• OpenEEmeter Methods
    • OpenEEmeter Process
    • OpenEEmeter Compliance
    • Project Updates
    • Technical Working Group >
      • Technical Appendix
      • Issues and Evidence
    • OpenEEmeter History
    • Stakeholders
  • LFE OpenEEmeter
    • OpenEEmeter Overview
    • Github Code
    • EEweather
    • Documentation
  • FLEXmeter
    • GRIDmeter
    • Energy Differential Privacy
  • Contact
OpenEEmeter
  • OpenEEmeter Methods
    • OpenEEmeter Process
    • OpenEEmeter Compliance
    • Project Updates
    • Technical Working Group >
      • Technical Appendix
      • Issues and Evidence
    • OpenEEmeter History
    • Stakeholders
  • LFE OpenEEmeter
    • OpenEEmeter Overview
    • Github Code
    • EEweather
    • Documentation
  • FLEXmeter
    • GRIDmeter
    • Energy Differential Privacy
  • Contact

Hourly Methods Discussions Continue

4/30/2018

0 Comments

 
Week Twelve CalTRACK Update
During week twelve, we continued our discussion of hourly methods. In the upcoming week, we will analyze test results for hourly methods on GitHub.   We will also be talking about how to log ideas for future improvements.  The standing meeting to discuss hourly methods will be on Thursday, May 3rd at 12:00 (PST).  

Picture
Homework:
  1. Use Hourly Method Tools on test data
  2. Report findings on Github
  3. Offer test criteria for hourly models
  4. Attend standing meeting on Thursday, May 3rd at 12:00 (PST)
0 Comments

Hourly Methods Approach & Testing Considerations

4/23/2018

1 Comment

 
Week Eleven CalTRACK Update
Week eleven was the first week of hourly methods discussion. Developing hourly methods will require discussion and empirical testing of topics unique to hourly methods before we can make final specifications.
Topics that must be addressed include:
  • Data sufficiency requirements
  • Modeling approach
  • Model selection criteria
  • The effect of aggregating hourly models on portfolio uncertainty
Time Of Week Temperature Models (TOWT):
A proposed model for hourly methods is the TOWT model from Lawrence Berkeley National Labs (LBNL) is shown below.
Picture
Picture
Notes:
  1. The number of temperature ranges and the balance points will need to be defined. The LBNL model had 5 ranges ( < 55F, 55-65 F, 65-75 F, 75-90 F,  90 F <).
  2. The methods for defining if a building is occupied or not is explained in detail in Phil Price’s  Everything I Know About Building Energy Modeling, But Never Told Anyone Before (18:30-30:00).
Homework:
  1. Use Hourly Method Tools on test data
  2. Report findings on Github
  3. Offer test criteria for hourly models

1 Comment

Building Qualifications Results & Recommendations

4/17/2018

1 Comment

 
Week Ten CalTRACK Update
The CalTRACK working group finalized discussions on Building Qualifications during the first half of Thursday’s (4/12) meeting and dove into the hourly methods during the second half. Bill Koran from SBW consulting provided a helpful overview of hourly models and the ECAM energy data analysis tool. The major findings of this meeting are summarized below:
Video of 4/12/2018 Meeting
Building Qualification Observations and Recommendations:
Main observations that were driving the recommendations:
  • Stricter building-level thresholds do not necessarily result in more confidence in portfolio savings.
  • Thresholds would vary by data granularity. Distributions of building-level metrics also vary widely by building type, location and climate zone.
  • Bias must be minimized for portfolio aggregation to work.

The building qualification recommendations are dependent on use case:
  1. For use cases where confidence in portfolio-level performance is required (e.g. aggregator-driven pay-for-performance, non-wires alternatives (NWA) procurements), we recommend using a permissive building-level CVRMSE threshold (100% is recommended as a default), but requiring that a portfolio-level metric be respected (e.g. portfolio fractional savings uncertainty).
The portfolio-level threshold will be a policy decision and may differ depending on the use case (e.g. NWA procurement may require less than 15% uncertainty, regular pay-for-performance program may require 25% etc.)

  1. For use cases where confidence in individual building results is required (e.g. customer-facing performance based incentives), ASHRAE Guideline 14 thresholds may be used.

Notes:
  • The FSU thresholds will be context-specific because the value of certainty is not uniform across projects and procurers. For example, a utility may be willing-to-accept a portfolio with 25% uncertainty in the context of a pay-for-performance program. The same utility may require 15% uncertainty for a non-wires alternative project.
CVRMSE and FSU are different metrics andare described in this paper: (A Comparison of Approaches to Estimating the Time-Aggregated Uncertainty of Savings Estimated from Meter Data)
Picture
Goals for Hourly Methods:
Hourly models are necessary for estimating the load impact of energy efficiency. This makes hourly energy savings important information for aggregators and utilities in an energy efficiency marketplace.
Our goal is to establish suitable methods for calculating whole building hourly energy savings for residential and commercial buildings. Additionally, the methods will include guidelines for aggregating site-level savings.
​

Discussion Topics:
We have allotted three weeks to test and discuss hourly methods. Below are some important topics that will need to be addressed:
  1. Data Requirements and Sufficiency:
    • Hourly weather data can be unreliable. We will need to establish guidelines for hourly weather data sufficiency and methods for accommodating missing weather values.
    • Data sufficiency requirements for hourly meter data are needed.
    • Hourly data cleaning methods must be defined.
  2. Methods:
    • It may be beneficial to adjust our model selection criteria for hourly methods.
    • Aggregating many hourly models will result in high portfolio uncertainty. As a result, it may be necessary to reassess the calculation of portfolio uncertainty in hourly savings.
  3. Models:
    • We will need to determine the most suitable hourly model for CalTRACK. Two open source models to begin the discussion are:
      1. The TOWT model (time-of-week and temperature) from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
      2. ECAM model from SBW consulting​
We look forward to future discussions on GitHub regarding these topics.

Homework:
  1. Use Hourly Method Tools on test data
  2. Report findings on Github
  3. Offer test criteria for hourly models
  4. Watch Phil Price Video about energy modeling and hourly methods: Everything I Know About Building Energy Modeling, But Never Told Anyone Before
1 Comment

Building Qualification Criteria Discussions

4/9/2018

1 Comment

 
Week Nine CalTRACK Update
During week nine of CalTRACK, there were continued discussions on building qualification criteria and some introductory comments on hourly methods. The working group meeting will be held on Thursday, April 12th at 12:00 (PST). We will discuss:
  1. Final comments on building qualification 
  2. Proposals for hourly methods testing
Hourly Methods Overview:
Hourly methods are a new addition in CalTRACK 2.0 and were not in the first version of CalTRACK.  This task involves testing various hourly modeling methods and recommending a standardized approach to hourly modeling, which can reveal the time value of energy efficiency.
Importance of Hourly Methods:
  • Hourly methods are a more granular time interval than daily or billing period methods. These granular time intervals are valuable for determining the temporal value of energy savings, by associating savings with grid demand and energy price.
Picture
Time Of Week and Temperature Models:
To start the discussion of hourly methods, it is helpful to consider to existing open source tools. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has developed an open source time of the week and temperature (TOWT) model to calculate hourly energy savings and is part of the RMV2.0 - LBNL M&V2.0 Tool. A TOWT model predicts hourly energy savings by utilizing hourly temperature data instead of daily or billing period HDD and CDD.  Another is ECAM (ENERGY CHARTING & METRICS) developed by Bill Koran at SBW consulting.  

We look forward to discussion on the working group call about these approaches, and more to frame the approach to empirical tests for the CalTRACK 2.0 hourly methods.
Final Note:
It is important to remember that CalTRACK methods development is an iterative process. The finalized methods for CalTRACK 2.0, just like v. 1.0,  will benefit from field deployment and may need to be revised in future years. We expect this process to result in improved and refined methods with successive iterations.
Homework:
  1. Review final results for building qualifications and provide final edits
  2. Review existing tools, practice and concepts for hourly methods
  3. Discuss and provide suggestions for hourly methods on GitHub
  4. ​Attend the bi-weekly meeting on Thursday April 12th at 12:00 (PST)
1 Comment

      Sign Up for Technical Working Group Updates

    Subscribe to Newsletter
    The purpose of this blog is to provide a high-level overview of CalTrack  progress.
    ​
    For a deeper understanding or to provide input on technical aspects of CalTrack, refer to the GitHub issues page (
    https://github.com/CalTRACK-2/caltrack/issues). 
    Recordings
    2019 CalTRACK Kick Off:

    CalTRACK 2.0 
    July 19, 2018
    June 28, 2018
    June 7, 2018
    May 24, 2018
    May 3, 2018
    April 12, 2018
    March 29, 2018
    March 15, 2018
    March 1, 2018
    ​
    February 15, 2018
    February 1, 2018

    Archives

    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    July 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • OpenEEmeter Methods
    • OpenEEmeter Process
    • OpenEEmeter Compliance
    • Project Updates
    • Technical Working Group >
      • Technical Appendix
      • Issues and Evidence
    • OpenEEmeter History
    • Stakeholders
  • LFE OpenEEmeter
    • OpenEEmeter Overview
    • Github Code
    • EEweather
    • Documentation
  • FLEXmeter
    • GRIDmeter
    • Energy Differential Privacy
  • Contact