1 / 22

Seminar on status of MEASURE LIFETIME WORK

Seminar on status of MEASURE LIFETIME WORK. RTF EUL Kickoff Meeting, August 2011 Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Skumatz Economic Research Associates skumatz@serainc.com , 303/494-1178. PERSISTENCE / RETENTION. RETENTION / PERSISTENCE.

jerom
Download Presentation

Seminar on status of MEASURE LIFETIME WORK

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Seminar on status of MEASURE LIFETIME WORK RTF EUL Kickoff Meeting, August 2011 Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Skumatz Economic Research Associates skumatz@serainc.com, 303/494-1178

  2. PERSISTENCE / RETENTION

  3. RETENTION / PERSISTENCE • Persistence, measure life, EULs, 50% median, in place and operable • Protocols, best practices summaries on samples, data collection, analysis, modeling, comparisons, documentation • Some variations in considering adaptations for behavioral programs

  4. REMAINING USEFUL LIFETIME (RUL) • Conceptual issue – early replacement • Intervene at replacement  standard vs. efficient • Intervene early  original vs. efficient for “early” part •  standard vs. efficient for later period • Question is, length of time from end of life? • Few studies; 1/3 ad hoc • Welch & Rogers 2010; • Survey, Weibull, curves for residential equipment • System dynamics / stocks cohorts • Strong application for behavioral • adoption curves / timing / lifetimes? Measurement issue 4

  5. TECHNICAL DEGRADATION • Technical degradation (TDFs) • Addressed in CA-EM&V protocols • Differences in decay? Very few primary studies • 2 effects - Technical degradation & behavioral / operational based on quality of use & upkeep – need studies on combination • Behavioral very parallel; no studies 5

  6. LIFETIMES / EULs STUDIES • CPUC • Protocols, results, measures with gaps • Updated lifetimes in report • All sectors, many measures  incorporated into DEER (database for energy efficient resources, energy.ca.gov/deer), protocols • Reviewed program, savings, measures, sampling, field work, data validation, analysis, justifiability • Strengths, weaknesses, “score” • Hundreds of millions in shareholder claims • SCE / DEER • CPUC / CIEE – nationwide review • Individual studies

  7. SCORING CRITERION ON CPUC RETENTION PROJECT-SUMMARY

  8. EUL STUDY – BEST PRACTICES ISSUES • Small sample size • Population list problems; needs vary by lifetime of measure • Omitted other models • Potential variations by measure type; easy to add; improves potential fit; not a priori • Ambiguous failure dates • Frequent surveys; “bound”, labeling, phone survey for some • Poor documentation in report • Methodology, weighting, failures, conclusions • Results not put in context • Over time; other studies

  9. EUL VALUES USED IN US - RESIDENTIAL Note – some differences in values between CA, NW, NE values – Especially usage / weather based… 9

  10. EUL VALUES USED IN US - COMMERCIAL 10

  11. ISSUES IN EULs • Process values lacking (small sample size) • Some dependent on operating assumptions • Some end-uses missing / gaps • CFLs, lighting – updated with operating hours • Measures with limited (unreliable or zero) studies – some with much attributable savings • Models of air compress, A/C, cook, hvac, refrig/freezer, process, shell, (motors/pumps, dryers, lighting), ASD/VSD in some sectors • Missing for plug loads • Building shell – at least verify • Priority depends on future savings, rarity, variations; waiting hurts EUL data • Trend toward simplified tables, BUT research shows strong variations in turnover by business type 11

  12. EULs FOR BEHAVIORAL PROGRAMS • Missing for behavioral / educational programs • 2 studies • CBSM • Best practices with nuances - Partial retention; frequency of data collection; large surveys and random assignment • Retention of “upstream” complicated 12

  13. MEASURE LIFETIME ESTIMATES / RETENTION

  14. VARIATIONS IN PERSISTENCE 14

  15. ISSUES / PROBLEMS • Best practices • Results / gaps • TDF • RUL • Behavioral • Key component of program savings • Potential bias away from new, creative • Risk • Complexities for behavioral • Little primary research / dormant / agreement 15

  16. CONCLUSIONS – MEASURE LIFETIMES • Measure lifetimes are a key element in the calculation of energy savings from energy efficiency programs • Measure lifetimes (and methods) are fairly consistent for many measure-based programs in residential and commercial sectors • Issue of simplified EUL tables / caution • Shortage of primary research on technical degradation (TDF); shortage of research on RULs • Virtual absence of studies addressing retention or persistence of energy savings from behavioral and education programs • Identifying the measure lifetimes of behavioral and education programs is complicated as more media messages on behavior and education “bleed” across territories 16

  17. RECOMMENDATIONS – MEASURE LIFETIMES • Conduct measure lifetime studies on: • Process equipment, some shell measures, cooking, refrigeration, and air compressors • Conduct technical degradation studies that account for mechanical and behavioral performance-related changes • Conduct studies on retention or persistence of energy savings from behavioral and education programs • Require new behavioral programs to conduct retention assessments every year or two • Apply different evaluation methods to a variety of behavioral programs 17

  18. NEXT STEPS / RESEARCH NEEDED

  19. CONTEXT DISCUSSION • Investment dollars at risk • Debate over precision • Granger – evaluation to avoid making wrong decisions • Multiple applications… varying precision needs? • Program decisions to be advised include: • Public dollars responsibly spent • Apportionment of dollars between strategies • Precision based on value / cost of possibility of wrong decision… • Yes/No vs. precise level of shareholder dollars…

  20. KEY USES OF EVALUATION RESULTS / PRECISION NEEDS Increasing Rigor (& cost) Deemed Detailed M&V, site verification, + 20

  21. Persistence 21

  22. QUESTIONS? Project Manager contact: Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 Phone: 303/494-1178 Email: skumatz@serainc.com

More Related