Multifamily Air
Sealing Program
Bobbi Wilhelm/John Forde
Implementation & Evaluation protocols
March 20, 2013
Team Introductions
 Puget Sound Energy:
 Bobbi Wilhelm: Evaluation
 John Forde: Market Manager
 Clint Stewart: Program Manager
 Arrow Insulation:
 Ben Burton: Sr. Program Manager
 Dave Burton: Program Manager
 Jay Dupree: Field Rep
 DNV KEMA:
 Jarred Metoyer & Team
2
Agenda
 Overview of the Air Sealing Program
 Buildings Served
 Air Sealing Video
 Program Implementation Protocols
 Video of Air Sealing Project
 Program Evaluation Protocols/Strategy
3
Why Multifamily Air Sealing
 I-937
 PSE continues to seek new energy savings
opportunities in all sectors, including multifamily
 Based on the number of electrically heated multifamily
buildings/units in the PSE service area, there is
significant energy savings opportunity. The estimated
potential is 200,000 units
 During the 2012-13 RFP process, Arrow Insulation Inc.
submitted a Multifamily Air Sealing Proposal
4
Program Overview
 Measures Include:
 Attic air sealing and insulation




Dense pack walls/rim joists
Floor air sealing and insulation
Door gaskets and sweeps
Ventilation fan timers
 Air sealing only measures if already insulated or
combined air sealing and insulation
 On site audit to gather building information
 Utilizes whole building blower door testing (pre-post)
 Program Implementation team conducts post
installation TREAT modeling.
5
Program Overview Continued
 Program started January, 2012 and will be completed
by December 2013
 Building types range from 6 units single story to 20
units with 3 stories and located in most of the service
area counties
 Recruitment through past weatherization participants,
program marketing efforts, etc.
 Owners must commit to no additional energy efficient
upgrades for 1 year (including heating season)
6
Units Served to Date
 Previously Insulated Buildings
 18 Buildings
 133 Units
 71,328 sq ft attic & floor
 63,772 sq ft walls
 Non-previously Insulated:
 15 Buildings
 142 Units
 91,357 sq ft Attic & Floor
 58,027 sq ft Walls
7
(no additional insulation):
Protocols
 Comprehensive TREAT audit performed
 Measures include:
 Attic air sealing and insulation
 Dense pack walls/rim joists
 Floor air sealing and insulation
 Door gaskets and sweeps
 Ventilation fan timers
 Inform property owner/set dates for install
 Whole building depressurization performed before and
after each installed measures
8
Current Infiltration Reduction
Measure
9
Infiltration
reduction
kWh Savings
sq. ft.
Air Tightening - Ceiling,
Floor, Wall insulation to
R13
42.62%
1.63
Air Tightening - Ceiling,
Wall Insulation to R13
(slab on grade bldgs)
47.88%
2.21
Air Tightening - Ceiling and
Floor
27.15%
0.68
Current Infiltration Reduction
Measure
kWh per sq. ft.
Wall Insulation to R13 and
Air Tightening
19.85%
3.43
Ceiling Insulation to R38
and Floor to R30 and Air
Tightening
32.81%
2.42
44.82%
2.49
Ceiling Insulation to R38,
Floor Insulation to R30,
Wall Insulation to R13 and
Air Tightening
10
Actual reduction
Photos
11
Video
View Youtube Video
12
Program Implementation & Evaluation
 The MF Air Sealing Team invited me (evaluation) in the
room early
 The team taught me what air sealing was (thanks!)
 The team asked for input on what needs to be done so
that we can evaluate the program
 I suggested:
 Testing out after every measure and randomizing measure
installation
 Help assist with program optimization in event of lower
avoided costs
 Get a consultant on board who deals with complicated
engineering & MF evaluations to take a look
13
As of April 2012
 Team began testing in and out between measures and
randomizing measure installation patterns
 We sent out an RFP and hired KEMA to assist with a
‘process’ type evaluation
 Provide us with an overview of evaluation methods
given our implementation strategy
 Give us a ‘best in class’ recommendation for
evaluation of the program
 Provide us with a gap analysis on data needs
14
Evaluation Methods
 Billing analysis




Relatively complex algorithm that
is accurate for program and site level,
difficult to identify control
difficult for regression to address non‐linear effects of
occupancy and measures
 Prototype Simulation with Billing History
 Affordable
 accurate for population
 not accurate at the site level
 difficulty with understanding the ‘prototype’
 Individual building models –use bill history for calibration
 Higher cost
 Most Accurate results
15
Current Program Status

Test in and out of every building


Test out between every measure







16
Multiple blower doors – Whole building approach
Provides an understanding of how measures stack up
Collecting insulation values pre & post
Collecting up to 10 years of billing history data for
every building
Average Heating Set point (thermostat) is gathered
Building, window, etc. square footage
Currently collecting lighting wattages
Collecting major appliances – letting treat default on
annual kWh
Next Steps
 True up modeling with billing history
 Implement process improvements
 Air seal final buildngs
 Complete Evaluation
 Present findings to RTF
17
Thanks!
Questions/Comments?
18