The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/12/2024 - ENERGY BOARD - AGENDA - Regular Meeting ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING December 12, 2024 – 5:30 pm 222 Laporte Ave – Colorado Room Zoom – See Link Below 1. [5:30] CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. [5:30] PUBLIC COMMENT 3. [5:35] APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 14, 2024 MINUTES 4. [5:45] BUILDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS COUNCIL WORK SESSION OVERVIEW (45 Min, Discussion) Katherine Bailey, Project Manager, Utilities Customer Connections 5. [6:30] RESIDENTIAL BATTERY STORAGE (30 Min, Discussion) Leland Keller, Mechanical Engineer III 6. [7:00] ENERGY BOARD OFFICERS (30 Min, Decision) 7. [7:30] DRAFT 2024 ANNUAL REPORT (30 Min, Discussion) 222 Laporte Ave. You may also join online via Teams using this link: Click here to join the meeting Public Attendance & Comment Members of the public are encouraged to attend either in person or online. Members of the public attending in person are expected to sign in on the public sign-in sheet. During the “Public Comment” segment of each meeting, comment will be allowed on matters of interest or concern to members of the public, including items the Board will consider at that night’s meeting. Each speaker will only be allowed to speak one time during Public Comment. Online Public Participation: The online meeting will be available to join at approximately 5:15 pm, December 12, 2024. Participants should try to sign in prior to the 5:30 pm meeting start time, if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Teams session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board or Commission. To participate: • You do not need a Microsoft account or the Teams App to join or participate in the meeting. • Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). • Keep yourself on muted status. ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 8. [8:00] BOARD MEMBER REPORTS (5 min.) 9. [8:05] FUTURE AGENDA REVIEW (5 min.) 10. [8:10] ADJOURNMENT ENERGY BOARD REGULAR MEETING HOW TO JOIN A TEAMS MEETING WITHOUT A MICROSOFT ACCOUNT: You can join a Teams meeting anytime, from any device, whether or not you have a Teams account. If you don't have an account, follow these steps to join. 1. Go to the top of the agenda and select: Click here to join the meeting. 2. That'll open a web page, where you'll see two choices: “Continue on this browser” and “Join on the Teams app”. You do not need to install the Teams app to join the meeting. 3. If you join the meeting on your browser, Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome will both work. Your browser may ask if it's okay for Teams to use your mic and camera. When you select Allow, you should always turn off your mic and/or video once you join the meeting. 4. When you're ready, select Join now. 5. Tip: Join the meeting up to 15 minutes before the meeting start time to test your setup, troubleshoot, or see how Teams works. Meeting organizers and participants won't be notified that you've joined the meeting until 15 minutes before the scheduled start time. Headline Copy Goes Here Katherine Bailey Building Performance Standards (BPS) Dec. 12, 2024 Energy Services Program Manager Headline Copy Goes Here 2 BPS Policy Framework •BPS sets efficiency targets accounting for current usage •More efficient buildings already meet targets •Buildings not meeting target make behavioral or efficiency changes •There are limits to the maximum reduction required •Customized solutions are available for special circumstances Covered Office EUI by Building Energy Use Intensity (kbtu/ft2) Through implementation, the City is committed to communicating clearly and providing critical resources and support to building owners 5,000- 10,000 ft2 10,000 ft2 and above Headline Copy Goes HereCase Studies 3 Historical •Fort Collins Utilities has offered rebate programs to commercial customers since 2002 •Efficiency Works Business has saved more electricity than 27,000 homes use in a year. Future •Modeled case studies show opportunity in buildings before they take action Ongoing •City buildings demonstrate compliance Headline Copy Goes Here 4 BPS Benefits Environmental Health Physical HealthEconomic Health Comfort Health Safety Resilience Occupancy & tenant retention Economic growth, resale value, competitiveness Energy burden Natural Gas impact Emissions impact BPS BPS are critical to achieving OCF emissions goals Headline Copy Goes HereWho’s Impacted 5 Building owners Building occupants Other building owners >820 In FC & need to act <550 People living in multi-family buildings ~17,000 bedrooms People working in office buildings ~11,500 workers on main shift Buildings are community assets Headline Copy Goes Here 6 Feedback Driven Design Community concerns focus on policy impact: 1.Inequitable impacts 2.Accuracy of projected impact on all properties 3.Buildings don’t have sufficient staff to learn about and implement what is required Recommended Implementation Solutions Possible Policy Solutions •Adjustments •Specialized resources targeted for market segments •Educational support •Technical Support •Financial Support •Alter timeline •Delay final and interim targets •Alter covered building list •Alter requirements •Reduce cap Headline Copy Goes HereEnvironmental Impact BPS savings are not guaranteed •2030 GHG goals requires all moves + additional electrification •Regulatory efficiency allows for additional electrification within our renewable allotment Headline Copy Goes Here 8 Environmental Impact •Once final targets are met, BPS savings are projected at 65,000 MTCO2e annually (almost 10,000 homes’ use) •By 2050, that equates to cumulative savings of 1.5 million MTCO2e (over 227,000 homes’ use) •Policy adoption delay would result in ~10,000 of additional MTCO2e annually •Equal to ~1/2% progress toward OCF emissions goals annually MTCO2e avoided due BPS increase annually, tapering after 2030 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Community BPS Emissions Reduction ₂e) Headline Copy Goes Here 9 Environmental Impact – Natural Gas BPS is a significant portion of projected natural gas savings •More natural gas savings projected from BPS by 2030 (3 million therms) than electrification (2.5 million therms) •BPS enables future electrification through efficiency Headline Copy Goes Here 10 Economic Impact: Costs and Savings Estimated Costs •Total program cost: $270 million •$44 million administrative; $5 million incremental •$226 million community costs exclude rebates, BAU assumptions Estimated Savings •BPS pays for itself by 2038 •By 2050, the community would avoid $630 million in energy costs •By 2050, BPS benefit is $2.80 in energy savings for every $1 spent Headline Copy Goes HereEconomics of the ‘Low Hanging Fruit’ Efficiency is cheaper than electric rates •Administrative: •Average cost of conserved energy: $28/mWh saved •26.7% less than wholesale energy costs •BPS cost: $12/mWh saved •Community: •BPS community cost: $105/mWh avoided •2024 community electric rates: $118/mWh •Efficiency reduces load in dark calms Efficiency is cheaper than new generation: •Lowering consumption = less future renewables needed to meet / maintain renewable goals Strategic Electrification •Reduces costs community wide Headline Copy Goes HereEconomics of Environmental Inaction: Broader Lens •In Larimer County: •Insurance premiums have increased 37% •Increasing extreme heat is correlated with fires and high ozone, both of which are associated with respiratory morbidity •Current global policies will lead to 3.1C of warming by the end of the century •Best case = “debilitating impacts to people, planet and economies” The U.S. has spent trillions of dollars on climate disasters 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Fort Collins Number of Days Above 90°F by Year Headline Copy Goes Here 13 What’s next •Work Session 3: January 14, 2025 •Economic review, final considerations •Stakeholder Role •Share understanding of costs: benefits •Share understanding of impact of delay •Savings and feasibility of 2030 targets •Relay common fears, feedback Headline Copy Goes Here Questions on BPS: 14 Kbailey@fcgov.com 970-221-6818 Program Manager, Energy Services Katherine Bailey Headline Copy Goes Here For More Information, Visit THANK YOU! https://ourcity.fcgov.com/bps City of Fort Collins Building Performance Standards (BPS) Our Climate Future (OCF) and BPS Our local community helped shape the City Council-adopted OCF plan. The plan defines success through the achievement of key outcomes, referred to as ‘Big Moves.’ Steps to achieve Big Moves are defined as ‘Next Moves’ or strategies. A BPS policy is a Next Move that supports Big Move 6: Efficient, Emissions Free Buildings. Recommendations were developed to address community and council priorities. BPS is the most impactful direct policy action the City can take toward advancing Big Move 6. Policy Impacts City staff estimate the number of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) avoided due to the proposed BPS policy will go up each year, tapering after 2030, as shown to the right. The estimate assumes larger buildings meet their targets by 2030, and subsequent gains in avoided emissions would come from buildings between 5,000-10,000 square feet. Once final targets are met, BPS policy savings are projected to be 65,000 MTCO2e each year. By 2050, that equates to cumulative savings of 1.5 million MTCO2e. If policy adoption is delayed, each year the community would emit an estimated 10,000 of additional MTCO2e. This would mean falling short of the OCF greenhouse gas emission goal by about half a percent each year. Administrative and Community Costs Total program cost for BPS is estimated at $270 million, including administrative and community costs. Accounting for administrative costs described in the September 2024 City Council Memo, program administration is projected to be $20/MTCO2e avoided. By 2050, the community would save $630 million in energy costs (represented in the total area after 2038 in the graph). The policy is expected to pay for itself by 2038. Also by 2050, the projected benefit of BPS implementation is $2.80 in energy savings for every $1 that the community spends on policy compliance. Not including natural gas savings, community cost is $105/MWH avoided through increased efficiency, compared to current community costs for electric rates of $118/MWH (projected to increase over time). Economic Levers Since 2002, Fort Collins Utilities has operated incentive-based programs, and community consumption has decreased 24%. Despite steady community growth, incentives have curbed the impact but have not been able to lower overall electric use. Opportunity in incentive-based programs is decreasing in the commercial space; in 2023, there was about half the participation in voluntary programs compared to 2022. The City spent $2.5 million dollars in commercial incentives in 2023, well below available budgeted incentive dollars. Policy Development Process Staff engaged the community for more than 18 months to shape the proposed BPS policy. An industry Task Force, including representation from commercial real estate and local groups (DDA, LLAC, North Fort Collins Business Association, and others), helped determine achievable policy parameters and a structure that matches our community needs. A Technical Committee of local building science experts further reviewed achievability of the structure and outlined specific Energy Use Intensity targets unique to building use types. Two external vendors assisted with technical analysis. Significant additional engagement included environmental, business, community- based groups, other jurisdictions, federal partners, and more. A Focus on Feasibility Staff centered engagement on determining what specifics could lead to a truly implementable policy with requirements that buildings can achieve. This included establishing which buildings could and should be covered and how those buildings could comply, with in-depth analysis and discussions of unusual case scenarios. This led to the development of several safety nets tailored to accommodate unusual buildings that may struggle to meet targets. General targets were designed with the short timeline in mind. Proposed final targets are what other jurisdictions consider ‘interim’ energy efficiency targets, based on efficiency stemming from improvements to existing equipment rather than equipment upgrades. Supporting Data Benchmarking Data Covered building owners provide annual benchmarking data per Article XI, §12-203 of City Code. Building owners report details including their buildings’ property use type and use specifics, square footage, energy consumption, and more. Reported data are filtered through 36 flags to determine if they are within normal parameters. Things like abnormal energy use and drastic changes from previous years are flagged, along with specifics associated with various property use types like unusual number of computers in offices or bedrooms in multi-family buildings. Buildings that trip a flag can only come into compliance after speaking to a Help Center staff to explain or correct the abnormal value. About half of the 1,371 covered buildings have tripped flags since the start of the program in 2019. Every single flag has been addressed through a conversation with the building owner or representative. Current program compliance is over 97%. BPS policy proposes covering this same cohort of buildings. Alternate Data Sources Benchmarking data are considered a primary data source because they are entered by building owners or representatives. Other data sources are compared to benchmarking data for validation and to provide robust supporting data for BPS policy development. Reported electric use can be validated against Utilities meter data; reported use is the more accurate metric in most cases given manual changes to appropriate meter aggregations. Property use type and size is recorded by the Larimer County Assessor as well as reported by building owners when benchmarking. Reported data are manually entered by building owners during benchmarking, including adding square footage of each property use type. These metrics are further verified during benchmarking reporting through conversations with our Help Center. About 97% of covered building representatives have communicated directly with our Help Center, allowing for verification of unexpected reported data and error corrections. Adopted BPS policies in other jurisdictions often require third-party verification of benchmarked data but Utilities staff are hopeful they can perform some of this based on existing data, saving building owners administrative time and cost. To create energy efficiency targets, Utilities worked with two external vendors to review energy data from thousands of buildings around the country, including but not limited to the following sources: • Utilities billing and metered data • Efficiency Works Business program data • Larimer County Assessor records • City of Denver benchmarking data • City of Boulder benchmarking data • ComStock Analysis Tool (U.S. Department of Energy) • Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (U.S. Energy Information Administration) • California Energy Data and Reporting System Over 200 data fields were reviewed per building, and many data outliers were reviewed individually. Staff incorporated local case studies to further ensure feasibility. Cost Data The basis for the local cost information was derived from publicly available cost assumption information, potential studies, and contractor reporter total project costs (through the Efficiency Works Business program). The BPS Cost Benefit Analysis considered costs for improvements and electric savings through 2035, without accounting for the increase in rates that will be necessary to offset increased electric use if building efficiency is not advanced through this and other efficiency-focused policies. Costs provided also did not include any ‘business as usual’ assumptions, but rather factored 100% of total project costs (e.g., including costs for equipment already at the end of useful life, upgrades that would happen without policy adoption, etc.). Total costs per property before factoring in incentives, rebates, tax deductions, and other financial assistance equal approximately 1% of each buildings’ last purchase price, also aligning with the average cost of a tenant finish over the last 10 years ($200,000/building). Fort Collins Building Performance Standards Case Studies Contents City Buildings ................................................................................................................ 2 Fossil Creek Park Shop, 5833 S. Lemay Ave. (FC2975) ............................................ 3 Traffic Operations, 626 Linden St. (FC1313) .............................................................. 5 Building Services, 281 N. College Ave. (FC2660) ...................................................... 7 Community Buildings: Efficiency Works Business Program Participants ........................ 8 Foothills Unitarian Church, 1815 Yorktown Ave. ......................................................... 9 Fresh Foods, 1100 W. Mountain Ave. ........................................................................11 Conn’s, 120 Bockman Dr. .........................................................................................12 Hibachi Japanese Steakhouse, 1051 W. Horsetooth Rd. ..........................................13 University Plaza: Wilbur’s, Whole Foods, King Soopers, and more ...........................14 Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................16 Historic Examples ........................................................................................................18 City Buildings As established in 2022, buildings owned by the City of Fort Collins are currently required to comply with performance standards (§ 12-203 (c) of the Municipal Code). The code states that by 2026, City-owned buildings must define a standard percentage reduction to be meet by City- owned buildings. Building on the code’s impact, City staff collaborated with community experts to define achievable recommendations for citywide Building Performance Standards (BPS) that can be applied to commercial and multi-family buildings within Fort Collins. The City strives to lead by example, and staff received strong support from City Council to alter targets for City buildings to align with targets set for community buildings should City Council adopt BPS requirements for privately-owned buildings. A September 2024 memo submitted to City Council outlined specific requirements for City buildings to come into compliance, including an analysis of overall costs for those buildings that will need to take action to reach proposed BPS targets. In addition to regular maintenance, efforts continue to improve City-owned buildings so they can achieve proposed BPS targets and to advance Council’s electrification priority. The following case studies demonstrate ongoing and recent efforts in three City buildings and the results of those efforts, both expected0F1 and realized. 1 Program savings are based on the calculated difference in efficiency from existing to installed equipment and are customized accounting for building use specifics (e.g., lighting savings factor wattage differences between new and existing bulbs and actual hours of use). Calculated savings may not align exactly with reductions in consumption due to the range of other variables impacting electric use, however savings can accurately be viewed as usage that would exist without upgrades. Fossil Creek Park Shop, 5833 S. Lemay Ave. (FC2975) The Fossil Creek Park Shop is a 6,550 square foot shop built in 2000. The building’s 2024 reported Energy Use Intensity (EUI) was 118.4 kBtu/sq ft, 34% over the proposed Fort Collins BPS EUI target for the property use type (Other- Public Services) of 84 kBtu/sq ft. As part of the proposed policy to Council in 2024, staff recommends building of this size not needing to exceed a 15% reduction from its reported energy use. This “energy reduction cap” means that this building will have a modified target by the 2035 timeline, and instead of the 84 kBTU / sq ft, it will need to achieve an annual reported target of 100.6 kBtu / sq ft. The building’s total electric use in 2022 was 87,360 kilowatt-hours (kWh), and in 2023 was 77,840 kWh. A lighting retrofit in 2023 had some impact on 2023 annual energy use and will have more in 2024. The building’s 2025 reported EUI will therefore reflect the reduction in EUI. Similarly, a roof top unit (RTU) retrofit and the installation of a building automation system were completed in fall of 2024. Those will impact 2025 usage and appear in the building’s 2026 reported EUI. The sum of savings below is estimated to be 36,943 kWh, accounting for approximately 38% electric use reduction. The City also expects to see major reductions in gas use associated with a heating, ventilation and cooling conversion. 2023 interior lighting retrofit • Cost: $14,005 • Utility rebate: $11,194 • Total project cost after rebate: $2,811 • Simple payback: 3.8 years • Annual estimated kWh savings: 9,403 2024 heat pump RTU retrofit • Cost: $42,835 • No direct Utility rebates are available for HVAC rooftop units. HVAC rebates are provided to distributors to provide access to high efficiency HVAC equipment • Simple payback: 10.0 years • Annual estimated kWh savings: 15,340 • RTU conversion to dual fuel heat pump technology (electrification) 2024 building automation system • Cost: $49,500 • No direct Utility rebate available • Simple payback: 12.0 years • Annual estimated kWh savings: 12,200 Traffic Operations, 626 Linden St. (FC1313) Traffic Operations building is a 9,500 square foot office building built in 2000 located at 626 Linden St. The building’s 2024 reported EUI was 73.9 kBtu/ sq ft. As part of the proposed policy to Council in 2024, staff recommends building of this size not needing to exceed a 15% reduction from its reported energy use. This “energy reduction cap” means that the City Traffic Operations building will have a modified target to achieve by the 2035 timeline; and therefore instead of the 56 kBTU / sq ft target proposed for office buildings, it will need to achieve a reported EUI of 62.8 kBTU/Sq ft. The building’s electric use in 2022 was 109,560 kWh and in 2023 was 108,240 kWh. The RTU and building automation system projects are scheduled to be completed Nov. 19, 2024. Those will impact 2025 usage and will appear in the building’s 2026 reported EUI. Projects outlined below and associated usage reductions will lower the building’s electric use by a projected 39%. The City also expects to see major reductions in gas use associated with a heating, ventilation and cooling conversion. 2024 heat pump RTU retrofit • Cost: $557,836 • There is no direct Utility rebates available for HVAC rooftop units. HVAC rebates are provided to distributors to provide access to high efficiency HVAC equipment. • Simple payback: 10.0 years • Annual estimated kWh savings: 27,060 • Eliminated one RTU by combining heating and cooling zones in the building • RTU conversion to dual fuel heat pump technology (electrification) 2024 building automation system • Cost: $81,200 • No rebate available • Simple payback: 12.0 years • Annual estimated kWh savings: 25,000 Building Services, 281 N. College Ave. (FC2660) Building Services is a 37,603 square foot office building built in 1970. The 2023 reported EUI was 63 kBTU/ sq ft. The building is required to meet the proposed BPS office target of 56, or would need to reduce its overall energy use by approximately 11.7% to hit the target. Based on a desktop audit, opportunities were isolated for reductions from lighting upgrades and HVAC controls. Costs were estimated at $107,145 before rebates, or $2.85/square foot. The desktop audit did not include opportunities from retrocommissioning, noting that City staff ensure equipment is maintained and calibrated on a routine basis, and the heating and cooling system is tested and balanced periodically. After the case study, heating and cooling technicians performed semi-annual maintenance on the existing RTUs, taking extra time to do more extensive cleaning of the coils and filters (which build up with dust, dirt, and cottonwood seeds). Based solely on this effort, at no cost, the RTU performance and energy performance improved to the degree that the building is now meeting proposed EUI targets. As the City Assistant Energy Manager stated, “Clean coils and filters equal improved energy and comfort performance.” Community Buildings: Efficiency Works Business Program Participants Fort Collins Utilities has offered rebate programs to commercial customers for over 20 years, accounting for about 60% of Utilities historic program savings1F2. Efficiency Works Business (EWB) rebates and incentives accounted for 5,823 megawatt-hours (MWh) reduced electricity use in 2023, down from 11,492 MWh in 2022. EWB has resulted in a total nearly 200,000 MWh electricity saved since the program was initiated, which is more than 27,000 homes use each year. A significant amount of EWB program participation has been in lighting upgrades, however many properties benefit from several other rebates and incentives, from grocery, RTU controls, envelope, variable frequency drives (VFDs), custom rebates on virtually any other upgrade that save energy, and more. In recent years, participation in incentive-based programs has waned; Utilities spent half the money on commercial rebates and incentives in 2023 that were spent in 2022. This may reflect reduced opportunity in high-impact, low-cost projects with engaged building representatives. However, engaged building owners have significantly reduced their energy consumption via participation in EWB offerings, reducing electric use up to 75% below pre-participation usage. The following case studies represent a subset of local commercial buildings that have participated in EWB program offerings multiple times over the last decade, including total out-of- pocket costs, rebate amounts, and electricity saved. While these studies only reflect a small fraction of the buildings that have engaged with EWB since program inception, these properties demonstrate significant savings and a range of efficiency projects. 2 Program savings are based on the calculated difference in efficiency from existing to installed equipment and are customized accounting for building use specifics. For example, lighting savings factor wattage differences between new and existing bulbs and actual hours of use. Calculated savings may not align exactly with reductions in consumption due to the range of other variables impacting electric use, however savings can accurately be viewed as usage that would exist without upgrades. Foothills Unitarian Church, 1815 Yorktown Ave. The Foothills Unitarian Church is a 29,612 square foot worship facility built in 1969. It also includes the additions of an administration area in 1996 and a further expansion in 2022. The building houses a preschool and a sanctuary with a kitchen, commons and administrative areas. The church was estimated at just over 16,400 square foot before the 2022 expansion, which added 13,160 square foot. For the expansion, the church partnered with Fort Collins’ Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP). According to a 2018 facility assessment, there are typically two to eight employees who occupy the facility daily, however the facility can receive several hundred visitors during services and other events. Generally, the facility is occupied to some extent six to eight hours per day. Utilities provides electricity, water, wastewater and stormwater services. Projects In addition to several facility assessments, Foothills Unitarian Church completed five projects rebated through EWB, an IDAP expansion project, and benefited from a Midstream Cooling Program air conditioner. The building’s electric use went down 27% through lighting projects (including interior lights, signs, classroom lights) and the installation of a high-efficiency air conditioner. Five lighting projects were completed since 2014 at a total installed cost of almost $19,800. Rebates paid through EWB covered just below $13,000. Annual electric savings from these projects total 35,400 kWh/year. Using 2024 commercial electric rates, that’s equivalent to $3,330 in electric bill savings every year. In 2023, Foothills Unitarian Church benefited from the EWB Midstream Cooling Program. EWB works directly with regional distributors to make sure customers have access to affordable high- efficiency air conditioning units. This program does not provide a rebate paid directly to the customer, but rather directs funding to distributors to lower costs of efficient equipment. The Midstream Cooling Program reduced the price of the air conditioning unit by $2,900 and reduced electric use by 3,025 kWh per year over other comparably-priced units, saving an additional $285 in annual electric bills. Utilities’ IDAP provides technical assistance and financial incentives to help architects, engineering professionals, and building owners optimize energy and demand savings and reduce operating costs in eligible new construction and existing building major renovation projects. Building owners receive a more integrated design process and overall, a more energy efficient building. This happens through engaging the expertise of an energy consultant early in the project to provide energy modeling services. Key program milestones, such as an early design charrette (energy workshop) and energy modeling reports help keep energy efficiency integrated in the design. An incentive of $12,015 was paid to Foothills Unitarian Church as a part of their IDAP project, which focused on a 13,160 square foot project area and modeled reduction in energy use of 183,703 kWh annually. Current energy use As a result of the efficiency-focused projects taken on by staff, the church reduced its electric use by 27%. Their current EUI of 34.5 is below the proposed Fort Collins EUI target for worship facilities of 35. Fresh Foods, 1100 W. Mountain Ave. Fresh Foods Market (previously Beaver ’s Market) is a 7,500 square foot grocery store built in 1942. At the time of the most recent EWB assessment, the building was noted to be cinder block construction for the main space and wood frame for part of the back area. The building has a flat roof with black membrane. General daily business hours are 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. with slightly reduced hours on Sunday. The market employs around 14 staff members. Utilities provides electricity, water, stormwater and wastewater. The facility was sold in 2022, however work preceding that sale can be compared to use at the time of sale as well as subsequent use to demonstrate savings associated with EWB projects. Multiple facility assessments before the sale isolated opportunities to save electricity. Projects A total of 12 EWB projects were completed over a 10-year period at Beaver’s Market (now Fresh Market), with an additional lighting project in 2004. These projects upgraded the following elements: • Lighting • Refrigeration • Gaskets • Cooler lights • Grocery • Night covers and case lighting Installation costs for the 2004 lighting project are not available, however total costs for subsequent upgrades were just under $58,500. Incentives for all projects totaled just under $28,000 (including $1,750 for the 2004 project). Total electric savings for these projects equals 166,853 kWh of annual savings, or $15,684 in annual electric utility savings based on 2024 commercial rates. This equals a 53% reduction in electric use as of 2021, just prior to the sale (a 58% reduction over today’s use). The market is currently well under their projected EUI target as set by the proposed Fort Collins BPS (EUI 120, proposed target 148). Conn’s, 120 Bockman Dr. Conn’s is a 46,070 square foot retail store built in 1991. As no assessment was done on this property, there is limited additional detail available, however the property benefitted from rebates. In addition to a recent lighting project, they partnered EWB for a VFD upgrade. Their partnership saved them nearly $47,000 in incentives paid toward a total of just under $57,000 in work. EWB covered the entire cost of the lighting project and almost 30% of the cost of the VFD. The two projects saved a total of just under 183,000 kWh annually, totaling $17,200 saved every year in avoided electric bills. This building is well below its proposed BPS EUI target, having reduced total use by 50% with two simple projects (EUI 23.6, proposed target for retail is 49). VFDs save energy by helping motors operate at the most efficient speed for any given use. They extend equipment lifespan by decreasing wear and tear and reducing maintenance costs. That equates to significant savings, which can be realized more easily and affordably by partnering with EWB for local rebates. Hibachi Japanese Steakhouse, 1051 W. Horsetooth Rd. Hibachi Japanese Steakhouse is a 6,200 square foot restaurant that opened in 2006. The building was constructed in 1999 and is built with a wood frame covered in stucco with a sloped tile roof. According to an EWB facility assessment, the small square footage of flat space on the roof houses the mechanical systems and is accessed via a catwalk in the attic. The exterior surface area is estimated to be made up of 20% windows where a large portion face east. That exposure brings a lot of daylight into the dining area, which led the owner to install indoor shading devices. The entrance to the restaurant is on the south side of the building and leads directly into the bar on the west side and the sushi bar on the east side. About 10% of business comes from sushi and the remainder from the hibachi. During the week, the restaurant is open from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m., with extended weekend hours. Because most of the dishes served are made in front of patrons, restaurant operations begin only an hour before opening. During the week there are typically 12 staff members present; on the weekends there are 20. Utilities provides electricity, water, wastewater, and stormwater services. Projects: Within the last 10 years, Hibachi Japanese Steakhouse participated in three projects: gaskets, grocery, and sushi bar grocery. EWB provided just below $6,000 in rebates for total project costs of $6,630. These projects save 37,245 kWh annually. That equates to $3,500 in electric savings every year, using 2024 commercial electric rates. These simple projects reduced the restaurant’s total use by 33%, and its current energy use is well under the proposed BPS EUI target (current EUI is 197, proposed EUI target for restaurants is 219). University Plaza: Wilbur ’s, Whole Foods, King Soopers, and more This 230,209 square foot strip mall houses large supermarkets, a liquor store, a gym, and various retail stores. Seven of the businesses within the building’s footprint have participated in the EWB program, contributing to significant savings across the high-use building. While this building must comply with the State of Colorado’s BPS policy, a case study is provided given the variety of projects. To the north end of the building, Whole Foods Market and Wilbur’s Total Beverage have participated in 12 projects, including: • Lighting and sign lighting • Heater controls and electronically commutated motor (ECM) evaporator • ECM in walk in and display cases • LED cooler lights • RTU controller • VFD motors • Gaskets (refrigeration) • Display case doors (refrigeration) Incentives paid for these projects total $66,442, of $197,608 total project costs before incentives. Annual electric savings from these projects are 525,096 kWh, or the equivalent of $49,360 annual electric costs. Toward the center of the building, Office Max, Petco, and Miramont/Crunch Fitness completed six projects since 2017 focusing on food service (Petco) and lighting, and one Midstream Cooling Program air conditioner. These projects received rebate savings of $32,270 and achieved 163,131 kWh of annual savings, or the equivalent of $15,334 in annual electric savings. While the cost of the air conditioner is unknown due to the nature of the Midstream Cooling Program, the installation cost of other rebated measures was $57,387. To the south end, King Soopers participated in seven rebate offerings, while the business at 2407 S. College Ave. just to the south of King Soopers also benefited from the Midstream Cooling Program. The King Soopers projects included cooler lights, gaskets, and lamps. Total rebates equaled $29,417 of a total installed cost of $56,408 (minus the air conditioner as its sale price is unknown). Electric savings from these projects equal 382,284 kWh per year, or $35,935 saved in electric bills annually (based on 2023 commercial electric rates). In total, the whole building has saved 1,070,511 kWh, equal to over $100,680 in annual bill savings. Total out-of-pocket costs after rebates was $183,274 (excluding the unknown air conditioner costs). In total, the projects above reduced overall building electric by about 17%. This building is meeting Fort Collins’ proposed BPS target (current EUI is 101.8, proposed EUI target for strip malls is 103). Glossary of Terms ECM: An ECM (electronically commutated motor) lowers the total electrical consumption of an air conditioner or furnace. It helps maintain proper air flow through the system by sensing its operational status and controls the speed of the evaporator fans. ECM motors contain a microprocessor, which is the key component of what makes them able to provide better efficiency. This microprocessor controls the motor to regulate air flow. The motor’s rotations per minute will either ramp up or down to keep air flow steady. This allows an air conditioner and heater to work at maximum efficiency. Rather than the motor running the fan at the same constant high rate, it modulates to adjust for conditions, sometimes running at lower speeds and using less power than full load. On top of this significant way to save energy, an ECM motor uses less wattage than a standard motor. Savings occur from full speed runtime hours reduction and waste heat reduction to the refrigeration system. VFD: A VFD (variable frequency drive) saves energy by helping motors operate at the most efficient speed for any given use. They extend equipment lifespan by decreasing wear and tear and reduce maintenance costs. Fans and pumps that are turned down just 10% can save up to 25% in energy costs. In most systems, reducing speed by 50% can cause a 75% drop in energy consumption. That equals big savings, which can be realized more easily and affordably by partnering with EWB for local rebates. Gasket: A gasket is a common term for any seal between two surfaces. A refrigeration gasket is a flexible, elastic strip that creates an airtight seal around the edges of a refrigerator or freezer door. Refrigeration gaskets are a very important part of a walk-in cooler or freezer’s performance. Gaskets are responsible for sealing walk-in doors and panels to stop any air infiltration. When gaskets are not working properly, refrigeration units must work harder to keep their temperature – which in turn generates higher energy bills and wear and tear on equipment. Gaskets help maintain temperature and improve energy efficiency by reducing the amount of warm air that enters a cold area, and vice versa. RTU controller: A rooftop unit (RTU) controller is a retrofit technology that provides better functionality and energy savings opportunities for existing RTUs. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates anywhere from 15 to more than 50% energy savings can be achieved with a one to four year simple payback potential. There are several features of advanced RTU controllers that contribute to savings, mostly from the implementation of variable or multi-speed control of the supply air fan, demand controlled ventilation (which uses CO2 levels in the return air to adjust the outside air control), and improved economizer control. Some technologies allow for demand response, web-based remote monitoring, and automated fault detection and diagnostics. LED lighting: The most common EWB upgrade over the years has been lighting, given its short, simple payback, ease to upgrade, and aesthetic value. Light-emitting diode (LED) is an energy-efficient technology that lasts longer, is more durable, and offers comparable or better light quality than other types of lighting. The high efficiency and directional nature of LEDs makes them ideal for many industrial and commercial uses. LEDs emit very little heat, unlike incandescent bulbs which release 90% of their energy as heat and CFLs which release about 80% of their energy as heat. LED lighting products also last much longer than other lighting types. A quality LED bulb can last three to five times longer than a CFL and 30 times longer than an incandescent bulb. Historic Examples Many case studies have been documented over the years to demonstrate savings along with other positive benefits resulting from efficiency projects. As a part of the City’s efforts to outline achievable recommendations for a local BPS, Utilities chose to complete case studies for the most common property use types covered by the proposed Fort Collins BPS (office, multi-family, retail, and strip mall). Those case studies are available at ourcity.fcgov.com/bps. EWB also publishes case studies from Fort Collins as well as the other partner jurisdictions (Estes Park, Longmont, and Loveland). These case studies demonstrate various property types that have participated with the program and benefited from rebates. Those case studies can be found online at efficiencyworks.org/resources/business-resources. Utilities has also put together historic case studies, documenting further local partnerships with EWB. These short, concise studies provide further documentation of the historic success of EWB, and can be shared upon request. Through decades of partnership with the community, Utilities has provided rebates and incentives directly to the community, technical support financing for on-site audits and energy advising, and direct to manufacturer benefits to reduce the cost of efficient technologies. These programs have provided many examples of ways local buildings can improve their efficiency. However, the projected future impact of economic-based approaches to building efficiency are far short of the outcomes our community tasked the City to achieve in the Our Climate Future plan. Utilities strongly recommends this regulatory approach to meet Our Climate Future goals; indeed, such an approach is the only way OCF targets could be met goals. Residential Battery Storage Insights 12-12-2024 Leland Keller Mechanical Engineer III 2 Our Climate Future -13 Big Moves 3 Our Climate Future fcgov.com/ourclimatefuture Energy Related Goals for 2030 •Reduce 20% of forecasted electricity consumption •100% renewable carbon-free electricity •5% local distributed renewable energy generation •Maintain current Utilities distribution reliability metrics •Achieve a demand flexibility capacity of 5% of peak loads •Zero carbon new construction Strategies for DER Management Maximum DER benefits will come from a suite of solutions Control Request: notification Rates: time varying price signals Behavioral: education Passive: efficiency, building and equipment optimization Highest price, responsiveness, performance certainty Lowest price, responsiveness, performance certainty 5 Battery Benefits to Residential Customers www.fcgov.com/battery-storage Why Battery Storage? •Minimize on-peak purchases •Arbitrage the TOD rate •Back up essential loads •Future-proofing a solar investment •Energy delivered and received netted at 15-minute intervals Battery bank sizing is up to you Ft. Collins Utilities allows charging from & discharging to grid Customer Surveys •Purchasing decisions & barriers •Operating modes & usage •Satisfaction •Awareness of rates & billing policy •Willingness to participate & concerns about load control Objectives - Gain customer insights into: Solar (n=38) Solar & Battery Storage (n=25) Study Conclusions •Purchasing barriers: understanding of rates, credits, value •Manage expectations with clear communication Perceptions •Personal carbon footprint, contribution to City climate actions •Reasonable financial return within warranty period •Concerns that utility operation may reduce performance, longevity Motivators •Reduce entry barriers, performance and risk concerns •Expect half of battery owners to allow control at cost-effective incentive level •Higher incentives needed to sway more solar customers Willingness to Play Purchasing Decision Perceptions Environmental concerns and reducing energy costs more important in purchasing decision for solar-only customers 56%53%68%74%68%82% 24%18% 24%3%8%3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Solar and storage Solar-only Solar and storage Solar-only Solar and storage Solar-only Having power during Environmental Reducing energy costs Gr o u p Not important Important (n=63) Solar-only Participant Barriers to Battery Adoption High costs and the perception of low benefits are the primary barriers to storage installation Agree Disagree 0%20%40%60%80%100% Installation System safety Compatability Obtaining system Environ. impact of battery Lack of awareness Benefits < costs Upfront cost (n=38) No 20 Yes 4 Changed operating mode? Maintain maximum charge 1 Maximize consumption of solar energy3 Minimize costs 20 Operating mode Battery Storage System Operating Mode Most battery program participants set storage system operating mode to minimize utility bills and do not change settings (n=24) Storage Backup Reserve Capacity Preference Storage participants prefer 10-20% backup reserve. Contractor interviews confirmed reserve settings (~15%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5%10%20%25%50%40%80% Co u n t Storage Backup Reserve Capacity Storage Back Up Reserve Capacity Preference 74% 37% 16% 84% 48% 32% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Policy Rate Received Rate Returned Solar-only Solar and storage Net Metering Policy and Rates Awareness But were only marginally able to correctly identify rates Participants correctly identified billing policy (n=63) Concerns about Utility Control of Battery Systems Current storage customers less concerned program control will lead to higher energy costs; environmental concerns rank higher for solar-only customers 40%34%44%58% 32%21% 24%37%16% 11%64% 39% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Solar and storage Solar-only Solar and storage Solar-only Solar and storage Solar-only No power left for outage Environmental Higher energy costs Gr o u p Unconcerned Concerned (n=63) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 $0 (free)$100-$500 $600-$1,000 $1,100-$2,000 > $2,000 Infinity (never) Storage Control Incentive Required ($) Solar-only Solar and storage Annual Incentive Required for Utility Control of Storage System Avg: $927 Avg: $ 348 Existing storage customers expect lower compensation vs solar-only for utility access to control battery storage Concerns with Utility Control of Battery System Battery Storage Participant Concerns 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Risk of changing policy / rates Costs outweigh benefits Insufficient backup / EVs Positive / general concerns Degrade battery / shorten life Safety issues Unwilling to allow control Count 17 Customer Free Response Verbatims Question: “What other concerns do you have about connecting to a system that allowed Fort Collins Utilities to manage a battery storage system at your home?” “I would not be interested in having the city control my battery at all. You should incentivize us to act in the way you’d like.” “(I) Do not want anyone to manage my system but me.” “Battery technology, at this time, has a short lifespan...on the order of ~1500-2000 cycles depending on how it is used. I'd want to restrict that cycle use to only peak-power times, otherwise the cost benefit greatly reduces.” “I am not worried about outages, we’ve had just 4 of any significant length in 30 years, all under 6 hours max… I like the peak shaving aspect for the utility and us overall.” “Don’t want it won’t use it; if mandated I will shut the system down. It is mine not yours.” “Security - what if Fort Collins Utilities was hacked? What could happen to my home and system?” Study Conclusions •Purchasing barriers: understanding of rates, credits, value •Manage expectations with clear communication Perceptions •Personal carbon footprint, contribution to City climate actions •Reasonable financial return within warranty period •Concerns that utility operation may reduce performance, longevity Motivators •Reduce entry barriers, performance and risk concerns •Expect half of battery owners to allow control at cost-effective incentive level •Higher incentives needed to sway more solar customers Willingness to Play Next Steps for the Residential Battery Program Continue to build battery program participation Research battery customer load profiles Evaluate battery capacity available for control •Educate about rates, policies, performance •Ease adoption barriers •Behavioral influence on battery programming: •Inform, Enable, Encourage For Questions or Comments, Please Contact: Leland Keller lkeller@fcgov.com