REACh Evauation Report Oct 2010

8/8/2019 REACh Evauation Report Oct 2010

1/87

Maine REACh Project Evaluation

Testing the Energy Savings Outcomes of New Technologies

Presented to MaineHousing

October 2010

The Residential Energy Assistance Challenge Option Program (REACh) is a competitivegrant program funded by the federal Office of Community Services (OCS) within the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Prepared by: John M. Joseph, PhD, John Reuthe, & Stephen Turner, PhD

Joseph Associates, Inc.

Hallowell, Maine


2/87

2

Table of Contents

Foreword .................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4

Purpose of the Evaluation ..................................................................................................4

I. Project Overview ..................................................................................................... 5

Service Delivery Plan ..........................................................................................................6

II. Evaluation Methodology ......................................................................................... 8

The Logic Model .................................................................................................................8

III. Immediate Outcomes & Process Evaluation .......................................................... 12

Average Direct Cost of REACh IV EURMs ........................................................................... 13

Implementation of EURMs ...............................................................................................13

Solar Hot Water .................................................................................................................... 14

Backup Configurations .......................................................................................................... 15

Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps ........................................................................................ 18

Cold Climate Heat Pumps ..................................................................................................... 21Small Wind Turbines ............................................................................................................. 22

IV. Intermediate Outcomes ....................................................................................... 26

Measurement and Verification (M&V) Methodology ........................................................ 27

Deemed Savings Analysis ...................................................................................................... 27

Energy Billing Analysis .......................................................................................................... 27

Data Loggers and Onsite Monitoring .................................................................................... 28

Data Preparation and Sample Size ....................................................................................... 29


Solar Hot Water .................................................................................................................... 33

Cold Climate/All Climate Heat Pumps .................................................................................. 35

Small Wind Turbines ............................................................................................................. 37

V. Summary of Findings and Recommendations ........................................................ 42

Outcomes Evaluation Summary ........................................................................................42


Cold Climate Heat Pump Technologies ................................................................................. 43

Solar Hot Water .................................................................................................................... 43

Small Wind Turbines ............................................................................................................. 43

Process Evaluation Summary ............................................................................................44

Appendix I: Solar Hot Water Site Review ................................................................... 46

Appendix II: Interim Impact Evaluation Report II ....................................................... 59Client Interviews ..............................................................................................................66

Data Loggers Deployment Plan ............................................................................................. 71

Appendix III: Questionnaire for Basement Hot Water Heat Pump Clients ................... 75

Appendix IV: Data Logger Schematics ........................................................................ 79

Appendix V: Colby Intern Job Description .................................................................. 82

Appendix VI: Hallowell All Climate Heat Pump Brochure ........................................... 86


3/87

3

Foreword

The authors would like to thank the staff at Maine State Housing Authority(MaineHousing) and at the Community Action Agencies (CAAs) who providedinformation and insight throughout the project. We would also like to thank theequipment manufacturers, vendors, and installers as well as the many LIHEAP Maineclients who participated in this study for their cooperation and assistance. Thedocumented outcomes would not have been possible without the cooperation and supportof Central Maine Power Company and Bangor Hydroelectric in providing monthlybilling data for participating clients.

The Reach Program is designed to help identify alternative programs or individualmeasures that can be effectively implemented to lower the energy burden on clientsreceiving energy assistance under the LIHEAP program. Our evaluation concludes thatthe 2007 Maine Reach Project does in fact make a significant contribution in helping toempirically sort through a rather broad range of alternatives measures by ranking eachaccording to their energy savings and cost-effectiveness as derived from field testing.

This report provides sample statistics only; it does not attest to the statistical validity ofthose statistics as predictors of the entire population. The reader should also note that theauthors have rounded to the nearest whole numbers in calculations of averages and totals,even though the individual observations may have two or more decimal places that arenot shown in the published tables. Therefore, the reader may find some slight differencesin calculating average or totals based on the published individual observations.


4/87

4

Introduction

Purpose of the EvaluationThe Residential Energy Assistance Challenge Option Program (REACh) is a competitivegrant program funded by the federal Office of Community Services (OCS) within the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The REACh pilot projects areintended to help identify and test effective alternative means for low-income householdsto reduce their energy costs and to increase energy self-sufficiency. The REACh programis authorized under Section 2607B of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program(LIHEAP) of 1981 as amended. As described in authorizing legislation, the purpose ofthe REACh Program is to:

Minimize health and safety risks that result from high-energy burdens on low-income Americans;

Prevent homelessness as a result of inability to pay energy bills; Increase efficiency of energy usage by low-income families; and

Target energy assistance to individuals who are most in need.

The REACh Program Opportunity Notice OCS-97-04, Part I, Sec. C, Purpose (FederalRegister, Monday, May 5, 1997, page 24455) states: OCS will support a limitednumber of innovative Pilot Projects that seek to demonstrate the long term costeffectiveness of supplementing energy assistance payments with non-monetary benefitsthat can increase the ability of eligible households to meet energy costs and help them toachieve energy self-sufficiency.

MaineHousing, in collaboration with two community action agencies, applied for andreceived the REACh IV competitive grant. MaineHousing administers both the Low

Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the DOE WeatherizationAssistance Program (WAP) in Maine. The delivery system for REACh IV service wasbuilt on an existing collaboration between these two programs and the existingMaineHousing processes, utilizing both LIHEAP and WAP staff at the respectiveagencies and the existing MaineHousing project staffing strategies. The REACh serviceswere delivered jointly by Kennebec Valley Community Action Program (KVCAP) andWashington Hancock Community Action (WHCA), who, together with the eightremaining Maine Community Action Agencies, manage client services for LIHEAP andWAP throughout Maine.

The design of the REACh IV project was influenced by the findings of prior REACh

projects and by the OCS rule that each new state grant application grant must test theeffectiveness of new and different activities; the program is not intended to implementproven ways but to continue to try new ways. REACh is designed to test and comparealternative innovative approaches; strong emphasis is placed on meaningful independentevaluations of these alternative approaches to achieving increased energy self-sufficiencyin the low-income community. All REACh projects include provisions for third partyevaluations. The findings of these evaluations are intended to assist in future programplanning and design.


5/87

5

I. Project Overview

In August 2001, the Government Accountability Office (or GAO; formerly the GeneralAccounting Office) reviewed the effectiveness of the REACh Program and published areport titledResidential Energy Assistance: Effectiveness of Demonstration Program asYet Undetermined. The report identifies three performance goals for individual REAChProjects:

1. Reduce energy cost of participating households;2. Increase the regularity of home energy bill payment; and3. Increase energy suppliers contribution to reduce eligible households energy

burdens.

The GAO report described the program succinctly:

The Congress established the REACh program, which provides grants that funddemonstration projects, to test various approaches to help low-income families reducetheir energy usage and become more self-sufficient in meeting their home energy needs.In a sense, the REACh program serves as a laboratory for identifying better ways toensure that low income families can afford home-heating and cooling.

The activities of the Maine REACh IV project are intended to contribute directly toperformance goal number 1 (Reduce energy cost of participating households) and,indirectly, as a result of cost reduction, to goals 2 and 3. The goal of this evaluation is todetermine the effectiveness of the program activities and methods applied to achieve

these performance goals.

The REACH IV project broadened the scope of activities that comprise the normalenergy services provided to the low- income community in Maine to include theinstallation of a diverse range of technologies that were new to the program, and somewere innovative in their own right. These non-traditional or emerging technologies (someof which might be considered early adopters Rogers classification illustration below).Solar hot water, wind generators, cold climate heat pumps, and basement hot water heatpumps were chosen for their potential to deliver cost-effective energy efficiency savingsin Maines cold climate. It was strictly required that all equipment installed have thenecessary approvals from UL and that all installers be licensed technicians.

This broadened scope was consistent with REACh, as a laboratory for identifying better

way to ensure that low income families can afford home heating and cooling. and inkeeping with its low overhead approach; MaineHousing intentionally used its existingmanagement and businesses processes to manage the implementation of REACH IV.Combining new technology and existing management approaches may need to bereconsidered for future such implementations as this strategy created challenges for theexisting service delivery process.


6/87

6

Rogers Classification

Source: Impact Evaluation Framework for Technology Deployment Programs, John H. Reed, et al, U.S.

Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, July 2007.

Rogers, Everett.Diffusion of Innovation: Fifth Edition. New York: New York Free Press,2003.

Service Delivery PlanThe service delivery plan was designed around a three-tiered project methodology, whichhas been an effective approach for other REACh projects in Maine. The methodologybuilds on the existing energy service delivery systems now in place where MaineHousingadministers low-income energy programs in collaboration with the community actionagencies that directly provide energy services to low-income clients. The methodologydescribed in the grant application and planning documents is summarized in thefollowing three tiers of activities:

Tier 1: Energy Efficiency Education

Energy education will be provided to approximately 200 eligible households that agree toparticipate. Energy education will take place in clients homes where it can be tailored tofulfill each households individual circumstances.

Tier 2: Household Energy Audits

Comprehensive energy audits will be performed on these units as appropriate at the sametime that energy efficiency education is provided. The results of these audits, along with

consideration of clients lifestyles, will be used to determine energy usage reductionmeasures for the household. Auditors will also recommend energy conservation activitiesfor clients to carry out on their own. In addition to the tasks recommended in the existingaudit system (MEAFF and MEADOW), each home will be assessed for the uniqueenergy use reduction methods specific to this REACH project.


7/87

7

Tier 3: Energy Use Reduction Measures (EURM)

Energy use reduction measures will be implemented in homes where the energy auditsand other site specific assessments indicate the measures are likely to meet specific goals.Such measures will include: compact fluorescent lamps, solar hot water, wind generators,cold climate heat pumps, and basement hot water heat pumps. The Pan-Tech Air-FuelReformer technology was originally included in the new technology to be tested in

REACh IV, but this decision was reversed based upon research indicating that the Pan-Tech equipment would not be available for commercial deployment in the requiredtimeframe.

The following diagram offers a graphic illustration of flow of services to clients in theREACh IV project.

Energy education, DOE weatherization services, CFL replacement, refrigeratorreplacement, and energy audits are all included in the core of the existing delivery systemfor low-income energy programs in Maine. The new technologies (solar hot water, windgenerators, cold climate heat pumps, and basement hot water heat pumps) are potentiallyeffective emerging technologies that if proven effective can be to be utilized in theseprograms. These new and diverse technologies are beyond the scope of MaineHousingscurrent normal activities of the existing business process and as such all levels ofmanagement (MaineHousing, CAP agencies and MaineHousing contractors) had verylittle experience implementing these new technologies, In addition, the project included

additional complexity involving multifamily and well as single family housing in theclient base making direct comparison very difficult. Should MaineHousing engage withnew technologies in the future, special attention should be paid to the applicability of theexisting business, management and implementation strategies and their applicability tothese new and diverse technologies (at least until on-the-ground experience is in place).

Given all of these other variables, this report emphasizes outcomes evaluation andfocuses primarily on the effectiveness of these new technologies in meeting programgoals.

Energy Education

Energy AuditsCFLs and

ReplacementDOE

Weatherization

WindGenerators

Cold ClimateHeat Pumps

& All ClimateHeat Pumps

Hot-WaterHeat PumpSolar Hot

Water Systems

RefrigeratorReplacement


8/87

8

II. Evaluation Methodology

Perhaps the imperative for conducting evaluation is best described by John KennethGalbraith and William Edwards Deming: Things that are measured tend to improve.

According to the Energy Efficiency Evaluation Guide1

The Logic Model

, which providesprotocols to coverimpact, process, and market effect evaluations as wells as codes and standards andemerging technology program evaluations, and evaluation budgets, there are threedifferent types of evaluations conducted for energy efficiency programs:

Impact evaluations determine the impacts (e.g., energy and demand savings) and co-benefits (e.g., avoided emissions, health benefits, job creation, energy security,transmission/distribution benefits, and water savings) that directly result from a program.Impact evaluations also support cost-effectiveness analyses aimed at identifying relativeprogram costs and benefits.

Process evaluations assess program delivery, from design to implementation, in order toidentify bottlenecks, efficiencies, what worked, what did not work, constraints, andpotential improvements. Timeliness in identifying opportunities for improvement isessential to making corrections along the way.

Market effects evaluations estimate a programs influence on encouraging future energyefficiency projects because of changes in the energy marketplace. These evaluations areprimarily, but not exclusively, used for programs with market transformation elementsand objectives.

This report is primarily an outcomes evaluation with a secondary focus on process

evaluation. The important lessons learned regarding the process affecting the outcomesare included. The market effects evaluation is of secondary importance to this program asthe client energy efficiency services are provided free of charge.

The goal of the outcomes evaluation is to determine whether the Maine REACh IVproject activities made a significant difference to the client population in lowering thecost of energy in low income homes. Cost effectiveness of each energy efficiencymeasure is assessed. The Logic Model provides the framework for the Maine REACh IVOutcomes Evaluation.

If you dont know where youre going, how are you gonna know when you get there?Yogi Berra

This evaluation utilizes the logic model methodology, specifically recommended by OCSat evaluator conferences. The logic model links outcomes (both short- and long-term)with program activities/processes. The simple logic model flow diagram below illustrateshow findings are organized as activities, immediate outcomes, intermediate outcomes and

1 Energy Efficiency Evaluation Guide, cal.


9/87

9

long-term impacts. The general methodology of the logic model is in the Logic ModelDevelopment Guide, published by the Kellogg Foundation.

Appendix I of this report presents the project Evaluation Plan, including the logic modelwhich specifically identifies the indicators used to verify that the outcomes achieved thepurposes and goals stated in Section 2607B of the Low Income Home Energy AssistanceProgram. This Evaluation Plan was devised at the outset of the project and is illustratedbelow as a graphic illustration of the program logic as the resources and activities flowinto outcomes.

Activities Immediate

OutcomesIntermediate

OutcomesLong-Term Impacts

We expect toundertake thefollowingtasks toaccomplishthe goals ofthe project.

We expect thefollowing numberof services/interventions willbe accomplishedand delivered toclients.

We expect the servicesand interventions willlead to the energysavings and a reducedcost of living for theclients. (1-3 years)

We expect that thehouseholds will becomemore energy self-sufficientand less reliant on externalsupport. We expect theeconomic savings toinvestments ratios will begreater than one. (4-8 years)


10/87

10

The annual cost of domesticenergy for electric and oil for

low income families can bereduced between 10% to 50%through the following programactivities:

1. Energy Education &self help2. Energy Audits3. Small wind systems4. Solar hot water5. Cold climate heat pumps6. Full CFL replacements

Assumptions

Resources Actviites Outputs Outcomes Impact on NationalPerformance

Goals

CAP Staff

MaineHousingStaff

Contractors

Clients

Provide EnergyEducation

Conduct EnergyAudits

PlanERUM

Installation

Cold ClimateHeat Pumps

Installed

Hot Water HeatPumps Installed

Hot Water ColdClimate Heat

Pumps Installed

Wind TurbinesInstalled

Energy Savings

Change in ClientBehavior/Actions

Economic Returnon Investment

Reducedenergy cost forparticipating

households

Increasedcontributionsfrom energysuppliers to

reduce energyburdens

Improvedenergy billpayment

Maine Reach ProjectLogic Model Graphic

Identify Clients

Install ERUMsSolar Hot Water

Installed

CFLs Installed

Increased ClientKnowledge

$1.1 M budget


11/87

11

The Logic Model Summary Table lists the project assumptions and program activitiesand provides a quantification of the expected outcomes intended to meet the projectgoals. The summary table was developed during the project planning phase. This logicmodel serves as the framework for outcomes evaluation..

Logic Model Summary Table

Assumptions Program Activities Outcomes

In Maine, LIHEAPeligible households spend,on average, adisproportionate amountof their annual householdincomes on energy needs(20%) in comparison tomedian incomehouseholds which, onaverage, spend less than5% of annual income on

energy needs.

The annual cost ofdomestic energy forelectric and oil for lowincome families can bereduced between 10% to50% through thefollowing programactivities:

Energy Education,including self help

energy audits,small wind systems,solar hot water,cold climate heat pumps,full CFL replacements

Tier 11. Delivery of on-siteeducation around low-cost energy conservationand education materialswith a focus on self-helpenergy reductionmeasures.

Tier 22. Provision ofhousehold energy audits

to result in specificconservation measuresand/or referrals to otherprograms such asWeatherization.

Tier 33. Provision of EnergyUsage ReductionMeasures (EURMs).The number andselection of specificEURMs will be

determined by theenergy audit. EURMswill include small windsystem, solar hot water(for large families withchildren), cold climateheat pumps, and fullCFL replacements

Immediate Outcomes

The project will provide 200 household clients withenergy education and intake, onsite in client homes.

All 200 households will receive electric outletgaskets, storm window kits, full replacement withCFLs, and caulking of windows and doors frames asneeded.

Energy audits will be conducted for up to 200 targetedhouseholds.

The EURMs will include:2 residential locations will receive wind turbineinstallations.10 solar hot-water heaters60 basement hot-water heat pumps were installed.10-15 cold climate heat pumps for space heating willbe installed

Intermediate Outcomes

Client households will demonstrate improvedknowledge around self-help energy conservationmeasures and will report implementation of three ormore measures.

An overall reduction of from 10% to 50% in theannual costs for energy in participating households.

Final Program Goals1. Decreased negative impacts on low-incomefamilies from rate increases2. Cost effectiveness of all measures should result inSIRs greater than 1.3. To increase the ability of low-income LIHEAPhouseholds to meet their energy consumption costobligations.4. To move clients toward energy self-sufficiency byreducing their energy cost burden.


12/87

12

III. Immediate Outcomes & Process Evaluation

The immediate outcomes are measured by the number of Energy Use ReductionMeasures (EURMs) delivered to LIHEAP clients via the REACh IV project.

EURM Services Number of EURMs ProvidedKVCAP WHCA MHDirect

Total

Refrigerator Replacement 20 15 2 37

Solar Hot Water 10 10

Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps 33 25 58

Cold Climate Heat Pumps 8 7 15

All Climate Heat Pump 2 2

Single Family Wind Generator 2 2

Multi Family Elderly Wind Generator 1 1

CFL Replacements Only 8 3 1 12

Totals 71 50 13 134

This table illustrates the very broad range of the eight EURMs that were implementedthrough this project. Other than the Refrigerator Replacement program and CompactFluorescent Lamps (CFL) Replacement program, the other six EURMs can all becharacterized as newly emerging technologies. This immediate outcomes evaluationfocuses on the six emerging technologies and addresses the quantity and quality of these

outcomes.

Since REACh was intended as a laboratory for innovative approaches, this project

provided a good opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of new technologies designedto reduce energy use in the low-income sector. However, the level of knowledge andorganizational challenges required to implement such a broad range of new technologiesis formidable. The strategy of keeping overhead low by using existing staff and processesat all levels combined with the complexity of these six technologies proved ineffective.With the lack of expertise at the CAA level, MH took over many of the functions. At thesame time, MH had only limited experience in the implementation of these technologiesand attempted to implement those technologies with their existing managementprocesses.

As the project proceeded, the challenges of implementing multiple new technologies

became evident and the project was modified to focus specifically on delivering theEURMs. The initial plan to combine energy audits with all EURMs was limited to anassessment to identify the appropriate homes in which to install the equipment, and anyenergy education that was provided focused on the new technology. Implementation teamresources were absorbed with the challenge of the new technologies and focused allresources on Tier 3 activities.

The implementation process was further complicated by the very wide geographicdistribution of the installations throughout Kennebec, Washington, and Hancock


13/87

13

counties. Field-testing a wide array of new technologies deployed across a largegeographic area became the most challenging task for both the implementation team andthe evaluation team. The limited staff knowledge, lack of established business processesfor these technologies, and lack of established contractor networks for implementationfurther added to the challenges for the implementation team.

In spite of these challenges, 135 EURMs were installed for eight different technologiesacross Central and Eastern Maine resulting is important findings.

Average Direct Cost of REACh IV EURMsAll of the REACh EURMs were installed by independent contractors. The average directcost includes materials and labor to install the equipment in the client homes. It does notinclude any MaineHousing or CAA staff time in identifying clients and managing theproject. For the solar hot water and the basement hot water heat pumps, the costs are atleast 25% less that the current pricing for these technologies. The other four EURMswere purchased at market prices. The agency negotiated quantity discounts from theSolar Hot Water and Basement Heat Pump vendors.

REACh IV Technologies

EURMs

Per Unit Direct Cost

KVCAP WHCA MHDirect

Solar Hot Water $7,500

Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps $750 $750

Cold Climate Heat Pumps $8,091 $11,097

Single Family Wind $12,500

Multi Family Wind $65,000

Implementation of EURMsAs discussed above, since the CAAs have limited experience in these technologies and,the implementation process was new, including site assessment, installation contractorrelationships, and knowledge of the products, MaineHousing deployed its own staff inplace of the CAA staff for many site assessments. For many of the installations MH stafftook on the total project responsibilities and arranged for and paid installation contractorsdirectly (for example, Solar Hot Water EURM).

The eligible households receiving solar domestic hot-water services were initiallyscreened through the LIHEAP database of owner occupied single-family units. While the

MH staff was responsible for identifying solar clients, the CAAs assisted withinformation and recommendations. MH staff visited each prospective client to evaluatethe solar orientation and the structural characteristics of the buildings. After identifyingthat those dwellings satisfied the solar-project technical criteria (as well as the householdcharacteristics), MSHA staff met with each prospective client to explain the program,determine client interest in the project, and make a final determination.

A description of each EURM and a review of the implementation processes follow:


14/87

14

Solar Hot WaterThe heating of hot water is often the single most significant residential energy demandfactor after space heating. According to the US DOE, water heating can account for 14%-25% of home energy consumption. Solar hot water technology is proven throughexperience and testing to be an effective and reliable technology. According to the Officeof Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at the US Department of Energy,

solar hot water systems will have an estimated savings rate of 50%-80% on the use ofenergy for hot water:

The Economics of a Solar Water Heater

The paragraph below is quoted from web site below:http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12860

Solar water heating systems usually cost more to purchase and install

than conventional water heating systems. However, a solar waterheater can usually save you money in the long run. How much money

you save depends on the following: The amount of hot water you use Your system's performance Your geographic location and solar resource Available financing and incentives The cost of conventional fuels (natural gas, oil, and electricity) The cost of the fuel you use for your backup water heating

system, if you have one.

On average, if you install a solar water heater, your water heatingbills should drop 50%80%. Also, because the sun is free, you're

protected from future fuel shortages and price hikes.

Since the savings rate is highly dependent on your systems performance, criticalfactors include system design, the quality of the installation, and the level of subsequentmaintenance. The importance of these factors was validated through the implementationof this project.

System Design & Installation

The specific solar technology was chosen through discussions with the chosen solarvendor, Ascendant Energy, LLC, a Maine-based solar system designer and installer. Eachinstallation included one or more flat plate panels that collect the solar energy in the formof a heated fluid, which runs through the collector. The heated fluid is then pumped to a

heat exchanger, which transfers the heat to a hot water storage tank where the pre-heatedhot water is stored. This storage tank is equipped with a heating coil for backup, or thereis a second tank to provide the backup heat source. This system is designed to operate inall seasons regardless of temperature.

The solar system preheats the hot water, which is then supplemented by another source ofenergy to insure adequate hot water to meet the needs, regardless of weather. If the solarheated hot water is not adequate to meet the hot water demand because of the weather or
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12860http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12860http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12860http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12860http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12860


15/87

15

other factors, the backup heat source (in most installations, electricity) is activated,bringing the water up to the desired temperature. In essence, the solar system reduceselectrical demand but does not entirely eliminate it as the electricity acts as a booster inthe event of inadequate solar energy. There were some installations that used fossil fuelsas the hot water backup.

The evaluation team visited all solar sites and noted significant variations in theinstallation configurations as well the quality of the installations. A summary of thesevisits is presented here and a more detailed report on each site is presented in Appendix I:Solar Hot Water Site Review.

Backup ConfigurationsThere were three different configurations used to provide backup energy at the 10 solarhot water sites. The variation in performance among the systems could be influenced bythe design of these different configurations. The difference between the systems relates tothe way the solar pre-heated hot water is brought up to domestic hot water temperature,set at 120 degrees at all sites. The process of bringing the water up to 120 degrees in

referred to a backup in the diagrams below. In Configuration 1, the backup is performedin the 80 gallon storage tank using electricity. In Configuration 2, the backup isperformed in a 40 gallon tank using electricity. In Configuration 3, the backup isperformed with an oil fired boiler mate.

Configuration 1

Configuration 2

SolarPanel

HeatExchanger

80 gal. SHWStorage Tank

ElectricBack-up HotWater Tank

DomesticHot

WaterSystem

SolarPanel

HeatExchanger

80 gal.SHW

Storage

40 GalElectricBack-upWaterTank

DomesticHot

WaterSystem


16/87

16

Configuration 3

Site Visits

The household sizes for the solar installations range from four to six members perhousehold. The number of collectors ranges from one to three, and the tank sizes rangefrom 60 to 80 gallons. Each system is designed to accommodate the specific householdsize. The system designs were also constrained by the space available in the home for the

storage tank. Each installation included a new hot-water storage tank. Of the ten installedsystems, seven used electric backup and three used oil backup. The following tablesummarizes the configurations found at the 10 sites.

Solar Hot Water Site Visits

Installation Profiles

Town Config. Post

Backup

Energy

Pre

Energy

Source

Number of

Collectors

Size of

Storage

Tank

Household

Size

Rockland 1 Electric Electric 2 80 4

Benton 3 Oil Oil 2 80 5

Belgrade 1 Electric Electric 2 80 6Randolph 2 Electric Electric 2 80 4

Franklin 1 Oil Electric 2 80 5

Clinton 2 Electric Electric 2 80 5

S. Gardiner 1 Electric Electric 2 80 4

Union 1 Oil Electric 2 120 5

Warren 1 Electric Electric 2 80 4

Warren 1 Electric Electric 2 80 5

The quality of installation in terms of craftsmanship of the solar thermal hot watersystems is critical to performance and maintainability. Unobstructed access to sunlight isthe most critical factor; the panels need to be in full sun for optimal performance. Theorientation of the panel relative to the location of the sun is also a determining factoraffecting performance. Because of the tilt of the earth, the optimal orientation depends onthe geographic location of the system. The following table provides guidance from DOEfor an optimal tilt for a flat panel installation in Portland, Maine, set at the latitude of43.65N. An optimal orientation is 180 or solar south. Many installers in Maine will

orient the panels for maximum solar exposure during the winter, which would be 65 tilt

and 200 orientation. This also helps shed snow buildup.

SolarPanel

HeatExchanger

80 gal.SHW

Storage

Boiler MateOil FiredBack-up

Domestic HotWaterSystem


17/87

17


18/87

18

The Panel Orientation and Tilt table presents data from site visits and reveals a widediscrepancy in the orientation and tilt of the installations. This variation in orientation andtilt, particularly the Union unit installed with a tilt of 90, has a significant influence onthe outcomes of each installation. The FieldNotes column in this table also lists factorsinfluencing the performance of the systems.2

Panel Orientation and Tilt

Of particular importance is the Warreninstallation, which is shaded, eliminating solar access during the very important summer

months. Appendix A of this report goes into more and illustrates why many homeownerscomplained about lack of service for their systems. It was reported to the evaluation teamthat the vendor did not respond to complaints.

Town Panel

Orientation

Panel

Tilt

Workmanship

(1-10) ranking

Field Notes

Rockland 210 35 8

Benton 180 33 5 Panels installed upside

down but corrected.Belgrade 110 22 2 Out of spec orientation, one

panel is sliding off roof

Randolph 180 14 5 Interior damage to houseOut of Spec orientation

Franklin 110 33 5 Out of spec orientation.Replaced Boiler Mate withelectric unit

Clinton 165 45 5 Interior damage to house

S. Gardiner 201 14 6 Replaced new 40 galelectric with 80 gal unit

Union 220 90 2 Out of spec orientation.Removed efficient Boilermate and replaced with verylarge electric backup tank

Warren 150 23 5 Trees shadowing house

Warren 180 45 10 Best install and acceptableresults

Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps

The basement hot water heat pump technology was developed as a commercial product inthe state of Maine; the successful commercialization of this product provides the potentialfor job creation in the design, manufacturing, and installation of the equipment. Thebasement hot water heat pump (BHWHP) is designed to reduce the amount of energyused to heat domestic hot water. It is similar to thermal solar hot water as it preheats hotwater, which is stored in a tank having another source of backup energy to boost the

2 Detail regarding the solar installations is found in Appendix I: Solar Hot Water Site Visit Review. Theevaluation team visited each solar site.


19/87

19

water to the required temperature. The technology can be used with gas, oil, propane orsolar hot water systems; however, the most cost-effective application of the technology isexpected to be as a replacement for or an add-on to conventional electric hot water tanks.

A heat pump is device that moves heat from one location (the source) to anotherlocation (the sink or heat sink) using mechanical energy; it is essentially a

compressor, similar to a refrigerator, which removes heat from inside of the refrigeratorinto the room. Common examples of heat pumps are refrigerators, freezers, airconditioners, and reversible-cycle heat pumps for providing thermal comfort.

The Nyle Corporation from Brewer, Maine introduced the BHWHP to MaineHousing. Atthe time (2005) this technology had been commercialized by Nyle, but was not widelydeployed, and was little understood by the general public. The REACh project was anopportunity to evaluate an emerging promising technology.

Since that time the technology has become more mainstream, with General Electric nowmanufacturing and offering a new electric hot water tank, the GeoSpring Hybrid Water

Heater, with a heat pump as an integral component.

According to the General Electric Website(http://www.geappliances.com/products/water/water_heaters.htm#reasons):

The new GeoSpring hybrid water heater with heat pump technology can save youapproximately $320 per year in energy costs*. It is designed to provide hot water neededfor showers, dishes and laundry, while using up to 62% less energy than conventionalwater heaters!

This equipment has important spillover impacts that are very important for developing aprotocol for installation of this equipment:

Dehumidification Benefit: As a compressor, the BHWHP reduces the humidity of theair from which it is extracting heat. This can be a very significant benefit if installed in abasement with excess moisture, especially during certain seasons of the year. This non-energy benefit can contribute to the important health and safety attributes of the home incases where mold and dampness are corrected. While recognizing this as a benefit, it isbeyond the scope of this report to quantify these dehumidification benefits. Werecommend that this be addressed in any installation protocols that might be considered.
http://www.geappliances.com/products/water/water_heaters.htm#reasonshttp://www.geappliances.com/products/water/water_heaters.htm#reasonshttp://www.geappliances.com/products/water/water_heaters.htm#reasonshttp://www.geappliances.com/heat-pump-hot-water-heater/http://www.geappliances.com/products/water/water_heaters.htm#reasons


20/87

20

Cooling Effect: Since the BHWHP is extracting heat from the ambient air around it, it isessentially performing a cooling function. This brings up the question of the net energyimpact of the system. While it is beyond the scope of this report to address the net energyimpact, this should be a very important consideration in choosing a specific place in thehome to install the device. Based on one specific site visit, we discovered that a BHWHPinstalled in the living space of an electrical heated home resulted in increased electric

usage. This is another important item to consider in an installation protocol.

System Design & Installation

During 2006 and 2007, 58 BHWHPs were installed Maine State Housing through theCommunity Action Programs in Kennebec County (KVCAP) and Hancock County(Hancock County Community Action Program). All BHWHPs in this project wereinstalled as add-ons to conventional electric hot water tanks. The BHWHP preheats thewater in the tank using heat pump technology.

The BHWHP removes heat from basement air to the heat sink or i.e., the hot water tank.While the heat pump technology uses electricity just as the electric hot water tank useselectricity to generate heat, the BHWHP is designed to use 50% less electrical energy toheat the same amount of hot water as the conventional hot water heater based uponelectrical resistance to generate hot water. This gain in efficiency conventional energyuse (1)/new device usage (.5) is referred to a coefficient of performance (COP), or 2 inthis example, and should result in a reduction of hot water heating costs by , for adeemed savings rate of 50%. Deemed savings rate is an energy efficiency evaluation termwhich refers to the saving rate claimed by the equipment supplier.

Site Visits

Most of the units were installed by Nyle Corporation, but in some cases Nyle chose tosubcontract the installation to a local plumber. Random site inspections of four sitesrevealed one standard installation configuration.


21/87

21

Some clients were not amenable to a site visit for various reasons:

Could not be bothered Work or other schedule conflicts with the evaluators schedule Home is no longer owned or occupied by the original client

As a group, the BHWHP installations were well designed and well implemented withsome exceptions. There were very few differences in the installations design anddeployment. The following list summarizes the relevant findings.3

In all the sites, the units had been placed in damp basements that neededdehumidifying.

Three of the sites used the existing electric hot water heater, but in one home, thehot water heater had been replaced by a new unit.

The BHWHP exhausted directly into the unheated basement space. With one exception to the above, the vent had been ducted into the basement level

and the exhaust temperature was 48 degrees. Because the basement was part ofthe living space, the BHWHP cooled the house. The client would raise thethermostat to compensate.

Two of the installations were very professionally installed by Nyle Corporationbut two more, also installed by Nyle Corporation, were sloppy in appearance.

One unit had a minor leak; the client tried to contact KVCAP but received noassistance.

One of the households visited experienced a 5% increase in its electric bill. Throughconversation and a later visit to this home, the site evaluators could not identify any non-BHWHP factors that could explain the increased bill, suggesting that the increase inelectrical costs were likely related to installation of BHWHP.

This split level home experienced a significant cooling as a result of the BHWHPinstallation. The site visit uncovered that the BHWHP was installed in the living space,reducing ambient temperatures in the living space. The evaluators determined that thetemperature of the air blowing from the BHWHP exhaust was measured at 48 degrees.As a result of this cold air blowing into the living space, the householder had increasedthe temperature of her electric heat, and, of course, her usage, to compensate for this colddraft. She also reported that she used the BHWHP as an air conditioner in the summer.This finding indicates the need for an installation protocol illustrating the conditionsunder which the equipment will perform to expectations.

Cold Climate Heat PumpsThe Cold Climate Heat Pump (CCHP) was developed by a Brewer, Maine company andhas been tested and used in the Southern states for heating and cooling of single-familyhomes. Presently there are two companies in Maine producing cold climate heat pumps:Nyltherm, Inc. and Hallowell, Inc.

3 More detail regarding the BHWHP is found in Appendix I: Basement Hot Water Heat Pump Site Review.The evaluation team visited each solar site.


22/87

22

Cold Climate Heat Pumps

Company Number

Installed

Nyltherm, Inc. 15

Hallowell, Inc. 2

Totals 17

System Design and Installation

The conventional heat pump has been used for heating and cooling in Southern states formany years. However, the conventional heat pump is rarely installed in the northernclimates because the efficiencies, measured by the COP, are known to drop dramaticallywhen the outdoor temperature falls below 30 degrees Fahrenheit. The Cold Climate HeatPump technology is designed to maintain high efficiencies even at very low temperatures.

The manufacturers literature indicates that the CCHP is the first heat pump thatmaintains high efficiency down to zero degrees Fahrenheit and below, and can reduceheating cost by 40%. In warmer months the CCHP can reduce cooling costs by 25%.

The units were installed as a redundant system to the existing heating system in eachresidence to insure the safety of clients in the event of a CCHP system malfunction. TheCCHP technology is still in a beta form. While it is UL approved, it has not yet beenmarket tested on a wide scale.

Site Visits

Site visits by the evaluation team found four of the CCHPs installed at the Winter HarborComplex were not used by the clients. These were shut off and the clients reverted toelectric resistance heat. Two reasons were given by the clients:

Too noisy (installed under the bedroom windows in each apartment) Does not save on costs of heating

Multiple attempts were made to improve sound and some improvement was made. Manyattempts were also made to address the problem of costs, including a more effective de-icing system. However, the clients perception is that the unit does not save on cost ascompared to electric resistance heat.

Small Wind TurbinesTwo different small wind configurations were implemented in this REACh project:

One 10kw generator was installed at a multifamily elderly housing complex Two 1.9 KW residential systems installed at single family home


23/87

23

10 KW System

The choice of this site was influenced by the attached US DOE Renewable EnergyLaboratory wind power graphic, indicating that the coastal zone of the State provides agood-to-outstanding-rated wind resource at 50 meters. The generator was connected tothe common space separate meter at the Mill Stream Elderly4

housing complex and a netmetering arrangement was established with Bangor Hydroelectric Company. The

common space meter included the laundry with electric hot water and drying. Analysis ofthe potential electric generation from the 10KW generator indicated that the expectedgeneration would not exceed the known electrical load on the common space meter, sothat net metering would capture all the savings for the housing complex. This allowed fora pass through of the saving to the housing complex, providing them the ability to lowerrental rates through net metering.

4 Click to observe the Bergey 10 KW wind turbine in motion at Winter Harbor:WinterHarborTurbine.

wmv


24/87

24

System DesignBased on this preliminary wind resource data, a 10kw wind turbine from the BergeyCorporation was specified for the project. The Turbine Performance Model provided byBergey was used to specify turbine size. It was installed at 100 feet elevation. The DOEdata served as the basis for estimating output.

WindCad Turbine Performance ModelBWC EXCEL-S, Grid - Intertie 2004, Version 3 Blades

Prepared For: Customer

Site Location: Customer Site

Data Source: Wind Map

Date: 7/7/2010

Inputs: Results:Ave. Wind (m/s) = 5.52 Hub Average Wind Speed (m/s) = 5.52

Weibull K = 1.8 Air Density Factor = -3%

Site Altitude (m) = 356 Average Output Power (kW) = 1.69

Wind Shear Exp. = 0.180 Daily Energy Output (kWh) = 40.7

Anem. Height (m) = 30 Annual Energy Output (kWh) = 14,838

Tower Height (m) = 30 Monthly Energy Output = 1,236

Turbulence Factor = 15.0% Percent Operating Time = 70.0%

Weibull Performance Calculations

Wind Speed Bin (m/s) Power (kW) Wind Probability (f) Net kW @ V

1 0.00 6.49% 0.000

2 0.00 10.30% 0.000

3 0.10 12.38% 0.012

4 0.35 12.98% 0.045

5 0.77 12.39% 0.096

6 1.32 11.02% 0.145

7 2.06 9.22% 0.190

8 2.96 7.32% 0.217

9 3.99 5.54% 0.22110 5.06 4.00% 0.203

11 6.29 2.78% 0.175

12 7.65 1.85% 0.142

13 8.96 1.19% 0.106

14 8.88 0.73% 0.065

15 8.55 0.44% 0.037

16 8.22 0.25% 0.021

17 7.85 0.14% 0.011

18 7.52 0.08% 0.006

19 7.15 0.04% 0.003

20 6.82 0.02% 0.001

2004, BWC Totals: 99.16% 1.694

Weibull Calculations:Wind speed probability is calculated as aWeibull curve defined by the average windspeed and a shape factor, K. To facilitatepiece-wise integration, the wind speedrange is broken down into "bins" of 1 m/s inwidth (Column 1). For each wind speed bin,instantaneous wind turbine power (W,Column 2)) is multiplied by the Weibull windspeed probability (f, Column 3). This crossproduct (Net W, Column 4) is the

contribution to average turbine power outputcontributed by wind speeds in that bin. Thesum of these contributions is the averagepower output of the turbine on a continuous,24 hour, basis.Best results are achieved using annual ormonthly average wind speeds. Use of dailyor hourly average speeds is notrecommended.

10 kW


25/87

25

Site Visits

Mill Stream Apartments, Winter Harbor, ME

The installation is very well executed. As noted in the Intermediate Outcomes section ofthis report, the energy generation was less than expected. This experience validates theemerging knowledge base for large and small wind installations: wind generation is verysite specific; the micro-climate can have a very large influence on outcomes.

Regarding operations, the turbine is designed to turn away from the wind and shut downduring strong gusts. This is a safety measure. However, this caused a loss of potentialproduction because it required a manual reset and the site is not serviced by on-sitemaintenance. At times it was over two weeks before the maintenance service arrived tocheck on the equipment. This problem is particularly troublesome because the shut-downoften takes place during period of stronger winds and higher production potential.

The installer for the system, John Rush of Evolo Energy Systems, told the evaluator thatBergey has since upgraded the inverter for their newer systems so that the inverter is nolonger affected by high gusts. He also stated that the amount of power actually

transmitted to Bangor Hydro over the past three years has been small (18470 KW),indicating that the unit has been offline a great deal of the time.

SkyStreamBoth SkyStream units were installed by All Seasons Home Improvement in Augusta,Maine. All Seasons is the Maine distributor for SkyStream home wind generator.Meredith Grieg was the manager of the project. These units were among the first thatSkyStream and All Seasons offered. In both cases, the windmills were rated at 1.9 KW.At one of the locations, a basement hot water heat pump was installed in conjunction with


26/87

26

the SkyStream wind turbine. Both systems were installed as grid-connected small powerproducers and transmitted directly into the grid through the clients electric meter,intended to benefit from new metering.

The SkyStream was designed for homes and small businesses. It was the first compact,user-friendly, all-inclusive wind generator (with controls and inverter built in) designed

to provide quiet, clean electricity in very low winds. It operates at a low RPM; thepromotional material states that, SkyStream is as quiet as the trees blowing in the wind.

Site Visits

At both locations, the units were located where their performance was limited byinconsistent winds and disturbance by nearby terrain, buildings or trees. In one locationthe SkyStream is located in a low, bowl-like area. A tower twice as high would berequired to place the turbine in clear laminar flow at both locations. Site selection provedto be a major issue for a number of reasons compounded by the tower height limitation of33 feet offered by SkyStream.

An additional issue caused considerable problems at the Cornville installation, where thequality of the wiring and the use of a subpanel created issues that were not easily foundand rectified. This inadequate wire gauge resulted in increased resistance and led to linelosses and electrical service issues. This was also the case at the Norridgewockinstallation.

The client complained about numerous electrical problems to All Seasons, who werediligent in their follow-up. It was also found that SkyStream does not recommendconnection to grid via a subpanel. These issues could be attributed to a lack of experienceon part both KVCAP and the dealer. The lack of a networked computer at the sites andlimited vendor monitoring and visits to these rural locations compounded the problems.

IV. Intermediate Outcomes

Intermediate outcomes are defined as the measurable reduction in energy usage resultingfrom the installation specific energy use reduction measure (EURM). REACh IVidentified the reduction of electrical energy consumption as the primary savingsobjective.. Electricity is the most costly heating energy source on a BTU basis, andtherefore is considered to be fertile ground for achieving cost-effective reductions inenergy burdens through efficiency improvements. When assessing the outcomes of hotwater EURMs, only residences that used electricity for hot water heating before and after

the installation were included in the analysis. When assessing the outcomes of heatingEURMs, only residences that used electricity as the primary heating source before andafter installation of the EURM, were included in the analysis. This methodology ofselecting only residences using electricity before and after the ERUM;s were installedallowed the evaluation of energy savings outcomes using evaluating electrical billinganalysis.


27/87

27

Measurement and Verification (M&V) MethodologyThe M&V methodology is at the core of intermediate outcomes evaluation as applied toestimating energy savings in the individual client residences. This evaluation consideredthree alternative methodologies: deemed savings analysis, energy billing analysis, and

onsite metering.Deemed Savings AnalysisA common, and easily applied, M&V methodology used in energy savings evaluations isto rely on deemed savings to quantify impacts of energy efficiency measures. Deemedsavings are rates of saving applied to energy efficiency measure, a priori, based on priorstudies and applied to the evaluation at hand. Deemed savings are used to stipulatesavings values for measures with well-known and independently documented savingsvalues. Examples are energy-efficient appliances such as washing machines, computerequipment and refrigerators, and lighting retrofit to projects with well-understoodoperating hours. The deemed savings are generally provided by the equipment suppliersbased on independent testing. For deemed savings to be a reliable methodology, it is

necessary that the measure be installed under the same conditions under which the testingwas done. In essence, using deemed savings does not provide an evaluation of theinstallation methods, and assumes they are accomplished according to standards.

In the case of the measures implemented in the REACh IV project, the technology wasnot well-known and well-understood, and the conditions in which it was installed did notnecessarily mirror the testing conditions. Since the measures installed in REACh IV arenew technologies to the program, the performance under program conditions is not wellunderstood, and the installation process is not well tested in the field by the implementingagency, the deemed saving approach is not an acceptable M&V methodology for ourpurposes. Evaluation Plan rejected the deemed savings approach as an appropriate

methodology and used a combination of energy billing analysis and onsite metering.

Energy Billing AnalysisThe analysis of billing data is the most common methodology for evaluating the impactof energy measures and programs where deemed savings rates are not appropriate. Theadvantage of the billing analysis is that the data is available, and is considered to behighly precise, as it is continuously metered at the residence. The goal of the billing dataanalysis is to evaluate the performance of the various REACh EURMs in saving KWHand dollars in client homes. Statistically significant summary statistics provide a usefulprediction of savings for future EURM installations. For most energy savings evaluationsbased on energy billing data, the objective is a sample that will provide results with a

90% confidence, plus or minus 10% precision.5

The drawback of the billing data analysis is that it measures total electrical usage in thehome, rather than the usage specifically associated with the energy use reductionmeasure. It is most useful in assessing the overall impact on the home but not the impact

5 Page D-4, Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide, A RESOURCE OF THENATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY, NOVEMBER 2007, this publication wasused to guide the methodology in this impact analysis.


28/87

28

of a specific EURM. However, the billing analysis, applying adjustments to capture otherknown load changes, can help validate the deemed savings. The billing data analysis ismost useful in situations where the EURM is designed to reduce the energy use for amajor component of home energy such as heating and hot water. Only EURMs targetinghome heating and hot water are subject to the billing analysis in this report. Thisevaluation applied energy billing analysis to all clients and also followed up with onsite

metering on a limited basis.

Energy billing analysis begins with a direct documentation of energy savings bycomparing energy use before and after implementation of an energy use reductionmeasure. Thus, the following equation applies for energy savings:

Energy savings = (baseline energy use) (reporting period energy use)6

Data Loggers and Onsite Monitoring

There are technical limitations presented by this methodology, depending on theevaluation objectives. The metered billing data measures total usage in the home for allconnected loads and will work well when the evaluation objective is to estimate overall

savings at the dwelling. However, if the objective is to isolate the energy savings of oneparticular measure such as the BHWHP, the utility bill methodology loses some precisionsince it is measuring total home electrical usage and not specifically the energy usage togenerate domestic hot water. With data from the LIHEAP database, we have taken stepsto determine whether any changes other than the EURM took place in the home that areexpected to affect energy usages such as family size, new electrical appliances, andinstallation quality. Supplemental information was collected from suppliers/installers,client phone surveys, and client site visits. Statistical and regression analysis of KWHs,usage billing data, and a series of other factors affecting usage, was conducted to testwhat non-EURM factors might have affected changes in electrical usage.

Early in the project it was determined that some method of logging performance directlyat the EURMs other than analyzing electrical utility billing data would be beneficial. Asdiscussed earlier, electrical billing usage data is a very powerful methodology but alsohas limitations, for example, it cannot account for changes in the household such as anew baby, children becoming teenagers, new or additional appliances, a home business,or anything else that might increase or decrease consumption.

Data loggers are expensive and require peripheral sensors such as thermal sensors or flowmeters. However, they are able precisely to determine such things as BTUs produced,KWHs needed to operate the EURM, real time performance and status of the system, etc.

Appendix IV includes schematics identifying the monitoring data points needed todetermine the energy saved of generated from the installed EURM. The evaluation teamdeveloped these schematics and had them reviewed Efficiency Maine staff.

Ideally, data loggers transmit data directly over the Internet to a central location wherethe data can be collected and analyzed. The alternative to transmitting gathered data overthe Internet would be the use of Secure Data (SD) memory cards. While technically

6 Page 4-1, ibid


29/87

29

perhaps more reliable than the Internet, this option does require that someone periodicallyremove the card, retrieve the information, and re-install the card. This method was usedin some locations when the Internet was not available or too costly.

Data loggers are relatively new devices specific to the alternative energy market. A newstartup Maine-based company called Brand Electronics had a promising data logger that

was also cost-effective. The decision was made to purchase their loggers. That proved tobe a problematic decision for the following reasons:

Brand Electronics shut down its Maine operation when, for financial reasons, itsowner had to take a full time position in the Midwest. He moved the fledglingcompany to Michigan.

Each logger was essentially handmade, with no manufacturing processes orcontrols. As a result, we experienced numerous failures that required constantattention.

Many times we thought data was being captured when, in fact, the logger was offline or malfunctioning. As a result we only received a fraction of the data that we

wanted. Some clients did not have Internet access or could not afford it, so although we

might have an ideal location from a EURM standpoint, it required an SD card.

The data sent over the Internet for the solar sites had to go to the BrandElectronics website, where they would download it and send it to us. This systemwas not timely or reliable.

While the Brand loggers were relatively inexpensive up front, the extra effort required tomaintain them proved to be costly and frustrating for the team. Brand Electronics has alsolost interest and is difficult to reach when help is needed. We were able to accomplishsome analysis of the wind energy site at Winter Harbor with the data loggers, but have

not captured useful data from the solar sites.We recommend continuing with the data logger at the best solar sites by converting tologgers that transmit collected data via Internet to SD card sites. We will then not have torely on the Brand Electronics website for the data.

Based on client interviews, we found that having some type of real time feedback aboutthe performance of the EURM is important to the clients and would provide an incentiveto modify energy use in the home. Most did not get that feedback. In the case of the solarhot water sites that used Enerworks collectors and controllers, the systems did come witha wireless data monitor for the homeowner to keep in the home. In theory, these datamonitors could provide a wealth of information, but Ascendant Energy, the solar hot

water supplier and installer, did not program them or leave them with the homeowners.Those devices do not have a data logging capability, but they do provide immediatefeedback on the performance of the system.

Data Preparation and Sample SizeThe two major utilities involved in the REACh project were Bangor Hydroelectric andCentral Maine Power Company. Each of these companies provided a file of monthlyelectric billing data for the clients in the REACh project sample. We were unable toreceive usable data from Madison Electric or Eastern Maine Cooperative, which are


30/87

30

small utilities lacking the resources to provide with the requisite historical data. Onlythose clients who received specific EURMs were included, covering solar hot water,basement hot water heat pumps, cold climate and all climate heat pumps, and windgenerators were included in the sample. Only clients who did not have electric heat wereincluded. The electric heat load comprises such a large component of the electric bill thatvariation in weather and other factors affecting heating requirements, would dominate the

billing data and mask any impact of the specific EURM on the overall monthly electricbill.

The initial sample size for each EURM includes all clients having an individualresidential electric service account who received one or more of the REACh EURMs.

EURM Sample Size

Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps 57

Solar Hot Water 10

Cold Climate Heat Pumps 14All Climate Heat Pump 2

Single Family Wind Generator 1

Single Family Wind w/BHWHP 1

Total Sample Size 85

Monthly electrical billing KWH data was provided for 74 of these clients. The initialanalysis of this billing data reported a very wide range of outcomes, as measured aschange in electrical usage reported in the monthly meter readings before and after theinstallation of the EURMs. The median change in usage (pre and post) was a reduction of485 KWH/yr with a standard deviation of 292 KWH/yr. The very high standard deviationis clearly reflected in the highest reported reduction of 17,307 KWH per year and thelowest reported increase in billed KWH of 8,807 KWH. This wide range of resultsreduces the statistical significance of any statistics used to summarize the findings suchand averages and medians. Regression analysis was applied to the data and site visitswere conducted to help determine the variation in outcomes that can be explained bysome factor other than the installation of the EURM. In an attempt to provide morestatistically significant results, data processing steps were taken to reduce the standarddeviation in the data and provide more useful results.


31/87

31

The data was pruned in a second stage of analysis to identify and explain variations,extreme outliers, and inadequate numbers of energy usage observations. Sample

observations were deleted from the energy savings analysis database in cases where anyof the following conditions are met:

Less than 12 months of pre-EURM installation monthly usage data Less than 12 months of post-EURM installation monthly usage data Known issues with poor quality installation from site visits The equipment was taken out of service Combination of more than one type of EURM Extreme outliers


The electrical billing data analysis suggests that the basement hot water heat pump(BHWHP) is the most cost effective EURM subject to evaluation in this REACh project.The Energy Savings Analysis based on billing data for the BHWHP installations reflectsa wide range of outcomes illustrated in the minimum and maximum annual usage datawith KWH savings ranging from high of 10452 KWH/yr to a low of negative 3883KWH/yr. This variation in range, while less that the overall sample average, still limits

the statistical significance of the average measures. In this case the median provides amore reliable estimate and has been adopted as the best representational summary ofsavings. As discussed above, billing data can reflect this variability as it represents theentire electrical bill and not just the energy used by the EURM pre- and post-installation.

EURM Analysis

Sample

Size

Original

Sample

Size

Pruned

Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps 38 57 19

Solar Hot Water 7 10 3

Cold Climate Heat Pumps 3 14 11

All Climate Heat Pump 1 2 1

Single Family Wind Generator 1 1 0

Single Family Wind w/BHWHP 1 1 0

Total Sample Size 51 85 35


32/87

32

The following table illustrates the range of outcomes and presents findings for a largersample of 40 BHWHPs divided into Quartiles (the 1st Quartiles were client in the top25% savings and the 4th Quartile were those with the lowest 25% savings) in an attemptto provide a more complete view of the range of outcomes. The Quartile analysisindicates that for over half of the clients, the payback was 2.8 years or less, with onequarter of clients enjoying a payback of 1.2 years. Further research is needed todetermine why the 3rd and 4th Quartiles recorded such long paybacks. Were there otherfactors affecting usage, particularly household behavior, quality of the installation, orunknown new appliances?

This analysis suggests that the BHWHP technology provides a very promising energy

saving option for residential homes with electric hot water. The manufacturers at GE andNorthland claim energy savings rates of 50-60% in domestic hot water energy usages.This claim cannot be directly verified with the billing data, since all electrical energy useis measured, rather than just hot water usage. However, based on the savings ratesmeasured for the first two Quartiles, these claims appear realistic.

The US DOE Low Income Weatherization program measures cost effectiveness with thesavings to investment ratio (SIR). Essentially the SIR is the ratio of the present value ofthe projected savings over the life of the EURM divided by the cost of the EURM. The

Per Unit


Annual Energy Savings Analysis

(Sample Size 38)

Median Max Minimum

Pre EURM Usage (KWH/yr) 9792 2310 384Post EURM Usage (KWH/yr) 8526 1718 350

Pre-Post Energy Savings(KWH/yr)

1266 10452 -3883

Annual $ Savings @ $.15/KWH $190 $1,568 -$582

Pounds of CO2 saved per unit 1257 10,379 -3856

Simple Payback at cost of $750 4 1/2 Never

Simple Payback at cost of $1100 6 1 Never

1st

Quartile2nd

Quartile 3rd

Quartile 4st

Quartile

Monthly Savings (kWh) 334.1 140.9 47.5 -124.8

Annual Savings (kWh) 4009.5 1691.3 570.0 -1497.2

Monthly Savings ($) $50.1 $21.1 $253.7 -$124.8

Annual Savings ($) $601.4 $253.7 $85.5 -$18.7

Savings Rate (%) 30 20 10 -10

Payback Period (yrs) 1.2 2.8 21.7 NA

Per Unit Impact Analysis BHWHP by Quartile


33/87

33

SIR Analysis of BHWHP was based on median estimated savings from the monthlyelectrical billing data. The discount rate was 3% and the useful life was 10 years.

The SIRs are presented in a matrix of nine scenarios based on the cost of the equipmentand the energy inflation differential.

The three cost alternatives include:

The Energy Inflation Differential is used to account for a scenario in which future savingsare worth more than todays savings, since the price of electricity or any other fuel could

increase faster than the normal rate of inflation. Differentials of 0%, 5%, and 10% wereutilized in this analysis.

Solar Hot WaterThe electrical billing analysis of the solar hot water EURMs was applied to a sample sizeof six installations that met the five data adequacy conditions described above. With onlyseven EURMs subject to electrical billing data analysis, it is more instructive to presentthe findings on the seven EURMs with individual de-identified data, rather thanpresenting averages.

As discussed in Appendix I: Solar Hot Water Site Review, many of the solar hot waterinstallations did not meet industry standards, resulting in a wide variation of outcomesand an overabundance of poorly performing units. As presented in detail for each site, theprincipal problems included less than optimal solar orientation, less than optimal pitch,and tree shading. As a result of the poor quality of installation, the findings presentedhere are not recommended for any deemed savings factors for future projects. In anattempt to get a more precise measure of outcomes, the evaluation team is in the processof installing data logging equipment at unit number three to determine more specifically

$750 Price of the add-on equipment purchased with quantity discount for REAChproject

$1100 Northland Price for add on to existing hot water tank

$1400 GE Appliance price for stand-alone unit replacing existing hot water tank

SIR Analysis of BHWHP

Median Estimated SavingsEnergy InflationDifferential

Cost of EURM 0% 5% 10%

$ 750 2.16 2.69 3.37$ 1,100 1.47 1.83 2.29$ 1,400 1.16 1.4 1.8


34/87

34

the performance of the solar hot water heater at a site meeting industry installationstandards. This onsite equipment-specific metering of hot water and cold water flows andtemperatures is designed to measure and record actual savings from solar energy whilecorrecting for the limitations of electrical billing analysis.

EURM Installation # 3 is the best performing solar hot water EURM and can be viewedas representative of the potential for effective solar hot water technologies. Thisinstallation was implemented in compliance with industry standards. The panel tilt andorientation are within acceptable limits. The household family size is relatively large,with three children creating a significant hot-water energy load. The client was veryhappy with the project and has volunteered to participate in continued monitoring.

Collector Orientation

Solar hot water collectors should be oriented geographically to maximize the amount ofdaily and seasonal solar energy that they receive. In general, the optimum orientation fora solar collector in the northern hemisphere is true south. However, recent studies haveshown that, depending on your location and collector tilt, your collector can face up to90 east or west of true south without significantly decreasing its performance.7

The SIR analysis of the solar hot water EURMs is therefore based on this modelinstallation. The SIRs are calculated based on a 10-year useful life and a discount rate of3%. SIRs are calculated for three levels of energy inflation. This analysis suggests thatthe solar hot water EURM, at an installed cost of $7500, can generate an SIR orapproximately one if installed to industry standards, with a 10% inflation differential, and

Areview appendix indicates a wind range of panel orientations among sites.

7 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Website:http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12890

Solar Hot Water Annual Energy Savings Analysis by Installation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Pre EURM Usage (KWH/yr) 15804 19453 13609 14593 8744 9329 14343

Post EURM Usage (KWH/yr) 15743 17141 11164 13807 7679 8935 15764

Pre-Post Energy Savings 61 2312 2445 786 1065 394 -1421

Annual $ Savings @ $.15/KWH $9.15 $346 $366 $117 $159 $59 $-213

Pounds of CO2 saved per unit 60 2295 2427 780 1057 391 -1411

Simple Payback in years@$7500

820 22 20 64 47 127 Never

Profile of Installation # 4 Solar Installation

Number in Household 4 (1 adult, 3 children)

Fuel Type Pre Fuel Type: Electric Post Fuel Type: Electric

Installation Date July 2008

Panel Orientation Installed 180

Panel Tilt Installed 45

Perceived Benefits Client was enthusiastic and felt she was receiving benefit
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12890http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12890http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12890


35/87


36/87

36

unfortunately the home owners turn the units off because they believed the units wouldnot decrease their electric bill and they found the units very noisy.

Clearly the CCHP did not result in anticipated savings. Contact with the manufacturer ofthe units indicated that they units were deployed in the field as Beta versions and themanufacturer has decided to no longer produce the units. May of the installed units were

turned off by the clients. We do not have comprehensive records of which units wereturned off and when they were turned off. The units 2, 4, and 7 in the Degree DayAdjusted Savings for Cold Climate and All Climate Heat Pumps were turned off byclients.

The ACHP sample includes only one unit which recorded an 11% reduction in electricityusage amounting to $418.39 in annual savings at $.15.KWH. At a cost of over $10,000this is a payback of 23 years. However, these heat pump units do provide air conditioningservices as well as heating; the air conditioning feature was not analyzed in this study.

Because of the small sample size we cannot offer a statistically definitive conclusionabout the ACHP technology based on a sample of 1. Clearly, based on this field study,the technology needs a more focused specific evaluation. We would suggest field studieswith on site data loggers designed to capture flows and temperatures of water andelectricity to determine the COP.

Pre KWH Post KWH KWH saving % savings $ Savings

1 CCHP 22,647.0 29,011.0 (6,364.0) -28% (954.60)

2 CCHP 28,612.2 32,030.0 (3,417.8) -12% (512.67)3 CCHP 9,517.7 11,410.0 (1,892.3) -20% (283.85)

4 CCHP 7,928.2 7,064.0 864.2 11% 129.63

5 CCHP 6,184.0 6,302.0 (118.0) -2% (17.70)

6 CCHP 27,218.1 27,362.0 (143.9) -1% (21.58)

7 CCHP 7,421.1 6,024.0 1,397.1 19% 209.57

1 ACHP 25,074.2 22,285.0 2,789.2 11% 418.39

Degree Day Adjusted Savings Analysis for Cold Climate

and All Climate Heat Pumps


37/87

37

Small Wind Turbines

10KW EXCEL TurbineThe EXCEL turbine at Winter Harbor was equipped with an electromechanical inductionwatt-hour meter at the time of installation by EVOLVO Energy Solutions. This

electromechanical induction meter operates by counting the revolutions of an aluminumdisc, which is made to rotate at a speed proportional to the power. The meter counts thenumber of KWH generated since the date of installation and is considered to be a veryreliable measurement device and serves as the basic measuring device used for billing atpublic utilities throughout the country.

The Mechanical Induction meter was installed on September 19, 2007. Two readingswere taken by the evaluation team: one was taken on May 15, 2008 and the second onAug. 6, 2010.

Mechanical Induction Meter

The data was measured over two different periods of time, in order to analysis theeconomic impact the data needs to converted to an annual estimate. To accomplish this,the daily energy savings8

The mechanical induction data is a very accurate measure of KWH of electricity actuallygenerated on site. However, as discussed in Section 3, the automatic shutoffs caused bywind gusts could significantly reduce the amount of energy generated as compared to thepotential based on site-specific wind characteristics. The potential generation at the MillStream site can be estimated using the Bergey WindCad Turbine Performance Model

was estimated by dividing the total accumulated KWH by thenumber of days in the period. This per day average was then multiplied by 365 toestimate the number of KWH per year generated by the turbine. Period II is statisticallymore reliable since in includes a longer period of observation: 1067 days, as compared to266 days.

8 The term energy savings is used to be consistent with other sections of this evaluation report, althoughregarding wind technology; this is technically a measure of energy generation that then results in savingson the electric bill.

Energy Saving Analysis of EXCEL Turbine

based on Mechanical Induction Meter

Period I Period II

Date of Installation 8/19/2007 8/19/2007

Date of Reading 5/15/2008 8/6/2010

Number of Days 266 1067

Total Accumulated KWH 6000 18700

KWH/day 23 18

Estimated AnnualSavings (KWH)

8233 6397

Estimated $/yr. $1,317 $1,024$/KWH 0.16 0.16
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/ElectricityMeterMechanism.jpg


38/87

38

available on the Bergey web sitewww.bergey.com. This model calculates an estimate ofsavings based primarily on the wind speed at the site, but other factors such as turbulencecome into play in the estimate of potential production.

Based on an average wind speed of 5.59 miles per hour measured at Mill Stream, theWindCad Turbine Performance Modelpredicts a potential energy output of between

8501 and 17002 KWH per year. Each of these output figures is greater than the actualmeasured of 6397 KWH per year10

.

9 A Brand Electronics data logger captured the 5.5 mph average wind speed data from an anemometerinstalled onsite at 20 ft. This estimate is expected to be biased to the low side as compared to wind speed atthe turbine level which is at 100 ft. Data was collected and logged at 10 minute intervals from March 30,2008 to Aug. 14, 2008.10 Since the wind speed estimate is based on less than one year of data, it may introduce a margin of error tothis estimate; the bias is unknown.

WindCad Turbine Performance ModelBWC EXCEL-S, Grid - Intertie Tier/neo-SH3055-23-BWC

Prepared For: SWCC

Site Location: Reference

Data Source: AWEA Standard

Date: 8/8/2010


Weibull K = 2 Air Density Factor = 0%




Tower Height (m) = 30 Monthly Energy Output = 1,417


10 kW


Weibull K = 2 Air Density Factor = 0%




Tower Height (m) = 30 Monthly Energy Output = 708

http://www.bergey.com/http://www.bergey.com/http://www.bergey.com/http://www.bergey.com/


39/87

39

A preliminary simplified economic analysis indicates that, on its own, the BergeyEXCEL cannot be expected to meet the SRI test ofweatherization measures at a KWH rate of $.16 an installed cost of $65,000 and a windspeed of 5.5 miles per hour. The SIR calculation also assumes no maintenance cost, nodisposal value, and a 20-year useful life. The lowest payback under these sameassumptions was 23 years.

Cost $65,000

Production

Scenarios

KWH/yr Annual $

Savings

Present

Value of

Savings

SIR Simple

Payback

Actual ProductionMeasured withMechanical Meter

6397 $ 1,024 $ 16,019 0.25 63

WindCad ModelEstimate (0%)Turbulence

17003 $ 2,720 $ 39,612 0.61 23

WindCad Model

Estimate (50%)Turbulence

8501 $ 1,360 $ 19,606 0.30 48

The following chart presents the distribution of time at various wind speeds as recordedat Winter Harbor. Notice that the wind speed was zero for over 14% of the time and thewind speed was 5 mph about 9% of the time.


40/87

40

The following graph presents a regression analysis of the watts being generated at eachwind speed; it demonstrates that approximately 85% of the level of energy generation canbe explained by the wind speed. This indicates the

REACh Evauation Report Oct 2010

Documents

Transcript of REACh Evauation Report Oct 2010