Post on 15-Dec-2015
Residential Single Family Weatherization and HVAC Measures
Progress Reports:1. Estimating Electric and Supplemental Fuels Savings
2. Estimating Value of Emissions Savings
Regional Technical ForumJune 18, 2013
2
Estimating Electric and Supplemental Fuel Savings
3
Reminder
• The SEEM Calibration applies to a specific sub-set of the RBSA homes.– 30% of the 1404 RBSA homes
were used in calibration, the rest weren’t included because:• Incapable of running in SEEM
(foundation type, etc.)• Non-utility fuel use or
equipment (wood, oil, etc.)• Poor billing analysis results
– Note: Gas-heated homes were included in the calibration
975
429
SEEM Calibration
SF RBSA Pie: 1404 Homes
4
552
Gas Heated, 249
Electric Heated, 180
In Utility Programs, but not in SEEM
calibration, 423
SEEM Calibration
SEEM is Calibrated … Now What?• The next step is to “bring back into
the analysis” the houses we expect to come in under utility programs.– Utility Program Requirement:
Permanently Installed Electric Heat• No gas, oil, etc. primary heating
systems (FAF or Boiler)• Heat stoves and fireplaces are ok (any
fuel)
• Adjustments Needed– Non-Utility Heating Fuels– Gas Heat Use
• Some houses with “Permanently Installed Electric Heat” use gas (i.e. fireplaces)
– Remaining Calibration FiltersSF RBSA Pie: 1404 Homes
5
Overview
• General approach is to estimate adjustment factors that account for electric heating energy differences between the SEEM calibration sample and program population(s).
• A KWh consumption or savings value will ultimately be obtained as:
Intent: this product should “reliably” estimate average electric heating kWh for the target population(s).
6
Overview (cont.)
• A fundamental question: What is the right level of granularity?– A single regional true-up factor? – Separate factors for different subpopulations defined by
geography, program screening criteria, or other variables?– What can the data reliably support?
• Some known limitations (for the record):– RBSA data is a snapshot (can’t address changes over time);– RBSA data is observational rather than experimental (lets us
estimate correlation between building characteristics and heating energy—not quite the same as estimating savings caused by program-related measures);
7
MethodologyStarting point: Easiest approach would be to calculate a single adjustment factor as a simple ratio,
The problem: This captures the two groups’ differences with respect to all variables that drive heating energy (HDDs, insulation, non-utility heating energy, equipment, partial occupancy, ...).
Want adjustment factor(s) to capture some variables’ effects (e.g., partial occupancy, non-utility heating energy). But other variables (e.g., heating equipment, HDDs, insulation) are specified in SEEM input. Don’t want to capture these variables’ effects (we want to control for these variables).
8
Methodology (cont.)• Regression lets us estimate individual variable effects
(when other variables are held constant). – Staff believes current regression model (next slide)…
• Makes physical sense; • Faithfully captures main patterns in the data; and • Is reasonably robust (not overly sensitive to random noise).
– Model development and related technical issues to be provided in a self-contained report.
• Today’s focus: – General framework; – How we use regression results to estimate adjustment factors;– Uncertainty and limitations.
9
Regression Summary(Model fit to RBSA sites with permanently installed electric heating system and without non-electric central heating systems and with Electric Heat > 0 kWh/yr)
Variable Definition Coeff. Estimate Std. Error P-value
Natural log of electric heating use in kWh/yr (billing history) n/a n/a n/a n/a
Natural log of UA x HDD65 C1 0.63 0.06 0.00
Indicator variable for “has heat pump” C2 -0.22 0.06 0.00
Indicator variable for occupant-reported non-utility fuel use 0 < kBtu/yr ≤ 40,000 C3 -0.13 0.07 0.06
Indicator variable for occupant-reported non-utility fuel use > 40,000 kBtu/yr C4 -0.60 0.10 0.00
Indicator variable for gas heating fuel use (billing history) 0 < kWh/yr ≤ 5,000 C5 -0.27 0.14 0.06
Indicator variable for gas heating fuel use (billing history) > 5,000 kWh/yr C6 -1.14 0.13 0.00
(Intercept) Intercept C7 -0.35 0.88 0.70
Adjusted R2 = 0.27
ln (Elec tric Heat ) = 𝐶1× ln (UA×HDD )+ 𝐶2×IHeatPump + 𝐶3×IOtherHeat _ Low ¿ ¿
10
Interpretation
• Regression coefficients in logarithmic models:– Coefficient of describes elasticity
means that a 1% increase in is associated with a 0.63% increase in electric heating kWh.
– Each indicator coefficient estimates (roughly) the factor by which electric heating kWh typically differs between houses that have the indicated characteristic and those that do not.
Example: says that (all else being equal) a house that has a heat pump will average about 22% less electric heat kWh than one that does not.
• HDDs, UA, and heat pump presence can be specified in SEEM input. – Want to control for (rather than capture) these characteristics’ effects in
calculating adjustment factors. – and heat pump variables included in the model so that their effects are
not be attributed to other (possibly correlated) variables.
11
Interpretation (cont.)The following adjustments will be made to SEEM outputs to determine electric and other fuels consumption and savings• Non-Utility Heating Fuels
– Adjustment based on C3 and C4 and occurrence of non-utility heating fuels within the population we’re interested in
• Gas Heat Use– Adjustment based on C5 and C6 and occurrence of gas heating use within the
population we’re interested in
• Remaining Calibration Filters– A “filtered out of SEEM calibration for other reasons” variable did not show valid
results in the regression, meaning there is no adjustment needed (that we can see)
• Electric Heat = 0 kWh/yr– This is a new adjustment, based on the filter applied prior to the regression.– Adjustment based on percentage of population we’re interested in with 0 kWh.
12
Example: All Program-Eligible HousesStep 1 – Determine Adjustment Factors:
Step 2 – Use Adjustment Factors to determine Electric Savings, “Wood” Savings, and Gas Savings
Adjustment Category
Regression Variable
% of Homes
Coeff.Coeff. Value
iOtherHeatLOW 29% C3 -0.13 96%iOtherHeatHIGH 12% C4 -0.60 93%
iGasHeatLOW 4% C5 -0.27 99%iGasHeatHIGH 6% C6 -1.14 94%
Electric Heat = 0 n/a 7% n/a n/a 93% 93%77%
Adjustmente(%ofHomes*Coeff.Value)
Non-Utility Heating Fuels
Gas Heat Use
Overall Adjustment
92%
90%
Non-Utility Heating Fuels
Use (kWh)
Gas Heating Use (kWh)
Electric Heat = 0 Adjustment
(kWh)
Baseline 8000 6175 1825 766 558 501
Efficient-Case 6500 5018 1482 622 453 407
Savings 1500 1158 342 144 105 94
Non-Electric Adjustment
(kWh)Case
SEEM Heating Energy Use
(kWh)
Adjusted Electric Heating Energy
Use (kWh)
13
Many Different Sub-Populations we could Analyze
Note: Pass billing screen = True if Total Electric Bill kWh/yr > 4.3 * Square Footage + 1000 (this screen can be edited in the workbook)
Non-Utility Heating Fuels
Gas Heat Use
Electric Heat = 0
Overall
All 90% 92% 93% 77% 562Heating Zone 1 91% 92% 95% 80% 464Heating Zone 2 81% 98% 82% 65% 68Heating Zone 3 85% 93% 94% 74% 30eFAF Only 92% 100% 89% 82% 75eZonal Only 89% 98% 96% 83% 267Heat Pump Only 89% 90% 91% 74% 203Don't Pass Screen 84% 79% 56% 37% 44Pass Screen 90% 94% 99% 83% 518
nPopulation
Description (Program-eligible houses only)
Adjustment
14
Can we really differentiate effects by heating zone? (Off-grid fuel example)
• These intervals only account for uncertainty in non-utility fuel usage within each group—they do not account for uncertainty related to regression fit.
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All HZ1 HZ2 HZ3
Adju
stm
ent f
or N
on-U
tility
Hea
ting
Fuel
s
90% Confidence Interval for the Non-Utility Heating Fuels Adjustment
15
“Wood/Other” Heat Screen• Principles
– Has to be “auditable”• Can’t be “How much wood heat do you use”?
– Should use data readily available to the utility• Yes
– Electric consumption– Square footage
• No– Gas usage– UA
• Looked at different screens:– Total Bill normalized by square footage– Electric Heat Usage (i.e. PRISM type analysis) normalized by square footage
• Didn’t find a good screen definition that showed a significant difference between the adjustments for wood– Note the screen on the previous slide is extreme (only 9,600 kWh of total electric use
for a 2,000 ft2 house) and still didn’t show much difference in wood adjustment
16
Discussion• The methodology relies on the space heating behavior of the “Program-
eligible” group (green wedge on slide 4) to be similar to the behavior of the “SEEM calibration” group (yellow wedge)
• Are we on the right track?• How much should we try to split things up?
– All Houses– By Climate– By Measure
• By measure efficient and baseline case
– By Utility Billing Screen– Combination of the above– Note: The more we split the population, the worse the confidence in the results
• For how long should the results be used?• Should we assemble a subcommittee to go through the details and guide the
final approach?
17
Estimating Value of Emissions Savings
Wood Heat Emissions Valuation
• Wood fire produces a large amount of pollution.• The most significant health effect is for small
particulates (PM2.5).• Health effects developed over twenty years
focused on lung disease (COPD, Emphysema, Cancer) derived for atmospheric exposure
• This is among the most significant pollutants from wood smoke.
Valuation of health effects from PM2.5
• Primary source used:– http://
www.epa.gov/airquality/benmap/models/Source_Apportionment_BPT_TSD_1_31_13.pdf (EPA, 2013)
• The source for woodstove emissions was:– http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/burn/woodburn1.pdf (Valenti &
Clayton, 1998)
• Emission valuation taken as the effect of the incremental particulates added to the atmosphere
Emission Value, kWh equivalent
Combustion DeviceEmission Rates
Input Heat Stove Output Heat Electric Heat mg/MJ efficiency mg/MJ mg/kWh Fire Place 904 0.2 4520 16272Conventional Wood Stove 786 0.5 1572 5659Certified Wood Stove (catalytic) 425 0.6 708 2550Certified Wood Stove (non-catalytic) 383 0.6 638 2298Pellet (Certified) 110 0.75 147 528
Combustion Device Emission Valuation Low Mean High $/kWh Fire Place 5.73 10.11 14.50Conventional Wood Stove 1.99 3.52 5.04Certified Wood Stove (catalytic) 0.90 1.58 2.27Certified Wood Stove (non-catalytic) 0.81 1.43 2.05Pellet (Certified) 0.19 0.33 0.47
Overall Impact on Savings
• Valuation of wood savings about ten time avoided cost of electricity
• Impact on B/C of individual measures dominated by wood heat offsets – Limited to homes with wood heat– Reduces electric savings but increases B/C ratios
• Valuation does not include generation.• Generation reduces emissions offset by 30%
National Woodstove Sales Data
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
f(x) = 928649.027265403 exp( − 0.100451881167818 x )R² = 0.883317535159771
Cord Wood Product Sales
Cord Wood Products
Exponential (Cord Wood Products)
Woodstove use declining
• Air Quality concerns• Emissions regulation in urban areas• Cost of wood rising relative to alternatives• Sales of wood burning device declining
nationwide– 75% reduction in 15 years
• Improves air quality, increases electric savings
24
Subcommittee
• Call for Subcommittee Members for an “Emissions Analysis Subcommittee”– Review the input assumptions to arrive at a
method of monetizing wood/other emission savings