1. RTF Management Updates Jennifer Light Regional Technical Forum January 21, 2016

2. Topics for Today Updates to MH New Construction Planning estimates Residential Lighting QC Update RTF Contract and Staffing Updates Upcoming Topics Additional Slides – Bonneville follow up on SIS 2

3. Manufactured Homes New Construction Measures 3

4. At the last meeting, the RTF approved the ENERGY STAR and EcoRated MH Measures with the following changes to the analysis: – Using the existing baseline defined as market mix of non-NEEM homes – Using a Phase I calibration adjustment based on NEEM only data (not a NEEM/RBSA mix) Results – Baseline is less efficient, so savings and costs went up – In some cases, measures became less cost effective Gas heated homes in HZ1 are not cost effective for either measure 4

5. Savings: ENERGY STAR MH 5

6. Incremental Costs: ENERGY STAR MH 6

7. Regional Cost Effectiveness: ENERGY STAR MH 7

8. Savings: EcoRated MH 8

9. Incremental Cost: EcoRated MH 9

10. Regional Cost Effectiveness: EcoRated MH 10

11. Effects of Corrections to Residential LED and CFL Screw-in Lamp Measure Analysis 11 Measure approved by RTF August 18, 2015

12. Errors found Wattage normalization for lumen differences was not properly done Cost adjustments for non-retail delivery mechanisms was not applied

13. Correction – Wattage Normalization Wattage normalization for lumen differences was not properly done – Sales/shelf data revealed that the average light output (lumens) for each lamp type (e.g., general purpose, reflector) and lumen range (e.g., 310 to 749 lumens) varies by technology type (incandescent, halogen, CFL, LED) – For each lamp type and lumen range, wattages for each technology type are normalized to reflect the same light output Normalization is done by assuming efficacy (lm/W) is constant

14. Effects of Wattage Normalization Correction on Results Savings are affected – For this measure, we report First Year Savings Savings from first four years of measure life Savings from remainder of program life – All savings are affected – Magnitude of effect mostly within +/- 10% range No effect on measure cost or lifetime All measure applications remain cost effective

15. Effects of Corrections on Results Effect on annual savings (kWh) for common retail measures

16. Correction – Cost Adjustment Cost adjustments for non-retail delivery mechanisms was not applied – Cost of program lamps for non-retail delivery mechanisms is discounted from retail cost – Delivery costs for non-retail delivery mechanisms are applied

17. Effects of Cost Adjustment on Results Incremental costs for non-retail delivery mechanisms change – Most changes in range of -$1 to + $2 No effect on savings or lifetime All measure applications remain cost effective

30. RTF Contracts and Staffing Update Contract Analyst Team: No additional analyst identified QA/QC: AEG selected RTF Assistant: Garrett Herndon will start February 16 30

31. Upcoming Meeting Topics Anticipated in early 2016 Residential LED Fixtures (new measure) Agricultural Lighting – Area Lights Multifamily Calibration, Weatherization, and New Construction New Homes Standard Protocol Residential Behavior Non-Residential Lighting (Retrofits) 31

32. Additional Slides 32 Bonneville responses to RTF questions on SIS

33. Bonneville Responses 1.What is the accuracy of the equipment used to collect the water consumption fro the different sites? – We don’t believe the noise from the equipment accuracy is big enough to wipe out the savings from the SIS program. In addition, the tipping rain gauge accuracy is for the spot on the field, but these fields are randomly selected, removing bias. See the table below: 33

34. Bonneville Responses 2.Can we get more detailed data for the sites receiving SIS services, rather than just the data provided at the end of the year in the SIS calculator? – Based on feedback from the irrigation consultants last week discussing program data, this would be very difficult and would result in increased study cost. It is in their best interest to collect quality data because their business depends on it so we can count on them for submitting accurate annual numbers for water applied. We have confirmed that IRZ does multiple QC checks on their field data. Currently the irrigation consultants are aggregating the data in the SIS calculators based on fields with similar hydraulic lift and it is more important that the irrigation consultants spend their time submitting their data to us at the field level than submitting the data monthly instead of annually. We need to prioritize the irrigation consultant’s time and we have determined that getting field specific water applied information and field specific growing cycle dates is more beneficial to data accuracy than getting water applied data in monthly batches. 34

35. Bonneville Responses 3.Can the data collection protocol capture the method of data collection used on those sites receiving SIS services (explicitly spell it out)? – We intentionally designed the field data collection protocol to mirror what the irrigation consultants are doing so that comparing the SIS program and non-program fields would be an apples to apples comparison. We are using the tipping rain gauge as the primary method because the majority of the irrigation consultant’s use rain gauges. We are using a tipping rain gauge instead of a manual rain gauge based on feedback from Ryan Firestone that it would be best to automate the water applied methodology so the irrigation consultants are less likely to skew with the data. If we mandated the protocol to irrigation consultants then they would have to install tipping rain gauges instead of manual rain gauges which would be an unrealistic cost to ask the irrigation consultants to take on. For instances where the rain gauge cannot be used the irrigation consultants use an hour meter whereas we use an integrated flow meter or pressure gauge, which is based on feedback from stakeholders. If we were to mandate the protocol for non-SIS fields then it would require them to install our same equipment, which would be unrealistic. 35

36. Bonneville Responses 4.There is interest in collecting data on water rights. – Bonneville is not collecting water rights information. 36