Proposed edits to the air source heat pump specifications
Download
1 / 9

Proposed Edits to the Air Source Heat Pump Specifications - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 91 Views
  • Uploaded on

Proposed Edits to the Air Source Heat Pump Specifications. Regional Technical Forum August 20, 2013. Background. BPA submitted a proposal to remove the programmatic requirements from the RTF’s Air Source Heat Pump Specifications

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 'Proposed Edits to the Air Source Heat Pump Specifications' - gzifa


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
Proposed edits to the air source heat pump specifications

Proposed Edits to the Air Source Heat Pump Specifications

Regional Technical Forum

August 20, 2013


Background
Background

  • BPA submitted a proposal to remove the programmatic requirements from the RTF’s Air Source Heat Pump Specifications

    • Applies to the “Commissioning, Controls, and Sizing” UES measures for SF and MH

      • Note: This would “replace” the “PTCS Heat Pump CC&S” UES measure

  • Subcommittee Reviewed the Proposal on July 2nd

    • Consensus on the proposed technical spec language

    • Disagreement on the Approach (removing PTCS)

  • Documents

    • Current ASHP Specification

      • PTCS Service Provider Standards

    • Proposed CC&S Specification

      • Posted to the meeting agenda page.

      • Tracked changes reflect edits based on comments received after subcommittee review/consensus

  • Today: RTF decision on how to proceed

    • Options:

      • Accept/Deny Proposal?

      • Edit Guidelines?



Subcommittee opinions of the proposed approach to remove ptcs
Subcommittee Opinions of the Proposed Approach to Remove PTCS

In Favor

  • Removes RTF from making programmatic decisions

    • Not RTF’s role

    • RTF no longer needs to justify the (unsupported with data) link between the program specs and improved savings or delivery rates

      • For example, should the UES be de-rated, and by how much, if QA rate is moved from 10% to 5% to 1% to 0%?

  • Guidelines allow this approach

  • If guidelines are followed to the end, evaluated savings’ reliability should not suffer

Opposed

  • PTCS requirements (if meaningfully enforced) encourage consistency and quality across the region

  • Risk of low Delivery Rate

    • No required contractor feedback mechanism

    • Could cause the whole program to be non-cost-effective (a.k.a. a waste of money)

  • Risk of overstated energy savings claims

    • “Booked” savings using the UES are always too high (if using contractor claims as the count)

    • Evaluation may not take place, or may be insufficient

      • For example, is a qualified person testing for airflow, sizing, and controls?


What do the guidelines say
What do the Guidelines say? PTCS

Evaluation of Proven UES Measures:

5.4.6.1.1. RTF-Proven Measures

Delivery verification is carried out for a reliable random sample. For the sample, information is obtained; either from documentation or direct inspection, needed to match the verified units to the measure specifications (see the Roadmap). This allows a UES value to be associated with each delivered unit that is consistent with the latest version of RTF-approved values prior to the program delivery period. Savings for the units delivered during a program period can then be computed as the sum of the delivered count multiplied by the respective UES value for each measure.


Staff proposal option 1
Staff Proposal: Option 1 PTCS

  • Accept the proposal to remove program requirements.

  • Edit the Guidelines:

    • Require Proven UES measures to summarize the salient points of an evaluation.

      • For example, in this case:

        “Evaluation must estimate a delivery rate specific to this UES measure by, at minimum, performing on-site inspection to verify sizing and on-site testing to verify airflow, auxiliary heat control, minimum temperature split, and external static pressure meet the measure specification.”

  • Caution to Programs

    • Remember, UES savings only apply to measures that meet or exceed the technical specification.

      • If savings are booked for all contractor-claimed “measure installations”, booked savings will be overstated. Instead,

        • Assume an ex-ante delivery rate factor and apply to each claim;

        • Use program data (contractor testing reports? program inspections?) to omit claims that don’t meet the specification; or

        • Expect booked savings to be adjusted downward after evaluation results are in.

    • The low delivery rate risk is high.

      • Might want to think ahead of time about how to evaluate jobs that don’t meet the UES specification to avoid assigning them 0 kWh savings.


Staff proposal option 2
Staff Proposal: Option 2 PTCS

  • Denythe proposal to remove program requirements.

  • RTF continues to include program requirements in the measure specification.

  • Add a “technical compliance rate” factor to the UES estimate.

    • Provisional Research Plan would specify determining the technical compliance rate through on-site inspection and performance testing.

    • Any time the measure specification is edited, the measure would go to Provisional status until the technical compliance rate for that measure specification is reliably determined.

  • Program specification roles are clearly defined as follows:

    • Programs’ Role: Decide on all program details and decisions.

      • There would be no RTF debate/decision on what the programs require.

        • For example, whether the required QA inspection rate is 10% or 2% or 0%.

    • RTF’s Role: Decide what program details rise to the level of being in the measure specification.

      • The Question: Is the program detail in question expected to affect the compliance rate?

        • The subcommittee would review each of the existing program specifications with this question in mind and come back to the RTF with a proposed measure specification.

        • Staff’s Opinion:

          • The 3rd party onsite inspections and requirement to fix errors found is the only existing program detail that should be a part of the measure specification.

          • The following examples of current PTCS program specifications would not appreciably affect compliance rate and should not be included in the measure specification: Number of days of training received by Contractor; Experience of Trainer; Testing Requirements; and Content of the Contractor Reporting Form.


Discussion
Discussion PTCS

Staff Option 2

Benefits

  • Reliable UES estimate.

  • Allows programs to do what they want and test alternatives.

  • Allows the RTF to base its decisions on data, rather than guesses.

  • “Booked” savings are reliable.

  • Less risk of unexpected low evaluated savings

  • Maintains quality and consistency in Region’s HVAC installation practices

    Drawbacks

  • More complicated measure specification = more time developing, editing, and approving, also causes barriers to implementation.

    • Difficult to decide whether a program detail would affect the technical compliance rate, so more “complete” specifications are likely.

    • Programs likely to want to make tweaks along the way, so provisional status may often be the case.

    • Could lead to multiple iterations of measure specifications, depending on similarities of utilities’ programs.

Staff Option 1

Benefits

  • Reliable UES estimate.

  • Allows programs to do what they want and test alternatives.

  • Allows the RTF to base its decisions on data, rather than guesses.

  • Simplest measure specification and UES estimate = less time for RTF.

    Drawbacks

  • Compliant unit count cannot be determined until after completion of evaluation.

  • Risk of “unexpected” low evaluated savings.


Decision
Decision PTCS

  • “I _______ move that the RTF accept Option __ for dealing with the Air Source Heat Pump Commissioning, Controls, and Sizing UES measure specification, with the following modifications, _________.”