Non-Res Code Compliant Lighting: Working Toward a Standard Protocol Christian Douglass, RTF Contract Analyst Non-Residential Lighting Subcommittee October 23, 2015

Today’s Agenda Define “code compliant” lighting project Catch up on where we are with non-res lighting at the RTF – What’s happened in the past and where are we now? – What RTF work products do we currently have? What are most programs doing with code compliant lighting? Discuss key questions required to move an RTF code compliant lighting work product forward – Which RTF savings estimation method would we use? – How would we determine lighting HOU? – How would we handle savings from reduction in LPD? – How would we handle savings from controls? Wrap up and next steps 2

Today’s Agenda Define “code compliant” lighting project Catch up on where we are with non-res lighting at the RTF – What’s happened in the past and where are we now? – What RTF work products do we currently have? What are most programs doing with code compliant lighting? Discuss key questions required to move an RTF code compliant lighting work product forward – Which RTF savings estimation method would we use? – How would we determine lighting HOU? – How would we handle savings from reduction in LPD? – How would we handle savings from controls? Wrap up and next steps 3

Code Compliant Lighting Project: a Definition Any lighting project that is required to comply with building lighting codes. This includes… 4  Newly constructed facilities  Newly constructed addition to an existing facility  A major renovation or remodel of an existing building  A change in an existing building’s Space Use Type

Code Compliant Lighting Project: a Definition Any lighting project that is required to comply with building lighting codes. This includes… 5  Newly constructed facilities  Newly constructed addition to an existing facility  A major renovation or remodel of an existing building  A change in an existing building’s Space Use Type Many utility programs generally refer to these kinds of projects as “new construction”

Today’s Agenda Define “code compliant” lighting project Catch up on where we are with non-res lighting at the RTF – What’s happened in the past and where are we now? – What RTF work products do we currently have? What are most programs doing with code compliant lighting? Discuss key questions required to move an RTF code compliant lighting work product forward – Which RTF savings estimation method would we use? – How would we determine lighting HOU? – How would we handle savings from reduction in LPD? – How would we handle savings from controls? Wrap up and next steps 6

The RTF’s Non-Res Lighting Journey

Existing RTF Non-Res Lighting Documents Retrofits – A number of documents available on RTF website including provisional protocol, research plan, interview guide, and calculatorprovisional protocolresearch planinterview guidecalculator – May expect to leverage the retrofit protocol’s research products (and results) as much as possible for a code compliant lighting work product – Protocol sunsets at end of this year, so we will be talking about this one again soon (also have data from BPA to test some of the research questions) Code Compliant – RTF lighting subcommittee has developed draft versions of a provisional code compliant protocol in the past (ca. 2013)draft versions – RTF contract analysts do not recommend starting from these earlier drafts as much has changed since these were developed 8

Overall Aim for Code Compliant Lighting Similar to the RTF’s retrofit protocol, our aim is to find a consistent and simplified method for computing reliable savings Also want a solution that will be valuable to the region’s programs – Widely applicable – Implementable 9

Today’s Agenda Define “code compliant” lighting project Catch up on where we are with non-res lighting at the RTF – What’s happened in the past and where are we now? – What RTF work products do we currently have? What are most programs doing with code compliant lighting? Discuss key questions required to move an RTF code compliant lighting work product forward – Which RTF savings estimation method would we use? – How would we determine lighting HOU? – How would we handle savings from reduction in LPD? – How would we handle savings from controls? Wrap up and next steps 10

What are the region’s programs doing for these kind of projects? Surveyed a number of the region’s lighting programs What I found: – All programs surveyed offer some kind of non-res code compliant lighting measures – All programs use current building codes as the baseline; however, a few programs require project savings exceed a threshold (typically % better than code) to receive incentives – Most programs offer measures for LPD reductions on a prescriptive or calculated basis – Code compliant controls measures handled very differently across the region: from prescriptive/calculated to custom to not offered at all 11

What are the region’s programs doing for these kind of projects? (cont’d) Other findings – Generally, current code LPDs relatively “easy to beat” with LEDs – Programs seeing LPD savings of 50 to 60% above code or better – Many programs leverage DOE’s COMcheck tool, which helps to establish code LPD baseline and reduces analytical burden 12

Today’s Agenda Define “code compliant” lighting project Catch up on where we are with non-res lighting at the RTF – What’s happened in the past and where are we now? – What RTF work products do we currently have? What are most programs doing with code compliant lighting? Discuss key questions required to move an RTF code compliant lighting work product forward – Which RTF savings estimation method would we use? – How would we determine lighting HOU? – How would we handle savings from reduction in LPD? – How would we handle savings from controls? Wrap up and next steps 13

Which RTF savings estimation method would we use? 14

Savings Estimation Method 15 Graphic taken from the RTF Guidelines:

Savings Estimation Method (continued) “Standard Protocol” (SP) would be the best likely savings estimation method for this measure within the RTF Guidelines – This would be consistent with the RTF’s savings estimation method for non-res retrofit lighting – Would be difficult to create Unit Energy Savings (UES) values, so this is likely not an option RTF SPs require a protocol document, savings calculator, and a research strategy or plan if any research questions are outstanding This measure would likely be a Provisional Standard Protocol since it would share research questions (e.g. lighting HOU) with the RTF’s Provisional Retrofit Protocol Does the subcommittee agree to treat this as a protocol? 16

How would we determine lighting HOU? 17

Lighting HOU Existing RTF Non-Res Lighting Retrofits research plan already has a provisional simplified method of determining lighting HOUresearch plan Method involves conducting a structured interview with someone who is knowledgeable of the building’s occupancy Building hours of occupancy (HOO) are then compared to metered lighting hours of use (HOU) to derive a set of HOO/HOU ratios The goal is to find ratios that can reliably estimate HOU (and thus savings) from an interview rather than from metered data 18

Lighting HOU (continued) Want to establish whether this same method can be used for a code compliant protocol With code compliant projects (particularly new buildings), buildings may not yet be occupied – How do utility programs currently deal with this? – Are final savings computed and incentives paid only after building is occupied? 19

How would we handle savings from reduction in LPD? 20

Savings from Reduction in LPD These are savings attributable only to a reduction in fixture kW and not related to controls (e.g. dimming) An RTF protocol could allow savings to be computed using either building level LPDs or space level LPDs (but not whole building simulation) 21 These savings are easy to standardize and straightforward to compute, as long as we know the baseline LPD (what is the baseline?)

A Word on RTF Baselines A code compliant lighting protocol would be considered a current practice measure at the RTF The RTF Guidelines provide the following guidance on determining the baseline for a current practice measure: “For these measures, the baseline is defined by the typical choices of eligible end users in purchasing new equipment and services at the time of RTF approval. The RTF estimates this baseline based on recent choices of eligible end users in purchasing new equipment and services…As a general rule the RTF will use a baseline that is characterized by current market practice or the minimum requirements of applicable codes or standards, whichever is more efficient.” 22 Quote taken from the RTF Guidelines:

Regional compliance studies have found as-built LPDs consistently lower than code 23 Source: “Non-Residential Energy Savings from Northwest Energy Code Changes ”. Prepared by Mike Kennedy for NEEA

Small sample of recent observations also showing lower than code interior LPDs 24 Source: From October 8, 2015 NEEA code compliance pilot study presentation. Note that this is a small sample set concentrated in the Puget Sound area.

Exterior lighting LPDs also lower than code, some by a wide margin 25 Source: From October 8, 2015 NEEA code compliance pilot study presentation. Note that this is a small sample set concentrated in the Puget Sound area.

Analyst baseline proposal for LPDs: use current practice baseline more efficient than code Proposal for interior LPDs: 15% better than code Proposal for exterior LPDs: 20% better than code These would likely be provisional assumptions that could be updated by currently ongoing or planned regional studies – BPA Momentum Savings research (ongoing) – NEEA commercial code compliance study (planned) Discussion: does subcommittee agree with this proposal? 26

How would we handle savings from controls? 27

Savings from Controls Upgrade Codes have already captured much of control savings: likely smaller savings opportunity compared to reductions in LPD There may also be some significant penetration of controls in non-code required spaces, i.e. the current practice may be better than code There are likely additional research questions here that are not captured in the RTF retrofit research plan – E.g. what are controls savings fractions relative to the controls in the existing building codes – This would take some understanding of what controls savings have already come from codes 28

Like LPDs, there’s evidence that controls current practice is ahead of codes 29 Source: 2014 CBSA, filtered for buildings constructed in n = 1280.

Previous slide showed ‘04-’13 buildings; here we’re showing ‘08-13 buildings 30 Source: 2014 CBSA, filtered for buildings constructed in n = 511.

Analyst baseline proposal for controls: use mix of “at code” and “better than code” baseline For spaces with code-required occupancy sensors and/or automatic daylighting, assume code baseline For spaces without occupancy sensor code requirement, assume some penetration of current practice occupancy sensing (OS) – CBSA suggests OS penetration of ~ 5-20% even for spaces where not code-required – Analysts propose 20% OS penetration for warehouses* and open offices and 15% OS penetration for all other spaces – does subcommittee agree? Overall, do we want to include controls savings in a code compliant protocol? 31 *Except in WA where occupancy sensors are already required by code, in which case occupancy sensors would be the baseline.

Today’s Agenda Define “code compliant” lighting project Catch up on where we are with non-res lighting at the RTF – What’s happened in the past and where are we now? – What RTF work products do we currently have? What are most programs doing with code compliant lighting? Discuss key questions required to move an RTF code compliant lighting work product forward – Which RTF savings estimation method would we use? – How would we determine lighting HOU? – How would we handle savings from reduction in LPD? – How would we handle savings from controls? Wrap up and next steps 32

Wrap Up Analysts and staff will take feedback from group today and determine next steps Please any additional comments to Upcoming RTF or subcommittee agenda items – More on code compliant lighting – Results from BPA lighting evaluation that will inform RTF research questions on hours of use (preliminary results slated for November RTF meeting) 33

Additional Slides 34

Current NW Building Codes Several different codes currently used in the NW – 2014 Oregon code – 2012 Washington code – 2012 Seattle code – 2012 IECC (used by ID and MT) Codes dictate both minimum LPDs and controls Multiple pathways for LPD compliance – By building type – By space type – By whole building modeling 35

Example code-required LPDs 36 Space type methodBuilding type method

The code compliant controls challenge 37 The retrofit caseThe code compliant case Manual switch Bi-level switch w/ sweep Occupancy sensor Retrofit control savings Additional control (“measure”) savings Control savings from code In the code compliant case, we need to know control savings relative to the code or current practice baseline control, which is no longer a “simple” manual switch.