1. NEEM Manufactured Homes Field Test Results David Baylon, Ecotope

2. NEEM Program Manufacturer and State collaboration to set, update and maintain energy efficiency standards Provide QC for efficiency measures in the plant Support the promotion of energy efficient manufactured homes Built on the MAP program operated by BPA from 1992-1996, –Significant electric savings –30 years of utility involvement

3. Field Sample Field Review designed to track overall performance. –Four samples since 1992. –1992-1993, 1997-1998, 2000-2001, 2006-2007 Sample size stratified by state, 90/10 criteria Designed to provide overall estimates of duct leakage, air sealing, and lighting power Protocol includes details on heating and cooling systems, occupant satisfaction, and ventilation systems.

4. Sample Distribution StatePercent Population Freq.Percent Sample Idaho15.01820.7 Montana5.81719.5 Oregon36.02629.9 Washington43.22629.9 Total100.087100.0

5. Sample Characteristics Sections Idaho (n=18) %† Montana (n=17) % Oregon (n=26) % Wash. (n=26) % All (n=87) % 2001-02 (n=105) % 1997-98 (n=49) %** MAP 1992-93 (n=178) % Single Section5.55.80.0 2.20011.8 Double Section88.976.569.288.579.8747381.5 Triple+ Section5.517.730.811.518.026276.7 Home size (sq. ft)‡1,9281,6591,8931,7261,7391,7691,7501,433

6. Lighting Review Establish a lighting baseline for this sector Compare results to 2005 site built baseline Determine the current saturation of high efficacy lighting Develop lighting power density for manufactured homes

7. Lighting Characteristics Lighting Power StateLPDSt.Dev.N ID1.370.4818 MT1.500.4817 OR1.580.4526 WA1.240.3926 Total1.400.4587 Lamp Saturation StateCFLIncan.LFTotal ID11.386.02.7100.0 MT15.582.22.2100.0 OR23.273.83.0100.0 WA16.375.08.8100.0 Total18.576.55.0100.0

8. Lighting results LPD about 20% lower than SF baseline With common technologies LPD compared to SF Baseline about 15% lower CFL saturation about twice SF Baseline Linear Florescent shows similar saturation

9. Ventilation systems Average about 52 CFM average fan flow –60 CFM in 2003 Median fan runtime, 8 hours, similar to previous study (2003) 35% of ventilation fans run continuously –42% in 2003 31% of ventilation fans are not used, similar to 2003 survey On average ventilation systems deliver about 0.06 ACH across the sample

10. Group 2006-07 Sample2000-011997-98 1992-93 (MAP) n*ACH 50 Std. Dev.ACH 50 All 743.870.98 4.164.765.50 Double Wide 603.800.85 4.304.905.50 Triple Wide 144.011.05 3.844.404.92 Idaho 103.801.44 4.594.636.12 Montana 154.001.03 ——5.63 Oregon 254.400.92 4.36—5.43 Washington 243.741.01 3.894.905.36 Blower Door Results, 1992-2007

11. System2000-012006-07 An Electric Furnace (Elements + Fan Only)5449 A Heat Pump (HP)2436 A Furnace Fired by Natural Gas or LPG2215 Overall Cases With Central Air Conditioning4355 Heating Systems

12. HVAC SystemIDMTORWATotal* Electric Furnace77.835.326.957.749.0 Heat Pump11.15.953.934.635.7 Gas/Propane11.158.819.27.715.2 Cooling (No Heat Pump)22.211.719.2 19.3 All Central Cooling33.317.673.153.855.0 Heating/Cooling by State

13. Duct Systems 55% reduction in total duct leakage 3.9% of floor area at 25 PA Supply Leakage Fraction (SLF) 4.8% of system flow Crossover installation key determinant of overall duct tightness –60% increase in leakage for “Not Secure” crossover –Highly correlated to use of elbow at connection –About a third of homes with set-up review

14. Duct Leakage Group2006-072000-011997-981992-93 nMedianMean All* 727795 209231157 Double Wide 596485 199240155 Triple Wide 11149151 265210169 Idaho 117688 229254— Montana 1388149 ——— Oregon 2386107 198—— Washington 256182 202208—

15. Cross-Over Statusn CFM Leakage @ 50 Pa MeanSD Not Secured17135.2139.5 Secured3283.851.7 Total49101.694 Duct Leakage by Crossover

16. Billing Analysis Bills collected for the sample 83 valid bills (87 Cases) Billing analysis using VBDD (~PRISM) 63 Cases used Heat Pumps very problematic Heating predicted in 37 weather sites Normalized to 18 TMY3 weather sites

17. Heating Energy Use “Current” Weather (KBtu/sf) Heating SystemZone 1Zone 2Zone 3Total Heat Pump Mean8.8611.6411.579.97 Std. Dev.4.618.45–6.06 N127120 Electric Resistance Mean14.321.324.1418.8 Std. Dev.5.1110.386.358.31 N1510833 Gas Mean18.0929.1732.6229.37 Std. Dev.4.03–4.867.35 N21710 Total Mean12.3117.9827.0617.68 Std. Dev.5.6210.617.959.83 N29181663 Billing Analysis, Heating

18. Calibration & Savings Electric Resistance Furnace only SEEM inputs based on –Estimated component area/assumed component spec –Measured duct leakage (NEEM runs) –Measured ACH, Adjusted for vent fan operation (NEEM runs) –Fixed window ratio (14%) –Fixed internal gains

19. Component Comparison ComponentNEEMBaseline CeilingR-38R-28 FloorR-33R-22 WallR-21R-13 WindowU=0.35 DoorR-5 Duct LeakageAs FoundSLF=0.15 InfiltrationAs Found.35 ACH VentilationVent Fan OperationNone

20. Calibration & Savings Bills normalized to TMY3 sites SEEM runs completed to those sites –Initial adjustments on component specs –Adjustments on infiltration estimates SEEM runs completed for baseline assumptions Savings calculated from each run and aggregated by climate Program savings developed and adjusted for home size (in each zone)

21. Units Zone 1 (n=14) Zone 2 (n=8) Zone 3 (n=7) All (n=29) Billing AnalysiskWh/sf 14.321.324.1418.8 Normalized (TMY3)kWh/sf14.722.524.519.2 Heat EstimatekWh64199715139019134 SEEM (TMY3)kWh59608754137068601 SEEM (Control)kWh9544141612132113660 Estimate SavingskWh3584540676155060 Predicted SavingskWh465960878634 Realization 0.770.890.880.83 SEEM Calibration and Savings

22. Results NEEM program has developed a predictable savings mechanism for this sector. Lighting shows some consistency with site built assumptions Consistent effort has corrected the deficiencies over time Billing analysis corroborates the simulation results used for NEEM savings estimates