Rtf small rural subcommittee schools lighting ues discussion
Download
1 / 9

RTF Small / Rural Subcommittee Schools Lighting UES Discussion - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 114 Views
  • Uploaded on

RTF Small / Rural Subcommittee Schools Lighting UES Discussion. Wednesday, April 30 1pm – 2:30pm. Introductions [1:00 – 1:10pm] Today’s Objectives [1:10 – 1:15pm] Background [1:15 – 1:25pm] Should we continue measure development? [1:25 – 1:35pm ]

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' RTF Small / Rural Subcommittee Schools Lighting UES Discussion' - gigi


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
Rtf small rural subcommittee schools lighting ues discussion

RTF Small / Rural SubcommitteeSchools Lighting UES Discussion

Wednesday, April 30

1pm – 2:30pm


Agenda

Introductions [1:00 – 1:10pm]

Today’s Objectives [1:10 – 1:15pm]

Background [1:15 – 1:25pm]

Should we continue measure development? [1:25 – 1:35pm]

Hours of Use [1:35 – 1:55pm]

Number of Measures [1:55 – 2:20pm]

Additional Discussion [2:20 – 2:30pm]

Agenda


Today s objectives

  • Gauge Subcommittee interest in continuing with the development of Schools UES measures

  • Discuss staff proposal to collect and analyze data from the 2005 RLW Schools Lighting study of CT and MA.

  • Discuss the number of measures

    • Currently large (465 measures)

    • Ideas for collapsing measure identifiers

    • Ideas for narrowing the scope

Today’s Objectives


Background

  • 2012: S/R Subcommittee development of Schools UES measuresidentified schools as a common building type with distinct structural and operational characteristics in their territories

  • 2012: S/R Subcommittee contracted PECI to scope savings potential in schools

    • Interior lighting identified as the largest regional potential (~2 to 3 aMW)

    • Other measures with large potential

      • Weatherization (S/R sponsored, RTF approved Schools Wx in March 2014)

      • Exterior lighting (S/R sponsored an Area Lights measure approved by RTF in February 2014)

      • Programmable thermostats, demand controlled ventilation

    • Link to final presentation

Background


Background1

  • 2013: S/R Subcommittee development of Schools UES measurescontracted SBW to develop Schools Lighting UES measures

  • 2014: SBW conducts analysis

    • BPA C&I Lighting Program data for measure prevalence in schools

    • BPA Lighting Calculator v3.1 for equipment performance data

    • Original cost research

    • Hours of use

      • Logged data provided by PacifiCorp – inconclusive

      • Review of RLW 2005 metered study of schools in CT and MA

  • Presentation to S/R Subcommittee on March 5, 2014

    • Presentation and Analysis

    • Outstanding issues:

      • Large number of measures (465)

      • Hours-of-use require further analysis

Background


Should we continue developing this measure

  • BPA has expressed concerns development of Schools UES measures

    • BPA has a Lighting Calculator and field services for S/R utilities that covers a broader scope of measures

    • HOU data may not be an appropriate match for NW schools

    • 465 measures is too many

      • to maintain administratively

      • to handle for programs – they would need a calculator

        Would the S/R Subcommittee like to continue developing the Schools Lighting UES measures?

Should we continue developing this measure?


Hours of use hou

  • RLW study is the best data available development of Schools UES measures

    • ~60 schools, metered by room type

    • both on/off and occupancy meters

    • Details regarding school characteristics and calendar also collected

  • SBW and RTF Staff have questions about the derivation of values in the report

    • Spoke with author and received permission from funders to release data to RTF

    • Would cost ~$5K to scrub data and compile in a useful format for RTF analysis

  • The RTF has a precedence of using UES hours of use estimates from other regions when regional data is not available

    • e.g., Res Lighting Lamps uses CA usage data, with no adjustments

  • Staff would like to get green-light from RTF on reliability of data before spending money and time to continue with this project

Hours of Use (HOU)


Staff proposal for hou

  • Get the RTF’s approval of development of Schools UES measuresdata reliability (May 13 meeting) to proceed before spending more resources

  • Contract DNV/GL (formerly RLW) to provide the data from their study ($5K)

  • Extend SBW Contract to

    • develop estimates of NW schools characteristics

      • Prevalence of 4-day school weeks

      • # of school days per year

      • Use of buildings in summer

    • adjust CT/MA HOU to NW schools characteristics

      Would the S/R Subcommittee like to spend

  • $5,000 from our 2014 budget to contract DNV/GL to provide the data from their 2005 study; and

  • $5,000 to $10,000 to extend SBW’s contract to complete the HOU adjustment?

Staff proposal for HOU


Number of measures

  • 465 measures proposed by SBW development of Schools UES measures

    • 216: 8’ T12 and T8 baseline

    • 72: 4’ T12 and T8 baseline

    • 24: High-bay conversion to T8

    • 5: High-bay conversion to T5

    • 66: CFL and LED screw-in

    • 31: Occupancy sensor

    • 48: De-lamping

  • RTF Staff estimate that the measure set could be collapsed to ~100 measures by using coarser grouping

  • The scope of the measures could be reduced to further reduce the number of measures

    [review analysis workbook to see categorization options]

    How would the S/R Subcommittee like to address the large number of measures?

Number of Measures


ad