SAMPLE THIS IS A SAMPLE SAMPLE. Houston METRO. Energy Assessment Report

Transcription

1 Energy Assessment Report THIS IS A Prepared by Architect for Life - A Professional Corporation

2 THIS IS A transforming your energy 2013 by Architect for Life - A Professional Corporation All rights reserved Architect for Life A Professional Corporation is an architectural firm that specializes in leading and designing green technology projects and buildings for public and private entities. We have been in business since 1995 and work as a team of professionals that successfully operates in multiple states from the east coast to the Rocky Mountains. We are motivated to help people breathe cleaner air and improve their quality of life. So, we are eager to strategize with facilities managers, owners, administrators and elected officials to make their campuses, cities, counties and communities safer and healthier. See us at Follow us on Call us at

3 Executive Summary Houston METRO This report prepared by Architect for Life A Professional Corporation provides a preliminary energy benchmark performance based the data of ten buildings and facilities provided by Houston Metro. This benchmark assessment will compare the Houston Metro facilities to similar facility types across the United States, using the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) from the Department of Energy (DOE). Other national transit data was not used for this analysis. However, Architect for Life, PC does have access to such data should a full-blown audit be allowed. For this benchmark, the established national average by building type will serve as the foundation of the report. The most common method a building owner, facilities operator, or energy manager uses to assess various buildings for energy efficiency opportunities is to pursue the buildings with the highest energy cost, highest energy usage, or the oldest buildings. We have learned through research and hands-on experience that this method is not always accurate in depicting the potential energy issues within a building. The preferred method of identifying energy savings potential is to compare the building energy usage per square foot to a building of similar type, in the same weather region. The building information provided by Houston Metro is comprised of 3 building types. They are 1) Public Assembly (Transportation), 2) Office, and 3) Warehouse. Each building type was compared to the DOE Electricity Consumption and Conditional Energy Intensity by Region to identify the lowest energy performing building. The following Table 1 is a summary of CBECS by the three building types: Table 1: CBECS Summary Building Type CBES (kwh/sq.ft.) Public Assembly 17.8 Office 18.8 Warehouse 6.9 THIS IS A Architect for Life - A Professional Corporation also analyzed the annual energy usage by facility type in kwh/sq.ft./yr for each of the ten facilities. The following charts 1, 2 and 3 reflect that usage. The blue vertical line in each chart represents the energy usage national average by type. One should note that if the red horizontal bar graph shows well to the right of the national average (blue line) then that facility is considered a poor performing facility. However, the later table on page 10 will show that the poorer performing facilities do not always yield the greatest potential savings opportunities. Therefore, the more detailed energy performance benchmarking such as this one is quite beneficial. 3

4 Annual Energy Usage by Bldg. (kwh/sqft/yr) Chart 1: Annual Energy Usage by Public Assembly Building Type (kwh/sqft/yr) Fallbrook BOF Hiram Clarke BOF THIS THIS IS IS A Polk BOF Buffalo Bayou Facility Kashmere BOF West BOF Rail Opera0ons Center National Average of Energy Usage per Sq. Ft. (DOE CBECS) 4

5 Chart 2: Annual Energy Usage by Office Building Type (kwh/sqft/yr) Lee P. Brown Bldg. w/ride Store Houston METRO THIS THIS IS IS A Field Service Center National Average of Energy Usage per Sq. Ft. (DOE CBECS) 5

6 Annual Energy Usage by Bldg. (kwh/sqft/yr) Chart 3: Annual Energy Usage by Warehouse Building Type (kwh/sq.ft./yr) THIS THIS IS IS A Central Stores Warehouse National Average of Energy Usage per Sq. Ft. (DOE CBECS) 6

7 Architect for Life - A Professional Corporation also analyzed the year-to-year performance of each facility type to identify any energy usage trends over the last six (6) years. The following graphs show the results of that analysis for FY 2006 through FY Bus Operation Facilities - (Public Assembly) The year-to-year energy usage data for the transportation facilities has remained relatively flat over the past six (6) years. Some of the facilities showed trends of a decrease in energy use per square foot after the 2010 fiscal year. Perhaps an event occurred in 2010 to explain the downward use trend after The Rail Operations Center is the only outlier showing an increase from 15 kwh/sqft/yr to 25 kwh/sqft/yr since In the case of Kashmere, the downward trend began as early as Chart 4: BOF Year-to-Year Comparision (kwh/sq.ft.) THIS THIS IS IS A FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 BBF Fallbrook Hiram Clarke Kashmere Polk ROC West 7

8 Support Facilities - (Office) The year-to-year energy usage data for the support facilities shows an increase in energy consumption per square foot per year starting back in In 2010, the facility at 1900 Main Street began to trend downward in energy usage, while the Field Services Center continued to trend upward since Chart 5: Support Facilities Year-to-Year Comparision (kwh/sq.ft.) THIS IS A FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY Main FSC 8

9 Warehouse Facilities Houston METRO The year-to-year energy usage data for the warehouse showed a spike in energy consumption per square foot per year in 2007, then decreased and flattened out from 2009 to Chart 6: Warehouse Facilities Year-to-Year Comparision (kwh/sq.ft.) Warehouse THIS THIS IS IS A FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Warehouse 9

10 Conclusion Architect for Life - A Professional Corporation has identified the facilities with the most savings potential for Houston Metro as seen in Table 2. Kashmere, Fallbrook, Hiram Clarke, and Polk are the top four facilities with the most energy savings potential for the Bus Operating Facilities. The Lee Brown facility also showed the most potential annual estimated savings of the support facilities. If we target these five facilities first, we can potentially acquire up to 9,453,179 kwh in annual potential energy savings or 78% of the projected total energy savings potential. Table 2: Annual Energy Saving Potential Bus Operating Facility Annual Energy Saving Potential Kashmere BOF 3,269,950 kwh Fallbrook BOF 2,226,976 Hiram Clarke BOF 1,419,337 Polk BOF 1,110,933 Buffalo Bayou Facility 863,928 West BOF 821,374 Rail Operations Center 789,606 Support Facility Annual Energy Saving Potential Lee P. Brown Bldg. w/ Ride Store 1,425,983 kwh Field Service Center 118,501 Warehouse Facility Annual Energy Saving Potential Central Stores Warehouse 103,853 kwh TOTAL POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS 12,150,441 kwh THIS IS A 10

11 Houston METRO Table 3 is a summary of the building data for the ten different assigned facilities. Note here that the largest facilities, in terms of square footage, do not always yield the highest kwh/sq.ft. costs because of many factors such as the number of people working inside the facility as well as the load generated from computers and other equipment. All of these factors were included in the calculations necessary to arrive at our final recommendations to best jumpstart the detailed energy audit process. Table 3: Facility Data Summary FM Operating Facilities Year Built kwh/sq.ft./yr Annual Energy Cost ($0.06/kWh) Energy Usage per Person Bayou Buffalo Facility ,656 $124,925 11,036 1 Central Stores Warehouse ,681 $35,493 45,504 Fallbrook BOF ,879 $279,355 12,826 Field Service Center ,252 $79,972 19,317 Hiram Clarke BOF ,788 $180,824 7,747 Kashmere BOF ,947 $493,983 13,387 Lee P. Brown Bldg. w/ Ride Store ,764 $543,427 13,744 Polk BOF ,830 $157,263 5,625 Rail Operations Center ,522 $151,949 14,554 West BOF ,760 $139,818 4,252 For example, Kashmere has a gross building square footage of 291,947; however, the kwh/sq.ft./yr is Yet, Kashmere has the highest annual energy saving potential at 3,269,950 kwh. Looking at the multiple levels of analysis helps direct the better starting points. The recommended next steps are to do a complete energy audit of the five top energy savings facilities, which represent over 78% of the potential energy savings, and evaluate the financial return on investment for the energy efficiency upgrades for those facilities. THIS IS A This recommendation to jumpstart the energy audit process on the best foot targeting the top potential energy savings achievers; however, the remaining five buildings Buffalo Bayou, West, the ROC, Field Service Center and the Central Stores Warehouse should still eventually be audited knowing that their opportunities for savings and great return on investment may be lower based on our research to date. 1 Average used for kwh per person due to missing data for FY