new construction
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
New Construction

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 35

New Construction - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 115 Views
  • Uploaded on

New Construction. EM&V of the Statewide Savings By Design Program Presenter: Matt Brost – [email protected] EM&V of the Statewide California Energy Star New Homes Program Presenter: Bob Kasman – [email protected] 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

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'New Construction' - avari


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

New Construction

EM&V of the Statewide Savings By Design ProgramPresenter: Matt Brost – [email protected]&V of the Statewide California Energy Star New Homes ProgramPresenter: Bob Kasman – [email protected]

Studies Performed by:

MAESTRO/CALMAC Evaluation Showcase ● Pacific Energy Center ● July 26-27, 2006

agenda
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2003 Commercial Efficiency Combined

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

participant feedback
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
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
agenda1
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
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
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
Requirements for Effective Evaluation
  • A well-conceived program theory and logic model
  • Complete and accurate program tracking data
  • Consideration of appropriate baseline data
single family electricity kwh net to gross ratios
Single Family Electricity (kWh) Net to Gross Ratios
  • Statewide NTG > 1! (Yikes)
  • How can this be?
single family gas therms net to gross ratios
Single Family Gas (Therms) Net to Gross Ratios
  • Note statewide NTG is << 1
  • Why so different?
evaluation methodology engineering analysis
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
single family billing analysis
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
multifamily results
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
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)
conclusions1
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
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