© 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. Draft Presentation of Five Standard Protocols Presented by: Zach Podell-Eberhardt Rob Travis Craig Phillips Steve Koski Cascade Energy, Inc.

Scope of Work Convert five existing calculators to Standard Protocols compliant with Guidelines for RTF Savings Estimation Methods –Premium Efficiency Motors –Voltage Optimization Protocol –Transformer De-Energizing –Scientific Irrigation Scheduling –Dairy Plate Heat Exchanger 2 © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc.

Key Guidelines Define and validate best practice Determine “simplest reliable” method Aim for unbiased +/- 20% accuracy from best practice method. Specify precise eligibility Independent of program design/delivery © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 3

4 Transformer De-Energizing © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc.

Best Practice vs. Simplest Reliable Method Best Practice Savings Estimate 1.Measure the power of the transformer when it is energized, but does not have an electrical load in order to determine the no load losses. 2.Collect transformer data (type, kVA rating, and manufacturer data sheet if available). 3.Determine the number of hours per year the transformer is de-energized based on utility record of date(s) of de-energization and date(s) of re-energization. 4.Savings is calculated as the product of hours of de-energization and no load power draw. 5.Savings are to be determined in this manner each year the transformer is de- energized. Simplest Reliable Savings Estimate 1.Determine no-load loss by: a)Manufacturer rating b)Default rated capacity by utilizing NEMA TP-1 transformer efficiency ratings if manufacturer rating is unavailable. c)No-load loss power measurement can be used in lieu of #1 or #2. 2.Remaining steps follow the Best Practice. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 5

Protocol Summary Eligibility Liquid-filled or dry-type transformers Single phase between 3 kVA – 167 kVA Three phase between 15 kVA – 1,000 kVA Low voltage (<= 600V) Baseline Existing energized transformer with periods of no-load Upgrade De-energize the transformer for periods of no-load Key equations © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 6

No-Load Losses 1.Manufacturer Rating. This is the simplest method that will provide accurate results. Manufacturers measure the no-load loss on the transformer to determine rating. 2.Default Rating. To be used only when the manufacturer rating is not available. Default rating is based on NEMA TP transformer efficiency standards. Should be a conservative rating for older transformers. Newer transformer may be more efficient than this standard, with lower no-load losses. However, newer transformers should have the manufacturer rating available. 3.Power Measurement. If the utility has performed a power measurement on the transformer and has determined the no-load loss, this may be used as an alternative to #1 & #2 above. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 7

8 Voltage Optimization © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc.

Best Practice vs. Simplest Reliable Method Best Practice Savings Estimate 1.Conduct alternating day voltage regulation for a period of one year. 2.Determine project specific VO-Factor(s) by surveying distribution system customers in the voltage control zone(s), similar to the 2007 NEEA DEI Project Load Research Survey Reported Results. Simplest Reliable Savings Estimate 1.Use the seven day (168 hour) minimum threshold measurement period for baseline pre-VO and post-VO system implementation. Use of this method has been validated in paper, Robustness of Simplified VO M&V Protocol Measurement Period of 7 days, by Robert H. Fletcher, PhD, P.E., Utility Planning Solutions, PLLC 2.Use the VO-Factor(s) presented in the 2007 NEEA DEI Project Load Research Survey Reported Results. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 9

Protocol Summary Eligibility Utilities serving mostly residential and light commercial load customers Meets minimum operating performance thresholds during seven day measurement period Baseline System improvements, such as line load losses, transformer no- load losses, and end use consumption have been made, but no voltage optimization has been implemented. Upgrade Voltage optimization to achieve energy savings through system improvements listed above. Key equations © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 10

Voltage Optimization –Simplified Voltage Optimization (VO) Measurement and Verification Protocol approved by RTF in No known issues with existing protocol. –Existing protocol sections arranged into new Standard Protocol format. Additional definitions and clarifications have been added based on input received from Bob Fletcher at Utility Planning Solutions. –Allows for seven day (168 hour) measurement period. –Utilizes 2007 NEEA DEI Project Load Research Survey Reported Results for end-use VO Factors according to climate heating and cooling zones (presented in Appendix A) © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 11

12 Ultra-Premium Efficiency Motors © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc.

Best Practice Method © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 13

Simplest Reliable Method Eligibility hp general purpose motors Baseline hp: Install a NEMA Premium Efficiency Motor hp: Install a motor with the average efficiency of all motors that meet or exceed EPAct standard. Upgrade Nameplate efficiency must be at least one efficiency band over baseline Key equations © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 14

NW Motors Database –Assembled by the OSU-IAC, contains 22,000 industrial motors in OR, WA, ID. –Motor run hours show minimal correlation to motor size or end use. –Cannot assume motor run hours based on size and end use. –Protocol testing over entire 22,000 motor database gave 25% error using run hours averaged by nameplate hp and end use load. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 15

NW Motors Database –3,500 motors contain load factor measurements. –Protocol testing shows no bias when excluding load factors under 0.4. –Low load factor motors cause bias. –ASSUMPTION: Motors under 40% loading drive variable processes; they periodically run loaded but mostly run unloaded. –PROPOSED SOLUTION: Protocol should exclude motors with multiple distinct loading conditions. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 16

Effect of excluding low load factors © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 17 Bias is removed

18 Dairy Plate Heat Exchanger © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc.

Process Flow Diagram © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 19 Project may include VFD Water loop and glycol loop may be housed in one body

Measure Definition Eligibility Plate and frame heat exchanger New construction or retrofit Water is the cooling fluid, and has constant flow Known milk outlet temperature or modeled heat rejection Baseline Mechanical refrigeration system to cool milk May or may not have existing milk pre-cooler Upgrade Add milk-to-water plate and frame heat exchanger or replace existing. Optional: install VFD on milk transfer pump © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 20

Best Practice Method © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 21

Simplest Reliable Method – same equations, different data collection © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 22

In reality… © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 23

Simplest Reliable method, cont. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 24 Total heat rejection Portion removed by water

25 Scientific Irrigation Scheduling (SIS) © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc.

Protocol Summary Eligibility Growers using one of two acceptable SIS methods: 1.SIS A: Specific recommendations based on water balance 2.SIS B: Grower sees charts of soil moisture and precipitation Baseline Calculation of theoretical water and pump energy requirement Upgrade 10% water and energy savings for SIS A 6.67% water and energy savings for SIS B Only one calculation method – Simplest Reliable Method Key equations © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 26

SIS A –2005 Quantec Phase II Study indicating 10% water savings was based on active soil water balance modeling and significant consultant involvement and recommendations. This is SIS A method. –Best practice is to perform Quantec study procedure on each field. –Simplest reliable method is to use the 10% average from the study. –For SIS A, is the Simplest Reliable Savings Procedure accurate to within 20% of best practice? Probably, but only in bulk. No reliable data since the Phase II report to confirm 10% estimate. Individual growers using SIS A sometimes increase water and energy usage. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 27

SIS B –ETO program accepts real time soil moisture monitoring with periodic reports to grower. A lower threshold than Phase II study. Efficacy is not known. This is SIS B method. –SIS B best practice is performing the same water balance calculations as SIS A on fields using SIS B. –Cascade recommends a simplest reliable method of using 6.67% water savings for SIS B until further data is available. –For SIS B, is the Simplest Reliable Savings Procedure accurate to within 20%? Unknown. 2/3 of SIS A savings is an estimate only. Other issues from SIS A remain, savings estimates are bulk values, across many projects. No recent data to confirm. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 28

Next steps Cascade will present final protocols at November RTF meeting We welcome any feedback between now and then Zach Rob Travis Craig Phillips Steve © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 29