1. UES Measure Updates: Refrigerator and Freezer Recycling (Continued from June) Adam Hadley Regional Technical Forum June 16, 2015

2. Overview Today, we are seeking RTF approval of the updates to the Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning UES measure. Updated Energy Savings – Efficient-case updated with recent RTF refrigerator and freezer analysis – Baseline updated with 2014 JACO program data New-ish unit energy use updated to reflect updated efficient-case unit energy use and federal test procedure change Updated Cost – Program Cost Updated – To be consistent with savings estimates, proposal is to include the costs of “early replacements” and “induced replacements”, where they apply We covered everything above in June (that presentation is included in the “extra slides” section), so today we’ll review the subcommittee’s recommendations and the final results Also, there are additional energy savings updates not covered in June 2

3. Subcommittee(s) At its June meeting, the RTF assigned to subcommittees the following, with the provision that the subcommittees do not change the logic model: A small sub-group of the RTF to answer: – RUL on costs – Risk mitigation credit for early retirement The refrigerator recycling subcommittee to answer: – Review Measure Costs 1.Should participant incentives be included in the Regional Cost- effectiveness test? 2.Review of early replacement cost methodology 3.Review cost (and benefits) of induced replacement 3

4. Review: Small Sub-group of the RTF’s Recommendations Group answered their questions July 2nd – RUL on Costs Answer: – The staff proposal was appropriate. – The measure’s initial capital cost value should be preserved in RTF analysis and reporting. – Risk mitigation credit for early retirement Answer: The risk mitigation credit should be set to $0 for savings that do not persist through the planning horizon. Also note: The Grocery SP-to-EC Motors and Display Case LED’s measures that used both of these methods were adopted at the July RTF meeting 4 Sub-group met 7/2 Participants: Lauren Gage Jennifer Anziano Tina Jayaweera Mohit Chhabra Christian Douglass Josh Rushton

5. Refrigerator Recycling Subcommittee Recommendations Q: Should participant incentives be included in the Regional Cost-effectiveness test? – A: Do not include the incentive as a cost; consider it a transfer payment Q: Are early replacement costs appropriate? – A: Yes. Keep as proposed in June. Q: Are induced replacement costs appropriate? Should a benefit be included? – A: The approach recommended by the subcommittee is to include a “utility of refrigeration” benefit based on the electricity cost to run the refrigerator or freezer. While not anywhere near perfect, the subcommittee agrees this is the “least uncomfortable” approach Additional Question Raised: Phil Sisson reported there was a new study in California which may provide an update to the “Fraction of New Replacement Units” parameter for the R2 case – Adam to work with Phil to review the data 5 Subcommittee Met 9/1 PresentationPresentation, MinutesMinutes Participants: Paul Sklar, Energy Trust Mark Jerome, CLEAResult Doug Bruchs, Cadeo Bob Nicholas, Jaco Sam Sirkin, Jaco Phil Sisson Phillip Kelsven, BPA Holly Mulvenon, PSE Rebecca Blanton, PSE Dennis Rominger, PSE Adam Hadley, CAT Ryan Firestone, CAT Josh Ruston, CAT Mohit Singh-Chhabra, CAT Jennifer Anziano, RTF Manager

6. Energy Savings Updates These are in addition to the updates presented at the June meeting Update “Fraction of New Replacement Units” Parameter – Previous Values and Sources Refrigerators – R1 Case: 79% (JACO Program Data) – R2 Case: 59% (ADM 2004-05 CA Statewide Survey) Freezers – All Cases: 100% (RTF Assumption) – Proposed Values and Sources Refrigerators – R1 Case: 78% (JACO Program Data, updated w/2014 data) – R2 Case: 42% (KEMA/DNV-GL ARP Impact Evaluation 2014) Freezers – R1 Case: 82% (JACO Program Data) – R2 Case: 43% (KEMA/DNV-GL ARP Impact Evaluation 2014) Corrected error in “used replacement unit” energy use estimate – Estimate of average energy use of used units (based on RBSA refrigerator age distribution) did not previously use the “Annual Degradation Factor” 6

7. Measure Cost Reminder: – Induced Replacement – Where the program caused purchase of a unit that otherwise wouldn’t have been purchased – Early Replacement – Where the program caused early replacement of an existing unit 7

8. 8 Refrigerator Replacement Cost Logic Map

9. 9 Freezer Replacement Cost Logic Map

10. 10 Collection, Disposal, Incentive, etc. Costs (no replacement costs) Collection, Disposal, etc. Costs (Incentive removed) Replacement Costs (net of utility of refrigeration)

11. 11

12. 12

13. Proposed Motion 13 “I _________ move the RTF approve the updates in savings and costs, as presented, for the Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning measure UES and set the sunset date to September 2017.” Purpose of the 2-year sunset date would be to update the measure with 2015 and 2016 program data and any other newly available evaluation data.

14. Additional Subcommittee Discussion Subcommittee requested a new measure identifier: Vintage The following is a proposal for a measure identifier of vintage defined as: – Units manufactured in 1992 and earlier; and – Units manufactured in 1993 and later Methodology (savings, cost, life): Same as the “any vintage” measure, but with the JACO dataset screened by vintage – See measure workbook for details 14

15. Results “Any” case shown for reference. 15

16. Proposed Motion 16 “I _________ move the RTF approve the measure specification, savings, costs and benefits, and measure life for the ‘1992 and earlier’ and ‘1993 and later’ applications of the Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning measure UES and set the sunset date to September 2017.” Purpose of the 2-year sunset date would be to update the measure with 2015 and 2016 program data and any other newly available evaluation data.

17. Extra Slides The following slides are from the June 2015 RTF presentation 17

18. Overview Today, we are seeking RTF approval of the updates to the Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning UES measure. Updated Energy Savings – Efficient-case updated with recent RTF refrigerator and freezer analysis – Baseline updated with 2014 JACO program data New-ish unit energy use updated to reflect updated efficient-case unit energy use and federal test procedure change Updated Cost – Program Cost Updated – Proposal is to include the costs of “early replacements” and “induced replacements”, where they apply 18 Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

19. Measure Overview CAT Team ReviewYes, in detail Tech Sub-Com Review No official subcommittee, but proposed cost approach (per “rev2” presentation) was reviewed by the following people through email/phone calls with Adam Hadley: Bob Nicholas and Sam Sirkin (JACO) (Program Implementation Company) - Concern about lack of subcommittee review of replacement costs - Would like time for official subcommittee review Phil Sisson (Sisson and Associates) (Refrigerator Recycling Measure Expert, Technical Contractor to JACO) - Concerned about new unit replacement costs being quantified “in perpetuity” Kate Bushman, M. Sami Khawaja, Jason Christensen (Cadmus) (Program Impact Evaluation Company) - Agree with the approach for costs of induced replacement Doug Bruchs (Cadeo, formerly with Cadmus) (Refrigerator Recycling Measure Expert, Authored UMP for this measure) - Agrees with approach from high level; not familiar enough with the Regional Cost Effectiveness test to comment on appropriateness of approach for the RTF Notes Last RTF decision was May 2014 Sunset date was set to June 2015 to update measure with refrigerator and freezer federal standard changes 19 Please note: The opinions of the people/organizations as stated above are as interpreted by Adam Hadley. Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

20. Energy Savings: Changes Updated New Replacement-unit’s Energy Use (Represents a portion of the efficient-case) – Based on recent RTF fridge/freezer analysis (Oct 2014) – Refrigerator Previous: 491 kWh/yr (v3.0 workbook) Proposed: 570 kWh/yr (ResRefrigeratorsAndFreezers_v4.0) – Freezer Previous: 500 kWh/yr (v2.2 workbook) Proposed: 389 kWh/yr (ResRefrigeratorsAndFreezers_v4.0) Updated Replaced-unit’s Energy use (Baseline) – New JACO Data Update database with units recycled in 2014 JACO programs. (Energy consumption assigned based on model year.) – Update Newer Unit Energy Consumption (Refrigerators only) Based on crosswalk from old-to-new federal test procedure (~15% more energy use) Also aligns the new replacement unit’s energy use (570 kWh/yr) See next slide for further explanation – While complicated, this increases savings for refrigerators by less than 2% 20 TypePreviousProposed Refrigerator1,274 kWh/yr1,239 kWh/yr Freezer1,509 kWh/yr1,325 kWh/yr Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

21. 21 Increased energy use of 2001- 2010 units by ~15% based on revised federal test procedure Set 2011 to 2015 units at 570 kWh/yr (RTF Baseline) Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

22. 22 Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

23. Previously, measure cost estimated at $125/unit (2012$’s). – Summary Sheet: “All program costs, including all direct implementation, incentives, and marketing costs for all utilities that JACO serves across the NW region, are summed and divided by number of units recycled to arrive at a cost per unit recycled.” Proposed revised estimate: $114 (2015$’s) – JACO program costs have gone down: lower incentives, mostly Does not include A.Cost of early replacement B.Cost of induced replacement… Measure Cost: Changes 23 Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

24. Proposal: Add cost of Replacement Units – Induced Replacement – Where the program caused purchase of a unit that otherwise wouldn’t have been purchased – Early Replacement – Where the program caused early replacement of an existing unit – The induced replacement cost or the early replacement cost is used, depending on the circumstances, as shown on upcoming slides (“logic maps”) – Cost only incurred where replacement unit is new because purchase of a used unit represents a transfer payment within Region: How many are new units? Same values as used in energy savings calculations Refrigerators – “Brother-in-Law” (R2): 59% » ADM 2004-2005 CA Statewide survey – Participant (R1): 78% » Source: JACO 2012-2014 Program Data Freezers: 100% Measure Cost: Changes (continued) 24 Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

25. Early Replacement Cost Methodology Mimics calculations ProCost uses where costs or benefits are truncated by program life 25 Notes: This example is for refrigerators, the same methodology is used for freezers. All costs are in 2006$’s. PV of Cost of Purchasing New: $942 Real Discount Rate: 5% EUL (new unit): 15.2 years Annualized Constant Payment for life of new equipment: $90 RUL (replaced unit): 6.4 years Early Replacement Cost = $942 – Sum(Red Bubble) Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

26. 26 Refrigerator Replacement Cost Logic Map Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

27. 27 Freezer Replacement Cost Logic Map Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

28. 28 No change to non-energy benefit Program, etc. Costs (no replacement costs) Program, etc. Costs Replacement Costs Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

29. Cost-Effectiveness Methodology Question Should the Risk-Mitigation Credit apply? – In the current measure, the “Retrofit” risk- mitigation credit of 43 mills/kWh is used – This was questioned at the May 2014 meeting, but not acted on Minutes from May 2014: See page 7, starting at Eckman Minutes – Key points: » Not analytically rigorous to include risk-mitigation credit for a short measure that doesn’t replenish itself » RTF was uncomfortable dealing with the issue at that time; instead wanted to take it up with the Guidelines edits 29 Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

30. 30 There was a <1% increase in measure life years, based on the program data update. Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

31. Proposed Motion “I _________ move the RTF approve the updates in savings and cost for the Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning measure UES and set the sunset date to June 2017. The risk-mitigation credit (should) or (should not) be used in the cost-effectiveness calculation.” 31 Purpose of the 2-year sunset date would be to update the measure with 2015 and 2016 program data and any other newly available evaluation data. Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

32. Additional Slides 32 Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation

33. Difference between this presentation and what was posted earlier Last week (~ June 9), CAT posted to the meeting agenda a presentation (rev 2) and workbook that showed a different method of calculating the additional proposed early replacement costs (using the cost of buying early as a perpetuity, etc.) While the results of the methodology shown in this presentation and the previous presentation are the same, this presentation explains the methodology as is done in ProCost (for consistency and simplicity of explanation) 33 Caution: This is the June 2015 Presentation