Search

This report details modeled energy performance and savings from retrofit packages in prototypical school buildings in climate zones throughout the U.S. The information herein serves as a reference for elementary and secondary schools interested in implementing retrofit packages in their facilities for energy savings as well as health and safety benefits. School models developed for simulating package performance differentiated between rural and urban environments. Simulations were run for 10 distinct climate zones covering a range of climate conditions throughout the U.S. Results include savings estimates for electricity, natural gas, CO2 emissions, and annual utility costs for nine different retrofit packages that combine energy conservation measures, including HVAC controls and equipment upgrades, lighting efficiency upgrades, and electrification technologies such as heat pumps for space conditioning and domestic hot water. Nine additional retrofit packages were also developed for elementary schools and modeled in two climate zones. Appendix B describes the additional retrofit packages and presents savings estimates.

Over half of commercial building floor area in the US is served by packaged rooftop units (RTUs). With a typical useful life in the 10-20 years range, RTU replacement is a periodic necessity in commercial buildings and an opportunity for upgrading to higher-efficiency units. We designed a package of energy efficiency measures that can be used in conjunction with an RTU replacement, including advanced controls, high-efficiency low pressure-drop air filters, energy monitoring and, optionally, window films and cool-roofs to reduce loads and size of the replacement RTUs. We conducted side-by-side laboratory testing of the package to evaluate energy savings and thermal comfort relative to an existing building baseline. Daily HVAC energy savings for the RTU replacement package averaged 61% across all seasons. The test data showed that the ASHRAE Guideline 36 controls significantly reduced thermal loads and this was a key contributor to the savings, in addition to the higher efficiency of the RTU itself. The laboratory testing also revealed some challenges with installation and commissioning of Guideline 36. Overall, the results demonstrate that significant savings can be realized in existing office buildings by incorporating relatively low-risk, proven measures in conjunction with an RTU replacement.

This article describes recent co-simulation advances for the simultaneous modeling of detailed building electrical distribution systems and whole-building energy performance. The co-simulation architecture combines the EnergyPlus® engine for whole-building energy modeling with a new Modelica library for building an electrical distribution system model that is based on harmonic power flow. This new library allows for a higher-fidelity modeling of electrical power flows and losses within buildings than is available with current building electrical modeling software. We demonstrate the feasibility of the architecture by modeling a simple, two-zone thermal chamber with internal power electronics converters and resistive loads, and we validate the model using experimental data. The proposed co-simulation capability significantly expands the capabilities of building electrical distribution system models in the context of whole-building energy modeling, thus enabling more complex analyses than would have been possible with individual building performance simulation tools that are used to date.

Utility incentive programs are an important channel to support the deployment of energy efficiency in buildings. To date, these programs have largely been limited to single-component strategies. However, many utilities are now motivated to identify and develop multi-component system retrofits to achieve deeper energy savings, which are essential to achieving broader energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals in the buildings sector. In this paper we present the energy savings, demand reductions, and cost-effectiveness of 16 systems retrofit packages in six utility regions in the United States. These results are being used by these utilities to inform and develop incentive programs for systems retrofits. Our analysis shows that packages with proven lighting and HVAC measures can provide 5–22% whole building annual energy savings, and 13–22% annual energy costs savings, using utility incentive program baselines (code and existing building). The packages are reasonably cost effective for replace-on-burnout but generally not for a retrofit scenario prior to end of equipment life. Demand response can increase both the energy savings and energy cost savings, further improving the cost effectiveness of these packages. We analyzed the impact of using existing building vs. code baselines for calculating savings, showing that the choice of baseline in developing utility incentive programs has a substantial impact on the attributable energy savings to a program, with significant implications for the overall viability of a program (generally savings against existing building condition are higher and improve project and program cost-effectiveness).

This report is a part of the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) EPIC study Leading in Los Angeles: Demonstrating scalable emerging energy efficient technologies for integrated façade, lighting, and HVAC. The set of technologies are called the Integrated Technologies for Energy-efficient Retrofits (INTER) and are comprised of automated shading products and LED lighting systems with networked luminaire-level sensors and controls. In addition, the project will include control modifications and assessments of HVAC savings. This document includes the test plan and test results for the FLEXLAB testing of the shading and lighting INTER system and related energy use impact. The test plan describes the test objectives and features, test cases, schedule, and measurements. The test results cover system performance in the lab; including lighting and HVAC energy, visual comfort, and thermal comfort.

Energy efficiency upgrades to buildings to date through avenues such as utility incentive programs have been largely limited to component-based products (e.g., lamps, RTUs). While some utilities do provide ‘custom’ incentive programs with whole building and system level technical assistance, these programs require deeper levels of analysis, resulting in higher program costs. This results in custom programs being restricted to utilities with greater resources, and are typically applied mainly to large or energy-intensive facilities, leaving much of the market without cost effective access and incentives for these solutions. In addition, with increasingly stringent energy codes, cost effective component-based solutions that achieve significant savings are dwindling.Integrated building systems (e.g., integrated façade, HVAC and/or lighting solutions) can deliver higher savings (Regnier et al. 2017) that translate into large sector-wide savings if deployed at the scale of these programs. However, systems application poses a number of challenges – energy savings assessments are inherently more complex and are not easily suited to the deemed measure model, and implementation of systems can be more disruptive. This paper presents the outcomes of a project to develop validated utility incentive program packages for three specific integrated building systems, in collaboration with ComEd, a consortium of California Public Owned Utilities (CA POUs) (Northern California Power Agency(NCPA) and the Southern California Public Power Authority(SCPPA)), and Xcel Energy (CO, MN). Previous work described the potential for energy savings of these systems at the individual and market level, early test findings for the task-ambient lighting system, and described the work products to develop utility incentive programs (Regnier et al. 2016). This paper presents validated end use energy savings of all three systems showing energy savings of ~20% for automated shading combined with daylight dimming (does not include light fixture retrofit savings); 30-46% for task-ambient lighting systems combined with plug load occupancy controls, depending on technology package and office building size (no daylight dimming impacts); and ~94% in the south-façade daylit zone for workstation specific lighting systems with daylight dimming (including lighting retrofit and task tuning). Using a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reference building model (DOE 2018), this translates to whole building savings of 2-5% (large-medium commercial), 12-23% (large-small commercial), and 13-15% (medium-large commercial) for these systems respectively. Early findings from the utilities in deploying these systems through their incentive programs indicate that deployment methods such as direct install programs might be best suited for these integrated systems. Further, early findings from a scoping study across custom utility programs and federal retrofit programs indicate that component level retrofits are still prevalent even in these programs, pointing towards an opportunity for deeper energy savings deployment. High performance retrofit case studies demonstrate that deeper energy savings is possible through integrated approaches. Market stakeholder interviews indicate however that there is generally a low level of awareness of the potential for energy savings of these three integrated systems.

Most building retrofit projects are still component-based in that they typically address only one piece or type of equipment at a time. Systems-based retrofits that seek to address multiple components in an integrated manner have the potential to provide significantly greater energy savings.Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) partnered with several utilities to develop and evaluate three different integrated retrofit packages involving lighting systems: automated shading with daylightdimming controls, workstation-specific lighting with daylight controls, and task/ambient lighting with plug load occupancy controls. Specifically, our analysis sought to quantify the marginal benefits of these systems (energy savings as well as lighting performance and visual comfort) relative to component based approaches. The analysis was based on a combination of measured performance data from LBNL’s FLEXLAB® test facility and energy simulations. All three systems were compared to a simple fluorescent-to-LED retrofit, which represents the component-based approach. While the simple LED upgrade provides significant lighting energy savings of 63%, the systems yielded energy savings of 81-93%, which equates to additional savings of 49-82% over the simple LED upgrade (Table A-1).1 All systems tested provided satisfactory visual comfort as well, indicating good potential for market acceptance.

This report is a part of the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) EPIC study Leading in Los Angeles: Demonstrating scalable emerging energy efficient technologies for integrated façade, lighting, and HVAC. The set of technologies are called the Integrated Technologies for Energy-efficient Retrofits (INTER) and are comprised of automated shading products and LED lighting systems with networked luminaire-level sensors and controls. In addition, the project will include control modifications and assessments of HVAC savings. This document includes the test plan and test results for the FLEXLAB testing of the shading and lighting INTER system and related energy use impact. The test plan describes the test objectives and features, test cases, schedule, and measurements. The test results cover system performance in the lab; including lighting and HVAC energy, visual comfort, and thermal comfort.

An important strategy to meet California's ambitious energy efficiency goals is to use innovative wireless communications, embedded sensors, data analytics and controls to significantly reduce lighting energy use in commercial buildings. This project developed a suite of networked lighting solutions to further this goal. The technologies include a platform for low-cost sensing, distributed intelligence and communications, the “PermaMote,” which is a self-powered sensor and controller for lighting applications. The project team also developed a task ambient daylighting system that integrates sensors with data-driven daylighting control using an open communication interface, called the “Readings-At-Desk” (RAD) system. To address the problem of building occupants being confused about how to operate traditional lighting control systems, the research team created content that could be the basis for a user interface standard for lighting controls. Finally, to address the difficulty of ensuring that advanced lighting control systems actually deliver their promised energy savings, the project team developed a new method for evaluating and specifying lighting systems’ performance.The research team validated these technologies in the laboratory, showing significant lighting energy savings, up to 73% for the PermaMote sensor system from occupancy control and daylight dimming features, compared to the same light source (LED replacement lamps) operated via simple on/off scheduling. The project team also developed a proposed standard lighting data model and user interface elements, which were contributed to the ANSI Lighting Systems Committee (C137) for standardization. Existing data models are incomplete and inconsistent, whereas the lighting-specific data model developed here is clear and comprehensive, to serve as a starting point for creating common, universally agreed upon semantic definitions of key lighting parameters, to promote interoperability. For the task on verifiable performance of lighting systems, the project team developed a more effective metric for capturing the actual energy impact of a lighting system over time — the energy usage intensity (kWh/ft2/year). Three commercial lighting systems were tested in FLEXLAB® using this new metric, and the tests show a wide range in the accuracy of the self-reported energy-use metric, from 0.5% to 28% error compared to direct measurement of lighting energy using dedicated submeters. Overall, the project team estimates that these advanced technologies can reduce California office lighting energy use by 20% (above and beyond normal advanced lighting controls mandated by Title 24), resulting in about 1,600 GWh/year in savings.

Light-emitting diodes (LED) fixtures and lamps have emerged as leading technologies for general illumination and are a well-established energy efficiency retrofit measure in commercial buildings (from around 2% of installed fixtures and lamps in 2013 to 28% by 2020). Retrofit approaches that integrate elements, such as networked controls, daylight dimming, and advanced shade technologies lag in comparison. Integrated retrofits have been shown to increase savings over single end-use retrofits, but are perceived as higher complexity and risk. More validation of integrated lighting system performance is needed. This study presents results from laboratory testing of three packages combining fixtures, networked controls, task tuning, and daylight dimming, advanced shades, and lighting layout changes. We characterize performance in perimeter open-office zones, finding energy savings from 20% for daylight dimming and automated shades (no LED retrofit) to over 70% for LED retrofits with advanced controls and shades or lighting layout changes. We present some implementation details, including lessons learned from installation and commissioning in the laboratory setting. We also discuss cost-benefit analysis approaches for the types of packages presented, including the need to quantify and incorporate energy and non-energy benefits for advanced shades packages, which enhance occupant comfort but add significant cost.

Approximately 40% of the total U.S. office floor space of 1.5 billion sq.m (16 billion sq.ft.) is leased space occupied by tenants. Tenant fit-out presents a key opportunity to incorporate energy efficiency within the real estate business cycle. We designed a package of energy efficiency measures tailored to the scope of a tenant fit-out. This tenant fit-out package (TFP) includes advanced lighting and heating, ventilating and air-conditioning (HVAC) controls as core measures, with ceiling fans, automated shading, and plug load controls as additional optional measures. We conducted laboratory testing of six configurations of the package to evaluate energy savings, indoor environmental quality, and identify installation, commissioning, and operational issues. Combined savings for HVAC, lighting, and plug loads ranged from 33-40%. Lighting savings ranged from 69-83%, and HVAC savings from 20-40%. The laboratory testing also revealed some minor but tractable challenges with installation and commissioning of HVAC controls. Overall, the results demonstrate that significant savings can be realized in existing office buildings by incorporating relatively low-risk, proven measures at the time of a tenant fit-out.

Most building retrofit projects are still component-based in that they typically address only one piece or type of equipment at a time. Systems-based retrofits that seek to address multiple components in an integrated manner have the potential to provide significantly greater energy savings.Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) partnered with several utilities to develop and evaluate three different integrated retrofit packages involving lighting systems: automated shading with daylightdimming controls, workstation-specific lighting with daylight controls, and task/ambient lighting with plug load occupancy controls. Specifically, our analysis sought to quantify the marginal benefits of these systems (energy savings as well as lighting performance and visual comfort) relative to component based approaches. The analysis was based on a combination of measured performance data from LBNL’s FLEXLAB® test facility and energy simulations. All three systems were compared to a simple fluorescent-to-LED retrofit, which represents the component-based approach. While the simple LED upgrade provides significant lighting energy savings of 63%, the systems yielded energy savings of 81-93%, which equates to additional savings of 49-82% over the simple LED upgrade (Table A-1).1 All systems tested provided satisfactory visual comfort as well, indicating good potential for market acceptance.

Energy efficiency upgrades to buildings to date through avenues such as utility incentive programs have been largely limited to component-based products (e.g., lamps, RTUs). While some utilities do provide ‘custom’ incentive programs with whole building and system level technical assistance, these programs require deeper levels of analysis, resulting in higher program costs. This results in custom programs being restricted to utilities with greater resources, and are typically applied mainly to large or energy-intensive facilities, leaving much of the market without cost effective access and incentives for these solutions. In addition, with increasingly stringent energy codes, cost effective component-based solutions that achieve significant savings are dwindling.Integrated building systems (e.g., integrated façade, HVAC and/or lighting solutions) can deliver higher savings (Regnier et al. 2017) that translate into large sector-wide savings if deployed at the scale of these programs. However, systems application poses a number of challenges – energy savings assessments are inherently more complex and are not easily suited to the deemed measure model, and implementation of systems can be more disruptive. This paper presents the outcomes of a project to develop validated utility incentive program packages for three specific integrated building systems, in collaboration with ComEd, a consortium of California Public Owned Utilities (CA POUs) (Northern California Power Agency(NCPA) and the Southern California Public Power Authority(SCPPA)), and Xcel Energy (CO, MN). Previous work described the potential for energy savings of these systems at the individual and market level, early test findings for the task-ambient lighting system, and described the work products to develop utility incentive programs (Regnier et al. 2016). This paper presents validated end use energy savings of all three systems showing energy savings of ~20% for automated shading combined with daylight dimming (does not include light fixture retrofit savings); 30-46% for task-ambient lighting systems combined with plug load occupancy controls, depending on technology package and office building size (no daylight dimming impacts); and ~94% in the south-façade daylit zone for workstation specific lighting systems with daylight dimming (including lighting retrofit and task tuning). Using a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reference building model (DOE 2018), this translates to whole building savings of 2-5% (large-medium commercial), 12-23% (large-small commercial), and 13-15% (medium-large commercial) for these systems respectively. Early findings from the utilities in deploying these systems through their incentive programs indicate that deployment methods such as direct install programs might be best suited for these integrated systems. Further, early findings from a scoping study across custom utility programs and federal retrofit programs indicate that component level retrofits are still prevalent even in these programs, pointing towards an opportunity for deeper energy savings deployment. High performance retrofit case studies demonstrate that deeper energy savings is possible through integrated approaches. Market stakeholder interviews indicate however that there is generally a low level of awareness of the potential for energy savings of these three integrated systems.

Awareness of the economic costs and environmental consequences of electric energy use in buildings is steadily growing. Implementing energy efficiency measures for reducing energy consumption in buildings can be an effective strategy for managing these impacts. Within commercial buildings in the United States, electricity use for lighting accounts for 26% (around 346 TWh in 2010) and represents a large potential energy savings source. Significant lighting energy savings have already been achieved through the widespread adoption of efficient fluorescent lamps and ballasts in the past several decades. Looking towards efficient lighting operations’ innovations, wireless advanced lighting controls technology represents an increasingly viable option for capturing the next major level of lighting energy savings in new construction and building retrofits. Fundamentally, lighting is the most amenable building end use load for producing deep energy savings because of its dynamic controllability.Advanced lighting controls encompass control strategies from occupancy sensing to continuous dimming, institutional tuning and daylight harvesting. These strategies offer greater flexibility and higher granularity of control than traditional basic control methods. Historically, advanced control systems have required extensive control wiring, which has driven system costs. However, recently developed wireless lighting controls systems can be used to network lighting components, while potentially minimizing installation time and labor costs during retrofit in comparison to wired control systems.