Multifamily Air Sealing Program

Bobbi Wilhelm/John Forde

Implementation & Evaluation protocols

March 20, 2013

2

Team Introductions

Puget Sound Energy: Bobbi Wilhelm: Evaluation John Forde: Market Manager Clint Stewart: Program Manager

Arrow Insulation: Ben Burton: Sr. Program Manager Dave Burton: Program Manager Jay Dupree: Field Rep

DNV KEMA: Jarred Metoyer & Team

More help & support is located on the Microsoft website:http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint-help/CL010072915.aspx?CTT=97

Agenda

Overview of the Air Sealing Program

Buildings Served

Air Sealing Video

Program Implementation Protocols

Video of Air Sealing Project

Program Evaluation Protocols/Strategy

3

Why Multifamily Air Sealing I-937

PSE continues to seek new energy savings opportunities in all sectors, including multifamily

Based on the number of electrically heated multifamily buildings/units in the PSE service area, there is significant energy savings opportunity. The estimated potential is 200,000 units

During the 2012-13 RFP process, Arrow Insulation Inc. submitted a Multifamily Air Sealing Proposal

4

Program Overview

Measures Include: Attic air sealing and insulation Dense pack walls/rim joists Floor air sealing and insulation Door gaskets and sweeps Ventilation fan timers

Air sealing only measures if already insulated or combined air sealing and insulation

On site audit to gather building information Utilizes whole building blower door testing (pre-post) Program Implementation team conducts post

installation TREAT modeling.

5

Program Overview Continued

Program started January, 2012 and will be completed by December 2013

Building types range from 6 units single story to 20 units with 3 stories and located in most of the service area counties

Recruitment through past weatherization participants, program marketing efforts, etc.

Owners must commit to no additional energy efficient upgrades for 1 year (including heating season)

6

Units Served to Date

Previously Insulated Buildings (no additional insulation):

18 Buildings 133 Units 71,328 sq ft attic & floor 63,772 sq ft walls

Non-previously Insulated: 15 Buildings 142 Units 91,357 sq ft Attic & Floor 58,027 sq ft Walls

7

Protocols

Comprehensive TREAT audit performed Measures include:

Attic air sealing and insulation Dense pack walls/rim joists Floor air sealing and insulation Door gaskets and sweeps Ventilation fan timers

Inform property owner/set dates for install Whole building depressurization performed before and

after each installed measures

8

Current Infiltration Reduction

9

Measure Infiltrationreduction

kWh Savings sq. ft.

Air Tightening - Ceiling, Floor, Wall insulation to

R13 42.62% 1.63

Air Tightening - Ceiling, Wall Insulation to R13(slab on grade bldgs) 47.88% 2.21

Air Tightening - Ceiling and Floor 27.15% 0.68

Current Infiltration ReductionMeasure Actual reduction kWh per sq. ft.

Wall Insulation to R13 and Air Tightening 19.85% 3.43

Ceiling Insulation to R38 and Floor to R30 and Air Tightening 32.81% 2.42

Ceiling Insulation to R38, Floor Insulation to R30, Wall Insulation to R13 and Air Tightening

44.82% 2.49

10

11

Photos

Video

View Youtube Video

12

Program Implementation & Evaluation

The MF Air Sealing Team invited me (evaluation) in the room early

The team taught me what air sealing was (thanks!) The team asked for input on what needs to be done so

that we can evaluate the program I suggested:

Testing out after every measure and randomizing measure installation

Help assist with program optimization in event of lower avoided costs

Get a consultant on board who deals with complicated engineering & MF evaluations to take a look

13

As of April 2012

Team began testing in and out between measures and randomizing measure installation patterns

We sent out an RFP and hired KEMA to assist with a ‘process’ type evaluation Provide us with an overview of evaluation methods

given our implementation strategy Give us a ‘best in class’ recommendation for

evaluation of the program Provide us with a gap analysis on data needs

14

Evaluation Methods

Billing analysis Relatively complex algorithm that is accurate for program and site level, difficult to identify control difficult for regression to address non‐linear effects of

occupancy and measures Prototype Simulation with Billing History

Affordable accurate for population not accurate at the site level difficulty with understanding the ‘prototype’

Individual building models –use bill history for calibration Higher cost Most Accurate results

15

Current Program Status

Test in and out of every building Multiple blower doors – Whole building approach

Test out between every measure Provides an understanding of how measures stack up

Collecting insulation values pre & post Collecting up to 10 years of billing history data for

every building Average Heating Set point (thermostat) is gathered Building, window, etc. square footage Currently collecting lighting wattages Collecting major appliances – letting treat default on

annual kWh

16

Next Steps

True up modeling with billing history

Implement process improvements

Air seal final buildngs

Complete Evaluation

Present findings to RTF

17

Thanks!

Questions/Comments?

18