1. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. Presentation of Five Proposed Protocols Presented by: Zach Podell-Eberhardt Rob Travis Craig Phillips Steve Koski Cascade Energy, Inc.

2. Scope of Work Convert five existing deemed calculators to Standard Protocols compliant with Guidelines for RTF Savings Estimation Methods –Transformer De-Energizing –Voltage Optimization Protocol –Ultra-Premium Efficiency Motors –Dairy Plate Heat Exchanger –Scientific Irrigation Scheduling 2 © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc.

3. Agenda Define measure –Best Practice method –Simplest Reliable method –Eligibility Discussion (10-15 minutes per measure) Put to vote 3 © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc.

4. Key Guidelines Define and validate best practice Determine “simplest reliable” method Aim for unbiased +/- 20% accuracy from best practice method. Specify precise eligibility Independent of program design/delivery © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 4

5. 5 Transformer De-Energizing © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc.

6. Best Practice vs. Simplest Reliable Method Best Practice Savings Estimate 1.Measure the power of the transformer when it is energized, but does not have an electrical load, in order to determine the no load losses. 2.Collect transformer data (type, kVA rating, and manufacturer data sheet if available). 3.Determine the number of hours per year the transformer is de-energized based on utility record of date(s) of de-energization and date(s) of re-energization. 4.Savings are calculated as the product of hours of de-energization and no load power draw. 5.Savings are to be determined in this manner each year the transformer is de- energized. Simplest Reliable Savings Estimate 1.Determine no-load loss by: a)Manufacturer rating b)Default rated capacity by utilizing NEMA TP-1 transformer efficiency ratings if manufacturer rating is unavailable. c)No-load loss power measurement can be used in lieu of a or b. 2.Remaining steps follow the Best Practice. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 6

7. Protocol Summary Eligibility Liquid-filled or dry-type transformers Single phase between 3 kVA – 167 kVA Three phase between 15 kVA – 1,000 kVA Low voltage (<= 600V) Baseline Existing energized transformer with periods of no-load Upgrade De-energize the transformer for periods of no-load Key equations © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 7

8. No-Load Losses 1.Manufacturer Rating. This is the simplest method that will provide accurate results. Manufacturers measure the no-load loss on the transformer to determine rating. 2.Default Rating. To be used only when the manufacturer rating is not available. Default rating is based on NEMA TP-1 2002 transformer efficiency standards. Should be a conservative rating for older transformers. Newer transformer may be more efficient than this standard, with lower no-load losses. However, newer transformers should have the manufacturer rating available. 3.Power Measurement. If the utility has performed a power measurement on the transformer and has determined the no-load loss, this may be used as an alternative to #1 & #2 above. This method is also the best practice method. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 8

9. NEMA TP-1 No Load Loss Ratings No Load Loss ratings of 185 Eaton dry transformers of varying sizes were compared to NEMA TP-1 calculated NLL. This resulted in 6 models with NLL less than the NEMA TP-1 calculation, and 179 models that were higher than the NEMA TP-1 calculation. 67% of Eaton NLL models had a NLL rating over 20% higher than the NEMA calculation. Eaton data is evidence NEMA TP-1 calculation method is conservative. However, Eaton transformer data is not representative of the transformers currently in service. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 9

10. Representative Savings Protocol savings are small. Representative calculations of a small and large project are: Smallest Transformer Example Largest Transformer Example © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 10

11. RTF Proposed Motion: I _________ move that the RTF approve the Transformer De-Energizing Standard Protocol and move it to the “Proven” category with a sunset date of November, 2017.

12. 12 Voltage Optimization (VO) © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc.

13. Protocol Summary Background Conversion of the 2010 Simplified Voltage Optimization Measurement and Verification Protocol to Standard Protocol format. Ongoing research and work on the CVR and VO protocols is not included as part of the scope of this project. Eligibility Weather dependent protocol that covers utilities serving mostly residential and light commercial load customers Meets minimum operating performance thresholds during seven day measurement period Baseline System improvements, such as line load losses, transformer no-load losses, and end use consumption have been made, but no voltage optimization has been implemented. Upgrade Voltage optimization to achieve energy savings through system improvements listed above. Key equations © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 13

14. Best Practice vs. Simplest Reliable Method Best Practice Savings Estimate 1.Conduct alternating day voltage regulation for a period of one year. 2.Determine project specific VO-Factor(s) by surveying distribution system customers in the voltage control zone(s), similar to the 2007 NEEA DEI Project Load Research Survey Reported Results. Simplest Reliable Savings Estimate 1.Use the seven day (168 hour) minimum threshold measurement period for baseline pre-VO and post-VO system implementation. Use of this method has been validated in paper, Robustness of Simplified VO M&V Protocol Measurement Period of 7 days, by Robert H. Fletcher, PhD, P.E., Utility Planning Solutions, PLLC 2.Use the VO-Factor(s) presented in the 2007 NEEA DEI Project Load Research Survey Reported Results. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 14

15. NEEA End-Use Load Research Study 395 Residential homes & 20 small commercial businesses Strongest predictors of VO f were determined to be electric heating and A/C Day On/Day Off for 12 months Combined into 9 NWPCC Heat-Cool Zones Sampled Utilities in 5 zones (grey), which account for 87% of regional energy usage Validity of VO f shown to have average errors < 7.1% © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 15 Courtesy BPA, “Simplified Voltage Optimization M&V Protocols Getting to Delta V”

16. Voltage Optimization –Simplified Voltage Optimization (VO) Measurement and Verification Protocol approved by RTF in 2010. No known issues with existing protocol. –Existing protocol sections arranged into new Standard Protocol format. Additional definitions and clarifications have been added based on input received from Bob Fletcher at Utility Planning Solutions. –Allows for seven day (168 hour) measurement period. –Utilizes 2007 NEEA DEI Project Load Research Survey Reported Results for end-use VO Factors according to climate heating and cooling zones (presented in Appendix A) © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 16

17. VO Calculator - Inputs © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 17

18. VO Calculator - Outputs © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 18

19. RTF Proposed Motion: I _________ move that the RTF approve the Voltage Optimization Standard Protocol and move it to the “Proven” category with a sunset date of November, 2017.

20. 20 Ultra-Premium Efficiency Motors © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc.

21. Best Practice Method © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 21

22. Simplest Reliable Method Eligibility 1-500 hp general purpose motors. Constant load. No VFDs Baseline 1-200 hp: Install a NEMA Premium Efficiency Motor. 250-500 hp: Install a motor with the average efficiency of all motors that meet or exceed EPAct standard. Upgrade Nameplate efficiency must be at least one efficiency band over baseline Key inputs © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 22

23. Motor Hours Provisional Data Proposed data collection method in Section 8 of the protocol. Data collection is not linked to motor replacement projects. –Collect provisional data by using worksheets at facilities with available historical motor data as the best practice method. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 23

24. Example Motor Hours Worksheet © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 24

25. Example Motor Hours Worksheet, continued © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 25

26. NW Motors Database –Assembled by the OSU-IAC, contains 22,000 industrial motors in OR, WA, ID. –Motor run hours show minimal correlation to motor size or end use. –Cannot assume motor run hours based on size and end use. –Protocol testing over entire 22,000 motor database gave 25% error using run hours averaged by nameplate hp and end use load. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 26

27. NW Motors Database –3,500 motors contain load factor measurements. –Protocol testing shows no bias when excluding load factors under 0.4. –Low load factor motors cause bias. –ASSUMPTION: Motors under 40% loading drive variable processes; they periodically run loaded but mostly run unloaded. –PROPOSED SOLUTION: Protocol should exclude motors with multiple distinct loading conditions. This removes VFDs and all material handling/material processing motors. –Exclude values under 0.4 when averaging load factor in database © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 27

28. Effect of excluding low load factors © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 28 Low LF causes bias Bias is removed by filtering (histogram of protocol error)

29. Calculator Example © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 29

30. RTF Proposed Motion: I _________ move that the RTF approve the Ultra- Premium Efficiency Motors Standard Protocol and move it to the “Provisional” category until sufficient provisional data is collected to prove the protocol.

31. 31 Dairy Plate Heat Exchanger © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc.

32. Process Flow Diagram © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 32 Project may include transfer pump VFD T T T = temperature measurement

33. Measure Definition Eligibility Plate and frame heat exchanger New construction or retrofit Water is the cooling fluid, and has constant flow Known milk outlet temperature or known cooling water flow rate, and inlet and outlet temperatures Refrigerant must be R-22, R-404, or R-507 Baseline Mechanical refrigeration system to cool milk May or may not have existing milk pre-cooler Upgrade Add milk-to-water plate and frame heat exchanger or replace existing. Optional: install VFD on milk transfer pump © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 33

34. Best Practice Method © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 34

35. Simplest Reliable Method – same equations, different data collection © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 35

36. Reality Check © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 36 Water loop and glycol loop may be housed in one body What if there is no measurement point?

37. Two years of Dairy HXR Projects © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 37

38. Simplest Reliable method, cont. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 38 Total heat rejection Portion removed by water

39. Calculator Example © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 39 Same as best practice Alternative method if T_milk cannot be measured after water loop

40. COP Sensitivity Analysis © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 40 COP dependent on refrigerant, suction & discharge pressures Calculator COP assumptions: Suction temp = 20 °F below storage temp Typical discharge pressure = 200 psig Pressure cut-in/cut-out setpoints unchanged if change refrigerant i.e. 200 psig discharge pressure remains typical for all 3 refrigerants Refrigerant is known (R-22, R-404, R-507) Table compares energy savings with fluctuating COP (best practice) vs. simplest reliable method. Conclusion  COP assumptions are reasonably accurate across a wide range of suction/discharge pressures

41. COP Sensitivity Analysis (cont.) © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 41

42. COP Lookup Tables © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 42

43. RTF Proposed Motion: I _________ move that the RTF approve the Dairy Plate Heat Exchanger Standard Protocol and move it to the “Proven” category with a sunset date of November, 2017.

44. 44 Scientific Irrigation Scheduling (SIS) © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc.

45. Protocol Summary Eligibility SIS is an irrigation practice that involves knowledge of crop consumptive use (evapotranspiration), measurements of soil moisture, and measurement of the amount of water applied. Baseline Calculation of theoretical water and pump energy requirement Upgrade 10% water and energy savings Only one calculation method – Simplest Reliable Method Key equations © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 45

46. SIS Calculator © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 46 Pump info Crop info Climatic area selected by county

47. SIS Methods –2005 Quantec Phase II Study indicating 10% water savings was based on active soil water balance modeling and significant consultant involvement and recommendations. The soil moisture model was corrected with neutron probe readings (highly accurate) taken four or more times over the entire season. (Not a lot.) –Some irrigation services today take weekly (or twice weekly) neutron probe readings. This is more than during the Phase II study. –Other services install electronic probes in the field which transmit real- time data. Irrigator views graphs of soil moisture, can see impact of recent events. This is continuous monitoring. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 47

48. SIS Protocol Accuracy –Is the Simplest Reliable Savings Procedure accurate to within 20%? Probably, assuming the Phase II estimate at 10% savings is accurate. No recent studies to confirm/refute 10% estimate. Other studies have widely varying results, only one showing less than 10% savings. Individual growers using SIS can increase water and energy usage if they were previously under irrigating. Savings are correct only in bulk. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 48

49. Review of Phase II Study –The study was designed to have matched crop pairs of treatment and control fields, but there are 2 wheat fields in the treatment group and 5 wheat fields in the control group. 1 mint field in treatment, 0 in control, etc. Logger failures caused this, but the matched field data was not removed from results. –Only 6 crops in treatment group and 5 in control group. –Small region of neighboring counties in eastern Columbia Basin. No fields in Idaho, Willamette valley, Yakima, etc. –No clear description of how SIS was practiced. –Only 38 fields in final results. Previous studies have hundreds, or thousands of fields. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 49

50. Issues with Other Studies –Author bias: Performed by irrigation consultants or water management agencies with vested interest in positive results. –Many study unknowns (thorough review of previous studies not conducted) –Very complex to accurately measure because of the number of variables. –Can’t just measure water consumption applied with SIS and compare to ideal. Need a baseline control group to compare against. © 2012 Cascade Energy, Inc. 50

51. RTF Proposed Motion: I _________ move that the RTF approve the Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Standard Protocol and move it to the “Proven” category with a sunset date of November, 2017.