EM&V Quarterly Update Q2 2018

Directors Note

2016 REED Data: Where Does the Region Stand?

The 2016 program year data is in! So, how does the region stack up? Each year NEEP reaches out to the states in the region to collect energy savings data for our Regional Energy Efficiency Database (REED). REED serves as a regional platform for the consistent reporting of Northeast and Mid-Atlantic electric and gas energy efficiency programs. REED currently contains program level data for the following ten states: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Compared to previous years’ increases, 2016 saw a decrease to 4.1 million total MWh savings from 4.7 million MWh in 2015. But, four states in the region saw an increase in their annual electric energy savings. It is no surprise to see Massachusetts among these, with the state achieving over three percent energy savings targets.

REED is useful to identify trends in energy savings at the state and program level. Are programs implemented by the state achieving an upward trends in savings, staying steady, or decreasing? These trends can be further analyzed to the program-sector level. The pie chart below shows that in 2016, the commercial and industrial (C&I) sector achieved over half of the energy savings in the region. This includes many opportunities for retrofitting large and small C&I customers, which contributed the most energy savings for C&I at 2.2 billion MWh. The low-income sector savings are at the opposite end of the scale. Depending on the state, this may be a lack of funding for low-income programs, or it may be inaccessibility of programs for the low-income sector that prevents program administrators from achieving savings. The low-income sector continues to be one with ample opportunity for more energy savings.

But wait, there is more. REED also reports avoided carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxides, and sulfur dioxides from energy efficiency programs.  Reductions in these criteria pollutants comes from the reduced need to power the electric grid from dirty fossil fuel fired power plants, in addition to transportation initiatives that promote the use of electric vehicles and alternative modes of transportation. The graph below shows the avoided pollution of these criteria pollutants from energy efficiency programs in the region.

Visit REED to explore the various ways to analyze the data. In addition to annual and lifetime energy savings and avoided emissions, you can also find:

• Peak Demand Savings
• Avoided Air Emissions
• Program Expenditures
• Job Creation Impacts
• Cost of Saved Energy
• Program Funding Sources
• Supporting Information

And, for more insights about the tiniest slice of the pie in the graph above, low-income sector programs, please read the June issue of REED Rendering.

M&V 2.0 on the Move Forward

The field of software development that enables energy stakeholders to process large volumes of energy consumption data and provide near real-time information about end-users’ consumption continues to grow. NEEP delivered the second in a series of “rapid-fire” style webinars profiling software examples and related industry insights. If you missed it, the slides and recording are here. It provided an opportunity to share a high level description of a variety of products, some of which are open source, and it also demonstrated the various ways in which these products are being used – from demand response planning and evaluation to building performance diagnostics to developing insights from loadshapes about loading on the grid. This information can help with the integration of energy efficiency and other distributed resources.

One of the topics covered in this webinar was the various challenges facing the energy efficiency industry before advanced M&V software is likely to be implemented at scale. This blog by Jeremy Eddy of Opinion Dynamics provides further discussion on this topic..

To keep pace with the software development, NEEP maintains a tracking tool available here which describes many software tools now available. Several updates received this month are now included.

On another aspect of the M&V2.0 project, we are happy to report that the data is flowing into the able hands of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) engineers for the Commercial and Industrial Pilot Research Project. Eversource CT and United Illuminating of Avangrid are working with LBNL on this effort. Twenty eight sites with C&I EE projects had data that successfully passed the lab’s screening process. Now data is being sent to the lab, which will develop savings estimates and compare them to alternative ‘traditional’ M&V options for savings estimation. The Connecticut utility staff are also beginning to gain experience with use of the software tool that LBNL is using in this pilot. A webinar demonstrating this tool, which will be publicly available, can be found here.

One of the barriers to deployment of M&V2.0 as a resource for evaluators and program planners is confidence in the results. This barrier is being wrestled with in a variety of ways, one important way being the development of protocols and guidance. On the west coast, there are a variety of activities underway that will help guide the use of software tools in the energy industry. Taken together, they are creating a body of experience and thought leadership that will be very useful to stakeholders in the Northeast faced with decisions about how to judge the performance or applicability of these software tools and the results they generate. Along with the pilot research, guidance and protocols to assist stakeholders in the Northeast will be developed. NEEP is among the project partners monitoring the developments on the west coast; the guidance and protocols relevant to the Northeast can and should leverage the experience and lessons learned from ongoing efforts. .

In a nutshell, the one to watch lately is work revolving around CalTRACK and CalTRACK2.0’s M&V standards. CalTRACK supports California legislation (AB-802  and SB-350 ) by calculating the whole-building site-based savings that result from any mix of measures, building types, and consumer behavior. CalTRACK does not estimate the amount of savings that can be attributed to a particular measure and does not take the place of program evaluation. Calculating site-based, weather normalized metered energy consumption (NMEC) and savings is often a first step in a program evaluation. Other steps consider additional variables. However, CalTRACK allows third-party energy efficiency program implementers to conduct energy savings analysis on their own customers themselves, provided they are given access to their customers’ energy consumption data via Green Button or other means. This ability to track program performance creates opportunities such as baking continuous improvement into programs and for aggregators to quantify their expected yields for Pay-for-Performance programs.

A technical working group is developing the CalTRACK2.0 energy efficiency measurement and verification standard which is undergoing update (www.caltrack.org). The process involves nitty gritty decision making and empirical methods testing on various data sets. While summary statistics are presented for both monthly and daily analysis, the intent was to use testing to inform methods guidance rather than to provide for a software equivalency testing process.  This is a valuable resource because results and technical discussions of Issues are available in the CalTRACK Github repository.

The Global Reach of Cost-Effectiveness Frameworks and Multiple Benefits

In March, NEEP had the opportunity to present at the International Energy Agency’s Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency Workshop in Paris, France. NEEP provided the United States experience in cost-effectiveness by highlighting the variation in tests used across states, discussing the need for a framework to develop a cost-effectiveness test informed by state policy goals and clear principles. NEEP presented the National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM) as such a framework which is being embraced by states including Rhode Island and Arkansas.

In the spirit of knowledge transfer, at our May 8 EM&V Public Meeting cost effectiveness session, NEEP shared lessoned learned from international attendees of the workshop in Paris. This was complemented by domestic updates, including ongoing evaluation studies for Massachusetts and future plans for the NSPM which include scoping a possible Distributed Energy Resources supplement.

The lessons learned from the Paris workshop and from the EM&V Public Meeting will help policy evaluators’ present methodologies for quantifying non-energy impacts (NEIs) and understand how to effectively communicate the value of energy efficiency. Some key points are captured here:

Lesson 1: Coverage of Evidence-Based NEIs is Slim

Policymakers need evidence backed behind values for NEIs. A lot of literature with NEIs from energy efficiency programs exists from countries like the United States, Australia, and members of the European Union, and yet there is still much room for additional work. To quote one Australian stakeholder, “what is needed most is to quantify impacts …that take into consideration socioeconomic factors, climate zones, building stock and penetration of efficient fixtures and appliances.”Health is one example of an NEI that especially needs to be properly accounted for in different climate zones. 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island are notable states in the Northeast for monetizing weatherization, comfort, and health and safety impacts for residential impacts beyond low income. Massachusetts has also estimated commercial and industrial sector impacts. The May 8 meeting also identified work on NEIs in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, reinforcing the importance of health and well-being as key NEIs and of the slowly increasing availability of evidence-based info across sectors.

Lesson 2: Communication is key 

Communication is vital for implementing a successful energy efficiency program. It can help increase the value of “hard to value” NEIs. For instance, a program in Ireland started off with a health specialist who could speak to health benefits in the Health and Wellbeing program. This program provides upgrades to homes with residents battling chronic respiratory conditions. Improved air quality and comfort in the home will help citizens with chronic health issues.

Another case study exemplifying an effective communication campaign came from India. India’s LED lighting campaign targeted specific audiences.  For the younger generation, an online dashboard, which provided live data on LED purchases around the country was developed, making participation in the program more tangible. The campaign tapped into the youth segment’s desire to “make a difference” by encouraging young people to make “pledges” to purchase LEDs to contribute towards national energy efficiency goals. As a result, they gathered 90 million pledges, which were translated into LED installations.

Lesson 3: Policymakers need a framework

Three frameworks were discussed throughout the workshop: the National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM), IEA’s Multiple Benefits Framework, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

During the EM&V meeting on May 8, Julie Michals from E4TheFuture noted adoption of the NSPM in multiple states across the U.S., some of which are in our region. If and when NSPM is universally adopted, the U.S. will have 50 different tests, but each state can adhere to consistent principles and take the same approach to get there.

The NSPM differs from the California traditional tests in that it:

• Provides a foundation where jurisdictions can develop and administer a cost-effectiveness test,
• Does not prescribe “the answer”. States need to go through the framework to develop a state appropriate for state policies and goals.
• Introduces the ‘regulatory’ perspective, which is guided by the jurisdiction’s energy and other applicable policy goals

Public Meeting on EM&V for Changing Times: Trends, Technology, Tools

NEEP’s Annual Public Meeting covered a wide array of topics, reflecting the changing landscape of energy efficiency and its role as an integrated resource. As characterized in NEEP staff member Giselle Procaccianti’s recent blog, the meeting helped some audience members see both the trees and the forest of EM&V. Topics included efficiency in the context of distributed resources, roles for control technologies in EM&V, cost-effectiveness and multiple benefits. The meeting demonstrated the diversity of topics which speak to evaluators, implementers, and planners and will shape the future roles for efficiency. You can see the presentations here.

 

Other New NEEP Resources

• Mid-Atlantic TRM 8.0
• NEEP New Business Models Overview
• Strategic Electrification Action Plan
• Building Energy Benchmarking Policies in the Northeast

 

Mark Your Calendar

Upcoming Forum, NEEP, and other webinars and meetings of potential interest

• ACEEE Summer Study – 20th Anniversary, August 12-17, Pacific Grove, CA
• AESP Summer Conference – Evaluation and Implementation, August 21, Indianapolis, IN
• NEEP Summit – EE By the Sea: Oceans of Opportunity, October 1-3, 2018, Middletown, RI