HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27%...
Transcript of HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27%...
![Page 1: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Home Energy Score Pilot Results: Minnesota
Dave Bohac NorthernSTAR
Center for Energy and Environment [email protected], 612‐802‐1697
Residential Energy Efficiency Technical Update Meeting Denver, CO August 9 ‐ 11
![Page 2: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Home Energy Score Goals
• Lower the cost hurdle for homeowners to receive a quantitative energy assessment
• Increase motivation for residential retrofits
• Develop consistent data collection process
• Collect comparative data on U.S. homes
2
![Page 3: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Part I: A Home’s Energy Score
Key Elements: Asset rating
36 to 67 data entry fields
Total Energy
Source Energy
19 Climates
Even Bins
Benchmark for home size
3
![Page 4: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Part II: Recommended Upgrades
Now
At Replacement
4
![Page 5: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
CEE’s Residential Energy Programs
Community Engagement & Recruitment
Neighborhood Workshop
Home Visit & Materials
Follow up Calls Major Upgrades
Collect data at visit Email or mail report
![Page 6: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Pilot Objectives
• Determine how the Home Energy Score integrates with field operations for residential energy visits – Additional data collection time requirements – Usability of data collection sheet and scoring tool interface
– Ability of different field personnel to make consistent estimations
• Assess the homeowner response to having their home scored – Do homeowners understand the score?
– Does it work as an effective motivational tool?
6
![Page 7: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Pilot Objectives
• Compare default house air leakage to actual measured.
• Measure the predictive capability of the building performance model against utility bill data, SIMPLE model and REM/Rate results.
• Assess the correlation of recommendations produced by the score with in‐person retrofit recommendations.
7
![Page 8: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Pilot Overview
• 154 Homes in Minneapolis and Apple Valley, MN
• February 1, 2011 – June 15, 2011
• Workforce: 2 Qualified Assessors • Process for selecting homes:
– Random selection of homes enrolled in our residential energy program
• Delivery mechanism to homeowner – Part of program: Community Energy Services, be.Apple Valley
– Score was mailed or emailed approximately 3 weeks after visit – No Home Energy Score recommendations
• Blower Door test performed
8
![Page 9: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Demographics of Pilot Homes: Construction Year
9
![Page 10: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Demographics of Pilot Homes: Number Stories
Foundation Type Basement ‐ 95% Slab‐on‐grade ‐ 4% Crawlspace ‐ 1%
Water Heater Nat. Gas ‐ 96% Electric ‐ 3% Oil ‐ 1%
Heating System Furnace ‐ 75% Boiler ‐ 25%
AC System Central ‐ 71% None ‐ 29%
10
![Page 11: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Wall Cavity Insulation by Construction Year
R > 11
4 ≤ R < 11
R = 11
R < 4
11
![Page 12: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Attic Cavity Insulation by Construction Year
R > 30
R < 15
15 ≤ R ≤ 30
12
![Page 13: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Home Energy Score Results for MN Pilot Homes
1
5
4
3
2
6
7
8
All Homes (154 total)
Home Energy Score: Existing
Score With Upgrades
“Zone of Unattainability”
1 to 4 Existing – 27% With Upgrades – 6% (Two houses remained a 1)
7 to 10 Existing – 41% With Upgrades – 83% (no houses achieved a 10)
![Page 14: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
HES Recommended Upgrades
Recommendation % Houses Seal gaps and cracks 63%
Basement walls to R‐11 53%
Attic floor to R‐38 34%
Seal ducts 5%
No recommendations 15%
Average of 1.6 recommendations per house
![Page 15: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Attic Insulation HES Recommendation
![Page 16: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Lessons Learned: Process
• Did not add significant time to home visits, once “rhythm” was established: 30 minutes in‐home and 15‐20 minutes data entry
• Mechanical system info was hardest to obtain:
Percent of time the following inputs were available
Heating Cooling Water Heater Attic Insulation
AFUE Year SEER Year Eff Year
64% 36% 12% 78% 14% 77% 65%
![Page 17: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Analysis: Utility Bill Comparison
• 51 homes with HES & utility data*
• Weather‐normalized Utility Bills to HES model Average
Home Energy Score
Average Utility Bill
Difference Between Average
Average Absolute Deviation
Source 253 MMBtu
215 MMBtu
18% 36%
Site Gas 1,558 therms
1,219 therms
28% 38%
Site Electric
7,192 kWh
7,123 kWh
1% 59%
And corrected basement floor area
![Page 18: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Analysis: Gas Use Comparison
![Page 19: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Recommendations for the National Launch
• Improve recommendations & cost estimates – Allow Qualified Assessor to tailor recommendations
• Consider shrinking the “zone of unattainability” – Group similar home types along different scales – Provide options for regional customization
![Page 20: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Further Work
• Compare HES to program upgrade recommendations
• Methods to segment housing stock to provide more motivating existing/upgrade scores
• Compare utility/HES/SIMPLE energy results
• Will have 50 houses with REM/Rate analysis – compare to other data
• Compare actual to default house air leakage
20
![Page 21: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Extra Slides
21
![Page 22: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Homeowner Observations • Overall people were excited to participate and see their score
• Most common question was about survey (knowledge before or after visit?)
• People often asked if information sheet was their home
• Confusing or complex parts of the score and process – Source Energy
– Based on a model & concept of asset – Who they are being compared to
• CEE didn’t use in‐person delivery – 33 percent of email recipients didn’t open email – Provided as free add‐on to home visit
![Page 23: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Demographics of Pilot Homes: Construction Year Wall Insulation
23
33% with R‐value < 4
![Page 24: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Demographics of Pilot Homes: Construction Year Attic Insulation
24
![Page 25: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Home Energy Score Results for MN Pilot Homes
![Page 26: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
HES Recommended Upgrades
![Page 27: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Lessons Learned: Score and Recs
• Numerical scorecard is a helpful motivating tool – 83% with score ≥ 7 after upgrades
• Several homes did not receive motivating scores – 11% score a 5 or less after upgrades – 44% can only increase score by 1 or zero points – 15% had no recommendations
• Recommendations not consistent with program – No wall insulation and some attics with low R‐Values – High frequency of basement wall insulation
![Page 28: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Analysis: Utility Bill Comparison
• 115 homes with gas + electric data
• Weather‐normalized Utility Bills to HES model Average
Home Energy Score
Average Utility Bill
Average Absolute Deviation
Average Deviation
Source 253 (278) MMBtu
215 (221) MMBtu
36% (45%) 28% (35%)
Site Gas 1,558 (1,779) therms
1,219 (1,200) therms
38% (57%) 33% (52%)
Site Electric
7,192 (7,279) kWh
7,123 (7,820) kWh
59% (53%) 38% (25%)
Subset of 51 with Corrected Basements (All Houses)
![Page 29: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Conditioned vs. Unfinished Basements
61 homes post‐basement correction
![Page 30: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Site Electricity Use
Post‐Basement Correction Pre‐Basement Correction
![Page 31: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Site Gas Use
Post‐Basement Correction Pre‐Basement Correction
![Page 32: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Analysis: Gas Use Comparison
![Page 33: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Conditioned vs. Unfinished Basements
(1) Conditioned basement Unfinished basement that is 5‐10F (2) Unconditioned basement
cooler than above grade area??? (3) Vented crawlspace (4) Unvented crawlspace (5) Slab on grade
![Page 34: HomeEnergy Score PilotResults: Minnesota · “Zone of Unattainability” 1 to 4 Existing– 27% With Upgrades –6% (Two houses remained a 1) 7 to 10 Existing– 41% With Upgrades](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022090608/605ed2ec06147f400b654c60/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Apple iOS: iPhone, iPad Tablet
Google Android: Phone, Galaxy Tab Tablet
Blackberry OS6/QNX: Phone, Playbook Tablet
iPhone