New Construction

1
New Construction
EMV of the Statewide Savings By Design
ProgramPresenter Matt Brost
matt.brost_at_rlw.com EMV of the Statewide
California Energy Star New Homes
ProgramPresenter Bob Kasman
robert.kasman_at_rlw.com

• Studies Performed by

MAESTRO/CALMAC Evaluation Showcase ? Pacific
Energy Center ? July 26-27, 2006
2
Agenda

• Non-residential New Construction
• History
• Project Goals
• Methodology
• 2003 EMV Results
• 2004-05 EMV Plan
• 2004-05 EMV Timing

• Residential New Construction
• Background
• 02-03 EMV Results
• Evaluation Methodology
• More Results
• Conclusions
• 04-05 EMV Plan

3
History

• RLW and Architectural Energy Corporation
• NRNC EMV for SCE and PGE since 1994
• PY 94
• DOE-2 Simulations, metering and Econometrics
• PY 96, 98 and 99 Carry over
• DOE-2 Simulations, limited metering and
  Difference of Differences
• 1999-2005 Savings By Design (A.K.A Building
  Efficiency Assessment)
• EMV becomes statewide study
• Net effects by self-report
• NP Spillover measured
• Industrial projects start showing up in PY 2003
  EMV
• 2004-05 introduction of gas measures to EMV

4
BEA Project Goals

• Gross and net whole building savings
• Incented measures
• All measures (participant spillover)
• Energy and demand (coincident)
• Baseline assessment
• Program Process
• Participant and non-participant DM interviews
• New constructions trends
• Efficiency, design and construction practices,
  etc.

5
BEA Methodology Overview

• Stratified participant sample by kWh savings
• Based on paid year, not program year
• Non-participants selected from FW Dodge
• Matched sample 2001-2002
• Representative sample 2003
• Very few in 2004-05
• On-site surveys
• DOE-2 Models
• Decision Maker Surveys
• Measure level net analysis
• Informed by self-report
• Modeled in DOE-2

6
2003 Statewide Gross Savings Results

• Two gross estimates
• All measures
• Includes non-incented measures better than Title
  24 (Part. spillover)
• Measures only
• Applies to systems projects

7
2003 Statewide Net Savings Results

• Two net savings estimates
• Participant net savings
• Gross minus free-ridership
• Comprehensive net savings
• Gross minus free-ridership plus non-participant
  spillover

8
BEA Results Comparison

• Commercial
• 75-82 Comprehensive net-to-gross
• 59-76 Participant net-to-gross
• Industrial
• 35-59 Net to Gross
• No 1999-2001 projects

9
Commercial Efficiency 1998 and 2001 Title 24
(2003)
Participant and Non-participant Energy Savings as
a Percentage of Baseline Consumption 2001 Title
24 versus 1998 Title 24, Commercial Sites Only
(Unweighted)
10
2003 Commercial Efficiency Combined
Participant and Non-participant Energy Savings as
a Percentage of Baseline Consumption Commercial
Sites Only
11
Participant Feedback

• Importance of design assistance and analysis
• Helps sell the measure
• Corroborates internal decisions
• Introduces new measures and technologies
• Incentives very important
• Helps measures meet investment criteria
• Makes measures easier sell
• Insurance against savings uncertainty when
  considering new measures and technologies
• Not likely to get participation without it

12
2004-05 EMV

• Much of the same
• Also, many new aspects
• Introduction of gas measures and savings analysis
• Much larger more complex projects
• Very few non-participants, nearly all
  participants (n180)
• Large proportion of projects industrial
• End-use metering and DOE-2 calibrations
• PGE add-on study
• More projects and more metering
• Load profile tool
• All due April 2007

13
EMV of the Statewide California 2002-03 Energy
Star New Homes Program

• Robert Kasman
• robert.kasman_at_rlw.com
• [phone] x32

14
Agenda

• Non-residential New Construction
• History
• Project Goals
• Methodology
• 2003 EMV Results
• 2004-05 EMV Plan
• 2004-05 EMV Timing

• Residential New Construction
• Background
• 02-03 EMV Results
• Evaluation Methodology
• More Results
• Conclusions
• 04-05 EMV Plan

15
CA Energy Star Homes Program

• Statewide program (PGE, SCE, SDGE and SCG)
• Pays cash incentives to single family and
  multifamily developers/builders
• Started 2002
• Funded by Public Goods Charge (PGC)
• Requires minimum 15 compliance margin increase
  over Title 24

16
CA Energy Star Homes Program Incentives
Compliance margins are relative to Title 24
building code Package D (set of prescriptive
measures)
17
Requirements for Effective Evaluation

• A well-conceived program theory and logic model
• Complete and accurate program tracking data
• Consideration of appropriate baseline data

18
Results - Dwelling Units by Utility Type 02-03
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
Single Family Electricity (kWh) Net to Gross
Ratios

• Statewide NTG gt 1! (Yikes)
• How can this be?

22
Single Family Gas (Therms) Net to Gross Ratios

• Note statewide NTG is ltlt 1
• Why so different?

23
Evaluation Methodology Engineering Analysis

• Based on Title 24 compliant energy modeling
  software
• On-site inspections 110 SF homes, 123 MF
  structures
• Re-simulation of Title 24 energy models when
  differences found
• SF average as-built findings used to adjust
  tracking savings using ratio estimation at
  end-use level
• SF Difference of differences
• SF Billing analysis
• MF Builder/decision maker surveys for free
  ridership

24
Evaluation Methodology
Quantity to estimate Data sources used Analysis Methods
SF simple gross savings CHEERS Data queries
SF adjusted gross (ex post) savings On-site inspection data, CHEERS Title 24 energy modeling, ratio estimation
SF net ex post savings SF adjusted gross savings, SF RNC baseline study, utility billing data Difference of differences, billing analysis
SF free ridership Gross ex post savings, net ex post savings Gross - Net
SF spillover SF RNC baseline study, CHEERS Hypothesis testing
MF simple gross savings CHEERS Data queries
MF adjusted gross savings On-site inspection data, CHEERS Title 24 energy modeling, ratio estimation
MF net ex post savings MF builder surveys SERA
MF free ridership MF builder surveys SERA
Ex ante savings IOU PIPs, CHEERS NA
25
Methodology Definitions (reference)
26
Single Family Compliance Margins (110 ENERGY
STAR Homes)
27
(No Transcript)
28
Single Family Billing Analysis

• No conclusive results. Why?
• Baseline study by RMST climate zones not high
  enough resolution
• Behavioral and demographic variation further blur
  results
• Billing data acquisition/quality issues

29
California 16 CEC Climate Zones
30
Multifamily Compliance Margins on MF Inspected
Plans (n123)
31
Multifamily Energy Savings
32
Multifamily Results

• Number of multifamily structures 758
• Number of multifamily dwelling units 7,281
• Annual Net kWh Savings 93,599 kWh
• Annual Net Therms Savings 233,258 therms
• Average Net to Gross .63 (from surveys)
• Average free ridership 37
• Non-participant spillover not estimated

33
Conclusions

• ESH program resulted in significant energy
  savings
• Both implementers and evaluators based impacts on
  modeling software results less conclusive
• New Title 24 code expected to have significant
  impact (beyond free-ridership) on multifamily
  projects
• Evaluation challenges
• Tracking database QC issues (primarily due to
  many input sources)
• Baseline data issues (climate zones, sample sizes)

34
Conclusions

• Most single family homes not built to plan, but
  average energy savings are realized anyway
• Most multifamily projects built as planned,
  energy savings dominated by water heating
• SF free ridership rates dependent upon energy --
  negative for electricity, positive for gas
• MF not like SF -- wide variation in type, design
  and energy modeling of multifamily projects
  significantly more complex to conduct EMV
  analysis
• MF high free ridership rates due to loopholes in
  Title 24. (Loopholes intended to be closed with
  the October 05 code revisions.)

35
04-05 EMV Plan

• RLW Analytics currently conducting 04-05 ESH
  program evaluation
• Includes metering study of both SF and MF new
  construction yielding actual consumption, not
  modeled data
• Process and non-energy benefit analysis
• More comprehensive billing analysis in select
  climate zones
• Data acquisition issues