Residential Behavior Programs RTF Subcommittee Ryan Firestone September 17, 2015

Presentation Outline RTF history 7 th Power Plan Where do savings come from? Modeling principals for the RTF Measure categorization (Standard vs. Custom Protocol) Next steps for staff and subcommittee 2

RTF History Standard Protocol approved in March, 2010 Standard Protocol – Experimental design (treatment and control/comparison group) – Billing analysis – Normalization for weather and other factors, difference-in- difference measure of savings – Actually more like custom guidance than a prescriptive methodology – “The RTF didn’t take up the issue of whether behavior-based programs meet the definition of conservation.” meeting minutes from that meetingmeeting minutes Status set to “Under review for compliance w/ RTF Guidelines” after the Guidelines were developed. 3

Power Plan Residential behavior is being modeled as a conservation resource for the first time in the 7 th Plan (draft). – Focus on long term savings Savings that aren’t expected to persist weren’t counted – Curtailment ≠ Conservation Savings from reductions in utility (e.g., thermostat adjustment) aren’t considered conservation under the Power Act. – Not double counting Potential from Plan-modeled equipment/appliances not re-counted in behavior analysis – Council staff estimated actions that would satisfy Plan requirements, and saving potential Reduce water heater setpoint Reduce lighting HOU Reduce HVAC usage – Up to 70% of homes (need control group) – 172 kWh/home – 48 aMW potential Analysis files (see “Residential Behavior” section) Analysis files 7 th Plan Conservation Resource Advisory Committee Presentations – December 17, 2014 December 17, 2014 – January 16, 2015 January 16,

Uniform Methods Project (UMP) DOE protocols for determining savings from energy efficiency measures and programs Chapter 17: Residential Behavior Programs Applicable to residential behavior programs with large (1,000’s-10,000’s) number of participants – Each with individual billing data (e.g., by house) Experimental Design: – Randomized Control Trial – subjects randomly assigned to group that gets or does not get messaging – Randomized Encouragement Design – all subjects can opt in, subjects randomly assigned to group that gets or does not get encouragement to participate. Analysis: – Difference (kWh control – kWh treatment ) – Difference-in-Difference ( (kWh pre - kWh post ) treatment – (kWh pre -kWh post ) control – Simple average, panel regression w/ or w/out fixed-effects – Avoid double counting of trackable program savings – analyze participation data – Avoid double counting of untrackable (upstream) program savings (e.g., lighting) – use surveys 5

Where Do Savings Come From? 6 Purchase BehaviorUsage Behavior Traditional difference-in-difference billing analyses measure total savings relative to control group Savings can be from changes in equipment and/or changes in the use of existing equipment Even more categorization is necessary to determine “claimable” savings and align them with other claimed savings Avoid double counting with non- behavior program claimed savings ConservationCurtailment Upstream program participation Non- program purchase Non- program removal Trackable program participation Avoid double counting with non- behavior program claimed savings Avoid double counting with “momentum” savings Need to consider persistence Not considered conservation under standing interpretation of the Power Act. Not to scale

Modeling Principles for an RTF Behavior Measure Don’t count savings from curtailment (e.g., thermostat adjustment) Avoid double counting – Deduct program-incented equipment-based savings from equipment programs or from behavior savings – Deduct non-incented equipment-based savings from momentum savings or from behavior savings Don’t apply risk mitigation and capacity credits to things we don’t expect to persist – Near-term energy savings still have value 7

What Kind of Measure is This? Standard Protocol? (Protocol text plus calculator) – Requires prescriptive best practice method for estimating savings No best practice yet for disaggregating savings: Evaluations to date have not had much success – Method may be dependent on: Targeted behaviors Control vs. comparison group Granularity of billing data Normalization requirements Program size Custom Protocol? [Staff/CAT recommendation] (Protocol text) – Weigh-in on areas we have something to say, but leave details to programs/evaluators Experimental design: sample size, control and treatment group selection Normalization for weather, rate changes, etc. What to actions count/not count Estimating total savings Estimating disaggregated savings How to handle persistence Subcommittee thoughts? Would it be worthwhile for the RTF to develop this measure as Standard Protocol? As Custom Protocol? 8

Measure Cost For Standard Protocol and Custom Guidance, RTF does not estimate costs or cost effectiveness However, Guidelines say “costs and benefits should be estimated and documented as described in these Guidelines, as appropriate. The RTF may review the research plan for a Program Impact Evaluation, including costs and benefits estimation methods” Regional costs include not only program costs, but also customer costs to acquire new equipment 9

Next Steps Staff/CAT plan to present this material to RTF at October 20, 2015 meeting. Recommendations from Subcommittee? Requested actions of staff and subcommittee before October meeting? 10

Additional Material 11 Slides from January 16, 2015 CRAC Presentation

12

13

14

15

16

Additional Material 17 Slide on Curtailment from March 2, 2010 RTF Meeting

Slide 18 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N The Power Act and RBBP  Historically, the Council has excluded measures and practices that reduced the level of service or utility (in economic terms) provided to consumers by the current measure or practice. – 839a(3). "Conservation" means any reduction in electric power consumption as a result of increases in the efficiency of energy use, production, or distribution. [Northwest Power Act, §3(3), 94 Stat ] – Savings from lowering thermostats for space heating have not been considered conservation under the Act – Savings from lowering the thermostat on water heaters from 140 F or 130 F to 120 F have been.  Rationale for behavioral change programs as “utility neutral”, or non-sacrificial? – Persistent savings are unlikely to be sacrifices – Programs are asking customers to reduce behavior when it does not change utility (e.g., turning off lights or thermostat down when not in the room) – Recent interest in sustainability has created utility for reducing energy consumption, particularly enabled through technology or information