Evaluation Results of the 2004 & 2005 California Statewide ENERGY STAR® New Homes Program Clark Bernier Presented at the October 17, 2007 CALMAC Meeting.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Time-of-Use and Critical Peak Pricing
Advertisements

New Construction Calibration Research Results and Request for Decision Regional Technical Forum March 18, 2014.
Automated Demand Response Pilot 2005/2004 Load Impact Results and Recommendations Final Report © 2005 Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) Research & Consulting.
Experience you can trust Statewide Multifamily Rebate Program: Findings & Recommendations CALMAC Meeting Pacific Energy Center October 17, 2007.
2005 LIEE Impact Evaluation Final Report January 23, 2007 Presentation to the Low Income Oversight Board West Hill Energy and Computing, Inc. with Ridge.
Are Building Codes Effective at Saving Energy? Evidence from Residential Billing Data in Florida Grant D. Jacobsen UC Santa Barbara Matthew J. Kotchen.
Have residential building energy codes and standards reduced household energy consumption- and if so, by how much? Meredith Fowlie discussant Conference.
Manufactured Homes Calibration: Existing and New Homes Mohit Singh-Chhabra & Josh Rushton RTF Update March 17, 2015.
 On average, home heating uses more energy than any other system in a home  About 45% of total energy use  More than half of homes use natural gas.
November Energy Efficiency Finance Workshop Energy Efficiency Financing: Multifamily Sector Beckie Menten Visiting Research Fellow Energy Efficiency.
BPA Pre-Pilot, Monmouth  14 homes with installed DHP, single zone, single compressor.  11 Monmouth, 2 Moses Lake, 1 Tacoma  Savings.
Utility Rebates Services and Funding to Help Build “Green” Restaurants and Hospitality Facilities Tom Coughlin Program Manager.
Building your Energy Efficient New Home. Learning Objectives: The features of an energy efficient house How energy efficient homes are rated on the EnerGuide.
Washington State Low Income Weatherization Program Evaluation Calendar Year 2011 DRAFT Results Prepared by: Rick Kunkle July 2013.
Overview of the 2009 LIEE Impact Evaluation Workshop 1: “Overview of Lessons Learned” October 17, 2011.
1 Quality Control Review of E3 Calculator Inputs Comparison to DEER Database Brian Horii Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. November 16, 2006.
Climate & Usage, Health & Safety Lessons Learned ESAP Workshop #1 October 17, 2011.
DNV GL © 2014 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER DNV GL © 2014 HVAC_3 Quality Maintenance 1 Research Plan.
SDG&E Small Business Energy Efficiency (SBEE) SoCal Gas Non-Residential Financial Incentives Program (NRFIP) Evaluation Results Steve Grover ECONorthwest.
Methodology for Energy Savings claim for Incentive Programs and Codes & Standards(C&S) accounting Presented by: Armen Saiyan P.E. For the California Technical.
1Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Michael Blasnik M Blasnik & Associates Greg Dalhoff Dalhoff Associates, LLC David Carroll APPRISE.
1 EE Evaluation Report on 2009 Bridge Funding Period California Public Utilities Commission November 22, 2010 Energy Division Energy Efficiency Evaluation.
Performance Metrics for Weatherization UGI LIURP Evaluation Yvette Belfort Jackie Berger ACI Home Performance Conference April 30, 2014.
DHP for Houses with Electric FAF Research Plan: Revisions Adam Hadley, Ben Hannas, Bob Davis, My Ton R&E Subcommittee February 25, 2015.
Scientific Irrigation Scheduling provisional analysis and research plan BPA December 2014.
1 NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE Northwest Ductless Heat Pump Pilot Project Impact & Process Evaluation: Billing Analysis Ecotope, Inc. February.
M&V Part 2: Risk Assessment & Responsibility Allocation.
Electric / Gas / Water 2004/2005 Single Family Energy Efficiency Rebate Program Evaluation * Findings and Recommendations * October CALMAC Meeting October.
Results from the California Energy Efficiency Potential Study – Existing Residential and Commercial Jean Shelton July 27, 2006 San Francisco, California.
Ben Larson 28 September th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA (206) Fax: (206)
EvergreenEcon.com ESA 2011 Impact Evaluation Draft Report Public Workshop #2 August 7, 2013 Presented By: Steve Grover, President.
Bill Savings Public Workshop Costs and Bill Saving in the Low Income Energy Efficiency Programs for 2003 to 2005 April 21, :00 AM to Noon 77 Beale.
SEEM Calibration: Phase II Single Family Heating Energy Regional Technical Forum August 20, 2013 Presented By: Josh Rushton and Adam Hadley Subcommittee.
Utilities’ Update on Energy Savings Assistance Program Studies Ordered in D LIOB Meeting February 26, 2014 San Francisco, California.
Measurement & Evaluation of the San Francisco Peak Energy Pilot Program (SFPEP) MAESTRO/CALMAC Evaluation Showcase July 26, 2006 Kevin Cooney.
1Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy David Carroll APPRISE National WAP Evaluation: Savings and Opportunities for Baseload Electric.
New Evidence on Energy Education Effectiveness Jackie Berger 2008 ACI Home Performance Conference April 8, 2008.
SEEM Calibration: Phase-2 Adjustments for Failed VBDD Fits RTF Calibration Subcommittee July 31, 2014.
Built Green™ vs. LEED ® : Energy Impacts of Residential Green Building Programs Jonathan Heller P.E. March 6, 2009.
BGE Limited Income Pilot Programs - Evaluation ACI Home Performance Conference March 2012.
EMV Results for online Energy Education Study conducted by Lei Wang, PhD October 2011.
Bill Savings Costs and Bill Saving in the Low Income Energy Efficiency Programs for 2002 to 2004 Bill Savings Public Workshop April 15, San Diego.
Prepared for Enterprise Community Partners Special thanks to New Ecology, Homeowners Rehab Inc. & Performance Systems Development.
2009 Impact Evaluation Concerns ESAP Workshop #1 October 17, 2011.
New Construction Studies Performed by: MAESTRO/CALMAC Evaluation Showcase ● Pacific Energy Center ● July 26-27, 2006 EM&V of the Statewide Savings By Design.
Residential New SF Energy Star Homes UES Measure Update December 17th, 2013.
Electric / Gas / Water Summary of Final Evaluation Report Prepared by: Rafael Friedmann, PG&E Kris Bradley & Christie Torok, Quantum Consulting 2003 Statewide.
Utilities’ Update on Energy Savings Assistance Program Studies Ordered in D LIOB Meeting August 21, 2013 Sacramento, California.
Heat Pump Research Project Sponsored by the Heat Pump Working Group April 5, 2005.
ENERGY STAR and Eco-Rated Homes: Planning Estimates and Research Strategy Regional Technical Forum December 8 th, 2015 Josh Rushton & Mohit Singh-Chhabra.
Electric / Gas / Water Summary of Final Evaluation Report Prepared by: John Cavalli, Itron Beatrice Mayo, PG&E July 27, Express Efficiency Program.
DHP for New Construction: How to establish the baseline Adam Hadley and Phillip Kelsven RTF Subcommittee December 4, 2015.
Experience you can trust. Californial Industrial Energy Efficiency Potential CALMAC/MAESTRO Meeting San Francisco, CA July 27, 2006 Fred Coito
Where did it go? Lost savings found in real-world data SEEM Calibration for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Regional Technical Forum (RTF)
VRF Applications in PNW RTF RTUG Meeting October 26, 2011 Kevin Campbell Reid Hart, PE Technical Research Group.
1 Summary of Reviews: Workpapers Approved by the California Technical Forum Part 2 Meeting: California Technical Forum January 28, 2016 Jeff Hirsch/Kevin.
CALMAC July 18, 2007 Meeting Attribution and Net to Gross Examples for Discussion Clark Bernier, RLW Analytics, Inc.
Multifamily Programs Focused Impact Evaluation March 10,
DNV GL © 2016 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER DNV GL © 2016 HVAC 3 Quality Maintenance Program Year Impact Evaluation.
Road to Net Zero- Corey Chinn, PE Sustainable facilities do not have to be complex or expensive “Technical skill is the mastery of complexity, while creativity.
Technology case description Insulation Task 21 Experts meeting, Seoul 19 April 2001 Harry Vreuls Operating Agent.
2015 SDG&E PTR/SCTD Evaluation DRMEC Spring 2016 Load Impact Workshop George Jiang May 11 th, 2016 Customer Category Mean Active Participants Mean Reference.
1 Detailed EM&V Approach for each of BGE’s Proposed Conservation Programs January 10, 2008.
Regional Energy Networks Impact Evaluation Research Plan July 20,
Fort Stanwix National Monument Energy Audit Contract
Analysis of 2008 Title 24 Nonresidential Compliance Site Audits
Best Practices in Residential Energy Efficiency
Py2015 California statewide on-bill finance
Jackie Berger Home Performance Conference April 3, 2019
Heat Pump Water Heaters: Evolution to a “California Essential”
Presentation transcript:

Evaluation Results of the 2004 & 2005 California Statewide ENERGY STAR® New Homes Program Clark Bernier Presented at the October 17, 2007 CALMAC Meeting

CALMAC October Total Buildings Built Under Program Single Family Multi Family

CALMAC October Inspection Findings Water Heating Efficiency Site Inspections

CALMAC October Inspection Findings AC Efficiency Site Inspections

CALMAC October Inspection Findings Window Area Site Inspections

CALMAC October Inspection Findings Other Measures Site Inspections

CALMAC October Meter-to-Model Results: SF Cooling Coastal Sites Desert Sites Meter-to- Model Analysis

CALMAC October Meter-to-Model Results SF Heating SF Water Heating Meter-to- Model Analysis

CALMAC October Meter-to-Model Results: SF Ratio Results Cooling: Coastal is 175% of model, inland is 66% - 80% of model Cooling: Coastal is 175% of model, inland is 66% - 80% of model Heating: actual is 59% - 61% of model Heating: actual is 59% - 61% of model Water Heating: actual is 81% of model Water Heating: actual is 81% of model Savings Impact: 18% lower kWh, 20% lower therms Savings Impact: 18% lower kWh, 20% lower therms Meter-to- Model Analysis

CALMAC October Meter-to-Model Conclusions Compliance models overstate usage (and thus savings) Compliance models overstate usage (and thus savings) Why? Single Family Why? Single Family It’s the people. Thermostat set point too high? Understate the average floor area per person? Meter-to- Model Analysis

CALMAC October Single Family Net-to- Gross Results Electricity NtG tends to be >1 inland Electricity NtG tends to be >1 inland Gas NtG results are <1 everywhere Gas NtG results are <1 everywhere Due to builder trade-offs in the baseline (greater inland) Due to builder trade-offs in the baseline (greater inland) More efficient water-heaters More efficient water-heaters Less efficient AC performance Less efficient AC performance Net-to- Gross

CALMAC October Single Family Savings per Unit: Comparison Across Analysis Steps Net-to- Gross

CALMAC October Single Family Final Results Ex Ante numbers based on per-unit estimates and # units built Ex Ante numbers based on per-unit estimates and # units built High kWh Inland NtG results in high realization rates High kWh Inland NtG results in high realization rates Low therms NtG results in low realization rates Low therms NtG results in low realization rates Total Savings: Total Savings: 21.5 Million inland kWh, 2.3 Million coastal kWh 21.5 Million inland kWh, 2.3 Million coastal kWh 975,000 inland therms, 44,110 coastal therms 975,000 inland therms, 44,110 coastal therms Final

CALMAC October SF Billing Analysis Results Therms, Climate Zone 12 Billing Analysis Per-unit Therms Savings, by Analysis

CALMAC October SF Billing Analysis Results kWh, Climate Zone 12 Billing Analysis Per-unit kWh Savings, by Analysis

CALMAC October Inspection Findings Multi Family Site Inspections

CALMAC October Meter-to-Model Results: MF Cooling Meter-to- Model Analysis

CALMAC October Meter-to-Model Results: MF Heating MF Water Heating Meter-to- Model Analysis

CALMAC October Meter-to-Model Results: MF Ratio Results Cooling: actual is 12% - 40% of model Cooling: actual is 12% - 40% of model Heating: actual is 16% - 21% of model Heating: actual is 16% - 21% of model Water Heating: actual is 30% of model Water Heating: actual is 30% of model Savings Impact: 69% lower kWh, 73% lower therms Savings Impact: 69% lower kWh, 73% lower therms Meter-to- Model Analysis

CALMAC October Meter-to-Model Conclusions…MF Compliance models overstate usage (and thus savings) Compliance models overstate usage (and thus savings) Why? Multifamily Why? Multifamily Multifamily models fail to account for key differences between SF and MF Occupancy patterns Economic differences Zonal comfort instead of whole-area Ignores interaction between spaces In general: Multifamily structures are more complex than Single Family, but treated the same Meter-to- Model Analysis

CALMAC October Multi Family Family Net- to-Gross Results SERA conducted interviews with builders SERA conducted interviews with builders Self-reported NtG ratio Self-reported NtG ratio Final ratio used: 0.50 Final ratio used: 0.50 Net-to- Gross

CALMAC October Multi Family Savings per Unit: Comparison Across Analysis Steps Net-to- Gross

CALMAC October Multi Family Final Results Realization rates are very low Realization rates are very low Lower-than-expected NtG of 0.5 Lower-than-expected NtG of 0.5 Large overstatement of usage/savings by tracking models Large overstatement of usage/savings by tracking models Final

CALMAC October Total Program Results Includes high-rise (not shown in this presentation) Includes high-rise (not shown in this presentation) 23.7 Million kWh, 1.26 Million Therms, 25.5 MW savings 23.7 Million kWh, 1.26 Million Therms, 25.5 MW savings Realization rates are highly variable between untilities Realization rates are highly variable between untilities Different ex ante methods (2.5x - 4.5x PG&E per-unit kWh estimates from the other IOUs) Different ex ante methods (2.5x - 4.5x PG&E per-unit kWh estimates from the other IOUs) Different mixes of coastal/inland Different mixes of coastal/inland Final

CALMAC October Program Conclusion and Recommendations - I What do builders do to achieve savings vis-à-vis non- participants What do builders do to achieve savings vis-à-vis non- participants 90% homes have tight ducts/infiltration 90% homes have tight ducts/infiltration Not tested for in the baseline Not tested for in the baseline Not generally claimed in non-participant homes (even though they might qualify for the measure) Not generally claimed in non-participant homes (even though they might qualify for the measure) Billing results from CZ 12 offer some corroboration that net savings might be even lower Billing results from CZ 12 offer some corroboration that net savings might be even lower Reduction in window area Reduction in window area (slightly) Higher equipment efficiencies (slightly) Higher equipment efficiencies Radiant barrier Radiant barrier Overhangs Overhangs Re-circulation timers on hot water systems Re-circulation timers on hot water systems

CALMAC October Program Conclusion and Recommendations - II Coastal impacts might not be worth the cost Coastal impacts might not be worth the cost Realization rates are somewhat misleading as IOUs used different methods to compute ex ante savings Realization rates are somewhat misleading as IOUs used different methods to compute ex ante savings Builders don’t always do what’s modeled Builders don’t always do what’s modeled Occupants don’t behave as modeled Occupants don’t behave as modeled Orientation has a large (17% - 25%) impact on usage/savings Orientation has a large (17% - 25%) impact on usage/savings Significant savings to be had by using the “best” orientation Significant savings to be had by using the “best” orientation Significant need to make sure the registries record the actual orientation instead of just the worst Significant need to make sure the registries record the actual orientation instead of just the worst

CALMAC October Program Conclusion and Recommendations - III Compliance models alone are a poor indicator of usage/savings Compliance models alone are a poor indicator of usage/savings Compliance-focused rather than modeling-focused Compliance-focused rather than modeling-focused Methods (including ex ante) must take this into account Methods (including ex ante) must take this into account Baseline studies need to be paired with evaluation studies so that they are complimentary Baseline studies need to be paired with evaluation studies so that they are complimentary This means better-funded baseline studies are necessary to properly quantify program savings This means better-funded baseline studies are necessary to properly quantify program savings

CALMAC October Program Conclusion and Recommendations - IV Improved tracking database(s) Improved tracking database(s) Consistent data format Consistent data format Restricted entries on fields (many 2x, 3x builder name spelling variations, etc.) Restricted entries on fields (many 2x, 3x builder name spelling variations, etc.) Record the details of failures – can find lost savings opportunities Record the details of failures – can find lost savings opportunities

CALMAC October Contact Information Clark Bernier RLW Analytics 1055 Broadway, Suite G Sonoma, CA Phone: (707) x19 Web: