1 / 19

Manufactured Housing Duct Sealing Pilot - Independent Evaluation Results

Manufactured Housing Duct Sealing Pilot - Independent Evaluation Results. Tom Eckhart, Howard Reichmuth, Jill Steiner Regional Technical Forum February 3, 2009. Program Description. Operated by UCONS, LLC from September 2005 to June 2006

mihaly
Download Presentation

Manufactured Housing Duct Sealing Pilot - Independent Evaluation Results

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. Manufactured Housing Duct Sealing Pilot - Independent Evaluation Results Tom Eckhart, Howard Reichmuth, Jill Steiner Regional Technical Forum February 3, 2009

  2. Program Description • Operated by UCONS, LLC from September 2005 to June 2006 • Focused on sealing and repairing duct leaks in manufactured homes with electric furnaces • Provided other low-cost measures • Efficient showerheads and aerators • Temperature reset on water heater • Pipe insulation • Compact fluorescent lights • Furnace filter • Served 1,686 Snohomish customers – about 13% of manufactured homes with electric furnaces

  3. A B Level of Duct Treatment as Determined Appropriate C Program Process Pre-Treatment Duct Pressurization Test and VisualInspection Post-Treatment Duct Pressurization Test Installation of Low-Cost Measures

  4. Duct Sealing Protocols • “A” sites – Ducts tested and sealed from the interior (boots, registers, end caps). Cross-over duct are inspected and if determined to still be in good condition but air leaks were identified at the crossover duct connections to the collars, the collar connections to the main duct runs, or there were air leaks in the crossover duct that were repairable. The identified air leaks were sealed with mastic, and/or repairs were made to crossover duct as required. These were referred to as “exterior treatment of crossover ducts”. • “B” sites – Ducts tested and sealed from the interior (boots, registers, end caps). Cross-over duct inspected and if found to be damaged, would be replaced. Collars sealed with mastic, new R-8 crossover duct installed and crossover duct connections sealed with mastic. • “C” sites - Ducts tested and sealed from the interior (boots, registers, end caps). Cross-over duct would be inspected and if no air leaks were found, no further work would be conducted.

  5. Expected Savings

  6. Data Challenges • Bi-monthly billing data • Sought 18-months pre- and post-data • Ideally, 2 years would be available for analysis • For robust sample, included some sights with less than 18-months post-data • Of the 1,686 participants, analyzable data for 572 (~34%)

  7. Methodology • Compared pre- and post-treatment consumption data • Defined energy consumption as a function of average outside temperatures for pre- and post-periods • Calculated Normalized Annual Consumption (NAC) for pre- and post-periods to determine normalized average savings

  8. Energy Consumption Function

  9. Participant Pre- and Post-Consumption

  10. Statistical Results

  11. Program Savings

  12. Summary Results

  13. Savings by Treatment Group

  14. Realization Rates by Treatment Group

  15. Pre- and Post- Consumption 7.3% 3.8% 9.5% • 8% average savings overall • 9.8% savings (> 2,600 kWh) for homes with pre-treatment consumption over 20,000 kWh

  16. Savings Distribution

  17. Program Cost-Effectiveness

  18. Findings • Longer pre- and post-periods were needed to evaluate data because of bi-monthly billing cycles • More savings would have been realized with high-quality 2.0 GPM or less showerheads • Homes with greater than 20,000 kWh pre-treatment consumption yielded higher savings, but savings across all homes electric resistance central heat was significant and cost-effective

  19. Questions? Comments?

More Related