Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byMuriel Peters Modified over 9 years ago
1
Slide 1 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Residential Appliance Measure Updates Danielle Gidding Bonneville Power Administration Ryan Firestone and Wayne Leonard Navigant Consulting August 3, 2010
2
Slide 2 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Purpose Update residential appliance measures to 6 th Plan supply curves: Dishwashers Clothes washers Refrigerators Freezers June 29 th RTF Meeting Presentation of methodology for all appliances Approval of: full update to SF clothes washers savings methodology for dishwashers. Today Approval of updates for dishwashers (including cost), refrigerators, and freezers. Revisit baseline assumption for clothes washers
3
Slide 3 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Methodology – as presented at the last RTF meeting Identify available measure datasets Define baseline as average performance of dataset sales weighted where possible Establish appropriate measure tiers Identify algorithms for translating performance metrics into energy and water usage. Determine energy and water savings, relative to updated baseline Normalize savings to account for differences in features across baseline and measure groups (e.g. tub volume, refrigerator volume). Present proposed savings, compare to current PTR savings and identify causes for change.
4
Slide 4 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Energy and Water Algorithms Primarily DOE, mostly as used in 6 th Plan (FY10) Analyses
5
Slide 5 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Datasets California Energy Commission Appliance Database Manufacturer reported performance metrics and date of submission QC: checked against CEE certification data where possible for accuracy CEC datasets used in 6 th Plan analysis, but more recent version of the database used for this analysis. Cleaning: remove duplicates (same manufacture and specs, different model #); incomplete records; and records older than the date that the current federal standard went into effect. Oregon Tax Credit 2007 data included in 6 th Plan analysis, and used for this analysis Sales volume, basic performance metrics, retail price
6
Slide 6 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Datasets DOE Bottom-up Cost Estimates Incremental cost of improved efficiency determined from a materials and manufacturing perspective. Costs scaled up to account for pass-through of cost to retail level Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Shipment weighted average performance and specifications for dishwashers, clothes washers, refrigerators, freezers D&R International – Energy Star market share. Estimates of efficiency for Energy Star and non-Energy Star appliances.
7
Slide 7 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Single Family Residential Clothes Washers – Revisit of Baseline
8
Slide 8 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers - Revisit Savings and costs approved at June 29 th RTF meeting Approved MEF of 1.93 – average of models in CEC database from January 1, 2007 to the present. Since then, additional 2009 AHAM data published Additional baselines to consider: AHAM 2009 data (available as of July 2010) AHAM data extrapolated to 2010 to account for increasing efficiency over time. Setting the baseline for clothes washers impacts measures savings, non-programmatic savings, and 6 th plan achievable potential
9
Slide 9 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Baseline Options Keep CEC DB baseline (1.93) – Pro: accounts for trending Con: not based on sales weighting Use AHAM 2009 data (1.85) – Pro: most recent shipment weighted data available Cons: one year out of date for an appliance that continues to improve Energy Star criteria increases from 1.8 (current) to 2.0 in January 2011, suggesting a bump up in market average. Use AHAM data extrapolated to 2010 (1.91) - Pro: Uses most recent shipment weighted data available with marginal increase Con: MEF increase trend is not linear; extrapolation may not be appropriate
10
Slide 10 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Baseline Comparison Note that shipment weighted average does not increase linearly
11
Slide 11 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Results shown for electric DHW, electric Dryer. Energy Star groupings only. See backup slides for more comprehensive results, including CEE and Washington State tier groupings and additional fuel types.
12
Slide 12 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Options for Approval Option 1: Keep approved baseline from CEC database (MEF = 1.93) Option 2: Approve updated baseline from 2009 AHAM database (MEF = 1.85) Option 3: Approve AHAM data extrapolated to 2010 (MEF = 1.92)
13
Slide 13 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Residential Dishwashers
14
Slide 14 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers June 29 RTF Approved savings methodology Unique records from CEC DB used to estimate baseline (average of all records) Also used to determine average performance within each group (e.g. “any Energy Star”)
15
Slide 15 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers Today Current and upcoming federal, Energy Star, and CEE criteria Baseline options Cost model Usage: Adjusting for capacity Does larger capacity imply less cycles per year? Additional inputs (lifetime, load shape, water costs and embodied energy) Results More efficient dishwashers tend to be larger and have more non- energy utility (special features, brand). Results, including cost-effectiveness, are very sensitive baseline and usage assumptions
16
Slide 16 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Federal, Energy Star, and CEE Criteria for Standard Size Dishwashers
17
Slide 17 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Baseline Options As with clothes washers, three options CEC DB baseline (EF = 0.71) – Pro: accounts for trending Con: not based on sales weighting Use AHAM 2009 data (EF = 0.68) – Pro: most recent shipment weighted data available Con: one year behind for an appliance that continues to improve Use AHAM data extrapolated to 2010 (EF = 0.70) - Pro: Uses most recent shipment weighted data available with marginal increase Con: EF increase trend is not linear; extrapolation may not be appropriate
18
Slide 18 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Baseline Options
19
Slide 19 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Incremental Cost Model Bottom-up incremental costs from DOE/Navigant Consulting background analysis in 2006 for appliance efficiency standards. Material and other manufacturing costs to produce estimated Cost scaled to retail level Results not finalized and published on EERE website because the federal standard it was intended to support was superseded by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). Analysis contact: Steve Witkowski, DOE DOE EERE Project Manager. In between data points, interpolated values are used for today’s analysis
20
Slide 20 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Results By Group
21
Slide 21 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Usage Options On average, more efficient washers are also larger (higher place settings rating). Three usage options 1) Constant number of cycles per year (215 cycles per year) Independent of washer capacity Interpretation: Users use washer at fixed times, regardless of how full the dishwasher is. 2) Constant number of place settings per year, Assume CEC DB average place settings and 215 cycles per year. (215 cycles per year x 11.7 place settings) Interpretation: Users use washer when it’s full 3) Average of 1) and 2) Interpretation: Users sometimes use washer at fixed times, and sometimes use washer when it’s full
22
Slide 22 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Usage Options Electric DHW Savings using CEC DB Baseline Usage assumption has significant impact on ∆kWh and ∆gallons
23
Slide 23 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Baseline and Measure Characterization Res. Dishwashers Electric, Gas and Any DWH measures Lifetime: 12.3 years (as in FY10 analysis and in current deemed measures). Non-energy benefit: $10.03/1000 gallons for water supply and waste water services. (6 th Plan value, from FY10 analysis). disaggregated into 5.29 kWh /1000 gallons (6 th Plan) $9.24/1000 gallons (preserves B/C ratio when kWh savings are included) Loadshape: ResWASH DHW Electric Fuel Share: 64% (6 th Plan assumption)
24
Slide 24 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Results, Electric DHW Usage cases arranged left to right from most conservative savings estimate to least conservative savings estimate. See backup slides for results for all fuel types
25
Slide 25 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Proposal Select a baseline CEC CB (EF = 0.71, kWh/yr = 313) AHAM 2009 (EF = 0.68, kWh/yr = 325) AHAM 2010 Extrapolation (EF = 0.70, kWh = 315) Select a usage case Usage Case 1: Constant Cycles per Year Usage Case 2: Constant Place Settings per Year Usage Case 3: Average of Case 1 and Case 2 Approve methodology and resulting savings and incremental costs.
26
Slide 26 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Residential Refrigerators
27
Slide 27 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – Standards and Criteria
28
Slide 28 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – CEC DB Distribution
29
Slide 29 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – Is the CEC DB Representative of Market Share?
30
Slide 30 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – Baseline Development Approach Use CEC data to determine average % more efficient than federal standard by group: {Energy Star, non Energy Star} x {configurations} Use DOE and Energy Star market share data to determine the weighting of each group
31
Slide 31 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – Baseline Development Approach
32
Slide 32 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – Measure Groups Use CEC data to determine average % more efficient than federal standard by group
33
Slide 33 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerator - Incremental Costs Bottom-up incremental costs from DOE/Navigant Consulting background analysis in 2009 for appliance efficiency standards. Material and other manufacturing costs to produce estimated Cost scaled to retail level Data from: Preliminary Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-freezers, and Freezers, U.S. DOE, 11/1/2009 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ref_frz_prenopr_preli m_tsd.pdf
34
Slide 34 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Baseline and Measure Characterization Res. Refrigerators Lifetime: 20 years (as in FY10 analysis and in current deemed measures). Loadshape: ResFRIG HVAC Interaction Factor: -7%
35
Slide 35 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – Results
36
Slide 36 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Refrigerators – Proposal Accepts savings and cost methodologies and resulting savings and incremental costs.
37
Slide 37 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Residential Freezers
38
Slide 38 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers – Standards and Criteria
39
Slide 39 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers – CEC DB Distribution Note the large number of models introduced this year.
40
Slide 40 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers – Is the CEC DB Representative of Market Share?
41
Slide 41 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers – Baseline Development Approach Use CEC data to determine average % more efficient than federal standard by group: {Energy Star, non Energy Star} x {configurations} Use AHAM and Energy Star market share data to determine the weighting of each group
42
Slide 42 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers – Baseline Development Approach
43
Slide 43 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers – Measure Groups Use CEC data to determine average % more efficient than federal standard by group
44
Slide 44 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers- Incremental Costs Bottom-up incremental costs from DOE/Navigant Consulting background analysis in 2009 for appliance efficiency standards. Material and other manufacturing costs to produce estimated Cost scaled to retail level Preliminary Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-freezers, and Freezers, U.S. DOE, 11/1/2009 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ref_frz_prenopr_p relim_tsd.pdf
45
Slide 45 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Baseline and Measure Characterization Res. Freezers Lifetime: 20 years (as in FY10 analysis and in current deemed measures). Loadshape: ResFRZR HVAC Interaction Factor: -7%
46
Slide 46 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Freezers – Results Accepts savings and cost methodologies and resulting savings and incremental costs.
47
Slide 47 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Freezers – Proposal Accepts savings and cost methodologies and resulting savings and incremental costs.
48
Slide 48 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Back Up Slides
49
Slide 49 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison CEC DB Baseline (MEF = 1.93) Electric DHW
50
Slide 50 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison CEC DB Baseline (MEF = 1.93) Gas DHW
51
Slide 51 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison CEC DB Baseline (MEF = 1.93) Any DHW and Dryer Fuel
52
Slide 52 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – 1.85 Baseline AHAM 2009 Baseline (MEF = 1.85) Electric DHW
53
Slide 53 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison AHAM 2009 Baseline (MEF = 1.85) Gas DHW
54
Slide 54 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison AHAM 2009 Baseline (MEF = 1.85) Any DHW and Dryer Fuel
55
Slide 55 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison AHAM 2010 Extrapolation Baseline (MEF = 1.92) Electric DHW
56
Slide 56 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison AHAM 2010 Extrapolation Baseline (MEF = 1.92) Gas DHW
57
Slide 57 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison AHAM 2010 Extrapolation Baseline (MEF = 1.92) Any DHW and Dryer Fuel
58
Slide 58 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Results Comparison Electric DHW
59
Slide 59 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Results Comparison Gas DHW
60
Slide 60 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Results Comparison Any DHW
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.