Research Strategy:Residential Clothes Dryers

R&E Subcommittee

Ryan Firestone, Christian Douglass, My TonRegional Technical Forum

April 3, 2015

2

Presentation Outline

• Today’s Objectives: Feedback on draft Clothes Dryer Research Strategy & format

• Review: RTF Decision to support the Research Strategy approach

• Clothes Dryer Research Strategy • Research Strategy format

3

Research Strategy: Review

March 2015 proposal to the RTF :Redefine Planning and Provisional measure categories

and acknowledge an interim discussion period

4 – Research Plans

5

• Previewed this plan with the R&E Subcommittee on March 12

• Generally supportive of this direction• Identified a few aspects that need to be

further addressed:– Role of RTF in funding discussion– What does the Research Strategy look like?– Role and timing of sunset dates

Subcommittee DiscussionParticipantsAndie BakerMike BakerDave BaylonTodd BlackmanLarry BlaufusEli CaudillRachel ClarkTom EckhartLauren GageBen HannasMark JohnsonCheryn MetzgerPeter MillerGraham ParkerBob RamirezDan RubadoJustin SpencerRobert WeberSarah WidderJennifer AnzianoAdam HadleyJosh Rushton

March 2015 proposal to the RTF :“Research Strategy” = A research plan that is expected to meet the research needs at the lowest expected cost to meet the guidelines; may be in more of an outline form than a formal Research Plan, but contains specifics of sample size, data to be collected, analysis methodology, and an estimated cost range

6

7

Draft Research Strategy for

Residential Clothes Dryer Measure

8

Guidelines Requirements

• Clearly specify residential clothes dryers as a measure, and establish a reliable method for estimating dryer energy use and savings.

9

Research Strategy Objectives• Specify/Validate Performance Metric: Need a performance

metric that can predict real-world energy consumption for residential clothes dryers with sufficient accuracy, and across all performance levels and technologies. It should not under predict for one type of machine or technology and over-predict for another type of machine or technology.

• Establish Certainty of Performance Tiers: The average performance of machines in each tier has to be determined with sufficient certainty to estimate savings with a level of precision, including the current practice baseline.

– Currently the RTF Planning Measure uses UCEF, but more research is needed.

– Performance Tiers have been proposed using UCEF.

10

Research Strategy Objectives

• Two other dryer-related topics that may impact both the performance metric and cost-benefit estimations: – HVAC interactions: Need to verify this interaction

and determine if further laboratory testing is necessary.

– Non-Energy Benefits: • Clothing wear and tear.• Fire risks.

11

Analysis: Background• There has been little differentiation in residential conventional

electric dryers’ (electric resistance heat) energy performance. • More efficient alternatives using better controls or more

efficient technologies in use in Europe and elsewhere are beginning to appear.

• There are now three general efficiency categories:– Conventional Dryers are common electric resistance dryers that do

not meet any of the efficiency performance thresholds.– Efficient Dryers meet “ENERGY STAR” level of performance, have

energy saving technologies, such as moisture sensors, use up to 20% less energy than conventional models.

– Super-Efficient Dryers meet EPA’s Emerging Tech Award 2014 performance or higher. Generally use a refrigeration cycle to heat and dehumidify the air in a drying cycle.

12

Analysis: BackgroundResidential dryer energy performance has been characterized by DOE’s test protocols:• “D”: Previous standard. Uses Energy Factor (EF) – Pounds of

clothes dried per kWh at highest temperature, 66% change in remaining moisture content (ΔRMC), assumed impact of auto-termination, no cool down.

• “D1”: Current standard. Uses Combined Energy Factor (CEF) – Pounds of clothes dried per kWh at highest temperature, 53.5% ΔRMC, assumed impact of auto-termination, no cool down.

• “D2”(Optional): Current standard. Uses Combined Energy Factor (CEF) – Pounds of clothes dried per kWh at highest temperature, 55.5% ΔRMC, tested with auto-termination and cool-down. (Required for ENERGY STAR qualification).

13

Analysis: Background• In 2012 NEEA conducted extensive field test of washer and

dryer energy use in 50 homes associated with the RBSA data set.

• This field study indicated that dryer energy use is much higher than current DOE test procedures indicate.

• As a result, NEEA and PG&E have developed a supplemental test procedure (STP) that uses real clothing in multiple load sizes and cycle settings.

• Based on its research, NEEA has proposed another metric of dryer energy use: – Utility Combined Energy Factor (UCEF) – a weighted average CEF value

from the 5 tests conducted using NEEA-developed STP.

14

Analysis: BackgroundNEEA has also proposed a Tiered rating system using UCEF:• Conventional (NEEA’s Baseline): Dryers meeting Federal

Standard• Tier 1: Dryers meeting the 2014 ENERGY STAR qualification

(electric resistance)• Tier 2: Hybrid heat pump dryers (electric resistance and heat

pump) available in the U.S. today• Tier 3: Heat pump dryers and hypothetical high-performance

hybrid heat pump dryers• Tier 4: Heat pump dryers (comparable to typical European

units)

15

Analysis: ApproachValidate that UCEF can be used to reliably predict real-world energy consumption for residential clothes dryers with sufficient accuracy, across all performance levels and technologies: • Use field results for Tier 1 units to supplement results from

NEEA’s laboratory tests of Tier 1 dryers to validate and calibrate UCEF

• Use field test results for Tiers 2, 3, 4 and results from NEEA’s laboratory tests to validate UCEF

• (Tier 1) Examine data and field test results to see if it is acceptable for now (was developed with results from 2 units)

• Use engineering analysis for Tier 1 & conventional results to determine if sea level normalization is needed (the original testing was conducted at 6500 ft. elevation).

16

Analysis: ApproachEstablish certainty of performance tiers and current practice baseline:• Use test results and market data to verify that the UCEF

values for each tier are averages of representative products• Use market data to establish a transparent and repeatable

method for weighting the laboratory performance results of individual models, to estimate the current practice baseline

• NEEA’s Tier 2,3,4 machines will need to be individually tested and qualified for the RTF measure.

17

Analysis: ApproachTo determine HVAC interactions:• Engineering analysis: vented and unvented dryers have

significantly different HVAC impacts when located in conditioned spaces: – Vented dryers increase infiltration (which increases heating and

cooling loads)– Unvented dryers increase internal gains (which decreases heating

loads and increases cooling loads).

• If the engineering analysis results in significant uncertainties (greater than 10%) in measure savings, then laboratory and/or field testing would be required to reduce these uncertainties.

18

Analysis: ApproachTo determine non-energy benefits:• Laboratory data on clothing dried in conventional (higher

heat) and heat pump dryers (longer cycle time) will be used to determine if cost estimates for wear and tear can be developed, and whether this can be a range or a point estimate.

• National and international fire data (of conventional and heat pump dryers) will be examined to determine if fire risks can be quantified and considered.

19

Analysis: DataCurrently available:• NEEA’s 2012 Field Study: in depth field test of

washer and dryer energy use in 50 homes associated with the RBSA data set.

• NEEA’s Baseline Dryer Study: Laboratory test results on 11 electric dryers models, 1 gas dryer model, and 3 heat pump dryer models.

• The CEC Appliance Database, which reports rated performance of machines using DOE test procedures.

20

Analysis: DataExpected:• NEEA’s “Baseline Round 2”: planned lab and

initial field testing of new products entering the market, long term performance monitoring, and investigation of non-energy benefits.

• SEDI: The Super-Efficient Dryers Initiative has collaborated with NEEA to develop and distribute the field test protocol among utilities, which may generate additional field results.

21

Analysis: DataNeeded to complete above analyses:• Field and laboratory testing of the same units

in all performance Tiers • Laboratory testing of a significant number of

Tier 1 units to reliably estimate their performance (approximately 20)

• Laboratory testing of additional conventional dryers to reduce the uncertainty in baseline performance (approximately 10)

22

Analysis: DataNeeded to complete above analyses:• Engineering analysis and if needed, laboratory

and/or field testing of HVAC interactions of vented and unvented dryers

• Data on clothing degradation rate for heat pump and conventional dryers

• National (and international) data on dryer market shares and fires to determine likelihood of dryer-induced fires by type of dryer.

23

Research Strategy Discussion

• Are the right questions being asked?– Is anything missing from the objectives?

• Appropriateness of research approach?– UCEF validation– Tiers– HVAC interactions– NEB– Others?

24

Research Strategy format

25

Research Strategy Format

•“Research Strategy” = A research plan that is expected to meet the research needs:– At the lowest expected cost to meet the guidelines; – May be in more of an outline form than a formal

Research Plan – Contains specifics of:

• Sample size• Data to be collected • Analysis methodology

– An estimated cost range

26

Research Strategy Format Discussion

Current (Draft) Structure:• High-level objectives• Analysis:– Background information to support analysis approach– Approach needed to fulfill objectives

• Data:– Available– Expected– Needed

27

Research Strategy Format Discussion

• Ordering of sections & flow of narrative?• Missing or redundant sections?• What changes would you make?– Flow– Language– Detail level

• What about cost/budget?– Sufficient detail/categorization?

28

Thank You!

29

Additional Slides

•Category: Planning– Define Research Strategy, Funders Not Yet Identified• RTF Role: Describe research needs and estimated cost range• Method: Put together a “Research Strategy” = A research plan that is

expected to meet the research needs at the lowest expected cost to meet the guidelines; may be in more of an outline form than a formal Research Plan, but contains specifics of sample size, data to be collected, analysis methodology, and an estimated cost range

• RTF Approval: Means RTF agrees with the research needs and agrees the proposed method of data collection and analysis provides a reasonable way to meet the research goals; RTF acknowledges funders may alter research design to meet their needs

30 – Research Plans

RTF Decision: Approval of UES Measure or Standard Protocol to “Planning” Category, “Active” Status.

RTF Decision: Approval of UES Measure or Standard Protocol to “Provisional” Category, “Active” Status.

RTF Decision: Approval of UES Measure or Standard Protocol to “Proven” Category, “Active” Status.

31 – Research Plans

How would this work with respect to the Guidelines?• This is a case where the guidelines language would be lagging for a short

while• Communicating our guidelines is an ongoing task• Guidelines Edits

– Planning Category• “Research Strategy” required at time of measure approval

– Add discussion of RTF role at adoption of research strategy

• Savings Estimate Reliability – Same as before– RTF Judgment Allowed (no data required)

• Impact Evaluation – Same as before– Treated as “Other UES”, where savings are estimated using one or more studies that may require

site-specific data collection (i.e. RTF UES estimate not used in evaluation).

– Provisional Category• Savings Estimate Reliability – Set to same as Planning– Removes requirement for reliable data being available to estimate the baseline– Removes requirement for model to be calibrated to baseline energy use

• Sponsored Research Plan required at time of measure approval– Add discussion of RTF role at adoption of research plan

• Impact Evaluation – Same as before– Savings estimates use the results of the research plan (i.e. use a research-adjusted RTF UES

estimate in evaluation); but if results not available, treat as “Other UES”

32 – Research Plans

33

How will this work with check ins?• Establish a process for checking in on the status of all Planning and

Provisional measures at one time– Enables a review of the full suite of measures to better weigh priorities

– Ensures that measures are not forgotten and provides an opportunity to check in on interest (RTF could choose to deactivate measures at this time based on lack of regional interest/support)

– Expectations: Review twice a year with R&E subcommittee, RTF, and RTF PAC (try to align with RTF work planning and utility budget cycles)

• What is the role of the sunset date?– Near term (ex: 1 year): Use only as a check in on the status of the

measure (similar to above)

– Longer term (ex: 3 years): Use as an opportunity to revisit regional interest and, if interest, revisit the savings estimate

R&E Subcommittee discussed this

Staff recommendation: Check in process above allows for streamlined check in and keeps sunset date focused on revisiting energy savings estimates

34

Available Data• CEC Database

– Products registered for sale in CA• Washer performance metrics: IMEF, IWF, RMC

• Add date

• NEEA Washer/Dryer field study– Metered energy consumption, log book of clothing weights and machine settings.

• NEEA / PG&E lab study– Lab testing to determine D2, UCEF

– Estimated market share per unit to estimate market average performance

– Durango factor – laboratory at 6,500 ft.• Unquantified impact on CEF, UCEF (likely improves metric a few percent)

– Durango lab has since closed

• Ongoing NEEA lab and field testing of HP Dryers– NEEA will certify Tier 2 / 3 / 4 dryers for now

Tier 1 Dryers• No clear correlation between D1 and D2

• NEEA investigating D2 / UCEF relationship– 9 Standard dryers

– 2 Tier 1 dryers

• Should the RTF pursue a Tier 1 Dryers measure?– Would likely require Tier 1 lab testing

Current Data

Energy Consumption Metric

Data Source What kind? How many? D EF D1 CEF D2 CEF UCEF Field

CEC DB/Other product DBs

Standard X

Tier 1, 2 X

2011 DOE X X

NEEA Washer/Dryer Field Study

~46x Standard (some Tier 1?)

X (field)

X (field) X

Baseline Dryer Study

9x Standard X

(Durango)X

(Durango) 2x Tier 1

HP Dryer testing Tier 2,3,4 X X X