1. Manufactured Homes: Heat Pump Related Measures Regional Technical Forum Presentation August 18 th, 2015

2. Objective Seek RTF approval on Planning Measures’ (savings estimate and Research Strategy): Heat Pump Conversions Heat Pump Upgrades Commissioning Controls & Sizing (CC&S) Performance Based Duct sealing Note: R&E subcommittee “head-nod” on August 6 th on proposed Research Strategy 2

3. Background June RTF Meeting – RTF has an approved calibrated model for estimating heating energy and savings in MH with electric resistance heat – RTF does not have an approved calibrated model for estimating heating energy in MH with heat pumps Need to understand how heat pumps are working in manufactured homes to develop reliable per unit energy savings for related measures 3

4. Heat Pump Conversions 4

5. Measure Background Measure Name:Air Source Heat Pump Conversions MH Current Measure Category: Proven Proposed Measure Category: Planning Current Measure Status:Under Review Proposed Measure Status:Active Measure Sector:Residential (MH) End Use:HVAC Current Sunset Date:November, 2015 5

6. Measure Specifications ASHP Conversion (8.5 HSPF) from FAF w/CAC: 18 measure applications defined by 3 heating zones, 3 insulation levels and 2 duct seal levels (with and without). ASHP Conversion (8.5 HSPF) from FAF w/o CAC: 54 measure applications defined by 3 heating zones, 3 cooling zones, 3 insulation levels and 2 duct seal levels (with and without). – Note: current measure upgrades to a 7.7 HSPF ASHP. This is below current federal standard for HP 6

7. Planning Measure: Energy Savings Estimates As the RTF does not have an approved calibrated model for estimating heating energy in MH with heat pumps, alternate sources for determining energy savings estimate were considered to develop planning savings estimates. Staff Proposal: Adjust Single Family Estimates to Determine Planning Estimate for MH – Note: All SF HP measures are planning due to CC&S Alternative options considered (explained later in the presentation): NEEA-Ecotope Heat Pump Study Estimates Zero Savings 7

8. Developing Adjusted SF Savings Estimates Proposal: use the SF HP Conversion savings, de-rate for smaller MH size (Ratio = 0.85) – SF weighted average home surface area calculated using RTF prototype, weighted to RBSA – MH weighted average surface area calculated using RBSA An alternate ratio based on heating energy consumption per home was considered. Clean data to support such a calculation is not readily available – Surface area ratio seems good enough for a planning measure 8

9. Adjusted SF Savings Estimates Pros: Use existing RTF approved estimates to develop savings for MH – Best proxy in the absence of a calibrated MH curve Allows the use of home insulation level as a measure identifier – Consistent with SF Measure Con: Assumes energy savings per square foot is similar between SF and MH which may not be true – Occupant behavior may be different etc. 9

10. Adjusted SF Savings Estimates – HP Conversions from eFAF w/ CAC 10

11. Adjusted SF Savings Estimates – HP Conversions from eFAF w/o CAC 11

12. Cost Cost methodology unchanged from approved SF Conversion Measure Cost of conversion depends on size of HP installed; size depends on heating load – Different for homes with “Good”, “Fair” and “Poor” insulation levels – Different for different heating zones 12

13. Incremental Cost: HP Conversions from eFAF w/ CAC 13

14. Incremental Cost: HP Conversions from eFAF w/o CAC 14

15. Cost Effectiveness (TRC) Results: HP Conversions from eFAF w/ CAC 15

16. Cost Effectiveness (TRC) Results: HP Conversions from eFAF w/o CAC 16

17. Alternative Option 1: NEEA-Ecotope Heat Pump Study Study conducted by Ecotope in 2005, one of the objectives was to estimate mean savings from HP conversions Energy savings calculated for HZ1 only. The study concluded that net calculated savings of “4,149 kWh is highly significant” – This estimate includes SF and MH – Savings determined for MH are: – Savings were found to vary by cooling zone within HZ1 17

18. Results be viewed as an aggregate, not sub-divided by categories – “… the breakdown of estimates into subsets of the study population suffers from missing information and small sample sizes for sub-categories” Calculated mean savings estimate should not be used for ex-ante purposes – “This savings estimate is a function of the specific mix of system types, climate zones and housing types in the sample; it may not reflect future program results.” Results applicable to HZ1 only; study advises that “…extending this analysis to colder climate zones cannot be done reliably” 18 Alternative Option 1: NEEA-Ecotope Heat Pump Study Conclusions

19. Alternative Option 2: Zero Savings Idaho Power data imply that “HP Conversion + Wx” sites saved similar energy to “Wx-only” sites 19 32% lower28% lower 30% lower 32% lower

20. Alternative Option 2: Zero Savings Zero savings are possible results of analysis of one low income program from one part of the region – We aren’t certain that HP Conversions yield no savings. The trend observed could be due to other indeterminable factors The 2005 NEEA-Ecotope HP study showed significant savings for HP conversions 20

21. Heat Pump Upgrades 21

22. Measure Background Measure Name:Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades MH Current Measure Category: Proven Proposed Measure Category: Planning Current Measure Status:Under Review Proposed Measure Status:Active Measure Sector:Residential (MH) End Use:HVAC Current Sunset Date:November, 2015 22

23. Measure Specifications ASHP Upgrade to 9 HSPF 14 SEER in 3 heating zones and 3 cooling zones. ASHP Upgrade to 12 HSPF 18 SEER Variable Capacity Heat Pump (VCHP) in 3 heating zones and 3 cooling zones. 23

24. Planning Measure: Energy Savings Estimates As the RTF does not have a reliably calibrated model for estimating heating energy in MH with heat pumps, alternate sources for determining energy savings estimate were considered to develop planning savings estimates. Staff Proposal: Adjust Single Family Estimates to Determine Planning Estimate for MH – Note: All SF HP measures are planning due to CC&S Alternative options considered (explained later in the presentation): Zero Savings 24

25. Adjusted SF Savings Estimates Savings development follow same methodology as HP Conversion measures, adjust SF estimates using ratio developed using average floor area Option 1 makes the assumption that an increase in heating system efficiency will lead to energy savings Same pros and con as listed for HP Conversions 25

26. Adjusted SF Savings Estimate (kWh) 26

27. Incremental Cost Methodology unchanged from approved SF Upgrade measure Cost of upgrade to 9 HSPF = $81 – Source: SIW – Existing cost of upgrade (7.7 to 8.2 HSPF): $485 Cost of upgrade to VCHP = $4920 – Source: Cost data from Ecotope on commercially available models 27

28. Upgrade Cost Benefit Analysis (TRC) 28

29. Alternate Option: Zero Savings Idaho Power data imply that HP may behave similar to electric resistance heat systems. If this were true, then an increase in HP efficiency will not lead to energy savings Another possibility is that no savings are realized, due to comfort related–take-back Staff proposes using “Adjusted SF Estimates” as: – Consistent with HP Upgrades – Note, there is a significant efficiency upgrade in the case of VCHP. Assuming zero savings for these is a big leap 29

30. Commissioning Controls & Sizing (CC&S) 30

31. Measure Background Measure Name:Commissioning Controls & Sizing (CC&S) Current Measure Category: Planning Proposed Measure Category: Planning Current Measure Status:Under Review Proposed Measure Status:Active Measure Sector:Residential (MH) End Use:HVAC Current Sunset Date:March, 2016 31

32. CC&S Background RTF approved Research Strategy already exists – One research strategy for SF and MH Measure is Under Review as current savings are not calculated using either RBSA calibration or Guidelines compliant measure interaction methodology (Option 3) 32

33. CAT Proposal for Planning Savings Use adjusted SF estimates – Same methodology as the HP Conversion and Upgrade measures – Methodology (adjust SF estimates) consistent with other MH HP Related measures – Don’t see any other viable option for Planning Savings Estimate 33

34. CC&S Planning Savings Comparison (kWh) 34

35. CC&S Cost Comparison Existing Cost: $393 Proposed Cost: $512 – Source – Standard Information Workbook 35

36. CC&S Cost Benefit Analysis (TRC) Comparison 36

37. Performance Based Duct Sealing 37

38. Measure Background Measure Name:Performance Based Duct Sealing Current Measure Category: Planning Proposed Measure Category: Planning Current Measure Status:Under Review Proposed Measure Status:Active Measure Sector:Residential (MH) End Use:HVAC Current Sunset Date:November, 2015 38

39. Measure Technical Specifications Detailed Measure Specs available on the RTF websiteRTF website The air leakage of the duct system must be measured before and after sealing the system and must meet one of the following criteria: Must have a measured leakage of 50 CFM50 or less for a single section of home, plus an additional 30 CFM allowed for each additional section – If above is not possible, measured duct leakage after sealing should show a 50% reduction – If above is not possible, the air-handler transition to trunk duct connection must be sealed – Regardless of the qualifying path, all accessible components of the duct system must be sealed, including the crossover takeoff-to-truck duct connections and the crossover-to- crossover takeoff connections. 39

40. Planning Savings Estimate CAT Proposal: Assume Same Savings Estimate as Prescriptive Duct Sealing Measure Performance based duct sealing measure’s modeled savings estimate not supported by data – When CAT studied the BPA PTCS evaluation data for relationship between duct leakage reduction and energy savings, no relationship was found Note: This is a problem with the SF measure as well. No strong evidence that leakage reduction caused by Performance Duct Sealing is much different than leakage reduction due to Prescriptive Duct Sealing – Performance based duct seal now has Prescriptive post-seal requirements 40

41. Research Strategy 41

42. Research Strategy Scope Determine reliable energy savings estimates for: Heat Pump Conversions Weatherization with Heat Pumps – Currently measure under review due to no Research Strategy – Planning estimates exist; savings estimate same as Wx with electric resistance Performance Based Duct Sealing Commissioning, Controls, and Sizing Heat Pump Upgrades 42

43. R&E Subcommittee Review Subcommittee agrees with the proposed Research Strategy At subcommittee’s request: Includes language suggesting that research sponsors review the challenges, findings, and conclusions of previous studies (2005 NEEA HP Study and 1995 MAP Study) before crafting a detailed research plan. Regional potential for these measures was calculated; is roughly estimated to be a minimum of 20 aMW (Open Research Strategy for Walkthrough) 43

44. RTF Decision - 1 “I __________ move the RTF approve the following Manufactured Home measure analysis and Research Strategy: – Heat Pump Conversions – Heat Pump Upgrades – Commissioning Controls & Sizing (CC&S) – Performance Based Duct sealing and: Set the Category for measures to ‘Planning’; Set the Status to ‘Active’; Set the sunset date to August 31, 2018” 44

45. RTF Decision - 2 “I __________ move the RTF approve the MH HP Related Measures Research Strategy for following Manufactured Home With Heat Pump Weatherization measures: – Attic Insulation Upgrades – Floor Insulation Upgrades – Infiltration Reduction – Window Upgrades and: Keep the Category for measures to ‘Planning’; Change the Status to ‘Active’; Set the sunset date to August 31, 2018” Note: Planning savings estimates set equal to the Electric Resistance Weatherization approved savings, as per RTF June Decision 45