northwest ductless heat pump pilot project impact & process evaluation: billing analysis
Post on 12-Feb-2016
42 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1 NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE
Northwest Ductless Heat Pump Pilot ProjectImpact & Process Evaluation: Billing Analysis
Ecotope, Inc.February 20, 2013
2
Agenda
Introduction
Research Objectives
Recap of Metering Results
Methodology
Highlights of Findings
Conclusions
Q & A
3
Introduction
4
DHP Impact & Process Evaluation Overview
UES Workbook
Billing Analysis ~4,000 Participants
Market Progress Evaluation~300 Participants
Field Monitoring95 Participants
Lab Testing 2
units
5
DHP Evaluation Timeline
2009
• Install field meters• Launch lab tests• Collect data for Wave 1 market progress evaluation
2010• Wave 1 market progress report• Ongoing field monitoring
2011
• Lab analysis report• Wave 2 market progress report• Decommission field sites
2012• Metering report
2013
• Billing analysis report• Cost effectiveness analysis• UES workbook• Final Summary report
6
Research Objectives
7
Billing Analysis Research Objectives
Assess the overall savings and the space heating savings from the DHP installations in the pilot project
Establish savings in electric space heating brought on by this equipment
Determine the impact of occupancy and other “takeback” effects on observed savings
Assess the impact of supplemental fuels on DHP savings
Confirm results of previous metering study and lab testing
8
Recap of Metering Results
9
Metered Analysis Summary
Total savings derived from the heat output of the DHP
Billing savings derived from the pre and post installation bills and metered heating use
Simple regression analysis (CDA) to develop determinants of savings
SEEM calibration based on metered and baseline heating estimates Temperature adjustments, 66.8° to 69.5° Calibrated to heating energy use and savings
10
DHP Total Savings Results
Cluster
Savings from COP (kWh/yr)
nMean SDWillamette 4148 2061 18
Puget Sound 3812 1981 19
Inland Empire 3264 1470 11
Boise/Twin 4184 1871 8
Eastern Idaho 3924 1767 9
Total 3887 1844 65
11
DHP Bill Savings Results
Cluster
DHP Savings (kWh/yr)
nMean SDWillamette 3316 2121 26
Puget Sound 3043 2357 25
Inland Empire 1882 1580 16
Boise/Twin 3628 2985 16
Eastern Idaho 3307 3230 10
Average/Total 3049 2424 93
12
Modeled Savings Estimates, SEEM
Cluster
Calibrated to BillsPre 66.8°F - Post 69.5°F
(kWh/yr)Calibrated to COPPre 66.8°F - Post 66.8°F (kWh/yr)
nMean SD Mean SDWillamette 2435 1227 3424 1480 27
Puget Sound 3073 1521 4015 1809 25
Inland Empire 2724 1485 3719 1754 17
Boise/Twin 3742 1695 4874 2007 16
Eastern Idaho 2618 948 3939 1283 10
Average/Total 2894 1460 3931 1732 95
13
Billing Analysis Methodology
14
Distribution of DHP Pilot Sites (n=3,899)
15
Data Collection
Bills requested for all pilot sites (3,899) 3,748 sites received, 3,629 sites with useable pre and
post installation records PRISM (VBDD) analysis
Estimated heating energy, savings with DHP installation Include R2 measure of the quality of the heating
estimate All sites that had adequate bills evaluated
Installation questionnaire House size and customer demographics Supplemental heating Installation cost
16
Highlights of Findings
17
All Useable Cases
Cluster
Space Heating Savings
All Cases Screened CaseskWh/yr n kWh/yr n
Willamette 2285 2090 2416 2001Puget Sound 1677 752 1913 701Coastal 1463 288 1930 233Inland Empire 780 141 856 126Boise/Twin 1407 96 1572 92Eastern Idaho 503 84 496 81Tri-Cities 861 55 1035 51Western Montana 289 123 813 105Total 1882 3629 2081 3390
18
Supplemental Fuels
High incidence of supplemental fuels in pilot program Overall 33.2% of participants report supplemental fuels RBSA region wide electric heat customers report 35.9% reported
supplemental fuels Clear indications of large impact on savings Larger incidence of supplemental fuel use in Eastern
market clusters Western Montana 67% Other rural areas (Western and Eastern) wood heat saturation of
~40% Supplemental fuels assigned based on installation
questionnaire Similar to the screening process in selecting the metering sample
19
Supplemental Fuels
20
Screened VBDD Results
Screened Datasets
Space Heat Consumption (kWh) Electric Space Heat
Saved(kWh)
nPre Install Post Install
All Sites with Valid Bills Mean SD
All 7121 5241 1880 2954 3629R2>.45 7424 5350 2074 2853 3387R2>.65 7714 5422 2292 2728 3035
Supplemental Fuel Not Used All 7910 5223 2687 2655 2477R2>.45 7999 5265 2734 2595 2407R2>.65 8105 5313 2792 2553 2256
Supplemental Fuel Used All 5424 5279 145 2815 1152R2>.45 6011 5559 452 2811 980R2>.65 6582 5738 843 2703 779
21
CDA Regression
Specified as an alternative to screening n=3621 Use robust regression specs to reduce
impact of scatter Specification:
SHsaved=c1SHpre+c2SuppFuel+C
c1 and c2: estimated coefficients C: constant term
22
Definitions of CDA Variables
The coefficient on pre-installation space heat (c1) predicts the space heating savings (controlling for
other factors). The coefficient on supplemental fuel use (c2)
predicts reduction in savings. The constant term accounts for the other factors
that reduce savings (thermostat settings, erratic occupancy, etc.).
Supplemental fuels coefficient and the constant term account for the savings reduction due to occupant effects: non-energy and supplemental fuel benefits.
23
Regression Results
Climate Zone Segment
Parameter
nc1 c2 C
Western 0.487 -973 -768 3122
Eastern 0.223 -1,152 -300 375
W. Montana 0.249 -1,683 -416 123
All 0.434 -1,110 -561 3620
SHsaved=c1SHpre+c2SuppFuel+C
24
CDA Predicted Space Heating Savings
Cluster
Predicted Savings
nMean SD
Willamette 3436 2,055 2,086
Puget Sound 3308 1,783 752
Coastal 2997 2,074 285
Inland Empire 1823 1,236 140
Boise/Twin 2115 947 96
Eastern Idaho 2088 935 84
Tri-Cities 1264 938 55
Western Montana 2036 1347 123
Total 3166 1969 3621
25
Segmented Regression Results
26
CDA Observations
CDA regression recovers the mean savings estimated
The CDA analysis conducted on themetered sample: c1= .470 for western climates
.240 for eastern climates c2 is essentially zero (the sample was screened) Constant term in this sample is zero 20% difference between the billing analysis results
and measured DHP heat output
27
Conclusions
28
Conclusions
Once similar screening for supplemental heat is done: results agree with metered analysis results.
Supplemental fuels reduce savings ~1000 kWh W. Montana requires more severe adjustments
The impact of DHP on space heat without the take back effects: 48% in the western climates 22% in the eastern climates
Program design may need to be modified for more severe climates
29
Questions & Answers
top related