Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning:
Deemed Measure Review and Update
Regional Technical Forum
June 29th, 2010
Overview of Measure
•
Measure Description
– Early retirement of residential refrigerators and freezers
•
•
•
In-home pickup: main method
Retailer pickup: programs beginning to explore this option
Measure Requirement
– Must be in working condition (makes cold)
– At least 10 ft3 in capacity
– Must be decommissioned and its components recycled
•
History
– Originally, RTF established a deemed calculator
– June 2005 – RTF established deemed savings for residential refrigerator recycling
– April 2007 – RTF established deemed savings for residential freezer recycling
•
Scale & Available PNW Data
– 7 PNW Utilities’ 2009 programs recycled 34,000 units
•
Translates to nearly 4 aMW using current RTF values
– Data collected by JACO in the following utility programs:
•
•
Avista, ETO, Snohomish, Tacoma, Seattle, PSE, and Idaho Power
Current Deemed Measures:
Incremental
O&M Costs
($/unit)
Annual
Savings @
Site
B/C Ratio
(kwh/yr)
(5th Plan)
Sector
Procost Full Measure Name
Incremental
Capital Cost
($/unit)
Residential
Refrigerator Decommissioning and Recycling
$
140
$
-
9
905
2.2
Residential
Freezer Decommissioning and Recycling
$
140
$
-
8
925
2.0
Measure Life
(years)
2
Measure’s Relationship to 6th Plan
Reason(s) it's not in the Plan
•
The Plan already accounts for savings from natural replacement of the existing stock.
–
–
•
Savings from refrigerator decommissioning only last until the unit would be replaced on normal burnout,
something well short of 20 years.
–
–
•
The baseline condition is "standard practice" efficiency of new equipment at the start of the Plan (2010).
With a 20-year life, all refrigerators get replaced during the planning period with at least the baseline condition efficiency.
The savings from existing equipment efficiency to current standard practice efficiency are already "locked in" since
codes/standards/standard practices are not assumed to go backward.
There is no additional savings potential over the long-term from decommissioning.
The Plan acknowledges it does not provide an exhaustive list of all the available cost-effective measures
that can be performed over the next 20 years.
Reason(s) utilities can claim "early retirement" savings
•
•
Decommissioning saves energy.
Decommissioning gets the Region to the long-term target early (speeds up natural replacement)
–
–
Assuming the savings are cost-effective, this adds value to the Region.
Cost-effectiveness depends on a number of factors
• how programs are structured, the natural replacement cycle, the age distribution of the stock being decommissioned, the cost
of the decommissioning, the timing and depth of future improvements in standards, etc.
Note: Since savings from refrigerator decommissioning are much like the savings achieved with
code/standard changes, we have to take care not to count them twice when reporting regional savings in
the regional roll-up.
3
Measure Analysis Overview
Energy Savings = (kWhold)×(Fpartuse) ×(Baselineadjustment)
• kWhold: Average Annual Energy Use of Recycled
Refrigerators (and Freezers)
• Fpartuse: Part-Use Factor
• Takes into account units that would have been operated
part of the year, or not at all
• Baselineadjustment: Baseline Adjustments
– Takes into account units that would have been taken out of
service without the program
Measure Life = Remaining Useful Life of the Equipment
Measure Cost = Collection Cost + Recycle Cost +
Incentive + Program Administration Costs
4
“It is clear that, despite over a decade of
practice, evaluations of appliance
recycling programs continue to suffer
from significant uncertainty in key
performance parameters.”
[Eric Daly, Val Jensen, and Bruce Wall] “Evaluation of the Energy and
Environmental Effects of the California Appliance Early Retirement and
Recycling Program,” Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Seattle, 2003.
5
Energy Savings
Determining kWhold
Site/Lab Factor: Adjustment for DOE test lab performance to in situ
performance
kWh at-manufacture: AHAM (extrapolated) average annual energy use (labtested) for each model year
kWh degradation: Increased energy use from efficiency degradation over
time (kWh degradationi = unit agei x performance degradation factor)
n: # units recycled in 2009 (JACO 2009 PNW data)
C: correction factor to adjust 2009 data to a deemed value for 2010-2012
6
Energy Savings
Determining kWhold
Site/Lab Factor = 0.81
Issue: DOE Lab Test at 90 deg ambient, empty, no door openings; different
than “real world”.
Report
Summary
Results
Notes
(Ratio of In-situ to Lab
Energy Use)
Peterson, John et. al. “Gross
Savings Estimation for Appliance
Recycling Programs: The Lab
Versus In situ Measurement
Imbroglio and Related Issues.”
2007 IEPEC
202 units were
tested both Insitu (2 weeks)
and in the lab
(following DOE
protocol)
0.81
(Table 12)
Cadmus, et. al. “Residential
Retrofit High Impact Measure
Evaluation Report”. For the
CPUC. 2/8/2010
Added sites to
above. In situ
monitoring
(166) and lab
monitoring
(137).
0.81
Simple average of
“cool” CA
climates (Table
123)
7
Energy Savings
Determining kWhold
kWh At-Manufacture
• AHAM Energy Use Data
– Average manufacturer-reported at-manufacture
energy use, by year of production.
– Data back to 1970’s; extrapolated beyond that
– These are the data used by the current RTF analysis
• JACO Energy Use Data (not used in savings calc)
– At-manufacture energy use by model
– Data available for some, but not all (~52%)
8
Refrigerators
AHAM (extrapolated)
JACO Data
2,000
1,800
1,600
kWh/year
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
On average, for JACO data collected,
JACO kWh/year about 7% higher than AHAM
-
Model Year
•
AHAM: Market Average, with extrapolation in earlier years; JACO: Average of models with a match
9
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Number of Units
Refrigerators
N Recycled
N Jaco kWh Data
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
-
Model Year
10
Freezers
AHAM (extrapolated)
JACO Data
1,600
1,400
kWh/year
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
On average, for JACO data collected,
JACO kWh/year about 20% higher than AHAM
-
Model Year
•
AHAM: Market Average, with extrapolation in earlier years; JACO: Average of models with a match
11
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Number of Units
Freezers
N Recycled
N Jaco kWh Data
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
-
Model Year
12
Energy Savings
Determining kWhold
Performance Degradation Factor = 1.25%/year
Report
Summary
Results
Notes
ADM. “2009 Second Refrigerator
Recycling Program NV Energy –
Northern Nevada Program Year
2009; M&V Report.” Feb 2010
Reference to Cadmus data
on CA program (2/2010
report)
1.25%
per year
Methodology not
described
Miller and Pratt, “Estimates of
Refrigerator Loads in Public Housing
Based on Metered Consumption
Data”, October 1998
Metered 104 existing & 17
new units. Developed a
regression function, with
age as a variable.
1.37%
per
Year
1998
KEMA. “2003 EM&V RARP Study:
Verification, Degradation & Market
Potential Analysis”. For SCE. Dec
2004.
Using data from 136 lab
(DOE) metered “old” units,
compared to new
consumption data, tried to
find a relationship.
(93% of
the units
showed
increased
usage)
Couldn’t provide
a quantitative
conclusion
ICF Consulting. “Evaluation of the
Energy and Environmental Effects of
the California Appliance Early
Retirement and Recycling Program”
for CPUC. 2003.
Referenced in SnoPUD
evaluations (did not find
original report)
0.6%
per year
13
Energy Savings
Determining kWhold
C Factor = 0.95
• Issue
– JACO data represent mix of models recycled in 2009; however, deemed
savings are for 2010 and beyond (proposed 2-year sunset date)
• Suite of units recycled are expected to be of newer vintages (and therefore, more
efficient) over the course of program delivery as older units are removed from
circulation through the program and naturally. So, kWhold should be expected to fall
over time.
• Solution
– C Factor
• Adjusting the 2009 model years by +1, +2, and +3 years, results in:
– Refrigerators: 97% (2010) to 91% (2012) of savings calculated for 2009
– Freezers: 98% (2010) to 92% (2012) of savings calculated for 2009
• Assumes same recycled model age distribution as occurred in 2009
– Sunset Date: 2 years
• Adjust savings based on most recent program model year data
14
Energy Savings
Determining Fpartuse
Part Use Factor = 0.91
• Based on participant surveys
(of CA Statewide 06-08 ARP by Cadmus, 2010)
• Simple Average combined factor for the three utilities = 0.91
15
Energy Savings
Determining Baselineadjustment
Current RTF
Adjustment Description Not Replaced Replaced w/New Unit
Kept Unused
6%
6%
Retired w/o Program
7%
7%
Used Part-Time
10%
10%
Replaced w/another used unit
11%
0%
Space Conditioning Interaction
0%
6%
Net-to-Gross Adjustment=>
70%
74%
Share of Units Recycled =>
40%
60%
Overall Adjustment =>
73%
•
Source: SnoPUD Evaluation
– What consumer would have done
•
References to: ICF 2003, Heschong Mahone 2002, ICF 2003, and City of Fort Collins 2005
– Whether replaced
•
•
JACO data collected through program
Where replaced with a new unit, new unit’s consumption is subtracted
– This reduces the adjustment to 57% (assuming error is fixed)
•
Uncovered an error or two
– Energy use of models newer than the average (1980) are not included in the average UEC
– Adjustments are not summed properly
16
Energy Savings
Determining Baselineadjustment
What would have happened to the Refrigerator or
Freezer without the Program?
1.
Would have kept, but not used
2.
Would have discarded, and unit destroyed
3.
Would have kept and used
4.
Would have discarded, but unit still in use
Subject to an
Adjustment
Not Subject to
an Adjustment
- Baseline adjustment is typically determined through participant and non-participant
surveys.
- Analysis can be complicated and varies.
17
Energy Savings
Determining Baselineadjustment
Baselineadjustment = 57% (refrigerators); 68% (freezers)
Program Study
Com Ed, PY 1 (6/08 - 3/09)
ETO, PY 2008-09
PG&E, 2004-05
SCE, 2004-05
SDG&E, 2004-05
PG&E, 2006-08
SCE, 2006-08
SDG&E, 2006-08
Simple Avg
Refrigerator NTG
70%
50%
50%
66%
55%
51%
56%
58%
57%
Freezer NTG
83%
50%
61%
72%
75%
NA
NA
NA
68%
Reference
Summit Blue report, 12/2/2009, Table 3, page 3
Innovologie report, 1/2010, Table 33, page 40
ADM Associates, 4/2008, pages 3-11 and 3-14
Cadmus Group, Residential Retrofit High Impact Measure
Evaluation Report, 2/8/2010, Table 134, page 150
18
Energy Savings
Issue/Discussion
Proposed Baseline Adjustment method assumes a 1-for-1
reduction in the # of refrigerators remaining in the population.
(Less refrigerators per household)
• This assumption causes an overstatement of savings.
- In some cases, units that are recycled would have been used* in a “required” situation.
Because of the program, the user* is forced to acquire an alternative unit.
- On average, we would expect the efficiency of the alternative unit to be higher than the
efficiency of the recycled unit
- In these cases, savings should be kWhRecycledUnit – kWhAlternativeUnit, not simply kWhRecycledUnit
• However, there are no data to support an adjustment.
- Example: Existing RTF method subtracts the new unit’s energy use (assumed to be Energy
Star energy use) for all units reported by program participants as “replaced with a new unit”;
and assigns 0 kWh/yr savings to all units reported as “replaced with a used unit”.
•
Issue: Program participant responses are mostly irrelevant to this issue; whether the subsequent user* would have
used the unit in a “required” situation is relevant (and unknown).
- What value to use for kWhAlternativeUnit?
• Solution: (?) Options – Judgment Call
- A: Assume it’s a small effect, so ignore it.
- B: Assume some amount (50%?) of refrigerators are “replaced” in some way, and assume the
“replacement” unit uses (500?) kWh/year.(kWhAlternativeUnit)
* The “user” in this case could be the program participant, or the next would-be owner of the unit.
19
Energy Savings
Recap & Results
Energy Savings = (kWhold)×(Fpartuse) ×(Baselineadjustment)
Variable
Refrigerators Freezers
site/lab factor
81%
81%
kWh at manufacture (avg)
1,078
988
kwh degradataion (avg)
368
417
C factor
95%
95%
kWh old (avg)
1,117
1,085
F part use
91%
91%
Baseline adjustment
57%
68%
Savings
582
675
20
Measure Life
30
Remaining Measure Life vs. Model Year
Measure Life
25
20
15
10
5
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0
Model Year
•
Continue using RTF’s relationship of age to measure life (graph)
– Updated to 2010 as start year
– Prior to 1975, remaining life constant at 6.1 years
•
Apply measure life to all 2009 JACO data to develop a weighted average
Type
REF
FRZ
Average
Weighted Average
N
Model Year
Measure Life (yrs)
1984.7
23,714
9.1
1978.2
8,350
6.2
21
Measure Cost
• Current RTF assumed measure cost: $140/unit
– $110 for implementation
• Pickup costs
• Recycling costs
• Data collection and tracking
– $30 customer incentive
• Proposed updated measure cost: $130/unit
– $100 for implementation
• Costs have come down (per JACO and Phil Sisson estimates)
– Customer incentive remains in the RTF measure cost since it’s an
integral part of the program (not a transfer payment)
22
Proposed Measures (Results)
• Option A
Increm ental Measure Annual
Total Societal
Capital Cost Life
Savings @
Benefit / Cost Ratio
($/unit)
(years)
Site (kw h/yr) (TRC B/C Ratio)
Sector
Procost Full Measure Nam e
Residential
Freezer Decom m issioning and Recycling
$
130
6.0
675
2.4
Residential
Refrigerator Decom m issioning and Recycling
$
130
9.0
582
3.0
• Option B
Increm ental Measure Annual
Total Societal
Capital Cost Life
Savings @
Benefit / Cost Ratio
($/unit)
(years)
Site (kw h/yr) (TRC B/C Ratio)
Sector
Procost Full Measure Nam e
Residential
Freezer Decom m issioning and Recycling
$
130
6.0
555
2.0
Residential
Refrigerator Decom m issioning and Recycling
$
130
9.0
482
2.5
• Update measure with new program data w/in 2 years
• Decision?
23
Other Questions
• Utilities are starting programs to recycle appliances collected by New
Appliance Dealers (not in-home pickup).
– Should these be handled as a separate deemed measure?
– Baseline adjustment could be different for these types of programs.
– Adjustment may be expected to be lower for retail-pickup programs than in-home pickup
programs since retailers often offer this service already
– However, recent survey results in ComEd territory showed higher NTG for retail-pickup
versus in-home pickup (very small sample size, though)
– Proposal:
• Provisionally deem these with the same values. (no distinct measure)
• Evaluation suggested.
• Review in 2 years. (likely to have more data from national sources)
• Should Residential-style refrigerators from non-residential buildings be
allowed?
• JACO reports some utilities allow these, but they’ve only come in in very small
numbers.
• Proposal: Yes, allow them.
24