The revised method and model coefficient values led to a 27% reduction in evaluated natural gas savings, compared with the PSD approach for the same project. Differences in steam conditions between those assumed in the applicant analysis and observed by the evaluators on-site was the next highest contributor, resulting in an overall 11% increase to the evaluated O&M natural gas savings. For 3 projects in the sample, the evaluators observed higher steam pressure at the traps than stated in the project application, leading to higher savings from trap repair/replacement. The evaluators encountered decommissioned steam traps during the site visits, which resulted in a 7% reduction to the evaluated O&M natural gas savings. For 3 out of the 18 evaluated steam trap projects, the evaluators found one or more claimed steam traps to be decommissioned, leading to lower evaluated savings than anticipated. Retro-Commissioning Program (RCx) In order to contextualize this study’s findings with prior evaluation results, Table 4-9 compares key evaluation criteria and findings for RCx with the prior impact evaluation completed in 2013. Table 4-9. Comparison of Key Criteria and Findings with Prior Impact Evaluation for RCx Parameter Impact Evaluation Report Year Program Profile 2013 2018 Study period (program years) 2008-2010 2015 Average reported annual 1,955,185 4,845,471 savings (kWh) Average annual number of 6 16 electric sites Average annual reported 345,033 302,842 electricity savings/site (kWh) Average reported annual 2,500 8,463 savings (MMBtu) Average annual number of gas 1 10 sites Average annual reported gas 1,875 846 savings/site (MMBtu) Evaluation Approach Method(s) Census M&V Census M&V Results RRs ‒ Electric energy 74% 105% Summer seasonal peak 113% 126% demand Winter seasonal peak demand 90% 175%
The revised method and model coefficient values led to a 27% reduction in evaluated natural gas savings, compared with the PSD approach for the same project. Differences in steam conditions between those assumed in the applicant analysis and observed by the evaluators on-site was the next highest contributor, resulting in an overall 11% increase to the evaluated O&M natural gas savings. For 3 projects in the sample, the evaluators observed higher steam pressure at the traps than stated in the project application, leading to higher savings from trap repair/replacement. The evaluators encountered decommissioned steam traps during the site visits, which resulted in a 7% reduction to the evaluated O&M natural gas savings. For 3 out of the 18 evaluated steam trap projects, the evaluators found one or more claimed steam traps to be decommissioned, leading to lower evaluated savings than anticipated. Retro-Commissioning Program (RCx) In order to contextualize this study’s findings with prior evaluation results, Table 4-9 compares key evaluation criteria and findings for RCx with the prior impact evaluation completed in 2013. Table 4-9. Comparison of Key Criteria and Findings with Prior Impact Evaluation for RCx Parameter Impact Evaluation Report Year Program Profile 2013 2018 Study period (program years) 2008-2010 2015 Average reported annual savings (kWh) 1,955,185 4,845,471 Average annual number of electric sites 6 16 Average annual reported electricity savings/site (kWh) 345,033 302,842 Average reported annual savings (MMBtu) 2,500 8,463 Average annual number of gas sites 1 10 Average annual reported gas savings/site (MMBtu) 1,875 846 Evaluation Approach Method(s) Census M&V Census M&V Results ‒ RRs Electric energy 74% 105% Summer seasonal peak demand 113% 126% Winter seasonal peak demand 90% 175%
C1641%20BES%20Impact%20Eval%20Report%20draft_UIL%20Comments.docx