Regional Technical Forum
April 6, 2010
Meeting Summary
1. Introductions, Agenda Review, Announcements
Tom Eckman called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. He welcomed the participants and
conducted a round of introductions. Bruce Cody made a motion to approve the minutes of
the March meeting. Jeff Harris seconded the motion, which passed with all ayes. Eckman
announced the dates of the 2010 meetings and noted that July and August could change.
Adam Hadley provided a report on subcommittee activities. He reported the RTF has issued
two requests for proposal; one relates to deemed measures and measure life review, and the
other is the simplified M&V protocols project. Responses for each are due Friday, April 16;
the selection process will begin the following week. There is a third RFP out for a project
related to efficiency assistance for small rural utilities. Proposals are due April 23; a
selection will be made the following week.
Hadley said work on the Grocery Refrigeration Subcommittee is moving along. Charlie Grist
reported the subcommittee met twice in March and is going through the “nitty gritty” of PECI
calculations for updating software. Hadley said the Distribution Efficiency & Voltage
Optimization Subcommittee needs volunteers, and the Residential Weatherization/Ventilation
Subcommittee will meet again soon.
Eckman offered an item to add to the agenda. He circulated a new draft of the conflict of
interest policy, noting RTF-member comments were incorporated. We are trying to get a
conflict of interest policy in place to protect the integrity of the RTF. The RTF “dispenses
money,” and the goal with the policy is to deliver a standard of integrity in that regard and
still allow the RTF to function effectively, he said.
Jim Lazar expressed concern the policy was not listed as an item on the agenda. I have no
problem with going over the policy now and taking action on it at the next meeting, he said.
He asked if members were comfortable with the item scheduled at 11:30 (NEET’s review of
the RTF) since nothing was distributed on it prior to the RTF meeting.
Harris said he shared the concern, but wanted to hear the EMI report. The RTF should take
no action since the material was not made available before hand, he said.
Eckman said the EMI/NEET agenda item is “an opening discussion,” with no action attached.
Eckman continued with explaining the conflict of interest policy and provisions in it. He
indicated the goal is to allow subcommittees to take advantage of “the wisdom in the region”
on various topics. But when there are financial implications, we need to raise the issue of
conflicts. He suggested people take the draft policy back to their organizations for review.
There was discussion about the incentive-pay provision in the draft policy. Eckman pointed
out the issue is “disclosure.” It’s not something we are doing anything about, he said. He
asked that RTF members offer any further comment within a week.
Eckman announced the US Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted a new minimum
efficiency standard for water heaters starting in April 2015. The standard specifies any water
RTF Meeting
Meeting Summary
1
April 6, 2010
heater over 55 gallons must be a heat pump water heater. That affects roughly 9 percent of
residential water heaters. Eckman noted that details on the standard, which he called “a
sizeable change,” are available on the DOE web site.
If that becomes the standard after 2015, would the measure come off the supply curve and be
incorporated directly into demand? Rich Arneson asked. Eckman said it would, adding that a
fair fraction of electricity consumption is tied up in appliances and equipment; half of our
supply curve is subject to standards or codes.
Distribution Efficiency Improvements and Voltage Optimization
Jillianne Welker introduced the agenda item on the Simplified Voltage Optimization (VO)
project. She said there had been a great deal of collaboration in carrying out the project,
and she thanked the many participants. Most of the focus for energy efficiency has been on
the customer side, but the VO project looks at the utility side, she said.
Welker outlined BPA’s goals with the project, which are to develop a method to simplify the
delta V calculation for VO and simplify and standardize utility participation. She also
described the VO technical workgroup function.
Next up was KC Fagen, who said the workgroup wants the RTF to form a subcommittee to
review the proposed method of simplifying the delta V calculation. He began his detailed
description of what the project entailed by defining VO. He said the measure known as
conservation voltage reduction (CVR) is widely known throughout the utility industry. But
these simplified protocols are different, and VO is a more accurate description of the effort,
Fagen said.
He went through a timeline of events that led up to the study, from 2004 to the present. And
he explained the method for calculating energy savings. Based on the results of previous
studies and pilot projects, our method “is on the money,” he said. Fagen proceeded to
explain the four stages used for the simplified VO M&V protocols developed in the study.
There were several questions about the treatment of seasonality in the protocol, specifically
as it relates to the required seven-day pre- and post-monitoring period. The discussion
included whether seven days is adequate. Bob Fletcher explained how seasonality is handled
in the equations in the protocol. He pointed out that with the thresholds in place, voltage is
proportional to current so the time of year that monitoring occurs does not affect the results.
Hadley said RTF members can take the opportunity to go through the protocol and make
comments. He suggested an RTF subcommittee consider the protocol details and make
recommendations about whether to approve the methodology. Welker said the technical
workgroup wanted to get comments from the RTF in time to finalize a proposal before the
May meeting.
A representative of Cowlitz PUD commented that the process to develop the methodology was
collaborative and included participants with many areas of expertise. It has been a good
effort and there was lots of input, he said.
Arneson said he accompanied engineers from Tacoma Power to the VO technical workgroup
meetings. They have been generally supportive of the protocols, he said. Grist commented
RTF Meeting
Meeting Summary
2
April 6, 2010
that the biggest challenge is establishing thresholds because they differ from utility to utility
and there are matters of judgment about where to set them.
Bob Helm said technical workgroup participants had considerable discussion about setting
thresholds and got recommendations from each other.
The looser you set the thresholds, the more metering is entailed; the tighter the thresholds,
the less metering, Welker said. She pointed out that the process of looking into the detail
within voltage control zone gives utilities a better feel for what would happen with VO. They
unearth a lot of things in the process, and those pieces of information can be critical, Welker
said.
A Cowlitz PUD participant said the technical workgroup spent a lot of time discussing the
thresholds and talking about what was feasible and what was not. We agreed on these
numbers, he said.
Cody pointed out that some huge motors come on sporadically. That might not be captured
in a seven-day monitoring period, and you could have a voltage problem that impacts a utility
and BPA, he said. How do you deal with that?
Fletcher pointed out that VO in the study is focused on residential and light commercial.
When you get into large commercial, utilities know what’s on their system, he said. Fagan
said the key is to look at impacts within the control zones. If there is too much variation with
voltage, the zone isn’t a good candidate for VO, and you would move to the next substation,
he said. The simplified protocols deal with average voltage on the feeder, Fletcher added.
There was a question about capturing the variance in voltage from day to day and discussion
about how to be sure it is adequately captured. Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg asked whether
one day of monitoring would be adequate. There is enough variance that it requires more
than one day, but not more than seven; you also want to capture a weekend, Fletcher said.
The behavior of voltage drop on a feeder is very predictable, Fagen said. These methods
have been used for over 80 years in the industry, he added.
Damon Fisher recommended making a comparison of results from weeklong measurements
made in summer with measurements made in winter. Seasonal adjustment is a big issue,
Harris said. Data that NEEA has collected could be useful in providing examples. Another
concern is large non-residential loads. I didn’t see anything about sub-metering large
intermittent loads; you may want to modify the protocols so that is addressed, he suggested.
David Baylon said he was surprised to hear there are feeders that would not be appropriate
for VO since there is nothing about that in the protocols. He suggested language be added to
make that clear.
Grist recapped that the VO technical workgroup wants to come back in May to get RTF
approval for the protocols and savings calculations. He also said the RTF subcommittee needs
more volunteers to look over the study and provide feedback to the workgroup by April 19.
Discussion of NEET’s Review of the RTF
RTF Meeting
Meeting Summary
3
April 6, 2010
Grist introduced presenters to talk about NEET’s evaluation of the RTF, which was conducted
by Energy Market Innovations, Inc. (EMI). Bill Drummond, a member of the NEET executive
committee, gave background on NEET and the impetus for the evaluation of RTF. The idea
came from one of the NEET workgroups, Measuring What Matters, he said.
Drummond said an overarching theme in the NEET final report is the importance of crediting
and counting energy efficiency savings. RTF plays an important role in that area. The EMI
evaluation took an independent look at the goal, scope, and funding for RTF, in addition to
describing and assessing its governance, he said.
The EMI report was completed last week and forwarded to the NEET executive committee.
The next NEET meeting is June 17.
Rob Bordner introduced his presentation as a “big picture view” of the role of the RTF. He
laid out the goals of the evaluation: 1) provide a comprehensive and objective review of the
RTF and 2) summarize stakeholder perceptions of the current and future roles for the RTF.
The desired outcomes are to develop a shared understanding of the current state of the RTF
and initiate dialogue on the tradeoffs, options, and opportunities for potential future states.
He described the evaluators’ approach – document review and interviews – and said they
synthesized the information gathered and compiled it into a final report.
Bordner told the RTF, “this is the beginning of a long-term discussion.” There were no
conclusions drawn, and the evaluators were directed not to make specific recommendations.
Our aim was just to get the discussion going, he said.
As the first of the major findings, Bordner reported “overwhelming appreciation for the role
of the RTF” in the region. No one sees that the RTF needs to go away, and most respondents
think its role will get bigger with more demands placed on it, he said. Bordner sited our big
issues that came out in the evaluation: stakeholder definition and governance structure;
future role of the RTF; alignment of activities with stakeholder priorities; and scalability of
operations. He proceeded to describe the issues and level of satisfaction with the RTF on
subsets of each issue. Bordner also provided verbatim quotes from some respondents.
Respondents said as the region moves forward with efforts to meet energy efficiency goals, a
central challenge is to define the future role of the RTF more precisely, he reported.
Reaching clarity and agreement among various entities on the stakeholder definition and
governance structure for RTF surfaced as a top priority.
The more agreement we have around these issues, the greater will be RTF’s ability to attract
funding, he said. Among the structural issues, he cited questions about whether RTF
members represent an organization or themselves as individuals when they make decisions.
Bordner identified next steps, which include initiating a process to address the stakeholder
definition and governance structure issues. It is clear to us – as outsiders – that is the place to
start. Next is to identify the needs of stakeholders and refine them, followed by developing a
multiyear work plan, he said.
Drummond concluded by saying the region has found tremendous value in the RTF,
particularly its independent analysis and determinations of deemed values for energy
efficiency measures. There is unanimity the RTF workload and complexity will increase and
more will be demanded of the entity. The current approaches and structure need work. The
RTF Meeting
Meeting Summary
4
April 6, 2010
RTF has evolved three or four times; I view this as “a maturation process,” he said. The
evaluation will be presented to the NEET executive committee in June.
The presentation prompted considerable discussion. Hadley asked if NEET would be in charge
of the next steps. Drummond responded that he would develop a strawman for how to
address the issues, but there’s a question about where the process goes from there. The
Council will have role, but we have to address the fundamental stakeholder issues, he said.
Hadley said there are discussions around the region that will need to come together; the work
will not be insignificant.
Baylon asked about the comment that suggested the agenda of RTF should be set by utilities
rather than by a system internal to the RTF. Is that the utilities opinion? he asked. Bordner
said there isn’t shared agreement on that question. Drummond added that four entities fund
75 percent of RTF, and there has to be alignment between the stakeholders and the work that
gets done in order for the funding to continue.
Baylon questioned whether the agenda for the RTF should come from outside and if so,
whether the body would retain its independence. Drummond said there was agreement in the
region that the RTF ought to continue to address the determination of deemed savings and
data analysis and there is value in that being done independently.
Eckman said the RTF “has to deal with a high-wire act” of maintaining its independence and
satisfying the funders’ priorities. He said over the long term, if we don’t serve their needs,
the money will be gone. If they don’t sign up to fund us, we aren’t doing “value added”
work. The RTF needs to be responsive to the needs of region, he said.
Jill Steiner said “ideally, the utilities funding the RTF get a say in its priorities,” and the
priorities of the utilities should align with what needs to be done to achieve cost-effective
savings. She also said there should be a connection with meeting the goals in the Council’s
Sixth Power Plan.
Grist said Drummond would need to bring ideas to NEET that are actionable. He suggested
that identifying the “class of products” the region wants from RTF would help in the
discussion of governance and structure issues.
Kevin Cooney said alignment with the Sixth Power Plan seems very important. It defines the
targets, and an outgrowth of that is identifying places where utilities get help reaching the
targets. He said the focus of the RTF should be fundamentally aligned with the plan.
Cody expressed concern with setting goals, objectives, and the collection of money. People
will look for what is of value to them, and if they need something from the RTF to move
forward, they will see the value. He wondered whether “you can rigorously systematize” the
RTF.
There are elements that have made RTF successful, and the volunteer element is invaluable,
Drummond said. The “flipside” is “there are functions that have been cobbled together”;
such a business structure isn’t sustainable with the coming demands and pressures.
Baylon asked about other funding mechanisms for the RTF. Harris gave NEEA as an example
of an entity that is funded in a more stable way. He said the long-term funding commitment
RTF Meeting
Meeting Summary
5
April 6, 2010
is part of NEEA’s success; as a result, we can make funding commitments and run multiyear
projects.
Steiner said a good governance structure would provide an estimate of the work and what it
will take to do it, adding that RTF is “on the precipice” of an exponential change in the
amount of work it may be asked to do.
Poppy Storm commented that organizations don’t have to have the same funding mechanisms,
and comparing NEEA to the RTF “is comparing apples and oranges.” She suggested being
open to the possibility of different mechanisms for funding that won’t necessarily align with
the direct interests of the funders.
Deemed Savings for Residential Duct Insulation
Hadley went through the new deemed measure proposal for residential duct insulation. He
explained the table of deemed savings, as well as the savings methodology and inputs. He
also described assumptions used for the savings calculation, as well as additional inputs,
including the type of heating and cooling system and the linear and square feet of ducts in
unconditioned spaces. The assumptions about baseline duct insulation levels and house
geometry were particularly important to the outcome of the calculation, he said.
Hadley reported the intermediate savings calculation results and said homes with heat pumps
save more than homes with electric forced air furnaces. Next, he presented the ETO impact
evaluation results and pointed out his analysis “is in the range” of that study. He also
explained the calculation of the measure cost, based on data from ETO and Bruce Manclark.
The proposed measure includes measure definitions and requirements; reporting
requirements; and a sunset date of two years. There was a suggestion that the measure
requirement go with 75 percent versus 90 percent, as the definition of “significant” for ducts
in a vented unconditioned space. Fisher asked about the assumptions for alternative heat
sources (non-electric heat). After hearing the analysis assumes all electric heating systems,
he suggested that be part of the measure requirements. Baylon recommended changing the
requirement that calls for at least 250 square feet (sf) of supply duct outside the heated
space, saying 250 sf is too onerous.
Hadley went on to the topic of reporting savings and listed pluses and drawbacks of the
various options: by house, square footage, linear foot, duct area, etc. The proposal is to
report by house, he said, adding that he would like to get comments from the RTF and
program implementers since this is a big issue. He listed other things to think about in
deeming savings for the measures, including confidence in the variables, measure design, and
whether the RTF should attempt to deem additional duct related measures.
Hadley concluded the presentation with a table displaying elements of the proposed deemed
measure.
Baylon suggested if the RTF is going to deem these savings, they should start out with
insulated ducts. There were other suggestions and discussion about the input details and
whether “eyeballing” lengths and percentages for duct area would be adequate or whether
measuring should be required.
RTF Meeting
Meeting Summary
6
April 6, 2010
Eckman said some things don’t lend themselves to deemed savings and pointed out the
potential for great variation in results with this measure. It’s possible we could end up with a
measure we sunset in two years for lack of data to support it. He said he is supportive of
getting to deemed savings, but would be more comfortable having further evaluation to see
what we are getting out of duct sealing and insulation. Eckman added that it’s not clear
whether ETO’s duct insulation evaluations should be lined up with this proposed deemed
value, since we don’t know whether the ducts in the ETO program were sealed.
Harris suggested the RTF could deem savings at the lower end of the range, if a project has a
benefit-to-cost ratio greater than one. He suggested running the calculations assuming 50/50
insulated/uninsulated ducts. Eckman agreed that going with a conservative number and
collecting measurement and verification data makes sense. Ted Haskell cautioned that many
homes only have a few runs of ducts that are uninsulated, so even going with 50/50 would
miss some opportunities to insulate ducts.
Let’s queue this up for our next meeting; we aren’t going to make a decision today, Eckman
said.
Deemed Savings for Residential Lighting
Danielle Gidding reported that Navigant has researched data on savings for specialty CFL
bulbs and LED downlights. Ryan Firestone presented the research, starting with purpose, key
issues that affect savings, and the definition of specialty bulbs. He provided background,
which included a presentation at the May 2009 RTF meetings on utilities’ experience with
CFLs and subsequent RTF action on inputs to the CFL savings calculations.
In February 2010, RTF took up the question of whether specialty CFLs differ from standard
CFLs and whether inputs for determining the savings should change. A deemed savings
decision was tabled, which led to the research, Firestone said.
He recapped the issues, including ways in which specialty CFL use may differ from standard
CFL use, and he listed sources of data for the Navigant research. He outlined the
comparisons of specialty to standard CFLs in terms of the characteristics of specialty lamp
sales; hours of use and lifetime; and storage rates, removal and take-back rates.
Harris questioned the recommendation for a 36 percent storage rate; it seems high for
specialty bulbs. Also, there is an argument to be made about whether storage is a reasonable
assumption, since over time, you expect the bulbs to be installed, he said.
Bill Koran commented that only the bulbs installed at any given time are providing savings.
Arneson suggested using a number for storage other than 36 percent on a provisional basis.
Firestone went through the savings analysis and calculation. He also explained a calculation
for weighting the lamp type for an “any specialty lamp” option in the program. He provided
four approaches to making that calculation, depending on bulb type and quantity of sales.
There was discussion about the approaches, and Eckman said Approach 4 is likely the better
indicator. Harris agreed, and Hadley suggested a fifth approach would be not to have the
“any specialty lamp” option.
RTF Meeting
Meeting Summary
7
April 6, 2010
Firestone concluded by listing the elements of the savings proposal: reduce the direct-install
removal rates for specialty and standard CFLs from 12 percent to 4 percent; reduce the
direct-install take-back from 5 percent to zero; accept the proposed savings for specialty
lamps by specific lamp type; accept one of the four approaches to lamp-type weighting;
accept proposed savings for specialty lamps; accept the measure requirements; and revise
the analysis with updated data in two years.
The RTF took a series of votes on the proposal:
• Harris made a motion to reduce the storage rate for specialty bulbs from 36 percent to 18
percent. Jim Maunder seconded the motion. Carolyn Roos suggested going with 20
percent; Harris accepted the “friendly amendment” to his motion. There was discussion
about the relative expense of the bulbs, whether they are sold in large quantity packs, and
what type of data may be available in the future. The motion passed, but the vote was
not unanimous. There were three votes against it.
• Harris made a motion to accept the reduction in direct-install removal rates for both
standard and specialty lamps to 4 percent (from 12 [percent). Eric Brateng seconded the
motion, which passed with all votes in favor.
• Harris made a motion to accept reducing the take-back from 5 percent to zero. Jay Himlie
seconded the motion, which passed with one vote in opposition.
• Harris made a motion to accept the proposed savings for specialty lamps by lamp type.
Brateng seconded the motion, which passed without opposition
• Harris made a motion to adopt Approach 4 to weighting by lamp type for the “anyspecialty-lamp” option. Himlie seconded the motion, which passed without opposition.
• Harris made a motion to adopt the measure requirements (Energy Star rated; 5 watts or
greater; data collection for Retail measures to include package size, retail cost, and
wattage; and data collection for Direct Install measures to include lamp type, wattage,
and room in which installed). Mark Jerome seconded the motion, which passed without
opposition.
• Harris made a motion to adopt the 24-month sunset provision. Brateng seconded the
motion, which passed without opposition.
• Grist made a motion to accept a 1 percent storage rate for LEDs. Jerome seconded the
motion, which passed without opposition.
Showerhead Measures
Gidding presented BPA’s research plan for commercial showerheads. She described how the
research would be carried out, including what data would be collected and how, and how
data would be trued up. Data to be collected include baseline flow rate, occupancy rates,
number of occupants per showerhead, shower duration, and showers per person per day.
There was consensus in the RTF that the research plan was adequate and would collect the
right information. A comment was made that given experience with other such efforts, there
would need to be a check-in to assure data was being collected.
Update on BPA M& V Project
Ryan Fedie made a presentation on BPA’s M&V protocols project. He explained that the
purpose is to review and update the site-specific M&V protocols. It was time to take a look
and see if everything is still current with the way we are doing things, Fedie said.
Jane Peters described the project, including the research activities, findings,
recommendations, and follow-on activities that are needed.
RTF Meeting
Meeting Summary
8
April 6, 2010
There was discussion about how to carry out and fund M&V functions, including development
and cataloguing of deemed savings calculators. Grist pointed out that budget and staffing
limit what the RTF can do. There is a lot of work going on outside of the RTF that isn’t being
captured because we don’t have the research budget to gather it, he said. Fedie said BPA’s
energy efficiency roadmap could bring together information on areas that need further
research.
There was a suggestion the RTF post a link to the initial BPA M&V report on its website. (It is
now posted at:
http://www.nwcouncil.org/rtf/studies/rfp/simplifiedM%26V/M%26V_Protocol_Review_040210
.pdf).
Revisions to Refrigerator Replacement Deemed Savings
This agenda item was postponed.
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
RTF Meeting
Meeting Summary
9
April 6, 2010
Attendees: April 6, 2010
Name Affiliation Email
Phone Lynn Anderson Rich Arneson Mike Bailey Michael Baker David Baylon Rob Bordner Eric Brateng Bruce Cody Warren Cook Michael Darrington Bill Drummond Tom Eckman Dick Edwards KC Fagen Ryan Fedie Ryan Firestone Damon Fisher Robert Fletcher Idaho PUC Tacoma Power ECOS SBW Consulting, Inc. Ecotope EMI PSE PECI Idaho Power Western MT G&T NWPCC Nexant, Inc. R.W. Beck BPA Navigant Avista Utility Planning Solutions EWEB BPA BPA Global Energy Partners NWPCC Hadley Energy Engineering LLC NWPCC NEEA lynn.anderson@puc..idaho.gov rarneson@cityoftacoma.org mbailey@ecosconsulting.com mbaker@sbwconsulting.com David@ecotope.com rbordner@emi!.com ebrateteng@pse.com wcook@peci.org modarrington@idahopower.com wmgt@montana.com teckman@nwcouncil.org dedwards@nexant.com kfagen@rwbeck.com rtfedie@bpa.gov Ryan.Firestone@NavigantConsulting.com Damon.Fisher@avistautilities.com fletcher.ups@comcast.net 308‐334‐0353 243‐396‐3145 503‐709‐9823 542‐827‐0330 206‐322‐3753 206‐621‐1160 425‐456‐2325 503‐252‐4302 503‐575‐4107 208‐388‐5946 406‐721‐0945 503‐222‐5161 503‐219‐1579 206‐695‐4657 503‐230‐4433 925‐935‐0270 509‐495‐2540 425‐330‐0628 alan.fraser@eweb.org lsmgage@bpa.gov dngidding@bpa.gov cgilless@gepllc.com 541‐685‐7186 503‐230‐4961 503‐230‐7314 503‐803‐7783 cgrist@nwcouncil.org adam@hadleyenergy.com 503‐222‐5161 503‐235‐6458 whannaford@nwcouncil.org jharris@nwalliance.org Efficiency Services Corp RMH Consulting Cadmus Mason PUD #3 UCONS/Honeywell Pacific Air Comfort BPA EWEB CAPO QuEST BPA i‐OP Ravalli Electric Cooperative WUTC Energy Trust UCAN EWEB WSU‐EP BPA EES Consulting Snohomish PUD Ecotope ted@esgroupllc.com 503‐222‐5161 503‐827‐8416 x253 503‐750‐2931 R.helm@me.com Kathy.hile@cadmusgroup.com jayh@masonpud3.org ed@ucons.com LMJ18231@msn.com mejohnson@bpa.gov greg.kellehar@eweb.org jess@caporegon.org bkoran@quest‐world.com nvleap@bpa.gov harveymathews@i‐op.com jmaunder@ravallielectric.com 503‐781‐3060 503‐467‐7165 360‐426‐8255 425‐864‐1692 541‐391‐0620 503‐230‐7669 541‐685‐7368 503‐991‐9327 503‐557‐7828 503‐230‐5761 503‐999‐5849 406‐961‐3001 dnightin@utc.wa.gov nicholas.oneil@energytrust.org tom.prock@ucancap.org travis.reeder@eweb.org roosc@energy.wsu.edu jrklotz@bpa..gov smit@eesconsulting.com jesteiner@snopud.com poppy@ecotope.com 360‐664‐1154 503‐459‐4077 541‐492‐3532 541‐221‐4160 360‐956‐2156 503‐230‐5327 425‐889‐2700 425‐783‐1845 206‐322‐3753 Alan Fraser Lauren Gage Danielle Gidding Chad Gilless Charlie Grist Adam Hadley Wm. Hannaford Jeff Harris Ted Haskell Bob Helm Kathy Hile Jay Himlie Ed Impala Mark Jerome Mark Johnson Greg Kelleher Jess Kincaid Bill Koran Nelly Leap Harvey Mathews Jim Maunder David Nightingale Nick O’Neil Tom Prock Travis Reeder Carolyn Roos Jason Salmiklotz Kevin Smit Jill Steiner Poppy Storm RTF Meeting
Meeting Summary
10
April 6, 2010
Kevin VanDen Wymelenberg Aquila Velonis Jillianne Welker Paul Woods University of Idaho kevinv@uidaho.edu 208‐2724‐9456 Cadmus GoalMind Consulting Ecos Consulting aquila.velonis@cadmusgroup.com jillianne@goalmindconsulting.net pwoods@ecosconsulting.com 503‐467‐7156 503‐534‐3519 503‐525‐2700 By Phone:
Jeremy Stewart, Tacoma Power
Nancy Oakely, Tacoma Power
Wayne Hart, Idaho PUC
David Shallenberger, Synergy Companies
Jim Williams, JC Williams Consulting
Paul Tschida, Montana
Doug Swier, Cowlitz PUD
Nicole Cecchini, Fluid Market Strategies
Jeff Brooks, ID Office of Energy Resources
Eric Koch, Applied Proactive
Kristyn Clayton, Seattle Community College
Jeff Cole, Konstrukt
Julie VanDyne, PECI
John Kaufmann, PNL
Eugene Rosolie, PNGC Power
Daniel Schulte, EMI
Jim Lazar
Sarah Moore, BPA
Matt Clark, Ecos Consulting
Curtis Flores, PECI
Shirley Lindstrom, NWPCC
Syd France, PSE
Kathy Moore, Umatilla Electric
Wayne Hart
Jeremy Litow, PECI
Kathy Yi, Idaho Power
Ralph Cavanagh, NRDC
Bob Lorenzen
Shauna Richardson, PECI
Bruce Carter, Tacoma Power
Emily Kemper, PECI
Gary Hamer, BC Hydro
RTF Meeting
Meeting Summary
11
April 6, 2010