1. 1 NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE March 18 th, 2015 Residential New Construction Standard Protocol Subcommittee Kick-off

2. 2 Agenda Overview  Vision  Background  Draft Plan  Feedback & Discussion Desired Outcome  General agreement on plan  Guidance for CR & NEEA Staff on tasks to complete before the next subcommittee meeting (May)

3. 3 Protocol Vision  What?  Develop standard protocol so that home energy professionals can use REM/Rate to generate savings  Protocol ensures that savings can be claimed by utilities  Why?  Leverage asset rating tool being adopted by the market place  Increase utility program flexibility  Market need for tool to assess whole home performance (next tier of savings will come from integrated design) to allow for:  Energy use estimates  Market differentiation  Consistency in ratings across the region

4. 4 In it’s most simple form Data must be “bankable” Limits Applies to only new construction Use kWh and Therm savings to baseline – not the HERS score! Models are generated by certified raters in accordance with RESNET Raters follow protocol and software constraints are followed Other actors that would use data Homebuyers, Realtors, Lenders, Appraisers, Code Officials,

5. 5 Questions we seek to answer  What constraints do we put on REM/Rate? (define the rater modeling protocol)  How do we calibration output values? (adjusted savings from REM/Rate are accepted)

6. 6 Protocol Development Draw from  NW ENERGYSTAR Homes Modeling Guidelines  RESNET Requirements (QA/QC)  ETO EPS Guidelines Improvements needed  Previously identified errors in traditional measures  How to handle new technologies and ”un-modelable”  Define Baseline  Define Output Report Documentation  Protocol  Research Plan

7. 7 Background

8. 8 Many Tools – One Option ToolUse Target Market & Share Score SystemEngineCodeAdvocates REM/Rate Compliance, Utilities, marketing new and existing homes, ~40% of all new homes nationally HERS - 0-100 abstracted score Proprietary, Monthly YES RESNET, raters in the NW, Noresco SEEM Utility program measure evaluation RTFn/a Hourly single zone model - includes thermal mass and solar impacts on interior temps NOEcotope, RTF DOE’s HES existing home score existing homes 1-10 score, asset based DOE 2.1ENODOE EnergyGauge Compliance and HERS score generator new and existing homes, SE USA RESNET HERS - 0- 100 abstracted, 2006 IECC = 100 points DOE 2.1EYESRESNET, FSEC Cal HERS “CSE” Compliance and HERS score generator California New residential construction 0-100? Equest (DOE 2.2) YES?CEC, Cal Utilities BEOpt energy optimization of residental buildings building science professionals, designers RESNET HERS (under development) Energy PlusNONREL, BPA EPS Compliance and HERS score generator 2400 homes in NW in 2014 adjusted MMBTU value Post Processed REM/Rate NOETO, Earth Advantage

9. 9 Sources of Uncertainty  Input Parameter Accuracy  Rater Bias and Variability  Software Accuracy  Occupant Variability  Climate Variability Oakridge National Lab 2014 – impact of parameter accuracy on energy estimation Estimated ACH50 ACH50 from Blower Door Test

10. 10 Previous REM/Rate Comparison Red: Previous REM/Rate Blue: SEEM Green: Updated REM/Rate

11. 11 Rater Variability Investigation 8 Raters, 12 Next Step Home Projects Will assess:  Overall variability in outputs  Variability in inputs (assumptions, differences in equipment efficiencies or use schedules, etc.) Data will help determine how to develop modeling protocol to reduce overall variability.

12. 12 Protocol Approach

13. 13 High Level Path to kWh Savings Measure Level Calibration Annual kWh

14. 14 Proposed Development Tasks TASK 1 – REM/Rate™ and SEEM Comparative Analysis TASK 2 – Identify Misalignment Issues TASK 3 – Develop Guidelines TASK 4 – Calibrate to Real Data TASK 5 – Protocol Documentation TASK 6 – Research Plan Development

15. 15 Task 1: Comparative Analysis  Currently in progress  Utilize research performed previously on REM/SEEM  Update by comparing against SEEM 96 and updated REM software  Look at traditional savings measures, individually  Looking for similar rate of change of consumption as components are varied in REM/SEEM Outcome: How close are the two outputs, and do any changes need to happen to the software to improve the alignment?

16. 16 Task 2: Understand Errors in Savings Estimates  Assess how variance in rater inputs creates variance in REM outputs  Understand behavior or systems that cause variation in outputs (fireplaces, electric resistance floor heat, etc.)  Develop strategies for input guidelines to constrain variation in how these are input into REM  Determine which components exist in both baseline and efficient cases Known Source of ErrorData Needed for Modeling Protocol Gas Fireplace Approved efficiency ratings and heat output values. Wood Fireplace RTF research on supplemental wood heat. Spa/Hot Tub Building America modeling protocols. Electric Resistance Floor Heat Manufacturer output capacities, hours of use. Supplemental Electric Water Heat Manufacturer output capacities, assumed average run times.

17. 17 Task 3: Develop Modeling Guidelines Develop modeling guidelines to constrain variation in inputs:  Use NWESH Guidelines as staring point  Users must use provided libraries  Only 4 foundation type options  Infiltration input strategy controlled  Will detail which default values to use or provide guidelines on how to make assumptions

18. 18 Task 4: Calibrate to Real Data  Use real world billing data to compare modeled energy use from REM to actual energy use  Develop calibration to be applied to consumption Data sources:  Energy Trust of Oregon (500+ homes)  NEEA’s Next Step Pilot Homes (14 homes with detailed monitoring data)

19. 19 Task 5: Protocol documentation Protocol Documentation will include:  Software requirements  Modeling guidelines  Savings calibration  QA processes

20. 20 Task 6: Research Plan Development  Subcommittee will help drive the future of the protocol. What research needs to be done to move this from Provisional Approval (aiming for December) to Approved?

21. 21 Subcommittee Meeting Schedule MonthPurpose MarchKickoff April- no meeting - MayComparative Analysis JuneDraft Protocol & Baseline JulyCalibration Results August- no meeting - SeptemberResearch Plan OctoberPreparation for RTF NovemberProvisional Approval Requested December- no meeting -

22. 22 Question #1 Do we want a protocol that is replicable? (for a different calculation engine) Seeking guidance, not specifics

23. 23 Question #2  How much alignment is sufficient?  - front end vs back end calibration

24. 24 Question #3  What should NEEA/CR get done between now and May? Seeking guidance, not specifics

25. 25 Final Questions & Discussion