Upload
linda-goodman
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Manufactured Homes Calibration: Existing and New Homes
Mohit Singh-Chhabra & Josh RushtonRTF Update
March 17, 2015
2
Overview
Today we are presenting to the RTF:• Update the RTF on subcommittee directions
for existing construction MH• Guidance on CAT proposal for next steps on
new construction MH
3
Existing Homes: Background
• Three “Oregon trail” modifications to pure-physics savings estimates:– Calibration Phase I: Align SEEM output with billing data for
RBSA homes with "clean" heating energy data (clean = good VBDD fit and no evidence of off-grid heat)– Calibration Phase II: Account for nonelectric fuel types (gas and
"wood") and poor VBDD fits– Long-term interaction Option 3: Account for interactions with
measures likely to be installed later
• End result: Lower savings than we’re used to seeing• RTF direction: Staff should benchmark Oregon trail
estimates against actual program data
4
Existing Homes: Proposed Path(s)
Plan two investigations to test “Oregon trail” estimation procedure:• Savings comparison: Compare bottom-line
“Oregon trail” savings estimates to actual program/billing data – Similar to what we did for SF with ETO data
• Phase I curve comparison: Compare RBSA-based consumption calibration curve to pre-/post- program data– New, explained in this presentation
5
Existing MH: Savings Comparison
Compare “Oregon trail” savings to verified program savings (similar to SF savings estimate validation)
• Only trying to test “right-on-average” – Expect to test broad measure groups– No finer-grained tests (e.g., windows / walls /… / ducts)
• Idaho Power 2011-2 program data– 140 MHs (≈105 with 1+ yrs. pre-bills and 1+ yrs. post-bills)– Includes detailed audit data (pre/post shell & equipment specs, blower
door results, …)
• Supplemental Sources: – EWEB evaluation report ~1998– Evaluation reports form CO and the Midwest.
6
Existing Homes: Savings Comparison (Contd.)
Idaho Power audit data includes MH HVAC and weatherization measure specs. Enables us to…• Assign “Oregon Trail” savings to program
measures. How do these compare to VBDD-based estimates?
• Check what measures are being implemented. How do Wx’d homes compare to our full measure package assumptions
7
Existing Homes: Phase I Curve Comparison
Focus on single (critical) step in “Oregon Trail” Phase I adjustments based on observed trend in differences SEEM.69 – VBDD.kWh • Trend currently based on observational cross-section
of regional homes (RBSA)• Propose to use ID Power data to calculate VBDD and
SEEM.69 for pre-/post- sample • Is existing trend consistent with pre-/post- sample? • Side note: Need to standardize SEEM.69 same as before.
8
Existing Homes: Phase I Curve Comparison
Starting point: Add new observations to this graph• Use same filters as
before• Analysis to depend on
what we see • Is the existing trend
consistent with program data?
Remember this?
9
New Construction: Background
• Staff received feedback from the RTF that MH New Construction calibration requires dedicated analysis – Don’t just extrapolate existing construction
calibration to new construction values
10
New Construction: Staff Proposal Overview
Scope and direction of analysis constrained by data available• Audit and billing data available for a limited number of
homes
• CAT will use this data to verify Phase 1 calibration for new construction
• This process may yield results which are uncertain and require RTF judgment– If results aren’t usable an alternate methodology may suffice
• Staff asking the RTF for head nod on proposed path forward– (explanation next…)
11
New Construction: DataAvailable data:• NEEM MH billing and audit data analysis (2006)– 89 homes in final sample across all 4 states– Billing data studied for 78 homes– Raw data sets may not be available– Analysis of building components: Mean values and
distribution of some relevant building properties (Similar to RBSA report)
• New Construction Baseline (Super Good Cents NEEA report (2001-02)) MH field audit data– 101 homes with field audit data; no billing analysis– Not usable without billing data
12
New Construction: Data SummarySpecification Data Type Specificity Level Availability
NEEM Specification
Audit Data Building component (window, ceiling, floor, wall, duct)
Regional specs
Available
HVAC system propertiesInfiltration Duct tightness
Climate zone means
Report available
Billing Data VBDD heating energy consumption
Climate zone means
Report available
New Construction Baseline
Audit Data Building component (window, ceiling, floor, wall, duct)
Regional specs
Available
HVAC system propertiesInfiltration Duct tightness
Climate zone means
Report available
Billing Data TBD TBD Possible if billing data is made available
13
New Construction: Phase I Comparison
Understand difference in heating energy consumption estimates between SEEM.69 and VBDD analysis• SEEM.69:
– Existing reports give us an estimate of average home HVAC properties and tightness
– The minimum construction specs for Ecorated, ENERGY STAR and Baseline NC homes are known• Need to estimate as built U-values from specs• Use standardized calibration inputs for non-spec fields
• VBDD:– NEEM report provides us with a VBDD estimate of average heating
energy use
14
New Construction: Note on Phase I Curve Comparison
Nothing compares, nothing compares… to pre-post
• NC points should fall somewhere in this region
• Would not be able to reproduce phase 1 filters for this.
• Only meaningful if SEEM input conventions consistent across types…– NC vs. RBSA points– Baseline NC vs. NEEM, etc. – Lots of assumptions here
New Construction: Alternate Option
• Estimate savings for new construction measures using billing analysis of existing participants– Compare average measure (ENERGY STAR/Ecorated etc.)
kWh to applicable average new construction MH kWh • Apt for testing average bottom-line savings only
• Call for data: can data to conduct this analysis be made available?– Analysis would require billing data for new construction
MH (baseline, and efficient)– CAT would conduct the billing analysis (is this an
appropriate use of CAT time?)
16
New Construction: Proposed Path Forward
• CAT will proceed with the Phase 1 verification for new construction calibration and report back to the RTF.– CAT will explore the alternate option if the Phase 1
verification does not provide usable results
• Does the RTF agree with this proposed path forward?