RTF Delivery Verification Guidance Batch 1 Jennifer Anziano Regional Technical Forum May 12, 2015

Overview Today, we are seeking adoption of delivery verification guidance (and revised specs as appropriate) for first batch of measures Review history and general approach Walk through “simple” measures Discuss approach to “complex” measures If the RTF is not ready to adopt the guidance today, we need clear direction on how to proceed 2

History of RTF Delivery Verification Guidance Development For proven measures, impact evaluation only requires claim and delivery verification June 2014: RTF adopted updated version of the Guidelines that calls for delivery verification guidance – RTF will provide guidance on delivery verification for UES and Standard Protocols – Guidance describes key data that needs to be collected as part of delivery verification February 2015: Previewed framework proposed by BPA and team March 2015: Reviewed “simple” vs “complex” split and an example of each Today: Review first batch and get RTF direction on key questions Beyond: Address remaining measures consistent with RTF direction 3

Proposed Approach for UES Measures Identify key data that needs to be collected (or checked) to ensure reliability of RTF savings estimate Provide detailed checklist to enable greater understanding of RTF measure specifications Update measure specifications (as appropriate) for greater clarity and to focus on those aspects that impact the RTF savings estimates – Safety and best practices moved to “recommended” section (more on that later…) At this time, staff considered the following to be out of scope – Defining how the data should be collected – Defining which methods of verification are sufficient to claim savings 4

“Simple” vs “Complex” Classification Bonneville proposal to split measures into “simple” and “complex” based on the number of potential delivery verification checks: – Simple: Straightforward measure specification with only one or two things to check – Complex: Many components in measure specification and likely impractical to check all aspects for delivery verification CAT reviewed measures and put into these categories (see worksheet)worksheet Caveat: This distinction should not stick with RTF measures. Ultimately, we plan to revise measure specs to be specifically focused on all delivery verification requirements 5

First Batch of Measures 10 “Simple” Measures Res Lighting Res SF Existing Home HVAC Res Clothes Washers Res Clothes Dryers ENERGY STAR WA ENERGY STAR OR Res Refrigerator/Freezer Decommissioning Res Refrigerators and Freezers School Weatherization ECMs for Walk-Ins 5 “Complex” Measures Ind and Ag Green Motor Rewind Grocery Door Gasket Replacements Res Weatherization Res Performance Based Duct Sealing Res Commissioning Controls and Sizing 6 Criteria for selecting these: Prioritized for HVAC and lighting Sought diversity in measures Picked those with far out sunset dates

“Subcommittee” Engagement Do not have a specific subcommittee for developing delivery verification, but have been vetting this with: – Bonneville and contract team (Navigant and SBW) – Implementers Group – Contract analyst team 7

Staff Highlighted Areas Pre-Conditions – Verifying pre-conditions in many cases may be impractical – Guidelines focus on “what” matters for energy savings estimates (and pre-conditions matter) – RTF direction needed: How should we address this? Only develop spec such that everything is easily verified? Trust evaluators to do their best? Provide some direction on what might be acceptable? Revising measure specifications to focus on energy savings specific elements – “Complex” specs include guidance that is recommended for programs – Proposed approach is to focus measure specification on only those elements that significantly impact our energy savings estimates, and move this guidance to “Recommendations” section 8

“Simple” Batch 9

Proposed Approach Capture guidance in the summary sheet – Create a measure specification table with an added delivery verification checklist – Propose two other additions (not related to DV guidance) to summary sheet Map delivery verification checklist directly to the measure specification 10

Feedback through Process Need to refine some specifications for clarity – Ex: School weatherization Need to be specific with measure identifier guidance – Ex: Cooling zone is not required for all SF HVAC measures Pointing to dated/versioned specification – Ex: Res lighting, refrigerator freezer, dryers – More detail would likely be needed for clothes dryers Should not require checks for embedded compliance – Ex: residential lighting assumes a built in compliance Checking pre-conditions is going to be challenging Review workbook for detailsworkbook 11

For Proven UES, Guidelines give region a big pass on evaluating savings; therefore there is a big stake in developing reliable savings estimates Pre-conditions matter for savings estimates, but are hard to check Example: Attic Insulation R0 to R19 – Pre-conditions require R7 or less, how do you check this? – How much should the RTF say on this point? Additionally: Add language to the Guidelines recommending getting evaluators involved from the start Keep in mind: We are thinking about this for the future (not for today’s evaluations) How to Address Pre-Conditions 12 Trust the evaluators to figure it out RTF requires specific physical measurement of pre-conditions RTF suggests options (i.e. provides examples) for physical measurement of pre-conditions Say nothing Say a lot

Proposed Changes MeasureDVSpec Res SF Existing HVAC (ASHP Upgrades, ASHPs Conversions, DHPs)X Res Clothes WashersXX Res Clothes DryersXX Res ENERGY STAR WA (includes ENERGY STAR and Built Green)X Res ENERGY STAR ORX Res Refrigerator/Freezer DecommissioningX Res Refrigerators and FreezersXX School WeatherizationXX Grocery ECMs for Walk-InsX Green Motor Rewind (both Ag and Ind)X Grocery Door Gasket ReplacementsX Res Lighting* 13 * Not seeking adoption delivery verification guidance today, will address with spec update

Proposed Motion “I ________ move the RTF adopt the delivery verification guidance, and related specification changes, as presented for the following measures: – Single Family Existing HVAC measures – Residential Clothes Washers – Residential Clothes Dryers – New Construction ENERGY STAR WA – New Construction ENERGY STAR OR – Refrigerator/Freezer Decommissioning – School Weatherization – Grocery ECMs for Walk Ins – Industrial and Agricultural Green Motor Rewind – Grocery Door Gasket Replacements” 14

“Complex” Batch 15

Proposed Approach Staff recommendation: Measure specification should specify those aspects that significantly impact RTF energy savings estimates – If one of the items in the spec cannot be verified, then that project should either be: Re-classified as a different UES Re-classified as an “Other UES” (requiring more evaluation burden), or Counted as “0” Reviewed existing measure specifications to identify these key elements – Pulled key elements into measure specification tables and developed a delivery verification guidance checklist – Put remainder of existing measure specification into a “Recommended Approaches” section 16

Summary of Proposed Changes MeasureIn SpecRecommendations WeatherizationSpecific insulation, window, and infiltration requirements, applicability requirements Materials specs, quality installation practices, safety recommendations, warranties, education guidance Performance Based Duct Sealing Specific duct sealing requirements Testing procedures, materials, duct connecting & sealing applicability; combustion recommendations CC&SCC&S*Specific sizing requirements, commissioning requirements, and control requirements Auxiliary heat sizing recommendations, compliance with standards, quality installation practices 17 * CC&S specification was recently refined by RTF to remove PTCS program requirements

Proposed Motion “I ________ move the RTF adopt the delivery verification guidance, and related specification changes, as presented for the following measures: – Residential Weatherization (SF and MH) – Residential Performance Based Duct Sealing (SF and MH) – Residential Commissioning Controls and Sizing (SF and MH)” 18

Additional Slides 19

Plan for Finishing Delivery Verification Guidance Development Batch 1 – Revisit if needed (goal: Jul meeting) Batch 2 – Work on next (goal: Sep meeting) Batch 3 – Work on next (goal: Nov meeting) Batch 4 – Update as measure comes to RTF See workbook for batch numberworkbook 20