NYT Printing Facility, Queens NY
|
29 units • 3475T total
11 Years Later: Savings Fully Persisting
Savings fully persisting after 11 years. Measured degradation < 0.02%/year.
Degradation Rate
<0.025%/yr
Across 4 of 29 monitored units
Current Annual Savings
342,542 kWh
$51,381/yr — essentially unchanged
Cumulative (2015–2026)
3,773,553 kWh
$566,033 total savings
Per-Unit Persistence Measurements
ACU-11 (8.5-year)
-3.85% kW
Metric: kW vs OAT (NOAA-validated)
Baseline: 2016 post-treatment
Savings holding — 3.9% additional kW reduction vs post-treatment
ACU-14 (10.4-year)
-31.5% comp kW
Metric: Compressor kW vs OAT (Monnit CT)
Baseline: 2015 pre-treatment
Sustained compressor improvement — 31.5% kW reduction vs pre-treatment baseline
ACU-10 (8.1-year)
0.2% degradation
EER: 9.91 post → 9.89 at 8.1 yrs
Rate: 0.025%/year
Negligible degradation — 0.2% EER loss over 8 years
Cumulative Savings Timeline (2015–2026)
Savings Method Comparison
How NYSERDA Measured Savings: Utility Bill Analysis
In March 2017, TRC Energy Services conducted an independent Post-Installation Review (PIR) for
NYSERDA PON 2456. Rather than relying on the vendor's per-unit measurements, TRC used whole-building
utility bills from PSEG-LI to measure actual energy reduction at the meter.
Step 1
Collected 1 year of pre-treatment PSEG-LI utility bills. Baseload ~1.9M kWh/month, cooling consumption (May–Sep) ~2.5M kWh.
Step 2
Weather-normalized cooling baseline to 1,900,000 kWh. 2015–16 were much hotter than typical (1,544 CDD vs 1,142 avg), so baseline was adjusted down.
Step 3
Compared post-treatment bills to weather-normalized baseline. Found 18% cooling reduction = 343,474 kWh/yr saved.
Step 4
Reduced the vendor's original claim of 7,042,172 kWh by 95% — constraining total savings to match what the utility bills actually showed.
Why this matters: The vendor's per-unit M&V claimed 7M kWh — but TRC's utility bill analysis
showed the whole building only saved 343K kWh. NYSERDA accepted the lower, utility-constrained number.
This is the most conservative possible baseline: third-party verified, weather-normalized, measured at the meter.
Note: We do not have copies of the NYT PSEG-LI bills. The figures above come from
TRC's PIR report. Our bottom-up analysis uses the same 1,900,000 kWh weather-normalized cooling baseline as reference.
NYSERDA's 18% and the bottom-up weighted average of 24.04% are measuring the same savings through different lenses.
The gap is 6.04 percentage points — here's what drives it:
NYSERDA is lower because
Constrained to what utility bills show at the meter — captures real-world interactions (occupancy changes, other equipment)
Weather normalization adjusted baseline down for unusually hot 2015–16 cooling seasons
TRC's own report flagged cross-season confounds and short M&V windows as reasons for skepticism of per-unit claims
Bottom-up is higher because
ACU-14's 31.5% compressor kW reduction pulls up the weighted average (it's the largest monitored unit at 150T)
Compressor kW is a different metric than whole-unit EER — doesn't account for fan energy, auxiliaries
Small sample (3 of 29 units) may not represent the full fleet distribution
Bottom line: The NYSERDA utility-constrained number (18%) is the more conservative and defensible figure.
The fact that our independent bottom-up analysis produces a higher number reinforces confidence that the 18% is real — the
meter-level savings are at least as large as what NYSERDA reported, likely larger.
Convergence & Coverage
13.5%Conservative
18.0%NYSERDA
24.04%Weighted Avg
31.5%High
Convergence: Moderate — NYSERDA and bottom-up midpoint differ by only 6.04 percentage points.
Fleet Coverage
14.1% (490T of 3475T)
4 of 29 monitored
Blind Spots
26 unmonitored units assumed to behave like monitored sample
No utility bill data available for independent whole-building validation
ACU-14 persistence is shoulder-season comparison (Apr vs Oct)
ACU-10 persistence is single-point EER, not time-series
