Regional Technical Forum
October 14, 2014
Meeting Minutes
Introductions, Agenda Review, Meeting Minutes, & Announcements
RTF Chair Tom Eckman opened the meeting at 9:02 a.m., asked for introductions, and
determined there was 21 voting members present (17 in the room and 4 on the phone). Mark
Jerome moved to adopt the day’s agenda, Graham Parker seconded, and the agenda was
adopted unanimously. Bill Welch moved to accept the September 16, 2014 Meeting Minutes as
presented, Ken Keating seconded, and the minutes were approved unanimously.
Wood Smoke Report
Presenters: Mohit Singh-Chhabra (RTF) and Josh Rushton (RTF) Presentation
Draft Wood Smoke Valuation Report
David Thompson (Avista) [re slide 2]: Can you define “RTF products”?

Singh-Chhabra: It’s an RTF report (i.e., Measure Workbook, the Guidelines).

Eckman: It means that this group stands behind it.
Lauren Gage (BPA): What is the difference between “directly” and “indirectly” attributable?

Eckman: The RTF will make that judgment today – there’s no case history. We've made
judgments in the past on directly attributable generating resources (smokestacks, dams),
but not with respect to wood smoke and the influence of energy efficiency on that.
Thompson [re slide 8]: Is this the total for removing all zonal electric heat and replacing it with a
heat pump (HP) – taking all the technical potential for HP insulation and removing all wood?

Singh-Chhabra: For removing all zonal. Findings show you remove some wood as well –
not all, but a proportion of secondary fuels.
Rick Knori (Lower Valley Energy) [re slide 8]: Many people have moved from wood to propane.
Now that propane costs are high, they will probably convert to DHP (ductless heat pumps). Was
that incorporated here?

Singh-Chhabra: No, but we accounted for the amount of propane that would be
displaced by DHP, but not in the way you described.

Rushton: The big health effect comes from small particulate matter, which is released by
wood-burning appliances but not by propane burning. The displaced supplemental fuels
in the calculations are generic.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 1
Graham Parker (PNNL) [re slide 8]: This is all outdoor benefits, not indoor?

Singh-Chhabra: Yes, there is no indoor health benefit here.
Don Jones (PacifiCorp) [re slide 8]: This shows replacing all zonal with DHPs, but wood-smoke
usage doesn’t come from physically removing wood-burning appliances, just their reduced use?

Singh-Chhabra: Yes, from people using the DHP more.
David Baylon (Ecotope) [re slide 8]: So the 321 GWh of wood savings are from projecting the
impact of wood savings from the report to all zonal cases?

Singh-Chhabra: Yes, and we normalized these numbers in terms of per kWh to account
for the fractional removal of zonals.

Baylon: Does the upper table use the RBSA for the saturation of wood or what was
observed in the DHP report?

Rushton: It uses the supplemental DHP report to estimate the per-unit wood savings and
the RBSA to determine the number of eligible homes and their saturation of wood heat.
Thompson [re slide 12]: Is the supplemental heat only wood?

Rushton: I don’t know exactly, but the mix contains wood and propane as in the RBSA.
Bill Harris (Snohomish PUD) [re slide 12]: Is that a longitudinal study or a snapshot in time?

Eckman: The same group of people pre and post.
Bob Davis (Ecotope): It is important to remember that “supplemental heat” does mean
everything, including wood, that’s not electric – especially in the large billing sample.

Rushton: Does the DHP study include natural gas?

Davis: Yes, but it’s not much of an issue, given the location and natural gas prices.

Ben Larson (Ecotope): Very few of these homes have natural gas lines to the house.
Ken Keating (Independent) [re slide 12]: Are the pre and post DHP numbers the percentages of
the heat load that was not found in the electric bill?

Rushton: We have homes that have supplemental heat and those that don’t; we use the
average intensity for both groups based on that ratio.

Keating: The heat load is modeled; the important thing is it’s not based on the survey.

Baylon: Actually it is based on the DHP survey responses. We suspect there may have
been a bias in the numbers, resulting in the underreporting of supplemental fuels.

Rushton: For any of the pre/post with or without supplemental heat, we have square
footage from the interviews and billing data that we use to get heating energy per square
foot. The heating energy per square foot for those with supplemental heat is 27% lower
in Heating Zone 1 (HZ1) than for those without. Post DHP, the difference is only 3%.

Eckman: These percentages are based on the billing analysis data from the group that
said they had supplemental heat. We repeat the comparison pre and post.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 2

David Nightingale (WUTC): So if you subtracted the 27% minus 3%, 24% is the amount
of supplemental heat that is reduced?

Rushton: Right, it represents the actual wood that’s being saved. We note in the report
that some of this difference may be due to a supplemental burn ban in the post period.
Eugene Rosolie (NEEA) [re slide 13]: Did the study breakout wood heat and propane amounts?

Baylon: We had the fraction of supplemental heat that was propane (less than 10%).
Propane was about 5% of all supplemental. It’s a small effect relative to the other
uncertainties.

Jennifer Anziano (RTF): To clarify – in the report, we did not pull out propane, but we
later looked into the data and Slide 8 shows numbers with the propane removed.

Rushton: If it says “wood,” we mean wood; “supplemental” includes propane.
Gage [re slide 13]: What was used to make the adjustments – DHP or RBSA?

Rushton: This is all supplemental fuel (propane and wood) and some mix. When we took
out the propane in the next report draft, we used 17% from the RBSA.
Bill Koran (NorthWrite): We’re being asked to approve a report, but a “next draft” was mentioned.

Rushton: The only change in the next draft is that in QC (quality control) we found
propane was included in “supplemental heat” so the new numbers will be 17% lower
(weighted RBSA for propane).

Charlie Grist (RTF): We’re using DHP as an example. We will do this differently for each
measure that might impact wood heat. Think about the methodology rather than the
value of the numbers.

Rushton: We will have to address propane for the final policy, but we’re not ready yet.

Jones: Our bar at the RTF is high on this if it’s an RTF product. I don’t want confusion
about what’s in the report or to put my name on a report that needs more clarity.

Rushton: The only difference is there is a note on the current draft about changes.

Eckman: We need to ask if wood smoke reduction is directly attributable to the installed
measures, if they and the health benefits can be quantified, and can we monetize those.

Jones: That’s our job, but the collective RTF reputation is on the line here.

Eckman: The Council will ask, “Do you think it’s possible to do this at some level, noting
the uncertainties with each of the steps?” It will be their decision if it should be done.

Rushton: In writing the report, we’re careful not to say, “This is how we would do it…”

Keating: Step 1 is the most certain step; a slight variation here will be magnified later.
Baylon: When you did the actual wood heat impacts, you adjusted these numbers to account for
90% of them being wood, not 100%? There’s propane in here that’s been accounted for.

Rushton: Yes, wood was less than that, about 83%.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 3
Gage: I see answering those questions and approving this report as two very different things.
You could approve one and not the other. There’s a lot in this report.

Koran: I agree with Gage. Slide 2 says “The report concludes that health impacts due to
wood smoke are quantifiable and attributable with a large possible range of estimates.”
The report is very good and the 17% issue is small relative to other things. I can approve
the report, but we have to define quantifiable. The Guidelines say a savings estimate for
energy has to be ±20% of best practice and here we have a huge range of estimates.

Eckman: In your collective judgment, are these connected – causal? This is the advice
the Council will be looking for. If the technicians think it’s quantifiable, then the Council
still has a policy determination if it wants to include it or not in the overall context.

Rosolie: I get that we’re signing off on a methodology, but making a decision that says
the impacts of wood smoke are quantifiable and attributable is not adopting a
methodology to determine if those two attributes are true or not.

Eckman: That’s correct. The question is, are the science and data there to determine?

Rosolie: Those are two different questions. Is the methodology shown on Slide 9 a
sound one the Council can rely on to prove if the results in the end can be relied on?

Eckman: If you have the data to support it.

Grist: I didn’t mean we were to approve a methodology for quantifying this. This report
describes the methodology, the uncertainties around it, the steps required to do it, and
the data and its availability required to do it. The DHP was used as an example.

Rushton [re slide 9]: These four steps are in the broadest terms.

Bill Welch (Independent): This discussion is framing a qualitative decision using a
quantitative example to determine an existing methodology and data for finding an
impact on cost-effectiveness. The current uncertainty is what we are deciding.

Eckman: In the end you’re looking at whether or not this particular process leads to a
result that can quantify and monetize the effects of wood smoke reduction, and if it is
directly attributable to the installed measures. There is uncertainty around each step,
with the state of the science and available data limited for each. Overall, with enough
time, money, energy, and data, would the conclusion be satisfactory? Could it be done?
The Council has said in the past, if it’s a regulatory constraint, we incorporate those
costs. We have not incorporated residual impacts like health effects in the analysis, so
they have a decision to make whether or not to include any type of residual effects.

Rushton: A way is to ask at each step, “Is it real, with an identifiable range?”

Rosolie: The issue of “at what cost” is the Council decision.

Eckman: Yes, it’s their decision whether to invest the resources for the answer.
Grist: It’s fair game to analyze what those costs are. The Council probably needs something like
that to help inform its decision.

Keating: Where we are in the process is we’re using data we’ve used before for a lot of
other decisions (DHP and RBSA data, etc.). We know how much wood burning is offset.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 4

Rushton: If you install DHPs, you save some wood and we have calculations for that.
Eckman [re slide 14]: Since we assigned savings and cost-effectiveness in a prior decision that
there was kWh of benefit (and economic benefit) from wood heat reduction directly attributable
to DHP, we’ve made a decision that installing a DHP does affect the amount of supplemental
space heating use. We could say, “But not for this purpose,” or we could say “it’s good enough.”

Thompson: That’s a reasonable summary; when you add in a different heat source, it
changes the heat profile of the house. That is supported with quantified data.

Singh-Chhabra: We looked at saturation of wood-burning appliances and the EPA data.

Eckman: The conclusion is we could be more accurate with more data.
Jones: We say it’s attributable, but with the Act, is it directly attributable with a higher standard?

Eckman: The RTF makes the judgment – is this causality? If DHP install is not directly
attributable then we have to revisit the economic benefit of reducing wood related to that.

Jones: It’s a question of quality standards.

Welch: That’s what we have to decide. What do you get out of adding a control group?

Grist: The RTF could decide the standard is building analysis plus a control group input.
It would cost money, but it is doable.
Keating: On the question of attribution we have a heavy preponderance of evidence. The first
requirement is that it is pre/post; the second is triangulation among data sets – billing, survey,
and wood heat saturation – all indicate a change pre/post. A non-supplemental fuel group offers
a concurrent comparison. A control group would be another source of evidence, but we’ve
eliminated most relevant alternative hypotheses. We’ve been willing to use this to claim savings.
It appears to be directly attributable by the best analysis we have and consistent with precedent.

Tom Eckhart (UCONS): A utility with residential programs has directed us to use billing
history as a guide to not provide an efficiency measure if they show use of supplemental
heat. Usually we’re directed to walk away if we see a propane tank or wood. Washington
State is unique with I-937, which could potentially offer issues with increased billed load.

Koran: We don’t have just 24% reduction in wood heat; we really have 25% to 90%
reduction in wood heat looking at the three zones, so it’s a significant change.

Grist: Attribution has to be answered for every measure. You would look at the evidence
for each and may have to collect more to link the attribution, depending on the measure
– i.e., does a lighting program increase wood burning? What would be the evidence?

Gage: Methodology has to be applied to both sides, as well as the attribution.
Grist [re slide 15]: Can we take a thumbs up/down on Step 1 (the first two bullets) to get a sense
if the report adequately describes it? [Mostly thumbs up; one or two sideways]
Baylon [re slide 17]: The problem is more sophisticated dispersion models require sophisticated
geographic distribution of the source; that we do not have. It’s RBSA on average and a level of
data collection we haven’t done, as it does not immediately impact kWh savings.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 5

Eckman: The question is, “Is it quantifiable,” not have we done it – with time and money
can you solve this problem? If the science doesn’t exist to do it, then the answer is “no.”

Singh-Chhabra: We’ve investigated enough to know that dispersion modeling is effective
and well-established; people use it for important policy decisions.

Parker: Policy decisions have been made in the region by BPA on dispersion modeling
of wood smoke, radon, and other pollutants since the early ‘80s. There is a precedent.

Eckman: And it did affect programs directly.
B Harris [re slide 18]: “Explore the use” sounds like we’re not recommending it before we learn
more. Would a change in the wording to “Use higher level precision…” sound more definitive?
Knori [re page 17 of Report]: The biggest reductions are on I-5 and the Boise corridor.

Eckman: Yes, that’s the location of the population most subject to the emissions.

Knori: I want to compliment the report for including both the baseline concentration of
small particles and the effective savings.
Gage: I have problems with the question, “Given any time and money is it possible?” Anything is
possible given enough time and money.

Eckman: If the science doesn’t exist, time and money doesn’t solve the problem.

Gage: But to get there, we’re looking at huge amounts of money, time, and resources.

Eckman: We can take that information forward to the Council when they decide whether
to include it or not. It would be part of their considerations.

Gage: We need that in the report.

Singh-Chhabra: It starts implying staff when we include time and money. Abt said that it
would cost $25,000 to $100,000 to use more enhanced dispersion models.

Eckman: That’s part of the judgment on “quantifiable” – if the cost is realistic.

Peter Miller (NRDC): We want both the cost and the increase in precision for each step.

Welch: And/or why we need to do it.

Andie Baker (Independent): What degree of certainty is required before it has value?

Singh-Chhabra: The EPA does recommend using a more serious dispersion model for
Step 2. COBRA says this is just a screening tool to use.

Grist: Most of our work on energy savings is by climate zone. Zone 1 is big and the use
of wood is not uniform across it. This analysis may require more than zonal granularity if
you want to get the precision.

Eckman: There’s a lot of money that could be spent to answer the question with more
precision; tools are available to do that. The EPA and states have used those tools for
regulatory calls. If that is acceptable for quantification, then there are tools to do that.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 6
Baylon: It is important to note that the uncertainty is large. The bottom end is about four times
greater than expected from avoided cost of electricity and zero does not exist.

Koran: This points out a shortcoming in our Guidelines – we don’t have a way of looking
at measures with very large savings and high uncertainty.

Baylon: When the risk is known to be large, we should have a different standard than if
we have a risk that may or may not be big.
Nightingale: Parker, is the BPA study available?

Parker: I have a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement on a pdf I can distribute.
Nightingale: Regarding precision, these models are influenced by topography and would impact
King County, Portland, Spokane, and Boise the most, not a lot of the rural areas. More precision
may not be expensive if it focuses on the main areas of impact. What the EPA needed for their
model may not be the same as for our needs. The COBRA screen may be fine for our purposes.
Thompson: Part of the “quantifiable” function is repeatability. If we use a different set of tools or
approach, will it provide a repeatable value?

Keating: Would you be more comfortable if we had a replicable range?

Thompson: That would be something to consider.

Welch: Are you asking that the dispersion model be repeatable or the four-step process?

Thompson: The results of dispersion modeling and monetization of the health benefit.

Welch: Because the EPA has used it many times, it should be repeatable.

Thompson: With all the different elements adding a significant level of uncertainty, we
have a position paper talking about one of many processes. Would another RTF come
up with the same band of results, with the same starting point, using the same tools?
What if we used a higher power tool and it came up with a quite disparate answer?

Singh-Chhabra: Our research showed COBRA gives the right direction; the dispersion
model refines it. We haven’t found a better model gives a completely different answer.

Grist: It has to do with the granularity of Zone 1 (i.e., where the people and stoves are).
A more granular model would look at seasonal differences and the location of stoves.

Rosolie: It comes down to if there is something that policymakers can rely on to make a
decision. There are things at that level that come into play regardless of the science. We
need direction from the policymakers to say, “This is important to us.” It is probably good
to get rid of wood heat, but the question is how much are you willing to spend and who is
going to do it. We already have regulations in Oregon and Portland about wood burning.

Eckman: The Council will weigh those factors. The query to the RTF is, from the
scientific perspective does emissions modeling sufficiently quantify emissions and the
change in emissions with a reduction in wood use. Because it will doesn’t mean you
have to do it.
Gage: We weren’t chosen for our atmospheric or health skills.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 7

Eckman: We’re trusting the judgment and analysis the contract analysts have done.
They have seen there are tools that are being used and relied on by policymakers.

Welch: Sometimes our decisions are regional. Is our concern that if the smoke blows
over an area of high population we’re going to have more health effects?
Koran: If COBRA uses an average annual basis for the dispersion modeling, does that mean
the rate for putting pollutants into the air is the same daily and hourly?

Singh-Chhabra: The inputs are total tons reduced per year; it doesn’t calculate daily.

Koran: Most of the smoke is created in the wintertime when it’s raining west of the
Cascades, so the COBRA model is not reflective of what a more detailed model might
produce. We haven’t answered if these numbers are quantifiable from the data here.

Rushton: It looks at yearly averages for moisture and wind, but for things that are highly
seasonal, like wood burning, we would need a more sophisticated model.

Eckman: Which is one of the reasons why the recommendation was to explore more
sophisticated models for doing that.

Singh-Chhabra: Counties that are populated and have wood emissions are impacted.
Eckman [re slide 19]: A straw-pole on bullets 1 and 2. [About 50/50, with a lot of abstentions]

Rushton: Is there a caveat that if added would increase the agreement with the
statement?

Eckman: Would the answer change if we use a more sophisticated model? [More yeses]
Eckman [re slide 20]: This is a heavily litigated EPA rule that has seen much peer review.

Koran: This used COBRA for the estimates, so if a more detailed model was used for the
dispersion effects, is COBRA still used for the health impact effects?

Rushton: COBRA uses the epidemiological studies as input, as do other models.

Eckman: A more sophisticated model might change the magnitude of the impact, but not
the effects.

Parker: The health effect studies are worldwide, not just from the U.S. There’s good
science behind it; it’s the quantification and monetization that will be a problem.

Singh-Chhabra: For the EPA and here, U.S.-specific results were used.

Rushton: There have been a lot of studies with about the same results.
Gage: The report discussed the threshold effect and an unknown impact. This report says if we
get every zonal home, that might surpass the threshold effect. But if we are doing 50,000 DHP a
year, etc., are we in that threshold? Does it matter?

Rushton: The EPA addressed this issue. Even with large cohorts of people, it’s a hard
thing to study. They don’t say that the effect is linear on an individual basis, but they
have looked for evidence of a threshold effect and have not found one. For policy
implications they recommend estimating a linear effect because of population averaging.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 8

Koran: There’s two thresholds to consider – one, whether there’s a threshold of the base
concentration that has health effects (are we above that); and two, what is the threshold
magnitude of change for reducing the health impacts. We don’t know either one.

Eckman: We’re clearly not in ambient air quality, particularly in areas of noncompliance
with PM2.5 requirements now. We’re above where EPA said is a safe threshold.
Rosolie: We do this with other issues – i.e., how many DHPs and their effects on carbon.

Eckman: It’s implicit in the cost-effectiveness analysis. In the derivation of the costeffectiveness limit for every measure in ProCost, there’s an adder that includes a
mitigation of carbon cost or tax between $0 and $100. It was about $47 by 2030.

Jones: Was it the Conservation Advisory Committee that did that?

Eckman: The Council Plan did that, then the Committee adopted the Plan assumptions.

Jones: The point is, we didn’t go out and create that number.

Eckman: Before the 4th and 5th Plan we asked the RTF how much we should value
carbon and it came out at $15/ton, and that was used to assess a $4 to $5 additional
benefit for energy efficiency in the cost-effectiveness analysis at that point. The 5th and
6th Plans did it explicitly. It has been done before; this is not new ground.
Thompson: We’re really only talking about one aspect – a health effect. How many other effects
are there on civilization, the environment, industries, etc. that need to be considered because of
the same sort of extended relationship to an energy efficiency measure? Where does it stop?

Eckman: The Council will decide whether this or any other quantifiable cost and benefit
will be included in the analysis. The question for the RTF is whether we think this chain
of causality is quantifiable and monetizable in the end. If so, we tell them it can be done.

Singh-Chhabra: Not just the EPA, but the scientific body concluded that these effects
can be considered linear. Are we okay with that?
Baylon: This area of the analysis is solid. Epidemiological and health effects surveys go back 40
years, with large populations and amounts of data. The problem of how much health effect
PM2.5 has and its cost is pretty clear cut, as is the fact that it’s linear. The threshold isn’t
important – that set up by the EPA is “acceptable health risk,” not when the effect of PM2.5 no
longer exists.

Miller: The EPA has put enormous effort into finding there is a quantifiable health risk
that is assumed to be linear. I don’t think we need to do more than acknowledge that.

Eckman: I would say what we do is we defer to EPA.
B Harris: It sounds like you had more thumbs up on Step 3 than Step 2.

Eckman: We’re okay with the majority, so let’s see when we get done.
Nightingale: Regarding “where does it all stop,” I don’t know of another dataset this extensive on
the environmental impacts of anything. It’s a high bar for anything that would come in after this.
Rosolie [re slide 27]: So there is no disagreement among scientists on willingness to pay?
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 9

Singh-Chhabra: There’s general agreement in the scientific community.

Rushton: This is not a perfect science, but it addresses a real thing – a small change in
the risk of something bad happening and how much people are willing to pay for it.

Parker: We need to accept 40 years of studies with $100s of millions spent. The bigger
issue is what is the reduction in exposure, not the wide range of uncertainty of cost.
Keating: The report doesn’t get to the fundamental question of why we’re talking about value
instead of cost. Society absorbs a lot of actual real costs to support end-of-life processes. Here
you are talking of the value people place on something.

Eckman: You mean the inherent increase in healthcare costs when life is extended?

Keating: I’m talking of using willingness-to-pay as the value instead of the actual cost.

Miller: If your family member gets sick from wood smoke, goes to the hospital, and dies,
the cost is for healthcare plus the funeral. Is that the Value of Statistical Life (VSL)?

Eckman: We have both estimates of mortality and morbidity in this analysis; 99% of the
value proposition is in the mortality question. The morbidity question is de minimis. As
Keating points out, there’s a cost of extension-of-life that might reduce the VSL.

Keating: There’s a cost to society that’s different than someone’s abstract willingness-topay. There’s probably a substantial non-zero cost that we’re mitigating by avoiding this.
I’m not sure, however, I agree with EPA’s $7 million range or the methodology.

Eckman: If we included the morbidity cost as the low end of the range?

Keating: Yes with the low end; the top end of the willingness-to-pay range seems high.

Grist: You didn’t have the micro risk. VSL is 95% of the value; the morbidity costs are
5%. That changes the substantial effect and cost-effectiveness substantially.

Singh-Chhabra: You are questioning the willingness-to-pay methodology to come up
with a value for the mortality impact, right?

Keating: Or why that is the only thing considered.
Rushton: I don’t understand the costs that we’re missing, why that’s the only thing considered.

Jones: That mortality should be based on costs, not willingness-to-pay.

Singh-Chhabra: If not willingness-to-pay, then what?

Jones: Why did we pick VSL versus morbidity?

Singh-Chhabra: Both morbidity and mortality are included as parts of health impacts. But
why choose willingness-to-pay over VSL methods to monetize the mortality impact?

Jeff Harris (NEEA): That’s the right question. This is not unique to DHP savings in wood
homes. This is a standard health impact analysis done by the EPA and public health
agencies for air quality. Is this in agreement with the standard of practice when assigning
value to mortality in the case of PM2.5 emissions related to power production of any kind?
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 10

Singh-Chhabra: Yes. This wasn’t the only method considered, but was the one that
scientists and independent economists thought was most appropriate to value mortality.

Grist: VSL is a bad name for this; it is not the “value of life,” it is the value of avoiding a
micro risk. In the region, if we reduce wood smoke a bit, a few less people will die. What
you would pay to reduce that risk that much is what VSL is.
J Harris: Did you do anything unusual or inconsistent with best practice in evaluation for life for
mortality in analysis of clean air regulatory practice? Is this consistent with general practice?

Singh-Chhabra: We didn’t do anything unique. We explored and agreed with why the
scientific body landed here.

J Harris: I appreciate that, but I am not qualified to sit in judgment on the Clean Air Act.

Eckman: It is like Step 3, where you are deferring to people who do this as their job. The
question is, are you willing to do that?
Thompson: We’re talking about the incremental shift of when deaths occur; we’re not talking
about the value of the life. What data points to the value of the incremental shift in days not life?

Singh-Chhabra: VSL is a convenient unit; it’s actually the value of micro risk reduction. It
means on average people are willing to pay $10 to reduce a mortality risk by 0.0001%

Thompson: It doesn’t equate to a period of time, only to a percentage of risk reduction?

Singh-Chhabra: Yes.

Thompson: What bridges the gap to risk reduction from the particulate concentration?

Singh-Chhabra: Step 3 equates given decreases in particulate matter to risk reduction.
Welch: The report should state that methodology consistent with other power sources was
followed.

Eckman: In general terms, Steps 2 and 4 are deferring to EPA in the way health effects
of PM2.5 are treated and monetized. Step 1 is our wheelhouse, where we say the
measure results in a change in consumption of wood.

Singh-Chhabra [re slide 8]: And understand standard practice – do people trust it and is
it possible? The effects in terms of $/kWh saved and health benefits comes from Step 3.
Keating: You have no choice but to go along with Steps 3 and 4, because you are not more
knowledgeable than the people who made those decisions; Step 2 is an area of uncertainty for
this region, but it is not zero; and we should be comfortable with Step 1.

Miller: On Step 4, we’re not going to do better, but there is a wide range of values.

Keating: Has the report captured the uncertainty and made it explicit? Has it shown the
status of the current science and does it capture how much real data are available?
Koran: I didn’t see anything in the report that put the uncertainty in each of the steps together to
give a net benefit and range of values for the total net benefit.

Singh-Chhabra: The last section of the report put it all together.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 11

Rushton: We did it in coarse terms using the low and high ends of Steps 3 and 4.
Gage: As an evaluator, I have an issue where the report states the RTF “concludes this,” or “did
this,” etc.; it implies we approved each point and I can’t stand behind every statement. Usually a
report says “the evaluation team.” I hear general agreement with the various steps. I suggest we
submit to the Council a one-page statement explaining where the RTF came out on the
methodology. Approving the report sends messages that we don’t currently understand.

Eckman: Would you propose as an alternative that it become a consultant or staff report
to the RTF, with a cover sheet indicating the RTF’s review and response as a body?

Gage: That would make me more comfortable. [General murmurs of agreement]

Thompson: I would like a document showing the steps to identify non-energy benefits for
an energy efficiency measure as this health benefit process. In the midst of uncertainty,
the real numbers in the tables will be used and leveraged, even outside of the region, on
the premise that the RTF has established this with great certainty and review. If the
Council is asking us to identify the process by which health benefits would be evaluated,
I think that’s what the shorter version of a White Paper should focus on.

Eckman: The Council is specifically asking “Is it directly attributable? Is it quantifiable,
and if so, is it monetizable? That’s what the method has to produce. If all are true, the
Council will decide if we do it.

Thompson: In this presentation, we answered both at the same time. We identified the
process and then, before it was approved by the RTF, we did this for DHP.

Eckman: DHP is an example of where we have data for the process. The report clearly
states, absent this level of data, with uncertainty we won't get this with other measures.
Miller: I don’t mind this as an RTF report, but for Steps 3 and 4 it needs to be clear we’re
reporting what EPA has done with a lot of work and body of evidence. Are we using the lowest
value for VSL? If we’re reporting what EPA has done, we should use their values.

Singh-Chhabra: It was the intention. We used their mean with standard deviation.

Eckman: We’re not supplanting our judgment for EPA’s.

Keating: The table that showed the results uses the low and high values. We shouldn’t
be reporting that as our conclusion, but that this would be our range.

Singh-Chhabra: That takes the mean of the VSL amount and multiplies by the low and
high end of mortality estimates.

Eckman: It is implementing the EPA decision rule. It says, for Step 1 we can conclude
something; for the other steps, we’re relying on the best science and procedures of EPA.

Rosolie: For Step 4, my understanding was that different agencies have different values.

Singh-Chhabra: Yes, but EPA’s values are most pertinent here; they have a VSL for
mortality based on PM2.5. All agencies’ values are within the range of standard deviation.

Eckman: Given EPA regulates smokestacks, we’re safe using their air quality for PM2.5.

Baylon: When you did the final $/kWh wood adjustment, did you use the VSL from EPA?
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 12

Singh-Chhabra: Yes. The intent was to use the standard deviation to get the magnitude.
Eckman: I'm hearing we need rewrites on Section 2 to address a more sophisticated model,
because that’s what EPA would do, and Sections 3 and 4 to attribute the methodology to EPA
versus the RTF. We will then add a cover from the RTF indicating what the group concludes
from this process about the ability to be directly attributable, quantifiable, and monetizable. It
delays the process, but I’d rather we have an acceptable outcome the RTF can endorse.

Anziano: Then we will delay bringing this to the Council until the December meeting.
Koran: Regardless of changes, I can’t endorse this until “quantifiable” has some definition to it.

Eckman: You can defer on your vote, but the question is, do you think this is quantifiable
as an analyst; then the policymakers will decide if they agree.

Koran: Doesn’t this have to fit with the Guidelines somehow?

Eckman: We have guidelines for savings, cost, and measure life, but none for the
quantification of health effects or for quantification of environmental costs and benefits.

Singh-Chhabra: For Step 1, we are doing something that’s been approved and used by
the RTF, and using that to quantify health effects.
Grist: The report should show a range. Two elements are changing in the EPA methodology –
the high/low estimate on how much the particulate affects health (a 2/1 range), and a VSL range
in addition that is one standard deviation higher and lower than the EPA recommendation.

Miller: If VSL is based on estimates, it’s not a sample. How did they get it?

Singh-Chhabra: They took 26 studies, did a meta study, and created a Gaussian
distribution based on every sample the studies used and computed a standard deviation.

Keating: One reason the standard deviation is larger is there was only 26 studies.

Gage: The range is important for the Council to understand.

Singh-Chhabra: We’re just acknowledging that there is that range.

Eckman: Whether we include it or not is a determination the Council will have to make.
Miller: A lot of this angst is from not knowing the kind of decision the Council will make. I'm okay
with it adding a note in the Annual Report that installing DHPs is reducing wood smoke and
helping public health, but if it wants to remove all wood stoves, we need better quantification.

Eckman: We can have a caveat in the cover memo that bounds the recommendation.
The Council is discussing the overall methodology for quantifying environmental costs
and benefits in the Plan. A yes to this has broader implications and the potential of
opening a much larger discussion about the social costs of carbon and the residual
effects on fish and wildlife, etc. This is not a simple decision for the Council to take.

Keating: And the Administrator gets to choose whether he wants to follow the Council’s
recommendation on this. It does seem we have evidence, attribution, and if we accept
EPA’s science, an ability to quantify. We will need a revised report before we approve it.
Welch: I hope we have the recommendations we’ve made noted for the report.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 13

Anziano: The voice needs to be changed to that of a staff report. For Step 1, is there a
standard for “quantifiable” and can quantifiability be determined, even with the
uncertainties? What is the attribution and preponderance for evidence?

Rushton: Do we have a standard of evidence?

Anziano: I think we do. We have pre/post billing data and a strong level of DHP data.

Rushton: We say that very clearly in the report.

Keating: You need to address attribution conceptually in a couple of paragraphs; the
whole report asks “is this attributable,” you jump to yes without laying it out.

Eckman: What would be the criteria and the preponderance of evidence?

Anziano: We touch on these aspects, but we’ll clarify them in the report.

Grist: For Step 1, I'm hearing the standard for attribution ought to be preponderance of
evidence and the RTF’s analytical work for savings measures can be used for that
judgment. We are implying the standard for quantifiability by quantifying the change in
wood based on our standard methods.
Anziano: For Step 2 we will clarify that we want to use more sophisticated dispersion models to
identify county and weather differences. In Steps 3 and 4, we will more clearly define that we
are using EPA data and methodology. We will be more clear on what the numbers represent,
and that they are not the final decision numbers but there to provide a range for the Council to
understand.

Eckman: Given we used a screening COBRA model for Steps 3 and 4, if we use EPA’s
more sophisticated dispersion model, we would adjust the numbers by some factor.

Singh-Chhabra: The values are constant; EPA would have done it in the same order.
Nightingale: When discussing DHP, explain the measure was picked because of its large impact
on wood smoke and that other measures would have less impact. I'm concerned about broadbrush phrases like “greatest level of uncertainty” instead of “a large range of estimated impacts.”
“Uncertainty” gives the impression of “unscientific” to some people; try to limit it to a precise use.
Anziano: Please share any comments so we can incorporate them in the next draft. I’ll get you a
draft of the cover memo to review before the November meeting.

Gage: Can we have a subcommittee discussion on this.

Anziano: We will try. We did have one on this draft, but the discussion was limited.
Lunch Break
Scientific Irrigation Scheduling – Update on BPA's Work
Presenters: Carrie Cobb (BPA) and Ryan Firestone (RTF) Presentation
Miller: What will the baseline look like? Can you translate “percent deviation from optimal” into
energy?
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 14

Cobb: Now we have a 10% reduction in water use from an untreated to a treated field.
Across a population, what is that percent from optimum compared to that from our SIS?
J Harris: How are you planning to normalize for this farm type – corporate and smaller?

Cobb: We won't normalize, but we can segment the samples or we can look at acreage.

J Harris: I think it would be helpful to capture the data as to if it is a corporate farm or a
family farm with local control, as these are two different behavioral models.

Cobb: I agree; when we do the sample segmentation in January, we would like feedback
on what those should divisions should be.
Grist: On the deviation from optimum, when you looked at SIS before, you could have deviation
from both overwatering and underwatering. How do we get from a percentage change from
optimum into kWh and how is optimum measured?

Cobb: The percent deviation is an average. Do you take a median or an average to deal
with the outliers? The research plan is still working out how to deal with that.
Knori: How do you deal with the variable head between locations?

Firestone: The current calculator includes the pumping inputs and from that estimates
that conversion from water to energy. Anything we come up with will have a similar
methodology. The units would be savings-per-acre on average that is treated with SIS.

Cobb: The plan is to use the basic calculator; it’s just to change the percent.
Keating: Most important is to tighten the 10%. If using the Columbia Basin for a market average
isn’t appropriate, what do you include in your market? Is it self-selected because of contracts or
high-value crops needing optimal irrigation? Should non-targeted crops be in the baseline?

Cobb: Those are good questions. The first step in January will be to define the segments
and the populations. This is not an easy question that we’ve done well with in the past.

Eckman: The Columbia Basin was initially selected because of water-use provisions.
Keating: The complexity of our water delivery systems is hard to classify. You’re probably
talking about pressurized systems?

Cobb: Yes, but not all pressurized; some require enough pumping to make sense.
J Harris: In the work we did with demo projects around overall system operations, we identified
there are some people that are optimizing around profitability versus growth yields. If you see
negative numbers it might be worth asking what their practices are for SIS.

Cobb: In defining the population, deficit irrigation will be an issue, as is not enough
water.
Grist: Will this be provisional? How much is this going to cost, how many data points do we
need? Do we have a good chance of participation?

Cobb: I’m managing the project. I can’t talk about cost for competitive reasons. We are
planning research in the field this summer for the growing season.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 15
Keating: This was an excellent presentation. Council and contract staff really helped. I saw that
local irrigators understood that they have to participate to keep this measure alive.

Cobb: There was a lot of regional buy-in. We will be teaching about the value proposition
for the nonparticipating fields. We need utility feedback on how to make that happen.
Welch: I move the RTF update the Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Standard Protocol to a status
of Out of Compliance and a sunset date of December 31, 2014.

Keating: I second.
Miller: What would be the practical difference between this and deactivation?

Firestone: The first deactivates it at the end of the year, if there’s nothing new; the
second deactivates it today.

Eckman: We have a proposal coming in December to change it from out-of-compliance
to a provisional measure.

Firestone: Staff discussed that the RTF would choose deactivation if there was no
ongoing interest in the measure, whereas out-of-compliance indicates there is interest.

Miller: So it’s the signal we’re sending.
Eckman: Are we ready to vote; the measure passes (19 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstentions).
Residential Refrigerators and Freezers – UES Update
Presenters: Ryan Firestone (RTF) Presentation
J Harris [re slide 4]: Was this based on the DOE technical support document?

Firestone: Yes, the NIA (National Impact Analysis) workbooks.

Grist: Both on the cost and savings.

Firestone: These correspond to different efficiency levels considered in the NIA.
Eckman [re slide 6]: The new test procedure uses lower temperatures for both.
Parker [re slide 7]: Is it true for ENERGY STAR, of the 10%, 5% can be attributed to demand
response or connectability? Previously it was all 20%.

Eckman: Yes.
J Harris [re slide 12]: They haven’t updated the cost data since 2007-2008?

Eckman: No, the agreement on appliances was done by negotiations with AHAM
(Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers). They did not update the analysis.

J Harris: This would be an area of questionable accuracy.

Firestone: There is the experience factor – the forecasted price is a function of
cumulative production. The more models produced, the cost goes down.

Parker: This is a new concept in rulemaking. It wasn’t done in the last rule before this.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 16

Eckman: It was brought to their attention that every time they estimated a cost of a new
standard, it never showed up in the actual prices – the actual was lower. This is a big
write-down in the cost – 40%. It’s moved from a specialty item to commodity pricing.
J Harris [re slide 14]: The reason for any savings for Tier 1 is that the weighted average for units
sold must be greater than 10%; the same for ENERGY STAR. If the federal standard had gone
all the way to the average efficiency, there would be zero percent in the baseline column.

Eckman: The average unit is from 2008.

Firestone: These numbers are CEC (California Energy Commission) appliance data
models from the past year.

Eckman: Based on the models we saw in 2008 and 2009.

Firestone: Many models on the market are more efficient than the standard.

J Harris: Are those sales-weighted averages or did you use the models?

Firestone: I used the models unweighted.

Keating: The standard is from 2014; it’s still below the average sale efficiency.
J Harris [re slide 16]: You’re using the savings and model averaging from the CEC database,
but the costs are coming from the DOE technical support document?

Firestone: Yes. Prior to the new standard, approximately 80% of models sold were
ENERGY STAR-compliant. We don’t know the current percentage.
Grist [re slide 21]: This says that the federal standards process is going to a level of efficiency
that doesn’t leave much beyond it, which is a good thing.

J Harris: Once the federal standard takes effect and the manufacturers retool, the built-in
efficiency put in low-end models with no incremental cost is a huge question.

Keating: This may have happened already when they saw it coming; that’s why the
baseline is looking so good.
Cobb: There is a systematic issue around using a list of appliances as a baseline; we need
market research. The Northwest market is not so different as to preclude using national sales
data. Costs change as the standard comes in; we don’t currently know what has changed in
cost-effectiveness. I would like to see if BPA has better data sources we can bring to you.

Eckman: It would certainly be great to have sales-weighted data versus market data.

Keating [re slide 21]: The analysis shows it is not very sensitive on cost-effectiveness to
change the baseline.

Firestone: I compared everything that was not ENERGY STAR-compliant to everything
that qualified for each of the tiers.

Eckman: On all appliances where we have sales data, it would be preferable to have it
become the current practice baseline. We and DOE have defaulted to using available
models as a proxy for sales; that’s never been correct, but we didn’t have the sales data.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 17
Janice Boman (Ecova): On high-end models, with ice through the door and side-by-side,
there’s still room for improvement. Often these are the choice for remodeling.
Miller: What are the prospects for getting new cost data; it could make a big difference?

Eckman: The old way was to check catalog prices on-line.

Keating: That doesn’t separate out the incremental costs; you need to deconstruct it.

Grist: Cobb implies that we have sales-weighted data. If we do, we should look at it.

Cobb: We have 2012 sales data; I think NEEA’s is more recent. Translating ENERGY
STAR specs is hard; they have changed over time. We’re hoping to get better data soon.

Eckman: If we defer on this past next month, we have a measure that doesn’t recognize
the new standard.

Cobb: With the market changing, product is being cleared out; sales data will be skewed.

Keating: The CEC lists don’t include all available models; they’re not sales-weighted.
Sales-weighted data is from distributors and retailers; it’s not all units shipped and sold.
Waiting six months to set the baseline will be influenced by a standard already in place.
We need to deactivate until we get data to support a cost-effective measure.
Keating: Given the data we’ve seen and the uncertainty, I move to deactivate the measures until
such time as somebody brings forward a proposal for a cost-effective measure.

Rosolie: I second.

Gage: The Guidelines state we are to vote on energy savings; your proposal, based on
the lack of cost-effectiveness, indicates a severe a lack of confidence in energy savings.

Keating: You are right on the basis for deactivating; it’s a failure to produce a savings
number. It was in reaction to trusting the poor savings numbers. I withdraw the motion.

Rosolie: I’m okay with the withdrawal.
Grist: I move to approve the updates to the Residential Refrigerator and Freezers UES
measures as presented – do not include non-compliant CEC Appliance Database models in the
analysis; expand measures to include compact products; use median, rather than mean, time to
failure for lifetime; set the status of both measures to Active; set the category of both measures
to Proven; and set the Sunset date to October 2018.

J Harris: I second.
Gage: We’re jumping the gun, given Cobb’s point, we have regional sales data we’re not using.
Let’s make it part of our paradigm to use the data we have and have confidence in the numbers.

J Harris: Getting sales data is the right thing to do, but we have challenges to ensure it
can be analyzed in time for the decision to be made. We know the sales data will not
change the cost data and federal standards will not affect the costs for up to six months.
If we do this now, we can come back with better actual sales data at any time.

Keating: This remains Active and Proven.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 18

J Harris: It’s not cost-effective using the current data set; it won't affect current programs.

Firestone: We’re using the best available data for now.
Eckman: Are we ready to vote; the measure passes (19 in favor; 0 opposed; 1 abstention).
Mark Jerome (CLEAResult): Consistency is important; in the past we’ve deactivated a measure
for basically the same reasons (the code changed). This is the right way; going forward we need
to be careful about deactivating measures just because they’re not cost-effective.
Manufactured Homes – ENERGY STAR and Ecorated Homes Measure
Update
Presenter: Mohit Singh-Chhabra (RTF) Presentation
Baylon [re slide 6]: There’s no way that 33% of new manufactured homes are single-wide.
Jerome [re slide 8]: Since windows and insulation are done in a factory rather than by an onsite
contractor, does that change anything?

Davis: Yes. A problem is that production levels are so low it’s hard to know what to use.

Singh-Chhabra: I considered that; I kept the old previous costs and ratioed them.

Parker: There is ongoing rulemaking where the cost data may be available.

Singh-Chhabra: When I examined reports published from high-performance zones, costs
were very specific to the upgrade in question.

Eckman: There is some data available that’s being passed around.

Baylon: It’s coming from national sources that differ greatly from what we do; we're
better using old costs. The base cost hasn’t changed but markup structures are very low.

Davis: Two steps that are easy to reliably get are from the materials to the dealer and
the dealer to the homeowner.

Singh-Chhabra: I used the old costs and ratioed them a bit because the baseline to
energy-efficiency upgrade levels changed (i.e., R10 in the past goes to R13).
Baylon [re slide 11]: How does the calibration go down by a factor of 2?

Singh-Chhabra: It’s a result of Phase 1 and 2 factors multiplied, putting it close to 0.5.

Baylon: We did the Phase 2 adjustment to allow for a lot of wood?

Singh-Chhabra: Yes.

Baylon: When we get to new construction, the Phase 2 calibration is almost certainly
wrong; you're not going to put wood heat in a highly efficient manufactured home.

Singh-Chhabra: For the HP homes, the calibration factor is close to 1; for electricallyheated homes, it tends to be lower.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 19

J Harris: So even the Phase 1 calibration was done on existing manufactured housing,
but you're applying it to new homes?

Rushton: The adjustment factor is a function of uncalibrated SEEM output.
J Harris: There’s a big difference between these homes and new homes.

Baylon: RBSA is a population of existing manufactured homes, of which about 40% are
from before any federal standard took effect in 1976.

J Harris: I have low confidence that our calibration represents the typical new
manufactured home, both physically and from a behavioral buyer standpoint.

Davis: It may not be necessary to do the same process here, but obviously the baseline
has changed significantly and the nominal savings figures look shockingly low.

Singh-Chhabra: They are low, but with the envelope upgrades we have now and fewer
appliance upgrades, they will never be as high as we had in the past.

J Harris: The subcommittee might want to look into this before I say yes.
Grist: Single-family homes had a big change from infiltration effects. Is it the same here?

Singh-Chhabra: The infiltration part is huge, but calibration ratchets down SEEM output.

Baylon: The baseline assumptions in the old analysis had high heating loads.

Singh-Chhabra: Yes; the infiltration model was SEEM 94 – 7 air changes/hour (ACH).

Davis: You could argue that the ecorated would be better than 5.

Baylon: We have a set of data on the actual number, it’s closer to 4.

Singh-Chhabra: These numbers are clearly the result of unusually high heating loads.

Davis: The new baseline has class 40 windows in it.

Baylon: The new baseline is not coming from the standard.

Singh-Chhabra: It’s above the standard – HUD Plus that was defined in the 2012 study.
J Harris: Most of the adjustment comes from a current practice baseline as opposed to minimum
code. It’s important to understand the decomposition and where the big changes come from.

Singh-Chhabra: I can do that.

Rushton: When considering calibration of manufactured homes, we lack new home data.

Baylon: I would abandon calibration as input for this process, it’s completely inadequate.

Singh-Chhabra: We would have to revisit the RTF decision to apply it then.

Rushton: Where would we get the savings numbers from if we do?

Baylon: There was a calibration exercise on about 100 houses done for NEEM on
exactly this spec (RBSA has none). The results had about a 10% adjustment; not 50%.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 20

Singh-Chhabra: Some of the savings decreases are from appliance standards.

Baylon: Did you see the 2009 study? It’s a good study.

Singh-Chhabra: No, I used the 2012 baseline study. My intent was to get the right
baseline and use our updated calibration.
Eckman: I think we’re not ready on this; we need to go back and do some homework.

J Harris: We have better data for the calibration exercise in the new construction data
set we should use instead of the RBSA, which is not representative of new construction.
We should use the best data we have in the field – 100 NEEM houses that have already
been calibrated, even if four or five years old, is still better than using what we have now.

Singh-Chhabra: I need direction; we have a calibration RTF approved for manufactured
home new construction, but the suggestion is to use a separate NEEM dataset.

Eckman: We need to look at the two calibrations to see far apart they are and why. We
need a subcommittee of the people who are most familiar with this – Bob Davis, David
Baylon, Brady Peeks, Ben Larson, Josh Rushton, and Mohit Singh-Chhabra.
Rosolie: I move that that the RTF direct staff to investigate ENERGY STAR and Ecorated
Homes measure costs and savings further and extend the sunset date to March 2015.

Keating: I second the motion.

Eckman: All in favor; the measure passes (19 in favor; 1 opposed; 2 abstentions).
Single-Family Weatherization Measures
Presenter: Jennifer Anziano (RTF) Presentation
Rosolie: I move to set the sunset date for Single-Family Weatherization measures to September
30, 2019.

Knori: I second.
Eckman: All in favor; the measure passes (20 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstentions).
Sunset Date Extensions
Presenter: Jennifer Anziano Presentation
New Construction Montana House 2
Jim Maunder (Ravalli Electric Cooperative): I move that the RTF extend the measure sunset
date for New Construction Montana House 2 to April 2015.

J Harris: I second.
Eckman: Are we ready to vote; the measure passes (20 in favor; 0 opposed; 1 abstention).
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 21
Commercial Smart Plug Power Strips
Jerome [re slide 6]: CLEAResult has been looking at other Technical Reference Manuals
(TRMs) to see if they will be of help. I’ll let you know if we find anything.
Davis: There have been proposals to do things with this, but nothing has materialized regionally.
I don’t think much will happen by the January 2015 sunset.
Grist: Walker, is BPA offering this?

Danielle Walker (BPA): Yes. I’ll check on the uptake.

Davis: In Vancouver there’s some trouble with the data.

Grist: One question is what is connected to the power-strip that you're turning off – it can
be anything from a computer to foot warmers.

Davis: People added space heaters to the post-period versus what was there in the pre-.
Eckman: Is there a recommendation to bring it back as an alternative measure type – a Small
Saver – pending no data.

Keating: That’s the only thing you can bring back by January 31, 2015.

Davis: The sample size you’d need given the variance is spectacular.
Rosolie: I move that the RTF extend the measure sunset date for Commercial Smart Plug
Power Strips to March 31, 2015.

Koran: I second the motion.
Brad Acker (University of Idaho): What’s the status of the available research?

Grist: We have nothing new, although BPA and CLEAResult are looking into it.

Acker: I have a 2011 paper.

Anziano: Please send it to us.
Eckman: All in favor; the measure passes (20 in favor; 0 opposed; 1 abstention).
New Construction ENERGY STAR Homes – Multifamily
Jerome [re slide 10]: Check for the best fit with Dan Wildenhaus, who brought this originally.
Baylon: The RBSA is a building-wide dataset; you get a single number for a single building.
About 100 buildings in the dataset would apply (3-story or less); those would be aggregated by
number of units. It’s not one bill to one house, but one to multiple units. The dataset is very thin
outside of Zone 1 – just 20 buildings in Zone 2 and 3 together. I wouldn’t use RBSA data here.

Eckman: The default is to go back to the existing calibration, which Ecotope did.

Larson: We looked at existing studies of multifamily buildings in Puget Sound Energy
service territories. There were about 10 buildings, but it was a different kind of dataset.

Eckman: It sounds like taking more time to do this would be better.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 22
Parker: I move that the RTF change the measure status to Under Review and extend the
measure sunset date to August 31, 2015.

Welch: I second the motion.
Koran: The proposal is to investigate what calibration method is optimal rather than choosing
between SEEM or RBSA?

Eckman: Yes.

Keating: Even with RBSA data, the numbers that are in the highly-efficient spectrum will
be even smaller.
Eckman: Are we ready to vote; the measure passes (22 in favor; 0 opposed; 2 abstentions).
Break
Seventh Plan Conservation Supply Curve Review
Presenter: Charlie Grist (RTF), Tina Jayaweera (RTF), and Kevin Smit (RTF) Presentation
Combined Measure List Workbook
J Harris [re slide 3]: Does “pending standard” mean a standard that has been adopted, but will
take effect during the Power Planning period, or one that is in process but not yet determined?

Jayaweera: Primarily the former or one the RTF will be updating the UES for soon. A
preliminary NIA with reliable data can be considered; those at the request stage can’t.

J Harris: The 2015 water heater standards will be in play sometime next year.

Eckman: The current timeline is to stop draft inputs to the analysis by the end of
February.

J Harris: It’s unlikely the federal water use standards will get far enough to impact this.

Eckman: There may be a chance to revisit it between draft and final, maybe June-July.
Grist: A standard in place helps establish a baseline. Technical support documents (TSDs) for
standards in process have already looked at savings and costs for tiers; those data are useful.

Keating: You're still in the frozen efficiency forecast paradigm, which includes adopted
codes that are not effective and best available data on current practice. You're saying
un-adopted codes for which the prospect looks good can be included in the forecast?

Grist: No, we’d keep the baseline frozen where it is if they’re not yet promulgated, but we
would look at the TSDs to see if there’s a cost-effective potential above that.

Keating: What happened to TVs last time could happen with water heaters; we waited
for the code to be picked up and assumed the targets would be met. Water heaters may
be part of the potential; if the code is passed sooner, you’ll take it out?

Grist: That’s the plan.
Jones [re slide 4]: Are we going to keep the same ramp rates?
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 23

Grist: Everything is up for grabs in the Seventh Plan.

Jayaweera: We’re aligning the ramp rates between the commercial and residential; we’ll
review the ramp rate for each measure.

Jones: As users of the ramp rates, we don’t figure them to change.

Grist: I think they’re open. We were able to look at the first three years of adoption on the
measure bundles and compare what was in the 6th Plan ramp rate forecast to what was
actually delivered via programs. Where we have data, it’s great; but with new baselines
and measures, all ramp rates will be important for the RTF and CRAC to weigh in on.
Jayaweera [re Combined Measure List Workbook (CMLW)]: These are proposed; there may be
some that don’t make it to the final plan because of lack of data.
CMLW – Residential
Rosolie: The LEDs and CFLs are one measure?

Jayaweera: They’re combined here because the UES workbook has them combined.
This doesn’t have the highest level of granularity.

Rosolie: Will they be broken out somewhere?

Jayaweera: Yes, they are separate measures.
Parker: Where do you handle residential electric vehicles?

Jayaweera: In the load forecast.

Grist: You're not proposing an efficient electric vehicle?

Parker: I'm proposing an efficient charger.

Jayaweera: If you have data to share, I’ll be happy to take a look.

Grist: Due to limited resources, we’re where we will be doing triage between new
measures we can analyze. If there are things we are missing that look potentially good,
we need to know about them now. Changes to SEEM will affect the savings numbers;
we’re seeing significant changes.
Baylon: Why does your forced air furnace DHP measure only apply to multifamily?

Eckman: It’s only single-family and mobile homes; it’s except multifamily.
Grist: For those who want to compare this to your own measure lists, send us some notes on it.
CMLW – Commercial
Acker: Does the Secondary Glazing Systems measure address the frame?

J Harris: Yes, it’s a complete system that goes inside the existing exterior curtain wall.
Baylon: Dedicated Outside Air is missing, which is an option in the IECC.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 24

Grist: We do have that as measures in Low Pressure Distribution System Complex
HVAC and in Demand Control Ventilation.

Baylon: There are now many variations on what was in the 6th Plan (distributed
rooftops). Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) should also be included.

Grist: It’s a maybe. It’s thermodynamically tempting, but I haven’t found any good data.

Baylon: We have two VRF office buildings, but they also have dedicated outside air. It
mostly has to do with the ability to do zoning as much as efficiency of the equipment.

Grist: We’ll put it down as a potential measure. The VRF subcommittee after two years
does not have measure data for the models; we are not close.
Grist: Water Cooler Controls with hot and cold taps use 800-1,200 kWh/year. Timers that turn
them off at night save a lot of electricity; it may be easy to implement because they are leased.
Acker: Do practices ever make it into the Plan – i.e., Integrated Building Design?

Grist: Yes, it’s one of the measures. Smit is looking into Strategic Energy Management
as one of the controls optimization measures for buildings.
Thompson: What about Daylighting?

Grist: Some is in there, but it’s not a giant measure. We hope to get data from the
Commercial Building Stock Assessment (CBSA) on current penetration. Top Daylighting
was the biggest measure because it’s easy to do.
Koran: Was Controls Optimization mentioned?

Smit: It might be included under Commercial SEM for now.

Grist: Last time, I looked at metadata from Controls Optimization program evaluations
across the country and normalized kWh in therms/sq.ft. from 30-40 measures. If there
are better data, let me know.

Koran: There was a good report last year from EnergyPlus simulations for commercial
building retuning measures that included controls optimization and gives per measure
savings and a btu/sq.ft. for climate zones across the U.S. It is simulation, not real data.

J Harris: The Northwest Energy Efficiency Council ( NEEC) would want to weigh in here;
they talked at the CRAC meeting about splitting out behavior versus controls. There are
at least two tiers of control optimization – full building automation and smaller functions.
CMLW – Agriculture
Jerome: Are we doing indoor agriculture?

Jayaweera: The question was asked at CRAC; they count that under commercial load.

Grist: It looks like there is potential savings, but some of the utilities can’t touch it
because it’s illegal to the feds.
Keating: The Irrigation Scheduling measure is coming up.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 25

Baylon: Do you have to identify the crop in order to identify the savings?

Jerome: The SIS is crop-specific.
Jones: On Indoor Agriculture, make sure you define the baseline and the practice very well.

Massoud Jourabchi has worked with an intern to identify what that looks like by
interviewing a dozen or so growers.
Grist [re slide 6]: We are open to input on what is missing from this. Smit has done some work
on sewage treatment plants and water treatment plants that we will review and post for
comment. For every measure bundle, we are producing a matrix called a Source Summary that
has key determinants of measure savings and costs. This would be good for you to review.
Jones: Is there an Emerging Tech (ET) component as well? I know you have an ET ramp rate.

Eckman: We haven’t flagged a measure per se as an emerging tech.

Jones: It is useful for users in the region; you might consider flagging those measures.

Jayaweera: How do you define ET?

Jones: “Almost ready for prime time” – i.e., HP water heaters were, solar water heating.

Grist: One of the biggest is Solid State Lighting (SSL); we propose to use a forecast of
cost and efficacy from the PNNL study through 2017 and freeze it there by application
type. It’s a real technology that’s emerging. The standard for getting into the Plan is
“similarly available and reliable to generation,” so the technology has to be available.

Jones: We struggle with this too. SSL is in a class by itself.

Grist: If there are large bundles that might be large and cheap in ten years, we might do
some sensitivity analysis for that. Energy Trust has done some work on this. If it did
come to fruition on the low or high end, how would that impact what you build now?
Baylon: A big shift that’s going on in HP water heaters and other kinds of HVAC is the CO2
refrigerant. In ten years it will be important, not so much now.

Grist: CO2 systems are on the measure list. They are slow on the residential side
because they haven’t been approved for use in this country.

Jerome: Probably by sometime next year at least one product will have UL approval.

Baylon: They are a good for combined systems because you get a high COP and a low
slope, unlike regular HPs that are steep with low temperatures.

Jerome: We’re looking at these same units going into low-load homes doing both space
and water heating.
Baylon: Check on next year’s meeting dates; there are a few changes.
The meeting adjourned at 4:07.
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 26
Voting Record: October 14, 2014
Percent of Yea Votes
Motion Language
Motion: Adopt the RTF meeting agenda
for October 14, 2014 (Jerome/Parker).
Motion: Approve the September 16, 2014
Meeting Minutes as presented
(Welch/Keating).
Motion: Update the Scientific
Irrigation Scheduling Standard
Protocol to a status of Out of
Compliance and a sunset date of
December 31, 2014 (Welch/Keating).
Motion: Approve the updates to the
Residential Refrigerator and Freezers
UES measures as presented – do not
include non-compliant CEC Appliance
Database models in the analysis;
expand measures to include compact
products; use median, rather than mean,
time to failure for lifetime; set the status
of both measures to Active; set the
category of both measures to Proven;
and set the Sunset date to October 2018
(Grist/J Harris).
Motion: Direct staff to investigate
ENERGY STAR and Ecorated Homes
measure costs and savings further and
extend the sunset date to March 2015
(Rosolie/Keating).
Motion: Set the sunset date for SingleFamily Weatherization measures to
September 30, 2019 (Rosolie/Knori).
Motion: Extend the measure sunset date
for New Construction Montana House 2
to April 2015 (Maunder/Harris)
Motion: Extend the measure sunset date
for Commercial Smart Plug Power Strips
to March 31, 2015 (Rosolie/Koran).
Motion: Change the measure status to
Under Review and extend the measure
sunset date to August 31, 2015
(Parker/Welch).
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Number of
Voting
RTF Voting Members
Members
Members
Voting
(40% min) (60% min) Present
Yea
Nay
Abs.
Motion
Passes?
21
0
0
Yes
78%
100%
22
21
0
0
Yes
78%
100%
22
19
0
0
Yes
70%
100%
19
19
0
1
Yes
70%
100%
20
19
1
2
Yes
70%
95%
23
20
0
0
Yes
74%
100%
20
20
0
1
Yes
74%
100%
21
20
0
1
Yes
74%
100%
21
22
0
2
Yes
81%
100%
24
Page 27
Attendees: October 14, 2014
Name
* Voting Members
Affiliation
Email
Phone
Attending in Person
Brad Acker*
University of Idaho
backer@uidaho.edu
208-890-5214
Jennifer Anziano
RTF Manager
janziano@nwcouncil.com
503-222-5161
David Baylon
Ecotope
david@ecotope.com
206-322-3753
Rebecca Blanton
Puget Sound Energy
rebecca.blanton@pse.com
425-457-5676
Carrie Cobb
BPA
Courtney Dale
BPA
crdale@bpa.gov
503-230-3640
Bob Davis*
Ecotope
bdavis@ecotope.com
206-786-4709
Stacey Donohue
Idaho PUC
stacey.donohue@puc.idaho.gov
208-334-0378
Christian Douglass
RTF Contract Staff
christian.douglass@ptarmiganresearchcom
815-985-1316
Tom Eckhart
UCONS, LLC
Tom@ucons.com
425-576-5409
Tom Eckman*
NWPCC
teckman@nwcouncil.org
503-222-5161
Ryan Firestone
RTF Contract Staff
ryan.firestone@ptarmiganresearchcom
510-333-0469
Lauren Gage*
BPA
lsmgage@bpa.gov
503-319-7195
Charlie Grist*
NWPCC / RTF Vice-Chair
cgrist@nwcouncil.org
503-222-5161
Bob Gunn
Seinergy
bob@seinergy.org
425-202-6053
Adam Hadley
RTF Contract Staff
adam@hadleyenergy.com
503-235-6458
Dan Harris
Independent
dan@danielharris.com
917-776-1549
Jeff Harris*
NEEA
jharris@neea.org
503-688-5403
Sandra Hirotsu
NWPCC
shirotsu@nwcouncil.org
503-222-5161
Justin Holzgrove
Mason County PUD 3
justinh@masonpud3.org
360-432-5323
Erin Hope*
BPA
ethope@bpa.gov
509-625-1362
Mark Jerome*
CLEAResult
mark.jerome@clearesult.com
541-670-8495
Tina Jayaweera
NWPCC
Mark Johnson
BPA
mejohnson@bpa.gov
503-230-7669
Don Jones, Jr.*
PacifiCorp
JR_don.jones@pacificorp.com
503-813-5184
Ken Keating*
Independent
keatingk@msn.com
503-244-7204
Rick Knori*
Lower Valley Energy
rick@lvenergy.com
307-739-6038
Bill Koran*
NorthWrite
bkoran@northwriteinc.com
503-941-9775
Dave Kresta
NEEA
dkresta@neea.org
Dave Kresta
Nick Kvaltine
Ecotope
nkvaltine@ecotope.com
Ben Larson
Ecotope
ben@ecotope.com
206-322-3753
Peter Miller*
NRDC
pmiller@nrdc.org
415-875-6167
Lorin Molander
DNV GL
lorin.molander@dnvgl.com
425-457-3090
Graham Parker*
PNNL
graham.parker@pnnl.gov
509-375-3805
Joe Prijyanonda
Applied Energy Group
jprijayanonda@appliedenergygroup.com
714-665-5958
Cory Read
Idaho Power
cread@idahopower.com
508-388-6718
Eugene Rosolie*
NEEA
erosolie@neea.org
503-688-5406
Josh Rushton
RTF Contract Staff
josh@rushtonanalytics.com
971-229-1765
Mohit Singh-Chhabra
RTF Contract Staff
mohit@ptarmiganresearchcom
720-310-5490
Paul Sklar*
Energy Trust of Oregon
paul.sklar@energytrust.org
503-445-2947
Kevin Smit
NWPCC
David Thompson*
Avista
david.thompson@avistacorp.com
509-495-2821
Danielle Walker*
BPA
dngidding@bpa.gov
503-230-7314
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 28
Name
Affiliation
Email
Phone
Robert Weber
BPA
rmweber@bpa.gov
206-220-6783
Bill Welch*
Independent
bmbwelch@comcast.net
541-513-8771
Sarah Widder
PNNL
sarah.widder@pnnl.gov
509-372-6396
Aaron Winer
CLEAResult
awiner@clearesult.com
503-688-1566
Attending by Webinar
Kathryn Bae
NEEA
kbae@neea.org
503-688-5478
Andie Baker*
Independent
andiebaker@msn.com
206-755-7051
Janice Boman
Ecova
jboman@ecova.com
206.802.8973
David Bopp*
Flathead Electric Cooperative
d.bopp@flathead.coop
406-751-5291
Ryan Brown
NEEA
rbrown@neea.org
503-688-5400
Christine Bunch
Seattle City Light
christine.bunch@seattle.gov
206-386-1824
Dimitry Burdjalov
Applied Energy Group
dburdjalov@applied energy group.com
216-374-5289
Eli Caudill
Cadmus
eli.caudill@cadmusgroup.com
503-888-0902
Jim Conlan
Snohomish PUD
jrconlan@snopud.com
425-783-1781
Warren Cook
ODOE
warren.cook@state.or.us
503-378-2856
Brian DeKiep
NWPCC Montana
bdekiep@nwcouncil.org
406-444-2433
Steve Divan
Oregon Housing & Community Service
steven.divan@state.or.us
503-986-0979
Tom Elliott
Oregon Department of Energy
tom.elliott@state.or.us
503-373-7085
Jennifer Eskil
BPA
jleskil@bpa.gov
509-527-6232
Joseph Fernandi
Seattle City Light
joseph.fernandi@seattle.gov
206-684-3729
Michele Francisco
BPA
mmfrancisco@bpa.gov
503-230-3295
Michele Friedrich*
SMUD
michele.friedrich@smud.org
541-499-9075
Samantha Gatzke
PECI
sgatzke@peci.org
503-548-4780
Todd Greenwell
Idaho Power
tgreenwell@idahopower.com
208-388-6484
Benjamin Hannas
Ecotope, Inc.
bhannas@ecotope.com
206-596-4715
Bill Harris
Snohomish PUD
wsharris@snopud.com
425-783-1790
Amy Heidner
Rextor Group
amy@rextorgroup.com
206-817-1163
Jay Jeffries
Resource Action Program
jjeffries@resourceaction.com
775-398-7862
Dan Liska
Snohomish PUD
dlliska@snopud.com
425-783-1705
Allison Mace
BPA
arrobbins@bpa.gov
503-230-5871
Jeff Maguire
NREL
jeff.maguire@nrel.gov
978-857-8461
Ethan Manthey
BPA
enmanthey@bpa.gov
503-230-3948
Jarvegren Mattias
PUD No. 1 of Clallam County
mattiasj@clallampud.net
360-565-3263
Jim Maunder*
Ravalli Electric Cooperative
jmaunder@ravallielectric.com
406-961-3001
Keshmira McVey
BPA
krmcvey@bpa.gov
503-230-4717
Kathy Moore
Umatilla Electric
kathy.moore@umatillaelectric.com
541-564-4357
Eli Morris
PacifiCorp
eli.morris@pacificorp.com
503-813-6490
David Nightingale
WUTC (Ex Officio)
dnightin@utc.wa.gov
360-664-1154
Janice Peterson
BPA
jcpeterson@bpa.gov
503 230-3543
Ray Phillips
PECI
phillips@peci.org
541-517-4632
Molly Podolefsky
Navigant Consulting
molly.podolefsky@navigant.com
720-366-4297
Kevin Price
Evergreen Economics, Inc.
price@evergreenecon.com
510-899-5557
Bethany Sparn
NREL
bethany.sparn@nrel.gov
303-384-7442
Christina Steinhoff
NEEA
csteinhoff@neea.org
503-688-5427
Carolyn VanWinkle
BPA
carolyn.vanwinkle@gmail.com
503-230-4784
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 29
Name
Affiliation
Email
Phone
Kevin Watier
SnoPUD
kjwatier@snopud.com
425-783-1747
Eric Wilson
NREL
eric.wilson@nrel.gov
720-979-5548
Kathy Yi
Idaho Power
kathyyi@idahopower.com
208-388-2635
RTF Meeting Minutes – October 14, 2014
Page 30