PORTFOLIO VERTIKA SRIVASTAV
Introduction
Qualifications & Skillset
Demand Response Analysis
Approach & Analysis of Executed Projects
Content
Passive House Institute-US (PHIUS) A Case Study from Washington DC, USA
Masters Capstone Project Retrofit of Aga Khan Academy
Achievements & Key Projects Academic & Professional
2
Hello!
I am Vertika Srivastav B. Arch. (Hons.) – Building Construction Technology, Apeejay Institute of Technology M.Tech.- Building Energy Performance, CEPT University 2 year work experience with TATA Consulting Engineers (Ecofirst) as Senior Analyst 2 year work experience with ICF Consulting Group, Inc. as Analyst/Consultant in DER Analystics Team LEED Green Associate | GRIHA Certified Professional | IGBC Accreditted Professional
Membership: ASHRAE & IBPSA 3
Skillset
Energy Simulations OpenStudio | eQuest | DesignBuilder | Carrier HAP | EDSL TAS
Daylight & Artificial Lighting 185,244 users Simulations LightStanza | DiaLUX | Velux
Data Analysis & Presentation PowerBI | MS Office | Dview | Climate Consultant | Photoshop 4
1.
Demand Response Analysis
Approach and Analysis conducted for various utilities across USA
Entergy LLC. Arkansas | Mississippi | Louisiana
5
Approach to Demand Response
Data
AMI Installations
Enabling Technology Saturation
New & Emerging Programs
Utility Inputs
Program Selection
Process
Model Outputs
Technology & Behavioral Assumptions
Benchmarking Data
Technology Market Diffusion Curves & Marketing Impact
Eligible Stock
RAP [-]
Peak Reduction Estimation
RAP [+]
RAP
Cost Effectiveness Criteria Non-incentive Costs per Part
Participation Input
Reference Loadshapes & DR Events
Technology, Implementation & Incentive Costs
MAP
RAP [-]
Market Acceptance Based Participation
RAP [+]
RAP
MAP
Cost Effectiveness Screening
Rate & Dispatchable Modules
Selected Programs & Measures List
kW/Participant Reduction
Participation Curves/S-Curves
Cost Effective Programs & Cost benefit Ratios
RAP [-]
RAP [-]
RAP [+]
RAP
MAP
RAP [+]
RAP
MAP
Technical/Economic/Achievable Peak Demand Reduction Potential Hourly Loadshapes for IRP
Annual Program Outputs – Savings, Costs, Cost Benefit Ratios
Aggregate Results
RAP [-]
RAP
Utility & Industry Source
RAP [+]
Variable Input
Calculated
MAP
Outputs
6
Various Scenarios for Demand Response Potential Technical potential is the total energy that could be saved by measures, without consideration of cost or willingness of users to adopt the measures.
Real-World Constraints, Including Market Barriers
MAX ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL
• RAP → Base Scenario • RAP [-] → 0.75 times less aggressive to RAP • RAP [+] → 1.5 times more aggressive to RAP
Not Cost Effective
ECONOMIC POTENTIAL
Achievable potential or Realistic Achievable Potential (RAP), a subset of economic potential, is the energy savings that could be realistically achieved given real-world constraints, including market and programmatic barriers. Types of RAP Scenarios:
TECHNICAL POTENTIAL
Economic potential is the subset of technical potential that is considered costeffective compared to a supply-side energy resource alternative (i.e., energy generation).
Not Technically Feasible
Program Funding & Design Restrictions
ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL
7
Hybrid Dispatchable
Hierarchy of Program Participation
Rates
Programs Selection & Hierarchy Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Time of Use
Time of Use
Time of Use
Demand Rates
Real Time Pricing
Real Time Pricing
Critical Peak Pricing
Critical Peak Pricing
Interruptible
Peak Time Rebate
Interruptible
DLC - Battery Storage
Thermal Storage
DLC - EV Smart Charger
DLC - EV Smart Charger
Smart Thermostat
Smart Thermostat
DLC - Central AC
DLC - Central AC
DLC - Room AC
DLC - Room AC
DLC - Water Heating
DLC - Water Heating
DLC - Pool Pumps
DLC - Pool Pumps
Agricultural
Irrigation Load Control
8
With Hierarchy
With No Hierarchy
How hierarchy affects program participation? Eligible Stock Time of Use (ToU)
Maximum Market Share Time of Use (ToU)
Eligible Stock Real Time Pricing (RTP)
Maximum Market Share Real Time Pricing (RTP)
100%
30%
100%
20%
Eligible Stock Time of Use (ToU)
Maximum Market Share Time of Use (ToU)
Eligible Stock Real Time Pricing (RTP)
Maximum Market Share Real Time Pricing (RTP)
100%
30%
70%
14% (20% of 70% remaining eligible stock)
9
How is success of Demand Response evaluated? Demand Response Costs
Demand Response Benefits Customers
Customers Initial Costs
Enabling Technology (if opt for BYO & DIY) Response Plan Running Cost Rescheduling Lost Business Onsite Utility Initial Costs
Incentive Payments Bill Savings Market Wide Price Reduction Capacity Increase Avoided/deferred infrastructure cost Reliability
Metering & Communication
Reduced Outages
Billing System
Customer Participation
Customer Education
Diversified resources
Running Cost Administration & Marketing
Incentive Payments Evaluation
Market Performance Reduced Market Power Option to Customers Reduced Price Volatility
10
How is success of Demand Response evaluated? Cost-Effectiveness Test Criteria
For all programs, the basic assessment criteria is TRC. If TRC >=1, the program is cost effective & can be implemented by the utility. This simply means, the benefits are greater than the cost of running a program. Tables below capture types of costs included to calculate costs & benefits:
LEGEND – TRC: Total Resource Cost | UCT: Utility Cost Test | RIM: Ratepayer Impact Measure |
Yes
No
11
Overcoming barriers of Demand Response
$ Customer education
Incentives & Bill comparisons
Targeting bulk sign-ups
Revenue Targets
+ Equity
Avoid wastage of electricity
Monitor customer adoption
$
Clubbing programs
12
Entergy Mississippi – Achievable Potential
Future 1– 4 vary based on the participation levels derived using Bass Diffusion Curve. Considering savings obtained in Future 1, in 2041 for savings of 142 MW the annual cost of running the program is $ 17 million. The cost includes – administrative costs, incentives & non-incentive costs. 13
Entergy Arkansas – Achievable Potential
Future 1– 4 vary based on the participation levels derived using Bass Diffusion Curve. Considering savings obtained in Future 1, in 2042 for savings of 533 MW the annual cost of running the program is $ 40 million. The cost includes – administrative costs, incentives & non-incentive costs. 14
Entergy Louisiana – Achievable Potential
Reference & High case vary based on the participation levels derived using Bass Diffusion Curve. Considering savings obtained in Reference Case, in 2042 for savings of 900 MW the annual cost of running the program is $ 70 million. The cost includes – administrative costs, incentives & non-incentive costs. 15
2.
Passive House Institute US (PHI-US)
Approach and Analysis for an upcoming multifamily residence towards Net Zero Energy Building Neighborhood Development Company Washington DC, USA
16
Project Brief PROJECT INFORMATION
A
B
The project is a residential development by the Neighborhood Development, located in Washington D.C. As per ASHRAE 90.1-2016, the given city qualifies under climate zone 4A.
Idea
Innovation
Innovate Identify
Climate Zone 4A is perceived as mixed humid. Management
Increment Built Up Area = 49,826 SF Implement Improve
D
C
17
Sustainability Goals
18
Methodology 01 BASELINE ANALYSIS
1 ELIMINATION PARAMETRICS 02 Input for all end uses were pushed to a near to zero value one at a time. Identification of energy intensive loads and target points for selection of optimum measures.
2
PROPOSED MEASURES 04 Best ECM bundle proposed to Client, Architect & MEP Team to finalize the scheme. Included integration & analysis of Solar PV
Baseline Model created using ASHRAE 90.1-2016. Further results compared with Energy Star Portfolio Manager.
03 PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS
3
An iterative approach to select energy conservation measures (ECMs) best suited for the building
4 19
01 Baseline Analysis Overall End Use Breakdown
HVAC End use Breakdown
Interior Equipment 28%
3% 25% 30%
Interior Lighting 10%
HVAC 62%
42%
Cooling
Heating
Fans
Pumps 20
02 Elimination Parametrics Code
EP00
Description
EP01
EP00 Baseline Case (ASHRAE 90.1-2016)
EP02 Envelop (Wall, Roof, Window U Value EP01 EP03 & SHGC) ~ 0.01 Btu/hr SF Deg.F EP04
EP02 Interior Lighting as 0.01 W/SF
EP05 EP06
EP03 Interior Equipment as 0.01 W/SF
0
EP04 HVAC (Heat/Cool + Pump) off EP05 Interior Fans off
Interior Lighting Heating
EP06 Occupancy = 0 EP04
Maximum Impact
EP03
200000
EP02
EP06
400000 600000 Consumption (kWh) Interior Equipment Fans EP05
800000
Cooling Pumps EP01
Least Impact
21
FANS
HEAT/COOL
EQUIPMENT
LIGHTING
WINDOW SC
WINDOW U
WALL
Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) Bundles R-38
ROOF
03 Parametric Analysis
R-49
U-0.9
0.27
30%
10%
COP-6
85%
R-30
R-40
U-1.2
0.33
50%
30%
COP 10
90%
R-23
R-30
U-1.5
0.47
10%
50%
COP-8
95%
22
03 Parametric Analysis 900000
800000 700000
Consumption (in kWh)
Code Iteration Description EADS000 ASHREA 90.1-2016 Baseline Optimized Envelope + 50% reduction in LPD over EADS001 baseline + Ground Source Heat Pump EADS001 + 30% reduction EADS002 in Interior Equipment over baseline EADS002 + Pump EADS003 efficiency as 95% EADS002 + 50% reduction in Interior Equipment over EADS004 baseline (Energy Star Equipment) EADS004 + COP EADS005 enhancement to 9 EADS005 + Solar PV Solar PV support (Proposed Case)
49% savings
600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000
0 EADS000 EADS001 EADS002 EADS003 EADS004 EADS005 Interior Lighting
Interior Equipment
Cooling
Heating
Fans
Pumps
23
04 Proposed Measures 60
Case
59.6 54.1
40
70% savings
50 67% savings
Energy use Intensity (kBTU/SF-yr)
70
30
Energy Use Intensity (kBTU/SF-yr.)
Business As Usual
59.6
ASHRAE 90.1 – 2016 Baseline
54.1
Threshold required for PHI-US
22
Proposed Case + Solar PV Integration
17.3
22 17.3
20 10 0 Business As Usual
ASHRAE Baseline
PHI-US
Proposed Case 24
Retrofit for Aga Khan Academy
3.
United Nations Hyderabad, India
Masters Capstone Project 25
Project Methodology HDR IMAGERY
THERMAL IMAGERY
26
Retrofit Measures
27
Outcome
28
Awards & Recognitions
4.
Publications
Academic | Professional
Achievements 29
Academic Achievements •
Secured First Position in B.Arch. at Apeejay Institute of Technology (Class of 2016)
•
Secured First Position in US DOE Race to Zero Student Design Competition in Urban Single Family Category (Team Kill Bill). Team Lead: Documentation & Presentation Quality Team Co-Lead: Energy Analysis (Refer image, first row 3rd team member from the left)
Presented research papers: • Passive Low Energy Architecture (PLEA) 2018 at the Chinese University of Hong Kong •
Energy Efficiency Symposium 2017 by Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, USA (Remote Presentation)
•
Case Study Shortlisted in BS Rome 2019 30
Professional Achievements ICF Consulting Group •
You Matter @ ICF – Ruby Award (October 2021)
•
You Matter @ ICF – Copper Award (December 2020)
TATA Consulting Engineers (Ecofirst) •
Team Lead for Energy, Daylight & Artificial Lighting Simulations
•
Nominated for Employee of the year in FY 2018-19
•
Nominated for TATA Value Awards in FY 2019-20
•
National Finalist/Special Mention for TATA Innovista Awards under Sustainability Impact Innovation Category
•
Upcoming publication “Zero has a Value” in TCE Expression Magazine for FY 19-20 31
Projects & Clients
5.
Professional
Key Projects 32
Projects & Clientele Handled (Ecofirst)
Offices
33
Projects & Clientele Handled (ICF)
US States Covered till Feb 2022: Arkansas | California | Iowa | Kansas | Louisiana | Michigan
Missouri | Mississippi | Maryland | Oklahoma | Washington D.C. 34
‘’
“Always have a successful exit than a favorable entrance, because what matters is not being clapped when we arrive but being remembered when we leave!” 35
Thank You! Form follows Function Form follows Performance
Any questions? You can connect with me on srivastavvertika@gmail.com 36
36