electronic trm proposal stakeholder presentations fall 2015
TRANSCRIPT
Electronic TRM Proposal
S TA K E H O L D E R P R E S E N TAT I O N S
FA L L 2 0 1 5
Electronic TRM Proposal
2
Executive Summary
Fall 2015
Introduction to the Cal TF
EE Measure Development, Updating and Maintenance: Status Quo vs. Policy Goals Compared to longstanding CPUC goals Compared to state policy goals for EE Compared to EPA Clean Power Plan (CPP) draft guidance for
counting EE for CPP compliance
Technical Reference Manual Research and Best Practices
Path Forward Electronic TRM Proposed implementation process
Electronic TRM Proposal
3
The California Technical Forum (Cal TF)
What is the Technical Forum?
A group of in-state and out-of-state technical experts that work in a collaborative and transparent way to review new and updated energy efficiency measures and other technical information related to the integrated demand-side management portfolio.
Fall 2015
Electronic TRM Proposal
4
Cal TF: A Broad Collaborative
Fall 2015
CPUC Office of Ratepayer Advocates
Electronic TRM Proposal
5
The Collaborative Supports the Technical Experts
Fall 2015
Technical Forum
Cal TF Administrator
Sponsoring Entity PAC
IOUs POUs Others
Funding Entities
Peer reviews, comments Scopes work, monitorsFacilitates, supports
Administrator ContractCo-funding Agreements(Future Vision)
Electronic TRM Proposal
6
Technical Forum Members
Selected through a competitive RFQ process with a ~50% selection rate.
CPUC provided input on selection criteria
2015 TF Composition:
35 members
450+ years combined industry experience
Technical expertise in wide range of energy efficiency technologies
30% from outside of California
Fall 2015
Electronic TRM Proposal
7
EE Measure Development: Commission Goals Compared to Status Quo
Fall 2015
Collaborative (D13-09-023 at 56) Only utilities and CPUC staff involved in measure development
Process is adversarial rather than collaborative
Transparent and Well-Documented (D10-04-029 at 30 and D01-11-06 at 20) Extensive Cal TF staff DEER documentation work has yielded very little clear
documentation Most DEER measure parameters cannot be traced to sources; DEER measures
parameters generally not reproducible
Uses Best Available Information (D11-07-030 at 8) CPUC measure approval often delayed until more data is collected
Balances Accuracy, Precision, Timeliness, Cost, and Certainty (D11-07-030 at 8) DEER is very complex - Leads to false precision New measure development is lengthy and expensive Measure values are not fixed from cycle to cycle – Over a dozen changes to DEER
this year alone
Electronic TRM Proposal
8
EE Measure Development: State Policy Goals Compared to Status Quo
Fall 2015
Use credible, statewide consistent values for forecasting and planning POUs were unable to continue using DEER
Too complex, opaque, hard-to-use and understand
Increase inter-agency and regional coordination CEC and CPUC use different modeling tools to calculate energy savings.
CEC uses EnergyPlus for Title 24 compliance and CPUC uses DOE-2.2 for developing DEER energy savings values
Energy efficiency as a resource Efficiency can’t be a credible resource if IOUs and POUs use different
approaches and values for calculating savings from energy efficiency
Double energy efficiency savings by 2030 Protracted review and approval of new/updated measures (e.g. LEDs) will
make state goals for energy efficiency more difficult to achieve
Electronic TRM Proposal
9
Fall 2015
On August 3, 2015, the US EPA released draft guidelines to ensure EE measures are “quantifiable and verifiable” for Clean Power Plan compliance purposes.
Status quo does not conform to EPA draft guidance for EE: DEER measure parameters are not transparent or well-documented;
Workpapers are not publically available 2.4.2. Applicable Guidance: “Based on measure definitions, applicable conditions,
assumptions, calculations, and references that are well documented in work papers that are publically available.”
California workpaper developers use conservative values to speed workpaper approval by CPUC staff 2.6.2 Applicable Guidance: “Should be designed neither to provide optimistic savings
estimates… nor to provide conservative estimates.”
The system is not collaborative 2.8.2. Applicable Guidance: “Participate in collaborative and joint research to improve
breath and quality.”
EE Measure Development: Draft US EPA Clean Power Plan Guidance Compared to Status Quo
Electronic TRM Proposal
10
Technical Reference Manual Research
Fall 2015
Technical Reference Manuals (TRMs) are the functional equivalent of DEER in other jurisdictions; they contain EE measures, measure parameters and measure documentation.
Reviewed over 20 TRMs from jurisdictions across the country to identify best practices for measure development and measure repositories
Interviewed developers and users in with strong TRMs Massachusetts New York Pennsylvania and Mid-Atlantic Illinois Texas
Reviewed prior literature/analysis on TRMs Most analyses are about 5 years old
TRMs have evolved considerably since then
Identified best practices for: Process – process for developing and updating EE measures Structure – structure for maintaining measures and associated documentation Content – technical guidelines, directives and practices for developing/updating EE measures
Electronic TRM Proposal
11
TRM Best Practices – Process
Fall 2015
Technical collaboratives open to the public
Predictable and regular update processes Existing measures must be updated regularly
Participation by regulatory staff is key Speeds issue resolution Speeds regulatory review Fosters technical understanding between regulators and other stakeholders Builds regulator confidence in results
Results of collaborative consensus-building process generally adopted by decision makers with little change Regulators maintain final approval authority but can depend on robust process
and results to inform decision-making.
Regulatory Commissions, not staff, approve final values
Electronic TRM Proposal
12
TRM Best Practices – Structure
Fall 2015
Standard format for each measure characterization, including: Narrative explanation of measure Base and measure case technical specifications Energy and demand savings algorithms Other key parameters (measure life, costs, etc.) Pertinent implementation details (e.g. exclusions)
All measure parameters clearly linked to measure
Measure is well-documented and values are reproducible Citations to primary sources, not other TRMs Primary sources maintained and readily available
Embedded calculators and look up tables
Non-measure specific tools and information included as appendices NY TRM has excellent descriptions of building prototypes
Electronic TRM Proposal
13
TRM Best Practices – Content
Fall 2015
Written guidelines for addressing recurring technical issues NW RTF and Mid-Atlantic state use process language
Use of reproducible methods, diligent review of all sources… PA and IL use more specific data hierarchies NW RTF has several guidelines on measure complexity, statistical significance,
other
Careful consideration of modeling vs. engineering equations vs. field data No “one size fits all”; consider pros and cons of different approaches
Key parameters (from modeling or engineering equations) should be validated with real data! Field conditions and human behavior may alter forecasted savings Collect data through implementation or early EM&V Identify and implement use of AMI data (e.g. EnergySavvy) and other tools (DOE
Building Performance Database)
Electronic TRM Proposal
14
DEER Alternative: Statewide Electronic TRM – Key Features
Fall 2015
All measures are fully documented with a workpaper All measure parameters are clearly documented and linked Source documents are clearly cited and hosted in the tool
Modeled values are linked to models Uses EnergyPlus for measures that should be modeled
Automates measure updates when inputs change—weather files, code updates, etc. Also, includes clear update and revision histories for each measure
Clear and documented workflow management Identifies who has updated and/or reviewed a measure
Generates all key outputs for CPUC ex ante database, utility and CPUC cost-effectiveness analysis and reporting, CEC forecasting
Keyword searchable
Permits restricted access to protect confidential information Open source repository for EE measures
Electronic TRM Proposal Fall 2015
Proposed Implementation Process
California Ex Ante MeasuresApproximately 187
Overlapping Measures(DEER, non-DEER, POU)
36
DEER Measures(No WP, POU Overlap)
17
IOU Non-DEER WPs; includes consolidating common IOU
measures(No DEER Overlap)
125
POU TRM Measures(No DEER/WP Overlap)
9
Create WPCreate Single
WP per Measure
Detailed Cal TF Review – Specialized Subcommittees
Full TF Review and Approval
Populate Statewide Electronic TRM
Electronic TRM Proposal
16
Conclusion: Benefits of the Electronic TRM
Fall 2015
Rigorous, well-documented EE measures
Common repository for all California measures
Statewide consistent energy savings values
Collaborative, consensus-based, public and inclusive process
Use of open source electronic TRM and tools
Electronic TRM Proposal
17
Appendix
Fall 2015
The move to “Electronic TRMs”
Status Quo vs. Alternative Comparison
EnergyPlus and Open Studio: Beyond Single Point Analysis Comparison Against Multiple Baselines
Electronic TRM Proposal
18
Appendix:The Move to Electronic TRMs
Fall 2015
Key benefits to be gained: Improves documentation
Ability to embed tools and supporting documents Enables more detailed revision histories
Reduces cost and increases efficiency of data management Through APIs, automatic download of values into utility tracking and planning
databases Highly transparent workflow management for new and updated measures. Keyword searchable
Available tools include: VEIC Nexant iEnergy Energy Platforms Frontier U.S. Department of Energy Platforms
Electronic TRM Proposal
19
Status Quo Cal TF Alternative
Fall 2015
Rolling Portfolio mechanics needed to accommodate two sets of yearly updates Q2-Q3: CPUC Staff-led
DEER update Q4: IOU workpaper
updates Q1: CPUC Staff review of
updated workpapers
Only one repository to update and adopt
Reduced time and resources spent in translation—DEER to workpapers and back to DEER Less room for computational
errors i.e. Freezer savings values for
ARP Reduce duplication of values
Appendix:Repository Updates and Management
Electronic TRM Proposal Fall 2015
New Measure Development and Existing Measure Updates
Two Stages of Peer Review
TRM Finalized and Submitted to Commission
TRM Update Bus Stop
9/1 TRM Plan
Development and Updates
Two Stages of Peer Review
Legend
External Contractors, PA Staff
TF peer review with participation from CPUC Staff
Cal TF staff
Final Commission approval
Current Rolling Portfolio Two-Repository Update Process
Proposed Electronic TRM Single Repository Update Process
Electronic TRM Proposal
21
Status Quo Cal TF Alternative
Fall 2015
Commissioners were forced to review individual savings parameters for ARP
Struggles to determine right amount of uncertainty delayed important decision by 6 weeks
Conclusions were limited by available data and need to settle on single point value
Open Studio and EnergyPlus enable analysis that considers uncertainty in base cases Parametric analyses can quantify
uncertainty to enable more data-driven decisions
Commission would be presented with replicable consensus recommendations Supporting documentation in an
accessible format for in-depth review if needed (in cases of non-consensus items)
Appendix:Savings Estimate Development and Updating
Electronic TRM Proposal
22
Status Quo Cal TF Alternative
Fall 2015
No single forum for open discussion of complex technical issues i.e. CPUC staff review of
Advanced Power Strips was forced to re-open issues already discussed by TF months before Issues could have been
settled in half the time if discussed in a single forum
One forum for peer review, discussion, and guidance from CPUC Staff and consultants
Open, transparent process Participation by broad range of
stakeholders Comparison Exhibit for disputed
values memorializing disputes and rationale for each position, facilitating CPUC analysis and resolution of disputed issues
All documentation available to all participants, public
Appendix:Measure Review
23
EnergyPlus and Open Studio:Beyond Single Point Analysis
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Window-to-Wall Ratio Probability Density Function
(PDF)
Infiltration % Change PDF
-40 -20 200 40
OpenStudio and EnergyPlus enable analysis that considers uncertainty in the
baseline building.
This illustrative example is built with DOE’s medium office prototype building model
and two typical sources of variability.
Red lines denote “nominal” (DEER-like) model results absent variability
24
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Window-to-Wall Ratio Probability Density Function
(PDF)
Infiltration % Change PDF
-40 -20 200 40
Pre-1980Baseline
555 560 565 570EUI (MJ/m2)
Scalable use of commodity cloud computing enables rapid creation of a
family of baseline buildings that includes uncertainty.
EnergyPlus and Open Studio:Beyond Single Point Analysis
25
Energy Recovery
Ventilation Measure
+
SolidState
Lighting Measure
+
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Window-to-Wall Ratio Probability Density Function
(PDF)
Infiltration % Change PDF
-40 -20 200 40
Pre-1980Baseline
555 560 565 570EUI (MJ/m2)
440 460 500 560EUI (MJ/m2)
480 520 540
Potential analysis now includes uncertainty in estimated savings that can aid in deemed/custom determinations.
EnergyPlus and Open Studio:Beyond Single Point Analysis
26
Pre-1980Baseline
90.1-2004Baseline
90.1-2010Baseline
555 560 565 570
440 460 480
339 341 342340EUI (MJ/m2)
Pre-1980
90.1-2004
90.1-2010
440 460 500 560EUI (MJ/m2)
480 520 540
440 460EUI (MJ/m2)
480380 400 420
325 330EUI (MJ/m2)
335310 315 320 340
BaselineBaseline + Energy Recovery VentilationBaseline + Solid State Lighting
The system also enables easy comparison of savings predictions
relative to a range of baselines.
EnergyPlus and Open Studio:Comparison Against Multiple Baselines