March 18th, 2015
Residential New Construction Standard Protocol Subcommittee
Kick-off
1 NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE
Agenda
Overview
 Vision
 Background
 Draft Plan
 Feedback & Discussion
Desired Outcome
 General agreement on plan
 Guidance for CR & NEEA Staff on tasks to
complete before the next subcommittee
meeting (May)
2
Protocol Vision

What?
 Develop standard protocol so that home energy
professionals can use REM/Rate to generate savings
 Protocol ensures that savings can be claimed by utilities

Why?
 Leverage asset rating tool being adopted by the market place
 Increase utility program flexibility
 Market need for tool to assess whole home performance
(next tier of savings will come from integrated design) to
allow for:
 Energy use estimates
 Market differentiation
 Consistency in ratings across the region
3
In it’s most simple form
Data must be “bankable”
Limits
• Applies to only new construction
• Use kWh and Therm savings to baseline – not the HERS score!
• Models are generated by certified raters in accordance with RESNET
• Raters follow protocol and software constraints are followed
Other actors that would use data
• Homebuyers, Realtors, Lenders, Appraisers, Code Officials,
4
Questions we seek to answer
 What constraints do we put on REM/Rate?
(define the rater modeling protocol)
 How do we calibration output values?
(adjusted savings from REM/Rate are accepted)
5
Protocol Development
Draw from
 NW ENERGYSTAR Homes Modeling Guidelines
 RESNET Requirements (QA/QC)
 ETO EPS Guidelines
Improvements needed
 Previously identified errors in traditional measures
 How to handle new technologies and ”un-modelable”
 Define Baseline
 Define Output Report
Documentation
 Protocol
 Research Plan
6
Background
7
Many Tools – One Option
Tool
REM/Rate
Use
Target Market
Score System
& Share
Compliance, new and existing
HERS - 0-100
homes,
Utilities,
~40% of all new abstracted score
marketing homes nationally
Engine
Code
Advocates
Proprietary,
Monthly
YES
RESNET, raters in
the NW, Noresco
NO
Ecotope, RTF
SEEM
Utility program
measure
evaluation
RTF
n/a
Hourly single zone model
- includes thermal mass
and solar impacts on
interior temps
DOE’s HES
existing home
score
existing homes
1-10 score, asset
based
DOE 2.1E
NO
DOE
DOE 2.1E
YES
RESNET, FSEC
EnergyGauge
Compliance and
HERS score
generator
Cal HERS
“CSE”
Compliance and
HERS score
generator
California New
residential
construction
0-100?
Equest
(DOE 2.2)
YES?
CEC, Cal Utilities
energy
optimization of
residental
buildings
building science
professionals,
designers
RESNET HERS
(under development)
Energy Plus
NO
NREL, BPA
adjusted MMBTU
value
Post Processed
REM/Rate
NO
ETO, Earth Advantage
BEOpt
EPS
8
RESNET HERS - 0new and existing
100 abstracted, 2006
homes, SE USA
IECC = 100 points
Compliance and
2400 homes in NW
HERS score
in 2014
generator
Sources of Uncertainty
 Input Parameter Accuracy
 Rater Bias and Variability
 Software Accuracy
 Occupant Variability
 Climate Variability
ACH50 from Blower Door Test
Estimated ACH50
9
Oakridge National Lab 2014 – impact of parameter accuracy on energy estimation
Previous REM/Rate Comparison
Red: Previous
REM/Rate
Blue: SEEM
Green: Updated
REM/Rate
10
Rater Variability Investigation
8 Raters, 12 Next Step Home Projects
Will assess:
 Overall variability in outputs
 Variability in inputs (assumptions, differences
in equipment efficiencies or use schedules,
etc.)
Data will help determine how to develop
modeling protocol to reduce overall variability.
11
Protocol Approach
12
High Level Path to kWh Savings
Measure Level Calibration
Annual kWh
13
Proposed Development Tasks
TASK 1 – REM/Rate™ and SEEM Comparative Analysis
TASK 2 – Identify Misalignment Issues
TASK 3 – Develop Guidelines
TASK 4 – Calibrate to Real Data
TASK 5 – Protocol Documentation
TASK 6 – Research Plan Development
14
Task 1: Comparative Analysis
 Currently in progress
 Utilize research performed previously on REM/SEEM
 Update by comparing against SEEM 96 and updated
REM software
 Look at traditional savings measures, individually
 Looking for similar rate of change of consumption as
components are varied in REM/SEEM
Outcome: How close are the two outputs, and do any
changes need to happen to the software to improve the
alignment?
15
Task 2: Understand Errors in Savings Estimates
Known Source of Error
Gas Fireplace
Wood Fireplace
Spa/Hot Tub
Electric Resistance Floor Heat
Supplemental Electric Water Heat
Data Needed for Modeling Protocol
Approved efficiency ratings and heat output values.
RTF research on supplemental wood heat.
Building America modeling protocols.
Manufacturer output capacities, hours of use.
Manufacturer output capacities, assumed average run times.
 Assess how variance in rater inputs creates variance in
REM outputs
 Understand behavior or systems that cause variation in
outputs (fireplaces, electric resistance floor heat, etc.)
 Develop strategies for input guidelines to constrain
variation in how these are input into REM
 Determine which components exist in both baseline and
efficient cases
16
Task 3: Develop Modeling Guidelines
Develop modeling guidelines to constrain variation in
inputs:
 Use NWESH Guidelines as staring point
 Users must use provided libraries
 Only 4 foundation type options
 Infiltration input strategy controlled
 Will detail which default values to use or provide
guidelines on how to make assumptions
17
Task 4: Calibrate to Real Data
 Use real world billing data to compare modeled energy
use from REM to actual energy use
 Develop calibration to be applied to consumption
Data sources:
 Energy Trust of Oregon (500+ homes)
 NEEA’s Next Step Pilot Homes (14 homes with detailed
monitoring data)
18
Task 5: Protocol documentation
Protocol Documentation will include:
 Software requirements
 Modeling guidelines
 Savings calibration
 QA processes
19
Task 6: Research Plan Development
 Subcommittee will help drive the future of the
protocol. What research needs to be done to
move this from Provisional Approval (aiming
for December) to Approved?
20
Subcommittee Meeting Schedule
21
Month
Purpose
March
Kickoff
April
- no meeting -
May
Comparative Analysis
June
Draft Protocol & Baseline
July
Calibration Results
August
- no meeting -
September
Research Plan
October
Preparation for RTF
November
Provisional Approval Requested
December
- no meeting -
Question #1
Do we want a protocol that is replicable?
(for a different calculation engine)
22
Seeking guidance, not specifics
Question #2
23

How much alignment is sufficient?

- front end vs back end calibration
Question #3

What should NEEA/CR get done between
now and May?
Seeking guidance, not specifics
24
Final Questions & Discussion
25