Data-‐Driven
Policymaking
Elena
Alschuler
Elena.alschuler@ee.doe.gov
Building
Technologies
Office
June
2015
U.S.
Department
of
Energy
1
|
Energy
Efficiency
and
Renewable
Energy
eere.energy.gov
President’s
Climate
Ac=on
Plan:
2025
Targets
• Robust
acGon
brings
us
in
range
of
26-‐28%
below
2005
levels
by
2025
• Doubling
of
decarbonizaGon
pace
• Consistent
with
reducGons
of
>80%
by
2050
2
US
Climate
Ac=on
Plan:
Strategies
by
Sector
• Interagency
Methane
Strategy
• Agricultural
policies
on
N2O
• Appliance
&
Equipment
• Clean
Power
Plan
standards
• Building
codes
• Building
codes
• Appliance
&
equipment
• Green
Mortgages
standards
• Other
measures
• Other
measures
• HFCs
including
SNAP
• Oil
&
Gas
Methane
• Fuel
economy
standards
• Efficiency
programs
• Biofuels
• Other
measures
• Reduced
VMT
• AviaGon
&
Shipping
• Other
measures
Sector
Breakdown
of
2013
Emissions
3
3
Accelerate
Energy
Produc=vity
2030
Energy
produc=vity
=
GDP
primary energy
“[We]
will
take
acGon
aimed
at
doubling
the
economic
output
per
unit
of
energy
consumed
in
the
United
States
by
2030,
relaGve
to
2010
levels.”
President
Obama,
2013
State
of
the
Union
4
4
Need
~20
quads
energy
savings
or
~$6T
GDP
increase
or
combo
gap to
meet
goal
5
5
Using
data
for
policy-‐making:
Appliance
Standards
• Pursuant
to
the
Energy
Policy
and
ConservaGon
Act
of
1975
(EPCA),
any
new
or
amended
energy
conservaGon
standard
must
be
designed
to
achieve
the
maximum
improvement
in
energy
efficiency
that
is
technologically
feasible
and
economically
jusBfied.
(42
U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A))
• Technical
data
collected
for
analysis
include:
– Engineering
data,
performance
data,
technological
feasibility,
product
tesGng
data,
energy
use
• Economic
data
collected
for
analysis
include:
– Manufacturing
capacity,
employment,
cost
and
capital
requirements
,
cash
flow,
capital
investment,
energy
prices,
discount
rates
6
Analysis
used
to
determine
Appliance
Standards
• Analysis
using
technical
data:
maximum
technologically
feasible
level,
product
classes,
energy
savings,
average
life-‐cycle
cost,
efficiency
levels
• Analysis
using
economic
data:
manufacturer
cost
esGmates,
naGonal
impact
analyses,
payback
period,
energy
use
analysis,
net
present
value
• The
results
of
the
technical
and
economic
analyses
inform
the
development
of
Technology
Standard
Levels
(TSLs)
Table:
Trial
Standard
Levels
for
ResidenGal
Dehumidifiers*
PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5
TSL ≤
30.00
pints/day 30.01
–
45.00
pints/day >
45.00
pints/day ≤
8.0
r3 >8.0
r3
AEU AEU AEU AEU AEU
EL EL EL EL EL
kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr
-‐-‐ 0 720 0 1,030 0 905 0 951 0 1,137
1 1 505 1 808 1 781 1 809 1 1,016
2 2 463 2 693 2 670 1 809 2 784
3 3 428 3 607 2 670 1 809 2 784
4 4 355 4
540 3 513 2 671 3 617
• DOE
considers
the
impacts
of
each
TSL
on
the
manufacturer
and
economy
to
determine
which
level
is
economically
jusGfied
to
be
set
as
the
appliance
standard
* Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Announcement
7
of Public Meeting, 10 CFR Part 430, June 5, 2013
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0027-0031
How
to
achieve
data-‐driven
policy
for
buildings?
DOE’s vision for the future:
Energy performance information and analytical tools are available and
accurate at all levels of granularity throughout a building’s lifecycle,
enabling decision makers to better implement energy efficiency programs
and policies and better understand the potential for and impacts of
investing in energy efficiency.
8
Goal
1:
Integrate
energy-‐related
informa=on
throughout
building
lifecycle
Design Build Operate
ENERGY STAR
Portfolio Manager®
Tracks actual building energy usage
Energy Asset Score
Rates physical and structural building performance
Recommends energy efficiency improvements
Advanced Energy Design Guides
Provide sector-specific solutions to construct highly energy efficient buildings
Offer tools to reach 50% energy savings above standard code
Open Studio
Assists code compliance
Provides design options that incorporate energy use
Building Component Library
Energy model attributes
9
Building
Energy
Asset
Score
• RaGng
tool
that
provides
a
whole-‐building
score
and
idenGfies
inefficient
systems
and
potenGal
capital
upgrades,
based
on
as-‐built
physical
characterisGcs
(independent
of
operaGons)
• User
input
data
used
to
run
an
energy
model,
generate
a
1-‐10
score,
and
idenGfy
opportuniGes
to
upgrade
building
efficiency
10
ENERGY
STAR
PorXolio
Manager
• Tool
that
tracks
energy
and
water
consumpGon,
and
provides
a
weather
normalized
Energy
Use
Intensity
and
a
1-‐100
score
based
on
building
performance.
11
Goal
2:
Increase
availability
&
consistency
of
energy-‐related
informa=on
Transmit Harmonize Compare
HPMXL Residential Audit
BUILDINGSYNC Commercial Audit
GREEN BUTTON Utility Energy Data
Software that combines
existing datasets into single
platform designed for buildings
Public database of
anonymized building
energy performance
Dictionary of common terms
to ensure interoperability
between data tools
12
Building
Energy
Data
Exchange
Specifica=on
• DicGonary
of
terms,
definiGons,
and
field
formats
to
facilitate
the
exchange
of
informaGon
on
building
characterisGcs
and
energy
use
• Improve
data
quality
and
decrease
the
cost
and
Gme
involved
in
aggregaGng
and
sharing
data
• Support
for
industry-‐wide
standardizaGon
increases
the
efficiency
of
business
processes
and
helps
grow
the
market
of
products
and
services
that
uGlize
energy
data
13
Green
Bu]on
Ini=a=ve
• Consumer
access
to
energy
data
in
electronic
format
• Enables
development
of
sorware
applicaGons
• Available
to
50+
million
customers
now
and
60+
million
in
the
future
• Based
on
North
American
Energy
Standards
Board
(NAESB)
Energy
Services
Provider
Interface
(ESPI)
standard
14
14
Standard
Energy
Efficiency
Data
PlaXorm
• Open
source
sorware
that
manages
data
about
large
groups
of
private
and/or
public
buildings
• Combine
data
from
mulGple
sources,
clean
it,
and
share
it
with
others
• The
open
source
and
extensible
platorm
can
support
apps
and
connect
to
other
sorware
15
Buildings
Performance
Database
• The
BPD
is
the
largest
publicly-‐accessible
dataset
of
informaGon
about
the
physical
and
operaGonal
characterisGcs
of
real
buildings
(>750,000
bldgs
incl.
CBECS/RECS)
• Explore
data
across
real
estate
sectors,
compare
trends
in
the
energy
performance,
and
tailor
programs
and
policy
design
based
on
the
condiGons
of
the
local
building
stock
16
The
future
of
M&V
17
Building-‐level
M&V
Will
Evolve
• Energy
efficiency
=
measuring
something
that
never
happened
• M&V
has
generally
existed
for
two
audiences:
– Project
Owners
who
want
to
know
if
they’re
gevng
what
they
paid
for
– UGlity
Regulators
who
want
to
know
if
funds
are
well-‐spent
• In
present
and
near
future
it
may
have
two
more
audiences:
– Buyers
in
capacity
markets
who
want
to
keep
the
lights
on
– State
and
federal
air
regulators
who
want
to
meet
air
polluGon
regs
Purple = EE in PJM
Capacity Market
18
Uniform
Methods
Project
DOE
is
developing
a
framework
and
a
set
of
protocols
for
determining
the
energy
savings
from
specific
energy
efficiency
measures
and
programs.
The
protocols
provide
a
straightorward
method
for
evaluaGng
gross
energy
savings
for
common
residenGal
and
commercial
measures
offered
in
ratepayer-‐funded
iniGaGves
in
the
United
Sates.
19
19
DOE
Mo=va=on:
Industry
Need
Today
Promise
of
M&V
2.0
• Site-‐by-‐site
M&V,
costly,
difficult
to
• Cost-‐effecGve
whole
building
M&V,
scale,
hard
to
calculate
accuracy
automated
to
scale
• Small
savings,
single-‐measure,
modest
• Whole
building
mul=-‐measure
programs
can
get
lost
in
noise
programs
deliver
deeper
savings,
including
O&M,
behavioral
measures
• M&V
by
EMIS
done
in
a
black
box
–
no
disclosure
of
accuracy
• Accuracy
of
baseline
models,
uncertainty
in
savings
are
disclosed
20
20
Whole
Building
M&V
2.0
Advantages
Much
of
the
promise
of
M&V
2.0
centers
on
quality
• Comprehensive:
accounts
for
all
ECM
savings,
including
interacGve
effects
• Simple:
few
data
streams
required
• Shorter
monitoring
requirements:
Baseline
model
development
and
savings
esGmaGons
based
on
months,
not
years
• Higher
quality:
EsGmates
savings
uncertainty
• Persistence:
Fast
feedback
on
building
performance
• Scalable:
one
methodology
for
all
buildings
• Lower
administraGon
costs:
standardizaGon
&
automaGon
reduces
Gme
for
savings
analysis
&
technical
review
• Tool
Availability:
public
domain
and
embedded
in
EMIS
21
Many
in
the
market
claim
to
be
doing
this
22 Source:
22
Protocol
to
Assess
Baseline
Performance
Accuracy
• Premise:
staGsGcal
performance
metrics
can
be
used
to
evaluate
automated
baseline
methods
– To
determine
and
compare
accuracy
of
both
proprietary
and
‘open’
methods
• ObjecGve
test
protocols
can
remove
key
barriers
–
quesGons
of
accuracy,
transparency
and
performance
Planned
Outcomes:
• TesGng
methodology,
framework
for
use
by
public
• Performance
metrics
most
relevant
to
M&V
use
case
• Ability
to
compare
contrast
tools/model
accuracy
based
on
those
metrics
Baseline
Baseline
Method
23
Method
23 A
B
How
to
achieve
data
driven
policy-‐making
for
buildings
• DOE
is
building
tools
and
resources
intended
to
serve
as
the
foundaGon
for
policy-‐making
and
private
market
acGvity
• QuesGons
for
this
group:
• How
can
we
get
more
value
out
of
the
data
that
is
already
being
collected?
• How
can
we
make
it
easier
to
implement
data
tracking
and
analysis
tools?
• How
can
we
set
ourselves
up
for
success
as
data
becomes
increasingly
available?
Thank
you!
Elena.Alschuler@ee.doe.gov
24
24
