End-Use Load Data Update Project

1. End-Use Load Data Update Project Phase 1: Cataloguing Available End-Use and Efficiency Load Data September 15, 2009

2. Agenda • Project Objectives • Determining usability of data • Summary of promising studies • Gap analysis • Transferability ratings • Prioritization of near-term activities • Next steps

3. Project Objectives • Research and inventory existing load shape data available • Determine data attributes necessary to meet needs of energy efficiency, capacity markets and air quality • Identify weaknesses and gaps in existing available data • Evaluate transferability and applicability of load shape data to the Regions • Provide road map for meeting short term and long term end-use metering needs

4. Develop list of end-use categories • Break down end-uses into “Analysis Groups” • Analysis Groups intended to include measure savings shapes, as well as end use shapes

5. Data Search Objectives: • Identify relevant studies that conducted field studies (metering) of end uses/measures (Analysis Groups) • Collect enough information on associated “data properties” to assess usability Activities: • Web survey of 102 industry contacts • List of studies identified in California (2006 Load Shape Update Initiative) • Follow up with contacts to collect data properties

6. Data Search - Challenges • Key challenges to data search: • Difficult to engage industry contacts to share relevant studies they are aware of • Even when proper survey contact identified - contact did not typically have detailed information on data properties (e.g. vintages of equipment metered, NAICS/SIC codes of facilities)

7. Data Search - Results • 110 studies identified, across three general types: • Load research • Evaluation • Compilation • List of “Promising Studies” – high level review • Sample size • Vintage of studies (2000 or more recent) • Studies that developed load profiles

8. Defining Usability of End Use Data • Interviews with stakeholders from energy efficiency, capacity markets and air quality • Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reporting have similar requirements • Statistically valid sample design • Unbiased data collection procedures • Reasonable Baseline definitions • ISO/RTO Capacity Markets add a Prescriptive Layer • Specific Relative Precision Requirements • Specific Metering Requirements

9. Defining Usability of End Use Data Ratings: • A – Meets capacity market standards, usable as stand alone study within region • B – Meets efficiency planning standards, usable as part of a compilation study • C – Has some issues, could be used as a last resort or to guide modeling efforts • IP – Study is currently in progress

10. Summary of Promising Studies Pacific Northwest

11. Summary of Promising Studies Pacific Northwest • Three studies rated a B - one old load research with diminishing sample, other targeted thermostat study with small sample and ELCAP. • Three promising studies in progress • Most promising = BC Hydro Power Smart Residential End Use Study • No promising non-residential studies identified

12. Summary of Promising Studies Eastern, Mid-Atlantic, California Regions • Eastern: 18 Promising Studies identified • Non-Residential studies were all program evaluation studies that had smaller sample sizes • Seven Residential studies primarily Lighting some HVAC, appliance and water heating • Mid-Atlantic: 2 studies with large sample sizes but all demand response participants • California: 10 studies, including DEER as roll-up of many studies covering almost all end uses

13. Gap Analysis

14. Gap Analysis Overview • Gap Analysis developed end use analysis group level sample size data • Sample size data includes studies that have not yet been completed or fielded and results could change dramatically if plans change • Some studies are included under the end use analysis group that have no sample size data

15. Data Availability – Pacific NorthwestResidential

16. Gap Analysis – Pacific NorthwestNon-Residential • Only one non-residential study identified • Limited Hourly Metering Pilot (BPA): Only 3 sites metered • ALL non-residential end uses have a high need for data

17. Transferabilty of Data from Other Regions

18. Is end use data readily transferable? • We establish a general rating system for transferability of end use analysis groups • Criteria evaluated were • Potential for schedule variability between regions • Potential for weather variability between regions • Assumed that saturation of energy efficient equipment could be decoupled • Implicitly addressed regional variations in construction practices

19. General Transferability - Residential • Schedule Variability – Low is better • Weather Variability – Low is better • Transferability Rating - High is better

20. General Transferability – Non-residential

21. Prioritization of Load Shape Activities

22. Relative importance of end use and measure load shapes (Analysis Groups) • Developed an end use Analysis Group Importance Level Rating system using • Input from RTF subcommittee and EMV Forum • Web survey respondent importance rankings • CA 2006-08 EE portfolio percentages • CT Market potential study percentages • Rating system as follows • Tier 1 – Most Important, high % of savings & high need • Tier 2 – Moderately Important, moderate % of savings and/or need • Tier 3 – Lower Importance, lower % of savings

23. Load Shape Development Activities - Overview • Generally there are five options that could be followed • Option 1 - Combine existing end use studies of common measure types into meta studies within regions • Option 2 - Look to transfer meta studies from other regions to fill in gaps within a region • Option 3 - Work to develop database for regionally customized DOE Models using (DEER) as starting point • Option 4 – New metering • Option 5 – Do nothing, end use unimportant at this time

24. Strategies to Improve End Use Data

25. Load Shape Development Activities - Overview • Underlying assumption: Where no existing end use data, near term priority activities will be directed first at Tier 1 end use groups • Where data available – Option 1 and 2 (if transferable) • Where no data – Option 2 or 3 (if transferable) • Where no data – Option 4 (if not transferable) • That Option 5 “do nothing” is viable near term for the end use analysis groups that had no metering activity

26. Near-term Activities – Pacific NorthwestResidential (Tiers 1 and 2)

27. Near-term Activities – Pacific NorthwestResidential (Tier 3)

28. Near-term Activities – Pacific NorthwestNon-ResidentialEnd Use Groups with “high” transferability Utilize data sources from other regions

29. Near-term Activities – Pacific NorthwestNon-ResidentialRecommended new metering

30. Conclusions and RecommendationsNear-term (up to 12 months) • Support useful studies in progress: • BC Hydro Power Smart Res End Use Study – large end use research study in planning stages • Ensure that smaller studies (e.g. evaluation studies) collect necessary information • Consistent protocol for load shapes can ensure that small studies collect necessary ancillary data to be compiled • Evaluate whether some ELCAP data still usable • Focus new research on identifying which ELCAP data can be leveraged

31. Conclusions and RecommendationsMid-term (1-3 years) • Implement multi-region end-use data repository • Plan other study types (non-metering) to support transfer of data from other regions • Saturation studies (typical building characteristics, inventory of system types and efficiencies) • Assess feasibility of disaggregating end-use information from AMI whole-premise data • Identify utilities open to partnership opportunities

32. Further questions or comments? Betty Seto Project Manager KEMA 510-891-0446 x4133 Betty.Seto@kema.com Steve Carlson Senior Principal Consultant KEMA 860-346-5001 x207 Steve.Carlson@kema.com