Research Strategy: Residential Clothes Dryers R&E Subcommittee Ryan Firestone, Christian Douglass, My Ton Regional Technical Forum April 3, 2015

Presentation Outline Today’s Objectives: Feedback on draft Clothes Dryer Research Strategy & format Review: RTF Decision to support the Research Strategy approach Clothes Dryer Research Strategy Research Strategy format 2

Research Strategy: Review 3

March 2015 proposal to the RTF : Redefine Planning and Provisional measure categories and acknowledge an interim discussion period 4 – Research Plans

Previewed this plan with the R&E Subcommittee on March 12 Generally supportive of this direction Identified a few aspects that need to be further addressed: – Role of RTF in funding discussion – What does the Research Strategy look like? – Role and timing of sunset dates Subcommittee Discussion Participants Andie Baker Mike Baker Dave Baylon Todd Blackman Larry Blaufus Eli Caudill Rachel Clark Tom Eckhart Lauren Gage Ben Hannas Mark Johnson Cheryn Metzger Peter Miller Graham Parker Bob Ramirez Dan Rubado Justin Spencer Robert Weber Sarah Widder Jennifer Anziano Adam Hadley Josh Rushton 5

March 2015 proposal to the RTF : “Research Strategy” = A research plan that is expected to meet the research needs at the lowest expected cost to meet the guidelines; may be in more of an outline form than a formal Research Plan, but contains specifics of sample size, data to be collected, analysis methodology, and an estimated cost range 6

Draft Research Strategy for Residential Clothes Dryer Measure 7

Guidelines Requirements Clearly specify residential clothes dryers as a measure, and establish a reliable method for estimating dryer energy use and savings. 8

Research Strategy Objectives Specify/Validate Performance Metric: Need a performance metric that can predict real-world energy consumption for residential clothes dryers with sufficient accuracy, and across all performance levels and technologies. It should not under predict for one type of machine or technology and over-predict for another type of machine or technology. Establish Certainty of Performance Tiers: The average performance of machines in each tier has to be determined with sufficient certainty to estimate savings with a level of precision, including the current practice baseline. – Currently the RTF Planning Measure uses UCEF, but more research is needed. – Performance Tiers have been proposed using UCEF. 9

Research Strategy Objectives Two other dryer-related topics that may impact both the performance metric and cost- benefit estimations: – HVAC interactions: Need to verify this interaction and determine if further laboratory testing is necessary. – Non-Energy Benefits: Clothing wear and tear. Fire risks. 10

Analysis: Background There has been little differentiation in residential conventional electric dryers’ (electric resistance heat) energy performance. More efficient alternatives using better controls or more efficient technologies in use in Europe and elsewhere are beginning to appear. There are now three general efficiency categories: – Conventional Dryers are common electric resistance dryers that do not meet any of the efficiency performance thresholds. – Efficient Dryers meet “ENERGY STAR” level of performance, have energy saving technologies, such as moisture sensors, use up to 20% less energy than conventional models. – Super-Efficient Dryers meet EPA’s Emerging Tech Award 2014 performance or higher. Generally use a refrigeration cycle to heat and dehumidify the air in a drying cycle. 11

Analysis: Background Residential dryer energy performance has been characterized by DOE’s test protocols: “D”: Previous standard. Uses Energy Factor (EF) – Pounds of clothes dried per kWh at highest temperature, 66% change in remaining moisture content (ΔRMC), assumed impact of auto- termination, no cool down. “D1”: Current standard. Uses Combined Energy Factor (CEF) – Pounds of clothes dried per kWh at highest temperature, 53.5% ΔRMC, assumed impact of auto-termination, no cool down. “D2”(Optional): Current standard. Uses Combined Energy Factor (CEF) – Pounds of clothes dried per kWh at highest temperature, 55.5% ΔRMC, tested with auto-termination and cool-down. (Required for ENERGY STAR qualification). 12

Analysis: Background In 2012 NEEA conducted extensive field test of washer and dryer energy use in 50 homes associated with the RBSA data set. This field study indicated that dryer energy use is much higher than current DOE test procedures indicate. As a result, NEEA and PG&E have developed a supplemental test procedure (STP) that uses real clothing in multiple load sizes and cycle settings. Based on its research, NEEA has proposed another metric of dryer energy use: – Utility Combined Energy Factor (UCEF) – a weighted average CEF value from the 5 tests conducted using NEEA-developed STP. 13

Analysis: Background NEEA has also proposed a Tiered rating system using UCEF: Conventional (NEEA’s Baseline): Dryers meeting Federal Standard Tier 1: Dryers meeting the 2014 ENERGY STAR qualification (electric resistance) Tier 2: Hybrid heat pump dryers (electric resistance and heat pump) available in the U.S. today Tier 3: Heat pump dryers and hypothetical high-performance hybrid heat pump dryers Tier 4: Heat pump dryers (comparable to typical European units) 14

Analysis: Approach Validate that UCEF can be used to reliably predict real-world energy consumption for residential clothes dryers with sufficient accuracy, across all performance levels and technologies: Use field results for Tier 1 units to supplement results from NEEA’s laboratory tests of Tier 1 dryers to validate and calibrate UCEF Use field test results for Tiers 2, 3, 4 and results from NEEA’s laboratory tests to validate UCEF (Tier 1) Examine data and field test results to see if it is acceptable for now (was developed with results from 2 units) Use engineering analysis for Tier 1 & conventional results to determine if sea level normalization is needed (the original testing was conducted at 6500 ft. elevation). 15

Analysis: Approach Establish certainty of performance tiers and current practice baseline: Use test results and market data to verify that the UCEF values for each tier are averages of representative products Use market data to establish a transparent and repeatable method for weighting the laboratory performance results of individual models, to estimate the current practice baseline NEEA’s Tier 2,3,4 machines will need to be individually tested and qualified for the RTF measure. 16

Analysis: Approach To determine HVAC interactions: Engineering analysis: vented and unvented dryers have significantly different HVAC impacts when located in conditioned spaces: – Vented dryers increase infiltration (which increases heating and cooling loads) – Unvented dryers increase internal gains (which decreases heating loads and increases cooling loads). If the engineering analysis results in significant uncertainties (greater than 10%) in measure savings, then laboratory and/or field testing would be required to reduce these uncertainties. 17

Analysis: Approach To determine non-energy benefits: Laboratory data on clothing dried in conventional (higher heat) and heat pump dryers (longer cycle time) will be used to determine if cost estimates for wear and tear can be developed, and whether this can be a range or a point estimate. National and international fire data (of conventional and heat pump dryers) will be examined to determine if fire risks can be quantified and considered. 18

Analysis: Data Currently available: NEEA’s 2012 Field Study: in depth field test of washer and dryer energy use in 50 homes associated with the RBSA data set. NEEA’s Baseline Dryer Study: Laboratory test results on 11 electric dryers models, 1 gas dryer model, and 3 heat pump dryer models. The CEC Appliance Database, which reports rated performance of machines using DOE test procedures. 19

Analysis: Data Expected: NEEA’s “Baseline Round 2”: planned lab and initial field testing of new products entering the market, long term performance monitoring, and investigation of non-energy benefits. SEDI: The Super-Efficient Dryers Initiative has collaborated with NEEA to develop and distribute the field test protocol among utilities, which may generate additional field results. 20

Analysis: Data Needed to complete above analyses: Field and laboratory testing of the same units in all performance Tiers Laboratory testing of a significant number of Tier 1 units to reliably estimate their performance (approximately 20) Laboratory testing of additional conventional dryers to reduce the uncertainty in baseline performance (approximately 10) 21

Analysis: Data Needed to complete above analyses: Engineering analysis and if needed, laboratory and/or field testing of HVAC interactions of vented and unvented dryers Data on clothing degradation rate for heat pump and conventional dryers National (and international) data on dryer market shares and fires to determine likelihood of dryer-induced fires by type of dryer. 22

Research Strategy Discussion Are the right questions being asked? – Is anything missing from the objectives? Appropriateness of research approach? – UCEF validation – Tiers – HVAC interactions – NEB – Others? 23

Research Strategy format 24

Research Strategy Format “Research Strategy” = A research plan that is expected to meet the research needs: – At the lowest expected cost to meet the guidelines; – May be in more of an outline form than a formal Research Plan – Contains specifics of: Sample size Data to be collected Analysis methodology – An estimated cost range 25

Research Strategy Format Discussion Current (Draft) Structure: High-level objectives Analysis: – Background information to support analysis approach – Approach needed to fulfill objectives Data: – Available – Expected – Needed 26

Research Strategy Format Discussion Ordering of sections & flow of narrative? Missing or redundant sections? What changes would you make? – Flow – Language – Detail level What about cost/budget? – Sufficient detail/categorization? 27

Thank You! 28

Additional Slides 29

Category: Planning – Define Research Strategy, Funders Not Yet Identified RTF Role: Describe research needs and estimated cost range Method: Put together a “Research Strategy” = A research plan that is expected to meet the research needs at the lowest expected cost to meet the guidelines; may be in more of an outline form than a formal Research Plan, but contains specifics of sample size, data to be collected, analysis methodology, and an estimated cost range RTF Approval: Means RTF agrees with the research needs and agrees the proposed method of data collection and analysis provides a reasonable way to meet the research goals; RTF acknowledges funders may alter research design to meet their needs 30 – Research Plans

RTF Decision: Approval of UES Measure or Standard Protocol to “Planning” Category, “Active” Status. RTF Decision: Approval of UES Measure or Standard Protocol to “Provisional” Category, “Active” Status. RTF Decision: Approval of UES Measure or Standard Protocol to “Proven” Category, “Active” Status. 31 – Research Plans

How would this work with respect to the Guidelines? This is a case where the guidelines language would be lagging for a short while Communicating our guidelines is an ongoing task Guidelines Edits – Planning Category “Research Strategy” required at time of measure approval – Add discussion of RTF role at adoption of research strategy Savings Estimate Reliability – Same as before – RTF Judgment Allowed (no data required) Impact Evaluation – Same as before – Treated as “Other UES”, where savings are estimated using one or more studies that may require site-specific data collection (i.e. RTF UES estimate not used in evaluation). – Provisional Category Savings Estimate Reliability – Set to same as Planning – Removes requirement for reliable data being available to estimate the baseline – Removes requirement for model to be calibrated to baseline energy use Sponsored Research Plan required at time of measure approval – Add discussion of RTF role at adoption of research plan Impact Evaluation – Same as before – Savings estimates use the results of the research plan (i.e. use a research-adjusted RTF UES estimate in evaluation); but if results not available, treat as “Other UES” 32 – Research Plans

How will this work with check ins? Establish a process for checking in on the status of all Planning and Provisional measures at one time – Enables a review of the full suite of measures to better weigh priorities – Ensures that measures are not forgotten and provides an opportunity to check in on interest (RTF could choose to deactivate measures at this time based on lack of regional interest/support) – Expectations: Review twice a year with R&E subcommittee, RTF, and RTF PAC (try to align with RTF work planning and utility budget cycles) What is the role of the sunset date? – Near term (ex: 1 year): Use only as a check in on the status of the measure (similar to above) – Longer term (ex: 3 years): Use as an opportunity to revisit regional interest and, if interest, revisit the savings estimate 33 R&E Subcommittee discussed this Staff recommendation: Check in process above allows for streamlined check in and keeps sunset date focused on revisiting energy savings estimates

Available Data CEC Database – Products registered for sale in CA Washer performance metrics: IMEF, IWF, RMC Add date NEEA Washer/Dryer field study – Metered energy consumption, log book of clothing weights and machine settings. NEEA / PG&E lab study – Lab testing to determine D2, UCEF – Estimated market share per unit to estimate market average performance – Durango factor – laboratory at 6,500 ft. Unquantified impact on CEF, UCEF (likely improves metric a few percent) – Durango lab has since closed Ongoing NEEA lab and field testing of HP Dryers – NEEA will certify Tier 2 / 3 / 4 dryers for now 34

Tier 1 Dryers No clear correlation between D1 and D2 NEEA investigating D2 / UCEF relationship – 9 Standard dryers – 2 Tier 1 dryers Should the RTF pursue a Tier 1 Dryers measure? – Would likely require Tier 1 lab testing 35

Current Data 36 Energy Consumption Metric Data Source What kind? How many? D EFD1 CEFD2 CEFUCEFField CEC DB/Other product DBs Standard X Tier 1, 2 X 2011 DOEXX NEEA Washer/Dryer Field Study ~46x Standard (some Tier 1?) X (field) X (field) X Baseline Dryer Study 9x Standard X (Durango) 2x Tier 1 HP Dryer testing Tier 2,3,4 XXX