves (1) making one-time measurements of voltage, current, and power factor of the VFD/motor and (2) conducting continuous measurements of amperage over a period of time to obtain the data needed to develop VFD load profiles and calculate demand and energy savings. VFDs are generally used in applications where motor loading changes as motor speed is changed. Consequently, the true power drawn by a VFD is recorded to develop VFD load shapes. One-time measurements of power are made for different percent speed settings. Power and percent speed or frequency (depending on VFD display options) are recorded for as wide a range of speeds as the customer allows the process to be controlled; field staff attempt to obtain readings from 40 to 100 percent speed in 10 to 15 percent increments.
M&V Methodology 18 Page 22 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
3.5 PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ENERGY SAVINGS CURVES To allocate kWh savings per month per rate class and kW demand reduction per month per rate class, ADM develops “energy savings curves” that are specific to each of the sampled M&V sites. These site-level energy savings curves are determined from the site-specific operating schedules and other data gathered at each of the individual sites that have been selected to be in the M&V sample (as described above).
3.5.1 Savings Curve Development For each program participant in the M&V sample, a unique daily operating schedule is identified. For some projects, the unique daily operating schedule is year-round or non-seasonal (i.e., there is no “summer” versus “winter” season); for other projects, the unique daily operating schedule varies by season or by month.
For each of the 24 hours per day, the measure-specific schedule is assigned a specific fraction corresponding to the average usage rate during the specific hour. For example, a value of unity (1.0) is assigned for any hour in which the equipment operated 100 percent of the hour; a null value (0.0) is assigned if the equipment is not on at all during the hour; or a value of 0.5 is assigned for any hour in which the equipment operated an average of 50 percent of the hour.
The measure-specific schedules are developed from primary data. Whenever possible, or deemed necessary, loggers were installed at sites with highly variable schedules. The data collected from the loggers could then be used to corroborate information collected through site interviews. Schedules for sites with fixed operating hours (24/7 operation, for example) were determined through site interviews. ADM maintains and continuously refines a library of energy savings curves that may be used for cost effectiveness calculations, potential studies (especially regarding peak demand reduction potentials) and avoided sales calculations. The first set of energy savings curves, developed in 2010, were heavily reliant on secondary sources. In particular, ADM normalized end-use load shapes from the California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS6) to characterize impacts of the Sure Bet Commercial Retrofit Program. In past program years, ADM has used primary data to supplement CEUS-derived shapes. However, in PY2017, sufficient primary data was collected that allowed ADM to generate site specific shapes at all sampled sites. Thus, CEUS-derived shapes were no longer required.
For lighting projects, ADM has developed a spreadsheet-based tool that calculates and develops:
6 The CEUS study is a comprehensive end-use energy study for the commercial sector. As described on the CEUS web site hosted by the California Energy Commission, the CEUS survey “is a comprehensive study of commercial sector energy use, primarily designed to support the state's energy demand forecasting activities”. More information regarding the CEUS survey can be found on the CA Energy Commission’s web site: http://www.energy.ca.gov/ceus/
M&V Methodology 19 Page 23 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Primary energy impacts from lighting and lighting controls upgrades in accordance to a site-specific operating schedule or from on-site metering. Secondary energy impacts from heating and cooling interactions in accordance to site- specific factors such as HVAC system efficiency, heating and cooling energy balance points, and fractions of energy radiated by interior lighting that “promptly” escape the building. These secondary impacts also include potential increases in natural gas or heating energy usage due to more efficient lighting. Project specific energy savings curves.
The lighting calculator improves the specificity of heating and cooling interactive factor (HCIF) calculations and increases M&V transparency. It is expected that continuing use of this tool for M&V purposes will generate a Nevada-specific catalogue of lighting end-use curves that will surpass the CEUS project in sample size and specificity.
ADM’s sampling approach ensures that primary data are available for the most significant projects7. All projects above a certain threshold in annual kWh savings are sampled with certainty. Because of this sampling approach, primary data are available to inform the energy savings curves that have the largest contributions to the overall program savings.
The assignment of energy savings curves to specific measures, projects, or groups of projects for nonresidential programs is a complex process that is carried out in conjunction with the annual M&V effort. The availability of primary data and the applicability of secondary data are important considerations in the assignment of energy savings curves to groups of projects. For the 2017 program year, ADM has constructed energy savings curves that are informed, to the greatest extent that is possible and appropriate, with primary data gathered from M&V visits. For all the sampled sites in 2017, both retrofit and new construction, energy savings curves have been developed using primary data collected during the M&V process.
3.6 CALCULATING FIRST-YEAR ENERGY (KWH) SAVINGS
First-year kWh savings were calculated by determining what percentage of the year remained when each measure was installed. ADM extracted measure startup data from NV Energy’s DSM Central database and used those data to calculate how many days were left in the year as of the measure startup date. For each measure, the number of days remaining in the year was then used along with the normalized energy savings curve described above to determine the share of annualized kWh savings realized during the 2017 calendar year. First-year kWh savings was summed by month across each customer rate class in the program population to determine first- year kWh savings per month per rate class. The first-year kWh savings table is provided in Appendix B.
7 Here significance is defined as the relative share of annual program kWh savings.
M&V Methodology 20 Page 24 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
3.7 CALCULATING CRITICAL PEAK DEMAND SAVINGS
The critical peak demand period per month, provided below in Table 3-5 is the hourly period per month during which NPC has historically experienced maximum system-level demand.
Table 3-5. Critical Peak Demand Period per Month, NPC Month Hour (NPC) Ending at: January 19 19:00 February 19 19:00 March 20 20:00 April 20 20:00 May 17 17:00 June 17 17:00 July 17 17:00 August 17 17:00 September 17 17:00 October 19 19:00 November 19 19:00 December 19 19:00
Critical peak demand (kW) savings are calculated per month and per rate class utilizing ex post program savings determinations and appropriate measure-level 8760-hour energy savings curves.
For all participants in the 2017 program, ex post annualized energy savings per measure were allocated to the participant’s rate class, and to the specific energy savings curve for that measure. The result is a two-dimensional matrix providing per-rate-class savings per hour for all 8,760 hours of a typical calendar year (a typical year is a non-Leap Year). The results were then inspected for each month to identify the maximum average hourly demand (kW) savings during each month’s designated peak demand hour.
Summer critical peak demand (kW) savings is defined as the maximum kW reduction that could be expected in a typical year during the hour ending at 5PM on any given day in July. For this program, summer critical peak demand was determined to be 15,798 kW.
The complete ex post critical peak demand savings per month and per rate class are provided in Appendix B. For a more detailed discussion regarding critical peak demand (kW) savings, please refer to Appendix C.
3.8 DETERMINING EFFECTIVE USEFUL LIFE (EUL) AND LIFETIME SAVINGS
ADM analyzed various data to determine the Effective Useful Life (EUL) for each category of measure installed through NV Energy’s 2017 CES program. ADM subsequently employed its EUL determinations to calculate lifetime energy (kWh) savings for each M&V sample site. A stratum- level EUL was developed for each sampling stratum that was then applied to each of the non- sampled sites.
M&V Methodology 21 Page 25 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
To determine EUL values for all measures, ADM utilized the California Database for Energy Efficient Resources (“DEER”).8 Note the following measure-specific issues related to the EUL values provided in this M&V report: For the HVAC Retrofits category, all measures installed by the 2017 CES program have the same EUL value in DEER, i.e., 15 years. For the various lighting measures installed by the 2017 CES Program, DEER provides a methodology for calculating EUL using the lamp/fixture rated life divided by annual operating hours. Rated life is typically available on submitted specification sheets, but in the case that rated life is not available, ADM defaults to the DEER assumptions for lamp/fixture rated life: 50,000 for LED fixtures, 70,000 for ballasted fixtures.
To determine the program-level EUL value, ADM totaled the lifetime savings values for all 810 projects in the program and then divided this value by the total program-level ex post verified savings (kWh).
8 http://www.deeresources.com/deer0911planning/downloads/EUL_Summary_10-1-08.xls
M&V Methodology 22 Page 26 of 392
4. FINDINGS FROM M&V DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
To determine annual kWh savings and summer critical peak kW reductions for the southern Nevada CES Program, data were collected and analyzed for a sample of 93 projects. These data were analyzed using the methods described above in Chapter 3 to calculate project ex post energy savings and peak kW reductions and to determine the realization rates for the program. The results of that analysis are reported in this chapter.
Project-level analyses for all sampled sites are presented in Appendix A.
4.1 EX POST KWH SAVINGS
As shown in Table 4-1 below, ex post verified energy (kWh) savings for the southern Nevada program total 135,176,397 kWh (full-year savings), which equates to a realization rate of 98.9%. Verified first-year savings (during calendar-year 2017) were determined to be 60,980,281 while critical peak demand was 15,798 kW.
Table 4-1. Annual Energy (kWh) and Critical Peak Demand (kW) Savings Ex Post First- Ex Ante Ex Post Program Realization Ex Post Summer Year (2017) Annual kWh Annual kWh Pathway Rate Peak kW Savings10 kWh Savings9 Savings Savings CES 132,614,726 131,084,392 98.8% Direct Install 3,513,491 3,513,491 100.0% NPAG 585,251 578,514 98.8% Totals 60,980,281 136,713,468 135,176,397 98.9% 15,798 Program total ex ante annual kWh savings were determined by summing individual project reported kWh savings found in the DSM Central database. Table 4-2 below presents the estimated ex ante savings, verified ex post savings, and realization rates for each of the 93 M&V sample sites. The verified ex post savings values were determined from the analyses of the individual sites found in Appendix A.
9 Ex post first year savings are not calculated by individual program pathway. 10 Ex post peak kW savings are not calculated by individual program pathway.
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 23 Page 27 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table 4-2. Ex Ante and Ex Post kWh Savings by Project Project Ex Ante kWh Ex Post kWh Project ID Business Name Realization Savings Savings Rate SB-17-05511 Caesars Palace 129,629 145,884 113% SB-17-05514 The Rio 201,345 246,801 123% SB-17-06910 Caesars Palace 7,196,646 7,269,612 101% SB-17-07091 Nedco Supply 13,373 11,423 85% SB-17-07099 Clark County Nevada 1,198,642 1,198,633 100% SB-17-07215 Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC 34,844 45,461 130% SB-17-07235 Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino 1,313,831 2,026,741 154% SB-17-07364 Farman LLC 291,755 291,477 100% SB-17-07504 Flamingo Las Vegas 2,096,391 2,094,676 100% SB-17-07521 Bally's Las Vegas - Parball Newco 3,276,173 3,273,178 100% SB-17-07674 PHI Northgate Buildings 3,474,842 3,471,725 100% SB-17-07678 Nordstrom, Inc. 162,429 82,280 51% SB-17-07684 City of Henderson 17,727 18,142 102% SB-17-07701 Nordstrom, Inc. 190,071 201,130 106% SB-17-07702 Clark County Nevada 3,557,225 3,558,051 100% SB-17-07703 Clark County Nevada 1,107,076 1,118,085 101% SB-17-07707 CVS Pharmacy 54,729 60,115 110% SB-17-07708 City of Henderson 11,404 11,438 100% SB-17-07735 Global Experience Specialists, Inc 424,216 340,178 80% SB-17-07751 Aliante Gaming LLC 479,622 481,052 100% SB-17-07769 FUEL ZONE MART 4, LLC 53,797 53,220 99% SB-17-07772 Olymbec USA LLC 50,909 28,077 55% SB-17-07788 Levi Strauss & Co. 2,931,316 2,958,824 101% Las Vegas Motorcoach Resort Owners SB-17-07789 199,487 138,084 69% Association SB-17-07796 CVS Pharmacy 64,774 69,132 107% SB-17-07806 AutoZone Stores 39,273 45,948 117% SB-17-07817 CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 70,044 75,998 108% SB-17-07824 City Express 70,162 86,594 123% SB-17-07850 CT Rose Salon 9,284 9,311 100% SB-17-07855 Nellis Air Force Base 1,657,398 1,658,097 100% SB-17-07856 The M Resort Spa Casino 880,962 867,310 98% SB-17-07910 Venetian Resort & Casino 506,460 501,540 99% SB-17-07911 Venetian Resort & Casino 958,909 704,766 73% SB-17-07944 Tahiti Vacation Club 198,102 209,513 106% SB-17-07958 ROX CRA Stonegate Apartments, LLC 159,048 149,737 94% SB-17-07959 Weingarten Realty Investors 305,967 306,878 100% SB-17-07997 CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 118,747 122,978 104% SB-17-08002 The Kroger Company 158,335 139,137 88% SB-17-08005 The Kroger Company 138,204 122,747 89%
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 24 Page 28 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Project Ex Ante kWh Ex Post kWh Project ID Business Name Realization Savings Savings Rate SB-17-08032 City Express #3 46,426 45,462 98% SB-17-08033 Paris Las Vegas Operating Co., LLC 1,961,934 1,812,018 92% SB-17-08035 Treasure Island, LLC 3,433,771 3,334,184 97% SB-17-08063 State of Nevada 53,277 53,436 100% SB-17-08106 NOVA Geotechnical and Inspection Services 6,120 10,566 173% SB-17-08115 Clearwater Paper Corporation 1,902,746 1,921,908 101% SB-17-08117 Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino 1,012,498 817,649 81% SB-17-08119 Clark County Nevada 23,805 23,876 100% SB-17-08127 Clark County Nevada 661,299 654,875 99% SB-17-08128 Ochoa Development Corporation 278,328 277,897 100% SB-17-08136 Majestic Management Co. 59,475 59,652 100% SB-17-08141 Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company 63,590 63,780 100% SB-17-08142 Remnant Ministries Church International 13,039 13,004 100% SB-17-08198 Global Experience Specialists, Inc 9,325 7,125 76% SB-17-08199 Copper Sage III, LLC 233,531 236,306 101% SB-17-08200 Hoover Dam Lodge 17,330 7,409 43% SB-17-08235 Nellis Air Force Base 4,480,607 4,352,951 97% SB-17-08239 Nellis Air Force Base 2,706,024 2,712,986 100% SB-17-08243 The Kroger Company 140,586 121,641 87% SB-17-08280 Chesapeake Media I, LLC 86,744 104,944 121% Park Towers at Hughes Center Condo Owners SB-17-08285 65,342 113,248 173% Assoc. SB-17-08286 Nora's Cuisine 150,750 148,829 99% SB-17-08314 Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino 510,309 439,547 86% SB-17-08319 RC Willey Home Furnishings 418,788 463,580 111% SB-17-08320 City of Henderson 3,616 3,217 89% SB-17-08329 City of Henderson 4,012 3,920 98% SB-17-08345 Pacific Harbors at Stonegate HOA 7,276 7,297 100% SB-17-08375 PHI Northgate Buildings 6,705,757 6,749,221 101% SB-17-08424 City of Henderson 11,073 11,106 100% SB-17-08493 Tropicana Las Vegas Inc. 710,298 647,510 91% SB-17-08532 ELV-I Associates LLC 6,294 5,063 80% SB-17-08684 Body & Brain Yoga & Health Centers 8,105 5,022 62% SB-17-08700 City of Henderson 88,537 41,368 47% SD-17-5614 Green Valley Grocery # 54 72,723 72,723 100% SD-17-5616 Green Valley Grocery #55 74,126 74,126 100% SD-17-5636 Speedee Mart #115 76,363 76,363 100% SD-17-5650 HD Harmon Square LLC 59,225 59,225 100% SD-17-5720 5 Star Fitness 12,043 12,043 100% SD-17-5756 Comsysco 4,738 4,738 100% SD-17-5768 LMD LLC 76,677 76,677 100% SD-17-5779 Taco Bell #32 19,219 19,219 100%
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 25 Page 29 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Project Ex Ante kWh Ex Post kWh Project ID Business Name Realization Savings Savings Rate SD-17-5819 Village at Desert Lakes 56,006 56,006 100% SD-17-5892 PECOS INDUSTRIAL 31,579 31,579 100% SD-17-5912 Cheyenne West 304,096 304,096 100% SB-17-07670 Help USA 21,488 21,488 100% SB-17-07673 Boys and Girls Club of Southern Nevada 18,676 18,655 100% SB-17-07974 PAL Animal Sanctuary 11,339 11,396 101% SB-17-08196 St Andrew Lutheran Church 17,454 17,454 100% SB-17-08197 Touro University 52,444 52,633 100% SB-17-08249 Congregation Ner Tamid 49,572 49,091 99% SB-17-08309 Temple Sinai Las Vegas Inc 36,428 36,443 100% SB-17-08383 Trinity Impact Foundation 32,587 29,741 91% SB-17-08416 The Salvation Army - Las Vegas ARC 27,459 27,544 100% SB-17-08549 Sunrise Southern Baptist Church 42,702 42,720 100% Sampled Projects Subtotal 60,780,704 60,558,530 99.6% Non-Sampled Projects Subtotal 75,932,765 74,526,015 98.3% Total 136,713,468 135,176,397 98.9%
These 93 M&V sample sites were then grouped according to sampling strata and used to determine a realization rate for each stratum, as found in Table 4-3 below. Sites were assigned strata first by program pathway type (CES, NPAG, DI) and then by kWh savings.
Table 4-3. Summary of Stratum-level Energy (kWh) Savings and Realization Rates Sum of Ex Sum of Ex Realization Sampling Stratum Ante kWh Post kWh Rate Savings Savings South 1 43,383,055 42,677,361 98.4% South 2 24,417,339 22,330,039 91.5% South 3 22,515,453 23,890,276 106.1% South 4 28,396,476 28,167,883 99.2% South 5 13,902,403 14,018,833 100.8% South DI 1 1,370,136 1,370,136 100.0% South DI 2 2,143,355 2,143,355 100.0% South NPAG 1 204,982 205,151 100.1% South NPAG 2 235,551 228,919 97.2% South NPAG 3 144,718 144,444 99.8% Totals 136,713,468 135,176,397 98.9% Stratum-level realization rates are then applied to each of the non-sampled sites, so that each site in the population has a site-level verified savings kWh value. These site-level verified savings values are then summed to determine program-level verified annual kWh savings. Overall, the ex post annual savings of 135,176,397 kWh were equal to 98.9% of the ex ante savings.
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 26 Page 30 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
4.2 EX POST PRECISION CALCULATION
Calculations were performed to verify that the program precision requirements were met. The program population was re-stratified based on verified ex post savings using the original strata boundaries to perform the precision verification statistical calculations. Results of these calculations are presented below in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4. Ex Post Precision Calculation Results Average Standard Number of Number Ex Post Deviation Sum of M&V Contribution to Stratum of Savings of Ex CV Savings Sample Variance Projects per Ante Sites Project Savings South 1 627 68,066 66,401 0.98 42,677,361 46 3.49E+13 South 2 43 519,303 165,505 0.32 22,330,039 10 3.89E+12 South 3 14 1,706,448 402,068 0.24 23,890,276 7 2.26E+12 South 4 8 3,520,985 624,658 0.18 28,167,883 7 4.46E+11 South 5 2 7,009,417 367,972 0.05 14,018,833 2 0.00E+00 South DI 1 67 20,450 15,003 0.73 1,370,136 4 2.38E+11 South DI 2 26 82,437 49,540 0.60 2,143,355 7 1.73E+11 South NPAG 1 12 17,096 3,079 0.18 205,151 4 2.28E+08 South NPAG 2 8 28,615 4,416 0.15 228,919 3 2.60E+08 South NPAG 3 3 48,148 5,023 0.10 144,444 3 0.00E+00 Totals 810 135,176,397 93 4.19E+13 Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 7.88%
The similarities between the ex ante estimates and verified ex post energy savings can be seen through examination of the coefficient of variance (CV) shown in Table 4-4in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4 (ex post) and Table 3-1 (ex ante). The CV for each stratum shows very little variation between the ex ante estimates and the verified ex post conditions. The similarities in CV are indicative of how closely the ex ante estimates match the verified ex post savings. These similarities can be attributed to many aspects of this program, including: a mature program with well-developed prescriptive measure estimates, and good collaboration between implementation and M&V contractors.
4.3 EFFECTIVE USEFUL LIFE (EUL) & LIFETIME ENERGY (KWH) SAVINGS
As described in Section 3.8 above, ADM determined the Effective Useful Life (EUL) for each M&V sample site from a weighted average of measures installed by NV Energy’s 2017 program. ADM subsequently employed its EUL determinations to calculate lifetime energy (kWh) savings per sample site, as shown in Table 4-5 below.
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 27 Page 31 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table 4-5. EUL & Lifetime Savings – M&V Sample Sites
Verified Ex Post Lifetime Savings Project ID Stratum EUL (Years) Savings (kWh) (kWh)
SB-17-05511 145,884 South 1 15.0 2,188,254 SB-17-05514 246,801 South 1 15.0 3,702,021 SB-17-06910 7,269,612 South 5 15.0 109,044,179 SB-17-07091 11,423 South 1 15.0 171,351 SB-17-07099 1,198,633 South 3 8.5 10,133,677 SB-17-07215 45,461 South 1 8.8 402,036 SB-17-07235 2,026,741 South 3 15.0 30,401,110 SB-17-07364 291,477 South 1 15.0 4,372,158 SB-17-07504 2,094,676 South 3 5.7 11,955,912 SB-17-07521 3,273,178 South 4 5.7 18,682,522 SB-17-07674 3,471,725 South 4 15.0 52,075,880 SB-17-07678 82,280 South 1 11.2 922,729 SB-17-07684 18,142 South 1 14.1 255,758 SB-17-07701 201,130 South 1 11.4 2,285,565 SB-17-07702 3,558,051 South 4 9.4 33,440,266 SB-17-07703 1,118,085 South 3 13.9 15,554,820 SB-17-07707 60,115 South 1 9.3 558,296 SB-17-07708 11,438 South 1 14.9 170,433 SB-17-07735 340,178 South 2 14.8 5,034,024 SB-17-07751 481,052 South 2 15.0 7,215,774 SB-17-07769 53,220 South 1 13.8 735,232 SB-17-07772 28,077 South 1 15.0 421,152 SB-17-07788 2,958,824 South 4 8.5 25,094,871 SB-17-07789 138,084 South 1 5.5 758,586 SB-17-07796 69,132 South 1 9.3 642,042 SB-17-07806 45,948 South 1 10.0 458,194 SB-17-07817 75,998 South 1 9.3 705,806 SB-17-07824 86,594 South 1 10.8 939,264 SB-17-07850 9,311 South 1 9.5 88,525 SB-17-07855 1,658,097 South 3 15.0 24,871,453 SB-17-07856 867,310 South 2 9.8 8,524,172 SB-17-07910 501,540 South 2 5.7 2,862,672 SB-17-07911 704,766 South 2 15.0 10,571,493 SB-17-07944 209,513 South 1 7.9 1,665,569 SB-17-07958 149,737 South 1 11.2 1,672,194 SB-17-07959 306,878 South 1 15.0 4,603,177 SB-17-07997 122,978 South 1 9.3 1,141,897 SB-17-08002 139,137 South 1 9.7 1,350,407 SB-17-08005 122,747 South 1 9.7 1,185,360
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 28 Page 32 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Verified Ex Post Lifetime Savings Project ID Stratum EUL (Years) Savings (kWh) (kWh)
SB-17-08032 45,462 South 1 11.8 535,854 SB-17-08033 1,812,018 South 3 5.7 10,342,569 SB-17-08035 3,334,184 South 4 5.0 16,670,922 SB-17-08063 53,436 South 1 15.0 801,537 SB-17-08106 10,566 South 1 6.9 72,846 SB-17-08115 1,921,908 South 3 15.0 28,828,627 SB-17-08117 817,649 South 2 15.0 12,264,739 SB-17-08119 23,876 South 1 11.6 276,800 SB-17-08127 654,875 South 2 5.7 3,737,871 SB-17-08128 277,897 South 1 14.9 4,152,482 SB-17-08136 59,652 South 1 14.8 885,434 SB-17-08141 63,780 South 1 15.0 955,440 SB-17-08142 13,004 South 1 8.1 104,876 SB-17-08198 7,125 South 1 15.0 106,877 SB-17-08199 236,306 South 1 15.0 3,544,589 SB-17-08200 7,409 South 1 15.0 111,135 SB-17-08235 4,352,951 South 4 8.1 35,101,940 SB-17-08239 2,712,986 South 4 15.0 40,571,608 SB-17-08243 121,641 South 1 9.9 1,207,036 SB-17-08280 104,944 South 1 9.7 1,014,916 SB-17-08285 113,248 South 1 5.7 646,394 SB-17-08286 148,829 South 1 14.9 2,219,596 SB-17-08314 439,547 South 2 12.5 5,499,692 SB-17-08319 463,580 South 2 7.5 3,499,798 SB-17-08320 3,217 South 1 11.6 37,300 SB-17-08329 3,920 South 1 11.6 45,450 SB-17-08345 7,297 South 1 15.0 109,459 SB-17-08375 6,749,221 South 5 15.0 101,238,315 SB-17-08424 11,106 South 1 11.1 122,899 SB-17-08493 647,510 South 2 15.0 9,712,650 SB-17-08532 5,063 South 1 15.0 75,945 SB-17-08684 5,022 South 1 10.9 54,942 SB-17-08700 41,368 South 1 14.9 614,697 SD-17-5614 72,723 South DI 2 15.0 1,090,844 SD-17-5616 74,126 South DI 2 15.0 1,111,889 SD-17-5636 76,363 South DI 2 15.0 1,145,444 SD-17-5650 59,225 South DI 2 15.0 888,375 SD-17-5720 12,043 South DI 1 15.0 180,652 SD-17-5756 4,738 South DI 1 15.0 71,076 SD-17-5768 76,677 South DI 2 15.0 1,150,154 SD-17-5779 19,219 South DI 1 15.0 288,288
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 29 Page 33 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Verified Ex Post Lifetime Savings Project ID Stratum EUL (Years) Savings (kWh) (kWh)
SD-17-5819 56,006 South DI 2 15.0 840,083 SD-17-5892 31,579 South DI 1 15.0 473,678 SD-17-5912 304,096 South DI 2 15.0 4,561,447 SB-17-07670 21,488 South NPAG 1 5.1 110,385 SB-17-07673 18,655 South NPAG 1 15.0 279,818 SB-17-07974 11,396 South NPAG 1 11.2 127,456 SB-17-08196 17,454 South NPAG 1 14.2 248,512 SB-17-08197 52,633 South NPAG 3 14.6 767,366 SB-17-08249 49,091 South NPAG 3 5.7 280,199 SB-17-08309 36,443 South NPAG 2 11.6 422,500 SB-17-08383 29,741 South NPAG 2 11.8 352,080 SB-17-08416 27,544 South NPAG 2 15.0 413,159 SB-17-08549 42,720 South NPAG 3 11.6 495,263 Totals 60,558,530 11.5 697,322,735
Stratum-level EUL’s were calculated for M&V sample sites by dividing total lifetime savings (kWh) per stratum by total verified ex post (kWh) savings per stratum. The stratum level EULs are shown in Table 4-6 below. The EUL for sampled projects is 11.5 years.
Table 4-6. M&V Sample EUL & Lifetime Savings – Per Stratum Verified Ex Post EUL Stratum Lifetime Savings (kWh) Savings (kWh) (Years) South 1 4,035,673 49,092,510 12.2 South 2 5,918,007 68,922,885 11.6 South 3 11,830,158 132,088,168 11.2 South 4 23,661,899 221,638,009 9.4 South 5 14,018,833 210,282,494 15.0 South DI 1 67,580 1,013,694 15.0 South DI 2 719,216 10,788,236 15.0 South NPAG 1 68,993 766,171 11.1 South NPAG 2 93,728 1,187,739 12.7 South NPAG 3 144,444 1,542,828 10.7 Totals 60,558,530 697,322,735 11.5
M&V sample site stratum level EUL’s were then applied to non-sampled sites and totaled. As shown in Table 4-7 below, ADM determined program-level lifetime savings to be 1,579,512,795 kWh. The program-level EUL was then taken to be lifetime kWh divided by annual verified kWh savings. The total EUL for PY2017 was 11.7 years.
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 30 Page 34 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table 4-7. Program Level EUL & Lifetime Savings
Verified Ex Post Lifetime Savings EUL (Years) Savings (kWh) (kWh) M&V Sites 60,558,530 11.5 697,322,735 Non-sampled Sites 74,617,867 11.8 882,190,061 Totals: 135,176,397 11.7 1,579,512,795
4.4 DISCUSSION OF GROSS SAVINGS ANALYSIS
The project realization rates were reviewed to assess whether there were factors that were causing systematic differences in the realization rates. An analysis was conducted to determine whether realization rates for projects differed systematically by ex ante kWh savings. ADM found there is not a strong correlation between realization rates and ex ante kWh savings. In fact, a case-by-case examination shows that project-specific factors were more likely to cause ex post kWh savings to differ from ex ante kWh savings.
ADM also analyzed the data to investigate correlations between measure category, as listed in DSMC, and realization rate. Figure 4-1 below shows the realization rates for the measure categories included in ADM’s sample of projects.
Figure 4-1. Gross Realization Rate by Measure Category
From Figure 4-1 five of the nine measure categories resulted in an average realization rate over 100% and a fourth category had a realization rate of essentially 100% (Kitchen Ventilation Controls at 99.3%). The Custom, Lighting Controls, Performance Based, Reduced LPD, and Pool
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 31 Page 35 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Pump VSD and Controls measure categories all had gross realization rates (GRR) over 100%. These five categories account for 36.4% of ex ante kWh savings.
The largest measure category, Lighting per Watt Reduced which accounted for 60.8% of ex ante savings, had an overall realization rate of 95.1%. ADM sampled 51 projects that received incentives that fell within this category. Of those, 15 had realization rates below 95%, while 4 had GRRs of over 105%. These projects are mostly incentivized based on prescriptive ex ante savings and the most common reason for differences between ex ante and ex post savings are the use of custom hours of operation for ex post calculations and prescriptive hours for ex ante estimates. ADM found that four of the sampled projects that used prescriptive hours had pre-existing daylight or occupancy sensor controls, which reduced the baseline hours of operation. In these cases, the use of prescriptive hours over estimated savings because the reduction in hours attributable to the controls was not accounted for. ADM also found that two of the sample sites with low GRRs used incorrect facility type when determining the prescriptive hours of use, which contributed to the lower realization rates for these projects.
The measure category with the lowest GRR, PTAC/PTHP, had a realization rate of 42.8%. However, this was based on a single sampled project and only accounted for 0.1% of ex ante savings. The low realization rate associated with this project is also due to differences between custom and prescriptive savings calculations. For this measure category, ADM has been using the aggregated results from similar projects from program years 2014-2016 to calculate the effective full load hours for both heating and cooling in large casino/hotel projects that fall under this measure category. This approach has been used for the past three program years and had continued to be developed as more projects with sufficient data are sampled.
Overall, the ex ante estimates for sampled projects were found to be relatively accurate and reasonable. Of the 93 sampled sites, ADM found 20 that had gross realization rates below 95% and 14 that had gross realization rates above 105%. The measure with the greatest variation in GRR was the “Lighting per Watts Reduced” measure. ADM sampled 51 sites that were within this measure category and found that 19 sites had GRRs above 105% or below 95%. Overall, the “Lighting per Watts Reduced” measure category resulted in an average GRR of 95.1%.
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 32 Page 36 of 392
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
In this chapter, ADM provides recommendations which were developed during the M&V analysis for the PY2017 CES program. The following provide detailed discussions of these recommendations:
1) Recommendations to improve the Pre-Construction Review process:
In PY2013 a Pre-Construction Review process was implemented to review large projects during the early stages of implementation to provide an early review of estimated energy savings and to improve coordination between implementation and M&V activities. The pre- construction review process has continued to improve in subsequent years and was used extensively to allow both ADM and DNV-GL to develop similar savings calculation and baseline methodologies.
ADM provides the following recommendations to continue to further improve the Pre- Construction Review process.
ADM recommends continuing to review this process at the beginning of each program year with all participants and make adjustments to improve this valuable process. A suggested improvement includes providing all the available preliminary project documentation (implementer’s pre-project inspection report, methodology and calculations of preliminary ex-ante savings estimates, including models built by outside contractors) in addition to the preliminary Project Application and Pre-Construction Checklist document as part of this process. ADM would use this preliminary data only to better inform decisions regarding M&V activities and would not use this preliminary data for ex post analysis. ADM also recommends that outside contractors be included in the pre-construction process for any project where savings or incentive levels are initially based on calculations completed by any group other than the implementation contractor. Including outside contractors in the process would improve transparency between implementation and M&V activities and would allow all parties to be in full agreement on data collection, project timelines, baseline requirements, etc. prior to projects being completed.
2) Recommendation regarding use of the program databases, including DSM Central:
Standardize reports provided for the CES programs. Currently, three separate reports are provided for the CES program, one that includes all Retrofit projects, a second report for New Construction, and a third for NPAG. These three reports contain different project information and should be revised to provide only necessary
Recommendations 33 Page 37 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
information for the M&V contractor. Additionally, these reports should be reviewed, and repeat and potentially contradictory, data should be removed.
3) Recommendation regarding the use of IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 for new construction savings calculations:
Through ADM’s evaluation of PY2017 new construction projects, it was found that ex ante estimates are being calculated using guidelines stated in the ASHRAE 90.1 standard. However, this standard is not an applicable building code in southern Nevada and should not be used to determine baseline LPD or equipment efficiency requirements. All energy savings associated with new construction projects should be calculated using the proper version of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The IECC is the enforced code in southern Nevada and should therefore be used to determine energy savings. While the ASHRAE 90.1 standard and the IECC are similar, there are differences in equipment efficiencies, allowable LPDs, and baseline building types. For the PY2017 evaluation, when the ex ante estimates used ASHRAE 90.1 for determining baseline requirements, and those requirements resulted in more conservative savings, ADM used the same baseline requirements to determine ex post savings. However, it is recommended that in future years, the IECC be referenced for baseline requirements and the ASHRAE standard only be used as a guideline for modeling techniques.
4) Recommendation regarding the project documentation provided to ADM:
For the most part, sufficient project documentation is provided by DNVGL. The project documentation typically consists of detailed project reports, outlining the scope of the project, both pre and post retrofit visit reports, invoices, project applications, etc. However, for new construction projects, construction drawings and energy simulation files should be provided in all cases. Several of the sampled projects during PY2017 did not include modeling files, requiring ADM to specifically request these from the implementation contractor’s project manager.
5) Recommendation regarding DNVGL notifying customers of M&V activities:
PY2017 was the first year that DNVGL and ADM coordinated on notifying customers that their projects had been selected for M&V. Through this process, ADM would select a sample of projects, request project documentation from DNVGL and provide the customer contact information available in the program database. DNVGL would verify the correct customer contact information was available and would then notify the customer that their project had been selected. The step of informing customers prior to ADM contacting them to schedule visits significantly improved ADM’s ability to schedule those visits and reduced customer complaints and questions about ADM’s role in the program. It is recommended that this practice continue into future program years.
6) Recommendation regarding equipment power monitoring:
Recommendations 34 Page 38 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
ADM recommends that any power monitoring done on equipment with varying loads and power factors be done using equipment that measures true power. Typically, the implementation contractor has been monitoring equipment by using current transducers to measure amps and using one-time power measurements, or equipment ratings, to estimate power factor. However, this does not fully account for changes in power factor as loads change in mechanical equipment (VFDs, chillers, etc.). The implementation contractor often uses rated VFD power factor when calculating post installation power usage. Using the rated power factor of VFDs typically leads to over estimating post installation power usage and lower ex ante savings. It is recommended that any loads with the potential for power factor or voltage fluctuations be monitored using true power measurements as opposed to only measuring amps.
Recommendations 35 Page 39 of 392
APPENDIX A: PROJECT-LEVEL ANALYSES
Site Caesars Palace Address 3570 S. Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas NV 89109 Project Number SB-17-05511
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-05511, Caesars Palace received incentives from NV Energy for installing VFDs on pool and fountain pumps. The realization rate for this project is 113%.
Project Description Caesars Palace retrofitted (8) exiting pump motors with VFD controls as opposed to control with Hand-Off-Auto switches. The VFD retrofit consisted of the following:
Neptune Pool Fountain, 20 HP Valet Fountain Pump 1-3, 5 HP Valet Fountain Pump 4-6, 5 HP Venus Pool, 7.5 HP West Convention Spa, 7.5 HP Fortune Pool, 5 HP Jupiter Pool, 5 HP Apollo Pool, 5 HP
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified VFD installations and determined the hours of operation for all the retrofitted pumps. The following runtime table was provided by the site contact and used in the analysis:
Appendix A 36 Page 40 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Pump Annual Runtimes
VFD Speed Pump Motor Long Name/ID Rated HP Efficiency 100% 90% 50%
Neptune Pool Fountain 20 92% - 3,425 - Venus Pool (P-15 Cabana Pool #2) 7.5 91% 4,745 - 4,015 West Convention Spa 7.5 91% 2,195 - 6,565 Fortuna Pool 5 83% 2,695 - 6,065 Jupiter Pool 5 85% 2,537 - 6,223 Apollo Pool 5 88% 3,425 - 5,335 Valet Fountain pumps 1 thru 3 5 90% - 8,760 - Valet Fountain pumps 4 thru 6 5 90% - 8,760 - Savings were calculated using the VFD speed, rated horsepower (converted to kW) and the following pump affinity equation (with shaft diameter held constant): . Where:
P1 = Pump kW at N1 shaft speed N1 = VFD partial speed % P2 = Full load pump kW N2 = VFD at 100% Using the above affinity law, the as-built pump kW at the set VFD speed was calculated. Pump kW was multiplied by the hours of operation at each VFD speed and then summed to find the total kWh. The baseline operation was the pump running at 100% speed for the entire year (8,760 hours).
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates by Measure
Expected Realized Lifetime Realization Measure Type Quantity Savings Savings EUL (yr) Savings Rate (kWh/hr) (kWh/yr) (kWh) Fountain Pool Pump VFDs 1 30,630 29,265 96% 15 438,979 Pool Pump (5hp) VFDs 3 49,500 63,391 128% 15 950,870 Pool Pump (7.5hp) VFDs 5 49,500 53,227 108% 15 798,405
Total 129,630 145,884 113% 15 2,188,254 The overall project-level realization rate is 113%. The difference in realization rate is due to the ex ante analysis using prescriptive savings for the pool pump VFDs and using a custom analysis for the fountain pump VFDs. The ex post analysis used a custom analysis for all the pump VFDs. The ex ante and ex post custom analyses are similar; however, the ex post analysis includes pump efficiency when calculating kWh impacts.
Appendix A 37 Page 41 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site The Rio Address 3700 W. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas NV 89103 Project Number SB-17-05514
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-05514, The Rio received incentives from NV Energy for installing VFDs on pool and waterfall pumps. The realization rate for this project is 123%.
Project Description Caesars Palace retrofitted (11) exiting pump motors with VFD controls as opposed to control with Hand-Off-Auto switches. The VFD retrofit consisted of the following:
Snail Pool, 10 hp Fish Pool, 10 hp Lagoon Waterfalls Main pump, 25 hp Palazzo Pool Waterfall, 7.5 hp Lagoon Pool, 15 hp Palazzo Pool Filter, 10 hp Clam Pool Waterfall, 5 hp DSCN0688 Clam Pool filter, 10 hp DSCN0692 Clam pool filter, 10 hp DSCN0704 Snail Pool Waterfall, 15hp DSCN0706 Snail Pool Waterfall, 15hp
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified VFD installations and determined the horsepower, efficiency, and hours of operation for all the retrofitted pumps. When not known, the pump
Appendix A 38 Page 42 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
efficiency was taken from a U.S. Department of energy fact sheet11. The following runtime table was used in the analysis: Pump Annual Runtimes
VFD Speed Pump Motor Long Name/ID Rated HP Efficiency 100% 90% 50% Snail Pool 10 90% 2,924 - 5,836 Fish Pool 10 90% 2,924 - 5,836 Lagoon Waterfalls Main pump 25 89% - 2,068 - Lagoon Waterfalls backup 15 87% - 2,068 - Palazzo Pool Waterfall 7.5 84% - 2,068 - Lagoon Pool 15 87% 2,924 - 5,836 Palazzo Pool Filter 10 90% 2,924 - 5,836 Clam Pool Waterfall 5 84% - 2,068 - DSCN0688 Clam Pool filter 10 90% 2,924 - 5,836 DSCN0692 Clam pool filter 10 90% 2,924 - 5,836 DSCN0704 Snail Pool Waterfall 15 87% - 2,068 - DSCN0706 Snail Pool Waterfall 15 87% - 2,068 - Savings were calculated using the VFD speed, rated horsepower (converted to kW) and the following pump affinity equation (with impeller diameter held constant): . Where:
P1 = Pump kW at N1 shaft speed N1 = VFD partial speed % P2 = Full load pump kW N2 = VFD at 100% Using the above affinity law, the as-built pump kW at the set VFD speed was calculated. Pump kW was multiplied by the hours of operation at each VFD speed and then summed to find the total kWh. The baseline operation was the pump running at 100% speed for the open hours (100% column in the Pump Annual Runtimes Table) if it supplied a water fall or the entire year (8,760 hours) if it supplied a pool.
11 Determining Electric Motor Load and Efficiency: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f15/10097517.pdf
Appendix A 39 Page 43 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates by Measure
Expected Realized Lifetime Realization Measure Type Quantity Savings Savings EUL (yr) Savings Rate (kWh/hr) (kWh/yr) (kWh) Pool/Waterfall Pump VFDs 6 36,345 47,785 131% 15 716,775 VSD Pool Pump (10hp) 4 132,000 159,213 121% 15 2,388,197 VSD Pool Pump (10hp) 1 33,000 39,803 121% 15 597,049 Total 201,345 246,801 123% 15 3,702,021 The overall project-level realization rate is 123%. The difference in realization rate is due to the ex ante analysis using prescriptive savings for the pool pump VFDs and using a custom analysis for the waterfall pump VFDs. The ex post analysis used a custom analysis for all the pump VFDs. The ex ante and ex post custom analyses are similar; however, the ex post analysis includes motor efficiency when calculating kWh impacts.
Appendix A 40 Page 44 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Caesar’s Palace Address 3570 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, NV Project Number SB-17-06910
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-06910, Caesar’s Palace received incentives from NV Energy for optimizing the control of their central chilled water plant equipment. The realization rate for this project is 101%.
Project Description Caesar’s Palace contracted with ETC Group to conduct an energy assessment of their chilled water plant. Through this assessment, ETC Group identified several opportunities to improve plant efficiency. Caesar’s implemented two measures identified through the assessment process; upgraded controls and improved water side economizer operation, and installation of variable speed drives (VSDs) to allow for variable flow pumping.
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM staff coordinated with the implementation contractor to develop a savings calculation approach that utilized a common data set and allowed for both ADM and DNVGL to develop savings estimates using a similar methodology. Through this process, ADM and DNVGL met several times to discuss data collection requirements and work performed at the site. Additionally, ADM and DNVGL conducted a joint post inspection of this site to collect data simultaneously. The ex post energy savings estimates are calculated using a regression analysis of central plant telemetry data. The customer provided total plant kW data for both the baseline and post retrofit periods, allowing ADM to conduct a regression analysis. The regression analysis used weather data for Las Vegas, obtained from NOAA, to train the parameters for both a baseline and post retrofit model. Once the models were trained, the savings were normalized using TMY3 weather data.
Appendix A 41 Page 45 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates by Measure
Ex Ante Ex Post Lifetime Realization Measure Type Savings Savings EUL Savings Rate (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) Central Plant Optimization 7,196,646 7,269,612 101% 15 109,044,179 Totals 7,196,646 7,269,612 101% 15 109,044,179
The realization rate for this project is 101%. The slight difference between ex ante and ex post savings is due to small differences in the regression analyses use. Both the ex ante and ex post used similar approaches and data sets to determine savings estimates, resulting in nearly the same savings.
Appendix A 42 Page 46 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Nedco Supply Address 200 W. Spring Mountain Road, Las Vegas, NV 89102 Project Number SB-17-07091
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07091, Nedco Supply received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 85%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (19) 8' 2L T12 fixtures to (17) 50W LED fixtures (12) 8' 2L T12 fixtures to (12) 4L TLED fixtures (17.5W/L) (2) 4' 4L T5 HO fixtures to (2) 150W LED fixtures controlled by occupancy sensors (6) 4' 4L T5 HO fixtures to (6) 50W LED fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. The lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices and spec sheets were reviewed and agree to quantities and wattages of retrofit measures installed.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures
Appendix A 43 Page 47 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Pre Post Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) kWh kWh HCIF EUL Hours Hours Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T12 to LED 19 17 109 50 3,315 3,315 5,361 4,572 1.13 85% 15 68,574
T12 to LED 12 12 109 70 3,315 3,315 2,055 1,752 1.13 85% 15 26,284
T5 HO to LED 2 2 234 150 3,315 2,321 1,110 966 1.13 87% 15 14,490
T5 HO to LED 6 6 234 50 3,315 3,315 4,847 4,134 1.13 85% 15 62,003
Total 13,373 11,423 85% 15 171,351
Results The project-level realization rate is 85%. The less-than-100% realization rate is due to the ex ante calculation’s use of prescriptive hours. The ex post calculation used hours of use verified with the site contact. Aside from that discrepancy all other inputs to the calculation were verified to be accurate.
Appendix A 44 Page 48 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Clark County - McCarran Rent-A-Center Address 7135 Gilespie Street, Las Vegas, NV 89119 Project Number SB-17-07099
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07099, Clark County - McCarran Rent-A-Center received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The project involved the following retrofits:
The following fixtures are located on Levels 1 & 2 and the Exterior Stairwells with 24-hour operation: o Main Floors (978) 175W MH fixtures to (1,789) 58W LED fixtures. o Exterior Stairwells (16) 100W MH fixtures to (16) 65W LED fixtures. o Exterior Stairwells (32) 100W MH fixtures to (32) 42W LED fixtures. o Exterior Stairwells (40) 100W MH fixtures to (40) 30W LED fixtures. The following pole-mounted fixtures are located on the Roof Level with Night/Photo Cell Operation: o Roof, Pole-Mounted: (146) 400W MH fixtures to (146) 143W LED fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices were reviewed and agree to quantities of retrofit measures installed.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings
Appendix A 45 Page 49 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 978 1,789 215 58 8,760 933,010 933,010 1.00 100% 6.85 6,390,480
MH to LED 16 16 128 65 8,760 8,830 8,830 1.00 100% 11.42 100,800
MH to LED 32 32 128 42 8,760 24,108 24,108 1.00 100% 11.42 275,200
MH to LED 40 40 128 30 8,760 34,339 34,339 1.00 100% 11.42 392,000
MH to LED 146 146 458 143 4,313 198,355 198,346 1.00 100% 15.00 2,975,197
Total 1,198,642 1,198,633 100% 8.45 10,133,677
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. The claimed lighting retrofits and hours of operation are the same as ADM verified.
Appendix A 46 Page 50 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Tesoro #62542 Address 2979 E. Desert Inn Rd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89121 Project Number SB-17-07215
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07215, Tesoro #62542 received incentives from NV Energy for a project that included both lighting and refrigeration measures. The realization rate for this project is 130%.
Project Description The lighting retrofit included: Interior: (36) 4’ 2-lamp 32W T8 fixtures to (36) 4’ 2-lamp 18W LED tube fixtures (4) 4’ 2-lamp 32W T8 fixtures to (4) 4’ 40W LED vapor tight fixtures in the walk-in cooler (9) 26W CFL to (9) 10W LED 6” recessed downlight on the sales floor (10) 80W PAR lamps to (10) 13W LED PAR lamps on the sales floor (2) Exit signs to LED Exit signs (11) Case lighting to LED Refrigerated Case Lighting
Exterior: (6) 100W incandescent 6” recessed can fixture to (6) 10W LED 6” recessed downlight (3) 400W metal halide fixtures to (3) 112W LED parking area fixtures
The refrigeration measures included:
(1) Evaporator fan control (4) High efficiency EC motors on evaporator fans (10) Anti-sweat heater (ASH) controls
Appendix A 47 Page 51 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and post implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T8 to 2L LED 36 36 59 36 8,760 5,449 8,188 1.13 150% 5.71 46,737
T8 to LED 4 4 59 40 8,760 500 752 1.13 150% 5.71 4,290
CFL to LED 9 9 26 10 8,760 948 1,424 1.13 150% 2.85 4,064
PAR to LED 10 10 80 13 8,760 4,409 6,626 1.13 150% 2.85 18,909
Exit Signs to LED 2 2 40 6 8,760 644 672 1.13 104% 5.71 3,838
Case Light to LED 11 11 68 28 8,760 4,125 4,351 1.13 105% 10.05 43,712
Inc. to LED 6 6 100 10 4,015 2,322 2,168 1.00 93% 6.23 13,500
MH to LED 3 3 458 112 4,015 4,463 4,168 1.00 93% 12.45 51,900
Total 22,861 24,349 124% 6.59 186,951
Appendix A 48 Page 52 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Additionally, ADM verified the installation of the refrigeration measures. The savings associated with the EC Motors installed on the evaporator fans are calculated using the following equations:
1
Where:
kWmotors = kW of either baseline or EC motors N = Number of motors
kWoutput = Rated kW of motor (rated EC motor BHP 1/15 hp)
Effmotor = Efficiency of motor (assumed 44% for split pole, 64% for ECM) COP = COP of cooling system (2.5 for walk in coolers)
The energy savings associated with the ASH controls are calculated using a calculator developed by ADM. For this calculator, ADM used previously collected monitoring data on a walk-in cooler with ASH controls to determine how frequently heaters operated. These data were normalized to TMY data in Las Vegas, NV to determine ex post savings.
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates by Measure
Expected Realized Lifetime Realization Measure Type Quantity Savings Savings EUL (yr) Savings Rate (kWh/hr) (kWh/yr) (kWh) ECM Fans 4 1,746 1,811 104% 15 27,171 Evap Fan Control 1 478 1,077 225% 16 17,240 ASH Controls 10 9,760 14,223 146% 12 170,674 Lighting 81 22,861 28,349 124% 6.6 186,951 Total 34,845 45,461 130% 8.8 402,036 The overall project-level realization rate is 130%. The ex post savings for the lighting measures is higher than the ex ante savings due to ADM verifying higher annual operating hours during the site visit. The ex post savings associated with the refrigeration measures are also higher due to ADM using actual motor sizes to calculate savings associated with the ECM fans and the evaporator fan controls. Additionally, it was verified that the evaporator fan controller actually controlled two fans, further increasing savings over the prescriptive quantities used in the ex ante calculations.
Appendix A 49 Page 53 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino Address 3000 Paradise Rd, Las Vegas NV 89109 Project Number SB-17-07235
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07235, Westgate received incentives from NV Energy for installing a new 1,000-ton plate and frame heat exchanger and a 40 HP dedicated pump. The realization rate for this project is 154%.
Project Description Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino installed a new 1,000-ton plate and frame heat exchanger and a 40 HP dedicated pump. The heat exchanger was piped into the existing cooling towers via existing condenser water piping. The new frame heat exchanger and pump operate when the outdoor wet-bulb temperate falls below 50 degrees Fahrenheit down to 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The baseline chilled water plant did not utilize a waterside economizer to generate free-cooling from its cooling tower system. By installing a new plate and frame heat exchanger and a dedicated pump, the condenser water can be utilized to cool chilled water which reduces load on the chiller plant.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified installation of the heat exchanger and pump. Savings were calculated using a regression analysis populated with chiller plant trend data provided by the site. Ten-minute interval trend data from 1/23/2016 through 11/14/2016 was provided. The trend data was averaged into daily intervals and used to calculate a regression equation of the baseline period before the frame plate heat exchanger was installed. The regression equation resulted in an R2 value of 0.84 and can be seen below:
Appendix A 50 Page 54 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
A sharp decline in kW demand was observed after 8/4/2016. According to the site contact, the frame plate heat exchanger was installed near that period, thus the data after 8/4/2016 was not included in the baseline analysis regression. Energy use of the dedicated plate frame heat exchanger pump and associated cooling tower fan were calculated using nameplate information and engineering equations. It was assumed the dedicated plate frame heat exchanger pump and associated cooling tower fan were constant volume and ran at 100% load when operating. The pump and fan kW equation used in the analysis can be seen below:
12 ∗ 0.746 ⁄ Using TMY3 wet bulb weather data and the regression equation, annual baseline chiller plant energy use was calculated. Savings was found by identifying periods when the heat exchanger would be operating and subtracting the chiller plant energy. Subsequently, the dedicated pump and associated cooling tower fan energy would be added back in during those periods. The annual savings is the sum of all the periods when the heat exchanger would be active.
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates by Measure
Expected Realized Lifetime Savings Measure Type Savings Savings Realization Rate EUL (yr) (kWh) (kWh/hr) (kWh/yr) Plate Frame Heat Exchanger 1,313,831 2,026,741 154% 15 30,401,110
Total 1,313,831 2,026,741 154% 15 30,401,110 The overall project-level realization rate is 154%. The difference in realization is due to the ex ante and ex post using different regression equations. Additionally, the ex post analysis used a different average chiller plant profile. The ex ante and ex post used different regression equations because
12 Electrical efficiency of affected motor.
Appendix A 51 Page 55 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 the provided wet bulb temperature data did not transfer to the development of the regression equation properly, leading to underestimated baseline kW demand. Also, the ex post analysis did not use data past 8/4/2016 because of the sharp decline in kW demand while the ex ante analysis used the entire data set. A comparison of the TMY3 annual ex ante and ex post baseline kW demand can be seen below:
The demand data was provided in 10-minute increments. The ex ante analysis did not fully capture all the sub hourly values when averaging kW demand data while the ex post analysis captures all the sub hourly kW values resulting in slightly different hourly kW demand values.
Appendix A 52 Page 56 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Lucky Edibles Address 38 W. Mayflower Ave, North Las Vegas, NV 89030 Project Number SB-17-07364
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07364, Lucky Edibles received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted:
Post- Post- Pre-Watts Pre-Number Number of Watts / Pre-Fixture Post-Fixture Location / Lamp or of Fixtures Lamps or Lamp or Fixture Fixtures Fixture
HID LED Flower Rooms 1 and 2_Cannabis cultivation 88 1000 88 660 HID LED Flower Rooms 1 and 2_Cannabis cultivation 128 600 128 515 HID LED Veg Room 1, 2, and 3_Cannabis cultivation 16 400 16 330 3LPTL-D50W LED Veg Room 1, 2, and 3_Cannabis cultivation 34 50 34 91 Horticultural Lamp HID LED Flower Rooms 1 and 2_Cannabis cultivation 5 600 5 515
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices were reviewed and agree to quantities of retrofit measures installed.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings
Appendix A 53 Page 57 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
HID to LED 88 88 1,035 660 4,380 163,330 163,175 1.13 100% 15.00 2,447,622
HID to LED 128 128 654 515 4,380 88,060 87,976 1.13 100% 15.00 1,319,639
HID to LED 16 16 450 330 6,570 14,254 14,241 1.13 100% 15.00 213,611
3LPTL-D50W to 34 34 174 91 6,570 20,951 20,931 1.13 100% 15.00 313,963 LED
HID to LED 5 5 654 515 6,570 5,160 5,155 1.13 100% 15.00 77,323
Total 291,755 291,477 100% 15.00 4,372,158
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. The claimed lighting retrofits and hours of operation are the same as ADM verified.
Appendix A 54 Page 58 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Flamingo Las Vegas Address 3545 Las Vegas Blvd., South, Las Vegas, NV 89109 Project Number SB-17-07504
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07504, Flamingo Las Vegas received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The project involved the following interior and exterior retrofit in fixtures that operate 8,760 hours/year: Interior: (3,451) 4’ 2L 32W T8 fluorescent fixtures to 4’ 2L 12W LED T8 lamps (866) 4’ 3L 32W T8 fluorescent fixtures to 4’ 3L 12W LED T8 lamps (500) 4’ 4L 32W T8 fluorescent fixtures to 4’ 4L 12W LED T8 lamps (1,000) 4’ 2L 32W T8 fluorescent fixtures to 4’ 2L 10W LED T8 lamps
Exterior (Parking Garage): (1,200) 4’ 2L 32W T8 fluorescent fixtures to 4’ 2L 15.5W LED T8 lamps (400) 8’ 2L 8-foot 59W T8 fluorescent fixtures to 4’ 4L 15.5W LED T8 lamps
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices were reviewed and agree to quantities of retrofit measures installed.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures
Appendix A 55 Page 59 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
2L T8 to 2L LED 3,451 3,451 59 33 8,760 888,180 887,335 1.13 100% 5.71 5,064,696
3L T8 to 3L LED 866 866 89 48 8,760 352,324 351,989 1.13 100% 5.71 2,009,069
4L T8 to 4L LED 500 500 112 64 8,760 235,591 235,367 1.13 100% 5.71 1,343,421
2L T8 to 2L LED 1,000 1,000 59 26 8,760 326,660 326,350 1.13 100% 5.71 1,862,726
2L T8 to 2lL LED 1,200 1,200 59 41 8,760 189,216 189,216 1.00 100% 5.71 1,080,000
2L T8 to 4L LED 400 400 109 79 8,760 104,419 104,419 1.00 100% 5.71 596,000
Total 2,096,390 2,094,676 100% 5.71 11,955,912
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. The claimed lighting retrofits and hours of operation are the same as ADM verified.
Appendix A 56 Page 60 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Bally's Las Vegas Address 3645 S. Las Vegas Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89109 Project Number SB-17-07521
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07521, Bally's Las Vegas received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The project involved the following interior and exterior retrofit in fixtures that operate 8,760 hours/year: Interior: (4,971) 4’ 2L 32W T8 fluorescent fixtures to (9,942) 12W LED T8 lamps (2,186) 4’ 3L 32W T8 fluorescent fixtures to (6,558) 12W LED T8 lamps (3,000) 4’ 2L 32W T8 fluorescent fixtures to (6,000) 10W LED T8 lamps
Exterior (Parking Garage): (750) 4’ 2L 32W T8 fluorescent fixtures to (1,500) 4’ 15.5W LED T8 lamps (100) 4’ 1L 32W T8 fluorescent fixtures to (100) 4’ 15.5W LED T8 lamps
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices were reviewed and agree to quantities of retrofit measures installed.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture
Appendix A 57 Page 61 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
2L T8 to 2L T8 LED 4,971 4,971 59 33 8,760 1,279,380 1,278,163 1.13 100% 5.71 7,295,452
3L T8 to 3L T8 LED 2,186 2,186 89 48 8,760 889,354 888,508 1.13 100% 5.71 5,071,391
2L T8 to 2L T8 LED 3,000 3,000 59 26 8,760 979,981 979,049 1.13 100% 5.71 5,588,179
2L T8 to 2L T8 LED 750 750 59 41 8,760 118,260 118,260 1.00 100% 5.71 675,000
1L T8 to 1L T8 LED 100 100 31 21 8,760 9,198 9,198 1.00 100% 5.71 52,500
Total 3,276,173 3,273,178 100% 5.71 18,682,522
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. The claimed lighting retrofits and hours of operation are the same as ADM verified.
Appendix A 58 Page 62 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Northgate Building #2 - Fanatics TI Address 4550 Nexus Way, North Las Vegas, NV 89081 Project Number SB-17-07674
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07674, PHI Northgate Buildings 1 & 2, LLC received incentives from NV Energy for a newly constructed warehouse in Las Vegas. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The newly constructed building is a 558,276 ft² warehouse, composed of two tenant spaces. Fanatics will occupy 15,146 ft² of office space and 385,040 ft² of warehouse space. Not included in the warehouse area, however, is a 70,000 ft² mezzanine space and an additional 210,000 ft² of multi-floor pick-mod space, both of which is included in lighting power allowances. A future tenant space occupies the remaining 158,090 ft² of space and is not in the scope of this project. The facility is expected to be occupied seven days a week 7 AM to 6 PM a majority of the year and 5 AM to 3 AM during the fourth quarter of each year. The building includes various building energy efficiency measures that provide energy savings beyond code requirements. They are outlined below: Glazing and Envelope Roof: R-19 batt (U-0.058 Btu/h-ft2-°F) Exterior Walls: o Office Concrete w/ R-13 Batt (U-0.132 Btu/h-ft2-°F) o Warehouse Below 10 ft. Non-Insulated Concrete Wall (U-0.699 Btu/h- ft2-°F) o Warehouse Above 10 ft. R-10 Insulated Concrete Wall (U-0.132 Btu/h- ft2-°F) Windows: U-0.29 Btu/h-ft2-°F; SHGC-0.21 w/ aluminum frames Skylights: U-0.65 Btu/h-ft2-°F; SHGC-0.35 w/ aluminum frames Interior Lighting The overall Baseline lighting power density (LPD) for this project is 0.90 W/ft². Additionally, the baseline exterior lighting allowances are 79.49 kW as allowed per Table 9.4.5 in ASHRAE 90.1-2007.
Appendix A 59 Page 63 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The installed design utilizes high efficiency LED fixtures resulting in a reduced average LPD of 0.36 W/ft² in the warehouse. The proposed exterior lighting design is 10.47 kW. HVAC Design The installed airside HVAC system serving the project is Packaged Rooftop Units (RTUs) with 80% efficient gas heat. The warehouse and office are served by a total of twenty-eight (28) RTUs with nominal capacity of 25-tons and a nominal cooling efficiency of 10.6 EER/13.0 IEER. These units have a nominal fan power of 0.586 W/cfm and operate with enthalpy economizers. The offices are served by smaller AC units (3-7.5 tons) with nominal cooling efficiencies from 12.4 EER to SEER 15, enthalpy economizers, 80% efficient gas heat, and an average fan power of approximately 0.3 W/cfm.
Measurement and Verification Effort The eQuest modeling files of the building were provided, and whole building savings were determined through a desk review of the files. A plot of monthly kWh from the baseline and as- built model outputs can be seen below: Baseline vs As-Built Model kWh
Additionally, the baseline and as-built model’s individual end uses were examined to ensure the outputs matched expectations. Baseline and as-built energy usage and savings categorized by end use are summarized in the following table:
Appendix A 60 Page 64 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Baseline and As-Built Annual End Use Summary
End Use Baseline As-Built Savings Lighting 4,316,390 1,654,435 2,661,955 Task lighting 0 0 0 Miscellaneous equipment 704,399 704,399 0 Heating 2 1 1 Cooling 714,429 592,208 122,221 Heat rejection 19,937 0 19,937 Auxiliary (pumps) 198,346 0 198,346 Vent fan 967,532 790,620 176,912 Refrigeration systems 0 0 0 Supplemental heat pump 0 0 0 Domestic hot water 113,756 113,756 0 Exterior to the building 336,452 44,098 292,354 Total 7,371,243 3,899,518 3,471,725 Results Expected and Realized Custom Savings by Measure
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Measure Lifetime Measure Savings Savings Rate (%) EUL Savings (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) Whole Building Model 3,474,842 3,471,725 100% 15 52,075,880 Total 3,474,842 3,471,725 100% 15 52,075,880 The project-level realization rate is 100%. The differences in realized energy savings are due to changes to the ex ante models. During the ex post desk review, ADM adjusted: the azimuth of the building and the weather data. The ex ante model ran four different orientations of the building and averaged the results. The ex post analysis ran the models using the actual orientation of the building. The ex ante models were run using TMY2 weather, and ADM ran the models using TMY3 weather data for Las Vegas. The ex ante energy models provided with the project documentation used ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for determining baseline equipment efficiencies. For example, the baseline LPD was determined using the space-by-space method with maximum allowances as set in ASHRAE 90.1-2007. However, ASHRAE 90.1 is not an official building code enforced in Las Vegas. The applicable energy code is the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). This project was permitted under the 2009 version of IECC. In future projects, all baseline equipment and LPD calculations should be determined using the correct version of IECC, not ASHRAE 90.1. For this specific project, IECC 2009, does not have a method for space-by-space LPD, but instead uses a whole building approach, which for a warehouse allows a LPD of 0.8 W/ft2. To gauge energy savings against code compliance, the baseline LPD from IECC 2009 should have been used in the ex ante savings. Due to the relative uncertainty associated with the operating hours of this project, ADM decided to use the more conservative baseline LPD of 0.9 W/ft2 used in the ex ante calculations as opposed to the correct value of 0.8 W/ft2 outlined in the applicable IECC. In future projects, it is
Appendix A 61 Page 65 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
recommended that IECC be referenced for all baseline energy usage requirements and that ASHRAE 90.1-2007, Appendix G only be used for outlining procedures used in modeling the baseline and as-built buildings.
Appendix A 62 Page 66 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Nordstrom, Inc. Address 579 N. Stephanie St. Silverado Ranch, Henderson NV 89014 Project Number SB-17-07678
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07678, Nordstrom, Inc. received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 51%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (338) 4’ 4L T8 fixtures to (338) 4’ 4L 15.5W LED tube fixtures; (6) 4’ 3L T8 fixtures to (6) 4’ 3L 15.5W LED tube fixtures; (107) 4’ 2L T8 fixtures to (107) 4’ 2L 15.5W LED tube fixtures; (12) 4’ 1L T8 fixtures to (12) 4’ 1L 15.5W LED tube fixtures;
Note: LED Lamp wattage is 15.5 watts, but with the ballasts used, the total system wattage increases this to 18 watts per lamp.
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM staff conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation and confirmed the equipment installation. Using the hours confirmed for a similar project at another store location (SB-17-07701) ADM determined the lighting operating schedule as: 10am to 9pm Monday through Saturday and 10am to 7pm on Sundays. It was found that the ex ante calculations used 8,760 or 24/7 for their hours of operation. The following equation was used to calculate the annual energy savings from the retrofit:
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 63 Page 67 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
4’ 4L T8 to 4’ 4L 15.5W LED 338 338 112 72 4,459 134,339 68,051 1.13 51% 11.21 763,155
4’ 3L T8 to 4’ 3L 15.5W LED 6 6 89 54 4,459 2,087 1,057 1.13 51% 11.21 11,854
4’ 2L T8 to 4’ 2L 15.5W LED 107 107 59 36 4,459 24,453 12,387 1.13 51% 11.21 138,914
4’ 1L T8 to 4’ 1L 15.5W LED 12 12 31 18 4,459 1,550 785 1.13 51% 11.21 8,806
Total 162,429 82,280 51% 11.21 922,729
Results The project-level realization rate is 51%. The ex post energy savings are lower due to ADM confirming, per implementer’s post inspection as well as a similar project at another store location (SB-17-07701) that store hours the hours of operation are: 10am to 9pm Monday through Saturday and 10am to 7pm on Sundays whereas ex ante claimed hours of operation to be 24/7. This single discrepancy between the ex ante and ex post calculations is the reason the realization rate is so low on the project.
Appendix A 64 Page 68 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site City of Henderson - Silver Springs Park Address 1950 Silver Springs Pkwy, Henderson, NV 89074 Project Number SB-17-07684
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07684, the City of Henderson received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at the Silver Springs Park. The realization rate for this project is 102%.
Project Description The project involved the following interior and exterior retrofits: Interior: (3) 2L 4-foot T8 32W to (3) 2L 4-foot LED T8 15W
Exterior: (2) 320W high pressure sodium to (2) 80W LED post top (2) 400W metal halide to (2) 143W LED area light (3) 1000W metal halide to (3) 143W LED area light
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices were reviewed and agree to quantities of retrofit measures installed.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
Appendix A 65 Page 69 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
2L T8 to 2L T8 LED 3 3 59 30 8,760 496 860 1.13 173% 5.71 4,911
HPS to LED Post 2 2 365 80 4,313 2,451 2,458 1.00 100% 11.59 28,500 Top MH to LED Area 2 2 456 143 4,313 2,692 2,700 1.00 100% 15.00 40,497 Light MH to LED Area 3 3 1,080 143 4,313 12,087 12,123 1.00 100% 15.00 181,850 Light Total 17,727 18,142 102% 14.10 255,758
Results The project-level realization rate is 102%. The realization rate is high due to ADM using the actual hours of operations verified on site instead of the prescriptive hours used in ex ante calculation.
Appendix A 66 Page 70 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Nordstrom, Inc. Address 3200 Las Vegas Blvd S, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 Project Number SB-17-07701
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07701, Nordstrom, Inc. received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 106%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (569) 4’ 4L T8 fixtures to 4’ 4L 15.5W LED tube fixtures; (76) 4’ 3L T8 fixtures to 4’ 3L 15.5W LED tube fixtures; (465) 4’ 2L T8 fixtures to 4’ 2L 15.5W LED tube fixtures; (185) 4’ 1L T8 fixtures to 4’ 1L 15.5W LED tube fixtures; (83) 3’ 2L T8 fixtures to 3’ 2L 12.5W LED tube fixtures; (4) 3’ 1L T8 fixtures to 3’ 1L 12.5W LED tube fixtures; and (33) 2’ 2L T8 fixtures to 2’ 2L 8.5W LED tube fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installed fixture types as well as the baseline fixture types, as they had some in storage. The total quantity of fixtures was verified through an invoice review as there were too many fixtures retrofitted in this project to be able to verify them all on- site. In addition, ADM was able to obtain operating schedules for the various spaces in the facility from the site contact. The number of fixtures located in each area type was not able to be determined on-site. Using an estimate of the number of fixtures in each area, with the provided operating schedules for each area, ADM found very similar operating hours to what was claimed in the ex ante estimate. Due to the uncertainty in our findings, based on assumptions made about the number of fixtures in each usage type, it was determined the claimed operating hours are the most accurate representation of the lighting schedule for this facility.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as:
Appendix A 67 Page 71 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
4' 4L T8 to 4L 18W LED 569 569 112 72 4,400 150,216 113,055 1.13 75% 11.36 1,284,717
4' 3L T8 to 3L 18W LED 76 76 89 54 4,400 15,048 13,213 1.13 88% 11.36 150,147
4' 2L T8 to 2L 18W LED 465 465 59 36 4,400 61,380 53,125 1.13 87% 11.36 603,693
4' 1L T8 to 1L 18W LED 185 185 31 18 4,400 12,210 11,946 1.13 98% 11.36 135,753
3' 2L T8 to 2L 14W LED 83 83 46 28 4,400 9,495 7,421 1.13 78% 11.36 84,331
3' 1L T8 to 1L 14W LED 4 4 26 14 4,400 211 238 1.13 113% 11.36 2,709
2' 2L T8 to 2L 10W LED 33 33 33 20 4,400 2,759 2,131 1.13 77% 11.36 24,215
Total 190,071 201,130 106% 11.36 2,285,565
Results The project-level realization rate is 106%. The ex post energy savings are high due to ADM verifying an overall higher change in connected load than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate. This is due to some variances in the baseline wattage being higher than what was initially claimed.
Appendix A 68 Page 72 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site McCarran Terminal 1 Garage Address 5757 Wayne Newton Blvd, Las Vegas, Nevada 89111 Project Number SB-17-07702
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07702, Clark County Department of Aviation received incentives from NV Energy for an exterior lighting retrofit in parking garages. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The project involved the following retrofit:
Post-Number Post- Watts / Pre-Number Pre-Watts / Lamp Pre-Fixture Post-Fixture Location of Lamps or Lamp or of Fixtures or Fixture Fixtures Fixture 150w HPS 65w LED (A) Garage 1347 188 1347 66 CFT32/1-L 19w LED (B) Garage 112 34 112 19 32w F32T8 22w LED (C) Garage 1506 31 1506 22 150w HPS 65w LED (A) Exterior 2644 188 2644 66 100w HPS 21w LED (B1) Exterior 151 138 151 21.06 100w MH 50w LED (D) Exterior 500 128 526 50 50w MH 7w LED (D1) Exterior 88 72 88 6.9 400w MH 105w LED (F) Exterior 176 458 176 105 250w MH 105 LED (G) Exterior 21 295 21 225 250w MH 41w LED (G1) Exterior 9 295 9 38 175w MH 79w LED (G2) Exterior 32 215 32 81 100w MH 220w LED (H) Exterior 51 128 25 220 15w Incandescent 5w LED Exit Sign Exterior 265 15 265 5 Exit Sign
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule through an interview with facility staff. The invoices, cut sheets, and supporting documents were reviewed to verify the total quantity and wattage of the installed LED fixtures.
Appendix A 69 Page 73 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings HPS to LED 2,644 2,644 188 66 4,313 1,390,591 1,391,177 1.00 100% 11.59 16,128,400
HPS to LED 151 151 138 21 4,313 76,123 76,155 1.00 100% 11.59 882,897
MH to LED 500 526 128 50 4,313 162,525 162,593 1.00 100% 15.00 2,438,898
MH to LED 88 88 72 7 4,313 24,697 24,707 1.00 100% 11.59 286,440
MH to LED 176 176 458 105 4,313 267,834 267,947 1.00 100% 15.00 4,019,200
MH to LED 21 21 295 225 4,313 6,337 6,340 1.00 100% 15.00 95,098
MH to LED 9 9 295 38 4,313 9,971 9,976 1.00 100% 15.00 149,633
MH to LED 32 32 215 81 4,313 18,486 18,493 1.00 100% 15.00 277,400
MH to LED 51 25 128 220 4,313 4,432 4,434 1.00 100% 11.59 51,400
HPS to LED 1,347 1,347 188 66 8,760 1,439,566 1,439,566 1.00 100% 5.71 8,216,700
CFL to LED 112 112 34 19 8,760 14,717 14,717 1.00 100% 5.71 84,000
4' 1L T8 to 4' 1L LED 1,506 1,506 31 22 8,760 118,733 118,733 1.00 100% 5.71 677,700
Incand Exit Sign to LED 265 265 15 5 8,760 23,214 23,214 1.00 100% 5.71 132,500 Total 3,557,225 3,558,051 100% 9.40 33,440,266
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%.
Appendix A 70 Page 74 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site McCarran Airfield Address 5757 Wayne Newton Blvd, Las Vegas, Nevada 89111 Project Number SB-17-07703
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07703, Clark County Department of Aviation received incentives from NV Energy for an exterior lighting retrofit. The realization rate for this project is 101%.
Project Description Clark County Department of Aviation retrofitted: (379) 1000W high pressure sodium fixtures to (317) 630W LED fixtures, and (53) 1000W metal halide fixtures to (62) 630W LED fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule through an interview with facility staff. The invoices, cut sheets, and supporting documents were reviewed to verify the total quantity of installed fixtures and fixture wattage. The LED fixtures are rated at a total of 630W, but the lighting system is designed to control the output of the fixtures over the course of their life. Initially the fixtures will use only 504W and gradually increase the output over the course of the fixtures life to keep consistent light levels. At the end of the fixtures life they will be using the total 630W. Therefore, to calculate the energy savings associated with this project an average wattage, over the course of its life, was used.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture
Appendix A 71 Page 75 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings HPS to LED 379 317 1,100 567 4,313 1,013,971 1,022,832 1.00 101% 13.91 14,229,660
MH to LED 53 62 1,080 567 4,313 93,105 95,253 1.00 102% 13.91 1,325,160 Total 1,107,076 1,118,085 101% 13.91 15,554,820
Results The project-level realization rate is 101%. The realization rate is slightly higher because the ex ante estimate made adjustment to 5 of the new fixtures that they found to have malfunctioning photo sensors causing them to run 24 hours a day (or 8,760 hours annually) instead of dusk-to- dawn as expected, which slightly reduced the ex ante energy savings. However, ADM verified with the site contact that those photo sensors had already been repaired since the post inspection.
Appendix A 72 Page 76 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site CVS Pharmacy INC Address 6432 Losee Rd, North Las Vegas, NV 89086 Project Number SB-17-07707
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07707, CVS Pharmacy INC received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 110%.
Project Description The project involved the following retrofits: o (6) 4-foot 15W LED strips in the refrigerated cases. o (8) 6-foot 25W LED strips in the refrigerated cases. o (2) 6-foot 12.5W LED strips in the refrigerated cases. o (20) 1-lamp, 4-foot 19W LED T8 fixtures in the display and cosmetic valances around the perimeter of the store. o (198) 2-lamp, 4-foot 19W LED T8 fixtures in the breakroom, restrooms, pharmacy, stockrooms, main sales, register area, and manager’s office.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices were reviewed and agree to quantities of retrofit measures installed.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
Appendix A 73 Page 77 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
2L T8 to 1L LED 16 16 59 20 5,384 3,561 3,793 1.13 107% 9.29 35,222
1L T8 to 1L LED 4 4 31 20 5,384 251 267 1.13 107% 9.29 2,484
2L T8 to 2L LED 61 61 59 40 5,384 6,613 7,044 1.13 107% 9.29 65,421
3L T8 to 2L LED 137 137 89 40 5,384 38,304 40,801 1.13 107% 9.29 378,924
Refrigerated Case 6 6 60 15 5,384 2,006 1.38 9.29 18,630 Lighting (1) Refrigerated Case 8 8 106 25 5,384 6,000 4,814 1.38 137% 9.29 44,712 Lighting (2) Refrigerated Case 2 2 106 13 5,384 1,389 1.38 9.29 12,903 Lighting (3) Total 54,729 60,115 110% 9.29 558,296
Results The project-level realization rate is 110%. The realization rate is higher than 100% due to ADM using the actual hours of operation instead of prescriptive hours used in the ex ante calculation. ADM also calculated higher savings associated with the retrofitted refrigerated case lighting due to a higher HCIF for those fixtures.
Appendix A 74 Page 78 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site City of Henderson Address Saguaro Trailhead, Henderson, NV 89009 Project Number SB-17-07708
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07708, the City of Henderson received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (25) 150W metal halide fixtures to 87W LED fixtures, and (1) 70W metal halide fixture to an 18W LED fixture.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the quantity and wattage of the installed lighting equipment and verified the lighting control type. It was found the fixtures are controlled by a photocell and operate on a dusk-to-dawn schedule.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 75 Page 79 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 25 25 190 87 4,313 11,073 11,106 1.00 100% 15.00 166,583
MH to LED 1 1 95 18 4,313 331 332 1.00 100% 11.59 3,850 Total 11,404 11,438 100% 14.90 170,433
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%.
Appendix A 76 Page 80 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Global Experience Specialists, Inc. Address 700 Lindell Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 Project Number SB-17-07735
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07735 Global Experience Specialists, Inc. received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 80%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (27) 2L 4’ T8 fixtures to 2L 4’ 18W LED fixtures; (51) 3L 4’ T8 fixtures to 3L 4’ 18W LED T8 fixtures; (5) 4L 4’ T8 fixtures to 4L 4’ 18W LED fixtures; (23) 2L 4’ T8 fixtures to 2L 4’ 18W LED fixtures; (2) 2L 8’ T8 fixtures to 2L 8’ 18W LED fixtures; (7) 2L 4’ T8 fixtures to 2L 4’ 18W LED fixtures; (4) 3L 4’ T8 fixtures to 3L 4’ 18W LED fixtures; (5) 4L 4’ T8 fixtures to 4L 4’ 18W LED fixtures (203) 6L T-bay fixtures to 6L 4’ 18W LED fixtures; and (565) 6L T8 fixtures to 6L 4’ 18W LED fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. It was found that all of the 4’ 6-lamp LED fixtures are controlled by pre- existing occupancy sensors, which lowered their lighting hours of operation. The baseline fixture types were verified through a review of the submitted project documentation and an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f
Appendix A 77 Page 81 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings 2L 4’ T8 to 2L 4’ LED 27 27 58 36 4,380 - 2,937 1.13 - 11.42 33,529 3L 4’ T8 to 3L 4’ LED 51 51 85 48 4,380 - 9,331 1.13 - 11.42 106,514 4L 4’ T8 to 4L 4’ LED 5 5 116 72 4,380 - 1,088 1.13 - 11.42 12,418 2L 4’ T8 to 2L 4’ LED 23 23 58 36 4,380 - 2,502 1.13 - 11.42 28,562 2L 8’ T8 to 2L 8’ LED 2 2 120 36 4,380 - 831 1.13 - 11.42 9,483 2L 4’ T8 to 2L 4’ LED 7 7 58 36 4,380 - 761 1.13 - 11.42 8,693 3L 4’ T8 to 3L 4’ LED 4 4 85 54 4,380 - 613 1.13 - 11.42 6,999 4L 4’ T8 to 4L 4’ LED 5 5 116 72 4,380 - 1,088 1.13 - 11.42 12,418 6L 4' T8 to 6L 4’ LED 565 565 226 108 3,066 - 230,764 1.13 - 15.00 3,461,457 4' 6L T8 to 6L 4’ LED 221 221 226 108 3,066 - 90,263 1.13 - 15.00 1,353,951
Total 424,216 340,178 80% 14.80 5,034,024
Results The project-level realization rate is 80%. The ex post energy savings are low due to ADM verifying the high bay fixtures are controlled by pre-existing occupancy sensors. This lowered the hours of operation for these fixtures, which make up most of the retrofitted fixtures at this facility. This finding is despite ADM verifying higher operating hours than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate for the remaining fixtures in this facility.
Appendix A 78 Page 82 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Aliante Casino Address 7300 Aliante Parkway, North Las Vegas, NV 89084 Project Number SB-17-07751
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07751, Aliante Casino received incentives from NV Energy for an exterior lighting retrofit. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description Aliante Casino retrofitted (330) 400W metal halide fixtures to 120W LED fixtures throughout the parking lot, and on the top floor of the parking garage, pole mounted fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule through an interview with facility staff. The invoice and cut sheet were reviewed to verify the total quantity and wattage of the installed LED fixtures.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 79 Page 83 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 330 330 458 120 4,313 479,622 481,052 1.00 100% 15.00 7,215,774
Total 479,622 481,052 100% 15.00 7,215,774
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%.
Appendix A 80 Page 84 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Rancho Mart: Fuel Zone Mart 4, LLC Address 2151 N. Rancho Dr. Las Vegas, Nevada Project Number SB-17-07769
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07769 Fuel Zone Mart 3, LLC received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 99%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (1) 1L 2’ T8 fixture to a 1L 2’ 10W LED tube fixture; (4) 23W CFLs to 9W A19 LED lamps; (19) 6’ T8 fixtures to 6’ 24W LED tube fixtures; (9) 400W metal halide fixtures to 100W LED fixtures; and (24) 400W high pressure sodium fixtures to 150W LED fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the new lighting equipment and control types. The baseline lighting equipment was verified through a review of the submitted project documentation, as well as a determination as to what would be the most appropriate baseline fixture type for the 6’ refrigerated case lights as the application does not specify what the baseline fixtures were. It was deemed a 6’ T8 fixture was the most appropriate baseline fixture type.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
Appendix A 81 Page 85 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
2' T8 to 2' LED 1 1 20 10 8,760 47 103 1.17 219% 5.71 587
CFL to LED 4 4 23 9 8,760 263 554 1.13 211% 4.57 2,529
6' T8 to 6' LED 19 19 55 24 8,760 7,125 6,063 1.17 85% 5.71 34,604
MH to LED 9 9 458 100 4,313 13,855 13,896 1.00 100% 15.00 208,438
HPS to LED 24 24 465 150 4,313 32,508 32,605 1.00 100% 15.00 489,073
Total 53,797 53,220 99% 13.81 735,232
Results The project-level realization rate is 99%. The ex post energy savings are close to what was claimed despite some variations in the energy savings for the interior fixtures. This is due to the exterior fixtures contributing most of the savings to this project, and there is no discrepancy between the ex ante estimate and ex post calculation for those retrofitted fixtures. The ex post savings for the 6’ refrigerated case lights is low, and this is likely due to the ex ante estimate using a deemed savings value per case light while ADM calculated the savings based on the most appropriate baseline fixture for these specific refrigerated cases. The ex post savings for the interior 2’ refrigerated case lights and the CFLs are high, and this is likely due the ex ante estimate using deemed operating hours for a retail store while ADM verified that this facility is open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
Appendix A 82 Page 86 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Olymbec USA LLC Address 4045 Spencer Street Las Vegas, NV 89121 Project Number SB-17-07772
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07772, Olymbec installed variable speed drives (VFDs) on a cooling tower fan and condenser water pump. The realization rate for this project is 55%.
Project Description The customer installed VFDs on a cooling tower fan and condenser water pump. Below is the summary of the VFDs operation: Danfoss FC102 VFD on 25 HP condenser water pump. Constant speed until adjusted by engineer with a change in the cooling load and weather. The frequency on the drive is adjusted to 40-50 Hz when full speed is not needed. Danfoss FC102 VFD on 20 HP cooling tower fan. Varies speed depending on water temp.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the VFDs. Savings were calculated using an eQuest reference model. An eQuest model was constructed to represent the building type and the measures were simulated using a parametric tool. TMY3 weather from Las Vegas McCarran Airport was used to calculate the typical savings for the installed measure. eQuest model savings for the condenser water pump and cooling tower fan VFDs were normalized to baseline model pump and fan horsepower, respectively. The savings per horsepower was then multiplied by the site-specific fan horsepower rating resulting in the final savings.
Appendix A 83 Page 87 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Results The table below summarizes the expected and verified energy savings, gross realization rates, EUL, and lifetime savings for this project. Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates by Measure
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Measure Lifetime Measure Savings Savings Rate (%) EUL Savings (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) Condenser Water Pump VFD 28,283 18,780 66% 15 281,706 Cooling Tower Fan VFD 22,626 9,296 41% 15 139,446 Total 50,909 28,077 55% 15 421,152 The project-level realization rate is 55%. The difference in realization rate is due to differences in calculation methodologies but is also attributable to the ex ante calculations potentially using the incorrect deemed savings value. Using the ex ante savings description in the 2015 DNVGL program workpapers, it appears that the ex ante savings from a VFD in an office building should be 868.1 kWh/hp. However, the savings associated with this project were 1,131.3 kWh/hp, resulting in a higher than expected ex ante savings.
Appendix A 84 Page 88 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Levi Strauss Address 501 Executive Airport Dr., Henderson, NV, 89052 Project Number SB-17-07788
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07788, Levi Strauss received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 101%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (88) 2' Under Desk fixtures to (88) Forest Lighting LED 2' Under Desk fixtures (22) 4' Under Desk fixtures to (22) (Forest) LED 4' Under Desk fixtures (11) Recessed Cans 2-lamp fixtures to (11) Hylite LED 2 lamp Recessed Can fixtures (360) T8 4' 2 lamp fixtures to (80) Helius Hi-Bay fixtures (59) 2-lamp 32W U Bend fixtures to (59) Way to Go LED 2-lamp U Bend fixtures (17) T8 8' 2 lamp fixtures to (17) Earthtronics LED T8 8' 2 lamp fixtures (70) T8 4' 1 lamp fixtures to (70) LED T8 4' 1 lamp (Forest) fixtures (860) T8 4' 2 lamp fixtures to (860) LED T8 4' 2 lamp (Forest) fixtures (79) T8 4' 3 lamp fixtures to (79) LED T8 4' 3 lamp (Forest) fixtures (96) T8' 8' 1 lamp fixtures to (96) Hylite LED T8' 8' 1 lamp fixtures (511) T8 8' 1 lamp fixtures to (511) Earthtronics LED T8 8' 1 lamp fixtures (304) T5 6 Lamp fixtures to (304) Earthtronics LED T5 6 Lamp fixtures (33) T5 8 Lamp fixtures to (33) Earthtronics LED T5 6 Lamp fixtures (100) T5 2 lamp fixtures to (100) Earthtronics LED T5 2 lamp fixtures (42) T5 4 Lamp fixtures to (42) Earthtronics LED T5 4 Lamp fixtures (43) 250W MH Pit Low Bay fixtures to (43) Alset LED 100W CC Pit Low Bay fixtures (1) 250W MH Pit Low Bay fixtures to (1) Hylite LED 100W CC Pit Low Bay fixtures
Appendix A 85 Page 89 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
(39) Pole Lights fixtures to (39) Yaham LED Pole Lights fixtures (24) Recessed Cans 2-lamp fixtures to (24) Earthtronics LED PL 2-lamp Recessed Cans 9W fixtures (7) Bollards fixtures to (7) Hylite LED CC Bollards 10W fixtures (21) Wall Pack fixtures to (21) Yaham LED Wall Pack fixtures (5) Wall Security fixtures to (5) Westgate LED Wall Security fixtures (13) Wall Packs fixtures to (13) iGLO LED Wall Packs fixtures (347) 400W High Bay fixtures to (347) Helius LED 127W High Bay fixtures (Dim to 50% when unoccupied) fixtures (311) 400W Low Bay fixtures to (311) Helius LED 80W Low Bay fixtures (Dim to 50% when unoccupied)
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. The hours at this facility are heavily based on the demand for their product. ADM had the intention of logging but decided to forgo that effort as it was determined that a very long logging period would be needed to accurately estimate the annual hours. ADM’s field tech discussed typical operation, as well as the claimed hours with the site contact and concluded that the claimed hours are reasonable and conservative.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 86 Page 90 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Pre Post Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) kWh kWh HCIF EUL Hours Hours Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T8 to LED 88 88 15 9 2,080 2,080 1,164 1,208 1.10 104% 15 18,120
CFL to LED 22 22 29 25 2,080 2,080 194 201 1.10 104% 15 3,020
CFL to LED 11 11 38 14 2,080 2,080 582 604 1.10 104% 15 9,060
T8 to LED 360 80 59 127 6,840 6,840 80,334 83,361 1.10 104% 7 609,367
Utube T8 to LED 59 59 59 36 6,840 6,840 9,839 10,210 1.10 104% 7 74,631
T8 to LED 17 17 109 80 6,840 6,840 3,574 3,709 1.10 104% 7 27,114
T8 to LED 70 70 29 18 6,840 6,840 5,583 5,793 1.10 104% 7 42,348
T8 to LED 860 860 59 36 6,840 6,840 143,413 148,817 1.10 104% 7 1,087,842
T8 to LED 79 79 89 54 6,840 6,840 20,047 20,803 1.10 104% 7 152,067
T8 to LED 96 96 109 36 6,840 6,840 50,811 52,725 1.10 104% 7 385,419
T8 to LED 511 511 59 40 6,840 6,840 70,394 73,047 1.10 104% 7 533,966
T5 to LED 304 304 351 168 6,840 6,840 403,354 418,553 1.10 104% 7 3,059,596
T5 to LED 33 33 458 168 6,840 6,840 69,386 72,001 1.10 104% 7 526,322
T5 to LED 100 100 117 56 6,840 6,840 44,227 45,894 1.10 104% 7 335,482
T5 to LED 42 42 234 112 6,840 6,840 37,151 38,551 1.10 104% 7 281,805
MH to LED 43 43 295 100 4,160 4,160 36,974 38,368 1.10 104% 14 553,380
MH to LED 1 1 295 100 4,160 4,160 860 892 1.10 104% 14 12,869
MH to LED 39 39 458 100 4,313 4,313 60,190 60,216 1.00 100% 15 903,233
Incand. to LED 24 24 65 18 4,313 4,313 4,863 4,865 1.00 100% 6 28,200
Bollard to LED 7 7 128 10 4,313 4,313 3,561 3,562 1.00 100% 14 49,560
Halogen to LED 21 21 500 150 4,313 4,313 31,686 31,699 1.00 100% 15 475,488
MH to LED 5 5 295 50 4,313 4,313 5,281 5,283 1.00 100% 15 79,248
MH to LED 13 13 295 80 4,313 4,313 12,772 12,054 1.00 94% 12 139,750
MH to LED (OC) 347 347 458 127 6,840 5,814 928,615 913,871 1.10 98% 9 7,859,230
MH to LED (OC) 311 311 458 80 6,840 5,814 906,460 912,537 1.10 101% 9 7,847,755
Total 2,931,316 2,958,824 101% 8 25,094,871
Appendix A 87 Page 91 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Results
The project-level realization rate is 101%. There are two discrepancies having opposite impacts on the realization rate, the HCIF and the savings from controls. First, the ex ante calculation applied the deemed HCIF of 1.06 for warehouses. ADM verified that the entire warehouse is conditioned and based on the on-site conditions calculated an HCIF of 1.10. This discrepancy resulted in a 4% increase in savings for all interior line items. There is one exterior line item in which the HCIF was mistakenly applied in the ex ante calculation, this was corrected in the ex post, but the difference is negligible. Lastly, in the ex ante calculation the lighting controls were assigned a deemed reduction in usage of 30% per program standards. The controlled fixtures do not turn off when unoccupied, but instead dim to 50%, so a controls factor of 15% was applied in the ex post calculation to account for this. The opposite effects of the noted discrepancies nearly cancelled each other out, but the verified HCIF had a slightly larger impact. The result as a realization rate of 101%.
Appendix A 88 Page 92 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Las Vegas Motorcoach Resort Address 8175 Arville St, Las Vegas, Nevada 89139 Project Number SB-17-07789
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07789, Las Vegas Motorcoach Resort received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 69%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted to LED lamps: Interior: (76) 10W BR30 LED as replacement of 65W BR Incandescent can lights in the clubhouse (56) 10W BR30 LED as replacement of 65W BR Incandescent can lights in 4 satellites restrooms and laundry (40) 10W BR30 LED as replacement of 65W BR Incandescent can lights in the main staff offices (69) 10W BR30 LED as replacement of 65W BR Incandescent can lights in the gym.
Exterior: (81) 18W Par 38 LED as replacement of 80W PAR38 Halogen in the landscaping light at the entrance and clubhouse compound. (37) 7W MR16 LED as replacement of 50W MR16 Halogen in the landscaping light at the entrance and clubhouse compound. (26) 7W PAR20 LED as replacement of 39W PAR20 Incandescent in the landscaping light in clubhouse compound. (192) 4.8W LED as replacement of 40W Candelabra Incandescent lamps in the wall sconces throughout the facilities. (15) 16W A21 LED as replacement of 100W A21 (72W baseline) in the pole lights at the entrances to the Motorcoach park.
Appendix A 89 Page 93 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified lamp retrofit installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and post implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 90 Page 94 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Wattage Expected Realized (Fixtures) Realization Lifetime Measure Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Savings Savings Old New Old New
BR Inc. to LED lamp 76 76 65 10 5,000 41,915 23,595 1.13 56% 5.00 117,973
BR Inc. to LED lamp 56 56 65 10 5,000 30,885 17,385 1.13 56% 5.00 86,927
BR Inc. to LED lamp 40 40 65 10 4,344 22,061 10,803 1.13 49% 5.76 62,174
BR Inc. to LED lamp 69 69 65 10 5,000 38,055 21,421 1.13 56% 5.00 107,107
Halogen to LED lamp 81 81 80 18 4,313 21,595 21,659 1.00 100% 5.80 125,550
Halogen to LED lamp 37 37 50 7 4,313 6,921 6,862 1.00 99% 5.80 39,775
PAR20 Inc. to LED lamp 26 26 39 7 4,313 3,578 3,588 1.00 100% 8.12 29,120
Inc. to LED lamp 192 192 40 5 4,313 29,061 29,148 1.00 100% 5.80 168,960
A21 to LED lamp 15 15 72 16 4,313 5,418 3,623 1.00 67% 5.80 21,000
Total 199,487 138,084 69% 5.49 758,586
Results The project-level realization rate is 69%. ADM verified that the lamps installed were 10W not the 9.5W that was claimed. Additionally, a 100W incandescent baseline was used for one line item when a 72W baseline should have been used per the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. These discrepancies had a negligible impact on the realization rate. The main reason for the less-than-100% realization rate is the hours of use for the interior fixtures. The ex post calculation uses hours verified via interview with the site contact, which match the hours given in the post inspection document. The ex ante calculation uses prescriptive hours of use.
Appendix A 91 Page 95 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site CVS Pharmacy Inc. Address 9430 Del Webb Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89134 Project Number SB-17-07796
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07796, CVS Pharmacy Inc. received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 107%.
Project Description The project involved the following retrofits: o (7) 4-foot 15W LED strips in the refrigerated cases. o (11) 5-foot 20W LED strips in the refrigerated cases. o (52) 1-lamp, 4-foot 19W LED T8 fixtures in the display and cosmetic valances around the perimeter of the store. o (149) 2-lamp, 4-foot 19W LED T8 fixtures in the breakroom, restrooms, pharmacy, stockrooms, main sales, and cashier area.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices were reviewed and agree to quantities of retrofit measures installed.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
Appendix A 92 Page 96 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
2L T8 to 1L LED 19 19 59 18 5,384 4,445 4,735 1.13 107% 9.29 43,972
1L T8 to 1L LED 33 33 31 18 5,384 2,448 2,607 1.13 107% 9.29 24,215
2L T8 to 2L LED 33 33 59 40 5,384 3,578 3,811 1.13 107% 9.29 35,392
2L T8 to 2L LED 6 6 109 40 5,384 2,362 2,516 1.13 107% 9.29 23,369
4L T8 to 2L LED 110 110 112 40 5,384 45,191 48,137 1.13 107% 9.29 447,054
Refrigerated Case 18 18 5,384 6,750 7,326 1.40 109% 9.29 68,040 Lighting Total 64,774 69,132 107% 9.29 642,042
Results The project-level realization rate is 107%. The realization rate is higher than 100% due to ADM using the actual hours of operation instead of prescriptive hours used in the ex ante calculation. ADM also calculated higher savings associated with the retrofitted refrigerated case lighting due to a higher HCIF in the cases.
Appendix A 93 Page 97 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site AutoZone Stores, LLC Address 7595 N. Vegas Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89128 Project Number SB-17-07806
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07806, AutoZone Stores, LLC received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 117%.
Project Description The customer installed a lighting power density of 0.51 W/ft², while this retail facility has an allowed lighting power density of 1.50 W/ft².
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. The lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff.
Lighting density energy savings are calculated as:
kWh t HCIF 1000 Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings 2 ft. TotalBuilding = Square Footage of the Facility 2 (W/ft )LPDBase = Baseline Lighting Power Density as Established by Local Code Requirement 2 (W/ft )LPDInstalled = Verified Lighting Power Density t = Annual lighting operating hours HCIF = HVAC interactive factor
Appendix A 94 Page 98 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting power density installed under the project. Lighting Power Density Savings Calculations
Square W/Ft² Expected Realized Realization Lifetime Location Feet Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Code As Built Savings Savings
Retail Store 8,208 1.50 0.51 5,014 39,273 45,948 1.13 117% 9.97 458,194 Total 39,273 45,948 117% 9.97 458,194 *Rated life is a weighted average of all post retrofit fixtures in their respective area
Results The project-level realization rate is 117%. The ex post energy savings are high due to ADM verifying higher operating hours than the prescriptive value claimed in the ex ante estimate. In addition, ADM used a higher HCIF (1.13) than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate (1.12).
Appendix A 95 Page 99 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site CVS Pharmacy INC Address 2735 S Maryland Pkwy, Las Vegas, NV 89109 Project Number SB-17-07817
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07817, CVS Pharmacy INC received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 108%.
Project Description The project involved the following retrofits: o (3) 15W LED strips in the refrigerated cases. o (9) 25W LED strips in the refrigerated cases. o (5) 1-lamp, 4-foot 18W LED T8 fixtures in the display valances around the perimeter of the store. o (189) 2-lamp, 4-foot 18W LED T8 fixtures in the breakroom, restrooms, pharmacy, stockrooms, main sales, cosmetic valances (in tandem), and cashier area.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices were reviewed and agree to quantities of retrofit measures installed.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on
Appendix A 96 Page 100 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
1L T8 to 1L LED 5 5 31 18 5,384 371 395 1.13 107% 9.29 3,669
2L T8 to 2L LED 49 49 59 36 5,384 6,431 6,850 1.13 107% 9.29 63,615
3L T8 to 2L LED 15 15 89 36 5,384 4,536 4,832 1.13 107% 9.29 44,875
4L T8 to 2L LED 125 125 112 36 5,384 54,207 57,740 1.13 107% 9.29 536,239
Refrigerated Case 1 1 30 15 5,384 111 1.38 9.29 1,035 Lighting (1) 137% Refrigerated Case 2 2 59 15 5,384 4,500 654 1.38 9.29 6,072 Lighting (2)
Refrigerated Case 9 9 126 25 5,384 5,416 1.38 9.29 50,301 Lighting (3) Total 70,044 75,998 108% 9.29 705,806
Results The project-level realization rate is 108%. The realization rate is higher than 100% due to ADM using the actual hours of operation instead of prescriptive hours used in the ex ante calculation. ADM also calculated higher savings associated with the retrofitted refrigerated case lighting due to a higher HCIF for those fixtures.
Appendix A 97 Page 101 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site City Express / Sinclair Address 5680 S Pecos Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89120 Project Number SB-17-07824
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07824, City Express / Sinclair received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 123%.
Project Description The project involved the following interior and exterior retrofits: Post- Post- Pre- Pre-Watts Number of Watts / Pre-Fixture Post-Fixture Location Number of / Lamp or Lamps or Lamp or Fixtures Fixture Fixtures Fixture T8/T5 fluorescent fixture 18W LED 4ft tube Store 40 59 40 36 15W Screw in CFL 9W A19 BULB freezer 7 15 7 9 T8/T5 fluorescent fixture 18W LED 4ft tube office 4 59 4 36 T8/T5 fluorescent fixture 18W LED 4ft tube hallway 3 59 3 36 T8/T5 fluorescent fixture 18W LED 4ft tube storage 4 59 4 36 T8/T5 fluorescent fixture 18W LED 4ft tube restroom 1 59 1 36 T8/T5 fluorescent fixture 18W LED 4ft tube cooler 2 59 2 36 18W PL CFL 9W LED 360 PL drink area 10 20 10 9 Refrigerated Case Lighting 28 320w PS MH 130W LED fixture Gas pumping area 24 365 24 130 400W HPS 80W LED Pole lights 9 465 9 80 250W HPS 54W LED Wall packs 8 295 8 54 Side of building 26W PL CFL 9W LED PL (2 -> 1 confirmed, only one 42 27 21 9 LED in the duel bulb fixture) BR lamps PAR38 18W Top of entrance arch 1 65 1 18
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices were reviewed and agree to quantities of retrofit measures installed.
Appendix A 98 Page 102 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings T8/T5 to LED 40 40 59 36 8,760 5,249 9,098 1.13 173% 5.71 51,931 CFL to LED 7 7 15 9 8,760 240 415 1.13 173% 3.42 1,422 T8/T5 to LED 4 4 59 36 8,760 525 910 1.13 173% 5.71 5,193 T8/T5 to LED 3 3 59 36 8,760 394 682 1.13 173% 5.71 3,895 T8/T5 to LED 4 4 59 36 8,760 525 910 1.13 173% 5.71 5,193 T8/T5 to LED 1 1 59 36 8,760 131 227 1.13 173% 5.71 1,298 T8/T5 to LED 2 2 59 36 8,760 262 455 1.13 173% 5.71 2,597 CFL to LED 10 10 20 9 8,760 628 1,088 1.13 173% 3.42 3,725 MH to LED 24 24 365 130 4,313 24,252 24,324 1.00 100% 15.00 364,864 HPS to LED 9 9 465 80 4,313 14,900 14,944 1.00 100% 15.00 224,159 HPS to LED 8 8 295 54 4,313 8,290 8,315 1.00 100% 15.00 124,727 CFL to LED 42 21 27 9 4,313 4,064 4,076 1.00 100% 6.96 28,350 BR lamp to LED 1 1 65 18 4,313 202 203 1.00 100% 11.59 2,350 Refrigerated Case 28 28 85 24 8,760 10,500 20,947 1.40 199% 5.71 119,560 Lighting Total 70,162 86,594 123% 10.85 939,264
Results The project-level realization rate is 123%. The realization rate is high due ADM using the actual hours of operations verified on site instead of the prescriptive hours used in ex ante calculation.
Appendix A 99 Page 103 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site CT-Rose Salon Address 2660 E Sunset Road, Las Vegas, NV Project Number SB-17-07850
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07850, CT-Rose Salon received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (13) 100W incandescent recessed lights with 15W LED recessed down lights; (3) 250W halogen fixtures with 8W LED fixtures; (2) 75W incandescent, bug eye lamps with 18W PAR38 LED lamps; and (1) 250W halogen R7 lamp with (1) 36W LED wall pack fixture.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the lighting equipment and determined the control type to be photocells. The baseline equipment was verified through a thorough review of the submitted project documentation and an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on
Appendix A 100 Page 104 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
Incand. to LED 13 13 100 15 4,313 4,752 4,766 1.00 100% 8.12 38,675
Halogen to LED 3 3 250 8 4,313 3,122 3,131 1.00 100% 11.59 36,300
Incand. to LED 2 2 75 18 4,313 490 492 1.00 100% 5.80 2,850
Halogen to LED 1 1 250 36 4,313 920 923 1.00 100% 11.59 10,700
Total 9,284 9,311 100% 9.51 88,525
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies were found through ADM’s review of this project.
Appendix A 101 Page 105 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Nellis Air Force Base Address Nellis AFB, NV 89191 Project Number SB-17-07855
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07855, Nellis Air Force Base received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (150) 1000W high pressure sodium fixtures to 389W LED flood fixtures; and (388) 1000W high pressure sodium fixtures to 384W LED flood fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the lighting equipment and determined the lighting control type to be photocell. The baseline fixture types were verified through a review of the submitted project documentation and an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 102 Page 106 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
HPS to LED Flood 150 150 1,100 389 4,313 459,768 459,962 1.00 100% 15.00 6,899,428
HPS to LED Flood 388 388 1,100 384 4,313 1,197,630 1,198,135 1.00 100% 15.00 17,972,025
Total 1,657,398 1,658,097 100% 15.00 24,871,453
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%.
Appendix A 103 Page 107 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site M Resort Exterior, BOH, Guestrooms Address 12000 Las Vegas Blvd South MMA, Henderson NV Project Number SB-17-07856
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07856, M Resort received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 98%.
Project Description The project involved the following interior and exterior retrofits: Interior: Offices/Kitchen: (1000) 3L 32W T8 to (1000) 3L 14.5W LED Insantfit Hallways/Stairwells: (1500) 2L 32W T8 to (1500) 2L 14.5W LED Instantfit Event Room: (130) 50W MR16 to (130) 6.5W MR16 LED Guestrooms: (4030) 50W MR16 to (4030) 6.5W MR16 LED
Exterior: Pool: (202) 80W PAR38 Halogen to (202) 15W PAR38 2700K LED Porto cache: (50) 50W MR16 to (50) 6.5W MR16 LED Porto cache: (60) 80W PAR38 to (60) 15W PAR38 3000K LED
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices were reviewed and agree to quantities of retrofit measures installed.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings
Appendix A 104 Page 108 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T8 to 3L LED 1,000 1,000 89 50 3,432 153,187 153,042 1.13 100% 14.57 2,229,627
2L T8 to 2L LED 1,500 1,500 59 33 8,760 386,053 385,686 1.13 100% 5.71 2,201,404
MR16 to LED 130 130 50 7 3,000 19,340 19,152 1.13 99% 8.33 159,602
MR16 to LED 4,030 4,030 50 7 1,145 228,826 226,603 1.13 99% 15.00 3,399,039
Halogen to LED 202 202 80 15 4,313 63,962 56,627 1.00 89% 5.80 328,250
Halogen to LED 50 50 50 7 4,313 10,595 9,380 1.00 89% 11.59 108,750
Halogen to LED 60 60 80 15 4,313 18,999 16,820 1.00 89% 5.80 97,500
Total 880,962 867,310 98% 9.83 8,524,172
Results The project-level realization rate is 98%. The ex post savings are lower due to ADM calculating the actual heating and cooling interactive factors (HCIF) for each retrofit instead of using the slightly higher prescriptive interactive factors used in ex ante calculation.
Appendix A 105 Page 109 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Venetian - Meeting Rooms Address 3355 Las Vegas Blvd South Las Vegas, Nevada Project Number SB-17-07910
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07910, the Venetian received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 99%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (9,660) 15W incandescent lamps to 4.5W LED candelabra lamps.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the lighting equipment. An interview with the site contact was conducted to verify the lighting hours of operation and the heating and cooling equipment types. The operating hours for the meeting rooms vary from room to room. ADM was able to obtain event schedules from the site contact, but the issue is many of the lights can remain on for large portions of the day even if an event is not currently happening in these spaces. Therefore, ADM has accepted the claimed 12 hours a day from the ex ante estimate as it’s a reasonable approximation of what the equivalent full load hours might be for all the meeting rooms that were part of this project.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on
Appendix A 106 Page 110 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
Incand. to LED 9,660 9,660 15 5 4,380 506,460 501,540 1.13 99% 5.71 2,862,672
Total 506,460 501,540 99% 5.71 2,862,672
Results The project-level realization rate is 99%. The ex post energy savings are low due to ADM verifying a lower HCIF (1.13) than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate (1.14).
Appendix A 107 Page 111 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Venetian - Wall Washer LED Fixtures – Phase 2 Address 3355 Las Vegas Blvd South, Las Vegas, NV 89109 Project Number SB-17-07911
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07911, the Venetian Resort and Casino received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 73%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (125) 1500W metal halide fixtures to (82) 250W LED wall wash fixtures; (26) 1000W metal halide fixtures to (26) 250W LED wall wash fixtures; and (22) 1000W PAR64 incandescent fixtures to (4) 250W LED front feature fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the lighting equipment and determined the lighting operating schedule. The fixtures were verified to operate from dusk to 2:00AM on the weekdays and till 4:00AM on the weekends. ADM found four fewer fixtures installed on-site than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate, the baseline quantity remains the same as only four were needed in an area they planned on installing eight fixtures in.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
Appendix A 108 Page 112 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Wattage Expected Realized (Fixtures) Realization Lifetime Measure Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 125 82 1,610 250 3,156 779,575 570,396 1.00 73% 15.00 8,555,937
MH to LED 26 26 1,080 250 3,156 93,075 68,100 1.00 73% 15.00 1,021,505 Incand to LED 22 4 1,000 250 3,156 86,260 66,270 1.00 77% 15.00 994,051 Total 958,909 704,766 73% 15.00 10,571,493
Results The project-level realization rate is 73%. The ex post energy savings are low due to ADM verifying lower operating hours than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate. The ex ante estimate claimed all the fixtures operate on a dusk-to-dawn schedule, but it was found that they are really controlled from dusk to 2:00AM on the weekdays and dusk to 4:00AM on the weekends.
Appendix A 109 Page 113 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Tahiti Tropicana Address 5101 West Tropicana Avenue, Las Vegas. NV 89103 Project Number SB-17-07944
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07944, Tahiti Tropicana received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 106%.
Project Description The project involved the following interior and exterior retrofits: Interior (332) 2 x 13W GX23 Quad CFL (28W /fix) to 16W 6’ LED Panels in the hotel room hallway can fixtures (191) 18W 2-pin CFL to 6W 2-pin LED in wall sconces. (11) 23W CFL PAR 30 to 11W PAR30 LED in the spot lights (46) 2-2’ U-tube T8 to (24) 40W 2x2 LED panels behind the counter offices and the 2nd floor accounting and manager offices. (12) 3L T8 to 3L 17W LED in the elevators (44) 2L T8 to 2L 17W LED where found in the stairwells, restrooms and BOH offices. Ballasts were removed from the fixtures (10) 250W JD Halogen to 16W 6’ LED Panel at the center ceiling of the hotel lobby. Exterior (10) 100W Halogen to 24W Cob LED porto cochere (26) 70W HPS to 24W Cob LED in the covered car ports (54) 250W HID to 45W LED wall packs on the building exterior. (9) 400W MH to 150W LED in parking lot pole lights (18) 100W Mercury Vapors HID to 11W A19 in the new bollards by the pool
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices were reviewed and agree to quantities of retrofit measures installed.
Appendix A 110 Page 114 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
CFL to LED 332 332 28 16 8,760 39,586 39,399 1.13 100% 5.71 224,882
CFL to LED 191 191 20 8 8,760 22,774 22,666 1.13 100% 5.71 129,375
CFL to LED 11 11 23 11 8,760 1,312 1,305 1.13 100% 5.71 7,451
2L Fluorescent to LED 46 24 59 40 8,760 5,719 17,346 1.13 303% 5.71 99,007
3L Fluorescent to LED 12 12 89 51 8,760 4,531 4,510 1.13 100% 5.71 25,739
2L Fluorescent to LED 44 44 59 34 8,760 10,930 10,878 1.13 100% 5.71 62,091
Halogen to LED 10 10 250 16 8,760 23,251 23,141 1.13 100% 5.71 132,084
Halogen to LED 10 10 100 24 4,313 3,268 3,278 1.00 100% 11.59 38,000
HPS to LED 26 26 95 24 4,313 7,938 7,961 1.00 100% 11.59 92,300
HPS to LED 54 54 295 45 4,313 58,050 58,223 1.00 100% 11.59 675,000 MV Bollards Lights to 18 18 125 11 4,313 8,824 8,850 1.00 100% 4.64 41,040 LED Pole light to LED 9 9 458 150 4,313 11,920 11,955 1.00 100% 11.59 138,600 Total 198,102 209,513 106% 7.95 1,665,569
Results The project-level realization rate is 106%. The realization rate is high due to ADM using the actual hours of operations instead of the prescriptive hours used in ex ante calculation. Also, it appears that the ex ante calculation used lower hours of operation for the (24) 40W 2x2 LED panels
Appendix A 111 Page 115 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 retrofitted behind the counter offices and the 2nd floor accounting and manager offices. ADM used the actual hours verified onsite.
Appendix A 112 Page 116 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Stonegate Apartment Address 5075 Spyglass Hill Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89142 Project Number SB-17-07958
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07958, Stonegate Apartment received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 94%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (33) 65W BR30 incandescent lamps to 11W BR30 LED lamps in clubhouse and offices (6) 1000W metal halide fixtures to 54W LED corn lights in the tennis court pole lights (16) 65W PAR30 incandescent lamps to 11W BR30 LED lamps at the main entrance of the apartments (25) 500W quartz fixtures to 20W LED wallpacks found at various locations; carports, storages, and exterior (25) 250W quartz fixtures to 20W LED wallpacks found at various locations; carports, storages, and exterior (50) 70W high pressure sodium fixtures to 20W LED wallpacks found at various locations; carports, storages, and exterior (50) 65W CFL fixtures to 20W LED wallpacks found at various locations; carports, storages, and exterior (150) 1L 4ft T12 fixtures to (150) 17W LED tube fixtures located at both sides of the apartment complex
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices were reviewed and agree to quantities of retrofit measures installed.
Appendix A 113 Page 117 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
BR30 to LED 33 33 65 11 3,964 17,707 7,975 1.13 45% 6.31 50,294
MH to Corn LED 6 6 1,080 54 4,313 26,471 26,550 1.00 100% 11.59 307,800
PAR30 to LED 16 16 65 11 4,313 3,715 3,726 1.00 100% 5.80 21,600
Quartz to LED 25 25 500 20 4,313 51,600 51,754 1.00 100% 11.59 600,000
Quartz to LED 25 25 250 20 4,313 24,725 24,799 1.00 100% 11.59 287,500
HPS to LED 50 50 95 20 4,313 16,125 16,173 1.00 100% 11.59 187,500
CFL to LED 50 50 65 20 4,313 9,675 9,704 1.00 100% 11.59 112,500
T12 to LED 150 150 31 17 4,313 9,030 9,057 1.00 100% 11.59 105,000
Total 159,048 149,737 94% 11.17 1,672,194
Results The project-level realization rate is 94%. This realization rate is below 100% because the ex ante calculation used prescriptive hours while the ex post used verified operational hours for the interior fixtures. For the exterior line items, there were no discrepancies.
Appendix A 114 Page 118 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Weingarten Realty Management Co. Address 4916 S Fort Apache Road, Las Vegas, NV 89147 Project Number SB-17-07959
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07959, Weingarten Realty Management Co. received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted (84) 1000W metal halide fixtures to (91) 215W LED fixtures in parking lot pole mounted lights.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the new lighting equipment and determined the lighting control type to be photocells. The total quantities and fixture types were verified on-site, as well as the baseline fixture type since nearby pole mounted fixtures in a different parking lot had not been replaced but were the same fixture type.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state
Appendix A 115 Page 119 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 84 91 1,080 215 4,313 305,967 306,878 1.00 100% 15.00 4,603,177
Total 305,967 306,878 100% 15.00 4,603,177
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies were found in the ex ante estimate through ADM’s review of this project.
Appendix A 116 Page 120 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site CVS Pharmacy Inc. Address 5681 Boulder Highway, Las Vegas, NV 89122 Project Number SB-17-07997
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07997, CVS Pharmacy Inc. received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 104%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (25) 4’ 2-lamp T8 fixtures to 4’ 1-lamp 18W LED fixtures; (20) 4’ 1-lamp T8 fixtures to 4’ 1-lamp 18W LED fixtures; (22) 4’ 2-lamp T8 fixtures to 4’ 2-lamp 18W LED fixtures; (16) 4’ 3-lamp T8 fixtures to 4’ 2-lamp 18W LED fixtures; (227) 4’ 4-lamp T8 fixtures to 4’ 2-lamp 18W LED fixtures; and (14) 5’ 1-lamp T8 fixtures to 5’ LED strip fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. The baseline fixture type for the refrigerated cases was not able to be verified on-site so ADM determined the most appropriate baseline fixture type for this measure. These refrigerated case lights have a higher HCIF associated with them since the space they are in is refrigerated. In addition, ADM verified an additional five 1-lamp LED tube fixtures were retrofitted on-site compared to what was claimed in the ex ante estimate.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture
Appendix A 117 Page 121 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Hour Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) kWh kWh HCIF EUL s Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings 4' 2L T8 to 4' 1L 25 25 59 18 5,384 5,849 6,230 1.13 107% 9.29 57,857 LED 4' 1L T8 to 4' 1L 20 20 31 18 5,384 1,484 1,975 1.13 133% 9.29 14,676 LED 4' 2L T8 to 4' 2L 22 22 59 36 5,384 2,887 3,075 1.13 107% 9.29 28,562 LED 4' 3L T8 to 4' 2L 16 16 89 36 5,384 4,839 5,154 1.13 107% 9.29 47,866 LED 4' 4L T8 to 4' 2L 227 227 112 36 5,384 98,439 104,855 1.13 107% 9.29 973,811 LED
5' 1L T8 to LED Strip 14 14 36 20 5,384 5,250 1,688 1.40 32% 9.29 15,456
Total 118,747 122,978 104% 9.29 1,142,121
Results The project-level realization rate is 104%. The realization rate is higher than 100% due to ADM using the actual hours of operation instead of prescriptive hours used in the ex ante calculation. ADM also calculated higher savings associated with the retrofitted refrigerated case lighting due to a higher HCIF for those fixtures.
Appendix A 118 Page 122 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site The Kroger Co. Address 2255 E. Centennial Parkway, North Las Vegas, NV 89081 Project Number SB-17-08002
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08002, The Kroger Co. received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at a grocery store. The realization rate for this project is 88%.
Project Description The Kroger Co. retrofitted: (127) 4’ 3L T8 fixtures to 4’ 3L LED fixtures; (99) 4’ 2L T8 fixtures to 4’ 2L LED fixtures; (16) 4’ 4L T8 fixtures to 4’ 4L LED fixtures; (12) 4’ 1L T8 fixtures to 4’ 1L LED fixtures; (572) 8’ 2L T8 fixtures to 8’ 2L LED fixtures; and (26) 8’ 1L T8 fixtures to 8’ 1L LED fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the initial M&V visit, ADM staff verified the equipment installation and determined the general lighting operating schedule. It was found that the main sales floor has daylighting controls, and the offices/back areas are controlled by occupancy sensors. A third of the main sales floor, daylighting controlled, fixtures were verified to have a setback to operate overnight. The rest of the main sales floor fixtures turn off overnight. These controls were an unexpected finding and our field staff was not equipped with monitoring devices, therefore another site visit was conducted at a later date to install monitoring equipment. The monitored data verified the lighting hours of operation for the fixtures involved in this project. The invoices and cut sheets were reviewed to verify the total quantity and wattage of the installed LEDs. The location of the fixture types, and the schedule each fixture is on, was verified on-site and through a review of the project documentation, including a supporting document with locations of each fixture type.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
Appendix A 119 Page 123 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
4' 3L T8 to 4' 3L LED 110 110 89 51 5,475 - 25,836 1.13 - 9.13 235,945
4' 2L T8 to 4' 2L LED 99 99 59 34 5,475 - 15,298 1.13 - 9.13 139,704
4' 4L T8 to 4' 4L LED 16 16 112 68 5,475 - 4,351 1.13 - 9.13 39,738
4' 1L T8 to 4' 1L LED 12 12 31 17 5,475 - 1,038 1.13 - 9.13 9,483
8' 2L T8 to 8' 2L LED 358 358 109 82 3,686 - 40,217 1.13 - 13.57 545,602
8' 1L T8 to 8' 1L LED 26 26 58 41 5,475 - 2,732 1.13 - 9.13 24,949
8' 2L T8 to 8' 2L LED 179 179 109 82 7,948 - 43,365 1.13 - 6.29 272,800
4' 3L T8 to 4' 3L LED 17 17 89 51 3,832 - 2,795 1.13 - 13.05 36,464
8' 2L T8 to 8' 2L LED 30 30 109 82 3,832 - 3,505 1.13 - 13.05 45,721
Total 158,335 139,137 88% 9.71 1,350,407
Results The project-level realization rate is 88%. The realization rate is low due to on-site monitoring verifying overall lower operating hours than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate. This is somewhat due to the facility having pre-existing daylighting controls and occupancy sensors – which lowered the baseline and post operating hours – but it’s more due to the ex ante estimates use of prescriptive hours, which was found to be an overestimation through on-site monitoring.
Appendix A 120 Page 124 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site The Kroger Co. Address 4700 Ann Rd, North Las Vegas, NV 89031 Project Number SB-17-08005
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08005, The Kroger Co. received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 89%.
Project Description The Kroger Co. retrofitted: (62) 4’ 6L T8 fixtures to 4’ 6L LED fixtures on the main sales floor; (120) 4’ 3L T8 fixtures to 4’ 3L LED fixtures in the entrance, backroom, and bakery; (100) 4’ 2L T8 fixtures to 4’ 2L LED fixtures in the perimeter; (5) 4’ 1L T8 fixtures to 4’ 1L LED fixtures in the perimeter; (16) 4’ 4L T8 fixtures to 4’ 4L LED fixtures over the coffin refrigerators; and (320) 8’ 2L T8 fixtures to 8’ 2L LED fixtures on the main sales floor and back hallways. Measurement and Verification Effort During the initial M&V visit, ADM staff verified the equipment installation and found many of the fixtures are controlled by pre-existing daylighting controls or occupancy sensors. As this was an unexpected finding no monitoring equipment was brought on-site, therefore a second site visit occurred at a later date to installed monitoring equipment in the panel. Two separate Kroger stores were monitored and the results were combined to generate overall operating hours for the various space types in these facilities. The results were combined as the stores are very similar in setup and usage, meaning it’s expected they would operate in the same manner. The perimeter areas around the main sales floor were found to operate on the stores open hours, and a third of the main sales floor fixtures were verified to have a setback to operate overnight with daylighting controls that reduce usage midday when ambient light is at its highest. The other two-thirds of the fixtures on the main sales floor have daylighting controls during the day and are turned off overnight. The back areas of the facility are all controlled by occupancy sensors. The invoices and fixture specification sheets were reviewed to verify the total quantity and wattage of the installed fixtures.
Appendix A 121 Page 125 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
4' 6L T8 to 4' 6L LED 41 41 175 102 3,677 - 12,422 1.13 13.60 168,941
4' 3L T8 to 4' 3L LED 95 95 89 51 5,475 - 22,313 1.13 9.13 203,771
4' 2L T8 to 4' 2L LED 100 100 59 34 5,475 - 15,452 1.13 9.13 141,116
4' 1L T8 to 4' 1L LED 5 5 31 17 5,475 - 433 1.13 9.13 3,951
4' 4L T8 to 4' 4L LED 16 16 112 68 5,475 - 4,351 1.13 9.13 39,738
8' 2L T8 to 8' 2L LED 188 188 109 82 3,677 - 21,068 1.13 13.60 286,517
4' 6L T8 to 4' 6L LED 21 21 175 102 7,948 - 13,755 1.13 6.29 86,530
8' 2L T8 to 8' 2L LED 107 107 109 82 7,948 - 25,922 1.13 6.29 163,070
4' 3L T8 to 4' 3L LED 25 25 89 51 3,832 - 4,110 1.13 13.05 53,624
8' 2L T8 to 8' 2L LED 25 25 109 82 3,832 - 2,920 1.13 13.05 38,101
Total 138,204 122,747 89% 9.66 1,185,360
Results The project-level realization rate is 89%. The ex post energy savings are low due to on-site monitoring verifying lower operating hours than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate. This
Appendix A 122 Page 126 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 is partly due to our visit finding the fixtures on the main sales floor have pre-existing daylighting controls, and the fixtures in the back areas are controlled by pre-existing occupancy sensors, but it’s mainly due to the ex ante estimate using prescriptive hours that overestimated the overall baseline operating hours for this facility.
Appendix A 123 Page 127 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site City Express Address 4730 W Cheyenne Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89032 Project Number SB-17-08032
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08032, City Express received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 98%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (1) U-tube 2L 32W T8 fixture to a U-tube 2L 18W LED fixtures; (10) 2L 4ft T12 fixtures to 2L 4ft 18W LED tube fixtures; (8) 15W CFL lamps to 9W A19 LED lamps; (3) 1L 4ft T12 fixtures to (1) 2x2 40W LED flat panel fixtures; (64) 1L 4ft T12 fixtures to (35) 2x4 50W LED flat panel fixtures; (2) 1L 2ft 20W T8 fixtures to 2ft 10W LED tube fixtures; (8) 18W CFLs to 9W LED PL lamps; (16) 320W pulse start metal halide fixtures to 150W LED canopy fixtures; (5) 400W metal halide fixtures to 80W LED fixtures; (58) 2L 4ft T12 fixtures to 2L 4ft 18W LED tube fixtures; (5) 2L 2ft T12 fixtures to 2L 2ft 10W LED tube fixtures; (1) 2L 3ft T12 fixture to a 2L 3ft 14W LED tube fixture; and (8) 70W PAR38 fixtures to 18W PAR38 LED fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the new lighting equipment and determined the fixture control types. The exterior fixtures are controlled by a timer that is adjusted for dusk and dawn times throughout the year. The interior fixtures all operate twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. ADM also verified one additional 50W LED 2x4 fixture, and two fewer 9W LED lamps, then what was claimed in the ex ante estimate.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as:
Appendix A 124 Page 128 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
U-tube to LED 1 1 59 18 8,760 - 405 1.13 - 4.57 1,851
2L T12 to LED 10 10 60 18 8,760 - 4,154 1.13 - 5.71 23,707
CFL to LED 6 6 15 9 8,760 - 404 1.28 - 3.42 1,383
1L T12 to 2x2 LED 3 1 32 40 8,760 - 554 1.13 - 5.71 3,161
1L T12 to 2x4 LED 64 35 32 50 8,760 - 2,947 1.13 - 5.71 16,821
T8 to LED 2 2 28 10 8,760 - 356 1.13 - 5.71 2,032
CFL PL to LED 8 8 18 9 8,760 - 712 1.13 - 3.42 2,438
PS MH to LED 16 16 365 150 4,313 - 14,836 1.00 - 15.00 222,541
MH to LED 5 5 458 80 4,313 - 8,151 1.00 - 15.00 122,268
2L T12 to LED 58 58 60 18 4,313 - 10,506 1.00 - 11.59 121,800
2' T12 to LED 5 5 31 10 4,313 - 453 1.00 - 11.59 5,250
3' T12 to LED 1 1 58 14 4,313 - 190 1.00 - 11.59 2,200
PAR38 to LED 8 8 70 18 4,313 - 1,794 1.00 - 5.80 10,400
Total 46,426 45,462 98% 11.79 535,854
Appendix A 125 Page 129 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Results The project-level realization rate is 98%. The ex post energy savings are low due to ADM verifying a lower total change in connected load than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate. This was due to ADM verifying two fewer fixtures in the walk-in refrigerators, as well as one additional LED troffer installed, then what was claimed. The verified operating hours and fixture wattages were generally consistent with what was claimed in the ex ante estimate. There was one baseline fixture type, a 3’ 2-lamp T12, that was adjusted to an equivalent T8 baseline fixture in the ex ante estimate. ADM adjusted the wattage back to a T12 as this fixture type was not included in the DOE phase out.
Appendix A 126 Page 130 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Caesars Entertainment Corporation Address 3665 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, NV 89109 Project Number SB-17-08033
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08033, Caesars Entertainment Corporation received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 92%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (4,113) 4’ 2-lamp T8 fixtures to 4’ 2-lamp 12W LED tube fixtures; (866) 4’ 3-lamp T8 fixtures to 4’ 3-lamp 12W LED tube fixtures; (750) 4’ 2-lamp T8 fixtures to 4’ 2-lamp 10W LED tube fixtures; and (1,941) 4’ 2-lamp T8 fixtures to 4’ 2-lamp 15.5W LED tube fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the new LEDs and determined the lighting operating schedule. There were some baseline fixtures still in storage at the facility. The lamps that were in storage were 25W T8s, while the ex ante estimate claimed all the baseline lamps to be 32W T8. There was also a pile of ballasts on site, all the ones verified on site were compatible with 25W or 32W T8 lamps. The issue here is that if a significant percentage of baseline lamps were 25W then that would create a large reduction in the total energy savings associated with this project. Due to the uncertainty in the percentage of baseline 25W vs 32W lamps I adjusted the baseline lamps so approximately 10% of the fixtures have 25W lamps. This should be a conservative estimate.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures
Appendix A 127 Page 131 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
4,11 4' 2L T8 to 4' 2L 12W LED 4,113 59 33 8,760 1,058,558 1,057,551 1.13 100% 5.71 6,036,249 3
4' 3L T8 to 4' 3L 12W LED 866 866 89 48 8,760 352,324 351,989 1.13 100% 5.71 2,009,069
4' 2L T8 to 4' 2L 10W LED 750 750 39 26 8,760 244,995 96,421 1.13 39% 5.71 550,351
4' 2L T8 to 4' 2L 15.5W 1,94 1,941 59 41 8,760 306,057 306,057 1.00 100% 5.71 1,746,900 LED 1 Total 1,961,934 1,812,018 92% 5.71 10,342,569
Results The project-level realization rate is 92%. The ex post energy savings are low due to our on-site verification finding that some portion of the baseline lamps were 25W while the ex ante estimate claimed all the baseline lamps to be 32W. While it’s unknown the exact percentage of baseline lamps that were 25W vs 32W, I applied approximately 10% of the fixtures to have 25W lamps, which is a conservative estimate. It’s very likely a much larger percentage of the baseline lamps were 25W.
Appendix A 128 Page 132 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Treasure Island Hotel & Casino Address 3300 S Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89109 Project Number SB-17-08035
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08035, Treasure Island Hotel & Casino received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting retrofit project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 97%. Project Description The customer retrofitted various incandescent lamps and fluorescent fixtures throughout the facility. Most of the lighting operates 24/7/365. The full scope of the project is detailed in the table on the following page. Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified retrofit lighting installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. The lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Due to the large quantities of fixtures on this project, ADM verified the existence of each fixture type on site and verified the count through a detailed review of invoices. Invoices agree to quantities of the retrofit measures installed.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 129 Page 133 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings 75W A19 to LED A19 62 62 53 7 8,760 28,231 28,205 1.13 100% 5.00 141,023 60W A19 to LED A19 180 180 43 7 8,760 64,144 64,083 1.13 100% 5.00 320,416 40W A19 to LED A19 426 426 29 7 8,760 92,772 92,683 1.13 100% 5.00 463,417 75W A19 to LED A19 77 77 53 10 8,760 32,775 32,744 1.13 100% 5.00 163,719 60W A19 to LED A19 90 90 43 10 8,760 29,399 29,371 1.13 100% 5.00 146,857 65W BR30 to LED BR30 132 132 65 10 8,318 68,236 68,171 1.13 100% 5.00 340,854 60W PAR20 to LED PAR20 66 66 60 10 8,760 32,666 32,635 1.13 100% 5.00 163,175 50W PAR20 to LED PAR20 28 28 50 10 8,760 11,087 11,076 1.13 100% 5.00 55,381 75W BR30 to LED BR30 32 32 75 12 8,760 19,956 19,937 1.13 100% 5.00 99,685 100W BR40 to LED BR40 49 49 100 12 8,760 42,684 42,643 1.13 100% 5.00 213,215 100W PAR30 to LED PAR 30 7 7 100 12 8,760 6,098 6,092 1.13 100% 5.00 30,459 75W PAR30 to LED PAR 30 324 324 75 12 8,242 190,102 189,921 1.13 100% 5.00 949,603 65W PAR30 to LED PAR 30 30 30 65 12 8,760 15,739 15,724 1.13 100% 5.00 78,621 60W PAR30 to LED PAR 30 127 127 60 12 8,760 60,343 60,286 1.13 100% 5.00 301,428 100W A21* to LED A21 96 96 72 13 8,760 82,675 56,013 1.13 68% 5.00 280,067 75W A21* to LED A21 36 36 53 13 8,760 22,094 14,241 1.13 64% 5.00 71,204 60W A21* to LED A21 2 2 43 13 8,760 930 593 1.13 64% 5.00 2,967 300W A21 to LED A21 74 74 300 16 8,760 208,033 207,835 1.13 100% 5.00 1,039,176 200W A21 to LED A21 48 48 200 16 8,760 87,426 87,343 1.13 100% 5.00 436,715 150W A21 to LED A21 206 206 150 16 8,760 273,246 272,987 1.13 100% 5.00 1,364,933 100W A21* to LED A21 188 188 72 16 8,760 156,322 104,115 1.13 67% 5.00 520,577 75W A21* to LED A21 29 29 53 16 8,760 16,937 10,611 1.13 63% 5.00 53,057 40W A21* to LED A21 32 32 29 16 8,760 7,602 4,114 1.13 54% 5.00 20,570 100W PAR 38 to LED PAR38 82 82 100 14 8,760 69,806 69,740 1.13 100% 5.00 348,700 65W PAR 38 to LED PAR38 90 90 65 14 7,957 41,271 41,231 1.13 100% 5.00 206,157 60W PAR 38 to LED PAR38 19 19 60 14 8,760 8,652 8,643 1.13 100% 5.00 43,217 250W PAR 38 to LED PAR38 57 25 250 17 8,760 136,851 136,721 1.13 100% 5.00 683,604 28W T8 to LED Tube 283 283 31 17 8,760 37,818 38,062 1.13 101% 5.00 190,311 50W E12/26 to LED E12/26 (DECO LAMPS) 190 190 50 4 8,760 86,516 86,433 1.13 100% 5.00 432,166 25W E12/26 to LED E12/26 (DECO LAMPS) 553 553 25 4 8,760 114,955 114,845 1.13 100% 5.00 574,227 15W E12/26 to LED E12/26 (DECO LAMPS) 100 100 15 4 8,760 10,889 10,878 1.13 100% 5.00 54,392 60W E12 to LED E12 (DECO LAMPS) 30 30 60 5 8,760 16,333 16,317 1.13 100% 5.00 81,587 25W E12 to LED E12 (DECO LAMPS) 30 30 25 5 8,760 5,939 5,934 1.13 100% 5.00 29,668 40W G25 to LED G25 105 105 40 5 8,760 36,378 36,343 1.13 100% 5.00 181,717 71W MR16 to LED MR16 94 94 71 5 8,760 61,412 61,354 1.13 100% 5.00 306,769 50W MR16 to LED MR16 684 684 50 5 8,537 296,936 296,654 1.13 100% 5.00 1,483,268 20W MR16 to LED MR16 1,247 1,247 20 5 8,552 180,764 180,592 1.13 100% 5.00 902,962 71W MR16 to LED MR16 560 560 71 7 8,760 354,773 354,435 1.13 100% 5.00 1,772,177 50W MR16 to LED MR16 390 390 50 7 8,115 153,783 153,637 1.13 100% 5.00 768,185 35W MR16 to LED MR16 6 6 35 7 8,760 1,663 1,661 1.13 100% 5.00 8,307 20W MR16 to LED MR16 43 43 20 7 8,760 5,533 5,528 1.13 100% 5.00 27,641 75W R20 to LED R20 294 294 75 8 8,760 194,987 194,801 1.13 100% 5.00 974,005 50W R20 to LED R20 166 166 50 8 8,760 69,014 68,949 1.13 100% 5.00 344,744 Total 3,433,771 3,334,184 97% 5.00 16,670,922 * These lamps do not comply with EISA 2007 requirements; thus, the baseline wattage was adjusted to account for the increased efficiency standards
Appendix A 130 Page 134 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown above presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Note that the non-8,760 hours in the table are weighted averages.
Results The project-level realization rate is 97%. ADM adjusted the claimed baseline wattage for six line items as those lamps have been phased out as part of EISA 2007. This change had an impact of approximately 3% on the site level savings. Claimed fixture counts and hours of operation were verified to be accurate.
Appendix A 131 Page 135 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site State of NV Florence McClure Women’s Correctional Address 4370 Smiley Rd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89115 Project Number SB-17-08063
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08063, The State of Nevada received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at the Florence McClure Women’s Correctional Facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (35) 400W metal halide wall pack to (35) 104W LED wall pack
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM staff conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation and confirmed the equipment installation. ADM determined the lighting operating schedule as dusk to dawn (4,313). The following equation was used to calculate the annual energy savings from the retrofit:
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 132 Page 136 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 35 35 458 104 4,313 53,277 53,436 1.00 100% 15.00 801,537
Total 53,277 53,436 100% 15.00 801,537
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. ADM found the fixture quantities, wattages, and HOU to be same as claimed in the ex ante estimates.
Appendix A 133 Page 137 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Nova Geotechnical Address 4480 W Hacienda Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89118 Project Number SB-17-08106
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08106, Nova Geotechnical received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting retrofit conducted throughout their office. The realization rate for this project is 173%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (15) 4’ 4-lamp T8 fixtures to 2x2 LED troffer fixtures; and (6) Incandescent exit signs to LED exit signs.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the equipment installation. The facility’s lighting hours of operation were verified through an interview with the site contact. The hallways were verified to operate 24/7 while the other fixtures in the office operate on a shorter schedule. The invoices and fixture specification sheets were reviewed to verify the fixture wattage and quantities.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 134 Page 138 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Realized Wattage Expected Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh HCIF EUL kWh Savings Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings 4-4' T8 to 2x2 LED 6 6 112 24 2,250 - 1,349 1.13 15.00 20,239 LED Exit Sign 6 6 25 2 8,760 - 1,365 1.13 5.71 7,790 4-4' T8 to 2x2 LED 9 9 112 24 8,760 - 7,852 1.13 5.71 44,817 Total 6,120 10,566 173% 6.89 72,846
Results The project-level realization rate is 173%. The ex post energy savings are higher due to ADM verifying higher operating hours than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate. ADM used custom hours based on an interview with facility staff instead of prescriptive hours used in the ex ante estimates. Through the interview, it was determined that the fixtures in the hallways operate 24/7 (8,760 hr/yr), while the remaining fixtures operate during normal office hours (2,250 hr/yr).
Appendix A 135 Page 139 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Clearwater Paper Address 3901 N. Donna Street, North Las Vegas, NV Project Number SB-17-08115
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08115, Clearwater Paper received incentives from NV Energy for replacing incorrectly sized vacuum pumps and adding additional piping to allow for all vacuum pumps to operate off a common header. The realization rate for this project is 101%.
Project Description Clearwater Paper reconfigured their vacuum system piping to allow for more efficient pump operation, and to allow them to replace an oversized pump with a more properly sized unit. The vacuum pumps are used in the production of the facility’s paper products and the baseline configuration required the operation of four vacuum pumps with a total rated power consumption of 2,055 kW. With the new piping reconfiguration, one pump (Pump #4) was removed from the system, and a new pump (Pump #5) was installed. With the new configuration, the total rated operating power was 1,811 kW.
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM staff reviewed a pre-construction checklist for this project, prior to the measure being fully implemented. Through the pre-construction process, ADM had discussions with the implementation contractor, as well as the design and installation contractor. The purpose of these discussions was to identify the full scope of the project and to collaborate on data collection requirements. Additionally, after the project was completed, ADM conducted an onsite visit to verify the changes to the vacuum system had been installed.
Appendix A 136 Page 140 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
To calculate ex post energy savings, ADM analyzed baseline and post installation monitoring data provided by the installation contractor. Baseline amp measurements were taken on the existing vacuum pumps, with data being collected from May 2016 to May 2017. Daily production data was also collected during this period. Similar amp measurements were taken on the vacuum pumps after the measures were implemented, with data being collected over a 1-month period, from September to October 2017. ADM analyzed the provided data to determine average kWh/ton during both the baseline and post implementation periods. The baseline data was trimmed to exclude any dates with production values that were far outside the range collected during the post production period. This trimming ensures that baseline and post data are compared using similar (typical) production days. A comparison of baseline and post period kWh/ton values as a function of production level is shown below.
Baseline and Post kWh/ton vs. Production The annual savings for the project were calculated by taking the difference in average kWh/ton and multiplying by a typical annual production level.
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates by Measure
Ex Post Lifetime Ex Ante Savings Realization Measure Type Savings EUL Savings (kWh/yr) Rate (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) Vacuum System Upgrades 1,902,746 1,921,908 101% 15 28,828,627 Totals 1,902,746 1,921,908 101% 15 28,828,627
The realization rate for this project is 101%. The slight difference between ex ante and ex post savings is due to small differences in the analyses used. Both the ex ante and ex post used similar approaches and data sets to determine savings estimates, resulting in nearly the same savings.
Appendix A 137 Page 141 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Westgate Las Vegas Address 3000 Paradise Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 Project Number SB-16-07106
Executive Summary Under project SB-16-07106, Westgate Las Vegas received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 81%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (1,387) 2L 4’ T8 fixtures to (1,387) Everline 2L 4’ LED (1,613) 2L 4’ T8 fixtures to (1,613) Everline 1L 4’ LED
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. The lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Fixture model numbers were confirmed on site. The count of fixtures that went from 2L to 1L vs. the fixtures that went 2L to 2L could not be verified but was determined to be reasonable.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 138 Page 142 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T8 to LED 1,387 1,387 59 43 8,760 - 219,465 1.13 15.00 3,291,978
T8 to LED 1,613 1,613 59 22 8,760 - 598,184 1.13 15.00 8,972,761
Total 1,012,498 817,649 81% 15.00 12,264,739
Results The project-level realization rate is 81%. ADM verified that the installed fixtures installed do not match the claimed wattage. The ex ante calculation claimed 28W for the two-lamp kit, and 14W for the one lamp kit. ADM verified 43W for the two-lamp kit, and 21.5W for the one lamp kit. All other inputs to the savings calculation were verified to be accurate. This discrepancy gives a realization rate of 81%
Appendix A 139 Page 143 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Clark County Department of Aviation Address 3500 Executive Terminal Dr., Henderson, NV 89052 Project Number SB-17-08119
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08119, Clark County Department of Aviation received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted (8) 1000W metal halide fixtures to 388W LED fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the wattage and quantity of the fixtures installed through this project. The fixtures were verified to be controlled by a photocell and they operate on a dusk-to-dawn schedule.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 140 Page 144 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 8 8 1,080 388 4,313 23,805 23,876 1.00 100% 11.59 276,800
Total 23,805 23,876 100% 11.59 276,800
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%.
Appendix A 141 Page 145 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Clark County Department of Aviation Address 5757 Wayne Newton Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89119 Project Number SB-17-08127
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08127, Clark County Department of Aviation received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 99%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (140) 400W metal halide fixtures to 135W LED fixtures, and (105) 250W metal halide fixtures to 90W LED fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the quantity and wattage of the installed fixtures. The baseline fixture types were verified through a review of the submitted project documentation. While on site, the fixtures were verified to operate on a 24/7 schedule.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 142 Page 146 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 140 140 458 135 8,760 451,585 447,198 1.13 99% 5.71 2,552,500
MH to LED 105 105 295 95 8,760 209,714 207,677 1.13 99% 5.71 1,185,371
Total 661,299 654,875 99% 5.71 3,737,871
Results The project-level realization rate is 99%. The ex post energy savings are lower due to ADM’s calculation using a lower HCIF (1.13) than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate (1.14).
Appendix A 143 Page 147 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site St. Rose Skilled Nursing Address Ione Street, Henderson, NV 89123 Project Number SB-17-08128
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08128, St. Rose Skilled Nursing received incentives from NV Energy for a newly constructed nursing center in Las Vegas. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The building is new construction and includes various building energy efficiency measures that provide energy savings beyond the code requirements. They are outlined below: Glazing and Envelope Built-up roof with wood joists with cavity insulation value of R38 (U-0.027 Btu/h-ft2-oF) Wood-Framed exterior wall with cavity insulation value of R21 (U-0.062 Btu/h-ft2-oF) with 16” O.C. Window Low-E IG glazing, U-value of 0.28, Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) or 0.22 Visible Transmittance (VT) of 0.16, and Condensation Resistance (CR) of 59 Storefront entrance door Low-E glazing, U-value of 0.28, Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) or 0.22 Visible Transmittance (VT) of 0.16, and Condensation Resistance (CR) of 59 Mechanical Design The building is conditioned with a packaged-terminal heap pump (PTHP) system in the living quarters and a packaged rooftop (RTU) for lobby and common areas. AAON, Energy Recovery Rooftop Units (ERUs), provide dedicated outdoor air ventilation to the living quarters and corridor areas. These units have DX cooling and heating coils and variable frequency drive (VFD) fans. The vestibule is conditioned with a split heat pump unit and the mechanical and electrical rooms are conditioned with split ductless systems.
Appendix A 144 Page 148 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Interior Lighting Lighting consists of energy efficiency lighting fixtures. In the model, the lighting power densities (LPD) calculations were based on the as-built drawings, actual installation. As-designed LPDs of 0.43 W/sqft2 were determined using the building area method.
Measurement and Verification Effort OpenStudio model files of the building were provided and whole building savings (minus the kitchen savings) were determined through a desk review of the files. A graph of the OpenStudio model baseline and as-built end use kWh outputs can be seen below: Baseline vs As-Built Model vs Billed 2017 End Use kWh
Appendix A 145 Page 149 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Additionally, baseline and as-built model’s individual end uses were examined to ensure the outputs matched expectations. Baseline and as-built energy usage and savings categorized by end use are summarized in the following table: Baseline and As-Built End Use Energy
The provided OpenStudio model’s baseline and as-built energy usage and savings categorized by end use are summarized in the following table:
Appendix A 146 Page 150 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Baseline and As-Built Monthly End Use Summary
End Use Baseline As-Built Savings Heating 0 87 -87 Cooling 189,214 88,810 100,404 Interior Lighting 96,647 47,768 48,879 Exterior Lighting 0 0 0 Interior Equipment 173,822 173,822 0 Exterior Equipment 0 0 0 Fans 216,376 99,156 117,220 Pumps 107 0 107 Heat Rejection 0 0 0 Humidification 0 0 0 Heat Recovery 0 0 0 Water Systems 0 0 0 Refrigeration 0 0 0 Generators 0 0 0 Total 676,166 409,643 266,523 Savings for the kitchen equipment were calculated using the EnergyStar Commercial Kitchen Equipment Calculator and savings for the ventilation hood control was calculated using a deemed value from a PG&E Workpaper13. The deemed savings value for the ventilation hood control was 4,197 kWh/HP.
Results Expected and Realized Custom Savings by Measure
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Measure Lifetime Measure Savings Savings Rate (%) EUL Savings (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) Whole Building Model 266,523 266,523 100% 15 3,997,845 Ventilation Control - New Hood 8,972 8,394 94% 15 125,910 SD Freezer 15-30 cf 869 869 100% 12 10,424 SD Refrigerator 15-30 cf 470 353 75% 12 4,239 HE Ice Machine ES Tier 2 300-500 1,494 1,758 118% 8 14,064 Total 278,328 277,897 100% 15 4,152,482 The project-level overall realization rate is 100%. The difference in realization is due to differences in calculation methodologies. For the refrigeration and ECM measures, the ex ante analysis uses deemed savings while the ex post analysis uses energy star calculators.
13 Work Paper PGECOFST116 Demand Ventilation Controls Revision # 3, Commercial Kitchen Demand Ventilation Controls Measure
Appendix A 147 Page 151 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Majestic Management Address 4155 W. Russell Road, Las Vegas, NV 89118 Project Number SB-17-08136
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08136, Majestic Management received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (35) 400W metal halide fixtures to 81W LED fixtures; (8) 65W incandescent fixtures to 13.2W LED fixtures; and (15) 28W CFLs to 13.2W LED fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, and through a review of the submitted project documentation, ADM staff verified the quantity and wattage of the baseline and installed fixtures. While on site the fixtures were found to be controlled by a photocell and operate on a dusk-to-dawn schedule.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 148 Page 152 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 35 35 458 81 4,313 56,739 56,908 1.00 100% 15.00 853,614
Incand to LED 8 8 65 13 4,313 1,782 1,787 1.00 100% 11.59 20,720
CFL to LED 15 15 28 13 4,313 955 957 1.00 100% 11.59 11,100
Total 59,475 59,652 100% 14.84 885,434
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%.
Appendix A 149 Page 153 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company Address 160-178 Gallagher Crest Rd., Henderson, NV 89074 Project Number SB-17-08141
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08141, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (38) 400W metal halide wall pack fixtures to 81W LED wall pack fixtures; (14) 24W incandescent recessed downlights to 17.9W LED recessed downlights; and (1) 400W metal halide pole mounted fixture to an 81W LED pole mounted fixture.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the new lighting equipment and the fixture control type. The fixtures were verified to be controlled by a photocell and operate on a dusk-to-dawn schedule. A thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation was conducted to verify the wattage of the installed, and baseline, fixtures.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on
Appendix A 150 Page 154 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 38 38 458 81 4,313 61,602 61,785 1.00 100% 15.00 926,781
Incand. to LED 14 14 24 18 4,313 367 368 1.00 100% 11.59 4,270
MH to LED 1 1 458 81 4,313 1,621 1,626 1.00 100% 15.00 24,389
Total 63,590 63,780 100% 14.98 955,440
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%.
Appendix A 151 Page 155 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Remnant Ministries Address 325 E. Windmill Las Vegas, NV 89183 Project Number SB-17-08142
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08142, Remnant Ministries Church received incentives from NV Energy for an engineering and a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 106%.
Project Description The customer installed a lighting power density of 0.60 W/ft² for the gymnasium. The project also involved the installation of (8) Split System Heat Pumps: (5) York YHE48B21S 4 Ton 14 SEER Split System Heat Pump (1) York YHE30B21S 2.5 Ton 14 SEER Split System Heat Pump (1) York YHE18B21S 1.5 Ton 14 SEER Split System Heat Pump (1) York YHE18B21S 5 Ton 14 SEER Split System Heat Pump
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. The baseline lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. The post-implementation lighting hours were also verified through an interview with facility staff.
Lighting density energy savings are calculated as:
∗ , , ∗ ∗ 1000
Appendix A 152 Page 156 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings 2 ft. TotalBuilding = Square Footage of the Facility 2 (W/ft )LPDBase = Baseline Lighting Power Density as Established by Local Code Requirement 2 (W/ft )LPDInstalled = Verified Lighting Power Density t =Annual lighting operating hours HCIF = HVAC interactive factor The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting power density installed under the project. Lighting Power Density Savings Calculations
Realized W/Ft² Expected Realization Lifetime Location Ft² Hours kWh HCIF EUL kWh Savings Rate Savings Code As Built Savings
Gymnasium 8,836 1.33 0.60 1,404 8,836 10,294 1.13 116% 6.24 64,225 Total 8,836 10,294 116% 6.24 64,225
HVAC savings were determined using an equivalent full load hour method. ADM used a combination of a prototypical worship model and a prototypical office model to determine the EFLH for this project. The EFLH for the ex post analysis were calculated using the average of the modeling results. For this project, the EFLH cooling and heating were calculated to be 1,144 hrs/yr and 113 hrs/yr, respectively.
The following equation was used to calculate the kWh savings: ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ Where: EFHL = Equivalent Full Load Hours for heating and coolling (hr) Capacity = Nominal Heating/Cooling Capacity Effbase = Baseline Heating/Cooling Efficiency Rating Effactual = Actual Heating/Cooling Efficiency Rating
Appendix A 153 Page 157 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Results
Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates by Measure
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Rate Lifetime Measure Savings Savings Measure EUL (%) Savings (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) HVAC 3,459 2,710 78% 15 40,651 Lighting 8,836 10,294 116% 6.24 64,225 Total 12,295 13,004 106% - 104,876 The project-level realization rate is 106%. For the engineering project, the low realization is due to the ex ante analysis using deemed savings. Due to the ex ante not having deemed savings for a church, the analysis uses the savings for a miscellaneous building type. The ex post analysis uses prototypical eQuest models for a church and office to calculate the EFLHs for use in the engineering equations. For the lighting project, the ex post values for lighting density were lower than the ex ante since ex ante calculations for area included office areas not included in program savings. Ex post values for lighting are based on a schedule found on site. Wattages matched ex ante values.
Appendix A 154 Page 158 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Global Experience Specialists, Inc. Address 700 Lindell Road Las Vegas, NV 89119 Project Number SB-17-08198
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08198, Global Experience Specialists, Inc. received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 76%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted (18) 4’ 6-lamp HO T8 fixtures to 108W 4’ 6-lamp LED fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the new lighting equipment and determined these high bay fixtures are controlled by pre-existing occupancy sensors. The baseline fixture type was verified through a desk review of the submitted project documentation as well as an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 155 Page 159 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings 4' 6L HO T8 to 4' 6L LED 18 18 226 108 2,965 9,325 7,125 1.13 76% 15.00 106,877 Total 9,325 7,125 76% 15.00 106,877
Results The project-level realization rate is 76%. The ex post energy savings are low due to ADM verifying these fixtures are controlled by pre-existing occupancy sensors, which significantly reduced their baseline lighting hours of operation.
Appendix A 156 Page 160 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Cooper Sage III, LLC Address 4588 E. Craig Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89115 Project Number SB-17-08199
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08199, Cooper Sage III, LLC received incentives from NV Energy for a newly constructed warehouse in Las Vegas. The realization rate for this project is 101%.
Project Description The building is new construction and includes various building energy efficiency measures that provide energy savings beyond the code requirements. They are outlined below: Building Envelope Built-up roof with wood joists with cavity insulation value of R38 (U-0.027 Btu/h-ft2-oF) Exterior wall with cavity insulation value of R19 and continuous insulation value of R8 (U-0.060 Btu/h-ft2-oF) Window Low-E IG glazing, U-value of 0.30, Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) of 0.33, Visible Transmittance (VT) of 0.50, and Condensation Resistance (CR) of 59 Storefront entrance door Low-E glazing, U-value of 0.30, Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) of 0.33, Visible Transmittance (VT) of 0.50, and Condensation Resistance (CR) of 59 Skylight dual plane glazing, U-value of 0.74, Solar Heat Gan Coefficient (SHGC) of 0.42, Visible Transmittance (VT) of 0.64. Mechanical Design The building is conditioned with a packaged-terminal heap pump (PTHP) system for offices and common areas. The packaged rooftop units have efficiencies ranging from 15.0 SEER to 12.0 EER for bigger units, and 15.6 SEER for smaller units.
Appendix A 157 Page 161 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Interior Lighting Lighting consists of energy efficient lighting fixtures. In the model, the lighting power densities (LPD) calculations were based on the as-built drawings and actual installation. As-designed LPDs of 0.22 W/ft2 were determined using the building area method.
Measurement and Verification Effort OpenStudio model files of the building were provided and whole building savings were determined through a desk review of the files. A graph of the OpenStudio model baseline and as-built end use kWh outputs can be seen below: Baseline vs As-Built Model End Use kWh
Additionally, baseline and as-built model’s individual end uses were examined to ensure the outputs matched expectations. Baseline and as-built energy usage and savings categorized by end use are summarized in the following table:
Appendix A 158 Page 162 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Baseline and As-Built End Use Energy
The provided OpenStudio model’s baseline and as-built energy usage and savings categorized by end use are summarized in the following table:
Appendix A 159 Page 163 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Baseline and As-Built Monthly End Use Summary
End Use Baseline As-Built Savings Heating 5,509 4,423 1,087 Cooling 11,256 4,569 6,687 Interior Lighting 170,100 21,976 148,124 Exterior Lighting 38,862 23,571 15,291 Interior Equipment 48,359 48,359 0 Exterior Equipment 0 0 0 Fans 71,425 6,307 65,118 Pumps 0 0 0 Heat Rejection 0 0 0 Humidification 0 0 0 Heat Recovery 0 0 0 Water Systems 0 0 0 Refrigeration 0 0 0 Cogeneration 0 0 0 Total 345,511 109,205 236,306
Results Expected and Realized Custom Savings by Measure
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Measure Lifetime Measure Savings Savings Rate (%) EUL Savings (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) Whole Building Model 233,531 236,306 101% 15 3,544,589 Total 233,531 236,306 101% 15 3,544,589 The project-level overall realization rate is 101%. The difference in realization is due to the ex post analysis using TMY3 data as opposed to TMY2 data. The ex ante energy models provided with the project documentation used ASHRAE 90.1-2010 for determining baseline equipment efficiencies. For example, the baseline LPD was determined using the building type method with maximum allowances as set in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. However, ASHRAE 90.1 is not an official building code enforced in Las Vegas. The applicable energy code is the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). This project was permitted under the 2012 version of IECC. In future projects, all baseline equipment and LPD calculations should be determined using the correct version of IECC, not ASHRAE 90.1. For this specific project, IECC 2012, allows a LPD of 0.6 W/ft2, as opposed to the 0.66W/ft2 allowed under ASHRAE 90.1-2010. To gauge energy savings against code compliance, the baseline LPD from IECC 2012 should have been used in the ex ante savings. ADM decided to use the more conservative baseline LPD of 0.66 W/ft2 used in the ex ante calculations as opposed to the value of 0.6 W/ft2 outlined in the applicable IECC. In future projects, it is recommended that IECC be referenced for all baseline energy usage requirements and that ASHRAE 90.1, Appendix G only be used for outlining procedures used in modeling the baseline and as-built buildings.
Appendix A 160 Page 164 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Hoover Dam Lodge Address 15000 US Highway 93 Hwy Unit B, Boulder City NV 89005 Project Number SB-17-08200
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08200, Hoover Dam Lodge received incentives from NV Energy for an HVAC project. The realization rate for this project is 43%.
Project Description The customer installed 14 Amana - PTH154G35AXXXCB PTAC units in the housekeeping linen rooms of the hotel. The EER of the pre-retrofit PTAC units was 9.0 and the EER of the PTAC units after the retrofit is 9.7.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified that the HVAC units had been installed and were operating as expected. To calculate the savings due to the HVAC unit, ADM used the equivalent full load hour method. ADM used the following equation to calculate the HVAC energy savings: 12 12 ∆kWh CAP ∗ EFLH ∗ # ∗ SEER/EER SEER/EER Where: CAP = Capacity of the units (tons) EFLH = Equivalent Full Load Hours (hr/yr)
#units = Number of Retrofitted units SEER/EER = Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
The EFLH value was calculated using a DEER eQuest prototypical simulation model. A prototypical hotel DEER model was run using TMY3 weather data from the McCarran International Airport and the heating and cooling EFLH values were derived from the model’s outputs. The tables shown below present expected and realized energy savings for the HVAC units installed under the project.
Appendix A 161 Page 165 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
HVAC Savings Calculations
Cooling Heating # of Expected Realized Realization Lifetime Baseline Eff Unit's Eff Baseline Unit's Eff EUL Units Capacity EFLH Capacity EFLH Savings Savings Rate Savings (EER) (EER) Eff (COP) (COP) 14 14,600 8.8 9.7 3,289 13,700 2.8 3.0 70 17,330 7,409 43% 15 111,135 Total 17,330 7,409 43% 15 111,135
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates by Measure
Expected Realized Lifetime Realization EUL Measure Type Quantity Savings Savings Savings Rate (yr) (kWh/hr) (kWh/yr) (kWh)
Packaged Terminal Units 14 17,330 7,409 43% 15 111,135 Total 17,330 7,409 43% 15 111,135 The project-level realization rate is 43%. The most significant difference in savings is due to differences in baseline unit efficiencies. The ex ante analysis used a prescriptive approach to calculating savings, while ADM used a DEER prototypical eQuest hotel model with TMY3 weather from the McCarran International Airport to calculate EFLHs for both heating and cooling. This led to similar EFLHs between ex ante and ex post analyses. The ex ante estimates correspond to a combined EFLH of 3,377 hr/yr, while the ex post analysis uses 3,359 hr/yr. The most significant contribution to the low realization rate is the baseline EER used. The prescriptive approach used in the ex ante analysis uses a baseline EER of 8.1. The ex post analysis, however, used the efficiency of the existing units (prior to retrofit) as the baseline. ADM was able to verify the efficiency of the previously installed units during the site visit and used the rated efficiency of 8.8 to determine ex post savings.
Appendix A 162 Page 166 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Nellis Air Force Base Address 4800 N. Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89115 Project Number SB-17-08235
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08235, Nellis Air Force Base received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 97%.
Project Description The customer performed a lighting retrofit throughout their campus. The retrofit included 30,436 lighting fixtures through 52 buildings. The lighting retrofit included in the replacement of 32W T8 lamps with 25W T8s, various incandescent lamps being replaced with LED screw ins, 54W T5 lamps being replaced with 44W T5s and some HID fixtures being retrofitted with LED lamps.
Measurement and Verification Effort While the primary verification effort for this project included a thorough review of the provided project documentation, ADM did verify the installation of much of the new lighting during a site visit for another project that was completed at the same location. ADM staff conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation and confirmed the equipment installation via provided photographs, invoices, and cut sheets. The ex ante calculations were examined, and utilizing a spreadsheet analysis, ADM recreated the calculations.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The summary table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. A line by line analysis is not provided due to the number of line items included in this project.
Appendix A 163 Page 167 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity (Fixtures) Expected Realized kWh Realization Lifetime Measure EUL kWh Savings Savings Rate Savings Old New
Lighting Retrofit 30,436 30,432 4,480,607 4,352,951 97% 8.06 35,101,940
Results The project-level realization rate is 97%. ADM found the reported quantities of fixtures and hours of operation to be accurate. The slightly lower ex post savings is due to ADM using EISA 2007 wattages for incandescent lamp baselines.
Appendix A 164 Page 168 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Nellis Air Force Base Address Nellis AFB, NV 89191 Project Number SB-17-08239
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08239, Nellis Air Force Base received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The project involved the following retrofits: Pre-Fixture Post-Fixture Baseline # of Watts / Post # of Watts / Hours of Description Description Fixtures Fixture Fixtures Fixture Operation 1500W MH 240W LED 12 1,650 12 240 4,311 1000W HPS 240W LED 32 1,100 32 240 4,311 1000W MH 240W LED 15 1,100 15 240 4,311 750W MH 240W LED 10 840 10 240 4,311 750W MH-PS 200W LED 32 840 32 200 4,311 400W HPS 120W LED 618 465 618 120 4,311 400W MH 120W LED 77 465 77 120 4,311 250W HPS 120W LED 1 295 1 120 4,311 400W HPS 60W LED 3 465 3 60 4,311 250W HPS 60W LED 1012 295 1,012 60 4,311 250W MH 60W LED 26 295 26 60 4,311 150W HPS 60W LED 2 188 2 60 4,311 150W IND 60W LED 73 150 73 60 4,311 1500W HAL 40W LED 9 1,500 9 40 4,311 500W HAL 40W LED 2 500 2 40 4,311 250W HAL 40W LED 2 250 2 40 4,311 75W INC 40W LED 1 75 1 40 4,311 250W HPS 30W LED 3 295 3 30 4,311 175W MH 30W LED 27 205 27 30 4,311 150W HPS 30W LED 148 188 148 30 4,311 150W IND 30W LED 7 150 7 30 4,311 55W LPS 30W LED 29 68 29 30 4,311 500W HAL 20W LED 2 500 2 20 4,311 100W HPS 20W LED 3 128 3 20 4,311 100W MH 18W LED 42 128 42 18 4,311 100W INC 18W LED 17 100 17 18 4,311 70W HPS 18W LED 6 91 6 18 4,311
Measurement and Verification Effort
Appendix A 165 Page 169 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Invoices were reviewed and agree to quantities of retrofit measures installed.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
1500W HAL to 40W 9 9 1,650 40 4,313 56,647 62,493 1.00 110% 15.00 937,391 LED 250W HAL to 40W 2 2 250 40 4,313 1,811 1,811 1.00 100% 15.00 27,171 LED 500W HAL to 20W 2 2 500 20 4,313 4,139 4,140 1.00 100% 15.00 62,105 LED 500W HAL to 40W 2 2 500 40 4,313 3,966 3,968 1.00 100% 15.00 59,517 LED 1000W HPS to 32 32 1,100 240 4,313 118,639 118,689 1.00 100% 15.00 1,780,331 240W LED 100W HPS to 20W 3 3 128 20 4,313 1,397 1,397 1.00 100% 15.00 20,960 LED 150W HPS to 30W 148 148 188 30 4,313 100,808 100,851 1.00 100% 15.00 1,512,764 LED 150W HPS to 60W 2 2 188 60 4,313 1,104 1,104 1.00 100% 15.00 16,561 LED 250W HPS to 60W 1,012 1,012 295 60 4,313 1,025,242 1,025,674 1.00 100% 15.00 15,385,111 LED 250W HPS to 30W 3 3 295 30 4,313 3,427 3,429 1.00 100% 15.00 51,430 LED
Appendix A 166 Page 170 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings 250W HPS to 120W 1 1 295 120 4,313 754 755 1.00 100% 15.00 11,321 LED 400W HPS to 120W 618 618 465 120 4,313 919,148 919,536 1.00 100% 15.00 13,793,035 LED 400W HPS to 60W 3 3 465 60 4,313 5,238 5,240 1.00 100% 15.00 78,601 LED 70W HPS to 18W 6 6 95 18 4,313 1,992 1,993 1.00 100% 13.91 27,720 LED 100W INC to 18W 17 17 100 18 4,313 6,010 6,012 1.00 100% 13.91 83,640 LED 75W INC to 40W 1 1 75 40 4,313 151 151 1.00 100% 15.00 2,264 LED 150W IND to 60W 73 73 150 60 4,313 28,323 28,335 1.00 100% 15.00 425,028 LED 150W IND to 30W 7 7 150 30 4,313 3,621 3,623 1.00 100% 15.00 54,341 LED 55W LPS to 30W 29 29 85 30 4,313 6,876 6,879 1.00 100% 15.00 103,184 LED 1000W MH to 15 15 1,080 240 4,313 54,319 54,341 1.00 100% 15.00 815,122 240W LED 100W MH to 18W 42 42 128 18 4,313 19,917 19,925 1.00 100% 13.91 277,200 LED 1500W MH to 12 12 1,610 240 4,313 70,873 70,903 1.00 100% 15.00 1,063,541 240W LED 175W MH to 30W 27 27 215 30 4,313 21,533 21,543 1.00 100% 15.00 323,138 LED 250W MH to 60W 26 26 295 60 4,313 26,340 26,351 1.00 100% 15.00 395,270 LED 400W MH to 120W 77 77 458 120 4,313 112,198 112,245 1.00 100% 15.00 1,683,680 LED 750W MH to 240W 10 10 850 240 4,313 26,297 26,308 1.00 100% 15.00 394,623 LED 750W MH-PS to 32 32 818 200 4,313 85,254 85,290 1.00 100% 13.91 1,186,560 200W LED Total 2,706,024 2,712,986 100% 14.95 40,571,608
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. The lighting retrofits were the same as claimed.
Appendix A 167 Page 171 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site The Kroger Co. Address 1000 N. Green Valley Parkway, Henderson, NV 89047 Project Number SB-17-08243
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08243, The Kroger Co. received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at a grocery store. The realization rate for this project is 87%.
Project Description The Kroger Co. retrofitted: (2) 4’ 6L T8 fixtures to 4’ 6L LED fixtures; (34) 4’ 3L T8 fixtures to 4’ 3L LED fixtures; (110) 4’ 2L T8 fixtures to 4’ 2L LED fixtures; (448) 8’ 2L T8 fixtures to 8’ 2L LED fixtures; (6) 4’ 1L T8 fixtures to 4’ 1L LED fixtures; and (114) 4’ 4L T8 fixtures to 4’ 4L LED fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM staff verified the equipment installation and determined the general lighting operating schedule for two separate Kroger grocery stores. This specific store, where this lighting retrofit took place, was not inspected as each store is very similar in scope and usage. Instead, ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation, and used our on-site findings from the other two Kroger projects to inform the analysis on the energy savings associated with this project. During the site visits at the other two stores, it was found that the main sales floor has pre-existing daylighting controls, and the offices/back areas are controlled by pre-existing occupancy sensors. A third of the daylighting controlled fixtures on the main sales floor also have a setback so they operate overnight, while the rest turn off during the night. Due to these findings, ADM placed logging equipment to monitor the facilities usage. This data from two Kroger stores was used to generate the operating hours for the various spaces in this facility. The invoices and cut sheets were reviewed to verify the total quantity and wattage of the installed LEDs.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f
Appendix A 168 Page 172 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
4' 6L T8 to 4' 6L LED 2 2 175 102 5,475 - 902 1.13 - 9.13 8,241
4' 3L T8 to 4' 3L LED 1 1 89 51 3,832 - 164 1.13 - 13.05 2,145
4' 3L T8 to 4' 3L LED 10 10 89 51 5,475 - 2,349 1.13 - 9.13 21,450
4' 3L T8 to 4' 3L LED 15 15 89 51 3,686 - 2,372 1.13 - 13.57 32,174
4' 2L T8 to 4' 2L LED 7 7 59 34 3,686 - 728 1.13 - 13.57 9,878
4' 2L T8 to 4' 2L LED 17 17 59 34 3,832 - 1,839 1.13 - 13.05 23,990
4' 2L T8 to 4' 2L LED 82 82 59 34 5,475 - 12,671 1.13 - 9.13 115,715
8' 2L T8 to 8' 2L LED 11 11 109 82 5,475 - 1,836 1.13 - 9.13 16,765
4' 1L T8 to 4' 1L LED 6 6 31 17 5,475 - 519 1.13 - 9.13 4,741
4' 4L T8 to 4' 4L LED 30 30 112 68 3,832 - 5,711 1.13 - 13.05 74,509
4' 4L T8 to 4' 4L LED 84 84 112 68 5,475 - 22,844 1.13 - 9.13 208,625
8' 2L T8 to 8' 2L LED 257 257 109 82 3,686 - 28,871 1.13 - 13.57 391,675
8' 2L T8 to 8' 2L LED 51 51 109 82 3,832 - 5,958 1.13 - 13.05 77,726
4' 3L T8 to 4' 3L LED 8 8 89 51 7,948 - 2,728 1.13 - 6.29 17,159
4' 2L T8 to 4' 2L LED 4 4 59 34 7,948 - 897 1.13 - 6.29 5,645
8' 2L T8 to 8' 2L LED 129 129 109 82 7,948 - 31,252 1.13 - 6.29 196,599
Total 140,586 121,641 87% 9.92 1,207,036
Appendix A 169 Page 173 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Results The project-level realization rate is 87%. The realization rate is low due to on-site monitoring verifying lower operating hours than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate. This is somewhat due to the facility having pre-existing daylighting controls and occupancy sensors – which lowered the baseline and post operating hours – but it’s more due to the ex ante estimate using prescriptive hours which assume the fixtures operate for a longer duration of time than what was verified through on-site monitoring.
Appendix A 170 Page 174 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Chesapeake Media I, LLC Address 1500 Foremaster Lane, Las Vegas NV 89101 Project Number SB-17-08280
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08280, Chesapeake Media I, LLC received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting retrofit. The realization rate for this project is 121%.
Project Description The project involved the following retrofit:
Pre-Watts Post- Watts Pre-Fixture Post-Fixture Location Quantity / Lamp or / Lamp or Fixture Fixture
32W 4-foot T8 14W 4-foot LED T8 Hall/ Office 770 31 14 32W U-Bend T8 15.5W LED U-Bend T8 Hall/ Office 172 31 15.5 59W 8-foot T8 43W 8-foot LED T8 Garage 66 58 43 1L MR16 12V Track Head 1L MR16 12V. LED Ret Office 66 50 6 1L 65R30 Track Head 1L R30 LED Retrofit Hall/ Office 32 65 10.5 1L R16 Track Head 1L R16 LED Retrofit Office 25 40 6 1L R20 Track Head 1L R20 LED Retrofit Office 87 50 7 Incand Exit signs LED Exit Signs Throughout 13 40 3.2
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule through an interview with facility staff. The invoice and cut sheets were reviewed to verify the total quantity and wattage of the installed fixtures.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
Appendix A 171 Page 175 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings 4' 1L T8 to 4' 1L LED 578 578 31 14 2,349 - 26,058 1.13 - 15.00 390,868
U-tube 1L T8 to U-tube 1L LED 129 129 31 16 2,349 - 5,303 1.13 - 15.00 79,538
8' 1L T8 to 8' 1L LED 66 66 58 43 2,349 - 2,326 1.00 - 15.00 34,883
Incand MR16 to LED MR16 66 66 50 6 2,349 - 7,701 1.13 - 10.64 81,963
Incand R30 to LED R30 24 24 65 11 2,349 - 3,469 1.13 - 10.64 36,917
Incand R16 to LED R16 25 25 40 6 2,349 - 2,254 1.13 - 10.64 23,990
Incand R20 to LED R20 87 87 50 7 2,349 - 9,921 1.13 - 10.64 105,586 Incand Exit Signs to LED Exit 13 13 40 3 8,760 - 4,731 1.13 - 5.71 27,004 Signs 4' 1L T8 to 4' 1L LED 192 192 31 14 8,760 - 32,279 1.13 - 5.71 184,241
U-tube 1L T8 to U-tube 1L LED 43 43 31 16 8,760 - 6,591 1.13 - 5.71 37,621
Incand R30 to LED R30 8 8 65 11 8,760 - 4,312 1.13 - 2.85 12,305 Total 86,744 104,944 121% 9.67 1,014,916
Results The project-level realization rate is 121%. The ex post energy savings are high due to ADM verifying overall higher operating hours than what was used in the ex ante estimate. ADM used custom hours determined through an interview with the site contact, while the ex ante estimates used prescriptive hours for an office building type. The higher ex post hours are largely due to the hallways operating 24/7.
Appendix A 172 Page 176 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Park Towers at Hughes Center Address One Hughes Center Drive, Las Vegas NV 89169 Project Number SB-17-08285
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08285, Park Towers received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project. The realization rate for this project is 173%.
Project Description Park Towers retrofitted (619) 26W 4-pin plug-in CFLs to (619) 9.5W 4-pin LED lamps throughout the hallways of the facility.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule through an interview with facility staff. The submitted invoices were reviewed to verify the total quantity of fixtures installed on-site. The baseline and installed lamp wattage were both verified on-site as they still had the old lamp types in storage.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 173 Page 177 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings 4-pin CFL to LED 619 619 28 10 8,760 65,342 113,248 1.13 173% 5.71 646,394 Total 65,342 113,248 173% 5.71 646,394
Results The project-level realization rate is 173%. The significantly high realization rate was caused due to ADM using the actual annual hours of operation (8,760) in the ex-post calculation instead of the prescriptive hours for a miscellaneous building type (5,005) used in the ex ante estimate.
Appendix A 174 Page 178 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Nora's Cuisine Address 5780 W Flamingo Rd, Las Vegas NV 89103 Project Number SB-17-08286
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08286, Nora’s Cuisine received incentives from NV Energy for a newly constructed restaurant in Las Vegas. The realization rate for this project is 99%.
Project Description The building is new construction and includes various energy efficiency measures that provide energy savings beyond the code requirements. They are outlined below: Mechanical System The baseline mechanical system is a packaged rooftop air conditioner (PSZ-AC) system, according to the ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2010 Appendix G modeling protocol. The as-built mechanical system used is packaged rooftop air conditioner (PSZ-AC) and fan coil units. Lighting System The ASHRAE 90.1-2010 lighting budget was determined using the “space by space” method which assigns a maximum allowable lighting power density (LPD) based on the type of spaces. The baseline LPD for the dining area and kitchen is 0.89 and 0.99 W/sf, respectively. The as- designed LPD for the dining area and kitchen is 0.37 and 1.37 W/sf, respectively. Glazing and Envelope The baseline glass for the windows is ASHRAE 90.1-2010 compliant, which requires a whole- assembly U-Value of 0.65 and a SHGC of 0.25. Therefore, the baseline is design with a SHGC of 0.25 and a U-Value of 0.65. The glass U-value proposed for the window is 0.27 and the SHGC of 0.46. The baseline wall is assumed to be a steel-framed exterior wall with U-value = 0.091. The baseline roof is assumed to be insulation entirely above deck with the U-value = 0.050 and reflectivity of 0.3. The proposed model has U-value = 0.072 insulation for average wall assembly. Roofs are insulated above deck for a total assembly of U-value = 0.028.
Appendix A 175 Page 179 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Measurement and Verification Effort OpenStudio model files of the building were provided and whole building savings (minus the kitchen savings) were determined through a desk review of the files. A graph of the OpenStudio model baseline and as-built end use kWh outputs can be seen below: Baseline vs As-Built Model vs Billed 2017 End Use kWh
Additionally, baseline and as-built model’s individual end uses were examined to ensure the outputs matched expectations. Baseline and as-built energy usage and savings categorized by end use are summarized in the following graphs:
Appendix A 176 Page 180 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Baseline and As-Built End Use Energy
The provided OpenStudio model’s baseline and as-built energy usage and savings categorized by end use are summarized in the following table:
Appendix A 177 Page 181 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Baseline and As-Built Monthly End Use Summary
End Use Baseline As-Built Savings Heating 0 1,230 -1,230 Cooling 107,833 61,022 46,811 Interior Lighting 54,793 32,316 22,477 Exterior Lighting 11,131 7,936 3,195 Interior Equipment 139,919 139,919 0 Exterior Equipment 0 0 0 Fans 77,151 20,031 57,120 Pumps 0 0 0 Heat Rejection 0 0 0 Humidification 0 0 0 Heat Recovery 0 0 0 Water Systems 0 0 0 Refrigeration 0 0 0 Generators 0 0 0 Total 390,827 262,454 128,373 Savings for the kitchen equipment were calculated using the EnergyStar Commercial Kitchen Equipment Calculator and savings for the ventilation hood control was calculated using a deemed value from a PG&E Workpaper14. The deemed savings value for the ventilation hood control was 4,197 kWh/HP.
Results Expected and Realized Custom Savings by Measure
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Measure Lifetime Measure Savings Savings Rate (%) EUL Savings (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) Whole Building Model 128,380 128,373 100% 15 1,925,593 Ventilation Control - New Hood 19,066 17,837 94% 15 267,559 GD Refrigerator <15 cf 869 723 83% 12 8,672 GD Freezer <15 cf 470 650 138% 12 7,796 HE Ice Machine ES Tier 1 300-500 1,494 1,247 83% 8 9,975 Total 150,278 148,829 99% 14.91 2,219,596 The project-level overall realization rate is 99%. The difference in realization is due to differences in calculation methodologies. For the refrigeration and ECM measures, the ex ante analysis uses deemed savings while the ex post analysis uses energy star calculators.
14 Work Paper PGECOFST116 Demand Ventilation Controls Revision # 3, Commercial Kitchen Demand Ventilation Controls Measure
Appendix A 178 Page 182 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Golden Nugget Hotel and Casino Address 129 Fremont St, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Project Number SB-17-08314
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08314 Golden Nugget received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting and HVAC project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 86%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted 435 hotel rooms and upgraded the lighting, as follows: Lamp Stand (435) Incandescent 70W to (435) LED 9W lamps King Room (414) Incandescent 60W to (828) LED 9W lamps Double Room (228) Incandescent 60W to (456) LED 9W lamps Bathroom vanity (870) Incandescent 60W to (1,305) LED 9W lamps Bathroom (1,740) Incandescent 40W to (2,175) LED 9W lamps Over tub (435) Specialty Incandescent 40W to (435) LED 5.5W lamps
In addition to upgrading the lighting to LED lamps, the customer also replaced 435 Packaged Terminal Heat Pump units with more efficient units.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the new LED lamps as well as the new PTHP units. Quantities were verified through both a visual verification of typical room types and compared to provided invoices. Wattages of lamps and efficiency of PTHP units were verified with spec sheets and visual verification, were possible.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings
Appendix A 179 Page 183 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
70W A to LED 9W 435 435 70 9 1,145 - 32,161 1.06 8.73 280,878
60W A to LED 9W 414 828 60 9 1,145 - 21,074 1.06 8.73 184,056
60W A to LED 9W 228 456 60 9 1,145 - 11,606 1.06 8.73 101,364
60W A to LED 9W 870 1,305 60 9 1,145 - 49,032 1.06 8.73 428,225
40W A to LED 9W 1,740 2,175 40 9 1,145 - 60,631 1.06 8.73 529,525
40W to LED 5.5W 435 435 40 6 1,145 - 18,189 1.06 15.00 272,838
Total 207,070 192,693 93% 9.33 1,796,885
HVAC savings were determined using an equivalent full load hour method. ADM used a combination of DEER prototypical hotel models and several projects from past program year evaluations to determine the EFLH for this project. The use of the DEER model gives an estimate on the EFLH in a typical high-rise hotel, while the past project models offer calibrated model results of similar building types in the Las Vegas area. The EFLH for the ex post analysis were calculated using the average of the modeling results. For this project, the EFLH cooling and heating were calculated to be 1,306 hrs/yr and 65 hrs/yr, respectively.
The following equation was used to calculate the kWh savings: ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
Appendix A 180 Page 184 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Where: EFLH = Equivalent Full Load Hours for heating and cooling (hr) Capacity = Nominal Heating/Cooling Capacity (BTU/hr)
Effbase = Baseline Heating/Cooling Efficiency Rating
Effactual = Actual Heating/Cooling Efficiency Rating
Results
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Measure Lifetime Measure Savings Savings Rate (%) EUL Savings (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr)
Lighting 207,070 192,693 93% 9.3 1,796,885 HVAC 303,239 246,854 81% 15 3,702,807 Total 510,309 439,547 86% 12.5 5,499,692 The project-level realization rate is 86%. The lower ex post savings are due to differences in calculation methodologies but are all attributable to differences between custom savings used in the ex post analysis and prescriptive calculations used for ex ante estimates. The ex post lighting savings are lower due to differences in HCIF. ADM verified the quantities and wattages of both baseline and post retrofit lamps to be accurate and used the same hours of operation for calculating savings. However, ADM calculated a custom HCIF using the heating and cooling COPs of the actual installed PTHP units. Using these efficiencies, the ex post HCIF was calculated to be 1.06, compared to the ex ante prescriptive HCIF of 1.14. The difference in HVAC savings is due to differences in calculation approaches. The ex ante calculations use a deemed per unit savings while the ex post savings are based on a combination of DEER prototypical hotel model and past M&V results for similar projects using TMY3 weather data from Las Vegas McCarran Airport.
Appendix A 181 Page 185 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site RC Willey Address 20 N Stephanie Street, Henderson, NV 89074 Project Number SB-17-08319
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08319, RC Willey received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 111%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted lamps on a one for one basis in both the interior and the exterior of the facility: Storage (139) 8' 2L T8 to 8' 2L LED 33W Warehouse (115) 4' 6L HO T5 to 4' 6L HO LED 28W Show Room & Offices (95) 4' 3L T8 to 4' 3L LED 14W Showroom (45) MH 400W to LED COBB 80W Offices & Show Room (56) 4' 4L T8 to 4' 4L LED 14W Offices & Show Room (34) 4' 3L T8 to 4' 3L LED 14W Offices & Show Room (37) 4' 3L T8 to 4' 2L LED 14W Exterior (10) Metal Halide WP 250W to LED WP 58W Exterior (38) Metal Halide 175W to LED COBB 20W Exterior (83) Metal Halide 400W to LED COBB 100W Exterior (30) CFL Pin 26W to LED 14W
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule through an interview with facility staff. Quantities were verified with visual verification and compared to provided invoices. Wattages were verified with spec sheets and visual verification, where possible.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as:
Appendix A 182 Page 186 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
8' 2L T8 to 8' 2L LED 139 139 109 66 4,820 24,142 32,560 1.13 135% 10.37 337,723
4' 6L HO T5 to 4' 6L HO 115 115 351 168 4,820 98,788 114,643 1.13 116% 10.37 1,189,121 LED
4' 3L T8 to 4' 3L LED 95 95 89 51 4,820 16,946 19,666 1.13 116% 10.37 203,978
MH 400W to LED 80W 45 45 458 80 4,820 79,847 92,662 1.13 116% 5.00 463,312
4' 4L T8 to 4' 4L LED 56 56 112 56 4,820 14,721 17,083 1.13 116% 10.37 177,196
4' 3L T8 to 4' 3L LED 34 34 89 42 4,820 7,501 8,705 1.13 116% 10.37 90,293
4' 2L T8 to 4' 2L LED 37 37 59 28 4,820 5,384 6,248 1.13 116% 10.37 64,810
MH 250W to LED 58W 10 10 295 58 4,313 9,890 10,221 1.00 103% 15.00 153,321
MH 175W to LED 20W 38 38 215 20 4,313 31,863 31,958 1.00 100% 5.00 159,790
MH 400W to LED 100W 83 83 458 100 4,313 127,770 128,151 1.00 100% 5.00 640,755
CFL 26W to LED 14W 30 30 27 14 4,313 1,935 1,682 1.00 87% 11.59 19,500
Total 418,788 463,580 111% 7.55 3,499,798
Appendix A 183 Page 187 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Results The project-level realization rate is 111%. The ex post energy savings are high due to interviews with facility staff verifying higher operating hours than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate. In addition, a review of the submitted fixture specification sheets found a lower overall wattage (66W) for the installed 8’ 2-lamp LED fixtures than what was claimed (72W).
Appendix A 184 Page 188 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site City of Henderson – Avellino Park Address 910 Chaparral Road, Henderson, NV 89052 Project Number SB-17-08320
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08320, the City of Henderson received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 89%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (6) 2-lamp 42W CFL fixtures to 2-lamp 8W LED fixtures, and (10) 4’ 2-lamp T8 fixtures to 4’ 2-lamp LED tube fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the quantity and type of the installed LED fixtures, and determined the fixtures are controlled by a photocell and operate on a dusk-to-dawn schedule.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 185 Page 189 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings 2L 42W CFL to 2L 6 6 92 16 4,313 1,961 1,967 1.00 100% 11.59 22,800 8W LED
2L T8 to 2L LED 8 8 59 30 4,313 1,324 1,001 1.00 76% 11.59 11,600
2L T8 to 2L LED 2 2 59 30 4,313 331 250 1.00 76% 11.59 2,900
Total 3,616 3,217 89% 11.59 37,300
Results The project-level realization rate is 89%. The ex post energy savings are lower due to the ex ante estimate claiming the LED tube fixtures operate for a longer duration of time than the standard dusk-to-dawn operating hours. ADM verified all the fixtures are controlled by a photocell and operate on a dusk-to-dawn schedule.
Appendix A 186 Page 190 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site City of Henderson – Fire Station 95 Address 2300 Pebble Road, Henderson, NV 89074 Project Number SB-17-08329
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08329, the City of Henderson received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at Fire Station 95. The realization rate for this project is 98%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (4) 32W CFLs to 18W LED lamps; (4) 2-lamp 26W CFL fixtures to 2-lamp 8W LED fixtures; and (9) 70W high pressure sodium fixtures to 18W LED fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the quantity and type of the installed LED fixtures and determined the fixtures are all controlled by a photocell and operate on a dusk-to-dawn schedule. The baseline fixture types were verified through a review of the submitted project documentation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 187 Page 191 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
CFL to LED 4 4 34 18 4,313 310 276 1.00 89% 11.59 3,200
2L CFL to 2L LED 4 4 54 16 4,313 722 656 1.00 91% 11.59 7,600
HPS to LED 9 9 95 18 4,313 2,980 2,989 1.00 100% 11.59 34,650
Total 4,012 3,920 98% 11.59 45,450
Results The project-level realization rate is 98%. The ex post energy savings are lower due to ADM verifying two of the baseline fixtures having a lower wattage than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate. The ex ante savings used baseline wattage of 36W and 58W for the single and two lamp CFL fixtures, respectively. ADM’s general wattage table for these types of fixtures uses 32W and 54W, respectively. This small difference in baseline wattages resulted in the lower ex post savings.
Appendix A 188 Page 192 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Pacific Harbors Address 2968, 2970, & 2986 Juniper Hills Blvd Las Vegas, Nevada Project Number SB-17-08345
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08345, Pacific Harbors received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (12) 150W high pressure sodium to (12) 47W LED wall pack
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. The baseline lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. The post-implementation lighting hours were also verified through an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
Appendix A 189 Page 193 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
HPS to LED 12 12 188 47 4,313 7,276 7,297 1.00 15.00 109,459
Total 7,276 7,297 100% 15.00 109,459
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies were found through ADM’s review of this project.
Appendix A 190 Page 194 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Northgate Building #3 - Amazon TI Address 4550 Nexus Way, North Las Vegas, NV 89081 Project Number SB-17-08375
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08375, Capital XI LLC received incentives from NV Energy for a newly constructed warehouse in Las Vegas. The realization rate for this project is 101%.
Project Description The newly constructed building is an 813,120 ft² warehouse and will be fully occupied by Amazon. The space consists of 20,000 ft² of office space and 793,120 ft² of warehouse space. The facility is expected to be occupied seven days a week 24/7. The building includes various building energy efficiency measures that provide energy savings beyond code requirements, as outlined below: Glazing and Envelope Roof: R-30 batt (U-0.036 Btu/h-ft2-°F) w/cool roof (45% reflectance) Exterior Walls: o Office Concrete w/ R-13 Batt (U-0.132 Btu/h-ft2-°F) o Warehouse Below 10 ft. Non-Insulated Concrete Wall (U-0.699 Btu/h- ft2-°F) o Warehouse Above 10 ft. R-10 Insulated Concrete Wall (U-0.132 Btu/h- ft2-°F) Windows: U-0.55 Btu/h-ft2-°F; SHGC-0.21 w/ aluminum frames Skylights: U-0.65 Btu/h-ft2-°F; SHGC-0.35 w/ aluminum frames Interior Lighting The overall Baseline LPD for this project is 0.90 W/ft². Additionally, the baseline exterior lighting allowances are 108.11 kW as allowed per Table 505.6 2(2) in IECC 2009. The installed design utilizes high efficiency LED fixtures resulting in a reduced average LPD of 0.41 W/ft² in the warehouse. The proposed exterior lighting design is 35.01 kW. HVAC Design The installed airside HVAC system serving the project is Packaged Rooftop Units (RTUs) with 80% efficient gas heat. The warehouse and office are served by a total of twenty-eight (28) RTUs with
Appendix A 191 Page 195 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 nominal capacity of 25-tons and a nominal cooling efficiency of 10.6 EER/13.0 IEER. These units have a nominal fan power of 0.514 W/cfm and operate with enthalpy economizers. The 25-ton RTUs are also equipped with two-speed fan control. The units operate at 40% airflow when permitted by loading conditions. The offices are served by smaller AC units (3-17.5 tons) with nominal cooling efficiencies from 12.2 EER to SEER 17.5, enthalpy economizers, 80% efficient gas heat, and an average fan power of approximately 0.5 W/cfm.
Measurement and Verification Effort The eQuest modeling files of the building were provided, and whole building savings were determined through a desk review of the files. A plot of monthly kWh from the baseline and as- built model outputs can be seen below: Baseline vs As-Built Model kWh
Additionally, baseline and as-built model’s individual end uses were examined to ensure the outputs matched expectations. Baseline and as-built energy usage and savings categorized by end use are summarized in the following table:
Appendix A 192 Page 196 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Baseline and As-Built Annual End Use Summary
End Use Baseline As-Built Savings Lighting 6,333,033 2,435,000 3,898,034 Task lighting 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 1,755,096 1,755,096 0 equipment Heating 0 0 0 Cooling 1,359,517 1,119,154 240,363 Heat rejection 35,279 0 35,279 Auxiliary (pumps) 423,458 2,432 421,026 Vent fan 3,202,121 1,367,779 1,834,342 Refrigeration systems 0 0 0 Supplemental heat pump 0 0 0 Domestic hot water 0 0 0 Exterior to the building 473,522 153,344 320,178 Total 13,582,026 6,832,805 6,749,221
Results Expected and Realized Custom Savings by Measure
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Measure Lifetime Measure Savings Savings Rate (%) EUL Savings (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) Whole Building Model 6,705,757 6,749,221 101% 15 101,238,316 Total 6,705,757 6,749,221 101% 15 101,238,316 The project-level realization rate is 101%. The differences in realized energy savings are due to changes to the ex ante models. During the ex post desk review, ADM changed: the azimuth of the building and the weather data. The ex ante model ran four different orientations of the building and averaged the results. The ex post analysis ran the models using the actual orientation of the building. The ex ante models were run using TMY2 weather, and ADM ran the models using TMY3 weather data for Las Vegas. The ex ante energy models provided with the project documentation used ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for determining baseline equipment efficiencies. For example, the baseline LPD was determined using the space-by-space method with maximum allowances as set in ASHRAE 90.1-2007. However, ASHRAE 90.1 is not an official building code enforced in Las Vegas. The applicable energy code is the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). This project was permitted under the 2009 version of IECC. In future projects, all baseline equipment and LPD calculations should be determined using the correct version of IECC, not ASHRAE 90.1. For this specific project, IECC 2009, does not have a method for space-by-space LPD, but instead uses a whole building approach, which for a warehouse allows a LPD of 0.8 W/ft2. To gauge energy savings against code compliance, the baseline LPD from IECC 2009 should have been used in the ex ante savings. ADM decided to use the more conservative baseline LPD of 0.9 W/ft2 used in the ex ante calculations as opposed to the value of 0.8 W/ft2 outlined in the applicable IECC. In future projects,
Appendix A 193 Page 197 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
it is recommended that IECC be referenced for all baseline energy usage requirements and that ASHRAE 90.1-2007, Appendix G only be used for outlining procedures used in modeling the baseline and as-built buildings.
Appendix A 194 Page 198 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site City of Henderson Address 2401 Atchley Dr., Henderson, NV 89052 Project Number SB-17-08424
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08424, City of Henderson received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (4) 250W high pressure sodium fixtures to 87W LED fixtures; (5) 23W CFLs to 8W LED A-19 lamps; (11) 13W CFLs to 9W LED A-19 lamps; (3) 14W CFLs to 9W LED A-19 lamps; (1) 42W CFL to an 8W LED plug-in lamp; (2) 100W metal halide fixtures to 17W LED fixtures; (4) 70W high pressure sodium fixtures to 9W LED fixtures; (12) 70W high pressure sodium fixtures to 18W LED fixtures; and (2) 4’ 2-lamp T8 fixtures to 4’ 2-lamp 15W LED tube fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the lighting equipment and verified the wattage of the installed fixtures. In addition, ADM verified the fixtures are controlled by a timer that is continuously set to dusk-to-dawn operating hours.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures
Appendix A 195 Page 199 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
HPS to LED 4 4 295 87 4,313 3,578 3,588 1.00 100% 15.00 53,824
CFL to LED 5 5 23 9 4,313 301 302 1.00 100% 5.80 1,750
CFL to LED 11 11 15 9 4,313 284 285 1.00 100% 5.80 1,650
CFL to LED 3 3 16 9 4,313 90 91 1.00 100% 5.80 525
CFL to LED 1 1 46 8 4,313 163 164 1.00 100% 11.59 1,900
MH to LED 2 2 128 17 4,313 955 957 1.00 100% 5.80 5,550
HPS to LED 4 4 95 9 4,313 1,479 1,484 1.00 100% 5.80 8,600
HPS to LED 12 12 95 18 4,313 3,973 3,985 1.00 100% 11.59 46,200
4' 2L T8 to 4' 2L 2 2 59 30 4,313 249 250 1.00 100% 11.59 2,900 LED Total 11,073 11,106 100% 11.07 122,899
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%.
Appendix A 196 Page 200 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc Address 3801 S Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas, NV Project Number SB-17-08493
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08493, Tropicana installed variable speed drives (VFDs) on an air handler unit fans, a hot water pump, and a condenser water pump. The realization rate for this project is 91%.
Project Description The customer installed VFDs on an air handler unit fans, a hot water pump, and a condenser water pump. Below is the summary of the VFDs operation: (3) 25hp Supply fans on AHU-3, AHU-4, and AHU-5 (3) 60hp Condenser water pump (3) 40hp Hot water pump
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the VFDs. Savings were calculated using a calibrated eQuest model from a previous evaluation effort from 2013 when the chilled water plant was upgraded. Results of the calibration effort in 2013 can be seen below:
Appendix A 197 Page 201 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Additional parametric measures were created to simulate the effects of the VFDs on the AHU fans, condenser water pumps, and hot water pumps. TMY3 weather from Las Vegas McCarran Airport was used to calculate the typical savings for the installed measure.
Appendix A 198 Page 202 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Results The table below summarizes the expected and verified energy savings, gross realization rates, EUL, and lifetime savings for this project. Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates by Measure
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Measure Lifetime Measure Savings Savings Rate (%) EUL Savings (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) Condenser Water Pump VFDs 540,898 420,689 78% 15 6,310,336 Hot Water Pump VFDs 98,848 40,110 41% 15 601,647 Air Handler Unit VFDs 70,552 186,711 265% 15 2,800,662 Total 710,298 647,510 91% 15 9,712,650 The project-level realization rate is 91%. The difference in realization rate is due to differences in calculation methodologies. The ex ante analysis used deemed savings based on pump horsepower while the ex post analysis uses an eQuest simulation model calibrated to historical billing data.
Appendix A 199 Page 203 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site EVL-1 Associates, LLC Address 4220 South Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89119 Project Number SB-17-08532
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08532, EVL-1 Associates, LLC received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 80%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted (36) 4’ 3-lamp T8 fixtures to 4’ 2-lamp LED tube fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installation of the lighting equipment and determined the heating and cooling equipment types. Through an interview with the site contact, ADM verified the operating hours for the retrofitted fixtures as well as the baseline fixture type.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 200 Page 204 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
4' 3L T8 to 4' 2L T8 36 36 89 34 2,259 6,294 5,063 1.13 80% 15.00 75,945
Total 6,294 5,063 80% 15.00 75,945
Results The project-level realization rate is 80%. The ex post energy savings are low due to ADM verifying lower operating hours than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate. The ex ante savings were calculated using prescriptive Office hours, while ADM verified lower hours of use based on an interview with the site contact.
Appendix A 201 Page 205 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Body & Brain Yoga Address 6720 N Durango Drive, Suite #240, Las Vegas, NV 89149 Project Number SB-17-08684
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08684 Body & Brain Yoga received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 62%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted lamps in the interior of the shop: (18) 4' 1L T8 to (18) 4' 1L LED 13W (6) 2' 2L u-tube to (6) 2' 1L LED u-tube (1) CFL 13W lamp to (1) BR20 LED 5W lamp (3) wall sconce 29W to (3) A19 LED 5W (10) CFL 18W to (10) LED 10W (2) Incandescent pendant 29W to (2) A19 LED 7W (2) wall sconce 29W to (2) A19 LED 9W (7) CFL 13W to (7) 360 LED 7W (2) CFL 26W to (2) 360 LED 7W (1) 13W lamp to (1) 360 LED 7W (4) 4' 1L T8 to none (1) 3' 1L T8 to none Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. The baseline and post lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. Quantities of lamps were verified through visual verification and through a review of the provided invoices. Lamp wattages were verified with spec sheets and visual verification, where possible.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as:
Appendix A 202 Page 206 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
4' 1L T8 to 4' 1L LED 18 18 31 13 4,173 - 1,526 1.13 - 11.98 18,288
2' 2L u-tube to 2' 1L LED 6 6 59 18 4,173 - 1,159 1.13 - 11.98 13,885
CFL13W to BR20 LED 1 1 13 5 4,173 - 38 1.13 - 7.19 271
wall scnc to A19 LED 3 3 29 5 4,173 - 339 1.13 - 7.19 2,438
CFL 18W to LED 10W 10 10 18 10 4,173 - 377 1.13 - 8.39 3,161
Incand 29W to A19 LED 2 2 29 7 4,173 - 207 1.13 - 7.19 1,490
wall scnc to A19 LED 2 2 29 9 4,173 - 188 1.13 - 7.19 1,355
CFL 13W to 360 LED 7W 7 7 15 7 4,173 - 264 1.13 - 7.19 1,897
CFL 26W to 360 LED 7W 2 2 27 7 4,173 - 188 1.13 - 7.19 1,355
13W lamp to 360 LED 1 1 13 7 4,173 - 28 1.13 - 7.19 203
4' 1L T8 to none 4 - 31 - 4,173 - 584 1.13 - 15.00 8,762
3' 1L T8 to none 1 - 26 - 4,173 - 122 1.13 - 15.00 1,837
Total 8,105 5,022 62% 10.94 54,942
Results
Appendix A 203 Page 207 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The project-level realization rate is 62%. The low realization rate is due to the ex post analysis using custom hours based on an interview with facility staff. The ex post savings are based on annual operating hours of 4,137 hr/yr, while the ex ante estimates savings, which used prescriptive calculations, are based on the hours for a medical building type (6,474 hr/yr). This facility operates much closer to the prescriptive hours of a retail, or miscellaneous building type as opposed to a medical building.
Appendix A 204 Page 208 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site City of Henderson Rodeo Park Address 810 Aspen Peak Loop, Henderson, Nevada 89011 Project Number SB-17-08700
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08700, the City of Henderson received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented Rodeo Park. The realization rate for this project is 47%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (26) 100W MH lamps to 87W (Dimmable, set to 50% at 44W) LED lamps (12) 250W MH lamps to 143W (Dimmable, set to 50% at 72W) LED lamps (16) 26W CFL to 16W LEDs (20) 1000W MH lamps to 312W LED lamps (1) 150W MH lamps to 18W LED lamps
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM staff conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation and confirmed the equipment installation via provided photographs, invoices, and cut sheets.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 205 Page 209 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings 100W MH to 87W LED 26 26 128 44 4,313 - 9,419 1.00 15.00 141,288 (Dimmed to 50%) 250W MH to 143W LED 12 12 288 72 4,313 - 11,179 1.00 15.00 167,682 (Dimmed to 50%)
26W CFL to 16W LED 6 6 30 16 4,313 - 362 1.00 11.59 4,200
1000W MH to 312W 4 4 1,080 312 1,241 - 3,812 1.00 15.00 57,185 LED 1000W MH to 312W 12 12 1,080 312 1,241 - 11,437 1.00 15.00 171,556 LED
26W CFL to 16W LED 5 5 30 16 4,313 - 302 1.00 11.59 3,500
26W CFL to 16W LED 5 5 30 16 4,313 - 302 1.00 11.59 3,500
150W MH to 18W LED 1 1 190 18 4,313 - 742 1.00 11.59 8,600
1000W MH to 312W 4 4 1,080 312 1,241 - 3,812 1.00 15.00 57,185 LED Total 88,537 41,368 47% 14.86 614,697
Results The project-level realization rate is 47%. The lower ex post savings are due to different hours of operation being used for the tennis, volleyball, and basketball courts. The ex ante analysis used prescriptive “miscellaneous” building type hours for these areas. However, the customer estimated that the court lighting, which operate on a push button timer, only operate an estimated 3.2 hrs/day, for 1,241 hours per year. This difference in operating hours was the cause of the lower ex post savings.
Appendix A 206 Page 210 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Help USA Address 1455 N. Main Street, Las Vegas, NV 89106 Project Number SB-17-07670
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07670, Help USA received incentives from NV Energy for the lighting retrofit implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (12) 8' 2L T12 fixtures (T8 baseline applies) to (12) 2L LED T8 fixtures (14) 8' 2L T12 fixtures (T8 baseline applies) to (14) 2L LED T8 fixtures (8) 4' 4L T5 HO fixtures to (8) 2-lamp 18W LED T8 fixtures (9) 4' 4L T5 HO fixtures to (9) 2-lamp 18W LED T8 fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 207 Page 211 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T12 to LED 12 12 59 42 8,760 1,787 1,787 1.00 100% 5 9,180
T12 to LED 14 14 112 42 8,760 8,584 8,585 1.00 100% 5 44,100
T8 to LED 18 18 89 42 8,760 7,411 7,411 1.00 100% 5 38,070
T8 to LED 9 9 89 42 8,760 3,706 3,705 1.00 100% 5 19,035
Total 21,488 21,488 100% 5 110,385
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies or miscalculations were found for this project.
Appendix A 208 Page 212 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Boys & Girls Club – Southern Nevada Address 2980 Robindale Road, Henderson, NV 89074 Project Number SB-17-07673
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07673, Boys & Girls Club received incentives from NV Energy for the lighting retrofit program implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (16) 400 Metal Halide fixtures to (16) 100W LED fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 209 Page 213 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 16 16 458 100 2,871 18,676 18,655 1.13 100% 15 279,818
Total 18,676 18,655 100% 15 279,818
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies or miscalculations were found for this project.
Appendix A 210 Page 214 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site PAL Humane Society Address 4155 N Rancho Dr. #150, Las Vegas, NV 89130 Project Number SB-17-07974
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07974, PAL Humane Society received incentives from NV Energy for the lighting retrofit implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (10) 8' 2L T12 fixtures (T8 baseline applies) to 8’ 2L LED T8 fixtures (6) 65W incandescent lamps to 11W LED BR30 lamps (22) 4' 4L T8 fixtures to 4' 2L LED T8 fixtures (5) 4' 4L T8 fixtures to 4' 2L LED T8 fixtures (10) 4' 4L T8 fixtures to 4' 4L LED T8 fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 211 Page 215 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T8 to LED 10 10 109 72 2,444 - 1,022 1.13 15.00 15,325
T8 to LED 6 6 65 11 2,444 - 895 1.13 10.23 9,151
T8 to LED 22 22 112 36 2,444 - 4,617 1.13 15.00 69,252
T8 to LED 5 5 112 36 8,760 - 3,758 1.13 4.57 17,160
Inc to LED 10 10 112 72 2,444 - 1,104 1.13 15.00 16,567
Total 11,339 11,396 100% 11.18 127,456
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies or miscalculations were found for this project.
Appendix A 212 Page 216 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site St Andrews Lutheran Church Address 8901 Del Webb Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89134 Project Number SB-17-08196
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08196, St Andrews Lutheran Church received incentives from NV Energy for the lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (20) 4’ 2L T8 fixtures to 4’ 2L LED T8 fixtures (8) 4’ 3L T8 fixtures to 4’ 2L LED T8 fixtures (12) 4’ 3L T8 fixtures to 4’ 2L LED T8 fixtures (11) 100W metal halide fixtures to 15W LED fixtures (3) 250W metal halide fixtures to 58W LED fixtures (8) 100W metal halide fixtures to 18W LED fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 213 Page 217 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T8 to LED 20 20 59 36 3,060 - 1,589 1.13 15.00 23,836
T8 to LED 8 8 89 36 3,120 - 1,493 1.13 15.00 22,401
T8 to LED 12 12 89 36 2,993 - 2,149 1.13 15.00 32,234
MH to LED 11 11 128 15 4,313 - 5,361 1.00 13.91 74,580
MH to LED 3 3 295 58 4,313 - 3,066 1.00 13.91 42,660
MH to LED 8 8 128 18 4,313 - 3,795 1.00 13.91 52,800
Total 17,454 17,454 100% 14.24 248,512
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies or miscalculations were found for this project.
Appendix A 214 Page 218 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Touro University Address 874 American Pacific Dr., Henderson, NV 89014 Project Number SB-17-08197
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08197, Touro University received incentives from NV Energy for the lighting retrofit implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (18) 400W metal halide fixtures to 150W LED fixtures (19) 400W metal halide fixtures to 150W LED fixtures (23) 400W metal halide fixtures to 150W LED fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 215 Page 219 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 18 18 458 150 3,600 19,892 19,956 1.00 100% 13.89 277,200
MH to LED 19 19 458 150 2,741 15,976 16,037 1.00 100% 15.00 240,561
MH to LED 23 23 458 150 2,349 16,577 16,640 1.00 100% 15.00 249,605
Total 52,444 52,633 100% 14.58 767,366
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies or miscalculations were found for this project.
Appendix A 216 Page 220 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Congregation Ner Tamid Address 55 N. Valle Verde Dr., Henderson, NV 89074 Project Number SB-17-08249
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08249, Congregation Ner Tamid received incentives from NV Energy for the lighting retrofit implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 99%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (136) 90W halogen lamps to 17W LED BR40 lamps
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 217 Page 221 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
Halogen to LED 136 136 90 17 4,380 - 49,091 1.13 5.71 280,199
Total 49,572 49,091 99% 5.71 280,199
Results The project-level realization rate is 99%. The slightly low realization rate was caused by the lower HCIF (1.13) that ADM calculated in the ex post calculation, instead of the higher prescriptive value (1.14) used in the ex ante calculation.
Appendix A 218 Page 222 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Temple Sinai Las Vegas Inc. Address 9001 Hillpointe Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89134 Project Number SB-17-08309
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08309, Temple Sinai Las Vegas Inc. received incentives from NV Energy for the lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (25) 400W metal halide fixtures to 120W LED fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 219 Page 223 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 25 25 458 120 4,313 - 36,443 1.00 11.59 422,500
Total 36,428 36,443 100% 11.59 422,500
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies or miscalculations were found for this project.
Appendix A 220 Page 224 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site City Impact Foundation Address 1000 E. St Louis, Las Vegas, NV 89104 Project Number SB-17-08383
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08383, City Impact Foundation received incentives from NV Energy for the lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 91%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (5) 250W metal halide wall packs to 50W LED fixtures (6) 400W metal halide fixtures to 120W LED fixtures (2) 150W metal halide fixtures to 50W LED fixtures (4) 400W metal halide fixtures to 120W LED fixtures (39) 60W A19 incandescent lamps (43W baseline applies) to 9W LED lamps (3) 150W metal halide fixtures to 30W LED fixtures (1) 250W metal halide wall pack to 80W LED fixture
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 221 Page 225 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 5 5 295 50 4,313 5,281 5,283 1.00 100% 11.59 61,250
MH to LED 6 6 458 120 4,313 8,743 8,746 1.00 100% 13.91 121,680
MH to LED 2 2 188 50 4,313 1,190 1,190 1.00 100% 11.59 13,800
MH to LED 4 4 458 120 4,313 5,828 5,831 1.00 100% 13.91 81,120
Inc to LED 39 39 43 9 4,313 8,575 5,719 1.00 67% 6.96 39,780
MH to LED 3 3 188 30 4,313 2,043 2,044 1.00 100% 11.59 23,700
MH to LED 1 1 295 80 4,313 927 927 1.00 100% 11.59 10,750
Total 32,587 29,741 91% 11.84 352,080
Results The project-level realization rate is 91%. The realization rate is below 100% because the ex ante calculation used a 60W baseline for the (39) A19 incandescent lamps. Due to the regulations set forth in Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the 43W incandescent should be the applicable baseline for this lamp.
Appendix A 222 Page 226 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site The Salvation Army Address 4305 Boulder Hwy, Las Vegas, NV 89121 Project Number SB-17-08416
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08416, the Salvation Army received incentives from NV Energy for the lighting retrofit program implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (85) 4’ 4L T8 fixtures to 4’ 2L LED T8 fixtures (24) 2L T12 8ft fixtures (T8 baseline applies) to 8’ 2L LED T8 fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 223 Page 227 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T8 to LED 85 85 112 30 3,100 - 24,431 1.13 15.00 366,469
T12 to LED 24 24 109 72 3,100 - 3,113 1.13 15.00 46,689
Total 27,459 27,544 100% 15.00 413,159
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies or miscalculations were found for this project.
Appendix A 224 Page 228 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Sunrise Southern Baptist Church Address 1780 Betty Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89156 Project Number SB-17-08549
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08549, Sunrise Southern Baptist Church received incentives from NV Energy for the lighting retrofit implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: (24) 400W metal halide fixtures to (22) 150W LED fixtures (2) 65W Halogen fixtures to (2) 30W LED wall packs (14) 65W Halogen fixtures to (11) 20W 42720LED wall pack (8) 2L 12W LED fixtures to (6) 20W LED wall packs (1) 65W Halogen fixture and (1) 15W LED fixture to (1) 20W LED wall pack (6) 30W CFL fixtures to (5) 20W LED wall packs (1) 65W Halogen and (1) 13W CFL permanently removed (1) 2L 11.5W LED fixture to (1) 20W LED wall pack (1) 60W Halogen fixture and (1) 26W CFL fixture to (1) 20W LED wall pack (1) 11.5W LED and (1) 12W LED to (1) 20W LED wall pack
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: kWh HCIF N kW f N kW f Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 225 Page 229 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 24 22 458 150 4,313 - 33,174 1.00 11.59 384,600
Halogen to LED 2 2 65 30 4,313 - 305 1.00 11.59 3,538
Halogen to LED 14 11 130 20 4,313 - 6,901 1.00 11.59 80,000
LED to LED 8 6 24 20 4,313 - 311 1.00 11.59 3,600
Halogen + LED to LED 1 1 80 20 4,313 - 259 1.00 11.59 3,000
CFL to LED 6 5 60 20 4,313 - 1,121 1.00 11.59 13,000
Fixtures removed 1 - 78 20 4,313 - 336 1.00 11.59 3,900
LED to LED 1 1 23 20 4,313 - 13 1.00 11.59 150
Halogen + CFL to LED 1 1 86 20 4,313 - 285 1.00 11.59 3,300
LEDs to LED 1 1 24 20 4,313 - 15 1.00 11.59 175
Total 42,702 42,720 100% 11.59 495,263
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies or miscalculations were found for this project.
Appendix A 226 Page 230 of 392
APPENDIX B: SAVINGS PER MONTH BY RATE CLASS
2017: Energy Savings (kWh) per Month by Rate Class (First Year)
Rate Tariff Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total GS 6,446 22,608 40,673 88,824 214,879 319,386 373,460 490,340 540,083 619,905 617,912 631,584 3,966,100 LGS-1 155,935 278,659 446,316 794,673 1,404,384 1,909,471 2,337,579 2,765,391 3,767,738 5,630,447 5,804,028 6,480,330 31,774,951 LGS-2P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60,551 107,186 110,898 278,635 LGS-2S 21,809 62,209 99,328 152,199 234,818 367,820 561,097 674,276 751,417 851,535 1,078,154 1,879,118 6,733,782 LGS-3P 256,647 292,413 657,764 892,809 886,214 884,842 1,094,262 1,193,445 1,399,414 1,758,678 1,426,931 1,349,142 12,092,561 LGS-3S 10,135 9,726 13,040 20,926 22,005 23,657 25,688 26,408 36,878 51,480 67,156 71,432 378,530 LGS-3T 0 0 0 80,725 120,073 114,530 120,124 122,847 124,242 127,755 122,475 124,773 1,057,545 LGS-XP 10,280 9,659 10,803 309,669 492,418 476,251 492,057 492,251 476,703 453,430 375,053 378,310 3,976,885 LGS-XT 50,632 48,069 57,395 67,368 69,183 65,690 67,567 68,434 63,164 60,659 51,609 51,522 721,293 Total 511,883 723,343 1,325,318 2,407,193 3,443,975 4,161,647 5,071,835 5,833,392 7,159,640 9,614,441 9,650,505 11,077,109 60,980,281
2018: Full Year Energy Savings (kWh) per Month by Rate Class
Rate Tariff Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total GS 627,365 551,420 597,163 605,530 619,530 587,126 620,357 638,338 633,368 674,658 618,992 627,660 7,401,507 LGS-1 6,246,914 5,617,974 6,148,580 6,173,297 6,377,085 6,201,719 6,535,056 6,644,877 6,515,521 6,926,361 6,400,338 6,462,172 76,249,894 LGS-2P 110,697 99,537 109,582 105,451 108,470 104,771 108,459 108,952 106,024 110,173 107,115 110,905 1,290,136 LGS-2S 1,868,293 1,686,258 1,886,071 1,981,166 2,082,837 1,998,991 2,095,825 2,128,173 2,064,357 2,088,208 1,859,957 1,873,537 23,613,674 LGS-3P 1,342,939 1,344,812 1,586,299 1,669,048 1,716,764 1,527,681 1,538,247 1,557,905 1,576,895 1,826,202 1,438,674 1,342,116 18,467,581 LGS-3S 70,779 60,993 63,882 61,178 60,972 58,433 62,362 65,582 66,449 70,604 68,584 71,360 781,178 LGS-3T 122,216 107,573 114,348 116,312 120,587 115,141 119,276 121,984 123,704 128,322 122,371 125,519 1,437,352 LGS-XP 378,143 341,920 389,057 446,156 492,466 476,224 492,032 492,209 476,655 471,907 378,715 378,298 5,213,782 LGS-XT 50,774 48,315 57,865 66,700 69,397 65,568 67,458 68,247 62,598 61,309 51,591 51,468 721,293 Total 10,818,121 9,858,801 10,952,847 11,224,838 11,648,109 11,135,654 11,639,072 11,826,267 11,625,571 12,357,744 11,046,339 11,043,036 135,176,397 Page 231 of392
Appendix B 227 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
2019: Energy Savings (kWh) per Month by Rate Class
Rate Tariff Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total GS 627,444 549,815 591,850 610,995 618,984 582,550 625,473 635,533 635,869 672,664 617,273 633,057 7,401,507 LGS-1 6,255,358 5,594,321 6,116,025 6,185,835 6,376,272 6,171,605 6,555,051 6,651,287 6,493,998 6,910,911 6,420,465 6,518,766 76,249,894 LGS-2P 110,684 99,518 109,561 105,433 108,457 104,771 108,471 108,971 106,044 110,192 107,128 110,905 1,290,136 LGS-2S 1,869,364 1,683,463 1,874,758 1,991,438 2,084,246 2,000,088 2,098,480 2,123,400 2,061,802 2,084,194 1,860,846 1,881,595 23,613,674 LGS-3P 1,356,956 1,299,910 1,576,646 1,718,827 1,714,412 1,553,206 1,542,348 1,555,396 1,579,494 1,739,893 1,479,775 1,350,718 18,467,581 LGS-3S 70,704 60,871 63,584 61,162 60,910 58,095 62,661 65,671 66,763 70,752 68,562 71,444 781,178 LGS-3T 122,106 107,465 114,622 116,199 120,496 115,551 118,892 122,571 123,417 128,051 122,955 125,027 1,437,352 LGS-XP 378,194 341,761 389,622 449,324 492,456 476,278 492,045 492,226 476,677 468,616 378,272 378,311 5,213,782 LGS-XT 51,002 46,810 57,025 65,826 69,291 65,809 67,512 68,326 64,796 61,028 52,342 51,525 721,293 Total 10,841,811 9,783,933 10,893,693 11,305,039 11,645,525 11,127,954 11,670,934 11,823,382 11,608,861 12,246,299 11,107,617 11,121,349 135,176,397
2020 (Leap Year): Energy Savings (kWh) per Month by Rate Class
Rate Tariff Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total GS 626,855 566,809 594,105 614,061 609,200 591,520 626,449 631,434 643,087 666,898 616,134 636,400 7,422,952 LGS-1 6,250,007 5,789,751 6,118,719 6,207,821 6,342,991 6,210,506 6,564,453 6,632,850 6,532,022 6,884,501 6,403,895 6,522,261 76,459,777 LGS-2P 110,670 103,044 109,519 105,397 108,433 104,773 108,497 109,009 106,084 110,230 107,152 110,904 1,293,711 LGS-2S 1,868,520 1,742,112 1,880,754 2,002,982 2,073,895 2,011,003 2,101,400 2,113,411 2,073,952 2,066,593 1,855,265 1,885,648 23,675,535 LGS-3P 1,355,443 1,369,141 1,563,000 1,736,445 1,701,806 1,550,723 1,542,534 1,551,509 1,584,173 1,751,221 1,449,773 1,357,878 18,513,647 LGS-3S 70,604 62,797 63,456 61,210 60,484 58,466 62,855 65,687 67,209 70,546 68,632 71,584 783,529 LGS-3T 121,990 111,464 113,833 116,859 121,214 114,595 119,024 123,296 123,305 127,944 123,211 124,490 1,441,225 LGS-XP 378,184 354,036 390,788 455,471 492,428 476,265 492,052 492,234 476,688 462,556 376,955 378,337 5,225,996 LGS-XT 50,956 49,058 56,774 66,674 69,229 65,750 67,547 68,359 64,147 60,945 51,919 51,641 722,999 Total 10,833,230 10,148,212 10,890,950 11,366,919 11,579,680 11,183,600 11,684,811 11,787,789 11,670,666 12,201,434 11,052,938 11,139,142 135,539,371
Page 232 of392
Appendix B 228 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Critical Peak Demand Savings (kW) per Month by Rate Class Rate Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tariff GS 1,163 1,192 1,026 980 755 767 761 761 758 1,248 1,200 1,192 LGS-1 11,903 12,227 10,991 9,836 8,319 8,560 8,611 8,675 8,464 12,192 12,194 12,191 LGS-2P 156 156 156 152 139 139 139 139 139 156 156 156 LGS-2S 2,930 3,024 2,907 3,088 3,170 3,162 3,120 3,135 3,078 3,443 3,027 2,987 LGS-3P 2,316 2,391 2,353 2,864 2,204 2,194 2,198 2,201 2,199 2,961 2,433 2,388 LGS-3S 148 150 144 120 46 45 47 48 47 154 151 149 LGS-3T 345 345 356 389 161 161 161 161 161 388 355 345 LGS-XP 514 515 540 666 659 660 660 660 660 668 540 515 LGS-XT 97 99 96 123 99 100 100 101 101 112 98 99 Total 19,573 20,099 18,571 18,217 15,552 15,787 15,798 15,880 15,605 21,322 20,154 20,023
Page 233 of392
Appendix B 229
APPENDIX C: CALCULATION METHODOLOGY, CRITICAL PEAK DEMAND (KW) SAVINGS
C.1. OVERVIEW OF CALCULATION METHODOLOGY FOR KW SAVINGS
This section provides a description of analytical steps employed to determine critical peak demand savings per month per rate class for NV Energy’s 2017 DSM programs. For the 2017 M&V reports, demand (kW) reduction per month per rate class is determined using essentially the same methodology that is used to disaggregate annual energy (kWh) savings into monthly kWh savings per rate class. Please see the following chapter for a more detailed description of the methodology for determining energy (kWh) savings per month per rate class.
M&V reports for 2017 DSM programs do not provide critical peak demand (kW) savings for the 2017 calendar year. To do so would provide an incomplete, potentially misleading picture of critical peak kW savings, because each monthly kW reduction value would represent only a fraction of the total population of measures that are installed during the program year as a whole. Instead, M&V reports for 2017 DSM programs provide monthly critical peak kW savings values for 2017 – and for subsequent years for the life of the measures installed – which are representative of the whole population of measures installed by each program during the 2017 calendar year. This approach for reporting “typical” (or “full year”) coincident peak kW reduction is the preferred approach for impact evaluations. For this program, Table B-5 in the preceding section provides the full-year values or 2018 calendar-year values for critical peak kW savings per month and per rate class.
C.2. ANALYTICAL STEPS AT THE MEASURE LEVEL
At the measure level, for every record (i.e., individual measure) in NV Energy’s DSM Central database, ADM assigns an appropriate normalized 8,760 energy savings curve. A normalized energy savings curve is comprised of 8,760 hourly fractions summing to exactly 1 (unity).15 For each measure, ADM determines ex post annual kWh savings, which is then multiplied by each of the 8,760 hourly fractions to disaggregate the annual kWh into 8,760 hourly kW bins.
C.3. ANALYTICAL STEPS AT THE PROGRAM LEVEL
To determine program-level demand (kW) reduction for a given hourly kW bin, ADM sums the hourly kW bin across all measures in the program. For example, the program-level kW reduction
15 ADM has developed a library of normalized energy savings curves that are appropriate for Northern and Southern Nevada. Many of the commercial energy savings curves were derived from NV Energy’s program-specific data, while others were derived from data provided in the 2008 California Database of Energy Efficiency Resources (2008 DEER).
Appendix C 230 Page 234 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
for the hour ending at 5PM on the 200th day of the year is the sum of kW for all measures in the program during that hour on that day.
To determine monthly critical peak demand (kW) reduction for the program, ADM inspects program-level kW reduction during the one-hour critical peak demand period that is defined for each month of the year. The following table provides the monthly critical peak demand periods for NPC and Sierra, which were determined from ADM’s analysis of peak system load data provided by NV Energy.
Table C-1. Critical Peak Demand Period per Month, NV Energy
Month Critical Peak Period, NPC Critical Peak Period, Sierra
Hour Ending at: Hour Ending at: January 19 19:00 19 19:00 February 19 19:00 19 19:00 March 20 20:00 20 20:00 April 20 20:00 21 21:00 May 17 17:00 17 17:00 June 17 17:00 17 17:00 July 17 17:00 17 17:00 August 17 17:00 17 17:00 September 17 17:00 17 17:00 October 19 19:00 20 20:00 November 19 19:00 19 19:00 December 19 19:00 19 19:00
For example, the critical peak demand period for July is the hour from 16:00:01 or 4:00:01 PM to 17:00:00 or 5:00:00 PM. To determine July’s program-level critical peak kW savings, ADM inspects average hourly kW reduction during 4:00:01 to 5:00:00 PM for every day in July: the highest value represents July’s critical peak kW savings. The same procedure is followed for all months of the year. Summer critical peak demand savings is defined as July’s critical peak kW savings; the rationale for doing so is that historical data reveals that during any given year, NV Energy’s peak system demand in either territory will typically occur during a July day between 4:00:01 to 5:00:00 PM.
To determine the monthly kW reduction per rate class, each program-level monthly critical peak kW savings value is disaggregated into rate class bins by correlating monthly kW savings for a given measure to the measure’s assigned customer rate class as listed in NV Energy’s DSM Central database.
Appendix C 231 Page 235 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Calculations for energy (kWh) savings – and for demand (kW) reduction – per month per rate class require complex algorithms that are executed in massive Excel files, which are also known as kW guru™ files.
C.4. ANALYSIS OF SYSTEM-LEVEL CRITICAL PEAK DEMAND PERIODS
ADM analyzed NV Energy’s system-level critical peak hours to determine a consistent reference for peak demand impacts of M&V evaluation of all NV Energy programs. ADM’s analysis encompassed Sierra Pacific Power Company (“Sierra”) in the north and Nevada Power Company (“NPC”) in the south.
Hourly system load data from 1985 through 2011 for Sierra and from 1999 through 2011 for NPC was provided by NV Energy. In analyzing the hourly load data, it was determined that the system peaks for Sierra in 1985 were only half of what they have been in the more recent ten-year period. The percentage change in daily system peaks between summer and winter were smaller in the 80’s and 90’s than in the more recent ten-year period. Therefore, ADM concluded that the use of system load data from the recent ten-year period provides the best basis for predicting what to expect during an EEM’s remaining useful life; following that rationale, data prior to the most recent ten years was excluded from ADM’s analysis. In both service territories, the highest system peak occurred in 2007, and system peaks have declined moderately since.
The hourly load data for the recent ten-year period was thoroughly reviewed and except for “spring ahead” hours (when clock times change from Standard Time to Daylight Savings Time), it was determined that the data was consistent and appropriate. The data for “spring ahead” hours are inconsistent, with values given as follows: (1) the value from the preceding hour is used and is an acceptable means of handling the data; and (2) a zero, which is an inaccurate value that would pull down the average. For this analysis, zero values were converted to blanks, and therefore not included in the averaging calculation. Overall this is a minor issue that did not impact ADM’s final analysis of system-level critical peak hours.
ADM determined that system load characteristics vary by season. To accommodate the seasonal variations, the hour of peak system load was determined for each month. ADM concluded that a one-hour peak demand period per month is appropriate.
The final determination of the appropriate peak demand hour per month per territory is provided above; see the table in the preceding section of this appendix. The designated peak demand hour per month per territory was utilized for M&V analyses of energy efficiency programs implemented in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Subject to ADM’s periodic re-checking of system load data, it is expected that the designated peak demand hour per month per territory will continue to be utilized for subsequent program years.
Appendix C 232 Page 236 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
This M&V methodology update occurred for the following reason. Compared to the three-hour critical peak demand window used for M&V analyses of 2010 programs, the updated critical peak demand definition (i.e., one hour per month per territory) provides a more accurate determination of energy efficiency programs’ contributions to reducing system peak demand. In other words, the one-hour peak kW reduction will align with the actual hour of system peak.
NV Energy’s hourly system load data demonstrated well-defined peaks during summer and winter months. However, certain transition months – such as May in Southern Nevada – have a nearly identical double peak. It is obvious that specific weather conditions during any given year cause one or the other of the two peaks to predominate. In the final analysis, transition months have far less peak demand than summer months, so a transition month peak hour is essentially insignificant to the determination of the system peak hour, which will typically occur in July and occasionally occur in August (but never in May).
ADM also analyzed hourly system load by various day types. The day type that exhibited highest average demand was selected as the appropriate day type for final determination of peak hour. The day types investigated were (1) All Days, (2) Weekdays, (3) Non-Holiday Weekdays (i.e., Workdays) and (4) Weekend & Holidays. A curve for each month was developed by day type. All days for a given day type were averaged for a given month by hour of the day to develop an average 24-hour load curve. For the north and south the summer peak typically occurs during hour 17, which is the hour that ends at 17:00 (5:00 PM). The greatest summer peak demand is the highest peak demand experienced by both companies.
The analysis determined that of the four-day types, Workdays averaged the highest system demand for most hours of the day. Generally, the peak hour calculated from the average Workday curve was identified as the peak hour for the month for the given territory. The peak hours for two transition months in each territory were adjusted to maintain a more consistent set of peak hours. Adjustments were made for May and June for Sierra and April and November for NPC. The selection of the peak hour for these months were based on differences of less than 1 percent in the average demand in MW between the mathematical peak hour and the assigned peak hour.
To validate these decisions ADM also analyzed all-time record peak days and an average of the day from each month that the peak occurred. The second method thus included ten days in the calculation of the average. The results from these analyses supported the average Workday results. Analysis files have not been included in this report due to the large size of spreadsheets.
Appendix C 233 Page 237 of 392
APPENDIX D: DETERMINING ENERGY (KWH) SAVINGS PER MONTH BY RATE CLASS
This chapter provides a detailed description of ADM’s analytical steps for determining the energy (kWh) savings per month by rate class values that are provided in the M&V reports for program year 2017.16
D.1. APPORTIONMENT OF ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS BY RATE CLASS
NV Energy’s DSM programs generally include populations of customers from more than one rate class. NV Energy tracks the rate class for each identifiable customer participating in DSM programs. However, participant information is not known for certain DSM programs, such as the Consumer Electronics and Plug Loads program or other “upstream” or “midstream” programs where incentives are provided through contractual arrangements with manufacturers or distributors of the rebated products. For DSM programs for which participant information is not known, ADM collected participant information at the point of sale or conducted customer surveys to identify the proportions of participants that belong to various rate classes.
D.2. APPORTIONMENT OF ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS BY MONTH
ADM developed a methodology that utilizes energy savings curves to calculate the portion of annual energy savings that occurs during each month of the year. An energy savings curve describes the temporal nature of energy savings. For example, on any given day the energy savings achieved by an LED exit sign are approximately 1/365 of the verified annual energy savings for that LED exit sign. On the other hand, an efficient air conditioner may not save any energy during the month of January but may achieve 35 percent of its annual energy savings in the month of July alone. ADM constructed appropriate energy savings curves from metered data collected during M&V of NV Energy DSM programs (or other programs if appropriate), customer billing data, calibrated DOE2 simulations and engineering calculations. The energy savings curves were coupled with project implementation dates on a record-by-record basis to produce accurate determinations of the energy savings achieved for each month of the year.
D.3. HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF ADM’S CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
Monthly energy (kWh) savings for each program were calculated by applying an appropriate hourly or daily energy savings curve to each program participant’s ex post verified energy savings, then aggregating kWh savings for each month. The energy savings curve distributes a participant’s
16 The Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) requires NV Energy to report energy (kWh) savings per month and per rate class for each Demand Side Management (DSM) program.
Appendix D 234 Page 238 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
energy savings over time. Its shape is therefore dependent on not only the measure installed (i.e., lighting vs. HVAC), but also on the building type and sometimes its location.
The overall process by which ADM calculated monthly kWh savings was to (1) download from the NV Energy DSM Central database all program tracking data, i.e., ex ante expected kWh savings, measure type, measure completion date, rate class, etc., (2) calculate ex post values per participant, (3) assign an energy savings curve to each participant’s ex post savings to distribute ex post energy savings by rate class over each of the 8,760 hours in a year, and (4) aggregate ex post verified savings for the purpose of presenting savings by month and by rate class.
ADM also calculated first-year kWh savings for each program by combining measure startup date (from NVE’s DSM Central data) with the aforementioned process. A detailed description of the steps involved in tabulating first-year kWh savings is provided in section D.5 below.
D.4. ENERGY SAVINGS CURVES
D.4.1. Definition
The phrase ‘energy savings curve’ is used to describe the temporal dependence of energy savings. The curves are typically hourly (1 × 8760 array), daily (1 × 365 array), or monthly (1 × 12 array). The energy savings curves are often normalized such the sum of all array elements is unity. When normalized, each element describes the fraction of annual savings that is expected to occur in a given hour, day, or month.
D.4.2. Nomenclature
Note that if the term ‘load shape’ is encountered in the spreadsheets that are used to tally monthly energy savings by program and rate class, one should take it to be the same as ‘energy savings curve’ as described herein. The reason for the usage of the term ‘load shape’ is twofold: Energy savings curves are differential load shapes describing differences in electricity loads resulting from the implementation of energy efficiency measures; in other words, energy savings curves indicate the shape over time of electricity that is saved or not used. Note also that energy that is not used due to energy efficiency actions (i.e., “saved” energy) is sometimes called “Negawatts” – a “Negawatt” saved is meant to represent the negative form of a “Megawatt” of power that would have been used if the energy efficiency actions had not occurred.
An energy savings curve for a measure may or may not be synchronous with the load curve of the base case technology against which savings are determined. There are energy efficiency measures (EEMs) for which the normalized savings curve is synchronous and proportional to the normalized load shape or curve of the base case technology. Examples of such EEMs include CFLs versus incandescent lights
Appendix D 235 Page 239 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
if it is assumed that (1) there are null or negligible interactive effects and (2) pre- and post-retrofit usage schedules are identical. If the savings curve for an EEM is synchronous with the base case technology load shape, then the two curves have identical shapes. For other EEMs, the energy savings curve is asynchronous with the load curve of the base case technology. Examples of EEMs with asynchronous savings curves include economizers, occupancy sensors, and control systems. For such measures, the shape of the energy savings curve is different from the shape of the base case technology.
As part of our evaluation effort ADM determines for each EEM whether to use normalized energy savings curves that are either synchronous or asynchronous with the normalized load shape of the base case technology.
D.5 TABULATING MONTHLY ENERGY (KWH) SAVINGS PER RATE CLASS
Normalized daily energy savings curves are utilized for this task. A normalized daily energy savings curve is comprised of 365 daily fractions summing to exactly 1 (unity). For each measure, ADM determines ex post annual kWh savings, which is then multiplied by each of the 365 daily energy savings curve fractions to disaggregate annual kWh into 365 daily kWh bins.
D.5.1. First-Year kWh Savings
‘First-year’ kWh savings are savings that occur during the same calendar year in which a conservation program was implemented. For NV Energy, a program year is the same as a calendar year. Thus ‘first-year’ kWh savings for a measure installed during the 2017 program year are equal to that measure’s kWh savings during the 2017 calendar year.
The following calculations are performed to tabulate ‘first-year’ kWh savings attributable to a particular customer rate class. For any given 2017 NV Energy program: For each rate class, for each day of 2017, identify all measures that have been implemented (or ‘installed’ or ‘started up’) by the end of the prior day.
For each rate class, for each day of 2017, for all measures that that have been installed by the prior day, multiply the ex post verified ‘typical-year’ annualized kWh savings17 for each measure type by that measure’s daily kWh bin. In other words, multiply the
17 ‘Typical-year’ annualized kWh savings is 365 consecutive days of energy savings – usually a full calendar year other than Leap Year – attributed to an energy efficiency measure(s) for which ex post verified kWh savings will occur during a multi-year measure life. For example, an NV Energy conservation measure installed during the 2017 program year (i.e., during the 2017 calendar year) will normally provide kWh savings starting on its date of installation. ‘First-year’ savings is the savings that occurs during the 2017 calendar year. ‘Full-year’ savings is the savings occurring during subsequent calendar years.
Appendix D 236 Page 240 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
measure-level annual kWh by the measure-level daily bin from the appropriate energy savings curve.
For each rate class, tally all measure-level daily kWh savings to determine program- level daily kWh savings.
For each rate class, for any given month of 2017, tally all measure-level daily kWh savings occurring during that month to determine program-level monthly kWh savings during the 2017 calendar year.
For each rate class, the first-year kWh savings is the program-level monthly kWh savings for that rate class summed across all 12 months of 2017.
D.5.2. ‘Typical-Year’ Energy (kWh) Savings
‘Typical-year’ energy (kWh) savings represents 365 consecutive days of energy savings attributed to a measure(s) or program for which ex post verified savings will occur across a multi-year measure life.18
The following calculations are performed to tabulate ‘typical-year’ energy (kWh) savings attributable to a particular customer rate class. For any given 2017 NV Energy program, all measures would have been implemented or installed during calendar year 2017. For each rate class, for each hour (or day) of 2017 and subsequent years, multiply ex post verified ‘typical-year’ energy (kWh) savings for each measure type by that measure’s hourly (or daily) kWh bin. In other words, multiply the measure-level annual kWh by the measure-level hourly (or daily) bin from the appropriate energy savings curve.19
For each rate class, tally all measure-level hourly (or daily) kWh savings to determine program-level hourly (or daily) kWh savings.
18 The distinction between ‘typical year’ and ‘full year’ is that a ‘typical year’ is a 365-day year. A Leap Year is not a ‘typical year’ – instead, a Leap Year is a ‘full year’ that has 366 days. In M&V reports, the kWh savings tables (which show monthly savings per rate class) usually indicate titles such as “Full Year 2017”, “Full Year 2018”, “Full Year 2019” and “Full Year 2020 (Leap Year)”. 19 When tallying kWh savings per month per rate class, the use of hourly bins or daily bins is equally correct and accurate. ADM typically uses daily bins (which are created from hourly bins) in our kW guru™ Excel files simply because a workstation processor can complete the billions of computations in a large kW guru™ file relatively faster when the number of computations is based on 365 daily bins instead of 8760 hourly bins per calendar year. Hourly bins in kW guru™ files (i.e., the 8760 hourly bins per ‘typical year’) exist for the following two purposes: 1) they are summed across the 24 hours of each day to create the aforementioned daily bins; and 2) they provide the hourly resolution that enables us to analyze and report critical peak demand (kW) savings per month per rate class for any specified kW-reporting period.
Appendix D 237 Page 241 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
For each rate class, for any given month, sum all measure-level hourly (or daily) kWh savings occurring in that month to determine program-level monthly kWh savings.
For each rate class, ‘typical-year’ kWh savings is the program-level monthly kWh savings for that rate class summed across all 365 days of any non-Leap Year after the 2017 calendar year.
For any given program, ‘full-year’ kWh savings for a Leap Year will be marginally higher than ‘full-year’ kWh savings for a ‘typical year’ or non-Leap Year. Thus, we always use a non-Leap Year when we quantify ‘typical-year’ kWh savings.
Following is an example of the determination of daily kWh savings generated by a program. Let’s consider a hypothetical program that targets two energy efficiency (EE) measures: residential lighting and residential cooling. For this hypothetical program, Table D-1 below provides a simple comparison of the measures’ respective: ‘typical-year’ energy savings; daily bin value in its energy savings curve for a specific day – February 1st – of any given year20 after the EE measures were installed; energy (kWh) savings during February 1st of any given year after the EE measures were installed.
In Table D-1 below, the assumption is that 1,000,000 kWh of annual energy savings (‘typical- year’ savings as reported in M&V reports) were achieved through distribution of CFLs and 500,000 kWh of annual (‘typical-year’) energy savings were achieved through implementation of high efficiency air conditioning (AC) measures. Energy (kWh) savings on February 1st are obtained by multiplying ‘typical-year’ kWh savings by the entries corresponding to February 1st in the respective normalized energy savings curves. In this example, the daily bin for space cooling is zero because no space cooling is expected to occur on February 1st.
20 The daily bin value for February 1 represents the February 1 daily fraction of ‘typical-year’ annual energy (kWh) savings.
Appendix D 238 Page 242 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table D-1. Sample calculation of energy savings achieved for a given rate class on February 1 for a hypothetical program targeting residential lighting and space cooling.
Comparison for “Indoor Lighting” vs. EE Measure = EE Measure = “Space Cooling” Measures “Indoor Lighting” “Space Cooling”
‘Typical-year’ energy savings (annual kWh): 1,000,000 500,000
Feb. 1 daily bin value in each EE measure’s 0.0030 0.0000 energy savings curve:
Feb. 1 energy (kWh) savings in a typical year: 3,000 0
For each program, such calculations are performed for each rate class, energy savings curve and hour (or day). Hourly (or daily) results are then aggregated at the monthly level.
D.5.3. Leap Year Savings
To account for the extra day in February in Leap Years, one of the following methods is used. Either method produces accurate and very similar ex post verified energy savings determinations for Leap Years. Energy savings during the month of February in a Leap Year is taken to be equal to 29/28 of energy savings during the month of February in a typical non-Leap Year.
Or, energy savings on the day of February 29 in a Leap Year is assumed to be the same as energy savings on the previous day (February 28).
Appendix D 239 Page 243 of 392
APPENDIX E: PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING UPDATED ENERGY (KWH) SAVINGS
This chapter provides a detailed description of ADM’s procedures for determining the updated verified energy (kWh) savings for past projects. Procedures have been developed to review past projects that had relatively high uncertainty when the original analysis was completed or had uncertainty due to specific measure types. An example of measures that may require updated energy savings include: VFD projects, projects with less than one month of billing data, and projects with less than 100% occupancy. For the 2016 program year, ADM reviewed projects that were measured and verified in program year 2015. Additionally, a list of 2017 projects that are recommended for review in subsequent program years is provided.
E.1 PROCEDURES TO IDENTIFY AND REVIEW PROJECTS
ADM has developed procedures for providing a review and updated energy savings for certain projects that participated in the Commercial Incentives program in past years. The review of these sites is conducted to verify the persistence of savings for sites with relatively high uncertainty that were included in M&V samples. These procedures were developed during the 2014 program year and resulted in ADM reviewing past projects from 2010 through 2013 to identify sites with high uncertainty or with specific measures that may contribute to the level of uncertainty. Specific measures that may contribute to high uncertainty in the verified savings analysis are included below:
Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) Projects: VFD projects can have higher uncertainty in the verified savings due to the changing nature of the VFDs and the systems that they serve. Many VFD projects are implemented in HVAC systems and thus their operation, and verified savings, are highly weather dependent. VFDs in this application typically have a low level of uncertainty due to ADM’s ability to normalize for weather impacts. Accounting for weather impacts is typically done through the installation of monitoring equipment, or through calibrated DOE2 energy simulation models that result in verified savings with very low uncertainty. However, in projects where VFDs are used for process control, irrigation, mining, etc. the uncertainty of the verified savings can increase due to external factors other than weather. In some cases, the energy savings may depend on a facility’s production rate or the equipment controlled by a VFD may be moved to other locations within the process. (For example, this may occur at mining sites.) In these cases, the uncertainty in the verified savings increases and providing a review of these savings in years subsequent to when the measures where completed is appropriate.
Projects with minimal billing data: Many of the projects included in past year M&V samples were analyzed using calibrated DOE2 energy simulation models. The evaluation
Appendix E 240 Page 244 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Southern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
of these sites uses electrical energy billing data to determine the total energy usage of the facility either prior to or after an energy efficiency measure is implemented. The billing data is used to calibrate DOE2 energy simulation models to ensure the models accurately represent the energy usage patterns in the buildings. It is standard practice to use 12 months of billing data when calibrating an energy model to ensure the model represents all seasons appropriately. However, fewer months of billing data can still provide verified savings with low uncertainty, especially if the implemented measures are season specific (i.e. cooling system energy savings that occur in summer months). In rare cases, energy simulation models have been calibrated using three, or fewer, months of billing data. These are projects that are most commonly new construction projects that are completed at the end of the program years. Due to the projects being completed late in the program years, ADM may not be able to obtain more than 1-3 months of billing data from NVE prior to having to complete the M&V analysis. These projects may have increased uncertainty in their verified savings and are included in the projects that receive subsequent review.
Projects with low/no Occupancy: Occasionally projects with low occupancy or no occupancy participate in the programs. Traditionally, the verified savings of these projects has been based on estimated energy usage at full or expected occupancy. However, to reduce uncertainty associated with these projects, ADM conducts additional M&V activities to investigate the occupancy levels of these buildings in subsequent years.
Non-measure specific sites: Beginning with the 2014 program year, ADM has identified sampled sites that have higher uncertainty in their verified savings and performed additional M&V activities as necessary to verify continuing savings. These projects are non-measure specific and are selected on a case by case basis. These are projects that, in ADM’s judgment, have high uncertainty due to limited availability of data, uncertainty in process or manufacturing loads, high variability in operations, etc. Any projects that are recommended for additional M&V activities in subsequent program years are identified in this Appendix.
E.2 2016 PROJECTS
During the 2016 evaluation, no NPC sites were identified for which ADM would recommend subsequent review during the 2017 program year. None of the sampled sites had a significant uncertainty in the verified savings that could potentially be reduced through a subsequent review.
E.3 2017 PROJECTS RECOMMENDED FOR FUTURE REVIEW
During the 2017 evaluation, no NPC sites were identified for which ADM would recommend subsequent review during the 2018 program year. None of the sampled sites had a significant uncertainty in the verified savings that could potentially be reduced through a subsequent review.
Appendix E 241 Page 245 of 392
DSM-18
Page 246 of 392 Commercial Incentives NV Energy – Northern Nevada (SPPC) Program Year 2017
Measurement and Verification Report March 5, 2018
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
3239 Ramos Circle Sacramento, CA 95827 916-363-8383
Page 247 of 392 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title ...... Page 1. Executive Summary ...... 1 2. Program Background ...... 3 3. M&V Methodology ...... 8 4. Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis ...... 23 5. Recommendations ...... 31 Appendix A: Project-Level Analyses ...... 34 Appendix B: Savings per Month per Rate Class ...... 130 Appendix C: Calculation Methodology for Critical Peak Demand (kW) Savings ...... 133 Appendix D: Determining Energy (kWh) Savings per Month per Rate Class ...... 137 Appendix E: Procedures for Determining Updated Energy (kWh) Savings ...... 143
i Page 248 of 392 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Measurement & Verification (“M&V”) report presents the measured and verified savings for the Commercial Incentives program that NV Energy implemented in its northern Nevada service territory (also known as the “SPPC” service area) during program-year 2017 (PY2017). The program included retrofit, new construction, direct install, and non-profit agency grant (NPAG) projects.
ADM Associates, Inc. (ADM) was the third-party independent contractor that performed the M&V work. The main features of the approach that ADM used for the M&V effort are as follows. x NV Energy’s DSM Central (DSMC) Database, was used as the source of the final, certified, program level data. Total ex ante expected energy (kWh) savings reported for the program in the DSMC database were 50,487,489 kWh. Data with which to verify these savings were collected through review of program materials, on-site inspections, and end-use metering. x Based on data provided by NV Energy, a stratified sample design was developed for on-site data collection for the M&V work. ADM used a strata boundary optimization process that minimized variance within individual stratum, leading to a more efficient sample design. The sample design allowed for the measurement and verification of ex post energy (kWh) savings to achieve r 6.16% precision at the 90 percent confidence interval. The selected sample included a total of 54 projects, of which 5 were new construction projects, 28 were retrofit projects, 11 were direct install, and 10 were NPAG projects. The 54 northern Nevada projects in the M&V sample accounted for 61% of ex ante expected energy (kWh) savings. x ADM conducted on-site visits to a selected sample sites to verify measure installation and collect primary data for measure operating parameters that impact the ex post determination of energy (kWh) and summer critical peak demand (kW) savings. During the on-site M&V visits, facility staff were interviewed to determine the operating hours of the installed systems and to identify any additional benefits or shortcomings with the installed systems. For some M&V sample sites, lighting equipment, HVAC equipment or motors/VFDs were monitored to obtain accurate primary data pertaining to operating schedules and other parameters.
The results of the analysis to determine ex post savings are summarized in Table 1-1. The analysis determined that ex post verified energy (kWh) savings for the northern Nevada Commercial Energy Services (CES) program totaled 50,803,353 kWh (full-year savings) in PY2017, which gives a realization rate of 101%. Verified first-year savings (during calendar-year 2017) totaled 13,320,999 kWh and summer critical peak demand (kW) savings was 7,000 kW.
Executive Summary 1 Page 249 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table 1-1. Summary of Energy (kWh) and Summer Critical Peak Demand (kW) Savings
Ex Post Ex Post First-Year Ex Ante Annual Ex Post Annual Realization Summer Peak (2017) kWh kWh Savings kWh Savings Rate kW Savings Savings 13,320,999 50,487,489 50,803,353 101% 7,000
Executive Summary 2 Page 250 of 392 2. PROGRAM BACKGROUND
This chapter provides background information on the Commercial Energy Services (CES) Program that NV Energy offered to commercial and industrial customers in its northern Nevada service territory during 2017. It also provides an overview of the measurement and verification methods used to determine ex post savings values for the program.
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE CES PROGRAM
The CES Program offers financial rebates for electric energy-efficiency measures to qualifying commercial applicants. Both retrofit and new construction projects are included in this program.
Under this program, prescriptive rebates are available for electric energy efficiency equipment upgrades and improvements; this includes energy efficiency measures for lighting, HVAC, commercial refrigeration and miscellaneous measures. Rebates are provided for qualified equipment installed in a retrofit or as equipment replacement.
The program also offers rebates for custom measures, including most measures that reduce electric energy use that are not included in the program as prescriptive measures. Custom measure rebates are paid based on the ex ante estimated energy savings achieved. Examples of custom measures include chilled water plant control optimization, economizers, light fixture improvements not covered as a prescriptive measure, motor variable speed drives (“VSDs”), etc.
PY2017 was the second year that the Non-Profit Agency Grants (NPAG) program was fully imbedded into the CES Program. NV Energy’s Non-Profit Agency Grants (“NPAG”) program is designed to help non-profit organizations1 reduce their energy consumption and related operating costs by funding weatherization and energy efficiency retrofit projects. Projects may be funded up to $7,500. Grant applications are rated and awarded based on projected electric energy savings measured in kilowatt hours (“kWh”). Grant awards must be used to fund energy efficiency retrofits or weatherization projects.
Based on project feasibility and estimated energy savings, the 2017 NPAG program awarded grants to 17 organizations for which there were a total of 18 projects. One organization completed multiple projects at separate premises. Table 2-1 below summarizes program participation by organization type.
1 As defined under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
Program Background 3 Page 251 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table 2-1. NPAG Summary of Participation by Organization Type
Organization Type Number of Grantees Number of Grants Community Services 6 6 Religious 9 10 Education 2 2 Total 17 18
The 2017 evaluation was based on data contained in NV Energy’s DSMC Database. These data showed that during 2017, there were 311 projects between the three program components, Commercial Energy Services, Non-Profit Agency Grants, and Small Business Direct Install, implemented in northern Nevada representing ex ante savings of 50,487,489 kWh. Table 2-2 shows the distribution of reported ex ante savings by measure type.
Table 2-2. Ex Ante Savings for CES Program, by Measure Type Percent of Ex Ante Expected Program Ex Measure Category (kWh) Savings Ante kWh Savings Custom 6,822,629 13.5%
Kitchen Ventilation Controls 67,811 0.1%
Lighting per Fixture/Lamp/Watt Controlled 893,904 1.8%
Lighting per Watts Reduced 15,797,191 31.3%
Performance Based 2,349,669 4.7% Programable Thermostat, Hotel HVAC 5,763 0.0% Occupancy Sensor PTAC/PTHP 96 0.0%
Reduced LPD 23,251,818 46.1%
Unitary Cooling 17,236 0.0%
VSD on HVAC pumps and fans 680,980 1.3%
Window film 10,847 0.0%
NPAG Lighting LED 573,396 1.1%
NPAG Custom 16,149 0.0%
Total 50,487,489 100.0%
Figure 2-1 shows the program ex ante savings by measure start-up month for all projects.
Program Background 4 Page 252 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Figure 2-1. Program Ex Ante Savings by Measure Start-up Month
2.2 OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION APPROACH
The overall objective for the M&V work for the CES Program in northern Nevada was to determine the energy savings (kWh) and the summer critical peak demand (kW) reduction resulting from energy efficiency measures installed as part of the program during 2017.
The approach for the M&V work had the following main features: x Available documentation (e.g., audit reports, savings calculation work papers, etc.) was reviewed for a sample of projects, with particular attention given to the calculation procedures and documentation for savings calculations. x On-site data collection was conducted for a sample of projects to provide the information needed for calculating savings and demand reductions. Monitoring was also conducted at some sites to obtain verified information on measure operating characteristics. x For sampled Non-Profit Agency Grant (NPAG) projects, available documentation was first reviewed for completeness and to determine project scope. Thorough desk reviews were conducted for sampled sites to calculate energy savings. x Annual kWh savings were determined using industry standard and proven techniques. o Analysis of lighting savings was accomplished through an evaluation model using information on operating parameters collected on-site and, if appropriate, industry standards. o For HVAC measures, the original analyses used to calculate the ex ante savings were reviewed and the operating and structural parameters of the analysis were
Program Background 5 Page 253 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
verified. For custom measures or relatively more complex measures, simulations with a DOE-2 energy analysis model were used to develop energy use values and savings from the installed measures. o For industrial sites, monitoring data was collected onsite (when possible) and used to correlate energy usage to facility production levels. x Energy savings curves for each sampled site were developed from site-specific data (daily operating schedules, seasonal operating variation, etc.) o Where uncertainty existed, monitoring data was collected and utilized in development of these energy savings curves. o Energy savings curves for each rate class were developed by combining individual site-specific savings curves weighted by individual site ex post savings. o These energy savings curves were then applied to calculate first year savings, savings per rate class, and summer critical peak demand savings.
2.3 CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT
This report documents ADM’s efforts in performing the M&V activities for the CES Program in NV Energy’s northern Nevada service territory. This report is organized as follows: x Chapter 3 presents and discusses the measurement and verification methods used for this program. x Chapter 4 presents the results obtained from determining kWh savings for measures installed under the program. x Appendix A provides project-level measurement and verification reports for each project for which data were collected on-site. x Appendix B provides kWh and kW savings for the CES Program in the northern Nevada NV Energy service territory per month by rate code for the years 2017 through 2020. x Appendix C provides a description of ADM’s analytical steps for determining summer critical peak demand savings per month per rate class. x Appendix D provides a detailed description of ADM’s analytical steps for determining energy (kWh) savings per month per rate class. x Appendix E provides the methodology for reviewing past projects.
2.4 OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
In addition to the energy savings projects, the implementation contractor provided commercial outreach events to 3,301 of NV Energy’s northern Nevada commercial customers in support
Program Background 6 Page 254 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 of the CES Program. A summary of the activity and the number of commercial customers impacted are shown in Table 2-3.2
Table 2-3. Summary of Classes and Outreach Activities Commercial Program Activity Components Customers Educated Energy Savings Kits 745 AEE lunch and Learn 156 Commercial Energy Efficiency 1,321 Presentations and Booth Event Webinar 452 Building Science e-book Download 627 Total 3,301
2 A full description of energy education programs and events can be found in the 2017 SPPC Energy Education Program Measurement and Verification Report provided separately from this report.
Program Background 7 Page 255 of 392 3. M&V METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the approach and methods that ADM used in measuring and verifying ex post annual kWh savings and summer critical peak demand kW reductions that resulted from measures installed in facilities of customers that obtained rebates during 2017.
3.1 SAMPLING PLAN
Data used to calculate annual kWh savings achieved through the CES Program in northern Nevada were collected for a sample of projects completed during 2017.
Data from the DSMC database showed that there were 311 program projects implemented in northern Nevada during 2017. DNV GL, the implementation contractor for the program, reported ex ante savings that totaled 50,487,489 kWh annually for all projects.
Inspection of ex ante data on kWh savings for individual projects, that was extracted from the project database, showed that the distribution of savings was generally positively skewed, with a relatively small number of projects accounting for a high percentage of the savings. Stratified random sampling was used in the sample design to account for this positive skew and to enable ADM to achieve sampling precision of r10 percent at the 90 percent confidence interval.3 ADM used a strata boundary optimization process that adjusts strata boundaries to minimize variance within each stratum. This process allows for less variation within the stratum and a more efficient sample design.
Table 3-1 below shows the project population statistics that were used in developing the sample plan. This table includes the number of projects and ex ante energy savings of the northern Nevada CES Program sample by stratum. All projects, including direct install and NPAG lighting, are divided into strata based on estimated energy savings. Direct install projects accounted for 1.58% of the total ex ante estimated savings while NPAG projects accounted for 1.17%.
3 After subsequently completing the M&V analyses for this program, ADM determined that the actual sampling precision achieved ex post is r6.16% at the 90 percent confidence interval.
M&V Methodology 8 Page 256 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table 3-1. Population Statistics Used for Sample Design Standard Number Average Number Deviation of Ex Ante Sum of Contribution Project Size Stratum of of Ex CV M&V Savings Savings to Variance Projects Ante Sample per Project Savings Sites Smallest CES North 1 188 39,232 29,581 0.75 7,375,555 15 1.90E+12 North 2 34 193,904 60,493 0.31 6,592,732 6 5.81E+11 North 3 22 493,038 109,996 0.22 10,846,831 9 3.84E+11 North 4 2 1,986,696 461,814 0.23 3,973,392 2 0.00E+00 Largest CES North 5 1 20,312,580 N/A 0.00 20,312,580 1 0.00E+00 Smallest DI North DI 1 34 6,523 4,728 0.72 221,789 7 2.93E+09 Largest DI North DI 2 12 47,922 25,903 0.54 575,064 4 1.61E+10 Smallest NPAG North NPAG 1 8 16,336 5,216 0.32 130,688 4 2.18E+08 North NPAG 2 9 38,739 6,235 0.16 348,647 5 2.80E+08 Largest NPAG North NPAG 3 1 110,210 N/A 0.00 110,210 1 0.00E+00 Totals 311 50,487,489 54 2.88E+12 Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 5.53%
Table 3-2 shows how the ex ante savings for the 55 projects sampled were distributed across strata. Combined, the sample sites account for 18,276,378 kWh of ex ante savings, approximately 44% of the program total.
Table 3-2. Distribution of Ex Ante kWh Savings for Sampled Projects across Strata
Sample Ex Project Size Stratum Ante Savings Smallest CES North CES 1 662,824 North CES 2 969,692 North CES 3 4,217,267 North CES 4 3,973,392 Largest CES North CES 5 20,312,580 Smallest DI North DI 1 41,207 Largest DI North DI 2 257,455 Smallest NPAG North NPAG 1 68,789 North NPAG 2 182,778 Largest NPAG North NPAG 3 110,210 Total 30,796,192
Sampling for the collection of program M&V data accounted for the M&V effort occurring in real time during program implementation. Completed projects accumulate during the year as the program is implemented, and sample selection was thus spread over the entire program year. ADM used a near real-time process whereby a portion of the sample was selected periodically as projects
M&V Methodology 9 Page 257 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 in the program were completed. The timing of sample selection was contingent upon the timing of the completion of projects during the program year.
3.2 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION
After the sample of projects was selected, ADM prepared requests to NV Energy’s program implementation contractor to provide documentation pertaining to those projects. The first step in the evaluation effort was to review this documentation and other program materials that were relevant to the M&V effort.
For each project, the available documentation (e.g., audit reports, savings calculation work papers, etc.) for each rebated measure was reviewed, with particular attention given to the ex ante savings calculation procedures. Documentation that was reviewed included program forms, data bases, reports, billing system data, weather data, and any other potentially useful data. Each application was reviewed to determine whether the following types of information had been provided: x Documentation for the new or retrofitted equipment, including descriptions, schematics, performance data, and other supporting information. x Information about the methods used to calculate savings, including descriptions of methods used, specifications of assumptions and sources for these specifications, and correctness of calculations.
If there was uncertainty regarding a project or apparently incomplete project documentation, ADM staff contacted the implementation contractor to seek further information to ensure the development of an appropriate project-specific M&V plan.
3.3 ON-SITE DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
On-site visits to the sites of the sampled projects were used to collect primary data required for determining ex post savings impacts. Before making an on-site visit to a facility, ADM notified NV Energy in two ways.
x For all sites for which there is an NV Energy Major Account Executive (MAE), ADM provided the MAEs with a list of all sites for which ADM planned to schedule M&V activities. This list included the company name, the respective MAE for the customer, and the site address or other premise identification. Contact information was also provided for the customer representative that ADM intended to contact in order to schedule an appointment. For customers with MAEs, ADM typically provided notification at least two weeks prior to contacting customers to schedule M&V visits. Upon request from an MAE, ADM coordinated its scheduling and M&V activities with the MAE. x ADM provided NV Energy staff with a list of projects for which ADM planned to schedule M&V activities. This notification to NV Energy staff also served as a request
M&V Methodology 10 Page 258 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
to the implementation contractor for any documentation relating to the projects. This list included the company name, the project ID, the site address or other premise identification. Contact information was also included for the customer representative that ADM intended to contact in order to schedule an appointment.
During an on-site visit, ADM’s field staff accomplished three major tasks: x First, field staff verified the implementation status of all measures for which customers received rebates. They verified that the energy efficiency measures were indeed installed, that they were installed correctly and that they still functioned properly. x Second, field staff collected the physical data needed to analyze the energy savings that have been realized from the installed improvements and measures. Data was collected using a form that was prepared specifically for the project in question after an in-house review of the project file. A form is used that is comprehensive in addressing a facility's characteristics, modes and schedules of operation, and its electrical and mechanical systems. The form addresses various energy efficiency measures, including high efficiency lighting (both lamps and ballasts), lighting occupancy sensors, lighting dimmers and controls, air conditioning, high efficiency motors, etc. x Third, field staff interviewed the contact personnel at a facility to obtain additional information on the installed system to complement the data collected from other sources.
At some sites, monitoring was conducted to gather more information on the operating hours of the installed measures. Monitoring was conducted at sites where it was judged that the monitored data would be useful for refining and improving the accuracy with which savings were calculated. Whenever possible monitoring activities were coordinated with the implementation contractor to allow for simultaneous data collection. This coordination ensures that both ex ante and ex post savings are calculated using identical datasets. Monitoring was not considered necessary for sites where project documentation allowed for sufficiently detailed calculations.
3.4 PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING KWH SAVINGS FROM MEASURES INSTALLED THROUGH CES PROJECTS
The procedures used to calculate savings resulting from NV Energy’s northern Nevada CES Program projects depended on the type of measure being analyzed. Table 3-3 shows the distribution of ex ante savings for the sampled projects across various categories of energy efficiency measures.
M&V Methodology 11 Page 259 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table 3-3. Ex Ante Energy Savings for Sample Projects
Ex Ante Sample Savings Sample Ex Ante Expected as Percent of Measure Category Savings (kWh) Total Expected Savings (kWh) Savings Custom 3,737,149 6,822,629 54.8% Kitchen Ventilation Controls 4,486 67,811 6.6% Lighting per Fixture/Lamp/Watt 178,352 893,904 20.0% Controlled Lighting per Watts Reduced 3,557,448 15,797,191 22.5% Performance Based 830,119 2,349,669 35.3% Programmable Thermostat, Hotel 0 5,763 0.0% HVAC Occupancy Sensor PTAC/PTHP 0 96 0.0% Reduced LPD 22,126,862 23,251,818 95.2% Unitary Cooling 0 17,236 0.0% VSD on HVAC pumps and fans 0 680,980 0.0% Window film 0 10,847 0.0% NPAG Lighting LED 361,777 573,396 63.1% NPAG Custom 0 16,149 0.0% Total 30,796,192 50,487,489 61.0%
ADM used a specific set of methods to determine annual kWh savings for projects that depended on the type of measure being analyzed. These typical methods are summarized in Table 3-4. Project-specific information on savings calculations is contained in Appendix A, which also describes analytical strategies for projects for which the following strategies were not appropriate.
Applying the methods listed in Table 3-4 produced two assessments of annual kWh savings for each sample project: an ex ante savings estimate (as reported in the project documentation and program tracking system) and the ex post verified gross savings developed through the M&V procedures employed by ADM.
Energy savings realization rates were calculated for each project for which on-site data collection and engineering analysis/building simulations were conducted. Sites with relatively high or low realization rates were further analyzed to determine the reasons for the discrepancy between ex ante and ex post energy savings. In general, the primary differences between ex ante and ex post energy savings are due to differing analysis methodology for those projects that are eligible for prescriptive measures. ADM uses site specific data to inform ex post savings and these site specific data often vary from the data used to develop prescriptive ex ante estimates. More detailed information on how realization rates were achieved for such sites is included in the site-level M&V analyses for each project that are included in Appendix A.
M&V Methodology 12 Page 260 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The following discussion describes the basic procedures used for calculating ex post verified savings from various measure types. Project-specific information on savings calculation is contained in Appendix A.
Table 3-4. Typical Methods to Determine Savings for Custom Measures
Type of Measure Method to Determine Savings
ADM’s custom-designed Lighting Evaluation Model, which uses data Lighting on wattages before and after installation of measures and hours-of-use data from either site contact interviews or field monitoring.
ADM uses several methods including (1) an equivalent full load hour method in order to calculate savings resulting from HVAC measures. HVAC (including packaged Equivalent full load hours are derived using eQuest models developed units, chillers, cooling for each territory using corresponding weather files. (2) Simulations towers, controls/EMS) with eQuest engineering analysis model, with monitored data. (3) Billing history econometric analysis.
Motors and VFDs Measurements of power and run-time obtained through monitoring.
Simulations with eQuest engineering analysis model, with monitored Refrigeration data.
Manufacturing or Process Engineering analysis, with monitored data on load factor and a Improvements schedule of operation and production data provided by the customer.
ADM performs desk reviews of project documentation and on-site Small Business Direct Install inspections of selected sites to verify claimed fixture counts, wattages, and hours of use are accurate.
All NPAG projects selected in the sample received a thorough desk review of project documentation. As needed, telephone surveys are Non-profit agency grants also conducted with grantees to verify project scope and hours of operation.
Methods for Analyzing Savings from Lighting Measures
Lighting measures that were examined included the retrofit of existing fixtures, lamps and/or ballasts with energy efficient fixtures, lamps and/or ballasts. These types of measures reduce demand, while not affecting operating hours. Lighting control strategies that might include the addition of energy conserving control technologies such as motion sensors or day-lighting or dimming controls were also examined. These measures typically involve a reduction in hours of operation and/or reduced fixture wattage during some hours of operation.
Analyzing the savings achieved by such lighting measures requires data for the retrofitted fixtures on (1) wattages before and after the retrofit and (2) hours of operation before and after the retrofit. Fixture wattages are taken from a table of standard wattages, with corrections made for non-
M&V Methodology 13 Page 261 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 operating fixtures. When appropriate, to improve calculations, hours of operation are determined from metered data collected after measure installation for a sample of fixtures.
To determine baseline and post-retrofit demand values for the lighting efficiency measures, ADM used in-house data on standard wattages of lighting fixtures and ballasts developed from lighting industry sources. This lighting data provides information on wattages for common lamp and ballast combinations.
As noted, ADM collects data with which to determine average operating hours for retrofitted fixtures by using Time-of-Use (TOU) data loggers to monitor a sample of “last points of control” for unique usage areas in the sites where lighting efficiency measures had been installed. Usage areas are defined to be those areas within a facility that are expected to have comparable average operating hours. For commercial customers, expected usage areas include such areas as office space, hallways/stairways, and storage areas. Typical usage areas are designated in the forms used for data collection.
ADM uses pre-fixture baseline demand, retrofit demand, and appropriate post-retrofit operating hours to calculate peak capacity savings and annual energy savings for sampled fixtures of each usage type. The on-off profile and the fixture wattages are used to calculate post-retrofit kWh usage. ADM calculates annual energy savings for each sampled fixture per the following formula:
ൌ ܹ݄݇ െܹ݄݇௦௧ ݏݑ݈ܹ݄ܽ݇ܵܽݒ݅݊݃݊݊ܣ Where:
kWhpre = amount of kWh used by pre-existing fixtures
kWhpost = amount of kWh used by post-installation fixtures
The values for insertion in this formula are determined through the following steps:
x Results from the monitored sample are used to calculate the average operating hours of the metered lights for every unique building type or usage area. x These average operating hours are then applied to the baseline and post-installation average demand for each usage area to calculate the respective energy usage and peak period demand for each usage area. x The annual baseline energy usage is the sum of the baseline kWh for each costing period for all of the usage areas. The post-retrofit energy usage is calculated similarly. The energy savings are calculated as the difference between baseline and post- installation energy usage. x Savings from lighting measures in conditioned spaces are factored by the region- specific, building type-specific heating cooling interaction factors to calculate total savings attributable to lighting measures, inclusive of impacts on HVAC operation.
M&V Methodology 14 Page 262 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Methods for Analyzing Savings from HVAC Measures
Savings for HVAC measures installed at a facility were calculated by using the energy use values developed through DOE-2 simulations and engineering calculations. The HVAC simulations also allow calculation of the primary and secondary effects of lighting measures on energy use. Each simulation produces HVAC energy and demand usage values that are expected under different assumptions about equipment and/or construction conditions. There could be cases in which DOE- 2 simulation was not appropriate because data were not available to properly calibrate a simulation model; engineering analysis was then used to prepare the M&V results.
For the analysis of HVAC measures, the data collected through on-site visits and monitoring are utilized. Using these data, ADM prepares calculations of the energy savings for the energy efficient equipment and measures installed in each of the participant facilities. Engineering staff develop independent assessments of the savings through engineering calculations or through simulations with energy analysis models. By using energy simulations for the analysis, the energy use associated with the end use affected by the measure(s) being analyzed can be quantified. With these quantities in hand, it is a simple matter to determine what the energy use would have been without the measure(s).
Before making the analytical runs for each site with sampled project HVAC measures, engineering staff prepare a model calibration run. This is a base case simulation to ensure that the energy use values from the simulations have been reconciled against actual data on the building's energy use. This run is based on the information collected in an on-site visit pertaining to types of equipment, their efficiencies and capacities, and their operating profiles. Current operating schedules are used for this simulation, as are local (NOAA) weather data covering the study period. The model calibration run is made using actual weather data for a time period corresponding to the available billing data for the site.
The goal of the model calibration effort is to have the results of the DOE-2 simulation come within approximately 10% of the patterns and magnitude of the energy use observed in the billing data history. In some cases, it may not be possible to achieve this calibration goal because of idiosyncrasies of particular facilities (e.g., multiple buildings, discontinuous occupancy patterns, etc.). For these cases the engineering analysis method is employed.
Once the analysis model has been calibrated for a particular facility, ADM performs three steps in calculating energy savings for HVAC measures installed or to be installed at the facility. x First, an analysis of energy use at a facility under the assumption that the energy efficiency measures are not installed is performed. x Second, energy use at the facility with all conditions the same but with the energy efficiency measures now installed is analyzed. x Third, the results of the analyses from the preceding steps are compared to determine the energy savings attributable to the energy efficiency measure.
M&V Methodology 15 Page 263 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Methods for Analyzing Savings from Motors
The energy savings from use of high efficiency motors on HVAC and non-HVAC applications are determined through an "after-only" analysis. With this method, energy use is measured only for the high efficiency motor and only after it has been installed. The data thus collected are then used in estimating what energy use would have been for the motor application if the high efficiency motor had not been installed. In effect, the after-only analysis is a reversal of the usual design calculation used to calculate the savings that would result from installing a high efficiency motor. That is, at the design stage, the question addressed is how would energy use change for an application if a high efficiency motor is installed, whereas the after-only analysis addresses what the level of energy use would have been had the high efficiency motor not been installed.
For the “after only” analysis, it is not possible to use a comparison of direct measurements to determine savings, since measured data are collected only for the high efficiency motor. However, savings attributable to installation of the high efficiency motor can be calculated using information on the efficiencies of the high efficiency motor and on the motor it replaced. In particular, demand and energy savings can be calculated as follows:
ͳ ͳ ݑܿݐ݅݊ ൌ ܹ݇ ൈ൬ െ ൰ܴ݀݁݀݊ܽ݉݁ܦ ߟ௦ ߟ௪
Where:
kWpeak = Volts x Amps (peak) x Power Factor, and Amps (peak) is the interval with the maximum recorded Amps during the monitoring period
K motor efficiency, base for baseline motor, new for high efficiency motor
The annual energy savings are calculated as:
ͳ ͳ ݏݎݑܪ ൌ ܹ݇௩ ൈ൬ െ ൰ൈ ݏݕܵܽݒ݅݊݃݃ݎ݁݊ܧ ߟ௦ ߟ௪
Where:
kWaverage = Volts x Amps (average) x Power Factor and Amps (average) is the average measured Amps for the duration of the monitored period.
The hours used to determine annual energy savings in the equation above is based on the hours of operation during the monitoring period and a use factor determined from interviews with site personnel. The hours are then adjusted using an Annual Adjustment Factor based on the use factor during the monitoring period. The Annual Adjustment Factor is 1 if the monitoring period is typical for the yearly operation, less than 1 if the monitoring period is expected to be higher use
M&V Methodology 16 Page 264 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 than typical for the rest of the year, and more than 1 if the monitoring period is expected to be lower than typical for the rest of the year.
The information on motor efficiencies needed for the calculation of savings is obtained from different sources. x Data on the efficiencies of high efficiency motors installed under the program should be available from program records. x In some cases, the efficiencies of the replaced motors may also be noted in NV Energy’s program records. Care must be taken using nameplate efficiency ratings of replaced motors, unless a company maintains good documentation of their equipment. If a motor has been rewound it may not operate as originally rated. However, if the efficiencies of the old motors are not directly available, the efficiency values can be imputed by using published data on average efficiency values for motors of given horsepower. If the motor replacement is for normal replacement, the baseline efficiency is established as the efficiency of a new, standard efficiency motor. However, in cases of early replacement, the efficiency of the old motor is used for the length of the remaining life.4
Because most motors monitored do not run only under full load conditions, some adjustments must be made from the “industry averages” of full load efficiencies. Motor efficiency curves of typical real motors that have the same full load efficiencies are used for determining part load efficiencies.
Like motor efficiency, the power factor varies with motor loading. Motor power factor curves of typical real motors that have the same full load power factor are used for determining part load power factor.
Another factor to consider in demand and energy savings comparisons of motor change out programs is the rotor slip. Full load RPM ratings of motors vary. For centrifugal loads, such as fans and pumps, the power supplied is dependent on the speed of the driven equipment. The power is theoretically proportional to the cube of the speed, but in practice acts more like the square of the speed. In general, high efficiency motors have slightly higher full load RPM ratings (lower slip) than standard motors. Where nameplate ratings of full load RPM are available for replaced motors, a de-rating factor can be applied.5
The data needed to carry out these plans for determining savings are collected from several sources.
4 Assumptions regarding measure expected useful life were taken from the most recent Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER). See http://www.deeresources.com/. 5As an example, take the case where a new motor has a full load RPM rating of 1770 and the old motor had a full load RPM rating of 1760. The de-rating factor would be: 2 2 2 2 De-rating factor = (RPMold) / (RPMnew) = 1760 / 1770 = 0.989
M&V Methodology 17 Page 265 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
x A first source of data is the information from each project’s documentation. This information should include aggregate energy used at a site, disaggregated energy usage data for certain targeted processes (if available), before (actual) and after (projected) data on production, scrap, and other key performance indicators, and final reports (which include process improvement recommendations, analyses, conclusions, performance targets, etc.). x A second source of data is the energy use data that NV Energy collects for these customers. x A third source is information collected through on-site inspections of the facilities. x As a fourth source of data, selected end-use equipment are monitored to develop information on operating schedules and power draws.
Methods for Analyzing Savings from VFDs
A variable-frequency drive (VFD) is an electronic device that controls the speed of a motor by varying the magnitude of the voltage, current, or frequency of the electric power supplied to the motor. The factors that make a motor load a suitable application for a VFD are (1) variable speed requirements and (2) high annual operating hours. The interplay of these two factors can be summarized by information on the motor's duty cycle, which essentially shows the percentage of time during the year that the motor operates at different speeds. A good candidate for a VFD has a duty cycle that has good variability in speed requirements, with the motor operating at reduced speed a high percentage of the time.
Potential energy savings from the use of VFDs are usually most significant with variable-torque loads. Variable-torque loads have been estimated to account for 50 to 60 percent of total motor energy use in the non-residential sectors. Energy saving VFDs may be found on fans, centrifugal pumps, centrifugal blowers, and other centrifugal loads, where the duty cycle of the process provide a wide range of speeds of operation.
ADM’s approach to determining savings from installation of VFDs involves (1) making one-time measurements of voltage, current, and power factor of the VFD/motor and (2) conducting continuous measurements of amperage over a period of time in order to obtain the data needed to develop VFD load profiles and calculate demand and energy savings. VFDs are generally used in applications where motor loading changes as motor speed is changed. Consequently, the true power drawn by a VFD is recorded in order to develop VFD load shapes. One-time measurements of power are made for different percent speed settings. Power and percent speed or frequency (depending on VFD display options) are recorded for as wide a range of speeds as the customer allows the process to be controlled; field staff attempt to obtain readings from 40 to 100 percent speed in 10 to 15 percent increments.
M&V Methodology 18 Page 266 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Methods for Analyzing Savings from Refrigeration and Process Improvements
Analysis of savings from refrigeration and process improvements is inherently project-specific. Because of the specificity of processes, determining energy savings through simulations is generally not feasible. Instead, energy savings are typically determined using an engineering analysis of the process affected by the improvements. The major factors in ADM’s engineering analysis of process savings are operating schedules and load factors. Information on these factors is developed through short-term monitoring of the affected equipment, be it pumps, heaters, compressors, etc. The monitoring is done after the process change, and the data gathered on operating hours and load factors are used in the engineering analysis to define the pre-retrofit conditions for the analysis of savings.
3.5 PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ENERGY SAVINGS CURVES To allocate kWh savings per month per rate class and kW demand reduction per month per rate class, ADM develops “energy savings curves” that are specific to each of the sampled M&V sites. These site-level energy savings curves are determined from the site-specific operating schedules and other data gathered at each of the individual sites that have been selected to be in the M&V sample (as described above).
3.5.1 Savings Curve Development For each program participant in the M&V sample, a unique daily operating schedule is identified. For some projects, the unique daily operating schedule is year-round or non-seasonal (i.e., there is no “summer” versus “winter” season); for other projects, the unique daily operating schedule varies by season or by month.
For each of the 24 hours per day, the measure-specific schedule is assigned a specific fraction corresponding to the average usage rate during the specific hour. For example, a value of unity (1.0) is assigned for any hour in which the equipment operated 100 percent of the hour; a null value (0.0) is assigned if the equipment is not on at all during the hour; or a value of 0.5 is assigned for any hour in which the equipment operated an average of 50 percent of the hour.
The measure-specific schedules are developed from primary data. Whenever possible, or deemed necessary, loggers were installed at sites with highly variable schedules. The data collected from the loggers could then be used to corroborate information collected through site interviews. Schedules for sites with fixed operating hours (24/7 operation, for example) were determined through site interviews. ADM maintains and continuously refines a library of energy savings curves that may be used for cost effectiveness calculations, potential studies (especially regarding peak demand reduction potentials), and avoided sales calculations. The first set of energy savings curves, developed in 2010, were heavily reliant on secondary sources. In particular, ADM normalized end-use load
M&V Methodology 19 Page 267 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 shapes from the California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS6) to characterize impacts of the Sure Bet Commercial Retrofit Program. In past program years, ADM has used primary data to supplement CEUS-derived shapes. However, in PY2017, sufficient primary data was collected that allowed ADM to generate site specific shapes at all sampled sites. Thus, CEUS-derived shapes were no longer required.
For lighting projects, ADM has developed a spreadsheet-based tool that calculates and develops:
x Primary energy impacts from lighting and lighting controls upgrades in accordance to a site-specific operating schedule or from on-site metering. x Secondary energy impacts from heating and cooling interactions in accordance to site- specific factors such as HVAC system efficiency, heating and cooling energy balance points, and fractions of energy radiated by interior lighting that “promptly” escape the building. These secondary impacts also include potential increases in natural gas or heating energy usage due to more efficient lighting. x Project specific energy savings curves.
The lighting calculator improves the specificity of heating and cooling interactive factor (HCIF) calculations and also increases M&V transparency. It is expected that continuing use of this tool for M&V purposes will generate a Nevada-specific catalogue of lighting end-use curves that will surpass the CEUS project in sample size and specificity.
ADM’s sampling approach ensures that primary data are available for the most significant projects7. All projects above a certain threshold in annual kWh savings are sampled with certainty. As a result of this sampling approach, primary data are available to inform the energy savings curves that have the largest contributions to the overall program savings.
The assignment of energy savings curves to specific measures, projects, or groups of projects for nonresidential programs is a complex process that is carried out in conjunction with the annual M&V effort. The availability of primary data and the applicability of secondary data are important considerations in the assignment of energy savings curves to groups of projects. For the 2017 program year, ADM has constructed energy savings curves that are informed, to the greatest extent that is possible and appropriate, with primary data gathered from M&V visits. For all the sampled sites in 2017, both retrofit and new construction, energy savings curves have been developed using primary data collected during the M&V process.
6 The CEUS study is a comprehensive end-use energy study for the commercial sector. As described on the CEUS web site hosted by the California Energy Commission, the CEUS survey “is a comprehensive study of commercial sector energy use, primarily designed to support the state's energy demand forecasting activities”. More information regarding the CEUS survey can be found on the CA Energy Commission’s web site: http://www.energy.ca.gov/ceus/ 7 Here significance is defined as the relative share of annual program kWh savings.
M&V Methodology 20 Page 268 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
3.6 CALCULATING FIRST-YEAR ENERGY (KWH) SAVINGS
First-year kWh savings were calculated by determining what percentage of the year remained when each measure was installed. ADM extracted measure startup data from the DSMC database and used those data to calculate how many days were left in the year as of the measure startup date. For each measure, the number of days remaining in the year was then used along with the normalized energy savings curve described above to determine the share of annualized kWh savings realized during the 2017 calendar year. First-year kWh savings was summed by month across each customer rate class in the program population to determine first-year kWh savings per month per rate class. The first-year kWh savings table is provided in Appendix B.
3.7 CALCULATING CRITICAL PEAK DEMAND SAVINGS
The summer critical peak demand period per month, provided below in Table 3-5 is the hourly period per month during which SPPC has historically experienced maximum system-level demand.
Table 3-5. Critical Peak Demand Period per Month, SPPC Month Hour (SPPC) Ending at: January 19 19:00 February 19 19:00 March 20 20:00 April 21 21:00 May 17 17:00 June 17 17:00 July 17 17:00 August 17 17:00 September 17 17:00 October 20 20:00 November 19 19:00 December 19 19:00
Summer critical peak demand (kW) savings are calculated per month and per rate class utilizing ex post program savings determinations and appropriate measure-level 8760-hour energy savings curves.
For all participants in the 2017 program, ex post annualized energy savings per measure were allocated to the participant’s rate class, and to the specific energy savings curve for that measure. The result is a two-dimensional matrix providing per-rate-class savings per hour for all 8,760 hours of a typical calendar year (a typical year is a non-Leap Year). The results were then inspected for each month to identify the maximum average hourly demand (kW) savings during each month’s designated peak demand hour.
Summer critical peak demand (kW) savings is defined as the maximum kW reduction that could be expected in a typical year during the hour ending at 5PM on any given day in July. For this program, summer critical peak demand savings were determined to be 7,000 kW
M&V Methodology 21 Page 269 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The complete ex post summer critical peak demand savings per month and per rate class are provided in Appendix B. For a more detailed discussion regarding summer critical peak demand (kW) savings, please refer to Appendix C.
3.8 DETERMINING EFFECTIVE USEFUL LIFE (EUL) AND LIFETIME SAVINGS
ADM analyzed various data to determine the Effective Useful Life (EUL) for each category of measure installed through NV Energy’s 2017 CES program. ADM subsequently employed its EUL determinations to calculate lifetime energy (kWh) savings for each M&V sample site. A stratum- level EUL was developed for each sampling stratum that was then applied to each of the non- sampled sites.
To determine EUL values for all measures, ADM utilized the California Database for Energy Efficient Resources (“DEER”).8 Note the following measure-specific issues related to the EUL values provided in this M&V report: x For the HVAC Retrofits category, all measures installed by the 2017 CES Program have the same EUL value in DEER, i.e., 15 years. x For the various lighting measures installed by the 2017 CES Program, DEER provides a methodology for calculating EUL using the lamp/fixture rated life divided by annual operating hours. Rated life is typically available on submitted specification sheets, but in the case that rated life is not available, ADM defaults to the DEER assumptions for lamp/fixture rated life: 50,000 for LED fixtures, 70,000 for ballasted fixtures.
To determine the program-level EUL value, ADM totaled the lifetime savings values for all 311 projects in the program and then divided this value by the total program-level ex post verified savings (kWh).
8 http://www.deeresources.com/files/deer0911planning/downloads/EUL_Summary_10-1-08.xls
M&V Methodology 22 Page 270 of 392 4. FINDINGS FROM M&V DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
To determine annual kWh savings and summer critical peak kW reductions for the northern Nevada CES Program, data were collected and analyzed for a sample of 55 projects. The data were analyzed using the methods described above in Chapter 3 to calculate project ex post energy savings and peak kW savings and to determine the realization rates for the program. The results of that analysis are reported in this chapter.
Project-level analyses are presented in Appendix A.
4.1 EX POST KWH SAVINGS
As shown in Table 4-1 below, ex post verified energy (kWh) savings for the program total 50,803,353 kWh (full-year savings), which equates to a realization rate of 101%. Verified first- year savings (during calendar-year 2017) were found to be 13,320,999 kWh and summer critical peak demand (kW) was 7,000 kW.
Table 4-1. Annual Energy (kWh) and Critical Peak Demand (kW) Savings for PY2017 Ex Post Ex Post First- Ex Ante Ex Post Program Realization Summer Year (2017) Annual kWh Annual kWh Pathway Rate Peak kW kWh Savings Savings Savings Savings CES 49,101,090 49,406,198 101% Direct Install N/A9 796,853 796,853 100% N/A10 NPAG 589,545 600,302 102% Totals 13,320,999 50,487,489 50,803,353 101% 7,000
Program total ex ante annual kWh savings were found by summing individual project reported kWh savings found in the implementation contractor’s database.
Table 4-2 below presents the estimated ex ante savings, verified ex post savings, and realization rates for each of the 54 M&V sample sites. The verified ex post savings values were determined from the analyses of the individual sites found in Appendix A.
9 First year savings are not calculated separately for each program pathway. 10 Peak demand savings are not calculated separately for each program pathway.
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 23 Page 271 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table 4-2. Ex Ante and Ex Post kWh Savings by Project Project Ex Ante kWh Ex Post kWh Project ID Business Name Realization Savings Savings Rate SB-17-07005 MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC 2,313,248 2,297,819 99% SB-17-07221 Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC 26,335 26,460 100% SB-17-07291 Five Star Premier Residences of Reno 39,584 39,584 100% SB-17-07476 Mary's Gone Crackers, Inc. 1,660,144 1,694,486 102% SB-17-07562 Renaissance Reno Downtown Hotel 356,484 281,475 79% SB-17-07595 Douglas County Sewer Improvement District #1 178,191 160,487 90% SB-17-07677 Warehouse Services No. 4 LLC 501,016 593,430 118% SB-17-07739 Arrow Electronics 430,197 180,098 42% SB-17-07786 Silver Legacy Resort Casino 434,382 434,382 100% SB-17-07807 WRP Reno LLC 83,034 59,810 72% SB-17-07860 Panda Printing and Mailing 13,541 13,567 100% SB-17-07877 Regional Transportation Commission 25,731 25,953 101% SB-17-07895 Plastic Specialties & Technologies, Inc 648,526 292,673 45% SB-17-07899 American AVK Company 41,603 41,764 100% SB-17-07933 CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 153,230 194,736 127% SB-17-07952 Klondex Gold & Silver Mining Co 394,379 389,504 99% SB-17-08018 Raley's 546,573 640,900 117% SB-17-08071 Maverik, Inc. 204,869 205,263 100% SB-17-08103 Van Wagner & Co INC. 30,874 30,933 100% SB-17-08104 Starbucks Roasting Plant 101,822 101,950 100% SB-17-08107 Paramount Nevada Asphalt Company 11,643 11,989 103% SB-17-08146 SK Food Group Inc 56,502 144,296 255% SB-17-08150 Luka NV, Inc 51,093 51,191 100% SB-17-08332 Rainbow Market #10 14,175 21,348 151% SB-17-08336 KTR Stead LLC 118,849 118,836 100% SB-17-08500 303 Reno LLC 449,748 481,135 107% SB-17-08514 LSP Products Group 110,146 124,685 113% SB-17-08574 Sierra Nevada Construction 32,340 32,402 100% SB-17-08666 Tesla Motors Inc 20,312,580 20,345,592 100% SB-17-08672 NV Green 455,961 448,561 98% SB-17-08691 JC Penney Corporation, Inc. 143,199 167,198 117% SB-17-08694 Ross Dress For Less Inc. 171,353 221,846 129% SB-17-08728 American Auto Air Inc 24,400 11,981 49% SD-17-5613 Sims Metal Management 25,850 25,850 100% SD-17-5696 Taco Bell 8,727 8,727 100% SD-17-5737 Reno 2 HOA Lake Grove 8,179 8,179 100% SD-17-5760 Wild West Chevrolet 36,700 36,700 100% SD-17-5792 ANYTIME FITNESS 90,470 90,470 100%
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 24 Page 272 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Project Ex Ante kWh Ex Post kWh Project ID Business Name Realization Savings Savings Rate SD-17-5808 Dollar Thrifty 2,400 2,400 100% SD-17-5825 Montebello At Summit Ridge 104,434 104,434 100% SD-17-5873 Zephyr LLC 1,549 1,549 100% SD-17-5874 Zephyr LLC 3,075 3,075 100% SD-17-6041 DOUBLE R ASSOCIATION 9,872 9,872 100% SD-17-6045 Squeaky's Car Wash 7,405 7,405 100% SB-17-07464 Catholic Community SVC of Nevada 32,679 32,700 100% SB-17-07868 Western Heritage Preservation Society 28,523 28,441 100% SB-17-07874 The Rock Christian Community Church 34,014 34,376 101% SB-17-08065 Immaculate Conception Church 110,210 111,175 101% SB-17-08091 St. Teresa of Avila Catholic Parish Corporation 19,984 19,986 100% SB-17-08135 Catholic Community Service Of Nevada 22,231 22,222 100% SB-17-08260 The Rock Christian Community Church 12,934 14,936 115% SB-17-08377 Bristlecone Family Resources 42,688 43,105 101% SB-17-08343 Ridge House, Inc. 44,874 47,035 105% SB-17-08696 St. Albert the Great 13,640 13,793 101% Sampled Projects Subtotal 30,796,192 30,552,764 99% Non-Sampled Projects Subtotal 19,691,296 20,250,589 103% Total 50,487,489 50,803,353 101%
These 54 M&V sample sites were then grouped according to sampling strata and used to determine a realization rate for each stratum, as found in Table 4-3 below. Sites were assigned strata first by program pathway type (CES, NPAG, DI) and then by kWh savings.
Table 4-3. Summary of Stratum-level Energy (kWh) Savings and Realization Rates
Sum of Ex Sampling Sum of Ex Ante Realization Project Size Post kWh Stratum kWh Savings Rate Savings Smallest CES North 1 7,375,555 8,103,594 110% North 2 6,592,732 7,287,067 111% North 3 10,846,831 9,677,640 89% North 4 3,973,392 3,992,305 100% Largest CES North 5 20,312,580 20,345,592 100% Smallest DI North DI 1 221,789 221,789 100% Largest DI North DI 2 575,064 575,064 100% Smallest NPAG North NPAG 1 130,688 135,401 104% North NPAG 2 348,647 353,727 101% Largest NPAG North NPAG 3 110,210 111,175 101% Totals 50,487,489 50,803,353 101%
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 25 Page 273 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Stratum-level realization rates are then applied to each of the non-sampled sites, so that each site in the population has a site-level verified savings kWh value. These site-level verified savings values are then summed to determine program-level verified annual kWh savings. Overall, the ex post annual savings of 50,803,353 kWh were equal to 101% of the ex ante savings.
4.2 EX POST PRECISION CALCULATION
Calculations were performed to verify that the program precision requirements were met. The program population was re-stratified based on verified ex post savings using the original strata boundaries in order to perform the precision verification statistical calculations. Results of these calculations are presented below in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4. Ex Post Precision Calculation Results Average Standard Number Number Ex Post Deviation Sum of of M&V Contribution Project Size Stratum of Savings of Ex CV Savings Sample to Variance Projects per Ante Sites Project Savings Smallest CES North 1 188 43,104 33,105 0.77 8,103,594 15 2.38E+12 North 2 34 214,326 67,281 0.31 7,287,067 6 7.18E+11 North 3 22 439,893 126,091 0.29 9,677,640 9 5.05E+11 North 4 2 1,996,153 426,621 0.21 3,992,305 2 0.00E+00 Largest CES North 5 1 20,345,592 N/A 0.00 20,345,592 1 0.00E+00 Smallest DI North DI 1 34 6,523 4,728 0.72 221,789 7 2.93E+09 Largest DI North DI 2 12 47,922 25,903 0.54 575,064 4 1.61E+10 Smallest NPAG North NPAG 1 8 16,925 5,136 0.30 135,401 4 2.11E+08 North NPAG 2 9 39,303 6,670 0.17 353,727 5 3.20E+08 Largest NPAG North NPAG 3 1 111,175 N/A 0.00 111,175 1 0.00E+00 Totals 311 50,803,353 54 3.62E+12 Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 6.16%
The level of similarity between the ex ante estimates and verified ex post energy savings can be seen through examination of the coefficient of variance (CV) shown in Table 4-4 (ex post) and Table 3-1 (ex ante). The CV for each stratum shows very little variation between the ex ante estimates and the verified ex post conditions. The similarities in CV are indicative of how closely the ex ante estimates match the verified ex post savings. These similarities can be attributed to many aspects of this program, including: a mature program with well-developed prescriptive measure estimates, and good collaboration between implementation and M&V contractors.
4.3 EFFECTIVE USEFUL LIFE (EUL) & LIFETIME ENERGY (KWH) SAVINGS
As described in Section 3.8 above, ADM determined the Effective Useful Life (EUL) for each M&V sample site from a weighted average of measures installed by NV Energy’s 2017 CES
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 26 Page 274 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 program. ADM subsequently employed its EUL determinations to calculate lifetime energy (kWh) savings per sample site, as shown in Table 4-5 below.
Table 4-5. EUL & Lifetime Savings – M&V Sample Sites Lifetime Verified Ex Post EUL Project ID Stratum Savings Savings (kWh) (Years) (kWh) SB-17-07005 2,297,819 North 4 15.0 34,467,291 SB-17-07221 26,460 North 1 13.6 358,907 SB-17-07291 39,584 North 1 15.0 593,763 SB-17-07476 1,694,486 North 4 15.0 25,417,294 SB-17-07562 281,475 North 3 7.7 2,180,953 SB-17-07595 160,487 North 2 15.0 2,407,305 SB-17-07677 593,430 North 3 10.2 6,048,000 SB-17-07739 180,098 North 3 15.0 2,701,477 SB-17-07786 434,382 North 3 5.7 2,479,350 SB-17-07807 59,810 North 1 15.0 897,148 SB-17-07860 13,567 North 1 10.9 148,370 SB-17-07877 25,953 North 1 11.6 301,100 SB-17-07895 292,673 North 3 15.0 4,390,090 SB-17-07899 41,764 North 1 15.0 625,222 SB-17-07933 194,736 North 2 9.3 1,808,555 SB-17-07952 389,504 North 3 6.1 2,364,778 SB-17-08018 640,900 North 3 10.0 6,385,257 SB-17-08071 205,263 North 2 13.9 2,858,640 SB-17-08103 30,933 North 1 10.4 323,100 SB-17-08104 101,950 North 1 5.7 581,908 SB-17-08107 11,989 North 1 15.0 179,828 SB-17-08146 144,296 North 1 11.6 1,677,454 SB-17-08150 51,191 North 1 11.6 594,100 SB-17-08332 21,348 North 1 5.7 121,848 SB-17-08336 118,836 North 2 15.0 1,782,535 SB-17-08500 481,135 North 3 13.6 6,562,861 SB-17-08514 124,685 North 1 15.0 1,870,271 SB-17-08574 32,402 North 1 11.6 376,050 SB-17-08666 20,345,592 North 5 14.0 284,148,255 SB-17-08672 448,561 North 3 9.7 4,353,533 SB-17-08691 167,198 North 2 8.9 1,483,553
SB-17-08694 221,846 North 2 12.2 2,701,601
SB-17-08728 11,981 North 1 15.0 179,722
SD-17-5613 25,850 North DI 2 15.0 387,755
SD-17-5696 8,727 North DI 1 15.0 130,909
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 27 Page 275 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lifetime Verified Ex Post EUL Project ID Stratum Savings Savings (kWh) (Years) (kWh) SD-17-5737 8,179 North DI 1 15.0 122,678 SD-17-5760 36,700 North DI 2 15.0 550,493 SD-17-5792 90,470 North DI 2 15.0 1,357,055 SD-17-5808 2,400 North DI 1 15.0 36,000 SD-17-5825 104,434 North DI 2 15.0 1,566,517 SD-17-5873 1,549 North DI 1 15.0 23,238 SD-17-5874 3,075 North DI 1 15.0 46,130 SD-17-6041 9,872 North DI 1 15.0 148,075 SD-17-6045 7,405 North DI 1 15.0 111,072 SB-17-07464 32,700 North NPAG 2 11.6 379,100 SB-17-07868 28,441 North NPAG 2 15.0 426,620 SB-17-07874 34,376 North NPAG 2 14.9 511,362 SB-17-08065 111,175 North NPAG 3 14.4 1,605,760 SB-17-08091 19,986 North NPAG 1 9.5 188,900 SB-17-08135 22,222 North NPAG 1 11.6 257,900 SB-17-08260 14,936 North NPAG 1 15.0 224,038 SB-17-08377 43,105 North NPAG 2 11.8 506,833 SB-17-08343 47,035 North NPAG 2 11.0 519,487 SB-17-08696 13,793 North NPAG 1 14.4 199,002 Totals 30,552,764 13.5 412,669,042
Stratum-level EUL’s were calculated for M&V sample sites by dividing total lifetime savings (kWh) per stratum by total verified ex post (kWh) savings per stratum. The stratum level EULs are shown in Table 4-6 below. The EUL for the sampled sites was 13.5 years.
Table 4-6. M&V Sample EUL & Lifetime Savings – Per Stratum Verified Ex Post Lifetime EUL Stratum Savings (kWh) Savings (kWh) (Years) North 1 737,913 8,828,791 12.0 North 2 1,068,366 13,042,189 12.2 North 3 3,742,158 37,466,299 10.0 North 4 3,992,305 59,884,585 15.0 North 5 20,345,592 284,148,255 14.0 North DI 1 41,207 618,102 15.0 North DI 2 257,455 3,861,819 15.0 North NPAG 1 70,937 869,840 12.3 North NPAG 2 185,657 2,343,402 12.6 North NPAG 3 111,175 1,605,760 14.4 Totals 30,552,764 412,669,042 13.5
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 28 Page 276 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
M&V sample site stratum level EUL’s were then applied to non-sampled sites and totaled. As shown in Table 4-7 below, ADM determined program-level lifetime savings to be 646,521,975 kWh. The program-level EUL was then taken to be lifetime kWh divided by annual verified kWh savings. The total EUL for PY2017 was 12.7 years.
Table 4-7. Program Level EUL & Lifetime Savings
Verified Ex Post Lifetime EUL (Years) Savings (kWh) Savings (kWh) M&V Sites 30,552,764 13.5 412,669,042 Non-sampled Sites 20,250,589 11.5 233,852,932 Totals: 50,803,353 12.7 646,521,975
4.4 DISCUSSION OF GROSS SAVINGS ANALYSIS
The project realization rates were reviewed to assess whether there were factors that were causing systematic differences in the realization rates. An analysis was conducted to determine whether realization rates for projects differed systematically by ex ante kWh savings. ADM found there is not a strong correlation between realization rates and ex ante kWh savings. In fact, a case-by-case examination shows that project-specific factors were more likely to cause ex post kWh savings to differ from ex ante kWh savings.
ADM also analyzed the data to investigate correlations between measure category, as listed in DSMC, and realization rate. Figure 4-1 below shows the realization rates for the measure categories included in ADM’s sample of projects.
Figure 4-1. Gross Realization Rate by Measure Category
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 29 Page 277 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
From Figure 4-1 all measure categories resulted in gross realization rates between 85% and 108%, with 3 of the categories being within 100% ± 5%. The program performed similarly to the previous program year, where measure category realization rates ranged from 93% to 115%.
The measure category with the highest realization rate, “Lighting per Watts Reduced”, contained 27 sampled projects and had an overall realization rate of 108.2%. These projects are mostly incentivized based on prescriptive ex ante savings and the most common reason for differences between ex ante and ex post savings are the use of custom hours of operation for ex post calculations and prescriptive hours for ex ante estimates. Of the 27 sampled projects, realization rates for 21 of them were 100%± 1%, indicating that the prescriptive hours are generally accurate. There was one particular site that was an outlier. SB-17-08146 was verified to operate 8,760 hours annual, while the ex ante calculation used prescriptive hours for the “process industrial” building type. This discrepancy resulted in a realization rate of 255% to the project.
The lowest measure category realization rate seen during 2017 was 84.7% for the “Custom” category. ADM sampled seven sites in this category, the majority of projects were close to 100% realization rates with the exception of two sites. SB-17-07739 and SB-17-07895 had realization rates of 42% and 45% respectively. For SB-17-07739, the major difference between the ex ante and ex post calculations was the assumed baseline power factor for the conveyor systems. The ex ante analysis did not measure the power factor and instead used an assumed power factor of 60% when calculating kW from amp only monitoring data. ADM used the same pre and post monitoring and production data as in the ex ante analysis, but also took one-time power measurements on a sample of baseline conveyors to determine a typical power factor. For SB-17-07895, VFDs were installed on various types of production equipment. The ex ante calculation did not take into account fluctuations in the production schedule because it did not normalize for production during the baseline and post-installation monitoring periods. The ex post calculation did control for these fluctuations resulting in the 45% realization rate.
Overall, the ex ante estimates for sampled projects were found to be accurate and reasonable. Of the 54 sampled sites, ADM found 6 that had gross realization rates below 95% and 10 that had gross realization rates above 105%. The measure with the greatest variation in GRR was the “Lighting per Watts Reduced” measure. Within this category, ADM sampled 27 sites and found that 6 sites had GRRs above 105% or below 95%. Overall, the “Lighting per Watts Reduced” measure category resulted in an average GRR of 108.2%.
Findings from M&V Data Collection and Analysis 30 Page 278 of 392 5. RECOMMENDATIONS
In this chapter, ADM provides recommendations which were developed during the M&V analysis for the PY2017 CES program. The following provide detailed discussions of these recommendations: 1) Recommendations to improve the Pre-Construction Review process:
In PY2013 a Pre-Construction Review process was implemented to review large projects during the early stages of implementation to provide an early review of estimated energy savings and to improve coordination between implementation and M&V activities. The pre- construction review process has continued to improve in subsequent years and was used extensively to allow both ADM and DNV-GL to develop similar savings calculation and baseline methodologies.
ADM provides the following recommendations to continue to further improve the Pre- Construction Review process.
x ADM recommends continuing to review this process at the beginning of each program year with all participants and make adjustments to improve this valuable process. x A suggested improvement includes providing all the available preliminary project documentation (implementer’s pre-project inspection report, methodology and calculations of preliminary ex-ante savings estimates, including models built by outside contractors) in addition to the preliminary Project Application and Pre-Construction Checklist document as part of this process. ADM would use this preliminary data only to better inform decisions regarding M&V activities and would not use this preliminary data for ex post analysis. x ADM also recommends that outside contractors be included in the pre-construction process for any project where savings or incentive levels are initially based on calculations completed by any group other than the implementation contractor. Including outside contractors in the process would improve transparency between implementation and M&V activities and would allow all parties to be in full agreement on data collection, project timelines, baseline requirements, etc. prior to projects being completed. 2) Recommendation regarding use of the program databases, including DSM Central:
x Standardize reports provided for the CES programs. Currently, three separate reports are provided for the CES program, one that includes all Retrofit projects, a second report for New Construction, and a third for NPAG. These three reports contain different project information and should be revised to provide only necessary information for the M&V contractor. Additionally, these reports should be reviewed, and repeat and potentially contradictory, data should be removed.
Recommendations 31 Page 279 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
3) Recommendation regarding the use of IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 for new construction savings calculations:
x Through ADM’s evaluation of PY2017 new construction projects, it was found that ex ante estimates are being calculated using guidelines stated in the ASHRAE 90.1 standard. However, this standard is not an applicable building code in northern Nevada and should not be used to determine baseline LPD or equipment efficiency requirements. All energy savings associated with new construction projects should be calculated using the proper version of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The IECC is the enforced code in northern Nevada and should therefore be used to determine energy savings. While the ASHRAE 90.1 standard and the IECC are similar, there are differences in equipment efficiencies, allowable LPDs, and baseline building types. For the PY2017 evaluation, when the ex ante estimates used ASHRAE 90.1 for determining baseline requirements, and those requirements resulted in more conservative savings, ADM used the same baseline requirements to determine ex post savings. However, it is recommended that in future years, the IECC be referenced for baseline requirements and the ASHRAE standard only be used as a guideline for modeling techniques.
4) Recommendation regarding the project documentation provided to ADM:
x For the most part, sufficient project documentation is provided by DNVGL. The project documentation typically consists of detailed project reports, outlining the scope of the project, both pre and post retrofit visit reports, invoices, project applications, etc. However, for new construction projects, construction drawings and energy simulation files should be provided in all cases. Several of the sampled projects during PY2017 did not include modeling files, requiring ADM to specifically request these from the implementation contractor’s project manager.
5) Recommendation regarding DNVGL notifying customers of M&V activities:
x PY2017 was the first year that DNVGL and ADM coordinated on notifying customers that their projects had been selected for M&V. Through this process, ADM would select a sample of projects, request project documentation from DNVGL and provide the customer contact information available in the program database. DNVGL would verify the correct customer contact information was available and would then notify the customer that their project had been selected. The step of informing customers prior to ADM contacting them to schedule visits significantly improved ADM’s ability to schedule those visits and reduced customer complaints and questions about ADM’s role in the program. It is recommended that this practice continue into future program years.
6) Recommendation regarding equipment power monitoring:
x ADM recommends that any power monitoring done on equipment with varying loads and power factors be done using equipment that measures true power. Typically, the
Recommendations 32 Page 280 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
implementation contractor has been monitoring equipment by using current transducers to measure amps and using one-time power measurements, or equipment ratings, to estimate power factor. However, this does not fully account for changes in power factor as loads change in mechanical equipment (VFDs, chillers, etc.). The implementation contractor often uses rated VFD power factor when calculating post installation power usage. Using the rated power factor of VFDs typically leads to over estimating post installation power usage and lower ex ante savings. It is recommended that any loads with the potential for power factor or voltage fluctuations be monitored using true power measurements as opposed to only measuring amps.
Recommendations 33 Page 281 of 392 APPENDIX A: PROJECT-LEVEL ANALYSES
Site Grand Sierra Resort Address 2500 East 2nd Street, Reno, NV 89502 Project Number SB-17-07005
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07005, the Grand Sierra Resort received incentives from NV Energy for continuing to make improvements to the equipment and controls used in their central chilled water plant. The realization rate for this project is 99%.
Project Description This project is the continuation of a previous project (SB-15-06086) and includes the installation of new pumps, variable speed drives (VSDs), and more advanced controls in the facility’s central chilled water plant. Under this project, two new chilled water pumps were installed to replace old pumps, new condenser water pumps were added with VSDs, pumps used for pre-cooling the chilled water were retrofitted with VSDs, soft starts were added to two of the chillers, and a monitoring system was installed to allow equipment performance trending.
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM staff coordinated with the implementation contractor to develop a savings calculation approach that utilized data from past projects, ensured savings were not being double counted, and allowed for both ADM and DNVGL to develop savings estimates using a similar methodology. Through this process, ADM and DNVGL met several times to discuss data collection requirements and work performed at the site. The ex post energy savings estimates are calculated using engineering calculations. The data used in the calculations are a combination of monitoring data, hand written equipment logs obtained from the customer, and trending data. The combination of these data were used in a TMY3 temperature bin analysis to determine both baseline and post retrofit energy usage. The baseline energy usage was calculated using the ex post savings calculations from the previous project implemented at this facility, project SB-15-06086. Because this is a continuation of that project, the “as-built” or “post retrofit” energy usage from that project became the baseline for this
Appendix A 34 Page 282 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 project. The post retrofit energy usage specific to this project was calculated using a combination of monitoring data collected by DNVGL and trending data provided by the customer.
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates By Measure
Ex Post Lifetime Ex Ante Savings Realization Measure Type Savings EUL Savings (kWh/yr) Rate (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr)
Chilled Water Plant Improvements 2,313,248 2,297,819 99% 15 34,467,291
Totals 2,313,248 2,297,819 99% 15 34,467,291
The realization rate for this project is 99%. The slight difference between ex ante and ex post savings is due to a difference in the minimum plant kW calculated in the two analyses. The ex ante analysis uses a minimum plant kW of 274.15 kW, while the ex post uses 278.67 kW. This difference only impacts low temperature hours and has a relatively small impact on savings overall.
Appendix A 35 Page 283 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company Address 99 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Reno NV 89521 Project Number SB-17-07221
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07221, Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (4) 2 Lamp U-tube T8 fixtures to (4) 36W 2’x 2’ LED Panel fixtures x (1) LED exit sign x (23) 320W Pulse Start Metal Halide fixtures to 114W Surface Mount LED fixtures x (2) 100W Halogen Flood fixtures to (2) 30W Bullet Flood LED fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. The baseline lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. The post-implementation lighting hours were verified through an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
Appendix A 36 Page 284 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
2L U-tube to LED 4 4 59 36 8,760 563 847 1.05 151% 6 4,836 Exit Sign 1 1 25 10 8,760 346 138 1.05 40% 5 691 PS MH to LED 23 23 365 114 4,308 24,824 24,872 1.00 100% 14 346,380 Halogen to LED 2 2 100 30 4,308 602 603 1.00 100% 12 7,000 Total 26,335 26,460 100% 14 358,907
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. While on-site, ADM verified claimed quantities and wattages to be accurate.
Appendix A 37 Page 285 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Five Star Premier Residences Address 3201 Plumas, Reno, NV 89509 Project Number SB-17-07291
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07291, Five Star Premier Residences received incentives from NV Energy for replacing two 15HP domestic water booster pumps with two new 5HP pumps with VFDs. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description Five Star Premier Residences replaced (2) exiting 15HP pump motors running 24/7 with new 5HP pump motors with VFDs. The project consisted of the following:
x (2) Grundfos 5HP Pump Type #CR20-02 A-GJ-A-E-HQQE and (2)Yaskawa iQpump 1000 Intelligent Pump Controller
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the pumps and VFDs were installed and operational. Savings were calculated using pre and post amp monitoring data gathered through the ex ante analysis. A typical week and hourly usage profiles were created utilizing the monitoring data. The savings were the results of the average pre usage minus the average post usage.
ݏݎݑܪൌ ሺܹ݇ െܹ݇௦௧ሻݔ ݄ܹ݇ Where:
kWpre = Average (7 day & 24 hour) kW during pre-monitoring period kWpost = Average (7 day & 24 hour) kW during post-monitoring period Hours = Annual Operating Hours, 8760
Appendix A 38 Page 286 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates
Expected Realized Realization Lifetime Measure Type Savings Savings EUL (yr) Rate Savings (kWh) (kWh/hr) (kWh/yr) Pump VFDs 39,584 39,584 100% 15 593,763 The overall project-level realization rate is 100%.
Appendix A 39 Page 287 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Mary’s Gone Crackers Address 9480 N Virginia Street, Reno, NV 89506 Project Number SB-17-07476
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07476, Mary’s Gone Crackers received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 102%.
Project Description The customer installed a lighting power density (LPD) of 0.31 W/ft² with an allowed LPD of 1.11 W/ft² in the production area, and a LPD of 0.53 W/ft² with an allowed LPD of 0.85 W/ft² in the office areas.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the installed lighting equipment matches the layout on the drawings that were provided, and verified the occupancy sensor, and daylighting controls, that were installed on-site. The drawings and fixture specification sheets were used to determine the total quantity and wattage of the installed fixtures. At the time of the site visit the facility had not completed the productions lines and began normal operation. Due to the timeframe for the facility to ramp up to full production it would not have been possible to complete any sort of logging/monitoring. Instead the operating hours were generated through interviews with the facility staff about the baseline operation, the deemed controls factor for the occupancy sensors, and through ADMs monitoring data conducted at a very similar facility in Nevada that had the same daylighting controls and operation schedule as this facility.
Lighting density energy savings are calculated as:
ܹ ܹ ቈ൬ ൰ െ൬ ൰ ݐଶ ݂ݐଶ݂ ൌ݂ݐଶ ൈ ୈୟୱୣ ୈ୍୬ୱ୲ୟ୪୪ୣୢ ൈ ൈ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ୭୲ୟ୪୳୧୪ୢ୧୬ ͳͲͲͲ
Appendix A 40 Page 288 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings
2 ft. TotalBuilding = Square Footage of the Facility
2 (W/ft )LPDBase = Baseline Lighting Power Density as Established by Local Code Requirement
2 (W/ft )LPDInstalled = Verified Lighting Power Density t = Annual lighting operating hours HCIF = HVAC interactive factor
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting power density installed under the project. Lighting Power Density Savings Calculations
Square W/Ft² Expected Realized Realization Lifetime Location Feet Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Code As Built Savings Savings
Production Floor 394,971 1.11 0.31 5,112 1,653,831 1,688,073 1.05 102% 15.00 25,321,088 Office 6,871 0.85 0.53 2,807 6,313 6,414 1.05 102% 15.00 96,206 Total 1,660,144 1,694,486 102% 15.00 25,417,294 *Rated life is a weighted average of all post retrofit fixtures in their respective area
Results The project-level realization rate is 102%. The ex post energy savings are high due to ADM using a higher HCIF than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate.
Appendix A 41 Page 289 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Sienna Hotel 2nd floor Address One South Lake Street, Reno, NV Project Number SB-17-07562
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07562, Sienna Hotel received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 79%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (83) Recessed Can to (91) Type I LED x (6) Recessed Can to (6) Type J LED x (16) Recessed Can to (15) Type K LED x (49) Recessed Can to (49) Type I LED x (53) Track MR16 to (53) Type X LED x (4) Recessed Can to (4) Type L LED x (68) Track Incandescent to (88) Type A LED x (4) Recessed Inc to (4) Type C LED x (2) 2x4 T8 to (50) Type B 1.8W/ft (50 ft) LED x (2) Recessed Inc to (40) Type N 1.5W/ft (40 ft) x (20) Track Incandescent to (150) Type B LED 1.8W/ft (150 ft) LED x (11) Recessed Inc to (5) LED Tape LED x (54) Recessed Inc to (1) Type C1 LED x (4) Recessed Can to (4) Type C LED x (1) Incandescent fixture to (1) Type C2 LED x (50) Surface Mount to (3) Type P1 LED x (15) Recessed Inc to (12) Type I LED x (50) Surface Mount to (3) Type P2 LED x (3) Wall Sconce to (12) Type J LED x (8) Recessed Inc to (3) Type S LED x (6) 2 x 4 T12 4 lamp to (31) Type K LED x (3) Recessed Inc to (100) Type N 1.5W/ft (40 x (25) Recessed Inc to (6) Type L LED ft) LED x (2) Recessed Inc to (1) Type M LED x (19) Wall Sconce to (7) Type T LED x (17) Recessed Inca to (48) Type T LED x (35) Recessed Inc to (25) Type U LED x (10) Recessed Inc to (10) Prudential LED x (32) Recessed Inc to (16) LED Pendent 62w (8) x (12) Recessed Inc to (12) Type Q LED Recessed Inc to (17) 2" LED 22w (4) x (16) Recessed Inca to (16) Type I LED x (1) Recessed Inc to (1) LED Surface 5.2w (9) x (17) Recessed Can to (17) Type C LED x (4) Track Inc to (4) LED 12w x (1) Recessed Can to (1) Type D LED x (10) Track Inc to (48) 48'LED Tape 10W/ft (3) x (2) Recessed Can to (2) Type LED x (1) Track Inc to (1) Mini Spot light 6.6w (5) x (1) Recessed Can to (1) Type E LED x (6) Recessed Inc to (2) 8' 2 lamp T8
Appendix A 42 Page 290 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
x (15) Recessed Inc to (22) LED 10.5W (16) x (8) Recessed Inc to (7) LED 9.5W (14) x (8) Recessed Inc to (200) 200' LED 1.5W/ft (15) x (2) 2 x 4 T12 4 lamp to (7)6" LED 15.2W x (3) 2 x 4 T12 4 lamp to (8) 2x2' LED 38W x (5) Recessed Inc to (2) 2x2' LED 38W (13) x (10) Recessed Inc to (14) 4" LED 10.6W x (11) Surface Mount Incandescent. to (7) 6" LED 15.2w x (84) Recessed Inc to (86) 6" LED 15.2W x (18) Recessed Inc to (10) 4" LED 10.6W x (73) 4" Recessed Can to (73) 6.5W R20 LED x (8) 6" Recessed Can to (8) 6.5W R20 LED x (1) Recessed 2L T8 to (2) 9.5W A19 GU LED x (26) 400W Metal Halide to (26) 100 W LED
Appendix A 43 Page 291 of 392 Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and post implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCI EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
Recessed Can to LED 83 91 60 17 8,760 - 31,617 1.05 6 180,460 Recessed Can to LED 16 15 50 8 8,760 - 6,332 1.05 6 36,139 Track MR-16 to LED 53 53 50 8 8,760 - 20,501 1.05 6 117,012 Track Incandescent to LED 68 88 60 17 2,860 - 7,849 1.05 15 117,728 2x4 T8 to LED 2 50 59 2 2,860 - 84 1.05 15 1,263 Track Incandescent to LED 20 150 60 2 2,860 - 2,796 1.05 15 41,942 Recessed Inc to LED 54 1 60 10 2,860 - 9,713 1.05 15 145,694 Incandescent fixture to LED 1 1 350 10 2,860 - 1,024 1.05 15 15,356 Recessed Inc to LED 15 12 60 17 2,860 - 2,093 1.05 15 31,389 Wall Sconce to LED 3 12 150 20 2,860 - 617 1.05 15 9,254 2 x 4 T12 4 lamp to LED 6 31 112 8 2,860 - 1,321 1.05 15 19,821 Recessed Inc to LED 25 6 60 6 2,860 - 4,402 1.05 15 66,026 Recessed Inc to LED 2 1 60 15 8,760 - 967 1.05 6 5,519 Recessed Inca to LED 17 48 60 20 2,860 - 209 1.05 15 3,139 Recessed Inc to LED 10 10 60 36 2,860 - 722 1.05 15 10,824 Recessed Inc to LED 12 12 60 22 8,760 - 4,200 1.05 6 23,970
Appendix A 44 Page 292 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCI EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
Recessed Inca to LED 16 16 60 17 8,760 - 6,336 1.05 6 36,166 Recessed Can to LED 17 17 60 10 8,760 - 7,906 1.05 6 45,128 Recessed Can to LED 1 1 60 10 8,760 - 460 1.05 6 2,628 Recessed Can to LED 2 2 60 29 8,760 - 571 1.05 6 3,259 Recessed Can to LED 1 1 60 33 8,760 - 249 1.05 6 1,419 Recessed Can to LED 6 6 60 20 8,760 - 2,188 1.05 6 12,490 Recessed Can to LED 49 49 60 17 8,760 - 19,405 1.05 6 110,757 Recessed Can to LED 4 4 60 8 8,760 - 1,934 1.05 6 11,039 Recessed Inc to LED 4 4 60 10 8,760 - 1,860 1.05 6 10,618 Recessed Inc to LED 2 40 60 2 8,760 - 553 1.05 6 3,154 Recessed Inc to LED 11 5 60 130 8,760 - 92 1.05 6 526 Recessed Can to LED 4 4 60 10 8,760 - 1,860 1.05 6 10,618 Surface Mount to LED 50 3 6 60 8,760 - 1,105 1.05 6 6,308 Surface Mount to LED 50 3 6 60 8,760 - 1,105 1.05 6 6,308 Recessed Inc to LED 8 3 60 60 8,760 - 2,763 1.05 6 15,770 Recessed Inc to LED 3 100 60 2 8,760 - 276 1.05 6 1,577 Wall Sconce to LED 19 7 50 7 8,760 - 8,298 1.05 6 47,362 Recessed Inc to LED 35 25 50 60 8,760 - 2,302 1.05 6 13,142 Recessed Inc to LED 32 16 60 62 8,760 - 8,547 1.05 6 48,781 Recessed Inc to LED 8 17 60 22 8,760 - 976 1.05 6 5,572 Recessed Inc to LED 1 1 60 5 4,242 - 244 1.05 12 2,881 Track Inc to LED 4 4 60 12 4,242 - 856 1.05 12 10,093 Track Inc to LED 10 48 60 10 4,242 - 535 1.05 12 6,308 Track Inc to LED 1 1 60 7 4,242 - 238 1.05 12 2,807 Recessed Inc to LED 6 2 59 64 8,760 - 2,081 1.05 6 11,880 Recessed Inc to LED 15 22 60 11 8,760 - 6,161 1.05 6 35,167 Recessed Inc to LED 8 7 75 10 8,760 - 4,913 1.05 6 28,044 Recessed Inc to LED 8 200 75 2 8,760 - 2,763 1.05 6 15,770 2 x 4 T12 4 lamp to LED 2 7 112 15 8,760 - 1,083 1.05 6 6,182 2 x 4 T12 4 lamp to LED 3 8 112 38 8,760 - 295 1.05 6 1,682 Recessed Inc to LED 5 2 60 38 8,760 - 2,063 1.05 6 11,775 Recessed Inc to LED 10 14 60 11 8,760 - 4,159 1.05 6 23,739 Surface Mount Incandescent to 11 7 60 15 8,760 - 5,098 1.05 6 29,101 LED Recessed Inc to LED 84 86 60 15 8,760 - 34,378 1.05 6 196,219 Recessed Inc to LED 18 10 60 11 8,760 - 8,970 1.05 6 51,199 4" Recessed Can to LED 73 73 50 7 1,175 - 3,923 1.05 15 58,841 6" Recessed Can to LED 8 8 40 7 1,175 - 331 1.05 15 4,966 Recessed 2L T8 to LED 1 2 59 10 1,175 - 49 1.05 15 741 400W Metal Halide to LED 26 26 458 100 4,308 - 40,101 1.00 12 465,400 Total 356,484 281,475 79% 8 2,180,953
Results
Appendix A 45 Page 293 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The project-level realization rate is 79%. ADM verified the fixture counts and wattages through on-site inspection as well as review of the project documentation. The ex post savings are lower due mostly to ADM using custom hours instead of the prescriptive hours used in the ex ante analysis. Differences in the hours of operation found in the bocce courts, which ADM found to be 2,860 based on the schedule and statements by the site contact, are likely to account for most of the difference between ex ante and ex post savings.
Appendix A 46 Page 294 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site DCSID Lift Station Address 197 Elks Point Rd, Zephyr Cove NV 89448 Project Number SB-17-07595
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07595, Douglas County Sewer Improvement District (DCSID) received incentives from NV Energy for replacing existing duplex 150 VFD lifting pumps with a single 250hp high efficient lifting pump. The realization rate for this project is 90%.
Project Description The facility used 1 of 2 duplex 150hp VFD lifting pump sets to pump raw sewage from a lifting station to the wastewater treatment plant. The facility replaced the duplex 150 VFD lifting pumps sets with a single 250hp high efficient lifting pump. However, the facility kept the 2 existing duplex 150hp lifting pump sets as emergency backup units. The old pumps ran constantly while the new pump shuts down to save energy.
Measurement and Verification Effort Savings for the new lift pump were determined using pre and post amp and flow monitoring data. Pre retrofit amp monitoring data from 3/28/2017 through 4/4/2017 and post retrofit amp monitoring data from 1/17/2017 through 2/16/2017 was included in the project documentation. Also, pre retrofit flow monitoring data from 3/29/2017 through 4/2/2017 and post retrofit flow monitoring data from 1/17/2017 through 2/16/2017 was included in the project documentation. The flow data collected during the pre and post monitoring periods was used to regress the kW data per gallon. The results of the hourly kW per gallon regressions for pre and post retrofit periods can be seen below:
Appendix A 47 Page 295 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Baseline and As-Built Hourly kW vs. Gallons
Pre and post retrofit gallons were averaged by weekday and hour to create average hourly gallons of water profiles in their respective periods. The pre and post hourly gallons of water profiles were averaged to create typical profiles which were extrapolated to an annual basis. The regression equations were used with the typical gallon profile to calculate typical pre and post retrofit kW.
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates By Measure
Expected Realized Lifetime Realization Measure Type Savings Savings EUL (yr) Savings Rate (kWh/hr) (kWh/yr) (kWh) Lift Pump 178,191 160,487 90% 15 2,407,305 Total 178,191 160,487 90% 15 2,407,305 The overall project-level realization rate is 90%. The difference in realization is due to the ex ante analysis using the average of the monitoring data while the ex post analysis regressed kW and gallons in the pre and post periods and used the resulting regression equation to find the typical savings using a typical gallons profile. The typical gallons profile was created suing the pre and post monitored data.
Appendix A 48 Page 296 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Warehouse Services Address 14551 Industry Circle, Reno, NV 89506 Project Number SB-17-07677
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07677 Warehouse Services received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 118%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted (384) high pressure sodium fixtures to (384) 150W LED high bay fixtures throughout a warehouse.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule through an interview with facility staff. The quantity and wattage of the installed LED fixtures was verified on site and through a review of the submitted project documentation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state
Appendix A 49 Page 297 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
HPS 400W to LED 150W 384 384 465 150 4,906 501,016 593,430 1.00 118% 10 6,048,000
Total 501,016 593,430 118% 10 6,048,000
Results The project-level realization rate is 118%. The ex post energy savings are high due to the ex ante estimates use of lower, prescriptive, operating hours (4,142hr/yr), while ADM verified the actual operating hours (4,906 hr/yr) with the site contact.
Appendix A 50 Page 298 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Arrow Electronics Address 665 Maestro Dr. Reno, Nevada 89511 Project Number SB-17-07739
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07739, Arrow Electronics received incentives from NV Energy for replacing their existing conveyer system with a new energy efficient system that features a PLC and sensors to turn motors off when that section is not in use. The realization rate for this project is 42%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted their old conveyer system with a new energy efficient system. The new system uses less than 100 amps at each of the two panels and uses a PLC and sensors to direct conveyor traffic and slow down or turn motors off when there are breaks in the traffic. The new system also utilizes variable speed motors.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the operating schedule. Typical hours of operation and production capacity were verified through an interview with facility staff. ADM also took one-time power measurements on a sample of baseline conveyors to determine a typical power factor.
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates by Measure
Expected Realized Lifetime Realization Measure Type Savings Savings EUL (yr) Savings Rate (kWh/hr) (kWh/yr) (kWh) Conveyor 430,197 180,098 42% 15 2,701,477 Total 430,197 180,098 42% 15 2,701,477 The project-level realization rate is 42%. For this project, ADM used the pre and post monitoring and production data collected by the implementation contractor to determine ex post savings. However, the major difference between the ex ante and ex post calculations is the baseline system
Appendix A 51 Page 299 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 power factor. The ex ante did not measure the power factor and instead used an assumed power factor of 60% when calculating kW from amp only monitoring data. During the M&V site visit, ADM was able to take a one-time power measurement of a baseline system and verified that the power factor for the system was 30%. This difference in power factor lead to the ex post calculations having a much lower baseline energy usage and thus, lower overall energy savings.
Appendix A 52 Page 300 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Silver Legacy Resort Casino Address 407 N Virginia St., Reno, NV 89501 Project Number SB-17-07786
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07786, Silver Legacy Resort Casino received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted:
x (929) 4’ 3-lamp T8 fixtures with 4’ 3-lamp LED tube fixtures; and x (10) 4’ 2-lamp T8 fixtures with 4’ 2-lamp LED tube fixtures.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule through an interview with facility staff. It was found that all of the fixtures operate twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The quantity and wattage of the installed LED tube lamps was verified on-site and through a review of the submitted project documentation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
Appendix A 53 Page 301 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
3L T8 to 3L LED 929 929 89 36 8,760 431,316 431,316 1.00 100% 5.71 2,461,850
2L T8 to 2L LED 10 10 59 24 8,760 3,066 3,066 1.00 100% 5.71 17,500
Total 434,382 434,382 100% 5.71 2,479,350
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%.
Appendix A 54 Page 302 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site WRP Reno Address 9250 Red Rock Road, #B, Reno, NV 89506 Project Number SB-17-07807
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07807, WRP Reno received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 72%.
Project Description The customer installed lighting measures with lighting power density as follows: x Office Installed: 0.64 W/ft² allowed lighting power density of 0.85 W/ft² x Warehouse Installed: 0.21 W/ft² allowed lighting power density of 0.60 W/ft²
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule by installing monitoring equipment at the site. The lighting operating hours were verified through monitoring of both the Office and Warehouse areas. Because controls are required by code for new construction, there are no savings attributable to them. Therefore, baseline hours equal new (controlled) hours. Quantities were verified with visual verification and compared to the invoice. Wattages were verified with equipment specification sheets provided with the project documentation.
Lighting density energy savings are calculated as:
ܹ ܹ ቈ൬ ൰ െ൬ ൰ ݐଶ ݂ݐଶ݂ ൌ݂ݐଶ ൈ ୈୟୱୣ ୈ୍୬ୱ୲ୟ୪୪ୣୢ ൈ ൈ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ୭୲ୟ୪୳୧୪ୢ୧୬ ͳͲͲͲ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings
2 ft. TotalBuilding = Square Footage of the Facility
Appendix A 55 Page 303 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
2 (W/ft )LPDBase = Baseline Lighting Power Density as Established by Local Code Requirement
2 (W/ft )LPDInstalled = Verified Lighting Power Density t = Annual lighting operating hours HCIF = HVAC interactive factor
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting power density installed under the project. Lighting Power Density Savings Calculations
W/Ft² Expected Realized Square Realization Lifetime Location Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Feet As Rate Savings Code Savings Savings Built Office 2,748 0.85 0.64 2,246 1,363 1,358 1.05 100% 15.00 20,374 Warehouse 90,962 0.60 0.21 1,666 81,671 58,452 1.00 72% 15.00 876,774 Total 83,034 59,810 72% 15.00 897,148
Results The project-level realization rate is 72%. The ex post energy savings are lower due to ADM verifying lower operating hours than the prescriptive value claimed in the ex ante estimate.
Appendix A 56 Page 304 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site UPG – Panda Printing and Mailing Address 4835 Longley Lane, Reno, Nevada Project Number SB-17-07860
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07860, UPG – Panda Printing and Mailing received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (7) 400W High Pressure Sodium fixtures to (7) 80W Corn Cob LED fixtures x (5) 70W High Pressure Sodium fixtures to (3) 7W Corn Cob LED fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and the post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 57 Page 305 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings HPS to LED 7 7 465 80 4,308 11,589 11,611 1.00 100% 12 134,750 HPS to LED 5 3 95 7 4,308 1,952 1,956 1.00 100% 7 13,620 Total 13,541 13,567 100% 11 148,370
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. ADM verified the claimed quantities, wattages, and hours of operation all to be accurate.
Appendix A 58 Page 306 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Regional Transport Commission Address 1105 Terminal Way Reno, NV 89502 Project Number SB-17-07877
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07877, Regional Transport Commission received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 101%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (12) 400W Metal Halide pole to (12) 150W LED pole x (3) 250W Metal Halide pole to (3) 150W LED pole x (1) 100W Metal Halide pole to (1) 40W LED pole x (5) 250W Metal Halide wall pack to (5) 60W LED x (11) 50W Metal Halide Recessed Square to (11) 30W LED x (4) 50W Metal Halide Recessed Round to (4) 30W LED
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. The baseline lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. The post-implementation lighting hours were also verified through an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
Appendix A 59 Page 307 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings MH to LED 12 12 458 150 4,308 15,893 15,923 1.00 100% 12 184,800 MH to LED 3 3 295 150 4,308 1,806 1,874 1.00 104% 12 21,750 MH to LED 1 1 128 40 4,308 378 379 1.00 100% 12 4,400 MH to LED 5 5 295 60 4,308 4,945 5,062 1.00 102% 12 58,750 MH to LED 11 11 72 30 4,308 1,987 1,990 1.00 100% 12 23,100 MH to LED 4 4 72 30 4,308 722 724 1.00 100% 12 8,400 Total 25,731 25,953 101% 12 301,200
Results The project-level realization rate is 101%. ADM used the onsite verified fixture quantity and wattages to calculate ex post energy savings. In the ex-ante calculations, there is a slight variation in fixture wattages for two of the fixture types. This is the cause for the realization rate being higher than 100%.
Appendix A 60 Page 308 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Plastic Specialties Address 909 E. Glendale Avenue, Sparks, NV Project Number SB-17-07895
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07895, Plastic Specialties received incentives from NV Energy for installing variable frequency drives (VFDs) on their production equipment, including blower fans, extruders, and mill motors. The realization rate for this project is 45%.
Project Description This project included the installation of 11 VFDs on the following equipment: x Blower 1 – 20 hp x Blower 2 – 20 hp x Blower 3 – 20 hp x Blower 7 – 50 hp x Blower 9 – 50 hp x Blower 12 – 50 hp x Blower 13 – 50 hp x Extruder 1 – 60 hp x Extruder 2 – 60 hp x Mill Motor – 250 hp x Extruder – 250 hp
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V site visit, ADM verified the installation of the VFDs and installed monitoring equipment on the two largest motors, the Mill and Extruder motors. These motors were monitored to determine typical kWh/lb of production with the VFDs installed and to verify the data collected by the implementation contractor.
Appendix A 61 Page 309 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The ex post savings were calculated using pre and post monitoring data for each motor provided by the implementation contractor. DNVGL installed current transducers (CTs) on each of the motors prior to the installation of the VFDs to enable calculation of baseline energy usage per pound of production. Similarly, DNVGL re-installed the CTs after the installation of the VFDs to allow for post implementation energy usage. The ex post savings for each motor were calculated using the equation below:
σ ܹ݄݇௦ σ ܹ݄݇௦௧ ݑ݈ܽௗ௨௧݊݊ܣ ௦௩௦ ൌቆ െ ቇൈ݄ܹ݇ ݀ݑܿݐ݅݊௦௧ݎܲ ݀ݑܿݐ݅݊௦ σݎܲ σ
Where: kWh = Energy usage during baseline and/or post implementation monitoring period, calculated from Amp measurements for each motor Production = Total production11 during the baseline and/or post monitoring period.
Annualproduction = Expected annual production for the facility.
The monitoring data provided by the implementation contractor was used to develop average kWh/lb of production values for both baseline and post measure conditions. The savings were calculated as the difference between baseline and post kWh/lb values multiplied by the total expected production for a year. The annual production was calculated by averaging the daily production during the three monitoring periods (baseline, post phase 1, and post phase 2) and multiplying by the expected production days per year (300 days/yr). The annual production was calculated to be 32,375,511 lb/yr. The baseline and post implementation kWh/lb, ex ante savings, ex post savings, and realization rates by motor are shown in the table below. No baseline production data was provided for the 250-hp Extruder motor, so no baseline kWh/lb could be calculated. This motor had baseline monitoring done during a period when no other motor was being monitored and no production data was provided by the site during this period. The savings associated with this motor are calculated using the average realization rate for the other motors that had sufficient data.
11 The first and last day of the monitoring period are excluded to ensure complete days are captured.
Appendix A 62 Page 310 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Motor Savings Summary
Ex Ante Ex Post Motor Size Baseline Post Realization Motor Label Savings Savings (hp) kWh/1000lb kWh/1000lb Rate (kWh) (kWh) Blower 1 20 0.46 0.38 11,299 2,618 23% Blower 2 20 0.52 0.39 8,507 3,982 47% Blower 3 20 0.27 0.17 7,556 3,216 43% Blower 7 50 1.66 1.31 32,581 11,166 34% Blower 9 50 0.91 0.72 18,882 6,421 34% Blower 12 50 2.22 2.47 20,435 (8,112) 0% Blower 13 50 1.85 1.62 44,172 7,459 17% Extruder 1 60 4.27 2.69 75,808 51,126 67% Extruder 2 60 4.53 2.54 81,777 64,663 79% Mill Motor 250 8.72 7.38 110,904 43,355 39% Extruder 250 N/A 5.27 236,609 106,778 45% Totals 880 648,526 292,673 45%
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates By Measure
Ex Post Lifetime Ex Ante Savings Realization Measure Type Savings EUL Savings (kWh/yr) Rate (kWh/yr) (kWh) VFDs 648,526 292,673 45% 15 4,390,090 Totals 648,526 292,673 45% 15 4,390,090
The realization rate for this project is 45%. The significantly lower ex post savings is due to differences in the calculation methodologies used. The ex post calculations used the monitoring and production data to determine a specific energy consumption (kWh/lb) for each motor, under both operating conditions (baseline and VFD). The difference in the specific energy consumption was then used, along with the expected annual production, to determine annual energy savings.
While the ex ante estimate used the same data as the ex post calculations, the methodology was significantly different. The ex ante approach calculated the average kW for each motor during both baseline and VFD conditions, then used average daily production (during each condition) to extrapolate to annual savings. However, the average daily baseline production was different than the average daily post production. Using this approach, the baseline and post energy usages were calculated using different production rates, as opposed to normalizing to a common expected annual production.
The ex ante calculations used the following equation to determine specific energy usage:
ݏݎݑܪൈΨܱܲൈ ܹ݇ ܹ݄݇݁ݎ݈ܾ ൌ ௩ ݑ݈ܽௗ௨௧݊݊ܣ
Where:
Appendix A 63 Page 311 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
kWavg = Average kW calculated from monitoring data. Averages were calculated separately for baseline and post periods. %OP = Percentage of monitoring hours that the equipment was operating. This was calculated separately for baseline and post periods. Hours = Expected annual hours of operation, 7,200 hr/yr, for both baseline and post conditions.
Annualproduction = Expected annual production, calculated using average daily production and expected number of days per year. This was calculated separately for baseline and post conditions.
Using this approach does not account for differences in production levels during baseline and post monitoring periods. The average daily production during the most common baseline period was 108,688 lb/day, while the average daily production during post monitoring period, phase 1, was 97,801 lb/day. Using the above equation does not appropriately account for these differences in production associated with the two monitoring periods and applies savings during the post period to lower production rates that are not attributable to the installation of the VFDs. This equation also used different annual production values for baseline and post conditions, neglecting to normalize savings to expected annual production.
Appendix A 64 Page 312 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site American AVK Company Address 2155 Meridian Blvd. Minden, NV 89423 Project Number SB-17-07899
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07899, American AVK Company received incentives from NV Energy for an exterior lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (30) 400W Metal Halide Fixtures to (30) 150W LED Fixtures; x (7) 42W TT CFL Wall Packs to (7) 25W LED Wall Packs; x (2) 100W Metal Halide Fixtures to (2) 46W LED Fixtures; x (5) TT CFL Fixtures to (5) 12W LED Fixtures; x (2) 3L 4’ T12 Fixtures to (2) 3L 20W LED Fixtures;
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and post retrofit lighting operating hours were determined through an interview with facility staff. It was determined that the exterior lighting fixtures operate dawn to dusk using a photocell control.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures
Appendix A 65 Page 313 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
400W MH to 150W LED 30 30 458 150 4,308 - 39,808 1.00 15 597,126
42W CFL to 25W LED 7 7 46 25 4,308 - 633 1.00 15 9,500
100W MH to 46W LED 2 2 128 46 4,308 - 707 1.00 15 10,598
CFL to LED 5 5 29 12 4,308 - 366 1.00 12 4,250
T12 to LED 2 2 89 60 4,308 - 250 1.00 15 3,748
Total 41,603 41,764 100% 15 625,222
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. While on site, ADM verified quantities, wattages, and hours of use for all fixtures to be correct.
Appendix A 66 Page 314 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Address 1125 California Ave, Reno, NV 89509 Project Number SB-17-07933
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07933, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 127%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted:
x (23) LED bulbs in refrigeration cases x (54) 1L 31W F32T8 to (54) 1L 18W LED lamp x (49) 2L 74W F40T12 to (49) 2L 18W LED lamps x (12) 1L 62W F96T12 to (12) 2L 18W LED lamps x (19) 4L 112W F32T8 to (19) 2L 18W LED lamps x (380) 2L 123W F96T12 to (380) 2L 18W LED lamps x (10) 4L 144W F40T12 to (10) 4L 18W LED lamps x (57) 2L 59W F32T12 to (57) 2L 18W LED lamps x (3) 1L 34W F40T12 to (3) 1L 18W LED lamp
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and post implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ
Appendix A 67 Page 315 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings 2L 36W LED T8 49 49 59 36 5,384 4,934 6,379 1.05 129% 9 59,242 TUBE 2L 36W LED T8 19 19 112 36 5,384 6,322 8,173 1.05 129% 9 75,906 TUBE 4L 72W LED T8 10 10 112 72 5,384 1,751 2,264 1.05 129% 9 21,026 TUBE 2L 36W LED T8 57 57 59 36 5,384 5,740 7,420 1.05 129% 9 68,914 TUBE 1L 18W LED T8 54 54 31 18 5,384 3,074 3,973 1.05 129% 9 36,901 TUBE 1L 18W LED T8 3 3 31 18 5,384 171 221 1.05 129% 9 2,050 TUBE 2L 36W LED T8 12 12 58 36 5,384 1,156 1,494 1.05 129% 9 13,877 TUBE 2L 36W LED T8 380 380 109 36 5,384 121,457 157,010 1.05 129% 9 1,458,187 TUBE LED bulbs in 23 23 70 25 5,384 8,625 7,801 1.40 90% 9 72,450 refrigeration cases Total 153,230 194,736 127% 9 1,808,555
Results The project-level realization rate is 127%. For the lighting retrofit, ex post savings are greater than the ex ante savings due to ADM applying the actual hours of operation instead of the prescriptive hours used in the ex ante calculation.
Appendix A 68 Page 316 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Klondex Gold & Silver Mines, Midas Mine Address 1001 Gold St., Winnemucca, NV 89445 Project Number SB-17-07952
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07952, Klondex Gold & Silver Mines, Midas Mine received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 99%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (25) 2L 4’ T8 to (25) 2L 4’ 21W LED T8 w/ Ballast x (50) 4L 4’ T8 to (50) 2L 4’ LED T8 w/o Ballast x (30) 2L 8’ T8 HO to (15) 97W Lithonia IBG LED with occupancy sensors x (6) 400W HPS to (6) 183W Lithonia OFL2 LED x (30) 1000W MH to (30) 120W ELKO LED x (20) 400W MH to (20) 100W ELKO LED
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. The invoices and fixture specification sheets were reviewed to verify the total quantity and wattage of the installed fixtures. The submitted calculators, completion notes, and application were reviewed to verify the scope of the project and the facilities operating hours.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture
Appendix A 69 Page 317 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Pre- Post- Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Control Control kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Hours Hours Savings Savings 2L 4' T8 to 2L 4' 25 25 59 42 8,760 8,760 3,872 3,914 1.05 101% 6 22,341 LED T8 4L 4' T8 to 2L 4' 50 50 118 30 8,760 8,760 40,086 40,522 1.05 101% 6 231,291 LED T8 8' 2L T8 to Lithonia 30 15 160 97 3,833 2,683 20,589 15,236 1.05 74% 15 228,546 IBG LED HPS to Lithonia 6 6 465 183 8,760 8,760 14,822 14,822 1.00 100% 6 84,600 OFL2 LED
MH to EIKO LED 30 30 1,080 120 8,760 8,760 252,288 252,288 1.00 100% 6 1,440,000
MH to EIKO LED 20 20 458 100 8,760 8,760 62,722 62,722 1.00 100% 6 358,000
Total 394,379 389,504 99% 6 2,364,778
Results The project-level realization rate is 99%. The ex post energy savings are low due to the ex ante estimate using prescriptive baseline operating hours for the high bay LED fixtures while the actual operating hours were verified by the implementer with facility staff.
Appendix A 70 Page 318 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Raley's #105 Address 1630 Robb Dr., Reno, NV 89523 Project Number SB-17-08018
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08018, Raley's #105 received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 117%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: Pre- Pre- Post- Post-Number Number Watts / Watts / Pre-Fixture Post-Fixture Location of Lamps or of Lamp or Lamp or Fixtures Fixtures Fixture Fixture 3L 4' T8 4L15W LED T8 W/ Ball. Grocery 464 89 232 60 3L 4' T8 36W LED 2x4 Grocery 241 89 241 36 24W 6” down lights 8.5W LED 6” down lights Grocery 19 24 19 8.5 2L 4' T8 2L 15W LED T8 w/ Ball. Grocery 183 59 183 30 1L 4' T8 1L 15W LED T8 w/Ball. Grocery 1 31 1 15 24W 4-pin CFL 10.5W Vertical LED Grocery 6 24 6 10.5 3L 4' T8 36W LED 2x4 Pharmacy 20 89 20 36 2L 4' T8 2L 15W LED T8 w/ Ball. Deli 175 59 175 30 24W 6” down lights 8.5W 6” down lights Deli 10 24 10 8.5 2L 4' T8 2L 15W LED T8 w/ Ball. Support 21 59 21 30 4L 4' T8 4L 15W LED T8 w/ Ball. Support 39 112 39 60 4L 4' T8 4L 15W LED T8 w/ Ball. Warehouse 101 112 101 60 2L 4' T8 2L 15W LED T8 w/ Ball. Warehouse 6 59 6 30 100W induction 45W LED Cold Box 21 100 21 45 lamps 3L 4' T8 36watt LED 2x4 Office 50 89 50 36 3L 4' T8 36watt LED 2x4 Lounge 9 89 9 36 Varies Refrigerated Case Lighting Grocery 406 Varies 406 Varies
Measurement and Verification Effort
Appendix A 71 Page 319 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 72 Page 320 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings 3L 4' T8 to 4L15w 464 232 89 60 6,205 167,410 178,586 1.05 107% 10 1,726,863 LED T8 w/ Ball. 3L 4' T8 to 36watt 241 241 89 36 6,205 78,109 83,324 1.05 107% 12 1,007,142 LED 2x4 24w 6” down lights to 8.5w LED 6” 19 19 24 9 6,205 1,801 1,921 1.05 107% 6 12,385 down lights 2L 4' T8 to 2L 15W 183 183 59 30 6,205 32,453 34,620 1.05 107% 8 278,969 LED T8 w/ Ball. 1L 4' T8 to 1L 15W 1 1 31 15 6,205 98 104 1.05 107% 8 841 LED T8 w/Ball. 24w 4-pin CFL to 6 6 24 11 6,205 495 528 1.05 107% 8 4,258 10.5w Vertical LED 3L 4' T8 to 36watt 20 20 89 36 6,205 6,482 6,915 1.05 107% 12 83,580 LED 2x4 2L 4' T8 to 2L 15W 175 175 59 30 6,205 31,035 33,107 1.05 107% 8 266,774 LED T8 w/ Ball. 24w 6” down lights to 8.5w 6” down 10 10 24 9 6,205 948 1,011 1.05 107% 6 6,518 lights 2L 4' T8 to 2L 15W 21 21 59 30 6,205 3,724 3,973 1.05 107% 10 38,415 LED T8 w/ Ball. 4L 4' T8 to 4L 15W 39 39 112 60 6,205 12,402 13,230 1.05 107% 10 127,925 LED T8 w/ Ball. 4L 4' T8 to 4L 15W 101 101 112 60 6,205 32,117 34,261 1.05 107% 10 331,293 LED T8 w/ Ball. 2L 4' T8 to 2L 15W 6 6 59 30 6,205 1,064 1,135 1.05 107% 10 10,976 LED T8 w/ Ball. 100w induction 21 21 100 45 6,205 7,063 7,535 1.05 107% 15 113,019 lamps to 45w LED 3L 4' T8 to 36watt 50 50 89 36 6,205 16,205 17,287 1.05 107% 12 208,951 LED 2x4 3L 4' T8 to 36watt 9 9 89 36 6,205 2,917 3,112 1.05 107% 12 37,611 LED 2x4 LED bulbs in 406 406 112/85 45/30 6,205 152,250 220,250 1.40 145% 10 2,129,736 refrigeration cases Total 546,573 640,900 117% 10 6,385,257
Results The project-level realization rate is 117%. The realization rate is higher than 100% due to ADM using the actual hours of operation instead of prescriptive hours used in the ex ante calculation. ADM also calculated higher savings associated with the retrofitted refrigerated case lighting due to a higher HCIF for those fixtures.
Appendix A 73 Page 321 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Maverik Addresses 245 Riverboat Rd, Dayton, NV 10495 Stead Blvd, Reno, NV 995 Ambassador Drive, Reno NV 402 W. Goldfield Ave, Yerington NV 15 Panther Drive, Reno, NV 775 South Broad St, Battle Mountain, NV 1651 Highway 88, Minden, NV 1223 East Prater Way, Sparks, NV Project Number SB-17-08071
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08071, Maverik received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at eight of their facilities. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (20) 320W Pulse Start Fixtures to (20) 88W LED Fixtures - 245 Riverboat Rd x (24) 320W Pulse Start Fixtures to (24) 88W LED Fixtures - 10495 Stead Blvd x (20) 320W Pulse Start Fixtures to (20) 88W LED Fixtures - 995 Ambassador Dr. x (20) 320W Pulse Start Fixtures to (20) 88W LED Fixtures - 402 W. Goldfield Ave x (20) 320W Pulse Start Fixtures to (20) 88W LED Fixtures - 15 Panther Dr. x (24) 320W Pulse Start Fixtures to (24) 88W LED Fixtures - 775 South Broad St x (24) 320W Pulse Start Fixtures to (24) 88W LED Fixtures - 1651 Highway 88 x (20) 320W Pulse Start Fixtures to (20) 88W LED Fixtures - 1223 East Prater Way
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM chose four locations and performed M&V visits. During the M&V visits, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule through an interview with facility staff. The quantity and wattage of the installed LED fixtures was verified on-site and
Appendix A 74 Page 322 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 through a review of the submitted project documentation, including invoices and fixture specification sheets. Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
PS to LED 172 172 365 88 4,308 204,869 205,263 1.00 100% 14 2,858,640
Total 204,869 205,263 100% 14 2,858,640
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies were noted in the verification of this project.
Appendix A 75 Page 323 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Van Wagner Sierra Meat Address 4997 Longley Ln. Reno, NV 89502 Project Number SB-17-08103
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08103, Van Wagner Sierra Meat received incentives from NV Energy for an exterior lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (16) 400W Metal Halide Fixtures to (16) 54W LED Fixtures; and x (2) 400W Metal Halide Fixtures to (2) 100W LED Fixtures;
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and post implementation lighting operating hours were verified to be dusk to dawn operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state
Appendix A 76 Page 324 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
400W MH to 54W LED 16 16 458 54 4,308 - 27,849 1.00 10 290,880
400W MH to 100W LED 2 2 458 100 4,308 - 3,085 1.00 10 32,220
Total 30,874 30,933 100% 10 323,100
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. ADM determined fixture counts, wattages, and hours of use claimed in the ex ante savings to be accurate.
Appendix A 77 Page 325 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Starbuck’s Roasting Facility Address 2525 Starbucks Way, Minden, NV 89423 Project Number SB-17-08104
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08104, the Starbuck’s Roasting Facility received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (60) 3L T8 4’ fixtures retrofit with LED Bulbs; x (390) 2L T8 4’ fixtures retrofit with LED Bulbs.
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. The invoices and fixture specification sheets were reviewed to verify the total quantity and wattage of the installed fixtures. The submitted calculators, completion notes, and application were reviewed to verify the scope of the project and the facilities operating hours.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 78 Page 326 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
3L T8 to 3L LED 60 60 89 54 8,760 19,316 19,340 1.05 100% 6 110,389
2L T8 to 2L LED 390 390 59 36 8,760 82,506 82,610 1.05 100% 6 471,519
Total 101,822 101,950 100% 6 581,908
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. ADM verified the quantities, fixture wattages, and hours of operation to be the same as claimed.
Appendix A 79 Page 327 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Paramount Nevada Asphalt Company Address 425 S. Logan Lane, Fernley, NV 89408 Project Number SB-17-08107
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08107, Paramount NV received incentives from NV Energy for installing new valving and piping that allows them to bypass their 300HP motor during re-fill. The realization rate for this project is 103%.
Project Description The facility is an asphalt plant and uses the 300hp mill to shear additives added to the product. The configuration of the system had the location of the mill discharge pipe in a location that the 300HP motor needed to run to fill the finishing tanks. The addition of the bypass line and valving allows two other pumps in the system to transfer product when the mill is not needed, allowing the 300HP motor to remain off during finishing tank refill.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified that the bypass line and valving had been installed and was operational. Hours of operation and new bypass procedure process were verified through and interview with site contact. Savings were calculated using pre and post amp monitoring data gathered through the ex ante analysis. The analysis was normalized with production data provided by the facility contact. The savings were calculated as follows:
ݑ݈ܹ݄ܽ݇௦௧ሻ݊݊ܣ ݑ݈ܹ݄ܽ݇ െ݊݊ܣൌ ሺ ݄ܹ݇ ܹ݄݇ ሻݏ݀ݑܿݐ݅݊ሺ݈ܾݎݑ݈ܽܲ݊݊ܣ݁݃ܽݎݒ݁ܣݔ݁ݎݑ݈ܹ݄ܽ݇ ൌ ݊݊ܣ ݈ܾ ܹ݄݇ ሻݏ݀ݑܿݐ݅݊ሺ݈ܾݎݑ݈ܽܲ݊݊ܣ݁݃ܽݎݒ݁ܣݐݔݏݑ݈ܹ݄ܽ݇ ൌ ݊݊ܣ ௦௧ ݈ܾ ǣ ௐ ௐௗௗ௨ି௬௦௦ௗ ଶଵǡଵସହ ݎ݁ = = = ͲǤͲͲͳ͵ͳ͵ ௗ௨௧ሺ௦ሻௗ௨ௗௗ ଵǡଷǡ
Appendix A 80 Page 328 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
ௐ ௐௗௗ௨௦௧ି௬௦௦ௗ ଵଵǡଶସ ݐ = ൌ = ͲǤͲͲͳͲͻͷݏ ௗ௨௧ሺ௦ሻௗ௨ௗௗ ଵǡଷǡ ൌͷͷǡͲͳͶǡͲͲͲǤ Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates
Expected Realized Realization Lifetime Measure Type Savings Savings EUL (yr) Rate Savings (kWh) (kWh/hr) (kWh/yr) Custom Motor Bypass 11,643 11,989 103% 15 179,828
The overall project-level realization rate is 103%. Both the ex ante and ex post analyses used similar calculation methodologies. The realization rate is over 100% because of a slight difference in the production data used to determine the post monitoring period kWh/lb. The ex ante calculator used a value of 10,300,000 lbs. while ADM used a value of 10,360,000 lbs. per the supporting documentation. This small difference in production during the post monitoring period caused the ex post savings to be slightly higher.
Appendix A 81 Page 329 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site SK Food Group Address 5555 Quail Manor Court, Reno, NV 89511 Project Number SB-17-08146
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08146 SK Food Group received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 255%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted lamps in the interior of the warehouse that is mostly refrigerated: x Refrigerated Area: (108) 4' 4L T5 HO to (108) LED 148W fixture x Unconditioned Area: (30) 4' 4L T5 HO to (30) LED 148W fixture x Unconditioned Area with pre-existing Occupancy Sensors: (16) 4' 4L T5 HO to (16) LED 148W fixture
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule through an interview with facility staff. The quantity and wattage of the installed LED fixtures was verified on-site and through a review of the submitted project documentation, including invoices and fixture specification sheets.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
Appendix A 82 Page 330 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
4' 4L T5 HO to LED 108 108 234 148 8,760 - 113,257 1.39 - 11 1,292,890
4' 4L T5 HO to LED 30 30 234 148 8,760 - 22,601 1.00 - 11 258,000
4' 4L T5 HO to LED 16 16 234 148 6,132 - 8,438 1.00 - 15 126,564
Total 56,502 144,296 255% 12 1,677,454
Results The project-level realization rate is 255%. The ex ante estimate used prescriptive operating hours to calculate the energy savings associated with this project while ADM verified the facility to operate 8,760 hr/yr (which was also noted on the implementation contractor’s inspection notes).
Appendix A 83 Page 331 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Winnemucca McDonalds Address 1930 W Winnemucca Blvd, Winnemucca, NV 89445 Project Number SB-17-08150
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08150, Winnemucca McDonalds received incentives from NV Energy for an exterior retrofit lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted in their parking lot: x (13) 1000W Metal Halide fixtures to (13) 166W LED fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM staff conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation and confirmed the equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule as dusk to dawn for both pre and post hours.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 84 Page 332 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED fixtures 13 13 1080 166 4,308 51,093 51,191 1.00 100% 11.61 594,100
Total 51,093 51,191 1.00 100% 594,100
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. ADM confirmed the number of fixtures and wattages of those fixtures by using cut sheets and invoices. The fixtures are controlled by photocell so the standard dusk till dawn hours were used for this retrofit. No issues were identified in the project documentation.
Appendix A 85 Page 333 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Rainbow Market #10 Address 1390 Disc Dr. Sparks, NV 89436 Project Number SB-17-08332
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08332, Rainbow Market #10 received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 151%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (44) T8 to (44) T8 LED 48" and x (2) T8 to (2) T8 LED 96"
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and post retrofit lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff. No changes were made to the operating hours between baseline and post retrofit periods.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on
Appendix A 86 Page 334 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T8 to T8 LED 48" 44 44 112 60 8,760 13,992 21,072 1.05 151% 6 20,272
T8 to T8 LED 96" 2 2 58 43 8,760 183 276 1.05 151% 6 1,577
Total 14,175 21,348 151% 6 121,848
Results The project-level realization rate is 151%. ADM verified the count and wattage of the fixtures to be accurate. The ex post savings are higher due to ADM verifying higher hours of use than the prescriptive hours used in the ex ante analysis.
Appendix A 87 Page 335 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site KTR Stead LLC. Address 9085 Moya Blvd, Ste 400, Reno NV Project Number SB-17-08336
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08336, KTR’s warehouse at 9085 Moya, received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (45) 4-lamp T5HO to (45) 121W LED; and x (143) 6-lamp T5HO to (112) 121W LED;
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. During the M&V site visit, the facility was unoccupied, so actual hours of operation could not be determined. However, through an interview with the building owner, it was determined that the ex ante hours of use are reasonable and represent a conservative estimate of savings associated with this project.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
Appendix A 88 Page 336 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings (45) 4-lamp T5HO to 45 45 234 121 2,848 14,484 14,482 1.00 100% 15 217,231 (45) 121W LED (143) 6-lamp T5HO 143 112 351 121 2,848 104,365 104,354 1.00 100% 15 1,565,304 to (112) 121W LED Total 118,849 118,836 100% 15 1,782,535
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%.
Appendix A 89 Page 337 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site 3rd Street Flats Address 303 W 3rd St, Reno NV, 89503 Project Number SB-17-08500
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08500, 3rd Street Flats received incentives from NV Energy for a newly renovated building that included both high efficiency lighting and HVAC equipment. The realization rate for this project is 107%.
Project Description The building is new construction and includes various building energy efficiency measures that provide energy savings beyond code requirements. High efficiency air conditioning units were installed in the apartments and common areas. The lighting consists of energy efficient lighting fixtures. In the model, the lighting power density (LPD) calculations were based on the as-built drawings, representing actual installation. As-designed LPDs were determined using the COMcheck reports submitted with the project documentation. The parking garage portion of the building was built with better-than-code LPD and controls.
Measurement and Verification Effort OpenStudio model files of the building were provided and whole building savings were determined through a desk review of the files. An onsite inspection was conducted to verify the make, model, and efficiency of the HVAC units installed. A graph of the OpenStudio model baseline and as-built end use kWh outputs can be seen below:
Appendix A 90 Page 338 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Baseline vs As-Built Model End Use kWh
Additionally, baseline and as-built model’s individual end uses were examined to ensure the outputs matched expectations. Baseline and as-built energy usage and savings categorized by end use are summarized in the following table: Baseline and As-Built End Use Energy
The provided OpenStudio model’s baseline and as-built energy usage and savings categorized by end use are summarized in the following table:
Appendix A 91 Page 339 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Baseline and As-Built Monthly End Use Summary
End Use Baseline As-Built Savings Heating 0 0 0 Cooling 107,200 83,272 23,929 Interior Lighting 599,717 319,178 280,539 Interior Equipment 382,444 382,444 0 Exterior Equipment 0 0 0 Fans 87,943 16,484 71,459 Pumps 6,004 3,522 2,482 Heat Rejection 0 0 0 Humidification 0 0 0 Heat Recovery 0 0 0 Water Systems 0 0 0 Refrigeration 66,679 60,430 6,250 Cogeneration 0 0 0 Total 1,249,988 865,330 384,658
Savings for the ventilation hood control was calculated using a deemed value from a PG&E Workpaper12. The deemed savings value for the ventilation hood control was 4,197 kWh/HP.
The parking garage portion of the project was not included in the whole building model, but was accounted for in a separate lighting power density analysis. The garage has better-than-code lighting controls, which are bi-level dimming. ADM verified the fixtures operate 24/7, but operate at 30% power when the space is unoccupied. ADM deployed 10 lighting intensity loggers set to record measurements at a one second interval to determine the operating profile of these fixtures. The data from the loggers was shared with DNV-GL and the reduction in usage from controls was agreed upon prior to the finalization of the project. Lighting density energy savings are calculated as:
ܹ ܹ ቈ൬ ൰ െ൬ ൰ ݐଶ ݂ݐଶ݂ ൌ݂ݐଶ ൈ ୈୟୱୣ ୈ୍୬ୱ୲ୟ୪୪ୣୢ ൈ ൈ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ୭୲ୟ୪୳୧୪ୢ୧୬ ͳͲͲͲ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings
2 ft. TotalBuilding = Square Footage of the Facility
2 (W/ft )LPDBase = Baseline Lighting Power Density as Established by Local Code Requirement
2 (W/ft )LPDInstalled = Verified Lighting Power Density t = Annual lighting operating hours
12 Work Paper PGECOFST116 Demand Ventilation Controls Revision # 3, Commercial Kitchen Demand Ventilation Controls Measure
Appendix A 92 Page 340 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
HCIF = HVAC interactive factor
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting power density installed under the project. Lighting Power Density Savings Calculations
W/Ft² Expected Realized Square Baseline As-built Realization Lifetime Location kWh kWh EUL Feet As Hours Hours Rate Savings Code Savings Savings Built Parking Garage 43,812 0.30 0.10 8,760 4,846 61,845 93,329 151% 8 745,778
Results Expected and Realized Custom Savings by Measure
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Measure Lifetime Measure Savings Savings Rate (%) EUL Savings (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) Whole Building Model 383,417 384,658 100% 15 5,769,867
Vent Hood 4,486 3,148 70% 15 47,216 LPD and Controls 61,845 93,329 151% 8 745,778
Total 449,748 481,135 107% 14 6,562,861 The project-level overall realization rate is 107%. For the whole building model portion of the project, the difference in realization due to the ex post analysis using TMY3 data as opposed to TMY2 data. For the LPD portion of the project, prescriptive hours were used in the ex ante LPD calculation, while ADM used the verified hours resulting in the greater savings than claimed. The portion of the savings attributable to the garage controls included in the ex post LPD analysis, but the portion of the savings is in line with ex ante calculation. The combined effects of these discrepancies give a realization rate of 107%.
Appendix A 93 Page 341 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site LSP Products Address 3689 Arrowhead Drive, Carson City, NV 89706 Project Number SB-17-08514
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08514, LSP Products received incentives from NV Energy for replacing a standard 75HP air compressor with a 75HP VFD air compressor. The realization rate for this project is 113%.
Project Description The facility manufactures and processes various plastic products and has a hose manufacturing line. The old 75HP air compressor was replaced with an Ingersoll-Rand 75HP Nirvana VFD air compressor.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified that the new air compressor was installed and operational. One-time power measurements were gathered. Additionally, hours of operation were verified through an interview with the site contact. Savings were calculated using pre and post amp/voltage monitoring data gathered through the ex ante analysis and one-time power measurements performed by ADM. The savings were calcualted as follows:
ݏݎݑܪݑ݈ܽ݊݊ܣ כ ௦௧൯ܹ݇݁݃ܽݎݒ݁ܣ െܹ݇݁݃ܽݎݒ݁ܣൌ ൫ ݄ܹ݇ ǣ
௩௦௫௩௧௦௫ǤிǤ௫ ଷ ൌ ξ ܹ݇݁݃ܽݎݒ݁ܣ ଵ
௩௦௫௩௧௦௫ǤிǤ௫ ଷ ൌ ξ ܹ݇݁݃ܽݎݒ݁ܣ ௦௧ ଵ ൌǡͶͺͺ ݏݎݑܪݑ݈ܽ݊݊ܣ
Appendix A 94 Page 342 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates
Expected Realized Realization Lifetime Measure Type Savings Savings EUL (yr) Rate Savings (kWh) (kWh/hr) (kWh/yr) Custom Motor Bypass 110,146 124,685 113% 15 1,870,271 The overall project-level realization rate is 113%. The realization rate is over 100% because a difference in post implementation Power Factor (PF) values utilized in the analyses. The ex ante calculator used a post implementation PF value of 0.98. ADM used a PF value of 0.89 for the post retrofit period, which was measured on-site during the M&V visit.
Appendix A 95 Page 343 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Sierra Nevada Construction Address 2055 E. Greg St Project Number SB-17-08574
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08574 received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (6) 1000W Metal Halide Fixtures to (6) 240W LED Fixtures; x (7) 400W Metal Halide Fixtures to (7) 115W LED Fixtures; and x (1) 70W Metal Halide Fixture to (1) 15W LED Fixture
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM staff performed a desk review on the claimed equipment installed and the lighting operating schedule. The baseline and post hours were determined to through the project documentation provided.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 96 Page 344 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 6 6 1,080 240 4,308 - 21,714 1.00 12 252,000
MH to LED 7 7 458 115 4,308 - 10,344 1.00 12 120,050
MH to LED 1 1 95 15 4,308 - 345 1.00 12 4,000
Total 32,340 32,402 100% 12 376,050
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%.
Appendix A 97 Page 345 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Tesla Address 1 Electric Avenue, Sparks, NV 89434 Project Number SB-17-08666
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08666, Tesla received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer installed better-than-code lighting. The lighting power density is as follows: x Office Installed: 0.65 W/ft²; allowed lighting power density of 1.00 W/ft² x Manufacturing Installed: 0.36 W/ft²; allowed lighting power density of 1.30 W/ft² x Warehouse Installed: 0.37 W/ft²; allowed lighting power density of 0.80 W/ft²
Measurement and Verification Effort Due to the scope of the project and customer sensitivity to inspections, ADM and DNV-GL conducted multiple joint visits to the site. The site was visited multiple times before, during, and after the completion of the areas that are part of program year 2017. While on site, ADM and DNV-GL verified the layout of the fixtures and noted all discrepancies from the construction plans. Operating hours for all areas were discussed with the site contact on each visit. Through the multiple visits, ADM verified the quantity, wattage, and hours of use for all fixtures in all areas included in this year’s project. Interactive effects were not applied to this project as the HVAC systems will likely be rebated in a separate application and any potential interactive effects will be captured as part of that project. Lighting density energy savings are calculated as:
ܹ ܹ ቈ൬ ൰ െ൬ ൰ ݐଶ ݂ݐଶ݂ ൌ݂ݐଶ ൈ ୈୟୱୣ ୈ୍୬ୱ୲ୟ୪୪ୣୢ ൈ ൈ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ୭୲ୟ୪୳୧୪ୢ୧୬ ͳͲͲͲ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings
2 ft. TotalBuilding = Square Footage of the Facility
2 (W/ft )LPDBase = Baseline Lighting Power Density as Established by Local Code Requirement 2 (W/ft )LPDInstalled = Verified Lighting Power Density t = Annual lighting operating hours HCIF = HVAC interactive factor
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting power density installed under the project.
Appendix A 98 Page 346 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Power Density Savings Calculations
W/Ft² Expected Realized Square Realization Lifetime Location Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL* Feet As Rate Savings Code Savings Savings Built Office 143,225 1.00 0.65 8,760 439,209 440,371 1.00 100% 8.34 3,672,867 Manufacturing 2,423,263 1.30 0.36 8,760 19,822,912 19,859,245 1.00 100% 14.10 280,074,192 Warehouse 12,348 0.80 0.37 8,760 46,512 45,976 1.00 99% 8.73 401,195 Total 20,308,634 20,345,592 100% 13.97 284,148,255 *Estimated Useful Life is a weighted average of all fixtures in their respective area
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. Through the multiple collaborative site visits, ADM and DNV-GL arrived at the same final count of fixtures, square footage, hours of use, and interactive effects. Based on a review of submitted spec sheets, ADM revised some of the claimed fixture wattages. This discrepancy resulted in the ex post savings being slightly higher than the ex ante, but the difference is less than 0.2% at the project level.
Appendix A 99 Page 347 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site NV Green Project Number SB-17-08672
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08672, NV Green received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. This is a unique new construction project as there is no allowed lighting power density for a plant growth facility type. An approach to calculating the energy savings was agreed upon between ADM and NV Energy. The realization rate for this project is 98%.
Project Description The customer installed a total lighting power density (LPD) of 0.56 W/ft², with an allowed LPD of 0.90 W/ft², throughout the portions of the building which are considered office spaces. Some spaces in the facility were not completed at the time this application was processed and were excluded from the energy savings analysis. In addition, the customer installed (144) 685W LED fixtures and (64) 340W LED fixtures that are to be used as flowering and vegetative plant growth lights. As there is no allowed LPD stipulated for this space type, ADM and NV Energy agreed to an acceptable baseline, which is the industry standard fixture type that would have been used if LEDs were not available on the market. In this case, the industry standard would be 1000W high pressure sodium, and 600W metal halide, fixtures, respectively.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified the equipment installation and found there were a few areas in the facility that were not completed. As these were small spaces, insignificant to the overall savings of the project, they were excluded from the energy savings analysis. ADM also verbally verified the operating hours for all areas of the facility through an interview with facility staff. The submitted drawings and fixture specification sheets were used to determine the total quantity, and wattage, of the fixtures installed on-site.
Lighting density energy savings are calculated as:
Appendix A 100 Page 348 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
ܹ ܹ ቈ൬ ൰ െ൬ ൰ ݐଶ ݂ݐଶ݂ ൌ݂ݐଶ ൈ ୈୟୱୣ ୈ୍୬ୱ୲ୟ୪୪ୣୢ ൈ ൈ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ୭୲ୟ୪୳୧୪ୢ୧୬ ͳͲͲͲ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings
2 ft. TotalBuilding = Square Footage of the Facility
2 (W/ft )LPDBase = Baseline Lighting Power Density as Established by Local Code Requirement
2 (W/ft )LPDInstalled = Verified Lighting Power Density t = Annual lighting operating hours HCIF = HVAC interactive factor
Time of sale lighting energy savings13 are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting power density installed under the project. Lighting Power Density Savings Calculations
Square W/Ft² Expected Realized Realization Lifetime Location Feet Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Code As Built Savings Savings
Interior 3,403 0.90 0.56 4,380 21,784 5,264 1.05 24% 11.42 60,089 Total 21,784 5,264 24% 11.42 60,089 *Rated life is a weighted average of all post retrofit fixtures in their respective area
13 Energy savings for the grow spaces is calculated using Time of Sale calculations, similar to a retrofit.
Appendix A 101 Page 349 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the grow lights installed at this facility. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Hour Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) kWh kWh HCIF EUL s Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings MH Base to LED - 144 144 1,100 685 4,380 269,601 275,318 1.05 102% 11 3,142,900 Flower MH Base to LED - 64 64 682 340 7,300 164,576 167,979 1.05 102% 7 1,150,544 Veg & Mother Total 434,177 443,297 102% 10 4,293,444
The table shown below presents the total expected and realized energy savings for this project. Total Project Level Energy Savings
Expected kWh Portion of Project Realized kWh Savings Realization Rate Lifetime Savings Savings New Construction 21,784 5,264 24% 60,089
Grow Lights 434,177 443,297 102% 4,293,444 Total 455,961 448,561 98% 4,353,533
Results The project-level realization rate is 98%. For the portion of the project that was calculated as a typical new construction, the ex post energy savings are low due to a review of the submitted project documentation finding that the square footage of the grow rooms was included in the total square footage for this calculation. These grow spaces should have been excluded as the LEDs installed in these spaces are being calculated by a different method. In addition, IECC 2012 stipulates a slightly lower allowed LPD for an office space (0.90 W/ft²) than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate (1.00 W/ft²). For the grow lights portion of the project, these savings were generated by considering the industry standard, if there were no LEDs available, to be the baseline fixture type, as if it were a 1-to-1 retrofit. ADM verified with the site contact that if there were no LEDs available on the market, they would have used 1000W high pressure sodium fixtures in the flower room, and 600W metal halide fixtures in the vegetative rooms, on a 1-to-1 basis. The ex post energy savings for this portion of the project are high due to ADM using a slightly higher HCIF than what was claimed in the ex ante estimate.
Appendix A 102 Page 350 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site JC Penney Logistics Lighting Address 11111 Stead Blvd, Reno, NV 89506 Project Number SB-17-08691
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08691, JC Penney Logistics received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting and conveyor motor project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 117%.
Project Description The lighting retrofit included: x (100) 4L 4' T8 NLO to 2L 4' LED T8 w/ballast at Returns x (3) 2L 4' T8 NLO to 2L 4' LED T8 w/ballast at Packing 2L x (138) 4L 4' T8 NLO to 4L 4' LED T8 w/ballast at Packing 4L x (5) 4L 4' T8 NLO to 4L 4' LED T8 w/ballast at Lift Shop x (69) 4L 4' T8 NLO to 4L 4' LED T8 w/ballast at Maintenance x (23) 2L 4' T8 NLO to 2L 4' LED T8 w/ballast at Maintenance Office x (49) 4L T8 w PRS HO ballast to 4L LED T8 + 3W/lamp at Return HB with motion sensors x (8) 4L T8 w PRS HO ballast to 4L LED T8 + 3W/lamp at Lift Shop HB with motion sensors x (17) 4L T8 w PRS HO ballast to 4L LED T8 + 3W/lamp at Maint 4L HB with motion sensors x (7) 6L T8 w (2) PRS HO ballast to 6L LED T8 + 3W/lamp at Maint 6L HB with motion sensors In addition to the lighting retrofit, the customer installed new conveyor lines and reconfigured the layout of the existing conveyor to allow for the elimination of 7 conveyor line motors.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule. Both the baseline and post-implementation lighting operating hours were verified through an interview with facility staff.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as:
Appendix A 103 Page 351 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Wattage Pre- Post- Expected Realized (Fixtures) Realization Lifetime Measure Control Control kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old Hours Hours Savings Savings New 4L 4' T8 NLO to 2L 4' LED 100 100 112 36 6,570 6,570 49,932 49,932 1.00 100% 8 380,000 T8 w/ballast 2L 4' T8 NLO to 2L 4' LED 3 3 59 36 6,570 6,570 453 453 1.00 100% 8 3,450 T8 w/ballast 4L 4' T8 NLO to 4L 4' LED 138 138 112 72 6,570 6,570 36,266 36,266 1.00 100% 8 276,000 T8 w/ballast 4L 4' T8 NLO to 4L 4' LED 5 5 112 72 6,570 6,570 1,314 1,314 1.00 100% 8 10,000 T8 w/ballast 4L 4' T8 NLO to 4L 4' LED 69 69 112 72 6,570 6,570 18,133 18,133 1.00 100% 8 138,000 T8 w/ballast 2L 4' T8 NLO to 2L 4' LED 23 23 59 36 6,570 6,570 3,476 3,476 1.00 100% 8 26,450 T8 w/ballast 4L T8 w PRS HO ballast to 4L 49 49 144 72 6,570 4,599 16,224 30,133 1.00 186% 11 327,600 LED T8 + 3W/lamp 4L T8 w PRS HO ballast to 4L 8 8 144 72 6,570 4,599 2,649 4,920 1.00 186% 11 53,486 LED T8 + 3W/lamp 4L T8 w PRS HO ballast to 4L 17 17 144 72 6,570 4,599 5,629 10,454 1.00 186% 11 113,657 LED T8 + 3W/lamp 6L T8 w (2) PRS HO ballast 7 7 217 108 6,570 4,599 3,509 6,503 1.00 185% 11 70,700 to 6L LED T8 + 3W/lamp Total 137,585 161,584 117% 9 1,399,343
Savings associated with the conveyor motors were calculated using monitoring data provided by the implementation contractor. Amp measurements were taken on a sample of motors, representing three different components within the conveyor system: corners, straight sections, and spurs. The energy usage within each section was calculated by multiplying the average kW consumption in each motor by the number of motors installed. In the baseline conditions, there was 2 corner motors, 10 straight sections, and 8 spurs. In the post retrofit configuration there were 5 corners, 6 straights, and 2 spurs.
Appendix A 104 Page 352 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Results Verified Gross Savings/Realization Rates by Measure
Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Lifetime Savings Measure Type Savings Savings EUL Rate (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr)
Lighting Retrofit 137,585 161,584 117% 8.7 1,399,343
Conveyor Reconfiguration 5,614 5,614 100% 15.0 84,210
Totals 143,199 167,198 117% 8.9 1,483,553 The project-level realization rate is 117%. The high realization rate is caused by ADM using the pre- and post- control hours separately for pre- and post- fixtures with motion sensors when calculating the energy savings, while the ex ante calculation using the lower post-control hours for both conditions.
Appendix A 105 Page 353 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Ross Stores, Inc. Addresses 5120 Mae Anne Ave, Reno, NV 89523 215 Los Altos Pkwy, Sparks, NV 89436 520 N. McCarran Blvd, Sparks, NV 89431 4201 S. Carson St, Carson City, NV 89701 Project Number SB-17-08694
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08694, Ross Stores received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at four of their facilities. The realization rate for this project is 129%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (1,477) 28W T8 lamps to 18W LED lamps at the Mae Anne Ave store x (1,638) 28W T8 lamps to 18W LED lamps at the Los Altos Pkwy store x (1,421) 28W T8 lamps to 18W LED lamps at the N. McCarran Blvd store x (1,754) 28W T8 lamps to 18W LED lamps at the S. Carson St store
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM chose one location and performed an M&V visit. During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule through an interview with facility staff. The quantity and wattage of the installed LED fixtures was verified on-site and through a review of the submitted project documentation, including invoices and fixture specification sheets. No lamp count discrepancies were noted during the site visit or documentation review, but there were discrepancies noted in the lamp configuration of the fixtures. On the site visit, ADM found a larger number of 3 lamp fixtures that what was claimed but found a smaller number of 2 lamp fixture than claimed. In the end, ADM verified that the lamp count was correct, just in different configurations than claimed.
Appendix A 106 Page 354 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T8 to LED 1,477 1,477 25 18 4,927 - 52,093 1.05 12 634,382
T8 to LED 1,638 1,638 25 18 4,927 - 57,772 1.05 12 703,533
T8 to LED 1,421 1,421 25 18 4,927 - 50,118 1.05 12 610,330
T8 to LED 1,754 1,754 25 18 4,927 - 61,863 1.05 12 753,356
Total 171,353 221,846 129% 12 2,701,601
Results The project-level realization rate is 129%. The ex ante calculation used prescriptive hours, while the ex post used the hours verified on site. Additionally, the ex ante calculation referenced a wattage table other than the program standard wattage table for the baseline wattages, resulting in baseline wattage that is approximately 0.5W lower per lamp than the agreed upon wattage table. Given that there are over 6,000 lamps in this project, the discrepancy equated to 3.67 kW of baseline connected load. The discrepancies in hours and baseline wattage give a realization rate of 129%.
Appendix A 107 Page 355 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site American Auto Air Address 795 E. Moana Ln., Reno, NV 89502 Project Number SB-17-08728
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08728 American Auto Air received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 49%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted (53) 8' 2-lamp T12 fixtures to (36) 4' LED strip fixtures in their shop.
Measurement and Verification Effort During the M&V visit, ADM staff verified equipment installation and determined the lighting operating schedule through an interview with facility staff. Quantities were verified with visual verification and compared to the provided invoices. Wattages were verified with spec sheets.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 108 Page 356 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
8' 2L T12 to 4' LED fixture 53 36 109 29 2,530 24,400 11,981 1.00 49% 15 179,722
Total 24,400 11,981 49% 15 179,722
Results The project-level realization rate is 49%. The lower ex post energy savings are due to ADM using custom hours when calculating savings, as opposed to the prescriptive hours used in the ex ante estimate. Based on an interview with the customer, ADM determined the annual operating hours to be 2,530 hr/yr, while the prescriptive hours for a “Miscellaneous” building type are much higher.
Appendix A 109 Page 357 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Catholic Charities Address 500 E. Fourth St, Reno, NV 89512 Project Number SB-17-07464
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07464, Catholic Charities received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (7) 400W metal halide fixtures were replaced by 90W LED wall packs x (2) 250W metal halide fixtures were replaced by 12W LED wall packs x (4) 250W metal halide fixtures were replaced by 100W LED fixtures in the parking lot x (4) 2L 4’ T8 fixtures were replaced by 18W 2L 4’LED T8 fixtures x (1) 500W quartz fixture were replaced by a 60W LED wall pack x (4) 175W metal halide fixtures were replaced by 30W LED wall packs x (6) 400W metal halide fixtures were replaced by 60W LED pole lights
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation. Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 110 Page 358 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 7 7 458 90 4,313 - 11,110 1.00 11.59 128,800
MH to LED 2 2 295 12 4,313 - 2,441 1.00 11.59 28,300
MH to LED 4 4 295 100 4,313 - 3,364 1.00 11.59 39,000
T8 to LED 4 4 59 36 4,313 - 397 1.00 11.59 4,600
Quartz to LED 1 1 500 60 4,313 - 1,898 1.00 11.59 22,000
MH to LED 4 4 215 30 4,313 - 3,191 1.00 11.59 37,000
MH to LED 6 6 458 60 4,313 - 10,299 1.00 11.59 119,400
Total 32,679 32,700 100% 11.59 379,100
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies or miscalculations were found for this project.
Appendix A 111 Page 359 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Western Heritage Preservation Society Address 985 Sheckler Cut Off, Unit Barn, Fallon, NV 89506 Project Number SB-16-07868
Executive Summary Under project SB-16-07868, Western Heritage Preservation Society received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (37) 400W metal halide fixtures were replaced by 143W LED fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation. Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 112 Page 360 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
MH to LED 37 37 458 143 2,376 28,523 28,441 1.03 15 426,620
Total 28,523 28,441 100% 15 426,620
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies or miscalculations were found for this project.
Appendix A 113 Page 361 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site The Rock Christian Community Church Address 4950 Vista Blvd, Sparks, NV 89436 Project Number SB-17-07874
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-07874, The Rock Christian Community Church received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 101%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (119) 2L 26W CFL fixtures were replaced with 2L 13W LED fixtures x (43) 4’ 1L T5 fixtures were re-lamped with T5 LED lamps x (66) 4’ 2L T5 fixtures were re-lamped with T5 LED lamps x (16) 4’ 3L T5 fixtures were re-lamped with T5 LED lamps x (33) 4’ 2L T8 fixtures were re-lamped with T8 LED lamps x (2) 4’ 2L T8 fixtures were re-lamped with T8 LED lamps x (6) 2L 13W CFL fixtures were replaced with 2L 6W LED fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation. Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 114 Page 362 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
2L CFL to LED 119 119 56 26 2,871 - 10,765 1.05 15.00 161,469
T5 to LED 43 43 62 28 2,871 - 4,408 1.05 15.00 66,126
T5 to LED 66 66 117 56 2,871 - 12,140 1.05 15.00 182,094
T5 to LED 16 16 179 84 2,871 - 4,583 1.05 15.00 68,749
T8 to LED 33 33 59 34 2,088 - 1,809 1.05 15.00 27,138
T8 to LED 2 2 59 34 8,760 - 460 1.05 5.71 2,628
CFL to LED 6 6 28 12 2,088 - 211 1.05 15.00 3,158
Total 34,014 34,376 101% 14.88 511,362
Results The project-level realization rate is 101%. ADM used a slightly higher HCIF (1.05) in the ex post calculation than what was used in the ex ante calculation (1.04). Additionally, the wattage for the 2-lamp 13W CFL fixture in the ex ante calculation did not take into account the ballast, this was corrected in the ex post calculation.
Appendix A 115 Page 363 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Immaculate Conception Catholic Church Address 2900 N McCarran Blvd, Sparks, NV 89431 Project Number SB-17-08065
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08065, Immaculate Conception Catholic Church received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 101%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: Sanctuary x (41) 90W PAR38 lamps to 15W PAR38 LED lamps x (16) 1500W halogen lamps to 20W LED lamps x (24) 250W BR40 lamps to 30W LED lamps x (16) 90W PAR38 lamps to 15W PAR38 LED lamps Gathering Area x (16) 26W CFL lamps to 5W LED lamps x (8) 1000W halogen lamps to 20W LED lamps x (5) 8L 26W CFL fixtures to 8L 5W LED COB fixtures x (17) 26W CFL lamps to 5W LED lamps x (24) 26W CFL lamps to 9W LED lamps Back Office Area x (6) 3L 4’ T8 fixtures to 2L 4' LED T8 fixtures x (7) 2L U-bend T8 fixtures to 2L U-bend LED fixtures x (11) 26W CFL lamps to 9W LED lamps x (31) 2L 4’ T8 fixtures to 2L LED T8 fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation. Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as:
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture
Appendix A 116 Page 364 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
PAR38 to LED 41 41 90 15 2,555 - 8,260 1.05 11.74 96,985
Halogen to LED 16 16 1,500 20 2,555 - 63,608 1.05 15.00 954,115
BR40 to LED 24 24 250 30 2,555 - 14,183 1.05 15.00 212,742
PAR38 to LED 16 16 90 15 2,555 - 3,223 1.05 11.74 37,848
CFL To LED 16 16 26 5 4,380 - 1,547 1.05 6.85 10,597
Halogen to LED 8 8 1,000 20 1,560 - 12,857 1.05 15.00 192,852
8L CFL to LED 5 5 208 40 2,496 - 2,204 1.05 12.02 26,491
CFL to LED 17 17 26 5 2,496 - 937 1.05 12.02 11,259
CFL to LED 24 24 26 9 1,560 - 669 1.05 15.00 10,036
T8 to LED 6 6 89 36 2,331 - 779 1.05 15.00 11,687
T8 to LED 7 7 59 18 2,331 - 703 1.05 12.87 9,050
CFL to LED 11 11 26 9 2,331 - 458 1.05 12.87 5,896
T8 to LED 31 31 59 36 2,331 - 1,747 1.05 15.00 26,203
Total 110,210 111,175 101% 14.44 1,605,760
Results The project-level realization rate is 101%. The slightly high realization rate is caused by the higher HCIF (1.05) calculated by ADM in the ex post calculation. The ex ante calculation used 1.04.
Appendix A 117 Page 365 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site St. Teresa of Avila Address 300 N Lompa Lane, Carson, NV 89706 Project Number SB-17-08091
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08091, St. Teresa of Avila received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (26) 2L 26W PL CFL fixtures with (26) 2L 5W LED fixtures x (4) 42W PL CFL lamps with (4) 20W LED lamps x (10) 150W metal halide fixtures with (10) 30W LED fixtures x (8) 70W metal halide wall packs with (8) 20W LED wall packs
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 118 Page 366 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
CFL to LED 26 26 56 10 5,290 - 6,327 1.00 9 59,800
CFL to LED 4 4 48 20 5,290 - 592 1.00 9 5,600
MH to LED 11 11 190 20 5,290 - 9,892 1.00 9 93,500
MH to LED 8 8 95 20 5,290 - 3,174 1.00 9 30,000
Total 19,984 19,986 100% 9 188,900
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies or miscalculations were found for this project.
Appendix A 119 Page 367 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Catholic Charities of Northern Nevada Address 190 E. Glendale Ave, Sparks, NV 89431 Project Number SB-17-08135
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08135, Catholic Charities of Northern Nevada received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 100%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (8) 250W high pressure sodium fixtures to 100W LED fixtures x (8) 175W metal halide fixtures to 40W LED canopy fixtures x (5) 400W metal halide fixtures to 90W LED wall packs x (1) 400W metal halide fixtures to 100W LED fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 120 Page 368 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
HPS to LED 8 8 295 100 4,308 - 6,721 1.00 11.61 78,000
MH to LED 8 8 215 40 4,308 - 6,032 1.00 11.61 70,000
MH to LED 5 5 458 90 4,308 - 7,927 1.00 11.61 92,000
MH to LED 1 1 458 100 4,308 - 1,542 1.00 11.61 17,900
Total 22,231 22,222 100% 11.61 257,900
Results The project-level realization rate is 100%. No discrepancies or miscalculations were found for this project.
Appendix A 121 Page 369 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site The Rock Thrift Store Address 1325/1327/1335/1337 Baring Blvd, Sparks, NV 89434 Project Number SB-17-08260
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08260, the Rock Thrift Store received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 115%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted:
x (66) 4L 32W T8 fixtures to 2L 13W LED T8 fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort
ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications. ADM called the store to verify lighting operating hours.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 122 Page 370 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T8 to LED 66 66 112 26 2,504 - 14,936 1.05 15.00 224,038
Total 12,934 14,936 115% 15.00 224,038
Results The project-level realization rate is 115%. The high realization rate was caused by the higher hours of operation (9:30am to 5:30pm, Monday to Saturday) used in the ex post calculation. Lower hours of operation (10am to 5pm, Monday to Saturday) used in the ex ante calculation. It was determined that 10am to 5pm are the open hours, but staff typically arrives and turns lighting on a half hour prior to opening and stays a half hour after closing on average.
Appendix A 123 Page 371 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Ridge House Address 900 West 1st St, Reno, NV 89503 Project Number SB-17-08343
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08343, Ridge House received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 105%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: Interior x (93) 4L 4’ T12 fixtures (T8 baseline applies) to 2L 4’ LED troffers x (20) 65W incandescent lamps to 9W LED lamps x (5) 2L 2’ T12 fixtures (T12 baseline applies) to 2L 2’ LED fixtures Exterior x (12) 100W Incandescent (72W baseline applies) to 13W LED lamps x (2) Incandescent (72W baseline applies) to 40W LED lamps x (32) Incandescent (72W baseline applies) to 13W LED lamps x (1) 175 metal halide wall packs to 60W LED fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications. ADM called the site to verify lighting operating hours.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 124 Page 372 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T12 to LED 93 93 112 36 3,967 - 29,449 1.05 12.61 371,223
Inc to LED 20 20 65 9 3,967 - 4,667 1.05 7.56 35,295
T12 to LED 5 5 56 18 3,967 - 792 1.05 12.61 9,979
Inc to LED 12 12 72 13 4,308 - 3,050 1.00 11.61 35,400
Inc to LED 2 2 72 40 4,308 - 276 1.00 11.61 3,200
Inc to LED 32 32 72 13 4,308 - 8,134 1.00 6.96 56,640
MH to LED 1 1 215 60 4,308 - 668 1.00 11.61 7,750
Total 44,874 47,035 105% 11.04 519,487
Results The project-level realization rate is 105%. ADM noted a minor discrepancy in the claimed hours. The post inspection document claimed that the staff at the facility arrives 30 minutes prior to opening, but the ex ante calculation does not account for that half hour. ADM confirmed that the additional half hour per day should be accounted for. Additionally, the (5) 2L 2’ T12 fixtures are not impacted by the 2009 DOE final rule on linear fluorescents, thus the T12 fixture (56W) is an eligible baseline. A comparable T8 fixture (33W) was used in the ex ante calculation. All other legislated baselines were properly applied. These two minor discrepancies give a realization of 105%.
Appendix A 125 Page 373 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site Bristlecone Family Resources Address 704 Mill Street, Reno, NV 89502 Project Number SB-17-08377
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08377, Bristlecone Family Resources received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 101%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (145) 3L 4' T8 fixtures to 2L 4' LED T8 fixtures x (52) 2L 4' T8 fixtures to 2L 4' LED T8 fixtures x (9) 2L 2' T8 fixtures to 2L 2' LED T8 fixtures x (15) 2L 4' T8 fixtures to 2L 4' LED T8 fixtures x (12) 2L 22W CFL lamps to 5W LED lamps
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project.
Appendix A 126 Page 374 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T8 to LED 145 145 89 36 4,171 - 33,703 1.05 11.99 403,971
T8 to LED 52 52 59 36 4,171 - 5,245 1.05 11.99 62,869
T8 to LED 9 9 33 18 4,171 - 592 1.05 11.99 7,096
T8 to LED 15 15 59 36 4,171 - 1,513 1.05 11.99 18,135
CFL to LED 12 12 44 5 4,171 - 2,052 1.05 7.19 14,761
Total 42,688 43,105 101% 11.76 506,833
Results The project-level realization rate is 101%. The slightly high realization rate is caused by the higher HCIF (1.05) that ADM calculated in the ex post calculation. However, the ex ante calculation used the lower prescriptive factor of 1.04.
Appendix A 127 Page 375 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Site St. Albert the Great Catholic Church Address 1255 Wyoming Ave, Reno, NV 89503 Project Number SB-17-08696
Executive Summary Under project SB-17-08696, St. Albert the Great Catholic Church received incentives from NV Energy for a lighting project implemented at their facility. The realization rate for this project is 101%.
Project Description The customer retrofitted: x (5) 2L 4' T12 fixtures (T8 baseline applies) to 2L 4' LED T8 fixtures x (2) 2L 4' T12 fixtures (T8 baseline applies) to 2L 4' LED T8 fixtures x (3) 4L 4' T12 fixtures (T8 baseline applies) to 2L 4' LED T8 fixtures x (13) 60W incandescent lamps (43W baseline applies) to 9W LED lamps x (10) 65W incandescent BR30 lamps to 13W LED BR30 x (14) 108W CFL lamps to 13W LED PAR30 lamps x (3) 108W CFL lamps to 13W LED PAR30 lamps x (5) 2L 4' T8 fixtures to 2L 4' LED T8 fixtures x (2) 2L 4' T8 fixtures to 2L 4' LED T8 fixtures x (54) 90W incandescent PAR38 lamps to 15W LED PAR38 lamps x (3) 250W high pressure sodium fixtures to 115W LED fixtures
Measurement and Verification Effort ADM conducted a thorough desk review of the submitted project documentation. Through the desk review, ADM verified the equipment installation, baseline and post fixture specifications, and the lighting hours of operation.
Lighting retrofit energy savings are calculated as: ଼ ୦ ୦ ୗୟ୴୧୬ୱ ൌ ୦ ൈ൫ୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ ൈୠୟୱୣ െୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲ ൈୟୱିୠ୳୧୪୲൯ ୦ୀଵ Where:
kWhsavings = Annual energy savings N = Number of fixtures kW = kW of each fixture h = Indicates hour of year
HCIFh = HVAC interactive factor for hour h
fh = the fraction of hour h that the lights are on base = denotes pre-installation state as-built = denotes post-installation state
Appendix A 128 Page 376 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
The table shown below presents expected and realized energy savings for the lighting retrofit installed under the project. Lighting Retrofit Savings Calculations
Quantity Expected Realized Wattage Realization Lifetime Measure (Fixtures) Hours kWh kWh HCIF EUL Rate Savings Old New Old New Savings Savings
T12 to LED 5 5 59 36 1,512 - 183 1.05 15 2,742
T12 to LED 2 2 59 18 1,512 - 130 1.05 15 1,955
T12 to LED 3 3 112 36 1,512 - 362 1.05 15 5,437
Inc to LED 13 13 43 9 1,512 - 703 1.05 15 10,540
BR30 to LED 10 10 65 13 1,512 - 827 1.05 15 12,400
CFL to LED 14 14 108 13 1,512 - 2,114 1.05 15 31,715
CFL to LED 3 3 108 13 1,512 - 453 1.05 15 6,796
T8 to LED 5 5 59 36 1,512 - 183 1.05 15 2,742
T8 to LED 2 2 59 36 1,512 - 73 1.05 15 1,097
PAR38 to LED 54 54 90 15 1,512 - 6,438 1.05 15 96,577
HPS to LED 3 3 295 115 4,308 - 2,326 1.00 12 27,000
Total 13,640 13,793 101% 14 199,002
Results The project-level realization rate is 101%. The slightly high realization rate is caused by the higher HICF (1.05) that ADM calculated for the interior retrofits, than the prescriptive HCIF (1.04) used in the ex ante calculation.
Appendix A 129 Page 377 of 392 APPENDIX B: SAVINGS PER MONTH PER RATE CLASS
2017: Energy Savings (kWh) per Month per Rate Class (First Year)
Rate Tariff Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total OGS-2 5,644 5,126 10,738 10,882 12,386 23,272 39,856 46,316 44,561 45,682 43,584 44,228 332,275 OGS-1 22,623 73,483 100,548 136,481 167,043 294,637 350,683 412,142 404,025 427,364 467,535 537,125 3,393,690 GS-1 13,046 19,976 47,077 81,569 155,821 181,693 292,961 351,694 422,245 660,693 771,291 2,041,045 5,039,112 GS-2 12,423 20,891 66,820 124,544 194,176 211,297 386,735 463,096 464,152 575,499 672,212 699,098 3,890,945 IS-2 - - - - 1,609 4,780 5,136 5,107 4,437 3,940 3,462 3,155 31,625 GS-3 713 643 718 5,009 5,244 5,137 5,311 5,322 10,493 18,646 67,744 89,486 214,466 IS-1 - - - - - 813 25,285 25,140 21,845 19,397 17,042 15,535 125,058 GS-2 TOU ------13,128 57,678 61,302 78,268 82,941 293,316 CSF GS-3 ------255 258 512 Total 54,449 120,119 225,901 358,485 536,278 721,628 1,105,969 1,321,944 1,429,436 1,812,523 2,121,393 3,512,872 13,320,999
2018: Energy Savings (kWh) per Month per Rate Class
Rate Tariff Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total OGS-2 45,751 41,149 45,477 44,134 45,937 44,431 46,282 46,310 44,312 45,933 43,571 43,973 537,261 OGS-1 587,246 539,565 663,001 703,849 828,224 871,672 954,571 946,210 818,226 697,557 589,009 538,446 8,737,576 GS-1 2,646,209 2,371,138 2,609,360 2,509,072 2,609,248 2,560,217 2,663,386 2,684,388 2,564,858 2,643,674 2,555,061 2,627,677 31,044,286 GS-2 715,279 630,611 684,885 650,258 675,836 657,485 692,944 707,451 673,813 709,847 682,342 694,013 8,174,765 IS-2 3,442 3,121 3,785 3,981 4,540 4,771 5,148 5,086 4,454 3,934 3,426 3,165 48,852 GS-3 89,284 79,583 86,739 82,511 84,249 81,096 84,324 85,466 83,863 88,109 86,246 89,441 1,020,910 IS-1 16,945 15,364 18,636 19,597 22,351 23,490 25,342 25,037 21,928 19,368 16,865 15,579 240,504 GS-2 TOU 86,172 77,149 84,584 81,535 84,512 81,127 84,577 85,017 81,681 85,852 81,631 82,255 996,092 CSF GS-3 269 240 267 253 264 252 264 266 254 268 254 256 3,107 Total 4,190,597 3,757,921 4,196,734 4,095,189 4,355,161 4,324,542 4,556,838 4,585,231 4,293,388 4,294,542 4,058,404 4,094,805 50,803,353
Appendix B 130
Page 378 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
2019: Energy Savings (kWh) per Month per Rate Class
Rate Tariff Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total OGS-2 45,692 41,177 45,166 44,373 45,903 44,129 46,549 46,194 44,469 46,007 43,474 44,128 537,261 OGS-1 564,579 550,064 645,601 699,133 815,092 852,508 959,462 948,767 832,448 721,699 599,885 548,337 8,737,576 GS-1 2,643,832 2,371,511 2,600,618 2,514,668 2,609,109 2,552,585 2,670,418 2,679,903 2,570,318 2,646,395 2,550,932 2,633,996 31,044,286 GS-2 714,180 630,597 676,962 656,595 674,538 651,772 699,605 702,023 680,101 711,053 676,885 700,453 8,174,765 IS-2 3,309 3,181 3,676 3,956 4,446 4,676 5,164 5,112 4,524 4,093 3,482 3,231 48,852 GS-3 89,263 79,542 86,636 82,525 84,219 81,046 84,413 85,459 83,940 88,162 86,227 89,479 1,020,910 IS-1 16,290 15,662 18,096 19,478 21,886 23,022 25,425 25,168 22,272 20,152 17,143 15,909 240,504 GS-2 TOU 86,168 77,141 83,889 82,195 84,529 80,438 85,270 84,649 82,059 85,858 81,276 82,619 996,092 CSF GS-3 269 240 264 256 264 250 267 264 255 268 252 257 3,107 Total 4,163,582 3,769,115 4,160,909 4,103,178 4,339,986 4,290,427 4,576,574 4,577,541 4,320,385 4,323,689 4,059,556 4,118,410 50,803,353
2020: Energy Savings (kWh) per Month per Rate Class
Rate Tariff Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total OGS-2 45,705 42,573 45,279 44,403 45,520 44,541 46,558 45,910 44,718 45,849 43,354 44,373 538,782 OGS-1 568,504 568,570 643,211 713,166 813,609 869,620 960,614 935,090 831,257 705,003 602,142 543,080 8,753,867 GS-1 2,643,533 2,451,431 2,604,354 2,515,547 2,600,031 2,565,583 2,671,378 2,674,135 2,574,292 2,639,788 2,551,257 2,639,860 31,131,189 GS-2 712,846 648,328 682,998 656,559 662,932 664,430 699,189 697,483 686,001 703,895 678,429 706,599 8,199,688 IS-2 3,325 3,282 3,673 4,027 4,440 4,733 5,164 5,078 4,505 4,010 3,507 3,206 48,950 GS-3 89,227 82,292 86,580 82,456 84,071 81,142 84,477 85,480 84,087 88,199 86,262 89,547 1,023,819 IS-1 16,369 16,156 18,081 19,827 21,860 23,302 25,422 25,000 22,176 19,743 17,266 15,785 240,987 GS-2 TOU 86,176 79,669 84,213 82,176 83,470 81,503 85,303 83,956 82,765 85,512 80,973 83,297 999,012 CSF GS-3 269 248 266 256 259 254 267 261 258 266 251 260 3,117 Total 4,165,954 3,892,549 4,168,655 4,118,417 4,316,192 4,335,110 4,578,373 4,552,392 4,330,059 4,292,265 4,063,440 4,126,007 50,939,412
Appendix B 131
Page 379 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Critical Peak Demand Savings (kW) per Month per Rate Class
Rate Tariff Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec OGS-2 72 72 65 51 82 82 83 83 83 65 73 72 OGS-1 1,160 1,129 1,116 1,270 1,882 1,818 1,839 1,921 1,790 1,132 1,324 1,096 GS-1 3,932 3,930 3,810 3,720 3,650 3,655 3,661 3,665 3,661 3,887 3,947 3,931 GS-2 1,322 1,322 1,217 1,160 1,101 1,101 1,102 1,103 1,105 1,268 1,330 1,323 IS-2 8 7 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 7 8 7 GS-3 136 136 130 133 103 102 103 103 103 135 136 136 IS-1 37 36 36 41 42 45 45 45 45 37 41 35 GS-2 TOU 141 141 124 90 158 158 158 158 158 125 141 141 CSF GS-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 6,809 6,774 6,506 6,473 7,027 6,971 7,000 7,088 6,953 6,657 7,001 6,741
Appendix B 132
Page 380 of 392 APPENDIX C: CALCULATION METHODOLOGY FOR CRITICAL PEAK DEMAND (KW) SAVINGS
C.1. OVERVIEW OF CALCULATION METHODOLOGY FOR KW SAVINGS
This section provides a description of analytical steps employed to determine summer critical peak demand savings per month per rate class for NV Energy’s 2017 DSM programs. For the 2017 M&V reports, demand (kW) reduction per month per rate class is determined using essentially the same methodology that is used to disaggregate annual energy (kWh) savings into monthly kWh savings per rate class. Please see the following chapter for a more detailed description of the methodology for determining energy (kWh) savings per month per rate class.
M&V reports for 2017 DSM programs do not provide summer critical peak demand (kW) savings for the 2017 calendar year. To do so would provide an incomplete, potentially misleading picture of summer critical peak kW savings, because each monthly kW reduction value would represent only a fraction of the total population of measures that are installed during the program year as a whole. Instead, M&V reports for 2017 DSM programs provide monthly summer critical peak kW savings values for 2017 – and for subsequent years for the life of the measures installed – which are representative of the whole population of measures installed by each program during the 2017 calendar year. This approach for reporting “typical” (or “full year”) coincident peak kW reduction is the preferred approach for impact evaluations. For this program, Table B-5 in the preceding section provides the full-year values or 2018 calendar-year values for summer critical peak kW savings per month and per rate class.
C.2. ANALYTICAL STEPS AT THE MEASURE LEVEL
At the measure level, for every record (i.e., individual measure) in NV Energy’s DSM Central database, ADM assigns an appropriate normalized 8,760 energy savings curve. A normalized energy savings curve is comprised of 8,760 hourly fractions summing to exactly 1 (unity).14 For each measure, ADM determines ex post annual kWh savings, which is then multiplied by each of the 8,760 hourly fractions to disaggregate the annual kWh into 8,760 hourly kW bins.
C.3. ANALYTICAL STEPS AT THE PROGRAM LEVEL
To determine program-level demand (kW) reduction for a given hourly kW bin, ADM sums the hourly kW bin across all measures in the program. For example, the program-level kW reduction
14 ADM has developed a library of normalized energy savings curves that are appropriate for Northern and Southern Nevada. Many of the commercial energy savings curves were derived from NV Energy’s program-specific data, while others were derived from data provided in the 2008 California Database of Energy Efficiency Resources (2008 DEER).
Appendix C 133 Page 381 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 for the hour ending at 5PM on the 200th day of the year is the sum of kW for all measures in the program during that hour on that day.
To determine monthly summer critical peak demand (kW) reduction for the program, ADM inspects program-level kW reduction during the one-hour summer critical peak demand period that is defined for each month of the year. The following table provides the monthly summer critical peak demand periods for NPC and Sierra, which were determined from ADM’s analysis of peak system load data provided by NV Energy.
Table C-1. Critical Peak Demand Period per Month, NV Energy
Month Critical Peak Period, NPC Critical Peak Period, Sierra
Hour Ending at: Hour Ending at: January 19 19:00 19 19:00 February 19 19:00 19 19:00 March 20 20:00 20 20:00 April 20 20:00 21 21:00 May 17 17:00 17 17:00 June 17 17:00 17 17:00 July 17 17:00 17 17:00 August 17 17:00 17 17:00 September 17 17:00 17 17:00 October 19 19:00 20 20:00 November 19 19:00 19 19:00 December 19 19:00 19 19:00
For example, the summer critical peak demand period for July is the hour from 16:00:01 or 4:00:01 PM to 17:00:00 or 5:00:00 PM. To determine July’s program-level critical peak kW savings, ADM inspects average hourly kW reduction during 4:00:01 to 5:00:00 PM for every day in July: the highest value represents July’s critical peak kW savings. The same procedure is followed for all months of the year. Summer critical peak demand savings is defined as July’s critical peak kW savings; the rationale for doing so is that historical data reveals that during any given year, NV Energy’s peak system demand in either territory will typically occur during a July day between 4:00:01 to 5:00:00 PM.
To determine the monthly kW reduction per rate class, each program-level monthly critical peak kW savings value is disaggregated into rate class bins by correlating monthly kW savings for a given measure to the measure’s assigned customer rate class as listed in NV Energy’s DSM Central database.
Appendix C 134 Page 382 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Calculations for energy (kWh) savings – and for demand (kW) reduction – per month per rate class require complex algorithms that are executed in massive Excel files, which are also known as kW guru™ files.
C.4. ANALYSIS OF SYSTEM-LEVEL CRITICAL PEAK DEMAND PERIODS
ADM analyzed NV Energy’s system-level summer critical peak hours to determine a consistent reference for peak demand impacts of M&V evaluation of all NV Energy programs. ADM’s analysis encompassed Sierra Pacific Power Company (“Sierra”) in the north and Nevada Power Company (“NPC”) in the south.
Hourly system load data from 1985 through 2011 for Sierra and from 1999 through 2011 for NPC was provided by NV Energy. In analyzing the hourly load data, it was determined that the system peaks for Sierra in 1985 were only half of what they have been in the more recent ten-year period. The percentage change in daily system peaks between summer and winter were smaller in the 80’s and 90’s than in the more recent ten-year period. Therefore, ADM concluded that the use of system load data from the recent ten-year period provides the best basis for predicting what to expect during an EEM’s remaining useful life; following that rationale, data prior to the most recent ten years was excluded from ADM’s analysis. In both service territories, the highest system peak occurred in 2007, and system peaks have declined moderately since.
The hourly load data for the recent ten-year period was thoroughly reviewed and except for “spring ahead” hours (when clock times change from Standard Time to Daylight Savings Time), it was determined that the data was consistent and appropriate. The data for “spring ahead” hours are inconsistent, with values given as follows: (1) the value from the preceding hour is used and is an acceptable means of handling the data; and (2) a zero, which is an inaccurate value that would pull down the average. For this analysis, zero values were converted to blanks, and therefore not included in the averaging calculation. Overall this is a minor issue that did not impact ADM’s final analysis of system-level summer critical peak hours.
ADM determined that system load characteristics vary by season. To accommodate the seasonal variations, the hour of peak system load was determined for each month. ADM concluded that a one-hour peak demand period per month is appropriate.
The final determination of the appropriate peak demand hour per month per territory is provided above; see the table in the preceding section of this appendix. The designated peak demand hour per month per territory was utilized for M&V analyses of energy efficiency programs implemented in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Subject to ADM’s periodic re-checking of system load data, it is expected that the designated peak demand hour per month per territory will continue to be utilized for subsequent program years.
Appendix C 135 Page 383 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
This M&V methodology update occurred for the following reason. Compared to the three-hour summer critical peak demand window used for M&V analyses of 2010 programs, the updated summer critical peak demand definition (i.e., one hour per month per territory) provides a more accurate determination of energy efficiency programs’ contributions to reducing system peak demand. In other words, the one-hour peak kW reduction will align with the actual hour of system peak.
NV Energy’s hourly system load data demonstrated well-defined peaks during summer and winter months. However, certain transition months – such as May in Southern Nevada – have a nearly identical double peak. It is obvious that specific weather conditions during any given year cause one or the other of the two peaks to predominate. In the final analysis, transition months have far less peak demand than summer months, so a transition month peak hour is essentially insignificant to the determination of the system peak hour, which will typically occur in July and occasionally occur in August (but never in May).
ADM also analyzed hourly system load by various day types. The day type that exhibited highest average demand was selected as the appropriate day type for final determination of peak hour. The day types investigated were (1) All Days, (2) Weekdays, (3) Non-Holiday Weekdays (i.e., Workdays) and (4) Weekend & Holidays. A curve for each month was developed by day type. All days for a given day type were averaged for a given month by hour of the day to develop an average 24-hour load curve. For the north and south the summer peak typically occurs during hour 17, which is the hour that ends at 17:00 (5:00 PM). The greatest summer peak demand is the highest peak demand experienced by both companies.
The analysis determined that of the four day types, Workdays averaged the highest system demand for most hours of the day. Generally, the peak hour calculated from the average Workday curve was identified as the peak hour for the month for the given territory. The peak hours for two transition months in each territory were adjusted to maintain a more consistent set of peak hours. Adjustments were made for May and June for Sierra and April and November for NPC. The selection of the peak hour for these months were based on differences of less than 1 percent in the average demand in MW between the mathematical peak hour and the assigned peak hour.
To validate these decisions ADM also analyzed all-time record peak days and an average of the day from each month that the peak occurred. The second method thus included ten days in the calculation of the average. The results from these analyses supported the average Workday results. Analysis files have not been included in this report due to the large size of spreadsheets.
Appendix C 136 Page 384 of 392 APPENDIX D: DETERMINING ENERGY (KWH) SAVINGS PER MONTH PER RATE CLASS
This chapter provides a detailed description of ADM’s analytical steps for determining the energy (kWh) savings per month by rate class values that are provided in the M&V reports for program year 2017.15
D.1. APPORTIONMENT OF ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS BY RATE CLASS
NV Energy’s DSM programs generally include populations of customers from more than one rate class. NV Energy tracks the rate class for each identifiable customer participating in DSM programs. However, participant information is not known for certain DSM programs, such as the Consumer Electronics and Plug Loads program or other “upstream” or “midstream” programs where incentives are provided through contractual arrangements with manufacturers or distributors of the rebated products. For DSM programs for which participant information is not known, ADM collected participant information at the point of sale or conducted customer surveys to identify the proportions of participants that belong to various rate classes.
D.2. APPORTIONMENT OF ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS BY MONTH
ADM developed a methodology that utilizes energy savings curves to calculate the portion of annual energy savings that occurs during each month of the year. An energy savings curve describes the temporal nature of energy savings. For example, on any given day the energy savings achieved by an LED exit sign are approximately 1/365 of the verified annual energy savings for that LED exit sign. On the other hand, an efficient air conditioner may not save any energy during the month of January but may achieve 35 percent of its annual energy savings in the month of July alone. ADM constructed appropriate energy savings curves from metered data collected during M&V of NV Energy DSM programs (or other programs if appropriate), customer billing data, calibrated DOE2 simulations and engineering calculations. The energy savings curves were coupled with project implementation dates on a record-by-record basis to produce accurate determinations of the energy savings achieved for each month of the year.
D.3. HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF ADM’S CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
Monthly energy (kWh) savings for each program were calculated by applying an appropriate hourly or daily energy savings curve to each program participant’s ex post verified energy savings, then aggregating kWh savings for each month. The energy savings curve distributes a participant’s
15 The Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) requires NV Energy to report energy (kWh) savings per month and per rate class for each Demand Side Management (DSM) program.
Appendix D 137 Page 385 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018 energy savings over time. Its shape is therefore dependent on not only the measure installed (i.e., lighting vs. HVAC), but also on the building type and sometimes its location.
The overall process by which ADM calculated monthly kWh savings was to (1) download from the NV Energy DSM Central database all program tracking data, i.e., ex ante expected kWh savings, measure type, measure completion date, rate class, etc., (2) calculate ex post values per participant, (3) assign an energy savings curve to each participant’s ex post savings to distribute ex post energy savings by rate class over each of the 8,760 hours in a year, and (4) aggregate ex post verified savings for the purpose of presenting savings by month and by rate class.
ADM also calculated first-year kWh savings for each program by combining measure startup date (from NVE’s DSM Central data) with the aforementioned process. A detailed description of the steps involved in tabulating first-year kWh savings is provided in section D.5 below.
D.4. ENERGY SAVINGS CURVES
D.4.1. Definition
The phrase ‘energy savings curve’ is used to describe the temporal dependence of energy savings. The curves are typically hourly (1 × 8760 array), daily (1 × 365 array), or monthly (1 × 12 array). The energy savings curves are often normalized such the sum of all array elements is unity. When normalized, each element describes the fraction of annual savings that is expected to occur in a given hour, day, or month.
D.4.2. Nomenclature
Note that if the term ‘load shape’ is encountered in the spreadsheets that are used to tally monthly energy savings by program and rate class, one should take it to be the same as ‘energy savings curve’ as described herein. The reason for the usage of the term ‘load shape’ is twofold: x Energy savings curves are differential load shapes describing differences in electricity loads resulting from the implementation of energy efficiency measures; in other words, energy savings curves indicate the shape over time of electricity that is saved or not used. Note also that energy that is not used due to energy efficiency actions (i.e., “saved” energy) is sometimes called “Negawatts” – a “Negawatt” saved is meant to represent the negative form of a “Megawatt” of power that would have been used if the energy efficiency actions had not occurred.
x An energy savings curve for a measure may or may not be synchronous with the load curve of the base case technology against which savings are determined. There are energy efficiency measures (EEMs) for which the normalized savings curve is synchronous and proportional to the normalized load shape or curve of the base case technology. Examples of such EEMs include CFLs versus incandescent lights
Appendix D 138 Page 386 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
if it is assumed that (1) there are null or negligible interactive effects and (2) pre- and post-retrofit usage schedules are identical. If the savings curve for an EEM is synchronous with the base case technology load shape, then the two curves have identical shapes. For other EEMs, the energy savings curve is asynchronous with the load curve of the base case technology. Examples of EEMs with asynchronous savings curves include economizers, occupancy sensors, and control systems. For such measures, the shape of the energy savings curve is different from the shape of the base case technology.
As part of our evaluation effort ADM determines for each EEM whether to use normalized energy savings curves that are either synchronous or asynchronous with the normalized load shape of the base case technology.
D.5 TABULATING MONTHLY ENERGY (KWH) SAVINGS PER RATE CLASS
Normalized daily energy savings curves are utilized for this task. A normalized daily energy savings curve is comprised of 365 daily fractions summing to exactly 1 (unity). For each measure, ADM determines ex post annual kWh savings, which is then multiplied by each of the 365 daily energy savings curve fractions to disaggregate annual kWh into 365 daily kWh bins.
D.5.1. First-Year kWh Savings
‘First-year’ kWh savings are savings that occur during the same calendar year in which a conservation program was implemented. For NV Energy, a program year is the same as a calendar year. Thus ‘first-year’ kWh savings for a measure installed during the 2017 program year are equal to that measure’s kWh savings during the 2017 calendar year.
The following calculations are performed to tabulate ‘first-year’ kWh savings attributable to a particular customer rate class. For any given 2017 NV Energy program: x For each rate class, for each day of 2017, identify all measures that have been implemented (or ‘installed’ or ‘started up’) by the end of the prior day.
x For each rate class, for each day of 2017, for all measures that that have been installed by the prior day, multiply the ex post verified ‘typical-year’ annualized kWh savings16 for each measure type by that measure’s daily kWh bin. In other words, multiply the
16 ‘Typical-year’ annualized kWh savings is 365 consecutive days of energy savings – usually a full calendar year other than Leap Year – attributed to an energy efficiency measure(s) for which ex post verified kWh savings will occur during a multi-year measure life. For example, an NV Energy conservation measure installed during the 2017 program year (i.e., during the 2017 calendar year) will normally provide kWh savings starting on its date of installation. ‘First-year’ savings is the savings that occurs during the 2017 calendar year. ‘Full-year’ savings is the savings occurring during subsequent calendar years.
Appendix D 139 Page 387 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
measure-level annual kWh by the measure-level daily bin from the appropriate energy savings curve.
x For each rate class, tally all measure-level daily kWh savings to determine program- level daily kWh savings.
x For each rate class, for any given month of 2017, tally all measure-level daily kWh savings occurring during that month to determine program-level monthly kWh savings during the 2017 calendar year.
x For each rate class, the first-year kWh savings is the program-level monthly kWh savings for that rate class summed across all 12 months of 2017.
D.5.2. ‘Typical-Year’ Energy (kWh) Savings
‘Typical-year’ energy (kWh) savings represents 365 consecutive days of energy savings attributed to a measure(s) or program for which ex post verified savings will occur across a multi-year measure life.17
The following calculations are performed to tabulate ‘typical-year’ energy (kWh) savings attributable to a particular customer rate class. For any given 2017 NV Energy program, all measures would have been implemented or installed during calendar year 2017. x For each rate class, for each hour (or day) of 2017 and subsequent years, multiply ex post verified ‘typical-year’ energy (kWh) savings for each measure type by that measure’s hourly (or daily) kWh bin. In other words, multiply the measure-level annual kWh by the measure-level hourly (or daily) bin from the appropriate energy savings curve.18
x For each rate class, tally all measure-level hourly (or daily) kWh savings to determine program-level hourly (or daily) kWh savings.
17 The distinction between ‘typical year’ and ‘full year’ is that a ‘typical year’ is a 365-day year. A Leap Year is not a ‘typical year’ – instead, a Leap Year is a ‘full year’ that has 366 days. In M&V reports, the kWh savings tables (which show monthly savings per rate class) usually indicate titles such as “Full Year 2017”, “Full Year 2018”, “Full Year 2019” and “Full Year 2020 (Leap Year)”. 18 When tallying kWh savings per month per rate class, the use of hourly bins or daily bins is equally correct and accurate. ADM typically uses daily bins (which are created from hourly bins) in our kW guru™ Excel files simply because a workstation processor can complete the billions of computations in a large kW guru™ file relatively faster when the number of computations is based on 365 daily bins instead of 8760 hourly bins per calendar year. Hourly bins in kW guru™ files (i.e., the 8760 hourly bins per ‘typical year’) exist for the following two purposes: 1) they are summed across the 24 hours of each day to create the aforementioned daily bins; and 2) they provide the hourly resolution that enables us to analyze and report critical peak demand (kW) savings per month per rate class for any specified kW-reporting period.
Appendix D 140 Page 388 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
x For each rate class, for any given month, sum all measure-level hourly (or daily) kWh savings occurring in that month to determine program-level monthly kWh savings.
x For each rate class, ‘typical-year’ kWh savings is the program-level monthly kWh savings for that rate class summed across all 365 days of any non-Leap Year after the 2017 calendar year.
x For any given program, ‘full-year’ kWh savings for a Leap Year will be marginally higher than ‘full-year’ kWh savings for a ‘typical year’ or non-Leap Year. Thus, we always use a non-Leap Year when we quantify ‘typical-year’ kWh savings.
Following is an example of the determination of daily kWh savings generated by a program. Let’s consider a hypothetical program that targets two energy efficiency (EE) measures: residential lighting and residential cooling. For this hypothetical program, Table D-1 below provides a simple comparison of the measures’ respective: x ‘typical-year’ energy savings; x daily bin value in its energy savings curve for a specific day – February 1st – of any given year19 after the EE measures were installed; x energy (kWh) savings during February 1st of any given year after the EE measures were installed.
In Table D-1 below, the assumption is that 1,000,000 kWh of annual energy savings (‘typical- year’ savings as reported in M&V reports) were achieved through distribution of CFLs and 500,000 kWh of annual (‘typical-year’) energy savings were achieved through implementation of high efficiency air conditioning (AC) measures. Energy (kWh) savings on February 1st are obtained by multiplying ‘typical-year’ kWh savings by the entries corresponding to February 1st in the respective normalized energy savings curves. In this example, the daily bin for space cooling is zero because no space cooling is expected to occur on February 1st.
19 The daily bin value for February 1 represents the February 1 daily fraction of ‘typical-year’ annual energy (kWh) savings.
Appendix D 141 Page 389 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
Table D-1. Sample calculation of energy savings achieved for a given rate class on February 1 for a hypothetical program targeting residential lighting and space cooling.
Comparison for “Indoor Lighting” vs. EE Measure = EE Measure = “Space Cooling” Measures “Indoor Lighting” “Space Cooling”
‘Typical-year’ energy savings (annual kWh): 1,000,000 500,000
Feb. 1 daily bin value in each EE measure’s 0.0030 0.0000 energy savings curve:
Feb. 1 energy (kWh) savings in a typical year: 3,000 0
For each program, such calculations are performed for each rate class, energy savings curve and hour (or day). Hourly (or daily) results are then aggregated at the monthly level.
D.5.3. Leap Year Savings
To account for the extra day in February in Leap Years, one of the following methods is used. Either method produces accurate and very similar ex post verified energy savings determinations for Leap Years. x Energy savings during the month of February in a Leap Year is taken to be equal to 29/28 of energy savings during the month of February in a typical non-Leap Year.
x Or, energy savings on the day of February 29 in a Leap Year is assumed to be the same as energy savings on the previous day (February 28).
Appendix D 142 Page 390 of 392 APPENDIX E: PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING UPDATED ENERGY (KWH) SAVINGS
This chapter provides a detailed description of ADM’s procedures for determining the updated verified energy (kWh) savings for past projects. Procedures have been developed to review past projects that had relatively high uncertainty when the original analysis was completed or had uncertainty due to specific measure types. An example of measures that may require updated energy savings include: VFD projects, projects with less than one month of billing data, and projects with less than 100% occupancy.
E.1 PROCEDURES TO IDENTIFY AND REVIEW PROJECTS
ADM has developed procedures for providing a review and updated energy savings for certain projects that participated in the Commercial Incentives program in past years. The review of these sites is conducted to verify the persistence of savings for sites with relatively high uncertainty that were included in M&V samples. These procedures were developed during the 2014 program year and resulted in ADM reviewing past projects from 2010 through 2013 to identify sites with high uncertainty or with specific measures that may contribute to the level of uncertainty. Specific measures that may contribute to high uncertainty in the verified savings analysis are included below:
x Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) Projects: VFD projects can have higher uncertainty in the verified savings due to the changing nature of the VFDs and the systems that they serve. Many VFD projects are implemented in HVAC systems and thus their operation, and verified savings, are highly weather dependent. VFDs in this application typically have a low level of uncertainty due to ADM’s ability to normalize for weather impacts. Accounting for weather impacts is typically done through the installation of monitoring equipment, or through calibrated DOE2 energy simulation models that result in verified savings with very low uncertainty. However, in projects where VFDs are used for process control, irrigation, mining, etc. the uncertainty of the verified savings can increase due to external factors other than weather. In some cases, the energy savings may depend on a facility’s production rate or the equipment controlled by a VFD may be moved to other locations within the process. (For example, this may occur at mining sites.) In these cases, the uncertainty in the verified savings increases and providing a review of these savings in years subsequent to when the measures where completed is appropriate.
x Projects with minimal billing data: Many of the projects included in past year M&V samples were analyzed using calibrated DOE2 energy simulation models. The evaluation of these sites uses electrical energy billing data to determine the total energy usage of the facility either prior to or after an energy efficiency measure is implemented. The billing
Appendix E 143 Page 391 of 392 Commercial Energy Services: 2017 – NV Energy, Northern Nevada M&V Report March 2018
data is used to calibrate DOE2 energy simulation models to ensure the models accurately represent the energy usage patterns in the buildings. It is standard practice to use 12 months of billing data when calibrating an energy model to ensure the model represents all seasons appropriately. However, fewer months of billing data can still provide verified savings with low uncertainty, especially if the implemented measures are season specific (i.e. cooling system energy savings that occur in summer months). In rare cases, energy simulation models have been calibrated using three, or fewer, months of billing data. These are projects that are most commonly new construction projects that are completed at the end of the program years. Due to the projects being completed late in the program years, ADM may not be able to obtain more than 1-3 months of billing data from NVE prior to having to complete the M&V analysis. These projects may have increased uncertainty in their verified savings and are included in the projects that receive subsequent review.
x Projects with low/no Occupancy: Occasionally projects with low occupancy or no occupancy participate in the programs. Traditionally, the verified savings of these projects has been based on estimated energy usage at full or expected occupancy. However, to reduce uncertainty associated with these projects, ADM conducts additional M&V activities to investigate the occupancy levels of these buildings in subsequent years.
x Non-measure specific sites: Beginning with the 2014 program year, ADM has identified sampled sites that have higher uncertainty in their verified savings and performed additional M&V activities as necessary to verify continuing savings. These projects are non-measure specific and are selected on a case by case basis. These are projects that, in ADM’s judgment, have high uncertainty due to limited availability of data, uncertainty in process or manufacturing loads, high variability in operations, etc. Any projects that are recommended for additional M&V activities in subsequent program years are identified in this Appendix.
E.2 2016 PROJECTS
During the 2016 evaluation, no SPPC sites were identified for which ADM would recommend subsequent review during the 2017 program year. None of the sampled sites had a significant uncertainty in the verified savings that could potentially be reduced through a subsequent review.
E.3 2017 PROJECTS RECOMMENDED FOR FUTURE REVIEW
During the 2017 evaluation, no SPPC sites were identified for which ADM would recommend subsequent review during the 2018 program year. None of the sampled sites had a significant uncertainty in the verified savings that could potentially be reduced through a subsequent review.
Appendix E 144 Page 392 of 392