1. Implementer’s Group January Meeting Debrief and Upcoming Meeting Prep January 29, 2015

2. Agenda for Today Introductions (5 minutes) January Meeting Debrief (20 minutes) – Review of decisions/guidance (5 min) – Discussion of Provisional category (15 min) Upcoming Items (20 minutes) – Expected items for February – How might this group support other measures Non-Res Lighting Calculator (15 minutes) 2

3. January Meeting Outcomes 3

4. CVR and VO Standard Protocols Goal of discussion: Get RTF direction on how to move forward with these standard protocols RTF agreed to value in subcommittee to address specific questions around: – Persistence (several dimensions) – Regression model in CVR #1 protocol – Clarity around differences depending on size of ΔV – Specificity on applicability of protocols Other guidance: – Do not spend too much RTF resource in scoping this out – Think about applicability and, in turn, role for RTF 4

5. January Meeting Outcomes DHP for FAF Baseline New measure for the RTF Adopted as Provisional and Under Review with sunset date of April 2015 – Require more follow up on research plan RTF discussion around savings estimates – Ensuring calibration impact (that would apply down the road) is accounted for now All but a small portion related to vacant homes (~2%) – Don’t be overly precise with provisional estimates Network Computer Power Management Extend the sunset date another year 5

6. Provisional Measures From the Guidelines (Roadmap: 2. Measure Classification) Provisional savings estimation methods are those that the RTF approves with special conditions requiring the collection of data from all r a sample of measure deliveries. The RTF uses these data to improve the reliability of the savings estimation method. How do your utilities use or think about provisional measures? Do you feel limited in your ability to claim savings from these measures/protocols? What happens for your utility should the data never be collected and the provisional numbers never be proven out? 6

7. Upcoming Agenda Items 7

8. Expected for February Provisional Standard Protocol: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Small Savers: Residential and Commercial DHW-Efficient Tanks Proven UES: Clothes Washers – Sunset date extension to allow for updating methodology in coordination with residential clothes dryers – Update estimates with CEE Tiers, but likely not seeking RTF decision Management Items: Charter, bylaws, guidelines, reviewing and prioritizing new measure proposals 8

9. Other Upcoming Items Commercial Smart Plug Power Strips Several Research Plans to finalize: – Heat pump CC&S – Performance based duct sealing – Heat pump water heaters – DHP for FAF Clothes Washers and Clothes Dryers Behavior Standard Protocol (sign up for subcommittee) SEEM Calibration for MH Residential Lighting 9

10. SEEM MH Calibration Need to revisit both the existing homes and new construction calibrations (measures sunset in June) – Existing homes: starting with a “check” of existing methodology using available evaluation data – New construction: explore a new methodology If your utilities have evaluation data for MH weatherization, let us know Contract analysts will do an analysis with existing data we have in prep for subcommittee meeting in late February – Expect a better sense of direction after that meeting 10

11. Residential Lighting Residential Lighting measures are due to sunset in June of this year Trying to get a handle on the baseline mix of existing lamps and fixtures Seeking recent program data to understand what is being installed: – Type of lamps – Wattage – Retail costs w/ and w/o incentive (for upstream programs) Do you have this data available to send our way? 11

12. Non-Res Lighting Calculator 12 Towards a Regional Common Interchange Format (CIF)

13. Today’s Discussion Implementers Group previously discussed ways of leveraging the many calculators in the region to support the Provisional Research for the Non-Residential Lighting Retrofits Protocol Discussion for today: – Highlight what the lift would be for programs to explore feasibility and identify next steps – We will NOT get into the details of how to do this 13

14. Motivation Data from Region’s calculators could be used to support the RTF’s Non-Res Lighting Protocol (the Protocol) if – The calculators collect all of the data needed for the RTF protocol – The calculators report the data consistently A common interchange format (CIF) could be developed to exchange data from various regional calculators to the RTF’s Non-Res Lighting Protocol Calculator (the Protocol Calculator) A CIF would – Allow programs to continue to use their own individual calculators – Leverage data from multiple utilities toward a common research

15. What would a CIF look like? Microsoft Excel-based A tab or tabs of required fields (inputs) for the Protocol Calculator Tabs would need to be added to regional calculators and linked to appropriate cells Building Type Space Use Type (SUT) Space Description (Unique Space ID)Fixture Quantity

16. What kinds of data does the RTF need? Three major types – Lighting Project Survey (i.e. project details) – Logger or Meter Data – Onsite Interview The three data types are interrelated, which the CIF would have to support – E.g., a group of fixtures on the Lighting Project Survey must be matched to a space type and hours of operation (HOO) estimate from the Onsite Interview and any Logger or Meter Data collected for that particular group of fixtures – The CIF could be structured as three relational data tables (see “relational databases” for more on this topic)

17. Lighting Project Survey Least effort for utilities to integrate into calculators, because all or most of this data already being collected Example data fields: building type, space type, fixture kW (pre and post), fixture quantity, control type, unique lighting system ID What we will need to understand (not today): – Do regional calculators contain most of what Protocol needs? – How many fields would need to be added and how easy or difficult would this be?

18. Logger/Meter Data Most utilities already collecting as part of evaluation (correct?) Ideally, RTF would get this data in the same format – Some flexibility may be possible, e.g. time interval Example data fields: time stamp (date/hour), percent on (for logger) or current (for meter), logger/meter serial number, unique lighting system ID (tying logger/meter data to Lighting Project Survey) What we will need to answer (any quick feedback today?): – When do utilities collect this information? During evals and/or other times? – Do you have any plans for metering? If so, what is the timing?

19. Onsite Interview Would likely be the most significant “adder” to regional calculators and processes Interview would have to be conducted (likely in conjunction with the metering) as specified in the RTF Protocol Example data fields: space type (from RTF list), hours of operation (as defined by Protocol), control type (from RTF list), unique system ID (tying interview responses to Lighting Project Survey and logger data) What we will need to understand (gut responses?): – How significant of a burden would this be to utilities?

20. Proposed Next Steps If this seems feasible… Set up working group with utilities that are interested in participating For those parties who are interested, provide to RTF staff: – Blank lighting calculator (already have SnoPUD, PacifiCorp) – Interview instruments and/or example logging/metering data collected – Indication of process and timelines for collecting this type of data Once this information is collected and reviewed by RTF, discuss next steps with working group

21. Next Steps 21

22. Next Steps Jennifer will develop notes to send out by next week for review – Including a checklist of requests Enhancements to the website – Checklist of request – Parking lot of other topics – “Highlights” document – some sort of key talking points? Quarterly newsletter, but more? Refined slide decks? Blog? Aggar will send out a doodle to schedule March through May calls 22