1 NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE

March 18th, 2015

Residential New Construction Standard Protocol Subcommittee Kick-off

2

Agenda

Overview Vision Background Draft Plan Feedback & Discussion

Desired Outcome General agreement on plan Guidance for CR & NEEA Staff on tasks to

complete before the next subcommittee meeting (May)

3

Protocol Vision

What? Develop standard protocol so that home energy professionals

can use REM/Rate to generate savings Protocol ensures that savings can be claimed by utilities

Why? Leverage asset rating tool being adopted by the market place Increase utility program flexibility Market need for tool to assess whole home performance

(next tier of savings will come from integrated design) to allow for: Energy use estimates Market differentiation Consistency in ratings across the region

4

In it’s most simple form

Data must be “bankable”

Limits• Applies to only new construction• Use kWh and Therm savings to baseline – not the HERS score!• Models are generated by certified raters in accordance with RESNET• Raters follow protocol and software constraints are followedOther actors that would use data• Homebuyers, Realtors, Lenders, Appraisers, Code Officials,

5

Questions we seek to answer

What constraints do we put on REM/Rate?(define the rater modeling protocol)

How do we calibration output values? (adjusted savings from REM/Rate are accepted)

6

Protocol Development

Draw from NW ENERGYSTAR Homes Modeling Guidelines RESNET Requirements (QA/QC) ETO EPS Guidelines

Improvements needed Previously identified errors in traditional measures How to handle new technologies and ”un-modelable” Define Baseline Define Output Report

Documentation Protocol Research Plan

7

Background

8

Many Tools – One Option

Tool UseTarget Market

& ShareScore System Engine Code Advocates

REM/RateCompliance,

Utilities, marketing

new and existing homes,

~40% of all new homes nationally

HERS - 0-100 abstracted score

Proprietary, Monthly

YESRESNET, raters in the NW, Noresco

SEEMUtility program

measure evaluation

RTF n/a

Hourly single zone model - includes thermal mass

and solar impacts on interior temps

NO Ecotope, RTF

DOE’s HES existing home score existing homes 1-10 score, asset

based DOE 2.1E NO DOE

EnergyGaugeCompliance and

HERS score generator

new and existing homes, SE USA

RESNET HERS - 0-100 abstracted, 2006

IECC = 100 pointsDOE 2.1E YES RESNET, FSEC

Cal HERS“CSE”

Compliance and HERS score

generator

California New residential

construction0-100? Equest

(DOE 2.2) YES? CEC, Cal Utilities

BEOptenergy

optimization of residental buildings

building science professionals,

designers

RESNET HERS (under development) Energy Plus NO NREL, BPA

EPSCompliance and

HERS score generator

2400 homes in NW in 2014

adjusted MMBTU value

Post Processed REM/Rate NO ETO, Earth Advantage

9

Sources of Uncertainty

Input Parameter Accuracy Rater Bias and Variability Software Accuracy Occupant Variability Climate Variability

Oakridge National Lab 2014 – impact of parameter accuracy on energy estimation

Estimated ACH50

ACH50 from Blower Door Test

10

Previous REM/Rate Comparison

Red: Previous REM/Rate

Blue: SEEM

Green: Updated REM/Rate

11

Rater Variability Investigation

8 Raters, 12 Next Step Home Projects

Will assess: Overall variability in outputs Variability in inputs (assumptions, differences

in equipment efficiencies or use schedules, etc.)

Data will help determine how to develop modeling protocol to reduce overall variability.

12

Protocol Approach

13

High Level Path to kWh Savings

Measure Level Calibration

Annual kWh

14

Proposed Development Tasks

TASK 1 – REM/Rate™ and SEEM Comparative AnalysisTASK 2 – Identify Misalignment IssuesTASK 3 – Develop GuidelinesTASK 4 – Calibrate to Real DataTASK 5 – Protocol DocumentationTASK 6 – Research Plan Development

15

Task 1: Comparative Analysis

Currently in progress Utilize research performed previously on REM/SEEM Update by comparing against SEEM 96 and updated

REM software Look at traditional savings measures, individually Looking for similar rate of change of consumption as

components are varied in REM/SEEM

Outcome: How close are the two outputs, and do any changes need to happen to the software to improve the alignment?

16

Task 2: Understand Errors in Savings Estimates

Assess how variance in rater inputs creates variance in REM outputs

Understand behavior or systems that cause variation in outputs (fireplaces, electric resistance floor heat, etc.)

Develop strategies for input guidelines to constrain variation in how these are input into REM

Determine which components exist in both baseline and efficient cases

Known Source of Error Data Needed for Modeling ProtocolGas Fireplace Approved efficiency ratings and heat output values.

Wood Fireplace RTF research on supplemental wood heat. Spa/Hot Tub Building America modeling protocols.

Electric Resistance Floor Heat Manufacturer output capacities, hours of use. Supplemental Electric Water Heat Manufacturer output capacities, assumed average run times.

17

Task 3: Develop Modeling Guidelines

Develop modeling guidelines to constrain variation in inputs: Use NWESH Guidelines as staring point Users must use provided libraries Only 4 foundation type options Infiltration input strategy controlled Will detail which default values to use or provide

guidelines on how to make assumptions

18

Task 4: Calibrate to Real Data

Use real world billing data to compare modeled energy use from REM to actual energy use

Develop calibration to be applied to consumption

Data sources: Energy Trust of Oregon (500+ homes) NEEA’s Next Step Pilot Homes (14 homes with detailed

monitoring data)

19

Task 5: Protocol documentation

Protocol Documentation will include: Software requirements Modeling guidelines Savings calibration QA processes

20

Task 6: Research Plan Development

Subcommittee will help drive the future of the protocol. What research needs to be done to move this from Provisional Approval (aiming for December) to Approved?

21

Subcommittee Meeting Schedule

Month Purpose

March Kickoff

April - no meeting -

May Comparative Analysis

June Draft Protocol & Baseline

July Calibration Results

August - no meeting -

September Research Plan

October Preparation for RTF

November Provisional Approval Requested

December - no meeting -

22

Question #1

Do we want a protocol that is replicable?(for a different calculation engine)

Seeking guidance, not specifics

23

Question #2

How much alignment is sufficient?

- front end vs back end calibration

24

Question #3

What should NEEA/CR get done between now and May?

Seeking guidance, not specifics

25

Final Questions & Discussion