APPENDIX G INTRODUCTION › docs › gios › energize › 201… · As discussed in the Energize Phoenix Year 2 report, the Sidney P. Osborn complex was deemed the city housing complex

Energy Efficiency on an Urban Scale Global Institute of Sustainability58

Back to Main Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

The following summarizes the execution and some of the results of two Home Energy Information (HEI) or “Dashboard” experiments conducted over the final year of the three-year Energize Phoenix program. Further HEI study background information can be found at http://energize.asu.edu in the Year One Report Appendix I: Research to Inform Design of Residential Energy Use Behavior Change Study and Year Two Report Appendix F: Logistical Anatomy of Executing a Home Energy Information (HEI) Dashboard Field Experiment. A full compendium of project documents, processes and results for the Year Three studies is available by emailing [email protected]. Additional behavioral results of the third year experiments are available in Appendix XX: Behavioral Elements of Energy Use and Participation in Energize Phoenix.

RECAP OF YEAR TWO

During the second year of Energize Phoenix, the original single-family and small multi-family rental Home Energy Information (HEI) experiment was halted and new studies were developed. The Dashboard team learned a tremendous amount about working as a team player within a partnership of large and complex entities including a city municipality, large utility and university. The lessons arose out of the many challenges and setbacks encountered with installation of real-time, in-home energy usage feedback devices in mostly older single- and multi-family homes within the Energize Phoenix corridor (see Year Two Report Appendix F: Logistical Anatomy of Executing a Home Energy Information (HEI) Dashboard Field Experiment).

The Dashboard team was able to quickly regroup midstream and identify multiple other study possibilities. Working with the partners, the situation inspired the team to think outside the box and imagine potential locations where there would be fewer variables and where the issue of placing equipment in the utility side of the electrical panel did not exist. This spurred the exploration of City of Phoenix housing projects, in some of which the individual apartment unit meters are actually sub-meters owned by the City. Another potential site was identified as Taylor Place residence hall, owned by Arizona State University and managed by Capstone On-Campus, with electric sub-panels where the TED electric amp clamps could be installed away from any electric meters.

APPENDIX G

IMPLEMENTING TWO HOME ENERGY INFORMATION (HEI) “DASHBOARD” FIELD EXPERIMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 58

RECAP OF YEAR TWO 58

YEAR THREE REGROUP: TWO NEW PROJECTS, STUDY RE-DESIGN AND EXECUTION 59

SIDNEY P. OSBORN STUDY 59

SITE DESCRIPTION 59

STUDY DESIGN 59

STUDY TIMELINE 60

STUDY PROCESS 60

DATA ANALYSIS 61

PARTICIPANT SURVEY ANALYSIS 61

TAYLOR PLACE RESIDENCE HALL STUDY 62

SITE DESCRIPTION 62

PILOT STUDIES 63

STUDY TIMELINE 63

TED INSTALLATION 64

COLLECTION OF DATA 64

DATA ANALYSIS 64

CONCLUSION 65

REFERENCES 65



Appendix G Table of Contents

YEAR THREE REGROUP: TWO NEW PROJECTS, STUDY RE-DESIGN AND EXECUTION

Sidney P. Osborn Housing Complex

As discussed in the Energize Phoenix Year 2 report, the Sidney P. Osborn complex was deemed the city housing complex best suited for the final year’s study.

Taylor Place Residence Hall

The Dashboard Team also used the Taylor Place residence hall, located within Arizona State University’s Downtown Phoenix campus as the other site for the final year’s study.

SIDNEY P. OSBORN STUDY

Site Description

The Sidney P. Osborn housing complex was built in 1966 and includes 26 buildings with a total of 145 apartments. Each apartment building is made of un-insulated concrete masonry units (CMU) and single-pane, clear glass windows. All the units are mechanically air-conditioned, not evaporatively cooled, which provides greater potential for electrical energy savings for this study. The units are gas-heated (see Figures 1 & 2).

FIGURE 1. SIDNEY P. OSBORN SITE PLAN

FIGURE 2. APARTMENT BLOCKS CONSISTING OF THREE UPPER AND THREE LOWER UNITS, WHICH CAN HAVE BETWEEN TWO AND FIVE BEDROOMS

The area of each apartment type, in square feet, is specified in Table 1.

TABLE 1. APARTMENT TYPE AREA IN SQUARE FEET

Included in their rent, Sidney P. Osborn residents receive a free nominal monthly dollar allotment for electricity usage at $0.10/kWh, which varies by month and apartment size (see Tables 2). They are billed for any monthly electricity use that exceeds the specified allotment amount calculated by the City of Phoenix’s Housing Department.

TABLE 2. MONTHLY DOLLAR ALLOTMENT FOR 2011 AND 2012

The City of Phoenix’s Housing Department manually reads meters each month for billing purposes. Residents are charged 10 cents for every kWh used above the month’s allotment for their unit size. The residents are not provided their actual energy usage or their allotment amount on their monthly electricity bills. Therefore, most residents do not have a clear understanding of their electric energy usage and billing. Over half the residents exceed their allotments in winter months and over three quarters exceed them during summer months.

STUDY DESIGN

The Sidney P. Osborn study aimed to estimate the impact of real-time energy feedback through an in-home energy display, called The Energy Detective (TED), in conjunction with an information and motivational intervention provided to the residents. In addition, it investigated the effectiveness of




different conditions of feedback interventions given to the residents. In particular:

• Analysis and comparison of the following group conditions to determine if there were any significant differences in energy use:

– Education only (Group 1)

– Education plus an in-home energy display (Group 2)

– Education, the in-home display and an added motivational intervention consisting of budgeting information (Group 3)

– Control group which did not receive any information or interventions.

• Analysis of the effect of orientation and position (ground level vs. upper level) of the apartment on energy reduction/increase due to feedback interventions.

Because of the limited information provided in monthly billing, the study also aimed to:

• Foster awareness among participating residents of their own patterns of residential electricity consumption and understanding of energy use related savings.

• Analyze the participant surveys collected during the study to determine residents’ understanding of their energy consumption and monthly billing.

• Analyze the participant survey results with their energy reduction or increase to determine a trend or identify an explanation for particular findings in the results.

STUDY TIMELINE

The study’s entire process, from recruitment through device de-installation, ran from May 7, 2012 through February 15, 2013. TED device installation was still underway during June and July 2012, though most of the apartments had received their device by the beginning of July. For analysis purposes, the actual study months were considered to be from July 2012 until the end of December 2012, i.e., six months (see Figure 3).

FIGURE 3. SIDNEY P. OSBORN STUDY TIMELINE

STUDY PROCESS

Prior to the recruitment phase, the Dashboard team worked closely with members of the Behavioral team to develop the project experimental design, during which all participant-related materials were prepared in both English and Spanish, and approvals obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Materials included permission forms, interview questionnaires, informational flyers, educational scripts, TED operating instructions, appliance inventory forms, as well as energy budget information. Actual recruitment consisted of two evening pizza parties where the project was presented to potential participants. This was followed with several days of door-to-door follow-up and further recruitment. A total of 82 potential participants were recruited and were then randomly assigned to groups. TED displays were then installed by a licensed electrician in apartments assigned to either Group 2 & 3. Then, all participating households were given targeted education. Depending on the group assignment, this may have involved additional surveying, energy saving tips, TED operating instructions and energy budget information. During the data collection phase, the Dashboard team made periodic visits to participating households, which typically involved checking on project participation and TED operating status. Finally, data analysis involved comparing actual monthly energy usage received from the city with the data collected by the TEDs. The data was regressed using average monthly temperatures for the corresponding monthly energy consumption. This regression was performed separately for each apartment using a Three-Parameter Model Regression tool.




DATA ANALYSIS

Energy consumption and its corresponding billed usage from the pre-study period of July through December, 2011 was weather-corrected to 2012 weather conditions and compared to the measured energy consumption for the same months in 2012, which constituted the study period.

Energy savings comparison. Figure 4 shows the predicted versus measured energy consumption during the study period. The energy consumption from the months of July to December for both predicted and measured usage of all units within each group is summed up to calculate the baseline and study period energy consumption, respectively, for that group. Figure 4 illustrates that Group 1 (consisting of 9 households) had an increase in consumption of 3009 kWh in total during the study period. Group 2 (consisting of 15 households) had a savings of 2667 kWh. Group 3 (consisting of 10 households) had a savings of 524 kWh. The Control Group (consisting of 49 households) experienced an increase of 4634 kWh.

FIGURE 4. BASELINE VERSUS STUDY ENERGY USE – COMPARISON BETWEEN GROUPS

The corresponding percentage changes in usage are shown in Figure 5. Group 3 experienced an insignificant energy reduction of 0.9% during the study period and its savings percentage was less than Group 2’s 3.3%. Group 1, the ‘education only’ group, incurred a higher increase of 6.7% than the control group’s 1.7% increase.

FIGURE 5. PERCENTAGE REDUCTION (INCREASE) IN ENERGY USAGE (STUDY VERSUS BASELINE)

PARTICIPANT SURVEY ANALYSIS

General post-study participant understanding of energy

According to the participant survey taken at the end of the project, almost all of the 34 participants reported at post-study that they better understood the relationship between their electrical devices’ energy usage and how much money they could save by practicing what was suggested to them during education sessions. About 76% of the participants felt that they had benefitted from the program, whereas 24% of the participants felt they had little benefit.

Participant interaction with the TED device

The following survey topics were asked only of the TED group participants, which consisted of Groups 2 & 3:

Understanding information on display screen. 36% of the participants mentioned that they understood the device very well, whereas 52% of the participants mentioned an acceptable understanding.

Display setting preferred. 24% of the participants preferred the real-time use setting on the display. 40% of the participants preferred the ‘recent usage’ setting on the display. 28% of the participants preferred the ‘month-to-date’ setting.

Frequency of viewing displayed information. Participants were asked how frequently the observed the display during the last week of the experiment. 32% of the participants mentioned they did not look at the device at all, 32% mentioned that they looked at it 1-3 times in the week, 4% mentioned that they looked at the device 4-6 times in the week, 16% looked at it daily and only one participant looked at the device several times a day.

Comparing device interaction survey results with energy savings. Out of the 36% of participants who mentioned




that they understood the device very well, 75% of them had savings in their energy usage. Out of the 52% of participants who mentioned that they interacted with the TED through the last week of the study, 66% had savings.

Understanding of and using budgeting information. This part of the survey was asked of Group 3 participants only. Out of the 10 participants who received the budgeting information, 6 compared this information with the screen during the last month of the study. Out of the 10 participants, only 5 knew which screen on the display was to be compared with the budgeting information. The overall understanding of the budgeting information was difficult for the residents to understand. Though the participants were re-educated regarding this information during the follow-up session in September, more than half of the participants did not fully understand how to use it.

Energy saving strategies mentioned by participants. All the participants were asked about their general understanding of what would help them save energy in their household. Table 3 gives a summary of the strategies mentioned by each participant in Groups 2 & 3. The majority of the participants mentioned disconnecting appliance and electrical devices when not in use, especially to avoid ‘phantom’ loads. The majority also mentioned turning off lights and the television in order to avoid wasting energy. This is consistent with the Behavioral team findings that indicate participants with displays were able to reduce their non-HVAC loads (see Appendix XX: Behavioral Elements of Energy Use and Participation in Energize Phoenix) The next most mentioned strategy was to keep the air conditioner on auto mode or to change thermostat setting to avoid excess usage when not needed.

TABLE 3. PARTICIPANT SURVEY- ENERGY SAVINGS OR LOSS VERSUS SAVINGS STRATEGIES MENTIONED DURING SURVEY

TAYLOR PLACE RESIDENCE HALL STUDY

Site Description

The Dashboard team also utilized Taylor Place residence hall, located within Arizona State University’s Downtown Phoenix campus as a site for third year experimentation.

FIGURE 6. TAYLOR PLACE RESIDENCE HALL, WEST VIEW (SOURCE: ASU-TAYLORPLACE.COM/PHOTOS)

The building is a two-tower, 352,000 square foot, mixed-use facility with amenities for student life on campus, including retail areas, a fitness center, a dining hall, and common areas at each level of the towers. Between the two towers, Taylor Place holds 1,200 beds. The north tower’s typical floor layout has 22 dorm rooms per floor that each include a shared living/kitchen area with two private sleeping rooms. The south tower’s typical floor layout has 32 dorm rooms that include shared living, kitchen, and sleeping. These dorm rooms can be single or double occupancy.




Pilot Studies

During the winter & spring of 2012, two different pilot studies were run in parallel to explore the potential for energy savings enabled by the ThinkEco modlet (which is a receptacle level monitoring and switching device) as well as The Energy Detective (TED) feedback devices. The primarily goal was to test these two different types of real-time energy-use devices while also troubleshooting possible future issues during the main period of the study to follow in fall 2012 at this same facility.

ThinkEco pilot study

This pilot was divided into two phases:

• The first installation took place February 2012 in one vacant room as a preliminary test prior to the summer pilot since this technology was new. Only 4 modlets were plugged into one vacant room and appliances were installed to test communication and oversee possible interaction issues.

• The second installation was completed in June 2012, to include the testing of a gateway device to facilitate the scalable collection of all the data from the modlets from one floor.

Findings from ThinkEco pilot study

• The installation of the modlets in one room prior to installation of the gateway was successful. Disaggregated data from each of the outlets could be obtained and seen live using the interactive screen in a computer.

• The installation of the gateways in the residence hall was more challenging. While coordinating the installation and connection of the gateway to the network service in the building with the University’s IT Department, the server and the security teams indicated that, due to potential security protocols and issues like the potential for bringing down the wireless network and/or creation of problems with students trying to connect to the wireless network, the connection of the gateway to the network system would not be feasible. Therefore, it was determined that the ThinkEco device would not be suitable for use in the fall project.

TED pilot study

• Per Taylor Place’s Director of Operation’s advice, the installation of energy-use devices for the June pilot was undertaken on the 3rd floor of the north tower of the

complex. The fall full study took place on the South tower.

• The installation of the TED devices for the pilot began on June 13, 2012.

• The MTU devices were installed for each of the 22 rooms of the floor.

• Gateways and Displays were installed in 19 participant rooms, since there were 2 vacant units and 1 resident Opt-out. Of the 19 rooms, 2 become vacant later in the pilot study.

Findings from TED pilot study

• Testing was done by turning on and off lights and appliances plugged into the outlets to determine the speed of transmission. The readings on the display were not updating close enough to real-time after installation.

• The data was not being transmitted accurately to the gateway. Vast amounts of data were dropped during transmission.

Outcomes

• Due to the slow speed of data transmission and the amount of dropped data, the team determined that in-line filters would be required for the fall semester study installation.

• TED devices would be able to provide lights and plug-load energy usage per room and per floor (HVAC thermal energy was provided by a downtown district cooling loop and individual dorm HVAC fans would not be measured due to limited equipment quantities.).

• Taylor Place administration requested that the team limit all interaction with the students during the semester, except for a welcome session and emails during the semester.

STUDY TIMELINE

The study’s entire process, from pilot study through device de-installation, took place from February 2012 through December 21, 2013. For analysis, the actual study months were considered to be from mid-August 2012 until mid-December 2012, i.e., four months (see Figure 7).




FIGURE 7. TAYLOR PLACE STUDY TIMELINE COLLECTION OF DATA

From the 128 devices installed, the data received and stored in each of the gateways during the period of study was extracted and complied in one data file. However, during this process some data was found incorrect, incomplete or null from the gateways. From the 128 devices installed, 107 presented useful data and 21 data sets were eliminated (see Table 4).

TABLE 4. NUMBER OF INSTALLED DEVICE VS. USEFUL DATA

TED Installation

The installation of the TEDs in the student residences took place from July 26th to August 3rd of 2012 on the 8th, 9th, 11th and 12th floors of the South tower. The number of rooms per floor in this tower is 32. It is important to note that the energy use measured in this study corresponds only to the lighting and plug loads of the student rooms participating in the study. Displays were installed in alternating rooms, based on the study’s design. A one-page information flyer with the different display options and functionality of the display was provided in the participant’s rooms. As part of the study, all rooms received a smart power strip to use. See Figure 8 for floor plan, display/no display layout.

FIGURE 8. DISPLAY (SHADED), NO-DISPLAY LAYOUT IN ROOMS OF SOUTH TOWER FLOOR PLAN

DATA ANALYSIS

1) The total average energy consumption for lighting and plug loads during the 4 months of the period of study in all the floors was 0.07kWh less for the rooms that had a TED display compared to those ones that did not have one in their rooms (see Figure 9).

FIGURE 9. TOTAL AVERAGE ENERGY USE ON FLOORS AMONG ROOMS WITH DISPLAY AND NO DISPLAY

2) The total average energy use for lighting and plug loads during the period of study per floor is summarized in the Figure 10. Floor 8 total average energy use for lighting and plug loads during the four months was the highest among all the floors, in both the display and no display categories. Floor 9 had the lowest total average energy use for rooms with no display and Floor 12 for rooms with display. Floors 8 and 12 showed energy savings with displays, while Floors 9 and 11 did not.




FIGURE 10. TOTAL AVERAGE ENERGY USE PER FLOORS AMONG ROOMS WITH DISPLAY AND NO DISPLAY (KWH)

• By signing 117 renters to the first dashboard experiment (while this experiment did not go forward), many landlords (whose permission was required for renter participation) became exposed to the program.

• Coordinating 82 households in the Sidney P. Osborn Housing Complex in the second dashboard experiment involved interacting with residents, spouses, children, extended families and other residents, many of whom received considerable education about energy savings. A number of documents, such as energy saving tips and appliance inventories, were generated that the City of Phoenix’s Housing Department could use in other complexes.

• Many students in the Taylor Place residence hall, away from home for the first time, gained their first knowledge about the energy consumption of various personal household devices.

• Several graduate students were trained in the use of real-time feedback devices and project management, and two masters level theses were completed on this subject. Several of these students have plans to work professionally in this subject area.

• Researchers have plans to write several academic papers on this project, especially on the challenges that field projects like this confront in attempting to operate in a community setting.

References

1. Ehrhardt-Martinez, K., K.A. Donnelly, & J.A. Laitner. 2010. Advanced Metering Initiatives and Residential Feedback Programs: A Meta-Review for Household Electricity-Saving Opportunities, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C.

2. Foster, B., & S. Mazur-Stommen. 2012. Results from Recent Real-Time Feedback Studies, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C.

CONCLUSION

Both study projects showed only a slight energy savings benefit for low-income housing residents and dorm residents that received real-time feedback devices vs. those that did not. Thus, the hypothesis that real-time feedback devices could achieve meaningful energy savings could not be confirmed in the two settings studied. The challenges of educating two populations in short order that previously did not possess even aggregate historical energy usage information nor paid their own full energy bills proved daunting. Such information and motivations might be considered pre-requisites to affecting behavior change through real-time feedback. Indeed, the original hypothesis involved testing the behavior change potential in single family rental homes, where renters would have historical knowledge of energy usage and financial motivation to save. Several anecdotal comments made by Sidney P. Osborn residents during exit interviews did suggest some subjects were beginning to understand the potential application of real-time feedback devices but they apparently were not significant enough (or in time) to alter the outcome. Several studies of the energy impact of real-time feedback devices published by others during the time period did validate the energy savings potential of these devices.1,2 Thus, it is believed the potential exists for these devices in appropriate settings.

While the original and re-structured hypotheses could not be confirmed, a number of positive outcomes did emerge from the HEI projects, including:

• Door-to-door dashboard recruitment by students during the summer of 2011 wearing bright green t-shirts branded with the Energize Phoenix logo on the front and the program marketing motto “Save Money by Saving Energy” on the back, which helped to introduce the Energize Phoenix to hundreds of residents in the Corridor.

Documents

APPENDIX G INTRODUCTION › docs › gios › energize › 201… · As discussed in the Energize Phoenix Year 2 report, the Sidney P. Osborn complex was deemed the city housing complex