Annual savings identified by detailed LoanSTAR audits during the period January, 1989 -December, 1991 are $13.7 million with an investment cost of $46.1 million. These savings represent retrofit projects in state-owned buildings, local government-owned facilities, and independent school districts, accounting for 80%, 16%, and 4% of the investment cost, respectively. A summary of retrofit projects by type is presented and modifications to chillers and chilled water systems account for 26% of the savings and 32% of the cost, followed by lighting retrofits which account for 24% of the savings and 24% of the cost. The Governor's Energy Office has implemented changes to simplify the audit process by eliminating some calculations. Independent calculations and maintenance and operating procedures calculations are no longer required, and some retrofit projects may depend on standard paybacks to identify cost savings

Athar, A.

Britton, A. J.

Heffington, W. M.

Nutter, D. W.

Stuewe, C.

English

Texas A&amp;M Repository

LoanSTAR ENERGY AUDITING: UPDATE AND CHANGES W. M. Herrington A. Athar A. J. Britton D. W. Nutter Energy Systems Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering Department Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas Carol Stuewe, Governor's Energy Office, Austin, Texas ABSTRACT Annual savings identified by detailed LoanSTAR audits during the period January, 1989 - December, 1991 are $13.7 million with an investment cost of $46.1 million. These savings represent retrofit projects in state-owned buildings, local government-owned facilities, and independent school districts, accounting for 80%, 16%, and 4% of the investment cost, respectively. A summary of retrofit projects by type is presented and modifications to chillers and chilled water systems account for 26% of the savings and 32 % of the cost, followed by lighting retrofits which account for 24 % of the savings and 24 % of the cost. The Governor's Energy Office has implemented changes to simplify the audit process by eliminating some calculations. Independent calculations and maintenance and operating procedures calculations are no longer required, and some retrofit projects may depend on standard paybacks to identify cost savings. INTRODUCTION LoanSTAR is a $98.6 million revolving loan program to accomplish cost saving retrofits associated with energy management in publicly-owned buildings and systems in Texas. 1,2 Projects are funded from Petroleum Violation Escrow accounts as a part of the State Energy Conservation Plan, which is administered by the Governor's Energy Office. I As of December, 1991, about $36 million* had been loaned based on detailed audits from both LoanSTAR and an earlier audit program. An earlier program for state agencies known as the Texas Energy Cost Containment Program (TECCP) identified savings shown in Table 1. 2 ,3 The two types of projects shown in Table I are for capital intensive projects (Energy Cost Reduction Measures or ECRMs) and for generally less *	 The amount of the loans is principally to cover the implementation costs of the retrofit projects but includes other items, such as the cost of the audit (which averages about 4% of the implementation cost),2 and an allowance of 10% to cover contingencies such as unexpected equipment price increases. After construction is complete, the loans are repaid in half-year increments with payments due on February 28 and August 31. 174 expenSive projects which the building staff can perfonn as part of their regular duties (Maintenance and Operating Recommendations or M&Os).2,4 Audits for the TECCP were conducted in 1984 and 1986.3,5 Table 1.	 TECCP Audit Results. Dependencies between projects are considered. Investment Cost, million $ Annual Savings, million $/vr Payback, yrs ECRMs 42.8 19.9 2.2 M&Os 0.1 1.4 0.1 Combined 42.9 21.3 2.0 A central funding source at a state-wide level was not evident until 1988. In 1988, surveys of the agencies receiving the TECCP audits revealed that 24 % of the ECRMs already had been accomplished with funds secured by the facility operators. Another 5% were scheduled for completion, and II % were no longer desirable for reasons such as building remodeling and function change. Utility and implementation costs were updated in 1988, and the result was remaining dependent savings of $10.9 million per year with an investment cost of $30.5 million for a payback of 2.8 years.3,5 The longer payback (compared to that of 2.2 years for ECRMs in Table I) indicates that more lucrative, shorter payback projects were most often selected for accomplishment in the early days. AUDIT RESULTS During the recent five-month period between July 31 and December 31, 1991, 15 detailed audit reports covering 10.9 million square feet and 96 buildings were completed. Table 2 shows these recent surveys and cost results. Table 2.	 Recent LoanSTAR Results. Dependencies between projects are considered. Investment Cost, million $ Annual Savings, million $/yr Payback, yrs ECRMs 21.2 6.6 3.2 M&Os negligible 0.1 0.1 Combined 21.2 6.7 3.2 ESL-HH-92-05-26Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates, Dallas, TX, May 13-14, 1992 Table 3 includes similar data for an earlier period (January, 1989, through July 30, 1991)2 and shows the total LoanSTAR audit results. Table 3.	 LoanSTAR Audit Results for the period January, 1989 through December, 1991. Dependencies between projects are included. Investment Cost, million $ Annual Savings, million $/yr Payback, yrs ECRMs 46.1 13.7 3.4 M&Os negligible 0.2 0.1 Combined 46.1 13.9 3.3 A total of 58 LoanSTAR detailed audit reports covering 28.3 million square feet and 425 buildings have been accepted. The total includes four streetlighting reports (which have no associated area), two fish hatcheries with considerable pumping energy modifications (whose included area is that of some associated buildings), and a physical plant report for Texas A&M University with dependent savings of $1.84 million per year, an implementation cost of $6.49 million, and a payback of 3.5 years (which indicates only 71,000 square feet for the physical plant building and does not include area for the many buildings affected). Basing energy savings on area for anything other than self-contained buildings which purchase or supply all their own utility needs is problematic. A total of 80% of the recommended ECRM's investment cost shown in Table 3 was for state agencies, which were eligible for this program from the beginning. The earlier audit program (TECCP) was for state agencies and their continued participation in, and familiarity with, LoanSTAR was natural. Sixteen (of the 58 accepted) detailed reports are for local governments (which include towns, cities, and counties) and three reports are for school districts. The program was expanded to include local governments and independent school districts in mid-1990. Table 4 shows the ECRM project results, including four streetlighting projects for local governments. Contributions due to M&Os for local governments and school districts were negligible. Table 4.	 LoanSTAR Audit ECRM Results for Local Governments and School Districts. Dependencies between projects are accounted for. Investment Cost, million $ Annual Savings, million $/yr Payback, vrs Local Governments 7.2 2.2 3.3 School Districts 2.0 0.36 5.6 Total 9.2 2.56 3.6 The ECRM investment values in Table 4 for local governments and for school districts represent 16 % and 4% of the LoanSTAR total of $46.1 million, respectively. Through the end of December, about $3.8 million in loans had been made to local governments and school districts based on detailed audits. The LoanSTAR program has $20 million and $16 million available for local governments and school districts, respectively, and the program is being aggressively marketed to them. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS Table 5 gives a summary of the estimated implementation cost and predicted cost savings by category for the facilities receiving detailed LoanSTAR audits. The recommended ECRMs have been divided into eight categories in Table 5, and dependencies between ECRMs are not considered in this data. According to this information, chiller and chilled water retrofits have the largest share of the implementation cost (32 %) and cost savings (26 %) with a payback of 3.9 years. Replacement of steam absorption chillers by steam driven chillers and energy efficient chiller replacements constitute the major part of this implementation cost. Lighting retrofits have the second largest implementation cost share (24%) and cost saving share (24%) with a payback of 3.1 years. Energy analyses of commercial and institutional buildings typically recommend lighting modifications. These modifications include energy efficient fluorescent lamps, energy efficient ballasts, changing incandescent to screw-in fluorescent lamps, reflectors, exit sign replacement and motion sensors. ECRMs concerning boiler and steam retrofits have the shortest payback. A majority of the ECRMs in this category are steam trap replacements and have very short paybacks. Paybacks for variable speed drives for the air handling units, variable speed pumping and HVAC system retrofits vary from 3.8 to 3.6 years. CHANGES IN THE AUDIT PROCESS During fiscal year 1991, twelve consulting engineering firms were under contract to the Governor's Energy Office to perform energy audits; however, only nine of the firms submitted detailed audit reports, and some were more active than others. For 1992, 27 firms have contracts to produce audit reports. Much of this work will be in the area of simplified energy audits, which are, as their designation implies, simpler than the detailed audits generally described in this paper. Evolution of the LoanSTAR audit format and guidelines has been covered previously) Changes implemented in early 1992 include categorizing ECRMs into three areas. A Category I ECRM is one for which there are no calculations 175 ESL-HH-92-05-26Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates, Dallas, TX, May 13-14, 1992 Table 5. LoanSTAR Independent ECRM Results for the period January. 1989 through December. 1991 ECRM Recommendations Implementation Cost (million dollars) Fractional Implementation Cost (%) Annual Cost Savings (million dollars) Fractional Cost Savings (%) Simple Paybacks (Yrs) Chiller & CHW Retrofits 15.2 32 3.9 26 3.9 Lighting Retrofits 11.2 24 3.6 24 3.1 MotorlVSDIVSP Conversion 7.2 1') 1.9 13 3.8 HV AC System Retrofits 3.6 8 1.0 7 3.6 EMC Syslems 3.6 8 1.1 7 3.3 Others 3.4 7 0.9 6 3.8 Builer & Steam Retrofits 2.4 ') 1.9 13 1.3 Puml1ing System Retrofits 1.0 2 0.6 4 1.7 Tol~1 47.6 IDO 14.9 100 32 or estimations of energy savings. The implementation cost is based on an estimate of the quantity or amount of material or equipment to be installed. The cost savings are determined by dividing the implementation cost by a standard payback for the particular type of retrofit. A Category II ECRM is one calculated according to the computer procedure SimpCalc,6 and a Category III ECRM is a complicated project for which detailed calculations and documentation are required. These category definitions are from LoanSTAR audit guidelines. 4 Category III ECRMs are generally described in detailed energy audit reports which are reviewed by Texas A&M personnel. The simpler categories are designed for presentation in simplified audit reports which can be completed, reviewed, and funded in a shorter time than the more complicated, detailed ECRMs of Category III. Where a facility has both simple and complex ECRMs, a simplified report will be issued so that the projects covered there may begin quickly, without waiting for detailed calculations and a more complex report. The results of the simplified report will be added to the detailed report when it is finally issued. 4 Category I ECRMs and their paybacks are shown in Table 6. 4 In some cases limiting the operating hours or the implementation cost is necessary to obtain the projected paybacks. Data to arrive at the values in Table 6 were taken from manufacturers and LoanSTAR audit reports. Paybacks for Category J ECRMs (sometimes called "dipstick" ECRMs) are based on three items: an implementation cost per unit to be installed or removed, a good estimate of the number of units affected (detailed counts are not in order). and historical paybacks. The annual cost savings are determined by dividing the total implementation cost by the payback in Table 6. 4 Category II ECRMs include computerized calculations for exterior lighting conversion, fixture relamping, exterior lighting controls, interior lighting controls, attic/ceiling insulation, window solar gain control, high efficiency motors, replacement of low efficiency cooling units. electric to gas water heater conversion, timeclock control of motor loads, timeclock control of air conditioning/heating unit, additional computer room cooling unit, and programmable thermostats. They are on disk and available to LoanSTAR auditors with a user's manual. 6 Table 6. Proposed LoanSTAR Category I ECRMs. ECRM Payback (Years) Minimum Annual Ooeration (Hours) Delamping I N/A Repair Steam Traps 2 N/A Incandescent to 18-w Screw-in Fluorescent (cost less than $20/unit) 2 6500 (replacing 6O-w inc.) 3400 (replacing 75-w inc.) Energy-Efficient Fluorescent Lamps 2 4400 Photocells on Exterior Lights 3 N/A Time Clock Shut Down of Equipment 3 N/A Incandescent Exit Lamps to 9-w (or less) Fluorescent (installed cost less than $35/unit) 3 N/A Incandescent to H.P. Sodium 4 N/A J7ti ESL-HH-92-05-26Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates, Dallas, TX, May 13-14, 1992 Another major change adopted includes the removal of the mjuirement to identify and calculate savings from M&Os.4 As can be seen from Tables 1-3, M&Os are not so important as ECRMs, and they can often be treated as ECRMs when necessary. Also, all calculations will now be done on a dependent basis.4 Formerly, independent calculations were required in each individual ECRM and dependencies were handled in one last ECRM called a composite ECRM. Independent calculations were needed in the event some ECRMs were accomplished and others were not. This sometimes occurred before a 'd 'fied 2 3 program funding mechanism was I entl I .' However, the funding is now secure and great effort is made to include only projects in the reports which will definitely be accomplished, so the need for independent calculations is less important. In fact, it is sometimes a waste of auditors' time. In order to lessen the calculations required for two ECRMs which are dependent on each other, a hierarchy of calculations (similar to one used for the Institutional Conservation Program)7 will allow the auditors to consider major influences in an orderly fashion and without. it~ration. All projects will be analyzed in the sequence of bUlldmg loads, distribution systems, primary equipment, and energy management control systems. In a detailed report, any applicable simplified report ECRMs are assumed to be installed. 4 Project selection guidelines have been prepared for the Governor's Energy Office by the consulting firm of Kinsman and Associates to enable firms to more rapidly complete audits. In addition the composite project payback criteria of four years has b~n lengthened to four to five years, with the possibility allowed for building operators to "buydown" longer payback projects.4 CONCLUSION Recent detailed audit results from the Texas LoanSTAR program have been reviewed. Savings identified during the first two years of the program (January, 1989 - December, 1991) amount to $13.7 million per year (for ECRMs) and the investment cost required to obtain those savings is $46.1 million. As expected, projects frequently deal with heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and lighting. Savings and investment costs for the various types of retrofits are summarized, with retrofits to chillers and chilled water systems accounting for 26% of the savings and almost one­third of the implementation cost. Chiller and chilled water systems' paybacks are longest, at 3.9 years. Boiler and steam system retrofits with relatively small savings and cost have the shortest paybacks at 1.7 years. Program changes were covered, with emphasis on changes such as not requiring calculations for independent projects and M&Os. These changes will reduce the effort required to produce energy analysis reports. REFERENCES 1.	 Governor's Energy Office, May, 1988, "Statewide Demonstration and Revolving Loan Program," program document submitted to DOE by the GEO as part of the Texas State Energy Conservation Program. 2. Heffington, W. M., Britton, A. 1., Athar, A., and Nutter, D. W., April 6, 1992, "Auditing for Energy Retrofits: Results and Lessons from a Major State Program," to be published in the Proceedings of the ASME/JSES/KSES International Solar Energy Conference. 3. Burke, T.	 E., and Heffington, W. M., October 3-4, 1989, "Updating Texas Energy Cost Containment Audit Reports," Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates, Dallas, Texas, pp. G2-G5. 4. Governor's Energy Office, February, 1992, Texas LoanSTAR Program Audit Guidelines and Audit Formats, Austin, Texas. 5. Heffington, W.	 M., and Burke, T. E., December, 1988, "Update Report on Texas Energy Cost Containment Program," Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 6. Governor's Energy Office and Apollo Data, 1991, "SimpCalc, Simplified ECRM Calculation System, LoanSTAR Version 1.0," Software developed for the use of the Governor's Energy Office, Austin, Texas. 7. Energy Management Center, October, 1989 (second revision), "Guidebook for Preparation of Technical Assistance Reports," Institutional Conservation Program, Governor's Energy Office, Austin, Texas. 177 ESL-HH-92-05-26Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates, Dallas, TX, May 13-14, 1992 

LoanSTAR Energy Auditing: Update and Changes

Texas A&M University

LoanSTAR ENERGY AUDITING: UPDATE AND CHANGES 
W. M. Herrington A. Athar A. J. Britton D. W. Nutter
 
Energy Systems Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering Department
 
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
 
Carol Stuewe, Governor's Energy Office, Austin, Texas 
ABSTRACT 
Annual savings identified by detailed LoanSTAR audits 
during the period January, 1989 - December, 1991 are $13.7 
million with an investment cost of $46.1 million. These 
savings represent retrofit projects in state-owned buildings, 
local government-owned facilities, and independent school 
districts, accounting for 80%, 16%, and 4% of the investment 
cost, respectively. A summary of retrofit projects by type is 
presented and modifications to chillers and chilled water 
systems account for 26% of the savings and 32 % of the cost, 
followed by lighting retrofits which account for 24 % of the 
savings and 24 % of the cost. The Governor's Energy Office 
has implemented changes to simplify the audit process by 
eliminating some calculations. Independent calculations and 
maintenance and operating procedures calculations are no 
longer required, and some retrofit projects may depend on 
standard paybacks to identify cost savings. 
INTRODUCTION 
LoanSTAR is a $98.6 million revolving loan program to 
accomplish cost saving retrofits associated with energy 
management in publicly-owned buildings and systems in 
Texas. 1,2 Projects are funded from Petroleum Violation 
Escrow accounts as a part of the State Energy Conservation 
Plan, which is administered by the Governor's Energy 
Office. I As of December, 1991, about $36 million* had 
been loaned based on detailed audits from both LoanSTAR 
and an earlier audit program. 
An earlier program for state agencies known as the Texas 
Energy Cost Containment Program (TECCP) identified 
savings shown in Table 1. 2 ,3 The two types of projects 
shown in Table I are for capital intensive projects (Energy 
Cost Reduction Measures or ECRMs) and for generally less 
*	 The amount of the loans is principally to cover the 
implementation costs of the retrofit projects but includes 
other items, such as the cost of the audit (which 
averages about 4% of the implementation cost),2 and an 
allowance of 10% to cover contingencies such as 
unexpected equipment price increases. After construction 
is complete, the loans are repaid in half-year increments 
with payments due on February 28 and August 31. 
174 
expenSive projects which the building staff can perfonn as 
part of their regular duties (Maintenance and Operating 
Recommendations or M&Os).2,4 Audits for the TECCP 
were conducted in 1984 and 1986.3,5 
Table 1.	 TECCP Audit Results. Dependencies between 
projects are considered. 
Investment 
Cost, 
million $ 
Annual 
Savings, 
million $/vr 
Payback, 
yrs 
ECRMs 42.8 19.9 2.2 
M&Os 0.1 1.4 0.1 
Combined 42.9 21.3 2.0 
A central funding source at a state-wide level was not evident 
until 1988. In 1988, surveys of the agencies receiving the 
TECCP audits revealed that 24 % of the ECRMs already had 
been accomplished with funds secured by the facility 
operators. Another 5% were scheduled for completion, and 
II % were no longer desirable for reasons such as building 
remodeling and function change. Utility and implementation 
costs were updated in 1988, and the result was remaining 
dependent savings of $10.9 million per year with an 
investment cost of $30.5 million for a payback of 2.8 
years.3,5 The longer payback (compared to that of 2.2 years 
for ECRMs in Table I) indicates that more lucrative, shorter 
payback projects were most often selected for accomplishment 
in the early days. 
AUDIT RESULTS 
During the recent five-month period between July 31 and 
December 31, 1991, 15 detailed audit reports covering 10.9 
million square feet and 96 buildings were completed. Table 2 
shows these recent surveys and cost results. 
Table 2.	 Recent LoanSTAR Results. Dependencies between
 
projects are considered.
 
Investment 
Cost, 
million $ 
Annual 
Savings, 
million $/yr 
Payback, 
yrs 
ECRMs 21.2 6.6 3.2 
M&Os negligible 0.1 0.1 
Combined 21.2 6.7 3.2 
ESL-HH-92-05-26
Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates, Dallas, TX, May 13-14, 1992 
Table 3 includes similar data for an earlier period (January, 
1989, through July 30, 1991)2 and shows the total 
LoanSTAR audit results. 
Table 3.	 LoanSTAR Audit Results for the period January, 
1989 through December, 1991. Dependencies 
between projects are included. 
Investment 
Cost, 
million $ 
Annual 
Savings, 
million $/yr 
Payback, 
yrs 
ECRMs 46.1 13.7 3.4 
M&Os negligible 0.2 0.1 
Combined 46.1 13.9 3.3 
A total of 58 LoanSTAR detailed audit reports covering 28.3 
million square feet and 425 buildings have been accepted. 
The total includes four streetlighting reports (which have no 
associated area), two fish hatcheries with considerable 
pumping energy modifications (whose included area is that of 
some associated buildings), and a physical plant report for 
Texas A&M University with dependent savings of $1.84 
million per year, an implementation cost of $6.49 million, 
and a payback of 3.5 years (which indicates only 71,000 
square feet for the physical plant building and does not 
include area for the many buildings affected). Basing energy 
savings on area for anything other than self-contained 
buildings which purchase or supply all their own utility needs 
is problematic. 
A total of 80% of the recommended ECRM's investment cost 
shown in Table 3 was for state agencies, which were eligible 
for this program from the beginning. The earlier audit 
program (TECCP) was for state agencies and their continued 
participation in, and familiarity with, LoanSTAR was natural. 
Sixteen (of the 58 accepted) detailed reports are for local 
governments (which include towns, cities, and counties) and 
three reports are for school districts. The program was 
expanded to include local governments and independent 
school districts in mid-1990. Table 4 shows the ECRM 
project results, including four streetlighting projects for local 
governments. Contributions due to M&Os for local 
governments and school districts were negligible. 
Table 4.	 LoanSTAR Audit ECRM Results for Local 
Governments and School Districts. Dependencies 
between projects are accounted for. 
Investment 
Cost, 
million $ 
Annual 
Savings, 
million $/yr 
Payback, 
vrs 
Local Governments 7.2 2.2 3.3 
School Districts 2.0 0.36 5.6 
Total 9.2 2.56 3.6 
The ECRM investment values in Table 4 for local 
governments and for school districts represent 16 % and 4% 
of the LoanSTAR total of $46.1 million, respectively. 
Through the end of December, about $3.8 million in loans 
had been made to local governments and school districts 
based on detailed audits. The LoanSTAR program has $20 
million and $16 million available for local governments and 
school districts, respectively, and the program is being 
aggressively marketed to them. 
RECOMMENDED PROJECTS 
Table 5 gives a summary of the estimated implementation 
cost and predicted cost savings by category for the facilities 
receiving detailed LoanSTAR audits. The recommended 
ECRMs have been divided into eight categories in Table 5, 
and dependencies between ECRMs are not considered in this 
data. 
According to this information, chiller and chilled water 
retrofits have the largest share of the implementation cost 
(32 %) and cost savings (26 %) with a payback of 3.9 years. 
Replacement of steam absorption chillers by steam driven 
chillers and energy efficient chiller replacements constitute 
the major part of this implementation cost. 
Lighting retrofits have the second largest implementation cost 
share (24%) and cost saving share (24%) with a payback of 
3.1 years. Energy analyses of commercial and institutional 
buildings typically recommend lighting modifications. These 
modifications include energy efficient fluorescent lamps, 
energy efficient ballasts, changing incandescent to screw-in 
fluorescent lamps, reflectors, exit sign replacement and 
motion sensors. 
ECRMs concerning boiler and steam retrofits have the 
shortest payback. A majority of the ECRMs in this category 
are steam trap replacements and have very short paybacks. 
Paybacks for variable speed drives for the air handling units, 
variable speed pumping and HVAC system retrofits vary 
from 3.8 to 3.6 years. 
CHANGES IN THE AUDIT PROCESS 
During fiscal year 1991, twelve consulting engineering firms 
were under contract to the Governor's Energy Office to 
perform energy audits; however, only nine of the firms 
submitted detailed audit reports, and some were more active 
than others. For 1992, 27 firms have contracts to produce 
audit reports. Much of this work will be in the area of 
simplified energy audits, which are, as their designation 
implies, simpler than the detailed audits generally described 
in this paper. 
Evolution of the LoanSTAR audit format and guidelines has 
been covered previously) Changes implemented in early 
1992 include categorizing ECRMs into three areas. A 
Category I ECRM is one for which there are no calculations 
175 
ESL-HH-92-05-26
Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates, Dallas, TX, May 13-14, 1992 
Table 5. LoanSTAR Independent ECRM Results for the period January. 1989 through December. 1991 
ECRM Recommendations 
Implementation 
Cost 
(million dollars) 
Fractional 
Implementation 
Cost 
(%) 
Annual 
Cost 
Savings 
(million dollars) 
Fractional 
Cost 
Savings 
(%) 
Simple 
Paybacks 
(Yrs) 
Chiller & CHW Retrofits 15.2 32 3.9 26 3.9 
Lighting Retrofits 11.2 24 3.6 24 3.1 
MotorlVSDIVSP Conversion 7.2 1') 1.9 13 3.8 
HV AC System Retrofits 3.6 8 1.0 7 3.6 
EMC Syslems 3.6 8 1.1 7 3.3 
Others 3.4 7 0.9 6 3.8 
Builer & Steam Retrofits 2.4 ') 1.9 13 1.3 
Puml1ing System Retrofits 1.0 2 0.6 4 1.7 
Tol~1 47.6 IDO 14.9 100 32 
or estimations of energy savings. The implementation cost is 
based on an estimate of the quantity or amount of material or 
equipment to be installed. The cost savings are determined 
by dividing the implementation cost by a standard payback for 
the particular type of retrofit. A Category II ECRM is one 
calculated according to the computer procedure SimpCalc,6 
and a Category III ECRM is a complicated project for which 
detailed calculations and documentation are required. These 
category definitions are from LoanSTAR audit guidelines. 4 
Category III ECRMs are generally described in detailed 
energy audit reports which are reviewed by Texas A&M 
personnel. The simpler categories are designed for 
presentation in simplified audit reports which can be 
completed, reviewed, and funded in a shorter time than the 
more complicated, detailed ECRMs of Category III. 
Where a facility has both simple and complex ECRMs, a 
simplified report will be issued so that the projects covered 
there may begin quickly, without waiting for detailed 
calculations and a more complex report. The results of the 
simplified report will be added to the detailed report when it 
is finally issued. 4 
Category I ECRMs and their paybacks are shown in Table 
6. 4 In some cases limiting the operating hours or the 
implementation cost is necessary to obtain the projected 
paybacks. Data to arrive at the values in Table 6 were taken 
from manufacturers and LoanSTAR audit reports. 
Paybacks for Category J ECRMs (sometimes called "dipstick" 
ECRMs) are based on three items: an implementation cost 
per unit to be installed or removed, a good estimate of the 
number of units affected (detailed counts are not in order). 
and historical paybacks. The annual cost savings are 
determined by dividing the total implementation cost by the 
payback in Table 6. 4 
Category II ECRMs include computerized calculations for 
exterior lighting conversion, fixture relamping, exterior 
lighting controls, interior lighting controls, attic/ceiling 
insulation, window solar gain control, high efficiency motors, 
replacement of low efficiency cooling units. electric to gas 
water heater conversion, timeclock control of motor loads, 
timeclock control of air conditioning/heating unit, additional 
computer room cooling unit, and programmable thermostats. 
They are on disk and available to LoanSTAR auditors with a 
user's manual. 6 
Table 6. Proposed LoanSTAR Category I ECRMs. 
ECRM 
Payback 
(Years) 
Minimum Annual 
Ooeration (Hours) 
Delamping I N/A 
Repair Steam Traps 2 N/A 
Incandescent to 18-w Screw-in 
Fluorescent (cost less than $20/unit) 
2 6500 (replacing 6O-w inc.) 
3400 (replacing 75-w inc.) 
Energy-Efficient Fluorescent Lamps 2 4400 
Photocells on Exterior Lights 3 N/A 
Time Clock Shut Down of 
Equipment 
3 N/A 
Incandescent Exit Lamps to 9-w (or 
less) Fluorescent (installed cost less 
than $35/unit) 
3 N/A 
Incandescent to H.P. Sodium 4 N/A 
J7ti 
ESL-HH-92-05-26
Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates, Dallas, TX, May 13-14, 1992 
Another major change adopted includes the removal of the 
mjuirement to identify and calculate savings from M&Os.4 
As can be seen from Tables 1-3, M&Os are not so important 
as ECRMs, and they can often be treated as ECRMs when 
necessary. 
Also, all calculations will now be done on a dependent basis.4 
Formerly, independent calculations were required in each 
individual ECRM and dependencies were handled in one last 
ECRM called a composite ECRM. Independent calculations 
were needed in the event some ECRMs were accomplished 
and others were not. This sometimes occurred before a 
'd 'fied 2 3 program funding mechanism was I entl I .' 
However, the funding is now secure and great effort is made 
to include only projects in the reports which will definitely be 
accomplished, so the need for independent calculations is less 
important. In fact, it is sometimes a waste of auditors' time. 
In order to lessen the calculations required for two ECRMs 
which are dependent on each other, a hierarchy of 
calculations (similar to one used for the Institutional 
Conservation Program)7 will allow the auditors to consider 
major influences in an orderly fashion and without. it~ration. 
All projects will be analyzed in the sequence of bUlldmg 
loads, distribution systems, primary equipment, and energy 
management control systems. In a detailed report, any 
applicable simplified report ECRMs are assumed to be 
installed. 4 
Project selection guidelines have been prepared for the 
Governor's Energy Office by the consulting firm of Kinsman 
and Associates to enable firms to more rapidly complete 
audits. 
In addition the composite project payback criteria of four 
years has b~n lengthened to four to five years, with the 
possibility allowed for building operators to "buydown" 
longer payback projects.4 
CONCLUSION 
Recent detailed audit results from the Texas LoanSTAR 
program have been reviewed. Savings identified during the 
first two years of the program (January, 1989 - December, 
1991) amount to $13.7 million per year (for ECRMs) and the 
investment cost required to obtain those savings is $46.1 
million. As expected, projects frequently deal with heating, 
ventilating, air conditioning, and lighting. 
Savings and investment costs for the various types of retrofits 
are summarized, with retrofits to chillers and chilled water 
systems accounting for 26% of the savings and almost one­
third of the implementation cost. Chiller and chilled water 
systems' paybacks are longest, at 3.9 years. Boiler and steam 
system retrofits with relatively small savings and cost have 
the shortest paybacks at 1.7 years. 
Program changes were covered, with emphasis on changes 
such as not requiring calculations for independent projects and 
M&Os. These changes will reduce the effort required to 
produce energy analysis reports. 
REFERENCES 
1.	 Governor's Energy Office, May, 1988, "Statewide 
Demonstration and Revolving Loan Program," program 
document submitted to DOE by the GEO as part of the 
Texas State Energy Conservation Program. 
2. Heffington, W. M., Britton, A. 1., Athar, A., and Nutter, 
D. W., April 6, 1992, "Auditing for Energy Retrofits: 
Results and Lessons from a Major State Program," to be 
published in the Proceedings of the ASME/JSES/KSES 
International Solar Energy Conference. 
3. Burke, T.	 E., and Heffington, W. M., October 3-4, 1989, 
"Updating Texas Energy Cost Containment Audit 
Reports," Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Symposium 
on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid 
Climates, Dallas, Texas, pp. G2-G5. 
4. Governor's Energy Office, February, 1992, Texas 
LoanSTAR Program Audit Guidelines and Audit Formats, 
Austin, Texas. 
5. Heffington, W.	 M., and Burke, T. E., December, 1988, 
"Update Report on Texas Energy Cost Containment 
Program," Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M 
University, College Station, Texas. 
6. Governor's Energy Office and Apollo Data, 1991, 
"SimpCalc, Simplified ECRM Calculation System, 
LoanSTAR Version 1.0," Software developed for the use 
of the Governor's Energy Office, Austin, Texas. 
7. Energy Management Center, October, 1989 (second 
revision), "Guidebook for Preparation of Technical 
Assistance Reports," Institutional Conservation Program, 
Governor's Energy Office, Austin, Texas. 
177 
ESL-HH-92-05-26
Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates, Dallas, TX, May 13-14, 1992 


http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/92926/ESL-HH-92-05-26.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

LoanSTAR Energy Auditing: Update and Changes

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Texas A&M Repository

Texas A&M University

LoanSTAR Energy Auditing: Update and Changes

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Texas A&amp;M Repository

Texas A&M University

Texas A&M Repository