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

2. MH New Construction Planning Estimates 2

3. Presentation Roadmap, Planning Estimates Staff proposal for new construction MH baseline Staff proposal for non-electric heat adjustment (Phase II calibration factor) for new construction MH Staff proposal on All Electric Home Heating Energy (Phase 1 calibration factor) for new construction MH – aligns SEEM.69 estimates with billing analysis for all electric homes 3

4. MH New Construction Baseline 4

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

6. Typical Choices Baseline 6 As per Guidelines, the market state as described by the BPA High Performance Manufactured Homes (2012) report will be the baseline (red box)

7. Typical Choices Baseline 7 As per Guidelines, the market state as described by the BPA High Performance Manufactured Homes (2012) report will be the baseline (red box) Note: Numbers do not add up to a 100% as these Manufacturers also build modular homes

8. Typical Choices Baseline 8 As per Guidelines, the market state as described by the HPMH report will be the baseline (red box) As per previous RTF discussion: The NEEM program which 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”

9. The Current Baseline Current baseline is assumed to be equal to the mix of non- NEEM homes in the market as per the High Performance Manufactured Homes (HPMH) report Report developed by Northwest Energy Works (NEW) for BPA in 2012 9

10. The Current Baseline (Contd.) Underlying Assumption: if the NEEM 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 10

11. Staff Recommendation: Somewhere in Between Assumption: If NEEM level efficiency does drop, it is likely to drop to Somewhat Thermally Improved HUD than all the way to HUD minimum. 11 This baseline is in-between the two other choices we have.

12. 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- MEEM homes in the proportion of their respective market share Somewhere in Between: – The NEEM homes will look like the Somewhat Thermally Improved (previous slide) 12 Staff Recommendation

13. Current Measure Specifications 13 ComponentBaseline (Current Assumption)NEEM/ Energy StarEcoRated Ceilings (flat) Avg. R-28 Flat: R-49 Nominal; U=0.025 Effective Ceilings (vaulted)Vaulted: R-40 Nominal; U=0.029 Effective WallsAvg. R-16R-21 Nominal; U=0.055 Effective R-21 w/no trade off & requires insulated header; U=0.055 Effective FloorsAvg. R-24R-33; U=0.033 EffectiveR-38 Blown-in; U=0.033 Effective GlazingAvg. U=0.35U=0.35U=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 7.7/13 Heat Pump 80% AFUE Gas FAF; or Electric Furnace; or 7.7/13 Heat Pump 90% AFUE Gas FAF; or Electric Furnace; or 7.7/13 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)

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

15. Non Electric Heat Adjustment (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%) 16

17. 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: Same Phase I calibration factor Pre- and Post- Calibration Curve: Phase I Calibration factor varies pre- and post-. Consistent with existing measures (Planning) Savings estimate differ significantly from each other Staff proposes taking the average of both Options 17

18. SEEM.69 Phase I calibration factor =1 for baseline and efficient case SEEM.69 thermostat settings work on average for NEEM homes – VBDD and SEEM.69 comparison analysis based on NEEM dataset only Same calibration factor (1) applied to both pre and post cases – Closest to a physics estimate in energy reduction 18 – Reminder: Comparison of VBDD.heat.kWh to SEEM.69.kWh for NEEM homes, presented to the RTF at the November ‘15 meeting

19. SEEM.69 (contd.) Why maybe not use SEEM.69 with same pre- post- factor? Existing Homes: CAT comparisons of calibrated SEEM.69 with pre- post- billing data have shown savings estimates are slightly better with different pre- and post- calibration factors – Existing SF weatherization savings comparison using ETO data – Existing MH weatherization savings using IDP data Published studies with similar findings for MH: – 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 data to test this for new homes 19

20. Calibration Curve Different calibration factors applied to baseline and efficient case – Consistent with existing MH and SF measures 20

21. Calibration Curve Utilize existing calibration curve (RBSA) with NEEM data for HZ1; i.e., use all the data we currently have to make an estimate – Adjust heating energy for heating zones 2 and 3 based on heating degree days Why not maybe select Calibration Curve based estimates? Don’t have enough data to understand where baseline new construction homes lie on the calibration curve 21

22. How do the numbers stack up 22

23. 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 23 Staff Proposal

24. Placeholders for Cost and TRC 24

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 that will be collected and analyzed through the methods outlined in existing MH Heat Pump Commissioning Controls & Sizing, and the MH New Construction Research Strategies would provide the necessary inputs to calculate energy savings. 25

26. Delivery Verification Guidance Homes must be rated NEEM or Ecorated by Northwest Energy Works 26

27. Placeholder for Research Strategy 27

28. RTF Decision “I, _______, move that the RTF set the measure Status and Category for the Ecorated and ENERGY STAR/NEEM MH measures to ‘Active’ and ‘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” value for all Electric Home Heating Energy (Phase 1) Adjustment Factor 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 12/2017” 28