ENERGY STAR and EcoRated Homes: Planning Estimates and Research Strategy

Regional Technical ForumDecember 8th, 2015

Josh Rushton & Mohit Singh-Chhabra

2

Objective

Seeking RTF Decision on new-construction MH measures, ENERGY STAR and EcoRated MH.

CAT recommendation: • Planning UES (with Research Strategy)• Active status• Sunset December, 2017

3

Presentation Roadmap

• New construction MH baseline

• Developing Planning Savings Estimates– Non-electric heat adjustment (Phase II calibration

factor) for new construction MH

– Aligning SEEM.69 with billing data (Phase I calibration factor) for all electric homes

• Research Strategy

• Decision

MH New Construction Baseline

4 - Baseline

Guidelines : Roadmap Section 3.2.1“A current practice baseline is used if the measure affects systems, equipment or practices that are at the end of their useful life or for measures delivering new systems, equipment or practices, e.g., ENERGY STAR® specifications for new homes…… “For these measures, the baseline is defined by the typical choices of eligible end users in purchasing new equipment and services at the time of RTF approval. The RTF estimates this baseline based on recent choices of eligible end users in purchasing new equipment and services…. “The RTF may decide to use an alternative current practice based on other factors”

• Note: The most commonly used baseline for Current Practice Measures is a “typical choices” baseline

5 - Baseline

Manufacturer HUD Minimum

(%)

Somewhat Improved

(%)

ESTAR HUD (%)

01 - 60 40

02 19 - 51

03 - 20 75

04 75 - 21

05 - 72 19

06 - 55 20

07 70 9 11

08 - - 80

09 7 - 3

10 - - 100

Typical Choices Baseline6-- Baseline

Typical choices baseline is market mix of standard-construction and efficient-case homes (everything in the red box)

Source: BPA High Performance Manufactured Homes (HPMH) report (2012)

Note: Numbers do not add up to a 100% as these Manufacturers also build modular homes

Manufacturer HUD Minimum

(%)

Somewhat Improved

(%)

ESTAR HUD (%)

01 - 60 40

02 19 - 51

03 - 20 75

04 75 - 21

05 - 72 19

06 - 55 20

07 70 9 11

08 - - 80

09 7 - 3

10 - - 100

Typical Choices Baseline7-- Baseline

Typical choices baseline is market mix of standard-construction and efficient-case homes (everything in the red box)

Source: BPA High Performance Manufactured Homes (HPMH) report (2012)

Issue with typical choices baseline:NEEM program is unique to the Northwest and may be responsible for the current state of the market. As per the 2012 presentation on HPMH: “NEEM participation dropped significantly at the end of MAP, and Energy Star participation elsewhere in the country has rather minimal market share (~10%) in the absence of incentives”

Manufacturer HUD Minimum

(%)

Somewhat Improved

(%)

ESTAR HUD (%)

01 - 60 40

02 19 - 51

03 - 20 75

04 75 - 21

05 - 72 19

06 - 55 20

07 70 9 11

08 - - 80

09 7 - 3

10 - - 100

The Current BaselineIn current measure workbook, baseline is defined as market mix of non-NEEM homes • Source: High Performance Manufactured Homes (HPMH)

report (developed for BPA by Northwest Energy Works, 2012)

8-- Baseline

The Current Baseline (Contd.)Underlying Assumption: if the NEEM program support were to cease, the new construction market would be similar to the current non-NEEM MH mix

• Reasoning: NEEM participation dropped significantly at the end of MAP, and Energy Star participation elsewhere in the country has rather minimal market share (~10%) in the absence of incentives

• The issue with choosing this baseline is that we don’t really know whether a significant portion of would-be NEEM homes would revert to HUD minimum without program support– Would ENERGY STAR market share really drop all the way to zero? – Would efficiency-minded customers who forego ENERGY STAR really go all the

way down to HUD minimum at the same rate as non-NEEM customers?• Manufacturers could also manufacture Somewhat Thermally Improved homes instead

(which many are already doing) in the absence of program support

9 - Baseline

Manufacturer HUD Minimum

(%)

Somewhat Improved

(%)

ESTAR HUD (%)

01 - 60 40

02 19 - 51

03 - 20 75

04 75 - 21

05 - 72 19

06 - 55 20

07 70 9 11

08 - - 80

09 7 - 3

10 - - 100

Staff Recommendation: Somewhere in Between

• Assumption: Without program support, average efficiency of would-be NEEM homes drops to “Somewhat Thermally Improved” levels.

10-- Baseline

This baseline is in-between the two other choices we have.

ESTAR now at Somewhat Thermally Improved

Baseline Options: RTF Direction Required• Continue with Current Assumption

– Baseline is equal to the mix of Non-NEEM homes currently in the market

• Typical Choices– Baseline will represent an average of NEEM and non-

NEEM homes in the proportion of their respective market share

• Somewhere in Between: – The NEEM homes will look like the Somewhat

Thermally Improved (previous slide)

11- Baseline

Staff Recommendation

12

Developing Planning Savings Estimates

Current Measure Specifications13- Savings

Component Baseline (Somewhere in Between) ENERGY STAR EcoRated

Ceilings (flat) Avg. R-33 Nominal; U = 0.036 Effective

Flat: R-49 Nominal; U=0.025 Effective

Ceilings (vaulted) Vaulted: R-40 Nominal; U=0.029 Effective

Walls Avg. R-18 Nominal; U= 0.065 Effective R-21 Nominal; U=0.055 Effective

R-21 w/no trade off &requires insulated header;

U=0.055 Effective

Floors Avg. R-25 Nominal; U = 0.04 Effective R-33; U=0.033 Effective R-38 Blown-in; U=0.033 Effective

Glazing Avg. U=0.32 U=0.32 U=0.32 area weighted avg.

Appliances built-in Baseline ENERGY STAR Dishwasher ENERGY STAR Dishwasher

ENERGY STAR Refrigerator

Lighting No requirement (Current Practice)

No requirement (Current Practice) 80% fixture CFL

Envelope Tightness No requirement 5.0 ACH50 (avg 3.9 ACH50 found in 2009 field study)

Heating System78% AFUE Gas FAF; or

Electric Furnace; or8.5 HSPF Heat Pump

80% AFUE Gas FAF; orElectric Furnace; or

8.5 HSPF Heat Pump

90% AFUE Gas FAF; orElectric Furnace; or

8.5 HSPF Heat Pump

Duct Leakage 13% (est from old NEEM studies that pre-date duct sealing reqs)

0.06 x Floor Area CFM50 in-plant test (5% Supply Leakage Fraction, 2009 field study)

Approximate Uo 0.057 0.051

Existing Savings Estimates: Not Recommended

• Measure specifications have changed:– Infiltration: At the time of measure development, infiltration for

baseline was assumed to be 7 ACH 50– Lighting and Appliances: had significant savings, ~1000 kWh; now

less than 50 kWh due to updated standards and efficient current practice

– Other specs mostly the same

• Measure savings calculated using SEEM.92. Update made to SEEM since then mainly impacts heating energy savings due to infiltration (among other smaller changes)

• Note: Proposed Planning Estimates (next) have been calculated with updated measure specifications

14- Savings

15

Developing Planning Savings Estimates: Non Electric Heat Adjustment (Calibration Phase II)

Non-Electric Heat Adjustment (Phase II)• The Phase II calibration factor accounts for the possible presence

on non-electric fuels (e.g. wood heat) on annual electric heating energy− Existing homes Phase II factor is 8% for HZ1 and 14% for HZ2 & HZ3

• Homes in NEEM dataset have lower incidence of non-electric heat than homes in RBSA dataset. Thus, Phase II factor was adjusted based for new construction MH based on the NEEM dataset.

• Staff Proposal: Phase II factor = 2.5% for all HZ– NEEM data suggests that only 7 % of electrically heated homes (4 out of

55) had non-electric heat presence• Assuming that these are medium off grid use homes, gives us a Phase 2 factor of

2.5%. i.e. adjustment factor of (100% - 2.5% = 97.5%)• Reminder: for MH there was no additional adjustment for gas heat and a very

small adjustment for unoccupied homes

16 Savings: Phase II

17

Developing Planning Savings Estimates: Aligning SEEM with Billing Data for Electrically Heated Homes (“Phase I”)

All Electric Home Heating Energy (Phase 1) Adjustment Factor

Phase I calibration factor developed using regression to understand differences between SEEM (69/64°F) and billing data (VBDD) heating energy estimates. We have two options:• SEEM.69: Calibration based on NEEM data only.

– Same Phase I calibration factor Pre- and Post-• Calibration Curve: Calibration based on NEEM and RBSA data

– Phase I Calibration factor varies pre- and post-. Consistent with existing measure

• (Planning) Savings estimate calculated using the two options differ significantly from each other

• Staff proposes taking the average of both options– Research strategy is focused on resolving this issue

18- Savings Phase I

Staff Recommendation

SEEM.69

This is a NEEM only calibration• Result is that Phase I calibration factor ≈ 1 for baseline and

efficient case– SEEM.69 thermostat settings work on average for NEEM homes

• Closest to a physics estimate in energy reduction

19- Savings Phase 1

– Reminder: Comparison of VBDD.heat.kWh to SEEM.69.kWh for NEEM homes, presented to the RTF at the November ‘15 meeting

SEEM.69 (contd.)The possible issue with using SEEM.69 method for determining energy savings is that NEEM data does not include homes with different shell efficiencies

In two (limited) comparisons for existing homes, CAT has found reasonable agreement between savings estimated from pre-/post- program billing data and savings estimated using the existing (RBSA-based) calibration

– Existing SF weatherization savings comparison to ETO data • Note: Some issues that limit the MH RBSA’s suitability for calibration are less

problematic in the SF calibration

– Existing MH weatherization savings using IDP data– ORNL report on MH Wx Program Evaluation in 5 states: Model calibrated to pre

case for existing MH; when compared with billing data savings had to be adjusted by a realization rate of 0.6

• (5 States are North Dakota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Missouri, and Virginia)

We do not have any similar comparisons for new homes. – This is what the Research Strategy seeks to address.

20- Savings Phase 1

Calibration CurveInclude MH RBSA data in calibration• Calibration adjustments differ between baseline and efficient cases

– Consistent with existing MH and SF measures

• Graph at left shows percent differences between SEEM.69 and VBDD in existing MH calibration (based on RBSA data only)

• Graph at right shows differences in absolute kWh terms for NEEM and RBSA (electric-resistance homes only)

• Both suggest less savings than the physics predicts

21- Savings Phase 1

(RBSA data only) (Electric resistance only)

Calibration Curve (contd.)The possible issues with selecting Calibration Curve based estimates are:• We don’t have data to understand where baseline new

construction homes lie on the calibration curve• MH RBSA and NEEM samples not comparable w.r.t calibration

requirements

22- Savings Phase 1

(RBSA data only) (Electric resistance only)

How the numbers stack up…23- Savings Phase 1

eFAF HZ1 eFAF HZ2 eFAF HZ3 Heat Pump HZ1_CZ1

Heat Pump HZ1_CZ2

Heat Pump HZ1_CZ3

Heat Pump HZ2_CZ1

Heat Pump HZ2_CZ2

Heat Pump HZ2_CZ3

Heat Pump HZ3_CZ1

Heat Pump HZ3_CZ2

Heat Pump HZ3_CZ3

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Current Savings SEEM.69 Calib Curve

kWh

Savi

ngs

HZ1 HZ2 HZ3eFAF

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500 SEEM.69 Calib Curve

kWh

Savi

ngs

Staff Proposal• Both SEEM.69 and Calibration Curve Options have

uncertainty associated with them, Staff proposes using an average of the two options for planning estimate

24- Savings Phase 1

Staff Proposal

Heat Pump New Construction MeasuresA calibration curve for heat pump measures does not exist and there is uncertainty regarding the performance levels of HP in MH in the region. For Planning estimates, propose to calculate HP heating energy consumption estimate by dividing RTF approved eFAF energy consumption estimate by average COP per HZ.• The COP for each run is calculated as SEEM electric heating output

divided by SEEM electric heating input • Average COP per heating zone is calculated as an average of the

individual COP for all new construction runs

Data collected and analyzed through the methods outlined in existing MH Heat Pump Commissioning Controls & Sizing, and the MH New Construction Research Strategies will provide the necessary inputs to calculate energy savings.

25 - Savings

Savings Comparison: ENERGY STAR MH

26 - Savings

HZ1 HZ2 HZ3 HZ1 HZ2 HZ3 HZ1_CZ1 HZ1_CZ2 HZ1_CZ3 HZ2_CZ1 HZ2_CZ2 HZ2_CZ3 HZ3_CZ1 HZ3_CZ2 HZ3_CZ3Gas Furnace eFAF Heat Pump

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Current kWh Proposed kWh

kWh

Savi

ngs

Incremental Cost: ENERGY STAR MH

27- Savings

ENERGY STAR Gas ENERGY STAR eFAF ENERGY STAR HP $-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

Current Cost Proposed Cost

TRC Comparison: ENERGY STAR MH

28 - Savings

HZ1 HZ2 HZ3 HZ1 HZ2 HZ3 HZ1_CZ1 HZ1_CZ2 HZ1_CZ3 HZ2_CZ1 HZ2_CZ2 HZ2_CZ3 HZ3_CZ1 HZ3_CZ2 HZ3_CZ3Gas Furnace eFAF Heat Pump

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Current TRC Proposed TRC

Savings Comparison: EcoRated MH

29 - Savings

HZ1 HZ2 HZ3 HZ1 HZ2 HZ3 HZ1_CZ1 HZ1_CZ2 HZ1_CZ3 HZ2_CZ1 HZ2_CZ2 HZ2_CZ3 HZ3_CZ1 HZ3_CZ2 HZ3_CZ3Gas Furnace eFAF Heat Pump

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Current kWh Proposed kWh

kWh

Savi

ngs

Incremental Cost : EcoRated MH

30 - Savings

Ecorated Gas Ecorated eFAF Ecorated HP $-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

Current Cost Proposed Cost

TRC Comparison: EcoRated MH

31 - Savings

HZ1 HZ2 HZ3 HZ1 HZ2 HZ3 HZ1_CZ1 HZ1_CZ2 HZ1_CZ3 HZ2_CZ1 HZ2_CZ2 HZ2_CZ3 HZ3_CZ1 HZ3_CZ2 HZ3_CZ3Gas Furnace eFAF Heat Pump

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Current TRC Proposed TRC

Delivery Verification Guidance

Homes must be rated NEEM certified as ENERGY STAR or Ecorated by Northwest Energy Works

32 - Savings

33

Research Strategy

R&E Subcommittee Review• R&E Subcommittee Meeting on November 19, 2015• Participants

– Josh Rushton, RTF Contract Analyst (presenter)– Jennifer Light, RTF Manager– Adam Hadley, RTF Contract Analyst– Mohit Singh-Chhabra, RTF Contract Analyst– Christopher Frye, NEEA– Mark Jerome, CLEAResult– Howdy Reichmuth– Greg Keller, EWEB– Tom Eckhart, UCONs– Lauren Gage, Bonneville– Dan Rubado, Energy Trust– Jim Perich-Anderson, PSE– Richard Cole– Brad Acker, University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab– Peter Miller, NRDC– Philip Kelsven, Bonneville – Bob Davis, Ecotope– Dave Baylon, Ecotope

34 – Research Strategy

Research Objectives• UES values should be “closely tied” to observed differences in kWh

between standard and efficient MHs– Engineering models okay for some adjustments but results should be

“largely driven” by observed kWh differences • Need sample of efficient-case homes and comparable sample of

standard-construction homes with…– Energy consumption data – Characteristic data needed to meaningfully compare kWh across the

samples • Not explicit objectives:

– Updating component specs in standard or efficient-case homes (doesn’t mean RTF can’t use new data if it’s helpful)

– Updating mix of standard- and efficient-case homes included in the baseline (left to RTF judgment)

35 – Research Strategy

Straw-proposal• Sampling: Final target is 154 standard- and 154 and efficient-case MHs

– 90% confidence band for savings projected as ±750 kwh (≈ 30%-40% rel. precision)– Emphasis on samples being comparable (being fully representative less important)

• Okay to limit to 1 or 2 heating zones (maybe just ETO territory) • Intent is to estimate minimum research lift

– Results “may be difficult to interpret” if heat pump homes included • Data collection:

– Location, specs, label (NEEM, EcoRated, standard) from manufacturer/retailer – Billing data from utility or program– System (HP, E-FAF, G-FAF) & wood heat indicator from phone call or drive-by

• Analysis: – Run SEEM and VBDD for each site in the sample – Fit regression to estimate VBDD.kWh as a function of SEEM.69.kWh – Use regression results for calibrate savings

• Cost estimate: $100k-$250k (assumes written data releases not required)

36 – Research Strategy

RTF Decision“I, _______, move that the RTF set the measure Status and Category for the NEEM certified ENERGY STAR and EcoRated MH measures to ‘Active’, ‘Planning’ and:• Adopt the savings estimate developed using:

– ‘Somewhere in between’ baseline for MH new construction– Staff proposal to set Non-Electric heat adjustment (Phase II) factor to

2.5%– Staff proposal to use the average of the two options presented to

determine adjustment for all electric home annual heating energy (Phase 1) use for electric resistance heated MH

– Staff proposal to use HZ specific COP to calculate energy savings for new construction MH with heat pumps

• Adopt the Research Strategy as presented• Set a Sunset Date of 12/2018”

37 - Decision