1. Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning: Deemed Measure Review and Update Regional Technical Forum June 1 st, 2010

2. Overview of Measure Measure Description – Early retirement of residential refrigerators and freezers curbside-pickup: main method retailer-pickup: programs beginning to explore this option Measure Requirement – Must be in working condition (makes cold) – At least 10 ft 3 in capacity – Must be decommissioned and its components recycled History – Originally, RTF established a deemed calculator – June 2005 – RTF established deemed savings for residential refrigerator recycling – April 2007 – RTF established deemed savings for residential freezer recycling Scale & Available PNW Data – 7 PNW Utilities’ 2009 programs recycled 34,000 units Translates to nearly 4 aMW using current RTF values – Data collected by JACO in the following utility programs: Avista, ETO, Snohomish, Tacoma, Seattle, PSE, and Idaho Power Current Deemed Measures: 2

3. Measure’s Relationship to 6 th Plan Reason(s) it's not in the Plan The Plan already accounts for savings from natural replacement of the existing stock. – The baseline condition is "standard practice" efficiency of new equipment at the start of the Plan (2010). – With a 20-year life, all refrigerators get replaced during the planning period with at least the baseline condition efficiency. Savings from refrigerator decommissioning only last until the unit would be replaced on normal burnout, something well short of 20 years. – The savings from existing equipment efficiency to current standard practice efficiency are already "locked in" since codes/standards/standard practices are not assumed to go backward. – There is no additional savings potential over the long-term from decommissioning. The Plan acknowledges it does not provide an exhaustive list of all the available cost-effective measures that can be performed over the next 20 years. Reason(s) utilities can claim "early retirement" savings Decommissioning saves energy. Decommissioning gets the Region to the long-term target early (speeds up natural replacement) – Assuming the savings are cost-effective, this adds value to the Region. – Cost-effectiveness depends on a number of factors how programs are structured, the natural replacement cycle, the age distribution of the stock being decommissioned, the cost of the decommissioning, the timing and depth of future improvements in standards, etc. Note: Since savings from refrigerator decommissioning are much like the savings achieved with code/standard changes, we have to take care not to count them twice when reporting regional savings in the regional roll-up. 3

4. Measure Analysis Overview Energy Savings = (kWh old )×(F partuse ) ×(Net adjustment ) kWh old : Average Annual Energy Use of Recycled Refrigerators (and Freezers) F partuse : Part-Use Factor Takes into account units that would have been operated part of the year, or not at all Net adjustment : Net Savings Adjustments – Takes into account units that would have been taken out of service without the program Measure Life = Remaining Useful Life of the Equipment Measure Cost = Collection Cost + Recycle Cost 4

5. “It is clear that, despite over a decade of practice, evaluations of appliance recycling programs continue to suffer from significant uncertainty in key performance parameters.” [Eric Daly, Val Jensen, and Bruce Wall] “Evaluation of the Energy and Environmental Effects of the California Appliance Early Retirement and Recycling Program,” Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Seattle, 2003. 5

6. Site/Lab Factor: Adjustment for DOE test lab performance to in situ performance kWh at-manufacture: AHAM (extrapolated) average annual energy use for model year kWh degradation: Increased energy use from efficiency degradation over time (kWh degradation i = unit age i x performance degradation factor) n: # units recycled in 2009 (JACO 2009 PNW data) C: correction factor to adjust 2009 data to a deemed value for 2010-2012 6 Energy Savings Determining kWh old

7. Site/Lab Factor = 0.81 7 ReportSummaryResults (Ratio of In-situ to Lab Energy Use) Notes Peterson, John et. al. “Gross Savings Estimation for Appliance Recycling Programs: The Lab Versus In situ Measurement Imbroglio and Related Issues.” 2007 IEPEC 202 units were tested both In- situ (2 weeks) and in the lab (following DOE protocol) 0.81Chose results for “cooler” CA climate to crosswalk to PNW climates. (Table 12) Cadmus, et. al. “Residential Retrofit High Impact Measure Evaluation Report”. For the CPUC. 2/8/2010 Added sites to above. In situ monitoring (166) and lab monitoring (137). 0.81Simple average of “cool” CA climates (Table 123) Issue: DOE Lab Test at 90 deg ambient, empty, no door openings.

8. Energy Savings Determining kWh old kWh At-Manufacture AHAM Energy Use Data – Average manufacturer-reported at-manufacture energy use, by year of production. – Data back to 1970’s; extrapolated beyond that – These are the data used by the current RTF analysis JACO Energy Use Data (not used in savings calc) – At-manufacture energy use by model – Data available for some, but not all 8

9. AHAM: Market Average, with extrapolation in earlier years; JACO: Average of models with a match 9

10. 10

11. AHAM: Market Average, with extrapolation in earlier years; JACO: Average of models with a match 11

12. 12

13. ReportSummaryResultsNotes ADM. “2009 Second Refrigerator Recycling Program NV Energy – Northern Nevada Program Year 2009; M&V Report.” Feb 2010 Reference to Cadmus data on CA program (2/2010 report) 1.25% per year Methodology not described Miller and Pratt, “Estimates of Refrigerator Loads in Public Housing Based on Metered Consumption Data”, October 1998 Metered 104 existing & 17 new units. Developed a regression function, with age as a variable. 1.37% per Year 1998 KEMA. “2003 EM&V RARP Study: Verification, Degradation & Market Potential Analysis”. For SCE. Dec 2004. Using data from 136 lab (DOE) metered “old” units, compared to new consumption data, tried to find a relationship. (93% of the units showed increased usage) Couldn’t provide a quantitative conclusion ICF Consulting. “Evaluation of the Energy and Environmental Effects of the California Appliance Early Retirement and Recycling Program” for CPUC. 2003. Referenced in SnoPUD evaluations (did not find original report) 0.6% per year Energy Savings Determining kWh old Performance Degradation Factor = 1.25%/year 13

14. Energy Savings Determining kWh old C Factor = 0.95 14 Issue – JACO data represent mix of models recycled in 2009; however, deemed savings are for 2010 and beyond (proposed 2-year sunset date) Suite of units recycled are expected to be of newer vintages (and therefore, more efficient) over the course of program delivery as older units are removed from circulation through the program and naturally. So, kWh old should be expected to fall over time. Solution – C Factor Adjusting the 2009 model years by +1, +2, and +3 years, results in: – Refrigerators: 97% (2010) to 91% (2012) of savings calculated for 2009 – Freezers: 98% (2010) to 92% (2012) of savings calculated for 2009 Assumes same recycled model age distribution as occurred in 2009 – Sunset Date: 2 years Adjust savings based on most recent program model year data

15. Energy Savings Determining F partuse Part Use Factor = 0.91 Based on participant surveys (Cadmus, 2010) Simple Average combined factor for the three utilities = 0.91 15

16. Source: SnoPUD Evaluation – What consumer would have done References to: ICF 2003, Heschong Mahone 2002, ICF 2003, and City of Fort Collins 2005 – Whether replaced JACO data collected through program Where replaced with a new unit, new unit’s consumption is subtracted – This reduces the NTG to 57% (assuming error is fixed) Uncovered an error or two – Energy use of models newer than the average (1980) are not included in the average UEC – NTG is not summed properly 16 Current RTF Energy Savings Determining Net adjustment

17. What would have happened to the Refrigerator or Freezer without the Program? 17 Energy Savings Determining Net adjustment 1.Would have kept, but not used 2.Would have discarded, and unit destroyed 3.Would have kept and used 4.Would have discarded, but unit still in use - Net Adjustment is typically determined through participant and non-participant surveys. - Analysis can be complicated and varies. Subject to a Net Adjustment Not Subject to a Net Adjustment

18. 18 Energy Savings Determining Net adjustment Net adjustment = 57% (refrigerators); 68% (freezers)

19. 19 Energy Savings Issue/Discussion Proposed Net Adjustment method assumes a 1-for-1 reduction in the # of refrigerators remaining in the population. (Less refrigerators per household) This assumption causes an overstatement of savings. -In some cases, units that are recycled would have been used* in a “required” situation. Because of the program, the user* is forced to acquire an alternative unit. -On average, we would expect the efficiency of the alternative unit to be higher than the efficiency of the recycled unit -In these cases, savings should be kWh RecycledUnit – kWh AlternativeUnit, not simply kWh RecycledUnit However, there are no data to support an adjustment. -Example: Existing RTF method subtracts the new unit’s energy use for all units reported by program participants as “replaced with a new unit”; and assigns 0 kWh/yr savings to all units reported as “replaced with a used unit”. Issue: Program participant responses are mostly irrelevant to this issue; whether the subsequent user* would have used the unit in a “required” situation is relevant (and unknown). -What value to use for kWh AlternativeUnit ? Solution: (?) Likely a small effect, so ignore it. * The “user” in this case could be the program participant, or the next would-be owner of the unit.

20. Energy Savings Recap & Results 20 Energy Savings = (kWh old )×(F partuse ) ×(Net adjustment )

21. Measure Life Continue using RTF’s relationship of age to measure life (graph) – Updated to 2010 as start year – Prior to 1975, remaining life constant at 6.1 years Apply measure life to all 2009 JACO data to develop a weighted average 21

22. Measure Cost Current RTF assumed measure cost: $140/unit – $110 for implementation Pickup costs Recycling costs Data collection and tracking – $30 customer incentive Proposed updated measure cost (incremental): $90/unit – $90 for implementation Costs have come down (per JACO and Phil Sisson) – Remove the customer incentive from the RTF measure cost 22

23. Proposed Measures (Results) Proposed Measure Sunset: 2 years Decision? 23

24. Other Questions Utilities are starting programs to recycle appliances collected by New Appliance Dealers (not curb-side pickup). – Should these be handled as a separate deemed measure? – Net-to-Gross could be different for these types of programs. – NTG may be expected to be lower for retail-pickup programs than curb-side pickup programs since retailers often offer this service already – However, recent survey results in ComEd territory showed higher NTG (small sample size) – Proposal: Provisionally deem these with the same values. (no distinct measure) Evaluation suggested. Review in 2 years. (likely to have more data from national sources) Should Residential-style refrigerators from non-residential buildings be allowed? JACO reports some utilities allow these, but they’ve only come in in very small numbers. Proposal: Yes, allow them. 24