new construction studies performed by: maestro/calmac evaluation showcase ● pacific energy center...

New Construction

Studies Performed by:

MAESTRO/CALMAC Evaluation Showcase ● Pacific Energy Center ● July 26-27, 2006

EM&V of the Statewide Savings By Design ProgramPresenter: Matt Brost – [email protected]

EM&V of the Statewide California Energy Star New Homes Program

Presenter: Bob Kasman – [email protected]


Agenda

Non-residential New Construction History Project Goals Methodology 2003 EM&V Results 2004-05 EM&V Plan 2004-05 EM&V Timing

Residential New Construction Background 02-03 EM&V Results Evaluation Methodology More Results Conclusions 04-05 EM&V Plan


HistoryRLW and Architectural Energy CorporationNRNC EM&V for SCE and PG&E since 1994

PY 94 DOE-2 Simulations, metering and Econometrics

PY 96, 98 and 99 Carry over DOE-2 Simulations, limited metering and Difference of Differences

1999-2005 Savings By Design (A.K.A Building Efficiency Assessment)

EM&V becomes statewide study Net effects by self-report

NP Spillover measured

Industrial projects start showing up in PY 2003 EM&V 2004-05 introduction of gas measures to EM&V


BEA Project GoalsGross and net whole building savings

Incented measures All measures (participant spillover) Energy and demand (coincident)

Baseline assessmentProgram Process

Participant and non-participant DM interviews

New constructions trends Efficiency, design and construction practices,

etc.


BEA Methodology OverviewStratified participant sample by kWh savings

Based on paid year, not program yearNon-participants selected from FW Dodge

Matched sample 2001-2002 Representative sample 2003 Very few in 2004-05

On-site surveysDOE-2 ModelsDecision Maker SurveysMeasure level net analysis

Informed by self-report Modeled in DOE-2


2003 Statewide Gross Savings Results

Two gross estimates All measures

Includes non-incented measures better than Title 24 (Part. spillover)

Measures only Applies to systems projects


2003 Statewide Net Savings Results

Two net savings estimates Participant net savings

Gross minus free-ridership

Comprehensive net savings Gross minus free-ridership plus non-participant spillover


BEA Results Comparison

Commercial 75-82% Comprehensive net-to-gross 59-76% Participant net-to-gross

Industrial 35-59% Net to Gross No 1999-2001 projects


Commercial Efficiency – 1998 and 2001 Title 24 (2003)

Energy Savings

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

1998 Title 24

2001 Title 24

Savings as a % of Whole Building Baseline Consumption

Non-Participants Participants

Participant and Non-participant Energy Savings as a Percentage of Baseline Consumption – 2001 Title 24 versus 1998 Title 24, Commercial Sites Only (Unweighted)


2003 Commercial Efficiency CombinedEnergy Savings

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Combined CommercialTotal

Shell

LPD

Daylighting Controls

Other Lighting Controls

HVAC + Motors

Refrigeration

Savings as a % of Whole Building Baseline Consumption

Non-Participants Participants

Participant and Non-participant Energy Savings as a Percentage of Baseline Consumption – Commercial Sites Only


Participant FeedbackImportance of design assistance and analysis

Helps “sell” the measure Corroborates internal decisions Introduces new measures and technologies

Incentives very important Helps measures meet investment criteria Makes measures easier sell Insurance against savings uncertainty when

considering new measures and technologies Not likely to get participation without it


2004-05 EM&VMuch of the sameAlso, many new aspects

Introduction of gas measures and savings analysis Much larger more complex projects Very few non-participants, nearly all participants (n=180) Large proportion of projects “industrial” End-use metering and DOE-2 calibrations

PG&E add-on study More projects and more metering Load profile tool

All due April 2007

EM&V of the Statewide California 2002-03 Energy Star New Homes Program

Robert [email protected]

(707) 939-8823 x32


Agenda

Non-residential New Construction History Project Goals Methodology 2003 EM&V Results 2004-05 EM&V Plan 2004-05 EM&V Timing

Residential New Construction Background 02-03 EM&V Results Evaluation Methodology More Results Conclusions 04-05 EM&V Plan


CA Energy Star Homes Program

Statewide program (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E and SCG)

Pays cash incentives to single family and multifamily developers/builders

Started 2002Funded by Public Goods Charge (PGC)Requires minimum 15% compliance margin

increase over Title 24


CA Energy Star Homes Program Incentives

Type 15-19.99% Compliance 20% + Compliance

Single Family (CZ 1-7) 400$ 700$

Single Family (CZ 8-16) 500$ 900$ Multifamily 150$ 250$

Compliance margins are relative to Title 24 building code Package D (set of prescriptive measures)


Requirements for Effective Evaluation

A well-conceived program theory and logic model

Complete and accurate program tracking data

Consideration of appropriate baseline data


Results - Dwelling Units by Utility & Type ’02-’03

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Dw

ell

ing

Un

its

PG&E SCE SCG SDG&E

Utility

Total 02/03 Program Dwelling Units by Utility and Type

High Rise

Multi Family

Single Family


Total 02/03 Program Net Ex Post kWh Savings

(Total Savings = 5,803,747 kWh)

PG&E, 2,269,723, 40%

SDG&E, 196,014, 3%

SCG, 1,821,018, 31%

SCE, 1,516,992, 26%


Total 02/03 Program Net Ex Post Therms Savings

(Total Savings = 665,375 therms)

PG&E, 301,068, 45%

SCE, 79,237, 12%

SCG, 119,087, 18%

SDG&E, 165,983, 25%


Single Family Electricity (kWh) Net to Gross Ratios

Statewide NTG > 1! (Yikes)How can this be?

Gross Ex Post 2002

Net Ex Post 2002

NTG RATIO 2002

Gross Ex Post 2003

Net Ex Post 2003

NTG RATIO 2003

PGE 168,922 380,763 2.25 1,031,724 1,818,960 1.76SCE 92,391 78,456 0.85 1,669,846 1,431,206 0.86SCG 55,687 73,252 1.32 858,507 1,181,588 1.38

SDGE 31,160 -6,114 -0.20 197,678 107,880 0.55Total 348,160 526,358 1.51 3,757,756 4,539,634 1.21


Single Family Gas (Therms) Net to Gross Ratios

Note statewide NTG is << 1Why so different?

Gross Ex Post 2002

Net Ex Post 2002

NTG RATIO 2002

Gross Ex Post 2003

Net Ex Post 2003

NTG RATIO 2003

PGE 70,344 46,056 0.65 369,529 216,725 0.59SCE 9,850 6,728 0.68 234,109 55,130 0.24SCG 1,334 461 0.35 19,578 6,489 0.33

SDGE 18,913 9,755 0.52 81,022 34,184 0.42Total 100,441 63,000 0.63 704,239 312,528 0.44


Evaluation Methodology – Engineering Analysis

Based on Title 24 compliant energy modeling software

On-site inspections: 110 SF homes, 123 MF structures

Re-simulation of Title 24 energy models when differences found

SF average “as-built” findings used to adjust tracking savings using ratio estimation at end-use level

SF Difference of differencesSF Billing analysis MF Builder/decision maker surveys for free ridership


Evaluation MethodologyQuantity to estimate Data sources used Analysis Methods

SF simple gross savings CHEERS Data queries

SF adjusted gross (ex post) savings

On-site inspection data, CHEERS Title 24 energy modeling, ratio estimation

SF net ex post savings SF adjusted gross savings, SF RNC baseline study, utility billing data

Difference of differences, billing analysis

SF free ridership Gross ex post savings, net ex post savings

Gross - Net

SF spillover SF RNC baseline study, CHEERS Hypothesis testing

MF simple gross savings CHEERS Data queries

MF adjusted gross savings On-site inspection data, CHEERS Title 24 energy modeling, ratio estimation

MF net ex post savings MF builder surveys SERA

MF free ridership MF builder surveys SERA

Ex ante savings IOU PIPs, CHEERS NA


Methodology Definitions (reference)Energy savings Annual energy savings due to exceeding Title 24 building code

minimum requirements.

Simple Gross savings Participant energy savings from a summation of tracking database (CHEERS) savings.

Adjusted gross savings Also called Gross ex post savings. Simple gross savings adjusted by on-site inspection findings (takes into account differences between planned building characteristics and inspected characteristics).

Net Ex Post savings Participant energy savings due to the program (excludes free ridership).

Net savings Same as Net Ex Post savings in this report.

Free ridership Also called Naturally Occurring savings. Participant energy savings that would have occurred absent the program. In this study naturally occurring savings are equivalent to non-participant energy efficiency beyond Title 24 package D requirements. Note that a single program participating home can have partial free ridership.

Net-to-Gross Ratio tGrossExPos

NetExPostNTG

Spillover Non-participant energy savings due to the program.

Ex Ante (Net) savings Energy savings estimates (calculated by RLW) based on each IOU’s per-unit savings estimates. Ex ante savings = (number of actual units approved) x (IOU per-unit savings estimate filed in PIP) x (0.8 NTG factor).


Single Family Compliance Margins (110 ENERGY STAR® Homes)

All Sampled Homes - Compliance Margins

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Tracking (CHEERS) Compliance Margin (%)

Insp

ecte

d*

Co

mp

lian

ce M

arg

in (

%)

N o C h a n g e Coastal Inland Linear (No Change)

Below 15%

Increased Compliance

Decreased Compliance


Single Family Statewide Energy Budgets and Savings

for 6,850 Energy Star Homes (Difference of Differences)

-50,000,000

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

Cooling Heating Water Heating

Ene

rgy

(Sou

rce

kBtu

/yea

r)

NetSavings

NaturalSavings

ProposedBudget


Single Family Billing Analysis

No conclusive results. Why? Baseline study by RMST climate zones not high

enough resolution Behavioral and demographic variation further blur

results Billing data acquisition/quality issues


California 16 CEC Climate Zones


Multifamily Compliance Margins on MF Inspected Plans (n=123)

Multifamily Compliance Margins - Plan vs. Inspected

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%

Tracking (CHEERS) Compliance Margin (%)

Ins

pe

cte

d* C

om

plia

nc

e M

arg

in (

%)

Below 15% Compliance


Multifamily Energy Savings

Multifamily ESH Proposed Energy Usage and Savings

-

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

140,000,000

160,000,000

Cooling Heating Water Heating

Ene

rgy

(Sou

rce

KB

tu/y

ear)

Savings

Total Proposed


Multifamily Results

Number of multifamily structures = 758Number of multifamily dwelling units = 7,281Annual Net kWh Savings = 93,599 kWhAnnual Net Therms Savings = 233,258

thermsAverage Net to Gross = .63 (from surveys)Average free ridership = 37%Non-participant spillover not estimated


Conclusions

ESH program resulted in significant energy savingsBoth implementers and evaluators based impacts on

modeling software – results less conclusive New Title 24 code expected to have significant

impact (beyond free-ridership) on multifamily projects Evaluation challenges:

Tracking database QC issues (primarily due to many input sources)

Baseline data issues (climate zones, sample sizes)


Conclusions Most single family homes not built to plan, but

average energy savings are realized anywayMost multifamily projects built as planned, energy

savings dominated by water heatingSF free ridership rates dependent upon energy --

negative for electricity, positive for gasMF not like SF -- wide variation in type, design and

energy modeling of multifamily projects… significantly more complex to conduct EM&V analysis

MF high free ridership rates due to loopholes in Title 24. (Loopholes intended to be closed with the October ‘05 code revisions.)


04-05 EM&V Plan

RLW Analytics currently conducting ’04-’05 ESH program evaluation

Includes metering study of both SF and MF new construction yielding actual consumption, not modeled data

Process and non-energy benefit analysisMore comprehensive billing analysis in select

climate zonesData acquisition issues

new construction studies performed by: maestro/calmac evaluation showcase ● pacific energy center...

Documents

pacific energy center

maestrocalmac evaluation

emv slide

nonparticipant energy

participant net savings

participant spillover

statewide net savings

emv plan slide