1. Applying SEEM Updates, Calibration, and Measure Interaction Decisions to: Single Family Weatherization and HVAC UES Measures Regional Technical Forum July 15, 2014

2. Presentation Outline Measure Overview Staff Highlighted Areas Looking Ahead – Staff Recommendations Measure Analysis Results Proposed Decision 2

3. Measure Overview 3

4. MeasureMeasure SpecificationsHeating System Measure Identifiers Starting PointEnding Point Attic: R0-R38< R-7R-38 or fill cavity Electric Forced Air Electric Zonal Air Source Heat Pump Ductless Heat Pump Attic: R0-R49< R-7R-49 Attic: R11-R38*≥ R-7, ≤ R-11R-38 or fill cavity Attic: R11-R49*≥ R-7, ≤ R-11R-49 Attic: R19-R38> R-11, ≤ R-19R-38 or fill cavity Attic: R19-R49> R-11, ≤ R-19R-49 Attic: R30-R49> R-19, ≤ R-30R-49 Attic: R38-R49 ≤ R-38R-49 Wall: R0-R11No insulationFill cavity Floor: R0-R19< R-11≥ R-19 Floor: R0-R25< R-11≥ R-25 Floor: R0-R30< R-11≥ R-30 Measure Overview - 4 Missing, but will add: Attic R30-R38; Floor R19-R30 Intentionally removed: Attic R0-R19 (Attic R0-38 is required by specs) * This is a new measure

5. MeasureMeasure SpecificationsHeating System Measure Identifiers Starting PointEnding Point Window: Single-u30Single Pane ≤ u-30 Electric Forced Air Electric Zonal Air Source Heat Pump Ductless Heat Pump Window: Double-u30Double Pane Metal Frame ≤ u-30 Window: u35-u30Std. Practice ≤ u-30 Window: Single-u22Single Pane ≤ u-22 Window: Double-u22Double Pane Metal Frame ≤ u-22 Window: u35-u22Std. Practice ≤ u-22 Infiltration Reduction*Pre-blower doorPost-blower door ASHP UpgradeStd. PracticeHSPF ≥ 9.0 ASHP FAF to ASHP ConversionElectric FAFStd. Practice ASHP eFAF Zonal to DHP ConversionElectric ZonalDHP in main area eZonal ASHP PTCS CC&SStd. PracticePTCS CC&S ASHP Duct TightnessStd. PracticePTCS Ducts eFAF & ASHP Measure Overview - 5 Missing, but will add: Zonal to ASHP conversion; FAF to DHP conversion (after BPA/Ecotope proposal) * Changed from kWh/0.1ΔACHn/ft 2 to kWh/ΔCFM 50

6. Staff Highlighted Areas Results may not be intuitive – It’s difficult to conceptualize the compounding effects on savings of the new version of SEEM, calibration (Phases I and II), and Option 3. These paths, chosen by the RTF over the last few years, make sense, but the results may not (at first). Calibration is intended to mimic results of an impact evaluation Option 3 is intended to make savings additive and correct long- term – Staff has investigated many of these non-intuitive results. This has been useful QC. Cooling Savings – Still uncalibrated, but now cooling savings make up a large percentage of most of the measures with heat pump heating systems. Staff Highlights - 6

7. Our Journey Staff Highlights - 7 SEEM Calibration Phase I Phase II “Option 3” More Data? Option 3 Uo-based Are we there yet? LMI, Old Calibration, Old SEEM

8. RTF Staff Recommendations Conclusion Many results look reasonable, but there are some weird ones, too (e.g. very low/negative floor insulation savings). What should be done about the weird results, if anything? – We think we’ve followed the previous decisions correctly. Recommendations Heating Savings – Staff recommends either A.Accepting the proposed values as is, even though they’re weird, because they are an outcome of the decisions the RTF has already made (and because we’ve acknowledged things aren’t perfect, but close on average) – We would still need a solution to the cooling savings issue for heat pump houses B.Pursuing a reasonable, and well-thought out solution to fix the “weird” values – See next slide for a possible solution Cooling Savings – Staff is still looking for ideas… Measure Category – These measures should be moved to provisional or planning: PTCS Duct Sealing – BPA evaluation still not finished, but preliminary results cause us to question current savings. PTCS Commissioning, Controls, and Sizing – Need to research baseline and efficient-case (see earlier agenda item) Recommendations - 8

9. Possible Solution: Tweak How Option 3 Divvies Savings Recommendations - 9

10. Recommendations - 10 Proposed Solution: Tweak How Option 3 Divvies Savings

11. Recommendations - 11 Part “I” on its own, may cause heat pump conversion savings to dominate the “divvying up” (uncalibrated SEEM 69/64 heat pump conversion savings can be huge) Staff will double-check that this is not an issue. Proposed Solution: Tweak How Option 3 Divvies Savings

12. Measure UES Analysis and Results 12

13. Workbooks Analysis - 13 Savings Analysis Workbook: “SEEMruns_SingleFamilyE xistingHVACandWeatheriz ation_all.xlsm” Wx UES Measure Workbook: “ResSFWx_v3_Proposed.x lsm” HVAC UES Measure Workbook: “ResSFHVAC_v1_Propose d.xlsm” PTCS Ducts SF Measure Workbook (provisional): “tbd.xlsm” PTCS CC&S Measure Workbook (provisional): “tbd.xlsm”

14. Key Drivers of Savings Calculations SEEM – Updated with improved infiltration modeling Phase I Calibration – Aligns SEEM heating energy use output with RBSA houses with well-known heating energy use Phase II Calibration – Aligns SEEM heating energy use with program-eligible houses, making adjustments for partially occupied and unoccupied houses, non-electric fuels, etc. Measure Interactions: Option 3 – Modifies the “last-measure-in” method to take into account starting point of RBSA houses. This allows measures to be additive. Heating system type is a measure identifier Analysis - 14

15. Analysis - 15 Adjustment factors are to be applied to the heating energy use output of RTF standard SEEM runs (69F/64F).

16. Phase II Adjustments These adjustment factors are applied to the Phase I-adjusted heating energy use to determine a) heating energy use, and b) non-electric heat consumption (in kWh/yr). Analysis - 16

17. Measure Interactions - Option 3 Analysis - 17

18. Measure Interactions - Option 3 Full Measure Package (Defining efficiency levels) Attic: R-38 Walls: R-11 Floors: R-25 Windows: u-0.30 Infiltration: 0.35 ACHn Duct Tightness: PTCS Duct Insulation: Existing Heat Pump HSPF: 9.0 HP CC&S: PTCS Analysis - 18 Limit on Full Measure Package (Maximum efficiency of starting point) Attic: R-19 Walls: R-0 Floors: R-0 Windows: Double Pane Metal Frame Infiltration: 0.35 ACHn Duct Tightness: n/a Duct Insulation: n/a Heat Pump HSPF: n/a HP CC&S: n/a The analysis stopped short of bringing all RBSA houses up to the full measure package level – houses with moderate existing levels of insulation did not receive the full measure package levels (example: Existing R30 in the attics remained).

19. Heating System as Identifier – Savings Logic Analysis - 19 Heat Pump Logic, Example using fake numbers

20. Other Things to Note Measures with DHP heating systems use characteristic scenarios for zonal houses. – This is because there aren’t enough DHP houses in the RBSA to determine characteristic scenarios. Analysis excludes electronic t-stats (zonal houses) and GSHP’s. Analysis - 20

21. Results 21

22. Heating Savings: Attic Insulation 22

23. 23

24. 24

25. 25

26. Heating Savings: Wall & Floor Insulation 26

27. 27

28. 28

29. 29

30. 30

31. Heating Savings: Windows 31

32. 32

33. 33

34. 34

35. Heating Savings: Infiltration and Heat Pumps 35

36. 36

37. 37

38. Cooling Savings Historically, cooling savings have been – Uncalibrated – A small fraction of heating savings Now, cooling savings are – Still uncalibrated – Still a small fraction of heating savings EXCEPT: Heat pumps The adjustments that caused heat pump savings to fall brought them closer to the unadjusted cooling savings. 38

39. 39

40. Measure Costs 40

41. 41 The cost for infiltration reduction remains unchanged: $0.073/CFM50.

42. 42

43. 43

44. Measure Cost-Effectiveness 44

45. 45 Proposed Measure Cost-Effectiveness Green=Cost-effective; Red=Not Cost-effective (Values are TRC B/C Ratio’s)

46. 46 Proposed Measure Cost-Effectiveness Green=Cost-effective; Red=Not Cost-effective (Values are TRC B/C Ratio’s) “Heat Pump: FAF w/o CAC to HP” measures are currently run in ProCost as “retrofit” measures. However, their costs make them look more like a “lost opportunity measure”: Measure Cost (w/o CAC) = Heat Pump Installation Cost – FAF Replacement Cost Measure Cost (w/CAC) = Heat Pump Installation Cost – FAF Replacement Cost–CAC Cost Should they be run as a “lost-opportunity” measure with the current cost structure? Or, should they be run as a “retrofit” with an estimated lifetime cost structure (full capital cost today, avoided FAF and CAC replacement cost at some time in the future)?

47. 47 Changes to Cost-effectiveness

48. 48 Changes to TRC B/C Ratio’s

49. Discussion on Cooling Issue: The uncalibrated cooling savings are a significant portion of measure savings for measures with heat pumps. Ideas? 49

50. Decision “I ____ move the RTF, for the Single Family Weatherization and HVAC measures, For heating savings (Pick One): Adopt as proposed, Pursue the tweak to Option 3 using uncalibrated LMI savings, OR Pursue the following alternative path ____. Do the following for cooling savings _______, For ASHP conversion measures (Pick One): – Set costs and avoided electric costs using “lost opportunity” assumptions, – Set costs and avoided electric costs using “retrofit” assumptions, OR – Continue using “lost opportunity” costs and “retrofit” avoided electric costs. Change PTCS Duct sealing measures’ status to Under Review. 50

51. Additional Slides For Reference 51

52. 52

53. 53