REACh Evauation Report Oct 2010

Maine REACh Project Evaluation

Testing the Energy Savings Outcomes of New Technologies

Presented to MaineHousing

October 2010
The Residential Energy Assistance Challenge Option Program (REACh) is a competitive

grant program funded by the federal Office of Community Services (OCS) within the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Prepared by: John M. Joseph, PhD, John Reuthe, & Stephen Turner, PhD

Joseph Associates, Inc.
Hallowell, Maine
Table of Contents
Foreword .................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Evaluation ..................................................................................................4
I. Project Overview ..................................................................................................... 5
Service Delivery Plan ..........................................................................................................6
II. Evaluation Methodology ......................................................................................... 8
The Logic Model .................................................................................................................8
III. Immediate Outcomes & Process Evaluation .......................................................... 12
Average Direct Cost of REACh IV EURMs ........................................................................... 13
Implementation of EURMs ............................................................................................... 13
Solar Hot Water .................................................................................................................... 14
Backup Configurations .......................................................................................................... 15
Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps ........................................................................................ 18
Cold Climate Heat Pumps ..................................................................................................... 21
Small Wind Turbines ............................................................................................................. 22
IV. Intermediate Outcomes ....................................................................................... 26
Measurement and Verification (M&V) Methodology ........................................................ 27
Deemed Savings Analysis ...................................................................................................... 27
Energy Billing Analysis .......................................................................................................... 27
Data Loggers and Onsite Monitoring .................................................................................... 28
Data Preparation and Sample Size ....................................................................................... 29
Solar Hot Water .................................................................................................................... 33
Cold Climate/All Climate Heat Pumps .................................................................................. 35
V. Summary of Findings and Recommendations ........................................................ 42
Outcomes Evaluation Summary ........................................................................................ 42
Cold Climate Heat Pump Technologies ................................................................................. 43
Solar Hot Water .................................................................................................................... 43
Process Evaluation Summary ............................................................................................ 44
Appendix I: Solar Hot Water Site Review ................................................................... 46
Appendix II: Interim Impact Evaluation Report II ....................................................... 59
Client Interviews .............................................................................................................. 66
Data Loggers Deployment Plan ............................................................................................. 71
Appendix III: Questionnaire for Basement Hot Water Heat Pump Clients ................... 75
Appendix IV: Data Logger Schematics ........................................................................ 79
Appendix V: Colby Intern Job Description .................................................................. 82
Appendix VI: Hallowell All Climate Heat Pump Brochure ........................................... 86
2
Foreword
The authors would like to thank the staff at Maine State Housing Authority
(MaineHousing) and at the Community Action Agencies (CAA’s) who provided
information and insight throughout the project. We would also like to thank the
equipment manufacturers, vendors, and installers as well as the many LIHEAP Maine
clients who participated in this study for their cooperation and assistance. The
documented outcomes would not have been possible without the cooperation and support
of Central Maine Power Company and Bangor Hydroelectric in providing monthly
billing data for participating clients.
The Reach Program is designed to help identify alternative programs or individual

measures that can be effectively implemented to lower the energy burden on clients
receiving energy assistance under the LIHEAP program. Our evaluation concludes that
the 2007 Maine Reach Project does in fact make a significant contribution in helping to
empirically sort through a rather broad range of alternatives measures by ranking each
according to their energy savings and cost-effectiveness as derived from field testing.
This report provides sample statistics only; it does not attest to the statistical validity of
those statistics as predictors of the entire population. The reader should also note that the
authors have rounded to the nearest whole numbers in calculations of averages and totals,
even though the individual observations may have two or more decimal places that are
not shown in the published tables. Therefore, the reader may find some slight differences
in calculating average or totals based on the published individual observations.
3
Introduction
Purpose of the Evaluation
The Residential Energy Assistance Challenge Option Program (REACh) is a competitive
grant program funded by the federal Office of Community Services (OCS) within the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The REACh pilot projects are
intended to help identify and test effective alternative means for low-income households
to reduce their energy costs and to increase energy self-sufficiency. The REACh program
is authorized under Section 2607B of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP) of 1981 as amended. As described in authorizing legislation, the purpose of
the REACh Program is to:
x Minimize health and safety risks that result from high-energy burdens on low-
income Americans;
x Prevent homelessness as a result of inability to pay energy bills;
x Increase efficiency of energy usage by low-income families; and
x Target energy assistance to individuals who are most in need.
The REACh Program Opportunity Notice OCS-97-04, Part I, Sec. C, Purpose (Federal
Register, Monday, May 5, 1997, page 24455) states: “…OCS will support a limited
number of innovative Pilot Projects that seek to demonstrate the long term cost
effectiveness of supplementing energy assistance payments with non-monetary benefits
that can increase the ability of eligible households to meet energy costs and help them to
achieve energy self-sufficiency.”
MaineHousing, in collaboration with two community action agencies, applied for and
received the REACh IV competitive grant. MaineHousing administers both the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the DOE Weatherization
Assistance Program (WAP) in Maine. The delivery system for REACh IV service was
built on an existing collaboration between these two programs and the existing
MaineHousing processes, utilizing both LIHEAP and WAP staff at the respective
agencies and the existing MaineHousing project staffing strategies. The REACh services
were delivered jointly by Kennebec Valley Community Action Program (KVCAP) and
Washington Hancock Community Action (WHCA), who, together with the eight
remaining Maine Community Action Agencies, manage client services for LIHEAP and
WAP throughout Maine.
The design of the REACh IV project was influenced by the findings of prior REACh
projects and by the OCS rule that each new state grant application grant must test the
effectiveness of new and different activities; the program is not intended to implement
proven ways but to continue to try new ways. REACh is designed to test and compare
alternative innovative approaches; strong emphasis is placed on meaningful independent
evaluations of these alternative approaches to achieving increased energy self-sufficiency
in the low-income community. All REACh projects include provisions for third party
evaluations. The findings of these evaluations are intended to assist in future program
planning and design.
4
I. Project Overview
In August 2001, the Government Accountability Office (or GAO; formerly the General
Accounting Office) reviewed the effectiveness of the REACh Program and published a
report titled Residential Energy Assistance: Effectiveness of Demonstration Program as
Yet Undetermined. The report identifies three performance goals for individual REACh
Projects:
1. Reduce energy cost of participating households;

2. Increase the regularity of home energy bill payment; and
3. Increase energy suppliers’ contribution to reduce eligible households’ energy
burdens.
The GAO report described the program succinctly:
“The Congress established the REACh program, which provides grants that fund
demonstration projects, to test various approaches to help low-income families reduce
their energy usage and become more self-sufficient in meeting their home energy needs.
In a sense, the REACh program serves as a ‘laboratory’ for identifying better ways to
ensure that low income families can afford home-heating and cooling.”
The activities of the Maine REACh IV project are intended to contribute directly to
performance goal number 1 (Reduce energy cost of participating households) and,
indirectly, as a result of cost reduction, to goals 2 and 3. The goal of this evaluation is to
determine the effectiveness of the program activities and methods applied to achieve
these performance goals.
The REACH IV project broadened the scope of activities that comprise the normal
energy services provided to the low- income community in Maine to include the
installation of a diverse range of technologies that were new to the program, and some
were innovative in their own right. These non-traditional or emerging technologies (some
of which might be considered early adopters – Roger’s classification illustration below).
Solar hot water, wind generators, cold climate heat pumps, and basement hot water heat
pumps were chosen for their potential to deliver cost-effective energy efficiency savings
in Maine’s cold climate. It was strictly required that all equipment installed have the
necessary approvals from UL and that all installers be licensed technicians.
This broadened scope was consistent with REACh, “as a laboratory for identifying better
way to ensure that low income families can afford home heating and cooling.” and in
keeping with its low overhead approach; MaineHousing intentionally used its existing
management and businesses processes to manage the implementation of REACH IV.
Combining new technology and existing management approaches may need to be
reconsidered for future such implementations as this strategy created challenges for the
existing service delivery process.
5
Rogers Classification
Source: “Impact Evaluation Framework for Technology Deployment Programs,” John H. Reed, et al, U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, July 2007.
Rogers, Everett. Diffusion of Innovation: Fifth Edition. New York: New York Free Press,
2003.
Service Delivery Plan

The service delivery plan was designed around a three-tiered project methodology, which
has been an effective approach for other REACh projects in Maine. The methodology
builds on the existing energy service delivery systems now in place where MaineHousing
administers low-income energy programs in collaboration with the community action
agencies that directly provide energy services to low-income clients. The methodology
described in the grant application and planning documents is summarized in the
following three tiers of activities:
Tier 1: Energy Efficiency Education

Energy education will be provided to approximately 200 eligible households that agree to
participate. Energy education will take place in clients’ homes where it can be tailored to
fulfill each household’s individual circumstances.
Tier 2: Household Energy Audits

Comprehensive energy audits will be performed on these units as appropriate at the same
time that energy efficiency education is provided. The results of these audits, along with
consideration of clients’ lifestyles, will be used to determine energy usage reduction
measures for the household. Auditors will also recommend energy conservation activities
for clients to carry out on their own. In addition to the tasks recommended in the existing
audit system (MEAFF and MEADOW), each home will be assessed for the unique
energy use reduction methods specific to this REACH project.
6
Tier 3: Energy Use Reduction Measures (EURM)
Energy use reduction measures will be implemented in homes where the energy audits
and other site specific assessments indicate the measures are likely to meet specific goals.
Such measures will include: compact fluorescent lamps, solar hot water, wind generators,
cold climate heat pumps, and basement hot water heat pumps. The Pan-Tech Air-Fuel
Reformer technology was originally included in the new technology to be tested in
REACh IV, but this decision was reversed based upon research indicating that the Pan-
Tech equipment would not be available for commercial deployment in the required
timeframe.
The following diagram offers a graphic illustration of flow of services to clients in the
REACh IV project.
Energy Education
DOE CFLs and Refrigerator

Energy Audits Replacement
Weatherization Replacement
Cold Climate Hot-Water

Solar Hot Wind Heat Pumps Heat Pump
Water Systems Generators & All Climate
Heat Pumps
Energy education, DOE weatherization services, CFL replacement, refrigerator

replacement, and energy audits are all included in the core of the existing delivery system
for low-income energy programs in Maine. The new technologies (solar hot water, wind
generators, cold climate heat pumps, and basement hot water heat pumps) are potentially
effective emerging technologies that if proven effective can be to be utilized in these
programs. These new and diverse technologies are beyond the scope of MaineHousing’s
current “normal” activities of the existing business process and as such all levels of
management (MaineHousing, CAP agencies and MaineHousing contractors) had very
little experience implementing these new technologies, In addition, the project included
additional complexity involving multifamily and well as single family housing in the
client base making direct comparison very difficult. Should MaineHousing engage with
new technologies in the future, special attention should be paid to the applicability of the
existing business, management and implementation strategies and their applicability to
these new and diverse technologies (at least until on-the-ground experience is in place).
Given all of these other variables, this report emphasizes outcomes evaluation and
focuses primarily on the effectiveness of these new technologies in meeting program
goals.
7
II. Evaluation Methodology
Perhaps the imperative for conducting evaluation is best described by John Kenneth
Galbraith and William Edwards Deming: “Things that are measured tend to improve.”
According to the Energy Efficiency Evaluation Guide 1, which provides protocols to cover
impact, process, and market effect evaluations as wells as codes and standards and
emerging technology program evaluations, and evaluation budgets, there are three
different types of evaluations conducted for energy efficiency programs:
Impact evaluations determine the impacts (e.g., energy and demand savings) and co-
benefits (e.g., avoided emissions, health benefits, job creation, energy security,
transmission/distribution benefits, and water savings) that directly result from a program.
Impact evaluations also support cost-effectiveness analyses aimed at identifying relative
program costs and benefits.
Process evaluations assess program delivery, from design to implementation, in order to

identify bottlenecks, efficiencies, what worked, what did not work, constraints, and
potential improvements. Timeliness in identifying opportunities for improvement is
essential to making corrections along the way.
Market effects evaluations estimate a program’s influence on encouraging future energy

efficiency projects because of changes in the energy marketplace. These evaluations are
primarily, but not exclusively, used for programs with market transformation elements
and objectives.
This report is primarily an outcomes evaluation with a secondary focus on process

evaluation. The important lessons learned regarding the process affecting the outcomes
are included. The market effects evaluation is of secondary importance to this program as
the client energy efficiency services are provided free of charge.
The goal of the outcomes evaluation is to determine whether the Maine REACh IV
project activities made a significant difference to the client population in lowering the
cost of energy in low income homes. Cost effectiveness of each energy efficiency
measure is assessed. The Logic Model provides the framework for the Maine REACh IV
Outcomes Evaluation.
The Logic Model

If you don’t know where you’re going, how are you gonna know when you get there?
–Yogi Berra
This evaluation utilizes the logic model methodology, specifically recommended by OCS
at evaluator conferences. The logic model links outcomes (both short- and long-term)
with program activities/processes. The simple logic model flow diagram below illustrates
how findings are organized as activities, immediate outcomes, intermediate outcomes and
1
Energy Efficiency Evaluation Guide, cal.
8
long-term impacts. The general methodology of the logic model is in the “Logic Model
Development Guide,” published by the Kellogg Foundation.
Activities Immediate Intermediate

Long-Term Impacts
Outcomes Outcomes
We expect to We expect the We expect the services We expect that the
undertake the following number and interventions will households will become
following of services/ lead to the energy more energy self-sufficient
tasks to interventions will savings and a reduced and less reliant on external
accomplish be accomplished cost of living for the support. We expect the
the goals of and delivered to clients. (1-3 years) economic savings to
the project. clients. investments ratios will be
greater than one. (4-8 years)
Appendix I of this report presents the project Evaluation Plan, including the logic model
which specifically identifies the indicators used to verify that the outcomes achieved the
purposes and goals stated in Section 2607B of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program. This Evaluation Plan was devised at the outset of the project and is illustrated
below as a graphic illustration of the program logic as the resources and activities flow
into outcomes.
9
Maine Reach Project
Logic Model Graphic
Resources Actviites Outputs Outcomes Impact on National

Performance
Goals
Assumptions Cold Climate

Identify Clients Heat Pumps
CAP Staff Installed
Change in Client Reduced
Behavior/Actions energy cost for
Increased Client participating
Knowledge
The annual cost of domestic MaineHousing Provide Energy households
energy for electric and oil for Staff Education
low income families can be
reduced between 10% to 50%
through the following program Hot Water Heat
activities: Pumps Installed
Energy Savings Increased
$1.1 M budget
Conduct Energy contributions
1. Energy Education &self help Audits from energy
2. Energy Audits suppliers to
3. Small wind systems Hot Water Cold reduce energy
4. Solar hot water Climate Heat burdens
5. Cold climate heat pumps Contractors Pumps Installed
6. Full CFL replacements
Economic Return
Plan
on Investment
ERUM
Installation Wind Turbines Improved
Installed energy bill
payment
Clients
Solar Hot Water

Install ERUMs
Installed
CFL’s Installed
10
The Logic Model Summary Table lists the project assumptions and program activities
and provides a quantification of the expected outcomes intended to meet the project
goals. The summary table was developed during the project planning phase. This logic
model serves as the framework for outcomes evaluation.
.
Logic Model Summary Table
Assumptions Program Activities Outcomes
Tier 1 Immediate Outcomes
In Maine, LIHEAP 1. Delivery of on-site The project will provide 200 household clients with
eligible households spend, education around low- energy education and intake, onsite in client homes.
on average, a cost energy conservation
disproportionate amount and education materials All 200 households will receive electric outlet
of their annual household with a focus on self-help gaskets, storm window kits, full replacement with
incomes on energy needs energy reduction CFLs, and caulking of windows and doors frames as
(20%) in comparison to measures. needed.
median income
households which, on Tier 2 Energy audits will be conducted for up to 200 targeted
average, spend less than 2. Provision of households.
5% of annual income on household energy audits
energy needs. to result in specific The EURMs will include:
conservation measures 2 residential locations will receive wind turbine
The annual cost of and/or referrals to other installations.
domestic energy for programs such as 10 solar hot-water heaters
electric and oil for low Weatherization. 60 basement hot-water heat pumps were installed.
income families can be 10-15 cold climate heat pumps for space heating will
reduced between 10% to Tier 3 be installed
50% through the 3. Provision of Energy
following program Usage Reduction Intermediate Outcomes
activities: Measures (EURMs). Client households will demonstrate improved
The number and knowledge around self-help energy conservation
Energy Education, selection of specific measures and will report implementation of three or
including self help EURMs will be more measures.
energy audits, determined by the An overall reduction of from 10% to 50% in the
small wind systems, energy audit. EURMs annual costs for energy in participating households.
solar hot water, will include small wind
cold climate heat pumps, system, solar hot water Final Program Goals
full CFL replacements (for large families with 1. Decreased negative impacts on low-income
children), cold climate families from rate increases
heat pumps, and full 2. Cost effectiveness of all measures should result in
CFL replacements SIRs greater than 1.
3. To increase the ability of low-income LIHEAP
households to meet their energy consumption cost
obligations.
4. To move clients toward energy self-sufficiency by
reducing their energy cost burden.
11
III. Immediate Outcomes & Process Evaluation
The immediate outcomes are measured by the number of Energy Use Reduction
Measures (EURMs) delivered to LIHEAP clients via the REACh IV project.
EURM Services Number of EURMs Provided

KVCAP WHCA MH Total
Direct
Refrigerator Replacement 20 15 2 37
Solar Hot Water 10 10
Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps 33 25 58
Cold Climate Heat Pumps 8 7 15
All Climate Heat Pump 2 2
Single Family Wind Generator 2 2
Multi Family Elderly Wind Generator 1 1
CFL Replacements Only 8 3 1 12
Totals 71 50 13 134
This table illustrates the very broad range of the eight EURMs that were implemented
through this project. Other than the Refrigerator Replacement program and Compact
Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) Replacement program, the other six EURMs can all be
characterized as newly emerging technologies. This immediate outcomes evaluation
focuses on the six emerging technologies and addresses the quantity and quality of these
outcomes.
Since REACh was intended as a laboratory for innovative approaches, this project
provided a good opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of new technologies designed
to reduce energy use in the low-income sector. However, the level of knowledge and
organizational challenges required to implement such a broad range of new technologies
is formidable. The strategy of keeping overhead low by using existing staff and processes
at all levels combined with the complexity of these six technologies proved ineffective.
With the lack of expertise at the CAA level, MH took over many of the functions. At the
same time, MH had only limited experience in the implementation of these technologies
and attempted to implement those technologies with their existing management
processes.
As the project proceeded, the challenges of implementing multiple new technologies

became evident and the project was modified to focus specifically on delivering the
EURMs. The initial plan to combine energy audits with all EURMs was limited to an
assessment to identify the appropriate homes in which to install the equipment, and any
energy education that was provided focused on the new technology. Implementation team
resources were absorbed with the challenge of the new technologies and focused all
resources on Tier 3 activities.
The implementation process was further complicated by the very wide geographic
distribution of the installations throughout Kennebec, Washington, and Hancock
12
counties. Field-testing a wide array of new technologies deployed across a large
geographic area became the most challenging task for both the implementation team and
the evaluation team. The limited staff knowledge, lack of established business processes
for these technologies, and lack of established contractor networks for implementation
further added to the challenges for the implementation team.
In spite of these challenges, 135 EURMs were installed for eight different technologies
across Central and Eastern Maine resulting is important findings.
Average Direct Cost of REACh IV EURMs

All of the REACh EURMs were installed by independent contractors. The average direct
cost includes materials and labor to install the equipment in the client homes. It does not
include any MaineHousing or CAA staff time in identifying clients and managing the
project. For the solar hot water and the basement hot water heat pumps, the costs are at
least 25% less that the current pricing for these technologies. The other four EURMs
were purchased at market prices. The agency negotiated quantity discounts from the
Solar Hot Water and Basement Heat Pump vendors.
REACh IV Technologies Per Unit Direct Cost

EURMs KVCAP WHCA MH
Direct
Solar Hot Water $7,500
Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps $750 $750
Cold Climate Heat Pumps $8,091 $11,097
Single Family Wind $12,500
Multi Family Wind $65,000
Implementation of EURMs
As discussed above, since the CAAs have limited experience in these technologies and,
the implementation process was new, including site assessment, installation contractor
relationships, and knowledge of the products, MaineHousing deployed its own staff in
place of the CAA staff for many site assessments. For many of the installations MH staff
took on the total project responsibilities and arranged for and paid installation contractors
directly (for example, Solar Hot Water EURM).
The eligible households receiving solar domestic hot-water services were initially
screened through the LIHEAP database of owner occupied single-family units. While the
MH staff was responsible for identifying solar clients, the CAAs assisted with
information and recommendations. MH staff visited each prospective client to evaluate
the solar orientation and the structural characteristics of the buildings. After identifying
that those dwellings satisfied the solar-project technical criteria (as well as the household
characteristics), MSHA staff met with each prospective client to explain the program,
determine client interest in the project, and make a final determination.
A description of each EURM and a review of the implementation processes follow:
13
Solar Hot Water
The heating of hot water is often the single most significant residential energy demand
factor after space heating. According to the US DOE, water heating can account for 14%-
25% of home energy consumption. Solar hot water technology is proven through
experience and testing to be an effective and reliable technology. According to the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at the US Department of Energy,
solar hot water systems will have an estimated savings rate of 50%-80% on the use of
energy for hot water:
The Economics of a Solar Water Heater

The paragraph below is quoted from web site below:
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopi
c=12860
Solar water heating systems usually cost more to purchase and install
than conventional water heating systems. However, a solar water
heater can usually save you money in the long run. How much money
you save depends on the following:
x The amount of hot water you use
x Your system's performance
x Your geographic location and solar resource
x Available financing and incentives
x The cost of conventional fuels (natural gas, oil, and electricity)
x The cost of the fuel you use for your backup water heating
system, if you have one.
On average, if you install a solar water heater, your water heating
bills should drop 50%–80%. Also, because the sun is free, you're
protected from future fuel shortages and price hikes.
Since the savings rate is highly dependent on “your system’s performance,” critical
factors include system design, the quality of the installation, and the level of subsequent
maintenance. The importance of these factors was validated through the implementation
of this project.
System Design & Installation

The specific solar technology was chosen through discussions with the chosen solar
vendor, Ascendant Energy, LLC, a Maine-based solar system designer and installer. Each
installation included one or more flat plate panels that collect the solar energy in the form
of a heated fluid, which runs through the collector. The heated fluid is then pumped to a
heat exchanger, which transfers the heat to a hot water storage tank where the pre-heated
hot water is stored. This storage tank is equipped with a heating coil for backup, or there
is a second tank to provide the backup heat source. This system is designed to operate in
all seasons regardless of temperature.
The solar system preheats the hot water, which is then supplemented by another source of
energy to insure adequate hot water to meet the needs, regardless of weather. If the solar
heated hot water is not adequate to meet the hot water demand because of the weather or
14
other factors, the backup heat source (in most installations, electricity) is activated,
bringing the water up to the desired temperature. In essence, the solar system reduces
electrical demand but does not entirely eliminate it as the electricity acts as a booster in
the event of inadequate solar energy. There were some installations that used fossil fuels
as the hot water backup.
The evaluation team visited all solar sites and noted significant variations in the
installation configurations as well the quality of the installations. A summary of these
visits is presented here and a more detailed report on each site is presented in Appendix I:
Solar Hot Water Site Review.
Backup Configurations
There were three different configurations used to provide backup energy at the 10 solar
hot water sites. The variation in performance among the systems could be influenced by
the design of these different configurations. The difference between the systems relates to
the way the solar pre-heated hot water is brought up to domestic hot water temperature,
set at 120 degrees at all sites. The process of bringing the water up to 120 degrees in
referred to a backup in the diagrams below. In Configuration 1, the backup is performed
in the 80 gallon storage tank using electricity. In Configuration 2, the backup is
performed in a 40 gallon tank using electricity. In Configuration 3, the backup is
performed with an oil fired boiler mate.
80 gal. SHW
Storage Tank Domestic
Solar Heat Hot
Electric Water
Panel Exchanger
Back-‐up Hot System
Water Tank
Configuration 1
Configuration 2
40 Gal
Domestic
80 gal. Electric
Solar Heat Hot
SHW Back-‐up
Panel Exchanger Water
Storage Water
System
Tank
15
Configuration 3
Domes
80 gal. Boiler Mate
Solar Heat tic Hot
SHW Oil Fired
Storage Back-‐up
System
Site Visits
The household sizes for the solar installations range from four to six members per
household. The number of collectors ranges from one to three, and the tank sizes range
from 60 to 80 gallons. Each system is designed to accommodate the specific household
size. The system designs were also constrained by the space available in the home for the
storage tank. Each installation included a new hot-water storage tank. Of the ten installed
systems, seven used electric backup and three used oil backup. The following table
summarizes the configurations found at the 10 sites.
Solar Hot Water Site Visits

Installation Profiles
Town Config. Post Pre Number of Size of Household
Backup Energy Collectors Storage Size
Energy Source Tank
Rockland 1 Electric Electric 2 80 4
Benton 3 Oil Oil 2 80 5
Belgrade 1 Electric Electric 2 80 6
Randolph 2 Electric Electric 2 80 4
Franklin 1 Oil Electric 2 80 5
Clinton 2 Electric Electric 2 80 5
S. Gardiner 1 Electric Electric 2 80 4
Union 1 Oil Electric 2 120 5
Warren 1 Electric Electric 2 80 4
Warren 1 Electric Electric 2 80 5
The quality of installation in terms of craftsmanship of the solar thermal hot water
systems is critical to performance and maintainability. Unobstructed access to sunlight is
the most critical factor; the panels need to be in full sun for optimal performance. The
orientation of the panel relative to the location of the sun is also a determining factor
affecting performance. Because of the tilt of the earth, the optimal orientation depends on
the geographic location of the system. The following table provides guidance from DOE
for an optimal tilt for a flat panel installation in Portland, Maine, set at the latitude of
43.65°N. An optimal orientation is 180° or solar south. Many installers in Maine will
orient the panels for maximum solar exposure during the winter, which would be 65ͼ tilt
and 200ͼ orientation. This also helps shed snow buildup.
16
17
The Panel Orientation and Tilt table presents data from site visits and reveals a wide
discrepancy in the orientation and tilt of the installations. This variation in orientation and
tilt, particularly the Union unit installed with a tilt of 90°, has a significant influence on
the outcomes of each installation. The Field Notes column in this table also lists factors
influencing the performance of the systems. 2 Of particular importance is the Warren
installation, which is shaded, eliminating solar access during the very important summer
months. Appendix A of this report goes into more and illustrates why many homeowners
complained about lack of service for their systems. It was reported to the evaluation team
that the vendor did not respond to complaints.
Panel Orientation and Tilt

Town Panel Panel Workmanship Field Notes
Orientation Tilt (1-10) ranking
Rockland 210ͼ 35ͼ 8
Benton 180ͼ 33ͼ 5 Panels installed upside

down but corrected.
Belgrade 110ͼ 22ͼ 2 Out of spec orientation, one
panel is sliding off roof
Randolph 180ͼ 14ͼ 5 Interior damage to house
Out of Spec orientation
Franklin 110ͼ 33ͼ 5 Out of spec orientation.
Replaced Boiler Mate with
electric unit
Clinton 165ͼ 45ͼ 5 Interior damage to house
S. Gardiner 201ͼ 14ͼ 6 Replaced new 40 gal
electric with 80 gal unit
Union 220ͼ 90ͼ 2 Out of spec orientation.
Removed efficient Boiler
mate and replaced with very
large electric backup tank
Warren 150ͼ 23ͼ 5 Trees shadowing house
Warren 180ͼ 45ͼ 10 Best install and acceptable
results
Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps

The basement hot water heat pump technology was developed as a commercial product in
the state of Maine; the successful commercialization of this product provides the potential
for job creation in the design, manufacturing, and installation of the equipment. The
basement hot water heat pump (BHWHP) is designed to reduce the amount of energy
used to heat domestic hot water. It is similar to thermal solar hot water as it preheats hot
water, which is stored in a tank having another source of backup energy to boost the
2
Detail regarding the solar installations is found in Appendix I: Solar Hot Water Site Visit Review. The
evaluation team visited each solar site.
18
water to the required temperature. The technology can be used with gas, oil, propane or
solar hot water systems; however, the most cost-effective application of the technology is
expected to be as a replacement for or an add-on to conventional electric hot water tanks.
A heat pump is device that moves heat from one location (the “source”) to another
location (the “sink” or “heat sink”) using mechanical energy; it is essentially a
compressor, similar to a refrigerator, which removes heat from inside of the refrigerator
into the room. Common examples of heat pumps are refrigerators, freezers, air
conditioners, and reversible-cycle heat pumps for providing thermal comfort.
The Nyle Corporation from Brewer, Maine introduced the BHWHP to MaineHousing. At
the time (2005) this technology had been commercialized by Nyle, but was not widely
deployed, and was little understood by the general public. The REACh project was an
opportunity to evaluate an emerging promising technology.
Since that time the technology has become more mainstream, with General Electric now
manufacturing and offering a new electric hot water tank, the GeoSpring™ Hybrid Water
Heater, with a heat pump as an integral component.
According to the General Electric Website

(http://www.geappliances.com/products/water/water_heaters.htm#reasons):
“The new GeoSpring™ hybrid water heater with heat pump technology can save you
approximately $320 per year in energy costs*. It is designed to provide hot water needed
for showers, dishes and laundry, while using up to 62% less energy than conventional
water heaters!”
This equipment has important spillover impacts that are very important for developing a
protocol for installation of this equipment:
Dehumidification Benefit: As a compressor, the BHWHP reduces the humidity of the

air from which it is extracting heat. This can be a very significant benefit if installed in a
basement with excess moisture, especially during certain seasons of the year. This non-
energy benefit can contribute to the important health and safety attributes of the home in
cases where mold and dampness are corrected. While recognizing this as a benefit, it is
beyond the scope of this report to quantify these dehumidification benefits. We
recommend that this be addressed in any installation protocols that might be considered.
19
Cooling Effect: Since the BHWHP is extracting heat from the ambient air around it, it is
essentially performing a cooling function. This brings up the question of the net energy
impact of the system. While it is beyond the scope of this report to address the net energy
impact, this should be a very important consideration in choosing a specific place in the
home to install the device. Based on one specific site visit, we discovered that a BHWHP
installed in the living space of an electrical heated home resulted in increased electric
usage. This is another important item to consider in an installation protocol.
System Design & Installation

During 2006 and 2007, 58 BHWHPs were installed Maine State Housing through the
Community Action Programs in Kennebec County (KVCAP) and Hancock County
(Hancock County Community Action Program). All BHWHPs in this project were
installed as add-ons to conventional electric hot water tanks. The BHWHP preheats the
water in the tank using heat pump technology.
The BHWHP removes heat from basement air to the heat sink or i.e., the hot water tank.
While the heat pump technology uses electricity just as the electric hot water tank uses
electricity to generate heat, the BHWHP is designed to use 50% less electrical energy to
heat the same amount of hot water as the conventional hot water heater based upon
electrical resistance to generate hot water. This gain in efficiency conventional energy
use (1)/new device usage (.5) is referred to a coefficient of performance (COP), or 2 in
this example, and should result in a reduction of hot water heating costs by ½, for a
deemed savings rate of 50%. Deemed savings rate is an energy efficiency evaluation term
which refers to the saving rate claimed by the equipment supplier.
Site Visits
Most of the units were installed by Nyle Corporation, but in some cases Nyle chose to
subcontract the installation to a local plumber. Random site inspections of four sites
revealed one standard installation configuration.
20
Some clients were not amenable to a site visit for various reasons:
x Could not be bothered

x Work or other schedule conflicts with the evaluator’s schedule
x Home is no longer owned or occupied by the original client
As a group, the BHWHP installations were well designed and well implemented with
some exceptions. There were very few differences in the installations’ design and
deployment. The following list summarizes the relevant findings. 3
x In all the sites, the units had been placed in damp basements that needed
dehumidifying.
x Three of the sites used the existing electric hot water heater, but in one home, the
hot water heater had been replaced by a new unit.
x The BHWHP exhausted directly into the unheated basement space.
x With one exception to the above, the vent had been ducted into the basement level
and the exhaust temperature was 48 degrees. Because the basement was part of
the living space, the BHWHP cooled the house. The client would raise the
thermostat to compensate.
x Two of the installations were very professionally installed by Nyle Corporation
but two more, also installed by Nyle Corporation, were sloppy in appearance.
x One unit had a minor leak; the client tried to contact KVCAP but received no
assistance.
One of the households visited experienced a 5% increase in its electric bill. Through
conversation and a later visit to this home, the site evaluators could not identify any non-
BHWHP factors that could explain the increased bill, suggesting that the increase in
electrical costs were likely related to installation of BHWHP.
This split level home experienced a significant cooling as a result of the BHWHP
installation. The site visit uncovered that the BHWHP was installed in the living space,
reducing ambient temperatures in the living space. The evaluators determined that the
temperature of the air blowing from the BHWHP exhaust was measured at 48 degrees.
As a result of this cold air blowing into the living space, the householder had increased
the temperature of her electric heat, and, of course, her usage, to compensate for this cold
draft. She also reported that she used the BHWHP as an air conditioner in the summer.
This finding indicates the need for an installation protocol illustrating the conditions
under which the equipment will perform to expectations.
Cold Climate Heat Pumps

The Cold Climate Heat Pump (CCHP) was developed by a Brewer, Maine company and
has been tested and used in the Southern states for heating and cooling of single-family
homes. Presently there are two companies in Maine producing cold climate heat pumps:
Nyltherm, Inc. and Hallowell, Inc.
3
More detail regarding the BHWHP is found in Appendix I: Basement Hot Water Heat Pump Site Review.
The evaluation team visited each solar site.
21
Cold Climate Heat Pumps
Company Number
Installed
Nyltherm, Inc. 15
Hallowell, Inc. 2
Totals 17
System Design and Installation

The conventional heat pump has been used for heating and cooling in Southern states for
many years. However, the conventional heat pump is rarely installed in the northern
climates because the efficiencies, measured by the COP, are known to drop dramatically
when the outdoor temperature falls below 30 degrees Fahrenheit. The Cold Climate Heat
Pump technology is designed to maintain high efficiencies even at very low temperatures.
The manufacturer’s literature indicates that the CCHP is the first heat pump that
maintains high efficiency down to zero degrees Fahrenheit and below, and can reduce
heating cost by 40%. In warmer months the CCHP can reduce cooling costs by 25%.
The units were installed as a redundant system to the existing heating system in each
residence to insure the safety of clients in the event of a CCHP system malfunction. The
CCHP technology is still in a beta form. While it is UL approved, it has not yet been
market tested on a wide scale.
Site Visits
Site visits by the evaluation team found four of the CCHPs installed at the Winter Harbor
Complex were not used by the clients. These were shut off and the clients reverted to
electric resistance heat. Two reasons were given by the clients:
x Too noisy (installed under the bedroom windows in each apartment)

x Does not save on costs of heating
Multiple attempts were made to improve sound and some improvement was made. Many
attempts were also made to address the problem of costs, including a more effective de-
icing system. However, the client’s perception is that the unit does not save on cost as
compared to electric resistance heat.
Small Wind Turbines

Two different small wind configurations were implemented in this REACh project:
x One 10kw generator was installed at a multifamily elderly housing complex

x Two 1.9 KW residential systems installed at single family home
22
10 KW System
The choice of this site was influenced by the attached US DOE Renewable Energy
Laboratory wind power graphic, indicating that the coastal zone of the State provides a
good-to-outstanding-rated wind resource at 50 meters. The generator was connected to
the common space separate meter at the Mill Stream Elderly4 housing complex and a net
metering arrangement was established with Bangor Hydroelectric Company. The
common space meter included the laundry with electric hot water and drying. Analysis of
the potential electric generation from the 10KW generator indicated that the expected
generation would not exceed the known electrical load on the common space meter, so
that net metering would capture all the savings for the housing complex. This allowed for
a pass through of the saving to the housing complex, providing them the ability to lower
rental rates through net metering.
WinterHarborTurbine.
4
Click to observe the Bergey 10 KW wind turbine in motion at Winter Harbor: wmv
23
System Design
Based on this preliminary wind resource data, a 10kw wind turbine from the Bergey
Corporation was specified for the project. The Turbine Performance Model provided by
Bergey was used to specify turbine size. It was installed at 100 feet elevation. The DOE
data served as the basis for estimating output.
WindCad Turbine Performance Model

BWC EXCEL-S, Grid - Intertie 2004, Version 3 Blades
Prepared For: Customer
10 kW
Site Location: Customer Site
Data Source: Wind Map
Date: 7/7/2010
Inputs: Results:
Ave. Wind (m/s) = 5.52 Hub Average Wind Speed (m/s) = 5.52
Weibull K = 1.8 Air Density Factor = -3%
Site Altitude (m) = 356 Average Output Power (kW) = 1.69
Wind Shear Exp. = 0.180 Daily Energy Output (kWh) = 40.7
Anem. Height (m) = 30 Annual Energy Output (kWh) = 14,838
Tower Height (m) = 30 Monthly Energy Output = 1,236
Turbulence Factor = 15.0% Percent Operating Time = 70.0%
Weibull Performance Calculations

Wind Speed Bin (m/s) Power (kW) Wind Probability (f) Net kW @ V Weibull Calculations:
1 0.00 6.49% 0.000 Wind speed probability is calculated as a
Weibull curve defined by the average wind
2 0.00 10.30% 0.000 speed and a shape factor, K. To facilitate
3 0.10 12.38% 0.012 piece-wise integration, the wind speed
4 0.35 12.98% 0.045 range is broken down into "bins" of 1 m/s in
5 0.77 12.39% 0.096 width (Column 1). For each wind speed bin,
instantaneous wind turbine power (W,
6 1.32 11.02% 0.145
Column 2)) is multiplied by the Weibull wind
7 2.06 9.22% 0.190 speed probability (f, Column 3). This cross
8 2.96 7.32% 0.217 product (Net W, Column 4) is the
9 3.99 5.54% 0.221 contribution to average turbine power output
10 5.06 4.00% 0.203 contributed by wind speeds in that bin. The
sum of these contributions is the average
11 6.29 2.78% 0.175
power output of the turbine on a continuous,
12 7.65 1.85% 0.142 24 hour, basis.
13 8.96 1.19% 0.106 Best results are achieved using annual or
14 8.88 0.73% 0.065 monthly average wind speeds. Use of daily
15 8.55 0.44% 0.037 or hourly average speeds is not
recommended.
16 8.22 0.25% 0.021
17 7.85 0.14% 0.011
18 7.52 0.08% 0.006
19 7.15 0.04% 0.003
20 6.82 0.02% 0.001
2004, BWC Totals: 99.16% 1.694
24
Site Visits
Mill Stream Apartments, Winter Harbor, ME
The installation is very well executed. As noted in the Intermediate Outcomes section of
this report, the energy generation was less than expected. This experience validates the
emerging knowledge base for large and small wind installations: wind generation is very
site specific; the micro-climate can have a very large influence on outcomes.
Regarding operations, the turbine is designed to turn away from the wind and shut down
during strong gusts. This is a safety measure. However, this caused a loss of potential
production because it required a manual reset and the site is not serviced by on-site
maintenance. At times it was over two weeks before the maintenance service arrived to
check on the equipment. This problem is particularly troublesome because the shut-down
often takes place during period of stronger winds and higher production potential.
The installer for the system, John Rush of Evolo Energy Systems, told the evaluator that
Bergey has since upgraded the inverter for their newer systems so that the inverter is no
longer affected by high gusts. He also stated that the amount of power actually
transmitted to Bangor Hydro over the past three years has been small (18470 KW),
indicating that the unit has been offline a great deal of the time.
SkyStream
Both SkyStream units were installed by All Seasons Home Improvement in Augusta,
Maine. All Seasons is the Maine distributor for SkyStream home wind generator.
Meredith Grieg was the manager of the project. These units were among the first that
SkyStream and All Seasons offered. In both cases, the windmills were rated at 1.9 KW.
At one of the locations, a basement hot water heat pump was installed in conjunction with
25
the SkyStream wind turbine. Both systems were installed as grid-connected small power
producers and transmitted directly into the grid through the client’s electric meter,
intended to benefit from new metering.
The SkyStream was designed for homes and small businesses. It was the first compact,
user-friendly, all-inclusive wind generator (with controls and inverter built in) designed
to provide quiet, clean electricity in very low winds. It operates at a low RPM; the
promotional material states that, “SkyStream is as quiet as the trees blowing in the wind.”
Site Visits
At both locations, the units were located where their performance was limited by
inconsistent winds and disturbance by nearby terrain, buildings or trees. In one location
the SkyStream is located in a low, bowl-like area. A tower twice as high would be
required to place the turbine in clear laminar flow at both locations. Site selection proved
to be a major issue for a number of reasons compounded by the tower height limitation of
33 feet offered by SkyStream.
An additional issue caused considerable problems at the Cornville installation, where the
quality of the wiring and the use of a subpanel created issues that were not easily found
and rectified. This inadequate wire gauge resulted in increased resistance and led to line
losses and electrical service issues. This was also the case at the Norridgewock
installation.
The client complained about numerous electrical problems to All Seasons, who were
diligent in their follow-up. It was also found that SkyStream does not recommend
connection to grid via a subpanel. These issues could be attributed to a lack of experience
on part both KVCAP and the dealer. The lack of a networked computer at the sites and
limited vendor monitoring and visits to these rural locations compounded the problems.
IV. Intermediate Outcomes

Intermediate outcomes are defined as the measurable reduction in energy usage resulting
from the installation specific energy use reduction measure (EURM). REACh IV
identified the reduction of electrical energy consumption as the primary savings
objective.. Electricity is the most costly heating energy source on a BTU basis, and
therefore is considered to be fertile ground for achieving cost-effective reductions in
energy burdens through efficiency improvements. When assessing the outcomes of hot
water EURMs, only residences that used electricity for hot water heating before and after
the installation were included in the analysis. When assessing the outcomes of heating
EURMs, only residences that used electricity as the primary heating source before and
after installation of the EURM, were included in the analysis. This methodology of
selecting only residences using electricity before and after the ERUM;s were installed
allowed the evaluation of energy savings outcomes using evaluating electrical billing
analysis.
26
Measurement and Verification (M&V) Methodology
The M&V methodology is at the core of intermediate outcomes evaluation as applied to
estimating energy savings in the individual client residences. This evaluation considered
three alternative methodologies: deemed savings analysis, energy billing analysis, and
onsite metering.
Deemed Savings Analysis
A common, and easily applied, M&V methodology used in energy savings evaluations is
to rely on deemed savings to quantify impacts of energy efficiency measures. Deemed
savings are rates of saving applied to energy efficiency measure, a priori, based on prior
studies and applied to the evaluation at hand. Deemed savings are used to stipulate
savings values for measures with well-known and independently documented savings
values. Examples are energy-efficient appliances such as washing machines, computer
equipment and refrigerators, and lighting retrofit to projects with well-understood
operating hours. The deemed savings are generally provided by the equipment suppliers
based on independent testing. For deemed savings to be a reliable methodology, it is
necessary that the measure be installed under the same conditions under which the testing
was done. In essence, using deemed savings does not provide an evaluation of the
installation methods, and assumes they are accomplished according to standards.
In the case of the measures implemented in the REACh IV project, the technology was
not well-known and well-understood, and the conditions in which it was installed did not
necessarily mirror the testing conditions. Since the measures installed in REACh IV are
new technologies to the program, the performance under program conditions is not well
understood, and the installation process is not well tested in the field by the implementing
agency, the deemed saving approach is not an acceptable M&V methodology for our
purposes. Evaluation Plan rejected the deemed savings approach as an appropriate
methodology and used a combination of energy billing analysis and onsite metering.
Energy Billing Analysis

The analysis of billing data is the most common methodology for evaluating the impact
of energy measures and programs where deemed savings rates are not appropriate. The
advantage of the billing analysis is that the data is available, and is considered to be
highly precise, as it is continuously metered at the residence. The goal of the billing data
analysis is to evaluate the performance of the various REACh EURMs in saving KWH
and dollars in client homes. Statistically significant summary statistics provide a useful
prediction of savings for future EURM installations. For most energy savings evaluations
based on energy billing data, the objective is a sample that will provide results with a
90% confidence, plus or minus 10% precision. 5
The drawback of the billing data analysis is that it measures total electrical usage in the
home, rather than the usage specifically associated with the energy use reduction
measure. It is most useful in assessing the overall impact on the home but not the impact
5
Page D-4, Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide, A RESOURCE OF THE
NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY, NOVEMBER 2007, this publication was
used to guide the methodology in this impact analysis.
27
of a specific EURM. However, the billing analysis, applying adjustments to capture other
known load changes, can help validate the deemed savings. The billing data analysis is
most useful in situations where the EURM is designed to reduce the energy use for a
major component of home energy such as heating and hot water. Only EURMs targeting
home heating and hot water are subject to the billing analysis in this report. This
evaluation applied energy billing analysis to all clients and also followed up with onsite
metering on a limited basis.
Energy billing analysis begins with a direct documentation of energy savings by

comparing energy use before and after implementation of an energy use reduction
measure. Thus, the following equation applies for energy savings:
Energy savings = (baseline energy use) – (reporting period energy use) 6
There are technical limitations presented by this methodology, depending on the

evaluation objectives. The metered billing data measures total usage in the home for all
connected loads and will work well when the evaluation objective is to estimate overall
savings at the dwelling. However, if the objective is to isolate the energy savings of one
particular measure such as the BHWHP, the utility bill methodology loses some precision
since it is measuring total home electrical usage and not specifically the energy usage to
generate domestic hot water. With data from the LIHEAP database, we have taken steps
to determine whether any changes other than the EURM took place in the home that are
expected to affect energy usages such as family size, new electrical appliances, and
installation quality. Supplemental information was collected from suppliers/installers,
client phone surveys, and client site visits. Statistical and regression analysis of KWHs,
usage billing data, and a series of other factors affecting usage, was conducted to test
what non-EURM factors might have affected changes in electrical usage.
Data Loggers and Onsite Monitoring

Early in the project it was determined that some method of logging performance directly
at the EURMs other than analyzing electrical utility billing data would be beneficial. As
discussed earlier, electrical billing usage data is a very powerful methodology but also
has limitations, for example, it cannot account for changes in the household such as a
new baby, children becoming teenagers, new or additional appliances, a home business,
or anything else that might increase or decrease consumption.
Data loggers are expensive and require peripheral sensors such as thermal sensors or flow
meters. However, they are able precisely to determine such things as BTUs produced,
KWHs needed to operate the EURM, real time performance and status of the system, etc.
Appendix IV includes schematics identifying the monitoring data points needed to
determine the energy saved of generated from the installed EURM. The evaluation team
developed these schematics and had them reviewed Efficiency Maine staff.
Ideally, data loggers transmit data directly over the Internet to a central location where
the data can be collected and analyzed. The alternative to transmitting gathered data over
the Internet would be the use of Secure Data (SD) memory cards. While technically
6
Page 4-1, ibid
28
perhaps more reliable than the Internet, this option does require that someone periodically
remove the card, retrieve the information, and re-install the card. This method was used
in some locations when the Internet was not available or too costly.
Data loggers are relatively new devices specific to the alternative energy market. A new
startup Maine-based company called Brand Electronics had a promising data logger that
was also cost-effective. The decision was made to purchase their loggers. That proved to
be a problematic decision for the following reasons:
x Brand Electronics shut down its Maine operation when, for financial reasons, its
owner had to take a full time position in the Midwest. He moved the fledgling
company to Michigan.
x Each logger was essentially handmade, with no manufacturing processes or
controls. As a result, we experienced numerous failures that required constant
attention.
x Many times we thought data was being captured when, in fact, the logger was off
line or malfunctioning. As a result we only received a fraction of the data that we
wanted.
x Some clients did not have Internet access or could not afford it, so although we
might have an ideal location from a EURM standpoint, it required an SD card.
x The data sent over the Internet for the solar sites had to go to the Brand
Electronics website, where they would download it and send it to us. This system
was not timely or reliable.
While the Brand loggers were relatively inexpensive up front, the extra effort required to
maintain them proved to be costly and frustrating for the team. Brand Electronics has also
lost interest and is difficult to reach when help is needed. We were able to accomplish
some analysis of the wind energy site at Winter Harbor with the data loggers, but have
not captured useful data from the solar sites.
We recommend continuing with the data logger at the best solar sites by converting to
loggers that transmit collected data via Internet to SD card sites. We will then not have to
rely on the Brand Electronics website for the data.
Based on client interviews, we found that having some type of real time feedback about
the performance of the EURM is important to the clients and would provide an incentive
to modify energy use in the home. Most did not get that feedback. In the case of the solar
hot water sites that used Enerworks collectors and controllers, the systems did come with
a wireless data monitor for the homeowner to keep in the home. In theory, these data
monitors could provide a wealth of information, but Ascendant Energy, the solar hot
water supplier and installer, did not program them or leave them with the homeowners.
Those devices do not have a data logging capability, but they do provide immediate
feedback on the performance of the system.
Data Preparation and Sample Size

The two major utilities involved in the REACh project were Bangor Hydroelectric and
Central Maine Power Company. Each of these companies provided a file of monthly
electric billing data for the clients in the REACh project sample. We were unable to
receive usable data from Madison Electric or Eastern Maine Cooperative, which are
29
small utilities lacking the resources to provide with the requisite historical data. Only
those clients who received specific EURMs were included, covering solar hot water,
basement hot water heat pumps, cold climate and all climate heat pumps, and wind
generators were included in the sample. Only clients who did not have electric heat were
included. The electric heat load comprises such a large component of the electric bill that
variation in weather and other factors affecting heating requirements, would dominate the
billing data and mask any impact of the specific EURM on the overall monthly electric
bill.
The initial sample size for each EURM includes all clients having an individual
residential electric service account who received one or more of the REACh EURMs.
EURM Sample Size

Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps 57
Solar Hot Water 10
Cold Climate Heat Pumps 14
All Climate Heat Pump 2
Single Family Wind Generator 1
Single Family Wind w/BHWHP 1
Total Sample Size 85
Monthly electrical billing KWH data was provided for 74 of these clients. The initial
analysis of this billing data reported a very wide range of outcomes, as measured as
change in electrical usage reported in the monthly meter readings before and after the
installation of the EURMs. The median change in usage (pre and post) was a reduction of
485 KWH/yr with a standard deviation of 292 KWH/yr. The very high standard deviation
is clearly reflected in the highest reported reduction of 17,307 KWH per year and the
lowest reported increase in billed KWH of 8,807 KWH. This wide range of results
reduces the statistical significance of any statistics used to summarize the findings such
and averages and medians. Regression analysis was applied to the data and site visits
were conducted to help determine the variation in outcomes that can be explained by
some factor other than the installation of the EURM. In an attempt to provide more
statistically significant results, data processing steps were taken to reduce the standard
deviation in the data and provide more useful results.
30
The data was pruned in a second stage of analysis to identify and explain variations,
extreme outliers, and inadequate numbers of energy usage observations. Sample
observations were deleted from the energy savings analysis database in cases where any
of the following conditions are met:
x Less than 12 months of pre-EURM installation monthly usage data

x Less than 12 months of post-EURM installation monthly usage data
x Known issues with poor quality installation from site visits
x The equipment was taken out of service
x Combination of more than one type of EURM
x Extreme outliers
EURM Analysis Original Pruned

Sample Sample
Size Size
Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps 38 57 19
Solar Hot Water 7 10 3
Cold Climate Heat Pumps 3 14 11
All Climate Heat Pump 1 2 1
Single Family Wind Generator 1 1 0
Single Family Wind w/BHWHP 1 1 0
Total Sample Size 51 85 35
The electrical billing data analysis suggests that the basement hot water heat pump
(BHWHP) is the most cost effective EURM subject to evaluation in this REACh project.
The Energy Savings Analysis based on billing data for the BHWHP installations reflects
a wide range of outcomes illustrated in the minimum and maximum annual usage data
with KWH savings ranging from high of 10452 KWH/yr to a low of negative 3883
KWH/yr. This variation in range, while less that the overall sample average, still limits
the statistical significance of the average measures. In this case the median provides a
more reliable estimate and has been adopted as the best representational summary of
savings. As discussed above, billing data can reflect this variability as it represents the
entire electrical bill and not just the energy used by the EURM pre- and post-installation.
31
Per Unit
Annual Energy Savings Analysis
(Sample Size 38)
Median Max Minimum
Pre EURM Usage (KWH/yr) 9792 2310 384
Post EURM Usage (KWH/yr) 8526 1718 350
Pre-Post Energy Savings 1266 10452 -3883
(KWH/yr)
Annual $ Savings @ $.15/KWH $190 $1,568 -$582
Pounds of CO2 saved per unit 1257 10,379 -3856
Simple Payback at cost of $750 4 1/2 Never
Simple Payback at cost of $1100 6 1 Never
The following table illustrates the range of outcomes and presents findings for a larger
sample of 40 BHWHPs divided into Quartiles (the 1st Quartiles were client in the top
25% savings and the 4th Quartile were those with the lowest 25% savings) in an attempt
to provide a more complete view of the range of outcomes. The Quartile analysis
indicates that for over half of the clients, the payback was 2.8 years or less, with one
quarter of clients enjoying a payback of 1.2 years. Further research is needed to
determine why the 3rd and 4th Quartiles recorded such long paybacks. Were there other
factors affecting usage, particularly household behavior, quality of the installation, or
unknown new appliances?
Per Unit Impact Analysis BHWHP by Quartile

st 2nd rd st
1 Quartile Quartile 3 Quartile 4 Quartile
Monthly Savings (kWh) 334.1 140.9 47.5 -124.8
Annual Savings (kWh) 4009.5 1691.3 570.0 -1497.2
Monthly Savings ($) $50.1 $21.1 $253.7 -$124.8
Annual Savings ($) $601.4 $253.7 $85.5 -$18.7
Savings Rate (%) 30 20 10 -10
Payback Period (yrs) 1.2 2.8 21.7 NA
This analysis suggests that the BHWHP technology provides a very promising energy
saving option for residential homes with electric hot water. The manufacturers at GE and
Northland claim energy savings rates of 50-60% in domestic hot water energy usages.
This claim cannot be directly verified with the billing data, since all electrical energy use
is measured, rather than just hot water usage. However, based on the savings rates
measured for the first two Quartiles, these claims appear realistic.
The US DOE Low Income Weatherization program measures cost effectiveness with the
savings to investment ratio (SIR). Essentially the SIR is the ratio of the present value of
the projected savings over the life of the EURM divided by the cost of the EURM. The
32
SIR Analysis of BHWHP was based on median estimated savings from the monthly
electrical billing data. The discount rate was 3% and the useful life was 10 years.
The SIRs are presented in a matrix of nine scenarios based on the cost of the equipment
and the energy inflation differential.
The three cost alternatives include:
$750 Price of the add-on equipment purchased with quantity discount for REACh
project
$1100 Northland Price for add on to existing hot water tank
$1400 GE Appliance price for stand-alone unit replacing existing hot water tank
The Energy Inflation Differential is used to account for a scenario in which future savings
are worth more than today’s savings, since the price of electricity or any other fuel could
increase faster than the normal rate of inflation. Differentials of 0%, 5%, and 10% were
utilized in this analysis.
SIR Analysis of BHWHP

Median Estimated Savings
Energy Inflation
Differential
Cost of EURM 0% 5% 10%
$ 750 2.16 2.69 3.37
$ 1,100 1.47 1.83 2.29
$ 1,400 1.16 1.4 1.8
Solar Hot Water

The electrical billing analysis of the solar hot water EURMs was applied to a sample size
of six installations that met the five data adequacy conditions described above. With only
seven EURMs subject to electrical billing data analysis, it is more instructive to present
the findings on the seven EURMs with individual de-identified data, rather than
presenting averages.
As discussed in Appendix I: Solar Hot Water Site Review, many of the solar hot water
installations did not meet industry standards, resulting in a wide variation of outcomes
and an overabundance of poorly performing units. As presented in detail for each site, the
principal problems included less than optimal solar orientation, less than optimal pitch,
and tree shading. As a result of the poor quality of installation, the findings presented
here are not recommended for any deemed savings factors for future projects. In an
attempt to get a more precise measure of outcomes, the evaluation team is in the process
of installing data logging equipment at unit number three to determine more specifically
33
the performance of the solar hot water heater at a site meeting industry installation
standards. This onsite equipment-specific metering of hot water and cold water flows and
temperatures is designed to measure and record actual savings from solar energy while
correcting for the limitations of electrical billing analysis.
Solar Hot Water Annual Energy Savings Analysis by Installation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pre EURM Usage (KWH/yr) 15804 19453 13609 14593 8744 9329 14343
Post EURM Usage (KWH/yr) 15743 17141 11164 13807 7679 8935 15764
Pre-Post Energy Savings 61 2312 2445 786 1065 394 -‐1421
Annual $ Savings @ $.15/KWH $9.15 $346 $366 $117 $159 $59 $-213
Pounds of CO2 saved per unit 60 2295 2427 780 1057 391 -1411
Simple Payback in years 820 22 20 64 47 127 Never
@$7500
EURM Installation # 3 is the best performing solar hot water EURM and can be viewed
as representative of the potential for effective solar hot water technologies. This
installation was implemented in compliance with industry standards. The panel tilt and
orientation are within acceptable limits. The household family size is relatively large,
with three children creating a significant hot-water energy load. The client was very
happy with the project and has volunteered to participate in continued monitoring.
Profile of Installation # 4 Solar Installation

Number in Household 4 (1 adult, 3 children)
Fuel Type Pre Fuel Type: Electric Post Fuel Type: Electric
Installation Date July 2008
Panel Orientation Installed 180ͼ
Panel Tilt Installed 45ͼ
Perceived Benefits Client was enthusiastic and felt she was receiving benefit
Collector Orientation
“Solar hot water collectors should be oriented geographically to maximize the amount of
daily and seasonal solar energy that they receive. In general, the optimum orientation for
a solar collector in the northern hemisphere is true south. However, recent studies have
shown that, depending on your location and collector tilt, your collector can face up to
90º east or west of true south without significantly decreasing its performance. 7” A
review appendix indicates a wind range of panel orientations among sites.
The SIR analysis of the solar hot water EURMs is therefore based on this model
installation. The SIRs are calculated based on a 10-year useful life and a discount rate of
3%. SIRs are calculated for three levels of energy inflation. This analysis suggests that
the solar hot water EURM, at an installed cost of $7500, can generate an SIR or
approximately one if installed to industry standards, with a 10% inflation differential, and
7
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Website:
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12890
34
if it is replacing electrically heated hot water. Because of the limited sample size more
general inferences about the technology are not possible.
SIR Analysis of Solar Hot Water

Energy Inflation Differential
0% 5% 10%
# 3 SIR 0.51 0.7 0.99
The following chart presents an overview of the seasonal production of solar hot water at
installation # 3, which produced savings each month of the year. The kw pre represents
monthly electric usage (kilowatt hours) prior to the installation of the solar collectors and
the kw post represents the electric usage after the installation of the solar collectors.
Cold Climate/All Climate Heat Pumps

The cold climate heat pump (CCHP) and the all climate heat pumps (ACHP) represent
the same technologic concept; they are produced by two competing companies who have
chosen different names. There were a total of 15 CCHP’s installed and 2 ACHP.
Of the 15 CCHP that were installed the evaluation one half or 7 of the installations
provided the requisite 12 months of KWH usage data pre and post installation along with
the requisite pre and post primary electric heat source.
The analysis of the CCHP and ACHP required that the data be adjusted for degree days
since we were comparing system primarily used in heating why other technologies
addressed in this study evaluated domestic hot water energy usage. The degree day data
was derived from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Historical
Climatology Series 5-1. All monthly KWH usage data was adjusted for degree day
changes for the 12 months pre and 12 months post analysis. Data loggers were installed
on two of the CCHP in order to measure the Coefficient of Performance (COP),
35
unfortunately the home owners turn the units off because they believed the units would
not decrease their electric bill and they found the units very noisy.
Clearly the CCHP did not result in anticipated savings. Contact with the manufacturer of
the units indicated that they units were deployed in the field as Beta versions and the
manufacturer has decided to no longer produce the units. May of the installed units were
turned off by the clients. We do not have comprehensive records of which units were
turned off and when they were turned off. The units 2, 4, and 7 in the “Degree Day
Adjusted Savings for Cold Climate and All Climate Heat Pumps” were turned off by
clients.
Degree Day Adjusted Savings Analysis for Cold Climate

and All Climate Heat Pumps
Pre KWH Post KWH KWH savings% savings $ Savings
1 CCHP 22,647.0 29,011.0 (6,364.0) -‐28% (954.60)
2 CCHP 28,612.2 32,030.0 (3,417.8) -‐12% (512.67)
3 CCHP 9,517.7 11,410.0 (1,892.3) -‐20% (283.85)
4 CCHP 7,928.2 7,064.0 864.2 11% 129.63
5 CCHP 6,184.0 6,302.0 (118.0) -‐2% (17.70)
6 CCHP 27,218.1 27,362.0 (143.9) -‐1% (21.58)
7 CCHP 7,421.1 6,024.0 1,397.1 19% 209.57
1 ACHP 25,074.2 22,285.0 2,789.2 11% 418.39
The ACHP sample includes only one unit which recorded an 11% reduction in electricity
usage amounting to $418.39 in annual savings at $.15.KWH. At a cost of over $10,000
this is a payback of 23 years. However, these heat pump units do provide air conditioning
services as well as heating; the air conditioning feature was not analyzed in this study.
Because of the small sample size we cannot offer a statistically definitive conclusion
about the ACHP technology based on a sample of 1. Clearly, based on this field study,
the technology needs a more focused specific evaluation. We would suggest field studies
with on site data loggers designed to capture flows and temperatures of water and
electricity to determine the COP.
36
Small Wind Turbines
10KW EXCEL Turbine
The EXCEL turbine at Winter Harbor was equipped with an electromechanical induction
watt-hour meter at the time of installation by EVOLVO Energy Solutions. This
electromechanical induction meter operates by counting the revolutions of an aluminum
disc, which is made to rotate at a speed proportional to the power. The meter counts the
number of KWH generated since the date of installation and is considered to be a very
reliable measurement device and serves as the basic measuring device used for billing at
public utilities throughout the country.
The Mechanical Induction meter was installed on September 19, 2007. Two readings
were taken by the evaluation team: one was taken on May 15, 2008 and the second on
Aug. 6, 2010.
Energy Saving Analysis of EXCEL Turbine

based on Mechanical Induction Meter
Period I Period II
Date of Installation 8/19/2007 8/19/2007

Date of Reading 5/15/2008 8/6/2010
Number of Days 266 1067
Total Accumulated KWH 6000 18700
KWH/day 23 18
Estimated Annual 8233 6397
Savings (KWH)
Estimated $/yr. $1,317 $1,024
Mechanical Induction Meter $/KWH 0.16 0.16
The data was measured over two different periods of time, in order to analysis the
economic impact the data needs to converted to an annual estimate. To accomplish this,
the daily energy savings 8 was estimated by dividing the total accumulated KWH by the
number of days in the period. This per day average was then multiplied by 365 to
estimate the number of KWH per year generated by the turbine. Period II is statistically
more reliable since in includes a longer period of observation: 1067 days, as compared to
266 days.
The mechanical induction data is a very accurate measure of KWH of electricity actually
generated on site. However, as discussed in Section 3, the automatic shutoffs caused by
wind gusts could significantly reduce the amount of energy generated as compared to the
potential based on site-specific wind characteristics. The potential generation at the Mill
Stream site can be estimated using the Bergey WindCad Turbine Performance Model
8
The term “energy savings” is used to be consistent with other sections of this evaluation report, although
regarding wind technology; this is technically a measure of energy generation that then results in savings
on the electric bill.
37
available on the Bergey web site www.bergey.com. This model calculates an estimate of
savings based primarily on the wind speed at the site, but other factors such as turbulence
come into play in the estimate of potential production.
Based on an average wind speed of 5.5 9 miles per hour measured at Mill Stream, the
WindCad Turbine Performance Model predicts a potential energy output of between
8501 and 17002 KWH per year. Each of these output figures is greater than the actual
measured of 6397 KWH per year 10.
WindCad Turbine Performance Model

BWC EXCEL-S, Grid - Intertie Tier/neo-SH3055-23-BWC
Prepared For: SWCC
10 kW
Site Location: Reference
Data Source: AWEA Standard
Date: 8/8/2010
Inputs: Results:
Weibull K = 2 Air Density Factor = 0%
Tower Height (m) = 30 Monthly Energy Output = 1,417
Inputs: Results:
Weibull K = 2 Air Density Factor = 0%
Tower Height (m) = 30 Monthly Energy Output = 708
9
A Brand Electronics data logger captured the 5.5 mph average wind speed data from an anemometer
installed onsite at 20 ft. This estimate is expected to be biased to the low side as compared to wind speed at
the turbine level which is at 100 ft. Data was collected and logged at 10 minute intervals from March 30,
2008 to Aug. 14, 2008.
10
Since the wind speed estimate is based on less than one year of data, it may introduce a margin of error to
this estimate; the bias is unknown.
38
A preliminary simplified economic analysis indicates that, on its own, the Bergey
EXCEL cannot be expected to meet the SRI test of UHTXLUHGE\'2(IRU
weatherization measures at a KWH rate of $.16 an installed cost of $65,000 and a wind
speed of 5.5 miles per hour. The SIR calculation also assumes no maintenance cost, no
disposal value, and a 20-year useful life. The lowest payback under these same
assumptions was 23 years.
Cost $65,000 KWH/yr Annual $ Present SIR Simple

Production Savings Value of Payback
Scenarios Savings
Actual Production 6397 $ 1,024 $ 16,019 0.25 63
Measured with
Mechanical Meter
WindCad Model 17003 $ 2,720 $ 39,612 0.61 23
Estimate (0%)
Turbulence
WindCad Model 8501 $ 1,360 $ 19,606 0.30 48
Estimate (50%)
Turbulence
The following chart presents the distribution of time at various wind speeds as recorded
at Winter Harbor. Notice that the wind speed was zero for over 14% of the time and the
wind speed was 5 mph about 9% of the time.
39
The following graph presents a regression analysis of the watts being generated at each
wind speed; it demonstrates that approximately 85% of the level of energy generation can
be explained by the wind speed. This indicates the critical importance of knowing the
wind speed at a specific site before installing a wind turbine.
avg watts
y = 3.9843x2 + 123.09x -‐ 610.6
12000
R² = 0.8527
10000
8000
avg watts
6000
4000 Poly. (avg
watts)
2000
0
-‐2000 0 10 20 30 40
40
SkyStream Wind Turbine
The contractor was able to measure energy flow using software and a computer onsite.
However, there was no data logging included in the package. The Energy Saving analysis
was therefore based on the utility bills of the two clients. The energy billing analysis
indicates a small reduction in electrical energy use at both sites with a wide discrepancy
between the SkyStream only ($35/year) and the SkyStream in combination with the
BHWHP ($392/year). With the BHWHP saving estimate of $190, this would indicate an
adjusted SkyStream estimate of $202. The SIR for the Combo site is calculated using the
adjusted savings of $202.
Electrical Billing Data Combo SkyStream

Energy Savings Analysis w/BHWHP only
Norridgewock Cornville
Pre EURM Usage (KWH/yr) 8864 9747
Post EURM Usage (KWH/yr) 6248 9517
Pre-Post Energy Savings 2616 230
(KWH/yr)
Annual $ Savings @ $392 $35
$.15/KWH
Pounds of CO2 saved per unit 2598 228
SkyStream Installation Cost $12,500 $12,500
Simple Payback (years) 32 362
The SIR calculation was based on an assumed useful life of 20 years. The SIR for the
Combo site is calculated using the adjusted savings of $202. These returns are clearly not
economically attractive measured against the DOE requirement of an SIR of 1 to justify
investment in any low-income program energy savings task. The low return is a result of
a combination of factors, including siting and installation. Wind is clearly very siting-
sensitive, and the sites should be assessed with an anemometer and data logger for at least
one year before selection of equipment.
SIR Analysis of SkyStream

Energy Inflation Differential
0% 5% 10%
Norridgewock 0.19 0.27 0.39
Cornville 0.03 0.05 0.07
41
V. Summary of Findings and Recommendations
The Reach Program is designed to help identify alternative programs or individual
measures that can be effectively implemented to lower the energy burden on clients
receiving energy assistance under the LIHEAP program. Our evaluation concludes that
the 2007 Maine Reach Project does in fact make a significant contribution in helping to
empirically sort through a rather broad range of alternatives measures by ranking each
according to their cost-effectiveness as derived from field testing. The energy use
reduction measures (ERUM’s) installed and evaluated for the Reach Project include: cold
climate heat pumps, hot water heat pumps, solar hot water systems, and wind turbines.
Each measure was installed with the goal of most cost effectively reducing the energy
burden for low income households in Maine.
Outcomes Evaluation Summary

The system used for ranking the ERUM outcomes evaluation is based on the savings to
investment ratio (SIR). The SIR metric is the test of cost effectiveness used by the US
Department of Energy for approving energy use reduction measures used in the State
Weatherization Programs. The SIR metric concept is similar to the profitability ratio,
used in business to evaluate investment alternatives. The present value of the energy
savings over the life of the measure is divided by the cost of the energy use reduction
measure to calculate the SIR. A measure is considered to be cost effective as an allowable
measure if the calculated SIR is equal to or greater than one.
SIR Summary Analysis

Technology High SIR Low SIR
Solar Hot Water .99 .5
Hot Water Heat Pumps 5 2
CCHP No savings No Savings
ACHP NA NA
Wind .99 No savings
Hot Water Heat Pump

The SIR Summary Analysis illustrates that the hot-water heat pump is the most cost
effective measure of all the installed technologies included in the project. The hot water
heat pump SIR’s are markedly higher than all other technologies. The hot water heat
pump SIR estimates range from 2 to 5 depending on assumptions. The second ranked
energy use reduction measure ranked by SIR candidate was solar hot water with the SIR
ranging from .5 to .99. The wind installations ranged from .3 to .99 and the cold climate
heat pumps did not show any reduction in energy usage.
The hot water heat pump also has the added advantages of being relatively (as compared
to the other technologies included in this report) low cost and easy to install.
42
This technology can provide a significant impact in reducing cost and energy usage for
homes that heat hot water with electricity.
The BHWHP has two-side effects. First, it has a cooling effect and may increase the
energy needed to heat the home if located in the wrong place. Secondly, it acts as a
dehumidifier, which can be a very attractive feature in many basements with humidity
problems. There is a need for an installation protocol illustrating the conditions and
locations for installation of the equipment for effective performance.
Cold Climate Heat Pump Technologies

The billing data for the Cold Climate Heat Pumps and the All Climate Heat Pumps did
not yield one case with reported energy use reductions. Many of the units were shut off
by clients. We do not recommend this technology for future use unless more positive
evidence can be provided from field testing. The Nyletherm units were experimental and
rushed into production without adequate testing. Nyletherm has since been sold to
Northroad Technologies; production has stopped on the cold climate heat pumps and they
are no longer available.
Solar Hot Water

Of the seven solar sites subject to billing data analysis, only two resulted in SIRs greater
than one. This finding stressed the importance of proper site selection and quality
installation. As documented in Chapter 4, the quality of many of the solar hot water
installations did not meet industry standards. Solar hot water can be a cost effective
solution under certain conditions: Proper installation, large family size, consumer
education, and high-cost energy source.
All the solar hot water sites used flat panel solar collectors. Current technology is
trending to evacuated tubes, particularly in more northern climates. This type of collector
produces hotter water even under cloud cover. In some cases, boiler mates that were
attached to the oil fired heating systems to provide domestic hot water were removed
inappropriately and replaced with electric hot water backup. This was an expensive
alternative for the homeowner.
Small Wind Turbines

None of the wind turbine installations resulted in SIRs greater than one. This project
cannot answer definitively that wind energy cannot generate SIRs greater than one
because of the installation, siting, and equipment issues discussed in this report. The
10KW machine at Mill Stream Apartments is saving somewhat more than $1000 per year
for the complex. MH should review the issues of shutdown and work with Mill Stream
management to set in place a process to reset the equipment, contact Bergey to complain
about the inverter, or purchase a new converter.
The SkyStream units were installed below the tree line and resulted in SIRs of .03 to .39.
Clearly, this is not a cost effective solution. They can be moved to a better site or
consideration can be given to a taller tower, if possible.
43
Process Evaluation Summary
This REACh project significantly broadened the scope of activities that comprise the
normal energy services provided to the low-income community in Maine through the
partnership between the CAAs and MaineHousing. The project included the installation
of a very diverse range of technologies that were new to the program; some were truly
innovative in their own right. These non-traditional or emerging technologies where
chosen in a search for cost-effective energy efficiency savings.
While this broad technological scope was consistent with the REACh Program “as a
laboratory for identifying better way to ensure that low income families can afford home
heating and cooling,” the approach created challenges for the existing service delivery
process. Some of these challenges are discussed in more detail in the report; here we
present a set of recommendation for future program development. Our discussions with
clients revealed that there was very little follow-up from the agencies or contractors
involved.
The future projects should not rely on the existing management structures and processes
but create specially crafted project dedicated resources and systems to ensure that any
new technology-related problems can be addressed quickly. More attention should
specifically be paid to project management, vendor management, quality control, and
partner and client education and skills training. Real time data display for clients at all the
sites would have been helpful. Most of the clients are not technically savvy and were
unaware of what was working or not.
It is ineffective to reference the existing business model as a guide for managing new
technology projects. A completely different approach is required for a project intended to
test new technologies, with increased emphasis on staff training, data collection
methodology, and oversight, and a fundamentally different business model. Different
goals call for different methods. Suggestions include:
x Limit numbers of installations as a pilot project to correct issues with small

groups
x Dedicate additional resources to training, monitoring and quality control.
x Limit the number of different technologies deployed in any one future pilot
project. This will allow from improved delivery through a more focused
approach.
x Implement the new technology within a narrowly defined geographic region to
reduce travel time and to facilitate learning and process improvements. Develop
an action learning model that supports easy and quick process changes that
support the learning from pilots and subsequent installations.
After reviewing the outcomes of this project it became clear that energy savings
attributed to any technological fix are determined by two critical factors:
1. The capacity of the technology to reduce energy use or generate energy and
2. The quality of the installation of that technology.
44
Installation quality of solar is critical and must, at minimum, address the following:
x Does the panel have unobstructed access to sunlight?

x Is the tilt and orientation of the equipment within acceptable limits?
x Does the installation craftsmanship meet industry standards?
As reported in this document, many of the solar installations did not meet standards. MH
should review these sites and make corrections as appropriate.
The siting of wind turbines is equally critical. Is the tower high enough to above the tree
line to clear the laminar flow? Are the wind characteristics known at the site and do they
match the proposed turbine? We recommend at an anemometer measurement be taken at
any future site, unless site-specific data is known from another source. The anemometer
should be installed at the same height as the planned wind generator, with data logging
for one year prior to installation.
Regarding operations of the 10K turbine, the turbine shuts down during strong gusts and
results in loss of potential production. It has been reported that wind gusts can cause the
windmill to speed up so fast that it trips the inverter. One suggestion was that the Mill
Stream Apartment management identifies a resident who is interested in and committed
to the system and designate that individual the “Steward” of the windmill, with the task
of resetting the turbine should such a shutdown occur.
The contractor reported that the new inverters do not cause this problem, but the cost to
replace them is $10,000. Perhaps MH could file a complaint to Bergey, asking to have the
inverter replaced.
45

Appendix I: Solar Hot Water Site Review
Increasing the Efficiency of Heating Domestic Hot Water

Residential Energy Assistance Challenge (REACh)

Oct. 2, 2009

Submitted to MaineHousing
Joseph Associates, Inc

John Reuthe and John Joseph with assistance from Stephen Turner
In cooperation with Maine Housing Staff

46
Site Visits: The Maine REACh Project evaluator conducted site visits at all ten solar hot
water sites. This was decided after phone interviews with all participants yielded mixed
reviews as to the installations and perceived effectiveness of this particular Energy Usage
Reduction Measure (EURM). These site visits provide important lessons learned
regarding the installation of solar hot water systems. In general there were concerns
expressed by all the clients, including the following:
x Water temperature set too low.

x No training or information on how to operate or monitor their systems.
x Poor workmanship
x Who do they call for service and who is supposed to pay for it?
x How do I get the most out of my energy dollar?
x I feel trapped with a more expensive way of producing hot water. How do I go
back to what I had before?
Monthly Billing Data Analysis: In order to evaluate performance of the systems
installed at these 10 sites, the evaluation team has compiled a database of monthly utility
billing data combined with site-specific information. After preliminary analysis of the
clients’ electric KWH usage since July 2004, the evaluation team is starting to draw some
conclusions as to the impact of these installations. This interim report intended to give
MH background information on the installation so they can consider remedies to issues
found in the field. A more detailed statistical assessment of the data is in process. All
KWH data presented in this document is based upon monthly billing data as provided by
the Public Utility.
There were some puzzling increases in KWH used by some of the clients that we are
attempting to understand. Among the potential explanatory factors are the following:
x Solar panels are not installed at their optimum orientation or tilt per National
Renewable Energy Laboratory.
x Structures or trees cast shadows on the solar panels.
x Larger hot water tanks replaced smaller 40 gallon tanks rather than supplementing
them taking more energy to heat and maintain the hot water supply particularly
combined with solar panel orientation not being optimized. This was done in
some cases but not all. Where the 40 gallon tanks were left in the system, positive
results were shown.
x In one case the oil fired domestic hot water system was disabled and the indirect
heat/storage tank removed replaced by an 80 gallon electric tanks, resulting in an
increased electric bill.
x Other possible causes including increase in family size or children are older and
take longer baths or showers.
x Electrical billing data includes all electrical usage, making it difficult to isolate
the impact of the solar collectors.
47
Installation Configurations:
There were three different configurations used at the 10 solar hot water sites. The
variation in performance among the systems could be influenced by the design of these
different configurations.
The difference among the systems relates to the way the solar pre-heated hot water is
brought up to domestic hot water temperature, set at 120 degrees at all sites. The process
of bringing the water up to 120 degrees in referred to a Back-up in the diagrams below. In
configuration 1 the backup is performed in the 80 gallon storage tank using electricity. In
configuration 2 the backup in performed in a 40 gallon tank using electricity. In
configuration 2 the backup is performed with an oil fired boiler mate.
Configuration 1
80 gal. SHW Domestic

Solar Heat Storage Tank Hot
Panel Exchanger Electric Back-‐up Water
Hot Water Tank System

Configuration 2
40 Gal
Domestic
80 gal. Electric
Solar Heat Hot
SHW Back-‐up
Storage Water
System
Tank
Configuration 3
Domes
80 gal. Boiler Mate
Solar Heat tic Hot
SHW Oil Fired
Storage Back-‐up
System
The following set of tables present an overview of the solar installations based on site
visits.
48
Client 1
Town Benton
Number in 5
Household
SHW System Enerworks Configuration 3
Installer Ascendant Energy
Fuel Type Pre Fuel Type: Oil Post Fuel Type: Oil
Meter Data logger installed.
Installation Date: December 2008
Panel Orientation Installed 180°
Panel Tilt Installed 33°
Training None
Installation 1. Tilt panel to 45°
issues and 2. Program and return Enerworks remote
resolution
The remote provides real time monitoring of the production of solar
hot water to be used by the client. These were not set up and
programmed; in some cases they were taken away by the contractors.
Service Issues None
Perceived The client believes they are saving fuel oil but not really sure how
Benefits much can be contributed to the SHW system
Average Decrease Increase: 61 KWH
Monthly KWH Since this installation used oil as the pre-EURM fuel and the post-
Usage EURM fuel the KWh usage data is not relevant to performance
measurement.
Client Comments The client was not impressed with the installers and commented that
they were learning as they went. OJT was repeated by the Client also
the panels were installed upside down. The Enerworks units come
with a wireless monitoring device that was never set up. The wireless
panel was taken by the Ascendant installers and not returned.
Evaluator Installation includes a hot water 80 gallon storage tank, which is
Comments electric but is turned off. This tank is charged with solar hot water
through the glycol loop from the collector to an Enerworks heat
exchanger. The heated water is the transferred to the 80 gallon
storage tank. The data logger is monitoring the temp and flow of
water out of the heat exchanger into the 80 gallon storage tank for
domestic hot water usage. This configuration uses an oil fired
“Boiler Mate” to then heat (if necessary) the preheated solar hot
water for domestic hot water usage. The boiler mate is in another
room approximately 20 feet away from the storage tank.
The client is enthusiastic and would like to have real time monitoring
of their hot water usage with the remote monitor.
49
Client 2
Number of Household 6 (2 adults, 4 children)
Town Belgrade
SHW System Schueco Configuration 1
http://www.schueco.com
Installation Date: Oct 2007
Training Brief overview but no training
Installation issues and Orient panels to 180° /45°Tilt
resolution
Service Issues One panel has slipped from frame and needs to be remounted.
Perceived Benefits Getting adequate hot water; believes that they are saving
electricity.
Average Monthly KWH Decrease: Increase 296 KWH
Usage This increase in KWH usage is likely a result of the issues listed
below under evaluator comments as well as the fact that panel
orientation and panel tilt deviate significantly from the optimal.
Client Comments The client reported that they changed their bathing and laundry
habits. They also had a small increase in their living space less
than 10%. During the winter snow built up on the panels lost their
use for 2 months, the low pitch on the panels likely exacerbated to
this snow problem.
Client was also concerned about the glycol: what needed to be
done about whether it might be leaking and who would pay for it.
When the units were working, the client thought they might be
saving up to $50/month.
Client has placed several calls to AE but no response. As of Oct
1, the panels appear not to be producing any energy and may have
lost glycol.
Evaluator Comments One of the panels has slipped from the mounting frame and needs
to be repaired. We have confirmed (9/30/09) that the panel that
slipped is now completely out of the rack; he has been monitoring
the system and it appears that it is not producing any SHW.
The original hot water tank was 40 gal and was replaced by a
4000 watt 80 gal tank.
Same set-up as above except the storage tank is used as the

domestic hot water backup to increase the water up to domestic
temperatures.
The client built his own house and very enthusiastic about any
type of energy savings. He was a bit perplexed about way the
panels were mounted.
50
Client 3
Town Randolph
Number in Household 4
www.enerworks.com
Installation Date: Dec 2008
Training None
Installation issues and 1 Tilt panels to 44°
resolution 2. Repair interior spaces where holes were drilled
3. Program Enerworks remote
Service Issues None

Perceived Benefits Client believed they would save a lot in electric usage, so have
been disappointed in the results.
KWH Avg. Monthly Decrease 147 KWH Increase:
Usage
Client Comments Installation was sloppy with oversized holes drilled for pipes.
The client’s Enerworks remote was never programmed. It was
just handed to them along with an instruction manual. The client
has not been happy with the performance. The panels were
covered with snow for two months. Family was not very happy
about the installation and its appearance.
Evaluator Comments In this configuration, the original 40 gal hot water tank was left
in place and used as the backup system; a supplemental 80 gal
storage tank was added but the electrical elements are turned off
on the 80 gallon storage tank. With a minor fix this site could be
producing more hot water.
51
Client 4
Town Warren
Number in Household 4 (1 adult, 3 children)
SHW System Schueco www.schueco.com Configuration 1
Installation Date: July 2008
Training None
Installation issues None
Service Issues Water temperature too cool. Client was told not to adjust
anything but finally had someone turn up the temperature on the
electric water heater.
Perceived Benefits Client was enthusiastic and felt she was receiving benefit
Usage
Client Comments Client was excited about reducing her electrical usage and is
pleased with the results. She was disappointed that she had no
training and felt dismissed by the installers. This site also is
different from the others as it has a gable mounted rack that
orients the panels correctly. Client’s main complaint was the
water temperature was too low.
Evaluator Comments This installation is the closest to ideal. Because of that and it has
high speed internet would be the best site for a data logger. The
home is in good condition and a very enthusiastic family.
52
Client 5
Town Franklin
Number in 5 (2 adults/3 children)
Household
Fuel Type Pre Fuel Type: Oil Post Fuel Type: Electric
Installation Date: June 2008
Training Some. Different installers on different days gave different
information. Handed a confusing owner’s manual.
Installation issues and Orient panels southerly by 70° possibly with the use of ground
resolution mount
Service Issues Have tried to contact AE numerous times with questions but no
call back.
Perceived Benefits Expected better performance.
KWH Avg. Monthly Decrease Increase: 87
Usage The KWH increase reported is not relevant because the pre-
EURM fuel type was oil and was change to a post-EURM fuel
type of Electric.
Client Comments Client was disappointed with the disorganized approach to the
installation and felt it was a sloppy job. When the client pointed
out that the panels were not pointing at the sun a good part of the
day, she was told that if she wanted a rack to re-orient the panels
that it was her responsibility. See picture below on right and
note that this taken at 2:30pm. The panels are near the ladder and
the sun is behind them. She was confused about why a relatively
new hot water heater was replaced by a larger one.
Evaluator Comments This is a fairly new home so the plumbing is new. The panels are
mounted on a shady side of the roof and probably should have
been ground mounted to capture the solar. This poor orientation
results in lower efficiencies.
53
Client 6
Town Clinton
Number in 5 (2 adults/3 children
Household
www.enerworks.com
Installation Date: Dec. 2008
Training No
Installation Issues 1. Repair large holes in interior.
and resolution 2. Orient panels more southerly by 15϶
3. Provide training
4. Program remote monitor
Service Issues No but have tried to call with questions
Perceived Benefits
Usage
Client Comments Installation took over a week because of missing parts. Over
sized holes made for piping allowed bats to enter the house.
Generally pleased with the results but curious about how to
service system.
Would like some training. Note in picture on right that the

client’s original hot water tank was left connected an additional
solar storage tank was added.
Evaluator Comments The main concern with this client was the poor installation done
by AE. In particular, the large holes that were drilled that
allowed bats to enter the house.
54
Client 7
Town South Gardiner
Number in Household 4 (2 adults/2 children)
Installation Date: June 2008
Training None
Installation issues and Tilt panels to 44°
resolution
Service Issues None
Perceived Benefits Expected better results; believes he is paying more for
electricity although billing records indicate a decline in
electrical usage.
Usage
Client Comments 80 tank heats to 120 degrees.
Client liked the installers but is not at all impressed with the
results. There are trees on the south side but not on the owner’s
lots that block some of the sun. Snow covered the panels for two
months. Not very happy with the removal of an almost new 40
gal electric hot water heater and replaced by the 80 gal single
element tank. He complained of too little hot water and that the
temp was too low. He repeated several times that he was not a
“happy camper”.
Evaluator Comments This site could see some improvement with better tilt of the
panels also some tree trimming or removal.
55
Client 8
Town Union
SHW System Alternative Energy Tech www.aetsolar.com9
Installer Ascendant Energy Configuration 1
Fuel Type Pre Fuel Type: Oil Post Fuel Type: Electric
Installation Date: Dec 2008
Training None
Installation Issues and 1. Return and install indirect oil heated water tank
resolution 2. Tilt panels to 44϶ and oriented more southerly. Ideally the
panels should be relocated out of the shadow of the barn.
Service Issues Tried to get service because too little hot water.
Perceived Benefits None
Usage The KWH readings are not applicable because the pre-EURM
fuel type was oil and the post-EURM fuel type is electric.
Client Comments Client is not very happy. The original source of hot water was
an oil fired indirect unit. It was removed and replaced with an
80 gal electric hot water heater. AE took the unit. The panels
were mounted vertically on the gable end of the home. There is
a barn that shadows the units part of the day.
Evaluator Comments Removed boiler mate storage unit. Installed a very large 100 to
120 gallon electric hot water tank, which acts as the backup
increasing temperature to 120 degrees as required for domestic
use.
Client’s location is ideal on top of a very large hill and

blueberry barren. The panels were mounted on the gable side of
the house vertically and there is a barn 75 feet away creating a
shadow at times on the house and the collectors. Likely does not
get much isolation in the summer months.
56
Client 9
Town Rockland
SHW System Schueco www.schueco.com
Installation Date: August 2008
Training None
Installation Issues None
Service Issues None
Perceived Benefits None
KWH Avg. Monthly Decrease 151 Increase:
Usage
Client Comments Client complained that the water temperature was too low but
generally pleased with the results.
Evaluator Comments The 80 gallon storage tank serves as the 120 back-up; there is no
40 gallon back-up heater.
This home is in very bad condition and dirty.
57
Client 10
Number in Household 5 (2 adults 3 children)
Town Warren
SHW System Schueco www.schueco.com
Installation Date: July 2008
Training Minimal
Installation Issue Tilt panels to 44°, but there are trees shadowing the property
Service Issues None
Perceived Benefits Good experience but not sure has received any benefit.
Usage
Client Comments Water temperature too low but generally feel they have more
hot water than before.
Evaluator Comments The 40 gal hot water tank was replaced with an 80 gal tank. 80
gallon tank boosts temperature to 120 degrees.
Home is fairly new and well maintained. There are trees on the
south side, which create shadows on the roof. This is a young
family that uses a lot of hot water.
58
Appendix II: Interim Impact Evaluation Report II

Basement Hot Water Pump Impact Analysis
Increasing the Efficiency of Heating Domestic Hot Water

Residential Energy Assistance Challenge (REACh)

March 5, 2010

Submitted to MaineHousing
Joseph Associates, Inc

John Reuthe and John Joseph with assistance from Stephen Turner
In cooperation with Maine Housing Staff

59
Table of Contents

Introduction: ............................................................................................................................... 61
Measurement and Verification (M&V) .......................................................................................... 27
Non-‐Energy Benefits .................................................................................................................... 66
Clients Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 66
Site Visits ..................................................................................................................................... 68
Next Steps to Explain Variation in Savings Rates ........................................................................... 70
Data Loggers Deployment Plan: .................................................................................................... 71
Appendix: Error! Bookmark not defined.
Nyle Corporation ................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Product overview and deemed savings rates ................................................................................ 72
Data Sample: ............................................................................................................................... 74
60
Introduction
Maine State Housing administered a US Department of Health and Human Services
Residential Energy Assistance Challenge (REACh) grant to provide alternative methods
to meet the energy needs of Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
clients. REACh is designed to test the effectiveness of various energy saving options that
can improve energy self-sufficiency in low-income households. Self-sufficiency means
the ability of each household to procure energy needs with less public assistance while
improving health and safety. Each state proposes specific options to be evaluated, serving
as a laboratory. While the LIHEAP program is intended to help low-income households
meet their immediate home energy needs and REACh is intended to provide energy use
reduction and alternative energy measures to this LIHEAP client base. Several alternative
energy technologies were installed in Maine during 2006 and 2007, including thermal
solar, small wind, cold climate heat pumps, and basement hot water heat pumps. This
interim report presents the impact evaluation of basement hot water heat pump (BHWHP)
project. The basement hot water heat pump technology was developed as a commercial
product in the state of Maine and provides the potential for job creation in the design,
manufacturing, and installation of the equipment. The BHWHP is designed to reduce the
amount electrical energy used to heat domestic hot water. The goal of this evaluation was
to measure and verify the energy efficiency of this technology installed in client homes.
In this project, all the clients receiving the BHWHP were using electricity to heat
domestic water heater. The technology can be used with gas, oil, propane or solar hot
water systems; however the most cost effective application of the technology is expected
to be in replacing resistance heat in conventional electric hot water tanks. All BHWHPs
in this project were installed as add-ons to conventional electric hot water tanks. The
BHWHP preheats the water in the tank using heat pump technology. A heat pump is a
machine or device that moves heat from one location (the 'source') to another location
(the 'sink' or 'heat sink') using mechanical work, it is essentially a compressor, similar to a
refrigerator, which removes heat from inside of the refrigerator into the room. Most heat
pump technology moves heat from a low temperature heat source to a higher temperature
heat sink. 11 Common examples are food refrigerators and freezers, air conditioners, and
reversible-cycle heat pumps for providing thermal comfort.
The BHWHP removes heat from basement air to the heat sink, i.e., the hot water tank.
While the heat pump technology uses electricity just as the electric hot water tank uses
electricity to generate heat, the BHWHP is designed to use 50% less electrical energy to
heat the same amount of hot water as the conventional hot water heater based upon
electrical resistance to generate hot water. This gain in efficiency is referred to a
coefficient of performance (COP) or 2 and should result in a reduction of hot water
heating costs by ½ for a deemed savings rate of 50%. Deemed saving rate is an energy
efficiency evaluation term, which refers to the saving rate claimed by the equipment
supplier.
11
The Systems and Equipment volume of the ASHRAE Handbook, ASHRAE, Inc., Atlanta, GA, 2004
61
During 2006 and 2007, 58 BHWHPs were installed by Maine State Housing through the
Community Action Programs in Kennebec County (KVCAP) and Hancock County
(Hancock County Community Action Program). Most of the units were installed by Nyle
Corporation but in some cases they choose to subcontract the installation to a local
plumber. As well as providing an impact evaluation, this interim report intended to give
MH background information on these installations so they can consider remedies to
issues found in the field.

Measurement and Verification (M&V)
At the core of energy impact evaluation is the M&V methodology applied to estimate
savings at the individual client residence. A common methodology used in many
evaluations of energy savings equipment is to rely on deemed savings to quantify impacts
of entire energy efficiency programs. Deemed savings are used to stipulate savings
values for projects with well-known and documented savings values. Examples are
energy-efficient appliances such as washing machines, computer equipment and
refrigerators, and lighting retrofit t projects with well-understood operating hours. The
deemed savings from the BHWHP is 50% according to Nyltherm, the equipment
manufacturer and supplier. Because the BHWHP is not a well-known and understood
technology the Evaluation Plan rejected the deemed savings approach as an appropriate
methodology. The evaluation plan proscribed a billing data analysis as a first cut at
estimating the energy savings and other impacts of the BHWHP. The advantage of the
billing analysis is that the data is readily available with client consent and the data is
considered to be highly precise, as it is continuously metered at the residence. The
drawback of the billing data analysis, discussed in more detail below, is that it measures
total electrical usage in the home. However, since hot water is such a significant
percentage of the electrical load this analysis can provide useful findings based on a
measurement of the total load. The findings of the billing analysis, applying adjustments
to capture other known load changes, can help validate the deemed savings.
The BHWHP M&V methodology was based upon statistical and regression analysis of
kWh’s usage billing data and a series of other factors affecting usage. The analysis of
billing data is the most common methodology for evaluating the impact of energy
measures and programs, where deemed savings rates are not appropriate.
Energy and savings is estimated by comparing energy use before and after
implementation of an energy efficiency measure. Thus, the following equation applies for
energy savings:
Energy savings = (baseline energy use) – (reporting period energy use) 12
For this BHWHP impact analysis, energy use data is measured by kWh usage data for at
least 24 months of billing before the energy measure was installed (the base period) This
data was compared to the energy use kWh data for a minimum of 12 month after the
BHWHP was installed (the reporting period).
12
Page 4-1, Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide, A RESOURCE OF THE
NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY, NOVEMBER 2007, this publication was
used to guide the methodology in this impact analysis.
62
The billing data was provided by both utilities (Central Power, Inc. and Bangor
Hydroelectric, Inc.) for 40 client households for each of the 12 months prior to the
BHWHP’s installation and for each of the 12 months post installation, through July of
2009.
There are technical limitations presented by this methodology depending on the
evaluation objectives. The metered billing data measures total usage in the home for all
connected loads and will work fine when the evaluation objective is to estimate overall
savings at the dwelling. However, if the objective is to isolate the savings impact of one
particular measure such as the BHWHP, the methodology loses its accuracy. We have
made adjustments for other factors affecting electrical demand such as number of people
in the household, overall load on the meter, and/or the addition of new appliances. In
order to adjust for other factors affecting load this billing data was supplemented with
data from the MERAC database, information from suppliers/installers, data collected
through client phone surveys, and data gathered through client site visits.
The first data adjustment reduced the number of clients in the sample from the original 58
of the clients who received BHWHPs to 40 by eliminating all clients who had electric
heat or other known new load affecting appliances or factors. It was determined that the
electric heat load comprised such a large component of the electric bill that variation in
weather and other factors affecting heating requirements, would dominate the billing data
and mask any impact of the BHWHP on the overall monthly electric bill. In one case of
other load impacts, a client received residential wind turbine and needed to be eliminated
from the BHWHP analysis of billing data; this client was also removed from the billing
data analysis.
The evaluation team has compiled a database of monthly utility billing data combined
with site specific information such as family size, prior hot water energy source, post
installation heating source, installation cost, and other load impacts. After preliminary
statistical analysis of the clients’ electric KWH usage since July 2004, the evaluation
team is beginning to draw some conclusions as to the impact of these installations.
The following chart illustrates the gross monthly savings for the 40 clients subject to the
billing data analysis. The savings range from a high of 480 kWh per month to a low of -
381kWh per month. The average monthly energy savings for the sample of 40 clients was
104 kWh for an average payback period of 9 years at an installed cost of $1000 and an
average payback of 6 years at an installed cost of $700. The standard deviation of the
monthly savings data is 182 which extremely high being greater than the average. This
finding reduces the precision of any statistical inference about the expected savings
impact of entire population of these specific BHWHPs. We will attempt to explain this
wide range of findings among clients with additional research including site visits,
interviews, on site data logging, and statistical analysis.
63

The annual $ savings chart illustrates a mirror image of the impact each of the clients’
annual energy bill. Here again we see a wide range of outcomes from the highest annual
energy bill savings at $864 to the lowest of a negative -$686 on an annual basis. Even in
light of this variation among clients, over 25 residences experiencing positive savings and
this is a very positive development. In addition, more than the billing data for more than
½ of the clients indicated a payback of less than three years (a very compelling return on
investment).

BHWHP
Annual $ Savings
For each of 40 Clients
@$.15/kWh
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
($200) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
($400)
($600)
($800)

The following table illustrates the summary impact analysis of this wide range of
outcomes on the basic metrics of energy efficiency impact evaluations. The data is
divided into four quartiles: the 1st quartile indicates the impacts for the clients at the 10
highest monthly savings locations and the 4th quartile indicates the impacts for the clients
with the least monthly savings locations. Essentially the impact analysis for the first two
quartiles generates annual savings of $254 to $601 at a kWh rate of $.15 an installation
cost of $1000. The payback for these two quartiles ranged from 1.2 to 2.8 years at the
same rates of $.15/kWh and $1000 installation cost. These metrics would suggest a very
good residential investment. On the other hand the average monthly kWh savings for the
3rd and 4th quartiles was 47.5 and -124.8 kWh, the 3rd quartile had a payback period of
64
21.7 years and the 4th quartile yielded an negative payback numbers. The second two
quartiles impacts indicate a very poor investment and indeed negative investment.

Summary Intermediate Impact Analysis B H W H P
1st Quartile 2nd
Quartile 3rd Quartile 4st Quartile
Monthly Savings (kWh) 334.1 140.9 47.5 -124.8
Annual Savings(kWh) 4009.5 1691.3 570.0 -1497.2
Monthy Savings ($) $50.1 $21.1 $253.7 -$124.8
Annual Savings ($) $601.4 $253.7 $85.5 -$18.7
Savings Rate (%) 0.3 0.2 0.1 -0.1
Payback Period (yrs) 1.2 2.8 21.7 NA

These preliminary findings need to be validated and clarified through phone contact and
site visits. For example, if the energy consumption went up significantly, did the
household usage increase during this time, were significant increases in energy demanded
by the household changes (such as a new baby demanding more home laundry or chicken
husbandry that needed heated water)? If the energy demands decreased significantly, did
the household circumstances change significantly to reduce the energy consumption or
were those energy savings a result of the BHWHP’s installation?
There were some puzzling increases in KWH used by some of the clients that we are
attempting to understand. Among the potential explanatory factors are the following:
1. Other possible causes including increase in family size or children are older and
take longer baths or showers.
2. Electrical billing data includes all electrical usage, making it difficult to isolate
the impact of the BHWHP, possibly being impacted by new or replaced
appliances.
3. Due to the cooling effect of the BHWHP, the homeowner would raise the
thermostat settings to compensate.
Although, the BHWHP demonstrated an average 10% reduction in the power usage, the
outliers and very high standard deviation are also important to attend to:
1. What was different about the sites that experienced 47% improvement? If the
improvement can be validated as an improvement that was caused by the Heat
Pump, what about the installation or the equipment can be reproduced in future
installations?
2. What caused close to a dozen homes (approximately 20% of the households) to
have a higher electric bill? If the increased bill can be validated as an increase
associated with the installation or malfunction of the equipment, how can this be
avoided in future installations?
3. If an unspoken assumption of these installations is to do no harm, then what must
be done to rectify the increased bills that these installations have caused?
65
Based on the finding of this billing data analysis the evaluation team will be
implementing a secondary level of M&V which will accurately measure the COP at the
point of use, using onsite data logging technology capturing temperatures and flows on
the MHWHP and electric hot water heater equipment.
Non-Energy Benefits
Emissions Displaced: The following formula is the commonly used calculation for
emissions displace by an energy efficient technology. Depending upon the fuel type of
the energy saved there would be a different emission factor. This report uses the
emissions factors provided to MH housing by Efficiency Maine for the REGGI program,
that rate is 0.993 lbs of CO2 per kWh of electricity, is it based upon a study done by the
ISO New England. 13
Avoided emission = (net energy savings) × (emission factor)
For the clients experiencing 1st Quartile level savings of 4009.5 kWh per year, the
greenhouse gas savings is 3981.4 pounds of CO2 annually. Again the variability in
savings outcomes among client prevents us from inferring that this technology can
provide that level of saving on a consistent basis.
Dehumidification Benefit: As a compressor the BHWHP reduces the humidity of the air
from which it is extracting heat. This can be a very significant benefit if installed in a
basement with excess moisture, especially during certain seasons of the year. This non-
energy benefit can contribute to the important health and safety attributes of the home in
cases where mold and dampness are corrected. While recognizing this as a benefit, it is
beyond the scope of this report to quantify these dehumidification benefits. We
recommend that this be addressed in any installation protocols that might be considered.
Cooling Effect: Since the BHWHP is extracting heat from the ambient air around it, it is
essentially performing a cooling function. This brings up the question of the net energy
impact of the system. While it is beyond the scope of this report address the net energy
impact this should be a very important considering in choosing a specific place in the
home to install the device. Based on a site visit we have discovered that a BHWHP
installed in the living space of an electrical heated home resulted in increased electric
usage. This is another important item to consider for an installation protocol.
Client Interviews
The following table summarizes the client survey responses.
13
2007 New England Marginal Emission Rate Analysis, ISO-NE
66

Client Response Survey Summary

Conducted by Phone with 16 clients
Have there been any changes to your Gained 1 member: 1 household
household size since the installation? Lost 1 member: 2 households
Remainder did not change.
Overall how was the installation quality? 14 reported no problems with installation
1 reported poor quality
1 did not remember
Where there any other equipment changes 1 received a new hot water heater
made in conjunction with the installation such
as a new hot water heater? If so please
describe.
Have there been any changes in your household 16 reported none
that would affect your electric usage such as
operating a home business, new appliances,
TV?
Were the installers knowledgeable? 15 yes
1 no
Where you informed about the equipment? 16 not informed
Did you receive any training? 15 no
1 remembered training to replace air filter
Did you receive any energy education as to how 15 none
to take advantage of the equipment?
What temperature do you maintain your hot None knew
water?
Have you modified your day to day habits in the Only one has attempted to reduce usage of
way that you use your domestic hot water since hot water
the BHWHP was installed?
Have you noticed any differences in the amount 16 No
of water hot available to the family?
Do you regularly review your electric utility bill? 10 yes
Have you noticed any differences in your 10 responded with 3 negative results 4
electric utility since the installation of the positive results 3 no change
BHWHP?

The goal of the Client Interview is to determine client acceptance of the technology and
to identify any issues or concerns affecting performance of the technology as documented
in the M&V section of this report.
67
An attempt was made to contact all 58 clients with mixed results.
x 16 phone Interviews were completed
x 11 phone numbers invalid, disconnected, no forwarding info on file
x 9 messages left but no return calls
x 22 phones not answered and messages not left (no answering machine or
voice mail)
There were similarities with the solar hot water installations, but in general the BHWHP
clients were much happier than those that participated in the Solar Hot Water Program.
Some of the highlights or themes that emerged from these interviews are:
x Installations went smoothly and the installers were professional.

x All the clients received some form of training and expectations.
x No information was given to the clients as to what to do or who to contact
for service. In some cases people remembered that it was the Nyle
Corporation and logged calls with them.
x Follow up by either the CAP agency or MSHA was not done.
x Many clients felt abandoned.
x There has been no client training as to how to read their electric utility bill.
x Some clients have shut down their units believing that it was costing them
more money while the data says otherwise.
x For those clients that we were able to talk to, there was an eagerness to
share their experience.
Site Visits
The evaluation team has conducted four site visits. Some clients were not amenable to a
site visit for various reasons.
1. Could not be bothered

2. Work or other schedule conflicts with the evaluators schedule
3. Home is no longer owned or occupied by the original client
There were very few differences in the installations’ design and deployment. The
following list summarizes the relevant findings.
1. At all the sites, the units had been placed in damp basements that needed
dehumidifying.
2. Three of the sites used the existing electric hot water heater but in one home the
hot water heater had been replaced by a new unit.
3. The BHWHP exhausted directly into the unheated basement space.
4. With one exception to the above, the vent had been ducted into the basement
level and the exhaust temperature was 48 degrees. Because the basement was part
68
of the living space, the BHWHP cooled the house. The client would raise the
thermostat to compensate.
5. Two of the installations were very professionally installed by Nyle Corporation
but the other two, also installed by Nyle Corporation, were sloppy in appearance.
6. One unit had a minor leak but the client tried to contact KVCAP but received no
assistance.
One of the households visited experienced an increased electrical usage as a result of the
BHWHP installation. This home had experienced a 5% increase in their electric bill.
Through conversation and later visit to this home, the site evaluators could not identify
any non-BHWHP factors that could explain the increased bill, suggesting that the
increase in electrical costs were related to installation of BHWHP.
This split level home experienced a significant cooling as a result of the BHWHP
installation. The site visit revealed that the BHWHP was installed in the living space
reducing ambient temperatures in the living space. The evaluators determined that the
temperature of the air blowing from the BHWHP exhaust was measured at 48 degrees.
As a result of this cold air blowing into the living space, the householder had increased
the temperature of her electric heat and of course her usage to compensate for this cold
drafts constantly blowing into her home. She also reported that she used the BHWHP as
an air conditioner in the summer. This finding indicates the need for an installation
protocol illustrating the conditions under which the equipment will perform to
expectations.
The goal of these visits is to help explain the variation in savings estimates among the
clients, as described in the M&V section above. Why have some clients experienced
saving rates of over 40% and some experiences negative savings, or an increase in kWh
usage? The evaluators will continue these site visitations and phone call efforts, and in
cooperation with the manufacturer, will attempt to discern what factors influenced the
improved performance in some instances and negative performance in others.
69
Summary Finding
The wide variation in the savings rates found in the billing data analysis is disappointing,
as a large standard deviation reduces our ability to accurately predict future savings using
statistical inference methods. However, 50% of the test sample billing data resulted in a
simple payback of less than three years. Counterbalancing this promising finding, the
other 50% resulted in simple paybacks of over 20 years. Because of the excellent energy
savings value of the successful installations, next steps will be taken to better understand
the variation in outcomes. The evaluation team will take a two part approach including
installing a data logger on the equipment to measure the coefficient of performance and
collecting more site specific data though phone calls and site visits.
The equipment has a positive secondary effect because it provides double duty as a de-
humidifier as well as a water heater. This can be very important in some homes as it can
help reduce mold.
However the equipment has another secondary effect: it cools the air which serves as the
energy source. This cooling effect should be considered when locating the BHWHP; the
evaluation team visited a site where the BHWHP was located in the living space which
was electrically heated. The thermostat called for more electric heat, negating any
savings.
Based on our findings, this energy efficiency equipment offers promise as a cost
effective, easily deployable technology. Any use of the equipment should follow certain
protocols, such as do not install in living space unless you intend to cool the living area.
Ideal locations are damp basements where the unit can do double duty.
Next Steps: Explaining Variations in Savings Rates

1. Currently, there are no real time data loggers in place with the BHWHP systems,
limiting the database for analysis to analyze the electric utility bill data. A data
logger can isolate the BHWHP system evaluation to the specific equipment
performance to evaluate understand the effectiveness of the technology itself,
independent of household conditions. Below is a chart for all the MSHA data
loggers. The evaluation team will install a data logger in one BHWHP site to
verify the claimed Deemed savings by Nyltherm Corporation, and to measure the
savings on the specific unit reducing the interference of other factors. The data
logger should be internet connected and measure the following data points:
a. Temp of water entering hot water tank
b. Temp of water leaving hot water tank
c. Flow rate of water gallons per minute
d. Electrical energy usage at BHWHP
2. The evaluation team will continue the site visit and phone interview process,
trying to explain variations in the billing data analysis.
70
3. The evaluation team will conduct additional multiple-regression analysis of the
BHWHP database subsequent to the findings of the phone interview and site
visits, attempting to explain variations in the billing data analysis.
Data Loggers Deployment Plan

The following table indicates the deployment plan for data loggers utilized in the overall
Reach IV project, including the solar evaluation, previously reported. The evaluators will
install two additional data loggers, one for the BHWHP as indicated in this report, and
the second at a solar installation location that provides broadband service and provides
electric hot water tanks as a back up to solar as specified in the original evaluation data
collection plan.
Site Energy Efficiency Data Logger Data Retrieval

Measure Installed
1 Solar Hot Water Oil Yes Internet/Brand
DHW Electronics Site
2 Cold Climate Heat Yes SD Card
Pump
3 Cold Climate Heat Removed, as CCHP SD Card

Pump unit is not being
utilized by tenant.
4 Wind Turbine Yes Satellite internet
connection to MSHA
5 BHWHP To be installed Internet/Brand Elect
6 Solar Hot To be installed Internet/Brand Elect
Water/Electric DHW
A special note here concerning the sale of Nyle Corporation to North Road Technologies
(www.northrdt.com ) on Jan 1, 2010. Don Lewis, former Nyle Corporation CEO, will
remain with North Road for the next 3 years. According to Mr. Lewis, North Road is
obligated to meet all the Nyle services agreements. In a conversation with Mr. Lewis, he
acknowledged that some individuals at North Road were surprised by their service
commitments to MSHA. While there may be some hesitation at North Road to provide
free service to MSHA, this should not be a problem over the next year or so. Below is the
press release:
71

Product overview and deemed savings rates

North Road Technologies: The basement hot water heat pump is manufactured by
North Road Technologies, who have renamed the system the Geyser. Along with the
technology come number of promises from North Road, including that the Geyser is “the
most energy efficient way to heat water on the market today.” Additionally, they claim a
50-60% decrease in energy costs, though throughout this process savings this great have
not been seen in Maine. North Road Technologies boasts not only that it saves energy,
that it is environmentally friendly, dehumidifies and cools surrounding air, but also that it
the technology and manufacturing are done completely in the United States.
72
Geyser Product Overview
Average family can spend over $600 to heat their hot water every year.
a) Renewable Energy, Environmentally Friendly
a. use air in the basement to heat water
b. lower costs, fewer emissions, smaller carbon footprint, safer healthier
enviroment
c. US Government offers 30% tax credit to support Renewable Energy
appliances
b) Best Efficiency, Lowest Operating Cost
a. Can be connected to nearly any electric, gas, oil, or propane water heater
b. Lowest operating costs
c. You will notice the savings immediately after installation
c) Easy to install
a. Video and manual provided
d) Dehumidification
a. Dehumidifies the air in the surrounding area
b. Reduces mold and mildew
e) Savings
a. 50-60% energy savings
Geyser Technical Data
a) Features
a. 50-60% energy savings
b. fail safe design for hot water at all times
c. easy installation
d. virtually maintenance free
e. dehumidifies and cools surrounding air
f. five-year limited warranty
g. fast recovery and first hour hot water availability
b) Unit specifics
a. tank set for 120 degrees
b. adjustable temperatures from 90-140
Installation Process
Limited Warranty
a) one year for defects in workmanship and materials
b) five years on sealed refrigeration system only
c) warranty begins on date of original purchase
d) NTR has discretion on who will receive parts
e) Covers manufacturing defects
Benefits of the Geyser
a) the Geyser reduces energy costs
a. Heat pump technology
i. It uses the heat and moisture into the surrounding air to heat the
water as opposed to using gas oil or electricity.
ii. Considered an renewable energy source
73
b. Is up to 370% efficient as compared to 60-095% for more traditional water
heating systems
b) The Geyser is environmentally friendly
a. Uses a renewable energy source to heat the water
b. Federal and state incentives are given for this product including tax credit
c) The Geyser dehumidifies and cools the surrounding air
a. Dehumidifies the air reducing harmful mold, mildew and germs
b. Dehumidifies at a rate of 50 pints per day
d) US based greed technology and manufacturing jobs
a. Located in CT
b. Manufacturing in Maine
c. Most suppliers are US based
About Us: North Road Technologies

a) Environmental sensitivity
a. Help you fight back against global warming and pollution and rising fuel
costs
b. Keep environment safe without taking away quality dependability and
comfort
b) Experience
a. Deep knowledge of Heat Pump technology 30 years of designing
b. Technology partner with Nyle Corporation in Maine
Data Sample
Note: In order to isolate as much as possible the benefit of adding a BHWHP, any home
using electric heat were removed from the data analysis. We still made every effort to talk
to residence about their experience even if we did not use their consumption data. As a
result only 40 of the 58 homes could be used for the analysis.

74
Appendix III: Questionnaire for Basement Hot
Water Heat Pump Clients
REACh Project
Date:
Interviewer:
Client Name:
Phone:
Email:
1. How many household members?

2. When was your BHWHP installed?

3. Overall how was the installation?

4. Were there any other equipment changes made in conjunction with the installation
such as a new hot water heater? If so, please describe.

5. Have there been any changes since the initial installation such as a new hot water
heater or changes to your primary heat source?

6. Were the installers knowledgeable?

7. Where you informed about the equipment?

8. Did you receive any training?

9. Did you receive any energy education as to how to take advantage of the equipment?

10. Have there been any changes to your household size since the installation?

11. Have there been any changes in your household that would affect your electric usage
such as operating a home business, new appliances, TV?
75
12. What temperature do you maintain your hot water?

13. Have you modified your day to day habits in the way you use your domestic hot water
since the BHWHP was installed?

14. Have you noticed any differences in the amount of water hot available to the family?

15. Do you regularly review your electric utility bill?

16. Have you noticed any differences in your electric utility since the installation of the
BHWHP?

==============================================================

Questionnaire for Solar Hot Water Clients

Reach Project
Date:
Interviewer:
Client Name:
Phone:
Email:

1. How many household members?
2. When was your SHW installed?
3. When was it operational?
4. Tell us about the installation?
76
5. Were the installers knowledgeable?
6. Were you informed about the equipment?
7. Any training, etc?
8. Do you make any attempt to modify every day behavior to use hot water at times when
you know the tank is full with solar-‐heated water, during sunny days?

9. Do you monitor the temperature in your solar hot water tank to know when it is
charged with solar heated water?
10. Have you had any issues with your equipment?
11. Have you had to have any repairs? If so were the repairs done promptly? Who did the
repairs?
12. Recognizing that you may not have the data, have you noticed any differences in your
utility bill?
13. Do you review your energy bills regularly?
14. Are getting an adequate supply of hot water?
15. Do you have an electric hot water heater as the backup to your solar hot water?
77
16. Do you currently have high speed internet cable or DSL?
17. Who is the provider?
18. MSHA is looking for site to install some data monitoring equipment to help measure the
impact of your solar hot water system on your household. (I will be happy to describe
what the equipment is). Would you be interested in helping us out? A high speed
internet connection is needed and it would have a no impact your internet connection.
We will share the results with you so that you will know exactly how well it is
performing.

78
Appendix IV: Data Logger Schematics
79
80
81
Appendix V: Colby Intern Job Description
Residential Energy Assistance Challenge (REACh)- Basement Hot
Water Heat Pump Project (BHWHP) and Cold Climate Heat Pumps
Installations
January 2010
Maine State Housing used grant funds from the US Department of Health and Human
Services REACh program to provide alternative energy technology to DHHS Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) (pronounced Lie Heap) clients.
The LIHEAP program is intended to help low income households meet their immediate
home energy needs and REACh is intended to provide energy use reduction measures to
this LIHEAP client base. Several alternative energy technologies were installed during
2006 and 2007. This project is a study of Basement Hot Water Heat Pump and Cold
Climate Heat Pump technology installations to determine their effectiveness and
efficiency.
BHWHP technology was developed as a commercial product in the state of Maine and
was adapted to home use to reduce the amount electricity used to heat domestic hot
water.
During 2006 and 2007 BHWHPs were installed in approximately 60 homes by Maine
State Housing through the Community Action Programs in Kennebec County (KVCAP)
and Hancock County (Hancock County Community Action Program). Electric company
consumption data was collected for 58 of these households for the two years prior to
BHWHP’s installation and post installation through July of 2009.
These data reflect a reduction of power usage of approximately 10-20%. However, these
results need to be validated and clarified. For example, if the energy consumption went
up significantly, did the household increase during this time, were significant increases in
energy demanded by the household changes (such as a new baby demanding more home
laundry or raising chickens that needed heated water)? If the energy demands decreased
significantly, did the household circumstances change significantly to reduce the energy
consumption or were those energy savings a result of the BHWHP’s installation?
Cold Climate Heat Pumps were also installed during 2006 and 2007. There are two
different versions of the technology – Nyltherm and Hallowell versions - totaling 16
installations in the state (possibly only 11 remain – one in Winter Harbor and 10 in
Kennebec County). These heat pumps were installed to reduce electric home heating
costs.
The benefit of this technology is not as clear. The initial data appears to indicate no real
benefit from their installation. Also, users who were contacted complained about the
noise and the lack of benefit and approximately 30% have stopped using them (although
no one has talked to the remaining sites to determine if they are still in use), so the
number of those that are working needs to be clarified through interviews.
82
One site (in Winter Harbor) has a data logger, which collects information about the BTUs
produced. It is not clear how this data correlates to the electric consumption. This needs
to be analyzed and the site needs to be visited and the household interviewed.
The Project: During the month of January we need to contact and interview as many of
these 58 BHWHP households as we can. The interview is intended to 1) clarify
household circumstances that may have affected the gathered energy data, 2) determine
the quality of the installation and follow up service and 3) to determine the feasibility of a
site visit later in January. Once the interviews are complete, statistical analysis of the data
needs to be performed (with the help of Thomas College Statistics Professor Steven
Turner) and a report written.
Status and To Do:
x Utility data has been gathered and an initial examination completed.

x Several working spreadsheets were developed and modified with several versions
in existence. These spreadsheets need to sorted out to determine which is the most
recent and to ensure that the working spreadsheet is all inclusive of the data sets
we added through this initial evaluation.
x Using this data, determine the most abnormal data and identify households to call.
x A preliminary questionnaire has been developed but a final questionnaire needs to
be completed.
x Interview the original project manager at Maine State Housing to determine the
original intentions associated with this project. Understand the agreements
between the installation companies and Maine State Housing at inception.
Determine whether new agreements have been put in place and discuss future
alternatives.
x Interview the technology developers (Nyltherm and Hallowell’s to understand 1)
their perspective on the original contract, 2) Installation records, and intentions
and 3) in the case of Nyltherm, the impact of the technology sale to the new
company in Connecticut.
x Complete phone interviews for at least those households with the most significant
changes (both of up and down) of the 58 BHWHP households and a statistically
valid number of the remaining households. In addition, interview all cold climate
heat pump households to determine their experience of the technology and to
identify what is still being used.
x Complete site visits for sites where they have had abnormally high energy usage
after installation as well as sites where they have had abnormally low energy
usage. These will probably be mostly in Kennebec County to reduce the cost of
the travel. Visit the one remaining Hancock county site for Cold Climate Heat
Pump (Winter Harbor) – a sim card needs to be installed by JAI.
83
x Complete the analysis of the data (may involve using pivot tables on excel
spreadsheets).
x Determine whether the results of the study can be leveraged with the new owners
of the technology (North Roads Technologies, Stratford, Connecticut) to provide
some financial benefit to the state of Maine through lower acquisition or
maintenance costs.
x Write a report for Maine State Housing including recommendations for future
direction.

Preliminary Project Plan

Week 1 (January 5-8):
x Complete Orientation
x Complete Interviews with Maine State Housing, Hallowell, and Nyltherm
x Sort and Integrate Energy Data sheets
x Identify households for interviews and site visits
x Complete Final interview questions
x Identify data that needs to be captured in Spread sheets (as well as
interview notes)

x Conduc orientation site visits
x Conduct Interviews
x Capture appropriate data in spread sheets
x Complete preliminary data analysis
x Determine follow-up site visit locations and make appointments
Week 3 (January 18- 22):

x Complete Follow up site visits
x Complete Complex data analysis (pivot tables etc)
x Develop Conclusions and Review with JAI
x Complete Report rough draft

x Write Report
x Review Report with JAI and Complete Final Edits
84
Intern’s starting assignment:
x Orientation:
o Look at the utility data gathered for the BHWHP installations and for
the Cold Climate Heat Pumps
o Develop a basic understanding of the technology so that she has some
comfort level with how the technology works (this may include a visit
to several sites)
x Interviews
o Former project manager at Maine State Housing Authority
Original intentions
Original contracts
New agreements
Future intentions
o Nyltherm and Hallowell Cold Climate Heat Pump
Contract terms and maintenance agreement
What makes it work the best
x Unsnarl the excel spreadsheets to determine which are the most recent and all
inclusive. This may mean sitting down with Stephen Turner at Thomas
College.
x Determine households for interviews and possible site visits
x Develop final interview questionnaire. Gain agreement concerning info that
needs to be captured on the spreadsheets from the interviews
x Set up site visits for the following week
85
Appendix VI: Hallowell All Climate Heat Pump
Brochure
86
87

REACh Evauation Report Oct 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

REACh Evauation Report Oct 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maine REACh Project Evaluation

The Residential Energy Assistance Challenge Option Program (REACh) is a competitive

The Reach Program is designed to help identify alternative programs or individual

1. Reduce energy cost of participating households;

The GAO report described the program succinctly:

Service Delivery Plan

Tier 1: Energy Efficiency Education

Tier 2: Household Energy Audits

DOE CFLs and Refrigerator

Cold Climate Hot-Water

Energy education, DOE weatherization services, CFL replacement, refrigerator

Process evaluations assess program delivery, from design to implementation, in order to

Market effects evaluations estimate a program’s influence on encouraging future energy

This report is primarily an outcomes evaluation with a secondary focus on process

The Logic Model

Activities Immediate Intermediate

Resources Actviites Outputs Outcomes Impact on National

Assumptions Cold Climate

Solar Hot Water

EURM Services Number of EURMs Provided

As the project proceeded, the challenges of implementing multiple new technologies

Average Direct Cost of REACh IV EURMs

REACh IV Technologies Per Unit Direct Cost

A description of each EURM and a review of the implementation processes follow:

The Economics of a Solar Water Heater

System Design & Installation

Solar Hot Water Site Visits

Panel Orientation and Tilt

Benton 180ͼ 33ͼ 5 Panels installed upside

Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps

According to the General Electric Website

Dehumidification Benefit: As a compressor, the BHWHP reduces the humidity of the

System Design & Installation

x Could not be bothered

Cold Climate Heat Pumps

System Design and Installation

x Too noisy (installed under the bedroom windows in each apartment)

Small Wind Turbines

x One 10kw generator was installed at a multifamily elderly housing complex

WindCad Turbine Performance Model

Prepared For: Customer

Weibull Performance Calculations

Mill Stream Apartments, Winter Harbor, ME

IV. Intermediate Outcomes

Energy Billing Analysis

Energy billing analysis begins with a direct documentation of energy savings by

Energy savings = (baseline energy use) – (reporting period energy use) 6

There are technical limitations presented by this methodology, depending on the

Data Loggers and Onsite Monitoring

Data Preparation and Sample Size

EURM Sample Size

x Less than 12 months of pre-EURM installation monthly usage data

EURM Analysis Original Pruned

Basement Hot Water Heat Pumps

Per Unit Impact Analysis BHWHP by Quartile

The three cost alternatives include:

SIR Analysis of BHWHP

Solar Hot Water

Solar Hot Water Annual Energy Savings Analysis by Installation

Profile of Installation # 4 Solar Installation

SIR Analysis of Solar Hot Water

Cold Climate/All Climate Heat Pumps

Degree Day Adjusted Savings Analysis for Cold Climate