1. GrocerSmart TM Energy Modeling Software -Revision Status Report- Jeremy Litow, Associate Director David Murphy, Program Manager June 1, 2010

2. Agenda Why we’re here today –History –Clarity on direction we’re going Plan to ask in August 2010 Plan to ask in Q2 2011 Plan to ask by Q4 2011 Review project constraints Plan and schedule Discussion

3. Future requests for approval from RTF Request full RTF approval for direction of GrocerSmart 4.0 at August 2010 meeting –Methodology (DOE 2.2r as reasonable live model, template) –Data sets –Phases Return to RTF Q2 2011 for final request for approval of new version Return to RTF by Q4 2011 for approval of improvements

4. Current situation Existing version software 3.0 –Summit Blue and other market players give good marks on energy savings but “black box” is an issue – Recommendations for revision similar –Better baseline data –Fewer key assumptions –Baseline revision –Interactivity –More transparency

5. Relationship of Complexity to GS savings accuracy: +@1.5m kWh Measure complexity High Low Realization rate FHPC w/VFD FHPC w/o VFD Efficient Cases ECM case motors.84 1.19 1.27 1.39 Low High

6. Current situation Focus of the subcommittee –So far: Key criteria and data sets –Still to come: Template Better documentation, addressing transparency These are our Phase 1 revision goals Baseline revision Phase 2

7. Constraints –Programmatic – requires template <.5 day audit time for data gathering and processing Auditor skills –Practical and maintain transparency Data libraries –QC/QA »Size »Vetting for relevance »Updating Model function –Resources (@ 5.5 FTE for 1 year) –Result – break project into phases

8. Project direction – Phases Phase 1 –Overhaul of interface, processing method, basic benchmarking, interactivity included Phase 2 –Revise baseline during post install checks, sophisticated benchmarking Phase 3+ –Other building templates/envelope, etc.

9. Project direction - Phase 1 Subcommittee focus - key criteria What’s important –Mostly agree on what’s important –Sensitivity where uncertain What values should we use? –Actual set points, strategies, data from spec sheets, etc. –Sensitivity analysis to limit size of data sets

10. Methodology What’s important Values we should use

11. Key Improvements to GrocerSmart™ by Phase Existing GS 3.0New GS 4.0 (Phase 1)New GS 4.0 (Phase 2) Savings calculation methodology Parametric runsLive modeling DOE2.2r (Pending subcommittee approval) Live modeling DOE2.2r In template Building envelope and mechanical systems Building envelope, HVAC and efficient scenario refrigeration systems (Pending subcommittee approval) Building envelope and HVAC Compressors FixedReal world baseline, standardized efficient equipment (RTF approved) Real world baseline and efficient equipment Refrigerant FixedReal world data (Pending subcommittee approval) Real world data Display cases Approximation (RTF approved) Real world baseline, standardized efficient equipment (RTF approved) Real world baseline and efficient equipment Control strategies and setpoints Approximation (RTF approved) Real world baseline, standardized efficient equipment (RTF approved) Real world baseline and efficient equipment Condensers FixedReal world data (Pending subcommittee approval) Real world data

12. Task list and future requests of RTF by Phase New GS 4.0 (Phase 1)New GS 4.0 (Phase 2) Savings calculation methodology Live modeling DOE2.2r (Pending subcommittee approval), (RTF approval August 2010) Live modeling DOE2.2r (No future requests of RTF) In template Building envelope, HVAC and efficient scenario refrigeration systems (Pending subcommittee approval), (RTF approval August 2010) Building envelope and HVAC (RTF Phase 2 approval by Q4 2011) Compressors Real world baseline (Pending subcommittee approval) (RTF approval August 2010) Standardized efficient equipment (RTF approved) Real world baseline (No future requests of RTF) Real world efficient equipment (RTF Phase 2 approval by Q4 2011) Refrigerant Real world data (Pending subcommittee approval), (RTF approval August 2010) Real world data (No future requests of RTF) Display cases Real world baseline, standardized efficient equipment (RTF approved) Real world baseline and efficient equipment (RTF Phase 2 approval by Q4 2011) Control strategies and setpoints Real world baseline, standardized efficient equipment (RTF approved) Real world baseline and efficient equipment (RTF Phase 2 approval by Q4 2011) Condensers Real world data (Pending subcommittee approval), (RTF approval August 2010) Real world data (No future requests of RTF)

13. Refrigeration systems

14. Cases

15. New interface sample mock up

17. Key Improvements to Transparency by Phase Existing GS 3.0New GS 4.0 (Phase 1)New GS 4.0 (Phase 2) Base scenario energy use Not availableOutput report Efficient scenario energy use Not availableOutput report Energy delta between base and efficient scenarios Energy savings report Output report Auditor inputs Audit detail report Input report Data associated with those inputs Not availableInput report “BDL” n/aProvided as file DOE 2.2r inputs n/aProvided as file Weather files Not availableProvided as file “Include” files n/aProvided as file

18. Summary of immediate project direction Work toward subcommittee recommendation for: –Method Interface drives inputs of key criteria Key criteria drive inputs to live DOE2.2r model Data in libraries and selection/filtering method Model runs vs. fixed efficient scenario –Phased approach for further improvements

19. Larger project plan Business requirements gathering (done) Design (now) 3 rd party review of method and data sets? Coding (post RTF approval of direction) –Method and key criteria –Phased approach Testing QC/QA (Q 3&4 2010, Q1 2011) Calibrate model and vet savings (Q1 2011) –Summit Blue evaluation of GrocerSmart TM 3.0 –GrocerSmart TM 3.0 –New construction –Custom calculations –Prescriptive/DEER –Other 3rd party review and calibration? Beta test (Q1 2011) Submit for RTF approval of new version for rollout (Q2 2011) Full deployment (Q2 2011) Phase 2

20. Challenges Subcommittee attendance irregular High level of complexity on refrigeration Need evaluator focus No outside professional review –Cascade reviewed 3.0 3.0 evaluation not fully leveraged

21. Thoughts on addressing challenges… Address attendance and engagement at RTF Regular engagement of utility EM&V staff –Join subcommittee or separate meetings RTF or utility funding of review ASAP Use details of 3.0 evaluation

22. Discussion