Regional Heat Pump Water Heater Evaluation Committee Kickoff March 8

th

, 2012

Agenda for Kickoff

• • • • • • Review background/scope of committee Review membership Review current state of knowledge: energy usage/current field and lab work Discuss and align on goals/objectives for savings study Discuss and align on goals/objectives for process and market evaluation Discuss and align on process 2

Background

• Provisional UES approved for heat pump water heater (HPWH) for: – Northern Climate Specification Tier 1 • Buffer space installs (October) • Interior, non-ducted installs (October) – Northern Climate Spec Tier 2 • Buffer space installs (October) • Interior, ducted installs (February) 3

Regional HPWH Evaluation Advisory Committee

• • Scope 1. RTF sub-committee to validate HPWH savings & installed cost 2. Coordinate regional process and market evaluation for market transformation efforts Co-chaired by – RTF (Tom Eckman), and – NEEA (Dave Kresta) 4

• • • • RTF Staff Lead: Tom Eckman Adam Hadley Mark Kendall Gillian Charles

Current Members

• • • NEEA Co-Lead: Dave Kresta, [email protected]

Anu Teja, [email protected]

Jeff Harris, [email protected]

• • • • • • • • • • • Ben Larson, [email protected]

Mark Jerome, [email protected]

Rich Arneson, [email protected]

Jim Maunder, [email protected]

Eric Brateng, [email protected]

David Thompson, [email protected]

Walker Dodson, [email protected]

Erin Erben, [email protected]

Greg Kelleher, [email protected]

Todd Greenwell, [email protected]

Dan Rubado, ETO, [email protected]

• • • • BPA Kacie Bedney, [email protected]

Jack Callahan, [email protected]

Stephanie Vasquez, [email protected]

Lauren Gage, [email protected]

• Additional to reach out to: – – – – – – Bob Gunn at Snohomish PUD. Dane Christiansen, NREL Ammi, EPRI Jim Lutz, LBNL Andie Baker, Tacoma Pete Pengilly, Idaho Power (evaluation) 5

Savings and Installed Cost Validation

6

HPWH Energy Use: Known Data

• • • • • BPA/EPRI Field study NEEA/30 unit AirGenerate study NEEA and BPA lab testing Known from Lab and Field testing to date for tier 1 and tier 2 units: – COP vs ambient, COP vs inlet water temp, COP vs airflow, COP vs average tank temp – Fan, compressor, electric element power draw – Standby losses SEEM model with infiltration effects 7

• • •

What are we trying to answer?

• (Proposed prioritized drivers to savings research plan) Performance of HPWH with real world effects Savings characterization of current models in field vs. generalized savings model Space/heat interaction Filling in knowledge gaps Hot water usage/draw patterns Space heating interaction Electric element usage Buffer space temperatures Inlet water temp Airflow (for ducted systems) Temp set points Installed costs Code issues impacting installation 8

Two approaches to savings validation

• • •

Traditional field study:

Statistical sampling of units within program population Measurement focused on overall unit performance (e.g. annual kWH saved) Whole home interaction through whole home metering • • Pros: Relatively inexpensive Cons: Limited to sample/population studied, difficult to extend to new units, other populations • • •

Validated Engineering Model:

Focus on statistical measurement of independent input variables (water draws, ambient temps, etc) Limited detailed unit testing (in lab) Field performance measurements linked to lab tested equivalents • • Pros: Generalizable to different HPWH models, different housing populations; saves future costs for performance assessment.

Cons: Requires more detailed measurement and analysis of site data; potentially more expensive up front 9

10

11

• •

Traditional Field Study Approach

Three primary data collection areas – Hot Water Consumption (drawn patterns & timing) – – Space Conditioning Interaction (model inputs) In-field COP Study Dates – Site/Participant recruitment • Program participants through 3/31/2013 • Overlap of site selection across data collection areas expected – Study data collection period: 6/1/2013 – 5/31/2014 • Installation of monitoring equipment would occur well before 6/1/2013 – Provisional UES Sunset Date: 12/31/2014 12

Study Area: Hot Water Consumption

• • • Data Collected – Monthly hot water consumption (gallons) Sample – 200 sites • Random/representative sample of program participants

Consider leveraging Jim Lutz’ draw pattern study in lieu of sampling our own sites

13

Study Area: Space Heat Interaction

• • Data Collected – Unheated Buffer Space-to-House UA – Unheated Buffer Space estimate of internal gains (equipment audit) – Unheated Buffer Temperatures Sample – 50 sites – Additional Buffer space temperatures can be measured at non-HPWH sites(?) 14

Study Area: In-Field COP

• • Data Collected – Hot water consumption (draw pattern & gallons/day) – Unheated Buffer Space-to-House UA – Unheated Buffer temperatures – Unheated Buffer Space estimate of internal gains (equipment audit) – Energy consumption of heating systems – HPWH energy consumption • Compressor and Fan • Electric resistance – ΔT of water delivered – Ambient temperature & exhaust air temperature – For tier 2 (assumes constant speed fan): • Two-time measurement of – airflow – incoming air temperature Sample – 75 sites • Site selections weighted by program occurrence of HPWH model, installation location, and heating zone.

15

Study Area: Installed Costs

• • Challenge: high initial installed costs due to immature supply chain Process: Capturing installation costs for all Program installs during 2012/13 16

Process to move forward on savings study

• • • Alignment on known data and questions to be answered Alignment on Traditional Field Study vs. Validated Engineering Model approach RFP for contractor to create workplan • Meeting agendas will clearly differentiate between savings validation discussion vs. market/process evaluation.

17

Market and Process Evaluation

• Proposed: Key drivers for market and process evaluation: – Effectiveness of current market intervention strategies – Key market factors to be addressed by future HPWH programs – How do end-users interact with the technology • Planned NEEA activities – Full initiative implementation in 2013 – – Baseline study underway NEEA plans surveys of homeowners, supply-chain, mfgs during 2012 • Requirements from group members for market and process evaluation?

18

Process to move forward on market and process evaluation

• • • Alignment on key drivers and requirements RFP for contractor to create workplan Meeting agendas will clearly differentiate between savings validation discussion vs. market/process evaluation.

19