On the *.txs report, the electricity dollar values listed under the "Annual Installation Energy Use by Fuel Type" and "Annual Energy Use by Building Set and Fuel Type" pages include both energy and demand charges. To determine how much of that total cost is attributable to the energy vs. demand, the demand component (reported on the following page) may be subtracted from this total value.
Emissions factors are used and relate a quantity of pollutant emitted (e.g., tons of CO2) per unit of fuel burned. There are factors for each of the six pollutant types corresponding to each main fuel type. To estimate emissions, FEDS multiplies the consumption value for each fuel type by the appropriate emission factor. The emissions factors for certain fuel types, (for example electricity) can vary significantly depending on factors, such as plant type (coal, gas, nuclear, hydropower) and source fuel composition (e.g., sulfur content) such that state average values are applied based on the typical generation resource mix supplying that state.
Attractive NPVs, payback periods, and SIRs typically fall within certain ranges, which should always be positive. However, negative values are possible in a couple of instances and do not necessarily indicate an error. The first possibility is that the project is recommended for a technology or building component you identified as "replacement required". As such, FEDS will recommend the most cost-effective replacement option, but not require that it be cost effective. So, while it may be the best replacement option, it may exhibit seemingly nonsensical economic figures of merit. Similarly, if a building retrofit occurs due to central plant or thermal loop abandonment, it may also exhibit negative savings criteria. That simply means that the retrofit (e.g., replacing central steam service with an in-building boiler) was not cost effective when looking just at the building energy use and costs. But the value of abandoning the central plant and/or distribution loop (due to the accompanying reductions in thermal losses and O&M costs) provided a net positive gain when added to the negative savings at the building level. Thus, at the site level, taking the central plant and thermal loop savings into account, the net benefit is positive—but purely from the building perspective (reflected in the TXD and CSV reports) the change from steam to dedicated boiler was not cost effective. Reviewing the central plant and thermal loops section of the TXS report and looking for a positive abandonment value will provide additional detail on just how much of a net positive gain accrues do the abandoning the plant and/or loop.
The index code in following the existing technology description for a heating or cooling technology represents the technology record number. For example,{H2} indicates a heating technology is actually heating record #2 (as input in the user interface). This information can be valuable when dealing with heat/cool pairs with several heating and cooling records in a single building set.
FEDS project costing algorithms account for any materials, taxes, and labor costs applicable to a given retrofit measure. Additionally, 15% contractor overhead, 10% design cost, and 6% site level supervisory, inspection and overhead factors are applied, along with any multipliers specified on the regional costs screen under the financial options. Note that many of the cost factors reflect real regional variation, including labor rates, materials cost multipliers, and sales tax rates—with differentiation driven by the specified zip code. Each of these parameters are also able to be modified by the user, if appropriate.
The non-annual maintenance cost is used by FEDS to account for costs recurring on a non-annual basis, such as incremental equipment replacements and replacing failed lamps and ballasts. For example, the present value of the non-annual maintenance cost for lighting represents the present value of the total cost (including materials and labor) to replace the burned-out lamps and ballasts of a particular lighting technology over the course of the study period (generally 25 years).
FEDS employs the same standard life-cycle costing methodology and algorithms as the building life-cycle costing computer program developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Section 432 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 432) requires U.S. federal agencies to perform energy and water evaluations of their covered facilities on a recurring basis and report their performance via the Compliance Tracking System (CTS). The FEDS CTS report is provided to help agencies compile and format results from their FEDS analyses to facilitate this reporting requirement. Measures identified with buildings modeled in FEDS are categorized and summarized into the CTS Evaluation Upload Template (in an Excel spreadsheet format).
The discount rate is the factor used to adjust (discount) future sums of money into the equivalent current year dollar amount. It can also be thought of as the interest rate or hurdle rate (i.e., the rate of return required by a company for it to undertake a project). FEDS uses the real discount rate, which has the effect of inflation removed. FEDS provides the current Federal real discount rate as the default, but the user may enter any discount rate appropriate for their projects. Energy service companies performing shared energy savings contracts typically require real rates of return in the neighborhood of 10 to 20%.
The Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP) report (*.ecp, otherwise known as the DD 1391) is a special form required by certain U.S. Department of Defense agencies in order to submit projects for ERCIP funding. The ERCIP report is designed to facilitate the form preparation and submittal process.
The global cost multiplier is an overall cost multiplier applied to the total project cost (including all materials, labor, taxes, overhead). It can be used to adjust all of the total project costs used in FEDS economic calculations. This could be used for such purposes as to account for special cost-impacting requirements of working at a facility with stringent security requirements or health and safety risks, or to assess the impact of varying costs on project economics.
The [Heating/Cooling] end use designation is used for existing heat pumps or heat/cool pairs. Because such technologies provide both heating and cooling, two rows are needed to describe them on the *.csv report. [HEATING/Cooling] indicates that the data on that row pertain to the heating technology (and overall economic impacts) while [Heating/COOLING] indicates that the data describes the cooling portion of the equipment (and no overall energy and economic data are shown).
On the bottom right of some input screens (windows, lighting, heating, cooling, hot water, and motors) is a check box labeled "replacement required". The purpose of this selection is to tell FEDS that this particular building component or technology must be replaced. Whether it has failed (for example, windows are broken, or the furnace has stopped working), or a replacement or upgrade is planned, checking this box will force a replacement to be evaluated and selected when the FEDS optimization analysis is run. If a replacement option is cost effective, FEDS will work as normal; however, if one is not, FEDS will still provide the recommendation even though it may not be otherwise cost effective. FEDS will still report the most cost-effective option and all of the standard details to help users make informed decisions. This option is also known as replace on failure economics.
FEDS project costs are based on industry averages and may not match the exact costs you will be charged. The end-use and technology multipliers are intended to enable the user to adjust for these discrepancies so that the costs used in the FEDS analyses are as close to actual as possible. The recommended approach would be to first enter any known cost data (such as, labor rates, tax rate, discount rate, etc.), and then run FEDS, generate reports, and see what types of projects are coming up. Compare the project costs to actual known costs or bids for similar projects of that type. If any of the technology costs are grossly high or low, adjust them appropriately with a technology multiplier. Rerun FEDS to see if the same technology is being selected, and make sure that the costs more closely represent what the anticipated cost to complete the project. Because of the complex nature of the FEDS cost data, this iterative multiplier approach is the best way for users to modify project costs.
For heat/cool pairs (separate heating and cooling technologies), information may be listed for both retrofits to new, more efficient equipment and to a heat pump. In some cases, it may be cost effective to replace the heating equipment (or cooling only, or both) with a newer unit of similar type, as well as replace both heat and cool simultaneously with a heat pump system. All cost-effective options will appear on the *.csv report. The best option can be determined by comparing the sum of the individual heat and cool annualized total life-cycle costing savings with that of the combined heat/cool system (i.e., heat pump).
The installed capital cost listed at the very bottom of the *.txd report represents the actual total cost including materials, labor, taxes, and overhead. It is the actual cost that would be paid to complete a project. The installed cost value listed under the life-cycle costs savings section displays both the present and annualized values of the installed cost as used in the life-cycle cost analysis. The present value of the installed cost may be less than the installed capital cost if the study period for the analysis is less than the life of the new equipment. This can occur when the remaining life of the existing technology is less than the life of the retrofit technology. In this case, the cost of the retrofit technology is annualized over its full rated life, but only the annualized costs occurring during the remaining life of the existing equipment is discounted back to the analysis year and used for a fair cost/benefit comparison.