Prescriptive Duct Sealing

1
Prescriptive Duct Sealing

• Measure Proposal Presentation to the Regional
  Technical Forum
• August 20, 2013

2
Presentation Outline

• Measure Overview
• UES Analysis and Results
• Research Plan
• RTF Staff Review and Guidance
• Proposed Decision

3
Measure Overview
Measure Developers BPA and SBW
Technical Subcommittee Review Technical subcommittee suggested minor edits to measure specs Technical subcommittee reviewed and agreed with the use of PTCS savings estimate while measure is in Planning state
Research Evaluation Core Group Review Subcommittee feedback solicited Feedback incorporated into research plan
Notes This measure does not require any pre/ post testing. This measure will not replace the PTCS duct seal measure.
4
Measure Properties

• Review the Measure Properties section on the
  Summary tab of the proposed measure workbook.
• Planning Assumption Measure properties savings
  are equivalent to PTCS duct sealing.

5
Unit Energy Savings

• Current UES values taken from existing RTF PTCS
  SF and MH duct sealing measures
• The current UES values are calculated using SEEM
  with inputs from PTCS test data
• Values taken for each heating zone, average of
  heating systems
• The current MH UES values include a 12 reduction
  in savings to account for measure implementations
  where no savings result.
• The current SF UES values do not include this
  savings reduction factor. For this measure, the
  reduction factor is included in the new SF UES.

6
Summary
Category Measure Life Site Savings (kWh) Capital Cost (/unit) TRC B/C Ratio
Prescriptive Duct Sealing - Single Family - Heating Zone 1 20 1,095 538 3.4
Prescriptive Duct Sealing - Single Family - Heating Zone 2 20 1,858 538 5.8
Prescriptive Duct Sealing - Single Family - Heating Zone 3 20 2,474 538 7.8
Prescriptive Duct Sealing - Manufactured Home - Heating Zone 1 18 1,543 375 5.8
Prescriptive Duct Sealing - Manufactured Home - Heating Zone 2 18 2,477 375 9.3
Prescriptive Duct Sealing - Manufactured Home - Heating Zone 3 18 3,267 375 12.4
7
Research Plan

• Proposed UES estimation method is Calibrated
  Engineering Analysis
• As per Guidelines, billing analysis is not
  recommended to develop savings for UES measures
  with significant interactive effects.
• Billing regression analysis provides percentage
  savings, that is a key input for the Calibrated
  Engineering Analysis.
• Recommended method will comply with
  last-measure-in.
• Pre/post analysis for both a treatment and
  control group.
• Treatment group will be the first cohort of
  participants
• Control group will be a later cohort
• Use the same pre and post period for both groups

8
RTF Staff Review and Guidance

• RTF staff recommendation on research plan
• Research plan incorporates RE Review Group
  feedback
• Staff agrees with the plan but acknowledges the
  uncertainties associated with billing analysis
• Estimates of expected confidence and precision
  based on CV observed in RBSA data.
• RTF staff recommendation on the UES estimate
• Planning estimate reviewed by subcommittee.
• Measure specifications reviewed and edited by
  subcommittee and staff
• Staff recommends de-rating savings to account for
  lack of testing equipment-guided sealing (e.g.
  25 less savings)

9
RTF Proposed Motion

• I _________ move that the RTF approve the
  UES measure Prescriptive Duct Sealing to the
  Planning category with Active status and a sunset
  date of December 31, 2015.