Commercial Showerhead UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum Staff Update June 18, 2013

Updates since April 2013 RTF Approval 1.Added mail-by-request delivery mechanism back to measure (RTF request) 2.Updated material costs for direct install and mail-by-request delivery mechanisms to reflects costs provided by Fluid Market Strategies 3.Switched retail measure costs from full material cost to incremental material cost (EnerNOC QC suggestion) 4.Changed electric hot water saturations to reflect CBSA 2009 findings 5.Added schools and gyms (RTF request) 2

1. Added mail-by-request delivery mechanism Changes from retail and direct install delivery mechanisms – Cost – material costs from Fluid, S&H cost from residential specialty CFL – Installation rate – 60% Based on RTF professional judgment. Assume lower uptake with lower GPM for retail and mail-by-request to address concerns of lower satisfaction at lower flow rates 3

2. Update bulk material costs 4 The update to the Commercial Showerhead measure was presented at the April 2013 RTF meeting, and was approved. In this update, RTF staff removed the Mail-by-Request delivery mechanism because they had not heard from any utilities that they used this delivery mechanism. Material costs for the retail and direct install delivery mechanisms were based on a small online review of retail showerhead costs. The material costs for the direct install mechanism were discounted by 15% to account for wholesale discounts. At the April 2013 RTF meeting, Mark Jerome indicated that Fluid Market Strategies has implemented a Mail-by-Request showerhead measure at the end of 2012 and could provide cost data. After the meeting, Jerome provided RTF staff with a bulk purchase cost for low- flow showerheads: $6/showerhead. (2012$) This value was used to develop a Mail-by-Request cost. This value was also used to develop a new direct install cost, because the purchase routes for Mail-by-Request and direct-install would likely be similar.

3. Switch from full to incremental costs for retail delivery mechanism To date, the material cost for commercial showerheads has been the full retail cost for all delivery channels As part of their QC process, EnerNOC recommended changing to incremental cost for retail delivery channel Direct install costs will continue to use full measure cost 5

4. Electric water heat saturation changed to reflect CBSA, where possible 6 Version 2_2 of the analysis, approved in April 2013, used some values derived from 2003 CBECS data. Updated 2009 CBSA data provides a more recent snapshot of electric water heater saturation in the PNW.

5. Added schools and gyms 7 Schools – Used a metered study of two high schools to estimate annual gallons/showerhead. – Assumed same in situ flow rate as for other building types (2.2 gpm). Gyms – Informal phone survey of five gyms across the NW conducted and used to estimate minutes/showerhead. – Finding – usage (minutes per showerhead) is ~30x other commercial applications This suggests that water and energy savings from low flow showerheads at gyms would result in a more water-efficient baseline than in other applications No data found to inform this - RTF judgment required

Workbook Review 8 [see Commercial Showerheads Analysis, v2_3]

B/C Ratio - Hospitality 9

B/C Ratio – Health Care 10

B/C Ratio – Small Commercial Employee Shower 11

B/C Ratio - Schools 12

B/C Ratio - Gyms 13

Staff Proposal Update the Small Saver Commercial Showerheads UES measure with the data presented, excluding gyms. Develop a UES measure for gyms that is categorized by baseline flow rate. 14