Utility Savings Estimator, v1.0 Webinar 3
description
Transcript of Utility Savings Estimator, v1.0 Webinar 3
1
Utility Savings Estimator, v1.0Webinar 3
Olga Livingston
Doug Elliott
Neil Mara
Rosemarie Bartlett
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
PNNL-SA-99676
Outline
Webinar 3 Objective - Present Version 1.0 of the Utility Savings Estimator
1.Background
2.Main input page - brief overview
3.Step-by-step model flowArea 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)
2
Background
3
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 becompared across several utilities or
compared across several segments within utility coverage area
aggregated to the national level
Background
4
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
Main Input Page: Steps 1-3
5
By State
Step 1By Climate Zone
The model allows you to define 40 segments within the study area.Do you want to define the study area based on states or climate zones?
By Climate Zone
Select Coverage Areas Instructions 1
IECC Climate Map
All Defaults
Step 2User-Provided Inputs
Are you going to use all model defaults or apply adjustment factors to some of the inputs?
User-Provided InputsSelect Input Mode Instructions 2
If "Default" is chosen, skip to step 10.
Flat
Step 3Progressive
AdoptionFlat
DefaultSelect Adoption Scenario Instructions 3
User-Provided Input
Default
User-Provided Inputs
Default
View default adoption scenario
View user adoption scenario
Select coverage areas
By Climate Zone
Flat Enter user adoption scenario
Main Input Page: Steps 4-6
6
Default
Step 4User-Provided Input
Stringency
DefaultStringency Adjustment Factor Instructions 4
Default
Step 5User-Provided Input
Compliance
DefaultSelect Compliance Rates Instructions 5
Default
Step 6User-Provided Adjustment Factor
Floor Space User-Defined Forecast
Default Select Input Mode Instructions 6
Default
Default
Default
View default stringency scenario
Enter stringency adjustment factors
View modified stringency scenario
View default compliance scenario
Enter compliance improvement level
View alternative compliance scenario
View default floor space forecast
Enter floor space adjustment factors
View modified floor space forecast
Enter floor space forecast
Main Input Page: Steps 7-9
7
Default
Step 7User-Provided Input
Fuel Prices
DefaultSelect Input Mode Instructions 7
Default
Step 8User-Provided Input
Discount Rate (real)
DefaultSelect Input Mode Instructions 8
Default
Step 9User-Provided Input
Energy Conversion and Emissions Factors
DefaultSelect Input Mode Instructions 9
Default
Default
View default fuel prices (AEO 2013)
Enter user fuel prices
View default discount rate
Enter user discount rate
Default
View default factors
Enter user factors
Results Provided by the Estimator
8
Step 10 VIEW RESULTS
Instructions 10
Save site energy savings to CSV
Save primary energy savings to CSV
Save energy cost savings to CSV
Save all to CSV
View Site Energy Savings
View Primary Energy Savings
View Energy Cost Savings
View Emissions Avoided
Save emmisions savings to CSV
View Energy and Emissions Summary
View Full Fuel Cycle Energy Savings
View Upstream Energy Savings Save full fuel cycle energy savings to CSV
Save upstream energy savings to CSV
Save energy and emissions summary to CSV
Model Flow
9
Energy Savings per Unit
- Residential – per HH
- Commercial – per sq. ft.
Year 2013
Applicable Floor Space or Household
Forecast
Effective Code Version
Base Case Compliance
Alternative Compliance
Code Version Previously in
Place
Current EUI
Previous EUI
Compliance Improvement
Nominal Code-to-Code
Energy Savings
Energy Savings for New
Construction in 2013
Base Case Energy Consumption
Alternative Energy Consumption
Adoption Stringency Compliance
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 10
Model Flow with Example
11
Year 2013: from 2009 IECC to 2012 IECC
Base Case Compliance Rate
Alternative Compliance Rate
Previous Code Version
2009 IECC
EUI_2009 IECC
EUI_2012 IECC
Compliance Improvement
EUI_2009 IECC – EUI_2012 IECC
Effective Code Version
2012 IECC
Energy Savings per HH
New Construction
in 2013
Energy Savings for New
Construction in 2013
Base Case Energy Consumption
Alternative Energy Consumption
= EUI new code + penalty for non-compliance under base case = EUI_2012 IECC + (1- compliance_rate_base)*(EUI_2009 IECC – EUI_2012 IECC)
= EUI new code + penalty for non-compliance under alternative scenario = EUI_2012 IECC + (1- compliance_rate_altern)*(EUI_2009 IECC – EUI_2012 IECC)
Savings Stream
12
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017X1 X1 X1 X1 X1
X2 X2 X2 X2X3 X3 X3
X4 X4X5
Annual savings = SUM SUM SUM SUMsum(column) x1 : x2 x1 : x3 x1 : x4 x1 : x5
From per sq.ft. or per HH savings in new construction to annual savings
New construction here included renovations, additions and alterations
Compliance Rate
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMPLIANCEcompliance in legal terms – meeting all of the provisions of the code
compliance in energy terms – portion of energy savings in non-compliant buildings
13
Full code-to-code savings
Partialcode-to-code savings
70% @ 20
30% @ 100
14
Compliance Rate
Compliant buildings
Non-compliant buildings
Weighted compliance,
(energy terms)
IECC - XXXX
Compliance in legal terms 30% 70%
Compliance in energy terms (fraction) 1.00 0.20 44%
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
Time dimension of compliance:
Initial compliance vs. compliance after 10 years
Compliance Rate
Initially compliant buildings
Initially non-
compliant buildings
Weighted compliance,
initial (energy terms)
Compliant buildings after 10 years
Non-compliant buildings after 10 years
Weighted compliance,
after 10 years
(energy terms)
IECC - XXXX
Compliance in legal terms 30% 70% 50% 50%
Compliance in energy terms (fraction) 1.00 0.20 44% 1.00 0.20 60%
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
Initially compliant buildings
Initially non-compliant buildings
Weighted compliance,
initial (energy terms)
Compliant buildings after 10 years
Non-compliant buildings after 10 years
Weighted compliance,
after 10 years
(energy terms)
IECC - XXXX
Base Case
Compliance in legal terms 30% 70% 50% 50%
Compliance in energy terms (fraction) 1.00 0.20 44% 1.00 0.20 60%
Alternative Scenario
Compliance in legal terms 65% 35% 80% 20%
Compliance in energy terms (fraction) 1.00 0.50 83% 1.00 0.50 90%
16
Compliance Rate
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 17
After 2006 IECCInitial In 10 years39% 30%
Sample Run: IL, IN and OH
Calculating savings specific to a service territoryDefine 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
18
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)
19
Adoption
20
DEFAULT A90-1980MEC 92-95 90.1-1989
IECC 2000/2003, 90.1-1999/2001
IECC 2006 90.1-2004
IECC 2009 90.1-2007
IECC 2012 90.1-2010
Do not delete the row 2000 2006 2009 2012
Alabama 1990 2002 2010 2013 2013 2045
Alaska 1990 2002 2010 2045 2045 2045
Arizona 1990 2002 2010 2045 2045 2045
Arkansas 1990 1995 2005 2013 2013 2045
California 1990 1992 2001 2006 2010 2045
Colorado 1990 2002 2005 2008 2045 2045
Connecticut 1990 1990 2005 2009 2012 2045
Delaware 1990 1996 2004 2010 2010 2045
District of Columbia 1990 2000 2004 2010 2010 2045
Florida 1990 1993 2005 2005 2012 2045
Georgia 1990 1996 2003 2008 2011 2045
Hawaii 1990 1995 2004 2010 2045 2045
Idaho 1990 2002 2005 2008 2011 2045
Illinois 1990 2002 2006 2008 2010 2013
Indiana 1990 1993 2010 2010 2010 2045
Iowa 1990 1993 2004 2007 2010 2045
Kansas 1990 2002 2010 2045 2045 2045
Kentucky 1990 2002 2005 2007 2011 2045
Louisiana 1990 1999 2005 2007 2011 2045
Maine 1990 1990 2000 2005 2011 2045
Maryland 1990 1997 2005 2007 2010 2012
Massachusetts 1990 1992 2001 2008 2010 2045
Michigan 1990 2002 2009 2011 2011 2045
Minnesota 1990 1999 2009 2009 2045 2045
Mississippi 1990 2002 2010 2045 2045 2045
Missouri 1990 2002 2010 2013 2013 2013
Montana 1990 1996 2005 2010 2010 2045
Nebraska 1990 2002 2005 2012 2012 2045
Nevada 1990 2002 2005 2010 2012 2045
New Hampshire 1990 1999 2002 2007 2010 2045
New Jersey 1990 1997 2002 2007 2011 2045
New Mexico 1990 2002 2004 2008 2012 2045
New York 1990 1991 2002 2008 2011 2045
North Carolina 1990 1996 2006 2009 2012 2045
North Dakota 1990 2002 2010 2011 2011 2045
Ohio 1990 1995 2005 2008 2012 2045
Oklahoma 1990 2002 2010 2011 2045 2045
Oregon 1990 1993 2001 2007 2010 2045
Pennsylvania 1990 2002 2004 2007 2010 2045
Nominal Code-to-Code Savings
21
90.1-2004 to
90.1-200790.1-2007
to 90.1-2010 Ohio Illinois
Electricity.HVAC (site kWh/sq.ft.) 0.14
1.30
Electricity.Other (site kWh/sq.ft.) 0.26
1.24
Total Electricity EUI change 0.41
2.54 16%
Natural Gas. HVAC (kBtu/sq.ft.) 1.67
8.34
Natural Gas. Other (kBtu/sq.ft.) 0.54
0.01
Total NG EUI change 2.21
8.34 26%
Cases for Stringency Overwrite
22
DEFAULT A90-1980MEC 92-95 90.1-1989
IECC 2000/2003, 90.1-1999/2001
IECC 2006 90.1-2004
IECC 2009 90.1-2007
IECC 2012 90.1-2010
Do not delete the row 2000 2006 2009 2012
Alabama 1990 2002 2010 2013 2013 2045
Alaska 1990 2002 2010 2045 2045 2045
Arizona 1990 2002 2010 2045 2045 2045
Arkansas 1990 1995 2005 2013 2013 2045
California 1990 1992 2001 2006 2010 2045
Colorado 1990 2002 2005 2008 2045 2045
Connecticut 1990 1990 2005 2009 2012 2045
Delaware 1990 1996 2004 2010 2010 2045
District of Columbia 1990 2000 2004 2010 2010 2045
Florida 1990 1993 2005 2005 2012 2045
Georgia 1990 1996 2003 2008 2011 2045
Hawaii 1990 1995 2004 2010 2045 2045
Idaho 1990 2002 2005 2008 2011 2045
Illinois 1990 2002 2006 2008 2010 2013
Indiana 1990 1993 2010 2010 2010 2045
Iowa 1990 1993 2004 2007 2010 2045
Kansas 1990 2002 2010 2045 2045 2045
Kentucky 1990 2002 2005 2007 2011 2045
Louisiana 1990 1999 2005 2007 2011 2045
Maine 1990 1990 2000 2005 2011 2045
Maryland 1990 1997 2005 2007 2010 2012
Massachusetts 1990 1992 2001 2008 2010 2045
Michigan 1990 2002 2009 2011 2011 2045
Minnesota 1990 1999 2009 2009 2045 2045
Mississippi 1990 2002 2010 2045 2045 2045
Missouri 1990 2002 2010 2013 2013 2013
Montana 1990 1996 2005 2010 2010 2045
Nebraska 1990 2002 2005 2012 2012 2045
Nevada 1990 2002 2005 2010 2012 2045
New Hampshire 1990 1999 2002 2007 2010 2045
New Jersey 1990 1997 2002 2007 2011 2045
New Mexico 1990 2002 2004 2008 2012 2045
New York 1990 1991 2002 2008 2011 2045
North Carolina 1990 1996 2006 2009 2012 2045
North Dakota 1990 2002 2010 2011 2011 2045
Ohio 1990 1995 2005 2008 2012 2045
Oklahoma 1990 2002 2010 2011 2045 2045
Oregon 1990 1993 2001 2007 2010 2045
Pennsylvania 1990 2002 2004 2007 2010 2045
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
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.
23