Electronic TRM Proposal STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATIONS FALL 2015.

Electronic TRM Proposal

S TA K E H O L D E R P R E S E N TAT I O N S

FA L L 2 0 1 5


2

Executive Summary

Fall 2015

Introduction to the Cal TF

EE Measure Development, Updating and Maintenance: Status Quo vs. Policy Goals Compared to longstanding CPUC goals Compared to state policy goals for EE Compared to EPA Clean Power Plan (CPP) draft guidance for

counting EE for CPP compliance

Technical Reference Manual Research and Best Practices

Path Forward Electronic TRM Proposed implementation process


3

The California Technical Forum (Cal TF)

What is the Technical Forum?

A group of in-state and out-of-state technical experts that work in a collaborative and transparent way to review new and updated energy efficiency measures and other technical information related to the integrated demand-side management portfolio.

Fall 2015


4

Cal TF: A Broad Collaborative

Fall 2015

CPUC Office of Ratepayer Advocates


5

The Collaborative Supports the Technical Experts

Fall 2015

Technical Forum

Cal TF Administrator

Sponsoring Entity PAC

IOUs POUs Others

Funding Entities

Peer reviews, comments Scopes work, monitorsFacilitates, supports

Administrator ContractCo-funding Agreements(Future Vision)


6

Technical Forum Members

Selected through a competitive RFQ process with a ~50% selection rate.

CPUC provided input on selection criteria

2015 TF Composition:

35 members

450+ years combined industry experience

Technical expertise in wide range of energy efficiency technologies

30% from outside of California

Fall 2015


7

EE Measure Development: Commission Goals Compared to Status Quo

Fall 2015

Collaborative (D13-09-023 at 56) Only utilities and CPUC staff involved in measure development

Process is adversarial rather than collaborative

Transparent and Well-Documented (D10-04-029 at 30 and D01-11-06 at 20) Extensive Cal TF staff DEER documentation work has yielded very little clear

documentation Most DEER measure parameters cannot be traced to sources; DEER measures

parameters generally not reproducible

Uses Best Available Information (D11-07-030 at 8) CPUC measure approval often delayed until more data is collected

Balances Accuracy, Precision, Timeliness, Cost, and Certainty (D11-07-030 at 8) DEER is very complex - Leads to false precision New measure development is lengthy and expensive Measure values are not fixed from cycle to cycle – Over a dozen changes to DEER

this year alone


8

EE Measure Development: State Policy Goals Compared to Status Quo

Fall 2015

Use credible, statewide consistent values for forecasting and planning POUs were unable to continue using DEER

Too complex, opaque, hard-to-use and understand

Increase inter-agency and regional coordination CEC and CPUC use different modeling tools to calculate energy savings.

CEC uses EnergyPlus for Title 24 compliance and CPUC uses DOE-2.2 for developing DEER energy savings values

Energy efficiency as a resource Efficiency can’t be a credible resource if IOUs and POUs use different

approaches and values for calculating savings from energy efficiency

Double energy efficiency savings by 2030 Protracted review and approval of new/updated measures (e.g. LEDs) will

make state goals for energy efficiency more difficult to achieve


9

Fall 2015

On August 3, 2015, the US EPA released draft guidelines to ensure EE measures are “quantifiable and verifiable” for Clean Power Plan compliance purposes.

Status quo does not conform to EPA draft guidance for EE: DEER measure parameters are not transparent or well-documented;

Workpapers are not publically available 2.4.2. Applicable Guidance: “Based on measure definitions, applicable conditions,

assumptions, calculations, and references that are well documented in work papers that are publically available.”

California workpaper developers use conservative values to speed workpaper approval by CPUC staff 2.6.2 Applicable Guidance: “Should be designed neither to provide optimistic savings

estimates… nor to provide conservative estimates.”

The system is not collaborative 2.8.2. Applicable Guidance: “Participate in collaborative and joint research to improve

breath and quality.”

EE Measure Development: Draft US EPA Clean Power Plan Guidance Compared to Status Quo


10

Technical Reference Manual Research

Fall 2015

Technical Reference Manuals (TRMs) are the functional equivalent of DEER in other jurisdictions; they contain EE measures, measure parameters and measure documentation.

Reviewed over 20 TRMs from jurisdictions across the country to identify best practices for measure development and measure repositories

Interviewed developers and users in with strong TRMs Massachusetts New York Pennsylvania and Mid-Atlantic Illinois Texas

Reviewed prior literature/analysis on TRMs Most analyses are about 5 years old

TRMs have evolved considerably since then

Identified best practices for: Process – process for developing and updating EE measures Structure – structure for maintaining measures and associated documentation Content – technical guidelines, directives and practices for developing/updating EE measures


11

TRM Best Practices – Process

Fall 2015

Technical collaboratives open to the public

Predictable and regular update processes Existing measures must be updated regularly

Participation by regulatory staff is key Speeds issue resolution Speeds regulatory review Fosters technical understanding between regulators and other stakeholders Builds regulator confidence in results

Results of collaborative consensus-building process generally adopted by decision makers with little change Regulators maintain final approval authority but can depend on robust process

and results to inform decision-making.

Regulatory Commissions, not staff, approve final values


12

TRM Best Practices – Structure

Fall 2015

Standard format for each measure characterization, including: Narrative explanation of measure Base and measure case technical specifications Energy and demand savings algorithms Other key parameters (measure life, costs, etc.) Pertinent implementation details (e.g. exclusions)

All measure parameters clearly linked to measure

Measure is well-documented and values are reproducible Citations to primary sources, not other TRMs Primary sources maintained and readily available

Embedded calculators and look up tables

Non-measure specific tools and information included as appendices NY TRM has excellent descriptions of building prototypes


13

TRM Best Practices – Content

Fall 2015

Written guidelines for addressing recurring technical issues NW RTF and Mid-Atlantic state use process language

Use of reproducible methods, diligent review of all sources… PA and IL use more specific data hierarchies NW RTF has several guidelines on measure complexity, statistical significance,

other

Careful consideration of modeling vs. engineering equations vs. field data No “one size fits all”; consider pros and cons of different approaches

Key parameters (from modeling or engineering equations) should be validated with real data! Field conditions and human behavior may alter forecasted savings Collect data through implementation or early EM&V Identify and implement use of AMI data (e.g. EnergySavvy) and other tools (DOE

Building Performance Database)


14

DEER Alternative: Statewide Electronic TRM – Key Features

Fall 2015

All measures are fully documented with a workpaper All measure parameters are clearly documented and linked Source documents are clearly cited and hosted in the tool

Modeled values are linked to models Uses EnergyPlus for measures that should be modeled

Automates measure updates when inputs change—weather files, code updates, etc. Also, includes clear update and revision histories for each measure

Clear and documented workflow management Identifies who has updated and/or reviewed a measure

Generates all key outputs for CPUC ex ante database, utility and CPUC cost-effectiveness analysis and reporting, CEC forecasting

Keyword searchable

Permits restricted access to protect confidential information Open source repository for EE measures

Electronic TRM Proposal Fall 2015

Proposed Implementation Process

California Ex Ante MeasuresApproximately 187

Overlapping Measures(DEER, non-DEER, POU)

36

DEER Measures(No WP, POU Overlap)

17

IOU Non-DEER WPs; includes consolidating common IOU

measures(No DEER Overlap)

125

POU TRM Measures(No DEER/WP Overlap)

9

Create WPCreate Single

WP per Measure

Detailed Cal TF Review – Specialized Subcommittees

Full TF Review and Approval

Populate Statewide Electronic TRM


16

Conclusion: Benefits of the Electronic TRM

Fall 2015

Rigorous, well-documented EE measures

Common repository for all California measures

Statewide consistent energy savings values

Collaborative, consensus-based, public and inclusive process

Use of open source electronic TRM and tools


17

Appendix

Fall 2015

The move to “Electronic TRMs”

Status Quo vs. Alternative Comparison

EnergyPlus and Open Studio: Beyond Single Point Analysis Comparison Against Multiple Baselines


18

Appendix:The Move to Electronic TRMs

Fall 2015

Key benefits to be gained: Improves documentation

Ability to embed tools and supporting documents Enables more detailed revision histories

Reduces cost and increases efficiency of data management Through APIs, automatic download of values into utility tracking and planning

databases Highly transparent workflow management for new and updated measures. Keyword searchable

Available tools include: VEIC Nexant iEnergy Energy Platforms Frontier U.S. Department of Energy Platforms


19

Status Quo Cal TF Alternative

Fall 2015

Rolling Portfolio mechanics needed to accommodate two sets of yearly updates Q2-Q3: CPUC Staff-led

DEER update Q4: IOU workpaper

updates Q1: CPUC Staff review of

updated workpapers

Only one repository to update and adopt

Reduced time and resources spent in translation—DEER to workpapers and back to DEER Less room for computational

errors i.e. Freezer savings values for

ARP Reduce duplication of values

Appendix:Repository Updates and Management

Electronic TRM Proposal Fall 2015

New Measure Development and Existing Measure Updates

Two Stages of Peer Review

TRM Finalized and Submitted to Commission

TRM Update Bus Stop

9/1 TRM Plan

Development and Updates

Two Stages of Peer Review

Legend

External Contractors, PA Staff

TF peer review with participation from CPUC Staff

Cal TF staff

Final Commission approval

Current Rolling Portfolio Two-Repository Update Process

Proposed Electronic TRM Single Repository Update Process


21


Fall 2015

Commissioners were forced to review individual savings parameters for ARP

Struggles to determine right amount of uncertainty delayed important decision by 6 weeks

Conclusions were limited by available data and need to settle on single point value

Open Studio and EnergyPlus enable analysis that considers uncertainty in base cases Parametric analyses can quantify

uncertainty to enable more data-driven decisions

Commission would be presented with replicable consensus recommendations Supporting documentation in an

accessible format for in-depth review if needed (in cases of non-consensus items)

Appendix:Savings Estimate Development and Updating


22


Fall 2015

No single forum for open discussion of complex technical issues i.e. CPUC staff review of

Advanced Power Strips was forced to re-open issues already discussed by TF months before Issues could have been

settled in half the time if discussed in a single forum

One forum for peer review, discussion, and guidance from CPUC Staff and consultants

Open, transparent process Participation by broad range of

stakeholders Comparison Exhibit for disputed

values memorializing disputes and rationale for each position, facilitating CPUC analysis and resolution of disputed issues

All documentation available to all participants, public

Appendix:Measure Review

23

EnergyPlus and Open Studio:Beyond Single Point Analysis

0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Window-to-Wall Ratio Probability Density Function

(PDF)

Infiltration % Change PDF

-40 -20 200 40

OpenStudio and EnergyPlus enable analysis that considers uncertainty in the

baseline building.

This illustrative example is built with DOE’s medium office prototype building model

and two typical sources of variability.

Red lines denote “nominal” (DEER-like) model results absent variability

24

0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40


(PDF)


-40 -20 200 40

Pre-1980Baseline

PDF

555 560 565 570EUI (MJ/m2)

Scalable use of commodity cloud computing enables rapid creation of a

family of baseline buildings that includes uncertainty.


25

Energy Recovery

Ventilation Measure

+

SolidState

Lighting Measure

+

0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40


(PDF)


-40 -20 200 40

Pre-1980Baseline

PDF

555 560 565 570EUI (MJ/m2)

440 460 500 560EUI (MJ/m2)

480 520 540

Potential analysis now includes uncertainty in estimated savings that can aid in deemed/custom determinations.


26

Pre-1980Baseline

PDF

90.1-2004Baseline

PDF

90.1-2010Baseline

PDF

555 560 565 570

440 460 480

339 341 342340EUI (MJ/m2)

Pre-1980

90.1-2004

90.1-2010

440 460 500 560EUI (MJ/m2)

480 520 540

440 460EUI (MJ/m2)

480380 400 420

325 330EUI (MJ/m2)

335310 315 320 340

BaselineBaseline + Energy Recovery VentilationBaseline + Solid State Lighting

The system also enables easy comparison of savings predictions

relative to a range of baselines.

EnergyPlus and Open Studio:Comparison Against Multiple Baselines

Electronic TRM Proposal STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATIONS FALL 2015.

Documents

Transcript of Electronic TRM Proposal STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATIONS FALL 2015.