# Refrigerator Decommissioning: Brother In Law Factor April 23, 2014 1.

## Presentation on theme: "Refrigerator Decommissioning: Brother In Law Factor April 23, 2014 1."— Presentation transcript:

Refrigerator Decommissioning: Brother In Law Factor April 23, 2014 1

Timeline: March 14th - Subcommittee reconvened to understand existing sources of data. Recommended path forward to Staff April 16th - Subcommittee met to decide R2 (brother-in-law) factor value. No consensus on R2. Further subcommittee discussion seems fruitless, so we elevated to the RTF. Today (April 23 rd )- RTF direction on R2 May RTF meeting: Presentation to the RTF; aim to get an RTF decision. June RTF meeting (If Required): Second presentation to the RTF if necessary. 2

Brother In Law Factor/ R2 As Per UMP: Percentage of the would-be acquirers of avoided transfers that found an alternate unit are referred to as “R2”. Note, Percentage of the would-be acquirers of avoided transfers that did not find an alternate unit are “(1-R2)”. 3

Subcommittee Meeting Attendees Jaco: Bob Nicholas, Phil Sisson (Consultant) PSE: Bobbi Wilhelm KEMA: Ken Agnew Cadmus: Josh Keeling, Doug Bruchs CleaResult: Mark Jerome. RTF: Adam Hadley, Mohit Singh-Chhabra CADMUS: Doug Bruchs, Josh Keeling Avista: David Thompson. 4

R2 Option- 1 (UMP/ Status Quo) R2 = 50% Justification: Midpoint between extreme values (0% and 100%) We don’t know and can’t measure this factor accurately. Votes: Bob Nicholas (JACO) Concerned that this factor needs to be studied more before we decide to modify it. 5

R2 Option-2. (PSE Study) R2 = 97 % Justification: Based on survey data. Vote: Bobbi Wilhelm (PSE) “Concerned that because energy savings estimates feed into the adjusted load forecast for DSM that we would over adjust if not taking 97%. Need to be absolutely certain that savings exist because they impact how we plan for supply side and demand side resources. “Worried that voting on savings vs. using best available data limits our ability to optimize our portfolio.” David Thompson (Avista) Agrees with Bobbi’s concern that we need to be certain about savings for load forecasting. 6

R2 Option 3: Meet in the Middle R2 = 75% Justification: Would-be non-opportunistic acquisitions are likely to get acquired anyway (i.e. R2 = 100%). 55% could be the lower limit of R2, based on: Initial Cadmus analysis from 4 extra-regional surveys estimates that 55 % of non-participant recycled units would have ended up as an non- opportunistic acquisition. Assuming all would-be opportunistic acquisitions do not acquire a unit. 100 % is the theoretical upper limit of R2. Assuming all would-be opportunistic acquisitions do acquire a unit. 75 % is in the middle. 7

R2 Option 3: Meet in the Middle Votes: Adam Hadley (RTF) This is a very difficult thing to study; we’re close enough. Mark Jerome (CleaResult) Agree with above logic Doug Bruchs & Josh Keeling (Cadmus) Agree with above logic Phil Sisson (JACO Consultant) Provisionally agree with above logic – but want to review nonparticipant surveys and instruments. 8

Proposed Decision “I __________ move that the RTF approve development of the Residential Refrigerator Decommissioning measure with the assumption that: R2 = 50 % OR R2 = 75 % OR R2 = 97% OR Something else. 9

Download ppt "Refrigerator Decommissioning: Brother In Law Factor April 23, 2014 1."

Similar presentations