NEEM Manufactured Homes

1
NEEM Manufactured Homes

• Field Test Results
• David Baylon, Ecotope

2
NEEM Program

• Manufacturer and State collaboration to set,
  update and maintain energy efficiency standards
• Provide QC for efficiency measures in the plant
• Support the promotion of energy efficient
  manufactured homes
• Built on the MAP program operated by BPA from
  1992-1996,
• Significant electric savings
• 30 years of utility involvement

3
Field Sample

• Field Review designed to track overall
  performance.
• Four samples since 1992.
• 1992-1993, 1997-1998, 2000-2001, 2006-2007
• Sample size stratified by state, 90/10 criteria
• Designed to provide overall estimates of duct
  leakage, air sealing, and lighting power
• Protocol includes details on heating and cooling
  systems, occupant satisfaction, and ventilation
  systems.

4
Sample Distribution
State Percent Population Freq. Percent Sample
Idaho 15.0 18 20.7
Montana 5.8 17 19.5
Oregon 36.0 26 29.9
Washington 43.2 26 29.9
Total 100.0 87 100.0
5
Sample Characteristics
Sections Idaho (n18) Montana (n17) Oregon (n26) Wash. (n26) All (n87) 2001-02 (n105) 1997-98 (n49) MAP 1992-93 (n178)
Single Section 5.5 5.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0 0 11.8
Double Section 88.9 76.5 69.2 88.5 79.8 74 73 81.5
Triple Section 5.5 17.7 30.8 11.5 18.0 26 27 6.7
Home size (sq. ft) 1,928 1,659 1,893 1,726 1,739 1,769 1,750 1,433
6
Lighting Review

• Establish a lighting baseline for this sector
• Compare results to 2005 site built baseline
• Determine the current saturation of high
  efficacy lighting
• Develop lighting power density for manufactured
  homes

7
Lighting Characteristics
Lighting Power Lighting Power Lighting Power Lighting Power
State LPD St.Dev. N
ID 1.37 0.48 18
MT 1.50 0.48 17
OR 1.58 0.45 26
WA 1.24 0.39 26
Total 1.40 0.45 87
Lamp Saturation Lamp Saturation Lamp Saturation Lamp Saturation Lamp Saturation
State CFL Incan. LF Total
ID 11.3 86.0 2.7 100.0
MT 15.5 82.2 2.2 100.0
OR 23.2 73.8 3.0 100.0
WA 16.3 75.0 8.8 100.0
Total 18.5 76.5 5.0 100.0
8
Lighting results

• LPD about 20 lower than SF baseline
• With common technologies LPD compared to SF
  Baseline about 15 lower
• CFL saturation about twice SF Baseline
• Linear Florescent shows similar saturation

9
Ventilation systems

• Average about 52 CFM average fan flow
• 60 CFM in 2003
• Median fan runtime, 8 hours, similar to previous
  study (2003)
• 35 of ventilation fans run continuously
• 42 in 2003
• 31 of ventilation fans are not used, similar to
  2003 survey
• On average ventilation systems deliver about 0.06
  ACH across the sample

10
Blower Door Results, 1992-2007
Group 2006-07 Sample 2006-07 Sample 2006-07 Sample 2000-01 1997-98 1992-93 (MAP)
Group n ACH50 Std. Dev. ACH50 ACH50 ACH50
All 74 3.87 0.98 4.16 4.76 5.50
Double Wide 60 3.80 0.85 4.30 4.90 5.50
Triple Wide 14 4.01 1.05 3.84 4.40 4.92
Idaho 10 3.80 1.44 4.59 4.63 6.12
Montana 15 4.00 1.03 5.63
Oregon 25 4.40 0.92 4.36 5.43
Washington 24 3.74 1.01 3.89 4.90 5.36
11
Heating Systems
System 2000-01 2006-07
An Electric Furnace (Elements Fan Only) 54 49
A Heat Pump (HP) 24 36
A Furnace Fired by Natural Gas or LPG 22 15
Overall Cases With Central Air Conditioning 43 55
12
Heating/Cooling by State
HVAC System ID MT OR WA Total
Electric Furnace 77.8 35.3 26.9 57.7 49.0
Heat Pump 11.1 5.9 53.9 34.6 35.7
Gas/Propane 11.1 58.8 19.2 7.7 15.2
Cooling (No Heat Pump) 22.2 11.7 19.2 19.2 19.3
All Central Cooling 33.3 17.6 73.1 53.8 55.0
13
Duct Systems

• 55 reduction in total duct leakage
• 3.9 of floor area at 25 PA
• Supply Leakage Fraction (SLF) 4.8 of system flow
• Crossover installation key determinant of overall
  duct tightness
• 60 increase in leakage for Not Secure
  crossover
• Highly correlated to use of elbow at connection
• About a third of homes with set-up review

14
Duct Leakage
Group 2006-07 2006-07 2006-07 2000-01 1997-98 1992-93
Group n Median Mean Mean Mean Mean
All 72 77 95 209 231 157
Double Wide 59 64 85 199 240 155
Triple Wide 11 149 151 265 210 169
Idaho 11 76 88 229 254
Montana 13 88 149
Oregon 23 86 107 198
Washington 25 61 82 202 208
15
Duct Leakage by Crossover
Cross-Over Status n CFM Leakage _at_ 50 Pa CFM Leakage _at_ 50 Pa
Cross-Over Status n Mean SD
Not Secured 17 135.2 139.5
Secured 32 83.8 51.7
Total 49 101.6 94
16
Billing Analysis

• Bills collected for the sample
• 83 valid bills (87 Cases)
• Billing analysis using VBDD (PRISM)
• 63 Cases used
• Heat Pumps very problematic
• Heating predicted in 37 weather sites
• Normalized to 18 TMY3 weather sites

17
Billing Analysis, Heating
Heating Energy Use Current Weather (KBtu/sf) Heating Energy Use Current Weather (KBtu/sf) Heating Energy Use Current Weather (KBtu/sf) Heating Energy Use Current Weather (KBtu/sf) Heating Energy Use Current Weather (KBtu/sf) Heating Energy Use Current Weather (KBtu/sf)
Heating System Heating System Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total
Heat Pump Mean 8.86 11.64 11.57 9.97
Heat Pump Std. Dev. 4.61 8.45 6.06
Heat Pump N 12 7 1 20
Electric Resistance Mean 14.3 21.3 24.14 18.8
Electric Resistance Std. Dev. 5.11 10.38 6.35 8.31
Electric Resistance N 15 10 8 33
Gas Mean 18.09 29.17 32.62 29.37
Gas Std. Dev. 4.03 4.86 7.35
Gas N 2 1 7 10
Total Mean 12.31 17.98 27.06 17.68
Total Std. Dev. 5.62 10.61 7.95 9.83
Total N 29 18 16 63
18
Calibration Savings

• Electric Resistance Furnace only
• SEEM inputs based on
• Estimated component area/assumed component spec
• Measured duct leakage (NEEM runs)
• Measured ACH, Adjusted for vent fan operation
  (NEEM runs)
• Fixed window ratio (14)
• Fixed internal gains

19
Component Comparison
Component NEEM Baseline
Ceiling R-38 R-28
Floor R-33 R-22
Wall R-21 R-13
Window U0.35 U0.35
Door R-5 R-5
Duct Leakage As Found SLF0.15
Infiltration As Found .35 ACH
Ventilation Vent Fan Operation None
20
Calibration Savings

• Bills normalized to TMY3 sites
• SEEM runs completed to those sites
• Initial adjustments on component specs
• Adjustments on infiltration estimates
• SEEM runs completed for baseline assumptions
• Savings calculated from each run and aggregated
  by climate
• Program savings developed and adjusted for home
  size (in each zone)

21
SEEM Calibration and Savings
  Units Zone 1 (n14) Zone 2 (n8) Zone 3 (n7) All (n29)
Billing Analysis kWh/sf 14.3 21.3 24.14 18.8
Normalized (TMY3) kWh/sf 14.7 22.5 24.5 19.2
Heat Estimate kWh 6419 9715 13901 9134
SEEM (TMY3) kWh 5960 8754 13706 8601
SEEM (Control) kWh 9544 14161 21321 13660
Estimate Savings kWh 3584 5406 7615 5060
Predicted Savings kWh 4659 6087 8634  
Realization   0.77 0.89 0.88 0.83
22
Results

• NEEM program has developed a predictable savings
  mechanism for this sector.
• Lighting shows some consistency with site built
  assumptions
• Consistent effort has corrected the deficiencies
  over time
• Billing analysis corroborates the simulation
  results used for NEEM savings estimates