Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Energy Analysis Review of Implications Jon McHugh, Sr. Project Mgr. The H ESCHONG M AHONE G ROUP for Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Codes & Standards Program

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Residential Energy Model 1761 SF house with equal glazing distribution in each direction Hourly energy values from TDV research version of MICROPAS A/C and Heat Pump Efficiency adjusted with respect to ambient temperature DHW loads allocated to 4 load profiles from PG&E load survey data weekday vs. weekend summer vs winter

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Residential TDV Energy Costs Hourly energy multiplied by hourly energy costs for all 8,760 hours of the year 30 Year PV, 3% real discount rate Three energy sources: Electricity Natural gas Propane Multiplies by hourly TDV costs for five CA climate zones: 3 (Oakland), 6 (Long Beach), 13 (Fresno), 14 (China Lake)16 (Shasta)

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Fresno Residential Measures

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Shasta Residential Measures

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Oakland Residential Measures

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Oakland Residential Measures

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Residential Conclusions TDV costing increased the value of all efficiency measures considered Electricity more expensive when very hot or very cold Natural gas and propane more expensive in winter than summer Benefit of switching to fuel less for propane than natural gas

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Nonresidential Energy Results Same energy results from earlier work (1999 Dollar Based Standards project) 6 protoype buildings Typical schedules for each building type (divergence from ACM rules) DOE-2 model not EnergyPro Hourly energy results multiplied by TDV energy costs for 8,760 h/yr TDV costs: 15 year PV at 3% real discount rate

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Fresno Nonresidential Measures

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Fresno Nonresidential Measures

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Nonresidential Conclusions Results are dependent on building type TDV results for TES inverse of traditional flat costing Value of gas cooling is increased Results for heating measures affected by Fuel type (Nat gas vs. Propane) Greater value for A/C efficiency Lighting LPD valuation sensitive to schedule (occupancy)

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Residential TDV - further work TDV duct efficiency Refined water heater model SEER to EIR conversion Heat pump sizing - resistance strip contribution to winter peak Thermostat schedules - especially for heat pumps

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Nonresidential TDV - further work ACM revisions Equipment curves SEER to EIR conversion based on curves Occupancy specific schedules Add TES and Gas Cooling Add Photovoltaics and Solar Heating Peer review of equipment curves Obtain/develop part load curves Revisit equipment specific curves Occupancy sensors vs time clocks Persistence of measures

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project TDV Web Page

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project TDV Web Page Reports Dollar-Based Performance Standards (1999) TDV Summary Report (2000) Software ResTDV.xls NonresTDV.xls Comment form

Copyrighted © 2000 PG&E All Rights Reserved CASE Initiative Project Comments/Suggestions Gary Fernstrom, PG&E (415) Douglas Mahone, HMG (916)