Regional Technical Forum
November 10, 2015
Meeting Minutes
Introductions, Agenda Review, Meeting Minutes & Announcements
Jennifer Light, RTF Manager, opened the meeting at 9:00 and called for introductions. She
counted 19 members. Mark Jerome, CLEAResult moved to adopt the agenda. Brad Acker, UIIDL seconded. The agenda was adopted unanimously.
Bill Welch, independent, moved to adopt the minutes from October 20, 2015. Graham Parker,
PNNL, seconded. The minutes were adopted unanimously.
Light called attention to the new Whiteboard feature on the Webinar and stated she would pay
particular attention to questions and comments from the phone. Michelle Friedrich, SMUD
asked if the hand raising feature would be utilized. Light said we will try to monitor it, but will
also make time for questions from the phone.
Non-Residential Lighting Standard Protocols: Retrofits (Provisional) and New
Construction (Under Development)
Presenter: Christian Douglass and Josh Rushton, RTF CAT, Presentation
Christian Douglass, RTF CAT, reminded the RTF that the presentation will be back next month
and this was a call for feedback as they move forward.
Dave Baylon, Ecotope asked if the RTF doesn’t expect proven worthy values for controls that
change because we don’t have enough data points [Slide 9] or that retrofits are different than
what we see in the wild.
 Douglass: Yes. We’re just getting observational data. We don’t know if that lines up with
pre/post data. There could be some bias.
 Baylon: Why do we think there’s bias?
 Josh Rushton, RTF CAT: If people chose not to put controls in a big lighting retrofit, they
might not be using their lights and manual controls in the way that someone else did.
 Douglass: We’re saying that there could be bias, so proceed with caution. I can show an
example of data where we see a clear bias.
Jeff Harris, NEEA stated that all of the buildings had a retrofit and asked if the sample is building
with large lighting retrofits?
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 1





Rushton: Yes.
Harris: Is there a bias associated with that? The Hours of Use (HOU) might be different
in this group than the population at large.
Rushton: You could speculate that. But we’re assuming that’s not a bias we need to
worry about.
Harris: Also there could be a bias between this data and future participants.
Rushton: Yes, but we’re not too concerned about this.
Douglass thanked the BPA, SBW and all of the public utilities for collecting this data [Slide 10]
calling it a good effort. He noted that we didn’t get a lot of automatic controls in the sample.
Harris referenced “open office manual” [Slide 14] asking if that is limited to offices with a
physical switch on the wall, or if it include rooms on central time clocks?
 Douglass: It should just be a manual switch on the wall.
 Harris: It’s been a code requirement to have central sweeps for a long time.
 Bob Tingleff, SBW Consulting: We excluded building automated systems because the
protocols exclude this type of control. These are sites where lights are turned on and off
manually. They might be local or central but it’s a manual switch.
 Harris: So the data we have is a subset of open offices. Sweeps have been in the code
since the 1980s.
Baylon asked what the “N/As” in [Slide 13] are.
 Tingleff: I’m not sure.
 Douglass: It was a small number, so we didn’t look into them.
Welch asked what a HOU/HOO ratio greater than 1 means [Slide 14]. He noted that the logger
states that lights are on more than what the person estimated. He wondered if there was a
physical explanation for this or if the Hours of Operation (HOO) were underestimated.
 Douglass: Yes.
 Charlie Grist, RTF vice chair: In retail, they’re typically stocking after hours.
 Welch: I’ve had issues at facilities with the cleaning crew not turning off lights.
 Douglass: We crafted the interview to try to capture this. All we can say is that the HOU
we metered are greater than HOO that we collected.
 Ken Keating, independent: We’re really testing the reliability of the interviewing. We’re
assuming that the metering is accurate and representative. For these buildings, we see
a pattern and assume that it’s due to inaccuracies in the interview. These patterns are
consistent with what we’ve seen in the past. For example, people have overestimated
the HOU of schools, while offices tend to underestimate a bit.
 Greg Kelleher, EWEB: Are you consistent in documenting the clarifications you’re
making? Do you have standard rules? For example are you including cleaning hours?
Are you including lunch? If I want to use this as an implementer, I want to be consistent.
 Douglass: Yes, we spent a lot of time in subcommittee developing the survey and being
clear about what we mean. We also put together examples for situational guidance.
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 2


Bill Koran, SBW: This is cool data. I appreciate that this is getting closer to reality. Can
we use this to get us closer to estimates? Going forward there may be more behavior
change and strategic energy management programs that will make the HOU look
different than the HOO.
Douglass: These are good questions. We need to ask what the shelf life of these results
are because behavior can change over time. We’d need to do more research.
Jes Rivas, Navigant, asked what the sample size [Slide 17] is wondering if every circuit was
logged.
 Tingleff: If we had good reason to believe that the hours were the same for every
circuit/fixture/lighting type, we wouldn’t log all of them.
 Rivas: Did you weight the results? For example a single log versus multiple logs per
space?
 Douglass: No. The values I’m showing are straight averages. These aren’t weighted by
connected kW.
Welch asked if this is a discrepancy from what the survey said and what the actual hours of
occupancy are [Slide 19]. He said by including controls, the results now include reductions in
HOU from automatic controls.
 Douglass: Yes. But note also we’re looking at different spaces.
 Keating: And respondents too. We’re testing that as well.
 Douglass: Note the confidence bands – most differences between manual and
occupancy sensors are not statistically significant.
 Welch: But if you used those numbers on a restroom operating system the ratio would
have a big enough difference that the savings would be negative.
 Douglass: That is the “proceed with caution” we talked about earlier
 Harris: Are we assuming each control type is turning on one circuit that has all of the
lights that were metered on that circuit? Are all lights are either on or off?
 Douglass: Correct.
 Grist: I think it was the full load equivalent wattage hours.
 Tingleff: If we only metered one lighting system in a space that had two, we’re not saying
that the second system had same behavior as the first.
 Douglass: But don’t you assume that for evaluated savings?
 Tingleff: Yes, if the systems sounded the same from the interview. You need to use
judgement because you can’t log every circuit in a space.
Keating noted that the program estimated HOU is all from Bonneville [Slide 21]. He said it could
be different for different implementers and remembered early Bonneville programs where
reported hours didn’t affect incentive or participation. He said in that case there was no reason
to bias the reported hours of use, but stated that in some programs, hours of use may affect
incentive.
 Lauren Gage, BPA: We expect to see some variation by utility. The big utilities are
oversampled here. We provide some guidance on collecting HOU, but not to the level of
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 3

the Standard Protocol, so there is some variability by utility. We found that the average
difference in savings from using metered data versus reported hours of use was less
than 4%. I expect that report out any day.
Rich Arneson, Tacoma: Our incentive is based on energy savings capped at a
percentage of project cost. More often than not, we pay less than the maximum in cap
with this structure.
Andie Baker, Abacus Research Group asked why one third of the data points are widely
dispersed [Slide 22].
 Douglass: There could be a lot of reasons. The respondent doesn’t know, doesn’t take
the time so they just pick a number or they might not understand question.
 Baker: Okay, thanks.
Friedrich directed attention to the right side graph. She asked where the program estimates of
HOU come from.
 Douglass: The program contractors estimate HOU.
 Friedrich: Instead of using HOO, you could use HOU data and take an average for lights
in a particular space or building type. Then we wouldn’t have to go through this interview
process.
 Douglass: That’s a great question. I’ll address in a couple of slides.
 Grist: The vertical axis on both graphs is the same, the measure of hours. But the data is
more spread out horizontally depending on what questions you ask.
Grist hypothesized that the data on [Slide 23] could reflect that the interviewee doesn’t know
what goes on in private offices because they are in charge of a whole building.
 Rushton: Also, private offices are occupied by a single person and it’s hard to peg down
their schedules. In retail, you have a pretty good idea about when the space is used.
 Welch: Are these results for all controls or just manual? I ask because in the case of
automated controls, there’s another level of estimation required.
 Douglass: “Actual” is based on three weeks of annualized metered data. Contractors in
programs estimated HOU, which would include the effect of controls. We intentionally
didn’t want respondents to try to estimate the effects of controls, so we just ask about
HOO.
Baylon stated that in the “classroom” example there is a problem with segmentation [Slide 25].
He noted that a college classroom is not like a K-12 school. He stressed that you need to be
wary of segmentation across the commercial sector. He allowed the need to lump buildings
together, but cautioned about differences.
 Douglass: Agreed. Luckily BPA and SBW captured a lot of the data field so we can
reference them. We know about the classroom distinction but this is still a good point.
 Friedrich: To me this is all about cost. It’s the same cost to put lots of meters in private
offices as in a few restrooms at same sight. Also, the interview could take longer than
installing loggers.
 Douglass: I’ll get to this issue on the next slide.
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 4
Baylon stated that when you do an impact evaluation, you have the same exact segmentation
issues that you do with building types [Slide 26]. He said that you find all sorts of variance
because you didn’t properly lump buildings together. He concluded by insisting that evaluation is
not a panacea for these issues.
Grist summarized by saying: we heard that pre/post metering is hard and expensive to do. So
we did post only metering, and developed a structured interview that could reduce the amount
of metering. We found that the structured interview does this. For some space types, we have
enough metered data to just use an interview and for some we don’t. The questions are: where
do we go now and will these estimates be usable to programs?
 Gage: There are probably some things in the Standard Protocol that programs should do
(like baselines) and some things that should be done with impact evaluation. Could we
have two things: some guidance from programs and some guidance for evaluations?
From a savings perspective, we’re getting pretty accurate estimates without the
Standard Protocol. Does the structured HOU/HOO interview add benefit or burden? Our
lighting realization rate was 1.0. The metering was within 3% or 4% of unstructured
estimated HOO. It doesn’t look like there’s a problem here. This is for programs. But for
impact evaluations, it might be different. So some guidance on how to meter (or
interview) might be useful.
 Tom Lienhard, Avista Corp: We use a higher baseline than what’s in the customer’s
ceiling. We expect to have 115% realization rate, because we didn’t give customers
credit for what’s in their ceiling. Let me ask Gage a question: When you do your
evaluation do you evaluate for what the savings would have been from baseline or what
the savings actually were?
 Gage: We use a baseline consistent with the program. We have some preconditions
baselines and some codes. So we have the same baseline for evaluation and program.
In 2012/13, we don’t have as much of the standards changes so it was almost preconditions.
 Tingleff: Right. The incandescent and T12 used pre-conditions rather than market
averages.
 Singh-Chhabra, RTF CAT: Did this cover all types of controls?
 Gage: Yes, but only a fraction was not manual controls.
 Singh-Chhabra: So for a mostly manual program, programs can estimate hours pretty
well, but maybe not with controls.
 Gage: Yes.
Rivas suggested a nested sample where everything is tracked by space type and some are
metered. She stated that at Navigant, the nested sample approach has been very cost effective.
She feels that the idea of using HOU/HOO is a good idea and thinks that we could get to a
place where we use these ratios. She stated that as the market changes, we can update the
space types we think are changing the most and you don’t need to update all space types each
time.
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 5
Friedrich said for years, ASHREA standard 90.1 used HOU tables. She asked where those
schedules come from and wondered about the metering of different space types. She theorized
that somebody somewhere across the country has done that for lighting and stated that
restrooms in the Pacific Northwest would be the same as anywhere else. She also felt that most
space types, excluding classrooms, would be the same. She concluded by saying there should
be numerous studies on HOO of lights by space type.
 Douglass: Good point. Yes, there are recent studies. Last year big utilities in Michigan
metered a large sample of commercial buildings to get metered hours of use. However,
the extent to which controls are baked into estimates of HOU could be tricky. It would be
useful if we could pull out the effect of controls on these HOU numbers.
 Grist: We did a search for metered HOU and didn’t find anything recent. ELCAP is pretty
old and the Michigan study is new since we launched our effort.
 Baylon: When we set this study up, I assumed that we’d get a good mix of control types
in each space type. Why did we end up with no controls besides occupancy sensors?
 Douglass: It could be that most spaces that have those controls already have them so
they’re not going through programs.
 Baylon: So we need to broaden our scope if we want to do anything about controls.
Using programs as the basis for collecting data isn’t going to get us there. If we’re not
going to get decent estimates of HOU for controls, we are better off with evaluations.
New construction is going through a controls revolution. Of course it’s unclear if these
controls work.
Harris asked how we assess if the value proposition is there. He said that if programs are big
enough to afford metering and they get a realization rate of 1, it doesn’t seem like there’s a
need. He stated that it needs to come from the implementers.
 Grist: Yes. A potential path forward is having a big matrix of space types and HOU.
Where we have big uncertainties, we could collect more data, where we have enough
data we use it. It could be the same for “with controls”. We could fill in this matrix over
time, but it would require cooperation with programs to focus on the same building type
or space type. It could be either collected metered data or collected structured interview
plus metered data. And eventually you won’t need metering; you’ll just need the
structured interview. Is it worth the RTF putting a reliability standard on impact
evaluations?
 Nick O’Neil, Energy 350: One reason we wanted to do this was to get some consistency
in estimating hours. The intent was to refine the structured interview after the data was
there to prove it out.
 Light: Has anyone else used the protocol? [no reply]
 Keating: You have some space types that are important, and some that are not. In not
important ones, the estimates include 1 in the confidence range. Perhaps just use 1 for
those to shorten the list and reduce the research budget.
 Douglass: CAT/Staff discussed using a more flexible Standard Protocol. For some space
types we could use our estimates of HOU which are already good. Other space types
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 6
need our evaluation and guidance to pick sample size. The CAT can bring a strawman
proposal to the full RTF in December.
Grist stated that for planning estimates we assume that the natural replacement on existing
buildings happens first [Slide 27]. He indicated that retrofit is only for buildings that don’t turn
over their existing systems by the end of the analysis. He detailed that in the CBSA, we found
that lighting systems get replaced pretty frequently: 5% to 8% per year, depending on the
building type. He stated that most systems have been replaced by the time you get through half
of the Plan period. He surmised that the retrofit potential is pretty small.
 Friedrich: Is that fixture replacement or bulb replacement?
 Grist: Either fixture replacement, a remodel or ballast replacement. If you have to
replace the ballast that triggers code compliance. New equipment has to be consistent
with Federal Standards. Between codes, standards and natural lighting refresh, the
pragmatic baseline is the current market practice.
 Baylon: So natural replacement is something like a code replacement?
 Grist: Yes, that’s how we model it.
 Baylon: To the extent that code is behind current technology, that’s another issue of
what the baseline is.
 Douglass: Yes, I’ll get to that issue. Let me ask the planners, most of this looks like
current practice baseline. But for our programs, it’s mostly a precondition baseline,
except for a few types: T12s & incandescent. Even for HID highbay, we use a
preconditions baseline. But the RTF needs to decide what the right baseline is: Are most
early replacements or near end of life? My recommendation is to put together an RTF
sub-group.
 Keating: It sounds like the Council Plan eliminated most retrofits. A lot of utilities have
simplified things by just using a current practice baseline. It stops a lot of arguments and
improves relationships with regulators.
 Douglass: A recent report posted on CALMAC showed CA looking at mix between
retrofit and code-replacement.
 Grist: In OR, 10% of lights triggers a code change, in WA it’s 30%, but we don’t have
any strong data to show if this happens or not. This is a big question, with a big effect on
remaining potential.
Douglass asked for volunteers for an RTF subgroup
 Light: The bigger question will be on code compliant new construction, which we’ll talk
about next.
 Arneson: I’ll volunteer myself or someone else from Tacoma.
Welch asked if there is enough data to say that LDP is 15% below code [Slide 40], saying it
seems speculative.
 Douglass: This would be a provisional estimate. We’d need more data for proven. Also,
we don’t use Federal standards for other appliances, we use current practice. I don’t see
why we wouldn’t do that here.
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 7






Baylon: The Seattle building department reports that they get 30-40% reduction from
current code, routinely. Mind you this data is nearly three years old but what’s going on
in the commercial lighting industry now is unlike anything we’ve ever seen. Incandescent
bulbs are getting replaced by something more than three times as efficient. And we’re
seeing LEDs impact linear fluorescents and that’s a 30% reduction. Your Current
Practice LPD is probably off by some amount on average, from code. But by the time
you get a good estimate, it will be too old. The code baseline leaves you paying for a lot
of savings that are happening anyway.
Don Jones Jr., PacifiCorp: We’re not Seattle. We don’t see same level of code
exceedance as small towns might do things differently. However lights are different than
appliances. Lighting systems are built in the field and appliances are built in a plant;
there is some inefficiency there. I’d like to be involved in a discussion about what
baseline should be.
Harris: Geographic distribution is key. Outside large metro areas, I don’t expect as much
code compliance/exceedance. We’re studying this and there are lots of challenges.
There is also a time dimension to this. Once code becomes effective, there could be a
one year lag before buildings comply. And it could be several years until you see code
exceedance. We need a way to simplify this. Defaulting to code requirement as baseline
seems like a reasonable approximation.
Bob Davis, Ecotope: I looked at small commercial buildings that are not in major metro
areas, they also looked like they exceeded code by 10% or more. Product and cost are
changing quickly, almost by the month.
Lienhard: When we do a project for a customer, we tell them how much they will actually
save, and how much we will pay, based on code. If we did this, we’d have to explain a
third number: why code is not good enough for a baseline. It’s a big implementation
problem.
Grist: The Seventh Plan used current practice LPD which exceeds code by about 15%. It
varies by building type. Some, like small offices, were worse than code. Savings targets
in the Plan are from a better than code baseline.
Friedrich asked if these sites were in programs [Slide 42]
 Douglass: We don’t know that.
Harris stated that it’s one thing to do a CBSA assessment if controls are in place. It’s another
thing to ask if controls work at all [Slide 44]. He said there are lots of integration challenges with
building automation systems.
 Douglass: Yes, we’d need to measure effectiveness of controls
 Harris: Also, where would this protocol go? In Bonneville’s lighting calculator?
 Douglass: That’s a question for the group. Can this be a Calculator? Or is it custom
guidance? Someone who knows the code well would have to do the analysis and
having a clean lookup table might be tricky.
 Arneson: States like Washington are seeking to comply with the 2030 Challenge so
there’s a full on race to improve codes substantially over the next 15 years. This means
that past results might not be an indicator of code exceedance.
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 8
Friedrich moved back to her earlier question about the 15% that have controls that weren’t
required and it was unknown if they were in programs. She stated that you need to know
because if they were installed by programs, they shouldn’t be in the baseline.
 Douglass: We include program participants in the current practice baseline.
 Friedrich: This can’t be right. Baseline should be absent of the program.
 Grist: Our baselines for appliances use market average penetration of efficient and not
efficient. We don’t separate out which fraction are program induced. This is in the
guidelines.
Grist then stated that he’s struggling with the controls. He noted that LBNL did a metastudy on
controls savings fractions and found lots of uncertainty with a moving baseline. He called
attention to the explosion of control logic including low cost sensors and new entrants in the
market like Cisco and Google. He said that for some space /control types, we might have some
control savings fractions, but for a lot of spaces/control types, we won’t. He asked if the RTF
can hone in on the most important ones where we don’t have good data or do we give up on
protocol and require measurement. He mentioned that the baseline wattage might be a
challenge because controls can be used to change the wattage. He asked if the LPD is the 44W
of the fixture or the 30W you set up in the initial controls or something else.
 O’Neil: For the first protocol, we asked for the most common control types and building
types because the matrix of possible building and control types was too big.
There was a call for RTF Subgroup volunteers. Dave Baylon and Jess Rivas volunteered. Harris
offered someone from NEEA, Parker offered a representative from PNNL and Kelleher gave
someone from EWEB. Grist suggested that Mike Kennedy would be a good addition as well.
BREAK
RTF Management Items
Presenter: Jennifer Light, RTF Presentation
Keating asked what is “short” [Slide 5]
 Welch: Is this a typical mini split with a couple of duct runs?
 Jerome: I’ve installed a few of these. It’s the same outside unit with a small air handler in
attic and three to six runs inside the house. A few years ago the static pressure limited
the length of runs, but now fan motors are beefier so you can have longer runs. It’s not
quite the whole house, but they are longer runs. And as runs get longer, duct leakage
and fan energy are bigger hits.
 Grist: What’s the baseline for these?
 Light: That would be something for the subcommittee to discuss
 Tom Eckhart, UCONS: What is the range of duct lengths? What’s the primary application
for this?
 Jerome: Some are retrofit and some are new construction. There’re typically placed in a
house with electric resistance heat and no duct system. You couldn’t put this on a
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 9



conventional duct system. Panasonic has three, eight-inch takeoffs on the unit and you
could run those up to about 25 feet. It still wouldn’t serve a big home, but it would serve
a bungalow or new construction, low-load home.
Davis: Low-load homes would be a big target audience.
Baylon: This is a self-defense mechanism. We don’t have good performance data on
mini-splits and the little data we have shows serious hit to COP from the extra zonal load
from having more than one air handler. ENERGY STAR people argue that this is the
future but we need to know how to get the performance we expect out of these systems.
It’s not a bad idea to start looking into this with maybe some small number of lab tests
and case study tests, to see how the COPs change from single head, single compressor
to more complicated systems.
Jerome: There’s definitely a differences. We’ve seen control strategies that don’t agree
with low load homes.
Motion
I, Greg Kelleher, move that the RTF allocate staff resources towards supporting development of
a Residential Short Duct Run Minisplit UES measure.
Gage seconded.
Grist asked if we can get to a UES on this and wondered if there’s any data available.
 Jerome: CLEAResult’s efficient homes initiative might have a few data points.
 Light: Ben Larson, Ecotope, noted that there was some data he might be able to get. For
now, we will focus on a research strategy.
 Friedrich: I’m speaking against this motion. We have lots of measures where we do have
data. This is an emerging technology and there’s not much data out there. Let’s revisit
next year when there might be some data. [head nods in the room]
 Nightingale: This could have potential for a small home. How much staff resource would
go to this? It might not be worth too much.
 Light: If NEEA can support the main development of research then staff would mostly
put together a research strategy and run a subcommittee, then review and quality control
materials for presentation. It’s not a huge lift for staff.
 Nightingale: That sounds better than a DHP-level of effort. Is RTF staff comfortable that
they can get this done in reasonable time?
 Light: Yes.
 Keating: So this effort is not to make this happen, it’s to ensure that NEEA’s effort will
meet the requirements of the RTF?
 Light: Yes. Plus we’d convene the subcommittee around the research strategy.
 Kelleher: I like this because DHP is the number one residential measure in my utility and
we end up with bedrooms with supplemental heat. This would be a great measure for
them.
Vote on the motion. The motion carries. (18 yes, 2 no, 0 abstain) Light assured the RTF they
would be mindful of staff time.
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 10
Light revealed the list of voting and corresponding RTF members noting that there are many
new names. She thanked everyone for their service.
Proven UES: Residential Appliances-Dishwashers
Presenter: Jennifer Light, RTF Presentation
Motion
I, Graham Parker, move that the RTF deactivate Residential Dishwasher UES measure.
Keating seconded
Vote on the motion. The motion carries. (21 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain)
Delivery Verification – Batch 3
Presenter: Jennifer Light, RTF Presentation
Light reviews strip curtain delivery verification [Slide 5].
 Keating: Is proper installation part of the spec?
 O’Neil: Savings were based on “as found” conditions. The installation practice is baked
into savings.
 Light: The check for delivery verification is that curtain is installed, not that it’s installed
properly. That’s what are savings are based on. If there’s a compliance rate built into our
savings, we need to call out that compliance rate.
 Keating: Were any of these measures controversial?
 Light: No. they were pretty straightforward.
Welch asked about floating head pressure controls.
 Light reviewed the FHPC DV specs.
 Jerome gave a thumbs-up approval.
Motion:
I, Bill Welch, move the RTF adopt the delivery verification guidance as presented for the
following measures: Adopt the delivery verification guidance as presented for the following
measures:
• Com Grocery – Display Case LEDs (Open Cases)
• Com Grocery – Display Case Motion Sensors
• Com Grocery – Floating Head Pressure Controls for Single Compressor Systems
• Com Grocery – Strip Curtains
• Com Grocery – Walk-in Evaporator Fan EC Motor Controllers
• Com Grocery – Compressor Head Fan Motor Retrofit to EC Motor
• Com Smart Plug Power Strips
• Com Traffic Signals – LED Traffic Signals
• Res Heating/Cooling – Electronic Thermostats
• Res Heating/Cooling – Ground Source Heat Pump Upgrades
• Res Lighting – High Performance T8 Lamps (4 foot and 8 foot).
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 11
Jerome seconded.
Vote on the motion. The motion carries (21 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain)
LUNCH
Manufactured Homes New Construction Calibration
Presenter: Josh Rushton and Mohit Singh-Chhabra, RTF CAT Presentation
Baylon stated that when you don’t use a linear regression, you have more pressure from biases
at the lower end of the curve [Slide 11]. He stated his concern was that there’s a lot of effect
from the low end of the curve, so a linear regression would be more appropriate. He stated it
would be less misleading. He asked if the bias in data at low end of curve (the new construction
part of curve) biases loss estimate.
 Rushton: The data issues are a different issue. We’re talking about parameterization
here.
.
Baylon stated that NEEM homes have some Uo [Slide 13] but different air leakages. He said
that this shows that when you know what goes into heat loss rate, SEEM estimates behavior
pretty well, but when you don’t, it doesn’t.
Harris asked if Rushton was suggesting that for this specific and known UA, responding
different climate and size variables, SEEM does a good job of predicting energy use [Slide 14]
but for other UAs, SEEM might not work.
 Rushton: Yes.
 Harris: If this represents the physics of a NEEM home well then SEEM does a good job.
But we don’t know the behavioral element of pre/post NEEM homes.
 Rushton: Or even the physics
 Harris: So the behavioral components of pre/post are a known issue. Thermostat setting
could compensate for what we see in the pre/post delta. It’s not about the physical
representation of the home by SEEM. It’s these other components. So we need to know
more about the behavioral elements.
 Singh-Chhabra: SEEM represents this pretty well at our thermostat set point. There’s
some luck involved in this result. The 69 degree Fahrenheit set point was based on
RBSA homes, not SEEM homes.
Grist stated that he’s hearing Harris say that it’s mostly behavior but also that we haven’t tested
a change in Uo.
 Baylon: The red dot scatter is from behavior.
 Harris: But there’s no delta Uo. All NEEM homes have same Uo.
 Baylon: So when we know Uo, we can recover space heat. Now we’re asking if we
change Uo, do we also land on the SEEM line.
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 12
Rushton proposed doing a simple comparison of NEEM to standard consumption homes for
single zone, home size. He said they would then extrapolate this solid savings to other sizes,
climate zones, etc. [Slide 17].
 Christopher Dymond, NEEA: I understand the concern about not enough variability in
Uo. How much variability do you need to know? We do have variability in home size,
glazing percentage, orientation and wood heat/non-wood heat.
 Rushton: Our measures are about changing Uo, and we don’t have variability in this. So
we don’t know what the impact of varying Uo is. Also note that the perceived alignment
of NEEM homes with SEEM is based on very few data points. If you remove a few points
you’d have a very different line. We’d need a decent HUD- plus sample and decent
NEEM sample from the same zone.
 Dymond: Thank you.
Koran expressed curiosity over why the better insulated homes are well predicted by SEEM
while poorly insulated homes are consistently overestimated by SEEM. He asked how old the
non-NEEM homes in RBSA are.
 Baylon: 60% of RBSA Manufactured Homes were pre-1980. 50% were pre-HUD
standard.
 Koran: We don’t know the thermostat set points for day or night. If effective set points at
night were much lower, you’d see a bigger impact in poorly insulated homes than well
insulated homes. So nighttime set points could be the primary issue.
 Baylon: With NEEM, we know the UA very well. Plus we have door blower and duct
blaster results. In no RBSA case do we know things this well. For RBSA, we used a
standard set of assumptions about insulation. Surveyors didn’t have much time to collect
data beyond the standard survey.
 Koran: And SEEM consistently over estimates the energy use. I don’t think there’d be a
consistent bias in RBSA to this effect.
 Baylon: It could be true that when we use modern HUD homes (30% higher Uo than
NEEM) we won’t see same alignment with SEEM as with NEEM homes.
 Koran: The bias is consistent 90% of the time on [Slide13.]
Adam Hadley, RTF CAT addressed Koran’s earlier point, stating that SEEM.69 is 69 day and 64
at night.
 Brady Peeks, NW Energyworks: SEEM assumes the thermostat is representative of the
temperature throughout home. In older homes, back bedrooms may be closed off, or
don’t get heated properly. It’s not effectively a single zone.
 Eckhart: Is part of Staff recommendation to work with manufacturers in new
construction? We continue to have problems with new and old homes. A few months
ago, we saw a whole park set up from the factory installed with Ductless Heat Pumps.
 Peeks: Working with manufactures is part of the NEEM program. We’re encouraging
them to look at new heating systems.
 Thomas Anreise, CLEAResult: To the earlier reference of variability in infiltration values
in NEEM homes, does Uo include infiltration?
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 13



Rushton: SEEM knows about infiltration.
Anreise: Could you put that variability you have in perspective to what you’re looking for
from the HUD plus data set?
Singh-Chhabra: That data for NEEM was average infiltrations and duct leakage and not
a house-by-house basis.
Light stated that the Staff/CAT proposal is to come back soon with a research strategy for a
billing analysis for very comparable Manufactured Homes. She said this would move this to
planning.
Dymond went back to [Slide 16] and stated that a group is working on a NEEM 2.0 with a higher
efficiency specification. He stated that his group has a few proposals: HPWH, DHP and building
shell and he would like to be able to give them a baseline now, rather than coming back later.
He suggested doing this with straight SEEM output to do this.
 Rushton: This would result in coming back later to change values with manufacturers
after we have data.
 Dymond: I would not like that. I need something I can use for now.
 Grist: That’s a good point, but the RTF has guidelines for estimating savings. We can’t
tie our hands based on the evidence we’ve seen. It’s your risk.
 Dymond: If that’s what it is, that’s what it is.
Singh-Chhabra stated that if ENERGY STAR and Eco-rated went to planning, Staff would
provide a best guess planning estimate of savings. He then stated that Staff can’t do that for
measures where you’re still developing specs.
 Light: We’d bring back our best guess to get to savings. We don’t have the data
necessary for “proven”.
 Keating: It could take a long time to get the thermostat data needed for “proven”.
 Grist: A planning measure would be from current practice to NEEM measure specs. Not
to NEEM 2.0.
Harris asked what the threshold is for a Small Saver measure. He noted that there are only
3,000 Manufactured Homes made per year, and maybe they save 3,000 kWh. He speculated
that they might only save one aMW per year.
 Light: We looked into this and saw perhaps 10 aMW over the planning horizon.
 Singh-Chhabra: New construction measures are always evolving. Small Saver for this
would mean Small Saver for all new construction measures because they’re always
changing.
 Grist: There’s some value in getting the number for this savings increment, because then
we have a baseline for the next iteration. That’s assuming current NEEM is close to the
Federal standard going forward.
 Harris: This is a tractable problem. We just need money to do the research. Is it worth
spending regional dollars to do this? This is a funder group’s question. This is an order
of magnitude smaller than lighting savings.
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 14

Rushton: Putting something in planning is not a guarantee that it will ever be proven.
Programs may just choose to evaluate.
Baylon revisited the risk for Dymond’s group. He asked if the increase in Uo turns down the line
on [Slide 14] for newly constructed homes saying that it may be 20% or 30% higher than NEEM
Uo. He asserted, no, you wouldn’t see a downturn; however he allowed that he has no data. He
stated that if we have data, we can be much more certain about Uo than we can with RBSA. He
called this the same problem for all new construction and stated that there is a better chance of
getting Uo right for new construction than for existing (older) construction.
 Hadley: We’re not talking about a big lift. We have the NEEM data. Maybe we could use
a little more data. It’s bills and UAs for non-NEEM new homes. Next time, we’d come
back with a research strategy and cost.
 Koran: For this particular purpose, it’s probably not worth collecting the data. But
understanding the limitations of SEEM through this study would be worthwhile.
Motion:
I, Ken Keating, move that the RTF extends the sunset date for both manufactured homes
measures, ENERGYSTAR and EcoRated homes to March 31, 2016.
Koran seconded
Jerome asked if March 2016 allows enough time to sort this out.
 Rushton: We don’t need to sort out everything, just put together a research plan.
Vote on the Motion. The motion carries. (20 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain)
Residential Heat Pump Upgrades SF (New Construction)
Presenter: Adam Hadley, RTF CAT Presentation
Planning UES: Residential Heating/Cooling-Commissioning Controls and Sizing Single
Family (New Construction)
Presenter: Adam Hadley, RTF CAT Presentation
Harris asked if there is there a commissioning air flow for two-speed systems [Slide 4].
 Davis: It scales pretty well.
 Harris: Do they need to test both points on two speed system?
 Davis: No
 Gage: What about variable speed systems?
 Hadley: Previously, we didn’t’ allow variable speed in a Commissioning Controls &
Sizing measure. I think it’d be appropriate to include them now.
 Jerome: I see no reason to exclude those systems.
Light stated that even with SEEM runs; we’d still need research on CC&S [Slide 7] research
strategy.
 Hadley: Yes.
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 15


Keating: So it’s a place holder until you get the CC&S results, and then you’ll redo the
analysis. Until then, you’re saying our estimates for existing construction are our best
guess.
Hadley: Yes. I have no confidence that they’re different.
Davis stated that the bulk of savings are from a measure that includes the words commissioning
and sizing and called that great. He said getting sizing would be great. Davis supported the
current existing savings for New Construction and said that higher savings would be ridiculous
given the state of the installation industry.
Motion:
I, Mark Jerome, move to adopt the measure specifications, savings, cost, and life for the
following measures, as proposed (use existing construction measure values):
• New Construction Heat Pump upgrades to 9.0 HSPF
---Change Category to Planning
---Keep Status at Active
---Set sunset date to November 2018
• New Construction Heat Pump upgrades to Variable-Capacity Heat Pump
---Set Category at Planning
---Set Status to Active
---Set sunset date to November 2018
• New Construction Heat Pump Commissioning, Controls, and Sizing
---Set Category at Planning
---Set Status to Active
---Set Sunset date to November 2018
Davis seconded.
Vote on the motion. The motion passes (20 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain)
Hadley mentioned that the RTF didn’t answer Gage’s question: can we allow CC&S on variable
capacity heat pumps?
 Lienhard: It doesn’t change anything. It just adds to the opportunity to get at savings.
 Hadley: It would just allow the use of the estimate for variable speed.
 Davis: It would be a different savings estimate.
 Hadley: The CC&S savings wouldn’t change from single speed, though.
 Jerome: The motion isn’t specific on this. It’s more of a research plan question, because
we’d have to deal with them separately.
 Davis: There isn’t clear guidance on how to do sizing for variable speed.
Light stated that this might be a research question and the group might get data to inform this.
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 16
BREAK
Comparison of DHP Savings Estimates to Available Data
Presenter: Adam Hadley, RTF CAT Presentation
Harris stated that we also measured BTU output of DHPs for about one third of sites [Slide 3].
He noted that we had a COP curve directly for these sites, and could extrapolate it to other
units.
Eckhart asked what the difference is between “total” and “net” savings in the metering study
[Slide 7].
 Hadley: “Total” is what savings would be if heating system had a COP of 1 before the
ductless heat pump. “Net” is what shows up on bills.
 Eckhart: In California, we have to net out cooling savings. We have to install the ductless
heat pump without a reversing valve so it couldn’t be used for heating in gas heat
homes.
 Hadley: This is all focused on heating.
 Harris: We directly measured cooling energy use in the 95 homes.
 Baylon: For most of the metered homes, we measured cooling directly, but in all cases,
we also had some zonal cooling, usually a window shaker. We saw an additional benefit
from cooling because it was more efficient than the window shaker.
 Davis: That’s true in Zone 2 and 3. In Zone 1, cooling was less than 75 kWh.
Keating stated that he thought the fuel adjustment was made before Option 3 adjustment [Slide
9]. He asked if the order has an effect on the results.
 Hadley: No.
 Harris: What would results be for first measure in instead of Option 3?
 Hadley: I don’t know. It would be slighting higher. Probably in the neighborhood of 200
kWh.
 Baylon: I thought we also had a screened savings number for homes without
supplemental fuel.
 Hadley: We have it for Zone 3. No one wanted it for the other two zones because it didn’t
change the answer much.
Baylon pointed to [Slide 9] asking if the “no supplemental fuel” screen should have savings of
2500 to 2800.
 Hadley: I don’t know. We could revisit this. The screen is a bill screen, not a wood heat
screen, so the results are different.
 Harris: As I recall, we examined one screen and it wasn’t very effective in getting a good
linear fit. You could develop a better screen but no one wanted to go through the whole
process again.
 Hadley: If utilities were willing to do a wood screen and gas screen, and an occupied
house screen (which is minor) you might get close to 2500 kWh.
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 17

Douglass: This was on the table, but people weren’t interested in it.
Arneson asked what the baseline energy use of homes in the final RTF analysis was.
 Hadley: 7500 kWh for Phase 1. That’s the space heating. That comes from RBSA billing.
 Arneson: Is RBSA reflective of our homes, which have a lot of baseboard electric heat?
 Harris, referencing [Slide 9]: Here’s proof that it’s better to be lucky than smart. The
results between the two approaches are very similar.
Harris then said that this is a great summary of the work we did. He felt that it is important that
we ended up at an unscreened Option 3 measurement because no one wanted a screened
program design. He continued, saying that now that we’ve been running the programs for a few
years, it’d be worth the time and money to consider a screening component that focuses on
homes that need this the most. He said he has discussed with NEEA staff, and there’re
considering bringing a screening proposal to the RTF. He concluded by saying he’ll talk to
utilities that might be interested.
 Arneson: We’re doing this. We have a screening tool.
 Harris: I know other utilities, Montana for example, also have their own screening tools.
Is it worth standardizing the screening?
 Hadley: We wanted to do this all along in a hope for unification.
 Rushton: We used the billing data in our analysis, so it’s not a coincidence that the
results are similar.
 Harris: And the DHP component of the SEEM model was developed from this research.
We learned a lot about SEEM modeling and about how to do the calibration.
 Grist: This is a good slide for our incoming members as well as a reminder for us. Other
measures might also benefit from similar summary slides.
 Welch: There’s other terminology that we’ll use next year with new members. Like
“Option 3”.
Grist made final announcements:
 Renaming Option 3. He proposed Measure Order Adjustment Divvy
 He reminded the RTF that next month is Tom Eckman’s last meeting as Chair. He called
for haikus about Tom and hoped for a send-off party after the meeting, preferably off
site.
 He reminded the room that there will be many new members on board in January. He
stated that there will be an orientation for them. He asked that returning members review
guidelines, the conflict of interest statement, charters and bylaws.
Light adjourned the meeting at 3:00
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 18
Voting Record: November 10, 2015
Motion Language
Motion: Approve the agenda for
the November 10, 2015 meeting as
posted.
(Jerome/Acker)
Motion: Approve the minutes for
the October 20, 2015 RTF meeting
as posted
(Welch/Parker)
Motion: Allocate staff resource
towards supporting development of
a Residential Short Duct Run
Minisplit UES measure.
(Kelleher/Gage)
Motion: Deactivate the Residential
Dishwasher UES measure.
(Parker/Keating)
Motion: Adopt the delivery
verification guidance as presented
for the following measures:
• Com Grocery – Display Case
LEDs (Open Cases)
• Com Grocery – Display Case
Motion Sensors
• Com Grocery – Floating Head
Pressure Controls for Single
Compressor Systems
• Com Grocery – Strip Curtains
• Com Grocery – Walk-in
Evaporator Fan EC Motor
Controllers
• Com Grocery – Compressor
Head Fan Motor Retrofit to EC
Motor
• Com Smart Plug Power Strips
• Com Traffic Signals – LED Traffic
Signals
• Res Heating/Cooling – Electronic
Thermostats
• Res Heating/Cooling – Ground
Source Heat Pump Upgrades
• Res Lighting – High Performance
T8 Lamps (4 foot and 8 foot).
(Welch/Jerome)
Yea Nea Abs
20
0
Motion
Passes?
Percent of Yea Votes
RTF Voting
Members
Members
Voting
(40% min)
(60% min)
Number of
Voting
Members
Present
0
Yes
77%
100%
20
20
0
0
Yes
77%
100%
20
18
2
0
Yes
69%
90%
20
21
0
0
Yes
81%
100%
21
21
0
0
Yes
81%
100%
21
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 19
Motion: Extend the sunset date for
both manufactured homes
measures, ENERGYSTAR and
EcoRated homes, to March 31,
2016. (Keating/Koran)
Motion: Adopt the measure
specifications, savings, cost, and
life for the following measures, as
proposed (use existing
construction measure values):
• New Construction Heat Pump
upgrades to 9.0 HSPF
---Change Category to Planning
---Keep Status at Active
---Set sunset date to November
2018
• New Construction Heat Pump
upgrades to Variable-Capacity
Heat Pump
---Set Category at Planning
---Set Status to Active
---Set sunset date to November
2018
• New Construction Heat Pump
Commissioning, Controls, and
Sizing
---Set Category at Planning
---Set Status to Active
---Set Sunset date to November
2018
(Jerome/Davis)
20
0
20
0
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
0
0
Yes
77%
100%
20
Yes
77%
100%
20
Page 20
November 10, 2015 Meeting Attendance
* Designates Voting Member
Name
Affiliation
Email
Phone
Brad Acker*
UI-IDL
backer@uidaho.edu
208-401-0642
Rich Arneson*
Tacoma Power
rarneson@cityoftacoma.org
253-396-3145
Matt Babbitts
Clark Public Utilities
mbabbitts@clarkpud.com
Mike Bailey
Independent
baileym@aol.com
503-709-9823
Dave Baylon
Ecotope
david@ecotope.com
206-322-3753
Rebecca Blanton
Puget Sound Energy
rebecca.blanton@pse.com
425-457-5676
Janice Boman
Embertec
Janice@embertec.com
206-802-8743
Rachel Clark
Tacoma Power
Rclark2@cityoftacoma.org
Colleen Collins
Ecova
ccollins@ecova.com
971-201-4211
Bob Davis*
Ecotope
bdavis@ecotope.com
206-786-4709
Christian Douglass
RTF Contract Analyst
christian.douglass@ptarmiganresearchcom
815-985-1316
Tom Eckhart
UCONS
tome@ucons.con
725-503-0111
Debbie Driscoll
NEEA
ddriscoll@neea.org
503-688-5487
Ryan Firestone
RTF Contract Analyst
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
Adam Hadley
RTF Contract Analyst
adam@hadleyenergy.com
503-235-6458
Christine Hanhart
UCONS
Christine@ucons.com
Jeff Harris*
NEEA
jharris@neea.org
503-688-5403
Mark Jerome*
CLEAResult
mark.jerome@clearesult.com
541-670-8495
Tina Jayaweera
NWPCC
tjayaweera@nwcouncil.org
503-222-5161
Mattias Jirveyzen
PUD of Clallam County
mattiasj@clallampud.net
360-809-3304
Don Jones, Jr.*
PacifiCorp
JR_don.jones@pacificorp.com
503-813-5184
Ken Keating*
Independent
keatingk@msn.com
503-244-7204
Greg Kelleher*
EWEB
Greg.kelleher@eweb.org
541-685-7368
Phillip Kelsven
BPA
pakelsven@bpa.gov
Lacey Kloster
Ecova
lkloster@ecova.com
971-201-4256
Rick Knori*
Lower Valley Energy
rick@lvenergy.com
307-739-6038
Bill Koran*
SBW Consulting
Bill.koran@sbwconsulting.com
503-974-9741
Tom Lienhard*
Avista
Tom.lienhard@avistacorp.com
509-495-4985
Jennifer Light
RTF Manager
jlight@nwcouncil.org
503-222-5161
David Nightingale
Washington UTC
dnightin@utc.wa.gov
360-664-1154
Nick O’Neil
Energy ISO
noneil@energyiso.com
503-333-8161
Graham Parker*
PNNL
graham.parker@pnnl.gov
509-375-3805
Jes Rivas
Navigant
Jes.rivas@navigant.com
360-828-4021
Josh Rushton
RTF Contract Analyst
josh@rushtonanalytics.com
971-229-1765
Mohit Singh-Chhabra
RTF Contract Analyst
mohit@ptarmiganresearchcom
720-310-5490
Bing Tso
SBW
btso@sbwconsulting.com
425-827-0330
Attending In Person
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 21
Danielle Walker*
BPA
dngidding@bpa.gov
503-230-7314
Robert Weber
BPA
rmweber@bpa.gov
206-220-6783
Bill Welch*
Independent
Wpwelch52@gmail.com
541-513-8771
Andrew Wood
DNV-GL
Andrew.w.wood@dnvgl.com
503-222-5590
Kathy Yi
Idaho Power
kathyyi@idahopower.com
208-388-2635
Thomas Anreise
CLEAResult
Thomas.anreise@clearesult.com
503-688-1572
Kathryn Bae
NEEA
kbae@neea.or
503-688-5478
Mike Bailey
EnergyTrust
Mike.bailey@energytrust.org
503-688-5478
Andie Baker*
Abacus Research Group
andiebaker@msn.com
206-755-7051
David Bopp*
Flathead Electric
d.bopp@flathead.coop
406-751-5291
James Burgess
Graduate
Jpburgess08@gmail.com
330-998-4794
Ryan Clemmer
Enhabit
Ryan.clemmer@enhabit.org
503-421-8017
Victor Couto
Seattle City Light
Victor.couto@seattle.gov
206-733-9295
Mike Dillon
Avista
Mike.dillon@avistacorp.com
509-495-4260
Jennifer Finnegan
Snohomish PUD
jrfinnigan@snopud.com
425-783-8189
Jordan Folks
Research into Action
Jordan.folks@researchintoaction.com
503-943-2131
Jennifer Francis
BPA
jlfrancis@bpa.gov
503-230-5844
Michele Friedrich*
SMUD
Michele.friedrich@smud.org
916-732-5244
Andrew Gibb
Seattle City Light
Andrew.gibb@seattle.gov
206-684-3466
Pace Goodman
Navigant
Pace.goodman@navigant.com
303-729-2511
Ben Hannas
Ecotope
bhannas@ecotope.com
206-596-4715
Amy Heidner
The Rextor Group PLCC
amy@rextorgroup.com
206-817-1163
Erin Hope*
BPA
ethope@bpa.gov
509-822-4587
Benjamin Latson
Ecova
blatson@ecova.com
971-201-4169
Ethan Manthey
BPA
Enmanthey@bpa.gov
612-247-0458
James Marker
PSE
James.marker@pse.com
425-229-4806
Jim Maunder*
Ravallie Electric
jmaunder@ravallielectric.com
406-961-3001
Cheryn Metzger
PNNL
Cheryn.metzger@pnnl.gov
707-623-7091
Peter Miller*
NRDC
pmiller@nrdc.org
415-875-6167
Josh Mitchell
Chelan PUD
Josh.mitchell@chelanpud.org
509-661-4380
Kathy Moore
Umatilla Electric Coop
Kathy.moroe@umatillaelectric.com
541-564-4357
Brady Peeks
Northwest Energy Works
brady@northwestenergyworks.com
541-990-4941
Jon Powell
Independent
powellacres@aol.com
509-466-6117
Joe Prijyanonda
Applied Energy Grp
jprijyanonda@appliedenergygroup.com
714-6655958
Jenny Roecks
Cadmus
Jennifer.roecks@cadmusgroup.com
509-467-7116
Jonathan Strahl
Navigant
Jonathan.strahl@navigant.com
206-691-6020
Samantha Taylor
CSG
Samantha.taylor@csgrp.com
503-523-4819
Bob Tingleff
SBW Consulting
btingleff@sbwconsulting.com
425-827-0330
Aquila Velonis
Cadmus
Aquila.velonis@cadmusgroup.com
503-467-7156
Geoff Wickes
NEEA
Geoff.wickes@gmail.com
503-329-0523
Chris Wolgamott
BPA
ckwolgamott@bpa.gov
503-230-3303
Attending by Webinar
RTF Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2015
Page 22