PORTFOLIO
VERTIKA SRIVASTAV
2 Content Introduction Qualifications & Skillset 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 Demand Response Analysis Approach & Analysis of Executed Projects
3 Hello! I am Vertika Srivastav B. Arch. (Hons.) – Building Construction Technology, Apeejay Institute of Technology, Uttar Pradesh Technical University M.Tech.- Building Energy Performance, CEPT University 2 year work experience with TATA Consulting Engineers (Ecofirst) as Senior Analyst (2018 2020) 2 year work experience with ICF Consulting Group, Inc. as an Associate in DER Analystics Team (North America) LEED Green Associate | GRIHA Certified Professional | IGBC Accreditted Professional Membership: ASHRAE & IBPSA
4 Data Analysis & Presentation PowerBI | MS Office | Dview | Climate Consultant | Photoshop 185,244 users Energy Simulations OpenStudio | eQuest | DesignBuilder | Carrier HAP | EDSL TAS Daylight & Artificial Lighting Simulations LightStanza | DiaLUX | VeluxSkillset
Analysis
Approach and
1. Demand Response
Analysis conducted for various utilities across USA Entergy LLC. Arkansas | Mississippi | Louisiana 5
Approach to
Demand Response 6 Cost EffectivenessCriteria Program Selection PeakReduction Estimation MarketAcceptanceBased Participation CostEffectivenessScreening Rate&Dispatchable Modules Annual Program Outputs –Savings, Costs,Cost BenefitRatios Technical/Economic/Achievable PeakDemand Reduction Potential AMI Installations Enabling Technology Saturation ReferenceLoadshapes &DREvents Hourly Loadshapes forIRP Technology & Behavioral Assumptions Participation Input Technology, Implementation & Incentive CostsBenchmarking Data Data Model Outputs Process Aggregate Results Participation Curves/S-CurveskW/Participant Reduction Technology Market Diffusion Curves& Marketing Impact Eligible Stock Non-incentive CostsperPart UtilityInputs SelectedPrograms &Measures List Cost EffectivePrograms &Cost benefitRatios New& Emerging Programs OutputsUtility&Industry Source CalculatedVariable Input RAP [-] RAP RAP [+] MAP RAP [-] RAP RAP [+] MAP RAP [-] RAP RAP [+] MAP RAP [-] RAP RAP [+] MAP RAP[-] RAP RAP[+] MAP
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. Economic potential is the subset of technical potential that is considered costeffective compared to a supply side energy resource alternative (i.e., energy generation).
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:
7 Not Technically Feasible Not Cost Effective Real World Constraints, Including Market Barriers TECHNICAL POTENTIAL ECONOMIC POTENTIAL ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL MAX ACHIEVABLEPOTENTIAL Program Funding & Design Restrictions
• RAP → Base Scenario • RAP [-] → 0.75 times less aggressive to RAP • RAP [+] → 1.5 times more aggressive to RAP
Programs Selection & Hierarchy
8 Residential Commercial Industrial Time of Use Time of Use Smart Thermostat DLC Battery Storage DLC Central AC DLC EV Smart Charger DLC - Pool Pumps DLC - Room AC DLC - Water Heating DLC Pool Pumps DLC Room AC DLC Water Heating Thermal Storage Rates DispatchableHierarchy of Program Participation Smart Thermostat Time of Use Agricultural Irrigation Load Control Hybrid Critical Peak Pricing Peak Time Rebate Interruptible Critical Peak Pricing Interruptible Demand Rates Real Time Pricing Real Time Pricing DLC EV Smart Charger DLC Central AC
How hierarchy
affects program participation? 9 30% With Hierarchy 70%100% 14% EligibleStockReal TimePricing(RTP) EligibleStock TimeofUse(ToU) MaximumMarketShare TimeofUse(ToU) MaximumMarketShare RealTimePricing(RTP) 100% EligibleStockReal TimePricing(RTP) MaximumMarketShare RealTimePricing(RTP) 20%100% 30% EligibleStock TimeofUse(ToU) MaximumMarketShare TimeofUse(ToU) With No Hierarchy (20% of 70% remaining eligible stock)
How is success of Demand Response evaluated?
Demand Response Costs
Customers
Initial Costs
Enabling Technology (if opt for BYO & DIY)
Response Plan
Running Cost Rescheduling
Lost Business
Onsite
Utility
Initial Costs
Metering & Communication
Billing System
Customer Education
Running Cost
Administration & Marketing
Incentive Payments
Evaluation
Demand Response Benefits
Customers
Incentive Payments
Bill Savings Market Wide
Price Reduction
Capacity Increase
Avoided/deferred infrastructure cost
Reliability
Reduced Outages
Customer Participation
Diversified resources
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:
11Yes No
TRC: Total Resource Cost | UCT: Utility Cost Test | RIM: Ratepayer Impact Measure | LEGEND –
Overcoming barriers of Demand Response
12 Customer education $ Incentives & Bill comparisons Revenue Targets Equity Avoid wastage of electricity Monitor customer adoption Targeting bulk sign-ups Clubbing programs + $
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
Passive House Institute US
2.
(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
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. Climate Zone 4A is perceived as mixed humid.
A B
Built Up Area = 49,826 SF
17
D C Innovation Identify Management Improve Idea Innovate Implement Increment
Sustainability Goals
18
Methodology
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.
PROPOSEDMEASURES 04
01 BASELINE ANALYSIS
Baseline Model created using ASHRAE
90.1 2016. Further results compared with Energy Star Portfolio Manager.
1 2 3 4
Best ECM bundle proposed to Client, Architect & MEP Team to finalize the scheme. Included integration & analysis of Solar PV
03 PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS
An iterative approach to select energy conservation measures (ECMs) best suited for the building
19
01 Baseline Analysis 20 HVAC 62%Interior Lighting 10% Interior Equipment 28% Overall End Use Breakdown 25% 42% 30% 3% HVAC End use Breakdown Cooling Heating Fans Pumps
02 Elimination Parametrics 21 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 EP06 EP05 EP04 EP03 EP02 EP01 EP00 Consumption (kWh) Interior Lighting Interior Equipment Cooling Heating Fans Pumps Code Description EP00 Baseline Case (ASHRAE 90.1-2016) EP01 Envelop (Wall, Roof, Window U Value & SHGC) ~ 0.01 Btu/hr SF Deg.F EP02 Interior Lighting as 0.01 W/SF EP03 Interior Equipment as 0.01 W/SF EP04 HVAC (Heat/Cool + Pump) off EP05 Interior Fans off EP06 Occupancy = 0 EP04 EP03 EP02 EP06 EP05 EP01 Maximum Impact Least Impact
03 Parametric Analysis 22 WALL ROOF WINDOW SC LIGHTING EQUIPMENT HEAT/COOL FANS R-23 R-30 R-38 R-30 R-40 R-49 WINDOW U U-1.5 U-1.2 U-0.9 0.47 0.33 0.27 10% 50% 30% 50% 30% 10% COP-8 COP 10 COP-6 95% 90% 85% Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) Bundles
03 Parametric Analysis 23 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 EADS000 EADS001 EADS002 EADS003 EADS004 EADS005 Consumption (in kWh) Interior Lighting Interior Equipment Cooling Heating Fans Pumps Code Iteration Description EADS000 ASHREA 90.1-2016 Baseline EADS001 Optimized Envelope + 50% reduction in LPD over baseline + Ground Source Heat Pump EADS002 EADS001 + 30% reduction in Interior Equipment over baseline EADS003 EADS002 + Pump efficiency as 95% EADS004 EADS002 + 50% reduction in Interior Equipment over baseline (Energy Star Equipment) EADS005 EADS004 + COP enhancement to 9 Solar PV EADS005 + Solar PV support (Proposed Case) 49% savings
04 Proposed Measures 24 59.6 54.1 22 17.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Business As Usual ASHRAE Baseline PHI-US Proposed Case Energy use Intensity (kBTU/SFyr) 67% savings 70% savings Case 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
3. Masters
Capstone Project
Retrofit for Aga Khan Academy United Nations Hyderabad, India 25
Project Methodology
26 HDR IMAGERY THERMAL IMAGERY
Retrofit Measures
27
Outcome
28
Achievements
Awards & Recognitions
4.
Publications Academic | Professional 29
Academic
Achievements 30 • 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
Professional Achievements 31 ICF Consulting Group • You Matter @ ICF – Copper Award (May 2022) • 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 • Publication - “Zero has a Value” in TCE Expression Magazine for FY 19-20
Projects & Clients Professional
5.
Key Projects
32
Projects & Clientele Handled (Ecofirst)
Offices
33
Projects & Clientele Handled (ICF)
34 US States Covered till Feb 2022: Arkansas | California | Iowa | Kansas | Louisiana | Michigan Missouri | Mississippi | Maryland | Oklahoma | Washington D.C.
‘’
“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
36 Thank You! Any questions? You can connect with me on srivastavvertika@gmail.com / vertika.srivastav.11@gmail.com 36 Form follows Function Form follows Performance
