1. ENERGY STAR and EcoRated Homes: Planning Estimates and Research Strategy Regional Technical Forum December 8 th, 2015 Josh Rushton & Mohit Singh-Chhabra

2. Objective Seeking RTF Decision on new-construction MH measures, ENERGY STAR and EcoRated MH. CAT recommendation: Planning UES (with Research Strategy) Active status Sunset December, 2017 2

3. Presentation Roadmap New construction MH baseline Developing Planning Savings Estimates – Non-electric heat adjustment (Phase II calibration factor) for new construction MH – Aligning SEEM.69 with billing data (Phase I calibration factor) for all electric homes Research Strategy Decision 3

4. MH New Construction Baseline 4 - Baseline

5. Guidelines : Roadmap Section 3.2.1 “A current practice baseline is used if the measure affects systems, equipment or practices that are at the end of their useful life or for measures delivering new systems, equipment or practices, e.g., ENERGY STAR ® specifications for new homes…… “For these measures, the baseline is defined by the typical choices of eligible end users in purchasing new equipment and services at the time of RTF approval. The RTF estimates this baseline based on recent choices of eligible end users in purchasing new equipment and services…. “The RTF may decide to use an alternative current practice based on other factors” Note: The most commonly used baseline for Current Practice Measures is a “typical choices” baseline 5 - Baseline

6. Manufacturer HUD Minimum (%) Somewhat Improved (%) ESTAR HUD (%) 01-6040 0219-51 03-2075 0475-21 05-7219 06-5520 0770911 08--80 097-3 10--100 Typical Choices Baseline 6-- Baseline Typical choices baseline is market mix of standard-construction and efficient-case homes (everything in the red box) Source: BPA High Performance Manufactured Homes (HPMH) report (2012) Note: Numbers do not add up to a 100% as these Manufacturers also build modular homes

7. Manufacturer HUD Minimum (%) Somewhat Improved (%) ESTAR HUD (%) 01-6040 0219-51 03-2075 0475-21 05-7219 06-5520 0770911 08--80 097-3 10--100 Typical Choices Baseline 7-- Baseline Typical choices baseline is market mix of standard-construction and efficient-case homes (everything in the red box) Source: BPA High Performance Manufactured Homes (HPMH) report (2012) Issue with typical choices baseline: NEEM program is unique to the Northwest and may be responsible for the current state of the market. As per the 2012 presentation on HPMH: “NEEM participation dropped significantly at the end of MAP, and Energy Star participation elsewhere in the country has rather minimal market share (~10%) in the absence of incentives”

8. Manufacturer HUD Minimum (%) Somewhat Improved (%) ESTAR HUD (%) 01-6040 0219-51 03-2075 0475-21 05-7219 06-5520 0770911 08--80 097-3 10--100 The Current Baseline In current measure workbook, baseline is defined as market mix of non-NEEM homes Source: High Performance Manufactured Homes (HPMH) report (developed for BPA by Northwest Energy Works, 2012) 8-- Baseline

9. The Current Baseline (Contd.) Underlying Assumption: if the NEEM program support were to cease, the new construction market would be similar to the current non-NEEM MH mix Reasoning: NEEM participation dropped significantly at the end of MAP, and Energy Star participation elsewhere in the country has rather minimal market share (~10%) in the absence of incentives The issue with choosing this baseline is that we don’t really know whether a significant portion of would-be NEEM homes would revert to HUD minimum without program support – Would ENERGY STAR market share really drop all the way to zero? – Would efficiency-minded customers who forego ENERGY STAR really go all the way down to HUD minimum at the same rate as non-NEEM customers? Manufacturers could also manufacture Somewhat Thermally Improved homes instead (which many are already doing) in the absence of program support 9 - Baseline

10. Manufacturer HUD Minimum (%) Somewhat Improved (%) ESTAR HUD (%) 01-6040 0219-51 03-2075 0475-21 05-7219 06-5520 0770911 08--80 097-3 10--100 Staff Recommendation: Somewhere in Between Assumption: Without program support, average efficiency of would-be NEEM homes drops to “Somewhat Thermally Improved” levels. 10-- Baseline This baseline is in-between the two other choices we have. ESTAR now at Somewhat Thermally Improved

11. Baseline Options: RTF Direction Required Continue with Current Assumption – Baseline is equal to the mix of Non-NEEM homes currently in the market Typical Choices – Baseline will represent an average of NEEM and non- NEEM homes in the proportion of their respective market share Somewhere in Between: – The NEEM homes will look like the Somewhat Thermally Improved (previous slide) 11- Baseline Staff Recommendation

12. Developing Planning Savings Estimates 12

13. Current Measure Specifications 13- Savings Component Baseline (Somewhere in Between) ENERGY STAREcoRated Ceilings (flat) Avg. R-33 Nominal; U = 0.036 Effective Flat: R-49 Nominal; U=0.025 Effective Ceilings (vaulted)Vaulted: R-40 Nominal; U=0.029 Effective Walls Avg. R-18 Nominal; U= 0.065 Effective R-21 Nominal; U=0.055 Effective R-21 w/no trade off & requires insulated header; U=0.055 Effective Floors Avg. R-25 Nominal; U = 0.04 Effective R-33; U=0.033 EffectiveR-38 Blown-in; U=0.033 Effective GlazingAvg. U=0.32U=0.32U=0.32 area weighted avg. Appliances built- in BaselineENERGY STAR Dishwasher ENERGY STAR Refrigerator Lighting No requirement (Current Practice) 80% fixture CFL Envelope Tightness No requirement5.0 ACH 50 (avg 3.9 ACH 50 found in 2009 field study) Heating System 78% AFUE Gas FAF; or Electric Furnace; or 8.5 HSPF Heat Pump 80% AFUE Gas FAF; or Electric Furnace; or 8.5 HSPF Heat Pump 90% AFUE Gas FAF; or Electric Furnace; or 8.5 HSPF Heat Pump Duct Leakage 13% (est from old NEEM studies that pre-date duct sealing reqs) 0.06 x Floor Area CFM 50 in-plant test (5% Supply Leakage Fraction, 2009 field study) Approximate Uo0.0570.051

14. Existing Savings Estimates: Not Recommended Measure specifications have changed: – Infiltration: At the time of measure development, infiltration for baseline was assumed to be 7 ACH 50 – Lighting and Appliances: had significant savings, ~1000 kWh; now less than 50 kWh due to updated standards and efficient current practice – Other specs mostly the same Measure savings calculated using SEEM.92. Update made to SEEM since then mainly impacts heating energy savings due to infiltration (among other smaller changes) Note: Proposed Planning Estimates (next) have been calculated with updated measure specifications 14- Savings

15. Developing Planning Savings Estimates: Non Electric Heat Adjustment (Calibration Phase II) 15

16. Non-Electric Heat Adjustment (Phase II) The Phase II calibration factor accounts for the possible presence on non-electric fuels (e.g. wood heat) on annual electric heating energy −Existing homes Phase II factor is 8% for HZ1 and 14% for HZ2 & HZ3 Homes in NEEM dataset have lower incidence of non-electric heat than homes in RBSA dataset. Thus, Phase II factor was adjusted based for new construction MH based on the NEEM dataset. Staff Proposal: Phase II factor = 2.5% for all HZ – NEEM data suggests that only 7 % of electrically heated homes (4 out of 55) had non-electric heat presence Assuming that these are medium off grid use homes, gives us a Phase 2 factor of 2.5%. i.e. adjustment factor of (100% - 2.5% = 97.5%) Reminder: for MH there was no additional adjustment for gas heat and a very small adjustment for unoccupied homes 16 Savings: Phase II

17. Developing Planning Savings Estimates: Aligning SEEM with Billing Data for Electrically Heated Homes (“Phase I”) 17

18. All Electric Home Heating Energy (Phase 1) Adjustment Factor Phase I calibration factor developed using regression to understand differences between SEEM (69/64°F) and billing data (VBDD) heating energy estimates. We have two options: SEEM.69: Calibration based on NEEM data only. – Same Phase I calibration factor Pre- and Post- Calibration Curve: Calibration based on NEEM and RBSA data – Phase I Calibration factor varies pre- and post-. Consistent with existing measure (Planning) Savings estimate calculated using the two options differ significantly from each other Staff proposes taking the average of both options – Research strategy is focused on resolving this issue 18- Savings Phase I Staff Recommendation

19. SEEM.69 This is a NEEM only calibration Result is that Phase I calibration factor ≈ 1 for baseline and efficient case – SEEM.69 thermostat settings work on average for NEEM homes Closest to a physics estimate in energy reduction 19- Savings Phase 1 – Reminder: Comparison of VBDD.heat.kWh to SEEM.69.kWh for NEEM homes, presented to the RTF at the November ‘15 meeting

20. SEEM.69 (contd.) The possible issue with using SEEM.69 method for determining energy savings is that NEEM data does not include homes with different shell efficiencies In two (limited) comparisons for existing homes, CAT has found reasonable agreement between savings estimated from pre-/post- program billing data and savings estimated using the existing (RBSA- based) calibration – Existing SF weatherization savings comparison to ETO data Note: Some issues that limit the MH RBSA’s suitability for calibration are less problematic in the SF calibration – Existing MH weatherization savings using IDP data – ORNL report on MH Wx Program Evaluation in 5 states: Model calibrated to pre case for existing MH; when compared with billing data savings had to be adjusted by a realization rate of 0.6 (5 States are North Dakota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Missouri, and Virginia) We do not have any similar comparisons for new homes. – This is what the Research Strategy seeks to address. 20- Savings Phase 1

21. Calibration Curve Include MH RBSA data in calibration Calibration adjustments differ between baseline and efficient cases – Consistent with existing MH and SF measures Graph at left shows percent differences between SEEM.69 and VBDD in existing MH calibration (based on RBSA data only) Graph at right shows differences in absolute kWh terms for NEEM and RBSA (electric-resistance homes only) Both suggest less savings than the physics predicts 21- Savings Phase 1 (RBSA data only) (Electric resistance only)

22. Calibration Curve (contd.) The possible issues with selecting Calibration Curve based estimates are: We don’t have data to understand where baseline new construction homes lie on the calibration curve MH RBSA and NEEM samples not comparable w.r.t calibration requirements 22- Savings Phase 1 (RBSA data only) (Electric resistance only)

23. How the numbers stack up… 23- Savings Phase 1

24. Staff Proposal Both SEEM.69 and Calibration Curve Options have uncertainty associated with them, Staff proposes using an average of the two options for planning estimate 24- Savings Phase 1 Staff Proposal

25. Heat Pump New Construction Measures A calibration curve for heat pump measures does not exist and there is uncertainty regarding the performance levels of HP in MH in the region. For Planning estimates, propose to calculate HP heating energy consumption estimate by dividing RTF approved eFAF energy consumption estimate by average COP per HZ. The COP for each run is calculated as SEEM electric heating output divided by SEEM electric heating input Average COP per heating zone is calculated as an average of the individual COP for all new construction runs Data collected and analyzed through the methods outlined in existing MH Heat Pump Commissioning Controls & Sizing, and the MH New Construction Research Strategies will provide the necessary inputs to calculate energy savings. 25 - Savings

26. Savings Comparison: ENERGY STAR MH 26 - Savings

27. Incremental Cost: ENERGY STAR MH 27- Savings

28. TRC Comparison: ENERGY STAR MH 28 - Savings

29. Savings Comparison: EcoRated MH 29 - Savings

30. Incremental Cost : EcoRated MH 30 - Savings

31. TRC Comparison: EcoRated MH 31 - Savings

32. Delivery Verification Guidance Homes must be rated NEEM certified as ENERGY STAR or Ecorated by Northwest Energy Works 32 - Savings

33. Research Strategy 33

34. R&E Subcommittee Review R&E Subcommittee Meeting on November 19, 2015 Participants – Josh Rushton, RTF Contract Analyst (presenter) – Jennifer Light, RTF Manager – Adam Hadley, RTF Contract Analyst – Mohit Singh-Chhabra, RTF Contract Analyst – Christopher Frye, NEEA – Mark Jerome, CLEAResult – Howdy Reichmuth – Greg Keller, EWEB – Tom Eckhart, UCONs – Lauren Gage, Bonneville – Dan Rubado, Energy Trust – Jim Perich-Anderson, PSE – Richard Cole – Brad Acker, University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab – Peter Miller, NRDC – Philip Kelsven, Bonneville – Bob Davis, Ecotope – Dave Baylon, Ecotope 34 – Research Strategy

35. Research Objectives UES values should be “closely tied” to observed differences in kWh between standard and efficient MHs – Engineering models okay for some adjustments but results should be “largely driven” by observed kWh differences Need sample of efficient-case homes and comparable sample of standard-construction homes with… – Energy consumption data – Characteristic data needed to meaningfully compare kWh across the samples Not explicit objectives: – Updating component specs in standard or efficient-case homes (doesn’t mean RTF can’t use new data if it’s helpful) – Updating mix of standard- and efficient-case homes included in the baseline (left to RTF judgment) 35 – Research Strategy

36. Straw-proposal Sampling: Final target is 154 standard- and 154 and efficient-case MHs – 90% confidence band for savings projected as ±750 kwh (≈ 30%-40% rel. precision) – Emphasis on samples being comparable (being fully representative less important) Okay to limit to 1 or 2 heating zones (maybe just ETO territory) Intent is to estimate minimum research lift – Results “may be difficult to interpret” if heat pump homes included Data collection: – Location, specs, label (NEEM, EcoRated, standard) from manufacturer/retailer – Billing data from utility or program – System (HP, E-FAF, G-FAF) & wood heat indicator from phone call or drive-by Analysis: – Run SEEM and VBDD for each site in the sample – Fit regression to estimate VBDD.kWh as a function of SEEM.69.kWh – Use regression results for calibrate savings Cost estimate: $100k-$250k (assumes written data releases not required) 36 – Research Strategy

37. RTF Decision “I, _______, move that the RTF set the measure Status and Category for the NEEM certified ENERGY STAR and EcoRated MH measures to ‘Active’, ‘Planning’ and: Adopt the savings estimate developed using: – ‘Somewhere in between’ baseline for MH new construction – Staff proposal to set Non-Electric heat adjustment (Phase II) factor to 2.5% – Staff proposal to use the average of the two options presented to determine adjustment for all electric home annual heating energy (Phase 1) use for electric resistance heated MH – Staff proposal to use HZ specific COP to calculate energy savings for new construction MH with heat pumps Adopt the Research Strategy as presented Set a Sunset Date of 12/2018” 37 - Decision