1. 1 NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE NEEA Long-Term Monitoring and Tracking Distribution Efficiency (DE) Study RTF – January 21, 2015 Christopher Frye – NEEA; (Jeff Harris - NEEA presenting)

2. 2 Distribution Efficiency Study  Part of NEEA’s Long Term Monitoring and Tracking of previously funded MT Programs (Distribution Efficiency Initiative 2003-2007)  Market Characterization conducted in 2013; Avista DE Impact Evaluation 2014  Study conducted by Navigant Consulting, Inc.  Final Report, June 2014 here: http://neea.org/docs/default-source/reports/long-term-monitoring- and-tracking-distribution-efficiency.pdf?sfvrsn=5

3. 3 Study Focused on Two Main Areas:  Current State of the Market:  Current rate of adoption  Awareness, understanding  Attitudes/barriers and drivers  Evaluation practices and progress  Future Plans  DE Evaluation Tool Assessment:  Utility CVR Program Review  Existing Tool Assessment

4. 4 Case Study: Avista DE Impact Evaluation  Avista DE Program Characterization  Comparison of methods:  RTF CVR Protocol #1  WSU VO Validation Methodology  Navigant Regression

5. 5 DE Market Characterization Sample DEI Sample Stratum DE Sample Completed

6. 6 Market Characterization Findings: Active utilities participated in ESUE program or have regulatory/legislative (e.g. I-937) directives; Awareness/understanding of DE efforts is fairly high (all IOUs and Active Publics) but not always the case at smaller, more rural utilities; Respondents overwhelmingly believe that there are opportunities for efficiency improvements on their distribution systems, and that utilities should be investing in those opportunities, though many caution that the cost-effectiveness of such investment is not always clear. Two biggest barriers noted were capital availability and cost-effectiveness – others included low priority for DE, knowledge about opportunities, personnel constraints, system constraints, and regulatory constraints.

7. 7 Market Characterization Findings: (cont’d)

8. 8 DE Tools Evaluation Findings:  Many tools available; ranging from system simulation tools to statistical regression  Simulation tools/engineering assessment used primarily for project feasibility C/E evaluation  Some utility experience with RTF Protocol #1 but not many meeting exact requirements  Several cited use of RTF Simplified VO M&V Protocol to estimate/report savings.  AMI integration provides new, less expensive data collection / VO opportunities  CVR integration with Distr. Management Systems (DMS) now on the market.

9. 9 DE Tools Evaluation: Fully Integrated Solution

10. 10 Avista Impact Evaluation:  Smart Grid 2.0 project. Two locations:  Spokane: 14 Substations; 58 feeders  Pullman: 3 Substations; 13 feeders  AMI enabled Integrated volt/VAR controls  Implemented in 2013, commissioning completed Dec 2013  CVR data collection January–April 2014

11. 11 Avista Impact Evaluation: Approach Savings Estimate (MWh) RTF Automated CVR Protocol #1 42,292 Navigant Regression Methodology 42,374