Target Energy Upgrade

Images

Target
Photo from the back of a refrigerated case.
NREL engineers check light levels in a refrigerated display case at a Target store, to compare the performance of LED and fluorescent case lights.
Credit: Dennis Schroeder, NREL

General Information

Quick Facts

Location

Thornton, CO

Operating Hours

Mon - Sat: 8 am - 10 pm Sun: 8 am - 9 pm

Building Type

  • Grocery Store or Food Market
  • Retail Store

Project Information

Project Full Name

Project Owner

Target

Occupant Type

Corporation, for-profit

Target Corporation partnered with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to develop and implement solutions to retrofit existing buildings to reduce annual energy consumption by at least 30% versus requirements set by ASHRAE/ANSI/IESNA Standard 90.1-20041 as part of DOE’s Commercial Building Partnership (CBP) program.

Using their SuperTaget store in Thornton, Colorado, Target tested and developed energy efficiency measures for a selective yet broad rollout for their fleet of North American stores. The most effective energy efficiency strategies focused on lighting, refrigeration, and HVAC.

Location Details

Address

1001 East 120th Avenue , Thorncreek Crossing, Thornton, CO

Site context/setting

Suburban

Occupancy

Owner Occupied

Yes

Owner Type

Corporation, for-profit

Building Hours of Operation

Mon - Sat: 8 am - 10 pm Sun: 8 am - 9 pm

Building Details

Scope

GENERAL FLOOR AREA

Total Gross Floor Area 173,000 ft²

BUILDING

Building unit or complex: Described project is a single building
Number of Stories 1
Percent Renovated 100%

COMPLETION

DATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION

November 2011

Architectural Details

Process

Design Process

The Target financial team used modeling results to screen EEMs based on Target cost-effectiveness criteria.

Design Tools

General Modelling Information

Three models were run for this project: code baseline (ASHRAE 90.1-2004), pre-retrofit, and final design.

  • EnergyPlus

Lessons Learned

Discuss goals that were met and goals that were not achieved, and the reasons for these outcomes

Upfront energy modeling is valuable because it has proven to be accurate and it improves whole-building design by accounting for system interactions.

The strong fit between modeled and measured energy savings means Target can roll out and replicate measures and results in stores across both the US and Canada.

A whole-building approach means that all the players representing all the loads must meet and work together.

Target uses retrofit pilot projects to inform both other retrofits as well as new construction (strategies that may not payback well enough in a retrofit may make complete sense in a new building).

While hours of retail operation are important, 24-hour occupancy for cleaning and stocking can reduce expected savings from setback and night-off strategies.

Finances

General

How the Project was Financed

EEMs were judged based on net present value (NPV), taking into account tax incentives, climate, capital costs, installation costs, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and energy costs.

Project Costs

Details

Estimated payback time of any investment in measures needed to reach zero net energy

Estimated payback time for this project is less than 5 years

Description of the funding sources for this project

• Although positive net NPV was the primary economic criterion,
measures that were found to pay back within 5 years (when all factors were accounted for) were viewed favorably.
• The cost and complexity of retrofitting any EEM into an existing building are generally higher than incorporating it into a new building design. This challenge was addressed by incorporating EEMs into a planned store renovation.
• Target aggressively pursues utility rebates where they are available and takes the availability and terms of rebate programs into account when considering where to invest in efficiency. Rebates were not available for this project.
• Target allocates some of its construction budget to innovation. The decision process involves a number of groups, including engineering, financial, and construction. The team weighs potential savings for a pilot store and for portfolio rollout against the cost when deciding whether to pursue a new technology. Target recognizes that additional investment in pilot projects may not meet financial hurdles but will pursue testing if a wider rollout of technology will be economical based on economies of scale.

General Energy

General

Energy Use

Measured savings totaled 28% (vs Pre-Retrofit) and 33% (vs ASHRAE 90.1-2004). All measures achieved a simple payback of less than 5 years. Energy efficiency measures featured in this retrofit, in order of savings realized were: cooling, lighting, equipment, refrigeration, and heating.

Energy Datasets

Dataset NameYearTypePurchased Energy (kBtu/ft²)
modeled baseline2011Base case: ASHRAE 90.1122.00
Proposed2011Simulation77.00
Pre-Retrofit Metered Use2011Base case: Other (specify)112.00
Measured - June 2012 - May 20132012Actual--end-use metering81.00

People

Project Team

Scott Williams
Target
Engineering Group Manager
Other
Ed Doyle
Target
Manager of Sustainability and R&D
Other
KC Kolstad
Target
Refrigeration
Other, Electrical engineer
Gregg Johnson
Target
Project Manager, Property Development – Construction
Other
Rois Langner
Other
Eric Bonnema
NREL
Other
Eric Nelson
CTA Architects Engineers
Energy modeling & Refrigeration expertise
Other
Vern Smith
Commercial Kitchen Consultant
Other
Michael Deru
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Other
http://www.nrel.gov
Ian Doebber
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Other
http://www.nrel.gov
Keith Gottschalk
Target
Lead Mechanical Engineer
Mechanical engineer
Neil Monson
Target
Lead Mechanical Engineer
Mechanical engineer
Eric Schlichting
Target
Mechanical engineer
Gary Nation
Target
Electrical engineer
Cheryl Penkivech
Target
Electrical engineer, Lighting designer