1. Multifamily Air Sealing Program Bobbi Wilhelm/John Forde Implementation & Evaluation protocols March 20, 2013

2. 2 Team Introductions  Puget Sound Energy:  Bobbi Wilhelm: Evaluation  John Forde: Market Manager  Clint Stewart: Program Manager  Arrow Insulation:  Ben Burton: Sr. Program Manager  Dave Burton: Program Manager  Jay Dupree: Field Rep  DNV KEMA:  Jarred Metoyer & Team  More help & support is located on the Microsoft website: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint- help/CL010072915.aspx?CTT=97 http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint- help/CL010072915.aspx?CTT=97

3. Agenda  Overview of the Air Sealing Program  Buildings Served  Air Sealing Video  Program Implementation Protocols  Video of Air Sealing Project  Program Evaluation Protocols/Strategy 3

4. Why Multifamily Air Sealing  I-937  PSE continues to seek new energy savings opportunities in all sectors, including multifamily  Based on the number of electrically heated multifamily buildings/units in the PSE service area, there is significant energy savings opportunity. The estimated potential is 200,000 units  During the 2012-13 RFP process, Arrow Insulation Inc. submitted a Multifamily Air Sealing Proposal 4

5. Program Overview  Measures Include:  Attic air sealing and insulation  Dense pack walls/rim joists  Floor air sealing and insulation  Door gaskets and sweeps  Ventilation fan timers  Air sealing only measures if already insulated or combined air sealing and insulation  On site audit to gather building information  Utilizes whole building blower door testing (pre-post)  Program Implementation team conducts post installation TREAT modeling. 5

6. Program Overview Continued  Program started January, 2012 and will be completed by December 2013  Building types range from 6 units single story to 20 units with 3 stories and located in most of the service area counties  Recruitment through past weatherization participants, program marketing efforts, etc.  Owners must commit to no additional energy efficient upgrades for 1 year (including heating season) 6

7. Units Served to Date  Previously Insulated Buildings (no additional insulation):  18 Buildings  133 Units  71,328 sq ft attic & floor  63,772 sq ft walls  Non-previously Insulated:  15 Buildings  142 Units  91,357 sq ft Attic & Floor  58,027 sq ft Walls 7

8. Protocols  Comprehensive TREAT audit performed  Measures include:  Attic air sealing and insulation  Dense pack walls/rim joists  Floor air sealing and insulation  Door gaskets and sweeps  Ventilation fan timers  Inform property owner/set dates for install  Whole building depressurization performed before and after each installed measures 8

9. Current Infiltration Reduction 9 MeasureInfiltration reduction kWh Savings sq. ft. Air Tightening - Ceiling, Floor, Wall insulation to R13 42.62%1.63 Air Tightening - Ceiling, Wall Insulation to R13 (slab on grade bldgs) 47.88%2.21 Air Tightening - Ceiling and Floor 27.15%0.68

10. Current Infiltration Reduction MeasureActual reductionkWh per sq. ft. Wall Insulation to R13 and Air Tightening 19.85%3.43 Ceiling Insulation to R38 and Floor to R30 and Air Tightening 32.81%2.42 Ceiling Insulation to R38, Floor Insulation to R30, Wall Insulation to R13 and Air Tightening 44.82%2.49 10

11. 11 Photos

12. Video View Youtube Video 12

13. Program Implementation & Evaluation  The MF Air Sealing Team invited me (evaluation) in the room early  The team taught me what air sealing was (thanks!)  The team asked for input on what needs to be done so that we can evaluate the program  I suggested:  Testing out after every measure and randomizing measure installation  Help assist with program optimization in event of lower avoided costs  Get a consultant on board who deals with complicated engineering & MF evaluations to take a look 13

14. As of April 2012  Team began testing in and out between measures and randomizing measure installation patterns  We sent out an RFP and hired KEMA to assist with a ‘process’ type evaluation  Provide us with an overview of evaluation methods given our implementation strategy  Give us a ‘best in class’ recommendation for evaluation of the program  Provide us with a gap analysis on data needs 14

15. Evaluation Methods  Billing analysis  Relatively complex algorithm that  is accurate for program and site level,  difficult to identify control  difficult for regression to address non ‐ linear effects of occupancy and measures  Prototype Simulation with Billing History  Affordable  accurate for population  not accurate at the site level  difficulty with understanding the ‘prototype’  Individual building models –use bill history for calibration  Higher cost  Most Accurate results 15

16. Current Program Status  Test in and out of every building  Multiple blower doors – Whole building approach  Test out between every measure  Provides an understanding of how measures stack up  Collecting insulation values pre & post  Collecting up to 10 years of billing history data for every building  Average Heating Set point (thermostat) is gathered  Building, window, etc. square footage  Currently collecting lighting wattages  Collecting major appliances – letting treat default on annual kWh 16

17. Next Steps  True up modeling with billing history  Implement process improvements  Air seal final buildngs  Complete Evaluation  Present findings to RTF 17

18. Thanks! Questions/Comments? 18