1

Summary of Reviews:Workpapers Approved by theCalifornia Technical Forum

Meeting: California Technical ForumDecember 3, 2015

Jeff Hirsch/Kevin MadisonConsultants - CPUC Ex Ante Team

Workpapers Reviewed by EAR Team

• Commercial variable refrigerant flow (VRF)

• Residential HVAC quality installation (QI)

• Clothes washer recycling

• High efficiency clothes dryers

• Advanced “Tier 2” power strips (two workpapers: residential and commercial)

• Condensing unit heaters

• Circulating block heaters for standby generators

• LED ambient fixtures and retrofit kits

• Retail Plugload Platform (RPP) including five measures (Freezers, Room air conditioners, Room air cleaners, Clothes dryers, Entertainment sound bars)

2

Variable Refrigerant Flow• Challenges for the existing as well as proposed

update to the deemed offering compared to standard deemed approach:– Proposed baseline and measure cases use different

design and configuration normally only accepted for custom projects

– Fuel switching from gas to electric heating assumed which invokes a policy based threshold analysis step

– Calculation and modeling methods are relatively new, still under development, and thus require more validation of estimation long term accuracy

3

Source of Estimated SavingsMajority of savings come from the difference in air distribution system design and operation rather than component efficiency improvements (from 8/4/2014 PA workpaper development presentation)

4

Site E

UIHVAC E

nerg

y Use

Fan E

nerg

y Use

Heatin

g Ene

rgy

UseCoo

ling

Energ

y Use

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

Baseline (kBtu/SF)

Efficient Base-line (kBtu/SF)

VRF HP (kBtu/SF)

VRF HR (kBtu/SF)

Sit

e E

ner

gy

Use

(kB

tu/S

F)

Deemed Measures are Typically “Like for Like”

• All other HVAC (packaged and split ac/ and HP, chillers, boilers, etc.) estimates are based on same configuration, capacity and operation, but higher efficiency

• Lighting based on same overall output, but lower input wattage

• Refrigerators have the same features (volume, freezer location, etc.), but lower annual kWh rating

5

Technology “Shifts” Do Not Change Nature of Service

• Magnetic bearing, multi-compressor centrifugal chiller uses a conventional centrifugal chiller baseline

• LED fixture uses either LF or HID baseline with similar workplane lighting level

• Instantaneous water heater uses storage water heater baseline with similar delivery capacity

6

EAR Team Concerns

• Is the assumed installed VRF measure system configuration typical?

• For NC, ROB, normal replacement and major renovation applications, are the baseline system assumptions typical of standard practice?

• Is the assumed program influence over the design decision plausible?

7

EAR Team Direction1. Collect information on historical participant

installations – building type, system configuration, operation, etc.

2. Determine the nature of project – NC, NR, etc.

3. For retrofits determine the pre-existing equipment configuration and operation

4. Understand the underlying design considerations that led to the selection of the VRF system choice and its configuration. How does EE program delivery fit into VRF selection.

8

Fuel Switching Policy“Fuel substitution programs may offer resource value and environmental benefits. Fuel-substitution programs should reduce the need for supply without degrading environmental quality. Fuel-substitution programs, whether applied to retrofit or new construction applications, must pass the following three-prong test to be considered further for funding:

1. The program must not increase source-BTU consumption. Proponents of fuel substitution programs should calculate the source-BTU impacts using the current CEC-established heat rate.

2. The program must have TRC and PAC benefit-cost ratio of 1.0 or greater. The TRC and PAC tests used for this purpose should be developed in a manner consistent with these Rules.

3. The program must not adversely impact the environment. To quantify this impact, respondents should compare the environmental costs with and without the program using the most recently adopted values for residual emissions

Additionally, fuel substitution proponents must compare the technologies offered by their program with the most efficient same-fuel substitute technologies available to prospective participants that would have TRC and PAC benefit-cost ratio of 1.0 or greater.”

Source: D.05-04-051, Attachment 3 (Policy Manual Version 3), page 10, Cost-Effectiveness Rule IV.10

9

Fuel Switching Considerations• Arises when baseline versus measure have

different energy sources (electric versus gas) • Analysis of historical participants can inform the

determination of typical baseline• For the VRF workpaper, the measure includes a

change in air distribution system, not just the VRF technology

• Baseline system should consider other viable high efficiency distribution system choices available to program participants

10

Modeling Methods and Applications1. Chosen simulation tool must produce

reasonable and comparable estimates for the measure and baseline systems

2. Analysis approach and equipment plus operation parameter assumptions must be consistent and in agreement with DEER (NOTE: not identical)

3. Detailed sample results analysis should show that savings estimates reflect real differences and not modeling anomalies

11

Simulation Tool: EnergyPlus

1. Does EnergyPlus (or any tool chosen to develop savings estimates) model all technology features that may significantly impact results (increase or decrease effective efficiency)?

2. Are these effects observable (and observed) in the results? Are the observed estimated savings due to the baseline and measure differences or other simulation tool anomalies or issues?

12

Simulation Tool: EnergyPlusVRF model examples:

1. Pipe length and relationship to (terminal unit and condensing unit) capacity and efficiency

2. Operating conditions; interactions with equipment components and controls; relationship to outdoor unit controls; resultant capacity and efficiency• indoor unit entering wetbulb and outdoor unit entering conditions –

versus suction temperature controls• simultaneous heating/cooling

Tool issues examples:3. Plenum modeling (cannot currently use – known limitation)

4. Duct losses (explicit modeling – rather than T24 efficiency adjustment - requires use of airflow network)

13

Moving Forward:Approach and Assumptions

RequiredDemonstrate that methods yield similar savings results to DEER estimates or adequately explain how differences are appropriate

Not Required“Copying” of all DEER inputs

Example of Possible ApproachShow that proposed approach yields similar savings for conventional DEER measures such as a SEER 18 package AC and HP system upgrades

14

Moving Forward:Results Comparison

BackgroundCurrent DEER and workpaper methods compare ‘like’ or very similar technologies: simulation anomalies tend to error in “the same direction” and cancel each other.

ConcernWhen comparing fundamentally different technologies, if anomalies for each technology error in “opposite direction” then they either add to, or subtract from, each other.

15

Insights and Observations:Other Workpapers

• Use of DEER values and methods• Standard practice baselines• Best available data• Coordination and timing with CPUC staff and

ex ante consultants

16

DEER Values

Use of DEER values and/or assumptions is generally required.

ExampleDEER NTG values are to be used as default except when supported by more recent evaluation with staff approval

Room AC and Freezer measures are covered by DEER

DEER defaults used until recent participant results are available and approved by staff

17

DEER MethodsUse of DEER methods is required, but methods as used here does not imply simply adopting DEER point values.

Examples

1. Code baseline calculations for LED fixtures and retrofit kits - workpaper has an acceptance approach, but took time for EAR team review that could be shortened.

2. Demand impacts and interactive effects for clothes washers and dryers - incorrect demand analysis and incorrect application of HVAC IE to all loads could have been easily corrected if proposed approach had been outlined and reviewed at the abstract (or other) early stage.

18

Standard Practice and Code Baselines

Cases when gross savings shall be calculated over the standard practice or code baseline:

– ROB/NC/CE savings are above ISP/Code for full EUL– ER savings are above ISP/Code for post RUL period

In general, an “internal consensus” (CalTF, PA or implementer) on standard practice is not adequate, especially if evidence indicates a higher efficiency standard practice.

19

Standard Practice Baseline:Clothes Dryers

• Given the high cost of the electric HP dryers, ex ante team views it unlikely that participant clothes washers will be just minimally compliant.– Clothes washers are likely more energy efficient, with

lower remaining moisture content, thus reducing dryer energy use.

– What available research might provide this information?• Did the Pacific Northwest research look at the installed

washers as well as dryers?

20

Standard Practice Baseline:Clothes Washer Recycling

1. Program stated motivation is that 50% of all discarded appliances are transferred to new owners yet analysis assumes that all program collected appliances would have been transferred to a new owner.– It is unclear how collecting the 50% otherwise destroyed (or

even collecting broken machine) can be avoided– Savings values must be adjusted down to consider the fraction

of units that would have been destroyed, as standard practice, without the program.

2. Standard practice baseline should assume all clothes continue to be washed in washing machines– Workpaper assumes 50% of collected machine get 100%

savings thus assume those clothes are washed by hand.21

Standard Practice Baseline:Residential HVAC QI

• CalTF “consensus” was that non-permitted system replacements rarely, if ever, include additional treatments such as duct sealing or air-flow adjustment.– This leads to the use of “test-in” results from SCE QI program

data as the standard practice baseline

• This is not supported by WO32 non-participant sample, where 60% of sites had non-permitted HVAC replacements.– Observed system characteristics do not support use of the SCE

“test-in” results as the baseline– Observed results indicate that contractor action to address other

system faults or issues is the likely appropriate baseline22

Best Available Data:Not Always Adequate

Examples1. Commercial advanced powerstrips:

– The available field research, limited to a small group of university and college buildings, is not likely applicable to most other building types

– PAs not likely to pursue a program for universities and colleges only

2. RPP soundbar measure – Operating hours taken from PG&E sponsored Nielsen research

on television viewing hours which do not take into account any audio only usage

– May overestimate typical hours of standby mode and the savings estimates are derived from standby hours

23

Best Available Data:Not Always Comparable – Part 1

ExampleFor clothes washer recycling workpaper, measure and base energy use a mix of non-comparable values– Baseline (collected appliance): “Non-Energy Star”

appliances monitored in 2006-2008 evaluation– Measure (counterfactual appliance): From DOE

technical support document following DOE rating calculation methods

Research findings indicate that actual installed energy use is much higher than estimated following DOE methods – thus the estimated savings is inappropriately elevated.

24

Best Available Data:Not Always Comparable - Part 2

25

Clothes Washer Usage per Cycle

Total Electricity

Efficiency Class UEC Method Therm kWh Therm kWh kWh kWh ReferenceNon-ENERGY STAR Res Retrofit Findings - N/A - 0.03 0.58 0.14 3.66 0.21 4.45 Eval (Table 39)

CEE Tier 1 (2007-2008) Res Retrofit Findings 1.42 0.03 0.64 0.10 2.63 0.23 3.50 Eval (Table 39)CEE Tier 2 (2007-2008) Res Retrofit Findings 1.60 0.01 0.32 0.08 2.17 0.16 2.65 Eval (Table 39)

CEE Tier 3A (2006) CEE Minimum 1.80 NA NA NA NA NA NA Eval (Table 39)Res Retrofit Findings 1.80 0.02 0.52 0.09 2.31 0.15 2.98 Eval (Table 39)

Rated Use Front-Load 1.80 0.60 1.31 0.11 2.02 TSD-2 (Level 3)Res Retrofit Findings 2.20 0.01 0.31 0.09 2.38 0.21 2.90 Eval (Table 39)

Rated Use Front-Load 2.20 0.36 1.34 0.15 1.85 TSD-2 (Level 4)Mimimum Compliant Rated Use Top-Load 1.72 0.69 1.69 0.23 2.61 TSD-1 (Level 2)

ReferencesEval:

TSD-1:

TSD-2:

"Residential Retrofit High Impact Evaluation Report" prepared for The California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division, The Cadmus Group, Inc., February 2010"2012 Technical Support Document for Residential Clothes Washers," U.S. Department of Energy. See: "Chapter 7. Energy and Water Use Determination," Table 7.2.1"2012 Technical Support Document for Residential Clothes Washers," U.S. Department of Energy. See: "Chapter 7. Energy and Water Use Determination," Table 7.2.2

Minimum MEF

CEE Tier3 (2007-2008)

CEE Tier 3B (2006)

Watery Heating Fuel Use per Cycle

Dryer Fuel Usage per Cycle

Coordination and Timing Challenges

ExampleClothes washer recycling – adding water energy nexus benefits– Initial CPUC feedback in early 2015 directed the

removal of water energy benefits as not approvable– In September the CPUC D.15-09-023 included

provisions and direction including water energy benefits

This is an example of a challenge in keeping workpaper reviews on track but also allowing for the dynamic policy environment.

26