The document discusses integrated utility master planning for a university. It covers topics like strategic planning goals, evaluating efficiency opportunities, benchmarking energy usage, integrating sustainability plans, managing carbon footprints, and prioritizing projects based on criteria like capital costs, payback periods, and emissions reductions. The overall aim is to develop a comprehensive utility master plan that achieves the university's energy, sustainability, and strategic goals in a cost-effective manner.

1. Central Utility Plant Roundtable
September 23, 2010

2. Central Plant Roundtable
• Planning Financing
• Integrated Incentives
• Utility
• Sustainability MACT
• Commissioning/Start-Up Permit Strategies
Fuel/Energy Choices
• Retro-Engineering
Efficiency
• Renewable Energy Cost of Service
1

3. Integrated Master Planning
Strategic Framework For University Planning
• Goals
• Objectives
• Policies Drivers of Integrated Approach
• Perception
3

4. Integrated Master Planning
Strategic Framework For University Planning
Goals Objectives Policies Perception
To be one of the top 3 public research universities in the world over
the next decade
10% energy reduction and 15% overall renewable energy goals by
2010
All new buildings are to be LEED® Silver
4

5. Integrated Master Planning
Strategic Framework For University Planning
Goals Objectives Policies Perception
To be competitive all dormitories must be cooled
Must provide reliable heating, cooling and electric power services
without creating additional debt obligations
5

6. Integrated Master Planning
Strategic Framework For University Planning
Goals Objectives Policies Perception
Raise our profile as a nationally ranked research university
Develop a plan for building the capacity to meet our goals
6

7. Integrated Master Planning
Integrated Planning
• Technical
• Economic
• Environmental
• Political
• Community
7

8. Integrated Master Planning
Integrated Utility Planning
Where we are Where we want to be
Present Future
Gap Analysis --- Needs Development
8

9. Integrated Master Planning
Integration of Planning
Utility Master Plan Sustainability Plan
Utility Campus
Capacity Demand
Production Consumption
Cost of Service Resource Use
Fuel Choices Water Reduction
Impacts
Economic * Environmental * Community
Not a single answer or silver bullet
9

10. Integrated Master Planning
Business Case of Utility Operations
• Status Quo – Business as Usual
Capital cost of infrastructure
Operating expense of services delivered
Performance relative to GOPP
• Alternates/Measures for Strategic Framework (GOPP)
Incremental cost
10

11. Integrated Master Planning
Specifics of Integration
Utility Master Plan Sustainability Plan
Capacity/Configuration Carbon Footprint
Growth LEED
Cost/Schedule Campus Efficiency
Emissions/Emissions Control Utility Efficiency
Permitting Constraints Renewable Energy/RE Credits
Financial Analysis
Capital Cost
Operating Cost
Source of Capital
Legislature/Trustees
ESCO
Other PPP
11

12. Utility Master Plan
Process
Learn from Past – Yours and Ours
Document an Owner’s Project Requirements
Campus Goals – Objectives – Policies
Collaborate, Communicate, Coordinate
Stakeholders Include Staff, Operations, Students, Community
12

13. Utility Master Plan
Process
Identify Opportunities
Increase Efficiency – Capital and Operating Cost Window
Identify Limitations
Financial – Physical – Environmental – Operational
Maintain a Macro View
Major Utilities – Heating, Cooling, Electric
Other Utilities – Water, Sanitary, Storm, Comm, Security, BAS
13

14. Utility Master Plan
Process
Benchmarks are “Sanity Checks” and Leverage
• Energy Usage and Cost/SF
• Production efficiency
• Carbon footprint
Utility Planning is Incomplete Unless it Incorporates:
• Sustainable and Green Design Principles
• Phasing/Implementation Plan
• Permitting Strategy
• Capital Strategy
• Campus Standards (with Updates)
13

15. 15
Utility Master Plan
On-Site Utilities Parameters
Fuel Flexibility
Staff Analysis
Cogeneration
Chilled Water
Chilled Water
RFP: Utilities
Load Growth
Central Plant
Procurement
Capital Cost
Condensate
Natural Gas
Distribution
Distribution
Distribution
Distribution
Projections
Projections
Distributed
Utility Rate
Electricity
Efficiency
Hydraulic
Modeling
Analysis
Electric
Energy
Review
Client
Return
Steam
Steam
Plants
Fuel
Architect of the Capitol, Washington DC X X X X X X X X X X X X
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio X X X X X X X X X X X X
Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois X X X X X X X X X X X X
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Lobo Energy, Albuquerque, New Mexico X X X X X X X X X X X X
Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado X X X X X X X X X X X
Miami University, Oxford, Ohio X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin X X X X X X X X X
University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada X X X X X X X X X X
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana X X X X X X X X X X X X X
University of Minnesota – SE Steam Plant Minneapolis, MN X X X X X X X X X X X X
Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, La Crosse, WI X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota X X X X X X X X X X
Towson University, Towson, Maryland X X X X X X X X X X X X
University of Minnesota – West Bank, Minneapolis, MN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
University of MN – Academic Health Ctr. Minneapolis, MN X X X X X X X X X X X X
Luther Midelfort – Mayo Health System Eau Clair, WI X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Brandeis University, Boston, Massachusetts X X X X X X X X X X X X
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina X X X X X X X X X X X X X
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15
X X X
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario X X X X X X X X X X
General Services Administration, Washington, DC X X X X X X X X

16. Utility Master Plan
Early participation at a high level improves
efficiency and project outcome
Opportunity to
Data Collection
Add Value Charrette
Analysis
Base Case
Alternatives
Findings
Recommendations
Planning Design Construction Operation
16

17. Utility Master Plan
17

18. Utility Master Plan
19

19. Sustainability Planning
Managing Carbon Footprint (Sustainability)
Hand-in-hand with Energy Management
• Utilities biggest impact
• Supply and demand-side management
• New challenge to evaluate other actions
Transportation
Refrigerant management program
Waste management
New Decision Tools
• More than just simple payback
• Integrate new criteria
22

20. Sustainability Planning
Central Plants and Climate Commitments
Commuter
school with no
1% 2%
central plant 3%
6%
infrastructure 2% 2%
Electricity
Natural Gas
Air Travel*
Fleet Fuel
23% Farm
Aviation School
61%
Business Cars
Commuting*
20

21. Sustainability Planning
Central Plants and Climate Commitments
2.7% 3.9%
Residential 0.3%
school with
0.0%
natural gas 0.3%
2.3%
central plant
Electricity
Steam Plant
40.1% Gas (House Heat)
Campus Fleet
Facilities Fleet
Air Travel*
50.3% Business Cars*
Commuting*
21

22. Sustainability Planning
Central Plants and Climate Commitments
Directly Financed Air Scope 2 T&D Losses
Travel 3%
4% Co-gen Electricity
Residential 9%
Student Commuting
school with 4%
coal-fired
Faculty / Staff
co-gen Commuting
9%
Co-gen Steam
35%
Purchased Electricity
33% Other On-Campus
Refrigerants Stationary
Direct 1%
& Chemicals
Agriculture Transportation
1%
0% 1%
22

23. Sustainability Planning
Managing Carbon Footprint (Sustainability)
Annual GHG Reduction by Technology
4,500
4,000 3,772
3,500 3,326
3,540
3,351
3,000
Metric Tons, CO2
2,857 2,902
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
4
0
Energy Eff. Cogeneration Wind Turbine Biomass Anaerobic Photovoltaic Green Power
Gasifier Digester
23

24. Sustainability Planning
Managing Carbon Footprint (Sustainability)
Cost per Metric Ton CO2 Avoided
$450
$350 $333.03
$252.32
$250
$/Metric Ton
$150
$80.21
$50
$12.33
-$10.58 -$11.67 -$17.97
-$50
Energy Eff. Cogeneration Wind Turbine Biomass Anaerobic Photovoltaic Green Power
Gasifier Digester
-$150
24

25. Sustainability Planning
Estimated Avoided
Estimated Annual Simple Emissions
Implementation Cost Payback (metric tons
ECMs Description Cost Avoidance (yrs) CO2 / yr)
11 Use of Existing HVAC Scheduling Capability $1,000 $1,600 0.6 13
18 Recommission Controls $2,000 $9,100 0.2 36
29 Ammonia Refrigeration Plant Strategies - Lansing Rink $2,000 $8,500 0.2 24
5 Upgrade Exit Sign Lighting to LED $2,000 $400 5.0 1
33 Interlock Condenser Recirculation Pumps - MSL Chiller Plant $2,000 $200 10.0 1
20 Insulate Steam PRVs $4,000 $500 8.0 4
8 Add Photocell Lighting Control For Daylit Areas $6,000 $1,500 4.0 4
4B Change Other HID Lighting to Fluorescent $8,000 $1,600 5.0 5
21 Add Humidifier Isolation Valves $10,000 $300 33.3 2
16 Add Occupancy Based Temperature Reset/Schedule $11,000 $13,100 0.8 74
7 Install Occupancy Sensor Lighting Control $13,000 $5,800 2.2 17
3A Convert Incandescents to CFLs (Standard Applications) $17,000 $5,400 3.1 16
2 Upgrade Fluorescent Lighting to T-8 System. $22,000 $4,100 5.4 12
23 Add Variable Speed Drives to Pumps $40,000 $8,700 4.6 25
26 Replace Chiller Plant - Jesup $58,000 $4,300 13.5 12
3B Convert Incandescents to CFLs (Art Gallery and Other) $59,000 $5,000 11.8 14
6 Install Lighting Scheduling Control in Select Areas $88,000 $41,300 2.1 118
30 Pool Cover - Chandler $96,000 $26,400 3.6 100
9 Add Skylights to Reduce Daytime Lighting $119,000 $5,600 21.3 16
22 Add Variable Speed Drives to Fans $151,000 $23,500 6.4 67
32 Gas Cogeneration Options - Chander (Phase II) $163,000 $11,500 14.2 27
Change Athletic Center Metal Halide Lighting to
4A Fluorescent $262,000 $47,400 5.5 136
31 Pool Dehumification Options - Chandler $424,000 $38,200 11.1 66
25

26. Sustainability Planning
By Energy Payback By GHG Mass By GHG $/mton
By capital $ (L-H) (L-H) (H-L) (H-L)
11 18 4A 18
5 29 6 11
18 11 30 29
29 16 16 16
33 6 22 6
20 7 31 7
8 3A 18 20
4B 30 32 30
21 8 23 3A
16 23 29 8
7 5 7 23
3A 4B 9 4B
2 2 3A 2
23 4A 3B 4A
26 22 11 5
3B 20 26 22
6 33 2 33
30 31 4B 3B
9 3B 8 26
22 26 20 21
32 32 21 32
4A 9 5 31
31 21 33 9
26

27. Integrated Master Planning
Customized Criteria
Decision criteria must fit culture/goals of organization
• Identify specific criteria to be used
• Develop weighting to properly meet goals
Cannot operate solely in the vacuum of economics
Data collection mechanisms also critical
• Quality, consistent data
• Facilitate third-party review
Don’t forget environmental compliance costs!!!
27

28. Commissioning/Start-Up
Hands-On Design
Experience Expertise
A
Working
Plant
Rigorous Collaborative
Commissioning Approach
Process
28

29. Commissioning/Start-Up
University of Massachusetts - Central Heating Plant
Project Highlights
• 10 MW CT/4 MW ST
• 100,000 PPH HRSG
• (3) 125,000 PPH Package Boilers
• Dual Fuel Plant
Issues:
Coordination with old plant Operation
CM Scope Execution/Schedule
Project Completion
29
29

30. Commissioning/Start-Up
Project Goal
To Deliver a Functional, Reliable Utility System
• February 12, 2013
• No Disruption to Critical Facilities
Phased/ Parallel Construction:
• Steam Plant
• Steam/ Condensate Distribution
• Condensate Recovery - 20 Buildings
30 Month Construction Schedule Cannot Slip!
30

31. Commissioning/Start-Up
In Support of this goal:
Mitigate Performance Risk
Assist with Planning and Scheduling
Ensure System Reliability
Document Operation of System and Components
31

32. Commissioning/Start-Up
The University of Alabama at Birmingham
Conceptual Plan and Approach
Project Management Team
Commissioning Agent
Engineer of Record
Construction Management & Other Design Team
Members
Construction Teams
32

33. Commissioning/Start-Up
Conceptual Plan and Approach
Plant Operating Staff Involved Throughout Project
• OPR Development
• DID/Design Review
• Start-up/Commissioning Plan Devedlopment
• Submittal Review
• Construction Testing Observation
• O&M Manual Review
33

34. Commissioning/Start-Up
Conceptual Plan and Approach
Plant Operating Staff Involved Throughout Project
• Training
• Turnover package review
• Observe operations equipment / system startup
• Observe Functional Testing
• Performance / Emissions / Reliability Testing
34

35. Commissioning/Start-Up
Project Overview
Central Heating Plant / Cogeneration Construction and
Integration with Existing Campus Systems
Project Challenges
• Maintain Operations in Existing Facilities
• Financial Controls
• System Operations
• Reliability
• Construction Phasing
• Verifiable Metrics for Performance
35

36. Commissioning/Start-Up
Project Overview
Roles and Responsibilities as the IE/CA/SU
Assist Client and Design Team in Delivering a
Successful Project
Ensure Design Intent Achieved
Core Member of the Project Quality Assurance Team
36

37. Commissioning/Start-Up
Approach
START-UP ENGINEER (Independent Engineer)
• Design versus Cx Roles
• Technical Insurance
• Fresh Perspective
• Identify Issues
• Value Engineering
• Equipment/System Performance
• Evaluate Design Criteria/Operating Conditions
• Evaluate / Protect Design Intent
• Resource Available to Team 37

38. Commissioning/Start-Up
Approach
COMMISSIONING AGENT
• Work with Engineer of Record / Start-up Engineer to
Establish and Document Performance Criteria – Design
Intent Document
• Develop Commissioning Plan
• Develop Commissioning Specification
• Validate Actual Operation against Design Intent
38

39. Commissioning/Start-Up
Costs
Typically 2 to 5% of the overall project cost.
Turnover process may require an additional person to
manage
Formal documentation of testing activities
– Formal test procedures, checklists and datasheets
– Staff hours for testing are relatively the same
39

40. Commissioning/Start-Up
Costs
View Costs as “Shifted” instead of as “Additional”
Without Commissioning
Design Construction
First Year of Operation
With Commissioning Fine-tuning
Contractor Callbacks
Design Construction
And Cx
Project Costs over Time
40

41. Commissioning/Start-Up
Costs vs. Benefits
$5,000,000 Benefits
$4,500,000 Received from
Commissioning
$4,000,000
Actual Cost of
$3,500,000 Commissioning
$3,000,000
"Baseline" cost
$2,500,000 of Commissioning
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
A- S- O- N- D- J- F- M- A- M- J- J- A- S- O- N- D- J- F-
98 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 M- A-
00 00 00 00
41

42. Commissioning/Start-Up
Challenges
Proper planning early in the project with the right people
All parties embrace a formal program/roles and
responsibilities
Need an Owner that fully supports a formal program
Involvement of Owner’s operators in the
startup/commissioning process
42

43. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Entire System from Plant and End User
Think
Get your hands dirty
Find the BTU/KW not needed
Recover usable energy
Highest short and long term impact
Many low-cost / no-cost opportunities
43

44. Training
UConn Example
• Stan Nolar
• Plant turned over without Operator training
• Operators need to know WHY as well as HOW
MATEP Example
• Dean Larson
• Formal power plant training and turnover
process
44

45. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Project Approach: Utility System
A Utility System is a Balance of ALL Three
Components
45

46. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Plant Assessment
Efficiency is:
• A system that operators/supervisors really understand
• Operational flexibility
• Continuous commissioning with periodic recertification
• Instrumentation – M&V
Efficiency is much more than lowest kW/Ton or
$/Ton-hr or heat rate (BTU/PPH) or $/KLB
46

47. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Plant Assessment
Efficiency is:
• Training and Documentation
• Automatic operation with confidence
• Being able to respond and control the system
• System designed to serve the campus – not itself
• No calls
Efficiency is much more than lowest kW/Ton or
$/Ton-hr or heat rate (BTU/PPH) or $/KLB
47

48. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Chilled Water - What is Evaluated?
Chiller
Condenser Water – can include tower
Make-up Water
Water Treatment/Filtration
Chiller Plant HVAC
Refrigerant Leak Detection
Winter/Free Cooling System
Controls
Electrical MCC/Switchgear
48

49. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Overall Plant Efficiencies – Wire to Water
Component kW/Ton HP/Ton % of Total
Chilled Water Pumps .08 - .12 .10 - .15 15%
Condenser Water Pumps .04 - .08 .05 - .10 9%
Tower Fans .04 - .08 .05 - .10 9%
Chiller .55 - .62 .70 - .78 67%
TOTAL .90 1.13 100%
Where to look
49

50. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Cooling Tower Opportunities
Towers typically provide the greatest return on
investment for new construction or upgrades
Tower fans and tower pumps are ~18% of total energy
to produce chilled water
Typically 15 year life with fill work at 7-10 years for
packaged towers
Longer expected life on field erected towers, 30+ years
50

51. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Cooling Tower Opportunities
Maintenance
• Clean fill regularly
• Protect tower finish – stainless is good investment
• Adjust fan pitch to full load amps (FLA)
Operational Adjustments
• Reset tower water temperature setpoints (don’t operate at 85º
just because of design conditions)
• Optimize flows – design flows are not necessarily the most
efficient if fan, pump, and chiller energy considered
51

52. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Cooling Tower Opportunities
Chiller Efficiency and Tower Water Temperatures
• Minimum of 2% - 2.5% gain in efficiency (lower kW/ton) for
every degree tower temperature is lowered
• Cooler tower temperatures increase capacity of chillers –
capable of more tons and colder water
• Tower performance tied to ambient Wet Bulb temperatures that
are lower than design 99% of the time – use fans and reduce
compressor energy
• Based on area of country and usage profiles, 1 kW of fan
energy will save 2-3 kW of compressor energy
52

53. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Cooling Tower Opportunities
“Lift” Determines Chiller Energy Usage
85º CTW
75º CTW
Energy
44º CHW
53

54. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
CHW Pumping System Rules
Applies to Plant, Distribution and Building
ANY extra throttling increases operating cost
NEVER pump chilled water when there is already
enough differential pressure to flow a user/building
Variable flow systems (with 2-way valves) can save
money over constant flow systems
ANY constant speed pump in the system (other
than chiller pump) can increase operating cost, hurt
system performance, and impact nearby users
54

55. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
CHW Pumping System Rules (continued)
Applies to Plant, Distribution and Building
Typical HVAC control valves can start to be forced
open at 25+ PSI throttling
Wire to Water efficiency of multiple small pumps is
lower than fewer large pumps properly controlled
55

56. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
CHW Pumping System Opportunities
Variable flow systems reduce operating cost
NO uncontrolled booster pumps!
Keep decoupler open – no series pumping
Select 2-way control valves for maximum system design
differential pressure
56

57. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
CHW Pumping System Opportunities
Total Chilled Water Flow Versus Load
3-Way Valves
CHW Constant Flow
Design
GPM
Load
2-Way Valves
LOAD 57

58. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
CHW Pumping System Opportunities
CHW pumping ~15% - 25% of total system operating cost
Variable flow systems w/VFD’s need very few balance
valves
58

59. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
CHW Pumping System Opportunities
3,000 Ton Campus – MN University
• High head constant speed building pumps at twice peak
campus flow rate, undersized secondary pumps
• Upgrade secondary pumps, bypass building pumps saving
$12,000 per year, increasing site DT by 2.5º nets an
additional $5500 - 13% of entire system
59

60. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
CHW Pumping System Opportunities
1,000 Ton Industrial Site - California
• Install VFD on secondary pump, 2-way valves, and system
DT improved by 4º nets 560,000 KWH ($48,000) per year
savings or 16% of entire system
20,000 Ton Industrial Site - Caribbean
• VFD’s on secondary pumps, bypass building pumps,
improve site DT nets 5.2 million KWH ($700,000) savings
60

61. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Other CHW System Lessons Learned
Issues Lessons Learned
CHW Goes Where it Wants, Not Understand System Hydraulics
Where You Want it to Go and Control
10° Coils and 18° Chillers/Pumps Match System Components,
Now and Future
Can’t Get Design Tons out of Tons are Flow and ΔT, Adjust
Chiller Either to get Tons
Can’t Monitor Performance or Instrumentation Provides a
Impact of Changes in Operation Payback – Do It!
Successful Chilled Water Systems are Designed,
They Don’t Just Happen
61

62. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Boiler System - What is Evaluated?
Boilers
Deaerator
Feedwater System
Steam/Condensate
Chemical Treatment
Make-Up/Combustion air - HVAC
Fuel Systems
Heat Recovery (if present)
Controls
Electrical MCC/Switchgear
62

63. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Hospital Steam System
(3) Watertube Boilers
• 25,000 PPH each, 32 MMBTUH Burner (80%)
• 70% Seasonal Efficiency
• Natural gas, #6 fuel oil
• Bros Boilers: 1956 - 1964
150 PSIG rated/100 PSIG operating pressure
(338o)
Deaerator
63

64. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Hospital Steam System
High pressure feedwater pumps
Distribution pressure 15 / 25 / 60 / 100 PSIG
75% condensate return (used to be 50%)
Serves 1 million square feet
64

65. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Steam Operating Data
120 Million pounds/year produced
13,000 PPH average with 40,000 PPH peak + and less
than 4,000 PPH minimum
Variable portion of steam cost is $15-$20/1000# with fuel
at $13.00/1000#
160,000 Million BTU/year of fuel or $1.5 million
~170 KBtu/SF/yr (150,000 is target – reduce ~7%
65

66. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Expected Useful Life
Boilers
• Watertube Boilers 40 – 50+ years
• Firetube Boilers 25 – 30 years
• + Maintenance, water treatment, fuel
Auxiliary Components
• Deaerator : 25 years but regular inspections
• Pumps: 15 – 20 years
• Burners: 15 – 20 years
Piping: 25–50 for Condensate, 50–100 Steam, FW
66

67. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Improve Operating Efficiencies
Boiler and Burners
Reduce lost condensate
Heat Recovery
• Economizers
• Flash steam Recovery
• Blowdown Economizer
Water Treatment – RO (site specific)
67

68. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Improve Operating Efficiencies
Boiler and Burners
Boiler Burners
• Oxygen and CO2 in flue gas
• Flue gas temperature (versus combustion air)
• Emissions
Boiler: tube surface fouling – inside and out
Case Study – Hospital Steam System
• 500o flue gas temperature above ambient
• Reduced to 5% O2 from 10% O2 (can go lower)
• 7% efficiency improvement – reduced cost per 1000 LB by
$1.20, over $100,000 per year
68

69. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Improve Operating Efficiencies
Reduce Lost Condensate
• Methodist Hospital improved from 50% condensate
returned to 75%
• Savings of approximately $50,000/year (3.5%)
• Capture and return condensate
• Maintain condensate receivers to prevent overflow to
sanitary
• Use Schedule 80 pipe for condensate
• Trap program
69

70. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Improve Operating Efficiencies
Economizers
Typical Boiler Economizer
• Captures flue gas heat to preheat feedwater or combustion air
Condensing Economizer
• Takes flue gas after feedwater economizer and lowers to ~170o,
but it provides lower grade heat
70

71. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Economizers 325 Deg F
Condensing
Economizer
500 Deg F 4% Fuel
170 Deg F Savings
Feedwater Economizer
5% Fuel Savings ($75,000)
71

72. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Improve Operating Efficiencies
Flash Steam and Blowdown Heat Recovery
• Pumped condensate return system with vented receivers
have flash losses
• 100 PSIG steam flashes 13.2% - 100 pounds of steam
produced returns only 86.8 pounds of condensate
• More 55o makeup and less 180o condensate returned
• Capture flashed steam and use for 15 PSIG users, flash is
reduced to 3.9% and reduces 100 PSIG steam usage
• 10% more returned = 2.5% savings, $30K – 40K savings
72

73. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Improve Operating Efficiencies
Consider Conversion to Hot Water
Cost/Savings
• 10% fuel savings possible, but expensive to get there with
steam infrastructure in place
• Steam loads will still exist so install special purpose steam
generators or switch to another source (gas or electric)
Required a Change in Distribution System
• Two large supply return pipes
• Does hospital have the room or can handle the disruption?
73

74. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
Improve Operating Efficiencies
Cogeneration – Steam Turbine Generator
100 kW BPSTG (135-35 PSIG)
10,000 PPH <7 year payback
74

75. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning)
UConn Plant Retro-Commissioning
Sponsored by Connecticut Power & Light
• Optimize Plant Operation & Equipment Run Selection
• Improve Turbine Inlet Air Conditions:
• Chilled Water and Condenser Water Temperature Reset:
• Variable Primary Chiller Flow / Raise Delta T:
• Modify RO Makeup
• Install VFD’s on boiler forced draft fans
• Interconnect plants/distribution system
• Replace pressure reducing stations with backpressure
steam turbine generators
75

76. Renewable Energy
Technology
Solar
• Domestic Hot Water
• Space Heating
• Photovoltaic
Wind
Biomass
Biogas
Ground Source Heat Pumps
76

77. Renewable Energy
Consideration
Scale
• Demonstration
• Production
Green Power
77

78. Renewable Energy
Incentives
Tax Exemptions
Tax Credits
Grants
Loans
Production Incentive
78

79. Renewable Energy
Incentives: Federal
Corporate Depreciation
Corporate Tax Credits
Grant Program
Loan Program
Production Incentive
79

80. Renewable Energy
Incentives: Federal
Corporate Depreciation
• Five year accelerated cost recovery
Solar
Geothermal Electric
Ground Source Heat Pumps
Wind
Combined Heat and Power
Biomass
80

81. Renewable Energy
Incentives: Federal
Corporate Tax Credits
• Business Energy Investment Tax Credit
30% -- solar, fuel cells, wind (<= 100 kW)
10% -- geothermal, microturbines and CHP
• Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit
Wind – $22/MWh
Closed-Loop Biomass -- $22/MWh
Geothermal -- $11/MWh
Landfill Gas -- $11/MWh
MSW -- $11/MWh
Hydroelectric -- $11/MWh
81

82. Renewable Energy
Incentives: Federal
Corporate Tax Credits
• Business Energy Investment Tax Credit
• Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit
Wind $22/MWh
Closed-Loop Biomass $22/MWh
Geothermal $11/MWh
Landfill Gas $11/MWh
MSW $11/MWh
Hydroelectric $11/MWh
Marine & Hydrokinetic $11/MWh
(>= 150 kW)
82

83. Renewable Energy
Incentives: Federal
Grant Program
• Tribal Energy Grant Program
• Renewable Energy Grants
• Rural Energy for America Program
83

84. Renewable Energy
Incentives: Federal
Grant Program
• Tribal Energy Grant Program
• Competitive solicitation
• No open solicitations
84

85. Renewable Energy
Incentives: Federal
Grant Program
• Tribal Energy Grant Program
• Renewable Energy Grants
30% -- solar, fuel cells, wind
10% -- geothermal, microturbines and CHP
• Rural Energy for America Program
85

86. Renewable Energy
Incentives: Federal
Grant Program
• Tribal Energy Grant Program
• Renewable Energy Grants
30% -- solar, fuel cells, wind
10% -- geothermal, microturbines and CHP
• Rural Energy for America Program
Grants or Loan Guarantees
Up to 25% of Project Cost
86

87. Renewable Energy
Incentives: Federal
Loan Program
• Clean Renewable Energy Bonds
• Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds
• U.S. DoE Loan Guarantee Program
87

88. Renewable Energy
Incentives: Federal
Production Incentive
• Complements Production Tax Credit
• Payments for Electricity Generated and Sold
Local Government
State Government
Tribal Government
Municipal Utility
REC
Native Corporations
• Electricity Sold to Another Entity
88

89. Renewable Energy
Incentives: State
Connecticut
Tax Exemptions
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Grants
Clean Energy Fund
Loans
DPUC
Rebates
Clean Energy Fund
89

90. Renewable Energy
Incentives: State
Maine
Tax Exemptions
Sales Tax (Community Wind Systems only)
Grants
Voluntary Renewable Resources
Loans
Small Business Low-Interest Loan Program
Production Incentive
Community Based Renewable Energy
Rebates
Solar and Wind Energy Rebate Program
90

91. Renewable Energy
Incentives: State
Maine
Policies
Energy Standards for Public Buildings
Green Power Purchasing
Renewable Resource Fund
Renewable Portfolios Standard
91

92. Renewable Energy
Incentives: State
Massachusetts
Tax Exemptions
Excise Tax
Grants
Green Communities Program
Commonwealth Wind Incentive
Community Scale Wind Initiative
Loans
State: Commercial Wind Initiative
Utilities
Rebates
Utilities
92

93. Renewable Energy
Incentives: State
Massachusetts
Policies
Green Power Purchasing
Renewable Energy Trust Fund
Renewable Portfolio Standard
93

94. Renewable Energy
Incentives: State
New Hampshire
Tax Exemptions
Property
Loans
State
Local Option Programs
Rebates
State
Utilities
94

95. Renewable Energy
Incentives: State
New Hampshire
Policies
Renewable Portfolio Standard
95

96. Renewable Energy
Incentives: State
Rhode Island
Tax Exemptions
Sales
Loans
State
Local Option Programs
Grants
State
Rebates
State
Utilities
96

97. Renewable Energy
Incentives: State
Vermont
Tax Exemptions
Sales
Property (Local Option)
Loans
State
Local Option Programs
Grants
State
Rebates
State
Utilities
97

98. New Environmental Rules
Pace of Regulation Unparalleled?
Boiler MACT/CISWI Rules
Greenhouse Gas Regulations
New Ambient Air Quality Standards
• 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
• 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
• 8-hour Ozone
• PM2.5 coming soon
Tougher SSM Provisions
98

99. Boiler MACT/CISWI
Critical Importance for Utility Plan
Quartet of inter-related rules
Definitions unsettled (RCRA – solid waste)
Cost of Operation
• Fuel choice impacted
• Flexibility curtailed
• Assets retired prematurely
• Reduce renewables opportunities
99

100. Boiler MACT
Key Requirements
PM, HCl, Hg, D/F, CO
Control required for solid fuel, oil units
Energy assessment
• Qualified professional
• Assess unit and end uses
• Report to be submitted
Even gas units = trouble with CO limit (1 ppm)
Potentially troublesome for biomass
100

101. Greenhouse Gas Regulations
Scary
GHG to be regulated under PSD
Tailoring Rule
Cannot trigger PSD until June 2011
No idea what BACT will be
• Biomass CO2 is NOT excluded
• Energy efficiency?
• Natural gas, combined cycle?
Too many lawsuits to count…
101

102. New NAAQS
Scarier
TOUGH new standards for NO2, SO2
Applies immediately to major NSR sources
• 1 year delay for minor NSR
Most existing units unable to comply
No new permit will be issued until exceedances
are resolved
102

103. New NAAQS
103

104. New
NAAQS
104

105. New
NAAQS
105

106. Tougher SSM Provisions
Scariest?
Emission limits apply during startup,
shutdown and malfunction
Boiler MACT compliance
Meet new 1-hour NAAQS
106

107. Central Utility Plant Roundtable
September 23, 2010