Post on 01-Jan-2016
1 NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE
March 18th, 2015
Residential New Construction Standard Protocol Subcommittee Kick-off
2
Agenda
Overview Vision Background Draft Plan Feedback & Discussion
Desired Outcome General agreement on plan Guidance for CR & NEEA Staff on tasks to
complete before the next subcommittee meeting (May)
3
Protocol Vision
What? Develop standard protocol so that home energy professionals
can use REM/Rate to generate savings Protocol ensures that savings can be claimed by utilities
Why? Leverage asset rating tool being adopted by the market place Increase utility program flexibility Market need for tool to assess whole home performance
(next tier of savings will come from integrated design) to allow for: Energy use estimates Market differentiation Consistency in ratings across the region
4
In it’s most simple form
Data must be “bankable”
Limits• Applies to only new construction• Use kWh and Therm savings to baseline – not the HERS score!• Models are generated by certified raters in accordance with RESNET• Raters follow protocol and software constraints are followedOther actors that would use data• Homebuyers, Realtors, Lenders, Appraisers, Code Officials,
5
Questions we seek to answer
What constraints do we put on REM/Rate?(define the rater modeling protocol)
How do we calibration output values? (adjusted savings from REM/Rate are accepted)
6
Protocol Development
Draw from NW ENERGYSTAR Homes Modeling Guidelines RESNET Requirements (QA/QC) ETO EPS Guidelines
Improvements needed Previously identified errors in traditional measures How to handle new technologies and ”un-modelable” Define Baseline Define Output Report
Documentation Protocol Research Plan
7
Background
8
Many Tools – One Option
Tool UseTarget Market
& ShareScore System Engine Code Advocates
REM/RateCompliance,
Utilities, marketing
new and existing homes,
~40% of all new homes nationally
HERS - 0-100 abstracted score
Proprietary, Monthly
YESRESNET, raters in the NW, Noresco
SEEMUtility program
measure evaluation
RTF n/a
Hourly single zone model - includes thermal mass
and solar impacts on interior temps
NO Ecotope, RTF
DOE’s HES existing home score existing homes 1-10 score, asset
based DOE 2.1E NO DOE
EnergyGaugeCompliance and
HERS score generator
new and existing homes, SE USA
RESNET HERS - 0-100 abstracted, 2006
IECC = 100 pointsDOE 2.1E YES RESNET, FSEC
Cal HERS“CSE”
Compliance and HERS score
generator
California New residential
construction0-100? Equest
(DOE 2.2) YES? CEC, Cal Utilities
BEOptenergy
optimization of residental buildings
building science professionals,
designers
RESNET HERS (under development) Energy Plus NO NREL, BPA
EPSCompliance and
HERS score generator
2400 homes in NW in 2014
adjusted MMBTU value
Post Processed REM/Rate NO ETO, Earth Advantage
9
Sources of Uncertainty
Input Parameter Accuracy Rater Bias and Variability Software Accuracy Occupant Variability Climate Variability
Oakridge National Lab 2014 – impact of parameter accuracy on energy estimation
Estimated ACH50
ACH50 from Blower Door Test
10
Previous REM/Rate Comparison
Red: Previous REM/Rate
Blue: SEEM
Green: Updated REM/Rate
11
Rater Variability Investigation
8 Raters, 12 Next Step Home Projects
Will assess: Overall variability in outputs Variability in inputs (assumptions, differences
in equipment efficiencies or use schedules, etc.)
Data will help determine how to develop modeling protocol to reduce overall variability.
12
Protocol Approach
13
High Level Path to kWh Savings
Measure Level Calibration
Annual kWh
14
Proposed Development Tasks
TASK 1 – REM/Rate™ and SEEM Comparative AnalysisTASK 2 – Identify Misalignment IssuesTASK 3 – Develop GuidelinesTASK 4 – Calibrate to Real DataTASK 5 – Protocol DocumentationTASK 6 – Research Plan Development
15
Task 1: Comparative Analysis
Currently in progress Utilize research performed previously on REM/SEEM Update by comparing against SEEM 96 and updated
REM software Look at traditional savings measures, individually Looking for similar rate of change of consumption as
components are varied in REM/SEEM
Outcome: How close are the two outputs, and do any changes need to happen to the software to improve the alignment?
16
Task 2: Understand Errors in Savings Estimates
Assess how variance in rater inputs creates variance in REM outputs
Understand behavior or systems that cause variation in outputs (fireplaces, electric resistance floor heat, etc.)
Develop strategies for input guidelines to constrain variation in how these are input into REM
Determine which components exist in both baseline and efficient cases
Known Source of Error Data Needed for Modeling ProtocolGas Fireplace Approved efficiency ratings and heat output values.
Wood Fireplace RTF research on supplemental wood heat. Spa/Hot Tub Building America modeling protocols.
Electric Resistance Floor Heat Manufacturer output capacities, hours of use. Supplemental Electric Water Heat Manufacturer output capacities, assumed average run times.
17
Task 3: Develop Modeling Guidelines
Develop modeling guidelines to constrain variation in inputs: Use NWESH Guidelines as staring point Users must use provided libraries Only 4 foundation type options Infiltration input strategy controlled Will detail which default values to use or provide
guidelines on how to make assumptions
18
Task 4: Calibrate to Real Data
Use real world billing data to compare modeled energy use from REM to actual energy use
Develop calibration to be applied to consumption
Data sources: Energy Trust of Oregon (500+ homes) NEEA’s Next Step Pilot Homes (14 homes with detailed
monitoring data)
19
Task 5: Protocol documentation
Protocol Documentation will include: Software requirements Modeling guidelines Savings calibration QA processes
20
Task 6: Research Plan Development
Subcommittee will help drive the future of the protocol. What research needs to be done to move this from Provisional Approval (aiming for December) to Approved?
21
Subcommittee Meeting Schedule
Month Purpose
March Kickoff
April - no meeting -
May Comparative Analysis
June Draft Protocol & Baseline
July Calibration Results
August - no meeting -
September Research Plan
October Preparation for RTF
November Provisional Approval Requested
December - no meeting -
22
Question #1
Do we want a protocol that is replicable?(for a different calculation engine)
Seeking guidance, not specifics
23
Question #2
How much alignment is sufficient?
- front end vs back end calibration
24
Question #3
What should NEEA/CR get done between now and May?
Seeking guidance, not specifics
25
Final Questions & Discussion