Measures that Save The Most Energy Jackie Berger
Measures that Save The Most Energy Jackie Berger David Carroll ACI New Jersey Home Performance Conference January 25, 2007
Session Outline 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Introduction Key Concepts Projected Savings vs. Measured Savings Average Savings by Type of Measure Energy Education Savings Potential Maximizing Measure Savings Conclusions
Introduction - Focus • Focus – Measures that save the most… – Energy per measure – Energy per household – Energy per dollar spent • Other Important Issues – Measures that save the most… • Electricity, gas, or fuel oil • Greenhouse gas emissions • Lives – Measures that furnish the greatest… • Avoided costs • Economic benefits • Note: Dollars saved vary with energy price
Introduction - Scope • Sources – APPRISE evaluation studies – Blasnik and Associates evaluation studies – Dalhoff and Associates evaluation studies • Geographic scope – Northeast – Midwest – Mountain
Key Concepts • Measures that save the most: – Target highest use households – In a way that maximizes effectiveness – With an understanding of what is going on in this house • Measures that save the most per dollar spent – Balance delivery costs with energy saving opportunities • Spend less when there are fewer opportunities • Spend more when there are more opportunities • We recommend using “measured savings”
Targeting Usage (ccf) Spendin Savings $ per ccf g saved <1, 000 $653 26 ccf $25 1, 0001, 400 $836 80 ccf $10 1, 400+ $1, 043 171 ccf $6
Measure Effectiveness • Duct Sealing – Ducts outside envelope = High Savings – Ducts inside envelope = Low/No Savings – Ducts in basement = ? ? – Ducts in crawl space = ? ? • Insulation – With properly seal envelope = High Savings – Without air sealing = Low Savings
Focus on This House • Example – Baseload Job in Massachusetts House – Previsit Information: Annual electric usage of 10, 000 k. Wh – On-Site Measurement: 6, 000 k. Wh for appliances / 4, 000 k. Wh for space heater – Problem: Program only pays for baseload measures – Solution: Install cfls, encourage behavioral changes, and refer to electric heat program
Projected Savings vs. Measured Savings • • Value of projections Projection methodology Issues with projections Comparison of projected savings to measured savings
Projections vs. Impacts Data Needs Data Driven Projections Impacts Projections Installed measures No Yes Pre treatment usage No Yes Post treatment usage No No Yes Degree days No No Yes Comparison group No No Yes
Projections vs. Impacts • Basic Projection Methodology – Assumptions • • Measure installation rates Measure retention rates Pre installation usage Measure effectiveness
Projections vs. Impacts • Basic Projection Methodology – Calculation • Average household saving = Measure Installation Rate * Measure Retention Rate * (Pre Installation Usage – Post Installation Usage)
Projections vs. Impacts • Basic Projection Methodology – Calculation • Pre Installation Usage per bulb per hour = 60 watts *. 001 =. 06 k. Wh • Post Installation Usage per bulb per hour = 13 watts *. 001 =. 013 k. Wh • Change per Bulb per hour =. 06 -. 013 =. 047 k. Wh
Projections vs. Impacts • Basic Projection Methodology – Calculation • Change per bulb per day =. 047 k. Wh * 2. 5 hours/day =. 1175 k. Wh/day • Change per bulb per year =. 1175 k. Wh/day * 365 days = 43 k. Wh/year
Projections vs. Impacts • Basic Projection Methodology – Calculation • Number installed per home = 43 k. Wh * 8 bulbs = 344 k. Wh • Retention rate = 344 k. Wh *. 8 = 275 k. Wh saved per home per year
Projections vs. Impacts So simple, what could go wrong… • Incorrect assumptions – Measure installation rate – Measure retention rate • Bulbs left for occupants to install • Bulbs removed • Bulbs broken – Existing bulb k. Wh – Hours of use
Projections vs. Impacts Survey Results Annual k. Wh Savings by Hours Used 2. 5 hr/day 1. 5 hr/day Bulbs provided (database) 15. 4 660 396 Bulbs provided (client reported) 12. 0 515 309 Number installed by auditor or client 11. 6 497 298 Number not burned out or removed 10. 6 455 273 (clients reported that 46% are used at least 1 hour per day)
Projections vs. Impacts Impact Analysis Results High Use Moderate Use Projected Actual k. Wh Savings per Bulb 76 41 72 26 k. Wh Savings per Home 1, 231 677 878 316 Source: M. Blasnik and Associates. Survey Results – High and Moderate Use % Burned Out Months After Service Delivery 4 -6 7 -9 10 -12 13 -15 16 -19 6% 8% 9% 13% 17%
Projections vs. Impacts How far are we off with the projections? • Evaluations that measure actual usage impacts usually find 50% to 70% of projected savings – NEAT Audit – measured savings were 57% and 54% of projected savings (Sharp, 1994 and Dalhoff, 1997) – Ohio electric baseload savings were 58% to 68% of projected – NJ electric baseload savings were 60% - 69% of projected Source: M. Blasnik and Associates.
Average Savings by Measure Type • • Methodology for developing measured savings Methodology for attribution of savings to measures Evaluation findings – electric baseload Evaluation findings – space heating measures
Usage Impact Analysis • Usage Impact Methodology – Obtain pre and post energy usage data for program participants – Use regression model to adjust usage for changes in weather from “normal weather year” – Construct weather normalized change in usage for treated households – Construct weather normalized change in usage for comparison households
Usage Impact Analysis • Usage Impact Methodology – Run regression to determine measure specific impacts Usage change = α + β * household characteristics + γ 1* measure 1 + γ 2* measure 2 + γ 3* measure 3 + μ
Measure Savings – Evaluation Findings k. Wh Savings Per Measure Ohio EPP PPL WRAP NJ CP CO E$P 40 47 912 692 High Use Mod Use Baseload Full Cost CFL 41 26 Refrigerator 926 544 Freezer 760 Air conditioner Source: M. Blasnik and Associates. 777 172 532
Measure Savings – Evaluation Findings $ Cost per k. Wh Savings By Measure NJ CP CFL $0. 061 Refrigerator $0. 069 Source: M. Blasnik and Associates.
Measure Savings – Evaluation Findings CCF Savings Per Measure NJ CP Heater Replacement Attic insulation 85 Air sealing 24 Thermostat 41 Source: M. Blasnik and Associates. CO E$P IL WAP OH WAP IA WAP 85 114 146 117 110 92 148 65 70 -108 53
Measure Savings – Evaluation Findings $ Cost Per CCF Saved By Measure NJ CP Heater Replacement $1. 30 Attic insulation $0. 60 Air sealing $1. 23 Thermostat $0. 19 Source: M. Blasnik and Associates. CO E$P $0. 20
Potential for Education • Major opportunities • Potential vs. realization • Successful models
Education Impacts Ohio EPP Unprompted Agreed to Taken Turn off lights 54% 16% Turn off appliances 14% 3% Use CFLs 10% 5% Conserve energy 10% 2% Use double spin on clothes washer 9% 2% Reduce heating temperature 5% 1% Line dry clothes 4% 0% Reduce water heater temperature 3% 1% Wash clothes in cold water 1% 1% None 19%
Education Impacts Niagara Mohawk Unprompted Actions Taken As a Result of: Workshop Video In-Home Education Turn off lights 43% 40% 33% Install CFLs 27% 20% 24% Turn down thermostat 14% 15% 10% Reduce TV usage 11% 3% 6% Turn off appliances 11% 9% 9% Turn down water temperature 10% 12% 10% Reduce use of AC 9% 3% 6% Use cold water for clothes washing 9% 5% 6% Set back temperature at night/when out 5% 4% 2%
Potential Education Savings Wattage Reduction Electric Measures Number Savings k. Wh Turn off lights 60 4 hrs/day 4 350 Turn off lights at night 60 8 hrs/day 2 350 3º All times 250 Reduce central AC Reduce TV usage 100 4 hrs/day 2 292 Turn off computer 250 8 hrs/day 1 730 Gas Measures Therms Turn down water temperature 10° All times 25 Turn down thermostat 2° All times 84 Cold wash 4/week 52 4º Night 58 Use cold water for clothes washing Set back temperature at night AC – 72 to 75 degrees, heating 72 to 70 degrees
Maximizing Measure Savings • Look at energy bills • Do diagnostic tests /take measurements • Apply bills, tests, and measurements to decision criteria • Build a package of measures that are complimentary and complete
Energy Bills Usage (ccf) Spendin Savings $ per ccf g saved <1, 000 $653 26 ccf $25 1, 0001, 400 $836 80 ccf $10 1, 400+ $1, 043 171 ccf $6
Tests and Measurements • Determine how each system is performing – HVAC • • Thermal envelope Heating / cooling distribution Equipment Performance Controls – Other end uses • Refrigerator metering • Water flow test
Decision Criteria • Technical – Audit Tool (e. g. NEAT audit) – Priority List – Rule of Thumb • Financial – – Spending limit Spending goal Spending target Financial incentives
Issues - Technical • No Usage Data – Decisions without most essential data • Limited Usage Data – Decisions without information on seasonality • Audit Models – Data entry sometimes gets in the way of investigating source / causes of usage problems – Note: Data entry on baseline conditions and treatments is essential for program management
Issues - Financial • Spending Limits – Do they focus delivery on highest saving measures or restrict delivery of cost-effective measures? • Spending Goals – Do they ensure comprehensiveness or encourage a program to over-invest? • Spending Target – Do they furnish flexibility or result in over-investment in some homes and under-investment in others?
Recommendations • Usage Data – Essential for good decision-making • Decision Criteria - Field staff need a good tool for determining which measures to install • Financial Guidelines – Should vary with energy savings potential and should be expressed as a range
Conclusions • Insulation / Air Sealing / Duct Sealing – In Northeast and Midwest, well-designed and implemented programs are big energy savers • Electric Baseload – Refrigerators and cfls save lots of energy, particularly if highest using households are targeted • Energy Education Potential – Behavioral changes have the potential to achieve large energy savings, but we have not seen any programs with significant measured energy savings
Contact Information • Jackie Berger, 609 -252 -8009, jackieberger@appriseinc. org • David Carroll, 609 -252 -8010, davidcarroll@appriseinc. org
- Slides: 39