1. RTF Small / Rural Subcommittee Schools Lighting UES Discussion Wednesday, April 30 1pm – 2:30pm 1

2. Agenda Introductions [1:00 – 1:10pm] Today’s Objectives[1:10 – 1:15pm] Background[1:15 – 1:25pm] Should we continue measure development? [1:25 – 1:35pm] Hours of Use[1:35 – 1:55pm] Number of Measures[1:55 – 2:20pm] Additional Discussion[2:20 – 2:30pm] 2

3. Today’s Objectives Gauge Subcommittee interest in continuing with the development of Schools UES measures Discuss staff proposal to collect and analyze data from the 2005 RLW Schools Lighting study of CT and MA. Discuss the number of measures Currently large (465 measures) Ideas for collapsing measure identifiers Ideas for narrowing the scope 3

4. Background 2012: S/R Subcommittee identified schools as a common building type with distinct structural and operational characteristics in their territories 2012: S/R Subcommittee contracted PECI to scope savings potential in schools – Interior lighting identified as the largest regional potential (~2 to 3 aMW) – Other measures with large potential Weatherization (S/R sponsored, RTF approved Schools Wx in March 2014) Exterior lighting (S/R sponsored an Area Lights measure approved by RTF in February 2014) Programmable thermostats, demand controlled ventilation – Link to final presentation Link to final presentation 4

5. Background 2013: S/R Subcommittee contracted SBW to develop Schools Lighting UES measures 2014: SBW conducts analysis – BPA C&I Lighting Program data for measure prevalence in schools – BPA Lighting Calculator v3.1 for equipment performance data – Original cost research – Hours of use Logged data provided by PacifiCorp – inconclusive Review of RLW 2005 metered study of schools in CT and MA Presentation to S/R Subcommittee on March 5, 2014 – Presentation and Analysis Presentation Analysis Outstanding issues: Large number of measures (465) Hours-of-use require further analysis 5

6. Should we continue developing this measure? BPA has expressed concerns – BPA has a Lighting Calculator and field services for S/R utilities that covers a broader scope of measures – HOU data may not be an appropriate match for NW schools – 465 measures is too many to maintain administratively to handle for programs – they would need a calculator Would the S/R Subcommittee like to continue developing the Schools Lighting UES measures? 6

7. Hours of Use (HOU) RLW study is the best data available – ~60 schools, metered by room type – both on/off and occupancy meters – Details regarding school characteristics and calendar also collected SBW and RTF Staff have questions about the derivation of values in the report – Spoke with author and received permission from funders to release data to RTF – Would cost ~$5K to scrub data and compile in a useful format for RTF analysis The RTF has a precedence of using UES hours of use estimates from other regions when regional data is not available – e.g., Res Lighting Lamps uses CA usage data, with no adjustments Staff would like to get green-light from RTF on reliability of data before spending money and time to continue with this project 7

8. Staff proposal for HOU Get the RTF’s approval of data reliability (May 13 meeting) to proceed before spending more resources Contract DNV/GL (formerly RLW) to provide the data from their study ($5K) Extend SBW Contract to – develop estimates of NW schools characteristics Prevalence of 4-day school weeks # of school days per year Use of buildings in summer – adjust CT/MA HOU to NW schools characteristics Would the S/R Subcommittee like to spend $5,000 from our 2014 budget to contract DNV/GL to provide the data from their 2005 study; and $5,000 to $10,000 to extend SBW’s contract to complete the HOU adjustment? 8

9. Number of Measures 465 measures proposed by SBW – 216: 8’ T12 and T8 baseline – 72: 4’ T12 and T8 baseline – 24: High-bay conversion to T8 – 5: High-bay conversion to T5 – 66: CFL and LED screw-in – 31: Occupancy sensor – 48: De-lamping RTF Staff estimate that the measure set could be collapsed to ~100 measures by using coarser grouping The scope of the measures could be reduced to further reduce the number of measures [review analysis workbook to see categorization options] How would the S/R Subcommittee like to address the large number of measures? 9