Today’s “Game Plan” Two Trial-Runs of a new deemed measure review process – Deemed measure analysis and review Developed by … – (consultant, RTF member/staff, utility, etc.) Reviewed in detail by RTF subcommittee – Until comfort level is high – RTF Staff* gives a summary presentation to the full RTF Summary of subcommittee review – Including details of any follow-up that hasn’t been fully vetted by the subcommittee Summary of the measure analysis – Energy savings analysis presented using the (draft) measure summary template – Measure Cost, Measure Life, O&M, etc. The Goals – Improve and add consistency to the deemed measure review process – Spend less time “in the weeds” at RTF meetings *with support from both the subcommittee and the measure analysis developer 3

LED Lighting in Vertical and Semi-Vertical Open Display Cases Deemed Measure Proposal Regional Technical Forum September 28, 2010 Analysis Prepared By:PECI (Eric Mullendore and Michele Friedrich) RTF Subcommittee Review?Yes (Sept 2, 2010) RTF Staff Review?Yes (Adam Hadley) Presentation Prepared By:RTF Staff (Adam Hadley)

Measures – Existing Cases Remove T8, T10, or T12 Fixtures and Ballasts, install LED fixtures and drivers – 1-lamp Fluorescent fixture  1 Low-power LED fixture – 2-lamp Fluorescent fixture  1 High-power LED fixture – 3-lamp Fluorescent fixture  1 High-power LED fixture + “delamp” measure – New Cases Choose LED fixtures instead of T8 fixtures – 1 Low-power LED fixture (baseline = 1-lamp T8 fixture) – 1 High-power LED fixture (baseline = 2-lamp T8 fixture) Savings – Reduced energy use of lighting system – Reduced load on the refrigeration system Requirements – This measure only applies to open vertical or semi-vertical display cases. (does not apply to coffin cases) – Fluorescent fixture and ballast must be replaced with a permanently installed LED fixture and driver – LED ratings: Minimum CRI of 75; minimum of 7% of initial lumens at 50k hours. – Minimum 3-year manufacturer’s warranty. – Delamp measure must be combined with an LED retrofit measure – Baseline controls, or better, must be used Measure Description 5

Subcommittee Review Meeting held September 2, 2010 (meeting notes available at: ) – Attendees PECI: Lagan Todd, Jen Shafter, Dustin Bailey, Ben Cartwright, Paul Schertz, Ben Wright, Michele Friedrich RTF/Other: Diwanshu Shekhar, Charlie Grist, Eric Brateng, Tim Steele, Adam Hadley, David Baylon Meeting Summary: – PECI generated the analysis and presented its proposal to the subcommittee – The group reviewed key input parameters and supporting data sources in detail – Conclusion: PECI’s savings calculation approach and input assumptions are reasonable. The only follow-up needed is review of the assumption on number of ballasts per lamp. Meeting Follow-up (not reviewed by subcommittee): – Ballasts/drivers per lamp is not addressed directly. The calculation determines energy use of the ballast/driver based on a fixed percentage of the lamp power draw. 6

7

8

9

10

Cost, O&M Savings, and Measure Life – Cost Based On Distributor Pricing, Marked-up 25% – 4-foot Fixture » High Power = $ » Low Power = $93.08 – Driver (per fixture) = $28.13 » (assumes 2 fixtures per driver) – Hardware (per fixture) = $1.63 $25 per fixture – (not applicable to new cases) – O&M Savings Based On LED Reports (no lamp replacement costs) – PG&E Application Assessment #0722 – SMUD Report: LED Freezer Case Lighting Systems – Measure Life Based On ~50,000 hour ~24 hours per day 11

Proposed Deemed Measures 12 Incremental Capital and O&M Costs and Annual Site are per linear foot of fixture. DECISION?

Evaporator Fan Motor Controller (ECM) for Walk-in Coolers and Freezers Deemed Measure Proposal Regional Technical Forum September 28, 2010 Analysis Prepared By:PECI (Lagan Todd) RTF Subcommittee Review? Yes (Sept 2, 2010) RTF Staff Review?Yes (Adam Hadley) Presentation Prepared By:RTF Staff (Adam Hadley)

Standard Practice: – Evaporator fans run continuously Except during the defrost cycle in freezers Measure – Install a controller to reduce the speed or turn off of the evaporator fan motors when there’s no call for cooling Savings – Reduced energy use of the slower/off motor – Reduced load on the refrigeration system Requirements – This measure only applies where the evaporator fan motor is an ECM the evaporator is on a circuit with a liquid line solenoid motors have rated (nameplate) output power capacity of at least 16W – Controller must reduce motor speed to not more than 600 RPM when there is no call for cooling. – If the fan motors are cycled on/off, there must be a provision to prevent stratification. Measure Description 14

Subcommittee Review Meeting held September 2, 2010 (meeting notes available at: ) – Attendees PECI: Lagan Todd, Jen Shafter, Dustin Bailey, Ben Cartwright, Paul Schertz, Ben Wright, Michele Friedrich, Jamie Anthony RTF/Other: Diwanshu Shekhar, Charlie Grist, Eric Brateng, Tim Steele, Adam Hadley, David Baylon Meeting Summary: – PECI generated the analysis and presented its proposal to the subcommittee – The group reviewed key input parameters and supporting data sources in detail – Conclusion: PECI’s savings calculation approach is reasonable. With a few revisions to input assumptions, this measure could be deemed. 15

Subcommittee Meeting Follow-up PECI’s follow-up was ed to the Subcommittee on Sept 16 th Measures are now disaggregated by motor size and case temperature – (previously, one weighted savings value was proposed) Refrigeration system savings make up: – 27% of the total savings for Medium Temp – 47% of the total savings for Low Temp Recommend the following assumptions based on a field study of condenser/compressor runtimes of 5 LT and 7 MT walk-ins – Low Temp Evaporator Fan at Full Speed: 68% Evaporator Fan at Low Speed: 32% – Medium Temp Evaporator Fan at Full Speed: 58% Evaporator Fan at Low Speed: 42% Recommend using 2.5 for the exponent in the fan law calculation – (savings more conservative than when using 2.7) Allow on/off type controllers. – Savings are only slightly lower (~5%) than full speed/low speed type controllers 1 minute on / 7 minutes off assumed as the control strategy for on/off type controller EER values based on PECI’s extensive audit data, filtered for eligible applications (nearly 8000 systems) 16

Metered(!) Data on ECM Power (the following was not reviewed by the subcommittee) Source: BPA/EMP2 M&V Studies – Frank, David. EMP2. "Markus Foods M&V Findings: Anti-Sweat Heater Control and ECM Motors." January 2009 – Frank, David. EMP2. "Grocery Store M&V: Grocery Store B." For BPA. Jan 29, – Frank, David. EMP2. "Grocery Store M&V: Grocery Store C." For BPA. January 29, – Amundson, Todd. BPA. "Pacific PUD Four Grocery Stores with Vendor Grovery Energy Management System." October 31,

Note: Most (if not all) motors were model ME-59. All reports did not specify whether some were ME-30 (or ME-25). 18

1/20 to 1/10 hp Motor Class – Input Power = 50 watts Based on median from metered data 16 to 23 Watt Motor Class – Input Power = 19.6 watts Based on applying the ratio of metered-to-estimated from the large motor class to the estimated input watts for the small motor class. – Original motor input estimates were based on the output watts (assumed the middle of the range), divided by an assumed motor efficiency of 66% Proposed Input Power Assumptions 19

20

21

Cost & Measure Life Cost: $141 / motor Installed Cost: $565 – Controller (Frigitek, Retail): $325 / controller – Labor: 3 $80/hr = $240 / controller 4 motors/controller – On average, > 4 motors per controller Measure Life: 15 years 22 Note: Costs are shown in year 2010 dollars.

Proposed Deemed Measures 23 Note: Costs are shown in year 2006 dollars. Incremental Capital Cost and Annual Site are per motor.

Issue: Cost-effectiveness depends on # motors per controller 24 Alternative RTF Staff Proposal Further disaggregation of the measure: – Large Motor Class (1/10 to 1/20 HP) 3 or more motors controlled per controller – Average of 5.8 motors per controller 1 or 2 motor per controller – Average of 1.8 motors per controller – Small Motor Class (16 to 23 watts) 6 or more motors controlled per controller – Average of 8.2 motors per controller 1 to 5 motors controlled per controller – Average of 2.8 motors per controller Note: This issue and proposal was not reviewed at the subcommittee meeting.

25 Data Source: PECI

Alternative (RTF Staff) Proposed Measures 26 Incremental Capital Cost and Annual Site are per motor. DECISION? Provisionally Deemed: -18 month sunset period -Data Collection Should Include: -Metered ECMotor power input -Metered ECMotor Runtimes -Full Speed -Off/Low Speed