Experience you can trust. NJCEP Energy Impact Evaluation RFP No 07-X-38683 Miriam Goldberg and Ryan...
-
Upload
diane-johnson -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Experience you can trust. NJCEP Energy Impact Evaluation RFP No 07-X-38683 Miriam Goldberg and Ryan...
Experience you can trust.
NJCEP Energy Impact Evaluation
RFP No 07-X-38683Miriam Goldberg and Ryan Barry, KEMA.
David Carroll and Jackie Berger, APPRISE.New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
Newark, New Jersey
October 6, 2009
2
Overview of Presentation
Introduction Evaluation Objectives Programs Reviewed Allocation of Evaluation Resources Analysis Methods & Data Sources Evaluation Deliverables High Level Findings & Recommendations Questions
3
KEMA at a glance
Established in 1927, Arnhem, the Netherlands 1,900 professionals in 20 counties, 600 in North America
– Broad, deep bench of industry SMEs Annual revenues of €227 million
Independent experts to the global energy industry Independent experts to the global energy industry
4
KEMA’s global consulting practice Our mission:
– Addressing the complex multi-dimensional nature of energy industry challenges.
Bridging the gap between strategists and implementers; between engineers and accountants.
Business Process
Technology Systems
ProgramManagement
Advancing processes & technology to do more for the industryAdvancing processes & technology to do more for the industry
Sustainable Market Strategies– Energy Efficiency,
Renewable Energy, Demand Response
– Research, Planning & Evaluation
– ~110 US professional staff
5
Evaluation Teammates
Princeton based APPRISE is a nonprofit research institute dedicated to collecting and analyzing data and information to assess and improve public programs.
Princeton based Braun Research Marketing and Public Opinion Research firm
NJCEP Evaluation Roles
– Residential New Construction Program Evaluation
– Data transfer from utilities for all program areas
NJCEP Evaluation Roles
– Administered four participant questionnaires
Residential HVAC
ENERGY STAR Products
SmartStart Buildings
CORE
6
Project TeamOffice of Clean Energy
Miriam GoldbergPrincipal-in-Charge
Ryan BarryProject Manager
ENERGY STAR Products - CFL
Residential HVAC
Kathleen GaffneyJeremiah Robinson, PE
SmartStart Buildings
Combined Heat & Power
Rick FioravantiJessica Harrison
Tammy Kuiken, PEJeremiah Robinson, PE
Ken AgnewBrian Dunn, PE
Residential New Construction
(APPRISE)
David CarrollJackie Berger
CORE - PV
Brian Dunn, PEDoug Kneale
7
Programs Reviewed
1. WARM Advantage and COOL Advantage2. Residential New Construction3. Residential Lighting – CFL4. SmartStart Buildings5. Combined Heat and Power6. Customer On-site Renewable Energy – PV
8
Evaluation Objectives
Prospective Assessment– To revise the savings calculation Protocols so that
going forward the calculations using these Protocols provide more accurate statements of savings accomplishments. Protocols to Measure Resource Savings 2007
9
Evaluation Objectives – cont.
Retrospective Assessment– To provide a retrospective assessment of program
accomplishment, as part of a due diligence review of past utility program effectiveness on behalf of ratepayers.
10
Evaluation Timeline
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Period Under Evaluation
Evaluation Kick-Off Meeting
NJCEP Work Plan Approval
CORE Work Plan Approval
Final Presentation
Transition to Market Managers
OCE assumes role of NJCEP Administrator
RFPs to hire Market Managers
12
Evaluation Methods Selection for Each Program Estimated program savings magnitude relative to
the total for the portfolio included in the evaluation Program expenditures relative to the total for the
portfolio included in the evaluation Nature of uncertainties in the protocol savings
estimates and their potential effect on net savings Quality and applicability of existing studies Total evaluation budget
13
Allocation of Evaluation Resources
Electric Savings
Gas Savings Expenditures
Residential HVAC 6% 39% 18% 12%Residential New Construction 2% 36% 19% 12%ENERGY STAR Products/Lighting 17% 0% 5% 10%SmartStart 71% 25% 30% 30%Combined Heat & Power 1% 0% 0% 5%Customer On-Site Renewable Energy 4% 0% 26% 30%
Program Area
Fraction of Evaluation Portfolio Fraction of Evaluation
Budget
Evaluation Budget: $857,680
~0.1% of program budget
14
Program & Utility Provided Data
OCE
6 Program Areas
6 Program Years
(2001-2006)
• Program Tracking Databases (electronic & hard-copy)
• Customer Usage Data
Electric & GasUtilities
Market Managers
Contractors
15
Analysis Methods & Data Sources
Data requirements for the selected methods were significant.
Analaysis Methods Data/Input SourceResidential
HVAC
Residential New
Construction
ENERGY STAR
Products/Lighting
SmartStart Buildings
Combined Heat & Power
Customer On-Site
Renewable Energy
Engineering Analysis On-site data P P PEngineering Review of Energy Savings Calculations
Program records and secondary research
P P P PAnalysis of Prior Work Past NJ studies and data P P P P P PDatabase Review Tracking system databases P P P P P
KEMA's Proprietary ModelsTracking system databases, on-site data, survey research and consumption data
P
Billing/Consumption AnalysisConsumption data, weather data and survey research
P P
Survey AnalysisParticipant & nonparticipant surveys
P P P P P PInterview analysis Market actor interviews P PRatio Estimation
Tracking databases and participant surveys
P P
16
Evaluation Deliverables
7 Individual Program Reports– 2 SmartStart reports
Summary Report Summary of Recommendations Report Non-confidential Data Today’s Presentation
17
Summary of High LevelFindings & Recommendations NJCEP Overall and Each Program Area
– Prospective Results– Retrospective Results– Recommendations
18
NJCEP Overall
Continue with periodic independent reviews, such as this evaluation
Improve and expand the Protocol documentation Use consistent energy savings terminology across
measures OCE should consider conducting an impact
evaluation covering first three years of program under market manager model.
In general, the Protocols provide the Program with consistent and reasonable methods for estimating gross energy savings.
19
NJCEP Overall – cont.
Revise the current assumption that free ridership and spillover cancel each other out.
The program should develop a standard policy for the assignment of baseline efficiency levels for the purpose of calculating energy savings.
Improved program tracking is critical. KEMA understands the program has developed a statewide database following the period covered by this evaluation (2001-2006). The statewide tracking database should be reviewed by an independent party as soon as possible.
20
Residential HVAC
Source for Hour (EFLH) Estimate
Post-Program Cooling Usage (kWh)
Effective Full Load Hours (EFLH)
EFLH Confidence Interval (+/-, 90%)
Impact of Efficiency Improvement (kWh)
Protocols 1,500 600 409
17 341Impact Evaluation 1,252 501
Source for Hour (EFLH) Estimate
Post-Program Usage
(Therms)Equivalent Full Load
Hours (EFLH)
EFLH Confidence Interval
(+/-, 90%, Hours) Baseline CapacityImpact Relative to Standard (Therms)
Protocols 860 965 235Impact Evaluation 648 727 13 177
91,000
Gross saving estimates for both programs are lower due to decrease
Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH)
CoolAdvantage EFLH and savings drop 17%.
WarmAdvantage EFLH and savings drop 25%.
21
Residential HVAC – cont.
Lower EFLH estimate, if adopted in Protocols, will result in lower saving estimates.
CoolAdvantage Protocol savings for optimal installation and proper sizing are not supported by secondary sources.
Installation (QIV) and sizing savings are an important focus of future studies.
Peak period efficiency-related savings require additional study.
Recommendations made to update Protocol equations and input values.
22
Residential New Construction
ENERGY STAR Homes are meeting the electric and gas usage projections established by the REM/RateTM model.
It appears that nonparticipants had caught up with ENERGY STAR minimum by 2006.
It appears that higher rated homes are performing better than projected.
23
Residential New Construction – cont.
The program underwent a substantial upgrade in 2006/07.
The 2005/2006 program was using an older REM/Rate model.
Older REM/Rate models do not effectively model the impacts of energy efficient products and lighting on baseload.
Revise the Protocols with the understanding that nonparticipating homes perform at least at the 2006 ENERGY STAR minimum standards.
24
Residential Lighting - CFL
Fix conversion error in the kW savings algorithm (W to kW)
Estimated Free ridership 15%. Consistent with similar programs during the 2003-2005 timeframe.
Updated Protocol Algorithm Values
Variable Type Value Source
∆W Fixed 48.5 2009 New Jersey CFL Study
CFLhours Fixed 2.8 2009 New England Study
ISRCFL Fixed 83.4% 2009 New Jersey CFL Study
CF Fixed 9.9% 2007 New England Metering Study
25
Residential Lighting (CFL) – cont.
Peak Summer Usage CF Values from New England Study
Adjusted for New England peak period (1-5 PM) to the New Jersey peak period (1-8 PM) results in our recommended CF value of 9.9%.
26
SmartStart Buildings Program
Protocol Recommendations – Standard terminology and definitions– Team of 9 engineers reviewed:
Performance Lighting, Prescriptive Lighting, Lighting Controls, Motors, Electric HVAC Systems, Electric Chillers, Variable Frequency Drives, Air Compressors with
Variable Frequency Drives,
Gas Chillers (Absorption
Chillers), Gas Fired Desiccants, Gas Booster Water Heaters, Gas Water Heaters, Furnaces and Boilers, Compressed Air System
Optimization, and Custom Projects
27
SmartStart Buildings Program – cont.
Gross Savings Adjustment Factors
– Gross kW lower than kWh due to
error in Program’s calculation tool
– Gross therms lower than kWh
and kW due to decrease in one
large project.
KEMA recommends further NTG
research covering first 3 years of
implementation under the market
manager model.
Gross and Net Savings Adjustment Factors
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
kWh kW Therms
Energy Unit
Per
cen
tag
e
Gross Net
28
Combined Heat & Power 2 of the installations differed from those specified
in the applications.
Case 1:Nursing Home
Facility
Case 2:Large
Industrial Company
Case 3:Commercial
Food Processor
Case 4:Recreational/Athle
tic Center
Equipment Type
MicroturbineBackpressure Steam Turbine
MicroturbineReciprocating Gas
Engine
Equipment # 2 1 5 2
Per Unit Capacity
70kW 509kW 60kW 75kW
Equipment Cost
$357,000 $654,701 $750,000 $515,500
Incentive Amount
$107,000 $196,410 $225,000 $150,000
Displaced Thermal Loads
- Heating- Service HW
NA- Chiller
- Service HW- Process HW
- Service HW- Pool
OperationRoughly full-time Roughly full-time Roughly full-time
Engine 1: 100% all yr;Engine 2: 100% for ½
yr
Notes: “NA” = Not applicable, “Roughly full-time” means operators were not baseloading operation in the past, and “HW” = hot water applications
Application: 60 kW
Application:
Gas Engine
1
260 kW
29
Combined Heat & Power – cont.
Protocol savings estimates should continue to be performed on an individual basis. – Information collected during the post-installation visit
should be used rather than the application data. KEMA supports two post-evaluation period program
updates:– Post-installation inspections with all CHP installations;
and– Participants are required to provide the program with key
information about the system design and operation after installation.
30
Customer On-site Renewable Energy
Gross and Net Adjustment Factors
Customer Segment
Gross Net
kWh kW kWh kW
All 96% 100% 71% 70%
Res REIP Eligible 89% 100% 94% 89%
Res REIP Ineligible 89% 100% 90% 84%
Nonres REIP Eligible 84% 93% 96% 91%
Nonres REIP Ineligible 106% 101% 46% 47%
31
CORE – cont. Recommend continued use of PVWatts to calculate
energy production and discontinue its deemed value method for purposes of reporting energy production to the BPU.
Recommend two additions to the PVWatts calculation methodology:– separate PVWatts calculations for arrays at same site with
different tilt angles, orientations, or shading levels; and– incorporate a shading factor.
Several recommendations were made with regards to the calculation of peak demand (kW).
33
Residential HVAC – appendixSummary of Protocol Recommendations
Component Value or Equation Component Value or Equation
EFLHC(Cooling Equivalent Full Load Hours)
600 Hours EFLHC 501 Hours
PSF (Proper Sizing Factor)5% of post program usage or
demand
QIF (Quality Installation Factor)15% of post program usage or
demand
Cooling Energy Savings for Proper Sizing (Eq. 5)
Cooling Energy Savings for Quality Installation Verification (Eq. 7)
Cooling Energy Savings for Proper Sizing (Eq. 6)
Cooling Energy Savings for Quality Installation Verification (Eq. 8)
EFLHH (Heating Equivalent Full Load Hours)
2250 Hours (Heat pump),965 Hours (Furnace or boiler) EFLHH 727 Hours
CAPYT (Output capacity of typical heating unit, in Btu/hr) 91,000 Btu/hr CAPYT CAPYQ
Heating Gas Savings (Eq. 22)Heating Gas Savings with
baseline typical capacity equal to new capacity.
BWHU (Annual Baseline Water Heater Usage, in therms) 212 therms BWHU 180 therms
ESF (Energy savings factor) DSF (Demand savings factor)
Cooling Energy Savings for Proper Sizing and QIV.
Cooling Demand Savings for Proper Sizing and QIV.
2007 Protocol Recommended
9.2% of post program usage or demand
PSFkWhkWh QP *
QIFPSFkWhkWh QV *1* ESFkWhkWh QP *
PSFkWkW QP *
QIFPSFkWkW QV *1* DSFkWkW QP *
H
Q
Q
B
T
S
EFLHBtu
therm
AFUE
CAPY
AFUE
CAPY
TH
*000,100
1
*
H
Q
Q
B
Q
S
EFLHBtu
therm
AFUE
CAPY
AFUE
CAPY
TH
*000,100
1
*