SEP CASE STUDY WEBINAR: MEDIMMUNE

You are here

SEP Case Study Webinar: Medimmune

sep_logo_borderless.jpg

DESCRIPTION

This Measurement and Verification Case Study webinar is the first in a series of case study webinars to highlight the successes of facilities that have achieved Superior Energy Performance (SEP) program certification. This webinar highlights the success of Medimmune’s Gaithersburg, MD facility that achieved SEP certification in September 2014 and improved their facility energy performance by 8.5% over three years. While implementing SEP, Medimmune made a major expansion of a new building, thus changing energy consumption on site. This case study described how Medimmune adjusted for the new building’s impact on overall facility energy performance as they achieved SEP certification. Download the presentation slides.

TEXT VERSION

SEP Measurement And Verification Case Study Webinar: MedImmune – June 24, 2015 – Paul Scheihing (U.S. Department of Energy), Wilbur Williams (MedImmune), Bill Meffert (Georgia Institute of TechnoloGy).

>> Paul Scheihing

Good afternoon. Welcome to the SEP Measurement and Verification webinar. This is the first of several webinars we’re going to present case studies of actual facilities that have achieved SEP certification. My name is Paul Scheihing and today we’ll have two other speakers: Wilbur Williams of MedImmune and Bill Meffert of Georgia Tech. Next slide please.

[Next Slide]

Before we get into the MedImmune case study, I’d like to give an overview of strategic energy management and SEP. In terms of looking at the continuum for strategic energy management, you first view the foundational level which is a systematic approach. You can hit the next, thank you. This is moving from a project approach to a systematic approach. You’ll see many utility programs use this as well as the Energy Star program, has energy management guidelines that promote the systematic approach. The next level is the ISO 50001. Here we’re going to a very structured management system since it is a standard. It’s similar to the ISO 9001 and 14001 and it is a certifiable energy management system. And next above that would be the SEP, where we’re doing the ISO 50001 energy management system and we’re adding that additional measurement and verification as well as the third party verification of the improvement. Next slide please.

[Next Slide]

So this is just a summary of the ISO management system. Many of you are probably familiar with, maybe some of you are less familiar but this is this follows the Plan Do Check Act approach to managing energy. And you’ll see the lighter blue elements that I highlighted here represent areas of 50001 which place particular emphasis on data gathering and metrics. This is the one thing that makes ISO 50001 a little different than other management systems – it’s heavily dependent on gathering good data and measuring your progress. Next slide please.

[Next Slide]

So in comparing ISO 50001 to SEP, the nice thing about ISO 50001 is that it is an internationally recognized standard. For those companies that have facilities in more than one country it’s a nice feature. About 50001, it does require energy performance improvement, it’s very, with a strong emphasis on energy data and metrics. Whereas SEP is building on ISO 50001 but has specific energy performance improvement criteria that 50001 does not have. SEP is the DOE program to help drive adoption of ISO 50001 in the U.S. and it was designed for diverse facilities – whether, you know, independent of sector, size, program maturity. And then finally SEP has the transparency with rigorous third party verification that we’re hoping that the market will start to reward. Next slide please.

[Next Slide]

So, to date, we have 16 companies and 25 certified facilities that have been SEP certified. You see them on the screen. Next slide please.

[Next Slide]

And today, we’re going to focus in on MedImmune, which is one of those companies, which achieved SEP certification at the Silver level with an eight and a half percent improvement. This is the Gaithersburg, Maryland facility and without stealing Wilbur’s thunder, I’ll let him describe in the future slides about this facility. So I think I’m handing this off to Bill Meffert, is that correct?

>> Bill Meffert

Right, that’s right Paul.

>> Paul

OK good.

>> Bill

Why don’t you go to the next slide Caroline.

[Next Slide]

Yeah why don’t you click through the bullets. OK, good afternoon everybody. This is Bill Meffert with Georgia Tech. And the webinar purpose is to really provide a sense of sharing among the SEP community around the measurement and verification, that’s an extremely important part of the SEP program. A lot of you have expressed how important that third party validation of your performance is an as Paul said, we expect that value to continue to increase. Next. Why don’t you just click through the next few bullets there, there, OK, one more. Yeah. So, we really want to have several of these to communicate the experience that several SEP companies have had with developing their performance improvement and measuring it.  And these will typically be unusual or cases that maybe have used a non-routine adjustment to measure that. So this may be out of the ordinary, and that’s what we want these webinars to focus on. We want to somehow bring consistency to verification of energy performance. I will say that Miriam Goldberg who developed the SEP M&V Protocol once told me that modeling, statistical modeling, is an art, and she’s right. But I think the more that we can learn from each other, the closer we can get to being consistent in how we develop those performance improvements. And then we want to build a library of reference cast studies over time so that people can reference those and when they run into these same situations, they can utilize these methods. Next slide. OK, go to the next slide then.

[Next Slide]

Before we, we move on and talk about MedImmune specifically, I do want to review, at a very high level, the SEP measurement and verification approach. So when an SEP organization has to demonstrate performance improvement they have to use two techniques. They are shown on this slide. First is the top-down, whole facility performance indicator that has to be developed. And the other is the bottom-up sanity check. The SEP program has been characterized as a top-down, whole facility program and rightly so, because that’s where a lot of the rigor in the program is, is developing that performance indicator at the energy consumption, whole facility level. So if I could describe the SEnPI, or the SEP energy performance indicator, I would, I would say that it is really a way of comparing the total consumption of, an organization’s actual total consumption versus its expected total consumption. That’s how I like to think about it. So, it’s the expected consumption if an organization had not implemented any energy performance improvements. So how do we get, you know the key into this is how do we understand this expected consumption. Well we do that by modeling all of the energy sources inside the scope and boundaries of the organization. If you look at the graph on the right, you’ll see a chart that shows natural gas consumption versus production. And we typically model consumption using a linear regression techniques and we would do that also for electricity and for other energy sources that we might have. And we would build these models that meet certain statistical validity tests that are in the SEP M&V Protocol. And these models are built using relevant variables like production, like weather, like occupancy, maybe like input characteristics, that help predict the variability in energy consumptions. So those models really revolve around using the correct relevant variables to be able to characterize the energy consumption. So to provide an example, if a company were to take their data and information from the 2010 baseline year and they were to build models for all their energy sources, that would, that model would help them predict their consumption. Over a three year time period they may be implementing projects, and a lot of things that save energy. Then in 2013, they would want to say “Well, what’s my performance improvement?” And they would look at their bills and they would actually get the actual energy consumption from their utility bills. And they would compare that to what the models predict using the variable data from 2013. And that ratio, if it’s less than one of course shows an improvement in energy performance, and the percent performance improvement would be one minus the SEnPI times 100. So the bottom-up sanity check, the emphasis there is on “check”, it doesn’t have near the rigor of the top-down analysis. And it’s really a list of projects and the savings associated with them. So we hopefully will look at a rough estimate, a reasonable estimate, of what the savings are for each of these projects and we’ll compare that to what the top-down whole facility performance improvement tells us, and we hope that they’re close. If they’re not close, then we try to work on a better model or we try to figure out more savings and somehow meet in the middle. So that’s, that’s a brief summary of the SEP M&V Protocol. Let’s go to the next slide.

[Next Slide]

Alright, I’m going to hand it over to Wilbur Williams with AstraZeneca and MedImmune and he’s going to talk, give us some background information on MedImmune.

>> Wilbur Williams

Good afternoon everyone. My name is Wilbur Williams and I used to be the energy manager for the Gaithersburg site, but I was pretty much the responsible person for implementing SEP and ISO for the past three and a half something years. So just a brief background of who we are. MedImmune is the research biologics development branch of AstraZeneca and we’re pretty much headquartered in Gaithersburg. Our company is pretty much known for Synagis and FluMist which are, one is a vaccine for the flu and the other one is a treatment for RSV, for pre-mature babies. We are a company that employs about 2,500 employees world-wide. For AstraZeneca, it’s close to a 50,000 employee company world-wide. And for the purpose of SEP we pretty much traced the boundary around our main building in Gaithersburg. So our campus is pretty much composed of a total of nine buildings, both commercial and research and development space with a small production plant for clinical trial material. And we just concentrated on the main one. Next slide.

[Next Slide]

So our boundary pretty much traces everything around the entire parking garages and the main core of the building, which is comprised of six main areas. Areas 1, 2, and 5, they’re pretty much commercial space. Area 3 is a research and development lab. Area 6 is a research and development lab and two floors are commercial space, and area 4 is split between a clinical trial manufacturing site and research and development space. So pretty much more than 50% of the space is assigned to research and development. One of the tricky aspects of implementing our facility was the growth that we underwent through the implementation period and probably Bill will talk a little more about that. But we pretty much added the whole Area 6 tower which is a six floor of occupied space with a penthouse and a basement, so it’s almost an eight floor story building that is almost one third of the entire capacity of OMW [One MedImmune Way], that is the building itself. Next slide.

[Next Slide]

So our two main electrical sources are natural gas and electricity. We diesel just for E-Gens. And a lot of our energy is consumed between the R&D space and the commercial facility obviously. Our production plant pretty much can be split into two areas right, so phase 1, phase 2, is everything that is done in the lab which is for clinical trial of phase 1 and phase 2. And then phase 3 is a small scale manufacturing suite that we have within the Area 4 tower. When we look at our Sankey, or our tool that we use, it’s the software that we call Enerit, right, it provides us a summary of our energy consumption and we plug in our energy review, it graphics out where the actual energy is being used. And you can see that pretty much all of the natural gas is used by the boiler system. And that’s why we selected and decided to concentrate our efforts for SEP for the boilers. Through the whole implementation process we achieved a eight and a half percent improvement over our 2010 baseline with a reporting year of 2013. And having the certification date of September 2014. So almost have a year past before we went through the whole formal evaluation process and certification auditing process, to be able to achieve certification. Which was pretty much done by a company called Advanced Waste Management Systems or AWMS. Next slide.

[Next Slide]

So like we said, our baseline year was in 2010, where we had a scope size of about 571,000 square feet. But in mid-2011 we added Area 6, which added an extra 224,000 square feet of production and lab space. And this kind of change, the whole approach we had to do for SEP because it drastically changed the size of our facility right in the midst of the implementation period. The building actually went online in September where we had sub-metered everything on the electrical side but we didn’t do such a good job on sub-metering natural gas consumption because we only sub-metered the boiler side, but there’s other branches of natural gas that are being fed through the main lines and that was not captured during the original project. The other caveat to this building is that it is a LEED certified Gold building, so we added a lot of funding and design efforts in the front end to make the building as efficient as possible, which kind of like skewed the whole approach of the building. So we’re adding a very high end, high tech efficient building to a space that is not so much, or so efficient as this space would be. So it posed a challenge for us in how we actually reported and how we developed a valid model that captured not only this LEED Gold certified space, but also captured the projects that we had been trying to implement all the way from the beginning in 2010, and how we can take advantage of those projects and demonstrate the savings that we needed to demonstrate. So this space pretty much added almost 40% more area to the entire total capacity of OMW, but it increased the consumption by almost 50%. So our net Phase 1 and Phase 2 production increased, but also weather, having a driving factor on the space, since a lot of the space is mostly research and development labs. So the question came to be how can we compare that performance of 2013, where we had a huge building added to the baseline size of OMW. And we, after numerous iterations, we finally came to a solution, which is what I think Bill is gonna start explaining from this point forward.

>> Bill

Right. Alright next slide.

[Next Slide]

Thanks. So Caroline go ahead and click through the, the bullets here. Yeah. One more. Thanks. And yeah there’s one more after that. So yeah it was a collaboration between PennTAP who was one of the, was the coach for MedImmune’s implementation and Wilbur and Georgia Tech, and we were looking at the best way to do this. And we realized that we needed to use the technique that the SEP M&V Protocol calls a non-routine adjustment. So this is really for, you know, one time changes that take place in the middle of the achievement period. You know it’s, you typically will have constant conditions or static factors like building area that you hope don’t change so you can make a real apples to apples comparison between your baseline period and your reporting period, but sometimes that doesn’t work out. And so as you saw, MedImmune added a whole building that increased their consumption tremendously over that time. So the non-routine adjustment allows an organization to make an estimate of the impact of that step change to both the consumption and the relevant variables that take place. So there’s got to be some sort of analysis made and some calculations of what that impact is. And you can make those calculations based on the observed impact of the utility meters, you can measure it, you can install meters; however you can get information that allows you to make a reasonable calculation for that impact. And so once you’re able to develop that estimate, then you can apply that (what we call a) non-routine adjustment to either the baseline period or the reporting period. And as I said you’re trying to get the situation where you can make an apples to apples comparison between the baseline and the reporting period. When you do this, you have to document the methodology and the reason for why you did the approach you did, and that information has to go into the application to the SEP Administrator. And this really is a way to give the Administrator and the Verification Body a heads up that this sort of unique approach is being taken to calculate performance improvement. So why don’t you go to the next slide.

[Next Slide]

So here is some graphs that actually show the impact of that new LEED Gold building that MedImmune installed. So on the lower right you can see electricity, as Wilbur said they actually metered electricity consumption for that building and that’s shown on the red line. So that was easily quantified, the amount of electricity that that new building used. However, there was not a separate meter for natural gas so in the upper left graph you can see the blue line which was two years of natural gas data before the expansion, and then the red line was two years of natural gas consumption, average natural gas consumption after the expansion. So you can see there is a difference between the two. And what we had to wind up doing is looking at an average percent increase in the consumption for the electricity and the natural gas, and then take those numbers and apply it in a non-routine adjustment. So let’s go to the next slide.

[Next Slide]

So as we said, you know, there’s two considerations for applying this adjustment. Either you take that consumption and you discount the reporting period consumption; so in other words, that additional consumption from that new building would be subtracted from the total consumption in the reporting period. Or, you could account for that adjustment by adding it to the baseline period. Clearly, MedImmune wanted to add that consumption to the baseline periods because that new building is LEED Gold certified. And its space is efficient and they want to account for that efficiency in the performance of the entire campus. Let’s go to the next slide.

[Next Slide]

So for the electricity, the two years of metered data for the building, they looked at the average consumption, and it was adjusted in the baseline period by about 50.62%. So we developed a ratio between the total consumption of the old facility and then we looked at how much additional that new building brought on, because we metered that directly. So MedImmune, we came up with an average percent improvement of 50.62. For natural gas of course, the consumption was not measured directly. So we looked at two years of data prior to the expansion and then two years of natural gas data after the expansion. We compared the two and so we saw that there was an average increase of 28.8% in natural gas consumption. So that 28.8% was added to the natural gas consumption in the baseline period. The production variables were also looked at because that new building certainly had more production space associated with it, so we had to account for adjustments to the production variables as well in MedImmune. That is not as big a deal and I’ll talk more about that as we go on. So let’s go to the next slide.

[Next Slide]

So the next two slides really just show graphs of what that adjustment looks like. So this one is electricity and you can see the baseline period in 2010, and that dotted red line shows the 50.62% of additional electricity consumption added to the baseline period. And then you can see the reporting period is 2013. Alright let’s go to the next slide.

[Next Slide]

And then likewise, this graph shows the adjustment to natural gas to the baseline period. So the solid red line is the total facility consumption of natural gas, but the dotted red line shows the adjustment of 28.8% that was added to the consumption during the baseline period. OK, next slide.

[Next Slide]

So now that the calculated or estimated adjustments have been made to the baseline period, it’s time to start modeling the energy consumption and trying to figure out what the energy performance improvement is. When you look at this graph, the red line represents natural gas consumption, and you can see that it’s very seasonal as you would expect, because this is laboratory and commercial space and so, you know, air conditioning and heating is a very important part of the space. So you definitely see these seasonal trends. And the same with electricity. So the shaded blue box is the baseline period of 2010. The shaded green box is the reporting period of 2013. And then this sort of, I guess it’s a shaded light red or pink box, is where the facility transition took place. So this is where MedImmune was bringing that new building online. They were testing systems, they were commissioning the building, and it was not stable operation. And I think Wilbur had said that it came online fully in September of 2011. I know Wilbur and Randy Green both looked at several different models. They looked at forecasting and they looked at backcasting, but what they settled on was actually modeling energy consumption during the 2012 calendar year, which is the shaded yellow box that you see there. The reason they didn’t backcast using 2013 data was because one of the models didn’t meet some of the statistical validity tests and so they used 2012 and wound up chaining. So you build the model in 2012, you backcast to the baseline period in 2010 and you forecast to the reporting period in 2013. And then you multiply those performance improvement results to get your total energy performance improvement. So that’s how this was, how the performance improvement was calculated. So let’s go to the next slide.

[Next Slide]

So for those of you who are familiar with the DOE EnPI Tool, this is a printout of the output from that tool. If you look at the middle box, it shows the formula for the electricity, for the model for the electricity. And you can see that there are two variables – there are heating degree days [HDD] and cooling degree days [CDD]. There is no production variable there. I know Wilbur tried really hard to find a good production variable, but one couldn’t be found that really showed an impact on the variation in electricity. So, the models that were developed for electricity and natural gas looked more like a commercial building space then. And that’s, you know, that’s totally reasonable just because of the nature of MedImmune’s operations. So you can see for electricity, for those two variables, the p-values meet the requirements, the R-squared is above 0.8, the model p-value is very, very low. And then for natural gas, you can see that the model for natural gas had one variable, and that was heating degree days. And that model had an R-squared above 0.9. So both of these models definitely met the SEP M&V Protocol validity tests without a problem. These were the models that Wilbur used for certification. And if you look at the top box, you can see that in the cumulative improvement percentage, in 2013 you can see the 8.54% improvement that’s shown, and that’s three lines up from the bottom of that table. The nice thing about this, it also shows what the annual savings were during each year for this, it shows what the annual improvements are. So the DOE tool does a very good job of helping you develop your models and calculating the performance improvement and the energy savings associated with this. So it’s a, it’s a very robust tool and it makes life very easy for those companies who are trying to get SEP certified.
So let’s go to the next slide.

[Next Slide]

So this is MedImmune’s bottom-up sanity check and Wilbur I’m going to turn it over to you and let you talk about the activities that you did during this three year period.

>> Wilbur

Yeah sure. So I think, one of, one of the things I’d like to say about the bottom-up sanity check was one of the main tools that we used to check how that model that we were trying to achieve was actually doing. Right, so when Bill mentioned that we did a lot of models but some of them either didn’t meet the validity verification or the numbers we were just getting were not in sync with the things that we knew we had done. That’s why we kept going back and forth and trying to see what we were doing and how we could partner with Georgia Tech and PennTAP to be able to come up with a model that was actually showing the things that we’ve implemented over the years. So when you look at it, all the projects that we’ve done all the way back from 2010 and 2011, we started with obviously things like low hanging fruit where we changed like all the exterior lighting from metal-halides and incandescent bulbs all the way to CFLs or LED lighting. We changed a whole bunch of interior LEDs. So we had a lot of MR16 bulbs that we were having issues not only with the consumption, but we were creating a lot of additional maintenance in changing these bulbs and keeping the systems working. So we changed those to LEDs. We started looking at things like how we could actually reduce the face velocities of the fume hoods which was one of the things that management always thought that was going to save a lot of money but in reality, the way that the system is operated, the savings were not there but it was an opportunity that we did. So obviously we listed it in our list although the savings were none. Area 6 building – so this is what’s, so we invested over $1.5 million in improvements to the design and construction of this facility to make it a LEED Gold certified facility. So my management wanted to make sure that those savings were captured during the SEP and ISO certification process. And it proved challenging; one because we didn’t have the adequate sub-metering for both electric and natural gas, but the other thing was, the base, because of that we were not able to prove the model that the architect had predicted of what the performance of the building would be if we went with LEED or we went without it. So one of the good things was that when we actually used the building for the first time in 2012, we were able to compare its electrical consumption to this model and we noticed that the results were within more or less like 10% of each other. So we knew that the model provided by the architect was detailed enough, accurate enough to show the savings difference between LEED certified versus a non-LEED building. After that, we implemented this other small projects like changing all the belts to cog belts, installing compressor sequencers, more lighting projects that we had. We were starting to tie in projects or utilities within the systems. One of the questions a person had was if all six buildings were part of SEP and the question to this, the answer to that is yes, because that building is a building that was built in phases so every area or number is a different tower, but when you go inside all the towers are interconnected between each other. So every time they added a substantial space, they added extra utilities so every space has its own chillers, its own cooling towers, its own heating/heat water recirculation loops, HVAC systems. So now we’re looking at how we can interconnect those and treat the building as a single plant and try to maximize the operation to be able to improve the savings. So that one, for condensate tie-in, was one of those projects. Other were more vivarium space lighting and boiler operation optimization. That one in particular we found during the implementation that the boilers – we actually had seven boilers, like I said there were actually added as the buildings were added, and we realized that out of the seven we only needed between four and five. So two of them, we shut off for almost a year and we noticed that we never even, even needed them. So we actually ended up removing the entire boiler operation from Area 4. When we added everything, we came out to about a bottom-up check of about 70,000 MMBTU of savings and the model was telling us that we needed to hit a target of at least  60,000. So we were within less than a percent difference from what the model was telling us. So say hooray! Finally we find the model that was actually showing what we were trying, what we knew that we were achieving. So this bottom-up check not only is a requirement from the system, it actually, like the name says right, it actually gives some sanity to the model that you just created using the EnPI Tool.

>> Bill

Great, thanks Wilbur.

>> Wilbur

Back to you Bill.

>> Bill

Yeah. One thing I wanted to say about your list is it really shows a lot of the aspects of a good energy management system. Because not only did you implement capital projects, but you also, you know, implemented operational controls. You also did good design on that building and you built in the efficiency up front. And then you actually just turned stuff off by getting rid of two boilers you didn’t need. To me that’s an example of a system that’s really working. Let’s go to the next slide.

[Next Slide]

So a couple of other considerations. And the first is that LEED design had a huge impact. So, you know the design part of the energy management system is important; it’s so much easier to get that efficiency in up front instead of retrofitting it later on. I think Wilbur said it best, that bottom-up sanity check did provide some validity for the performance that was calculated by the SEnPI. And I wanted to say that it’s not uncommon for SEP organizations to use non-routine adjustments. I think we, Paul maybe you know the exact numbers, but I think there’s been four certified facilities at least that have gone this route of using a non-routine adjustment, just because things change a lot over a three year period within the manufacturing environment. So, you know, sometimes you, you have to resort to things that are a little non-routine as it says. One other thing that we investigated was, there was a two week offset in the data between the utility data and the weather data. So when you go to the NOAA website or other sites, you know, the weather data is on a calendar month. But MedImmune’s data was utility data was being read in the middle of the month. So there was this two week offset and so we looked at, you know, if we aligned this data, what difference would it make? And so we went through that calculation and it made not a whole lot of difference. I think, you know, what they settled on was 8.5% for improvement but I think with the aligned data it was only like 8.7 or 8.8%. I don’t know Wilbur if you remember exactly what it was at this point but it didn’t make a big difference.

>> Wilbur

No, it, it didn’t. We tried to, it proved more hard or more difficult to actually get weather data within a specific day by day than the actual advantage that we were trying to get out of trying to change the, or offset everything to a single schedule.

>> Bill

Yeah, yeah it was a pretty complicated analysis. And that’s just one other observation I had was that sometimes your facility may be in the middle of a couple weather stations, and NOAA and other websites will provide regional averages. But we found it’s easier if you use a specific weather station, just because there’s usually more granularity for that specific weather station than for the regional averages. And that, that’ll help if, you know, if you want to use weekly data, if you want to get that at that level. Or, you know, if you wanted to do some different analysis. It’s typically better to use the specific site. So let’s go to the next slide.

[Next Slide]

So just some closing comments. The SEP M&V Protocol has met a lot of challenges, I’ll say that, and we find it’s robust enough to handle some of these unusual situations that you might run into in both the manufacturing and commercial building environment. So far it’s been able to, to meet all those challenges. The EnPI Tool certainly facilitates the model building and the linear regression analysis and is an invaluable tool for making that happen. And non-routine adjustments have been successfully applied for several, several facilities as I’ve already mentioned. So hopefully some of you who may be facing that same sort of situation in their own organization can learn something from what MedImmune went through. So just, looking forward, we’ve got another webinar in a couple months, hopefully around the last week of August. And I think at this point it looks like HARBEC will volunteer to be part, be that case study which is awesome. We hope to get a MedImmune case study write up on the SEP website soon, so it’ll be there but we will have the slide presentation available for people to look at. And for any of you who want to get further training on the SEP Measurement and Verification Protocol, you can get that in the Certified Practitioner in Energy Management Systems or the SEP Performance Verifier training. And opportunities for those trainings can be found at the website that’s listed there, so go there and you can see the locations and times for that. So to wrap up here I think I am going to turn it over to Paul Scheihing.

>> Paul

Thanks Bill, and Wilbur?

>> Wilbur

Bill? Yeah, go ahead?

>> Paul

Did you want to make a comment Wilbur?

>> Wilbur

Well, I was, I was just going to ask Bill, so I’ve, I’ve gotten two questions but I don’t know if you’re going to go after you’re done.

>> Paul 

Yeah I’m going to go, I’m going to go through all of the questions and, OK, we have several questions here. I think Wilbur you answered the question about all six buildings considered in the SEP analysis. And the answer is yes, right?

>> Wilbur

Yep.

>> Paul

Can we get a copy of the presentation? I think so, yeah, I think we can do that. Caroline, maybe we can send a copy to the registrants, OK.

>> Caroline Kramer

Sure.

>> Paul

And here’s a question from Andre; the question is do you have any recommendations on how to obtain "net energy savings" (savings that would not have otherwise occur if the EnMS program was not in place) from implementing an ISO/SEP program at a facility? I’ll take an initial crack at that and I’d like Bill to comment on top of it. We have done analysis looking at many of the SEP certified sites in terms of the savings we get after we put the SEP/ISO 50001 program in place. And what we did was we collected data of what the performance improvement was, several years prior if we have that data, to when they started implementing SEP. And we created a business as usual; I think we found on average that the facilities were doing about 3% per year. Yeah. So, Bill do you want to add onto that as well?

>> Bill

Well, I was just thinking, Paul, you know, I bet Wilbur has some comments on that and I think it’d be great to hear from him on the benefits of ISO 50.

>>Wilbur

So, this is a question that comes up every single time we talk about SEP somewhere, right? For me, it is something that is not only difficult to quantify but it’s difficult to demonstrate. Right, so when you go, or when I use this, this tool right, when I, so when SEP was being implemented, what it gave me was the credibility to request funding to be invested in energy efficiency right. So when, when I went up to my upper management and I requested $1 million to implement a certain project, at the beginning they would look at me like, eh we could use that $1 million somewhere else. After, or during the final stages of the implementation, they actually realized that whenever I requested funding, the numbers that I was claiming I was going to achieve, I needed to achieve them, right, because it was a requirement that I needed to monitor and verify and validate those savings, and document those savings. So whenever I get audited, I need to present that information to my auditor. So it actually, it actually gave me that power, it gave me that ability to be able to say listen, I think it’s a good idea if you guys invest $100,000 in operational control changes to be able to make the operation a little bit more efficient because we’re gonna save an extra $250,000, right, for an example. And, and it gave me that credibility, it gave me that, that ability to go to management and not have to fight too much for funding. Whether they would just say, yeah I think he’s right, based on this information we know that he needs to prove it so they would go ahead and do it. It came to a point that now we actually have a capital budget portfolio where the projects that have been identified and ranked through the ISO certified program, they’re actually making it all the way into the capital investment list. So every year they will come to us and ask us for a few projects, so we will take three or five projects, push it to the capital projects and keep the list moving so we kept the program moving in the right direction.

>> Paul

Very good, thank you. Bo Shen asked I think a fairly easy question. Natural gas has seasonal variation.  What is the natural gas used for?

>> Wilbur

Yeah so natural gas is mostly used for the boiler systems. The boilers, it’s used primarily for heating or re-heat. So whenever we cool down the air to remove humidity during the summer, we will use the heating hot water to do the re-heat of that air, for, it’s mostly for HVAC.

>> Paul

OK very good. Paul Birkeland asked a very good question here on the bottom-up sanity check. What were the bottom-up sanity check issues referred to on Slide 16 that drove the analysis to adjusting the baseline year rather than the reporting year? Bill, you can probably get that one.

>> Bill

Yeah, so, was that slide 16 I think, was what Paul asked?

>> Paul

Yeah, that’s the slide where you had, you could adjust the reporting year or you could adjust the baseline year.

>> Bill

Right.

>> Paul

And I think you said, it complicated the bottom-up sanity check, right?

>> Bill

Well, I mean the issue was, you know, Wilbur really wanted to claim this savings from that new building being so efficient. You know, so that’s, you know the bottom-up, you know he, he had independent calculations that said, well we expect this building to save so much in operations, and so by including that in the bottom-up, you know.

>> Paul

He was able to claim that.

>> Bill

You know, and then adjusting the baseline period, we were able to get those savings, yeah.

>> Wilbur

Yeah, and I guess that kind of like ties into the two questions here in regards to how we actually adjusted the baseline and if we either used the building as a non-LEED versus a LEED certified building. And I guess in a nutshell, we had two scenarios, right. We either sub-metered what Area 6 was going to use, both in electric and natural gas and then have taken, the adjustment was take those two numbers, add it back to the baseline in the model. But since we didn’t have the natural gas sub-metering, what we ended up doing was taking the consumption of Area 6 versus the consumption of all other areas and we came up with a ratio. And then using that ratio, we multiplied that by the natural gas consumption and we came up with an adjusted value for electric and natural gas. And then we took that value and that’s the value that we went back to the baseline and added it up. The problem and the tricky part came to when with it either forecasting or backcasting or chaining, and when we did forecasting, the numbers were way off what the sanity check was telling us. When we tried to do backcasting, the actual validity checks that the tool does, they didn’t work, they were telling us that no, they were not within the acceptable ranges. So when we did the chaining, it actually came up to the fact that the numbers were fairly close. So we knew that we had finally came to the real and true model.

>> Paul

OK. Very good. A lot of the other questions are related to what you’ve already answered. Chuck Sasso asked when the baseline energy use was adjusted, was the energy use of the non-LEED building usage used for this adjustment? So I guess the answer is yes, you made a comparison in your bottom-up check, right?

>> Wilbur

Yeah.

>> Bill

Well you had metered data for electricity, you know, that you could actually show the increase on, that got added to the baseline period.

>> Paul

And there was a comparison if you had not, that you had done a standard building, right, as opposed to LEED, what the energy uses would have been then, right.

>> Bill

Yes.

>> Paul

OK, OK good. Alright. Yeah. I think we’ve got. Yeah. Denise Lank asked a similar question – why was the decision made to add the Gold LEED building to the SEP boundary initially.

>> Wilbur

Yeah and to that I think the response is that since we didn’t sub-meter natural gas, we were not certain how much natural gas was being fed to that building in itself. So we kind of like shot our self in the foot by not sub-metering that portion, we had to come up with a solution to include it because we were not able to exclude it. You know what I mean?

>> Paul

OK. Alright. Any other questions?

>> Bill

I guess just to build on that Paul, you know if MedImmune had, you know, sub-metered the natural gas for that building, they could have totally left the building out of the, of the scope and boundaries of the management system, you know, and gone ahead and just done the analysis without it. But, you know, it worked out anyway so.

>> Paul

OK. So I’m not seeing any more questions. Could you go to the next slide Caroline?

[Next Slide]

>> Paul

So.

>> Caroline

It looks like there’s a few questions on the bottom that just came in Paul.

>> Paul

Are there? OK let’s take a look. You’re talking about, I’m not seeing them. Do you want to ask them?

>> Caroline

Sure, yeah the first question is was the project funding supplemented by state or utility sources?

>> Wilbur

To the question, partially. So, right, we, since we were part of a demo program we received certain resources like PennTAP through the State of Maryland. But other than that, the project funding was pretty much. The other portion that was provided was the training and kind of like support that was given out by Georgia Tech and Bill and his team during the implementation program. But I think that was all part of the demo participation. They’ve been, there have been talks with like utility companies for us like Pepco on whether or not this could fall under like continuous improvement project – us implementing ISO and us implementing SEP – but we never pursued it. So I don’t know if that is even going to be possible. But it might not hurt to try to find out with your local utility.

>> Paul

OK, we’ve got two more questions to wrap it up. What was SEP, what was MedImmune’s motivation to enroll in the SEP program.

>> Wilbur

That, in reality, was pretty much to try to achieve real meaningful certification that would help us show that we were actually doing something to reduce our overall carbon emissions as a company, but something that in reality will drive continuous improvement of energy efficiency. And SEP and ISO  fit the bill perfectly.

>> Paul

OK. One last question. Please review the scope and boundary rules. So Bill why don’t you take that one.

>> Bill

OK. Well, for SEP, and I’ll do this in reference to SEP, when you define a scope and boundary for an organization, you’re, you’re determining what the fence line is of that organization. And you’re, you have to account for all of the energy sources that cross that fence line within your system. It doesn’t matter how small they are. But you have to understand all those different sources that cross your boundary, whether it’s conventional fuel sources or whether its renewables. So that plays an important role in the whole data management and calculation of performance for an SEP organization.

>> Paul

And I believe that SEP does allow for facilities that are, that are not contiguous but general, in the same business unit in the contiguous, right?

>> Bill

Yes, that’s right.

>> Paul

In a close geographic proximity to each other.

>> Bill

Yeah, yeah.

>>Paul

Yeah

>> Bill

Yeah that’s right Paul. So that’s true. It doesn’t have to be contiguous but if they’re part of the same operation they can certainly be part of the scope. You know

>> Paul

The other point is they would have to meter, they would have to have the metering for all.

>> Bill

Right.

>> Paul

Those boundaries.

>> Bill

That’s right. That was the other thing I forgot to say was, yeah, all those sources need to be metered. So.

>> Paul

By the way I would, questions like this, if you go to the SEP website, a key tool within the SEP website is the eGuide tool, which actually does a pretty good job of answering some of these more technical questions relative to scope and boundary and various aspects. So the SEP program as well as ISO 50001. Thank you all for participating. I would encourage you to subscribe on the homepage if you haven’t done that. Most likely you have if you go this invitation to the, to the webinar. But for your colleagues, maybe they would want to subscribe also. We will send out the presentation to all registrants. And please feel free to distribute it amongst your colleagues. And thank you for attending today, and thank you Wilbur and Bill for your excellent presentation. This concludes the webinar. Thank you.