1 / 23

Utility Savings Estimator, v1.0 Webinar 3

Utility Savings Estimator, v1.0 Webinar 3. Olga Livingston Doug Elliott Neil Mara Rosemarie Bartlett Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. PNNL-SA-99676. Outline. Webinar 3 Objective - Present V ersion 1.0 of the Utility Savings Estimator Background M ain input page - brief overview

morty
Download Presentation

Utility Savings Estimator, v1.0 Webinar 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Utility Savings Estimator, v1.0Webinar 3 Olga Livingston Doug Elliott Neil Mara Rosemarie Bartlett Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL-SA-99676

  2. Outline Webinar 3 Objective - Present Version 1.0 of the Utility Savings Estimator • Background • Main input page - brief overview • Step-by-step model flow • Area selection • Adoption • Stringency • Compliance • From per sq.ft. savings for new construction to annual savings • Detailed discussion of the compliance definition • Sample run (nuances of the model)

  3. Background The initial objective was to develop a generic tool that • estimates potential energy savings from increased compliance with energy codes • utilizes well-understood definitions of compliance • provides well-understood results that can be • compared across several utilities or • compared across several segments within utility coverage area • aggregated to the national level

  4. Background • Generic tool contains defaults for code-to-code savings, commercial and residential floor space forecasts and projected code adoption • Users can refine defaults in the generic computational algorithm with their own utility-specific assumptions • Estimation for commercial and residential buildings follows one methodology, but the computation is implemented in separate files

  5. Main Input Page: Steps 1-3

  6. Main Input Page: Steps 4-6

  7. Main Input Page: Steps 7-9

  8. Results Provided by the Estimator

  9. Model Flow Year 2013 Base Case Compliance Effective Code Version Current EUI Nominal Code-to-Code Energy Savings Compliance Improvement Code Version Previously in Place Previous EUI Alternative Compliance Adoption Stringency Compliance Base Case Energy Consumption Applicable Floor Space or Household Forecast Energy Savings for New Construction in 2013 Energy Savings per Unit - Residential – per HH - Commercial – per sq. ft. Alternative Energy Consumption

  10. Example • Example: went from 2009 IECC to 2012 IECC • Compliance rate, or rather non-compliance, applied to code-to-code savings (EUI_2009 IECC – EUI_2012 IECC) • Consumption base case = EUI new code + penalty for non-compliance under base case = EUI_2012 IECC + (1- compliance_rate_base)*(EUI_2009 IECC – EUI_2012 IECC) • Consumption alternative = EUI new code + penalty for non-compliance under alternative scenario = EUI_2012 IECC + (1- compliance_rate_altern)*(EUI_2009 IECC – EUI_2012 IECC) If you are 100% compliant with 2012 IECC, your EUI is EUI_2012 IECC. If you are 0% compliant with 2012 IECC, your EUI is EUI_2009 IECC. • Per square foot savings is the difference between two consumption paths

  11. Model Flow with Example Year 2013: from 2009 IECC to 2012 IECC Base Case Compliance Rate Effective Code Version 2012 IECC EUI_2009 IECC EUI_2009 IECC – EUI_2012 IECC Compliance Improvement Previous Code Version 2009 IECC EUI_2012 IECC Alternative Compliance Rate = EUI new code + penalty for non-compliance under base case = EUI_2012 IECC + (1- compliance_rate_base)*(EUI_2009 IECC – EUI_2012 IECC) Base Case Energy Consumption New Construction in 2013 Energy Savings for New Construction in 2013 Energy Savings per HH Alternative Energy Consumption = EUI new code + penalty for non-compliance under alternative scenario = EUI_2012 IECC + (1- compliance_rate_altern)*(EUI_2009 IECC – EUI_2012 IECC)

  12. Savings Stream From per sq.ft. or per HH savings in new construction to annual savings New construction here included renovations, additions and alterations

  13. Compliance Rate • WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMPLIANCE • compliance in legal terms – meeting all of the provisions of the code • compliance in energy terms – portion of energy savings in non-compliant buildings Full code-to-code savings Partial code-to-code savings 30% @ 100 70% @ 20

  14. Compliance Rate • Compliance rate in the utility tool is the weighted average • What fraction of new construction is fully compliant – 30% • What is the average compliance rate for non-compliant buildings

  15. Compliance Rate • Time dimension of compliance: Initial compliance vs. compliance after 10 years Interpolate from 44% to 60% over 10 years • Time dimension of compliance captures effects of utility programs targeting compliance, as well as learning by doing

  16. Compliance Rate

  17. No Compliance Survey? • Calculation is linear  it does not matter for the model if the compliance improves from 44% to 83% or from 50% to 89% - incremental increase is 39 percentage points either way • What drives the calculation is the 39% point DIFFERENCE between base case compliance and alternative case compliance, not the absolute levels of compliance • All you have to enter for compliance rates is the difference between base case compliance and alternative case compliance • If more granular analysis is needed, overwrite the rates directly in the compliance tabs

  18. Sample Run: IL, IN and OH • Calculating savings specific to a service territory • Define the area • Adjust floor space or household forecast • Overwrite stringency to reflect jurisdictional adoption or code amendments • “All defaults” - not there to get you the canned results, it is to understand the levers in the tool • Illinois “by state” and “all defaults” is half the savings of Illinois “by climate zone” and “all defaults”  must adjust floor space/HH forecast for the climate zone run

  19. Sample Run: IL, IN and OH (cont.) • Using “all defaults” and “by state” select IL, IN and OH  • Apply same compliance improvement rate • Compare the savings against differences in floor space or HH forecast • Note the difference in code versions that determine code-to-code savings • Note the difference in EUIs across states/climate locations for the same code version • Note the adoption path (skipped code versions and implicit adoption)

  20. Adoption

  21. Nominal Code-to-Code Savings

  22. Cases for Stringency Overwrite If skipped several code cycles or only recently adopted a code, nominal code-to-code savings will be large because of how the EUI calculation is structured  if better data is available, overwrite stringency for the code version previously in effect Lower is better: If 5% more efficient, the adjustment factor is 0.95. If 5% less efficient, the adjustment factor is 1.05

  23. Contact Information Please submit your questions and feedback via our help desk http://www.energycodes.gov/resource-center/help-desk Utility Estimation Tool (version 1.0) available at http://www.energycodes.gov/resource-center/utility-savings-estimators Methodology, assumptions, floor space and household forecasts are discussed in: Livingston, OV, PC Cole, DB Elliott and R Bartlett. 2013. Building Energy Codes Program: National Benefits Assessment 1992-2040. PNNL-22610, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

More Related