1 / 33

NJCEP Energy Impact Evaluation

NJCEP Energy Impact Evaluation. RFP No 07-X-38683 Miriam Goldberg and Ryan Barry, KEMA. David Carroll and Jackie Berger, APPRISE. New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Newark, New Jersey October 6, 2009. Overview of Presentation. Introduction Evaluation Objectives Programs Reviewed

Download Presentation

NJCEP Energy Impact Evaluation

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.


Presentation Transcript

  1. NJCEP Energy Impact Evaluation RFP No 07-X-38683 Miriam Goldberg and Ryan Barry, KEMA. David Carroll and Jackie Berger, APPRISE. New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Newark, New Jersey October 6, 2009

  2. Overview of Presentation • Introduction • Evaluation Objectives • Programs Reviewed • Allocation of Evaluation Resources • Analysis Methods & Data Sources • Evaluation Deliverables • High Level Findings & Recommendations • Questions

  3. KEMA at a glance • Established in 1927, Arnhem, the Netherlands • 1,900 professionals in 20 counties, 600 in North America • Broad, deep bench of industry SMEs • Annual revenues of €227 million Independent experts to the global energy industry

  4. Business Process Technology Systems Program Management KEMA’s global consulting practice • Our mission: • Addressing the complex multi-dimensional nature of energy industry challenges. • Bridging the gap between strategists and implementers; between engineers and accountants. • Sustainable Market Strategies • Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, Demand Response • Research, Planning & Evaluation • ~110 US professional staff Advancing processes & technology to do more for the industry

  5. Evaluation Teammates Princeton based Braun Research Marketing and Public Opinion Research firm Princeton based APPRISE is a nonprofit research institute dedicated to collecting and analyzing data and information to assess and improve public programs. • NJCEP Evaluation Roles • Administered four participant questionnaires • Residential HVAC • ENERGY STAR Products • SmartStart Buildings • CORE • NJCEP Evaluation Roles • Residential New Construction Program Evaluation • Data transfer from utilities for all program areas

  6. Project Team

  7. Programs Reviewed • WARM Advantage and COOL Advantage • Residential New Construction • Residential Lighting – CFL • SmartStart Buildings • Combined Heat and Power • Customer On-site Renewable Energy – PV

  8. Evaluation Objectives • Prospective Assessment • To revise the savings calculation Protocols so that going forward the calculations using these Protocols provide more accurate statements of savings accomplishments. • Protocols to Measure Resource Savings 2007

  9. Evaluation Objectives – cont. • Retrospective Assessment • To provide a retrospective assessment of program accomplishment, as part of a due diligence review of past utility program effectiveness on behalf of ratepayers.

  10. Evaluation Kick-Off Meeting Evaluation Timeline NJCEP Work Plan Approval CORE Work Plan Approval Period Under Evaluation Final Presentation 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 OCE assumes role of NJCEP Administrator RFPs to hire Market Managers Transition to Market Managers

  11. Statewide Program Electric Utilities Natural Gas Utilities

  12. Evaluation Methods Selection for Each Program • Estimated program savings magnitude relative to the total for the portfolio included in the evaluation • Program expenditures relative to the total for the portfolio included in the evaluation • Nature of uncertainties in the protocol savings estimates and their potential effect on net savings • Quality and applicability of existing studies • Total evaluation budget

  13. Allocation of Evaluation Resources Evaluation Budget: $857,680 ~0.1% of program budget

  14. Program & Utility Provided Data OCE • Program Tracking • Databases • (electronic & hard-copy) • Customer Usage Data Electric & Gas Utilities 6 Program Years (2001-2006) 6 Program Areas Market Managers Contractors

  15. Analysis Methods & Data Sources Data requirements for the selected methods were significant.

  16. Evaluation Deliverables • 7 Individual Program Reports • 2 SmartStart reports • Summary Report • Summary of Recommendations Report • Non-confidential Data • Today’s Presentation

  17. Summary of High LevelFindings & Recommendations • NJCEP Overall and Each Program Area • Prospective Results • Retrospective Results • Recommendations

  18. NJCEP Overall In general, the Protocols provide the Program with consistent and reasonable methods for estimating gross energy savings. • Continue with periodic independent reviews, such as this evaluation • Improve and expand the Protocol documentation • Use consistent energy savings terminology across measures • OCE should consider conducting an impact evaluation covering first three years of program under market manager model.

  19. NJCEP Overall – cont. • Revise the current assumption that free ridership and spillover cancel each other out. • The program should develop a standard policy for the assignment of baseline efficiency levels for the purpose of calculating energy savings. • Improved program tracking is critical. KEMA understands the program has developed a statewide database following the period covered by this evaluation (2001-2006). The statewide tracking database should be reviewed by an independent party as soon as possible.

  20. Residential HVAC • Gross saving estimates for both programs are lower due to decrease Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH) • CoolAdvantage EFLH and savings drop 17%. • WarmAdvantage EFLH and savings drop 25%.

  21. Residential HVAC – cont. • Lower EFLH estimate, if adopted in Protocols, will result in lower saving estimates. • CoolAdvantage Protocol savings for optimal installation and proper sizing are not supported by secondary sources. • Installation (QIV) and sizing savings are an important focus of future studies. • Peak period efficiency-related savings require additional study. • Recommendations made to update Protocol equations and input values.

  22. Residential New Construction • ENERGY STAR Homes are meeting the electric and gas usage projections established by the REM/RateTM model. • It appears that nonparticipants had caught up with ENERGY STAR minimum by 2006. • It appears that higher rated homes are performing better than projected.

  23. Residential New Construction – cont. • The program underwent a substantial upgrade in 2006/07. • The 2005/2006 program was using an older REM/Rate model. • Older REM/Rate models do not effectively model the impacts of energy efficient products and lighting on baseload. • Revise the Protocols with the understanding that nonparticipating homes perform at least at the 2006 ENERGY STAR minimum standards.

  24. Residential Lighting - CFL • Fix conversion error in the kW savings algorithm (W to kW) • Estimated Free ridership 15%. Consistent with similar programs during the 2003-2005 timeframe. • Updated Protocol Algorithm Values

  25. Residential Lighting (CFL) – cont. Peak Summer Usage CF Values from New England Study Adjusted for New England peak period (1-5 PM) to the New Jersey peak period (1-8 PM) results in our recommended CF value of 9.9%.

  26. SmartStart Buildings Program • Protocol Recommendations • Standard terminology and definitions • Team of 9 engineers reviewed: • Performance Lighting, • Prescriptive Lighting, • Lighting Controls, • Motors, • Electric HVAC Systems, • Electric Chillers, • Variable Frequency Drives, • Air Compressors with Variable Frequency Drives, • Gas Chillers (Absorption Chillers), • Gas Fired Desiccants, • Gas Booster Water Heaters, • Gas Water Heaters, • Furnaces and Boilers, • Compressed Air System Optimization, • and Custom Projects

  27. SmartStart Buildings Program – cont. • Gross Savings Adjustment Factors • Gross kW lower than kWh due to error in Program’s calculation tool • Gross therms lower than kWh and kW due to decrease in one large project. • KEMA recommends further NTG research covering first 3 years of implementation under the market manager model.

  28. Combined Heat & Power • 2 of the installations differed from those specified in the applications. Application: Gas Engine 1 260 kW Application: 60 kW Notes: “NA” = Not applicable, “Roughly full-time” means operators were not baseloading operation in the past, and “HW” = hot water applications

  29. Combined Heat & Power – cont. • Protocol savings estimates should continue to be performed on an individual basis. • Information collected during the post-installation visit should be used rather than the application data. • KEMA supports two post-evaluation period program updates: • Post-installation inspections with all CHP installations; and • Participants are required to provide the program with key information about the system design and operation after installation.

  30. Customer On-site Renewable Energy • Gross and Net Adjustment Factors

  31. CORE – cont. • Recommend continued use of PVWatts to calculate energy production and discontinue its deemed value method for purposes of reporting energy production to the BPU. • Recommend two additions to the PVWatts calculation methodology: • separate PVWatts calculations for arrays at same site with different tilt angles, orientations, or shading levels; and • incorporate a shading factor. • Several recommendations were made with regards to the calculation of peak demand (kW).

  32. Thank you for your attention.

  33. Residential HVAC – appendix Summary of Protocol Recommendations

More Related