1. Non-Residential Lighting: Status Update Christian Douglass & Josh Rushton Regional Technical Forum November 10, 2015

2. Agenda Update on retrofit protocol – preliminary analysis of the protocol’s HOU/HOO ratio method using BPA lighting evaluation data – discussion of where we want to steer protocol, with a CAT recommendation Update on code compliant lighting – feedback from first meeting of the technical subcommittee – RTF discussion/CAT recommendation on next steps 2 Note that the retrofit protocol sunsets at end of year and will be back next month.

3. Staff Highlighted Areas – Retrofit Protocol BPA research is in and the results of the RTF protocol’s HOU/HOO interview method look good, BUT – BPA/SBW wonder whether proving out the standard protocol will significantly reduce long-term costs and program burden relative to existing impact evaluation methods (i.e. maybe we should just give impact evaluation guidance?) – BPA questions whether formal interview is implementable by programs and contractors We’ve also received comments on the appropriateness of the retrofit protocol’s baseline – Current protocol largely assumes existing, “in-ceiling” baseline except for “obsolete equipment” (e.g. T12s) – Primary concern is – do most systems being replaced under the “retrofit” scenario have significant RUL or are they close to burn-out, in which case a current practice baseline would be more appropriate? – Teeing this up today, but will require more discussion 3

4. Staff Highlighted Areas – Code Compliant Lighting Subcommittee could not agree on a current practice definition Unclear whether parts of this measure can be standardized within a protocol Seeking guidance from the RTF on a path forward 4

5. Update on provisional retrofit protocol research 5

6. First: A Reminder of the RTF’s Non-Res Lighting Research Objectives Phase I: Determine simplified method to reliably estimate lighting Hours of Use (HOU). Protocol’s candidate method uses hours of occupancy (HOO) from a structured interview and compares this to metered lighting hours of use (HOU). The goal is find HOU/HOO ratios that can be used to adjust interview responses to estimate HOU. Phase II: Determine a simplified method to reliably estimate controls savings fractions (CSFs). May be able to take differences in HOU/HOO ratios, but not without some pre- /post- data to build confidence in the approach. 6

7. A Reminder of the RTF’s HOU/HOO Interview Method 7 Hours of Occupancy (HOO) for a space Time spanned by period(s) that typically include activity in the space Easy to collect, often equals business hours, plus time for cleaning, etc. HOO is gathered through site interviews Hours of Use (HOU) for a lighting system Burn time, full-power-equivalent hours (3 hours at 50% power is 1.5 HOU) The thing we wish we could always know HOU is measured with loggers and meters during research phase HOU/HOO Ratio Parameter for the mean, or typical value, of the ratio HOU/HOO Estimated through provisional research Values differ by control type (and probably space type)

8. Phased research Current research plan is only Phase I Does not call for pre-/post- data Sunset period (1-year) allows time to analyze data from Phase I research currently in the field Expect second research phase to include carefully targeted pre-/post- data – Research questions (and sample targets) to depend on phase-I results – Expectation of second phase stated in current research plan but plan details not yet possible 8

9. Phase I Research: Expectations Expect to get – HOU/HOO Ratios that are valid (proven-worthy) for lots of scenarios where controls don’t change. – Clear understanding of further research needs and reasonable research planning assumptions Don’t expect to get – Proven-worth values for cases where controls do change (due to lack of pre-/post- data) – Proven-worthy values for every possible scenario where controls don’t change (expect some strays). 9

10. BPA Lighting Evaluation Recent BPA lighting evaluation collected data for the RTF research plan for non-res lighting retrofits A big thank you to BPA and SBW for lots of hard and great work Good-sized dataset – Over 3500 total project line items (i.e. sets of fixtures) – ~400 individual lighting systems with estimates of HOO, using RTF’s non-res lighting standardized interview guide, and metered HOU (will refer to this as the “HOU/HOO sample”) Note: not many non-manual controls in the sample 10

11. Completed HOU/HOO Sample: by Building Type 11

12. Completed HOU/HOO Sample: by Building Type 12 5 one-shift plants 3 two-shift plants 9 three-shift plants 5 one-shift plants 3 two-shift plants 9 three-shift plants 2 sm offices (<20k sq ft) 2 med offices (20-100k) 4 lrg offices (>100k) 2 sm offices (<20k sq ft) 2 med offices (20-100k) 4 lrg offices (>100k) 3 boutique (<5k sq ft) 8 small (5-50k sq ft) 2 lrg one-story (>50k) 3 lrg multi-story (>50k) 2 mini-mart 2 supermarket 3 boutique (<5k sq ft) 8 small (5-50k sq ft) 2 lrg one-story (>50k) 3 lrg multi-story (>50k) 2 mini-mart 2 supermarket

13. Completed HOU/HOO Sample: by Space Use Type and Control Type 13

14. HOU/HOO Ratios – Spaces w/ Manual Switch 14

15. HOU/HOO Ratios – Spaces w/ Manual Switch 15 Mean ratio: 1.13 Precision @ 90% Confidence: 7% Completed Sample Size: 32 Revised CV: 0.23 Revised Sample Target (90/10): 24 Mean ratio: 1.13 Precision @ 90% Confidence: 7% Completed Sample Size: 32 Revised CV: 0.23 Revised Sample Target (90/10): 24

16. HOU/HOO Ratios – Spaces w/ Manual Switch 16 Mean ratio: 0.65 Precision @ 90% Confidence: 12% Completed Sample Size: 16 Revised CV: 0.29 Revised Sample Target (90/10): 22 Mean ratio: 0.65 Precision @ 90% Confidence: 12% Completed Sample Size: 16 Revised CV: 0.29 Revised Sample Target (90/10): 22

17. HOU/HOO Ratios – Spaces w/ Manual Switch 17 Mean ratio: 1.15 Precision @ 90% Confidence : 26% Completed Sample Size: 15 Revised CV: 0.61 Revised Sample Target (90/10): 100 Mean ratio: 1.15 Precision @ 90% Confidence : 26% Completed Sample Size: 15 Revised CV: 0.61 Revised Sample Target (90/10): 100

18. HOU/HOO Ratios – Spaces w/ Manual Switch vs. Occ Sensor 18 This slide shows HOU/HOO ratios for a subset of space use types where we have both manual switches and occ sensors.

19. HOU/HOO Ratios – Spaces w/ Manual Switch vs. Occ Sensor 19 Be careful not to read too much into difference between these two: nearly all manual switch spaces are K-12 classrooms and all OS spaces are college/university classrooms.

20. How does HOU/HOO method perform versus other potential methods of estimating HOU? The results of the RTF protocol’s HOU/HOO ratio method look good, but is it better than other methods we can test? E.g., we also have estimates of hours of use from the program, i.e. not from the protocol’s standardized interview – These are estimated by contractors most of the time – There is not a standardized method of asking for this parameter We can create a separate ratio using the metered HOU and the program estimated HOU and compare its performance against the RTF protocol’s standardized interview ratio method In addition – we can also see if the RTF protocol’s standardized interview-based ratios explain away some of the variability in metered HOU itself – I.e. if there is as much variability in the HOU/HOO ratio as there is in HOU itself for a given space type, there is no value in the ratio 20

21. Open Office 21 precision14%21% revised CV0.340.52 sample target (90/10) 32 73 RTF Structured Interview HOO vs. Metered HOU Program Estimated HOU vs. Metered HOU Structured interview-based HOO more correlated to metered HOU than non-structured interview-based HOO. Precision is better, CV is lower, and sample target is lower.

22. Retail 22 precision8%11% revised CV0.300.39 sample target (90/10) 24 41 RTF Structured Interview HOO vs. Metered HOU Program Estimated HOU vs. Metered HOU Remember: these sample points are from 18 unique sites spanning small to large retail, mini marts, and supermarkets.

23. Private Office 23 precision19%18% revised CV0.570.53 sample target (90/10) 87 77 RTF Structured Interview HOO vs. Metered HOU Program Estimated HOU vs. Metered HOU For a couple of space types, including private office, both methods perform poorly.

24. Comparison of Various Methods: Precision at 90% Confidence 24 Space TypeHOU HOU/HOU Ratio Based on Program Estimate/Non- Standardized Interview HOU/HOO Ratio Based on RTF Protocol's Standardized Interview Retail11% 8% Classroom29%14%10% Private Office22%18%19% Open Office24%21%14% Restroom38%32%28% Warehouse24%36%26% Break Room29%31%21%

25. Comparison of Various Methods: Est. Sample Size Using Updated CVs* Space TypeHOU HOU/HOU Ratio Based on Program Estimate/Non- Standardized Interview HOU/HOO Ratio Based on RTF Protocol's Standardized Interview Retail474124 Classroom2225427 Private Office1197787 Open Office101 73 Restroom213154113 Warehouse87190100 Break Room9010947 Total880727470 25 * Assuming 90% confidence, 10% precision

26. BPA Findings & Concerns Regarding Protocol’s Structured Interview Method Much time and money spent on this research and there are still many ratios that we would still need to figure out – Once we do figure out all of the ratios, will the market have shifted and we need to find additional ratios? – Is this process going to be simpler and cheaper in the long run than doing impact evaluation? Structured interview still requires onsite work, similar to impact evaluation – is there enough of a value proposition here? Maybe building consistency in impact evaluation methods and parameters would be more valuable 26 Open this up for discussion. Also, CAT recommends bringing straw man proposal back to the full RTF in December.

27. Non-Res Lighting Retrofit Baseline The Power Plan looks at three different non-res lighting scenarios: retrofit, natural replacement, and code compliant/new construction Of these three scenarios, only retrofit uses a pre-conditions baseline while the others use current practice The RTF retrofit protocol uses a largely pre-conditions baseline; however, it does not disqualify projects that look more like natural replacement Need to determine how the RTF baseline can account for these two different scenarios 27 Discussion? CAT recommends taking this topic to a sub-group of the RTF and bringing findings back to the full RTF.

28. Update on Code Compliant Lighting 28

29. A refresh – what’s code compliant lighting? Any lighting project that is required to comply with building lighting codes. This includes… 29  Newly constructed facilities  Newly constructed addition to an existing facility  A major renovation or remodel of an existing building  A change in an existing building’s Space Use Type

30. A refresh – what’s code compliant lighting? Any lighting project that is required to comply with building lighting codes. This includes… 30  Newly constructed facilities  Newly constructed addition to an existing facility  A major renovation or remodel of an existing building  A change in an existing building’s Space Use Type Many utility programs generally refer to these kinds of projects as “new construction”

31. Technical Subcommittee Reminder: RTF directed staff to look at this measure earlier this year Held technical subcommittee on 10/23 to discuss the possible development of a code compliant lighting protocol Key topics of discussion: – Current program activity and methods What measures are programs offering in this space? How are savings being computed and what is the baseline? – LPD baseline Is the current practice for code compliant LPDs better than code? – Controls baseline Is the current practice for code compliant controls better than code? Can we deal with code compliant controls in a standardized way? 31

32. Technical Subcommittee Reminder: RTF directed staff to look at this measure earlier this year Held technical subcommittee on 10/23 to discuss the possible development of a code compliant lighting protocol Key topics of discussion: – Current program activity and methods What measures are programs offering in this space? How are savings being computed and what is the baseline? – LPD baseline Is the current practice for code compliant LPDs better than code? – Controls baseline Is the current practice for code compliant controls better than code? Can we deal with code compliant controls in a standardized way? 32 Subcommittee Participants: Graham Parker, PNNL Christian Douglass, RTF CAT Josh Rushton, RTF CAT Michael Lane, PSE Roger Spring, Evergreen Consulting Group Joe Vaccher, EWEB Travis Reeder, EWEB Chris Wolgamott, BPA Jennifer Light, RTF Manager John Wilson, BPA Kelly Sanders, NEEA Charlie Grist, NPCC Roger Peery, Tacoma Rebecca Blanton, PSE Mike Bailey, ETO Tom Lienhard, Avista* Carrie Cobb, BPA* *couldn’t attend call, but provided comments offline

33. What are the region’s programs doing for these kind of projects? Surveyed a number of the region’s lighting programs – BPA, EWEB, Avista, Idaho Power, PSE, ETO What I found: – All programs surveyed offer some kind of non-res code compliant lighting measures – All programs use current building codes as the baseline; however, a few programs require project savings exceed a threshold (typically 10- 20% better than code) to receive incentives – Most programs offer measures for LPD reductions on a prescriptive or calculated basis – Code compliant controls measures handled very differently across the region: from prescriptive/calculated to custom to not offered at all Another important take away from the subcommittee call: most code compliant lighting projects are not going through utility programs 33

34. How might an RTF protocol handle savings from reduction in LPD? 34

35. Savings from Reduction in LPD These are savings attributable only to a reduction in fixture kW and not related to controls (e.g. dimming) An RTF protocol could allow savings to be computed using either building level LPDs or space level LPDs (but not whole building simulation) 35 These savings are easy to standardize and straightforward to compute, as long as we know the baseline LPD (what is the baseline?)

36. Regional compliance studies have found as-built LPDs consistently lower than code 36 Source: “Non-Residential Energy Savings from Northwest Energy Code Changes 2008-2010”. Prepared by Mike Kennedy for NEEA. 2011.

37. Small sample of recent observations also showing lower than code interior LPDs 37 Source: From October 8, 2015 NEEA code compliance pilot study presentation. Note that this is a small sample set concentrated in the Puget Sound and Tacoma areas.

38. Exterior lighting LPDs also lower than code, some by a wide margin 38 Source: From October 8, 2015 NEEA code compliance pilot study presentation. Note that this is a small sample set concentrated in the Puget Sound and Tacoma areas.

39. Analyst baseline proposal for LPDs: use current practice baseline more efficient than code CAT straw man proposal for interior LPDs: 15% better than existing code LPDs Proposal for exterior LPDs: 20% better than existing code LPDs For example, the table below shows what the current practice proposal would look like for ID and MT. Note that if building codes changed the current practice LPDs would not necessarily change (e.g. we may determine that current practice is in line with the new code) 39 Building Type ID/MT Code LPD Current Practice LPD Retail1.4 1.2 Office 0.9 0.8 Warehouse0.6 0.5 Hotels1.0 0.9 Restaurants1.6 1.4 School1.2 1.0

40. How might an RTF protocol handle savings from controls? 40

41. Savings from Controls Upgrade Codes have already captured much of control savings: likely smaller savings opportunity compared to reductions in LPD There may also be some significant penetration of controls in non-code required spaces, i.e. the current practice may be better than code There are likely additional research questions here that are not captured in the RTF retrofit research plan – E.g. what are controls savings fractions relative to the controls in the existing building codes – This would take some understanding of what controls savings have already come from codes 41

42. Like LPDs, there’s evidence that controls current practice is ahead of codes 42 Source: 2014 CBSA, filtered for buildings constructed in 2008-2013. n = 511.

43. Analyst baseline proposal for controls: use mix of “at code” and “better than code” baseline For spaces with code-required occupancy sensors and/or automatic daylighting, assume code baseline For spaces without occupancy sensor code requirement, assume some penetration of current practice occupancy sensing (OS) – CBSA suggests OS penetration of ~ 5-20% even for spaces where not code-required – Analysts proposed 20% OS penetration for warehouses* and open offices and 15% OS penetration for all other spaces 43 *Except in WA where occupancy sensors are already required by code, in which case occupancy sensors would be the baseline.

44. Subcommittee Feedback No consensus agreement on baseline definitions – Some supported current practice view, others thought baseline should be code Concerns as to whether code compliant lighting is “protocolizable”, particularly controls savings – Knowing the code-required control can require an in-depth knowledge of building codes – Same can go for LPDs where there are exemptions – Codes vary across states and contractors cover multiple states 44

45. Discussion / Recommendation CAT recommends the same retrofit baseline sub- group discuss code compliant baseline question Then, CAT will bring back a straw man “standard protocol” Thoughts from RTF? 45