Energy At Risk presentation

41 249 0
Energy At Risk presentation

Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)

Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống

Thông tin tài liệu

Energy Cost Control: Show Me the Money! A Financial Calculator Christopher Russell Energy PathFINDER www.energypathfinder.com (443) 636-7746 crussell@energypathfinder.com About Christopher Russell, C.E.M., C.R.M  Energy Manager, Howard County Maryland  Independent consulting since 2006 Principal, Energy Pathfinder  Director of Industrial Programs, Alliance to Save Energy, 1999-2006  MBA, M.A., University of MD; B.A., McGill University Published November 2009 Use the Top Manager’s Language! OUTLINE FOR TODAY • PART 1: Economic Justification • PART 2: Economic Metrics • PART 3: “Making the Case” to Upper Management U.S INDUSTRY AVERAGE ENERGY DOLLAR BREAKDOWN OF PRIMARY ENERGY SUPPLY PLANT BOUNDARY $0.49 $0.12 $0.05 $0.05 $0.28 NET APPLIED TO WORK CONVERSION LOSS ONSITE DISTRIBUTION LOSS CENTRAL PLANT LOSS (c)2009 Energy Pathfinder Mangement Consulting, LLC SOURCE: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/energy_systems/ www.energypathfinder.com GENERATION, TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION LOSSES PRIOR TO DELIVERY 5 CHALLENGE FOR FACILITY MANAGERS  Facilities at the end of the budget “food chain”  Limited staff, resources, analytical capability  Evaluating 21st century energy improvements with 1920s investment analysis techniques! ABOUT ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS: What business leaders want to know? • What’s the benefit? – How many dollars? – How quickly the dollars accrue? – What’s the risk of investing? – What’s the risk of NOT investing? • What’s the most that I should pay for it? …per current investment criteria • How does this compare to other ways to use money? OUTLINE FOR TODAY • PART 1: Economic Justification • PART 2: Economic Metrics • PART 3: “Making the Case” to Upper Management ENERGY AT-RISK MODEL: •Excel Spreadsheet provided by Xcel Energy •You plug in project budget •Model produces economic metrics •Choose the best metric(s) for your audience •Print results with your label/logo • CONSTRUCTION BUDGET: Project Cost: $16,000 Economic life: 25 years Cost of Capital: 7% TARGET: 1-YEAR PAYBACK • ANNUAL CONSUMPTION: Before: 246,667 kWh After: 209,667 kWh Elec @ $0.08/kWh EXAMPLE: • MAINTENANCE COSTS: Pump Optimization Before: Annual overhaul costs @ $10,000 City of Milford, CT After: Annual overhaul costs @ $ 3,340 SOURCE: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/milford.pdf 10 • CONSTRUCTION BUDGET: Project Cost: $16,000 Economic life: 25 years Cost of Capital: 7% TARGET: 1-YEAR PAYBACK • ANNUAL CONSUMPTION: Before: 842 MMBtu After: 715 MMBtu Elec @ $23.45/MMBtu • EXAMPLE: Pump Optimization MAINTENANCE COSTS: City of Milford, CT Before: Annual overhaul costs @ $10,000 After: Annual overhaul costs @ $ 3,340 SOURCE: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/milford.pdf 27 UP-FRONT CAPITAL PROJECT RECOVERY COST FACTOR vs A = B x C CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR (CRF) = A= B C (i/12)*(1+i/12)n*12 [(1+i/12) ]-1 Where: i = cost of capital or discount rate on future cash flows n = economic life (years) of remedy (energy improvement project) • WHY • ANNUALIZE? • • n*12 X 12 Operating budgets are ANNUAL Energy savings are accounted ANNUALLY Compare ANNUAL cost to ANNUAL benefit Compare 3-yr project to 10-year or 5-year projects… 28 PUMP OPTIMIZATION EXAMPLE: Annualized Project Cost Per kWhSaved ANNUALIZED = PROJECT COST UP-FRONT PROJECT x COST CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR = $16,000 x 0848 ANNUALIZED PROJECT COST = PER ANNUAL MMBtu SAVINGS $1,357 126 = $10.75 $1,357 29 PUMP OPTIMIZATION EXAMPLE ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION REJECT THE ACCEPT THE IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT $23.45 $10.75 per MMBtu wasted per MMBtu avoided $23.45 $23.45 per MMBtu consumed per MMBtu consumed Annual energy use, current application in-place Annual energy use, efficient alternative Energy At-Risk: You will pay for it either way Committed Energy Energy put to work as intended 30 COST-BENEFIT RATIO COST TO CONSERVE PER MMBtu PRICE TO BUY PER MMBtu = $10.75 $23.45 = 0.46 This project allows the investor to pay $0.46 to avoid buying $1.00’s worth of energy 31 INTERPRETING ANNUALIZED COST ANALYSIS ANNUAL GROSS ENERGY SAVINGS ? ANNUALIZED PROJECT COST COMMITTED EXPENDITURE ANNUAL EXPENDITURE Annualized net savings Annualized penalty for DOING NOTHING Free cash flow to: • Working capital (finance your operations) Or • Investment capital (finance your asset base) 32 COST OF DOING NOTHING Price per unit to buy energy - Annualized cost to avoid purchasing a unit of energy x Volume of avoidable energy purchases + Net annual improvement in O&M expenses = + $6,660 = Annualized Penalty for Doing Nothing USING THE PUMP OPTIMIZATION EXAMPLE: $23.45 per MMBtu - $10.75 per MMBtu x 126 MMBtu $8,263 $8,263 = annual premium paid over the 25-year economic life of the proposed improvement • Assumes energy prices and cost of money stay constant • Penalty for doing nothing goes up: as energy prices rise and as interest rates fall 33 BREAK-EVEN POINT MAXIMUM ANNUALIZED PROJECT COST ANNUAL VALUE SHOULD BE OF AVOIDED ENERGY NO MORE THAN PURCHASES What’s the MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE project cost, given certain investment criteria? 34 BREAK-EVEN CALCULATION: Pump Optimization Example MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE UP-FRONT PROJECT COST DELIVERED = x PRICE PER UNIT OF ENERGY UNITS OF AVOIDED ENERGY = CONSUMPTION BREAK-EVEN PROJECT COST CRF MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE UP-FRONT PROJECT COST = $23.45 x 126 0.0848 = $34,900 NOTE: CRF = 0.0848 when n=25 and i=7% Actual cost is only $16,000… definitely worth it 35 ONE PROJECT, TWO PRICE TAGS Pump Optimization Project ACCEPT PROJECT REJECT PROJECT GROSS ANNUAL SAVINGS $9,620 $0 ANNUAL PAYOUT FOR ENERGY AT-RISK Annualized project cost (capital + interest) Annual expenditure for energy waste $1,357 $2,960 “PRICE TAG”: CAPITALIZED ANNUAL PAYOUT $16,000 $34,900 ($1,357/CRF*) ($2,960/CRF*) $8,263 -$8,263 ANNUAL FREE CASH FLOW *CRF: = [i(1+i)^n]/[((1+i)^n)-1] NOTE: CRF = 0.0848 when n=25 and i=7% 36 BLUE TAB DEMO 37 OUTLINE FOR TODAY • PART 1: Economic Justification • PART 2: Economic Metrics • PART 3: “Making the Case” to Upper Management 38 Still Need to Use Simple Payback? • Pass up a good energy saving project? • Add the capitalized value of energy waste to the new core-business project • A “good” core-business project is one that pays for itself plus the energy waste 39 IMPROVE YOUR CAPITAL BUDGET REQUESTS • • • • “Package” your energy project with a core-business initiative Facilities provides a free cash flow subsidy to the core-business project At capital budget time, the core-business project manager becomes your ally, not your competitor Same energy project, different title You choose: – “Pump Optimization Project” – “$8,000 Free Cash Flow for 25 Years” • Show TWO PRICE TAGS: – Cost to accept, cost to reject • Show the cash flow lost to rejecting or delaying your proposal 40 THANK YOU! The discussion never ends BLOG: http://energypathfinder.blogspot.com 41

Ngày đăng: 05/12/2016, 22:35

Mục lục

  • Energy Cost Control: Show Me the Money! A Financial Calculator

  • Slide 2

  • Use the Top Manager’s Language!

  • OUTLINE FOR TODAY

  • Slide 5

  • Slide 6

  • Slide 7

  • Slide 8

  • Slide 9

  • EXAMPLE: Pump Optimization City of Milford, CT

  • Slide 11

  • Slide 12

  • Slide 13

  • Slide 14

  • Slide 15

  • PROBLEMS WITH “PAYBACK”

  • Slide 17

  • Slide 18

  • Slide 19

  • Slide 20

Tài liệu cùng người dùng

Tài liệu liên quan