1 / 35

New Construction

New Construction. EM&V of the Statewide Savings By Design Program Presenter: Matt Brost – matt.brost@rlw.com EM&V of the Statewide California Energy Star New Homes Program Presenter: Bob Kasman – robert.kasman@rlw.com. Studies Performed by:.

avari
Download Presentation

New Construction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New Construction EM&V of the Statewide Savings By Design ProgramPresenter: Matt Brost – matt.brost@rlw.comEM&V of the Statewide California Energy Star New Homes ProgramPresenter: Bob Kasman – robert.kasman@rlw.com Studies Performed by: MAESTRO/CALMAC Evaluation Showcase ● Pacific Energy Center ● July 26-27, 2006

  2. Non-residential New Construction History Project Goals Methodology 2003 EM&V Results 2004-05 EM&V Plan 2004-05 EM&V Timing Residential New Construction Background 02-03 EM&V Results Evaluation Methodology More Results Conclusions 04-05 EM&V Plan Agenda

  3. History • RLW and Architectural Energy Corporation • NRNC EM&V for SCE and PG&E since 1994 • PY 94 • DOE-2 Simulations, metering and Econometrics • PY 96, 98 and 99 Carry over • DOE-2 Simulations, limited metering and Difference of Differences • 1999-2005 Savings By Design (A.K.A Building Efficiency Assessment) • EM&V becomes statewide study • Net effects by self-report • NP Spillover measured • Industrial projects start showing up in PY 2003 EM&V • 2004-05 introduction of gas measures to EM&V

  4. BEA Project Goals • Gross and net whole building savings • Incented measures • All measures (participant spillover) • Energy and demand (coincident) • Baseline assessment • Program Process • Participant and non-participant DM interviews • New constructions trends • Efficiency, design and construction practices, etc.

  5. BEA Methodology Overview • Stratified participant sample by kWh savings • Based on paid year, not program year • Non-participants selected from FW Dodge • Matched sample 2001-2002 • Representative sample 2003 • Very few in 2004-05 • On-site surveys • DOE-2 Models • Decision Maker Surveys • Measure level net analysis • Informed by self-report • Modeled in DOE-2

  6. 2003 Statewide Gross Savings Results • Two gross estimates • All measures • Includes non-incented measures better than Title 24 (Part. spillover) • Measures only • Applies to systems projects

  7. 2003 Statewide Net Savings Results • Two net savings estimates • Participant net savings • Gross minus free-ridership • Comprehensive net savings • Gross minus free-ridership plus non-participant spillover

  8. BEA Results Comparison • Commercial • 75-82% Comprehensive net-to-gross • 59-76% Participant net-to-gross • Industrial • 35-59% Net to Gross • No 1999-2001 projects

  9. Commercial Efficiency – 1998 and 2001 Title 24 (2003) Participant and Non-participant Energy Savings as a Percentage of Baseline Consumption – 2001 Title 24 versus 1998 Title 24, Commercial Sites Only (Unweighted)

  10. 2003 Commercial Efficiency Combined Participant and Non-participant Energy Savings as a Percentage of Baseline Consumption – Commercial Sites Only

  11. Participant Feedback • Importance of design assistance and analysis • Helps “sell” the measure • Corroborates internal decisions • Introduces new measures and technologies • Incentives very important • Helps measures meet investment criteria • Makes measures easier sell • Insurance against savings uncertainty when considering new measures and technologies • Not likely to get participation without it

  12. 2004-05 EM&V • Much of the same • Also, many new aspects • Introduction of gas measures and savings analysis • Much larger more complex projects • Very few non-participants, nearly all participants (n=180) • Large proportion of projects “industrial” • End-use metering and DOE-2 calibrations • PG&E add-on study • More projects and more metering • Load profile tool • All due April 2007

  13. EM&V of the Statewide California 2002-03 Energy Star New Homes Program Robert Kasman robert.kasman@rlw.com (707) 939-8823 x32

  14. Non-residential New Construction History Project Goals Methodology 2003 EM&V Results 2004-05 EM&V Plan 2004-05 EM&V Timing Residential New Construction Background 02-03 EM&V Results Evaluation Methodology More Results Conclusions 04-05 EM&V Plan Agenda

  15. CA Energy Star Homes Program • Statewide program (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E and SCG) • Pays cash incentives to single family and multifamily developers/builders • Started 2002 • Funded by Public Goods Charge (PGC) • Requires minimum 15% compliance margin increase over Title 24

  16. CA Energy Star Homes Program Incentives Compliance margins are relative to Title 24 building code Package D (set of prescriptive measures)

  17. Requirements for Effective Evaluation • A well-conceived program theory and logic model • Complete and accurate program tracking data • Consideration of appropriate baseline data

  18. Results - Dwelling Units by Utility & Type ’02-’03

  19. Single Family Electricity (kWh) Net to Gross Ratios • Statewide NTG > 1! (Yikes) • How can this be?

  20. Single Family Gas (Therms) Net to Gross Ratios • Note statewide NTG is << 1 • Why so different?

  21. Evaluation Methodology – Engineering Analysis • Based on Title 24 compliant energy modeling software • On-site inspections: 110 SF homes, 123 MF structures • Re-simulation of Title 24 energy models when differences found • SF average “as-built” findings used to adjust tracking savings using ratio estimation at end-use level • SF Difference of differences • SF Billing analysis • MF Builder/decision maker surveys for free ridership

  22. Evaluation Methodology

  23. Methodology Definitions (reference)

  24. Single Family Compliance Margins (110 ENERGY STAR® Homes)

  25. Single Family Billing Analysis • No conclusive results. Why? • Baseline study by RMST climate zones not high enough resolution • Behavioral and demographic variation further blur results • Billing data acquisition/quality issues

  26. California 16 CEC Climate Zones

  27. Multifamily Compliance Margins on MF Inspected Plans (n=123)

  28. Multifamily Energy Savings

  29. Multifamily Results • Number of multifamily structures = 758 • Number of multifamily dwelling units = 7,281 • Annual Net kWh Savings = 93,599 kWh • Annual Net Therms Savings = 233,258 therms • Average Net to Gross = .63 (from surveys) • Average free ridership = 37% • Non-participant spillover not estimated

  30. Conclusions • ESH program resulted in significant energy savings • Both implementers and evaluators based impacts on modeling software – results less conclusive • New Title 24 code expected to have significant impact (beyond free-ridership) on multifamily projects • Evaluation challenges: • Tracking database QC issues (primarily due to many input sources) • Baseline data issues (climate zones, sample sizes)

  31. Conclusions • Most single family homes not built to plan, but average energy savings are realized anyway • Most multifamily projects built as planned, energy savings dominated by water heating • SF free ridership rates dependent upon energy -- negative for electricity, positive for gas • MF not like SF -- wide variation in type, design and energy modeling of multifamily projects… significantly more complex to conduct EM&V analysis • MF high free ridership rates due to loopholes in Title 24. (Loopholes intended to be closed with the October ‘05 code revisions.)

  32. 04-05 EM&V Plan • RLW Analytics currently conducting ’04-’05 ESH program evaluation • Includes metering study of both SF and MF new construction yielding actual consumption, not modeled data • Process and non-energy benefit analysis • More comprehensive billing analysis in select climate zones • Data acquisition issues

More Related