Presentations and Conferences

Envelope Backstop Methodology

Maria Karpman, Karpman Consulting [ASHRAE 90.1 Committee Presentation, April 11, 2019]

Background: Limit envelope trade-offs for projects that document compliance following ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Section 11 or Appendix G.

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Performance Rating Method, PHIUS+, and PHI Comparative Evaluation Study

Maria Karpman, Karpman Consulting; Shelley Beaulieu, TRC Energy Services; [2017 ASHRAE Building Performance Analysis Conference, Atlanta, GA, September 27-29, 2017]

ABSTRACT: This presentation reviews the results of the study undertaken by NYSERDA to compare the predicted energy performance of representative high performance design variations to a multifamily new construction project following ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G, PHIUS+ and PHI modeling protocols. The modeling was performed by independent teams with expert knowledge of the protocols and associated simulation tools. Comparison of the energy use predicted through each of the three protocols, analysis of the sources of the differences such as modeling assumptions and defaults, the capabilities of simulation tools, and the metrics used to express building performance in each protocol will be shared. Click here for more details.

Comparison of Projected to Realized Savings for Projects that Participated in a Modeling-Based Incentive Program

Chris DeAlmagro, TRC Energy Services; Maria Karpman, Karpman Consulting; [2017 ASHRAE Building Performance Analysis Conference, Atlanta, GA, September 27-29, 2017]

ABSTRACT: This presentation discusses the Pay for Performance (P4P) incentive program for existing buildings that requires projects to develop a calibrated energy simulation and install packages of improvements projected to reduce energy use by at least 15%. P4P is designed to pay incentives in three installments. The first incentive, intended to offset the cost of the energy study, is paid upon approval of the Energy Reduction Plan (ERP), which documents projected energy savings from the proposed scope of work based on the whole building calibrated simulation, and is proportional to the project floor area. The second incentive is paid upon installation of the recommended measures, and is proportional to the energy savings projected in the ERP based on the calibrated simulation. The third incentive is paid twelve months after measure installation upon verification of realized savings following IPM&VP Option C: Whole Building Comparison. The second and third incentives are designed as a single performance payment that is split in order to provide up-front financial assistance to install the measures. Incentive #3 is trued-up based on the actual achieved savings, so that the total performance incentive (i.e. #2 and #3) reflects the Program incentive structure.

P4P was rolled out in 2009. Since then, ERPs were approved for 385 projects. 162 of these projects have reached the savings verification stage, collected at least 12 months of post-retrofit utility bills, and calculated realized savings using IPM&VP Option C as required to apply for Incentive #3. This presentation provides an overview of results, compares actual and projected savings of completed projects, and describes the analysis that was performed to identify patterns and predictors of accuracy in modeling projections. Click here for more details.

A New Era of Performance-Based Code Compliance and Beyond Code Programs

Bing Liu, PE, PNNL; Michael Rosenberg, PNNL; Gail Hampsmire, Green Business Certification Inc; Maria Karpman, Karpman Consulting; [IBPSA Building Simulation 2017 Conference, San Francisco, CA, August 7-9, 2017]

ABSTRACT: Appendix G in Standard 90.1-2016 becomes a new code compliance path. This approach will enable the same building models used for code compliance to be used for beyond-code programs, saving modeling costs and providing credit for good design decisions available through Appendix G. This panel provides an overview of this new path, and its benefits to practitioners, policy makers, incentive program administrators and software developers. The panelist will also discuss how performance targets are developed for state energy codes and beyond-code incentive program. For example, one incentive program developed permutations of PNNL prototype models to reflect 90.1-2016 Appendix G baseline, the local standard practice, and variations of high performance designs, using these models to establish the performance thresholds for incentive tiers. The panelists will also share applications of this new path in incentive programs in Northeast, and LEED Pilot Credit. Click here for more details.

Comparative Analysis of ASHRAE Building EQ As-Designed, Building Energy Asset Score, and ASHRAE 90.1 Performance Rating Method

Maria Karpman, Karpman Consulting; Charles Eley, Eley Consulting; Nora Wang, PNNL; [IBPSA Building Simulation 2017 Conference, San Francisco, CA, August 7-9, 2017]

ABSTRACT: The session describes a study to investigate the general alignment between the asset rating systems including ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Appendix G, DOE Asset Score, and ASHRAE bEQ As-Designed. It was done in the framework of the National Building Labeling Group (NBLG) that was convened by NYSERDA and included stakeholders representing states and municipalities, organizations such as IMT and USGBC, and technical experts. The overarching goal of the effort was to inform the benchmarking laws, and explore feasibility of a generic building label that could be used in conjunction with different rating systems. The scope of the study was developed by the NBLG Technical Committee, and the implementation was co-funded by NYSERDA. The methodology involved following the rules of each rating system to calculate scores for small, medium, and large office, and mid-rise and high-rise multifamily PNNL prototypes of vintages ranging from high performance to pre-1975. The study explored whether rating systems generally agreed on the relative efficiency of the tested projects, and examined reasons behind discrepancies. The work was done with the ongoing involvement of the rating system developers, and some of the findings resulted in changes to the rating systems. Click here for more details.

Model Projections versus Measured Energy Savings in a Large Scale Incentive Program

Maria Karpman, Karpman Consulting; Chris DeAlmagro, TRC Energy Services; [2014 ASHRAE/IBIBSA-USA Building Simulation Conference, Atlanta, GA, September 10-12, 2014]

Pay for Performance (P4P) incentive program targets existing commercial, industrial, and multifamily buildings with annual peak demand of 100kW or more, and requires projects to install measures that reduce overall source energy consumption by at least 15%. The program relies on a network of approved providers, referred to as P4P Partners (Partners), who are recruited through continuous open enrolment and include consulting firms, ESCOs, and other trades with demonstrated experience in energy efficiency projects. P4P program was rolled out in New Jersey in 2009, and in New Hampshire in 2011. Since then, 278 projects submitted modeling results to the program. 33 of these projects reached savings verification stage, collected at least 12 months of post-retrofit utility bills, and calculated achieved savings using IPM&VP Option C. The presentation provides an overview of results, compares actual and projected savings of completed projects, and describes analysis that was performed to identify patterns and predictors of accuracy in modeling-based projections. Considered causes for discrepancies including the presence of complex control measures in the proposed scope of work, fragmented project teams with different companies involved in site data collection, modeling, measure installation, and post-retrofit commissioning, and challenges in accounting for changes in building operation during post-retrofit period, among others. Click here for more details.

Presentations