1. Regional Heat Pump Water Heater Evaluation Committee Kickoff March 8 th, 2012

2. Agenda for Kickoff Review background/scope of committee Review membership Review current state of knowledge: energy usage/current field and lab work Discuss and align on goals/objectives for savings study Discuss and align on goals/objectives for process and market evaluation Discuss and align on process 2

3. Background Provisional UES approved for heat pump water heater (HPWH) for: – Northern Climate Specification Tier 1 Buffer space installs (October) Interior, non-ducted installs (October) – Northern Climate Spec Tier 2 Buffer space installs (October) Interior, ducted installs (February) 3

4. Regional HPWH Evaluation Advisory Committee Scope 1.RTF sub-committee to validate HPWH savings & installed cost 2.Coordinate regional process and market evaluation for market transformation efforts Co-chaired by – RTF (Tom Eckman), and – NEEA (Dave Kresta) 4

5. Current Members RTF Staff Lead: Tom Eckman Adam Hadley Mark Kendall Gillian Charles NEEA Co-Lead: Dave Kresta, dkresta@neea.orgdkresta@neea.org Anu Teja, ATeja@neea.orgATeja@neea.org Jeff Harris, jharris@neea.orgjharris@neea.org BPA Kacie Bedney, kcbedney@bpa.govkcbedney@bpa.gov Jack Callahan, jmcallahan@bpa.govjmcallahan@bpa.gov Stephanie Vasquez, smvasquez@bpa.govsmvasquez@bpa.gov Lauren Gage, lsmgage@bpa.govlsmgage@bpa.gov Ben Larson, ben@ecotope.comben@ecotope.com Mark Jerome, lmj18231@msn.comlmj18231@msn.com Rich Arneson, rarneson@ci.tacoma.wa.usrarneson@ci.tacoma.wa.us Jim Maunder, jmaunder@ravallielectric.comjmaunder@ravallielectric.com Eric Brateng, eric.brateng@pse.comeric.brateng@pse.com David Thompson, David.Thompson@avistacorp.comDavid.Thompson@avistacorp.com Walker Dodson, Walker.Dodson@pse.comWalker.Dodson@pse.com Erin Erben, erin.erben@eweb.orgerin.erben@eweb.org Greg Kelleher, kgreg.kelleher@eweb.orgkgreg.kelleher@eweb.org Todd Greenwell, tgreenwell@idahopower.comtgreenwell@idahopower.com Dan Rubado, ETO, dan.rubado@energytrust.orgdan.rubado@energytrust.org Additional to reach out to: – Bob Gunn at Snohomish PUD. – Dane Christiansen, NREL – Ammi, EPRI – Jim Lutz, LBNL – Andie Baker, Tacoma – Pete Pengilly, Idaho Power (evaluation) 5

6. Savings and Installed Cost Validation 6

7. HPWH Energy Use: Known Data BPA/EPRI Field study NEEA/30 unit AirGenerate study NEEA and BPA lab testing Known from Lab and Field testing to date for tier 1 and tier 2 units: – COP vs ambient, COP vs inlet water temp, COP vs airflow, COP vs average tank temp – Fan, compressor, electric element power draw – Standby losses SEEM model with infiltration effects 7

8. What are we trying to answer? (Proposed prioritized drivers to savings research plan) Performance of HPWH with real world effects Savings characterization of current models in field vs. generalized savings model Space/heat interaction Filling in knowledge gaps 8 Hot water usage/draw patterns Space heating interaction Electric element usage Buffer space temperatures Inlet water temp Airflow (for ducted systems) Temp set points Installed costs Code issues impacting installation

9. Two approaches to savings validation Traditional field study: Statistical sampling of units within program population Measurement focused on overall unit performance (e.g. annual kWH saved) Whole home interaction through whole home metering Pros: Relatively inexpensive Cons: Limited to sample/population studied, difficult to extend to new units, other populations 9 Validated Engineering Model: Focus on statistical measurement of independent input variables (water draws, ambient temps, etc) Limited detailed unit testing (in lab) Field performance measurements linked to lab tested equivalents Pros: Generalizable to different HPWH models, different housing populations; saves future costs for performance assessment. Cons: Requires more detailed measurement and analysis of site data; potentially more expensive up front

10. 10

11. 11

12. Traditional Field Study Approach 12 Three primary data collection areas – Hot Water Consumption (drawn patterns & timing) – Space Conditioning Interaction (model inputs) – In-field COP Study Dates – Site/Participant recruitment Program participants through 3/31/2013 Overlap of site selection across data collection areas expected – Study data collection period: 6/1/2013 – 5/31/2014 Installation of monitoring equipment would occur well before 6/1/2013 – Provisional UES Sunset Date: 12/31/2014

13. Study Area: Hot Water Consumption Data Collected – Monthly hot water consumption (gallons) Sample – 200 sites Random/representative sample of program participants Consider leveraging Jim Lutz’ draw pattern study in lieu of sampling our own sites 13

14. Study Area: Space Heat Interaction Data Collected – Unheated Buffer Space-to-House UA – Unheated Buffer Space estimate of internal gains (equipment audit) – Unheated Buffer Temperatures Sample – 50 sites – Additional Buffer space temperatures can be measured at non-HPWH sites(?) 14

15. Study Area: In-Field COP Data Collected – Hot water consumption (draw pattern & gallons/day) – Unheated Buffer Space-to-House UA – Unheated Buffer temperatures – Unheated Buffer Space estimate of internal gains (equipment audit) – Energy consumption of heating systems – HPWH energy consumption Compressor and Fan Electric resistance – ΔT of water delivered – Ambient temperature & exhaust air temperature – For tier 2 (assumes constant speed fan): Two-time measurement of – airflow – incoming air temperature Sample – 75 sites Site selections weighted by program occurrence of HPWH model, installation location, and heating zone. 15

16. Study Area: Installed Costs Challenge: high initial installed costs due to immature supply chain Process: Capturing installation costs for all Program installs during 2012/13 16

17. Process to move forward on savings study Alignment on known data and questions to be answered Alignment on Traditional Field Study vs. Validated Engineering Model approach RFP for contractor to create workplan Meeting agendas will clearly differentiate between savings validation discussion vs. market/process evaluation. 17

18. Market and Process Evaluation Proposed: Key drivers for market and process evaluation: – Effectiveness of current market intervention strategies – Key market factors to be addressed by future HPWH programs – How do end-users interact with the technology Planned NEEA activities – Full initiative implementation in 2013 – Baseline study underway – NEEA plans surveys of homeowners, supply-chain, mfgs during 2012 Requirements from group members for market and process evaluation? 18

19. Process to move forward on market and process evaluation Alignment on key drivers and requirements RFP for contractor to create workplan Meeting agendas will clearly differentiate between savings validation discussion vs. market/process evaluation. 19