Residential Appliance Measure Updates - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Residential Appliance Measure Updates PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Residential Appliance Measure Updates

play fullscreen
1 / 60
Residential Appliance Measure Updates
123 Views
Download Presentation
charles-campbell
Download Presentation

Residential Appliance Measure Updates

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Residential Appliance Measure Updates August 3, 2010 Ryan Firestone and Wayne LeonardNavigant Consulting Danielle GiddingBonneville Power Administration

  2. Purpose • Update residential appliance measures to 6th Plan supply curves: • Dishwashers • Clothes washers • Refrigerators • Freezers • June 29th RTF Meeting • Presentation ofmethodology for all appliances • Approval of: • full update to SF clothes washers • savings methodology for dishwashers. • Today • Approval of updates for dishwashers (including cost), refrigerators, and freezers. • Revisit baseline assumption for clothes washers

  3. Methodology – as presented at the last RTF meeting • Identify available measure datasets • Define baseline as average performance of dataset • sales weighted where possible • Establish appropriate measure tiers • Identify algorithms for translating performance metrics into energy and water usage. • Determine energy and water savings, relative to updated baseline • Normalize savings to account for differences in features across baseline and measure groups (e.g. tub volume, refrigerator volume). • Present proposed savings, compare to current PTR savings and identify causes for change.

  4. Energy and Water Algorithms • Primarily DOE, mostly as used in 6th Plan (FY10) Analyses

  5. Datasets • California Energy Commission Appliance Database • Manufacturer reported performance metrics and date of submission • QC: checked against CEE certification data where possible for accuracy • CEC datasets used in 6th Plan analysis, but more recent version of the database used for this analysis. • Cleaning: remove duplicates (same manufacture and specs, different model #); incomplete records; and records older than the date that the current federal standard went into effect. • Oregon Tax Credit • 2007 data included in 6th Plan analysis, and used for this analysis • Sales volume, basic performance metrics, retail price

  6. Datasets • DOE Bottom-up Cost Estimates • Incremental cost of improved efficiency determined from a materials and manufacturing perspective. • Costs scaled up to account for pass-through of cost to retail level • Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) • Shipment weighted average performance and specifications for dishwashers, clothes washers, refrigerators, freezers • D&R International – • Energy Star market share. Estimates of efficiency for Energy Star and non-Energy Star appliances.

  7. Single Family Residential Clothes Washers – Revisit of Baseline

  8. SF Clothes Washers - Revisit • Savings and costs approved at June 29th RTF meeting • Approved MEF of 1.93 – average of models in CEC database from January 1, 2007 to the present. • Since then, additional 2009 AHAM data published • Additional baselines to consider: • AHAM 2009 data (available as of July 2010) • AHAM data extrapolated to 2010 to account for increasing efficiency over time. • Setting the baseline for clothes washers impacts measures savings, non-programmatic savings, and 6th plan achievable potential

  9. SF Clothes Washers – Baseline Options • Keep CEC DB baseline (1.93) – • Pro: accounts for trending • Con: not based on sales weighting • Use AHAM 2009 data (1.85) – • Pro: most recent shipment weighted data available • Cons: • one year out of date for an appliance that continues to improve • Energy Star criteria increases from 1.8 (current) to 2.0 in January 2011, suggesting a bump up in market average. • Use AHAM data extrapolated to 2010 (1.91) - • Pro: Uses most recent shipment weighted data available with marginal increase • Con: MEF increase trend is not linear; extrapolation may not be appropriate

  10. SF Clothes Washers – Baseline Comparison • Note that shipment weighted average does not increase linearly

  11. SF Clothes Washers – Results • Results shown for electric DHW, electric Dryer. Energy Star groupings only. • See backup slides for more comprehensive results, including CEE and Washington State tier groupings and additional fuel types.

  12. SF Clothes Washers – Options for Approval • Option 1: Keep approved baseline from CEC database (MEF = 1.93) • Option 2: Approve updated baseline from 2009 AHAM database (MEF = 1.85) • Option 3: Approve AHAM data extrapolated to 2010 (MEF = 1.92)

  13. Residential Dishwashers

  14. Dishwashers • June 29 RTF • Approved savings methodology • Unique records from CEC DB used to estimate baseline (average of all records) • Also used to determine average performance within each group (e.g. “any Energy Star”)

  15. Dishwashers • Today • Current and upcoming federal, Energy Star, and CEE criteria • Baseline options • Cost model • Usage: Adjusting for capacity • Does larger capacity imply less cycles per year? • Additional inputs (lifetime, load shape, water costs and embodied energy) • Results • More efficient dishwashers tend to be larger and have more non-energy utility (special features, brand). • Results, including cost-effectiveness, are very sensitive baseline and usage assumptions

  16. Dishwashers – Federal, Energy Star, and CEE Criteria for Standard Size Dishwashers

  17. Dishwashers – Baseline Options • As with clothes washers, three options • CEC DB baseline (EF = 0.71) – • Pro: accounts for trending • Con: not based on sales weighting • Use AHAM 2009 data (EF = 0.68) – • Pro: most recent shipment weighted data available • Con: one year behind for an appliance that continues to improve • Use AHAM data extrapolated to 2010 (EF = 0.70) - • Pro: Uses most recent shipment weighted data available with marginal increase • Con: EF increase trend is not linear; extrapolation may not be appropriate

  18. Dishwashers – Baseline Options

  19. Dishwashers – Incremental Cost Model • Bottom-up incremental costs from DOE/Navigant Consulting background analysis in 2006 for appliance efficiency standards. • Material and other manufacturing costs to produce estimated • Cost scaled to retail level • Results not finalized and published on EERE website because the federal standard it was intended to support was superseded by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). In between data points, interpolated values are used for today’s analysis Analysis contact: Steve Witkowski, DOE DOE EERE Project Manager.

  20. Dishwashers – Results By Group

  21. Dishwashers – Usage Options • On average, more efficient washers are also larger (higher place settings rating). • Three usage options • 1) Constant number of cycles per year • (215 cycles per year) • Independent of washer capacity • Interpretation: Users use washer at fixed times, regardless of how full the dishwasher is. • 2) Constant number of place settings per year, • Assume CEC DB average place settings and 215 cycles per year. (215 cycles per year x 11.7 place settings) • Interpretation: Users use washer when it’s full • 3) Average of 1) and 2) • Interpretation: Users sometimes use washer at fixed times, and sometimes use washer when it’s full

  22. Dishwashers – Usage Options • Electric DHW Savings using CEC DB Baseline Usage assumption has significant impact on ∆kWh and ∆gallons

  23. Baseline and Measure CharacterizationRes. Dishwashers • Electric, Gas and Any DWH measures • Lifetime: 12.3 years (as in FY10 analysis and in current deemed measures). • Non-energy benefit: $10.03/1000 gallons for water supply and waste water services. (6th Plan value, from FY10 analysis). • disaggregated into • 5.29 kWh /1000 gallons (6th Plan) • $9.24/1000 gallons (preserves B/C ratio when kWh savings are included) • Loadshape:ResWASH • DHW Electric Fuel Share: 64% (6th Plan assumption)

  24. Dishwashers – Results, Electric DHW Usage cases arranged left to right from most conservative savings estimate to least conservative savings estimate. • See backup slides for results for all fuel types

  25. Dishwashers – Proposal • Select a baseline • CEC CB (EF = 0.71, kWh/yr = 313) • AHAM 2009 (EF = 0.68, kWh/yr = 325) • AHAM 2010 Extrapolation (EF = 0.70, kWh = 315) • Select a usage case • Usage Case 1: Constant Cycles per Year • Usage Case 2: Constant Place Settings per Year • Usage Case 3: Average of Case 1 and Case 2 • Approve methodology and resulting savings and incremental costs.

  26. Residential Refrigerators

  27. Res. Refrigerators – Standards and Criteria

  28. Res. Refrigerators – CEC DB Distribution

  29. Res. Refrigerators – Is the CEC DB Representative of Market Share?

  30. Res. Refrigerators – Baseline Development Approach • Use CEC data to determine average % more efficient than federal standard by group: • {Energy Star, non Energy Star} x {configurations} • Use DOE and Energy Star market share data to determine the weighting of each group

  31. Res. Refrigerators – Baseline Development Approach

  32. Res. Refrigerators – Measure Groups • Use CEC data to determine average % more efficient than federal standard by group

  33. Res. Refrigerator - Incremental Costs • Bottom-up incremental costs from DOE/Navigant Consulting background analysis in 2009 for appliance efficiency standards. • Material and other manufacturing costs to produce estimated • Cost scaled to retail level • Data from: Preliminary Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-freezers, and Freezers, U.S. DOE, 11/1/2009 • http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ref_frz_prenopr_prelim_tsd.pdf

  34. Baseline and Measure CharacterizationRes. Refrigerators Lifetime: 20 years (as in FY10 analysis and in current deemed measures). Loadshape:ResFRIG HVAC Interaction Factor: -7%

  35. Res. Refrigerators – Results

  36. Refrigerators – Proposal Accepts savings and cost methodologies and resulting savings and incremental costs.

  37. Residential Freezers

  38. Res. Freezers – Standards and Criteria

  39. Res. Freezers – CEC DB Distribution Note the large number of models introduced this year.

  40. Res. Freezers – Is the CEC DB Representative of Market Share?

  41. Res. Freezers – Baseline Development Approach • Use CEC data to determine average % more efficient than federal standard by group: • {Energy Star, non Energy Star} x {configurations} • Use AHAM and Energy Star market share data to determine the weighting of each group

  42. Res. Freezers – Baseline Development Approach

  43. Res. Freezers – Measure Groups • Use CEC data to determine average % more efficient than federal standard by group

  44. Res. Freezers- Incremental Costs • Bottom-up incremental costs from DOE/Navigant Consulting background analysis in 2009 for appliance efficiency standards. • Material and other manufacturing costs to produce estimated • Cost scaled to retail level • Preliminary Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-freezers, and Freezers, U.S. DOE, 11/1/2009 • http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ref_frz_prenopr_prelim_tsd.pdf

  45. Baseline and Measure CharacterizationRes. Freezers Lifetime: 20 years (as in FY10 analysis and in current deemed measures). Loadshape:ResFRZR HVAC Interaction Factor: -7%

  46. Freezers – Results Accepts savings and cost methodologies and resulting savings and incremental costs.

  47. Freezers – Proposal Accepts savings and cost methodologies and resulting savings and incremental costs.

  48. Back Up Slides

  49. SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison CEC DB Baseline (MEF = 1.93) Electric DHW

  50. SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison CEC DB Baseline (MEF = 1.93) Gas DHW