Energy Efficiency Reports Filed Under LL87
The EER contains an ASHRAE Level II energy audit and retro-commissioning analysis of base building systems.Energy Efficiency Reports are due once every ten decades. The initial reports have to be filed by 2013 and are expected to a staggered schedule depending on the final digit of the construction's tax block amount. The energy audit and retro-commissioning research must ll87 be performed within four years before the EER is registered. I had the new unfortunate chance to review an energy efficiency report that was poorly prepared and of almost no use to the client.
It could require your advisor several months to prepare the energy audit file, and in some cases, it strength takes 6 to 18 months to implement the recommendations fully. The energy audit report will tell you precisely what operations and maintenance work, and capital improvements is required in the construction to reduce energy usage. Once you get the energy audit report, you are required by local law 87 to successfully v retro-commissioning work. Some of the work might be minor, as an instance, a boiler cleaning. Other work might be significant, for example, replacement of an oversized boiler--in which case, it may take an engineer many months to select a smaller pot. It can get from 6 to 18 months from beginning to finish to finish a primary job like this. As Murphy's Act lets yourself recognize, almost everything.
Let's start with some ll87 Fundamentals:
The energy audit report should have a page summarizing energy usage and costs for the past two or two years for fuel oil, natural gas, and electricity. It also needs to give a baseline price of each one of the units of energy to be applied in the report's predictions. For the cost of oil, the subject is whether to utilize the present price of the previous delivery or the average value over the last year. I suggest using the latest cost since it is difficult to predict the future cost of oil. If the previous delivery was several months past, I prefer to call up the provider and apply the current price.
For natural gas, your consultant should not use an average price per them in the last bill, but instead should look at the incremental cost of the previous them of gasoline, and any applicable taxes and surcharges. For power, if you're charged with energy and demand charges, your adviser must break down these costs. There may be distortions in the energy expenditure savings calculations for individual energy conservation measures. For instance, an energy conservation measure between light that is on 24 hours a day, seven days a week may distort the cost savings if an average cost per kWh is used in the calculations.
Each energy conservation measure ought to be on another page. It should begin by describing the current condition. It must represent the recommended energy protection measure. Energy saving estimates must be based on sound science. It should offer a correct calculation showing how much energy is going to be saved by the step. A simple payback period needs to be supplied. Energy conservation measures should not take part in the double accounting of energy savings. For instance, tuning a boiler may raise its steady-state performance from 75 to 80 percent. A calculation for the power savings to insulate a steam line ought to be based on the 80% efficiency rate, not the 75% efficiency.
The report which I saw had a calculation for replacing a 5-ton reception ac system with a more efficient system. And in this case, a smaller system might have been more efficient and more economical to install. Also, the foundation for the energy savings calculation was based on a guess of the number of hours that the machine was running; it wasn't based on any actual measurements. It was assumed that the system has been running continuously; A/C systems do bicycle. The lover may run continuously, but the compressor may cycle. Additionally, the price of the setup was too low, which makes the possible payback period appear shorter than reality. Also, no mention was made of a necessity to clean the ductwork.
Another factor is the heating description faulty. The report suggested the make and model of the steam boiler but didn't tell whether it was a one-pipe or two-pipe steam system. No mention was made of if the furnace had sufficient insulation. There was also no stock of these insulated steam lines; I've yet to see a building in New York City that has adequate steam pipe insulation. If your boiler room is over 65 degrees, your boiler or your steam lines, or possibly, don't have sufficient insulation. No reference was made if the outside air to supply the boiler room had a solenoid-activated damper in series together with the boiler controls to keep cold air from the boiler room when the boiler is off.
No stock was made of the attached steam radiators to determine the overall BTUs necessary to find steam to everyone the radiators at the same moment. It wasn't clear if the radiators were oversize; once you put double-glazed windows in a building, your heaters become immediately oversize which contributes to overheating scenarios. In this case, you need to place smaller radiators from the building. Thermostatic radiator valves could be fantastic, but sometimes putting in smaller heaters is much more economical. Any calculation that's based on a "percentage" needs to be handled by the suspect. Any consultant that relies on manufacturer's literature rather than sound engineering fundamentals can be prone to inaccuracies in their accounts. My advice is to question all. Use best practices and unique technology instead of guesswork to prevent any problems down the line.
