Big Data, Small Places:

Transcription

1 Marshall Duer-Balkind Energy Administration District Department of the Environment Government of the District of Columbia September 25, 2014 Washington, DC Big Data, Small Places: How Smart Data Collection Can Shape EcoDistricts

2 Agenda Marshall Duer- Balkind Program Manager, Energy Benchmarking District Department of the Environment Helen Gurfel Execu;ve Director ULI Greenprint Center for Building Performance Sean C. Luther PiCsburgh 2030 Districts Senior Director Green Building Alliance Constan:ne E. Kontokosta, PhD, PE Associate Professor and Deputy Director New York University, Center for Urban Science and Progress

3 District Department of the Environment Leading authority on energy and environmental issues affecting the District of Columbia. DDOE is leading implementation of the Sustainable DC In just one generation 20 years the District of Columbia will be the healthiest, greenest, and most livable city in the United States. First-in-nation Energy Benchmarking program DC is home to three EcoDistrict Pilot Cities projects DowntownDC EcoDistirct SW Ecodistrict St. Elizabeth s / Congress Heights

4 Big Data, Small Places We live in a world of increasing quan;;es of data Big Data. 1 Data collec;on, analysis, and repor;ng are essen;al to EcoDistricts from incep;on through full implementa;on. However, poor quality data can be just as bad as no data at all. Yet comprehensive data collec;on can be challenging. This panel will discuss best prac;ces in data collec;on, and analysis and reports to date from DC, PiCsburgh, and NYC.

5 Data Collection Methods VOLUNTARY REPORTING MANDATORY REPORTING DIRECT UPLOAD Voluntary reporting through sharing of data, either ongoing or through surveys Pittsburgh DC Synergies with mandatory city or state benchmarking policies DC NYC Direct, authorized upload of utility data DC 4 DIRECT METERING Install of advanced meters to track data points in at short-interval or in real-time NYC

6 Data Quality Leverage Points Upstream Community Outreach Technical Assistance In- Stream U;lity Partnerships Third- Party Verifica;on Tool Op;miza;on Downstream Sta;s;cal Cleaning & Analysis Itera;ve improvement Enforcement

7 Data Privacy Image courtesy of

8

9 Purposes of Benchmarking 1 Help Owners and Managers understand their energy use and compare to peers 2 Help policymakers with analysis, planning program design 3 Drive Market Transformation

10 DC Mandatory Reporting Clean and Affordable Energy Act of 2008: ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager benchmarking & public reporting DC Government Buildings >10,000 sq. ft. Private Buildings >50,000 sq. ft District Government and Downtown DC EcoDistrict are partners in the U.S. DOE Better Buildings Challenge Benchmarking Data is one of the methods for Downtown EcoDistrict data collection

11 Direct Upload Problem: Owners can t access tenant data Problem: Manual data entry errors Best Solution: Aggregated whole-building consumption data, with direct automated upload to Portfolio Manager Mandated in the Sustainable DC Act of 2014 Pepco: Available Now Washington Gas: Aggregation in January 2015, Upload in 2018

12 Presenters Helen Gurfel Execu;ve Director ULI Greenprint Center for Building Performance Sean C. Luther PiCsburgh 2030 Districts Senior Director Green Building Alliance Constan:ne E. Kontokosta, PhD, PE Associate Professor and Deputy Director New York University Center for Urban Science and Progress

15 GOAL ORIENTED/INSPIRED BY THE 2030 CHALLENGE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS ENERGY, WATER, TRANSPORTATION EMISSION GOALS PLACE BASED (DEFINED GEOGRAPHY) GRASS ROOTS & PRIVATE SECTOR LEAD LOCALLY RUN (NATIONALLY COLLABORATIVE) NOT AN ECODISTRICT? Copyright 2014, Green Building Alliance

17

18 661 Buildings 174 Property Members 96 Professional Stakeholders 64 Community Stakeholders

27 Example Building XXX Street, Pittsburgh, PA Portfolio Manager Property ID: Primarily: Office Energy Star Score (1-100) 2013 Score: 83 Year Built: Performance against baseline: -32.4% 2013 Progress Report 120 Example Building: Pittsburgh 2030 District Energy Report EUI (kbtu/sq ft) EUI -32.4% 67.3 EUI -10% -20% -35% -50% 0 CBECS 2003 Baseline Site EUI 2030 District Goals CBECS 2003 Baseline The above graph represents Example Building s 2013 energy performance compared to the Pittsburgh 2030 District goals, a -10% reduction by 2015 being the first incremental step. A baseline of 99.4 EUI (kbtu/sq ft/yr) was established which represents a national average of buildings similar in sq ft and function. Example Building demonstrated a site EUI of 67.3, a reduction of -32.4% from the baseline. Example Building has reached the 2015 energy goal.

28 Example Building XXX Street, Pittsburgh, PA Portfolio Manager Property ID: Primarily: Office 30% Pittsburgh 2030 District Energy Report: Offices Properties> 200,000 sq ft 2013 Progress Report X 20% 10% V W 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% A B C D -32.4% F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U -60% Office Site EUI vs District Goals 2015 Goal 2030 Goal The above graph represents Example Building s 2013 energy performance compared to Reporting Pittsburgh 2030 District office buildings greater than 200,000 sq ft. 24 reporting office buildings greater than 200,000 sq ft make up our largest cohort in the district energy performance is -32.4% below the baseline (labeled in solid orange).

29 Example Building XXX Street, Pittsburgh, PA Portfolio Manager Property ID: Primarily: Office 200% Pittsburgh 2030 District Water Report: Office Properties > 200,000 sq ft 2013 Progress Report 150% O P Q R N 100% 50% +1.2% G H I J K L M WUI 2015 Goal 2030 Goal 0% - 50% A B C D E - 100% The above graph represents Example Buildings 2013 Water performance compared to Reporting Pittsburgh 2030 District office buildings greater than 200,000 sq ft Water performance is +1.2% above the baseline (labeled in solid Blue).

31 BUILDING PERFORMANCE CONFIDENTIALITY MANDATORY BENCHMARKING VS. VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE CARROT VS. STICK DATA QUALITY USER INPUT IS A WONDERFUL, DANGEROUS THING UTILITIES ARE IMPORTANT FRIENEMIES Copyright 2014, Green Building Alliance

32 The CUSP Quantified Community MEASURING, MODELING, and UNDERSTANDING the URBAN ENVIRONMENT Sergey Semonov via h.p://theatln.tc/1i7s1jd Dr. Constantine E. Kontokosta, PE, AICP, LEED AP, FRICS Head/Principal Investigator of CUSP Quantified Community Research Lab Assistant Professor of Urban Informatics NYU CUSP and NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering Deputy Director for Academics, NYU CUSP Kontokosta NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

33 New York City as a Living Lab The Center for Urban Science and Progress (CUSP) is a unique public-private research center that uses New York City as its laboratory and classroom to help cities around the world become more productive, livable, equitable, and resilient. CUSP observes, analyzes, and models cities to optimize outcomes, prototype new solutions, formalize new tools and processes, and develop new expertise/experts. These activities will make CUSP the world s leading authority in the emerging field of Urban Informatics. Kontokosta NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

34 The CUSP Partnership University Partners National Laboratories NYU (multiple schools) The City University of New York Carnegie Mellon University University of Toronto (Canada) Brookhaven Lawrence Livermore Los Alamos Sandia The University of Warwick (UK) IIT-Bombay (India) City & State Agency Partners Industrial Partners IBM Microsoft Xerox Cisco, Con Edison, Lutron, National Grid, Siemens AECOM, Arup, IDEO The City of New York Buildings City Planning Citywide Administrative Services Design and Construction Economic Development Environmental Protection Finance Fire Department Health and Mental Hygiene Information Technology and Telecommunications Parks and Recreation Police Department Sanitation Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transportation Port Authority of NY & NJ Kontokosta NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

35 CITIES ARE AN IMMENSE LABORATORY OF TRIAL AND ERROR, FAILURE AND SUCCESS, IN CITY BUILDING AND CITY DESIGN. THIS IS THE LABORATORY IN WHICH CITY PLANNING SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEARNING AND FORMING AND TESTING ITS THEORIES. INSTEAD THE PRACTITIONERS AND TEACHERS OF THIS DISCIPLINE (IF SUCH IT CAN BE CALLED) HAVE IGNORED THE STUDY OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE IN REAL LIFE. - Jane Jacobs, Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961 Kontokosta NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

36 The Quantified Community Understanding the Patterns of Urban Life The CUSP Quantified Community (QC) will be a fully instrumented urban neighborhood that uses an integrated, expandable sensor network and citizen engagement to support the measurement, integration, and analysis of neighborhood conditions. Through an informatics overlay, data on physical and environmental conditions and use patterns will be processed in real-time to maximize operational efficiencies, improve quality of life for residents and visitors, and drive evidence-based planning. Kontokosta, et al.

37 Kontokosta NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

38 QC Data Sources Combing fixed instrumentation, mobile devices, and participatory sensing Organic Data Flows Sensors Novel Technologies Administrative records (census, permits, ) Transactions (sales, communications, ) Operational (traffic, transit, utilities, health system, ) Social media (Twitter, Facebook, blogs, ) Personal (location, activity, physiological) Fixed in situ sensors Crowd sourcing (mobile phones, ) Choke points (people, vehicles) Visible, infrared and spectral imagery RADAR, LIDAR Gravity and magnetic Seismic, acoustic Ionizing radiation, biological, chemical Kontokosta NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

39 Information Flows in the QC Environment Open Data Platform Publicly Accessible Analytics, Modeling, and Simulation Residents/ visitors/ workers Operators Data management, integration Evaluation and Monitoring IMPACT System Optimizatio n Economic Models Behavior Change Kontokosta NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

40

41 TaxiVis: Interactive Visual Exploration of NYC Taxi Records Freire, Silva, Vo, et al.

42 Modified Gaussian Dispersion Plume Graph Theory Applied to Building Emissions and Air Quality Monitoring Source: Jain, Moura, Kontokosta 2014 Kontokosta NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

43 Urban Sleep Pa.erns Kontokosta NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

44 A Day in the Life of Water Street as Seen through Data R. Dunks et al.

45

46

47

48 cusp.nyu.edu Thank you Kontokosta NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

49 ecodistrict Summit September 25, 2014

50 Urban Land Institute Greenprint Center for Building Performance, founded in 2009 What is the ULI Greenprint Center? Greenprint is a worldwide alliance of leading real estate owners and financial institutions committed to improving the environmental performance of buildings Greenprint s mission is to lead the global real estate community toward value-enhancing carbon reduction strategies Greenprint is a member driven nonprofit, that is by the industry, for the industry 2

51 Greenprint Environmental Management Platform Measure, Manage, Enhance Property Value Environmental & Asset Data Capture Data Quality Review Reporting Analysis & Benchmarking Asset Data Property characteristics Space & tenant use Certification/Rating Environmental Data Energy Emissions Water Waste Refrigerants Variance checks Multi-stakeholder data entry and review process Greenhouse gas protocol calculation methodology ISO Auditability Environmental Reporting Data analytics Normalization Carbon calculation Online dashboards Improving performance Benchmarking properties, funds, & portfolios Project tracking On-demand reporting Tracking against goals

52 Greenprint Program of Work Best Practices and Case Studies Environmental Management Platform Setting Global Standards By the industry, for the industry City initiatives Valuation & Portfolio Management Committee Link financial metrics with environmental metrics Innovation Roundtable

53 Greenprint Membership 5

54 Greenprint Performance Report Volume 5: Office Properties, Cities SAN FRANCISCO 96 properties NEW YORK 67 properties LONDON 251 properties TOKYO 15 properties 199 annual kwh/m 2 (19 annual kwh/ft 2 ) 271 annual kwh/m 2 (25 annual kwh/ft annual kwh/m 2 (26 annual kwh/ft 2 ) 125 annual kwh/m 2 (12 annual kwh/ft 2 ) WASHINGTON D.C. 134 properties PARIS 13 properties FRANKFURT 11 properties SYDNEY 2 properties 197 annual kwh/m 2 (18 annual kwh/ft 2 ) 163 annual kwh/m 2 (15 annual kwh/ft 2 ) 214 annual kwh/m 2 (20 annual kwh/ft 2 ) 299 annual kwh/m 2 (28 annual kwh/ft 2 ) 9/24/2014 6

55 Metro Washington DC Building Performance Report, Volume 2 The ULI Greenprint Center and DowntownDC are pleased to present the second Metro Washington, D.C. Building Performance Report Metro Washington DC area is divided into 3 subcategories: DC BID Washington DC (the District) Virginia & Maryland suburbs

56 Downtown DC ecodistrict s Contributing Members Downtown DC ecodistrict Members 8

57 Metro Washington DC Performance Report, Volume 2 Report Performance Snapshot energy -1.7% carbon -3.7% cost of energy -1.7% 2013: 2,503 million kbtu 2013: 321,000 mtco 2 e 2013: $85 million occupancy electricity water 2013: 99% 1.4% -2.5% 2013: 2,416 million kbtu -8.9% 2013: 855 million gallons 2013 portfolio includes 171 office and multifamily properties with consistent year over year data 9

58 Properties in Metro Washington Office Portfolio Overview of office properties in the analysis: Metro Washington Greenprint Office Portfolio Greenprint Metro Washington Range Greenprint Washington Median Greenprint U.S. Office Median Number of Properties Size of Buildings (SF) 8,901 1,177, , ,682 Year Built % Occupancy 0% - 100% 100% 100% Site Energy Intensity (kbtu/sf) Energy Star Score Site Carbon Intensity (kg CO 2 e/sf) All properties were submitted on a voluntary basis by property owners; institutional investors, investment trusts, and private real estate companies

59 Metro Washington DC Building Performance Building environmental performance is impacted by many factors, the report specifically explores space use, age, size, FTEs and occupancy METRO WASHINGTON VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND DC DC BID Number of Properties Site Energy Intensity Site Carbon Intensity (kg CO 2 e/sf) Total Floor Area (MSF) Average Building Age Property Usage: % Government 20% 35% 11% 10% % General Business Services 41% 13% 58% 55% % Financial 5% 2% 7% 5% % Health Care 2% 1% 3% 3% % Technology 12% 30% 2% 4% % Retail 2% 1% 2% 2% % Other* 18% 18% 18% 21% *Mixed use includes education, museum, storage, religious facilities, and smaller diverse non-standard tenants

60 Relationship between Energy and Weather Weather across the globe in 2013 diverged from 30 year average Washington D.C. Heating and cooling account for ~ 40 percent of a building s energy consumption Variations in weather can increase or decrease energy consumption by 7 percent 12

61 Office - Weather & FTE Normalization Weather & FTE normalization enables performance comparisons over time In 2013 DC performed 1.4% better than the normalized prediction Greenprint Metro Washington Office Normalization

62 Multifamily - Weather Normalization Correlating natural gas use with weather for multifamily properties shows a base load in summer months and heating peaks in winter months which are possibly due to tenant behavior Greenprint Metro Washington Multifamily Weather Normalization 14

63 Office Long Term Performance Energy usage decreased 11.3% from 2009 to 2013 Energy use intensity by FTE decreased 9.1% from 2009 to 2013 Absolute energy consumption, energy use per SF, energy use per FTE all decreased demonstrating increased energy efficiency Occupancy vs FTE (Energy) Occupancy % ,081 kwh/fte 8,101 kwh/fte 8,023 kwh/fte 7,446 kwh/fte Occupancy 7,348 kwh/fte 100,000 95,000 90,000 85,000 80,000 75,000 70,000 FTEs FTEs 30 65, , , ,000

64 Water Utility Costs Long term cost trends associated with multiple utilities and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) Cost of water has outpaced CPI by over 200 basis points Water is now 4.5 times more expensive compared to

65 Office Water Costs Water use for metro Washington decreased by 8.9% from 2012 to 2013 Average cost per gallon of water increased by 32 percent from $6.74 to $9.05 per 1,000 gallons Over the past five years, water cost increased by 55% Metro Washington Water Cost

66 Metro Washington DC Office Building Performance Report The ULI Greenprint Center and DowntownDC are pleased to present the Metro Washington, D.C. Performance Report The report will be available for download on the Greenprint website: Thank you

67 Properties in Washington Multifamily Portfolio Multifamily properties capture different subsets of energy data; whole-building/common-area energy Metro Washington Multifamily Greenprint Portfolio Greenprint Metro Washington Range Greenprint Metro Washington Median Greenprint U.S. Multifamily Median Number of Properties Size of Buildings (SF) 9,769 1,081, , ,586 Year Built Number of units Common-are Site Energy Intensity (kbtu/sf) Whole-building area site energy intensity (kbtu/sf)

68 Multifamily - Weather Normalization Correlating natural gas use with weather for multifamily properties shows a base load in summer months and heating peaks in winter months which are possibly due to tenant behavior Greenprint Metro Washington Multifamily Weather Normalization 20

69 Measure, Manage, Enhance Property Value What is the ULI Greenprint Center? Greenprint provides an environmental management platform for members to measure, track and benchmark property-level Energy consumption Carbon emissions Water usage Waste diversion Members receive customized reports outlining individual portfolio and fund performance Greenprint Performance Report is a consolidated view of participating properties, detailing environmental performance by geography and asset class

70 By comparing 2012 and 2013 heating degree days and cooling degree days with the 30 year average shows that it is becoming warmer through out the year. Comparing HDD and CDD 22