1. ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ADVISORY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 22, 2012 P HASE II: U NIT E NERGY S AVINGS (UES) M EASURE C OMPLIANCE : RTF M EETING Navigant Presentation Presented by Mohit Singh- Chhabra, Ryan Firestone and Kevin Cooney Navigant Reference: 150283

2. 1 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Content of Report This presentation was prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. exclusively for the benefit and internal use of Regional Technical Forum and/or its affiliates or subsidiaries. No part of it may be circulated, quoted, or reproduced for distribution outside these organization(s) without prior written approval from Navigant Consulting, Inc. The work presented in this report represents our best efforts and judgments based on the information available at the time this report was prepared. Navigant Consulting, Inc. is not responsible for the reader’s use of, or reliance upon, the report, nor any decisions based on the report. NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC. MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. Readers of the report are advised that they assume all liabilities incurred by them, or third parties, as a result of their reliance on the report, or the data, information, findings and opinions contained in the report. June 21, 2012 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Navigant Consulting is not a certified public accounting firm and does not provide audit, attest, or public accounting services. See www.navigantconsulting.com/licensing for a complete listing of private investigator licenses. Investment banking, private placement, merger, acquisition and divestiture services offered through Navigant Capital Advisors, LLC., Member FINRA/SIPC.www.navigantconsulting.com/licensing

3. 2 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Contents Table of Contents 1Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers 2Manufactured Housing Duct Sealing 3Refrigerator and Freezer Recycling

4. 3 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Commercial Refrigerators Measure Description and Properties

5. 4 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Commercial Freezers Measure Description and Properties

6. 5 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Actions Taken to Bring Measure Into Compliance Commercial Refrigerators & Freezers TaskTask SourceNotes Baseline and Measure UEC development for all configuration types contained on the same worksheet. Recommendations Memo Completed Update Sunset Criteria to account for the uniform testing standards that DOE will use for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers effective on or after January 1, 2016 Recommendations Memo Completed Energy Star market share weight of 72% Energy Star entries and 28% non-Energy Star entries incorporated into the baseline UEC Recommendations Memo Completed Documentation updates including data extraction dates and location of where datasets were obtained Recommendations Memo Completed Update datasets used in the workbook using a combination of the California Energy Commission (CEC) appliance dataset and the Energy Star (ES) qualifying product list. Recommendations Memo Completed

7. 6 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY 2012 CEC Database update shows a very high level of product availability for Energy Star refrigerators and freezers Commercial Refrigerators & Freezers Commercial refrigerators and freezers have become more efficient since the last workbook review due to changes in federal minimum efficiency standards in January 2010. The previous 2009 CEE and 2008 NRCAN datasets show approximately 25% Energy Star Penetration for commercial self-contained refrigeration units. The updated datasets (2012 CEC dataset with 2008 NRCAN Units Meeting 2010 Federal Standards) show approximately 65% Energy Star Penetration for commercial self-contained refrigerators and 63% of the commercial self-contained freezers. According to the measure compliance recommendations memo and the 2010 Energy Star Market Penetration Report, Energy Star penetration for commercial refrigerators is approx. 72 % 1. 1 Energy Star Unit Shipment and Market Penetration Report Calendar Year 2010 Summary. The response rate of Energy Star partners that submitted 2008 unit shipment data was 100% for commercial refrigerators and freezers. Can be found at: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/downloads/unit_shipment_data/2010_USD_Summary_Report.pdf?8efe-af41 Accessed 10/08/2012 http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/downloads/unit_shipment_data/2010_USD_Summary_Report.pdf?8efe-af41

8. 7 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY 2012 CEC Database update shows a very high level of product availability for Energy Star refrigerators and freezers Commercial Refrigerators

9. 8 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Incremental Cost Results Comparison Commercial Refrigerators After Update incremental cost values with the revised 72% Energy Star Market Share Weight, 2012 CEC and E-Star Datasets, and normalization of costs to 2006$ are lower than the Prior to Update Incremental Cost values.

10. 9 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Savings Results Comparison Commercial Refrigerators After Update savings values are lower than the Prior to Update values due to the increased level of product availability for Energy Star Refrigerators in the CEC dataset. Zero savings for less than 15 cu. ft and 50 cu. ft and greater Solid Door Refrigerators are due to 100% of the models meeting Energy Star v2.0 standards in the datasets.

11. 10 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY TRC Results Comparison Commercial Refrigerators Both Prior to Update and After Update Solid Door Refrigerators had TRC values of 9999 for all size categories due to negative incremental costs. The After Update Less than 15 cu. Ft, 15 to 29.9 cu. Ft, and 30 to 49.9 cu ft Glass Door Refrigerators had TRC values of 0.

12. 11 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY 2012 CEC Database update shows a very high level of product availability for Energy Star refrigerators and freezers Commercial Freezers

13. 12 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Savings Results Comparison Commercial Freezers After Update savings values are lower than the Prior to Update values due to the increased level of product availability for Energy Star Freezers in the CEC dataset. Zero savings for Less than 15 cu. ft. Solid Door Freezers is due to 0 Energy Star Models represented in the datasets. Greater then 50 cu. ft Solid Door Freezers, Less than 15 cu. ft Glass Door Freezers, and Solid Door Chest Freezers have 0 savings due to 100% of the models meeting Energy Star v2.0 standards in the datasets.

14. 13 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Incremental Cost Results Comparison Commercial Freezers After Update incremental cost values with the revised 72% Energy Star Market Share Weight, 2012 CEC and E-Star Datasets, and normalization of costs to 2006$ are lower than the Prior to Update Incremental Cost values.

15. 14 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY TRC Results Comparison Commercial Freezers Both Prior to Update and After Update Energy Star Solid Door and Glass Door Chest Freezers had TRC values of 9999 due to negative incremental costs. The After Update Less than 15 cu. ft and 50 cu. ft and Greater Energy Star Solid Door Freezers and Less than 15 cu. ft Glass Door Freezers had TRC values of 0.

16. 15 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Summary Savings Availability Commercial Refrigerators & Freezers

17. 16 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY RTF Proposed Motion: I _________ move that the RTF approve the Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers Measure to “Proven” with a sunset date of January 1, 2016.

18. 17 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Contents Table of Contents 1Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers 2Manufactured Housing Duct Sealing 3Refrigerator and Freezer Recycling

19. 18 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Residential Manufactured Home Duct Sealing Measure Description and Properties Market SectorResidential Market SegmentManufactured Home Measure CategoryDuct Sealing Measure Description Improvements made to ducts in existing manufactured homes to reduce air leakage. Duct sealing must be carried out in accordance with the PTCS (Performance Tested Comfort Sealing) duct sealing specification. Sunset Criteria8/2/2015 Primary WorkbookProCostRTFTemplate257f_v3_9_RES_DUCT_SEAL 10.14.12 v3.xlsm Linked Workbooks ExistingResidentialManufacturedHome_PTCSDuctSeal_SEEM94Runs_0 3b v3_hadley.xlsm Number of Measures, and UES Components Nine measures, each comprising the sum of two UES components

20. 19 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Residential Manufactured Home Duct Sealing Actions taken to date TaskTask SourceNotes Workbook calculation errors in the SEEM workbook need to be fixed. Recommendation Memo Completed Workbook structure and formulae need to be updated to link to latest SEEM workbook, Pro-Cost models need to be rerun, and the measure needs to be re- analyzed using the latest version of SEEM Recommendation Memo Completed Documentation updates include verifying and documenting baseline and post condition duct leakage fraction assumptions. Recommendation Memo Completed Update EUL Summary Table NWPCCCompleted Update Cost Summary TableNWPCC Completed

21. 20 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Summary of Actions Taken Since Last RTF Meeting Residential Manufactured Home Duct Sealing Obtained manufactured home duct sealing program data from two sources: ETO program data, 2010-2012, N = 7,594 BPA PTCS program data, 2011-2012, N = 1,043 The datasets provide pre-/post-duct leakage (CFM), pre-/post-test pressure (Pa), and home square footage. Combined/cleaned the two datasets and analyzed pre-/post-supply leakage fractions (SLFs). Updated estimate of average SLFs based on program data. Previous estimates: 15% baseline case, 5% efficient case Updated/proposed estimates: 20% baseline case, 6% efficient case Note: Average values are shown here for comparison purposes only. Re-ran SEEM and ProCost using updated SLF estimates. Note: Instead of running the average or median pre/post leakage levels in SEEM, SEEM runs were generated for a suite of pre/post leakage levels and the results were weighted to number of instances for those leakage levels in the dataset.

22. 21 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Data Cleaning and Analysis Residential Manufactured Home Duct Sealing Converted all pre- and post-leakage data to CFM50 (i.e. flow at 50 Pa). Filtered out data points beyond an assumed practical limit, or “maximum pre-leakage threshold.” Some pre-leakage flows indicated supply leakage fractions of well over 100%, including “catastrophic” leakage sites (3000+ CFM pre-leakage). In such high leakage cases, it was assumed that pre-leakage flow was capped at 100% supply duct leakage. Appears unlikely that homeowners would operate HVAC system beyond 30% SLF, so this was set as the maximum pre-leakage threshold. 30 % based on a recent conversation with Bruce Manclark Filtered out data points not in compliance with PTCS guidelines (e.g. sites with less than 50% leakage savings). These filters reduced dataset from 8,637 sites to 4,914 sites.

23. 22 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Data Cleaning and Analysis (continued) Residential Manufactured Home Duct Sealing Assumed operating duct static pressure of 25 Pa, and pre/post measurements were converted to this pressure to align with realistic furnace airflow. 1 Varied total air handler flow based on average CFM/sq. ft. derived from Davis 2004 and Baylon, et al. 2009 (CFM/sq ft = 0.65). 2 For example, a 1,200 sq. ft. manufactured home would have an assumed total air handler flow of 0.65 * 1,200 = 780 CFM @ 25Pa. Then, if pre-supply leakage flow is 200 CFM25, pre-SLF would be: 200 CFM25 / 780 CFM25 = 25.6% Conversations with Bruce Manclark/Tom Eckman and a review of manufacturer cut sheets provided a similar range for typical manufactured home air handler flow. Need RTF Decision: To account for possible instances where (a). duct leakage reductions may have been raised to meet the minimum PTCS threshold, and (b) sites have catastrophic leakage, it is assumed that 12% of the population has zero savings. This factor is estimated using the average percentage of “dry holes” found in past duct sealing program studies as a proxy – 9% of EWEB’s program sites in 1997 and 15% of EWEB’s sites in 1999. 3 1 Davis, Bob, David Baylon, and Tom Hewes (2004). Field Evaluation of New Manufactured Homes in the Pacific Northwest. ACEEE Proceedings. 2 Baylon, David, et al. (2009). Summary of 2006 NEEM Manufactured Homes. 3 Energy Trust of Oregon (2004). Manufactured Home Duct Sealing Pilot Program Draft Impact Evaluation.

24. 23 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Data Cleaning and Analysis (continued) Residential Manufactured Home Duct Sealing Due to non-linearity of kWh savings, binned data into pre- and post-SLF increments of 2.5%. The heat map shows percentage projects for each pre and post leakage bin. As the heat map indicates, the most frequent scenarios occurred near 12.5 - 22.5% pre-SLF and 7.5 – 2.5% post-SLF. Post-Supply Leakage Fraction (SLF) 15.0%12.5%10.0%7.5%5.0%2.5% Pre – Supply Leakage Fraction (SLF) 30.0% 0.4%1.1%1.2%1.0%1.3%0.4% 27.5% 0.1%2.0%2.1%2.4%2.3%1.1% 25.0% 0.0%1.5%2.8%2.9%2.4%1.4% 22.5% 0.0%0.2%3.6%3.7%4.2%1.8% 20.0% 0.0% 2.6%5.1%4.7%2.4% 17.5% 0.0% 0.3%5.2%6.3%3.2% 15.0% 0.0% 3.0%6.8%4.6% 12.5% 0.0% 0.4%6.1%4.1% 10.0% 0.0% 1.9%2.7% 7.5% 0.0% 0.1%0.5% 5.0% 0.0% 0.1% 2.5% 0.0%

25. 24 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY HEATING Savings Results Comparison (based on updated SEEM results and pre-/post-leakage fractions) Residential Manufactured Home Duct Sealing

26. 25 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY COOLING Savings Results Comparison (based on updated SEEM results and pre-/post-leakage fractions) Residential Manufactured Home Duct Sealing Note: Since cooling savings are small in comparison to heating savings, cooling savings are weighted by heating zone (measures are not disaggregated by heating and cooling zone, just heating zone). This is not a change from the previous methodology.

27. 26 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY TRC Results Comparison (based on updated SEEM results and pre- /post-leakage fractions) Residential Manufactured Home Duct Sealing

28. 27 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY How ETO/BPA SEEM Savings Compare to Other Studies Residential Manufactured Home Duct Sealing West, Anne Minor et. al. (1998). Savings from an Expedited Duct Sealing Program for Mobile Homes. ACEEE Proceedings. Billing analysis of about 200 program participants. Found average participant savings of 1,249 kWh/yr. Sample group was approximately 32% heat pump, 68% resistance furnace. This heat pump-to-furnace weighting applied to current ETO/BPA SEEM dataset results in 1,317 kWh/yr savings for heating zone 1. Siegel, Jeffrey et. al. (1998). Measured Heating System Efficiency Retrofits in Eight Manufactured (HUD-Code) Homes. ACEEE Proceedings. Studied eight manufactured homes in the Pacific Northwest – average square footage of about 1,200. All homes had forced air furnaces. Found median duct sealing savings of 1,759 and 1,150 kWh for Redmond and Portland, respectively (savings averages were skewed by a large outlier). The furnace, zone 1 scenario in the current ETO/BPA SEEM dataset suggests 1,526 kWh/yr. Energy Trust of Oregon (2004). Manufactured Home Duct Sealing Pilot Program Draft Impact Evaluation. Billing analysis of 280 participants – average square footage of 1,235. Population was comprised of 40% heat pumps, 60% furnaces. Study found average savings of 543 kWh/yr. A similar heat pump to furnace weighting of the ETO/BPA SEEM dataset would result in1,265 kWh/yr for zone 1. Study noted that “…savings are less than those observed in other programs…”

29. 28 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY How ETO/BPA SEEM Savings Compare to Other Studies (continued) Residential Manufactured Home Duct Sealing Eckhart, Tom, Howard Reichmuth, Jill Steiner (2009). Manufactured Housing Duct Sealing Pilot – Independent Evaluation Results. Snohomish County HUD. Billing analysis of about 570 program participants. All sites had electric furnaces. Analysis found mean site savings of 1,463 kWh/yr. The furnace, zone 1 scenario in the current, proposed ETO/BPA SEEM dataset suggests savings of 1,526 kWh/yr.

30. 29 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY RTF Proposed Motion: “I _________ move that the RTF approve the Residential Manufactured Housing Duct Sealing Measure to “Proven” with a sunset date of August 2, 2015”

31. 30 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Contents Table of Contents 1Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers 2Manufactured Housing Duct Sealing 3Refrigerator and Freezer Recycling

32. 31 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Measure Description and Properties Market SectorResidential Market SegmentAll Segments Measure CategoryRefrigerators Measure Description Decommissioning and recycling of functional refrigerator or freezer Sunset Criteria6/29/2014 Primary Workbook:FrigRecycle_FY10v2_3 Linked Workbooks Number of Measures, and UES Components 2 measures: Refrigerator decommissioning Freezer decommissioning

33. 32 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Actions taken to date TaskTask SourceNotes Workbook structure and formulae need to be updated by moving savings calculation to a different worksheet Recommendation Memo Created logic model tab. Consolidated several source tabs to streamline workbook, reorganized tabs. Documentation updates including locating sourced report. Recommendation Memo Completed Update data using newest program data from JACO Environmental Inc. and AHAM (Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers). These input parameters include part use, degradation and other in-situ parameters Recommendation Memo Updated with JACO 2011 program data and AHAM data. Updated part-use factor for refrigerators and freezers. Calculated efficiency increase factor for program year 2013-2014. Separate replacement factors for the kept and used category (R1) and donated/sold and used category (R2). Recommendation Memo Found evidence to support the separation of the two replacement factor. The R2 value can be cited from California 2004-2005 Statewide recycling program evaluation. Research methodology to estimate Remaining Useful Life (RUL) NWPCC Proposing the use of survival curves to calculate the Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of the measures. Previously assuming an RUL of 9 years regardless of equipment age. New method will take into account the age of the equipment.

34. 33 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Refrigerator n= 22,677 Average age= 24.2 Freezer n= 7,295 Average age= 31.7 Data distribution of JACO data for program year 2011, includes recycled units from Tacoma, Snohomish, ETO, Seattle, and Idaho Power

35. 34 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Savings Calculations* (Percentage values are for Refrigerators)  Savings are associated with recycled units that would have been left on-grid in the absence of the program. 59% of refrigerators, 69% of freezers.  Kept and used units represent 10 % Refrigerators /14% Freezers of total units, donated/sold units represents 49 % Refrigerators and 55% Freezers of total units.  R1 is the replacement factor for units that were kept and used. This replacement rate is represented by program participant’s replacement rate (Refrigerators: 64% Freezers: 39%).  R2 is the replacement factor for intended recipient of the old unit. When the recycled unit is made unavailable to the intended recipients, 82% of the intended recipients acquired another refrigerator.  Savings are adjusted with part-use factor and in-situ factor. *Logic model demo from Excel workbook. Left Off- Grid (41%) Sold/Donated (49%) Kept and Used (10%) Savings Total Recycled Units Left On- Grid (59%) No Savings

36. 35 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Key Parameters-Refrigerator and Freezers ParametersPrevious WorkbookCurrent WorkbookCurrent Data Source Replacement factors R1: percentage of program participants who would replace their recycled unit R2: percentage of former recipients who would have still bought a unit in the absence of the recycled units availability R1= 50 %R1= 64% (Ref); 39% (Frz)R1: JACO data R2= 50%R2= 82%R2: ADM Associates, 2004-2005 Recycling Program Statewide Evaluation, 2008. Part-use factor This factor takes into account that an equipment may not be used all year long. 91% for both refrigerators and freezers Ref: 99% Frz: 94% Nevada Energy, 2010. Energy Efficiency factor This factor accounts for increasing efficiency of recycled units over time. This factor adjusts the UEC_Old for 2011 to 2013/14 program years. -5% totalRef: -5%/ year Frz: -4%/year Ref UEC_Old(2013/14) = (UEC_Old(2011)*(100%-5%)^(2013- 2011)+UEC_Old(2011)*(100%- 5%)^(2014-2011)/2 JACO data, program year 2009, 2010, 2011

37. 36 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Refrigerator UEC Calculations ParameterSourceCalculation MethodAdjustmentsPrevious Workbook Current Workbook UEC_Old JACO and AHAM data. Average of AHAM UEC applied to each recycled unit in the 2011 program year dataset. Performance Degradation: 1.25% increase in unit energy consumption for each year in service. Energy efficiency factor: 5% less energy use per program year (adjusts from 2011 to 2013/2014 program years) 1,374 kWh1,146 kWh UEC_Replaced RTF refrigerator workbook and RBSA data. JACO data. Weighted by replacement rate and percentage of new replacement versus old replacement. R1 (kept, used): 64% replacement of which 85% replaced with new (469 kWh), 15% used (642kWh). 500 kWh R1: 495 kWh R2: 644 kWh R2 (donated/sold, used): 82% replacement, of which 59% replaced with new (469 kWh), 41% used (average:642 kWh,1146 kWh) Unit Energy Savings482 kWh311 kWh * Continue discussion on the next slide

38. 37 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY R2 Replacement Used Unit Assumption Based on the Evaluation Study of the 2004-2005 Statewide Residential Appliance Recycling Program (ADM Associates), intended recipients indicated that they would have obtained similar used units if the recycled units were not available. UEC of the R2 replacement unit is assumed to be between the UEC of the average JACO recycled unit and the UEC of the RBSA average unit. Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Evaluation Study of the 2004-2005 Statewide Residential Appliance Recycling Program. n= 275

39. 38 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY R2 Replacement Used Unit Assumption An “intended recipient” survey was conducted by ADM Associates for Evaluation Study of the 2004-2005 Statewide Residential Appliance Recycling Program. Second hand refrigerator and freezer owners were surveyed on what they would have done if the used units they bought were not available in the second hand market. The sample size of the survey was 275. 82% (R2) of the survey respondents indicated that they would have still bought a refrigerator/ freezer. 59% would have replaced with new units and the remaining 41% would have replaced with “similar or worse used units”. Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning

40. 39 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Freezer UEC Calculations ParameterSourceCalculation MethodAdjustments Previous Workbook Current Workbook UEC_Old JACO and AHAM data. Apply AHAM UEC to each recycled unit using 2011 program year data Degradation: 1.25% Energy efficiency increase: 4%/year based on JACO data 1,335kWh1,194 kWh UEC_replaced RTF freezer workbook and RBSA data. JACO data. Weighted the UEC of replacement unit based on replacement rate (R1 or R2) R1 (kept, used): 39% replacement. R2 (donated/sold, used): 82% replacement 780 kWh716kWh Unit Energy Savings555 kWh478 kWh

41. 40 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning RUL ParameterValueCalculation MethodNotes Average Age (Previous Workbook) Ref: 9 years Frz: 6 years Assumes remaining useful life of freezers and refrigerators to be between 6-12 years for equipment older than 17 years. Average equipment RUL represents the measure life. The calculation method was not sourced. Survival Curve (Current Workbook) Ref: 3 years Frz: 4 years Using survival curves to calculate individual unit RUL. The average equipment RUL is the measure life. Specific to region accounting for equipment age distribution. Method in accordance with RTF EUL calculation guidelines. DEER default value Ref: 5 years Frz: 4 years One-third of EUL The one-third rule is an industry rule of thumb, not specific to any region or equipment.

42. 41 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Refrigerator RUL Curve EUL16.18 Service (year)05101520253035 SL- Fraction of EUL)0.000.310.620.931.241.551.852.16 RUL-Fraction of EUL)1.060.710.450.260.130.050.010.00 RUL (Years)17.111.57.24.12.10.80.20.0 The RUL is calculated for each individual recycled unit, resulting in an average program RUL of 3 years. This curve was developed using “ Estimating the Remaining Useful Life of Residential Appliances” : Welch and Rogers, Navigant Consulting ACEEE, 2010

43. 42 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Freezer RUL Curve EUL21.75 Service (year)05101520253035 SL- Fraction of EUL)0.000.230.460.690.921.151.381.61 RUL-Fraction of EUL)1.040.810.610.440.310.200.120.06 RUL (Years)22.617.613.29.66.74.32.51.2 The RUL is calculated for each individual recycled unit, resulting in an average program RUL of 4 years. This curve was developed using “ Estimating the Remaining Useful Life of Residential Appliances” : Welch and Rogers, Navigant Consulting ACEEE, 2010

44. 43 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Refrigerator mortality estimation derived from RBSA survey data versus Navigant modeled mortality. Methodology Using historical U.S. refrigerator shipment data to estimate refrigerator stock in the Northwest Region for each of the refrigerator vintages (4% of total U.S. refrigerators are shipped to the NW every year) Sample size of the RBSA survey is 1,404 representing 0.035% of households in the region. Mortality of each vintage is calculated by: The estimated mortality derived from the RBSA survey follows a general Weibull distribution. The regional EUL is estimated to be between 13-17 years when mortality is consistently above 50%. The DOE EUL is developed using RECS Surveys 1990, 1993, 1997, 2001, and 2005. Based on the rigor of the RECS surveys, the DOE EUL is used in this measure analysis. * First five years of data taken out.

45. 44 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Measure Summary CostSavingsTRC Measure cost decreased from $130 to $125, including direct implementation, incentives and marketing costs Savings of both measure decreased. TRC B/ C Ratio of refrigerator decommissioning is now below 1.0

46. 45 ©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. ENERGY RTF Proposed Motion: “I _________ move that the RTF approve the Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning UES Measure to “Proven” with a sunset date of June 29, 2014