1 / 5

Review of the New England “Mini-Pilot” DHP Evaluation

Review of the New England “Mini-Pilot” DHP Evaluation. Why we ignore this study. General Information. Study Goals are to provide a estimation procedure for utilities who want to use DHP technologies as a efficiency measure

onawa
Download Presentation

Review of the New England “Mini-Pilot” DHP Evaluation

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. Review of the New England “Mini-Pilot” DHP Evaluation Why we ignore this study

  2. General Information • Study Goals are to provide a estimation procedure for utilities who want to use DHP technologies as a efficiency measure • Use billing analysis methods to develop generalized engineering savings estimate • Applied hourly, monthly regression analysis as strategy to develop a deemed savings table for utility program • Includes supplemental fuel impacts as they appear in the particular sample • Study conducted by KEMA and includes 145 total installations • 40 sites selected for metering • Metering done on space heat and total use • Sometime space heat limited to the DHP zone • A total of 29 sites of metered data used and 124 site used for the billing analysis

  3. Reported Results • Heating savings estimated at about 2500 kWh/installation. • 95-120 kWh/MBTU (“rated” heating capacity) • Developed from temperature regression applied to TMY temperatures in individual climates • Cooling saving estimated at about 300 kWh/installation • 3-8kWh/MBTU (nominal cooling capacity) • Developed from temperature regressions applied to various base case cooling equipment with TMY temperatures

  4. Primary Critiques • Heating analysis based on a temperature regression. • No effort to assess balance point • Normalization would occur based only on usage at particular temperatures • Not consistent with PRISM or any of the HDD regressions used in this region • Savings normalized to MBTU of heating capacity • No evidence or rationale presented for this selection • Introduces uncertainty in assessing the overall savings

  5. Conclusions • Regression specification introduces substantial error • Use of this method to generalize to annual climate without simulation or some sort of engineering calculation is uncertain • The std. error or any other indicator of the quality of the model is absent • R2 not reported except in aggregates and not very good at that • This method and result unlikely to produce generalized savings results

More Related