Search

Abstract In this work we present a methodology to evaluate the accuracy of methods used to quantify the uncertainty in estimated total energy savings. We focus on savings measurement and verification (M&V) approaches that use a baseline model to characterize energy use, and that forward-project the model for a counterfactual to determine avoided energy use. These approaches are common to the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol's (IPMVP's) Option C and Option B. This methodology can be used to evaluate the uncertainty in savings estimates that are due to model error. It has been applied to evaluate two uncertainty estimation methods, including the industry standard ASHRAE Guideline 14 approach. The evaluation used data from 69 commercial buildings and four different baseline models that span daily and hourly granularity, as well as linear and non-linear/non-parametric forms. The findings of this work indicate that the standard methods that are widely used by the M&V community for estimating the total savings uncertainty over the post-installation period tend to underestimate the uncertainty. The tendency to underestimate the uncertainty is stronger for hourly models than for daily models, due to stronger autocorrelation in model residuals at the hourly time scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New smart building technologies that offer continuous dynamic optimization of Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) control hold promise to advance building operations for efficiency and grid response. These technologies use data from the control system to determine the analytically optimal setpoints, and then write back the optimal setpoints into the control system to minimize system energy consumption or costs. There are limited studies documenting field validations of these technologies. This paper presents the results from a long-term field evaluation of a model-predictive HVAC optimization system that installed in four commercial buildings. Energy savings analysis was conducted based on pre/post submetered energy use. Across the cohort of evaluation sites, HVAC savings following the implementation of the optimization system were mixed, ranging from 0–9%. Analysis of site operational data showed that occupant comfort was neither positively nor negatively impacted. Key technology adoption considerations and recommendations are summarized in the paper. The technology performs best when HVAC systems are in good working condition, and can be exercised to achieve the full range of its optimized setpoints–however it may not provide extensive additional savings over cases where best practice sequences of operation and reset strategies are already comprehensively implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate savings estimations are important to promote energy efficiency projects and demonstrate their cost-effectiveness. The increasing presence of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) in commercial buildings has resulted in a rising availability of high frequency interval data. These data can be used for a variety of energy efficiency applications such as demand response, fault detection and diagnosis, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) optimization. This large amount of data has also opened the door to the use of advanced statistical learning models, which hold promise for providing accurate building baseline energy consumption predictions, and thus accurate saving estimations. The gradient boosting machine is a powerful machine learning algorithm that is gaining considerable traction in a wide range of data driven applications, such as ecology, computer vision, and biology. In the present work an energy consumption baseline modeling method based on a gradient boosting machine was proposed. To assess the performance of this method, a recently published testing procedure was used on a large dataset of 410 commercial buildings. The model training periods were varied and several prediction accuracy metrics were used to evaluate the model’s performance. The results show that using the gradient boosting machine model improved the R‐squared prediction accuracy and the CV(RMSE) in more than 80 percent of the cases, when compared to an industry best practice model that is based on piecewise linear regression, and to a random forest algorithm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]