New construction
Download
1 / 35

New Construction - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 110 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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:.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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)


2003 Commercial Efficiency Combined

Participant and Non-participant Energy Savings as a Percentage of Baseline Consumption – Commercial Sites Only


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


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


EM&V of the Statewide California 2002-03 Energy Star New Homes Program

Robert Kasman

robert.kasman@rlw.com

(707) 939-8823 x32


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


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


CA Energy Star Homes Program Incentives

Compliance margins are relative to Title 24 building code Package D (set of prescriptive measures)


Requirements for Effective Evaluation

  • A well-conceived program theory and logic model

  • Complete and accurate program tracking data

  • Consideration of appropriate baseline data


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


Single Family Electricity (kWh) Net to Gross Ratios

  • Statewide NTG > 1! (Yikes)

  • How can this be?


Single Family Gas (Therms) Net to Gross Ratios

  • Note statewide NTG is << 1

  • Why so different?


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


Evaluation Methodology


Methodology Definitions (reference)


Single Family Compliance Margins (110 ENERGY STAR® Homes)


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


California 16 CEC Climate Zones


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


Multifamily Energy Savings


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


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)


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.)


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


ad
  • Login