©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ADVISORY.

©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ADVISORY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING December 11, 2012 P HASE II: U NIT E NERGY S AVINGS (UES) M EASURE C OMPLIANCE Residential Dishwashers, Residential Single Family Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades, Specialty CFL and LED Downlights, Green Motor Rewinds, and Refrigerator & Freezer Decomissioning Presented by: Mohit Singh-Chhabra Navigant Reference: 157741

1 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY 1Residential Dishwashers Agenda Heat Pumps2 3Specialty CFL/ LED Downlights 4Motor Rewinds 5Refrigerator/ Freezer Recycling

2 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Residential Dishwashers Measure Description and Properties Measure Classification and Properties Market SectorResidential Market SegmentAll Measure CategoryAppliances Measure Description Replacement of "standard" dishwashers (Holds eight or more place settings) with Energy Star and CEE rated efficient dishwashers Sunset CriteriaMay 30th, 2014 Primary WorkbookDishwashers_11262012_v2.xlsm Linked WorkbooksNo External links Number of Measures, and UES Components A total of 6 measures, 2 efficiency Tiers (Energy Star and CEE Tier 1); 3 water heating fuel types (Electric, Gas, Any), based on two UES components

3 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Actions Taken to Bring Measure Into Compliance Residential Dishwashers TaskTask SourceStatus Use updated CEC dataset for kWh/year and gallons/cycle (WF) values when categorizing baseline and measure units. If suggested parameters are used, remove the standby energy savings component. Recommendation MemoCompleted Update Energy Star and CEE specifications. Recommendation MemoCompleted Correct wastewater savings calculations per recommendation memo Recommendation MemoCompleted Consolidate data source tabs Recommendation MemoCompleted Update cycle per year estimate through RBSA data NWPCCCompleted

4 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Federal standard change will take effect in May, 2013 where the kWh/year reduces from 355 kWh to 307 kWh. Energy Star Tier 2 will take effect in January 1, 2014, Tier 2 standards are currently unknown. Source: Energy Star Dishwasher Program Requirement V5: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=products_for_partners.showDishwashers http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=products_for_partners.showDishwashers Point for Discussion: Federal Standard Change in May, 2013 Residential Dishwashers Maximum kWh/year consumption and gallon/cycle for baseline and efficient cases. StandardEF (kWh/cycle)kWh/yeargallon/cycle Baseline Cases Federal - current, as of January 2010 No requirement3556.5 Federal- effective in May, 2013 No requirement3076.5 Efficient Cases Energy StarNo requirement2954.5 CEE Tier 10.752954.5

5 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Points for Discussion: Average Place Settings, Cycles per Year, Machine kWh/year Residential Dishwashers Machine kWh/year includes energy to operate the motor and booster heater. Average place settings is higher in the efficient case. 170 cycles/year based on RBSA 2012, previous assumption is 215 cycles/year. v

6 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Savings Results Comparison Residential Dishwashers Effective in May 2013, minimum Federal Standard for dishwashers is 307 kWh. This analysis is based on that standard. Energy Star and CEE Tier changed in January, 2011, previous CEE Tier 2 standard (<295 kWh) is the same as the current Energy Star and CEE Tier 1 Standards. In addition, current CEE Tier 1 standard includes a minimum Energy Factor of 0.75. Negative kWh savings in Gas DHW fuel type due to higher machine kWh but lower water heating kWh in efficient cases.

7 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Incremental Cost Results Comparison Residential Dishwashers Effective in May 2013, minimum Federal Standard for dishwashers is 307 kWh. Energy Star and CEE Tier changed in January, 2011, previous CEE Tier 2 standard (<295 kWh) is the same as the current Energy Star and CEE Tier 1 Standards. In addition, current CEE Tier 1 standard includes a minimum Energy Factor of 0.75.

8 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY TRC Results Comparison Residential Dishwashers Effective in May 2013, minimum Federal Standard for dishwashers is 307 kWh. Energy Star and CEE Tier changed in January, 2011, previous CEE Tier 2 standard (<295 kWh) is the same as the current Energy Star and CEE Tier 1 Standards. In addition, current CEE Tier 1 standard includes a minimum Energy Factor of 0.75.

9 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Summary Residential Dishwashers Updating the cycles per year from previous assumption of 215 cycles/year to the current RBSA data yields 170 cycles per year reduced energy consumption for both baseline and efficient cases thus reducing the UES estimate. Baseline and Efficient dishwashers have become more efficient. Baseline dishwasher average UEC reduced from 313 kWh to 277kWh. Efficient dishwashers average reduced from 289 kWh to 270 kWh. Negative savings observed in Gas DHW cases are caused by higher machine kWh usage by efficient machines. Federal Standard change will become effective in May, 2013. Energy Star Tier 2 standard will take effect in January, 2014; the standards for which has not been determined. All Electric DHW and Any Fuel DHW measures have TRC’s above 1.

10 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY RTF Proposed Motion: “I _________ move that the RTF approve the Residential Dishwasher UES Measure to “Proven” with “Active” status and a sunset date of May 30th, 2014

11 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Single Family Air Source Heat Pump Upgrade Measure Classification and Properties – Existing Construction Market SectorResidential Market SegmentSingle Family Measure CategoryHVAC Measure Description Single Family Home HVAC Upgrade - Heat Pump Upgrade from 8.5 HSPF/13 SEER to 9.0 HSPF/14 SEER (Existing Construction) Sunset Criteria New Federal Standards will be effective 1/1/2015; at this time updates should be applied to the baseline and measure efficiency levels. Primary WorkbookSFmHeatPumpUpgradesExisting_Final RTF Review.xlsm Linked WorkbooksNo External links Number of Measures, and UES Components 3 Measures with 1 Component Each

12 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Single Family Air Source Heat Pump Upgrade Measure Classification and Properties – New Construction Market SectorResidential Market SegmentSingle Family Measure CategoryHVAC Measure Description Single Family Home HVAC Upgrade - Heat Pump Upgrade from 8.5 HSPF/13 SEER to 9.0 HSPF/14 SEER (New Construction) Sunset Criteria New Federal Standards will be effective 1/1/2015; at this time updates should be applied to the baseline and measure efficiency levels. Primary WorkbookSFmHeatPumpUpgradesNewConstruction_Final RTF Review.xlsm Linked WorkbooksNo External links Number of Measures, and UES Components 3 Measures with 1 Component Each

13 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Single Family Air Source Heat Pump Upgrade Actions to Bring Measure Into Compliance TaskTask SourceStatus Split workbook for “Residential Heat Pump Upgrades” and separate workbooks for “Existing” and “New Construction” Recommendations memoCompleted Workbook and structure formulae corrections to only include data relevant to upgrade measures Recommendations memo Completed, Updated SEEM Runs and 2012 Cost Data Update documentation and measure runs from SEEM 92 to reflect the latest information on heating and cooling loads in the region Recommendations memo Completed, Updated Existing and Created New Construction Measure Runs in SEEM 92 due to additional calibration required for SEEM 94 Research codes and standards for different states in the Northwest to better understand the new construction measure NWPCCCompleted, 2011 ORSC Used

14 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY SEEM 92 Updated Runs Single Family Air Source Heat Pump Upgrade Both Existing and New Construction workbooks have been updated to the HCA3 heat pump model along with internal gains assumptions based on the most recent RTF lighting hours of use. Existing Construction SEEM 92 Workbook Changes Updated to the HCA3 heat pump model with revised RTF internal gains assumptions for lighting hours of operation at 1.5 hrs/day. New Construction SEEM 92 Workbook Developed similarly to the updated Existing Construction SEEM 92 workbook following the same heat pump sizing method based on non-PTCS sizing practices (“standard practice”). Baseline established from the Residential Single Family Energy Star Homes Oregon 2012 measure following the Oregon Residential Specialty (ORSC 2011) code-minimum and Envelope Enhancement Measure 5. Regional codes for prescriptive requirements are all similar except for Idaho crawl spaces which follows the 2009 IECC with no amendments showing R-10 Sheathing / R-13 continuous interior insulation whereas the ORSC 2011 calls for R-30 insulation for underfloors and R-15 insulation for below-grade walls.

15 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Incremental Cost Results Comparison Single Family Air Source Heat Pump Upgrade * ** *Single Family Residential New Construction Heat Pump Upgrades is a new measure and therefore has no prior case.

16 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Savings Results Comparison Single Family Air Source Heat Pump Upgrade *** *Single Family Residential New Construction Heat Pump Upgrades is a new measure and therefore has no prior case.

17 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY TRC Results Comparison Single Family Air Source Heat Pump Upgrade *** *Single Family Residential New Construction Heat Pump Upgrades is a new measure and therefore has no prior case.

18 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY RTF Proposed Motion: “I _________ move that the RTF approve the Single Family Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades UES Measure to “Proven” with “Active” status with a sunset date of August 2, 2015.”

21 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Actions Taken to Bring Measure Into Compliance Specialty CFLs/LED Downlights TaskTask SourceNotes Workbook structure and formulae need corrections include re- running Pro- Cost and adding a quality control test to detect out of date pro cost runs. This measure will also be separated into two different workbooks to accommodate the number of measures and differing costs, EULs that accompany each measure. Recommendations Memo Completed Documentation updates to correct hours of use sources. Recommendations Memo Completed Update Sales data for weightings from PECI Change a Light to BPA Simple Steps Smart Savings for wattages and HOU. Recommendations Memo Completed Measure Definition needs to be updated to include sunset criteria based on EISA (Energy Independence and Security Act) requirements. Recommendations Memo Completed Input parameter updates include updating the source used for baseline incandescent wattages by lamp type, updating the hours of use (HOU) tables, and update lamp wattage sources for “Outdoor” lamp type baseline wattage using current sources for “Exterior” lamp wattages. Recommendations Memo Completed

22 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Specialty CFLs/LED Downlights Comparison of Baseline and Efficient Wattages Baseline Source: KEMA, "Upstream Lighting Program Evaluation Report, Volume 1", prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission, February 2010 Efficient Source: BPA Simple Steps, Smart Savings Sales Promotion Sales Data

23 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Specialty CFLs/LED Downlights Comparison of Hours of Use Sources: BPA Simple Steps, Smart Savings Sales Promotion Sales Data Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting Program.” KEMA, Inc. CPUC (February 8, 2010) 2010 Lighting Market Characterization Report (DOE 2010)

24 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Storage Rate Specialty CFLs/LED Downlights The storage rate was updated with data from the 2012 Residential Building Stock Assessment (RBSA) study done by NEEA. The RBSA gave a storage rate of 23.7% for all CFLS as compared to previously used value of 20% for Retail and 36% for Direct Mailing programs. No storage rate was applied for LEDs. Source: NEEA 2012 - Regional Building Stock Assessment (RBSA) - Single Family Characteristics Table 80. Percentage of All CFLS That Are Stored State%EBn ID19.40%3.70%158 MT25.70%3.50%150 OR25.90%3.10%284 WA23.10%1.80%639 Region23.70%1.40%1,231

25 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Reviewed all of the Specialty Bulbs to see if the incandescent bases are still exempt from EISA standards Dimmable and Outdoor Incandescent bulbs must adhere to overall incandescent EISA requirements. –Current average baselines will be effected on January 1 st, 2014 3-Ways, and all Candelabra Bulbs <40 watts are exempt Decorative Globe Bulbs are currently exempt under the standard overall incandescent EISA requirements –The current baseline average will be affected on January 1 st, 2014 All Incandescent Reflector Lamps are exempt EISA 2007 Standards Update Specialty CFLs/LED Downlights

26 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY EISA 2007 Standards Update Specialty CFLs/LED Downlights Source: D.O.E - LED lighting facts - http://lightingfacts.com/content/efficiency/summary

27 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY The change in baseline and efficient wattages has caused the savings to decrease The hours of use have decreased for some measures, causing the savings to decrease The storage rate has increased for Retail CFL measures and decreased for Direct Mail measures These changes caused some TRCs to lower, but most to rise These changes are outlined in the graphs in the next slides Effects of the changes Specialty CFLs/LED Downlights

28 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Savings Results Comparison – Retail CFLs Specialty CFLs/LED Downlights Savings went down for all Retail CFL measures due to a decrease in average baseline wattages found in KEMA 2010 study and a decrease in hours of use for some measures

29 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Savings Results Comparison – Direct Install CFLs Specialty CFLs/LED Downlights Savings went down for all Retail CFL measures due to a decrease in average baseline wattages found in KEMA 2010 study and a decrease in hours of use for some measures

30 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Cost Results Comparison – Retail CFLs Specialty CFLs/LED Downlights Measure costs were deflated to 2006 dollars

31 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Cost Results Comparison – Direct Install CFLs Specialty CFLs/LED Downlights Measure costs were deflated to 2006 dollars

34 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Savings Results Comparison – LED Downlights Specialty CFLs/LED Downlights The Halogen base and CFL baseline wattages increased, causing the savings to increase for those measures.

35 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Cost Results Comparison – LED Downlights Specialty CFLs/LED Downlights Measure costs were deflated to 2006 dollars

37 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY RTF Proposed Motion: I _________ move that the RTF approve the Specialty CFL and LED Downlights UES Measures to “Proven” with “Active” status with a sunset date of January 1, 2014

38 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Green Motor Rewinds Measure Classification and Properties Market SectorIndustrial; Agricultural Market SegmentAll Segments Measure CategoryMotors Measure Description Motors are rewound by Green Motors Practices Group (GMPG) program participants to the GMPG specifications rather than non- participant motor rewind shops. Measures are identified by motor horsepower ratings that range from 7.5 to 5,000. Sunset CriteriaOctober 1, 2017 Primary Workbook ProCostRTFTemplate257f_v3_9 Green Motor Rewinds 12_3_12 v11.xlsm Linked WorkbooksNone Number of Measures, and UES Components 72 total measures each calculated using a single UES component: 36 horsepower ratings x 2 market sectors (ind and ag)

39 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Green Motor Rewinds Summary of Actions to Date TaskTask SourceResult Update efficiency rating assumption for motors greater than 500 horsepower. Recommendation memo Resolved. Manufacturer data for motors 600 HP and above provided by GMPG submittal. Consider developing additional measure categories by motor type [Totally Enclosed Fan Cooled (TEFC), Open Drip Proof (ODP)] or motor speed (1200-3600 rpm). Recommendation memo Discussion item. Navigant recommends no further categorization as this provides little effect (~1-2%) on overall savings. Update standard rewind efficiency degradation assumption with studies of significantly smaller and larger motors. Recommendation memo Discussion item. A study of smaller motor (7.5 HP) rewind efficiency degradation was provided by GMPG submittal. Studies of motors larger than 150 HP are unavailable, as are studies of rewind efficiency degradation comparing motors in the field. Update duty cycle (operating hours) using average op hours, by horsepower rating, from the NW Motor Database. Recommendation memo Industrial op hours – Discussion item. Cascade Energy found that NW database run hours show minimal correlation to motor size and end use. 1 Agricultural op hours – Resolved. BPA provided motor operating hour data from its Ag Irrigation program. 1 Cascade Energy, presentation to the RTF on super high efficiency motors. November 14, 2012.

40 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Green Motor Rewinds Summary of Actions to Date (continued) TaskTask SourceResult Update motor load factor assumption using average load factor, by horsepower rating, from the NW Motor Database. Recommendation memo Agricultural motor loading – Resolved. Based on BPA data compiled between 2002 and 2012 of actual motor loads measured during irrigation pump testing. Industrial motor loading – Discussion item. See Discussion item 2) below. Combine industrial and agricultural green motor rewind RTF workbooks due to major similarities between them. NWPCC / Navigant Resolved. Navigant combined industrial and agricultural efficient motor rewinds into a single workbook. Conduct further research into: 1) efficiency degradation assumption used by MotorMaster software, and 2) load factor assumptions in the NW Motor Database November RTF Meeting Discussion items: 1)According to DOE, the MotorMaster standard efficiency degradation assumption of 0.5 to 1% is based primarily on an EASA study of six 100-150 HP motors. 2)Motor loading data in the NW motors database was collected in a number of ways (metered/calculated, self- reported, estimated, etc.). Reported motor load estimates do not account for idle time.

41 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Discussion Item: Additional Measure Categories Green Motor Rewinds HP Average annual Energy Savings for GMPG Rewind (kWh) Min Savings (kWh) Max Savings (kWh) Average Savings (kWh) % Difference, Avg Savings vs. Max Savings ODPTEFC 1200 RPM1800 RPM3600 RPM1200 RPM1800 RPM3600 RPM 7.5141139147139137144 1371471414.10% 10182 192185182189 1821921863.30% 20359355371365355371 3553713632.20% 25532525547532525547 5255475352.30% 50725719742725719742 7197427291.90% 751,0079961,0261,0079881,026 9881,0261,0091.80% 1001,5501,5371,5971,5501,5371,580 1,5371,5971,5582.50% 1251,8901,8751,9271,8901,8751,890 1,8751,9271,8911.90% 1502,2502,2312,3122,231 2,269 2,2312,3122,2542.60% 2002,9992,9743,0252,9742,9502,999 2,9503,0252,9871.30% 2504,4214,3844,4594,3844,3484,384 4,3484,4594,3971.40% 3005,3055,2615,3055,2615,2175,261 5,2175,3055,2690.70% 4007,015 6,9567,015 6,9567,0157,0050.10% 5008,695 8,768 8,6958,768 8,6958,7688,7320.40% Navigant does not recommend extending motor rewind categories to differentiate between motor type (ODP/TEFC) or motor speed (1200-3600 RPM), as these have a minimal effect on overall savings. (Note: This would also add an additional 360 measure line items).

42 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY HP Range Load FactorAnnual Op. Hours 5 to 20 HP79% 5,325 25 to 50 HP80% 5,592 60 to 100 HP78% 5,829 125 to 200 HP80% 5,922 250 to 500 HP82% 5,743 600 to 1,000 HP82% 7,065 1,025 to 5,000 HP82% 7,038 Discussion Item: Industrial Motor Loading and Op Hours Green Motor Rewinds NW Industrial Motor Database load factors were collected through different methods including metering/calculating, self-reported, and estimated based on end use. Reported motor load estimates do not account for idle time. Cascade Energy RTF presentation found minimal correlation between size, op hours and end use in the NW Industrial Motors Database. 1 Table below shows current industrial motor estimates. 1 Cascade Energy, presentation to the RTF on super high efficiency motors. November 14, 2012.

43 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY MotorMaster’s default standard rewind efficiency degradation (0.5 – 1%) is primarily based on 2003 EASA lab test of six motors between 100 and 150 HP. 1 Lab test showed efficiency degradation from non-process controlled rewinds of 0.3 to 1% (with an average of 0.6%). The 2003 EASA study, in conjunction with the MotorMaster default assumption (which is also based on EASA) was previously used as the RTF’s standard efficiency rewind degradation assumption. GMPG submittal provided a second study by the Association of Electrical and Mechanical Trades (AEMT) of much smaller motors (7.5 HP) showing efficiency degradations between 0.5 and 3%. 2 Studies of efficiency degradation for motors larger than 150 HP are unavailable. Studies of efficiency degradation comparing motors in the field or program/non-program participants are also unavailable. Discussion Item: Standard Rewind Efficiency Degradation Green Motor Rewinds 1 EASA/AEMT (2003). The Effect of Repair and Rewinding on Motor Efficiency. 2 AEMT (1996). The AEMT Good Practices Guide – Appendix 2: Burn-out Ovens and Their Effect on Stator Core Losses.

44 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Do the Studies Used for Standard Rewind Efficiency Degradation Meet One of the Allowable Proven UES Estimation Procedures? Green Motor Rewinds Procedure 1: Statistical (Section 3.1.1, pg. 8 of the guidelines) “The UES estimate may be derived from statistical analysis of baseline and efficient case energy use.”* Navigant’s recommendation: Does not meet guidelines Neither the 2003 EASA study nor the 1996 AEMT study were designed to provide statistical samples of a population. To use either of these studies as the statistical sample of the NW motor rewind population is not statistically justifiable. Procedure 2: Meta-Statistical (Section 3.1.2, pg. 9 of the guidelines) “In some cases, relatively small statistical studies are conducted by a number of different agencies. None of these studies alone provide sufficient confidence in the UES estimate. However, the RTF may determine that a value in the range of savings demonstrated by these studies constitutes a sufficiently reliable estimate.”* * Regional Technical Forum (RTF). Guidelines for the Development and Maintenance of RTF Savings Estimation Methods. June 1, 2011.

45 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Green Motor Rewinds Navigant’s recommendation: RTF needs to decide if these studies qualify as meta-statistical per the guidelines The provided motor rewind studies are not “statistical studies” in the sense that the motors tested were not designed be a statistical sample of a population. If the studies are considered to be “statistical studies,” the RTF could determine a “sufficiently reliable estimate” from these studies – which in the case of standard motor efficiency degradation would be some value between 0.3 and 3% (with an average closer to 0.6%). Procedure 3: Calibrated Engineering (Section 3.1.3, pg. 9 of the guidelines) “UES may be estimated with calibrated engineering procedures… Calibrated engineering estimates may be based on measurement and modeling of savings for randomly selected end users. Alternatively, they may be any group of program participants, if the RTF determines that the group is sufficiently representative of likely future participants.”* * Regional Technical Forum (RTF). Guidelines for the Development and Maintenance of RTF Savings Estimation Methods. June 1, 2011. Do the Studies Used for Standard Rewind Efficiency Degradation Meet One of the Allowable Proven UES Estimation Procedures?

46 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Green Motor Rewinds Navigant’s recommendation: RTF needs to decide if this study qualifies as a calibrated engineering study per guidelines It does not appear that the provided studies use “randomly selected end users” or “program participants” for the motors tested. The GMPG submittal references The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard C392-11 1, which may be able to assess savings of this measure going forward, in conjunction with additional data; however, collecting the data would be difficult. C392-11’s foreword states, “This Standard provides guidance to electric motor service centers in verifying that the refurbishing process has maintained or enhanced the electric motor (hereafter motor) efficiency. It is also intended to provide a reliable evaluation of changes in the condition of the motor, with respect to its efficiency that might have resulted from its failure…” 1 Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Standard C392-11, Testing of three-phase squirrel cage induction motors during refurbishment. 2011. Do the Studies Used for Standard Rewind Efficiency Degradation Meet One of the Allowable Proven UES Estimation Procedures?

53 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY RTF Proposed Motion: I _________ move that the RTF approve the Green Motor Rewinds UES measures to “Proven” with “Active” status with a sunset date of October, 2017

54 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Refrigerator/Freezer Decommissioning Measure Classification and Properties Market SectorResidential Market SegmentAll Segments Measure CategoryRefrigerators Measure Description Decommissioning and recycling of functional refrigerator or freezer Sunset CriteriaJune 29, 2014 Primary WorkbookFrigRecycle_FY10v2_3 Linked WorkbooksNo External links Number of Measures, and UES Components 2 measures: Refrigerator decommissioning Freezer decommissioning

55 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Summary of Updates TaskDescriptionUpdates Part-Use Factor Accounts for the year that the appliance is not in use Sourced from four regional reports: Avista 2010-2011, PacifiCorp ID PY 2009-2010, PacifiCorp WA PY2009-2010, and ETO 2011 Applied weighted average by number of recycled units Left On Grid Value Percentage of units that would have been left on grid if they were not recycled Kept-and-Used Value Percentage of units that would have been left on grid and kept and used if they were not recycled Replacement Associated with Kept and Used (R1) Induced replacement caused by program Revised induced replacement to 2% based on the rationale that only program induced replacements should have savings decrements Replacement Associated with Sold/Donated (R2) Replacement associated with the would have recipients of the “Sold/Donated” units recycled through the programs. Using a 50% R2 value to reflect uncertainties and no existing study is available for a robust assessment of this value. Gross Annual kWh/Unit Unit energy consumption by vintage prior to adjustments with attribution parameters Presenting the kWh resulting from the AHAM method and the UMP method In-Situ Adjustment Accounts for the differences in unit energy consumption from the lab condition to field condition This factor will not be applicable if the UMP model is adopted Efficiency Factor Accounts for the more efficient units recycled through the program in future years. This factor will not be applicable if the UMP model is adopted Measure Life Remaining useful life of recycled units through the program Presenting both DOE and ADM Survival Curves Requires Decision by RTF

56 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Part-use Factor, Left On Grid Value, and Kept-and-Used Value ParameterRefrigeratorFreezers Prior to UpdateCurrentPrior to UpdateCurrent Part-Use Factor99%93%94%90% Left On Grid Value59%66%69%67% Kept-and-Used Value10%8%14%12% Parameters sourced from four regional reports: Avista 2010-2011, PacifiCorp ID PY 2009-20 10, PacifiCorp WA PY2009-2010, and ETO 2011. Developed a regional weighted average based on the number of units recycled in each program These changes lead to an increase in the left on grid value and decrease in the part-use factor and the kept-and-used value.

57 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning R1 and R2 Values R1 The 2% replacement value is sourced from Cadmus analysis documented in the Pacific Power Washington “See ya later, refrigerator®” 2009-2010 Evaluation (3%) and Avista 2010-2011 Refrigerator Recycling Evaluation (1%). The induced replacement factor is a difficult value to get and it represents a small fraction of the total units recycled through the programs. However, the value should be included in the analysis to demonstrate thoroughness. The impact of this value is minimal to the UES. R2 Replacement associated with the would have been recipients of the sold/donated units impacts the UES. However, the R2 value is very difficult to get especially with uncertainties surrounding survey questions and how respondents could have difficulty answering the questions. A 50% factor is used in this analysis until a better source is available. ParameterRefrigeratorFreezers R1- Induced Replacement (kept and used)2% R1- Induced Replacement (sold and donated, would have been recipients) 2% R1- Induced Replacement (left off-grid)2% R2- Replacement (sold and donated, would have been recipients) 50%

58 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Gross Annual kWh, In-situ Value, and Efficiency Factor AHAMUMP Method Description Using the vintage of each recycled unit in the dataset, lookup the kWh consumption from AHAM historical data. The UEC is adjusted with in-situ factor to account for field conditions. An efficiency factor is developed by comparing the kWh of 2009, 2010, and 2011. The efficiency factor is applied to the average UEC to account for efficiency improvements in recycled units in the future two years. Using a regression model to calculate UEC for each of the units in the dataset. Data entries with incomplete information are not included in the analysis. A regional HDD and CDD sourced from NWPCC is utilized in this calculation. Properties Represents the average consumption of all refrigerator/freezer configurations. Can be updated relatively easily as AHAM publishes new data. More in-situ studies have been developed recently, current in-situ value in analysis sourced from CA ARP 2006-08 study. Eliminates the need for an in-situ value. The regression model will be obsolete in a few years and new data collection on installed units will be necessary. Freezer regression model is not available, so this can only apply to refrigerator UEC calculation. Efficiency trend observed using this calculation method is unclear. Gross Annual Unit Energy Consumption Refrigerator: 1,092 kWh; Freezer: 1,192kWh (Including both in-situ and efficiency factor) Refrigerator: 1,179 kWh; Freezer: N/A

59 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning UEC Comparison AHAM Method vs. UMP Method Average Recycled Refrigerator Vintage, 1987

60 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Measure Life Methodology Comparison ADM MethodologyDOE Technical Support Document Survey Region CaliforniaNational Data Source 1. RASS 2009 Survey Results; Includes refrigerator stock and if respondents have recently discarded refrigerator 2. Percentage of refrigerator discards taken out of stock sourced from 2004 Statewide Refrigerator Recycling Study 5 RECS Surveys 1990, 1993, 1997, 2001,2005 and AHAM Historical Shipment Data Sample Size California 2009 RASS, n= 5588 (source for discard rate) ADM Statewide Study, n= 160 (source for discard rate taken out of stock) RECS 2005: n=4,382 RECS 2001: n=4,822 RECS 1997: n= 5,900 RECS 1993: n= 7,111 RECS 1990: n= 6,095 n= 28,310 Methodology Based on 2009 RASS data and the 2004 California recycling survey, derived a Survival curve (Weibull) from percentage of discarded refrigerators taken out of stock. Using the Survival curve, a hazard function (exponential curve) is developed to develop an RUL schedule based on appliance age. Stock is calculated based on AHAM shipment data; RECS survey results (units found in households) represent the survival of refrigerators. Other refrigerators are assumed to have been taken out of stock. A survival (Weibull curve) is developed by aggregating data from the 5 surveys.

61 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Measure Life Methodology Comparison (continued) ADM MethodologyDOE Technical Support Document Properties Discard rate data are relatively recent (2009). Relatively low discard rate in CA in 2009 appears generally consistent with national 2011-2012 trends such as the sluggish conditions reported by GE and Whirlpool (the two main domestic manufacturers) - major layoffs Direct link between age-delineated stock and age-delineated discards Based on national data, unlikely to be very different than PNW data. Uncertainties Fitting of the Survival Curve: plotting the discard rate over the different age within each of the bin yields differences in the shape of the curve. Temporal uncertainty: Is 2009 RASS stock data and 2004 discard rate data the best available data representing current conditions? Geographical difference: how similar are the two regions? Economical/Temporal uncertainties: Does the 5 surveys adequately represent current conditions in PNW? If people tend to hold on to their refrigerators during economic downturn, how does that affect the shape factor of the fitted curve? Geographical difference: How similar is the change in PNW region housing data compared to national housing data? RUL Applied to Dataset Refrigerator: 8.1 years Refrigerator: 6.5 years Freezer: 5.2 years

62 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Comparison of the RUL Schedules Calculated by the DOE Survival Curve and the ADM Survival Curve Average Recycled Refrigerator Age, 24 years

63 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Measure Summary Cost Savings TRC This analysis utilizes the AHAM gross annual kWh calculation method and the DOE survival curve for RUL calculations. TRC for both measures are above 1.

64 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY RTF Proposed Motion: I _________ move that the RTF approve the Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning UES measure to “Proven” with “Active” status with a sunset date of June, 2014

©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ADVISORY.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ADVISORY."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ADVISORY.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ADVISORY."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback