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