GrocerSmartTM

Energy Modeling Software -Revision Status Report-

Jeremy Litow, Associate DirectorDavid Murphy, Program Manager

June 1, 2010

Agenda

• Why we’re here today– History– Clarity on direction we’re going

• Plan to ask in August 2010• Plan to ask in Q2 2011• Plan to ask by Q4 2011

• Review project constraints• Plan and schedule• Discussion

Future requests for approval from RTF• Request full RTF approval for direction of

GrocerSmart 4.0 at August 2010 meeting– Methodology (DOE 2.2r as reasonable live model,

template)– Data sets– Phases

• Return to RTF Q2 2011 for final request for approval of new version

• Return to RTF by Q4 2011 for approval of improvements

Current situation

• Existing version software 3.0 – Summit Blue and other market players

give good marks on energy savings but “black box” is an issue

– Recommendations for revision similar– Better baseline data– Fewer key assumptions– Baseline revision– Interactivity– More transparency

Relationship of Complexity to GS savings accuracy: +@1.5m kWh

Measure complexity

High

Low

Realization rate

FHPC w/VFD

FHPC w/o VFD

Efficient Cases

ECM case motors

.84

1.19

1.27

1.39

Low

High

Current situation

• Focus of the subcommittee– So far: Key criteria and data sets– Still to come: Template

• Better documentation, addressing transparency

• These are our Phase 1 revision goals

• Baseline revision Phase 2

Constraints

– Programmatic – requires template• <.5 day audit time for data gathering and processing• Auditor skills

– Practical and maintain transparency• Data libraries

– QC/QA » Size» Vetting for relevance» Updating

• Model function

– Resources (@ 5.5 FTE for 1 year)– Result – break project into phases

Project direction – Phases

• Phase 1– Overhaul of interface, processing method,

basic benchmarking, interactivity included

• Phase 2– Revise baseline during post install checks,

sophisticated benchmarking

• Phase 3+– Other building templates/envelope, etc.

Project direction - Phase 1

• Subcommittee focus - key criteria• What’s important

– Mostly agree on what’s important– Sensitivity where uncertain

• What values should we use?– Actual set points, strategies, data from spec sheets,

etc.– Sensitivity analysis to limit size of data sets

Methodology

What’s important

Values we should

use

Key Improvements to GrocerSmart™ by Phase

  Existing GS 3.0 New GS 4.0 (Phase 1) New GS 4.0 (Phase 2)

Savings calculation methodology

Parametric runs Live modeling DOE2.2r (Pendingsubcommittee approval)

Live modeling DOE2.2r

In template Building envelopeand mechanicalsystems

Building envelope, HVAC and efficientscenario refrigeration systems(Pending subcommittee approval)

Building envelope andHVAC

Compressors Fixed Real world baseline, standardizedefficient equipment (RTF approved)

Real world baseline andefficient equipment

Refrigerant Fixed Real world data (Pendingsubcommittee approval)

Real world data

Display cases Approximation (RTFapproved)

Real world baseline, standardizedefficient equipment (RTF approved)

Real world baseline andefficient equipment

Control strategies and setpoints

Approximation (RTFapproved)

Real world baseline, standardizedefficient equipment (RTF approved)

Real world baseline andefficient equipment

Condensers Fixed Real world data (Pendingsubcommittee approval)

Real world data

Task list and future requests of RTF by Phase

  New GS 4.0 (Phase 1) New GS 4.0 (Phase 2)

Savings calculation methodology

Live modeling DOE2.2r (Pending subcommitteeapproval), (RTF approval August 2010)

Live modeling DOE2.2r(No future requests of RTF)

In template Building envelope, HVAC and efficient scenariorefrigeration systems (Pending subcommitteeapproval), (RTF approval August 2010)

Building envelope and HVAC (RTF Phase 2 approval by Q4 2011)

Compressors Real world baseline (Pending subcommittee approval)(RTF approval August 2010)Standardized efficient equipment (RTF approved)

Real world baseline(No future requests of RTF)Real world efficient equipment(RTF Phase 2 approval by Q4 2011)

Refrigerant Real world data(Pending subcommittee approval), (RTF approvalAugust 2010)

Real world data(No future requests of RTF)

Display cases Real world baseline, standardizedefficient equipment (RTF approved)

Real world baseline andefficient equipment (RTF Phase 2 approval by Q4 2011)

Control strategies and setpoints

Real world baseline, standardizedefficient equipment (RTF approved)

Real world baseline andefficient equipment (RTF Phase 2 approval by Q4 2011)

Condensers Real world data (Pendingsubcommittee approval), (RTF approval August 2010)

Real world data(No future requests of RTF)

Refrigeration systems

Cases

New interface sample mock up

Key Improvements to Transparency by Phase

 

Existing GS 3.0 New GS 4.0 (Phase 1) New GS 4.0 (Phase 2)

Base scenario energy use

Not available Output report Output report

Efficient scenarioenergy use

Not available Output report Output report

Energy delta betweenbase and efficientscenarios

Energysavingsreport

Output report Output report

Auditor inputs Audit detailreport

Input report Input report

Data associated withthose inputs

Not available Input report Input report

“BDL” n/a Provided as file Provided as file

DOE 2.2r inputs n/a Provided as file Provided as file

Weather files Not available Provided as file Provided as file

“Include” files n/a Provided as file Provided as file

Summary of immediate project direction

• Work toward subcommittee recommendation for: – Method

• Interface drives inputs of key criteria• Key criteria drive inputs to live DOE2.2r model• Data in libraries and selection/filtering method• Model runs vs. fixed efficient scenario

– Phased approach for further improvements

Larger project plan• Business requirements gathering (done)• Design (now)• 3rd party review of method and data sets?• Coding (post RTF approval of direction)

– Method and key criteria– Phased approach

• Testing QC/QA (Q 3&4 2010, Q1 2011)• Calibrate model and vet savings (Q1 2011)

– Summit Blue evaluation of GrocerSmartTM 3.0– GrocerSmartTM 3.0– New construction– Custom calculations– Prescriptive/DEER– Other

• 3rd party review and calibration?• Beta test (Q1 2011)• Submit for RTF approval of new version for rollout (Q2 2011)• Full deployment (Q2 2011)• Phase 2

Challenges

• Subcommittee attendance irregular

• High level of complexity on refrigeration

• Need evaluator focus

• No outside professional review– Cascade reviewed 3.0

• 3.0 evaluation not fully leveraged

Thoughts on addressing challenges…

• Address attendance and engagement at RTF

• Regular engagement of utility EM&V staff– Join subcommittee or separate meetings

• RTF or utility funding of review ASAP

• Use details of 3.0 evaluation

Discussion