ENERGY STAR Smart Thermostats Version 2.0 Discussion Guide - Stakeholder Meeting July 26, 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ENERGY STAR® Smart Thermostats
Version 2.0 Discussion Guide
Stakeholder Meeting
July 26, 2021
Webinar Participation
• Please mute yourself when you are not
speaking (use local mute or dial *6)
• Feel free to ask questions at any time
Submit written comments to
connectedthermostats@energystar.gov by
August 9, 2021
2
Meeting Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Current Specification
3. Updated Terminology
4. Revisions to Specification Metrics for Existing Products
5. Additional Metrics for Existing Product Types
6. Other Specification Criteria Changes
7. Expansion & Clarification of Scope
8. Software Updates
9. Closing - Next Steps & Questions
3
Introductions
Abigail Daken, EPA Abhishek Jathar, ICF
Daken. Abigail@epa.gov Abhishek. Jathar@icf.com
Product Manager, Product Development Lead
HVAC & Connected
Alan Meier, LBL Ethan Goldman, Resilient Edge
akmeier@lbl.gov ethan.goldman@gmail.com
Scientist Principal
Leo Rainer, LBL Craig Maloney, Intellovations
lirainer@lbl.gov craig@intellovations.com
Principal Scientific Engineer Sr. Software Engineer
Associate
4
What is ENERGY STAR?
• Influential and trusted symbol of energy efficiency
• Available across 75+ product categories
• Since 1992, a voluntary partnership among government,
business, and consumers
• Products are independently certified tomeet strict
energy-efficiency guidelines set bythe U.S. EPA
• Utilities offer rebates on ENERGY STAR certified
The simple choice for equipment
energy efficiency. • Saves end-users energy, water, and money
• Helps protect theclimate
5
Benefits to joining ENERGY STAR
• Access a network of over 700 utilities
• Leverage the label recognition
• Access customer support teams at EPA
• Use co-brandable materials
• Participate in promotional events
• Get listed on publicly-available ENERGY STAR
search tools
• Apply for the ENERGY STAR Partner of the Year Award
Source: CEE’s 2019 Household Survey • Receive email notifications about program activities
https://www.energystar.gov/awareness
6
ENERGY STAR Partnership Types
• Brand owner
• Retailer
• Residential building
• Commercial building, service, product, or
association
• Industrial plant, service, product, or association
• Energy Efficiency ProgramSponsor
The simple choice for
energy efficiency.
For more information on joining as an ENERGY STAR partner visit this webpage
https://www.energystar.gov/partner_resources/join-energy-star
7
ENERGY STAR Product Brand Owner Partnership
1. Sign partnership agreement. See partner resources page:
https://www.energystar.gov/partner_resources/join-energy- star
2. Third-party certification through an EPA-recognized certification body (CB):
www.energystar.gov/3rdpartycert.
3. Comply with the ENERGY STAR Brand Guidelines for appropriate use ofthe logo:
www.energystar.gov/logouse
4. Participate in third-party verification through an EPA- recognized certification body
5. Provide annual unit shipment data no later than March 1
www.energystar.gov/unitshipmentdata
8When we Revise Specification
Revisions are driven by the need to continuously recognize and differentiate
top performing products on the market:
• New or revised test methods
• Significant increase in ENERGY STAR market penetration
• Change in Federal minimum efficiency standards (where relevant)
• Technological advancements
• Product performance or quality concerns
9ENERGY STAR Specification Development Process
We are here
https://www.energystar.gov/partner_resources/product_specification_development_processMeeting Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Current Specification
3. Updated Terminology
4. Revisions to Specification Metrics for Existing Products
5. Additional Metrics for Existing Product Types
6. Other Specification Criteria Changes
7. Expansion & Clarification of Scope
8. Software Updates
9. Closing - Next Steps & Questions
11ENERGY STAR Smart Thermostat Product
Hardware + Service is the ENERGY STAR product
Occupancy detection &
automated HVAC control
Consumer remote
Consumer feedback access
Two-way
Demand response Participation in 3rd
communication
Maintain comfort Operational status party (e.g. utility)
reporting services
Control HVAC Data collection for
Equipment savings
Functions Functions that
Functions
enabled by in- enabled by
enabled by
home hardware and/or
cloud services
hardware the cloud
12Earning the ENERGY STAR
1. Thermostat device passes basic tests
Thermostat product (hardware
2. + service) demonstrates basic
capability (e.g., scheduling)
Demonstrate field savings
3. using EPA software tools to
Heating
savings
analyze and aggregate data
from hundreds of US homes Cooling
savings
13Current Specification – Version 1.0: Device Requirements
14Current Specification – Version 1.0: Product Requirements
• Scheduling
• Feedback to occupants about energy impact of their choices
• Consumer information relevant to HVAC energy consumption
• Collects data as needed for ENERGY STAR Field Savings Method
• Demand Response
– Grid communications
– Open Access
– Consumer Override
– Capabilities Summary
15Current Specification – Version 1.0: Field Savings Criteria
16Meeting Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Current Specification
3. Updated Terminology
4. Revisions to Specification Metrics for Existing Products
5. Additional Metrics for Existing Product Types
6. Other Specification Criteria Changes
7. Expansion & Clarification of Scope
8. Software Updates
9. Closing - Next Steps & Questions
17Updated Terminology
EPA is considering renaming the product
category to “Smart Thermostats”
• Broadly used in marketing materials
• Consumer-recognized classification
• Less confusing (Smart v/s Communicating)
• Will this updated terminology cause any issues or business impact for
manufacturers, suppliers, or other relevant parties?
18Meeting Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Current Specification
3. Updated Terminology
4. Revisions to Specification Metrics for Existing Products
5. Additional Metrics for Existing Product Types
6. Other Specification Criteria Changes
7. Expansion & Clarification of Scope
8. Software Updates
9. Closing - Next Steps & Questions
19Revisions to Specification Metrics for Existing Products
Improved submission to submission stability of metrics
• Partners discovered different samples from the same population yield
different results
• Proposal to require minimum sample size per climate zone and to allow
larger samples to ensure metric stability
• Are there any hindrances are there to allowing a larger sample size per
climate zone?
• Would it be helpful if EPA proposes that partners include a percentage of
total population of users as opposed to a specific sample size?
• Based on your analyses, are you able to recommend minimum or maximum
sample sizes that EPA should include in the test method?
20Revisions to Specification Metrics for Existing Products
Improved correlation between metrics & savings through metered data
• Existing metric reflects savings only from set-up and set-back
• Higher metric score may not reflect higher savings
• No obviously helpful changes – finding them requires research
• Are there data sets correlating meter data and data from smart thermostats
for the same group of homes, either with AMI information or large samples,
or both? What would it take for EPA (or another party) to be able to analyze
this data to examine the correlation and, if needed, improve it? Note that we
would ideally need to be able to correlate energy meter data and thermostat
data from individual homes or sub-groups of homes, not just to have
aggregate energy bill savings and ENERGY STAR smart thermostat metric
scores.
21Revisions to Specification Metrics for Existing Products
Improved correlation between metrics & savings through metered data
• If such data sets do not exist, what would it take to collect them? We
understand there are consumer privacy and proprietary information
concerns.
• A less expensive approach might be for smart thermostat vendors
participating in utility incentive programs to calculate metric scores for users
in the program, or at least in the same geographic areas, and submit them
to evaluators or program managers for comparison with those to the
metered savings for each vendors’ products in the study. Is this feasible for
any utility partners? Would smart thermostats vendors be amenable to
participating?
22Revisions to Specification Metrics for Existing Products
Weighted savings
• Software maps US zip codes to five Energy Information Administration (EIA)
climate zones
• Weighted average used for national metric score is appropriate to compute
national savings
• More even weighting more relevant % savings for every US homeowner.
• How do stakeholder use and think about the metric? Would one weighting
serve your purposes better than another? If a more even weighting serves
your purposes better, but not an exactly even weighting, what would be a
fair basis for weighting the zones?
23Meeting Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Current Specification
3. Updated Terminology
4. Revisions to Specification Metrics for Existing Products
5. Additional Metrics for Existing Product Types
6. Other Specification Criteria Changes
7. Expansion & Clarification of Scope
8. Software Updates
9. Closing - Next Steps & Questions
24Additional Metrics for Existing Product Types
Resistance Heat Utilization (RHU2)
• Heat pumps can achieve higher metric scores due to increased use of backup
heat for recovery
• Propose a requirement for RHU2 per the previous stakeholder discussions
• EPA is considering proposing a heat pump only oversampled data set
• What would you like EPA to consider that might reduce the added time/effort
associated with an additional sample of just heat pumps?
25Meeting Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Current Specification
3. Updated Terminology
4. Revisions to Specification Metrics for Existing Products
5. Additional Metrics for Existing Product Types
6. Other Specification Criteria Changes
7. Expansion & Clarification of Scope
8. Software Updates
9. Closing - Next Steps & Questions
26Other Specification Criteria Changes
Updating Demand Response Requirements
• Current language:
The CT product shall include a communication link that facilitates the use of
open standards, as defined in this specification, for all communication layers to
enable DR functionality.
• Current Interpretation:
CT products that enable direct, on-premises, open-standards based
interconnection are preferred, but alternative approaches, where open-
standards connectivity is enabled only with use of off-premise services, are also
acceptable.
• Intention:
Require OpenADR 2.0 or SEP 2.0 for communication between service provider
cloud and utility’s DR contractor; still proprietary to service provider’s cloud is
allowed.
27Other Specification Criteria Changes
Updating Demand Response Requirements
• Is it appropriate for EPA to require OpenADR 2.0 or SEP 2.0 for cases where
the CT service provider is acting as a DR aggregator?
• Are there any other open standard protocols that EPA should consider?
• Would it be clearer to stakeholders if EPA mentioned OpenADR and SEP 2.0
as a part of prescriptive requirements?
• What are some of the CT vendor offerings pertaining to demand response
that are relevant for utilities?
28Other Specification Criteria Changes
Product Families
• Broad definition in Version 1.0
• For Jul’21 submission EPA requested vendor data from product family
subsets
• Major differences include sensors, user interfaces, retail vs pro channel
• Data analysis outcomes:
– Most of the results are consistent
– Individual product subsets received met all the performance requirements
with 0.5-1% difference in percentage savings
– Comfort temperatures for various climate zones were within 1 degree
range
29Other Specification Criteria Changes
Need of Broadband connectivity for energy savings
• Current program relies on field data to demonstrate energy savings
• Growing installations in areas with poor broadband infrastructure
• Unconnected thermostats have no influence on metric scores
• EPA interested in identifying features for thermostats to deliver savings when
disconnected
• e.g., Occupancy detection and onboard processing capability to process that
information
• What features or sets of features would be sufficient to give a reasonable
expectation of savings without broadband connectivity?
• Is there some way to identify models that provide savings without
broadband connectivity other than by identifying sets of features?
• If manufacturers claimed this capability, how could it be verified?
30Meeting Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Current Specification
3. Updated Terminology
4. Revisions to Specification Metrics for Existing Products
5. Additional Metrics for Existing Product Types
6. Other Specification Criteria Changes
7. Expansion & Clarification of Scope
8. Software Updates
9. Closing - Next Steps & Questions
31Expansion and Clarification of Scope
Smart Line Voltage Thermostats (LVT)
• Compelling savings by setting back temperatures
• Propose device requirements along the lines of
CSA C828:19
• Currently analyzing data to inform a decision about
effectiveness of including LVT’s in scope.
• Appropriate amendments to specification, test
method and software in Draft 1
• Do you offer LVTs, and would you be willing to participate in the
development of the metric for these products?
32Expansion and Clarification of Scope
Communicating Controllers
• Barriers: High standby power consumption, limited installations (single-speed)
and metric assumptions
• Need active stakeholder engagement and support to make progress
• Possible methods to evaluate performance:
– Average Capacity Factor: Mean % of full capacity
– Lab test: Avoid cycling at higher capacity + Intelligent setback and recovery to
avoid high-capacity states
– Hybrid test: Place the control in a climate-controlled chamber and simulate
response of controlled equipment
– System level specification: Metric applicable to both HVAC equipment and
controller
– Supplemental characteristics or field data
33Expansion and Clarification of Scope
Communicating Controllers
• If you supply communicating thermostats and are interested in working with EPA on
developing an evaluation method, please let us know.
• Is there some venue for method development that will be more effective than EPA-
convened groups, such as an industry standards development organization, other
government agency, or NGO?
• Are there any instances where the CT algorithms and the HVAC controls do not
complement each other?
• Do stakeholders favor a field data, lab test, or hybrid approach?
34Expansion and Clarification of Scope
Communicating Controllers
• There is significant overlap between the evaluation of communicating controllers for
centrally ducted variable capacity systems and the ENERGY STAR CAC/HP
specification. As such, EPA is seeking to include the control algorithms in the
evaluation of variable capacity heat pump performance, whether they are in the heat
pump control board as in a mini-split, or in the communicating controller as in a
centrally ducted system. If you have ideas for recognizing exceptionally efficient
HVAC with its controller as a whole system, please let us know.
• Do stakeholders agree with the rationale behind this approach, which emphasizes
contribution of the controller and associated software to efficiency?
• Are there alternative approaches that stakeholders would like EPA to consider when
developing the Draft 1 specification?
35Expansion and Clarification of Scope
Mini-split system controllers
• Assumptions for demonstrating savings in the metric may not be applicable
to these products
– Power draw is proportional to run time
– Run time is (approximately) linearly proportional to indoor-outdoor temperature
difference
– Set back is the most accessible energy savings strategy
• EPA will explicitly mention this product is out of scope
• No current hypotheses to evaluate controls for energy savings
• Do you offer mini-split controllers and have ideas about appropriate metrics
for these products? Would you be willing to invest in making it possible for
them to be certified?
36Expansion and Clarification of Scope
Two-Stage Heating/ Cooling Installations
• Currently, only installations controlling single-stage equipment are used to
evaluate product savings
• Around 33% installations include two-stage heating or cooling
• Using “Equivalent full load run time” as a reasonable proxy for heating/
cooling delivered, EPA is considering including installations controlling these
products in product savings evaluation
• EPA requested oversampled dataset in Feb 2021 submission and still awaiting
data
• Accordingly, EPA will revise the sample selection process from the
population
• What is the mix of equipment types and geographic spread/zip codes?
37Expansion and Clarification of Scope
Filtered data and goodness of fit
• Software eliminates installations that do not
appear to fit model used to evaluate savings.
• What about a product with most installations
filtered out?
• EPA evaluated Feb’21 data for: missing
thermostat data, weather data, tau filtering
• Currently investigating why installations
removed and considering requiring a minimum
percentage to be included in the statistics
based on investigation
• Unusual use cases include hotels, refrigeration
control: may result in systemic bias or
increased noise in the installation data
38Expansion and Clarification of Scope
Specification applicability for additional environments
• Use cases other than single family homes include rental properties, small
commercial spaces
• SHEMS specification requires partners to include ENERGY STAR smart
thermostat
• Metric could penalize a vendor based on comfort temperature, runtime and
data irregularities
• Such installations are filtered out or represent a small fraction of total
population
• Would a criterion for the proportion of the data set that is filtered out help to address
this problem?
• Would stakeholders be comfortable sharing the log files that the software generates
that indicate the proportion of the data set that was filtered out?
• What can we do to confirm that unusual use cases are filtered out or are a small
fraction of the population?
39Meeting Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Current Specification
3. Updated Terminology
4. Revisions to Specification Metrics for Existing Products
5. Additional Metrics for Existing Product Types
6. Other Specification Criteria Changes
7. Expansion & Clarification of Scope
8. Software Updates
9. Closing - Next Steps & Questions
40Software Updates
• General Improvements
– Supports latest Python 3.x versions
– Improved ZCTA resolution
– Warnings and error logging for failed imports
• Splitting Output files
– Certification file and Summary Statistics file
• Modified Input file formats
– Updates to include two-stage and modulating equipment
– System types split into heating and cooling
– Added first, second and equivalent runtimes
– Interval data file changed to hourly time-series format
• Are there additional software changes that stakeholders recommend, to reduce the
burden of the program for vendors, increase its usefulness for all stakeholders, etc.?
41Meeting Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Current Specification
3. Updated Terminology
4. Revisions to Specification Metrics for Existing Products
5. Additional Metrics for Existing Product Types
6. Other Specification Criteria Changes
7. Expansion & Clarification of Scope
8. Software Updates
9. Closing - Next Steps & Questions
42Next Steps
Fall 2022
Q1, 2022 Final
Q4, 2021 Draft 2
Aug. 9, Draft 1 Specifica
2021 Specificati tion
Jul. 26,
2021 Comment on
Jun. 29,
2021 Stakeholder Deadline
Discussion Webinar
Guide
Published
Follow the development process on the product development webpage
• Are there any market issues that impact the anticipated timing of
this development process that warrant consideration?
43Questions
Abigail Daken Abhishek Jathar
Daken.Abigail@epa.gov Abhishek.Jathar@icf.com
202-343-9375 202-862-1203
Stakeholders are encouraged to provide written comments for
consideration to connectedthermostats@energystar.gov by August
9, 2021.
44You can also read
