1

Summary of Reviews:Workpapers Approved by theCalifornia Technical Forum

Part 2

Meeting: California Technical ForumJanuary 28, 2016

Jeff Hirsch/Kevin MadisonConsultants - CPUC Ex Ante Team

Clarifications for Issue Areas Encountered during Ex Ante

Reviews• Use of DEER values and methods• Standard practice baselines• Best available data

2

DEER ValuesUse of DEER values and/or assumptions is generally required.Example

DEER NTG values are to be used as default except when supported by more recent evaluation with staff approval

Room AC and Freezer measures are covered by DEERDEER defaults used until recent participant results are available and approved by staff

3

DEER MethodsUse of DEER methods is required, but methods as used here does not imply simply adopting DEER point values.Examples1. Code baseline calculations for LED fixtures and retrofit

kits - workpaper has an acceptance approach, but took time for EAR team review that could be shortened.

2. Demand impacts and interactive effects for clothes washers and dryers - incorrect demand analysis and incorrect application of HVAC IE to all loads could have been easily corrected if proposed approach had been outlined and reviewed at the abstract (or other) early stage.

4

Standard Practice and Code Baselines

Cases when gross savings shall be calculated over the standard practice or code baseline:

– ROB/NC/CE savings are above ISP/Code for full EUL– ER savings are above ISP/Code for post RUL period

In general, an “internal consensus” (CalTF, PA or implementer) on standard practice is not adequate, especially if evidence indicates a higher efficiency standard practice.

5

Standard Practice Baseline:Clothes Dryers

• Given the high cost of the electric HP dryers, ex ante team views it unlikely that participant clothes washers will be just minimally compliant.– Clothes washers are likely more energy efficient, with

lower remaining moisture content, thus reducing dryer energy use.

– What available research might provide this information?• Did the Pacific Northwest research look at the installed

washers as well as dryers?

6

Standard Practice Baseline:Clothes Washer Recycling

1. Program stated motivation is that 50% of all discarded appliances are transferred to new owners yet analysis assumes that all program collected appliances would have been transferred to a new owner.– It is unclear how collecting the 50% otherwise destroyed (or

even collecting broken machine) can be avoided– Savings values must be adjusted down to consider the fraction

of units that would have been destroyed, as standard practice, without the program.

2. Standard practice baseline should assume all clothes continue to be washed in washing machines– Workpaper assumes 50% of collected machine get 100%

savings thus assume those clothes are washed by hand.7

Standard Practice Baseline:Residential HVAC QI

• CalTF “consensus” was that non-permitted system replacements rarely, if ever, include additional treatments such as duct sealing or air-flow adjustment.– This leads to the use of “test-in” results from SCE QI program

data as the standard practice baseline• This is not supported by WO32 non-participant sample,

where 60% of sites had non-permitted HVAC replacements.– Observed system characteristics do not support use of the SCE

“test-in” results as the baseline– Observed results indicate that contractor action to address other

system faults or issues is the likely appropriate baseline8

Best Available Data:Not Always Adequate

Examples1. Commercial advanced powerstrips:

– The available field research, limited to a small group of university and college buildings, is not likely applicable to most other building types

– PAs not likely to pursue a program for universities and colleges only

2. RPP soundbar measure – Operating hours taken from PG&E sponsored Nielsen research

on television viewing hours which do not take into account any audio only usage

– May overestimate typical hours of standby mode and the savings estimates are derived from standby hours

9

Best Available Data:Not Always Comparable – Part 1

ExampleFor clothes washer recycling workpaper, measure and base energy use a mix of non-comparable values– Baseline (collected appliance): “Non-Energy Star”

appliances monitored in 2006-2008 evaluation– Measure (counterfactual appliance): From DOE

technical support document following DOE rating calculation methods

Research findings indicate that actual installed energy use is much higher than estimated following DOE methods – thus the estimated savings is inappropriately elevated.

10

Best Available Data:Not Always Comparable - Part 2

11

Clothes Washer Usage per Cycle

Total Electricity

Efficiency Class UEC Method Therm kWh Therm kWh kWh kWh ReferenceNon-ENERGY STAR Res Retrofit Findings - N/A - 0.03 0.58 0.14 3.66 0.21 4.45 Eval (Table 39)

CEE Tier 1 (2007-2008) Res Retrofit Findings 1.42 0.03 0.64 0.10 2.63 0.23 3.50 Eval (Table 39)CEE Tier 2 (2007-2008) Res Retrofit Findings 1.60 0.01 0.32 0.08 2.17 0.16 2.65 Eval (Table 39)

CEE Tier 3A (2006) CEE Minimum 1.80 NA NA NA NA NA NA Eval (Table 39)Res Retrofit Findings 1.80 0.02 0.52 0.09 2.31 0.15 2.98 Eval (Table 39)

Rated Use Front-Load 1.80 0.60 1.31 0.11 2.02 TSD-2 (Level 3)Res Retrofit Findings 2.20 0.01 0.31 0.09 2.38 0.21 2.90 Eval (Table 39)

Rated Use Front-Load 2.20 0.36 1.34 0.15 1.85 TSD-2 (Level 4)Mimimum Compliant Rated Use Top-Load 1.72 0.69 1.69 0.23 2.61 TSD-1 (Level 2)

ReferencesEval:

TSD-1:

TSD-2:

"Residential Retrofit High Impact Evaluation Report" prepared for The California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division, The Cadmus Group, Inc., February 2010"2012 Technical Support Document for Residential Clothes Washers," U.S. Department of Energy. See: "Chapter 7. Energy and Water Use Determination," Table 7.2.1"2012 Technical Support Document for Residential Clothes Washers," U.S. Department of Energy. See: "Chapter 7. Energy and Water Use Determination," Table 7.2.2

Minimum MEF

CEE Tier3 (2007-2008)

CEE Tier 3B (2006)

Watery Heating Fuel Use per Cycle

Dryer Fuel Usage per Cycle