Schools Lighting Hours of Use Data Regional Technical Forum May 13, 2014

Overview In 2013, the Small Rural Subcommittee commissioned SBW to develop a Schools Lighting UES measure. The Subcommittee recently decided to drop the pursuit of this measure because of the large number of measure variants required. 2 During the analysis, SBW and RTF Staff concluded that sufficient metered hours-of-use (HOU) data, by room type, were not available for schools in the Northwest. SBW and RTF Staff identified a thorough metered study of schools in Connecticut and Massachusetts conducted by RLW (now DNV/GL) in Staff would like to ask the RTF if this data would be sufficient for proven measures. If so, Staff will recommend the use of this data to the Non-Residential Lighting Subcommittee.

Schools Hours of Use Data Regional data is not available – RTF Staff requested metered data on schools from NW organizations. – PacifiCorp provided metered data from their impact evaluations The sample size of usable data was too small to draw conclusions from 6 schools, ~70 rooms across 15 room types, 2 weeks per fixture Excellent data from the Northeast is available – A thorough investigation of schools lighting hours of use and room occupancy was conducted by RLW (now DNV/GL) in 2005.* – ~80 schools, ~650 rooms across 15 room types, ~5 months per fixture – Lighting and occupancy logging of rooms without lighting controls; estimated both HOU and the savings potential of controls. Additional analysis of the RLW data would be necessary to satisfy RTF quality standards – Unclear how final results of study were derived (e.g., how metered and self-reported data were combined). – Study funders have granted DNV/GL permission to release scrubbed data to the RTF – Data would be detailed enough to adjust to differences in NE and NW school calendars and summer usage. – Costs: DNV/GL to scrub data. RTF to analyze data. – Benefit: Cheaper for the region than collecting this data through metering *RLW Analytics, 2007 “CT & MA Utilities Lighting Hours of Use for School Buildings Baseline Study Final Report.” Prepared for: Connecticut Light & Power Company, Western Massachusetts Electric Company, and United Illuminating Company. 3

Does the RLW Data Meet our Quality Standards? Guidelines Roadmap, Diligent Review “The RTF uses estimates of parameters, e.g., average length of a residential shower or heat/cool interaction factors, from studies performed by other agencies in estimating measure savings. The RTF must diligently review a study before approving the use of these values in the estimation of measure savings. A diligent review will include, but is not limited to understanding the characteristics of the sample studied, the study’s data collection methods and analysis methods, and the variability of the parameter estimates across the study sample. A diligent review will consider whether the sample is applicable to measures delivered in this region and if not whether it is feasible to normalize the results for application to this region.” With the proposed acquisition and analysis of data, Staff think that this data source would be sufficient for a proven measure. Would the RTF be amendable to the use of the RLW CT/MA Schools Lighting Data – with further analysis and adjustment to NW school calendars and summer usage – for Proven measures? 4

Next Steps If RTF approves of this data source and approach, Staff will recommend it to the Non-residential Lighting Subcommittee. The Operations Committee would need to approve any expenditures to acquire or analyze this data. 5